Tony Ortega: Jeff Hawkins Helps Us Get Our Scientology Ethics In

Discussion in 'Media' started by The Wrong Guy, Oct 17, 2013.

  1. The Wrong Guy Member

    Starting Today: Jefferson Hawkins Helps Us Get Our Scientology Ethics In!

    By Tony Ortega


    Jefferson Hawkins was once the top marketing executive for the Church of Scientology and helped it reach its greatest extent with the famous “volcano” TV ads in the 1980s. He’s told his tale of getting into and out of the church with his excellent books Counterfeit Dreams and Leaving Scientology, and he’s helping us understand the upside-down world of Scientology “ethics.”

    Jeff, we’re thrilled that you’ve offered to help us slog through L. Ron Hubbard’s book Introduction to Scientology Ethics. If there’s one subject we’d like to have a better understanding of, it’s the complex system of control that Hubbard invented. One of the things that non-Scientologists have trouble understanding is how Scientologists can talk so much about “ethics” and yet do things that a normal person would consider unethical — such as disconnection, the RPF, participating in shady business deals, and a host of other questionable actions. Do they have a different definition of “ethics” than the rest of us?

    JEFFERSON: Very much so, and this is the book where Hubbard lays out his own definition of ethics and his system of “getting one’s ethics in.”

    The normal dictionary definition of “ethics” is “moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.” It’s our “moral compass,” if you will. It’s that inner voice that tells us if something is right or wrong. In Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Hubbard’s goal is to replace a person’s normal sense of ethics with his own Scientology system, his “technology of ethics.”

    The article continues with open comments here:
    • Like Like x 9
  2. Pretty good stuff from Tony O today, and from Jeff Hawkins.

    Wonder why it took him so long to spot what the phat phraud was up to, though. I guarantee it took me only seconds, not 20 years.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. moarxenu Member

    I have been waiting for an analysis of Scientology Ethics for the last two years. Jeff Hawkins will do a GREAT job.
    • Like Like x 7
  4. jensting Member

    Photo of Jeff looks great
    He's got a book or two out, that might answer the question?
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Well, I've read Jeff's Counterfeit Dreams, but admittedly that was some time ago.

    At one level, my question is of course, somewhat crass (because I know about cult recruitment tactics), but on another, when you look at Hubbard's writings, and consider just how much of such BS most Americans of Jeff's generation had already been exposed to by other scammers and wannabe gurus, it does make me wonder.

    Tell me honestly, Jens - as a never-in, how much of Hubbard's crap did you read before you knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the man was a fraud?

    I will read Jeff's contributions avidly,because it's really good so far, and there is much more to say about manipulative use of language. If he didn't get it then, I'm pretty certain he gets it now. What I hope will be most rewarding is the quality and detail of Jeff's analysis. More power to your elbow, Jeff!
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    Ya think?
    "I sometimes advise people who are recently out of Scientology to stop using the terminology, and stop thinking in the terminology. That's not because the terminology is “wrong,” or “bad” necessarily, but some of the words and phrases may function as thought-terminating clichés. If you deliberately avoid talking and thinking in the terminology for a while, you force yourself to think things through newly rather than falling back on a pat phrase." from Leaving Scientology: A Practical Guide to Escape and Recovery Jefferson Hawkins, Hawkeye Publishing Co., June 7, ASIN: B0089SHGJI
    • Like Like x 4
  7. ^It's a matter of opinion here, but I do lean towards the notion that Jeff knows whereof he speaks - especially since he was a marketing guy. (It's always slightly risky placing too much trust in what those guys say, and much, much moreso for Scilons, but I guess we'll see as Jeff expands on his theme on Tony's blog.)
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 3
  9. jensting Member

    Me2! Maybe I should re-read it, it is very well written.
    Dunno, to be honest. I was brought up proper and never had the opportunity to give Hubbard an unbiased hearing.
    • Like Like x 6
  10. Anonymous Member

    As a never-in, I got as far as about a half-hour perusal of scientology dawt org. When I encountered both "Scientology doesn't conflict with any other religion" and "man's salvation is found in him alone" I stopped right there. There's no reason to listen to an obviously dishonest source (or Source, either). That's when I went out searching the rest of the web to find out what the real scoop was.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. moarxenu Member

    I want to put in a plug for Jeff's other book Leaving Scientology: A Practical Guide to Escape and Recovery


    Though Jeff wrote this specifically addressed to culties and to exes working with culties to get them out it is extremely valuable for anons and critics. It zeroes in on the key issues of doubt for culties.

    He not only handles issues and arguments superbly but also addresses how to talk about them.

    Since he is writing for culties he makes no special effort to make accommodation for wogs.

    However, he generally keeps his writing jargon-free and has one of the best basic glossaries I have seen.

    Leaving Scientology has been over-shadowed by Counterfeit Dreams, but deserves to be read and in some ways is more relevant to our interests.

    Highly recommended.
    • Like Like x 4
  12. jensting Member

    • Like Like x 1
  13. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jefferson Hawkins on Scientology Ethics: Let’s Get Utilitarian!

    By Tony Ortega

    JEFFERSON: This week, I thought we’d take up the next three sections of the book, up to the end of Chapter One. These all kind of hang together and serve to introduce a major lynchpin of Hubbard’s ethics system, “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.”

    THE BUNKER: That’s a timely subject. We were just hearing in court yesterday about how the Church used that rationale to convince Laura DeCrescenzo to have an abortion at only 17.

    JEFFERSON: Exactly. And Hubbard leads us into it gradually. The first section is an interesting one, called “Gradient Scales of Right and Wrong.” Hubbard probably has the honor of being the first to apply multi-valued or “fuzzy” logic to the subject of ethics. His premise is this: There can be no such thing as absolute right or absolute wrong. He concludes:

    Terms like good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong, are used only in conjunction with gradient scales.

    In other words, you may think you know what is right and what is wrong, but you don’t. It’s “fuzzy.” The only answer, therefore, to the question, “is it wrong to do this?” is “it depends…”

    The article continues with open comments here:
    • Like Like x 4
  14. The Wrong Guy Member

    Honesty in Scientology: Jefferson Hawkins Helps Us With Another Ethical Quandary

    By Tony Ortega

    Last week you eased us into the dynamics as we continued to read into Introduction to Scientology Ethics. What’s next for us, Jefferson?

    JEFFERSON: This week we’re looking at Chapter 2, innocently titled “Honesty,” which introduces some of the main concepts of Scientology Ethics: overts, withholds and motivators.

    THE BUNKER: Let’s define those terms for the newcomers.

    JEFFERSON: This is part of the specialized language of Scientology. Fortunately, the chapter begins by providing a list of definitions. An “overt,” we are told, is “a harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group.” That’s pretty straightforward. And “withhold” is “an overt act that the person committed that he or she is not talking about.”

    “Motivator” is a bit trickier. It is defined as “an act received by the person or individual causing injury, reduction or degradation of his beingness, person, associations or dynamics.” That’s a complicated way to say “a harmful act done to you.” This is the idea of “pulling it in.” In Scientology, harmful acts against oneself are “pulled in” by the individual to justify his or her own overts. Hubbard states it this way:

    …when a person commits an overt, he will then believe he’s got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. For instance, if he hits somebody, he will tell you immediately that he has been hit by the person, even when he has not been.

    This is a key concept in Scientology. If someone starts complaining about something, or claiming he has been harmed by something, then they are regarded as a “victim,” as “motivatorish” and are asked “what did you do to pull that in” or “do you have a similar overt of your own.” It’s immediately turned around on them.

    Continued with open comments here:
    • Like Like x 4
  15. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jefferson Hawkins, 35 years in Scientology Inc "Sea Org" Part 1

    Published by SurvivingScientology on October 31, 2013

    Jeff Hawkins and I talk on video cam. This is the first of a series of six interviews with Jeff.

    Jeff was physically punched by Miscavige half a dozen times. In this video he explains how it goes down and I tell a new story on DM violence previously unpublished.

    I also invite people who want to share their Scientology experience to write to me if they would like to share their experience on YouTube via video cam and Skype.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. The Wrong Guy Member

    Statistically Speaking: Jefferson Hawkins Takes Us Into Scientology’s Numbers Fixation

    By Tony Ortega

    Jefferson, where are you taking us today?

    JEFFERSON: This week we’re covering Chapter 3 of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, which deals mostly with statistics. It’s a pretty detailed description of the importance of keeping statistics, exactly how you graph them, and how you determine statistic trends.

    THE BUNKER: Anyone who has spent any time around Scientology is well aware of its fixation on weekly statistics. And anyone who has spent any time as a Scientology staff member knows the stress that is associated with Thursday at 2:00pm — the day and time that the “weekly statistics” are turned in. But what does this have to do with the subject of ethics?

    JEFFERSON: As a staff member, I never questioned that the subject of statistics would be part of a book on Scientology Ethics, but if you step back for a second, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why would you have such a detailed description of how to keep statistics and how to graph statistics in the context of a discussion of ethics, of right and wrong choices in life? What do statistics have to do with ethics at all?

    THE BUNKER: It does seem out of place for a book on ethics. So why is it included?

    JEFFERSON: A couple of weeks ago, we were talking about utilitarian ethics, and I mentioned in passing something called “state consequentialism.” Consequentialism, broadly speaking, is the idea that the consequences of one’s actions are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. In other words, the end justifies the means. State consequentialism, according to Wikipedia, is “an ethical theory which evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the welfare of a state.” Specifically, anything that contributes to the order, material wealth, or population increase of the state is considered “ethical.” That is, anything that contributes to “the stats” of the state.

    THE BUNKER: So anything that contributes to Scientology’s stats is considered ethical?

    JEFFERSON: Right. Hubbard makes it clear later in the book that the end product of his ethics system is increased statistics. How you get those increased statistics does not matter.

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 2
  17. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jefferson Hawkins Drops In To See What Condition Our Scientology Condition Is In

    By Tony Ortega

    JEFFERSON: This week we’re taking up Chapters 4 and 5 of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, which cover Hubbard’s “Ethics Conditions.”

    Some people might not know the history of these Ethics Conditions. It started in May, 1965 with a Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture called “The Five Conditions” where Hubbard laid out the Conditions Formulas for his original five Ethics Conditions, in descending order:

    Normal Operation

    Continued at
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Anonymous Member

    Great, now I have the song stuck in my head.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. JohnnyRUClear Member

    I grew up being aware of the song but was amazed when I learned who sang it.

    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member

    There were two types of 'psychedelic' bands in the 60s: those who actually did acid--think the Airplane and the Dead, and those who took the light shows and weird studio effects and called it psychedelic, such as Strawberry Alarm Clock and First Edition.
    There was never any doubt which category the bands belonged to.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Anonymous Member

    Makes sense to me.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Jeff is a great example of the situation the cult is in now: the intelligent, rational people have caught on and left; the ones still in are the oxygen-deprived saucer-eyes who can't wait to put what's left of their wallets into the latest wine press and give until it hurts -- and then give MOAR! -- for that old planetary clearing that's been coming any day now since the 1960s.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. The Wrong Guy Member

    The “Ethics” of Political Power: Scientology’s Worship of Ruthlessness

    By Tony Ortega

    Where are we going today in L. Ron Hubbard’s world of ethics, Jeff?

    JEFFERSON: This week we have a treat — Scientology leader David Miscavige’s favorite L. Ron Hubbard essay. It’s Chapter 6 of the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and it’s called “Responsibilities of Leaders.”

    THE BUNKER: Really? Miscavige’s favorite essay?

    JEFFERSON: I’m not joking. He had everyone on the Base read it and word clear it many, many times. If you disrespected him in any way you got crammed on it. If you failed to comply with his orders you got crammed on it. And one year, he even sent specially bound copies to all of the top celebrities so they would know what was expected of them.

    THE BUNKER: And by “word clearing,” you mean look up every unfamiliar word in a dictionary, a Scientology obsession. So what is this essay about?

    JEFFERSON: It’s about power, which, as we covered last week, Hubbard considered to be the highest “Ethics Condition.” Ostensibly, the essay is a book review. Hubbard had read a book called The Four Seasons of Manuela, written in 1952 by Victor Wolfgang von Hagen, which was a biography of Simon Bolivar, the South American revolutionary leader, and his mistress, Manuela Sáenz.

    He states at the beginning that he considers that Bolivar and Sáenz “failed.” It’s interesting that a lot of Hubbard’s philosophical ramblings begin with the premise that this or that philosopher or historical figure “failed.” His main yardstick for failure in this case seems to be that they both “died in poverty.” Sure, they achieved their goal of liberating South America, but they didn’t then consolidate their personal power or use it to make a fortune for themselves, their family and close supporters. So in Hubbard’s mind, they failed! He then does a lengthy analysis of what he considered the “errors” of Bolivar and Sáenz.

    THE BUNKER: That seems a bit ironic, considering Hubbard’s condition at the end of his own life. What did he see as Bolivar’s failings?

    JEFFERSON: In Hubbard’s view, Bolivar was a supremely vain, idealistic man who thought he could “glow things right” but who lacked the practical organizational skills and the ruthlessness to ensure political and personal victory. As an example, he thought Bolivar should have sequestered all of the property of the royalists (those who supported Spain) so that he could give it to his own friends and supporters. And he suggested that Bolivar should have appointed his officers and supporters to all key government positions, thus ensuring complete control of the wealth and power of the nation.

    He also suggests that Bolivar should have killed his political enemies. Literally. He says:

    [Bolivar] never began to recognize a suppressive and never considered anyone needed killing except on a battlefield.

    And he further criticizes Bolivar for not “suborning or taking out” the Catholic Church, which was allied with Spain — and taking all of their property as well.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 3
  24. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  25. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jefferson Hawkins Explains the Ethics of Scientology’s “Suppressive Person”

    By Tony Ortega

    Where are you taking us next, Jeff?

    JEFFERSON: This week, we’re taking up Chapter 7 of the Ethics book, “The Basics of Suppression.” We’ll actually split this chapter into two articles, one on Suppressive Persons, and another, next week, on Potential Trouble Sources. Both concepts are so integral to the Scientology control system that they each deserve their own analysis. So this week, we’ll take up Suppressives.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 4
  26. The Wrong Guy Member

    How Does Scientology Take Over a Mind? Jefferson Hawkins Tells Us About “PTS”

    By Tony Ortega

    Where are you taking us this week, Jeff?

    JEFFERSON: Last week, we looked at the first half of Chapter 7, all about the Suppressive Person. This week, we’re taking a look at the second part of that chapter, Potential Trouble Source, or PTS.

    THE BUNKER: Walk us through the concept of PTS and why it was first devised.

    JEFFERSON: One of the hallmarks of any authoritarian group or cult is information control, or, as Robert Jay Lifton calls it, milieu control. They have to be able to control the information that their members receive, and particularly to block them from receiving any negative information about the group or its leaders. An authoritarian group or cult can only exist in a bubble of controlled, positive information.

    THE BUNKER: I can understand how that is done in, say, North Korea, where the government controls the media, but how do you accomplish that in a free society, where information is readily available — particularly with the Internet?

    JEFFERSON: As Orwell pointed out in his novel 1984, “mind control” is not someone else controlling your mind, like a robot. True mind control is the person controlling his or her own mind according to the dictates of the group. This is done using thought-stopping mechanisms. Orwell uses the term “crimestop” to describe this. He says,

    Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.

    In Combatting Cult Mind Control, Steve Hassan says:

    If information transmitted to a cult member is perceived as an attack on either the leader, the doctrine, or the group, a hostile wall goes up. Members are trained to disbelieve any criticism…

    The SP-PTS “technology” is how Scientologists are trained to avoid, ignore and not listen to anything critical of Scientology or Hubbard. This thought-stopping began with the definition of a Suppressive Person, which we covered last week. This is an evil being who seeks to suppress, or squash, “any betterment activity or group.” According to Hubbard’s definition, they delight in keeping people down and preventing people from getting better. A Potential Trouble Source, then, is

    A person who is in some way connected to and being adversely affected by a suppressive person. He is called a potential trouble source because he can be a lot of trouble to himself and to others.

    If you are connected to a SP in any way, if anyone you know is critical of Scientology or Hubbard, then you are “PTS.”

    THE BUNKER: And that includes reading any negative news stories, watching negative TV programs, or visiting negative sites on the internet — like our own Underground Bunker.

    JEFFERSON: Yes, anything that is critical of Scientology is, of course, the work of an SP. If you read it or watch it or listen to it, you are therefore “PTS.”

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 2
  27. The Wrong Guy Member

    Scientology’s snitching culture: Jefferson Hawkins explains the ‘Knowledge Report’

    One of the things we’ve tried to do, in our radio and television interviews, is make people understand what a paranoid culture of snitching that Scientology promotes among its members. It’s really something that the rest of the media rarely ever explains, but we think it’s one of the most characteristic results of L. Ron Hubbard’s “ethics” rules. This week, in our ongoing series, Jeff helps us see where that idea of turning in your friends, family, and neighbors comes from.

    JEFFERSON: this week we’re having a look at Chapter 9 of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, “Ethics Reports.” This is a short chapter, but a vital one in the overall system of Scientology ethics. This is where Scientologists are taught to report on each other.

    THE BUNKER: You mean, the infamous “Knowledge Reports”?

    JEFFERSON: We know historically that one of the characteristics of any totalitarian, dystopian society is the degree to which citizens spy on each other and report each other to the authorities. This was the case in Nazi Germany, where the Hitler Youth were trained to spy on their own parents and neighbors. In the Soviet Union, citizens reported on those who they considered to be suspicious, disloyal, counter-revolutionary elements, and they were then arrested and sent to the gulags. The East German Stasi, which has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies to ever have existed, had as one of its main tasks spying on the population through a vast network of citizen-informants.

    THE BUNKER: Big Brother is watching you!

    JEFFERSON: Yes, and little brother too. Orwell describes this vividly in 1984:

    It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which the Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — “child hero” was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and denounced his parents to the Thought Police.

    This is a mechanism that is also common to cults. In his Combatting Cult Mind Control, Steven Hassan notes that this is an important part of information control:

    Information control also extends across all relationships. People are not allowed to talk to each other about anything critical of the leader, doctrine, or organization. Members must spy on each other and report improper activities or comments to leaders.

    THE BUNKER: So how does L. Ron Hubbard sell this to the faithful?

    JEFFERSON: Very cleverly. He presents it in terms of responsibility and control, two things that are highly valued by Scientologists. To control one’s environment, he argues, one must take responsibility for what goes on around one. Sounds pretty good so far. Then, as usual, he states it as a technical breakthrough based on his research:

    In analyzing countless numbers of groups with whom it has been my good fortune — or misfortune — to be associated, I finally isolated ONE factor which made an upstat group upstat and a downstat group downstat and a horror to be around. The single most notable difference between an upstat, easy-to-live-and-work-with group and a downstat, hard-to-live-and-work-with group is that the individual group members themselves enforce the action and mores of the group.

    So if you deputize everyone as a part of your internal policing network, anyone who steps out of line can be instantly spotted and handled. Hubbard adds:

    Those who would have a tendency to wreak havoc or loaf don’t dare. And the group becomes easy to live with and work with.

    THE BUNKER: I feel safer already!

    JEFFERSON: Next, Hubbard lays out how these “Knowledge Reports” will be enforced.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jeff Hawkins: How Scientology’s ‘Third Party Law’ explains anything they want it to

    JEFFERSON: This week we’re taking up Chapter 10 of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, which is all about Hubbard’s “Third Party Law.” This is a short chapter so we’ll make it a short critique.

    THE BUNKER: Help those of us who have never been in Scientology understand what the Third Party Law is.

    JEFFERSON: Sure. L. Ron Hubbard starts by stating that he has studied the causes of violence and conflict for “a very long time.” He concludes that there must be an unknown natural law which underlies all conflicts and which is the root cause of all conflict. He then states this law — in all caps, of course — as:



    Of course, in typical Hubbard fashion, he states this as an absolute law, true in every single case. And he offers no supporting evidence whatsoever. He gives a couple of examples, which he simply makes up. In one, a rancher and a farmer are in conflict. Lo and behold, it turns out that the local banker is playing them off against each other!

    THE BUNKER: Sounds like a plot right out of the pages of one of his potboiler westerns. So Hubbard says there is no other reason for conflict except a hidden Third Party?

    JEFFERSON: Exactly. But even a cursory look at conflict theory reveals that there are many potential reasons for conflict: competition for scarce resources, social injustice, a clash of beliefs, ethnic or cultural differences, social change, poor communication, differences in values or morals, and so on. Hubbard is taking a complex and nuanced subject, and one that has been studied extensively by psychologists, social scientists, and historians, and he boils it down to one simplistic rule.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. The Wrong Guy Member

    High crimes and misdemeanors: Jefferson Hawkins on Scientology’s bizarre criminal code

    We’re really looking forward to this week’s episode in this series, Jeff. The notion of justice in Scientology is another strange one.

    JEFFERSON: We’re getting towards the end of Introduction to Scientology Ethics now. This week we’ll be going over Chapter 11. It’s called “The Scientology Justice Codes and Their Application.” The bulk of the chapter consists of long, long lists of things that are considered offenses in Scientology.

    In a sense, we’re coming full circle here. If you recall in the opening chapters of the book, Hubbard convinced us that the old definitions of ethics were invalid, and that the past history of the subject was only confusion and despair. The only solution, he insisted, was to learn Scientology’s principles of what is and is not “ethical.” Now, in this chapter, we get detailed lists of those things that are considered ethics offenses in Scientology. It gives us a very interesting look at what are considered the most serious transgressions in the world of Scientology.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 1
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  32. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 3
  33. Incredulicide Member

    • Like Like x 5
  34. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 1
  35. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jefferson Hawkins Surviving Scientology Radio Episode 6

    Published by SurvivingScientology on May 24, 2014

    Jefferson Hawkins was the top Marketing Exec of the church. He authored a completely engrossing and compelling book "Counterfeit Dreams", which describes life at the hierarchy of Scientology Inc. 5x Assault and Battery from a "Global" ecclesiastical Leader. He covers the cruelty of escalating punishments and why they do not Fair Game him.
    • Like Like x 4
  36. The Wrong Guy Member

    Jefferson Hawkins provides Scientology a way to happiness that actually works | The Underground Bunker

    Jefferson Hawkins is a man who is very well known to our readership. We’re big fans of his terrific book about his experiences as a Scientologist, Counterfeit Dreams. We learn in that book how Jeff was Scientology’s top marketing expert, and was responsible for the famous “volcano” television commercials of the 1980s that helped the organization reach its greatest extent.

    Hawkins is also known for another book, Leaving Scientology, which has proved to be a valuable asset for people trying to adjust from life in Scientology (especially in its controlling “Sea Org”) to the modern world.

    We’re fortunate that Jeff continues to think about these issues, and sent us the following item that has timeless advice not only for struggling former Scientologists, but for the rest of us as well. It’s a small masterpiece.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  38. The Wrong Guy Member

    Thinking of leaving Scientology? Jefferson Hawkins has your roadmap.

    By Tony Ortega, The Underground Bunker, February 9, 2019


    Former Scientology executive Jefferson Hawkins penned one of the best first-person accounts of the Scientology experience in his book ‘Counterfeit Dreams.’ But we don’t want people to forget that he also provided a major service by writing a book aimed directly at other Scientologists who might have doubts about the organization. Today, we have an excerpt from that roadmap out of the madness, ‘Leaving Scientology.’

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins