Minus brainwashing, with actual origins exposed, is anyhing good left in Scientology?

Riddick

I clap to no man
I 100% agree with what you mentioned. World benchmark of a post.

TRs are minor annoyances (except bullbait, which is actually decent). But study tech is actual torture. I'm being serious and honest - putting kids though Hubbard's study tech should be seen for what it is - child abuse.
I'd say putting one thru TR's are human abuse, LOL.
 

Karakorum

The most just, the most merciful, the most ethical
You do have a point there.

I remember finding Scientology a little fishy right from the start but I still joined. It started with an intro course and after a while I went from "checking Scientology out" to being "in Scientology". From there, within a matter of months I joined staff and "became a Scientologist".

There was a lot of scolding, peer pressure, hard-sell, obvious lying, and badgering involved. I don't find that so much clever as it is more "brutal", "direct", and "crude". Some people wouldn't have put up with that, but I did. That's why I am here now on this board.

Perhaps, others were more cleverly fooled but that wasn't me. The only clever part in my case was the fact that once I bought into all that nonsense, I spent the remainder of my time in the cult brainwashing myself. That certainly was clever.
I would say that it is clever in some ways - I mean you do not get to own all of downtown Clearwater and all that cash if its all a dime-and-nickle confidence game. I think it is clever because it has so many control mechanisms: inner and outer, covert and overt, institutionalized and those that are just in your mind...

It is also one of the rare types of cults which will effectively keep you in even once you no longer believe in any of it.

If you are a Catholic or in the Teal Swan cult and lose your faith you just go: "Bye guys, I'm outta here!". In the same scenario, Scientology would keep you in with disconnection, with having no retirement fund, no social security, no known employment outside the church or businesses ran by scientologists...
I think in this Scientology is more like the Amish or Mormons, only more so.
 

Edwardo

Member
why did you leave?
The actual moment came when I read an article by Haydn James that Marty Rathbun published on his (at the time) excellent website. I liked and respected Haydn, and his devastating essay rang true for me.
Haydn James, Independent Scientologist | www.scientology-cult.com

There were other contributing factors around the same time. It was a couple of months prior to the Debbie Cook letter.
1. There were some other people leaving who had convincing accounts of the horrors they’d experienced.
2. I read Marc Headley’s excellent ‘Blown for Good.’
3. I read Jefferson Hawkins website with its well-laid out points.
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
Minus brainwashing, with actual origins exposed, is anything good left in Scientology?

That old question that keeps cropping up on boards like WWP or this one. It just never seems to die a nice death.

Minus the dictatorship, the holocaust, the world war and the resultant incredible loss of life, and the repercussions of that war (which we are still seeing to this day); Adolf Hitler was kind to animals and was concerned about their welfare.
 

Zertel

Well-known member
In my opinion, when Hubbard stole concepts from others, he completely ruined those concepts because he had to "improve" everything by reducing everything down to a set procedure, an unvarying process, a code, a scale, a chart.

As an example: The perfectly usable "if you don't understand a word, look it up" becomes "You must look up every word you read, in a dictionary, every definition of that word, no matter how obscure, then look up every word in those definitions ... and every word in those definitions ...". Which changed the simple "understand what you are reading" into "nightmare word chain black hole".

Another example: Condition formulas. They were "workable" only in very simple, unique conditions. In real life they didn't work. Hubbard corrupted "Recognize how you are doing and continue good things and remedy bad things" into rote "formulas" that were useless but had to be complied with.

Hubbard could take any useful concept and make it unworkable.
I did the Primary Rundown where I looked up every word in the study course from a to z. I used a Thorndike Barnhart dictionary which had simple definitions and eliminated most word chains. I enjoyed the course and to this day a misunderstood word or symbol rarely escapes my notice. It took a long time to do that course which probably slowed down the gross income from people buying new courses so they trashed it.
 

Bill

Well-known member
I did the Primary Rundown where I looked up every word in the study course from a to z. I used a Thorndike Barnhart dictionary which had simple definitions and eliminated most word chains. I enjoyed the course and to this day a misunderstood word or symbol rarely escapes my notice. It took a long time to do that course which probably slowed down the gross income from people buying new courses so they trashed it.
Yeah, I did the "Primary Rundown" also. It was OK. I especially liked being able to skip all the "star rate checkouts" from then on. ;)
 

pineapple

仮面の男
Minus the dictatorship, the holocaust, the world war and the resultant incredible loss of life, and the repercussions of that war (which we are still seeing to this day); Adolf Hitler was kind to animals and was concerned about their welfare.
Also good with kids.

And he was a better dancer than Churchill and had more hair than Churchill.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Yeah, I did the "Primary Rundown" also. It was OK. I especially liked being able to skip all the "star rate checkouts" from then on. ;)
For me it was doing the Student Hat course, and then being able to skip the star rate checkouts.

Oh what it was relief it was, LOL.

 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I did the Primary Rundown where I looked up every word in the study course from a to z. I used a Thorndike Barnhart dictionary which had simple definitions and eliminated most word chains. I enjoyed the course and to this day a misunderstood word or symbol rarely escapes my notice. It took a long time to do that course which probably slowed down the gross income from people buying new courses so they trashed it.
I'd say 99.9 percent of the worlds population never did the Primary Rundown so you doing it hasn't helped anybody.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Conveying the idea that there is both a positive outer display coating which is ultimately subordinate, and a negative hidden core which is ultimately dominant, is unpopular.

(And, to those vulnerable, perhaps the most impressive aspect of the outer display core is good people. Scientology uses - as in exploits - goodness. Meeting or experiencing one good person can be very convincing.)

It seems that the laws of nature, the mind, and the nervous system, make recognizing both aspects difficult.





This built in disinclination to seeing both aspects is advantageous to Scientology, and a cause for much mischief throughout human history.
 
Conveying the idea that there is both a positive outer display coating which is ultimately subordinate, and a negative hidden core which is ultimately dominant, is unpopular.

(And, to those vulnerable, perhaps the most impressive aspect of the outer display core is good people. Scientology uses - as in exploits - goodness. Meeting or experiencing one good person can be very convincing.)

It seems that the laws of nature, the mind, and the nervous system, make recognizing both aspects difficult.





This built in disinclination to seeing both aspects is advantageous to Scientology, and a cause for much mischief throughout human history.
I think part of the problem is that nothing negative about the organisation or the Tech is ever going to be validated when you are "in", so anyone trying to form an independent point of view about either one has to go up against the full weight of social conformity in order to do it;
quite apart from the additional pressures exerted by the organisation itself.

There was a famous experiment in psychology which involved the subjects guessing the comparative lengths of a set of straight lines, and which found that the majority of the people tested would readily discount the evidence of their own senses if to do otherwise meant disagreeing with the consensus opinion of the other people doing the same thing (particularly when this was unanimous).

 
Last edited:
Top