Scientology Building The Prison Of the Mind Part 6 Overcoming Denial And Counterarguing

 




Like all the posts in the Building the Prison of the Mind series this one will quote the book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger. They should be read in order as they build one upon another.

In the book Leon Festinger describes many experiments to support his ideas. I won't repeat all of that. I suggest every ex cult member read that book. I will draw from his conclusions and concepts specific parts to reframe the Scientology experience.

In this post I want to address Festinger's ideas on how people will avoid unpleasant information. In his model certain aspects of the implications accompanying information make it unpleasant and to be denied, avoided or refuted.

Regarding information that is likely to create dissonance Festinger has definite ideas.

If the expectation is that the new information will probably increase dissonance, there is mostly avoidance of exposure except at very low dissonance and at the limits of dissonance. (Page 131)

That simply means if you are expecting information and can choose to accept it or not you will usually judge it as likely to agree with your beliefs (consonant) or be against your beliefs (dissonant) or not affect your beliefs at all (irrelevant).

He found people with little preexisting dissonance on a topic won't avoid the topic. If you have little anxiety or internal conflict on an issue you won't be worried or upset by potential disagreement. It's not a big deal.

Also if you have moderate or high dissonance on something you will strongly avoid disagreeing information. You will be uncomfortable and guarded about such information. You can be comforted by evidence that confirms your beliefs so you prefer that to escalating dissonance. It is more comfortable.

But if you have somehow achieved very extreme dissonance, all the way to nearly the possible limit, it will be quite different. At this point it flips. A person is quite uncomfortable about the dissonance inspiring subject and can't reduce that with agreement on the information.

So they stay uncomfortable, anxious, flustered and become desperate for resolution. They can have doubts creep in and display a behavior of seeking out dissonant information to resolve the issue. They are not as sure as they were and open to looking at the other side of an issue.

This happens often enough to be part of many lives. Most of us see our parents as perfect and all knowing until puberty (roughly) and become disillusioned and change our views. That change is a reversal. On our way there we get and accept more contradictory evidence.

That's an example of holding beliefs, getting evidence against them, then having dissonance mount high, and finally doubting your beliefs. Then looking for evidence against your beliefs and finally reversing your beliefs and being relieved in that the issue now feels settled.

You can probably think of other examples in your own life.

Now an important thing to be aware of is the tendency people have to try to avoid or minimize dissonance most of the time.

One might also expect, however, that at the initial moment of impact of the new dissonant cognition, effective processes could be initiated which would prevent the dissonant elements from ever being firmly established cognitively. One might expect to observe such things as attempts to escape or avoid further exposure, erroneous interpretation or perception of the material, or any other technique or maneuver which will help to abolish the newly introduced dissonance and to prevent the further introduction of dissonance. (Page 134)

That is a way to say that if you realize or suspect information will be against your beliefs automatic responses are switched on that can counterargue against the information. Counterarguing is thinking of claims against the information or reasons to not accept it or using fallacies to avoid the information.

There are other psychological defense mechanisms that are triggered including denial that all can have dissonance inspiring information set as triggers.

And emotional reactions that prevent even accepting the information. This is the anatomy of being close minded and stubborn.

Festinger describes several processes including intentional misunderstanding, thereby avoiding the dissonance, this can occur if the message is open to multiple interpretations or vague.

 Also if the message is clear and not capable of alternative conclusions then other methods are utilized. A person may accept a message on the surface but see exceptions or that a particular example is true but that the general principle in question is not.

This is strikingly similar to Hubbard's claim that "suppressive generalities" exist. Many Scientologists and exes embrace this technique to reject without analysis virtually any concepts they wish to avoid.

Festinger quotes the conclusions of others regarding a study.

"...the prejudiced person's perception is so colored by his prejudices that issues presented in a frame of reference different from his own are transformed so as to become compatible with his own views. Quite unaware of the violation of facts he commits, he imposes on the propaganda item his own frame of reference." (Page 136)

That is quite relevant to Scientology as Hubbard made an entire alternative belief structure that rejects reality and direct observations and scientific method and critical thinking and Socratic debate. It is intentionally created to overshadow any possible dissent through fallacies and preemptive derogation of all these means of accepting evidence disputing the legitimacy and authenticity of Scientology.

If a person is involuntarily exposed to information that will increase dissonance, then in addition to the usual procedures whereby he may reduce this dissonance, there are also set up quick defensive processes which prevent the new cognition from ever becoming firmly established. (Page 137)

This means a person upon suspecting dissonance could occur may not accept information. This is the origin of a person hearing but refusing to listen. They are rejecting information before they receive it. Based upon expectations, not conclusions.

There is a significant tendency to forget those items of information which introduced dissonance. (Page 158)

It is worth noting there are several forms of deception. Lying is knowingly trying to deceive another. Denial is making a deception that extends to your own conscious mind, but is not effective on your subconscious mind aka unconscious. Finally dissociation is a mental breaking off of a portion of the mind more severe and extreme than lying or denial.

I can firmly attest that all three methods of deception are utilized to varying degrees in Scientology. Reality is not compatible with Scientology, so lying, denial and dissociation are resorted to.

But through examining experiments Festinger may have found a weakness to bypass the triggering of defensive and coping mechanisms which normally prohibit unpleasant dissonant reality asserting evidence. Anticipation.

By not creating anticipation of dissonance with or before a message, a mind may accept dissonance inspiring information without a lack of critical thinking.

It seems clear that the avoidance and evasion of material which might produce or increase dissonance depends on anticipations (probably unverbalized ones) about the material or on preliminary assessments of the material. If one could, then, create a situation where the anticipation and the preliminary assessments of some information indicate a reduction of dissonance while the material itself actually increased dissonance, one would expect to observe more change of opinion; that is , for some persons the dissonance thus introduced would be reduced by changing parts of the existing opinion system. (Page 158)

That is a fancy way to say that if you want a message to get through to someone try to phrase it in a way that doesn't immediately trigger anticipation that information that disagrees with their beliefs or behaviors is forthcoming.

You have to use honey instead of vinegar. Don't lie. Find something acceptable to start with. Concede some things that are neutral or not threatening in nature. Engage what willingness they do show to listen.

This is particularly difficult with Scientology as the minds of Scientologists are extremely biased towards absolute fanatical zealotry. They are extremely biased against any criticism of Scientology or Hubbard.

But at times a point of entry is found, an idea or argument gets through. People leave and question Scientology every day. Just not enough quite fast enough.

But if critics and family can get through relevant information the cult member gets a chance.

This is why some cult experts advice using parallel information. Have a cult member read about a different cult, so anticipation doesn't prevent acceptance of information. Information on other groups can trigger realizations about Scientology.

I myself was alarmed as I read about the mental and emotional experiences of prisoners of war studied by a survivor of the Nazis. He described how POWs in Korea were brainwashed and I realized their emotions were identical to my own while in Scientology. That convinced me Scientology was brainwashing members and therefore a cult.

If the book was about Scientology by an ex I might have rejected it out of hand. If it was by an author I might have said they were never in, and don't know what they are talking about. But as a seemingly safe book it snuck in behind a non-threatening appearance, and so was retained.

Scientology Building The Prison Of The Mind Part 5 Explosive Dissonance

 

Like all the other posts in the Building the Prison of the Mind series this post refers to the book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger. I will include quotes from that book for reference. Festinger refers to many studies and experiments, but I won't go into them here.

This post deals with particular ideas on cognitive dissonance building and being avoided.

Festinger wrote:
If there is no behavior or action in which a person engages or possibly may engage that is relevant to a particular area of information, there will be no motivation from this source to acquire cognition concerning this particular area of information. (Page 124)

Now that can be broken down to simpler terms. If something isn't important regarding a subject than it can't inspire dissonance for that subject. It is irrelevant, even if related to the subject. Why ? Because it just doesn't matter so it won't upset or really help in a meaningful way.

This has a special significance in Scientology. When Hubbard decreed that there is no background information or outdated ideas he made everything students study have equal authenticity. In other subjects a student can see different ideas developed at different times by an authority as being more or less final and complete. They can also compare different authorities and give one more credibility than another. This approach encourages a degree of critical and independent thinking and analysis which is entirely absent in Scientology.

Hubbard put his name on everything, despite plagiarizing ideas from many others, and gave them all the same literal unquestionable authority. So none can be dismissed as old or partially developed in comparison to others. So no comparison occurs.

This additionally makes dissonance between them routine as Hubbard contradicted himself consistently. So that traps the student in a web of close minded contradictions. I covered that method in Insidious Enslavement and the Secret of Scientology part one Control via Contradiction.

Festinger described how people without preexisting bias on a subject who need to make a decision on that subject seek information. Regarding that subject they seek information of different kinds from different sources and are impartial in what they seek out and willing to take in information of different kinds without concern for either the source or content. They are open to different ideas from different people.

After making a decision some of the information will become consonant in other words in agreement with the behavior chosen and some will become dissonant in other words in disagreement. This will effectively reorganize the information and eventually create bias.

Festinger went on to say:
The presence or absence of dissonance in some particular content area will have important effects on the degree of information seeking and on the selectivity of such information seeking. (Page 126)
Relative absence of dissonance. If little or no dissonance exists, there would be no motivation ( considering this source of motivation alone ) to seek out new and additional information. (Page 127)
The presence of moderate amounts of dissonance. The existence of appreciable dissonance and the consequent pressure to reduce it will lead to the seeking out of information which will introduce consonances and to the avoidance of information which will increase the already existing dissonance. (Page 128)
The presence of extremely large amounts of dissonance. Under such circumstances a person may actively seek out, and expose himself to, dissonance-increasing information. If he can increase the dissonance to the point where it is greater than the resistance to change of one or another cluster of cognitions, he will then change the cognitive elements involved, thus markedly reducing or perhaps even wholly eliminating the dissonance which now is so great. (Page 129)

Festinger here gives us crucial information. If the internal conflict over an idea or behavior is entirely absent a person has no reason to gain information. There are some things a person doesn't care about. A concept may not have any supporting or opposing content in one's mind. So you just don't care.

If you have moderate dissonance, meaning a bit of discouraging information but not too much you avoid disagreeing evidence and seek agreeing evidence. So you might avoid TV shows that disagree with your political views, as an example, and watch ones likely to agree.

For millions of Americans an extreme polarization and self censorship is observable. With as an example Fox news millions of people either agree and only watch Fox news for national political information or strongly disagree and never watch Fox news for national political information.

One could say many of these people have moderate dissonance and seek to reduce it by finding agreement from Fox while avoiding disagreement from others. Now one might say "Why is the dissonance continuing if he only seeks agreement ?", Well he runs into people who don't follow his beliefs or other evidence. So he can stay in moderate dissonance for decades if he doesn't change his routine or get new information of significant influence relevant to the dissonant cognition.

Here is the goldilocks zone of any subject, you care and are not unbiased and open to any information. But you are seeking more proof you are already right and avoiding proof you are wrong. The conditions are just right to keep you close minded and biased towards your beliefs and behaviors. And to keep finding evidence you are right while avoiding evidence you are wrong.

The Scientology cult is built to get a person here subtly, covertly and keep them there.

Now when dissonance is near the absolute limit possible a person changes dramatically. They can seek dissonant information to examine. Why ? Because the way they have been thinking and doing things isn't comfortable and finding small bits of consonant information doesn't relieve the dissonance.

As a simple way to describe this say you get a job at a company and for a while like the pay, work and work environment. It is highly consonant. You don't look for evidence against your job. Simple, then say you find out your company pollutes extensively and uses slave labor in other countries and other unethical practices. Say that is highly troubling to you and you feel tremendously conflicted. It generates high dissonance. You are very concerned on a deep personal level.
 At that point just seeing the company logo or motto won't comfort you. A manager just trying to mildly compliment the company won't work. It will merely frustrate you.

In this situation seeking more evidence against your old behaviors and ideas may actually be sought and feel right. Even though you face admitting having been wrong you can dismiss much or all the dissonance involved by changing your mind. All the dissonant elements can be resorted as consonant and the formerly consonant ones as dissonant. So you can entirely switch sides on an issue. For a job you might quit.

Well for Scientologists this has special meaning. When dissonance escalates to explosive proportions the Scientologist can start seeking neutral or critical information on Scientology. Normally Scientologists never do that.

But eventually hearing the same ideas from Hubbard or getting auditing may not relieve doubts about Scientology. So this is the origin of lurkers - the people who secretly look outside the cult and examine the internet at sites like the Underground Bunker and read books critical of Scientology.

In social psychology the three factors of emotions , behaviors and ideas interact. In theory all three are connected and can influence each other. Hubbard stole all three for his methods and renamed and redefined each. He called emotions affinity, ideas reality and behaviors communication. He recognized that manipulating any one could control the other two. I explored that in ARC and KRC.

 Cognitive dissonance theory has the concept that with enough dissonance, which for my example can be seen as equivalent to an emotion, one can affect behavior and subsequently beliefs which are ideas. With no concern for something no behavior regarding it is inspired, with slight concern a little reassurance is sought and accepted and with tremendous unrelenting discomfort, even anxiety , internal conflict and worry a person can be driven to look for disagreeing information to settle the issue. They can become open, even slightly, to accepting the criticism of their formerly held beliefs. In this way emotions that in the past trapped a person can turn and compel them towards freedom. This level is called explosive dissonance.

The lurkers moved outside the goldilocks zone. Some sadly are so overwhelmed and confused they stop and go back into the cult. So the information they run into is important.

Fortunately many keep up looking outside the cult and begin recovery in earnest. I hope this post has offered an explanation that will help people understand why people stay and why they leave. And to help them recover.

Scientology Building The Prison Of The Mind Part 4 An Iron Fist In A Velvet Glove

 


 



Like all parts in the Building the Prison of the Mind series this post is written comparing the book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger against my twenty five years in the Scientology cult. I will quote excerpts and attempt to interpret the Scientology experience in this framework.

Several experiments in social psychology are described in great detail. I won't repeat that here. I do recommend the book to everyone. I will primarily deal with the hypotheses forwarded by Festinger and points relevant to Scientology.

After one experiment the idea that if one goes against personal beliefs for significant reward or to avoid significant punishment little dissonance or none results. While small incentives to act against beliefs generate strong dissonance. Why ? If you pretend to like someone you really don't like but will get a million dollars for being pleasant to someone for a day, the benefit is accepted as motivation and so no dissonance will follow. If you are nice to someone you really don't like for no benefit, you might be confounded by it - that's high dissonance.

This principle is important in Scientology as usually a new recruit for Scientology tries, bit by bit, slight odd changes in behavior. An odd study method, a strange drill, an eccentric auditing procedure all are off putting at first but cleverly combine two effective tools for persuasion.

First, the slightly unusual new methods being requested are meant to be done immediately, upon introduction with no critical examination. The social environment acts like the slight request is entirely reasonable, and even delaying this at all is absurd. An auditor, registrar or course supervisor encourages instant compliance and rewards blind obedience. So, it is easy to give in for seemingly no incentive.

Secondly, with no reward for complying apparent the new cult member generates dissonance by doing things they really don't understand without a clear motive.

To reduce this dissonance a simple adjustment occurs, in belief. The unaware cult member shifts beliefs to fit their behavior.

Festinger wrote:
If one wanted to obtain private change in addition to mere public compliance, the best way to do this would be to offer just enough reward to elicit the overt compliance. (Page 95)

He went on:
These studies lend support to the idea that attitude or opinion change is facilitated if a person finds himself in a situation where, by showing compliant behavior, he is engaged in actions which are dissonant with his private opinions. The changes in private opinion which ensue are the end result of a process of attempting to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. (Page 112)

Hubbard may have read this book, or articles based on it or similar concepts. He certainly exploits the mental weaknesses outlined here quite well.

He had students redefine new words in their own words, so they participate in validating the very terms he is handing them. And in star rate checkouts students explain Scientology concepts and demo his ideas with examples they must enthusiastically create.

It seems like so little, but by having students over and over create examples and explanations in total agreement with Hubbard's doctrine the students unknowingly influence their very own minds to hold beliefs in line with both their behavior and statements so the new beliefs become identical to deeply seated personal convictions in the individual cult member's mind. They function like ideas arrived at after observation, testing and contemplation but without any of those crucial elements of judgement.

Plainly, these ideas from Hubbard feel like conclusions from deep introspection and independent analysis to the cult member. So since they feel like personal deep convictions, they are protected by the ego defenses vigorously.

Regarding these kinds of beliefs Festinger comments:
There are several areas of opinion where it is notoriously difficult to change people. (Page 120)

Festinger cites a study:
There is evidence in our data that once a change in behavior has occurred, a change in beliefs is likely to follow. (Page 121)

So Hubbard cleverly installed new ideas and tricked victims into holding them close, and defending them zealously.

Imagine developing a method that could get people to take ideas you create and take them as their own strongest faith without really testing or critically examining them. Granted the method doesn't work on everybody, but dissenting voices are quickly silenced in Scientology.

So only obedient followers are allowed in the cult. If you ever wondered what a person would do if they could achieve such extreme covert influence, undue influence in truth, than just look at the cult and you will surely see the terrible and tragic results.

Why Lying And Murder Are Justified In Scientology Part 1

• Blog Archive by Topic

To understand the excuses Hubbard laid out for the tragi-comic policies  he issued you need to, in my opinion, understand some basic Scientology doctrine. In the Way To Happiness Hubbard said not to tell HARMFUL lies, just as he in policy encouraged acceptable truths.

“Do not tell harmful lies.”

Ron Hubbard, The Way to Happiness”

"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."
. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY
issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418

“Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively. … The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facilely.”
Ron Hubbard, Intelligence Specialist Training Routine—Lying (TR-L)

“Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don’t have to tell everything you know — that would jam the comm line too. Tell an acceptable truth. … So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth — and which will attain the desirable result.”
Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 13 August 1970 Issue II PR Series 2, in the Volunteer Minister’s Handbook

“Purpose: To train a PRO to give a ‘no answer’ to questions he has no wish to answer directly. …The trick is to appear to answer the question by giving generalized statements in simple terms so that the reporter doesn’t realize his question hasn’t been answered. … “Purpose: To train a PRO to be able to establish Ethics presence over an SP reporter if the occasion arises, by such things as shouting, banging, pointing, swearing. To do this completely causatively until the poor reporter is ‘caved in’. … “Purpose: To train the PRO to handle an SP reporter by word alone without the use of force as in (a). He uses the word as a rapier and plunges it at the reporter, so that the reporter introverts and drops the question.”
Ron Hubbard, HCOB 10 December 1969,Training Routines”

“Now you say you have to be absolutely truthful. Sincerity is the main thing, and truthfulness is the main thing and don’t lie to anybody …and you’ll get ahead. Brother you sure will. You’ll get ahead right on that cycle of action, right toward zero! It’s a trap not being able to prevaricate … This makes life more colorful!”
Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course, lecture “How to Talk to friends about Scientology.”

The key to focus in on is HARMFUL in the above quote. Who can be harmed without penalty in Scientology ? Who has no rights whatsoever and is to be destroyed ?

Hubbard goes on to say "Do not murder" but he exactly defines murder.

"There is a considerable difference between these two words “kill” and “murder.” A prohibition against all killing would rule out self-defense; it would tend to make it illegal to handle a serpent coiling to strike the baby; it would put a race on a diet of vegetables. I am sure you can see many illustrations of the difficulties raised by a prohibition against all killing.“Murder” is another thing entirely. By definition it means, “The unlawful killing of one (or more) human being by another, especially with malice aforethought.” Ron Hubbard WTH

He specifically ONLY discourages illegal killing.

He goes on to say "Do not harm a person of good will". What decides good will ? Who qualifies and how should you treat people who are not of good will ?

"The violent criminal, the propagandist, the sensation-seeking media all tend to distract one’s attention from the solid, everyday fact that the society would not run at all were it not for the individuals of good will."

Ron Hubbard WTH

So, he decided the media are not of good will, the "propagandist" . Let's look closer at that. ANYONE with ANY message is technically a propagandist. It does not ONLY mean liars and manipulative evil people . That is a modern slant on it but a Democrat may see a Republican as a propagandist and vice versa and a dissident may see BOTH Republicans and Democrats as propagandists within a corrupt system of institutional evil, propping it up. Who's right ? Well, they ALL are - the others ALL try to persuade people , honestly or not, so propagandist can be applied to ANYONE who communicates at all ever.

So, what decides who is of good will or not ? What lies are harmful ? And ultimately what is legal ? Hubbard answered it all - HIM.

Regarding obeying the law
"Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."
. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"

Regarding determining who should be considered a person of good will that deserves rights and to not have killing them classified as murder
"Show me any person who is critical of us and I’ll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate’s hair on end."
Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965

So ANYONE who is critical is labeled a criminal and low tone , meaning a suppressive person below 2.0 on his tone scale. How merciful is Hubbard toward people that try Scientology but just don't conform or fit in ?

"When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe - never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach... If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us -win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half minded about being Scientologists... When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare… The proper instruction attitude is, ‘We'd rather have you dead than incapable.’"
Ron Hubbard, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING, 7 February 1965, reissued 27 August 1980

"ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967
[SP = Suppressive Person a.k.a.critic of Scientology]


"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 21 October 1968, "Cancellation of Fair Game"

"A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable."
Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1)
"Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and
Scientologists"

"In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."
Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OFSURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145 [The "Tone Scale" is Scientology’s measure of mental and spiritual health.]

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."
Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

"The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the Tone Scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered."
Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

"A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country."
Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 171

"Unfortunately, it is all too often true that suppressors to a creative action must be removed before construction and creation takes place. Any person very high on the Tone Scale may level destruction toward a suppressor."
Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 159

So, within Hubbard's framework Scientology should decide what is legal, Scientology can remove quietly and without sorrow anyone that criticizes it , or Hubbard. Scientology can lie at anytime to control people and his enemies have no rights whatsoever. So, of course as they have no rights and asking for a refund is seen as suppressive, they have no rights to receive any refund . But it is fair in Scientology to deny rights to and lie to a person with no rights ! Simple really.

And remember what he said regarding Scientology's religious status.

"Scientology...is not a religion."
Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251

And remember the face he at first shows Scientologists, in the beginning.

"There is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves."
Ron Hubbard, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING. 7 February 1965, reissued 27 August 1980

"Our organizations are friendly. They are only here to help you."
  Ron Hubbard, "Dianetic Contract" 23 May 1969

"Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."
- Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"