HUBBARD ADMITS DIANETICS BOOK IS A FRAUD.

[HelluvaHoax!]

You mean they haven't come around to your way of thinking.

not really. Drivers lost on the disinformation highway (not just Scn) can get off at any exit they want and turn around, go another direction.

what was curious to me was that some friends or associates who realized the were driving at a great rate of speed on a road that didn't lead to where they wanted to go, elected to just....slow down. My navigation system said to exit and recalculate destination.

On the other hand, if any of my friends sends me a postcard from OT World (i.e. they made it) I will consult mapquest, replace my DC9's navigation system and gas up...(LOL)

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

HelluvaHoax, your way with words cracks me up!

cracks you up how? funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh? I make you line charge? I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? Like a joker and degrader? (LOL)

[ thanks Free To Shine! ]

 

[Free to shine]

cracks you up how? funny how? I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh? I make you line charge? I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? Like a joker and degrader? (LOL)


[ thanks Free To Shine! ]

All of the above.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

<snip>what was curious to me was that some friends or associates who realized the were driving at a great rate of speed on a road that didn't lead to where they wanted to go, elected to just....slow down. My navigation system said to exit and recalculate destination.<snip>(LOL)

This reminds me of an analogy that I speculated as the 'Road To Toal Freedom'.. I was still 'in' at the time, but I had seen the hoax clearly. I was pretending to be a Scilon to keep family peace..

This happened as I drove at night in fog following the white stripes in the middle of the road. Visibility down to maybe 20 meters... Car full of Scilons..

So I said: "Imagine if this road just got wider! - Us following this white line in the middle.. And the road widening! - We can't see the curb in this fog! - And the road just getting wider and wider, tens of kilometers wide! - While we sneak along this line.. Then suddenly the white line ends.. And the jokers who rolled it out rolls it back behind us!!"

Cracked everybody up.. I neglected to tell what made me think of it..

 

[Kha Khan]

However, Scientology isn't quite like that; I imagine most people get into it after reading a book or two and if that sparks their interest, doing the Comm. course. If they got nowhere on the course that'd probably be the end of the matter. But I've yet to meet a scio. who didn't get anything out of TR0 at least, not to say improved communication skills on the subsequent drills. The bait in the trap....

[snip]

'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'. Yes, certainly.
If nothing in Scientology worked I'd be in complete agreement with you; but that simply isn't the case (no word-play intended... )

As I said at the top, you almost certainly got something out TR0; you've probably used the study-tech. to advantage; if you've had auditing you found that getting off withholds brings a sense of relief...(I'm talking about myself here, not trying to project onto you, yes?).

The overriding point to it all is that you experience change (as well as charge, LOL). Even if things don't go as well as expected, it demonstrates that something is happening. There are always just enough raisins in the turd that you decide to stick with it rather than give it toes; this, IMO, is part of the 'brainwashing' process.

As I've said elsewhere, it wouldn't be much of a trap if there was no bait, or if the bait was all clearly and obviously putrid crap.

That the bait was not all clearly or obviously putrid crap, and indeed may have had some value, does not by itself completely excuse the "victim" from any and all responsibility for staying for years and years past the point when any responsible, non-developmentally disabled adult would leave.

Responsibility for, in many cases, disconnecting from his or her spouse and children.

Responsibility for, in many cases, ruining not only his or her financial security, but the financial security of his or her spouse or children.

And it certainly does not excuse knowing participation in a group that discriminates against "Illegal PCs," demonizes "psychs" as the source of all evil, refers derisively to "wogs" and "DBs," and in many cases -- with your knowledge -- lies to and deceives other people. And coerces other people into financially disastrous transactions and debts.

And do not tell me you didn't know. That you had no idea.

The early benefits you describe are the heart of any good scam. Any ponzi scheme. Somebody asks you to invest with him. He promises you 5% interest per month. You start with $1000 to be safe. Each month he pays you $50. After 6 months you have received $300, and you decide to invest $10,000 because the investment is so good and so reliable.

And then he vanishes with all of your money. And you realize, duh, that he was paying you the $50 "interest" per month with your own money. There was no investment. There was no business.

Was he a scumbag? Yes. Is he responsible? Yes.

But that doesn't mean that you were completely and totally without responsibility. That doesn't mean that, according to the standards we apply to responsible, non-developmentally disabled adults, you weren't an idiot.

Listen, I fell for the "trap" too. I stayed far, far too long also.

And I'm not suggesting that the COS "victims" take all responsibility. Just that they take some responsibility.

Yeah, somebody honestly got good results from the TRs, or Dianetic auditing, or whatever. Is that really a good reason, a reasonable reason, an adult reason, why 5, 10, 15 years later they have spent all of their money, and/or disconnected from their families, and/or find that they have been working in the Sea Org 80 hours a week for $24 or $40 per week? And in that case they have no responsibility?

Oh yes, they were "brainwashed" -- because they had a good experience on the TRs five years ago. (And yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

 

[Moonchild]

Hopefully in the right place now....

Something I'd like to say here apropos the "aint no such thing as Clear...claptrap" sentiments that have been expressed on this thread.

To offer perspective, I mean to be no apologist for LRH or the Co$ however there is a point I'd like to offer...a truth to tell.

Part of the reason I got involved with Scientology in the first place way back in 1976 was that I had aspirations to being a professional musician; somewhat inconveniently I suffered from the phenomenon known as "stage-fright" to the extent that I'd tried to deal with it by means of dope, alcohol, speed in all sorts of interesting permutations none of which served any purpose really other than to make it even worse. I mean, this was serious, I'd be almost catatonic with nerves on-stage, chest-pains etc.

Long story short; my early times in Scn. were fucking miserable to say the least...(snip).

I drifted in and out; came closer to suicide than I've ever been in my life in 1979; in the summer of 1980 the Org. contacted me upon the release of the "Natural Clear" issue. "Dianetic clear" had read in my early auditing but I'd dismissed it out-of-hand as I couldn't believe a clear could feel like such a sack of shit.

So I went back in, had a DoP interview with a guy named Julian Bell and was persuaded to embark on the DCSI as it then was. (snip for brevity).

Did the DCSI...(snip)...at the end I was invited to attest; although academically speaking I felt I'd met the criteria for "Natural Clear" I didn't feel particularly confident...maybe my earlier audting experiences had left a mark? Dunno......

Anyway, (eventually) off to "exams", pick up the cans, the test-question is presented on a piece of paper: I was asked "Does this apply to you?" I replied "Yes". The examiner...(snip)...glanced at the meter, beamed at me, after I'd put the cans down she reached over and shook hands and congratulated me.

The important bit: at the point I attested Natural Clear, and I accept you may find this hard to swallow, I swear and declare that my "case" shattered into dust and blew away as if in the breeze. I experienced an up-surge of energy such as I've never known at any other time in my life.

The "stage-fright" evaporated and has remained evaporated for close on 30 years as a result of which I've enjoyed a career as a musician with its ups and downs yeah but that goes with the territory; fact is Scientology cost me about £10,000 overall (and a lot of stress in the early days) but I've made more than that from my career by orders of magnitude.

It's also true that other aspects of my "case" have leaked back in over the years, but overall I'm "bitter-sweet" about the whole thing...more "sweet" than "bitter" perhaps as much as I bitch about Ole Fatty.

The real purpose of this post: Just wanted to say this to those that make broad statements to the effect "it's all bullshit, it's all nonsense..."; sorry me dears but inasmuch as you're entitled to your POV my personal experience says you're dead wrong about that.

As I've said elsewhere, it wouldn't be much of a trap if there was no bait, or if the bait was all clearly and obviously putrid crap.

That the bait was not all clearly or obviously putrid crap, and indeed may have had some value, does not by itself completely excuse the "victim" from any and all responsibility for staying for years and years past the point when any responsible, non-developmentally disabled adult would leave.

Responsibility for, in many cases, disconnecting from his or her spouse and children.

Responsibility for, in many cases, ruining not only his or her financial security, but the financial security of his or her spouse or children.

And it certainly does not excuse knowing participation in a group that discriminates against "Illegal PCs," demonizes "psychs" as the source of all evil, refers derisively to "wogs" and "DBs," and in many cases -- with your knowledge -- lies to and deceives other people. And coerces other people into financially disastrous transactions and debts.

And do not tell me you didn't know. That you had no idea.

The early benefits you describe are the heart of any good scam. Any ponzi scheme. Somebody asks you to invest with him. He promises you 5% interest per month. You start with $1000 to be safe. Each month he pays you $50. After 6 months you have received $300, and you decide to invest $10,000 because the investment is so good and so reliable.

And then he vanishes with all of your money. And you realize, duh, that he was paying you the $50 "interest" per month with your own money. There was no investment. There was no business.

Was he a scumbag? Yes. Is he responsible? Yes.

But that doesn't mean that you were completely and totally without responsibility. That doesn't mean that, according to the standards we apply to responsible, non-developmentally disabled adults, you weren't an idiot.

Listen, I fell for the "trap" too. I stayed far, far too long also.

And I'm not suggesting that the COS "victims" take all responsibility. Just that they take some responsibility.

Yeah, somebody honestly got good results from the TRs, or Dianetic auditing, or whatever. Is that really a good reason, a reasonable reason, an adult reason, why 5, 10, 15 years later they have spent all of their money, and/or disconnected from their families, and/or find that they have been working in the Sea Org 80 hours a week for $24 or $40 per week? And in that case they have no responsibility?

Oh yes, they were "brainwashed" -- because they had a good experience on the TRs five years ago. (And yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

I've quoted an earlier post of mine from another thread rather than wade through it all again; hopefully this will shed light on where I'm coming from.

As you'll notice, my first few years in-and-out of scientology weren't exactly joyful; if I'd been able to take the 'this is all bullshit' position I'd have walked, feeling like a fool for having been so royally taken in and having wasted so much money.

During that period, there were times when indeed, I was just being weak and overwhelmed by it all, but there were also times when I felt a sense of purpose...an inner voice, intuition if you like, that said 'I'm doing the right thing' no matter how uncomfortable. The 'weak' thing would have been to give up, in which event I would have become yet another sad case.

I'm not saying this to score points, I'm not saying it to please or impress anyone, I'm not saying it to piss anyone off, I'm not saying it to be on anyone's side; I'm saying it because it's the truth about how my scientology experience unfolded. I'd always assumed it to be just one of many similar stories but after about a year on this board I'm beginning to wonder. Maybe against the odds, more by accident than design, I just got lucky and came out with more than I went in with.

There's more to this which explains why I'm no longer 'in', which I will gladly reveal if you're at all interested.

Going back to my little tale: if I'd walked out in the early years (all that time, money and blood-pressure for nowt) would that have been responsible or irresponsible? Strong or weak? From a superficial viewpoint, yes I was being an 'idiot' but 'something' told me otherwise and in the final analysis 'something' was proved right. Funny old game, innit?

The problem with attempting to discuss scientology or religion and philosophy in general, it seems to me, is that the whole area is so insinuated with such paradoxes it's sometimes difficult to tell up from down, even through the lens of hindsight.

Referring back to your post above: yes, it's obviously less than sage to devote decades of your life to something and put yourself in the gutter over it unless you're getting a decent return, I quite agree.

 

[Moonchild]

(snip)

And please...don't come back to me with a bunch of hair-splitting crap about 'how do you know what his purposes were...etc.' If you can't work that out for yourself, you barely deserve the two legs you walk upon. (snip)

I was commenting on the observation that Hubbard was a 'complex and mutable character' which is something you had said earlier in this thread Mark, therefore perforce my comment was aimed at you.

It was a rude, ill-judged and inappropriate thing to say. I apologise.

Research was real enough if amateurish. What was lacking was formal methodology. That would include such niceties as controls, sample sizes, formal publication, peer review, etc.. Keep in mind that early on there were LOTS of auditors running processes on pcs and referring data to Hubbard. That was a definite "plus". To some degree it mimicked the "evolutionary model" approach to research & development that has become quite fashionable more recently in information systems theory.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks for these observations; yes, the 'evolutionary model' indeed. I'd formed the impression (or maybe heard it whispered somewhere) that some or perhaps many processes particularly the 'positive' processes described in for example, COHA had been derived from data from as little as one subject and then propagated as 'universally-applicable'.

Maybe that just ain't true.


Regards, MC.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

not really. Drivers lost on the disinformation highway (not just Scn) can get off at any exit they want and turn around, go another direction.

what was curious to me was that some friends or associates who realized the were driving at a great rate of speed on a road that didn't lead to where they wanted to go, elected to just....slow down. My navigation system said to exit and recalculate destination.

On the other hand, if any of my friends sends me a postcard from OT World (i.e. they made it) I will consult mapquest, replace my DC9's navigation system and gas up...(LOL)

But that's exactly what you're implying. You've decided that Scn is disinformation. You've decided that others are lost. You've decided that your conclusions are correct and theirs are not. Q.E.D.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

But that's exactly what you're implying. You've decided that Scn is disinformation. You've decided that others are lost. You've decided that your conclusions are correct and theirs are not. Q.E.D.

I think we would agree that there are many workable principles or truths in Scn. What I am focused on is the ULTIMATE PROMISE of Scientology.

I personally have never seen nor experienced the states of CLEAR and OPERATING THETAN as described in Scn. I invested deeply in that promise and dedicated myself to it completely for a long (very long) time.

If Scn was a self-help group or philosophy I think that would be good. It would have the tested and workable parts and that's that. But when the disinformation, hyperbolic claims and outright lies are marketed (CLEAR, OT, THETA CLEAR, CLEARED THETA CLEAR, TOTAL FREEDOM, etc.) then I feel it is not just an idle slanted opinion that I write of. It is an alert to others out of a genuine responsibility and care of other people....from the mind and heart and soul of someone (myself) who is a qualified top professional in the field and study of Scientology. I think it is proper that I do my small part in advising others what they are likely to encounter on the Road to Freedom.

Perhaps I did not communicate or differentiate my thoughts in your estimation. Perhaps you don't think I should be voicing my experience and knowledge about the subject? Not sure where we went off track, but maybe this will shed some light.

best!

helluvahoax

 

[knn]

If Scn was a self-help group or philosophy I think that would be good. It would have the tested and workable parts and that's that.

The problem is that Hubbard didn't want a mere psychotherapy group. He wanted to save the world. All in 1 lifetime.

 

[Zinjifar]

The problem is that Hubbard didn't want a mere psychotherapy group. He wanted to save the world. All in 1 lifetime.

Ron wanted to *control* the world (actually universe(s) and all within it)

The salvation was His own, because he was so terrified of anything but Ron that he *needed* to eliminate 'Not-Ronness' as a danger to Himself.

Zinj

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

The problem is that Hubbard didn't want a mere psychotherapy group. He wanted to save the world. All in 1 lifetime.

precisely!

...and "unsave" anyone who dared question even a single one of his holy messianic words...

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I think we would agree that there are many workable principles or truths in Scn. What I am focused on is the ULTIMATE PROMISE of Scientology.

I personally have never seen nor experienced the states of CLEAR and OPERATING THETAN as described in Scn. I invested deeply in that promise and dedicated myself to it completely for a long (very long) time.

If Scn was a self-help group or philosophy I think that would be good. It would have the tested and workable parts and that's that. But when the disinformation, hyperbolic claims and outright lies are marketed (CLEAR, OT, THETA CLEAR, CLEARED THETA CLEAR, TOTAL FREEDOM, etc.) then I feel it is not just an idle slanted opinion that I write of. It is an alert to others out of a genuine responsibility and care of other people....from the mind and heart and soul of someone (myself) who is a qualified top professional in the field and study of Scientology. I think it is proper that I do my small part in advising others what they are likely to encounter on the Road to Freedom.

Perhaps I did not communicate or differentiate my thoughts in your estimation. Perhaps you don't think I should be voicing my experience and knowledge about the subject? Not sure where we went off track, but maybe this will shed some light.

best!

helluvahoax

Scn isn't any kind of group, self help or otherwise. It's a subject in books, tapes, PLs, HCOBs, etc. CofS is a group, the Freezone is a loose collection of individuals and of some small groups- Scn itself, however, is not.

I had the impression- rightly or wrongly- that you were referring to people who leave CofS but still find value in Scn and that you were posting from that vantage point.

I think there are lots of people here who are highly qualified as top professionals to discuss and assess Scn.

 

[knn]

The salvation was His own, because he was so terrified of anything but Ron that he *needed* to eliminate 'Not-Ronness' as a danger to Himself.

I would offer a slightly different viewpoint on that statement.

LRH seems to have worked from 2 principles:
1) Whatever others say never worked so far in the history of the universe. Thus better not trust anyone. Maybe even try the opposite.

2) Since we all stem from 1 thetan: Whatever works on Ron works on anyone else ("whole track research"), Ron is "Source".

Thus yes, in a sense the salvation was his own. Yes, he had to be afraid of what others proposed. Yes, he needed to eliminate non-ronness as danger to himself. However, I consider these merely sideeffects of the above two principles

 

[clamicide]

Dianetic Clear.

I wasn't planning on even bringing this up, but, I'm coming up to my little clear escapade in my story and this is driving me crazy wondering if anyone remembers this and what exactly the story was.

In the mid to late eighties, I remember some sort of fricking announcement about the resurgence of the idea that people DID go Clear on Dianetics...and I think some tape or something was released that was dug up where Ron said something about how "we hadn't given ourselves enough credit" and that Clears HAD been being produced, it just wasn't known. This was followed by a real push to get co-audits going in the field. Stories of people doing Book 1 then getting CCRDs were told.

I remember this severely, because I thought I HAD gone Clear on Book 1...and I wondered why the hell I was allowed to attest, if until this re-release it was 'known' that you didn't go clear on Book 1. Shook me up as to what the hell standard tech was....next post in "Chicken Joe" will get into my clear stuff, so you can decide for yourself what happened if you like.

 

[Kha Khan]

Scn isn't any kind of group, self help or otherwise. It's a subject in books, tapes, PLs, HCOBs, etc. CofS is a group, the Freezone is a loose collection of individuals and of some small groups- Scn itself, however, is not.

I agree that there should be a distinction, that one should make a distinction, between "Scientolgy" and the "Church of Scientology."

I believe is should be the case that the word "Scientology" refers to "a subject in books, tapes, PLs, HCOBs, etc." Personally, I would say that "Scientology" properly refers to a religion, a religious philosophy, philosophy, set of ideas, school of thought, etc.

I believe it should be the case that the word "Church of Scientology" refers to "a group." Personally, I would say that the term "Church of Scientology" properly refers to the "official" Church of Scientology, the organization, the recognized group, etc.

But I'm not sure that is the case.

I'm not sure that majority of people make that distinction. And if the majority, and perhaps vast majority, of people do not make that distinction, is the distinction real?

The issue is one of "prescriptive liguistics" vs. "descriptive linguistics."

Is the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, etc. what it somehow "ought" to be, or was originally defined, or is it what the majority (and perhaps vast majority) of people believe it to be?

Fluffy -- I get what you're saying, and agree. But I'm not sure that it makes any difference if in common parlance and understanding the word "Scientology" is conflated with the term "Church of Scientology."

Finally, one of the things I "got" from Scientology was the idea that it is the responsibility of the speaker, writer, communicator, to make sure that the communication was received and undertood; it is not the responsibility of the recipient. If that is the case, it might be best if those who wish do discuss the the ideas, concepts, and philosophy of the religion (or religious philosophy) of "Scientology" separate, apart and distinct from the organization of the "Church of Scientology" to:

(a) make that distinction clear; and

(b) at least initially or presumptively assume that when another refers to "Scientology" they may be referring to the organization known as the "Church of Scientology."

Just a thought.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I was commenting on the observation that Hubbard was a 'complex and mutable character' which is something you had said earlier in this thread Mark, therefore perforce my comment was aimed at you.

It was a rude, ill-judged and inappropriate thing to say. I apologise.

Apology excepted.

I'm fine with disagreement. As to "hair splitting", one thing I have definitely learned through the years is the truth of the old saw "the devil's in the details".

Thanks for these observations; yes, the 'evolutionary model' indeed. I'd formed the impression (or maybe heard it whispered somewhere) that some or perhaps many processes particularly the 'positive' processes described in for example, COHA had been derived from data from as little as one subject and then propagated as 'universally-applicable'.

Maybe that just ain't true.


Regards, MC.

Maybe it was. Euphemistically put, Hubbard was an expert at stretching a point.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, where I was coming from with that Scn vs CofS perspective is that non CofS Scn'ists don't want people to be tarring them with the same brush as those bozos with the RPF, OSA, etc. To assess that, one would need to consider that ology and ism and groups or individuals that purvey or follow them are not the same thing. I use the Protestant Reformation as my guide and benchmark therein.

HOWEVER, having said that, there are things in the subject and methodology of Scn itself that have made CofS what it is. There are times when I'll cheerfully write "Scn does" - followed by a critical comment. It all depends.

I believe in precision...

 

[Moonchild]

precisely!

...and "unsave" anyone who dared question even a single one of his holy messianic words...

And part of the "unsaving" process was to destroy a person's capacity to have 'faith' in anything else if they managed to escape his clutches.

'If I can't have 'em no-one will.'

A bit like Saddam Hussein and the oil-fields in Kuwait methinks.

A Theist might consider this akin to the ambitions of Satan.

Nice....

 

[Moonchild]

Apology excepted.

I'm fine with disagreement. As to "hair splitting", one thing I have definitely learned through the years is the truth of the old saw "the devil's in the details".




Maybe it was. Euphemistically put, Hubbard was an expert at stretching a point.


Mark A. Baker

Thank you Mark.