Scientology Inc “Justice”

The following is what L Ron Hubbard had to say about the state of the United States Department of Justice’s investigative arm in 1979.  Irrespective of how exaggerated his rancor might have been about the target of his wrath, it seems to me to be a rather chillingly accurate description of David Miscavige’s Scientology Inc in the year 2012.

The FBI charter mews about safeguarding the populace but hides and is utterly disregarded by an organization whose principles are carefully planned wholly on terrorism and conducts itself more lawlessly than any criminal it ever listed as Public Enemy #1.  Who is Public Enemy #1 today?   The FBI!  Its obvious target is every opinion leader and public-spirited group in America!  To the FBI their own charter is not only a subject for mirth but the Constitution itself which they are sworn to uphold is just garbage which impedes their headlong terror zeal.  In the name of “justice” and even calling themselves the Justice Department they practice every conceivable perversion of injustice.  With their terror tools, preferring lies to fact, they have created a police state in which no man, woman or child or even a politician is safe, either from downstats or the FBI. To the FBI all men are guilty and can’t be proven innocent, and behind her bandaged eyes, Justice herself weeps.  In the name of “justice” they have condemned this society to death.  – HCO PL 25 March 1979 A New Hope for Justice

UPDATE 4/12/12:  A number of people took issue with my having had the temerity to characterize L Ron Hubbard’s words as “rancorous” and “exaggerated.”   When I replied to some comments with context that LRH wrote this while the church was desperately attempting to position the FBI as a Nazi organization that had desecrated the Constitution by raiding a church – when that church had committed serial, document “heinous” crimes over many years, some took issue with my use of the word “heinous.”

In my opinion, you kids are demonstrating that the cult think, thought stopping that membership in the church of Scientology can create can also have continuing effects even after discontinuing membership.

My use of the words “exaggerated”, “rancor”, and “heinous” are automatically challenged apparently on some stimulus-response basis.  I carefully chose those words out of respect for and so as not to attack the character of the author of that which I was commenting upon.  I could have used far more judgmental and critical terms and still been 100% accurate.

Here is your context.  In July 1977 the FBI conducted the largest raid in U.S. history of the Guardians Office offices in LA and Washington DC.  The church spent the next two years frantically litigating to have the raid declared illegal, so as to suppress evidence collected in the raids. By March 1979 L Ron Hubbard had secluded himself from all but a handful of messengers.  He only ever saw his own wife on a couple of closely guarded moments for the rest of his life because of the security measures implemented to keep him safe from the controversy surrounding the case of United States vs. Mary Sue Hubbard, et al.  (indictment issued when it became apparent that the validity of the raids would be upheld by the courts)

Mary Sue Hubbard and the other eight high level Guardians Office members indicted all agreed to be judged by a judge on the charge of Obstruction of Justice on a stipulated record before a judge (they agreed to the facts upon which they were ultimately convicted).

All the while church members were being steadily indoctrinated continually that the entire controversy was solely and utterly about the US Department of Justice and the FBI executing an attempt to destroy the technology of Scientology.

The following link describes in time, place, form and event fashion – most of which was taken directly from documents obtained from Guardian’s Office files – what crimes it was that the Department of Justice and FBI were investigating and for which they convicted church members:

The Sentencing Memorandum

If after having read that document in full, you still want to argue about the intent and accuracy of the quoted paragraph at the outset of this post, my response to you is that you are still in denial.

296 responses to “Scientology Inc “Justice”

  1. eileen110clark

    Great post!! From the responses I can see it certainly hit a hot button. Truth is truth, good, bad or ugly, makes no difference. Putting the pieces of information out there to be viewed and allowing “reason” to put it into perspective with other information you have, results in greater understanding of the whole. I still admire, love and respect LRH and MSH, because of what they both worked for and accomplished. Do I have the right to condemn either of them for not being perfect? I don’t think so.

  2. eileen110clark

    There was a personal insight gained from reading the Sentencing doc. I came into Scn in Jan 78, started the EPF in Feb 78, was put into the USGO Legal Bureau (unwillingly) in late May 78. I had no clue about what had gone before. It is only now that I realize how I was used in certain ways because of my ignorance. I did not share the same 3rd Dynamic condition as the rest of the group. I learned LRH Admin Tech and took it to heart, applied it as is, often at great variance with those around me, a few most particularly.

    Once, I said to my ex, Richard, that I had felt for a long time as if I was walking in one direction on one side of the street while he walked in the opposite direction on the other side. At the time, I thought it was just a 2D situation. Now, I realize it pretty much sums up my entire time in Scn, with few exceptions.

    It is amazing to me that I put up with it for 32 years. What does that say about me? I am grateful that I am at the point to ask myself that question. Don’t worry, folks, I am not listing on it.

    Through it all runs the thread of LRH tech. That was the “Red Thread”, that kept me connected. It still does.

    This blog is so valuable in so many ways. Thanks.

  3. A balanced and historical perspective.

    I think that this is what we need here to get closer to the truth.
    I think that we need to understand the actions of GO personnel, including Ron’s wonderful wife and partner, Mary Sue, before labeling them all as “criminals”. To do so, it is necessary to look at things from the point of view of history and what was actually going down at the time. There is little doubt that they did commit illegal acts, but it is also true, as others have mentioned here, that multiple agencies of the U.S. government had also been committing illegal (unconstitutional) acts against the Church of Scientology prior to this. There is no doubt of that. The FDA had raided the Washington D.C. church and confiscated books and E-Meters claiming that the Church was using them to “diagnose medical ills”. The US Post Office (then a department of the US Government) had cancelled the bulk mailing license of the the Washington D.C. church. These and many other attacks occurred while LRH was researching, developing and compiling the original OT Levels and other Tech to benefit mankind. The main “crimes” that the COS as committing in that era were being there, communicating, and freeing beings. Mary Sue took the hat of protecting the church organization from these criminal attacks being perpetrated in the name of “justice” by elements of the government and special interest organizations (such as the American Psychiatric Association). And to my observation, the GO did a pretty good job. They bought LRH enough time and space to concentrate on his technical researches which resulted in the services we deliver today in the independent field. That is a very important fact. Did they also make errors of judgement? Yes. And they, too, broke the law. Was doing so justified? That probably depends upon your point of view. If someone sucker-punches you while you are minding your own business doing nothing aggressive (and you are fortunate enough not to be out cold), is it wrong to kick him several times while he is on the ground after you have punch his lights out? I think so. Is that illegal and unjustified. Yes, I think so. But how harshly should this person be judged? This takes perspective. Here’s a recent actual example: The COS is fond of showing their video of Marty riding by on his bike and hawking a loogie at the “Squirrel Busters”. (Pretty funny to me!) But Is that legal? I don’t think so. Is it justified? Again, honestly I don’t think it is. But should Marty be indicted and judged for that? No way, because one must put it in the perspective of 180 some odd days of efforts to make his and Mosey’s lives a living hell.
    LRH thought a hell of a lot of Mary Sue. She was his wife. She was also his partner in so many other ways. She was very dedicated to Scientology. He acknowledged her in writing and on tapes for assisting him in his early research and development of the Tech that we appreciate so much. Later, she also carried a huge load to keep the attacks off his lines while he was doing advanced research.

    So, although the federal prosecutors used the word “heinous”, I agree with those on this blog that feel that it is much too strong a word to use to describe MSH and the Guardian’s Office. Most of the people I knew who worked in the GO seemed to be fine, dedicated people who were dedicated to preserving and protecting the TECH for use by mankind. I understand that some of them made some reactive decisions also, some of them may have had somewhat criminal minds, but mostly their actions just kept the show on the road. Personally, from my recollection, most of their “crimes” pale in comparison to many of the programs which were being perpetrated in the same era by elements in the US government and special interests against the their group. So again, a balanced historical perspective is necessary to judge what went on then.
    Here’s something else that might be helpful for all. It is the shortest (as well as one of my favorite) official LRH policy letters:
    HCOPL 13 September 1978
    “An old poem which has been newly adopted as policy:
    There is so much good in the worst of us
    And so much bad in the best of us
    That it ill behooves any of us
    To talk about the rest of us.”

    • The whole establishment (state) v the church of scientology is one thing. The Paulette Cooper incident is completely different.

      Sure she wrote a critical book but the Guardian’s Office did all they could to destroy her, including attempting to “suicide” her; according to Paulette her “friend”, who she only found out much later was a GO plant, often tried to get her to join him to see the view from the edge of the building, she didn’t but things may have been different had she done so.

      In the end she was convicted and sent to prison for crimes she didn’t commit and was only released when the FBI raid turned up evidence that the GO had set her up.

      • Correction: Paulette was never tried on those charges, let alone convicted and jailed. The prosecution decided not to go to trial after Paulette underwent a sodium pentathol test. But the charges hung over her, nevertheless, until she received the call to tell her that the FBI had found evidence that she was framed by the church.

        • Holy crap, you’re correct. Thank you for the correction. Don’t know where I got the idea she was jailed from. >.< Doh.

  4. I think he ain’t coming back until we move the place on up a little higher…..
    I could be wrong. But he may come back and keep his mouth shut about who he is….

  5. This was a good post – another puzzle piece that helps me understand the bigger picture. What I got out of it is this. Back in the day under LRH, Scientology was booming, course rooms were packed, people were forming groups, becoming auditors, Clears and OT’s. Some actions were taken to confront and undermine some real sources of suppression. Some “civilians” might have been run over in the process, but the general scene was that of progress and getting at cause across various areas including some truly suppressive institutions.

    Now 30 some years down the road, the church is little more than a giant leach upon the backs of its members, and the tactics that were used back in the days against more or less real enemies while Scientology was truly expanding are now used against upset parishioners and former staff. This is really putting things into the proper perspective…

  6. This is only the second time I leave a comment on this blog, but I wanted to say that I like this post. Very much.

  7. In Defense of David Miscavige
    A Lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard
    on the 12th of November 1959
    – 7th lecture of the first Melbourne ACC –

    OK, 12th of November, first Melbourne ACC, first lecture. And this lecture, this one you are not gonna forget for some time! I am even having a bad time trying to get needles and tone arm and so forth, haven’t you? All right, have you got a reality now that there is a little gen to be genned? Hm? [“Yes!”] There’s something to be known about this? Is that right? Do you think there is maybe, maybe something more to be known about this? You think so?
    All right, today I am going to talk to you about the Rule of the Weak Valence. And that is highly technical and that is something very, very new. It hasn’t appeared before but you find the foreshadows of it in Dianetics, Modern Science of Mental Health under “allies”. And that’s the first shadow of this, it’s the Rule of the Weak Valence.
    Now let’s take a look at the communication formula, which is cause-distance-effect. Cause is source point. Cause is source point. Effect is receipt point. Right? [“Yes!”]
    Now that gets confused in people’s minds with the cycle of action. So any cause point can be confused with a creation point. Right? And any effect point can be confused with a destroyed or destruction point. Right? But basically all cases are hung up on their overts not on their motivators. That which you have done on any and all dynamics which you considered discreditable, is what hung you up. And that is a tough bullet to chew. That, that’s a hard one to front up to. It’s so hard to front up to, that people don’t blow clear, swoosh! Because they’ll tell you consistently that it was what happened to them that counted.
    Now they are not responsible for what happened to them, isn’t that right? They’re not responsible for that but they are responsible for what they did to others. Right? Now why is it? Why is it, if this is the case, that anybody ever gets slipped over to the receipt point of the comm formula?
    Well, mechanically it works like this. They outflow and outflow and outflow and then finally they become the cause of their own effect. In other words they become the effect of their own cause. Which ever way you wanna say it. Now here is cause, here is distance, here is effect. And they keep going from cause over the distance to the effect, cause over the distance to the effect, cause over the distance to effect, cause over the distance to effect, and the next thing you know, they slip and they get over here into effect. See, they slide down their own comm lines. Got the idea? And they wind up on the receipt point.
    Now did you ever hear in a European restaurant the waiter say, “Thank you“, when he put the plate before you? That’s just about the wildest thing you ever listened to. The waiter comes along and he puts your food down in front of you and he says, “Thank you!“ And I can discombobulate these fellows most dreadfully. That, when they put the plate down just before it touches the table and they have a chance to go through with their routine, I say, “Thank you!“, with a good tone 40, you know? And it almost knocks them silly and for an instant, I am sure that those fellows had a confusion between me and them. Now they had actually put food down on tables traditionally over such a period of time that they have to be the receipt point of what they caused.
    They are slipping down their own comm line, so they acknowledge what they did them-selves. They give themselves their own acknowledgments. That’s a very silly, silly situation and you’d say, okay, but… didn’t have much bearing on cases. Well, brother, it has every bearing on cases because it explains valences.
    And this is what a valence is. It’s the thing or receipt point which has been targeted by the cause point sufficiently that who ever is the cause point has slipped into the receipt point.
    Now you’ve been looking at this in terms of victim. Victim is of course a destroyed or threatened with destruction receipt point. That is all. That’s all a victim is. Somebody who hav-ing been at receipt point has been targeted from a cause point, victim.
    Of course the rationale behind victim is totally vicious. Being a victim is the last hope that your disability will be duplicated, so that you slaughter the cause point. Because the cause point duplicates you at receipt point. In other words you object to being treated so or used as an effect. You object to being an effect, you see. So instead of saying you object, you appear wounded or hurt in some fashion and the automaticities of duplication bring about the same hurt and so forth in the cause point. You got the idea?
    You might as well stop feeling sorry for the fellow that’s going down the street on crutches. Because I absolutely assure you, that at a whole track look, nothing ever happened to him that put him on crutches. See, he himself – it wasn’t that he did it to himself either. He mocked himself up on crutches, hoping to get at something that was cause point, hoping that it would then wind up on crutches, got the idea? It’s just a way of getting, getting his own back. Got that? Now that’s mighty cruel to state it that way but the truth of the matter is that his difficulties are caused by his overts. And that’s one of his overts. See? Being wounded, being upset and so forth is an overt because he hopes the observer will in turn get around to effect point and be wounded or upset. Got the idea? Hence we have the anatomy of the overt act.
    And the anatomy of the overt act is not very complicated. But the main thing you’ve got to figure out is, who is the victim? And you run this process very much, that’s one of the first things the pc comes up against. ”Now, wait a minute – victim, victim, let’s see, was I the victim because I was pretending to be wounded or was I the victim because I wounded somebody and then he convinced me that I ought to appear wounded? Now let’s see, which way am I the victim?“ [laughter] It is rather fabulous, rather fabulous, you look at it, and of course it really all blows up in smoke that there are no victims. But it’s a great apparency. But anything you see anybody doing or any condition you see anybody in could be heartlessly, brutally and cruelly, undoubtedly with those adjectives, but nevertheless truly, a version of axiom 10: production of an effect. Anything you see is an effort to produce an effect.
    Anything! Oh, you get out of here, you see an ambulance and it’s picking up dead bod-ies all over the street and so forth, you say, oh boy, the amount of mishmash there, that’s cer-tainly no effort to produce an effect. Those people lying there stone dead and so forth, they’re certainly not trying to … oh, the devil they aren’t!
    You go back far enough on the track and you’ll find little arguments of this character: “You’re wounded!“ – “No, I am not wounded!“ – “Well look, there is a bullet through your body!“ – “Oh there is a bullet through my body? I didn’t know I was wounded. Oh, there is a bullet through my body.“ – “Now you see that proves you are wounded. Ah, okay, now you have to lie down.“ and so on. “Oh, I don’t have to lie down, I … just because I just got a bullet hole through my body.“ You’ll actually run into quote…well, I, just like locks, on the whole track way back when. See, before all this had become so obsessive. Big arguments about who’s dead. [Laughter]
    Which one is the victim? Well of course as soon as the fellow is a victim he decides he will be a victim because he gets back at the fellow that’s arguing him into being a victim, don’t you see? The only reason he gets wounded is so that he can produce an effect on the fellow wounding him. I am afraid that’s a fact. That is the solid truth of the matter. But the rule of the weakest valence is this: That that apparent effect point which most easily receives an inflow will become the basic valence you must remove from the preclear. Look this over!
    Cause-distance-effect. Cause point is emanative. Ah, if you just draw, draw a little cir-cle there with emanations coming out of it, like if it was an electric light bulb or something like that in a comic strip, you know. That’s cause. Now draw a line and now draw a point and now draw arrows going into the point, like if it was an electric light bulb, pulling light in, not shed-ding it out. Got that? You see that now, that’s cause-distance-effect. And that effect point which you drew is the weakest valence.
    It will actually have the least mind. The mind itself is a sort of a buffer. It will be pulled down to practically nothing. Now that’s the easiest thing to communicate to because all you have to do is practically open your mouth, the communication arrives there with no volition on your part whatsoever. It pulls the communication in just like a magnet, see? Of course that’s basically the most overt overt act there is on the track. To mock up one of these super comm line sponges. You got a person who’s, not necessarily a person who’s terribly bad off or other-wise, but you will get a person occasionally who will only listen and never originate. You got that?
    You’ve seen people, they’ll only listen and they will never originate, they will never say anything at all. Well now if you reduce that down to the point where they appeared to be highly introspective about anything you said and hardly even agreed with you at all, they’d sort of pull your comm lines straight in. You know, dog lying on the side walk wounded, inevitably people walking by say “You poor fellow, what happened to you?“ And he just lies there wounded, you know? Got the idea? That’s a communication automaticity. Now that’s a minimum of effort required from the cause point to reach the receipt point. It’s almost as if this receipt point has provided a bus there at cause point, with no effort on the part of cause point and the words are going to be trolleyed right on down the distance line, straight to receipt point and taken care of right there. You know like banks, or something. Banks! Save your money, save your money and they just take your money and take your money and take your money – or governments and so on. And they just take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and take your money and actually it gets to a point where all you do is have put out a coin, you know, and if you let go of the coin, it wouldn’t fall to the ground. [laughter] Get the idea?
    Well, that’s one of these super vacuum receipt points. Now that receipt point of course is the least emanative point. So it offers no resistance to a communication. Now this mechanism is mechanical. It is below the level of the rationale of who is a victim and all that sort of a thing. This is simply a mechanical arrangement that is set up and you get these receipt points, you see, that just seem to sponge up anything that come their way at all. You’ll find there the parasites of the society – well, those are just total sponges, see? They’re the parasites, they’re the alcoholics, they’re the officials, [laughter] they just {suck suck suck} got the idea? They never emanate anything.
    Now you are not one of these people because you emanate, see? You can put out too. Well these people really can’t put out. Odd things will happen with these people. You give them … they, they learn something, you understand, see? They learn the house is burning down and you come by an hour or two later and say, “Good God, the house burned down!“ and he says, he says, “Yes, I knew that.“ And you say: “Well why didn’t you tell me?“ Oh, you know, just a brand new idea. Tell somebody something, you know? You’ve seen this, you’ve seen this. Alright.
    Now let’s go further than that and let’s take something which seems to absorb. I’ll have to bring down this goddess Kali I bought in India and I mean to show you and so on, something that absorbs anything put in its direction, such as a black screen or something like that. The reason I mentioned Kali is she’s black, destruction and so forth, symbolism is pretty interesting. And here is a black screen that never lets anything out that comes into it, never. Nothing ever gets out of it, it only goes in. And you get a pc and he’s sitting there and my God, he can’t see anything, you know? Everything is just flying in, everything is just flying in like mad. “I just don’t understand what this screen is”, you know? There he sits, fixed, you know? “I don’t understand what this screen is. What is it, you know?” Well, actually it’s something that has steadily, currently, constantly, habitually demanded his attention to such a degree that he now can’t even see what it was that was demanding his attention. Got that?
    Well, that’s the weakest valence. That’s what he’s looking at. That is the weakest va-lence. Now basically the rule of the weakest valence … you see, in order to establish the case, the person … let me say that again. In order to establish the person, you split off the weakest valences. Not the strongest valences. You wonder why every time you try to run a strong va-lence off the case, nothing happens, see? Nothing happens.
    Fellow says: “Oh, my father was a tower, he used to come in the house and he said, ‘Oh, where’s the whisky, and no more whisky? I either scream or the walls just fall down’ and so forth, and he’s a terrible person and it’s undoubtedly, if I could just get rid of his valence I’d be all right!” Ah, the hell with it! How could he possibly get in the valence? The valence is emanating everything off of it. You got it?
    Now this is the anatomy of the dwindling spiral. People don’t go into the strong valenc-es, they go into the weak ones. Let’s look over the mechanics of it. It’s too easy to go into the weak valence. It’s so easy, you just relax and you’ll – slurp, got the idea? The weakest valence would be the most inflowing valence. In the preclear’s opinion. See now the very easiest thing, person, anything to talk to, address or anything like that would be something he would consider assisted his communication lines. See it assisted the inflow, it says: Oh, you’re going to say something, shlush, grabs the words right out of his mouth. Boom! Bubble! Spash!
    Now a person has to be pretty darn bad off during the period that these snaps happen. Now me talking to you at this moment could no more establish for me or for you valence shifts than the man on the moon. See? You can sit in a chair, you can look, you can talk, you can un-derstand, what’s going on and so on. I can stand here and talk, I am alert and so on. We get the engram of valence shift because valence shifts occur because the overt act motivator sequence when somebody sets himself up as a victim at a very low level of reception, in other words, near unconsciousness or unconsciousness or dead.
    Now the number of needles right here that are banging and theta-bopping as you try to set somebody up to get his tone arm on the clear reading at his or her sex is amazing and you noticed the number of theta-bops you are getting. Oh, man, did you ever have a dead body an-swer back? [laughter]
    Furthermore there are so many mysteries of what happened to it. See, there the guy lies, there’s not a mark on him and he is stone dead. Everything is present, cash is in his pockets, everything is in the apartment that should be there, except one sauce pan. See, and you say, you kind of ask him, “look, why are you dead, what are you dead about?” [laughter] He doesn’t say a word. Get it? Well, that’s a real weak valence but not everybody’s weak valence of course is a dead body, very far from it. Most of the weak valences I think you’ll find are composed of allies that took care of you when you were sick. Or you took care of them when they were sick, or vice-versa or back and forth or something and … overt … who’s…who’s the victim, you know, that sort of thing. The big question of ”Who’s the victim?“ comes up there. To establish who’s the weakest valence you simply ask the person that you’re processing, “Who’s the weakest person you know?” I could ask you now and you can remember what you said. “In this lifetime, who is the weakest person you ever knew?” Come on and answer it for yourself! “Who is the weakest person you ever knew in this lifetime?” You got one. Do you remember one? [“Yes!”] Ha? Now who actually got the facsimile of that person right inside their skulls? Did anybody here get the facsimile of the person you thought of right inside your skull? There’s one, there’s one. Now that’s the weakest valence to be run with the valence splitter. Just change your case around, just psh… sh… sh…
    And the rest of you didn’t think of anybody at all? You didn’t think of anybody at all! You did think of somebody? [“Yeah.”] You didn’t find anything sitting in the middle of your skull? [“No.”] Well, all right, you don’t have to have it sitting in the middle of your skull. Where was it? [Somebody answers.] Oh, all right, good. Now look-a-here! You are up against in trying to clear somebody merely the problem of eradicating the bank, you understand?
    But in making OT or trying to rehabilitate the ability of the person to postulate, to han-dle and be at cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, forms and so forth, you understand? Well now you add this up to what I just told you. An OT has horsepower, doesn’t he? Hmm? That would be an emanating horsepower, wouldn’t it? Right? Well, the trick is this. The bulk of the people you process will simply sit there with the characteristics of the weakest valence and process the weakest valence. And they don’t get processed at all. And the reason they do not suddenly come up the vine and develop tremendous horsepower all over the place — a simple reason. It’s because they just go on being this weakest valence, got it? Of course the weakest valence doesn’t have any horsepower. That’s what’s the matter with it!
    The lecture continues, but this covers the main points.

  8. HEY Marty, here is my retort to everything you have ever posted on this website.

    It’s called “When David Miscavige is dead and gone”

    play it far and wide


  9. This is a wonderful post and some great commenting. Thanks all.

  10. Sometimes it is very difficult to think about L. Ron Hubbard. What if I think bad thougts about him? Do my wins vanish? Or did I have no wins as I did not admire him? Basically I personally have no right answers for those and similar questions. But as a kid I formulated 3 easy rules for my life. Rule 1: I cannot do everything I please. Rule 2: I cannot say everything I wanted to say. Rule 3: I can think every thought I want to think. Every thougt. Even if it to be the most bad thought that ever had been thought of. That rule 3 is crushing implants. My small body had quite a difficult time applying rule 3.

  11. I haven’t read all the comments, but it appears as though Moving On Up a Little Higher has come to recognize that the actions of the G.O. were based on LRH’s spying tech and LRH’s covert dirty tricks tech, and on his orders, and that LRH ran the G.O., himself, and through his wife. Am I correct in that assessment?

  12. Hi Marty,

    The last two posts have been particularly brilliant and helpful.

    For example, Martgaret’s comment and link (regarding a scientist discussing the mind differentiated from the brain in the last post) gave me some wonderful tools ot use in working with my 90-year-old Mother-in-Law who is struggling with Ahlzheimers… I can assure you she is also very grateful.

    As always,

  13. Good process Marty… apart from having my head explode several times on the data, I definitely had gains on “overts of comparable magnitude”, realizing that mine were miniscule compared to those of the Church :)

  14. con·text/ˈkäntekst/
    The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

    Once long ago, Vic Krohn advised me to study the US Constitution in context. So I found a set of encyclopedic dictionaries and cleared every archaic word until I understood where the framers were coming from.

    I found, for me at least, that the US Constitution, if followed, is very nearly perfect and can exist as a model of good government for a very long time. I didn’t know this until my thirties despite having a “government” class senior year high school.

    I think anything that people have written needs to be taken “in context”. What were the times? What was the news? Who was doing what, where in THAT time frame. It has to be studied with reality for where the author was, was they were doing, and what the world was engaged in around them.

    Just a quick reading at Wikipedia;s J. Edgar Hoover’s entry leads me to believe that perhaps there was reason for LRH’s vitriol (cruel and bitter criticism), perhaps he felt freer of expression about it in the years after Hoover’s passing.

    Did LRH use strong, theatrical language? Yes? Was he right or wrong? I can’t say as I wasn’t there at the time and cannot know what the level of robotism was that was being reached within the organization that might have caused him to reign in the rhetoric. Can I judge by the results that there was some robotism. In my view – yes. I have never understood what on earth made the GO think they could just go and do that and not come a cropper.

    Did Marty use words that were objectionable? Perhaps not to him and this IS him blog. Disagreeing with LRH is not a crime.

    An opinion I might offer is that “hateful crimes” seems more correct than “heinous” crimes since the latter are understood by the majority of people to be the type punished by death, or at least incarceration until death, such as murder, rape, torture and mutilation.

    I myself am ambivalent about the FBI. Imho, It performs some necessary actions to keeping the peace within the borders of the union, however, I feel that it oversteps it’s charter and boundaries far too often on the whim of folks who shouldn’t be directing their actions. As some have illustrated here with the links to YouTube videos. This isn’t recent, it’s been going on for some time.

    And of course, this long-winded response has just been my two cents.

    • Constitution perfect? Slavery and all? – Marty, from Mosey’s computer.

      • Mosey, from MY understanding of the constitution, that problem should have been swiftly taken care of IF the Constitution was followed.

        It’s my opinion that far too often special interests aka those who think they are above it all, interfere with the actual execution of the Constitution.

        • Hrm…well okay, that was too Marty at Mosey’s computer :-)

        • martyrathbun09

          Re-read it – you didn’t understand it quite as thoroughly as you first asserted you did.

          • Well, hmm…

            First, I did say “I found, ***for me*** at least, that the US Constitution, if followed, is very ***nearly*** perfect ”
            (asterisk emphasis added for clarity)

            Since this seems to be some sort of bone of contention, I’ll rephrase it.

            “I found, for me at least, that the US Constitution, was a more perfect form, or model, of government than existed in it’s time and perhaps even now.”

            Does that sit better with you?

            The question of slavery now. I’m not pro-slavery of any being, nor am I a slavery apologist – and refuse to be since I have no reason to assume that beingness currently. If, for some reason, I find out differently, then my viewpoint will no doubt change.

            The US Constitution did not institute slavery although it has been argued that it allowed it to continue,

            However, I cannot personally say that the framers were incorrect as I’m not certain what their actual alternatives were at that time. As it was, the issue still resulted in a Civil War, but can we be sure that a Civil War, or some other armed conflict, at the time of the writing would have been correct?

            Had they gone ahead and outlawed slavery in that document, would it have ever been ratified? If it had been ratified and the South somehow bowed to pressure, what economic upheaval would it have created, how broad of an upheaval, and what then would the result be?

            Perhaps there was something else they could have done – I don’t know the answers to these last so will have to let this rest as that.

  15. “this IS him blog” should be “this IS his blog”

  16. the constitution was not intended for black slaves, indians, or women. just as the idea of education excluded those groups until jefferson decided that a few of the best male children from the best families should be used, with the shared intention from washington, that they would then serve as officers. it was horace mann who really pushed the idea of education for all. women fought for equality for property ownership and the right to vote because it was not included in the constitution. america was not founded on freedom for all; it was founded on the idea of freedom for the white elite–everyone else has had to fight for the right to be included, and eventually “freedom for all’ meant the entire populace.

  17. Marty,

    Only getting to read this now, and most people have moved on to your later blogs.

    Most fascinating set of arguments presented here within these comments!

    Though I certainly could never purport to share your own knowledge and experience leading up to your set of conclusions I believe I can share at least some of your understanding and ability to differentiate.

    It has been my own experience that trying to debate or reason with some Scientologists who have been indoctrinated for 20 years or more to accept and adopt certain “facts” at face value, I don’t believe you “need an editor” (as you of course well know), but possibly be more patient with those who are still stuck in a certain mindset, which for any long-term Scientologist, pre- or post-DM is very hard to shake.

    I had to personally read a lot of other views and research many other facets and really discipline myself to stay objective and attempt to be logical, to start to make sense out of it all, and though I am still missing much significance and facts, I believe I have enough first-hand knowledge and enough general reserach and data study to be able to apply logic and reason to it all.

    I see that many commeting here almost naturally demand a black and white answer or statement, coupled with fixed ideas or too much reliance on something they read previously and adopted as their own, not to mention those who gets mired down in the literalness and semantics of a statement. So of course when you attempt to condense a HUGE topic with too much background information to present a black and white answer and understanding in a few paragraphs, you of course will get the sort of feedback that has transpired in this particular blog thread, though many seem to follow you and share the same broad perspective which is great to witness.

    I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your unreasonable logic which deals in 100% differentiation and if anything I could suggest a bit more compassion towards those who are still thinking, at least partially in identities and similarities for the purpose of bringing about a greater understanding and self-inspection, which would only be beneficial for the majority.

    I always have a hard time to relate to the emtremes which some tend to derive out of the literal and limited understanding from disecting some sentences that you write, but on the other hand it has helped me tremendeously in bettering my own perspectives as well as becoming more pan-determined while broadening my views and clarifying events of the past.

    My own admiration for LRH has never and will never lessen and my only question, out of pure interest, has only been to what degree he made some of his statements based on his own data, or the data and evaluation provided by others, as it appears to me that his most logical and sensible directions on subjects not pertaining to the auditing technology best can be best related to when based on his own, 100% sole research, inspection and evaluation.

    If someone finds and proves that something LRH did or said is incorrect or not true or some other undesirable qualifier, it doesn’t make the workable aspects of Scientology less workable and that is the only thing that is important, the rest is mainly an interesting subject for debate.

    Thanks for listening, Ulf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s