Scientology - Enlightened Gurus And Gullible Dupes

In Scientology watching and criticism there are various people that come and go. Most people that encounter Scientology as adults reject it. Probably over ninety five percent never buy any Scientology books or services despite seeing advertisements or hearing about it. Of those people that try Scientology as adults probably a similar percentage reject it after one purchase and of the ever shrinking sliver of people that stick with Scientology a similar percentage of the remainder reject Scientology within the first few months and then first couple years most similarly reject Scientology.

So, to sum it up less than one it twenty people offered Scientology as adults try it, of that group less than one in twenty get another book, course or auditing service, then of those less than one in twenty stick around in Scientology for six months and of those less than one in twenty stay two years or longer. At some point the hardcore, long-term cult members emerge and take longer to leave or stay until death. Very, very, very few Scientologists stay all the way until death, much fewer than one percent in my opinion.

Now, a particularly unusual tiny subgroup exists. Of the people that spend years in Scientology a tiny sliver emerge and go on to assume a guru status. There have been some who founded or were leaders of different cults or groups in history. I don't know every one or all the groups that had ideas from Dianetics and Scientology.

If you are extremely interested in them it takes a lot of time to find them online. There are plenty.

I am not especially interested in the entire history of that personally. I point it out to reference one more similar type of individual that just keeps popping up, no matter how much anymore may rue the day they encountered them.

Lots of Scientologists have years in which they are hard working and dedicated to Scientology and sincerely believe it can help them and others.

Many of them then at some point become disaffected and reject Scientology and see Hubbard as a dishonorable and dishonest fraud and liar and Scientology technology as less than honest and incorporating covert persuasion, possibly hypnosis and various psychological and rhetorical techniques, depending on what they study and believe and their experiences in Scientology.

They vary greatly from seeing Hubbard's technology as entirely plagiarized and failed ideas on helping people combined with attempts to hypnotize, brainwash or mentally enslave people (like myself) to seeing Scientology as partly helpful but flawed or seeing it as a combination of good and bad methods to seeing it in other terms.

There are a few that are in for years, embrace Scientology wholeheartedly and then leave, reject it and do something very rare and odd. They defend Scientology after saying the technology is a fraud and dishonest effort to control people. They downplay or outright deny the past crimes and abuses by the cult and criticize the critics of Scientology.

A couple have emerged that are at the tip of the spear of this effort. Marty Rathbun and Alanzo lead the way. They both have written a lot of scorching criticism of Scientology as an organization and Ron Hubbard and the technology of Scientology at various times.

They both have reverted to defending Scientology and acting like people have benefited from Scientology and the abuses and crimes are overstated and exaggerated. They both have intentionally or not functioned as defenders of and apologists for the Scientology cult, David Miscavige and Ron Hubbard and the methods of Scientology as well.

They both have a similar enough approach it's worth addressing. They both write in a way that uses passing comments on ideas from authorities on various topics that they don't go into in great depth or explore for extended periods. They both try to point out hypocrisy, character flaws and fallacies used by critics.

They are trying to appear to be experts and supported in their views by authorities. That's a dangerous appeal to authority and also called ethos in classical rhetoric. It just means "I think the same thing as the legitimate authorities in subjects, so both they and I are right and smart, likely to be right about other things too." If you understand that is the impression they want you to get and you don't get it then you understand what they are doing.

In pointing out hypocrisy they are just in my opinion pivoting off the relevant information about the actual crimes and abuses from Scientology and jumping to irrelevant information.

Critics aren't perfect people, and never should claim to be. But if you need perfect character to be allowed to criticize another then no one could ever. It's irrational.

Alanzo and Marty Rathbun try to attain a status as intellectually and morally superior to Scientology critics. But it's fake and a put on on both accounts.

They champion false ideas to defang critics and pretend criticism of Scientology but it is all sophistry to quote Marty Rathbun. Sophistry is logical sounding claims that are dishonest attempts to persuade people. They are crafted to influence but not honest or backed by good reason or sound arguments.

They both act like there is some series of stages in Scientology. They both act like there is a Scientology stage of years then a critic stage then a higher stage where someone is less antagonistic and angry with Scientology that they of course have achieved. They act like they are especially enlightened and wise to be there and others who aren't there are wrong.

It's a sad situation. I was in Scientology for my twenty five years. I am out. I can tell you that Marty Rathbun has asked how gullible someone can be. It's simple: you can be as gullible and stupid as I was to fall for Scientology and to believe it for years and years.

So, when Marty Rathbun or Alanzo or anyone else through quoting academics or philosophers or definitions of esoteric terms tries to pass themselves off as a guru and carry on their  enlightened master act, you can remind them quoting experts or smart sounding people doesn't make you smart or right. You can tell them that no matter where they go or what they do if they were gullible enough to fall for Scientology and to keep believing in Scientology for years and years you are capable of still being wrong and have no claim on being less gullible or foolish than anybody. I did it and I know it.

I certainly hope the critical information I share regarding Scientology is more accurate than the ideas Alanzo and Marty Rathbun share, but I know I am still the same guy that was fooled by Scientology for twenty five years and can still be wrong.

On any survey on how gullible a person can be I always have to answer I am as gullible as possible for a human being, and don't see it as something that will change.

Anyone that reads anything I write is welcome to know I accept any labels regarding gullibility, stupidity or anything regarding this. I also admit barely having a high school level education and the experience of my time in Scientology and then trying to reframe my experience in a more true light through examining the works on cults, psychology, social psychology, rhetoric, logic and related subjects. I can always be wrong and any sources I consult or quote can be wrong too. I admit all that.

I am perfectly capable of accepting the title of gullible dupe and saying yep, that's me. I ain't no wise or enlightened anything, and certainty not outstanding in nobility.

Look at my claims as from a flawed source but as ones you can check on, usually read up about to form your own educated opinion and then reject or accept. Think of me as no smarter or more savvy than you. At best I might have been referred to some relevant books and recall some experiences from Scientology to compare to those references, that might be my only worthwhile information to bring to the conversation, and I can always still be wrong.

 I just wish the same could be said about and especially admitted by the Scientology gurus emerging today. Because in that light I think they fall flat.

Here are some of my own posts on Marty Rathbun from Mockingbird's Nest.

Marty Rathbun Scientology Beliefs

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...

Chris Shelton and Marty Rathbun - Critical Thinkers ?

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...

Marty Rathbun -Later Day Ron Hubbard ?

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...

Jon Atack and Marty Rathbun - the Critical Difference

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...

Marty Rathbun's Mission - Scientology's Useful Idiot

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...

Mockingbird's Greatest Hits
I have reached nearly two hundred posts online and thousands of comments as well. In looking back at all that I realized a very small number of posts have been consistently the most viewed and likely most helpful for people seeking to understand Scientology.

I certainly hope they are helping people. Here I will try to present the short list of the posts that best explain my ideas and can introduce you to information that I hope will help begin beneficial examination of Scientology.

1)Insidious Enslavement: Study Technology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/i...ology.html?m=0

2)Basic Introduction To Hypnosis in Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/b...is-in.html?m=0

3)Pissed It's Not Your Fault !!!

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/p...fault.html?m=0


4)The Secret Of Scientology Part 1 Control Via Contradiction

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/01/t...art-1.html?m=0

5)Burning Down Hell - How Commands Are Hidden, Varied And Repeated To Control You As Hypnotic Implants

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/m...-hell.html?m=0

6)Why Hubbard Never Claimed OT Feats And The Rock Bottom Basis Of Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/m...never.html?m=0

7)A Million Years In Hell

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/02/a...-hell.html?m=0

8-10)OT III And Beyond: Sources Plagiarized From Part 1, 2 and 3
Part 1
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/03/o...rized.html?m=0

Part 2
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/03/o...ed_14.html?m=0

Part 3
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/03/o...ed_17.html?m=0

11)Propaganda By Reversal Of Meaning In Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/03/p...ng-in.html?m=0

12)Scientology's Parallel In Nature - Malignant Narcissism

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/05/s...ure_3.html?m=0

13)OT VIII Delusion Fulfilled

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/05/o...ed_30.html?m=0.

14)There Is No Irony In Scientology

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/08/t...ology.html?m=0

15 - 16)Why Lying And Murder Are Justified In Scientology part 1 and 2

Part 1
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/10/w...ed-in.html?m=0

Part 2

http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/10/w...in_26.html?m=0.


17)Unraveling Scientology - A Missing Vital Ingredient


http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/11/u...vital.html?m=0.

18)Loving A Lie


http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/12/loving-lie.html?m=0.

19)Two Roads


http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/12/two-roads.html?m=0.

20)Orders Of Magnitude Part 1


http://mbnest.blogspot.com/2015/11/o...art-1.html?m=0.

These twenty posts have been both popular and give a very good grounding in many of my ideas on Scientology.

Obviously series on particular issues like the Building The Prison Of The Mind series as an example address specific topics in depth. That serves to equal a book in length over several posts. That example takes on Leon Festinger's essential book A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance and takes on Scientology in reference to that book. Another series as an example is Pulling Back The Curtain which took on the excellent social psychology text Age Of Propaganda and Scientology.

For fans of social psychology and cognitive dissonance theory I sincerely hope those series are helpful and do justice to the books I consulted. I really recommend those books for education on Scientology and cults.

But this top twenty is meant to give the most essential posts to know what I have to say and who I am. It has my past, detailed information on my observations and hypotheses regarding Scientology and what it is, attempts to dissect it and identify the methods Ron Hubbard used, and ideas on recovery from Scientology.