Critical Q&A #145

The weekly show where I answer viewer questions left for me in the comments section of my Q&A videos or sent to me by email at AskChrisShelton@gmail.com. This week, the question I answer are:

(1) You mentioned in a recent podcast that you first began to criticise the Church of Scientology online using a pseudonym but that the Church was nonetheless able to deduce your identity. You also said that they were quite sophisticated on the internet in tracking down their critics (or something to that effect). Could you tell us a bit about your personal story here and Scientology’s online capabilities in this regard?

(2) A long-time Scientologist friend of mine and I were walking by this center for blind people and one of them needed help with directions, so I helped them. My Scientologist friend commented that he had no sympathy for “those people.” I can’t remember what explanation he gave, but how would a Scientologist explain disabled people?

(3) The question of the usefulness of Scientology has raised its head periodically. In one of my earlier messages to you, I asked if the workable parts could be sifted out and implemented in a different context, i.e. with a different management or administrative structure. I write this without resurrecting my old message, but your answer went heavily into two areas: 1) the techniques are available elsewhere, or were outright plagiarized to begin with; 2) the evil aspects of the operation of Scientology – mainly Disconnection and Fair Game – disqualify any attempt to salvage or implement any aspect of Scientology technology.

A point I failed to raise or emphasize is that any implementation of methods or technology should, unequivocally be divorced from the abusive ethics and “justice” practices. Secondly, a major value in what Scientology / Hubbard offers is that everything is in one place, sifted down to a set of elements that — if they were to be sought in the diverse locations wherein they unquestionably exist — would be much more difficult to obtain (learn and teach).

Also, much of what Scientology offers “nicely packaged in one place” is not valid, per your investigations; so there would have to be a winnowing process to find an acceptable body of useful techniques, such as the Success Through Communications Course instead of the TR’s 0-9? Maybe a hybrid? Yes, such a reorganization of the technology would entail a lot of work, but there may be sufficient numbers of trained ex-Scientologists willing to tackle such a project. Your (updated) thoughts? or are you sick to death of answering variations of this question?

(4) Is Mormonism a destructive cult? I really enjoy hearing you bring your Scientology expertise to other movements. Keep up the great work 🙂

(5) Why do you think that “Excalibur” was never released? It seems like Miscavige is a bit desperate to create new levels, and it would seem like releasing this book would be another way of generating income.

(6) Hi Chris. I’ll bottom line it for you. What do you think should happen to Scientology? Do you think it is capable of the dramatic change necessary to recover any credibility it might have had, or do you think that it is too corrupt to ever be salvaged and should be dismantled?

(7) Couldn’t there be an effort to place ads on Twitter, Facebook and other social media? Ads that very politely acknowledge Scientology with caution? Not hate or slanderous, just mentions of facts. Exact time, place, form and event items, ie. Church tax status, deaths in Narconon etc. It could be funded by an on-line fund-me type campaign. Depending on how smart the keywords and locales are, these simple ads could pop up anywhere, across any interests much like the billboard “Call Me” campaign but only on everyone’s screen or smart-phone.

(8) Does Scientolgoy still give out Clear numbers? Mine was in the 3000’s back in 1972. Curious what the count is now.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS