Scientology: Hubbard = Hitler?

[Macoy]

Something that seemed to wind up danishdynamite:

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Good stuff. What fascinates me is the fact that Scientology is perfectly adapted to life in the technological age. It's almost like it had to happen. We killed God and replaced him with science/technology/ourselves, so if we are to have a new religion, it must have a technological approach to spirituality.

Mr Hubbard was a science fiction writer first, he knew what he was doing-and why.

Someone like Heidegger would see it as evidence of how technology "destines" us for certain ends. Everything we do requires a technological solution - even problems caused by technology. The answer is always more technology. We are "enframed" utterly by a technological approach to life - everything is system.

I feared the rise of an emotionless movement connecting itself to science when I first read Dianetics. I had no notion it had gotten as far as the OP has shown.

Scientology is the perfect expression of this. Humanity is in spiritual crisis, and the answer is technical. Hubbards "revelations" are supposedly the result rational scientific explorations into the spirit. In their own jargon, their rituals and scriptures are called "tech". Their nonsense is "applied philosophy". Hell their name says it all - "Scientific Ontology". It's a "scientific" approach to metaphysics, being, and Truth.

And as Dianetics says about its method, "it does not have to be true to work."

They have tuned right into the Geist of our times. Who knows? 100 years from now they may be as mainstream as the Mormons.

How about that. All it takes is a skilled hand, money, and time.

 

[Kochanski]

Scientology and scientologist scare the crap out of me, too.

One point to remember, while it may be expensive to get involved in scientology, they do allow people to do their auditing and classes without paying by working the tables at their "Free stress tests" and other bait and switch operations. This then puts the individuals in debt to the Co$ making it very hard for them to escape it. The people with money, who have paid for their Co$ nonsense can get out easier if they wish. They also have people confess to their auditors all the bad things they have done. So, if the money doesn't keep them in the threat of having various embarassing or illegal things revealed often will.

Yes, these people are very, very, very dangerous.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, and these folks, Cruise, Travolta, Carr, think they're superior to the rest of us, don't you know. Their hubris is astounding.

Indeed.

The greatest con of all is how they're using psychological practices (without a license) yet dissing established (licensed) practitioners.

Oh, they're using psychotherapy, but NOT in the way it's intended.

When you go to a psychologist or psychiatrist, you can go in with the assumption that they are there to make you better, to promote your mental health.

Scientologists do the OPPOSITE. They intentionally open old psychological wounds so that you come back for more and more, as they convince you that you need scientology's classes to help you become "clear".

Which contributes either money towards Scientology, or you start to work for them for the classes; essentially for free.

Mr Hubbard was a science fiction writer first, he knew what he was doing-and why.

I earnestly believe that Hubbard originally made it all up and got into a habit of habitual lying (He was referred to as a pathological liar), but got so drawn into the cult environment with so many people paying deference to his every word, that he started to believe that it was all real.

If you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to think it's true. If people repeat it BACK long enough, and worship you, even the liar can start to believe it.

 

[Big Les]

It's perfectly possible to deep-down know that you're lying, but to believe or at least embrace it in the persona you present to everyone else. Especially if you compartmentalise to the extent that you don't often think about the truth and the bad consequences of the lie.

I think we all do that to some extent; Hubbard and his ilk just more so and more shameless about it.

 

[Rufo]

But that's just the thing. Scientology cannot just disregard the word of L. Ron Hubbard without committing a contradiction. Either he was the clear-minded leader, or he wasn't. It's only absolutes here; Scientology does not leave much room for doubt at all.

And, quite frankly, this book was published in 1989; Hubbard died 1986 (The cite says: "L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145" L. Ron Hubbard died 24 January 1986, according to Wikipedia). So this book was PUBLISHED AFTER HUBBARD DIED! That's not enough time for Hubbard to say, "You know what? Nevermind!" One of the major parts of being a scientologist is to listen to every word of Hubbard, to read his every word, to "understand" the dianetics system, and all of the things that Hubbard "uncovered" (including the Xenu bit, when you're much later on into the cult, and brainwashed to the point where it makes sense). You cannot disregard the word of Hubbard and call yourself a $cientologist.

Unless I'm mistaken on any particular part?

Unless you mean that it's only outdated on the homosexuality part (which I wasn't really focusing on anyways)?

I meant that only the homosexuality part is outdated (partly) because Hubbard himself retracted the statement in the late 60s. In fact, he retracted all statements which regulated the sexuality of scientologists. The COS still published books written by other authors after this that classified homosexuals as 1.1 on the tone scale, however, but they don't seem to encourage the treatment Hubbard suggested for 1.1s.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I earnestly believe that Hubbard originally made it all up and got into a habit of habitual lying (He was referred to as a pathological liar), but got so drawn into the cult environment with so many people paying deference to his every word, that he started to believe that it was all real.

I believe, that he believed, that: "you can get people to believe in anything," and he set out to do that. He "grew" more into what he was doing, (some people's reactions surely surprised him) but he already had a general direction.

 

[D'rok]

I believe, that he believed, that: "you can get people to believe in anything," and he set out to do that. He "grew" more into what he was doing, (some people's reactions surely surprised him) but he already had a general direction.

I agree with LCL about something. Cool. I like common ground.

 

[Lonewulf]

I meant that only the homosexuality part is outdated (partly) because Hubbard himself retracted the statement in the late 60s. In fact, he retracted all statements which regulated the sexuality of scientologists. The COS still published books written by other authors after this that classified homosexuals as 1.1 on the tone scale, however, but they don't seem to encourage the treatment Hubbard suggested for 1.1s.

Yet, the treatment Hubbard suggested was suggested by the big H himself.

Contradictions, who'da thunk it?