I'm assuming that Raul Lopez spent most of the 1.3 million swindled
out of him on scientology "auditing." With this in mind, the
"in-ethics" rondroid auditing moral imperative for the
I'm assuming that Raul Lopez spent most of the 1.3 million swindled out of him on scientology "auditing." With this in mind, the "in-ethics" rondroid auditing moral imperative for the Scientologist is:
Every Scientologist is programmed with that statement over and over again if they ever question the validity of any "standard" auditing they ever had applied to them. It's brought up especially if there's any dissatisfaction on the persons part where the person didn't feel that had the "gains" they expected before doing the auditing action.
Sure, they might run a "corrections list," but if the person doesn't change their minds after the corrections list applied to that auditing, they'll run the "Any auditing is better than no auditing" on them.
I've had "ethics officers" say this to me when expressing any questions or discontent about my auditing; "Hey -- consider yourself lucky, ANY auditing is better than no auditing."
The amount of verbal ruse variations around that statement are endless and they shamelessly use them to try to get one to cower and remain under "tech" control -- OR ELSE, a trip to the ethics officer again to straighten your thinking out until you do agree with the statement. I know, I had it run on me. This is one reason that justifies to them the ripping off of 1.3 million of Raul Lopez from his insurance acquisition of 1.6 million.
Believe it or not, to a brainwashed scientologist, they'll look at the 1.3 million figure above and say to themselves -- "ANY auditing is better than no auditing. Lopez is lucky to being fortunate enough to get auditing at ANY price".
They'll view Lopez as having to be even a little better off from the auditing he received than when he had acquired the injuries to his brain because why? Because to them, auditing works all the time if "standardly" delivered. It's the enforced idea that auditing when "standardly" done works 100% of the time. They can't even imagine that it couldn't. If they held the view that maybe it didn't work even when "standardly" applied, they'd have to deal with an "ethics-officer" until they at least socially agreed that it always does, or learn by implication on their own to keep their mouths and brains shut unless they wanted more of the "ethics officer" same.
This is one reason of many once someone is fully programmed into Scientology why they don't ask your question of swindle to themselves.
If you're programmed with "any auditing is better than no auditing," how could ANYONE be swindled to getting auditing? To the programmed Scientologist, anyone who ever gets auditing and pays for it by any means necessary could NEVER be swindled! Why? Because without $RH auditing and Scientology you'd just be another valence (false personality) ridden, Homo Sap implant generated, circuit ridden raw meat wog! i.e., practically non-living.
You have to understand that when the scientologist is fully programmed into LRH's "tech" matrix think induction, the possibility of swindle as a question isn't possible in the slightest when it comes to "standard" auditing and it's "miraculous" benefits delivered 100% of the time to the patient.
So why even think of possible swindle when it's impossible to begin with. Your question above then has no meaning and is thus bypassed as "natter" or carping criticism against scientology where your question becomes a source of EVIL in it's intent in even being asked.
Thus to them, you yourself are either evil in nature as a degraded being or deluded for asking the question in the first place. How's that for individual freedom of thought and decision?
The name "Scientology" ® is trademarked to the "Church" of Scientology organization. Neither this web page, nor this web site, nor any of the individuals mentioned herein assisting to educate the public about the dangers of the Scientology organization are members of or representitives of the Scientology organization.
Return to The Raul Lopez main Index page.E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank