The weekly show where I answer viewer questions. This week, the questions I answer are:
(1) Do you have anything to say about the possible guilt that follows, if somebody has worked as a cult recruiter for a long time, and then at some point, understands that has only been causing harm to other people?
(2) How does the Sea Org define “worker oriented” and why is that considered a bad thing?
(3) I’ve been reading Up the Bridge on Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker website. He wrote about 1988 version of OT VIII where a Scientologist learned that LRH was the re-incarnation of Buddha, that Jesus Christ was not the figure most Christians made him out to be, that the Book of Revelations had it wrong, the Anti-Christ is the good guy, and that he, LRH, was the Anti-Christ. Tony Ortega presents a good case that this was the original OT VIII before it was pulled by Miscavige. It sounds more plausible for this to be LRH’s Big Reveal than the “you are you” that was presented on Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath. So my question is: considering that Jonestown was only 10 years old and the 1980s were the heyday of televangelism, is it possible that David Miscavige or someone else high up in Scientology decided that if the original OT VIII material leaked then the Church of Scientology could suffer a catastrophic backlash and that it would be safer to pull the original OT VIII and replace it with a more mundane “you are you” OT VIII?
(4) Is Dianetics (not OT levels, I refer only to Hubbard’s 1950 book) any crazier than Freud or Reich? Wouldn’t critical thinking invalidate the writings of the founders of psychiatry too?
(5) I really enjoyed hearing you talk about Battlefield Earth. Have you read any of Hubbard’s other sci-fi works? Have you read Mission Earth? Did you enjoy it as a Scientologist?
(6) Chris, I’m confused. Are Stacy Brooks and Mark Rathbun in or out of the ‘church’?
(7) Are any of LRH’s family members/descendants Scientologists? If Scientology is so wonderful how do they explain the fact that none of his descendants believe in his church?
(8) If you were to sift though everything Hubbard ever said and wrote about Dianetics and Scientology and took all that is ‘true’ and ‘good’, in other words anything that is of real value and can be useful, how much material would still be there? Dare I suggest a relatively thin book?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Hi Chris great talk clear for me the mission volumes I didbogged down like I did with the movie I also like your intentions and good explanation cheer keep going and the cost is perfect up to me !!!! Great
Chris, in one of your recent videos you said that Scientology works for some people. That surprised me and caught my attention.
Could you please elaborate on what actually you meant by your remark, offhand as it might have been?
The reason why I am asking is because although many people still inside Scientology might deliberately delude themselves about it, to me it seems that in fact no aspect of Scientology is actually workable.
1.
Auditing will induce an artificial euphoria that will last only a short while, like a heroin or cocaine hit. It also induces one to manic beliefs in one’s own bullsh*t, and absolutely fails to deliver on the much vaunted and long promised states of clear and OT. At humongous cost, I might say, of being “processed” “upward” on the “bridge” to nowhere. Talk about the Emperor’s New Clothes . . . .
2.
Management “tech” is predicated on volunteer labour by acolytes, uses systematic intimidation as its principal management technique, and operates a baroque, 1940s-US-Navy-style bureaucratic organization and methods that are ridiculously out of place in the 21st century. It is not just of total irrelevance to a normal commercial or government organization these days, but a sure prescription for total confusion and ultimate bankruptcy in the real world.
3.
Study “tech” is based in totally flawed premises, and is simply Scientology’s method of indoctrinating and brainwashing its adherents with Hubbard’s bizarre and often incoherent verbal effusions. It is totally irrelevant to normal study requirements. Try passing a university-level course or even a high school subject applying Scientology study “tech.” Too ridiculous to contemplate.
So, I am real curious to know what exactly is it that you believe to nonetheless remain of Scientology “to work for some people?”
:-)))