How LRH Destroys Scientologists’ Ability to Think

It becomes obvious, while watching Scientologists* try to “think” their way through all their problems, that Scientologists, as a group, have completely lost their ability to think logically and rationally.

Now, I don’t want anyone to construe this as a broad insult of Scientologists’ intelligence.  This has nothing to do with intelligence, it has everything to do with Scientology indoctrination.  Certainly it makes Scientologists look stupid, but they all recover their original, higher intelligence when they free themselves of Scientology’s thought-control.

While we have discussed Scientologists’ inability to think logically before, we have never specifically addressed how they lost this important ability.

It is obvious, from the fact that this failing is universal to all Scientologists, that this destruction of the ability to think is built into Scientology.

I think you’ll find that Hubbard intentionally created this nightmare.  Let’s see how he did it.

1. Hubbard Study Technology

This “technology” is key to destroying a person’s ability to think logically and rationally.  Every Scientologist is carefully indoctrinated into this method as the only way to study Scientology.

One of the fundamental assumptions in Hubbard’s Study Technology is that the source material is always assumed to be completely and unquestionably correct in every detail.  This flows from Scientology’s basic premise that L. Ron Hubbard is always correct.

Therefore, any and all difficulties, confusions and doubts that Scientologists might have are their fault.  The defect is always with the student.

So, when Hubbard’s assertions don’t match the reality that the student knows, the only solution allowed in Hubbard’s Study Tech is for the student to modify their thinking so that they can “make Hubbard’s words ‘true for them’.”

This aligns perfectly with Hubbard’s statement that “what is true is what you, yourself, have found true.”  This is also called, in Scientology, “making the data your own”.

Scientologists cannot use logic or scientific method or rational thinking to do this.  Technically, logic, scientific method and rationality have proven most of Hubbard’s assertions to be false.

Instead, Scientologists must alter the way they think, so that they can make whatever Hubbard says “true”.  They are actually learning a whole new way of thinking that doesn’t use logic, but uses belief, “postulates” and quite a number of logic fallacies.  “Your” opinion must always match what Hubbard said or someone will quote Hubbard to “prove you wrong”.  Eventually, Scientologists’ “thinking” is reduced to just quoting Hubbard [Leaving Scientology].

After a Scientologist has completed a few Scientology courses, they will have mastered how to do this.  This is not thinking in any normal sense of the word.

2. Redefinition of “true” and “false”

As part of his Scientology ideology, Hubbard coined two new, very unique words:

theta
The word “theta“, in the context of information, means positive information about Scientology, Dianetics and Hubbard.  More exactly, it means any information that aligns with Scientology’s viewpoint.  For example, negative information about psychiatry would be considered theta by a Scientologist.
entheta
The word “entheta” means negative information about Scientology, Dianetics and Hubbard.  Specifically, it means any and all information that contradicts, disproves or disagrees with Hubbard’s statements or Scientology’s viewpoint.

Note very carefully that this is completely unrelated to whether a particular “fact” is true or false.  If a “fact” aligns with Hubbard’s statements, it is theta, even if false.  If a fact contradicts something Hubbard said, it is entheta, even if true.

However, Hubbard and all Scientologists use theta as if it meant “true” and use entheta as if it meant “false”.  To Scientologists, “theta” equals “true” and “entheta” equals “false”.  They will say things like, “Oh you can’t believe that, that’s entheta!”

It becomes impossible to think if you don’t know what is really true and what is really false.

3. Censoring “other” information

Further, Hubbard expressly forbade all Scientologists from viewing, reading or listening to anything labeled entheta.  It would “enturbulate” them, he claimed, and interfere with their “gains”.  There are penalties for Scientologists who access entheta information.

Now to make sure you understand exactly what this means, let me use non-Scientology words.  Scientologists are expressly forbidden from accessing, in any way, information that contradicts anything Hubbard or Scientology says.

How can anyone think logically and rationally about a subject when they are forbidden from seeing or even knowing any differing information?

4. Asking for proof is outlawed

The first thing any normal person would do, when presented with fantastic claims about some subject is to ask for proof.  “Show me the data!”  “Do you have pictures?”  “Can I talk to them?”  “Let’s go look!”

This is normal.  This is healthy.  This is good, logical thinking.

Well, Hubbard condemned it.  Demanding proof was bad, it was “suppressive”.  He devoted one entire lecture (Flows: Basic Agreement and Prove It!) where he ranted on and on about how horrible it was to demand proof of anything.

In Scientology, asking for proof of anything Hubbard said or anything the church claims is a punishable act.  If you insist on seeing proof, you are a suppressive person!

And, with that, Hubbard yanked one of the most fundamental principles of scientific thought right out of Scientologists’ minds.

In Scientology, you can’t ask for, and you will never get, any proof of anything.  You can’t even notice that you have no proof.  How can anyone possibly think about a subject that they cannot verify any part of?

And that is, in a nutshell, how Hubbard effectively and intentionally destroyed every Scientologists’ ability to think logically and rationally about Scientology.

All that is left is belief.  As Hubbard often said, if you believe strongly enough, it will be true.  This is why Scientologists always state their beliefs as if they were proven facts.  Hubbard taught them: this is how you “think”.

After leaving Scientology, the most difficult task may be learning how to think again and how to tell what is true and what is a lie.

*EDIT: By “Scientologist” I mean, very specifically, those who believe in Scientology, exactly as Hubbard taught it. I do not mean Freezone or those who only accept some of Scientology. Anyone who rejects some of Hubbard’s technology would be called a “squirrel” by true believers. I’m not talking about squirrels.

In my mind, those who are able to disagree with Hubbard and who are willing to reject parts of Scientology’s dogma are well on the way to re-learning how to think. I commend them totally and this article is not about them.

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

44 Responses to How LRH Destroys Scientologists’ Ability to Think

  1. Anonymous says:

    There's an interesting analogy to be made between George Orwell's 1984 (Ironically, Hubbard made mentions of this book in a few lectures) and Scientologists' way of thinking. Add the mechanism of overt/natter to the mix and you've got the Orwell-coined "doublethink", which makes Scientologist accept any information from Hubbard or Management as truth. No mental evaluation enters the process and if they start disagreeing, they will immediately start wondering if they skipped some misunderstood words or if they have "overts" which cause them to feel critical.

  2. Just Bill says:

    Re: 1984Looking at how Hubbard worked, you would think he used "1984" as a how-to instruction manual.

  3. Anne says:

    "Thinking" is spoken of with scorn. If you're thinking then you're "in your case" or your "circuits" are keyed in, and you are low on one of the many scales of something or other that LRH used to downgrade emotions, life, humanity. Never once did I ever hear thinking be stated as a good thing. It is another odd thing that gets accepted once you're well indoctrinated. It always seemed strange to me yet I admit to catching myself "thinking" and realizing the correct reaction was to back off, not do it, and don't LOOK there! So if you followed the leader and you were improving spiritually, you likely shut that avenue of life and growth off. One of the many great moments of recognizing I was no longer in, no longer a follower was when , after feeling that auto pilot reaction against thinking, I realized I CAN THINK AGAIN, woo hoo! And it just keeps getting better out here.

  4. Just Bill says:

    @AnneYes! It's true. "Thinkingness" (logic) was Bad. "Knowingness" (belief) was good.Geez, yes I fell for it too.I remember, when I left Scientology, being so very lost — "How do I figure things out now?" I'd forgotten how to think. I can't believe I didn't notice it while I was in.Good comment.

  5. So true: "After leaving Scientology, the most difficult task may be learning how to think again and how to tell what is true and what is a lie." Thing is, it's not so difficult once one realizes that one has a right to inspect truth and to disagree with Hubbard's imposed suppositions. Another terrific eyeopening article, Bill. Thanks you.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for this post. It gives a sense of the interior hurdles a Scientologist has to overcome even before dealing with the pressures the organization can bring. It's a wonder that people do get out.

  7. Grasshopper says:

    So Just Bill, I posted a commentary on ESMB in response to someone posting it there, and I thought I would do you the favor of seeing what it is. Choose to post or not. Grasshopper.So you really think this is true? [edit] Each of the four points in your analysis is wrong. 1. Study tech does not assume the correctness of the material you are studying. It does provide a way to understand what was actually written, correct or not. For example, I used study tech to read this post, and yet I disagree. How could that possibly be if point 1 destroyed by ability to be critical of the material?2. "Theta" and "Entheta" are not the same as true and false. The full description is in Science of Survival. True, some people have classified all negative things as "entheta" just as some people have misclassified getting angry as "misemotion." The definition is clear, and it is not a mechanism of Scientology used to destroy rational thought. Rather, correctly understood, it is confused and beaten down life force.3. Is false. Hubbard discussed Girdjieff, for example, in one of his tapes, not to mention Nietzche and Kant, and referenced numerous sources in tapes and books. I had to study it myself, and was not discouraged. It is true that arguing Scientology with the likes of some of the people on ESMB and other sites is a futile effort. Having argued the case of Scn over the years with people who are convinced the subject (and usually religion in general) is completely and irrevocably bogus and false, I have found that if you expect to get a positive result, you are likely to become upset. I used to get upset. I don't anymore. I realize the some people will never agree with me (not just on Scientology, of course, but on politics, Macs vs. PCs, Linux vs. Windows, Dodgers vs. Giants, etc.) C'est la vie. So, someone who is on a mission to try to convert the likes of ESMB will become enturbulated by it – I am sure you would agree that you are not likely to change your mind on the subject despite my eloquent replies. Someone who gets obsessed about it needs to back off and get a life. 4. That of course is BS, as well. "Asking for proof." I don't "ask" for proof, I prove it. I have audited people to a great result, and been audited to great results. You use it, you prove it. Try to do that with nuclear physics. This is such a red herring. You are asked to prove the technology in the most direct way imaginable – not by reading some so-called "peer reviewed" study, but by actual application of the principals. Some people may be afraid to try because they are afraid they may end up being "brainwashed" or some such rubbish, but that is their problem, not Scientology's. Scientology is, at the core, one person asking another person questions, and sometimes asking them to perform simple actions (like touching a wall or a bottle). It is NOT holding a person down and skewering them with red-hot pokers or strapping electrodes to a person's head and throwing the switch. It is reading, and talking, and listening, and it is a set of ideas and observations. That is it.Now, I am a vocal opponent of David Miscavige and the direction the church has gone under his watch. I am an opponent of disconnection and other disruptive and stupid and inhuman policies. I am against abortion in all forms, especially forced ones. You can choose to lump all that in with Scientology, and I cannot argue that the Church has not done what it did. But the four points listed here are bogus.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, Grasshopper, but "using it" does not "prove it." In science — REAL science, not scien-tology — the degree of proof is determined by a body of supporting and refuting evidence, subject to ongoing review by outside observers and experimenters. Saying something "works for me" is not proof. Just because my arthritis feels better after I put on a copper bracelet is not proof that copper bracelets cure arthritis.

  9. Just Bill says:

    @GrasshopperLet's go through your points.1. Study tech does not assume the correctness of the material you are studying. It does provide a way to understand what was actually written, correct or not. For example, I used study tech to read this post, and yet I disagree. How could that possibly be if point 1 destroyed by ability to be critical of the material?You deliberately misrepresent what I said. I specifically said I am talking about studying Scientology not doing some casual reading.A fundamental assumption of Study Tech is that Hubbard's writings are perfect and must be "duplicated exactly". A frequent check in Study Tech is for "any disagreements". If any disagreements with Hubbard come up, it is a student error or a student flaw. There is absolutely no mechanism in Scientology for "recognizing that Hubbard was wrong" and there is no way to complete a course if you still have any disagreements with Hubbard. You know this.2. "Theta" and "Entheta" are not the same as true and false. The full description is in Science of Survival. True, some people have classified all negative things as "entheta" just as some people have misclassified getting angry as "misemotion." The definition is clear, and it is not a mechanism of Scientology used to destroy rational thought. Rather, correctly understood, it is confused and beaten down life force.Again, you are being disingenuous. Yes, "entheta" is also defined as "confused and beaten down life force", but how does that relate to negative information as a Scientologist uses it? "I was reading this news article, it was a confused and beaten down life force"? Come on, you know what I'm talking about and you know how Scientologists use the word "entheta".And I do know that "theta/entheta" don't equal "true/false". That was my point. I was in Scientology for over thirty years and I do know how Scientologists actually use those words. Scientologists label something as "entheta" and then "know it's false" — and ignore it.3. Is false. Hubbard discussed Girdjieff, for example, in one of his tapes, not to mention Nietzche and Kant, and referenced numerous sources in tapes and books. I had to study it myself, and was not discouraged.Again you are misinterpreting what I very specifically said. Did Girdjieff, Nietzche and Kant write anti-Scientology articles? I said that Hubbard expressly forbade Scientologists from reading "entheta" (meaning anything that disproved or disputed Hubbard's claims).4. That of course is BS, as well. "Asking for proof." I don't "ask" for proof, I prove it. I have audited people to a great result, and been audited to great results. You use it, you prove it. Try to do that with nuclear physics. This is such a red herring. You are asked to prove the technology in the most direct way imaginable – not by reading some so-called "peer reviewed" study, but by actual application of the principals.You say "I have audited people to a great result, and been audited to great results" and that proves my point completely. Were you audited until you had the specific, promised gains from any of the Grades? Clear? OT? No, just to a "great result".A simple inspection of the Scientology community shows that Scientologists do not and have never exhibited the characteristics promised for any of the Grades, or Clear, or OT.I don't dispute that you "felt better" or had "great results" but you never checked to see if you or your pcs got the specific abilities promised. You believed that "great results" would eventually result in the promised abilities gained — but it didn't.

  10. Just Bill says:

    @GrasshopperNow to your other points.Some people may be afraid to try because they are afraid they may end up being "brainwashed" or some such rubbish, but that is their problem, not Scientology's. Scientology is, at the core, one person asking another person questions, and sometimes asking them to perform simple actions (like touching a wall or a bottle). It is NOT holding a person down and skewering them with red-hot pokers or strapping electrodes to a person's head and throwing the switch. It is reading, and talking, and listening, and it is a set of ideas and observations. That is it.No. Scientology is not "at the core" an auditing session. If it were, there would be no protests and few problems. At Scientology's core is L. Ron Hubbard dictating "truth" on every conceivable subject, and Scientologists accepting his "truth" without inspection and without question. And the problem with that is that Hubbard was often wrong, and sometimes just plain evil.If Scientologists could think and evaluate they could take only what actually produces a good result and leave the unworkable, abusive and bad stuff behind. Maybe, someday, that will happen.Now, I am a vocal opponent of David Miscavige and the direction the church has gone under his watch. I am an opponent of disconnection and other disruptive and stupid and inhuman policies. I am against abortion in all forms, especially forced ones. You can choose to lump all that in with Scientology, and I cannot argue that the Church has not done what it did. But the four points listed here are bogus. Still misrepresenting what I said. I never "lumped all that in with Scientology". Don't put words in my mouth.As for "the four points listed here are bogus", that is unproven. Read what I actually said and respond to that without misquoting or misrepresenting me or trying to be disingenuous and we might have a discussion.

  11. Just Bill says:

    Just once I would like to have a discussion, or even an argument, with a Scientologist without the Scientologist putting words in my mouth or pretending I said something completely different from what I actually said.Hint: If your side of the argument depends on misquoting, misrepresenting or misinterpreting what the other person said, or if you need to play semantic tricks, then maybe your side of the argument is without merit.

  12. omnom says:

    Regarding the "1984" references to Reverse or Black Dianetics (I'd personally extend this logically to encompass Scientology as well,) LRH knew that it was possible, maybe even likely, that Dn/Scn could be used for nefarious purposes. So does DM.As pointed out elsewhere by multiple people including Mr. Rathbun, DM's crew (likely under his direction, given his propensity for micromanagement) has edited materials to remove these references.The issue at hand was a recording of the PDC lecture of 6 December 1952. Compare this to the re-release lecture series circa 1982. See this posting for a specific comparison of the before-and-after. Does this qualify as entheta? It depends on whether or not you're within the CoS or a practicing Scn outside the official organization. One thing I will point out very specifically is that this was modified, according to Rathbun, while LRH was alive, and many many years before many of the currently re-defined Independent movement were "out". It bothers me that a lot of the comments of that particular 'blog denigrate current followers as foolish "Kool-Aid drinkers" when a good portion of them were active as members and executives for decades while this happened. LRH knew it, DM knows it, anyone who doesn't, "in" or "out" may be deluding themselves.

  13. omnom says:

    Just once I would like to have a discussion, or even an argument, with a Scientologist without the Scientologist putting words in my mouth or pretending I said something completely different from what I actually said.Bill, to be fair, logical fallacies are typical of human nature. I would not confine it to Scn (you have not done so explicitly, but your readers might benefit from knowing that it is not confined to Scn to prevent future fallacious arguments.) If an OT, or maybe just a Clear, existed, they may not need to resort to such wog tactics – it's clearly a Reactive consideration 🙂

  14. Grasshopper says:

    Okay, let's try this again.Point 1. [Deleting your quote because your blog editor is limiting me]There is no mechanism now for it. because Hubbard is dead and he was source. So, currently, you take Scientology as written. This is a problem, and the Church will not solve it. But this is not a "fundamental assumption of study tech." In order to understand something, you must know the terms used to describe it, and duplicate what was written. Some people may have "altered the way they think" to understand what Ron has written, but that is not study tech. I agree that blind adherence to any philosophy or science without critical review is wrong.2. "Scientologists label something as "entheta" and then "know it's false" — and ignore it." Some do. Some don't. If you were in for 30 years, surely you knew some Scientologists who were super-gung-ho who ignored all negatives, and some who were concerned about the negatives. Most of my friends knew the score in Scientology, and also know the score on some of the detractors. It helps to have been there – I was on staff, I was on course. Some of the "entheta" was truly bullshit, a lot still is. When someone reads stuff that is false or alarming about Scientology, over again – like TR-0 hypnotizes people, or recalling traumatic events is psychologically harmful, or whatever – then, why take it seriously? You do once. Find out it is BS. Move on. Next time, hey, it is entheta. Don't waste my time.But – the problem with this is that things do change. So, labeling something entheta every single time without inspection does let things through. But, frankly, the press was getting it wrong more often than they get it right. 3. "I said that Hubbard expressly forbade Scientologists from reading "entheta" (meaning anything that disproved or disputed Hubbard's claims)."I must have missed the memo on that one. 4. "You say "I have audited people to a great result, and been audited to great results" and that proves my point completely. Were you audited until you had the specific, promised gains from any of the Grades? Clear? OT? No, just to a "great result"."Yes, I have. Every single grade. Every single level. I am not into false attests. And, I ensured that my PCs did, too. But even if I didn't, what is wrong with "great results?""If Scientologists could think and evaluate they could take only what actually produces a good result and leave the unworkable, abusive and bad stuff behind. Maybe, someday, that will happen."They can, of course, and you will see this in the Indy community. I agree that we will need to figure out the post-Hubbard era. The SO experiment has failed."Still misrepresenting what I said. I never "lumped all that in with Scientology". Don't put words in my mouth." Fair enough.Remember, when you make an argument, to be clear. You were pretty general in this post. You group all Scientologists together, and then assign attributes to them that are not true in all, or even most, cases. You titled this missive "How LRH Destroys a Scientologist's Ability to Think." You have not proven your point. I am a Scientologist, and I can think. There are a few others that can think, as well. Maybe one or two.I do not take Hubbard's words as gospel – neither did Hubbard. Some Scientologists do take his words for gospel, and then get into trouble when they try to reconcile discrepancies or changes over time. To me it makes no sense to study anything with blind-faith adherence, because you don't really know it. This is true of anything.

  15. lunamoth says:

    My only comment here is that I have observed, both inside the culture of scientology and without, that people will tend to see what they really want to see.When I wanted to see abilities gained from auditing I did. When I wanted to see evil intention on the part of another where only my own gullibility and responsibility existed, I saw the evil intention. I suspect this is why science exists; it's human nature to see what we believe is there. We are constantly searching for a way to know, outside of our own perceptions and conclusions, that we are right – what is true. Sheeesh. This could go on for awhile…lunamoth

  16. Just Bill says:

    @GrasshopperThanks for responding. I appreciate it.1. There is no mechanism now for [finding Hubbard wrong]. because Hubbard is dead and he was source. So, currently, you take Scientology as written. This is a problem, and the Church will not solve it. But this is not a "fundamental assumption of study tech."I'm confused by your answer. You admit there is no mechanism in Study Tech for finding Hubbard wrong and I've pointed out that in Study Tech, “disagreement” is always the student's fault, yet you also say Hubbard being always correct is "not a fundamental assumption". You can see why I'm confused.How do you reconcile these two opposing statements? Do you know of any Study Tech policy that allows for the student to find Hubbard wrong? I certainly don't.Some people may have "altered the way they think" to understand what Ron has written, but that is not study tech.Again, I'm confused. If a student finds that reality does not agree with Hubbard, but the student must agree with Hubbard as a condition for completing the Scientology course, what other option is there? No, really, doesn't the student have to somehow disagree with reality? How is this done?2. "Scientologists label something as "entheta" and then "know it's false" — and ignore it." Some do. Some don't. When someone reads stuff that is false or alarming about Scientology, over again – like TR-0 hypnotizes people, or recalling traumatic events is psychologically harmful, or whatever – then, why take it seriously? You do once. Find out it is BS. Move on. Next time, hey, it is entheta. Don't waste my time.Hang on. Since Scientologists are forbidden from reading “entheta”, how would they ever investigate any “negative” reports?I do understand that Scientologists who have left the church are more likely to read the “entheta”, but I'd contend such people are starting to regain their ability to think, and that's a good thing.But, frankly, the press was getting it wrong more often than they get it right. Since the press is concerned about the church's million-dollar lawyers, they do extensive fact checking. For instance, I was impressed by how many people the New Yorker assigned to fact checking, and how many months they worked. For you to state that the press “gets it wrong more often than right” seems a bit presumptuous.I understand you probably don't want to delve deeply into these “negative” reports, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.-continued-

  17. Just Bill says:

    -continued-@Grasshopper3. "I said that Hubbard expressly forbade Scientologists from reading "entheta" (meaning anything that disproved or disputed Hubbard's claims)."I must have missed the memo on that one. Let's go through this. If a person disproves or disputes Hubbard's claims, that person is “anti-Scientology” and, of course, a “Suppressive Person”. Right? What they have said is, of course, “entheta”. Even most independent Scientologists follow this line of reasoning.A “good” Scientologist may not associate with a Suppressive Person. This includes reading what they wrote, listening to what they say, etc. Scientologists must disconnect from any “Suppressives”. Obviously, since Independent Scientologists like yourself are “suppressives” themselves, I doubt you adhere tightly to these rules. But still, disputing or disproving Hubbard is still very much condemned and sites that do so are … avoided by Independent Scientologists as much as possible.4. "You say "I have audited people to a great result, and been audited to great results" and that proves my point completely. Were you audited until you had the specific, promised gains from any of the Grades? Clear? OT? No, just to a "great result"."Yes, I have. Every single grade. Every single level. I am not into false attests. And, I ensured that my PCs did, too. But even if I didn't, what is wrong with "great results?"I never said there was anything wrong with “great results”. In fact, I have often defended Scientology because I believe it can do some good. But delivering even “great results” when you've promised the miraculous abilities gained is, to put it gently, fraud.I don't want to invalidate what you claim but, looking over the Scientology community, reviewing the thousands of Scientologists I have met and known, I have never seen any evidence of the very specific and miraculous “abilities gained” as promised for the Grades. I have never seen anyone exhibit the abilities promised for Clear. Obviously, I've never see any OT powers or abilities.Certainly some Scientologists can be capable people, but those who are capable now were, from my observation, quite capable before Scientology. And none have the miraculous abilities promised by Hubbard.-continued-

  18. Just Bill says:

    -continued-@Grasshopper"If Scientologists could think and evaluate they could take only what actually produces a good result and leave the unworkable, abusive and bad stuff behind. Maybe, someday, that will happen."They can, of course, and you will see this in the Indy community. I agree that we will need to figure out the post-Hubbard era.Hmmm. We'll see. I see this being done in the Freezone, not yet in the Indy community.In fact, lately I have seen some in the Indy community adopting and embracing some of the worst parts of Hubbard's teachings. I hope this doesn't continue, but I fear it will.You were pretty general in this post. You group all Scientologists together, and then assign attributes to them that are not true in all, or even most, cases. You titled this missive "How LRH Destroys a Scientologist's Ability to Think." You have not proven your point. I am a Scientologist, and I can think. There are a few others that can think, as well. Maybe one or two.I do not take Hubbard's words as gospel – neither did Hubbard. Some Scientologists do take his words for gospel, and then get into trouble when they try to reconcile discrepancies or changes over time. To me it makes no sense to study anything with blind-faith adherence, because you don't really know it. This is true of anything.A valid point. That's my fault for not being more clear. By “Scientologist” I mean, very specifically, those who believe in Scientology, exactly as Hubbard taught it. I do not mean Freezone or those who only accept some of Scientology. Anyone who rejects some of Hubbard's technology would be called a “squirrel” by true believers. I'm not talking about squirrels. In my mind, those who are able to disagree with Hubbard and who are willing to reject parts of Scientology's dogma are well on the way to re-learning how to think. I commend them totally and this article is not about them.But, to “real” Scientologists, such people are “squirrels” and are suppressive. I certainly hope that you are such a “squirrel”.-end-(I really have to see if I can increase the limit on comments)

  19. Anonymous says:

    Grasshopper, are any of these remarkable abilities you achieved measurable by anything other than an e-meter? Have such abilities — achieved by you or anyone else in Scientology –ever been verified by independent experts in a controlled study? If so, please enlighten us with the name and date of a reputable journal in which the results were published.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Where's the objective evidence of these purported abilities of yours, Grasshopper? If I proclaim that as a result of completing a miraculous new math class I've now mastered calculus, I ought to be able to solve ten calculus problems created and administered by someone outside the class.

  21. Anonymous says:

    “The real danger of Study Tech is that it was designed for indoctrination, not education. While it may be good at producing obedient Scientologists, it is completely at odds with promoting the ability to think independently. It quite deliberately aims to reduce a student's ability to think critically. Students are taught to distrust their own intelligence and background knowledge, passively and uncritically accepting whatever they are being told. This can only deprive students of a skill vital in an age saturated with conflicting messages, where critical thinking is essential to making sense of the world.” –Dr. David S. Touretsky Carnegie Mellon University

  22. Anonymous says:

    Looking at Grasshopper's initial comment, with its gross misinterpretations, misunderstandings and misquotes, if that's someone exhibiting the abilities from Grade 0, Communications Release, I'll eat my hat.He exhibited serious problems with communication, and then he claims "got all the promised abilities" from his auditing.Say what? Did he skip Grade 0?

  23. lesj39 says:

    Great post… as always.I remember once during my short stay in the Sea Org,(I woke up once and said, "What am I doing here? This isn't what I signed up for.") I heard a part of an LRH tape where he said that "All reporters are agents of the government." Well, I had spent time as a producer for a news/talk station and had known my share of reporters… none were "agents." I called the supervisor over and discussed my problem.After checking over for words I didn't understand (I passed that easily), he just threw the book down and walked away.I think that was the beginning of the end of my stay. People just didn't look at me the same way again.You are right… no matter what, you must agree or else. After a long while I think I like "or else" better.

  24. Anne says:

    Grasshopper's initial comment also exhibits problems that Grade IV is said to handle. "But the four points listed here are bogus.” The points are NOT bogus. They are important points and helpful for those newly out and trying to piece together the techniques the church used to overpower the person's innate logic and ability to think. Re #1 My org academy experience was you are made to restudy until you find misunderstood words and come to agreement with the course material. Re Grasshopper snide comment #3 "I must have missed that memo." If you missed that memo, find out for yourself or have someone receiving auditing in the church try letting their auditor know they read Bare Faced Messiah, or Abuse at the Top, Counterfeit Dreams, about the Lisa McPherson lawsuit. Are they allowed to continue with auditing? Probably not, instead likely they'll be assigned Liability at best and have to "make up damages" by volunteering, paying money, or both. Then spend auditing $$ on this overt.Re proof of results, instead of causing trouble and asking for proof I paid close attention to auditing results in self and others. I was alarmed at the results in OT 5, 7 and 8's – they were increasingly arrogant, cold, insincere, compassionless. They did not express original thoughts and ideas, they seemed to speak from scripts not their true self. Just saying these are just the results I saw.

  25. Grasshopper says:

    Hi JB. Thanks. There was a way to challenge anything, which was, in its essence, writing it up and sending it up to Ron or the Issue Authority, or challenging it in Qual in your organization. The line is probably still in, but of course, the current regime has changed things around. But, I personally challenged an answer to the Class VI exam, and it was corrected. Scientology was not always as rigid as it is now.I don't know where you got the idea that Study Tech when studying Scientology means that you must accept as gospel all that Hubbard wrote. I never read that, anywhere, nor was it practiced. But then, all my training is pre-GAT, and who knows what they did to it?Let us cut to the chase, and say that I agree with you when you limit the scope of the argument to people who mindlessly accept what Hubbard wrote without inspection, and if you limit your definition of "Scientologist" to the RTC-approved, TM version of the term.

  26. Grasshopper says:

    Anne, I think that once Bill and I came to agreement on the scope of the argument, we mostly agree with one another. I did my training in another day. Regarding #3, that was not my experience. Of course, it is the experience of many now. To me, the current regime is a cancer that must be gotten rid of. It has redefined the experience of Scientology for a lot of people. However, to many, this is all they know, as in, apparently, your case when you were word cleared into submission. That is not how it should be, and not how it was.

  27. Just Bill says:

    @GrasshopperYou successfully "challenged an answer to the Class VI exam". And your used, as the basis for your challenge, one or more LRH references, didn't you? How does that come down to challenging Hubbard? You didn't. No one can. Hubbard is always correct in Scientology. I have heard of people challenging Hubbard. They were declared suppressive, of course.Apparently, we have associated with completely different "Scientologists". In my experiences with Scientologists inside the church, what I've seen with Independents and what I've read about Ron's Org, is that Scientologists revere Hubbard as almost God-like (a "true OT") who was never, ever wrong. "What does Ron say" is the ultimate answer to everything. They quote Ron as the Ultimate Source for Truth. The Scientologists I knew and see today would never, ever disagree with Ron, not ever. Not in the slightest way.But you, apparently, associate with Scientologists who regularly and happily disagree with Ron. Apparently even decades ago you saw this.Well, you saw what you saw. The only evidence I have is KSW, the entire history of the Church of Scientology and everything written on the Indy blogs.

  28. Just Bill says:

    @GrasshopperWe agree that blindly following Hubbard without question is bad. That pretty much is the whole point of my article and my concern about Scientology going forward.If "new Scientologists" can only take what actually produces beneficial effects and reject the rest, and promise only what they can actually deliver, then Scientology may survive.

  29. Anne says:

    Grasshopper-Very minor clarification. I was not word cleared into submission, that attempt to failed. Instead I routed off the course and ceased participating altogether. Being forced into submission does not sit well with me, never has. Agreed it is a cancer that needs to be gotten rid of, but I think the cancer runs deeper than current management.Good to hear you mostly agree with Bill.Thanks

  30. Anonymous says:

    Dear Bill,"… Hubbard intentionally created this nightmare.." You explained beautifully how he did it; I'd be fascinated to know your opinion on WHY he did .You've said before that DM is a sociopath, but you didn't seem to think the LRH was. A sociopath, be definition, is a person without conscience; they know the difference between right and wrong but it means nothing to them; they are manipulative and often very charming and charismatic; they can take on whatever coloring the occasion requires, but there is nothing inside but a vast appetite. All I know is what I've read about him, but that sure sounds like Hubbard's personality to me. Am I wrong? I hope you'll continue with your analyses. And then publish a book. I really think you should.Sheepherder

  31. Well, JB, all I can say re the new Scientologists is that my hope is that it will happen, and that the single-authority church will go away. The way it is going, the church will go away, and Indie groups will continue (including the Free Zone, which is Indie in my book). Even if a group of Indies try to reestablish the church, or create a new version of the old edifice, we will never go back to a central iron hand.

  32. Just Bill says:

    @SheepherderRe: Hubbard sociopathYou could be right. You certainly make a good case, but I'm still not so sure.Miscavige is, in my opinion, a very simple person. He hates everybody, he wants to punish everybody, he wants more and more power, he wants more and more control, he wants more and more money and tries to destroy anyone who might challenge him. He has no other goals and no other motivation. He is crazy, with a thin social veneer.Miscavige doesn't think Scientology works, he never applies it himself. To him, it's just the way he gets money and power, and how he can abuse and destroy people without getting caught.But, in my observation, Hubbard was much more complex, more confused and more conflicted.He was truly happy when people got better and felt happier. He really was. He wasn't so much a power-hungry despot. Yes, he wanted to be "Source" and "Founder" and "Commodore", but that was more an ego thing rather than power. He constantly tried to put other people in charge of various parts of the church. Sure, he always wanted to keep his finger in things and "correct" this and that. But that was more about "being Source" than super-control. He liked to do it from a distance — where he didn't have to deal with the mundane details.Yes, he was super-paranoid. Yes, he could be terribly vicious and evil. Yes, his "church" was a scam, a con and a fraud. I'm pretty sure Hubbard knew that at the start.But I think that, in the end, Hubbard believed that Scientology "worked". He kept auditing himself until the very end, believing it worked and that he was "going to go OT".With Hubbard, it's hard to classify what was his problem, but it doesn't seem like "sociopath" is the correct label. Sure he was crazy, but beyond that, I have no easy label to put to him.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Bill,Yes, it's pretty plain that DM is simple and LRH was complex; sort of like Stalin, who was a simple batspit-crazy paranoid potentate in a long line from King Herod to Saddam Hussein, compared to Lenin (who was brilliant and sane tho inhuman.)But regarding LRH's motives; if it wasn't for power, then why did he cook up a system which he must have known was unworkable, even nonsensical, and potentially abusive? (well, it works perfectly as a cult.) Maybe not for raw power, but the more subtle , sadistic amusement of jerking people's chains. He wasn't no nice guy, ever. Look at his treatment of Parsons, his wives and children.Frankly he creeps me out.

  34. Just Bill says:

    @SheepherderNo argument here. There is much about Hubbard that is just plain creepy.I think his deepest motivation was paranoia. Also, if you have read his Affirmations, you know how insecure he was. Combine his insecurity with his paranoia, and I can see exactly why he created the organization that he did.He was completely protected from everything. His opinions could not be questioned. Doubters and critics could be shut up and even destroyed. He could order crimes to be committed (to protect himself and his ego) and they would be carried out and all evidence leading back to him destroyed.When you say the environment was "unworkable", that isn't true from Hubbard's point of view. It was a nearly perfect environment for an insecure paranoiac. Of course, it didn't help his condition, which got progressively worse over the years.I'm sure that someone who worked with him might be able to give more insight and might correct my analysis. I'm only guessing from second-hand information.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, Bill. Succinct as always. I've read his affirmations – how pathetic. The literal meaning of 'psychopath' is 'sick soul'. I think that fits. He was. A bloated ego that had to be fed and coddled constantly. I understand why people fall for cults; I could have myself, I know exactly when in my life. But that smug, sly, toadlike face – egads. What a warning signal.Publish! Publish!Best,Sheepherder

  36. Anonymous says:

    Where are those Hubbard's affirmations you guys are talking about? Links?thankspython

  37. Just Bill says:

    @pythonHubbard's Affirmations[pdf]. Also called Hubbard's admissions by Omar Garrison.Very creepy.

  38. Anonymous says:

    First of all, let me say that again I've been reminded by posts here that I'm almost 20 years "out" of Scientology services and about 7 years "out" of denial about my experiences and only about 1 year "out" of giving Scientology some credence. So I should realize that it is a process and does take time. OTOH, enough is enough. Had the internet and this forum (plus those like it)been around in 2000, I'd have wised up earlier, I believe. Still, it takes confront to separate oneself from delusions–the reason more people don't do it is that it is very, very painful. I am fortunate to have the leisure time and support necessary to offset the pain. If I were working 40 hrs. a week and not married to a wonderful spouse, I don't know where I'd be in the separation from CoS process.I see Study Tech exactly as Just Bill does. He has followed the logic of it to the endpoint and is correct. If you don't see it, you need to think more carefully and follow the logic of LRH's statements. Even sociopaths have a logic in their constructions.Which brings me to THAT question. Even sociopaths have things and people they "love."Hitler loved animals and was very happy to see them thriving. LRH for most of his life had enormous charm and plausibility because sociopaths need protective coloring of some kind. If LRH had been handsome and an Adonis, he would probably have been able to go easier on the charm. It all fades as they age, hence the paranoia and crankiness of his later years.If you have ANY doubts about CoS, just look at the way they go after any critic, or anyone who just tells the truth–their truth, that LRH supposedly said they were entitled to. He only said that once, to con the gullible, and the rest of his output is completely the opposite.CoS is as dangerous as Nazism or the Inquisition. You can't prove that statement false.

  39. Anonymous says:

    eeew I wish I didn't ask. Thanks for digging the link for me but good god..Python

  40. Anonymous says:

    one question: Does anyone know how much $$$ scilons have left? Because that's the only way to determine how much longer they can last.python

  41. Just Bill says:

    @pythonRe: MoneyThe Church of Scientology has lots of money in its hidden, offshore bank accounts. Lots. It all "belongs" to David Miscavige. No one can touch it except little Davy.He will keep the con going until every last penny has been vacuumed out of the pocket of the last Scientologist. Which might go on for some time.At some point the business known as the Church of Scientology will collapse because it can no longer pay its bills, but as long as Miscavige wants to, he will keep the con going — even after the church disappears.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Anyone who rejects some of Hubbard's technology would be called a “squirrel” by true believers.This is irony writ large as Hubbard was the ultimate squirrel in that he completely plagiarized, warped and distorted Buddhism. In fact, a good case could be made that Scientology is a squirrel Buddhist sect. Buddhists have the absolute right to call Scientologists squirrels.If you are interested in true Buddhism, IMO the following link will take you there:http://www.dhamma.org/

  43. Just Bill says:

    Re: BuddhismExactly right. Hubbard "borrowed" from everyone — and then claimed ownership.But, didn't Hubbard claim to be Buddah?

Leave a Reply. It will be moderated.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s