In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, zane@die_spammers.mabry.com
>On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:23:19 GMT, email@example.com (Keith Henson)
>>Besides, crooks are *not* stupid, especially high level ones, and they
>>don't act that way. Crooks would not throw vast amounts of money into the
>>toilet the way CoS leadership has done on legal fees for lost causes.
>I think that's the most convincing argument I've yet heard that the
>upper-level scienos actually believe all that hubspew. But still I
>have trouble with it.
>In the case of (*) he _would_ be just another high-school dropout
>loser without co$ to lord over, so his motivation to stick with it
>regardless is strong. And his stupidity could be borne of sheer
>arrogance and ego.
>I don't have any experience with any of the upper-level clambots, but
>I just can't wrap my head around the idea that all of them believe the
>crappola hook line-n-sinker. That has got to take one incredible,
>incomprehensible, ability to tolerate ones beliefs not being fulfilled
>How about this as an idea? _Some_ of the upper-level scienos may have
>believed everything at one time. Having experienced lucid-dreaming
>(er, I mean "exteriorization") they still believe a great deal of it
>but are guilt ridden over their obvious inablity to have actually
>lived up to all of their declared BigWins. This would leave us with
>some people who have a strong motivation to outdo each other as True
>Believers, thus accounting for their apparent stupidity when it comes
>to bashing their heads against a wall. Does that sound like a
>probably scenario for some of them?
Well, the Scienos I've had recent correspondence with have indicated
that they are disappointed with the *promised* results. Some have admitted
that Hubbard's "tech" didn't deliver what they expected, but that they
have experienced "other gains" or "abilities", so they justify staying
While I have my own perception of why Scienos stay in, particularly
the leaders, I believe Hubbard may have hit upon something with his
concept of "held down sevens", wherein he explains in _DMSMH_ how a
calculator with a stuck key will always give the wrong answer. To me,
the problem with why Scienos can't see through the bullshit is a multi-
My strong belief is that Hubbard knew how to unite people into a common
cause of fighting "the enemy". Certainly Hubbard early on in his writings
introduced his concepts of the planet being "controlled" by evil men like
the "international bankers". He also created other classifications of
"enemies", including "psychs", "police", "government officials", "reporters",
"tax cruds" (IRS agents), etc. My perception is that Hubbard KNEW that in
order to have his little paramilitary group (the Sea Org) share a common
purpose, he had to unite the individuals *against* a common "enemy".
Since there are lots of people who have had problems with the IRS, a
"psych", a policeman, etc. I feel quite strongly that Hubbard knowingly
"pushed people's buttons" and got them to view certain groups as "enemies"
through his methods of indoctrination. After all, Hubbard did write that
what is true for you is true for you. Through this statement, Hubbard
allows individuals to interpret based upon subjective reality, and he
therefore "validates" people (makes them "right") by showing that Hubbard
has "the answers". Lots of people are looking for answers to their problems.
And everyone has a problem or two, at least.
With regards to Sea Org members (including its leaders), by having an
"opponent" or "opponents", the members have a "game to play". The trick
is in getting individuals to agree that there are "SPs" who are "against
us", who wish to see us fail, who are evil, who "control" the world.
If one looks at Hubbard's definition of a "game condition", it can be
clearly seen that to have a game, one must have an *opponent*. By playing
on people's negative experiences, prejudices and fears, Hubbard was
able to get people to accept his views of evil beings, and more importanly,
to get many to sign up for his "cause" of "putting 'ethics' in on this
planet and the Universe" (that's what Sea Org members *think* they are
I recently stated to a fellow critic that I believe Scientology's
leaders KNOWINGLY deceive its members. I still believe this. I always
will believe this. My belief on this is based upon the deceptive methods
of the leaders which are used on lower level members, whether Sea Org or
"public". The top circle of Scientology management (which consists of
Sea Org members) are in a position to know the ACTUAL practices that the
cult is engaged in. And the ACTUAL practices consist of a myriad of
activities which are covered in CONFIDENTIAL issues. (In the context I
don't mean "technical" materials; that's another matter I will discuss
some other time).
When I was still in the Sea Org, one of THE MOST eye-opening events
for me personally was when the CMO and WDC (Miscavige and his generals)
ousted Mary Sue, Herbie Parkhouse, Jane Kember, etc. To me, THAT action
by Miscavige was utter and total hypocracy. Yet, what Miscavige did is
the exact thing that caused me to finally open my eyes to the scam.
Whether or not Scientology's leaders actually believe in the scam or
myth I will admit I have no proof either way. *EVEN IF* all 50,000 or
so people who ever went "Clear" believe in the crap (which they all do
NOT), I *still* would not be surprised. That's because 50,000 people
out of a world of about 5.6 billion actually comprises .0000089 percent
of the Earth's population.
It's not a shockingly surprising to me that Scientology could deceive
such a small percentage...
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
For truly eye-opening reading into the hidden activities of Scientology, see: