Hey there.

There are plenty, myths, about Scientology. What do you want to know? I’ll check it out for you.

What I can answer will (hopefully) be put up on Scientology Myths website – and here, for sure.

So ask, or be silent forever.

– Lu

NOTE!!!! I have created a guest access for the blog. Log in with myths1 as the user name and myths123 as password.

That means you can post your questions now instead of writing in this comment section. This will be a test, let’s see if this is better than this endless comment section here.

Update 17 Feb 2008:

The first thing happening now is some jerk used the new account to put spam on the page and changed the password to prevent anybody else to post. Sorry, I didn’t think that this would be abused so fast but sorry, if you want to rant on the net, use another blog. There are plenty of those and this one is different. – Lu

45 Comments

  1. Bestsellers

    Hey there. | Scientology Myths Forum

  2. Mobility

    Hey there. | Scientology Myths Forum

  3. cleaning companies cheltenham

    Hey there. | Scientology Myths Forum

  4. Hey there, I went through this whole section and copied the open questions in a new post called “Open questions”. Please see there! If I missed any of your questions, please accept my apologies and ask again. Thanks.

    – Lu

  5. @Comment by XenuAsker on February 22, 2008 11:57 am

    Propagandist, aren’t you? I haven’t said anything about this story being ridiculous or not.

    What is your problem?

    – Lu

  6. Hey there,

    So I hear you think the whole Xe nu-thing is ridiculous.

    Well, do you recognize this handwriting?

    http://img75.imageshack. us/my.php?image=xenustuffrzlt1.png

  7. @Comment by John S on February 19, 2008 9:35 pm

    Hi John,

    I guess you are the same “John S” than before? I missed one of your earlier questions (about disconnection). Let me do this first:

    (@Comment by John S on February 17, 2008 10:32 pm)

    Thank you very much for the link on how to set up forums on WordPress. I think I will do that at some point (I am using the free blog option on wordpress.com right now and have no own server. But maybe I move this blog to scientologymyths.info, set up MySQL and… well, some time, once I find someone to work with me on this technical stuff).

    Here is what you said:

    “Another question I have is that on this page: http://www.scientologymyths.info/homosexuality/ L Ron Hubbard is quoted as saying: “It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition…” How then do you explain:

    1. Scientologies Silent Birth policy (see http://www.silentbirth.org) which seeks to encourage its members to have a silent as possible childbirth.”

    There is not “Scientology Silent Birth Policy” (that was invented by media during the Suri Cruise birth hype in 2006). The idea of a silent birth is meant to be a help for the mother and child based on the findings in Dianetics. Some choose not to do it that way and sure they can. That’s the difference between “regulate” and “encourage”. Scientology is about life and that necessarily includes mothers, babies and birth.

    “2. Scientologies disconnection policy which attempts to segregate Scientologists from SPs.”

    You should read the actual “disconnection policy”. It’s something which happens every day in groups or families. Hubbard just sat down and wrote it up, as a right somebody has. It says: “Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the right to communicate. Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate. Communication, however, is a two-way flow. If one has the right to communication, the one must also have the right to not receive communication from another. … The term “disconnection” is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. … With out tech of handle or disconnect, we are, in actual fact, doing nothing different that any society or group or marriage down through thousands of years. … We cannot afford to deny Scientologists that basic freedom that is granted to everyone else: the right to choose whom one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with.” (10 September 1983).

    3. Scientologies Introspection Rundown procedure, which secludes a member from outside contact except for a select few friends or staff members who prompt and encourage the member to come round to a certain way of thinking.

    The Introspection Rundown is an aide for times of heavy mental stress, to give that person some relief. So not much motion is allowed around him or her until the person releaxes and recovers. There is no rule at all to stop the person from seeing his family or spouse.

    “Given Scientologies stance and beliefs on Psychiatry, would it be possible for a Psychiatrist to become a Scientologist while retaining his or her job?”

    Sure. I just believe that he or she would not want to continue working in that field as long as psychiatry is harming people more than it helps (if at all). A Scientologist does not support groups harming others. However I actually know Scientologists who work in the psychiatric field, usually prety busy with reforms.

    “Would they be forced to give up or renounce their job or would they be allowed to practice Psychiatry and be a Scientologist as well?”

    No.

    Now, the other question:

    “In page 251 of “Creation of Human Ability”, L. Ron Hubbard writes: “Scientology…is not a psycho-therapy, nor a religion.”

    Look at the time this book was written, 1955. The first Church of Scientology was founded in December 1953 (legally) or 1954 (actually). The system of Dianetics developed into Scientology from 1952 on and in 54/55 was an “applied religious philosophy”. One of the most basic training routes a Scientologist can go is to study all the basic books of Dianetics and Scientology in chronological sequence (there are 18 of them). This helps understanding what came where and when and how Hubbard introduced this concept and discarded another until finally the Scientology system was developed as it is today. Dianetics started off as a self-help method, then went onto more spiritual levels, became a philosophy and finally developed as a religion.

    – Lu

  8. @Comment by Tim on February 19, 2008 8:30 pm

    “Out of curiosity, what OT level are you?”

    Sorry, I won’t answer this question.

    – Lu

  9. Hi again, I have another question for you.

    In page 251 of “Creation of Human Ability”, L. Ron Hubbard writes: “Scientology…is not a psycho-therapy, nor a religion.”

    Yet Scientology fights for religious status in many countries and was successful in gaining tax exempt status on the basis of religion in the US and partially abroad. Why does Scientology claim to be a religion when L. Ron Hubbard stated it was not?

    Thanks & Regards – John

  10. Thanks for your answer. Out of curiosity, what OT level are you?

  11. @Comment by Tim on February 19, 2008 11:00 am

    Thanks. So the question is why Scientologists present at an anti-Scientology protest did not answer questions of the protesters?

    Because it is not a setting for debate. A group of people stands in front of your home, holding up signs saying you did all kinds of things you have not done (subjectively, anyway). That is a major provocation. Do you think that a Scientologist gets the impression that these guys could be talked to? No. They came to provoke Scientologists and they came to create incidents. They did not come to show general citizens what they think is wrong with Scientology. Simply because the places where they protest have no general public traffic. The only people who saw them were Scientologists and they knew that. I was not there, so I can’t say why someone decided to react with counter-questions. Asking counter-questions has no basis in Scientology practice but sure if some of these people had actually done criminal acts it might have introverted them. I don’t know if that was the purpose but any communication is better than chopping the protester’s heads of, to stop the provocation. You actually can see how peaceful Scientologists are if you consider the amount of garbage dumbed on them and compare it to the absence of violence in their reactions.

    – Lu

  12. Reiterating Proxie’s question in a (hopefully) less impolite manner, with a few additions of mine:

    Why were the Scientologists, in the series of videos posted by xe nutv during their 1999 protest, not responsive to any questions? If one’s beliefs are backed by factual evidence, one would think it sensible to answer questions about said beliefs to engender public trust, rather than remain close-lipped and inducing further suspicion.

    When one asks questions of any Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or practitioner of most other religions relating to what they believe in, most tend to be willing to engage in a theological discussion without leaving it at ‘read the books, come to a few of our services’, or dismissal, or no answer at all.

    And here, perhaps, is the real question in this comment: why were there Scientologists replying with accusatory questions such as “What are your crimes?”, “Are you a pedophile?”, or “How many men do you sleep with?”

    Additional query: why do Scientologists, in some of the other videos I’ve seen online, insist on repeating “What are your crimes?” in response to encounters with either the cameraperson or his associates? Is there a significance to this question in Scientology practice? At times the speaker even seems unnecessarily aggressive.

  13. Intelligence is measured by tests that generally produce a quotient (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotient ) speciifically an intelligence quotient, itself a mathematic concept. A significant component of those widely accepted measures of intelligence (e.g. the tests) are based on memory and cognitive ability. Both of which are essential for good mathematical understanding. Intelligence tests do not produce a “set in stone” guide to someone’s potential ability, however they are a good indicator of it. Generally speaking there is a direct correlation between mathematical ability, memory, and intelligence.

    So it is very rare that you will find an intelligent person who has studied mathematics but has such a poor understanding of calculus. Either they were extremely preoccupied and missed lessons or they were not intelligent enough to understand calculus. I suspect that LRH was not intelligent enough to understand calculus because he lacked the memory to relate it properly and made such elementary mistakes. I do not understand how an intelligent person that had studied mathematics could makes such mistakes.

  14. @Comment by Kaleb Groutstteene on February 18, 2008 9:27 pm

    You’re welcome and thank you. What I expect from L. Ron Hubbard has nothing to do with mathematics, and honestly I even expect philosophers not to think “in the box”. But allow me a question back: Not that I want you to think less of your father, but what does intelligence have to do with mathematics?

    – Lu

  15. Lu thank-you. My father studied mathematics and is now in his eighties. He would not have made the elementary mistakes that LRH made on that tape. Even in his advanced years and even in an informal, jokey, environment. If LRH makes mistakes like that over little things like calculus I do not trust him not to make mistakes with bigger things. LRH was clearly less intelligent than my father. However, you are welcome to your beliefs. People are welcome to believe what they want in the face of evidence.

    So thank you for the reply, I have no more questions and will allow you the last word.

  16. @Comment by Kaleb Groutstteen on February 18, 2008 8:36 pm

    Yes, he did. Also at the university (1931).

    – Lu

  17. @Comment by Proxie on February 18, 2008 9:00 pm

    “Scientology Handlers?” Thank you for this. You are a great example on how open communication can be abused for propaganda speech. You are making a statement carefully salted with derogatory speech. Come back with a question for which you want to know an answer and you’ll be welcome.

    – Lu

  18. Why do Scientology Handlers not answer any questions in the series of videos posted by xe nutv during their 1999 protest of Scientology? If their “religion”, loosely used due to prior members statements, is backed by factual evidence, shouldn’t they be willing to answer questions about their religion to engender a trust by the public? Ask any Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or most other religions and they are happy to have a theological discussion without an E-meter or similar closed door policy. I don’t understand why the handlers simply replied with such non-answers as “What are your crimes?”, “Are you a pedophile?”, or “How many men do you sleep with?”

  19. I don’t want anything. Your answer is received loud and clear. If I understand you correctly, when LRH said:

    “… I asked an engineer, one time, who was in his 6th year of engineering, if he’d ever used Calculus, and he told me yeah, once, once I did, he said. When did you use it? And he said I used it once. Let me see, what did you use it on? Oh yeah. Something on the rate-of-change of steam particles in boilers. And then we went out and tested it and found the answer was wrong. …”

    You guess he wanted to use it as an example for something to measure “rate of change”. Because Scientology doesn’t deal with mathematics and LRH is not to be understood as a mathematician.

    Thank-you for taking the time to answer.

    I have a follow up question: Did LRH study mathematics at college?

  20. I guess he talked about Calculus or Newton because he wanted to, used it as an example for something mean to measure “rate of change”. In Scientology LRH is not understood as a mathematician nor does Scientology deal with mathematics. In his lectures LRH usually talks about all kinds of things, brings up personal stories, experiences, ideas what could be etc. He uses this to lighten up the lecture – beside of talking about the core information of the actual lecture – and this seems to be one of them.

    I think you are making a statement rather than asking a question. So what do you really want?

    – Lu

  21. At college I studied math. As part of that I studied calculus. It wasn’t very difficult to understand and calculus has countless real world applications. Calculus is extremely important (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Applications ). So why did L Ron Hubbard say this? (from Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Tape #58):

    “Rate of change is this mathematics known as Calculus. Calculus, it’s a very interesting thing, is divided into two classes — there’s Differential Calculus and Integral Calculus. The Differential Calculus is in the first part of the textbook on Calculus, and Integral Calculus is in the second part of the textbook on Calculus. As you look through the book, you’ll find in the early part of the book on Calculus, “dx” over “dy”, a little “dx”, and a little “dy” — and one’s above the other on a line — predominates in the front part of the book, but as you get to the end of the book you find these “dx” and “dy”s preceded by a summation sign, or are equating to a summation sign, and the presence of this shows that we are in the field of Integral Calculus. …[I cut the verbiage off here. I don’t want this blog to go down for copyright violation. I got your point though. – Lu].

    I have had independent confirmation from a Scientologist that LRH said this and that the tapes can still be purchased. You can check yourself.

    I do not understand how someone could reach those conclusions about calculus. He was wrong.

    My question is why did RLH say that about calculus?

  22. @Comment by Mark Hunter on February 18, 2008 7:26 am

    I am aware of this website and the guy who is running it and why.

    Thanks for the note.

    – Lu

  23. @Comment by nobody on February 18, 2008 6:24 am

    Good luck to you too.

    – Lu

  24. I found this web page that discusses the history of the CIA’s Remote Viewing porgram, and Scientology is mentioned heavily.

    Check out this link:

    http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair. com/rvtimeline/index.html

    I’m not sure if you’re already aware of this information, or whether or not it is correct data.

    I wanted to know your opinion on this; specifically, if you think that there is any truth to this

  25. Thanks for answering my questions. You’ve done a bang up job of confirming for me that Scientology is indeed a cult. I hope some day you open your eyes and get out. I am sure there are people on the outside that love you. Good luck.

  26. John S, your comments went into a moderation cue (don’t know why, anything else goes straight on the blog as intended) and are now up. My answer above is for Anonymous on February 17, 2008 10:26 pm.

    – Lu

    PS: I spent the last four hours typing, researching, asking questions to others and should come out with all outstanding answers tonight.

  27. You must be dreaming… a) anonymous has not been put on anybodies “hit list”. That’s just bragging by some college boys with nothing better to do. b) “fair game” was been canceled 40 years ago.

    Actually I find it funny that Anonymous feels a need to claim they would be “fair game” or somehow haunted by the church. That means having the attention of the church is something which “anonymous” wants to be proud of. Sick. The last I read was that the Feds are after Anonymous for committing a sh**load of hate crimes and murder threats. I think computer geeks have no value if they use their skills to destroy. Use it for something good. Like upgrading my website ;-)

    – Lu

  28. Thanks for your answers to some of my previous points. On the subject of WordPress forums, here is a very useful site on the subject: http://bloghelper.is-there.net/integrating-a-forum-with-wordpress/

    Another question I have is that on this page: http://www.scientologymyths.info/homosexuality/ L Ron Hubbard is quoted as saying:

    “”It has never been any part of my plans to regulate or to attempt to regulate the private lives of individuals. Whenever this has occurred, it has not resulted in any improved condition…”

    How then do you explain

    1. Scientologies Silent Birth policy (see http://www.silentbirth.org) which seeks to encourage its members to have a silent as possible childbirth.

    2. Scientologies disconnection policy which attempts to segregate Scientologists from SPs.

    3. Scientologies Introspection Rundown procedure, which secludes a member from outside contact except for a select few friends or staff members who prompt and encourage the member to come round to a certain way of thinking.

    Another question (just off the top of my head) is: Given Scientologies stance and beliefs on Psychiatry, would it be possible for a Psychiatrist to become a Scientologist while retaining his or her job? Would they be forced to give up or renounce their job or would they be allowed to practice Psychiatry and be a Scientologist as well?

    Thanks and Regards – John

  29. I understand you say there isn’t a thing called “Fair Game” but have Anonymous been labled with “fair game” policy of whatever it maybe called.

    If it makes it easier have Anonymous been put on CoS’s hit list and would any member be sued if Identity of a protester was found even if though protesting is legal

  30. As to your neutrality again. I understand you don’t want to use information from anti-scientology sources, and this is of course your right. However, in your section on the RPF, you cite only one source, that being Pentikäinen, Redhardt and York (2002). I wonder why you did not also include information from Dr. Stephen Kent’s rather more famous and widely cited paper, ‘brainwashing in the RPF’, a copy of which is available here: http://solitarytrees.net/pubs/skent/brain.htm

    I wonder, could you tell me if you’ve read Dr. Kent’s paper, and if you have, on what grounds you chose not include any of his findings in your answer? Regards.

  31. Hey there,

    I made it to find the R2-45 reference. It’s a tape of 1959, recorded in Melbourne, I put it in the site and in a separate post here.

    And I see I got load more questions to keep me running. Cool! I wouldn’t have made all the effort to put the site there (check the site’s “What’s new?” section for more on that) if I’d now bail in view of so many questions. But I find this commenting system WordPress gives me is a bit unhandy. A blog is not really a forum, d-uh… Has anyone a better idea? Open the post feature for everyone? I just don’t want to have a lot of spam to dig through. Or something like a Guest access?

    Now, a comment on my “neutrality”, if something like this exists at all. As a Scientologist I have experience with Scientology and can talk about it, find out things and know where to look for answers if I don’t have them right there. If it’s an opinion I say “In my opinion”. If it’s a newspaper article I say “In the article of …”. And for a court document I say “In the decision by the blah court..”. There are plenty of sites about Scientology on the internet. If you want to find negative, one-sided information, well, that’s easy. Go to Clambake and get all confused, if you want. Go to Wikipedia which is swarmed by the same guys who put up negative websites and just a remote outlet for them and add some “reference” in there, if you like. Freedom of Speech! But I got some Freedom of Speech too, like anyone else. And I say, post, put online what I find out and what I think. And if I put my opinion you can see that it is my opinion, it’s not falsely declared as a “fact” or “everybody knows” type of statement. Test me.

    I am off now to work on the other answers. Please, anybody, if you have a better idea how to use WordPress as a forum, let me know.

    – Lu

  32. First of all I want to say thank you for taking the time to put up this website, and for taking the time to answer peoples questions. It’s rare to have the opportunity to talk frankly with members of the Church of Scientology and so I appreciate it.

    My questions are to do with the website itself, rather than Scientology, I hope that’s alright.

    1. You state on your front page:

    “Our goal is to find answers from independent sources, not only from Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology sites either. We pull our information mainly from court documents and other neutral sources and lay out the information for you to come to your own conclusions.”

    However, as someone already mentioned you are in fact a Scientology, and as such your information is not neutral, it is biased by your faith. While this is not necessarily a bad thing (I would never try to stop someone from expressing their opinions), I am simply asking: Why don’t you tell people that you are a Scientology and that the information is not fact, but your opinion.

    My second question, again in relation to the quote above, is: If your goal is to answer questions neutrally, why do you not link to other sites with neutral information on the topic. Wikipedia.org is a perfect example of a non-biased, fact based resevoir of information on the Church of Scientology and on many of the topics covered on your website. By linking to these articles you can provide more answers and further links to legal documents.
    On the same theme, you link to several Scientology websites throughout, including Scientology.org, Scientologyreligion.org, Scientology ran blogs, and others, but you do not link to a single anti-Scientology website, nor even a Scientology critical website.

    Surely if your goal is to give neutral and factual answers, you should do all of the above.

    Once again, thanks for taking the time to answer

  33. so, here’s a few q’s

    why does the “anonymous” link not say anything about anonymous?

    why does scientology charge such a large fee on the expenses of the church to the members when larger religions don’t charge manditory fees at all?

    why can’t we post our own topics on this forum? does that limit our free speech on this page?

    why did Hubbard actually decide that HE knew about the secrets of the universe? what made him so special? He went from being an author to being a “prophet” as soon as he decided he wasn’t making enough money.
    he once said “if a man really wants to make a million dollars, he doesn’t write for a penny a word, he invents a religion”
    so why was hubbard so special? wouldn’t he have the exact same images and ideas fed to him by the “lies” from ages past?

    and finally: isn’t an E-Meter, just an overrated resistance measurer (that you could buy from any hardware store) hooked up to people instead of electrical circuits?

  34. And it’s strange, but my earlier comment hasn’t gone through. I’m reposting it here just in case there was some kind of connection problem– sorry for the spam:

    Hey Lu,

    Thanks for that detailed reply. It’s going to take me a few days to get back to it in full, but for now, a comment at the end of your reply caught my eye:

    “I haven’t seen much reporting or complaints in the last 20 years.”

    What are your opinions of the case of Church of Scientology International vs Fishman and Greetz in 1993, as well as the case of Bonnie and David Woods from 1993-1999?

    In the case of the former, many official statements were released that most critics of Scientology seem to base their claims on, including what seems to be a transcript of Technique 88 (Exhibit B: On control and lying). I note that in that transcript, L. Ron Hubbard mentions “(The individual) who is trying to control you is lying to you. He’s got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you can’t control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies.” Logically, would this mean that an individual who tries to control himself must lie to himself, since the only method to control an individual is to tell them a bunch of lies (as per Hubbard)?

    The full Fishman Affidavit can be found here for your reference: www[dot]xs4all[dot]nl/~kspaink/fishman/index2[dot]html (remove the [dot] entries and put in an actual dot instead)

    Also, in the case of Bonnie Woods, she had apparently taken the CoS to court at one point for having denounced her as a ‘hate campaigner’, hired a private investigator to follow her and her family, and providing a creditor of her and her husband with free legal assistance to sue them into bankruptcy. These sound like some pretty harsh tactics to still be using in the 1990s. What are your thoughts?

  35. Oh, Lu, sorry to be bothering you repeatedly, but another question occurred to me:

    Is it true that the CoS has a form of Net-Nanny software installed on its computers (as well as encouraging its believers to install on their home computers) which block out pages containing info critical of Scientology, info of higher Scientology levels, or anti-Scientology websites?

  36. Wow! Thanks for the questions!

    I just managed to set up an administrator access for the Scientology Myths website on my notebook and can change it around fast even if I’m not at home. So if you see something which needs to be changed, let me know.

    – Why were Cindy Raymond, Gerald Bennett Wolfe, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand, Mitchell Herman, Sharon Thomas, Jane Kember, Mo Budlong, and L. Ron Hubbard’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, stealing documents from the United States government, a crime for which they spent five years apiece in federal prison?

    Phew.. that’s a complex one. I promise, you’ll get an answer but that might take a day or two. I mean, they were arrested and jailed for theft of documents and later thrown out from the Church. I would assume they had the idea that those documents had some value for them?! Anyway, this whole thing ties in with the “Guardians Office” etc and needs more documents than just me talking.

    – Question; on your “Statistics” page you list numerous figures, but the one which stood out the most was the “there are 10,000,000 Scientologists worldwide across 159 countries” ‘fact.’ On what data did you base this statistic?

    Newspaper articles, official quotes from the church and my own count of Church activities in the world. I am updating this section so you’ll get the 2007/2008 figures soon.

    – Perhaps you’d like to include where people would get such a ‘dumb’ idea about R2-45 and debunk it then?

    Yes, will do. The “dumb” refers to the idea that Hubbard would have given a “process” which leaves people dead in the end. All literature and processes I ever saw are 100% directed in making people more alive and more self-determined. So such “process” would be very much out of alignment with the rest of Scientology technology. I’ll find the exact source for this and come back to it here.

    – Are you a scientologist? Sure. I am all over the internet.

    – How does that mesh with your implication that this is a neutral site?

    “Mesh”? “Implication”? “Neutral”? Sound politics to me. Facts are all that counts! I actually WANT you to point out mistakes or missing points on this blog and the website. That’s why we are talking. Go ahead, I am ready.

    – I noticed that you talked around the point of “Fair Game” not being canceled in regard to SPs. Is it correct to assume that Fair Game is still in effect in regards to SPs then?

    Hm, no, it’s not. I just answered this question yesterday. Maybe the index needs more work too.

    It’s here.

    – your banner says “there are no stupid questions”, but your response to the R2-45 question says “dumb question.” What is the difference between “dumb” and “stupid”, and does the difference have anything to do with changing the alphanumeric designation of the technique?

    Thanks for pointing this out. That’s why I have this blog. I put this site together over months and months (learning how to do it at the same, meaning s-l-o-w…, plus I got a lot of other things I am caring about). The R2-45 answer was written on a lazy day and even got a typo in the title. But I am working on a better answer. The R2-45 “process” comes from a tape-recorded lecture and I need to dig it out tonight.

    – It seems that the Church of Scientology has a lot of control. Does this mean that it does a lot of lying? LRH’s Technique 88 states that the only way to control people is to lie to them.

    Funny one. No, Hubbard says that the lowest (i.e. worst) level of control is by lying. You will to listen to the lecture in full (it’s only an hour long) to get the full concept of Technique 88. This is in a series called “Route to Infinity”. Scientology critics LOVE to throw around the incomplete quote because it sounds REALLY BAD. But here is the full story:

    Hubbard said there, in this lecture, in 1952, that some people try to control others by lying, by making up threats or dangers, or by inventing startling stories. Or literally he says: “This individual is lying to you because he is trying to control you – because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you.”

    Pulling people “down the tone scale” (making them cry and so on) is suppressive behavior while all Scientology processes (like Technique 88) are done to get people UP the tone scale (making them more stable and happy). In case you don’t know, a “tone scale” is “a scale which shows the emotional tones of a person. These, ranged from the highest to the lowest, are, in part, serenity, enthusiasm (as we proceed downward), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy.” So it might be that someone is lying to you to get you introverted, frightened etc with the purpose to control you. Like those spreading lies about Scientology try to dupe the “Anonymous” crowd to do stupid or even illegal actions.

    Hubbard says in the same chapter: “Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of a sudden the thing blows up.” Sounds familiar?

    Lying is also unethical by Scientology standards and a violation against the moral codes in “The Way to Happiness”(2). That does not mean all Scientologists everywhere and every second of the day are telling the truth and nothing but the truth. But it does mean that lying is not recommended or taught. “Technique 88 is process of locating the thetan, the ‘I’ of the individual, and the auditing of the thetan” (Hubbard, page 1 of the book “History of Man”, which going along with the lecture).

    Any other questions?

    – Lu

  37. Q: are you a scientologist?
    Followup Q: how does that mesh with your implication that this is a neutral site?

    Q: I noticed that you talked around the point of “Fair Game” not being canceled in regard to SPs. Is it correct to assume that Fair Game is still in effect in regards to SPs then?

    Q: your banner says “there are no stupid questions”, but your response to the R2-45 question says “dumb question.” What is the difference between “dumb” and “stupid”, and does the difference have anything to do with changing the alphanumeric designation of the technique?

    Q: It seems that the Church of Scientology has a lot of control. Does this mean that it does a lot of lying? LRH’s Technique 88 states that the only way to control people is to lie to them.

  38. Question; on your “Statistics” page you list numerous figures, but the one which stood out the most was the “there are 10,000,000 Scientologists worldwide across 159 countries” ‘fact.’ On what data did you base this statistic? I see no citation or reference.

    Oh, and your “R2-5” question may need a bit more work. Answering “Dumb question” doesn’t quite cut it. Perhaps you’d like to include where people would get such a ‘dumb’ idea about R2-45 and debunk it then?

  39. This IS fun! Next question: why were Cindy Raymond, Gerald Bennett Wolfe, Henning Heldt, Duke Snider, Gregory Willardson, Richard Weigand, Mitchell Herman, Sharon Thomas, Jane Kember, Mo Budlong, and L. Ron Hubbard’s wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, stealing documents from the United States government, a crime for which they spent five years apiece in federal prison?

  40. Thanks. That’s two times the same question:

    What does “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.” in the “Cancellation of Fair Game” policy letter mean?

    First of all there is a couple of strange ideas around about what “an SP” is.

    Maybe I should say here how a Suppressive Person (SP) is defined. It’s “a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality.” A bad person, harmful to know, one could say.

    L. Ron Hubbard wrote a couple of key policy letters on the treatment and handling an SP. Those policy letters are printed in a book “Introduction into Scientology Ethics” for every Scientologist to know and also part of a course which is called “PTS/SP Course” (How to Detect and Remove Suppression). I read the course pack in 2002 and there is no copy of the Fair Game HCOPL in there and nothing saying that an SP should be treated outside the law. The exact same set of policy is also part of administrative volumes for church staff who need to know them to protect their Church.

    What these policy say about “the treatment or handling of an SP” as the maximum to be done is throw him SP or her SP out of the organization. That means, that an SP, i.e. Suppressive Person, is a member of Scientology who is turning destructive to his fellows and thrown out of the group, labeled as “SP”. Nothing else happens after that and any such person can come back and become a member of the group again (after making up the damage). And per the PTS/SP Course you would want to cut the ties to someone who is suppressing you and who is making you bad. So giving up a relation or to stop seeing someone is the maximum “treatment” of an SP per Scientology policy today. If there was other types of treatment they don’t exist today and the people who could have done them are not here anymore.

    I am going into more research, pull out some policies etc tomorrow but this is a first answer. I think this subject is confused with people who went in a legal fight with one of the Churches of Scientology because they violated the law one way or the other, and who felt hounded by that “treatment”. That’s not how the Church treats “SPs”, that’s how attacks on the Church are handled, if it is impossible to get along with ech other by talking, meeting etc. Any group does that as their last resort if they feel wrongly treated or try to prevent damage. Some of the guys the Church went after were also ex-members who got thrown out with an “SP” issue in their hand. But not everyone attacking a Church of Scientology is “an SP” and not everyone leaving the Church is labeled SP. That’s two different type of people.

    If someone leaves the Church he or she is free to do what he wants. If he regrets leaving and starts blaming and finger pointing or actually damaging his former friends he must not be surprised that this backfires and becomes stressful. I get upset about someone I thought I knew who suddenly shows up and tells invented or perverted stories. Some of those “fights” have gone extremely rough in the past, like in the 1960s and 1970s, both sides with metal gloves on, but I haven’t seen much reporting or complaints in the last 20 years.

    Whatever, on the “treatment” I’ll give a more concise answer tomorrow once I got through some policies.

    – Lu

  41. I got you questions and I am working on an answer right now. Give me a bit but I sure will be up here today. Thanks.

    – Lu

  42. This is related to what Anonymous asked above, actually: I found over at Operation Clambake that the Fair Game policy had not been cancelled, only de-labelled as such, and that the 1989 print of the course manual “PTS/SP COURSE – How to Confront and Shatter Suppression” included a document to be signed in the event of a student being designated as a ‘suppressive person’ and ‘terminated’, which stipulates that he will be considered Fair Game as well.

    http://www.xe nu.net/fairgame-e.html

    In addition, the 1968 cancellation letter from L. Ron Hubbard states that ‘the practice of declaring people Fair Game will cease”, alongside “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.”

    What are your thoughts on this?

  43. What does “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.” in the “Cancellation of Fair Game” policy letter mean? I’m ever so excited to hear your answer.

  44. Thank you. I answered it in a new post here:

    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/do-scientologists-believe-that-their-ancestors-were-clams/

    – Lu

  45. Xe nu.net = Operation ClamBake.

    Do you know why it’s called ClamBake? Because Hubbard said that humans evolved from clams. Hmm, does that mean members of the church shouldn’t eat their ancestors?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos