Home > Getting something done > A message to Anonymous

A message to Anonymous

People of anonymous. Thank you for lending your effort to expose the abuses perpetrated by the Church of Scientology. I could go on commending you for the work you have done, but that is not the purpose of this message.

I know that Anonymous is not a homogeneous group. The majority av anons seems to be fighting hard for basics freedoms; Of thought, of speech and of belief. A sub-group of Anonymous think that everything Scientology must be wrong. Totally wrong. And dangerous. Some are advocates of a total abolishment of any practice of Scientology whatsoever.

I have covered the black-and-white world view and fixed ideas in previous posts. There are several other reasons why I believe this stance is counter productive:

  1. It may help cement and aggravate the human rights abuses within the church. It causes the church management to increase the pressure against the external enemy. It makes it easier to pressure Scientologists even more – for public it is for money and time and for the staff less sleep. It justifies the use of excessive force. Extremist views also distract from the issues of abuse and lends sympathy to the church by the general public.
  2. It reeks of intolerance. Going after people’s beliefs is in itself a human rights violation. It tends to void arguments against human rights violations within the church.
  3. It instantly turns off Scientologists who wants to do something about the church they are members of. I know this personally as early in my two years of research, many messages by Anonymous made it somewhat harder for me to take a stance against the wrongs of the church. The original message from Anonymous put light on the abuses. It was aimed at the leaders of Scientology, not Scientologist who wants to practice their beliefs. It caused the largest demonstrations against the church ever.

There must be freedom of thought. There must be freedom of speech. There must be freedom to practice one’s beliefs within the perimeters of the law. These principles must never be a one-way street. My freedom is only limited by yours.

For questions about my motives and stance, please refer to my earlier post – My positions,

Advertisements
  1. Shalashar Dekeres
    2009-09-05 at 18:56

    Dear Geir,

    Thankyou for your kind message. Whilst I understand your point of view with regard fanaticism being a turn off, you should understand where that viewpoint comes from:

    LRH’s own policy letters.

    Whilst you absolutely have the right to practice what you will so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, what you’ve essentially written here is a statement to the effect of “you aren’t allowed to say that Scientology is so rotten by design that it needs to be dismantled”. This clearly is nonsense.

    I will not speak for other Anons, only for myself. I’ve seen what it does to people first hand, how staff prey on the most vulnerable members of society with impunity. I’ve seen families torn up (including my own). I’ve seen the end results of Fair Game. I’ve seen the pictures of the insides of the RPF and read the stories.

    For me, Scientology is by design poison in the minds of it’s adherents – with just enough truth to keep you interested. It is essentially a hugely elaborate (and effective) trap for both mind and body.

    Do what you want, but do not expect me or others to be silent. After all, freedom of belief cuts both ways.

    Kindest regards,

    Shalashar Dekeres

    Enjoy.

    • 2009-09-05 at 19:03

      Thank you for your viewpoint.

      While I certainly do not say that you or anyone else cannot have and utter any viewpoint, I am advocating that the focus be on what is productive in stopping the human rights abuses.

      Fanaticism tend to be counter-productive.

      • Shalashar Dekeres
        2009-09-05 at 19:20

        Thankyou for your response.

        Whether or not my viewpoint is a minority I know to keep it to the basics – human trafficking, human rights abuses, disconnection etc.

        With only one or two exceptions throughout the whole of the campaign, anonymous has kept it to the basics for public consumption, giving them pointers to the rest of it should they wish to research the issues for themselves.

        I’m no fanatic and I have to be honest in saying I’m unimpressed with the implication. My viewpoint comes from hundreds, if not thousands of hours research as well as first hand experience. The evidence paints not just the organisation, but some of the very policies it is founded upon in a very dim light. If someone comes out with a fluffy “scientology lite”, fine, good for them and have fun. But understand that I will view with a degree of scepticism anything associated with Hubbard’s writings. The link I provided in my previous post explains a lot of why.

        • 2009-09-05 at 20:43

          Thanks again.

          I do not imply that you are a fanatic. You brought up the word. I was making a general comment on it.

    • Vir
      2009-09-05 at 19:26

      Perhaps Geir should put a warning next to that link. The page Shalashar links to makes reference to some of the confidential OT materials.

      • 2009-09-05 at 20:45

        Sorry, missed that. Link removed.

        • Anonymous
          2012-06-28 at 12:26

          “There must be freedom of thought. There must be freedom of speech. There must be freedom to practice one’s beliefs within the perimeters of the law. These principles must never be a one-way street. My freedom is only limited by yours.”

          An interesting statement to make only hours before censoring someone else. Please forgive my indiscretion, I honestly have no interest at all in either side of this argument. Anyone’s decision to believe one thing or another is of no consequence to me. I just thought it relevant to point out that there are certain contradictions present.

          -Anonymous

          • 2012-06-28 at 13:33

            Who cares? It’s 2012 now.

    • 2009-09-06 at 00:58

      It seems to me you are confusing the philosophy with the church. Since the demise of Hubbard the philosophy and resultant technology, staff and scientologists have been subject to continued abuse and it is this abuse that you see.

      If you studied the philosophy in its own right, and not the abuse perpetrated in its name by the current incumbent Chairman of the Board, you might take a different approach.

      And I do not mean where one statement or another is taken out of context but where the philosophy itself, the eight dynamics, the principle of creation, the stable datum, the ARC triangle and many many other examples of the philosophy.

      These are the basic principles we practice in the Scientology Freezone, as distinct to the violations of basic Scientology philosophy practiced currently in the church.

      Reading the Axioms.Finding out that one is not a piece of meat but a spiritual being. Reading the information provided in such books as New Slant on Life, Fundamentals of Thought and Problems of Work, for example, will give one a basic understanding of what Scientology really is. At least to a person with an open mind not given to prejudging, which, I hope, applies to you. 🙂

      Michael

  2. David Mudkips
    2009-09-05 at 19:14

    I would concentrate on assisting those that want to be assisted, those that do want scientology utterly eradicated are a small majority on anons, but are unlikely to change their minds for anyone, let alone an ex.

    I wish you well, and urge you to share as much information as you can, even if you think it’s unimportant, an anon somewhere may have a use for it, or be able to link it to something else.

  3. Heather
    2009-09-05 at 19:36

    Thanks for your message Geir. I have been delighted to see your own actions unfold, as they have.

    I too can speak only for myself. My priority is to stop the human rights abuses, in particular those being suffered by the Sea Org at RPF’s.

    My hope is that those who want to battle about the teachings of Hubbard will give that battle a lower priority than the battle to stop the human rights abuses. Having prioritised the end of those human rights abuses, the discussion over Hubbard’s teachings should not be allowed to become an obstacle to the first priority. I hope other Anons will agree.

  4. 3rdman
    2009-09-05 at 19:45

    Well Anonymous seems to have varying viewpoints about Scientology critics who are still Scientologists. Your thoughts are appreciated by this individual Anon.

  5. Vir
    2009-09-05 at 19:51

    It would certainly benefit the suppressive management to make Scientologists believe that everyone who critizises the suppressive management are also completely against the tech and would both ban its practice and burn all LRH books.

    To enforce this false view we’ve seen CoS PR people posting anonymously trying to attack religions in internet debates. They come in and say “We should ban all religions”, or “how is Scientology any worse than Christianity” etc. Unfortunately, this CoS PR line is popular with some of the less thoughtful atheists out there, who are quick to agree with this point of view. These people would gladly call themselves “liberals”, but suppressiing religions, ideas, philosophies or systems of beliefs is a non-liberal practice.

    In my experience, most of those who call themselves Anonymous are interested in stopping the abuses in the present CoS, and also to stop the CoS from infringing on freedom of speech by mis-using copyright and trademark law. There are also concerns about unsafe or useless practices being part of the LRH tech, but if the CoS was opened up to scientific and honest study, individuals were allowed free speech and free choice, and it was regulated by law as any other alternative treatment practice or faith-based activity, then any concerns about unsafe or ineffective practices can be handled on a point-by-point basis.

  6. 2009-09-05 at 20:29

    Practicing Scientology in itself is not what anyone is against. I don’t think anyone would recommend practicing Scientology though since most of us think it’s a bunch of bull 😛

    However, in the CoS it’s impossible to practice Scientology without being ripped off. LRH was a conman promising people super powers and total freedom but these things don’t happen. There are no OT’s as Hubbard described them. There are no OT Powers.
    Practicing Scientology in CoS = ripoff.

    As such, it may seem as we attack Scientology itself, but the lack of protesting against the Freezone should disprove that thought. The Freezone can keep on going, Geir… I don’t mind that, it’s your life and you do what you want. But you also have to understand how other people think it could be dangerous to let people become such strong believers in such things. People have commited suicide because of things like that.

    (Edited to remove reference to confidential material)

  7. anyone_can_claim_anonymous
    2009-09-05 at 20:43

    You seem like a reasonable, science-minded, logical person.

    I think we need a bigger vocabulary for this subject of what people object to and where fanaticism is focused on. The problem I see is by saying “abolish scientology”, what does that mean and it can be manipulated from people on all sides.

    Scientology the courses and books
    Scientology the policies and strict functioning / operating mindset
    Scientology the Orgs — ie. book stores and self-help courserooms and group of local people/congregation
    Scientology the international corporation
    Scientology the mindset where your should disconnect from loved ones because the ethics officer decided it is best
    Scientology the hardsell mindset that has free stress tests aimed and poaching vulnerable people, finding their “ruin”, and a fraudulent personality test scores
    Scientology the non-scientific claims about health, IQ improvements, various other exaggerations and unsupported claims
    Scientology the Miscavige international money making scheme and property acquisition and use of celebrities to further ends-justifies-the-means abuse of staff, sea org, public that have to go to Flag to extract maximum money out of everyone

    So, yes, Anonymous uses the term abolish scientology loosely.

    Does anyone in Anonymous really think all the LRH books should be rounded up and burned, no.. Or that people should never be able to take courses or apply the tech.. no.. But as it is now, how does someone take courses without being exposed to hardsells, stats, disconnection policies, insanely expensive courses, auditing which can later be used to intimidate someone, possible claims that TRs and the lingo and scieno- stuff actually can hypnotize and influence people…

    (Edited to remove reference to confidential material)

  8. 2009-09-05 at 20:45

    Geir: I think you’re right.

    It isn’t possible for evil to be pure. Only good can be pure. Thus, as even the “extremist” (and I say that with a wry smile, not any malice) Shalashar said earlier, Hubbard’s creation does have some truth in it. It is possible to approach a study of Scientology-as-discipline with the goal of sifting out that which is true. Whether anything much would come of that is debatable, but the debate really isn’t even necessary: those who want to engage in the pursuit will, and those who don’t want to, won’t.

    As you rightly say, the battle is not against any and every last shred of the practice of Scientology disciplines, in some kind of frenzied pogrom, but against the power of what Larry Brennan calls “organized Scientology”. When that is dismantled, what remains may or may not hold any value to humanity, but it won’t be a threat, and the work of Anonymous/Chanology will be done.

  9. Anonymouser
    2009-09-05 at 20:53

    As far as your comment about critics that “Some are advocates of a total abolishment of any practice of Scientology whatsoever,” I do not believe that is true.

    There are many groups out there using scientology such as the Free Zone and other splinter groups that have had no problems with anonymous. But I guess what is “true for you is true for you” aye?

    (But I do give you cudos for understanding that anonymous is made up of a group of people who do not all think and act alike, or act on orders from their leader lol.)

    • 2009-09-05 at 20:56

      There are those who have advocated extremist views of total abolishment of anything Scientology on several forums.

      • anyone_can_claim_anonymous
        2009-09-05 at 21:18

        For one thing, you can say anything on the internet. For another thing, there is a sizeable portion of “Anonymous” that says things because it is naughty, like a child using cursewords to get a rise out of parents.

        Sure there are people on the forums who say all of Scientology is crap and should be “abolished”. Of course most of them are lazy idiots who like to talk big on the internets. Some of them are atheists types who think all religions are a waste of time and energy and would like all of them “abolished”… whatever that means.

        Many anon are very pragmatic. Many people on the internet also take things way too seriously.. as if any of these “advocates of extremist views” will NEVER stop until all of scientology is wiped from the planet.. how would you even do that???? You have to ask yourself why you even give those comments any validity.. Imagine someone who advocated abolishing Disney movies.

        Anyways, I really would like you to answer… can someone practice Scientology but be able to throw out half of what LRH said? It seems to many anons that believe everything LRH said and even about his life is intractable from being a “scientologist”.

        I think this question gets to the practical matter you are concerned about.

        • 2009-09-05 at 21:32

          1. The problem with the extremist views is not that they are impractical and unreachable – it is that they tend to be counter-productive and even itself a human rights abuse.

          2. I believe one could take any part of Scientology that one can see works and go with it. I do not believe in the all-or-nothing proposition promoted by the church.

          • Astrid
            2009-09-07 at 18:59

            In my opinion, Scientology is an extremist, totalitarian system. Hubbard claimed to have all the answers, be above the law, and that Scientology would be the law one day.

            His mission was to clear the planet and then build a Space Org and clear the galaxy.

            It doesn’t get any more extremist than that. So, I guess for you, extremism is practical. It was for Hubbard. It make him a millions.

            • 2009-09-07 at 21:26

              Thanks for being short and to the point.

  10. st. Amander
    2009-09-05 at 21:01

    I somewhat agree with what you are saying but some of the stuff that I heard that Scientologists believe seems to kill people. One of their beliefs is that they can heal someone with auditing, however if someone is in critical condition take them to the hospital since it’s usually closest. the survival rate would be higher.This anon thanks for your perspective, some idiots are using anonymous to destroy fred and twilight because their fans are annoying I agree with that but as long as those things don’t scam or destroy those fans, we can not remove them, after all it’s their freedom to like that stuff however if those people/trends cross the line then we have every right to destroy them. Our priorities are to free people from scientology and other serious oppressive organization and people. Have you notice how everything that has an annoying fanbase is being sold at hot topic.

    • 2009-09-05 at 21:29

      I believe Hubbard was right when he said you should seek medical help if you have an illness or other physical problems. Trying to heal something with a tool not intended for the healing is folly. We concur on that.

      • Vir
        2009-09-05 at 21:46

        In some of the advertising, the CoS is promoting Dianetics and Scientology instead of medicine, and some staff members have even been caught on camera promising medical cures of cancer and other serious illness through Scientology. That should be stopped immediately.

        It should be OK, however, to do Dianetics and Scientology in addition to getting proper medical treatment. Spiritual and mental wellbeing has been seen to make patients heal better, especially if the treatment needs a motivated and positive patient.

  11. Astrid
    2009-09-05 at 21:49

    Geir, I’d say that most in Anonymous have a better understanding of the shades of gray. We do not tow Hubbard’s line.

    We think Hubbard was nutty. He talked about visiting Venus, blowing a gasket on his space ship and getting splashed with burning fuel in a previous life, clearing the planet and building a “Space Org” to clear the galaxy, disposing of low toned people “quietly and without sorrow,” after Scientology “becomes the law.”

    Hubbard tried to take over countries, in attempt to have a base for Scientology to dominate the world. He thought he was the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes. Read Bare-Faced Messiah. It is very well documented. Sure, it may have a few factual errors here and there, but most of it is true, written by a distinguished journalist.

    One thing you and Marty fail to understand…Any intelligent person on the outside (never a Scientologist), who reads the history of Scientology and hundreds of stories from ex-Scientologists; there is little difference between Scientology as it was under Hubbard, and Scientology as it is under Miscavige. The one exception might be that Miscavige is more violent, but mostly with his immediate underlings.

    Miscavige did not make up crazy policies like Fair Game or creation of the RPF. If only half of the stories about Hubbard, both with regard to Scientology, and in his personal life, were true, it would be enough to question his integrity and intentions a hundred times over.

    Read about what Hubbard and his policies did to Paulette Cooper and then get back to Anonymous about back and white. Paulette knows the end result of another fanatic with a totalitarian plan. She was born in the Auschwitz concentration camp. If you read her book and articles, you will find she is a very warm, highly intelligent woman. To me, her writing is much better than Hubbard’s, even if she doesn‘t pretend to have “all the answers.”

    Droves of people under Hubbard left too, because Scientology was a money-extraction con from the beginning that started out more like a parlor game, or snake oil, and ended up being controlling and abusive, especially for employees.

    For many people, Scientology ends up replacing their personal goals (happiness, spiritual meaning etc.) with Scientology’s goals: keeping stats up…donating generously…making more money…paying out while hoping for that super power to come.

    Yes, it “helps” some people, but the help it delivers is nothing like that which is promised, unless you can now attest to a perfect memory, translucence and several super powers.

    Overcoming teenage shyness, while very important to you, is not one of the super powers!

    I’m in my fifties, and over the years, have spent hundreds of hours protesting only three things:

    1. The War in Vietnam
    2. The War in Iraq/G.W.Bush
    3. Scientology (which I stumbled on with the Tom Cruise video.)

    The problem with trying to just REFORM Scientology is that it hasn’t worked, ever. It isn’t just David Miscavige or a few bad apples, it is the whole rotten system, with its 100+ front groups.

    The success of Scientology was predicated on secrecy, coercion, euphoric converts, false promises, mind control, celebrity endorsements, and an elaborate and deceptive way of recruiting vulnerable people. It was NEVER going to appeal to masses of people, because of the costs involved, and the results yielded. That didn’t really matter to Hubbard! He just needed enough people to get hooked hard, to make millions, and get them believing it was really about “saving the planet.”

    I’m all for many of the things you want…Scientology to be offered free on the internet. However, with that one point I believe that when the abuse, control and high fees are removed from Scientology, nothing is left that people will want.

    Benefit from the placebo effect has been studied. People need a strong incentive for the placebo effect to work. They need to be told by an authority that this fake pill may: make them feel better, happier, more intelligent, more confident, for it to work.

    I’ve listened to about 50 of Tory’s videos. She fell for the carrot on a stick, always hoping the next level would cure her epilepsy. Scientology is full of nice people like Tory, who just got stuck.

    Did you know that thousands of people have taken Scientology courses, and been outraged or even traumatized by them. I have a friend that took one course and found it to be disgusting and scary. He wasn’t naive or uneducated going in. His teacher had the thousand mile stare…they had to hip hip Hooray to Hubbard’s portrait, which he thought was Stalin-like.

    Back to the placebo effect. People need to be given a lot of things to do, to keep them busy, for the effect to work, as it works in Scientology. For example, people in Narconon, need to be kept busy, away from drugs, and distracted by doing other things they think will help them. Again, the Placebo effect. Plus, exercise is no Hubbard discovery.

    Most of the people in Anonymous don’t care about what “works” in Scientology. Scientology itself has been pushing what “works” and so much more, since it started. It does not cure blindness or arthritis, as Hubbard claimed. Later he modified that to bull about making the able, more able.

    I would say, “what works” is something Scientologists should be working on, testing, improving and experiementing, but they don’t conduct anything scientific. It is all “what is true for you.” Why? Because you are trained to believe it all works!

    Employees are trained that lying, cheating, even killing someone for Scientology — if you don’t get caught — is just dandy, as long as it KSW.

    Hubbard’s rewriting of history — going back millions of years — to attribute most of the evil in the world, to psychiatrists, is ludicrous, truly insane!

    Personally, I think Scientology will be fine, in the Free Zone, for those who wish to keep fondling the cans, clay modeling or using a dictionary. It is the organization of Scientology that is incapable of behaving responsibly, since so much of its elaborate stucture is designed as a con.

    The ominous tone of some things done by a few members of Anonymous, was attention getting. Anonymous doesn’t have a billion dollars, or a structured scam going, like Scientology. So, instead, they/we employ some things to get people to notice, laugh at the funny parts, or recoil in horror at the photos of Lisa McPherson, with the roach bites all over her corpse.

    Anonymous is a varied group of people, and there’s strength in diversity.

    That said, you seem like a very nice fellow. Scientologists in the cult, in the Miscavige era, do not respond well to attacks on Hubbard’s ideas. Still, the blame-everything-on-Miscavige seems ridiculous to me, but I understand the many motivations people have for this.

    Yours is one of the more noble motivations, in my opinion, because as a public member, who have had it all with the family and successful business, you just haven’t been exposed to the other side of Scientology. You have no goal to clean up on “auditing” other people. Scientology never drained you down to your last dollar.

    As for me, when Tom Cruise wants to talk about a world of all Scientologists, and no critics, all “authorities on the mind” and the “only ones who can help at accidents,” well, I’m not going to be just one of those good people who does nothing. Tom Cruise is a high school dropout, not an authority on history, or the mind. Shrinks don’t even consider themselves to be “authorities on the mind.” They are humble about what they know.

    I am not going to wait for Scientology to come to power, to speak out, about the abuses, Hubbard’s lies and fraud. People dismissed Hitler for being silly and outrageous, and looked what happened there.

    Scientology is imploding now because of the internet. Don’t you think you might have read the full history of Scientology, if you had just discovered it last month?

    I am not afraid that it will ever spread, even if auditing were free, and the books were mailed to every person on earth.

    Sorry for my ramble. You are probably my favorite Scientologist to come out in the last three or four years.

    Astrid

    • 2009-09-05 at 22:03

      Now that was a long read 🙂

      Not much to comment, only that I have seen important parts of the philosophy work – and not dismissable as a placebo effect. I have seen people’s lives literally saved by the tech (a friend of mine would have been dead without it). I know this flies in the face of those who have searched for only bad angles on Scientology and found just that – as a self fulfilling prophecy. I do believe that thinking it’s 100% wrong is just as insane as thinking it is 100% right.

      But thanks for the ramble – your viewpoints are appreciated as it helps shed light on the many views on Scientology.

      • anyone_can_claim_anonymous
        2009-09-05 at 22:46

        I think many more people then you think agree about thinking it is 100% wrong…

        The trouble is imagine it is a bad relationship like and ex-girlfriend. Sure there are some great things about her.. but are you ever able to continue that relationship and only embrace to the good things? What if she steals all your money and beats you… At some point, you have to just step back and say there is a lot wrong with the crazy girl..

        • 2009-09-06 at 08:25

          The difference is that it’s hard to take the parts of the good girlfriend and run with it. The analogy fails at that point.

      • Astrid
        2009-09-05 at 23:12

        You can find thousands of people who will say that running, following a certain diet book, astrology, meeting their spouse, whatever…”saved their life.”

        I’m SURE Scientology has saved lives! It gives some people purpose. However, the question is, how many lives would have been saved by other means, and less expensively.

        How many people’s lives would have been saved if they didn’t grow up in Scientology, and start smoking when they were ten, because Hubbard claimed it helped rid the body of radiation, and could prevent cancer? Nicotine became a life-long addiction for some of these people, and might not have, had they not been raised in Scientology in the 1960’s.

        Plus, Scientology still refuses to talk about nicotine being a drug even today. Why?

        Smokers cough up money, that’s why.

        Also, the thing you were shielded from, the number of people who killed themselves or were made miserable by Scientology. How would you ever hear about those people? Their stories of “LOSE” weren’t published in the monthly magazine.

        The MIT student who jumped out a window. His parents told his story in the TIME cover story. You’d think, he probably would have killed himself anyway. Possibly true, but probably not, not at that time.

        If you have lots of money, man, Scientology will be happy to take it, no matter how seriously depressed or cancerous you are.

        I understand that Scientology can’t help all suicidal people, but I’m absolutely sure Scientology can’t do anything for schizophrenic people, yet modern psychiatry can help many of them.

        How many shy teenagers would have outgrown their shyness, just by maturing? That happens to millions of people you know.

        So often, people in Scientology can’t envision having overcome their problems (drug addiction, depression, lack of purpose, loneliness) by any other means than Scientology. Why is that?

        Did they really explore all the other ways to overcome these things. Lots of these people get into Scientology before they reach 20, and haven’t even lived, let alone worked on overcoming their problems.

        Plus, Hubbard designed Scientology, so people would emphasize the positive, or even confess “wins” when there weren’t any, just so they could advance.

        It is impossible to KNOW another human being. People are not simple input/output devices.

        The attrition rate of Scientology is high. The few percent of people who stick with it for years, are bound to be the ones who keep attesting to great benefit from it. So, just by being a Scientologist, you were surrounded by people who benefited from it, or kept saying how much they did, even if they didn’t.

        You didn’t pay attention to the people who were harmed by it. Up until the internet, critics and ex-members had no real voice.

        My standpoint is more objective. I’ve read the stories of people who have been harmed by Scientology, or held captive to its methods and false promises, and found them more compelling than the testimonies of those SAVED by Scientology, such as you, for example.

        It is not the deaths or people who got Fair Gamed by Scientology that makes it compelling alone. It is the number of people who were lured into it under false pretenses, and then stuck on paying up, made to believe that they may as well: “jump off a cliff” as the old propaganda video for Scientology used to say.

        So, Scientology wants you to believe not only that Scientology is the only think that can “help” you, but that you may as well kill yourself, rather than turn away from it. (From an indoctrination video they showed for years.)

        Thank you for posting my ramble Geir! You are a fair guy. Marty censored me.

        (link removed due to reference to confidential material; Sorry Astrid, it’s a policy of my blog)

        • 2009-09-06 at 08:41

          Almost TL;DR 🙂

          In the end, it boils down to statistics, not individual stories. I was once confronted by a psychologist that got a story out in a major newspaper on the local radio program I used to run. It was called “Midnight Magic” – we did role-playing games on the air (like Dungeons & Dragons live on radio). It was great fun. The psychologist had never heard the program and misinterpreted that we were doing psychological role-playing on radio! He tilted in the media article. We pointed out to him that we were doing something quite different – another definition of “role-playing”. Some people are unable to change their viewpoints or admit their mistakes. He then went on with how dangerous our role-playing was – that people committed suicide because of it.

          I then called the president of the Avalon Hill game company, Mr. Eric Dott, for statistics on this. He referred to research showing that the suicide average of role-players were actually lower than the comparison group of the population (people of similar age, gender, location).

          I would like to see real statistics.

  12. imominous
    2009-09-05 at 23:13

    That’s really nice. I have seen people’s lives nearly destroyed by Scientology, and people who are dead because of it.

    I bet my people outnumber your people.

    • 2009-09-06 at 08:42

      Betting not needed. Statistics is.

  13. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-06 at 00:33

    From what I’ve seen regarding Anonymous on YouTube, they seem to be a bunch of enturbulators. One guy I was emailing with even acknowledged that he “hated elitists” and liked to enturbulate. Most Anons seem to be looking for minor trouble. However, they do have points when it comes to fraud and abuse, disconnections, some bad cases (McPherson etc), but overall, I doubt their goals are to create a better world where everybody are supposed to be friends. Some of them also seems to lack a lot of self-respect.

    I think the touch of real freedom Hubbard has created has caused this very efforted Church of Scientology. Finally when there seems to be a way out the organization supposed to manage it become so fanatically crazed that it scares a lot of people away. What a fascinating diametrically opposed result.

    CoS has to become a normal part of society where normal, sane rules can apply. No slave labor, stop unnecessary disconnections, don’t put too much attention about the stats. Just be normal! How hard can it be?

    • 2009-09-06 at 08:44

      Not hard at all – as long as people focus on the task at hand; To stop the abuses.

      Fanaticism begets fanaticism – both ways. Witness the Middle East. We need results, not “pissing and moaning” (no emotions implied).

  14. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-06 at 00:45

    Astrid,

    Are you able to see anything good about Scientology at all? There are many people who have benefited from it. I think LRH most important contributions are a new way of thinking and a new way of looking at things. Auditing for example, but a lot of his philosophy is also interesting. You seem to be a left-wing person judging from your protests earlier in life, nothing wrong with that, but from what I understand most Scientologists are leaning to the right in politics.

    I agree that Hubbard has exaggerated some issuses. He was not perfect by any means, but just think of everything he created during his lifetime. It’s really incredible to just write all those books etc, and they’re not just filled with BS there’s a lot of interesting stuff. There are so many good things about Scientology (I’m not talking about CoS now) that it fascinates me how anybody can’t think its interesting. It’s damn interesting.

    Astrid, what do you believe in? Past lives? God? Tell me please. 🙂

    • Astrid
      2009-09-06 at 15:40

      Can I see any good in Scientology? Yes, I can, for some people at least, but the good pales in significance to the damage it does for the majority of people who try it. Scientology does not keep stats on that majority.

      What do I believe in? I believe that no one religion or system, has ALL the answers, a system for ending crime, poverty, drug addiction, illness, that works for everyone.

      (Edit: The following paragraph is not a reference to confidential material as it is contained in public lectures as well as the book A History Of Man)

      One red flag, among hundreds, in Scientology, is a sci fi writer founder who details the political history of the universe, dating it back four quadrillion years, complete with stories from his space and time travels billions of years ago, that reveal life on other planets just happens to look like 1950’s America. Same kind of houses and streets and everything, according to Hubbard. Isn’t that something? (I can’t ignore stuff like this, after hearing Hubbard lecturing about it in his own voice.)

      I believe that reincarnation is possible or plausible, but I believe that Scientology only taps into people’s fantasies, not their actual past lives. Is auditing your fantasies helpful? For some people, it might be fun, but it isn’t honest or scientific. It’s helpful, if it keeps you away from doing hard drugs, or jumping off a cliff.

      Hubbard didn’t even incorporate past lives until he realized it meant a boat load more time could be spent auditing people. He went where the market was on that concept, just as turning the pseudo-science into a religion was a marketing decision. Psychiatrists and the medical community nearly drove him out of the Dianetics business.

      I believe that religions should be free and open, including their high level scriptures or secrets. Scientology uses their secret trademarked “scriptures” only to control. The internet is making them lose that control.

      It is so obvious that if people knew the OTIII story from the beginning, most people would not even try a course in Scientology. There is no other justification I can understand, for making this a secret.

      I believe that most Scientologists have a distorted view of the impact of Hubbard’s ideas on the world, and have not researched where his ideas came from.

      So, I’m an agnostic, in awe of the mysteries of the universe. I would like there to be a God, but I do not “know.” I do not “know” there is a God, like Scientologists claim to “know” that the tech works, and that Hubbard created a brand new “revolutionary science of the mind.”

      I read Freud and Jung etc. in my teenage years, so when I picked up Dianetics, it appeared to be a meandering piece of garbage.

      Even with Freud, I thought it was all very interesting but it wasn’t something I APPLIED to my life. I thought it might all have a few clues, that’s all. I admired both of these people, and other doctors and scientists, for their genius, their ideas, and their thoughts. I like ideas for their own sake. I don’t read a lot of self-help books.

      Read a documented bio of Hubbard, for goodness sake. The man lied constantly. He purchased a mail order doctorate. He never worked for the National Geographic Magazine or Harvard University doing oceanographic research as he claimed. These lies are significant. Why was he constantly making things up to aggrandize himself?

      Why did he have to claim a CLEAR can have a photographic memory, when none of them do.

      Why do Scientologists have so little interest in the documented life of Hubbard? What his childhood friends said about him, or his classmates at George Washington University.

      His character went beyond fanciful and imaginative, all the way to compulsive liar. He went from making up stories about his trek across China to his trek across time and space. Hubbard did not spring into existence when Dianetics was published. He had a life before that, and it is time for Scientologists to start looking at the real Hubbard, including the cold, hard facts about his life, as revealed in school transcripts, military records, letters, etc.

      As far as left wing or right wing, totalitarianism can be horrible on either side, and I see Scientology as being a totalitarian system. Scientology tries to be everything, totally vague, whatever it takes to get the most people in the door.

      • 2009-09-06 at 16:03

        “The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.” ~Thomas Jefferson

        See my allergy to Argumentum Ad Hominem in my earlier posts.

        It is easy to stand with no experience of something and criticize it. Beside solid statistical evidence, there will be stories in favor and in disfavor.

        On a personal level: “The proof of the pudding is the eating.” ~Miguel de Cervantes

        (in quotation mood and not necessarily playing softball with a person who not long ago gave me a nice compliment. My mission is to gather focus on stopping the abuses)

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-09-06 at 18:58

        Astrid,

        You are very focused on the man L. Ron Hubbard. What about his processes and teachings? Have you ever tried a touch assist, if you’ve ever had a headache for example? It works great, totally unbelievable. Just the touch assist in itself is a small miracle, according to me.

        Aren’t you curious about past lives? there are many stories outside of Scientology about this, check this link out for example:

        Check out part two as well. Aren’t these things interesting? Instead of just having decided that everything is BS, like you seem to have done, why don’t go for an exploreres trip to find out what’s true and what isn’t?

  15. Cinnamon
    2009-09-06 at 01:03

    Earlier this year, I went through my own set of doubts as to whether Scientology deserves to continue to exist or not.

    Because of my own very bad experiences, and also those I was reading about, I started to think that the Church of Scientology should be totally destroyed. Each time, however, what came to mind were also some of the unique and effective benefits that I (and others) also experienced.

    Isene’s voice on the internet is the only one that seems to clearly address this duality.

  16. Yannick
    2009-09-06 at 08:30

    Great post Geir, your common sense approach strikes me each time.

  17. Anonymous
    2009-09-06 at 13:22

    Scientology is rather a misnomer, it’s not a science at all, it’s a pseudo-science. I understand that people that worked during decades with this “technology” will have a hard time to admit it. Sure it works, every quack medicine does too because people tend to link their positive achievement to their new philosophy or medicine without any kind of scientific validation (blind tests, statistics, etc.). Sure it’s not 100% wrong or else nobody would have been trapped in the system, you have then a pack of truths, half-truths and completely wrong ideas. As long as Scientology will not want to be validated and discussed it will continue to belong the hall of weird pseudo-sciences and beliefs. A good read about why pseudo-science is not good: http://skepdic.com/faq.html#9 To paraphrase: “I oppose Scientology because it’s based on irrational beliefs and magical thinking.” That’s the point that you and Mark Rathbun don’t seem to understand. That because Scientology can be good sometimes is irrelevant.

    • 2009-09-06 at 13:38

      That’s the point that you and Mark Rathbun don’t seem to understand.

      Read my post on my positions. It is easily demonstrated whether some practice give significant statistical improvement to a group of subjects. I would like to see statistics done.

      As to Scientology being a misnomer: The word does not originate from Science.

      And finally; On a personal level (not discarding any statistics etc. but still): The proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Can Lapsang tea and Ritz crackers with Norwegian Old Cheese possibly be good? Can it really make anyone happy? Try it, you may be surprised 😉

      …not so serious today.

  18. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-06 at 14:24

    Anonymous,

    Who said Scientology is a science? It’s an applied religious philosophy that occassionally could be tested by science, e.g. auditing, Purification Rundown etc. I DO want Scientology to be validated, I DO welcome anybody to investigate Scientology, I would LOVE to see scientists and medical experts do serious testing regarding auditing etc. That’s just because I’m looking for the truth and have no interest whatsoever in protecting something that does not work. I’ve had fantastic and very interesting experiences from auditing and I would lie to myself if I neglected that.

    Check my blog out (if you can read Swedish).

    http://hubbardianen.wordpress.com/

    • Astrid
      2009-09-06 at 15:56

      Dianetics has on its cover, “the modern SCIENCE of mental health.” Even though Hubbard said that the New Era Dianetics was one hundred times more powerful, than that old Dianetics…buy it NOW, before the price goes up!

      “Applied religious philosophy” is just cloaking. It is meaningless and vague in terms of definition. Yes, I know Hubbard said the entire planet could be “clear” in one year, if Scientologists would just apply the standard tech properly. That is like saying the entire planet could be Christian in twenty four hours, if people would just accept Jesus as their Savior, in the next 24 hours.

    • 2009-09-07 at 00:06

      Hubbard said it:
      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/Media/Ybor/flyer-2005-aug.html

      Excerpts:

      “The first science to make whole classes of backward children averagely bright, using only drills the teacher can do a few minutes each day.

      “The first science to determine the basic cause of disease.

      “The first science to contain exact technology to routinely alleviate physical illnesses with completely predictable success.

      “The first science of the mind to prove conclusively that physical illness can stem from mental disturbance, a fact which Freud held only as a theory, and only seldom demonstrated.”

      Etc.

  19. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-06 at 18:48

    Astrid,

    Yes, there are a few comments about science made by Hubbard himself. I was talking about Scientology as a whole, Hubbard himself defined it as “a religious applied philosophy”.

    Astrid, what are your comments about people that have had gains from Scientology. Is that good or bad? I guess your main problems is the money issue and the human rights violations?

  20. anyone_can_claim_anonymous
    2009-09-06 at 20:40

    Ask yourself why there are NO STATISTICS to back up any of the claims of Dianetics / Scientology. In fact, you’ll notice COB and corporate scientology loves to trot out numbers and stats, and most of them are provably lies, like number of active Scientologists, probably book sales, etc.

    In the last 50 years, no one has bothered to do a scientific controlled study showing how Scientology does work??? It seems odd to me that something so great and effective, and there is no real body of work showing IQ increases, improved health from Purif / Niacin & saunas. There are only pseudo-scientific ramblings about how it works, just like in some of Hubbards books with some pseudo-science sounding stuff which has since been proven to be all made up. Hubbard was wrong about radiation, etc. He was clearly shown to have just made it all up when it comes to certain subjects, like smoking or toxins being sweated out of your body, etc.

    The sauna stuff is an age old con. Just look at late night television and you will see infomercials for color-changing shoe inserts… it’s the same scam.

    • 2009-09-06 at 20:47

      Point delivered. Letting this one pass.

      Let’s get this back on track from the “it’s all a scam”-argument and to the purposes of this blog.

      Ref: A note on comments to this blog

  21. Anonymous
    2009-09-06 at 21:33

    The CoS is a striking replica of a totalitarian regime. It even has its own gulag with the RPF! I think at this point everybody agrees that the CoS and David Miscavage are evil. We could even say that the CoS with its suicidal PR is more harmful to Scientology as an “applied philosophy” than are its critics.

    But the question remains about the value of Scientology as a whole, can we really separate it from the abuses of its organization? Why Scientology by itself cannot prevent these abuses? The same question has been asked about communism for example. On paper, it seems like a nice philosophy, but when it’s applied in a system, it’s awful.

    • 2009-09-07 at 05:55

      You could take Buddhism and add an oppressive regime (Burma). You could remove the regime and get the positive of the philosophy. I believe the same could be true for Scientology.

  22. Alos
    2009-09-07 at 00:24

    In 1995 I saw a Dianetics infomercial on TV. I found it intriguing and ordered the information packet. I then went online to research the organization. Immediately I ran into the Usenet newsgroups and the discussion there. Needless to say, after reading about the practice of the “Church of Scientology” suing critics to intimidate them, it discredited the entire topic of Scientology and Dianetics to me. I then called and cancelled my order. I always remember being very happy that I narrowly avoided what I perceived as a dangerous situation.

    In the 14 years since this event, I’ve come to other conclusions. I think that Scientology can be genuinely helpful to some people. However, the practices of David Miscaivage and his management of Scientology have prevented curious people from ever getting interested in Scientology. He has literally destroyed any good will the vast majority of people on the earth could have had towards Scientology. His misapplication of LRH’s views and his subversion of the material has ruined any hope Scientology could have as a growing organization.

    I am happy that Geir Isene, or any Scientologist for that matter, has found a useful mechanism to search for truth in this life. The search to learn more about oneselves and the universe is THE most important thing we do on earth. It is tragic that so many Scientologists have been HURT in this journey by David Miscaivage. I hope he gets the boot, and Scientology gets back on track.

    So there it is, one long time critic who sees hope in the idea of Scientology becoming what it could have been and not what One Selfish Person has made it into.

    Peace.

  23. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-07 at 06:51

    Anonymous,

    As a Scientologist I’ve thought about the communism-analogie as well but have come to the conclusion that it’s not applicable. First of all, communism isn’t even wonderful on paper, “split everything” doesn’t work at all. Secondly, there are numerous scientologists who do well and have had gains, these people are never mentioned when critics bring up Scientology.

    I think current management set too much pressure on people and it has an opposite result. I think CoS must confirm with the rest of society, such as free speech, human rights, overtime rules etc (finance business frequently abandon overtime rules too e.g.), also I think there are too much focus on statistics. Sure, statistics are good, but if not improved no need to go crazy.

    Me myself am trying to find out the truth about Purif by the way, there’s a link somewhere (google “Narconon Exposed”) where a guy has critically gone through the Purif Rundown. I sent a bunch of questions to him several times but he wouldn’t answer my emails though.

    The truth is the truth – and that’s what I’m looking for. You can’t argue about the shape of planet earth.

  24. primorec
    2009-09-07 at 08:14

    Astrid,

    I wish I had your writing skills. Great comment(s).
    Most of your valid points were conveniently avoided/ignored by Isene. Interesting, isn’t.

    • 2009-09-07 at 16:02

      I have a deal for all those who wants me to take up any points in their comments: Ask simple and direct questions and you will get straight answers. Do not simply cover points in large blocks of text and expect me to take them up and comment on them. And keep to this blog’s rules 🙂 Sounds ok?

  25. Mr:reeds
    2009-09-07 at 18:58

    Hi Isene!
    Nice to read from a sane Sci. 😉

    I´ve heard from both scs and ex sc, and Hubbard him self (well on tape) that it is dangerous to read OT materials from higher levels. IS this a myth created by the corupt manegment or is this “true” acording to the tech? Do you belive this? And if so, can you explain why critics and exc that read those material don´t seem to get effected?

    regadrds

    • 2009-09-07 at 21:28

      I do not believe that reading something can be much of a danger. It may be dangerous to experimenting with processes one is not ready for.

  26. primorec
    2009-09-07 at 19:10

    Ok, here is a simple and direct question. In the book Science of Survival on the page 170 LRHubbard wrote:

    There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”

    It seems to me that such a statement(s) describe Scientology philosophy and/or religion as a totalitarian movement/philosophy/religion.

    So, what is your position, as a devoted Scientologist, on this Hubbard’s statement(s) ?

    • 2009-09-07 at 21:25

      I agree with the first solution, not with the second.

      I also do not agree that one such example (or even a hundred) describes a philosophy spanning some 35 million words.

      • Astrid
        2009-09-09 at 14:54

        Do the 35 million words of Hubbard constitute some statistical validation of the workability of his “applied religious philosophy” in your mind?

        I am not understanding what you mean by “statistics” in relation to Scientology at all.

        Christianity caught on fine, with no written word from its main guy. And when others wrote the New Testament, it was relatively concise compared to Scientology.

        Obviously, Hubbard was in the business of selling books. His “religion,” if it can be called that, was making money.

        Billions of words have been written about Britney Spears. Should we call her an “applied religious philosophy?”

        Britney is a pop fad, in the entertainment business. Scientology is an outdated 1950’s space cult business, that will fade, just as the public’s interest in the pseudo-science in Dianetics has plummeted, such that Amazon sells 3 to 4 copies a week.

        • 2009-09-09 at 15:47

          This is somewhat derailing.

          I would not speculate on other people’s reasons for action or motivation behind creating something. I believe such speculations to have limited value.

          As for statistics; It is easy to gather statistical data to at least show correlation between let’s say auditing and happiness or study tech and reading skills etc. This is what I am refering to when I mention statistics.

          • Astrid
            2009-09-11 at 22:06

            http://www.lermanet.com/creed-pearson/index.htm

            Would you care to speculate on this? In the above link, about half way down, there’s a photo of Hubbard’s book, ALL ABOUT RADIATION “by a medical doctor and nuclear physicist.” In the jacket, you can see that Hubbard is touted as a medical doctor and one of the nation’s first nuclear physicists.

            Are you aware that he flunked out of George Washington U. in his second year?

            Given that the book is filled with incredibly bad science, wouldn’t this constitute a fraud, and a motive, just to sell the book?

            I don’t think I’m being overly judgmental here, just looking at the obvious.

            • Astrid
              2009-09-11 at 22:13

              Whoops, I see the photo of the pink book is one quarter way down the page, not one half.

            • 2009-09-12 at 07:43

              Let’s dive into the book and discuss content – not this continuing ad hom.

  27. Mr:reeds
    2009-09-07 at 21:58

    When Hubbard died they found a lot of drugs in his blood. (The otopsy docs are on the net) Wasn´t he againts drugs? Wath do you think might be the explanation?
    Why do you think did one off his soon take his life, and the other one caled him a lier, also his ex did wife i belive (last thing i might be wrong on) ?

    Also what was the buzz while you where in about Miscavige. Do ppl fear him? Hate him? Do ppl inside see him as a “holy” man someone to look up? /regards

    • 2009-09-08 at 05:58

      As I have said in earlier posts; I am not interested in Hubbard. I am interested in the results from the tech. Any Argumentum ad Hominem is going for deaf ears.

      I’ll indulge you this once: Read the otopsy again. There were not “a lot of drugs”. Also, you have seen the official explanation for the traces found. However, I don’t care.

      I have no idea why Quintin seemingly took his own life. Nor why Hubbard Jr. called him a liar or why is ex wife… etc.? There are lot’s of speculations. I don’t want to be part of the speculation mob. And again, I don’t care.

      I also don’t care if the church find any wrongs with any Anons. It’s Ad Hominem. Period.

      As for Miscavige’s PR inside the church – I believe it is very good. A lot of money is put up to make it so.

      Thanks for the short and direct questions.

  28. Antaeus Feldspar
    2009-09-08 at 01:51

    Geir –

    Thank you for a thought-provoking post. I would point out that Anonymous does have a sizable contingent of members who issue reminders that the human rights abuses are the target, and not what individuals choose to believe. (What a pity that the rational skepticism movement doesn’t have an equivalent contingent; I was at an otherwise wonderful event this weekend that nevertheless had some unpleasant moments, and a number of those unpleasant moments came from aggressive atheists who felt entitled to disparage the intelligence of anyone who did not outright reject the existence of any God or gods.)

    As for issues brought out in the comments, here’s something I’d like to present for your consideration (and that of “Hubbardianen”): it is claimed in the Scientology Handbook that Scientology locational processing “can make a drunk person sober in a very few minutes”. Since drunkenness has certain physiological effects, this seems to be a claim which can be subjected to objective scientific testing, to see whether intoxicated test subjects given locational processing actually return to sobriety at a faster rate than subjects intoxicated under the same conditions but not treated with any Scientology ‘technology’. The success of such a test under stringent conditions would be the quickest way to establish the credibility of Scientology technology in sectors of society where currently it has none. Why is it, then, that no Scientologist seems interested in seeing such a test done?

    • 2009-09-08 at 05:51

      I am interested in such a test.

      I actually saved a German from getting a serious beating from around 12 Greeks back in 1990 as he was seriously drunk and about to take on the whole lot of them. I did a locational on him and he came a lot more to his senses, realized there were 12 Greeks there, simmered down and walked away. Any person can test the workability of a locational for himself. You don’t need to wait for the “official test” to be done 🙂

      • Rebel Too
        2009-09-10 at 21:23

        I actually had a similar experience..twice. Once when I first got into Scientology in ’73, when all the orgs were near MacArthur Park. A man was drunk on the street, sitting down against a parking meter and I took him and gave him the locational and he revived and walked away. I did the same thing another time in the late “80s to a Scientologist student who was found drunk. That piece of tech works. I’ve seen it for myself.

        Personally I find the assists information to be quite helpful. Like, if someone isn’t feeling too good (emotionally) and you tell him to lay off watching the news, reading the paper and tell him to take a walk..it words great! Some of the other more basic stuff is real good and quite workable and you can SEE the results right away. They are verifiable on the spot. A lot of the other “tech” is sketchy at best, in my opinion.

  29. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-08 at 07:12

    Antaeus Feldspar,

    Like Isene pointed out, a lot of things you can see for youself. Processes and auditing procedures are very subjective experiences. Compare it with a subjective experience such as drinking, you don’t need any scientist to tell you that you get drunk by drinking half a bottle of wine, you already know that.

    Some complicated individuals then claim that you cannot just see for yourself and you shouldn’t just see for yourself, you need objective science to verify. This is my point: I see for myself and that is good enough for me, but it wouldn’t hurt to get an “objective” science report on it. Therefore, if anybody wants to test anything scientifically in Scientology, I’m the first to welcome it. My goal is not to protect Scientology, my goal is to find out the truth. And so far, there’s a lot of truth in Scientology.

    Sure, there are some things that obviously are hard to take seriously, e.g. the clam imitation you’re suposed to do with your hand resulting in a pain in the persons jaw. I’ve actually tried it on a few people and it didn’t work. Fine, discard that. (Could’ve been used as a weapon *smiles*). Touch assist: Works GREAT on me and on most people it works, but not on everybody I’ve tried it on. Perhaps it’s a process that need to be “learned” a little by the person before it works, perhaps it doesn’t work on everybody, perhaps the person has to learn how to open up his “flows” before he can appreciate it? Who cares? It works for me.

    That’s the way I see Scientology: What in this vast 35 million-words philosophy works and what doesn’t? There’s obviously a lot of things that work, so why discard everything just because some things aren’t applicable?

    • 2009-09-08 at 07:39

      Amen.

    • 2009-09-08 at 14:39

      “That’s the way I see Scientology: What in this vast 35 million-words philosophy works and what doesn’t? There’s obviously a lot of things that work, so why discard everything just because some things aren’t applicable?”

      The probability that someone who goes through the whole works of L. Ron Hubbard, will find something, that he can agree with and considers to be workable is rather high, simply because it is such a huge amount of words, as you say.
      If i would pick the same amount of philosophical self-help books by any other authors, i would certainly find something in there that works, too.

      • 2009-09-08 at 17:27

        Have you actually tried Scientology, or are you merely speculating here?

  30. 2009-09-08 at 07:28

    Hi Isene, First of all, I must say I admire you for what you are doing here. Standing up all by yourself in this torrent of negative opinions really is something (kudo’s to Hubardianen too).

    Also, sorry for being slowpoke and also sorry for piling on another extremely negative viewpoint. I’ve put it in the form of three questions that I answer myself, but I invite you to answer them yourself as well.

    1. Is there mind control within the Church of Scientology?

    I believe there is, and my guess is that you would have to agree.

    2. Is this mind control solely due to misapplication of the tech and groupthink or are mind control mechanisms built into the courses and philosophy of Scientology?

    I believe it is the latter. I can see many concepts in its philosophy which are truly usefull (outpoints for example are something that I have started to use myself). However, concepts such as ´entheta´, ´what is true for you is true for you´ are Orwellian newspeak which are designed to restrict critical thinking by Scientologyists. I am very curious about whether you see this differently or not.

    Now, it could be that Hubbard did this consiously, solely because he realized it would be the most effective way to help mankind. However…

    3. What percentage of Scientologists would you say adhere the viewpoint that if I speak out firmly enough against Scientology, that I must be a true SP, a danger to mankind and that therefor, I loose entitlement to my human rights?

    Personally, I don’t think it’s a neglible minority, but a rather substantial number. But I would appreciate your thoughts on this. If you would be able to assure me it IS a minority than maybe I could abate the next paragrpaph somewhat…

    Because, you see, my view on Scientology is that Hubbard mixed useful elements, mind control and positively harmful elements into a ingeniously intertwined system. And I believe the true intentions of Hubbard lied in the latter. I believe it was his ‘Game’ was to create an Orwellian society. To me, the useful elements are nothing but the bait in that trap, which make them sinister by themselves.

    I realize that even if I am right, the usefull elements of Scientology could potentially Still be used in an organized form to help people. But I have very little faith in it as I don’t believe the knot that Hubbard designed can be reliably disentangled.

    • 2009-09-08 at 19:28

      Q1; A1= Yes
      Q2; A2 = Mostly misapplication (you need to read a lot of Scientology to voice a credible statement to say tat it induces mind control – not just simple extracts here and there)
      Q3; A3 = 61,3% (as for “you should lose your basic human rights: 2,5%)

  31. altruistichedonist
    2009-09-08 at 12:46

    Isene, thank you for opening this dialogue.
    As a former Scientologist, I see the outside and inside viewpoints arriving towards a common agreement. Advanced procedures and axioms dictate for me a mellowing of my sometimes fanatical viewpoints as they would appear to an active member of the Church of Scientology. They indicate, for myself, movement towards an understanding that there are benefits available from Scientology that can assist the world, if given freely without recompense.
    I still do so 13 years later, with locationals, nerve assists, touch assists, and a few others. I also use NLP (neuro linguistic programming) and several “newer” mental therapies; advocate a plethora of vitamins, beneficial herbs, dietary supplements, and minerals; and will, as I allow time for, attend different meetings of denominational “faiths” to understand their underlying benefits. I eat, drink, and digest what I want when I need.
    In mu humble opinion, human rights violations dictated by the Church of Scientology’s policies must be addressed and eliminated and “truth by agreement” must be respected. The structure created and abused by Hubbard and Miscavige is archaic and destructive. Placing it higher on the agenda of public scrutiny by anonymous is effectively doing this, and, as a consequence, I remain with anonymous’ moderate positions.

  32. Antaeus Feldspar
    2009-09-08 at 17:25

    Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

    I guess the best way to express the concern I have is to take Hubbardianen’s question above, “What in this vast 35 million-words philosophy works and what doesn’t?” – let’s call it The Question – and go on to ask the meta-question “**When we don’t have the answer** to The Question, what is the right way to act?” Is it actually morally right to apply techniques which can have powerful effects when we don’t know whether those effects are good or bad?

    I suspect that both of you will say “But we *do* know that the effects of the techniques that *we* use are good! We know it by subjective evidence, but why do we need objective evidence when subjective evidence already tells us the answer?” Hubbardianen, for example, seems to think that it’s only “complicated individuals” who need “objective science” to verify subjective observations. But history tells us how tremendously deceiving subjective evidence can be, and that we *need* objective evidence to tell us whether subjective evidence is telling us the truth. You wouldn’t suggest that someone taking drugs should simply trust subjective evidence to tell them whether the drugs are good for them, would you?

    • 2009-09-08 at 18:04

      Some things are obvious on a subjective level, some are not. Some theories require scientific rigor, others don’t. We don’t wait for scientific evidence for all objects on earth falling toward it’s center before we believe it. But as to the general workability of Scientology, I want statistical evidence.

  33. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-08 at 19:04

    Antaeus,

    I can tell you that I’ve read a lot of books (or parts of them) like The Bible, Quran, Das Kapital, some Hare Krishna etc and even parts of Mein Kampf, but I’ve found nothing even close to as interesting as Hubbards litterature. He creates new angles and perspectives, that’s his first and foremost contribution the way I see it. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

    Like I said, I welcome any objective, scientific investigation of Scientology. On a personal level it’s just not that important to me. Your example regarding drugs would pretty soon be a bad experience on a subjective level, as the drug addict would discover.

    A few questions for Antaeus:

    1. Would it be good or bad if Scientology worked? (e.g. auditing)
    2. Have you tried any process or auditing in Scientology?

  34. Antaeus Feldspar
    2009-09-09 at 00:11

    Geir, you have picked a wonderful example. Some things are obvious on a subjective level. It is obvious that things fall towards the center of the earth, and we don’t need scientific evidence to prove that. And it is obvious that the more mass a thing has, the faster it falls, and we don’t need scientific evidence to prove that either, which is why Aristotle put down the observation that objects fall at a speed proportional to their mass back in the 4th century BC. It was really no more than setting down what everyone already knew through subjective evidence.

    Except that what Aristotle and everyone “knew” through subjective experience was *false*, and it wasn’t until nearly 2000 years later that Galileo’s scientific evidence showed that (barring the effects of friction) the speed at which objects fall is independent of the mass of the object. So just because something is ‘obvious on a subjective level’ doesn’t mean it’s correct.

    Hubbardianen –

    1) It would be wonderful if Scientology had all the benefits that are claimed for it, but it would also be wonderful if bloodletting had all the benefits that were claimed for it in its day as well.
    2) With the way that the Freezone is increasing, the chances that some day I may try auditing in the interests of research also increases (it goes without saying that I’ll never go to the CoS for auditing.) Currently, however, none of the Freezone members that I would trust enough to get a referral to an auditor are anywhere near me geographically.

    • 2009-09-09 at 06:27

      I have asked many children if the large or the small stone falls the fastest. Many children answers “They fall equally fast”. So, it is not so obvious at all that the big one is falling the fastest 🙂

  35. chris
    2009-09-09 at 05:45

    Hello Isene,

    Hope I am not too late to comment here. First off Thank you for speaking out against all the abuses in the cos. You have been doing quite a bit and you are admired for that.

    A question on the gains one can have in Scientology. I can easily see how some of it can be of benefit to some, such as improve their communication skills or understanding how to study better for example. But when I was in (having left for the same reasons as yourself), I was promised gains such as perfect recall of all my past lives, being total cause over Matter, Energy, Space and Time, being able to exteriorize from the body at will, read minds etc. These gains were to come to me upon reaching the higher OT levels I was promised.

    So having reached the highest level yourself, can you confirm this? Do you have any of these abilities? Can you describe and talk about your wins on the OT levels at all? Many of the people I know that are still in are there to achieve these gains at some point.

    Thank you for your honest reply and for your blog!

    • 2009-09-09 at 15:58

      I will post more on my wins in posts to come. Here I will be very brief.

      I have not paid much attention to loose (or hard) promises of whatever abilities on the OT levels. I tend to not expect much of anything in life and I am pleasantly surprised every day 🙂 I see little value at all in expectations.

      I do not have perfect recall. I cannot exteriorize at will with full perceptions. I am very calm and rational even in very upsetting situations. I am adamant at finding solutions to any situation, no matter how dire. I can calm most any person if I want, and I can bring most people fairly quickly up the tone scale. I enjoy life like when I was a kid. I cry when I see sad movies. I am easily moved emotionally by touching situations. I can easily see others emotional tone and act on it to help others. I have regained artistic abilities I have never before had. I can be creative in a large variety of areas. I can bring value to most any situation even when thrown into it without any preparation. I am very happy. Life is a game and I love to play it. That’s it for now.

  36. Mr:reeds
    2009-09-09 at 06:35

    Hubbardianen and Isene: Rek. you to also read writings by Aleister Crowley (Hubbars metor in the 40s), maybe got som suprises for you, maybe not. “A peice of Blue sky” (By Jon Atack) also recomended, you always should read both sides (there is a chaptter full of sources, what i yours?) 😉

    “We don’t wait for scientific evidence for all objects on earth falling toward it’s center before we believe it. But as to the general workability of Scientology, I want statistical evidence”

    This is not a truth, it is a theory, it have been calculated, simulated, counted on hundreds of times my a NUMBER o fsychicans and mathematicans (and may in thory get busted by others, that is the point of a theory)). You can find a lot of books on how in detail the theory and tesitng was done Not just that it was “reserched” by some man caled “the source” Do you see the differnce?

    Just becuse you clearly feel been dragged to earth, and talked to hundreds of ppl that feel the same, does not prove anything.

    • 2009-09-09 at 15:50

      But you wouldn’t wait for an objective proof that gravity in fact is true before you act on it or anticipate it, right? You know gravity to be true enough for you to pull the cord on your chute.

      • Mr:reeds
        2009-09-09 at 17:15

        Maybe Not, but that doen´t mean that i accept any explanation on how and why it works.

        Some more qestion for you

        1.Do you think the cos was not corupted before the DM took over?

        2. Do you aplay the the tone scale. Do you think homosexuals are supose to be mentioned on that scale (low)? Do you think they hould be “fixed”?

        3. Do you think that for an example the “you know wath” in OT3 should be read litterly or as a metahapor? Do comon ot3+ sci belive it littery or as a methapor?

        4.Are you member of some sceintology oraganisation? (freezone, rons org etc)

        5.Do you think Mr Rathburn has good intetntion? Or is he as rotten as Miscavige? Do you think cos should be reformed or have to be gone?

        6. Have you been fairgamed after levaing? Are you sp declared?

        7. Do you belive saunas and vitamins can cure radiotation and heal poison The narcoonon boss told soo)?

        8. do you belive s tobaco (nicotine) is adrug. And that smokin causes cancer, ( not becuse one think it does/does)

        • 2009-09-09 at 17:54

          1. No
          2. Yes. No – I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals or heterosexuals.
          3. Not answering
          4. No
          5. Yes. No. Don’t know yet.
          6. No. No.
          7. Unsure about radiation but regarding certain poisons; Yes.
          8. Nicotine is a drug. So is sugar. Both can be used for good reasons also. I believe smoking causes cancer although some research doubts it does.

          Thanks for being to-the-point. Use the general questions thread next time.

  37. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-09 at 10:22

    Antaeus,

    Don’t forget that many “scientific” and highly praised methods such as lobotomy or Neurosedyn/Thalidomide are now regarded in a totally different viewpoint. I see what you mean by having issues objectively tested, but such a viewpoint may also block other perspectives, such as the spiritual perspective for example. Scientifically proved might (as of this writing) exclude any spiritual viewpoint and might filter the truth. Perhaps the scientific method has to be improved in order to deal with spiritual matters in a better way?

  38. Ackerland
    2009-09-09 at 20:35

    Dear Geir,
    I would like to address a few of your points.

    Your stance on “argumentum ad hominem” is very idealistic and admirable, yet I think it is not and never will be applicable in its pure form you advocate. Here is why:

    When you get information of any kind from any person, you will need to analyse whether this information is correct. Often, you lack the time or resources to do this thorough fact checking. What do you do then? Well, you automatically use this person’s credibility to gauge the likelihood of the information being correct.
    And this works well most of the time and I daresay to a person’s benefit, as long as you have the “credibility values” right for the people you interact with. I suppose you know how PGP works and its concept of a “web of trust” where you can assign trust values to your associates that say how much you trust an owner of a key to validate and sign other keys correctly.
    If you know a person to be a chronic liar, you will automatically not trust any information coming from that person before you do more checking.

    This is indeed what the Co$ is trying to do, as per Hubbard policy: Destroy the reputation of an individual by any means possible and even lie to do that. This is argumentum ad hominem in its purest form. If someone once went out-2d, he can still talk about his experiences in the Scientology organisation without lying, the “bad stuff” has got nothing to do with those topics.

    But “Miscavige beats his staff” is “argumentum ad hominem”, too, and you rightly do abhor the abuses of Mr. Miscavige.
    In the case of Hubbard, if he really never got any degree at university and failed miserably in nuclear physics and never studied biology, with which authority then does he speak about radiation poisoning and about the effectiveness of the “purification rundown”?
    If he never performed test series on patients using “Dianetics” before he published the book, if he never was blinded in war and never had to “heal himself” as he claimed, if the state of clear as described in Dianetics has never been achieved contrary to what Hubbard is writing, then with which authority does he claim to know everything about the anatomy of the human mind?
    This is “argumentum ad hominem”, too. The difference is that the Co$ uses it to smear people no matter whether it has got something to do with the topic at hand (The Co$ organisation being suppressive) or not. The second “argumentum ad hominem” is to set the record straight on how likely it is for Hubbard to hold the ultimate truth in his writings.

    Of course, this does not automatically invalidate everything Hubbard wrote, but it decreases the likelihood of Hubbard’s writings being correct on the whole-scale.

    This leaves the question: Then what is true and what is not? And shouldn’t one continue practicing Scientology for the sake of the good stuff one has observed?
    I am clearly not in favour of practicing Scientology, whether in or out of the church, and again I will give you a reason:

    I am fine with anyone who chooses to cherry-pick those things in Scientology, that are not harmful to anyone. But to do that, you would have to discard core principles of Scientology: KSW and I’d imagine a heap of HCOBs and HCOPLs because there is much in Scientology – and I speak of the original unchanged material of Hubbard’s – that is indeed harmful if applied 100% as per the tech. The Fair game order which was *NOT* cancelled as to the handling of SPs or reporting on each other in an orwellian system via KRs is a good example.
    But really, one of the worst things that happens in the Scientology doctrine: On one hand, at its core, Dianetics is purported to be a science, but all criticism of Scientology (and criticism is an integral part of scientific discourse) is suppressive and stifled, see: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/spdl/images/stories/scripture/hcob-critics-of-scientology.pdf – there is no room for critical thinking whatsoever.

    I have read the first half of Dianetics and am bewildered about the load of purportedly “scientific results” that sound totally unbelievable and unrealistic to me, and its total lack of any scientific references and proof whatsoever. I am convinced the model of the analytical and reactive mind as laid out by Hubbard is ultimately flawed. There is no recording of engrams on a cellular level. There is no “state of clear” as Hubbard described it. The essence of Scientology-processing is based on this model of the human mind. (I am not talking about management tech and all the other stuff hubbard wrote about)

    Some will say: “That’s a contradiction! I’ve seen the tech working and giving people wins” .. so what Hubbard wrote must be true. Drawing this conclusion from it is false. He gave a model of the human mind which can be used to explain some phenomena, just like the model of a flat earth and a rotating sky ceiling with sun, moon and stars pinned to it may be used to explain the sky. But the minute you observe contradictions: the movement of planets is not strictly circular as seen from earth, your ship does not fall off an edge far in the west, clears don’t have total recall and special abilities like “revivification” or total recall, OTs are not cause over MEST (how come all these anonymous protests continue still after over a year?) or cannot exteriorize at will. At this moment scientifically you must accept that the scientific model is flawed in some way.
    But as a Scientologist you are trained to not notice these contradictions. It’s just like Orwell’s “doublethink”. The argument of many critics, and I tend to believe them there, is: The “doublethink” is not only the result of suppressive church management. This is one of the goals and results of applying the processes that Hubbard described. If you do TRs, some of which run for many hours, doing the same thing over and over again, something happens with your mind. You learn to suppress emotions and stop thoughts, because these may bring you into expensive ethics handling. You have observed this personally already: you called it “autorejection” in one of your blog posts. I call it “thought stopping”. Actually, the word “stop” seems to be an often used word with Scientologists, couldn’t it be? As to auditing – I’ve already covered that I believe Dianetics is hogwash. If that is the case, there is no way of knowing whether auditing benefits everyone or whether it actually may be harmful to some. There is a good reason why the Co$ refuses to audit people who are mentally deranged and – in spite of Dianetics to heal the insane in each and every case – only wants to “make the able more able”.

    The touch assist and locational were brought forth as examples for processes that are beneficial. I have received a touch assist once and know how it is done (“feel my finger .. yes .. thank you”) and I have to say this is nothing really special. You get exactly the same effect by fondling someone, like writing letters on someone’s back with your finger and he has to guess which letter it is.
    Doing a locational to get people sober? Maybe you can get people back to their senses temporarily but they’ll still be intoxicated. And even if both of these techniques are beneficial, this is not something “the world has waited for” like a cure of all mental illnesses and the creation of a clear.

    Ultimately, the question one has to ask: Is it worth it to give up your independence of thought for all these kinds of wins that may have well been achieved in a different way and without LRH tech?
    Anons are not forbidding anyone to read Dianetics or any other Hubbard books. In fact noone should be forbidden from studying Scientology and running processes that are not harmful. Yes I recognize there may be some processes in Scientology that are beneficial to a number of people. But it is so closely intertwined with harmful practices and based on sudo-science that if you were to remove the bad stuff, you cannot call it Scientology anymore because it would be a fundamentally different philosophy.

    • 2009-09-09 at 21:06

      Please keep it shorter the next time. Make a WOIM list out of it. I will surely be to brief for your expectations here.

      “Miscavige beats his staff” is not ad Hominem. Read the definition again. The actual problem one is trying to address in that context is that he beats his staff – it is not to use that argument against the person to try attack some other argument. The rest of your arguments on my stance on Argumentum ad Hominem still stand in light of this.

      As for the possibility of something harming people – well talking to another person may harm him. I still believe in your freedom of speech. There are so many nuances in this that a line is not drawn so easily. I believe we need statistics on Scientology.

      My stance on KSW is covered in my blog post “My positions”.

  39. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-10 at 07:47

    Ackerland,

    (Keep it shorter, *puuh*)

    “There is no recording of engrams on a cellular level.” This is something Hubbard has taken back.

    I have not been trained to think like a Scientologist, I have not done any courses to quit my own thinking. I look very critically about everything including Scientology. You seem to think that Scientologists can’t think for themselves and that everybody are zombies who have been sucked into a cult. (Geir just left e.g.)

    I think Hubbard aimed for the stars and reached the clouds. He was an endlessly positive individual and it is true that he promised a little bit too much. So instead of saying that what he promised is true to 100 % perhaps it’s true and improves individuals to x %. (Feel free to give x a number between 0 – 100 %, depending on how much scientology services you have received and what you personally have experienced). Isn’t that good? You can improve a person to x %. Why are you so negative, only seeing the bad things about Scientology?

    I don’t think you have to remove that much from Scientology to still be able to call it Scientology: Fair Game, lower the statistic crazyness, lower prices, stop every kind of abuse, pay back money if people are dissatisfied according to the 3 months rule.

  40. Nom de Plume
    2009-09-16 at 22:25

    Dear Geir,

    In the 9 years since I finally walked away from the taken-over COS, this is the first space I’ve found in which it felt safe enough to communicate.

    Thank you for putting it here. 🙂

    And there’s even several kindred spirits here, too – something I have not been near since leaving.

    Some of the “same old same old” guys are here already. But no matter – you are handling them beautifully.

    Nom

    • 2009-09-17 at 19:42

      Thank you 🙂

      A purpose of mine is to create a safe enough space for Scientologists to come and see, get pointers, let them dare to look, believe, communicate their views.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: