|
|
|
|
|
By Out Of The Dark Source: http://groups.google.ch/group/alt.religion.scientology We know it is because of the death of Patrick W Desmond in GA but there is more ie) Narconon of Southern California in Warner Springs and they endangered a 'student' patient recently by not giving him his medically necessary prescribed medicines for more than a day ! ie) Narconon So Cal's Newport Beach facility is chronically overcapacity because they harbor patients at nite at other houses in the neighborhood and drive them back and forth during the day to shuffle sauna time. Look what they did to this guy: Search for Narconon here and read some the complaints of other victims |
|
Narconon Failed This Loving New Dad: Thanks for Nothing Narconon Source: http://narcononfailedlovingnewdad.blogspot.com/ June 1, 2008 My name is Daniel L. I had a problem with meth that almost cost me my family. I started using meth 2 1/2 years ago because I was so overwhelmed. I had met the women I wanted to spend the rest of my life with. We decided we wanted it all. She became pregnant, we moved to a new town, bought a house and were engaged to be married. My dreams had come true right down to having a son born with my blue eyes, but I felt overwhelmed and turn to meth to accomplish more, something I had committed never to do. Using drugs was something I adamantly did not want to do, drugs devastated my own childhood. Before my son was even born, I vowed that he would not have to go through what I did. Over time I tapered down my drug use. Still two years later I was about to loose everything. Until I had completely stopped for good, my drug use would forever come between me, my fiancee and our son. My fiancee and I are expecting again, this time a little girl, everything we both wanted. There was still one problem destroying everything. This time I realized I was going to loose everything if I did not stop. I was ready to kick my habit completely and was willing and wanting to get good help that would support me in my efforts. It was so important to me and my fiancee that we put every last dime we had into what we were told would be the right rehab for us. We were misrepresented. This is what I experienced while attending what was supposed to be a drug rehab program at Narconon Southern California in Newport Beach and Narconon Joshua Hills in Palm Desert, CA. We thought Narconon was a credible rehabilitation facility. My fiancee paid $20,000 for what turned out to be a place to brainwash people into thinking they should be in the Church of Scientology. My fiancee and I were told a bunch of lies in order to get us into the program. Instead of a quality rehab center with quality care and a good solid drub rehab program this is what I got. I left the program because the program was not like what we were told it would be and because I was sick with bronchitis and given no medical attention. My time at Narconon was one cult brainwashing session after another. First off I did my "detox" in Newport Beach. I was there two days from February 17 to February 19, 2008. This place was a zoo. It was so overcrowded that staff were running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Even the clients didn't know what they were supposed to be doing. There was no medical doctor on site nor was there 24 hour access to a medical doctor as promised. I saw a young guy sick coming off of heroin ask to see a doctor and staff told him he would have to wait until the next day. Staff started me in on their Scientology Training Routines asking me to name something in the room I could have. I named something and the staff member asked me to name something else, and something else. Finally when I had named everything in the room, I told her that was all, I had named everything in the room. The staff member said, " I will repeat the command again, name something in the room you can have." I told her to command this and I asked for a taxi to get me out of that place. I was not being aloud to speak to my fiancee. These were Scientology practices "training routines" and not the drug rehabilitation we paid for. Instead of getting me a taxi. Staff called David Heroin, the Senior director of Joshua Hills to come get me right away. When my fiancee called the head guy at Narconon Newport Beach to see how I was doing in detox, Scott Edwards lied to her, told her I had done great and that I had quickly excelled out of detox to residency at Joshua Hills. That afternoon, February 19, 2008, David Herion got us "lost" going from Newport Beach to where he lives at the Joshua Hills Narconon Residency in Palm Desert. After driving for what was supposed to be a 2 hour drive and arriving 6 1/2 hours later, I was exhausted and instructed to sign their no refund policy admission agreement before I was to get some rest. Just more manipulative Scientology practices. Again the facility at Joshua Hills was overcrowded. That next day was my only full day of doing the Narconon program at Joshua Hills. Narconon's program is not a drug rehabilitation program in the traditional sense or in any sense. The Narconon program consisted of taking vitamins, reading LRon Hubbard books and doing Scientology Training Routines. I found none of it to be useful or helpful or even relevant to drug/alcohol addiction recovery. I was at Narconon a total of 4 days and never heard the word rehabilitation, drugs, addiction or recovery. The only time I talked to anyone about drug addiction was when I talked to the other clients. The councilors never talked to me about drugs, rehabilitation, recovery, why I did drugs, my life or my family situation. My fiancee and I were told I would have individual therapy. The only time I ever had one on one time was when I signed admission papers. There were no individual therapy sessions. Those admission papers that I signed said I would be getting individual case management, alcohol and drug education and group sessions. That day at Joshua Hills, February 20, 2008, I read 5 hours of Study Routines and did the Training Routines also known as TR's instructed in 'Book 1.' The only group sessions they do at Narconon is people sitting in a room, reading L Ron Hubbard books together. Again this is not a group session in the tradition sense and we were lied to about the program. After having read 250 pages in Book 1, I found none of it to be useful. None of it was relevant to drug rehabilitation. I flipped ahead and found that nothing in the 800 page book had anything to do with drug rehabilitation or drug recovery. I asked other clients who were farther along in the program if they thought the readings were helpful and they told me they still were not applicable to drug rehab and no they were not helpful. Those clients told me they just do the book work so that they can be done and go into the sauna. These other clients were all in their early twenties. I am 32 years old. My fiancee and I were told by our recruiter that the other people in the program at Joshua Hills were of all ages. This turned out not to be true at all. I was the oldest person there. All the other students were significantly younger than me. They were immature juvenile types, throwing papers, acting up, not serious about seeking true recovery like I was. I faced loosing my family, everything I had built. I was counting on our money going to a real recovery program that I could benefit from. Book 1 directed the Training Routines of Bull-baiting. As you may have already heard about: I was to sit in a chair while other residents were told to call me names and make fun of me while I sat there and did nothing, which I did. The other residents told me I was "wearing thrift store clothes." And that the only reason I was there was because I was "gay and wanted to hang out in the sauna with a bunch of naked dicks." They called me names like, "cock-sucker." Is this what Narconon considers group sessions ? Again not what we paid for. Book 1 also directed the next TR. I was asked, "Do birds fly?" I would respond, "yes." And they would repeat the question over and over continuously, "Do birds fly? Do birds fly?" Do birds fly ?" Bull baiting: Being insulted and humiliated verbally while trying to maintain composure is part of the Scientology Training Routine drills written by founder L Ron Hubbard. My fiancee and I did not know and were never informed that Narconon is a program that uses unconventional and controversial specific Scientology practices unrelated to traditional drug rehabilitation methods. I was at Narconon 4 days and never heard the word rehabilitation, drugs, addiction, or recovery. The only time I talked to anyone about drug addiction was when I talked to the other clients. The councilors never talked to me about drugs, rehabilitation, or my recovery. When I arrived to Narconon I was on prescribed antibiotics for severe bronchitis. On my third day at Narconon, Wednesday February 19th, I asked to see a doctor because I had run out of antibiotics, I felt like I was getting worse and feared I might be getting pneumonia as my doctor at home had predicted. Before going to Narconon, my fiancee and I were told there would be 24 hour access to a medical doctor there. The staff at Joshua Hills told me I would see a doctor the next day. The next day, my last day at Narconon, I was driven two hours to see a doctor. When we got there I had no means to pay the doctor. I was not given any medical attention for my illness and I was taken back to Joshua Hills. When we arrived back I was told to redo all of the reading and TR's I had done the day before. Not because I had done them wrong, but for repetition. Feeling sick and needing medical attention, I asked for my belongings, signed out and began walking. Someone from Narconon picked me up and took me to the airport. Dave Herion told me we would get a refund because my stay with Narconon was brief, just 2 days in Newport Beach and 2 days in Palm Desert. We have been denied a refund by June Rosenberry, Narconon's Refund Coordinator, or as I like to call her their No Refund Coordinator. Just to show what they did I have scanned in the incompleted Admission Agreement contracts, which my fiancee (as financially responsible party and credit card holder) was never aware of until I was already back home after leaving the program. She has never signed these contracts their no refund policy, nor the credit card receipt. Also for your review is June Rosenberry's refund rejection letter. I have also scanned in the copy of their Consumer Service Policy June sent with rejection letter, which was never given to me or my fiancee until after we asked for a refund. Note in June's letter she tells my financee, Sarah, "Just as a drowning man fights the person who is trying to rescue him, so often does a person on drugs fight his would-be rescuer." She states that I said that I dont need a drug rehab, can't do bookwork, and showed no willingness to do program. Well, I went to Narconon looking for help on my own free will and if I had found the program, the workbook and the counselors helpful I would have continued the program. Well this "drowning man," (me) came home and directly signed up with a proper local rehabilitaion center. There I received the kind of support I needed; individual therapy, relevent reading material, relevent workbooks and group discussion about drug addition and recovery. I have a perfect attendance record to my current program. I was clean 3 weeks before going to Narconon. Narconon was overcrowded, was nothing like we were promised, and worse; Narconon turned out to be a front trying to pull people and funding into The Church of Scientology. Every bit of material we were made to read was written by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard. I came to find out that the materials and practices for the Narconon program are the same or similar to those which Scientologists study or practice for "religious" purposes as members of that "church". Most of the graduates become scientologists or staff at Narconon helping promote this scientology program. I left there for several reasons mainly because my fiancee and I had been manipulated and deceived and because Narconon was not what we were promised. I did not leave to use drugs and I was not on drugs for 3 weeks prior to arriving at Narconon. I have random drug tests dating back to when I left Narconon. All together 17 weeks, thats 4 months clean NO THANKS TO NARCONON, L RON HUBBORD or SCIENTOLOGY. A full refund from Narconon Southern California of Long Beach and Narconon Joshua Hills is in order. I got the help that I needed elsewhere and I am grateful for standard rehabilitation care programs like the one I am now in. Everyday I am thankful for my family. Sarah and I are expecting a baby girl this summer. Our son Dante is a wonderful, smart, loving, delightful little boy. I can not bare looking into my sons eyes thinking the Church of Scientology has what could be my son Dante's College Education funds. Narconon has not refunded us our $20,000 despite being promised. Others paid more money for the program and some have been refunded but they are holding out on us for no valid reason. All I can tell you readers is to beware of Narconon's deceptive trade practices. |
|
Chapter 7: Scientology EthicsSocial Control in Scientology, by Bob Penny
In Scientology, ethics is defined as "rationality toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" (parts of life, such as self, family, groups, etc.). The purpose of ethics is said to be "paving the way for getting tech in." Notice how that second sentence qualifies the first and frames how the definition of ethics is to be understood and applied in Scientology. In practice this turns out to mean getting statistics up. If a registrar brings in dollars then his ethics must be correct because dollars help Scientology survive and "get tech in," and of course the other dynamics (parts of life) will not survive without Scientology. That is ethics. There are formulas in Scientology by which one evaluates alternative courses of action and then announces publicly and acts on what he has decided to be the more ethical action. When done inside the group context, this ensures the decision will be seen in terms of Scientology's frame of reference, and non-Scientology considerations invalidated. The action most favorable to Scientology gets decided upon because it is favorable to Scientology, and therefore by definition ethical -- since nobody else has the tech. One cannot argue otherwise within the group without losing cachet. As the subject of ethics becomes externalized, the person's own sense of right and wrong gradually is invalidated and replaced by public procedures monitored and controlled by Scientology. Conflicts of value are held to be illusion, with the non-Scientology side false and unreal, not really you, just your "case," something to be resolved and overcome by additional "handling." If others would be harmed by an action, then it is not really them who would be harmed, just their case. One learns to dismiss any nonconformity as aberration and achieve personal distance from any alternative source of meaning. If I wish to help you, I put my attention on Scientology, not on you. This facile and self-serving logic isolates the Scientologist, like the Ugly American, behind a barrier of moral impenetrability, and justifies a pathetic and lonely arrogance. Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, describes it in these words: The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy cause. And though it be a faith of love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving nor humble. Ethics as an AssertionHubbard writes in The Auditor, No. 9, 1965: "...the only slim chance this planet has rests on a few slim shoulders, overworked, underpaid and fought -- the Scientologist." Such melodramatic imagery pervades and characterizes the writings of Scientology -- always unsubstantiated of course, except by assertion. But such assertions, and the crisis mentality they invoke, provide the short-circuit of thought necessary to override other values and sustain the anything we do is ethical modus operandi. Success stories, those socially expected expressions of gratitude to my auditor, the C/S, and most of all to LRH, provide immediate assurance that one is doing something worthwhile, and so justify not looking further. In turn, each participant is expected to mirror similar assurances to others. Scientologists tell each other constantly that they are ethical people because they are Scientologists. In contrast to this nobility of participation, lore about "Suppressive Persons" makes clear how one could be stigmatized as betrayer of all that is good and decent if any significant conflict with Scientology were to occur. To become or remain a valid group member, one must eventually rationalize, using such data as success stories, how the actions and viewpoints which result from Scientology involvement are ethical -- i.e., one must internalize the Church's interest as his own ethic. Scientology's asserted but unproven relevance to the buttons it uses for public relations, such as crime, insanity and drugs, provide an easy vocabulary for talk about ethics. The actual relevance of Scientology to such issues is not open to question or discussion within the group. Instead, we find any such questions diverted by vocal attacks on others, such as psychiatrists, and by inference on any who would question. Attacks on disagreement, even attacks on non-hostile but non-Hubbard ideas, comprise much of the activity of Scientology ethics. In the late 1970's a "teach your baby to read" program, temporarily popular among Scientologists and in no way hostile to Hubbard's ideas, was suppressed merely because it wasn't Scientology. The policy letter, "Keeping Scientology Working," a checklist for suppression of deviant thought, is included in every Scientology course and is itself the subject of a special course. One of its proscriptions is closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. Correct technology consists only of that already written by Mr. Hubbard and published in official Scientology bulletins and policies. The contrast between honest thought and Church authoritarianism is very clear, yet to be a valid group member one must learn to rationalize this away. Ethics as the Destruction of ValuesScientology's inability to tolerate disagreement makes it seem an act of loyalty to label others as enemy and to discredit non-group persons and values. In this authoritarian atmosphere, the Church is always right. In taking any independent position, the individual is always wrong. In the logic of Hard Sell, a clever person can produce an infinity of reasons why the individual is wrong-for-some-reason-or-other without regard to the facts of any particular situation. A common misdirection is to force attention off the issue and onto intentions and motives; anyone who is not gung ho must have evil intentions. Thus discourse is reduced to smearing, invalidating, or otherwise "disconnecting from" (generally: not seeing) those not of one's persuasion. For example, a Scientologist who saw a very early draft of these notes made no response at all to their content, but was horrified that I would discuss the group in non-group terms. I was told to see an ethics officer and get it "handled." Sacrifice of non-Scientology values is the normal currency of status enhancement (or brownie points), as in I trashed my business to buy more Church services. One must produce a satisfactory list on paper of proofs of contribution to be eligible for certain services, and items such as the above are quite acceptable. I divorced my wife (or husband) because she (or he) wasn't helping me get up the Bridge was one I heard more than once. In an ethics "handling," one is under immediate pressure from officials and/or peers to get this resolved. The group's culture provides facile justification for why it is OK to deny one's former associations and beliefs, and why what others might consider betrayal really isn't. With acute awareness of what others will approve, and under supervision from an ethics officer, the person decides how far he can go and an ethics handling is worked out. If necessary, there may be more handling until the person has appropriate realizations -- which the techniques of Hard Sell ensure that he will have. The individual's participation prevents the required change from being more than he can justify in view of his present commitment to the group, and thus inclining him to leave. But by keeping ethics in over the course of a person's career, his former identity can be eroded piecemeal, by numerous small accommodations, in each of which the present group pressure outweighs the sacrifice of more distant values. If he did not go far enough this time, well, there is always next time. The matters in question will be shown to work when we all agree that they did, so eventually one is going to have to assert agreement -- or leave. The social pressures involved (friendships, status, finishing what you started, validation for being a valuable being, not being wrong about something you invested so much in, the stigmas of betraying your group and "but I thought you loved your children...," etc.) encourage one to find how it could be that way and believe it and say so -- whatever the betrayals one must commit or nonsense one must find some way to believe. Products of Scientology ethics that I saw included people convinced their most ethical action was to obtain as many credit cards as possible and max them all out buying Scientology services. I met a woman who had gone through complex legal maneuvers to secure possession of a trust fund left by relatives to her children, and donate it to Scientology. A fellow, perhaps mentally retarded, had spent all his money on Scientology and had been sent more by his employer to get home. The registrars got it. Breaking trust and confidences with spouses, friends, or employers was a common ethical action (I saw a lot of "Liability Formulas"). I heard numerous brags about how "I got my husband to send X amount of money" or "we trashed our business to buy services" or "we sold our house", etc. My personal impression of people I met who had done such things is that they were scared and confused, having been intimidated by high pressure sales tactics and having yielded to the invalidation of whatever else had been important to them (perhaps after a heroic struggle with "suppressive" influences). They were hanging on desperately to the one thing they had left that people would validate and praise them for. The woman with the trust fund could not look me in the eye. Many of these were good and intelligent people for whom I felt genuine affection. One wonders what they might have accomplished had not their life's energy been short-circuited into this frenetic closed-circle race to justify each other's delusions. Personal IntegrityTo complete an ethics action, the individual may be required to strike an effective blow against the enemy then make public repentance within the group and petition for readmittance. Through such repentances and the realizations used to justify them, complicity is obtained in the compromise of other values in the person's life. The resulting vacuum of meaning is filled from the surrounding high-pressure ambience of "gung ho" and "dissemination," and the person then must convince himself so as to maintain personal integrity. The preemptive definition of personal integrity ("what is real for you is what is real in your own experience") functions as a normative injunction not to perceive or admit to coercion from within the Church. If it was coercion or trickery then it was not real for you, and of course you can never admit that. One's own reality is said to have a kind of separate and autonomous existence apart from realities mutually agreed upon with others. Thus anything, however self-serving or illusory, could be true for you in your own universe and used to justify ethical action against others or to justify not dealing with issues raised by others. Thus ethics can defend insanity or criminality, as long as group allegiance is not compromised. In fact, a virtue is made of disagreeing with agreed-upon meanings -- except, of course, there is never any virtue in disagreeing with Scientology. In this way, external viewpoints and standards of validity, and sometimes of legality, are defined as irrelevant. If you agree with something, or have been sold on agreeing with it, then it is true for you and any other evaluation or source of meaning should not be allowed to sway you. You are supposed to be steadfastly unreasonable and maintain your position. The meaning in practice of your own position is illustrated by how registrars make use if it: if you fail to allow influence by the Church then there is something wrong with you, but if you allow influence by non-Scientology ideas then you are compromising your personal integrity. I never heard anyone accused of violating his personal integrity because he gave money to a registrar. Advanced Skills of Being In-EthicsOne knows that his actions today may come up later on "security check" questions in auditing, such as "failed to apply Policy." This could include any failure to report another person's nonconformity ("knowledge reports" are Policy). Thus any relationship always has an implicit third party present, enforcing gung-ho compliance and enforcing one's enforcement of that compliance upon others. To prove his conformity and rightness, and to avoid appearing less than completely loyal, the experienced Scientologist learns to delicately reconcile the roles of disseminator and mark. As mark, he can never be good enough, sacrifice enough, donate enough. Whatever he has done, more can be asked -- and will be asked. Yet he cannot rebel or refuse. He must remain able to act from the viewpoint of the registrar and insist that no conceivable resource be held back. He is expected to demonstrate gratitude and loyalty to the group by actively cooperating with registrars, ethics officers, and others, and by accepting their viewpoints: we're both on the same team, I'm just here to help you get what you've said you want, and so on. Any other position is "ingratitude," and is undermined by the mark's own complicity. If any other position impinges on the situation, whether as moral scruples or as sales resistance, it is invalidated as merely a problem the person has with his personal integrity or ethics. The mark may save face if capitulation is negotiated in private, without visible representatives or reminders of any independent viewpoint or value. Thus he remains visibly in ethics. Knowing the registrar role, he knows what he must do to submit and cooperate with this invalidation. Isolated, and surrounded by a closing team (the most I personally observed was six on one), the individual is in a vulnerable position. He learns over time that he might as well concede in advance and internalize the destruction of value, so that no visible "counter-intention" need ever appear -- even, perhaps, in his or her own mind. To avoid conflict or dissonance, the mark learns to invalidate in advance any value of his own which might compete with a registrar's demands, just as he learns to maintain distance from any insufficiently gung ho friend. You know you are going to wind up agreeing anyway (you're used to it, good at it, proud of it), so you quickly figure how it could be that way, then proceed (rush, rush) straight ahead without looking off to either side. The special frame of reference which gives meaning to such things as "OT" misdirects attention away from the actual mechanics of the situation so one is able to believe that Scientology works every time. With practice, this can be done unselfconsciously and sincerely, without noticing the mental gymnastics involved. Such speed of understanding is a source of actual pride for many Scientologists. It reduces costs in auditing. This peculiar approach to evaluation of data helps preserve certainty that one is acting ethically. --------- Source: Social Control in Scientology / A look at the methods of entrapment by Bob Penny Available in PDF (35 pages, 99K) or PostScript formats(35 pages, 79K gzipped)
|
|
LA SCIENTOLOGIE DANS LES MÉDIAS
|
|
Un must : "Ron Hubbard, le gourou démasqué" Ce livre de Russell Miller révèle la face cachée de la scientologie. On y découvre un Ron Hubbard, malade, mythomane et poursuivi par la justice. Il est disponible en format pdf ou html sur notre site. Nous avons également publié une version résumée.
|
|
| [Accueil][Objectifs][Nouveautés][Pétitions][Témoignages][Faire un don][Articles médias][Jura et les sectes][La manipulation] |