A Response to the editorial on Wildest Colts Make the Best Horses

[blindpsychic]

Note: This was originally in the comment box but turned out too long. Note that I am not taking issue with the premise of the article, but merely reminding people that the comment on that article is contradicting, in part, something which has been discussed before, and frankly, requires more thought than some cursory analysis like "they do have a pretty good record of doing good works, getting people off drugs, helping them live productive lives, and so on. We also notice that those who attack them have their own axe to grind, the same way those who attack us have an axe to grind." This is an odd statement because the same could be said of pretty much every other major religion and self-help group. Also I find it weird that the comment's wording is almost exactly the same as Laura's more ambivalent post on the topic below.

Um, I'm going to have to take issue with Scientology being a "white hat" of any kind. Scientology has a long history of silencing its critics and generally heavy handedly destroying its opposition.

"The organization's actions reflect a formal policy for dealing with criticism instituted by L. Ron Hubbard, called "attack the attacker." This policy was codified by Hubbard in the latter half of the 1960s, in response to government investigations into the organization. In 1966, Hubbard wrote a criticism of the organization's behavior and noted the "correct procedure" for attacking enemies of Scientology:

(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way. You can get "reasonable about it" and lose. Sure we break no laws. Sure we have nothing to hide. BUT attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us. I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out. -- Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," 25 February 1966[5]"

http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/CoS/attacks-on-scn.txt

"According to The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, ed. Brian Ash, Harmony Books, 1977:

" . . .[Hubbard] began making statements to the effect that any writer who really wished to make money should stop writing and develop [a] religion, or devise a new psychiatric method. Harlan Ellison's version (Time Out, UK, No 332) is that Hubbard is reputed to have told [John W.] Campbell, "I'm going to invent a religion that's going to make me a fortune. I'm tired of writing for a penny a word." Sam Moskowitz, a chronicler of science fiction, has reported that he himself heard Hubbard make a similar statement, but there is no first-hand evidence." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies


The writer has seemed to have forgotten this very thread on SOTT:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=6067
Where we have already discussed this, Shane a forum poster writes:

"Would you say the same about those who 'pick on' George Bush? Scientology, like Christianity and Judaism, has all the hallmarks of a psychopathic institution. Comparing it to something as benign and natural as 'redheads' denies its destructive and abnormal activities. It abuses not only the people involved but also anyone who has a relationship with its members. It's pretty odd that you'd make your statement while also saying you know nothing about Scientology. Have you read this thread on opinions? I think it could be of help if you haven't. I also wonder from your comments if you have read Political Ponerology? If not, I doubt there's much I could say about it that you haven't already come across - but just in case: IT'S THE MOST AWESOME BOOK EVER!!"

Laura posted:
"

It was pointed out to me that Scientology has a very good record of getting people off the streets, off drugs, cleaning up their bodies, working diligently, and so on, and I agreed that this was a very worthy activity. What was missing, as far as I could see based on the data, was the element of free will. People were just exchanging one form of bondage for another.

Well, these people agreed with that assessment more or less, and pointed out that most people need a strong structure and leader.

Well, they have a point, don't they? If 50 % of the people on the planet might be OPs, yeah, they need structure. But the structure they need would be an STO one - if that is even possible, which I don't think it is. Maybe a better way to put it would be "utilizing STS to move in the direction of STO aims."

But that is not entirely what scientology is doing, I don't think. Based on information I was given by the above mentioned individuals, the church has some really dark affiliations at this point and you can bet that whatever structure and leadership is there has nefarious intentions, ultimately.

Anyway, to make this story a bit shorter, what ended up happening is that this group of people actually paid me (they would not take my time without paying me) to instruct them. They very much wanted to leave the church but they could not because of family considerations (they would have been separated from their children who were lifetime members and totally inculcated, etc), yet they wanted to know more, to BE more. So, I instructed them, we had a very satisfactory relationship; I had a lot of respect for them and they for me, and when we were getting ready to leave the U.S., they brought me a beautiful farewell gift and thanked me profusely for enriching their lives.

Never, at any point, did any of them try to persuade me that Scientology was "the way." In fact, they knew that, ultimately, it petered out and could not take people to higher levels of knowledge and awareness, that it was basically a dead end. They also began to think that Scientology was really a structure for OPs and that the new "head" was most definitely a psychopath. But of course, they had to keep all this to themselves.

In the end, I concluded that Scientology is no better and no worse than most any other church and if a person who is taken in by it has that "spark" within, as the people I was dealing with obviously did, it will direct them to a "way" at some point just as happens with anyone in any other social/cultural/religious trap."

See the thread for more info.
Edit: Quote'd for easier reading.

 

[anart]

Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way. You can get "reasonable about it" and lose. Sure we break no laws. Sure we have nothing to hide. BUT attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us. I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out. -- Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," 25 February 1966[5]"

This post is rather an aside from what I understand the main issue you've brought up to be - but I find this part interesting as there is a video on youtube exhibiting exactly this phrasing from Scientologists confronting a man at a gathering with a camera trying to document the gathering. These men involved with Scientology keep repeating, 'what is your crime, Mark - tell us' - as if the mere fact that he was investigating or challenging them means he is a criminal - it was really rather freaky to watch. (before your post I had no idea on the background and assumed they knew this guy was a criminal - perhaps they do, but it rang a bell...)

Of course, it is a youtube video, so I can't say for certain that it is valid, but considering the information you've posted, it brought up my memory of this video I watched a while ago. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y )
(and Hubbard DID invent the word inturbulate, contrary to what the Scientologist guy says, just for the record...heheh)

Of course, compared to the Pathocrats, what the Scientologists are up to certainly seems like childplay, and if the energy currently going into destroying Scientology were put into destroying the Pathocrats, we might have a chance - - but I did find this aspect more than just a bit creepy since I had seen this video - fwiw.

[And, while I state with conviction that psychotropically drugging children for any reason is a horrific thing to do - I think it relevant in the context of this discussion that I state that there was a short period of time in my life in which psychotropic medication was the only thing that kept me alive and that I would not be here now had I not taken it. That period was very short - and the over-medication by the psychiatric institution continued for years after that point, which was wholly damaging - however - without the numbing and stabilizing medication at that small yet deadly point in time, I would not be here right now. So - perhaps there are subtleties here that should be explored. Of course, having support or non-pharmaceutical therapeutic practices at that small and deadly point in time would have also saved my life, but none of that was available to me - thus my experience - and my small personal caveat to the editorial comment - fwiw.]

 

[blindpsychic]

Yeah sorry if my post seems a little jumbled, I'm trying to say too many things at once. My most crucial point is that there was a lapse in the editorial's comments and what we've already discussed on here. There's a few things I'd like to post that I think were from Dave McGowan's book Programmed to Kill about Hubbard and his connection to Crowley and all those other fun guys, but it doesn't have an index and I'm not entirely sure thats where I read it, I have to look.

 

[OPINMYND81]

Yeah sorry if my post seems a little jumbled, I'm trying to say too many things at once. My most crucial point is that there was a lapse in the editorial's comments and what we've already discussed on here. There's a few things I'd like to post that I think were from Dave McGowan's book Programmed to Kill about Hubbard and his connection to Crowley and all those other fun guys, but it doesn't have an index and I'm not entirely sure thats where I read it, I have to look.

McGowan does mention Hubbard in Programmed to Kill (and, most likely, on his website although I'm not sure where). Yeah, he doesn't index the book which makes it hard to find specific things (particularly since he jam packs it with so much information that spread out all over the place). I don't remember what he says about Hubbard in the book (it is over 2 years since I read it) but I definitely remember McGowan mentioning that Hubbard used to be with the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) which is obviously not a reassuring sign. I also remember hearing on South Park how Hubbard also lived on a boat and had several female sex slaves or something like that.

I have to admit I was a little surprised by the comment made at the end of the article regarding Scientology. I mean sure there are obviously going to be people out to sling mud and label them as a cult (something Laura and co. have some experience in the receiving end, unfortunately) but with the sheer volume of horror stories coming out against Scientology it has to be that something is "unkosher" in that church. Plus, we have the group's actions and conduct themselves which should prove to anyone that they are far from a healthy, enlightened, free will-respecting group. Me and some of my co-workers were commenting on the group very recently and even they knew that the group was evil. One friend cited a youtube video of a security guard harrassing someone with a video camera outside one of their churches with the police intervening and telling the individual to keep filming. Then we have Tom Cruise's conduct which makes you wonder if they couldn't find a better spokesperson. The guy is bat-sh!t crazy and is out to convert EVERYONE he meets into a scientologist.

But then we have websites like the mars records who claims that the E-meter and the technology preached in Hubbard's books is actually legitimate and only got perverted afterwards so that seems to confuse the issue even more. Here's what Stephanie Relfe has to say on Scientology:

_http://www.themarsrecords.com/scientology.html

I have never been a member of the Church of $cientology, and do not recommend it to anyone. However, the technology called Clearing which I used in The Mars Records comes largely from the work of Ron Hubbard (who also used the work of others). I learned Clearing from people who were in the church years ago. I understand that in 1982 thousands of people left the Church in protest at the direction it was taking. There are many people part of a loose group called the "Free Zone" that works outside the church.

This technology is so powerful at uncovering hidden memories, that I believe Hubbard was "got at" on a number of times, and the organisation taken over by dark forces. The particular technology I use has similarities to Dianetics . It has no similarity to scientology processes and practically none to the Church of Scientology "upper levels" (as I have never done these). I understand that the kind of work I do comes from the work Hubbard did around the mid 60s. You will see in the Mars Records that I give references to some of his books. I am told that all kinds of people were getting incredible results back in the early days. Then, for no reason, he changed the technology and rules greatly.

I believe that no one in the church does the basic kind of clearing I do - which is simply, looking for the cause for upset and negative charge, and removing it by viewing it completely. Remember, a knife is not useful or dangerous on its own - it depends on who is using it. In addition, I believe that no one in the church would ever recommend or even allow the use of kinesiology or deliverance as I do (They call doing anything other than what the higher ups allow "squirrelling").

Here's a strange thought: I was told by a friend who knew Hubbard that Hubbard's butler told him there were THREE different Hubbards' at three different times. He said they had three very different shoe and body sizes. Others have told me that the technology had three main eras, each one quite different from the others. Certainly if you listen to different audio tapes of Hubbard, his voice changed
dramatically over the years. And certainly, when you understand how organised the dark side is on this planet, and the power of this technology, it stands to reason that they would interfere.

Stephanie Relfe
Feb 6 2003

Interesting, sounds like ole Ron suffered from DID; a little gift from the ONI perhaps?

 

[Laura]

Very interesting. I figured that comment would push a few buttons. But let's look at what OPINMYND81
wrote in closer detail:

I mean sure there are obviously going to be people out to sling mud and label them as a cult (something Laura and co. have some experience in the receiving end, unfortunately)

Yes, we do. And all of you here can so easily be tarred with the same brush by the very act of being here and utilizing this forum.

How does that make you feel?

And if you were tarred with that brush, would you decide that "yeah, there must be something fishy... I'd better find another bunch to hang out with..." or would you think "no way! I'm there, I know I'm not part of a cult, those people yelling "cult" are nuts!"

Well, you won't know until it happens to you. And then, you really, REALLY have to know who you are and BE something other than a mass of programs and dissociated parts to stand up to that kind of pressure, especially when it comes from all directions, maybe even including your family.

Then you find out that what is really going on is that there is some kind of "norm" of beliefs and thoughts and ideas and behaviors that you are supposed to adhere to along with everyone else, and god help you if you don't.

If you are, by chance, relatively well integrated and you can see through the control issues of those yelling "cult" you may also see something else: like what kinds of groups get labeled cults? What happens to them? How can they effectively respond to such a charge of deviance from the norms? How - really - can they defend themselves and their right to think and believe as they choose?

The very fact that Scientology was labeled a "cult" and a "dangerous one" from the very beginning suggests to us that they must have been onto something!

but with the sheer volume of horror stories coming out against Scientology it has to be that something is "unkosher" in that church.

Well, I'm sure some of ya'll have seen a bit of "volume" of "horror stories" of all the people that have been "abused" in the "cass cult." If you haven't, well it's interesting stuff to read. I really like the ones where it is clear and obvious that the person making all the accusations knows absolutely nothing about us or what we do or think or how any of our affairs are arrange or anything. Take Colleen Johnston, for example. She has made a real case based on literally nothing but the hot air blowing through Vincent Bridge's head. And Vinnie and StormBear have made a career out of creating fake personas on the interenet that pretend they have been members of our "cult" and escaped by the skin of their teeth.

Having observed this from the other side here, it naturally makes me wonder just how many of those "horror stories" coming out of Scientology are really true?

Plus, we have the group's actions and conduct themselves which should prove to anyone that they are far from a healthy, enlightened, free will-respecting group.

Like what? I mean, really? This goes back to my question above: when you are being accused of being a cult, deviating from social norms (which we pretty well know are psychopathically established), how do you defend yourself? What do you do? What do you say?

Me and some of my co-workers were commenting on the group very recently and even they knew that the group was evil.

Yeah. I'm sure the same conversation is being had on some other discussion board where Vincent Bridges and Stormbear Williams preside... only it's about us here, including you by virtue of the fact that you are a member of this forum.

Are you yet getting the idea of how these kinds of ponerogenetic activities are "seeded and grown"?

One friend cited a youtube video of a security guard harrassing someone with a video camera outside one of their churches with the police intervening and telling the individual to keep filming.

What about the cult ranting trolls that come here on the forum that we toss out? They then go and report how we tossed them out for no good reason, and how that proves we are a cult. What do you think I should do if there was some jerk outside my house filming everyone who came in and went out?

I mean, geeze! Ya'll get a grip here!

Then we have Tom Cruise's conduct which makes you wonder if they couldn't find a better spokesperson. The guy is bat-sh!t crazy and is out to convert EVERYONE he meets into a scientologist.

Gotta agree with you here. But then, any group of people that starts out with an interesting idea, if the idea is not well formed and based on solid data, is easily ponerized. That's what I think happened to Scientology. A lot of the stuff that Hubbard came up with was interesting and even useful. It's really hard to find the truth in all these things without some serious and careful examination of all the evidence and also putting yourself in the other person's shoes for just a bit.

Frankly, I see a far greater evil in the Standard Religions that are ruling the world than in Scientology. And, like I said, Scientology does get people off the streets, off drugs, thinking about things that are more useful than bombing helpless Iraqis like the Christian fundies do.

Like I said before, Scientology is no better and no worse than most any other church and if a person who is taken in by it has that "spark" within, as the people I was dealing with obviously did, it will direct them to a "way" at some point just as happens with anyone in any other social/cultural/religious trap." Meanwhile, Scientology will keep them off drugs, and probably keep them off the battlefields as well.

I'm sorry that I'm not as hostile toward Scientology as some of you might like me to be, but having been on the same side of that cult accusation as they have, and having seen how it works, and how easily so many people can be agitated against anything that is different from the "norm," I just can't help but see it in a somewhat different light. Even if I don't agree with their methods or their philosophy, or the story on which they base those methods and philosophy, I don't see that they are doing anything really bad.

It is, in the end, all about free will, people.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Personally I haven't seen anything about scientology to make it any worse than any other major religion. So it makes no sense to call it a cult but not all the other religions. Why start with Scientology of all things? Well, we know that religions don't like one another. Historically, one religion usually labeled another religion a cult and evil, and basically waged war to suppress and attack all other religions. But religions labeled EVERYTHING that wasn't part of their religions a "cult" and "evil". It just so happens that when they applied it to other religions, they were right (even if hypocritically so). But when they applied those accusations to critical thinking people that just wanted to question things, they were totally wrong. But they didn't care, their criterea for attack was "it is not like us, it does not follow our god".

From my limited look into scientology, it does appear to have qualities that make it much more sensible than the major religions, including new age:

Scientology describes itself as "the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, others and all of life,"[30] and "encompasses all aspects of life from the point of view of the spirit" — including "auditing"[31] and training in morals, ethics, detoxification, education and management.[32]

Prime among Scientology's beliefs is "that man is a spiritual being whose existence spans more than one life and who is endowed with abilities well beyond those which he normally considers he possesses."[33] Scientology believes man to be basically good, that his experiences have led him into evil, that he errs because he seeks to solve his problems by considering only his own point of view, and that man can improve to the degree he preserves his spiritual integrity and remains honest and decent.[34] According to the Church, the ultimate goal is: "a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights."[35]

The Church of Scientology declares that the goal of Scientology is to achieve "certainty of one’s spiritual existence and [of] one’s relationship to the Supreme Being,"[36] and says that Scientology's tenets are not a matter of faith but of testable practice: "That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true."[37]

The exact nature of all of existence is said to be stated in Hubbard's Scientology and Dianetics Axioms.

Other beliefs of Scientology are:[38]

* A person is an immortal spiritual being (termed a thetan) who possesses a mind and a body.
* The thetan has lived through many past lives and will continue to live beyond the death of the body.
* Through the Scientology process of "auditing," people can free themselves of traumatic incidents, ethical transgressions and bad decisions which are said to collectively restrict the person from reaching the state of "Clear" and "Operating Thetan." Each state is said to represent the recovery of native spiritual abilities and to confer mental and physical benefits.
* A person is basically good, but becomes "aberrated" by moments of pain and unconsciousness.
* Psychiatry and psychology are destructive and abusive practices.[39]

Members are studying Scientology and are receiving auditing sessions to advance from a status of preclear to Operating Thetan.[40][41]

And sure, from the point of view of "the Work" there are plenty of problems with the above - but also. But we should remember that that many people that have a problem with scientology are NOT attacking all the other religions just as much. There can only be 2 reasons for that. One, scientology is really much worse than the other religions, and therefore much more dangerous. Or two, the "attacker" is subjective. The latter would mean, the attacker could very well be a fundie christian himself, so the attacks are not really about objectivity, they are about a personal subjective and hypocritical perspective that is just another manifestation of their own programming and fears about things "different" (even if only aesthetically so).

So it seems to me that those attacking scientology, in general, are no different than what has been done throughout history - one evil religion hypocritically and subjectively attacking another, or just anyone that is different, even if that person or group are simply questioning things.

It would make no sense to use the number or severity of attacks as any kind of evidence for what scientology is or isn't. And we must be careful not to get sucked into the subjective perspective of the group that has a "problem" with scientology. We must consider the health of that group's psyche and their ability to objectively evaluate anything at all. We already know that people are subjective and programmed machines that can be manipulated to love or hate basically anything, with no objectivity or understanding of good or evil, or what they're doing or why. This situation is really not an exception to this rule, osit.

And I'm not defending scientology or anything, but I'd say the same thing if a group went out to protest any organized religion and ignored all the others. But scientology just happens to have generally more redeeming qualities than most other organized religions (as far as I can tell), it seems to value knowledge and openness to new data, practicality and common sense. Yes it has some "doctrines" and assumptions and statements like "psychology is a damaging practice" that are highly questionable and seemingly contradictory of the previously-mentioned openness and knowledge. But maybe not exactly - we know that mainstream psychology has been ponerized, and perhaps that is what scientology is trying to say when it says it is a damaging practice. On the surface it sounds like they are speaking against an objective study of the human mind, but maybe they're not - maybe they're talking specifically about the current state of psychology, they just don't have the vocabulary to describe what they are trying to say? If so, we were in similar shoes before Political Ponerology armed us with the vocabulary to describe what we were already seeing.

Of course, the problem is also - just because Hubbard had some good ideas and observations does not mean his followers are interpreting them as he intended, and so on. Maybe his followers really DO believe that an objective study of the human mind is a bad thing, I don't know since I don't know any scientologists personally.

Edit: Just want to add that it seems Hubbard was confused - he had some good ideas but made all sorts of assumptions and subjective declarations as "facts". But he did have some "idea" of there being something seriously wrong with the world, and it doesn't look like he did a good job fully grasping it, or drawing all the right conclusions. It's not a surprise, as the C's say, the complete truth is elusive, and without a network and other tools we have here, it's understandable that he'd not quite "get it". This is compounded by the fact that "scientologists" are just normal programmed people, so any gems that do exist in the original ideas are distorted even further by regular programmed and subjective people. And as Laura said, I'm sure it was intentionally vectored as well, so it wasn't all just confusion and wishful thinking that was responsible here. But overall, it is definitely no worse than say Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

 

[Laura]

Just want to add that it seems Hubbard was confused - he had some good ideas but made all sorts of assumptions and subjective declarations as "facts". But he did have some "idea" of there being something seriously wrong with the world, and it doesn't look like he did a good job fully grasping it, or drawing all the right conclusions. It's not a surprise, as the C's say, the complete truth is elusive, and without a network and other tools we have here, it's understandable that he'd not quite "get it". This is compounded by the fact that "scientologists" are just normal programmed people, so any gems that do exist in the original ideas are distorted even further by regular programmed and subjective people. And as Laura said, I'm sure it was intentionally vectored as well, so it wasn't all just confusion and wishful thinking that was responsible here. But overall, it is definitely no worse than say Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

That seems to be exactly the case. Fact is, Hubbard's take on reality is a darn sight saner than that old psychopath Yahweh and his dead-man-on-a-stick son cult.

When you really look at history, at what religions have done, the horrible distortions of Western Society as a consequence of Yahweh and the Jesus cult, you get so sick that you just want to scream.