Post a response to this discussion thread
My apologies. I suspected it was some peice of hackneyed and pretentious 'unifying' philosophy but, ever charitable, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I am not, in fact, blinded by ignorance. When I first heard about this particular belief system I was interested and, not wishing to dismiss something out of hand, I got hold of and read Hubbard's 'What Is Scientology?' and 'Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought'. You called me biased; I guess I probably am, since having read these two books by the founder of the organisation I am now completely biased towards it. Let's call it an informed bias. Firstly the books were badly and arrogantly written, full of innacurate scientific conjectures, spiritual fallacies and science fiction cliches, with very little factual basis. Nothing more or less than a hodge podge of stolen philosophies from the East and the dated cabbalistic and numerism leanings of fin-de-siecle occult orders. In short, hopelessly verbose and poorly constructed propeganda for what is essentially a hollow sham. Scientology is basically a cult in the worst possible sense, something that exists to leech money out of its members while filling their heads with pseudo mysticism and blase new age terminolgy. It must have been a profound joy to the movement to recruit Hollywood movie stars to the ranks, with their hefty paychecks and weighty influence. Do you think a piece of literary refuse like 'Battlefield Earth' would ever have been made if Johnny boy hadn't been pushing it? And lets face it, if Scientology really had anything worthwhile to offer, how do you explain the end L Ron Hubbard, who died a fugitive from justice in 1986 from an overdoese of psych drugs?
Post a response to this discussion thread