In the wake of the movie, “Going Clear”

Going Clear has created quite some commotion. In traditional media, social media and back channels. I have had my hands full answering emails and chat messages from journalists, ex and current scientologists and other people interested in Scientology. Never have I had such a wide range of discussions going on this subject – from those that saw the movie, put down the cans and walked right out in the middle of OT 7 to those considering rejoining. Yeah, the range is wide.

There wasn’t much new material for those that have been discussing this subjects actively on the Net. But it was well put together. The movie covers most of the important angles and subjects within Scientology. With a solid run through of its history and excellent highlights on the current problems in the church. What it didn’t really answer was why people get into Scientology and why they stay. What is so fascinating about this subject? There is really only one answer: Gains. People do have excellent gains from practicing Scientology. Jason Beghe is perhaps the only one in the movie that gets to express this underlying reason why people hang around in Scientology.

Going Clear

As I was watching the movie, I kept thinking about my first years in Scientology. The excitement, the fantastic gains I had from the communication drills, the atmosphere in our local church. Those were the happy days. As I flesh out in details in my book, “Nittenåttifire“, I went from shy to a radio show host within just a couple of years. From awkward to able to pick up girls. The gains was real and they were excellent.

The movie, and especially Jason, brought those memories, those years right back. And when I got scores of people asking the appropriate question after the film, “why did you stay for so long?”, I reiterated my gains. And when a few of them told me that they were considering rejoining the church, it left me thinking if I would consider ever going back.

Well, I wouldn’t. Not in the state the church is in today. But what if there was to be a change in the management of the church? What if Hubbard returned? What if the management system was revised? Would I then go back? Maybe.

If “Going Clear” incites a major change and Miscavige left the building, I would seriously consider rejoining the religion that has given me so much real and lasting gains. Not just to complete my OT levels, but for many other reasons, I hope that the movie affects the church in a positive way. Hubbard’s technology deserves it.

Update (2015-04-02): Now that the first of April has passed into the second of April, I can reveal that this was indeed my April Fool’s joke. I am not rejoining anything. Hubbard is not rumored to having returned and I have heard of no person considering going back to the cult. The one thing that is true in this blog post is this: It is a blunder of some magnitude that films like “Going Clear”, the book it is based on and just about any other film and book on the subject of Scientology fails to answer the one single question the audience always ask afterward, “Why the heck do people join Scientology and why on Earth do they stay?”

125 thoughts on “In the wake of the movie, “Going Clear”

  1. Yeah, that is what people cannot comprehend: Hubbard actually put together some stuff while trying to solve his own case that actually works for others as well. I think that answer, gains, is what will keep people looking into Scientology, but hopefully outside the church because until DM gets his boot off its neck no one is going to get much from the philosophy.

  2. Was unable to view the movie yet, but read the book. I also was reviewing the wins that I had doing Scientology away from the brouhaha of constantly blogging and arguing about it.

    I did notice one thing about myself while doing this and that is my negative reaction to the fanaticism of true believers. It is off-putting to me and that off-putting tends to make me ignore the good things or useful models that I have used on myself and for others.

    And so I wonder whether with Miscavige out of the picture if the fanaticism can be ever be separated out leaving a calm and useful subject matter that helps without judgement and condemnation?

    I’m inclined to think, “No.” However, I openly review my opinions and attitudes on a continual basis. At least I hope I do.

  3. The product that Scientology really offers that delivers real gains is not often discussed. It’s simple really…

    “People mentoring people and drilling them until they learn a skill at a level that is unconsciously consistent.”

    Nothing magical.

    I once had a pro-bono client who was in the autism band who wanted to get into med school. He had perfect grades but could barely hold a conversation. Hence, he could never get past the interview process required by American Medical Schools.

    I decided this genius wasn’t missing medical school on my watch. He had a clear, passionate goal: to cure Parkinson’s disease. It was all he cared about and lived for. He watched his grandmother waste away from Parkinsons, and by God, he was going to fix that shit!

    Cue family friend …

    So we drilled the interview. Over and over. I coached him on his presence, his eye contact, the way he walked into a room. The way he shook hands. How he answered questions. How to ask questions when given information.

    I lined up people to for him to interview him like they were doctors scrutinizing him on why he should gain admission. After a month, his parents raved that I changed their son. That he could communicate with them in ways he never could before. They insisted on paying me even when I refused to accept.

    He got 5 offers for med schools. The previous year, he got 0.

    Parkinsons is now about to get its ass kicked.

    The point is simple. To REALLY learn a life skill, the most effective way is through a coach who drills you over and over while pointing out details and improvements in real time and getting you used to doing it right, and helping you FEEL what “right” FEELS like.

    And often you don’t need an expert, just a person who cares enough to not give up on you.

    THAT is the best part of Scientology’s early coursework: twins and supervisors.

    But sadly, in Scientology after that marvelous honeymoon phase, a shift occurs … toward a dark and certain place away from “what’s true for you” toward, “we will keep you clearing words until what is true for us is true for you ON YOUR OWN DECLARATION.”

    … until …

    “Scientology is what’s true for me! It FEELS right!”


      “But sadly, in Scientology after that marvelous honeymoon phase, a shift occurs … toward a dark and certain place away from “what’s true for you” toward, “we will keep you clearing words AND GIVE YOU HUMAN LOVE LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER FELT BEFORE until what is true for us is true for you ON YOUR OWN DECLARATION.”

      1. Thanks. It’s one of the good points of my life. But the point here is that ANY reasonably educated person coaching another will always get better results than a person learning something on their own.

        That said, a bad coach often beats no coach at all.

        THAT is what makes Scientology so effective in the beginning courses like the com course H.A.S. and HQS (IMHO since I have never taken them). It’s PEOPLE changing PEOPLE.

        It’s helping someone DO something that has immediate feedback as to its success or failure and providing that feedback in a useful way, be it making a basketball go through a hoop or how to shake hands look someone in the eye and put them at ease.


        Learning how to communicate with a person coaching you on how to communicate and not take things personally (Bullbait) and then later with an emotional intelligence (Tone Scale Drill) produces a BETTER human communicator.

        Auditing is about a person holding another one accountable to a process to attain an expected outcome.

        I got all this by watching “A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard” and other sources.

        I’m admittedly no expert on Scientology.

        But, as Hardeep says, “Right when I say ‘I accept this fully’ there is this right turn down bizarre.”

  4. I would stay away from the flawed philosophy of Scientology.

    I have nothing against the drilling technology of Scientology. It works fine with right materials. I use it in teaching mathematics.

  5. Wow, impressive post, Geir.

    Yesterday, the South African blog had a blog post about the *Going Clear* documentary and asked the posters what positive effects they think will occur. I thought it over and will repeat here that the more I think about it, the more hopeful I get.

    I felt the film did a very good job of exposing the heavy indoctrination and violations of human rights going on in the church, as well as the harassment and attacks of anyone who doesn’t toe the party line or is critical in any way – including the media on the point of criticism. And now, because the film has done such a thorough exposé – and gotten away with it – the fear of retaliation should be far less for individuals and for the media as well.

    The church’s recent harebrained and vicious attempts at damage control have only made them look worse. I can now picture an increasing public outcry and the authorities being forced to get involved and sooner or later investigating Miscavige – and “the rest will be history”. Yesterday, I thought that might be a bit too optimistic of me, but I see a record has been set for the number of people who watched the film – 1.7 million – on just the first showing Sunday night (see ) – and there will be many more HBO showings apparently.

    Your post made me even more optimistic. You wrote: “Never have I had such a wide range of discussions going on this subject – from those that saw the movie, put down the cans and walked right out in the middle of OT 7 to those considering rejoining. Incredible.

    That was amazing to read – yet it stands to reason. And I imagine the film will be enough to edge others past the “make-break point” (lol). Thanks for the data and your views!

    1. To add to my view here; if LRH returns (as is rumored to already have happened – a 4 year old daughter of a Sea Org couple at FLAG), I would rejoin.

          1. Geir, as a freelance OSA spy, I still have some pull.

            So, anyway, here’s the deal. I let Flag know you would come back and make a large donation to the IAS if you can meet the little girl.

            Guess what? They found her and have loosed the registrars!

            As a teaser, I’m authorized to give you this free image of LRH. You can shoop him/her anywhere you want as soon as you are cleared to do so by COB!

            Anyway, they will be knocking on your door at 3 AM with an envelope for your upcoming donation and the clearance for the image. Now, if you donate over 300 grand, you get a framed pair of the exact Underwear worn by Tom Cruise in the turtleneck video.

            It will hang nicely in you den.

            You’re welcome.

            Much love.

            1. LOL!

              The jury is out – until Geir steps up to the plate – as to who is the most creative on this April Fool’s Day of 2015.

              Geir? You’re about to get a flunk for comm lag. 😀

          1. Hmmm. That might just be a good “no-answer” drill. If so – pass!

            So let me be more explicit. Is anything you’ve written today just a put on? If so, 😛 !

      1. This talk of reincarnation is just kool-aid.

        The identity, even as a thetan, does not continue beyond death. But atoms, molecules and bits of awareness associated with them do continue.

        1. This is arguable. The traditional view in many teachings is that a person is composed of 3 “bodies”. There is his physical body and associated mental levels, there is the “subtle body”, and there is the “causal body”. These also correspond to different levels of consciousness.

          Nowhere is it held, except perhaps in your mind, that these “bodies” all die, dissolve, or pass away at the same time.
          In some traditions and teachings, it is held that the purpose of self-development work is to build up the longer lasting aspects of a person which will last much longer than the common physical body.

          1. It was an April Fools joke Val. Geir said so on Facebook.

            I thought so after I finally remembered the date. Why? Because if I was DM, my reincarnated LRH would be old enough to “author” new technology and smart enough to take a juicy contract for content creation but no actual control, authority or e.

            DM needs an L. Ron Bot NOW not in 15 years.

            1. OK, but my comment was a reply to Vin’s insistent that there is no “identity” that survives bodily death. I don’t think that is necessarily true.

            2. Google is your friend. For example,

              It depends on how you define “proof”. Of course in “science” the way some people define it, all this kind of stuff is “anecdotal”. Who cares? It is equally true that “reincarnation” has not been “disproven”. Again, so what and who cares? It’s all just a passtime, stuff to talk about on blogs and at Starbucks.

              Stories about “ghosts” and stories of children who seem to recall having lived before abound, as well as Buddhist and hindu doctrine and teachings. What’s to “prove”? In fact if existence is based on “postulates”, anything is possible and nothing much can be “disproven”. One person may dissolve at bodily death, another may survive for a thousand years as a subtle body or causal body. What’s true for Vin(or you), is true for Vin(or you) – not necessarily for anyone else.

            3. Geir: “No proof has been offered to support that theory.”

              It is a hypothesis at this stage and not a theory. Per the steps of the Scientific method, one may now predict consequences that may follow from this hypothesis and check for the opposite of each consequence to disprove the conjecture.

              According to this hypothesis, a person does not persist as a unit (called soul) after death. The opposite of this would be that a person does persist as a unit after death. Since this opposite has not been proven objectively, the hypothesis stands.

            4. Atoms and molecules may have “identities” on a very basic level. But that is very different from the identity of a body configuration. The identity of the body does not survive.

              Similarly, the motion associated with atoms and molecules may point to awareness on a very basic level. That awareness is very different from the awareness of the individual or individuality. The awareness termed “individuality” is a configuration that does not survive.

              Thetan is a very vague concept in Scientology that can be moulded to suit various purposes of vague speculations.

          2. In my view those traditions are human-centric. I plan to write a primer on the subject of awareness and self.

            Awareness and self have a parallel in motion and inertia.

    2. Anyway, for those who haven’t seen the film yet, there was also a downside to it in that Scientology as a practice was made out to be nothing but a tool for mind control, and LRH couldn’t have been painted much blacker. In the depiction of what Scientology is about and what auditing consists of, there was a certain amount of straight-out falsehood (although not as much as there might have been), such as repeating more than once that the OT III story is Scientology’s creation myth.

      If you can believe it, Lawrence Wright was the one chosen to describe Scientology and auditing – although he himself has never had any auditing or been in Scientology. He did a fairly good job, considering, but his description was still somewhat inaccurate and misleading. I watched a youtube vid of Sara Goldberg, an OT VIII who was featured in the film, where she gave auditing its due. That was in an interview on some news show where she was asked what auditing consists of and also what Scientology is – it would have been great to have had all that in the film.

      The other main flunk of the film would be for not getting the other side of the story(ies) about LRH so as to have a more balanced view of the founder himself- as there do exist people who knew LRH, saw his better moments, and would have cast him in a different light overall – Dan Koon would be one, from what I’ve seen of his posts.

      Also, some of the “facts” reported about LRH have not been proven and are not indisputable, but that wasn’t even acknowledged. However, what can we expect when the people interviewed had such bad experiences and are now very sour on the subject. Sara Goldberg was probably the only exception. She stole the show, IMO. It ended with her, in effect, representing Scientology – for all intents and purposes, since she is an OT VIII – and she did so in a way that couldn’t have been better. What a beautiful being, and the film ending was truly poignant.

      Still, there are many disgruntled people, like Paul Haggis, as a prime example – who, as a celebrity, should have been watched over more carefully by the higher-ups. He is an example of why I always go back to my conclusion that where scientology failed was in inadequate training – of both the public and the delivery terminals.

      But in addition, it’s probably more true than I thought that scientology isn’t for everybody. Per his own description, Paul Haggis’ ruin at the start was his marriage. He should have been helped with that and only encouraged to continue if he had exhibited a more or less self-determined reach for other services. Thus, rather than inadequate training, the actual root of where LRH got it wrong may well have been his emphasis on push, push, push in all the various ways – one of which was that people were pushed to continue when Scientology may not have been the right path for them.

      Actually, LRH did say “If they’re going to leave, let them leave fast”, so there again, the tech/admin was misapplied – par for the course. But still, the push push push, basically on stats, was possibly the primary downfall of the whole movement. Nevertheless, I think scientology will not be entirely lost – and it will continue to be a good path for some people, along with other paths.

      1. p.d. I forgot to comment on the first outpoint of the film that hit me – which was that no one in OR out of the church who feels they got lasting gains was interviewed. Geir should have been in it, damn it! 🙂

        Nor did they even comment on the fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who still practice Scientology, or offshoots of it, as independents/freezoners – going back to decades ago with Ron’s Org and others in the freezone. And yet, Lawrence Wright claimed he started his quest because of being interested in Scientology itself. Strange.

        1. Well, if that’s true, then good for you for discerning LRH’s genius in employing it. 😀

          Got to go out for a while. Talk to you all later.

        1. Thanks, Val. I watched the interview – it couldn’t have been better. Wow, Marty came across so different than he does on his blog. He was rather mellow and philosophical, whereas on his blog he often comes off as a hothead. Anyway, on this interview he did nicely validate auditing in his description of it – and it would have been great to have that in the film “Going Clear”. In any case, I think Marty is right that the film will serve its purpose to put a stop, or at least put on the brakes, to the current power of the church to keep people and the media in fear of speaking out. Something can be done about it. 🙂

  6. MARILDI: “Still, there are many disgruntled people, like Paul Haggis, as a prime example – who, as a celebrity, should have been watched over more carefully by the higher-ups.”

    “Watched over more carefully” in what way and for what purposes?

    1. From my experience, the celebrities were generally treated with more care, i.e. more standard tech. Even with word clearing, I saw this firsthand. The celeb student’s indicators were watched carefully by the RTC reps and they were given successful tech correction for any bad indicators.

      Marty Rathbun, per his own testimony, handled the big celebs that way – namely, Tom Cruise and John Travolta. But that was at higher levels of the organization – either at Flag or at Int – and Haggis may only have had services at AOLA.

      From what he stated on the film, Haggis was quite BI’s all along, or at least from the point of OT III on. That should have been caught and either handled or, as I commented above, he should not have been pushed on. There’s even a policy about “sources of trouble” where it is stated that a person who is not interested in knowingness OR auditing should not be accepted. Period.

  7. “Why the heck do people join Scientology and why on Earth do they stay?”

    what’s your answer?

    mine is it’s a big bag of tricks, the scientology academy is similar to college, it’s positive reinforcement, like training dogs

    teach you a trick, hand it a treat (a certificate, access to another level), they gather around you, ask for a speech, then applause and praise

    keep repeating that, patting on the back and head, it doesn’t matter what the tricks are, the dog that gets praised feels superior, he believes he’s better than the other dogs, he’s special

    and as far as gaining special powers, what are the rules? you can’t display special powers, you also can’t display any weakness… you can’t talk about your case, you can’t talk about the technology, there’s nothing allowed that might cause any doubt, it’s a propped up reality inside, there’s no room for doubts in the land of make believe, fake it or gtfo

    1. That is the answer provided by the film and similar books. But it fails to answer the question – simply because so many viewers come out with that question unanswered.

  8. Everything in Scientology has been designed to create addiction and your post indicates me you are not fully free of that addiction. Count the number of times the name “Hubbard” appears on things, even things not his. “hubbard emeter”, “hubbard” on every bulletin written by others too. He worked hard to tie your loyalty and survival to his. Up to the point that after you know what you know you would still consider to go back if he comes back… The implant that every good thing that happens to you is because of scientology and every bad is because of you or your failure to apply scientology it is also by design, it is another part of the trap. And yet another piece of the trap are the exaggerated claims of “OT”. These toxic things are enough for me to discard the subject. You had wins but don’t get stuck in them. Suggested reading: Idenics, chapter 13, “What people get stuck with”. Read it and then try to apply it to Scientology. You will clearly see that everything in Scientology is designed to entrap, get people stuck in it.

  9. I haven’t talked about SCN in a while. But it’s a nice thought that the COS will ever practice what it peaches adequately, and maybe together with Hubbard too, as he is a thetan and not a body, according to SCN itself. Then I will go for a hug and laugh about stupid ol’ times.

    1. Once upon a time there was a tavern
      Where we used to raise a glass or two
      Remember how we laughed away the hours
      And dreamed of all the great things we would do

      Those were the days my friend
      We thought they’d never end
      We’d sing and dance forever and a day
      We’d live the life we choose
      We’d fight and never lose
      For we were young and sure to have our way.
      La la la la…

      Then the busy years went rushing by us
      We lost our starry notions on the way
      If by chance I’d see you in the tavern
      We’d smile at one another and we’d say

      Those were the days my friend
      We thought they’d never end
      We’d sing and dance forever and a day
      We’d live the life we choose
      We’d fight and never lose
      Those were the days, oh yes those were the days
      La la la la…

      Just tonight I stood before the tavern
      Nothing seemed the way it used to be
      In the glass I saw a strange reflection
      Was that lonely woman really me

      Those were the days my friend
      We thought they’d never end
      We’d sing and dance forever and a day
      We’d live the life we choose
      We’d fight and never lose
      Those were the days, oh yes those were the days
      La la la la…

      Through the door there came familiar laughter
      I saw your face and heard you call my name
      Oh my friend we’re older but no wiser
      For in our hearts the dreams are still the same

      Those were the days my friend
      We thought they’d never end
      We’d sing and dance forever and a day
      We’d live the life we choose
      We’d fight and never lose
      Those were the days, oh yes those were the days
      La la la la…

      1. 🙂 Very nostalgic.

        I watched recently a speech by Dalai Lama who -by-the-way declared he is the last leader, because what Buddhist seek, is intact inside them. He said don’t wait for Buddha to save you etc, do it yourselves. That’s what he told us to do.

        Still such a reunion would be a nice scene, huh?

        1. Yeah, nostalgic. You put me there. 😛

          Wow, quite a statement from the Dalai Lama. Of course, you and I already knew that. 😀

          And yes! Such a reunion would indeed be a nice scene. It’s even nice having this ol’ times “reunion”, all of us at Geir’s place. 😉

          1. I didn’t know that I knew. But I wasn’t surprised either. I was glad to read that by him. I really like the guy. And he keeps saying he is just a monk, like others 🙂

            All of us at Geir’s. That would be funny 🙂

            How about all of us outside MEST? I feel it’s not that far to travel to.

            1. Right. All kidding aside, the Dalai Lama is awesome.

              Now you’re reminding me of something Tom Campbell said that was also surprising. Here he is, the expert on OOB experiences, but he said in one of his lectures: Don’t be concerned about getting out of your body – just get INTO your consciousness. Nice, huh?

            2. Yes, I meant it that I like him. But I also meant it about the spiritual reunion.

              About the OOB: I think that’s what I do, if his words mean what I think.

            3. I do too. I joke about it and say I go exterior – with full (body) perception (ha ha). But I mean it. 😉

              Yes, of course you meant that you like the Dalai Lama. Me too.

              About the spiritual reunion, you know Monte who posts on Marty’s – he and I had a spiritual reunion one day. At least that’s what he told me in a comment he posted later that day. 🙂

            4. Okay, see y’all in my dreams. I’m off to dreamland. 😛

  10. I’ve risen from the ashes like a Phoenix…

    Hello Geir and all you marvelous posters! I’ve not commented on this site for quite a while. I saw “Going Clear” and like most of you, already know most of those stories, but I wanted to come back and post some thoughts.

    I am an ex-Scientologist. I have been an ex-boyfriend, an ex-husband, and an ex-many other things as well. But I must confess, I simply can’t stop being an ex-Scientologist. I am addicted to it and consumed with it.

    I so associate myself with Geir, as his story is so similar to mine. I got great wins and great gains from Scientology. Changed my life and it was amazing. But as I was doing my auditing, I knew something inside that Paul Haggis mentioned in the movie. I knew I was a “bad” Scientologist. I knew it. I got wins and gains, and I saw the bullshitness but dealt with it because of the good. Although going to the top of the bridge was my new life’s purpose, I knew inside I wouldn’t get there. Simply because I couldn’t toe the line and do and be what the church wanted me to do and be.

    Anyway, I tried to move away and move on from being an ex-Scientologist. Tried to just not be obsessed with it and not be an ex anymore. And truth is, I can’t. I read about it every day. Can’t get enough of it. So I have realized that I’m an addict. Addicted to being an ex-Scientologist.

    Truth is, if it wasn’t for the crazy side of the church, I would still be in. When Mike Rinder said the auditing was Euphoric, I said “exactly.” So why did I get in? To handle a ruin like everyone else. Why did I stay, and more importantly, put up with what I knew was wrong? Because of the Euphoria of coming out of session.

    So I decided to stop fighting the desire to read and comment on Scientology. I flunked, I lost and I can’t move on from it.

    I loved Geir’s April Fools Day yesterday, and I laughed out loud, because I have often said I would audit again if all the craziness went away. At least I think I would.

    So I decided to get back and communicate with all of you other like minded “exes” and confess I failed in trying to not be so consumed by reading about it every day. I have been able to easily move on from every other “ex” I am, but I can’t do this one. What does that say about my wins in Scientology.

    The Church is crazy, and I would not ever go back into it. But if I had to go back and do it all over again I would. I love who I am now, not who I was before.

    All my best to all of you who are so brilliant in your writings. Glad to be back on here and caving to my addiction.

      1. Thank you Geir, and it should really be “Welcome BACK”. I’ve been here before but now I’m here to stay 🙂

    1. I think you may be “addicred” to truth. To the extent scientology points to truth, you will always be addicted to it to some extent.

      1. Well said. If only Scientology was and is what we all thought it was going to be – and remained that way. Wow. There would be no exes I suppose

    2. A problem I have encountered and contributed in is ‘Scientology’ as an abstract thing. I mean I don’t know what it means. Is it Hubbard’s stuff? Is it all the members? Are all members evil money-makers who brainwash themselves? Same stands for ‘Christianity’ and ‘Atheism’ as well as so many other things. Nobody likes to be called something that he is not. Kinda like when somebody who has overts, puts you to handle the charge of your own overts (I’m sure that’s an experience many of us share). Anyway, I just wanted to say that, because I have been wrong in that respect. I don’t want to wind up like some careless people who -in order to destroy I-don’t-know-what, to be honest- attack all those who are involved with it by any means. That’s not OK. I don’t feel harmed, but still it’s irrational. The people in the Church work for free, and mos of them for a cause they believe to be good –to save people. Whether one agrees that it is actual help or not, it should be taken into consideration.

      1. And…yes, Hubbard too did what he did until 1986. It’s 2015 now. Does it make sense to you that Scientology exists so that Hubbard will be rich? Or that somebody who would profit from SCN even by breaking up couples, long friendships, bullying staff etc, would do it because of Hubbard? Sounds like bed-time stories for kids, to me. I would expect from somebody who indeed profits from SCN to generate such BS to cover his own. Just sayin

  11. ‘Why the heck do people join scientology and why on Earth do they stay?’

    Its view here is: because Life is basically undivided. Whole. When it is in the conscious awareness
    of a person, one is where one is in a present time moment. Having a gain is realizing a bit of
    one’s true nature: no-thing and life-force-flow. It is one’s own life-force flow because of which one
    stays and it is that pulls one back. Only theta has the ability to stay motionless and create motion.
    When one realizes and practices this truth, one is where one is, neither in nor out.

    The goal of scientology is the BEINGness of MAN. Full self-realization.. Spirit-mind-body in conscious
    harmony. Its basic practice is communication. When one can communicate in present time, that is
    consciously be, create and respond, one is at Source and on Earth at the same time. One is at
    the source of creation and at the creation, one is spirit and two feet on the ground of Earth.
    ‘Home’ is where one is. The division between the spiritual and the mest universe has disappeared.

    One joines to improve one’s communicative ability in a certain area of life and stays until one feels
    that one is and will be able to practice this ability in each and every area of life which is a continuous
    process, a continuous creative and responsive ability.

  12. I put here what communication is:

    Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point
    across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into BEing at the receipt-point a
    DUPLICATION and UNDERSTANDING of THAT which emanated from source-point.

    Duplication is the act of reproducing something exactly. Emanated means ‘came forth’.

    In my view, Source ( out of which life-forms are being created on life-force-flows using thoughts
    in assistance to create) has the intention with a human being to consciously realize that one also
    has that ability to create one’s beingness and understand how other life-forms are created and
    what they are by practising communication.

  13. I kind of believed you until you said ‘what if Hubbard returns’ then I burst out laughing.
    I actually didn’t know anyone else did April Fools Day, thought it was just an English thing.

  14. I told someone just today on the phone that Geir Isene said that he would go back to the Church of Scientology if David Miscavige left.

    Then I log in to say “BUT! BUT!” and I see you were just playing a cruel joke on me.

    Nordic Bastard. 🙂


  15. Happy Easter everybody.

    And for some good chuckles, have a look at the Saturday Night Live parody of the *Going Clear* film:

  16. You got me fooled, too. We Guatemalans don’t celebrate April Fool’s Day, but we celebrate Innocents’ Day on December 28th, when we’re out to fool people. By the way (and ironically), one day after, Dec. 29th, we celebrate the anniversary of the signing of peace accords and the end of our civil war (maybe that’s why we Guatemalans feel like we’ve been fooled). But be warned: don’t believe anything I say in Dec. 28th. Everything I say any other day is totally true.

    Why do people stay in Scientology? Tough question. But it reminds me of Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, his experiment with a UFO cult back in the 1950s, and, above all, the effort justification bias. According to this bias, when people put a lot of effort, time and/or money in something so demanding like Scientology, they need to justify (to themselves and to others) that huge amount of resources invested. They do so by reinforcing their beliefs. That’s why devoted Scientologists keep on saying and thinking things like: “Scientology is the best thing that happened to me! To the universe! Ever!” But the reasoning behind is: “It has to be the best thing ever. I’ve devoted my life and my money to it, and finding otherwise would be unbearable”. And this could be a reason, among others, why people stay in.

    Now, this doesn’t mean there are no gains in Scientology. Questionable or not, there are. And of course they play a role in the correct reinforcement of people’s belief in it. But this doesn’t change the fact that Scientology is a pseudo-scientific theory, a manipulative organization and a deceitful movement, created and run by two megalomaniac, abusive leaders (Hubbard and Miscavige). And I think all this outweighs by far the positive aspects Scientology may have. And not seeing this has to be the product of seclusion, misinformation or bias.

    By the way, it’s true. Hubbard has reincarnated as a girl who’s four years old right now. I’m not joking. They say her name is Carrie. There’s even a prophecy that says that, when she becomes a teenager, in her prom night, she will receive a bath of pig’s blood, get pissed off and destroy the whole town with her astounding OT powers.

    1. Hi Hypertexta,

      Even Marty Rathbun – who has convinced many people of the negatives in scientology – made some surprisingly favorable comments about the tech in a recent interview about the *Going Clear* film.

      He started out by describing auditing as being the same workable, client-centered therapy as what Carl Rogers and Sigmund Freud had been doing – but that the e-meter gave the practitioner a more precise way to guide the client.

      Later on in the interview, he was asked about his efforts in the past to reform scientology, and his response was to say (paraphrasing it) that at a certain point along the way he noticed the behavior patterns of scientologists were the same outside the church as inside. He then explained his view of why that is the case – and also indicated that all that what was needed for the subject of scientology to become viable(!) (yes – he said it could be “viable”) was for scientologists to “integrate, evolve and transcend”.

      He wrote a blog post a while back about those 3 necessary additions, and the basic idea I got was that together with the tech one would need to keep up with evolving knowledge and integrate it into scientology practices and thus transcend beyond scientology’s ceiling.

      This may be his best interview yet, in terms of indicating where he stands on the tech – and on Hubbard, Miscavige and the church. Pretty succinct too.

      1. Hi, Marildi. Thanks for your comment and the vid. You’re right: it’s a great interview. Besides, I like Vice’s work.

        You know, I feel nothing but a deep respect for people like Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder and other ex-Scientologists who dared to stand up and speak up. I admire their courage and sympathise with their stories. But when they speak about reforming Scientology and reviving the Tech, that’s where I draw the line. Rathbun, Rinder and others left Scientology because of Miscavige’s tyranny. I left Scientology because of Scientology itself. While they still regard themselves as Scientologists, I see Scientology as pseudo-science, flawed since its very origin: LRH. Thus, I don’t see it viable or susceptible to reform. But I respect their right to believe in it and to endeavor the changes they see fit.

        About “Going Clear”, I loved the production (I haven’t read the book). I think it’s a great movie for the general public. I mean, for people who don’t know anything about Scientology and its inner complexities. But I’m afraid it hasn’t much to offer to people like us, who are more familiar with the subject and know already most of the people and the stories portrayed in it. But it’s still a great movie.

        Thanks again.

        1. Hi again Hypertexta,

          I hope I didn’t give you the idea that Marty (or Mike, for that matter) has any interest in reforming scientology, because even the little bit he said about that in the interview (plus a lot more on his blog) I got that this is not the case. I believe he was referring to others who might have that interest and was simply giving his opinion of what it would take to make it viable. Actually, I was surprised that he was even that positive about it, since he’s almost always pointing out the potential for negative.

          It’s true that a lot of people had negative experiences with the tech, and I’m sorry a nice guy like you was one of them. Not that everybody needs to do scientology, but even now there are auditors and groups around the planet whose pcs are quite happy with their results – because the tech they practice is different from what is done in the CoS. In any case, everyone has their own path to walk, and I’m sure you’ll do fine. 🙂

          1. Don’t worry, Marildi. You didn’t give me that idea. I guess it was me who emphasised that reform part unnecessarily. My sole point is that I don’t believe in Scientology or the Tech, while Rathbun, Rinder and others apparently still do, and that I, accordingly, don’t see them viable (or reformable, for that matter). That’s it. Thanks again.

            1. Hypertexta, I would say that at best Rathbun and Rinder are okay with OTHER people practicing the tech if that’s what they want to do. But neither of them is interested in it for themselves any more. Marty even said recently that he is “so done with scientology”. And I get from Mike’s blog posts and comments that he feels the same way, even though he started out with the purpose of his blog being a place where people in the church, or those newly out, could find out about the independents. But there are other blogs now that do that, and from what I understand there are thousands of independent scientologists.

              Anyway, I got your point too. No problem. Talk to you next time. 🙂

            2. It is interesting to noe that the people who dicuss scientology most freely tend top move away from the subject.

            3. Per my observations, Geir, there may be truth to what you say but at the same time divergent reasons for it. Some former Scientologists never experienced the benefits of basic/core Scientology – or else they had the cult experience as well, which varied from annoying to atrocious. It’s easy to understand why people who had an atrocious or even unhappy experience would move away from the subject, especially with their being able to sort it all out by discussion. The same for people who didn’t have much benefit – if any.

              It has been harder for me to understand the ones who did have an overall good experience, including personal gains, but who gradually, over time, got to the point where they now deny the gains they had or, at best, conclude that those gains were only temporary. But I think I have a better understanding of that at this point.

              Marty’s blog has some of the most clear-cut examples of it. When Marty was pro-Scn, so were many of his posters – and they described their gains in concrete and heartfelt ways. Their response to the critics who were saying that any gains are only temporary was to say that the positive changes they had gotten were still there for them – even after a quite a few years, in some cases. But a year or two later, after Marty had become a “convincing” critic, if you look at their posts you would see that they now agreed that any gains they had gotten were not permanent – IF they admit to even having had any in the first place.

              Not that Marty (or you) doesn’t have some legitimate criticism about the potential pitfalls of scientology as a practice. But separate from that, I would say that many people have gradually become “indoctrinated” by critics in general, to a whole new belief system. One way this is evident is that the same criticisms are repeated from one person to the next – using the same wordings, and without the context surrounding the claim ever having been evaluated or even looked at by the person repeating it. As an example, they repeat a quote of Hubbard’s without ever having looked at the reference themselves to see the context – i.e. they accept the viewpoint “on faith”, just like what they accuse “Scientologists” of doing. In other words, they’ve basically gone from one system of group think to another – and have done so through a sort of hypnotism of the type that they accuse Scientology of effecting.

              A good example of this (in essence) indoctrination, is what I observed of Sylvia Llorens, a former, years-long Flag auditor. As a blog post on Marty’s a couple of years ago, she had written an article about her experiences in trying to apply standard tech after Miscavige had implemented gross out-tech applications – but she also talked about the many good results she had witnessed over the years prior to that. Now I see that her comments, mainly on Mike’s blog, have nothing good to say about the potential of the tech itself.

              So on the surface, it may look like discussion causes people to “move away from the subject”, but I think there are often other elements involved, including the ironic, bandwagon indoctrination – which is cult-like in itself.

              Anyway, discussion has been good for people like me too, who have have done our best to not look at the subject on faith but rather from experience – both our own and that of others – and from as much knowledge as we can gather of the pros and cons. Like Marty, and probably you as well, we too are “about done with Scientology” in terms of sorting out the subject for ourselves, especially through discussion – although maybe with a different conclusion. 🙂

            4. Thanks, Vinnie. You make me think of another conclusion I’ve come to, which is that there’s a sort of bond among former Scientologists, at least those of us who have debated with each other – regardless of how much our views differ.


            5. Great post marildi. There’s no fanatic like an ex-fanatic…. no zealot like an ex-zealot… etc. 🙂

              I seem to recall reading or hearing an LRH segment about a person going from total conviction that “scientology works” to a total conviction that “scientology doesn’t work”.

              It appears that the sense of workability can be in the eye of the beholder.

              I find Wilbur’s concepts helpful to transcend and integrate this kind of dualistic thinking.
              Anyway great post, on a subject that continues to generate more heat than light.

              To be truly free, it seems one must walk away from both the church and the critics, while still retaining the ability to look at both, as well as the basic materials of scientology, in a non-partisan way.

            6. Thanks for the nice ack, Val. 🙂

              You say: “I seem to recall reading or hearing an LRH segment about a person going from total conviction that ‘scientology works’ to a total conviction that ‘scientology doesn’t work’.”

              That would be an interesting reference to take a look at. It could explain a lot. There’s probably certain mechanics involved – maybe to do with “must have / can’t have”. Or with stuck flows / reverse flows. Maybe a PDC lecture.

              Very well said on your last paragraph: “To be truly free, it seems one must walk away from both the church and the critics, while still retaining the ability to look at both, as well as the basic materials of scientology, in a non-partisan way.”

              That is probably one of the biggest areas of gain from “the scientology experience.” I happen to believe we CAN “take it with us”, and that the understandings gained in one lifetime are retained conceptually in the next. That’s good news for everyone who had to learn hard lessons – they probably learned them well!

              And thanks for reminding me about Ken Wilbur again. He is my sister’s favorite, so the two of you have convinced me I should read his book.

  17. The water and oil don’t blend as is the case with science and religion. As soon as the hard core scientologists insist in the asinine assumption that they could, there will be hard core critics not using LRH references to see any context. imo

    1. I recommend Ken Wilbur’s work as helpful in resolving these kind of apparent dualistic contradictions. Try “A Brief History of Everything”.

    2. Hi Rafael,

      A poster on the BIC blog just today posted a long tirade of criticism about scientology and scientologists – and then totally surprised me with this ending:

      “having said all that, you can tell i am no believer in the tech, but i swear i really mean this. if you feel auditing or doing courses helps you get through things, helps you deal with life, then you should keep doing it no matter what anyone else says. science or malarkey or whatever, you should do what you think is good and works for you. not everything that works is known science. the world was round long before we could prove it. “

      I was impressed! 🙂

      But you are right about science and religion not really mixing. This is one aspect of scientology that could be improved upon, and there are definitely people who are working on improvements.

      I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking at with regard to it being a “religion”, but if it’s the OT levels you have in mind, the simple handling might be to R-factor pcs that the data is “true for you if its true for you”- but that otherwise, you can view it as allegory. Either way, my guess is that those levels work because of the aberrative mechanics in the mind that are addressed by means of the narratives. If I remember right, they worked for you yourself, didn’t they?

      1. Dear marildi, you remember well. I had good wins with scientology auditing and training. My point is that the scientific approach currently has been abandoned in favour of a lousy ” religious ” viewpoint and way of handling the tech. It is my opinion that the most honest and productive form of tech delivery would be as the bussines it is in fact. I mean, you pay for a comm course and you get just that or you get your money back.

        1. Hi, Rafa (I like your nickname 🙂 ). Can you be specific as to how you see the tech as currently being handled from a “religious” viewpoint?

          I am convinced LRH made some unique contributions. No doubt at the top of the list would be the systematic auditing processes and procedures that were developed, which are capable of achieving the desired results much more certainly and more swiftly than anything before – or since, as far as I know.

          I happened to watch an interview just today of a woman named Teal Swan, who told about having been taken as a seven-year-old child by a Satanic cult and severely abused and tortured for years. She escaped at the age of 19 and is now a respected spiritual teacher with many followers. In spite of her high spiritual awareness and ability, however, she still suffers from the stimulus-response mind control she had been subjected to as a child.

          In the interview, she gave an example of having been brainwashed not to go into a certain room, by giving her a painful electric shock when she went near the room. The way she learned to cope with pain was to automatically disassociate herself from her body – and to this day, in spite of her high spiritual state, that disassociation mechanism can kick in when she feels pain. She gave a example of one time accidentally touching a hot stove burner and not withdrawing her hand for about two minutes because she had automatically gone “elsewhere” (my wording),

          When I heard that story, I thought to myself – OMG, that woman could be handled with auditing! And, obviously, many people are in similar straits (even though most of them would not be that severe). Incidentally, I got that this Teal Swan has had a lot of psychological counseling, and I imagine it has been helping her. But auditing would more than likely get the job done and do so more certainly and swiftly, as I was saying above.

          So yes, the outpoints in the practices of Scientology should be handled to where the tech is readily available to the many people who could benefit – not just auditing tech, actually, but other tech including communication, study, data series, etc.

          1. Hi marildi

            My view about what you write in the above:

            To introduce any third party’s example into a discussion about the workability of the tech is doomed
            to failure because of the following: when one has any! failed purpose left while studying or auditing,
            it is going to work as a hidden standard and is functioning as a veil through which the person views
            the workability of the tech. The correct tech is: to uncover the failed purpose of the person. Furthermore, that third party can have desirable abilities, features which the person does not yet have and which the tech says can be acquired but the person has not yet had a service which
            would put them into practice in the person’s life.

            1. Hi Marianne! Long time no “talk”. 🙂

              To clarify my point about Teal Swan – it was that even someone like her who has high spiritual ability – and did so even as a child – could benefit from auditing in a way that is more thorough and works faster than psychology or anything else, as far as I know. I haven’t heard about any other practice that can zero in on a specific issue and handle it fully and in a relatively short space of time.

              I’ve seen comments on various blogs by posters who are no longer interested in Scientology at all but admit that if they or a friend were in need of counseling on some matter, they would go find a good auditor. Interesting, isn’t it?

              In any case, I do get your point about uncovering a person’s failed purposes as the specific tech handling for the person to able to see the workability of the tech. This is actually another good example of the precise methods the tech provides of handling any given situation. Nevertheless, I do think it’s possible for some people (depending on the person) to be handled on their doubts or disaffection by simple 2-way comm – which is, after all, the basis of auditing – although general 2-way comm may not be precise enough to handle everybody, obviously.

              Thanks for your input!

          2. Dear marildi, I have read your comm carefully and I guess your optimism about the potential of scientology tech is overestimated. My use of Scare quotes on the word ” religious ” was intended to mean : that the writer intends an opposite sense of the words enclosed in quotes. ( see wikipedia definition ). you ask for specifics about mishandling of scientology tech ( wich are legion ) and I can’t provide them as it is the lesson you teached me ( no name, no photo, no specifics in social networks ). what I can say is that copyrighted religion is a bad idea and the cult to personality of lrh is a worse one.

            1. Rafa, yes, I saw the scare quotes and got that you had some problem with the aspect of “religion” (so-called) in Scientology – and now I see that you do say “copyrighted religion is a bad idea”. That more or less answers my question, but only in a general way – you don’t specify how that is exactly. Does it relate to the tech directly, or what? That’s the topic I was on – the tech.

              Please be more specific so I don’t have to keep asking you to explain what you mean. I don’t want to have to pull every word, one by one, out of your mouth. Mercy! 😉

            2. Dear marildi, I will focus on the topic you are on. The tech has very good parts and some bad ones ( which are numerous to list on each type ). When I told you that the scientific approach currently has been abandoned, it is so done due to a condescending attitude towards the quality of the delivery so the org can earn more with less job, just like it happened once and again as described by lrh in ksw # 1, and then it comes the justification that it is a religious activity out of the reach of civil and penal laws.

            3. Thanks, Rafa. Your post above was perfectly clear. I should have made myself more clear in that I wasn’t talking about the “tech” the CoS practices. You are absolutely right in what you say about it. Outside the church, people are having wonderful wins from all I hear about it. Muchas gracias for the comm. 🙂

            4. marildi, gracias, I guess you’re right. The independent field is a good promise for the future, may be there will be in the future an independent mecca of technical perfection bigger in order of magnitude than fso. In such moment you can be sure rafa will take his next step on the bridge towards total freedom.

            5. Rafa, a new mecca might not come for a very long time, if ever. It may very well be that only independent practitioners will continue to deliver Scientology in the future. If you are serious about wanting to do the Bridge, you can do any and all of it right now – and get far better results at much lower rates than the CoS offers. Contact Trey Lotz in the L.A. area for more info. Trey delivers L’s as well as the whole Bridge. Also, there are freezone sites that list names of auditors all over the planet.

  18. ‘depending on the person’ is an example of not taking full responsibility and in that instant the pure

    energy of the comm line, which is the basic-basic of the tech loses its work-ability…

    in my view-experience ‘Purpose’ is synonymus with Life…thus, a pure comm line can work magic

    as it is in alignment with ‘Purpose’ and its receiver will get this a-liveness and the ‘fail’ (false) is

    thus seen through and gets out of the way…

    1. Well said, Marianne.

      Just to be sure my meaning was clear on the phrase “depending on”, I was using this definition:

      “2. ‘depending on’
      You use depending on to say that something varies according to particular circumstances.

      There are, depending on the individual, a lot of different approaches.
      They cost £20 or £25 depending on the size.”

      So I would agree with you that workability “varies according to particular circumstances”, including a person’s responsibility level.

      You wrote: “thus a pure comm line can work magic”. And Ron wrote a bulletin titled “The Magic of Communication”. Same idea. 🙂

  19. Thanks marildi. ‘ I would agree with you’ comes through as a view’point’ where the ‘point’ is

    creating a ‘belief’, which is: workability “varies according to particular circumstances”. Instead

    my view is: work-ability means the ability to change in accordance with what is being created.

    In my view it equals being responsive, which is response-ability and one is as able to respond

    as much one is in peace and harmony with oneself as Life.

    I have a question, will you answer it : do you see – perceive anyone, anything around you,

    in you, including yourself as a person which is not genuine Life?

    1. Marianne, you wrote: “‘I would agree with you’ comes through as a view ’point’ where the ‘point’ is creating a ‘belief’ which is: workability “varies according to particular circumstances”.

      Not really – I was referring to ordinary 2-way comm as being variable in that way – not auditing.

      You also wrote: “I have a question, will you answer it : do you see – perceive anyone, anything around you, in you, including yourself as a person which is not genuine Life?

      Well, I see people who are being robotic and are “on automatic”, instead of responding as a living being – which, to use your words, would mean being able to respond, rather than RE-act. And to the degree that an auditor does that, the tech is not workable.

      Not sure if I answered your question or get where you are coming from. This exchange between us might be an example of ordinary 2-way comm that isn’t working! 🙂

  20. I have a strange feeling that Sci Church will finally manage to erase “Going Clear” from YouTube. So, I’ve used RealPlayer to download it first. Tommorow, in front of a strong coffee, I’ll watch it carefully. But I prefered to download it first, just in case…:)

  21. 5 minutes ago I finished watch “Going Clear”. I have mixed impressions, I have the feeling that something is not CLEAR at all regarding Scientology and most of all, regarding Sea Org.
    So, I’m an outsider, a non-member, this movie has to be addressed to people like me, to understand the truth. Well…I didn’t entirely.
    First of all, Ron Hubbard was a strange person, with a very unclear biography. Of course, there is an official one, but am I allowed not to believe it?
    I’ll not be surprised if one day classified documents will reveal that Scientology was created as a CIA deep covert operation for mind control and money extortion. It looks like an MKUltra experiment from the 50’s in the mirror. The same ingredients: hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture. More than sure Marjorie Cameron was stoned with LSD during those sexual rituals. Strangely, many interviewed people in this documentary are not very specific about the exact forms of abuse. I found out about Scientology more on this blog than on HBO’s documentary.
    Travolta and Tom Cruise excerpts were really comic. Now I understand why Cruise is there: for money and luxury, definitely! Look at Tom Cruise’s speech: it’s a charade, a grotesque scene, nothing artistic, nothing real, not even a pathetic lie. It’s just a noir-comedy, 100% stupid amateur act.
    John Travolta is even more comical: “The concept of joy is on top”. Really? 🙂
    The lack of the HBO documentary is definitely the omission of focusing on money issues. That’s because money is the key of the entire game. It’s not clear if someone ever tried to seriously investigate the huge money laundering process attached to all that rich and glamor environment. I can fully understand the United States Constitutional Human Rights, but as a person who raised up in a totalitarian regime I have some questions. And the most wanted one for an answer is “Who really protects David Miscavige?”. Because in my opinion he definitely has a top political protection. The second question, maybe more important than the first one is: “Who also benefits from all that influx of money, persons or institutions outside of Scientology Church?”. It’s TOO MUCH MONEY there, way too much!
    Finally, I find Geir’s final observation in the article very decent and full of common sense: “Why on Earth do they stay?” Just hearing Spanky Taylor and it’s more than enough to open your mind: “When you’re in the Organization, all the good things that happens to you is because of Scientology. And everything that isn’t good is your fault”.

    1. When asked myself “Who also benefits from all that influx of money, persons or institutions outside of Scientology Church?” I meant which persons and which institutions who are outside of Scientology Church.

    2. As a conclusion, after watching “Going Clear” I remained with a lot of unanswered questions and the feeling that everything is a mix of fraud and kitsch. And most of all, I’m sure they will never succeed in conquering the world 🙂

    3. “Why on Earth do they stay?” Dragos, if you’ve never experienced giving yourself over completely to a higher power it would be hard to describe. If you have experienced this, then this is like that. We stayed because the conditioning was careful, thorough, and large. Why do Muslims give themselves over to the rank violence of the Islamic State? Why did Nazis and Stalinists give themselves over to such fascist and totalitarian causes? Why do Americans blindly follow the “American Way?” Sometimes we do it because we are courageous. Sometimes we do it because we are not courageous. Commitment is an interesting subject that we could explore.

      1. I’d say that what we’re talking about here, in a nutshell, is an extreme ethno-centric mentality.

        Upstream on this thread Val recommended to me (for about the third time) the works of Ken Wilber and I’ve being reading a little book of his titled *The Integral Vision*. Wilber did an extensive study of world history, belief systems, and many other subjects – including research on the findings of others. What he discovered, along with other great thinkers, was that the evolutionary phases of cultures from the beginning of recorded history to PT have only about half a dozen distinctly different cultural worldviews – and those happen to correspond to the phases of growth of individuals as well, although many people get stuck at a particular level.

        Broadly speaking, the evolution of worldviews – whether cultural or individual – goes from ego-centric, to ethno-centric, to world-centric. And the world today is still primarily in the ethno-centric phase, which is why there is a high preponderance of “us vs. them” thinking and behavior – from cliques to cults to nationalism.

        The good news is that the current trend is toward a more world-centric phase – and none too soon, either, since the world’s big problems, such as terrorism, world economics, climate change, etc, need to be solved on the basis of all nations working together, and can’t be solved in any other way.

  22. It takes one year, just ONE YEAR of mathematical analysis studies (in some countries just one semester), in whatever career that has mathematics on its basics, to realize all the crap Hubbard made with his maybe two years of failed “nuclear scientist” formation that showed up on many of his “researches” and publications (like an influence of pseudoscientific makeup). Take Scientology 8-80 for example, and even all the dictionary definitions like “theta^n”.
    So, as many people were “Mother Teresa”, or had humanistic interest, or they tended to use hermeneutic (unvalid) as a method, or had some vocation as psychologist or coach, one may realize that all those profiles had something in common: they were
    fools at mathematics, along with the general proportions of poor college formation among the recruiters. They were ignorant of exact sciences, of real science, of science’s philosophy and couldn’t handle a bit of it in a real world with real problems.

    And here comes the radical questions along the internet: Why there were many engineers and “intelligent people” that bit the bait? Why people with college formation got trapped? Why people got stuck for too long? Why intelligent people made stupid things?

    Well, for a starter, an engineer is not a scientist. Even being a nerd scientist is not guarantee of a good scientist. The problem has something to do with a general epistemological crisis in western academia, on the need of a complete and efficient philosophy of sciences, on the shadow of commercialized knowledge, the authority and media, as a part of a sistemic social crisis that may include everything about biased thinking and individual stupidity that grows virally.

    If you (any of you reading this) went to college and had some basics on chemistry, physics and mathematics, and you were a kind of “awakened mind” (not a lazy or confused student), you will understand what I am talking about, you will not be offended by my writing and you will understand between the lines. Because here is my answer to that issue about “why people…” about Scientology. It is about a crisis that is used in advantage of the interest of intellectually dishonest people, conmen and gurues, is an endemic crisis even between the academia with people that know better. Scientology is just a part of that as a sistemic emergent phenomenon, maybe is the most efficient mindset structure to suck in people that have important plot-holes about real science conceptions and philosphy of sciences (add good intentions and emotional motivations). To make it simple, think about the Occam razor (as opposite to ad hoc justifications) and the ignorance fallacy as two of all the common attitudes on failed intelligence of random people (despite their moral), combine those two, build something up with it, use 10 examples on the real world. Now you have your mock up about this scenario.

    I will close my comment with some related questions: Why nobel scientists say stupid things? Why the genius stumbles into mad things? Why people that have very good potential and are very good at something, start to degrade themselves and make shit? What are their hidden problems? or more important; Why we back them up and make them famous? Why the rest of us are so blind?

    For a glimpse search the following:
    > The Johari Window.
    > The Nobel Disease.
    > David Dunning and Justin Kruger experiment.

    Example link about Nobel Disease:

    Thanks for reading. This blog and this issue deserved my comment, you deserved it. Now start to cut the crap, for real. Do you even science, bro? don’t talk about what you don’t know, especially if you are not willing to learn because of [“reasons”], and always remember you can make art if science is not for you.

    1. Reading this I am left with the impression that you will classify those who disagree with you on this as stupid. Would that be a fair conclusion? If not, are you open for opposing views?

      1. Well, with that conclusion I am left with the impression that you just respond to my last paragraph. Would that be fair? If not, would you expand on the important things and not just the parts you don’t like on a writing?


        Despite this, my “style” is not directed to you precisely, as I have the preconception that you may know very well everything I am talking about, or maybe you should. I would classify you on the people who have left Scientology and “awoke” inside the deepest levels of involvement. So, on a reverse question, you should know better why people leave Scientology, why people awake no matter how trapped or how “brainwashed” they were, why people realize what Scientology is from the inside. What have they in common? What are the differences with those who don’t? I think you have wrote it all since you started to leaving. What is the most important key about why you realized what you realized and you were not longer in Scientology?
        Intelligence? Personality? education? family? a proper scientific background? a philosophic motivation? That’s my point. This kind of “complex scenarios” can be scientifically studied. And I don’t think “people is stupid” is an answer at all, that would be the perfect strawman that would imply that you don’t understand what I wrote.

        So, I am open to answers and even “reactions”. Opposing views? opposing to what, exactly? The dichotomies are fun, as long as the study object is very well defined. What are we talking about?

        1. Lemondieu, did you know that for most scientists, science is a belief trap – a prison of belief? Here’s why that is true:

Have your say

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s