How Scientologists Will Destroy Scientology

We all know that the Church of Scientology has collapsed but that isn’t the subject of today’s post.  Today I’m talking about the belief system of Scientology as embodied by the ex-churchies calling themselves “Independent Scientologists”.

A number of these stalwart true believers are factually and thoroughly destroying Scientology.

Now, in my opinion, some parts of the Scientology technology are beneficial, or could potentially be useful, and should be investigated.  A majority of Scientology technology could be considered harmless — if someone wants to work with it, no known harm will befall them.

A small, but growing, portion of Scientology is harmful, destructive or just plain evil.  The Church of Scientology itself, under David Miscavige’s direction, has been emphasizing and building upon these harmful parts. It now could be said, with some validity, that the evil parts of Scientology have become the dominant technology used by the church.

Earlier escapees from the Church of Scientology, often referred to as the Freezone, have, for the most part, discarded such harmful aspects of Scientology.  However, many of the newer ex-churcies, these new “Independent Scientologists” seem to have embraced the most disturbing, most barbaric, most tyrannical aspects of Scientology as practiced by the Church of Scientology.

Early on, L. Ron Hubbard said that Scientologists should not consider Scientology the only way out, and not even the best possible way out.  They should, he said, only consider Scientology as a workable way out.

Hubbard also admonished his followers, most specifically auditors, to never, ever invalidate or evaluate for others.

As with David Miscavige’s Church of Scientology, a number of these “Independent Scientologists” do not seem to follow these precepts from Hubbard.  They are offensive, insulting and arbitrary.

They will tell you that Scientology is perfect, and that all other technologies are wrong-wrong-wrong.  And if you don’t agree with them, completely, you are evil, you have crimes, you must accept the “truth” of Scientology and follow all the “formulas” and “procedures” to “correct yourself” and become a good, compliant, obedient, “standard” Scientologist.

These autocratic Scientologists are heavily into labels: you are a Suppressive Person; you are a “No Case Gain” case; you have “continuous present time” crimes, and on and on.

They are always and forever right, can never be wrong and you must agree with them or suffer the appropriate consequences.  They can dictate to the rest of the world because they are applying STANDARD SCIENTOLOGY.

Of course this only describes a few of the “Independent Scientologists”, but they are the vocal ones — and few of the others dare voice any disagreement!

It’s the Church of Scientology mindset all over again.  The threats, the accusations, the labels, the invalidation and evaluation, the capricious and punitive “assignment of conditions”, the attempt to dictate what other people see and think, and the suppression of dissent.

This attitude and public face of Scientology guarantees the destruction of Scientology.  Sane people will categorically reject these tinpot dictators and their crazy communication.  Appropriately so.

Obviously, I’m not talking to these fanatics. I wouldn’t expect these self-proclaimed “STANDARD SCIENTOLOGISTS” to listen to reason — but I do expect the other Independent Scientologists, who are sane, who do know better, to challenge these fanatics.  If you truly believe in Scientology, then you must protect it from the fanatics.  You must let them know that they do not speak for Scientology and they do not speak for Scientologists.  Call them out for the fanatics they are.

More than the fanatics, it is the silence of other Scientologists in the face of such fanaticism that guarantees the destruction of Scientology.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to How Scientologists Will Destroy Scientology

  1. Anonymous says:

    Wild guess? – JL, Virgil and a couple others on "The Bridge to Nowhere" replies? This was one of the most captivating reads I've seen in some time. It get's a bit intense near the end in between Luna's "look at me" posts (nothing against moon moth, I actually like her(?)), but the truth becomes present of most posters and you start to see sides taking shape. This will be a very intersting and entertaining year. Love your stuff. Just hope you get more visits, replies and questions. I do promote your site when I can.Wallflower

  2. Just Bill says:

    @WallflowerThat was definitely part of it. Geez, don't these fanatics understand what went wrong in the church?No, of course not, they blame it all on Miscavige and then continue his insanities.

  3. Anonymous says:

    No, they DON'T know what went wrong with the church!IMO, there is something fundamentally wrong with an organization that someone like dm can hijack. Sure, he's a major prick, and he needs to go, but how about finding out how the hell "he" happened. That same unwillingness to admit that tech and policy could be flawed keeps these hardcore guys from seeing the problem that preceeded dm. Thanks alot for writing this. I'm just glad to see someone say it exactly like it is. It's also good to know that these guys really are the minority now. Kinda freaked me out, to tell you the truth, to hear all that "suppressive act" and bullshit condition assinment stuff again. Glad it was all a bad dream this time!

  4. lunamoth says:

    LOL I wish I'd had you at my computer keyboardthat evening, Just Bill. This article is a thing of beauty. I'm reminded by the above comment (Wallflower) how many people read but don't participate in these blogs. At the time we were posting it seemed like just the bunch of us in a room. When the exchanges get heated it's easy to forget there are lots of people reading. Anyway, thank you very much for this piece you've written. It's good to be able to discuss this stuff freely. I appreciate what you do to keep that channel open.

  5. Vicky says:

    (Hmmm. I just tried to post, and not sure if it worked or not. Apologies if there are two similar posts.)Bill, What you say is absolutely correct. It is the new "Independent Scientology" that is going to be the "undoing of Scientology". Unless something changes – quickly.Ironically, some of the nastiest posters have also been abused by Miscavige. Isn't that what LRH calls, "swapping terminals" or in non-Scio speak, "the abused become the abuser?" Hubbard was not the only person who observed this phenomenon, however. The Buddha so did as well. In Buddhism, there is also a saying, "The fool thinks he has won a battle when he bullies with harsh speech, but knowing how to be forbearing alone makes one victorious."There are a number of posters who DO show much forbearance and demonstrate a deep intelligence and wisdom, however they seem to get run off by the bullies. This is quite unfortunate for those who have some hope of seeing the Indie movement, along with the Freezone, survive in any meaningful way. The Freezone may be the only sane group left standing when the dust settles, and if so – that's just groovy. They are doing a great job and not busting up the place – or the people.There was some hope when all this started last year that something extraordinary was in the offing. But it has deteriorated rapidly and the ship is taking on water. Maybe it's not time to abandon ship just yet, but if enough people don't start throwing over the abusive ones,she's going DOWN. Of course, a wise "Buddha-like" person would say that the best solution would be to bring those who are causing the trouble into a heightened state of awareness and understanding. I honestly don't know if that's possible. It's been tried. Higher awareness would require something other than the viewpoint that LRH's tech is infallible which, I don't forsee any of these folks ever contemplating.Thank you again Bill. You are one of those wise ones I am talking about. XO

  6. Anonymous says:

    I don't agree that "A majority of Scientology technology could be considered harmless." I believe that belief in evil past life engrams and the kind of "blame the victim" psychology is terribly harmful. The kind of loaded LGAT type psychology is not healthy. I will be happy to see organized Scientology go, and I will be even more happy when exes breathe free and start to embrace free thinking.

  7. Just Bill says:

    Re: HarmlessYou could be right. I agree that the "blame the victim" part of Scientology is both harmful and ridiculous. Much abuse is accomplished under that justification — but that would be what I would include in the harmful group.The parts of Scientology that damage people are what are remembered and talked about. And, in Miscavige's church, these parts are everywhere.But there are thousands and thousands of "processes" that Scientologists might run which are neither harmful nor particularly beneficial. You don't think about them nor hear much about them because they are like dull wallpaper, there, but of no importance. That's what I was referring to.I understand, and agree, with your sentiment. Each (ex-)Scientologist who attains freedom and re-learns how to think and how to see what is really there is a good thing.

  8. Anonymous says:

    I continue to think about my experiences in Scientology and reflect on the similarities and differences experienced in other types of, for lack of a better word, metaphysical disciplines. I am tending to conclude that many, many weak, power-hungry people gravitate toward "save the world" type cults to prop themselves up and simultaneously attack others in the name of helping them. And, of course, there's always a lot of money to be made telling people that some process or mantra or affirmation will heal/improve them. I now think that my "improvement" in Scientology was largely the result of being around people who acknowledged something I'd always wanted to believe and still think may be true: we are not just bodies that disappear. We have a vaster experience than that. Also, the people I was around were, perhaps because of believing in eternity, cheerful, courageous and kind. When I ran into other types, I tended to begin to doubt Scientology. Some of the processes seemed to "wake me up." but how they did it, I don't know. As you have said, Just Bill, perhaps I just postulated myself Clear and nobody invalidated it!I agree with all the other comments about the insidiousness (and obvious illogic) of 'no crimes because you pull it in yourself.' Even if that is metaphysically true, it is not a way to live life–it is something to hold in your own heart, if you wish, but to express it can cause great harm and needless suffering to others and to think you can commit crimes on people and then blame them is simply criminal. I'm on a journey of recovery after realizing all the harm one family member did to our already disfunctional family, and ironically he is the one who was/is the ardent Scientologist and probably would now consider himself among the "I know what's best and you'd better listen or you're suppressive" ones you write about. He used every tenet of LRH's system to create pain–this is a person who interpreted the idea that anger is above grief on the tone scale thusly: when I was suicidally depressed in my twenties–partly because he'd sexually abused me when I was five years old and I'd pushed it into my subconscious–he made fun of me to "make me come uptone." When his toddler daughter cried, he threw water in her face, I guess because the shock would supposedly make her angry? Who the hell knows? His cruelty continues to be synonymous with Scientology for me. I suppose this all sounds very personal, but I have a broader point: everyone who deals with religious or political groups needs to be very aware that such groups attract power-mad individuals who may be intelligent or whatever, but ultimately cause pain to others. Part of my recovery from abuse is to continue to tell my story and make others aware of the abusive nature of many cults, psychics, healers, etc. Don't let people tell you they are superior or have superior knowledge–ask to see what they have accomplished and look at their own life's data. For all the above reasons, I'm afraid of the Freezone and I think justifiably so.

  9. Just Bill says:

    Thank you for your comments, you tell an important story and I appreciate it.

  10. dsmoen says:

    You've put your finger on why I have such a problem with labels.I can't really consider myself a Scientologist, nor a Free Zoner, nor an Independent.Guess I'll just have to be myself.

  11. Anonymous says:

    It's been killin' me – I feel bad about my Lunamoth comment above. I reviewed the original thread today and found that my comment about "Look at me" was a snap judgment on my part while trying to dig for the gold. Lunamoth has some very keen observances and statements in "The Bridge to Nowhere" article as well as many others. Lunamoth, I am sorry for my comment and I respect your words. Wallflower

  12. Anonymous says:

    I’m not a scientologist and never have been. I consider myself uneducated in that regard. I have read the basic concepts of LRH and still cant believe these haven’t been investigated by the greater public as the ideas are relevant and helpful if true. If they have its not common knowledge (Cause I’m common). I feel for the people that have had bad experiences with scientology , I feel you must have an open mind to try such things. Keep your open mind and always do what you feel is the right thing.

  13. Just Bill says:

    The key phrase in your comment is "the ideas are relevant and helpful if true".But there is no evidence that they are true. Hubbard forbid any kind of testing to see if anything he said was true. Scientology declares as an "Enemy" anyone who asks for any proof.Some of the ideas are intriguing, certainly, and I am a strong advocate of more research, but there is no evidence that Scientology actually produces anything promised.You see, the "greater public" has investigated Scientology, and they found it simply not worth perusing — all talk and no results.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Yes thats why i made sure i said "if True", as most if not all things i read from LRH were stated in such a way as "this is a fact" or "the Truth is", These things may have worked back in LRH's days but "most" people tend to need more than words. The restucturing of our subconcious should remain a personal struggle and not put into the hands of the unknown. Still i find myself Curious.

  15. Anonymous says:

    The guy was a fantastist and a science fiction writer dude. Not a prophet.Do you know how scientology came about? Let me tell you (and this is a true story)Hubbard was having a conversation with Isaac Asimov about what would be the best ways to make a lot of money very quickly. Asimov joked to Hubbard that the best way was to start a religion.Hubbard went very quiet, nodded his head and agreed.The next year he published Dianetics.It was ALL about money for Hubbard, and its ALL about Money and Power for his happy follower Miscavige.Dianetics is an awful book. It uses 50 words where 5 would do, and adds in lots of inpenetrable phraseology so that you are never really sure what the hell he is saying.Stick to Tony Robbins. At least he doesn't claim to be running a religion, but that is at least life affirming, rather then wallet crunching.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Nice one, Just Bill.

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 )

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