New book on Scientology: Going Clear

[angrysoba]

You mean like this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

Ward

Ha ha ha! Oh my God, that's piss funny!

Yes. He has given several speeches to Sceintology groups about how the CO$ is the answer to all the world;s problems.

But he makes it look even more ridiculous. I'm a little bit astounded that this obvious hokum is taken as seriously as it is. To be honest, even those investigating it seem to be too earnest about it. I think ridicule is all it deserves.

Yeah, the divorce from Katie Holmes seems to have taken the wind out of Tommy.
If you want proof about how damaging the CO$ can be, Cruise's two marraiges, in which the insanity of the CO$ seems to have played a major row in ending both, should be proof of that.
And that both Nicole Kidman and Katie Holmes are drop dead gorgeous just makes it more insane.

Yep, Tom Cruise, with all his ability to forge his own reality by the power of Scientology apparently let them go. What a loser!

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Yeah, the divorce from Katie Holmes seems to have taken the wind out of Tommy.
If you want proof about how damaging the CO$ can be, Cruise's two marraiges, in which the insanity of the CO$ seems to have played a major row in ending both, should be proof of that.
And that both Nicole Kidman and Katie Holmes are drop dead gorgeous just makes it more insane.

Not forgeting first wife Mimi Rodgers, -
Described now as a former Scientologist , her relations with him and CoS
seem more complicated as she was a CoS well before while the other two reacted against it.

Rogers' father became interested in Dianetics in 1952[28] and would later become a prominent Mission Holder with the Church of Scientology and friend of founder, L Ron Hubbard.[12] Rogers also reportedly became a highly trained auditor with the church. Prior to her acting career, she opened a "field auditing" practice, the Enhancement Center with her first husband, Jim Rogers.[29] She was also an auditor for Sonny Bono[30] and Tom Cruise was also a client before being directed towards a Celebrity Centre.[29] In an interview given to the Los Angeles Times in 1991, Rogers spoke about Scientology; "that philosophy was simply part of my upbringing. And, I think it was an excellent system of belief to grow up with because Scientology offers an extremely pragmatic method for taking spiritual concerns and breaking them down into everyday applications."[5]
It appears that Mimi Rogers has left the Church of Scientology- she had been described in recent media reports as a "former" member of the church.[31][22][12][32] Cruise biographer, Andrew Morton, alleged that Mimi's father had been declared a Suppressive Person after leaving the church in the early 1980s during a cull of Mission Holders.[33] Spickler has since become part of the Free Zone movement.[34] A 2012 article in Vanity Fair alleged that Mimi held an unfavorable view of the church's controversial leader, David Miscavige.[35] A book published in 2013 alleges that Miscavige had pushed Rogers from her marriage with Tom Cruise so the latter could pursue Nicole Kidman.[36]

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

 

[zooterkin]

I found a good thread on it here: http://tonyortega.org/2012/10/24/tommy-davis-no-longer-a-scientology-spokesman/comment-page-1/

The consensus seems to be he's out but wealthy enough and still enough of a believer that he is both immune from typical Scientology attacks and not really a threat anyhow.

Still, if anyone has his address, I'd like to write him a fan letter.

According to John Sweeney's book, The Church of Fear, Tommy Davis has left Sea Org, and was selling real estate in Texas but was telling people that he was still in the Church. He (Sweeney) called at his address but couldn't get past the concierge, though he left a message.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

According to John Sweeney's book, The Church of Fear, Tommy Davis has left Sea Org, and was selling real estate in Texas but was telling people that he was still in the Church. He (Sweeney) called at his address but couldn't get past the concierge, though he left a message.

Yeah saw a recent video via Tony Ortega, where TO says TD is laying pretty low of late and probably out of the SeaOrg.

-

 

[ddt]

According to John Sweeney's book, The Church of Fear, Tommy Davis has left Sea Org, and was selling real estate in Texas but was telling people that he was still in the Church. He (Sweeney) called at his address but couldn't get past the concierge, though he left a message.

It doesn't surprise me Sweeney didn't manage to contact Tommy Davis, after their altercations documented in Sweeney's BBC documentary.

Scientology and Me, full documentary

Fragment with Tommy Davis losing his cool.

 

[zooterkin]

It doesn't surprise me Sweeney didn't manage to contact Tommy Davis, after their altercations documented in Sweeney's BBC documentary.

Scientology and Me, full documentary

Fragment with Tommy Davis losing his cool.

Covered in detail in the book, too. However, meeting up is not as unlikely as it sounds; when he was off-camera, Tommy was quite friendly and relaxed with Sweeney. Also, one of the other 'minders', Mike Rinder, left the Co$ (though not belief in Scientology itself), and did seek Sweeney out.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Sweeney interviewed here, on the internet (Scientology's unwinnable war/ Viet Nam) and CoS religious status in the UK.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/21/scientology_internet_threat/

 

[squealpiggy]

This all seems to be describing the Sea Org. My ex-scientologist acquantances suggest that most scientologists are just ordinary people with ordinary lives, that go in for the occasional course or auditing session.

And this is probably close to the mark. Scientology promotes itself as a religion in the public sphere but as a self-help technique on a personal level. Where it stops being an issue of self help techniques is in its use of SP (Suppressive Person) and PTS (Potential Trouble Source) to control who church members get to associate with. And then there's the Sea Org.

The book goes into quite a lot of detail and is quite sympathetic to members in all areas of the organisation (though it paints a fairly ugly picture of David Miscavige) who often really genuinely believe that they are making a difference to the world. One of the damaging Hubbard doctrines is the notion that illness, criminality, mistakes, moral lapses don't really exist, and anyone displaying any of those things is doing so because they made it happen. Anything that happens that is bad is your own fault and so if you are punished by the church (especially in the Sea Org) then you definitely deserved it even if you haven't yet figured out why.

That's whom I thought you were referring to. As the book mentions, he started being referred to as "Tommy" within the church precisely to avoid confusion with Tom C., whom I assume nobody in the church would dare to call Tommy.

Wonder what's behind his not being the face of the Co$ anymore. Could he be experiencing some doubts, despite the denials, or is it something else?

The book suggests he may have "blown" or ran away from the Sea Org at least twice and been recovered. The church denies he ever blew.

...

This is one issue that the CoS always manages to screw up:

When accusations are leveled at the church, they always over-react. For example when an ex member suggests that they were harassed by private investigators after leaving the church, instead of issuing a statement along the lines of "We have no knowledge of this happening and it's certainly not something that the church routinely engages in" their statements are "That person is just a bitter apostate who hates children and admits to lying and stealing. He also had four extra-marital affairs and we have signed affidavits to that effect with us right now."

It's part of the Fair Game doctrine (I know they don't do "Fair Game" any more. They still demand that SPs "be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" but they're not allowed to call that "Fair Game" any more.That sort of thing "causes bad public relations") but the overall effect is to make the church seem disingenuous, nasty and petty.

When people accuse the church of being vindictive and it responds by claiming that they are criminals it doesn't do much to address the accusation.

 

[zooterkin]

Sweeney interviewed here, on the internet (Scientology's unwinnable war/ Viet Nam) and CoS religious status in the UK.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/21/scientology_internet_threat/

Interesting, just seen we have John Sweeney booked for Skeptics in the Pub in September.

 

[zooterkin]

Interesting, just seen we have John Sweeney booked for Skeptics in the Pub in September.

I've heard he spoke at Brighton SITP in the last week, and it was, um, interesting, with a lot more audience participation than you might expect.

 

[fredcarr]

squealPiggy -The book goes into quite a lot of detail and is quite sympathetic to members in all areas of the organisation (though it paints a fairly ugly picture of David Miscavige) who often really genuinely believe that they are making a difference to the world. One of the damaging Hubbard doctrines is the notion that illness, criminality, mistakes, moral lapses don't really exist, and anyone displaying any of those things is doing so because they made it happen. Anything that happens that is bad is your own fault and so if you are punished by the church (especially in the Sea Org) then you definitely deserved it even if you haven't yet figured out why.

An interesting point could be made here. Reading a book about a subject that I guess is 'critical' of said subject may not be the best source of information. This might be why I have a reputation for referring people to source materials. Advice that seems to fall on deaf ears for the most part.


Two points:

1. Re. making a difference in the world - I think we all make a difference in the world whether it be for good or not.

2. The other point in that paragraph I'm not so sure of..."Hubbard doctrines is the notion that illness, criminality, mistakes, moral lapses don't really exist" - this is clearly not the case. So if this book indeed says this then its once again proof that one realy should study a subject one is going to report on. Even reading the first book by Mr. Hubbard "Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health." would have made it abundantly clear that the above is not Hubbard doctrine.

Or reading his last book "The Way to Happiness - A Common Sense Guide to Better Living." which directly addresses the subject of 'moral lapses' and how they can affect you and what you can do to better the lives of others as well as yourself. (Once again showing that we do work toward bettering the world - not really a negative I think.)

In case anyone wishes to verify any of this he can find Dianetics at his local book store or read the Way to Happiness online at www.waytohappiness.org.
.
.
.

 

[marplots]

An interesting point could be made here. Reading a book about a subject that I guess is 'critical' of said subject may not be the best source of information. This might be why I have a reputation for referring people to source materials. Advice that seems to fall on deaf ears for the most part.

This is good advice. What percentage of the book, Going Clear, do you think is accurate?

And on a related note, I thought your mention of checking sources was good as well. I see that "Going Clear" has a bibliography that lists sources, but a quick check shows that Dianetics does not. Comments?

 

[AdMan]

So if this book indeed says this then its once again proof that one realy should study a subject one is going to report on.

I assume from the conditional that you haven't read the book that this thread is about. If that's the case, how does that fit with your advice to really study a subject you're going to report on?

 

[Mike!]

So do thetans go to Mars or to Venus to have their memories erased after they die?

The men go to Mars and the women go to Venus. Duh.

 

[hgc]

The men go to Mars and the women go to Venus. Duh.

And all dogs go to heaven. Da-da-duh!

 

[hgc]

In case anyone wishes to verify any of this he can find Dianetics at his local book store or read the Way to Happiness online at www.waytohappiness.org.

Quoting from Dianetics

The sexual pervert (and by this term dianetics, to be brief, includes any and all forms of deviation in Dynamic II such as homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc. and all down the catalogue of Ellis and Krafft-Ebing) is actually quite ill physically. Perversion as an illness has so many manifestations that it must be spread through the entire gamut of classes from (1) to (5) above. Overdevelopment of sexual organs, underdevelopment, seminal inhibition or magnification, etc. are found in one pervert, some in another. And the sum of it is that the pervert is always a very ill person in one way or another, whether he is conscious of it or not.

Can't seem to find the footnotes though.

 

[Dubious Dick]

(Once again showing that we do work toward bettering the world - not really a negative I think.)

In case anyone wishes to verify any of this he can find Dianetics at his local book store or read the Way to Happiness online at www.waytohappiness.org.

Do we take from the above that you are a scifiologist?

You suggest reading just two of the books by Hubbard and ignore the fact that he issued interminable lectures and orders, amongst which you will find his ideas that if you are a scifiologist who falls ill it is your own fault or that of others around you.

You may want to refer to Marc Headley testimony here. This is part 1 of 3 parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk0NLEohgKo

I will check with Tony Ortega at Underground Bunker for source material regarding Hubbard laying this down as policy.

Since you seem to be defending Hubbard, whether you are a scifiologist or not, you really need to do more research on the man before you come out to bat for him. He was a con artist and dangerous nutter. For example, how would you defend his use of incarceration as punishment aboard his ships? Or perhaps his policy of Fair Game?

How about his policies designation of enemies of scifiology as Suppressive Persons, or the policy of disconnection?

Do you believe that scifiology approaches to psychology are valid in any way?

Do you deny the whole Xenu story?

Can you explain why, if scifiology is supposed to be so marvellous, why it has been shown to be simply a huge money making scam, and a sham of a religion?

I could go on and mention Lisa McPherson, or other deaths of scifiology adherents. Or perhaps the troubles at/with Narconon but this post would become a book in itself so let's just start with the above.

By the way, I have read Dianetics, and like everything else Hubbard wrote, it is pure mumbo jumbo. I have also listened to some of his lectures. Complete and utter baloney.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Do we take from the above that you are a scifiologist?

Yep he is, Fred Carr is our resident CoS apologist. Read the rest o f this thread or his other interventions in other CoS threads. You won't get a straight answer to any significant question or any implied or explicit criticism . His responses, like his previous one, fall into about 5 predictable categories:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8986584&postcount=80

 

[Dubious Dick]

Yep he is, Fred Carr is our resident CoS apologist. Read the rest o f this thread or his other interventions in other CoS threads. You won't get a straight answer to any significant question or any implied or explicit criticism . His responses, like his previous one, fall into about 5 predictable categories:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8986584&postcount=80

My apologies! i should have read the full thread and seen that Fred was in the Sea Org, but won't tell us why he left. perhaps his girlfriend/wife got pregnant? They don't like that in Sea Org. Wonder how many abortions scifiology has been responsible for forcing on Sea Org members down the years? More "Most Ethical People On The Planet" evidence!

As for whether Hubbard did or did not suggest that scifiologists who get sick are to blame, or people around them are to blame, I will quote from an email just received from Tony Ortega at the Underground Bunker, which I think clarifies the situation. Perhaps Fred would like to comment after reading:

"I looked at the thread. Your "FredCarr" mentions at one point that he was in the Sea Org in the 1980s, and throughout the thread he does appear to offer a counterpoint to Wright's book but -- and this is important -- he doesn't seem to have read it.

And what you're asking me about specifically is a bit of a mess. You have one person, "SquealPiggy," summarizing what Larry wrote, and then FredCarr reacting to it and saying that it's a mistaken interpretation of Hubbard. So to then try and answer what FredCarr said would be too many layers removed from the original material, you know what I mean?

I think what SquealPiggy was trying to describe was a Scientology attitude toward things that go badly in a person's life. Illness, for example.

When a Scientologist gets sick, he or she is taught to believe that it's being caused by a person connected to them who has bad intentions toward the church.

That's not a joke. I have talked with church members who said that if they come down with a cold, they have to sit down and write out a report about who in their life might be "suppressive" (evil and intending harm on the church) and is making them a PTS (potential trouble source), which is why they're sick. (In Dianetics, Hubbard gave lip service to germ theory, but he said that 70 percent of all ailments are "psycho-somatic" and could be cured through his methods rather than with medicine.)

Another thing that SquealPiggy seems to be alluding to is the notion that L. Ron Hubbard's "technology" is perfect and works flawlessly every time, so whenever something bad happens to a Scientologist -- whether it's poor results in his church auditing, or something outside the church like losing a job or getting injured in a car accident -- then it must be that person's own fault somehow. That person "pulled it in," is how Scientologists express it. Whether they were connected to a Suppressive Person who is making them a Potential Trouble Source, or they have not followed Hubbard's instructions to the letter, they have created the conditions that have allowed this problem to come into their lives."

Also, Tony has today published a piece about yet another new book by an ex-scifiologist/narconon executive, Lucas Catton, which blows another hole in the 'good' ship Hubbard. See here:

http://tonyortega.org/2013/03/18/former-executives-tell-all-adds-to-scientology-rehab-programs-meltdown/

 

[squealpiggy]

An interesting point could be made here. Reading a book about a subject that I guess is 'critical' of said subject may not be the best source of information. This might be why I have a reputation for referring people to source materials. Advice that seems to fall on deaf ears for the most part.

What part of Going Clear was the most accurate? What part was the least accurate? What was your favourite part? Least favourite?

I assume you've referred "to source materials".

Two points:

1. Re. making a difference in the world - I think we all make a difference in the world whether it be for good or not.

Not the point that I'm making. Scientologists as a whole genuinely believe that they are a force for good in the world, that by following Scientology they are improving the whole planet. I thought that the implication did not need to be spelled out.

2. The other point in that paragraph I'm not so sure of..."Hubbard doctrines is the notion that illness, criminality, mistakes, moral lapses don't really exist" - this is clearly not the case. So if this book indeed says this then its once again proof that one realy should study a subject one is going to report on. Even reading the first book by Mr. Hubbard "Dianetics - The Modern Science of Mental Health." would have made it abundantly clear that the above is not Hubbard doctrine.

Or reading his last book "The Way to Happiness - A Common Sense Guide to Better Living." which directly addresses the subject of 'moral lapses' and how they can affect you and what you can do to better the lives of others as well as yourself. (Once again showing that we do work toward bettering the world - not really a negative I think.)

Hubbard's motto appears to be '10% Inspiration, 10% perspiration, 80% making-it-up-as-you-go-along'. In other words while his writings in Dianetics and The Way To Happiness may say one thing, the actual practise of Scientology in the church as described in the book involves the aforementioned self-blame.

You should be happy about that. I mean a lot of people say that Scientology is a cult or a scam. But virtues like self-contradictory doctrines and blaming the 'sinner' for their earthly woes put it squarely in the category of mainstream religion!

In case anyone wishes to verify any of this he can find Dianetics at his local book store or read the Way to Happiness online at www.waytohappiness.org.
.
.
.

And just in case you get too happy you can find Battlefield Earth on youtube!