Scientology 101

The following is the unedited introduction to my next book Scientology 101.   It  will be published when I make sufficient time to complete it.

                                    Scientology vs. Scientologism

One idea I tried to introduce in the book What Is Wrong With Scientology?  (Amazon books, 2012) was Scientology’s need for integration.

Integration is the act or process of integrating, defined by Webster’s as incorporating into a larger unit.

From the beginning of his forays into the mysteries of the human mind and spirit, the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard wished his findings to be integrated into existing fields of study, including psychiatry, psychology, biology, education and the healing arts.  His responses to having been so violently rejected in such established fields for the first fifteen years of his journeys were conflicted.

One response was to form what he called a social coordination network.  He established its purpose as ‘to subvert the subverters’.  The idea was predicated on the assumption that established fields of social betterment were zealously guarded monopolies that had subverted governments and foundations for fortunes.  He felt Scientology had better answers than most of them and thus would be justified in subverting the subverters.   First he encouraged Scientologists to use Scientology applications in every endeavor where they might bring improvement with them.  He even defined a Scientologist as one who applied Scientology to better conditions in life.  Then, an organized bureau was created to coordinate Scientologists who had set up groups that applied Scientological solutions to societal problems in a secular (non-religious) framework.   They were directed to produce such success rates that accepted, established institutions in those fields would feel compelled to incorporate the proven effective methods of Scientology in their respective disciplines.

During the nineteen seventies and eighties the social coordination network made substantial headway into the fields of drug rehabilitation and education.   Its subgroups Narconon (drug rehabilitation) and Applied Scholastics (education) created many groups with impressive records of results with drug addicts and students.

However, within a decade of Hubbard’s 1986 death, Scientology church management (hereinafter Scientology Inc. or corporate Scientology) had perverted the purpose and function of Applied Scholastics and Narconon so markedly as to effectively destroy the groundwork they had laid for the previous twenty years.

Once Narconon had produced some admirable statistics, rather than take rational measures to reinforce those gains, Scientology Inc. killed the goose that laid the golden eggs in two ways.  First, Narconon had largely been formed and operated by former drug addicts who had come off drugs using Scientology methods.  Rather than help make that fact and its results known, Scientology Inc. shamelessly took credit for Narconon’s successes, touting itself as the operator of ‘the largest and most successful’ drug salvage institution in the world.  That promotion was used for two purposes, neither of which forwarded the purpose of Narconon: a) to serve as a mitigation plea against  public attacks on Scientology Inc’s unrelated abuses, and b) to extract huge sums of money from Scientologists to forward Narconon as a public relations activity for Scientology (little of said funds ever were directed toward expansion of drug rehabilitation delivery).

The second way Scientology Inc. destroyed Narconon was to take a completely opposite tack when Narconon got into trouble by its own negligence.   When failed products of Narconon brought complaints to media or authorities, Scientology Inc. did everything it could to distance itself from Narconon, claiming zero connection or responsibility for its operation.  The public at large, possessing a good measure of common sense, couldn’t help but note the hypocrisy.

Applied Scholastics similarly lost the fruits of its decades-long production record at the hands of Scientology Inc’s two-faced, short-cut exploitation mentality.  During the seventies and eighties Applied Scholastics schools delivered a wholly secular education, utilizing but one important and central methodology of L. Ron Hubbard, the technology of ‘how to study.’  In that wise, Applied Scholastics schools produced impressive, measurable and recognized results.  However, again shortly after Hubbard’s 1986 death Scientology Inc. began undermining the organization’s purpose in pursuit of immediate perceived gain for itself.  Scientology Inc. influenced Applied Scholastic schools to introduce ever increasing levels of Scientology indoctrination, and promoted that to existing Scientologists.  Tuitions were raised, and percentages were paid to Scientology Inc. Over time the schools became parochial in nature. Eventually the schools degenerated into badly disguised preparation and recruitment pools for Scientology’s priesthood (called the Sea Organization).   And as happened with Narconon, when former students publicly complained of their Applied Scholastics experiences, Scientology Inc  vehemently distanced itself with a plethora of false denials.

A form of schizophrenia has apparently taken hold of Scientology Inc.   It is manifested in the one personality that wants to take credit for every success in Narconon and Applied Scholastics, and at the same time wield the opposite personality that insists on distancing itself every time there is a complaint or failure.  It wants to control every aspect of the use of anything written by L. Ron Hubbard – and take a healthy tithe for it – but wants to pretend it doesn’t when things don’t go the way it wishes them to.

Exacerbating the situation is Scientology Inc’s ruthless enforcement of its alleged legal right to control the application of any of L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas.   It has created an aggressive, effective legal bureau to threaten and punish anyone who has the temerity to utilize the ideas of Hubbard outside of its stringent control.  It has spent tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars over the past several decades using lawsuits as bludgeons to ruin people who have assayed to practice Scientology – as a religion or otherwise – outside the control of Scientology Inc.

As incompetent and discreditable as Scientology Inc’s schizoid Public Relations function has become, it has become as inversely adept at reeling Scientology practice in.  It has become so uncompromising and persistent at punishing ‘unauthorized’ application that people do so at great risk to themselves financially.

The situation seems irreversible when one considers the path of Hubbard’s second solution to integration, the attacking of the original chief opponents of the sharing of his ideas, the psychs (as Scientology Inc. refers to all mental health practitioners and researchers).  Scientology Inc. established an intelligence and propaganda network to bring down the establishment of those fields.  Scientology Inc’s public pronouncements against the psychs are so shrill, so sensationalized, and so exaggerated as to serve the opposite purpose such opposition was originally intended to serve.

Ironically, in the fifties and sixties Scientology acted as a pioneer of sorts for the New Age movement.   Since then, however, its corporate form has become a bitter enemy of anything having any connection whatsoever to traditional mental health concepts – which happens to include just about every extant New Age methodology.  Scientology Inc’s attacks have thus served as an insular, flat-earth protest against any new ideas that it does not control and profit from.  It has thus positioned itself as an extremist cult in the eyes of most mental health, New Age, and spiritualist practitioners, not to mention much of the public at large.

All successful applications of Scientology methodologies not only clerically (in terms of Scientology churches and missions) but secularly (including, but not limited to, education and drug rehabilitation) were originated and pioneered by individuals in those fields who decided to make application of L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas their life’s work.   Since Scientology Inc. has become so combative and controlling (and disloyal and irresponsible when their own suffer setbacks) it makes it dangerous to propagate the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Ironically , it seems that the greatest enemy  to the future dissemination of Hubbard’s ideas is none other than Scientology Inc. itself.  So effective has Scientology Inc. been in establishing itself as the modern Grand Inquisitor that the very word Scientology has become associated with oppression, repression, and mental captivity.

The vicious cycle is topped off by Scientology Inc.’s strict, literal policy that holds that Scientology contains all of the answers to any and all problems of people, and that conversely no other subject that speaks to the mental and spiritual health of humankind has any validity and nothing to add to the equation.

In 1969 the late, great Viktor Frankl described what Scientology Inc. has become in the year 2012 (without any reference to Scientology at all):

What is dangerous is the attempt of a man who is an expert, say, in the field of biology, to understand and explain human beings exclusively in terms of biology.  The same is true for psychology and sociology as well.  At the moment at which totality is claimed, biology becomes biologism, psychology becomes psychologism, and sociology becomes sociologism.  In other words, at that moment science is turned into ideology. What we have to deplore, I would say, is not that scientists are specializing but that specialists are generalizing.  We are familiar with that type called terrible simplificateurs.  Now we become acquainted with a type I would like to call terrible generalisateurs.  I mean those who cannot resist the temptation to make overgeneralized statements on the grounds of limited findings.

Scientology Inc has turned a self-styled ‘science of the mind’ into an ‘ideology of everything.’  However, Frankl’s words provide inspiration for drawing a line of demarcation, beyond which a clean slate might be established to paint a new future for application of the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard.

On the basis of Frankl’s logic I would like to introduce a distinction between the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard and the terrible generalisateurs who are members of Scientology Incorporated.   Scientology Inc. is not the guardian of Scientology. Instead, it is an imposter holding the subject hostage.  It has become nothing more than the creator of a new religion, Scientologism, which I contend would be unrecognizable to L. Ron Hubbard.  Scientologism has become the greatest suppressor of the circulation of Scientology ideas.  It bears no resemblance to the purpose, heart, and soul of the subject of Scientology.

Let us approach the subject of Scientology as a subject. Not as an ideology.  Not as a trademark.  Not as the esoterica of an exclusive club of misguided, intolerant zealots.   Let us evolve and transcend from obsessive, compulsive isms.   Let us discuss what Scientology actually is in terms that anyone can understand and apply.  Let us attempt to integrate the principal, workable ideas of Scientology with other disciplines so they can be understood and perhaps even serve a purpose to humanity where they can. Let us attempt to shed a little light where there was once only darkness.

 

310 responses to “Scientology 101

  1. “Scientology Inc. is not the guardian of Scientology. Instead, it is an imposter holding the subject hostage. ” – Marty, that says it all right there.

    This is brilliant. I see a new beginning for the offering of the more decent, workable solutions found in the study of Scientology, to the world at large.

    • I totally agree. Mr. Rathbun, this is one of the sanest posts I’ve read on this blog. I keep wondering why it is that it is seldom mentioned the apparently phenomenal point that David Miscavige does NOT use Scientology himself. And lastly, how sweet would it be if someone could ever get Pat Broeker to go public to add to yours, Mr. Rinder’s, John Brousseau’s et al insight into the insanity of the small Thetan we have come to abhor.

      • I concur completely. It’s amazing that no one in the media has ever taken Miscavige to task that he doesn’t apply nor use Scientology itself. It would take almost no time to coincide original Scientology Policy & technology and the wayward actions of Miscavige are not even close in application or methodology.
        How about a article headlined – “Church of Scientology leader David Miscavige refuses to practice Scientology, a do as I say not as I do regime racks in millions…”
        Miscavige is nothing more than a theiving corporate thug!

        • Round up the usual suspects, with their Hollyweird mentalities.

        • With the tables being turned, Rinder could probably write, edit and spoon feed this story to the Hollywood Reporter. Preferably in a LONG, exclusive series of articles, Ortega style, but with an actual knowledge and understanding of the subject of Scientology.

      • “… the small thetan we have come to abhor.”
        Love it!

      • Pat’s comming out when Davey’s gone, he’s probably still hiding the upper OT levels.

  2. I’ve always considered Scientology very, very simple. It is in the HCOBs, tapes and books, and all you do is read them, drill them, and do them. Anything else is something else.

    I never considered Scientology in competion with any other subject, but rather an expansion on those subjects that still work. Newton’s Laws didn’t ‘disapear’ when String Theory came out. Newton’s Laws still work. Sting Theory just takes the whole concept further.

    THat’s what Scientology does, it takes already working concepts further along, it is not and never was a solitude.

    My opinion.

  3. Miscavage has taken a Fascist apporach to Scientology.

  4. Outstanding! {applause and whistles}

  5. I guess I got into Scientology too late (1990). The Church I joined is just an ugly mass of random confusion created by David Miscaviges reactive mind.

    Unfortunately people see the subject of Scientology and recognize that there is something there and they then try to get that at the Church of Scientology. There IS something there, but you cannot get it at a Church of Scientology.

  6. Insightful and well reasoned — thank you.

    The part that reads “The vicious cycle is topped off by Scientology Inc.’s strict, literal policy that holds that Scientology contains all of the answers to any and all problems of people, and that conversely no other subject that speaks to the mental and spiritual health of humankind has any validity and nothing to add to the equation” especially caught my attention.

    It reminded me of specialists generalizing in past religious situations. The bark codeces of the Mayans were almost all destroyed by Catholic priests. Since the bark “writings” were not Christian, they must be diabolical or heretical. We have the only answers. So destroy the other work.

    Take the ancient library of Alexandria. There are different attributions to its destruction. In some stories Muslims destroyed it (in others, Christians). One statement attributed to a Muslim leader was that if what was in the library was in the Q’uran, the library was not needed. And if what was in the library conflicted with the Q’uran, the library was not needed. Therefore, destroy it. We have the only answers.

    Ironically, Hubbard himself pointed out that the first barrier to learning was assuming one knew it all already. Recognizing that barrier, losing the conceit that Scientology knows everything about everything, and seeking integration will only make Scientology both stronger and more credible.

    One extreme I read about was regarding blue asbestos on the Freewinds. Reportedly someone in authority decided it wasn’t a problem. Why? Because Hubbard had warned about fiberglass but not asbestos. Therefore asbestos must be fine. That take on things was a betrayal of reason and common sense and probably put many people in danger (assuming the story was true). Integration of knowledge and validation of learning and discoveries is the way to go.

    • With regard to asbestos on the Freewinds — one thing that is particularly ironic about that, is that the SO ED on “Fragrances” compiled from LRH notes, whilst strongly warning against cheap benzene derivative “fragrance” in commercial products, *also* spoke of the warnings against asbestos having been ignored for many years.

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

    • Yes, perfect analogy regarding the library of Alexandria. Even when I was an active part of the church, I hated how Scientologist would listen and believe anything that anyone from the group said was true, regardless of their lack of expertise in the area. Don’t listen to the doctor, their just “medicos’ and ‘lawyers’ are crooks (well, their lawyers are for certain!), and no other drug rehab will work etc etc and LRH loves the color blue, so we must like it too. Stupid!! What is really going to continue to hurt the image is the fact that the young people serving on staff are uneducated because they recruit kids that are failing in school, or kids whose parents are on staff and don’t have time to keep the kids ethics in on going to school so the solution is get them to the org to join staff. The attitude toward school –and I mean high school- is that one doesn’t need it. Well, if anyone can actually read a letter from an org then more power to you because 9 times out of 10 they are illegible and incomprehensible.

      Even before dM really sunk in his talons, Scientoligist and the organization as a whole was extremely arrogant, and in no small part based on LRH views, which are his to have because he developed the tech, but also because he never got any validation from established authorities for the miracles he created so ‘everyone’ and ‘every profession’ was simply an ignorant enemy. When an untrained, inexperienced, uneducated staff tries to pull a ‘know it all’ attitude toward public it goes over like a barrel full of dead babies. yea, that bad.

      So Marty hit it on the head.

  7. Great points, Marty.

    There are a number of examples operating in society today that utterly prove your points by reverse reasoning. The most obvious example is that of TIR (Traumatic Incident Reduction). I know there is a back story to how it came to exist but the first key point is that it does exist and the second key point is that it is simply Dianetics by another name, Dianetics used by psychologists to relieve human suffering — handle grief, losses and injuries. Something Scientology Inc. should be doing but I guess getting out there and helping humans has not been on the agenda for some decades now. How easy would it have been for Scientology Inc. to resurrect something like the old HSDC (TRs, some metering and NED) and train an army of effective spiritual grief counselors?

    Interestingly (and it proves your points), TIR has gone from strength to strength since Dr. Gerbode first wrote and/or had the book written, the introduction of which explains he spent many years studying and using Dianetics. Additionally, if you enter the name into a search engine you only find articles that heavily laud it. Even though it is more or less pure Scientology it is not attacked, has no bad press and is not fought by anyone. Since its first publication its use has expanded and it has taken on a life of its own with a number of others writing and publishing books on the subject.

    It was done on a total bypass of Scientology Inc. and I know Dr, Gerbode had to fight for the right to do it when he should have been supported., encouraged and helped. After all, traumatic incidents are a scourge that utterly ruin lives. But all Scientology Inc does at the site of real traumatic disasters is some touch assists (for the purpose of photo ops). Pathetic.

    • Interesting Haydn.

      Sarge Gerbode is the perfect illustration of the fallacy of trying to control an idea.

      I was the person in the church that worked with him to ensure his book didn’t infringe on church intellectual property rights. All that required was not using trademarked terms. The principles are identical in TIR to Dianetics. He sent me his manuscript and I signed off on it and he then published it without interference from the church. And he has continued to work with TIR and help people. To Miscavige and his minions Sarge is a “squirrel” but truth be told, he is far more aligned to LRH than the blood sucking vultures of the “one true church” who have long since given up actually trying to help anyone, other than help relieve them of their bank balances.

      And though Dr. Gerbode is a “psych” he is a very nice guy, very smart and very accomplished. And not just in this field. He is a renowned lute player.

      • It’s undoubtedly more effective and “on-source” than the recent Dianetics Seminar and HDA the Church put out a few years ago. I wonder how many Dianetics auditors suffered through that and what their stats are.

        • plainoldthetan

          Chris: I can tell you from direct observation that the recent Dianetics Seminar and HDA the Church put out a few years ago have floundered like a carp out of water. I come to this conclusion after visiting Los Angeles Org and seeing 2 people at those courses. In other words, zilch, nada, goose-egg, zero, zip, nought, diddly-squat. Same as Dallas’ Idyllic Org.

          • In Phoenix they built a large courseroom for the Dianetics Seminar and HDA course. A few people showed up, mostly onlines people and their kids. After that initial photo-op with people who did the course to “help out” it was dead and they basically shut the lights out. Occasionally it was used for Div 6 public when there were any, which was rare.
            Miscavige really made a big deal of these new courses at the event.
            I wonder why he hasnt talked about it since? You don’t suppose it was just for PR do you?

      • Absolutely, Mike. As I write this I sit in the extensive library of a medical doctor who has all the books on TIR (and there are a number of them these days). TIR has expanded and moved on while Scientology Inc has regressed back to the stone age. As I recall, Scientology used to be full of geniuses such as Gerbode. Now, it is incredibly surreal but Scientology Inc.’s mantra seems to have comes from a Hollywood blockbuster — “There can be only one”.

        • “There can be only one”.

          Made me laugh, Hayden. And the mantra is chanted day and night by the “only one” himself. And the chant is repeated daily by the ever dwindling number of minions who have been convinced that their “only one” is THE “only one.”

          And soon enough, he will indeed be the “only one.”

          Les

        • Well, be careful of lauding Sarge Gerbode (formerly a Scientology Mission Holder) too much. TIR has, I understand, some to have the same “we’re the only one” attitude, and the same enforcement of right of its “owner” to control every last detail of its delivery, as the Corporate CofS tries to do.

          This is not to say TIR isn’t useful. It is. But we need to keep Marty’s reminder about integration in mind. Not even LRH had “all” the answers. Certainly Sarge Gerbode does not.

          • Scottie — nobody said he had all the answers by any stretch. TIR is only a small part of the tech. The point was that he was NOT constrained by the intellectual property ownership of the RCS and he went ahead and disseminated solutions into a field that the RCS only had disdain for. That’s all. And apart from that, he is a nice guy. If someone else took Dianetics and used different words and specialized in getting it applied by doctors, not only would Sarge be unable to do anything about it, neither would the church. That he makes money from TIR isn’t wrong. Guarantee you he is not trying to monopolize the entire subject of dealing with the reactive mind and erasing engrams.

  8. Forever Lurker

    Been thinking just what you’re talking about for years now.

    If the goal was to give the tech to every man, woman and child on the planet, well, we have way since passed the technological barrier that would allow us to do just that in about a month start to finish.

    What would the world be like if every person could have the entire lower bridge and research line — all the books, all the packs, all the lectures right on his/her computer. The technology exists to provide a one or two GB download file (or many smaller files) that anybody on the planet could go to a COS-sponsored website and just download the whole subject. All MP3s of all 3,000 lectures, all PDFs of all the books and packs, etc.

    All the materials ARE already digitized. No problem there.

    Why not make these openly available for all mankind? You know, that phrase I read somewhere: “humbly tendered to man.”

    A few servers, a few hundred thousand bucks to set it all up and bingo.

    If there is a “science of the mind” here, then the biggest overt imaginable would be to not give it to man. Right now and immediately. If there is a concern about the completeness of the science, well let the chips fall where they may. Put it out there and let it stand or fall in the marketplace and amongst men.

    If there is a “science to end all suffering” here, then the biggest overt imaginable would be to not give it to man. Right now and immediately. The mechanisms of mind and their solutions should be the birthright of every child that is born on earth.

    And that billion dollar war chest . . . well why not build a bunch of laptops with the bridge already loaded and sell them for $500 to anyone who would like to try to learn to audit. (Instead of stupid lawsuits and fair game.) And also include a computerized laptop driven e-meter with cans that can be plugged in to a USB port. All this is possible easily with today’s computer technology and low cost computing platforms.

    Science . . . especially science of the mind, the spirit . . . belongs to man.

    The Newton family does not hold the copyrights to the laws of physics. Einstein let out his discoveries for mankind to use for its potential betterment. Many medicines are in the public domain for the good of all.

    What kind of person or group would hoard and hide a solution like Dianetics and Scientology when it could be broadly given out to all within 30-60 days. All discoveries of the mind and spirit must exist for the good of all and be free.

    That this is not being done, when the technology exists today to free this material (Hubbard probably never even dreamt that a platform like the Internet would ever exist that could provide instant worldwide dissemination of all his ideas and research) is just the most deplorable idea and biggest overt I can imagine.

    Free the subject and let it succeed or fail on its own merits and results out in the world. What are you waiting for COS (holder of the copyrights).

    It is the birthright of every person.

    Just think about this for a minute. The technology is there today to give to every man, women and child on earth. For real. In a matter of months.

    End of rant. This has been on my mind for a long time.

    • Not a rant…wish you would have communicated this a long time ago…..Brilliant :-)

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      +1000000000000000000000000000…………………………………………………

    • Giving all the writings and recordings away for free is not necessarily the best way to disseminate the ideas, principles, and technology contained within. Whether or not to allow unfettered distribution of copyrighted materials is a debate of course raging in other spheres.

      While the appeal of the idea of open distribution is understandable, other strategies hewing much closer to proprietary copyright management could be more effective, especially if one wishes to prevent rampant alteration.

      • Bob,
        I have to disagree. I use to buy into the fact that you just can’t give it away etc or sell it really cheap because people won’t appreciate it, it will be out exchange and mostly it will be altered. Well, take a look now. The church is a freakin corporation with all sorts of legal crap on their side to support the ‘scriptures’ etc, yet it has been altered by DM big time and those who follow him- SO MUCH FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTING ALTERATION.

        If the church every really wanted to ‘save the planet’ then the organizational policies should have been seriously questioned a long time ago, because it is the very way the church has ALWAYS operated that has kept it out of ARC with the public at large and on the wrong side of the law.

        Prove that making the materials available for free on the net (except for processes and ot levels which need to be trained in person) would be a bad thing. Who says? If the church acted (not pr’d) like they really cared about everyone and made the only goal to clear people as quickly and effeciently as possible, we could have made an impact. People don’t push away what truly works. Scientology truly works, and when presented properly people DO NOT NATURALLY REJECT IT…JUST THE OPPOSITE. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE SOLD LIKE SOAP WITH TODAY ONLY SALES AND STUPID OUT OF DATE PROMOS, AND IT DOESN’T HAVE TO COST ALOT OF MONEY. LEARN TO AUDIT, AND AUDIT. AND THE PC DOES THE SAME AND SO ON. IT DOESN’T NEED MUCH OF ANYTHING TO EXPAND AND DELIVER BECAUSE IT WORKS. IF PEOPLE ARE COGNITING, THEY WILL SIT ON A GARBAGE CAN TO AUDIT. ALL YOU NEED IS A SPACE FOR THE BOOKS AND PACKS AND A TABLE AND CHAIRS TO AUDIT AND TRAIN. THEREFORE, THE MORE ACCESSIBLE THE MATERIAL, THE MORE PEOPLE WILL GRAB HOLD. RON EVEN SAID THAT YOU DON’T NOT LET PUBLIC LISTEN TO TAPES BECAUSE THEY MIGHT GET MU’S.
        ALL I KNOW IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE ON A SINKING SHIP YOU DON’T CHARGE PEOPLE A BIG FEE TO JUMP INTO A LIFEBOAT.YOU GET THEM ON ANY WAY YOU CAN BECAUSE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, RIGHT?

        • Relax, dude, I said “not necessarily”. But it’s not a black-or-white question, and deserves careful consideration by authentic stewards.

    • Most, if not all, of Hubbard’s material is already out there on the net. Google e.g. “l ron hubbard pdf” and find for yourself.

    • Not a rant at all!
      Just a bright idea!
      How bright I don’t know… but sure worth pondering…
      or trying…

  9. Nice intro. Got me chomping at the bit for more.

  10. Scientology inc. Has Overts on the Narconon network. First of all, the staff in the Sea Org have no business managing drug issues. God knows if one of them sneaked a tablespoon of Pepto Mismol for an upset tummy it would be with hold enough to blow.

    A.B.L.E. INT begged for MILLIONS of dollars of donations for Chilloco and the Narconon network. Not only did NONE of that money go towards helping the Narconon network, (they stole the donations, it went straight into CofS bank accounts although it was DEDICATED for Narconon and HELPING CHILDREN, not only did they beg for money for Narconons, they kept it for their G.I. stats at A.B.L.E. and even went into the existing Narconons and took all of their reserves! Up at A.B.L.E. Int while begging for millions in donations the execs referred to Chilloco and Narconon Network as ” A Fucking abortion”. The people in the network as “D.B.’s” yet they pimped those “D.B.’s” and those kids on drugs to squeeze millions of dollars in donations out of Church Members. They can’t tolerate anyone with a drug problem anywhere on any Church lines. The E.D. of Narconon Int has a stat of Gross Income regged from the Narconons! Any Narconon with $50.00 in reserves is expected to cough it up to A.B.L.E.! At one time Narconon Italy was the largest feeder line of new public to the Flag Land Base! A.B.L.E. squeezed every penny out of the Narconons in Italy sending E.D. Narconon Int (non Sea Org) “on tour” to get the money out of Narconon’s bank accounts while begging for donations from Members in the U.S. “for Narconon”! This is true. Patty Schwartz, the former E.D. Narconon Int will tell anyone!

    Applied Scholastics? For real? Sea Org Members consider themselves “super literate” because they can look up words in a dictionary. Sea Org Staff are socially illiterate to begin with. They are wholly out of communication with Earth people. So they are socially illiterate. They would not have a clue what is going on the world. The word “literate” means:

    lit·er·ate (ltr-t)
    adj.
    1.
    a. Able to read and write.
    b. Knowledgeable or educated in a particular field or fields.
    2. Familiar with literature; literary.
    3. Well-written; polished: a literate essay.
    n.
    1. One who can read and write.
    2. A well-informed, educated person.

    What literature would a Sea Org member be familiar with? The vast majority are not even familiar with the Scientology literature. How well informed are the Sea Org Staff? What field is the average Sea Org Member knowledgeable in? The average Sea Org Member has been off the bridge since they got off the E.P.F.. They have become indifferent about even learning about Scientology.

    The truth is Sea Org Members are functional illiterates. Cultural illiterates and moral illiterates.

    Defined here: http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_illiteracy.html

    The term functional illiterate is often used to describe a person who can read or write to some degree, but below a minimum level required to function in even a limited social situation or job setting.

    The Sea Org is a very. very limited social situation. Especially at the Int base. Sea Org Members live below the poverty line. They are on Church welfare. There is a connection between poverty and illiteracy in every culture.

    Really, how are these people supposed to eradicate drugs, crime and illiteracy?

    According to David Miscavige, by begging for donations. That is their stat. Money begged.

    • I might note that Hubbard was literate across the boards and attracted people who were literate across the boards as well.

      • And for those that did not know, Hubbard personally donated 75,000.00 to Narconon L.A. to get it up and going. Do you know how much money A.B.L.E. has taken from Narconon L.A,? There is no Narconon L.A. anymore. It was there for 20+ years and vanished once A.B.L.E. started “managing” it and demanding it give up it’s reserves. Not only did the Narconons pay their taxes (licensing fees 10% of income that is HEAVY TAXATION, ) AND book fees on those unGodly over priced books of 2500.00 for six? paperbacks to druggies no less, The Narconons were “regged” to give up the rest of any reserves. A.B.L.E.’s interest in the Narconon Network was FINANCIAL under David Miscavige’s demands for INCOME. I have no problem with people HAVING lots of money. But for real, don’t pretend you are solving a social problem when you are putting extra burdens on the druggies and PIMPING them! STEALING from them! PROFITING off of their misery! And embezzling donations given to help them! David Miscavige is handicapped at charity! BEATING volunteers! Stealing donations to the less fortunate. He is illiterate across the boards!

        • And what kind of people are we here? Against the backdrop of every invitation to drop the torch, we look to find a reason to believe. Knowing, that he lies straight faced. He managed a lot of damage, but he never touched our reasons to believe!

          To my fellow Indie Friends who are on top of crowd control in this exodus, on top of delivery that results in a valuable product, you are my reasons to believe. Someone like you, makes it hard to live without, somebody else.

          • Oracle
            On a roll with GREAT data, thanks!
            Greta

          • ORACLE: WOW GREAT POST. I was intensely interested in Narconon at one point, but the more I investigated and observed how things were done, I stayed away. Their biggest problem, in my opinion, is not having medical staff on board—just exdruggies helping druggies. It was a real issue and they wanted to have trained Scientologist to help run them, but the network and training on this line was a mess. Insurance won’t insure them without a competent medical staff, and because they are nonstandard (use of purif which is ‘controversial) in the eyes of the insurance companies. If they had medical staff (which ABLE/Church can totally afford to do) and incorporated other things like ongoing counselling and job networking etc they probably could appear legitimate enough where they could be placed on insurance programs. Instead, they tell people to pay cash, and then get reimbursed from their insurances, but that line is messed up and people can’t get reimbursed if the program is not on the insurance list, so it is circular. Also, to this day I don’t know if they have ever calculated their true stats as a group. I do know that the 85% rate they boasted across the boards years ago was not the truth…but what else is new!

        • Thanks for this data. The support of LRH for Narconon in its beginnings is telling. Narconon did have VERY good stats getting people off drugs at one time and was relatively affordable. DM has abandoned that line and morphed Narconon into a donation pipeline and a PR machine for the COS.
          Today only the wealthy can afford Narconon services except in those instances where there is a subsidized program created for PR purposes.

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      +100000000000000000……………………….

    • Your posts are getting better and better. Just thought I’d mention that. Are you drinking energy drinks, or using The Force?

    • Mr. O – You wrote: “The truth is Sea Org Members are functional illiterates. Cultural illiterates and moral illiterates.” – quite a broad brush to stroke the S.O. members with. I would say a more accurate statement is the S.O. members are not afforded the opportunity to become more literate in these areas (functional, cultural and moral.) If you’re an employer and get an opportunity to hire an Ex-Sea Org person – snap them up and give them a chance. If you look at the stats of many Ex S.O. members you’ll find that most land on their feet and build productive successful lives in a short period of time often with no resources other than their skill sets. I wasn’t in the S.O. but have the utmost respect for those that did, especially those who were in for many years.

      • plainoldthetan

        Agreed. The “ivory tower” rule gets generalized to every Sea Org member to the detriment of Scientology. With the attendant side effect that Sea Org members become fanatics about something they know nothing about.

        George Santayana – “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

      • I never suggested Sea Org Members lack potential. On the contrary. Just pointing out an existing condition.

        • And I would not say they were “not afforded” opportunity. I would say they are straight up suppressed. Potential wise, if you can make it in the Sea Org you can make it anywhere.

  11. Miscavige is a renowned LOOT player.

  12. When I first read the following, I ridged (backed off) a little:
    “Integration is the act or process of integrating, defined by Webster’s as incorporating into a larger unit.”
    I did, because, in my reality, the subject of Scientology often turns out to be the “larger unit” by reason of its scope. So, I checked out my Webster’s New World Dictionary published in 1957 and came up with the following definition which I like better: “To make whole or complete by adding together parts.” That way, no subject gets “integrated into” any other and all proponents can be happy. :-) But still, even that did not feel exactly right. From my recollection, LRH wanted his discoveries and procedures to be APPLIED in various fields (like education and drug rehab and psychology) rather than integrated into existing ideas, methods and procedures. As an example, Willie Benitez, the guy who actually founded Narconon while he was in prison, applied straight LRH procedures (Training Drills, etc) to the field of drug rehab and was very successful. He didn’t integrate these procedures with other existing procedures to my knowledge. Anyhow, so much for my nit-picking on choice of words.
    Most importantly, it is good to have the history and devolution of these Social Betterment Programs brought to light. For example, there are a couple of generations of Scientologists who don’t know that at one time the primary purpose and activity of Narconon was to actually get LOTS of people off drugs and the primary purposed and activity of Applied Scholastics was to teach LOTS of people how to read and to study, rather than to do “fund raising” ….and be used as propaganda to distract attention from the anti-social and anti-Scientological activities of church management. Another example was Freedom Magazine which at one time was a great medium for exposing social ills and exposing evil in the society and government. It seldom even mentioned the COS in its articles. It exposed real 4th dynamic evils and was widely recognized in society for this. Now it is a caricature of itself, used only to bash Marty and anyone else who has dared to speak out about DM and his little out-tech band of renegade squirrels.
    Scientology can, has, and will contribute understanding to many fields of human betterment. Other contributors should be acknowledged and celebrated for their contributions. They are our brothers and sisters in a common cause.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks. Willie did integrate Scientology into criminal reform.

    • You wrote, ” As an example, Willie Benitez, the guy who actually founded Narconon while he was in prison, applied straight LRH procedures (Training Drills, etc) to the field of drug rehab and was very successful. He didn’t integrate these procedures with other existing procedures to my knowledge.”

      There was an existing procedure called “incarceration”. Willie integrated Scientology into that. Incarceration is a process in itself.

      • Your necessity level for self improvement is elevated to new heights.

      • Wow, I never thought of incarceration as a process, but I guess it is in a way…..even if it amounts to being a reverse process in most cases.
        And yet apparently the upper 50% of the population will have gains from just about any “therapy”. Apparently Willie Benitez was and is one of those basically high toned, constructive minded people. He made things better. He brought light to darkness for himself and others…… just as Marty and many others in the Independent Scientology movement do.
        Here Comes the Sun!

    • Espiritu,
      I like those last two thoughts and I think that was LRH’s idea–apply it to other fields and become an important part in whatever profession you are in. The way it ended up is that ABLE tries hard to make Scientology the one only and show how nothing else works . I know that I got another rehabb interested in utilizing the purf…they were very interested how to help cramps etc too, but it wasn’t accepted. Personally, I thought that whatever works to get someone off of drugs is valid..whether its a 12 step or the bible alone…but why not let them put people through the purif to give them a boost?

  13. Excellent.

    As a habitual proofreader, I note that “Let us attempt to integrate the principle, workable ideas of Scientology…” it should be principal.

    Thanks for the insight. The essence of true Scientology really is simply read it, drill it, do it.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks.

    • Opps- Principle is correct The principal is your pal. An expression my mother taught me to differentiate between the two long ago. Thanks mom.

      Marty has it right.

      • Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

        annhowe
        Slappy Dave is right! Principal is an adjective, principle is a noun. Look it up in the dictionary! – I´m also a habitual proofreader.

        • Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

          annhowe
          Ooops! Principal can also be a noun. The principal of a school for example. He/she could be your pal. But principle cannot be an adjective. In the context, principal is an adjective: “Principal ideas”, meaning the most important ideas.

      • Please see the following re: usage of “principle” and principal”. slappydave has it right.

        Principal / Principle

        One problem with these words is that many students are taught that saying “the principal is my pal” will help them to remember the difference between the -pal word and the -ple word. While it is true that principal is used as a noun to mean “the chief person,” the mnemonic (memory device) completely ignores one principal use of principal, which is as an adjective, meaning “main,” “chief,” “most important.” Indeed, of these two words, only principal can function as an adjective.

        – Principal is an adjective meaning “most important” or “main” OR a noun designating “the main or chief one.” Thus, the principal sum of money on which one draws interest is the principal, and the principal person in a school is the principal.

        – Principle can never be an adjective, and that is where most people err. It is a noun only. referring to a fundamental law or concept or to a code of conduct, often used in the plural, as in “moral principles.” Once we grasp this principle, we are less likely to confuse these words.

        In fact, the words have absolutely no meanings in common. While principal refers to “chief” or “main” (or to the chief or main person or thing), principle never does. While principle refers to a fundamental law or code of conduct, principal never does.

    • Source: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
      From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com

      Usage: Principle and principal are often confused: the principal (not principle) reason for his departure; the plan was approved in principle (not in principal)

      principle: noun:
      1. a standard or rule of personal conduct a man of principle
      2. (often plural) a set of such moral rules he’d stoop to anything he has no principles
      3. adherence to such a moral code; morality it’s not the money but the principle of the thing torn between principle and expediency
      4. a fundamental or general truth or law first principles
      5. the essence of something the male principle
      6. a source or fundamental cause; origin principle of life
      7. (Physics / General Physics) a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the behaviour of a system the principle of the conservation of mass
      8. an underlying or guiding theory or belief the hereditary principle socialist principles
      9. (Chemistry) Chem a constituent of a substance that gives the substance its characteristics and behaviour bitter principle

      principle: idioms:
      in principle: in theory or essence
      on principle: because of or in demonstration of a principle

      principle: origin: from Latin principium beginning, basic tenet

      principal: adjective (prenominal):
      1. first in importance, rank, value, etc.; chief
      2. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) denoting or relating to capital or property as opposed to interest, etc.

      principal: noun:
      1. a person who is first in importance or directs some event, action, organization, etc.
      2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Britain) a civil servant of an executive grade who is in charge of a section
      3. (Law) Law
      a. a person who engages another to act as his agent
      b. an active participant in a crime
      c. the person primarily liable to fulfill an obligation
      4. (Social Science / Education) the head of a school or other educational institution
      5. (Social Science / Education) (in Scottish schools) a head of department
      6. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Banking & Finance) Finance
      a. capital or property, as contrasted with the income derived from it
      b. the original amount of a debt on which interest is calculated
      7. (Miscellaneous Technologies / Building) a main roof truss or rafter
      8. (Music, other) Music
      a. the chief instrumentalist in a section of the orchestra
      b. one of the singers in an opera company
      c. either of two types of open diapason organ stops, one of four-foot length and pitch and the other of eight-foot length and pitch
      9. (Performing Arts / Theatre) the leading performer in a play

      principal: origin: via Old French from Latin principālis chief, from princeps chief man, prince

      • Ooops! (Previously missing “e.g.:”)

        principle: noun:
        1. a standard or rule of personal conduct. e.g.: a man of principle
        2. (often plural) a set of such moral rules. e.g.: he’d stoop to anything he has no principles
        3. adherence to such a moral code; morality. e.g.: it’s not the money but the principle of the thing torn between principle and expediency
        4. a fundamental or general truth or law. e.g.: first principles
        5. the essence of something. e.g.: the male principle
        6. a source or fundamental cause; origin. e.g.: principle of life
        7. (Physics / General Physics) a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the behaviour of a system. e.g.: the principle of the conservation of mass
        8. an underlying or guiding theory or belief. e.g.: the hereditary principle socialist principles
        9. (Chemistry) Chem a constituent of a substance that gives the substance its characteristics and behaviour. e.g.: bitter principle

  14. Marty, I’m amazed that you have been able to condense this extremely complex situation (which other religions have taken centuries to communicate) as you have in just a draft of the introduction to your next book. Let us know whatever we can do to enable you to create the time to complete Scientology 101. Heartfelt thanks for all your efforts so far.

  15. Marty, you touched one of the subjects I still have on my list of articles to write.
    Narconon has also undergone massive technical changes. In the 70s some relevant technical subjects had not been developed out out, like the Purification Rundown, or the Scientology Drug Rundown. The products from that time were made without them.
    There was a cold withdrawal, assisted by vitamins, Cal Mag, a battery of assists, TRs, light physical work, personal care and communication and if needed close medical help. After that there were Objective Processes and lots of Standard Dianetics Auditing regarding drugs, the full Rundown, some had hundreds of hours.
    In the 90s I had been asked to audit some Narconon staff members and so I had some contact again. Narconon had been changed in many points. Purification Rundown had been introduced. A small course about ethics and a long final Write-up of Overts and Withholds had been introduced as well.
    I was shocked when I was informed that THE AUDITING OUT OF THE DRUGS HAD BEEN DROPPED COMPLETETY!!!!!
    I was told that giving auditing would have created bad PR for the CofS using the line the CofS would make “Church-addicts” out of drug addicts. And therefore the auditing had been forbidden! All E-Meters had been banned from Narconon for “PR-reasons” by the GO/OSA.
    That seemed to me to be very outlandish thinking that everyone else would need a Scientology-Drug RD, a Dianetic Drug Rd EXCEPT A HEAVY DRUG CASE???!!!
    When I looked a bit closer into it I found another story behind it. Back then, in Sweden and Germany, Narconon had received recognition and public funding. So they had to have fixed prices.
    When the area of the monthly price increases of the CofS started, Narconon could not raise its prices the same way. It delivered the same services to the old, lower prices (Purif, auditing) etc. as were delivered in the orgs and some publics who could not afford the org prices took these services in the Narconon, then.
    The most potent technical tool of help for the drug addicts has been suppressed. And if it hasn’t been re-introduced lately this is how it is still today. Think about that yourself.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for the interesting stretches of history Worsel.

    • Thanks Worsel!
      That sheds a lot of light on this scene. Very appreciated.
      Greta

    • I helped for a time in 78 in trying to help revitalize a Narconon in Palo Alto after John Brodie had bailed. I know that no one had gotten metered auditing, and they weren’t even doing a sweat out as it just came out (plasic bags and eating only fruit). It was just trs and objectives and some really bad zerxoed check sheets. The church was not suppose to be connected to it . That has always been the mistake. They denied connection to it, while running it. How idiotic. Anyway, I’m surprised that you said they were auditing people with a meter because the meter is strickly a religous artifact .
      Applied Scholastic schools can’t use them either. Where was this where you worked?

      When I saw the series of packs newly created and basically a copy of the div 6 courses, I was really happy as they included The Way toHappiness etc. Yes, I would like to see Narconon deliver Dianetics and the grades, but because they are separated legally , they can’t do it. I don’t know why the church just didn’t take overt responsibility for these programs. If Ron was so certain of the workability, then they would have looked like
      humanitarian endeavors run by a church. Look at the Salvation Army, they are religous based. Catholics have their own schools. But no,not the church- from day 1 it has always been too worried about this enemy and that enemy and has never wanted to take responsibility for anything bad that may have happened that would leave the church liabel and bring it down, so they used covert control and lied lied lied about the connection!

      • Looks like under the same name “Narconon” there was not only a different content at different times, but also a different content at different locations.
        In Sweden there was a co-operation with Stockholm Org. In Germany there was Auditing given up to about 1984 in Narconon Schliersee. Earlier in Berlin as well. There were trained C/Ses and Auditors. Quality inspections from Social Coordination came a few times (Sheila Gaiman and others) and I remember that the folders needed to be translated and FESed for these inspections.
        There were printed packs from WW and translations of these into German. Sounds like an entirely different scene compared to what you describe from Palo Alto.

    • A lot of your information is sketchy and unfortunately not accurate. You got misinformation about the DRD,but it serves to punctuate how poorly educated the COS was to explain and represent Narconon and yet it insisted on total control and lording over it.

      • Re: “A lot of your information is sketchy and unfortunately not accurate. You got misinformation about the DRD,”
        Your comment is so generalized that I cannot make out, what you are talking about. At that time I happened to be involved in translating the PC-folders for the inspections mentioned above. There were piles and piles and piles of folders and I remember definitely doing that work. I know what was audited and the invoicing was in the folders as well. The only thing possibly inaccurate was that I didn’t mention that these inspections from the GO took place before it was replaced by OSA. OSA continued this dramatization of “no help” for “PR”-reasons.
        One example: When I had contact again in the 90s it was gruesome to see one of the addicts with heavy out-int indicators – after years on heroine and not in touch with the body – grossly mistreated by telling her to write up her “OWs”, because she “pulled it in”. Not surprisingly she blew and took drugs again. The last thing I heard about her was that she had died. This kind of technical mistreatment and false application of ethics in the OSA period is much more grave than in the GO period. In the OSA period the data about Out-Int were out.
        But anyway, please help me to understand your comment, what exactly do you think is “inaccurate” and what exactly is my “misinformation”?

        • The misinformation you got was that there were PR problems with Narconon delivering DRDs and using the meter. The problem was that the FDA forbid the meter to be used outside the realm of religious use. The other aspect was that the program originally was very basic – trs and books. DRD was not part of it. LRH suggested that people could complete Narconon services and finish up with DRDs in the church.
          The psychosis is that a lot of work went into attempts to keep Narconon”secular” but then at the same token it is pn church org boards as a feeder unit, and even described by them as a “faith based” program. So why state that but deny them access to the entire use of drug handling of cases? You are either secular or not, connected or not….its all part of the schizophrenic state that Marty is describing. If Narconon is faith based, then it should use all the tech period. The church uses Narconon to its convenience- secular and “arms length” when it suits them, or a faith based program when it suits them without regard to how this translates technically in salvaging the drug case. I hope I am making sense here. Pls let me know.

          • martyrathbun09

            The FDA never forbade use of the meter in the secular setting. It required labelling for the very reason that the meter could be used in such a context.

            • So Marty, if that is the case then any organization can use it anywhere? Didn’t LRH develop a secular meter because of this- used at Applied Scholastics called The Learning Accelerator? Why would it even be necessary to do that if there was no probiting of the meter’s use secularly by the FDA?

        • The misinformation you got was that there were PR problems with Narconon delivering DRDs and using the meter. The problem was that the FDA forbid the meter to be used outside the realm of religious use. The other aspect was that the program originally was very basic – trs and books. DRD was not part of it. LRH suggested that people could complete Narconon services and finish up with DRDs in the church.
          The psychosis is that a lot of work went into attempts to keep Narconon”secular” but then at the same token it is pn church org boards as a feeder unit, and even described by them as a “faith based” program. So why state that but deny them access to the entire use of drug handling of cases? You are either secular or not, connected or not….its all part of the schizophrenic state that Marty is describing. If Narconon is faith based, then it should use all the tech period.Pls let me know if this helps clarify.

          • It does clarify. Thanks. Obviously you had based your comment on data about the US and I was talking about Sweden and Germany. FDA’s orders were irrelevant over here. I wasn’t aware about the different scene in the US.
            Believe me, my data are correct for those areas I was talking about. However, obviously they do not apply for the US.
            I find it amazing how under the same name, “Narconon” widely different content has been delivered in different locations.

            • Yes at that time that was true, but as the establishing of trademarks started to take place, the Narconon program was then defined so that it could be consistent throughout.

              • Thanks for the data.
                If establishing trademarks results in omission of Standard Tech, that looks like something I cannot understand easily. Knowing how the mind is arranged, knowing about the different types of charge (CS-Series 44R), knowing how the effects of drugs and desires for drugs can be keyed out (Scn Drug Rd), knowing how to handle Dianetic causes for taking drugs (NED Drug Rd), knowing about the principles of Standard Tech and arbitraries, knowing all that – the full drug handling is omitted to make the program “consistent”???? A drug addict does have a standard type of mind like anyone else, maybe a bit more resistive until drugs are handled (CS-Series 48RE). But that is standard.. No C/S would accept the current Narconon program as a drug handling. It is a half-done, only. The steps they do are great. But it is a half done. What a shift in importance! Why didn’t they make it consistent by training some auditors and C/Ses and applying Standard Tech fully all over the place? What is so wrong with training some extra auditors and C/Ses? Many of the ex-addicts would love to get trained and then help other addicts in turn. I guarantee you that superb products would have been a stellar promotion no black PR could have touched.
                Excuse my rant. I have seen that it can be done and so I see that solution as an outpoint of magnitude. After all, an addict who wants to come off drugs should be given the full product, not just the first half to make it consistent with other areas that deliver only the first half of the drug handling, me thinks.

  16. This is a very intelligent view upon how Scientology is perceived by the public in 2012.
    I would like to encourage you to even get more altitude when looking upon the subject from a helicopter perspective.

    As-ising means to look at the whole as it is without non-ising or alter-ising. I feel that you have the tendency to exclude LRH from your view whenever it comes to a critical analysis of the subject Scientology (today).
    Your decision to never allow a critical thought or sentence in terms of LRH’s heritage and to defend him whatever it takes makes you less credible in the end. And this is very sad since you are – as far as personally I can see – the only person who COULD analyse and explain to the world precisely what Scientology is and what’s ‘wrong’ with Scientology and the Church.

    (So what would be ‘right’ … ?)

    You can very well open people’s eyes as far as the distinction between the Church and the philosophy is concerned – but the ‘philosophy’ itself remains untouched and a miracle to many, when it comes to an overall evaluation.

    Scientologists are told by LRH to think for themselves and to investigate the subject of Scientology very critically. This is what the Church disseminates. And it sounds great. It builds confidence.
    However – in reality Scientologists are expected to take everything for granted what LRH had said – and of course also what the Church says.
    And I have the tendency to believe that LRH himself had not been very fond of individuals in his group who would question what he had said. …

    You are right when you blame the Church of being a good example of those ‘terrible generalisateurs’. But doesn’t this go back to LRH?
    Hasn’t he been a magalomaniac with the idea of explaining the world with a couple of formulars?

    I have no problem with somebody coming up with a new approach to explain different phenomenons in life and suggestions for handling life better.
    But LRH provided a lot of such formulars, advices and evaluations – putting them all together in a sort of ‘manual for life’ and he expected his devotees to 100% respect and apply them. Or did he ever invite any group to critically discuss them in order to find week points? I don’t think so.
    As far as I know – when vastly being attacked by Scientists from Psychology and Psychiatry after having published the Dianetic book he applied one of his strategies: ‘Always attack – never defend.’

    In the end, the result is an ‘LRH bible’. Scientologists are respecting what’s written in their ‘bible’ like muslims are respecting what’s written in the Koran and Jews in their Tora. For them, it is the ultimate truth.

    ‘Disagreements’ are not welcome.

    In some religions and regions, your disagreement can be your death sentence.

    What would the world look like if Scientology would have spread across one country while LRH was still at power? What would have been LRH’s dream?
    As it looks it would have become a new type of theocracy where you would have a hard time living if you refused to become a Scientologist. Which Scientologist would buy his bread or car from WOGs if he had the choice? Who would join a football club of WOGs if there was one of Scientologists?
    Would such country really be the country we all dream of?

    Thinking and writing so much about Scientology today and analysing what is wrong with it – wouldn’t it make sense to expand the view, further than focussing on how DM has spoilt everything?

    I wish LRH would have left lots of ‘suggestions for improving conditions in life’ instead of leaving a rigid system – described in many policies – including the concept of an organization which claims to be the only solution and rescue to mankind.

    I think that the biggest problem Scientology has is that it claims, it insists to be a religion. Religion always means: BELIEVING in something and sticking to it – no matter if in detail it sounds reasonable or not.
    (Doesn’t the concept of religion alone contradict the concept of: ‘Think for yourself; investigate critically the subject of …’? It is rationality vs. rationality. Isn’t it?)

    Religion is solidly connected with intolerance. And this has caused cruelties and wars since people exist.
    And what will remain in Syria once Assad will be chased out of the country? A civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnites.

    I hope that I have not hurt or insulted anybody’s religious feelings with my disrespectful thoughts…

    • You have in no way insulted my religious feelings, on the contrary.
      My personal view is that Scientology is religious in the sense of Buddhism. Instead of meditation it has auditing. Difficulties arise when it claims to be a ‘science’, which it is obviously not, albeit that it uses elements of science (the e-meter) itself. Further it should let go of a rigidly military structured organization. Religion is killed by its organization. That’s why Buddhism never had such a structure.

      • Tessa: “That’s why buddhism never had such a structure” — yikes. Buddhism is HIGHLY structured. Lineages, lineage holders, tulkus, heart sons etc etc. It’s structured to the extreme. Perhaps Theravadan isn’t so structured but I’m thinking it is in so far as it rigidly adheres to the sutras. (teachings of the buddha)

        Buddhism actually aligns itself TO modern scientific thought , experiments as well as medical research wherein the brain “lights up” during fMRIs while highly practiced meditators focus on compassion etc, proving that certain areas of the brain are “responsible” for compassion, empathy, etc. — buddhism way back when had a highly developed “scientific” branch called the abhidamma (the philosophy, psychology, metaphysics of buddhism)

        We so often hear that organized religion is what makes religion evil but I think that is a bit short sighted.

        What makes religion or any body of thought evil is when those following the religion or thought decide to let go of their responsibility in being alive and a functioning member of this earth and hand over their actions and lives TO the religion, the leaders, those “running” the place.

        THEN it gets to be a mess.

        IMHO

        Love,
        Christine

      • How would you define a science?

        My understanding of a science is an assemblage of data which is then developed into hypotheses of cause and effect with predictive value. When predictions made are proven out by experiment, the hypothesis becomes theory with predictive value, which is progressively tested and is found to explain natural phenomena, and a methodolgy for producing predicted results is incorporated. Then you have a science. It is a lot of data, predictive theory, and methodology for producing predicted results. Making an automobile began with a hypothesis about something, probably that a repetitive series of explosions could be used to serially convert chemical into contained kinetic energy. It worked (eventually). Then someone had to dope out how to use that energy to propel a wheeled vehicle (predictably), and after a lot of failures, that worked. After almost a century of work, you can buy a Ferrari (if you have the bucks), but the theory is the same. Scientology meets all the requirements of a science. In fact the only reason it has run into so much trouble is because it deals with YOU, US, WE, and each of us apparently have our own beliefs of what “should be”, as opposed to the actual as-is-ness.

        Scn is a religion NOT because it is a “belief” system (what challenges belief is the world it is introduced into, and what a mess has been made of Scn). It qualifies as a religion because traditionally religion leads to a better approach to life, but Scn does not request nor require beliefs. It requires an ability to look and see for oneself, which is what science is about. Women are very modest when talking about their achievements, but most have a science of shopping, and some are very good at it. Women also confer with each other about the science of getting men to do what’s needed and wanted, and are not above extortion, threats and other forms of coersion, all manner of bribery, blackmail, lie detectors, interrogations, hypnotic suggestion, spell-casting, false advertising, name changing, and stuff that is so new in evolution that it doesn’t even have a name yet! What pisses me off about Hubbard is that he could easily have come up with a course, “Basic Principles of Handling Women” – and didn’t. I think he didn’t do that, on purpose, intentionally, just to get some chuckles.

        • “What pisses me off about Hubbard is that he could easily have come up with a course, “Basic Principles of Handling Women” – and didn’t.”

          That’s common knowledge.

    • Berty M,
      Too many “generalizations” in this post. I think it better to narrow down to one thing, take that up, and see how that goes. Let’s take the comment you’ve made “but the ‘philosophy’ itself remains untouched”.

      In fact, in the subject the clear distinction is made between the “philosophy” or Scientology and the “technology of application”. The “Tech”. That tech is based on some 50 plus Axioms of Scientology.

      There are protocols of application, Training Routines, that cover the most critical points of use, the standards of the techniques, and exact methods of use that one attains in full training and then a rigorous interning under the guidance and correction of a team of fully trained professionals.

      In this light, can you proffer a single instance, a specific of application of the Technology of Scientology, a process, a protocol, that you personally have observed that you personally disagree with, and for exact reasons, based on you following exactly the protocols and the formula of that exact application?

      For example, perusing say Creation of Human Ability, any procedure from the long list of “Route 2″, and your personal replication of any one of these procedures, in “Model Session”, with the Auditing Cycle fully in and the formula applied precisely.

      Note: “Policy” is NOT, strictly speaking, a part of this honed down discussion. “Always attack – never defend” is an observation; the health of an organism can be positively affected if that organism were to go forward to meet threats, rather than withdraw and in that vacuum “pull in” that which is resisted. This isn’t “tech”. It is a relative observation and at best a “rule of thumb”, that like all relative data, is RELATIVE, and only the idee fixe would robotically put into effect. Pan Determinism, as a concept and practice, out plays this adage.

    • Great post, BertyM.

    • Like you, I agree that Scientology should be regarded more of a philosophy of the mind and a Science than a religion. I believe that the religious route was forced on LRH by governments and special interest groups.

      When it comes to Hubbard, I feel that like any other great man, he did not always practice what he preached. However, when he did not, he was willing to go back and fix his wrongs.

      I see a big distinctintion between Hubbard’s science of the mind, which is brilliant, and is designed to salvage the individual, and through him the rest, and the administrative technology. It is quite obvious the to me that while Hubbard tried to implement the first to develop the second, he was not always successful. There are some fundamental conflicts there. I believe they occurred when he allowed his immediate interests to take priority over his principles. We are seeing very successful groups that are not using Scientology admin and never will. However, whenever we see someone being successful in the field of the mind, they always seem to walk in his steps.

      This is why I regard his Science about the individual as a complete and working thesis. His treatment of groups I only see as recommendations.

      • I have no problem with personally regarding Scientology as a religion since it does deal with the spiritual nature of man. However, (and I think I read this on Steve Hall’s site) just because it qualifies as a religion doesn’t necessarily mean it ought to become one. I totally agree with that observation. In hindsight, one can argue on both sides of the issue whether there should ever have been a Church of Scientology. Now we have our history to rely on in order to not make serious errors going forward.

        • Max, I agree on dealing with the spiritual nature of man. So does most philosophy. In the western world religion is connoted with worship, dogma, exclusivity, etc. Of course Budhism is somewhat different. However, Scientology originated in the west. Co$dm behaves like the Catholic Church used to in the middle ages.

          Perhaps if Scientology was not recognized as a religion, but rather a benevolent society that follows certain principles and operate on a non profit basis, things would have been different today.

    • “I wish LRH would have left lots of ‘suggestions for improving conditions in life’ instead of leaving a rigid system.”

      You wanted more? There are the ethics formulas and the entire bridge. The rigid system was not supposed to be a stop, as some people have made it. It was supposed to be used to win. Just because some people use it to SUPPRESS and HARM is not Hubbard’s doing. Scientology is a body of knowledge. All Hubbard did was make that knowledge available.
      What people do with it is another matter. Anyone that owns an ethics book and can duplicate shouldn’t HAVE to be stuck in a lower condition on any dynamic. ( I myself like to wallow in lower conditions from time to time, so I get it when it’s a hobby.) But that in itself is a tool beyond anything that has ever been passed to mankind.

      • I’ll add my PLUS to that post. Superb. (That’s not “sugar”, it is observation of the obvious, your post here is bang on.)

    • BertyM,
      From what I have seen in LRH materials it isn’t so much a matter of having an individual, different opinion but when such are impinged upon say established auditing commands by altering these that is where LRH spoke out to warn against that.
      LRH did the trial and error phase of finding what does work and the individual usually hasn’t done that kind of homework.
      Greta

    • BertyM,
      I’m with Jim Logan in response to your post – too many generalizations, and your arguments are kind of scattered. My impression is that what you want to say is somewhat cloaked. I’m wondering – what is the main thesis of your comment?
      Leonore

  17. Theo Sismanides

    Hohoho, Maaaarty! You did it again! Hohoho! What an article! Man, you have a knack in putting things into the right perspective.

    Let me be a bit nasty here! Though I shouldn’t because this is quite a piece of a writing, setting things into the right perspective, but I cannot resist, hahaha.

    Well, well, well… We had Hubbard as the Author of a new science and he wrote what he observed… and then we had DM as the man who came along and who couldn’t keep up with such high level of ideas and concepts.

    I am still trying to find what is his problem but I guess finally it’s his literacy level and this is it. The Man is not really into the Humanities whereas Hubbard definitely was that and beyond that.

    So this second leader specialized in force and keeping control of everything and everyone with Scientologism… His solution was to make Scientology… Scientologism. That was his “solution” given his literacy background.

    Now, we are coming back to the era where we can think free with the subject and we got Marty here putting us back to that nice track of reasoning (far from force and oppression) and nicely writing about the subject of Scientology and how it should be looked upon, writing really with a knack and such great piece of writing this is.

    Rehabilitates my willingness to be part of this move and feel proud not just because I was part of that older movement (which turned into an Ism) but because I am part of this NEW movement which gets the subject back to its right perspective. An Ology, that is a study of Life, Man and Societies and beyond all this that yet unknown to man part, called the Spirit.

    That alone can keep me going again. Thanks Marty for this eloquent piece of writing.

  18. Li'll bit of stuff

    Outstanding introduction Mr. Rathbun!!! Shining light where
    there IS now only DARKNESS, in every sense of the word!
    BTW, what tool, (recently added) to the Scn toolbox, can accomplish the job, better than the now commonplace ‘laser sight’ wielded by a certain blog host?
    Not only illuminating, but cutting through 16 inch thick armour
    plate defences, too ………just for good measure!

    The old adage;…”The pen is mightier than the sword!”

    Sleep well, li’ll davey,….sleep….well.

  19. Nice!

  20. Interesting article. It made me thing as follows.

    Integration of sciences is already on its way. Sciences evolve and need data from other sciences. It’s a natural process.
    Scientology has indeed a problem in the sense that it is not really clear what it is: psychology or psychotherapy or philosophy or applied philosophy or religious philosophy or religious ideology or political ideology. I confess I don’t know. I agree that at the moment it has become ‘scientologism’ – an ideology. I would even call it a political ideology if we consider the intelligence and indoctrination activities, designed already by Hubbard himself.

    Scientology itself as body of data has not developed. And it cannot, because Hubbard did not want it to be altered of added too in any way. So it is still as it was in the ’50, ’60 and ’70. And now it has the status of ‘the scriptures of L. Ron Hubbard’. It is not open for discussion or debate. In that sense it is already not scientific. If it wants to integrate into the field of science, it will have to follow scientific rules.

    What needs to be done first is to scientifically research and analyse the body of data of Scientology. Like: what are the real results of NOT’s? E.g. in terms of medical statistics, like percentage of people having cancer. Does it deliver what it promises? We have to know if Scientology will stand those tests, because it claims to be ‘a science of the mind’.

    My opinion is that the only future for Scientology lies in the field of religion. But then it will be mandatory to ‘behave’ as a religion, and not as an enterprise whose goal it is to exterminate opponents and gain worldwide control.

  21. Sorry, typo: ‘thing’ should be ‘think’.

  22. The CO$ will learn that “eternity” is a sword that cuts both ways. You can’t
    hold “eternity” hostage when you’ve lost all credibility…for eternity.

  23. We are in funny times and Scientology does hold some answers properly administrated.(it helps understand the influence of the v RCS amongst others)

    The below is a disturbing incident from Orange County, http://youtu.be/KrSIBHZLSpg

  24. David Richardson

    I think David Miscavige is probably going to try to kill you.

  25. LRH vs DM:

    LRH: “MY PHILOSOPHY”:

    “For I know no man who has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.

    If things were a little better known and understood, we would all lead happier lives.

    And there is a way to know them and there is a way to freedom.

    The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.”

    David Miscavige”s “church” – “OUR PHILOSOPHY”:

    “For I know no man who has any right to use the wisdom of this universe without our permission. It belongs to those who own the trademarks and can use it to help themselves.

    If our things were a little less known and understood, we would all lead happier lives.

    And there is a way to know them and there is a way to the kind of freedom we approve.

    The new must give way to the old, fasehood must be made into truth, and our exclusive right to the solutions LRH created, though fought, always in the end prevails.”

  26. Marty you are so right!!! Can’t wait to read the book. Thank you!

  27. A LFBD and a breath of fresh air!
    It looks like your two books will make great book-ends for the subject of Scientology.
    Thank you, Marty.
    Ed

  28. I remember when “Scientology” simply meant the study of knowing or knowing how to know. Your observation that it is has become a tightly controlled ism is so on the mark. It’s just supposed to be about the discovery of truth, of what works. Philosophy = the study of wisdom. How can that be monopolized and trademarked? “There is no monopoly on the wisdom of the universe.”

  29. The last quote should be “For I know no man who has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.” — “My Philosophy” by LRH.

  30. Marty: I’ve just finished reading your book. Thanks very much for it.

    I have been a “Scientology watcher” for almost 20 years now. I have never been, and could never be, a Scientologist, as I am a materialist and do agree with the idea that “theta is superior to MEST”, nor that the “I” is an immortal spirit being. However, I have been intrigued that Hubbard did codify a lot of common-sense insights about communication, identity and psychology – things like “we like to be victims because it gives us an excuse to be mean” (aka the Overt-Motivator Sequence), “problems are usually the solutions to previous problems”, etc. I have used a lot of Hubbard’s shorthands and insights in my personal practice, while remaining extremely critical of – as you say – much of his reported personal behaviour and the “extremist” policies which contributed to the current Miscavigeologist mind-control cult.

    Your book – including as it does the crucial insight that Scientology is very far from the only path to the goals you see as those of Scientology, that “other practices” have something to offer and may be equally workable – may well map out a future for the death of the mind-control cult that currently bears that way, the liberation of its brainwashed drones, and a new “Scientology” to take its place among other psychologies, religious philosophies and spiritual practices. I will be watching your progress with the best of interest and participating here. Who knows, if an Indie Sci auditor sets up in my town I might give it a go.

  31. I think your observations are true and correct Marty. And you have brilliantly taken this complex subject and provided extremely clear insight.

    I’d be happy to share any info with you.

    The sad state of affairs with Narconon is best exemplified by the fact that in a year’s time there have been three deaths in the Arrowhead facility- the mecca of Narconon training and delivery. As compared to 3-4 deaths total in a period of 20 years internationally during 70′s- early 90′s.

    Schizoid is completely accurate as a description of the management psychosis of this network. CO$ has no interest in eradicating widespread drug use and continues to treat Narconon like some inherited bastard step child that it is stuck with and truthfully does not want to be bothered with unless it serves a selfishly motivated financial, PR or personnel recruitment purpose.

    • “CO$ continues to treat Narconon like some inherited bastard step child that it is stuck with and truthfully does not want to be bothered with ..”

      That is the truth. You said it better than I did! And the sad truth is the staff in these places that have come up on the streets and made it onto the bridge and up the bridge transform into the most compassionate and grateful of Scientology. They are not SELF important, like that creep Miscavige, they are OTHER important. Like natural auditors! The beauty of Scientology manifests through them like nowhere else.

      • I like you Oracle. Some of the brightest, sharpest, most caring people I knew were from the Narconon network. So much to say here…whew…. Anyway…..”True Blood” all the way: they are feeder units. Those managers at ABLE who dedicated themselves to actually helping them and worked to keep the vampires from feeding off them were removed and replaced with I-want-to-be-liked-by-Miscavige
        wannabees. The network had its own legends and stars: all of whom were written out of Narconon’s own history. Just as has been done with Scn itself. Anything and anyone perceived as a threat to RTC: gone. Sadly the Narconons went along with it- why? Because many of them had their lives SAVED. And how easy is it to confront the real evil that exists behind something that gives one such enormous freedom from drugs? And so with that hook, RTC has figured how to manipulate and control.

        • Thanks for that! I think these people we speak of above in the Narconon arena have a way of celebrating Scientology as a result of their experiences that I don’t see in other places. It helps that that they are held away from the culture and not welcomed as a result of their experiences. They are actually much less PTS that other people who are snared into the fold and bled for resources. People do not recruit them for staff or encourage them to come into the Orgs. People do not want them on lines really, that is why you don’t see them move on to the Orgs. The “class system” is so all enveloping now. And they have a lot of freedom to celebrate the Scientology on their own terms.

  32. I have some experience with this in the area of education. My wife and I raised 4 kids and early on they went to a Scientology school. At the time we couldn’t maintain this financially, so we were forced to send them to a public school. I was concerned at first because our kids wouldn’t be getting the study tech in school. This changed quickly as I saw that they were being taught by teachers that had a real love for their subjects. In high school our kids took honors classes where they took history, science, latin and so on. I was constantly commenting on how impressed I was with the high level of education they received. Still, there was no study tech in school and my wife and I commented on countless occasions how fantastic it would be if education used the study tech and was taught by teachers that were motivated solely by their desire to teach.

    • Paul,
      Just have to say that a school such as you suggest does exist in Sonoma. The mu data is valuable and distinct, the mass and gradient data factually isn’t, as educators know those importances. The field of education has much to offer in theory and practice. The problem with most Applied Scholastic Schools (the ones I have observed which is 5) is that they don’t embrace ‘teaching’. They think they should be supervisors and that they only need the study tech and booklets. Education and study tech work together, but there is a lot more to education than looking up mu’s, which you obviously observed.

  33. Thematic and supportive to the topic: Scientology’s focus is clearing charge out of the reactive mind, de-polluting the mind. It is hard to see how such a science could be generalized beyond that specific application. There is no course offered in Scn, “Applying Aristotle To One’s Own Life” (but that would be one helluva good course). The big mistake I see is that people confuse Scientology with a total solution. It differs in two respects: 1) Scn is a total toolkit for solutions, not solutions themselves, and 2) each solution is crafted by the individual. It is up to the Cleared Cannibal to develop his philosophy, his methodology, of life (part of which is determining right from wrong). Those who have failed to realize and do this have fallen flat on their faces. Likewise, it is up to the individual to maintain his own philosophy, and thereby, to maintain and improve his abilities to navigate his personal and work relationships. Scn has tools to help the individual develop his skills, but these are like the tools a retailer sells, and nothing more. An artists’ supply store will sell brushes and paints to anyone, but does not teach art, much less dictate a style. Scn will sell its tools, and technical expertise in their use, to anyone, but will not tell that individual what to think of himself, nor make his decisions for him. That fine line of distinction is part of the genius of Scientology. It is a bold and very clearly defined line, when seen. The Co$ has fallen flat on its face, for NOT seeing it, and its “solutions” for personal relationships are dictated from above, frequently and increasingly in orders to disconnect. These are opposites of Scientology goals, and have their origins in failures of individuals.

    When the individual fails, Scientology fails. Scientology succeeds when the individual succeeds in his or her own self-determined goals, however far these may have drifted away from him over the years since the dream was first dreamt. It is then that Scientology succeeds, in theory, in practice, and in its intent. (Is this a “radical new thought” to anyone??)

    • Brilliant post.

      • My humble thanks. Your validation means a lot to me.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Carcha, your question, above, has prompted one of my
          own! ( in line with the “31 FACTORS” a key element of
          Marty’s blog, ie; exposing the lies deceit and abuse of DM.)

          The concept of the “laser” (a beam of light) has been taken
          to extraordinary levels of technological development, as we
          know, from the “reading” of digitally encrypted discs, to micro
          surgery and cutting through practically any material, etc,etc.

          It’s (laser’s) usage, particularly in spotlighting or highlighting
          an object deemed to be the focus of attention, is without
          doubt,the most effective!

          So my question, then >>> is / are there perhaps, not more
          effective / efficient / more creative, dramatic methods of
          highlighting the “mastermind” hiding behind the PR, smoke
          and mirrors extortion racket known as the CO$ ? the COB?

          With skylighting and other new tech modalities of mass
          communication available, could these new “tools” not be
          gainfully employed, to not just complete the job of
          “de -fanging” the beast, but to obliterate it’s hitherto
          tenuous grip on the minds of those still in the “darkness?”

          Closing by LRH …” Ideas, not battles, mark the forward
          progress of mankind.”

          Cheers, Calvin.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Always clear cut, extremely lucid thoughts, Carcha.
      How very sobering, to pose a “radical new thought” as a question / hook, in getting an individual to evaluate as to
      whether Scientology succeeds, or fails, simply according
      to the intent behind the application thereof.

      For that matter,…….. hammers, crowbars, guns & knives,
      are often associated with destructive purposes, yet have
      a duality, in that they may also be used creatively,(survival)
      Again, these may be used on a whim, or as fallback, when
      realising their usage, may be just “the solution” called for.
      At the end of the day, these are ALL just tools, designed to
      be USED, to accomplish, or create, a certain effect./ s

      As an artist, tradesman, and (lay) philosopher, myself, I understand the practicalities of your “proposition” and
      applaud you for the concept!

      regards,
      Calvin.

      • Hi Calvin – Thank you. If you want to open it up … the integration of Scn into an indivual’s toolkit, his to use in clarifying his own thought and life, integrates Scn into the society, as something the society can use. The society and the individual are reflexive. The Co$ is failing to integrate (or is dis-integrating, dis-connecting), so there must be something in the individuals that is not Scientology – shocking thing to say, but how else can it be? It’s part of the difficulty with Scn, that it is very reflexive, or intuitive, yet separate. It’s tricky to look at oneself from an exterior point of view. Somehow, one has to get above the bank, because below that, one is trying to use abberated logic to work out logic. Scn has tools to work out logic, until one gets it himself. – Carcha.

    • Carcha, that is one of the most best comments on Scientology I have ever read! You have successfully articulated what I could not seem to put into words. Thank you for that!

      • Maria – Thank you. And, precisely: use of Scn is intuitive – a description of “you” as I believe LRH put it. The word “reflexive” might apply, also. LRH worked it all out, put it into words, and processes. He worked it ALL out, not just bits and pieces, from here to God knows where, mapped it out, as he put it. And we have it. Words are just symbolic representations of thought. You got it exactly, you precious Being. – Carcha.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Maria & Carcha,
        all great appreciations of truth, both yours and those
        very expansive treatises given by the mentor, LRH,
        without whose immensely broad and incisive forays
        into the woof & warp of the mind, spirit & life, ( and
        in a crusader sense, Marty Rathbun, rallying to his
        ( LRH’s) cause) we would simply not be together on
        this blog.)

        Perversely, we also have the li’ll dictator to thank, for
        creating such an abusive and exploitative Ponzi style
        operation, in order for us, the free grouping now known as the Independents, to finally take heed and corrective action,regarding Ron’s ominous warning, never to allow Scn to fall into the hands of a monopoly, as it most
        surely did!

        Truly now returned to the prospects of realizing the
        full scope of Ron’s incredible discoveries and hard won
        developments in releasing the potentialities of the spirit,
        we again have the opportunity to explore those realms
        like never before. Freedom has never before been so very well appreciated and understood, as it is today!

        Enjoy!

        Warm regards and best wishes to you both,
        Calvin.

  34. Brilliant Marty! I can’t wait to see the rest of the book if this is just the first. I had quite a blow down reading some of it from the stand point of the social coordination networks…one of the things I LOVED doing for Ron until the corrupter changed all that. Mike might remember one of our last comms about a program I was trying to put together that fell right in line with that but he was told it didn’t fit with what Int wanted. Of course not, it was a true help flow and we all know that doesn’t work in the church these days! Bravo for your viewpoint and willingness to share!!

  35. In fact, Scientology, Inc. is working against the very “Code of a Scientologist”:

    15. To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.

    Talking about integration, I agree, as long as the following is granted:

    16. To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in ethics, processing and administration in Scientology organizations.

    The whole Pol Ltr. “Code of a Scientologist” is out in Scientology, Inc.
    As a matter of fact, you will have a hard time if you try to apply the code.

  36. Wonderful Marty. I applaud you for tackling something that will make the LRH critics writhe in agony as you refuse to demonize LRH, the kool-aid drinkers profess you as King Squirrel, some indies will say you are not REALLY with the program. A daunting task and yet so important if scientology is going to not be snuffed out.

    Because he is a far far better writer and thinker than I, I’m going to quote from Ken Wilber speaking about a wonderful Buddhist teacher who recently died:

    “He wanted to keep Buddhism pure, but he also wanted it to advance into the modern and postmodern world, and he (and I) were deeply worried about what some of the popular forms of Buddhism were doing to both distort traditional understanding and forestall evolutionary advancement. He was particularly concerned with the rampant anti-intellectualism that pervaded much of American Buddhism (and spirituality in general), and the common confusion of postmodern platitudes (“all things are equal”) with deep Buddhist truths (which acknowledged absolute and relative truths equally). He was, in my opinion, one of the first truly Integral Buddhists …”

    I look forward to the day Marty, when you and Ken will sit down, have a very very long talk and perhaps Ken might become interested having a session or two :)

    I’d say Marty – that we could call you an “Integral Scientologist” — I think Ken would agree :)

    Love,
    Christine

  37. WOW!!!! PERFECT!!!! I hope people listen….

    On a personal note, I agree, anyone can be thrown under the bus in Scientologism.

    Thanks, Marty!

  38. I used to work with a guy who told me that he wouldn’t do anything in his business uness “LRH says to do it” in the green volumes. This in a business that has absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. This guy never seemed to notice that other people in the same business were much more successful and they probably never heard of LRH.

    It’s as if a medical doctor said he wouldn’t do anything that LRH didn’t say to do. Completely nuts.

    It makes sense to incorporate aspects of Scientology into any business or profession where they fit. But I have seen robotic application of the admin tech that results only in destruction. I think this is a good example of Scientologism.

    If one actually understands what LRH says, and can “think with” the data and work out how it does or doesn’t apply in a given situation, then you can have integration with whatever other technologies are useful.

  39. When I was the DSA Phx I was told to go pick up a picture of William Benitez for the WIS book. I was told to not mention Scientology and that he was the guy who started Narconon, but he wasnt really a Scientologist. The feeling I got was that he didnt really fit the mold. He didn’t donate to the IAS and fear Miscavige I guess. He was just a guy who used Scientology and did something big with it that helped a lot of people, but he “wasnt really a Scientologist”.

    • Benitez was not interested in becoming a Scientologist. His interest was finding a way out of his addiction and in so doing, to help others. To this he devoted himself to reading many books, utilizing other practices, and applying self-help techniques. His love was working with inmates. Willie refused to take his parole because he would have had to leave his fledging Narconon program in the prison with no one to supervise it. He opted to stay in prison longer, as a result. He finally left after he completed his work. The vast majority of that nucleus of inmates -some 20 or so- paroled and did not return. Willie went on to LIVE his own life, after so many years of incarceration. He gladly supported persons who saw his dream and wanted to move it to other prisons and eventually into the streets. It was largely a self-help program with immense popularity with inmates. The Church of Scientology grabbed onto this as a PR’s dream: good works well publicized to bolster LRH and its own image. The church did not financially support Willie or others but sucked up the vast good works and good will being
      generated by Narconon, and continued to do so for many years. Willie believed his work was done early on, and he was right. He dreamed a big dream and made it happen. He was not about to get sucked into management and administration. He was not about that. He was about possibilities and opening new horizons and that one on one work. He continued to work as a parole officer in the spirit of his brotherhood with ex cons. He kept himself at arms length with Scientology and Scientologists.

  40. Amazing and inspiring! Marty is not only a good writer, he is a poet.

  41. A Counter To Your Claim of Benevolent Intergtation of Divers Fields of Knowledge and Scientology……..

    As you know Marty, I am a big fan of what is happening here. It is healthy and will be a benefit to all when free people help free people.

    Yet, for the sake of clarity, as I try to seek clarity over agreement, I have this following counter view:

    You say Scientology Inc., and it seems to me that you are partitioning that time period post Ron’s death. In other words Miscavige regime.

    After I left the Sea Org in NY, I moved to California in 1976. I paid off my Sea Org debt in NY so I had to work up the conditions to in Ca. to get back on couse.

    This was 1976 and I was routed to the GO to for the step “deliver an effective blow to the enemy.”

    Heber was my terminal and what he had me do was polar opposite from what you have stated regarding a benevolent intergration with other fields of knowledge.

    My task, was to go door to door, in LA county for days and days and days. Hours and hours and hours every day with a picture of Paul Dickoff, a Nazi officer, show this picture of him in his SS uniform, tell them that this guy and other Nazis are the real source of the AMA and all mental practitioners, and get them to sign a petition against them.

    I truly want to see a benevolent use of Scientology in the world. There is a place for it amongst the myriad paths and seekers.

    But there seems to be a cognitive disconnect when it comes to delineating, in time, in place, who, what and where is Scientology Inc.

    Brutal accuracy in historical events is essential for sane and intelligent societal evolution. Otherwise it can become propaganda.

    The year 1976 had me working my ass off making a connection to neighborhoods in LA between SS Nazi officers and the mental health field.

    Not a very effective way of causing a kindly intergration between fields of knowledge as your thesis theorizes.

    Can you please delineate what you consider to be the beginning of Scienlology Inc.

    Thank you for the opportunity to communicate:-)

    • Can you please delineate what you consider to be the beginning of Scienlology Inc. Marty?

      The time where thought stopping and lies about critics real or imagined started?

      You Stated:

      “The situation seems irreversible when one considers the path of Hubbard’s second solution to integration, the attacking of the original chief opponents of the sharing of his ideas, the psychs (as Scientology Inc. refers to all mental health practitioners and researchers).  Scientology Inc. established an intelligence and propaganda network to bring down the establishment of those fields.  Scientology Inc’s public pronouncements against the psychs are so shrill, so sensationalized, and so exaggerated as to serve the opposite purpose such opposition was originally intended to serve.”

      Are you saying that Scientology Inc. started with Ron? It seems you are saying that in this above quote.

      Thanks for clarifying for me.

  42. Excellent analysis Marty!

    I wonder if you are planning to include some kind of information on context, as I believe that it is critical that people understand the times in which the various LRH books were written, particularly the shift of definitions in the sciences and humanities.

    As an example, consider the definition of science from the Consolidated Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary copyright 1954, 1942, 1941, 1940:
    ************************
    Science: [Fr. science, from L. scientia, knowledge, from scio, to know (seen also in conscious, conscience, nescience, -sciolist.] Knowledge; comprehension or understanding; Knowledge co-ordinated, arranged and systematized; hence the knowledge regarding any one department of mind or matter co-ordinated , arranged and systematized (the science of botany, of astronomy, &c.; mental science); art derived from precepts or built on principles; skill resulting from training; special skill.
    –Applied science, a science when its laws are employed and exemplified in dealing with concrete phenomena, as opposed to a pure science, as mathematics, when it treats of laws or general statements apart from particular instances. –Natural science.
    Under NATURAL. –Physical science. PHYSICS. –Moral science, moral philosophy or ethics. The seven sciences of antiquity, grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.
    ************************

    This is not the same definition as what is commonly understood in the 21st century, which is neatly summed up in Wikipedia: Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]

    The Wikipedia definition is supported by this definition: “science”. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved 2011-10-16. “3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”

    What is missing in modern mainstream educations is the history of scientific methodology and the competing schools of the philosophy of science, the politics of science.

    And that is just one element of context!

    One of your readers posted information about a video series called “A Century of Self,” which I have just finished watching. While watching the videos, I understood just how critical context was to understanding most of what LRH had to say and WHY. He definitely was a man of those past times, and he DID keep up on current events, did read the propaganda, did keep up on the literature OF THE TIME. The videos lay it out in sequence and reveal information that was NOT available to the general public AT THAT TIME. Information critical to understanding current events, carefully buried by cleverly crafted propaganda and public relations capers of powerful vested interests. I can’t recommend this video series enough.

    • Maria,
      I agree completely on the recommendation of viewing this video series!

      Edward Bernays, Freud’s nephew, embraced Freud’s theory that man was driven by subconscious destructive urges and desires (libido). Bernays, among others, felt that in order to protect society from thiese basic traits of man, he would need to be controlled.

      In the teeth of this LRH published DMSMH, which was diametrically opposite the Freudian assumption of man as basic beast, and proposed that man without out the Reactive/ “beast’ mind, was essentially ethical, compassionate and trustworthy.

      Freud’s view, echoed decades later in the issue “Pain and Sex”, was the premise of Bernays work. The manipulation of the “masses” as they were after all mostly bestial and needed an “adult”, the “elite” as their social “ego” to regulate their social conduct and have a society envisioned by this “elite” as acceptable – to them.

      • Jim, I appreciate what you’re saying, but baby / bathwater: Freud came up with the key to the subconscious that Hubbard was missing. In an age of water jets we may look on the paddlewheel as anacronistic, but it moved an awful lot of needed supplies.The positive contributions are what’s to remark. Man had (how many?) thousands of years, and scarcely a hint of the reactive mind, and no hint of how to handle it, until Freud. One of Hubbard’s greatest (literally) attributes or predispositions or whatever is to look for and find the good amidst all the rest. I’m working on it, but don’t quite have t yet. Even at the finest restaurants, one only eats the food on the plate, not the plate itself. – Carcha.

        • Have you watched these videos?

          The series documents in a very candid way just how that information was perverted and subverted by Bernays in ways that have a chilling parallel to what happened to the Church of Scientology. Please keep in mind that it is the exposure of the unthinkable and the unpalatable that has gotten this Independent movement as far as it has gotten. We were blindsided, but we are not alone in being blindsided.

          • Maria, Bookmarked, thank you! Fascinating! Watched the first hour. You’re right about the scary parallels (and Freud’s warning that favor would be given to the leader, while those outside the group would be subjected to exclusions and oppressions and disconnections, defining “bank agreement”). Bernays seems like a lesser man focusing more on money than the real substance of a very great man’s work, but he did help his uncle out substantially when he needed it. Just because a man is of lesser caliber, doesn’t make him bad, or incapable of valuable contribution. Hubbard, however, greatly appreciated the true value of Freud’s work, and greatly advanced it. LRH’s view of what lurks beneath the social veneer of mankind is not at all unlike Freud’s: beastly. LRH found how to resolve the irrationality. – Carcha

        • Carcha,
          “Baby/bathwater”?

          Huh?

          Freud considered man a ravenous, aggressive, destructive beast at his most basic. Hubbard, in the Original Thesis and DMSMH, as basically good.

          Hmmm, what about that is “baby/bathwater”. Or is the mere mention of Freud having differences in assumption points enough to identify that with tossing everything he had to say out? Is THAT what you presume this initial comment of mine to be?

          Huh?

        • You’ve mistaken something else, I’m afraid, that “subconscious” bit.
          “The entire content of the reactive mind is records of physical pain with its accompanying perceptions during disconnection of the analyzer. All aberrated conduct and error on the part of an individual is occasioned by restimulation of his reactive mind.

          “None of these minds are “unconscious,” nor are they subconscious. The entire organism
          is always conscious but the temporary dispersion of the thought processes of the analytical mind brings about a condition whereby that mind, having been dispersed and considering itself the residence of the person, is unable to obtain and reach data perceived and received by the organism during the analytical mind’s condition of dispersion. That the analytical mind can be thrown, by pain or shock, out of circuit is a survival factor of its own: as sensitive “machinery” it must be protected by a fuse system.” Dianetics: The Original Thesis.

          There is no “subconscious” mind expounded in Dianetics. On the contrary, the mind is always conscious, Reactive or Analytical, and these analogies are just that too.

          Yikes!!!

          • Jim, you must know that LRH’s comment on the “sub”concious and “un”concsious was a play on words. What Freud and others before LRH meant by the subconcious of course was that there were factors/earlier similars if you want, that a being in present time was not fully concious of and that these past events were NOW adversely affecting him. THAT is what is meant even now when folks use the word “subconciious.” LRH meant the same exact thing when he was referring to an engram’s effect on a person in PT in DMSMH. Freud’s ideas on the past affecting PT is the bedrock of Dianetics and should be credited as such. Without Freud, there is no Ron.

            • No Joe, that is NOT what Freud meant by the “sub/unconscious”. He meant some aspect of “mind” that existed, hovering, unseen, couldn’t BE seen, and was not available to the person to know.

              You should watch the recommended video here, and you should look up some of what Freud actually considered. You have the internet, and heck, wikipedia has polished up nicely so really, there’s no excuse for not knowing this. Unless of course the polemic is all important, sans facts.

            • NOTE: Joe Pendelton, the statement by LRH in Original Thesis is not a “play on words”. It is exactly what it says. There is no “subconscious/unconscious mind” in Dianetics. There is a Reactive and Analytical mind. BUT, these, as it is clearly stated in The Original Thesis are constructs, they are ANALOGIES. These terms are symbols of something, they are not the something. They are a device used to describe phenomena. Freud used his own symbols/analogies: the “id”, the “ego” the “superego” which equally were not meant to topographically “locate” a part of the brain or (according to the long raging discussion on “mind/brain” that it is NOT the brain, or it IS) the mind.

              The Original Thesis, and then echoed in DMSMH, particularly in the data on “justified thought” makes a very clear distinction between the material of Dianetics, and Hubbard’s theory and practice, and earlier subjects on the topic of the “subconscious” mind.

              Also, Advanced Procedure and Axioms, from the very earliest days of the subject of Dianetics, delineates even further the absence of the Freudian “subconscious” mind in the section on Self Determinism.

              E.g.:

              “Each and every aberration of the human mind and the human body has an initial postulate to be so aberrated. Engrams are effective only when the individual himself determines that they will be effective.

              “Every individual has what is called a service facsimile. This is actually part of a chain of incidents which the individual uses to invite sympathy or cooperation on the part of the environment. One uses engrams to handle himself and others and the environ after one has himself conceived that he has failed to handle himself, others and the general environ.

              “At first an individual is completely aware that he is using engrams. Then the use of them itself becomes a curtain to that awareness and proceeds toward an automatic (but nonetheless self-determined) use of the engrams.

              “When one fails as himself, he explains that failure even to himself by consciously, at first, choosing his service facsimile. Thereafter his own body and mental condition become subject to it.”

              Again, if you want to discuss the FACTS of these subjects, then fine. Otherwise, this is “emotional” in either the psychoanalytic definition of ‘affect’ or the LRH use of the term Human Emotion and Reaction.

              Not interested in that.

              • The word “consciously” as used in the phrase “consciously at first” is emphasized in the original. That didn’t come through on this copy/paste.

              • Not interested in “unseemly arguments with the uniformed” in particular.

              • Jim, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines “subconscious” as: (and this IS the way the word is understood in current usage in the 20th century).

                “Of or concerning the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one’s actions and feelings.”

                You, know ….. like engrams.

            • Dianetics and Scn Tech Dict; UNCONSCIOUS MIND:
              1. the “unconscious mind” is the mind which is always conscious. So there is no unconsious mind, and there is no unconsciousness (Evolution of a Science). 2. the only mind which is is always conscious. This submind is called the Reactive Mind. (Science of Survival.)

            • One more thought on the vast differences between Freud’s theories and practice and Dianetics.

              You don’t “erase” the “id” with Freud’s tech. Neither do you dispense with the “ego” or the “superego”. The best you can hope for is that the “ego” will form up to be a good citizen, socially acceptable, and the “superego” at constant alert.

              In Hubbard’s material, you ERASE the Reactive Mind, the “ego” is dispensed with as “valence” and put at and under Cause by the Static, and since the fundamental “goodness” of the being, sans the erased Reactive Mind, and the return to Cause over it by, of the Being, then there is no need for an “internal police force” to make one a decent, rational being operating across the Dynamics.

              If you would watch the recommended video, you would see that Edward Bernays took his Uncle Siggy’s theories, and made it clear, the ravenous, craven, aggressive, destructive basis personality of man, could not be cleared, it could only be controlled. That, is EXACTLY what Uncle Siggy figured, and that is completely DIFFERENT than Hubbard and Dianetics.

              As well, the clearing of these falsities, including the source of the violence, the hostilities are addressed in particular with Grade II Tech, including Confessionals, EXDN, FPRD and indeed large swaths of the Ls, those technologies you rant against upside this post.

              Get informed.

        • That restaurant quip was pretty cute.

          Oh, I almost forgot, and not to be well, whatever (said with a Valley girl fling), but I’m not quite tracking with how Hubbard “missed” what Freud found, when Freud’s work was from the late 19th Century up to his death in 1939, and Hubbard’s work was in the late 40′s with DMSMH published in 50.

          Aside from the fact that there is no Freudian “subconscious” in the subject of Dianetics, I’m not quite sure I get how Freud, who was dead, came up with something Hubbard was missing, when Hubbard didn’t come up with it.

          Yikes.

          But that restaurant thing was pretty cute.

      • And it’s like LRH didn’t come to same PRACTICAL conclusion about controlling and regulating COMPLETELY the “beastial” behavior of man? C’mon now! Ron may have continued to always believe man was “basically” good, but it is very clear his opinion about the current CONDITION of man and what was needed to handle and CONTROL man’s behavior became EXTREMELY strident over the years. I think LRH’s opinion of how “conscious” any being was in present time went way south when he put forth the whole OTIII stuff on what was affecting any being. You start to see this in PLs of the mid 60s from deliniating all the different things a person can do WRONG on post (the series of Dev-T summary lists to the cautionary warnings to seniors in PLs like “Conditions How to Assign” to the codified lists of all the misdemenors, crimes and high crimes a Scientologist can commit to all the “court procedures” of the justice system to the ethics gradients to all the draconian measures to “handle” a being on the ship like overboarding and the RPF to the Esto Series in the 70s with all its bait and badger and 3 May, etc etc etc). It’s not just ONE thing – and you can go over tech too with rundown after rundown all centered on O/Ws from Integrity Processing to L’s to False Purpose to Exoabded Dianetics to Happiness Rd, etc etc etc. LRH became somewhat obsessed with this as THE key to handling people. People may be BASICALLY good, but OH, BOY, are they NOW at the mercy of their collection of beasial REACTIVE MINDS and the only way to handle these folks who tend towards these beastial activities is to SEVERELY limit how they are ALLOWED to behave and man, we need TONS of ethics handling and threats to do that. ALL started before Miscavige joined the SO. So please with how loving an attitude Ron took towards beings as compared to Freud and others. Hey, Jesus ALSO felt man was basically good but had fallen into a sinful nature that he needed to take responsibility for (Jews had a similar viewpoint, not suprising as Jesus was a Jew). So LRH didn’t “invent” that idea either by the way.

        • Joe,
          I don’t know if you still have access to the Tech Vols, but you can get them online if you don’t have them immediately present.

          I recommend a look/re-look at HCOB 27 May 63, THE CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS, and the two Rules:
          1.ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY PASSED CHARGE.
          2.TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BYPASSED CHARGE.

          I think it pointless to gainsay the generalized upsets of this comment you’ve made.

          • Thank you Jim for your attempt to negate, nullify and otherwise invalidate my personal opinions and viewpoints by pointing out they are just generalities and the result of by passed charge. I notice you also claimed a similar thing to negate one of the other posters (name Betty?). I guess your doing so by just quoting LRH again puts you on the side of the Gods and makes you VERY right and correct about everything you say (you simply speak the sooth). Have you formed your OWN opinions yet based on your OWN observation of life as you see it? Sorry I am just giving you my personal opinion without a reference from another thinker.

            • Joe,
              That’s it? That’s all you got? We’re discussing the difference between Freudian theory and Dianetics, and the milieu that DMSMH came into in the 50′s, and all you can come up with is how I don’t have my own opinion?

              Ahhh sheesh Joe. That’s lame.

        • Though what Ron DID invent that he should be given due credit for are all the processes in SOS, COHA, the PABs and his other writings and lectures all aimed at getting a being up the tone scale with a rise in responsibility, awareness, happiness and ability in life.

  43. Integration: The Law of the Conservation of Energy and the Manifestation of Memory as Physical Matter, Energy, in Space with Time/Duration.

    In the 9th Advanced Clinical Course L. Ron Hubbard proposes that a flow of energy in one direction, will eventually “stick”. It will become, to some degree, “solid”, energy having converted to matter, greater or lesser mass. It becomes solid to the degree it is not acknowledged/answered/responded to. It is an “unacknowledged” thought, that becomes solid, as the flow is one way, to the thought, and not returned, as an “answer” or “acknowledgment” of that thought FROM another life entity.

    In this same lecture series, in a discussion entitled Background Music to Living, January 1955, this solid thought is described, and manifests as a “memory”. A facsimile of some moment in matter, energy, space and time, that is itself composed of matter, energy, in space and time.

    This initial “facsimile”, if it is a mental image picture of a moment of pain and unconsciousness is termed an “engram”.

    The facsimile can be “restimulated” by a new thought, again, manifested as matter, energy in space and time, that is in some degree, greater or lesser, similar to the original now solid thought.

    Thus it is theorized and observed that a memory can be brought to manifest in present time, by a comparable present time thought. There are now two “terminals” and between the two arises a flow, as the potentials are compatible for such a flow.

    Continued creation of the new thought, and its ever closer approximation to the memory, brings the memory ever into clearer view, along with the original pain and emotion of that facsimile. It “turns on”, as the process of intentionally restimulating the facsimile is done, the Dianetic Routine being just that; a procedure to narrowly restimulate, by a now present time thought comparable to a former thought/facsimile.

    By persisting with the Dianetic Routine, the full range of perceptics of the original facsimile are more closely duplicated by the new thought and the two terminals begin to discharge, one against the other.

    At “perfect duplication” of the facsimile by the now created thought brought about with Dianetic Routine, the original facsimile completely dissipates. It is erased. This manifests on the emeter, by the Tone Arm, which had by the procedure of approximating the original facsimile by new thought risen (the factual manifestation of “mass” demonstrated) and now “blows down” as this energy is cleared.

    Any of this can be and has been subjected to countless tests. Replication of the experiment is simple and the fact of the actual physical matter and energy, the “charge” can be observed as the Wheatstone Bridge device shows it as plainly as it shows a voltage in a car battery, and the increase in the “mass” with the adjustment needed to balance the needle, and the subsequent dissipation of that mass, as the engram erases.

    The factual mass, matter is converted to energy and then that energy is dissolved, disappears, is not conserved/translated to some other form, either potential or kinetic. An engram that is truly erased will not register on the meter. Any meter.

    • Addendum: the original thought is “unacknowledged”. Later, the new thought, is “acknowledged” by this now “answer hungry” original thought, the new thought being similar enough to occassion an exchange. One “acks” the other, and the phenomenon of “restimulation” is apparent.

      • NOTE: at “restimulation” the manifestation of “two way communication” begins. Sufficient TWC, put into effect by the being as the “base” of this dual terminal affair, by holding them in proximity, and the entire incident will dissipate. In the Scn Axioms (#24) this is expressed as total ARC will entirely vanquish any mechanical condition of existence, to wit, the actual physical mass of the engram facsimile.

        • Jim, I’d like to thank you for gracing us with your presence, and with your (very often) profound knowledge and understanding of Scientology theory and application.

          Muchas Gracias!

          • Ronnie (and Carcha),
            I don’t speak Spanish, but have some Junior High French (including some French Canajun swear words – Tabernac), so bienvenue :-)

            Carcha, the 9th ACC has a method of insight into the woman thing. Hey, no promises, but, it’s a shot. Until it changes the next moment. It’s one of those running curves, gotta be on your toes, moving, always moving…

    • +1 Very nice post here.

  44. Good stuff, Marty. Awesome!

    One thing to think about regarding ideology vs. knowledge and the “all encompassing idea”:

    “Homo unius libri timeo” translates to “I fear the man of one book,” attributed to Thomas Aquinas.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_unius_libri

    This is actually a quite fascinating study. I know that to specialize in one idea and then apply that one idea to the entire universe is extremely limiting, but on the other hand, this article cites interpretations where the man who is extremely deep in one subject can be very formidable. The Bible, of course, is the “one book” for many of those who espouse the single best book theory – just as “LRH!” is the “one book” for those who espouse Scientologism.

    An example of “one book” thinking would be Richard Dawkins and his “God Delusion.” Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist and therefore sees all things through the lens of evolution. Dawkins at least thinks – followers of Dawkins truly are men of one book.

    I read a book called “Lessons in Life” by J. G. Holland in 1862, and it was one of the most amazing books I ever read.

    http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101067646180;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=217;num=211

    In it, he has a chapter on the dangers of Men of One Idea. An excerpt:

    “There is no one idea in all God’s universe so great and so nutritious that it can furnish food for an immortal soul… The sailor, kept to long upon his hard biscuit and salt junk, degenerates into scurvy… It is precisely thus for a man who occupies and feeds his mind with a single idea. He grows mean and small and diseased with the diet. The soul bears relation to such a wealth of truth, such a multitude of interests cluster about it, it has such a variety of elements – as illustrated by its illimitable range of action and passion – it touches and receives impressions from all other souls at such an infinite variety of points, that it is simply absurd to suppose that one idea can feed it, even for a day.

    “A mind that surrenders itself to a single idea becomes essentially insane.”

    He gives examples of radical vegetarians, radical abolitionists – ideas that have merit, but become corrupted by focussing on the single idea and excluding all else, ultimately perverting the original subject.

    God! Does that sound like Radical Scientologism, or what?

  45. Mother of Grendel

    To change the topic to: LA Confidential:
    (email from Maria Robb in LA):

    OT VIIs and OT VIIIs ONLY.

    SUNDAY 5th AUGUST 6.30 pm AOLA Atrium

    CONFIDENTIAL BRIEFING from Mr Rabey.

    Come few minutes early as you have to be bonded to attend the briefing.

    What is it about? No idea. Only Mr Rabey knows. We will find out on Sunday.

    Please get it out to all VIIs and VIIIs you know. We can’t send out bulk emails so please send out to your personal address book for OT VIIs and VIIIs.

    Confirm your attendance.

    ML, Maria Robb Team 10,000 I/C LA

    (hmmm – mark 8 meter – buy your retread! GAT 2 – buy your retread! the Church of Miscavige is in the shits – give all your money to the IAS? If anyone qualifies to attend please do let us know!!!)

    • It seems like when you complete 7/8 the Church owns you or something. You, at that point are supposed to be a “Model Scientologist” which I thik means stuff like you have to have a guest room in your house for Howard Becker- kind of like LRH’s Office.
      It means whatever you are told (command intention) you are supposed to run with it. So if Miscavige says you have to re-do your levels with a $15,000 (x2) Mark8 meter because the Quantam was “blind” or something you stand up, applaud and get out your credit card.

      • OMG…..Clive Rabey and Howard Becker ………two guys that would be the scariest to share a foxhole with. I would put Howard on the bottom for sure …… he is the slimiest of the slimey.

      • “It seems like when you complete 7/8 the Church owns you or something.”

        Well I can personally tell you that NO ONE owns me, nor my wife! (both 8) Yes, we’ve gotten that flow, but we wouldn’t buy into it. Does the word DISAGREE ring true? You bet. LOL on Howard, and as said below, slimy.

    • “Have to be Bonded”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What the F*#K ????? I’ll put a dinner for two on the wager that it has nothing to do with the GAT 2, Mark whatever Quantum Meter, etc.

      This is a circle the wagons meeting to verify who is with us and who is agin’ us. There will be vitriol about those nasty squirrels delivering auditing while naked in hot steamy massage parlors down by the gulf and so on and so forth. If after you leave, you divulge anything then you get to cough up your hair ball of C-Notes and be disconnected from.

      The Miscarriage is going nuts to find out where the leaks are. Put your finger in the nearest hole you can find Davey …….and then push real hard!!!

    • “Come few minutes early as you have to be bonded to attend the briefing.”

      They do not trust the Vll’s and Vlll’s. Not only must they be sec checked every six months, now they have to be bonded for a briefing. By the way:

      HCOB 16 Oct 71 FORCING A P.C. “Forcing a pc to go on being audited when the pc is refusing or NOT WISHING to go on upsets the pc and his case and will give the pc a heavy loss. There is no excuse for it. It invalidates the pc’s cause. The Correct action is to either find out WHY he doesn’t want to go on or send the pc to a Scientology review.” L.R.H.
      This policy is so basic it was put in the HQS pack for people to think with.

      For the OTVll’s when they do originate WHY they do not want to go on, they are labeled ethics particles. Nothing else. Who’s bright idea was this? Because David Miscavige has been blown off the level for decades!

      • TO — This bonding is a “gimmick” to make it appear important. Believe me, the only “confidential” data that Clive Rabey has to impart to these people is this:

        “We have a target of 10,000 people onto and through Solo Nots. After 15 years, we STILL havent made it. In fact, the number on the level is actually DECREASING. This is YOUR fault. The SPs are attacking “COB” harder than ever. If we are going to salvage this planet and sector of the universe, you need to give money to the IAS. Now.”

        And it would all be said with a straight face and absolutely seriously. Like there were no outpoints.

        The bonding is to ensure that the “bad news” [that everyone already knows but isnt openly discussed, let alone "confirmed" by an official of the FSO] doesnt get disseminated broadly. It is only used to “motivate” the clubbed seals to “do more” and “get active” because “terrible things are happening.”

        Scientologism runs on fear from top to bottom. No different from most other religions that promise hellfire and brimstone, a world overrun with “infidels”, the Armageddon, End of Days etc etc. Scientologism has refined it down to a fine art — evil is winning [the SPs are on a rampage], the world is coming to an end [there is a finite amount of time to clear the planet], we are the only ones who can save your eternal soul from damnation [we have the only tech] and best of all YOU are responsible for this state of affairs, so give us more money to alleviate your conscience.

        • What money??

        • More of the blame game. More of the “We must be contributed to” game. So true Mike. They aren’t pushing the Vital Information Rundown. Just the opposite, nanny software to block information! The red carpet has shriveled beneath David’s feet. And the out P.R. has spiraled viral since he got frisky with you and Marty. I’m beginning to think you and Marty were the wind beneath his wings.

        • I went through a couple of these and I think Mike has it spot on.

  46. Excellent, Marty! You have so eloquently brought into focus on what I have thought but could not articulate! This is the underlying reason that I began to drift away from the church in the late ’80s.

  47. Dani Lemberger

    Marty, VWD! Captivating and true.

  48. Brilliantly perceived and expressed! Scientology Inc. has #FAILED so completely at Integration that the so-called practice does not even apply to life, society, and multiple areas any more. The “ideology” that Scientology Inc. has decayed into is an “iodiotology” of supreme irony: rules about Life that people are forbidden to apply to Life.

    Sadly, and even dangerously, Scientology Inc. is an inverted hobnob society of Glutamus Maximonious Donor$ who are below 0 on the inspiration scale as any kind of example to which anyone cares to aspire.

    How can the “products” rolled out by Scientology Inc. be anything but solid, massy, serious and bristling with self-importance and condescension toward the rest of the human race? Who wouldn’t be with all that tampering, case-twisting and unsafe environment that defies the very definition of anyone possibly getting “in session”! (interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor).

    Every counselor (auditor) in Scientology Inc. has the hooks of David Miscavige firmly inserted collecting blackmail and control material on people seeking help. This violation of trust and the Miscavige-driven parasitic decimation of a subject is abhorrent, vile and a complete travesty of help.

    Marty, thank you for being there and communicating brilliantly. Thanks to all who do. Nothing can stop the Truth.

  49. Nail- Hammer- Drive.

    An eloquent statement of the truths.

  50. Thanks for keeping the subject and practices of Scientology sacred.

  51. Social Coordination, I remember it well.
    Moving forward on the time track is like being on a different planet.
    Scn 101 bridges the gap, lets do it.
    Marty , your the Man, Hooyah!

  52. “Let us attempt to integrate the principal, workable ideas of Scientology with other disciplines so they can be understood and perhaps even serve a purpose to humanity where they can.”
    Marty, just think where we would be today if instead of alienating those in other disciplines Scientology, Inc. had attempted to find points of reality within all the other attempts man has made to better his situation…thus building ARC rather than breaking it.

  53. Unless I’m very much mistaken, this is the Maria that Karen#1 refers to a couple posts back when she says:

    “A girl called Maria XXXX left the Sea Organization some years back. She told one and all that it was the ultimate in insanity in the SO. It was brutal, it was torture, it was insane…..

    But like a good Kool aid drinker she stayed with the Church.

    She exited the Sea Org with 2 kids. The Sea Org would not let her husband Drew XXXX leave. He was useful to them on money making lines. They did not care that she was a single mom with all the bills of 2 kids, they kept him there refusing to let him out of the Sea Org for some 2 years or more.

    But like a good Kool aid drinker she stayed with the Church.

    Scroll forward in time, one of these kids Dennis XXXXX now adult has a child. The child at 2 years old dies in his crib. Just like that.

    And what does Maria and Drew do ?
    They ask for donations for Ideal orgs for the Death of their 2 year old grandchild.
    That’s right, dig into your wallet and give the “Church” more money because our 2 year old died.

    True Story”.

    • In response to Mother of Grendel post above

    • Yes Martin.
      Maria Robb,
      Her 2 year old dead in Crib.
      “Let’s all give money $$$$ to Ideal orgs because baby is dead.
      This is a woman who spouted out to numerous people about the horrors within the Sea Org, the abuse, the punishments, so she knows the darker side while she still deceives OT VIIS and VIIIS to come for a “special briefing.”
      Yeah, right.
      They are still using this line.
      They don’t even change the “Come on” line.

  54. northernneighbor

    Dear Marty & all you other (supposedly) “Bitter Apostates”
    I am not a Scientologist, however over the last few months I’ve been trying to educate myself on your faith. My education in “everything Scientology” actually started quite accidentally during a YouTube surfing session, a few months ago. I inadvertently clicked on a video about your faith, which I found interesting. That started me on a journey to learn as much as I could about Scientology (my wife calls this my “learning addiction”).
    As a philosophy student, (many, many years ago) I learned that to best understand something, you need to approach it from a variety of perspectives. A method that has always served me quite well in the past.
    To be honest, my initial impressions weren’t very positive. Hearing several stories of families being torn apart and/or being deep in debt made me wonder why so many people continue to stay in the church. Reading about the recent events regarding the mother who was disconnected from her son, was not informed of his death, banned from seeing him & attending the funeral was simply heartbreaking. I was also dismayed by the fact that when he (the son) needed the church the most (ie., auditing sessions) due to the various events he was struggling with, he was denied because he couldn’t afford it. To me, that is one of the primary roles of a church, to support it’s parishioners during the toughest times in their life. I was also turned off by the fact that in order to make your way up the bridge you have to be 1) fairly wealthy or 2) willing to amass large debts or 3) join the Sea Org. which apparently means (at the present time) giving up your freedom & independence. While I’m not an expert in the teachings of LRH, the current realities of being in the Sea Org seems to be at odds with Scientology’s ideals. Actually the more I learned about the activities of the church, the more it seem to be at odds with the values & teachings the church claims to be founded on. I also learned that when one talks about the actions of the church (constant pressures for donations, disconnection, pressuring female Sea Orgs. to get an abortions, etc. . . .) what they really mean is the actions of David Miscavage.
    It was around this time that I came to find this website. While I learned a lot from Marty’s posts, it was the comments posted by many independent Scientologist that confirmed what I had suspected. The current church of Scientology is not a fair or accurate reflection of the values, principles & teachings of Scientology. I have learned more about what a real Scientologist is & does, on this website, than I have since I started my journey of learning. The sense of family/community, the understanding & empathy you have for others, the support you give to each other, the way you seem to understand that if you really believe in your faith & the knowledge it contains, that it will help others & the world in general, then money should not be a barrier to it.
    Finally I would like to point out one other contradiction I see in Miscavage’s vilification of some of you. While he says on one hand that the Scientologists at the OT levels are the most enlightened, ethical & compassionate people on the planet, yet on the other hand refers to some of you (many of which have reached the highest levels, have served in the Sea Org for several years at very high levels) in very derogatory ways, it demonstrates his hypocrisy.
    Thank you for showing me Scientology as it was meant to be and also what a Scientologist can be, if they are truly allowed to be free.
    I cannot say I will become a scientologist, as I believe that (for me) when it comes to spirituality, religion & faith it is best to be eclectic. While “no one culture, religion or society is privileged to the truth”, thanks to Marty & all of you I can confidently take some of your teachings as part of my approach to living life. Thank God for “bitter apostates” like all of you!

    • Wow. Thank you for this.

    • Hi Northernneighbor,
      It is wonderful that on your “learning addiction” you have been able to sort things out and can see the good in Scientology as it was meant to be understood and used. Run with what you like and what sounds true to you.
      A “non”-bitter apostate. Greta

    • Great comment NorthernNeighbor. I feel the same way you do towards the church as it has become. There are some wonderful writings from Hubbard and I wish you the best in your studies.

    • Great viewpoints from one looking in northernneighbor! Although you seem to be doing a pretty good job of sorting through it, you would be welcome to ask any further clarifications or direction you may need as well.

      • northernneighbor

        I guess my first question is how can I communicate with some of you via this site. I have a lot of questions & would like to develop a rapport with some of you that will enable me to not only understand more about Scientology, but perhaps to gain from it on a more personal level. Without going into too much detail, I have some personal things I am currently dealing with that are causing me some difficulties. I also have a medical condition that is aggravated by stress. While I would like to post some of my comments/questions, I would rather communicate some things on a more one-to-one basis. I realize I may be asking a lot, but I don’t know of any other way to explore the possible/potential benefits of Scientology other than through this site. While I would love to correspond with Marty himself, I understand that for various reasons that isn’t very realistic. My impression of him so far is that he genuinely wants to use his experiences & knowledge to help others. Furthermore, we have something in common that makes me think he would be a great mentor to me, however I realise he is very busy & can’t just entertain every request to communicate on a more personal level, especially from someone he doesn’t even know. It’s just he’s the only independent Scientologist I know enough about to trust with the concerns I have.
        Anyway (sometimes I get a little side tract), if any of you would be willing to take some time in answering my general questions & perhaps using your knowledge to help me with the more personal concerns please let me know. The really funny/pathetic part is I don’t even know how to find out if there are any offers or if this even got anyone’s attention. I guess I’ll just keep checking this area & hope this works.
        Hope to hear from some of you soon eh,
        Northern Neighbor.

    • Do remain in mystery about the actual auditing, the glue that holds this entire theater together. Learning addiction means wanting to KNOW. It is well enough that you only KNOW ABOUT Scientology. Once you start the auditing, the learning addiction gets worse! Because you learn things about yourself, things that you never knew before. You find out who you really are on levels unseen before. And the more you learn the more you want to know. It is the learning addicts that once this road is traveled, it cannot be abandoned until it has been walked all the way. But you don’t need to know about all of that!

    • Thank you for being able to see the truth of the situation. I have so much to thank Scientology/Dianetics for–a happy life and good health at age 82, but I certainly don’t have much to thank the Church for except for a few years in the 70′s where I had some good auditing and training. It wasn’t always as bad as it is now.

      • Pat – Is it true that in the 1960-70 period most people who “got into” Scn had mindsets similar to ‘northernneighbor’? And also that in a manner of speaking no one *really* knew what they were doing, so there was more open comm and interaction to get auditing and C/Sing solutions, and less Authority? – Carcha.

        • I meant 1950 – 70.

          • Hi, Carcha. The 50′s were wide open with people who could read coming into Scientology by word of mouth and books. There were no worksheets and no C/Ses. In the 60′s LRH was researching GPM’s and in the early 60′s there was no Laws of Listing and Nulling and students suffered through some very rough auditing. The first Classification, Awareness and Gradation Chart came out in 1965.
            Oh, we all “knew” what we were doing up to 1965…we audited whatever the process of the day was! That was the experiemental track!

            After the Grade Chart C/Sing was “in” and the experimental track was gone. There were C/Ses, worksheets, (some before then) and the Grade Chart was, and still is, the basic program for any pc.

            In the early days there were no penalties for auditing. No overboards. No rough treatment of auditors. That started with the Class VIII course, apparently tech wasn’t going in on the planet. After that came the 70′s where the tech flourished and propered and auditor hosing downs ceased and tough training came into being. Stats were really up before D.Miscavige came along. There were probably 100 Briefing Course students at the old ASHO on Temple St before the Blue Complex.

            I don’t know how many SHSBC students ASHO has now, probably not many. There is no delivery of the SHSBC in the Freezone yet, but we have our first SHSBC student planning to start in a couple of months her in Elma, WA. Anyone else want to twin?

            • Thank you very much for your invaluable insights into that very important time period, and for being there, a part of the ground floor. Thank you also for your continued wisdom and dedication, very much, as well. (I have two people who would like to be PC’s – what do I do now??) (Just kidding, I know what to do, but I’m about due for some more courses.)

              • We have a course room. We have rooms with kitchen uses for lower costs. It is convenient as it is on the same property. See picture of course-room http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fzelma
                Pat p_krenik @ yahoo.com No spaces.

                • By the by Pat, sometime ago you send a Linkedin request to me, one of many, but I’m NOT on Linkedin. I had no way of getting back to you, but I got another request recently from another person so this reminded me.

                  Just wanted to ack the comm, and sorry for the lag.

    • You are very wise. I’m sure you would enjoy reading LRH books in your own time as I think you will feel at home.

    • Welcome, northernneighbor! Please send updates on your progress, no matter what path (or paths) you choose.

  55. So well put, Marty.
    Since withdrawing from Scientologism, Inc., I have been disseminating as I used to. I get into good communication with the person and offer a basic pronciple to handle their PTP. When they almost always immediately say,”Well that makes total sense”, I bring up “That’s Scientology”. They inevitably say,”Are you F’ing kidding me?”, to which I reply,”I know. Here’s the difference…”. I differentiate for them that the corporate church is not, and has not been for a
    long time, Scientology. I tell them they can buy the books on the subject at Amazon.com. I always recommend Self Analysis and offer free help.
    Having much experience with Applied Scholastics, what you write is absolute truth. Very destructive on so many levels.

  56. scilonschools: What is Sideo? What video has gone viral in 12 hours. I must have missed an early comment about this.

  57. Brilliant Marty and thanks. Fills in missing data and answers a lot of “how
    comes”. In the beginning 80′s it certainly looked like we could have NN
    become the showcase for what a drug rehab facility should be and how
    to operate to really help get a handle on drug addiction. Then the church
    stepped in with messengers who had no experience in NN tech application
    nor in their clientele and consequently choked that off.

  58. Thanks Marty,
    Great subject and post.
    Greta

  59. Marty would be able to link or point to the measured results of the successful years of Applied Scholastics you mentioned. People always want to see the verifiable results or studies done on Scientology related programs, or program utilizing their tech, and their outcomes but I’ve not had any luck finding actual results – just DM BS hype.

  60. eileenclark101

    Marty,

    I am impressed, again. You have isolated the Major Departure From The Ideal Scene. In your description you give the description of that Ideal Scene as the complete opposite of what has been done by and within Scientology Inc at the direction of David MIscavige.

    Can anyone honestly hold onto the idea that this has not been done on purpose, with intention and malice?

    Whew. You have a wonderful ability to distill all that has happened and then present conclusions and solutions with such clarity that anyone can understand it.

    Thank you for all your efforts in the direction of salvaging the ‘baby’ that is being thrown out with the bath water. Corny analogy, but it seems to fit.

  61. Clear and correct. Very, very, very well done.

  62. Great intro Marty. Yes, integration of the tech into all walks of live is a natural progression in the evolution of mankind to higher states of being.

    I like your holistic approach to this subject. Thanks for keeping “knowing how to know” working!

  63. burnedbutnotbitter

    Marty, I have written you personally before and told you I was following your blog. This is one of your very best! I can’t help but think that you are the person to take over the Church and clean it up and apply the above. But I don’t think DM will get out of his chair and let you have it, so keep calm and carry on!

  64. Very insightful Marty, can’t wait for the book (loved your 1st one). It’s great to see this subject now being used as originally intended. In the past when I was still onlines I often felt as if I had somehow studied a completely different subject than many of my fellow church members as their behavior was in no way in accord with what I had learned.

    It’s a nice feeling to realize I wasn’t crazy.

  65. Marty, you were part of a promo piece tonight during the Olympics for Rock Center; “Can you handle the truth?” !!! Cool as hell !!! Moving on up…

  66. HI. Your proposed book has a title very similiar to the book I wrote in 2005, Scientology vs. Scientology. There I built the book around what LRH said to do as compared to what is being done. Of course, in 2005 being outside the COS for many years, I didn’t have much of the inside info that you have brought forth since.
    I’m out of the softcover copies, but a digital copy would go for $14.95 today using paypal and my email address, p_krenik@yahoo.com

  67. “Scientology Inc. is not the guardian of Scientology. Instead, it is an imposter holding the subject hostage.”

    I think this is the theme of my protest. This is the single most identifying statement I have read that describes the actual scene. This should be repeated often and shared broadly. This is the main with hold being missed too. It is the “Can’t have Scientology” overt. While they pretend to be the Guardians and preserving it and forwarding it, they are running can’t haves on themselves and everyone else with it.

  68. Marty,

    IMO You post above is the best ever.

    Scientology technology tools available for people to use in the correction and or improvement of aspects of their life they desire to better, period, that all.

  69. For the record, someone is indulging in identity theft and fraud. From this email address vanallenbelt1@yahoo.com a person is sending out emails posing as me. Please disregard this criminal mind if it should cross your path. It is NOT ME.

    • I had a similar problem in a yahoo e-mail account, but the problem stopped after I discovered yahoo was hacked and I changed the yahoo account’s password. Of course, I also made sure that my anti-virus, internet firewall, etc, were updated, and I ran a full scan in my PC.

      Yahoo hacked, 450,000 passwords posted online: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-12/tech/tech_web_yahoo-users-hacked_1_passwords-yahoo-accounts-hack

      Yahoo Email Hacked! . What You Can Do: http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/yahoo-email-hacked

      • Thanks. I Googled the email address and much posting history came up answering questions on Yahoo Answers in both Spanish and English from that email addy. Their score for having best answers voted on on Yahoo answers was almost 900! Answers to Questions like, “How do I find out if my boyfriend is cheating on me?” type of dribbly social intercourse. Unfortunately fraud and identity theft are frowned on at Yahoo and it seems they are going to lose the account now and the high score status they were able to build up over time giving people wrong items and wrong indications on Yahoo Answers.

        • Oracle,

          In order to google any e-mail address you need to do it quoted: e.g.: “vanallenbelt1@yahoo.com”
          In Google’s advanced search this is called: exact word or frase.
          This Google search gives nothing (except for reverse e-mail search).

          If you google any e-mail address unquoted (e.g.: vanallenbelt1@yahoo.com) google does a search for all the component words (e.g.: 1) vanallenbelt1 yahoo com, 2) van allen belt 1 yahoo com, 3) etc)
          In case (1) you are getting user names vanallenbelt1 posting on yahoo. However just because his/her user name is vanallenbelt1@yahoo.com does not mean her/his e-mail address is vanallenbelt1@yahoo.com, like your username The Oracle does not mean your e-mail address is The_Oracle@.

          Did somebody got an e-mail from your e-mail address which you didn’t send?

          Did you look in your yahoo account (in the sent folder) and found e-mail(s) you did not send?

          Did you get from your yahoo account undeliverable e-mail(s) you did not send?

  70. Nicely stated, Marty.

    In speaking to a couple of recently “out” auditors one thing struck me very hard. They are looking to a “higher authority” for their technical guidance. These are guys with many many years of good results yet they seem convinced that someone “up there” is somehow superiror to them and more knowledgable than them and “righter” than them. They are frozen into a condition of looking for someone to give them a license to survive.

    The policy on Technical Degrades is right there in their KSW pack. They are required to star rate it over and over, yet they completely miss the point and ask, “is it okay to apply that piece of tech?”

    They have no clue that the people they are seeking approval from have absolutely no friggin clue how to clear a thetan.

    “Think for Yourself,” is preached.

    “Don’t you dare do anything without our blessing,” is the reality.

    Seeing highly trained tech terminals cowed into obedience and terrified to act is pathetic. It takes some skilled handling to move them from total effect over to slight gentle cause, but they are destimulating from the suppressive environement they’ve been living in.

    Keep communicating, Marty. It’s working. In just the last two weeks we’ve been contacted by seven people who are out, or well on their way out.

    Les

    • Les,
      Lean on me if you need any help with getting these people back in the saddle.

      Jim

    • Les,
      The data on ‘robotism’ (not sure if it is a HCOB or HCOPL) comes to mind. Anyone connected to the RC$ is looking for orders to make sure they ‘do the right thing’. You certainly don’t want to MAKE A MISTAKE around the RC$. That will land you in need of more sec checking or at the very least earn you a trip to the MAA.

    • Five star post Les. Part of popping out of the womb is knowing you have already earned your license to survive.

  71. Marty, This is just terrific. Beautifully and completely stated.
    And this just in: The (former) DSA Santa Barbara has been replaced by an (untrained) OT VIII. He’s been transferred to D.C where he will be part of the
    new P.R. Org.
    Linda

    • Linda — the “New PR Org”??? Before they establish a lobbying “PR Org” in DC they could do with one person who can speak to the media in LA…. Typical wrong target, altered importance. Is this still Lee Holzinger?

      • Yes, it’s Lee. He who has the most infuriating “comm cycle” I’ve ever experienced. Linda

        • whoa!! I just re-read athe comm I got earlier about the PR org, and MY BAD, It’s not a PR Org: it’s an OSA ORG. Yeah, they better beef up, cause we’re comin’! And Lee is there already.

      • Mike, sounds like they are reviving the old CSI DC lobbying office (?)

    • OMG !!!! A PR Org??????????? What will the Demented One think of next. I guess if you don’t have an Org that can deliver a real product you might as well create one just to say what great products you could get if you knew what the fuck you were doing !!!!!!

      Over the cliff and into the abyss …………..better learn to fly Davey, it’s the only way out of your scum bucket.

      • This is not a good thing. This seems like the open institutionalization of a Scientology Inc. Political Action Committee HQ. Like a Scientology Inc embassy in our nation’s capitol. Now the IAS and other reges will have another excuse to suck parishioners dry – “We are under attack! Donate to our PR Org in DC, help us safepoint Scientology where it counts the most, in our seat of government!”

        Ugh and double ugh!

      • Yeah, see my correction above. It’s not a PR Org, It’s an OSA Org..
        And Lee is there.
        Linda

  72. Mike,

    Now that you mention it, what’s the scoop on LEE HOLZINGER? He seemed like a nice enough guy, but was a TERRIBLE Supervisor when my husband and I were on the B.C. at ASHO around 1980. I was surprised he ended up at OSA– just didn’t seem qualified.

    Any inside skinny you could share?

    Thanks,
    Shannon

    • That is why he ended up there! Couldn’t resist …..just my $.02 worth.

    • I can provide some skinny. Not much, but Lee was the DSA STB for over a decade. He makes kool-aide. (And let me suggest that he was a terrible supervisor because of his comm formula and his aloofness. )Very recently (probably within the last 3 weeks or so, he was replaced as DSA and left for DC to start the new OSA Org, leaving behind his wife who is the OES. The STB org has, in the last few weeks been horrifically musical chaired with the HAS going off to Flag for tech training, and a Div 6 sup sent off for GAT2 training. Their posts are being covered by existing staff –now buttered across the org board.
      Sending Lee H for participation in an OSA Org at least sets it up to fail unless
      their product is people driven insane-in which case he will ensure it’s success.
      Linda

  73. Marty,
    This post was very personally relevant and pertinent. Thanks for all you do! You’ve brought back hope that we may do something positive for this world after all!
    Leonore

  74. Enough Already

    Thanks, Linda. That definitely fills the vacuum re Lee H.

    Since you seem very familiar with STB Org, I have to ask you a few “whatever happened to” questions.

    Whatever happened to:

    1. Chris Martelli?

    All I knew was he was in Planetary Dissem Org one day, then his wife got pregnant and the two of them were shipped off to STB. Next thing I know, he’s declared!

    Any skinny?

    2. Alison Gonzales?

    I liked her, and she was there forever.

    Any update over the last 2 decades? (I haven’t kept up with the STB scene for a LONG time…)

    Thanks!

    Shannon

    • Hi Shannon,
      I was the ED there from 2001-2006. Martelli was before my time there. All I know is he blew and got declared. Don’t have any other info. Alison: what’s not to like? She’s still in the STB field running her late husband’s business. There are a lot of public there that I grew to love, but don’t really have any current info (other than what I just posted), as I’ve been gone since mid-2006. A couple of other names you’ll likely recall Wanda Beckstead: still there as PES and Lisa Jeter (now Cullen) is the OTC Chairman. That’s who I can think of that you might know.
      Linda

    • What is “STB” ?

  75. Marty makes a great point here and I think it is one of the SIGNIFICANT points of how Scientology can be or will be relevant in the future. The data/ideas contained in Scientology either will be or will not be considered relevant to future generations. It will take some very dedicated and enthusiastic people to accomplish this relevance; folks who really WANT to integrate Scientology with other sensible and survival thought/philosophy. As for myself, I’ve always been able to accomplish this integration. I can merge LRH’s ideas on how vital help is with Jesus’ command to love everyone (you HELP them) and other religious thinkers and philosophers throughout history. And I think it is vital to be able to do this just in applying the ARC Triangle within the greater environment.

    But the Church of Scientology has never been much about that really. While LRH did acknowledge other great thinkers early on as well as earlier religions, (especially at the front of Science of Survival – does the newest edition still contain the dedication to Will Durant?), he moved away from that really in the 50s sometime. Soon he became “source.” There was no other source of ANY knowledge or truth about life that I EVER heard mentioned at all in the Church of Scientology. In one of the lectures of the State of Man Congress (on the Upper Indoc Course I did in 2003) LRH talks about his goal having been to discover the reasons behind EVERYTHING in life. And he continued to set down the “laws” on every subject he could from the mind to art to justice, etc. Actually he laid out this goal right in DMSMH as to all the different areas of thought that Dianetics would someday DOMINATE. I don’t particularly hold any of this against Ron. All to be expected really when you think about it: religious thinker feels HE has the ONLY truth and spends decades propounding it and establishing his ulta orthodox church. Pattern has happened MANY times. Eventually the thinker dies of course and the church USUALLY shrinks down as the Church of Scientology is doing (as Christian Science has for example). I suspect that 50 years from now, the CoS will consist of about 10,000 or so “born Scientologists.” Of course, the Mormom Church has grown tremendously over the past 70 years, but from what I know they don’t REALLY push the orthodoxies of the Book of Mormon very hard.

    To have ANY relevance or to last as a source of wisdom in the future, Scientology will HAVE to go the Independant route. Folks will be offerred training and processing as they wish to participate, when they wish to. There will be no church or religion they will have to take on or any grand mission to save all the beings of the universe in order to participate. The only parts of Keeping Scientology Working that will be relevant at all to folks in the future (other than the few orthodox fanatics left) will be the parts about holding the line on application of auditing tech.

    • Joe,
      The only “relevance” Scientology has, all it ever had, or will have is whether or not the Axioms, Factors, Qs and these basic, fundamental materials are in fact “what is really going on”.

      I recommend to you the William James discussion “The Will to Believe”. This will put in much clearer context the quote below.

      Here’s a snip from his work The Varieties of Religious Experience: “In the natural sciences and industrial arts it never occurs to any one to try and refute opinions by showing up their author’s neurotic constitution. Opinions here are invariably tested by logic and experiment, no matter what may be their author’s neurological type. It should be no otherwise with religious opinions.”

      • Jim, the relevance Scientology has for ANYONE is the relevance is has FOR THEM. That is the R corner of the Triangle and really the reason for the last two steps of the Dissem Drill. The reason Judeo-Christianity, Buddhism and Islam each have over a BILLION followers is because those religions have some sort of real meaning to THEIR lives.

      • Well, if WILLIAM JAMES said it…….

        Hate to disagree with “AUTHORITY”, but actually the general viewpoints, status, habits, life experiences, etc of an author of religious opinions DO IN FACT MATTER when looking at those opinions if one is working on FULLY understanding those opinions (especially in something like opinions concerning how life should be lived on any third dynamic). In the natural sciences and industrial arts, one is not “refuting opinions” as Mr. James states, but physically TESTING the claims of the inventor/discoverer/scientist by actual experiment. So Mr. James is not really correct there. When the New Testament states that slaves should obey one’s masters even when they are abusive, I think it is VERY relevant to the issue to ask the question -”who wrote that and for what reason?” What were in fact the personal situations of whomever wrote that and what did they hope to gain by having their followers believe that datum?

        • Joe,
          It’s not whether William James, as an “authority” said it, that’s missing the point. It’s that he has another viewpoint, a different look, and by looking from that point of view, one can broaden their own view and gain insight into the R that brings about life in this universe.

          I noticed you disagree with Mr. James and the use of the word “opinion”. One begins with an opinion, an assumption point, and then goes about testing whether or not it functions that way. Any knowledge gained and put into the general ken, or even personal KRC, if it doesn’t emanate from pure knowingness, begins with “hey, I think it’s this way”. Then one goes about observing whether it is or isn’t that way. Testing it. Experiment.

          I think you disagreed prematurely. Or perhaps, just to be recalcitrant with me. Or something. Since out of one side of your face you disagree, and then say EXACTLY what James says.

  76. Chris and Gail Martelli did the amnesty that came out shortly after they left so they were not declared.

  77. Answer to Jim Logan–your email didn’t arrive. Try again p_krenik@yahoo.com

    As to Linked In, a hacker got my email and invited everyone on my list to Linked In.

    Pat (PS I don’t do Linked In, I just can’t figure out how to get off their list)

  78. Damon Lindelof

    Hey Midget!
    How do you like us now?!
    Our ranks are growing, at about the same rate your’s is shrinking, Dude.
    ML,
    Damon Lindelof
    Dusseldorf, Germany

    • Damon, we’re not supposed to say “midget” anymore. It’s LITTLE PEOPLE, OK? (I’m actually stealing this from a Seinfeld episode by the way). Though maybe in Miscavige’s case, he should just be addressed as “little being.”

  79. Personally worked hard on integration as a curriculum writer for LRH schools using study tech.Am afraid to walk into those schools now. Am awaiting book #2 with great interest; am on the third reading of book #1 as change is still occurring.

    • Claire
      I wrote curriculum for schools as well, back in the early 80′s. You are so right, so much has changed.

  80. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Marty,
    This isn’t a little light you shed on Darkness with your introduction to your new book. It’s a 10000000000 Megawatt Lightbulb you put on.
    LRH formulated several purposes when he wrote Dianetics and short time later when he formulated the principles of Scientology. Those were great purposes about the advance of humanity and he was talking about an evolution not a facist system where authorative knowledge and imagined freedoms are enforced on people.
    It is not up to me to judge or reason about what went wrong or who went off purpose or what the stops were that Scientology went off purpose. Perhaps this will be a mistery till the end of times .I don’t care anymore about it as when I read following formulation (rekindle, rededication , a new word) of the basic purpose of Scientology and Dianetics all stops and considerations blew instantly.
    With this formulated purpose and I can fully agree and if it becomes the basic purpose oft he Indie Movement I’ll be 100% on board and help and contribute wherever I can.
    ” Let us approach the subject of Scientology as a subject. Not as an ideology. Not as a trademark. Not as the esoterica of an exclusive club of misguided, intolerant zealots. Let us evolve and transcend from obsessive, compulsive isms. Let us discuss what Scientology actually is in terms that anyone can understand and apply. Let us attempt to integrate the principal, workable ideas of Scientology with other disciplines so they can be understood and perhaps even serve a purpose to humanity where they can. Let us attempt to shed a little light where there was once only darkness. ”
    Thank You !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  81. We live in funny times…What us it with the FBI and supporting terror networks?

    “FBI Admits Pentagon Dinner Guest al-Awlaki Worked for Them”

    http://www.infowars.com/fbi-admits-pentagon-dinner-guest-al-awlaki-worked-for-them/

  82. Enough Already

    Linda and Ruby,

    Thanks for all the info on Chris and Alison. I appreciate it!

    Best,
    Shannon

  83. CAT DADDY IS ON BOARD WITH HEART MIND AND SOUL !!!

    (David Miscavige S(my)COHB) Sue me leader of the church of scientology I KNOW you like it that way

    “From the beginning of his forays into the mysteries of the human mind and spirit, the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard wished his findings to be integrated into existing fields of study, including psychiatry, psychology, biology, education and the healing arts.”\

    My thoughts EXACTLY

  84. Flexible Flyer

    re: historical perspective, my opinion

    Your taking someone who feels like a misfit (sorry for the word) in need of change and turning them into someone they know they should be by getting them to find their basic purpose–this is Clear. All of the lower levels also needed. In my opinion, Scientology is about the lower bridge (the one before the eighties). The person discovering for themselves what they should be doing, and so on. It works great, but is not the only way.

    It can save the world because these potentially brilliant, mis-developed middle and working class people were the ones, out of frustration, who were fooled into following psychopaths into utopian movements of the early 20th century that resulted in WW1 and 2, and scores of others. Not just in Europe, but in the US partly because of the worldwide depression.

    I paraphrase, “We don’t need any new orders, all the orders have been filled.”

  85. Bravo Marty. My hat’s off to you, again.

  86. Marty – You may already have heard / read this material but in case you haven’t, I think you will find a great deal of “disinfecting” information in it, not only to do with the C of S demise but in the wider realm of the society which is intent on creating conditions that reduce human / spiritual potential and personal freedom.

    The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

    http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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