Introuduction

Hello , I am an ex Scientologist , this blog is primarily about that but I may address other topics as the mood hits me to . I was in Scientology for 25 years and spent about 10,000 hours using the indoctrination and thought reform method "study tech " . I also spent time on staff and met hundreds of Scientologists and did hundreds of the cult practices . Many were the "ethics cycles and OW writeups " that really are an attempt to suppress or remove a person's identity and replace it with a mental pseudo clone of Ron Hubbard . To make a fanatical slave for the cult .

I looked outside the cult for answers in about January 2014 and left the cult in about March of 2014 . While in about 99% of members have no idea of the truth .

We are told we are in a mental therapy or spiritual enhancement or religion or science for helping people unlock potential . Or any of several other fronts that all pretend kind and humanitarian goals .

The truth is Scientology is a terrorist mind control cult and this blog is my attempt to understand and expose that . And try to state as clearly as possible the tools that I have found helpful in dealing with this .

Friday, August 9, 2019

The Scientology Tone Scale as Ron Hubbard's Game

Science of Survival has the tone scale as its central theme.

Let's LOOK at what Hubbard said about the tone scale. Here are several quotes from Hubbard

Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture tape numbered 39 The games maker tape 1952

"The MEST universe would have you believe this is the only game there is anyplace in the whole of anything. That’s not true! Not even vaguely true."

"Games are going on with all kinds of rules, terrific interest levels and so forth. All right, I’m going to read off for you this paper just so we’ve got it on the tape. How many minutes we got? – five minutes. That’s plenty."

"Now we get The rules of games are as follows: Limitations on self and others, obedience to rules, unconsciousness of rules to add reality – we pretend the rules are real."

"ARC with others to play. Pain as a penalty which will be obeyed – you have to have a penalty that will be obeyed. Otherwise, nobody will stick with the rules."

"Agreement to rules and penalties is necessary to continue a game. And boy, are they!
Deterioration of a game until no game – cycle of action shows you the whole game is an object with no action."

"You know, the… the… the wienie finally becomes everything there is, and there is no action even to get the wienie."

"Work is admission of inability to play – if you have to work, you can’t play, obvious. They really yap about that here."

"A game of complexity and levels – the Tone Scale is such a game. It’s just a map of MEST universe games."

"Peculiarity or liability of a maker of game, people attempting to play the game of Maker of Games– it’s a game itself. Your big capitalista or commissar will do that."

"The game called Maker of Games results in No Game. And the game called Unmaking Games results in a game. 8008.“

"There’s a game called freedom, which is what you’re playing right at this minute.
And Games contain trickery and misdirection to win – your 180 degree vector of Have and Agree."

"The prize of winning is making a new game– what do you know? Or permitting a new game to be made or making it possible for a new game to be played. Those are all prizes, and that’s all the prizes there are. "

"The necessity – oh, of course, there’s these gimmicks, these wienies and so forth. But everybody just knows that they’re spurious as hell. Uh… The necessity to have a new game coded before one ends the old game.“ Otherwise, everyone becomes a maker of games with no game."

"Now, The value of pieces. Ownership of pieces may be also the ownership of players. And the difference between players and pieces, and the difficulty of pieces becoming players“

"boy, when a piece becomes a player, there’s really a hell of an upset in the game; it’ll just blow. Oh, the quarterback walks out of the football game and all of a sudden starts to run the whole football game, and nobody can tell him No. That football game’s dead."

"Now… so you’ve got to hide the rules from the pieces, otherwise this is going to happen."

"Now the caste system of game consist of this: The Maker of Games, he has no rules, he runs by no rules."

"The player of the games, rules known but he obeys them. And the assistant players merely obey the players. And the pieces obey rules as dictated by players, but they don’t know the rules.“

"And then, what do you know. There’s broken pieces, and they aren’t even in the game, but they’re still in the game."

"And they’re in a terrible maybe: Am I in the game or am I not in the game? Now, How to make a piece. This is how to make a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals–. Enforce them… their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their being like players“

"– look like God but uh… you can’t be God."

"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players.“

"Never let the pieces find out that there are players. Now out of these you’re going to get games."

"Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process."

"But remember, that up at the top of it there is a big postulate, There must be a game.
Therefore if you want to regain the Spirit of Play, people have got to unmake postulates they’ve made all along, saying, There mustn’t be a game. There mustn’t be a game. It can’t be a game. Don’t play with me. I mustn’t be played with. Life is serious. This isn’t a game. We’re playing for keeps. I’ll never get out of this,“

"and so forth. In other words, the postulates which they’ve made to convince themselves that these are the rules and the only rules that can be played, and these that I’ve just read off to you.
I’m going to have this typed and you can figure it out more or less as you want to. I could, of course, give you even further rundown on this, if you wanted me to, but it takes… takes a little while to do so. It’s actually the backbone of what we are doing. But let’s take a break." (TAPE ENDS) PDC tape 39 The games maker Ron Hubbard

Let's really look at what Hubbard told us. (Words bolded by me for emphasis)

"A game of complexity and levels – the Tone Scale is such a game. It’s just a map of MEST universe games."PDC tape 39 The games maker Ron Hubbard

Hubbard told us THE TONE SCALE IS SUCH A GAME.

"There’s a game called freedom, which is what you’re playing right at this minute.
And Games contain trickery and misdirection to win – your 180 degree vector of Have and Agree."PDC tape 39 The games maker Ron Hubbard

Hubbard told us several things here, all important.

Hubbard told us THERE'S A GAME CALLED FREEDOM, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE PLAYING RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE.

Hubbard told us GAMES CONTAIN TRICKERY AND MISDIRECTION TO WIN - YOUR 180 DEGREE VECTOR OF HAVE AND AGREE.

"Now, How to make a piece. This is how to make a piece: First, deny there is a game. Second, hide the rules from them. Three, give them all penalties and no wins. Four, remove all goals"

"Enforce them… their playing. Inhibit their enjoying. Make them look like but forbid their being like players“

"– look like God but uh… you can’t be God."

"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate only with pieces and deny the existence of players.“

"Never let the pieces find out that there are players. Now out of these you’re going to get games."

"It’s actually the backbone of what we are doing. "

Hubbard told us FIRST, DENY THERE IS A GAME.

Hubbard told us SECOND, HIDE THE RULES FROM THEM.

Hubbard told us THREE, GIVE THEM ALL PENALTIES AND NO WINS.

Hubbard told us FOUR, REMOVE ALL GOALS.

Hubbard told us ENFORCE THEM...THEIR PLAYING.

Hubbard told us INHIBIT THEIR ENJOYING.

Hubbard told us MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE BUT FORBID THEIR BEING LIKE PLAYERS.

Hubbard told us LOOK LIKE GOD BUT UH...YOU CAN'T BE GOD.

Hubbard told us TO MAKE A PIECE CONTINUE TO BE A PIECE, PERMIT IT ONLY TO ASSOCIATE WITH PIECES AND DENY THE EXISTENCE OF PLAYERS.

Hubbard told us NEVER LET THE PIECES FIND OUT THERE ARE PLAYERS.

Hubbard told us IT'S ACTUALLY THE BACKBONE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING.

Scientology is now the game that has David Miscavige as the player.

Ron Hubbard was the games maker.

Here Hubbard laid it out - HIS game is built on TRICKERY and MISDIRECTION. He lied to people to put them into his caste system of pieces and broken pieces. He acted like God but knew he couldn't openly claim to be God because people who come right out and say that they literally are God aren't accepted or even worse are accepted as believing it without it being true.

Hubbard made many of his intentions clear here. He wanted to change the goals of people and to use processes (Scientology auditing) to do this.

Scientology has the records of this but we don't normally ever see the truth about Scientology separated from the lies.

Hubbard made it perfectly clear, but you have to do a lot of digging.

"Now here’s a process that has to do with the making of games, and all this process adds up to, is you just address to those factors which I just gave you, oh, run and change postulates and any creative process that you can think of and shift postulates around, you get a whole process." End quote

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.
Lecture: "Off the Time Track" (June 1952) as quoted in Journal of Scientology issue 18-G, reprinted in Technical Volumes of Dianetics & Scientology Vol. 1, p. 418. Ron Hubbard

From a tape on the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures in 1952 entitled Structure/Function we get this:

RON THE HYPNOTIST
Structure/Function: 11 December 1952 page 1
"All processes are based upon the original observation
that an individual could have implanted in him by hypnosis
and removed at will any obsession or aberration,
compulsion, desire, inhibition which you could think of – by hypnosis.“
"Hypnosis, then, was the wild variable;
sometimes it worked,
sometimes it didn’t work.
It worked on some people; it didn’t work on other people.
Any time you have a variable that is as wild as this, study it.
Well, I had a high certainty already –
I had survival. Got that in 1938 or before that. And uh…"Ron Hubbard

From the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lectures we have a couple extremely relevant quotes. The tapes are listed by their number:
SHSBC-402
"Of course, we go on a tradition "if you learn anything about man that will help him,
you help him with it." ...
"If you learn anything about man that you can manipulate him
You're going to manipulate men,
you've got to change their definitions
and change their goals
and enslave them and do this and do that."
SHSBC-447
"Now, brainwashing simply is the trick of mixing up certainties.
All you have to do if you want to know and develop the entire field
of brainwashing as developed by Pavlov,
is simply to make somebody ..... into a confused or hypnotic state in which he can believe anything." Ron Hubbard



"’Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatrist’ are easily redefined to mean ‘an anti-social enemy of the people‘. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions...The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ to mean ‘undesirable antisocial elements‘...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda."
- Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words"

Hubbard keeps talking about changing the goals, certainties and definitions of people to control them and of course to use trickery, misdirection and hiding information from people to control them, to enslave them with lying and that things could be done with hypnosis but it had the wild variable of sometimes working and sometimes not, of working on some people but not others.

The state Hubbard wanted to make for himself has a name, He wanted the games maker ALONE to be able to do things NO ONE else can.

Cleared Theta Clear
Beyond even the powerful Operating Thetan levels comes "Cleared Theta Clear," a state which Hubbard describes this way:
“A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence. “
— 
L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology 8-8008, p. 114 (1st ed), p. 151 (1990 ed.)
Note the definition: “ a person who is able to…OR living in the MEST universe is able to create ILLUSIONS PERCEIVABLE by others at will “



You can compare that to the state that other people are put in by Scientology as pieces and broken pieces.

"There are conditions worse than being unable to see, and that is imagining one sees."
Lecture, Scientology and Effective Knowledge (15 July 1957).Ron Hubbard

Saturday, July 27, 2019

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Scientology has lots of numbers Ron Hubbard presented that depict various percentages of people as suppressive or low-toned or antisocial or degraded brings and as you get deeper and deeper into Scientology you progress through these various numbers in references that start with two and a half percent as suppressive with seventeen and a half percent PTS, to his statement that the ratio of big beings to degraded brings is eighteen to one. The Sea Org even has internal promotional materials that state for every Sea Org member making it go right there are a million people who don't even know what right is.

In leaving Scientology there seems to be no lack of ideas on who is what kind of person, be it narcissist or sociopath or psychopath. There are also the categories of people who cooperate with authority and even categories based on how we work with each other at jobs or in personal relationships.

I wanted to share some ideas from outside Scientology to show a lot of people have done a lot of work to figure this stuff out.


“10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction.”


― Susan Sontag

Werner Twertzog ( a parody of Werner Herzog) said: "Dear America: You are waking up as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches."

“A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door


“Asked about our sense that we are not safe in our own world, Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door


From the website Lemonade by Team Lemonade


According to Adam Grant, author of Give and Take, there are three different types of reciprocity types: givers, takers, and matchers.

Givers, takers, and matchers

What’s the difference between these types?
Takers are self-focused and put their own interests ahead of others’ needs. They try to gain as much as possible from their interactions while contributing as little as they can in return.
Matchers like to preserve an equal balance of giving and taking. Their mindset is: “If you take from me, I’ll take from you. If you give to me, I’ll give to you.”
Givers are others-focused, and tend to provide support to others with no strings attached. They ask themselves, “How can I add value for this person? What can I contribute?”
Types of Reciprocity - Lemonade Blog
So what type are you? Turns out most people hover in the middle, and behave as matchers, answering option B above (I’ll introduce you to my college friend, but I need help from you).
Humans have an innate tendency to be reciprocal, and givers and takers represent two extremes.

But while givers are the most generous in our society, matchers play an important role. They make sure what goes around, comes around. They reward givers for their generous behavior, and seek revenge when they, or others, are being mistreated. End excerpt from Lemonade

Adam Grant in his book Give and Take described the three reciprocity styles in detail. He described the breakdown of percentages from thousands of people studied as Givers 25% Matchers 56%, Takers 19%.

  I  usually cheat and think of Givers 20%, Takers 60% and Matchers 60%. That is pretty close and I can picture five people and say if his descriptions and hypothesis are accurate one of these five on average is a taker, one on average is a giver and three out of five on average are matchers.

That is easy to remember, one is out for themselves (only), one is looking out for others first and three out of five are looking to be fair but not taken advantage of, three out of five want an even exchange of favors, compensation, and so on.

A really different take from a disturbing source.
“Generally, readers of the Press can be classified into three groups: First, those who believe everything they read; Second, those who no longer believe anything; Third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly.” 
― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf: My Struggle






Psychopathy is a psychological condition in which the individual shows a profound lack of empathy for the feelings of others, a willingness to engage in immoral and antisocial behavior for short-term gains, and extreme egocentricity.
Ronald Schouten, author of Almost a Psychopath claims that 1% of people are psychopaths.


Studies that examined the prevalence of subclinical psychopathy in student populations in the United States and Sweden showed rates in the range of 5 to 15 percent… 5 to 15 percent of the population means that for every twenty people, up to three of them may fall within the almost psychopath range.
Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door claims one person in twenty five aka four percent are sociopaths.
“About one in twenty-five individuals are sociopathic, meaning, essentially, that they do not have a conscience. It is not that this group fails to grasp the difference between good and bad; it is that the distinction fails to limit their behavior. The intellectual difference between right and wrong does not bring on the emotional sirens and flashing blue lights, or the fear of God, that it does for the rest of us. Without the slightest blip of guilt or remorse, one in twenty-five people can do anything at all.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

“Sociopathy is the inability to process emotional experience, including love and caring, except when such experience can be calculated as a coldly intellectual task.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

“And sociopaths are noted especially for their shallowness of emotion, the hollow and transient nature of any affectionate feelings they may claim to have, a certain breathtaking callousness. They have no trace of empathy and no genuine interest in bonding emotionally with a mate. Once the surface charm is scraped off, their marriages are loveless, one-sided, and almost always short-term. If a marriage partner has any value to the sociopath, it is because the partner is viewed as a possession, one that the sociopath may feel angry to lose, but never sad or accountable.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

She has a great contrast in her description of a narcissist.

“As a counterpoint to sociopathy, the condition of narcissism is particularly interesting and instructive. Narcissism is, in a metaphorical sense, one half of what sociopathy is. Even clinical narcissists are able to feel most emotions are strongly as anyone else does, from guilt to sadness to desperate love and passion. The half that is missing is the crucial ability to understand what other people are feeling. Narcissism is a failure not of conscience but of empathy, which is the capacity to perceive emotions in others and so react to them appropriately. The poor narcissist cannot see past his own nose, emotionally speaking, and as with the Pillsbury Doughboy, any input from the outside will spring back as if nothing had happened. Unlike sociopaths, narcissists often are in psychological pain, and may sometimes seek psychotherapy. When a narcissist looks for help, one of the underlying issues is usually that, unbeknownst to him, he is alienating his relationships on account of his lack of empathy with others, and is feeling confused, abandoned, and lonely. He misses the people he loves, and is ill-equipped to get them back. Sociopaths, in contrast, do not care about other people, and so do not miss them when they are alienated or gone, except as one might regret the absence of a useful appliance that one has somehow lost.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

Regarding the prevalence of narcissists in the population Rebecca Webber :"True pathological narcissism has always been rare and remains so: It affects an estimated 1 percent of the population, and that prevalence hasn't changed demonstrably since clinicians started measuring it." 2016 in Psychology Today

“To admit that some people literally have no conscience is not technically the same as saying that some human beings are evil, but it is disturbingly close. And good people want very much not to believe in the personification of evil.” 
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

The first rule involves the bitter pill of accepting that some people literally have no conscience… Do not try to redeem the unredeemable.


One lie, one broken promise, or a single neglected responsibility may be a misunderstanding instead. Two may involve a serious mistake. But three lies says you’re dealing with a liar, and deceit is the linchpin of conscienceless behavior.
 Regarding crime, in particular violent crime there are some interesting quotes available:

"Alex Piquero, a criminologist at the University of Texas at Dallas, said by email: "A routine finding in the criminological literature is that about half of the crime is committed by a very small fraction of the population, around 5-8 percent depending on the sample and methodology used. This finding has been replicated in many different studies around the world. The bottom line is that a small fraction of the offending population is responsible for a great majority of crime." Piquero said most of the studies tracked residents only into late adolescence or early adulthood." W. Gardner Selby Politifact

 "The Philadelphia studies and others
Since the 1960s, researchers have probed how often youths come into police contact, consistently finding that a subset of people account for around half of the crimes reported to police.
In the seminal "Crime in a Birth Cohort" and a followup study, a team led by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Marvin Wolfgang tracked nearly 10,000 boys born in 1945 and living in Philadelphia from age 10 through 17; they ultimately gauged how often each boy came in contact with police for an offense. One upshot: 627 boys, 6 percent of the group, each accounted for five or more offenses, according to police reports. Those boys, Wolfgang wrote, were collectively identified as responsible for 52 percent of all the offenses recorded in the study and, he said, about two-thirds of all violent crimes believed to have been committed by the juveniles. In Patrick-speak, Wolfgang found that 6 percent of juvenile boys accounted for about half of alleged juvenile crimes.
The follow-up study, presented in progress in 1982, tracked more than 28,000 boys and girls born in 1958 who lived in Philadelphia from age 10 through 17. Among males, the study found, 61 percent of reported  offenses  were committed by 1,030 "chronic recidivists," comprising 7 percent of males in the study. That is, 7 percent of the boys accounted for 61 percent of the juvenile offenses.
David Farrington, a University of Cambridge professor of psychological criminology reported in 2006 on criminal offenses by 411 South London boys occasionally interviewed by the team starting when the subjects were 8 years old in 1961. The researchers, who also checked criminal records, found that a "small proportion of the study males (7%) were defined as ‘chronic offenders’ because they accounted for about half of all officially recorded offenses" in the study. The most common offenses, they wrote, included thefts, burglaries and car thefts followed by violence, vandalism, fraud and drug abuse.
In 2014, Swedish researchers drawing on records accounting for the experiences of 2.5 million people born in that country from 1958 to 1980 reported that from 1973 to 2004, some 1 percent of the population accounted for 63 percent of all violent crime convictions. Researcher  Örjan Falk added: "Psychotic disorders are twice as common among repeat offenders as in the general population, but despite this fact they constitute a very small proportion of the repeat offenders." W. Gardner Selby Politifact

It is worth pointing out that Martha Stout in her book The Sociopath Next Door described how some predators are not violent and that depending on their impulses and personalities might never commit a violent act or crime. Some sociopaths she described as simply not caring for anyone other than themselves.

Do not allow someone without conscience, or even a string of such people, to convince you that humanity is a failure. Most human beings do possess conscience. Most human beings are able to love.


Leonard Mlodinow in his superb book Subliminal remarked on how people tend to think of each other as either good or bad but like the characters from the classic Western movie The Good, The Bad and The Ugly,  there is more to our story.

In The Good, The Bad and The Ugly we have three main characters Blondie the good does good things (relative to the other characters) because he is a good person. Angel Eyes the bad is evil to the core and does evil because he is evil. Finally, Tucco the ugly does a variety of behaviors for a variety of reasons and sometimes they are bad and sometimes they are good. He is not pure good or evil, not by a lot.

I sincerely believe that some people, I don't know what percentage, are predators as Jon Atack calls them. We have many names for these people like sociopath, psychopath, narcissist, malignant narcissist, traumatic narcissist, and even more exotic ones like dark triad and the research regarding these people is important and not to be overlooked. By any name they are real.

 What percentage do they add up to ? I don't know exactly. I sincerely hope it is well under the high range estimate of maybe twenty percent and perhaps ten percent or less. I doubt it is below one or two percent.

It is worth nothing that many people go through significant changes in their lives and an unrepentant predator or criminal in his or her youth might turn their life around and change into a law abiding citizen or conversely a straight arrow type can break bad (like the TV show) in middle age or even old age (overcoming age stereotypes, in a strange way).

The idea that most of us are a combination of good and bad is, well uglier, than a pure good versus pure evil dichotomy.  I don't doubt that it is possible that the givers at twenty-five percent of people are the same extra giving, extra compassionate people we meet and often admire. It is to me unproven but plausible.

This leaves us the approximate sixty percent (well fifty six as matchers according to Adam Grant) who are ugly. We are not as great, on average, as the givers and not as selfish and callous on average as the takers. You might see the bottom ten percent as extremely dangerous including violent criminals and the worst of the worst predators we have called psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists. The next ten percent may be seen as perhaps not as overtly criminal and violent as the first ten percent but still takers and serious trouble to deal with in any way. (Well nine percent if we are sticking with the takers from Adam Grant.)

I  have probably three main points that I want to make to sum up all this information on categories of people. Scientology has categories that Hubbard used that in my opinion are inaccurate and those of many others give you far more scientific research to consider.

There are lots of us have who don't fit a pure good or pure evil model. We mess up and sometimes do the wrong thing, sometimes horribly, sometimes it is downright ugly and evil.

But not always, not without regrets, not without remorse, not without conscience. Sometimes we learn from negative behavior and work to reduce or eliminate negative behavior. Not always.

Sometimes we can do good behaviours that require no prompting or reward or threats for failing to do them. We can do good things because we have good intentions. But not always.

Our lives don't fit a pure good or pure evil description, not by a lot. They are ugly, they have moments of both good and evil, good choices and terrible errors. Summing them up as just one thing really avoids digging deep into the ugly reality that we have had tragedy and triumph morally.

Finally the last point and probably most important point. Despite the  great evil of the predators, even unrepentant and persistent evil, and the moral failings of the vast majority of people including acts of genuine evil,  I think that we shouldn't take the "lesson of evil" as the foundation of our identity.

Daniel Shaw described this in Traumatic Narcissism. Some people who experience abuse and trauma learn one lesson. Whether one is abused or molested or neglected as a child by trusted and even loved caregivers or abused by a boyfriend or husband as a woman many victims of abuse learn that in this world their is no guarantee of love, no guarantee of good or decent treatment,  no just world in which only good things happen to good people, especially vulnerable people like children and women. This world teaches many people that this is not a just world, deserving or wanting love or giving love doesn't always result in getting love in return.

The terrible, dark lesson many victims of abuse get is that anyone can betray anyone at any time, love you give can be repaid with cruelty and abuse. The one thing some victims of abuse come away feeling was under their control while they were abused is that they loved or trusted their abuser. Some victims see that as a small child or vulnerable woman they were in no position to stop abuse physically in the moment it occurred but resent themselves for having trusted and loved their abuser and resent themselves for trusting ANYONE or believing in a just world.

Feeling betrayed and feeling foolish for trusting people is something that some victims of abuse carry with them their whole lives. They feel that trusting and loving their abuser was under their control and can vow to NEVER be fooled again, to never go through that helpless and worthless feeling again that came when they were betrayed and abused and even afterword when they realized that they were not being treated with love.

Scientology has been especially egregious in encouraging abuse and neglect of children in particular and abusive behaviors in many circumstances in general. Scientology has followed and encouraged the predatory behavior of Ron Hubbard. In other words members of the high control group of Scientology model their behavior after the behavior of Hubbard.

Scientology has many second and third generation members who sadly, tragically, have experienced enough betrayal, enough neglect, enough abuse to learn the lesson of evil.

Scientology has left many ex members wondering if they should ever trust anyone again, ever love anyone again. It's understandable if you understand what they went through and how much it hurts.

I  have seen a lot of material by people who have left predators. Many women who leave abusers go through phases.  They are overwhelmed and confused at first. Then they recognize that their abuser is a kind of predator like a narcissist or sociopath. They learn their abuse was not their fault. They often wonder if everyone is abusive or a predator as they learn about the deep evil in so many abusers, particularly in their behavior, and that the conduct of their abuser is consistent with patterns of behavior that many, many abusers follow. Their abuser was not a "one in a million" or even "one in a thousand" very often.

They have the good news that the abuse is not unique to them, they did not inspire some unique response. Lots of people with different behavior and character get abused. It wasn't the fault of the victim. Great. Lots and lots of people are abusers. Not great news.

So there again the victims can wonder if they should ever trust anyone again, because they have learned that there is a lot of evil in the world and innocent people do get horribly abused.

If you feel this way I can't promise you that you won't get hurt again, I wish I could. I don't know what everyone will do in every circumstance.  But if you never trust or love anyone so you don't have that horrible feeling of being betrayed and fooled again what do you have ?

Do you want to have transactional relationships that some predators have  ? Or the relationships of leverage and power and domination that some predators use to escape vulnerabilities ?

Some relationships, like some people are good, some are bad and some ugly.

It would be wonderful if everyone was a great person who created loving and caring relationships. I am sure some people are like this. They may even live happily ever after if two really great people get together.

But that is not in the cards for some people. Some are going to have to work extra hard to trust again, some are going to have to work extra hard to love again, some are going to have to work extra hard to not see the worst in other people, some are going to have to work extra hard to build relationships and the relationships they pursue will sometimes take a lot of hard work to just have with genuine love and trust and as relationships that aren't abusive. Some people have to work hard to not follow the pattern of abuse they themselves experienced. (This is not an excuse or justification for abuse, just because something is hard to do doesn't justify failing to do it)

So I can only say for the people hurt by Scientology or anything in life who wonder if they should ever trust or love anyone again given what they went through that frankly relationships are probably going to be hard work. They are probably not going to be easy and run smoothly.

At times they may be terrific and other times extremely challenging. To an outsider these relationships may be messy, sloppy, inconsistent at times and even ugly.

But I would rather have something that is made by admittedly flawed, even ugly people in a sincere effort than something less, without love or trust.

For some of the people who have been abused in Scientology there are two options: trying despite everything you have experienced and done to have a genuine loving trusting relationship or relationships or not trying.

If you don't try what can you have ? That is something truly ugly.