BS: History of Scientology-by josepp

Subject: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 01:36 PM

[With Scientology in the news, I thought it would be a good time to post another chapter from my "book". The whole truth and nuthin' but the truth.]

THE SCRIBE FLIES SOLO – The Life and Legacy of L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard, obviously, did not drop from sight either. As we all know, he went on to found Dianetics in 1950 and, when that scheme went bankrupt, turned it into Scientology two years later by adding really bad science-fiction and pseudo-Crowleyan occultism to the Dianetic mix. Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster who used occultism strictly to further his own ends. According to Hubbard's son, Ron DeWolf, his father had been a black magic devotee for many years prior to his connection with Jack Parsons. Hubbard had also been a Rosicrucian, joining AMORC in 1940 and completing two of the neophyte degrees before apparently losing interest and leaving. Hubbard was also a devotee of Crowley's Book of the Law, which seemed to be what got him started in the first place. Hubbard himself spoke of Crowley in a 1952 lecture (referring to him as "my very good friend" even though they never met and Crowley hated him for interfering with operations at the Pasadena OTO) and spoke of his fascination with the Book of the Law. DeWolf claimed his father had an intense interest in creating a moon child. "It was basically an attempt to create an immaculate conception, except by Satan rather than by God," DeWolf told Penthouse magazine in their June 1983 issue. DeWolf also stated that after Crowley's death, Hubbard considered himself his legitimate successor and fancied himself both the Antichrist and the Beast 666. Crowley, for whatever faults he may have had, was surely spinning in his grave.

Hubbard was, in fact, obsessed with the Great Goddess as was Parsons and Crowley. In the late forties, after his split with Parsons (whom he was always careful to write respectfully of), Hubbard and Betty were attempting to invoke the Egyptian goddess Hathor by mingling their blood in a rite appropriately titled The Blood Ritual. DeWolf stated that Hathor was the name his father privately called the Great Goddess, the same one that Crowley referred to as Babalon (taken from Babylon the Great in Revelation). Both Hubbard and Crowley regarded the tarot card "The Empress" as the Great Goddess and Hubbard firmly believed her to be his HGA or Holy Guardian Angel. He even claimed to have seen her once standing on the wing of a glider he was flying. The difference between the beliefs of Hubbard and Parsons and those of Crowley was that Crowley could not buy into the notion that Babalon could be incarnated as a moon child or that she could function as one person's HGA. She was above and beyond any of that.
Hubbard claimed his 1950 book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, which he wrote in three weeks, was a "channeled writing" dictated by the Great Goddess. He often publicly referred to her as Diana or Diane and is the basis of the word "Dianetics." "Di" means "two" and so the two-faced god Janus was also called Dianus and two-faced would certainly describe L. Ron Hubbard. He gained prestige with the book because the foreword was written by a bona fide doctor, J. A. Winter. Hubbard named him as Director of the Dianetic Institute.

Dianetics is a mish-mash of half-baked psychoanalysis based loosely on the work of Freud, Korzybski, William Sargent, Nandor Fodor and Grinker & Spiegel. Hubbard initially attributed Dianetics to these people before deciding to take all the credit as the channeler of his Great Goddess. The claim of Dianetics is the assertion that it has located "a single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements." This single source is called the "engram." The engram is the source of virtually all illnesses. So, virtually all sickness and disease is psychosomatic.

Before we go into engrams, let us review a bit of Hubbard's observations concerning the structure of the mind: There is, according to Hubbard, an analytical mind "which perceives and retains experience data to compose and resolve problems and direct the organism along the four dynamics. It thinks in differences and similarities." There is also a reactive mind which is "that portion of the mind which files and retains physical pain and painful emotion and seeks to direct the organism solely on a stimulus-response basis. It thinks only in identities." The third part of the mind is the somatic mind "which, directed by the analytical mind or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level."

The engram is "a definite and permanent trace left by a stimulus on the protoplasm of a tissue. It is considered as a unit group of stimuli impinged solely on the cellular being." Engrams are retained in the reactive mind, which Hubbard also calls "the engram bank." Since the reactive mind only retains pain and suffering, engrams can only be caused by painful experiences. Engrams give rise to just about every type of mental and physical ailment known to man. During a painful experience, says Hubbard, the analytical mind shuts off and the reactive mind is activated. Unlike the analytical mind, which records everything it experiences perfectly and totally without distortion or error, the reactive mind doesn't really think but only reacts to various stimuli that, in turn, activate the painful impressions of the engram. The engram then manifests with the right triggers and the subject will develop any number of ailments in a subconscious response. Hubbard classifies the engrams but that is not important here. Hubbard's book also discusses what he calls "demon circuits" but we shall skip this as well (I mention it just in case a Scientologist should read this and accuse me of deliberately excluding important parts of the book—they are not important).

One example that Hubbard gives of engram formation is one of a husband beating his wife and telling her that she is a faker, no good, and is always changing her mind. He strikes her, knocking over a chair. The faucet is running, a car is passing by outside. Her mind also logs the various other sensations at the time such as smells and tastes. "The engram this woman has received contains a neurotic positive suggestion….She has been told that she is a faker, that she is no good, and that she is always changing her mind. Then the engram is restimulated in one of the great many ways possible [such as hearing a car passing by while the faucet is running and a chair falls over], she has a feeling that she is no good, a faker, and that she will change her mind." Hubbard insists that all this is scientifically verifiable and that large amounts of data have already been gathered to verify it. Nothing of the sort. There is no way to test his assertions scientifically.
Why doesn't science just look for evidence of engrams? According to Hubbard, this "definite and permanent trace left by a stimulus on the protoplasm of a tissue" is too small to be detected. This is problematic because the issue must now be raised as to how Hubbard could know that engrams exist if they can't be detected. If engrams can't be detected scientifically, how could he claim dianetics to be a science? The engram appears to have been lifted from another pseudo-science called homeopathy which got its start in the first decade of the 19th century.

Homeopathic remedies are solutions where the medicine is diluted in water. This was originally done to cut down on side effects. The results were favorable and dilution itself became more important than the medicine. The more the medicine is diluted, they say, the more beneficial it is. If this wasn't ridiculous enough, some homeopathic solutions are composed of one part medicine dissolved into 100 parts water and then shook and, again, one part of this is then dissolved into another 100 parts water and shook again and so on until this operation has been repeated 200 times! This is notated on the label as 200C. For someone to drink a 200C solution would require that they swallow more molecules of water than there are molecules in the entire known universe just to swallow one molecule of the medicine!

How do defenders of homeopathy say its dilution principle works? They freely admit that 200C solutions contain no medicine but that doesn't matter! The very act of diluting and shaking the water/alcohol solution somehow charges it with a kind of "memory." That is, the medicine or antibody leaves an "imprint" in the water. This imprint, they maintain, is an electromagnetic wave. Furthermore, a coil surrounding the water can pick up this imprint, store it on computer and send it via the internet or email to some other part of the world to activate water there with that very imprint! Yet, needless to say, there is no scientific test that can prove this! There is, in fact, no way to tell a homeopathic solution from ordinary tap water!

Homeopathic remedies work supposedly because the water is imprinted in some undetectable way. Likewise, we find that Hubbard's engram is just homeopathy applied to protoplasm of cellular tissue rather than water. Protoplasm of a cell is somehow imprinted by a stimulus in some permanent, magical way. The only real difference is that the homeopathic imprint is said to be beneficial while the Hubbardian engram is said to be detrimental.

Having foisted this off on the reader, Hubbard now informs us that the most damaging engrams of all are "prenatal engrams" which occur in the womb. Some engrams are received while the developing infant is still a zygote and some are received while in the embryo stage and these engrams are terrible enough but the engrams "received as a foetus are enough to send people to institutions all by themselves." As an example, Hubbard gives us another hypothetical situation of his own invention. Suppose a pregnant mother is on the toilet straining to have bowel movement but has terrible constipation (many of Hubbard's examples center on women having extramarital affairs, attempting to give themselves abortions, being beaten by husbands or being in a great deal of discomfort due to their own defective bodily functions). She says to herself, "Oh, this is hell. I am all jammed up inside. I feel so stuffy I can't think. This is too terrible to be borne." According to Hubbard, the developing infant in her womb will hear this (he doesn't explain exactly how infants in the womb can hear things in the outside world or how zygotes can get engrams in minds they don't as yet possess and yet discounts the possibilities that fetuses have extra-sensory perceptions or minds!) and an engram will form in the fetus that will make it believe later in life that it causes pain and that the mother didn't want to have him or her. So we must be careful with words because they have entirely different meanings engrammatically. Incredibly, Hubbard recommends complete silence when treating accident victims so as not to induce engrams. Even the parents having sex while the mother is pregnant can cause the child to be born with a false memory of being raped by the father. Again, Hubbard claims that there is scientific data that supports all this but he doesn't bother to give us any.

What to do about these terrible engrams? Enter dianetics. Dianetics, states Hubbard, can "erase" engrams by transferring them from the world of the reactive mind's half-baked impressions to the analytical mind's clear light which exposes all the memories that caused the engram so that the engram can then be understood and dealt with. How a permanent trace left on the protoplasm of a tissue is transferred from one mind to the next is not explained. Since the analytical mind is supposedly shut off during painful experiences, how is one to suddenly recall all the details of an experience that caused an engram? Hubbard doesn't say.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 01:38 PM

How does Hubbard propose we transfer our engrams? That's where auditors come in. The auditor talks to you, questions you, about your feelings and fears and hang-ups, helping you move your engrams into the analytical mind so that the incident that caused the engram is remembered with perfect clarity. This is called "dianetic reverie" where one obtains "release"—the erasing of a particular engram, or becomes a "Clear"—one who has cleared out the entire contents of the engram bank. Achieving Clear status is as close as a person gets to perfection.

The device an auditor uses to aid in releasing a person from his engrammatical prison is called an e-meter, that is, an electroencephaloneuromentimograph. The e-meter is a 10" x 6" x 2" box that looks something like a volt-ohmmeter and a megohmeter. Hubbard stated, "The e-meter is never wrong. It sees all; it knows all. It tells everything." It has little metal canisters which function as electrodes that one holds in the hands to measure skin resistance in order to document how the resistance changes in response to various questions. It is a type of galvanometer that served as the forerunner for the polygraph—that notoriously unreliable device the police put too much faith in but which fortunately the courts do not. Yet auditors and Hubbard himself claim that an e-meter can pinpoint any incident in one's life down to the second and any incident in a past life as well!

The e-meter is erroneously believed to have been Hubbard's invention. It is not. Nor did Hubbard claim to be the inventor of the e-meter. The inventor was a chiropractor named Volney Mathison (not Olin Mathison, as dianetic literature calls him). Why an e-meter is necessary to perform simple psychoanalysis is not known but anyone qualifying as an auditor must purchase one to the tune of about $162—about three-and-a-half times more than what they are worth wholesale. In addition, qualifying as an auditor required a $1000 fee in courses and this was in 1950! And an auditor also had to pledge ten percent of his or her income to Hubbard.

The e-meter has come under a great deal of fire because of both its unreliability coupled with the Hubbard's claim that it is infallible. The National Bureau of Standards has charged that the e-meter cannot regulate the amount of current it puts out simply because it has no regulator of any kind. In addition, the e-meter is subject to polarization making its readings highly unreliable. Nor does there appear to be a calibration standard. Simply holding the canisters in the hands is inadequate to obtain an accurate reading of skin resistance because the amount of sweaty tissue in contact with the canisters will vary greatly. By squeezing the canisters, the skin resistance will drop and by holding the canisters loosely, the skin resistance increases. Moreover there is no device to monitor the correct amount of contact between the skin tissue and the canisters. Simple tests performed by people showed the e-meter to be completely unreliable. One man had argued with his wife on a Saturday but the e-meter, operated by an auditor who said that the machine would pinpoint the date of the argument precisely, told him the fight took place on a Tuesday which the man knew was wrong. He dropped out of the organization.

Hubbard claimed that garden variety tomatoes can be "processed" and give various responses to blight and pain. There is a famous photo of Hubbard auditing a tomato with a somber, serious look on his face to offset the utter comical stupidity of the procedure itself. According to Hubbard, tomatoes "scream" when sliced. What constitutes a tomato scream is certainly debatable. Such assertions destroy his claims! Is a tomato with blight suffering from a psychosomatic illness caused by an engram? Incredibly, Hubbard's supporters give an unequivocal yes.

In 1951, Sara "Betty" Northrup, perhaps reaping the reward of her infidelity, divorced Hubbard claiming he was a "hopelessly insane" paranoid schizophrenic who tortured her while she was pregnant with their daughter. If true, and there is no reason not to believe her, Hubbard apparently disregarded his own advice on how not to cause babies to form the all-important prenatal engrams. In fact, he seemed to have been acting out scenarios from his own book.

That same year, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners charged that Hubbard was essentially practicing medicine without a license. Further, Hubbard pulled a deliberate sleight-of-hand when, after completing expensive courses in Dianetics, graduates were allowed to add M.D. after their names. The M.D. stood for "Master of Dianetics" but of course fooled the casual observer into believing the individual to be a qualified medical doctor. Dianetics was not a science despite Hubbard's insistence on the opposite. No verifiable and repeatable experiments could be conducted to test the claims of dianetics. Hubbard even said science would not be able to find proof of engrams even though they were supposed to be permanent impressions on body tissue. Unable to support his claims, the main Dianetic facility in Wichita declared bankruptcy.

In 1952, Hubbard married for the third time. This time, the lucky woman was Mary Sue Whipp. She was nineteen, he was forty-one. She would, more or less, come to run Hubbard's intelligence service—a clandestine group of spies, thieves and snitches whose job was to keep an eye on and gather intelligence about its enemies and former-members and even the government!

In 1952, Hubbard, never to be counted out, turned the "science" of dianetics into a religion that he called the Founding Church of Scientology. As its symbol, Hubbard more or less stole the Rosicrucian cross (and they were none too happy about it). "Scientology" is not a word coined by Hubbard although many think it is. Not so surprisingly, the word was used at the turn of the century as a synonym for what we call "pseudo-science."

Hubbard's move to make dianetics a religion was not met with unanimous acceptance by his followers. Many avid dianeticists were also avid agnostics and atheists. They were highly unthrilled (not to mention suspicious) at the idea of suddenly being part of a church. Many jumped ship. One of the first to go was Dr. J. A. Winter himself, Hubbard's self-appointed dianetics director. Winter penned a scathing indictment of Hubbard called A Doctor's Report on Dianetics where he lambasted Hubbard's questionable methods and claimed that dianetics, far from curing people's mental ailments, actually drove them psychotic citing case histories that he himself dealt with at the Dianetics Institute. Needless to say, current editions of Dianetics no longer contain Dr. Winters's foreword.

What did Hubbard add to dianetics to turn it into Scientology? He basically attached his own mediocre science-fiction plots to dianetics. According to Hubbard, every human being is a theta—his word for a spirit or soul or self. He claimed the ancients represented the spirit with the Greek letter theta although no one has been able to verify this. Crowley, however, used the theta to represent the Thelema or Will. Every human being is a "thetan." Scientology even refers to God as the "Big Thetan." But, like Crowley, Hubbard was fascinated by Set whom both considered the same as Satan, the male counterpart of Babalon. Former-Scientologist Jon Atack thinks that Hubbard was making an inside joke, that when Satan is pronounced with a lisp, it sounds like "thetan." This is probable. Hubbard, then, meant that by all of us being thetans as part of god, the god he was referring to was Satan. This is not a new idea, I pointed it out in the beginning chapter. But we may observe from this how much Hubbard took from Crowley and that Ron DeWolf is correct when he described Scientology as a disguised form of Satanism.

Hubbard put forth that every human being was inhabited by seven "foreign spirits" and called the leader of these seven the "crew chief." Clearing out the engrams and becoming a Clear earned one the privilege of being an Operating Thetan which meant one could operate outside the body and do things at a distance because the theta, the self, is projected from the body. This is basically Crowley's dream for the Thelema—altering one's environment strictly with the Will.

Hubbard didn't make mention of this again until 1966 when he really dressed it up in style. He spoke of a grade called "Operating Thetan—level three" or OT3 which he claimed was so secret that learning it could kill a person not properly prepared. Apparently, it generates devastating engrams or something. What is the secret of Operating Thetan—level three? Here it is: About 75 million years ago, an "overlord" named Xenu controlled seventy-six planets of 178 billion people each. Xenu rounded them up and dropped them onto planet earth where he shut them up in volcanoes and then detonated hydrogen bombs inside the volcanoes which released the thetans inside the bodies of these hapless people. Xenu captured the thetans on "electronic ribbons" (the cover of Dianetics depicts an erupting volcano). The captured thetans were hypnotized for thirty-six straight days and implanted with all sorts of blueprints for future civilizations (such as the formation of the Christian religion). The thetans were then gathered into clusters of seven and now each human body houses a cluster. There it is—the devastating OT3 secret. Hubbard himself wrote his "OT3" scenario down as a plot for a sci-fi screenplay called Revolt in the Stars so one can only wonder why few if any died from it.

A Clear lives in the present moment always—a doctrine found in many Eastern religions concerning living in the present moment rather than the past or future. Scientology calls it the "now." A Theta Clear lives in the now and has perfect recall of all sense-perceptions. In his early days as a religious charlatan, Hubbard made the mistake of introducing an audience of 6000 in Los Angeles to a young woman named Sonya Bianca whom Hubbard claimed was a Clear. Ms. Bianca was a physics major in college but, when put to the test, could not remember a certain physics formula that even most non-Clear physics majors would know. She even failed to remember the color of Hubbard's tie when his back was to her. Most of the audience immediate rose and left. Hubbard later defended his failure by stating that he had inadvertently created an engram in Ms. Bianca by requesting that she "come out onstage now." He should not have used the word "now" because of its special meaning in Scientology which caused her to get stuck in present time, he said. Since we only exist in present time, I don't see why that should be a problem. Be that as it may, Hubbard never again introduced a Clear to the world and, indeed, all disillusioned Scientologists claim to have never met one.

Hubbard was smart enough to deny that he himself was a Clear. However, he declared one of his sons, Quentin, as a "cleared theta clear" but that didn't cure Quentin of his homosexuality. Hubbard adopted a rather mean homophobic stance publicly (e.g. homosexuals are "backstabbers"). This may have contributed to Quentin's eventual suicide. When told of his son's demise, Hubbard was infuriated but showed no sign of grief. Apparently, a Clear committing suicide—the founder's son no less—made Scientology look bad.

In 1959, Hubbard moved the Church of Scientology out of the United States and over to Saint Hill Manor in East Grinstead, Sussex, London, England. The British government, however, did not welcome Hubbard and his church with open arms. Scientology faired worse in Australia where it was banned outright. Legislation banning Scientology from Germany is also being hotly debated. South Africa also wants to ban Scientology. Scientology relies on the celebrities in its ranks for its public relations. These include jazz musicians Stanley Clarke and Chick Corea of the band Return to Forever (their release, Romantic Warrior, was written about Hubbard) and actors Kirstie Allie, John Travolta, Tom Cruise and Juliet Lewis. Even so, many nations remained unconvinced that Scientology is anything more than a destructive cult that hurts more people than it helps.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 01:42 PM

In 1967, the IRS yanked Scientology's tax-exempt status which it had enjoyed since 1954. This would lead to an ongoing battle between the Church of Scientology and the IRS that would drag on for more than two decades before ending in a most stunning way.

Hubbard is a conman and a crook. Almost nothing that he has said about himself is true. His claims of engineering and mathematics degrees from Columbian University (not Columbia), George Washington University and Princeton are bogus. He did attend these schools and he did take some engineering and nuclear physics classes but his grades were atrocious—all D's, E's, and F's. His claim of receiving a Ph.D. from Sequoia University is true. Sequoia University, however, is nothing more than a P.O. Box whose renter hands out mail-order degrees. Even then Hubbard's degree was honorary and his own name appears as a member of the Sequoia staff. In other words, Sequoia University is another Hubbard scam. He awarded himself an honorary doctorate.

While he had commanded a submarine chaser in WW2, his attempts to follow his father as a distinguished naval officer were a failure. He was relieved of his command after engaging a magnetic deposit on the ocean floor in a fierce battle. New editions of Dianetics state that Hubbard was once "teaching inexperienced naval crews to survive the ravages of a world war" and there is a certain amount of truth to this. After being relieved of his command, Hubbard was reassigned to a ship headed to a war zone. Hubbard applied for a transfer to the Princeton School of Military Government, which he received, and so got out of seeing any action. He spent only two months at the school. That's how he teaches inexperienced soldiers to survive the ravages of a world war: weasel out of it and let others do the fighting and then take credit for it afterwards. In the Navy, playing sick or finding excuses not to pull your own weight is called "malingering." Hubbard was the classic malingerer.

His personal life is sordid. He married Louise "Polly" Grubb in 1933. They had two children. He abandoned them in 1945 and obtained a divorce in 1947. The trouble is, he married Betty Northrup in 1946 and so was a bigamist. When one of his several sons expressed anger at his father over his behavior, Hubbard magnanimously disowned him. He saw his daughter only a few times.

When Hubbard founded his Sea Organization, a group of yachts that sailed the oceans endlessly looking for treasure Hubbard claimed he'd buried in a previous life (they never found anything), he was attended to by girls not even quite in their teens who wore miniskirts and high heels and waited on him hand and foot. He also claimed that the Nazis and the Communists were after him. He proclaimed himself an admiral. His temper tantrums were legendary. Some of the more attractive women who sailed in the Sea Org were pressured into having sex, he called it "sex magic," with him (one described him as almost painfully slow). One woman in the Sea Org committed suicide by shooting herself. He rarely bathed during this time, was fat, impotent, and his teeth were rotting. Nor was his untoward behavior confined to his last years, he was known as a heavy drinker and drug- and spousal-abuser in the fifties and had made claims to have visited heaven, Venus, and the Van Allen Belt in 1963.

Hubbard also launched Operation Snow White. He ordered his intelligence service, under Mary Sue's command, to break into government offices and steal documents related to him and to Scientology. They did this so well that, in 1977, the FBI raided the headquarters of Scientology in Clearwater, Florida and confiscated 48,149 documents that the group had stolen. For pulling off the most extensive infiltration of the federal government in U.S. history, nine people, including Mary Sue, were given heavy fines and Mary Sue was sentenced to prison for a year. During this time, Hubbard went into hiding and abandoned Mary Sue completely. To this day, she will not talk about Hubbard or the inner workings of the Church of Scientology.

Hubbard spent his last years in Creston, California living in a motor home that sat on a ranch he owned. There he died on January 24, 1986 at the age of 74 (even now, nobody's sure he really died there).

Ron DeWolf claims, to the contrary claims of Scientology's leaders, that his father ritually abused him regularly. Since Betty Northrup reported the same treatment back in 1951, we can be sure Hubbard was indeed abusive and a truly unbalanced individual. Quite possibly, he was a psychopath (Atack believes Hubbard was "a classic psychopath"). One Sea Org officer claims to have seen Hubbard molest a young boy while they were in North Africa in 1966 (where the Sea Org actually attempted to take over Morocco). Then again, Hubbard claimed to have once been "a marshal to Joan of Arc," an apparent reference to the cruel and sadistic pederast Gilles de Rais. Now that I believe!

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 01:43 PM

Postscript

David Miscavige stood before 10,000 cheering people at the Los Angeles Sports Arena on October 8, 1993. Miscavige is the current head of the Church of Scientology and the 10,000 were the faithful of the Org. The message he had to deliver announced the end of twenty-five years of war with the Internal Revenue Service: Scientology was now officially a religion and was now tax-exempt. The crowd erupted wildly.

Why did the IRS change their policy? The Org launched what amounted to another Operation Snow White. Using their vast network of private investigators and spies, they gathered intelligence on the IRS and its various agents and other employees, according to the New York Times. The Org basically uncovered some dirty laundry the IRS didn't want the public to see. The Org investigators also pursued disgruntled IRS employees and financed a whistle-blowers campaign. Having gathered their evidence and having their team of attorneys organize it into a solid case, the Church of Scientology began to file lawsuits against the IRS. They didn't care whether they might lose or not. They knew they would never see the inside of a courtroom. The IRS simply did not want their dirty laundry exposed in a long, bitter trial and the Church of Scientology's lawyers knew it.

In 1991, Miscavige walked into the IRS headquarters without an appointment and barged in on the IRS commissioner, Fred T. Goldberg. This was unheard of and yet Goldberg met with Miscavige instead of having him thrown out. Miscavige offered to withdraw the more than fifty suits pending in exchange for tax-exemptions. Goldberg caved in and formed a committee that eventually ruled that all of Scientology's entities would be tax-exempt. The IRS issued thirty letters of exemption to some 150 churches, missions and corporations. Tax auditors were ordered to lay off the outstanding issues between the Org and the IRS. Furthermore, the IRS refused to release information on whether the Church of Scientology should still pay back taxes even though they always publicly disclose such information against religious organizations. That could only mean that the Org would also pay no back taxes. In January of 1992, Goldberg left the IRS but still refuses to comment on what he and Miscavige had discussed at a meeting so impromptu that Goldberg did not even have it written on his appointment calendar.

Nor has the Church of Scientology mellowed out in the years since Hubbard's death. If anything, it has grown more dictatorial and draconian. Hubbard seems almost to be reaching out from beyond the grave, unwilling to let his ever-degenerating presence fade. In the aforementioned town of Clearwater, Florida, the Church of Scientology began setting up under the name of United Churches of Florida in 1975. They began buying up buildings in the downtown area including the Fort Harrison Hotel, considered a landmark. They also bought the old bank building. Some of the documents seized by the federal raid in 1977 were the Org's own internal memos. Among them were various plans to destroy Gabe Cazares, who was mayor of Clearwater at the time. Other memos urged the taking over of workplaces as well as civic and community organizations. They have set up cameras all over the town. No one who comes into Clearwater could possibly avoid being photographed. Every car and its license plate is photographed. The license number is run through their computers. Those who arouse suspicion are followed, often times very openly. The Clearwater Scientologists have a very large staff of security and private detectives. The regular police on the street are chummy with the Scientology security police and do not interfere with them.

Many businesses are now owned or run by Scientologists and they can and do refuse service to people whom they have deemed enemies. Critics of Scientology in Clearwater report that buying gas, eating at a restaurant, shopping at a drugstore and the like are getting increasingly harder to do because they are being refused service. Complaining to the police even with videotapes to prove the allegations are met with lip service and not much more. The city council is squarely on the side of the Scientologists and are now, in fact, dependent on them.

When critics attempted to picket places that had refused them service, they were arrested and a judge, Thomas Penick, told the critics where they may and may not picket. Those critics who even appeared in certain areas without picket signs were still arrested. Penick also issued an injunction that states that Scientologists and their critics must stay away from one another but this works against the critics because there is almost nowhere downtown where they can go or they will be in violation of the injunction and be arrested.

The people of Clearwater will not speak out against the cult. They are clearly afraid. The cult has a well-known reputation for how they handle critics and defectors. On December 5, 1995, Lisa McPherson, 36, had spent eighteen days in the care of Scientologists. She had obviously been tortured. She had bruises and welts, was flea-bitten and dehydrated. On the brink of death, the Scientologists took her to a New Port Richey physician some forty-five minutes away—he too was a Scientologist. McPherson was dead on arrival. They were charged only with abusing a disabled person and practicing medicine without a license. Eventually, these charges too were dropped. No one has been tried for the death of Lisa McPherson, whose case is now closed.

The cult now owns about 39 parcels of Clearwater land valued at about $43 million. They own a huge amount of property worldwide but Clearwater has become their chosen headquarters.

The Church of Scientology is now working on erecting what will be the tallest structure in downtown Clearwater: a huge Scientology cross.

In 2000, Gabe Cazares stated, "This twenty-fifth year of the presence of Scientologists in Clearwater can be celebrated as the year the occupation was completed. I don't exaggerate when I say that this is an occupation."

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 01:51 PM

Attn: Mudelf: Whatever happened to the limit of one screen's worth for cut & paste? serial posting would seem to violate both the spitit and the rule itself.

What's next? Posting the entirety of the King James Bible in serial postings?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 02:00 PM

Before you make any effort to publish this "book", it would be well to have it edited, not to mention, footnoted. Wow. Your errors, both grammatical and logical, permeate the entire work. You have a lot of information there but, as it stands, it is beyond belief.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 02:53 PM

/////Before you make any effort to publish this "book", it would be well to have it edited, not to mention, footnoted. Wow. Your errors, both grammatical and logical, permeate the entire work./////

My grammatical errors? Then you must be aware that the employment of phrases as "it would be well to have it edited" are the very example of bad grammar. You use the word "it" in two completely different ways in one phrase. Moreover, the first use of "it" constitutes what is known as the "vague pronoun" which you've heard of, no doubt. The "it" in question refers to nothing in particular. "it would be well to have it edited..." WHAT would be well to have it edited?

So unless your own grammar is flawless, I highly recommend not criticizing that of others. As for my errors in "logic", I'm equally sure your own logic is as flawless as your grammar.

Thank you for your input.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 03:10 PM

Who gives two turds? I'm with Greg.....One long page is too much and the above is completely fucked!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 03:14 PM

How's this for grammar?

Eddie ain't trying to get published. She doing it is for a jackass for it to be a favor.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 03:19 PM

Face it... Any religion or movement that requires that much reading just to get the jest of shouldn't go too far...

Can you condense the essence of the church's ideas and vision to 3 paragraphs, Joez???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 03:34 PM

Rather bad trend here, josepp, which I don't think the Mudelves or Max are going to take to kindly or allow to go too far.

I have a personal retrospective on the folk music world in the Pacific Northwest, starting with my first involvement with it in the very early 1950s on up to the present, and right now, the first draft is over 150,000 words, with more to go. I know it needs editing (mainly to take out extraneous material and my sometime tendecy to go off on tangents. For example, if someone who is interested in the subject reads it, how interested are they going to be in the antics of Fred Melberg's pet skunk?).

This is why I belong to a monthly writers' group. We get together and critique each others' work. And when I get the memoir/retrospective finished, I have two published writer friends--in addition to my wife, who worked for several years as an editor in a publishing company--who have agreed to read it and critique it. One of these friends recently finished a novel which I read and critiqued for him, and it is currently in the hands of a literary agent.

I suggest that, rather than usurping vast quantities of bandwidth here on Mudcat, which is mainly dedicated to folk music and peripheral subjects, you do as I am doing:   join a writers' group and/or have knowledgeable people critique it for you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 03:55 PM

The screen limit refers to Joe's Really Big Monitor. At least, that's how Joe keeps describing it. I know my monitor is no where near as big.

All of y'all: there is a shitload of stuff on here I don't care to read. Most political threads, any idiotic no-imagination copycat thread, and most of what Little Hawk's other personalities (NOI) start, and more. I suppose I'm not completely nuts (matter of opinion) at the current time because 1) I just don't read threads I don't like and 2) I'm not quite clueless enough to bitch about threads I don't like at every possible opportunity.

Get over it.

If you don't want to read it, don't fucking read it.
We've had a few people go on and on about things that don't concern many people. The worst that can happen, if you don't get involved, is they end up looking like they're publicly pleasuring themselves. If you do get involved, it looks like something else.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:06 PM

I'm not quite clueless enough to bitch about threads I don't like at every possible opportunity.

Oh yes, Jeri? - Afraid I got real bad news for ya - you just WERE clueless enough to bitch about a thread you didn't like.

Ooops.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:15 PM

If I understand what josepp is doing, that his is something that he has written himself, then I don't think that it violates the "cut and paste rule" it is not as if he could link to published source to make the link available to us.

But I would say as a suggestion to the Mudcat design team, that if the originator's name were visible from the menu, with that thread title, there would be many fewer posts on this thread. I opened it because I was curious about the subject, but when I saw who had posted it, I realized that such information as there was would not be presented neutrally or with verifiable sources. I read for a short time then I got bored. Then I skipped to the bottom to read the complaints.

Did anyone else have a similar experience?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:21 PM

Greg, keep track of all the possible opportunities for me, wouldja? And try to read for comprehension, to see if the thread I don't care for is what I'm actually bitching about.

Jack, it may not make sense for you or anyone else to do what I do: read "Messages Since Last Visit". It shows posts rather than threads.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:24 PM

Jossepp; we have had a very limited number of people here who don't realize that it simply isn't appropriate to paste extensive screeds like this as forum posts. If you want to make this available online, please put it somewhere where you can make it available by link.
This isn't an objection to your content. I have no more regard for scientology than you do.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:26 PM

No Jeri, that would not make sense for me. I have enough difficulty filtering as it is, especially when I am busy.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:37 PM

So Jeri, what then ARE you bitching about?

Can you be more explicit for poor, comprehension challenged individuals like meself?

Or are you just bitching for the sake of bitching, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:40 PM

Hey, Spaw-

I'm waiting for josepp's chapter where he explains why Fundagelical Christianity - or "Christianity"[sic] period - is any less fucked up than Scientology.

That should be interesting reading - if he can learn to write in English by then.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 04:53 PM

I think this is what Jeri was commenting on.

"Attn: Mudelf: Whatever happened to the limit of one screen's worth for cut & paste? serial posting would seem to violate both the spitit and the rule itself."

A lot of people, especially volunteers, don't like to be told that they don't know how to do their jobs.

Lets face it, reading josepp's writing makes everyone a little cranky. The first thing she sees afterward is your bitching. She takes it out on you because if she said anything to josepp, then she would be obliged to read his reply.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:02 PM

////Eddie ain't trying to get published.////

Neither am I. Who said I was trying to get published. I write because I love to write.


///She doing it is for a jackass for it to be a favor////

No, this individual is gutlessly attacking me vicariously because he can't do it directly for some reason. At least Greg F. and Catspaw had that much chutzpah.

Thank you for your input.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:07 PM

What Jeri said.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:20 PM

"Neither am I. Who said I was trying to get published. I write because I love to write."

I guess the question is "Do you want people to love your writing?" If so, follow Ebbie's advice. If you want to irritate people, you are on the right track.


"No, this individual is gutlessly attacking me vicariously because he can't do it directly for some reason. At least Greg F. and Catspaw had that much chutzpah."

You are right I do not have the chutzpah to attack you directly. All I did was mock you, your grammar and four posts of unreadable garbage. Why did I do this? Because you present yourself as a writer but have no respect for your audience. I tried to read that stuff. You have no respect for me. Your writing is so bad in your book that it feels as if you are mocking ME, your potential audience.

Usually when a writer insults my intelligence, I do not get a chance to return the favor. Than you for standing in for all of the lousy writers who have pissed me off for all of these years.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:22 PM

Here is a tip. I'll bet that if you had titled this thread as I have it above, you would have not been attacked at all on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:31 PM

Greg... surely you can read Jeri's post and understand it. Try it again. Repeat as necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:32 PM

OK, Mom. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:41 PM

Jack, I don't care who likes my writing and who doesn't and why should I? Does every single person love your music? Do they stop in their tracks to watch every note you perform? Do you care if they do or not? Could you possibly make a music that everybody in the world loves? I'll go out on a limb and say no.

Don, I DO belong to a writer's group--several--and I actually write for a living, it's my job. If mudcat doesn't like me to post these things, mudcat is free to delete it. I'll understand and I don't mind. But if mudcat was all that concerned that I stick to the theme of folk music, they'd just get rid of the BS section altogether. That's what the BS section is for--non-music-related subjects.

The fact that this set of posts makes so many people mad as hell is beyond me unless they are scientologists but they haven't bothered to correct me on that count if that is the case. The rest, as Jeri pointed out, have the option of simply closing the thread and going onto something else. I don't remember the last time I went on a thread I had no interest in and attacked the OP for posting it, even going so far as to post a half-dozen more times to express my displeasure. Just close the thread and move on. If they want sources, why should I post them when they've admitted they had no interest in the subject? If they are really interested, let them do their own research and see if they come across the same facts that I did. But they won't because, by their own admission, they don't care.

But thank you for your thoughtful post. Obviously, you took the time to actually suggest something constructive. But it doesn't really bother me much if people don't want to be constructive. Frankly, you should post some of your non-music-related writings here. I'll read them if no one else will.

Bobert! Would it be fair for me to summarize Scientology in three paragraphs for your convenience? For all its faults, it's certainly more interesting that a three-paragraph summary. You don't have to read every word--just skim through it. You might find an interesting tidbit or two to ponder. Wouldn't kill you, would it?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 05:57 PM

Just get on to the Christianity chapter will ya? Thanks.

-and I actually write for a living, it's my job.

Can't be much of a living, if the above is any indication.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 06:01 PM

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to vent about some truly horrible writing. As for positive feed back. Ebbie covered that nicely.

You, jackass that you apparently are, attacked her.

I shall endeavor to give you positive feedback. You make too many unverifiable claims. Your writing style in this piece is hysterical. The sentence structure makes it difficult to read.

My I please ask what you makes you an authority on each of these things?
L. Ron Hubbard,
Dianetics
Scientology
bad science-fiction
pseudo-Crowleyan occultism

You are presenting yourself as a historian but you are not supporting you "conclusions" or writing in an intelligible or professional way.

You write for a living? Cool! Do you get paid for writing of that quality? If so please tell us who pays you. I have some chimps banging on typewriters in a warehouse testing probability theory. I'd sure like to get paid for their efforts.

Again, thank you so much for this chance to vent.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 06:04 PM

By the way. If the whole book is a joke. I don't get the joke. I admire the effort and excuse all the errors, but I don't get the joke. Is it a joke?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: caitlin rua
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 07:28 PM

Probably taking my life in my hands to say this but: I found josepp's posts an interesting read, though I already knew most of that stuff, having had some friends who fell victim to Scientologists one way or the other (either getting into their bad books or too far into their good ones). Yeah, the text has some errors & vagaries but I was reading for content, not with my lit crit hat on. And it's by no means as bad as some of the above comments make out. (Anybody read some of the other stuff out there lately? Not just on the internet either.)

I am really, truly baffled by the nastiness in this thread. Which I know I have now drawn down on my own head simply for mentioning it. But what's all this attacking about? What happened to allowing everyone their individual freedom of exression and all that? Jeri's right.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 07:56 PM

Joez...

It's not my convenience as much as it is you trying to give enough of a summation to get folks interested... I mean, we all write with the hopes - horrors, lol - that someone will want to read what we have written...

Just trying to lend a helping hand in your project...

Think of it as a blurb... Or intro...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 08:00 PM

I can see where you might read it if you already knew a lot about the subject and wanted to see L. Ron called nasty names. I was expecting a history. Not a screed.

"I was reading for content"

I ask this seriously. How do you know which content is valid and which is josepp's opinion?

I got nasty because he got nasty with Ebbie but I was already P.O.ed with him for wasting my time. But it did prompt me to find a better written History of Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 08:14 PM

For me - a better way to approach a book is to just present the facts and let the reader decide for themselves. Then it's unnecessary to write a sentence along the lines of - " Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster" ect.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 08:54 PM

Aw Caitlin, there is a major cult of nasty assholes around here of which I am one. and we generally only jump on someone after one or more of us is fed up. We meet every third Tuesday and alternate Thursdays to determine our targets. You're safe for now but watch it! Everyone is free here to post their own favorite crap and psychobabble and we all have the right to say we hate it. Damn free speech stuff works both ways.

So never fear, JoBoo will continue to post completely undaunted and we'll move on once again. Next meeting is Tuesday, til then.........where's Sawzsaw?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 12:00 AM

Seems to me that Jack's suggestion is a good one. It should always be crystal-clear who is the source of information posted here. From the first post, it sounds like the piece was written by josepp. It that's not the case, then we do have a violation of the one-screen limit on non-music copy-paste posts (although Max did not reconfirm that limit when he switched things around last August, so the limit is in limbo).

Now, there never has been a limit on Music copy-paste posts, whether they were written by the poster or not. That being the case, Don Firth should be aware that he is more than welcome to post his folk music retrospective. He might have to post it in pieces because there is a physical limit on the size of a post, but I'd think he could fit a chapter in a single post.

So, I added josepp's name to the thread title. Josepp, can you please confirm that it is indeed your work?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 01:03 AM

...........***sigh***............Since my super tremendous long winded C&P Scientology post has been deleted, let me repost the essence of it in a shorter form.

***Scientology is fucked up.
***If you believe in it, you're fucked up.
***If you're posting a load of shinola about Scientology for reading by aging folkies, you're fucked up beyond all recognition.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 01:28 AM

Well, it WAS long....but I'm not the one who deleted it. That's not my department any more. I get to be Mr. Nice Guy. You know, Spaw, the good cop/bad cop act.

-Joey-

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 02:09 AM

Once upon a time little Elron made a bet. Then he made a boatload of money. But not on the bet. On the premise of the bet.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 04:11 AM

Actually, I regret the tone I used in my post. I got carried away. In my defense, however, I had read every word of what josepp wrote and got a little overwrought at its tone and the fact that there was no accountability in any of it. Heck, any one of us is capable of choosing a target and making up our own story about it. Scientology - much as I don't understand/condone/participate in it and its premise - is an actual phenomenon with adherents and in my opinion if one is to attack it one had better document one's sources.

Reminds me of once when I went to a church to hear a highly touted musical quartet. The preacher (I think it was the preacher) spoke before the music came on and said something about Jehovah's Witnesses and said something to the effect of "and we know what they are like". If I'd been JW I would hope I would have walked out. Probably should have, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 04:16 AM

josepp is delusional if he seriously thinks anyone will actually read all that shit, life is too short.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 12:18 PM

Another long blog, without pertinence to mudcat.

My vote is for deletion.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 03:05 PM

I read Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health when it first came out in 1950, as did a number of friends and acquaintances. Since we were in college at the time and most of us had taken at least freshman psychology classes, it engendered a fair amount of discussion. It looked at the time as if it might be a promising new approach to psychology, hence the interest.

A couple of acquaintances got into it very deeply, followed when, a few years later, it morphed into Scientology. The idea of styling it as "a new religion" didn't appeal to me, but one person told me that this was primarily a "dodge," because, he claimed, "The Forces of Conventional Psychiatry" were trying to ban or outlaw Dianetics, so Dianeticists were trying to defend it by claiming that it was a religion in order to have First Amendment protection from persecution.

A couple of friends and I played around with the Dianetics part of it for awhile, and I eventually lost interest, especially when they got into such things as "operating Thetans" (being able to leave your body and travel freely through the Cosmos—fun idea, perhaps, but kinda "woo-woo.").

Some years later, I noticed that there was a "Church of Scientology" in the area. It was nothing more than a storefront office, but just to see what these folks had been up to recently, I dropped in. I wound up talking to an eighteen-year-old girl who was wearing a black skirt, jacket, and blouse with a white clerical collar. The kind of garb a female priest—if there ever were such an critter—might wear (I have since seen Pastor Shannon of the nearby Central Lutheran Church wearing such a uniform; she, however, is a genuine ordained minister). The young woman introduced me to her assistant. He was similarly dressed, a stern black suit, black shirt, and white "dog collar" (as Pastor Shannon calls it). He couldn't have been more than about eighteen himself.

After a conversation about "spiritual rehabilitation," I thanked them for their time and departed.

After what I thought could have been a promising beginning, they'd gone completely around the bend.

Josepp, I don't remember anything at all about Rosicrucianism and AMORC (I had a close relative who was into this), and some of the other things you mentioned, as being associated with Dianetics and Scientology. Perhaps this was later, but certainly not in the beginning.

####

A brief critique of your article, if I may:   Right from the start, you make it plain that your purpose is to debunk the whole thing, without giving an accurate description of what it is all about. Your tone is negative right from the start, and much of what you describe doesn't seem to bear a great deal of resemblance to the Dianetics that I was acquainted with.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Dianetics and Scientology. I personally (AND with some personal knowledge to base my opinion on) think it's all a load of codswallop and a great field for charlatans.

But as a presumable somewhat academic analysis of the subject, you make it plain right from the start that your purpose in writing about this subject is to do a hatchet-job.

At the very least, you need lots of footnotes and references, and preferably, a bibliography of material, to support your thesis..

Don Firth

P. S. I was thinking that L. Ron Hubbard was a halfway decent science fiction writer back before he started taking himself too seriously. Then I found out that one of his stories that I particularly liked, "Far Centaurus," was actually written by A. E. Van Vogt.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 07:07 PM

I don't know squat about dianetics and scientology except to say that Hubbard was right about one thing for sure: writing stories at a penny a word will not make you rich. Starting a religion will. He said that in the 1950s. What's new?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 07:21 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 09:11 PM

Joe,

Yes, I wrote that. It did not come from anyone else's website or blog although I availed myself the use of several blogs written by ex-Scientologists for some of my info--Jon Atack, for example.

I don't believe I did a hatchet-job on Scientology. Once of the facts of it are known, being impartial is a practice in futility. You have to call it the way you see it. It is what it is.

If I were going to do a hatchet-job, I would have accused Scientology, for example, of fostering a denial of the Holocaust because one of its longtime members, Tom Marcellus, is also a longtime Holocaust-denier working for racist Willis Carto. I didn't mention that because that would be unfair. I'm sure most Scientologists are not Holocaust-deniers and I have no idea of what Hubbard believed about it.

Hatchet-job implies I butchered the religion when, in fact, I presented the facts as clearly as I could get them.

Don or someone claimed that I stated that Scientology became a church long after I said it did in 1952. But I just went to Wiki to see about that and here is what it says:

"The first Scientology church was incorporated in December 1953 in Camden, New Jersey, by American science fiction author[8][9] L. Ron Hubbard."

Unless we stretch things a bit and insist that 1953 occurred long after 1952, I was pretty close. The wiki may not be correct either. When I wrote this piece, there was no such thing as Wikipedia. I believe my info came from Jon Atack whom I found to be knowledgeable since he was once a member of the church but not likely to gloss over its more questionable practices as a current member would probably do.

Much of my info come straight out of "Dianetics" which I have read. The comparison of engrams to homeopathy was my own. While investigating homeopathy, I found the parallels to be suspicious--but I could be wrong. I doubt it though. Hubbard put a little of everything in his religion to sell it to as wide an audience of gullible rubes as possible.   

His church also gave birth to the Process Church of the Final Judgement which was started by two ex-Scientologists--Robert De Grimston Moore and his wife Maryanne. They too used e-meters on their members and even appropriated the name "Scientology" for a time but were made to stop. They, in turn, had an influence on Charles
Manson who also took Scientology courses while incarcerated. One of Manson's hardcore followers, Dennis Rice, was a Scientologist and so was his girlfriend who mysteriously turned up murdered. Maybe she didn't like Dennis hanging out with the Family.

After reading an account of what happened to Lisa MacPherson, I see no reason to be "impartial" to Scientology. It doesn't deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 09:45 PM

"Hatchet-job implies I butchered the religion when, in fact, I presented the facts as clearly as I could get them. "

Below is not a fact. It is clearly an opinion. It is clearly presented as the opinion of the author of the piece.   

"Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster who used occultism strictly to further his own ends."

You seem to think that you deserve the courtesy of your unsupported, poorly articulated opinions being read as "History".

Ebbie did you a kindness by wading through all of that muck then giving you her feedback. How did you react? By attacking her. I doubt that you will get her to read any long piece of yours again. I'll bet that you have lost a few readers with this thread. If you want readers you need to show more respect for your audience, both in the whiting and the feedback stage.

By the way Don Firth's little piece is by far the most credible and readable information about Scientology on this thread.

On a personal note, is your employer hiring people to write?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 10:19 PM

/////Below is not a fact. It is clearly an opinion. It is clearly presented as the opinion of the author of the piece.   

"Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster who used occultism strictly to further his own ends."/////

You have done no research on L. Ron Hubbard so where do you get off making this claim? Hubbard was a member of the OTO in Pasadena in the 40s which was run by a rocket scientist named Jack Parsons at the direction of Aleister Crowley in England. Parsons raved in his letters to Crowley about Hubbard as "the most Thelemic person" he had ever met and that they were going in the desert regularly in an attempt to create a "moon child." Crowley was immediately suspicious of Hubbard but could do nothing to keep Parsons and Hubbard apart.

The first thing Hubbard did was start screwing Parsons's wife, Betty. Parsons was so taken with Hubbard, though, that he accepted this. Crowley was furious when he heard about this but Parsons continued to hold Hubbard in high esteem and the moon child experiments continued causing Parson to neglect his duties of running the OTO which greatly displeased the other members--some of whom wrote to Crowley about it.

Hubbard married Betty in 1946 (despite being married to another woman at the time) and then the happy couple persuaded Parsons to sink his savings into a business they called Allied Enterprises. Hubbard continued to snow Parsons about having visions of the moon child which Parsons enthusiastically wrote about to Crowley who wrote to another member saying: "Apparently Parsons or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moon Child. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."

But eventually, Hubbard and Betty fled Pasadena with Parsons's money that he had invested into Allied Enterprises. They bought a yacht with $10,000 of Parsons's money. Hubbard dubbed the yacht--surprise!--"Diane." Parsons chased them but they managed to put the vessel to sea but, as fate would have it, they ran into a squall, were badly damaged and were forced to return to port where Parsons took custody of his boat. He sued for his money but only received a small portion. After that, he severed all contact with L. Ron Hubbard but, by then, Crowley had replaced him as head of the OTO.

All this is covered in an earlier chapter that I haven't posted because it had nothing to do with Scientology. So, as you can see, Hubbard was a thief, a shyster, a liar, a conman. He was not to be trusted. His turning Dianetics into a church was similarly nothing but a con job. Everything he told people about himself to puff himself up were lies.

So I did not do a hatchet-job on him--I told the truth. Not that you care. You're just trying to be an asshole--and you're succeeding admirably.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 10:45 PM

Call it an unsupported conclusion if it makes you feel better.

The fact that you are defending it as a fact is very likely the problem with your writing.

The FACT is, for one example, you can't know he was "shameless" about anything unless you somehow connected him up to one his Dianetics gadgets and read his mind. Or unless you have testimony from someone else who has read his mind. Do you? If so PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED SOURCES!!!!!!

If you can't know something, you can't state it as a fact and have any credibility as a writer of a "History."

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: BrendanB
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:34 AM

I agree with Ebbie's measured and thoughtful assessment of the quality of Josepp's writing. As he claims to be a professional writer it is reasonable to criticise such weaknesses. His more recent posts also indicate failings in his grasp of grammar and syntax. I also feel that Jack the Sailor's point regarding verification of claims made in Josepp's posts is cogent and, so far, remains unanswered.
We are all free to hold any opinions we like but we do not have the right to have those opinions respected by others. I respect your right to hold an opinion but do not necessarily respect your opinions. What little I know about scientology suggests to me that it is a bizarre and ludicrous organisation led by charlatans. However, that is only my opinion and I cannot claim to have enough incontrovertible evidence to insist that my opinion is a fact.   In my judgement Josepp is in the same position.

Josepp, you stated in an earlier post that you write for a living. This would suggest that at least some of what you write is in the public domain. Could you direct me to any book, periodical or other publication where your work can be found?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 12:13 PM

////I agree with Ebbie's measured and thoughtful assessment of the quality of Josepp's writing. As he claims to be a professional writer it is reasonable to criticise such weaknesses.////

It is reasonable as long as your own grammar is flawless but to criticize someone's grammar with flawed grammar is pointless.

And I guess I just can't make clear to you that I don't care if you like my writing or not. No, I will not give you any proof that I write for a living. You've made very clear that you believe me to be a virtual illiterate and so proof is pointless. And, aside from that, I just don't care.

When someone says he doesn't care what I have to say about anything and posts a dozen or more times on the same thread repeating that statement, surely even you could understand this person has some underlying issues. And when this person could just go away and ignore me but refuses to do so but instead must let me know at all costs and at every opportunity how much he hates me and how stupid, contemptible and loathsome I am in his eyes, surely something has to be clicking in your brain that my writing style is the least of what concerns him.

If you're content to join in his game, feel free. But it is you who is wasting his time responding to me, not the other way around. You come across as having nothing more productive to do. I've never treated anybody in here this way simply because I DO have better things to do than follow someone around calling him names and telling him he's a jackass and an idiot everytime he posts something. If that's the company you prefer to keep, then by all means, keep it.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 12:29 PM

Who is this person to whom you refer, josepp?

Ebbie? Dave? Jack? Brendan? Q? Greg?

I make that at least 5 who have made similar points.

Not that I bear any brief for Scientology, whose mischievous & antisocial nature I should have thought sufficiently documented to have no need of any form of fairness in defence from any but its own brainwashed victims. But you accuse an individual in your last post, and I have named at least 5 to whom your animadversions might apply; none of whom however has posted anywhere approaching the 'dozen or more' that you claim. So I ask, simply for enlightenment, which?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 02:27 PM

"It is reasonable as long as your own grammar is flawless but to criticize someone's grammar with flawed grammar is pointless."

Nope! Not at all. You, by calling it a "History", are creating a much higher standard than a simple post to the Mudcat. It is reasonable for a reader to expect your writing to live up to this pretension.

On a personal note, no one hates you. No one thinks that you are illiterate. Many of us think that your writing on this thread is unprofessional and we have told you so. But unprofessional is a far cry from illiterate. Why do you insist on these hysterical exaggerations?

Except for the flaws that Ebbie pointed out your writing is pretty good.

Calm down, have a nice cup of tea and try to write as if you respect the reader and the subject matter and you will get some readers.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Will Fly
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 02:38 PM

Josepp - I really do think that you're your own worst enemy.

1. To begin with, you create a thread with four immensely long posts - surely better situated in a separate blog somewhere.

2. You choose Scientology as a topic. Now I know that the BS section of Mudcat is a free-for-all on anything we choose - but, just think whether you're going to get folks's attention or not. Many people around here probably don't give a rats' ass for the topic.

3. You say your thread is an extract from a "book" (your quotation marks) - but it's apparently a book with no footnotes, references or other substantiation - so you're immediately leaving yourself open to criticism.

4. When people ask to see more of your writing - which, apparently you "do for a living" (my quotes) - you fob them off.

5. When people read what you've written and say quite candidly that they don't care for your grammatical style, you get all huffy and defensive. You don't ever appear to be able to take even the mildest of criticism without getting uptight

Surely it would have been more practical for you to post your "book" on a separate site as a PDF file, or even as a series of html pages - there are plenty of places out there - then post a link on Mudcat to the pages and sit back and wait for discussion.

If you want to be taken seriously as a serious writer, then you should observe some of the scholarly techniques that professional writers use. If you don't, then what you write will be taken as just personal opinion and not as a serious critique. As such, it may be deemed worthless or trivial. The fact that you loathe Hubbard and Scientology is perfectly clear. So do I, but I wouldn't write on the subject without displaying some intellectual, philosophical or factual evidence for my loathing.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 03:20 PM

Josepp, if you write for a living, then presumably you are published someplace. Asking WHERE you have been published is a fair question, and in order to maintain credibility by substantiating your claim, it demands an answer.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a writer, and I have been paid for my writing, but at present I cannot claim that I "write for a living." I have been writing since I was in my early teens and one of my short stories in a high school creative writing class was sent into the Atlantic Monthly high school short story contest where it won an honorable mention. I majored in English at the University of Washington with an eye toward—writing for a living. This was before a passionate interest in folk music developed and I changed my major to Music.

I worked for some years, under contract, for the Bonneville Power Administration's residential weatherization program as a technical writer. As a radio announcer who doubled (tripled?) as a news director and producer of commercials, I wrote—and voiced—both news and commercial copy. I have written—and had published—some seventeen articles on various aspects of folk music for Victory Review magazine, and some years ago, I had an article published in Sing Out!

And as suggested by Joe Offer in his post of 15 Jul 12 - 12:00 a.m. above, and with permission, I MAY begin posting a series of chapters or excerpts from the book on my adventures in folk music in the Pacific Northwest—which I am currently editing—hopefully—for publication, possibly by the University of Washington Press, since the U. of W. is currently working with Bob Nelson (Deckman) in his monumental PNW folk music archiving project, and their interest in this area seems to run high.

So, josepp, on the basis of your claim, it is fair to ask you if you can post a similar resumé.

Don Firth

P. S. And if you don't have a copy of The Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E. B. White (simply known among most serious writers as "Strunk and White"), then for heaven's sake get one. And read it. It can be purchased HERE, or at any well-appointed book store. Also, there are a number of sites where you can download it as a PDF file.

I might also suggest a copy of the The Chicago Manual of Style, by The University of Chicago Press Staff.

And another very good book is Getting the Words Right: How to Revise, Edit and Rewrite, by Theodore A. Rees Cheney. The title is from a quote by Ernest Hemmingway. When asked why he had rewritten the ending of A Farewell to Arms some 39 times, he responded "I was just getting the words right!"

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 03:42 PM

proper use of footnotes.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 04:08 PM

Correction:   Only one "m" in "Hemingway."

Careful proof-reading is important. Spelling errors and faulty grammar tend to undercut one's credibility, especially if one purports to write for a living. Unprofessional.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:28 PM

Hubbard was a religion entrepreneur and off the wall.

Dianetics, however has an interesting premise, all negative experience, traumatic,
are contained in cellular structure in the body. These "engrams" can be accessed and their effect minimized according to this theory. For some, this might be pure bunk.
But the idea is interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:41 PM

Most science-Fiction is interesting. That don't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:54 PM

Just for the record, jp's alleged research is about as bad as his grammar. His account is rich with falsehoods and distortions, which could easily have been straightened out by anyone who bothered to do the ordinary legwork of an interested journalist.

Say, jp, did you ever meet anyone who had actually been in the group which your hatchet-job focuses on? As I recall they call their counselors "auditors". because they listen, which seems to be more than you do, but have you ever talked to one about his principles, practices and perspectives?

If you have not, I submit that you really have little or no idea what the hell you are talking about. The Scientology crowd has plenty of detractors, and plenty of defenders, but the good ones at least make a reasonable effort to get their facts straight, and the decent ones (on both sides of the controversy) try not to tell whoppers. You could start a fast-food chain with yours.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:04 PM

Hubbard's structure of the mind follows some of the work of the people I mentioned. In some ways, it's conventional. Then it veers off into unknown territory. The bottom line is that none of it has been or (in his own words) can be proven scientifically.

Put it this way: Suppose you discovered something that you absolutely knew to be true but it was so new to our way of thinking that nobody else had figured it out. But you have such a good grasp of it that you know it has a scientific basis. If so there has to be a way to prove it. If you succeed, you go down as one of the worls' great minds.

Would you then suddenly declare this knowledge religious and found a church on it? You've just undercut your credibility. So this is problem with Scientology--it delves into the mind with a seemingly scientific understanding of its workings but declares itself a church complete with tax-exempt status. It can't be anything but a scam.

I have a lot more respect for Anton LeVey. He founded the Church of Satan but the church paid taxes every year and still does as far as I know. He wouldn't support any Satanist organization that declared itself tax-exempt. I find that admirable. Hubbard I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:15 PM

Amos,

An ex-Scientologist (a recording engineer) critiqued it for me. I made corrections where he was certain corrections had to be made. Some of it he couldn't vouch for but I got that info from other ex-Scientologists and he thought it had the ring of truth. I left that info in.   

Are we done with the condescending sneers now or do you have to do it some more to feel better?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:29 PM

Well, JP, your protesting against sneers is kind of amusing considering the amount of distorted sneering you resort to in your "history". I know a few ex-Scientologists, a couple of whom were present at some the events whiich you pretend to report on, and they just shake their heads and laugh--their used to this sort of thing, having seen stories like this come and go for decades.

Personally, you understand, I do not belong to that group, and I do not care what you think about it. But when you take a whole population of people--I suppose they number in their thousands--and decide you are going to reveal that they are all gulled or mad, why I just think you should have some hard facts consistent with the principles of human decency to back up such a report; otherwise you are just participating in the Big Lie syndrome, like a good German; and I am sure you don't want to be doing that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:31 PM

Just one more....

I find your defense of your writing more palatable than the writing its self.

But I'm starting to understand your style. You are hysterical and hyperbolic with no supporting evidence even in your personal communication. Why not in your writing?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:34 PM

"Are we done with the condescending sneers now or do you have to do it some more to feel better?"

Now, THAT is condescending!

I know a number of ex-Scientologists who would take issue with much of what you've written, josepp. They have plenty of reason to be disillusioned, but they are nowhere near as spiteful as you seem to be.

Here's a question I think some of the people here might be interested in hearing you expound on:

What has been YOUR direct, personal experience with Dianetics and Scientology?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:24 PM

You're right, Don. I am condescending and mean-spirited. I write badly about things of which I know nothing in a doomed attempt to learn something about that of which I am not acquainted. But I hope if I stay at Mudcat long enough I will acquire some small degree of your erudition, fair-mindedness and ability to see the truth in all things.

Please forgive my rashness in thinking that I could learn about a cult without joining it first. I know now I was in error. All I did was talk to an ex-member not to the 50 or so you know as soon as I brought this unfortunate subject up. I should have known how easily you would be able to outdo me. And it never occurred to me to make footnotes. How could I be so inept?

I was wrong to post this thread and everybody else here was right. I am a stupid, petty, illiterate man--and my own worst enemy. I had no right to waste everybody's time by forcing them to read this drivel. I humbly beg forgiveness of you all.

Someday I will learn to have the generosity of spirit that I've been shown here. If it were possible, I would ask the moderators to close this thread down and relive you all of the pain and anger I have caused by posting it. I take full responsibility for this incredibly arrogant, thoughtless act.

So thank you, one and all, for showing me how worthless I am. I've always known but I tried to cover it up but I should have realized I could never sneak that past the wise and benevolent this for my own good and I am grateful. Thank you for your concern and, once again, total apologies on my part are in order.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:28 PM

Moderators,

IMHO he has taken enough abuse and given it. Please consider his request to close the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:38 PM

Psychology, of which Hubbard attempted to interpret along his lines, is anything but a precise science, in fact precise science might be an oxymoron.

His idea of how we retain negative experiences in our lives is not totally off the wall.
Dianetics had a grain of logic attached to it based on an interesting idea that shouldn't be cavalierly dismissed as "fiction". We do retain a physical "record" of traumatic experiences, some great some small.

The fact that it all went haywire into the maelstrom of Scientology, which became a cult, doesn't negate all of the initial premises about Dianetics.

Psychology is filled with odd people who offer some interesting insights.

Crazy people, like the stopped clock being right twice a day, sometimes have interesting insights.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:09 PM

Josepp, I never said I knew "50 or so" people who were into Dianetics and later Scientology. I knew maybe five or six, and briefly met several others, including a couple of self-styled "auditors." I never "joined" the group. I was investigating it, as many people were at the time.

The first introduction of Dianetics was through the pages of Analog Science Fiction magazine which, at the time, published a non-fiction article per issue, and John W. Campbell, who was editor at the time, saw fit to publish Hubbard's first articles on the subject. This engendered interest in a large number of people, particularly science fiction enthusiasts, of which I was (am) one. I, like a number of others, investigated what appeared to be a new and interesting approach to psychology, but after a time, found it wanting and moved on.

As to the rest of your sarcastic screed, you said it, I didn't.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 06:44 AM

The only thing wrong with josepp his his verbal diarrhea, why use one sentence when a couple of hundred will do.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:30 AM

"The only thing wrong with josepp his his verbal diarrhea, why use one sentence when a couple of hundred will do."

Funny, I have heard the same comments about William Faulkner.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: BrendanB
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:41 AM

Not to mention Henry James.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:50 AM

In defense of JP, it serves the public to know about cults in general, how they operate and play on the emotions of their victims. In this way, I think Josepp is doing a service.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 11:41 AM

There is no shortage of accurate, peer-reviewed articles.

No "service" to the public here.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 12:52 PM

It's true that these articles exist but not many read them, motivating JP to blow the whistle.
No service to the public to ignore them.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 02:54 PM

Unfortunately, josepp's "exposé" is in the form of an emotional rant filled with inaccurate and unsubstantiated allegations.

His obvious emotional state tends to undermine his thesis.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 04:33 PM

Don, please enumerate these unsubstantiated allegations.

On the contrary, his passion for the subject doesn't undermine but underscores his interest.

Most of what has been posted by JP and others seems to be pretty accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 05:03 PM

I don't have much time at the moment to do a blow-by-blow of josepp's first posts, but suffice it to say that in the time I was acquainted with people interested in Dianetics, there was absolutely nothing in evidence about any association at all with Rosicrucianism and AMORC, or the Great Goddess or Blood Rituals, or ANY of that. As I mention in a post above, I had a close relative who was deeply into Rosicrucianism, so I was, frankly, more familiar with it than I really cared to be.

Had any of this stuff come up early on, I would have been out the door like a shot!

My interest, as was the interest of many others, was in what appeared to be a new approach to psychology. When it morphed into the Church of Scientology and the "operating Thetan" stuff started being talked about, I stepped out for a beer and never came back.

So if what josepp said in his early posts was actually true, it had to have manifested itself much later.

Don Firth