Customize

New Book - Hugh Urban "The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion"

Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by Anonymous, Jul 3, 2011.

  1. jensting Member

    Until courts stop treating religions differently, you're just going to have to grin and bear it.

    I admit, I'm annoyed at every story that does not say "criminal cult" but I don't let it get to me.

    Best Regards

    Jens
  2. JohnnyRUClear Member

    I just wish Hubbard had instead named it the Nearsighted Fuschia Wallaby of Scientology. Then we could laugh at all these numpties calling the cult a nearsighted fuschia wallaby.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. xenubarb Member

    Reportedly Hubbard was fond of introducing the topic, as his bet story has been reported by more than one writer.
    Likely it was one of his favorite topics of discussion when hanging with his superiors.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Yup, and my instinct on this suppsoedly unbiased look at the cult is that it subtley legitimizes it existance using logic like 'they haven't started any wars blah-blah=blah,' and a bunch of other poo, while side-stepping the real issues of thousands of destroyed lives/minds, families, financial ruins, and the basic fact that Hubbard was a lying fat fuck with delusions of grandeur.
    As I started to gag from reading the exerpts in the first few posts ITT I had an epiphoney~ 'I can live a good life without ever reading more of this shite whether 'balanced' or not.'

    And oh, the war thingy? How soon forgotten the war on the psychotherapy. Fuck the 'respectful suspicion' Mr. Urban, Hubbards twisted construct deserves only distain and avoidance.
    Professor Steven Kent's in depth study of the cult (as well as those done by his alumni), a book in itself, is a better read for those interested in the subject, straight forward and to the point (and free too), and can be found a google away. Dave Touretsky's excellent analysis and uber informative site should not be overlooked either, lots of links to futher reading including several on Dr. Kent's works, it can be found HERE. Wonder if Urban bothered to read it? *shrugs*

    My own wee mornin' thought atm.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. DeathHamster Member

    Start a religion for money, yes. The bar bet story, not so much. I've spoken with someone who heard it direct from Judy. New Jersey, late 40s, science-fiction convention. The details match accounts of people who've heard it from Fred Pohl. (Fred and Judy were a couple back then.)

    *sigh* If I'd known, I probably could have had the story direct from Judy, recorded, while she was alive.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. moarxenu Member

    One of the big problems is that because the cult has banged away for sixty years that they are a legitimate religion most people and particularly journalists approach Scientology expecting it to be more or less like a church and Scientology ministers to act more or less like priests, ministers, and rabbis.

    So they are surprised and bewildered for example to discover for example that the cult charges for everything it does. They then either fail to go deeper or they misunderstand a great deal.

    When I write to journalists, scholars, and politicians I tell them that in addition to using a religious model they need also to bring to Scientology two other models: that of a commercial enterprise selling Hubtard's fail pseudo-psychiatry and that of a mini-totalitarian society under whose authority Scientologists live.
    • Like Like x 5
  7. AnonLover Member

    And you really need to finish up your fine effort to WRITE our very own chanology christfag book review of Urban's book.

    And i shall begin nagging you harder soonly, it's time moar - it's time.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Herro Member

    If you want to explore and understand Scientology, it doesn't matter whether or not you think it's a religion, what matters is how its followers understand it.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Anonymous Member

    Please explain at what point in scientology do the followers completely understand scientology?
    • Like Like x 2
  10. AnonLover Member

    When they blow with full cognition of I NEED TO GTFO COMPLETELY.
    • Like Like x 8
  11. Random guy Member

    Actually, you need to approach it from severla angels. Is scientology a religion, a cult or simply a scam? The correct answer is all of the above.
    • Like Like x 3
  12. xenubarb Member

    It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
    • Like Like x 3
  13. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    NO
  15. Herro Member

    Yes.
  16. AnonLover Member

    The LRB review got a plug on The Vine:
    http://www.thevine.com.au/news/curr...lian-tears,-the-kickstarter-scam20120122.aspx
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Random guy Member

    • Like Like x 4
  18. Not when the followers have been systematically deceived and controlled using endless hours of mandatory mind-numbing processing and are falsely promised abilities that will never be attained as a Clear and OT.

    Especially if it was first sold as a Modern Science of Mental Health with no scientific value then changed to a 'religion' using a religious cloaking policy by it's founder, a noted plagiarist, liar, convicted fraud, child abuser and one despicable human being.

    The reasons Hubbard had for using his relgious cloaking strategy were to protect his 'science' from liability of being sued for medical malpractice and to obtain tax benefits.

    Scientific Fraud perpetrated on the unindoctrinated is not Religion, imho.

    I'll invoke the "One can not start a religion using a religious cloaking policy statute of theological law." It's inscribed on the back side of Moses' tablets.

    This in and of itself proves that the founder himself did not believe it was a religion but did believe his phony science could be cloaked as one.

    I feel sorry for any who believed in L. Ron Hubbard's lies.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Herro Member

    If you want to understand Scientology and how it works, understanding what it is to its followers is a massive piece of the proverbial puzzle.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. I understand what Scientology is and what it's about all too well, I'm fighting against what it is to deluded members who sadly have been controlled by Hubbard's processing and have bought into the LRH concepts of 'entheta' and 'suppressive persons' which keeps them from realizing the truth about the convicted fraud and noted liar L. Ron Hubbard and the fact that his bogus science of the mind turned religion through a cloaking policy is total bullshit.

    The good news is many scientologists and ex-scientologists are awakening to this fact, independents are still trapped in Hubbard's mindfuck. Independents desperately need to be censored with entheta and a belief in those bad, bad, very, very, bad 'suppressive persons' most of whom are former scientologists who gave decades of their lives to Hubbard's scam, ffs, to maintain their 'faith', imho.

    Btw, Thx for the tip, Herro, I owed u a bite to eat, it's been awhile, hope u enjoyed.......
  21. Herro Member

    You're missing the point. If all you care about is ending Scientology then yes, your narrow little view of it is sufficient for your purposes. But for someone who is interested in exploring Scientology in all its splendor and horror (ie someone like Hugh Urban) religion is a big part of the whole that you can't just ignore. It would be akin to trying to examine and understand Chanology without paying any attention to those who participate for the proverbial lulz. If you're only interested in the moral outrage part of Chanology, that's fine. But if you want a complete understanding, you can't ignore it.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. Hubbard's been fully exposed as an utter fraud, research all its splendor and you'll end up out in the van allen belt with Ron. I've never understimated the power of the lulz, it plays a significant role in exposing the con.

    If you've reached a complete understanding of Hubbard's batshit insanity, you'll be the first, perhaps you'll be the very first Hubbard Clear: Herro

    I give Hubbard's 'research' and 'religion' the same credibility the great humanitarian has earned and that's Zero credibility for the founder and his <ahem> science of the mind religion.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Scientologists are arguably best positioned to know what Scientology is to them, but we are better positioned to know what it objectively is, because we are able to look at all of it. They are only allowed to look at the parts which they've encountered so far, and are told lies about the rest of it. Thus, their notion of what it objectively is is inaccurate.
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Herro Member


    1205_how-reach-kids.jpg?width=320.jpg

    HOW DO I REACH THEESE KEEDS??!?!?
  25. anon8109 Member

    • Like Like x 2
  26. The Wrong Guy Member

    Did L. Ron Hubbard believe his own rap? Here’s what he admitted about Scientology in 1952

    By Tony Ortega, May 16, 2016

    Quote:

    In 2011, an Ohio State University professor named Hugh Urban came out with a book he titled The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion. We wrote about the book when it came out and interviewed the man.

    Urban’s book was not on our recommended reading list that we provided the other day, but not because it lacks importance. Urban’s book is significant because it’s an academic’s attempt to put together various court documents and other historical records to establish just what Scientology is. And even though Urban, like so many other academics, questions the value of testimony from Scientology defectors, he still provides a rather stark assessment of L. Ron Hubbard’s creation. Hubbard was a collector of ideas from various movements before him, and had cobbled something together that had taken on a life of its own, Urban explained.

    We mention this today because recently, someone at the ESMB forum noticed that a review of Urban’s book by New Yorker writer Rachel Aviv showed up in the London Review of Books in 2012, and it contained a rather startling quote from Hubbard. We remember when Aviv’s review appeared, but we can understand why, four years later, that quote caused a bit of a stir over at ESMB. Here’s the relevant paragraph from Aviv’s review:

    Hubbard had frequently compared life to a game, and he didn’t want to be ‘playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better.’ The game hinged on the idea that we can choose what we perceive to be ‘true’, and discard everything else as an illusion. Yet soon Hubbard’s postmodern religion strove to become a ‘real’ one. His followers – among them hippies as well as educated and ambitious young people – surprised him with the intensity of their belief. Hubbard told a group of doctoral students in Philadelphia in [1952] that his followers were more convinced of Scientology’s cosmology than he was. ‘I’m just kidding you mostly,’ he said. ‘I don’t believe any of these things and I don’t want to be agreed with about them … All I’m asking is that we take a look at this information, and … let’s see if we can’t disagree with this universe, just a little bit.’

    After seeing that quote, Jason Colavito, a skeptical writer we greatly admire, described it as “Hubbard’s [1952] confession that he did not believe his own teachings about space federations and Xenu.”

    The “Xenu” story actually came more than a decade later, in 1967, but you get the point — Aviv and Colavito pointed to this quote, which comes from the opening session of the “Philadelphia Doctorate Course” on December 1, 1952, to show that L. Ron Hubbard admitted that he was making things up out of whole cloth.

    Here’s the fuller quote that Aviv took those words from, and you can see how damning it is:

    “Now, all this of course is — I’m just kidding you mostly. I don’t believe that you’ve been in the universe 76 trillion years. I don’t believe you have any past before birth. I don’t believe that there is any reason whatsoever for this universe to be here except some fellow called the devil or something that built it. And I don’t believe any of these things. And I don’t want to be agreed with about them. It infuriates me to be agreed with about them.”

    Was it all, then, just a con? Many critics have always assumed so, that Hubbard knew he was spouting nonsense about being a race car driver on earth some 40,000 years ago, or that the Marcabian invader forces operate between-lives implanting stations on Mars and Venus, or that the genocidal galactic overlord Xenu was responsible for the clusters of invisible alien souls that constitute each one of us. And if Hubbard admitted that he was just making things up, is the notion incorrect that Scientologists are expected to take Hubbard at his word and believe that everything he said was true?

    Actually, it’s more complicated than that, and more insidious, which we learned after consulting with several of our experts on tech issues here at the Underground Bunker.

    Continued here:
    http://tonyortega.org/2016/05/16/di...s-what-he-admitted-about-scientology-in-1952/

    Ortega's article includes this, which was uploaded today:

    • Like Like x 1
  27. anon8109 Member

    The scientology corporation will easily explain away this inconsistency in Hubbard's ideas, to the satisfaction of the homo novii, the same way it explains away all the other inconsistencies, such as Hubbard writing that dianetics is a science and emphatically not a religion.

    Hubbard simply changed his mind later when he made new discoveries. He was just a man after all, exploring the spiritual universe, not some perfect god who got everything exactly right the first time.

    How this squares with KSW, where homo novii are told that everything Hubbard did was perfect and nothing could be changed, I never quite understood.
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Quentinanon Member

  29. Quentinanon Member

    BTW, you can find another interview with Hugh Urban about his book here.
  30. The Wrong Guy Member

    With Scientology at war in Clearwater, religious studies types still seeking its warm & fuzzy side

    By Tony Ortega, April 28, 2017

    Quote:

    With all of the amazing news happening lately, Scientology’s true nature is finally getting through to the larger public: The church has the knives out in Clearwater, Leah Remini is laying Scientology’s abuses bare on television, and so many other things are exposed here at the Underground Bunker every day. So you’d be forgiven if you were unaware that there’s a very different story about the church being told elsewhere.

    It’s pretty easy to ignore, but the religious studies academics continue to examine Scientology in their papers and conferences, few of which are worth mentioning. Except for Reza Aslan, few academics make much of an impact on Scientology media coverage.

    One exception is Ohio State University professor Hugh Urban, who in 2011 came out with a highly readable history of the church that attempted to put its many controversies and court cases into a formal academic frame. We enjoyed that book and interviewed Urban at the time, and found him to be quite an interesting guy.

    He also wrote one of our favorite examinations of Scientology and the occult for the academic publication Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, and he encouraged us to publish some of L. Ron Hubbard’s infamous “Affirmations” while we were at the Village Voice.

    We were less enthusiastic when Urban took some shots at Lawrence Wright’s 2013 history of Scientology, Going Clear. Urban carped about Wright relying on the accounts of ex-Scientologists (a common religious studies complaint, though ex-church members continue to provide consistent accounts that are rarely, if ever, proven to have been untrue), but he also made a point that we often find in the writing of religion academics. Urban criticized Wright for focusing on the celebrities of the church, and he complained that there hadn’t been more work done on “ordinary” Scientologists. Well, point taken, but we find that religious studies academics tend to fetishize the idea of a mythic “ordinary” Scientologist who isn’t caught up in the craziness of David Miscavige and his ruinous campaigns of intense fundraising and terroristic disconnection.

    Somewhere, these academics assert, there must be examples of simply content Scientologists who are the real, pure example of the faith.

    Yeah, let us know when you find them.

    In our experience, the “KSW policy” — Keeping Scientology Working — means that you’re either in Scientology all the way or you aren’t in at all. Miscavige’s Scientology requires constant dedication, constant vigilance, and the suppression of conscience. The idea that there’s an idyllic Scientology that represents its “true” nature isn’t reflected in Scientology’s texts, its marketing, or in its social media. Still, these professors keep on searching for their white whale.

    We were reminded of that again when it was brought to our attention that Urban has a new paper at Nova Religio, this time about something we’ve also taken a close look at, Scientology’s Original OT 8. He points out that OT 8 doesn’t get nearly the attention of OT 3 and its “Xenu” material, which, he says, isn’t close to the craziest thing in Hubbard’s writing. (We certainly agree. We’ve been very partial to OT 2 and its trillion-year-old mental implants, and the wacky notion of OT 4, that you have to dry out your body thetans, who are a bunch of intergalactic junkies.)

    Urban is fascinated by how crazy Original OT 8 was, with Hubbard revealing to his followers that he was the future Buddha, but he was also the Antichrist, and that he would return to earth in the guise of a political leader.

    Urban’s right, it’s very wacky stuff, but for some reason he doesn’t point out that this document was given to Scientologists for only a very short time, a few months in the summer of 1988, and only on the private cruise ship the Freewinds. The document turned out to be disastrous, and Miscavige quickly replaced it with New OT 8, which is still the highest auditing level on the Bridge to Total Freedom (though Miscavige continues to make noise about releasing OT 9 and 10 soon).

    We definitely like some of the points that Urban makes in the paper, as he focuses not so much on the content of Original OT 8, but on the notion that so much of Scientology is about secrecy.

    We agree with him that the secrecy of the upper OT levels was a strong selling point initially, but eventually that secrecy became a liability as these materials got out to the public and were mocked.

    But then Urban goes further and says that the upper OT levels are now “irrelevant” as the church no longer really promotes them.

    Continued at http://tonyortega.org/2017/04/28/wi...-types-still-seeking-its-warm-and-fuzzy-side/
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    Professor Hugh Urban takes us to task for our review of his Scientology OT 8 investigation

    By Tony Ortega, May 1, 2017

    Quote:

    On Friday, we expressed our disappointment with Ohio State University professor Hugh Urban’s newest paper, this time about Scientology’s original OT 8 material, which we have also written about. We titled the piece “With Scientology at war in Clearwater, religious studies types still seeking its warm & fuzzy side.” Hugh asked to send a response to our critical review, and we’re glad to present it today, along with our own answer.

    Continued at http://tonyortega.org/2017/05/01/pr...review-of-his-scientology-ot-8-investigation/
  32. The Internet Member

    Maybe somebody can explain the comment below. Is the author saying that during this e-meter drill you have to guess a crazy long number and you don't finish the drill until you get it exactly right? That makes no sense.
  33. Quentinanon Member

    Matt Pesch seems to believe that the emeter has super powerz and he's very wrong.
    Both the polygraph and emeter read because the subject has some belief that they will pick up mental reactions.
    If you ever get a chance to play with an emeter, you will find that you can learn to produce reactions at will. It is not difficult to do.
    Once you learn to do that, the emeter is an expensive, useless gadget.
  34. The Internet Member

    Matt Pesch seems to be saying that the guess-a-long-date drill is something all Scientologists have to do. Do you remember anything about this? Or is this Pesch guy spreading misinformation?
  35. Quentinanon Member

    I did that emeter drill many times and it relies on the belief by the subject that the emeter will infallibly read on thoughts and memories.
  36. The Internet Member

    But the drill is impossible. You can't guess something like, "149,349,006 years, 3 months, 1 week, 24 days, 6 hours, 39 minutes, 8 seconds."

    Here's a follow up post from Pesch.
    Let me see if I understand how this impossible game is played: The student asks himself a yes-no question, like "Is the order of magnitude hundreds of years?" If the emeter doesn't move that's a "no" and he continues, "Is the order of magnitude thousands of years?" etc. Once the meter moves that counts as a "yes" and the student tells the coach something like, "It's thousands of years."

    If the student is correct the coach says nothing. The student then divides the potential number in half and asks, "Is it less than 500 years?" etc. Step by step he arrives at the correct number.

    If however the student makes a wrong guess the coach says, "flunk." At that point a whole new crazy date is invented and the game starts from scratch.

    Boy, imagine the misery of getting the years, month, day, hours, minutes correct then flubbing the seconds. I'd be ready to beat the shit out of the coach at that point.

    Because it is not possible to guess so many numbers correctly, I have to assume trickery is involved. Maybe the coach writes the number out as the guessing happens rather than before. However, this trick could not be kept a secret so I don't understand any of this.
  37. Orgsclosed Member


    http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/germany/books/trn1045.htm

    http://www.mikerindersblog.org/the-e-meter/
  38. The Internet Member

    Jesus Christ. How come these people can't see that the drill is impossible?

    From your excerpts I gather that the coaches eventually feed the students the right answers in subtle ways.

    If the emeter guessing game were possible, people would be taking the emeter to the roulette tables in Vegas. They'd ask, "Will it be red?" and bet accordingly. Everybody in Scientology would be filthy rich.
    • Like Like x 2
  39. I'm not saying it is possible. (I know Tony Ortega would say it is not because in his opinion the E-meter doesn't read anything.) But it is pretty clear you don't understand what is supposed to be done and happen.

    Again, Pesch's description, which is accurate:


    The Student finds the year, month, day, hours, minutes and seconds each as its own. It starts with years. The Student asks "On years, is the order of magnitude years, tens of years, hundreds of years, thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, ... etc until the Student gets an instant read on one of them. Let's say its tens of billions of years. The Student then indicates its "tens of billions of years". If correct the Coach says nothing, if incorrect the Coach says "flunk" and the drill starts all over again with a new date secretly written down by the Coach. The drill is started all over again even if everything was correct except the Student got the wrong "seconds". When finding the correct month the Student would ask "Is the month before June, after June, is the correct month June?" "Its before June" "Is the correct month January, February, March, April, May" The Student would then indicate the month that read on the meter. When the Student finds the number of hours he would ask "On hours, is it less than 12 hours, greater than 12 hours, is it 12 hours?" The Student continues asking questions in this way until he tracks down the exact number of years, months, days, hours and seconds. The Student then says "Your date is 97,341,503 years, 4 months, 19 days, 6 hours, 47 minutes and 10 seconds." The Coach then presents the piece of paper he wrote the hidden date on to show the Student that he successfully completed the drill.


    The point is not to just guess. The point is to be able to detect the coach's mental response to the correct date (i.e., the date the coach previously decided upon) on the E-meter.

    The student on the E-meter drill only indicates it is "tens of billions of years," etc. and then eventually the years, months, down to seconds IF the meter reads. If the student indicates it is "tens of billions of years," and it as not "tens of billions of years" (again, as previously decided by the coach), then the student read the meter wrong and has to start over from the beginning.
  40. Ogsonofgroo Member

    LOLOLOL, yep, such nonsense.

    gah.

    ~ramble follows, hell, its fucking tuesday ffs.~

    Castles in a sandbox of imagination. Good ol' cult, still supporting the play-ground bully LRon to this very day, and I highly doubt the planet will harbour his sorry spirit ever again, especially since wee Miscavige has kept the abortion policies for years, I mean really now, can't you just see the Rotten One out there in the Van Allen belt, trying time and time again to get his new body real quick, but wait! Every time he selects some body from his elite staff SO's, zap! Aborted and absolved from his own policies. This'd make a good sci-fi story lololol. Man's spirit trapped in hell his own policies created, can't escape due to paradox.... and other's laughter...

    Ya ya ya, makes little sense, but it made me chuckle at the concept.

    :p

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins