Tony Ortega - Why Do Scientologists Accept the Xenu Story?

Discussion in 'Media' started by The Wrong Guy, Jul 21, 2012.

  1. Random guy Member

    Ridiculing the cult is not an aim in itself. People may believe what they want, we are not the thought police. It is however a mean to an end:

    * It's the cults easiest button to push
    * It's a quite effective way of inocculating the public
    * It is fun

    Thus Xenu is a legitimate target. Don't let this "it's all like the Catholic church" bollox fool you.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Anonymous Member

  3. Anonymous Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    Why does that make it suck?
  5. Anonymous Member

    it reinforces the lie which affords Scientology unwarranted judicial protection.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    Why is it a lie?
  7. anonamus Member

    Oh U.
  8. Anonymous Member

    All "judicial protection" of religion is unwarranted.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. churches shouldn't get gov. recognition and tax breaks. if their gods are behind them they shouldn't need government assistance. if they are doing good social work let them set up highly regulated "charities" or let them be reimbursed on the back-end after their work is evaluated.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Tax 'em all, let the IRS sort 'em out.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. muldrake Member

    I get annoyed by people who note that Scientology's beliefs are (objectively) no more ridiculous than those of Christianity, and then ignore the fact that Scientology's illegal activities are far worse than the vast majority of what is done by Christians or those of any other religion.

    As someone noted above, it's fun to mock Scientology's beliefs. I think the mockery can be used as a spoonful of medicine to get down the message that Scientology's activities are a lot worse than its beliefs.

    One can go into the Bible, or Koran, or whatever, and find verses urging violence against nonbelievers. The difference is that members of those religions in otherwise civilized societies don't actually do that shit. (Those who do, of course, are as reprehensible or more as Scientology, but I am not discussing Islamist terrorists or abortion clinic bombers here.) There is no king of Christianity or Islam who tells every single member of the religion how to behave.

    The difference is that at least at present, the entirety of Scientology within the "Church" is controlled by a dictator, a micro-manager who basically controls everything. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is subject to the canon law and can't just change doctrine at a whim. The difference is that Scientologists of the "Church" actually take the bad "scriptures" and go out and do these bad things, like fair gaming, defrauding the wogs, lying to reporters, co-opting dupes in the government, etc.

    "Deeds, not creeds" is a sort of rallying cry for old school anti-cultists. I do think that misses the point, though, that bad creeds can lead to bad deeds. All religions have creeds, and many of them are bad. Not all of them actually follow the bad creeds and do what they say mindlessly.
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. muldrake Member

    Agreed. I think that only charitable activities should be tax exempt. A group shouldn't get a general tax exemption just for jumping through the formal legal hoops necessary to get 501(c)(3) status.

    It might be more difficult to administer, but I think any organization should be able to engage in qualifying charitable activity and get a tax exemption (or even a tax credit) for doing it, whether the organization is the Roman Catholic Church, Microsoft, or even Scientology (even though currently it does pretty much nothing worthy of the name charity).

    I think organizations that actually do a lot of charitable activities, like the Roman Catholic Church (not to sweep other bad things about the organization under the rug but their charities are generally very highly rated by entities like Guidestar that keep track of charities).

    Organizations and individuals who currently have to spin off charities to do charitable activities could incorporate them into their ordinary activities. Bill Gates is an example of someone who seems to be a basically decent dude who spawned a rather nasty corporation. He does good work through foundations, though. If corporations were actually rewarded for making charitable activities a part of their corporate culture, it might soften a lot of the nastiness of capitalism. Corporations are often seen as nasty, but to the extent they are, it is because they are rewarded for being nasty. If you want them to be nice, put rewards in place.

    In any event, there should not be a general tax exemption granted solely because you believe a bunch of stupid shit that contradicts reality and want to go around spreading your contagious shared hallucination.

    Actually, the tl;dr for this post is basically

    Just add tax all the groups, let the IRS sort out the activities.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Anonymous Member

    Yep. The ultimate benefits test.Verification of services rendered, then:

    how much did you pay, how much did you claim, and complete auditing of executive salaries.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Enturbulette Member

    Another important one to always throw in - major religions don't stalk you, kidnap and hold you hostage if you want to leave them, and don't present you will a big bill to pay off if you leave them for all the "enlightenment" you are "stealing" from them.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Tourniquet Member

    Organizations which tell people how they must carry on their lives are not necessarily beneficial, nor should they automatically be beneficiaries of the bounty of the state by virtue of absolution from taxation.

    Oh, yeah, and belief in the supernatural is not automatically exempt from ridicule, either, FFS.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Some religions are worse than others.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Rockyj Member

    Excuse me. I apologize as I don't know the difference & me must not not know how to pell.
    Opps I mean smell.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Tourniquet Member

    I hope you're not implying that Scientology is a religion, because I know that you know that this is simply untrue.

    That, or u trollin'.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. I'm not implying, it is a religion except for the times I say it isn't.

    FFS It doesn't matter!
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. tigeratbay Member

    This article was one of Tony's best. It brought out a lot of new and interesting comments. They really opened up.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Tourniquet Member

    Please reconnect your brain.
    It is THE issue.
  22. OK, today Scientology is not a religion.

    Tomorrow it is.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. anonamus Member

    I saw what you wrote there.
  24. Tourniquet Member

    It matters because the general public and the IRS believe it's a religion, when it is not.
    Perhaps I should better say that what Scientology really is, is THE issue.

    @HH: derp
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Tomorrow it is.

    I'll say this again, when I say something is a religion it is. When I say something isn't a religion it isn't. Case closed!
    • Like Like x 1
  26. ZeroC Member

    Tony's added a few more stories since originally publishing.
  27. ZeroC Member

    Still a better love story than Twilight.
  28. Pique Member

    Well done you. And now the nick is yours alone.

    And for our next lesson....How Not To Derail a Thread. :D
    One good reason for not derailing is that the Mods end up having to move stuff around to keep threads on topic. I'll run interference for you on this one since the AvS Mods will now be annoyed with me too! ;)

    (thread derail reported)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    Why don't young Christians, when their grandmas told 'em about magic bearded man who was his own father and killed himself to prevent people from going to hell because of sins they all have because Eve ate an apple and then woke up from his tomb and took himself to his own kingdom -- bust out laughing and walk away?

    No offense to Christians - I used this example because Christianity is the only religion I know enough to lul of it's dogmas.

    My point is: it doesn't matter that Xenu's story is a kooky fable and only idiots really believe in this - people want to believe in stupid stories. They want to believe that there really is something magic up there. Why do people watch Batman/Spiderman/Wolverine/Harry Potter/whatever? Because it's different from our fucking boring ordinary life.

    Just my laic opinion.

    Srsly - who REALLY believe in magic, invisible man who rule the world?
  30. Tourniquet Member

    Well, it's not about how lulzy the actual Xenu story might or might not be... it's the amount one has to pay to read it and what is done to one along the way.

    You'd be surprised how many do.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. RolandRB Member

    The Christian story is 2000 years old so it is OK to believe in it. The Scientology story is recent so we can laugh our socks off at it and point at Scientologists and say they are stupid.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. Internetzin Member

    And those cheap laughs enliven our otherwise dull lives unbelievably...keep it up guys
    • Agree Agree x 2
  33. The Wrong Guy Member

    Long before Xenu: Scientology’s actual origin story, as told by a former member

    By Tony Ortega, The Underground Bunker


    We have a real treat for you today. Derek Bloch noticed that Scientology’s “Xenu” story that was made famous in South Park in 2005 and was given another great treatment in Alex Gibney’s film Going Clear this year (pictured above), is often referred to as Scientology’s “origin story.” This is simply untrue. The Xenu incident, which resulted in so many beings brought to and vaporized on Earth, took place a mere 75 million years ago. But Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard claimed that the universe itself was some 4 quadrillion years old, and that it had been created by “bored” thetans playing some kind of game.

    Derek, a longtime presence here at the Underground Bunker, submitted this essay to explain how he was taught to believe the universe got here, and the narrative of the cosmos that he learned as a member of the organization. Here, then, is the overall, overarching purpose of Scientology, which rarely gets spelled out in such detail. We hope you find it as fascinating as we did — and we’d really like to hear from other former members of the church how much of this they were aware of as they were working their way up the Bridge to Total Freedom.

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 1
  34. anon8109 Member

    Hubbard was so full of nonsense and of the generalities he accuses his "SP" enemies of espousing.

    In the OP's story Hubbard claims that "Doll bodies are the “little grey men” that everyone talks about". I've never heard of "little grey men", and neither has Google. The best it could come up with was an obscure children's book from 1942.

    Of course, the whole story is fiction being passed off as fact, but this is a strong statement he makes about what "everyone" knew that easily shown to be false.
  35. Random guy Member

    The internet has a memory hole for some stuff. "Little green men" was a common term from the 2nd World War and onwards until the 80's or so. If you want to see one, google "Martians go home!"
  36. anon8109 Member

    He didn't write "green", he wrote "grey", according to the article.
  37. The Wrong Guy Member

    Before Scientology’s Xenu was a genocidal galactic overlord, he was a … mountain?

    By Tony Ortega, April 17, 2017


    This doesn’t happen every day: A tipster recently pointed us to something buried in a 1958 L. Ron Hubbard lecture that really knocked us for a loop. And so we showed it to half a dozen of the best experts we know on the subject, and not only had none of them noticed the item before, most of them admitted they were stumped about it.

    What was it that had us puzzled? It turns out that Hubbard mentioned the name “Xenu” ten years before that word became such a famous part of Scientology’s secret lore.


    You probably know at least the bare outline of the story that Hubbard revealed about Xenu in the 1968 OT 3 materials, that some 75 million years ago he ran a federation of 76 planets with an overpopulation problem. So he had beings by the billions brought to planet Teegeeack, which was Earth’s name then. He vaporized the beings with hydrogen bombs, then captured their souls and subjected them to mental image pictures before setting them loose on the planet. To this day, you learn in OT 3, you are actually made up of clusters of these unseen beings left over from that 75-million-year-old genocide, and you spend the next higher Scientology auditing levels — from OT 4 to OT 7 — locating and chasing these invisible beings away (and at insanely high prices).

    But why “Xenu”? Was Hubbard trying to convince his followers that this was an actual person who had really lived 75 million years ago? Scientology historian Jon Atack has told us again and again that church members are expected to consider everything Hubbard wrote as infallible scripture. But it’s hard for an outsider not to assume that with a name that has the sound “zee-noo,” Hubbard wasn’t just pulling things out of his ample posterior.

    And that’s why we think the 1958 lecture we’re looking at today — recorded ten years before “OT 3” — is an interesting reflection on that. In a typically turgid passage, Hubbard manages to come up with two words while riffing rapidly that seem to be transpositions of the same sounds — “ex-noo” and “zee-noo.”

    Here, listen for yourself to this fair use excerpt, and then look carefully at the transcript.


    This excerpt is from a series of lectures known as the 20th American ACC, for “Advanced Clinical Course,” which Scientology today sells for $375...

    <snipped> understand what Hubbard is talking about in this excerpt, and to explore this surprising use of the word “Xenu,” we asked for help from several of our favorite experts on Scientology technical matters, former church members with decades of experience.

    Not one of them said they had ever noticed this use of “Xenu” a decade before OT 3.

    “The 20th ACC lectures were not part of auditor training, so I had not run across this passage before,” Bruce Hines told us. “Fascinating and completely new to me,” Jon Atack said. “I’ve never heard the lecture you’re quoting from,” Dan Koon told us.

    The particular lecture is titled, “The Rock: Putting the PC at Cause,” and we were told by our experts that “The Rock” referred to a concept that Hubbard only developed for a short while before moving on to other avenues. “The Rock is something that appeared only briefly and there were a couple of bulletins that mentioned it, almost in passing, and then it was never heard from again,” Koon says.

    “Ask 10 different Scientologists about The Rock and you will get 10 different answers, probably all wrong,” says ‘Techie,’ who often chimes in with expert commentary about technical matters here at the Bunker.

    “The simplest explanation of The Rock is that it’s the entire case of a person, down the entire whole track,” says Sunny Pereira, referring to a thetan’s whole track of existence, which is trillions of years. “The Rock is where the thetan stores his illogic and keeps it to use all up and down his lifetimes. They hold him down, like a reactive mind, but on a timeless timeline, if that makes sense.”

    Anyway, we think what’s happening in that passage is that Hubbard is explaining that to get to the root of what’s going on in a particular person’s case, you have to deal with chains of “significances” that anyone is going to have bouncing around in their head but that are extraneous and not helpful. In order to demonstrate that, he riffs on several different chains of words, and it seems obvious that he’s making stuff up on the spot to act as examples (“thisa, thata, the other thing”). During that riffing he comes up with “Planet Exnoo” and “Mount Xenu,” nonsense words that we know now were already in his head when, a decade later, he sat down to write up this planet’s history in OT 3.

    We asked our experts, did the 1958 Mount Xenu really have any connection to the Xenu who shows up ten years later as the genocidal galactic overlord or did it, as it appeared to us, just show that Hubbard was pulling similar sounds out of thin air because they sounded exotic to him, and so the sound “zee-noo” happened to turn up in both 1958 and 1968?

    Our experts said they saw no actual connection between 1958’s Mount Xenu and 1968’s Xenu of OT 3. “Hubbard had an active imagination and was used to coming up with ‘science-fiction-sounding’ names for things like planets and space-opera beings,” Bruce Hines said. “I tend to agree with you, I think he is just making up words as he goes along,” Jefferson Hawkins told us.

    “This is a peculiar little gem,” Atack said. “I agree that it isn’t the ‘Xenu origin story’ but it points to Hubbard’s limited stock of ideas and his drug-addled repetition of them…Hubbard didn’t believe there was anything new – only the reconstituting of existing material – and he lived by that principle, so he recycles material. This includes acronyms and abbreviations – RTC is an example. It originally meant Ron’s Technical Compilations before it was the Religious Technology Center. He used ‘CC’ for both Clearing Course and Celebrity Centre.”

    And speaking of recycling, “Mount Xenu” will also show up again — in the 1977 “Revolt in the Stars” screenplay, but this time referring to the mountain prison on the Planet Tawn where Xenu is imprisoned to this day.

    More here:

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins