Scientology Review by Steve Hall

by Steve Hall

Since our summit meeting at Casablanca 5 weeks ago, I’ve been working around the clock to make progress on some strategic marketing objectives for Independent Scientology. I broke up production into two phases, phase one was iScientology.org launched on October 12. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we received the loftiest compliment imaginable from the Church of Scientology who are now pretending to be us. The CoS purchased www.iscientology.com and pointed it to their website. Amazing! Like someone isn’t going to notice? It’s like Charles Manson meeting with the parole board and swearing he’s Brad Pitt.

Steve and folks at Casablanca

 

 

Now before I announce phase two, here’s a question addressed to everyone: before you buy something these days, do you not check consumerreviews first to bypass any false advertising?

 

Personally, I check consumer reviews before I buy anything — goods, services, movies, restaurants, cameras, cell phones, power tools, printers, computers, software, apps — you name it. These days there are consumer reviews for everything, except… Scientology (sound effect: cars crashing in the background).

 

The closest thing the Church has to honest consumer reviews are video testimonials and success stories that sound too good to be true. That isn’t what people want. What they want is authenticity, i.e. reality. One does not have to be a Scientologist to know that absolutes are unattainable. Not everyone likes chocolate; not everyone likes Scientology.

 

To a Scientologist the thought of presenting Scientology in the raw might seem alarming at first, but presenting things as they really are invokes the most powerful persuader of all: reality. There is really no trust until things get real. The Church can’t do raw consumer reviews because DM suckerfish smother everything with extortion and out tech.

 

For some reason in December 2009 having nothing to do with anything I’ve said yet (joke), probably was just a boyish whim after some auditing from Marty, I decided we needed a massive review and rating system “for everything Scientology” covering,

 

1. Every LRH book

2. Every LRH lecture series

3. Every auditing service on the Bridge

4. Every training service on the Bridge

5. Indie Scn auditors and centers

6. CoS service orgs

7. CoS management orgs (including OSA and RTC), and last but not least,

8. David Miscavige’s Greatest Hits…

 

(Cheesy Announcer, scroll titles:) “…featuring “Collectable” ASI Prints, Disconnection, Golden Age of Tech, The I-A-S, Ideal Orgs, the International Event Program, Library Donation Campaign, New Era of Management, 6-month checks, Super Power Project, Higher Production through forced abortions for Sea Org parents, and the Basics!”

 

A review system for all things Scientology was what I was originally alluding to when I said something big was coming in December 2009 for those who remember. I was originally going to put it into RediscoverScientology.com. Then I realized it was more appropriate for iScientology.org.

 

The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc. Reviewers must register before they can post a review. Registering enables the moderator to more quickly approve a review once he knows who the person is and trusts them. My secret moderators are already in place and they are people you know and trust.

 

What people want is unbiased and unvarnished user reviews. So that is what we are going to give them.

 

Reviews on orgs: 

 

A review/rating system will flank the effort to get in ethics by exposing abuses at curb level. I’ve even included management orgs so anyone who ever worked in an org can write a review on what it was like. I brought a new person into the Dallas org in 2008 and staff tried to badger her for a Ideal Org donation instead of having her read a book. My review on that event is going to leave a dark blotch in the eye of their reputation.

 

Churches are going to have to straighten up or get mummified. If someone had a good experience in an org, they can write that too. However, there’s an honesty check: each person who writes a review on an org has to answer this question, “The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).” It’s a mandatory question and will show up in the person’s review. Kind of a Catch-22 (“a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions”).

 

Auditing and Training Services: 

 

The keynote of Scientology is understanding — but without reality there isn’t any understanding. The problem with Church mis-marketing is that it lacks reality, and is infused with DM’s trademark “effort to overwhelm” — which is the closest thing David Miscavige has ever gotten to marketing.  That’s why the Church floods out promo — DM’s effort to overwhelm. Since field auditors don’t have registrars to enlighten people on books or services, why not let consumers do it themselves? It will be more useable than what minions could ever write because our consumer reviews will incorporate reality, the most important element.

 

Standard Tech:

 

A barrier to leaving the CoS is finding standard auditing and training. There isn’t any in the Church any more. So by listing Indie auditors and training centers and enabling their public to review them just as people now days review doctors and lawyers and professionals of all types, it will be clear to others that standard tech IS available in the field.

 

Driving in public:

 

LRH said orgs were never successful at “pulling in public.” He said he always had to “drive public in on orgs.” So instead of putting the review and rating system into iScientology.org, I have built an entirely new website in the last 4 weeks to drive people in on iScientology.org.

 

This new website will feature unbiased consumer reviews from actual Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. And you will be able to see who is who and understand the viewpoint that the person is writing from.

 

Reviews are “unbiased” meaning we won’t be editing them. That doesn’t mean we have to let let the Church inject lies or black PR — that’s would be the most biased content of all.

 

People can read the reviews and decide where they want to receive services — Independent Scientology or the Church. The website provides links to both. What could be more fair? But we’re also fair to the public because we tell them what they can expect from the Church.

 

By survey about half of the population is actively looking for philosophic or spiritual answers. Every month, more than 1.2 million people Google the word “scientology” and each one of those is a reach. That’s a river of people reaching for answers, finding nothing, and washing on down stream. Since the Church is incapable of helping anyone, I propose diverting that river of people into our front door and on up the Bridge.

 

Even a tiny percentage of 1.2 million people/month is a mind-boggling volume. Just 1% of 1.2 million is 12,000 people per month. Imagine our ranks expanding by 12,000 people each month. That won’t happen tomorrow. But it could happen in the future. It needs to happen. The doors onto the Bridge have never really been opened, not even in LRH’s day because the Church let themselves go PTS and they got repositioned by the enemy as a cult — DEATH by marketing.

 

But how could we ever handle such volume? Here’s how: New people must first be qualified by reading a book. If they won’t read a book, LRH says don’t waste your time with them. So all those 12,000 people must be directed to a book. Which one?

 

In the late ‘80s, Phil Anderson and I were responsible for marketing a book that was always FAR more popular than Dianetics with new public. With NO advertising it sold like crazy. It was easy to understand, blew people’s minds, hit all the right buttons, and through its pages it also provided auditing too straight from LRH.

 

Self Analysis

 

Self Analysis IS the only book that is actual self help. Dianetics is self help because it requires someone else to do it — a huge deal breaker that gave most book buyers a loss! Phil and I knew that in 1987, but Kaboom McTinyfists would not have it. So the Church of Scientology could never be convinced to promote the actual LRH book that people want. That just ain’t right.

 

Phil Anderson and I wasted two years trying to figure out a solution, but we couldn’t. Maybe that was because the only real solution would have been for some people to leave the Sea Org, start over from scratch, rebuild their personal lives outside the Church, analyze what to do, join together in a withering campaign to expose DM for the fraud he is, then come up with an alternative structure to supply services, market the hell out of it with it’s own logo and website, gather even more support, rekindle the failed purpose to bring greater understanding across the world, and with virtually no money devise some way of grabbing the world’s attention to direct thousands of people to read the right book. Maybe some day some people will do that. I wouldn’t know.

 

Back to the thread: So the new website will direct people to Self Analysis where LRH audits them right from the pages of the book. Next, Handbook for Preclears. Same thing. The church should be happy because they get to sell lots of books. They’d better be nice to us or we’ll tell people where they can download those books for free.

 

Now our public will not only be book buyers, they will be preclears who have had great auditing wins direct from Ron from the pages of those books. And what do you offer preclears?

 

Training! So that’s where we get involved. And we will route them to our Independent Scientology centers for training. This is 1950 all over again, but a lot better because we will be making auditors wholesale.

 

Re-opening the Bridge

 

The Church is like a giant rock sitting in the middle of a Mississippi flowing 1.2 million people/month. Nothing can go in so it just washes on downstream.

 

To bypass the Church and diverting that river of 1.2 million people/month actually onto the Bridge through our own lines, we must accomplish one simple thing: be on page one when people Google “scientology.”

 

If you Google “Scientology” today you will see the search produces 18 million search results. But only 10 results are displayed on page one. So, we need to somehow get into the top ten. That’s like running a marathon against 18 million people and finishing in the top ten.

 

If we can do that, we can re-open the Bridge. It is that simple and that important.

 

And it can be done. So here’s how.

 

These days, before people buy stuff, they consult consumer reviews. Google “LG TVs” or “Samsung appliances” or “Nikon cameras” — Google inserts consumer reviews right into PAGE ONE.

 

Once people discover there is a review and rating system for everything Scientology, they are going to come back many times to learn about other services on the Bridge. Now “iScientology.org” is not too hard to remember, but online, people go super simple. When they want to read more reviews they will simply Google “scientology reviews.”

 

That is significant because whomever owns “scientologyreviews.com” will have a golden ticket onto page one of Google and that means a shot at all 1.2 million people/month looking for good-quality Scientology information.

 

Of course the Church buys up thousands of domain names so they can prevent anything like this from ever happening.

 

They got out-smarted in December 2007 when I found they had missed “scientology-cult.com.” I bought it because at the time, “scientology cult” was the second most popular search phrase on the subject of scientology. Today, scientology-cult.com is #1 website for the search phrase “scientology-cult” — why? It’s right in our name. And so lightning struck DM right in the forehead.

 

So when I checked to find out if anyone owned “scientologyreviews.com” I knew the odds were stacked against us. It would be like opening a box of Cracker Jacks and finding the Hope Diamond. OSA has a program specifically to prevent this. Could lightning strike twice on the same forehead?

 

Think about what this $9 domain name could mean for us. It won’t happen overnight, but soon it could help us accomplish the only reason we ever had for attacking DM in the first place: To reopen the Bridge.

 

Scientologyreviews.com is ours.

 

By hosting the world’s only “unbiased consumer reviews on everything Scientology” at scientologyreviews.com we will eventually help people move onto and up the Bridge. Imagine driving thousands or even millions of people into Independent Scientology? Can it be done? Yes.

 

Now, over the last four years many people have asked how they can help. Here’s your answer. I need as many people as possible to create reviews at scientologyreviews.com. I need you personally to write reviews on each service you’ve done, each book and lecture series, and every org you’ve had recent experience with. If you were on staff somewhere, even in RTC or OSA, you can a review regarding your experience in the org.

 

There are now 310 topics on scientologyreviews.com each one with a little introduction explaining what it’s all about written by myself or Dan Koon.

 

If we had 100 reviews on every topic that is a total of 31,000 reviews. And that is more doable than you think.

 

I put in 400 hours building scientologyreviews.com and 215 hours on iScientology.org. I didn’t make a penny from any of this, and even took 5 weeks off from work to make this happen, forfeiting five weeks of my own income. I did that because these projects matter. I’m not asking anyone to send me money. I’m asking you to log just a small fraction of the hours I put in. From the bottom of my heart, if you value Independent Scientology, would you please do that for me and for yourself and for the world?

 

There are at least 1000 people reading this website right now. How do I know? Because when I launched iScientology.org by announcing it on this website, within an hour there were 1034 people online at iScientology.org.

 

So, let’s say you were able to write 5 reviews per hour. If 500 of us put in 100 hours each, that would give us 250,000 Scientology reviews online.

 

If 500 of us put in just 10 hours this weekend, that would get us 25,000 reviews — by Monday. With that DM could never catch up.

 

We need scores of reviews on every course, every auditing level, every book, every lecture series and every org that you have personal experience with.

 

Online, content is king. The biggest gorilla is first in line.  Launching our review website is a project worth pushing along because it will help get ethics in on orgs, enlighten people on their next step, encourage standard tech, repopulate the world with auditors, and re-open the Bridge to Clear and OT starting with Self Analysis.

 

Please contribute some time to this — a pleasant way to help! What you will be contributing to is everything we have worked for: the re-opening of the Bridge after David Miscavige had it totally locked down. And that is a contribution that will earn you “the proud knowingness of OT.”

 

Every review will be read by moderators before it is approved, so spammers and OSA need not apply. That junk will never make it past the eagle eyes of our Data Series sharp shooters (moderators) who can spot a Miscavige troll at 3,000 miles.

 

There’s no need to overhype everything like DM does. Just be real — you can freely say what is true for you. If you didn’t like a book or a course that much, just be honest. This is YOUR review.

Design
Most of LRH’s books and lectures were authored in the ‘50s. So the website has a ‘50s retro vibe. The Church has itself become a caricature, comical, stranger than fiction. And so the site reflects elements of that too. Even the logo has a bit of pulps in it: the font is called, “True Lies.” Result: it resonates and is alive.

 

From a marketing perspective, here is your chance to deliver the coup de grâce (death blow) to the Miscavige Empire of Corruption that has destroyed so many lives. Yesterday, DM cut us to pieces. Now the axe is in YOUR hands, its blade sharp. Oh, and by the way, in case anyone is wondering, THIS is marketing. Coming out with a new “release” every 5 minutes is not marketing, it’s confusion. Marketing is coming out with the one plan — the RIGHT one — and staying with it until the job is done.

 

Please reciprocate with your time.

 

This has to be done immediately because a review system is such a good idea, DM will probably try to copy it with bogus reviews of everything. We need to cut him off at the pass.

 

I’m counting on you.

 

Steve Hall

452 responses to “Scientology Review by Steve Hall

  1. Here’s my feedback:

    1. Overall concept and set up — awesome. Totally.

    2. Clip art resonates with some of the thoughts elsewhere (like, it’s the 50s all over again), but here’s a concern. First, the art I saw was exclusively Caucasian. I recommend the clip art include people of color in positive roles. Second, the women in the clip art seem to be in typical 50s roles — that is to say, visually secondary if not subservient to the males in the art who appear to be in charge. I recommend that women and men be shown in comparable proportions as in charge or leading. People will notice both of those things and some people will be put off. Third, would you want to have some special pages aimed at specific populations like blacks or Latinos, whom CoS, Inc. may be pushing on?

    3. Of course as a savvy marketer you will know to protect your domain name by prompt renewals whenever those come up. I have had situations where a competitor has snatched a domain out from under an organization when given the slightest opportunity, such as a lag in renewing with the registrar.

    4. I have mixed feelings about reviewers being required to answer a binary question on Miscavige, if I understood that part of the post correctly. If the review is about a book or service, why not leave it at that? I think that requiring such a position on every review may actually hinder what you are trying to achieve. As a different approach, why not have a totally separate rating area where leadership and management and staff of CoS, Inc. and Independent Scientology can be rated by people with direct experience? And instead of social/sociopath, which could read in terms of a false dichotomy in terms of research design, why not let people rate on a Likert scale? For example, on a scale of 1-10 that ranges from anti-social/sociopathic to highly social personality supporting and validating others, where would you rank say David Miscavige and then a follow up question of “Is your opinion based on first-hand experience, second-hand experience from someone you personally know and trust, or from the Internet or other sources?

    5. To me, this approach will put in place a fundamental and crucial missing stat — quality, authentic customer satisfaction ratings. Some stats are quantitative, but the ones that are qualitative matter just as much, maybe even more.

    So bravo on this quality piece of work!

    • …the art I saw was exclusively Caucasian. I recommend the clip art include people of color in positive roles.

      I’m black, and I’ve been a Scientologist for nearly 40 years. I’m not in the least offended by the clip art imagery that Steve used on the site. Frankly, I hadn’t even noticed the lack of people of color (in positive roles, no less), until you pointed it out. And for what it’s worth, I haven’t seen anything but positive reviews from the Scientologist women commenting here, so what’s your beef? Are you really that PTS to political correctness?

      • Thanks Ronnie. While lack of diversity imagery may not matter to the population segment / sample you describe, the target population is broader per Steve’s description: the site is a place anyone can go to get a product review / honest consumer report. Having visuals where a visitor can see “people who look like me doing things I’d like to be doing” can be one more “brush stroke” to make a site resonate with people subliminally (and not in a negative way) if not consciously.

        That broadly used visual strategy aims to connect the consumer with the product at a visceral level. I remember once on a trip noticing the very different pictures of people in grocery store aisle ads between Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona. By the time you get to northern Arizona, the ethnic mix of pictures suddenly includes a high number of Native American faces and families, for example. That’s not done by accident of course. It is done because it matters. It connects people with products.

        My other thought is that while many American and other viewers may like the 50s clip art, I’m not sure that it will work world-wide. If someone was born in the 80s or 90s in USA or born anytime in another country, what would their connection with the art be?

        Disclosure: I have worked many years with some aspects of advertising, diversity and multicultural work, and some professional website design.

        Emphasis: I may sound like I’m being critical. Please know that my intent is simply to give feedback that I hope may be of help, and if no one else agrees, that’s fine — not my call.

        • Friend, I’ve been an American (this lifetime) for nearly 60 years. I grew up in a country, that in large measure, really believed in this nation’s motto: E Pluribus Unum (from many, one). I believe in that.

          The recent push towards so-called ‘multi-culturalism’ in this country advocates for exactly the reverse, that is, defining people by their racial or ancient cultural origins. It encourages our people to celebrate and reinforce their ancient differences, rather than stand together on our shared national principles.

          My parents raised me to be proud of my family and our ancient historical roots, but it was understood that that was the distant past, and that our identity as Americans was first. I refuse to be hyphenated, or allow anyone to compartmentalize and separate me from my fellow Americans. It’s a suppressive act, as far as I’m concerned, and I won’t abide by it.

          One of the things I loved about Scientology from the very start, is that all people were assumed to be spirits, not bodies defined by differences of race, language, or culture. I was entirely equal with every other person in my local org, and no one ever defined me by what I looked like, or where I came from. I was accepted as a member because I saw the truth in the tech, and that’s all that ever mattered.

          Just as my ancient family origins matter less to me than my membership in the American community, so does my being an American take a back seat to my membership in the community of free thetans. Please don’t reduce me to physical definitions.

          • Thanks Ronnie. I share your values, but have a different perspective on multiculturalism. It may mean different things to different people. To me it means nothing at all having to do with labeling people or suppressing anyone. It’s the opposite of that — it is a commitment to saying that images, stereotypes, supposed identities do not matter — that everyone has a place at the table, so to speak. That everyone can lead, direct, succeed, etc. We are far past the stereotypes of the 1950s American Ozzie & Harriet / Leave it to Beaver era where the woman’s role was in the house and kitchen, and Father Knows Best.

            Amongst the group of us here, these issues may not matter, and we (probably most of us) hold an identity that we are spiritual beings, that we are “that which is aware of being aware.” But that’s not where a lot of the world is at, and if the world is the broader audience, then a proper gradient and sense of inclusiveness needs to be explicit.

            But I’m just repeating myself and I don’t want to grind on it. Eventually, dollar-to-a-dime bet, this issue will re-emerge from various angles. I’ve given my good faith, well-intentioned input — ’nuff said, and I am fine with the differing views. I get your viewpoints and do not invalidate them.

        • I got your point.
          However, I don’t think that foreign people will have problems with those illustrations.
          They are way better that artificial photograph as you’ll find at the “official” church website.
          The illustration make it fun to browse the site. I don’t think there will be anyone offended by them.
          Please see the site trough the eyes of people not your viewpoint as professional (bound to strict rules to be matched).
          I think Steve has done a good job. And the theme/template can be changed easily if he finds one day that it will serve the purpose of the site.
          For now it’s better than anything before. It communicates. It’s accepted and used. I like the theme. It gives Scientology the touch of fun and simplicity.

          • I’m foreigner and I have no problem with the design, I found it even funny! lol Like not take taking too seriously too, even if it looks to me to communicate “there is something here essentially useful for you here” :)

    • FOTF2012 —

      “Second, the women in the clip art seem to be in typical 50s roles — that is to say, visually secondary if not subservient to the males in the art who appear to be in charge.”

      I didn’t notice this and I’m a woman.

      • Let me ask the question another way. Would it have _bothered_ anyone to see art that showed women leading, that showed diversity, etc.? And if including certain kinds of diversity would (a) avoid a negative / neutral perception by some and (b) might add positive appeal for others, would marketing oppose doing that?

        In an American advertising mix that usually builds on multiculturalism, not addressing the broad base may stand out in an undesired way.

        I want the site to be very successful and I believe it will be. My intent is just to share that one perspective for consideration if it is of help.

        • Thanks FOTF. I have no issue with your perspective. I like the clip art Steve chose. I’ve studied quite a bit about the pulp era when LRH wrote and published his stories. I like the positioning, but that’s just my opinion. I have no problem with clip art from the era.

          • Dear All, I chose the clip art motif because that WAS the ’50s, like it or not — stereotypical, racially polarized, positioning women as objects in a man’s world. What you don’t get FOTF2012 is that this is humor. It’s poking fun at the era in which Scientology was created. This IS the backdrop to the arrival of Scientology in the world. And if you are a real techie, you might realize that era was very R6. The elder man smoking the pipe, the advice givers in suits, their dumb hats, couples living the “dream” of a new house. In 1950s, that stuff SOLVED everything. And in 1950 that stuff SOLVED nothing. These illustrations are very like mental image pictures in that I’ve carefully floated each one off the page to emphasize that they are pictures. Notice the subtle shadows.

            Fasten your safety belt.

            Part of the brilliance of Dianetics was the recognition that all of people’s angst, all their inhibitions, all their regrets, their grief, their losses, their pains, their insanities, their horrors… were all just pictures. ALL the horrible things that happened in the past from which people still suffered were actually merely pictures of what had occurred.

            If you want to boil down the whole of Dianetics to one simple concept, it is this: what you are looking at is just a picture. It can’t actually hurt you.

            And that is why all this works. It works in American and it works anywhere. And I’m not changing it because it’s PERFECT. It’s creative genius if I do say so myself.

            It works for people who understand and love Scientology, and it also works for people who hate Scientology. The lovers see the insight in it. The haters see the shallow irony. When a marketing man can put up a mock up on something as incendiary as Scientology and satisfy damn near everyone, that’s pretty good. If you are really a marketing person, you ought to be taking notes. Maybe you will learn something.

            I’m not promoting racism or inequality. I’m holding it up to scorn. Which is also why it works. Thanks Ronnie, TheWidowDenk, SKM and Ideal Goal.

            • “It works for people who understand and love Scientology, and it also works for people who hate Scientology. The lovers see the insight in it. The haters see the shallow irony. When a marketing man can put up a mock up on something as incendiary as Scientology and satisfy damn near everyone, that’s pretty good. If you are really a marketing person, you

              ought to be taking notes. Maybe you will learn something.”

              Steve, I’m taking notes and can totally see what you mean. It’s so true, the way I saw my dad treated my mom, and for that matter all my uncles and grandfathers, etc, thier attitudes toward women – all this rings soo true.

  2. Steve – you are phenomenal! LRH would be proud of you….and grateful….and relieved. The site is comprehensive and easy to follow – you have ensured the continuity of the subject more than any other. A couple of the reviews have me wanting to go back and re-read the books ! Wow !

  3. Just one comment on the whole “moderation” thing (although it looks like it has been beaten back, but, anyway):

    The man who created the website “Scientology-cult.com” created this site. Do you really think he would selectively edit out opinions or reviews that would go against Scientology?

    Also, at the end of the day, the whole success of the site depends on honestly. The whole premise of the site is honesty and honest opinions. Why would Steve want to do anything else than allow this to happen?

    • Thanks Grasshopper. As I said in the article introducing the entire thing, there is not only a virtue in honesty (reality) it’s the greatest virtue of all and can do more for us all than ANY thing else. Telling “acceptable truths” is bullshit. Scientology is the road to TRUTH. It’s about time someone resurrected it. And that someone is us — every person who posts on the site is truly doing just that. Love to you.

      • Steve, love to you to. Man, this is such an accomplishment – this and the iScientology site. This is the vector I can get behind. I love the “management” section of iScientology (http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/management). This is exactly how I got in. Scientology Delaware Valley in New Jersey was founded by two Class VIIIs who did their VI in St. Hill (and their VIII’s on the flagship, I believe). They were asked to join the SO by Ron, and turned him down, preferring to be independent. SDV had very good stats of people coming into Scientology and moving through the ranks.

        The mission/org that DM came up in was Ardmore – it seems always pretty squirrelly. When it became the Philly org back in the ’70s, we still went to New York for our exams on the Student Hat and HSDC courses.

        The missions/franchises were indeed vibrant, and that is the de facto model for the Indies, so how can we lose?

  4. Superb job Steve, many thanks to all those involved!!! I think you just took their queen, no actually, I think you have just started another game in 3d and left them still trying to figure out how to make fire. They don’t get the simplest Scientology basics, such as ARC, and compassion for your fellow man that comes with that. You guys (and gals) are way out there in front, please just keep doing what you are doing!!!

  5. Steve, I started counting the times “brilliant” was used to describe your work on Scientology Reviews, meaning “distinguished by unusual mental keenness or alertness” but I lost count and gave up.

    For those who have not yet posted a comment, here are some alternate thesaurus words for “brilliant” (NOT the Informal British “brilliant” = lovely, pleasant) but the American use as in “brilliant scientist”.

    We don’t want to get the word too worn out..

    “Einstein, accomplished, acute, astute, brainy, bright, clever, discerning, eggheaded, expert, genius, gifted, ingenious, intellectual, inventive, knowing, knowledgeable, masterly, penetrating, profound, quick, quick-witted, sharp, smart, talented, whip, whiz kid…”

    Glad you are back to marketing LRH’s works. Somewhere LRH is smiling.

    • Thanks Robert, very kind of you. Does everyone know that Robert Amblad once hired a PI to investigate David Miscavige in the early 1980s? This man has walked the walk.

    • Steve, this is accomplished, astute, bright, clever, GENIUS, incredible, amazing, dazzling, stupendous, insanely great, intense, forward-thinking, monumental, top-drawer, bully, professional, competent, and stellar!

      All these superlatives apply. Thanks, Robert, for pointing that out!

      • Well, heck STEVE, I’d even venture to say that amongst all of the other complimentary adjectives, what you did was/is a great way to execute AXIOM 10: The highest purpose in the Universe is the creation of an effect.
        Greta

  6. LRH books are very essential, as you know surely very well, Steve.

    Having them altered by DM, and knowing now what a suppressive person he is, I suppose that when he did, he made made it to satisfy his devil purposes at maximum.

    So, looks to me it is very important that anyone be aware of the changes, and that these changes been provided with each presentation of the book in the web site, if still directed towards CoS book store web sites.

    What about the copyrights for the original ones? What about to allow downloading e-copies of?

    • If there are places where people can download books for free, just let me know. Maybe Wikileaks? They have some odd stuff on there and I’m not sure it’s worth wading through the crap to find a book that can be gotten for a dollar on Amazon.

  7. Steve,
    You did it again! Awesome websites, I’ll be posting my reviews soon.

    Thank you for all you have done for us!!!

    Conrad

  8. Steve,
    I wanted to suggest to the neophyte what Scientology book to read first, but the Scientology books are listed in alphabetical order. As a totally new person to the subject, I would like you to list them in the order of suggested reading. Or sections like introduction, intermediate and advanced. Something like that…. nothing is perfect, but Admin dictionary as the first book is out-gradient or unreality. And, since I am giving advice, the last book, “What is Scientology” should have it’s own section: Books for Scientologists that can’t understand the subject and so need a pat on the back to feel better about the group they belong to…

    • I hear you Robert. Unfortunately I cannot put listings into a custom sequence without getting into complicated custom programming. However it is easy to change the name from “Admin Dictionary” to “Modern Management Dictionary” so now it’s down in the M’s and not the first one you see.

      I never liked WIS since its got DM’s “effort to overwhelm” in it instead of the effort to help people. One is an effort to back people off. The other, an effort to help them up. But it was an LRH ordered compilation.

      • Thanks Steve
        Understood on the re-do of categories. Maybe where it says “Details” at the top of the list of books you could put a guide of some sort, like * indicates this is an intro book and then put an * after each of those books. Something like that.

        I know when I bought my first books I needed some advice of where to start. Once I had read the books Dianetics: Evolution of a Science and Fundamentals of Thought then I was educated enough to be pretty much on my own.

        “What is Scientology” book, OK, I didn’t know LRH ordered the compilation of the 1993 book. Non-the-less, it does not belong in the same category as “book” because it can compete in the consumer’s mind with “LRH books” like Science of Survival and 8-8008 etc…. Maybe it could be called a compilation… but, no big deal… the new public can now read “Scientology Reviews” and avoid buying the “compilation”.

        For anyone who has not done this, Google “Scientology Reviews” with the quotes in place and look at all the well organized hits. It’s a sight to behold!!

        • I just googled scientologyreviews (no quotes) and got the following:

          Independent Scientology home
          scientologyreviews.com/

          It was the number 1 result and came up right under the corp church ads.

          Other Independent-oriented listings followed.

      • An easy solution may be to add to each book description a classification: E.g. Introductory, intermediate, advanced. In this way, to get a listing of all e.g. introductory books, people may search for “introductory”.

        • Yes, that’s a good idea. I’ll mark that one down. Someone else suggested putting dates in front — YYYY, MM — so that they would come up in chrono order. What do you think of that idea?

          • My suggestion for an easy solution was to add a classification word in each book “listing description” field, (but it looks like the classification word should be added in the “listing summary” field – not in the “listing description” field – ), so people could search for a classification word.

            However, the order of the books listing is based on the option selected in the “Ordering” (combo) box. It looks like each option of this box is composed by a (visible) caption, an ordering field, and an ordering sequence. So, to be able to order by dates, the date (YYYY MM) of each book should be put in an ordering field.

            Maybe the suggestion was to put the date (YYYY, MM) in front in the Title field, which is the default option in the “Ordering” (combo) box. However this idea does not look to be compatible with the alphabetic index used in http://www.scientologyreviews.com/component/jreviews/books_d6 because it looks like it is based on the Title field.

            Based on my reading of JReviews, it looks like to be able to have a chrono order, a possible solution may be to add a custom date field to your database, and add it as an option to the “Ordering” (combo) box.

            http://www.reviewsforjoomla.com/jreviews

            Custom Fields – Content Construction Kit (CCK)
            ◦ List pages can be sorted using custom fields (i.e. price)

          • Great idea, it would allow people who want to to read books in chronological order, which, as we know is very therapeutic.I am not thinking of DM’s ‘Basics’ but along the lines of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
            Greta

  9. This is an EXCELLENT idea. I do hope we can get people within Corporate Scientology involved as well. And have a fair and open discussion.

    Also, I think it would be a very good idea to encourage people here to use WOT (Web of Trust) to rate all of these sites (Marty’s, iScientology.org, scientology-cult.com, and scientologyreviews.com) themselves. This is a very popular tool to share with others the reliability of websites. Even search engines like DuckDuckGo.com are using this tool to give people information on searches about site reliability.

    Corporate Scientology sites have been demolished with this tool as people surf those sites. But if we get a positive (Green) WOT status soon on these sites, we can get people to see that “our” sites are different.

    WOT is an available add-on for Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, Opera, Safari and Internet Explorer web browsers. It works on Linux, Mac and Windows. It can be found at mywot.com. It’s a good tool to have for your own internet protection as it helps prevent phishing. But it also influences whether others will trust sites. You don’t need to get an account to use it.

  10. Question: Can 2 people register with the same email address?

  11. I only ever post on huge the stuff………………………this is huge

  12. Note: Several people registered buy never checked their email for the confirmation email. After you register, you have to click the link in that email to activate your own account. So, I just went through and activated everyone so there’s no stops. In the future I will try to find a system that notifies you better.

    • Maybe, the confirmation e-mails ended up in the spam folder, it happens frequently. People need to check their spam folder.
      The confirmation e-mail is the best way to avoid people registering with fake e-mail or with somebody else e-mail.

  13. Outstanding work, Steve.

  14. This is such a great idea! I’ve long thought it was a curious outpoint that you couldn’t find any honest discussions from active Scientologists online. For a group that supposedly prided itself on communication skills it’s own online attempts at communication were oddly stilted and disingenuous – take their cookie-cutter pages for individual members for example.

    That’s kind of funny about iscientology.com. They’ve really elected the independents as cause haven’t they?

  15. Off topic alert. The O.S.A. staff and volunteers seem to be crawling all over the Internet Forums and blogs. There is some kind of “all hands’ to enturbulate and generate conflict and stir up the sociopaths. I sense that David Miscavige is stressed out about something approaching or really pissed off about something that just happened. I’ve seen it before on the net but never like this. It’s like a rain storm! It must be an all hands!

    • Dear Oracle,
      To much,To Little, To Late.
      The ” Hole”is getting another double wide and fresh paint
      Purple walls and black ceiling.

      Col. Kurtz ( Miscavige ) has flipped out,
      the show is over

    • TO, yeah, they’ve been crawling like cockroaches on crack down here. I believe the cause and effect of it is quite patent if you take a slightly broader view – the cummulative effect of the events of the year 2012 (compounded by those of 09, 10, and 11). It is a rather predictable regression, imho.

    • And this, promoted already on Amazon and available in 2 months and written by his own nice, for sure doesn’t cheer up DM neither.

      “Beyond Belief: My Secret Life Inside Scientology and My Harrowing Escape by Jenna Miscavige Hill (Jan 29, 2013)”

    • I noticed recently that the Medusa site doesn’t have comments anymore – they can’t even fake a Greek Chorus!

    • The operating basis changed. You used to be able to spot them right away. Now it seems they connect and form into some kind of harmony over weeks or months and one forum, years. They are popping up like soldiers that have been buried under the sands. On one forum the membership climbed recently from 532 members to well over 600 and the posts dropped from over 1000 to a little over 50 per month from the suppression. I think David has swung from making ethics particles to a body count. I am wondering if their stat is a body count of people out here silenced. The latest tactic is not to attack or challenge the Scientologist directly, but to get two Scientologists pitted against one another, or groups of Scientologists pitted against one another to take each other out. They are pushing for a blood bath. I caution every one here to resist turning on a fellow Scientologist that is out of the Church.

  16. Looking at David Miscavige Programs, I noticed there are some genuine SO DM Programs missing …
    ¤ Musical chairs.
    ¤ Public (gang-bang style) sec checking and confession.
    ¤ RPF Miscavige style.
    ¤ The Hole.
    I wonder if they may be included in David Miscavige Programs …

  17. Steve, All I can save is BRAVO!!!

  18. Just another thought, to leave a place for just reviewing auditing as a whole as a subject, auditor training as a subject and also administrative training as two separate subjects. In other words, to review these general subjects.

  19. Steve,

    You got my first review!

  20. What a great idea and implementation of it. Thanks Steve!!! And the
    little think tank pictured above. Not only will this be so beneficial to
    the Indies but what a nice way to rehab wins and such tribute to LRH.
    Brilliant! or marked by unusual impressive intellectual acuteness. Just
    love it!!!

  21. How do you register? I don’t see a link that says “Register” or anything like it. I try to login, and it tells me that I need to first register, but it doesn’t provide a link for it (very frustrating). When I click on the PayPal Donate button, it provides a form made out to “Steve Hall Creative”. So, do I need to pay Steve Hall first before registering? Is this kind of a Scientology business model, i.e. no service until paid in full or “Free Service Equals Free Fall”?

    • Maybe Steve should change the “Login/Out” to “Register/Login/Out”

      1) Go to: http://scientologyreviews.com/
      2) Click: Login/Out (top, right).
      3) Click: >Don’t have an account? (bottom, left).
      4) Fill the User Registration form.
      5) Click: Register (bottom,left).
      6) Wait until you get your confirmation e-mail. Check your spam (or junk mail, etc.) folder if you don’t get it.
      7) Click the link in that email to activate your own account.

    • I got it, I got it.

      Go to the site called scientologyreviews. The link is above or you can google it exactly as I have written it here and then access it. It’s the first listing under the corp church ads.

      Under the section called WRITE A REVIEW! is a smaller box of a yellow/green color that says: “Register and get started now.”

      Click on that and you have a registration form to fill out. Do that and submit it. Then check your email and you will find an email confirming your registration. Click on the link in the email and you are done.

      LOL – No, you don’t need to pay Steve Hall first before registering.

      Good luck!

    • Bob,
      click on: scientologyreviews.com

      – in the middle is the following text:
      “WRITE A REVIEW!
      Just navigate to a listing (top), click “Write review.”
      We accept the good with the bad as long as it’s REAL.”

      – right UNDER it is written (gold-brown colored)
      “REGISTER AND GET STARTED NOW”
      click on it (stay on it, it can take a while) till the following side shows up:

      – “User Registration”.

      Good luck!

  22. I read the review on INCOMM. It doesn’t give the name of the person who wrote it. There are a couple of problems with it. First, it only talks about the TNT program of INCOMM. The person called it idiotic and ridiculous and it would seem the person writing the review has a lot of BPC on it. However, TNT was based on specific set of LRH advices. The review should be a little more objective and say what was good and bad about it. It also claims the program’s faults were due to Miscavige, when in actual fact he had little to do with the design and implementation of it. I think the reviews should be written more matter-of-factly like the Wikipedia articles. Save the BPC and HE&R for your ethics and auditing sessions.

    • The only thing to do about this is write your OWN review.

    • It is possible there isn’t Wikipedia HE and R because they don’t really have a clue about HEandR. Go make them aware of the things we have become aware of and then toss them out on the street unhandled and ask for a review. Standards are well and good but not superior to mercy and empathy.

    • When I see a staff member getting beaten or a woman forced to abort her own children, or the entire Flag-FOLO-Org line literally buried under a snow storm of dev-t personified from an unthinking computer program squawking hundreds of pages of paper a day with the result of staff no longer doing their jobs, but instead being forced to deal with the dev-t full time, maybe that isn’t “BPC” or “HE&R.” That’s called caring, caring about the right things and not giving a damn about the rest. That program undermined the Flag-FOLO-Org line and torpedoed thousands of innocent staff. I.e., the most colossal fail in Incomm history: it torpedoed orgs, torpedoed Flag management, and torpedoed Int management. It sounded great on paper. Maybe LRH’s idea was great. But that greatness did not make it into 1s and 0s. Didn’t happen to work AT ALL as implemented. I know, I was there. It was the greatest DEV-T factory in history.

      • I can confirm. I was there too. TNT was the greatest dev-t ever. LRH advices are just that, advices. To consider them policy it’s one of the greatest mistake that was ever done. See HCOPL THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION, WHAT IS POLICY and SAINT HILL PROGRAMS, HOW TO PROGRAM AN ORG. TNT should have been piloted, its bugs ironed out and then, if successful, implemented. Instead it was just implemented.

      • Thank you Steve for keeping it REAL! David’s curriculum vitae speaks for itself! His experience and qualifications to be leading anyone anywhere in the Scientology Arena is a nightmare. A messenger and a camera man succeeds Hubbard! Declares a “Golden Age” of tech! Establishes beggar units to run the Church! Turns the Int Base into a prison camp and becomes a pimp for a movie star. How appropriate.

        • Anon.on.your.side

          Is it possible that Miscavige was “placed” in his position, and is being “run” by a third party? His job appears to have been to remove anyone who is smart enough to see what he is doing, and courageous enough to object. If you look at this situation objectively, there is a billion dollar enterprise (maybe more), tax-free, able to operate with no outside governmental oversight. Add to that the purchase of unused, expensive buildings globally, and what do you have? If I was a cynic, I would say it was the perfect set up for money laundering.

      • Well, I didn’t work on TNT and am not here to defend it, however your post contains several exaggerations and generalities such as “torpedoed thousands of staff”. It just didn’t happen. More problems with TNT occured in areas where there was a lot of CI and non-compliance and false reports, which what is was supposed to do, i.e. hilite areas of non-compliance and off-policy. However, TNT had no way to tell if the problem was with the staff member or with the program itself. Yes, it could generate huge amounts of traffic as the result of duplicate order/nudges/chits, but that sort of bug could easily be solved by using modern databases and networks so that it’s decisions could be better coordinated. TNT was a little ahead of if it’s time. However, TNT was only ONE of many programs at the time, some of which were quite popular with the management level staff. As I recall, INCOMM had a pretty easy to use Word Processor, which was considered atypical given the other comple WPs of the time. INCOMM does not equal TNT (A = A = A). I think one of the problems with TNT is that the bar for what it should do was set too high given the limitations of computer technology circa 1983. Perhaps the first version should have just tracked status of program targets; that would have been doable and somewhat useful.

        LRH’s vision was to bypass middle management completely, as it had broken down so many times in the past, by setting up an international network of computer systems that could run completely autonomously and manage all the orgs on the planet. The computer advices were some of the most mind-blowing stuff ever written. So, don’t let one overt product get in the way of the bigger picture. Although Miscavige would make J&D comments about INCOMM staff, most of them were quite intelligent and hardworking, and many of them had lots of indsutry experience and/or advanced computer science degrees (OT 5 Chuck Prenner even had a Harvard PhD in Computer Science, but unfortunately he had to be routed out of the org due to a psychotic break).

        The real problem with INCOMM was it’s waste and mismanagement of good staff members. Would you judge Gold based on one overt product or judge CMU based on one failed marketing campaign??? THAT’s the real story to tell. INCOMM acomplished a lot in it’s first few years (1982-1985), bu the main reason INCOMM never achieved it’s larger purpose is that it’s top staff were constantly ripped off or FB’ed out of the Sea Org. The final nail in the coffin was the raid of INCOMM in 1995 by RTC and CMOI – the Valentine’s Day Massacre, and THAT was directly caused by Miscavige. INCOMM these days is nothing but a shell of it former self.

  23. About the sociopath question, an OSA troll couldn’t answer “DM is a sociopath.”?
    If he is a spy, he’ll be forgiven, no? Or what kind of a shit spy is that? Fearing sec check that he would really have meant it? Even in WW2 a russian spy in Germany could say “heil Hitler”, yeah, but maybe he would wind up in gulag. Totalitarian logic…

  24. Moderator – sorry I posted the above on the wrong thread. I reposted it on the correct one – please delete it since it is not appropriate here. Thanks – Mimsey

  25. Steve I don’t seem to be able to register for scientologyreviews.com. I use Firefox as a browser and believe that I am following the directions exactly. Is there a delay in getting OKed?

  26. Steve Hall,
    Very well done on the website. I shall write a review of my OT8 experience in 1988 aboard the Freewinds.
    George M. White

  27. Steve is Very Talented

  28. Steve, this is brilliant! You are a genius! You are helping to do with Independent Scientology that which LRH originally envisioned, which means hope and help for us all. I appreciate this more than words can express.

    “Christmas comes early!!” :-)

  29. Steve, you are a genius.

  30. Terril park gave me a 1974 reprint of Self analysis as a gift. With the 1966 text.

  31. Pingback: Scientology Bewertungen | Der Treffpunkt

  32. It means that each time we interact with another person, we are directly or indirectly teaching them
    that it is easier to avoid talking about money then
    deal with it. She had been faithful to him for 35 years; now it
    was his turn to give the system the opportunity to learn from
    each difficult interaction. But our thirst for desire, romance and
    life-changing get your husband back is more prominent than ever before, the experts say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s