SUPPORT THE UNDERGROUND BUNKER
You can either make a one-time donation to the site via Paypal...

...or you can subscribe and get billed monthly:

FOLLOW ME ON
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR
E-MAIL LIST
To join our e-mail list & get daily updates on new stories, e-mail us at newstory@tonyortega.org.
RSS Feed
Click here to add The Underground Bunker to your RSS Reader

Blogging Dianetics, Part 3: The Meaning of Life!

DianeticsStandardWelcome to our ongoing project, where we blog a 1950 first edition of Scientology’s bible, Dianetics, with the help of ex-Scientologist, Bay Area lawyer, and writer Vance Woodward. Go here for the first post in the series.

Last week, L. Ron Hubbard explained that there’s a superman inside each one of us that he calls a “clear,” and his “dianetic therapy” is going to help us retrieve a clear’s super abilities — vivid technicolor recall of our memories, enhanced intelligence, imperviousness to ailments, and good eyesight — by ridding us of our “aberrations.” (In the introduction to the book he tells us this should take about 20 hours of exercises to make us go clear.)

Now, in the third chapter of the book (and the second full chapter), “The Goal of Man,” Hubbard says that he’s unlocked the secret of our existence. What is the purpose of our lives on Earth? His answer is simply one word: “SURVIVE!”

“It is not a new thought that Man is surviving. It is a new thought that Man is motivated only by survival,” he writes.

Vance, we’ve had the impression that Scientologists, even today, consider this some kind of genius insight by Hubbard. But Hubbard was writing nearly a century after a guy named Charles Darwin published his book On The Origin of Species and figured out that competition for survival is what fueled natural selection and biological evolution. Can you help us understand why Hubbard’s idea is considered so revolutionary by church members?

VANCE: Certainly most people, before they get into Scientology, would have heard of natural selection and would have a rough idea of what it’s about. However, many of them might not have boiled the notion down to a single sentence, much less a single word.

For the layman, it can be tough to describe natural selection in a few words. So for some of them, Hubbard’s formulation might seem like a revelation. And it’s not really clear in this context what is causing that imperative. Is it evolutionary pressure or a disembodied agent, a soul, or God? Ron just describes it as an axiomatic imperative. (Fast forwarding, we know that Ron will take the avenue that generated the most revenue.)

So, SURVIVE! is easily digested. That makes many people feel like they understand something. And it leaves open the door for future “discoveries.” I’d say Ron had a profitable insight.

THE BUNKER: Hubbard then marvels at the way animals have adapted in order to survive, and in particular, he singles out the “survival value” of “the hinges of the clam shell.”

For some reason, that clam-hinge really stuck in Hubbard’s mind. In a later book, he will claim that memories of being a clam have come down to us from the mists of time — our immortal souls, or “thetans,” took up residence in animals such as clams before humans arose, and somewhere deep in us remains that memory. Which is why, Hubbard claimed, our jaw muscles might tense up as our clam-memory reasserts itself in periods of stress.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves with details from future books. (For now, we’ll just point out that this rather amazing assertion by Hubbard is why one of the most successful critical websites about Scientology is named “Operation Clambake” and why some critics refer to church members as “clams.”)

Vance, before we go further, in recent years, were individual Scientologists you worked with still convinced that Hubbard was a “nuclear physicist,” a physician, a PhD, and the other things that were shown to be more of his tall tales? Did they read passages like this convinced that Hubbard really knew what he was talking about?

VANCE: These days the church makes no widespread claim that Hubbard was any sort of academic. But the marketers can and do paint different pictures to suit the contexts and here’s how. In university, Hubbard took a class titled, in his words, “atomic and molecular phenomena.” (I’m a physicist; I was in one of the first-ever classes on particle physics.) On at least one occasion, LRH flatly stated that he flunked out of university. (I’m an artistic, rebellious, adventuring free-thinking genius, not a soulless Dilbert.) Later, he got himself a degree-mill Ph.D. (I’m an authority, respected by serious minds.) Later still, he turned in all of his “degrees and honors” in disgust of unstated disgusting things. (I wash my hands of these corrupt institutions and vested interests because I’m a scientist of integrity … and vigor.)

Just to put things into context, this is a guy who in the 1950s and 1960s was still referring to galaxies as gu-LACK-sees and “island universes”! I mean, ding-dong!

These days, some Scientologists might mumble something about Hubbard being a physicist, but only if they think they won’t get too much skepticism in response. Nobody talks about him as though he had any legit degrees, and his paper-mill diplomas aren’t acknowledged. Basically, the modern rendition is that Hubbard fell way outside the box (everybody agrees on that point), that he was simply above academics, in the manner of a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, uh, Adam Sandler, etc. (not that the explicit comparison is ever made). That’s the Hubbard being presented today, inside the Church.

THE BUNKER: The next thing Hubbard does is insert an illustration he calls a “Descriptic Graph of Survival,” and it deserves a close look.

The graph is a series of horizontal lines spread apart at increasing intervals which are labeled as “zones” of “potential immortality.” Over this odd grid, he’s obviously hand-drawn some squiggly lines that represent an individual’s survival potential over time, and then that of “his children” and “their children.”

The sort of obvious point of the chart seems to be: you are healthy, you have kids, you decline, you die. Your kids have kids, their health declines, and they die.

But again, Hubbard wants us to think this is a revolutionary concept: we feel pleasure when we are living, he says, as if this has never occurred to anyone, and it’s painful that we die. Immortality, he adds, would be the ultimate pleasure.

Hubbard was as immortal as the rest of us. He died in 1986 a few weeks short of his 75th birthday.

But he’s not done with his graph. Even though it’s quite clear that he drew his “zones” in a completely arbitrary way, he wants to assign them some kind of real value. The closer you are to immortality, and the farther from death, the more pleasure you feel. How much pleasure?

“Very unprecise but nevertheless descriptive names have been assigned to these zones….These zones can be used as a tone scale by which a state of mind can be graded. Just above death, which is 0, would be the lowest mental apathy or lowest level of physical life, 0.1. A Tone 1, where the body is fighting physical pain or illness or where the being is fighting in anger, could be graded from 1.0, which would be resentment or hostility, through Tone 1.5, which would be a screaming rage, to a 1.9 which would be merely a quarrelsome inclination. From Tone 2.0 to Tone 3.0 there would be an increasing interest in existence, and so forth.”

You see what he did there, Vance. He took a trite observation — we’re happier when we feel better, we’re miserable when we’re dying — and assigned some completely arbitrary gradations of it (Zone 3 to Zone 0), and then made a further remove to what he is beginning to call a “tone scale.”‘

In later books the Tone Scale becomes quite exact, and to Scientologists a very real measurement of human emotion. There’s nothing arbitrary about it, no guesswork involved. Someone who is Tone 1.1, for example, is considered to be “covertly hostile” — in other words, someone not to be trusted. Homosexuals, Hubbard will say, are 1.1, and must be moved up the tone scale (cured, in other words) in order to “handle” their homosexuality.

Did it occur to Scientologists that something as rigid as the Tone Scale started out this way, as Hubbard musing about mortality and assigning completely arbitrary values to a person’s state of mind?

VANCE: In a word, no. You’ve spotted what I think is a fundamental problem with how Scientologists interact with the subject. We have here one guy’s description of how reality plays out. He claims later in the book that in therapy patients will go through the succession of tone levels more or less as outlined by the scale. Uh, Okay. I guess. Usually, we (or at least I) think of emotions as being multidimensional, like taste and smell. They’re very hard to display on a two-dimensional chart, much less a one-dimensional scale. But he says he’s done it based on observation. Whatever. The scale may be accurate; it may not be. It’s something to evaluate. The real problem is exactly what you said. Scientologists are well-trained to take all of Hubbard’s thought-farts as absolute, objective fact, to be “understood” (“clear your misunderstood words”), not to be questioned, not seriously, not at all. Yikes! There is a wee paradox because, when you first enter, you read Hubbard’s views about how you must evaluate truth for yourself, apply what you learn, and discard information that you find wrong. (This stuff rocks! Give me more.) But fairly quickly you learn that those heuristics only apply to non-LRH teachings, or at least you learn to keep your mouth shut.

THE BUNKER: The rest of the chapter is just a mess. He’s riffing on the idea of a person’s current state being tied in with how well he’s addressing his “survival” instinct, and he’s going around in circles. We can’t get much out of it.

VANCE: Hey, bro. Jeez. I’d say that this about as good as it gets for Hubbard. If you think this is bad, you better remove any hard objects from the vicinity before you continue reading.

I reckon we shouldn’t poo-poo him too harshly for saying obvious stuff. We all have one or two obvious things that we could help noticing. Throughout my time in Scientology I continuously noted that much of what the man wrote was obvious, but I thought of that as a good thing. I thought, Jeez now that I know this it seems so obvious!

But like you said, it’s messed up that he’s presenting this stuff as scientific discoveries when it’s really all just one guy’s (derivative) idea.

THE BUNKER: Well, the important thing is that we survived it. (Sorry.) And next week, it’s on to the dynamics!

Blogging Dianetics, part 1: The opening sentence!
Blogging Dianetics, part 2: The State of Clear!
Blogging Dianetics, part 4: Dynamically speaking

 
————–

Posted by Tony Ortega on January 18, 2013 at 07:20

Share Button
  • jensting

    “So, SURVIVE! is easily digested. That makes many people feel like they
    understand something. And it leaves open the door for future
    “discoveries.” I’d say Ron had a profitable insight.”
    Makes sense to me! I always thought that book 1 appealed to the teenager in everyone, but I’m now wondering if there is not also a dimension of selecting the victims, i.e. those who are easily impressed by bombastic claims. And not too critical. (As Vance notes, any and all critical thinking is turned to point at the world outside the reality that Hubbard creates for this victims…)

  • EnthralledObserver

    As we trot through this book it is reminding me of many small moments where I read some Indies, or ex-scions’ or current scions’ description of Hubbard’s teachings and/or tech, and I’d found myself thinking – “well… duh!” Most of Hubbard’s revelations (the ones that are fairly normal anyway) seem to me to be just common sense that occurs to individuals as they mature… Nothing whatsoever revolutionary about it at all, then or now. I don’t feel left out having not had a Scion education at all. What I struggle with, has been the Indies’ ramblings using English words I recognise, but they have attributed unconventional, or thouroughly new meanings to them; so therefore I have decided it’s not my failing… I refuse to dwell on not understanding their drivel, and can’t be arsed to try to decipher it either. Scions might feel intelligent using this secret language, but I think it just makes them appear uneducated and foolish in admitting they ‘get’ what Hubbard meant and can apply it with the alphabet soup of word vomit Scions keep sprouting.
    As soon as the term ‘as-isness’ is presented I click away in a hurry. WTF is that even supposed to mean???

    • totally with you on that. Then they say things like ” well…let me make it simple for you to understand “….um …no . Total word salad and completely patronizing ~ cut to Tom Cruise telling Matt Lauer ” you don’t know the history of psychiatry ..I DO ” …looking like a total crack head

      • stillgrace

        Smug bastard. I so wanted to slap him to his senses (for his own good, of course), Not a violent person, normally.

      • scnethics

        Forgive them, Kim, they know not what they do. These terms provide insulation against all sorts of things. If someone is crying, well, that’s just “case”. What do we do about someone’s “case”? We ignore it! Yay! Easy!

        In the instance of “well…let me make it simple” bullshit, you’re so right. The terms were giving them a way not to have to explain anything, and allowing them to think they understood something they didn’t. You asking a question makes them examine what they know, and it’s painful to find out you really don’t know shit.

        • EnthralledObserver

          Yes, that’s what I think, these people can’t reference outside their bubble for clarification, so it’s pretend to understand or get left behind. I challenge them to explain their nonsense using English the wog way… they’ll be finding themselves talking in circles for sure.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Now wait…I imagine he has studied Psychiatry in depth! I bet he has read volumes of books and white papers on the subject….OH YEAH…Nevermind.

        • I suspect that some of his ideas came from things he heard when he was socializing with other science fiction writers or read in newspapers or periodicals of the time.. He did know Asimov and Heinlein. Like any good con man, he knew just enough to appear credible to his audience.

          • BuryTheNuts2

            Hubbard was an interesting piece of work. Even with all his tall tales, there is enough truth to prove he lead an interesting and very full life.
            We had a lot of his fiction on the bookshelf and I read some of it as a kid. Typewriter in the Sky stands out. The concept of the book was truly interesting if not the entire story.
            He could churn out some words and not all of it was terrible.
            I think because we all despise what he brought to bear on society, that sometimes our biases are in conflict with the reality of the man.
            With that said. I still hate the fucker.

            • EnthralledObserver

              Phew, you had me worried up until that last line…

      • Observer

        “Let me make it as simple as I am, and that’s pretty darn simple.”

    • Midwest Mom

      From Midwest Mom’s “Book of Groovy Words for Groovy People”

      hub cap – (noun) {from the words Hubbard and capitulate}. When someone surrenders their brain to the mush of L. Ron Hubbard, despite the fact that it does not make sense.

      Example: Kim and Grace experience high blood pressure when exposed to hub caps.

      • Ze Moo

        Sounds like street slang for drugs. Yooo, you got any bennies or roofies?? Woooo, these hub caps really sent me out of the ‘gal axxx ieee’…..

        • Midwest Mom

          That is brilliant, Ze Moo! A street slang name for a drug named after Hubbard. The ultimate slam to Hubs and the Co$. Lets throw some Davies into the mix, too!

          • BuryTheNuts2

            “Davies” most certainly has to be some evil form of speed!

            • Semper Phi

              And it definitely kicks your ass.

            • Captain Howdy

              PCP or bath salts. they make little guys abnormally strong and violent.

            • He is not strong he has just positioned himself where people don’t dare hit back. Lies not give him powers he doesn’t have, violent, yes, I sincerely doubt he could win a street fight with an ant if the ant was allowed to punch back.

          • ze moo

            yooo, you got any ‘little daveys’? They really kick my ass…..

            • Rick Mycroft

              .. and I’m all out of bubblegum.

      • Captain Howdy

        That’s a bingo !

        • Frankenberry

          nice.

      • EnthralledObserver

        Yes, yes… *nods in approval*

    • Deckard__Cain

      Adding ‘ness’ to a present participle verb is simply, well, dumb. Using the ‘ness’ suffix can change an adjective into a noun (happiness), but the way it is used in Scientology is really, well, dumb. But somehow adding that suffix to non-conventional adjectives makes the Scientology user believe they are somehow spiritually superior, but its use just seems deranged and exaggerated. It is this language manipulation that reinforces the Scientologists’ false superiority.

      • Midwest Mom

        Deckard, I concur. We can counteract this with smershiness. 🙂

        • scnethics

          Your jokingness is contagious.

        • BosonStark

          Reminds me of a name for Hubbard on an ESMB list of nicknames: Professor Fakey Smershmouth

      • Ze Moo

        Scieno-speak is meant to get the individual to identify with group, and to slowly divest themselves from any reality that does not conform to group-think. While most religions have their buzz words and doctrines, they are usually embellishments of standard English (or whatever language is native to the religion). By slowly changing the seekers language, you claim the seekers attention and way of thinking. This is the opposite of Korzybski’s ‘the map is not the territory’

        “Korzybski thought that people do not have access to direct knowledge of
        reality; rather they have access to perceptions and to a set of beliefs
        which human society has confused with direct knowledge of reality.
        Korzybski is remembered as the author of the dictum: “The map is not the territory”.”

        Lron took Korzybski’s dictum and inverted it, by the late 40’s Nazi indoctrination methods had been widely written about, Lron just took what he wanted from these ideas and slowly enforced them on his ‘fruity little club’.

        http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Good_German_Syndrome.html

      • EnthralledObserver

        It’s also more than the ‘ness’, because that’s just expanding a term really, but add that to a word that didn’t mean what it was supposed to mean in the first place…
        “as-is”
        When I use this it’s: The sky is up, as is the sun. (just for a lame example) They use it weird, and I have tried to decipher, but then they went and added ‘ness’ and that was it, what I thought I’d inferred from their conversations was swiftly nullified. Besically it can mean whatever the fuck they like… which really means it means nothing at all.

    • Captain Howdy

      “Ness is More”. it’s Hubbard’s version of his favorite book “1984”. Reduce the language down to it’s most base level and you can control what people think and it also separates them from the rest of society.

      Hubbard was already fairly knowledgeable about mind control techniques and hypnotism before he wrote dianetics so I don’t know why anyone would think his specific control techniques were by accident.

      • TheNextMrsTomCruise

        Right on, Captain. Hubs set out to mind control anyone who would listen. The fact that he couldn’t speak or write in clear English didn’t stop him or his followers. His English-less is part of his hook-ness.

  • John P.

    I think these two assertions are a key part of the foundation that the cult uses for seizing control of vulnerable members’ minds.

    The “Survive!” idea was brilliant because it sounded like an obvious corollary for evolution. Most of the people in the cult’s target audience, even if they were raised in a church, were probably believers in evolution rather than the 6,000 year old militant Creationist story. And if you believe in the “survive!” imperative, then you are well on your way to believing that there is no real point to existence. In turn, this means that the cult can feed you its norms of successful existence (spend all your time studying with us and give us all your money beyond what’s needed to survive) much more easily. And since you’ve already “survived” to get to the point of reading dianetics, you must be doing pretty well at life, in the Darwininan sense.

    Never mind the craziness about clams and other minor factual inaccuracies, at a high level, the story sounds pretty good. Incidentally, I thought the “clam” stuff was far more developed than just saying the reflex to tense your jaw muscles when stressed is from our “clam” heritage — I seem to recall that Hubbard claimed we were biologically descended from clams as well as primates. I also thought that this claim had nothing to do with thetans and their memories.

    The second major thing that opens you up to a mindfk with the cult is the Tone Scale. Looking at the tone scale from the outside is pretty laughable, when you try to understand what the hell Hubbard meant by some of those bizarre negative tone scale numbers meant (why is “approval from bodies” higher on the tone scale than “hiding”?). And the lack of emotions like love and compassion are certainly telling in terms of how culties treat each other. But the key assumption underlying the tone scale is that there is one continuum of emotions and that some emotions are “better” than others.

    When you buy into this world view, you quickly set yourself up to reward yourself for controlling your emotions. Just having fear be so low on the tone scale makes it obvious that you’ll be rewarded in Scientology for not expressing fear. That creates a pretty irresistible temptation to pretend that you’re at least at 2.9, “mild interest” when your internal landscape is stuck in fear. And that seems like it has a lot to do with how Scientologists act — they all go around telling each other that they’re living at “Tone 40” when they spend their time hiding out from the tiniest bit of “entheta” that will cause them to question their views. Miscavige himself is a study in all sorts of behavior to compensate from unhandled fear — fear of being found out as a fraud, fear of being laughed at, etc.

    Few therapists will tell you that paving over your emotions and trying to regulate them via any sort of external belief systems is healthy. If you’re afraid, you should feel the fear, because acknowledging it will give you some power over it, and some hope that it will eventually diminish. If you’re angry, you should feel that, and it will eventually dissipate. But attempting to mock up emotions on the basis of an arbitrary tone scale opens you up to being controlled utterly by this cult because you’re taking yourself further and further away from your true internal landscape. And most therapists will tell you that the further away you get from your true emotional landscape, the worse off your mental health will be, and the less capable you will be of operating successfully in the real world.

    In other words, the Tone Scale is a key mechanism for how Scientology makes you worse off than you were when you walked in the door. And that’s the foundation for turning around and selling you more stuff — to fix what they broke.

    • jensting

      Re The Clam and varying claims of descent from this or the other and the mix with space aliens. Why should it make sense? Would it not be easier to control people if you condition them to accept contradicting ideas?

    • I started to read about the tone scale and had this weird sense that it resembled a fun-house mirror reflection of something familiar. Then it hit me – it’s a kind of distortion of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the basis of self-actualization therapy. Maslow first discussed this concept in a paper written in 1943, so Hubbard could have come across it leading to the inevitable question – Is there anything he didn’t steal and twist to his own purposes?

      • scnethics

        “Is there anything he didn’t steal and twist to his own purposes?”

        Is there anything he “came up with” that wasn’t stolen? No.

        • Midwest Mom

          How about the way he pronounced galaxy?

          • BuryTheNuts2

            And Xenu.

            • scnethics

              He got that from his dealer (although his dealer pronounced it “zee-Mu”).

            • Captain Howdy

              Who went by the name Quay Lewd

            • BuryTheNuts2

              Hey, I knew that guy! We dated for a few years.
              🙂

          • scnethics

            His mom said it that way.

          • Strangely enough, I remember that in the late ’50’s and early ’60’s Ford marketed the “Galaxie 500” and the announcer pronounced it “ga-LAX-ie”.

            • Midwest Mom

              Gerard, were you named after the super cool Saint Gerard?

            • “mu-NI-cip-al” for municipal

              That is the normal pronunciation.

            • Captain Howdy

              no it’s > mu-nis-sa-pool

    • scnethics

      On the question of whether Hubbard had the explicit goal of brainwashing when he devised the tone scale and survival directive, I would say no. I think Hubbard was trying to solve one case: his own. When he says you can explain all human behavior with the word “survive”, he means you can describe all of his behavior with that word. When he says mankind is surviving better or worse depending on a definite scale of emotion, he means that he was surviving better or worse depending on his position on this scale, and the positions and their order were his own. He was bipolar and had observed himself swinging from one extreme of the tone scale he described to the other. He talks quite a bit about manic states in Dianetics and he did recognize that these were unhealthy, but he wanted to find a way to achieve that level of enthusiasm, focus and creativity without it being out of his control.

      Much later, when Hubbard ripped off utilitarian ethics and added in his “dynamics”, telling people they should make decisions based on the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”, I do believe he knew what he was doing (this is around the time he started the Sea Org). All of the “Scientology Ethics” (or “Scnethics” as I like to call them :)) were purposeful. He was purposefully creating an atmosphere in which he could not possibly be challenged. Where followers would give up their deepest secrets, but never question him in even a trivial way; where followers would violate their own sense of ethics if it would benefit him; where followers would hold scientology up above love, family, friendship, and their own selfish desire to “survive”. But at the time of Dianetics, I think he just wanted fame and fortune, and to be revered and respected.

      • MissCandle

        In her book “A Queer and Pleasant Danger, A Memoir” (chapter 7), Kate Bornstein writes how in the 70’s she explained to LRH her idea how to use the tone scale to increase sales. It became his idea.

    • BosonStark

      Yeah, SURVIVE, as introduced in Dianutty, becomes a major element in the bait and switch; personal survive/thrive is switched to group survive/thrive/spread. It becomes their true definition for “helping others” — selling others into Scientology.

      That’s why Tom Cruise is so important, having helped over a billion people, by introducing them to LRH tech. He may never be able to face it isn’t true — that he isn’t that important to the spread — especially now that he’s turned into a liability.

      So, I’m just going to state the obvious. If they are pinning SURVIVAL — their basic belief — using Tom Cruise as their symbol, as Christians view Christ, they’ve got problems.

      They can’t use Hubbard, because he “survived” only to age 74. I guess if the Indie movement is any example, they may try worshiping Hubbard’s flaws now — may Xenu bless his sacred lies — because we are all so flawed, but the tech still works 100% of the time!

    • Captain Howdy

      I seem to recall that a fear of heights is an engram caused by the thetan occupied clam remembering being dropped by seagulls.

      • TheNextMrsTomCruise

        Smart seagulls. Even they know a clam containing a thetan isn’t worth eating. And these are birds who eat dead smelly fish on a daily basis!

        • Captain Howdy

          They were dropping them so they could eat them.

          • TheNextMrsTomCruise

            Doh!

      • scnethics

        That’s right. But then it turned out later, it wasn’t YOU, the thetan, in that clam. It was the “genetic entity”, a really fucked up thetan that thought it was the clam, in the clam. And that same genetic entity is now occupying your body, and you are privy to its “pictures” (since we all know clams take a lot of mental image pictures), and affected by those painful experiences yourself. This was all verified on the e-meter by a hopped up sociopath, so we know it’s true.

    • Ziontologist

      I have a minor quibble about the “survive” thing, and how Scientologists mistakenly think they are doing “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

      Yes, the “survive” concept comes from Darwin. But Darwinism is a “bottom-up” way of looking at life. Science says we’re a work in progress. Hubbard called that “man from mud.”

      Hubbard said we have fallen from our ideal state — the clear …

      This description is so typical of “top-down” mythologies.

      If only we could only get back to what we once were!

      Most people, including those I know who believe in science or Darwinism, want to do more than just “survive” – they want to live good lives. They are trying to be the best they can be, as opposed to becoming what they once were, over 75 million years ago …

      Scientology, being a “top-down” belief system, is presented as the only way back to your former super-ness. The idea that it is the only way out creates a state of emergency which supposedly justifies dubious behavior, such as disconnection and fair game.

      It’s only a matter of “survival” if you believe that mankind has had no greater friend, and what better friend than the guy who understands your true inner greatness!
      But, if you make it to the top of “The Bridge” and you still get sick or have a chronic illness, what does that say about you? I guess you weren’t so great after all, you SP!

      “LRH flatly stated that he flunked out of university. (I’m an artistic, rebellious, adventuring free-thinking genius, not a soulless Dilbert )

      This says a lot about Hubbard, and a lot about Scientologists.

      This says SO much about the way a Scientologist thinks. They think it’s easier for an inspired individual, rather than a group, to see the truth.

      In other words, it’s stupid people that agree with each other, and it’s smart people who have their own ideas. That’s why we’re so smart and agree with each other.

      Ah, the brain of a Scientologist!

      “Agreement”, in the beginning Scientology courses, has a positive connotation. But from the viewpoint of “OT”, agreement is the root of all evil. We “agreed,” little by little, to give up our super powers as we “played a game” in “this universe.” So, it’s the OT’s who have regained their inner “knowingness” that really know the score, not people who went to college.

      True, some scientists like Albert Einstein may have become very famous as individuals. But it takes a community of scientists for someone to rise to the top and be the best of the best. It’s not just who they were to begin with, but who they became by being a part of that scientific community at that time in history.

      Scientology is a group that defeats the benefits of being in a group by not allowing you to build on the knowledge of others.

      Alfred Korzybski said the thing that “separates us from the animals,” if I may use that expression, is that we humans are much better at building on the knowledge that came before us. He called it “time binding.”

      You can cancel that from your mind if you’re a Scientologist, because the only true “knowledge” is timeless, and it exists inside you. Here, let me show you …

      As far as the “Tone Scale” goes, I think that most people, on an intuitive level, have thought of emotions as being high or low. It’s easy to expand on that idea, especially if you’re allowed to make stuff up, which we all know Hubbard did. Even so-called experts on addiction, who know nothing about neuroscience, talk about reaching “rock bottom.” It’s a subjective reality that is easily exploited.

      • “It got a laugh every time.”
        But: did it get you laid?
        Enquiring minds want to know.

        • Ziontologist

          I was just trying to act wierd. There were plenty of opportunities to get laid. As far as the “fear” thing went, I’m actually more the “lovey-dovey” type …
          If it’s getting laid that enquiring minds want to know about, the Scientology scene in LA in the 70’s was loose city. I remember all kinds of situations where women would make it known that they were DTF. I knew a woman who was paying for her bridge by dancing topless … She lived next door. One day I told her that I exteriorized, with full perception! She wanted me right there and then.
          I was never on staff, but Sea Orgers were getting married and divorced at an alarming rate. I knew a single mom who joined the Sea Org … with her infant child. I don’t think you can do that today.
          Scientology is disgusting. Most of us figured out how evil it was … But, while I was “in,” I crossed pathes with some interesting people, and plenty of weirdos!

      • DeElizabethan

        I remember Ruth Minshull’s book and was my favorite as it was fun and easy to relate to. However, never used it with sex in mind, but that’s funny.

      • Peter

        I ran a mission for quite a few years and used Minshull’s books exclusively since one could actually understand what she was talking about. I would never have asked *anyone* to read Dianetics since it was incomprehensible to anyone with even a smidgen of intelligence. And, of course, Minshull’s works *had* to be banned since no one but Hubby was permitted to have a thought of their own. LOL She’s still around, btw, still writing (but not scn). A terrific person.

    • Jgg2012

      John, I think a therapist will say that any emotion is OK as long as it is directed properly. If its excessive, that’s bad. Hubbard implies that any anger or sorrow is bad; you may not feel these emotions, no matter how badly he treats you.

  • sugarplumfairy

    Lol.. ron will take the avenue that generates the most revenue.. love it..

    • BosonStark

      And so true. However, he was also preoccupied in refining his scam according to what would trap people the most effectively, which of course in turn generates the most revenue.

      If the secret of Scientology’s success were in the benefits of the tech, instead of the trap, they would have given Dianutty away for free a long time ago. Why didn’t they? Because Ron knew that the same people who were willing to pay for these secrets from the beginning, would be the ones who would most likely pay their way up the Bridge to Total Xenu, believing it’s got to be good, because so many others are paying for it too.

  • thought farts…i love that phrase

    • Ze Moo

      I much prefer ‘brain farts’. Vance does know how to turn some phrases, doesn’t he??

      “Just to put things into context, this is a guy who in the 1950s and 1960s was still referring to galaxies as gu-LACK-sees and “island universes”! I mean, ding-dong!”

      Avon calling with your Vistaril order……

    • BuryTheNuts2

      Me too! I am so gonna use that at work on a few people!
      I can hardly wait for a meeting full of bloviating didactic morons with a dry erase pen’s in hand heading for the white boards.
      (They like to draw us idiots pictures of their brilliant thought processes)

      I am going to let “Thought Farts” FLY….right as the pen touches down….

  • stillgrace

    Reposted from last story:

    Wright’s hardcover book went from #20 (before the show) to #7 (this morning) in ranking for sales of all books on Amazon.

    Well, fellow SP’s and PTS’s, I think we’re upstat this week!

    • jensting

      even better, book 1 has been pushed down to 13 (below the “exposed” book which gets off to a cracking start by having a cross which is not the Crawley satanic cross left-over that the criminal organisation known as the “church” of $cientology usually deployys)

  • Observer

    Ugh … the bloviating, overweening, illogical arrogance of that old fraud makes it almost physically painful for me to read anything he wrote. Thank you, Tony, for reading this pile of poo so I don’t have to.

  • Midwest Mom

    From the lips of Karin Pouw, (wink-wink)

    “These anti-religious bigots are whiny, tabloid trash talking, muck moochers! We are busy saving the planet, here, while these soulless Dilberts are wasting their money on factually flawed fantasies!”

    “David Miscavige is too busy over-seeing the fastest growing religion in the history of the world to read a single book, let alone all of these pulp fiction, bargain bin barnacles! Ask Larry Wrong, John Screamy and Tony Orlando how many book pyramid world records that they have, hmmn? None! They have the nerve to call themselves ‘journalists’? Ha! If they don’t have a book pyramid in the Guinness Book of World Records, it just proves that they aren’t credible ‘journalists’!”

    “Lance Armstrong said that he was a liar and a fraud, so that proves that all of these pill popping, Big Pharma druggie apostates are liars and frauds, too. Yawn. Isn’t the public sick and tired of hearing these blithering bozos babble on and on? Enough, already! You’ve had your five minutes of tabloid time. Go back to your sad, pathetic lives!”

    KA-POUW!

    • BuryTheNuts2

      Larry Wrong, John Screamy and Tony Orlando

      ^^^spit my first cup of coffee.

      • Sherbet

        Same here, when I read the names of the unholy trinity, compliments of “Karin.” Pass me a napkin.

        • Midwest Mom

          Get it together, girls! I’m going to be completely honest with you. I think you both have a “drinking problem”. 🙂

          • Sherbet

            Note to self: Don’t read Mom’s posts while drinking ANYTHING.

    • TheNextMrsTomCruise

      Well done! But what about bitter defrocked apostates? I love that term. Is it now outmoded?

      • Midwest Mom

        “The Bitter Defrocked Apostates” and “Smershmouth” are gearing up to go on tour and will play in venues coinciding with Lawrence Wright’s book tour.

      • stillgrace

        DM has switched over to “huge ax to grind” and “consider this person’s input with an ‘enormous grain of salt’ “, which cracks me up.

        He reads the responses to the letters he writes in Pouw’s names. He doesn’t like to be the brunt of jokes. Let’s face it, “bitter defrocked apostates” is a hoot, and he doesn’t use it anymore. He did work in an “apostate” for his response to the excerpts of Wright’s book in THR.

        His letters are true entertainment.

    • Poison Ivy

      MW Mom, is this satire, or the real thing? See, that’s the problem with Scientology; it’s impossible to satirize because it satirizes itself.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        Good point. That is why newcomers invariably think OT VIIIisgrrr8 is totally for real.

        • scnethics

          Due to Poe’s Law, which I learned about on this blog (well, the VV version): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

          • Midwest Mom

            Wikipedia must have forgotten to add “Pouw’s Law.”

        • Jgg2012

          OT8 is real to me. Hubbard said “what’s true is what’s true for you.” So OT8 is real.

    • Midwest Mom

      EXCLUSIVE!

      Vintage Disco Era Footage of Davey Miscavige singing lead vocals for L.Ron Hubbard’s failed boy band,

      “The LRH Experience” , singing “I’ll Survive”. Do you recognize any of the other band members?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sg1MTCiyB4

  • mirele

    I’m going to merge two comments here–first, SURVIVE and second, something I learned from Lawrence Wright’s book. Bear with me, if SURVIVE is what our life on earth is about, then how do you explain that very weird story at the very end of Wright’s book, told by Steve “Sarge” Pfauth? It sounds like maybe Hubbard moved to a different view of surviving at a certain point. And, no, I’d never heard that story before, so that was something new and highly interesting I’d never heard about Hubbard before.

    • BuryTheNuts2

      SURVIVE
      1. For an individual this is a biologically based instinct. Way too MEST for Hubbard’s needs.
      2. For a group/species; Life will find a way. Still way too MEST for Hubbard.
      3. For Thetans. Remove your reactive mind (see number one), so you no longer have that silly survival instinct for your SELF. Now it is all about what Ron wants.

      I will give L.Ron Hubbard this… His absolutely insane grandiosity.
      He wanted to absolutely control the consciousness of man.
      That is a pretty big elephant to try to eat and he gave it one hell of a try.

      If that doesn’t prove that he was psychotic..I don’t know what could.

      • Captain Howdy

        History is full of “psychotic” people who had great ideas and works. Newton, Nash, Poe,Van Gogh etc. Something doesn’t have to be for the betterment on humankind to be a work of genius

        • BuryTheNuts2

          I do not disagree.

    • LongNeckGoose

      Yes, that was a strange story. I just finished the book this morning. Sarge’s story sounded like Hitler in his Berlin bunker saying “Germany wasn’t worthy of me.” Imagine L. Ron Hubbard electrocuted by an e-meter! What an appropriate end that would have been! It would have been like Robespierre supposedly being the last guy guillotined in the French Revolution. But maybe it’s better that Hubbard went out in the pathetic way he did, just a drugged-up fat chain smoker having a stoke in a mobile home. Nothing special at all.

  • Mighty Korgo of Teegeeack

    A bit off topic here but worth mentioning– While reading this I am listening to the 10:00 entertainment show on CBC radio, the most popular radio show in Canada which is broadcast all over the country, also on Sirius Satellite and on the internet. They will be doing a news item on Scientology. It is not a fluffy show. They will be ripping into it to. OSA and anyone else interested can find it at http://www.cbc.ca/liveradio/popup/index.html?networkKey=cbc_radio_one&programKey=toronto. Should there be any problem find “Q” for Jan 18 with Jian Ghomeschi. Here it comes (10:22 eastern).

    • Midwest Mom

      Thank you! There was no love for the Co$ in that discussion regarding The Atlantic ad fiasco. (((smiles)))

    • Haha. What would OSA do if chanologists didn’t notify it of interesting radio shows?

      • Mighty Korgo of Teegeeack

        I have the URL for the radio show as it comes out of Vancouver. It is http://www.cbc.ca/liveradio/popup/index.html?networkKey=cbc_radio_one&programKey=vancouver . It is 8:41 in Vancouver as I type this. The part about Scientology and the Atlantic will come on at about 10:22 Vancouver time. Now it is only about ten minutes ;long and it concentrates on the mistakes made by The Atlantic, rather than the problems of the church of Scientology. The mood is that Scientology being what it is, The Atlantic should have known better. No revelations for anyone here. But if you have nothing else to do in about an hour and a half, there it is.

        • stillgrace

          Wow! Thank you so much for sharing this west coast link. I’ve been listening for the last hour. Great stuff and interesting broadcast on schizophrenia! Now getting primed for the scientology show in 10 minutes!

          I bookmarked this link, and I owe you one! Thanks.

      • Captain Howdy

        Sit around, asking each other..” hey, do you wanna feel my finger ? “

  • LongNeckGoose

    I think this falls under the category of “damning with faint praise” but I expect to be ridiculed for saying something even approaching positive about Hubbard. I think that the Tone Scale is probably the most intelligent thing that LRH ever came up with. It is probably the main thing that hooks readers, because the Tone Scale is already implicit in our language. “How’re you doing today?” “Oh, I’m feeling kind of down.” Or, before the word “high” got the connotation of intoxication, there was a song that went “I’m a corny as Kansas in August, high as the flag on the Fourth of July…” where “high” just meant enthusiastic. Or how about “Their marriage has had a lot of ups and downs”? And we’ve all observed people who felt better after a good cry. Of course, it got totally ridiculous later when Hubbard started assigning numbers down to three decimal places, but I give him some credit on this one.
    1) There must have been something good in the Dianetics book for it to have the kind of success it had
    2) That something must be towards the beginning of the book, as many people never finish it

    • Ze Moo

      The tone scale is somewhat like Transactional Analysis.

    • Observer

      Change “good” to “intriguing” in your first point and I’m with you 100% on that point. Many things are intriguing but not at all good … like the “church” itself.

    • Captain Howdy

      I heard that “Mein Kampf” sold a few copies also.

      • BuryTheNuts2

        And I bet you have a copy just like I do….LOL

        • Captain Howdy
          • BuryTheNuts2

            LOL Capt.
            I had no doubts!

        • Captain Howdy

          So who is it now ? Princess Xena ?

          • BuryTheNuts2

            Yep, XENA.
            not to be confused with XENU!

            • Captain Howdy

              But it could be spelled Xema. I use to have a crush on Callisto

            • BuryTheNuts2

              Callisto was hot and she was an awesome bad girl.

              You realize our inner geek is showing.

            • Captain Howdy

              It’s more like my inner pervert. Come on, Xena and Gabrielle ? Gulp !

            • BuryTheNuts2

              That was such an evil tease.

  • ze moo

    From a review of the Haggis Rock Center interview.

    Church of Scientology officials were well prepared for Haggis’ TV appearance on Rock Center and released a statement to Access Hollywood before the program aired. It read: “It is common knowledge in Hollywood
    that Mr. Haggis is one of the most arrogant and self-important persons that people have ever met.
    “Paul Haggis has had no first-hand knowledge about the Church of Scientology for more than 30 years and the
    only information he has is hearsay.”

    The pot calling the kettle black?? Haggis never seemed arrogant to me. I must not know how to use the tone scale properly…..

    • Captain Howdy

      That’s hilarious coming from a megalomaniacal midget who supposedly has practiced any scientology in at least 20 years.

    • Poison Ivy

      “It is common knowledge in Hollywood that Mr. Haggis is one of the most arrogant and self-important persons that people have ever met.” Really? Which “people”? I hear a lot of gossip and never heard that. Thanks, “Karin Powowowow” for such a factually accurate and verifiable statement.

    • 0tessa

      This is what people do who lie: those who speak the truth are labeled as renegates, crazy, whores, etc. In short, their reputation is destroyed. I saw it again in the interview with Oprah (what was the name of that cyclist again… he destroyed the reputation of his physio therapist who knew he had taken doping.) Lawyers also try to do this with witnesses for the prosecution.
      It is a very poor defense. In the end it destroys the reputation of the one who does it, rightly so.

    • Mrs Libnish

      WRONG!!! Tom Cruise is the most ARROGANT man in Hollywierd. There. I fixed it for them.

      • Observer

        The most arrogant with the least reason to be.

    • Oyster Bay

      Their “statements” are such blatant idiocy – no real church would EVER write anything that reads like that. They are trapped in a middle school bully mentality and making themselves look like even bigger psychos than people already assume they are when they release meaningless trash statements like this.

  • Semper Phi

    Oh my gawd, I just had a flashback to being a course supervisor in a beginners courseroom and trying to help my poor students understand that graph. Yikes.

  • Sorry if this is off-topic, but Marty is blaming Scientologists for LRH’s lies again.

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/transcend/

    He’s re-posted the chapter of his book where he ignores that it was LRH himself who lied about there being OT levels above 8. He is suggesting, once again, that there is something needy and clinging about Scientologists if they did not see the results from OT 8 and have set their sights on OT 9 and 10 for their religion to deliver on its promises to them.

    This was LRH’s main con on Scientologists – moving the results he promised them farther and farther up the Bridge.

    And Marty is, once again blaming Scientologists for it.

    Here are LRH’s lies about OT Levels above 8:

    HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”
    “There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people’s full attainment of OT VI & VII.” LRH

    HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-Up”
    “OT VIII has been in existence all those several years, and to it has been added a very large number of OT grades. None of them have been issued. Notes for all these grades are in existence.” LRH

    LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron’s Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”
    “UPPER LEVELS. There are other OT levels above VIII but these will be released from time to time when people are ready for them. We’re already higher than Man has ever been and it can get quite stratospheric.” LRH

    At some point, this blaming the victim thing really needs to stop, Marty.

    Alanzo

    • 0tessa

      Well done for getting these references. If it is written, it is true! (To paraphrase a saying of Hubbard: “When it is not written, it is not true”.)

    • Sid Snakey

      You’re right Alanzo.

      By there’s an even bigger lie here, which is that OTVIII is some amazing level of human ability which LRH graciously, carefully and intelligently bestowed upon humanity.

      This is a real problem for Scientology, which is that when people complete OTVIII they simply say “is that it?” They don’t feel like super-beings, they can’t exteriorize at will, they don’t have cause over MEST or life, they get ill like everyone else, they have relationship problems like everyone else, in short – after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on their courses, they are just like everybody else – no better, and in fact given their thought-stopping and inability to think about the world in anything other than Ron-speak they are very probably worse.

      They have reached the top of the bridge, and discovered it led absolutely nowhere. Unsurprisingly they are usually pretty confused – and their natural inclination must be to wonder what the heck they do next.

      And from the same blog Alanzo refers to, here is Marty’s quite frankly amazing advice:-

      ‘A number of people who had completed OT 8 have come to me, hoping that I could give some inside scoop on where Hubbard said it went from there. My response is usually along the lines of: “Please do not invalidate yourself and Hubbard so. Do you think he was cruel enough to build the Bridge to a place where, when you’ve reached the apex, you are so ill-equipped to move on that you must cling to the guard rail , waiting for some priest to prescribe your every step? Do you feel so vulnerable and weak that you cannot step out on your own and begin to walk your own walk toward higher plateaus?”’

      Yes Marty, I think Hubbard was absolutely cruel enough to promise an eternity as a God, and deliver instead an automaton who cannot really think for themselves, so get over your Scientology programming as quickly as you possibly can and make the most of what time you have left.

      • Captain Howdy

        “Do you think he was cruel enough to build the Bridge to a place where,
        when you’ve reached the apex, you are so ill-equipped to move on that
        you must cling to the guard rail”

        How could anybody think that the man who created disconnection, fair game, the RPF, the GO/OSA and numerous other atrocities would be cruel enough to create a BRIDGE TO NOWHERE ? WTF ???

        IMO there are numerous clues left by LRH that the whole thing was a cruel hoax and his act of revenge against the human race he despised so much. LRH was the Joker.

        Marty’s just trying to lower customer expectations.

    • Chocolate Velvet

      Marty’s latest post is certainly interesting. He seems to still be trying to salvage some love for LRH, with a some major selective revision of history about the upper OT levels. Keep shining your light Alanzo. He needs it, even if he doesn’t realize it. I really think he is talking to himself more than anyone when he talks to scientologists. But what do I know, I’m an “evil psych”. 😉

      I must say, his point in this essay is odd to me. He seems to be saying that the ultimate EP of scientology, after all the time and money and angst, is to leave it behind. Like training wheels or something, to pass on to the little kid thetans behind you.

      Hmmm. I wonder if he realizes how similar this is to something in Crowley’s “Book 4”? To wit:
      “It will be remembered in the History Lection how the Adepts ‘who had with smiling faces abandoned their homes and their posessions — could with steady calm and firm correctness abandon the Great Work itself; for this is the last and greatest projection of the Alchemist.’ ” (p.88)

      This is what I thought of when I read Marty’s post…

      • 0tessa

        So my advise to all Scientologists right now is: abandon the Great Work. It will save you all your money and a lot of frustration and duress. Start thinking for yourself, before it’s too late.

      • That is fascinating, CV.

        I had not seen that before.

    • ze moo

      OT levels above 8 will be released when MIscavige really wants to bait and switch those few faithful left in the corral. When they come out, you’ll know the end is near.

      • 0tessa

        He is very busy looking for a scifi writer to create those levels and some guinea pigs who would be willing to undergo the try out auditing. That’s what Writers of the future is all about…

    • EnthralledObserver

      You don’t mind if I borrow these quotes do you?
      And where do you get this stuff… do you have the documents/books, or do you find it online?
      Cheers 😀

      • I do have many of my books left, but I find most of these quotes online. Ex-Scientologists, at their own risk, have been putting this stuff on the Internet for use as documentation in Internet discussions since the late 1990’s.

        Google searches get you just about anything you need, if you know what to look for.

        I should add that the Church has been systemically taking these sites down, or they have not been kept up, over the years, as well. And so the work to keep this information on the Net for people to use must continue.

        Alanzo

    • You rock Alanzo!

  • Poison Ivy

    “Basically, the modern rendition is that Hubbard fell way outside the box (everybody agrees on that point), that he was simply above academics, in the manner of a Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, uh, Adam Sandler, etc. (not that the explicit comparison is ever made)”. That’s really interesting and something I didn’t know; that the church as at least adapted to the fact that a quick Google will reveal Hubbard’s imaginary “credentials” to be a fraud. My goodness! A mark of progress!

    • Captain Howdy

      When you tell vaLLarrr that LRH had no degrees or academic training, s/he replies that science hasn’t caught up to LRH yet and that Newton was insane and Einstein was a high school dropout. Rathbun was doing the same thing when he was trying to compare the quantum theory that nothing really exists unless you’re looking at it with Hubbard’s bullshit about subjective reality.

      • Rick Mycroft

        “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers.
        But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

        Carl Sagan

        • Captain Howdy

          That’s true. Columbus was just lucky.

        • Some people even laugh at Adam Sandler, though not very many.

      • BosonStark

        Einstein’s H.S. education was interrupted briefly but he finished at age 17 and then finished his college degree.

      • EnthralledObserver

        I have no clue on quantum physics… but… is all this somehow related to that saying: “If a tree falls in the forrest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

        And Jules Verne made up a lot of fiction that ended up coming true too, but it was still fiction at the time, he was nothing more than a story-telling genius, and had no true insights into the future or the science of his imaginative creations. Along with Hubbard, I think we can safely put vaLLarrr into that same wishful thinking box too – (he/she??) can imagine whatever they wish, does not mean there is any merit to it – and I shall apologise the day Hubbard’s crap is proven scientifically.

    • 0tessa

      It’s ironic that someone who is out of the box (or: out of his mind?) created an oeuvre to get people into the box, eh, his box.

  • Poison Ivy

    “it’s messed up that he’s presenting this stuff as scientific discoveries when it’s really all just one guy’s (derivative) idea”….and even more messed up by how many people are deluded by his “thought-farts” and go on to have their lives ruined.

  • sizzle8

    The difference with ‘natural selection’ and ‘survive’ is that natural selection applies to living things.
    The concept of survive applies to ‘the spirit’, to ‘theta’, which encompasses living things and everything beyond.
    The spiritual side of scientology (concepts that were borrowed, stolen and invented) has some interesting ideas.

    • But if the thetan is immortal in essence (and we never hear about thetans that just stop reincarnating because they’re bored of the trillions of trillions of years of hanging around in thetan-clusters, dropping and grabbing bodies), then it does not seem that the thetans has to do anything at all to “survive”.

      • 0tessa

        I suppose ‘survive’ is for the lower levels. When you’ve reached the highest level you can just ‘be’.
        Which sounds rather boring to me though …
        When you get to the stratospheric level, you probably will get lost in thin air.

      • Captain Howdy

        I thought the reason for becoming OT was so you would return to being an immortal spiritual being without need of MEST form and that the endless cycle of reincarnation would stop ?

      • sizzle8

        Remember that a ‘thetan’ in his ‘native state’ is outside of time so trillions-and-trillions doesn’t apply.
        And true enough, a thetan doesn’t have to do anything to survive because ‘survive’ is dependent on time.
        @CaptainHowdy: OT is supposed to be about not being locked into the cycle of ‘live-die-live-die-live-die’. You can still be here in a meat body, but you don’t have to be. You have a choice.

        • Another instance of Hubbard taking an extremely common concept in many religions and making it stupid.

    • Sid Snakey

      Interesting ideas for you maybe, not me – and if you think that however he got them, Hubbard stumbled upon some secrets of the universe then good luck to you. As far as I’m concerned, the only interesting idea in Scientology is that you can be almost completely talentless and still make a fortune if you’ve got the cojones.

  • mook

    has anybody read the new issue of People mag w/ JLo on the cover? She mentions CoS a tad bit, but she doesn’t say outright that she’s a Scilon (which I don’t think she is, unless someone can provide more proof). her dad I think is a Scilon…

  • BuryTheNuts2

    The news is not being kind to Scientology today.

    I think I will have another cup of coffee and enjoy all of the entheta.

    • Observer

      Mmmmm … entheta …

  • Frankenberry

    A bit off topic, but did anyone read this story today about Tom Cruise falling victim to “celebrity swatting,” which is when a prank 911 call is made to send lots of cops to somebody’s house for no reason.

    It just seems interesting to me that this happened the day that Lawrence Wright’s book came out. Almost like it was intentionally engineered by Scientology Inc. to keep the TC headlines about something OTHER than the book. Just seems odd to me…

    • Captain Howdy

      Same thought crossed my mind. Even though other celebrities houses have been “swatted” lately, the OSA could have been inspired by these incidents. If I was OSA I’d have thought it was a great idea.

    • SP ‘Onage

      They’re playing the, “we’re being singled out and persecuted” card…they’re master manipulators at PR stunts.

    • DMSTCC

      My local news built the story up all morning long and when they finally revealed in the last five minutes it was disappoint, but I had the same thoughts.

  • DMSTCC

    Inside Edition has Larry Wright on today. Watching now and waiting for his section to come up soon

  • Jgg2012

    “Scientologists are well-trained to take all of Hubbard’s thought-farts as absolute, objective fact, to be “understood””

    The problem here, of course, is that Hubbard’s f*rts, er, thoughts, are so inconsistent. He said “what’s true is what’s true for you”, well, suppose the underground bunker is true for me. He also said we descended from clams, smoking is good for you and aliens were dropped in Hawaiian volcanoes 10 million years before Hawaii existed.

    • Midwest Mom

      How do clams light their cigarettes? They don’t have hands.

      • Jgg2012

        With OT8 powers, you move the cigarette into your shell with your mind.

        • Midwest Mom

          Ah, kind of like Veggie Tales acting punk.

        • richelieu jr

          You are both way too literal!

          When one says ‘Clam are smoking’ (as one so often does, these days), it means “People, or ‘Teegaakians’ are (‘to be’, conjugated for the 3rd person plural) ‘smoking’ hot, like fire (an invention thought to be hot shit until Dianetics came around and reinvented the dictionary…)

          So ‘Clams/people are on fire/baking’….= “It’s a clambake for flaming people!” No on Prop 8!

          • Jgg2012

            There must have been a misunderstood word there.

            • richelieu jr

              Nah, just my tired mind going off on a tangent… Sorry for any confusion caused…

  • N. Graham

    I tried word clearing descriptic (as in “Descriptic Graph of Survival,”). Did he mean descriptive or is this another Elron word invention?

    • grundoon

      It’s like “descriptive,” but more scientific (scientifive?).

  • N. Graham

    When Elron says descriptic, as in “Descriptic Graph of Survival,” does he mean descriptive or is descriptic another made-up Elron word because he is too lazy to look it up (word clear it)?

    • richelieu jr

      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose
      it to mean — neither more nor less.”

      “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

      “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

      (Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

      • N. Graham

        Oh yeah, that clears it right up.

  • Alistair Fanshawe

    I think there’s something to this clam thing… Notice how Tom Cruise is always clenching his jaw muscles? He’s hinged and unhinged all at once! God bless ‘im, the little clamhead.

    • richelieu jr

      And every word that leaves his mouth is a little pearl of wisdom for us– It all seems so obvious now!

  • DeElizabethan

    Enjoyed! The crock about the tone scale is supposedly one is at a chronic state, but who really knows a person that long or well to be able to evalulate that accurately. As Hubbard also said is that the sane wise person is able to go up and downs the whole scale. So all depends what’s happening and who you’re talking to etc,etc, and to be fluid on your natural abilities and not pinpoint another’s tone. What a bunch of crap to use it that way. The best is just to be honest and sincere having some manners and allowing others to be whatever they are. Complete brain crap in controlling an individual by his tech. Rattle over, thanks Tony.