What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Demented LRH » Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:46 pm

Ask yourself, “Why Sea Org members are getting paid on average $30 a week?” The only answer I can think of is that the orgs are not making enough money. Why the orgs are not making enough money? A professional economist would tell you that either the product is bad or the management is bad.

As a Scientologist, you believe that the Bridge courses are the best thing that the mankind has ever seen. Then you must conclude that the management is bad. Why the management is inadequate? The CoS management scheme is based on the Management Series. Then the conclusion is inevitable -- the Management Series is garbage.

I am a professional economist, I have MS in Financial Engineering. I know that the Management Series is unworkable. But do not take my word for it, ask an economist to evaluate the Management Series.

Once you realize that the Management Series is exercise in futility, you will start questioning everything else that LRH wrote.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Demented LRH » Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:08 pm

Do you really believe that a person (thetan) can create a universe after he/she reaches the state of Clear Theta Clear, as LRH promised? If this were true, anyone of us could be a god. But this is just an unproven hypothesis; any scientists would tell you that after a theory is formed, empirical data is required to support it. LRH never claimed that he could create a universe. Why would you take his word for it instead of asking for empirical proof?
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Demented LRH » Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:55 pm

I think that you deserve to know the truth about Dianetics auditing.

The Anderson Report - Scientology and Hypnosis
Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology
by Kevin Victor Anderson, Q.C.
Published 1965 by the State of Victoria, Australia
CHAPTER 18
Pages 115 thru 118
SCIENTOLOGY AND HYPNOSIS
The Board heard expert evidence in relation to hypnosis and hypnotic techniques. There are, broadly speaking, two types of hypnosis: passive hypnosis, and command or authoritative hypnosis. Hypnosis, properly administered by skilled practitioners, has its proper place in psychiatric practice, and, in suitable cases, produces beneficial results. In the practice of medicine the type of hypnosis generally used is passive ; the patient is allowed to, and helped to, go into hypnosis entirely voluntarily, and the hypnotist plays a completely passive role. This technique is quite the reverse of authoritative or command hypnosis, where the hypnotist assumes positive authoritative control over the patient who, though he may or may not be aware of what techniques the practitioner is practicing on him, is nevertheless under the domination of the hypnotist pursuant to positive commands.

Because of the serious risk of harm to the patient, it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that authoritative hypnosis is resorted to in medical practice. The distinction between the two types of hypnosis, the one beneficial and the other potentially harmful, is to be borne in mind when considering the hypnotic qualities of scientology techniques. Hubbard is very familiar with hypnosis, called by him, " hypnotism ", a term which, even at the time of his early writings, was being superseded in professional use. Hubbard earlier practiced hypnosis as shown abundantly by his writings. In Scientology, issue 15-G he writes, " I was schooled in hypnotism and mysticism". Elsewhere he writes that he tried hypnotism, but gave it away because of a number of undesirable features which he said it possessed. In Dianetics: MSMH, Science of Survival, and other writings, Hubbard is highly critical of hypnosis, but what he is criticizing and denouncing is authoritative or command hypnosis and to the extent that his criticisms relate to, and are limited to, authoritative hypnosis, they have considerable validity . Such criticisms, however do not apply to passive hypnosis as practiced by skilled and experienced psychiatrists with benefit to their patients in selected cases.

In the skilled practice of hypnosis the practitioner is well aware of the dangers which may arise from the tendency to develop in the patient a degree of dependency upon the practitioner, who is concerned to ensure that this and other dangers inherent in hypnosis do not develop. It is the firm conclusion of this Board that most scientology and dianetic techniques are those of authoritative hypnosis and as such are dangerous. Hubbard and his adherents strongly protest that his techniques are neither hypnotic nor dangerous. However, the scientific evidence which the Board heard from several expert witnesses of the highest repute and possessed of the highest qualifications in their professions of medicine, psychology, and other sciences - and which was virtually unchallenged - leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is only in name that there is any difference between authoritative hypnosis and most of the techniques of scientology. Many scientology techniques are in fact hypnotic techniques, and Hubbard has not changed their nature by changing their names. Hubbard seems quite capable of thinking that if he postulates that scientology techniques are different from hypnotic techniques then they are different. Whether or not Hubbard realizes that the only differences are in name, his followers loyally and uncritically accept his word and believe that scientology techniques are distinctively Hubbardian and that hypnosis is something quite different and evil and to be avoided. A number of scientology witnesses, when asked what they believed hypnosis to be, answered vaguely that it was some sort of stage technique for mesmerizing people by the waving of hands in front of them, or some such thing. It may, of course, be that, but it is many other things also and of its real nature Hubbard's followers seem generally to be unaware. The common practice of Hubbard is to change the names of hypnotic phenomena to names of his own invention, purporting thereby to change the nature and significance of such phenomena. Thus, a form of unconsciousness experienced in hypnosis he has renamed variously " anzten ", " boil-off", and " dope-off " ; hypnotic hallucinations he has called " mental image pictures" ; and " dissociation " he has called " exteriorization "

Though in hypnosis there is no E-meter (lie detector) as there is in scientology, at almost every stage there is a parallel between scientology auditing and hypnosis, and it is even to be observed in the initial stages when the auditing session is about to commence. It is well recognized amongst psychiatrists that persons who desire to be hypnotized, or are expecting to be hypnotized, more readily succumb to hypnotic processes. It is not necessary that the subject should be expecting to be hypnotized ; he may not be aware of the meaning of hypnosis or of what is involved in it. It is sufficient that he expects to receive treatment and he makes himself ready and available to the practitioner for the treatment which is to be applied and is ready to accept direction from the practitioner and the consequences or the results of such treatment. In authoritative hypnosis, where the subject is a willing subject and is more or less consciously under the domination of the practitioner, it is found that the subject will readily go into hypnosis, even though he may be unaware of the technical name of the treatment he is receiving or the fact that he is, or is about to be, in hypnosis. Scientology techniques begin with a subject who is well aware that he is to be "processed ", and the circumstance that he does not know that the process, which is called by a non-hypnotic name, is in reality a hypnotic process is quite immaterial. The name has no significance to the subject, but the process remains hypnotic by whatever name it is called. The subject then, expecting to be "processed" finds that his processing commences, as Hubbard directs it shall commence, with solemn and strict ritual. After some standard preliminary questions such as, Is it alright if I audit you in this room? " and " Is it alright if we start the session now? " a session in scientology processing starts with an unvarying routine. When the assent of the subject has been received to these preliminary questions, the auditor (spiritual counselor) then commences the session with a loudly uttered, " Start of session." In the demonstration Dianetics sessions which the Board witnessed, the statement, " Start of session ", was spoken in a loud sharp tone, quite at variance with the rest of the speech of the counselor and was evidently designed to impress upon the subject that now he and the counselor had embarked on the really serous part of the business. Such a dramatic and startling procedure conditions the already expectant subject for the exercises or events which follow and is incontrovertibly that of authoritative hypnosis. The subject is expecting to be " taken in hand ", to use a neutral expression, and that is just what the auditor does, and that is what a hypnotist practicing authoritative hypnosis would likewise do. The Board heard expert psychiatric evidence to the effect that a person who is so expectant is a very ready subject for hypnosis ; it was said that a hypnotic condition could be induced in some patients merely by telling them to lie on the couch on which they had lain on a previous occasion when under hypnosis, and that even the entry into a room in which previously they had been under hypnosis may be sufficient to return some people to hypnosis. In scientology, where processing goes on day after day, the return to the same auditor ( spiritual counselor) and to the same place and to the same ritual would readily predispose the expectant subject to submission to scientology’s hypnotic techniques and to a return to the hypnotic state which these circumstances commemorate. In hypnosis, there is a condition of rapport between the subject and the hypnotist, loosely and variously described as a bond of sympathy, confidence, confidingness, trust. Hypnosis is a state of mind in the subject which is frequently induced by interaction with the hypnotist with whom the subject is said to be in rapport. In scientology processing there is established between the subject and the auditor (counselor) such a bond or understanding, and scientology techniques are developed and designed to maintain this bond during the whole of the session ; it is considered bad auditing if this bond is broken and techniques are prescribed for remedying the break.

In hypnosis, a degree of dependency develops and the expert, practitioner is on guard against, and realizes the potential danger of, this condition. In authoritative hypnosis this dependency is allowed to develop, often with harmful results. In scientology there is this same dependence which is allowed to develop without restraint. It persists after the auditing has finished and has significance in the desire of the subject to return again and again to the HASI for further auditing (counseling). In the case of some witnesses a quality of almost desperate dependency on the HASI was observable.

A significant characteristic of hypnosis is what is referred to as the atavistic regression of the subject, " regression " signifying the going back to some previous event or circumstance, and " atavistic " connoting and pertaining to ancestry and referring to the losing or dulling of more recently acquired biological activities, so that the subject becomes less alert, less critical, and may become almost childlike, with heightened respect for the hypnotist, the development or intensification of rapport and a desire on the part of the subject to identify himself more closely with the hypnotist. Hypnosis may be induced by a great number of different procures which initiate some degree of regression in the subject. Very many scientology procedures are designed to initiate this regression.

If command hypnosis is unskilfully practiced, hallucinations which have been created during hypnosis persist later as reality. In scientology, "mental image pictures" experienced during an auditing session persist thereafter as reality and the subject comes to believe that the past experiences and activities conjured up during these hallucinatory periods really took place, and so there is engendered a readiness to subscribe to the various scientology theories about past lives, the ghost and similar beliefs.

Frequently a subject who in Dianetics session has experienced hallucinations concerning murder, rape, homosexuality and other criminal and disgraceful behavior comes to believe that such behavior actually occurred during his present lifetime. This results in feelings of anxiety, guilt and self-loathing and a desire for confession and self-abasement, all of which increase dependency on and domination of the HASl. This position is to be contrasted with what obtains where passive hypnosis is used by skilled practitioners ; in such cases, though the patient under hypnosis may be uninhibited and may experience distressing hallucinations, they are handled by the practitioner in such a way that, if recollected at all, they do not persist as realities, and beneficial results are obtained from competently administered hypnotic techniques. Furthermore, whereas in the professional use of hypnosis the objective is to bring to a conclusion a course of such treatment as speedily as
possible, scientology practice is to prescribe more processing to deal with the hallucinations already experienced and bring to light fresh ones. One characteristic feature of hypnosis is the increased suggestibility of the subject, of which advantage can be taken by the hypnotist. In the state of regression found in hypnosis fantasies may be experienced which may be spontaneous or as the result of suggestion. To the subject these fantasies are apparently real and true experiences, and if authoritative hypnosis is used, these fantasies persist as reality. Subjects are highly suggestible and readily conjure up past life experiences of a kind and along lines suggested by the auditor and by what Hubbard has written. Hubbard finds much of the material for his "research " in these hallucinations which are quite fanciful and often contain details of " past lives ". A striking illustration of the increased suggestibility of persons undergoing scientology processing is the Helatrobus implant on which Hubbard worked in 1963 and which was the cause of great excitement amongst scientologists. Hubbard wanted subjects to be run on the Helatrobus (mystical planet outside the Milky Way galaxy) implanting of the goal "to forget " between 38 and 43 trillion years ago, and many subjects in auditing sessions readily imagined weird things happening to them in the period stipulated, some of them giving to the second how many trillions of years ago they had had past life experiences. This. however, was after Hubbard himself had issued a bulletin stating that he had had such experiences. Afterwards some of the subjects were quite satisfied that they had been recalling true experiences in past lives.

It is recognized in hypnosis that repetitive commands and the exercise of other hypnotic techniques are likely to induce regression in which the psychological mechanism of repression is less effective ; when this relaxing or lessening of repression occurs, matters in the unconscious mind are allowed into consciousness, and the subject may be very ready to discuss quite freely many intimate and shameful matters in respect of which the subject would be greatly or entirely inhibited if not under hypnosis. In scientology processing, all these features are present. In scientology are many processes, including those which involve repetitive commands, which produce a lowering of barriers of restraint, a lessening of reticence, a readiness to talk unreservedly about the most intimate and secret things and past shameful experiences, and there are even scientology techniques designed to overcome, in an almost sadistic way any reluctance on the part of the subject to " withhold " anything. In scientology processing there is the same relaxing of repression and the same regression that is found in hypnosis.

One of the features of hypnosis is that various psychological mechanisms operate in a more florid form ; thus, while in ordinary life a person may show little manifestation of hysteric behavior, under hypnosis he is far more likely to show hysteric behavior in a gross form. In scientology processing it is almost standard practice for the subjects to manifest some heightened hysterical features ; a great many of the HASI files indicate that subjects have highly developed bouts of hysterical manifestation.


Post hypnotic suggestion, which is an important feature of hypnosis, is the name given to the implanting during hypnosis of a command, belief or idea which is subsequently given effect to. Post hypnotic suggestions may be made in relation to ideas, beliefs, attitudes of mind and the like which the patient is to assume after coming out of hypnosis. In scientology sessions, the counselor, in following the prescribed strict procedure for closing the session, inquires of the subject whether the subject has achieved his goals set for the session and any other gains and whether he is satisfied with the session. The counselor is still very much in control of the situation, for the subject, being in a state of hypnotic rapport with the counselor whose wishes are in effect his, is more likely to answer that the goals or some of them have been obtained and that the session has been a success. This is a form of post-hypnotic suggestion, and after the session the suggestion that the session was a success may persist. This feature of Scientology processing may well account for the statistic which Williams produced as the percentage of subjects which it was claimed had received benefit from scientology processing (see Chapter 20 )

Dangerous consequences may follow some post-hypnotic suggestions. If a post-hypnotic suggestion be given in hypnosis that the subject would not experience a particular symptom, e.g., a headache, after a session had ended. The subject might not experience a headache which normally he would have experienced, and thereby not be alerted to a possible medical condition, such as a brain tumor of which the headache would have been a warning sign.

In hypnosis, a condition which is described by psychiatrists as ," dissociation " may be experienced by the subject: This is a feeling or sensation or belief on the part of the subject that for the time being he is outside his body. This is a complete delusion though it seems real enough to the subject who is experiencing it." If the processing is authoritative hypnosis, then the hallucination of having been outside one's body may persist after the session has concluded, and this may be dangerous to the mental health of the subject. In scientology auditing, a state which the scientologists call " exteriorization is sometimes deliberately sought ; in fact, exercises and procedures for exteriorization are the subject of a large part of Hubbard's instructional writings. This exteriorization, according to scientologists, is the actual departure of the soul from the physical body to some position remote from the body. " Dissociation " and " exteriorization are the same thing, produced by essentially the same means. Whereas in hypnosis, dissociation or exteriorization is recognized for what it is, namely, a feeling or sensation or belief on the part of the subject that he is outside his body, in scientology the subject is specifically told that the hallucination which he experienced did in fact occur as a reality and that the soul has been exteriorized. In such circumstances the harmful effects of scientology processing persist by inculcating in the mind of the subject an entirely fallacious belief. A preoccupation with such beliefs, involving a refusal to face up to reality, may be dangerous to the mental health of the subject. A command to " mock up " some object is a standard technique for the induction of hypnosis. Hubbard's writings, both in books and pamphlets, abound with descriptions of procedures which involve mocking up objects. A very great part of The Creation of Human Ability, a book of nearly 300 pages, and recommended reading, is devoted to the explanation of procedures which involve mocking up objects and /or exteriorization. Bulletins, policy letters, and other literature from Hubbard repeatedly deal with these two topics.

In hypnosis, it is not uncommon for the subject to experience disturbing hallucinations that relate to repressed things in his mind, such as hallucinatory homosexual experiences which a subject in his normal existence may never have experienced or entertained. Because of loss of repression these thoughts become known to him in a hallucinatory form, and he is likely to experience extremely severe anxiety even to the extent of panic and self-loathing. A subject who, in passive hypnosis, has experienced these or similar thoughts and may have had feelings of revulsion while under hypnosis, may safely be brought out of hypnosis and no ill effects will follow ; on the contrary, benefit may result and feelings of shame will not persist. However, if similar hallucinatory and shameful thoughts are conjured up in authoritative hypnosis there may be dangerous consequences. In Scientology, subjects have frequently complained of morbid feelings of guilt and depression persisting after auditing.

A further similarity between hypnotic processing and scientology auditing is the attention which both pay to the terminating of a processing or auditing session. A skilled hypnotist exercises great care in terminating a hypnotic session ; he has to be satisfied that the subject is ready to be returned to a normal state from the hypnotized state. Too rapid a transition from one state to the other may have harmful effects. In scientology, there is as much strictness applied to terminating an auditing session as there is to the starting of such a session. The counselor brings the subject up to " present time, usually running a " cognition " process for this purpose ; he then enquires whether the session can be ended, and, when he has the subject’s assent, he loudly proclaims " End of session " in much the same ritualistic way as he commenced the session.

The foregoing illustrations are sufficient to show that at almost every point there is a similarity, amounting almost to identity, between features of authoritative hypnosis and parallel features of scientology techniques. The dangers of the wholesale practice of these pernicious techniques cannot be over-emphasized. Not only does it constitute a very grave threat to the mental health of those already in scientology and in need of psychiatric help but it menaces persons who by ordinary standards are quite normal but may find their way into the scientology centre merely out of ambition, curiosity or adventure. Being unaware of what is in store for them, they may easily succumb to the lure of being made more able, and shortly find themselves mentally crippled by the dangerous practices of ignorant operatives. This has already been the tragic fate of many“.

Hubbard’s lies about self-cure.

HCO PL 22 Dec 1965, "My Navy Medical Records"
“We came under attack by our psychiatrist enemies after publication of the Anderson report. Scientology is in grave danger, it is being besmirched by the evil psychoanalysts. We must act immediately and without hesitation. We must manufacture my Navy medical records to show that I suffered severe head injury and other kinds of injuries during the war and cured myself successfully from the injuries. This has to be a very delicate operation. I put my wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, whom I trust completely, in charge of the operation. Mary Sue is to find a person who can forge my medical records, preferably that person is a former Navy doctor”.
The Hubbard FBI files, WikiLeaks, pg. 671
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Demented LRH » Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:31 pm

What LRH would say in response to my commentary? Well, LRH is no longer with us, but you could respond to what you about to hear from me. You don’t have to post your response at this website, just think what kind of counterargument LRH would offer.

As you know, LRH defined reality as something that a person, or a group of people, thinks is real. For example, if I believe that Scandinavian gods, including Oden, are real, then they are real. I am not alone -- there are people in Sweden who also believe in Scandinavian gods. You, on the other hand, may not believe in Northern gods, so in your universe they do not exist.

Scientologists believe that the engrams exist. But a group of NYU psychologists conducted an experiment which, in their view, proved that the engrams are unreal. Therefore, if they do not believe in existence of the engrams, then they do not have engrams.

In my opinion, they did prove that the engrams are unreal entities; therefore I do not need Dianetics auditing because I do not have engrams.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
heyjupiter
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:58 pm
Location: UK

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by heyjupiter » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:55 pm

To any lurking $cientologist one may simply say ' If its true for you, it's true, therefore if I say that $cientology is based on a pack of lies and is a corrupt, unethical and morally reprehensible money making organisation,that should be subject to human rights abuse prosecution ,you cannot argue with me or attack me or SUE me- it's true for me'

That is a fascinating and VERY FRIGHTENING account on the nature of Hypnosis Demented LRH. :(

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Demented LRH » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:52 am

Leaving Scientology: Practical advice. Part I

There are several ways of leaving CoS, I’m going to discuss their pros and cons.

1. You are the only Scientologist among your relatives.
In this case the best way to leave the cult behind is to blow.

a). You have enough money in your pocket.
In this case Greyhound is your best friend. Still, you have to get to a Greyhound station. If you carry a big luggage out of CoS building this may raise suspicions. Consider taking out a small briefcase with the most important documents and leaving your clothes and other less important stuff behind. Do not call taxi because this could raise suspicions in security guards. Instead use the city bus to get to a Greyhound station.
Be extra careful if you work for CMO -- someone may be following you. Change several buses or subway trains before arriving to a Greyhound station. Do not stay at the station for too long; you may want to take a departing bus even if it is not heading to your destination, you will switch the buses later after you leave the town.

b). You have friends who can use their car to take you to a Greyhound station or railroad station or airport.
This is the safest way to leave CoS. Ask your friends to stay with you until a Greyhound bus or train arrives.

c.) You don’t have enough money to leave CoS and you do not have friends who can help you.
In this case you have to ask your parents or siblings to send you the money.
Now, I am going to teach you how to contact your relatives.
The best way to contact them is to send them email. DO NOT use CoS computers -- they have software that allows your bosses and OSA to see your emails. Use a computer at a public library if you can get there.

If you do not have an opportunity to go to a public library, call your relatives on the phone. DO NOT use CoS phones because OSA monitors can hear you. Use street phones to call your relatives.

You could send a letter to your relatives. DO NOT use CoS mail box -- OSA monitors will be opening your letters. Go to a nearest post office and drop your letter there. Use mail box to receive letters from your relatives -- OSA agents open all incoming letters.

Use Western Union for money transfers.

2. Your parents and siblings are Scientologists.
In this case you must consider your options very carefully.

a). You don’t have a spouse or girlfriend (boyfriend) who wants to leave CoS with you.
In this case you are better off if you leave CoS usual way by going through the lengthy sec check procedure -- you do not want the cult leaders to order your relatives to disconnect from you.

There are two alternatives to the sec check procedure that will allow you to continue relationship with your relatives.

1a) You could write a KR on yourself saying that you took LSD trip (this is how I left Sea Org; I did not have Scientology relatives, but wanted to remain in good standing with CoS).
Pros: You will be kicked out the next day, but you will remain in good standing with CoS

Cons: You might not be able to get a job with a company whose owners are Scientologists. This may not seem a big deal, but after leaving the cult you will need a job to support yourself. Scientologists prefer to hire former Sea Org members because their work ethics is high,. The owners will call your former Org to find out why you left the church. They do not care about the reason for leaving unless it involves the drugs.

2a). You could write a KR on yourself saying that you had undergone psychiatric treatment before you joined Sea Org.

Pros: This is the easiest way to leave CoS -- you will be kicked out the next day without sec check, you will remain in good standing with the church, a Scientology owner of a company won’t have any problem hiring you (my friend left the cult this way, it was an easy departure, she got a job as a bookkeeper at a company whose owners were Scientologists).

Cons: You must be older than 18 before you joined the church; otherwise they will ask your parents, who are Scientologists, if indeed you had undergone psychiatric treatment. If you’re older than 18, you could say that you were seeing a psychiatrist without your parents’ knowledge.

a). You have a spouse or girlfriend (boyfriend) who wants to leave CoS with you.
You have to keep this in mind -- if you try to leave CoS separately by going through the sec check procedures, you will be split up and you will never see your partner again. No matter what they tell you, this is the only outcome. If you want to remain with your partner, you must blow together.

Pros: You will remain with your partner.

Cons: You will be disconnected from your parents and siblings.

To be continued.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
magoo1
Posts: 11036
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by magoo1 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:33 am

Karen#1 wrote:I would say

GOOGLE

Truth Rundown Tampa Bay Times and read it all, watch the videos.


GOOGLE

Youtube Anderson Cooper A history of Violence and watch all 5 videos.
A grand start.............except for one thing:
Those "in" have been hatted that those kinds of shows are "entheta".

So my question to each lurker is this: When did you fold up and become
a slave to what another tells you to read or watch?

Onward...and do watch the shows. Remember, they're ONLY words.

:alien:

Tory/Magoo

User avatar
magoo1
Posts: 11036
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by magoo1 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:38 am

I'mglib wrote:I would say, when you open the scientology.org website, the first thing you see is a video, and the first thing in the video says that Scientology is the study of knowledge.

Then I would ask, if you are an expert (and it seems that one should be, if that's what Scientology is all about), then what is knowledge and how do you get it?

From there I would find out if knowledge can be found from one source, or should you read many sources? What does Scientology say? What if two sources differ? How do you reconcile? What if, for instance, a man is accused of beating his wife, but he says she is a liar. Would you only talk to the man? Etc.
"lalalalalala.....again, entheta!
WE (Scios "in" still) Don't "CHOOSE" to read those areas of knowledge as they are not that!
They are filled with lies by critics like yourself who never even did *a* course"

Truth is: I'm Glib brings up some excellent points that one lurking should consider.
You ("in") SHOULD be able to read not only both sides, but ALL sides, per your own
Creed: "Man has the inalienable right to free speech and free thought"

Truth must be viewed from more than one side.

And also, why is it that the critics (such as I'm Glib and an SP like myself) CAN
ask you to read BOTH sides..........ALL sides, yet your 'church" has to tell you
what IS ok, and what is NOT?

That is really checkmate right there.

:alien:

Tory/Magoo!~~~Your local, friendly SP :)

User avatar
magoo1
Posts: 11036
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by magoo1 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:42 am

Mest Lover wrote:This is the missing half of your "well informed" step. Why does SCN not want you to read this?
AN EXCELLENT POINT, Mest Lover!
((Again...there's that checkmate, again!))

T

User avatar
magoo1
Posts: 11036
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by magoo1 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:45 am

Demented LRH wrote:I would say to a Scientologist, “Do not read the Xenu story if you think that it can harm you. Read instead two books by Hubbard, A History of Man, and, Have You live Before This Life? Then decide for yourself if these books describe real events or they are ramblings of a madman. Consider these books as a test of your intelligence.
Good point, DLRH! I would suggest reading Lawrence
Wright's best selling book: Going Clear. I read it from the eyes of one who knows
nothing, or a member "in"...he makes excellent points, and it should be easy to read.

Happy Reading, which ever book you choose: Keep looking, keep listening,
learn---re-learn to make up your *own* mind. :alien:

Tory/Magoo

User avatar
magoo1
Posts: 11036
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by magoo1 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:54 am

All terrific points, really!

Basically I'd ask a lurker:
Is this **really** what you got into Scientology for? This is IT?
To have to hide from peers so they won't know some stupid site
you may be reading on the Net? REALLY?

READ..............LOOK>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LISTEN
Learn ALL sides. Then, and ONLY then, make up your mind as
to IS this a group to be supported, or left.

And lastly ask yourself this: IF Hubbard says SPs are only 2 and a half %
(which he did)..........and now there are at least 40 % out and declared SP...
WTF?

It takes courage to take back your own life.
My final question is this: IF when you were 5 or 6 and s/one told you:
"When you grow up you're going to join this group. It looks like it's great,
the people seem like they're happy...but really it's ALL just a show.
The top dogs don't use it, it costs a TON of money, they're going to stop
your free speech and you get penalized for free thought....plus you lose
ALL of your friends IF you leave and even some family......

DO YOU THINK YOU'D JOIN?

Love to all! :love5:

Tory/Magoo

User avatar
Tenor
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:23 pm

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Tenor » Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:44 am

SeeYaBye wrote:For those who have been loyal members of the Church of Scientology for many years, including while L Ron Hubbard was alive, look at how the church has changed since the death of LRH and ascension of David Miscavige to head the church. Consider the old days where money put into the Church of Scientology was all about being in exchange. Money paid for Scientology services. Pay for a service on the Bridge, take that service. Pay for the next service on the Bridge, and complete that service. You were in-exchange. You were moving up the Bridge. After David Miscavige took control of the church, it became all about donating money for various activities of the church, but not for services any longer. Where did LRH write about IAS status? Where is it written that you must achieve certain status levels to proceed up the bridge. For old timers, look at how the tech has changed, including the out-tech redefinition of a floating needle. So many changes that were arbitrarily put in place by David Miscavige, not by what LRH said or wrote. Look at all of the non-bridge actions that are pushed, such as the basic books. Most of you are no longer moving up the bridge. Why not? Out-tech and out-admin are everywhere, and you are paying the big money that keeps it that way, and that prevent you from any significant Bridge movement. Why is that? Perhaps it is time to reconsider whether the Church of Scientology is an ethical organization at this point in time. Are you a member of a blatantly out-ethics church? Only you can evaluate that. And if the Church of Scientology is an out-ethics organization, then what is the correct action for you to take? Only you can determine what that action should be. Best of luck in getting this sorted out and determining the truth, and taking the appropriate in-ethics actions.


https://whyweprotest.net/community/thre ... en.109590/

When you see hoopla about "rising stats" find out what's happening with orgs and missions that are empty or have been closed - or are a post office box address only. Did you know that Jaifa Org in Israel spun off from the church entirely, and doubled their membership in only a few weeks as people who had long been inactive returned to get what they originally sought? Did you know that a Mission in Alaska followed suit, and spun off from the church only six months later? You got into Scn to improve your powers of perception. Are you now afraid you cannot interpret what you see, when previously you were not afraid?

If you've been around a while, ask yourself why so many formerly productive Scns have abandoned the church - including Class VIII and Class XII Auditors and C/Ses. Did you know that not one single LRH personally trained Class XII is still in the church? LRH personally trained, Class XII, and ALL of them have abandoned the church. How can that be? Is it possible that maybe they know something you don't?

Where is Heber Jentzsch, the President of the church? Do you really think RFP is rehabilitation when he's been there for over seven years now? Isn't that more like prison? The President of the church? And where are the original St. Hill staff? Why are most of them - who worked with LRH - declared SP? How can that be?

The church is no longer LRH. Policy is no longer being followed. It is mayhem. The squirrel is within the church, not outside.

Tenor.

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Wieber » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:00 am

Let's talk about stats.

Let's talk about your stats.

I don't mean your stats as related to the work you do. I mean your stats as related to how you are doing.

Some of these may not be quantifiable.

Are you gainfully employed doing a job you love doing?

Are your finances more than adequate to provide you with all the necessities and enough luxuries so that you are comfortable and happy?

Do you have a nice place to live with good sleeping accommodation and adequate space to spend your time there comfortably?

Do you get time off? Do you get two days a week off? Do you get at least two weeks a year off?

Do you regularly spend quality time with the people who are important to you?

Do you get adequate sleep?

Do you get adequate food and nutrition?

Do you get good health care?

Do you get good dental care?

Do you get new clothing regularly?

Do you have good shoes?

If you answered, "no" to any of those questions then I put it to you that Scientology has failed you.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
i-Betty
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:55 am

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by i-Betty » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:11 pm

This is one of the best, most practical threads I have ever seen on a site like this. I especially appreciate D-LRH's list of actual, tangible advice on how to leave. If someone is on the verge of leaving they need only this to take the final step. Bless 'em :kissysmilies:

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: What Would You Say to a Lurking Scientologist?

Post by Demented LRH » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:05 pm

Leaving Scientology: Practical advice. Part II.

You will need a help from your friends after leaving CoS before you get on your feet. Not all your friends will be willing to help you, some may even stab you in the back. You have to be very careful when you ask for help.

1. You blew.
In this case do not expect any help from the ex-Sea Org members who left CoS the “legal” way via the sec check. Not only they will refuse to help you, they are the ones who are likely to rat you out. The last thing you need are the OSA representatives knocking on your door.
Ask for help the friends who also blew. Make sure they understand that you are no longer a Scientologist and do not have connection to the church.
Contact your friends when you are still in Sea Org, so they will be prepared for your arrival. Use the methods of contact discussed in Part I.

2. You are in a good standing with CoS after your departure.
In this case do not ask for help the friends who blew because they won’t trust you, you will be just wasting precious time by contacting them.
Ask for help the friends who remain in good standing with the church after the departure. At some point they will ask you why you left Sea Org. Even if you became disillusioned with Scientology, do not tell them that. Let them know that you still believe in Scientology but left Sea Org because the hard work was wearing you down both physically and mentally. They will understand -- most likely, this is the reason why they left Sea Org, too.

Security checks.
You want to make the final check as painless as possible by making the needle floating no matter what question you are asked. You have to learn to fool the E-meter, which is easy.

You, probably, heard that if you think about pleasant things during a sec check, your needle will be floating. Well, this is not true -- although it works in some cases, in majority of the cases it does not work. Take my word for it -- when it comes to fooling the E-meter, I’m a pro.

The most effective way to cheat the E-meter is to keep your arms relaxed when you hold those cans. But you have to practice a bit before you learn to control your arms.
DO NOT ask anyone to help you practice because you can trust no one; you have to practice alone. Make sure that no one watches you during the practice.

Turn the E-meter to face you so you could see its dial. Take the cans in your hands while keeping the hands as much relaxed as you can. Begin making false statements such as “My name is L. Ron Hubbard”, “I am 105 years old”, “I am blind”, etc. Your goal is to make the needle float. If it is not floating, relax the grip even further.
On average it takes between 5 and 10 minutes of training to achieve the goal.

To be continued.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests