Home > Church of Scientology > The obvious outpoints

The obvious outpoints

Look at the way the Church is handling criticism. Look at it from a distance.

You may notice three obvious outpoints:

  1. Whatever happens to the church is someone else’s fault. It’s “The Psychs”, “Big Pharma”, “The Media”, “The SPs”, “Anonymous”. These are all generalities. By blaming someone else, the church is giving away its power to those they blame. Maybe that’s a good thing.
  2. Total denial of own wrongdoings. Tommy Davis goes “it never happened. Never happened. Never happened“. They deny anything bad when they think the accusations cannot be proven.
  3. If the church is confronted by a (to them) proven accusation, they try to make it “normal”. They even counter such criticism with “you are just trying to make the normal look abnormal”. Like throwing one’s employees fully clothed into the cold swimming pool in the middle of the night. Normal.

Most people respond to the total denial of wrongdoings by “where there is smoke, there is fire”. Well, maybe it is not fire. The smoke could come from a nasty chemical reaction. The stuff that corrodes church foundations.

Edit (2009-09-25): I received an e-mail from a Norwegian Scientologist saying that I am widely generalizing in this specific blog post. So I had a good look at this… and I need your help – because I cannot find an instance where the church would admit to any wrongdoings. I would hate to throw out generalities, but I simply can not find an example of this. If you have an example where the church officially admits to being wrong, please let me know.

Categories: Church of Scientology
  1. Chris
    2009-09-24 at 04:42

    Outpoints being outpoints,just how was the Div 6 over at your local org,Geir?
    Didn’t the CO$ say that Norway had some hundred active scientologists?
    Is this accurate?

    • 2009-09-24 at 04:45

      The Div6 in Oslo Org is empty.

      The DSA says there are 200 Norwegian Scientologists. I say 50 – I know almost all of them.

  2. Rebel Too
    2009-09-24 at 04:48

    Excellent points Geir. It really won’t be long now before all the lies are exposed. “The Truth shall set you Free”. I believe that.

  3. RJ
    2009-09-24 at 20:50

    They handle exposure of their crimes much like the CIA does (maybe that’s who taught them). Anyway the tactic is to deny, deny, deny. Character assassinate anyone who is exposing their crimes (some people both in the Church of Scientology and its critics call this tactic “dead agenting”, it is not). Do a “limited hangout” (“sure we throw people fully clothed in the pond but our fearless leader doesn’t rip off funds and beat people or force family members to disconnect.”, yeah right.). Continue to deny, deny, deny. Have your house organs push out propaganda that lies, lies, lies, like that eighty page puff piece on Miscavige in “Freedom”. Ruthlessly goe after whistle blowers and deny, lie , deny, lie,etc. Never admitting any culpability or possible guilt, saying if they do the terrorists in this case the “SPs” “will win”, whatever.

  4. jason beghe
    2009-09-24 at 23:15

    Yes. Exactly.
    Also, the overcharged, loud, frantic and indignant denials (like those by Tommy denying the DM beatings, etc) remind me of the famous quote:

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

    Smart guy, that Shakespeare. He knew that when someone’s objections are too insistent, too elaborate, too artful, they forfeit all credibility.

    • RJ
      2009-09-25 at 00:31

      I’m with you on that, Jason 🙂

      Shakespeare was a genius!

      I think the following quote would definitely apply to Miscavige especially as seen at events:

      “One may smile, and smile, and be a villain!” ~ Hamlet

  5. Margaret
    2009-09-25 at 00:25

    At this point, there are far too many people who personally witnessed Miscavige’s abuse, for anyone to believe the denials from the Church. I just finished reading Jeff Hawkins story, and am LIVID! I didn’t realize that that guy was personally responsible for doing the research and launching of the DMSMH campaign in the mid-80s, which drove DMSMH back onto the NY Times bestseller, and caused that huge spike in the late 80s.

    Then Miscavige pulled Jeff off this successful post, forced him to Int Base, and physically and psychologically abused him for 20 years. It just sickens me!!

    Did you guys also see that Miscavige is now re-releasing the “IRS Win” video, to try to rebuild his image? So twisted.

    • RJ
      2009-09-25 at 00:39

      Miscavige will probably have one of his lil’Winston Smiths edit out the part that acknowledges Marty, Warren or Mike’s part in it.

      Next he’ll probably edit out the Ol’man and claim that he himself developed Scientology.

    • Alex
      2009-09-25 at 05:10

      Hi Margaret,
      I hear you on that!! I read that story and my blood boiled!

  6. ExKane
    2009-09-25 at 07:08

    Regarding #1: Excuse my possible misconceptions here, but doesn’t the whole idea behind “PTSness” sort of lend itself to the whole..denial of fault theme so common in Scientology?

    “It’s not your fault – quick, blame the nearest SP.”

    I’m truly not surprised that the CoS has come to behave this way. It seems like a straightforward application of the tech. Isn’t this the reason Hubbard threw people overboard off the Apollo as punishment (and then let them back on) whenever they committed something that was out-tech?

    • 2009-09-26 at 02:51

      The PTS tech points right back at the person being PTS. Read more.

    • Alex
      2009-09-26 at 06:46

      Sometimes it is easier to get a person to see how he is the “effect” or “victim” first and then you can gradually get them to see how they “allowed” or “created” the situation and see how they really are the “cause” over the situation. If the COS (or those in the COS who are doing this) is blaming others for their bad PR scenes etc it shows that they are low on the scale and are being “victims” which is an indication of low responsibility. Lots of Scientologists have become “victims” of DM Scientology. That is a good starting point to see that they have been duped. Next step is to get them to see how “they allowed” themselves to be duped. Next is getting at slight gentle cause and start getting the ones doing the duping to stop it, since it is unethical. More and more cause and that is a gradient scale to OT.

  7. Nom de Plume
    2009-09-26 at 00:08

    Reminds me of the punch-line to an old joke:

    “So what are you going to believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?”


  8. Hubbardianen
    2009-09-26 at 06:04

    I gotta agree with this one Geir. It’s so incredibly strange that THE place where you should be able talk about problems openly (because that’s what I believe scientology is) is THE place where it’s very hard to discuss this openly. (!!!) How has that developed into being?

    The rest of society has a much more open approach to problems and state officials publicly excuse themselves etc when misstakes are done. Not in the Church of Scientology.

    I think one of the main reasons (actually) is that most people in CoS believe in this “losing your eternity”-stuff and that the scientology philosophy is the only hope for that (perhaps it’s true though) so ANYTHING that might just lower statistics or go against scientology or CoS is not acceptable. The “We got to head into eternity” type of thinking.

    I think that no matter how important a philosphy is, problems still has to be confronted and as-ised, otherwise they will continue to exist. Even in CoS.

    And yes… Miscavige most probably has something to do with this too. I guess that guy is hard to argue with. He seems to be the “Tone 40” type all the time and that will not solve any problems. He got to learn how to debate and argue intellectually.

    One question for your Geir (perhaps this has been covered somewhere else). The library campaign, I checked my local library but there wasn’t that much LRH books there, neither did it seem as if the London libraries had a lot of them according to my quick search on internet. Are CoS lying about the library campaign? Any clue of how much lying?

    • 2009-09-27 at 00:05

      Yes they are lying regarding the library campaign. On a scale from 0 (no lie) to 5, I’ll give it a 3 🙂

  9. ExKane
    2009-09-27 at 08:21

    Speaking of outpoints… There’s something I’d like to get your input on Geir, if you don’t mind. Anybody else: please read this. It won’t be too long. One issue that bothers me from a moral standpoint as much as Miscavige’s SP Hall or Hubbard’s Fair Game policy or the way Hubbard decided to treat Paulette Cooper is the medical abuses within the Tech. Most of the medical claims that Hubbard propagates are nothing short of miraculous… [clipped due to DL;DR]

    The whole reason I first got involved in researching Scientology is because my best friend’s mother started developing epilepsy when she was on OTVII. Her seizures, known as Absence Seizures, occurred in a random and unpredictable fashion. One came when she was riding her bike downtown. She wasn’t wearing a helmet. The resulting accident put her into a coma. Her seizures continued while she was in the comatose state. My father, a neurologist and epilepsy specialist, was able to diagnose her type of epilepsy despite the fact that it is rare among adults and usually only found in young children. He did so by examining her EEG recordings while she was comatose. He also realized that the reason she wasn’t coming out of the coma was that her seizures were preventing her brain chemicals (neurotransmitters) from reaching a balanced state. He put her on the appropriate medication for Absence Seizures and she promptly woke up literally within days.

    As a medical student myself, this all troubles me very deeply. Why should we accept it when Hubbard makes such absurd claims as:

    “We’ve broken homosexuals, alcoholics, asthmatics, arthritics, and nymphomaniacs with that 10-day processing.”
    “Arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalogue of illnesses goes away and stays away.” DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, 1987 Ed., p. 72
    “Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns.” ALL ABOUT RADIATION, p. 109
    “You are only three or four hours from taking your glasses off for keeps.” “Eyesight and glasses,” “Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin,” Vol. 2, No. 7, January 1952
    “The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been accomplished now.” Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November 1970, “Psychosis”

    I’d like people to consider my story about my best friend’s mother. I’d like you to consider the simple truth that if the claims the Tech made were true, then they would have been _nothing_ short of miraculous and would have quickly garnered *intense* praise and implementation in medicine and society at large. After more than five decades, they have not.

    Hubbard said, “What’s true is what’s true for you.” What’s “true for me” about this quote is that it’s a way to have Scientologists circumvent critical thinking, especially when it comes to considering information critical of the Tech. The problem is, when it comes to medicine, what’s true for you might be the nail in the epileptic’s coffin. And has been.
    From the bottom of my heart: RIP, Jett Travolta.

    • 2009-09-27 at 19:01

      Too long. Clipped out verbosity more than important content. Your point remains.

      My take on this; Lots of practices can cure medical conditions. Africa is full of valid cures for a wide variety of diseases and conditions. So is Asia, South America, etc. But, there is a great difference in claiming that something can be cured by a certain practice and that it will be cured by it.

      If you have physical problems, seek advice with a medical doctor. Hubbard also said this.

      BTW; Your last statement seem to use a recent tragedy to make your point. Less tactful IMO.

      • ExKane
        2009-09-28 at 04:15

        It’s honestly quite hard to gauge the length of what is typed in these claustrophobic little boxes.
        My main point: A good scientist will not reject Scientology but rather will put it to the test. What bothers me is when Scientology rejects what is _known_ to be well-established, good science and throws it out the window. Autism and epilepsy are just two examples. Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia both result from abnormalities in dopamine concentration (oversimplified: Parkinson’s = too little, schizophrenia = too much). What could possibly be psychosomatic about that?
        When I wrote the bit about Jett Travolta at the end I knew that you, Geir, would think I threw I was just throwing it in there to make a point. In fact, I considered preempting your response, but I had no reason to: I did not do it to make a point. I truly feel Scientology is responsible for his death. I am not religious, but I said a prayer for him when I typed that last night to assure myself that I was mentioning his death with good intention.

        • 2009-09-28 at 06:21

          Chemical imbalances may very well be caused by the spirit. See my article on free will.

          • ExKane
            2009-09-28 at 08:10

            In my opinion these “mind separate from body” (or in your case spirit separate from physical universe) rely upon a difference relation (separateness relation) that still calls for a relational medium like any other relationship. This medium entails some form of laws describing the medium whereby one end of the medium may “communicate” with the other. Therefore, they cannot really be separate.
            I love having people people smart enough to debate :).

            • 2009-09-28 at 13:06

              Did you read the article?

              • ExKane
                2009-09-28 at 17:29

                Yes. Perhaps given your Scientology background I was presupposing a connection between the “free will” and the thetan/spirit.
                “Even though free will is exterior to the physical universe, it is influenced by it to a varying degree. It looses its potential in ratio to its identification to the physical universe. This may explain the varying degree of apparent free will.” This addresses what I stated yesterday; however it is too vague. You need to be more explicit here as to the mechanism of this influence.
                Also, since physically changing the brain alters the will (character) in a predictable way (see Phineas Gage), I think Occam’s razor would have us assume that the will is seated in the physical brain.

              • 2009-09-28 at 17:48

                My point is: The free will is potentially free – it is as unfree as it associates with the physical universe, hence the reverse influence takes place and ultimately there is no noticeable free will and nearly only physics. But as the will remains more free, the will affects the physical universe (and the body) more than the other way around. This in no way proves you wrong, it’s simply an alternative view to the “all physics” theory.

              • ExKane
                2009-09-28 at 18:17

                This is all very vague speculation and as you can guess I don’t buy it. You need to be more explicit about the mechanism of the interaction between free will and the physical universe. Come up with a concrete mechanism that fits the rather speculative scenario of “as the will remains more free it affects the physical universe more than the other way way around” and then I’ll begin considering your argument. Yes, I understand what you are saying, but no I don’t see as of yet any reason to believe it’s the true explanation.

              • 2009-09-28 at 18:21

                Sometime… when it rises on my list of priorities. It will be covered in the book I’m writing.

                You don’t believe in free will?

              • Hubbardianen
                2009-09-28 at 18:35


                Skip the “thetan”-thing. You believe there’s something called you and me? You do have thoughts? You sometimes want to drink beer? Sometimes watch football or whatever you want to do. Why is this? Is it stimulus-response chemical-biological fluids in our brains? There’s some kind of “you” that just simply wants to do things.


                Please explain to me what you think that “consciosness” is. Neurons interacting by themselves or what?

              • ExKane
                2009-09-28 at 21:18

                Let’s get one thing straight. I never said I didn’t believe in free will. My point was that Geir is proposing a scenario (which is fine) but simply hasn’t yet given sufficient reason to believe it is the right one. To further analyze this beyond mere speculation, he needs to propose a concrete mechanism. That’s it. Now I’m not telling him to write one out in a paragraph immediately or even this year.
                Likewise, it would be silly for me to think I can explain how consciousness arises from neuronal activity. One possibility (I’m going to leave it at that – I’m not saying I pretend to know or even feel confident this is true) is that consciousness is an ’emergent property’ of neuronal activity. And now I will do what any good researcher does and lazily quote Wikipedia (article on “emergence”): “Emergence helps to explain why the fallacy of division is a fallacy. According to an emergent perspective, intelligence emerges from the connections between neurons, and from this perspective it is not necessary to propose a “soul” to account for the fact that brains can be intelligent, even though the individual neurons of which they are made are not.” I’m not an expert on emergence and if you would like to find the proposed mechanisms for emergence you may due so at your own leisure.
                This is clearly an area that will not be resolved any time soon. Again, all I’m saying is, very simply, Geir needs to propose some mechanism to make his argument significant.

              • 2009-09-28 at 21:25

                Let’s be concrete; You believe Geir needs to propose a mechanism to make his argument significant.

                Did you read my article on a subjective collapse theory?

                We should move on to the General Comments thread.

              • ExKane
                2009-09-29 at 23:07

                (response located there)

        • Hubbardianen
          2009-09-28 at 07:31

          I agree with Geir. For example, you know about something called adrenaline? You could say it’s a chemical imbalance in the body, but what causes it? An external stress-reaction. That’s called Mind over Matter.

          So perhaps there are chemical imbalances in the brain such as dopamine or serotonine, but what caused it?

          I’m open for the fact that there might be biological reasons such as tumours, hormones or similair, but there’s also a possibility that when the thetan himself feels bad these chemical imbalances are created in the brain.

          When the thetan feels stressed, adrenaline is produced, so why shouldn’t a depressed thetan imbalance the serotonins?

          • Hubbardianen
            2009-09-28 at 07:38

            And regarding Jett Travolta, it’s completely impossible to know the exact reasons why he passed away. Perhaps they had tried several medications, perhaps there were side-effects, perhaps he had been off medication for years? We can just speculate without having all the facts.

            • Hubbardianen
              2009-09-28 at 07:42


              I have actually with my own eyes seen a person develop psychosis and schizophrenia and I got to tell you… the reasons had more to do with inabilites to handle life than with some random chemical imbalance that “just happened”.

              • ExKane
                2009-09-28 at 17:36

                There are a plethora of reasons chemical imbalances can be brought about. Stress is one of them. I never suggested they “just happen.”
                How about when an infant is _born_ with a disorder, such as autism? Are we to assume the thetan was in an “autistic” mood going into the body of the mother?
                To be honest, this is probably where scientific discussion breaks down. Anyone can come up with a million scenarios wherein the thetan is doing so and so which is the true reason for such and such condition, and there is no way for anyone to “refute” it.

          • ExKane
            2009-09-28 at 18:00

            Of course you can stipulate some explanation where the thetan is feeling down and this alters the brain chemicals. But if you define the causal relationship in that direction (state of thetan —> chemistry of brain) then you run into a big problem: when we go into a brain and manually imbalance serotonin levels, we get the same effect – that is, symptoms of depression. Similarly, a frontal lobotomy (disclaimer: a practice I do not endorse) will almost always result in the same known changes to the person’s personality.
            Are we then to assume that (somehow…) manually altering serotonin levels is therefore changing the mood of the thetan? Perhaps state of thetan chemistry of brain? But this is rather extraneous from a scientist’s perspective. It makes much more sense to assume, given the fact that we know that manually altering plasma concentrations of serotonin will lead to depression, that it is the serotonin levels that make the person depressed, and not the depressed thetan that makes the serotonin levels. (Of course there are factors influencing and creating depression – serotonin concentration is not the only one. My point remains.)

            • 2009-09-28 at 18:08

              Read the article and my response again. It follows that manually induced physical changes will affect the free will proportional to it being associated with the physical universe. The effects you describe does not invalidate the free will.

            • Hubbardianen
              2009-09-28 at 18:31


              Of course there’s something called biology. If you cut somebody’s brain the body will be handicapped. Cerebral Pares is most probably a healthy thetan in a body where the brain is damaged.

              I believe there’s an interaction between theta and the body. If you don’t eat for days the thetan will feel bad.

              And the other way around, if the thetan is heavily under stress this might influence adrenaline levels in the body.

              There’s an interaction.

              So… yes, there’s something called brain damage. Authism might very well be some kind of brain damage.

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-09-27 at 20:09


      Actually I’d like to see Dianetics auditing tried on mental patients. I don’t know why Hubbard abandoned that since he started out in mental institutions. In a video he stated that “they have failed” and seemed to have abanonded the idea to process them. People with a psychiatric history are not allowed to go through auditing in the CoS. I guess Hubbard wanted the CoS-environment to be positive and unenturbulated and I think he made the right decision about that.

      I’ve read on the net about these so called “Illegal PC:s” going into FreeZone getting auditing and improving their lives. I’m all for more independent research about auditing, both general and specific.

      Hubbard aimed for the stars to at least reach the clouds, regarding your quotations.

      But, I have to agree with you that from a general point of view, scientolgists actually have to start accepting that there’s something called biology and diseases connected to biology. Many scientologists seems to be overly optimistic that everything has a connection to the reactive mind or has a psychological reason.

      Medical doctors are invaluable in society, and the best possible solution, the way I see it, is to use both Scientology and medical expertise. The fanatic polarized “black or white” approach is something I want to change.

      Here’s a process you can try on a comatose person: http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH6_9.HTM

      Try it on several patients (might take many hours though) and tell me about it.

      • ExKane
        2009-09-28 at 03:57

        Well as a first year medical student I’m not exactly given access to try experiments on comatose patients (for ethical and logistical reasons). Regarding this particular assist you linked, clearly I cannot fairly make judgments on whether or not it works, since there is probably no information in the medical literature regarding this. And I’ve not tried it myself.
        But I can say that we know what is happening in almost all instances of comas: (oversimplified version) there is a disruption in the normal electrical signaling of the cerebral cortex (thought, language, attention center) or the RAS (brain stem and arousal mechanisms centers). Many different circumstances can lead to these malfunctions. In most coma cases (there are varying degrees of coma) sensory information does not reach its normal processing centers (example, vision does not surpass the visual cortex in the rear of the brain). So I don’t see comas as being related to incorrect time or spatial location of “attention” or the thetan or what have you. Using the sense of touch as a method of bringing the patient’s attention under control / up to the present is probably not feasible due to this interruption between sensory input signals and processing units, which is part of what gives you the coma in the first place.
        Now, you may say, it is not the brain that feels the input, but the thetan. At that point, our conversation would end because it would require more typing than I know Geir would appreciate.
        As for integrating medical expertise with Scientology, I’ll say this. Science at its best is open and does not outright reject any theories, but opts to put them all to the test (not forgetting, of course, time and resource allocation constraints). If there is real merit to the medical practices of Scientology, it’s about darn time to start showing them to society at large (I think you’d agree). They’ve had over 5 decades, and so far no medically approved fruits to show for it.

        • 2009-09-28 at 06:19

          You need to cut down 😉

        • Hubbardianen
          2009-09-28 at 07:24

          I agree with you, I’d like to see more scientific research on Scientology.

          Don’t go into theory about that unconsiousness assist, I suggest you try it later on several patients (might take many hours and days though) and there you got your first empirical scientific evaluation.

          Feel free to write a medical report on it. Whatever works works.

  10. Soderqvist1
    2009-09-28 at 07:02

    Let the medical science take care of the physical illnesses of the body, meanwhile auditing takes care of the soul, and its psychosomatics in example; when the Psyche makes the soma sick, or ill!

  11. Heather
    2009-09-28 at 07:18

    In order to understand why the church acts this way, Scientologists need to read the “PR Series”.

  12. D
    2009-11-18 at 16:33

    The only time I can think of the Church admiting wrong doing is in referring to the olde Guardian Office and that DM and OSA fixed it!

  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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: