Scientologists Talk About "The Master"

Scientologists Talk About "The Master"
Type of Article	Category: "Category:" cannot be used as a page name in this wiki.
Website	http://scientolipedia.org
Social Media

Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the "Discussion" tab to start or comment on an existing thread. David LaCroix

The new movie, "The Master" has been out barely one week, and even though released on a very limited number of screens, has already created enough of a buzz that has critics talking about "Academy Award" prospects!

The acting of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman receives raves all around, while some are finding faults with the meandering story-lineThe military type of organization form whereby there is a definite ascending and descending chain of command. Orders pass from top management down the line of command and compliances and data pass on up without by-passing the chain of command. (Modern Management Defined (c) L. Ron Hubbard, 1976) and an unsettling ending that leaves one wondering!

Apparently based "loosely", on L Ron Hubbard and Scientology, knowing Scientologists will say it goes well beyond that label and does so in a by-design very unflattering manner. In short, it's a "one-sided" viewpoint of the founder that presents him as a charismatic ego-maniac who endears himself to others solely for the purpose of using them. Devotees will argue that Hubbard was in fact a man totally dedicated to his self-improvement technologies, even to the point of self-denial of the benefits of the wealth he had accumulated over decades. Ian Waxler

• Ken Urquhart - What Was Ron Really Like?
• Life On Board The Flagship Apollo
• More being added as this site grows.

L Ron Hubbard

"While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured. They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting1. a painful and forceful means of overwhelming a being with artificial purpose or false concepts in a malicious attempt to control and suppress him. (Aud 71 ASHO) 2. an electronic means of overwhelming the thetan with a significance. (HCOB 8 May 63) 3. an unwilling and unknowing receipt of a thought. An intentional installation of fixed ideas, contrasurvival to the thetan. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06) in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.

If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on. That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow. But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology. For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.

What they will miss by focusing on the technical inaccuracy, however, is the amazingly apt, artistic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard and the ultimate, aberrated group dynamic1. any one of the eight subdivisions of the dynamic principle of existence-SURVIVE. (PXL, p. 49) 2. dynamic is the ability to translate solutions into action. (HFP, p. 171) 3. the tenacity to life and vigor and persistence in survival. (DMSMH, p. 38) of Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson digs L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology better than Tom Cruise, John Travolta, David Miscavige (corporate Scientology’s supreme leader – read, Freddie Quell at the helm) and probably every other card carrying member of Scientology Incoporated..." Mark Rathbun