Inside Scientology

After having watched all the videos, I was bothered most by the topic of "suppressive persons".

Gerry Armstrong defined them as what, in psychology, would be called psychopathic". By this definition and description, it sounds so reasonable to be against them. But when we see the actual examples of who is labeled "suppressive" by CoS, we see only persons who resist programming, those who want to leave the church or who criticize it.

This seems so much a muddying of the definition of psychopath - to encourage people to believe that those who criticize the system and/or resist going along with it are the psychopaths. It is almost as if (decades ago) they were anticipating the rising awareness of true psychopathy.

Insidious.
 
FireShadow said:
After having watched all the videos, I was bothered most by the topic of "suppressive persons".

Gerry Armstrong defined them as what, in psychology, would be called psychopathic". By this definition and description, it sounds so reasonable to be against them. But when we see the actual examples of who is labeled "suppressive" by CoS, we see only persons who resist programming, those who want to leave the church or who criticize it.

This seems so much a muddying of the definition of psychopath - to encourage people to believe that those who criticize the system and/or resist going along with it are the psychopaths. It is almost as if (decades ago) they were anticipating the rising awareness of true psychopathy.

Insidious.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And like Gerry says, Scientology is not after any REAL psychopath. When was the last time they went after or exposed corruption, criminal activities, lies in politics or anywhere? When was the last time that Tom Cruise actually put effort and money into exposing the epidemic of pedophilia in Hollywood, in his own circles? When that little clip shows him saying: "We are going to clean this place", with that mysterious smile on his face, what exactly does he - or his religion - have in mind? :shock:
 
Alana said:
FireShadow said:
After having watched all the videos, I was bothered most by the topic of "suppressive persons".

Gerry Armstrong defined them as what, in psychology, would be called psychopathic". By this definition and description, it sounds so reasonable to be against them. But when we see the actual examples of who is labeled "suppressive" by CoS, we see only persons who resist programming, those who want to leave the church or who criticize it.

This seems so much a muddying of the definition of psychopath - to encourage people to believe that those who criticize the system and/or resist going along with it are the psychopaths. It is almost as if (decades ago) they were anticipating the rising awareness of true psychopathy.

Insidious.
Click to expand...

Exactly! And like Gerry says, Scientology is not after any REAL psychopath. When was the last time they went after or exposed corruption, criminal activities, lies in politics or anywhere? When was the last time that Tom Cruise actually put effort and money into exposing the epidemic of pedophilia in Hollywood, in his own circles? When that little clip shows him saying: "We are going to clean this place", with that mysterious smile on his face, what exactly does he - or his religion - have in mind? :shock:
Click to expand...

Yep. Then there's the story Jon Ronson tells in The Psychopath Test about the anti-psychiatry Scientology group trying to get a psychopath released from incarceration. So they pay lip service to the dangers of "suppressive persons" and then lobby to get psychopaths released. Talk about backwards!
 
My experience is that most groups end up doing with outsiders what the Church of SCN has done: create a status of "damned souls" who are worthy of our contempt and hatred. In all groups I've looked at the practice of solidifying the group's identity by opposing Us to The "Thems", those others who are not like us, is a fundamental tactic. And not just loony religious cults, but businesses, universities, branches of government.
For the Scientologist, the understanding of the Suppressive Personality (which, I would argue includes but is NOT identical to the Psychopath, but that's another topic) gets turned on its head by the Psychopaths in charge. The Holy Mother Church in Rome, always lovingly vigilant over the fate of our eternal souls, was quick to identify the Evil inherent in Protestants. Marxists damn Fabian socialists and Revisionists. Civil rights workers who didn't get as radical as the Black Panthers were "oreos" or Uncle Toms.
It seems to me that it comes down to the principle that Because our beliefs/philosophy/theology/science is SO wonderfully Good, clearly anyone who opposes us must be horribly ignorant, or evil. The ignorant we will straighten out with proper education, they might resist us, but it is our Moral Obligation to overcome that resistance. The Evil, well, we'll make other arrangements for them...What I'm trying to say, is that the Church of Scientology has institutionalized the impulse to damn those who don't see things our way. As crazy as they are, they are not more horribly crazy -maybe just more obviously so- than True believers of the Mormon or Catholic or CIA persuasion.
Is institutionalized thought intrinsically Ponerized thought? Is the need to codify, to make our beliefs irreproachably good, static, intrinsically Wrong Headed?
And the question of "what is a Cult" begs to be asked. Is Harvard a cult? is the Marine Corp? Apple Computer?
The madness is everywhere.
 
denekin said:
My experience is that most groups end up doing with outsiders what the Church of SCN has done: create a status of "damned souls" who are worthy of our contempt and hatred. In all groups I've looked at the practice of solidifying the group's identity by opposing Us to The "Thems", those others who are not like us, is a fundamental tactic. And not just loony religious cults, but businesses, universities, branches of government.
For the Scientologist, the understanding of the Suppressive Personality (which, I would argue includes but is NOT identical to the Psychopath, but that's another topic) gets turned on its head by the Psychopaths in charge. The Holy Mother Church in Rome, always lovingly vigilant over the fate of our eternal souls, was quick to identify the Evil inherent in Protestants. Marxists damn Fabian socialists and Revisionists. Civil rights workers who didn't get as radical as the Black Panthers were "oreos" or Uncle Toms.
It seems to me that it comes down to the principle that Because our beliefs/philosophy/theology/science is SO wonderfully Good, clearly anyone who opposes us must be horribly ignorant, or evil. The ignorant we will straighten out with proper education, they might resist us, but it is our Moral Obligation to overcome that resistance. The Evil, well, we'll make other arrangements for them...What I'm trying to say, is that the Church of Scientology has institutionalized the impulse to damn those who don't see things our way. As crazy as they are, they are not more horribly crazy -maybe just more obviously so- than True believers of the Mormon or Catholic or CIA persuasion.
Is institutionalized thought intrinsically Ponerized thought? Is the need to codify, to make our beliefs irreproachably good, static, intrinsically Wrong Headed?
And the question of "what is a Cult" begs to be asked. Is Harvard a cult? is the Marine Corp? Apple Computer?
The madness is everywhere.
Click to expand...

I think the first bolded part gets close. "Us vs them" is a tactic used by psychopaths, and they know what they're doing when they use it. Normal people have a natural repulsion to psychopaths, which psychopaths are aware of. They turn this on its head by projecting their own nature on an external group. They play on their followers' self-importance, and convince them that it is the non-believers who are evil, i.e. who have the features and behaviors of psychopaths. I don't think the second bolded part quite gets to the heart of it. Identification with one's ingroup plays a part, but I think it's important not to take the psychopaths themselves out of the equation.
 
[quote author=denekin]
It seems to me that it comes down to the principle that Because our beliefs/philosophy/theology/science is SO wonderfully Good, clearly anyone who opposes us must be horribly ignorant, or evil.[/quote]

Yep. When certain "Ideals" become fixed beliefs and equated with "Truth" and "Good", they can become protected at any human cost. Evidence that something's not working gets suppressed, denied, re-interpreted, etc. The pattern is everywhere and old as Methuslah.
 
It's the old problem of ideology and black/white thinking. Lobaczewski talks about how ideologies are used and MAY start out with good intentions (which I don't think is the case for LRH) and then a group becomes ponerized by infiltration of pathological types and the ideology is then "converted" to doublespeak. Those on the inside/top know that the believers on the lower levels are being duped.

Did LRH "go rogue" from the CIA and think he was really going to help the planet? I don't think so but it is possible. But if that is the case, then he better fits the profile of the Schizoidal psychopath as described by Lobaczewski. Someone who thinks that he has figured out a simple way/solution for all the world's problems, and it involves a "higher authority" that hands down directives on everything. The whole CoS organization sort of bears the stamp of LRH's personality disorder which could have included paranoia.

The issue of "suppressive persons" is interesting and we find the CoS behavior regarding same also described in "Ponerology" where it talks about how the organization goes on the attack against anyone that has discovered that all is not well in the inner paradise. As I've pointed out before, it's one thing to toss somebody out because they show themselves to be pathological and another to toss them out and go on the attack against them. Of course, sometimes the pathology is displayed on the part of the tossee... when they go on the attack against a group that simply doesn't think they fit (we've experienced that enough here) and the tossers then have to defend themselves. In the case of CoS, however, they do a heck of a lot more than just defending themselves against disgruntled former members. Plus, their whole thing about tricking people to join by pressurizing them is offensive to me. They drag people in off the streets, diddle with their minds, and then make it almost impossible for the person to leave if they later decide they want to. That right there is very revealing.
 
Yeah, I also find it hard to believe that it started out with good intentions. LRH's murky background raises enough red flags, e.g. his associations with Parsons, Aleister Crowley (who, it's well documented, was a British intelligence agent/asset), etc. LRH, like Crowley and others, seems to be someone who was useful for others manipulating form the background and part of a much bigger agenda in which they were only pawns.

If Hubbard WAS a Schizoidal psychopath, it would certainly explain why his early writings had such a big effect on an unsuspecting population. And as far as Scientology having good aspects, just about anything COULD have good aspects. Even the Catholic Church and all other mainstream wealthy and powerful religious institutions still have to have some facade behind which they hide their true natures. Many of the things Scientology addresses are "good," partial truths (like detox protocols, and some of the anti-psychiatry stances) but their used for other purposes, NOT for the good of their members or humanity at large.

I'm wondering if the anti-psychiatry is to justifiably point out the all the many negatives of psychiatry as it's currently practiced to get credibility for CoS, but also because it could be used to diagnose the pathology in the organization as described in Political Ponerology. This would be similar to the tactics used by the U.S. and it's allies to demonize whatever they're going to attack or nobody would go along with it (not because they care about "freedom, justice," etc.). Also, the whole "suppressive" shtick not only muddies the waters about psychopathy, but the organization is clearly very suppressive, as Laura mentioned, another great example of doublespeak, as well as, turning what they do and projecting it onto "others."
 
It seems every successful religion or cult mixes just enough truth with lies to ring true to the prospective members. However, to mitigate against the discovery of the lies, they need to add the final ingredients: blind faith and a threat like hellfire for those whose suspension of disbelief is threatened by the contraditions.

I doubt LRH started off with benevolent thoughts, but if he did, it was as Laura suggests, that he felt his way was the only way and his authoritarian personality created a rigid and unforgiving structure to prop up his new religion.

I have no problem imagining that, through his connection with ceremonial magicians, he opened himself up to the control of hyperdimensional nasties who, with the benefit of time travel, could whisper in his head the very things they needed added to this new religion to serve their many needs, such as (off the top of my head):
- misdirecting spiritual seekers onto a dead end path
- causing fear and suffering through policies like disconnection, thus feeding them
- casting psychiatry, and by extension, psychology and modern medicine into disrepute some people will throw the baby out with the bathwater and not know about the pathologies that plague mankind
- creating confusion over terminology and concepts, like how "suppressive person" confuses members over true pathologicals like psychopaths

I think when one tries to select only the good in a faith and tries to ignore the bad, it's somehow akin to biting a poisoned apple. I don't think buffet religion really works as one intends and might actually have the opposite effect. Better to keep questing, keeping note of the truths along the way, IMO.

Gonzo
 
Very interesting videos. Hadn't thought much about Scientology, although I have read some here on the forum. When I was 19 yrs or so (@ '82) an acquaintance talked me into going to check it out. She thought is was the greatest thing, she had alot of zeal. I went with her, they gave me a complimentary copy of Dianetics (which I was too scared to read!). I was young and very much a sucker. I did not, in the least bit, understand how to say 'no' at that time of my life (still working on that now!!).

But I will never forget how the hairs on the back of my neck rose and the creepy feeling I had while I was there. I was old enough during the Jonestown saga to have acquired a 'fear of cults' and I was so afraid that Scientology was a cult! I ran, fast as I can, so I wouldn't have to say no!! Funny memory!

Anyway, the videos are an eye opener and knowing who I was at that time, I could have been one of those people. Thank the Universe for the Gift of Fear!

Actually, after watching the links in the article, I went on a Scientology video spree for several hours. Topped it off with Tom Cruise receiving the award for being the greatest Scientologist on the planet. LOL! His attacks on Psychiatry and the Psychiatrists completely evade the real problem of Big Pharma and those who benefit from the sale of the drugs he claims are evil. And the Oppressive Person thing, a total twist on the reality of Psychopaths. That in itself screams Cointelpro.

I have to say that I saw alot of evidence of what I think Gonzo was stating
blind faith and a threat like hellfire for those whose suspension of disbelief is threatened by the contraditions.
Click to expand...

or even
Last thing I remember, I was Running for the door I had to find the passage back To the place I was before "Relax, " said the night man, "We are programmed to receive. You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
Click to expand...

And it appears that they go to great lengths to make anyones life a living hell if they get out or speak against the CoS.

I cannot think that LRH had any benevolent intentions what so ever. I wouldn't doubt that he is smiling in his grave seeing what his baby has grown up to be. Although, I could be wrong.
 
Interesting article on scientology's public face. What a show!!!.

Scientology 'auditioned' potential wives for Tom Cruise: report [ _http://omg.yahoo.com/news/tom-cruise-had-secret-girlfriend-before-katie-holmes--report.html ]

How Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes first met has always been shrouded in secrecy. Although it has been widely speculated that she was selected for him by the Church of Scientology, this is something that the organization has always denied. But if the rumor is true, Holmes wouldn’t have been the first actress to “audition” for the role. According to a new report in the October issue of Vanity Fair, just months before Cruise stepped out with Holmes in April 2005, his controversial religion was looking to find a girlfriend for him, preferably one that was already a Scientologist. VF special correspondent Maureen Orth reports that Scientology officials brought in a number of its members, who happened to be actresses, under the guise they were auditioning for a "new training film." The women were also asked, “What do you think of Tom Cruise?” Of the "several" that were interviewed, one landed the part: Iranian-born, London-raised Nazanin Boniadi.

"In a month-long preparation in October 2004, she was audited every day, a process in which she told a high-ranking Scientology official her innermost secrets and every detail of her sex life," Orth writes in Vanity Fair about the “General Hospital” actress. Boniadi, who one source tells the magazine had to sign a confidentiality agreement, “allegedly was told to lose her braces, her red highlights, and her boyfriend."

A month later, Boniadi, now 32, first met the “Mission: Impossible” star in New York City for a dinner at Nobu – but it wasn’t just a one-on-one date. Orth reports that “an entourage of Scientology aides” were also present and it was “when [Boniadi] first sensed that this was possibly going to be an arranged marriage.” After the meal, they went ice skating at Rockefeller Center, which had been closed to the public. At the end of the night, Boniadi and Cruise retired to a room at Trump Tower, “but according to several sources, they did not have sex.” Orth writes that he also told the brunette beauty, “I’ve never felt this way before” and then had her sign a second confidentiality agreement.

Boniadi supposedly fell in love with the actor, but the feeling wasn’t exactly mutual. Orth writes that Cruise once cruelly told Boniadi, “I get more love from an extra than I get from you.” Still, he moved her into his home (they shared a bedroom) and she was issued a credit card under the name of Cruise’s production company.

But her time at the superstar’s mansion was short-lived. In late January 2005, Boniadi was relocated to Scientology’s Celebrity Centre in Hollywood – and was then told she would no longer be Cruise’s girlfriend because he “wants someone with her own power – like Nicole [Kidman],” according to Vanity Fair. When Boniadi asked why Cruise didn’t just break up with her in-person, she was reportedly told he was not to be disturbed. In addition, a Scientology official allegedly said, "Naz, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

After the Celebrity Centre, Boniadi was then sent to live at a Scientology facility in Florida, where she eventually broke down and confided to a pal about her brief relationship with Cruise – and she was punished for it. According to Orth’s sources, Boniadi was forced to scrub toilets with a toothbrush, clean bathroom tiles with acid, dig ditches in the middle of the night, and sell copies of Dianetics (the book written by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard) – all which Scientology denies. "The Church does not punish people, especially in [that] manner,” a spokesperson told VF.

In April 2005, three months after Boniadi was relieved of her duties as Cruise’s girlfriend, Holmes made her debut on the actor's arm while he was promoting “War of the Worlds” in Europe. In November 2006, six months after the birth of their daughter Suri, the two married in a lavish ceremony in Italy. And on June 29, after five years of marriage, Holmes blindsided Cruise by filing for divorce while he was on a film set in Iceland just days before his 50th birthday. Less than two months later, the split was made official, with Holmes getting primary custody of 6-year-old daughter, Suri – which is all she wanted from Cruise.
Click to expand...
 
There's a new documentary / exposé on Scientology, "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" (2015). Directed by Alex Gibney (director of "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room").

The early part has archival footage of L. Ron Hubbard. He seems to have been a quite monstrous and insane person. He married Jack Parson's partner, Sara Northrup Hollister. Hubbard told Hollister that he would kill himself if she didn't marry him. Hubbard left her and took their baby with him to Cuba, then phoned her and told her he had cut the baby up and put it in a river.

Personally I think Scientologists are free to believe what they like, and their beliefs are no stranger than those of other religions. But it is the abusive way that members and ex-members are treated that make it a fair target for criticism.

Celebrities like Tom Cruise are treated like royalty by the CoS, so their views of it can't really be treated as representative of what it is like to be involved with the organization (the same could be said of David Lynch and the TM movement.) It wasn't commented on in the documentary, but I found it quite strange that Tom Cruise looks to me quite similar to Hubbard's "successor" David Miscavige. Miscavige looks about 10 years older than Cruise, but they seem to have similar expressions and mannerisms.
 
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHb0BZyF5Ok

Heres a 2 hour interview from an actor named Jason Beghe. Its rather interesting his journey through scientology and how he came out of what he himself says was a cult. Unable to understand how he let himself descend into the church. Several points in this interview i found very affirming. He mentions his close friends never said a bad word against scientology. David Duchovny was one such individual who, Beghe says, helped him to be left to his own devices. Free will in action i suppose.

He also talks about there being good people who want to help you. The auditors and such are good people who see this path as a way to help. But he chronicles the process that took and how he as a celebrity had the way "paved for him".

All in all a very interesting interview. Its raw and the feeling i get is, this bloke is very much annoyed. Wasting both time and money, but more so having let himself fool himself.
 
I was in the bookstore today and saw Leah Remini's book, "Troublemaker." I spent a good half hour combing through her passenges on Scientology. Considering she was once part of Tom Cruise's inner circle you get quite the point-of-view. She had in there stories about the money she put into the programs, what happens when you make a mistake and how you must pay for it, a story about baby Suri being left on the bathroom floor crying and 3 Scientologists standing over her not knowing what to do! If yu get the chance, read some of her stories in her new book. I also noticed the tabloids have picked up on this too!
 
findit said:
I was in the bookstore today and saw Leah Remini's book, "Troublemaker." I spent a good half hour combing through her passenges on Scientology. Considering she was once part of Tom Cruise's inner circle you get quite the point-of-view. She had in there stories about the money she put into the programs, what happens when you make a mistake and how you must pay for it, a story about baby Suri being left on the bathroom floor crying and 3 Scientologists standing over her not knowing what to do! If yu get the chance, read some of her stories in her new book. I also noticed the tabloids have picked up on this too!
Click to expand...

Yeah, she was recently on 20/20 to promote her new book and discussed some of the creepy stuff that she experienced during her time with Scientology. Here's an article that talks about her dealings with Tom Cruise: http://morningafter.gawker.com/leah-remini-discusses-her-once-fellow-scientologist-tom-1739761116. I imagine the book is full of interesting details, and the fact that Scientology has publicly smeared Remini since she left and published her book should be seen as confirmation of what she is saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom