Ask a Question

I’m a bit late on a new Ask a Question.  I’ve found that some browsers don’t work too well with Blogger once the comments have gone past 200 and you have to go to another page.  On some browsers, you just can’t get to the next page.  So, here is another Ask a Question thread.

There are some really great questions and discussions in Ask a Question 1, 2, 3, 4 and the one just before this one 5.  I always enjoy going back and reading them.

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.

Current Scientologist’s contributions are, as always, very welcome.  Trust me, I don’t bite.

As always, I love to hear from you.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

357 Responses to Ask a Question

  1. keiths says:

    There are certain things about the Co$ that are impressive, in an evil-genius sort of way.

    Getting people to pay for their own sec checks is one of them.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Bill, I sometime drive by the “Pac Base” in LA, as well as their other big buildings in Hollywood, where many of the Sea Org members and church execs work. I’m wondering, where and how do Sea Org members live? Are they stuck in former hospital rooms at Pac Base? Does Scientology put them up in nearby apartment buildings? Is there a different standard of accommodation based on rank or seniority? If a Sea Org member is wealthy (like Tommy Davis), do they live in their own house, independent of church facilities?

    • justbill001 says:

      Good questions. The Sea Org usually buys a nearby hotel or apartment house for Sea Org member berthing. Members are just crammed in, many people in relatively small spaces. Married couples might end up in an apartment — shared with a few other couples. The RPF is berthed on-site in cramped, smelly quarters. Off-loads (those wanting to leave or being kicked out) are also berthed on-site, usually in even worse conditions. In all cases, the number of people per bathroom/shower are ridiculous.

      At Gold Base, everyone is restricted to on-site berthing. No one can leave, even to go shopping.

      High ranks may have “better” berthing, but that isn’t saying much. Other than Miscavige, even the best Sea Org berthing would be unacceptable to normal people.

      Of course, the work hours are so bad that SO members are almost never at their berthing for very long.

      I don’t know about Tommy Davis (celebrities and celebrity offspring don’t have to follow the Sea Org rules) but the regular Sea Org members, no matter how much money they might have, still have to live in regular berthing.


      • keiths says:


        How do Sea Org members rationalize their crappy treatment? Do they figure that their personal welfare is irrelevant when there is “a planet to clear”?

        Do the rank-and-file actually believe that Miscavige is in the trenches with them, making similar sacrifices?

        • justbill001 says:

          Essentially, “yes” to both questions. There are several quotes from Hubbard that talk about how Sea Org members put in impossible hours, blah, blah. When you start in the Sea Org, you are proud to work the long hours for very little pay and under high pressure. Later, you just get beaten down and no longer think about it. The lack of sleep and immense pressure pretty much ensure that you can no longer think.

          I’m not sure what the Sea Org members think about Miscavige. Those who work directly under him are constantly told (by Miscavige) how hard Miscavige works, how Miscavige has to do “everyone’s job” and how they are all slackers and SPs causing Miscavige to have to work much harder. When Miscavige takes off for his very frequent, long vacations, they are just grateful he isn’t there.


  3. Anonymous says:

    Hello again, Bill, and thank you for your very informative site. Many religions (e.g., Catholics and Mormons) place an emphasis on building large families, which has the effect of building the religion’s membership. It appears that many young Sea Org members and a significant portion of younger scientologists, at least in the US, are the offspring of existing members. It would seem logical for the Sea Org to ask it’s members to go forth and multiply, if only as a way to create a pipeline of future scientologists. Yet they ban children in the Sea Org, which seems contrary to the sustainability of the group. Any thoughts on why they would adopt this seemingly self-destructive policy? Does Miscavige not concern himself with future generations of the church?

    • justbill001 says:

      There are two reasons Sea Org members are discouraged from having children – actually forbidden. The first is that children are, at best, a distraction to the parents and an additional expense to the church. The parents will be, inevitably, torn between the need to love and care for their child and the Sea Org duty to work 24 hours a day. If the parents have any kind of humanity in them, they will choose their child.

      The second reason is simple: David Miscavige absolutely despises children, families and married couples. He is constantly at war with Sea Org members to split up every married couple, ensure pregnant women get abortions and banish children from his sight.


  4. Dave says:

    Hello again Bill. I enjoy your previous responses and find them very informative. Thank you. Here is another question.

    In “Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health” Mr. Hubbard claims that by erasing engrams, the individual is freed from compulsions, obsessions, neuroses, and such conditions as heart trouble, poor eyesight, asthma, colour blindness, allergies, stuttering, poor hearing, sinusitis, high blood pressure, dermatitis, migraine, ulcers, arthritis, morning sickness, the common cold, conjunctivitis, alcoholism and tuberculosis. Hubbard soon claimed cures for cancer and leukaemia. Hubbard claimed “Dianetics cures, and cures without, failure.”

    Two years later, he dismissed Dianetics as “slow and mediocre.” He then claimed that with Scientology, “the blind again see, the lame walk, the ill recover, the insane become sane and the sane become saner.”

    So here is the question: How would a Scientologist rationalize an OT VIII dying of cancer? After all it has happened. I can’t wait to hear your response.

    • justbill001 says:

      Scientologists rationalized a OT VIII dying of cancer the same way they rationalize all the other failures of Scientology: Out tech. The reason a Clear can’t do what all Clears are supposed to be able to do; the reason Scientologists get sick; the reason OTs are so powerless; the reason Scientology is failing…

      It’s all “out tech”. If only Scientology were properly applied, everything would be OK. That is the answer for all Scientology’s failures. That is what the “Independent Scientologists” think is the reason the church failed. That is the final answer that explains everything. Out tech. Hubbard says that “Standard Tech” always succeeds, therefore, all failures were “out tech”.


      • Dave says:

        Okay, so an OT VIII dies of cancer and the reason is “out tech.” Okay I get that, but how did he get to be an OT VIII in the first place? Not only was he subject to improperly applied tech, he was also not a real OT VIII. The whole deal is starting to look like a comical flat-out scam.

  5. Dave says:

    So basically what they are saying is, “Scientology definitely works, but we are so incompetent we can’t apply it properly. So what we deliver is really expensive Scientology auditing that doesn’t work because we are bungling idiots. Sure, we say we are flubless and flawless and we charge an arm and a leg for the processes, but you shouldn’t really expect them to work because experience has shown that most of what we deliver is out-tech twaddle.”

    Wow, what a deal that is! And Scientologists actually fall for this pitch?

  6. Dave says:

    I guess what I’m asking is, how do they justify their self-admitted incompetence?

    • justbill001 says:

      LOL! No, they do not admit incompetence. It is always “someone else” who was incompetent, evil, and/or suppressive. If they are “tech trained” they always consider themselves flawless and others incompetent – they would have produced all the promised results but others screwed it up, somehow. Someone else squirreled the “tech” which caused their PCs to “lose their gains”.

      You have to understand that one of the key principles taught by Hubbard is how to blame everyone else for your failures. That’s what he always did so his followers will, of course, do the same.


      • keiths says:

        Interesting that the Tech is so powerful, yet a couple of squirrels are able to completely nullify it.

      • Dave says:

        Sorry to harp on this Bill but I am still having difficulty understanding how Scientologists think.

        LOL! No, they do not admit incompetence. It is always “someone else” who was incompetent, evil, and/or suppressive.

        But who would this someone else be? A colleague applying Scientology services down the hall? Wouldn’t you want to get rid of incompetent people? That’s the way it goes in the real world.

        If they are “tech trained” they always consider themselves flawless and others incompetent – they would have produced all the promised results but others screwed it up, somehow. Someone else squirreled the “tech” which caused their PCs to “lose their gains”.

        Again who would these “others” be? Are there squirrels at Flag delivering bad services? Don’t they know about these people? Why don’t they investigate them and have them fired? That’s what they do in most companies.

        You have to understand that one of the key principles taught by Hubbard is how to blame everyone else for your failures. That’s what he always did so his followers will, of course, do the same.

        Would someone at Flag blame a coworker delivering services across the hall? If so it must be a rather paranoid work environment.

        • justbill001 says:

          The problem you are having understanding Scientology thinking is probably because you are looking for logic. There is no logic in Scientology thinking.

          If you are a Scientologist and happen to notice that someone isn’t getting the results promised by Hubbard, what do you do? If that person isn’t your preclear (you’re not the one delivering Scientology) then you may be sure:

          o The other auditor screwed up and Scientology will correct them, somehow – or they will get declared suppressive.

          o The other case supervisor screwed up and Scientology will correct them, somehow – or they will get declared suppresive.

          o The preclear is “out ethics” and Scientology will correct them, somehow – or they will get declared suppressive.

          Note that you cannot openly speak ill of another Scientologist and you cannot openly admit that you have noticed that Scientology didn’t work. So, as a Scientologist, you just forget what you noticed and continue believing that Scientology will correct things or, as it the usual case, declare people suppressive and kick them out.

          If the preclear who is not getting the promised gains is your preclear, then you know that, well, that preclear is obviously suppressive, forget them.

          tl;dr – Don’t try to figure out how Scientologists think, it isn’t thinking, it’s believing. No logic is required or allowed.


  7. Anonymous says:

    Dear Bill:
    Do you know why Mike Rinder’s blog reads:
    bandwidth limit exceeded
    Thanks a lot!

    • justbill001 says:

      I’d have to guess that it is a free or low-cost blog with a limit on how much traffic it can have. This is the way the hosting company can force high-traffic sites to upgrade to paid status.


  8. Anonymous says:

    Bill, in the face of mounting critical media reports, it appears that the church of scientology has completely abandoned the practice of having public spokespersons–I can’t remember the last time I saw someone go before a camera or microphone on their behalf. Much of their behavior seems crazy and self-destructive, but it seems particularly weird that they so obviously want to refute critical accounts, yet they don’t allow anyone to do so except via canned press release. Of course Miscavige doesn’t sit for interviews, either. They did, of course, have primary and secondary spokespeople in the past, going back to Hubbard’s time, I believe. What is their (or his) rationale for withdrawing from coverage of the church this way? Could having a spokesperson possibly make matters even worse for them?

    • justbill001 says:

      Every single spokesperson that Miscavige has sent out has, in Miscavige’s opinion, made major mistakes. This is standard for Miscavige: If only they had followed what he dictated, all the church’s PR problems would have magically disappeared.

      Of course, the more a person tries to follow exactly what Miscavige dictates, the worse things get. Then Miscavige says that isn’t what he said, they are SPs, they screwed up, etc.

      This is true of everything Miscavige tries to do. People do what he said, things get much worse, Miscavige then insists he didn’t say what he said and sends them to the RPF/The Hole/Secret property/whatever.

      What you are seeing is that Miscavige has run out of people he “trusts” to do the job. So the job doesn’t get done. In a way, he’s completely right: Doing nothing is far better than doing anything that Miscavige dictates.


  9. TW says:

    To piggyback on Dave’s question: With Hubbard’s claims that Dianetics would eliminate the need for eyeglasses, how did the thick-spectacled Heber Jensch rationalize his own need to wear them? Surely HE, of all people, wasn’t a victim of “out tech.” (Or was it simply that he was myopic in more ways than one?)

    • justbill001 says:

      I can’t begin to guess how Heber justified all the ways that Scientology failed him personally — and boy, did it! Certainly, we Scientologists didn’t sit around exchanging our various justifications for Scientology’s failures.

      But there are several built-in justifications for Scientology’s failures:
      o Out tech. “Standard Scientology always works, so if it didn’t work, it wasn’t Standard”.
      o “Oh, that will be handled by your next level.”
      o Scientology’s tech doesn’t work on SPs. If it didn’t work on you, you must be EVIL.

      It’s that last one that keeps Scientologists from admitting that Scientology actually didn’t work for them.


  10. Anonymous says:

    Hello, Bill. I’ve asked you some questions before, mentioning that I live near the “Big Blue” complex in LA, which I frequently walk or drive past. For many years, they would often have big events on L Ron Hubbard Way or in their big parking lot on Sunset. Booths, stages, tents. There was almost always a banner strung across the street, announcing the next big event. Recently, for the past couple of years, things seem much, much quieter–no banners, no tents, no outdoor groups of people. I read that they cancelled their annual “maiden voyage” event this year, and postponed some other big event. I wonder how you interpret this… is Miscavige losing his ability to command, have they calculated that the events make matters worse, or what?

    • justbill001 says:

      It would be difficult to say for sure what is going on in Lil’ Davy’s head, I imagine it’s a bit scary in there. However, I do have some guesses. First, there is nothing worse than not filling up the venue set aside for the event. Miscavige goes very crazy when that happens, and it is definitely happening.

      They used to fill the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles. When they no longer did that, they used to fill the parking lot in front of the LA Org. The same thing is happening at Flag and all around the world. They are booking smaller and smaller venues and can’t fill them either. Miscavige would rather cancel an event (and blame others) than face an empty auditorium.

      Another thing is that every event held by Miscavige must feature the “huge successes” and fantastic new “tech advances” – so Miscavige can bask in the adulation while the crowds hip-hip-hooray these things. It’s getting harder and harder to manufacture these “huge successes”. And these fantastic “tech advances” require a ton of work — you can’t sell the new books, courses, videos, etc when you don’t have reasonably reliable people to do the work of creating and manufacturing this stuff. And Miscavige has RPFed anyone who had any intelligence. There is no one left to produce the “new” stuff to sell.

      Miscavige keeps asking for more and more while decimating the staff who are supposed to be doing the work. These events are a massive amount of work — and Miscavige isn’t going to do it.

      And, who knows, Miscavige may finally be very afraid of what Scientologists will do to him. He must know that many Scientologists are getting the real facts now. Imagine what it would be like if Miscavige held one of his Big Bogus Events and the few Scientologists who showed up started booing and (horrors!) asking questions.

      The Maiden Voyage was one of his biggest money-makers. Cancelling that is very significant.


  11. Lurker says:

    Dear Bill, when scientologists talk about the “help” and “solutions” that the are offering the world, what exactly do they mean?

    • justbill001 says:

      L. Ron Hubbard claimed to have all the solutions to all the world’s problems: Education, drugs, disease and all failures. That is mostly covered under Scientology’s A.B.L.E. umbrella and included Applied Scholastics, Narconon, W.I.S.E. and even CCHR.

      Scientologists actually think that these “solutions” are far superior to the existing, proven technologies and try to get people to abandon the things that work and adopt Hubbard’s unproven and failed “solutions”.

      That’s what they are talking about.


  12. Anonymous says:

    Hello, Bill. I just read about the death of Jim Lynch, the chief reporter/harrasser for Freedom magazine for the last few years. Some commentators note that it is unlikely that scientology will publicly acknowledge his life or death in any way. It got me thinking–is there anyone at all, other than Hubbard, who the church has ever made even a small effort to remember or honor in death? An executive, lawyer, big donor or celebrity member? I can’t recall anybody being talked about beside “source.” If they don’t ever acknowledge anyone, is that a matter of policy?

    • justbill001 says:

      Well, not written policy exactly, but yes. In the early days, very early days, other people in Dianetics and Scientology gained some reputation within the group. You’ve heard of them. As long as they didn’t pose a threat to Hubbard as “Source” of the “tech”, I don’t think Hubbard minded that much. Back then the big Franchise holders (as “Missions” were called back then) were known and admired. Hubbard was pretty strict that only he was the person who “discovered Scientology”.

      You’d hear when someone big “dropped the body”, but that wasn’t emphasized at all. After all, the spirit lives on.

      Of course, that’s all different now. Miscavige does not share the spotlight. From his viewpoint, every time someone gains a bit of celebrity in Scientology, they betray him. So, these days, no one has any importance except Miscavige. If someone starts to have any power in Scientology, they are doomed.


  13. Anonymous says:

    When there are a lot of Sea Org members at one facility (such as Flag or Pac Base) do they work in shifts, or is everyone working the same schedule? Do some routinely work through the night, or are there some “quiet hours” designated for sleeping?

    • justbill001 says:

      Yes and no. In theory, they work in shifts and there is designated “off hours” for relaxing and sleeping. Each Sea Org member is supposed to work a standard shift, study for 2 1/2 hours, have a little personal time and get a full 8 hours of sleep. After 10 or 11 at night, nobody was supposed to be working.

      But that isn’t how it works. There is always “stat push” to “get statistics up”. There used to be some effort to keep to the theoretical schedule and only abandon that when stats were down. But, today, stats are always down, so there goes study time, there goes personal time, there goes sleep time.

      These days the hours are very long, sometimes all night. That’s it. No one gets enough sleep and “study time” is a joke.


  14. keiths says:

    I wish I could have seen DM’s face when he heard that Leah Remini was planning to write a Scientology exposé.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Bill, do you think this latest thing with Leah Remini filing a missing person report on Shelly Miscavige (which was evidently shut down as a non-case by the police, almost immediately) will have any lasting repercussions? Will news of her defection or the “where’s Shelly?” business affect other Scientologists?

    • justbill001 says:

      In short, no. I doubt many Scientologists will think much about it – simply because they won’t allow themselves to think about anything that is “entheta” (negative about Scientology).

      Neither do I think the missing persons report will have any significant impact, now or in the future.

      But that isn’t to say it wasn’t worth it. It most definitely was.

      The point of the criticisms and exposés of Scientology is not any individual revelation, it is the continuing barrage of facts about all the abuses, lies, crimes and fraud of the Church of Scientology.

      One by one the “church” comes up with more lies to attempt to refute each one. Miscavige thinks this means he is successfully covering up the truth. But the public knows. The public has no doubts that the “church” is guilty as charged in most of these revelations.

      Each individual fact isn’t very important. The mass of facts has destroyed any “good image” the “church” had.


  16. Anonymous fan says:

    I just watched a video in which a scientology-watching journalist asserted that the Sea Org was a hotbed of sex and “they practically encourage all this free love.” (This came up in a discussion of Laura DeCrenzenzo’s suit alleging coerced abortions in the Sea Org.) Everything I’ve read seems to indicate, to the contrary, that the Sea Org was a rather chaste environment, all work and no play. But many of them are young and in close quarters… What is your sense of the extent to which sex figures in the lives of young Sea Org members, and how do the scientology higher-ups control or use sex among their “elite”?

    • justbill001 says:

      Sex is forbidden in the Sea Org unless the couple is married. While I’m sure people in the Sea Org have sex out of marriage, when it is found out, they are severely punished. And remember those confessionals? The Sea Org usually finds out. No, the idea that the Sea Org is a “hotbed of sex” is simply laughable.

  17. Nicole says:

    Question relating to graphing statistics. I’ve noticed the Scientology calls for the use of statistics in order to determine ones conditions. However, the graphing seems to be quite limited in only using things like total amount of money. Is there no way to graph things with no numerical data? Such as the completion of ones to do list? Or am I confused as to its application. Thanks.

    • justbill001 says:

      That’s a good question. It is most definitely not just money but it must always be numeric. Of course, such numeric assignments can be quite arbitrary. “Student Points” are an excellent example where “reading one page” may be 1 point and a “clay demo” is 20. This is just one of the many, many reasons why “management by statistics” is such a stupid idea.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Hi, Bill. I’ve been reading about the “ideal org” campaigns, in which local church embers pitch in millions to buy and remodel buildings. Here’s my question: do these buildings immediately become the property of some branch of Miscavige’s empire? Do the donors or the local group somehow remain owners? If a refurbished building were to be sold, who keeps the proceeds?

    • justbill001 says:

      Any property purchased and renovated using “parishioner’s” money is immediately transferred to the Church of Scientology’s “Landlord’s Office” – yes, controlled entirely by little ol’ David Miscavige.

      If the property were ever sold, and some have been, the monies are kept by the church.


  19. Just Bruce says:

    Well, Just Bill, you seem to have wound down in the last couple of years. I know you don’t want to just be repeating yourself with new posts rehashing covered ground, but I do kind of miss your take on current events in Scn.

    Any chance you’ll be weighing in on the end game stuff that seems to be happening at Flag now, with more frequent postings?

    • justbill001 says:

      I’ll think about it. But there are so many, many good commentators who are already doing such an excellent job in analyzing and discussing Scientology’s end, I’m not sure I have anything else to add.

      Well, if I do have something to add, I will certainly say so.


  20. Dave says:

    The following is from Vistaril on The Underground Bunker. Your thoughts Just Bill.
    ” . . . I can’t believe people still buy any of this BS about ‘discovery’ of ‘lost tech.’ It’s just such an obvious and blatant money making scheme . . . ” ~ Jenna Miscavige

    I feel Jenna’s pain but can easily believe people are still falling for the “discovery” and “lost tech” aspect of the obvious and blatant (as well as criminal) money making scheme that Scientology is. It was explained to me by a wise Ex who summed it up in a single sentence: “People believe it because they want to believe it.”

    Basically, her premise is that Scientology’s processing results in the fearful, eternity, planet destroying idea that a person who cannot levitate ashtrays, or develop a perfect memory, or have perfect eyesight, or transform MEST into a million dollars, or any other of the myriad soopah powerz promised by L Ron Hubbard is because it is their fault.

    They have an overt or are PTS to an SP, or have gone past an MU, or have failed to generate the required level of certainty, or have falsely attested, or any other of the myriad faults L Ron Hubbard diagnosed. The gradient-by-gradient deleterious effect upon the cognitive functioning brought about, starting from initial contact, first by the ruin-finding, the love-bombing, the TRs and then the Auditing, prevents those trapped within from seeing clearly what everyone outside can see at a glance: Scientology is a slow-motion fraud.

    L Ron Hubbard was the master of “discovery:”
    • The “discovery” of Dianetics promised a sure-fire, easy-peasy cure for all ills. Didn’t work.
    • When it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that Dianetics was rubbish and he ended up losing the rights to it, L Ron Hubbard “discovered” a few extra Dynamics and – hey presto – Scientology was born. In the early days it was all about “Creative Processing,” the idea being that if a Thetan can consciously mock up what it was mocking up compulsively then all aberrations would resolve. Didn’t work.
    • Around 1965, L Ron Hubbard “discovered” the tech for his “Clearing Course.” This was the final level where one handled the Bank. After this, there was no more Bank. The announcement was made that Clears only needed to run Route One drills to familiarize themselves with their OT abilities – abilities which had been liberated by reason of having become Clear. Didn’t work.
    • A short time later, Hubbard came out with OT 2. This explained why people could not do Route One after the Clearing Course. There was more Bank to run after the Clearing Course. Didn’t work.
    • Then, a while later, Hubbard came out with Xenu and OT 3. This explained why people were not becoming OT after having done OT 2, etc. Didn’t work.
    • Then came the various (old) upper OT levels 4 – 7. OT 7 was released in the early 1970s. Didn’t work.
    • Around this time, the L’s (the fabulous OT Boosters) were also released to much excitement. Didn’t work.
    • In the late 70s, about ten years after the 1967/68 “discovery” of OT 3, Hubbard announced more “discoveries.” One of these was that OT 3 was not the final “Wall of Fire,” and that there was another “Wall of Fire” (more stuff, more Case, more Bank, More BTs, to handle) and that this explained why people were not making the expected gains and becoming OT. Didn’t work.
    • Then came NOTs. Didn’t work.

    And so it goes on with all sorts of variations and revelations about the work of enemies and squirrels and Marcabians and SMERSCH . . . but every single time there was a “discovery,” Scientologists everywhere celebrated and cheered and fell about the place with floating needles and VGIs. “Hip Hip Hooray – another reason why it’s NOT MY FAULT.”

    David Miscavige has been faithfully following in the footsteps of his mentor L Ron Hubbard and, if anything has been doing a better job of making money, making more money, and making other people produce so as to make more money.

    • justbill001 says:

      Well thought out comment.

      That’s pretty much what I said in 2011 on Scientology Has Failed. However, it’s always worth repeating.

      Your friend was exactly right. As a Scientologist, you must become very, very good at ignoring what you could see (and even do see) and believe only what Scientology tells you.

      This is, what, the sixth time David Miscavige has “found” some “lost tech” and now everything has to be re-purchased. We know that he is losing some of the faithful every time he does this, but some believers force themselves to carry on.

      It does become harder and harder to understand why those last few believers can’t wake up.


  21. Dave says:

    Yeah, you are right Bill, I don’t understand Scientologists and why those last few believers can’t wake up.

    I’m mainly baffled by the “super power” lies. Unlike Hubbard’s personal conduct, drug abuse etc, which can be easily hidden, and the enormous lies such as OT III that are unproveable one way or another, OT “super powers” are obvious lies that can be checked out by anyone at anytime. You find an “OT VIII” and watch him levitate an ashtray. If you are an “OT VIII” you get an ashtray and levitate it. Case closed. It’s completely baffling!

    • justbill001 says:

      For the last half century, Scientology has carefully honed its technology to be very, very effective. Of course, I’m not talking about their “auditing technology”, I’m talking about their mind control technology.

      Believers are carefully indoctrinated into the Scientology mindset.

      • – Scientology always delivers what was promised with 100% perfection.
      • – Unless you are a “Suppressive Person”.
      • – In which case, you won’t receive these promised benefits.
      • – So, you’d better not say you didn’t get the promised results!
      • – Only “Suppressive Persons” would cast doubt on Scientology’s wonderful results.
      • – So you’d better not think about those results not being demonstrated.

      You can see how every tendency towards any questions is carefully trapped. If you ask questions or allow yourself to doubt Scientology’s claims, you are a Suppressive Person!

      And so the true believers police their own thoughts carefully, all the time.

      This becomes so ingrained and automatic that they are no longer aware they are even doing it. And so Scientology has complete control of their thoughts. This “technology” is nearly perfect.


  22. Dave says:

    Scientologists think that only evil people don’t get the promised results. So if you admit that Scientology doesn’t work for you it automatically means you are evil. It’s better to shut up then and not say anything about it. Meanwhile no one is getting the promised results and nobody notices. Whew! Did I get that right Bill?

  23. Dave says:

    “All of you out there who believe in telepathy, raise your hand. All right. Now, everyone who believes in telekinesis…raise MY hand.” ~~ James Randi

  24. Dave says:

    It’s easy to ridicule Scientologists for believing in Xenu, between lives areas, and nonsense like the fifth invader force, but is there any good in Scientology/Dianetics? Is there any value in the processes, particularly those at the lower end of the bridge?

    • justbill001 says:

      Good question. While nothing has been proven, there are a lot of Scientologists and ex-Scientologists who are quite certain that they definitely got some benefit from the lower level actions. This isn’t surprising. If no one felt they were getting any benefit from the lower level actions, very few would continue past that point.

      While I have no problem with such claims, all such benefits are also available elsewhere. Lots of elsewheres.

      The key point here is that the benefits that some people seem to get from the lower levels of Scientology are a trap. Getting the same benefits elsewhere will probably not include that kind of trap.

      That’s why, even though a person might receive benefits from lower level Scientology, I still strongly suggest they look elsewhere.


  25. Ian says:

    I’m currently reading up on Scientology for educational purposes. I like theology and fascinated by the effects it has on people. I get that Thetan is the eternal part and Bodies are the only game in town, but I’ve never read anything in Scientology about the evolution of the body. Does Scientology embrace Darwin in this regard or do they have “poof your it” , like Christianty?

    • justbill001 says:

      Hi Ian,

      Early on, in Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard gave a bit of a nod to evolution. This was before his discovery of the Thetan and past lives. Hubbard wrote a book called “What to Audit”, later renamed “History of Man”. In it, he theorized there was a “Genetic Entity” that provided an evolutionary memory of previous stages. In one story he wrote about “The Clam” and how that stage could affect the current life. (This is why critics sometimes call Scientologists “clams” – this confuses most Scientologists because they haven’t read “History of Man”.)

      Later, with his discovery of Thetans and past lives, Hubbard abandoned these ideas. With Scientology, Hubbard was more likely to ascribed the appearance and forms of life on Earth to be due to non-evolutionary factors. Hence, the current viewpoint of life on Earth by Scientology is more like other religions – but in Scientology, instead of God, the directed influence that created life was more likely an Advanced Thetan.


  26. Anonymous says:

    Hi JustBill–

    I ran across the concept of “verbal tech” over at Tony Ortega’s site (, and I had a question about it in relation to word clearing.

    If I understood correctly, “verbal tech” is the “crime” of “explaining” Scientology by doing anything other than quoting LRH’s words verbatim. On the other hand, there is also the idea that, if Scientology isn’t working for you, or if you find yourself doubting its efficacy, that’s because you have misunderstood words, and you need to go back and do word clearing. How is this done, though? Is there a huge dictionary? I’m assuming that LRH did not define every single significant term used within Scientology, so how can you clear words without falling afoul of “verbal tech”?

    In the end, I expect that “verbal tech” occurs when, and only when, those in power within Scientology say it does, but I just wondered about the shape of the Scientologists’ hermetically self-sealing envelope of beliefs in this particular domain.


    • justbill001 says:

      Actually, the dictionaries in Scientology are rather extensive. Not only is every Hubbard-created word defined carefully, but there is now an extensive dictionary in every Scientology course room for all the obscure, obtuse and misused terms that Hubbard used in all his writings and lectures.

      As Hubbard tended to wander far afield when he got going, this collection of hard-to-find words is extensive.

      However, as Hubbard changed the definitions of his words over the years, sometimes dramatically, this extensive collection of “Scientology definitions” is more confusing than clarifying. Students of Scientology become adept at picking the definition that they think best fits. Different students won’t pick the same definition nor achieve the same “understanding”.

      To add to that confusion, Hubbard was known to contradict himself. It is amusing to listen to Scientologists argue, coming up with different Hubbard definitions and Hubbard quotes to argue their point.

      In the end, whoever comes up with the most convincing “Hubbard quote” and/or “Hubbard definition” gets to determine what is “Standard tech” and what is not. It really doesn’t matter, of course.


      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks, Bill. But aren’t many of those definitions written by people other than Hubbard? So, isn’t that verbal tech, strictly speaking? Or are they just compiling quotes from Hubbard writings in which the terms are used, like the OED, but without the general entries that actually do the work of explaining what the words mean? Sorry, you don’t really have to go into this in any detail. I don’t expect there to be a consistent answer. Thanks again.

        • justbill001 says:

          The second is correct. These “Scientology dictionaries” of Scientology terms are compilations of verbatim quotes from Hubbard from various lectures, bulletins, books, etc. This is why they often make things more confusing. Hubbard’s quotes are not written as dictionary definitions and are often vague, confusing or contradictory.

  27. Dave says:

    Bill I just used my OT powers to postulate the San Diego Chargers’ 27-10 win over the Cincinnati Bengals. Your thoughts.

  28. Dave says:

    I recently read on “Scientology – Through the Door” that auditing is destructive and actually makes you WORSE not better. As exercising a muscle makes it stronger, so going over and over a painful experience also makes it STRONGER. Auditing does not ‘erase’ your mental image pictures; it brings them up into present time as a more commanding imprint. With auditing you get more and more bogged down in your reactive mind, and because of the repetitive hypnotic suggestions, the TRs and the enforced conformity, you start thinking that only more auditing will get you out. IT’S A TRAP! Jason Beghe called Scientology processing a Theta Trap!

    Scientology addicts people to their ‘reactive minds.’ Like a crack user, you get addicted to auditing and Scientology happily takes your money. If you don’t believe this theory, show me a ————- Clear!

    • justbill001 says:

      Hi Dave,
      My personal opinion, based on lots of hours of auditing and lots of conversations with ex-Scientologists, is that auditing isn’t particularly helpful nor harmful. I don’t know of any substantial number of people who were badly harmed by auditing. Badly harmed by Scientology, definitely. I don’t know any Scientologist who wasn’t harmed by Scientology.

      But auditing has virtually no power at all — for good or harm. Yes, Scientology is a trap. Yes, auditing is a trap — because many people get a temporary good feeling from auditing. I imagine that some people get a kind of addiction to that good feeling, but even that isn’t very strong and certainly doesn’t last at all.

      There are no such things as engrams so nothing auditing can do will make them stronger. They don’t exist.

      There is no such thing as a Reactive Mind so no one can get bogged down in it.

      People become trapped because they believe in all this stuff. The power to become worse (or better) lies solely with each individual person. Scientology’s trick is to convince people that the power comes from Scientology. It has no such power.


  29. Dave says:

    I believe that Scientology auditing is harmful because it doesn’t do what they say it does. Auditing conditions the individual rather than de-conditions him. Auditing is used to manipulate not liberate. It’s mental programming not mental clearing; this is why I call it a Theta trap.

    You say that “many people get addicted to a temporary good feeling from auditing that doesn’t last.” I agree, but many people also get a temporary good feeling from crack cocaine which also doesn’t last and happens to be addictive.

    Engrams don’t exist but we do have painful, fearful, and upsetting memories recorded in our minds and we react mechanically to these memories. That is why we all have irrational fears, behaviors, and react differently to external stimuli. But we can also have thoughts and feelings unknowingly programmed into our minds. Pavlov, stage hypnotists, and subliminal advertising all prove that the mind can be mentally conditioned. We can be controlled. Do you think a suicide bomber hasn’t been controlled mentally? Do you think those Scientologists living in Hole at Int Base haven’t been brainwashed? I do. It’s called undue influence!

    Sure people become trapped because they believe in Scientology. But I think it goes deeper than belief. They have had a “virus” unknowingly installed on their bio-computer. They are being manipulated from the inside. They have been mentally conditioned, enslaved, and don’t know it. This brainwashing comes straight from Scientology.

    • justbill001 says:


      You seem to think my position is different than it actually is. I have often spoken against Scientology and tremendous harm it does. I have often spoken of Scientology’s control mechanisms and how Scientology traps people. If you think I am defending, in any way, Scientology, you are completely mistaken.

      My point is: To ascribe to Scientology’s auditing processes any power at all is an error. If you say that auditing has power (for evil), that implies that Hubbard was right about it. Hubbard said that auditing was powerful for either good or evil. I say bullshit. Any and all specific auditing processes have little power in themselves. Hubbard was wrong.

      Now, before you get all upset with that, understand that I’m talking ONLY of the auditing processes, the commands.

      What does make auditing dangerous and harmful is all the propaganda that goes with it. All Hubbard’s promises of what auditing will accomplish, Hubbard’s promises of “Release”, “Clear”, “OT”, “higher IQ”, a “solution to every problem” and on and on. It is the PR that Scientology tacks on. It is the Ethics that is added. It is the pervasive propaganda instilled in the course rooms.

      I absolutely hate it when someone says that Scientology auditing “has powers” to do anything. Scientology auditing cannot and does not have such powers. It is everything surrounding those processes that causes real harm.

      If someone removed everything from Scientology except for just the processes — no promises, no claims, no expectations, no KSW, no threats, no propaganda — they could audit someone all day long and would accomplish NOTHING. Nothing good and nothing bad. Maybe the person would feel better or worse for a few hours. That’s it.

      Mind you, there is no real harm in painting ALL of Scientology, including auditing, with the same brush. It all should be avoided at all costs. But I just want to make sure that people understand how truly powerless and ineffective Scientology auditing is.


  30. Dave says:

    Hubbard worked as a stage hypnotist before starting Dianetics and Scientology. Scientology is covert hypnosis.

    Mind Control in Scientology

    Scientology Uses Hypnosis to Brainwash!!

    Scientology is Hypnotic Mind Control

    • justbill001 says:

      These are not scientific analyses of Scientology auditing, these are opinions. The first says nothing about hypnosis. I can’t view the video, it doesn’t exist. The paper by Robert is, as I’ve said, not scientific, it’s just opinion, no more valid than my opinion.

      Robert talks about how evil it is that the auditor establishes “rapport” with the preclear. Oh, really? Doesn’t that happen with any therapy? Doesn’t that happen with a priest and parishioner? Establishing rapport doesn’t make what happens hypnosis.

      If you could see a session, it would dispel the idea that hypnotism is happening.

      But let’s say, for arguments sake, that it is hypnosis. Then what is the hypnotic command that is being implanted? Hmmm? The auditor doesn’t say, at the end of a session, “You will believe in Scientology” or “You have received gains” or ANYTHING like that. There is no “You will…” commands given. There are no commands about what the preclear will or won’t do, will or won’t believe, will or won’t think. THERE ARE NO POST-HYPNOTIC SUGGESTIONS OR COMMANDS. Period. It really isn’t hypnotism but even if it were, there are no post-hypnotic commands given.


  31. Dave says:

    ‘”Where are you from?” And I said: “New York.” He said: “Ah, New York! Yes, that’s a very interesting place. Do you know a lot of New Yorkers who keep talking about the fact that they want to leave but never do?” And I said: “Oh, yes!” And he said: “Why do you think they don’t leave?” I gave him different banal theories. He said: “Oh, I don’t think it’s that way at all.”

    He said: “I think that New York is the new model for the new concentration camp, where the camp has been built by the inmates themselves, and the inmates are the guards, and they have this pride in this thing they’ve built, they’ve built their own prison. And so they exist in a state of schizophrenia, where they are both guards and prisoners. And as a result they no longer have, having been lobotomized, the capacity to leave the prison they’ve made, or to even see it as a prison.”

    From the film My Dinner with André

    Hubbard wanted to conquer the world but he disguised this motive by calling it “clearing the planet.” I invite you to investigate the work of Jim Siegelman, Robert J. Lifton, and Steven Hassan

    Peace out!

    • justbill001 says:

      What I do is try to dispel the myths surrounding Scientology. That’s why I started this blog. If you have read my articles, you would know that I am not a Scientologist, I am not a defender of anything Scientology, and I strive always to be as honest as possible. If you wish to believe in the vast, evil power of Scientology’s auditing, go for it. I’ve tried to tell you the truth.

      The hypnotism is certainly there in Scientology, most especially in Hubbard’s lectures and in the Scientology course rooms. Even his books use some clever tricks of mental manipulation. That’s true.

      The myth about Scientology that I just can’t seem to dispel is the myth that Scientology has vast, secret powers. When people believe in this myth, it supports the notion that there is something to Hubbard’s “tech”. No, there is NOTHING to Hubbard’s “tech” — it is useless and powerless.

      But I’m not making headway, am I? Never mind.


  32. Dave says:

    People can be manipulated! Hubbard used covert hypnosis and other proven brainwashing techniques to manipulate people for power and money. Scientology was/is merely his label, his brand! These techniques are, in my humble opinion, extremely dangerous.

    Cults like are all alike. The Peoples Temple, Scientology, Heaven’s Gate, or the Workers Party of North Korea all use similar techniques to control people. These mind control “tech”niques amount to undue influence and are extremely harmful. End of story.

    • justbill001 says:

      No argument here. Scientology is a cult and is quite dangerous to those in it. But it has no actual power. Despise it? Yes. Avoid it? Yes. Expose it? Yes. Laugh at it? Yes. Warn others? Yes.

      Fear it? No.

      Scientologists believe that Scientology has power and influence. It has neither.


  33. Dave says:

    Mind control is also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform. We’ve all heard of Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, and Marshall Applewhite. They all had their own brand of mind control. Scientology is simply Hubbard’s brand. In my humble opinion, mind control exists and is it dangerous because it results in undue influence and exploitation. When combined with fear and violence it is even more dangerous.

    Psychologist Philip Zimbardo thinks that any human being is susceptible to psychological manipulation. Psychiatrist Robert Lifton thinks that thought reform is possible, without violence or physical coercion. Margaret Singer, in her book Cults in Our Midst, describes six conditions which would create an atmosphere in which thought reform is possible. Professor Robert Cialdini argues that mind control is possible through the covert exploitation of the unconscious rules that underlie human social interactions. Cult expert Steven Hassan’s mind control model outlines four key elements that need to be controlled: Behavior, Information, Thoughts and Emotions (BITE). According to Hassan, if these four components can be controlled, then an individual’s identity can be systematically manipulated and changed. People can be manipulated.

    Some recruits into cults seem to be brainwashed and controlled to the point that they will do great evil to themselves or others at the request of their leader, including murder and suicide. Many of these recruits are in a state of extreme vulnerability when they are recruited and their recruiter takes advantage of that vulnerability. The sheer number of former cult leaders and ex-members who attest to brainwashing in interviews (performed in accordance with guidelines of the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation) is too large to be a result of anything other than a genuine phenomenon.

    Okay Bill, so now for the good news. I agree with you to a certain extent. Most people who join cults participate for only a short time and the success rate in retaining long-term members is also limited. Only some drink the cool-aid. Most people simply drift away. Some people are more susceptible than others.

  34. Dave says:

    Hubbard created Scientology to control people and make money. When he died he was worth $350 million dollars. That IMO is power and influence writ large. The following quotes from Hubbard prove my point:

    “Make money, make money, make more money.”

    “All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!”

  35. tz says:

    Why haven’t several of the numerous ex-Scientologist executives who allege they were imprisoned and/or beaten by David Miscavige banded together to file criminal (not just civil) complaints against the man? I can understand how tough it might be for any one former member to go it alone, but surely there’s strength in numbers. With all the organizational skill these former staff members must have developed while working for the COS, what’s holding them back from assembling a large group to press charges of kidnapping, torture, and assault & battery? It seems to me that the more who’d participate, the less effective any threats or reprisals from DM and his minions would be against any of them individually.

    • justbill001 says:

      This is a very good question, and one that I’ve asked myself.

      I believe I do know the answer to that.

      First, of course, understand that the Scientology mind-control is, like many cults, pretty hard to overcome. It can take years of steady work to get back to some sense of proportion about it all. Scientologists, and especially the executives, are conditioned to feel that they are to blame for all their problems – that if only they had been good Scientologists, none of this would have happened to them. When Scientologists are punished, it is because they have failed, they are evil.

      As part of Scientology, especially for those who work directly under David Miscavige, there are endless “Sec Checks” which means putting the person in a small room with one or more “auditors” who hammer and hammer and hammer them until they “confess” to the most horrendous crimes. These are recorded. “Confessions” are written out and signed.

      If a Scientology ex-executive can overcome the Scientology indoctrination, can overcome their feelings of guilt, can overcome their fear and take the Church of Scientology to court before the statute of limitations passes, they know the church will trot out their “confessions” and smear them mercilessly.

      Note also that the church will happily spend millions and millions on litigation, and will happily force their accusers to spend millions and millions.

      It is no surprise that the ex-executives find it impossible to bring a case against the Church of Scientology and David Miscavige.

      • tz says:

        But one of the key points of the “strength in numbers” strategy would be that it would disempower the COS by virtue of sheer dilution. You can effectively try to smear one or two people – but twenty or thirty? The publicity generated from such a widespread effort would destroy the church. And the millions you suggest they’d spend on vengeful litigation? I seriously doubt they’d want to exhaust what’s left in the coffer after the fortune they’d have to spend for their criminal defense.

        • justbill001 says:

          OK. Theoretically, that might work. You underestimate how willing David Miscavige is to spend any amount of the church’s money to keep himself out of jail.

          I also am doubtful that anyone could get the agreement of 20 or more ex-Scientology executives to take on the church. I believe most would just say “I’d rather forget the whole thing and get on with my life.”

          However, all that being said, I’d certainly like to see it happen.

          • tz says:

            But I don’t underestimate that, Bill. The very likelihood that Miscavige would spend any amount of the church’s money to mount his defense would be a huge plus, because it would mean there would be that much less money left for him to pursue a lawsuit against his accusers afterward. We need to distinguish here between criminal and civil proceedings.

            As for ex-executives’ saying “I’d rather forget the whole thing and get on with my life,” though, that may well be true. But such an attitude, it seems to me, falls somewhere between selfishness and sheer apathy. Some would argue that if you’ve been abused and have the opportunity to stop the similar abuse of others, you have a moral obligation to take action. Y’know, as in that word “ethics” Scientologists are so fond of bandying about?

            • justbill001 says:

              Not arguing with you as I agree, mostly, but “ethics” is a personal choice (unless you are a Scientologist – in which it is the church’s choice). Also, with virtually unlimited funds, the church’s lawyers can force massive expenses on the accusers. This can literally bankrupt people, which is, of course, the whole purpose.

              You want people to take on this massive financial expense with the almost certain side-effect of having their names smeared and their personal lives trashed, and a very real possibility that their suit would fail – just because you feel it is their “moral obligation”?

              Maybe it is, but I’m very, very glad I’m not in that situation.

              I don’t think it’s wrong for a person to want to survive and put that horrible part of their life behind them.

              • tz says:

                Some further clarification, Bill. In a criminal case, it’s not the accusers who bear the financial burden, but rather the government. If the prosecutor’s office deems there’s enough evidence to pursue criminal proceedings, then the cost is, in essence, borne by the taxpayers. The responsibility of the ex-Scientologists would be to provide testimony – not money. I’m not suggesting that Miscavige be sued; I’m suggesting he be prosecuted. There’s a big difference.

                It’s quite understandable that the Miscavige’s victims would opt not to seek criminal charges against him. The Mafia remained powerful for so many years precisely because its victims feared what would happen to them if they testified in court. This same kind of fear, of course – the reluctance to “speak up” – is what allowed so many of history’s dictators to stay in power as long they did.

                I know it’s quite easy for me, as an outsider, to advocate that ex-Scientologists pursue this action. Still, I’d like to believe that if I had the opportunity to prevent others from being unjustly imprisoned, tortured, and beaten, I’d make the effort. Even if it did mean I’d have to postpone putting a horrible part of my life behind me.

  36. Dave says:

    Hubbard talked a lot about “theta” but it seems that his primary interest was ME$T. Why don’t Scientologists see this?

    • justbill001 says:

      That’s pretty much a rhetorical question. To see that would be to see “entheta” and Scientologists are very, very careful to never see “entheta” (bad information about Hubbard and Scientology).

      The more bad news there is about Hubbard and Scientology, the smaller and smaller becomes the world that Scientologists can see. Today it’s pretty much whatever comes from the Church of Scientology and nothing else.

      That’s why trying to talk to Scientologists today is useless. They are hiding as hard as they can.

  37. Tourist says:

    Hi, Bill. A few months ago I took the guided tour of the “LRH Life Exhibition” on Hollywood Blvd. The guide was a friendly young immigrant woman who seemed very bright and sincere. It’s heartbreaking—she seemed brimming with potential, and most likely a terrible future awaits her. Obviously, she’s a true believer; I can’t imagine they would give anyone the job of public tour guide if their commitment was in the slightest doubt, and I sure didn’t see evidence of anything but complete devotion to LRH and her 12-hour-a-day job. So there’s clearly no point trying to persuade someone like her away from her choice. But is it fair to assume that bright young Sea Org members do experience doubt sooner or later, but by that time their life is so tied up in the Sea Org that they feel trapped? Is there anything that outsiders can say or do to help folks like that who are “in” realize that they have other options, should they want to exercise them?

    • justbill001 says:

      The fate of Scientology’s Sea Org members is pretty horrible. My personal experience is from quite a number of years ago and it has just gotten worse. For someone who was only in for a few months or a year, it isn’t too bad. When you leave, your situation isn’t much different than when you started. But when you’ve stayed in the Sea Org for years, especially when you started young, you end up in the real world with no money, no real world experience, no sane resume. It’s horrible what the Church of Scientology does to these poor people.

      Someone coming out of the Sea Org after many years doesn’t even speak “wog” any more. Add to that these poor people who have been imported from another country as Sea Org slave labor and you have a major problem.

      The older Sea Org members who are kicked out because they are too old, sick and/or disabled are, well, royally screwed. On top of not having money, real world experience and not speaking “wog”, they have no retirement – even Social Security.

      After a few years in the Sea Org, the members are well aware of these problems and scared to death about being kicked out.

      Yes, the Church of Scientology is very, very, very evil and cruel.

  38. Tourist says:

    Thanks for the reply, Bill. How about my second question: is their anything outsiders can do or say to make those in the Sea Org–especially young ones who still have opportunities for a good life in the “wog” world ( like that LRH tour guide, who can’t have been more than 25 years old, and did appear to have been imported to the US by the Sea org)–understand that they do have options outside of Scientology? It really pains me to just walk away from someone like that, knowing what their future holds if they don’t change course.

    • justbill001 says:

      The answer is, simply, no. Being in a cult is a completely different reality. Cult members just don’t think like normal people, they don’t listen the same way. You can talk all day to a cult member and they won’t hear things.

      It is sad.

  39. Christopher X says:

    My friend may be becoming a Scientologist. He’s been suicidal lately—going through a exitential crisis. My other friends are concerned. Over the past several months he’s been dropping hint of agreement with Scientology. But we haven’t confirmed what his beliefs are. Lately, he’s been overly apologetic and nice. Is that a part of the early iniation process?

    That might not be enough detail of the situation. But generally, what can we do?

    • justbill001 says:

      Really, not enough information.

      It is tricky trying to warn a person about Scientology when they have already begun their indoctrination. Scientology will have already told them that such “attacks” come from the “Evil Psych Conspiracy” and only confirm that Scientology “works”. I know, it doesn’t make much sense, but that’s the line. They will have been told, “ignore the rumors, see for yourself”. And therein lies the trick.

      Scientology does work, but not in the way they claim. Scientology “auditing” makes people feel better, for a very short time. Nothing is “cured” and nothing is handled, but there is a temporary well-being that comes from auditing. It fades rather quickly but Scientologists believe this is “proof” that “Scientology works”. They think something more is happening.

      This, combined with the strict indoctrination, is quite effective in convincing people that something new and “effective” is there. It is only after years and years and thousands of dollars that the lack of real results becomes blindingly obvious enough to get through the indoctrination.

      There are excellent books by ex-Scientologists, some free on the web, that this person should read. “Counterfeit Dreams” is one that gives a very clear description of getting into Scientology.

      I hope he hasn’t been too deeply indoctrinated yet.


  40. Dave says:

    Oh the irony! In DMSMH Hubbard says that Dianetic Clears don’t need glasses and have a perfect memory. Yet here an OT VIII who needs glasses and notes to make a speech. I find this absolutely mystifying. Why don’t Scientologists see this obvious and somewhat hilarious incongruity? Lowly wogs can see it.

  41. Bill – You still there? Your site was the first to help me at lease try to understand the mind-fuck that is Co$. I hope you are enjoying your life away from the crazy. Take care and thanks!

    • justbill001 says:

      Hi! Yeah, still around but I have definitely moved on. I’m still here to answer questions but Scientology is pretty much gone. A few thousand are still trapped but more are waking up every day.

  42. Kay says:

    Hi Bill,
    I thought I’d seen all the major ex-scientology sites until I found yours yesterday. Most of the others seem to have some sort of background about themselves, why they got involved and why they left, but I can’t see this on your site, have you done anything like this?

    For me the final straw was last year but I can’t say anything more specific as I still have close relatives in the “church” and don’t want to stir things up.

    • justbill001 says:

      This site has never been about me and I like it that way. It’s OK that others are more personal, but this site is about Scientology not me.

      • Kay says:

        Makes sense, thank you.

        Another question if I may: I found on the Backincomm (SCN Africa) site an article giving the promotional Statements for the first GAT, which included one which referred to the NEW Student Hat course. Do you know if there were any other courses re-released in 1996? I had been totally unaware of this as I wasn’t in the subject at that time and thought the original GAT had been all about those silly drill packs. Also I understand that prior to this there had been a previous re-release of the various courses in 1991, do you know if this is correct and which ones? How far back do all these re-releases go? I can’t believe that people are still getting taken in by this – there has been one person in charge this whole time, where are all these hidden SP’s he is often referring to? Personally I was shocked to find that all the latest GAT 2 was about is the same courses done again, I thought it would be some major revelation. All that has changed really is the name of the objectives course to “The Survival Rundown”.

        • justbill001 says:

          I am not following the most recent announcements from the Church of Scientology, so I can’t address this specific question but this is nothing new. It wasn’t invented by David Miscavige although he has made much use of it. Hubbard was big on reissuing the “tech” as “improved” and having everyone re-do (and pay again) everything.

          Hubbard had the ability to release new “advanced levels” and “advanced training” as well as reissue the old stuff. Miscavige can’t use that any more after “Super Power”, which was a stretch anyway.

          And, with Scientologists leaving rather than joining, the basic revenue stream from new arrivals taking all the basic courses doesn’t exist. Current Scientologists have already taken all the basic courses/processing and can’t afford the super-expensive “advanced levels”. What to do? Why reissue all the basic stuff as “new, improved” and force all existing Scientologists to re-do them all. Viola! Basic revenue stream restored.

          Or that’s how it’s supposed to work.

  43. Dave says:

    Did Hubbard believed in Scientology or was it just a money-making scam?

    • justbill001 says:


      Sorry, couldn’t resist. The real answer is that no one knows for sure. From Hubbard’s words and actions, it is clear that in many ways he did not believe in his own “tech”. Especially early on.

      But in the end, we find that Hubbard was feverishly, desperately auditing himself almost up to the last, trying to cure his illnesses, trying to become “OT”, trying to beat death.

      I think, in the beginning, it was pure scam just to get rich and become famous. And I think, at the end, he fooled even himself and he did believe. I love the irony of that.

      But no one knows for sure.

  44. Tourist says:

    Hello again, Bill. At this point, do you think there is anything (release of OT IX and X, Tom Cruise is installed as new Commodore, whatever) that could truly excite the devotees or even attract new ones? It sure looks like the organization is almost nothing but real estate holdings at this point, and I wonder what sort of hail-Mary pass Miscavige might have up his sleeve.

    • justbill001 says:

      I couldn’t say. However, I think that if Miscavige had something, he would have announced it. Even when it took decades to deliver it, “Super Power” was a real money maker the whole time. He won’t do “OT IX”. OT 8 was a total disaster which caused a ton of people to leave. He won’t try that again.

      He keeps trying the old standby of GAT – “It’s better now!” but that isn’t pulling like it used to.

      I think there is no more and Miscavige isn’t going to try something big. I think he’s going to keep squeezing all the remaining Scientologists from here on out until it falls apart. Then he’ll go hide somewhere.

  45. Dave says:

    According to Mike Rinder, “71% of declared SPs are Clear or OT; 50% of declared SPs are OT and 38% are OT V or above.” How can you be an SP if you don’t have a reactive mind? Seems to go against everything Scientology stands for.

    • justbill001 says:

      LOL! Well, in Scientology, waking up and speaking the truth has always been a suppressive act. That would mean the less aberrated one becomes, the more likely one will be declared “SP” by the church.

      But what I’d like to know is where Mike Rinder got these statistics from. Seriously. “Declared SPs” number in the multiple thousands. LOL! Did he contact some polling company? I like the “71%” and “38%” figures. If you are going to make up statistics, try to avoid rounded numbers. “38%” is good but “38.3% would have been even better. It makes your fictitious numbers appear “precise”.

  46. Dave says:

    Mike apparently conducted a survey and 200 people responded:

  47. Dave says:

    Just Bill, how can you be an SP if you don’t have a reactive mind?

    • justbill001 says:

      Well, basically, it is very simple. One can be “Clear” and still be a “Suppressive Person” because both things are completely fictitious. Therefore, they are completely malleable by Hubbard to mean whatever he wants them to mean.

      Officially, an SP has specific “anti-social” characteristics – but in reality it is anyone Hubbard (and now Miscavige) doesn’t like. There really is no other operative definition. No one expects an “SP” to have those “anti-social” characteristics any more – because they just don’t.

      But, to answer your question a bit more in-depth: Hubbard considered that there were Whole Track Evil People who were just evil. It had nothing to do with any Reactive Mind – they were just plain evil. And those were, allegedly, the “real” SPs.

      But don’t look to closely at Hubbard’s theory and don’t try to reconcile that with his tendency to declare lots of people “suppressive” who just pissed him off, it would just drive you crazy.

  48. Dave says:

    If Hubbard thought that there were “Whole Track Evil People” who were just evil and it had nothing to do with any Reactive Mind – they were just plain evil – then this goes against everything he taught.

    After all, what is a person? Isn’t a thetan “the person himself,” not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else? And if thetans are pure spiritual beings then how could a pure spiritual being be evil? I am starting to feel a bit baffled writing about this so let me backtrack a bit.

    Don’t Scientologists believe that thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation rather than their original spiritually pure state? Thetans have just forgotten their true nature and their spiritual and creative powers? They are not evil. They couldn’t possibly be evil. They simply came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings enmeshed in the physical universe. Thetans came to identify themselves with MEST forgetting their quadrillions of years of existence and their original godly state with all its powers. But behind it all, the thetan himself a pure spiritual being who got trapped!

    Surely the reactive mind [including the reactive minds of the BTs and clusters] is the source of all evil? How could a thetan, a pure spiritual being, be evil? You’re right, this is driving me crazy.

    • justbill001 says:

      L. Ron Hubbard contradicting himself and not making sense?! Who would have thought!

      Yeah. Like Hubbard said that Earth was a “prison planet”, he also said that the physical universe was set up as a trap. He claimed that the trappers have gotten themselves trapped and he calls these evil people … wait for it … psychiatrists!! Yes, it all ties together. The “psychs” are the “Evil ones” who created the physical universe to trap people.

      Warning: Do not try to find any logic or consistency in Hubbard’s ideas. There isn’t any.

  49. Dave says:

    “Ticket to Heaven” is an excellent movie about brainwashing in the Moonies. JB do you see any parallels with Scientology?

    • justbill001 says:

      When I first left Scientology, I still would have insisted that “Scientology is not a cult!” But when I started looking at cults and the definitions for “cult” I was blown away by the parallels. Scientology fits most of the characteristics of a cult. Scientology acts very much like other cults.
      It wasn’t too long before I had to admit that, yes, “Scientology is a cult!“.
      I think that the study of cults (without mentioning Scientology) might just be an excellent way to wake a True Believer up.

  50. BeeTee says:

    In formal photos of Sea Org officials, their uniforms are festooned with medals and ribbons. What sort of action is commemorated with a medal in the Sea Org?

    • justbill001 says:

      What do all the ribbons mean? Well, pretty much what you’d expect: Years of service, major courses/levels completed, major projects completed, successful “missions”, that sort of thing.
      Much of Scientology is about status – who is superior to whom. This is just more of that.

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 )

Connecting to %s