Ask a Question

One of these days, I really need to go back through the previous Ask a Questions and pull out the good stuff — and somehow present it in a better format.  There really are some great questions and discussions in Ask a Question – 1 and Ask a Question – 2.

But, once again, the most recent Ask a Question got unwieldy, so let’s start a new one.

You want to know something about Scientology or the Church of Scientology, ask here!  You have a suggestion?  Put it here.  You want to start an argument or discussion?  Here is the place.  All non-troll, non-spam comments, suggestions, arguments, corrections are greatly appreciated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Ask a Question

  1. Anonymous says:

    Why are the women in scientology so hot? I mean Tory Magoo…totally dig her cute demeanor. And now with 100 pounsds gone? I mean, she's really very good looking for her age. Same deal with that Dancing in Boston lady (cute hawtie). then that Italian girl, Tory had on her video. Vavavoom! I mean if I were elron, I would have ditched the checklists and just come up with a Mormon cult where all these women would be my brides on the ship.(Kind of a funpost, but seriously, there are a lot of lookers…on the female side. kind of surprised as you would think that they would not be so susceptible to being manipulated.)

  2. @ BillHas there ever been a reported case of a Scientologist who reached the OT VIII level and then left the cult? If the answer is "no", why do you suppose that is? The highest I have ever read someone defecting was at OT VII.

  3. Just Bill says:

    @The good old dogOh, tons! I think most OT VIIIs have now left. I personally know of quite a number of them.Back when I was a True Believer, I was struck by how OT VIIIs seemed to withdraw and not want to have much to do with Scientology after VIII. Now I know why. OT VIII is a really crappy level, has been re-written quite a number of times but still people get sick, depressed and upset after running it. Besides the fact that, after all those promises, all that time and ALL THAT MONEY, "true OT" just isn't delivered.No, as a rule, OT VIIIs do not stay in Scientology.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Why do they have so much adminstrative crap? It seems like they spend all their time filing paperwork and tracking crap and writing memos. It seems even worse than the real Navy. How much of a productivity drain is all that paperchasing?

  5. Just Bill says:

    Re: Administrative crapThat was all Hubbard's fault. He dictated all the administrative, micro-management policies that all of Scientology must follow in full.When his administrative policies are implemented in full and in detail, the entire organization grinds to a halt. They have little choice.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Hello, Bill. I am curious about Scientologists' view of God or gods. I gather that "total freedom" means restoring one's god-like powers. But I'm not clear whether they hold any belief in a creator god outside of themselves… would it be accurate to call Scientologists, at least the ones who have been through the OT materials, atheists?

  7. Just Bill says:

    Re: God & godsHubbard declared that the "8th Dynamic" was "infinity, also commonly called God" but refused to otherwise acknowledge God or refer to Him at all. I think, in reality, Hubbard was an atheist and only gave a nod to God to keep from alienating people.As for OTs, since they NEVER got ANY powers, let alone "god-like powers", one can assume their beliefs concerning God were unchanged by Scientology.

  8. Anonymous says:

    What exactly is "power processing" and why is it so friggin' expensive?

  9. Just Bill says:

    Re: Power processingThese are special rundowns, originally developed for executives, to handle any considerations and problems they might have with the concepts of "source", "existence" and "conditions" (these are supposed to be the "awareness characteristics" of an executive). These processes are supposed to be confidential, but are well known today.They are expensive simply because the Church of Scientology is very, very greedy. The processes are only delivered at the upper level churches, where everything is more expensive.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Hello, Bill. I've been watching some of those in-house Scientology films that are available on the internet, including one that is designed to get members to go to Flag in Clearwater. I'm amazed at how, in enthusiastic testimonial after testimonial, the scientologists say absolutely nothing specific. "It completely unraveled my case!" "wins and cognitions," "you know what you know," "things straightened out," "it opened me up as a being," etc. My question is this: surely Scientologists can see what I see, that these claims are so vague as to be meaningless–I just can't imagine being sold on such a pitch. Yet, evidently they are compelled by these "claims". Why? What am I missing?

  11. Just Bill says:

    Re: Vague, meaningless claimsOne of the first things Scientologists are taught is that they must never "discuss their case" outside of session. This means that everything they say about their "wins" from session must be vague — they may never say anything specific.So they don't, and they are quite used to everyone else being very, very vague. This is expected.Hence, they all imagine what wonderful things happened that all these "success stories" are hinting about.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Hi Bill,as far as I know being recognized as a charity (501 c) lobbying is forbidden or very limited. Didn't the "church" publicly support proposition 8 in California ?(one of the reasons Paul Haggis left) What exactly is the "church"-related CCHR doing? I'd say they lobby 24/7 against psychiatry. The "church" also lobbyied in favour of the DMCA, they lobby the UN to ensure that Germany is reprimanded for their oh so terrible "religious intolerance" (IMO,you gotts love that country just for the fact that they keep the cult on a tight leash). On a local basis they lobby politicians and law enforcement to be granted special treatment (to prevent people from protesting etc.) Anyway, as I see it they lobby all the time, so my question is: How the f*** do they get away with that? I know they've pulled a lot of shit with impunity, but this is too much. Or is it?

  13. Just Bill says:

    Re: LobbyingI understand your frustration. The problem is that the regulations regarding charities and lobbying are too ambiguous for strict interpretation or enforcement. While extreme situations may be obvious, there is a lot of middle ground where lobbying may be permitted.I am not an expert, but I think CCHR is a good example of this middle ground. Since CCHR's stated purpose is to eradicate psychiatry, its actions toward that goal, including lobbying for anti-psychiatry legislation, may be perfectly permissible. That is, their lobbying isn't for private gain but actually forwards their stated "charitable" purposes.We may not like it, but it appears to be quite legal.In the fuzzier area is the church's support for the DMCA and California's Prop 8. I suspect these are much more questionable. However, the core ambiguity of the 501c regulation may make any prosecution difficult, if not impossible — especially considering the church's stable of million-dollar lawyers.

  14. @ BillI have a question about long-term, committed Scientologists and how they interpret Scientology.Is it possible for people such as this to retain enough critical thinking skills in their daily lives to the point that they can ignore (presumably discreetly) the many outrageous, bizarre aspects of Scientology and merely accept the stuff that is harmless and generally helpful? If so, does this happen a lot? Or is the thought-control process of Scientology so powerful that ALL committed members eventually accept the cult's view of reality one-hundred percent?

  15. Just Bill says:

    @The good old dogThat is a good question, and somewhat difficult to answer, since it calls for knowing what people think.But let me answer as best I can from personal experience and conversations I've had with ex-Scientologists (you won't get full disclosure from current Scientologists).I think all Scientologists believe they are always fully capable of critical thinking — even as they practice thought control on themselves. It is part of the dogma of Scientology that Scientologists are better at thinking than "wogs" — so Scientologists would believe that.But while a Scientologist is a Scientologist, they cannot and will not permit themselves to doubt anything in Scientology. If questioned, they will claim they (a) have evaluated everything in Scientology and (b) agree completely.It is only after they have left Scientology will they "remember" that they did disagree, they did have doubts and unanswered questions.And, I'm sure it's absolutely true. When in Scientology, they had — and suppressed doubts and disagreements — so thoroughly that they "didn't see them". But they were there and could be remembered later.I hope that explains how that all works. Yes, it isn't sane.

  16. Thanks for the response Bill. I would like to ask a follow-up question on this same subject.You wrote that Scientologists cannot and will not permit themselves to doubt anything in Scientology. Does this fanatical obedience apply to decisions made by the executives at Church of Scientology as well? For example, not too long ago CoS made yet another outreach to Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. Does this mean that all Scientologists (at least those who support CoS) must agree with this development wholeheartedly because of the thought control they practice on themselves? Or could you imagine a Scientology family setting at a breakfast table one morning discussing this and saying…”I cannot believe Miscavige made such an idiotic decision! What was he thinking???”

  17. Just Bill says:

    @The good old dogThe very strict, Scientology dogma is "any criticism of Hubbard, Miscavige, Scientology or the leadership of the Church of Scientology means you have overts".In other words, all Scientologists know that to say anything critical is the equivalent to confessing one is evil — a suppressive. So they don't. Period. If they ever did say something critical, the Scientologist they said it to would be required to report them.

  18. Anonymous says:

    How often is there turnover in the leadership of an org? Is it really common, like at a pizza joint, or does leadership become entrenched for long periods of time? Thanks!

  19. Just Bill says:

    Re: Turnover at the top of an orgIt depends. In my experience, the top positions are usually held for long periods of time, years.However, there are exceptions. At times, the turnover can be quite rapid, depending on how the org is doing and if the leaders piss off upper management.Today, I suspect we're pretty solidly on the staying-there-for-years side of things — because, while every org is doing very poorly, there is no one left to replace the top positions. I suspect that staff of most orgs is down to four or fewer people, and they're all holding key positions. Nobody can be removed.Further, I believe there are a number of orgs that are only staffed part time, very part time — perhaps one defection away from closing.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Hello, quick question: OSA monitors all the negative sites, like this one and many others, correct? How can they be immune to the constant "entheta"? Are they re-indoctrinated daily or how daoes it work? Is there a Brainwash Certainty Rundown to find those who can resist the cognitive dissonance? Or is the blow rate higher compared to other positions?

  21. Just Bill says:

    Re: OSA re-indoctrinationI have to admit that I don't know the answer to this one. I've never worked in or with OSA or talked with anyone who has. Maybe Tory could answer that question over on ESMB.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Bill, I hope you have a terrific Christmas. Your advice on how to deal with the C of $ on getting monies back for services paid for and not used has been very helpful. Will keep you posted on our progress and hopefully what we learn will help others who read this blog. May 2011 be the best year yet for you. The Old Geezer

  23. Just Bill says:

    @The Old Geezer,Thank you! And the best to you and your family as well.Let me tell you, every day is the best day of my life.Bill

  24. Anonymous says:

    Hello, Bill. Happy holidays and best wishes for the new year. At dinner tonight, the topic turned to the restaurant at the "Celebrity Centre" here in Los Angeles (I haven't been). It occurred to me that Hubbard, with his proclivity for making pronouncements about every branch of human activity, must have handed down some ideas about food. Did he have dietary recommendations, or even recipes? Are members of the Sea Org expected to hew to some dietary regimen? (I have heard about the rice and beans for the RPFers, but nothing else.)

  25. Just Bill says:

    Re FoodYes, happy holidays and happy new year to you as well.The only food related instructions from Hubbard that I'm aware of is the "rice and beans". According to Hubbard, that punishment meal was "sufficient" in protein and nutrients for survival.I remember, back when I was in the Sea Org, being fed rice and beans as "punishment" and being quite amused, since I happened to love rice and beans — it was better than the "regular" food we were usually fed.I don't think Hubbard made any other pronouncements about food — but I have heard that he was very picky about his own meals — with a personal chef and a separate menu from the crew.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Hi, Bill… it's that time of year: got any Scientology related predictions for 2011?

  27. wytherin says:

    I have been reading about Scientology for few months now, I am so glad I found your blog, since I had a few questions but found the few times I posted on other blogs, that wogs are sadly ignored…What is the difference between an Independant and a Freezone Scientologist? and (I realize you are no longer a scientologist so may not be able to answer this) what kind of fees are they charging to audit? (I asked this because it seems to me that the focus on money is one of the ways the COS used to abuse its members)…

  28. Just Bill says:

    @wytherinThe difference between an Independent and Freezone Scientologist is impossible to define because there are so many flavors.Most outside Scientologists will claim that they practice absolutely pure Scientology (what they call "Standard Tech") — and they will accuse other practitioners of "squirrelling".The major problem is that there really is no governing body to define exactly what is "Standard Tech". That used to be the Church of Scientology, but Miscavige has muddied that all up by rewriting and redefining much of Scientology technology.So each outside practitioner or group has to decide for themselves what tech is "pure".The simple answer to your question is that, in general, there really is no difference between Freezone and Independent. They all follow Hubbard and attempt to practice Scientology "exactly" according to what Hubbard wrote.However (oh, this is complex!), there can be significant differences between individual practitioners. Some outside practitioners have decided to experiment and see if they can improve on what Hubbard wrote. While a major group, called "Ron's Org" (which has quite a number of organizations in Russia and Europe) claims to practice "Standard Tech", they also deliver a whole set of "OT Levels" developed by "Captain" Bill Robertson.Without a central governing body, there will inevitably be more and more disagreements on what constitutes "pure" Scientology — as well as more experimentation. The number of different flavors of "Scientology" will only increase and fragment.But, as I said, they will all attempt to follow Hubbard, and so they will all be very similar whether they call themselves "Independent", "Freezone" or something else.I hope I didn't confuse the issue for you.As for prices, I have no hard facts, but my impression is that their prices are much lower than the Church of Scientology's prices — and they do not "fund-raise" or ask for "pure donations". I've heard that several outside practitioners ask people to "pay whatever you think is appropriate".As I've said before, it is doubtful that Scientology's built-in abuses will survive the demise of the church.

  29. Just Bill says:

    Re: PredictionsLet me think about that.

  30. Just Bill says:

    Re: FoodI was just reminded, Hubbard also said that new mothers should feed their babies on his "barley" formula instead of breast milk.Very bad advice.

  31. wytherin says:

    Thank you for your answer. I find myself reading the Indie sites and freezoners sparingly, mostly because their jargon drives me insane! (hmmm… that could be deliberate)… I find myself wondering if this is the "result" of mental excercise and learning to communicate, that I am better off not knowing how..Long ago, I knew a handsome kid who tried to sell me on the COS and LRon, I passed after slogging through the book " Dianetics" (I love to read and am even an avid sci fi and mind studies fan, but I only got through that book because I wanted to have something to talk to the cutie about)… I thought the book was crap (and made the mistake of telling cutie so) and our love affair never blossomed.. I found out several years later that he had committed suicide, and while it made me sad, this was the 80s and I never connected the suicide to COS…Now reading about the abuses, I wonder, and am saddened again..I asked about pay structure of the Independants, because in my religion, tithing(which is the closest thing I can think of to their 'donations') is asked for, but voluntary. But then, I am not really seeing a religion in COS, because in most religions, whatever your flavor, there is the promise of Grace, and Peace, and that seems in short supply…No real question in this I guess, just a thanks for the answer and allowing me to walk down memory lane.

  32. Anonymous says:

    I'm really confused all the time. Is Scientlogy good or bad, my best friend is a scientologist and left boston almost 2 years ago to go to D.C. to join the church there. I've seen him a few times since and everytime he seems truly happy, but everytime I think I'm just being paranoid there seems to be something that just doesn't add up. But then again everytime I completely believe it is a cult, all of a sudden I find something that makes me think that I'm just paranoid. And I'm so afraid to say anything to him cause I don't want to be marked as a suppressive and never be able to talk to him ever again…..

  33. Just Bill says:

    Re: Good or badYes, Scientology is good and bad. The good part is that it can make some people happier. While this is far less than the miracles Scientology promises, "being happier" isn't a bad thing.However, the bad aspects far outweigh the benefits of "being happier".One bad part is that is is a cult. Once someone becomes a Scientologist, they lose their ability to have any independent thoughts. Everything becomes "according to Hubbard". They become easily led and easily defrauded.Another bad part is that Scientology lies. They lie about what they can produce, they lie about what they are doing, they lie to get money and they lie to keep members from leaving.I've written about its cult characteristics here and here. There is no doubt that it is a cult.Your statement "I'm so afraid to say anything to him cause I don't want to be marked as a suppressive and never be able to talk to him ever again" is a clear indication of how horrible and destructive the Church of Scientology is.My advice is: Do not say anything negative to your friend about Scientology. There is no reason to destroy your friendship over this. If your friend starts going into massive debt, plans to join the Sea Org or some other self-destructive action, you might need to say something. While you should still avoid negative statements, there are other things you can do. If this looks like the path you need to take, tell me. There are some links I could provide that might help.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Is "think" a trigger word in Co$? I notice that many anti-Co$ comments on `SP Times Tax Neglect` article that have this word are pounced on by OSAbots. If I get bored enough to really look deeper I will send stats.

  35. Just Bill says:

    Re: "Think" is a trigger word.No, not to my knowledge. I can't think of any reason why it would be. 😉

  36. Anonymous says:

    Hello, Bill, and best wishes for 2011. Thanks for all of your valuable posts in past years.I am curious about the mindset of some of the "independents" regarding "source," Marty Rathbun being a prominent example. Rathbun seems reasonable and open to critical thinking, yet when he talks about Scientology, he exhibits an unquestioning faith in LRH and "standardness." It seems strange to me that practitioners who are in some sense thinking for themselves are so quick to snuff out any science in Scientology: i.e., there doesn't seem to be interest in actually investigating the results of Hubbard's work, isolating the good, discarding the bad or indifferent, moving forward as science does. What is it that makes dogmatism about LRH seem so key to a practice which in some sense aspires to be scientific (which is inherently provisional and anti-dogmatic)?

  37. Just Bill says:

    Best wishes to you, and you are welcome.Re: "Science"While LRH has, rather off-handedly, claimed that Scientology is research and science based, there is no science in Scientology. No Scientologist puts much importance in science.If pressed, they will vaguely mention the Axioms and Logics that Hubbard wrote, which sound quite authoritative, but few Scientologists claim to understand them — and none actually do.So, the "science" part isn't important nor, obviously, understood by Scientologists.But "Standard Tech" and "Exact Application", those concepts are hammered into each and every Scientologist. You've undoubtedly heard mention of Keeping Scientology Working. In it, Hubbard demands that no changes should ever be made to his tech — forever. Anyone who even thinks about changing anything Hubbard wrote is immediately and automatically a Suppressive Person. That's what Hubbard said.Therefore, good Scientologists can't consider any changes or even any questions.Even when it doesn't work.Of course, when it doesn't work, Scientologists are trained to blame themselves, never the tech.The Keeping Scientology Working policies are considered senior to anything else in Scientology. Therefore absolute acceptance of whatever Hubbard said is unquestioned.As I said, there is no science in Scientology, and Scientologists never notice.

  38. Anonymous says:

    wytherin here, You don't have to post this, these are just some thoughts I had and since my families eyes tend to glaze over when I talk about anything of a psychological nature (I don't get why they don't find this stuff fascinating!) I thought I would put it here, since your site has been the catalyst for me having these observations.One of the things that fascinates me about this subject, is how insidious this cult thinking is, and how even people who have been "technically out" for years, still hold on to it, in spite of proof that so much of the tech and claims of OT powers is baloney.Part of my sick time reading (and watching Youtube) was on Cults in general, how they get people in, and how they keep them blinded. I watched one young man, explain that for quite a long time after he left the cult(and he had only been in for a short time), he had to be watched and do therapy to keep him from falling for every scam known to man out there, because his critical thinking skills were completely gone. Having never been in a cult, I was however struck, by a similiarity to another condition. My family has a problem with hoarding. I am not a hoarder myself (although I have some of the thinking patterns, which I am constantly on guard against), but almost every other sibling has it to one degree or another. My mother is also one. Hoarders fall into several types, ours would be what I would call Sentimental, or "someone might want this" types. Sentimental Hoarders can't let go of things that remind them of a good time in their life, or a person it belonged to, or reminds you of. I once got into a horrible fight with my mother because she wanted to keep a dry rotted macrame owl my Granny made, even though we had dozens of wonderful handmade quilts of hers. Even though the owl was in serious danger of falling apart by touching it, my Mom couldn't let it go.. The other thinking that gets hoarders stuck (there are other types of hoarders but these two fit what I see in ex scios) is the " This might be useful to someone" or I paid money for this, its wasteful to throw it out" types. Hoarders like this, will buy a new couch, but not be able to get rid of the old couch, (or clothes,books, records) because they paid for it , and throwing it away means throwing money away. Or they have the mistaken idea someone, somewhere would LOVE to have that pee stained couch that the dog barfed on last week…. I see the seeds of this thinking in some of the Freezoners or Indies, Even in the face of evidence that the most of Scientology is a scam (certainly the higher levels), and in the face of broken families, financial ruin, and becoming closed off from so much of the world intellectually. They go back to it, because they can't break their thought patterns. They remember their younger days, the other Scios that they missed (sometimes it seems like a high school reunion site on some of the sites).. Or they can't bear to throw it out, because somewhere, somehow, there has to be some use to it.. The interesting thing is that the main treatment in Hoarding, is to reconnect with your critical thinking skills, and to be willing to suffer some seperation anxiety (which gets better as you get more used to letting things go). To be willing to say, "Yes, I wasted time and money on that, but continuing to do it, won't bring the time or the money back." Does any of this sound familiar? Or am I just projecting?

  39. Anonymous says:

    Hi, you answered on of my questions a few days ago, on the 27th about my friend who's a scientologist. He did join sea org, but he left it, I think for the most part. 2 years ago once he turned 16 started working ata scientologist church here in boston because his mom is high up in the church. Then just like that he told me he was going down to Clearwater, FL to join Sea Org. Thn 2 days later he was gone. After about a week and a half he called me and told me that he was coming back because he felt so far away from home and he just wanted to leave, so he did. After about 3 weeks of being here, he was asked by his parents if he wanted to go to the Church in New York because it would be a lot closer but he'd still be in teh church, and so he left again. after about a year, he was asked to help out with the church being built in Washington D.C. and he's been there ever since. I'm starting to get worried because a while ago he asked me to take some courses here in boston about scientology but I said no and he hasn't said anything to me since…I'm not sure if I am paranoid or not, but I feel like he's ruining his life. I mean, I know he says that he is happy, but at what cost? If, let's just say in 10 he decides does want to leave the church. what is he gonna do, he's probably gonna be in a lot of debt, not to mention having a freeloaders bill hoisted on him an dhe hasn't finished highschool so he wouldn't even be able to get a decent job. How can he possibly see any good in any of this? Sorry about the rant, I feel like I vented on you just a little.

  40. Just Bill says:

    @wytherinThanks for your thoughts on hoarding. I think there may be quite a bit of that in Scientology, especially in the Church of Scientology. People invest their lives in Scientology. It isn't just all the money they give, although that is a large part of it, but they give up their friends, their careers, sometimes their family, all for *Scientology*. There is, for every Scientologist, a huge investment.And I believe that almost every Scientologist comes to the realization that the did not get any of the promised powers and abilities. I am sure that every Scientologist hates the greed and unrelenting pressure from the church.But, like a hoarder, "after all that time and money, after giving up so much, how can I just quit?"And they stick with it, way past any real hope of getting anything back for that "investment".Even outside of the church, there is still a ton of "investment" involved, if not so much money.I know of some Scientologists who keep repeating the party line just because they can't admit they were wrong and others were right.I think your observation is excellent.

  41. Just Bill says:

    Re: Friend who is a ScientologistI've been on both sides of that. The reason your friend doesn't talk to you any more is all about cult-think. The cult is all important and everything is subsumed to that culture. You are not part of the cult, so you are completely unimportant. Anything that isn't part of the cult is either unimportant or evil.That's how all cult members think and that's how all Scientologists think.I sincerely doubt he is angry at you. It's just that you aren't important.As I understand it, your friend is in too deep for you to help him right now.What you can do is write to him and simply let him know that, if he ever needs help, you are there. He probably won't respond and probably won't ask for help, but he will remember. When he finally wakes up, hopefully he will contact you. Obviously, he can't go to his parents for help.When he contacts you for help, what he will most need is someone to listen and not judge.Between now and then, you'll just have to wait.

  42. Anonymous says:

    "It isn't just all the money they give, although that is a large part of it, but they give up their friends, their careers, sometimes their family, all for *Scientology*. There is, for every Scientologist, a huge investment."Yes! Hoarders do this also. They will save things because of Sentiment (family) yet because of all their things, can't have family or friends over. They become virtual prisoners of their "stuff". They can't move, or change jobs (if they are even employed, because taking care of the stuff or negotiating a house to get ready for work becomes a nightmare at first, and then impossible). Hoarders, especially extreme hoarders (disorganized hoarder, saves everything, can't even get rid of a dead animal for example) are often completely shut down, emotionally. They lose their ability to empathize (see that its abusive to have kids or pets living in the situation).. They are able to tolerate so much discomfort( horrible smells, I went in with a dog rescue once where we had to wear hazmat suits with respirators, and the person said it wasnt "bad", and she had cleaned "just last month")..When people talk about how SO can still stay in the COS working under such extreme conditions I can't help but think of how numbed out the human psyche can become, in order to tolerate discomfort. Sorry, last post on this stuff. I know this is about Scientology, but it finally hit me why it resonated so much with me, while reading these websites (Its like living with my family)

  43. Anonymous says:

    Happy New Year's, Bill. 2011 promises to be the best yet. Regarding "think" being a trigger word my experience with almost all Scientologists is they look down on using the word "think" as "knowingness" is what they strive for and "thinking" is way down the Know to Mystery scale since LRH has told them so.Best, the Old Geezer.

  44. @ BillI have a question about the Clear level in Scientology and what it does to people. As has often been reported, here and elsewhere, no TRUE Clear has ever been produced. However, there is apparently a lot of indoctrination and thought-control drills that the Scientologist must endure before they reach that level. I am curious to know what mental and psychological changes happen to a person who attests to being Clear in Scientology. Or does it affect their basic personality at all? (apart from being more receptive to further Scientology mind-control). For example: In a July 4th 2010 blog posting, you wrote….”all Scientologists, as part of their indoctrination, receive a humorectomy. Scientology carefully and thoroughly removes all possibility of a sense humor.” I would assume this “achievement” is definitely accomplished by the time a Scientologist is a Clear?I have read the CoS propaganda on this subject (“erasing the reactive mind”…etc.) but wanted to get your opinion.

  45. Just Bill says:

    @The good old dogRe: ClearMost people who have "attested to Clear" report that they felt quite wonderful at that time, and all report that the feeling was temporary.None of them report any special abilities or powers.But your question is different. What other changes occur — perhaps harmful ones?I'd have to say there are none. From my personal experiences, my observations and my discussions with other "Clears", I'd have to say there really are no permanent changes at all. A person "before Clear" and that same person "Clear" are not different. They don't act different and they don't feel different in any significant way.The changes I have perceived in myself and other Scientologists come primarily from the indoctrination and has to do with becoming a cult-personality, with self-censoring and shutting oneself off from the external world. Those changes are "permanent", as long as one stays in Scientology.Personally, I don't think auditing affects any significant changes to a person — positive or negative.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Dear Bill:In the latest 25 th anniversary of Impact DM boasts getting Smith Kline Glaxo out of the psycho drugs.To me, as no proof is rendered, it is another Miscavige PR production: Hot air, foul smell, no data!

  47. Just Bill says:

    Re: "Smith Kline Glaxo"I have no idea, since there is no company called "Smith Kline Glaxo". Maybe that's some company Miscavige started just so he could announce that "fact".The company Glaxo Smithkline appears to be doing just fine, no announcements of curtailing any of their product offerings. In fact, they specifically list, as current products, all their anti-depressants and similar "psych drugs".Surprise, surprise! Miscavige lies.

  48. Anonymous says:

    It's still amazing that with all the data available that even some of the folks that left still hang on to the "Hubbard was a great man" crap. Reading the data from just pisses me off. Lrh was just looking for easy street and admiration. A scammer may be a piece of shit, but (IMO) it takes a psychotic to take it to the level of his fruition.I guess I have to ask a question now… hmm… Did Hubbard walk with a limp?

  49. Just Bill says:

    Rants are OK. No question actually required.

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