Scientology Thought Control – Part 4

We covered, in Scientology Thought Control – Part 1, how simple definitions can change the way people think. In that example, the Hubbardism “entheta” causes Scientologists to reject “negative” information about the church even when true, and accept “positive” information about the church even if false.

In Scientology Thought Control – Part 2, we looked into some hard-core thought control technology embodied in L. Ron Hubbard’s “Keeping Scientology Working” and his “Study Technology”. With these things, key “facts” are installed, which cause a Scientologist’s subsequent perception and thoughts to conform to the “correct” pattern. After that, no ideas can get a foothold if they conflict with the approved L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige and Scientology “reality”.

In Scientology Thought Control – Part 3, we find that the Church of Scientology is not responsible for any harm they inflict on their believers.

But what happens when, after all that, a Scientologist doesn’t properly control their thoughts? What happens when a Scientologist has any doubts about something that Hubbard or Miscavige claims?

If left unsupervised, these Scientologists might just look around for more information.

As you might expect, Scientologists are not left unsupervised when they are in this precarious condition. If a Scientologist dares to question something from Hubbard or Miscavige, they become tightly controlled and are isolated from other Scientologists.

It works like this.

To give you a little background: Hubbard created a whole hierarchy of “Ethics Conditions”. When you’re doing well, you will “be in Normal” or perhaps “Affluence” or even “Power”. But if you’re not doing well, you’ll get into trouble, you’ll be in “lower conditions”. Below “Normal” is “Emergency”, then “Danger”, “Non-Existence”, “Liability”, “Doubt”, “Enemy”, “Treason” and, finally “Confusion”.

Each condition has its own Hubbard-created “formula” to be followed under the watchful eye of the “Ethics Officer”. Each lower condition has its penalties.

You can find more on all of these things on the Internet. The details of these are, for the most part, not important to this discussion, but please note that this represents complete control over all Scientologists. No matter what they are doing, Hubbard has a specific “formula” for them to follow.

Also note that there are lots more “lower conditions” than there are “good” conditions. It’s a penalty and control system more than anything else.

Sorry for the digression into Scientologese, but it is important to understand that, in Scientology, doubt is a lower condition. It’s bad! It’s just above “Enemy”! If you doubt, if you question, if you don’t think Hubbard was right, if you don’t agree completely with Miscavige, then you are in trouble. You are in “Doubt”. With penalties.

And you will continue to be in trouble, with penalties, until you stop doubting, stop questioning and completely agree with Hubbard and Miscavige. The penalties will continue until you are ‘happy’.

But wait, there’s more!

As part of the “Doubt Formula” Hubbard wrote:

When one cannot make up one’s mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project, a condition of Doubt exists.

Doubt Formula:

  1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all prejudice and rumor.
  2. Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.


  1. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
  2. Evaluate one’s own or one’s group, project or organization’s statistics.

Did you get the switch? Someone is questioning what Hubbard said, or what Miscavige said and they are given this formula to follow — and suddenly it’s “them against us“. Huh? How did that happen?

Well, you see, that’s the way Hubbard thought. That’s the way Miscavige thinks. If you aren’t in absolute and full agreement — then you have joined their enemies!

Is there anything in that “formula” for isolating the factors of the person’s questions and discovering the truth about those specific questions? No, it’s just them or us — choose! Now, how does that answer any questions?

But wait, there’s still more.

What about evaluating one’s own organization “as to intentions and objectives”? What about one’s own “organization’s statistics”? Eh? Where are the true, accurate and complete statistics of Scientology? Where is the true, accurate and complete information about Scientology’s ‘intentions and objectives'”?

Sorry, they’re secret. They’re confidential. They’re not available. Scientologists can not see this information. All they are allowed to see are the fanciful event presentations from Miscavige. Raw data? Raw statistics? Open access? Not going to happen, ever.

So, how could a Scientologist ever be able to apply this formula? There is no data to decide!

Someone starts questioning what they’re told by Scientology and this is the formula they are told they must apply to resolve their questions. No, this formula deliberately changes the scope from “Is this true?” to “Are you with ‘us good guys’, or are you with ‘the enemy’?”

No, this won’t help Scientologists resolve questions or doubts, this is just another thought control mechanism to keep Scientologists from straying from their allowed beliefs.

This “Doubt Formula” catches any who start to question things and herds them back into “right thinking”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Scientology Thought Control – Part 4

  1. Just Bill says:

    @John,Just repeating my words isn’t understanding them, obviously. You don’t, or won’t, understand my point.You continue to pretend that “above Enemy”, “below Enemy” was key to my point. It doesn’t affect my main point at all. You still missed my point.But, I think that’s deliberate.If Scientologists could get full and accurate data and statistics about their church, yes, they would leave immediately.But that has nothing to do with the Doubt Formula, that’s just truth. People don’t need to “apply formulas” to discover truth or to make decisions!Scientologists don’t need the Doubt Formula, they just need the truth.Bill

  2. Doubt has such a bad name in scientology, as in many other thought systems, and the idea is to rid oneself of it for the personal good. There is an element of fear within doubt; from the occasions of mild uncertainty to existential terror. Removing doubt seems a good idea when this fear disappears as a result. Certainty is very attractive and in some instances not bad at all. It’s when you are deluded within certainty that you need doubt to help break through to reality. Hubbard’s thought system deliberately offered the security of certainty and the forcible control of doubt. His followers are grateful to him for doing something to them they were unable to do to themselves. People who are attracted to Hubbards’ writings are scrambling for the treasure of certainty and are first fooled then prepared to give up their intuition, intellect and other human capacities: essential companions of doubt, in order to achieve it.It’s not surprising that ‘doubt’ is so close to the concept of ‘enemy’. Whether it’s above or below ‘enemy’ is irrelevant. It’s in Hubbard’s interest to associate the two together, and is also accepted by his followers so readily because they see it as in their interests too. Discovering the importance of doubt is the true adventure and not that of the ‘bridge to total freedom’ which goes in the opposite direction leading to delusion and despair. The ‘total freedom’ which cult-members say they have, or wish for, is only the freedom from fear. But they have abrogated their responsibility to themselves and given it to a structure independant of them and one which they cannot influence, develop or change. They are subjected to a system which further restrains them from even thinking about it. The ability to face any kind of anxiety courageously alone has been crushed.-for this is a capacity which Hubbard never wanted anyone to have. Everyone has to rely on the perfection of the ‘tech’. Hubbard as he promises security on one hand, brutally enhances fear on the other -to make the promises more attractive, in a series of calculated steps across the cynically named ‘bridge’. And everyone of these steps works as a constantly active security check. You can imagine him saying to himself as he wrote OT3: “I’ve led them on so far, lets see who’s with me after this.” All those ex-cult members who now condemn this thought control have regained their capacity to doubt, their bravery to think for themselves and as a consequence their integrity. To rid onself of doubt, to ‘conquer’ doubt is only to suppress it. It has enormous value for our intellect and intuition and sometimes we should worry when it is not there because it is needed to help us become wise.Remaining in scientology is not only dangerously unwise it is also an act of supreme cowardice.

  3. Pascal says:

    @Bill: DM is the biggest being in CoS in my opinion. That’s my opinion. That is why he can maintain his position. There are bigger beings than him of course but not in CoS and few on this planet IMO.He is a loser yes, and I’ve delt with him in the past. No problem there.Size of being has nothing to do with competence by the way.

  4. Pascal says:

    @Bill: Someone doing doubt on CoS would leave if they were cowards. Someone with any concept of being cause would handle CoS and reform it.

  5. Just Bill says:

    @Pascal,”Someone doing doubt on CoS would leave if they were cowards. Someone with any concept of being cause would handle CoS and reform it.”Um… no.That’s a very silly statement. I would ask, if that is your opinion, why don’t you?But that isn’t important. There is and can be no obligation to “handle” the Church of Scientology, by anyone. It has nothing to do with courage.Scientologists, when they learn the truth of what has been done to them and to others by the church, will realize how deeply they have been betrayed, how thoroughly they have been fooled. Why on earth would they want to turn around and assist the organization that harmed them? That makes no sense at all!I, personally, think it takes great courage to see what is there and to leave.

  6. Pascal says:

    @Bill: A scientologist is someone that handles things. If the Church is wrong, a scientologist would handle it. Unless he were very stupid and unable with a huge button on self-importance.You imply finding fault with the Church equates finding fault with the religion. Now that is silly. Heresy is different from apostacy.Again we disagree on the usefulness of Tech so reforming the CoS for you seems silly and I get that. I myself see no better religion for the moment and will reform CoS as soon as I am in condition to do so as would any true scientologist do, as did DM himself when LRH left.

  7. Just Bill says:

    @Pascal,Again, no.You seem to think that there is some value in the Church of Scientology, and that it should be “fixed”. What value? There is no value. Even to those who believe in Scientology, it has no value.If there is any value in Hubbard’s technology, it is fully available outside of the church’s abusive “control”.If you go to a store, and they overcharge you and abuse you, do you “work to reform” the store, or do you take your business elsewhere?If you want to “reform the church”, go ahead. But don’t claim that anyone else has any obligation to do so, or that people are “stupid and unable with a huge button on self-importance” if they don’t.The Church of Scientology was, IMHO, a mistake in the first place. Why should anyone want to continue that mistake?If there is any value in any of Hubbard’s technology, let it survive in the real world. The church? Let it go. At its best, it never had any intrinsic value. At its current worst, it is a vast liability. It was only ever a legal trick. Let it go.

  8. Luis says:

    @General Public AYS,Your last posting is, to me, quite, quite wise especially:”All those ex-cult members who now condemn this thought control have regained their capacity to doubt, their bravery to think for themselves and as a consequence their integrity. To rid onself of doubt, to ‘conquer’ doubt is only to suppress it. It has enormous value for our intellect and intuition and sometimes we should worry when it is not there because it is needed to help us become wise.”Scientology to me, attracts the very insecure. Those who can’t stand on their own, can’t generate and own up to their own viewpoints and actions for fear of experiencing rejection or failure, are scared about living in uncertainty, and hold a dim view of themselves and so they are totally dependent on the “anchor points” of another to gluide their viewpoints and existence. One of my BIGGEST wins that I had when I left Scientology, as you indicated, was in overcoming the fear of being wrong, of depending on myself for the accomplishment of my goals and dreams, of being able to live with my own insecurities or uncertainties. Empowering myself and disempowering Scientology and Ron was QUITE a process to me. But I gained a degree of integrity I never had, a harmony with myself I was not aware of existed and was needed, an acceptance of just being a regular human being that allows me to connect strongly and warmly to other people, and the freedom to be me and to become my own very best friend.We should all, who left Scientology, give ourselves and each other a standing ovation because, to me, it was and will be forever quite a transcendant accomplishment.

  9. Pascal says:

    CoS infrastructure is great. CoS has the LRH archives, etc…Under competent leadership the aims of Scientology could be achieved IMO.It’s a matter of opinion and how big a game you wanna play I guess.OT is about responsability on 8 dynamics. Anyone going OT would reform CoS and anything in his path. That’s what theta does.

  10. Just Bill says:

    @Pascal,Oh, where to start!”CoS infrastructure is great.”No, it’s not. Period. The “organization” of the CoS is really, really bad. Really. See Scientology Admin Tech for just a start. No, it’s really bad.”CoS has the LRH archives, etc…”So? Everything is available outside of the church, often in it’s original, uncorrupted form.”Under competent leadership the aims of Scientology could be achieved IMO.”No. The Aims of Scientology will never be achieved using Scientology. IMHO. In over 50 years, they have done nothing in that direction. Once again, you believe, I look for evidence.”It’s a matter of opinion and how big a game you wanna play I guess.”The Church of Scientology is, in comparison to the real world, a minuscule “game” with few players and absolutely no progress towards its purported goals. Not the “Aims of Scientology”, not OT, not Clear. It is not a worthwhile “game” and it emphatically is not “big”.”OT is about responsibility on 8 dynamics. Anyone going OT would reform CoS and anything in his path. That’s what theta does.”First, no one has, or will be “going OT” via Scientology. Second, why would anyone, knowing the truth, knowing the corruption, knowing the harm perpetrated by the church, want anything to do with it? Why? It has no value.If Scientology is available elsewhere (and it is) what use is this “church”? Its purported value is as the source of “pure” Scientology, yet it has been the source of nothing but corruption. It is, as I said, only a liability. It isn’t worth the effort to “fix” it.You believe in things that do not exist, and this blinds you to the reality of what does exist. There is no “game” there. There is no ultimate attainment of OT there. There is no value there. That’s reality.Some of what is known as Scientology may be of value, but the “church” is a liability to that as well. If there is anything of value, it can only be developed and recognized outside of this bogus “church”. Let the “technology” survive in the real world, if it can. Let the church sink into its own corruption.

  11. Pascal says:

    @Bill: CoS has lots of MEST and $, to let it rot would be silly. CoS has more LRH stuff than anyone. To say otherwise is childish and cannot be proven. CoS has done little in the past 50 years, granted. Christianity did little before Constantine and Justinian, etc… CoS will get it’s share in time.Time will tell.

  12. Just Bill says:

    @Pascal,Well, we will always disagree on this.

  13. Cactus Jack says:

    A couple of comments.Scientology is not “a big game.” Once you get your head out of the bubble, you can see it for what it is – a very small cult with, at most, 20,000 to 30,000 active members worldwide. And shrinking every day. They don’t have a huge infrastructure. I’ve worked at the top. It is a fragile house of cards.The idea that “anyone going OT would reform the Church of Scientology” is a bit of idealistic BS. Anyone who is “on the Bridge” is toeing the line. They are not speaking out as they know that the moment they do, they will jeapordize their “OT Eligibility.” They will have to see the Ethics Officer, do conditions (including “Doubt”), pay for expensive “PTS handlings” and the rest of it. Is anyone seriously “reforming the Church”? No one. Not even our friend Pascal. The smart ones are getting out. Scientology requires a HUGE level of faith and belief. Belief that one can achieve “OT” even though no one ever has, including Hubbard himself. Belief that “Scientology Works” even though it’s results are sporadic at best and it NEVER gets its advertised “EPs.”It requires a huge amount of control to keep Scientologists in line and keep them from asking the wrong questions. And one of them is to criminalize doubt and convince people it is a “lower condition.”

  14. Pascal says:

    @Cactus: All religions start small and wacky. Check out how Peter and Paul started their Church. Nevermind Mohammad. Organized religion is a bitch. As for CoS OTs being DM’s bitches sure. CoS is devoid of anyone bright and has been for a while. Anyone with a must have on CoS “OT levels” is far from what I would call “bright” and “OT”. I get great wins and cogs daily on my own and have no need for CoS.Yep, CoS cannot now have doubters, it’s too weak and young. Doubters cause too much trouble so they become scapegoats for the sake of the herd that “knows better”.But these things will change, all religions go through this cycle of maturity. DM will be gone one day and things can only get better.

  15. LuisThanks for the compliment. I was never in scientology but I did take a ‘personality test’ 30 years ago. Allow me to tell you about it. The ‘shop’ where it was done was always getting it’s windows smashed and I was curious to know what all the fuss was about. The test showed that I was racked with anxiety. Well, I knew that already – which adolescent isn’t! As the guy seeing to me gave me the paper to fill in, he said, that if I wanted to add anything I could write on the back. Which I did: some mild criticism of the vagueness of the questions. He completely ignored them which I found insulting when it was his idea in the first place. He proceeded in the attempt to sell me ‘Dianetics’. I told him I didn’t have the money to buy one and anyway I’d looked into it briefly already, and found the style unreadable. After that he just ignored me, which I also found insulting. I left with the impression that selling me the book was the only thing he was interested in. He blew the big chance to recruit another victim. That’s not entirely true. As soon as my borrowed copy of Hubbard’s book began to use new and strange words when I opened it, I was saved by Orwells dictum which emphasised the necessity for plain and uncomplicated language when trying to explain or describe something. I didn’t know that Orwell had actually written a book which illustrated scientology’s unhappy core. I thought that 1984 was just about Stalin and Hitler.It was actually Arnie Lerma’s use of the epithet ‘faschist’ which got me interested in looking closer. Mainly because I do not like the term to be misused, as it often is, so that the strength of it as a description of a totalitarian form is reduced to just being an insult thrown at people you don’t like: traffic wardens, swimming bath attendants, doormen at night clubs etc. But Arnie provided the evidence. I said to myself then: “If I was suffering from constipation this would clear it!” Because the horror of the previous generation’s efforts to rid the world of an evil regime might have to be repeated by us if we do not act in time.Most of the information to be gained from the internet is down to those that got out of the cult. It’s verifiable importance was handed to us in a situation dangerous to themselves. We who were once ignorant can only be grateful to them, and to the non-members who in supporting them suffered too. A standing ovation is the least you all deserve. If you see me stop clapping it is because my hands are sore. I wish you Luis, and everyone else the very best.

  16. Just Bill says:

    @Pascal,You have a huge misconception here.Most “religions” fail and disappear.There are dozens of “new religions” every year. There are only a very, very, very few who continue after a short time. In the history of man, there are far more religions that have disappeared than currently still exist.There is no inevitability of the Church of Scientology’s existence into the future. Since it has no intrinsic value and, in fact, is a huge liability to the “technology” it is supposed to be promoting, it is almost a certainty that it will be one of those vast majority of new religions that simply disappears.You have “faith” and you “believe”, and that makes it hard for you to simply face reality. The Church of Scientology is disappearing and soon there will be no one left who cares.

  17. Danny Boy says:

    I think Pascal is ‘TAKING THE PISS’ as we say here in Dublin, and it’s got nothing to do with drinking Guinness. It means he’s wasting our time ‘entertaining himself’ which is a euphemism for something Hubbard said was bad for the health and advised people not to indulge in.I recommend and nominate him for the “Most Useless And Boring OSA Operative 2009.” even though we’ve got another ten months to yawn through !

  18. Just Bill says:

    @Danny Boy,Nicely put!What the trolls haven’t realized yet is that each time they say something stupid (and what else can they say?) they give me an opportunity to expound and elaborate on my points.They help me make my points because Scientologists find it quite difficult to act normal or sane.Thanks for the summing up of Pascal’s posts! LOL!

Leave a Reply. It will be moderated.

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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