The Auditor's Code dilemma

Veda

Well-known member
Most of the people that I know and knew in scn are still IN.

I have spoken to very few that are out. I am still thinking about those that are in.

Sometimes these threads look like post mortems of the tech, trying to find a wishy washy middle ground of "Oh no, you can't throw it all away" or something like that. I know that I am on a different experiential arc than most here. Actually, I sometimes feel put off a bit by it. I also know that most of my indigestion is my own fucked-upness, and I am not throwing stones.
When did you join and when did you leave? If that's too personal, just provide the leave date.

People have been leaving Scientology since it began, and before that they were leaving Dianetics. There have been lots of reasons why people have left.

The most common reason is disagreement with the organization. They still think the "tech" is cool, and many still like Hubbard, but they disagree with the people administering the organization,
 

Dotey OT

Totally Freed Customer
When did you join and when did you leave? If that's too personal, just provide the leave date.

People have been leaving Scientology since it began, and before that they were leaving Dianetics. There have been lots of reasons why people have left.

The most common reason is disagreement with the organization. They still think the "tech" is cool, and many still like Hubbard, but they disagree with the people administering the organization,
Joined in 1989 -1990, left late 2016 - 2017.
 

stratty

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
The most common reason is disagreement with the organization. They still think the "tech" is cool, and many still like Hubbard, but they disagree with the people administering the organization,
I don't fall into any of those categories.

Please provide links to the surveys you have referred to that confirm your statement above.
 

F.Bullbait

Wise Guy
Most of the people that I know and knew in scn are still IN.

I have spoken to very few that are out. I am still thinking about those that are in.

Sometimes these threads look like post mortems of the tech, trying to find a wishy washy middle ground of "Oh no, you can't throw it all away" or something like that. I know that I am on a different experiential arc than most here. Actually, I sometimes feel put off a bit by it. I also know that most of my indigestion is my own fucked-upness, and I am not throwing stones.
That's right, no namby-pamby dilettantes playing pattycake should be here, just steely-eyed true believers of "none of it works"... gosh that sounds almost like LRH or perhaps The Anti LRH.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
That's right, no wishy-washy dilettantes should be here, just steely-eyed true believers of "none of it works"... gosh that sounds almost like LRH or perhaps The Anti LRH.

It isn't really about whether it 'works' or not is it? It's about the true cost (in more ways than mere money) of being involved in it.

The real worth of scientology is not just zero, it's minus zero with bells on.

:whistle:
 

Dotey OT

Totally Freed Customer
That's right, no wishy-washy dilettantes should be here, just steely-eyed true believers of "none of it works"... gosh that sounds almost like LRH or perhaps The Anti LRH.
I will admit my inclination is to not give any credit to any writings or whatever of the cult.

It's like we are sitting around going "Checkbooks should be balanced each month!! What a brilliant idea!! What a great idea!!! Checkbooks should be balanced every month!!!! Three cheers to LRH, Hip, Hip Hooray!!" When indeed, double entry bookkeeping has been in place for hundreds of years. I don't know how the exchequer kept balances, I know how it's done now, believe me.

Anti LRH also sounds like Alanzo.
 

stratty

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
"Surveys"? Are you joking?

And, if it's not too personal, when did you get in and when did you leave?
Well, no, I wasn't joking actually. So really it was just an opinion of yours. What you say is probably truer for people who got in post Hubbard's death.

No, it's not too personal, I 'got in' around 1963 as a sixteen year-old, helping in CF at Saint Hill. Joined staff late sixties. Left scientology altogether in 1974.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Well, no, I wasn't joking actually. So really it was just an opinion of yours. What you say is probably truer for people who got in post Hubbard's death.

No, it's not too personal, I 'got in' around 1963 as a sixteen year-old, helping in CF at Saint Hill. Joined staff late sixties. Left scientology altogether in 1974.
Thanks.

It's an observation. There are no surveys of which I know.

But, just for the fun of it, here's a kind of survey:

Were you aware of the July 1977 FBI raids on Scientology when, or shorty after, they happened?

When, or soon after, what is called the "Mission Holders massacre" occurred in late 1982 were you aware of it?

Were you aware of the "schism" of 1983? when, or soon after, it occurred?

More recently, have you followed Mike Rinder's gradual changes starting in 2009? There was a kind of mini schism around that time.

Just trying to get some idea of your experiences.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
When a person is enchanted by Scientology, it's sometimes effective to show that one part of Scientology disagrees with another part of Scientology. That, at least, sometimes, creates an interlude of doubt, which, by itself, even if the person doesn't act on it, will reside in the back of the person's mind until such occasion as the person is motivated to revive, and consider again, that doubt.

Another example would be saying, "Hubbard changed in the 1960s and started doing the reverse of what he said in the 1950s." This, of course, is an over simplification. (Hubbard's self aggrandizing basic motivation was unchanged since the 1930s.) Yet, saying that line can create doubt, while allowing the person to hold onto some part of Scientology.

In the meantime, so the idea goes, the person might separate himself/herself from the organization, where he/she can sort out things over time.

Separating the person from the organization, and its influence, is the objective, rather than having the person reject everything that he has come to believe while being involved with Scientology.

I tend to agree with everything you said, with one exception.

In my experience with self and others, it seems rather obvious that it is the QUANTITY not the QUALITY of the exposed Scientology/Hubbard lies and crimes and hypocrisy that allows a person to escape the cult. That's what I meant in an earlier post where I talked about "nuances" not being the driving force.

In Scientology terms, each time a Scientologist "perceives" an "out point" they begin to accumulate micro-doubts. With enough quantity of exposures to the HOAX, fine-lined fissures begin to develop. The cumulative weight of reality begins to gain traction at some point by reason of the sheer volume of contradictions, fraudulent claims and startling lack of proof for any of the audacious guarantees Hubbard made to sell his magical powers.

It begins to dawn on the Scientologist that they themselves and others around them are still ordinary "homo sapiens" with no supernatural powers of any kind. This is the "global warming effect" that breaks up ten-mile deep glaciers, into smaller icebergs.

If I may switch the analogy, if this was a war before nuclear weapons were invented, one of the best ways to break down the enemy was to drop bombs on their chief manufacturing cities, in order to destroy munitions factories, oil processing plants, tank building facilities, and mining transport trains so they couldn't manufacture rifles and bullets any longer. Bomb after bomb, their "resistance" was incrementally weakened. During WW II, it was discovered that even dropping tens of millions of tons of conventional bombs was not enough, so they tried a new tactic which had devastating effects. Incendiary bombs. Now the results of one bomb alone was to create a fire and the fire which could further the destruction. Eventually all the tens of thousands of small fires merged into one horrifying city-wide FIRESTORM which fed itself with 100 mph winds and worse.

I am of a mind that the fierce CLINGING and RESISTANCE a Scientologist has to letting go of a hoax can best be solved with a quietly efficient bombardment of incendiary debunkings. That's why I almost NEVER bother to waste time to discuss the "workable" parts of the hoax. By my estimation, that is almost a function of statistic probability when anyone writes/speaks 10 million words---that there is bound to be some tiny percentage that might be right.

I don't know any subtle way of loosening the death-grip crazy glue that welds Scientologists to their miraculous technology.

It's too absurd, really, all those marks sharing their planet-clearing OT wins from the center of their mile wide blind spots. I say, "wake 'em up!", even if it kills their precious F/N's. LOL


.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I tend to agree with everything you said, with one exception.

In my experience with self and others, it seems rather obvious that it is the QUANTITY not the QUALITY of the exposed Scientology/Hubbard lies and crimes and hypocrisy that allows a person to escape the cult. That's what I meant in an earlier post where I talked about "nuances" not being the driving force.

In Scientology terms, each time a Scientologist "perceives" an "out point" they begin to accumulate micro-doubts. With enough quantity of exposures to the HOAX, fine-lined fissures begin to develop. The cumulative weight of reality begins to gain traction at some point by reason of the sheer volume of contradictions, fraudulent claims and startling lack of any of the audacious guarantees Hubbard made to sell magical powers.

It begins to dawn on the Scientologist that they themselves and others around them are still ordinary "homo sapiens" with no supernatural powers of any kind. This is the "global warming effect" that breaks up ten-mile deep glaciers, into smaller icebergs.

If I may switch the analogy, if this was a war before nuclear weapons were invented, one of the best ways to break down the enemy was to drop bombs on their chief manufacturing cities, in order to destroy munitions factories, oil processing plants, tank building facilities, and mining transport trains so they couldn't manufacture rifles and bullets any longer. Bomb after bomb, their "resistance" was incrementally weakened. During WW II, it was discovered that even dropping tens of millions of tons of conventional bombs was not enough, so they tried a new tactic which had devastating effects. Incendiary bombs. Now the results of one bomb alone was to create a fire and the fire which could further the destruction. Eventually all the tens of thousands of small fires merged into one horrifying city-wide FIRESTORM which fed itself with 100 mph winds and worse.

I am of a mind that the fierce CLINGING and RESISTANCE a Scientologist has to letting go of a hoax can best be solved with a quietly efficient bombardment of incendiary debunkings. That's why I almost NEVER bother to waste time to discuss the "workable" parts of the hoax. By my estimation, that is almost a function of statistic probability when anyone writes/speaks 10 million words---that there is bound to be some tiny percentage that might be right.

I don't know any subtle way of loosening the death-grip crazy glue that welds Scientologists to their miraculous technology.

It's too absurd, really, all those marks sharing their planet-clearing OT wins from the center of their mile wide blind spots. I say, "wake 'em up!", even if it kills their precious F/N's. LOL


.
.

A friend of mind (Don) gave permission to reprint one of his quotes that explains what he calls "THE PC PREDICAMENT":


"It's not a dormant BT that is ruining a Scientologist's
life.
It's a dormant PC (themselves)." - L. Don Hubbard


.
 

stratty

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Thanks.

It's an observation. There are no surveys of which I know.

But, just for the fun of it, here's a kind of survey:

Were you aware of the July 1977 FBI raids on Scientology when, or shorty after, they happened?

When, or soon after, what is called the "Mission Holders massacre" occurred in late 1982 were you aware of it?

Were you aware of the "schism" of 1983? when, or soon after, it occurred?

More recently, have you followed Mike Rinder's gradual changes starting in 2009? There was a kind of mini schism around that time.

Just trying to get some idea of your experiences.
I think that would be a general 'No' to all of those. From about 1980 until I joined exscn1 six years ago I barely gave scientology a thought.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

.
But, just for the fun of it, here's a kind of survey:

Were you aware of the July 1977 FBI raids on Scientology when, or shorty after, they happened?
.

A couple years ago I was chatting with the owner of a store I sometimes shop in and there were a couple other customers (who I didn't know) also in the mix. A few moments later the owner had to go back in the store and i was left with one of their customers---who I noticed had a couple slightly "odd" ways of describing things. So, I thought that was kinda interesting and I got them talking a bit more to see what that was all about.

My suspicions were correct, they finally coughed up an English word but used in a Scientology way. Once I heard that, the hunt was on! I was going to quickly assemble their CV without them ever realizing they were being covertly "sec checked". LOL. Naturally, they had no idea whatsoever that they were talking to someone with a rather rich experiential "timetrack" in the subject which they considered themselves to be the authority on.

I played dumb. "Jeez, wow, I think I read something about that book ages ago. Wasn't there some story in the 1970s that someone in Hubbard's life---his wife maybe---that went to prison?"

His eyes lit up with delight, knowing that he would now be able to run "PR AREA CONTROL" and "ACCEPTABLE TRUTH" tech on me without me ever realizing it! LOL

Without a hint of "com lag" he laughed and explained that Mary Sue Hubbard's only mistake was to "borrow a few sheets of copy paper" that was only worth 5 cents or so.

The conversation continued and I learned that they were a player in the Guardian's Office at that time. All of this was off their radar screen and they were "total cause" over the conversation with me, I am sure their success story would later confirm.

Winning! That's what they were, for sure! They had handled a "wog" (me) who had been "black pr'd" on Scientology and the honorable Hubbard family. But they fixed all that.

Perhaps I was now so handled that I was "reaching" for the Bridge, they must have obnosed. Because they asked for my phone number so we could talk another time!

I left with lots of VVGIs and theta flows. As I drove away, I kept searching for a local org or mission where I could stop by to get an after session exam and validate my F/N.

.
 

Veda

Well-known member
I think that would be a general 'No' to all of those. From about 1980 until I joined exscn1 six years ago I barely gave scientology a thought.
Looked over at old ESMB, and it says you limit those who can see your profile, so it's impossible to get a sense of your posting history.

I did say there were lots of reasons why people left.

There are also patterns, but it's fine if you disagree.

In any event, the link at the bottom of all my posts will take you to a lot of information and history, in case you're curious.
 

The Oracle

Not the same Oracle from a decade ago


There are people who have left Scientology because they feel it has violated the Auditor's Code, most often its first point, "Do not evaluate for the preclear," but other points also.

Parts of Scientology, and especially its confidential "upper levels," massively evaluate.

This revives the old question, "Is denouncing every part of Scientology, as all bad, the best way to extricate a person from the labyrinth of Scientology?
If you think about it
Hubbard says never evaluate for the p/c. Then he has the C/ S evaluate. And the Registrar. Don’t forget the MAA.
Hubbard says the Psychs label and Scientology does not.
Then he labels “Degraded Being, SP, PTS, pre clear, ethics particle, lower conditions etc.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
If you think about it
Hubbard says never evaluate for the p/c. Then he has the C/ S evaluate. And the Registrar. Don’t forget the MAA.
Hubbard says the Psychs label and Scientology does not.
Then he labels “Degraded Being, SP, PTS, pre clear, ethics particle, lower conditions etc.
,

LOL!

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST
. . .you claim, Dr. Hubbard, that your science never "evaluates" for
another person. Yet when I went in under-cover and got a tech
estimate, your people evaluated that I was a trillion year old degraded
being who had lost all my magical powers due to the evil "overts"
that I had committed. Then they evaluated that I was in a lower
awareness level below ruin. Then they said that I was in a lower
condition due to my low tone level. They further evaluated that
that all my reactive out-points were due to my out-ethics and all
of that was caused by trillion year old implants which I was not
aware of that could only be found with an e-meter. They they
evaluated that more recent implants forcefully glued alien ghosts
to my mind and soul that have been haunting me lifetime after
lifetime for the past 75 million years. They also evaluated that if
I tried to get rid of these aliens on my own, I would get pneumonia
and die. Then they evaluated how much money I needed to pay
them so they could fix all that. Well, that was only the first day of
evaluations before I started the first course---should I go on?

L. RON HUBBARD
All of the things you described to me were not evaluations!
Those were R-Factors.


,
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
,

LOL!

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST
. . .you claim, Dr. Hubbard, that your science never "evaluates" for
another person. Yet when I went in under-cover and got a tech
estimate, your people evaluated that I was a trillion year old degraded
being who had lost all my magical powers due to the evil "overts"
that I had committed. Then they evaluated that I was in a lower
awareness level below ruin. Then they said that I was in a lower
condition due to my low tone level. They further evaluated that
that all my reactive out-points were due to my out-ethics and all
of that was caused by trillion year old implants which I was not
aware of that could only be found with an e-meter. They they
evaluated that more recent implants forcefully glued alien ghosts
to my mind and soul that have been haunting me lifetime after
lifetime for the past 75 million years. They also evaluated that if
I tried to get rid of these aliens on my own, I would get pneumonia
and die. Then they evaluated how much money I needed to pay
them so they could fix all that. Well, that was only the first day of
evaluations before I started the first course---should I go on?

L. RON HUBBARD
All of the things you described to me were not evaluations!
Those were R-Factors.


,


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

It's true though ... scientology from start (OCA test) to finish (SP declare) is one big fat ugly series of evaluations and they gradually become more and more ridiculous.






 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

It's true though ... scientology from start (OCA test) to finish (SP declare) is one big fat
ugly series of evaluations and they gradually become more and more ridiculous.


We mustn't forget about INVALIDATION too!

example: "Thank you so much for coming into our church today. We just scored your OCA test and unfortunately you are a very badly degraded being who has committed so many overts and evil acts that you lost all your Godlike powers. Now, we don't want to invalidate you, so we are going to give you one final opportunity to demonstrate your miraculous powers which will prove you are not both degraded and evil. Go ahead, we'll just be quiet and watch now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Well that was 5 minutes and you didn't do shit. Like I said, you are quite the degraded being because otherwise you would have demonstrated your super-powers. By all this, we don't mean to invalidate you, we are just concerned how badly you have fucked up your entire existence and it's pretty obvious we think you will agree that you are absolutely clueless and total effect. Don't think of this as invalidation, we are really on your side which is why we keep talking about all of your marvelous powers----that you don't have any longer. But, hey, you had them trillions of years ago before you became a psychotically self-destructive human being instead of being like one of our upper-level OTs. Whadya say, can you just give us $600K or at least sign this billion year contract so you are not such a hideously failed loser?"
.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
We mustn't forget about INVALIDATION too!

example: "Thank you so much for coming into our church today. We just scored your OCA test and unfortunately you are a very badly degraded being who has committed so many overts and evil acts that you lost all your Godlike powers. Now, we don't want to invalidate you, so we are going to give you one final opportunity to demonstrate your miraculous powers which will prove you are not both degraded and evil. Go ahead, we'll just be quiet and watch now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Well that was 5 minutes and you didn't do shit. Like I said, you are quite the degraded being because otherwise you would have demonstrated your super-powers. By all this, we don't mean to invalidate you, we are just concerned how badly you have fucked up your entire existence and it's pretty obvious we think you will agree that you are absolutely clueless and total effect. Don't think of this as invalidation, we are really on your side which is why we keep talking about all. your miraculous powers----that you don't have. But, hey, you had them trillions of years ago before you became a psychotically self-destructive human being instead of being like our OTs. Whadya say, can you just sign this billion year contract so you are not such a hideously failed loser?"
.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Stop it please ... I'm losing it here (with laughter) because that is exactly how the cult tried to make me feel!​
 
Top