First, if you are a relative whose family member has joined Scientology I have created a page of advice that I hope will help you to maintain a relationship with that person and hopefully in time, to bring them out of Scientologys influence. Family Advice.

This is my personal take on Scientology.

Scientology is pretty bad news. If you're thinking of getting involved - save yourself a lot of trouble and wasted years - DON'T. Obviously these are only my opinions but I hope you'll find some weight in them coming as they do from 14 years of first-hand experience...

Here are a couple of links if you don't believe it can be that bad or you'd just like to know a bit more about the subject:

Apologetics Index: Scientology

This site links to a truly vast body of data on Scientology, it's effects, purposes, activities, etc.

Hana Eltringham-Whitfield's story.

The harrowing story of a long time insider which shows just how much horror a Scientologist will take and still continue to believe.

I hope this page will be helpful to anyone who wants to learn something about Scientology from someone who spent 14 years in this business masquerading as a church. If you have any additional questions please leave a message in my guestbook at Conexus and I'll do my best to help you. I'll add some links throughout the page to what I hope will be interesting sites for you...

Just before I start: This page will often be episodic, non-linear, probably quirky, sometimes serious and hopefully also humorous (something Scientology seems to have lost along the way...) I hope that's okay with you! :)

Starting at the end: (I did say it might be non-linear! :)

What made me leave

In '84 I had the most traumatic emotional experience of my life and I realised that 14 years of Scientology hadn't helped a bit to handle it. I realised I hadn't moved forward. Scientology was becoming rather fascist at that time too - so I realised it was the end.

Now the beginning! :)

What drew me

I was 20 and you know what that's like. I was 20 with dreams of being uninhibited, free and opening like a flower when all I felt was inhibited, shy and closed up like a clam shell. A prime candidate! Also, it was 1970 and I wanted all those Summers of Love to go on FOREVER. Also, I loved and had LIVED the Incredible String Band (a folk/mystic music group - all of whom had just got into Scn.) Also, a friend of the ISB told me about a communication course - this was one of the main things I KNEW I couldn't do well. So I quit the job, took the bus to London and started next day.

The middle (or muddle!)

What kept me there

It had a logical consistency which I could agree with. The people were lovely - not the Scientology staff so much - but the people like me coming from outside - very good warm and open-hearted people. I couldn't see much harm in it - no intrusive or physical techniques. It seemed to have lots of good positive spiritual qualities. There were naturally many reasons why I left and I know I wasn't fully aware of all of them. I described it to myself later as 'bursting through the belief bubble' (alliterative at least!). There had been many people who I'd known well and who I respected who had become dissaffected with the Church in the previous year or so, so I was not alone. The Church was going through one of its hard-line phases and it no longer had the warm and friendly, easy-going atmosphere I'd known before.

I should also say that I was always a reasoning Scientologist, my personality didn't get submerged and fanatic even though I did believe in its benefits while I was "in". So I kept some healthy distance without which I would have felt like a robot.

All these things and more contributed to my leaving. But the main thing it took to blow me out of it was a major crisis and the realisation that I hadn't made much if any 'real' progress in those 14 long. (It can be easy to feel special and that you're making progress when the whole group agrees and never contradicts that view.)

I think that's one of the dangers of religious groupings in general - there tends to be a lot of reinforcing behaviour. If you are in a group of this kind you tend to talk about subjects upon which you can agree and 'be positive'. Besides, in Scientology one was discouraged from spreading bad news. So your critical faculties got somewhat warped! I had a chance, through the trauma of this time, to take a good hard look at myself and see a deeper truth. And that was me. Out

The whole Scientology saga is rather vast - perhaps other "religious" groups have similarly complex stories. I don't know, but the more I look at it the more crazy, spooky and sad it seems. I have a suspicion that Hubbard created it all as much to try to find a cure for his own craziness as to make money. There are so many contradictions within Scientology. Hubbard wrote in 1950 about how the mind can become compartmentalised where there are sections that can't be viewed. It seems to me that Hubbard was thoroughly compartmentalised - I can't say schizophrenic because I don't have expert knowledge of that term - but I do feel that Hubbard had a split personality. At the same time as he was writing in an article called "What is Greatness?" that greatness was continuing to love someone even if they treated you badly, he was advocating the 'deletion' of individuals who weren't high enough on the emotional tone scale (Science of Survival). He could write very liberal and wise prose and at the same time produce the most crude and coldly aggressive material. I think he infected the whole of Scientology with his split personality. Affectionate and loving people with great communication skills CAN be found in Scientology. These are some of the loveliest people you will ever meet. On the other hand there are the cold, aggressive ones (almost exclusively staff members) who will use the threat of violence at times (on other staff members). These two groups of people should not co-exist within the same group, but they do. Hubbard was well aware of the dangers of 'valences' (this is where you take on another personality that is not your own. (As an example, newscasters tend to have a certain valence.) But Hubbard in setting up the organisation that policed Scientology had them all wear _naval_ uniforms! You probably have had some experience of what happens when an incompetent person dons a uniform of any type. (I need only mention Mussolini!) This was a disaster within Scientology - not at first maybe, but with time the fears began to spread. Later he demanded we all become 'un-reasonable' - that is to say we should tolerate no excuse where it meant that Scientology was not done. Now bear in mind that this is in a group where the goal was to use your reasoning powers to the full (or so we all thought when we started). Soon, the coldness and ruthlessness seeped deep into the soul of Scientology. You could also be accused of 'counter-intention'. Instead of an opening out of the self came fear and the need to hide any undesirable self-expression. Dark days. I saw wonderful people leave in droves during this time. I also saw honest ones maligned and some of the old ones who had been in from the beginning accused of ridiculous things and summarily told to leave and never come back. And this usually by young men still wet behind the ears. I am still disgusted with myself for not speaking up at the time. Scientology advocates taking full responsibility for everything you have done and everything that you do. Why is it then that every time something went horribly wrong in the church (Quickie Grades, Heavy Ethics, Dianetics going out of use, Quickie CCHs) Ron said it was always 'someone else' who had done it when he was 'off-lines'? (Anyone who has been in Scientology will know how unimaginable the scenario is of someone else having the temerity or the ability to change things without Hubbard's permission.) This happened every so often and the excuse was invariably the same. Ron Hubbard make a mistake? This couldn't be. So it wasn't. (Did I hear someone mention George Orwell's "1984"?) Scientology in practice is auditing (or processing). There are two basic rules: 1. Don't evaluate for the person (tell them what to think) 2. Don't invalidate the person (tell them that they're wrong). These sound fine and do work well in practice, letting a person find their own truth. The trouble is if you hear Ron Hubbard auditing you will find he breaks these rules all the time. It has been said that Hubbard didn't consider himself to be a Scientologist - he was a cut above all that. Hubbard's Case Supervisor, David Mayo once told me that Ron was great at solving other people's problems but hopeless at solving his own. One site I visited has it that Hubbard was quite crazy at the end, screaming at the top of his lungs about the 'demons' inhabiting his body. In his early days Hubbard seems to have been very sick indeed. At the end he also seems to have been under heavy medication and there is evidence he took several types of street drugs during his lifetime (in Scientology you are not even allowed Aspirin!). Certainly he looked and sounded in robust good health in his middle years. So what happened to this man? Why did he _really_ start the whole thing? Did he kick it off as a scam because of his debts and his family obligations? Did he start to really believe in it or did he have it all compartmentalised from the start? Hubbard wasn't a genius but he did have the con-man's golden tongue. I'm not saying he was a total con man - I can't say that with total conviction. He was unscrupulous regarding the truth - for him the truth (at least in PR terms) was a VERY malleable thing. But wait, this is supposed to be an applied philosophy where the central precept is "The truth shall set you free", where you are supposed to look at your past, separate the lies from the truth and become a shining new being - ethical, right-living and truthful. These contradictions within the same 'church' just do not compute! Finally, Hubbard wrote that if you clear your reactive mind of all its dark and hidden areas then you rise up to become an understanding, wise and unflappable being - you have erased all the causes for the myriad nasty emotions that afflict everyone. So obviously Hubbard would reflect this guru-like state, wouldn't he? I'm afraid not. I heard from a loyal Sea Org member and eye witness that Hubbard would fly into the most tyranical rages if so much as one of his cuff links went missing. 'Sound like a super being to you? Footnote: Hubbard told Scientologists they were the cream of the cream and Scientologists do believe that if the whole world was run on Scientology principles it would just be such a wonderful place. Well I've seen the way many Scientologists live their lives (I was a staff auditor) and even Hubbard ordered a crack-down on promiscuity in Orgs. I've also seen the state of the staff kitchen ;O)! These people (the obsessive staff mainly) would bring an already unhappy planet to its knees. If you get the chance. Please. Don't let them.

Next is my attempt to cut through some of that terrible Scientologese - the jargon ('hope it helps! :)

Scientology is childishly simplistic to start off with but for anybody who has ever wondered - here is my spin on one or two of its bits in plain english:

1. What is a person to a Scientologist?

Essentially a Spirit who has a mind, brain and body.

2. What does a Scientologist think the mind is?

An extremely long line of pictures. One every 25th of a second going back perhaps 75 trillion years. A Scientologist believes in two minds: The Analytical Mind & The Reactive Mind.

The Analytical Mind contains all the harmless experiences of the past 75 trillion years.

The Reactive Mind contains all the stuff that bites back, incidents of pain and reduced consciousness, loss and painful emotion.

The main differences between the two minds are that the Analytical can be referred to easily, helps you to differentiate and to work things out calmly, with logic and in a positive emotional state. The Reactive is blacked out, unseen, causes you to identify rather than differentiate, causes you to have psychosomatic pain and irrational fears and generally screws you up.

3. What is the theory behind these two minds?

The theory is that the Reactive Mind was originally designed to get you out of trouble - same as the kind of mind the animals seem to use: eg. A certain stimulus in the environment will cause an animal to either fight or flee. With us we start to feel bad and if the stimulus continues or increases so we feel these bad effects more and more strongly.

The idea is that you had a bad experience some time in the past, eg. bitten by a dog. The Reactive Mind took many pictures of the incident and they were stored faithfully but hidden from consciousness. Then later you see a similar dog - the R mind identifies it with the dog who bit you and gives you a prod of anxiety to get you out of there. If you don't, it gives you further prods. You may not have even consciously noticed the dog.

The Analytical Mind is all the pictures of nice experiences so it's kind of boring to talk about so Hubbard didn't very much.

;O)

4. What does a Scientologist want?

To be free of all psychosomatic pain, to always only have positive emotions, to cause only positive effects, to be fully ethical, to be able to leave the body at will, to be able to communicate about anything to anyone, to be able to make problems vanish, to be able to explore all inherent ability, to become free of all negative influence, to create a world without criminality, insanity or war where everyone has human rights, to have all inherent spiritual abilities realised and available.

It all sounds pretty good. But in my experience almost none of it is actually possible within Scientology. 'Pity about that!

;O)

5. What is the therapy you pay for?

There are several kinds:

One is called Dianetics - it came first. In it you look for the cause of some psychosomatic pain or unpleasant emotion. A Scientologist guides you in a one to one session back down through your memory through similar incidents until you find the first time you had that particular pain or unpleasant emotion. Then that unwanted condition is supposed to vanish.

Later comes Scientology. Whereas Dianetics involves much introversion, the emphasis in Scientology is more on extroversion and the procedure is much lighter. It involves diverse processes whereby you look at this and that in your way of being and in your environment. An example process might be: "On hating traffic wardens: What has been suppressed?" You would give the first answer you think of, then your counsellor would simply acknowledge you with perhaps a "Good", "Fine", "Thank You" or such like. Then he/she repeats the original question. This cycle goes on until you release the mental charge associated with suppressing & Traffic wardens. This involves realisation, smiles and relief (In this case you would then also go on to cover 'Inhibited', 'Desired', 'Asserted' & many more).

Later you do this by yourself without a counsellor. Solo.

6. What is the training you pay for?

Training is mostly concerned with becoming a councellor, an Auditor. You go through the materials of each course three times and have to pass an examination at the end with a 100% score. On the course you read materials, listen to tapes of Ron Hubbard's lectures, do drills and using plastecine (American=Clay?) demonstrate the important principles of the course (to make the materials real to you, to give them mass rather than just significance. It's meant to make you able to apply the materials rather than just memorising & repeating them parrot fashion without the understanding or ability to think about & apply them usefully).

You must look up the definitions of all the words on the course before reading the materials themselves. You are checked on the e-meter from time to time to see if you have passed any misunderstood words.

You must constantly demonstrate the principles you are studying using your Demo Kit (a box of various things like old batteries, lego bricks, hair pins, etc. etc. - any junk you care to gather). Again this is to give these significances mass rather than just significance.

You take care to observe any bad indicators in yourself such as boredom, yawning, tiredness, exasperation, feeling blank about what you have just read, etc. These can indicate you have gone past a word you did not fully understand, have failed to use your Demo Kit enough or have skipped a gradient (ie. are studying something for which you have not read the earlier simpler concepts - "Trying to get in at the third floor".)

After completion you do an Internship where you use what you have learnt. The Case Supervisor studies the case folders of the cases you have worked on and sends you to the Qualifications Division for cramming on errors in procedure or performance).

On completion you start the next course.

Some course examples:

Level 0 - Communication

Level I - Problems

Level II - Overts & Withholds (Overts: things you have done wrong, or acts which you should have done to help another but didn't. Withholds - After the Overt you withheld that you had committed it.)

Level III - Upsets - Times you either didn't like, didn't agree with, had bad communication or couldn't understand someone or something.

Level IV - Service Facsimilies (Everyone has a justification for why it is okay to be as they are - this is to escape being overwhelmed, to overwhelm others and to keep being right and make others wrong - it results in a fixed condition and an inability to change).

Scientology has Secret Levels you have to pay a LOT for

7. What is so bad about Scientology?

Putting aside various (and many) other considerations I think it comes down to four things: dishonesty, irresponsibility, hypocrisy & stupidity collectively resulting in a group-wide blindness. L. Ron Hubbard must take the full blame for the cyclical periods of utter stupidity that Scientology goes through. These are typically called periods of 'Heavy Ethics' but what they are in essence are periods of stupidity dressed up as firm action.

Hubbard once defined stupidity as the unknownness of consideration and it was Hubbard who originated the certainty of of eventual extreme stupidity when he created the Sea Organisation (in effect Scientology's police force). Later we were to experience the peak of this stupidity in titles such as 'Financial Dictator' and ' The Finance Police'.

Give some incompetent soul a uniform, tell him he's an elite superbeing who's word must be obeyed and sooner or later there will be an elite of arrogant despots and this is what cyclically makes Scientology so obnoxious...

I hope this page will have helped let you see that Scientology should be left well alone - it is a minefield. The sad fact is that almost everything they say you will get, you don't, worse still you get the reverse: Instead of Freedom - Slavery. Instead of Communication - Frightened Silence. Instead of Self-Control - Mind-Control. Instead of Openness - Suspicion. Instead of Happiness - Endless Stress...

Take my advice, go on holiday, have a wild party, study ancient ornothology, become a monk, fly to the moon......but whatever you decide to do in your life please leave one road to ruin untrodden.

Please.

Don't become a Scientologist...

:O)