The latest offering from Terra Cognita.
Scientology Strip Club
LRH wrote, “When a person is not functioning well on his post, on his job or in life, at the bottom of his difficulties will often be found unknown basic definitions and laws or false definitions, false data and false laws, resulting in an inability to think with the words and rules of that activity and an inability to perform the simplest required functions.” HCOB 7 August 1979, False Data Stripping. [All subsequently quoted passages refer to this bulletin.]
I found the full text here
LRH declared, “There is no field in all the society where false data is not rampant.”
Lucky for us, he added, “Now, however, I have made a major breakthrough which finally explains and handles the problem of inability to learn and apply.”
False Data does Exist
False data has been passed down from generation to generation. From text books to “fake news,” false data exists and adversely affects people. No one will deny that operating on false data can be dangerous and harmful.
Nor can we deny that people haven’t had wins applying False Data Stripping. I’m sure a few reading this have handled chunks of false data that were screwing up their lives.
Like so much of LRH’s technology, though, False Data Stripping doesn’t apply to Scientology. Just like in other religions, its members believe their doctrines are sacred and beyond reproach.
And thus, LRH made people wrong for not fully embracing his philosophy. False Data Stripping controls people by making them believe that everything they’re studying within Scientology is true and correct. If a piece of LRH tech or policy doesn’t make sense, the fault lies with others, not the founder.
“What we’re trying to cure in people is the inability to think with data.” Whether this was his true intention or not, False Data Stripping reinforces his curricula and system without allowing for the possibility for further inquiry. False Data Stripping forces people to assign cause to others outside of Scientology.
“The most profound false data can come out of texts…” Unless of course, those texts were written by L. Ron Hubbard. False Data Stripping makes no allowance for the possibility that one’s confusion may stem from something he concocted. LRH would never have foisted off false data.
“Therefore it is important that any supervisor or teacher seeking to use False Data Stripping must utilize basic workable texts. These are most often found to have been written by the original discoverer of the subject and when in doubt avoid texts which are interpretations of somebody else’s work.”
First of all, I don’t accept that “workable texts are most often found to have been written by the original discoverer of the subject.” If this were so, the first people to write about “flight,” also wrote the most workable texts on the subject. A few engineers at Boeing might care to differ.
Since LRH was the “original discoverer” of everything Scientology, and since his technology is supposedly one hundred percent “workable,” all other texts on religion, philosophy, therapy—pretty much every text on every subject from badminton to nuclear physics—should be avoided. Which means: don’t look anywhere else for truth. LRH has already set that table and served the turkey.
“False Data Stripping should be used extensively in all hatting and training activities. Current society is riddled with false data and these must be cleared away so that we can hat and train people. Then they will be able to learn useful data which will enable them to understand things and produce valuable products in life.”
LRH implies is that all false data originates from “current society”—outside the church—and that any “useful data” is that which he wrote. LRH is never responsible for poor performance, overt products, or fuzzy thinking. Followers of his consistently “understand things and produce valuable products in life.”
The Hamster Wheel of All Rundowns
“The rundown has to be given again and again at later and later periods, as a student or staff member may come up against additional faulty data that has been not-ised. It can be repeated as often as necessary in any specific area of training until the person is finally duplicating and is able to use the correct tech and only the correct tech exactly.”
I suspect I wasn’t the only one who came up against “additional faulty data” during their time in Scientology course rooms. It seems LRH recognized this phenomenon and used False Data Stripping as a way to circumvent those parts of his technology that didn’t make sense. The more that people read and listen to his words, the more they need this “rundown.”
“Some people are prone to accepting false data. This stems from overts committed prior to the false data being accepted. The false data then acts as a justifier for the overt.”
It was only a matter of time before Ron added O/Ws to the mix! He just couldn’t help but heap more blame on students, while at the same time, deflecting all responsibility from himself. Of course, getting off one’s overts means a trip to Ethics for another round of sec-checking.
LRH formulated ten steps to strip a person of false data: Steps A to J. Refer to the bulletin for the full procedure.
Step A is, “Determine whether or not the person needs this procedure by checking the following.” The ten questions are so general and pervasive that everybody on the planet inevitably answers “yes” to at least one of them.
Number four reads, “He is rejecting the material he is reading or the definition of the word he is clearing.” In other words, if a student rejects anything LRH wrote, he’s suffering from false data he picked up somewhere outside the church.
Number six is one of my favorites. “The person talks about or quotes other sources or obviously incorrect sources.” Just talking about other philosophies, religions, or therapies means one must have false data. Yikes! Again, this is a subtle device used to indicate that no other data but his is correct. There is only one true source: L. Ron Hubbard.
Number ten says, “He cannot think with the data and it does not seem to apply.” Not including Scientology, or course. Because everyone can think with and apply anything to do with Scientology. And make ashtrays rise up off chairs!
In step “E,” fourteen questions are “used to detect and uncover the false data.” Just for fun, replace the word “subject” (used in all the questions) with “Scientology.”
“Is there anything you have run across in ‘Scientology’ which you couldn’t think with?”
“Is there anything you have encountered in ‘Scientology’ which didn’t seem to add up?”
“Would it make somebody else wrong not to learn the ‘Scientology’?”
Perhaps more than anything else about False Data Stripping, this bugged me the most: LRH assumed that people would inherently recognize false data when asked for it. Study, research, or directions from Lord Google, weren’t necessary. All one needed was to “see” the data and he would miraculously know whether it was true or false. From Uncle Bob’s formula for communal bliss to quantum equations, one need but “look” at the data. As if all I had to do was ask the file clerk for incidents where I was given false data and he would pull them up for me.
Step G (“When the false datum has been located, handle as follows”) can be lots of fun when a piece of Scientology tech or policy has been chosen as the false datum.
Step K reads, “Have the person study or restudy the true data on the subject you have been handling.” Ninety-nine percent of the time this means restudying whatever Scientology bulletin or policy letter one was reading when he became groggy. Don’t worry, all Scientology data is true.
The official EP of False Data Stripping is, “He will have cognitions and VGIs and on the meter you will have an F/N.” But wait! There’s more!
“This is not the end of False Data Stripping for that person. It is the end of that False Data Stripping on the person at that particular time. As the person continues to work with and study the subject in question, he will learn more about it and may again collide with false data at which time one repeats the above process.”
Since Scientology is chock-full of questionable data, students will need more and more stripping as they travel up the bridge.
But the truth is, False Data Stripping is seldom applied regularly. Scientology supervisors and CSs are wary of students digging too deeply into LRH data, much less, allowing them free rein to evaluate Scientology with comparable systems of belief.
Deep, Deep Inside the Bubble…Like way, way Deep
“Sometimes the person will have such faith in a particular person, book, etc. that he cannot conceive that any data from that particular source might be false.”
This passage describes the average Scientologist to a tee. They can’t conceive that anything written by LRH might be incorrect, much less, not workable.
This LRH datum is so true, I’m almost surprised he included it.
Danger Will Robinson, Danger!
“RUDIMENTS: One would not begin False Data Stripping on someone who already has out-ruds. If the person is upset or worried about something or is critical or nattery, then you should fly his ruds or get them flown before you start False Data Stripping.”
Since anyone with “upsets,” “worries,” or “critical thoughts” about Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard is automatically “out-ruds,” False Data Stripping can’t begin. In other words, False Data Stripping can’t be done on anyone who doesn’t believe that everything LRH wrote is one hundred percent true and workable.
If a person “cannot conceive that any data from that particular source might be false,” he’s out-ruds!
Guys like Mike provide actual False Data Stripping. He and his blog allow for dialog and discussion, and for people to work out for themselves how true or how false Scientology tech and policy is or isn’t.
Blogs like this provide the real False Data Stripping.
Still not Declared,
Bonus Wisdom! The latest Source Magazine printed the essay, The Road to Truth by L. Ron Hubbard, in which he wrote, “I think you will find that there is a considerable effort on the part of Man, wittingly or unwittingly—aberratedly, certainly—to say that certain roads are closed and that those roads must never be opened. ‘It is very bad to know about the human mind.’ Let me tell you something: if you’re alive, you know something about the human mind. And I’ll tell you what’s dangerous: never to find out any more about it. That’s dangerous!”
What’s dangerous, is applying Keeping Scientology Working in which he pretty much put the kibosh—closed that road—on exploring the human mind beyond the tight confines of his books and lectures.
L Yash says
Having been in the generation of the “flower children”…it was ONLY ….LOGIC & Common Sense that KEPT ME OUT of Scientology, the Hare Krishna & the Moonies “organization(s).
Incredibly those in power were “baiting really nice caring people by taking all their money and having them sell off their personal possessions sold for cash in order to get THEM into BUYING their way across a Bridge where most of them found they would NEVER make it fully across….despite all the $$$, and time and effort they put in it to trying to complete the task…..how very sad is that.
Those harmed are left with life long scars…..emotional harm is NOT healed by “auditing”…..
How people can fall for all of this Scientology nonsense is beyond my comprehension.
It’s beyond theirs also.
L Yash says
Life is a lesson in itself….how many of us have done or said things and that later on thought “What the HELL did I just DO (or say)……..
Mistakes make us who we are, we hopefully learn from our mistakes is a most important lesson and often times become strong and even better people.
So PROUD of all of you, despite the cost of disconnection from loved ones, made the choice to “blow”…..can’t think of a better decision than to begin life ANEW….stay strong, the best is yet to be.
Thanks to my time in scientology, I understand it perfectly.
Chris S. says
Excellent points. I made this realization about 6 months into my 2.5 year stint in the SO. I absolutely refused FDS at every turn, which came to be a serious problem. Any time I questioned what LRH wrote, FDS was always the retort. I just couldn’t get past the absurdities I found in LRH’s explanation of evolution. So for me, as one who studied the works of Darwin before my involvement in Scientology, A History of Man was a minefield of “false data”. I guess you could say I “blew some charge” after seeing that I’m not the only one that believes Scientology’s False Data Stripping only reinforces Scientology’s false data.
Spot on article Terra. The main false datum that needs to be “stripped” from all Scientologists is that L. Ron Hubbard is infallible.
An excellent essay, TC. The conceit of scientology is that Hubbard discovered truths previously unknown and this advanced knowledge exposes false data in all fields of human endeavor. False data is EVERYWHERE! Hence the need for a short-cut system to locate it and destroy it.
Ironically it is Mr. Hubbard who has the dubious distinction of foisting more false data than perhaps anybody ever! And his system for finding it is NOT needed in the slightest. False Data Stripping is Hubbard’s reinventing of the wheel and making it into a square!
Locating false data and substituting it with true data is called “the scientific method” and it works swimmingly. It is based on logic and critical thinking, an age-old practice that has no substitutes.
Amusingly, the scientology test of whether you have replaced bad data with good data is how you FEEL about it! There will be a floating needle and VGI’s to confirm your successful transition from false information to true information!
If the emeter’s floating needle had guided humanity’s quest for knowledge 500 years ago do you suppose the local barber would still be bleeding people when they came down with the vapors?
Idle Morgue says
The internet is your tool to “False Data Strip” Scientology, L Ron Hubbard and the claims Scientology makes that it is helping humanity.
The truth will set you free Lurkers.
Propaganda only traps.
Find out the truth and start Googling Scientology Today!!
It is a travesty, the height of stupidity and ignorance, to claim that only other philosophies are up for scrutiny and data analysis, but not Ron or his methods.
To preach and teach data analysis while excluding oneself from the being scrutinized can only reveal two things about Ron:
1) he created this irrational doctrine to hide himself from us seeing Ron as he is; deception. To destroy those who truly see him for who he is.
2) he believed he was infallible and incapable of having a fault; arrogant and deluded.
So which one was it? Or maybe a bit of both.
Ron was a deceiver and had a personality disorder.
I believe it was both.
Ron consciously deceived to acquire money and power
And he was criminally insane.
Ron apologists, like some here from time to time, seem to be applying data analysis to Ron critics. You can tell they are trying to argue against views that Ron and some of the tech are looney tunes.
When I post some Ron looney tunes they call up their data analysis techniques to attempt to win the argument. But it is very interesting that the majority here see through the vain attempt to make LRH seem logical.
Hey you data analysis people, please can you apply your 100% standard data tech to this:
1) Ron claimed running BTs will make you more free
2) L Ron Hubbard wished for suicide by electrical shock while running BTs
Please analyze this for me
3) Ron wrote What is Greatness
4) Ron wrote Fair Game
Please analyze this data
5) In the beginning Ron acknowledged Christianity as a civilizing force in the world
6) Later Ron said Christianity is from implants and a controlled mechanism
7) Ron said there was no Christ in a tape
8) Ron said there was a Christ but he was a pedophile
Please analyze this data
9) Ron said he studied with Lamas in Tibet
10) Ron said the problem with China is that there are too many chinks
Please analyze this data
11) When I joined in the 70s Ron said the bridge is complete. All you have to do is get on the bridge. It’s all done and 100% standard.
12) the standardness of the tech is always changing
Please help us with your crack shot accurate data analysis on this
13) Ron said there are no absolutes in the MEST universe
14) Ron said ALL critics (an absolute) have criminal pasts
I’m sure you can help me with data analysis on this one.
Ron was an insane deceiver. Ron was a master Hypnotic Operator with a corrupted moral rudder. He was an indecent human being.
If your data analysis does not uncover this, your data analysis is worthless.
The inability to be self critical is the state of Ron and thus his extension; Scientology
Not being able to be self critical is the condition necessary for self delusion and self denial. Never able to see correct time, place, form and event
My take is that Ron never research critics like he said he did. Ron was not stupid. He knew all critics can’t be criminals. That is an absurd and laughable doctrine.
He made you believe it so that his lies would not be seen by intelligent scrutiny.
Please analyze this one also. I would love to know your reasoned findings.
Scientology as the road to intelligent data analysis is laughable.
My 2 Cents says
Brian, on the unlikely chance that by “data analyzers” you MIGHT mean me, here is my analysis of your comment.
You are stuck on making Ron wrong. He certainly was wrong about certain things. But your viewpoint keeps you from recognizing and utilizing that portion of his work that was actually true, good, and helpful.
Your criticisms DO have some validity. But that’s not the point. The point is that we’re all trying to get better, in whatever way we individually define “better,” and need to find workable methodologies wherever they may be. You make an indivisible whole out of each aspect of Ron himself, the philosophy he wrote, the tech he developed, the organization he created, and the people who manned up that organization. The resulting monolith is unanalyzable. The emotionally charged irrationality of this is obvious.
Meanwhile you never share with us any details of the alternative path you now practice. You keep it safe from analysis, as though it, too, were a monolithic whole, just a good one.
I hope you are having a good day.
Below you said
“Your criticisms DO have some validity.”
I will simply accept this from you with gratitude. Thank you.
Regarding seeing eye to eye and being in agreement with each other:
I do not expect it so my words are few. You will see me according to your experience and understanding. No judgements on my part. That’s just the way it is.
And I see things according to my experience and understanding.
I think you and I do not need to be understood and agreed with. That’s very good.
But I do want to be clear. We see each other through our experiencial filters.
You think I’m obsessed with judging Ron. And I see you as still under the influence of Hubbard imprinting.
It’s that simple.
Vive la difference. Thanks for your views my friend.
My 2 Cents says
You have just posed as a wise man able to grant beingness to someone who disagrees with you, but you didn’t actually answer anything I said.
It’s contrary facts that you can grant beingness to me while not doing so with Ron.
You just want to win, whether or not that’s based on truth.
If a cult is based on slavery to the idea that its leader is always right and good, what is it when critics insist that he is always wrong and evil? How does either assertion lead anyone to the actual truth?
I grant beingness to you because you are a decent person. As much as I can tell from a blog.
You probably do not lie for financial gain
You probably have not created doctrines teaching those who look up to you to destroy those who disagree with you.
You probably would cry instead of get angry if your son committed suicide
You probably have not pistol whipped a wife
You probably have not abducted children
The reason I am a Ron critic:
First of all, I never think or talk about Ron to my friends or family. I only talk about him on these blogs.
MTC! It’s so important to reverse the black voodoo that Ron put on our ability to be sovereign thinkers. The first step to recovery from cult mentality is our ability to be critical of Ron. It is not found in the next auditing action.
Seeing someone for who they are is not anti granting beingness. Granting beingness is not a state of stupidity whereby we must be airy fairy and feign affection. Love can be fierce. Love can be uncomfortable when pointing out the truth.
I do not hate Ron. I am simply fascinated by the riddle of Ron. I enjoy unmasking the lies.
In one sense I am granting him beingness. He was a liar. I am pointing out his lies. I am seeing him as he is. So in that respect I am granting him who he is by seeing him as he is.
Granting of beingnesss is not permissiveness if someone is criminal. Granting beingness is seeing a person for who they are. You are making space for their beingness.
Making space for Ron’s beingness means seeing him for who he was. Granting beingness is not a state of denial.
Ron outlawed criticism by threat of punishment. I continue to be a critic because I am aware that new people, Scientologists and those on the fence come here. My words are not so much for those who continue to come here but for those that this is dangerous new knowledge; allowing themselves to decompress and unhypnotize themselves with criticism.
So my friend, my constant iconoclastic enthusiasm helps others. I have had many people thank me for my views.
But I’m not so popular with Ron apologists. I am ok with that.
If I knew that a certain store always had rotten fruit I would tell my friends and family about it. Am I not granting bad fruit beingness?
Am I anti bad fruit, overts against bad fruit because I’m critical?
I do not hate Ron. I enjoy the hobby of unmasking his marketed messianic PR lies. And his scientific research lies.
You consider my unmasking of Ron as a personal problem that probably needs to be audited out. I consider that thought evidence of ignorance of the true nature of Scientology and Ron.
I am a Ron critic in hopes that one person who reads me can overcome the fear of being critical. Old timers who come here may think I’m on a stuck flow.
New comers may be inspired and gain strength to leave the cult.
To me, there is more positive results from pointing out Ron’s lies and inconsistencies than blowing the trumpet for “standard tech.”
You have your job to do and I have mine.
Your view of me is none of my concern. It is your view and I do not need to convince you otherwise.
Maybe some years hence you will see what I am talking about. Maybe not.
Have a great day MTC.
L Yash says
@Dear Brian, You have as usual so eloquently stated your point without being combative…..sending my best to you and yours. The Kool Aid haze is still over the eyes and affecting the brains of many still consuming it.
I’ve read all the books, viewed many documents and read many posts here…can EVERYONE being lying about what goes on behind the doors of the “inner sanctum”…..
As much as we try, we cannot save people from themselves if THEY do NOT WANT to be saved…….Keep up the informative posts Brain & Terra C, and Mike….you ARE waking people up…not everyone, but a vast majority of them!
Thank you so much L Yash.
M2C, I was hoping you would state explicitly what Brian said that you disagree with but you did not. You only offered a complaint about him (“You are stuck on making Ron wrong”). So what if he is? You’re free to correct him if you think he is in error about something specific but you are implying he should change to suit you. It’s a big world you know.
As for all of us trying to “get better”…you make it sound as though we see ourselves as sick and in need of getting well. I consider that a sick outlook which is an unfortunate legacy of scientology. We are not perfect and we will never be. But we can be happy with what we’ve got and take delight in who we are, thorns and all.
It is intrinsic in our nature, however, to always strive to improve. To do it better the next time, to come to the end of our search. That drive is in our DNA and life will take us by the hand and lead us there. Life is not, as Mr. Hubbard suggested time and time again, something we must do battle with. The universe is not our adversary or something to be conquered. I call that ‘false data’ and I definitely AM stuck on making Ron Hubbard wrong. There must be a strong antidote to a strong poison.
When debate is lost slander is the tool of the loser.
With some x Scientologists and indies, there is still a mindset of attack the critics.
In one sense it is very good to have them express themselves. They are representative of who we use to be. And they reveal important things to watchers. They are a valuable asset in seeing the depth of hypnosis that Ron was able to put them under. They do a public service by attacking critics.
We were once intolerant towards critics. My job now is to attempt to meet those anti critic critics with as much reason and friendliness as possible.
I bring up inconsistencies and lies about Hubbard and they point out problems with me. That’s just how they are. At this point we can help them by not putting them down like they put us down. Just continue revealing the lies with reason. At some point they may get it. Maybe not.
I learned from real liberated teachers to try to be loving and understanding towards my critics.
Ron, not being liberated, taught to destroy critics. Some minds are still affected by this learned behavior. Learned on course.
They are true defenders of L Ron Hubbard. They have too much invested in his unique messiaship to allow themselves to see Ron as he truly is.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Brian. While I agree with you completely, I myself, am not a particularly tolerant or gentle soul. Certainly not as you. Fortunately for me I don’t require that of myself. I would be a hypocrite if I did. It’s my long-standing assertion we must love ourselves thorns and all. Of course that means we must also extend that magnanimity to others.
Aye, there’s the rub!
I can be pretty fierce if I have to. I just don’t have to hate while doing it.
It’s a self mastery practice thing.
My 2 Cents says
Roger, some of Brian’s points are true and some are not. I, too, see serious flaws in Ron’s work. So let’s drop those flaws, and continue with what Ron got right. In other words, DIFFERENTIATE! When people won’t differentiate, they’re revealing that they are either (a) lacking in intelligence to begin with, or (b) suffering from heavy bypassed charge, or (c) on some kind of evil mission. That applies to both the cult and anti-cult sides.
I say that Ron got nothing right, from his cosmology down to his bullshit theories about the human mind. Now tell me what he got right, along with objective (that is, non-anecdotal, non-experiential) proof.
The powers and accuracy in our ability to differentiate is determined by the experience and knowledge we use to think with.
I’ll give you an example:
I brought up to you in the past about Ron wishing for suicide by electro shock to to free BTs.
You, My Two Cents, came up with a “rational justification” for his actions.
Your powers of differenciation, your discriminating intelligence had as working data that Ron was a wise man who was simply done with his body.
My discriminating intelligence, being that have have spent time looking into the mental health of Hubbard came to a very different conclusion.
I differentiated that Ron sought suicide because he had mental, moral and emotional problems.
Your conclusion was because he was a big being above the body who was being compassionate to space aliens.
You also believe in Body Thetans and either are running them or seeking in the future to run them.
In that regard I do not expect you to see my view. You still are of the opinion that running a Body Thetans leads to freedom.
It’s my view, MTC, that your ability to differentiate between Ron’s various personal deficiencies is lacking because of the data you use to think with. To you, he is still the unique messiah with a few personal quirks.
I see him a a dangerous societal pariah. Just ask Paulette Cooper. I think she’d back me up.
M2C you remind me a little bit of the Hare Krishnas who say those who are knowledgable of their doctrines yet criticize them are under the spell of demonic influences. You apparently think it is our duty to ‘differentiate’ between the wheat and chaff of scientology and our wholesale criticism of it is (a) lack of intelligence, (b) by-passed charge or (c) some kind of evil mission.
That’s mighty cheeky I must say. Look at what scientology has done to people (and I don’t give a shit about their stupid “wins” and “gains” which, BTW, have not deterred them from becoming morally and intellectually compromised piss ants) and look at the shocking and hideous behaviors of “Ron”, the liar and founder. And you want to talk about critics’s being up to some kind of evil???
Look, I’m stopping here before I get really ornery. But I will say this: attributing by-passed charge, which is a scientology term for unresolved mental conflicts, to the moral imperative of speaking out against something you consider dangerous and harmful, is an error in judgement.
I’m all for “take what you want and leave the rest”. I knew some American Catholics that revered the pope, but still used contraceptives. Just sayin. I don’t understand the contradictions in the bible, or apocrypha, and I reallyreally hate the edits.
I don’t pray the way my folks taught me to. I meditate, and focus on positives. I like to think I summon good earth energy to those I love. 🙂 sometimes I chant to help me focus.
What benefits me may not benefit someone else. But what I don’t understand is blind faith to any credo or human. I dont understand Indie scientology, or Elron apologists. Cheaterbeaterliarcrook.
Oh dear, gotta go, gotta chant…nomyo…..
Ho Renge Kyo:-)
Old Surfer Dude says
A Buddha chant…
Follows a redneck rant.
Brian, I have gone to the trouble numerous times of pointing out to you various things you have misinterpreted and/or misquoted – but it made no difference. You continued to repeat the exact same things.
For that reason, I don’t bother anymore. I get that you have a fixed idea – otherwise known an idée fixe, which is actually a psychology term. In the Wikipedia article titled “Idée fixe (psychology)” the definition is as follows:
“An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind believed to be firmly resistant to any attempt to modify it, a fixation.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_(psychology)#Today.27s_usage
Sorry to say it, but your reply to My 2 Cents was a cop-out. I’ve never seen you so meekly back off like that. I don’t think you have the courage to actually have a discussion with him – as he might shine some light on your fixed ideas, and you don’t want that.
Here’s a kiss……
My 2 Cents says
Another non-sequiter from Brian.
And here is another non sequitur smooch for you MYTC
There now, and here’s a hug as well! For good luck!
Isn’t life grand that we have differing views?
I love life for such varied experiences that we may learn to treat each other with kindness and respect in the face of those differences.
Hey, but that’s just me.
Brian, I asked you about your fixation on Ron one time on Marty’s blog, and you were honest enough to admit that you had thought about it yourself because of your extreme feelings about him. I don’t remember your exact words, but you basically said that it indicated to you that you had been connected with him in a past life, and that the connection related to your overreaction to him.
Maybe you should look at that further. It isn’t that the reasons you give for your “hobby” (as you put it) or the things you say about Ron are all false. But I would think that any type of fixation is not pleasant, and it can get in the way in life.
What I said was:
It occurred to me, being that reincarnation and karma is a doctrine I believe in and experience, taking responsibility for all of my experiences is now a habit, and the most fundamental practice of responsibility and causation that any student of truth follows.
In that regard I did some self inquiry and sensed that I too, in some past must have deceived to be deceived. It is my karma of deception that led me to Ron.
And I also said that uncovering Ron’s deception on these blogs helped to serve as an amends for me.
But that reasoning also includes you too Marildi. We are all here as a result of our actions.
When I said these things on Marty’s you got very excited and had a blow down because Brian now sees that it’s his “case” making him so fixed. You saw it though Ron’s filters of me getting off something.
I just left you with that thought because I had no need to be understood by you. You seemed to be relishing in my past life “confession” so I just let it go.
But you see, with this logic Gandhi, MLK and others who do great changes in the world also have a past that they are working out. Because karma is exact. You go to med school: you become a doctor. Cause/Effect
We deceive people and use them for selfish gain: we get deceived and used, to work out past actions and learn to not do this anymore because suffering is involved.
So who I was in the past does not matter. What I am doing now by dissecting Ron is also helping other people.
I am also OK with people thinking what I just said is just so much more bs. I have no need to go through your trash bin and destroy your lives.
I am simply communicating what has been a useful philosophy for me. It’s made me more responsible because with karma; the buck stops with us.
With Hubbard, the buck stopped with blaming outside sources; BTs, SPs, FBI, CIA, AMA etc.
Hubbard did not have the spiritual intelligence to even say things like, “I pulled it in”. Or that was my karma. He dissed Karma. That was a teaching against the laws of consequence. A crime against the ability to assign all of our experience to our own cause. Now that is an OT doctrine because it gives us all of the power for our experiences and creations.
I hope I cleared that up for you Marildi.
Here’s a smooocher!! Mwwwwaaahh!!
As usual, Brian, you always have a glib comeback – with fancy-sounding but specious words.
I think you’re not only misusing your natural ability with words but wasting it. There is no shortage of Ron bashers, so your justification doesn’t ring true.
I’ll leave you with a quote from your own guru:
“One is fit to judge others only after he has perfected his own nature. Till then, judging oneself is the only profitable analysis.” — Paramahansa Yogananda
Thank you for sharing your googled confirmation bias.
I’ll let you have last say. Think of me as you wish.
Boy, I got My Two Cents and Marildi all riled up. I consider that a successful thread. When we can bring My Two Cents and Miraldi together it’s so much fun.
But the perfect world would be Foolproof responding as well. Now that would be hot and spicy!
Have a good week my dear.
So now it’s “fun” and a “hot and spicy” little game for you? How easily you switch over from it being a vitally necessary crusade. And all the smooches and “my dears” just make you look flippant and silly, at best.
I highly doubt you riled up My 2 Cents, and you didn’t rile me up either. It’s more like the same bad feeling I would get every time I witnessed somebody yet again kicking and beating up on a person who was already down – or even a dog.
I see you ignored My 2 Cents’ comment that Yogananda wasn’t a perfect teacher, either. Regardless of whatever traps he may have unintentionally set, I had no doubt that he would not have approved of what you’re doing – and it was easy to find a relevant quote. Amazing that you are just going to dismiss it.
Mike Rinder says
Please don’t post any more back and forth comments. It just becomes tiresome.
This is why we love Terra Cognita!
I recently read a ‘back and forth’ between my teacher and a swami which was published in one of the newsletters in India. That swami had taken exception to a rather bold statement my teacher had made. The argument went on until it came to its logical conclusion. Although a few rather biting witticisms were exchanged in the process there was no name-calling, there was no complaining nor were accusations hurled. My teacher ended up conceding to the swami. They finished up with genuine amicability.
Interestingly it was my teacher who took the drubbing that brought this exchange to his students’ attention! The debate followed all the rules including the one that requires a participant acknowledge when his point has been logically disproved. There was no shame in losing the debate and my teacher shared it because it offered insight into the subject at hand. Not to mention it was a great lesson in sportsmanship.
I commend you for exemplifying the standards of this great tradition, Brian.
Thank you Roger. And thank you Mike for putting up with us.
Junk Phrases says
M2C, I commend your determination to find the good in Ron’s teachings. He studied a LOT of brilliant people and took their ideas and fashioned them into his own. So, deep down, underneath all the circular thinking, ethics, and other awful mental control devices that were encoded into the doctrine, there probably are some really relevant, very workable ideas.
Using a simple idea from Christ (I am not a Christian, but some of the ideas are VERY usable), you can see how viable and “good” a tree is from the quality of the fruit it produces. Look at the cognitive dissonance, and other negative results most people have had after being in SCN. If the fruit is rotten, something in the doctrine is too.
I listen to Chris Shelton quite a bit, and he will even admit there are some workable, usable parts in SCN, but those GOOD things can be found elsewhere. Whatever you find that’s good, its not Ron’s original idea.
I respect your beliefs, and if you feel the need to keep practicing, that’s your prerogative. Personally I love the Terra Cognita essays, maybe you can’t get some of the abstract nature of them. Calling them a NON SEQUITUR, is marginalizing the author, who seems to have an excellent grasp of the material.
Some of us see the common thread of lies and deception within all of L Ron’s works.
Harpoona Frittata says
It’s always fun to apply 100% standard tech to the tech itself which, of course, it was never intended to be used to do. In fact, there’s no quicker way to get your happy ass booted out of the cult than to suggest that such scientologically important methods as the Doubt Formula or False Data Stripping be used on $cn itself.
Despite being obviously in err and completely unworkable in many, many regards, $cilons can never question or disagree with the infallible Word of Elron and still remain a cherch member in good standing.
How do you know that you’re in a mind control cult? One very telling sign there is if there’s one single source of supposed Truth that is believed by its members to be infallible – from now until the end of time – which can not be questioned, disagreed with or even extended.
I can agree with that but I’m sure there are ppl who use what the Bible say’s but with a twist to suit ? there selling & the others with all of that & a Mental Illness on top of it,I’ve seen many shows on or about cults the LDS is pretty bad & I can’t say all of them but the ones I’ve seen & heard stories about are sick & sad yet where some stay even the police won’t charge them when ? comes forward to tell there truth & if that’s not wrong IDK what is and I believe in God & I feel for every sad,mean thing done to ppl that were hurt by sick ppl it’s NOT your Fault. .
True data analysis in Scientology is considered evil; suppressive. Seeing the truth about Scientology is suppressive. Seeing the truth about Ron is suppressive. Asking questions that counter the sales pitch is suppressive. Attacking the critic has one intended goal that I believe Ron consciously concocted; It keeps his lies hidden long enough for him to amass money and power. He left the thuggery up to those who word cleared Bolivar. Ron was more like the mafia more than anything else. He protected his turf like a drug lord street gang; destroy untterly.
My 2 Cents says
Brian, “destroying utterly” isn’t what you’re trying to do to Ron and all aspects of his philosophy and technology?
Yes, I am trying to destroy Scientology utterly. Because it has harmed people and lied to people.
I think the majority on this blog has the same feeling.
Ron wanted to destroy utterly because he was being personally criticized and threatened his money stream.
Ron was an intellectual coward who sought destruction of critics as opposed to reasonable dialog with critics
My seeking the destruction of Scientology because it has harmed others is not the same as Ron seeking to destroy Paulette Cooper and almost killing her for righting a book.
There is no moral equivalence between the two diverse motives.
My 2 Cents says
Brian, you admit you are trying to destroy Scientology — not just the Church but the entire subject. Does that include destroying all the non-KSW spin-offs such as Sarge Gerbode, Dexter Gelfand, Rolf Dane, etc.?
The subject of seeking truth can never be destroyed.
The good in Scientology will survive.
The looney toons will not.
BTW, the road to truth is by no means dependent on Scientology surviving or not.
The importance of Scientology is a work of fiction.
Once Ron is seen as the most wisest man in history, man’s only hope;
People like me are put into the category of someone suppressing the road to truth.
You may have amazing realizations in s session.
Those realizations and expansions of awareness and consciousness are honorable and sacred.
My criticism is not towards the truth people can find in Scientology.
My criticism is about revealing lies, deception and the death of free thinking and common sense.
All critics have criminal pasts.
That may friend is sicko looney tunes created by a mentally disturbed man who desperately needed approval, the purpose of which was to create an army of willing hounds to destroy our society’s ability to see Ron and Scientology’s lies directly.
It has not worked. We are all here slowing awakening from being CULTivated sleep walkers.
L Yash says
Amen to all you have stated Brian……sadly there are those who are still drinking the Kool Aid and are addicted it to.
“There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See”…
..someday they may get their own personal wake up call….until then let them live in the fantasy world that’s been created for them by “the organization”.
This question is for anyone, everyone. What was good in Scientology..for you?
My 2 Cents says
You said: “The subject of seeking truth can never be destroyed. The good in Scientology will survive. The looney toons will not.”
We agree on that, if not on the percentage of Scientology that’s looney toons.
You said: “The road to truth is by no means dependent on Scientology surviving or not. The importance of Scientology is a work of fiction.”
This depends on how we define “Scientology.” If it’s the Church, or even the KSW Indie field, I mostly agree. I think that a new subject will arise that preserves and builds on the good parts of Scientology and related practices while avoiding the bad. This is what has happened so many times in the past in the fields of psychology, philosophy, religion, and science.
You said: “You may have amazing realizations in session. Those realizations and expansions of awareness and consciousness are honorable and sacred.”
Thank you for that acknowledgement..
You said: “My criticism is not towards the truth people can find in Scientology. My criticism is about revealing lies, deception, and the death of free thinking and common sense.”
We agree that the bad aspects of Scientology should be eliminated, and that free thinking and common sense should be restored.
Where we disagree is the absoluteness of Vedic technology. I recognize that there’s value there, but I don’t think it’s the total answer, and I think it contains certain traps that don’t seem like traps to those who fall into them.
I wish you every success MTC distilling the good from the the sick and twisted in Scientology (Ron).
And I am completely supportive of you researching any path, mine included, and coming to any conclusion your knowledge and experience dictates.
I have no need to prove anything, or protect anything. In fact, I suggest googling Yogananda and his group’s issues; the break away groups and battles. Learn from both sides and come to your own conclusion.
Freedom baby! It’s the coolest of the cool.
Shirley Hubbert says
In case my comment didn’t post ..here’s another thought to add
Did technology stop progressing in 1979??
Im sure Travolta and company have the latest fancy ?. .Hello ?!
L Yash says
The number you have reached has been disconnect or is no longer in service…beep beep beep beep
This article and the comments about LRH being the only source reminds of what Nibs (L Ron Hubbard Jr) revealed,
“If any of you out there happen to have some of the early Journals of Scientology and Professional Auditors Bulletins that go on back to 1952 through say about 1955, you will note some interesting things, some interesting things regarding source. For instance, L. Ron Hubbard gave honorary Fellows of Scientology Certificates to at least a couple of dozen people of the past, such as Freud, Alfred Korzybsky (the great semanticist), Dr. Snake Thompson, a psychiatrist in the Navy that my father knew via my grandfather. He named many, many sources for Scientology at various times throughout these early years. You see, one of the problems Dad has had with me is that I’ve been around the family, him and Scientology since before the beginning, and I have a very long and pretty darned good memory. And then also, insofar as tech itself is concerned, there’s great vast chunks of it that he did not invent or create. But the moment somebody came up with it he took it over and falsely owned it and suppressed the original source. I can give you several examples and I think that if you talked to some of the people that’s been around for a long time you can easily substantiate this. As an example, the creation and invention of exteriorization was by Evans Farber. He’s the son of J. Burton Farber who set up the very first Church of Scientology of California which of course later, as it was set up and running well, Dad and I took over. So as you can see, the Church of Scientology of California is not original with L. Ron Hubbard, but with J. Burton Farber. I can remember sitting around in Dad’s house on Tatem Boulevard in Phoenix, Arizona in 1953 – excuse me, 1952 – and Evans Farber, who was at that time attached to Ross Lamoureux’s Dianetic and then Scientology center there in Phoenix, pacing around out in the front yard, not going away, demanding to see Dad. And in fact I even took out some cool drinks to the man, feeling sorry for him. But Dad absolutely refused to see him, he couldn’t be bothered to talk with him. Evans was really super persistent and finally, after several hours of pacing around out front they got to talking. It wasn’t more than about an hour later and Dad is jumping up and down in great glee and enthusiasm over this whole new procedure. And it wasn’t too long after that all of a sudden L. Ron Hubbard had invented and created the thing called exteriorization. I think you can verify this with Evans Farber, who is still out and around Scientology. Then of course such things as acknowledgments was invented by a Richard Steves. Dick Steves, who was also Organizational Secretary (Org Sec) which was at that time the highest position in any organization. It would correspond to the head of the International Organization. And so that was started to be taught in the advanced clinical courses, which by the way I did over twenty of them. And then you have Jack Horner who taught Advanced Clinical Courses in England, an absolute master and superb teacher. He came up with I believe, the repetitive question. I believe I’m correct in that but he also I think came up with a couple of other very important things that are still used today. He’s certainly out there alive and kicking and doing a good job, so why don’t you ask him.
Let’s take also the TR’s. Gad, I invented about half of them and Dick and Jan Halpern who were assistant course instructors in the Advanced Clinical Courses made quite a heavy contribution in that area. You have also the CCH’s. Dick and Jan and Ken Barrett and I contributed probably better than half of that plus particularly 8C – 8C’s my baby. I came up with that because I got tired of the students not doing what I told them to do and when I told them to do something they had bloody well better have done it. So this was a good way of teaching control.
Dianetics and Scientology therefore, insofar as its creation, implementation and operation truly belongs on the 3rd Dynamic, not the 1st Dynamic. Scientology and Dianetics as a science literally evolved from 1950 forward, and it didn’t grow and become stable as tech without the very important contributions from many sources both inside and outside Scientology.”
Unbelievably important info! Thankyou!
(Eternal Thanks to Arnie Lerma!)
When L. Ron said in the final page of Dianetics to help him busy themselves building a “better Bridge” it’s when people new to it all, did read and do that, that L. Ron took their ideas, begrudgingly and then ecstatically plagarized their ideas and incorporated them into the “Hubbard Scientology.” It means Hubbard’s brash claims of doing all the important ideas that Hubbard says all the good ideas were his alone, that’s the False Data, when one is presented with this true data history from Nibs!
Such an important short quotation from Nibs to absorb. Thanks so much.
It’s always a good read to be reminded of who Ron really was and what he aspired towards.
Thanks for posting these affirmations Chuck
And I just thought there was just one delusional, whacked-out nut-job but instead there were a bunch of them.
If I were Nibs I would never had admitted to helping the old man create that bullshit.
Hubbard the plagiarist. Thief.
Old Surfer Dude says
Hubbard the plagiarist. Thief. Asshole.
I Yawnalot says
George M. White says
A better name for it would be “True data stripping”. Things you have seen and experienced that are true for you are taken away and labeled as “lies”, and Elwrong’s lies are substituted.
Brilliant. The best refiling of all things L. Ron Hubbard come from these chat sites and blogs, thanks so much. “Chew kacca” reminds me of the great “BTs2Free”
Wow. This is such a good source.
I long wished to write on Hubbard’s stuff, when I retired near the end of my life.
The actual full load of his crap takes up so much space, and I’ve gone through phases of collecting, then donating, then throwing out massive (4 pallets and more worth) quantities of all the CDs and binders and so forth.
This is very much appreciated.
Anyone long range interested in the materials for history study purposes, I’ll be keeping my email address the rest of my life, and someday, I will wish to hopefully interview any of the people still alive who were in AVU/AVC and the old Comps branches who complied and did the pre-publishing work, and who participated in making the earlier books.
It’d be a service long range, to researchers, for those still alive who participated in the compilation of Hubbard’s works during those people’s Sea Org careers, to write details and be interviewed, if they can stand it.
Thanks for this LINK!
Chuck – Do you remember the “Old Timer’s Network”? Dotty Livingood (Bless her lovely soul) helped run that so that there were videos of the old timers talking about Ron and his stories, etc. Everyone involved was still in the church at that time (early 90’s as I recall) so it was all pleasant stories about him and their experiences. I would like to get a hold of those old videos.
In one of them, I remember someone telling the story that Paulette Cooper was actually in for a while and had trained to be an auditor. I’d love to hear from Paulette to know if that’s true. I should ask Tony Ortega. The woman said, “This is a name that we’re probably not supposed to talk about anymore, but Paulette Cooper was there. She had gotten in and trained to be an auditor at some level.”
I don’t go back far enough to know any of those old stories but I remember seeing a periodical called, “The Aberree” – a tongue in cheek name because they were all out at that time (mid 50’s) and were talking about what they didn’t like about where Scn was going. I recall that there was an article by Matthison in there also. Some time after Ron took credit for the e-meter, I imagine. lol
I Yawnalot says
Agreed! Your analysis is remarkably well written Terra. As one who has done tons of FDSing and who has finally stepped back from the subject enough to recognize there’s trap after trap built in to it – you are spot on!
It is so typical of Scientology that it is twisted and convoluted around so that “source” is always presented as the savior of the day, or heralds the arrival of the 7th Calvary to have all the answers you have always been waiting for… It’s pretty clever stuff and it nails your thinking gear to the floor.
False data stripping can be good fun and there’s enough truth and work-ability in it to shove Scientology down your unsuspecting throat the more you are coerced to believe that Scientology is as pure as the driven snow and works 100% of the time, with 100% results – what bullshit! What 100% results?
I’ve always maintained Rehab tech as one of best pieces to “tech” to dig your way out of some of the messes Scientology serves you (they always seem to rub your face into anything over and over again well past even the slightest of benefits) but I’ll add that the occasional use of FDSing on Scientology itself might just work a treat breaking those shackles Hubbard has strewn throughout his philosophy. He certainly viewed himself as being the one and only one ever capable of being right !00% of the time! (man o man, was Hubbard ever a “ser fackie” asshole)!
You are also correct that Sups and Qual personnel etc learn to avoid using it on certain people as it starts to wake them up, usually they apply heavy ethics or sec checks to those unsavory types, or throw them out with declares if they don’t accept Hubbard unquestionably or unconditionally. There’s no free thinking people allowed in Scientology! Either find source or be sauced!
One of your better ones Terra!
Hey, Terra Cognita! High five on “still not declared”! Me too. We can still run the Underground Railroad from this position. 🙂
Thanks for this well written and insightful article. So true on both points – it is helpful tech and it was slanted, as you outlined so well.
I wanted to comment on one of quotes. LRH said, “Sometimes the person will have such faith in a particular person, book, etc. that he cannot conceive that any data from that particular source might be false.”
I can’t help but wonder if this was a little aside from Ron to his truly observant people to say, “know what I mean, say no more, nudge nudge, wink wink”. To out himself as knowing that some people would get what he was doing there, which might have been poking fun at himself.
I used to spend some time with the truly hilarious Jack Spears before his passing. He was with Ron from the beginning. He would tell me about the Congresses he would attend where Jack and the other staff would be in the back, rolling in the aisles laughing at the double entendre statements that LRH was making during the lecture. Nobody else (ie: the public) would get any of these risque jokes because they thought Ron was a god and would never stoop that low (in 1950). But Jack said it was constant and hilarious.
Hence, my point that maybe this was one of those inside clues for the truly intelligent to catch – and a little joke on his so-called “high and mighty” self.
Food for thought. And Jack Spears – give ’em hell, wherever you landed.
L Yash says
There is a GOOD reason NOT to “Declare” many of you. IF the “organization” WERE to “officially declare” you….their MEMBERSHIP COUNT would drop like a stone. The “church” would have to admit they haven’t been telling the TRUTH about how many ACTIVE members they have. They would NOT be able to show the need to continue to use the $$$$ they are collecting to build so many “churches”.
Think about it…for any of you to receive the “official letter of declaration”…when and IF an IRS or other government agency investigation began…..it would NOT look good for the organization to NOT be able to show them how many current ACTIVE members it has that are really still IN .
Really good point, L Nash! So true. They can’t get me close enough to an org to declare me these days – though that doesn’t even seem like a requirement anymore.
But yes. “Oh, whoops! We let too many of the cattle out of the gate! Shut it quick!! How are we supposed to keep fooling everyone into believing we are the fastest growing religion in the world if our back door is leaking people like a sieve?? WHO DECLARED ALL THESE PEOPLE??? PUT THEM IN THE HOLE!!!”
I wonder when he’s going to sail away with his beamer and bike and suitcases full of cash and Lou and leave TC in charge? Maybe TC will go with him (instead of Lou) and Diana Hubbard will take over. Anything would be better than what we got.
L Yash says
Is there a “lock down or lock up” on the Free Winds??? Could THAT be the “hiding place” for Shelley??? I’ve been wondering about that! They could float around for a while on International Waters….BUT what happens when the run out of fuel…..
Will a float “tanker” be supplying the dead in the water floating ship on the promise they’d get PAID a HUGE amount of $$$$ in CASH to refill Free Winds…as in “Fill er Up…..here’s a suitcase full of cash…come back in a month for another suitcase full of cash for a refill. “..
Guys like Mike provide actual False Data Stripping. He and his blog allow for dialog and discussion, and for people to work out for themselves how true or how false Scientology tech and policy is or isn’t.
Blogs like this provide the real False Data Stripping.
Another great article. Definitely true for me. I floundered around for almost 10 years in a confusion, wondering WTH the prior 12 years in the church, on staff, was about until I found a blog like this, where I could get background info and discuss what was actually going on. I’ve had so much false data that needed stripping, all gotten from LRH and from being in that environment 18 hours a day for 12 formative years of my life (from age 22 to 34).
Some of that false data can be deadly; the idea that everything is mind over matter and that medical doctors are quacks (full of false data themselves, of course) and that everything that ails you can be treated naturally, for instance. This false data is especially insidious and propagated in other places as well and often leads to an early death.
I Yawnalot says
Yep, crawled out of the same hole myself. It’s good to see the sunshine again, but there’s always a lingering bad taste you get every now and again when you realize just what that organisation does.
Mike has done wonders for waking up others to the mess they found themselves in, without the big stick approach found on so many sites about Scientology. Realization and the regaining of integrity is no easy feat after Scientology, especially being staff but this site helps heaps. It’s monitoring is more or less solely aligned with helping, not ridiculing – it’s good hey?
Definitely good, I Yawnalot!
So many people, including me, have had this happen to them T-Marie, only to learn the truth after. Anyone that ever made a decision to go Clear and become an auditor and published the results of their efforts on this blog or any other like it, never expected leaving the church to be the end result of a Scientology journey. 🙂
You were lucky/smart to get out so young, T-Marie.
Some of us old timers thought that we were still holding on to and defending the Scientology that we knew from early on when, at least the “parishioners” were trying to help people with it. We didn’t know about all the stuff that Hubbard stole from other people either.
But good job for only taking 12 years.
I did get good things from Scientology but mostly from dealing with the people who were trying to do the best thing for others.
The bad things I got were dealing with the mafia SO members (the ones that were mafiaesque) and having their wrong indications and invalidations thrown at me for being an independent cuss that they couldn’t control.
To them I say 😛
indie8million, I definitely got some good things out of it, but now I know I could have gotten those things elsewhere, with much less destruction and chaos. That’s part of the deception; being tricked into believing Dn and Scn were the only place to find truth. That was definitely easy to pull off in my case, being naive and stupid as I was at that time. The more educated I got, through things like Key to Life and word clearing of different sorts, the better I could see reality, not of the tech, but the reality of the people involved and how they operated in everyday life. I didn’t want to grow up to be like them!!!!!
And to support your premises that not all LRH wrote is ‘the only truth or way out’, lets take a look at his words that ‘most of False Data comes from texts’. Really?
If that were the case how come the human race has progressed so, so much in many fields, such as technology, nano tech, cell phones, satellites, dams and agriculture developments, medicine and its accompanying instruments, and so on?
People are capable to understand, create, envision and develop many good things without the need to do word clearing or false data.
I think is more on the lines of purpose – if someone wants to investigate and improve something that already exists (lets say cell phones) he or she will. If someone wants just to be admired and amass money to feel safe, well, then lets take a look at some of LRH ‘s actions and definitely DM’s.
I Yawnalot says
Good post. It highlights the massive difference between introversion as compared to extroversion as an operating basis. All those great developing technologies, especially in medicine and agriculture (excluding the greed angle, which btw Scientology excels at) were created by clever people willing to go forward – where were all of Scientology’s doom and gloom predictions from only one “source” then?
Shirley Hubbert says
So true. Wow. I can’t believe people like Travolta and wife and Cruise think Hubbards ideas hold up…in 2017 are you kidding me??
They are like those three little monkeys, Shirley. They can’t see if they don’t look.
Old Surfer Dude says
And we all know they will never look. That would be a crime.
Seeing the truth would make their hundreds of millions of dollars of investment all for naught and boy, would that sting!
Hot Spaghetti (@spaghetti_hot) says
Wisdom vs over-cooked-meatball-brain-washing.
Old Surfer Dude says
Ummmmm….gosh, this is a tough one! Ummmmmmm…..I’m going to go out on a limb and say wisdom.
Mat Pesch says
Well written, as always.
LOL! The funniest part about all this is that finding what people “know wrongly” and supplying CORRECT info so a person can do something correctly is as old as humans society. L. Con Tubbolard simply added huge amounts of unnecessary verbiage and actions then gave it a name.
Unfortunately he could not apply it to the subject he created because the everything he himself created (not borrowed from others) was false.
So much ado about nothing…
TOOT to OT says
Thank you TC and MR. I sincerely appreciate all of the time you put into writing your points of view and managing this blog.
I hope to meet you one day, I think we would really get along great!
You and your families are officiallly invited to my Thanksgiving Feast. RSVP optional, but appreciated. Heh heh.
Hmmm…first commenter! Elation!!! LOL Of all you’ve written, TC, this is one of the most effective and brilliant posts. I’m not at all sure when the FDS came out, but somehow I missed it completely. I’d realized early on that a lot of stuff he wrote simply wasn’t true…at least for me. Desiring the results from auditing, which I received, I dodged around the other stuff, taking very little of the training side. In this manner, trusting my own judgement above all else, I was not nearly so “infected” with scio. And thus just “let go” of it in the late 70s. (No one noticed I was gone! LOL) I currently believe it was one of my better life moves.
Idle Morgue says
“When a person is not functioning well on his post, on his job or in life, at the bottom of his difficulties will often be found unknown basic definitions and laws or false definitions, false data and false laws, resulting in an inability to think with the words and rules of that activity and an inability to perform the simplest required functions.”
I just had another huge Wognition….
THAT ^^^ is the EP of Scientology!!
Unknown basic definitions – false definitions, false data and false laws…
Okay – here we go
1. Unknown basic definition of HELP
2. False Data – the Bridge to Spritual Freedom by L Ron Hubbard
3. Scientology Ethics – they do not exist unless you have done something wrong or had a transgression
and “Criticizing Scientology” is totally normal when you have all of the data.
Interesting, especially when one considers that actual true information a person has is located and invalidated by the church as false with “false data stripping” and then replaced with lies in the form of “true LRH tech” that the person can then finally apply as a Scientologist. This categorizes many church members from my experience.
Another true example of this is the Lisa McPherson death. Scientologists handling her case were trained as “miracle workers”. The results they achieved are proof of just how false that idea was, is and also where it originated. 🙂
Excellent point, Lawrence. Experts at EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING
George M. White says
Very well written Terra.
Hubbard was given too much benefit of the doubt by me. At the beginning, his ideas had a unique appeal because of his roots in the 19th Century. Hubbard was never anything more than a person of average intelligence. He created an image of himself as “Source”.
After all of his”research”, he ended up in an ego-theistic frame of mind.
I don’t know if I go along with Elron being just average intelligence. He wrote and said a whole lot of things about a whole lot of subjects. It’s the subject of blog critiques about what was junk and what was, perhaps, brilliant.
Old Surfer Dude says
He was a good story teller and wrote some good sci-fi. That’s as much as I’ll give to him.
He was a Spin doctor, master ad- libber. His brilliance was in his ability to manipulate good people into doing his crimes for him.
This post points any ex-scientologists who believe there is innate good in ¨the tech¨ in the correct direction, in my opinion. Scientology was not designed to help people or elevate them spiritually; it was designed to bankrupt them, financially, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. I offer this link to a blog that goes into even greater detail about the fuckery that is the foundation of ¨ethics tech¨ and ¨study tech¨ :
Happy DisInfection to those who are realizing that the whole(dianetcis/scientology) enchilada is rancid and toxic!
I think it was designed to help people… by a mentally ill paranoid salesman. El Ron believed his own BS, but also wanted to make loads of money in the process and exert massive power over people.
I Yawnalot says
Indeed, the one thing Hubbard could never be was a humanitarian. For all his words he was never a people’s person. He despised humans to such a degree he couldn’t work with anyone else and twisted and manipulated whatever he got his mitts on and called it his research, his breakthroughs and a whole heap of self adulation terms. He professionally poisoned the whole shebang with the KSW series but the man Hubbard himself was always suspect of ulterior motives driving him. He refined whatever he stumbled across into the system you see dramatized today. It didn’t have to be that way, he had enough friends help him though anything but he stabbed them all in the back with his “organisational genius.”
The bits that did help me and that I used to help others, I later learned, all came from someone else!
I Yawnalot says
Indeed… and when you really look at that, the most you will ever learn is from yourself, how you view things or more importantly how you are prepared to be “fluid” with information and how things work. Some things work better than others, change comes along with or without your consent, others learnt a way through, grab that for awhile, see if it works for you etc. Life is a team effort with you as the adjudicator. Life changes, fixed ideas don’t – oil and water living = disaster!