what I learned from Marc Headley's book
cultxpt
take away from his story is that Scientology is so inefficient it's a
wonder how it functions at all. I knew about new construction being
stopped, torn up, and reworked. I heard about that at the Petrolia
California property from the 1980s. But to see how consistent and
embedded the waste is, it's just amazing. I mean, you put your best
producers in lower conditions over the slightest perception of an
infraction, then spend countless hours either trying to replace them
or train a replacement. Why not just admit that Sea Org members are
human beings, and treat them accordingly?
I'm actually quite grateful that Scientology is so poorly run as it
means fewer people will get sucked in. GO SLAPPY!
John
"cultxpt" <cul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a57a425f-b101-4600...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>I just finished Blown for Good. It's a great read. The main thing I
> take away from his story is that Scientology is so inefficient it's a
> wonder how it functions at all.
The inefficiency is offset by the slave labour.
xenufrance
"cultxpt" <cul...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
a57a425f-b101-4600...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
It's something I had indeed also elaborated in "La Secte" , as I had
observed such incredible waste of resources, competences, goodwill, and
love.
Seeing the way the criminal leader Hubbard and his pale successor DM have
torn almost everything positive in the group just to make more money for
themselves rather than to give any part to anyone else (including their own
wife and kids!) is pitiful.
My opinion is that the cult can't be changed.
Any form of prejudice or apriori that Hubbard was always or is almost
always right is factually the biggest stumbling block against any form of
supportable reform of the cult.
The second biggest block is the perpetual desire to make more money (that's
a total control, total domination purpose, which is in itself an Evil
Purpose).
Therefore, such a dangerous totalitarism can't be supported and won't ever
be able to reach its purposes, not unlike other past or present
totalitarisms.
r
Eldon
> "cultxpt" <cult...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> a57a425f-b101-4600-9f53-dba1a4ee0...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I just finished Blown for Good. It's a great read. The main thing I
> > take away from his story is that Scientology is so inefficient it's a
> > wonder how it functions at all. I knew about new construction being
> > stopped, torn up, and reworked. I heard about that at the Petrolia
> > California property from the 1980s. But to see how consistent and
> > embedded the waste is, it's just amazing. I mean, you put your best
> > producers in lower conditions over the slightest perception of an
> > infraction, then spend countless hours either trying to replace them
> > or train a replacement. Why not just admit that Sea Org members are
> > human beings, and treat them accordingly?
>
> > I'm actually quite grateful that Scientology is so poorly run as it
> > means fewer people will get sucked in. GO SLAPPY!
>
> It's something I had indeed also elaborated in "La Secte" , as I had
> observed such incredible waste of resources, competences, goodwill, and
> love.
>
> Seeing the way the criminal leader Hubbard and his pale successor DM have
> torn almost everything positive in the group just to make more money for
> themselves rather than to give any part to anyone else (including their own
> wife and kids!) is pitiful.
>
> My opinion is that the cult can't be changed.
>
> Any form of prejudice or apriori that Hubbard was always or is almost
> always right is factually the biggest stumbling block against any form of
> supportable reform of the cult.
Not only was Hubbard supposed to be always infallibly right, he nearly
always contradicted himself at least once on every topic. So it's
possible to support either side of any disagreement using his
"scripture" as reference if you know where to find the right document.
Marty Rathbun, of course, uses the excuse that these discrepancies
must be "taken in context," which is bullshit. Hubbard couldn't
discipline himself into staying even halfway consistent, and was too
narcissistic to cancel most of his earlier mistakes.
Astrid
>
> Not only was Hubbard supposed to be always infallibly right, he nearly
> always contradicted himself at least once on every topic. So it's
> possible to support either side of any disagreement using his
> "scripture" as reference if you know where to find the right document.
> Marty Rathbun, of course, uses the excuse that these discrepancies
> must be "taken in context," which is bullshit. Hubbard couldn't
> discipline himself into staying even halfway consistent, and was too
> narcissistic to cancel most of his earlier mistakes.
>
just take it to mean the immediate context Hubbard uses it to control
or impress others. And if it sounds like something wise, Hubbard
ripped it off. Where is the rational context of telling a story of a
past-life incident of getting rocket fuel splashed in your face, when
a gasket on your spaceship blows.
Hubbard blew a gasket in his own mind, and it splashed fuel and lit a
fire in the minds of his followers.
I think if people want to get into a religion that has to do with
creating your own reality etc. try Buddhism, not Scientology. It is
much less costly, more profound and safer.
I read somewhere, an ex who was talking about how after snapping out
of it, now when he listens to Hubbard's lectures, he wonders how he
could have taken any of this seriously. The way Hubbard skips around,
goes on tangents, contradicts himself. Let's things just hang in the
air, again, as if they are only intelligible to people who have zipped
about the universe exploring the last 4 quadrillion years.
John
>"Eldon" <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:6ea8a628-ff8e-443e-889d->34728a...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...snip
>Not only was Hubbard supposed to be always infallibly right, he nearly
>always contradicted himself at least once on every topic. So it's
>possible to support either side of any disagreement using his
>"scripture" as reference if you know where to find the right document.
>Marty Rathbun, of course, uses the excuse that these discrepancies
>must be "taken in context," which is bullshit. Hubbard couldn't
>discipline himself into staying even halfway consistent, and was too
>narcissistic to cancel most of his earlier mistakes.
Those contradictions are very useful. They ensure that lowly follower is
always wrong.