Freddie T., who also goes by the name of
Stillwaters, is a moderate Scientologist and a pleasing poster to read.
To give only a small idea of his posts and his take on various topics, I
took the first 32 posts he made in ARS around october 2000 and sorted
excerpts of them under various categories.
Since posts on this page are numerous, the best
way to navigate through them is to pick up some theme which may interest
you and follow the link.
May 5, 2011 update.
Freddie used to host his web site on my web site. Since then, things
changed and he asked me to remove it and, on the contrary, publish the
> Do you think that any of the arguments of critics are valid?
Yes I do. I think the phrase I used before was that a little fine tweaking [of
the CoS] is
Having said that, I also think the critics are mostly fixated on making
themselves right and that perhaps because of this they aren't capable of seeing
the huge benefits of Scientology, and the various improvements in the Church
that have taken place over the years. (11)
It would be nice if Scientology was more accepted in society. I think it
be better for everyone in various ways. On one level it's not too nice to have
people picketing outside one's org and it probably makes a number of
Scientologists feel upset. On the other hand I think there are historically a
few benefits to religious persecution. It tends to make the members a bit more
committed as there is the danger that if they don't support their local church
it won't be there. Your reference: the history of many,possibly all, of the
major present-day religions.
I would imagine that having the LMT in town must make the orgs in Clearwater
pretty keen to pick up on bad indicators and get people winning, as they must
fear that otherwise those people will be following Mr Magoo down the road.
I might be totally wrong about this - I'm only speculating. (15)
I notice that some of the critics do like to throw a whole big jumble of
nasty stuff into a paragraph.
They aren't easy to respond to elegantly - there's true stuff and fake stuff
and confused stuff all mished together. But let me introduce my little
imaginary friend Rex who will help me illustrate:
Freddie T: Say hello to the nice people Rex.
Rex the dog: Woof, woof (pants, sniffs your crotches, wags tail).
Freddie T: Awww. He likes you. Alrighty then.
Rex the dog: Woof, woof.
Respondent on alt.dogs.imaginary: How dare you call yourself a dog? Don't you
know that a dog in Denmark once sat on a baby and squished it? Seven years ago
in Canada a dog stole some sausages from a poor butcher! My God, when my
brother poked his dog with a stick the dog got angry and bit him.
How can you defend . . .? Or. . .? Or. . .? Or . . .?
Rex the dog: Woof, woof (20)
I think that improving the level of criticism here would be of great benefit.
There are some people who are wasting their time on ars because if they
understood more about what was really going on they would find it very boring.
As it is, they are fighting a chimera. This is exciting for them (bless the
Some people have valid points of criticism, but many of these would be more
easily resolvable if there wasn't such a sharply defined dichotomy: good
Scientology/bad critics and bad Scientology/good critics.
Many of the problems come about when the group or someone within the group
Let's say we have a nice doggy. We treat him well and kindly. If one day a
little boy pokes him and pulls his tail he takes it in good spirits and licks
the little boy's face. However if we take the same doggy and attack
him continuously we find that he ultimately becomes vicious. People could then
legitimately complain about his behavior.
Luckily the church is in a better position than a dog as it can evaluate the
effect of its behavior and then change it. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is
working out how the pickets are best dealt with. I would guess that they will
move over towards just letting 'em be. (20)
Are there valid criticisms of the Church? Sure. But sadly for the critics,
of these aren't very interesting to outsiders. The exciting, scary stuff is
mostly nonsense but it can persuade someone with no other information that
Scientology isn't worth checking out.. (25)
That's a good PR line, but much of the criticism you are talking about
to be of mostly fairly mild stuff that stems from responses to the criticism.
I suspect that a more important factor is that the goals of Scientology are a
bit of a red flag to many people with their own failed dreams of spiritual
And (pausing for thought), there are probably a few more important factors, but
I'm starting to get hungry so I'd like to finish this letter off. (16)
Surely the threat could just have easily have been made by a critic?
Can't you see that?
You do know the Rob Clark story presumably?
When evaluating where things like this are likely to originate (another example
would be the recent unpleasant posts from the ars troll 'Scientologists') I try
to look at the likely effects of what was done. Would it be more likely to
cause trouble or to calm things down? (21)
> But now freddy, you just remind me of all the high-school bullies I ever
Really? My advice would be not to start off your conversations with ~anyone~ by
Because you are likely to find that whilst you might be able to brow-beat some
people (as you hoped to do to me), stronger people will attack you back and you
Let's say you win: You might feel good temporarily but it's ~not~ a good policy
for a happy life. If you had beaten me: What would you have gained? You would
have left me feeling a little unhappy and I might have stopped posting here.
That's no kind of victory to be proud of. I'm just a Scientologist trying to
stand up for my beliefs and my Church. I certainly don't go around the
internet looking for people so i can disparge them.
Let's say you attack a stranger and lose: If you do it physically (in the
schoolyard for example) you are liable to be physically hurt and humiliated; in
an internet debate, it is likely to be your pride which is hurt.
So don't do it!
Follow Magoo's advice to me: Good luck Freddie. Good luck to you. May you
enjoy your life. Don't
waste it slaying dragons. Find things you love and do them.
So good luck Wynot. Good luck to you. May you enjoy your life. Don't waste it
slaying dragons. Find things you love and do them. (31)
been leaning over in favor of the church position because of the benefits
that accrue to promotion, workability and the volume of services delivered.
(which is not to say that some things don't need some tweaking). (2)
The existing Church structure provides a basis for widescale delivery and
promotion of Scientology training and auditing. I think there are definite
advantages to having it in the form it is in.
Scientology might well work in the FreeZone - but how much of it would get
done? I really like a lot of the guys who write about independent Clearing.
I love reading their viewpoints on LRH and Scientology and the Church.
But . . . I went to an event at the local org recently last week (the first
time I've visited for quite a while). It was one of the big international
events - and I've got to say I was impressed with what I heard and saw. I
think that there is probably more standard auditing happening at that one org
than there is in the all of the Freezone. There were over 20 full time auditors
If the Church ceased to exist, then a few things would be better, but I'm
afraid that in short order things might well get a lot worse. Ideally, I'd
like to see some reconciliation between the Church and the Free-Zone. I
might write more about this later.
Tricky area. A lot of the independent Free Zone guys _do_ try refining
things. Speaking personally, good luck to 'em.
However, Scientology, as practiced in the official centers, is workable for
a lot of people. In my opinion it's safer and much better to keep it as it is. (1)
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
If the Church fell, the freezone would have a resurgence; the question is
whether the resurgence would last. I agree with you that people around the
world would keep doing self-improvement. There would be little or no change at
all for almost all of those people .
However standard Scientology is not easy to deliver; the various
splinter.groups who've broken from the from the Church are very interesting,
but not, IMO, viable alternatives. Providing good-quality courserooms and
holding the line about what exactly should be done to get a result is not an
easy business and I think it demands a certain persistence and toughness to get
it done. (7)
The freezone is very interesting (and helpful for certain kinds of people)
I'm afraid that I don't consider it a viable substitute for the Cof S. If the
Church fell, then I am afraid that the practices of the freezone would be easy
meat for the people who just don't like other people studying and applying
I would guess that that there would be a resurgence for a while - many of the
old Scientologists would both join and create various groups. But I suspect
(and this is pure speculation) that as they grew they would be easily
infiltrated and by various mechanisms they would finally fall in their turn.
It could well turn out a lot better than that, but personally I doubt it.
> BTW, I have yet to hear anyone explain why critics don't
"attack" ($cieno-speak for criticize) the Freezone. Just doesn't jibe with the "religious bigots" thing, does it? Care to take a crack at that one?
1.Firstly, I ~have~ seen irregular criticism of the freezone from certain anti-Scientologists. Usually it takes the form of protesting about someone's
continued usage of LRH's work. Are you a real newbie Tommy? Check out the truth
of this statement with some of the more reliable regulars on a.c.t..
2. To ~some~ degree the freezone acts as an ally for the real rabid critics -
as a force that might help weaken the Church. Therefore many of them leave it
> >The freezone is very interesting (and helpful for certain kinds of
people) but I'm afraid that I don't consider it a viable substitute for the Cof S.
If the Church fell, then I am afraid that the practices of the freezone would
be easy meat for the people who just don't like other people studying and
> If they were "easy meat for the people who just don't like other
people studying and applying Scientology", how come all those OTs haven't
been able to stomp them out of existence yet?
In my opinion, the stomping out of existence bit should apply inside
Scientology Churches and centers. This is to ensure that peole are getting a
decent, technically correct service. But I don't think it needs to be applied
to someone who is running his or her own practice - just as long as they aren't
representing what they are doing as being Scientology. It is similar to when a
franchise breaks away from the KFC organisation they have to stop promoting
themelves under that name and instead start calling themselves "Happy Fried
Chickens" or " some such.
Historically churches ~do~ tend to get a bit upset with schisms - and the CofS
has been no exception. Recently however it doesn't seem to be as bad and there
appear to be a number of private practices and groups around which are no
longer being targetted by the Church.
I think it might be helpful to think about what would happen if we were
about other groups.
Let's say Sally worked in a large butcher's shop for many years. She was very
friendly with the other staff and they went on social outings and played tennis
on Sunday afternoons.
At some point she has a road-to-Damascus type conversion to vegetarianism and
decides not to work there any more.
What would happen with her old friends from the shop?
I don't think there would be a problem. Particularly if she kept up her
interest in the social events and the tennis afternoons. If she didn't, then
without any shared interests they might drift apart.
If she talked fervently about vegetarianism and said people shouldn't buy and
eat meat then she might well get some resistance from them. However if she also
picketed outside her old place of business, persuaded new trainees not to work
there and gave out flyers, then _at the very least_ her old friends would have
less interest in playing doubles with her.
We could also tell this story in reverse - have her start off as a member of
the vegetarian society who later gets a job in a butcher's shop and sneers at
the beliefs of her old friends.
My grandmother was a life-long Christian. When she got old she was unable to
get to her church and she sometimes complained that hardly any of her old
friends and contacts from the church came to see her. She could no longer talk
about the current goings on in the church, and she and they had no other
interests in common. One or two people came to visit occasionally. However if
she had picketed outside the church and promoted atheism or Satanism or even
Catholicism, I suspect that the ranks would have closed against her and she
would have been considered with some disfavor. (8)
However I believe that most international
organisations stipulate that only specific people within their
organisations should talk to the media. The fact that this extends to
individual parishoners (unlike say at Apple where it applies to the
staff rather than the computer users) only reflects the difficult
conditions that the church has had to operate under. I think it's
hyperbole to say that the church is at war with the world, but I do
think that they have had to weather some heavy attacks. A lot of dirty
tricks have been tried and the church has frequently been infiltrated.
Partly becasue of this they try to monitor what goes to the media from
Justice is working better than it used to. Since the late eighties it has
much more difficult get somebody declared. One of my friends was something of a
rogue (he was a reg in the mid/late 80s) and eventually had a lot of people
baying for his blood. He very nearly got declared suppressive, but it was too
difficult. There is a long form to go through to check that no gradient steps -
like warnings and suspensions - have been missed. Also a review of the good
things the person has done. Finally the declare proposition was disapproved
(more than once I think) and he escaped with being routed off staff (fired).
I believe that previously missionaires could more or less declare people at
their discretion. Now, sensibly, the final decision is with someone up lines
and its a long, laborious business. (7)
<email@example.com> (yduzitmatter)(archive check
In the early eighties, the EDs of my org seemed to get declared on a fairly
regular basis. It was wild. Recently however, I haven't heard of any declares
at all (apart for this one of Tory's). I am sure they do happen, but it seems
to be a lot rarer.
> No, bad news. It just means that $cientology and $cientologists are going more and more down tone. Now declares are more covert. $cientology has become more and more covert. It was once more openly hostile. Now it's more covertly hostile.
[Note from Bernie: ROFL! A typical bigoted answer from Armstrong - if
people are declared, it's bad. If they aren't, it's worst, because it can only
mean it's done under cover. Since a declare is an official public statement,
I'd like to know how it can be done under cover :-) Freddie is cooler than me
in his answer:]
That's not what I observe.
When the declares were coming hard and heavy it was definitely a nervous,
worried scene in some areas (this was in 82/83). However these declares
trickled to a halt by about mid '85 I think. Also almost all the people I knew
personally who had been declared later got back into good standing fairly
quickly. There were two fairly newish people who got promoted over their heads,
got declared when the org crashed and left Scientology - but the other people
came back. (22)
<firstname.lastname@example.org> (yduzitmatter)(archive check
Well, earlier I gave an example of a Scientology family in which the husband
was declared (mid-eighties). However they all kept living together in the same
house and, whilst don't know exactly how they accomodated it, I suspect that
they simply avoided talking about the subject of Scientology until he got
As for disciplinary procedures in Catholicism, I might be a bit out of my
depth. The reason I used it as an example was because of an entry in the
Encyclopedia Brittanica, "Catholicism distinguishes between two kinds of
excommunication, that which renders a person 'toleratus,' tolerated, and that
which renders him 'vitandus', one who is to be avoided. The second and more
severe form requires--except for certain crimes that incur it automatically--
that the culprit be announced by name in public as vitandus, in most cases by
the Holy See itself; this is reserved for the gravest offenses."
The Brittanica also refers to another form of excommunication
called "anathema." St. Paul used the word to signify a curse and
expulsion from the community of Christians. However whilst I think it may still
be on the books, I doubt they use it much nowadays.
But, I am perfectly prepared to grant that you might know well know a lot more
than me about diciplinary procedures in modern Catholicism. Let me substitute
for Catholicism, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish (to go along
Oh, and the reference I was using on apostacy in Islam came from the following
url. I don't know how correct it is:
does not work anymore)(19)
[I had a look at this interesting URL. Here
are significant excerpts from it]:
the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam, has
also negative influence on the Muslim society; it is indeed a
And that is why Islam has prescribed harsh punishment for
irtid„d. It must be emphasized that irtid„d which we are
discussing here involves open rejection, without any force and
with the realization of what one's statements or actions imply.
The punishment prescribed by the shari'a for apostacy is death.
In the first case, the apostacy is like
treason against God;
whereas in the second case, the apostacy is like treason against
the Muslim community. Probably, that is why there is also a
difference in dealing with these two kinds of murtads:
A former k„fir who became a Muslim and then
(Murtad Milli) is given a second chance; if he repents, then he is
not to be killed.
But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad
Fitri) he is to be killed even if he repents. His repentance might
be accepted by All„h but he still has to go through the
punishment prescribed for his treason in this world.
This punishment is only applicable in case of apostacy by men;
in case of women, the punishment is not death but life
imprisonment. And if such a woman repents, then her
repentance is accepted and the punishment is suspended."]
I've never known a Scientologist who was instructed to disconnect from a
member or friend (parent, spouse or anyone else). As I wrote earlier, the one
time I've known one half of a Scientologist couple to get declared suppressive
they continued living together. (22)
Here's an interesting story. I've gotten on with my (non-Scn) family far, far
better since I've been doing Scientology. We now have a great relationship. The
only tricky time was in the first year when my father read some of the critical
books - Corydon was one, possibly Hassan - and he believed that I was in
danger. After a year he could see that I was doing better and since then our
relationship has gotten stronger and stronger. At one point during that year he
was at a dinner party and mentioned the situation to someone. This guy was
rather an angry, fascistic Victorian-dad type fellow and he suggested having me
kidnapped and deprogrammed. (!). Luckily, my father was appalled by that idea,
even more than by the very twisted picture he had gleaned from the critical
books of life inside Scientology.
The point being that the critics can actually cause a lot of the problems that
they ~claim~ to be preventing.
If you don't like the course you are doing - don't attest to it. Don't do
I've had problems - I think everyone has. But I can't remember a course or an
auditing action I regret doing. (27)
A couple of my friends have done the RPF. Perhaps the most perceptive auditor
ever had learned his trade there. He could really trace down an exact read on
the e-meter and find something that was charged but of which I was absolutely
unaware until he steered me with the meter to find it and look at it.
I've also worked along with the RPF on a couple of projects. They were working
hard but it wasn't _terrible_. A number of people I knew in the SO in the
eighties had done the RPF at one time or another.
I think a lot of the critical stories we can read about it are overlarded. I
guess that some of them are probably more or less true. It's difficult for most
people to know which ones. Once again I think that things in the RPF are
probably easier than they ued to be (I've heard one or two things about this
although I have far, far less direct knowledge here than I do with the orgs) . (7)
> 2.The Introspection Rundown: This rundown as administered by Scientology is extremely dangerous to a person's mental health. There is no benefit from isolating someone who is already close to a breakdown. It just doesn't make any sense.
I once helped someone in Scn who'd had a breakdown. I'd take him for drives
around the countryside and to the beach. The idea was to give him a peaceful,
safe environment where he could relax. Part of it was not originating
communication to him. If he spoke to me I'd acknowledge him but otherwise we
were just giving him a quiet space.
He was a bit obnoxious sometimes but we got through it. Later he came to my
office and thanked me.
I once saw someone else I know have a breakdown and get put in the local
psychiatric ward. This wasn't a Scientologist. While he was in there at least
one person committed suicide. I went to see him a few times. It was a
heartbreakingly terrible place. He became far worse after being committed. I
have another similar story but again I don't have time to tell it right now. (13)
In the exciting episode posted yesterday we learned about how the use of
quotation marks around a word indicates that the reader should expect an unsual
meaning of some kind. Although I'm sure that if I spent another hour on-line I
could find some more references to this I think that one more will probably
This is from a page called "Comments on Technical Writing"
Putting a word in quotation marks does not change its meaning. It implies to
the reader that you want to use a non-standard meaning of the word -- but the
quotation marks do not tell the reader what the non-standard meaning is. Do not
put words in quotation marks unless you are defining them or quoting someone
Very kindly, the Lone Ranger posted a series of the specialist definition
LRH coined and sometimes uses in Scientology. It is obviously the correct
definition for the word as used in KSW - if we use it then the sentence makes
sense, if we use the common English definitions it doesn't. Here's the
Nine [Closing the door on any posibility of incorrect technology] is impeded
the "reasonable" attitude of the not-quite-bright.
L. Ron Hubbard. Keeping Scientology Working. 7 February 1965. Page 2.
I'll also quote a couple of sentences from a section called "Suppressive
Reasonableness." It's in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book that I
have here. I think that the sentence is also contained in an earlier policy
letter. For any non-Scientologists that are still reading, I'm afraid that this
quote contains a number of other specialied Scientology words:
When Joe Blow has just smashed his fifth typewriter and the Dissemination
Secretary (Dissem Sec) starts to explain how he's just a good boy gone a bit
ARC breaky, she is being "reasonable." He's either an SP or
he's PTS to someone.
L. Ron Hubbard. 1968. Introduction to Scientology Ethics. 1998 edition, page
I think you now need to restudy
some of the Scientology materials with the understanding that it's ok to be
reasonable, even if we shouldn't necessarily be "reasonable." (3)
Give me the exact reference. If you are talking about a reference from 1952
a book - that's not church policy. An analogy might be the fact that there are
a number of things in the Bible which are not practiced by modern Jews and
Christians. I can give you a few examples if you'd like.
Also, as the society improves there will be far less suppressives around. Not
because they'll be killed or compulsorily processed - but because people will
be kinder and will bring up their children better. It's obvious. (24)
Actually there is another study which you might be interested in. Information
on this was posted to ars many, many moons ago, although I just found it again
on the MSN Scientology board.
Ross (1988) investigated the effects of Scientology membership with a
cross-sectional design, controlling for age, between length of time in Scientology
and scores on a number of personality measures. Ross found those who had been
in the movement longer had a significantly more favorable view of themselves.
Ross also found long-term members had increased their sense of duty and
to work conscientiously, increased their emphasis on organization and
increased their attempts to understand their own behavior or the behavior of
others, increased their engagement in behaviors that provide material or
emotional benefit to others, and increased their seeking and maintaining of
personal friendships. Long-term members also decreased their solicitation of
sympathy, affection, or emotional support from others. The greatest increase
was in orientation toward duty and obligations. Significant correlations were
also found with preference for continuity and old values, sympathetic manner
and positive reaction for others, unpretentiousness and uncomplicated manner,
and analytic and self-disciplined approach.
Ross (1988) found no support for Scientology being a negative influence on
personality, nor that entrants into Scientology are unusual with regard to
their previous history. Claims that membership in Scientology leads to ego
disintegration was not supported, with the scores of the participantís ego
strength within the normal range. Results from the PIL (purpose in life)
which measures the extent to which individuals have a clear purpose in life,
indicated that Scientologists scored significantly higher than members of
conventional religious denominations or committed Christians did.
Ross, M. W. (1988). Effects of membership in Scientology on personality: An
exploratory study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 630-636.
> >The Church operates within the law. It's a safer better way to
operate. That might not be mentioned much on ars - but that's the truth.
> Do you really believe this to be true?
I really do.
Look at the things the Church does that get complained about around here - they
are ~legal~ activities. Just think how happy the critics would be if we started
breaking the law!
>After knowing about operations Snow White and Freakout? Yeah, those were a long time ago, but they were ordered by Hubbard, who based his orders on policies your cult has never disavowed.
That's right. They were a long time ago. There have been a lot of changes since
then. It's now very clear policy that we only operate within the law. In
respect to those older (two or three decades ago) events, take a look at the
time lines posted by the Librarian and then updated by CL a month or two ago.
They contain a few interesting viewpoints on these stories. There's something
more on the Paulette Cooper story that you might not have seen at Bernie's web
site. Not only that but there is also a really interesting history of ars and
some of the funniest stories. It's grown a lot since I last visited: (28)
We know that there are some fairly large groups that wouldn't be unhappy to
Scientology fail and it's possible that they are doing or sponsoring various
actions to try to bring this about. But who knows for sure? This is something I
wrote about infiltration before:
One interesting idea is that various problems stemmed partly from covert
infiltration. Variations of this idea have been suggested by a number of
Captain Bill Robertson; The Ace of Clubs (fantastic prose style); in the
time line put out by The Librarian (and updated recently by CL); the rumor
line; and finally by David Miscavige (in the satellite broadcast announcing
the deal with the IRS).
These sources provide a lot of data on this. The basic idea is that the
church was not only attacked from the outside but was also infiltrated by
its enemies; this caused problems with things like overly-harsh corrective
ethics actions; false reports; sabotage; the circling the wagons effect; and
lots of injustices. The damage was not just in what those people did, but in
the atmosphere that was created and which rippled outwards - for example in
the mis-training of outer-org executives who then went back and messed up
their areas. Also in the subsequent paranoia and witch hunts.
Of course the different people I mention above have divergent views on
whether the plants within the church have been fully cleared out and the
degree to which the damage and the group engrams were able to be repaired. (32)
Sometimes I meet someone and I think, "Hey, this guy is living his life
fine. He doesn't need all the hassles that go along with doing
However, almost invariably as I get to know them better I find areas of upset
and worry that cause them all kinds of hassle. With one very pleasant middle-aged lady I talked with last week I found that as far as possible she didn't
allow herself to look at the past because of the regret that welled
up out of her. Another, aparently successful lady lady who was part of the same
conversation then said
something similar - that if she ever looked back, she realised just how much
her life was filled with sadness. Now that kind of thing is something that
Dianetics is good at dealing with.
At other times I've met good people who turn out to have huge problems with
their boss, or their mother, or ... .
These are areas of life that are well understood in Scientology. If more people
were able to apply Scientology basics to their lives - the tone scale, the
principles of ARC, etc, then I think the world would be an easier place to live
I know this sounds excessively Pollyannaish, but hey kids, let's eat, drink,
and be merry and bright, it's Christmas! (No, it's not. Ed). (7)
> All of these programs as run by Scientology are all designed for one thing - loyalty to the group. This seems to me to indicate that any disloyalty to the group will result in heavy ethics - and no justice. These are hallmarks of a cult - group loyalty first and foremost, paranoia that someone may be doing the wrong thing or making the group look bad.
No, that's not right - the purif is primarily designed to get rid of toxins;
the RPF is to give SO members a chance to make amends (and yes I'm sure it's
been used wrongly in the past), the introspection rundown is for people who've
had a breakdown. If someone wants to leave Scientology - they do. My attitude
is to wish 'em well. (13)
If you want to get ~all!~ the benefits of Scientology - yes, you probably do
have to do Scientology. Having said that, people get some benefits just by
being around Scientologists (for example, my girlfriend). (29)
I think that I would avoid mentally positing Scn against "the big, bad
(quoted from above) and "the majority of the world." The majority of
doesn't know anything about the subject. Also I don't see people as being bad.
I like most people; I'm glad they are there.
I use the Scientology I know to help the people around me. It's not a war. (8)
> > > 3) Is there not something wrong with a
"church" that is in constant war with the world??
> > Rhetorical hyperbole at its finest!
> PLease define.
You can look in the dictionary for the words but since I'm in a helpful mood
here my further thoughts:
It's implication is untrue and is designed (a) to make non-Scientologists think
the CofS is opposed to them, and (b) to make any not-quite-bright
Scientologists feel separated from and fighting humanity.
The long-term Scientologists I know are very able, helpful people who do a lot
for the people around them. And this statement definitely includes the staff
members of the church.
In fact, the Church simply tries to defend itself against those people who are
attacking it. If people don't picket and leaflet the church, the church doesn't
picket and leaflet them. It's simple, and as long as everyone obeys the law I
don't care too much. I want the orgs to be doing well and delivering great
service. I'd also like the prices lower and things a little more laid-back.
I would hope that someone in OSA is evaluating the effects of the different
actions they have tried and that they then use the ones that are both legal and
most effective. As I said before, my inclination would be to either ignore the
pickets, chat with them or give them nice cups of tea. (20)
> Unfortunately the Scientology story is like a serial where the hero's accomplishments are short lived. There's always another villain to slay. Yes, watching the hero slay the supposed villain makes the audience happy. Further, there is the belief that resolving the conflict in the hero's favor implies a wonderful future for them. This is the bait--the essence of love--in the Scientology trap.
You are saying that there's always another villain to slay?
That's right. After someone had (for example) outwitted the Nigerian banks and
become fairly well-to-do what should they do with themselves? Sit around the
swimming pool all day? You can only eat so many lobsters stuffed with larks
tongues before they start to pall.
But as long as there is always another game to play, another chimera to slay, I
guess that we can all be happy. (29)
> Love in this context implies that the one who loves you is predicting
and intending a happy, positive, eternal future for you. This is exactly what Scientology seems to offer but the offer is conditional. This was Hubbard's plan. To get his love, the adherent must surrender much of their freedoms
his prescribed Scientology script.
I'm certainly not worried about losing "Hubbard's love" (You need
to get a grip
man; you've been reading too many sickly, generic anti-cult books). (29)
From the picket reports I have read, the church appears to be trying
tactics to see what works best. Some of their attempts aren't going to be
optimum as they are still learning how to deal with them. (12)
Organised pickets are a relatively new phenomenon for the orgs. I think, that
just as with ars, they are still working out what the best tactics are. Some of
the things they try won't work or will be counter-productive.
I would be in favor of (in reverse order) ignoring the pickets; chatting with
them; or as I read about at at least one picket, bringing them cups of tea. I
thought that was a great idea.
I guess my actions would probably depend on the behavior of the pickets. (15)
Well I ask myself, why would OSA go to all that trouble? What could you have
been doing to annoy them so much? At my org we never did anything like that. I guess if someone had started standing outside shouting and causing trouble we
would also have been trying to work out how we could stop it. With my very laid-back outlook right now I would hopefully yawn and go have a friendly chat with
them. But when people are being taunted and mocked it's difficult to always
react in such a peaceful manner. (27)
Well, here's an interesting thing. About 7 years ago a friend of mine (a
Scientologist) had the same idea about me - she thought that perhaps I
shouldn't be reading critical material. (whilst reading I do skip over the
details of the advanced levels as far as possible). She wrote to the Ethics
Officer at AOSHUK for advice. He replied that he didn't have any policy that
forbade reading critical data and that since I wasn't getting upset by it all
there actually wasn't anything further that needed doing.
A different EO might have had a different opinion but to me it seemed a
On the other hand, I can see that if a new person had a lot of conflicting
data it might make it difficult for them to just do the Scientology drills.
They would need to be very careful to separate out the various sources of
information they had studied, and then really do the procedures as written. Otherwise they wouldn't really be doing Scientolgy drills - and couldn't expect
them to work. (1)
Well, I do really like reexamining my beliefs. It's one of the best things
happens during auditing. I also try to get various viewpoints on the subjects
that interest me (like booking a decent hotel with a fabulous breakfast buffet).
I also love finding out things about the Church I didn't know. That's why I've
been reading this group on and off since 93/94. I would also recommend, for any
serious student of the subject who is already reading ars, the back issues of
Ivy. Unfortunately some of the contributors do occasionally talk about
confidential issues, but I just skim over those bits as best I can. However I
think Anthony's open editorial policy is excellent and the magazine contains a
lot of theta. (15)
I've visited Clambake and many of the other
critical sites; I've read the books of Corydon, Miller, Atack, Wallis
and Lamont (skipping as best I could over the confidential bits); I
subscribe to Ivy (a freezone magazine); and I've been reading ars, and
then later act, since 93/94. (20)
I've honestly never seen Scientologists in complete fear to speak their
Maybe I'm easy to talk to. However I've seen them in fear that they might be
asked to do something to contribute! : ) (20)
I've been feeling particularly perky for the last two weeks actually. Posting
successfully on ars turns out to be much easier than I had imagined. Certainly
easier than when I tried it a few years ago.
I sometimes find myself chortling over particularly choice bon mots that I've
posted. Also, I always take a novel with me anywhere that I might have to wait
for a while. However I've found recently that I don't need to read as much as I
can amuse myself by thinking of good points to make on ars.
Probably the best thing is that I've been able to counter some of the lies
posted about Scientology. And that's mainly just by writing about my own
experiences. I feel really good about that. (23)
1. As I have said before, I think the prices ~are~ somewhat excessive and I'd
like it made easier in various ways for people to get both training and
2. But part of the notion of 'freedom' is that you ~can~ spend your money on
whatever you like - for example in my case wine, women, and auditing (and then
I waste the rest).
3. I do tell new people I send to the org to buy only individual services until
they decide whether they like it or not. I know three people above Clear who
are waiting until the prices come down - that's their decision - it's fine.
They can still do lots of Scientology things.
4. People who do courses and get auditing feel they get some real ~benefit~.
That's why they keep going. If they don't like it they should certainly quit. (27)
Even in this single thread I've had to deal with someone who thought
that criticizing the potentialities of the state of OT was an effective
argument against Scientology. That goes directly to the issue of belief. I
think that if I spent one hour with a search engine I could find a huge number
of posts - from both ex-Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike criticizing
our beliefs. (11)
<email@example.com> (yduzitmatter)(archive check
> No one deprograms - it is called exit counselling and it allows people to see the other side of the story - in a calm and relaxed atmosphere - there are no guards, no sleep deprivation, no yelling, no threats, just talk and information.
Some people say "church" - some people say "cult."
Some people say "deprogramming," some people say "exit
Why? It helps their argument.
Above you are describing the PR ideal of exit counselling/deprogramming. As I
dare say you really know (you certainly should know), it isn't always like
I hope and trust that the situation will change for the better in these
European countries. You mention the cleaned up situations with the U.S. and
Canada. We also had problems (now resolved) in the 60s and 70s with the
governments of the United Kingdom and Australia.
The ideal scene from my point of view is simple. Plenty of Scientology centers
where people can take well delivered Scientology courses and give and receive
auditing (and they shouldn't be too expensive and they should be fairly laid
back). There would be happy, winning Scientologists who in turn help their
environments and the people around them.
If anyone inside the orgs is doing anything that gets in the way of that they
should knock it off. If anyone else thinks that people shouldn't have the right
to study Scientology they should look a little bit more carefully at their real
Various responses occur to me when I read potpourri horror collections like
above. In this case: 1. I wonder what could have caused OSA to go to all that
trouble? 2. Is the source of the information itself reliable? Does that source
have an interest in feeding fuel to the flames - perhaps to demonstrate to
themselves that the they are on the right path? 3. It would be most helpful if
I could hear the other side. (17)
Scientology has a long and complex history. The truth about what has happened
at different points is very difficult to establish. Take a look at Mr Scary 's
original post blaming the church for anonymously threatening a band member.
It's almost certainly nonsense as was pointed out by a couple of the more level
headed critics. However when they said so another critic (PTSC) jumped in with
a list of 17 reported death threats over the years. The idea that these might
also have been invented or done by other critics wasn't mentioned. But I'd say
that it's a reasonable supposition that at least ~some~ of these are false.
And next year if someone else says they got an anonymous phonecall then there
will be an updated 18 name list with Taz's name on top. Everyone will have
forgotten the details. It will make the Church seem to be very wicked - but
with no evidence at all. (25)
No, sorry. I'm sure it would be nice to have a real live staff member to
but I'm just a common or garden variety public Scientologist who goes to the
events once in a while. My days on staff were many, many moons ago. (15)
I think it's time for another story from Freddie. One very interesting thing
that I've noticed is that Scientologists often work on improving their artistic
talents. I do know some non-Scientology musicians, but I know and have known
many more Scientology sculptors, painters, writers, actors, singers, etc -
and these were professionals who were able to make a living at their work. I've
known another, greater number of Scientologists who became interested in
developing their artistic tendancies as they progressed in Scientology. They
would then perform in revues or play guitar at home, etc. I'd say it was quite
a common phenomenon.
When people have something about themselves which causes them problems -
let's say they always wanted to draw cartoons but could never finish any of
them to a good result - there are two areas to look at:
a. the technique of drawing cartoons which might need studying or correcting;
b. those things in the person's past and present which might be stopping them.
Sometimes (using a very simple example) if he realises that he always used to
try and stop his sister from finishing ~her~ pictures, he suddenly has a surge
of ability and starts drawing again.
This doesn't only happen in Scientology. I once knew a businessman who had once
been a happy little boy who like singing. As he got older, exam pressures and
the rat race closed in on him and by the time he got married he hadn't sung for
many years. He'd forgotten all about it. He was always busy, never had an time
at home, etc. However he was posted abroad - to run a factory in Thailand - and
the family life changed considerably. Suddenly he had a chaffeur and a huge
house with a wonderful walled garden. He could leave work at 5.30 every day and
play golf. His wife and children were happy. . .
One day his wife was downstairs when she heard a strange noise coming from
upstairs. She ran up to see
what it was and absolutely astounded, she found her husband in the shower
singing quite beautifully.
Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, of course people do have resurgences of artistic
ability outside Scientology - but I've seen many, many more instances ~in~
Those aren't tests for becoming Clear nowadays. The definition has changed
the years - many, many, many times. It can be a bit confusing. I think the
modern definition for Clear is a being without his own reactive mind. (24)
A few points. Firstly, there is a difference between a stable and an unstable
paranormal ability. The latter being appreciably more difficult to demonstrate.
Secondly, the OT levels proper only _start_ at OT8 - the preceding levels after
Clear being known as pre-OT levels. Finally I would refer you to chapter two (I
think) in an LRH book called History of Man; and to an excellent essay on the
same subject by Homer Smith:
I'd love to see more scientific studies of the value of various parts
of Scientology. Such studies would be difficult to arrange, but not
impossible. I don't know that they would change things all that much though.
Scientologists will continue get Scientology, the ars critics will continue to
criticise, and most people in the world will have _way_ bigger problems on
their plate. (4)
> > If the Church ceased to exist, then a few things would be better,
> Which things specifically?
I've been thinking about this question and I've changed my mind now. : )
Ok. For a relatively few, already trained people, the full range of services
easier to obtain. Some comm lines that IMO don't need to be so closed would be
opened and many of the injustices that have occured over the years would lose a
lot of their force.
I'd like to see a broad, unconditional amnesty for almost everyone and a
thorough review of all past declares. I'd like it to become very easy for
auditors to get their upper bridges - utilizing perhaps a supervised read it-
drill it-do it regime. I'd also like to see the prices come down and the Church
using the internet and DVDs to cheaply and broadly disseminate the entire LRH
Helping people to move along more smoothly is very rewarding. On the other
hand, if people aren't interested in spiritual philosophy/don't want to do
Scientology, my strong inclination is to give them a cheery wave, and then
either pass on my way or talk about any other interests we have in common.
If the one little lost sheep needs some help finding his way I'll certainly
give him some directions and maybe even give him a lift, but if he then carps
and moans at me incessantly he can jolly well find his own way home.
(If I was a vicious man I might have written that the miserable sheep could
soon find himself flayed, gutted, divided into suitable portions, and bagged up
in the trunk. But it's a nasty thought and not a good analogy so I'd rather
just leave him to find the way himself.)
I hope I'm not going to regret writing that paragraph. I'm leaving it in only
because it's funny.
Ungrateful sheep: "Baaa. You _would_ prefer to do that to me, Freddie.
You wouldn't leave me - you're going to kill me and eat me!"
Freddie T: "No, no,no, no. Please get out. You can walk."
Ungrateful sheep: "Baaastad."
(sheep gets out of the car and exits stage left)
That's an actual conversation, and as you can see, the sheep was not damaged in
any way. (7)
Well, you can order all of the books from your local library. This includes
the Technical Volumes and the lectures which have been transcribed and
published so far. That is a _lot_ of information - and in my opinion,
readable, important information. I would recommend some of the early Research
Discovery volumes - start around number 5 or 6. These contain a lot of the
early discoveries, and in adition have many anecdotes and examples as Ron
introduced the concepts to people for the first time. (1)
Maybe anyone could benefit if they were given the _best_ of Scientology. This
would be those precise actions most suited to their individual situation; those
actions would be performed very well and very smoothly, and anything relevant
which changed in the person's life would be quickly picked up and dealt
That would be the ideal - and the more difficult the person is, the more that
they need this kind of superlative treatment. If someone is an easy case,
they'll generally read a book, roll into the org and get on services.
Most long-term Scientologists, in my opinion, can stand up to some bad
programming or bad handlings. If not they wouldn't still be there. ; ) I'm a
fairly easy case I think. I managed to get two or three of my grades
without even a C/S (it was once a very small org). A few mistakes were
definitely made but we picked them up and that time during which I was doing
the grades was one of the best periods in my life (so far).
Roughly, from the viewpoint of the person receiving the grades, the auditor
makes sure before you start that you're well-fed, rested and aren't worrying
about any pressing issues. He asks you a really interesting philosphical
question ( and if it's not interesting you drop it), and you tell him your
ideas. He listens carefully and understands and then asks the next question in
the process. And you do this until you feel good and have a realisation. It's
By the way, that paragraph isn't meant to be a 'how-to-do auditing' type of
thing. It's just a description of what happened from my point of view. (7)
> I have a few questions that I would like to see addressed:
> 1. Re: The Purification Rundown: Doctors to whom I have shown the Rundown to are appalled by the mega doses of vitamins prescribed - particularly Niacin and Vitamin A - large doses of Niacin can be (and have) caused liver damage; Large Doses of Vitamin A can cause serious Birth Defects. In addition to this exposure in a sauna of more than half an hour is dangerous. This Rundown has never been proven scientifically - in fact most doctors would never recommend such treatment. Why is it still being used when the potential for harm far out weighs any possible benefit?
This isn't a strong area for me I'm afraid. I 'd suggest that you write a
polite letter to the senior C/S international with your questions.
What can I say that might be of help? The whole area of vitamin supplements is
a controversial area. Different authorities (for example Linus Pauling and the
FDA) have had very different ideas about the correct quantities of vitamins
that one should be shoving down one's neck. I used to take an interest in the
area and regularly read an academic journal about alternative medicines. Every
month there was new research with different findings. In general I would say
that over the past decade there has been a lot more research which has come out
in _favor_ of taking supplements. But it's all still controversial. There are
doctors who endorse and help supervise the purif regime - I dealt with one
once. I'm quite sure there are those who,as you say, are horrified.
Other points stemming from your paragraph above: pregnant women wouldn't get an
OK to do the purif.
And the saunas used aren't that hot.
I've seen people get a lot of benefits. I know that's a bit of a weak
statement, but I don't have the time right now to go over each one - and even
if I did, I doubt it would change anyone's mind. There are some success stories
from the purif if anyone is interested on the Scientology.com site. (13)
> The temperature is not the problem it is the humidity. Exposure over a long period is dangerous - even if you are drinking water and eating salt tablets - there comes a point at which the body can not replenish what is being taken out - and for everyone that point is different.
People are encouraged to regularly come out of the sauna to cool off, drink
water and take salt, potassium and tissue salts as needed.
Since I started posting a couple of weeks ago I have been interested in
correcting a few things that seem to me to go against things I've actually seen.
Whilst I often read reports on ars about a decline in Scn, and orgs with only a
few people - these go against the observations I've made:
a. There has been a resurgence in the quality of services. I've not taken any
recently (so my affadavit isn't as good as it could be) but I've had rave first-hand reports from trusted friends, and I've seen some big
improvements in the course packs. In the old days the supervisor had to dig
around to find a suitable reference when the student asked a question like:
What should I do if I ask this supplementary series of questions but nothing
comes up on the meter?"
There was probably a bulletin or a lecture that covered this situation but it
took some experience to know where to look. In the new Golden Age of Tech
packs, those references have been culled and collated so that the reference is
right there and every student can study them and drill them.
b. There has been an increase in the size of the orgs I'm connected with. I've
seem lots of report on ars about how such and such an org appears to be
shinking and doing badly. I've no idea how true these are. As I've said before,
the three orgs I know well are doing very well and are expanding year by year. (7)
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
I am in contact now and then with three orgs. The one nearest me is booming
right now. The other two had expanded and were also doing very well when I last
visited (although that was two or three years ago).
So whilst I read on ars a lot of stories about how the orgs aren't doing well,
it doesn't jibe with my own experience.
I just don't have enough reliable information to judge the worldwide
If you start off fooling the staff into thinking you are making
gains (shakes head dolefully) . . . I don't see how you can _expect_ to get
anything from any of the courses or counselling you received. (2)
Auditing just won't work in the presence of witholds. If you could have told
the auditor your ideas about being a scoffer, etc; then either it would have
cleared up for you, or you could have done some more stuff to look at those
various ideas you were/are holding in your head about Scientology.
But it's not possible to just ignore the ideas, fool the auditor into thinking
you're making progress, and hope to be put on something else higher or more
prestigious that works better. The thing that needed to be handled was the
thing that you had your attention on. (6)
One thing I've learned in my auditing is that it's very
important to say exactly what I think about something. Tell them that you're a
scoffer but you want to be shown something special! (Of course I know it
wouldn't be a secret then). If I think the process is boring or unnecesary - I
say so. If nothing changes and I still think so - I say it again.
I kind of always did this - but over the years I've gotten
much better at picking up (and communicating) exactly what I think is wrong (or
right) - it really speeds things up (and makes auditing cheaper).
Actually I just remembered three times when, at least
initially, I _didn't_do this:
1. When I first had grades auditing, the auditor asked me
if I was interested in running the process I always used to say "Yes" - but
actually sometimes I wasn't. Waste of everyone's time.
2. Another auditor, another time. He had an unfortunate
habit of raising his eyebrows every time he acknowledged me. I was embarrassed
for him and didn't really want to say what was bugging me - but of course I
couldn't make any gains in the session as my attention kept going onto waiting
for his eyebrows - and also onto trying not to think about it. He could see from
the meter something was wrong and he finally got it out of me - big relief all
3. Final time. Many years ago. I was waiting in the HGC for
my auditor and this grumpy looking bloke walked though the doorway. I thought,
"Wow, he's an ugly, miserable looking fella."
Of course. . .
So in session I kept trying to keep my attention off that
nasty thought I'd had. I _really_ didn't want to have to tell him. But the
pressure kept building up, and he kept trying to find what was wrong - and
finally I had to hide my head behind the meter shield and 'fess up. Big relief
all around (I think/hope), and the session got on track, etc.
The thing is Jommy, is that if someone wants to get an
benefit from auditing they have to be prepared to communicate honestly to the
That was why I suggested that it might have been better if
Jane had honestly said what she felt - that she was a scoffer but that she
secretly wanted to be shown something special.
If she had said so, that thought could have been understood
and acknowledged by the auditor and they could then have gotten on with the
Scientology isn't an easy thing to do. While some things can be learned and
applied fairly quickly; there is an awful lot of material to get through; there
are an awful lot of people who need training; and there are an awful lot of
people who could do with a bit of auditing.
Philosophical note: if you are _trying_ to exteriorise, you probably won't.
is because if the consideration includes: "I am interiorised, but I want
to. .. " it means that you are putting the desired change into the future.
would suggest the Phoenix Lecture tapes (or the book) for more information on
CCHR is a mostly volunteer activity. They try to get out some information
psychiatric abuses, and they help people who have been abused.
I think it's a good thing. If we look at the history of psychiatry over the
past 50 years we can see that there have been some serious abuses and that
these are carrying on today. I don't always click on the articles about
psychiatry posted to ars - but some of them are very interesting. (15)
1. Sep 27, 2000Message-ID:
2. Sep 30, 2000 Message-ID:
3. Oct 1, 2000 Message-ID:
4. Oct 4, 2000 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
5. Oct 6, 2000 Message-ID: <email@example.com>
6. Oct 8, 2000 3:47 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
7. Oct 8, 2000 6:57 Message-ID: <email@example.com>
8. Oct 25, 2000 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
9.Oct 26, 2000 1:14 Message-ID: <email@example.com>
10. Oct 26, 2000 1:39 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
11. Oct 26, 2000 3:33 Message-ID:
12. Oct 26, 2000 9:03 Message-ID:
13. Oct 26, 2000 11:25 Message-ID:
14. Oct 26, 2000 18:02 Message-ID:
15. Oct 27, 2000 Message-ID:
16. Oct 27, 2000 23:14 Message-ID:
17. Oct 28, 2000 Message-ID:
18. Oct 29, 2000 19:16 Message-ID:
19 Oct 29, 2000 23:21 Message-ID:
<email@example.com> (yduzitmatter)(archive check
20 Oct 31, 2000 03:13 Message-ID:
21 Nov 1, 2000 Message-ID:
<firstname.lastname@example.org> (Mr Scary)
22 Nov 1, 2000 22:12 Message-ID:
<email@example.com> (Gerry Armstrong)
23 Nov 2, 2000 Message-ID:
24 Nov 2, 2000 2040 Message-ID:
<firstname.lastname@example.org> (Jommy Cross)
25 Nov 3, 2000 Message-ID:
26 Nov 3, 2000 03:40 Message-ID:
27 Nov 3, 2000 06:34 Message-ID:
28 Nov 3, 2000 18:27 Message-ID:
29 Nov 3, 2000 19:54 Message-ID:
30 Nov 4, 2000 Message-ID:
31 Nov 4, 2000 07:48 Message-ID:
32 Nov 4, 2000 10:32 Message-ID:
<email@example.com> (Brent Stone)
Random Quote :
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.