Why does the Scientology mindfuck go so deep?

I believe it is due to the hope that Scientology instills.

A person enters Scientology with a hope of achieving something. For himself or perhaps even for the world.

Scientology promises the person will attain that goal, because there is nothing Scientology cannot ultimately handle according to Hubbard.

With the help of Scientology, the person achieves some gains letting the person believe his goal can be reached with Scientology.

Some more gains are had in the direction of his goal. Hope that Scientology can ultimately deliver his goal is reinforced.

Even if Scientology has not delivered or even cannot deliver on its promise, the person still has a powerful hope that Scientology will deliver his goal, any goal.

This hope can make the person do almost anything to protect Scientology. He may lie, deceive, betray his family, steal, commit fraud or worse. Perhaps much worse.

His hope will make him blind to any fault in Scientology. His hope will make him resort to any and all mental tricks to avoid his hope being blunted. Because losing hope is perhaps the most painful of all.

Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper. (Francis Bacon)

Interestingly, I notice that some of the most fanatical Scientologists I have met are the one’s with little training and/or auditing. Those who have not yet understood that Scientology habitually oversells and underdelivers.

188 thoughts on “Hope

  1. The y do what they do, because scn offers a form of salvation from their sorrows, guilt, despair etc.

    And you do get some of that there.

    Some of it is legitimate.

    But the package is laced with lies and traps.

    Like someone said:

    The worst lies are the ones that are almost true.

    The worst lies are statements that appear true on the surface, truths that have covert embedded meanings, or conditions or traps.

    The more truth there is on a fabricated cognitive set up, the more the truth acts as a glue to hold the embedded lie hidden in place, which is thereafter defended to death.

    For example: What is true for you is true for you.

    That is a baited trap as many cognizant people know.

    What it means is: what is true for you, is true for you as long as you accept what we tell you is true.

    Or as long as you think what we tell you to think.

    Or something to that effect.

  2. OK, so it goes like this: Scientology is one huge con game. All con games must contain two things to succeed for any length of time:

    1. They must offer something the person wants
    2. They must at least partially deliver it (or lead the mark to believe it’s being delivered)

    Most cons are targetted at people with specific wants such as lead a better life, make more income, meet hot babes, or whatever. Scientology succeeds so well in it’s game because it doesn’t limit what the bait is. As Chris T is fond of pointing out and you mention in the OP, Scientology is a complete system – it claims to handle anything.

    Scientology sells whatever you want to buy! The KEY thing is “ruin”.

    The reg doesn’t tell the mark the course will improve his comm skills, the reg finds his ruin and tells him Scientology will fix that. Notice what is happening, the reg isn’t trying to get the mark to take the bait, the reg is ASKING THE MARK WHAT BAIT WILL WORK!

    And this is the basis of why the mindfuck works so well and lasts so long. The mark is unwilling to give it up as the thing he’s buying is his own item.

    Hope is not the thing to concentrate on, as hope it what comes in after the mindfuck has started. Find out what the mark is willing to buy, allow him to conclude that it is for sale (with some helpful nudging from the reg of course), and only then you get the hope that the bill of goods delivers.

    All reinforced naturally with a few wins along the way to keep the mark convinced he’s on the right path. This is not difficult to do – give someone the opportunity to consider things and figure stuff out, and he will figure some stuff out. People do this all the time and it’s not unusual, but somehow when it happens in session it must be the tech. No, it’s not the tech that did it, it’s the person himself. The tech is mere smoke and mirrors, and very few marks understand the difference between “the tech did something” and “the tech works reliably, consistently and predictably”.

    To answer your OP, the mindfuck goes so deep because it is designed to continually reinforce the mark’s own item and it doesn’t matter what that item is, only that there is one.


    1. Wow. What a reply. Food for thought. And your conclusion undercuts mine. Neat.

      Except I do not believe it is an intentional con game for the people involved (except perhaps a small percentage). And I doubt it was originally a conscious con game for Hubbard.

      1. Geir: “Except I do not believe it is an intentional con game for the people involved (except perhaps a small percentage). And I doubt it was originally a conscious con game for Hubbard.”

        Me: This is worth expanding on, because it’s true and we mustn’t lose sight of that.

        The individuals are not the target, the system is, and it’s very important to examine how that system works, and the best parallel I can find is a con game complete with snake oil and marks, but that doesn’t mean the individuals view it that way – they are caught up in the self-reinforcing trap called “going up The Bridge”. Even Hubbard – he got caught up in his own bullshit and probably ended up running his own game on himself – he doesn’t appear at all to be someone who managed to handle his own ruin!

        There’s nothing wrong with hope or even finding someone’s ruin; but if one is going to go that route one also has to be honest and have something that really works as opposed to just “does something”. And definitely stay far away from building a closed system, that just creates hamster wheel that go round and round and round….

        1. Two posts here, the above took almost two hours to thrash out and get into a presentable form. At the end I saw something interesting:

          it’s not just the Scientologist that has a ruin and hope, it’s every actor in the process:

          Finding a offering solutions to ruins is what Scientology does.
          Hoping the solution resolves the ruin is what the Scientologist does.
          Hoping the set-in-stone solution will truly help the Scientologist is what the staff member does.
          Under-delivery is the result.
          It’s a positive feedback system that rapidly runs out of control and the only exit is to decide “fuck it!” and leave.

          The principle being violated is that all these multiple ruins can and will be 100% handled to full satisfaction all the time.

          Which brings us back to Godel 🙂

        2. Geir: “Except I do not believe it is an intentional con game for the people involved . . . ”

          Chris: It’s difficult to separate what a person is from what a person does. This is why it is important to be mindful of what we do for it proceeds from what we are.

        1. The set of steps are itself biased. I don’t think step 10 is right for me. If I could change it, it would be to “Fuck it”. Otherwise I invent a 11th step with that title. That’s where I am at.

      2. After reading ¨Bare-Faced Messiah¨, ¨Let´s Sell Them A Piece of Blue Sky¨ and numerous other books and court documents, I am not so sure that it WASN´T an intentional con game conducted by Hubbard. Also, for many years, both publically and in PL´s , he indicated that he was öff the lines¨, when he, in fact, was not. He was still collecting money and issuing orders and devising new mystery sandwiches for ¨parishoners¨to consume…

        1. True about the “running the scene” while saying he was not (deception). I am not convinced that he set it out to be a con game. I lean toward himself being a true believer in his own cosmology and the “prison planet Earth”, “Marcabians” and the rest of the Type 3 explanations that prompted him to devise a thought police, the SO, RPF, heavy ethics and KSW.

          1. Geir: “I lean toward himself being a true believer in his own cosmology and the “prison planet Earth”, “Marcabians” and the rest of the Type 3 explanations that prompted him to devise a thought police, the SO, RPF, heavy ethics and KSW.”

            Me: My current POV is that the man was a compulsive liar whose main skill was as a story-teller (not an author, they are not quite the same thing), and loved to hear the sound of his own voice. So he kept on embellishing his tech adding more and more layers of complexity to try and get stuff to line up, until he finally capitulated into seeing Body Thetans as the cause of all ills.

            His true intent was to “smash his way into history”; closely examining his actions throughout his life shows he was prepared to do almost anything to accomplish that. Even to the point of resorting to force and violence (in escalting degree of course) to maintain it once “glow it right and dazzle them” had run it’s course.

            I think that wondering if he was running a *deliberate* con or not is a red herring and not really relevant, that was not his purpose. He didn’t hesitate to pull one when the need arose but it’s secondary, a mere side-effect.

            “Rip-off artist conman” is far too simplistic a description of Hubbard – he kept it up for 36 years after all – he was much more complex and multi-dimensional than that.

            One last thing I don’t quite have figured out yet is the apparent reversal from OT3-7 and OT8, si that something you’d be willing to have discussed on your blog?

    2. Alan: And this is the basis of why the mindfuck works so well and lasts so long. The mark is unwilling to give it up as the thing he’s buying is his own item.

      Chris: Awesome! You’ve really pulled this together. Div 6 is taught to locate the guy’s “ruin aka item.” The C/S uses the D of P interview to probe for the guys “ruin aka ‘entry point of case’.” Now the guy has precisely and clearly defined what must be promised in order to sell him hope. Just enough gypsy fortune teller tech to get the mark to talk. “Ah, I see you are bothered by problems!” Brilliant. The mark just starts spitting them out, “Oh yes my wife” or “Oh yes my job” or “Oh yes my back.”

      Hope is truly interesting and a great OP. It’s like the most powerful glue in the universe. It’s the definition for oneself of consistency matching problem with solution. Once someone applies hope to stick a problem together with a solution, only cognitive dissonance will dissolve it. The greater the hope, the more raging must be the cognitive dissonance.

      Damn! This makes my brain percolate with examples.

  3. Well said Geir. Hope is a powerful motivator. Hope is feeling and feelings or emotions are what good advertising aims to address.

    Another thought I have been thinking lately: the very foundational mouse trap in Scientology is the pinch test.

    Remember your first pinch test with the meter? The mind immediately concluded: this stuff works, this device can register all the unknowns that hold me back. And Ron’s proceedures can guide me to all those incidents which are not known by me so I can erase pain: hope

    Two mistakes occurred there:

    1- the e-meter knows the truth of my mind through needle reactions.
    2- Ron discovered standard absolute proceedures that have absolutely standard outcomes.
    3- by becoming a Scientologist I will find freedom and happiness.

    SLAM!!!! Goes the mouse trap.

    The next phase of self induced madness is discovering that any critical look at not attaining the advertised outcome is a Hi Crime as you cannot invalide the state of OT or Clear or Ron or Mary Sue or Scientology.

    At this point the thought slave (mouse) is instructed to feel grateful for the trap accoss your neck. By by intellectual sovereignty and sense of self. Hello group think and cult mentality.

  4. BTL. Sounds right to me. I remember my first pinch and was very impressed and agreed thereafter. The chart goal also keeps in your mind and when you have enough auditing, think, well sure I got that! The catch 22 for instance is ability to comm to anyone on any subject. Yeah, then there’s all the other policy, etc. Therefore your comm gets stifled and one has only the KSW to keep you going within their control.

    Btw, thank you for the comment the other day. Yo! 😉

    1. “The chart goal also keeps in your mind and when you have enough auditing, think, well sure I got that! The catch 22 for instance is ability to comm to anyone on any subject.”

      Me: I have a theory on this one. You attested to that ability, right? I know I did, and everyone else i know who did some grades did as well.

      Did you test that ability? How did you for sure that you could “comm to anyone on any subject”? Or, did you do what I did – felt so amazingly wonderfully blown out and confident that I reckoned I could deal with ANYTHING, and quite happily signed the attest, complete with success story. But my opportunity to really test that result was about zero (“everyone” wasn’t in the room – only the auditor).

      So why did I sign the attest, which is now so obviously complete bullshit?

      I signed it because I wanted it to be true.

      1. Another reason why you ( and everyone else) got into agreement with the cos and their sales pitches ( propaganda) ( religious philosophy) is because in order to understand something, you need to evaluate it and compare it to other datums of comparable magnitude. (That is the formula for understanding.) And the problem is that it is difficult to find and compile enough data to make a datum of comparable magnitude to evaluate it against scn.


        1. Dio: “you need to evaluate it and compare it to other datums of comparable magnitude”

          Me: Yes, that’s the old mystery sandwich. And we humans are intensely curious, just like dogs, cats and all the primates (but much more so). We investigate things we don’t understand and don’t appear to be threatening.

          For me, the first book I read was DMSMH and I took away two things: I wanted to handle some things in myself and Dn seemed to offer the method, and I envisioned what it could do for society as a whole. Call it “my vision of the next evolutionary step” – that’s seems to communicate the vision well; and from that point I was hooked.

      2. The simplest of tests to check the validity of a Grade 0:

        Put the person in front of a group of a few hundred people, give the person a subject to talk about 5 seconds before he goes on stage. Watch what happens.

        1. bwahahahahaha, thanks funny 🙂 your average Grade0 comp falls to pieces on that one.

          It’s one of my favourite party tricks – I’m quite liable to gate crash any old event at work with no prepared powerpoint or topic, and just ask the audience “what do you want to talk about today?”. I can’t get enough of this and once you get over the nerves the first time it’s heaps of fun.

          The funny part is I get the best results when the audience is wearing business clothes and I have on my usual geek uniform – jeans and T-shirt with some indescribably rude caption. And the earrings (but I never take those out). I wonder why that is – I chalk it up to humans being very social creatures who respond to someone who honestly wants to communicate; the obviously geeky uniform just reinforces it – they can’t help but notice I’m there.

          I also think you get the same thrill from the same trick 🙂 IIRC you have an old bost post somewhere that says much the same thing.

          1. Yes. We are squarely on the same page. I love to wing it in front to audiences. In fact, I train at every opportunity I have to not plan, to not prepare. And it is this training that makes me good at it. Beats Grade 0 any day of the week.

        2. Geir, don’t be mean…it is like taking an excellent pilot, best in the squadron and checking his abilities against 3 “mother space ships”…mercy! No absolutes.
          Can we go down to 10 people and subject given 10 minutes before, and googling alowed? -:)

          1. Nah… anything less than 100 people and more than 10 seconds is for pussies. After all, the Grade 0 ability has NO limitation to it…

          2. When you did Grade 0, did you attest to “Ability to communicate freely with up to 10 people on any subject as long as I get 10 minutes preparation time”?

            1. Geir, about this grade o…
              you are nitpicking now (was that the word?..) big time. And being embarrassingly literal. I just asked you smilingly not to be mean in your critique. The rest (10 people, 10 minutes) was nothing but a joke, not a serious suggestion. To clear my point: If I were to get into your “mean critique mode” I could say that “Geir Isene, has yet to achieve the ability to recognize simple jokes, and be less serious.” Of course that is also too mean a critique, catching you off guard, while over enthusiastic in criticizing. You see, I know you have a great humoristic ability, even if you lost it momentarily because you were such a serious JUDGE for a while.
              Even your “50 times trained guy”, I could fault and laugh at your training. I will find that guys greatest aberration, and suppose it is “blond naked ladies” and I will face him with 100 of these ladies…he will fail. One can always fault anything. and not always wisely so. Ok, one step forward, or back to grade 0. The guy attests and feels it is true. he can do it. The guy is a Spirit, Thetan, really omnipotent, even if having forgotten it and needs to do grade 0… he can comm with anybody, including 1,000 naked goddesses and 500 scientists about the origin of under water acoustics, with 1 second preparation. He can, he is a billion years old Spirit, he can, and he just attested to it. What’s wrong with it? Validation, self esteem, all very nice. Now we have you come in and ACTUALLY put him in front of 100 people. He fails. You say, ha, Hemi, you see? False attest. I say: may be not. Attest could have been spot on. But in front of 100 people, some parts of his case, may be his OT case, stepped in and tricked him to failure. He himself, eternal and omnipotent, did remember and did have the ability to comm….while attesting, and even for a while after. Until case robbed it from him. And may be that is exactly what Ron wanted to achieve in this true attest: another moment of remembering the truth (having the ability to comm with anybody…) even if later lost again to the case. But attesting more and more, and remembering more and more, gradually and finally will make it permanent.
              How about that? Too far fetched? Hemi gone too far into fairy-land thinking? may be, but I think the above is valid and can stand on its feet. May be even run as fast as a rabbit leaping out of a magician’s hat. Written with a smile. But I mean it.

            2. I was being sarcastic 🙂

              Thing is – that Grade 0 EP is unattestable if the person is to be really honest. To attest to such an absolute and go “nah… it’s not REALLY such an absolute, LRH didn’t mean it to be THAT exact, etc”. is ingenious. That is justification.

              I’ll make a blog post where we can evaluate truly and honestly lots of EPs and see if they actually hold water. There are many more than the Grade 0 weirdity.

            3. Hemi: “How about that? Too far fetched? Hemi gone too far into fairy-land thinking?”


              The Bridge says what it says.
              Hubbard’s writing say what they say.
              Hubbard left us in absolutely no doubt at all as to what he meant, and there is no room for your personal interpretation.

              In fact, per Hubbard, you are guilty of a High Crime and a Suppressive Act, several of them actually.

              I wonder if you haven’t perhaps misread what Geir’s blog is about lately. It isn’t really an effort to extract the workability from Scientology, or to develop Scientology Lite. It’s more Geir’s quest to find truth in whatever form it may take; and right now one of the focal points is systematically dismantling Hubbard’s writings and showing the outright lies for what they are.

              For what it’s worth, I think your description is quite accurate as to what really goes on with Grade 0. But do take note that Hubbard would have had you crucified and he’d personally feed you to the dogs if you had voiced that opinion in his church…

              🙂 hugz and peace 🙂


            4. Yeah well, Geir — as I have harped on rather endlessly lately, ambiguity runs throughout Scientology as a constant thread.

              Lets take the matter of WHO is attesting. In truth, Maria is a conglomerate of a googleplex of cells, organs, etc. a walking and talking machine like living organism in a total state of flux yet in a state of rapport internally that is extraordinary. I am that which reports on what I notice. I am me — I am associated with Maria and Maria is MY identity and vessel and so on.

              So when I attest to grade zero, who am I really is the question. I could be attesting as Maria, in which case there is no possibility of every making a truthful attestation. Or I could be attesting as me, in which case there is every possibility of making a truthful attestation, an attestation that CANNOT be judged by another in any way shape or form. It is truly subjective and ONLY subjective and can appear objectively only within the confines of the rules and filters and restrictions that serve to create a particular object such as a human body.

              So of course it all is very ambiguous — and amorphous and SUBJECTIVE to the NTH degree.

              Since more than 90% of my experience is actually subjective and not objective at all, this makes sense but it certainly opens the door to all kinds of mischief — imaginary this and that, full blown delusion and so on.

          3. I did get that ability — I didn’t know I had until I was given a group of people to lecture to off the cuff and at the last minute. I could communicate freely alright — it wasn’t a work of art as a lecture, but that is different than communicating freely. Its FREELY not ARTISTICALLY or SKILLFULLY or BEAUTIFULLY or PERFECTLY, its FREELY, not educated, cultured, experienced, amazing, or any other superlative. It also means that you risk talking your fool head off about subjects you know nothing about in ways that offend others and this can put you into a state where you decided you’d better figure out better ways. The difference is that you don’t feel that you CANNOT communicate, that you are BARRED or STOPPED by your own limitations. It doesn’t mean others cannot or will not tell you to STFU.

            1. I do not doubt that the ability can be gotten on Grade 0. You would be the first I know of who has. Every other Grade 0 person I have met would have (serious) trouble to talk freely in front of 100 people on a winged subject. The only fairly certain way to achieve that ability (that I know of) is to train on doing it at least 50 times.

            2. Let’s not lose sight of the major thing here though:

              The Grade 0 EP is not something anyone can honestly and properly attest to.

            3. I am very, very familiar with that fear. I did have that fear before Grade 0 — I performed music and the hour before performance was excruciating — the first ten minutes on stage my hands shook so badly that I could barely play my instrument.

              I do think there is a natural and healthy reluctance or trepidation that goes with entering a new area, uncharted territory or unknown set of conditions. I do not think this is an aberration. I think it is a survival mechanism that tempers one’s behavior, probably hyper-vigilance would be one of the manifestations. For example, if I enter a house I am not familiar with, I do not run around quickly — especially if it is night and the lights are off. I do not enter into communication with men I do not know late at night in deserted parking lots, even though I can communicate freely to them. CAN doesn’t mean its a good idea. But sure I could communicate to the threatening man, who could decide to rape me, in which case, sure, I can freely communicate my hostility about being raped and certainly I could freely experience his communication of raping me. BUT there is this little matter of DO I WANT THAT COMMUNICATION. And if I don’t then that freedom should include my decision to NOT communicate as I wish or as my body-alert system advises me.

            4. To support what Maria said about having achieved the Grade 0 EP, I will add that there seems to be an altered idea of what the EP actually states: It is the “ability to communicate freely with anyONE on any subject”. That EP has nothing to do with speaking in front of a group.

              Furthermore, it was never stated that this particular EP, or any other Grades EP, is a permanent ability – the cert itself states “Provisional”. And anyone who is trained understands that Grades are Release states and could key back in, although not quickly or easily. The advantage of training, including understanding the full significance of Release, is why LRH stated that 50% of the potential gains in Scientology are on the training side.

              From my training, I got that LRH’s intention for the Grades, as with most levels on the Bridge, was to primarily set a person up for the next level up and thus eventually for the highest levels where the biggest parts of case could then be confronted and those biggest gains could be achieved. (Btw, although a small minority of people might not need some levels, with good C/S’ing that would be spotted fairly quickly and they would be moved on to levels that would give them the processes they really did need.)

              Getting back to Grade 0, the ability and willingness to communicate to the auditor specifically is needed for most pc’s in order for them to confront and run the next level up – i.e. Grade 1 processes (which address barriers on the subjects of help and problems), And the EP of Grade 1 is needed before most individuals can confront their overts and withholds on Grade 2. And so forth.

            5. “anyONE”… nice gymnastics. Would you say that you have a communications release if a person who can freely talk to ONE person goes into a mental breakdown if another person enters the conversation?

              It is this type of “bend it until it becomes just right” that is the hallmark of the mindfuck that Scientology induces.

              As for the “provisional” – in your opinion, when does a person attain that single ability “permanently”? At Clear? OT3 (freedom from overwhelm)? OT7 (cause over life)? Never on the Bridge?

            6. Not at all gymnastics. It’s common knowledge that there are individuals who can communicate on a one-to-one basis but who are unwilling and unable to speak in front of groups.

              And you actually hit upon the difficulty LRH had in wording the EP – because anyone who wanted to “nitpick and obfuscate or detract from the main point”,as you accuse me of doing, could challenge his wording the way you just have. 😉

            7. Good question, Geir. I had to think about it. I don’t believe LRH ever specified but since you asked my opinion, I would say (based on my understanding of the basic principles involved) that it would probably be “permanent” with the EP of OT VII, where all negative gain has supposedly been attained. Even then, however, there remains the fact that nothing in the physical universe is absolute even though we commonly speak in those terms as they are often the most effective in getting across an idea.

              Mind you, I said the Grade 0 EP is “supposedly” attained at OT VII (and in a relative sense, as I essentially added). I don’t think the CoS gave OT VII a true test, in that the 6-month refreshers were grossly out-tech by reason of the 6-month refreshers alone. Nevertheless, in reading Hemi’s posts, I get that there is now in progress a real test of Bridge levels that aren’t contaminated by the out-tech of the CoS.

            8. So you have reduced the Grade 0 EP to something like: “Provisionally able to communicate freely to ONE person about any subject”. Would that be the precise wording that Hubbard didn’t manage to get just right?

              How about the other EPs. Should we perhaps make another OP that examins the various EPs and their validities? Sounds interesting?

            9. No, I haven’t reduced the Grade 0 EP at all. Reworded in your phraseology it would be “Provisionally able to communicate freely to ANY person about any subject”. And that would be no more and no less precise than how Hubbard worded it.

              And yes, I think it would be interesting to examine various EP’s and their validities.

              Btw, Geir, I don’t think it’s fair that it took more than than an hour to release my post from moderation – although it was in answer to a question you had just asked me. Like I said before, your putting my posts on moderation until you get around to moderating them puts a real damper on the fun of participation.

              Besides, I don’t particularly like being treated like a child who has been “sent to the corner”. Indefinitely, at that! Or even sent at all, for that matter – as I don’t agree with what you said about needing to keep an eye on my posts to “be sure not to miss my comments” because I supposedly keep derailing the threads. I doubt highly that you would miss it for very long if the thread was getting derailed – in which case you could handle it in an appropriate manner, i.e. justice in relation to specific violations rather than a blanket and indefinite handling. You rightly complain about LRH’s ethics system but in this respect yours seems a bit authoritarian too.

              My reply to Splog got hung up in moderation too. Maybe that is your intent after all – to discourage me from posting, in which case you will sooner or later succeed, probably sooner than later – which is fine as it’s your blog. You can run it as a “my way or the highway” kind of thing as much as you wish. But may I remind you that it is exactly the kind of thing Vinaire did to you on his blog, to which you highly objected. And so did I when he did that.

            10. I hear you.

              I have elaborated why you have been put on mod. Nothing else to say. Better stop whining about it.

              So… whatever.

            11. Geir, I would have been glad to have you “elaborate”, but in fact you never did. Maybe if you had, I could understand where you’re coming from. All you stated was a generality – that I continuously “nit-pick and obfuscate or detract from the main point” – rather than having pointed it out at one of the “continuous” times I was doing that, or even giving some specifics after the fact, when you decided to make the accusation about me.

              I don’t think it’s whining – it’s protesting what seems like an arbitrary and an injustice. But as I indicated, it’s your playing field and if you don’t want it to be level you have the power to do whatever tickles your fancy, as you are fond of saying.

              What I have admitted to, and apologized for, was carrying on too long at times when I didn’t feel you had convincingly made some point. I gave you a hard time and you deserve more respect that that, simply by virtue of being blog owner and also for your basic good will.

              After you accused me of derailing threads, I’ve been careful to be sure to not bring up anything irrelevant, or that hasn’t already been brought up. You even acknowledged that I’ve done that! But you are still applying what comes across as sheer punishment or maybe a wish to control. Can you see how I would feel that way? I suppose it doesn’t matter to you anyway.

              Since your attitude is “So… whatever”, I get that you don’t care what I have to say or whether or not I feel inclined to participate or good feel good about being here. As you’ve implied, it’s up to me as to whether it’s worth it. Take it or leave it. Under the circumstances, you may have noticed I’ve mostly been leaving it. Too bad it came to this. In the past, I enjoyed many of the exchanges with you.

            12. You apologize for going on too long. And yet you carry on too long right here.

              I have again and again and again and again pointed out when you have strained my patience. And you claim I have not.

              You are either dim or unwilling to understand. As a courtesy, I will settle for the latter.

              Back to the OP.

            13. My dear Geir, you say this as an example of me going on too long and that I’m unwilling to understand. In turn, I say it’s an example of the reason WHY I go on too long – trying to get YOU to understand. My bad? Maybe it is.

            14. It doesn’t matter. What you are doing right now is not helping your case. On the contrary. I suggest you take it as a man and move on.

            15. Sorry, Chris. At this point I can only suspect I’m being lured into a comm cycle so that you can put me down. It’s clear that you and I start off with very different world views so we should just agree to disagree. Besides, if I post here at all in the future it will only be to throw in a comment. Two-way comm doesn’t work well when you’ve been marginalized.

              (Marginalize: Treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral: “they marginalize those who disagree”; “marginalized groups”.)

            16. Miraldi,

              The truth is not determined by opinions, beliefs or by agreement, or by who wins and argument.

              The truth is determined by that datum which solves the most problems for the greatest number of dynamics.

              Some things I have learned along the way:

              The truth exists undeterred by anything man says or does.

              Never say anything that you cannot prove.

              If your words do not promote intelligence, truth, and love do not speak.

              Be sure your brain is in gear before engaging mouth.

              Do not comment on anything you are not qualified to comment on.

              Most people are not qualified to comment on anything.

              Most people are only intelligent enough to argue to defend their ignorance, overts and aberrations and the right to be that way.

              Most people cannot handle truth. Most people evidently do better operating on lies and false and limiting data.

              Evidenced by the fact that most people boil over when told the truth.

              Thus the saying: Do not throw your pearls in front of swine. For they shall trample them under their feet into their manure.

              And the allegory of Plato’s cave:


            17. I’m not going to agree with the idea that others have marginalized you. You write and utter upon a point of view which itself is marginal. You use Hubbard’s KSW hammer to flatten and spread this marginal point of view to cover everything even while not believing in it yourself. When this is specifically and garrulously pointed out to you, you write that you are being personally attacked. That’s not what is going on. Everyone likes you and wants you to loosen up. It’s been like that for years and continues to be.

            18. “Everyone likes you and wants you to loosen up. It’s been like that for years and continues to be.”

              ^this is the truth; this is what friends do^

            19. Chris: “You use Hubbard’s KSW hammer to flatten and spread this marginal point of view to cover everything even while not believing in it yourself. When this is specifically and garrulously pointed out to you, you write that you are being personally attacked.”

              Two things: (1) You really ought to clear the word “condescension”. (2) Same for Straw Man.

              But I got your intention. Thank you for that. 😉

            20. Marildi: Two things: (1) You really ought to clear the word “condescension”. (2) Same for Straw Man. But I got your intention. Thank you for that. 😉

              Chris: huh? Thanks for my condescension and straw man attacks? You should clear the word victim and read more Arnie Lerma. Start here: (click)

            21. Chris: Unbelievably gar·ru·lous /ˈgar(y)ələs/

              Dee: Thanks. I bit my tongue!

            22. You mean “Provisionally able to communicate freely to ANY ONE person about any subject”, right?

            23. Here we go again.

              EPs are a declaration by the pc that they achieved the ability. If later found out they don’t have the ability, it is a false attest and the pc is in doubt.

              Please explain in a rational and coherent manner how a pc can be shown to have attained the EP of Grade 0 exactly as written on The Grade Chart.

            24. Splog, I could swear that you are insinuating I do not comment in a rational and coherent manner. 😛

              There are many sides to the question you ask. Firstly, I’m not sure what you mean by “later found out they don’t have the ability”. But I’ll assume you mean that the pc himself later says he doesn’t have the ability. It’s unclear, however, whether you mean he admits to have falsely attested or that he only now realizes he didn’t get the EP.

              To start with, before the pc is sent to attest, there needs to be a combination of session factors (needle phenomena, pc indicators and cognitions) as well as the pc’s own consideration of having achieved the EP – which is a necessary part of an attestation. He may have had reservations to start with, when he falsely attested. Or he may have a misunderstanding of what that EP actually means and because of that he later decides he never got it.

              That is to say, a pc has to understand which of these two definitions of “ability” applies to the EP: (1) The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something, or (2) a natural or acquired skill or talent”.

              The EP of Grade 0 is having the “power”, as in def 1. The result of having done Pro TRs is “an acquired skill”, as in def 2. If a pc later discovers he doesn’t have the “ability” – meaning, an acquired skill – he may decide (incorrectly) that he never got the EP after all.

              There’s also the possibility that some other case factor has interfered with a pc’s having achieved the actual EP, and that would be handled in a Review, as should any misunderstanding of what the EP actually entails when the correct definitions are known.

            25. I do agree Maria, Geir talks about lecturing, that is different. Not wishing to lecture about what you know nothing about is wisdom, not failure. But even on failures, I do agree with Marildi on provisinal states, and achieving thing with steps. And validate Ron on that point. I just posted above a reply to Geir on his “attest critique”. Very intersting subject and exchange of ideas.

            26. Dear marildi, this blog is a scientific one and scientific opinions are never marginalized but your religious beliefs, even though respected, could be a dificult mix to blend.

            27. Hi, Rafael. Wouldn’t it surprise you to find out one day that your blunt evaluation of my viewpoints as “religious beliefs” was off the mark – maybe arrived at through your own filters? Nevertheless, you said it with kindness, as you always do. 🙂

            28. Marildi

              Reading Rafael’s comment my perception is: he is commenting from a non-dual place. From non-division (one source). His message (to me) is that both ‘science’ and ‘religion’ are illusions and have their own separate ‘playing fields’ which are difficult (or not possible) to ‘blend’. What I ‘read’ in his comment is that his ‘intent’ is
              to draw the reader’s attention to the ‘undivided source’. The intent is ‘deeper’ than personal….

            29. Dear marianne, I think you are looking at Rafael’s comment through your own wise eyes. You probably aren’t aware of the fact that this isn’t the first time he has dismissed my positive comments about Scientology as mere religious “belief” – and, from my recall, he and I have already had at least one exchange about it. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he apparently has forgotten my disagreement with his evaluation. In any case, the assumption that any positive viewpoint with regard to Scn would have to be based on nothing but belief is simply a reflection of the person’s own bias, from my point of view. Not that Rafael is the only one.

            30. p.s. As for Rafael calling this a “scientific” blog, I guess that depends on what is meant by “scientific”. Chris just stated outright that my views are marginal – which means “close to the lower limits of qualification or acceptability”. That attitude is indeed the way so-called “science” habitually operates – i.e. those who have dissenting views and don’t go along with the status quo are discredited and ostracized. Not that I have been entirely and overtly ostracized, but for all intents and purpose that has been the case – including the indignity of having my posts put on moderation so as to “catch all my comments”.

            31. And so I was able to catch this. Those with views that are not yet proven – such as the validity and results in Scientology – are confronted with the challenge of providing such proof. You are welcome to serve, Marildi.

            32. You never missed my comments before either, Geir, so I really don’t get it.

              However, even though I don’t see that you have ever missed my comments, you do ignore the parts of my posts that you don’t want to answer – such as when you brought up this point before, about proof of Scn. I asked you then what other self-improvement methodologies have been proven – including the traditional ones of psychology or psychiatry. You responded to the rest of that post of mine but ignored this question about proof of other methodologies. Is there any?

            33. 1) Stop whining or you will get your ass kicked.

              2) Asking me what other methodologies have proof of validity is a red herring when I ask you to back up what you defend (Scientology) with proof.

            34. It’s not a Red Herring. I was making the point that no self-help methodology has proof of it’s workability – simply because of the subjective nature of such. So asking for “proof” of Scientology’s methods is the wrong question.

              And I’m not whining, just expressing my viewpoint. You used to allow me to do that.

            35. There is a line, Marildi. There is a line. Now STFU.

              It is a red herring – because I am not defending any of those methodologies. You are defending Scientology, you are challenged to provide the proof. Do you think proof of Scientology is Impossible?

            36. Marildi, the solution to your dilemma is to argue better. When a point of view isn’t working or as effective as one would like, the scientific handling would be to re evaluate one’s view or operating basis and make appropriate changes.

            37. Marildi, it was you who complained that you were being marginalized. YOU are not being marginalized, but you are expressing marginal views. They are well worn, argued to death, and at this point, old hat. No one has told you not to practice your religion, quite the opposite. You’ve been encouraged time and again to follow your dream.

      3. Alan: So why did I sign the attest, which is now so obviously complete bullshit? I signed it because I wanted it to be true.

        Chris: I learned what the “hidden standard” was and learned not to have one early-on and well. With almost no exceptions, my auditing was amazing to me. Also, with almost no exceptions, I had no particular expectations except for something amazing to happen and it always did. I never had an expectation of auditing because I did not want to ruin the process by having a hidden standard. Fodder for another thread.

      4. Watch out…
        If anything you believe you can do well, you will doubt until ‘scientifically tested’ or extensively tested, you might not do many things… (Flying airplanes not included…_:))
        If Colombus believed he could sross the great ocean without having any “proof” for that, I would not hurry up to invalidate his knowing this. We can know things. And this can stick, or not. Life is more waves and tides and less fixed blocks.
        When I finished my Pro TRs course, I felt I could do anything with comm. And I did.
        I was an ex- hippie, knew nothing (Zero) about business and was offered to run a big, new, falling apart business in the heart of London, piano-shop of all things. In less than a year it was very successful. No admin know-how, Nada. It was truly my comm. and high tone. It was so flowing and positive, it did the trick. Ask me about now? Probably not as good as then…so…?
        One can know things, have intuition, whatever, and can also fall back. It is not necessarily total truth or utter bulshit. There is a golden path.

        1. I’m not sure what you mean by this. You just described typical human behaviour for people who had things go right in their life.

          I’m not disparaging your experiences – far from it – I just want to point out that many millions of other people have done much the same without Scientology. That doesn’t make what you did less, I’m just as happy for you regardless.

  5. DeElizabethan, you are welcome. When I read all those stories on Tony’s blog re family and friends horror disconnect stories, it hit home deeply on the degree of evil this church creates.

    And such conflicting information on being a Scientologist. We help you become free and then you become a thought slave.

    What a task, to unravel the good from the delusional regarding abilities gained Splog.

    The craziness of Scientology is Ron’s mind manifested and made into an organization.

    1. ¨The craziness of Scientology is Ron´s mind manifested and made into an organization.¨ I think that´s accurate.

  6. Hope arrived at naturally or in times of dire need is a healthy life preserver. Carefully packaged and “crush-sold” as it is in Scientology, it is as over the counter aspirin is to back-alley heroin.

    1. cha-ching! ¨and dude, this is THE BEST shit there is! ¨ , said the heroin dealer…

      1. @Mark: After I have approved your first bunch of comments here, you are free to post without any moderation. It is set up so that I moderate a person’s first post(s), and then you’re “in” (this to avoid spam-bots).

  7. Very interesting post.
    Refers to a key problem and huge enigma.
    When I discovered the Indies, I had this burning question: “how the hell is it possible?? Scores of highly trained people high on the bridge, OTS, having absorbed great humane ideas, Auditor-codes, ARC, Ethics…and much more, how could these people endure all the abuse, lies, Chairman HITTING and strangling his execs repeatedly… FOR YEARS – and stay?
    Marty, Dan, Mike, Steve, Jeff, Karen…YOU, Geir…yes, ME too.
    I pondered many months, as this unanswered Q was blocking my entry to Indie activity. With time, I came to this conclusion/theory, not too different than yours:
    This effect on people was and is a SET UP TRAP. A trap of the highest quality, and arguably most insidious in the universe:
    Man is trapped. We know that. A terminal (Ron, Scient., Miscavidge) shows him that he can go free, and gives him wins towards his freedom. (Eternity, Saving his soul!) Real wins. Now he trusts that terminal and its intentions with all his heart. After such gifts, Why shouldn’t he?
    That terminal now, (and his juniors, and probably seniors, I don’t believe Dave could have pulled this alone) goes on and does this:
    *Convinces people that the way out of the trap is good, complete, and ready. (Eternity, saving the soul..)
    * Convinces them that saving their soul, can only and exclusively be achieved with him! Nobody but him.
    * Keeps indoctrinating them on these (Truths now being manipulated to trap, turn to lies), and people, buy it fully.
    * Now the sociopath who somehow seized the operation, can do anything, mainly messing people up any way he wishes.
    * Best way, get them to be out-ethics to themselves and the dynamics, all in the unshakable belief of “saving their souls”.

    Therefore anything people HAVE to do, however bad, stupid, illogical, nasty, cannot be “losing their soul” because they have just been “saving it”. Loosing all – while tricked to believe you are saving it right then and there.
    Oh boy, tears beings apart, sending them flying in opposite directions simultaneously.
    It is the fear of losing our souls waved at us with us believing it, which is just about the most formidable weapon with which to trick and enslave souls. SAD.
    And I would not underestimate CoS rulers too much…they are very “good” in setting and implementing this trap.
    So Geir my only addition is: the enormous strength of that valuable GOAL that most beings harbor deep inside of them, is the very engine which makes possible what you call mindfuck and I call ultimate trap. without such engine, it would never have
    worked to such a degree.
    Like in Martial arts, using one’s will and eagerness to control and overwhelm him.

    But… we are better and wiser fighters now aren’t we?


  8. Its possible that I am simply feeling ornery this morning, but as I read the comments above, I cannot help but notice that they discuss an imaginary person and an imaginary organization, assuming that all these people had some conclusively shared (and oh so simple) reason for being involved and continuing on, assuming that everyone considers it a mindfuck, assuming that the Sea Org staff are all the same as the Mission staff. To my way of thinking this is every bit as general and as blatantly false because of the extreme generality as anything I ever found to be false in or out of Scientology.

    That’s the mindfuck.

    These answers don’t exist except in some highly abstract acceptance of simple explanations for equally simply stated problems. And they exist right up until the moment when their frailty (because they are not real) is exposed for good. It works because people operate through these amazing abstract conceptions of what is going on in their lives — these are easy to spot and dismiss once you get the hang of it and the results are gratifying and amazing in many cases. It’s quite something to learn that you have been shooting yourself in the foot all along and what you have to do is quit shooting yourself!

    And honestly, I do think there is a real basis for the value of the above — so long as you understand that this is what is happening and crank the following information in as well:


    I am continually amazed when I see people discussing the horror of being disconnected from one’s family as if all families are happy and wonderful groups. They are not! Some family members probably should be shunned, inside or outside of Scientology. In my case and in the case of several people I know, sticking by family is nearly a death sentence in terms of one’s own sense of self-esteem, well-being and success. For example, I have a friend who was viciously abused as a child — please explain why she should have any desire to be connected with her “wonderful” family? And guess what — her “wonderful” parents complain constantly that she wants nothing to do with them, that she has disconnected from them and that Scientology made her do that. Such bullshit. Fact is, they should both be in jail not out railing against the group that helped their daughter to escape their madness.

    1. The link you posted is full of really bad science and even worse analysis, and this analysis is clearly heavily biased. Anyone with a basic understanding of noncoding DNA should immediately see through it.

      1. Well, I haven’t much to say in response, except here is a page with citations and additional info if you are interested.

        1. The other 90% of DNA is not “junk DNA.” This is what is referred to a noncoding DNA and there is nothing mystical about it. It’s involved in chemically protecting DNA and turning certain genes on and off, among other functions. We understand it very explicitly now. This cited “research” seems mostly to have been done before we had such an explicit understanding of noncoding DNA, so perhaps the “researcher,” Mr. Garjajev, saw such gaps in our knowledge as a way to further his pseudoscience career. Of course, I can only speculate. As to the claims involved linking noncoding DNA to “clairvoyance” and “spiritual healing,” there exist no real, peer-reviewed, replicated experiments supporting any of it.

          As a side note, one should be careful that just because some “research” posts links to experiments that were, in fact, peer-reviewed and replicated, does not mean that the linking article becomes somehow valid. I can do some “research” involving telekinesis and cite all sort of genuine quantum mechanics journals, just as well as I can cite 50 Shades of Grey. It does not mean that my research isn’t complete and utter bunk.

          1. I have no idea what science materials you read along the way, but I can assure you that “we” do NOT understand it all very explicitly now, and there is continuing controversy in the scientific community on the subject of ‘junk” or “garbage” DNA as there should be, given that there is very little in the way of actual EVIDENCE that is in any way conclusive. We do have various THEORIES (underline that) that are very promising but they are not FACTS and they are not NOT explicit understandings or laws or truths. Most life systems are POORLY and I mean VERY VERY POORLY understood, as science generally studies at such a simplified and microscopic level that larger phenomena goes ignored — this is particularly true in the area of DNA.

            And as far as pseudo science goes, well, all new theories are pseudo science and all observations are too until someone conceives of better ways of testing — the more technology there is, the more we find out just how wrong science can be because of its intrinsic limitations.

            I have no great faith in science for matters that cross beyond the purely physical and measured. As far as I am concerned science is totally based on extremely magical initial premises that one has ever proved or can ever prove. And yet science is useful up to a point — but beyond that point it is a stifling mechanism, entrenched as it is in only in what physical objects can be “measured” by physical objects, with everything running like a perfect clockwork mechanism, a model that is completely blown to pieces by quantum physics.

            It is every bit as much of a trap as the dogmatic approach of a doctrinaire Scientologist.

            1. The biggest problem with “research” like this is that it is not following a rational approach to modeling the universe.

              Pseudoscience can be differentiated from real science by the fact that real science is falsifiable and attempts to be replicated in the lab. Pseudoscientists try to have their theories proven correct, and will bend data (or even pull it out of thin air) to do so. There exists no real scientific evidence of any sort of correlation between DNA and clairvoyance (of course, there exists no real evidence for clairvoyance, either). Real scientists, on the other hand, seek to disprove their theories. This is often the most exciting thing in science. It’s the double-slit experiment showing that particles can behave like waves, or the revelation that Mercury’s precession doesn’t fit NEwtonian mechanics. This is the difference between Dr. Garjajev, who does some bogus “research” and pulls “conclusions” out of thin air and biologists publishing a paper on, for example, the lac operon, a well-studied body of noncoding DNA that anyone who has taken college-level biology should be able to tell you about. The biologists will seek to have their theories refuted. They will try to find cases in which the lac operon behaves differently than expected in varying concentrations of lactose. This is how real science is done. It consists, in short, of using evidence to develop and refute theories – not using evidence to advance some bogus pseudoscience career.

            2. Ex Kane: Pseudoscience can be differentiated from real science by the fact that real science is falsifiable and attempts to be replicated in the lab.

              Absolute bullshit.

              You have just dismissed many sciences that do not function on this basis, in particular the social sciences, astronomy, pure sciences, chaos theory, and so on — too many to name. FACT: Most science is NOT replicated in a lab. You really need to understand that falsification is only ONE of many elements that make up the scientific process and peer review is NOT any guarantee of any truth anywhere.

            3. There is only one science that is exact.
              And that is the science of numbers.
              Arithmetic and math.

              Physics and chemistry are close to exact.

              They have grey areas or areas subject to subjectivity.

              All the rest are various degrees of exactness and subjectivity.

              There is plenty of junk science and pseudosience.


            4. Dio commented: And that is the science of numbers.

              Chris: Good comment, but mathematics is a precision language. The irrational numbers describe the metaphor of existence. The rational numbers imaginary segments of that irrational existence.

          2. Ex Kane: Here is the truth of what I think about all this. Science has little and often no “heart” and neither do the current organizations of Scientology, which also worked very very hard to ignore all that “touchy feely” stuff in its presentations. Where Scientology succeeded for people it did because it did give them “heart” and where it failed, it failed because it ignored, invalidated, and generally dis”heartened” people. I don’t its hope that it held out and that was why people got stuck, I think it actually restored broken hearts and gave people “heart.”

            1. Chris said: And that truth changes and changes and changes. That is the current truth that I am working on. Nothing, no model is laid out precisely correctly and we need to continue to look and to consider and compare and become more consistent in our thinking and open to what the new day brings so that we can likewise adapt once again to another revised truth. And if we understand this, then we can afford to be tolerant with ourselves and with others.

              Maria says: For me, this is a big part of having heart, especially if you add to this that no model has any value if all it ever does is dishearten and disenfranchise. I love science, but it goes doctrinaire in a heartbeat and with that closes the jaws of yet another trap.

            2. Maria: I love science, but it goes doctrinaire in a heartbeat and with that closes the jaws of yet another trap.

              Chris: So true. Yet, how do we proceed? I’ve been considering this idea of traps, what are they and how can we ferret them out? The most poignant trap for me is the trap of finality. . . Of End Phenomenas. Of Absolutes. Of Stable Data.

            3. Maria: I love science, but it goes doctrinaire in a heartbeat and with that closes the jaws of yet another trap.

              Chris: My daughter just completed “learning” 50,000 medical terms of which 1/2 will be obsolete within 10 years (an estimate that she was told in class.) In her profession, she needs to learn hard, fast, and trust what she’s learned while at the same time hold to the idea that her profession is mercurial and to be a good doctor she must use her mind and hands like a potter touching wet clay. Knowledge is in motion. Living well can be compared to an art form. One of my favorite Hubbard quotes is his definition of art: “Technical expertise sufficient to create an emotional impact.” I really love that quote and can so easily apply it to the art in everything that I do and experience. I’m rambling, sorry.

            4. Chris: at the same time hold to the idea that her profession is mercurial and to be a good doctor she must use her mind and hands like a potter touching wet clay. Knowledge is in motion.
              Dee: Your post was really interesting! Tks

            5. Maria: I love science, but it goes doctrinaire in a heartbeat and with that closes the jaws of yet another trap.

              Chris: Oh yeah. Traps. This sense of finality. In mathematics, I would say that the rational number is the most fantastic; the most fantastical concept that mankind conceived. I do not particular see this concept in nature. It is man who mourns and conceives of absolute beginnings and absolute endings to things.

            6. Maria says: For me, this is a big part of having heart, especially if you add to this that no model has any value if all it ever does is dishearten and disenfranchise.

              Chris: You are right, our models should inspire and give hope, elsewise, I’m not sure why I would want to know a grim truth. Or maybe I only say that because I don’t see grim truths. I see truths. I see levelling of inconsistent considerations. I see smoothing of the way. I see a possibly bright future. And no where to I see any finality to anything at all. It is some running of the egotism which conceives of these grim truths. Less ego = more real hope.

            7. Maria: “I love science, but it goes doctrinaire in a heartbeat and with that closes the jaws of yet another trap.”

              Me: Yup!

        2. Forgot to mention this. As for the “Global Consciousness Project,” the statistical methods used to support it have been heavily criticized, in addition to lacking in falsifiability.

          1. Yes they certainly have been criticized. They have also been applauded. Depends on who is working what to get what money for grants.

  9. OK, after seeing the traps and how deep they reach, here’s the positive side, possibly:

    Like you Geir, I don’t see an intentional con game for most people and originally for Hubbard. If ron intended to con, why use 30 million words and so much trouble? 90% of people on our planet are easily conned with 3,000 words. probably much less.

    Splog, you write well, but I disagree with your basic consideration. Everything you write, is true also for operations that are ethical and serve people. Plumbers too, sell “fixing ruins”, and car garages…
    the valid questions are: the basic intention behind an activity, and of course: results and value for money. You evaluate wins achieved in Scientology to be nothing really much. I regret to hear. Perhaps YOU did not have many. (not said with any negative intention). If so, youe attitude can be understood.
    My look right now is the following:
    I have had BIG wins in Scientology. Real, not imagined. Life saving, insanity returned to sanity… and many more. May be because I was lucky not to be too heavily involved, being public, and just going in for the materials of study and auditing.
    Of course I could have been a Budhist and achieve/have similar wins. But I wasn’t. and I did use scientology tools.
    If you wish, I have a long list I can share. Life changing wins.
    Then, I have been messed up, by same Organization. Bad. Almost nulled all the wins. Almost. Suppression. Great suffering.
    Then, after many years I got back to Scientology as an Indie in an Indie group. Free group, I swear! (So far…_:)). None of the traps/mindfucks Geir mentions.
    And I am having the time of my life…step by step, going higher. Really nice, man. And fucking hard work too… (reminds of the saying: “Life is like riding a bicycle – if the going is too easy, you are on a downhill…)
    You can say anything to that…that I am blind again..or that things will mess up again. Fine, may be. But they haven’t for long time now, and this has to mean something, may be even to your basic consideration.
    I believe that seeing a wider picture is always positive and practical too.

    1. Hemi: “You can say anything to that…that I am blind again..or that things will mess up again. Fine, may be. But they haven’t for long time now, and this has to mean something, may be even to your basic consideration.”

      Me: I don’t disagree with you, if you feel you are winning then that is the way it is, right? I can’t know the validity of all your personal wins, or for anyone else’s either. The only wins I can discount are the stupid ones – “I just did OT3 and when I went to the mall today I found a parking space right at the entrance I needed! How awesome is that? My postulates stick!” That’s a true story by the way, and things like that are all I see coming out of CoS lately…

      But if you were for example struggling to learn to play music, then did some Scientology service, and then found the piano now made sense and you could play it easily … well that is very different. That would deserve acknowledgement.

      I’ve never denied I had wins in Scientology – I compare before and after and there is a difference, and it’s good. But I’ve had just as good wins from other things too. If I evaluate these things carefully I now see that they are NOT different orders of magnitude at all. Now this is the part where explanation gets tricky, so bear with me.

      I had to strip away all the prior expectations I had from Hubbard and others about what I was “supposed to get” from Scn services, I had to get dump Hubbard’s eval about what I needed in the form of The Bridge, I had to spot the hype and the times I lied to myself about what I actually gained, and I had to honestly evaluate things for real. I found that in Scn, listening to older and wiser folks and following their example made me much more empathetic; I found I learned how to speak nicely to people. And I also found that billions of people before me had done exactly the same thing with no knowledge of Scientology at all. That was the clincher. So I concluded that Scientology can do good, but not because Scientology is something super-special, but because humans are social creatures and tend to help each other out. It’s how our societies work, it’s how schools work and it’s how families work. There can be a million ways to help a man be a better man and if Scn gives that to you, then that’s awesome. If your auditor is not ripping you off, is being honest about what can be done and is not evaluating for you, then awesome twice.

      My issue with Scientology is the endless hype about what it can do, Hubbard’s over-the-top theories, Type III rants, fascination with exorcism and most especially the subject’s forbidding any kind of examination of the subject itself.

      It’s your right to pursue Scn services if you want; it’s also your right to be correctly informed about what it is and what it can do.

      Do this clear up what my position is? I don’t get to say these things much as it all fits on one page whereas the amount of falsehood that has to be stripped off the subject is sometimes overwhelming.

      1. Alan: My issue with Scientology is the endless hype about what it can do, Hubbard’s over-the-top theories, Type III rants, fascination with exorcism and most especially the subject’s forbidding any kind of examination of the subject itself.

        Chris: +1.

      2. “So I concluded that Scientology can do good, but not because Scientology is something super-special, but because humans are social creatures and tend to help each other out. It’s how our societies work, it’s how schools work and it’s how families work. There can be a million ways to help a man be a better man”

        And that is how have always been. Is seems that the problem is the systematization of this nature with the attention more over the systematized than the present nature itself. To sum this up: it’s honest looking, the beggining of science and knowledge.

    2. Hemi: . . . and this has to mean something, , , ,

      Chris: It does. We lend that meaning to all the occurrences in our lives. As time passes, we evaluate and then reevaluate in the context of all our experiences and also of the current iteration and we then lend different meanings to those same experiences. We don’t need to have an anxiety about this happening as it is a natural outcome of the iteration resulting in evolution of the universe.

  10. Splog,
    I understand and respect what you say. You have made your view point more clear and Its looks good and valid. There ARE so many areas where things can go really bad in the CoS, you are right. I was lucky (relatively, if being 18 years in a spiritual coma qualifies as that…) But I have full empathy and willingness to help anybody who suffered there and has to repair many things. All the bestI

  11. Wow, what an amazing exchange of ideas and experiences! This great. Thanks to everyone!

  12. Great posting and excellent analysis of the Scientology traps.

    Here is a trap that is note worthy ~ “The Application and Enrollment Form”

    I would love to have you post a separate thread discussing the “Application for Enrollment forms” one must sign before routing onto a course. This form is the ultimate legal trap! They use deception and coercion to obtain it.

    The Church of Scientology makes it very clear that one is to stay out of court and to use their self-correcting justice system. The books explain the justice system to be fair and without threats or punishments.

    If one uses the justice system early – it is great! It is only when one is fully indoctrinated into Scientology with loads of money on account that one will see this criminal justice system in full blooom.

    Try to correct a crime done Scientology that Registrars and MAA’s commit daily – and one will see just how this system works – Scientology wins / Parishioner loses. Parishioner is gagged and not allowed to discuss. Accept it or else you are out and we will ignore you. Go public with the injustice – you are declared and everyone shuns you.

    After money is put on account through high pressure sales tactics. the money is labeled “donations”.

    The Registrar will give you excuses that the Church of Scientology deems all money as “donations” because they are a “Church”. I have been told that “the computers are set up this way”. This seems innocent enough until one tries to get their money back. Read this form – it is on Wikileaks if you don’t have one.

    The “Application and Enrollment Form” is a legal document that Scientology uses to keep all money on account. The CVB is a legal document that traps you to stay in Scientology.

    It states that “you are totally responsible for completing this form” – The CVB form has numerous hoops one must jump through which are unobtainable to complete and leave.

    For example: Writing in duplicate three times: “I understand that I can never do the upper levels” – is a manipulative tactic if one believes Scientology holds the key to their spiritual freedom. Very manipulative if fully indoctrinated!

    There is no self-correcting justice system in Scientology. A good topic for discussion.

    The routing form takes you through a maze of various hoops to jump through and people so you are under the control of the Organization. The Registrar then introduces the “Routing Form” for the first time. It has a nice innocent label – “Application for Enrollment” so as to not make anyone suspicious of their attempt to keep all your money and keep yourself “in” Scientology.

    The Routing form has been designed by many lawyers over a span of years unknowingly to the innocent victim.

    Scientology tells you the “SP” and the “Psychs” are out to get us. They don’t tell you that they have been sued so many times and survived the suits – that their high powered lawyers (you paid for with your IAS donations) have designed a form so that Scientology can keep all of your money and completely control every situation.

    It is designed to trap. You are told you cannot start the service until you sign it. You are lied to by the Registrar that this “Application” only applies to the specific service you are about to start”.

    The “Application” deems all money on account in every Scientology Organization is now be owned by Scientology by calling it donations.

    Why do people sign it? Why don’t they get legal counsel? Because Scientology frowns upon the “legal system” and behind your back is using your donations to hire the best lawyers in the land to keep your money and keep you trapped.

    Everyone signs it to start their service. If you question the need for such a strange agreement – the Registrar tells you the SP’s are out to destroy Scientology. You have been indoctrinated into believing this so you sign it. You don’t think you will ever need it.

    Now the Organization has received permission by you covertly – to keep all of your money on account and you have agreed to this unknowingly by deceptive tactics.

    You have also agreed to do the CVB routing form if you ever want a repayment of money on account – so you will stay in Scientology.

    A noteworthy topic! I appreciate your input!

    1. Input = What an opening post! Lot’s of meat for discussion here. Although I generally appreciate succinct comments, yours is a well thought out summary of the topic of Scientology enrollment.



    2. JH: A noteworthy topic! I appreciate your input!

      Dee: What a topic! Popped into my head, a thought: Only the gullible get in. Actually, it is the honest person who trusts and is genuinely interested who signs and gets in, not believing it could be otherwise.

      1. That’s what I think too. Although, being young and inexperienced and a rube, I was pretty gullible too! Gullible is not really a dirty word. Gullible or shrewd are adjectives we attach to people’s actions after the fact of finding out how it all turned out. The funny thing to me is that I cannot really tell if I am proofed beyond the wiles of Scientology and if that shrewdness extends beyond that set. Will I fall prey to the next cool con game that comes my way? Another LRH quote that I always liked is when he says that a person starts out full of life and inexperience then lives and gains experience but loses his life.

        Does this make experience the entropy of life?

        1. Chris: Does this make experience the entropy of life?

          Dee: Well, yes could be put that way since we are running our own system, hopefully. We may not be aware of what we let ourselves experience, in order to have that experience.

          At first I did think I was gullible but as you say you don’t know that word till afterwards. I was honest and trusting to begin with and it could be, that was part of the experience I needed or wanted to experience. 🙂

  13. When one starts to “wake up” (if ever) in the C of S, one then must srtuggle to maintain this (false) hope. The true reason it must be maintained is that after this quasi “awakening” (so to speak), one is actually on the edge of Despair – the utter loss of all hope – with no true remedy in sight.

    And we don’t want to go there, do we?

    1. Nope. It is a sickening feeling of vertigo when we lose the stable datums in KSW. However discomforting it may be, it gets better if one continues on through searching out and resolving the inconsistencies of our experiences and former stable data.

      1. Exactly my experience. A very uncomfortable feeling, for sure, but I knew that the truth would be the truth, whether I confronted it or not, so I had better just buck up and face it. It got better.

        1. Susie: It got better.

          Chris: And that truth changes and changes and changes. That is the current truth that I am working on. Nothing, no model is laid out precisely correctly and we need to continue to look and to consider and compare and become more consistent in our thinking and open to what the new day brings so that we can likewise adapt once again to another revised truth. And if we understand this, then we can afford to be tolerant with ourselves and with others.

          1. Yes. I keep revising all the time. It’s so good not to be stuck any longer, not having to try to fit everything into a certain framework. And it’s not just us scn suckers who got caught in that. It’s just about everybody I know. If something does not fit their model, then they don’t even hear it, or it is dismissed with rationalizations, justifications, etc. I know I still have a lot t of this left because I keep seeing more and more.

      2. Chris: It is a sickening feeling of vertigo when we lose the stable datums in KSW.
        Dee: That reminds me of the sickening feeling and of awe after returning to the church. At the Flags Sunday Service while they read the Creed, which I always liked, I realized how they as a church and OSA did not abide by this. I had started to see the truth and the insanity of not following their own creed.

  14. I can’t tell whether such comments come out of SCNists or anti-SCNists. I mean when you point out to somebody that Theta Clear is….and he tells you (if he bothers at all) that everything is perfect with the OT Bridge and you have MUs. Same with level 0 that Geir pointed out. If a SCNist insists that the semi-products or no-products are good products, then whos the anti-Scientologist?

    1. You know why ‘you have MUs and O/Ws and are PTS/SP’ when you doubt the Bridge? Because they don’t intend to give you any. What OT? Knowing cause over the dynamics? You serious? And he gets screwed by churchies and dumped by his wife and bankrupt and…?? And that’s all there is to the Bridge? Who’s the anti-Scientologist? Would such a responsible and able being, cause over all dynamics get victimised on the 1st? You are for the lulz.

      1. Yes, I know it’s a gradient, and that OTs have reported wins. What I’m saying is: 8 dynamics. If most Bridge is about the 1st, and you shut the doors to any further handling because you have made it all…and then you worry about the 1st dynamic too… and you get ARC breaks and get ser faced and create hostilities etc…. ……………… ………………….

        I’m not saying stuff cannot get handled. Nor that it has to be like that and that there have to be things to get handled. I’m saying that in the above cases where one creates case, there is plenty of room for improvement.

        1. (I guess I sort of gave hope too, by saying that all case along all dynamics can be dealt with. But I didn’t mean in some distant future, I meant it in the now, as it is created in the now (if it is), not in some distant future, as there isn’t any future in the now. So that is no hope.)

          ‘Restoration of Knowing Cause’. You can wordclear that, if you’re not too cool to take suggestions from an unhumble (also unarrogant) nobody. :mrgreen:


    2. Spyros: If a SCNist insists that the semi-products or no-products are good products, then whos the anti-Scientologist?

      Chris: Agreed. I have been making this point for a while now. Who is actually the anti-Scientologist? I’m no longer “pro” or “anti” too much of anything. This is meant in an ideological sense, not in the “jack-booted thugs kicking down my front door” sense.

      The most fervent promoters of Scientology, the COS, are making the very worst case for Scientology. The most fervent true believers in the infallibility of Hubbard’s words on the “soul” make the absolutely worst arguments for believing Hubbard. They do in fact rub one’s nose in the inconsistency of it until the stench becomes impossible to ignore. Religion is like that. Used as a hopeful guide to move things along in a hopeful direction, I do not have an argument with people and their moderate beliefs. However, ideologies used coercively to any degree whatsoever, I do have a problem with that. Hoping for unattainable nonsense does no one any good.

      1. I’ve encountered the idea that if one bears the flag, he also has qualities. But that can be just pretense. Like some nationalists who pretend to love the country more than anybody else and the country is above all etc, and then they treat the country’s people like trash and drag the country into wars –most probably to feed their own valence with victories, and be ‘great’.

        I personally don’t put any limits over what can be achieved with SCN or other spiritualities. And I have seen some wild, unrealistic stuff happen too. But if one is showers himself with compulsions and limitations and on the same time claims to have the best possible in the field of spirituality…ehh…wtf? + I’m never going to claim I can help somebody on the road to OT (or whatever other analogous word I may use) unless I can help myself too! And I don’t confuse ‘OT’ with ‘master of the universe’ 😛

        1. “I personally don’t put any limits over what can be achieved with SCN or other spiritualities.” <— about SCN: There's also a number (the majority) of processes that is no longer used in orgs –not only creative processing. My assumption -judging by the underlying theories, and the nature of those processes- is that much can be done with them. Some are contained in books. And the person who would buy such books wouldn't necessarily be aware of any modern Bridges etc he would just use the book's processes. The book says take it and use it. Doesn't say enroll and…

  15. Hope is what kept me going and was sooo hard to let go of. When I was going through my withdrawal, I was forlorn for many months, as I progressively let go of hope after hope and saw that I was now on my own. It was scarey, but it has also made me stronger and smarter.

    I am not sure when the con game began, but Ron knew he was conning in many instances, such as the SO 1 line and more. He wanted people to think he was superior and he went to lengths to protect this image.

    1. Susie: SO 1 line

      Chris: A very good example supporting Hubbard’s propensity for deceit. I don’t disagree with Geir’s take on Hubbard’s psychology but after all the conjecturing, and I do a lot of it, it is difficult to separate who a person is from what a person does.

      1. “We are what we do repeatedly.” – Aristotle

        I find this quote to be liberating.

    2. Susie: “Hope is what kept me going and was sooo hard to let go of..”

      Hi Susie,

      I found letting go of Scn was a lot like letting go of my ex-wife when we divorced. Same steps, same hurt, same resignation and acceptance at the end. And the only thing that really helped was having someone nearby to talk to.

        1. I’ll share a little joke with you.

          That same ex-wife now has a stable terminal that she can talk to about her current woes. That terminal is me.

          How’s that for good karma?

          People are basically good and like to communicate with each other; sometimes they need to “let go” of things first sometimes they need to just be OK with the ways things are

          1. Yea, pretty good indeed!
            I like what you said about being OK with the ways things are. Sometimes hard for me, but it is better when I can.

            1. Susie: “I like what you said about being OK with the ways things are. Sometimes hard for me, but it is better when I can.”

              Me: I hear you 🙂

              For me, that one started resolving when I gave up on the idea about feeling guilty over every little damn thing, even years after my last service

              Feeling guilty that I didn’t get my ex on the Bridge,
              Feeling guilty that my stats were less than last week (but still 50% more than the average for the job I was doing
              Feeling guilty that I wasn’t earning a brazillion bucks a month
              Feeling guilty about seeing a crime on TV news and that we hadn’t Cleared the Planet yet
              Feeling guilty about just going out for dinner, having a good time and OMG! drinking beer
              and on and on and on….

              when I gave up on all that, life started becoming liveable again

            2. I really hear you Alan. I’ve spent more time and attention on releasing myself from feelings of guilt toward my Scientology experience than any other item. Guilt toward what my intense interest and participation did to my family and myself and to those who cared for us. What it continues to do to my ex-wife who still lives in that nightmare. But now it’s ok and I seem to be able to see that bulldozer coming now from quite a distance. It’s a fresh and hopeful feeling.

      1. Splog: I found letting go of Scn was a lot like letting go of my ex-wife when we divorced. Same steps, same hurt, same resignation and acceptance at the end. And the only thing that really helped was having someone nearby to talk to.
        Dee: Worth repeating! Love something or some person, with no real love back.

  16. Splog, I feel that guilt is a huge part of the scn mindfuck. Keeps you introverted so you lose the power to see and confront the evil going on. My poor kids felt like they had to tell me everything or something terrible would happen. I did not intend for this consequence. I have told them that I want for them to be able to talk to me about anything they want to, but they did NOT HAVE TO tell me anything. The emphasis on O/W is harmful to people who are conscientious. Ron did not seem to feel guilt.

    1. The more I look at the man’s actions, the more Hubbard seems to have been a Type III psychopath with a nice social veneer layer of “hail fellow! well met!”

      This viewpoint is unpopular is some circles, but that’s how I see it

      1. Alan: The more I look at the man’s actions, the more Hubbard seems to have been a Type III psychopath

        Chris: Great social changes seems to have at their heart great leaders who give all, not great leaders who demand all and take all. Great selflessness seems to be a personality characteristic great leaders share. Great hubris is more the personality characteristic of thugs and dictators. This one is pretty easy to staticize.

  17. as you say Geir

    “Interestingly, I notice that some of the most fanatical Scientologists I have met are the one’s with little training and/or auditing. Those who have not yet understood that Scientology habitually oversells and underdelivers.”

    That would some it up.

    There is that one line in KSW that says “let them quit fast or if they ENROLLED, they are on the same terms as the rest of us” or something like that.

    That sentence certaintly locks one in into scientology.

    But I never “enrolled”. I only had to enroll because of the discounts afforded by having a IAS membership. And the next thing you know, I’m part of the team. LOL.

    So that one sentence kind of handles your attesting to each and every grade or OT level, you’re on board forwarding scientology and hubbard. whether you got the ability or not.

    Things to note or consider:

    It says HCO PL & HCOB. Key word being Hubbard.

    The latest Source magazine has as it’s main hubbard article “admiration and the MEST universe” by LR Hubbard from The Factors, lecture of 23 March 1953 entitled :What’s Wrong with the PC and How You Can Do Something About It”.

    And the first sentence says:

    “What’s wrong with the preclear is the fact the preclear is inherently, by the nature of the beast, eight dynamics, and these dynamics have been limited as an area of responsibility for him until he is about one one-thousandth of dynamic one.”

    OK, that first sentence and title of the lecture, “Whats wrong with the PC………….”
    This is pure evaluation by hubbard. How many times has hubbard said this, what’s wrong with the pc, or other words to the same effect, probably thousands. PTS, wrong item, out list, cause, effect, engrams, black & white, ridges, epicenters, on and on.

    1. and what’s wrong with the PC is the whole bridge. Starting at the bottom, and everybody must progress up the bridge. Amazing, now that I think about it, or look it over. Everybody must go thru all the questions asked of them on all the auditing lists and questions.

      And why?

      Because the dead man says so.

      And now we have DM saying people are not in PT and must redo objectives and the purif, and so on.

      Geir, if you were still in, you would have to do again the Objectives. OMG

  18. Can it be that the true reason for redoing the Objectives as an OT
    ( ‘I am ME’) is the first step of ‘educating’ and ‘re-orienting’ oneself as a knowing and aware ‘spiritual being’ in the world of ‘forms/manifestations’?

    1. Interesting proposition – one that DM can surely use. But it would not follow logically from the OT 9 EP that states the person is interesting to know who he really is. It is clearly implied that he will get this knowledge from the next OT levels – especially since OT 10 is titled “Character”.

      1. It would not follow logically …that states the person is interested to know who he really is.
        As I did not go up the Bridge, I can’t know how you or another OT8 perceives. Would be really interested to read about your perceptions.

        My present perception is that when ‘I’ meet another person, ‘I’ don’t see any difference between ‘me’ and ‘him’ in the core, it is the same aware ‘what’. That is in ‘ I am WHAT you are’ there is the perception of the ‘WHAT’ (Life, Source, God).
        ‘Who am I?’ I am that ‘what’, the source of unlimited creations. ‘Who are you?’ You are that ‘what’, the source of unlimited creations.
        This is a ‘fresh, pure’ aware presence, not ‘chained by the past’. As such, the ‘me’ is now learning, educating itself and by doing so, orients itself in life.

        This perception gives me a peace of mind. More precisely, peace in the midst of perceiving creations. One creation is ‘person’. The Latin ‘persona’ means: a mask, a role, a specified character. It’s just a guess, on OT 10 the attributes, traits, functions of characters and also their RELATIONS may be revealed. Also, the ability
        to play or not play any character in life, also the ability to allow ‘other personas’ to act as they wish.

        1. I think the content of any OT 10 would have to remain pure speculation, because according to the people in the know, like Marty, there isn’t any levels above 8.

      2. This is my perception now. I don’t know if it lasts or not…I don’t know how I would perceive DM if I met him. What I know is that every life situation is a lesson to learn from. Also, the mirror effect and synchronicity are there in a situation which one can be aware of (or not – yet).
        In my present view: aside from scientology, when you met DM, he asked you a question of becoming an ED. So, part of the ‘mirror’ is ED (you had, have companies..). Also, you saw him as ‘energetic, intense, powerful,
        intentions clear, unparalleled presence, showed determination, commanded the environment, playful, joyful, funny,….’ – given that in obnosis there are no evaluative concepts/traits like these, given that what one can create/perceive/see one can be, these traits are equally true of You, your personality-character.
        In the Amazing persons series you described a lot of ‘beings+personas’. I cannot put it better but I doubt it that without ‘seeing’ them in the ‘core’ as the same source
        as you, you could give their ‘personal-character’ traits….which, as you created/saw them, you can be….so here we are at persona-character a little bit….
        A movie with Jason in sight? ….joking…..

        1. Mairanne,

          Re: how you would perceive DM.

          When I attended the “day after event” of the grand opening of the new ideal org in my city, they said that DM was there.

          The staff said that he is such a wonderful man. They said he has got such a great sense of humor.

          You can take their word for it.



          A cynic is someone who has an aversion for the truth.

          1. Dio
            Thanks. Never mind, by being cynical or feeling aversion the truth is a little bit masking and hiding itself but nevertheless the source of these manifestations is truth itself.

  19. I don’t have time to read every post, so I do not know if this was mentioned already or not. It is about traps in scn. The biggest trap in scn is the billion yr contract. Only a fool would sign such a contract.


    1. This may sound tricky, but I think that a billion years contract is foolish enough by itself, despite you sign it or not such a thing. It’s on the top 10 of “Scientology foolishest things” and may be the winner, it’s shows a misunderstood and corrupted mediocre point of view over the spiritual reality and derived conditions.

      1. “top 10 of “Scientology foolishest things” and may be the winner, it’s shows a misunderstood and corrupted mediocre point of view over the spiritual reality and derived conditions.”

        I agree. It is foolish. People and spiritual beings change all the time and to hook one into that many years is foolish and suppressive. Of course those that want it, get it I guess, and keep themselves from evolving, imo. Bless their spirits!

        1. The first time I heard of this contract, I thought it was merely decorative and symbolic for the paperwork. It couldn’t be serious, and it can’t be serious now and ever. But, if there is any way it could be taken seriously, it will be in a coercitive manner. And that is very serious. I mean, I could sign whatever it says if it would be my informed decision. I could sign whatever the HCO ask me to sign, Disconnection policy? If it’s not of my interest to get related to some people, ok, why not? Let’s sign that too! If it’s better for me to sign whatever thing that have to be signed, I will because of that “better-win” reasoning. That is IF it would be my informed decision and inner call.

          Let’s say we are spiritual beings having a human life. So, our human life-form is only a part of our true spiritual nature. So, as a human, we are not a complete representation of what we truly are. (But we could try to be a complete human at least)
          Let’s say that we incarnate and (to put it simple) at an average ratio of 1 human life per century. So, we have at least 10 million lifes to live on a billion years from now. So, as a human in a single life, we are not an average representation of anything. As the earth is a speck of dust into the void, our life, a single one, this one, would be a speck of a speck into the entire cake.

          SO, Why would we sign a contract in the name of our spirit (that we not represent) for a time of 10 million lifes to the future (that we ignore)?

          It sounds like an ant trying to take advantage over an eagle. Or in a more human way, like an ant signing a paper (because of others) for what is worthwhile for the eagle plans (according to those others). The ant has good intentions. What’s wrong with it? The ants are signing for an ants’s interest, always.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s