Why does the Church of Scientology continue to repeat its mistakes?

It continues to harass its critics. And it continues to backfire.

It keeps on trying to stifle free speech. And it keeps on backfiring.

It perpetually lies in public. It perpetually comes back and bites them.

Why is the organization not learning from its mistakes? Why does it have the learning potential of a gold fish?

I think the short answer is that it is ingrained in their very makeup. When Hubbard created Scientology, he sealed the deal by ensuring the subject was engraved in stone. He wrote the policy “Keeping Scientology Working” that made sure no one could alter or improve upon what he had created. And it is this fixed mentality that runs through all of Scientology. Hubbard created Scientology, its policies, its modus operandi and there could be nothing wrong with it. So the church continues to do the same thing over and over again expecting better results.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

I do not think the church is capable of learning from its mistakes. I think it is doomed for this very reason. Because when it are up against the Internet, Wikipedia, Anonymous and the modern, morphing, learning world, the Church of Scientology’s antiquated policies will ensure an epic fail.

124 thoughts on “Why does the Church of Scientology continue to repeat its mistakes?

  1. I think it is for an entirely different reason. The truth is that LRH was very attuned to various situations and came up with handlings for them. How about these just off the top of my head: forming a religion of Scn, coming out with expanded grades after quickie grades, forming the SO, moving the SO to land, starting the Class VIII Course, making training films. I mean the list is endless. What happened is that after 1986 no one will parallel the changing dynamics in the society except DM and he is batshit crazy and evilly intended against beings of every stripe. The movement ossified in the 80s and so they only draw on the materials LRH left behind and operate on those, outdated though they are proving to be. Take the line of “Always attack.” Clearly, that won’t work in a civilization where so much mest has been removed from the comm lines that communication is near instantaneous. Yet, the church only knows one strategy: attack. Their every response is 30 years behind the times and that is all they know how to do, since for someone to tell them to do something else would be considered sacrilegious.

    1. Bolstering what Dan said, the religious scholar James R. Lewis concluded the following about the future of the CoS:

      “Based on current trends…the overall picture is that CoS’s decline will continue – whether quickly or gradually – while independent Scientology will grow. The Free Zone in Northern and Eastern Europe already produces many more auditors per annum than the Church, while growing primarily by recruiting new members from the general population rather than from among disenchanted ex-CoS members. And while Dror Center has thus far been the only Mission to declare independence during the present cycle of defections, the incidence of such schisms might multiply as the current crisis continues to weaken member perception of the legitimacy of Church leadership.”

      The above quote is from a draft of an academic article written by Mr. Lewis which is “forthcoming in 2013 in the journal Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review.” The draft was posted yesterday by Terril Park on ESMB and the whole paper is well worth reading: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?32193-Academic-Paper-on-the-Freezone

      1. Which is bolstering the OP; As long as Scientology – both Ethics, Tech and Admin can evolve, morph and adapt, the most beneficial elements within it can survive. And yes, the church will die because it cannot learn from its mistakes.

        BTW; I was given the chance to comment on that article to James. before he released it.

        1. Geir, you have a very different take from mine and Dan’s. In the OP you wrote:

          “I think the short answer is that it is ingrained in their very makeup. When Hubbard created Scientology, he sealed the deal by ensuring the subject was engraved in stone. He wrote the policy “Keeping Scientology Working” that made sure no one could alter or improve upon what he had created.”

          It always strikes me as strange when you take the stance that whatever LRH wrote MUST be adhered to even by those outside of the CoS. It’s as if you yourself can’t get out of that CoS mentality – but that is just as hard for me to believe.

          Yes, I saw you were credited at the end of Lewis’ paper, under “Acknowledgements” :

          “…a number of different former CoS members generously supplied information for this paper. Chief among these is Chuck Beatty, who seems to have a handle on Hubbard’s entire corpus of writings. I have had a number of email conversations with Terril Park and Lena Venkova who have helped me to understand Ron’s Org. Geir Isene has always been ready to provide insightful commentary on CoS since the time I moved to Norway…”

          Mr. Lewis also stated:

          “Because critics might object to my dependence on former members and independent Scientologists as biasing my analysis, it should be emphasized that the kind of information requested from these informants was technical and ‘historical.’ I am entirely responsible for the interpretive parts of this paper. Furthermore, anyone familiar with my writings on legitimation strategies will find that the analysis in the final section of the present article flows directly out of my prior work on the construction of authority within emergent religious movements (e.g., Lewis 2008).”

          1. I have never implied that anyone outside the church Must adhere to everything Hubbard wrote. I have no idea why you invented that conclusion. In fact, I have again and agian recommended people to Not follow rotely what Hubbard wrote – as in my answer to you above. Please refrain from such Straw Men in the future 🙂

            Mind you, the OP is about why The Church will corrode and die, not the independent use of Scientology. Because, if they would follow my advice, they will indeed adopt, adapt, morph, test and discard, use and improve and evolve Scientology to something that will hopefully not be Scientology in the future.

            1. Let me put it this way. There have been times when I’ve made comments to the effect that we do not have to follow such and such destructive policy but can simply apply the core technology and you’ve replied, in essence, “That would violate KSW!” – distinctly demonstrating the stance I described above. On top of it, I recall the comment you wrote quite recently – to the effect that the core tech itself will produce harmful results.

              Now you say, “the most beneficial elements within it can survive”, phrasing it in a vague and neutral way – which has to be viewed in the context of you regularly downgrading large chunks of the tech in the vast majority of your posts. And when other critics do the same you usually say nothing in reply, or else jump in to agree. Whereas, if tech proponents say something positive about the tech you almost always counter what they say, often quoting policy – again, as if it is part of tech and must be applied. Or else you point out some destructive corruption of the tech that the CoS practices.

              You put a lot of attention on the CoS itself and all its outpoints, which include following policy that no longer fits the day and age as well as violating the beneficial policy along with the tech – and when you do so it effectively amounts to a type of propaganda that further downgrades Scientology in any form.

              Notwithstanding the ARC I have for you, Geir, I’ll leave you and your trusty followers with another paragraph from James R. Lewis’ paper, which gives an example of how I see the majority of (to quote Lewis) “Internet Trolls who busy themselves spreading negative remarks about Scientology” and their agreed-upon “axioms” about Scientology.

              “The core of Scientology is auditing. Many outside observers, distracted by Church of Scientology (CoS) celebrities, scandals and CoS’s exotic upper level teachings, tend to regard auditing as a sideshow – a quaint pseudo-therapy, distracting attention from the ‘real’ purposes of the sinister Scientology cult. Focusing on the space opera narrative, with its story of the cosmic dictator Xenu massacring millions of aliens whose souls subsequently attached themselves to living human beings, critics often characterize Scientology as an irrational farce (Rothstein 2009). Furthermore, Scientologists, they say, must be crazy, gullible, stupid, brainwashed or some combination of these traits. Particularly for the Internet Trolls who busy themselves spreading negative remarks about Scientology across blogs and chat rooms, this evaluation has become an unquestioned axiom, immune to empirical disconfirmation.

              “It does not, however, take much reflection to see that this portrayal is, at best, a caricature. As anyone familiar with the movement at a ground level will attest, a wide variety of different people become involved in Scientology, including more than a few sane, smart individuals. Rather than being impressed with the ‘space opera’ story (Hubbard 1978, 398), new recruits are impressed with how auditing ‘works’ – or at least seems to work. Though I have myself never been audited (except by the IRS cult), I have seen numerous e-meter demonstrations. Using the same basic technology as a lie detector, in the hands of a trained auditor an e-meter can appear to almost read one’s mind, quickly zeroing in on unresolved issues from the past. I have also seen people being audited who ‘run’ an incident from the past, and have witnessed the relief that followed the session. In order to understand the appeal of Scientology, one must understand the impressive power of this seemingly simple process.”
              http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?32193-Academic-Paper-on-the-Freezone

            2. I would be grateful if you refrain from misrepresenting my positions.

              My position is clearly stated, by myself, above.

              The fact that I do see parts of the core technology as often detrimental to a person, by actual evidence from hundreds of people observed, is irrelevant to the line of arguments here. I mean… and?

            3. “The fact that I do see parts of the core technology as often detrimental to a person, by actual evidence from hundreds of people observed, is irrelevant to the line of arguments here. I mean… and?”

              Here again is what I wrote about the OP: You put a lot of attention on the CoS itself and all its outpoints, which include following policy that no longer fits the day and age as well as violating the beneficial policy along with the tech – and when you do so it effectively amounts to a type of propaganda that further downgrades Scientology in any form.

              And besides, what evidence do you have for what you say in the quote above? I don’t see any indication that your “evidence” is based on of any kind of scientific study. Even if you have observed what you say about the tech being detrimental to “hundreds of people”, I doubt that you will claim they were audited elsewhere than in the CoS – which has not practiced core technology for decades.

              But you have a right to your viewpoints. And thanks for the courteous reply. 🙂

            4. Many people I have seen had detrimental effects from Scientology auditing outside the CoS. So no, it is not Only a CoS problem.

              Do you still feel that one should not find faults with Scientology (or the church?) because it may deter people from trying the tech?

            5. You: “Do you still feel that one should not find faults with Scientology (or the church?) because it may deter people from trying the tech?”

              I don’t say one should not find faults with either the CoS or original Scientology tech, and I’ve written many posts in favor of improvement. It’s the biased approach you take that I object to – which acts as unfair propaganda, as already explained above.

              You: “Many people I have seen had detrimental effects from Scientology auditing outside the CoS. So no, it is not Only a CoS problem.”

              You’re now saying “many”, which is pretty vague and definitely different from your previous claim of having observed “hundreds” who had detrimental effects.

              Even with regard to the “many” – I would ask, who were those pc’s in the field audited by? More than likely, they are auditors who were trained in the CoS and who still have the CoS mindset as well as some of the corrupted tech. Here again, there is no scientific evidence to what you’re claiming about core technology. It may be years before a valid study can be made, IMO. Meanwhile, I will go with my own observations as well as those of experienced auditors whose internet postings I have followed.

            6. Resembling a True Scotsman. Much 🙂

              I am a reporter of what I see, not a scientist in this arena. I blog what tickles my fancy. I am quite OK with the extremes of the Scientology spectrum being agitated or annoyed by what I write. I can easily live with that. Having been engaged in discussions on the Net with more than 100.000 posts total and habitually been rated as both an extreme critic and a serious Kool Aid drinker – and at the same time no less – I am quite unaffected by you thinking of me as biased. I would be worried if you did not. I take it as a compliment, coming from you.

              All good. All happy 😀

            7. “Resembling a True Scotsman. Much :-)”

              That’s just a defensive derision of my stating my own observations and reporting of such. Just as you did.

              And for you to state that I am merely being “agitated or annoyed” and an extreme of the Scientology spectrum is sheer Ad Hom and Straw Man and another indicator that you have no good argument to come back with. I was not agitated or annoyed and am far from the extreme of “orthodox Scientologist”, which I have made very clear.

              You add that you are unaffected by my pointing out your bias and that you take it as a compliment “coming from you” – this is just more of the subtle, insinuating type of Ad Hom that you tend to resort to. You probably aren’t even aware that you do that, as it seems to be so predictably your knee-jerk response when push comes to shove. Or else it is yet another example of how you take a “lawyerly” approach in discussion instead of being willing and able to carry through on the subject itself. You lasted a little longer this time, though.

              And the fact that you are rated as both an extreme critic and a serious Kool Aid drinker supports my observation that you contradict yourself. Big time.

              Don’t look now, but I think you ARE affected by my pointing out your bias. Your TRs go out.

            8. 🙂 hehehe. LOL etc…. you guy are fun to read! Great communication ..tell it as it is!No popcorn here but I am having short bread with jam and coffee!

            9. Marildi: “There have been times when I’ve made comments to the effect that we do not have to follow such and such destructive policy but can simply apply the core technology . . . ”

              Hubbard: This is because you are a psych infested squirrel who cannot assimilate straight Scientology. You have a weak certainty on 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. 😉

            1. Hey Al! 🙂

              No he isn’t trained as an auditor. But neither does he have a dog in the fight. He’s simply an objective observer.

              Now it’s your turn to answer the question I asked you yesterday, which you never got back to me on. What happened with the comm cycle with Dan Koon, where he said you could write to him and ask him your questions?

            2. I learned that Dan Koon is a very thoughtful and caring guy who, like all of us, got involved in Scientology.

              Well – all of us except for James Lewis!

              I thought that you said a person can’t have a valid viewpoint on Scientology unless they were trained, like, at least to Class 8 or 12 as an auditor.

              So just because James Lewis doesn’t have a “dog in this fight”, how does that make his viewpoint on Scientology valid?

              Alanzo

            3. James Lewis isn’t evaluating technical points the way some people (ahem) who aren’t trained try to do – thereby showing up their lack of understanding. He simply made some comments on what he observed in watching sessions.

              Nice what you found out about Dan. I had some email comm with him before he moved to Sweden. He was living in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time. I found him to be a very in ARC guy who was more than willing to have a comm line with me. He would probably remember me if I posted my full name, but I’ll leave that for another day. 😉

            4. Marildi –

              All right. So James Lewis “doesn’t have a dog in this fight”, and he is “not evaluating technical viewpoints”.

              So what else makes the statements of this completely untrained, non-Scientologist valid?

              Alanzo

            5. Al, Lewis is highly reputed as a religious scholar, specializing in new religions, and has studied Scientology as such. And when he observed for himself what happens in sessions, it was apparent to him that the pcs were getting a lot of relief. I’m just saying that it was an observation of an intelligent man who had no personal experience, good or bad, with auditing, and he observed what he observed. Capiche?

            6. All good so far.

              What if he had observed longterm detrimental effects on the pcs. How would you have treated such an observation? Before I take this one further, I am curious as to how you, hypothetically, would treat something like that. Are you OK with answering such a question?

            7. “What if he had observed long-term detrimental effects on the pcs.”

              That would not be a simple eyeball observation like the one of watching sessions. It would entail a lot of research and, as I indicated in a previous comment, I think it would be virtually impossible to find any significant number of pcs for research who had not been influenced by the CoS, either directly or indirectly through their CoS-trained auditors.

              But I’ll get to the bottom line for me. The way I currently view the future of Scn tech is that Auditors outside of the CoS are going to audit in a variety of ways, according to their own evaluation of how to separate out the good from the bad. There will probably be many “sects”, somewhat like the hundreds of Christian sects that have come about since the Reformation. And I believe there is more than enough truth to Scn tech and philosophy that the core of it will survive into the future – probably even better than Christianity has, since it has a more laid-out path.

            8. Marildi: And I believe there is more than enough truth to Scn tech and philosophy that the core of it will survive into the future – probably even better than Christianity has, since it has a more laid-out path.

              Pastor Chris: There’s nothing laid out more simply and straightforward than Christianity. You just need to come to Jesus. Then you’ll truly understand the simplicity of life. If you have any questions about the truth of this, I can show you in the Bible.

            9. It may be “simple and straightforward” but I don’t think it has the precise, step-by-step, gradients of procedure that take one forward as quickly in eliminating the barriers to a self-determined freedom – or you could say, the barriers to being “saved”. (With all due respect to the Pastor :P)

            10. Christianity is far more precise and less nebulous than Scientology. Nothing is less confusing or more simple and straightforward than the Blood of Christ. You only need to believe to be saved. Your mistake is believing that you are in control — believing in your own power rather than the true power of God. Take a look around you at where this has gotten the world, or your L. Ron Hubbard for that matter. When you’ve had enough and finally find your bottom, the Holy Spirit will comfort you. I can wait.

            11. WHAT IF he had done the research and found that a large percentage of PCs had some common detrimental effects from auditing. How would you react to such a scientific result?

            12. I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Geir. I think it should be pretty clear from all I’ve said that I am critical of the corrupted version of the tech that’s practiced by the CoS and also that research would more than likely be of that version – so I wouldn’t be surprised if some common detrimental effects were found.

            13. WHAT IF he uncovered that processes run Exactly as laid out by LRH did have certain long term detrimental effects on a high percentage of PCs. How would you react to such a scientific discovery?

            14. JESUS H CHRIST GEIR! For the love of PEte! Arrrgghhh… It’s common knowledge and a matter of 100% true pseudo-scientific hearsay, and innuendo masquerading as evidence that No True Scientology has ever done anyone any harm at all, ever. And while it may be true that there are examples where people weren’t improved by Scientology that it has always always always been discovered that they had undisclosed and illegal reasons for not getting better. It is a matter of fact that there are after all 2-1/2% of people who cannot be helped by any betterment technology. This is not to say that suppressives have never used Black Dianetic to harm! But that is a red straw herring man argument which I just wish you would give a rest to and leave that sleeping dog die, or, er, uh lie! Which is not to say that all dogs lie! No! ONly 2-1/2% of dogs lie!

            15. Oh there are affects of auditing all right… here I am 73 years old totally healthy I work 10 hours in a garden daily, digging planting, weeding, watering . happy. contented haven’t got a care in the world, dont have fears.. no ARCb’s no problems… not effected by news… could care les who doing what to whom… and there is magic around me!

            16. I suppose I would have to consider it as I would any other research findings – some of which turn out to be valid and others not.

              The closest I’ve come to my own “research”, as I wrote in a recent comment, is personal observations I’ve made on different flows, and even more so, the statements of a number of auditors who’ve written about their experiences on the internet.

              Btw, don’t you believe those independent auditors? The ones like your own – Pierre Ethier?

            17. I would not take the words of a salesman or a person delivering a service as scientific evidence.

            18. I’ve also read what the pc’s of independent auditors say. They have very good things to say – just like you did about your independent auditing. And they, like you, want more. What more proof do we need?

            19. I would neither take a mine or any other PCs statements as scientific proof that there are no long term detrimental effects of auditing.

            20. Right, it’s not scientific proof. But apparently it’s enough of some kind of “proof” for you and I to say it’s worth doing.

            21. Sure. But I am not certain that auditing or certain types of auditing doesn’t have some long term detrimental effects. In fact I can point out one specific long term detrimental effect on me.

            22. I am pondering whether I should make a blog post on it now or let that wait until my book is released. It is explained well in the book.

              I should add that the detrimental effect is regardless of the auditing being done exactly as LRH prescribed or not. And it was apparent to me only well after I completed OT VII.

            23. But your book won’t be out until a year from now. I say, do the blog post. And until then, give me a little hint at least.

  2. Geir,

    You: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

    I say:

    Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.

    Any word is only as good as it has been word cleared.

    What Einstein said is not the definition of insanity.

    It is an example of insanity.

    Here is one def of insanity:

    in·san·i·ty

    The state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
    Extreme foolishness or irrationality.

    Here is another one:

    1
    : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
    2
    : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
    3
    a : extreme folly or unreasonableness

    Here is another one:

    1. Mental illness or derangement. No longer in scientific use.
    2. Law
    a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility.
    b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.

    Plus LRH has his own definitions and you can look them up in the tech dic and word clear it.

    Here is what Psychology today says about Einsteins def:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is

    it’s “the dumbest thing a smart person ever said.”

    Cheers,

    Dio

  3. Dan –

    Did LRH write HCO PL 10 July 1986, Issue I, KEEPING ADMIN WORKING and HCO PL 10 July 1986, Issue II, ADMIN DEGRADES?

    Because these policies are why they keep doing the same thing over and over, because it is a HIGH CRIME in the Scientology system that LRH created not to follow his policies exactly.

    If LRH did not write these, then some squirrels are causing all the things Geir pointed out. But if LRH did write these, then it is totally standard Scientology to continue to fail in the ways that Gier pointed out.

    Alanzo

    1. Good question – and one that has come up a few times so far; Did LRH write that policy?

      But – even without it, the gist of KSW and other writings we know to be from LRH points to main pats of Admin being unchangeable as well.

    2. Well, lil’ Davey doesn’t seem to think it’s written in stone. He’s busy violating Hubbard’s policy with wild abandon. And getting Hip hip hooray! accolades from his mind-numbed cowed minions while doing it. Ah the smell of cognitive dissonance is fresh and strong in the air tonight.

    3. I emailed Dan this question. I’d love to see what he has to say about this very important part of Scientology history.

      Alanzo

    4. Here’s Dan’s response:

      Well, I seriously doubt that LRH wrote those. If you have copies you can send me I could say for sure, but I highly doubt it. I was not working in RTRC at the time and, fortunately, never worked much on policy stuff but I can absolutely tell if something was written by LRH or not. It may have been ordered by him and probably was. But if you can send me the issues I could tell for sure.

      1. “It may have been ordered by him and probably was. ”

        …which is really all that matters. Who “penned” it doesn’t much matter.

        1. Yes, I agree.

          Scientology is as Scientology does.

          One of the ways that a Scientologist can avoid confronting the true results of Scientology is to say that “LRH never wrote that.”

          It supports that mandate that the ideology must always be true, even when it is not.

          Alanzo

  4. Couldn’t agree more Geir. Scientology is a dictatorship. You cannot speak out about it when you are in it nor when out of it. We have had Australians here on TV speaking about their experiences in the SO and then bitches like Virginia Stewart from the COS get interviewed and categorically lie by saying those speaking out are deluded and manufacturing their stories!! It makes my blood boil. Then the story gets dropped. COS probably threatens the TV station with legal action if they continue the story. It’s totally fucked. COS is the best place on Earth to learn arrogance and how to strengthen your ego. It is beyond repulsive because it masquerades as a religion.

          1. I’ve been floating about this for months. So good to stop chewing the cud – my teeth weren’t made for it and are worn down to only nubs! I stopped just in the nick!

            1. Ohhhh you poor soul.[ violins please now! and I want that music sob… ]
              I promise when you get here I will make for you every day Cream of Wheat!

            2. CH… I know you have stopped chewing… one only can advance when one steps out of the box.. and you did that about the time when we met…. soon will be 2 years!

      1. What? Did they really?

        Where?

        That is awesome that you got a categorical denial from the Church! Way to go, Geir! You made them lie in public, and destroy their own credibility even more!

        That has to be some kind of an SP Level that you have attained.

        “Geir Isene: The Most Dangerous SP in Europe!”

        (Sorry Dan. You’re probably Number 2, though!!)

        Alanzo

    1. Lynne: It is beyond repulsive because it masquerades as a religion.

      Chris: I was right with you until this final statement. I think Scientology upholds and is a fine example of religion. Just my opinion.

      1. Chris have you ever looked into Buddhism? When I was in COS I never found it to be very spiritual. Never very understanding. Very right wing. Can’t like gays, must disrespect homeless people etc. etc. I have recently been attending a Buddhism course in my suburb and it is TOTALLY different in this respect. And to be slightly fair to Hubbard, I can see how he took aspects of their teachings and morphed them into Scientology. Good stuff for sure. But there is no aggressive forcing of opinion or lack of empathy. No ego, in fact quite the opposite. It’s just a very nice, intelligent, calm and exploratory space to learn about oneself. That is more what I think religion should be. The church runs the religious part of like a dictatorship and that’s as far from spirituality as you can get.

        1. Lynne: That is more what I think religion should be.

          Chris: When another first told another what to think about their spirituality, it was for a selfish motive and religion was born. This is my recall and complete reckoning on the subject of religion, and not only of Scientology. For me spirituality is personal and I believe that a person should explore their existence and come to their own conclusions or lack of conclusions about that. People like us on this blog have helpful motives and think of ourselves and of others in a kindly light and so we come up with compassionate statements like you just did about what religion should be. Then sometimes we go about trying to make religion into spirituality and maybe in our own practices and personal faiths we do accomplish that locally, but broadly religion cannot accomplish that for there are too many forms of “power” at stake and religion is rotten at the root. However, if your studies of Buddhism are bringing consistency, tolerance, compassion, and peace to your life then my congratulations and well wishes. Keep walking your own path for in a tautological universe, it is all you can ever hope to do anyway.

  5. There is not supposed to be an effort made to learn from mistakes. There is supposed to be a rigid 100% standard application of the rules of Scientology as laid down by Hubbard without frying any other fish such as waffling over temporary bad results in the Psych infested public. If the SO were applying LRH 100% standardly, then these messes would not be happening and so the entire COS needs to be put on rice and beans and the beatings continued until they learn to apply the Tech.

    They will thank me later.

  6. It’s quite simple really – CoS does what it does because Hubbard made it that way and Hubbard always got what he wanted.

    He wanted control and influence and to be the dude who calls the shots – many biographies have been written on Hubbard and the only positive ones are the Ron mags and What is Scientology? The rest paint him at best as a maverick with unusual methods, the worst as a madman. But one thing keeps coming up again and again and again – trusted individuals got the boot suddenly and without warning as soon as they represented a threat. And it happened many times over and over starting with Winter and Purcell, through Nibs, McMaster, the last big one Mayo and ever other one all along the way. There is no-one, not one single person, whom Hubbard allowed to stick with him all the way to the end. The longest serving was Mary Sue and look what he did to her after the GO got busted.

    Hubbard wanted control and it was only ever his way or the highway. So he wrote that into policy with “an atomic branding iron”. So be a Scientologist at all one has to first buy into that system or at least agree with it, so the scope for dissent is almost non-existent. That’s why CoS is stil the way it is, it can’t evolve, it ossified a long time ago.

    The group works exactly as designed and the product does what it says on the box. Why is this in any way surprising?

    1. ” the product does what it says on the box”

      You’re kidding right? Or perhaps they failed to show me that box in the 32 years I was involved? 🙂

      1. I must say they sure had me in a box. So very glad to be out of that box. A box that said I have to wait to do auditing, to pay huge sums of money before I can progress, oh the years wasted believing that crap. No more. Free now to get on with it. On my own 2 feet. No C/S or E/O telling me what my next step is. I like it!

      2. freebeing: “You’re kidding right? Or perhaps they failed to show me that box in the 32 years I was involved? :)”

        Me: not kidding, just very tongue in cheek. They never showed me that box either in 27 years, I was always shown a different one

  7. Geir: Why does it have the learning potential of a gold fish?

    Because the head fish is a tiger shark with very sharp teeth (or so his followers believe) and to make the little man unhappy could be bad for your future eternity.

    Nobody has the balls to straighten out a senior. The O/W, you pulled it in, mechanism is a beautiful mechanism to wield as a dictator. Hubbard’s Ethics tech provided all the required nails for the coffin. When you bring punishment and fear into the equation, you’re on the road to certain failure.

  8. My 2 cents: over the history of these planet much bigger, better organised institutions went belly up. Everything has its beginning and their continuation last only so long how well it was set up.. Since all institutions base their philosophy on MEST how it works and affects masses again… well.. those laws rules, regulations too vanish easily since so many different realities effected it… not agreed to it.
    After all one mans energy was not strong enough glue to keep it floating.
    And In my reality it has achieved what it was set up for, if any of you would have sessions on the church would find that reason and understand why it existed such a sort period of time. Also it has achieved its goal… clearing the Planet… it is been done but not visible ….. but it has been done..
    Time do not play a role clearing the Planet…. time do not exist in the first place..

  9. “Why does the Church of Scientology continue to repeat its mistakes?”
    What the ‘Church of Scientology’ does is what DM orders.

    1) The CoS is based upon LRH policies which have to be followed. Per default DM follows these policies. KSW # and other policies prohibit changes as a consequence from learning processes.
    2) Reality in todays CoS is that David Miscaviges’ decisions are above LRH policies. As we know he has made different changes already, always presenting them as progress. His parishioners did not protest but applauded.
    3) The question is if DM is able learn and change. I don’t think so because
    3a) this would mean that firstly he would have to CONFRONT what is wrong
    3b) and even if he did and considered changes it would mean that he’d have to admit publicly that what he had done in the past had not been right. This is opposed to DM’s personality. Also the leader would have to fear that his subordinates would not respect him anymore.
    3c) What holds today’s CoS still together are lies, control and suppressive rules like enforced disconnection. If the truth would be admitted and the disconnection practice would be abolished the Church would dissolve.
    You can’t transform that organization from a prison to a paradise overnight.

    Thanks to David Miscavige the Church of Scientology has become a nightmare and this meanwhile has become public.
    Imagine if he had ruled the Church from the beginning on in a way that everyone would be happy and there would be no critics complaining.
    Then the Church might have Hundreds of Millions members.
    I am aware that almost all Scientologists would love it.
    I feel different about it. Even if the Church would present itself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing one day it would take off the disguise and show its real face. And that is clearly oriented towards taking over power in communities and countries. This is a significant part of the LRH Scientology culture.
    Read the whole confidential HCO PL 16.2.69 IV Reiss. 24.9.87 about the TARGETS, DEFENSE in which it says:
    “The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:

    T2. Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media
    T2. Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures
    T3. Taking over the control of allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shifting them to a less precarious finance standard
    …”
    Here is the whole policy:
    http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/targets-defense-osa.pdf

    Therefore I am glad that DM has created a disaster and that therefore his Church will implode soon.
    Auditing technology and other helpful tools will survive outside the organization among independent Scientologists. And that is fine. And sufficient as far as Scientology is concerned.

  10. They continue to repeat the mistakes because they do not believe that they make mistakes.

    Others, called SPs cause mistakes to be made, where mistakes are made. Others, called SPs, suppress Scientology and all betterment activities. One just keeps moving forward, doing the right actions, confident that one is being attacked BECAUSE one is doing the right actions. If conditions worsen, this does not mean one is doing wrong actions, it means that one is doing right actions. All one need do is continue to search and discover the SPs that confound forward progress and expansion, AND simultaneously flourish and prosper by continuing to do the right actions.

  11. If I’m allowed a simple (maybe naive) and superficial point of view…this organization will never learn from its mistakes because in it’s opinion there are no mistakes to correct. Everybody is stupid, except them, everybody is mad, except them, everybody says bullshit, except them.

  12. “Why does the Church of Scientology continue to repeat its mistakes?“

    Well, maybe because …
    – Service Facs ? – (Marty Rathbun has written an interesting explanation about “implanted computations” in his book “What IS Wrong With Scn?”, Chapter “Wright and Wrong”, page 100).
    – Overts which lead to stupidity? – (as per LRH’s Scn axiom 38: “… Thus we see that the failure to discover truth brings about stupidity. …”
    – Character weakness with an inability for self-reflection? – Admit to having been “wrong” is too painful for people with a weak character.
    – Fascistic regime? – Fascists and dictators “have to be right” and demonstrate this in a suppressive way, even if it leads to their own demise.
    – Crimes? – To change their operating base, could probably lead to some of their members to question and to inspect former incidents (and to speak up).
    – Superior Complex? – History has many examples.
    – Following Policy, which were written to handle incidents in another time with other circumstances? – (… or/and without common sense and reason).
    – David Miscavige … “knows best”?

  13. Epic fail only applies if we think we know what the goal and purpose is?
    Maybe its not “mistakes” Church of Scientology is a Nazi/Collectivistic style organization and i recognize many of its characteristics in other corporations and organizations on this planet.Before you say “her he goes again” (that conspiracy-theorist-nut-head) just consider Bush Jr ;). I have worked in Norway and done projects for Statoil,their “workers politics” makes as little sense to me as does the Churches.There whole objektive and idea seems to be (when it comes to individual workers),that they are AFRAID,that they follow orders,that they WORK HARD (the outcome of this “hard work” is NOT important,what IS important is that every individual “never stops moving”..) You think that every corporation has as its primary objective to be efficient and cost effective? No,they have a totally different agenda..

    1. of course all organizations have similar characteristics ….. they are all born out of the reactive mind so what else could pone accept? Miracles?
      LRH’s organization too was born out of his reactive mind and you folks want perfection?
      and those who studied it they all seen it through their reality-reactive-ness…!!!
      There is nothing invented- thought of on this Planet, since everything has its track and a long one toooooooooooo.
      What this Planet contain I mean all of it is born out of reactive-ness– stimulation to the past.
      But of course it is my reality..

  14. Geir: WHAT IF he had done the research and found that a large percentage of PCs had some common detrimental effects from auditing. How would you react to such a scientific result?”
    Oh Geir!!!!!! really! But I have a feeling the devil made you write that! 🙂 You like to play it seems!

    1. I know, only the Devil dare ask Whet If-questions. The rest just follow the commands of the Lord, whether his name is Jesus or Hubbard.

      1. Right you are… I have noted that long time back… I have not seen many question my self.. In my blog people dont ask… they read and … nothing after that..
        You might not like what I write here [ you will] [ the readers will think of me what ever they think of me and that will be what ever my writing stimulate in their bank.. I like your reality your openness putting it all out!.
        and I have different realities of your posts and one of them is: Geir’s post is like a bone has some meat on it and he throws it out and the gang of who ever gnaws on it till is clean… than the bone is cracked and finally the marrow is licked out to the last smidgen.. and than they are waiting for the next bone…
        I would not be insulted if somebody called me a dog, wolf etc.. I do have had very fine recalls being a wolf. and dogs I am very found of, I never met one I did not like… but humans weeeeeeell …

  15. The answer is in the PTS policy: If you do something about it, you become less PTS. (and a little bit more cause over the SIT).
    Furhermore I remember an essay where Hubbs compared (evaluated) the history of the jews. In short: The jews have been in troubles because they hardly attacked, but just trying to endure all the discrim during the last 4000 years.
    Per Hubbs it wasn´t succesful, so he had to change the operation base.
    Great operation base *lool ATTACK

    1. PT’s policy? I wonder… why not just have the PT’sness audited out than all could move on because when the OLD VIEW POINTS- REALITY- BELIEVES ARE ERASED THAN one is over the hump: the wall which keeps one-individual- group stuck in the incident.. Than a new game can start…
      I wonder why no one mention AUDITING FOR THE SALUTION OF THE PROBLEMs AND ARCB’s??? WHY AUDITING AS A SALUTION TOTALLY IGNORED?
      Because none of you readers had enough auditing-gains your-self and from that learned that auditing can erase all problems ARCB’s and O/W’s and after that sailing is easy!
      You all talking so much crap…. but the main reason Scientology was born. HELL, not many of you learned much while in the church and wondering why it have failed… why it not working.. Just look at your-self where you are at.
      If all you would done your own battles going up on the Bridge than all of you would look and see the Universe in more positive reality. Hell.. bloody Hell!

        1. I am totally cool…. yes he has but you who repeats it.. serious? come over and met me and than you can decide if I am or read some of my post in my blog.. Let say 20 of them out of the 219?

  16. “I thought that you said a person can’t have a valid viewpoint on Scientology unless they were trained, like, at least to Class 8 or 12 as an auditor.”

    Soderqvist1: How can you be so certain about that?
    There is a scientific method which is called ‘The Black Box’ which is used when the internal working is unknown, the method compare input with output. We all do this in our everyday living. For example when my car or my computer doesn’t work, I leave it to some workshop to solve it, and I don’t know how or what they did but the result is satisfying, because now they works! So in example what is the difference between person A as wog and say one year later as class 4 auditor and has attested to the state of Clear?

  17. Chris Thompson: I am praying for your soul Elizabeth. Because even though you are bound for Hell, God loves you.

    Soderqvist1: what an oxymoron!
    It seems that anything goes, but for the sake of consistency it should read; you are bound for hell, God hates you!

    1. Those whom God wishes to destroy, He first makes mad.
      Euripides

      Those whom the gods wishes to drive mad, they first withhold the nature of life and games (and the keys to resolving the problems of the mind). Paraphrased

      Dennis H. Stevens, 1979 Author of The Resolution of Mind (TROM)

      Dio

    2. Elizabeth ran out Hell so I doubt that is where she is bound.

      Gotta love the Christian concepts of God. He loves you but you’re going to hell. lol

      You are god, you send yourself to hell. Why? Have a nice session!

      1. freebeing yes… hell ? there is no such a think… I use ‘Bloody Hell’ sometimes in a memory of a on Belgian OT with whom went up on the levels at the same time at ST Hill. my English was really bad than but his was worst and he always said that when he was frustrated and that was often. His accented words -sound still bring smile and happiness when I write that….

    3. Dear Peter… Chris can tell me anything he wants and you too of course… We are having fun and I love Chris’s Priestly valance when he say those lovely idiotic quotes from the bible.. they are fun to read.
      you should hear what my sister calls me sometimes,,,, now that I wont write down here… We hungarians really have flowery language and good imagination how to use it. And I been in Hell an Heaven too. tooooo many times so I did confront those concept by now.. I recommend that to any one who really want to be free of the MEST PS; I met that GOD guy too that is also a concept fantastic implanted item!

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s