One opened, more to go... Operation Clambake present:

What about the successful Scientologists?


 

This is an e-mail exchange between a Scientologist and Andreas Heldal-Lund. E-mail address of this Scientologist is removed and real name is replaced with [Steve]:

From: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX
Date: Sun, 9 May 1999
Subject: Hello.
To: heldal@online.no

Hello, my name is [Steve]. Your page is very impressive. I was wondering what got you to be against Scientology. I have not heard many bad things about it, and the people I know from it are very succesful.

~[Steve]

From: "Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net" heldal@online.no
Date: Sun, 10 May 1999
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX

Hi [Steve],

At 19:53 09.05.99 EDT, you wrote:
>Hello, my name is [Steve]. Your page is very impressive.
>I was wondering what got you to be against Scientology. I
>have not heard many bad things about it, and the people I
>know from it are very succesful.

If you read my page it is stated very clearly what Scientology is criticized for. I believe people should not be lied to or scared into silence. I don't like it when people are locked up against their will. I believe we should be allowed to debate anything we want, even Scientology if we so wish. I will not submit to the tricks and threats they use to silence criticism.

What I "got against Scientology" is the same I got against any organized attempts to defraud only to gain money and power. I would say that are important values worth standing up for. Do you?

Best wishes,                              SP4  &  Adm. TOXE CXI
Andreas Heldal-Lund,  Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway
Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46  E-mail: heldal@online.no
home.sol.no/~spirous     www.xenu.net    www.hedning.no/hedning
---------------------------------------------------------------
"There IS life, love and friendship.... after $cientology."
                               - said by a former Scientologist

From: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: heldal@online.no

May I ask your opinion on Juliet Lewis, Nancy Cartrwight, John Travolta, Tom Cruse, Chick Corea, Giovanni Ravisi, and Pat Rena? All successful Scientologists.

I will agree on the money issue, that they are expensive. Donations are not forced, BUT pressured.

The reason I chose to delve into a conversation with you is that you seem to be intelligent. So I thought I'd expand my mind. You see, I am a Scientologist, and as I agree with the technology they have, I slightly stray from their versions of PR(Public Relations). To me, Scientology works, or I would not be in it. I have noticed boundaries in my life weaken or even disappear, but I do think of them as pushy. I had problems that only Scn(Scientology) could fix. Sure, Psych drugs could cover it, but drugs are not a solution to problems of thought. But anyway, I originated to [name removed] that I wanted to go "Clear"(I believe you know the term) and he then passed this datum to the Church. They would not leave me alone. I finally said forget it, and did just that. So I can agree with their demeanor being a slight undesirable. I think you have a lot in your head, but to disagree with Scientology, (in my opinion) you must have had some false data fed to you from somewhere.

ARC,

[Steve]

From: "Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net" heldal@online.no
Date: Sun, 13 May 1999
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX

Hi [Steve],

At 22:59 11.05.99 EDT, you wrote:
>May I ask your opinion on Juliet Lewis, Nancy Cartrwight, John
>Travolta, Tom Cruse, Chick Corea, Giovanni Ravisi, and Pat
>Rena? All successful Scientologists.

All depends on what you put in "successful". CoS has always given special attention to celebrities because they have an enormous marketing value. For this they have special Celebrity Centers where celebrities get special attention, and where potential rising stars get into the system. Are these people more successful in life than ordinary people? All depends on what you treasure in life I guess and what you put in success.

There is no doubt that Scientology has something to offer some people, with their method of psychotherapy. This appeals to some and most Scientologists know little about the dark sides of CoS. In the case of the names mentioned I will try to avoid speculations about their personal reasons to stay in CoS, one can only trust they believe what they profess. But having a talent in an art or being successful in a craft does not imply they have to be smart. Things like talents, good looks and circumstances play an important role here. Especially in Hollywood. I don't think they are happier than you and me.

>I will agree on the money issue, that they are expensive.
>Donations are not forced, BUT pressured.

You'll probably find all grades of this in CoS. Some Scientologists see or feel no pressure, while others are forced so hard they commit suicide. The combination of rigid stats to live up to and cynical and brutal individuals, in an organization like this, will continue to create victims. CoS is a money machine. When stats are down they need to push their product harder.

>The reason I chose to delve into a conversation with you
>is that you seem to be intelligent. So I thought I'd expand
>my mind. You see, I am a Scientologist, and as I agree with
>the technology they have, I slightly stray from their
>versions of PR(Public Relations). To me, Scientology works,
>or I would not be in it. I have noticed boundaries in my
>life weaken or even disappear, but I do think of them as
>pushy. I had problems that only Scn(Scientology) could fix.
>Sure, Psych drugs could cover it, but drugs are

I can't argue with your personal experiences since I've not lived your life. But I do believe you would have found what actually helped you also elsewhere. Maybe even it wasn't actually Scientology, but yourself who should have the credit. We all go through many periods in live, and we don't have all the answers to all the challenges we meet. I believe there most likely are many things in Scientology that could help, or at least give that feeling - if not it would not have expanded outside Hubbard's mind. During the development of the "tech" and the organization Hubbard and his followers did extensive testing on numerous people. They saw what worked and what didn't. They wrote down where pressure made some continue and at what level others would quit. The regression therapy called Dianetics is based on a lot of undocumented claims which themselves are not important, Hubbard could have claimed whatever he wanted. It was the therapy and the methods that made people experience something that became "proof" for the rest. "It works therefore the rest must be true" or "Something is happening here, there must be some truth here." This is no unknown phenomenon, we see it in many religions and "self-help" groups. People are (almost desperately) seeking answers in their life, and some find it even in cults. The group feeling is important, something CoS has a lot of.

No hocus-pocus, but still very compound and therefor difficult to explain in a simple fashion. Like the human mind. Some believe complexity must mean there are some higher being or explanation, but I think that is a logical fallacy.

>not a solution to problems of thought. But anyway, I
>originated to [name removed] that I wanted to go "Clear"(I
>believe you know the term) and he then passed this datum to
>the Church. They would not leave me alone. I finally said
>forget it, and did just that. So I can agree with their
>demeanor being a slight undesirable. I think you have a lot
>in your head, but to disagree with Scientology, (in my
>opinion) you must have had some false data fed to you from
>somewhere.

Scientology is a *lot*. That includes everything from the simplest auditing to Xenu and alien spirits infesting our bodies. Sure auditing may produce the feeling that it somehow works, as I said, if it didn't it would have no followers. Same goes for yoga, fortune telling, Christianity, Hinduism, hypnotism, astrology, placebo pills, prayers, meditation, homeopathy, and a lot of other things. It does not make them all true, or any of their claims about why they work true. My life isn't long enough to try out all claims the way different believers would like me to in order to see what they see. I have to approach the different claims for what they are and what they offer as proof and circumstantial evidence. I must evaluate them together with all the rest, including the ones proven wrong but which still have followers. The scientific approach is to ask what have been done to falsify the theory, and what scientific results support the theory. Even though Hubbard and CoS claim this is a science, I've seen nothing that indicates that it is. For the "religion" part there is of course not supposed to be proof, just dogmatic belief.

What I have seen are alternative explanations that in a much simpler way explains the observations reported. And when faced with alternative explanations one should always go for the simplest one. That rules out the ones given by Hubbard and CoS.

There is also the history of the person L. Ron Hubbard to consider. Who was he and are there other alternative explanations to why he wrote and acted like he did? I believe there are. He wasn't a great philosopher, or great in any of the skills he claimed. He was a con-man, a liar and very sick. Since he was young he seeked attention and wanted to become something great. He had an incredible imagination and was very charismatic. After WW2 he fit in perfectly, with his relatively simple solutions and methods. He promised that anybody could easily better themselves just by buying his book and following the steps outlined in it. Who wouldn't want to become smarter and more successful?

The irony of the story is that Hubbard got all he dreamed of. He got more money and power than he dreamed of. He created his own navy when he failed in the real one. He had at any point a lot of people surrounding him who loved to sit for hours listening to his rants.

Scientology and Dianetics are here to stay, but not CoS as it is today. It will probably manage to survive for some while yet, extracting more money from the pockets of gullible people. But their monopoly on their "tech" will disappear. To survive they have to become mainstream, not only pretend to be. Those left who still believe Scientology is true will get even easier access to the freezone and the evil that clue the cult together will break apart. Maybe the current management in CoS will finally see the writing on the wall and run off with a good piece of the money, but as long as there are critics out there the goose will lay fewer and fewer golden eggs.

Well, this is my opinion. :)

Best wishes,                              SP4  &  Adm. TOXE CXI
Andreas Heldal-Lund,  Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway
Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46  E-mail: heldal@online.no
home.sol.no/~spirous     www.xenu.net    www.hedning.no/hedning
---------------------------------------------------------------
"There IS life, love and friendship.... after $cientology."
                               - said by a former Scientologist

From: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: heldal@online.no

[quotes cleaned up with > to increase readability]

>Even though Hubbard and CoS claim this is a science, I've
>seen nothing that indicates that it is. For the "religion"
>part there is of course not supposed to be proof, just
>dogmatic belief.

Actually, Hubbard "Ate Crow" in calling it a science. He did that so that the people would be able to recognize what it did. A science it is not claimed to beAs far as I know). There doesn't have to be proof to call anything a religion. But Scientology does have proof. Proof to all who have seen it and experianced it.

>He wasn't a great philosopher, or great in any of the skills
>he claimed.

Many cities have days named after Ron, for the great services he supplied our time with.

>He had an incredible imagination and was very charismatic.

I believe Einstien said something to the point of, "Imagination is more important that education".

>the cult

Sientology is a religion, ruled even by the Supreme Court.

>Maybe the current management in CoS will finally see the
>writing on the wall and run off with a good piece of the
>money,

Scientology is a non-profit organization. I know since I deal with the income. Actually I am over the income. That is my position.

>Well, this is my opinion. :)

-Which you are rightfuly entitled to.

Talk with you soon.
-[Steve].

From: "Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net" heldal@online.no
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX

Hi [Steve],

Nice hearing from you so soon.

At 20:05 15.05.99 EDT, you wrote:
>>Even though Hubbard and CoS claim this is a science,
>>I've seen nothing that indicates that it is. For the
>>"religion" part there is of course not supposed to be
>>proof, just dogmatic belief.
>
>Actually, Hubbard "Ate Crow" in calling it a science. He
>did that so that the people would be able to recognize
>what it did. A science it is not claimed to beAs far as
>I know). There doesn't have to be proof to call

I don't know what "ate crow" means, sorry. I assume you mean he used the term even though he actually didn't mean it just to make it easier for people to understand him. Correct me if I'm wrong. But why would he need to do that? Why not call it a religious belief of the mind? If that's what it is. I claim the reason was that he deliberately wanted to lead people astray.

He called his first book "DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH". It wasn't in my opinion. It's just a hotchpotch of Hubbard's rants and crackpot psychology. Where is the proof and the documentation? Where are the Clears that show any signs of being "at cause knowingly and at will over mental matter, energy, space and time"? Why has there never been observed even one single OT with "total cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought"?

Because both Clear and OT is something Hubbard invented and not part of any science that has been proven. Both good examples of the quality of all his claims.

In chapter 4 of "The Fundamentals Of Thought" Hubbard writes:

"The earlier science Dianetics included Dynamics One to Four. Scientology embraces Dynamics One through Seven as known territory, scientifically demonstrated and classified."

There is no such scientific demonstrations or classifications available. Critics have been asking to see it for years. CoS has nothing to show, not even a single Clear or OT with any of the powers they claim they have.

In "The Phoenix Lectures" (chapter 3) he actually admits that Scientology isn't a science:

"Scientology, then, today, could not possibly be characterized as a science the way the western world understands science. Scientology carries forward a tradition of wisdom which concerns itself about the soul and the solution of mysteries of life. It has not deviated."

Truth is that there existed a perfectly good names for what he claimed he invented: science-fiction and parapsychology Hubbard continued with what he had talents for, he just gave it some new names.

With this type of "logic" I can claim anything is science, you just use the world differently. Since language wasn't created by L. Ron Hubbard it is just silly the way he tries to make his "discovery" look trustworthy by redefining words like science.

>anything a religion. But Scientology does have proof.
>Proof to all who have seen it and experianced it.

Personal opinions and experiences that can't be duplicated or verified (or falsified) isn't (and never will be) scientific proof. The Flat Earth Society and astrologists have the same type of "proof" you talk about here.

What are your experiences? What part of Scientology have you seen work?

>>He wasn't a great philosopher, or great in any of the
>>skills he claimed.

>Many cities have days named after Ron, for the great
>services he supplied our time with.

What cities is this, I would be very interested in knowing! I assume "many" would mean more than "a few". Please list them for me.

Hubbard is recognized as a fraud, a pathological liar, a pulp fiction writer and a cult leader outside CoS. Don't fool yourself by buying the tales CoS tell and the recognition they buy in a desperate attempt to make him into something he never were.

>>He had an incredible imagination and was very charismatic.

>I believe Einstien said something to the point of,
>"Imagination is more important that education".

Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." And I would agree that imagination is very important as a tool to find new truths, but it is even more important to be able to separate imagination from real life. In the search you need to be creative and dare to look into things that you might instinctively rule out since they might contradict your current opinions. If you lack, like Hubbard obviously did, the ability to reject an imagined idea when it can't be verified or is proven wrong, then you don't manage to separate the two. A good advice in used in scientific study is to try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. Hubbard wasn't just overly attached, but totally blind to anything else. He was so mad when the mental profession rejected his wild claims that he made them enemy number one. Which they still are in CoS.

Einstein also wrote:

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

>>the cult

>Sientology is a religion, ruled even by the Supreme Court.

"Religion" and "cult" is not words that rule the other out. You might consider Scientology to be your religion, and I wouldn't even argue with you. But CoS is still a cult. There are different types of cultic movements, some are religious cults and other are not.

And the reference to the Supreme Court is just silly. What made them an authority on what a religion is or isn't? Another popular argument is to point out that IRS also recognized CoS as a religion. So what? Ok, according to the text in the law it is ruled that they should be treated as it is defined there. Still Hubbard made Dianetics into a religion to avoid tax and to continue his work without being accused of practicing medicine without a licence. I too can invent a religion, it would take me about 10 minutes. Is that some sort of "quality stamp"?

It makes no different for any argument if Scientology is recognized as a religion by the laws of the land. Scientology and CoS is judged by its merits and its claims. And according to the definitions for a cult CoS fits in just perfect.

>>Maybe the current management in CoS will finally see
>>the writing on the wall and run off with a good piece
>>of the money,
>
>Scientology is a non-profit organization. I know since I
>deal with the income. Actually I am over the income. That
>is my position.

Are you aware of the amount of money CoS has in foreign account? Being non-profit means that no individuals gain from the profits made in the organization. Both you and I know that CoS makes money and profit. Maybe not as much as before, but it still makes a lot of money. It does not cost CoS $ 1000 per hour to do L auditing for example. What kind of life do you think David Miscavige is living? And have you read any of the many books by people who actually knew Hubbard in the sixties and seventies? Are you aware that he did gain a lot from CoS even though this of course was officially denied?

Soon the non-profit status will be reviewed by IRS, and CoS is desperately settling all lawsuits in an attempt to look good. They have reason to be concerned...

Take care.

Best wishes,                              SP4  &  Adm. TOXE CXI
Andreas Heldal-Lund,  Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway
Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46  E-mail: heldal@online.no
home.sol.no/~spirous     www.xenu.net    www.hedning.no/hedning
---------------------------------------------------------------
"There IS life, love and friendship.... after $cientology."
                               - said by a former Scientologist

From: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 21:30:54 EDT
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: heldal@online.no

In a message dated 05/16/1999 2:07:11 PM EST, heldal@online.no writes:

>>>>Even though Hubbard and CoS claim this is a
>>>>science, I've seen

>>>nothing that indicates that it is. For the "religion"
>>>part there is of course not supposed to be proof,
>>>just dogmatic belief.
>>
>>Actually, Hubbard "Ate Crow" in calling it a science. He
>>did that so that the people would be able to recognize
>>what it did. A science it is not claimed to beAs far as I
>>know). There doesn't have to be proof to call

>I don't know what "ate crow" means, sorry. I assume you mean
>he used the term even though he actually didn't mean it just
>to make it easier for people to understand him. Correct me
>if I'm wrong. But why would he need to do that? Why not call
>it a religious belief of the mind? If that's what it is. I
>claim the reason was that he deliberately wanted to lead
>people astray.

"Ate Crow" is to apologize. Admit being wrong.

>He called his first book "DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF
>MENTAL HEALTH". It wasn't in my opinion. It's just a
>hotchpotch of Hubbard's rants and crackpot psychology.
>Where is the proof and the documentation? Where are the
>Clears that show any signs of being "at cause knowingly
>and at will over mental matter, energy, space and time"?
>Why has there never been observed even one single OT with
>"total cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought"?

Read up on Scientology's tech of the Missunderstood Word. Then re-read Dianetics.

>Because both Clear and OT is something Hubbard invented and
>not part of any science that has been proven. Both good
>examples of the quality of all his claims.

Can Science prove God? Buddah? Thought?(Not the waves, but thought itself)

>In chapter 4 of "The Fundamentals Of Thought" Hubbard writes:

> "The earlier science Dianetics included Dynamics One to Four.
> Scientology embraces Dynamics One through Seven as known
> territory, scientifically demonstrated and classified."

>There is no such scientific demonstrations or
>classifications available. Critics have been asking to
>see it for years. CoS has nothing to show, not even a
>single Clear or OT with any of the powers they claim
>they have.

Psychiatrists claimed IQ can not be raised. LRH proved them wrong. He prove of statistics.

>In "The Phoenix Lectures" (chapter 3) he actually admits that
>Scientology isn't a science:

> "Scientology, then, today, could not possibly be
> characterized as a science the way the western world
> understands science. Scientology carries forward a tradition
> of wisdom which concerns itself about the soul and the
> solution of mysteries of life. It has not deviated."

>Truth is that there existed a perfectly good names for
>what he claimed he invented: science-fiction and
>parapsychology Hubbard continued with what he had talents
>for, he just gave it some new names.

That is opinion based, so I will not argue with it.

>>anything a religion. But Scientology does have proof.
>>Proof to all who have seen it and experianced it.

>Personal opinions and experiences that can't be duplicated
>or verified (or falsified) isn't (and never will be)
>scientific proof. The Flat Earth Society and astrologists
>have the same type of "proof" you talk about here.

You are absolutly right. I apologize for trying to use that as a statement. (Although integrety is "What's true, is true for you.")

>What are your experiences? What part of Scientology have
>you seen work?

I have had a majore exp. actually. I used to hate reading, and I did a process called, "Reach and Withdraw". I thought nothing ogf it, but I can read now. There is more to it, but I do not have a lot of time to type.

>>>He wasn't a great philosopher, or great in any of
>>>the skills he claimed.

>>Many cities have days named after Ron, for the great
>>services he supplied our time with.

>What cities is this, I would be very interested in knowing!
>I assume "many" would mean more than "a few". Please list
>them for me.

Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Miamia, S. Miami, Miami Beach.. I am sure more .. Oh yeah,. Hialeah.. And maybe even Miramar. Those are the ones in Florida that I know of. I do not know of the others in other states for I do not live in them.

>Hubbard is recognized as a fraud, a pathological liar, a
>pulp fiction writer and a cult leader outside CoS. Don't fool
>yourself by buying the tales CoS tell and the recognition they
>buy in a desperate attempt to make him into something he never
>were.

There are always ones who speak poorly of good. There are many examples, look all over.

>>>the cult

>>Sientology is a religion, ruled even by the Supreme Court.

>"Religion" and "cult" is not words that rule the other out. You
>might consider Scientology to be your religion, and I wouldn't
>even argue with you. But CoS is still a cult. There are different
>types of cultic movements, some are religious cults and other are
>not.

Ok, then have you been to the "Cult" Of Christ latley? Same diff.

>And the reference to the Supreme Court is just silly. What made
>them an authority on what a religion is or isn't? Another popular
>argument is to point out that IRS also recognized CoS as a
>religion. So what? Ok, according to the text in the law it is
>ruled that they should be treated as it is defined there.

Who?? We did. "By the people, for the people." It's our Goverment, and what makes us the wealthiest AND most powerful country on this planet. (Though it could be better.)

>Still Hubbard made Dianetics into a religion to avoid tax and to
>continue his work without being accused of practicing medicine
>without a licence. I too can invent a religion, it would take me
>about 10 minutes. Is that some sort of "quality stamp"?

[two sentences with personal information removed so that this person can not be recognized] But the ones that don't work, fade away. Dianetics is still on the best seller list.

>>>Maybe the current management in CoS will finally see the writing
>>>on the wall and run off with a good piece of the money,

>>Scientology is a non-profit organization. I know since I deal
>>with the income. Actually I am over the income. That is my
>>position.

>Are you aware of the amount of money CoS has in foreign account?
>Being non-profit means that no individuals gain from the profits
>made in the organization. Both you and I know that CoS makes money
>and profit. Maybe not as much as before, but it still makes a lot
>of money. It does not cost CoS $ 1000 per hour to do L auditing
>for example. What kind of life do you think David Miscavige is
>living? And have you read any of the many books by people who
>actually knew Hubbard in the sixties and seventies? Are you aware
>that he did gain a lot from CoS even though this of course was
>officially denied?

He did, and it went back into the Church. He was rich BEFORE Scn. Not after Scn. The money made goes back into the church, of this I am sure due to being over the income. We get paid to work there, cause we have to live. We do not get paid much, because we get paid by the production of the Church.

>Take care.

Ditto.

From: "Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net" heldal@online.no
Date: Sun, 24 May 1999
Subject: Re: Hello.
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX.XXX

Hi,

Thank you for your e-mail!

I've edited the lines in your text and added proper > to show what is quoted.

At 21:30 23.05.99 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 05/16/1999 2:07:11 PM EST, heldal@online.no writes:
>>I don't know what "ate crow" means, sorry. I assume you mean he
>>used the term even though he actually didn't mean it just to make
>>it easier for people to understand him. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>But why would he need to do that? Why not call it a religious
>>belief of the mind? If that's what it is. I claim the reason was
>>that he deliberately wanted to lead people astray.
>
>"Ate Crow" is to apologize. Admit being wrong.

I've not seen reference to where Hubbard apologizes this, please tell me where this can be verified. CoS still claims it is a science (eg. DMSMH). If Hubbard said it wasn't, then CoS is not following what Hubbard teached?

>>He called his first book "DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL
>>HEALTH". It wasn't in my opinion. It's just a hotchpotch of Hubbard's
>>rants and crackpot psychology. Where is the proof and the
>>documentation? Where are the Clears that show any signs of being
>>"at cause knowingly and at will over mental matter, energy, space and
>>time"? Why has there never been observed even one single OT with
>>"total cause over matter, energy, space, time and thought"?
>
>Read up on Scientology's tech of the Missunderstood Word. Then re-read
>Dianetics.

But there is no proof in Dianetic. Doesn't make it more right just by reading it over and over. In science it is the one making a claim that has to prove it, not the critics. In science one would test the claim, to see if its predicted results actually occur when tested. When Dianetics is scientifically tested the result is not as predicted by Hubbard. It is a big difference between _believing_ something works and actually proving it. The first can be applied to absolutely every crazy claim.

Where are the Clears and OTs? If there had been only one OT in CoS they would not have had such a hard time handling the critics. With only one OT or Clear their revenue would not go down. Why did Flag evacuated last year when critics had a picket outside? Why did they put up blinds around the building the year after? The famous James Randi has offered a prize of over 1 million dollar to anybody who can prove any supernatural abilities, even a display of the simplest OT power would qualify for the prize. And think of the publicity!!! Why fight this messy war of words when it would be so simple just to demonstrate that Hubbard was right? All of us could then work together instead of argue. Why is CoS so unwilling to show the evidence and the results they claim they have? A Clear is supposed to have perfect recollection, but Clears don't. Why is that? Where are the distinguished Scientology scientists or great athletics? How many Scientologists have gotten a Nobel prize or won gold in the Olympics? Neither Clears nor OTs are any better than others. Where are the great discoveries in medicine or inventions done by Scientologists? Why should we believe any such undocumented claims from a proven pathological liar like L. Ron Hubbard, or even spend a dime trying it out? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

There are no OT or Clear abilities, or even any evidence suggesting Scientology "tech" makes anybody more able. But as long as CoS can make money claiming it is so, they will do so. And there will always be people willing to buy a bridge to "Total Freedom" or whatever. This isn't the only scam that brings in lots of money on gullible people.

And I do not agree with the method to work on "Misunderstood Word" when there is something you don't understand. You assume that the author is flawless and will go back studying until you "understand". The information available to me shows that Hubbard was a con-man and it isn't very likely that his undocumented claims is anything but bs. You and I can perfectly well communicate even though English isn't my first language. We express ourselves using words grouped together, you don't understand my argument by analyzing each word. I don't use the words exactly like you do, still we understand each other by reading the context in the dialog. Take the "Hubbard Key to Life Course" for example. This supposedly undercuts all previous education by returning the individual to the basics of literacy. Factually, because it treats all clients as pre-school children, it tends to cause age regression, making people yet more susceptible to Scientology. (J. Atack, "The Total Freedom Trap: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard")

Scientology and Dianetics are a set of indoctrination routines that has been tested out and perfectioned since the fifties. The board of inquiry into Scientology for the state of Victoria concluded by saying "Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community; medically, morally and socially." Or what about Kenneth Robinson, British Minister of Health:

"The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful. It alienates members of families from each other and attributes squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality and well being of those so deluded as to become followers; above all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to prohibit the practice of Scientology; but the government has concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right to take all steps within its power to curb its growth."

Or Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court:

"[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect.... The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard."

If you are convinced that the "tech" works, then you will find that in the freezone for a much lower price. Another thing is to defend and support CoS. What guarantee do you have that David Miscavige and his people serves you and Scientology, and not just themselves? Did you know that Miscavige won the power struggle in CoS after Hubbard's death and none of the people Hubbard himself selected to take were all forced out? Many Scientologists, who still believe in the "tech" has claimed that Miscavige has corrupted the "tech" and is the reason for Scientology not expanding. They use a major chunk of their annual revenue on lawyers and court cases and is recognized as the most litigious cult ever. Is that what Scientology is about? If the "tech" works and Hubbard was this good man they claim, why would all this be necessary?

Have CoS told you that it has been revealed in American court filings and official documents that CoS actually has no "members" and that all its copyrighted materials and trade marks are owned and controlled by a law firm in California. They established an organization to take over the scientology network while Hubbard kept in hiding from the investigations of the authorities in the end of the 70's and the beginning of the 80's. This organization is called "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). The Special Directors of CST are all lawyers and none is a Scientologist.

The managers of CST are appointed for life and are paid for all the work they do according to the hourly rates they themselves set and they are not accountable to the persons or organizations that count as followers of the "religion". Most, if not all, followers of scientology are totally unaware about the CST and evidently believe everything that the official management in the USA says. Your "church" is actually run by lawyers and non-scientologists.

>>Because both Clear and OT is something Hubbard invented and not
>>part of any science that has been proven. Both good examples of
>>the quality of all his claims.
>
>Can Science prove God? Buddah? Thought?(Not the waves, but
>thought itself)

But you are mixing apples and bananas. God is a religious concept and science never said it could prove a belief (ever considered that many things are never scientifically proven just because they are not true?). Hubbard claimed it wasn't a belief, but scientifically proven facts. Do I claim God is scientifically proven? History can make the claim that Buddha lived reasonable to believe, and the complexity of the brain is well documented in numerous scientific volumes. While science doesn't claim it knows everything, religious belief can claim whatever it wants. Because it isn't science. If Hubbard wanted to sell the idea that an alien overlord came to earth 75 million years ago, that is his business. But when people are lied to since they deny Hubbard claims this in OT III, then Scientology is a fraud. People are told by Scientology body routers that they can keep their other religious belief and still join Scientology. Having access to the secret upper levels of Scientology and testimonies from hundreds of former high ranking Scientologists we now know that this is a lie. Hubbard claimed that all other religions were false memories implanted in the minds of the mentioned alien souls that infest us. Before people pawn all they got to buy Scientology auditing and courses they should know this. Read up on the tragic stories of those who have gotten their life ruined and forced family members to disconnect from each other, and some even took their life because of the extreme pressure for more money and more courses. Then you will see it is blood money you are handling.

There is no documentation even suggesting that there are any truth in Hubbard's claims. There are many who will attest that they have felt personal gain by studying Scientology, just like there are people still seeing Elvis and those who predicts the future by reading tea leafs. And it WORKS they all say. I've met lots of Christians who have "seen" legs growing when they prayed and others who have gotten their broken down car fixed the same way. They have no doubt; it was Jesus who did it. And there are Scientologists who believe they were Jesus in a former life or have thrown away their glasses when they attested Clear. You have it all in all such groups, but still nothing that can be verified! But what we do have a lot of, is people who come out of it explaining what really happened. People want so much to believe, we are even capable of fooling our self. And they want to show others that this fantastic idea is true (in CoS it is not allowed to suggest that Hubbard was wrong, if Scientology doesn't work for you then it is YOUR fault!). Investigating this phenomenon is rather fascinating, one learns a lot about the human mind set. The wish to believe is often many times stronger than the ability to honestly observe reality. There's a lot of study available on this subject.

You are free to believe the moon is made of cheese if you so wish, but it isn't a very rational argument to ask others to prove or disprove your claim. If you just like to believe the moon is made of cheese then I'll probably smile at you and not care much. But if you sell courses about astronomy claiming they are scientific and only tell people you believe the moon is made of cheese after they've spent a fortune buying your courses, then I might very well be tempted to ask you to show the scientific reference and maybe even reveal for potential customers that you later in the course will claim the moon is made of cheese. As long as you aren't honest and as long as you call it science, you can't just brush aside the criticism with "Can science prove God?".

Can I prove the moon is not made of cheese? Of course not, my space ship is currently in the garage so I can't take you there and show you. ;) You would have been the one with the claim, the burden of proof lies on you. Same goes for Hubbard, but he never could show any. He surely have found a method to make people believe there is something in his "tech" to pay for, but people falling for an offshoot of psychotherapy isn't really very amazing.

>>In chapter 4 of "The Fundamentals Of Thought" Hubbard writes:
>>
>>
>> "The earlier science Dianetics included Dynamics One to Four.
>> Scientology embraces Dynamics One through Seven as known
>> territory, scientifically demonstrated and classified."
>>
>> There is no such scientific demonstrations or classifications
>> available. Critics have been asking to see it for years. CoS
>> has nothing to show, not even a single Clear or OT with any of
>> the powers they claim they have.
>
>Psychiatrists claimed IQ can not be raised. LRH proved
>them wrong. He prove of statistics.

"There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics."

-- Benjamin Disraeli

Where is this remarkable statistics you refer to? I got an interesting formal scientific study of Dianetic therapy ready for you at:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/fisher/

The judgement is pretty clear, a quote take from the result:

"For the population of disturbed persons who applied for dianetic therapy, and who were between the ages of 22 and 47 years, and who had at least some high school education, regardless of the sex of these persons, it was concluded that:
  1. dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon intellectual functioning;
  2. dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon mathematical ability; and
  3. dianetic therapy does not exert a systematic influence either favorably or adversely upon the degree of personality conflicts."

>>In "The Phoenix Lectures" (chapter 3) he actually admits that
>> Scientology isn't a science:
>>
>> "Scientology, then, today, could not possibly be
>> characterized as a science the way the western world
>> understands science. Scientology carries forward a tradition
>> of wisdom which concerns itself about the soul and the
>> solution of mysteries of life. It has not deviated."
>>
>> Truth is that there existed a perfectly good names for
>>what he claimed he invented: science-fiction and
>>parapsychology Hubbard continued with what he had talents
>>for, he just gave it some new names.
>
>That is opinion based, so I will not argue with it.

In the absence of documentation of his claims, and the now so well published truth about the con-man L. Ron Hubbard, it is a rational observation. How much alternative or critical information on the subject of Scientology and Hubbard have you actually studied?

>>What are your experiences? What part of Scientology have
>>you seen work?
>
>I have had a majore exp. actually. I used to hate reading, and I did a
>process called, "Reach and Withdraw". I thought nothing ogf it, but I can
>read now. There is more to it, but I do not have a lot of time to type.

Your dislike of reading can have had many reasons, so could the reasons for why it changed. Maybe the support you got from fellow Scientologists was what you needed, maybe the feeling that there could be something valuable things learned by reading was enough to make you look at it differently. It is rather normal that we change our interests while getting older. I too "hated" reading, until I found something to read that was really interesting for me. Then I dived into books like I hadn't done anything else all my life. There was probably many events in my life that led to this change, some I might not even be aware of.

You credit Scientology for this, and maybe you are right that there were things in the training you did or with the Scientologists you met that triggered something in you. When former members of CoS tries to explain what got them into Scientology and made them stay it is obvious that there are tools used there that aren't without effect, but none of them are revolutionary or even to be credited Hubbard for.

>>>>He wasn't a great philosopher, or great in any of the skills
>>>>he claimed.
>>>
>>>Many cities have days named after Ron, for the great services he
>>>supplied our time with.
>>
>>What cities is this, I would be very interested in knowing! I
>>assume "many" would mean more than "a few". Please list them
>>for me.
>
>Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, Miamia, S. Miami, Miami Beach..
>I am sure more .. Oh yeah,. Hialeah.. And maybe even Miramar.
>Those are the ones in Florida that I know of. I do not know
>of the others in other states for I do not live in them.

Then I would be interested in knowing how such days are made. I know for example some places it can be bought, so it would be very interesting to know on what grounds these cities named a day after Hubbard. And when you say the city named it, what authority did so? The majors office?

We know very well what methods CoS use to portray Hubbard as a great humanitarian, philosopher, musician, explorer etc, but we also know they lie and don't tell the whole truth. They spend a fortune to polish his picture, since he is their goose laying the golden eggs. They have nobody to take his place and desperately needs him to look good. They try to buy this when possible, like sending Scientologists out to buy DMSMH to keep it on the bestseller lists. If you dare to read up on some of the information available outside CoS you might be shocked.

>>Hubbard is recognized as a fraud, a pathological liar, a
>>pulp fiction writer and a cult leader outside CoS. Don't fool
>>yourself by buying the tales CoS tell and the recognition they
>>buy in a desperate attempt to make him into something he never
>>were.
>>
>There are always ones who speak poorly of good. There are many
>examples, look all over.

I have really looked "all over"! Out here in the "wog world" my description of L. Ron Hubbard's posthumous reputation is just like I wrote. He's not even quoted among fairly good philosophers, or recognized as a very good writer. There are even numerous much better known pulp authors than him. He's not recognized for being a humanitarian or a great explorer, not even a good musician. All this is just tales told inside CoS, nowhere else. Looking up "Hubbard" in my Norwegian encyclopedia (the biggest in Norway, 10000 pages+ in 1983) he isn't even mentioned!

>>>Sientology is a religion, ruled even by the Supreme Court.
>>
>>"Religion" and "cult" is not words that rule the other out. You
>>might consider Scientology to be your religion, and I wouldn't
>>even argue with you. But CoS is still a cult. There are different
>>types of cultic movements, some are religious cults and other are
>>not.
>
>Ok, then have you been to the "Cult" Of Christ latley? Same diff.

A cult can be defined as a group having all of the following 5 characteristics (from CIC site):

  • It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members.
  • It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
  • Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
  • It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.
  • Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.

Based on the study I've done (all well documented on my site) CoS fits the definition of a cult. True, members of a cult does not recognize themselves as cult members, it is obvious why. And in big cults there will of course be people with very different experiences. Most Scientologists are good people with the best intentions and they will of course do the best out of it. Meeting them only will not show the signs of a cult. But I have the privilege of having access to a lot of different information, both from CoS and others. Looking at it as a whole it definitely is a cult.

>>And the reference to the Supreme Court is just silly. What made
>>them an authority on what a religion is or isn't? Another popular
>>argument is to point out that IRS also recognized CoS as a
>>religion. So what? Ok, according to the text in the law it is
>>ruled that they should be treated as it is defined there.
>
>Who?? We did. "By the people, for the people." It's our
>Goverment, and what makes us the wealthiest AND most powerful
>country on this planet. (Though it could be better.)

The law describes how the society is to be governed and describe yours and mine rights and limits in it. No law can take all possible reservations, often there are those who will exploit weaknesses in the laws for purposes the law was not intended. While the laws were made to protect the freedom of religion, it had to describe what _it_ meant by religion. Of course someone then can create a religion which fits that definition, just to exploit the benefits that offers. Hubbard did, and it is pretty evident from the documentation available.

It still doesn't matter much, Scientology being a religion or not. If it could be defined as not being one, it would just be adjusted so it was.

>>Still Hubbard made Dianetics into a religion to avoid tax and to
>>continue his work without being accused of practicing medicine
>>without a licence. I too can invent a religion, it would take me
>>about 10 minutes. Is that some sort of "quality stamp"?
>
>[tho sentences removed] But the ones
>that don't work, fade away. Dianetics is still on the best seller list.

The logical flaw is obvious in this argument. There are many religions who hasn't faded away, still they can't all be right. It only proves humans aren't perfect, we are able to believe the most incredible things. The amount of belief is no evidence of it being true.

>>>Scientology is a non-profit organization. I know since I deal
>>>with the income. Actually I am over the income. That is my
>>>position.
>>
>>Are you aware of the amount of money CoS has in foreign account?
>>Being non-profit means that no individuals gain from the profits
>>made in the organization. Both you and I know that CoS makes money
>>and profit. Maybe not as much as before, but it still makes a lot
>>of money. It does not cost CoS $ 1000 per hour to do L auditing
>>for example. What kind of life do you think David Miscavige is
>>living? And have you read any of the many books by people who
>>actually knew Hubbard in the sixties and seventies? Are you aware
>>that he did gain a lot from CoS even though this of course was
>>officially denied?
>
>He did, and it went back into the Church. He was rich BEFORE Scn.
>Not after Scn. The money made goes back into the church, of this I
>am sure due to being

Hubbard was broke before CoS, he couldn't even pay a cent to his wife and kids who he abandoned after WW2. Then he joined the OTO sect where he stole money from Parson and ran off with his new girlfriend (which he married while still married to his first wife). Even after Dianetics came out he was dependent on his military pension and several times went to medical examinations complaining more and more illnesses, but all they could find was an ulcer.

In 1952 the final accounts for the Hubbard Dianetic Foundation of Wichita revealed an income of $142,000 and expenditure of $205,000. Hubbard had received fees amounting to nearly $22,000 while salaries for all the remaining staff only accounted for $54,000. The foundation filed for bankruptcy.

Hubbard was examined before the bankruptcy court on 17 and 19 December [1953], he agreed to make restitution and was discharged. Very soon afterwards he flew back to London, where the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, or HASI, had opened for business in a couple of draughty rooms above a shop in Holland Park Avenue in West London. They were unprepossessing premises for a science offering immortality, but Hubbard was not finding it easy to establish a base for Scientology' in Britain. Helen O'Brien received a despairing letter from a friend describing the HASI offices in London: 'There was an atmosphere of extreme poverty and undertones of a grim conspiracy over all. At 163 Holland Park Avenue was an ill-lit lecture room and a bare-boarded and poky office some eight by ten feet, mainly infested by long-haired men and short-haired, tatty women.'

(from the book Bare-Faced Messiah, which you definitely should read!)

It is also well documented that Hubbard saw a big potential in making a religion for the money.

"Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion."

-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.117 from 1986 interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall 1945.

"I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult."

-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the Thrilling SF magazines: quoted in Bare Faced Messiah p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of 1946/47.

"Around this time [Hubbard] was invited to address a science fiction group in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. 'Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous,' he told the meeting. 'If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.'

-- Bare Faced Messiah p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.

"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association in Newark, New Jersey in 1947: 'Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect, he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million, he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"

-- Messiah or Madman, p.45.

On 9apr94, jittlov@gumby.cs.caltech.edu (Mike Jittlov) posted (about a conversation with Theodore Sturgeon):

Back in the 1940's, L. Ron Hubbard was a member of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (when its old clubhouse was just north of Wilshire Blvd). Ted vividly recalled being a few yards from Hubbard, when he became testy with someone there and retorted, "Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make _real_ money, you gotta start a _religion_!

Lloyd Arthur Eshbach was a science fiction writer and publisher between 1929 and 1957. His autobiography, says on pages 125 and 126 (about the events of 1948 and 1949):

I think of the time while in New York I took John W. Campbell Marty Greenberg, and L. Ron Hubbard to lunch. Someone suggested a Swedish smorgasbord, and I had my first--and last--taste of kidney. Yuck! Afterward we wound up in my hotel room for related conversation.

The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall-- but in so many words Hubbard said:

"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"

CoS took the magazine Stern to court for printing this. Stern won.

>over the income. We get paid to work there, cause we have
>to live. We do not get paid much, because we get paid by
>the production of the Church.

If you get regularly paid and it always is enough to cover your living costs, then you are lucky. I hope you have a pension fund at work, I know several in CoS who worked long hours in CoS for close to no pay (especially when the income was poor and most of the money went to covering rent, telephone, etc). Now they have nothing, not even relevant education or practice to get a proper job. Nobody can expect to get rich of course by working for a church, but one should make sure ones best interests for the future is secured.

Take care.

Best wishes, SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI Andreas Heldal-Lund, Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46 E-mail: heldal@online.no home.sol.no/~spirous www.xenu.net www.hedning.no/hedning --------------------------------------------------------------- "There IS life, love and friendship.... after $cientology." - said by a former Scientologist

No more from this Scientologist...

"If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us. The free mind is no barking dog to be tethered on a ten-foot chain."
- Adlai E. Stevenson

Return to FAQ


Brought to you by:
Operation Clambake