Squirrels… Yikes!

This morning I was pointed to a rather funny video of several  “SquirrelBusters”. By the looks of it it’s a prank but I thought no one should be left with a question what a “Squirrel” is. And I don’t mean those flat pieces of bloody fur you sometimes see on high-traffic roads, no, I am talking about the definition of a Scientology squirrel. As Scientology is built on the findings and teachings of L. Ron Hubbard it might be best to show what he said about them:

You know what a squirrel is?  A squirrel is somebody — you know, the medical profession since time immemorial and all these various professions have had on their coattails, squirrels.  Every one of them.  There hasn’t been a single branch of human endeavor that doesn’t have its lunatic fringe.  (L. Ron Hubbard, 5 December 1952, Lecture “ARC/Cycles: Theory and Automaticity)

Although we’ve had other definitions for a squirrel, that’s the one I commonly use to myself. A squirrel is somebody who runs round and round and round the cage of his own bank. (L. Ron Hubbard, 23 November 1956, Lecture: “Farewell Lecture”)

A squirrel is a person — a person who’s going around looking for nuts that are foolish enough to let him process them.  (L. Ron Hubbard, 6 April 1959, Lecture: “Beingness and Communication”)

But why would Scientologists be so concerned with  them? It’s for the protection of people. Maybe this one explains it best:

Here is the guy who plans to “squirrel” and “grab Scientology.” Here is the boy.  Or here is the girl.  But here is also a thetan buried in the mud.  And if you let this person go without attention, he or she will soon become ill or die — or worse will mess up or kill others.  The person is the only real psycho.  And if you let him drift he’ll soon wind up in the brain surgeon’s suppressive hands.  So it’s nothing to overlook.  People who have to solve their problems by shooting the rest of us down are what made life such a hell in this universe. You have your hands on the implanter, the warmonger, the wrecker. (L. Ron Hubbard, Policy Letter of 5 April 1965, titled “The No-Case-Gain Student”)

51 Comments

  1. I submit that LRH was wrong about independents. He, himself, said not to blindly trust what he says, but to see what is true for you through observation and experience. That, of course, can be done by comparing the end result and experiences of both corporate and independent believers.

    The common answer, we find, is it “helps people”, which is only supported by subjective experience and belief. We have never seen objective evidence of any advanced ability (increased IQ, exteriorization, benefits of touch assists, etc), which allows us to compare only subjective experiences and anecdotes.

    We find, then, that both corporate and independent believers feel that they benefit from their self-identification as a scientologist! With subjective experiences being equally valid, the exact same claims may be legitimately made by each.

    With hubbards wise knowledge that he is human and has the potential for error, I believe that he may have erred in his belief.

    The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I can find only 12 former independents that express dissatisfaction with their experiences, and those are anonymous on an anti-independent website. This may be compared with thousands of former corporate members, many of whom have publicly spoken out and many have joined independent groups.

    Similarly, I can find few independents who have committed any sort of financial crime, while there are many examples of corporate members committing embezzlement, fraud and similar crimes. It’s possible that this could coincide with claims that financial pressures are very high in the corporate body, which, to the contrary, is not a common claim in the independent movement (which seems to have adopted a “pay or give what you feel to” approach.

    This is, of course, just my personal observation, bit it seems to hold true given available evidence.

  2. Okay, so that clears it up then. If one chooses to apply dianetics auditing on their own, beyond church control, they are not called a squirrel then.
    And that’s even if they don’t follow the auditors code?

    • Comment by Callforeform on May 5, 2011 3:04 pm

      Since the Auditor’s Code is part of the Dianetics Auditor’s procedure, you wouldn’t be auditing Dianetics, if you’re not using it, right? Have you read the book?

      The question is a matter of license, isn’t it? Dianetics was specifically distributed as a procedure that anyone can do. It brings me back to my question about whether you’ve read the book or not. It appears to me that you haven’t or you wouldn’t have asked this question.

      Pat

      • I have read it, Pat. It’s not very good, but that’s my personal opinion. Of course, I tend to have a relatively high standard for scientific claims.

        So, if the honorable minister is not following the auditors code, then he’s not properly applying dianetics, correct?

  3. So it’s okay to audit if you’re using dianetics?

    Is Farrakhan a squirrel or no?

    • Did I overwhelm you with my long response?

      Yes.

      No.

      – L

  4. Pat, I always enjoy reading your replies.
    That is not a myth, it is a question. A very simple one, too. Is such a person a squirrel?

    • added inapplicable.

      Pat

      • please clarify, I don’t understand your comment.
        I also don’t understand what ‘myth” you accused me of creating?

        To be honest, Pat, I’ve done my research on this site. I’m not holding my breath waiting for an actual answer from you, at least not until someone else gives it first. So, no pressure.

  5. It sure is quiet here since you guys started banning people and deleting comments :)

    I wonder what you think of the following quote. It comes from a black Christian who advocates for auditing outside of church control. Would he be a squirrel?

    “I said to some of those in Scientology that were sharing their knowledge with me: “You know, we have been living under White people for at least 4,000 years since they emerged from the hillsides and caves of Europe. I am looking at the Caucasian personality as that of a ‘sociopath.’” According to the Scientologists, a “sociopath” is a “dangerous person”. And when you find these people you have to expel them from any organization, because a sociopath is not governed by laws that keep order in a society, nor can they be trusted among groups of people who share one common cause. For if such a person gets into leadership, that person will only be a Suppressive Personality: A cruel, exploitative, brutal personality.

    I say, dear Caucasian people, that if you were, by nature, “social beings,” you would have manifested the qualities that produce harmony in societal relationships. But you have manifested a personality disorder that is against the laws of a genuine society.

    The Caucasian may have developed some semblance of a society for their people, but what they’ve developed for the benefit of their people never applied to us.”

    • Nice myth! Racist, but not bad as myths go.

      Pat

    • I think you misunderstand the purpose of the site. This is not where you go to create myths.

      Pat

    • “Comment by Callforreform on May 4, 2011 7:32 am
      It sure is quiet here since you guys started banning people and deleting comments :)”

      Thanks. Actually I haven’t banned anyone, I just blocked a handful of spam IP addresses. Interesting how that brings down the number of trolls.

      “I wonder what you think of the following quote. It comes from a black Christian who advocates for auditing outside of church control. Would he be a squirrel?”

      The question is moot because he does not “advocate for auditing outside of church control”. He advocates Dianetics auditing which, since its inception, can be done anywhere and by anyone, based only on the Dianetics book. And it is. The Church has translated the book in over 50 languages and it is in use all over the world. As an example, last weekend I met someone in my Church (during a break) who learned about Dianetics from mimeographed copies of a handwritten Ukrainian translation of the Dianetics book. He trained in Dianetics for years until he got hold of an actual book (in Russian) and learned about Dianetics groups in the Ukraine. That was less than 10 years ago. Now he heads a Dianetics Mission in Ukraine, using official Ukrainian translations that are produced professionally and in-house for a very low price and is part of a network of dozens of Dianetics groups and Missions in Ukraine. There are similar example from Zimbabwe or South Korea, or even from the Midwest of the United States. People looking for solutions find Dianetics and use it to improve their lives and that of others. None of these people are “squirrels”.

      A squirrel is part of the “lunatic fringe” of Scientology.

      – L

  6. I have no idea what you’re talking about. You need to reference so I can see which post you’re referring to.

    Pat

    • Referencing Comment by Pat on April 25, 2011 12:39 pm

    • He’s quoting from here: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Minister_Louis_Farrakhan_9/article_7787.shtml

      The Nation of Islam (I don’t think they call themselves “Black Christians”) is training a couple of thousand Dianetics auditors these days. They are doing great and I am sure it helps them.

      – L

      • True, they don’t call themselves “Black Christians”. They call themselves “Nation of Islam”. See, Louanne, just another alteration from the trolls.

        Pat

      • Good point, Louanne, thank you for catching my factual error. And, pat, thank you for, um, repeating Louanne’s comment while adding an insult and accusation. I appreciate your contribution.

        Does the honorable minister demonstrate an accurate understanding of scientology in his statemetns?

      • You’re welcome. Oh, I’m sorry. I assumed the “black christian” label was from someone else and you were confused. If you’re the one originating that concept then … well, I guess it’s still a troll. LOL

        Pat

      • no, pat, and error. I misspoke. oops.

        I assume that, as I’ve seen you do before, you’re unable to actually address the point when you get caught up on a minor issue.

        So, yes, you’ve successfully confronted my factual error. Are you able to confront the actual point?

      • Oh, and I don’t think that I’ve insulted you. Why are you so quick to insult me?

      • LOL. Geez, dude. You can dish it then whine when you get called out for it.

        Pat

      • See, Pat, there you go again. What did I “dish out”? I know you don’t like having questions brought up that you can’t answer, but there’s no reason to attack someone personally for it.

  7. I see, pat, very compelling evidence. But who is this mysterious “someone”? I’m assuming that you didn’t just believe and repeat it based solely on someone telling you it’s true?

    I think that “someone” may just be assuming that the most vocal critics of the sanctioned body must be the only ones. But if that were true, who is Bernd Luebeck of Germany? Or Michael Moore of Oregon? Jonathan Burke of Montana? Marvin green of California? The list goes on.

    Interestingly, none of their Sites are offering a $5000 bounty to identify perceived threats based on their (Publicly posted) ip address ;)

    • Referencing Pat says:
      April 25, 2011 at 2:33 am

  8. Interesting site. So much for 1000s of ex-Scientologists. They are coming back.

    http://www.freezonesurvivors.to/

    • Pat, I have the by name list of the 1000’s of ex’s, if you want. Although comparison would be difficult, as your resource, while a nice site, follows the trend of only using initials. As Louanne pointed out, for all we know, that site can be run by a small group, or even a single person.

      But I do see several recent posts, and am happy that they’re making a decision that works well for them! Such a thing should be celebrated, in my opinion.

      • Maybe I’m missing something, Pat, I only see 14 “survivors” on that page, the most recent being “J” from about 4 years ago. Conversely, I see stories on nearly as many (12) active “squirrels”… Is there another batch that I’m failing to see?

    • Have a good weekend, Pat, you too, cd. I’ll be travelling for Easter-ish time, but I’ll check the site when I get a chance.
      Nice talking to you both!

  9. Hard to find? That’s nothing but a dig; you know there’s many websites with ample contact information. It’s a large and growing population.

    Does it mean anything that some if them died of cancer?

    • If you’re looking for agreement on being a squirrel this is not the site. Don’t complain If you go in the Bull’s pasture and wave a red flag at him and make snide comments about his pasture, don’t get mad if he horns you.

      Pat

      • Thanks, Tex, I’ll take my chances. If that happens, I’ll remember that you warned me.

    • For me there is a difference between a website and people. For all I know there might be five squirrels running 200 websites. That’s still five squirrels.

      – L

      • You raise a good point, that it’s very easy for someone to impersonate more than one person on the Internet. For example, I don’t know for a fact that you’re not everyone here, or other people posting on the Internet.

        Bit I wonder, why do you assume they’re small, if you haven’t all the information? Similarly, if self-reported numbers aren’t sufficient to you, why do you trust the self-reported numbers by the church itself, when you also don’t have all the data?

      • If I may: in 13 years I’ve seen only 2 defections to the freezone: one was someone who was adament that the C of S was squirrel due to what he had seen on the internet, yet had done only a life repair in the 60s and attended events since that point-not exactly an active scientologist and also not an authority on tech, admin or ethics. I don’t remember the other ones story but I believe it was similar.

      • Cd- I repent and value your firsthand experience, and consider it valid within your sphere.

        However, Im sure youd agree that all we have to go on is the same thing that the cos provides- a raw number and nothing more. I must note, for what it’s worth, that the independent scientologist have a much more active web presence, which would coincide with what one would expect from a sizable group.

      • Nick-understood. However I would wager the actual size of most of these groups are dwarfed by actual orgs due to the fact that you hear almost nothing from them outside of the web other than the odd media hungry one.

      • Interesting point, cd, and that’s true. I would have to say there’s no way to know for sure, as surveys rely on self-identification

      • Interesting point, cd, and worth noting. I would have to say there’s no way to know for sure, as surveys rely on self-identification

      • I have actually heard this from someone who created a bunch of the sites. There are 3 or 4 main people behind all of them, ie Lerma, Mark B, and the CMU rat brain researcher dude (a psych tool / shill).

        Pat

      • Sockpuppets in action, quite funny.

        – L

    • “Does it mean anything that some if them died of cancer?”

      Not a lot, everyone can get cancer but most can heal it too.

      The founder of the Freezone, for example, could not.

      “Captain” Bill Robertson is probably the person most responsible for the whole “Sci-fi Space Alien” label slapped on Scientology. After spreading rumors that the church had been infiltrated with spies he tried to start “The New Church of Scientology” with Church monies. He failed.

      He claimed to be an “ethical OT” but did not act that way. Bill had a preference for dressing up in women’s clothing and at least two of Bill’s wives complained of his peculiar taste of wanting to play “lesbian” games as he used to dress up in ladies clothes and a wig and perform sexually perverted activities in front of a mirror. While those may be very odd, but maybe not damaging… he also stole another man’s wife. Not the way an “ethical OT” should be acting.

      He claimed to be second in command to L. Ron Hubbard and for a two month period in 1972 he indeed held a very high rank in the Sea Org. Over the next 10 years his behavior became very erratic. He became obsessed with remembering the words to a galactic marching song and felt the church had been infiltrated with spies.

      Then, in 1982 he announced that hew was not just Bill Robertson, a normal earthling, but was in fact called Astar Paramejgian, one of three beings who were in reality controlling the lives of trillions of inhabitants of “Sector 9”, a collection of thousands of stars and planets in this sector of the galaxy.

      He formed the Galactic Patrol, the FreeZoners and Ron’s Org, all squirrel groups. The problem with these groups was that they were altering (or making up) technology. Astar Paramejgian (aka Bill Robertson) ultimately developed a malignant throat cancer which led to his death.
      (http://www.scientologymyths.info/squirrels/who-was-captain-bill-robertson-and-the-galactic-patrol.php)

      – L

      • Louanne, are you saying that there are ots healing their cancer? I assume you mean in greater percentages than non scientologists…

        Second, do you have an independent source for your comments against the founder of only one of the many independent groups? And even if so, what does your attack on his character (an ad homonim by definition) have to do with the members today? 

        What I mean is this: one can insult Hubbard or dredge up accusations all day long, but why use that as an attack? And certainly why even mention his legal sex life?

        For example, you say that robinson stole another mans wife (I assume you mean she left her husband legally for him?) is the less ethical than Hubbard stealing jack parsons girlfriend, then marrying her while still married to his first wife? 

        You say that Robinson was convinced that there were spies in the church… But is that far from the truth based on the actions of the guardian office, which sent 11 high ranking scientologists to jail, including hubbards own wife? That assumes that Hubbard was unaware of his wife’s activities. Also, is that any more paranoid than hubbard writing to the FBI regarding alleged communist infiltration into the church? The FBI records themselves note, “Hubbard appeared at the Bureau and was interviewed on 3-1-51. He furnished information regarding alleged communist infiltration into one of his organizations”.

        You also, for reasons unclear to me, note what robinsons two wives said of his sexual habits. Is that more reliable than two of hubbard’s wives alleging sadism and torture?

        Also, you point out that Robinson died of cancer, which is true. I assume you’re not citing this as an issue, as Hubbard died of a stroke.

        Now, please allow me to ask for clarification. You mock his beliefs , but isn’t it taught in Scientology that the space opera refers to a “time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track”? As it’s also taught that we are immortal and merely find new bodies when needed, and also that we may recall past lives (as has even been claimed on this blog)… How do you know what he said isn’t true? 

      • “Comment by Reprter on April 22, 2011 12:02 pm
        Louanne, are you saying that there are ots healing their cancer? I assume you mean in greater percentages than non scientologists…”

        Maybe there are OTs healing their cancer. My mother, who is not even a Scientologist, healed hers too. It’s called modern medicine, I believe.

        “Second, …”

        Dude, someone like this says he knows what he is talking about when he says “Scientology” but then when you examine activities and products of this person you find someone whose personal sex life was more important than getting his group going and who died from a treatable illness. Obviously a fake.

        What Hubbard did before he developed Scientology is important only from the perspective that he knew the ups and downs of life and didn’t give in to them. He was a wild guy, yes, and he was always open about his mistakes and what learned from them. So whatever pre-Scientology crap you dig up (with the purpose of smearing his name) does not really matter to a Scientologist.

        “Now, please allow me to ask for clarification. You mock his beliefs”

        I don’t. He and his disciples may believe they grew on a tree on Mars and were teleported here by accident. Who cares. Most beliefs are strange to those who only look at the surface. The point is it’s not Scientology and he said it was. That’s what is disgusting about him and his group of lunatics. He was a liar.

        “but isn’t it taught in Scientology that the space opera refers to a “time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track”?

        Yes, that’s a definition of “space opera”. Scientology certainly teaches that as a spirit that can’t die you must have gone through a lot of stories in your life. Whatever these stories are is not relevant.

        “As it’s also taught that we are immortal and merely find new bodies when needed”

        Yes, that’s a Scientology principle and true for Scientologists (and others).

        “How do you know what he said isn’t true? ”

        I don’t care if its true or not.

        – L

      • I want to clarify something here on the “taught .. space opera”..

        In Scientology, what is true is true because it’s personally observed, and only then. That’s why we don’t discuss past lives. These are stories by LRH, anecdotes to bring home points in the lectures. Most of the internet noise is because of folks like Robertson “blah blahing” about his thing publicly. At no time, has anyone ever said “This is what you must believe”.

        Pat

  10. Not that I am aware of. I think as a fringe group they would be to hard to find to do a study on. Some of their “gurus” died of cancer and suicide though. Wanna do some research, “reporter”?

    – L

  11. Louanne,
    Has there ever been a study that demonstrates the number of suicides, deaths and legal convictions within the independant (or “squirrel”, if you’d prefer) movement? Are independants, and those that they audit found to be dying or being convicted of crimes at a higher rate than those that are not in the movement?
    Thanks,
    Nick


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • 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