Or being “dealt with”…

Thank you for the detailed answer to my query. I agree. Miscavige may have missed the boat on raising an indoctrinated sect. Going so anti second dynamic means he has to pull people in off the streets, and in the US and most of western Europe and wealthier parts of Asia the tech is always gonna show up the fable and the ponzi) that is CofS. If he hadn’t been so squeamish and anti social he could have had a cult like Manson or some of the newer scarier breeder cults, ended up with thirty or forty little Miscavige’s running around. An even sicker scenario yes, but ready made sycophants is a lot easier than having the average pleb on the street unlearn real life in favor of Scientology world…

Knowumsayindawg?

Really good and detailed answer !

JJ, I’ll take a stab at your question about handling the internet, since it’s an interesting topic.

My analysis, is that Hubbard continually evolved Dianetics and Scientology in the ways that turned out to give him the most control. Loyalists and apologists may argue that he had other motives as well, including saying that what was at the heart of the organizational control were attempts to maintain the purity and proper delivery of the “tech” so that it would work as it was supposed to, but regardless I think it is accurate to look at it in terms of control.

Hubbard’s first major experiment in control was the Sea Project that become the Sea Org, where he took dedicated followers on ships where there was near complete physical and information control, and almost no oversight by legal or civil authorities. The policies and organizational dynamics that developed there, including the RPF, then slowly spread into the rest of his organization when Hubbard and his followers came ashore.

My answer would be in response to the free flow of information on the internet Hubbard would have likely found ways to have more of his followers live in controlled situations, but I don’t see how he could have done more to control the general exposure of information on the internet. In Hubbard’s day, I think that many more of his then-young followers tended to live communally in residences full of Scientologists, though unofficially; to some extent this has been replace by the shift towards families of CofS members, who of course reside together.

So I think that what probably would have evolved would have been something along the lines of Scientology living communities based in the same building or complex as an “org,” and in LA and Clearwater likely even gated communities, all of which would have allowed for a variety of control mechanisms including hooking everyone up to a filtered internet feed. And once they had a base like that, they probably could have run their own filtered ISP (internet service provider) and required that any local members living independently subscribe to the internet through that service (including smartphones), doing pretty much the same thing that the Chinese have done with the “great firewall of China.”

Miscavige does not have the creativity that Hubbard did, nor the doctrinal flexibility that “source” had to evolve very different or even new organizational structures. That’s not to say the modern CofS hasn’t made some changes and even altered or abandoned some Hubbard policy and practices, but it is still very hampered in adapting – much less in actually evolving. What I think we do see happening as a largely unplanned adaptation in the face of decline, is that Scientologists are increasingly left concentrated in LA and Clearwater where there are self-policing “public” communities, and that an increasingly large percentage of the members left are those serving in the controlled environment of the Sea Org.

As to control, remember that in the late 1940s not long before he started Dianetics, Hubbard wrote in his “Affirmations” (which the CofS has conceded in court, were written by Hubbard) that “Men are your slaves.” I think that if one looks closely and honestly at the history that follows, it shows Hubbard evolving ways to exercise increasing control over members, and even some of his closest and most admiring old followers admit that was what happened though they may claim it was not calculated or intentional.

To finish answering the question, I think that Hubbard would have had only had limited success in reducing the amount of exposure and of information getting out, and it still would have been hard to control celebrities, though I can imagine Hubbard being more ruthless in trying to ensure that departing public figures kept any disaffection hidden. But I think he would have done more and been more effective in limiting the amount of information getting in, even to “public” members.

Yes, Melissa. As my friend Bugs Bunny would say “What a bunch of maroons.”

Aha, thanks for that. Will take a look and perhaps offer my thoughts on it if I have a few minutes.

Whoa, I just took a look and this is just the most obvious and absurd hypocrisy…talk about projection! “In this issue, we pursue the dual quests for openness in government and the rights of citizens to be safe from all forms of official and corporate spying.”….wow…no words.

The Feb. issue editorial deals with spying. By the government to be precise. I also have concerns about Big Brother; however the author (whose name I didn’t bother noting) was incensed that anyone should be spied upon. Everyone has the right to privacy. It’s a constitutional given, etc…
And the next article was just a laugh a minute. Religious freedom. Huh. How complicated it could be if not handled properly. It can be cumbersome at times. Where do you draw the line? Just thought you’d like to know, particularly about how objectionable scientologists find violation of our right to privacy.

I dont read Freedom. What is the editorial about?