Home

Scientology thought control

Sat, 2009-01-10 17:42 — gargy

The most important part of training Scientologists to control their thoughts is embodied in L. Ron Hubbard's famous "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW). This policy letter from Hubbard is the very first thing that every Scientologist must read and "duplicate" when they do any Scientology training.

Now, you must understand what "and duplicate" means in Scientology-speak. This is part of Hubbard's "Study Technology" and "duplicate", when you're studying Scientology, means "completely agree with".

In Hubbard's Study Technology, the source material being studied is always assumed to be 100% correct and 100% workable. If the student doesn't understand the material or (gasp!) disagrees with the material, it is the student's fault, never the material's -- and once the student "handles their study difficulty" they will agree with the material being studied.

And the very first item on every course that a Scientologist takes is this "Keeping Scientology Working" issue.

And what does this policy letter say? In it, Hubbard modestly states that he has created an absolutely perfect and always workable technology for everything. No one helped him; everything anyone else has ever done is, from Hubbard's analysis, horrible and destructive; only Hubbard's solutions are good; if you apply Hubbard's technology and it doesn't work, it's your fault, you did something wrong; and (in my opinion the most clever assertion), it is the very evil people who disagree with Hubbard and his technology.

And all Scientologists, as the very first order of business, must completely agree with these concepts before they can get on with any other studying.

From that point on, the Scientologist's ability to control their thoughts in the proper Scientology manner is quite simple.

If Hubbard said it: It is true.

If evidence disagrees with what Hubbard said: The evidence is false.

If someone disagrees with Hubbard: They are evil.

If someone applies Hubbard's technology and nothing happens, or something bad happens: It's their fault, not Hubbard's.

If someone doesn't get wonderful results from Scientology: They are one of the Evil People.

And so on.

The "Keeping Scientology Working" policy letter has installed these fixed ideas. Once these "facts" have been installed in a Scientologist, all their perceptions, all their logic, all their conclusions must be warped around to fit into these "facts". Actual, independent thought is no longer possible.

The thought control works like this:

  • "Gee, this thing Ron said just doesn't make sense!" (Thought Control: You must have a study problem, it's all your fault. Keep studying it until you agree with it.)
  • "I did exactly what Ron said, but nothing happened!" (Thought Control: It's your fault, you did something wrong, go back and restudy the material.)
  • "I got some processing, but I don't feel any better." (Thought Control: Be quiet! Only evil people fail to get gains from Scientology!)
  • "I don't really like this part of Scientology!" (Thought Control: Shut up! Shut up! That means you're one of the Evil People! You do like it, you can't be evil!)

This is the real reason that "Keeping Scientology Working" is the first thing studied and why it must be agreed to before going on. From that point on, good Scientologists never criticize L. Ron Hubbard or David Miscavige or Scientology, no matter what they see, no matter what happens. To do so would mean that they are EVIL! Any failure, any disagreement, any problems in Scientology are always and only their fault.

Now, Scientologists believe that the reason "KSW" is first in every course is to ensure that Hubbard's technology remains pure and to insist that every Scientologist defend it. Well, if that were true, then why has every single bit of Hubbard's technology been altered since his death? Nothing of Hubbard's remains exactly as he left it. Nothing. No, nobody is using "KSW" to defend and protect Hubbard's technology. Obviously, that isn't its purpose.

Even after someone has left Scientology, they often retain this fixed idea that any and all failures were their fault and that they are evil. But most finally do recover their ability to see what is really there, evaluate what is really true and to know who and what is evil and why.

Hubbard never provided any proof that he was "always right". He never provided any proof that his technology was "100% workable". He never provided any evidence that "all who disagree with him are evil". None. Not ever. He just said it was so and insisted that anyone who questioned him, doubted him or disagreed with him was evil and must be punished.

If the person gets through "Keeping Scientology Working", and "duplicates" (agrees with) it, they have truly mastered their advanced thought control skills.

Now they are a full-fledged Scientologist.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 2010-01-22 23:58 — ZZspLh

ZqKVvnIC

lanfoGh ZqKVvnIC
Wed, 2009-01-14 13:38 — dklemm

Sounds like religion in general!

I'm no fan of Scientology, in fact, I find it ridiculous.  But I also find the rabid attacks by many, including "Christians" to be quite hypocritical.  Thought control is the basis of most religions.  Let's compare the attacks above to Christianity, which though more subtle and less (sometimes) heavy-handed in the techniques, does the same thing:

-If Hubbard said it, it is true vs. If the Bible or Jesus (supposedly said it, since we don't even know if Jesus said those things), it is true.

-If evidence disagrees with what Hubbard said, the evidence is false vs. if the evidence disagrees with what the Bible (or one's particular sect's interpretation of the Bible) says, the evidence must be false (or part of a vast conspiracy).  See the issues with evolutionary theory, age of the earth, "miracles", etc. where evidence is disgarded, ignored, or twisted when it doesn't meet a sect's version of what they think the "truth" is in the Bible.

-If someone disagrees with Hubbard, they are evil vs. if someone disagrees with the Bible and the SUPPOSED word of Jesus or God, they are evil or have been led astray by Satan.

-If someone applies Hubbard's technology and it doesn't work, it's their fault, not Hubbard's and If someone doesn't get wonderful results from Scientology it's because they are evil vs. If someone prays and live what they think to be a good Christian life and bad things happen to them, it's not because their god is unfair or unjust, it's because their god has a special plan for them beyond our comprehension...or they are not a "true" believer.

 

When one points out things the Bible says that makes no sense or are completely contradictory with other parts of the Bible, it's because we mere humans can't understand God's "plan" or we just don't understand what the Bible is truly saying...not that the Bible is a mess of contradictions and full of inexplicable and inexcusable hateful and violent behavior by their beloved god.

 

...and on an on.

 

Yes, Scientology is ridiculous and aims to control it's masses....but so is Christianity and most religions.  People might want to examine their own beliefs without blinders on before they so vigorously attack other beliefs.

 

 

 

Thu, 2009-01-15 12:35 — gargy

@dklemm

If you'll read my other posts about Scientology you will understand that my purpose in writing about it is to wake people up to the crimes Scientology is committing.  You're right that other religions have their own methods of controlling their members.  That truly is beside the point for me.  As captainal pointed out, I have zero interest in anything other than exposing David Miscavige's Scientology criminal organization, which should never be confused with a religion.

It is my belief that David Miscavige's Scientology organization will crumble like a house of cards very soon.  The lawsuit that former member Marc Headley is bringing will be devastating.  The Riverside County Board of Supervisors fiasco (feeble attempts at harrasing Scientology's International Base picketers) is being followed closely by the Los Angeles Times.  The FBI is investigating the human trafficking claims -- particularly right there in Clearwater.  And Anonymous is braced for another year of epic protesting at every Scientology "church" in the world.

Another important point is that my intention is NOT to attack the beliefs of this group, nor is it to attack individual Scientologists (except for shining light on Miscavige's crimes), but to make known the abuses, fraud, harrassment, crimes and lies of this so-called religion. 

 

 

Thu, 2009-01-15 13:17 — dklemm

That is perfectly fine.  My

That is perfectly fine.  My comments were on the one post you had here as it stands alone, not the other posts.  I've gone back and read the others.  I can agree with a lot of what you say, though even some of those criticisms can also be applied to varying degrees to other organized religions.  However, it is a very weak argument to attack Scientology with the arguments used in the post on this thread, as they are arguments that apply to organized religion in general.  So if the "thought control" arguments are supposedly damning arguments against Scientology, then all of those voicing their agreement about how it shows the illegitemacy of Scientology need to think about that when they go off to church or synagogue or other place of worship where the same issues apply.

Thu, 2009-01-15 12:53 — Majical

as usual, well said

On another note, most posters here are secular. 

For me, I am more verbal about CoS because their headquarters are right here, I believe they are criminals and they don't even have history on their side (we KNOW who "invented" the CoS).

Kay

Wed, 2009-01-14 14:00 — Arthur

WTF?

What a very weird comment.  You use your comment to vigorously attack Christianity and then warn others against attacking beliefs.  What? You can attack beliefs, but other people can't?  Seriously, WTF?

Wed, 2009-01-14 15:15 — dklemm

Hypocrisy

No, my comment is about HYPOCRISY.  When many (not all) Christians so vigorously attack Scientology based upon the arguments presented in the first post, they are being HYPOCRITES.  Fix your own house before criticizing someone else's.  The issue is not about attacking beliefs, but about the sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of attacking some other beliefs on issues that YOUR beliefs also share.  It's like criticizing someone else for keeping a dirty home when yours is equally full of flies and refuse.

Wed, 2009-01-14 18:21 — Arthur

Still WTF

What ever gave you the impression that a "Christian was attacking Scientology"?  Your assumption is unsupported and uncalled for, and your reaction/attack makes no sense at all.

Even if it were a Christian (and there is absolutely no such indication), it is your attack that is hypocritical. You cannot criticize someone for attacking someone's belief while you viciously attack what you mistakenly think is their belief.  That, sir, is the height of hypocracy!

Wed, 2009-01-14 20:55 — dklemm

You're still wrong

I used Christian as an example since the vast majority of people with a stated religion in the U.S. are some form of Christian.  I can fill in the same points with other religions if you'd like, since you seem so hung up on it, and seem incapable of grasping simple points.  Plus, I've personally witnessed many holier-than-thou Christians verbally trashing Scientology on many occasions, in person and on message boards.

You seem a little too dense to get the point.  The point is that Christianity, and many other religions, have the SAME EXACT negative aspects as what they love to so self-righteously attack Scientology for.  Why do they choose to be so blind to those "problems" of "thought control" when it's in their own religion, but so vehemently bash Scientology for it?

So, instead of whining, if you ARE a Christian, please do address how YOUR religion's thought control is ok and Scientology's is not.  Maybe address the points I brought up showing the similarities that you seem to so desperately want to ignore.  If you are NOT a Christian, then please explain why you choose Scientology, and not Christianity or other religions when bashing traits that they ALL share.  If you concede the fact that my points are correct, then why not acknowledge that control of the masses is the basis of most organized religion, and be an equal opportunity basher? 

Really, is the idea of holy ghosts, all-powerful beings, someone rising from the dead, miracle cures (funny how with all the supposed miracles that can't be verified, poor unfortunate amputees, which could be verified, never seem to be the recipient), etc. any less strange than Xenu and other such nonsense....or is it just that it's more comfortably familiar and thus seems less strange, because it's what you're used to?

Did I type that slowly enough for you or is that going to go right over your head as well?

Wed, 2009-01-14 20:50 — dklemm

You're still wrong

I used Christian as an example since the vast majority of people with a stated religion in the U.S. are some form of Christian.  I can fill in the same points with other religions if you'd like, since you seem so hung up on it, and seem incapable of grasping simple points.  Plus, I've personally witnessed many holier-than-thou Christians verbally trashing Scientology on many occasions, in person and on message boards.

You seem a little too dense to get the point.  The point is that Christianity, and many other religions, have the SAME EXACT negative aspects as what they love to so self-righteously attack Scientology for.  Why do they choose to be so blind to those "problems" of "thought control" when it's in their own religion, but so vehemently bash Scientology for it?

So, instead of whining, if you ARE a Christian, please do address how YOUR religion's thought control is ok and Scientology's is not.  Maybe address the points I brought up showing the similarities that you seem to so desperately want to ignore.  If you are NOT a Christian, then please explain why you choose Scientology, and not Christianity or other religions when bashing traits that they ALL share.  If you concede the fact that my points are correct, then why not acknowledge that control of the masses is the basis of most organized religion, and be an equal opportunity basher? 

Really, is the idea of holy ghosts, all-powerful beings, someone rising from the dead, miracle cures (funny how with all the supposed miracles that can't be verified, poor unfortunate amputees, which could be verified, never seem to be the recipient), etc. any less strange than Xenu and other such nonsense....or is it just that it's more comfortably familiar and thus seems less strange, because it's what you're used to?

Did I type that slowly enough for you or is that going to go right over your head as well?

Wed, 2009-01-14 20:32 — dklemm

You're still wrong

I used Christian as an example since the vast majority of people with a stated religion in the U.S. are some form of Christian.  I can fill in the same points with other religions if you'd like, since you seem so hung up on it, and seem incapable of grasping simple points.  Plus, I've personally witnessed many holier-than-thou Christians verbally trashing Scientology on many occasions, in person and on message boards.

You seem a little too dense to get the point.  The point is that Christianity, and many other religions, have the SAME EXACT negative aspects as what they love to so self-righteously attack Scientology for.  Why do they choose to be so blind to those "problems" of "thought control" when it's in their own religion, but so vehemently bash Scientology for it?

So, instead of whining, if you ARE a Christian, please do address how YOUR religion's thought control is ok and Scientology's is not.  Maybe address the points I brought up showing the similarities that you seem to so desperately want to ignore.  If you are NOT a Christian, then please explain why you choose Scientology, and not Christianity or other religions when bashing traits that they ALL share.  If you concede the fact that my points are correct, then why not acknowledge that control of the masses is the basis of most organized religion, and be an equal opportunity basher? 

Really, is the idea of holy ghosts, all-powerful beings, someone rising from the dead, miracle cures (funny how with all the supposed miracles that can't be verified, poor unfortunate amputees, which could be verified, never seem to be the recipient), etc. any less strange than Xenu and other such nonsense....or is it just that it's more comfortably familiar and thus seems less strange, because it's what you're used to?

Did I type that slowly enough for you or is that going to go right over your head as well?

Wed, 2009-01-14 20:06 — dklemm

You're still wrong

I used Christian as an example since the vast majority of people with a stated religion in the U.S. are some form of Christian.  I can fill in the same points with other religions if you'd like, since you seem so hung up on it, and seem incapable of grasping simple points.  Plus, I've personally witnessed many holier-than-thou Christians verbally trashing Scientology on many occasions, in person and on message boards.

You seem a little too dense to get the point.  The point is that Christianity, and many other religions, have the SAME EXACT negative aspects as what they love to so self-righteously attack Scientology for.  Why do they choose to be so blind to those "problems" of "thought control" when it's in their own religion, but so vehemently bash Scientology for it?

So, instead of whining, if you ARE a Christian, please do address how YOUR religion's thought control is ok and Scientology's is not.  Maybe address the points I brought up showing the similarities that you seem to so desperately want to ignore.  If you are NOT a Christian, then please explain why you choose Scientology, and not Christianity or other religions when bashing traits that they ALL share.  If you concede the fact that my points are correct, then why not acknowledge that control of the masses is the basis of most organized religion, and be an equal opportunity basher? 

Really, is the idea of holy ghosts, all-powerful beings, someone rising from the dead, miracle cures (funny how with all the supposed miracles that can't be verified, poor unfortunate amputees, which could be verified, never seem to be the recipient), etc. any less strange than Xenu and other such nonsense....or is it just that it's more comfortably familiar and thus seems less strange, because it's what you're used to?

Did I type that slowly enough for you or is that going to go right over your head as well?

Wed, 2009-01-14 21:11 — Arthur

And again WTF

So...

It's not OK for people to attack other people's beliefs. That is your whole point, right?  Got it!

And...

It's perfectly OK for you to attack other people's beliefs.  Because, well, because they're wrong and you're right!  Got it!

See, I've totally got what you're saying.

I'm sure that your attacking other people's beliefs like you do is very effective in teaching them not to ... attack other people's beliefs.  I'm sure of it. Yes indeed.  Good work!

Wed, 2009-01-14 21:45 — dklemm

Wow, you're dense

Where did I say it's not OK to attack other people's beliefs?  You might want to work on your reading comprehension.  I CLEARLY stated that one shouldn't attack another belief WHEN THE CRITICISMS CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO ONE'S OWN BELIEFS.  Seriously, most 6th grade level readers would have gotten that.

My "whole point" is to not be a hypocrite and ignore the fact that almost all religions are based on the same things that you and others are attacking Scientology over.  Stop using Scientology as a convenient whipping boy when your religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. also have strong components of controlling the masses, requirements of blind adherence, etc.  that you are using to bash Scientology.  Same issues wrapped in different packaging.  So attack one faith all you want, that's not the problem.  The problem is when you pretend that the others, including your own, are so much superior as you you choose to be willfully blind to the fact that they have the same issues you claim to despise.

Wed, 2009-01-14 22:20 — Arthur

Oh, you're so right!

I am dense!  You were attacking other's beliefs to teach them a lesson!  That's so workable, I just know it!

You hit children to teach them not to hit!  Of course!

You swear at people to teach them it's not nice to swear at people!  Naturally!

Of course you attack people's beliefs to teach them it's wrong to attack people's belief.  Nothing else you could do would work, would it?

You are so right!  My, my, I'm so dense! Thank you for enlightening me!

(In case you're still missing my point, I'm not criticising your motives, which you keep repeating, I'm criticising your methods. That is, if what you're doing is crappy, you're adding to the overall crap in the environment which you are objecting to.  I'm sure you can figure out a way to accomplish your goals without adding to the general crap.)

Wed, 2009-01-14 22:50 — dklemm

Oh, my "methods" are right

Oh, my "methods" are right in tune with my "motives".  My "method" is to point out to those who think their beliefs are beyond reproach have beliefs that are as faulty as those they attack.  My "motives" are to show that MOST organized religion is cut from the same cloth, one of control.  I couldn't care less about exposing the flaws in a belief system or
offending someone of that belief if they don't like the criticism.  It's the hypocrisy and arrogance I have a problem with, not that a belief is being criticized.    What I am doing in criticizing Christianity or any other religion is not "crappy" as you so maturely state.  Additionally, the "crap" in the environment that I object to is the hypocrisy and sanctimonious BS that leads those of one belief system to think that their "crap" (to echo your eloquence) doesn't stink, while proclaiming superiority to another belief and smugly and arrogantly belittling that belief.  I specifically chose Christianity because many of that faith seem to revel in their faith's perceived superiority, freely and vehemently debase other religions, and then whine and complain about every criticism of their religion and the "war" on Christianity whenever people oppose the idea of our nation, laws, and society catering to their belief-based whims.   So my comments fall under the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" category.   Attack Scientology all you want, just try holding your own beliefs to the same standards you apply to, and use to criticize it.  Bottom line is if any of those attacks on Scientology regarding "mind control" are to be considered valid, then as I posted point by point, they are equally valid for Christianity, and other organized religions.

 

Thu, 2009-01-15 00:01 — Arthur

LOL!

You made one mistake.  Just one.

You assumed that gargy is a Christian and so you, in all your vast wisdom, attacked Christianity.  How mature! How sane!

You're hypocritical and real slow.  Nice combination!  You goofed!  It is obvious from this and past articles by gargy that he is or was a Scientologist.  LOL! 

So your whole huge, pretentious, holier-than-thou, childish rant is totally wrong!  You attacked the wrong person for the wrong reasons!  Batting 1000 there sport!  There was no person criticising someone else's belief.  It was a Scientologist criticising Scientology!  Next time, pay attention.  Don't let your assumptions blind you to what is obvious! LOL!

Thu, 2009-01-15 08:19 — dklemm

get a clue

Wow, how many times do I have to repeat the same thing before you get it?  I used Christianity as an EXAMPLE because it's the predominant religion in this country amongst those with a stated religion.  I could have used any of a number of other religions.  I used Christianity since it is more pertinent to a much larger number of people who would be reading the post.  Using Islam wouldn't be as effective, since the chance a Muslim is reading this is MUCH lower than the chance a Christian is reading it.  Couldn't care less what "gargy", the original poster, is or was, and made no assumption of such, that wasn't the point.  I wasn't attacking him/her, in fact I was agreeing with the points, and expanding upon them.  I was pointing out that organized religion in general shares the same enormous fault....the simple point you seem incapable of grasping.  The ONLY point is that no matter what the original poster is or was, the points he/she made are just as applicable to other religions, including Christianity, and the "holier than thou" attitude of people adhering to other organized religions when it comes to their view of Scientology is hypocritical.  Whether or not gargy was one of the hypocritical ones is irrelevant, I simply used his/her post as a starting point in addressing the hypocrisy that is so widespread amongst organized religions and their followers.  My point was that the attacks on Scientology are not valid as ONLY a criticism of the glaring faults of Scientology, they apply fully to the vast majority of organized religions, including Christianity.  My comment was generic to the non-stop Scientology bashing that goes on, not just the original poster.  I'm not defending the silly religion of Scientology, I'm pointing out that almost all organized religions are just as silly and have the same shortcomings that people love to point out about Scientology ("thought control", beliefs contrary to evidence, etc).

As for you claiming my "rant" was wrong...you haven't demonstrated any such thing.  Not once in any post have you presented an argument refuting my comparison of Scientology's "though control" and Christianity's.  Why is that?  Because you agree with me or because you don't but are incapable of refuting them?   All you do is show your inability to grasp a simple point and keep trying to attribute while never once addressing the arguments in the post.

 

Thu, 2009-01-15 11:11 — Arthur

Excellent!

Very nice troll.

Wed, 2009-01-14 20:58 — dklemm

posting issue

Why did that post 4 times?

Wed, 2009-01-14 09:35 — webkilla

Wonderful disection of the

Wonderful disection of the scilon mindcontrol apparatus

good show sir!

Mon, 2009-01-12 21:31 — captainal

Gargy, I have been a member of this forum for almost l6 months.

Gargy, I have been a member of this forum for almost l6 months.  You have been writing about Scientology ever since Sept. 07 at least a dozen times.  You have never written on ANY OTHER SUBJECT.  YOU HAVE NEVER MADE ONE COMMENT IN ANY POST ABOUT ANY SUBJECT.  Not a one.  I believe you owe it to us to explain this.  It is odd and I am certain other posters would also be interested in why you post on ONLY ONE SUBJECT.  God bless.

Tue, 2009-01-13 12:37 — Arthur

I have a question for YOU

If you know nothing about the subject of an article, and you have nothing to add to the discussion, why do you post anyway?  Do you think your comments are so valuable that they must be added to every discussion?

And why do you think others should operate the same way?

I believe that, if you have nothing to say, you should keep quiet -- but that's just me.