Email 3

I received so many positive, encouraging, and interesting e-mails over the years because of my website that I wanted some day to make a page about, but never got around doing it. Plus there is the problem that I would not post them without permission first.

OK, here is a sequence of mail exchange with one person. I received the permission to post them but anyway will remove the name and address, really... I just don't feel comfortable posting such information.


Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM

I have been reading your web page on Scientology for a while now along with other sites on the internet. For right now I just want to acknowledge your work and to tell you I find your viewpoint a very sane one and thank you for the information you have put together. I will communicate more at a later point in time. I would appreciate a reply to this email just to make sure it got through. One quick question - are you familiar with Brian Ambry and the critiques he has written on Scientology?

Reply:

Thanks for your mail and kind words. I saw mention of Ambry but never actually got to have a look at his work. It's very extensive. I quickly scanned through the manual and my first impression is that it's too far fetched. Sleep deprivation in the SO cannot be likened to Russian style torture, and the RPF seems to be interpreted according to Stephen Kent, whose work as been already challenged by better studies. Of course you can always find parallels because two totalitarian system will have parallels, especially when interpreted through an extreme critic, that would make the totalitarian org even more totalitarian. This being said I have not read the whole thing so this is a quick impression.

Thanks also for your comment on gays and scinenos. Interesting... [Refers to another mail]

Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Brian Ambry was a close friend in high school back in the late 60s who introduced me to Scientology. As a science fiction fan I had read about Hubbard and my initial reaction was negative. I spent much of the time that I was at college reading Scientology books and going back and reviewing the press coverage on it from 1950 onwards. Most of my college papers dealt in someway with Scientology and I tried to contrast it with other religions and psychological systems. In 1973 I dropped out of college and in 1974 I joined staff and I was made ED Comm NYF first working for Colin Thorne and later Wes Beacher. I routed off staff after Wes was taken off by the SO in 1977 (I got a good look at SO craziness while on post). I became interested in the theories of Lyndon LaRouche and after reading the Liepzeg Connection I developed a communication line with Paolo Lionni who was part of the leadership strata of The Delphi School in Oregon. I met with him while he was visiting NYC with the headmaster Alan Larson and eventually I wound up joining staff at Delphi in 1981. Lionni became interested in LaRouche and some LaRouche material got into the The Leipzig Connection (there is a footnote somewhere in the book referencing LaRouche). While I was there I worked for Paolo Lionni part time as administrative assistant and part of the time on the boiler room crew that would harvest the forest for fuel for the boiler. Sundays I got scullery duty in exchange for not having to go on outings with the kiddies. Before Lance Klass (co author of the Leipzig Connection) left Delphi he trained me as the school librarian.

There for all I know I might still be except that the missions were in a state of muted rebellion against the CoS due to the suppression that they had be subjected to. Somewhere a novel concept of management got adopted centered on the theory of de-dinging by mission heads - dinging was considered a form of other intention suffered by said leaders from

their ungrateful staff who then got rebuked in a manner that would make the most gung-ho SO officer proud. Rather than go into agreement with this pschosis I routed off staff. Ironically the SoC a few months later came down hard on Delphi/Martin Samuels and Lionni and the others wound up doing conditions until they got rehabbed into being loyal CoS adherents once again. Lionni who had picked up smoking again when the de-dinging campaign began died a year later of lung cancer (he chose not to go through the standard medical treatment). I sort of think he died as a result of compromising his reality as much as he did of cancer.

That was the end of my involvement in the CoS. I attended some event in NY announcing the formation of the RTC and the fine folks who run it. By this time Brian Ambry was doing a large amount of research which he shared with me. He went out to California from New Jersey and got involved with the Riverside Mission and with the book that Bent Corydon was writing. I am not really in comm with him anymore but he did send me the Brainwashing Manuel manuscript as he was in the process of editing it. His outlook is more harsh than mine which is harsh enough but I balk at defining the CoS as a criminal cult that brainwashes its adherents. I do not support the Anonymous declaration to destroy the CoS (the you tube video was as nuts as anything the SO could come up with) and I dislike the entheta that gets spewed out by many of the anti-Scientology posters on the internet.

I will send you more comments at a later point. I wanted to introduce myself and sort of set forth my credentials. I really don't pay much attention to much of the commentary on Scientology - unless you have done time as either a staff member or auditor (the academics are a different matter) you really can't comment on Scientology with any credibility.

Reply:

Wow K..., thanks a lot for this detailed introduction. You have quite some background. I must say I pretty much agree with all you wrote down there. Hear you soon again. Bernie

Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:03 AM

I think it was Kent that used material from Bent Corydon's Messiah or Madman as a basis of his evaluation of RPF. I read both his and the Italian's studies. Yes, every group winds up with some kind of system of handling out ethics. However the idea of RPF is based on the idea that it is a final chance for people too messed up (rock slamming degraded beings) to be handled any other way. The Church is thus being benevolent in allowing these wretches to co-audit their way out their condition. In actual practice it seems that if one stays long enough in the SO one gets RPFed in the same way that lots of staff get to work their way through the conditions over and over again. After a while it just becomes something to be expected.

I think two things are going on with this. One is that groups dramatize stuff just like individuals do and heavy ethics is a dramatization and a control mechanism. This is where Brian Ambry's analysis is important. The Church uses the RPF as an in-house construction crew and since they are constantly expanding their facilities using the RPF rather than outside contractors saves them a ton of money. Now, one has to buy into this reality for it to work, one has to accept the condition one is assigned. Lots of people will accept a condition as a result of psychological intimidation and as the price of remaining a member of the group. The more closed a group the more unhinged behavior becomes possible. While I don't think Class IV orgs fit the definition of a "cult" I think that the SO may well make the grade. Now, "cult" is a loaded word - I use it more to describe a way in which certain groups are structured in which the members relate to one another in certain ways - looked at it this ways lots of groups can be considered cults which are not normally considered as such ( the US Marine Corp for example). Anyway, time is up and just wanted to resume this discussion - been reading your blog and many of the links you have provided.

Reply:

Nice to hear from you again and thanks for reading my blog. Initially it really was something I started more for myself so I could track off the news but it turned out to be somewhat more interesting to do than my web page, partly because of the up-to-date synchronization with current events and because of the interaction aspect. I now try to reserve my web page for more detailed and synthetic articles like I am gradually doing for the Magoo page.

I think it may be interesting to publish on my blog this e-mail exchange, or part of it, but I would not do it without authorization of course, especially since it contains personal information.

Let me know what you think of the idea.

Thanks,
Bernie

Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Hi Bernie

You can post anything I send to you. I find myself often thinking about Scientology and Hubbard and so I think it would be helpful to write them out - sending any such ramblings to you would be therapeutic - for me anyway.

Thanks,

Growing the Cojones to Leave Scientology

From time to time I receive e-mails from moderate ex-members who share my views. It is always rewarding, especially when they have been substantially helped by the information contained on my web site. I have webbed such an example on my Scientology kids page. Check also this blog entry for another example, but I have many more on my email archive.

Often, it helps ex-members to know that not everything in Scientology is either rabid anti-Scientologists or fanatical CoSers, and that there exists a "third way" that is neither nor one or the other and that goes beyond both on the path that ultimately amounts to a spiritual journey.

On occasion also, it helps members who are on the edge to break away from the bond of Scientology more than other critical web sites. Indeed, they are quickly put off by the exaggerations and distortions most critical web sites typically engage into, whereas on my site they find a more gentle approach, as well as a stand against the myths they can observe for themselves at various places on the net. They thus tend to listen more attentively to a critical view, which in turn can bring them to think about it all.

Below is the email I received today, from a lady who grew up a Scientologist and gradually broke away from Scientology. The email is published with permission.

I am very gratified to read your perspective both on Scientology and the Anti-Cult freaks that so mischaracterize it. I was born and raised in a Scientologist family, with a very strong willed and critical thinking Scientologist mom, while Dad was less critical but perhaps more deeply philosophically-minded – together they made a fine, inquisitive pair.

Like you, I have noticed that there are cultish aspects of the church that are both encouraged by some of LRH's writings while completely contradicted by others. My big cognition was that the EP of Scientology was growing the cojones to leave Scientology.

Anyway, it really heartened me to read your perspective, because I deeply appreciate much of what I learned in the CoS, and I wouldn't trade the training and study I had as a young adult and adolescent for anything. It was a great way to grow up and it instilled in me a lust for learning and bent for philosophical inquiry that benefits me to this day. The anti-Scientology comments from overwrought critics annoy the hell out of me. It's sheer ignorance and closed-mindedness. I am also annoyed at my friends who constantly tease me when I still use the term "we" while gently correcting their misinformation regarding the beliefs of Scientologists (after spending most of my life identifying with that group, it slips out sometimes) and who make cult jokes and rib me about Xenu. Like you, I walk the middle ground, defend Scientology when appropriate, and agree with criticism when appropriate. I am very glad to know that I am not the only one!

I am not a Scientologist, but I'm not a non-Scientologist either. I'm my own damn self!

Thank you so much for your website.

Why the Rumors?

I have been traveling since August 8 and in spite of this could keep up with the news and this blog until August 13. After that, however, I had to let it go and now have a backlog of about 10 days. I still hope to catch it up before it becomes completely pointless.

If I receive an interesting e-mail, however, I try to answer straight away. I thought this particular answer could be interesting for others so I share it here as today's entry. Of course I stripped out any personal information.

The email:

Dear Bernie,

I was reading your website on Scientology and got a few questions. Just to provide some brief background, I am a student who is interested in Scientology but hope to understanding the depth n width of it. For many religions, I have lots of doubt and just want to find some experienced persons to answer me.

Back to the point, I am wondering why it will be so expensive to enroll the courses comparing with other religions. Why there are numerous claims that people who left Scientology got mental disturbances or illnesses, etc. Is it really an evil religion? I deem that those courses will be useful but why there are so many rumors.

You might definitely think that my opinions and questions are so naive but I really hope to understand more about Scientology.

Thanks a lot!

Best wishes,
R.

The Answer:

Hi R,

" Back to the point, I am wondering why it will be so expensive to enroll the courses comparing with other religions. "

Scientology is expensive compared to other religions because it claims to have a technology that other religions don't have. It claims that in Scientology it is not a matter of believing but a matter of actual, scientific, experience. It values its technology so much that it makes it expensive. It claims that the price is nothing compared to what you get. It also claims that people need to "exchange" something for something and that if they would get it for free they would not value it and would have no benefit from it.

Note that this is Scientology viewpoint, not mine. Critics claim of course that the purpose of all this is to make money and nothing else.

My personal belief is this. I personally believe that when spirituality is concerned, money should not be involved. I also believe that no amount of technology or other mechanical means can bring true spiritual benefits. Therefore, I do not personally believe in Scientology claims regarding spiritual achievements. Now this is just my personal belief, others may view this differently.

On a psychological level, however, I think that there may be some benefit from a mechanical approach, Scientology or otherwise, and some people, even ex-members, have claimed they have been truly helped. It is important to make a distinction, however, between this level and the spiritual level. The reason I believe Scientology is a cult is because they extend the possibly valid technology they have at the psychological level to the spiritual level, where they just cannot "deliver" what they promise, almost by definition.

"Why there are numerous claims that people who left Scientology got mental disturbances or illnesses, etc. "

People who left Scientology did so because obviously they were not happy with it. What they report of their experience may be true or not. The reasons why it may not be true are many, but the main ones is that they need to justify why they left, they are pressured in making exaggerated claims by their new environment (critical environment), and they want to convince other people about the evilness of Scientology.

This does not mean that everything they say is a lie, but you need to be extremely critical when reading ex-members accounts and take these possible distortions into account.

I personally do not believe that Scientology in general really creates mental disturbances and illness. On the whole, when correctly applied, the technology is quite sound and many ex-members who left the official Church of Scientology (CoS) continue to have an interest in the technology and even continue to practice it outside from the CoS. If anything, I just believe that it is ineffective at the spiritual level, but I do not believe it is harmful and, at the psychological level, could even be beneficial. I personally have no interest in practicing Scientology anymore, in our out of the CoS, because my sole interest is spiritual, not psychological. I also believe that the benefit at a psychological level brought about by Scientology can be achieved by other means, that are not expensive or controversial. The best of course, in my opinion, is to follow a genuine spiritual path, which through increased awareness would resolve other issues which I view as only consequences or our spiritual unconsciousness.

"Is it really an evil religion? "

Scientology is very demanding, whether financially or through working on staff. It makes spiritual claims that it cannot deliver. In making these spiritual claims, it plays on hope, fear and guilt. Because people believe in the absolute truth and necessity of Scientology, they will indulge in all kinds of cultic behavior as reported by critics. Many of the critics' claims are exaggerated and are themselves exploitations of fear and guilt from the other side. Nevertheless, they do have a basis in truth.

Whether it is an "evil" religion would be a subjective appreciation of the above. One may claim that offering things you cannot deliver at a very expensive price and indulging in cultic behavior to defend it would be evil. The point is, however, that those people do not realize they cannot deliver these promises. They actually believe in this stuff. They do not intent to harm anybody and quite on the contrary they have the best of intentions. In this sense, I would not call Scientology "evil", just misguided. By the way, this applies to other religions as well. The horrors religions such as Christianity down in history, and Islam even in actual times, have been responsible for far outweigh anything Scientology ever did in its own right. All religions are at the same time a reflection of a higher truth, and a source of great evil when fanatically applied.

"I deem that those courses will be useful but why there are so many rumors. "

The secret of Scientology is that there really are two Scientology.

One, let's call it "Scientology P" for positive, is a wonderful and original systemic approach of the mind and spirit based on an actual technology. This the Scientology Scientologists see. They do not see the cultic aspect of Scientology and if they see it will dismiss it. They are in owe regarding Scientology presentation of the universe and have great wins applying its technology.

The other Scientology, let's call it "Scientology C" for cultic, is the many crazy and cultic statements injected in that system by its founder, L. Ron Hubbard (LRH). This is the source of many of the fanaticism and cultic behavior Scientology has been involved into. This is the Scientology critics see. They do not see the positive aspect of Scientology and if they see it will dismiss it.

This is the secret of Scientology. The fact that the two aspects, P and C, are intimately mixed. If LRH would have taken a wiser approach, taking criticism into account and including in his system mechanism to avoid fanaticism, such as free speech and inclusive statements towards other religions and technologies, it would not be so controversial and would be much more successful. This is not what he did. On the contrary, he included mechanism that encourages fanaticism and exclusions, such as putting the blame on critics and making statements that are offensive to many strata of society.

Because it is virtually impossible to dissociate the Scientology P from the Scientology C, because Scientology C is built into the system by the founder itself, I believe the situation is pretty hopeless and one should give a miss to Scientology as a whole.

To more directly answer your question, many of the rumors are myth and exaggerations and abuses as exposed on my web site, but they do have a basis in truth. They are a reflection of Scientology C within Scientology P.

Still, at the spiritual level, there really are no absolute certainties. Who knows who is right eventually? I have given you my personal opinion. Ultimately, what you choose to do is your decision. There really are no wrong choices, only choices that bring us faster or slower to our ultimate destination.

Best regards,
Bernie