Because Scientology was a failure. Some people thought they could "fix" it or salvage out some "workable" part.This list is long despite a decades long program to "ruin utterly" those who improvise, reform, and develop the subject further.
The list is long of spin-offs that met with some susccess. The results were not all bad.
Or ... because it was so successful in making lots of $$$ and creating adoration for the founder ... there are wannabe gurus on every street corner these days.Because Scientology was a failure. Some people thought they could "fix" it or salvage out some "workable" part.
I really haven't seen evidence of any notable successes.
Or bothOr ... because it was so successful in making lots of $$$ and creating adoration for the founder ... there are wannabe gurus on every street corner these days.
I think this has all been done before. It's like rekindling a distant memory of how to run a Ponzi scheme. It all comes back to you when the playbook is open again. There's nothing new exists under the sun.This list is long despite a decades long program to "ruin utterly" those who improvise, reform, and develop the subject further.
The list is long of spin-offs that met with some susccess. The results were not all bad.
Because Scientology made money.This list is long despite a decades long program to "ruin utterly" those who improvise, reform, and develop the subject further.
The list is long of spin-offs that met with some susccess. The results were not all bad.
How about this one?Because Scientology was a failure. Some people thought they could "fix" it or salvage out some "workable" part.
I really haven't seen evidence of any notable successes.
It is a derail, but it deserves a response.That's similar to asking why there are so many denominations of Christianity.
(But I don't want to derail the topic of this thread.)
Link to Antecedents to Scientology thread. Scroll down to Israel Regardie's 1937 Middle Pillar quote: "...by endeavoring to expand the horizon of consciousness..."I think this has all been done before. It's like rekindling a distant memory of how to run a Ponzi scheme. It all comes back to you when the playbook is open again. There's nothing new exists under the sun.
Besides, Scientology is a mirror of gnostic religions where adherents all believe in the Fall of the soul. Slogging out of the matrix, methods have been held in common. Same purpose (supposedly) to excavate the soul from its contaminations and illusions of self.
View attachment 14145
This does appear to be a spin off that has attained a level of genuine respectability.How about this one?
Traumatic incident reduction: A suitable technique for South African social work practice settings
It is part of South African social workers’ responsibilities to attend promptly and appropriately to victims of trauma. Overstrained and limited resources in communities influence the availability of debriefing services to traumatised community ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I'm always happy if people are helped.How about this one?
Traumatic incident reduction: A suitable technique for South African social work practice settings
It is part of South African social workers’ responsibilities to attend promptly and appropriately to victims of trauma. Overstrained and limited resources in communities influence the availability of debriefing services to traumatised community ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
First of all, the majority of it is not Hubbard's work. He laid claim to other people's efforts. If I wanted to be mean and nasty I would say that the only good stuff in scientology was the work of other scientologists. That's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than Hubbard = Source.This list is long despite a decades long program to "ruin utterly" those who improvise, reform, and develop the subject further.
The list is long of spin-offs that met with some susccess. The results were not all bad.
Yeah?Or both
On the contrary! Scientology was a great success in taking away the money from the gullible and into the pockets of the FSMs.Because Scientology was a failure. Some people thought they could "fix" it or salvage out some "workable" part.
I really haven't seen evidence of any notable successes.
The chronology of the rejection of Hubbard as "Source" began with J.A. Winter, who had written the Introduction to Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health and, less than a year later, resigned from the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation, and then wrote A Doctor's Report on Dianetics, with an introduction by Fritz Perls. Around the same time, Astounding magazine editor John Campbell also resigned from the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation and, later, described Dianetics as a cult.First of all, the majority of it is not Hubbard's work. He laid claim to other people's efforts. If I wanted to be mean and nasty I would say that the only good stuff in scientology was the work of other scientologists. That's a hell of a lot closer to the truth than Hubbard = Source.
It does seem unlikely that Hubbard did not have at least one "good idea" during his entire lifetime.I would posit that the spin offs come in a few varieties:
Efforts to get rich.
Efforts to get rich AND help people. (an idiotic pursuit in my opinion).
Efforts to help people using 'standard tech'.
Efforts to continue the work of scientologists other than Hubbard, and do a lot better job of it than the damned church.
we might want to try to make some sort of distinctiong between independents/freezone, and spinoffs or offshoots.Didn't most or almost all of the spin offs occur before the internet made the space opera on the OT levels easily accessible public information?