A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

My question was not sexist, and certainly didn't suggest that there was some "abused woman syndrome happening." It was directed to everyone.

I asked because something made us different. Something made us susceptible when others were not. Something caused many of us (to my understanding, not you) to accept abuse and, quite frankly, eat shit for a long period of time when others would have walked away, and indeed did walk away.

And something held us in despite the fact that the vast majority, if not all of us, were not subjected to physical force (or at least no physical force at all times). That while some were held hostage by the disconnection policy, not all of us were.

What made us different? What (and yes, damn it, I'll say it because it is true) made us weak? Or at least weak compared to emotionally healthy individuals who much, much earlier said (at least to themselves), "You know what? This is bullshit!" -- and walked out the door.

I recall a fairly recent original post by a young woman in the New Member Introduction section where the person described how she left after several weeks or a couple of months at most. It was followed by a comment to the effect that the young woman learned in a several weeks or a couple of months what it took the commentator 30 years to learn.

Oh, and don't think of my question as insulting. Think of it as tough love.

I'd say "the setup" has a lot to do with it ... and the absence of the internet of course. The Org I attended was so dysfunctional, you couldn't help but see right through the bullshit no matter how hard you tried to convince yourself otherwise. I think Miscavige is attempting to correct with his "Ideal Org" initiative, by giving all the Org an illusion of functionality and organization.

Regardless of what the cult does to improve it's image, if the information on the internet was readily available regarding Scientology back when I read Dianetics I would have never even bothered buying the book to begin with, no matter how nice the cover was, or the claims it made.

As for why people continue to waste their time with Scientology? Probably the same reason some people continue to do recreational drugs for decades before stopping ... they get used to it, learn to function under the influence and make it a part of their life, regardless of how illogical it is.

[lionheart]

My question was not sexist, and certainly didn't suggest that there was some "abused woman syndrome happening." It was directed to everyone regardless of gender.

I asked because something made us different. Something made us susceptible when others were not. Something caused many of us (to my understanding, not you) to accept abuse and, quite frankly, eat shit for a long period of time when others would have walked away, and indeed did walk away.

And something held us in despite the fact that the vast majority, if not all of us, were not subjected to physical force (or at least no physical force at all times). That while some were held hostage by the disconnection policy, not all of us were.

What made us different? What (and yes, damn it, I'll say it because it is true) made us weak? Or at least weak compared to emotionally healthy individuals who much, much earlier said (at least to themselves), "You know what? This is bullshit!" -- and walked out the door.

I recall a fairly recent original post by a young woman in the New Member Introduction section where the person described how she left after several weeks or a couple of months at most. It was followed by a comment to the effect that the young woman learned in a several weeks or a couple of months what it took the commentator 30 years to learn.

Oh, and don't think of my question as insulting. Think of it as tough love.

I'll have a stab at what the "something " was that made us stay and others go. I think there may be other factors too, but here is one possibility.

We were suggestible. This is sometimes taken as an insult to assign those of us who stayed in as "suggestible". But I don't think it is an insult.

Some people are more open to new ideas than others. Some are optimistic about the possibility of things getting better, some are pessimistic.

Some are looking, hopefully assuming answers are findable, some assume there are no solutions.

Some are trusting, some are sceptical by nature.

If you are open to new ideas, optimistic, hopeful and trusting you are good raw meat for Hubbard's ideas and promises. If you are closed to new ideas, pessimistic, without hope and sceptical then you are not good raw meat.

If you are open-minded and interested in new ideas, then you are literally "open to suggestions", suggestible, so Hubbard piled in the suggestions with gusto. In the books, the posters, the lectures, the policies and bulletins. They are all full of suggestions to influence the suggestible.

Hubbard, being a hypnotist, would know the techniques of suggestion. His orgs were set up as processes to weed out the suggestible from those more resistant to suggestion, who were quickly shown the door through HCO or Qual. Leaving the suggestible to be further worked upon.

Another factor is one's education. Some are better trained to analyse and judge, others are not as well educated in those academic skills. But that is just another element that goes towards our degree of suggestibility really.

So I think Hubbard took the traits that many would consider good ones like optimisim and open to new ideas and abused them with his hypnotist tech.

A key question used is "Are you open-minded?". Usually most newbies will answer that they are, this is something that qualifies them as good raw meat for Scn. They are open to new ideas.

The definition slowly gets changed by Hubbard's Newspeak from meaning open to new ideas to meaning being unable to make up one's mind.

Initially one is encouraged to be so open. "What's true for you", "How is it that way, how is it not that way", etc. We are encouraged to be open-minded - these were the people Hubbard wanted.

This concept is then twisted from open to new ideas to unable to make up one's mind. Once, after some Scn indoctrination, one is able to say one is not open-minded, one has made up one's mind (in favour of Scn) then one is qualified to take further services because Hubbard's suggestions have bitten. One is a scientologist.

If one still says one is open-minded, haven't made up one's mind (or rather had it made up for them) then one is in Doubt and in ethics, to either have the suggestions firmly implanted in one or shown the exit door.

Yes, we were open to suggestions! And we got lots of them from Hubbo.

PS The original circle Ron moved in when he was forming his Dianetics ideas was the SciFi community. He will have had an audience of people open to new ideas (what else are SciFi fans and authors?) and will have noticed how suggestible they also were when hypnotising or regressing them. A perfect crucible for developing his techniques for the suggestible.

[uniquemand]

I looked into it because I am a free-thinker, and I found the fundamentals of dianetics to be interesting, "workable", simple, and effective. I left because I am a free-thinker, and the Church was trying to make me less so. In between, I did my damnedest to stay, because I was interested in becoming a fully trained auditor to help people with what I thought (and still think) was an effective helping methodology, Dianetics and the Grades. At that time, I was unaware of the CC-OTIII and NOTS stuff, other than knowing that they existed. I didn't realize how they violated and reversed, and took advantage of the gains the earlier stuff provided.

I'm sure that had I stayed longer, I would have ended up in a trap even more harmful to try to exit than it already was (cost me my business, my wife and my children), and this is probably what holds people once they realize they are being manipulated and the "gains" are over.

[Cat's Squirrel]

Three observations.

First, I've never seen a definition of the "religion" of Scientology, even as distinguished from the official organization of the "Church of Scientology," that excludes HCOBs (and I assume you would also exclude HCOPLs). That seems to be yet another attempt to define anything that is morally reprehensible or otherwise objectionable as being somehow "outside" Scientology and, quite frankly, awfully convenient. And certainly not how Hubbard or anyone else would define the religion of Scientology or its scriptures.

Second, aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water? While auditing is certainly discussed in the tapes and books, aren't the explicit instructions, steps, lists, etc. given only in HCOBs? Could you really do any Scientology auditing (i.e., other than Dianetic auditing based on the book Dianetics) without the HCOBs? How would you do the TRs course, the prerequisite to all Academy auditing training, without the HCOBs on TRs? Even if you could scrape something together on auditing from only the books and tapes, would you really want to? And would you honestly assert that such auditing was really proper and appropriate "Scientology?"

Third, isn't much, if not all, of the perverted justice system -- which has no right to a jury, no independent judiciary or decision makers, has never worked or been just, and which has always been perverted by utilitarian, Kha Khan, "greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics" calculations that favor those (including alleged rapists and and child molesters) who contribute large amounts of money to the Church -- set forth in the book Introduction to Ethics? Isn't the ends justifies the means, "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" rationalization for any action that benefits the Church, no matter how it effects others, or how immoral it is per mere "wog" morality -- set forth in the book Introduction to Ethics?

Aaaahhh. For once I've had the experience of having my argument (which wasn't particularly well thought through) thoroughly demolished on here.

Well done, you're absolutely right.

[uniquemand]

Well, it could be argued that the method of auditing has actually been laid out in concise form, better than it is in the Church, at the website http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbird/index.htm

While this would be different from the way the Church practices, and possibly different from the intent for auditing Hubbard had (if you believe he just wanted to enslave people), it is the spirit of the religion that I always thought I was a member of when I was in.

[Veda]

Well, it could be argued that the method of auditing has actually been laid out in concise form, better than it is in the Church, at the website http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbird/index.htm

While this would be different from the way the Church practices, and possibly different from the intent for auditing Hubbard had (if you believe he just wanted to enslave people), it is the spirit of the religion that I always thought I was a member of when I was in.

Well, it's somewhat similar in that the nuttier parts of the 'Hubbard Grade Chart' are still kept discreetly in the background. There's a fair amount of detail, rationalization, and justification re. the confidential Grade Chart levels that becomes pretty strange - but that's even more difficult to find than the below link:

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometh...v_levelsCB.htm

However, I've no doubt the person(s) involved with this site mean well.

[Searcher Again]

I asked because something made us different. Something made us susceptible when others were not. Something caused many of us (to my understanding, not you) to accept abuse and, quite frankly, eat shit for a long period of time when others would have walked away, and indeed did walk away.

And something held us in despite the fact that the vast majority, if not all of us, were not subjected to physical force (or at least no physical force at all times). That while some were held hostage by the disconnection policy, not all of us were.

What made us different? What (and yes, damn it, I'll say it because it is true) made us weak? Or at least weak compared to emotionally healthy individuals who much, much earlier said (at least to themselves), "You know what? This is bullshit!" -- and walked out the door.

......I don't think it was a matter of weakness, innocence would be more appropriate in my situation and probably others.

......I did see many who may have said to themselves, "this is bullshit" and walked out the door. I always wondered why, but they did.

......Life is life, someone runs across a situation where one thinks the grass is greener, theil take it. I thought for a long time that Dianetics and Scientology was greener grass, too bad it didn't work out that way.

......Never found or seen an OT yet. (per the LRH definitions)

[Voltaire's Child]

My question was not sexist, and certainly didn't suggest that there was some "abused woman syndrome happening." It was directed to everyone regardless of gender.

I asked because something made us different. Something made us susceptible when others were not. Something caused many of us (to my understanding, not you) to accept abuse and, quite frankly, eat shit for a long period of time when others would have walked away, and indeed did walk away.

And something held us in despite the fact that the vast majority, if not all of us, were not subjected to physical force (or at least no physical force at all times). That while some were held hostage by the disconnection policy, not all of us were.

What made us different? What (and yes, damn it, I'll say it because it is true) made us weak? Or at least weak compared to emotionally healthy individuals who much, much earlier said (at least to themselves), "You know what? This is bullshit!" -- and walked out the door.

I recall a fairly recent original post by a young woman in the New Member Introduction section where the person described how she left after several weeks or a couple of months at most. It was followed by a comment to the effect that the young woman learned in a several weeks or a couple of months what it took the commentator 30 years to learn.

Oh, and don't think of my question as insulting. Think of it as tough love.

Hon, I was answering Searcher Again when I said that.

[Voltaire's Child]

People have been telling themselves that for how many years now?

And indeed, how many years even before Hubbard dropped his body?

"Yes, the Church of Scientology treated me and/or people I knew like shit for 30 years, but it wasn't Scientology!" Then what the hell was it? And if that wasn't Scientology, then when has Scientology ever been practiced or applied? Has the official Church of Scientology never actually practiced or applied the true religion of Scientology?

How were you exploited that wasn't Scientology? That wasn't pursuant to the HCOBs and HCOPLs that Hubbard himself wrote? That wasn't due to the rigidly hierarchical, no feedback, no questioning, structure established by the HCOBs and HCOPLs?

Isn't the source of all non-falsifiability, all the rules about not questioning or challenging anything -- KSW No. 1 -- Scientology?

Isn't "fair game" Scientology?

Isn't disconnection, and the threat of disconnection to keep people in line, Scientology?

Isn't the vaunted justice system -- which has no right to a jury, no independent judiciary or decision makers, has never worked or been just, and which has always been perverted by utilitarian, Kha Khan, "greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics" calculations that favor those (including alleged rapists and and child molesters) who contribute large amounts of money to the Church -- Scientology?

More fundamentally, isn't the ends justifies the means, "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" rationalization for any action that benefits the Church, no matter how it effects others, or how immoral it is per mere "wog" morality -- Scientology?

Isn't the illegal PC doctrine Scientology?

Isn't the "blame the victim" PTS doctrine Scientology?

Isn't the paranoid demonization of evil "psychs" Scientology?

Isn't the doctrine of freeloader debt, and its use to frighten Sea Org members, Scientology?

Isn't the doctrine that the only purpose of a lawsuit is to harass Scientology?

The only way that the abuse wasn't "Scientology" is if you conveniently define Scientology as excluding anything that is abusive.

Or does none of the above count as Scientology that is relevant to the discussion because you personally were not a victim of these particular Scientology doctrines?

Because of KSW No. 1 and other doctrines, Scientology may be the most textually fundamentalist and rigidly hierarchical religion on the planet today. (Name one religion that is more textually fundamentalist and rigidly hierarchical.) Such top-down, hierarchical systems are tailor made for exploitation and abuse.

I'm sure I didn't make myself clear (pun intended).

There are some abusive and problematic policies, though I say they're in the minority. But be that as it may, those policies certainly do harm people since they are acted upon in CofS.

However, much of the problem with CofS is its cultic structure and the attitudes and indoctrination resulting. When I was on staff, almost every stupid nasty thing that happened to me was something that could be found nowhere in policy. So does that mean that I think CofS orgs and missions can be reformed and be good places to work and be mentored, take courses, etc? No, I don't. The attitudes are so prevalent and entrenched that I don't think there's any way. So it almost doesn't matter what's written and what's not. They do what they're gonna do anyway. The few abusive things that are in policy provide fodder for that but I don't think they need it. It would be a fucked up scene anyway.

Having studied PTS theory, I'd say your assessment there is not accurate.
But again, staff and management and even other public are into playing the blame game and so that's what they do.

I did not agree with Searcher's proposition that had the reader not gotten into CofS and gotten screwed over there, that he or she might possibly have found something else producing similar results. That's abused women's syndrome. I do think there are professional victims in every walk of life but I myself am not one and you'll notice that my answer was phrased in the first person singular tense rather than the first person plural.

[Kha Khan]

However, much of the problem with CofS is its cultic structure and the attitudes and indoctrination resulting. When I was on staff, almost every stupid nasty thing that happened to me was something that could be found nowhere in policy.

I was trying to make a point regarding this and failed to make myself sufficiently clear.

The "cultic structure" you refer to is result, and indeed the inevitable result, of the written policies -- the HCOPLs, the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, the HCOBs, etc. Particularly in a religion where the policy re: policy is that "if it isn't written it isn't true," the writings make a big difference. And the written scriptures of Scientology are as autocratic, rigidly hierarchical, "top down" and "cultic" as possible.

So does that mean that I think CofS orgs and missions can be reformed and be good places to work and be mentored, take courses, etc? No, I don't.

This is an area where, sadly, I agree with you.

The attitudes are so prevalent and entrenched that I don't think there's any way.

The attitudes are so prevalent and entrenched because people are taught and drilled and indoctrinated with those attitudes per written policy.

So it almost doesn't matter what's written and what's not. They do what they're gonna do anyway.

What's written makes a huge difference both in indoctrinating people and weeding out non-conformists, free thinkers and rebels early on. First policy on the first Academy course -- KSW No. 1. "If it isn't written it isn't true." If it doesn't work, it is only because you did something wrong. Only tigers survive. Then one is taught that everyone who is not a Scientologist is somehow inferior -- a wog, a DB, somebody whose "ruin" must be found and exploited (yes, I did the dissem drill), somebody to whom acceptable truths not only can, but must, be told. It is the organizational policies -- primarily in my experience the HCOPLs coupled with the ethics book -- that create and enforce the "cultic structure."

The few abusive things that are in policy provide fodder for that but I don't think they need it. It would be a fucked up scene anyway.

I will neither repeat nor add to my prior list, but I must disagree that there are only a "few abusive things" in Scientology. But if it would be a fucked up scene anyway it would be because of the written policies, not despite of them.

Allow me to make a crude analogy. Ignore for a moment substantive laws, and consider the procedural structures of two democracies -- the U.S. and Great Britain. The U.S. government is characterized by separation of powers, a written constitution, and a written Bill of Rights. Great Britain has a parliamentary system with no formal separation of powers, no written Constitution and no written Bill of Rights. The criticism of the U.S. system has long been that, particularly with regard to domestic policy, it is too hard to get anything done. Congress thwarts the President. The President vetoes a bill. The Supreme Court thwarts both by holding the law unconstitutional. The criticism of the British system is that it leads to the tyranny of the majority and that it is too easy to get things done. Want to restrict freedom of speech? The Prime Minister's majority party passes a bill. Done.

And that is not to compare these systems with the systems in China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

Written procedural rules matter where, as in Scientology, they are taken seriously. Written structure matters where, as in Scientology, it is taken seriously.

Even if a given HCOPL is on its face purely procedural and does not by itself mandate a substantive form of abuse, the entire structure of HCOPLs, HCOBs, books, tapes, etc. create the "cultic structure" you have correctly identified and rightfully complain about. And those HCOPLs, HCOBs, books, tapes, etc. are Scientology. Scientology isn't anything but them.