Judgment

 

Unfortunately, a judgmental attitude and bearing seems to have become one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Scientologist.  While adopting such a view in itself could be considered stereotyping, the proclivity for sitting in judgment of others – and stereotyping them – may be the one character flaw that makes such labeling stick with Scientologists.

Labeling is a convenient form of denialism.  It is something a person resorts to when that which he or she is confronting or dealing with is too complex or nuanced for easy explanation or understanding.  In the case of Scientologists such denialism is all too often applied  to people.   It is an assignation of blame intended to bring about shame and regret in the target.

It is easy to write someone off as an “SP” or ‘suppressive person’, a ‘pts’ or ‘potential trouble source’, an ‘out-ethics type’,  ‘reasonable’, ‘off Source’, or even ‘squirrel’.  Once you do that, the labeled person is now ‘over there’, a ‘particle’ to be routed to some ‘terminal’ (not even a person really) for special ‘handling.’  The only way out for the labeled is conformance.  In the case of Scientologists that conformance is usually demonstrated by performing labeling of others with a high degree of certainty and alacrity.

Have you ever noticed how those who can label others with a great deal of certainty and alacrity rise into the ranks of opinion leaders within Scientology culture?  And how those who are hesitant to dispense and accept labeling are considered ‘reasonable’ (in a negative sense), patty cake, theetie-wheetie, or worse?

Ironically, such facile labeling is well explained as a personality defect in Scientology Level 4 training materials.  It is called the computation, ‘that aberated evaluation and postulate that one must be in a certain state in order to succeed’.  In this case, by labeling another it puts the labeler in a superior ‘state’ separate than that of the labeled.   It makes the labeler right and the labeled wrong.

But in the long term it winds up destroying the labeler as the label, the fixed stable datum substituted for a being, makes the labeler cease to look, to inspect, to live.   L. Ron Hubbard explained it this way:

The stable datum was adopted in lieu of inspection.  The person ceased to inspect, he fell back from inspecting, he fell back from living.  He put the datum there to substitute for his own observation and his own coping with life, and at that moment he started an accumulation of confusion.  That which is not confronted and inspected tends to persist.  Thus, in the absence of his own confronting, mass collects.  The stable datum forbids inspection.  It’s an automatic solution.  It’s ‘safe.’  It solves everything.  He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never as-ises the mass.  He gets caught in the middle of the mass.  And it collects more and more confusion and his ability to inspect becomes less and less.  The more he isn’t confronting, the less he can confront.  This becomes a dwindling spiral.  So the thing he has adopted to handle his environment for him is the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment.

Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once succinctly noted what effect labeling has on the person so labeled, “Once you label me you negate me.”

To label is part of the depersonalization or dehumanization process.   It is a step in marginalizing classes of people.  Once you recategorize someone from some neutral category like ‘associate’, ‘neighbor’ or ‘fellow human being’ to some negative, judgmental category they become fodder for abuse.  They become powerless to create any effect on the labeler and thus the labeler believes he is more ‘at cause.’

In fact, as noted above it is an hallucinatory state of cause.  It is a synthetic state of ‘superiority’ that one attains by perfecting the practice of sitting in judgment.  In fact, those who engage in it obsessively have judged themselves, and sentenced themselves to a bleak future.

The late, baseball great Willie Stargell once wrote, ‘Judgment traps you within the limitations of your comparisons. It inhibits freedom.’   I find Willie worthy of the final word.

744 responses to “Judgment

  1. Good one, Marty.

    I did a blog post on this exact subject a couple of weeks ago, called “You WOG!”:

    http://isene.me/2012/12/15/you-wog/

    • I love your Scientology blog posts, Geir. I’ve learnt so much from your articles and the comments that go with them. You inject a great deal of sanity and reason into this subject, imho. Thanks for communicating. :)

  2. Thank you for this. My personal goal when I started studying Scn was to be someone who granted beingness to anyone and everyone; that anyone who came in contact with me would feel better about themselves. I wanted this to be who I was, not something that I “did”. I wanted it to be as natural to me as breathing. My hope was that study and auditing would eliminate whatever it was in me that judged, invalidated, or labeled.

    You have helped me revitalize that purpose.

    • Well, from my point of view Yvonne you’ve come as close to perfecting those qualities as anyone I know.

    • Thank you for your generous acknowledgements. It is easy with friends like you. Next gradient for me is the “tough” cases.

    • Yes Yvonne! Nail on Head!

    • Imo, this comment best exemplifies what Marty was getting at. Of course there is “rightness” in Steve’s, Christine’s, the oracle’s, and others comments. Judgement is vital to decision making and we are accountable for the decisions we make in life. Being judgemental erects walls and reduces confront, and feeds intolerance which can be and often is the basis for destructive acts. I look back on my life in Scientology and regret the arrogance and superior attitudes I adopted to maintain a foothold in the group. Once I had distance and distance helps provides perspective, I was able to withhold the judgemental and begin to see people and situations with more clarity, and grant beingness more freely. Unbelievably freeing!

  3. Perspective yea… Proper labelling as-ises, false labelling enturbulates and gets you to lose teeth or money in DMs pathetic case.

  4. If one could pull the string on why they need to judge others, they could have great gains and never be the same again. Huge subject this is and loaded with opportunity for finding oneself and maybee even getting to that place where they do not need to judge any more.

    • I say opportunity to find oneself because someone who knows who he truly is has no need to judge anyone. I see judgement as born from the pride and ego of someone who is has a need to feed that pride, ego and defend themselves and their position.

  5. Looking 4 Myself

    Couldn’t you take this observation one step further and actually consider labeling a form of identity thought? A=A=A?

  6. Standing Ovation on this Marty!
    The stories I can tell but to keep it short and to the point.
    I am the “WHY” at SFO form everything from low or NO stats
    to donuts not having sprinkles and Foggy mornings.
    Devil incarnate is a compliment because at least that is a trumped up being of sorts.
    I have total “R” on Miscaviges thirst to make others wrong.
    Its an easy way out, punch and slap the other guy,throw him in the “Hole” they have to be wrong. Explains everything.
    Its a good thing Corporate Scientology does not own any Cotton fields

  7. Go, Willie. No wonder the theme song of those great Pirate teams of the late 70s was “We Are Family.” RIP Pops.

  8. Another demonstration of how the Scn culture of DM is the exact opposite of that posited by LRH.
    Unfortunately, the cult of Labeling has a great benefit to the Great Leader: creating the FEAR of being labeled on the part of the membership and is the mechanism by which the covert enslaver entices members to enslave themselves thru mental self-censorship and group think.

    • Right On Moonshot!

    • The name calling began with LRH, and was built into Scientology by LRH. My God, can’t you see that?

      • I think that LRH was at least trying for a rational approach as he recognized the danger of witch hunts..ie balancing the 12 Anti-social characteristics and with 12 social (thier opposite) and exhorting individuals to LOOK. That is very different than what DM is doing. By no means do i beleive that LRH was perfection incarnate, but i dont think one can reasonablely equate LRH and DM in this area.

  9. Absolutely true and brilliant post.
    Some good basic data so vital for a decent life !

  10. Richard Lloyd-Roberts

    You know that’s right on the money. I noticed it from very early on in Scientology. PTS’s, SP’s Wogs, Psych’s Downstats, DB’s and many other derogatory remarks. The corporate Scn world in now a culture of judgement, criticism and degrading beings. Probably born out of the overt of not caring enough about people to actually give them a real help flow when they need it. The one that I hated the most was the saying “Scientology is for the able” thus taking most of society out of its reach.

    • “probably born out of the overt of not caring enough about people to actually give them a real help flow when they need it”.

      This bright statement really indicated to me ; I can see this as a real explanation to many labeling-incidents that I have witnessed.

    • Don’t you perceive “most of society” as pretty able? I do. It always impresses me how able most people are, that I meet in daily life. I am also at times impressed by how stupidly opinionated some people can be, but I rarely meet a person that does not partake of some “buddha mind” (theta).

  11. Look at the starting point of LRH’s discoveries about the mind
    and how to handle all that is wrong with it. He had to start with
    a clean slate, no preconceived ideas, yes, of course postulate a
    fundamental, then test and tweak it and finally issue his findings.
    All scientists, people in think tanks and even philosophers have
    to work in a similar way. Inspection, observation and confronting
    are the hallmarks of any new discovery. Grade IV is such a
    fundamental to the progress of any human.

  12. So true, – thank you.

  13. Wow thank you sooooo much for bringing this point to the forefront. The cognitions and charge that has blown off is immense. You have pinpointed something that bothered me for a long time scientologist would so often do and that is judge before inspecting. Its an ugly culture perfected so well by DM and gang and has trickled down to the entire Sea Org, Class V orgs and the members.

    DM the elitists!!!

  14. Marty I have noticed that in recent posts you have dropped the differentiation of “corporate Scientology” and started to write about Scientology in general. The truth is the suppressive or ignorant use of Scientology to lower the condition of others started before DM — we all know that, or perhaps we all should since the evidence is all around us.

    DM just too it to a fine point. And in my own evaluation leading up to my launch of Scientology-cult.com and others, most of the outpoints led back to DM, not LRH — however LRH certainly had his own outpoints too. Just not nearly as many, therefore the WHY did not reside with him.

    When I selected DM as the target, it was not done in ignorance assuming that everything bad started with him. It was done because he is the first and primary current person who needs to have their ethics put in because his ethics is so wildly out. However after DM, there likely could and would be more within or without of the Church — i.e. “Scientologists” who do not have a sound grasp on the relative importances of Scientology such as the goal of understanding on the 4th dynamic IS the overall goal to which everything must be aligned. That which lessens broad scale understanding must be jettisoned because it is harming our own humanitarian objective.

    To me, Scientology was never about labeling people — except as a direct application of Axiom 19: Bringing the Static to view, As-is, any condition devaluates that condition. This is auditing it self. When someone is out ethics, it helps them to point out the fact in whatever tone level appropriate. They may or may not get their ethics in, but at least you did what you could.

    There is nothing wrong with labeling — when it is correct. The problem as I see it is incorrect labeling — which has another name as old as the hills: intolerance. There is an entire historic book recommended by LRH covering the history of man’s intolerance to man: It’s called TOLERANCE by Hendric Van Loon. It’s a great book.

    Labeling is a coin with two sides. One right, one wrong. Get it right and it is auditing by correct indication. Get it wrong, and it is no more than a tool of the suppressive — reverse Scientology. Did LRH every do it wrong? Absolutely. Just look up the history of leading Scientologists during the 1950s — they almost all were branded “squirrels” by LRH. Was that wrong? Fuck yes. Does that make LRH a sociopath? No. It must makes him a normal man with flaws like the rest of us.

    The miracle of Scientology was that it was invented by a normal man with flaws like the rest of us. It is really stupid to assume since real Scientology is so great, that LRH must therefore also be great. The entire power of the third dynamic is founded on others mitigating the flaws of each individual. In other words, where I go off the rails, others in my group can point it out to me — which is done by labeling — and I can take a look and think “Sure enough, she’s right” and then grow better as a result. My opinion.

    You can’t any more label “labeling” as something bad than you can label auditing as bad. It’s the reverse or destructive use of a particular piece of tech that is bad.

    I have studied LRH’s early writings and lectures intensively. This was — to me — the time period when LRH seemed to have the purest grasp on the ideals of Scientology even when he was violating those same ideals by declaring people squirrels. As the recent film pointed out, LRH’s aberration was a tendency to say “It’s my way or the highway!” And so a lot of good people got thrown out needlessly — people like A. E.Van Vogt and people who wanted to go on auditing Dianetics. I don’t know much about his history, but I find it alarming that so many people introduced at the beginning of lectures as Scientology’s “leading lights” had their reputations trashed as “squirrels.” Possibly Van Vogt “did something to deserve it” but the percentages are as wrong as they are currently with the numbers of “suppressive persons” declared by the Church.

    When I read of Scientology ideals, I do not see the connection so I assume this was all an additive and surely it came from LRH. I think it is just PTSness, myself. That has been my own theory for several years. Certainly LRH was under hellish attack from May 1950 onwards, so I can certainly understand why he failed to live up to his own standards. That doesn’t mean we also have to fail, however.

    The last last thing I’m ever going to do is ascribe LRH’s failings to “all Scientologists” because I for one thought that was bullshit. So incorrectly labeling people was never “Scientology” to me. I see a bigger situation here. Instead of saying “a judgmental attitude and bearing seems to have become one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Scientologist” I would propose a judgmental attitude and bearing seems to have become one of the distinguishing characteristics of degraded beings. The same can be said of the Nazis, and virtually ANY suppressive group.

    I have found the only effective defense against suppression is to correctly label it so others can recognize it for what it is and avoid becoming a victim.

    The problem is incorrect labeling. It is reverse auditing and it’s suppressive.

    • Nice post Steve.
      I didn’t take Marty’s post to be directed at all Scientologists. I took it that he did mean corporate Scientology. I might be wrong about that.
      I enjoyed Marty’s post and I agree with what you said as well.

    • Correct labeling has it’s roots in the most sacred and natural of all abilities “itsa” — the action of a being spotting what something really is which causes the condition to vanish. That is “labeling.” And when someone, for example, refuses to handle an origination correctly — I’ve done it a million times — what we call “out TR-4.” The frequent response is for the other person to attempt to “label” the person as out ethics in an effort to get the person’s ethics in so the comm cycle can be fulfilled. And what, in fact, are such comm cycles really about? The effort to help. And why would a person refuse help? Often it is because the person mis-identifies (mis-labels) the help as something else — perhaps “dev-t.”

      Person A, trying to help, originates to person B.
      Person B labels the origination as problematic and so ignores the origination.
      Arguments invariably ensue from botched TR-4.

      People who refuse help, tend to get labeled more often because they misconstrue other people efforts to help. I have made this same mistake millions of times so I can speak from my own experience. My 2 cents.

    • Steve — I disagree completely.

      Scientologists — those still “in” and those out, indies, are amongst the most judgmental people I know. I mean — how many times on THIS blog as well as the private FB group have you and others JUDGED people. Labeling them BAD A-HOLES.

      It’s easy to say — labeling isn’t bad UNLESS the labeling is wrong. THEN it’s bad.

      HUH?

      This is a conversation about being judgmental which comes about through labeling.

      It’s a difficult conversation because we want to be able to NEVER lose our ability to have discriminating awareness. Which as far as I understand it, is different from a black and white labeling.

      Mainly discriminating awareness doesn’t fix the PERSON in a mold of badness or goodness.

      It is an awareness that allows the viewer to decide for HIMSELF whether to turn left or right without a fixed opinion of the person.

      Ultimately it’s about kindness IMHO — which MIGHT mean you need to push the person INTO the water to prevent him from blowing up a boat with hundreds and prevent more stains on his soul.

      I think it’s time for us all to move up a little higher. Stop being so utterly sensitive about the word — Scientology. Is it “Corporate Scientology” or just Scientology. Is it this? Is it that?

      Peel off those labels. Try to just be a human being (OH GOD — NOT A HUMAN BEING — please anything but that ) — why do we have to feel superior to others? What is that pointing to?

      By labeling ourselves “enlightened scientologists” not those dirty scumbag corporate scientologists – what are we doing?

      We are trying to feel somehow wiser, better, smarter, more put together than the person next to us.

      How come? This is the question I believe we could all grow from.

      Christine

      • “How come?” Because they are defending their false beingness, pride, rightness, etc. And your right. We can all grow from following any need to judge. And this has nothing to do with observation, discernment, evaluations.

      • “completely”?

        • “completely”? was for Windhorse

          • Steve P: It’s easier to say — completely than to take each declarative statement made by Steve and say I agree or disagree.

            But, since you asked — I mostly disagree with most everything that Steve said and says, to be shockingly honest.

            I’ve found Steve to be — while very well intended I’m sure — just a bit too emphatically closed minded about others.

            BUT — to be fair to Steve H. I know his heart is in the right place.

            I’m sure we can all do better in our care for others as well as how we express ourselves.

            • Thank you Marty, Steve and Christine.
              I am going to report an incident that occurs daily in Scientology Inc but I am not going to label it at all but as a noun, I will call it “The IAS REG EXPERIENCE”. I am only going going to report the scenario.
              A phrase is Popular culture these days is
              “The_____________experience”
              The Girlfriend Experience
              The Cruiseship Experience
              The Alaska Experience. etc
              No where does it get pounded more than on Ebay.
              They are going for
              The “Ebay Buyer Experience”.
              Major internal rules and regulations to do everything to please the buyer.(free shipping, returns in 14 days, 1 day shipping, bullet proof shipping etc.)
              So I was musing on
              The IAS REG Experience
              IAS REG EXPERIENCE. Gang Bang. 4 against one public. Bang on the door even at midnight. Enter from a back door. Arrive unannounced, Intention to overwhelm :
              Here it starts
              **YOU UNDERSTAND the game.
              *YOU are on that special list, the trusted list.
              **We can give you an “eyes only” briefing.
              **The truth is the INDIES are being funded by the Big pharmaceutical companies.
              **They are all out to destroy the Church.
              **Your kids are asleep in the next bedroom.
              *Would you want them to grow up with Scientology GONE ?
              **Do you want your grandchildren to be born with no Scientology on this planet ?
              *We actually need $100,000 TONIGHT, but we are going to go easy on you and let you pay only $30,000.
              **But We need this $30,000 from you tonight.
              Don’t hold back.
              **What about your 401K ? Your IRAs ? Your savings account ? Retirement accounts? College for kids saving accounts ? ROTH IRAs?
              **Those gold bars you have, your gold coin collection, your rolex watch collection?
              *All those credit cards you can put the payment down on?
              **All that Equity in this beautiful home you can take out another Trust Deed ?
              *You already have the POSTULATE and INTENTION to give it to us, the IAS.
              *You already knew when you let us in the door, that you WANTED to do “the greatest good”.
              **It is only INTENTION. It is only the POSTULATE. To hell with the mechanics of the MEST universe.
              *You are senior to MEST.
              **You are the stuff of which postulates are made.
              **Let’s not go all night, you WANT to give the $30,000.
              **Open up you wallet and give the credit card right now or write a check.
              *Do I have your agreement ?
              *There ! I can see you smile !
              *You have only $879,000 more to give us before we can declare you Patron Meritorius.
              *We promise to not hit on you for 7 days, OK ?

              • You don’t need a wog career (early on for me, while still in the military), your eternity is here.

                You don’t need another wog career (a bit later on after abandoning my military career, looking into financial services), you are an upstat staff member for the highest cause of this universe!

                THIS IS YOUR ETERNITY, you can’t do anything else, come on man! Admittedly I loved Scientology, and LRH back in the early 80’s, what the fuck else coulda or shoulda I know then? Well the answer is a lot, but bottom line I didn’t (wasn’t allowed to) see it, and that is on me.

                Yup, probably big life charge to blow off some day.

              • An unthoughtful, but non-judgmental response to Gang Bang Reg Beggars………..
                “KISS MY ASS AND GO TO HELL !”
                “Oh, excuse me. I forgot. You’re already THERE in the hell of your own creation. Never mind. So, in that case, just go pick up a copy of Self Analysis and give one of your fellow staff members a 2 hour session or do TR0 with them. . Then do it again tomorrow. Then you will know what it is to REALLY help clear the planet and you can stop pretending to do so.”

              • You forgot – “You should ask your parents to take a 2nd Mortgage out on their house, we can drill this with you.”

              • Karen, happy holidays. I love it when your write things. :)

              • Karen,
                per usual, an enlightened view. A beautiful duplication of the ugly “Reg Experience”

            • Windhorse, so you’re labeling Steve. LOL!

      • Windhose, I agree.

        I believe one reason for labeling others is that it makes life less complicated. A simple label of “good” or “bad” ( and any local version of it ) is so easy compared to confronting the visible and hidden complexities of a person.

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        Dear Marty, Steve and Christine

        You’re right with your different Viewpoints.
        I’m in the process of reevaluating all that I learned in Scientology, and believe me lots of confusions are popping up and stable data I’d are vanishing as soon as I really look at them thorougly.
        If Scientology really has in itself the ultimate truths about life and this universe we wouldn’t be at the state of affairs as we have it currently ! I would rather say that it is a mess and not all data is known, neither the real histrory of Scientology. Too much PR and lies already from 1950 on !

        Why this is I don’t know ! Haven’t seen yet a stable OT…never have seen the golden plates (or balls) that we use to look at things instead of the eyes, while Doctors can give you a better eye-sight with handling your eyes ! …….Still ask myself why a clear, who in fact has handled the whole track (per theory) still has to do OT2 (different way of handling charge on the track, its basic principle is but per Dianetics)…

        What the quintessence is of my participating in this blog the last 3 years is that I found out that there are lots of things about LRH, Scientology, Life and this planet and people that I don’t know. I know now that I don’t know.

        You described so well the state I’ve been in in the last 40 years:
        ” In fact, as noted above it is an hallucinatory state of cause”

        I’d answers for everything and thought I knew everythingt and was living in my own universe and bubble but not in real communication with the rest of the world (why should I ? All wogs and DB’s and ignorant people).

        While I was disseminating and selling Scientology or recruiting I was promising People a paradise but didn’t keep my promises and have lots of justifications for it (DM for example or Sps or others). I promised myself a paradise and cheated and lied at myself and was continously living in this bright future of a cleared planet while I couldn’t pay my bills !

        The only thing that is left is an arc triangle that works mostly, a theta mest theory that makes sense, I know that engramms exist and can be run out, I know that the OT case exist and can be discharged.

        What doesn’t make any sense to me now when I look back is why Scientologists just were following LRH and believing everything he promised and taught instead of taking it into their own hands, taking responsibility about the subject and not seeing that they are living in a dream of successes , taking over the planet etc…and not seeing they are are very, very far away from it.

        It’s just behind me and I hope that one day I’ll find the answers !

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Roger, Martin,
            These are very honest appraisals presented up
            on Roger’s part, and I’d like to make reference to
            a reply I gave to Steve (Thoughtful) regarding the
            use of the Pareto Principle ( the 2O / 8O rule).

            Perhaps this best explains the mindset of the
            followers of ANY Religion / sect / cult, ones cares
            to investigate, especially if one is subjectively
            involved. IMHO,Marty’s now famous term “decompression”
            is a great choice of word, when describing the process
            of looking at, examining, and observing one’s own
            participation in being “led up the garden path” of
            “other determinism”and arriving at a destination NOT
            of one’s choosing. That place is called “Confusion.”

            “Decompression” a very potent “tool” in the Indie Scn
            toolbox! Capable of straightening out a lot of bent,
            buckled, “compressed,” confused, Scns, still caught
            in the after effects of prolonged contact with that
            toxic little virus, known broadly as “DM.”

            How very very apt, is that worn out, trite old warning:
            —–The only true guarantee of freedom–is eternal
            vigilance! How about THAT? just TR-O? Nope, you
            can add in “bullbaited” for extra potency!

            So there!

            Calvin.

            • I am not one to come out and say too much on this blog that has already been said. But I am not sure that this has been yet. To decompress means to decompress right? It was not this way for me. When I walked away from the church for good I felt as though a shroud had been lifted from in front of my real world and all blurry things then started to come into focus, until now they are crystal clear. :) I did’t feel like I decompressed. I felt like I blew a mass of case the size of Oklahoma and beyond. I was thinking about Marty today on my way home. I can imagine that he must have felt really bad in a group like that, like a lot of people really don’t realize until they leave. I hope more people wise up and leave the Church of Scientology and take their rightful place in a society that is not only there but IS worth helping. Happy New Year to you and all of course. :)

          • Roger from Switzerland Thought

            Thanks !
            I’m becoming better and better in formulating clear thoughts !

          • Roger from Switzerland Thought

            TKU !

        • knwing you dont know is a good place to be,you woke up to delusion, from one roger to another, i agree with your write up.

      • Christine, In my opinion, this is a silly comm cycle — you are right now labeling me as judgmental which is itself judgmental on your part. The actual problem is Scientologists are and have been PTS. That makes them a SOURCE of TROUBLE. I’ve never said I was perfect, never pretended to be. My ability to live by the golden rule does not invalidate the rightness of the golden rule. This is silliness.

        • Lol..
          Another good reason for labelling is speed. Accuracy is obviously important. But alot can be said in a short time with a label. To call someone an SP instantly gives out a lot of info. That info can be wrong or right. To say he is conservative is a label and puts out a great deal of info quickly. Sure it is a generality to some /varrying degree , but people use it for a quick transfer of data. This can be a good thing.
          The intention of any person is of primary importance. If you have good intentions you usually can use labels accurately and for good intentions. If you also have some intelligence.
          Really just about anything can be abused if you want to be a dick.
          You can misuse acknowledgments, compliments, complaints. You can be too verbose, not talk enough, give false data, etc, etc.

          • Gerhard Waterkamp

            I think there is a missing factors here in this discussion. Those are time, place and event..
            I would differentiate between a label as something that is assigned as a generality without, time, place and event. For example “Wog” or “SP” are typically used as labels, we know by whom…
            Now when referring to a specific event at a specific place and a specific time like “that (event) at that place at that time was supressive for”…is a specific and I agree with Tony in dealing with specifcs and using certain defined terms can speed up the duplication. But that is not labelling.
            Labelling deals in generalities and the factors of time, place and event are usually missing or incomplete.
            I agree with Windhorse as there was not too much time, place and event in the discussion Steve started.
            Since labels are dealing with generalities and represent “closed case” kind of thinking, they are judgemental and intended to be so.
            And everything Marty wrote about is true.
            This comes from thousand years old wisdom.
            Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

          • Tony,
            you make sense. I see ‘labeling’ as not an instantly bad or good thing it depends on intention as you say. Just like generalizations. One can accurately generalize. The mistake is to apply the generality to a specific. This aligns with the idea of ‘evaluation’. You know people will say “don’t evaluate for me” or simply ‘don’t evaluate’, and although it is true that if an evaluation is being taken as a wrong indication (and accepted) then it can have a negative effect, it is stupid to say ‘never evaluate anything or anyone”. There are times when not evaluating a person or especially a ‘situation’ would never allow one to come to a correct why or find a ‘who’.

        • Steve H: I’m not sure what you are really saying other than what appears as an attempt to quiet me by saying the comm cycle is silly.

          Can’t get much more demeaning than that.

          We could easily divide this board into — those for Steve and those for Christine.

          You would win. Doesn’t make the act of division right though.

          Christine

          • This comm cycle is angry and therefore unproductive

          • Don’t quite know where to insert a comment – this felt as good as anywhere else. I have to ask ‘why are we all so vested in personally having the just right viewpoint,? After all, upstat, down stat, DB, wog, they are all just viewpoints. And we are all entitled to our viewpoint. For me, I can see someone and recognise that they are this or that, grant them the beingness to be crating that experience at this time, then decide to help or contribute to them, or not. The important thing is the granting of being ness, not the labeling which comes from an out ARC, ridge forming evaluation. So it a personal we decision, in ARC or out ARC – you decide by your actions and communication. Andy you know what we are all allowed, after all it is our choice of what we wish to create moment to moment.

            Thanks Marty for a great post, shining some light on this topic.

            P.S. I think LRH did a brilliant job of writing and showing us, sometimes by example, the pro and con of a multitude of viewpoints. Providing a wonderful learning experience.

          • Maybe the underlying problem with labeling has more to do with scope? Let me explain, I can observe/perceive someone and based on my knowledge/experience/education adjudicate that this individual is 1.1 or 2.0, a DB, a PTS or whatever. So far so good, and quite possibly no harm done. Now if I choose to make this adjudication publicly known a whole new dynamic emerges along with some potential problems. The difference between the two is a matter of scope. One is 1st dynamic, the other 3rd dynamic.
            “Incorrect labeling” presupposes some standard of correctness, just as “correct labeling”. Who determines what that is? The individual? LRH? The MAA? The group?
            On a 1st dynamic level this practice of labeling may result in fixed ideas or conditions for the individual. On a 3rd dynamic level it can easily play into the hands of the group bank, as well as allow the individual to rely on group dictates instead of personal observation.

            Note: any labeling I might have made in the writing of this post is purely accidental and not of malicious intent :)

      • A very good article by Marty, and one already though some seem to be bending and saying they can justify the labeling. When we label, correctly or not we are making the other Wrong. To do such as an auditor, whether on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th dynamic, etc, would violate the Auditors Code. I have seen some here and elsewhere (and made the error of doing so myself at times) insist on making others wrong for “sitting on the fence”, for not Declaring themselves as an Independent Scientologist or for not saying they are a Freezoner, etc. Even if we have a GOOD reason (justifier) this is still suppression rather than handling of the differences in viewpoint. Judge if we must each person in PT if we know them enough to do so, but try to not put lables on them that make it harder to comm. When we make it a game of Terminal-Oppterm we have at the very least a mini war. Not needed, good control of ourselves and our actions makes this easier. Let us not hobble ourselves. Recognize an act of evil yes, but apply the skill of auditing to handle it. If we believe in the tech, then we must study and duplicate the tech, and apply it. In politics I have always felt that if one can not win honestly, then one should not be playing that game…or need to hone their skill so they can win honestly. This applies to all of life and to theta. The more entheta we put into the game of life, even if we feel it is for an honorable reason, the less likely we are to attain our goals no matter how lofty the intent.
        On DM I have a personal view, and one i feel applies to many other beings, but not all. A textbook, Tech Dictionary definittion of an SP includes that the SP has trouble completing cycles of action. LRH more than once said that this is one of the reasons that they have not already won. Being stuck in an incident makes them to a large degree out of Present Time, so they perceive what is happening around them incorrectly, and thus make mistakes rather than taking all the Good Hats out of the game. Personal opinion, and take it as that as I ask no one to accept this for whom it is not real. It is this. I feel it is possible for a being to have made the analytical decision to do harm and commit evil as a game and to make all those who seek to salvage this universe and the theta within it as their opponents. I have always from the first times I first heard of DM back in the early 80s as being this sort of person. In the end it is still a game, even if not one we consider sane or desireable. Yet beings like him may be looking at it from the viewpoint.
        Probably said more than I intended…but then around 30 some years ago I did Attest to being a Communication Release. And LRH did say that all auditors talk too much (took me quite a while to really get that one :<)). It got me in trouble in the RTC and even in COS before that, but I still commed.
        Thanks again for this article Marty. nothing there I disagree with.
        Cheers,
        Frank

      • Agreed Christine, hence the 12yearsofjudgment blog title I picked out a few months ago, and the “No Labels” post I added to the Social Improvement Project site last year.

      • OK, I have to say WHOA! Let’s not equate “label” with “Judgemental”.They are not the same! (And I do have a BIG button on “judgmentalism”.)

        Here are what the words mean:

        1. An item used to identify something or someone, as a small piece of paper or cloth attached to an article to designate its origin, owner, contents, use, or destination.
        2. A descriptive term; an epithet.
        3. A distinctive name or trademark identifying a product or manufacturer, especially a recording company.

        judg·men·tal (jj-mntl)
        adj.
        1. Of, relating to, or dependent on judgment: a judgmental error.
        2. Inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones: a marriage counselor who tries not to be judgmental.

        …..of or denoting an attitude in which judgments about other people’s conduct are made.

        judgemental
        Web definitions
        A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a personal view….
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgemental

        2
        : characterized by a tendency to judge harshly

        It should be obvious that “judgemental” is in the realm of the Auditor’s Code. It can be evaluative and invalidative. Labels can be used by judgmental people, who are essentially people who do not have their TR0 in (obnosis) and are principally aware not of what is before their eyes, but mostly of their own considerations which are restimulated by the inflow of perception. Being judgmental in this sense is using an automaticity instead of observing, often for the purpose of diminishing the other in order to lessen one’s fear of him, gain power over him, or some such nullification goal.

        Labels, on the other hand, are not necessarily bad. All languages are in fact systems for labeling perceived phenomena so we can communicate about them. Words are essentially labels. They are name tags, they stand for things.

        It beats hauling an actual real tree intothe room, when you want to communicate the idea of a tree!

        Labels can be used badly, but they don’t have to be. Labels are often used badly by judgmental people.

        So much like the effects produced by “scientology” techniques, much really depends on the intention of the person using it.

        But the principle use of labels is to facilitate communication. However, it should always be kept in mind that “the map is not the territory”, and similarly,”the word is not the thing itself”. Thus anyone is likely to be sensitive to being “labeled” in any way, because it makes a person feel he is being “fixed”into a narrow beingness, an identity.

        • Oops. The first 3 definitions are of the word “label” They should be labeled as such :-), but it must have been deleted during my copypasta.

    • Good Steve! I also would like to add, just as LRH over time revised and improved the First Dynamic Tech, I believe that he would have been able to do the same with The Third Dynamic Tech, Policy -if given enough time and if not under that heavy suppression in his later years, much of which was exacerbated by The Degraded Master of Lies and Deceit, DM

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Steve, I tend to support what you feel and have said,
      since I think one has to be decisive when acting agin’
      insane acts against one. For example, one has to make
      an instant decision to shoot, to save one’s life, or that
      of one’s loved ones. To go into a Q & A with that vital
      decision at that moment, could be a fatal and most
      regretted mistake. Both I, and especially two members
      of my family (crack members of rapid response police)
      are / have been regularly , (in their case, daily,) confronted with real life / death situations, that have very little margin for error, let alone time for same!

      It is indeed, quite a luxury to be in a position to go
      ahead and pontificate on the wisdom of making a
      carefully weighed and / or deliberated decision to
      act or not. I’ve seen a lot of hurt and injury inflicted
      because of someone’s indecision to act decisively,
      when prompt intervention could have prevented it.
      I’m absolutely certain there are those here for whom
      this is only too real. Take heart, it IS a human frailty!

      Perhaps, it would be most fitting to allow the creator
      of our faith, Ron himself, to comment on this matter.

      If my memory is correct, he said something along
      the lines of; “For a long while I pondered on this
      subject called “judgement.” I finally concluded what
      it is. Judgement comes down to simply this:
      How many Dynamics can one compute with — instantly!”

      Thanks for your great awareness and your comm, Steve
      It’s always great to have you tell it like it is! No political
      correctness, just honesty. I much appreciate that!

      BTW, love to the “expanding family,”

      Calvin,
      Durban, South Africa.

      • Nice comment Calvin! Happy New Year bro!!

      • Yes, Li’ll bit — if we look at the 30 year history of DM the problem was during all that time no body ever spoke up despite the insanity. It’s the reverse of being judgmental — people excused everything he did. So now we climbed out of the turd bowl and started a movement that is founded on the premiss of speaking out against things in Scientology WE CLEARLY SEE as wrong. And now we’re going to label ourselves as “judgmental” — not long ago there was a post here about Scientology “haters.” I said I had yet to find any real “haters,” just people with BPC that so far I have been able to handle with good comm. Maybe in four years I’ve just been lucky, but I think not. Someone told me I was being naive and I hadn’t crossed paths with any “haters” because I hadn’t started speaking out. WTF?

        For the record, if anyone wants to examine the facts, I have spoken out more about Scientology than almost anyone alive — including my entire career as the senior writer for the Church, senior scriptwriter, etc. Since leaving the Church, however, when I do speak out, I try to do it an artful way that defuses most BPC of any potential “haters.” I have studied surveys. I know what triggers BPC and I try to avoid stupid blunders in my writing.

        One of the OT Maxims is that an OT had to exert power intelligently else it can be destructive. Well, I have spent many years polishing my own ability to write about the subject of Scientology without bypassing charge on non-Scientologists.

        To counter what some on this thread have said about the word “wog” — when I used the word in the past, it was with love, empathy for their plight and the hope that I could help ease their heavy burden. Others — IAS registrars and DM ass-goons perhaps — used the term with a sneer. The only reason I have worked for 30 years so industriously is to help those “wogs” because I care about them. So no, I do not agree that all Scientologists are “judgmental” — in fact, I invite anyone who says so to go fly a kite.

        Let’s get back to reality folks. Name one group where people have volunteered their time, their fortunes, even their children to help their fellow man as much as Scientologists? The fact that their contributions are currently being misused and their trust betrayed does not invalidate the fact that Scientologists are among the most caring people who ever lived. Invalidate that and sure, you are likely to get someone in your face. Rightly so.

        There’s are few writers on this blog who can match the sheer time I’ve invested in helping people move up the Bridge, in nurturing the Independent movement, granting it beingness and instilling the courage to speak out and do something about it. I know plenty of others who have also gone FAR beyond the call of duty . They are all Scientologists.

        No one is going to write all us off as “judgmental” and invalidate all the work we’ve done? THAT is the most judgmental thing I ever heard. It’s incorrect.

        Hey, I put in 700 to 800 hours building the last two Indie websites. But I’m “judgmental” because I’m a Scientologist? Really?

        I’d say more likely someone is working for OSA because I like explanations that make sense. And declaring me “judgmental” as well as others who have volunteered hundreds of hours does not make any sense.

        Christine wants to complain about people being judgmental — maybe she should stop invalidating the selfless work Scientologists do to help others and recognize rightness where it exists. You inflow what you outflow. Don’t like getting judged? Maybe it is because YOU are judging others but you just don’t see it. I.e., take the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the splinter from mine.

        • Name one group where people have volunteered their time, their fortunes, even their children to help their fellow man as much as Scientologists?
          :
          NAACP
          SCLC
          Food Not Bombs
          Greenpeace
          La Raza
          Black Panthers
          United Farm Workers
          World Peace Council
          thousands of groups dedicated to feeding the poor
          thousands of groups dedicated to sheltering the homeless
          …for starters

          • Don’t forget:
            Salvation Army
            Habitat for Humanity
            Catholic Charities
            Samaritans purse
            Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America
            CASA
            March of Dimes
            Shriners
            St. Judes
            Doctors without Borders,
            plus more.
            I base my evaluation of any of these groups doing more to HELP humanity on my 3 generations of familial involvement with the COS, and having personally worked with each of the organizations over the past 10 years and through a half dozen disasters.
            I believe many Scientologists believe that Scientology was doing more for the world than anyone else, and many sacrificed more than most people helping other organizations, but if you honestly look at what Scientology has done for people, both inside and out of their structure, unbiased look, I don’t think you can find much especially when compared to the toll extracted from its members.
            Steve, you know I love ya man, but you are way off here.

            • Mike,

              One night in 1985, while in session solo auditing at Flag I encountered a plea for help — a woman was apparently drowning in a river. I was in session, so I handled the origination and audited her. Afterwards she flowed me the most incredible heart-felt gratitude and asked who I was. I told her I was an auditor in the Church of Scientology and wished her well. I never gave the incident another thought.

              Fast forward five years. I was at Flag for the Mission Holder’s conference. And there a woman from Bulgaria walked over and got in comm with me. She started telling me a story. She said that five years before, she had escaped the USSR by swimming across a river. Soldiers with machine guns were searching for her in the dark and half way across she started to drown. But in that darkness when she was gasping for air, a “powerful being” came to her and spoke to her very calmly and clearly and helped her and she made it. Soon afterward, in her travels, she wandered into a mission, learned about Scientology, joined the Sea Org (in SMI) immediately and ended up at Flag. I said wow, that’s an amazing story.

              But she was not finished. She fixed me in her gaze and told me she had been searching full time for the man who saved her life that terrifying night in the river. Then tears welled up in her eyes and she said something that floored me, “That man was you. I knew it the moment I saw you here.”

              I clearly remembered the incident from my private auditing session. But I never in my wildest dreams did I expect to meet the person who’s life I saved in session that night with Scientology. I had never spoken to anyone about the incident. There was no way she could possibly have known about it.

              I guess you have never apparently experienced these kind of miracles with the tech. So you don’t value it like I do. But I’m telling you those kinds of miracles are there to be had by anyone.

              You’ve listed some great, positive organizations. But in my opinion, they are not even faintly comparable to Scientology — it is apples to an orange. They are improving conditions in the here and now — a laudable, vital and selfless task. But they cannot reach out telepathically across 5,000 miles and snatch someone from the brink of death and then have that person track you down five years later to say thanks for saving my life. They don’t have that tech.

              I worked for 20 years, 7 days a week, 100 + hours a week, with not even a single day off with my wife (in 16 years), paid $46 a week if I was lucky, at times forced to eat only beans and rice, 15-minute meal breaks, getting thrown in the lake, seeing my own unborn child murdered without even consulting me, living through the most hellish, inhuman, anti-Scientology, divisive bullshit to try and outlast the suppression at the Int base which stemmed from the intentional misuse of Ethics to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation the entire time. And all for what? To give other people that precious chance (miracles) that ONLY LRH’s auditing and training tech can provide. Lots of others did the same.

That level of dedication is NOT matched anywhere. So I would not attempt to characterize such people as “judgmental.” Why don’t we just say all Scientologists are “obsessive.” Or “abstruse.” Or “control freaks.” Or anyone of a thousand other descriptive terms that are really just symptoms of a greater problem. I could make an argument any of them. I think we’d all be better served if we simply stated things correctly. 

On a planet of sleeping beings, when they get into Scientology they all don’t instantly straighten up and fly right. Sometimes they are pretty confused and it takes quite a while for them to wake up and get on their feet. Meanwhile they can do some pretty stupid things — but not any more stupid than what the rest of the world is doing — genocide, murder, greed. In fact, as a rule Scientologists are a lot less stupid the moment they start on the Bridge. And many of them are certainly more selfless, in what they have attempted to contribute to mankind than anyone else I ever heard of.

              We’ve all worked in all kinds of organizations on the track for all kinds of decent causes. NONE possess the unique capabilities to do what only Scientology can do.

              Once, during my Sea Org career I encountered a homeless man who asked me for money. I told him how much I earned a week and he called me a liar. He made more money in an afternoon BEGGING than we received working 7 days a week.

              All we really need to do here is put in order. When order goes in, confusion blows off.

              When suppressive generalities go in, people blow off.

              A judgmental attitude and bearing is not a “distinguishing characteristic” of all Scientologists. Says who? Captain of the Trolls? 

A judgmental attitude and bearing is a distinguishing characteristic of suppressive people and the potential trouble sources under their influence. I know plenty of Scientologists who are not judgmental. It’s the wrong word.

              • Steve,
                Beautiful post. That is one of the greatest successes in the use of Scientology tech I’ve ever heard. VVWD.

                • Li'll bit of stuff

                  Maurice, when pure unadulterated love flows from
                  someone, not everyone is able to perceive it.
                  But, you know what? Like you, I recognize that love,
                  and to me, THAT is passion that I identify with, every
                  time. In fact Steve has just made a recollection that
                  can bring tears of empathy/relief/admiration for the
                  wonder of being able to help another desperate being, as only an aware, unbounded, compassionate spiritual being could possibly do!

                  Marvelous, to hear, appreciate, & to share with others

                  What a success story, Steve!

                  (some simple advice about “being judgmental” -treat
                  merely as a button selected to break you down on
                  a session of TR-O (bullbaited) ie just friggn’ IGNORE!)

                  ARC, brothers,
                  Calvin.

              • Great post, Steve and what a beautiful story!
                And I agree with you: The tech. LRH gave us is unique.
                I feel there is a bit of a pendulum swing in the Independent movement,
                in that LRH sort of goes from God to philosopher like many others.
                I think neither of them is correct. The tech. that can take regular
                people and make them into miracle workers is quite unique.
                Marcel Wenger

              • So anecdote about “telepathically” saving a woman from drowning in Bulgravia some how trumps the thousands of lives Doctors Without Boarders literally and provably save every month? The NAACP has ensured MILLIONS of African-Americans were finally protected from lynchings, harassment, being denied suffrage, etc… But telepathically assisting someone from an auditing room trumps that? Scientology goals have always been to further Scientology, not to aultralistically help people. Scientology raises money for itself, not to help others. Even if you believe Scientology offers some life changing positive technology, they charge for it! They have always charged for it and it’s never been cheap, at most maybe affordable to those with jobs. Most aid organization give to people who have nothing. Most religions open their doors to all, regardless of money. Catholic nuns have devoted their entire lives to the most wretched and needy in the world, the abandoned children of Calcuttas streets for example, while also taking a personal vow of poverty. Yet, SO members are mostly trained to get as much money out of affluent believers to fill their own coffers to further agenda and recruit more wealthy people to pay for services. If Scientology had any real goal of helping humanity they might at least offer programs to provide auditing to the needy or poor. They don’t do this because as it has been stated many times, the CoS is only interested in the “able.” If you truly think SO members regging money or sitting in dark auditing rooms imaging they are being super heroes in far flung locations – you are living in a fantasy land. Much like me believing that me imaging I’m rescuing damsels in distress in Asia while laying on my couch does more good for the world than the people working at the soup kitchen downtown.

                • Sunny V: What planet are you on? 1. I didn’t charge a thing for helping and I don’t charge for anything I’ve done in the field of Scientology. 2. I’m not saying one is superior to the other, I’m merely saying it has it’s own validity. 3. You are talking out your ass to infer that I am somehow defending the actions of the CoS. Literally, this is the most non-sequitur post I’ve seen in months. You aren’t even commenting on the subject upon which I wrote.

                • “Scientology goals have always been to further Scientology, not to aultralistically (altruistically?) help people.”

                  I see this as an entirely false statement. What a label to put on the subject and all the people who have been involved with it. The entire original impulse for the creation of scientology was to help people. Ask anyone who ever joined staff anywhere, what their motivation was.

              • Thoughtful,
                What a great experience …thanks for sharing it on this blog. I think that you are correct when you talk about personal sacrifice such as you relate in your post . And, how about those RPFers who were locked up against their agreement and so on. Of course, that is abuse. I believe, however, that the intention of the most dedicated Scientologist are not necessarily superior to the dedication and intention of others who are dedicated to helping. What is different, is the bullshit that comes with the helping in Scientology which is dished out from the group (starting from the top down) . IMHO, there are policies and practices which make helping others MORE problematic that it needs to be. And that is a whole ‘nother subject already well established on this blog.

                I think that where Scientology can POTENTIALLY be the best is helping individuals on a purely spiritual level, as in your example. I do know that on a purely theta level auditing is the best help available here on this planet. So as I see it, Scientology has the corner on helping thetans with spiritual distress, but other organizations are superior in other ways. Perhaps some Scientologist should be given a purple heart for being wounded in service to humanity.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            I heard a lot of originations coming from Steve, Marty!
            Originations of sheer hard work and dedication, which
            align with, and support your work in 31 Factors, a land-
            mark statement in itself. What I don’t see in your replies
            to him, is much in the way of TR-4, which surely you are
            at least charitable enough to acknowledge him with?

            You are two of the most amazing, hard – working, selfless
            Scientologists ever. It would be prudent to see some heart
            felt genuine acknowledment given here, in the true spirit
            of Christ,–appreciation and love,as featured in your post
            only a few days ago! Surely you will not withhold that from
            him? After all, it is a sacred requirement in The Auditor’s
            Code. Views and opinions may differ, ARC brings together!

            Thanks,
            Calvin.

        • Steve: Perhaps you didn’t notice my somewhat feeble attempt at a white flag?

          In any case, I don’t believe I’ve ever invalidated the selfless work Scientologists do to help others. Could you specifically quote me? I have validated your efforts on this blog with your latest website, scientology reviews, I added my name to the indy 500 in part to help you reach the goal of 500.

          I haven’t expressed any upset at being invalidated by others and was my apparently feeble attempt at humor when I told Steve P. “to go ahead and skewer me.”

          I have been consistent Steve I believe on this board in my efforts to contribute what I feel are reminders that we NOT become the group that we just left. (judgmental, rigid, dogmatic, arrogant, insufferable)

          I recognize the passion you have to attempt to breathe life back into the subject of scientology and LRH. To right the confusions and incorrect technology that has been rampant.

          It is my experience that what will last of LRH’s legacy will be the truth —

          What *might* be irreparably damaged — IMHO — is the BRAND. Perhaps it can be saved. I am out “in the world” a lot. I am never quiet about having been involved for many years and I always, but always, do my best to point to the value of LRH’s work and the destruction of the current scene.

          As you say — most people are asleep — thus repairing the public perception isn’t going to be a cake walk.

          Obviously I hit a nerve and for that I’m sorry. I never invalidated your hard work, your passion for the subject. I just don’t agree with you but that doesn’t mean I think you are a bad person or incapable.

          As I said – earlier – I waved a white flag many hours ago.

          Christine

        • “if we look at the 30 year history of DM the problem was during all that time no body ever spoke up despite the insanity. It’s the reverse of being judgmental — people excused everything he did. ”

          i spent 13 years at the Int base, including 6 years within RTC. I witnessed atrocities that have no foundation in Scientology technology or philosophy. I saw gross and outrageous cruelty that a group will use against their friends, when they are confused in a bank-driven fear. I, myself, followed the lambs that I was part of, and would become a wolf as required, to protect my own skin. And I have spent 7 years talking to people who finally escaped that place, trying to assist in mending the wounds that still scar them and give them nightmares.

          How did “Int” become a hell hole? Well easy — place a psycho in charge, full of evil purposes and his own agenda to play, and let him have free rein.

          But how did that even occur?

          It became unsafe to speak out with a view that was different to that of the group. It was made unpopular. And a person was attacked, slagged or hounded to the degree they did not go with the flow — did not go with the group — did not permit the atrocities to continue. In fact, if there was any dissonance towards “Dear Leader” you were ousted. Any disagreement, any difference of view, or any protest on what was done or said — and you became a target.

          Bottom line is, a person, being rejected by the group, would find themselves seemingly standing alone.

          Steve Hall — you are not alone.

          I agree with everything you have posted in recent days on this thread. Every single bit. And I find it fascinating that with the new “voting system” of thumbs up and thumbs down, this group has the appearance of becoming more and more hateful, more and more judgmental and more and more anti-Scientology and anti-LRH. This is the work of OSA — to repel people from this blog, to stain this group with hate and to create conflict between Indi’s. It is one of their most important strategies to destroy the Indi community — and as the thumbs up and thumbs down is anonymous, it is a simple system. If I was Marty, I would get rid of it.

          Truth is, many of the people who used to post on this blog are staying away, or staying silent these days and not commenting (such as myself), as it is observed that the anti-LRH, anti-Scientology comments abound — and the distinction between Radical Corp Scientology and the body of work is being constantly muddled.

          I am a Scientologist. I care for others and work to help people in any way I can by applying the philosophy of Scientology. If I see someone who needs to get their ethics in, the kindest thing I can do is tell them, and help them to improve their life — not from some judgmental high tower – but from a desire to assist them from doing themselves in. If I come across someone who is PTS — I will label them, not to make them somehow inferior, but to give them the leg up to deal with it — just as others have helped me in recent times. Even the label SP, as Steve points out, is a correct one if the person is being suppressive. If by “labeling” something, one has identified the is-ness of a situation, and makes dealing with it a possibility — then it is about confront and a desire to help — not about a service facsimile to make others wrong.

          So I disagree with Marty’s original post, and will surely get jumped on by many for having said so — but I am not afraid of that. As I continue to train and audit, my own understanding of people, of the bank, of theta, increases — and my own desire to help others (despite any personal danger) is commensurately increased. My certainty and gains are proof to me that it is not about judgement, or about control. It is about rehabilitating a being’s ability to be, do or have, anything.

          I am not judgmental — and I hope the others who read this blog, will help me in speaking out – even if it is not popular to do so. That is my New Year;s resolution.

          • Lana, you mentioned the ratings system. I’ve noticed the same thing and I hate it. I think it adds unnecessary devision. I saw one day someone gave a thumbs down to every post on a topic. Also- I have found I can give multiple ratings from different computers even though I only have one wordpress acct. That means I can give your post a thumb down in the morning with my coffee, another on my way to work on my phone, then again on every computer at my business. Apparently when you rate a post it puts a cookie on that computer that prevents you from doing it again, on that computer. Now that I think of it, maybe you could just delete your cookies and give multiple ratings from one computer.

            • Yah Chris, good observation, but in the end we “know”. Happy New Year! :)
              Cece

            • Li'll bit of stuff

              I agree totally Chris! An ominous inclusion for the
              anonymous attack / inval of “our” Indie group, serves
              what ultimate purpose, exactly? Even Face Book offer
              better protection for their participants, since they ONLY
              offer a “like” button, and provide an option to exclude threatening posts and invalidation, of the grouping!

              • Li'll bit of stuff

                Further, Chris, with the New Year almost upon us,
                should this unsavory development be squashed
                in situ,? Per (swift) action this time? To quell any
                reduction of our Indie field, ie, heading off any resulting & unnecessary ARCx’s while continuing
                to maintain & even grow existing ARC levels?

                Perhaps a timely review in “our” nebulous Qual. dept. may obviate a lot of “this stuff?”

                I sincerely hope our captain, (Marty) hears ( and
                cares!) about these not insignificant rumblings aboard our cybership, MOUALH! (you can bet
                your life OSA & therefore DM, certainly will! )

                The alternative? “Demons” (OSA),get into the steering
                mechanism and one finds oneself upon the rocks,
                then……?

                Never been a time for greater vigilance, if you ask me!
                Let’s all do that, while boldly making full use of OUR Indie Tools, including those time-tested TR-‘s, as we
                welcome 2013, with courage & enthusiasm.

                Hey, remember, win or lose, it’s just a game, so please
                let’s just stay focused and have fun, UP the Tone scale,
                if you please!!!!!!! (something our adversaries cannot do!)

                Calvin.

            • Great catch Chrismann, I just tested it: gave you a thumbs up, cleared the cookies, refreshed the screen and gave you a second thumbs up. This rating system is bullshit system that can freely be abused by trolls. I was wondering how so many thumbs downs keep showing up.

              • That is a pretty bad design flaw.
                I give you one thumb now and I’ll do ten more after I put the dishes away Steve. :)

              • This thumbs up, thumbs down is a perfect tool for OSA. With it they can validate any comment that is a bit off color, nasty, anti-LRH or squirrelly. They can also use it to invalidate any comment that is accurate, truthful and blowing charge for people. They can create an air on the comment section of the blog. They can add to animosity between two people. They can create mystery and they can create ARCXs.

                Perfect tool for OSA trolls. My suggestion to moderator/administrator is to take it off.

                • Yes, I agree with all that and I believe I’ve observed those things. Impossible to say if it’s “OSA”, but it’s still a design flaw. I havent checked my wordpress acct to see if it’s an option for blogs. Either way you should not be able to give multiple ratings on different computers or on one computer by simply clearing cookies. Steve said it above: “This rating system is bullshit system that can freely be abused by trolls.

                  • Took me 9 minutes to reply, granted old computer. Tony Ortega went through this on his blog but it most likely cost him more bucks to handle with a new program.
                    So… rating are fine and look good except for the inconvenience of time for some, however, I don’t really look at ratings and do read what the person says, not in the accumulation of numbers. I have some favorites of course like most, browse as wanted, and reply if liked or not, if it wasn’t so time consuming. I wouldn’t worry about OSA as I believe Marty has it under control, and they are easy enough to spot and can make it interesting even. Just some more pennies worth.

                    Happy New year Marty and Mosey and to all of you. Dee, an Ex.

              • Li'll bit of stuff

                Steve, 21 thumbs down to you, as I view your 29/i2/2012 of 2;02 am post, approx time of my
                reply is 7;oo am. your real time. I have already
                identified 1 troll, currently posting in our midst,
                as the one who showed up approx one year
                back, to do the most malicious hatchet job (on
                me,) that I have ever seen on this blog. At the
                time, being a newbie, I was quite bewildered, and had my hands full dealing with 3p, effects,
                generated. That was then. This is now! Much,
                has been learned, since, about these shadowy
                operatives, the essential point being they are
                basically cowards. Confront one alone in a
                locked room, and you’ll see what I mean.
                I expect the usual re-active quota of T/D’s
                for this reply.Coward = mentally sick,( my eval.)
                When the time comes, to defend themselves,
                or loved ones,from physical threat, they scatter like cockroaches! Or at most, make pathetic hissing noises that are a ploy to seem fearsome.

                Check out the above reply to you by ” Sunny V.”

                Calvin (come & get me –I have a “gift” for you!)

            • Chris — seriously who cares. Do you dislike the post more because of lots of thumbs down? Do you like it more because of thumbs up?

              It’s a mildly interesting way for people to comment. Frankly, the old system of +one – + 1000 I found more irritating.

              I’ve noticed the same thing — every post has a negative at times — even the opposite viewpoint. Who cares.

              I’m just trying to beat out Steve Hall (JUST KIDDING)

              Christine

              • I care or I wouldnt have brought it up.
                It’s not that I’m thin-skinned and get teary-eyed if I see a thumbs down on my post. It’s that I believe it’s creating sort of a hidden ARCX.
                It’s like a hidden third party thing. I can sense it, feel it and am seeing the results.
                It’s not a huge thing, but it’s there.You post something and later it has five thumbs down. Who rated it? Why? Was it all done by the same person? Does it mean I’m unpopular? What about my post was disagreeable?
                Atleast theres five people who gave it a thumbs up. I guess there are sides. Clearly there is a division here on this topic. I didnt know the indys were so divided. Well, I’ll take a side and now defend it in further argument….

                • Chris — I see what you are saying. I know several Indy’s don’t agree with me and have said so expressing themselves by saying buddhism is just obviously not that workable – look how long it’s been around and the world is still f*d up — OR whatever.

                  Here’s a confession — I stick around on this blog for many reasons — enjoy the articles by Marty, enjoy meeting up with old friends or making new ones BUT ALSO — to see if I can NOT feel myself getting all bent out of shape by the opinions of others. To see if I can TRY to not have the knot in my stomach when someone irritates me and make a knee-jerk reaction to it by posting something.

                  In other words, this blog is a place where I can work on my own reactions.

                  SOMETIMES I’m successful and other times — like my quick, knee-jerk response to Steve H’s initial post, I’m not.

                  I’m glad the Indy’s have differing points of view and express themselves.

                  I’m keeping my finger’s crossed that the Indy’s don’t develop a guidebook, manifesto and inner club. But, probably I don’t want a club cause I won’t be invited and then I’d have to whine … more :)

                  Love,
                  Christine

                  • OK. I remember something where there was a lot of buddhist postings back and forth and I had the feeling that it was taking over the blog. Not that I have any disagreement with that subject or discussion of it, but a couple times I came to the blog and there were a lot of lenghty posts and I was looking for more on-topic data that was inhibited by this.
                    I don’t see any reason why someone couldnt do both, but I would not “mix” them. Meaning both at the same time just because thats what LRH said and it makes sense to me. That would mean to me having a session and later doing meditation to try and get more out of it or something. I would say do what your doing while youre doing it.
                    There is a story in my family about my uncle who was a buddhist and I believe a “monk” for a number of years. Later in his life he became I’ll and was in a coma. At one opint he was having bad seizures and his vital signs were very bad so the monks came to the hospital and did some chanting or prayer or something and even though my uncle was in a coma he responded and became calm and stable. He eventually died but it was interesting.

                    • Chris — I don’t and wouldn’t mix auditing with meditation either.

                      Interesting story about your uncle. I’m sure the chanting was soothing to him.

                      I don’t post long buddhist explanations any longer. George W. and I got caught up because of another poster (who interestingly has vanished) who appeared to know a great deal about buddhism but it was slightly twisted – so George and I tried to straighten it out. It became a mess.

                      I think we all do the best we can. The trick is to never give up on ourselves or others.

                      Cheers,
                      Christine

                    • Chris and Windhorse, I remember the poster and article you mention, with all the back and forth about Buddhism. It did indeed become a mess! The poster was Kassapa and Marty ended up banning further comments from him, after valiantly trying to get him to take responsibility for his arrogant and self important attitude. When Kassapa kept on with his assertions and whining about “just trying to make others see the rightness of my comments”, Marty quite correctly closed the door on anything more from him. In this particular instance it would have been helpful to have the “thumbs up/down” ratings, so that readers could have given their input on the various comments. And perhaps Kassapa, who may have been from OSA, might have gotten thrown off sooner and saved us all some time!

                • You got it Chrismann! Nail on the head! +1

            • Chrismann9
              I agree that this thumbs up and down has introduced an unnecessary sideline. I know we wanted it and here it is but it has the frailties you mention and if you sign out and then sign back in again you can click it anew..
              It may be flattering to get a lot of thumbs up and on the other hand give a feeling of being flustered and mystified why people clicked on the thumbs down.
              There is too much room for abuse, especially by OSA.
              Let’s get rid of it and go back to “Like” “:)” or whatever we had before and thus limit OSA and their influence here.
              Greta

              • My problem with the rate process is that trying to reply from an response sent by via email can take up to 9 minutes (as it did on this thread) before the Reader stops spinning and the page settles down. Otherwise I may respond more often. It seems to take a lot of memory. Oh well, just my 2 cents.

              • I bet that a lot of black hats were spotted by the thumbs up/down system. We dont know who gives the thumbs up/down but the moderator can see them at their nasty little game and thus know them. OSA would most likley not be dumb enough to show their hand but some of the less bright players were gleefully exposed.

            • Allow me to chime in on the rating system.
              Internet rating systems best be looked at as a tool.
              Like any other tool it can be used or abused.
              The reliability of any internet tracking system depends majorly on the honesty of the end users. Internet rating and statistics systems have to deal with and are limited by an array of privacy solutions which are in place to limit the damage caused by abusers on the first place. The efforts put into these systems are not to be underestimated. In order to protect your privacy the server (the computer where this very text you are reading came from) is only allowed to know so much information. The two major groups of information available to a ranking system are the IP address of the user (You in this case) and Cookies. Cookies are strictly regulated pieces of information stored on your computer. For privacy reasons the user of any computer is allowed to delete these cookies. I am not going to throw a tutorial on cookies as there are plenty of those on the net. For example: (http://www.allaboutcookies.org/)
              People have been abusing these cookies for many reasons and there isn’t a way to have a 100% accurate rating system because the abusers will find new ways to abuse no matter what. The only way to make these really accurate would be to have a mandatory interned ID assigned to everyone which is issued and verified by some governing entity. While I am sure that certain government agencies would love that, fortunately people have been very adamant about keeping some privacy. IMHO we already have too much information exposed about ourselves when we just browse. Just your IP number (which you always have one when you are on the net) can pinpoint your rough location on the planet.

              “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
              Plato

              This quote also applies to internet ranking systems beautifully. (and is about as true as it gets)

              The problem is not Marty or the ranking system. The blame falls on the abusers.

              Personally I find the ranking system very interesting, educational, and useful. For instance it reveals that when a new blog is put out by Marty everyone flocks over to the new one and drops all the previous conversations religiously. Are we going to blame Marty for that also? At least the ranking system can prevent you from wasting your “breath”. Also I like to let loose my inner Sherlock Holmes on these feedbacks as they can be very telling. For instance it makes me wonder right now about the whistle blowers on this very subject. I have been watching some unfair ‘thumb downs’ pop up here and there and have a good idea who is behind some of these. Let’s just give here more kudos to Marty again as I would have done away with the abuser by now neatly and quietly. (boot :) ) So those who thumb down on emotion rather than logic: be glad that I am not running this server. The internet is all about free information. It is up to every user to tell truth from lies. If you can’t do that for yourself then the rating system is the least of your problems. On any such rating system the rule of thumb would be to look at statistics. Just like when you shop on ebay. There is always a dousche that complains even if the service is perfect. All this revels is that there are some rotten apples which is kinda bad if you think that people who get attracted to SC are supposed to be the cream of society. There goes that theory! LOL

              So keep up the good work Marty and leave the ranking system alone!
              You have one supporter here who does not expect you to go back to stone age because of a few rotten apples. And may I point out that it is usually the rotten apple that first complains? I mean who is it really that will not want a ranking system? Let’s really look at the logic here shall we? We have some people posting here who are self proclaimed experts. Quoting LRH left, right, and center displaying their rote-ness instead of conceptual understanding. If I catch anyone in such selfish act they get my thumbs down. My FIRST RULE = conceptual knowledge. Those who do not have it, nor strive for it will pretend to have it. When caught they will want to cover it. Of course that these quys will be first to complain agains unanimous ranking systems. Knock it off people! All I see is intention to suppress information yet again. Not that I need to or what to lean on LRH on this but if there was one thing he was really trying to open peoples eyes up to was the importance of conceptual knowledge. Look and know for yourself is what he wanted us to be able to do! If that isn’t promoting conceptual knowledge then I don’t know what is.

              Marty If you are interested at a later time I may be able to assist with beefing up the ranking system a little more against abusers but don’t expect miracles. You can only do so much on filtering out abuse. I for one prefer privacy over accuracy in these matters.

              As always the key is education which can open one’s view.

              • Seriously people wake up! When you see someone suppressing information try to look at the facts. Observe the suppression and learn to ignore the sugar coating and steering of compulsive liars. Spot the intention behind the suppression.

                It is not that difficult. Think for yourself. Here is a simple process for it: SPOT A COMPULSIVE LIAR.
                (you can put it in different context of course as usual: spot a compulsive liar that …. you met recently, you have known for a long time, met this year, met more than a year ago …. whatever)
                Let’s call it the compulsive liar rundown :)

                If I was Marty I would make the server access statistics public in response to the attack on the ranking system. Marty let me know if you are interested I happened to be a tech geek.

                • So Catherine — you say that my request to get rid of the rating system is a suppression of information — and comes from someone who is sugar coating things and compulsively lying? That is fascinating as I have been called a compulsive liar (the exact same line) from another terminal who you have never met, and who is OSA controlled.

                  You also state that there is a (bad) intention behind the suppression?

                  Wow! So glad to have you here evaluating for me and warning people about me and those I am close to.

                  I must have touched very close to home with the truth on my origination about the rating system based on the venom spitting at me from across the planet. Yep — just fascinating. You even weave a communication that makes out I am trying to undermine Marty. Just fascinating. You have just proven my point from the beginning. Thank you.

                  I have no game with you – nor with others trying to splinter the Indi field. I am going back to my auditing room to deliver. OSA walks on this blog and is leaving large muddy footprints everywhere,

                  • Sugat coating and lying? No, I did not use those words in any post. Is this Lana? Only one other person has used my name on this blog. Has someone’s email been hijacked?

                  • You seem to be confused. I have not said anything you are attributing to me. I suspect this email addy has been hijacked.

                  • Seriously man if you can’t tell that this is a different voice and I am a different person you are not even worth the time to debate.

                  • Lana Logan said:
                    “I have been called a compulsive liar (the exact same line) from another terminal who you have never met”
                    Oh that’s not vague at all!
                    “Who you have never met” and forgive me for guessing never will because the person doesn’t even exist.
                    Or does he/she Jim M. Or Lana Logan or whoever you are?
                    Oh wait a minute. Is Jim even your real name?
                    Who is this person you speak of?
                    May we know?

                    Lana Logan (Jim):
                    I am not at liberty to tell you. Auditors code you know.

                    First Rule:
                    Oh how convenient.

                    Lana Logan (Jim):
                    It is outrageous that you are accusing me of lying again. The auditors code says: “lengthy cut an pasted text here” which is in agreement with axioms: “lengthy cut an pasted text here”. And so you see not only are you accusing me of being a liar wrongfully but you are stupid because you are not responding to the axiom quotes.

                    Crowd:
                    (dead silence) An oracle speaks up. Then crickets chirping. And then!
                    More chirping!

                    Oh crap what is happening here? Where am I? I …. I think If just had a glimpse of the future!

                    Some guy:
                    Nah! Chill First Rule dude, you just know 1.1s.

                    • I think it is time I say I have nothing against the axioms. Quite the contrary. I consider them as a very low level of conceptual understanding of what IS. To scientology, axioms are that which atoms are to science. Note that I didn’t say subatomic particles (like quarks) as there are even lower level of definitions that can be made about life and existence. Most of the axioms I have observed to be true for myself already or have observed how they are true through LRH’s view and have adopted them my own way. Therefore it is not my intention to put these down in any way. I wanted to be perfectly clear about that.

                      I just think it is a sign of roteness when people hide behind quotes and seldom venture into the land of speaking their own mind. There is a reason why during word clearing the PC is asked to explain the word in their own words. That is how the auditor knows the PC got it. LRH was all about conceptual understanding. LRH said to use written tech instead of verbal tech to reduce human errors related to auditing. I don’t recall any reference where he says you can’t have a casual conversation about your life, your understanding of SC, or understanding of what IS. Did he? To the extreme that would make people having to communicate via LRH quotes only. “Off to ethics! You have used a Conjunction between your quotes.” (this itself would be presented as/from a quote of course :) ) We would be like Bumblebee (transformers the movie) with his busted communicator having to play prerecorded sounds from radio or whatever.

                      I mean where do we draw the line? The way I see it when you start training to be an auditor you should rely on written tech only. Makes sense. The tech is working as-is. If it ain’t broke don’ fix it. Use it. I just don’t think this blog should be treated as we are the PC with someone posing as the all knowing auditor and tech guru. I didn’t come here for a session or lecture and I think neither did others.

                  • Li'll bit of stuff

                    Lana, The infra red sensors are not lying though!
                    the OSA deployment is currently among us in numbers. Catherine has been targeted for 3p. Simple fast check!
                    Suss out for any unfamiliar “Handles” doing major inval.
                    on our regulars! They’re there in all their” innocent”glory!
                    Some are making offers to assist Marty with their” Expertise”
                    More OSA,bots than we’ve seen for a while, hey? Guess
                    there’s an even wider deployment going on, than Marty’s
                    report of currently being targeted via the 3p of his friends and contacts.
                    Haul out the swatters, and your can of “pestkiller” to blast away at any nasty little “bugs” that are trying to fog up the Captain’s usual great view as he is trying to manoevre our ship MOUALH through this little swarm of “Demons”( just hatched from the latest garbage grade “think tank.”of DM)

                    Timing, timing timing, is everything, so…aim…SWAT!

                    • Let me be very clear here. I have no beef with you or anyone else. I have only screamed “burglar” at one and only one poster who may have been regular here but was stirring an enormous amount of entheta!

                      If you want to call me OSA for that so be it. That is your prerogative
                      But let me share this with you: I have never ever in this lifetime set foot on any SC org or was connected to anyone in there. Therefore you see you won’t find a button there.

                      What ticked me off is that TO was the only one seeing what is going on.
                      I wasn’t going to jump in but the intention to suppress from that poster became so thick that I could not resist speaking up any more.

                      So now let me ask this: was that so bad?
                      Did you miss the part where he got busted posting as Lana?
                      Or did you miss the part where he recommended removing a useful tool because it was in his way? These are just some of the issues. I will be glad to point out more of them if you wish.

                    • Well First Rule, Lana was posting her own comments. I verified. So your “bust” comments are totally off the rails. You think the axioms are “a very low level of conceptual understanding of what IS. To scientology, axioms are that which atoms are to science.” Wow.

                • Ok so what I see now is that there is an increased amount of thumbs down activity. (on Judgement) Is it a coincidence that it just so happens after someone points out the cookie clearing vulnerability? NO! Do I have to walk you people through to see the source who started all this and is now abusing the ranking system? Please look at the purpose here! There is someone here that is a poser. I don’t even have to look at the server log to know that if I ever did it would point to the same person that I suspect:

                  Jim Logan!
                  I’ve watched you for some time now instigating and stirring stuff up.
                  You have insinuated that I am DM.
                  You have insinuated that I am the Oracle.
                  Well let me help you with your listing once and for all. You don’t know me. But I know you from your posts. That is all I need to know.
                  I have to hand it to you though. You are clever. But then again all posers are clever as it is their profession that they pose. They routinely exaggerate their abilities and training.They become a poser for life. I would wager that you are behind this rating debate and stirred Lana M. up until she complained. Why? Because you can not quietly self promote. Those pesky thumbs downs you get all the time are as bothersome to you as the decent tech people were to DM. So you try to do away with it. It is you running around giving thumbs down to anyone who challenges you. You might be clever but I happened to be one who can detect people like you from 10 miles. You try to come of as the ultimate tech guru but your rote-ness sells you out. You quote LRH and suppress the originations of others by making it look like there is nothing new under the sun and you understand it all because of the axioms and such. Well I would say kudos to you if that was true. Unfortunately it is not. This is obvious to me from the gross errors you show through your communication on this blog whenever you are required to answer things with your own words as opposed to quoting LRH or someone else. This is because you do not have good conceptual understanding. Do yourself a favor and use the tech with your own words. Don’t just hide behind quotes. You have fooled some people and have a small and ever decreasing crowd of followers who do not know better. I do and I am not as gentle with such issues as the Oracle for instance that you so lamely confused me with. Which in itself is another proof of your rote-ness and listing. Who could it be? Oh DM! No. It’s the Oracle! Of course that would conveniently diffuse the conflict right Jim? No such luck man! I am just another person who sees and happened to be onto posers like you.

                  Lana M. wrote:
                  “if we look at the 30 year history of DM the problem was during all that time no body ever spoke up despite the insanity. It’s the reverse of being judgmental — people excused everything he did. ”

                  No. People had no choice because the damage was already done. DM has the power! It is a done deal. He made it to power because of his deceitful cleverness. Once he had the power the game was over and no amount of back and forth debating will change that. The only thing people can do there is leave and regroup in the indie field where they are faced with yet another problem. How to tell a poser from an honest and well trained auditor. I am not one to tip toe around this question. It is THE problem in the indie field. People can self proclaim and fools rush in. It is hard to verify if what people claim about themselves is true or not.

                  So here is the deal Jim. Why don’t you tell us here, now what your training is. Spare no details. Tell us and show us how I am wrong. Prove me wrong and I will shut up and leave you alone for good. I think you are claiming to be something you are not because your posts reek of the lack of conceptual understanding. You are bringing the quality of this blog down by stirring stuff up to cover your own ass. Let me tell you. You better wake up and get a true marketable skill because people into SC are learning from the DM lesson. I at least am and I’ll be damned if I don’t do whatever I can to wake others up also.

                  So let me reiterate the question at hand:
                  Jim Logan, what are your credentials and who can confirm them?
                  Oh and don’t even try changing the subject. You are not going to get away with that trick. Nor by blowing, or by pretending to be upset. I don’t want to hear your excuses. I want to hear the facts. You see unlike those you can fool I have a very good BS filter which allows me to hear only facts.

                  • Better yet you just proved my suspicion from the beginning that you are posting as Lana M.

                    You accuse others of being OSA controlled and OSA spies. I have watched you do that time after time after time after time.
                    After time ….

                    Hm … Anyone else thinking what I am thinking?

                    Ok let’s do a vote.

                    • If you think he who is repeatedly accusing others of being OSA controlled is himself an OSA implant then give this post a thumbs DOWN!
                      Oh wait … never mind Jim will do that. As Jim Logan and as Lana M. and as who knows who else … LOL

                  • First Rule wrote:
                    Jim Logan!
                    I’ve watched you for some time now instigating and stirring stuff up.

                    My experience with Jim Logan’s posts are a lot of invaluable Tech and LRH references and perspectives.

                    First rule, your intense anger is difficult to rely on for facts.

                    First Rule wrote:
                    You have insinuated that I am the Oracle.
                    Well let me help you with your listing once and for all. You don’t know me. But I know you from your posts.

                    First Rule, people reading this blog know Jim Logan from his posts. He’s been a tremendous resource and friend, a voice for LRH, an valuable Qual resource. someone who applies the tech and studies LRH daily. People also know you from your posts.

                    Whatever your vitriol is about, First Rule and Oracle )same person or not you are in intense conversations with yourself(selves) it is not about Jim Logan’s integrity nor the years he has been a friend to this blog and people who post here, and many other. Flame on but get it handled.

                • Yes Jim that is what I am saying you no good lying son of a bitch outing the Oracle here again. I would smell your lines from a mile away. You just sold yourself out by outing oracle again the same way. What are your credentials?

                  • The oracle is obviously awake here and seems like others are too but I just don’t agree with their silence anymore. (I used to I must add) If you know something is up say something. Look where silent resentment got the COS! Are we ever going to learn from the DM incident? DM is not the only Only-one. There will be a dozen or more of his kind waiting, lurking after he is gone. They will pretend to be trustworthy. They will say what everyone wants to hear. They will get power. They will abuse it. This is the cycle unless we break it. The decent guy will be left behind in the dust. The decent guy will have no chance. Because he is decent. No, don’t hope he will! He won’t. If you see something wrong and you do not say “I see it too” you are allowing this cycle to continue. Hoping that someone decent will take over has never worked out too well in history and all this COS business is no different than politics. When you see a burglar it is OK to call him a burglar. Better yet don’t just call him scream so others can hear.

                    • Okay D okay, It’s all all handled. We know what you mean, really. It’s an easy thing to rise above in this day and age.

                  • Isn’t the Oracle listed on the Indies 500 list? And how can Jim Logan “out” anyone when this is a *moderated blog*?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      For starters, I don’t have time to carefully read 2-300 comments each and every day. I am not a nanny. So, don’t put it on me.

                • Marty, I *also* happen to be a “tech geek” – with experience in developing WordPress plugins, too. Also, I sign my right name to my posts, unlike some people.

                  Michael A. Hobson
                  Independent Scientologist

                  • We don’t need more instigation on the name issue. It’s not going to happen. To Marty I would of course reveal my true identity before developing anything for him. To you I don’t think so. What’s your point? Having a hard time dealing with someone without their parent given tag? Handle your issue for yourself don’t suggest that everyone else change their way to accommodate your needs. Get over the name issue man. I live and breath and happened to care about people That’s why I post. And what’s with the indirectness anyhow?
                    If you have something to say to me don’t be all ambiguous.

              • OMG — sanity … yes, a judgment and my opinion.

                And yet — who can really argue this one.

                WAIT — don’t tell me – let me guess :)

              • So, “First Rule”, you give a thumbs down merely because someone quotes LRH, on a Scientology blog? Well I give a thumbs down to your thumbs down. (And I am arguably not even a Scientologist anymore, having done zilch for many years.) And because some dislike a rating system that allows abuse, they are suppressive, compulsive liars? That’s just flat ridiculous. I don’t know if you’re suppressive or not, but I’m pretty sure that was a sanctimonious, “know-it-all” post. I agreed with the first part, and your knowledge of the Internet appears accurate, but then you went all soapbox-y and hyper-judgmental. Plus your editing is atrocious. If it wouldn’t be so much work and so dishonest, I would give you about 20 thumbs down right now.

                I, for one, really appreciate most of the LRH quotes on here, whether evincing “conceptual” knowledge or not. (And what exactly qualifies you to judge from a few blog posts someone’s degree of conceptual grasp?) For over 25 years, I have seen almost exclusively negative views of LRH and Scientology, and adopted many of them. But writers and the media have mostly cherry-picked for the negative. So I enjoy the venue Marty created here, where it is possible to hear positive, even exculpatory, views in a balanced and tempered context.

                I’m not 100 percent sure if you were talking about Lana and Steve, but seemingly so, as few had yet commented on the ratings system. I may not agree with everything they say, but I can tell they are completely sincere. What about you? Would you like to explain how questioning an inaccurate, easily-hacked rating system is trying to “suppress information”, when anyone at any time can post a comment to express their own opinion?

                (My opinion on the rating system, BTW, not that anyone should care very much, is mixed – – I like that the kludge of ditto comments is gone, but I agree with the expressed concerns.)

                Perhaps my conceptual grasp of empathy is as severely lacking as appears yours, as I find it difficult to discern a thread of logic in your post to take me from the undisputed facts through to your conclusion. Sophistry!, say I, so far.

                • Dear Boby,

                  May I call you that?

                  A quote from you:
                  “So, “First Rule”, you give a thumbs down merely because someone quotes LRH, on a Scientology blog?”

                  I will go at your response line by line if you don’t mind. Actually I will go at it line by line even more so if you do mind. Would you mind elaborating the computation that brought you to think that this is what I do? The words in your quote do not resemle my recollection of my communication even remotely. If you are a murky player like Jim (or if you are Jim under another alias) then surrender all hope to be passing by me right now with such A=A=A inaccurate paraphrased BS.

                  So let me ask again very specifically and accurately so that you can track with me. (Man I love this, I am going unpopular here with inaccurate people) What made you think that I give thumbs down for quoting LRH alone? Are you for real? Is this really the kind of forum where such paraphrased stuff flies? People Please tell me this isn’t so! Or better yet are you working for freedom magazine? You remind me of someone. Hm …

                  OK.

                  For the record:
                  Jim Logan have just been busted posting as someone else. Someone named Lana M. Is the evidence circumstantial? Would it stand in court? Well that depends on who the lawyers on each side are. Don’t worry I’ll make it stick on this forum. Do you wish to proceed?

                  • I am awaiting the response here!
                    I get two thumbs down just for responding line by line to a post that takes my words out of context? And the poster blew? I wonder why?

                    Just for the record:
                    The way to deal with the mercury nature of 1.1s is to not let them change the subject and not let them take what you say out of context.
                    If you keep to that they will blow. Poof!

                    That is all straight forward but why do they do that?
                    Because that is the last shot they got at making you look or feel bad.
                    It is their last attempt to make others think you are too rough.
                    If you only look for their true intentions you will realize that it is the 1.1 that is harsh not the one who stands up to it. It’s just the covertness and indirection passes over the heads of many. The 1.1s use this. Blowing with great upset. Then come back with a sagging face. Oh … I’ve tried to help but see. People like this First Rule make life so hard.

                    Well at least I am direct. When I have a beef with someone it is because I have spotted a 1.1 and I am blowing their cover.

                    It gets real noisy when you do that. Then they blow in a final attempt to make you look like the bully.

                    • “Well at least I am direct. When I have a beef with someone it is because I have spotted a 1.1 and I am blowing their cover.”

                      You apparently have no idea how incredibly ironic it is to see someone spewing calumny from behind a pseudonym calling other people “1.1”.

                      Martin Gibson, is that you ?

                      Why don’t you use your right name, if you are going to attack other people and move it up to at least Overt Hostility or Antagonism.

                      Michael A. Hobson
                      Independent Scientologist

                    • Mike Hobson
                      I can’t click reply to you because it does not show up in the browser. (Maybe too many replies on one thread)
                      I hope you will still catch this.

                      You do not know me. Trust me on that. I am an independent person who is very much fond of LRH tech. I wish to remain anonymous as I do not wish people to know that I have studied LRH tech. This is thanks to DM. DM has given SC a bad name not me. So please don’t go blaming me for having to be anonymous. My profession has nothing to do with SC and it will remain that way. I wish it wasn’t this way but I am a realist. It is what it is.

                      Now onto the ironic stuff.
                      What is ironic is that you call yourself a Scientologist yet you have never asked what my facts are with the party I confronted.
                      Those who jumped at me say how useful Jim has been but interestingly enough none are mentioning facts. Why? I’ll tell you why. Because it is the illusion of being helpful is what you have received from him. Then twice as much entheta to balance it 1.1 style. You call yourself a scientologist yet you are not willing to look at supression.
                      Where is the reason here? What this tells me is that opinions are more important to you than facts. Notice my tone right now. Do I appear to be hostile or emotional to you? I deal in facts.

                      So let’s recap:
                      – You don’t know me yet you call me a 1.1 instead of looking at the facts I have presented.
                      – You are throwing wild guesses at me and fishing desperately at my identity instead of looking at the facts.
                      – You are not interested in the other side of the story.
                      – You jump to conclusions.
                      – You assume.

                      Of course when you are confronting a 1.1 you will have to go down to their level and 1.1 back at them. I did that. I know. Guilty as charged!
                      The difference is that I bounce right back.

                      If you are a scientologist then act like one and bring on the facts please.

                      Still I have no beef with you. You don’t know me and for all you know I could be a 1.1. But don’t let my noise of confront overshadow the facts.

                      Please read my Aftermath post below and let me know if you are still interested in debating with me. I have my facts straight on why I have done what I have done. Notice that I am still here and I am not ser fac-ing by pretending to blow.

                      Oh what crime have I done!
                      How dear do I ask a question?

                      C’mon people let’s get real here.
                      All I asked is what are your credentials and the guy blew.

                      Is that so harsh? If the guy can’t handle such a simple question the last thing you need from him is advice.

                      Please read my Aftermath post.

                      ARC

                    • Jeez, “First Rule”, you think I’ve got nothing better to do than sit waiting for you to post a reply? You seem absurdly or possibly significantly eager to characterize all and sundry as 1.1 for the most whimsical reasons. Just saw your latest screeds last night, started to answer but fell asleep, probably from boredom. I am so un-invalidated by your lame attempts to attack me that I feel like attesting to… well, something. My questions were mostly rhetorical, as I fully expected you to continue the screeching, so there seemed to be no hurry to come back and look, since the blog had moved on to a new post from Marty.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Bob,
                      I cut your comment off after the first paragraph. I have gone to great lengths to get this personal feud off of this blog. It is a matter between Logan and First Rule. Your challenging and questioning is going to prompt a lengthy condemnation of Jim. Please do not invite it. Ok?
                      Marty

                    • Marty, This thread feels much more like ESMB, ExSO and all the other entheta forums where trolls and group bank rule and entheta is the order of the day. If you want to pass judgment upon ALL Scientologists, then someone is going to have to moderate and put in ethics when needed. If you don’t have the time to do it, which I understand, it quickly becomes complete dev-t. This is not an example of a productive thread, it is an example of trolls developing traffic. If this is your website, OWN IT.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I found it extremely productive – I learned quite a lot. I do own it. If you want monochrome views start your own.

                    • deElizabethan

                      “I found it extremely productive – I learned quite a lot……….”
                      I agree, and learned a lot too. Best thread ever.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Well Lana, you have just articulated so many of my thoughts, which mirror yours, and by so doing, (IMHO) have pointed up specific ominous, though not unsuspected developments occurring within this blog.

            Firstly, since I hold fast to the conviction of wearing the
            hat of an auditor (though not by any stretch, a trained
            one), let me first give you a much deserved ack, for
            sharing your personal, horrific ordeal at the int. base.

            Secondly, you would have read my own replies to Steve,
            which are intended to show appreciation for the great
            contributions he has made / is making in the reformation
            of Scientology, primarily orchestrated by Marty! (Whom
            I have thanked, supported, openly admired, and even defended since joining this blog in September 2011.)

            If there is any one valid gripe I could rant about, here,
            that would be the shocking appearance of “crickets!”
            a la;…………………!……………………!………………………..
            ………..!!………….!……… (crick! crick )……………………
            …………………!………………!!!……………………ccr-k!…..
            ……………………………………………………! ……………….
            etc, etc, etc! When according to the tenets Ron gave
            in the TR-‘s of the original comm ( HAS )course, the
            best way to KEEP ARC & prevent rising ARC x’s, is
            to make good USE of TR-2 (acknowledgements) to
            let a person know their comm has been received,
            duplicated & understood, and signal an end to that
            particular item of comm. to the sender.

            The significance of TR-4 (handling originations) can
            be so very relieving to an originator, when truly done
            at a critical moment (for the originator!) that it’s LACK
            has / does demonstrably lead to sometimes (even)
            “serious” ARC-x’s! A serious breech of The Auditors
            Code, if I’m not mistaken?

            So, my whole point to this reply, is to thoroughly
            validate the beingness of both Steve & you & so many
            others who have dropped out of comm on this blog (BTW, I really miss your up tone comm, Carcha, Sapere Aude, Once upon a time, to mention just a few!)
            While at the same time expressing gratitude to the host,
            Marty, and in fact all who, in essence, contribute to constructive engagement (but never toxic invalidation)
            with our fellow participants.

            My hope is that good sense and humility, can prevail by a re-focusing on the supreme importance of great TR-‘s
            being used for the maintenance of high ARC between
            participants of demonstrable goodwill on this blog.

            With that in place (per Jason Beghe) “Scientology
            can be used to fix Scientology!” (not sure exact quote!)

            Without it (in place) the likes of the OSA (divide &
            destroy brigade) achieve DM’s insane goals.

            Like you Lana, I am unafraid! Permitted, I speak out!

            I will also say, boldly, though he is no longer “with us,”
            to me, L. Ron Hubbard will always be the best friend
            I ever had and has never done anything to betray
            that friendship. He also made sure that I received a
            reply to EVERY single comm particle I sent to him,
            ….one for one! I still have the collection (dozens!)
            and to me, THAT goodwill still truly communicates!

            Can we learn from that single comm gesture?

            You bet!

            ML, Calvin.

          • Lana, I agree with you.

            In reading through this thread, I began to entertain an idea of what the ratings – thumbs up or down – would look like if NO indication is given as to who the author of the comment is. For example one might tend to skip a certain poster for ‘he’s always boring’ or ‘bonkers’ – a real or pseudo-name now a target of judgement, giving it thumbs down even without reading. In any event, I too find the rating system a distraction to this blog.

            And talking about labels….. BROTHER is my label for Thoughtful Steve….his handwriting is very recognisable, don’t need a byline for his posts anyway to wonder who’s talking now.

          • Hey Lana – Happy New Year. Thanks for pitching in, although I don’t see Marty’s post as attacking Scientology, nor I do consider the “group” becoming anti LRH. I’m sure you’ve read WIWWS, his first book, where he lays out in each chapter specifically where and how the subject is open to corruption or abuse, and the remedies, also in the second book The Reformation of Scientology, at least some of the answer to it. From my own viewpoint it is taking a much longer time to sift through the truth from the lies than I imagined, and I would hazzard a lot of fine folk posting here are at various stages of decompressing and going through the sifting process. I well remember the shock, outrage and overwhelming sense of betrayal I first encountered when first dipping my toes into the waters of sites such as scientology-cult etc.

            Equally I have no doubt that the tech in hands of people like you is safe – but the problem is that there is so much – especially in the green-on-white, that can be misused or misinterpreted. You mention labelling PTSes for example. Would you not audit some one because they are “open minded”, or a reporter, for example? What about some one, who entirely understandably hates the subject because it advocates and practices disconnection? Do you seriously believe that ALL psychiatrists are pure evil, hell bent on destroying humanity? I don’t. I have met many – some are a little confused admittedly…but you surely HAVE to allow yourself the luxury of being able to wilfully discard parts of the subject you don’t agree with to make any progress, I believe now. That’s very different to what I thought in 2009 when I was still a Corp Scientologist (just about anyway).

            I also believe now that there is a lot in Scientology that can easily breed radicalism and extremism, hence Marty’s “DM is a product of the system” comment on this thread. KSW #1 being an obvious example.

            At one point in my SO career I was refused auditing and labelled an illegal PC because my Father had been a senior officer in the RAF (Royal air force) and done quite sensitive work on spy satellites and the like – even though by the time I joined staff he had long since retired. That was a direct and literal application of Scientology that effectively barred by progress up the Bridge and as a Sea Org member!

            I guess what I’m saying is that a far less literal and more relaxed attitude to LRH’s work is needed, and Indies including most that post here are more than capable of applying the correct degree of sanity and common sense.

          • I have noticed the opposite. I do not think if one takes away the thumbs that conflict will end. People with a protest read will voice it. Whether it is with a thumb symbol or a letter symbol. It seems to me there less conflict with the ratings. I for one, see it as feedback to my originations. I am very curious about it. I like to know if people feel good or not about what I am saying. A lot of people are at a loss for words. They will not voice a protest read or take the time to acknowledge someone. At least they can add with a click of the mouse. From where I am viewing, anyone who is op terming Marty right now, might want to ask themselves if someone has told them or suggested that Marty is bad. Make a note of what was said or implies. Consider the source.

            • I should say, consider what CONDITION the source is in towards Marty.

              HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
              Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
              HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 JANUARY 1965
              REVISED 5 APRIL 1965
              Gen Non Remimeo
              Sthil Board
              Members
              Sthil Executives

              VITAL DATA ON PROMOTION

              You can therefore know your enemies by those who seek to knock out any part of your
              (a) Power (b) Authority (c) Personnel (d) Wealth (e) Property.
              As collective-think demands that these items particularly be knocked out, handling and
              continuing an organization is a rather arduous activity.
              The individual is the effect of these items, however, so if one can maintain them, one wins.

              L. RON HUBBARD

            • And the Independent Movement is such a tight and cohesive tribe, I would wager it is the same 3P terminal for both of you. And I would wager that 3P terminal is in this arena at all, and reaping the benefits of your company, because of Marty, and his efforts to reunite people, and his hard work to bring this Scientology through the Qual cycle it is going through.

              • The overt doth speak loudly in accusation.

                • If you have knowledge that I have overts in this area, any overt against Marty with 3P, or am or have been in an enemy condition towards Marty, by knocking out any part of his power, I not only invite you, I insist you back this accusation up right now with time form place and event. Otherwise you are dabbling in injustice.

                  • I am going to have to up this duty. If you can not provide a time form place and event for this accusation I am going to have call you on generating conflict and suspicion on false reports. This means something to me. This is a direct assault on my condition. You had better get the FUCK up Here and explain this shit or all hell is going to break lose. SILENCE is NOT a SOLUTION! You get the fuck up here and back this accusation. This is not the Int Base.

                • Li'll bit of stuff

                  Lana, OSA bots are presently here in numbers!
                  Catherine and you have been set up! As-is, please!

          • For the record, I am not fond of the thumbs up/thumbs down system either. It strikes me as an invitation for group bank type think rather than encouraging intelligent, thoughtful origination.

          • Lana,
            Just want to say…well stated, and though I was not in the SO, I understand how a suppressive operates and it is amazingly predictable from one to another. I had an ED who was an SP, and that is how I personally cogged on DM, even though it was many many years ago.
            And yes, it would be a real drag for scientologist who do not support the church to dramatize the same outpoints and or added inapplicables, false data, hero worship, or whatever strange group manifestations.
            Makes me think of The Who’s song lyrics…’meet the new boss, same as the ol’ boss”

            On another note, did you work with directly with the Cine crew, or did you ever work with the construction, like on the building of the ship replica??

    • You’ve provoked a fascinating debate Steve – and Marty. I’ve noticed in myself the odd temptation to ignorantly dismiss some by labelling – and this I am 100% certain is the remnants of 30 years of cultification. Labelling those still “in” as KoolAid drinkers, for example is not really smart. I would go further and even say “OSA” or “OSA spy/plant” is dangerous territory as the intent of any such phrase is to evoke a certain derogatory mental image picture in the mind of the recipient. You just wind up in the “us vs them” all over again – surely the exact sort of mechanism we are trying to free ourselves from.

      The individuals who still work within “OSA” are just that – individuals – and may – or may not – be in desperate need of help or escape, and there can not be any justification for some of the more sinister actions some of these individuals have undertaken by way of stalking, harassment and worse. But just slapping a label on them isn’t just lazy – it’s classic thought-stopping material. But I have only run across ONE individual who could, or might have, caused me or my family some sort of harm since 2009 when I left – and he failed miserably anyway.

      I have been told by some individuals many times in the last 3 years that “so and so is an OSA agent” – but have always attempted to do my own inspection and evaluation before forming any judgement.

      I also have a lot of sympathy with the notion that labelling is a Scientology thing – not a CORP Scientology thing. It starts early in ones Scientology education with the various types of “PTS” and gets worse and worse. At the same time one is trying to reconcile completely opposing concepts such as “what is true for is true” on the one hand with the ever-present message that if “Ron says it – it’s true, period”. The net result for most I believe is a state of mind whereby labelling is a safe refuge to hide behind and as Marty eloquently summarised it “They become powerless to create any effect on the labeler and thus the labeler believes he is more ‘at cause.’”

      • Martin, I am not defending bad judgement. I am saying good judgement is necessary. We live in a society where criminality and out ethics is so incredibly RAMPANT. Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, criminality, infidelity — these are the order of the day. Genocide, murder by drones, genetic messing with food, chemicals harmful to health in the food we eat, hormones injected into meat, poison in the drinking water (fluoride) — the list goes on. And why do people accept all this? Because — in my opinion — the vast majority of the population are degraded beings who take orders from SPs — I know, I was one myself until I woke up. So I’m not pointing the finger because I am including myself. My intention is not to make wrong, it is to help others wake up.

        When I went to LA to meet with Tommy Davis in Feb 2009 to “give the Church one last chance” before I opened my own can of whup ass, Tommy Davis must have told me about 100 times in 7 hours that I was suppressive. That really enturbulated me. But actually, looking back on it, he was actually right. But for the wrong reasons.

        He insinuated I was suppressive because I stopped following DM. No. I was suppressive because I followed DM in the first place. It was even suppressive of me to give them “one last chance!” Since then, I did my A to E steps. I made up the damage. I woke up and I moved forward.

        Was I a sociopath? Never. But I was a member of a group that turned suppressive and, in my opinion, I stayed in too long. So I felt that was suppressive to the fourth dynamic, because when you advertise something to the fourth dynamic, it had better be good and if it turns out to be a trap, one day you must face the music. And so I did.

        What’s all this talk about labels? It’s not even possible to talk about anything without labeling. “That’s nice.” Oops, that’s a label. “DM is a dick.” Oops, another label. This doesn’t go anywhere. Here’s a better idea: why don’t we talk about wisdom. Or integrity. There isn’t any such thing as “bad integrity” or “bad wisdom.” Control, judgement — these two have two sides because they are actions. And when you get into the field of doingness, the qualifying factor is the motivation. If the motivation is good, control and judgement are good and necessary things. If the motivation is bad, then “control” and “judgement” is destructive.

        “Bad judgement” is really the absence of judgement. Just like “bad control” is really the absence of control.

        “Some individuals in Scientology are judgmental.” True.

        “Some individuals in outside of Scientology are judgmental.” True.

        In Uganda, apparently they murder homosexuals. In other parts of the world, women are owned like cattle. In America, we let Wall Street rob us blind and no one goes to jail. The list goes on. WTF? And Scientologists are judgmental?

        No, we are confusing the effort to take some responsibility (i.e. do something about it) with the effort to unmock.

        I’ve known many Scientologists — especially from before the days DM — who tried to be like auditors. Auditors don’t judge anyone! They just deliver the next command. The judgmental part really comes into play — if you want to know — from LRH’s encouragement to “do something about it” e.g. put ethics in on the environment… but for what reason? TO MAKE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT.

        Is that effort wrong? No. It makes a Scientologist unpleasant sometimes but who cares about that if the intention is to help? I’d rather have someone around who can actively MAKE things go right than someone who is nice and quiet and who can’t make anything go right.

        I have no back off on getting into anyone’s face. IF it is for a damn good (valid) reason. I’ve told DM and his supporters time and again that they’re out ethics for condoning the destruction of Scientology and for enabling abuse and criminality. Is that judgmental? Yes. And it’s also the right thing to do.

        Where this goes off the rails is when a “Scientologist” fails to differentiate and starts to attack those who are working to make a safe environment.

        • I think the confusion comes from using the word “judgement”. It actually has several meanings which are quite different.
          Originally, it simply meant to form conclusions using observation and philosophic and logical methods to arrive at the truth about a thing. Later in history it came to denote the making of particular judgements pronounced by Authorities such as the Catholic Church or Courts of Law which were to be enforced upon others.
          The last definition, as used in this post I believe, is quite recent in origin. I think that it came into use in the 1970’s. This last definition, which implies harsh, demeaning, or cruel decisions about the nature of someone is a “spin-off” of the second definition. It started as the adjective, “Judgemental”, which means dispensing small minded, mean evaluations and then kind of took over the meaning of the word “judgement”, itself, and seems to have given true “judgement” a bad name in the process.
          All three definitions are valid.
          Judgement, in its purest sense is one of the most greatest qualities a person can have.
          But “being judgemental” definitely ain’t so great.

          That said, I suggest just looking up the word “judgement” in a good dictionary if there is the slightest confusion and then forming one’s own conclusions…..
          Forming one’s own conclusions – that’s what Indies do best. :-)

        • Steve,
          You’ve create somewhat of a straw dog here to attack by taking the title of the post ‘judgment’ as the topic when the post itself is about being ‘judgmental.’ judgmental:
          A judgmental person is somebody who thinks they know everything about you when they really don’t know shit. Judgmental people basically just live in their own little bubble of delusion and have no patience for the superstitious nonsense formally know has “open-mindedness”
          – The Urban Dictionary
          judgmental: characterized by a tendency to judge harshly – Websters

          • I think this is another charged topic and for some it’s as if it’s close enough to read on something similar. As if you mentioned cars and people remember something that happened to them on a motorcycle.
            It has created some interesting discussions, but it’s also kind of all over the place as far as topic.

          • Marty, Fair enough. My problem is your post is about “Scientologists” of which I am one, ALL being judgmental. You didn’t specify the RCS. It concerns me that posts are more and more about ‘Scientology’ with no differentiation between Indies, the body of work and the RCS. That is what I’m riled up about.

            • Actually I didn’t write that. I opened with ‘Unfortunately, a judgmental attitude and bearing seems to have become one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Scientologist.’ and then filled in how I think that came about.
              I believe it applies to corporate and independent Scientologists. If Indies don’t recognize faults they take with them from the corporate experience, the differentiation you seek – and clearly I seek – won’t ever be realized.

              • Roger from Switzerland Thought

                Like it !

              • Well, when I think of “a Scientologist” I think of people like Dan Koon, Haydn and Lucy, Jimmy Rebel, Ingrid, Trey, Karen, Mike Rinder, Ulf and literally hundreds of others to whom the application of the title “judgmental” is just not accurate. They are the least judgmental people I know. To me, they represent what a Scientologist is. Apparently, you are referring to the “public perception” of what a Scientologist is.

                • I am fairly certain that at least seven of the hand picked examples you cited would readily admit to having had to curb their Scientology ingrained inclinations for passing judgment, rashly categorizing or stigmatizing others with labels since disaffiliating with corporate Scientology. But, if you don’t have such a problem yourself and you don’t see it in others then you and I simply see the world differently.

                • Steve,

                  We spoke on the phone about all of this early today. I tried responding to yours on mine, and couldn’t find a way to start, this is obviously a very emotional and upsetting subject and dialogue, but I believe in part there is a misunderstanding. After I conversation I re-read this post and many comments including yours. From our conversation you seem to feel this is focused on critics or whistle-blowers like us being labeled as judgmental, which may stop them from doing such. On re-reading, I don’t get it at all, I don’t see it, it comments on observations on a cultural phenomenon I agree IS prevalent in Scientology corporate and independent and free-zone and even ex.

                  You are the only person I know that has a measurable story of helping someone telepathically. My parents were OTs, they couldn’t do this stuff. My father, as he was dying, unable to heal his body, or to die (drop the body was in fear of becoming a vegetable and felt he had wasted his and his families lives, apologizing to my sister and I for getting us in. I have heard many stories of other old time scientologists with very similar stories. I know, currently, dozens of senior citizens OTs living in poverty, having given everything to the COS, and they don’t even get a visit from a voluntary minister or a touch assist because they are not GI cycles.

                  With thousands of people auditing on OT VII, no one is stepping into preventable disasters, like getting on one of the planes used in 911 with a sling shot to negate the box cutters, or tipping off police that a shooting was going down at a school targeting little kids … either it is a rare and inconsistent skill, or they are inhuman. Either way, for such rare occurances, tens of thousands of people dedicating their lives selflessly, with what, nearly 10 billion dollars wrenched from people, who are left with little to nothing to help those around them including their own children … is the price worth it? Is this the mark of a great organization?

                  For the record, I am still battling with being judgmental, arrogant, opinionated … traits that served me well in the COS for 2/3 of my life, but are debilitating in the real world. They are not easy to see in oneself, and even harder to shake.

                  Every one that I know that has left and has had progressed in building a good life has battled with the arrogance and judgmental nature of their prior COS mindset.

                  This has nothing to do with the integrity hundreds, thousands of people today are demonstrating in exposing crimes and abuses, nor the strength of character they show. You may be one of the rare few, IMHO, that didn’t become judgmental and arrogant. For me, this strikes close to home, it rings true.

        • Roger from Switzerland Thought

          ” Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, criminality, infidelity — these are the order of the day. Genocide, murder by drones, genetic messing with food, chemicals harmful to health in the food we eat, hormones injected into meat, poison in the drinking water (fluoride) — the list goes on. And why do people accept all this? Because — in my opinion — the vast majority of the population are degraded beings who take orders from SPs — I know, I was one myself until I woke up. So I’m not pointing the finger because I am including myself. My intention is not to make wrong, it is to help others wake up.”

          Dear Steve

          This attitude I was taught from the first days in my journey in Scientology and before that, it was also an attitude that the hippies were promoting and their Solution was ” Love”. And the Solution of Scientology is (was) clear the planet !
          I know lots of people that are contrary to what you label most of the population of earth. I think is a matter of is the “glass half empty or half full”.
          A fact is since 20 years there are less people dying of wars (look at the real stats) and in the western world people are becoming much older than 30 years ago. China has less suppression on it’s people than 20 years ago. India is becoming a wealthy country etc… i could give you lots of good news. The cold war is gone and the Russian people are nearly free people. Great advances have been made in Technology to handle the environment.
          Here in Switzerland we have very strict laws about healthy food, our people are becoming very old and this is a problem (but a good one). Already in kindergarten the kids are taught about healthy food and it’s forbidden for the parents to give the kids any junk food or sugar . My kids were very well taught about healthy food at school !
          Daily I’m in total awe when I see what individual people are creating in Arts, Sciences,politics, business etc….and then I just ask myself : “What the fuck have I been doing all those 40 years thinking I’m saving the planet while millions of others individually have created more for the saving of this planet” ?
          Look around, talk to people and you’ll see amazing beings creating amazing things ! Support an help them !

          I can understand your viewpoint very well as it isn’t a stranger to me, But this attitude is a very old one. If you read Will Durant (History of Mankind) you’ll find people already 2-3000 years ago or through the whole history saying the same. But nevertheless mankind advanced in its conquest of the mest universe and was able to find new solutions to the problems !

          IMHO

        • Steve/Thoughtful
          I understand that it is YOUR OPINION that the vast majority of the population are degraded beings.
          Frankly this leaves a bit of a foul taste as it comes across as QUITE judgmental and yes, I know what LRH says about the percentage of big beings to degraded beings.
          Still, in all the years of starting new pcs as an auditor I never got the impression of having a DB (degraded being) in front of me.
          How about calling them humans that DON’T have the PTS/SP and other tech?
          Greta

          • Greata, I think the overarching problem here is Marty has opened the door to a hostile debate on the validity of Scientology itself — to which all people are never going to agree. It’s stupid to even try. Scientology is for those who agree with it’s tenets. That is never going to be everyone. Others are free to believe whatever is true for them.

            But now, within this field of hostility we are going to debate judgement and misjudgement? No, you are misunderstanding the context in which I made my comment. I do not say it as a condemnation, but with empathy having been there myself. It’s just my opinion. There is a lot of evil going on every minute of the day on this planet. That is not a good thing. OF COURSE an auditor must recognize the rightness of the individual pc when he or she is sitting in front of them. Auditing doesn’t work otherwise. I’m talking about the responsibilities of being a member of the human race.

            Marty originally commented upon the inability of people to itsa what is happening within the Church of Scientology, and the resultant generation of service fac’s — computations which “explain” it all away. Thereafter the person does not need to understand or deal with any of it, because he has his computation that solves it all for him (and yet solves nothing).

            Okay, what we are dealing with in the CoS is a microcosm to the planet at large. How much harder is it to itsa what is going on across the entire planet? Conspiracy theories abound and I will tell you, what is going on on this planet every day is far more complicated than anything within the CoS. Do you really think the fourth dynamic does not generate the production of computations? It does. And a service fac (computation) is a blood brother to the evil purpose.

            The CoS is hard to understand. It threatens the survival of Scientologists. So they create computations to handle. And thereafter they are seen as “judgmental.”

            The planet as a whole is even harder to understand and also threatens people’s survival. People do create computations on the 4th dynamic. And thereafter live in “denialism.” You and I sit comfortably in our homes, meanwhile in people in other lands are being butchered. For all it’s improvement, for all the good things we have, Earth is still a barbarism.

            So no, I don’t think it is right for you and me to pretend all is well and all is for the best. Simply thinking well of everyone is theetie weetie.

            What is “judgmental” after all? Slapping a word on someone? I say people are in the main degraded beings — they have been degraded by SPs. And I say it with the hope that more people can WAKE UP and help stop the ongoing slaughter. When you judge people as not responsible for the slaughter = you blame those being slaughtered for their own condition. That is far more judgmental and far more vicious. That’s why LRH said no one is apt to hurt more people than someone who is afraid of hurting someone’s feelings.

            I dislike this entire thread because I think it smacks of invalidating people for having the courage to hurt another in a just cause. If the driver of my bus falls asleep at the wheel, I have no problem on smacking him hard to wake him up. I think that’s better than letting him take EVERYONE over the cliff.

    • My personal understanding is that LRH *knew* he was personally flawed as a character, and this is why he insisted that Scientologists focus on the written, working materials, instead of any kind of personality cult about him, etc. LRH knew he was PTS, knew he had lots of case in re-stim, but was able to maintain his “No Case On Post” viewpoint because, frankly, it was a policy letter which could be applied by anyone .. himself included. I believe this was key to his ability to develop Scientology in the turmoil of it all – LRH’s stable datum was not what he, personally, was at the time, but what he became through his Authorship. LRH wrote every single day of his life, because that was the way out, as he knew it .. and as I, also, understand to be true.

      • I agree with you. I think for all his flaws, what LRH accomplished stands as a landmark in eternity with no equal in any place or time.

        • I agree. Hubbard gets picked apart, but do people do that with other humans who have invented breakthroughs or products that help others or are useful? Not so much. The human aspect of any human is simply irrelevant to their product.

          • One reason I think LRH gets “picked apart” more than most is because he said that his tech was the way out. The only road out to totall spiritual freedom and he made it a religion. If he had said “Here is some incredible tech that has helped and can help people a whole bunch and even change their lives forever in some cases.” I think people would have been more relaxed about the subject.

            • Meant to hit ‘thumbs up’ but hit ‘thumbs down’. My apologies. My fingers are too fat.

            • He actually did say this: “Here is some incredible tech that has helped and can help people a whole bunch and even change their lives forever in some cases.”

              But the fact remains that if you investigate the nature of mankinds spiritual existence as extensively as LRH did, you are definitely in the Religion territory. We may all despise the “mechanics of Religion” and its effects over the centuries on mankind (not all bad, in my opinion, many un-acknowledged positives), but Religion, itself, was in need of repair when Hubbard engaged in his activities.

              Also, calling it a Religion kept the Tech out of the hands of the US Government, which as we know full well has a tendency to take all technology, religious or not, and weaponize it. That was a very, very big consideration in the effort to build Scientology, and I don’t think that anyone criticizing LRH for building a new religion ever takes into account this fact. The US was on his case to keep the tech secret, hidden, and usable only for their needs for decades.

              If Scientology hadn’t become a religious movement, and in fact had become a tool of the US Government, there is no chance in hell we would have the OT’s we have today. Well, in fact, there is much evidence that the US Government is, indeed, using Scientology technologies for their nefarious purposes, that horse has definitely left the barn, and we’re just lucky that there are any public Scientologists at all, at this point. Actually, the game isn’t over – it could well be that Miscavige and his Usurpers will finally deliver the destruction of Scientology that the US Government needs in order to maintain its grip over mankind.

              • But is it the only route out? And does it take you to total freedom?
                He said these things too.
                In fact, a lot of the abuses were justified because of this “only route out” needing to be protected.

                • Who other discovered the Reactive Mind, The Tone Scale, laid out the Grades, The Clearing Course, the OT Levels? Make no fucking mistake who did this.

                  • That may be so and that is a good thing.
                    I noticed that you didn’t answer the question…is it the only route out?, to total freedom??

                    • This thread has devolved into an unproductive argument over Scientology philosophy which is way off course. Tony, if you aren’t a Scientologist any more, that’s fine. But for those of us who are Scientologists, I think it’s a joke to think there’s any other way out than what LRH developed. But that’s my personal opinion. If others want to disagree, that’s fine. They are entitled to know what they have observed to be true. I am entitled to know what I have observed to be true. Why even go there? I mean do we REALLY want to redefine Marty’s blog as the place where individuals post their beliefs so they can be invalidated by everyone else? The original subject of this blog was to expose criminality, corruption and abuse. It needs to stick to that. If people want to dis the philosophy, there are plenty of forums for that already — ESMB, etc.

                    • Dear Tony,
                      No, of course it isn’t the only route out.
                      I believe LRH called Scientology a “functional route out of the mud”. It is functional in many ways. It can be understood because it contains an effective method of “decoding” certain deeper truths about the universe that other paths do not always have. LRH mentioned often how other paths were booby-trapped. With an understanding of basic Scientology a lot of other paths become understandable and thereby more functional and less booby-trapped — at least, this has been true for me so far.

                • In case you didn’t notice, there is still a lot of abuses being justified in this “only route out” “needing to be protected”.

                  The CofS had the “only route out”. When I left it was with the notion that if I had to contribute to the abuse I didn’t want to walk the “route out”.

                  Another route popped up, the Freezone / Independent Movement. You don’t have to agree to abuse someone to go free or study your religion or practice it. . What a GPM to restimulate! “Drown your partner, we’ll let you swim away”. That is SICK. REALLY SICK. NOBODY HAS TO DIE! NOBODY HAS TO LOOSE! Make it stop! Someone make the restim on this GPM stop! The nightmare on Human Sacrifice Street must end! It is NOT TRUE that human sacrifices have to made!

                  I am sick of the “Missions to get ethics in”!!!!!! The “Boogey man” who is coming to destroy the world” because he entertained a thought of his own! “Kill the squirrels!” In short the hysterical fanatics who, through all of their blood “loyalty”, STILL CAN”T HANDLE A SIMPLE FUCKING ORIGINATION without getting hysterical! Or slamming back at it with a picture of L.R.H. like a cram! Using “Scientology” to PUNISH people IS INSANE!

                  This is the CASE that will USE IT DOMINATE, NOT, NOT, NOT FREE PEOPLE! EXACTLY what you see at the INT BASE RIGHT NOW!

                  “Human sacrifice has been practiced on a number of different occasions and in many different cultures. The various rationales behind human sacrifice are the same that motivate religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice is intended to bring good fortune and to pacify the gods.”

                  “Human sacrifice can also have the intention of winning the gods’ favor in warfare.”

                  “Headhunting is the practice of taking the head of a killed adversary, for ceremonial or magical purposes, or for reasons of prestige.”

                  “The bursts of capital punishment during European witch-hunts, or during the French Revolutionary Reign of Terror show similar sociological patterns.”

                  “Some of the most famous forms of ancient human sacrifice were performed by various Pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas that included the sacrifice of prisoners as well as voluntary sacrifice.”

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

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

                  What we need to protect the Scientology from, is the sociopaths and fanatics. Look what they just did to the Muslim world with 9/11. Look at what they bought the Church of Scientology to be. Using religion to DOMINATE. It isn’t the Scientology that is wrong, it is the people with wacky purposes to dominate, humiliate and control others with it that make it into an ugly arena. And if Scientology wasn’t here, they would be stirring some other pot where they could dominate, humiliate and control others. The abuses were not justified to protect the only route out, the abuses were to destroy the only route out. They just did it under the “mask of love” for Hubbard.

                  • Read Chapter 27 Column Y in Science of Survival. Method used by subject to handle others. To find out how the 1.1 will lean on “status quo”, saying and doing all the “right things” to NULLIFY.

                    “The 3.5 in the vicinity of the 1.1 may find himself descending down the tone scale toward anger without any apparent reason. The 1.1’s efforts to nullify are so well veiled and so carefully calculated to annoy that no target is available to the reason of the 3.5. As the reason fails the 3.5, continually subjected to nullification which he can not locate, will eventually become angry. The 1.1’s reply to this anger will not be a return argument or anger, but an apparent continuation of the status quot, while at the same time he does everything possible which can still remain veiled and hidden to reduce and nullify the 3.5. These hidden efforts will become stronger and stronger until nullification or destruction takes place. Or the 1.1 quailing before the anger, will drop into apathy and so use every ally available anywhere who can be coaxed or deceived into supporting the 1.1’s efforts to destroy the 3.5.”

                    These are the people that take the Scientology and put it on like a skin and creep around and continually, use this matter of Scientology to sponge off of, dominate and nullify others. Their P.C.’s have losses. Their students are set up for losses. Their mates are set up for losses. Their friends are set up for losses. Their Orgs and divisions are set up for losses. Any treasure they have is usually scammed. They usually travel in complete bankruptcy because they have nullified everyone they have come into contact with. Standing alone without support from someone else who is pushing them up, it is easy to obnose they are in a condition across their dynamics below non existence. Liability at best. The products they offer turn out to be overt products nobody can use and usually require repair . And they are the first ones to stand on status quot and use it to suppress, nullify and dominate others.

                    The Church has been rife with it. It’s O.K.. It’s O.K. What could have possible been different? Hubbard did not want to exclude anybody. What were people to say, “You can’t join staff because you will only care to dominate and nullify?” “You can’t go on course or be a P.C. because you are prone to damage?” And why are people who never met Hubbard , who called themselves “Scientologists”, who had every access to this information, blaming “Scientology?” And Hubbard? They are using the Scientology to nullify and dominate. Or they bumped into one of these sociopaths and got so restimulated and overwhelmed they took on his purpose to nullify also. It’s O.K. Tony, we have enough grass seeds for a grass roots movement. The people like you, me and a whole lot of others that got themselves and others up the bridge on their own without being propped up, the ones who have used this magic to make others and ourselves better, we can decide who comes and sits in our living room. We can decide who we want to audit us. We can decide who to be friends with. And the people who seek to dominate and nullify kill of their own resources faster than they can find them and end up flopping on their own. Because they really never thought with the Scientology, and they never use it, unless there is a benefit involved for them with support.

                    You get through SOS, and the books on Sociopaths, and that’s it. The suppression in this arena is on it’s way out. We may have taken on a fever, but we survived and became immunized.

            • Tony, you make a great point here. Same with your next point on the thread. There’s fantastic data in Scientology which helps one to better understand life and live a better life too (and help others to live better lives), but Ron always went to the absolute – he was ALWAYS completely certain about everything he said, even when he changed his mind numerous times on a subject (the SOLE source of aberration, the ONLY reason a person leaves a study, etc etc etc). There was never any ACTUAL room in Scientology for one to question or disagree with Ron on anything. And so this became the culture of the group. And it is a SUPRISE that someone like Miscavige took over and it is NEVER OK to ever question HIM?

          • a reader
            Actually the list of people ahead of their time with inventions in technology, medicine and other areas is quite large. They were made wrong to the max. Murder or character assassination etc. to the point one has to go search for them to find them again as they are now so ‘not known’. The impulse to make wrong what one does not understand or because one’s vested interest gets threatened is very powerful.
            Greta

        • Thumbs down – that’s an arrogant statement (although it may be true for you) and a perfect example of the subject of this thread in action. Unless I missed it, I’m not aware of anyone ever achieving a fully awakened/ enlightened state through the use of Scientology.

          • This is a reply to “Thoughtful’s” comment.

          • Thanks Don, but to me your statement is the most arrogant possible statement, because you are now setting yourself up to sit in judgment of everyone else and declaring no one has ever attained a fully awakened / enlightened state through Scientology so therefore the entire route is invalid. Apparently you are simply being fatalistic and negating Scientology altogether. I refer you to the chart of awareness which states that people are only aware of that which is below them and one level higher. I have seen that chart in action and according to it, you wouldn’t know a fully enlightened being if one of them bit you on the ass. Thanks for the hypocritical thunderous fart in the bathtub. If you want to pass judgement on Scientology, don’t look into the stratosphere and claim you see nothing. Look behind you to see if you are more aware today than you were before. If not, then Scientology did not work for you. If so, then so far it has worked.

            • Boy, you seemed to have read a lot into what Don wrote. You are pushing the line on the long standing moderation policy here.

            • Excellent post!

            • Hi, Steve. I just wanted to let you know that I read your post but see no reason to continue this exchange on this venue – maybe we’ll have the opportunity to chat in person sometime. In the meantime, I humbly suggest with the best of intentions that if you tried taking a periodic break from thinking so much you might not be as prone to putting words of your own invention into others’ mouths. Best, Don

    • Label or Libel?

      Steve, you have many fine points here and yes, “labeling” can either be Rational or Reactive. I think in the main, Marty’s point was regarding individuals who adopt a mental posture where they are HIGHLY judgemental and overly rigid in their thinking and judgements regarding others.

      Common sense dictates that in order to operate in life an individual must judge the character of all those around them so they know who to trust and who to distrust. But just because for my purposes in life i judge a certain person as not trustworthy or that they are a certain Thing, this does not mean i need to label them to others, or initiate some sort of black PR campaign against them. It depends on the situation.

      If i stumble upon evidence someone is a serial killer, then my care for my fellow beings would compel me to publicly (at least to the police) call this person out. If someone simply doesnt like me and i know they are not sympathetic to my interersts, then most likely i’m going to keep my own counsel and act accordingly.

      But this all depends on rational thought and differentiation. The problem comes in where people skip the responsibility of differentiation and reflexively label and thus commit libel.

      In other words, if the label is true, then its a label. If the label is false, then its a libel.

    • “Correct labeling” in the Church, is what is convenient for the Church. Hubbard was streetwise. They labeled him a doctor and an engineer and host of other proper sounding labels to make him more “acceptable”. Then when it popped up he was a little streetwise , people used it to discredit him. They pulled in all of these “sqeaky clean” recruits that had no basis for observing if the Scientology was really real because they had never lived out in the world Hubbard wrote about. If you want to know how streetwise Hubbard was, just read the sec checks he wrote.

    • It’s my opinion that LRH was sometimes nuts and behaved accordingly. I don’t feel like being critical of him for this. I think if I had taken on the task that he took on with the opposition that he dealt with, I would have quickly become totally nutso. I don’t think he’s a god, but I think he’s a truly great, great being to have been able to pull off what he pulled off and to have been more sane than nuts most of the time. I try to remember that when one of his labels indicates wrongly to me (which has been pretty often).

      I think what you had to say about labelling, Steve, was spot on.

      My label for the modern, post-LRH Church is “SP-worshipping, fascist squirrel group.” (The SP being worshipped is DM.)

    • Steve, This thread bought to mind a win I had after I finished L12 and sent to my auditor. I was going to post it when I first read this blog post of Marty’s, but then decided not to. I just dug it up and re read it. I realized this is not s success story I could have written if I was still on lines with the Church. Maybe when you read it, with that in mind, you will get the message Marty was making:

      On Mar 18, 2012, at 12:39 AM, The Oracle wrote:

      Hey, when I get auditing there is a “self” of me that splits out and takes on a student hat. As well as working with the auditor I try to learn so when the Auditing is behind me, I am not only saner but have more tools to work with and more knowledge to handle myself and life.

      I sure got in a huff after I got back, reorganizing these tech cycles and the HGC here.

      I woke up this morning thinking all of the reorganizing was good, but not liking my big protest reads.

      From the knowledge I gained on L12, I had to ask myself about this opposition I was feeling in the protest of it all.

      Who / why / what “I” was having this protest feeling about certain events recently gone by.

      I realized I had a huge case called “hidden standards”.

      It blew like another bank.

      Waiting in a coffee shop later, I listened to a woman tell me how God had a plan for her and how realizing this changed her life.

      I was able to honestly listen to her with sincere interest without other thoughts going on that would have been eval and inval, just because I have a different view. I even admired the peace in her voice and her ability to surrender to something. Whether real or imagined.

      It did not frighten me to believe her. It did not threaten me in any way. I did not have to invalidate any part of this experience.

      I realized, as soon as we parted, all of my misery and disillusionment in this world has been directly linked to my own hidden standards. What I expected other people to be, how I expected them to act, what I of expected them to know or think or become, because of similarities with myself. And I expected to see myself in other people. The highest form of narcissism. As if I could only find peace in a mirror.

      These burdens to “fix everyone! heal everyone! clear everyone! educate everyone! free everyone! wake up everyone! protect everyone! …blah blah…” seemed to lift off my shoulders like some armor lifted from an old soldier’s body.

      I have had this feeling of un – indebtedness for the rest of the day. It is as if I had been paying for a debt I no longer owe.

      So, I am not so uptight or hysterical about these tech cycles as I was before yesterday.

      lv T.O.

  15. “To label is part of the depersonalization or dehumanization process. It is a step in marginalizing classes of people. Once you recategorize someone from some neutral category like ‘associate’, ‘neighbor’ or ‘fellow human being’ to some negative, judgmental category they become fodder for abuse. ”

    This is where LRH went off the rails. WOG’s. He wove it into the fabric of the whole religion…

    • Please clear the definition of WOG as LRH used it. A “Worthy Oriental Gentleman”, or in other words – someone of an older culture who knew best, always. This, in context with Scientologists, learning to learn a-new .. it was never intended as a hateful slur, but as an indicator as to whether the Thetan was truly interested in their personal self-enhancement, or whether they thought they’d already had enough and didn’t need any more, because they were quite worthy, already ..

      • Please listen to all tapes where LRH used the term. THEN, get back to me. Also, read some * advices where used. I’ll wait…

        • Done. Point?

          • LMAO! Sure, you went and read & listened to all the tapes and * advices. Bring your confront of evil up to a minimum level.

            • Oh, come on. You think I don’t know what you’re getting at? Fact is, it took me less than half a day to find where LRH used the terms, then listen to the lectures at those points. Whats your point?

              • The tech dictionary defines the term “wog’. The literal meaning of worthy oriental gentleman is NEVER used in a complimentary tone. It is clearly a indicator of someone who , as he says, ‘isn’t even trying.”
                However, I will agree that LRH did not allow a persons condition to stop him from helping the person…just the opposite. He didn’t ‘blame’ the pc. I will also agree that Scientologist, at least when I was on staff anyway, did use the term in an arrogant fashion, and espeically when a potential start, for example, blew off .

                • This entire thread is so off the rails it isn’t funny. Jewel, you are still being one sided. We live in a crazy world. Watch the news for five minutes and anyone can see that. It’s not possible to compliment our way to world peace and tranquility. At some point we have to stop being theetie weetie. The problem is not calling wogs wogs, it is failing to DO SOMETHING to help them in their plight. To call them wogs and then turn your back on them — that is wrong. But which is the bigger overt? Calling someone a wog? Or turning your back on people who need help? (I do not mean “you” personally). LRH called people wogs, but he also provided auditing, training, lectures, even created an entire organization — countless measures where he actually did something to help those same people. The problem with this thread is it has devolved into Scientology bashing and LRH bashing while the moderator does nothing because he can’t keep up with hundreds of postings a day. Solution: don’t open Pandora’s Box in the first place if you can’t deal with what comes out.

                  • Thoughtful, I am really surprised at you, “Simply thinking well of everyone is theetie weetie.” What every happened to granting beingness? You have been the most judgmental person on this thread, hard to believe.
                    We were all wogs at one time and scientologists, thus we carry all we have learned with us to hopefully help ourselves and others, not to separate.
                    I think “don’t open Pandora’s Box in the first place if you can’t deal with what comes out.” is close to saying keep your head in the sand, don’t look, nor listen, just like in the organization. Sorry love, that’s my opinion in short from my observation. Have a Happy New Year!

      • You got it right, Gern.
        That’s the way the term should have been understood (and used).

  16. Hey Marty, Let’s not “Label” all “Scientologist” as a generality.

    I would agree with you that it’s the culture and part and parcel of the Corporate Church of Scientology Member lead by, one, David Miscavige. He’s been implanting and perpetrating since 1982, this culture of labeling and judging, as he sees all others as himself. As an out-of-valence psychotic criminal, he must lower the status through criticism, ridicule, judgment and labeling of those he suppresses (read all people) in an attempt to justify and lessen the burden of his own sordid black heart.

    There’s also this from LRH: “The mistake you make is to identify the pc with his reactive bank, the first mistake everybody makes because that’s the mistake the pc is making. That’s his primary error. He’s identifying himself with the reactive bank. 9 Nov 59 The Know-How of Auditing Responsibility and State of OT

    “and of course, the reactive bank is composed of valences and circuits and pictures and spaces and oddities and mishmashes and identifications and so forth. And whatever is in the reactive bank he thinks he’s it.” 9 Nov 59 The Know-How of Auditing Responsibility and State of OT

    “Man is basically good and tries to help his fellow men. And valences come into being, actually, when he fails to do so and considers himself bad.” 23 June 60 Confront London Lectures

    “You could say a man’s deterioration begins when he starts believing his own circuits.” 20 Oct 53 “Certainty of Anchor Points Processing” Exteriorization and Phenomenon of Space Lectures

    • LRH: “One often wonders why people are so ‘reasonable’ about intolerable and illogical situations. The answer is very simple: they cannot recognize outpoints when they see them and so try to make everything seem logical. The ability to actually see an outpoint for what it is, in itself is an ability to attain some peace of mind.

      …The human reaction is to react to an outpoint. And then get ‘reasonable’ and adopt some explanation for it, usually untrue.
      You can safely say that ‘being reasonable’ is a symptom of being unable to recognize outpoints for what they are and use them to discover actual situations.”
      HCO P/L 30 September 1973 Issue II Data Series 30, Situation Finding (Management Series Vol. 1, p. 128)

      “A lot of people are on a stuck flow of being sensible and sane — and that winds up in stupidity. So they get reasonable. Their confront of evil isn’t up to it — basically, their confront of outpoints.” HCO P/L 18 March 1977RA Data Series 43RA, Evaluation and Programs (Management Series Vol. 1, p. 167)

      “It is horrifying to behold how easily people buy dub-in. This is because an illogical sequence is uncomfortable. To relieve the discomfort they distort their own observation by not-ising the outpoint and concluding something else.” HCO P/L 18 May 1970 Data Series 7, Familiarity (Management Series Vol. 1, p. 29)

      • Heck, I know I DID, long before I became a Scientologist, it’s just that it became much worse (contagion of aberration) over the years in the cult culture of the church. This is no excuse, as ignorance is no justification, but the incessant and continual false data of lies and hatred promulgated by miscavige about his imagined enemies, not actually my enemies or the churches’ enemies, created this environment of falsely labeling, falsely judging…
        The good news is that since Iv’e been OUT my tolerance for others have from day one has markedly improved and continues to improve. This does not mean that I have become more reasonable with out-points in people, just more tolerant.
        LRH said, (paraphrasing) There’s nothing wrong with ARC, but there is something very wrong with going into ARC with people who are down-tone.

        • Steve: I posted my long reply to your first comment before this was posted. I agree completely.

          Peace

        • Steve,
          I dig what you are saying and agree as I went the same route.
          Just to comment here on your very last sentence of paraphrasing LRH (There is nothing wrong with ARC, but there is something very wrong with going into ARC with people who are down-tone):

          When you look at the HUBBARD CHART OF HUMAN EVALUATION AND DIANETIC PROCESING – PART II, Column AR ‘How to audit the case’ (this chart is usually part of Science of Survival) you will see that the bottom 3 entries from 0.1 – 1.1 on the Tone Scale ALL say “Establish ARC”.
          In life your LRH quote is applicable, in auditing you would never get anybody uptone without using ARC.
          Greta

          • Getting into ARC doesn’t mean necessarily agreeing with or liking someone. That’s a common misunderstood. It simply means Understanding.

        • Steve P said: LRH said, (paraphrasing) There’s nothing wrong with ARC, but there is something very wrong with going into ARC with people who are down-tone.

          I wonder where you heard that Steve? In 38 years of Scientology study and experience I’ve never run across this. It also does not make sense to me so I’m thinking there must be more context to it. From my understanding we ‘use’ ARC to bring a person that is down-tone, uptone.
          Also I’m not sure where the up-tone/down-tone line is drawn – antagonism?
          Cece

          • It’s from ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS

            I quote them in context:

            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 mentalcondition become subject to it.

            The first self-determinism which leads to aberration is the decision to be human. The affinity, reality, and communication indulged in by a human being is necessary to being human. One determines to exert ARC. One then becomes subject to what he has determined. ARC with individuals in a very aberrated state is necessarily a very low ARC. It is not that ARC is bad but that ARC with low-toned individuals is bad.

            Any individual under processing can be discovered to be using service facsimiles. Everything which is wrong with him he has selectively and particularly chosen to be wrong with him.

            Every thought or computation has behind it a physical observation or effort or counter-effort. But there is also a free source of theta which is itself continually selfdetermining or is capable of being so. Thus it is not necessary to exhaust efforts and counter-efforts since the individual has FREE CHOICE in his use of those efforts or counter-efforts.

            Every aberration, every service facsimile is non-survival. The individual evaluated a situation, found it necessary, in order to go on living to use a service facsimile.But the moment it was used he became ever afterwards subject to it.

            In such wise an individual became the effect of his own causes.

            It is the role of the auditor to discover, with the preclear, the moments when the preclear postulated conclusions of any kind on any subject. These conclusions are occasionally smothered by mis-emotion, such as sympathy, and by general ARC. They can also be smothered by physical pain.

            The running of engrams is itself a therapy. Self-determinism processing and emotion processing are finer and more complete levels of processing since they reach all cases which can be gotten into present time communication. The engram is never effective until the individual chooses to use it.
            – L. Ron Hubbard, Advanced Procedure and Axioms

      • Great references, Steve. Another would be LRH’s reference on personal integrity — (paraphrased) to know what you have observed and have the courage to say so.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Steve,(Thoughtful) I like to throw a cat among
          the pigeons, for a bit of randomity, if nothing else!

          So here’s a little niggler for you! I’m sure you must
          be familiar with the Pareto Principle (based upon the
          observations of the Italian economist! ) where many
          operating principles in life, and business, seem to
          follow a 2O / 8O ratio! (please to Google up, if any
          require explanation/s!)

          The point being, an enormous amount of time and
          energy (8O%?) is often consumed, by an incredibly
          low number(2O%?) of individuals, who actually have
          the gumption, courage, and wherewithal, to make a
          positive difference, to what needs to be done, in an
          often indifferent, sometimes just nattery, or worse,
          fearful (8O%?) society at large. Check out the
          typical ratio (2O / 8O) at the scene of a car accident,
          for example!

          To make this point more clearly, I have been quite
          disgusted to find myself often quite alone in going
          to the rescue of a victim, or giving chase to an
          assailant in a crime, with no back up whatsoever,
          when most needed!

          The paralyzing effect of FEAR, should not be an
          acceptable excuse, if one wants to live with integrity/
          honor! Each person with a”sense” of responsibility
          should realize, that permitting themselves to be
          ruled by this (mostly) inappropriate tone ( I.O) “fear”
          only keeps one pinned into the (8O%) band, always
          needing to justify / excuse inaction, to what worthwhile
          end, I hasten to ask?

          Lord knows, there are countless approaches available
          to counter this fearful mind state! Confidence can be
          built through classes in self defense, assertiveness training, sharing life in the trenches, with the police,
          or military, weight / power lifting, boot camp, sparring, karate, judo, etc, etc. One just does not need to remain
          in the ineffectual 8O% camp, that is, providing one sees
          eye to eye with the 2O% ‘ers

          Scn AXIOM 47. Theta can resolve problems.

          Scn AXIOM 48. Life is a game, wherein Theta as the static,
          (spirit) solves the problems of Theta as MEST.(Matter, Energy,Space,Time.)

          Scn AXIOM 49. To solve any problem, it is only necessary
          to become Theta the solver, rather than Theta the problem.

          BTW, Steve, I just love your invite to meet the New Leader
          of iScientology. Anyone who hasn’t yet done so, needs just
          Google it up. A very GOOD choice, I must add!

          Cheers, Calvin.

    • Anonymous Confused Person

      Nice, Steve! My Dad told me, “When you think you know everything, you stop learning.” I like your last LRH quote!

      • ACP “My Dad told me, “When you think you know everything, you stop learning.” your father was smart guy!
        let’s all keep learning. The related and interlocking double triangle of ARC/KRC Says it all.

  17. For a bit of a different perspective on this labeling thing, here is a link to an article in the Smithsonian Magazine about one of the last (recognized) cannibal cultures around: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/cannibals.html

    What is of interest is the line they draw between those they eat, and those they don’t, steeped in centuries of superstition and “ignorance”.

    Of course the RCS is a cannibal culture, they just substitute $$ for flesh.
    And their mental machinations are of the same order of magnitude of the
    Korowai, mentioned in the above article.

    So yah, we are in for a long haul on this. The answer, in my mind, is training.

  18. In the CoS having a huge ego-ser fac is commended. Being always right and knowing that you must control all other “ignorant” beings is a badge of being with the group. I did it at times, and hated myself for it.

    What is interesting is that ridding one self of self righteous ego is a mainstay of almost all great religions: Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, for example. But, oh no, no the Church. Ego is fed as glory.

    As Yvonne said, i too got into SCN to learn to better grant beingness and to learn to better understand self, life and mankind. One cannot do it in the presence of a massive ego/ser fac…huge fixed ideas and stuckness.

    Few want to be around this time of person or organization…I believe this to be the primary reason the Church will die.

    A quote on this in wikipedia:

    “The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the ego,[citation needed] allowing self-knowledge of one’s own true nature to become experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as Enlightenment, Nirvana, Fana, Presence, and the “Here and Now”.

    Eckhart Tolle comments that, to the extent that the ego is present in an individual, that individual is somewhat insane psychologically, in reference to the ego’s nature as compulsively hyper-active and compulsively (and pathologically) self-centered. However, since this is the norm, it goes unrecognised as the source of much that could be classified as insane behavior in everyday life.[citation needed] In South Asian traditions, the state of being trapped in the illusory belief that one is the ego is known as maya or samsara.”

  19. Marty, this post and the last one are truly pointing the way.

    I have observed this tendency to judge since long before MIscavige arrived on the scene. Maybe it was a weak spot that made MIscavige possible.

    I think “confusion and the stable datum” enters in here. It is too easy for those who don’t really understand Scientology to use judgements such as “PTS” to dismiss the things and people they don’t understand. I’ve found that trained auditors are much less likely to pass such judgements.

    • In many ways Miscavige is the product of the system.

      • It seems to me that this is pretty darn close to a why that opens the door to a handling.

      • product and/or beneficiary. Some species survive millions of years when other die out because they blend into the envirorment better.

      • Merry Christmas, Mr. Rathbun, and a Happy New Year to you and yours.

        I believe that you can help a *lot* of people now.

        Thank you.

        Alanzo

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        Marty, indeed we are moving a little higher !
        I love it ! :) :) :) :)

      • David Miscavige is not a victim. He is an abuser of the system — his track record demonstrates that clearly. The system does not make people into sociopaths — they are born that way. My observation.

        There’s nothing wrong with correct judgement — often before Scientology people are incapable of judging anything because they are in a state of Confusion — they have no stable datums by which to judge anything.

        What has happened here is a lunatic took over, we all let him, he delivered incorrect technology which then gave a bad name to correct technology by association. It’s a stupid point to make. “Judgement” is a characteristic we all aspire to — same word. The problem is BAD judgement which IS intolerance.

        This is no different than complaining about “control” as many people do. Well, control is neither good nor bad. It’s a necessary thing, so is judgement if you want to live.

        Otherwise we all end up in little Johnny stabbing his sister and what — we’re all going to be permissive about that? No, I for one, am going to speak up and say — that kid is dangerous — he stabbed his sister, showed no remorse.

        • Steve,
          I see you have taken to referring to the term sociopath, and have told me you value the book The Sociopath Next Door. I think you might also enjoy The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. I referred to it in my book. I think you’ll find my viewpoint a lot less threatening if you get a chance to read that.
          Marty

        • Steve, there is nothing wrong in observing and judging a situation and data and getting a conclusion, and labeling the actions. To label the person and identify him with the deeds or situation is, in a way, deciding that this person will stay the same forever, and we know that people can change. Even with the SP label, isn’t it better to label the ACTIONS the person did, so people can be aware of them and beware? because “he is an SP” still does not give the listener a reality on the deeds that were done by the individual and what to be aware of.

          • All this is pretty theoretical because we are not dealing in concrete examples. But ideally it is better to say DM’s actions (and list specifics) are suppressive — but I have done that on my websites. Where there is time and room. At other times, it gets shortened down to “he’s an SP” because we can’t at every instance list DM’s entire laundry list of crimes.

        • Well I’m going to disagree with both of you in this case. I don’t believe people are born sociopaths Steve, not that they couldn’t be I can suppose. I see that SP’s are made [made] by their own decisions at their own and other’s hands, in the process of living, in the end by their own choice and resultant lack of responsibility for situations (blame others becomes routine) that requires unusual -criminal- effect.

          As to any sympathy for Miscavige, I have none Marty. Sorry. I recognize I didn’t live close to what you did with him. But regardless, I lived a bunch of it unknowing (in some sense worse) and to me he is an enemy to our very knowingness – we salvaged in spite of. He has deliberately and with forethought strangled the life out of a grand movement that not only made clear differences, and could clearly have made more, a movement that better managed could have made significantly more positive inroads for mankind given just half another century in positive steed.

          Instead, we have Miscavige and ceaseless multi-million dollar props.

        • Steve, when Marty says DM is in many ways a product of the system he came up in, i dont take that to mean in any way that he is a victum.

          What this means to me, is that there were certain attributes (dear i say, flaws?) of the system that a cold-blooded phychopath could take advantage of and do what he has done.

          Had LRH been able to devote more attention to the corporate and management structure of the church, along with understanding some of the cultural and long term ramifications of certain Admin Policies, the likely hood of DM usurping power would have been greatly diminished.

          I am a great fan of LRH’s spiritual technology. The Admin Tech, however, is the poor cousin that in no way approaches its effectiveness, workability, or power. Given more time, i’m sure he could have polished it and made it just as good in its own area. But that simply didnt happen.

          Therefore, left in its much less than perfect state, and given that certain Flag Orders and other Policies were really nothing more than short-term expedients that got codified into permanent “tech” for long term use, the system that LRH left behind in fact encouraged and developed the ruthless and inhuman tendancies that sum up who DM is.

          The spiritual Tech was ever to be Senior to the Admin Tech, but the flaws in the Admin Tech led to an individual who would corrupt wholesale the Spiritual Tech.

          In this way can DM be both product of the system and its eventual corrupter.

          • Great explanation. I see what you mean. Thanks for this.

            • Moonshot, I think my answer did not do justice to what you have written, because it’s one of the clearest summations ever! Brilliant and true. Many of the issues LRH wrote were set to expire in a year. But under DM, they never expired. Admin tech is certainly short-term expedients that got codified into permanent “tech” for long term use, setting the stage for a perfect storm of ruthlessness and inhumanity that is David Miscavige. Admin tech was the fatal flaw of Scientology.

          • Hello Moonshot.
            I really liked your comment and your comparision of Tech and Admin.
            That’s absoluteley the way I see it:
            “I am a great fan of LRH’s spiritual technology. The Admin Tech, however, is the poor cousin that in no way approaches its effectiveness, workability, or power. Given more time, i’m sure he could have polished it and made it just as good in its own area. But that simply didnt happen.” – Moonshot

      • I do agree with this. It’s pretty hard to mock up some one with Miscavige’s personality traits as the new Dalai Lama for example. Would you have made such a comment a few years back at the outset of this blog? I only ask to see how, or if, your viewpoint has shifted over time.

        • On Saturday, December 13, 2008, after a year of studying the problem of Scientology and what to do about it, I decided the right thing to do was to speak out as a Scientologist, to have the courage to say what I had observed, because it was the only way to defuse this entire mess and start making a safe environment.

          • Thanks Steve – my question was directed towards Marty and was asked of curiosity only. But yes, if there is anyone on the planet who has had the courage of his convictions together with Marty, then it’s you. I’d stand beside you in the trenches any day. Nothing in this conversation debases or nullifies the extra-ordinary efforts you have made towards exposing the truth and helping others see reason. Nothing. Texans don’t qualify for knighthoods but if they did…

      • Which system? The American one? Because frankly, DM-type’s are a dime a dozen all throughout corporate fascist America, and if you think I’m “labelling” anyone, you’re wrong – its based on direct observation. Cleared-Cannibal is this: the Church is derived from the society from which it recruits, and in the US in particular there are definitely waves of totalitarian fascism coursing through their culture (other countries too, but the American ser-fac has gone un-acknowledged for too long..)

        • Gern, this is true about American cultural streams in the USA – witness the Ku Klux Klan, the Eugenics movement that was strongly supported and promoted at “the very best” Universities, the slavery upon which the southern economy was established, the virtual extermination of the Native Americans, etc.

          But the roots of all this go straight back to Europe.

      • Hi Marty;

        Years ago, back on ARS, there was a post that was very interesting. It had to do with research by the US military shortly after WW II on what kind of person is capable of surviving an extended period of time under extreme duress. The conclusion was, a psychotic personality can survive under those conditions more than any other type of person. And, this is what is very interesting, that the psychotic personality comprised about 2% of the population.

        So, when I read that, it answered some questions for me re the management of the CofS.

        Given the extreme duress that so many of the SO lived under for so many years, then obviously only the psycho’s would survive, and from that only the psychos would gravitate to the top of the org board. Of course, there would always be instances where that is not the case, but given the original premise, the higher up the org board, the greater the disconnection from reality. This could be true in any work place where there was constant duress, stress, and so forth. This describes the upper level management of the CofS for decades; disconnected from reality.

        This explained to me, to some extent, why it is that DM came about, and why it is that no one ‘up there’ with him go after him; they are of like personality.

        So, your comment that DM is a product of the system, probably rings true in more ways than we realize.

        • I’d love to read that study if you can track it down.

        • This goes along with my SO experience. Under more and more pressure to do the wrong thing, one goes PTS. I often thought that it was my duty to accept being crushed out of existence. It was part of the staff contract; It was part of “Making things go right in spite of hell or high water” that I volunteer for a tour of duty on the Titanic. It was part of my exchange with LRH for the tech even though seeing any LRH tech applied became rarer and rarer. One has a choice; One is either the suppressed or the suppressor. One either has a knife in his back or is holding the knife thrust into another. I chose the former but I understand the person who flips over into attacking his fellows in order to survive himself. My choice was partly due to what the SO is, or was anyway, an activitiy to help others, often at expense to oneself.

          • You are right Bill. Even way back in 1980 people did not follow policy but it became much worse when little davey became the new order. I remember we use to watch each others back, back then. But even that did not last. But it was a lot of fun working with you JT.

  20. I really think that monopolizing Scientology and creating a toxic third dynamic was a big part of the destruction of Scientology. I think getting rid of dm is the priority, while at the same time getting people delivering auditing all over the world. Once dm is gone and the monopoly successfully broken and the tech flourishing, you will see a true Renaissance.

  21. I believe that Scientology is in the condition of Danger until the SP David Miscaviage is removed from the group. There are still many people PTS to him. Those are all labels but I agree with Steve Hall in the fact that some labels are true. SP is a label and can be an accurate description of someone. Socipath is a label and can be accurate too. I think Marty was talking about people who use labelling as a via instead of confronting something. Of course that is what he meant. That is what he wrote. So you can label someting if you are confronting and handling life.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Indeed Tony, Marty made his point with many here,
      going by the validated responses posted. Like you,
      though, I feel Steve has shown more directness in
      simply calling a “spade a spade” (a label, word, thing,
      whatever!) The point is, to simply communicate about
      a ” ——-“so that the message or description of the
      perceived “——–” gets from A to B, the way it was
      INTENDED. Connotations about “——–” can have a
      myriad of interpretations, depending on the individual’s
      understanding of “——-” An “asshole,” to a surgeon, is
      merely an anus! To one lighthearted soul ragging his
      good natured buddy with ” you frigg’n asshole!” would
      probably get the two in howls of laughter” to a boss,
      castigating his employee, “Asshole!” this would probably
      cause deep embarassment, and maybe even resentment!

      Verdict?————————————————————–
      Same “label” used in each case! Totally different responses,
      according to the recipient. Some DECIDE to take it without
      any emotional response whatsoever! Others may find it
      extremely humorous! Still others may find it extremely
      hurtful and cause for resentment, introversion, and in some
      cases, even retribution.

      My conclusion? Until the human race learns to lighten up,
      and quit taking EVERYTHING sooooo seriously, people
      like stand up comedians, Mike Rinder, and Mark “Shreff”
      Shreffler, will never be out of work!!!
      (disclaimer: remember to only take the “serious” things,
      seriously!) (even then, you can sometimes even turn a tragedy into SOME kind of positive, a triumph of sorts, –that CAN bring at least a smile, to ease a loss.)

      my price? 2 (two)cents. (cheap!)
      Calvin (Wot, me worry?)
      “Stinking hot” in Durban Summer!
      South Africa.

      • Calvin,
        I was just reading the definition of ‘serious’ in the Tech Dictionary (pg 384) and I think it is the fear of penalty (real or imagined) that drives one into the serious attitude.

        Humor tends to unmock the penalty and allow the lie to as-is….imho! Nice comment.
        Cheers

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Nice cogs, newcomer! BTW, David is only a pipsqueak, that anyone in a crowded street would probably start
          laughing at, if he started throwing his little tantrums when
          he couldn’t have his way!…. just think about that too!
          Cheers!

        • Damn right! And I have gone out of my way to benefit from “laughter therapy” – it’s not to be underrated. Get ahold of something that makes you laugh and go for it! Luckily for me there is a massive renaissance in stand-up comedy in the UK and I tell ya, there’s no substitute for laughing so much it hurts, or you wet yourself. Here’s a taste of some of the best the UK has to offer right now…enjoy!

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Laughter (outflow) still the very best medicine!
            great insert too, Martin. My one wish is that we
            had a big enough (cyber)spoon to give a good
            dose of humour to alleviate a few souls feeling
            out-of-sorts with “seriousnessitis” This video is
            a great pick-me up though. if culture is a barrier,
            then one can always hop in to bed with a tot of
            Big Bang Theory! That should dispel the morbs,
            what?

          • OMG, he is soooo good!
            Thanks Martin, loved it, got my laughs for today!
            Greta

        • Newcomer
          Seems like the INTENTION behind the ‘judgmental label’ is more important than the words.
          What’s new?
          Greta

      • Excellent Calvin. You are on a roll!!

    • Tony,
      I have also considered what the current ‘condition’ of the CO$ is and while I agree about danger, I think that since it has gone unhandled for so long that as an organization the true PT condition is closer to treason or confusion.

      Confusion indicates more to me and since we are discussing labeling………I’ll go with that for today!

      • Hi Newcomer,
        For me, I am applying the conditon formula for Danger to the cult. I won’t disagree that many within the cult are in a lower condition and would need to get out of that first.
        Bypass habits and normal routines.
        Handle the situation and any danger in it.
        Assign the area where it had to be handled a Danger condition.
        Assign each individual connected with the danger condition a first dynamic danger condition and enforce and ensure they follow the formula completely. And if they do not do so, do a full ethics investigation and take all actions indicated.
        Reorganize the activity so that the situation does not repeat.
        Reccomend and firm policy that will hereafter detect and/or prevent the condition from recurring.

        • Well, I still think they need to find out ‘where they are’ as a starting point. If a person wakes up to the fact that they are “stuck in ….. a cult” then perhaps they could move on up!

        • I believe that Tom Cruise brought the word “Scientology” out of “Non-Existence” (Non-E) on a worldwide basis in the early 2000s, and thus effectively also moved the religion/church into Non-E. The Non-E condition wasn’t applied, however, and the CoS sunk back down into the lower conditions.

          As most here know, the formula/steps for Non-E are:

          1. Find a communication line.
          2. Make yourself known.
          3. Find out what is needed or wanted.
          4. Do, produce and/or present it.

          Tom Cruise had done 1. and 2. for the CoS in the early 2000s, but he and the CoS didn’t do 3. and 4. Instead, Cruise proceeded to TELL the world what HE needed or wanted on Matt Lauer’s show in 2005. Just the opposite of the formula. Cruise never bothered finding out what SOCIETY needed and wanted.

          And the CoS response was to confirm that, yes, indeed what Tom Cruise said he needed and wanted was also what WE (the CoS) need and want. They never bothered to find out what society actually needed and wanted from the Church of Scientology. They literally applied the formula backwards.

          But then things really moved into lower conditions, when the Tom Cruise Video was leaked onto the internet in 2008. While it is certainly true that the LAST thing that society probably needed and wanted from the CoS was a fanatical, unhinged Tom Cruise, its fairly certain that an even MORE unneeded and unwanted item was the CoS’ attempt to suppress the video.

          That threw the CoS into lower conditions big time. The Truth Rundown probably ultimately put the CoS into Confusion.

          As a side note, my feeling is that the G.O. debacle from the late 70s and 80s probably had put the CoS into lower conditions on a societal basis. Some of the Orgs arguably might have gone into Non-E and maybe higher after that in the 1980s, but the overall organization was likely still in Lower conditions until TIME magazine put them into Non-E in 1991.

          TIME literally put the CoS onto “the comm lines of the world” for about a week.

          If the CoS response had truly been one of taking responsibility for being a “cult of greed and power” and then worked on “finding out what is needed and wanted” by society, they might have actually moved into a higher condition. Instead, the CoS publicly blamed all of their problems, once again, on others.

          • He may have gotten some attention, but I believe the danger condition was already in place. The formula that needs to be applied is the danger formula IMHO. It is already being applied. I think there are several conditions in play. I believe that those of us who are aware enough to have gotten out are applying the danger formula wittingly or unwittingly to get rid of dm. Once Scientology is in good hands, it can start to apply conditions to different areas to make up the damage. The dangerous situation is having an SP at the helm. Actually as part of the danger formula you could actually start repairing past injustices and destruction of lives. Then it would go into production which is emergency.

            I think most Scientologists have a good idea of what is needed and wanted. but with an SP in place it is not possible to deliver, therefore that formula cannot be applied.

            • “therefore that formula cannot be applied.”

              But if the formula can/could not be applied, then the organization never came out of the condition.

              I hear what you’re saying about the Danger condition — getting ethics in and finding out which policies caused the Danger in the first place and adopting new ones. But that would/should be done in the act of “finding out what is needed and wanted” in Non-E (which would also imply finding out what is NOT needed and wanted).

              • You don’t use the Non-E formula to get rid of the SP. Having an SP in charge is a danger condition. IMO. We can agree to disagree I guess. :-)

                I would say again that most uptone people would know generally what is needed and wanted already. If you were running the show would you be delivering what dm is to the public? If not, what would you deliver? Of course it can always be refined but the point is nobody CAN deliver it with a psycho running the show. ( Or almost nobody since absolutes are unobtainable.)

                • I’d reckon any long-term condition from Danger on down would be a good time to get rid of the psycho running the show. :-)

                  Once that’s done, Non-E and Danger on the way back up might be good times to re-evaluate certain policies.

  22. This article makes much sense. Back in the day when I was in a Management position at CLO WUS we would hold daily conferences around a large conference table, and discuss each WUS Scientology Organizations. Labeling was the norm here: he/she is a “DB”,a “downstat”, a “stat crasher”, a “pervert”, a “dupe”, or sometimes an “upstat”. We were just a bunch of people sitting around a large table, just throwing opinions around. It never felt comfortable.

  23. The key is the INTENTION. Was labeling (especially in ethics matters) used to help or hinder, to rehabilitate and recover one’s true beingness or to put his “foot in a box”, so to speak. Is the CofS intending to really help the individual recover their self-determinism or to make them into good robotic soldiers for the cause? Is the labeling really meant for the one labeled or to corral all the others with the “fear” of similar labeling and hence similar consequences if one doesn’t “toe the line” ?
    What I thought, upon entry into this SCN subject matter 28 years ago, was that the initial intention was for my well being, to help me be all I am or can be and to help me be cause across my dynamics. I have been disabused of that notion entirely and it’s not the only “why” but sufficient for withdrawing any and all support to CofDM which collapses all dynamics into the 3rd and all mest into the hording of $$$ energy for the “only one” – the psychopath.

  24. From my own experience, I saw a lot of labeling done in Scientology. Everything from “PTS” and “SP”s to “WOG”s and “DB”s. I would also tend to agree that a lot of Scientologists label instead of think. A label explains away everything and the person doesn’t have to inspect it further or think about is anymore. Labels tend to make the labeler feel superior. However, I think there is a fine line between labeling and diagnosing, e.g. a “resistive case”. I think the difference is intention. A label is destructive while a diagnosis is constructive (intended to help, even if it’s the wrong diagnosis). Just my two cents.

    • You reminded me of a time I hit a rough patch on my way thru eligibility for OT levels. One of my closest friends said I was “a flat ball-bearing” because of some earlier practices I had done. I just remembered the sting of that labeling. It did nothing to help me understand the situation or feel better about it. Thank you for letting me as-is that one. I’m grinning now.

  25. This is great wisdom imho. Labels are essentially absolutes. Since cutting the chord with the Co$, the one thing that has helped me shed the cult-think more than any other is Logic 6. It opens the door to learning and a deeper understanding of self and others.

  26. Anonymous Confused Person

    Marty, this is just an awesome post – a spot-on examination. It’s really interesting to see that text from LRH’s writings.

    So, having so clearly stated the problem and the fact that the culture values the ability to label (and thereby negate) people or ideas, I have a question: why does the culture value this trait?

    Do Scientologists value consensus so highly that people who can easily use labeling as a means to enforce consensus are more likely to be viewed as leaders?

    What’s your take on why this seems to be a prevalent trait among Scientologists, especially Scientologist leaders, when LRH’s writings are so clear on why it’s a bad idea?

    • I think because while I can find dozens of similar LRH references for the proposition I forwarded I could just as easily find dozens that contradict it. In that scheme, insistence upon literalness then creates a form of schizophrenia.

      • This is such a good point. One must be able to use the information if it applies, based on his own observations, and based on looking for himself. A perfect and obvious example = my parents have accepted the label that I am an SP. They know in their heart of hearts that I am not an SP. But now that I am labelled one, it must be true and the label takes away any responsibility they have for knowing what they know. Problem solved, just be a robot.

      • Great article above, and great comment here, Marty !

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        Love it even more !¨:)
        Very good comments !
        Truth is truth !

      • It’s such a relief to have somebody say the things that need to be said. Thanks Marty.

      • Anonymous Confused Person

        Thank you for answering, Marty!

        It seems like a perfect example of the danger of incrementalism. Also, it lets people pick and choose what they want to value. So, instead of truly changing, people find those bits that justify how they already are. Of course, this isn’t the case with everyone, but I have come to feel that most people approach religion on a “how well does it fit me” vice “how will I be challenged to grow” basis.

        Maybe I’m just cynical.

    • LRH said that people are in the main sound asleep, groggy and utterly confused due to engrams, overts, and huge amounts of false data. Easy labels are doable (and thus valued) because they don’t require thinking. It’s probably not the “label” per se they respond to but the speaker’s certainty. However, it’s a broader situation than just in Scientology. Look at what they jokingly refer to as a “presidential election.” One political party labels the other badvice and vice versa. Even the winning campaign people admitted they won by third partying the other candidate as “an unscrupulous businessman” (the target failed to handle the black PR which mystified the winning side because they thought he could have easily dealt with it) and potentially won the election. Thus in the main the population is asleep. LRH talked about it a lot and even wrote a film about it called “Objectives.”

  27. Steve: I’m not sure when you became a scientologist but I started in 1972. Well before dm and trust me — as a group and as a sea org member we judged each other ALL the time.

    I’m sure we can find hundreds of references wherein LRH shows how important it is to NOT label others.

    BUT — it’s the CULTURE of the group that creates this. Sea Org members in the Pac Area all labeled the other orgs as downstats and CCLA especially was considered a bunch of theety-wheety people, dressing up at night.

    When I went to Flag in 1975 I was shocked to hear the staff putting down the FCCI (the public scientologists) for being downstat and woggy – at the same time taking their money easily.

    It’s the CULTURE of the group — it runs parallel to the philosophy and I’m betting can be found in every group. I know it was in my buddhist group.

    I think we’d be wise to try to stop being so painfully sensitive to whether we are in the RIGHT group now.

    And when it seems as if someone is pointing out what they feel is off — we are quick to point out how wrong they are.

    Just see how fast this board reacts if someone says something against LRH and now Marty — it goes crazy.

    AND what is even more interesting is to see how many comments happen when a blog post is ABOUT the transgressions of someone — not from session data mind you — in other words — we are all guilty of lapping up the gossip of the day.

    Just my humble opinions and you are all free the skewer me :)

    Love,
    Christine

    • This comment was to Steve Poore and posted before his later one about the culture.

    • okay, consider yourself skewered ; )

    • You’re right – its about the CULTURE of the group. But from where was this culture derived? Frankly, every single outpoint you can find in Scientology Culture, you will find just a few meters away in American society. Not just American, but mostly, because America – being the “most righteous nation” – is in the thralls of a deathly 3rd-dynamic ser-fac that is driving it into the ground.

      Every single computation that was ever run on me by some asshole Int staff member, I have encountered in *droves* in the non-Org world. Droves and droves of it. You want degradation – go work in a American Megacorp for 6 months, do some real obnosis, and you’ll see that frankly what we’re dealing with in the church is a bunch of Cleared Cannibals whose very “apparently pro-survival actions” are derived from the society from which they came .. DM is definitely an example of what you will find all throughout the US. I’m not trying to ‘hate on the US’, but it stands to be acknowledged that a lot of the trouble we are having within the Church, can just as easily be located in any major 3rd dynamic of the US .. sport jocks, rednecks, neo-conservative republicans .. there is a little bit of DM all throughout these strata, frankly ..

      • I think this is the best comment on this thread and there have been some good ones. Very well spoken Gern.

        • Thanks for the ack, Thoughtful, I do appreciate it!

          Further on this subject, I believe its high time we realized the extent to which LRH’s warning about Cleared Cannibals has been ignored, by us all. It is truly a fact that Clears and OT’s do continue to dramatize the computations of the society from which they are derived, and I say this objectively as well as, personally – it is a part of my own personal Danger condition, when necessary, to recognize this – and boy has the recognition of this fact helped me get myself back to the three-feet-exterior perspective that we all know is necessary, these days, to view the scene properly.

          The only solution is: Training. Get trained. Get through the Academy levels, do the SHSBC, Intern in Qual somewhere, get PC’s through sessions. Heck, Dianetics Auditor Certification is one very positive step out of the Village of Bones!

          Its only after real Scientology Production activity – and by that I mean Auditing and only Auditing – that a person can extricate themselves from the easy traps of the 3rd-dynamic in which we all, prior to becoming Auditors, are ensnared. Stuck flows on personal enhancement versus enhancing others, yeah .. we know the drills, don’t we folks? If you’re not an Auditor with PC’s under your wing, you can hardly call yourself a Scientologist. Honestly., sincerely, I mean it. Not trying to invalidate you OT’s gains’ or anything, but I am tired of seeing only single first-flow certs on the wall, personally.

          I’ve always been shocked at the cultural disinclination within the Scientology miasma towards Becoming Auditors. My personal observation has been that, my last lifetime, mostly Auditor training was the focus, and I guess this may have been because LRH was around and actively working on training Auditors as a key product – but it appears that after the cultural narcissism of the 70’s and 80’s, with LRH’s lines being cut and mainstream culture being fed the Me-Me-Me line by super-marketers, the public just wanted to improve themselves and do very little else for others. This is a cultural effect, in my opinion – similar to the way War Shock has degraded a strong family culture in Europe during the 50’s and 60’s, Greed Shock has perpetuated through society in the US.

          So that is why I say, shame on any OT who has yet to deliver a single action with a PC! That is a real long-standing out-ethics situation, imho!

          Anyway, I came here to Itsa, and I have. So now lets make some postulates instead: Oh, what it would be like to have us all in an Org somewhere, eh? I’m sure that the folks in this community, alone, would have a fine, roaring time of it. Maybe we ought to get that ball rolling, some how, some way .. I yearn to be part of a real Org again, and I don’t mean an “ideal” one, but rather: a PRODUCTIVE one.

          Side note: I visited a few local Orgs in my neighborhood (Europe) last week, during some business trips. I actually did a Sea Org inspection – straight to the OIC, who is on post, where are the products, etc. Do you know what I found? Not a single Org in my area is actually delivering Training – they are *ALL* instead focused on getting the funds for their “next new building where the Org will be ‘ideal'”. Oh, does this rankle my ire, the depths of depravity to which we have sunk .. what on Helotrobus is wrong with these people?

          We must fix it.

          • Gern, thank you for saying this. It is totally undesireable to see Scientologists, in or out of the RTC/IAS etc crap, who are not NOW working towards learning, and doing auditing. They are all too liable to become part of the problem and are often the more judgemental. I can think of NO good reason not to be doing some form of real training. LRH was and will remain, correct in saying that at least half of the gain is learning to audit. I have heard justifiers, motivators why one does not study the subject, none hold water. If it is fear of failure as an auditor, then they just need to learn by doing that yes they make some mistakes on the way…so get crammed, and get ones ass back in the auditing chair and just do it. Fear of making a mistake is not good enough. The experience will be worth it. And if you have not audited in a long time, ask someone to help you retread or retrain. I have never been afraid or ashamed to do so of my own free will. You work towards being flawless by drilling (please no Read It Drill it crap)P and not by doing it at a wall etc. Get a live terminal.
            Thanks again for this Gern, and thanks to Marty for starting this up, and for Steve (thoughful) being brave enough to make his points also (loved that true story about the lady drowning he audited..and I KNOW of others from other people that were similar. Auditing does work and though DM says NO OTS, David Miscavaige is just the sort of thing you find on the road left behind an Amish horse and buggy!)
            Frank Davis.

      • I can’t disagree with you Gern that there are equal or worse examples of this type of culture and behavior in American corporations; however, having lead several successful culture changes I can tell you it is by no means the norm…nor do I believe it is as prominent as you suggest.

        In the corporate world this behavior will more likely result from a lack of understanding in the dynamics of leadership than it will from an intention to corupt and control. Lacking this understanding managers resort to driving individual performance which create departmental silos…everybody doing what they need to do to get their own product rather than creating processes that allow for a smooth interdepartmental flow.

        I know this might be hard to believe, but despite the current culture of COS a competent leader could turn things around in rather short order. Granted I was never at INT, but I was an Org Exec for nearly 5 years and am certian this could happen. Oh, there would definitely be a lot of confusion blowing off, but its really just a matter of setting a proper vision and providing a structure for change, and then allowing those who are on board with it to step up while replacing or limiting the influence of those who are not.

        Those in control of the church and who steadfastly support it within the ranks are few in number. Getting back to the heart of Marty’s message the labeling is going to be most prominent in corupt cultures as a control and/or survival mechanism…survival for those who knowingly or otherwise can’t or don’t know how to take responsibility for change and must look out for themselves even though they are greater in numbers. Combine this with not feeling one can talk to others about the situation for fear of become a target for an “Ethics” handling and the house of cards stands another day.

        • “”I can’t disagree with you Gern that there are equal or worse examples of this type of culture and behavior in American corporations; however, having lead several successful culture changes I can tell you it is by no means the norm…nor do I believe it is as prominent as you suggest.””

          Prominent? Maybe not. A little obnosis, however, is all it takes to see that in American culture today, auto-/techno-cratic dogmatism, fascist-like computations, are all *quite* blatant, and very easily commutable among all classes of society. Turn on the TV, I bet you won’t go 30 seconds without encountering some example of which I speak. Go talk to some random stranger at Walmart; you’ll see it, if you care to look for it.

          And, certainly, throughout corporate culture you can find the very same dramatizations that we encountered at Int – mob/collective bank agreement, despotism, know-best, inval/eval, degradation of others, and so on. Its not normative – or else we wouldn’t even have the society we have today – but it is on the rise, and this is why American society is in such a degraded condition today – the genuflection towards authoritarianism/auto-techno-cratic dogmatism, “charisma”-based management, and so on. America Loves Its Cults – and they’re not all of the religious variety, no sir!

          Personality cults abound, the very same mechanism that keeps DM in place can be found in the fame and fortunes of many celebrities and other notable figures not worthy of the respect granted them. We are dealing with the 3rd-dynamic bank, whether we like it or not – and in the case of the Church, there is not much actual Clearing of that bank going on – in fact, it is a continuation of the GPM from which most of the upper-level Int people are attempting to escape. (Black Panther rules.)

          Without actual enlightenment occurring at management levels, without actual enhancement and real application of Scientology by those who should know better within the Church, without an effort to reveal The Truth about the scene and shun all falsehood in light of real statistics, socially associative entropy will have its way, and in this case – 3rd-dynamic entropy – it is clear that the trend is down-swinging.

          Now, not all things are “bad” in America – that is not my point at all, in fact there is much good to be found as well – but we are trying to correct the scene and must not be theety-weety about this fact: The symptoms we are seeing in the Church are a reflection of the society from which Church management is derived. I have met and worked with such people as Zuckerberg, Ellison, Jobs, Musk and so on – and I can tell you with a certainty that the very same mechanisms which keep DM and his gang of Usurpers in place can be found around those individuals, too. Autocratic, MEST-based, dogma is becoming a cultural norm in American society today; a consequence of having the US being run by people whose major motivation is to profit from Death and Destruction; the military-industrial Cults.

          The Church is merely a great way to see the reflection of what is occurring in American Culture today. If all we ever do is hire Cannibals, we cannot complain when they start eating people ..

          • Gern, let me get this straight. You want me to turn on the TV and call it an observation about American culture? The only thing that’s good for is making an observation about TV. Have you worked in any American corporations? If so what were YOUR observations? What did the person at WalMart say to YOU that lead to your conclusions. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but choosing to support your findings as you have does not serve to break down the stereotypes, rather it manufactures and supports them.

            • Yes, good question: Is Television representative? Well, it is my friend, because Television is in use, every single day, as a means of Cultural communication. It is the #1 means of Cultural communication in use today, even still with the Internet trend going up. The closest analog in the MEST universe to the theta-created Bank of Facsimiles, is Television. The personalities and valences that you see on Television are replicated – quite actually, duplicated – by millions of people all over the country. If you’ve done any Auditor training, you’ll have the ability to spot Valence changes – when people aren’t really themselves, but are instead mirroring some other “winning valence” they found somewhere in the Universe, and like it or not, Television is a means by which these Valences are propagated throughout society.

              Yes, I have worked in many American corporations – some, very very big ones. I am Auditor trained. I can see when a person starts up their Valence machinery, and yes: Valences are contagious. This is a well-acknowledged fact, even outside Scientology – TV studios *depend* on this fact to survive.

              The guy at Walmart I’ve talked to? TV personality. Get the picture?

              • Thank you for responding Gern. In all sincerity I really would like to understand your viewpoint better in order to bridge this gap we have? I do believe you could have something of substantial value here, but this is what I see in your comments that I am having trouble getting past. You have worked with the likes of Zuckerberg, Ellison, Jobs, and Musk. These are people who are aggrandized and sensationalized by Hollywood and the news media on a daily basis. Since when can something that is sensationalized be considered “a cultural norm”?

                I don’t in any regards see this part of your statement as a broad generality. You’ve done a good job limiting the scope to those who wield the upper most power and influence, but it seems to me that your auditor training has allowed you to form what amounts to a hypothesis about nearly all the rest of American society. I’m not saying this hypothesis is wrong as auditor training indeed helps one to “see around the corner” so to speak, but my problem is that you want me to verify what you are alleging as fact by observing what I see on TV or by surfing the internet. These mediums can be valuable in this process, but part of what makes them valuable is having something to compare them against…like a real experience. When I go into work every day I don’t operate in a valence the likes of Donald Trump, nor do I see my co-workers doing this…never have. If this were generally the case could I really be successful in bringing people together at all?

                Here are the nuts and bolts of what I am saying. I see many, but not all, of your comments as judgmental and unsupported by facts or direct observation. Auditing, auditor, or organizational training aside, what viewpoint do you want me to operate from in order to effect change? Am I to be judgmental about the society in which I live and work thereby absolving myself of responsibility for it, or am I to assume the viewpoint that I am capable of seeing it for what it really is and that I can make a real and verifiable difference?

                • Simply spot the out-valences when you see them. You really can see it on TV, you really can observe out-valence personalities stuck to people out in the stores and on the streets. These valences are factually being created by those who control the cultural norms – overtly so.

                  Spot it, and it will blow. I’m not asking for agreement – my observations are what they are – but if you look closely I believe you will see a set of cultural valences which are common and can be identified – by simply looking for them and spotting them. I won’t say more about the “American situation” other than that I think America was, once, a great country – but it is allowing itself to slide into a form of fascism that will be very, very difficult to recover without violent revolution, and even then there is no guarantee for a return of Freedom, Prosperity and Peace. The American people have truly lost control of their government, and of the war machine which props up the fragile economy upon which all in America – and many other countries – depend.

                  The Military-Industrial complex rules so much of American thought these days, that it is inevitable that it will soon implode.

                  “When I go into work every day I don’t operate in a valence the likes of Donald Trump, nor do I see my co-workers doing this…never have.”

                  I did not in any way intend to indicate, to any of the Americans reading this, that this is the case. We here, formulating a consensual consciousness, may well not be able to easily participate in the observation of these mechanics without some degree of effort.

                  But I will tell you that the stuff that DM and his Usurper gang is dramatizing can be found in us all, deep down, or even closer to the surface, and what matters is that those establishing the cultural norms for American society are actively restimulating the source of this trouble.

                  Actively, overtly, and with the intent to propagate. A spiritual war is being fought and we are its treasure for the lootin’ ..

                  • Okay…thanks for your comm on this. I think we’ve approached a place now where you’ve provided me personally with the means to apply what you are saying. The restimulation piece is easiest for me to spot and has connected a few more dots. Boy…the comments in this thread sure are an illustration of the urgency with which we must act.

            • I also challenge Gern. A lot of what he says makes sense. I especially like his take on the need to get trained, to audit and help others, as well as his other analyses of Scientology as an organization.

              However when it comes to his viewpoint of America – while we (Americans) clearly have our “issues” – can he name another great power today that more closely approximates his ideal scene for a culture or a nation?

              And please don’t give me places like Sweden, Switzerland etc which, like so many other countries across this planet, would be “living” (if you can call it that) under an entirely different set of conditions had it not been for the fact that THIS country – the US – stepped up to oppose, fight, and defeat the TRUE evils that were Nazism and Communism.

              • Publius, I too think Gern is off base in saying that TV is a reflection or is representative of American corporate culture…it’s not even close. Nor can I agree with him that the tyrannical leadership we see in the COS is becoming the cultural norm in America. Honestly, I think he needs to be very careful in presenting the arguments he’s made because they do support a stereotype about Americans that isn’t generally true. Although I have not traveled much outside of the United States, in my recent studies specifically about American Corporate culture I have mingled and became close friends with people from all over the world. Most are shocked (especially those of Arab decent) to find that Americans are not at all like they have been led to believe though their native social networks or in how the US is portrayed in the world news.

                The point of Reality he and I have is that those in power are seeking to make this the cultural norm. Television and especially the news media is a way to propagate this and they restimulate this autocratic winning valence in society. He is also correct is saying that we must get trained as auditors and use Scientology and other workable technology in order to effect change. I find the most useful part in what he is saying about those who seek to push this type of culture to be a very real illustration about the urgency with which we must move forward in our efforts.

                • I didn’t say Television was a reflection of American corporate culture – but it is a reflection of American culture. Bit of a difference there.

                  And yes, my point was that you can find these sorts of abuses in other organizations outside the Church – its not a Scientology-only problem, and really: Auditing will resolve the dramatization, wherever you find it.

                  Anyway, I take what you say to heart and will consider the means by which I discuss this in the future, a little more delicately. You are right that its very easy to generalize .. I do indeed know many American counter-examples to my argument.

                  • Gern, that’s my word…not yours. It was a summation on my part from what I pulled from our conversation. I’m sorry if that assumption was incorrect, but I’m still not sure I know what you mean. TV is a reflection about what is best and worse (more about what is worse) and that includes all the valences, corporate or otherwise. A whole bunch in between does not get represented well in my opinion and that’s the lot of it. The sensationalized stuff certainly does. Frankly I’m not sure it’s much different anyplace else.
                    In order to effect change I don’t think we can grind on the worst parts of our cultures and have it be real to the majority. This is simply because that’s just not what they see every day and there is resentment for being lumped into that stereotype. They also might not know what to do about it. In this case you may perhaps see a person withdraw from communicating. If this were to happen could they appear as being naïve or arrogant to you…another US stereotype? I think so.
                    As far as being more delicate…don’t you dare. We’re not a bunch of wussies. I just think you need to be cognizant of the above and understand there are more dynamics at play that need be considered if you truly wish to inspire change in others. A wrong indication on an individual level won’t do this. This is why stereotypes are so dangerous in my opinion.
                    I don’t share all of your viewpoints on this, but that is not my purpose for being here. Understanding the viewpoints of others is. The universal solvent cannot work unless this is so…agreed?
                    I’ve enjoyed our exchange immensely. I too will try to be more observant and learn. The last thing I would want to do is not confront what is really happening, and as I surely do not have all the answers I will be on the lookout for that of which you speak.
                    Happy New Year

              • America did NOT defeat the Nazi’s – the Soviets did. America certainly had the time and luxury to do a lot about the War in Europe, but there is no way an honest historian can say that “America defeated the Nazi’s”. If it weren’t for the Soviet Army, the US wouldn’t have stood a chance against the German military might of the time. And then Communism imploded on its own, which was inevitable given its own 3rd and 4th-dynamic overts.

                Which, incidentally, is going to happen to America too, for precisely the same reasons. The “fiscal cliff” is a direct result of oppressive American “intervention/WAR” policies, and frankly the American people deserve what they get.

                • By battle Wikipedia lists 425,000 US casualties against German forces. I’m sorry you feel it was all the Soviets and that the US did not deliver at least one effective blow. The fact is no one nation could have accomplished it alone. No honest historian would say the “Soviets defeated the Nazi’s” either.

                  • Soviet historians certainly did. Finnish historians, too. In fact, many in Europe do not believe the propaganda that America was the one who finished WW2 .. it was simply the loudest to proclaim having done so.

                    • Gee, and we were doing so well. Just want to do a check here…you do know what a broad generality is, right?

                      Listen Gern…I don’t mind trying to assume your viewpoint in an effort to learn something and to understand better what others think about the US, but give me something to go on here. “Historians”? Really? I’m done with this moving target business. It’s been fun.

                    • Soviet “historians”? That’s to laugh!

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        I have worked in numerous large US corporations, in the US and overseas. In all kinds of different positions and different industries. While it is true that US Americans tend to be know best while they are in reality more or less naive specifically about anything out side of the county they live in. I would say mainstream corporate America or American society is far different from the culture of the COS. I do not know what experience you had, but I have not seen what you describe at all. While many of the outpoints of the COS can be seen here and there in American culture, the difference is that the COS has specialized in these outpoints and has intensified them into the grotesque.
        The biggest difference besides that is while you still can find plain common sense in American corporation or American culture, it is completely absent in COS management.
        I am a bit offended by some of the other comments here where people claim ownership of the independent Scientology movement. Independent Scientology is not a bunch of websites.
        It started well before 1980. It started when individuals had access to enough information that they could see the COS is not following the goals of helping individuals and mankind. Some started their own auditing practice, some stopped supporting the COS. What makes a difference now is the sheer number of people that came to the same conclusion and are now starting to work together.
        I know auditors that have humbly delivered thousands of auditing hours and helped others outside of the church. I personally value that higher than hundreds of hours on websites. While websites can distribute information, they are also not responsible for the growth of the number of independents. The responsibility for that lies with the insanity of management in the COS. But nobody should be so ignorant to claim the individual decision of a person has his/her doing. We all have enough first hand observation that we can make that decision for ourselves. Web sites help to spread information, but becoming independent is a very personal decision.
        Marty makes a point and the point is nicely taken. To change the world you have to start with yourself. When leaving the church independent Scientologists have to overcome the learned culture they were living in for years. We need to inspect the arrogance, the judgmental attitudes and many other bad behaviors we were so used too.
        After you take a person out of the COS, you still have to take the COS out of that person.

        • Hello Gern,
          I agree with you at almost all points but this:
          ” Web sites help to spread information, but becoming independent is a very personal decision.”
          Yes, but you shouldn’t forget that it is not possible to collect this amount of data inside the church. Those Websites are the integral part of the iScientology movement. I see it. I feel it. I know it.
          All the different viewpoints coming together, comments, acknowledgements, free communication.
          This is very important for Scientologists. Without the data people inside the church can’t make their mind up to complete their doubt formulas.
          They’re hung by Doubt because of a lag of data and the presence of suppression at the top.
          Therefore it is my strong believe that without Sites like FriendsOfLRH, Scientology-Cult.com, Marty’s Blog and a lot of other sites, there wouldn’t be enough information in circulation in order to help people to get the information, regain their courage and to disconnect from the Corporate Organisation.
          Don’t forget: It’s all about communication.
          Furthermore those Sites make for a good 3rd Dynamic Engram Running.

          And I don’t agree, every single Scientologist should be an auditor on a professional level. There are many ways to help and to contribute to the objectives of Scientology. Many, many, many.

          I like your writing skills btw. :-)

          • Gerhard Waterkamp

            SKM, you are correct websites are important as they facilitate communication. BTW my favorite besides Marty’s blog is FriendsofLRH. Just facts, true data, verifiable sources, just the most wonderful collection of data for anybody to work on once doubt formula. I have a lot of appreciation for the makers of that site, and my post has not made that very clear.. And let’s not forget the Tampa Bay Times, who did an incredible job with the Truth Rundown. Thanks for pointing this out.
            I just wanted to say, “Independent Scientology” is not owned by somebody who creates a website, but is owned by the collection of individuals that have decided to put the show on the road. And I just have a lot of appreciation for the many who silently and humbly are auditing since many years. They are actually putting the show on the road, and that is what it should be about looking forward.
            There are also many ways to complain about the COS, with good and full right, and this definitely has his time and place. But then there are ways to get the show on the road in a positive manner and learn from the errors of the COS.
            I think Marty’s blog moved on to work on a foundation and asking the questions one should ask and raising the issues that should be understood when we move on to create a reformed and better application of Scientology.
            While not everybody needs to be a professional auditor, the understanding of these questions and issues is important in everything one does in the movement. So we can move on from the culture, patterns and habits most of us have lived with so long in the COS.
            I know my writing skills are lacking, English is still my second language and I am sure the broken grammar is noticeable. There is hope though, my wonderful wife in her role as former middle school Supervisor is cramming me daily on the subject. :-)

          • SKM – I think you’re talking to Gerhard. I like his writing skills too!

          • I can tell by your words that you are one of the good hats. Not someone with an ax to grind or blindly follows. that said, websites have SOME influence on getting people out of the church. But most only find them AFTER they have already left, and that is where I see them of most value.
            As for your thinking not everyone needs to be a pro auditor. I still hold to what LRH tried to get thru to all….it is the only way you will ever really make it out. To be pro quality does not mean you have to drop everything else you are doing and do only that. The Matlocks in Indy still work yet are holding as often as they can a training center to help people get thru courses or drill or get word cleared, Chris black still works a fulltime job and seems to also do a very good job of auditing others. My wife and I still work and yet manage to audit, me for the last 43 years and her for 40. It makes us happy and more able to be able to do so.
            When we left the COS/RTC the Internet did not exist. Having been a Scientologist since 1969 and seen the culture of suppressions, as well as all the great stuff from being on staff and being public at several orgs orgs it only took a few short years of seeing the emergence of DM in 1982 (when he became obvious to us) till a few weeks after the passing of LRH to know it was time to go.In 1970 when I was at Toronto in Dissem we worked on trying to get back in the huge number of staff and public who had left during the Quickie Grade Era (they left because they would not go along with the squirreliness that had overtaken the COS then). Many had left and were Independent way back then and still auditing. 3 years later when I was in St Louis there was an LRH project (our orders told us this is what it was..the comm was not direct from him) to get back and handle people in that area who had both left and who were still nominally onlines who had gone “up the Bridge” on quickies and get them completed on what we could and then uplines for the rest. Some of these people had been out for years and still auditing and studying. Free Scientologists iare NOT NEW (many left in the 1950s and some are still active). It is just easier to connect up with them now and for people to more easily work together, when there is no 3rd partying others or squabbling. That crap has to stop. Connect up with others in real life, not just online. A virtual Universe can only do so much.
            Gern is right, you will have to be an auditor to make it fully up the Bridge. No ones excuse will ever convince me otherwise. Make sure your auditing is COMPLETE and truly free of errors and get trained. Your reality will change for the better. then OUT PRODUCE the SOBS trying to destroy Scientology both from within the church as well as those outside of it.
            And Marty and Mike Rinder, who when they first came out and started becoming known online were for several years people who I intensely distrusted. I judged them without knowing them as they are in Present time. My error in judgement. I labeled them. My error. This does not mean I will always agree with them, but it means i will look and decide in Present Time. When we err we need to own up to it, otherwise we can only go down. Nothing in this universe stays the same.
            Frank Davis

            • Hello,
              thank you for your viewpoint and your honesty.

              It’s my faith that only auditors can fully make it. And I have a lot of admiration and appreciation for Auditors who are using the tech to free others.

              Some people, though, want to contribute in a different way and I think that’s their good right and there is work to do in different fields. They’re still Scientologists as they forward the word and help the way they see fit.

              • You are right, It is the choice of each of us. In the RTC AND BEFORE them, those who were pushed to become an auditor did not always turn out to be great at it, for each persons reasons.
                Cheers,
                Frank Davis

        • Gerhard: “The biggest difference besides that is while you still can find plain common sense in American corporation or American culture, it is completely absent in COS management.”

          Bingo!

      • Roger From Switzerland Thought

        Yeah that’s so true and makes sense.
        The Usa as a 3rd dyn behaves like France was behaving for several centuries thinking they are the best in everything and know best about everything and what happened to ” La grande Nation “. France is struggling and very quiet !

        When I look at the arrogance of the USA about Firearms I just can’t believe it ! 30 000 people killed per year with firearms !
        No country on this world has such numbers neither ratio !

        • You need to get your facts straight.

          Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 suicide deaths, and 12,632 (40.5%) homicide deaths. http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

          There are at least 28 countries in the world that have a higher firearm homicide death ratio than the United States. There are no statistics available for at least 40 countries, including Russia, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Scotland, just to name four countries for which there is no data. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

          Gun ownership has no correspondence to the ratio of firearm homicides. Honduras has the highest ratio in the world at 68.3 per 100,000 and 6.2 firearms owned per 100,000. Compare this to the U.S. 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 with 88.8 firearms owned per 100,000.

          The rates are tremendously varied within the United States by geographic location and socio-economic breakdowns. For example, gun and overall homicides in Washington, D.C. are concentrated in crime hot spots located in neighborhoods (including Shaw, Sursum Corda, Trinidad, Anacostia, and Congress Heights) with socio-economic disadvantage, while homicide is rare in other neighborhoods.

          A recent Canadian study has isolated two factors: Drugs and gangs.

          http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/gun-vlnce-eng.aspx#s4

          This aligns with the list of the 28 countries that exceed the ratios of the United States. They are all countries that have heavy drug and gang activity.

          It is also notable that these studies ignore the very real impact of tyrannical or dictatorial government democide (death by government) in countries with low civilian gun ownership, as these are not classed as murder as they should be.

          • What a great summary Maria!

            I’m emailing this to all my liberal friends whose only solution to criminal/psycho violence is to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding ethical citizens.

            • Publius:

              It also helps to reframe these ratios in terms of percentage. The U.S. percentage of deaths by gun homicide, including suicide is .00297% and gun ownership is .0888%. Even the gun ownership ratio is LESS than 1% of the population. Actual gun homicide (not including suicide) is .00148%. Death from all categories is .7938%, which means that 99.81% of all deaths are NOT gun related homicides.

              Gun homicides are so incredibly low in number that they don’t even make it onto this chart from the CDC as a cause of death: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

              Reframing the statistics so they don’t use any large numbers has an enormous effect on perception of their value.

              Less than 1% of the U.S. population dies every year. Almost 50% of those deaths are in the age group of 65 or older, with 2/3rds of that 50% over 85 years old or older. But no one dies of old age any more, consequently the leading cause of death is heart disease. If there is no other cause of death, then it defaults to heart failure of one kind or another!

              http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=587

              Note: In the U.S. the death rate is .7938%, the birth rate is 1.3%.

              Fun with lies, lies, and more damned statistics!

      • We Americans are aware of this 3rd dynamic ser fac and are trying very hard to counter it. To this end we have designated National Brotherhood Week to put aside our differences and embrace those whom we consider to be the Other. There are people in the world who cannot find it in their hearts to love one another, and I HATE people like that. ;-)
        Nancy

    • Christine, in my humble opinion, you have hit on the MOST important factor in this discussion, that of Scientology culture. I joined staff in 1970 and the judgement of group mores was directed at me almost immediately (and I could give many specifics on this if called to). Most of these judgements at this time were evaluations on how I needed to live my 3rd dynamic life in relation to other aspects of life. And they pretty much all centered around “the mission” from the beginning of Keeping Scientology Working. Almost immediately I bought into the idea that these others were more righteous/more aware in their mission/their life than I was (no matter how nuts some of them were) and that I had better have a good reason for not doing what they wanted me to. I was only 19 when I joined staff by the way, the youngest person on staff at that time. So right from the beginning of my Scientology life, there was the tension between those who claimed they represented LRH’s ideals and had power in the organization and those that these persons wanted to control for any reason. After all, the future of every man, woman and child on the planet depended on these “aware” individuals and the rest of us bought into their superiority completely.

      • That is a good comment Joe. The Sea Org was a few with a superiority complex leading a bunch of people with an inferiority complex. It is up to each one of us to change that culture. I can’t say there is anything wrong with persuading people to take more responsibility. The environment is dangerous — someone needs to step up. But one has to exercise judgement in the way one steps up and not just blindly follow suppressive orders. Tommy Davis told me about 100 times in one day that I was suppressive and needed to do the A to E steps. Actually, he was right. My amends project was to expose all the malignant corruption, violence and abuse in the Church and the man behind it — Tommy’s own boss. And I also exposed Tommy for being a DM enabler and coward. (Pretty ballsy, even for a Texan). In the end, I did step up. But not the way DM wanted.

        • I really believe in the Sea Org member Hat. Its a very, very valuable hat, and I’ve been studying all the old FO’s and LRH lectures in the Sea Org hat pack, again, for a bit more certainty on the subject. LRH created the Sea Org Hat for a very, very good reason – it is necessary to have a trusted group delivering the OT levels.

          But what I have concluded lately is that there aren’t, really, very many Sea Org members left any more. The hat has been replaced by Fascist Cleared Cannibals (or in some cases, not Cleared at all, actually).

          But the Materials are still there, LRH is still there, his intentions are still quite clear.

          We ought to revive the Sea Org hat, properly, in the Independent movement, and get it right. Its a *HAT*, not a post. Any single Independent should be called to wear that hat, on occasion, as necessary.

          Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we Independents actually had a Ship at Sea, again? And if we actually had Sea Org members – real sailors, actually men and women Of The Sea – who were manning that Ship as a place to provide a safe environment for the delivery of Scientology? This, to me, would be a watershed moment, indeed.

          In many ways, we Independents are delivering on the purpose of this hat, which is to be three-feet-back of societys’ head so that we can effectively deliver the Tech. We’re now all trying hard to be three-feet-back of the corrupt 3rd dynamic we all consider the Church to be, after all.

          So I would say, please may we try to recognize that the Sea Org Hat is a *HAT*, first and foremost, and the purpose of that hat is to provide a safe place for the delivery of Scientology. I believe Mr. Rathbun is still a Sea Org member, in that he wears that damn hat mighty fine, and I think there is a lot to be said about those of us who are also willing to Wear That Hat, yet haven’t been able to, because the fact of its being a Hat, and not a Valence/Personality/Problem, hasn’t quite been well acknowledged in our scene…

          In short, I wouldn’t want anyone in the Independent scene to dramatize the Church Valence associated, these days, with SO members, but I sure would want the Independent scene to acknowledge that, on occasion, that hat has to be worn. We’ll either re-discover this in the future, or deal with it now and plan accordingly. I wouldn’t want any more Fac-One dramatizers degrading that Hat, personally.

          • Another terrific post. As an aside, the topic of the SO’s billion year contract has been the frequent object of derision along with the burning question as to why anyone would ever sign such a stupid document here’s the explanation:

            The billion-year contract is not about enslavement to a corporation, it is about the recognition of a higher purpose — rising to the duty and joy of helping others (regardless of monetary reward) and the willingness to be part of a bigger game. It is about one’s acceptance and selfless dedication to Help. It is about coming alive and taking responsibility on the upper dynamics. Once a person wakes up to this greater role, there is no going back because duty motivation is all about personal growth.

            Perhaps in the Independent field, some real Sea Org members are continuing their original tradition by working together while remaining autonomous. They can never be subverted because each one works independently and I think that is the natural character of the hat. It is cloud based, not fixed in space. However with tools such as the org board, and hats, they do end up working together without a formal organization.

            A Sea Org member is loyal TO THE PEOPLE not to any particular third dynamic. So if any particular organization goes off the rails, the duty of a real Sea Org member would be to blow the whistle and speak out. LRH spoke of the “Loyal Officers” of old and said they were loyal to the people. Once started on that higher road, dedicating oneself to helping others, that is not a road one can ever abandon. So in that context an eternal pledge or “billion year” contract makes sense. The contract is with yourself, a pledge to be always on guard and help others.

            • Great post, Steve.
              That’s how I see it, too.

            • Agreed Steve, That higher purpose still holds true. Our purposes are still oriented to the higher goal of getting ethics in on the planet and doing the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Such a pity that ‘Corporate Scientology’ (label) has become ineffectutal in achieving that aim and is still interested in bankrupting the true application of the tech for impractical monololithic empty buildings. That has become a distraction to the main goal. No matter what has happened or will happen, I still feel the same impetus I felt when I signed that altruistic contract. Just the alignment is different!

      • Interesting what I am getting out of this thread.
        That more or less the bulk of Earth dramatize using labels destructively both in and out of Scientology.
        Some have risen a bit higher. A few, a lot higher.

        The tech was supposed to and does rise people to greater hights and this needs to be done in volume for this assylum to have a chance.

        The SP needs to be gotten out of the way to allow the above to take place.

        Labelling can be an effective tool in some cases, but can also be used destructively by ill intentioned individuals.

      • > Almost immediately I bought into the idea that these others were more righteous/more aware in their mission/their life than I was (no matter how nuts some of them were) and that I had better have a good reason for not doing what they wanted me to.

        And why wasn’t your solution, to get Trained as an Auditor and absolve yourself of this lie? Not trying to push your button – I’m seriously interested in what you may have as an answer to this question.

        I, too, was early in awe at all the wonderful people on the lines .. until I started my Auditor training (I’m Class IV Auditor trained, or at least .. was .. before my certs were cancelled) and realized that these shiny OT’s who’d never gotten a PC through a single straightwire session were creating *such* Dev-T ..

        • Gern,
          the guy who wrote the post you are referring to is an auditor and a c/s. If he reads your post, he can respond, but I have an answer based on my own experience. My own kids joined staff at a young age. When you are 15 or 16, even if you are training, if the people over you are adults with years on staff, OT, and trained, you can grant them respect and beingness because they know more and because they are adults. Kids look toward adults as opinion leaders. Eventually the viewpoint can change, but it is hard for young kids to go up against group agreement when the group is older. Obviously, it is hard for many adults to go against group agreement as well.

  28. This is why as a church member you become isolated from the world. It’s the wogs and SP’s and PTS middle class, and you end up in a little bubble with the small group of people you know who are church members.
    I’m superior because I found “the way out” and everyone else falls into some category (SP,PTS,WOG etc). So I don’t have to listen to you or really observe all the details. I just need to “enlighten” you by getting you to go to my org and into the meat grinder.
    Maybe it’s changed now that my org (Phx) is “Ideal”, but a few years ago when I was there it had been the scene for many years that there was virtually no FSM activity, no new people coming in, empty Div 6, same group of people on “Basics” courses and a dead org and no interest in getting new people in.

    The org actually moved into it’s ideal premises from an ideal area 5 minutes walk from Arizona State University, the central bus station, the major leauge hockey, basketball and baseball staduims, and where twice a month the streets around the org were closed off and completely flooded with college age people and artists. The Org parking lot was flooded with people. We set up the big VM tent many times with video and displays and the OT committee doing stress tests, yet no new people were starting in Div 6. I’m not sure how a new building is going to fix that, but it’s possible I guess.

    • Hey Chris,
      I’m glad that you brought up “PTS to the middle class”. I have been wanting to rant about that one for awhile. While in the cult, being told that you were “PTS to the middle class” was used to introvert you if you were saving money or wanted to “retire” as if those were bad things. Or “if you were putting your comfort before your freedom”. I would like to say now that a lot of Sea Org members used this line to garner donations and introvert people who were doing nothing wrong. They were just trying to use good sense and create a nice future for themselves.

      • Tony, I remember that “PTS to the Middle Class” issue came out while I was still in the SO. And it rubbed me the wrong way even back then.

        • Oh, but it is a real phenomenon, you guys. You don’t have to walk far to find some PC who cares only about what the middle class can deliver – a “Lifestyle” worthy of them, “Stuff” to be endlessly upgraded and maintained, my “white-picket-fence-is-shinier-than-my-neighbors”, ‘ooh .. the latest Catalog has arrived’, and so on.

          Its a real situation, honestly, and I would really call for you to go look and see for yourself – many, many folks are quite happy being stuck in the middle-class bands of society, because they really are PTS to all the computations and mechanics of the middle class. They just want comfort and ease, little else, no effort, shiny things to entertain them. Its a real situation.

          Which is a deteriorating class, anyway – in some countries, the Middle Class have, indeed, degraded themselves into oblivion. Could be that there won’t be a Middle Class in America, for example, for much longer .. and I would call that a potential trouble source, indeed.

          Does the word “Made In China” push any buttons? Then you might be PTS to the Middle Class.

          • I agree with you Gern.
            I am just talking about how the toxic cult turned something that could be sensible into a tool to raid your wallet and run a game on you.
            There is nothing wrong with having things and being comfortable. I see no need for Scientology to be charging the prices they do and wipe people out financially and then make you wrong by calling you “middle class pts” if you don’t go along with their bullshit.

            • Absolutely agree with you. LRH even agrees with us, remember? “Drive a fast car..” and so on.

              The Church has definitely bent this good LRH policy into disaster.

      • I get LRH’s original concept and it makes sense to me. I think thats just one more bit of LRH that IAS reges misuse. They mean, ofcourse that you need to donate more money, even if you are being completely irresponsible and could be putting your self, family or business in serious danger. Why is having money in the bank “PTS”?

      • Ha Ha Ha…yes! PTS to the middle class = Wanting to have Something. Wanting to enjoy or use some of your own hard earned money. Bastards.

          • Yes, and a real irony is that, from what I have read, DM has all the toys and mest one could want. Also, I have seen a change in the class 5 org staff of today…they are not denying mest like in my day (not to praise that either), but they are more into it…3D TV, Ipods, I pads, ‘upstat clothes, etc. I would say that this is a good (mest) havingness, but at the same time, I think it is an indicator of the electronic age AND DM’S push toward making the church into mest. It is just a feeling. Everything is on video now, so instead of the staffers following an old Flag Order about watching tv (the one about lowered production) they are revealing in it. And of course, there is the whole fascination with Hollywood and the movies…So the church is creating a virtual reality and making money to give to the IAS and having ‘stuff’ makes one important. The spiritual reality of today’s staff is very low from what I have gathered.

        • “Church of Scientology Culture” is the new “Middle-Class” for real Scientologists still in. They’re PTS to the Culture of Hidden (False) Standard. They’re effect to it and can’t do nothing about it.

      • Yes Tony, SO and IAS members used the “PTS to the middle class” false label to coerce people into giving over their life savings, go into virtually insurmountable debt, etc – in fact making these people really PTS to them.

    • Chris Mann, are you joking? “I’m not sure how a new building is going to fix that, but it’s possible I guess.
      if you were joking, that’s a good one, a LOL
      It’s NOT and I’M SURE!

    • Chris,
      It may change the scene if they get the correct label on the building ………..such as a topless nightclub or a casino! Oops, I forgot, it already is a casino…….cleverly disguised as a church.

  29. Recently I’ve come to some sort of answer for myself.

    Rather than trying to become perfect, I’m just trying to be a decent human being.

    That would cover it for me.

    Christine

    • I remember LRH wrote Dianetics (and Scientology for that purpose) was an evolution. Now we’ve evolved to labelling revolution. Yes, Christine, decency is definitely the answer to that kind of ridiculous insanity, decency accompanies wisdom and should be combined with admiration. Although I don’t succeed all the time to admire the wrongnesses (which is supposed to be the ultimate handling :)) at least I try to make fun of it as the first aid. One of my favorite labels made by the RCS are “He went to the dark side” and there are plenty of others that make you smile just thinking about them. A list to confront might be therapeutic but there are no recommendations to stay too long with it, too :). Let’s take it lightly.

      • Another classic label is “he’s disaffected” which usually precedes ‘going to the dark side’.

        The ‘disaffected’ label is usually the alert to activate the OSA bots into action to stave off the parishioner from going over the CO$ cliff into oblivion.

        Going over that cliff has been one damn good and exhilarating experience!

        • I’ve gone to the dark side and it’s pretty cool. I can go back and forth to the dark and light with no liability… :-)

        • Yes, “disaffected”, it took many failed attempts to find it in the Tech and Admin Dictionaries and also in other references. Still searching… perhaps a confidential issue… :D

          • SU
            I saw it in a dark blue print on blue paper, some sort of Executive Directive but try any half way decent dictionary and there are some pretty decent definitions for ‘disaffected’.
            Greta

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Great Christine! Just remember to toss in a couple of sprigs
      of humour, add a couple of cubes of laughter, to go with
      your winning smile, and I’m sure you’ll have it all made!!
      ML intended,
      Calvin.

  30. The word “judgemental” denotes a negative attitude towards someone or some behavior. This is not the same as “judgement” which any sane individual has to employ in order to survive better on all his dynamics. The question becomes where does one draw the line in judging and labeling. For example, I have no problem with labeling someone a “squirrel” who uses “Scientology” to destroy the sanity of others.
    In my view, this is a correct labeling and making it known broadly might possibly save some lives. If one can’t judge in that manner it becomes a total A=A=A universe.
    Of course, there are those who label others as squirrels for destructive purposes. Judgement enters in here as well.
    And, by the way, I had always considered the term “WOG” as a term of endearment used to describe people who were not yet Scientologists. The “W” stands for “Worthy” not exactly a derogatory word. I know others see it differently and/or use it in a demeaning manner.

  31. There is a vast difference between an observation of the characteristics of a person and being judgemental.

    A judgement based on a dispassionate observation can be helpful to a person interested in learning and improving themselves.

    It is my opinion that closed thought systems whether it is politics, religion etc. can lead to being judgemental and the demonization of the “other.”

    I call it tribal thinking: we in America have equality and civil rights to support civil society but we still have vestigial forms of “tribal prejudice against the other ” in our mindset. Politics, race, gender, religion, class are the mind filters of popular judgementalism.

    It took me some years to unlearn some of the perspectives and thought stopping tendencies I learned while a Scientologist.

    When opinion leaders of politics, religion etc teach the demeaning of the humanity of those outside their group, us and them is an inevitability when those followers grant those opinion leaders infallible status.

    Or worse yet, if you are punished and humiliated by the group for having a critical opinion of the leader or the group.

    That form of mind control guarantees the death of critical thinking and when successful – an obedient slave and a judgemental person toward those outside the group.

    Because punishment and humiliation awaits the heretically disobedient. And the demonstatable judging of others, outside the group, is proof to those in the group that he/she is on board with the program.

    • This same process took place in me when I’ve gone from Democrat to Republican to Independent.

      Each time I identified myself with those thought clubs I had negative attitudes towards those outside my group.

      And when I listened to a talking head who was very biased I became biased also.

      I am now working at seeing the truth in all, granting of beingness to all. Especially to those who think I’m wrong.

      “the highest and most poweful practice of tolerance is toward the intolerant”
      Brian

      • Interesting.
        I actually don’t like calling myself a Scientologist. It’s not that I don’t like a lot of Scientology, I do. I love the auditing tech for the most part and lots of other LRH writings. But to say I am a Scientologist sort of pigeon holes me. I like a lot of other stuff too. I like some Buddhist writings. Should I call myself a Buddhist? I like some stuff Aristotle wrote, should I call myself an Aristotlist? In this sense I really don’t like labels.

        Essentially, I’m me.

        I am always working on becoming a better me.

        • When you’re using Scientology to improve conditions in life, you’re a Scientologist, since that is the purpose of Scientology.

          Same like, when you go bashing stones to find their contents, you’re a Geologist. If you’re cooking hamburgers on a grill, thats not much Geology, though, right?

          I like to use the word Scientologist as a Hat, not a label. I’m wearing that hat, doing the things associated with that hat.

          • It’s an interesting subject.
            I don’t fully agree with your point Gern. If I am replacing a board in my fence I don’t consider mysef a carpenter. If I am cooking, I don’t consider myself a chef. A person who mostly believes in Christiantiy calls themselves a Christian.
            I am a consumer of auditing and I like a lot of LRH’s writings and can apply some of them to others. But I don’t fully subscribe to the idea that it is the only route out. It is surley a methodology that can bring one up. I would gladly tell someone that I have used the philosophy of Scientology and have had HUGE wins from doing so. I don’t like saying that I am a Scientologist because people can construe that to mean all sorts of odd things. When and if the group called Scientology ever gets it’s shit together and demonstrates some of the more noble qualities that I think it aspires to then I may reconsider.

            • Well, if you don’t consider yourself a Carpenter when you are doing Carpenting, what are you .. a Scuba Diver? When you’re Cooking, you’re not a Cook .. you’re a .. Cricket player?

              Certainly the ability to wear a hat and do the activities of that hat, and *be* that hat, and end up with the results of that hat – this is something you are capable of doing, right? So, why not use the word associated with that activity properly?

              Ah, I know:

              “When and if the group called Scientology ever gets it’s shit together and demonstrates some of the more noble qualities that I think it aspires to then I may reconsider.”

              .. because there is a 3rd-dynamic effect on your 1st-dynamic, which you are trying to prevent from being a contra-survival action.

              Got it.

              :)

              • Hi Gern.
                When I am repairing the fence I’m me not a carpenter.

                If someone asked me what I do for a living then I answer with my profession. Why is it so important that I call myself something?

                I do consider my self something of a philosopher because that title does seem to encompass a lot of who I am.

                As far as Scientology goes, I am a consumer mostly and have enjoyed a lot of what I have consumed. But when I was served at Flag, I sent it back as an overt product. I would never step foot in that restaraunt again. :-)

                • Its not ‘important’ that you call yourself something. What offends you so much about calling a hat that you’re wearing by the name of that hat? Okay, maybe carpentry is not what you’re doing when you’re mending the fence – how about “Woodworker”, since you’re doing Woodwork? “Fence-Mender”, then.

                  If someone says “well, I’m going to use ARC Straightwire to fix this situation”, and if they then actually use ARC Straightwire to fix that situation, they are a Scientologist – because ARC Straightwire and its techniques for application are Scientology concepts. Its just that ol’ grammar thing: Verb -> Noun. “He talks, therefore he is a talker.” “She paints, therefore – while she is doing it – she is a painter”.

                  Its not some status thing, or some social order ‘label’ – but simply a consequence of the nature of our language. A person cannot call themselves a swimmer if they’ve never in their life swum – likewise, a person cannot call themselves a Scientologist, if they’ve never in their life actually done some Scientology.

                  And the reason its important for me to make this point is because, right now in the Church, there are people calling themselves Scientologists, who are NOT DOING _any_ Scientology. They are factually doing something else, completely. And that is why it is important to us here in this context, today. If you hit yourself over the head with a hammer a thousand times, you still cannot say: “I have repaired my fence.”

                  I wish to make this point, because the age-old “No True Scottsman” fallacy occludes the point: if someone is a Scientologist, they must at least have done some Scientology. At present time, right now, if you’re not doing any Scientology, simply calling yourself a Scientologist does not make you one. You can’t hit yourself over the head with a hammer – or terrorize an entire organization with your personality cult, ruining all and sundry that you touch with your vile ways, as DM has done – and call yourself a Scientologist. Because the subject, Scientology, itself says: nobody can rip up the Orgs and be considered to furthering the goals of Scientology.

                  The subject itself has been defined, very carefully, so that the real Actions of the Subject must be verified – all the way to Certification – before they can actually be considered DONE. This is such an important fact that there are reams of policies to ensure that the point does not, ever, get missed by those who wish to use Scientology to improve conditions in their lives, and in the lives of others.

                  And what we here are saying is, no true Scientologist would act the way DM does. Is this a fallacy? No, because those of us who have studied the Subject, who know the Verbs of the language of the doctrine, will not apply the Noun to the person, unless it is really _validated_ by _inspection_ and _application_ with demonstrated _results_.

                  Go out in the yard, and throw a jar of pickles at your fence. Did you get any wood-working done? No? Well, you must be a terrible wood-worker, then ..

                  • It seems to me that you are putting too much emphasis on this point.
                    I think someone can say they are something if they want to unless it breaks the law. A person can call themselves a Scientologist if they read a book and want to identify with the group can’t they? Who is the arbiter of whether someone deserves to wear a post title or group title? There is a lot of Scientology that is just applying good sense, such as using the ARC triangle in a conversation. Does this mean that I am now a Scientologist and must refer to myself as one because I am using ARC??
                    My main point is I don’t want to be associated with Scientology (corporate) currently so I don’t call myself a Scientologist. It’s easy.
                    If I throw a jar of pickles at my fence to repair it ,I can still call myself a carpenter if I wish to.
                    A person could still be an auditor and not call themselves a Scientologist too. Who is going to stop them from doing that? You may not like it, but it still can occur.

              • I think “doing some carpentry” is not the same as “being a carpenter”,which to me implies some degree of professionalism, in the sense of doing carpentry as a paid occupation.

        • I find when I tell people I am a “Scientologist exposing the corruption of the Church of Scientology” I have gotten 100% support — actually more than that. People go out of their way to help me because they know I’m doing a public service which is very needed and wanted. Try it. It works.

  32. Very meaningful and apt post. It is also covered in the Student Hat as it leads to all sorts of non confront and educational difficulties and biases. Such as the medical profession ‘labeling’ things that they don’t understand and hence some condition which is a mystery gets the ‘itus’ label. Woe to those who try to solve it outside of conventional acceptance – they were often labeled as ‘quacks’. The field of mental health in another subject just oozing with labels used as stable datums that have no cures.
    Labeling as a phenomena it is easily observed in forums and chat rooms. ESMB is good example. One can be labeled as a ‘Hubbardist’ for using or liking LRH and anything you say from then on is treated as something to be ridiculed by a persistant group of know best posters. “Ex -Scientologist” is a very good name for that forum.
    It takes a brave soul in my opinion to confront being themselves and sticking by their truth. No one likes being made wrong, particularly by kangaroo courts.

  33. Great post, Marty. I agree completely with the principles in it. Ron may not have originated this area of insight, but even if not, it is still very valid.

    I am reminded of a quote by Krishnamurti: “The highest form of human intelligence is the ability to observe without judging.”

    The views of Kierkegaard cited in the post are also quite relevant. In humanism (perhaps especially transformational humanism a la Mezirow and others) it comes down to this. If I deny your humanity, I deny my own. The Nazis became inhuman in their deeds in proportion to their denial of the humanity of various branches of the human family tree (Jews, Gypsys, gays, the infirm and disabled, Slavs, etc.).

    Scientology is not the only religion that feels non-believers can be lied, tricked, destroyed. Islam is one where some adherents would support that view — and ironically, Mein Kampf remains a bestseller in many parts of the Islamic world — at least in Arab portions.

    To one degree or another, it seems like religions that are sure they have the answer not just for themselves _but for everyone else_ are prone to the labeling of the outsiders in pejorative ways — heathens, unenlightened, non-believers, unsaved, tools of the devil, etc. The possessors of supposed exclusive answers will always be led by their own logic to despise, save, attack or destroy, or pity the non-believer.

    I disagree with one of the posts above that seems to be confusing observation with labeling. Labeling in the context of this discussion is akin to stereotyping, and it shuts off further observation as noted in Marty’s post. Labeling is not the act of observing — it’s the act of not observing. Observing (and obnosis) leads to itsa, not to labeling. If I looked at a PC and saw an e-meter read or physical indicator or mental state indicator, that’s an observation, not a label. If I note that a PC had a cognition, VGIs, and an F/N, those are observations, not labels in the sense talked about in Marty’s post.

    Yes, a word is a label of sorts, but using a word to describe an _observation_ is very different than using a word to affix a broadly defining label on someone or something based on a narrow slice of observation coupled with evaluation and judgment that then is used to reduce the humanity of the target being labeled. “Label” vs. “observation” is a distinction with a huge difference.

    So here’s a tough question. How can we or should we avoid labeling those who are in CoS, Inc.?

    • “” I agree completely with the principles in it. Ron may not have originated this area of insight, but even if not, it is still very valid.””

      I think Ron definitely understood the nature of the judgement issue, and this is why we have “don’t Invalidate others, don’t evaluate for them, if you yourself want to be happy” as a general maxim all throughout the Scientology experience.

      I was always shocked at just how ready many Int staff members were to invalidate other people, tell them what they should think about themselves, and so on. In my experience, this effect is a social one, derived from society – oh, wow, is there a judgemental valence going on out here in society!! In that respect, a lot of staff were mutual out-ruds on this issue – that it was okay to do, because actually they saw it everywhere, and the computation went: therefore it must be a pro-survival activity.

      It was an observation of this fact, that inval/eval were being dramatized at all levels, that led me to conclude that as long as Scientology is not training and producing Auditors – who don’t do this any more, having learned much better things to do with their thoughts – then Scientology has failed in delivering on its purpose. I slowly found myself ignoring anyone who wasn’t wearing the most winningest Hat there is, that of the Auditor, and that led me to, frankly, leave.

      • Right on. The auditor is the only correct beingness for the Church of Scientology. Instead, it is the absolute reverse of that beingness.

        • *** How right you are my friend! ***
          If you remember my decl. of independence on this blog, I endent it up with those lines:

          “And finally in my opinion, if the Church would be in the hands of some very high trained, experienced and practicing veteran auditors with their hearts on the right place and not some bully, self-appointed, power and money craving man, like right now, the Church would accomplish just that for what it was intended.”

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            iflytrike! I love the handle! Question; do you? Literally?
            ’cause I happen to love hang gliding! Nothing beats
            climbing aloft in a massive thermal, alongside eagles, hey?
            calvin.

            • Thank´s Calvin,
              I am thrilled. :-)
              No, I am not doing hang gliding.
              Maybe I should try.

              What I am doing, is, just what the handler says, flying trike.
              One of the greatest website with adventurous trike expeditions, is one done by one of your citizens Mike Blyte and a swiss guy Olivier Aubert:
              http://www.trike-expeditions.com.
              I happen to know the swiss guy, Olivier, personally quite well.

              And now to you: “always safe landings“

              Have a great New Year 2013!

  34. Windhorse, I was just having a hard time tolerating your “I completely disagree” with thoughtful’s first, long and very thoughtful comment.
    BTW, I think you make a lot of sense too! thoughtfully yours, Steve Poore

  35. I do recall actually being disgusted by how much judgement was passed on public Scientologists, by us as staff members. I recall many meetings where lists were being made of prospects for various things, recruitment, or regging, or fundraising or whatever. Lists of public Scientologists were being read off and then came the comments about each person: “She’s a loser, and never contributes, not worth putting on the list”… “He’s got an out-2D and won’t qualify”…. “She’s reasonable and theetie wheetie”…. “He’s got financial irregularities”…. “She’s a wet noodle and couldn’t get anything done”….”He’s this, she’s that, on and on and on….” I remember thinking how much I despised those meetings. What a superiority complex! We’ve got all of these people in our group but none of them are good enough for us? Seriously? Something is wrong with this, aren’t we Scientology – the organization that is supposed to rehabilitate, forgive, and help people!?

    • Did you count the Auditor Certs on the wall at that time?

    • Christie,

      Did you have access to the INCOMM Pers and Ethics system, to do HR headhunting with?

      And did that system have the sorta confidential sub part with the person’s dirtiest little past transgressions, so you as the HR proposing person weren’t hit with rejects to your submissions to post someone?

      At the Int Base level, the HCO (HR human resources) people have access to the RTC Int Pers and Ethics data base (INCOMM the church computer branch set it up) and that system keeps all the staff track records and has their most sensitive “out quals” admitted only in session, included.

      Unfortunately, it’s a systemic problem, how to retain this personnel memory about people, and the fact that the computer system doesn’t lose that memory, it sits there for the person’s whole future career, for their lifetime.

      Kinda a sad sub story of the perfect memory of the computer, and the files kept on the computer, within Scientology.

      Chuck Beatty
      ex Sea Org 1975-2003
      ex INCOMM 90-92

  36. I agree! Labels tend to be absolute. A real Scientologist understands and thinks with infinity-valued logic and knows there are infinite shades of gray. Also, a label is not the thing. A label is just a significance, a symbol.

  37. This topic has me chuckling!

    The earliest time I can recall I ran into a label when I first started working at ASI. Believe that was in the later 1980’s. An executive told me I was “acting like a wog.” Yes, I was whining about something or other, and I believe I may have had tears; thus, in the eyes of the executive I was “acting like a wog” and he said so. I sure did quit whining about stuff and simply started writing knowledge reports if I had something to say.

    Later on I was called a “b.tch.” Can I say that word in this open forum? That label really got to me but I’ll admit it wasn’t so bad after I heard it used about a senior executive as well … by the same staff member. Comfort in numbers, I guess.

    However, I truly tried to change my behavior to be less “b.tchy.” In addition, I tended to avoid the person who called me a “b.tch” as I felt we tended to bring out the “b.tchiness” in each other.

    The funny part was at home. Yes, sometimes I would get “b.tchy” with Gene or the kids. Gene always handled it with his medically oriented sense of humor. He would simply say, “PMS,” and that would be the end of the “b.tchiness.” He was so funny I couldn’t help but laugh! To the kids he would say, “Your mom has PMS,” and that ended whatever “b.tchy” jag I happened to be on.

    I, personally, never use labels except as a silent noting of observation. I have learned that meeting, talking, learning about folks usually disabuses me of any label I might have come up with on silent observation.

    • Three words for you, Madam Denk: Int Clearance Line. A more vile hive of scum and inval could not be found.

      • Lol… “A more vile hive of scum and inval could not be found” you will have me laughing all day with that one.

      • Dear Gern,

        DId you have access to the RTC Int Pers and Ethics computer data base, from which one on “HCO” (Human Resources) positions at the Int Base and ASI, the HR people charged with headhunting to fill top positions, endlessly searched the RTC Int Pers and Data Base to find suitable people to propose to the high positions?

        I ask, because the administrative setups, institutionalize, I feel, the problems. The Int Pers and Ethics Data Base is part of the problem!

        I had a theoretical background, mainly in my Sea Org career (Admin Course Sup for years, then Routing Forms Pjt research and writer for years, then INCOMM, then ASI computer person where I proofread all the ASI traffic from LRH), and my last official Sea Org position was Esto for ASI, and had to use the RTC Int Pers and Ethics computer data base, and it was the ultimate rat race at the top, of grudges permanently held against the people listed in that data base.

        Needless to say, David Miscavige’s pers and ethics info and the info of the very top people, was NOT kept in the data base, for the lower HR headhunters to look at!

        Chuck Beatty
        866-XSEAORG

  38. In 23 years in the SO the main problem some people had with me is that I was not “hard enough” on my juniors (and sometimes my seniors). I generally used ARC to get the job done; and it almost always got done. I could never figure out why if it is the staff of Scn organizations that will determine whether or not Earth survives, that we hould make the staff member’s life a living hell. People choose whether or not to dramatize their banks on others. The real scum of the earth are those who consider all people other than themselves scum.

  39. Keep in mind labeling is a standard practice everywhere, it’s all over. All religions, political parties, races, civilizations do it . I guarantee if you pick up a New York Times, USA Today or any major media outlet, one will see at least 100 different forms of labeling,.

    • I honestly cannot fathom how anyone could thumbs-down your observation.. is this an indicator of a lack of confront on the part of the thumbs-down’ers, or is it just that you’re incorrect? You’re definitely *not* incorrect – you *CAN* find this computation running throughout ALL of society, within seconds – so I can only conclude that those with the Thumbs-down attitude must be .. just .. really, really out of touch. Or there’s a big MU in your sentence somewhere, but I can’t spot it anyway ..

      • No kidding! Modern political campaigns are nothing BUT labeling and so is the sound bite television media. I’ve seen 3-hour taped interviews whittled down to a 13-second blips consisting of nothing but a label.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Ain’t that the plain truth that just pain’s the ser’fac’ers
          Steve? Nothing beats down reality more, than those
          who simply won’t permit you to look!

  40. This tendency to judge is compounded by a broken justice system –a system of injustice based on not being faced by your accuser or the real accusation. I am speaking of my experience at two Class V orgs in the San Francisco Bay Area: Mountain View and San Francisco Foundation. Local org HCOs occasionally receive hidden reports by parishioners upon other parishioners (KRs without cc to the person upon whom they are written, or KRs downgraded to TTSBs or dispatches in order to avoid the cc problem). HCO personnel have an opportunity to correct this problem. Instead, I found it common for HCO personnel to then write upon or act upon these hidden reports without investigation, without consulting the person upon whom they are written, working to conceal the source, and – since it is difficult for the parishioner to see the contents of his or her ethics file – a body of secondary hidden false reports develops. Even if the parishionier does finally do get to see the contents of the ethics file, there are “backup” ethics files he or she will not be shown. I know of an instance where the parishioner’s pc file is being used as a “backup” ethics file for secondary hidden false reports that the Ethics Officer does not want the parishioner to see.

  41. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    By just auditing and applying what we know!

  42. Marty,
    Great post, your observations go right into the heart of the beast.
    I struggled with this phenomena all of my life in Scientology. As what can you do when your direct observations are telling you that this group is moving in the direction of a trap? When you see a lot of its members behaving like idiotic zealots and obedient flock? When the group is moving in the direction of building an Uber Organization, not personal freedom?

    What is all the fuss about identity then? For at the end of the day Scientology Philosophy is an analytical description of reality and a systematic statement of its considerations.

    My only solution then, was to apply the old trick of the Ancients: “it is no this, it is not that”, “I’m not this, I’m not that” That uncomfortable as it was, help me walk the path in between the poles of this cult’s GPM that a lot of scientologist are so busy creating.

    Eventually I got my answers and finally settled the issue when studying “The Factors Lectures”. Here are some excerpts:

    “And the first part of our view is that when we label something good and admirable, and label something else bad and non admirable, we stick ourselves with what we’ve labeled non admirable and we lose what’s good”

    “So, let’s just take that right there at the beginning and let’s look at the Auditor’s code and let’s realize that in the Auditor’s Code there are really only two important “shuns”: invalidation and evaluation. And knowing there are two important “shuns” it tells you immediately how to drive a man mad, doesn’t it?

    ” How do you put somebody under control? Well, you evaluate for him and you invalidate him. So, what’s the backbone of the aberration? Then in term of thought, we’d have invalidation and evaluation.”

    “And sure enough, what you tend to validate with preclears works out to be what he becomes. That’s very fascinating”.

    “Evaluation doesn’t happen to have anything to do with the MEST universe either to amount to anything beyond this: it made it!”

    I think it is time for Scientologists to grow up and see reality for what it is.

  43. What a great, thoughtful and very intelligent assessment of labeling.

    Regarding your ending question, you know you can’t trust them to act intelligently anymore::) :)

    It is funny because I have decided not to broadcast my leaving because I have two dear friends whom I would hate to give up as friends. They have been lifesavers to me and I cherish their friendship and it is funny that though they are both brilliant, there is a good chance they would label possibly go along with the labeling of the church and I would not want to lose them as terminals.

    I do love this and appreciate it.

    Bruce

    • Bruce, you want them to think your still drinking the kool aid out of fear they may judge you. What kind of ARC is based on a false R. What kind of friendship does not share vitally important information. I hope you rethink your plan for the sake of your friends and yourself. What your protecting is not real.

    • I knew a few Bruce’s in my time. Maybe you’ll find, upon leaving, some old good friends again?

  44. Thank you Marty and Thoughtful for your differing viewpoints. Even when I catch myself labeling internally it feels wrong at times, so yes get your facts straight see the whole picture and err on the side of your own personal ethics. ARC Bill Dupree

  45. I think in itself there is nothing wrong with using a ‘label’. A label sums up certain key characteristics. It makes communication faster and more efficient.
    What makes a label ‘invalidative’ or ‘evaluative’ is determined by how it is used.
    I happened to be in a discussion the other day and one of the persons present was a (old school) Scientologist. At a certain moment the discussion went sour. Why? Because the Scientologist started using (implying) labels, such as ‘out-ethics’, ‘overts’, ‘out-comm’, The discussion dropped dead instantly. Though we knew what she meant, we found these utterly misplaced. Some of the persons later said: “Scientologists, you cannot really talk with them. They are ever so quick with their judgement.” And so one label leads to another.

    • I see your point tessa. I suspect there may be gradients as there are in most things.

      There might be some labels (in the sense of stereotypes) that appear to be good. One that comes to mind is the stereotype that Asian-Americans are smart and do well in college. But this is still a form of racism — sometimes called “benign racism.”

      There may be other labels that we would all consider bad — like the “n” word applied to a Black person.

      But I can’t think of a time I ever heard the word “wog” used in a positive way. Anyone ever hear something like “she is one of the most upstanding, upstat wogs I’ve ever met”? Or fresh meat, dowstat, DB, etc.?

      Same for derogatory words about Scientologists — clams, Ronbots, etc. Never heard anyone say “he is the coolest Ronbot I ever met!”

      So I think there are some labels that run toward the bad (contra-survival, because they break ARC) range, and even the ones that seem to run to the good (pro-survival) range can be negative in impact (such as the benign racism example above).

      Certainly there are some labels that encapsulate and affirm — like Einstein was a genius — but where labels run into trouble is when they are broadened. It would make no sense to say “All people named Einstein are geniuses, or all German Jews are geniuses, etc.” any more than it would make sense to say all Muslims are prone to violence or all Scientologists are Ronbots.

      Labeling (in the context of this discussion anyway) is at the core a rather lazy shortcut to predict the future based on limited observations of the past that are then inappropriately broadened to whole classes of people — or that are used to pigeonhole people and our expectations about them, when we know that the Pygmalion Effect will actually result in people behaving somewhat as how we expect them to behave, and when we know that humans become selective perceivers of facts that fit their conceptions and tend not even to see contrary evidence.

      This is an interesting discussion — I truly wish those who are still “in” CoS Inc were free to explore this. I bet we would find that many of them have internal twinges when they negatively label others. I know I did.

      • Thanks for your interesting reaction.
        If I may add something: it is said that ‘the truth is in the eye of the beholder’. Maybe likewise: ‘the label is in the eye of the beholder’.

        Many technical concepts/terms of Hubbard can be (and are!) used as labels. Each one contains a certain understanding. But the proof of the pudding is of course in the eating: how and when do you use a certain term! And this determines whether or not it becomes a label.

        I think Hubbard could have listed all the ways terms could be degraded into labels: all of them arcx-ing like hell.

        If the management of Scientology Inc would start using the Auditor’s Code, a lot of trouble would disappear.

        • I sure agree on use of the auditor’s code — thanks tessa!

          I am reminded of the rather classic experiments that confirm the Pygmalion Effect. In one study, a substitute teacher was told who the A and B students were and who the D and F students were. Except that the teacher was told the reverse of the truth. As the D and F students were treated in a way that expected them to be high achievers, they rose to those levels. The actual A and B students, treated as if they were failures, actually began to fail.

          I myself was once asked if I believed that all people have leadership potential. (I do believe that.) I was challenged by someone who thought leadership was inborn, biological, and genetically determined. I disagreed, stating that we must set our default assumption to believe that anyone can potentially lead. Why?, I was asked. My answer was that we humans have been so wrong so many times — about virtually any group that has been wrongly labeled at one point or another as lacking in ability.

          As you said well, labels can be arcx-ing like hell. I sure could not agree more. It may sound extreme, but I consider certain kinds of labeling to be a truly suppressive act if it diminishes one’s sense of worth and one’s recognition of his or her potential and the ability to achieve potential.

  46. A really excellent and interesting post. I’ve often thought that those who label or insult others with derogatory names or descriptions are actually saying more about themselves than those whom they are seeking to target.

    Slighting people with name-calling is an action more suited to the playground than the adult world; it’s an infantile resort by someone who has nothing more intelligent or substantial to say.

    Sending you all very best wishes for 2013,
    IEG xx

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Good to know, IEG! BTW, how do you feel about roaches,
      mosquitoes and invading rats?
      Not sure I want to hear your answer to that one, though!

      But with that shine in your eyes and the idyllic smile on your dial, no wonder the menagerie, line and worship the ground you walk on.

      So, with much appreciation for your inspiring posts, insights
      and comments, I consider it a real English delight to have
      you share your grace and literary talents with us all.

      Hope you just had a wonderful Christmas and are blessed
      with happiness in the coming New Year 2013.

      ML,
      Calvin, Durban, South Africa

      • Calvin, Li’ll bit of a hero! Thank you SO much for your lovely words; can’t tell you how much that means to me :-) xx

        I’ve had a rotten Chrimbo, if I’m honest. First one without Jasper, you see, and almost a year since he died. But just a week or two ago, whilst driving home from work, I was the first on the scene of an unpleasant road incident. I gave first aid to the very unwell driver and held his hand until the ambulance came. Sadly, the gentleman died. :( I feel so sad that I couldn’t save him. It has had a rather profound effect upon me. What I draw from the experience is this: NEVER make any journey – even if it is just to the supermarket for a pint of milk – without telling your partner/family (if you have them) that you love them. For you never know the time or the place. I’ll admit that the experience was made more challenging by the fact that the late gentleman’s wife wanted to speak with me, as I’d been with him until – well, you know… I think it was helpful for her… But PLEASE, never part or go to sleep without telling those you love that you love them. I’m single, alas, but I still tell my friends and family that I love them deeply, and new-dog-G has been most helpful (and less-flatulent than Jazz!). x

        Bl**dy H*ll – bit deep, isn’t it?! I do apologise. Am just a bit of a miserable b*tch at the moment, so trying to explain why….

        SO – roaches, mosquitoes and invading rats, then. Well, I understand that roaches are the only life-form able to survive a nuclear explosion – and they can live up to a week without a head – there’s no way I’m tangling with THOSE little b*st*rds. Roach problem solution? Pick ‘em all up (they don’t bite) and put them in a bowl, then wait until around 3am and go and post them through the letterbox of the neighbour you hate (the one who plays constant Megadeth B-Sides at top-volume with the windows open on hot summer nights when you’re trying to ‘get it on’ with a lovely companion…).

        Mozzies – Satan’s representatives on Earth. Serious fact: Mosquitoes account for more human deaths each year than war, famine or terrorism. True.
        I hate them more than the fleas and ticks which delight in the rich, nourishing soup that flows in new-dog-G’s veins. The only parasite worse is the malignant tapeworm DM (and possibly my ex-boyfriend BC). They must be plucked and squashed at the earliest opportunity. Top-tip: Avon Cosmetic’s “Skin-So-Soft” skin-cream and moisturiser is the greatest mozzie repellent in existence, better even than products designed specifically for the problem. It’s effectiveness against DM has yet to be proven.

        Rats: New-dog-G is an excellent ratter and has efficiently killed several, as well as a shrew, a pigeon and a number of squirrels. Invest in a Jack Russell Terrier. You won’t regret it. Alternatively, plant spiny small cacti around your entire property. Rats are incredibly intelligent creatures – they won’t risk skewering their wedding-tackle on cactus-spines. Not for any price.

        Keep smiling Calvin, et al. 2013 is going to be better for us all!
        With love,
        IEG xxx

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Wow, wow,wow…er..rather ..BOW,wow,wow! Oh what the
          heck!…you know what I mean? That is to say….thanks for
          sharing the trevails & details of IEG & new dog-G’s Chrimbo.

          Definitely not one to chalk up as your favorite, hey?

          Sharing life (and death) certainly IS, always, an intimate contact experience, since we are experiencing “spirit” in play and also in departure! Tragedy adds to the experience with pain filled images and memories, and if these persist, one needs to work through this by repetitive recall, each time trying to re-experience more & more detail. This action, (auditing) alleviates the trauma,( as you probably know,) by what is called “reduction,” at the very least. A friendly (Indie) Auditor could give some of this, if needed.

          Anyhow, moving on, thanks for all the pertinent advice. BTW, can’t wait to try the roach approach to the reproaching neighbors!

          Mozzies? Avon?? Well I never! Do they know this? All sounds
          like great advice to me!! Especially to my better half, Dorothy,
          (a fiery Scot, that mozzzzzzzeeeees just seem to love, in their
          kamikaze drovezzzzzz!!!) I have tried the proverbial “everything,” without success, but am willing to look at any solution! even Avon!

          Just one bit of flack for you! Jack Russells! Don’t even mention
          those words, to my daughter. She’s a top company executive, and comes home to relax, only to have her nerves frazzled by Russie, ( whom she only discovered after purchasing him!) has absolutely NO “off-switch!!” Want to adopt? she’d agree in a heartbeat! She’d arrange everything! (believe me!)

          Any how, been lovely to do some sharing and caring, but must go
          round up some roaches, for the old toxic’s in our midst.

          Keep on smiling / shining, sweet girl!

          ML,
          Calvin.

        • The gentleman who passed away took a selfless act of kindness (yours) with him as his last moments. So, you quite probably did save him. Well done.

    • That makes sense… but in your post below you then compare Miscavige and your ex-boyfriend to malignant tapeworms and the mosquitoes you loathe.

      For myself, I’m in favor of recognizing that some people are badly damaged, but that I might be able to help them; and that some people are damaged and I must either deal with them or (usually) avoid contact.

      I agree, let’s avoid the dehumanizing language for the reasons you stated.

      • Actually, Archie, you are so right. I ought not to have used insulting labels – thank you for flagging that up; I often type first and think later…

        But I think that it is (in general) a part of the human, or wider mammalian, instinct to label another person or creature, if not outwardly then internally. For example, an antelope needs to make a split-second judgement about the lioness he’s just spotted – is she stalking him or just walking by on her way to somewhere else? In the same way, we (or at least I might) look at someone in terms of “nice” or “nasty”. It’s not necessarily right or fair – just another inbred facet of what makes us human…

        But you ARE right. I will try and refrain from labelling people (with the possible exception of my ex-boyfriend ;-) ).

        IEG xx

  47. Labels should be used for cloths sizes and bottles of wine :)

  48. ”Labeling” isn’t limited to Scientology, it´s abundant on all levels of existance. If enhanced in Scientology as you say, despite knowhow to rid it, perhaps the reason is obsessive control.

    ML/A

  49. IMHO, labels can be a useful form of shorthand, but more often than not they are part of the fabric of a Ser-Fac. And one of the problems with Ser-Facs is that they become a filter through which we view the world. This makes them almost impossible to see, because all of the data that gets in must have conformed to the Ser-Fac in some way.

    Certainty on LRH or on Scientology can itself be a Ser-Fac, and I suspect many of us out here made it out precisely because we didn’t have that particular Ser-Fac to the same degree.

    Now personally, I don’t see any Ser-Facs in myself but boy, some of yours stand out like a sore thumb (by the way, is that irony or satire?).

  50. This made me glad to see and to read.

    But it would be highly joyful, to me, and I am quite sure, highly evolving spiritually for all of us, to begin to see it being applied, from now on, by both writer and readers who acknowledge the validity of this very wise message.
    One of Scientology’s major flaws, in my view, is its inability and unwillingness to be “walking” its major spiritually wise “talkings”, which become very obvious when its needs are threatened, when situations arise that make visible, whether it is an organization that operates from the heart or from the ego, and whether it has ever achieved the spiritual consciousness it says it makes possible.

    And so I believe we should all “up the ante”, raise the standard, that high praise and admiration should be reserved for when one is seen walking the talk. Especially in situations that challenge whether one is now being faithful to the spiritual consciousness one is presenting.

    I very recently realized I had formed a ridge, within me, which dictated the impulse, to be cruelly judgmental to a person. In this case, to seek to make that person feel flawed.

    Realizing it and owning up to it gave me, as Marty’s post stated, the ability to really perceive that person and begin to have compassionate understanding of what was going on in her world.

    It was a shock to me to realize I was being evil as I thought I was a really good person. It was also quite tough to see all the hurt I had caused.

    But now I am a little more willing and able to recognize and acknowledge any flaws in my world and have gained the consciousness that there is no substitute for seeking compassionate or ridge-free understanding when encountering a behavior or a viewpoint that seems, to me, to be spiritually destructive or limiting.

    Plus the increase in aliveness and contentment in the other person when being with me and the increase in closeness in our relationship my change produced made it very worthwhile.

  51. LRH made an interesting observation about Judgment: it must be preceded by Understanding and Understanding must be preceded by Duplication. That’s why he laid out Academy training where a Class V could audit specific mechanical actions well. Then, on the SHSBC, the auditor studied everything and understood why the processes worked. LRH also says over and over again on the SHSBC that “auditing is what you can get away with.” It was on Class VIII that the auditor could finally learn Judgment. From this perspective it become obvious why a Class IV or V cannot be expected to exercise Judgment.
    On the broader thread under discussion here, though, I think LRH’s observation also has considerable merit. Duplication–Understanding–Judgment.

    • Yep, and really, “judgement” is really recognizing what it is. Judgement does not equal condemnation.

    • Dan, if I may be so bold as to point out that there was one step you left out. In Training:Duplication lecture, LRH has the step of “Realization” as I recall between understanding and judgment. That’s the “light bulb going off” step where a datum becomes real to you not “because Ron said it”, but because you know it for yourself based on your own observation and experience, and now you can start to develop some real judgment on that datum (based on actual life).

  52. Yes it is true there is way too much labeling a person without applying the tech to rapidly handle them. That is because of a lack of proper hatting on the subject of how to properly hand the labeled person. Most of the staff and public I have come across in 39 years of Scientology were not hatted and so used their “Service Facs” ( out Grade IV) to do dominate the person and avoid the right thing in helping them get through it. People get recruited with a “lick and a promise” that they will get trained and audited as part of the exchange for being on staff. This rarely happens. If it did there would be much more success then there currently is. One should apply the “HCOPL called “THE WORLD OUT OF COMM EVAL BY LRH.

  53. This group is important to me. Why? Because by and large we share many similar viewpoints. Because we’ve been part of what has become quite an onerous cult and we’ve left. Because we can toss around ideas, use familiar words and because we are not as contentious as other groups of former scientologists.

    It is not my intention to create a division here and I should know better than to directly confront another person head on in cyber space. It just NEVER works out well.

    I’m hoping that the next indy gathering I’ll be able to come and meet so many of you. I’ll bet Steve Hall and I actually get to like each other :)

    So peace.

    Christine

  54. Excellent! Needed to be said!

  55. Sadly the Kool-Aid Drinkers will never understand… :D

  56. We in RTC have as our stable datum that all persons are SP’s and this has worked well for us. Some might say that this stable datum is merely COB’s paranoia, but that is just an inval of COB made by those who do not understand his wisdom in chronically subjecting everyone to long and grindy sec checks or surveillance by PI’s.

    In any case, we in RTC are the most elite and ethical group on the planet and so we do not need to prove anything to you.

    We in RTC are perfect.

    There is nothing wrong with us.

    However, there is everything wrong with you. Had there not been anything wrong with you, you would have never become a Scientologist in the first place. Logically, then, you need Scientology but Scientology does not need you. We in RTC only put up with Scientologists because they donate money to the IAS. Otherwise, we don’t really care to be bothered with all the work and problems of delivering the Tech, etc.

    Only by making a heroic, bankrupting donation to the IAS can you make up for the damage you have done to the group. If and when we get around to it, we in RTC will fix the so-called auditing problems at Flag. Seriously, though, Flag has really become a dead end. What we in RTC are looking in 2013 is the opening of the Super Power building and how it will really boom all of the Ideal Orgs to old St. Hill size. But until then, yes, Flag is there to deliver cash to we in RTC. So go to Flag and buy 14 intensives, write up your success stories, and then be there when COB cuts the ribbon on the Super Power building and the world changes forever!

  57. The accused will rise to be torn in two
    guilty of nothing but loving you
    this is the judgement
    And I’m willing to plead
    how you don’t want me
    hoping this torment will cease
    Will I be released?

    There’ll be lies, there’ll be tears
    a jury of your peers
    with a pitiful lack of experience
    Hand down the judgement

    And if I done wrong
    and loved you too long
    Stand up and just testify
    How can I deny?

    Objection overruled
    I wait for my reprieve
    with the trust of the deceived
    the wisdom of the fool

    It’s his sorrowful face
    too heavy for his head
    cos he bowed it as something come over him
    it was the judgement

    He falls to his knees
    Have mercy on me
    He clings to the hem of her gown
    She says, “Just take him down.”

  58. Marty,
    Great subject and LRH quote.
    Mind adding a ‘label’ to it as of it’s origin?
    It ‘smells’ like Level IV material.
    Greta

  59. As far as I’m concerned, LRH’s work on Service Facs is among his most important. I say this because the brackets in process R3SCA (got that right?) pretty much explain most of all the negative behavior on planet Earth (to dominate others, make them wrong, etc). This data has not only proved valuable to me in understanding life, but also in avoiding dramatizing these brackets in my interactions with others (and that leads to a happier life).

    This does beg the question though on why so many Scientologists Grade IV and above STILL dramatize these brackets so often in their handling of others and why they seem so easily at effect in BEING handled in this area by others.

    Personally I think group culture often trumps individual case gain (and probably those who do make a lot of case gain in this area simply eventually leave this type of group after decades of experiencing it when they finally cognite on this culture).

    I now think one of the most destructive decisions a being can make is to agree to be completely in thralltof another being or a group, and that most definately includes LRH and the church of Scientology (or any church). Dig, I’m not saying it is not extremely valuable to study LRH’ s work and apply it in life. I’m saying that when you completely buy into another being as “source” and agree to be subservient to a master or his group (for whatever reason) you have placed your foot on a very slippery slope that is often hidden from you when you make that first step.

    • Well said. Yes, when you turn your own analysis off and just accept what the group says, you are a slave to the group and you have lost yourself.

    • It’s an old problem.

      The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000.

      The Gospel according to St. Matthew 7
      Judging Others

      1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
      2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
      3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
      4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
      5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
      6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

    • “This does beg the question though on why so many Scientologists Grade IV and above STILL dramatize these brackets so often in their handling of others and why …”

      Joe, I think this is excellently explained by Marty in his book (“What is wrong with Scn?”) in chapter 10, “Right and Wrong”.

  60. Great post Marty!

  61. I love the discussions we have here!

    Of course this is all Level IV stuff – Computations and aberated stable data.

    One of the most interesting parts of studying Scientology they way I did – which was to do the Comm Course, HQS course, Student Hat, HSDC, Levels 0-4 and the Briefing Course – is seeing how technology that appears to be completely isolated at first blush ends up being different facets and approaches to, well, us. To what we do. Service Facs do a lot to tie it together.

    The discovery and description of the Service Facsimile is to me one of the most important discoveries by Ron. I have never seen this described adequately outside Scientology, and yet it is so fundamental to how we as beings operate.

    There are some interesting discussions about labeling vs. not labeling on this post. To me, the issue isn’t labeling per se, it is labeling:

    1. Without inspection, and
    2. Without re-inspection later.

    If you inspect your land and see a coyote on your property, it is a good idea to know that it is a coyote, and handle it as such. But, if you don’t inspect and just assume that creature out there is a coyote, that could end up being a real problem if it is really a neighbor’s dog, or worse, his kid. So, each time you see something that looks like a coyote, you have to inspect in a new unit of time, and not assume it’s a coyote because it was a coyote yesterday.

    A label is a very ephemeral thing. Life changes all the time. You can only label something at that particular state, at that particular time, and in that particular context. For example, Psychology and Psychiatry are not the same as they were in the ’40s and ’50s, and neither is Medicine (or anything else, really). Therefore, you must continually perceive the world you are in, and communicate with the world, so that you are in touch with what IS and not with what WAS. And if you must label something, realize that the half-life of a label is pretty damn short. Even Mr. David Miscavige could pull out of this in a lifetime or two.

    • But, Marty, to your points – “Once you label me, you negate me” and Wille Stargell’s quote – it is true, once you label something, you cease to think about it, if even for a short time. You are no longer learning and no longer communicating. Labeling puts a period to whatever you label.

      • label (ˈleɪb ə l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

        — n
        1. a piece of paper, card, or other material attached to an object to identify it or give instructions or details concerning its ownership, use, nature, destination, etc; tag
        2. a brief descriptive phrase or term given to a person, group, school of thought, etc: the label “Romantic” is applied to many different kinds of poetry
        3. a word or phrase heading a piece of text to indicate or summarize its contents
        4. a trademark or company or brand name on certain goods, esp, formerly, on gramophone records
        5. another name for dripstone
        6. heraldry a charge consisting of a horizontal line across the chief of a shield with three or more pendants: the charge of an eldest son
        7. computing a group of characters, such as a number or a word, appended to a particular statement in a program to allow its unique identification
        8. chem a radioactive element used in a compound to trace the mechanism of a chemical reaction

        — vb , -bels , -belling , -belled , -bels , -beling , -beled
        9. to fasten a label to
        10. to mark with a label
        11. to describe or classify in a word or phrase: to label someone a liar

  62. I’ll give judgement of myself and all of my fellow beings.

    We are statics, “an actuality of no mass , no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time.” (Dn 55!, p. 29)

    Consider this: Isn’t all of this ‘shit’ just a bunch of considerations? Aren’t all of our ‘identities’ similarly likewise?

    Weren’t we once and still one?

    What caused us not to be a oneness?

    How do we get ‘home’?

    Didn’t LRH address this with workable answers and methods?

    • Further, consider that dramatizations ensue from considerations.

    • Tom, please tell me where you got the idea LRH said we were once one? That we were a oneness? If so that would negate much of Scientology as something of benefit to theta.

      See the Tech Dictionary definition of:
      ONE WITH THE UNIVERSE, one of the control mechanisms
      which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in
      potential they are led to believe themselves one with the
      universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals.
      They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other
      individualities. (Sen 8-8008, p. 25)

      That is just for starters.
      The idea that we were ever just part of one being or will become so falls in the provence of Implants, or of becoming MEST. .

      Also in the Tech Dict see:
      ONENESS, people have had the idea that there was a main body
      of theta and everybody became “one” when you got to the top of
      the tone scale. Fortunately that isn’t true. But you go down tone
      scale and everybody becomes one. And the oneness is mest.
      There’s .no individuality whatsoever in mest. (PDC 6)

      Even Budha had a trouble trying to get people to realize that when one acheived enlightenment that they would not just all be one being. had that been true the whole concept of bodhi would not work and allow one who had acheived enlightenment to come back to help.
      To some extent this can explain why people who get good case gain, as long as they retain granting of beinness to others, may often disagree on many things. Were are all unique. Even twins.
      Other than this one post I have enjoyed your posts and look forward to many more.
      Frank Davis

  63. Marty,

    Great post.

    Some years back I too “woke up and smelled the coffee” as to how I viewed others. It was a HUGE consideration. One that I did not even realize that I’d gone into that kind of agreement with in any way. While in the SO, I usually treated others how I’d like to be treated like in the Way to Happiness #20 “Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you”. A few years ago I had once again fallen into this trap with one of my neighbors and we were not friendly as a result.

    Once I recognized and blew my consideration, the so-called “problem” I had with my neighbor went away. The neighbor became quite friendly. Handling my own consideration about others worked just as well as the O/W tech. Just finding your own overt on the person or subject will let you be at “cause” once again instead of being at “effect”. This became quite clear to me when I got my PTS C/S 1 some 19 years ago.

    I hope that all of you had a Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!! Love to you all,
    Karry Campbell

    • Karry, when I left the SO in 1989 PG, went to work for a Co, that was literally filled with wogs handling claims, customer service and mail processing, I held them in distain as “Wogs” and that I was somehow superior. The wog black women took me down a notch or 2 right away and I could never get on with them thereafter however I hit it off with the Philipino’s who granted me total beingness, being PG and all and my viewpoint shifted completely about these “wogs” and I had so much fun and lots of laughs with them, what great people/wogs, LOL….

  64. I handled this problem years ago by achieving the state of “Hallucinatory Effect”.

  65. I don’t believe Marty left out “corporate” Scientologist as a mistake or unintended omission.

    People connected with Scientology, whether current members, Indies, ex-Scientologists or even Scientology haters; most people who have in some way been connected with the subject are in my experience very quick at the draw to give others a label and are to varying degrees judgmental. There are exceptions, but by my own observations and experiences in the Church, coming out and being part of various groups and blogs afterwards, the exceptions are a handful.

    I don’t consider using judgement to be synonymous to being judgmental. There is a certain amount of semantics involved in the usage of these words. Using judgement is a necessity which is required to determine the optimum solution to a situation at any given instance – one of the basics of Dianetics and Scientology.

    But this judgement can only be rational if done through reason and differentiation as compared to means of strictly identification.

    Being judgmental means that subjects labelled are being identified with something, not necessarily involving full observation and differentiation of all factors involved, accompanied by full understanding and duplication of the subject.

    Judging a person or situation by differentiation through knowledge, understanding, observation and duplication of what is observed – the ability to see what is, will lead to mostly correct decisions which could also include putting a label on a person. But in this case the same mechanism as is described in the anatomy of a service facsimile is not in place.

    DM is a prime example of someone who is both judgmental as well as using labels to increase his conceived power. He knows full well that if he puts a label on a person, such as, “He is out-ethics!”, then anyone who was privy to that comment will now hold the same belief by default.

    Though this may be a power tool not necessarily described or advocated in L. Ron Hubbard policy, it is a mechanism which is inherent in the Scientology system, and was in place by the time DM was bullying kids in kindergarten.

    Those who live by and disseminate a message of compassion, love and granting beingness are the true messiahs of this earth. There are many examples in the current as well as throughout history. Jesus was one of them and whether or not he is only a symbol, a historical figure or whatever he may have been, his legacy is still in the majority that of love, which makes him a valuable person in my view. The same goes for the Dalai Lama and other great disseminators of love and compassion.

    These elements are more important in fighting evil, corruption and tyrannic leadership than any name-calling and stir-ups through quick and unsubstantiated labeling of the people you engage with.

    I can’t speak for Marty, but this is the message I have understood in his last several blog posts, and whether or not I am correct in that assumption, it is my own personal view.

    • I think you nailed it on the head, as usual, Ulf.

    • Great post Ulf.
      At first I didn’t take Marty’s post to include all Scientologists, but now I really do. I would say that most people who have been associated with the cult have been somewhat indoctrinated with this kind of think. I would say that most Indies are at least working at moving up a little higher and are doing so from what I have seen.
      The corporate Scientologists are stuck in a rather suppressive environment and it is a lot harder to cognite in that environment.

      You do need to communicate in order to have cognitions.

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      Bingo !

    • Yes, Ulf. I suppose I should have defined my terms:
      Judgmental: A judgmental person is somebody who thinks they know everything about you when they really don’t know shit. Judgmental people basically just live in their own little bubble of delusion and have no patience for the superstitious nonsense formally know has “open-mindedness” – The Urban Dictionary
      judgmental: characterized by a tendency to judge harshly – Websters

    • Ulf,
      I really like the differentiations you make here. I think that the distinction between using judgement and being judgmental is mainly one of intention. The examples you gave of people who dispensed benign judgement (messiahs) were people of monumental good will. Even when a person makes an error in judgement, he or she doesn’t come across as being judgmental as long as the intention is honestly GOOD. In my opinion, that is the main difference.
      But, I don’t know if I entirely agree that Scientologists in general, corportate or otherwise, are MORE judgemental that the average person. I am reminded of many conversations I have had with Baptists, Buddhists, Catholics, Watchtower people, scientists, Lutherans, Mormons, (yes, Scientologists too), and others where my personal view of the universe has on some occasions resulted in my being summarily categorized in various ways, sentenced to eternal damnation, etc. So I do not agree that this is a characteristic which is peculiar to or even necessarily more common among Scientologists. But it IS there. And we, as people who have been and/or are familiar with what has been said behind “other” people’s backs are perhaps more familiar with the “Scientologial” version. Grade 4 auditing, false purpose rundown, and other auditing, where STANDARDLY delivered,helps people to become more free of these kinds of intentions. Other things help too, like simply “loving thy neighbor as thyself”.
      Granting beingness and differentiation make the BIG difference.
      Thank you for pointing this out.

      • Thanks Espiritu,

        Maybe I was too generalizing when I said that people connected to Scientologist are often judgmental. This statement was based on my own observation, mainly after leaving the organization 3 years ago and having a chance to compare various groups.

        I will agree with you though that anyone who is an avid follower of any religion or political party or ideal seem to be judgmental in general. The rare exceptions have been followers of the Dalai Lama, which isn’t really a religion per se, and followers of the Bahá’í Faith. The ones I’ve met in these two categories had almost not the slightest trace of being judgmental. Avid followers of almost all major religions, including some alternate “religions”, like “Science” all have a tendency to be fairly judgmental, at least regarding topics that involves subjects that go against their own doctrines and dogma.

        I think wherever dogma has replaced own inspection, consideration and self-thought we have a deterioration in man. The dogma of religion has made most religions into subjects which are very divorced from free spirituality.

        Though it is a Scientology slogan, the ability to actually think for yourself, which is a clearly stated objective in Scientology tech, it is lacking in many Scientologists who are intrinsically part of the organisation. But even when people leave they carry some of that with them, at least for a while. I believe it is part of the decompression period, as Marty calls it, to rid oneself of many fixed ideas which tend to make one judgmental.

        There are many people participating on this blog who are great free thinkers!

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Ulf,
          Firstly, may I say with sincerity, that you bring a real
          calm, refreshing openness with your posts, combined with a rare gentleness, completely devoid of cynicism?

          Not only that, but you lavish praise on others, with
          clear humility, and that speaks volumes on your
          personal character. Your declaration announcement,
          was filled with just such communication, and I could
          not help but think to myself at the time;” Now THIS
          guy, Ulf, epitomizes what a true Scientologist should
          be like!”

          I’m sure that your loved ones are really proud and
          grateful to have you in their midst.

          Shine on, brother, you brighten the sky, day & night!

          Calvin.

    • Hi Ulf,
      Had to come back to your very astute perspective on this
      one. (Maybe it is that Northern European heritage of yours!
      Label!). Possibly the whole thing goes back to the 11 first
      axioms coupled with the tone scale. I mean with the static
      viewing something, he/she/it is doing just that. No real
      physical preconceived ideas, no labels or judgements. It
      just is. Then the scales come into play. Where is he on the
      tone scale for example? Is he stuck way down so he has to
      process everything from all kinds of made up distorted stable
      data? Well, there the objectivity can easily go out the window.
      That’s why I like Marty’s blog and books so much. Looking
      at all things Scientology the input here overall is weighed from
      an aspect of “does it work?”, “is it really the greatest good?”
      and “what would be the most survival route on ALL 8 dyn’s?”.
      Well, with all that in mind, it would be quite easy to make up
      your mind what labels to put on something or someone. When
      you read a dissertation on any subject, it goes over the labels
      from so many angles in order to prove the validity. Same as Ron
      did with all the Tech in his tape lectures, HCOBs and books. I
      never got the idea he was randomly and just off-handedly
      labeling people. Now, of course it is a whole other ballgame
      when you enter the church. Strange in a way, as they are all
      required to do the basics?! Wonder who created the check
      sheets?

  66. HCO PL 23 Oct 63, Refund Policy, OEC Vol 3:
    “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
    the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
    he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That
    was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff
    as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s
    the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

    • That’s a great reference, Dan. I think it helps to understand Scientology to read it with the idea that whatever Ron is proposing, he is proposing it so that people can do better, and live their life better. This includes policies that in retrospect proved to be mistakes, like fair game and disconnection.

      I go back, once again, to R2-45 as the litmus test. People who believe that there was a shred of seriousness to this view everything Ron did as a way to screw you. They seem afraid that Ron is actually advocating gun violence. This is absolutely amazing to me that people would actually think that given that it is obviously a joke, and given that no 45’s were actually used for actual “processing.” It comes from incorrectly labeling Ron a madman instead of a brilliant and benevolent man fond of making jokes. Viewed through the lens of “madman”, everything Ron did seems sinister and/or crazy.
      But then you read what he actual wrote, like this reference, and it is obviously not the product of a crazy person.
      I reread the Battle Plan PL recently – an absolutely brilliant document. It is management condensed into a two -three page PL. It is so dense and rich, you almost have to approach it with a few years under your belt, like I have now (along with some extra pounds). And yet, of course, a “Battle Plan” is just a task list to most Scientologists I knew.

      Mark

    • Good one Dan.
      In a lot of ways LRH had an incredible ability at getting to the heart of the matter.

  67. Labeling is simply the mind at work and belongs to the world of form (MEST).

  68. Years ago when I got very angry(1.5) at someone I was told by him how 1.1 I was being. he unwittingly started me laughing by his utter incorrect assessment of me. Another blatant example of misuse was an E/O who didn’t know what to do with me,screamed at me “even though you are an incredible upstat, I’m going to have to put you in liability.”
    For me, who uses this data all the time as an auditor, I don’t consider terms such as SP, PTS etc. as labels I consider them as understandings- I have put alot of study in to understand these terms. When I audit someone I don’t have the attitude of what a “loser PTS he is” at all. I think what a great guy who happens to be PTS and thank god I have some incredible Tech to help him with-I have been there myself.
    The ones using these as labels don’t understand these terms and arcx people with them.

    • You are spot on Ingrid. Personally, i dont think that anyone who wasnt at least a successfull interned Grad V auditer should ever have been given an admin executive post. Without a good grounding in LRH’s spiritual tech, its too easy for a administrative type to value only stats and not beings. They just tend to go Soviet.

    • Ingrid, but that we could have more beings such as you around! (your very presence INCREASES affinity, reality and communication)

    • You appear to be rather sane Ingrid. :-)

      • Tony I’m working hard to live up to my appearances.

        • All things are relative…. :-)

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Ingrid, for me, you are one that shines eternally!
          So much so that I have a plan in the back of my
          mind to try to schedule some auditing with you,
          for my divorced daughter, who wants to visit the
          States with her IO year old son next year. She is
          particularly bright, with a great sense of humor,
          while carrying the responsibilities as a top exec- utive in an international company. I have already
          sussed out the lists, and found unfriendliness, and lack of approachability. of many professionals offering their services, a definite turn-off!!
          That is, until I engaged with you!( Even if ever so
          briefly!) My decision (choice of Auditor) was made!
          Please expect a call mid 2013,if all goes according
          to postulate.
          ML, Calvin.

    • Beautiful! really well said, Ingrid Smith. Right to the point and good differentiation.

      For me, who uses this data all the time as an auditor, I don’t consider terms such as SP, PTS etc. as labels I consider them as understandings- I have put alot of study in to understand these terms. When I audit someone I don’t have the attitude of what a “loser PTS he is” at all. I think what a great guy who happens to be PTS and thank god I have some incredible Tech to help him with-I have been there myself.

      BTW, the “You’re 1.1″ seems to be one that is commonly misunderstood and misapplied, it is laughable.

    • I would like to know which person on this planet is NOT a Potential Trouble Source. This is the thing. Well, you are not supposed to audit pts’s. pts’s are not supposed to be on finance lines. pts’s are scary people. He is pts type blahdy blah and, why, I AM NOT pts! If you want to be honest about this business, from where I view, every person on this planet is a potential trouble source. So why make an issue about it at all?
      Scientologists actually believe they are not potential trouble sources if they do not qualify by some Org standard. And that is hilarious. Just look at the fucking trouble all over the place! Go over to ESMB and read the complaints of people who crossed paths with Scientologists who were “not pts”. Go on the web and look at the OSA sites. Look at the Freedom Mag site. Those people are nothing but trouble sources! ATS’s. Actual Trouble Sources! From where I view everyone on the planet is a potential trouble source. And this business of “If he does not cause any trouble he is not a trouble source” is a mind fucking way to keep people in line. I would have much preferred people encouraged to cause some trouble. Then we wouldn’t have this particle called COB, who has caused more trouble and grief than any other Scientologist on the PLANET, doing his song and dance at “events”. He has appointed himself the biggest celebrity in Scientology. He is nothing but an ATS. Actual Trouble Source.
      Same thing with this “suppression” business. Get real! Someone is suppressing you when their hands are on you, MAYBE! When the anesthesiology outs you out, when the handcuffs go on, when the prison door slams behind you, when you parents tell you to go to bed and you are nowhere sleepy. When you are held as prisoner at the Int Base! That is suppression. Suppression gets confused with opposition a LOT in this arena. Where the hell are you going to go to avoid opposition? Oh! Let me guess? The highest Scientology group on the PLANET! The Int Base! No opposition there right? One big happy family? Suppression IS NOT opposition. People are supposed to OVERCOME opposition towards KNOWN goals. Everyone else on the planet can do it. If you are a Scientologist though it registers as “suppression”. And then you need a special rundown to find your crimes. This is a mind fuck in itself that promotes non confront and disarms people. You look at the TYPE of people that get involved in Scientology as you see there , you see there is a type that is uncomfortable handling force. The idea is to handle everything with thought, education and understanding. But Hubbard said it himself, survival is a combination of FORCE and INTELLIGENCE. But you bring on a little force and you are either a pts or a suppressive. These labels are misused to disarm people. And then complete force is permitted by DM to beat people who are not permitted to fight back. He is allowed to wield force. Anyone else who does it is a pts or sp! Hell yeah I am a Potential Trouble Source. And it isn’t because I am being suppressed. Someone truly suppressed can not or will not cause trouble! Let’s get real here!

      “All battles are won by a combination of two elements, and these are force and intelligence.
      “You take something like an atomic bomb that can obliterate an entire country, that is tremendous, tremendous force. And it succeeds in short-term wins.
      “The wise men of Tibet were, just a few years ago, driven out of their mountain fortresses by the dumbest infantrymen the world has known for some time.
      “The long-term win is achieved by a balance between force and intelligence.” — L. Ron Hubbard

      • And the theetie wheetie OSA’s , who are full blown trouble sources and VOLUNTEER at it, this falls right along their purpose line, they publish Marty’s mug shot and arrest to humiliate and degrade and scare. For real? I became a FAN when I saw that mug shot! Finally! Someone out here wielding a little force! NOT hiding behind women and senior citizens! They don’t don’t know how bad they look and seem to have no
        shame or dignity. Why? Someone has not judged them as pts or sp on that scary, horrifying golden rod! They are causing trouble and working to suppress as volunteers full time!

        • And all the while DM and OSA generate more ill will and antagonism towards Scientology, they use it to preach that there is more suppression to “fight” and need more donations to the IAS. To “keep the Church free of suppression”. Really? ESMB is over there because the Church is free from suppression? THEY are the SP’s? I’ve heard the stories. Tons of suppression in the Church people accept and live with every day. Throwing someone out on the street of loyal volunteer service is very suppressive. Carting women off for abortions and converting them into serial killers is very fucking suppressive. Torturing people with an emeter is very fucking suppressive. Instituting laws that forbid or condemn women for wanting children is as suppressive as it gets. But all the “SP’s” are “over there” because they have S&D’s. Very sad. Hallucinatory.

      • Examples of Intelligence

        Education, reading, writing, researching, planning, goal setting, explanations, logic, computer work, policy setting, learning from mistakes, examining consequences, powers of observation, problem solving, ability to reason, learning from others, training others, reaching conclusions, creativity, sense of humor, judgment, accurate analysis of facts, the ability to understand people.

        Examples of Force

        Persistence, passion, an ability to disagree, physical activity, taking action, courage, starting things, continuing despite opposition, finishing things, ability to motivate people or make them laugh, persuasion, endurance, personal power, forceful speech, intention, drive, ability to handle stress, hard work, demand, confrontation, toughness, control, the ability to hold a position, ability to work long hours, intensity.

      • O, this series of posts is your best rant EVER! Oh, man, how awesome.
        Mark

      • You are dissaffected. :-) Nice rant, I liked it a lot.

  69. Excellent post, Marty.

    Naturally, Scientologists are not alone in the very human practice of labelling others. Even criminals in jails have their pecking order, and paedophiles are subject to abuse by other convicts who perhaps feel briefly superior to the person they have judged worse then them.

    Of course, there is a place for making our own judgements about the conduct of other people, in order that we might decide for ourselves whether to model ourselves on that person, or not; or whether we need to take steps to protect ourselves, or others, from that person. Perhaps the better path is, as far as possible, to judge the actions, not the individual, and to leave room for the possibility that the individual might change and their actions differ accordingly. So, it is better to avoid passing judgement on a person in the sense of convicting them of whatever charge (label) and assigning them that status (label) forever.

    As Jesus said, “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7)

    It’s an ongoing battle to overcome the habit of judging and labelling.

  70. Marty,
    I would like to know the real time line of DavidIf it already exis. When he was trained as an auditor, who was his auditor etc.

  71. Cultural Issues

    There is the technical R&D path that LRH blazed and then there is the culture that has grown up around that subject – two distinctly different things, particularly when the subject itself is so extensive and nuanced as to not be fully duplicated and understood by those who comprise its culture! LRH completely recognized and acknowledged this phenomenon. He also felt the worst thing that could happen would be for Scientology to become an authoritarian subject and admonished the student never to accept anything he said at face value but to inspect it and test it for oneself before rejecting or accepting it as workable. But given the need, resources and capability to hand, he was, admittedly, attempting to create a new civilization with broken straws.

    That the end result does not meet everyone’s hidden standards is only to be expected and is attributable to the characterists of those “broken straws” – people who had been previously indoctrinated through an authoritarian educational system and by authoritarian, dogmatic religions, and thus possessing a two-valued system of logic. In the absence of a thorough grasp of the largely unpublished subject, is it not only logical that they would cope by bringing their earlier practices to bear in this one?

    (Two-valued logic is moronically literal. It’s either 1 or 0, on or off, yes or no, black or white, good or bad, etc.)

    Judgmentalism, as described by Marty, is the product of two-value logic. It a means of placing everything in a box or under a label so that it need not be further confronted. Real, accurate, full-confront judgment, however, requires infinite-value logic (see Advanced Procedures & Axioms). That requires the ability to identify things for exactly what they are and determine their similarities and differences from other things – also known as “sanity”. Indentifying people, there condition, their tone level, what syndrome they are manifesting, etc. is essential to correct diagnosis, treatment and measuring progress because all such identifications are transient conditions under treatment. Using those identifications to LABEL people is what Psychology and Psychiatry do, not pure Scientology – with one exception. Because a sociopath is desperately taking measures to ensure he cannot and will not be confronted, all one can do is label him so as to warn others to steer clear of the hazard. It is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the “sex offender” label society and civilized law has evolved, or orange cones around pot hole. What’s wrong is that transient, technical identifications arbitrarily get used to label people, whereas only the chronic sociopath deserves a label because of his seemingly charismatic false front.

    It is an abuse of technology and a mixing of earlier practices to otherwise label someone with ANY technical label, particularly when done incorrectly or publicly. Unfortunately, this practice has erroneously become a part of our culture.

    Two exigencies exacerbated this situation in our culture.

    One was the necessity to undercut an infinite-value logic subject down to such a paint-by-numbers system that full contextual understanding by practitioners operating only on two-value logic (a relative impossibility) was unnecessary for Clearing to occur in an appreciable volume. “You don’t need to understand electricity to turn on a light. Just flip that switch and the light will go on. Try it and see for yourself.” That “Clearing for Dummies” approach did work, on balance, and did produce Clears. But in the absence of the vast majority of those two-value logic practitioners then graduating up through the infinite value logic level of Scientology 5 ( and thus achieving a full contextual understanding of the subject along with accurate judgment), just the two-valued system became institutionalized as the dominant aspect of the group culture. This applies to the application of both tech and admin.

    The other exigency was the necessity to maintain a mobile Fabian R&D/management base off the major comm lines of the world so that the R&D could be completed unharassed. The best location for such happened to be a flotilla on the Mediterranean. The established earlier practice for maintaining order under such circumstances was Naval discipline, which LRH knew well having been a Navy brat and a Naval Officer himself. This led to the formation of the Sea Org. This was also a workable system insofar as the network of “civilian” delivery organizations expanded, production reaching its zenith, when under that model. However, Naval hierarchy and discipline was itself an authoritarian expedience, which ultimately got taken too seriously in lieu of basic Scientology. Over the years, this ushered in and institutionalized the dehumanizing practices and effects so well documented by the Stanford Prison Experiment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and subsequent studies, ultimately institutionalizing sociopathy as the dominant leadership culture, which is intolerable to those with a thorough grasp of basic Scientology.

    Hence the scene today: Leadership predation, dehumanization and cannibalization of uniformed and “civilian” two-value staff; former “civilian” delivery orgs morphed into Sea Org clones in relatively idle posh buildings; an untrained two-value public; cultural sociopathy so blatant that it has become the object of public inquiry and exposure, and thus the subject itself the butt of late-night derisive humor, and thus rejection and distain by the general public; and a fractured network of damaged veterans trying to get their bearings, exorcize their own demons, revitalize the egalitarian Scientology culture of the halcyon days and figure out where to go from here.

    These are merely cultural issues. The handling is obvious. The need, resources and capability are present. Dianetics and Scientology were a gift to Mankind not to be monopolized. They flourished when they were egalitarian grassroots movements. Short of a thorough and searching internal audit, an appropriate public mea culpa of correct indications, reinstatement and/or implementation of the corporate structure LRH designed but under “civilian” management, and extensive group engram running to thoroughly root out all cultural arbitraries, the physical universe will put in discipline. In that case, a flourishing, united and publicly admired rearguard community of veterans would be invaluable in picking up the pieces and/or starting over from basic Scientology. Otherwise, “For God sake, build a better Bridge!” Our eternities depend upon it.

    • Graduated,

      Erudite piece. You’ve connected very well some thoughts I’ve had scattered about for a while.

      The spectrum of responsibility / irresponsibility obviously is a key factor in behavior. Could it be that in the famous Stanford experiment, and similar ‘authority experiments’, the operative factor was the displacement or nullificidual responsibility by an authority?

      There are some who would hold that a big change occurred in the Co$ around 1965 when the first formal organizational ethics went in. There are very few who would challenge LRH’s authority (knowledge). Could it be that in such an environment, one of genuine authoritative viewpoint of such imposing stature, individuals in a sense suppressed their own ethics and tried to mechanically (unreasoningly) apply the system LRH designed? And did so willing to subjugate themselves, even to the point of self-inflicted misery, to a purely mechanical authority of their own mis-creation? Later displacing even further in subjugating themselves to a designated authority which was not authoritative at all in any respect, but merely a symbol in a hierarchy? One suffering from a severe responsibility deficit?

      Carcha.

      • … displacement or nullification of individual responsibility by an authority, and that this has carried over into the Co$?

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Lovely, thank you, Carcha! Good to see you back
          on the comm. lines. Your stabilizing presence and inputs
          were surely missed!.

          The popcorn still being bought in bulk packs, BTW?

          We (especially Dorothy, my Scottish wife,) could sure do
          with some of the snow and cold weather, I’m assuming you are party to right now! Currently sweltering in humidity, in the lead up to full summer, here in Durban! (South Africa.)

          Take care, hope you had a blessed Christmas and are set
          for a (perhaps) bumpy New Year 2013. I guarantee I will
          be at least in a few trenches, the way things are lining up
          for me personally! Psssst! I just luv it!!!!

          Calvin.

      • @ Charcha: You posed the question, “Could it be that in the famous Stanford experiment . . .the operative factor was the displacement or nullification of individual responsibility by an authority, and that this has carried over into the Co$?”

        I would answer that question with a qualified “yes” in that such displacement and nullification of personal responsibility – personal integrity, really – was not at the behest of any one individual authority figure in the Stanford Prison Experiment (and subsequent conformity experiments). The “authority” that trumped the personal integrity of the participants in these experiments was each participant’s own overriding desire to be “right” in the eyes of the group, irrespective of their own rationality and common sense. Accordingly, the only real culpable authority was the individual participants themselves, as no other authority can actually make one violate their own code of honor. One must decide to do so – one one’s own authority.

        One of the subsequent conformity experiments had a seeming group of “students” giving – and being all in agreement on – obviously wrong answers to questions asked by a “teacher”, with the teacher giving no indication as to whether those answers were right or wrong (i.e. no individual “authority”). The lone experimental subject individual was the only one not in on the gag and, initially, would therefore give obviously correct, common sense answers. But that continued only until that guy realized that he was out of step with the rest of the “class”, whereupon he compromised his own integrity and decided to be “right” by also giving wrong answers in order to conform to the group! No one forced him. No one told him his right answers were wrong. No one evaluated for him at all. It was his own agreement with herd mentality that trumped his personal integrity and common sense.

        You mentioned that some hold that the ethics system LRH designed and implemented in 1965 was a deleterious event, leading to personal subjugation through (I believe you infer) misapplication. If I understand this issue correctly, I would indicate that it was not the system that led to any subjugation because a thorough understanding of it reveals that, when correctly applied, it achieves just the opposite – liberation. However, if what’s held is that misapplication of that system led to subjugation, I could certainly appreciate how that would be a likely outcome and have, of course, witnessed it myself.

        Under LRH’s system, ethics files were never intended to be a dossier system, as it has become today. It was an intelligence system whereby one could easily identify the wolf in sheep’s clothing (the sociopath) simply by opening the drawer of the target Division and identifying who had the fattest file of reports from fellow staff. Now, if you never clear a Division’s file for up statistics regularly; if you never grant anyone Blue Star ethics protection and never enforce it; if you never tear up a report on an obvious upstat; if you allow chit wars and never honor a righteous Request for Withdrawal but just file that too; if you never investigate the truth or falsity of a report; if you never penalize the writing of false and vindictive reports; if you’re too lazy, stupid or scared to thoroughly investigate anything and just assign conditions instead; if you robotically convene Courts of Ethics on those with 5 chits; if you never do Interrogatories; etc., the guy with the fattest file will be the guy who’s been around the longest or the guy who’s screaming bloody murder about the wolf, but never the wolf himself – defeating the whole purposes of having ethics files in the first place. And all you have is a dossier system, sticking everybody in their past. Thus, having no workable, objective intelligence system for identifying the wolves and no substantiated basis for putting period to them, through intimidation they rise to positions of authority and the target for Ethics becomes the guy who some sociopathic “executive” doesn’t like – usually some upstat. And, should you fail to concur and act accordingly, it becomes you.

        Now, put everyone in uniforms and subservient to “command intention” instead of standard procedure with an ethos that stresses and encourages strong cohesion and uniformity for the welfare of the group over the welfare of the individual and you have the Stanford Prison Experiment being played out and dramatized on an ongoing, daily basis.

        That’s how subjugation by misapplication of Ethics Tech occurs, with the result of the wolves ruling the roost and “ethics” being a tool of oppression.

        Sound familiar?

        • Graduated,

          Thank you for your reply and clarification of the crux of the Stanford and subsequent conformity experiments, and yes, I accept your explanation as regards misapplication. Actually, I thought you really wrote one of the best pieces I’ve ever read in illustration of the proper as contrasted to improper use of ethics. What you covered came across loud and clear. Nice writing! Too bad it is as short as it is. In physical sciences, reality makes one wrong or right, and that’s an easy proof compared to something like knowledge (where one gets the Flat Earth crowd in spiritual form). To not abandon what I tried, I would like to arrive at, and write, an understanding of how individuals, especially someone involved in Scn to such extent as to join staff, could depart so far from generally accepted principles. It may be that I’m trying to resolve this without incorporating the “threat of loss of one’s eternity” or the proven waste of monopolies.

          One guy I asked explained, and I’ll state it in briefest form: They weren’t that smart to begin with. But I’m not sure my experience confirms. Most I met were not dumb bullies; to the contrary, I saw many working too long for too little, and taking it. I gather from what you wrote that what I am ‘not confronting’ (to be very Scientological) is the extent and diversity of misunderstandings? I have difficulty with that as well, because I feel most did understand at least what they were doing. I haven’t read the experiments, I haven’t been hatted in ethics. But neither lack makes me either stupid or conforming (not to imply you said that – my point in saying that is that high intelligence is a plus, but not a requirement). There is something – I think, and whether I’m right or wrong is what I’m trying to determine – some basic fundamental that many are ‘not confronting’ – and that is a dangerous thing because if not identified it may repeat itself. Confronting does not always mean “Get an isness on a bad thing”. Confronting can mean, “Get a look at what is possible, not what the barrier is”. Confront doesn’t result in isness – it results in as-isness. There’s something missing. It isn’t Scientology, it isn’t tech. There is some identifiable “factor” in this equation that is preventing or making it difficult for so many to rise to a level of happy competence as OTs. It may be out-tech (what a label). It may a lack of understanding and familiarity with tech. Or it may be hopelessness. It may be uncorrected errors in auditing. In my vision, OT is a natural state of being, it is attainable, even easily attainable, and a smoothly functioning profitable organization to deliver it is also attainable. There is a way to do it correctly, without pain, and with ease. I may join the Marines and train to be a Drill Sergeant: then I can shout freely, “Now why can’t you do that!? Explain it to me!!” That would be good ethics, wouldn’t it?

          Returning to your original post, you concluded with this: “In that case, a flourishing, united and publicly admired rearguard community of veterans would be invaluable in picking up the pieces and/or starting over from basic Scientology. Otherwise, “For God sake, build a better Bridge!” Our eternities depend upon it.”

          I view Scientology as everyone’s responsibility.

          Carcha.

          • Graduated – I realized in review that part of what I posted might be misinterpreted. I DO agree with your interpretation, I should have been more clear in asking for your confirmation that misapplication is “the problem”, and in asking (open question) if there may be more than that. -Carcha.

            • @ Carcha: Thank you for the validation on my input, it’s much appreciated. However, if your question remains as to whether there is some other factor than misapplication (or non-application or reverse application) of Ethics tech, I must have missed the mark somewhere. Indeed, something more basic and systemic is not being confronted. Let me take another run at it.

              Mis/non/reverse application of Ethics tech is a grossly blatant Oddity, but it is not the Situation because it is not the MOST major departure from the Ideal Scene (I’m assuming you’re familiar with Data Series nomenclature. Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

              Okay, so why the mis/non/reverse application? You give several possible reasons, all of which are attributable to *individuals* departing from standard practice – fear of “loss of eternity”, misunderstandings, out-tech on that person’s case, lack of familiarity with or understanding of what the standard practice actually is, hopelessness. To that list one could be add any number of reasons for some individual’s lack of standard performance. Of course, such things would contribute to an individual departing from, and even perversion of, standard practice. But these are “mere explanations” and not a Why because they don’t open the door to a Handling for the horrendous Existing Scene documented in this blog. What? You just implement an enterprise-wide campaign to get the cases of all Ethics personnel cleaned up and Ethics tech fully re-implemented? The Church has attempted to do that for decades without lasting success even before the current regime. So, some factor must be actively precluding it.

              Let us observe more closely. What is observable is not just the occasional lone Ethics practitioner departing from or perverting standard practice. (And it is precisely those “blame the individual” explanations that have historically been used to decimate overworked, undermanned and even overwhelmed STANDARDLY practicing Ethics Sections.) What’s observable is in fact a widespread corporate culture of perverted and thus dehumanizing Ethics tech. Accordingly, the underlying hidden factor has to be SYSTEMIC.

              So, what systemic factor would cause such dehumanization so contrary to basic Scientology – the very thing that Ethics tech was designed to prevent? What systemic factor would actively preclude widespread implementation and maintenance of standard practice over decades? To find the answer, we need to look at the elements of dehumanization in order to identify any parallels that have crept into our own system uninspected.

              There have been many recent studies on group dynamics that have identified how dehumanization develops within groups (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation#Real-life_instances). They have shed light on enigmatic instances where systemic elements of certain types of groups were the catalyst for sociopathic behavior – fraternity hazing, Abu Ghraib, the Rodney King beating, My Lai Massacre, the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, KKK lynchings, et al.

              The common denominator of sociopathic group behavior was found to be GROUPTHINK (Duh!), the symptoms of which are as follows:

              Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality
              1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
              2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

              Type II: Closed-mindedness
              1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
              2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
              3. Insulation of the group
              4. Lack of impartial leadership
              5. Excessive difficulties on the decision-making task

              Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
              1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
              2. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
              3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”
              4. Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
              Moreover, all such groups had most or all the following SYSTEMIC ELEMENTS in common, which served as antecedents to groupthink:
              1. Uniforms – eliminating group members sense of personal style, a hallmark of individuality
              2. Insulation of the group – creating a world of its own outside societal norms
              3. Elitism – difficult entry procedures, categorization (labeling) and demeaning of others, which promotes personal conformity to the group stereotype as the ideal
              4. Strong group cohesion – unity toward a common goal; task commitment; interdependence; satisfaction of personal emotional and social needs of belonging; interpersonal attraction; similarity of background (e.g., race, ethnicity, occupation, age), attitudes, values and personality traits; social identity; group pride
              5. Strong internal pressure for loyalty and conformity – creates in the individual a willingness to give into conformity pressures in order to maintain or enhance their relationships and group status
              6. Behavior modification – individual behavior adjusted to conform to group norms, or “depersonalization” of self-perception
              7. External competition and threat – urgency of self-preservation as a group against a common foe
              8. Group over Individual – a group ethos that preservation of the group is paramount and individuals are expendable in that cause

              Therefore, the most major departure from a group Ideal Scene resulting is sociopathic group behavior is GROUPTHINK.

              Loyalty to a uniformed, elitist, strongly cohesive group facing an external threat (real or imagined) requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions. Prompt action is valued over discussion and thorough analysis. Thus, group dynamics produce an “illusion of invulnerability” (inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking – exactly what basic Scientology was designed to achieve, and does when application is unadulterated.

              The current C of S manifests the symptoms and abuses of GROUPTHINK, as documented in this blog and its links, in direct ratio to seniority of command echelon.

              To illustrate, such behavior is virtually unheard of among the privately owned Missions of Scientology, where basic Dianetics and Scientology are all that is practiced and the happy norm.

              So, when and where are the SYSTEMIC ELEMENTS that promote GROUPTHINK found, and how did they become institutionalized as the pervasive management corporate culture?

              Statistics indicate enterprise-wide performance reached its peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thereafter, the long-term downtrend ensured. Accordingly, the operative factor must have been introduced at that time.

              Between 1978 and 1980, two major changes did occur:

              1. The Sea Org management, with its Naval uniformity, hierarchy and discipline moved, from the Sea Org flotilla into land-based organizations in the U.S. located in areas of external threat and pitched battles from several vectors.

              2. The entire senior non-Sea Org management organization and “civilian” watchdog “arm” of Scientology – the Guardians Office – was disbanded by the Sea Org, for the criminal actions of a few, and assimilated into the Sea Org as the Office of Special Affairs (OSA), the FBO Network and ABLE .

              In this manner, the inherent, systemic groupthink antecedents of Naval culture (uniforms, group isolation, elitism, strong group cohesion, strong internal pressure for loyalty and conformity, etc.) became the sole and dominate corporate culture of Scientology management, devouring its host after LRH’s passing and metastasizing to the sociopathic scorched Earth culture en route to extinction it is today.

              Not until the uniforms are burned; the elitism is replaced with appropriate Evaluator humility; personal autonomy, integrity and individuality is prized above corporate preservation; earlier practices justifying nullification and domination are rooted out; the organizational structure LRH laid out, before his passing, to prevent just what we see today is implemented; and those members of the brain trust that were falsely clay-pigeoned are re-included, would any recovery be possible. But then, perhaps those expediencies already served their purpose long ago and should be allowed to complete their lifecycle unmourned. After all, we are still and far from complacent.

              • Graduated,

                Thank you for your further reply confirming. I re-read your earlier post in which you wrote: “Now, put everyone in uniforms and subservient to “command intention” instead of standard procedure with an ethos that stresses and encourages strong cohesion and uniformity for the welfare of the group over the welfare of the individual and you have the Stanford Prison Experiment being played out and dramatized on an ongoing, daily basis.”

                It is amazing how one can be led down almost any path. Scn is intuitive as well as objective: it describes a Thetan and his ways and means. Scn is not a group activity. One can’t fit group feet into a pair of boots. A Thetan is not a group, but as you point out, privately owned Missions do well (responsibility), and provide a place for the Thetan to study. In Scientology, which places the First Dynamic as the one which precedes the Second Dynamic in importance, which precedes the Third Dynamic in importance, it is astounding to see people put the Third Dynamic at the top of their priorities. Many seem to think Scn is just another consumer item, a movie starring LRH.

                To offer an interesting opposite perspective along the lines of what you said about Missions: the conformity experiments were set up as studies of conformity in situations where that led to lack of integrity. I point to the USS Johnston, that famous destroyer under Commander Evans, that took on the main Japanese battle fleet. “The odds” were not in their favor. Insane. Suicidal. Now what “conformity” would motivate such men? (Actually, creating art really puts you at the edge of the universe, looking over it into God’s eyes, “In the mountains, there you feel free.” TS Eliot.) One doesn’t get many medals “following orders”. The trick is to combine the audacity with the capability with the proverbially patient Buddhist monk sitting in a room on a mountain creating a sand design one grain of sand at a time. And isn’t that what most of auditing is about, sitting asking until that one question blows the PC out the window?

                Too bad this format isn’t amenable to longer discussions – I’d enjoy that. I will brush up on the Data Series, and you’ve got me interested in Ethics Tech. Thank you.

                Carcha.

                • Carcha, just wanted to make a couple of comments on your anecdote regarding USS Johnston, that famous destroyer under Commander Evans. 1) Military discipline is designed to get your average compassionate, kind, friendly, good-natured and relatively timid human being to do things he would not do on his own, and as a group activity – kill as many people as possible. That worked well for Commander Evans under warfare conditions, but that’s not what we’re trying to achieve with Scientology. 2) During WW II, Naval commanders operated with very high degrees of personal autonomy. They had their general orders, but they were free to execute them in the best way they saw fit for any given circumstances, and were held accountable for them. Their actions were not micro-managed by a central authority and they did not need orders to act. That’s what gave us the advantage in both theaters of war, as that was not the case for enemy forces. Leadership autonomy and personal initiative enabled us to out-maneuver the enemy while they were waiting for orders from central command. 3) It was an oath of loyalty to an individual and strict obedience to orders from central command that enabled, and was used to justify, the Holocaust.

              • Graduated – I am re-reading what you wrote to make sure I got it, but I’m pretty sure we’re saying the same thing (group think, strong group cohesion, and loss of original purpose) – you’ve got me outclassed in expressing it in tech. The recent real estate bubble is perhaps another example of group think. – Carcha.

                • @ Carcha: Yes, I think most people on this blog are on the same page with groupthink as being the major departure. But it’s the how and why that I don’t know has been fully confronted – institutionalization of an earlier practice, albeit as an expediency, which contained part and parcel the antecedents of groupthink – specifically, Naval military culture.

                  I know that maybe very hard to confront by many of the Sea Org veterans on this board as there may still be some latent esprit de corp from having participated in such a tight-knit group and the accomplishment it did achieve, as LRH intended. But remove that culture from the current scene and individuality is restored, the granted power and authority enabling the imposition of sociopathy evaporates, and the “civilian” culture that was dominant when Scientology reached its zenith is restored.

                  • Graduated,

                    This blog format is unwieldy – I have to wait almost three minutes for the thing to stabilize, then page for another two to find this discussion. I’ll put a post at the bottom of the page, where it’s easier to find [control- end], and there’s more space, and wait to see if you reply.

                    Carcha.

                  • Graduated, What you have written about here, and accurately described, is not only utterly on point with the entire purpose of this blog, but is in fact a spectacular swing at a final conclusive answer and I dare say you have connected with the ball with a mighty crack. I really believe your thoughts merit their own article that I’d like to re-post them with your permission. I am a 20 year SO vet, and I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusions. The characteristics of naval life are indeed antecedents that conflict with the ideals of Scientology.

                    Without making LRH wrong for what he did as an expedient, you have found the fatal flaw that led to systemic corruption of Scientology culture and in my experience I see nothing to conflict with your observations.

                    With Scientology and LRH under attack, the expedient was to move to sea where research could safely continue. But that also opened the door to the Groupthink virus which eventually killed its host. Please contact me privately if you don’t mind so I can arrange to republish your remarks as an article on Scientology-cult.com and also on iScientology.org.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Graduated,
      Thanks for an extremely well written, and indeed, erudite
      summary of the factors which underlie the fragmented,
      crippled remnants of the once dynamic subject we previously
      lauded, called Scientology.

      I must admit to feeling somewhat awed by someone of your obvious intellectual standing, but nevertheless found
      your contribution to be utterly compelling to read, and
      your passion and sincerity for the subject, communicated
      to me, with ease!

      Again, thank you for an immensely informative dissertation.

      Calvin B. Duffield.
      Durban, South Africa

  72. Judging actions and situations is good, useful and correct. Labeling a person as a generality for the actions he did, results in two issues. The first is that we are making our observation LESS accurate by shifting our attention from the deed to the person, so getting out of focus, and less true. The second is that we admit by labeling a person that we can not do a something about it. If I label someone stupid it means I admit that I can not demonstrate or make him see the right data, that means he is cause I am effect.
    That is why I stopped calling DM the asthmatic midget (beside this being an insult to midgets and asthmatics), and I believe this blog and many indies will benefit a lot by commenting here on the actions and not labeling DM or the Scientologists that are still trapped in the Corp.
    By this we can also show that we can differentiate and have no need to stoop to name calling and the main point we all will be more cause and less effect of the people we label.

  73. Love this, Marty! Thank you!
    This article could open the doors to healing for some lurking here. :)

  74. For me, the Ethics book was the greatest book Hubbard wrote aside from Dianetics. Dianetics boomed because people could go clear for the price of a book. The ethics book is about forces and conditions, exactly what Hubbard acknowledged magic to be about. If you can get command of the conditions, you are in command of magic. He should have left it on the table as a gift. But he established “ethics officers” and then it became an enforcement. He took right down the CDEI scale into the enforce band and labels and judgements grew from there. Scientology does not work unless you have people up that scale in desire and curious about. It is heartbreaking for me that I see any Scientologist in a lower condition on any dynamic, because they have not had pleasure moments with the ethics conditions. There is no reason at all anyone who had crossed the door of a Scientology Org, need to tolerate a lower condition. And great responsibility comes with this knowledge, trust me. It can recoil like a bullet if now used with care and it makes you responsible for what others do too. When you let them slide you inherit their condition. He did not establish “arc officers” “krc officers” and a million other officers to enforce his gifts. I know he had problems to solve and he understood the power behind that magic. But I can’t believe he overlooked the fact that the Scientology does not work in the enforce band. Would have been better to establish an arc officer in every Org, to make sure everyone was winning and VGI’s. NOT P.R. for the public. ARC for everyone. I am writing this in case it blows charge for anyone, and I can be instrumental in getting anyone here to pick that ethics book and reconsider it’s value.
    With that, Happy New Year!

    • Thanks Oracle, brought back some good memories of early days reading that book. “But I can’t believe he overlooked the fact that the Scientology does not work in the enforce band. Would have been better to establish an arc officer in every Org, to make sure everyone was winning and VGI’s. NOT P.R. for the public. ARC for everyone.”
      Exactly!

    • Yes it is true that the Way it is used is incorrect by the individual Ethics Officer. This goes back as to HOW he/she were trained. You can ENFORCE SOMETHING WITH ARC. And you should use ARC. This ALL goes back to how to apply the formulas and that is done in a proper manner. I was trained as an Ethics Officer and use ARC How else can you get into comm with out ARC? “Officer” is not a bad word, it simply means ‘ one who holds an office of trust, authority or command. like “chief executive officer..” Oh, by the way, the Chaplin in Div 6 could be considered your “ARC Officer.” But here we are again back at lack of proper training in the subject. A good start is the HCOPL called “ETHICS, JUSTICE AND THE DYNAMICS BY LRH AND THE HCOPL “The Basics of Ethics”

      • “Officer” is the head of a section on the org board. In this case, the Ethics Section is in the Department of Inspection and Reports, and the Ethics Officer’s senior is the Director of Inspection and Reports.

      • Jay: “Officer” is not a bad word, it simply means ‘ one who holds an office of trust, AUTHORITY or command. like “chief executive officer..”

        Hubbard:
        “There are two ways men ordinarily accept things, neither of them are very good. One is to accept a statement because AUTHORITY says it is true and must be accepted. And the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people.”

        “Unfortunately we are surrounded by a world that calls itself a world of Science. But it is a world that is, in actuality, a world of AUTHORITY.”

        “DO NOT ALLOW THE AUTHORITY OF ANY ONE PERSON OR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT TO CREATE A FORGONE CONCLUSION WITHIN YOUR SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE.”

        Enforce with ARC? For real? REAL ARC means you are guiding, not enforcing. Look at where enforce is on the CDEI scale. You have two types of people in Scientology. TWO TYPES of PEOPLE:

        1. Customers
        2. Volunteers.

        Where does enforcement belong with either one of those? Those are both based on DESIRE. Or CURIOUS about.

        • Keeping it real, the “ethics officer” is the cop in the Org. They get reports they send up to the prosecutor. Then a trial is held if it is alarming. Then a sentence/judgement is passed. I know exactly what people dramatize with the ethics and justice.

          In a good mission or Org you wouldn’t see anybody tangled up in ethics noise. You would see people who could think with the ethics tech, be moving up the bridge, and be on top of their game. The ethics office traffic is only a reflection of out tech, no tech, no service, = unhappy customers or overt products now fallen down into the enforce band.

          I have a simple way of dealing with others people’s ethics. I trust them according to who I know they are or by who they say they are. If I find out I was wrong, I withdraw the trust appropriately. That’s it.

          If Dianetics and Scientology deliver all it claims, and I found it to be true for me, there is no need for ethics. Look at Science of Survival and what you can expect from a clear. Anyone who is a simple problems release should never have an ethics situation.

          You take the sociopaths out of that equation. They will turn anything into a fucking tragedy.

          • If Dianetics and Scientology deliver all it claims, and I found it to be true for me, there is no need for ethics. I meant, there would be no need for an ethics officer. People would go to qual. Correction.

            • I would like to add one bit of advice on the conditions. On the doubt formula, step 3. It says: Decide on the basis of “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” whether or not it should be attacked, harmed suppressed or helped.

              So, here is the short list items provided:

              Attack
              Harm
              Suppress
              Help

              Well, that is a short list. What is these are not your items? What is your item is not on this list? Because the first time I read this, none of these were items. My item was not on the list. You CAN add items to the list. You CAN add your item to the list. Maybe you don’t have a purpose to harm attack or suppress? Maybe you don’t want to help either? You do have decide what it is you do want to do. Usually, my item was, “I just want to move on and put it behind me”. I mean, that was MY item. Not always. But get YOUR item, that works for YOU, and add it to the list.

              • I mean, what if bases on the greatest good, the item is not on that list?
                What is it is not the greatest good to harm attack suppress or help? You still have to do the math and come up with an item that works. Just check out the OSA folk wallowing in the boots of suppressives and the out PR and disaffection this has bought upon the Scientology community. This is why they do not deliver an effective blow to the enemy of the group. They get keyed into purposes to harm and can not even see the enemy of the group is David Miscavige.

          • You are right. But I have had many successes from using the tech of Ethics and most people do not need any long cycles. You are right again about the “Clear” but there is an education point there too. See “Cleared CANNIBAL” in the Tech Dictionary.

            • If you read about cleared cannibal, you are reading about CULTURE. A Zulu’s CULTURE. Cultures rise and fall and shift as they are affected by forces encouraging change, and forces resisting change. These forces are related education, habits, fears, wants and needs and even case . Social props and even nature. O.K. but you look at the grade chart Jay, you look at the grade chart and you look at the awareness characteristics. And right beside CLEAR you should find a person AWARE of CONDITIONS. If people can’t see conditions, how are they supposed to be able to think with the ethics book? Because someone TELLS them there is a condition there? That is where the ethics officer comes in. When people who have no awareness of conditions need to be told by someone else. As I understand it, the ethics book was originally for clears and above. I have seen a lot of people go clear only to mock up another reactive identity to replace it. Until you handle the PURPOSE behind why someone would have a reactive mind to begin with, the person will not shift. The MINUTE a person goes clear he needs to get through a danger formula. Bypass normal habits and routines. And you see, a Clear, who becomes aware of conditions, who had read the ethics book and can think with the conditions, that clear would know that. You pop out of a danger situation like that, you want to adopt a firm policy so it doesn’t happen again! Capisci?

              • The minute you go clear is it obvious you have handled a situation and some danger in it. You are still in DANGER until you adopt firm policy that it does not happen again. The same thing with every bridge step you take. You are NOT a GOD because you handled these danger sits! A person has to move on to step 3, of the danger formula. If you don’t do that, you are going to slide back into another similar condition!

                • Why the hell do you think Scientologists mocked up this reactive mind for the Church called “David Miscavige”? He IS the reactive mind of the Sea Org. He IS the reactive mind of the Church of Scientology. He IS the “new authority” put in place to respond for people, to react for people, to view for the others while they keep a lot profile on the floor somewhere.

              • That is why you train people.

        • You have obviously been mis-handled in your past on this subject and are stuck in some sort of ARCX with the enforcement issue. You can enforce a child to change his crappy diaper while he protests it or you can let him sit in it and whine. I’d rather change the diaper among the childs protests and that is because you have ARC for the child and are helping him despite his protests. Read the HCOPL THE BASICS OF ETHICS AND ETHICS JUSTICE AND THE DYNAMICS AND CHANGE YOU DIAPER!

          • Not true Jay. I can count the number of times I have been in an ethics situation in Scientology on one hand. All five times were because I questioned “authority” (of others to be abusive). Not because I fucked something up.

            I didn’t agree with the system. I didn’t contribute to the system, and therefore I never went effect of the system. I can recall the loony’s trusted with such matters.

            I don’t have an ARCX with it. I never agreed to it! I had my own system or ethics before I got involved in Scientology. It worked for me and I did not get involved with Scientology, to replace it. I was not up to “need of change” with ethics and morals and codes and principles. My codes go back far far and were in place long before this planet had a Bible.

            I just had someone here last week from OSA to tell me I was still in good standing with the Church! Laughter! I never used that murky system, the justice system was not usable or workable. I never fell under it’s shadow.

            My code of ethics worked just fine for me when I was involved with the Church:

            Know your rights. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any. Not the ones others decide for you as a “gift”. The ones you decide for yourself because ultimately, you are the only true authority over yourself.

            • I did not get involved in Scientology or agree to help because I had a purpose to OBEY. I started supporting myslef working in a pet store cleaning animal cages when I was 12. That is when I stopped obeying other people. Not that anybody was telling me what to do. I did the right thing. If you are doing the right thing you do not have to be bypassed. People in danger conditions have to obey. They have to be bypassed. I’ve been bypassed a few times. But it wasn’t in the Church of Scientology.

              • Who did Hubbard obey? He obeyed mother nature on the seas. He obeyed the laws of forces and conditions. He obeyed nature and forces and the laws about conditions. That’s who I obey.

                • In all fairness, he did say, “Ask yourself, What would Ron do?” Well, what did Ron do? Ron didn’t obey anyone in the Church. He obeyed his attorneys. He didn’t set himself up to be homeless or cashless or dependent on the Church. He set himself up to be cause over the Church. He did not work for 25.00 a week. He did not act wildly stupid. He did not tell his wife she could not have children. He did not send his wife for an abortion (that I know of), He did not deny himself a family, or anything else “because of Scientology”. He did not permit anyone to abuse him. He came and went as he chose. And in the end, he chose not to even be available to the Sea Org Members. HE did not appoint David Miscavige to take his place. There is nothing in writing from him about David Miscavige. Or the Freewinds, or the Super Power building, or the IAS. He did say, “Ask yourself, what would Ron do.” He never said, “Ask yourself, what would David Miscavige do?” Even David, he took all the same perks Hubbard did. Perhaps David is the only one asking himself, “What would Ron do?” He isn’t obeying anyone except his lawyers. He isn’t working for 25.00 a week. He’s got many homes and a lot of cash. He does not permit anyone to abuse him. He comes and goes as he chooses. And in the end, he chooses not to even be available to the Sea Org Members. He stuffed the ones he would have to cope with in the hole. Unfortunately he acts wildly stupid.

                • Noone gave you a thumbs up on this one but me? Me like this one! You go girl!

              • Good for you. I did not get involved to obey either. You have a lot of BPC on things. You should get into session and clean it up. Good hunting!

            • Well of course, that is your reality. It is not mine. So you are trying to ENFORCE your case or reality on others because you have another viewpoint? It is your eternity not mine. I am very happy with the Tech of Ethics.

              • Sorry there . I did not mean to suggest your work was not helpful. I am very happy with the tech of ethics as well, and it was I who mentioned the book as valuable. The book alone. I just didn’t flow with all that sprung from the book in the culture. I did not walk in your shoes . My comments were only originations I thought some might also find amusing. It was not my purpose to op term you. If you are VGI’s about it, you have another experience and another view. Doesn’t mean one of us has to wrong. We can both be right. Thank you for any help you gave to others that made the world a better place.

            • So… based on the above, you had OSA at your place recently, and they were engaged in a conversation with you… And they informed you are still in good standing with the Church.

              Interesting. I will just let that one hang there for more thought and contemplation.

          • To Jay,
            “You can enforce a child to change his crappy diaper while he protests it or you can let him sit in it and whine. I’d rather change the diaper among the childs protests and that is because you have ARC for the child and are helping him despite his protests. Read the HCOPL THE BASICS OF ETHICS AND ETHICS JUSTICE AND THE DYNAMICS AND CHANGE YOU DIAPER!”

            There in lies the purpose of this posts Jay, your statements are and arrogant, pretentious, and a pitiful admission of the complete failure of the Church of Scientology in general, and the generally suppressive EOs in particular:

            For we are NOT CHILDREN nor we NEED TO CHANGE OU DIAPERS.

            NO, we came to Scientology to obtain auditing and to learn this Philosophy, and that my friend cannot be achieved without open and honest discourse between human beings
            .
            May be you should go back to your Ethics Officer Hat, and really find out what Ethics and Philosophy actually mean and how it has been practiced among human beings in this planet.

            The Ethics Officers, with their moronic wannabe police /enforcer valences have made a mockery not only of Scientology but to thousands of years of our philosophical traditions.

            Oracle made a very valid point; you on the other hand keep blowing the same old horn that brought us this cult from hell.

    • Didn’t Hubbard also write that ‘justice could not be trusted in the hands of humans’? That has always struck a cord with me, having had some bad experiences with scn ethics, that is to say ‘wrong applications’.

      • I think it was weird if he really believed that, that he threw down an entire justice system in the Church for people to think with. Humans are trusted with justice all around the planet everyday and handle it very well. You yourself have probably taken justice into your hands and used it to fix something. When I was 14, before ANY Scientology, I walked into a bar in Times Square with a friend of mine to use the restroom. We got in there and a girl was sitting on the toilet, leaning against the wall, heavy snot pouring from her nose, and she had overdosed. The girl that was with me instantly grabbed her purse and started to go through it! I said, “What the fuck are you doing?” She said, “She isn’t going to use it.’ I pushed her out of the bathroom and ran up to the bartender. It was a “Blarney Stone” bar / restaurant. He was in a suit, and he was part of a working establishment, and he was an adult, and he was trusted with responsibility, and he had on a uniform, so I went to him for help. I told him someone had OD’d in the bathroom, he said he would call the police. We hurry out my friend and I and start to hoof it down the street. Then, I felt something pull me back. “I have to go back and make sure she is helped.” I said. “I’m out of here, I don’t need the cops.” she said. This is midtown Manhattan. I waited 20 minutes, nobody came. I went back in, went up to the bartender, he said, “Yeah yeah, they are the way.” I go out, wait, another 20 minutes goes by. I go back, I walk up to the bartender and he is just serving up the drinks. “I want to know excactly what the fuck you are doing about the problem in the bathroom.” I glared. He slid a 20.00 bill across the bar to me and leaned forward in a tone of conspiracy, “I don’t want to fuck up my lunch hour here with a bunch of cops and a dead body.’ I left the bill and flew out the front door. I can’t recall ever running so fast. I ran and ran until I saw a cop car and ran up to it and told them. Within ten minutes ambulance and ten cops were there. They bought her out and laid her on the floor. She was still breathing. But within five minutes she was gone. The medic working on her said, “We were about ten minutes too late.” Yes, I got dragged down to the police station. They thought I must have been with her. Yes I was interrogated for hours. Yes my mother had to come and get me. Yes I had to pay for her to be inconvenienced once again, probably had to leave course at the Org to come by. Whenever someone in a uniform, or anyone else tries to tell me I can not be trusted with justice, I just remember the me, that walked into that restaurant that day. That is who I am. You know what? We all have a moment like that, where we took on the justice, because we are people that can be trusted with it.

    • I think any distain for Ethics Officers is justified where the Ethics Officer has adopted the valence of a cop – an earlier practice. An Ethics Officer is not a cop and, if hatted and trained, does need or use force (except perhaps in the midst of a violent disruption in which an “HCO Bring Order!” is warranted).There’s already enough force in the bank of the person he’s trying to help.
      A good Ethics Officer merely assists the person in looking directly into an area of the bank that is already excerting so much force upon the individual that it’s difficult to confront, and therefore creates such a blind-spot that it manifests as self-destructive behavior which precludes tech from going in. Ethics is a “light touch”, not a forceful one. It’s like caring enough to direct the person’s attention to the fact that they have a banana peel over one eye or that their fly is down or that they have a booger on their lip. As soon as the person sees that, the pressure of that reality gets them to promptly handle it themself.
      Ethics is a personal thing and a good EO is there as a personal asssistant when someone is having difficulty restoring his own self-determinism. It can only be done successfully with ARC and good 8-C. And the need for such outside assistance ceases the moment tech can go in. Taking the use of Ethics beyond that point for “some other EP” or as a make-wrong to enforce some other-determined agenda is the diametric opposite of Scientology Ethics – it’s suppression. It’s being a cop, most of whom reside in the fear band.

      • one of those who see

        Perfect!!! Ethics as it is supposed to be. My husband got help from an excellent Ethics officer once a long time ago and it was magical and boomed his business. I got help form an Ethics officer once that straightened out a horrible mess I was in and I was then able to move forward to create again. So when used correctly – wonderful technology.

      • Thank you for this sanity.

  75. Just can’t resist the urge to comment thusly:
    Bringing the entire labeling and language paradigm full circle, as mind-fucked and brain washed as we all became under the influence of the real (label follows) SP in this scene, then we all by definition, became (another label) PTS subsequently. Recognize what the SOURCE truly was.
    The rampant limiting language of this cult is so thick in this diatribe that anyone who had not been imersed deeply in it, could scarcely understand what you all are talking about. Learn again the simple english that the rest of english speaking humanity uses and try to realize the haze you have been in. Rise above it, don’t remake it.
    Good luck and happy new year to us all.

  76. Stunning Post Marty and NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!

  77. Happy holidays Marty,

    2 things, 1st, I had a dream that I was riding in the pax seat of a black chevy suburban and DM was driving and we were following you. He was eating with one hand, driving with the other, and trying to talk to me with food in his mouth about how bad you are. I know, it was wierd for me too. 2nd, there is a book I read that I think you would like. It is about a man (John Boyd) who spent many years in, and rose to a high rank in the Air Force. After leaving, he embarked on a quest for knowledge that has continued to change the way we fight wars. The book is called “Boyd, the Fighter Pilot who changed the art of war”. There are also websites dedicated to him that you might find interesting. You and him are similiar in my mind because you have both: Joined an organization at an early age, rose to high ranks, ruffled some feathers on the way, made some high powered enemies, left the organization, had big questions that would not go away, started a new journey…..I could go on and on. If you have time, check out some of the reviews! Thanks, Mike

  78. I believe that labeling comes from the limited resources of the human mind.

    Our mind is a finite device that has to deal with an almost infinite universe. This conversion from the infinite to a finite domain involves a lot of errors and imperfections. That is the “original defect” of the human mind.

    In order to process the infinite, our mind is using labeling. A simple label allows representing complex objects. Our mind is even using “object oriented processing”, like the C++ or Java languages.

    Of course labeling involves all the errors and wrongdoings pointed to by Marty, but that is also a clever technique that allows us to operate to some degree in this complex universe.

    That is possibly the product of the Darwinian evolution: once a man was able to put the label “food” on an animal, he did not have to understand fully the animal; just he had to be able to spot it in space in order to attack it.

    That is possibly the origin of labeling: the ability to spot preys and attack them.

    So labels have some value in terms of survival, but they also are a trap as they are actually illusions that lead us to oversimplification and errors.

    In the PDC lectures Hubbard promoted infinite valued logic, but that is not applied in the CoS. Labeling is even enforced with clay demos, that educate the scientologist in using even more labels.

    This subject of labeling and the ensuing damages is well studied by Buddhism and General Semantics by Korzybski.

  79. I was in Scientology for 30 years and it was never an “inclusive” religion…it was Very EXclusive and ego driven…If you weren’t a Scientologist you were somehow inferior….And even though the policies ‘seemed’ to upbrade anyone who acted like that it was the nature of the beast and was in every Scientologist I ever met. “Separation” seemed to be the order of the day.

  80. one of those who see

    Fantastic, thought provoking post Marty. I’m still studying this one. Love the quote by LRH – quite important and not well known I would think. Differentiation is Sanity. Direct observation causes as – isness. Rather than labeling – which is a stable datum – best to observe. However, if someone, like a Miscavige is dangerous, one can label as such to warn others. But is the labeling of SP even necessary? One can communicate about the specific harmful acts the guy is committing. Labeling also acts as a generalization.

  81. George Harrison, The Light that has Lighted the World

    I’ve heard how some people have said
    That I’ve changed
    That I’m not what I was
    How it really is a shame
    The thoughts in their heads,
    Manifest on their brow
    Like bad scars from ill feelings

    They themselves arouse
    So hateful of anyone that is happy Or ‘free’
    They live all their lives,
    Without looking to see
    The light that has lighted the world

    It’s funny how people, just won’t Accept change
    As if nature itself – they’d prefer Re-arranged
    So hard to move on When you’re down in a hole
    Where there’s so little chance,
    To experience soul

    I’m greatful to anyone, That is happy or ‘free’
    For giving me hope While I’m looking to see

    The light that has lighted the world

  82. Hello Marty,
    fantastic post, again.

    BTW I was on my way back home today from holidays and I had some thoughs and conclusions about corporate Scientology. This is a little off topic, but I just think it’s ok if I let my mind flow:
    ~ The increase of prices for intensives (and courses) made Corp. Scientology unaffordable for the avarage person (starting mid-to-late 70’s)
    ~ The Mission Holder Conference closed the doors onto the bridge (early 80’s)
    ~ The IAS started to steal money from Orgs and Missions thus the Orgs became insolvent (since mid-to-late 80’s)
    ~ The GAT corrupted the Technology and degraded a lot of good Auditors (mid 90’s)
    ~ The Golden Age of Knowledge further corrupted the Corporate Scientology Bridge and was a demonstration of “can’t have” the Bridge for the Public
    ~ The “Ideal Org” “Crusade”, Miscaviges latest bright idea, tells Scientologists around the globe that buildings and other MEST will handle all dissemination and delivery problems.

    Results from top down:
    – less demand for services, less demand for auditing, less need for auditors, less training
    – less dissemination + people leaving in droves
    – thanks to IAS less money for (ever increasing prices) service, less service delivered, orgs stumbling and shrinking
    – GAT opened the door for less training, bad applications, labeling auditors incompetent et al.
    – GAK: stopping the bridge flow to the max. Degrading Scientology to a Book & Lecture Religion
    – Ideal Orgs: The Solution is MEST

    My big question, still, is: was it all part of the ever dwindling “outpoin-correct” cycle or was it all planed intentionally?
    I know Suppressives will choose the wrong target (and it’s obvious to me that Miscavige is an anti-social personality even “without reading the internet”) in order to “handle” things.
    Therefore it could be a long-term “outpoint-correct” cycle.
    At the other hand it could be a long term objective as well. But I just can’t imagine this little asshole had so much foresight and management skills to perform such an maneuver.
    Obviously DMs “hidden Standard” is to have an audience (crowd for his merchandising productions) instead of the correct target: Keeping Scientology Working and Applied.

    Any input welcome.

  83. Got out of the SO in 2004 after nearly 40 years in the church.
    Another 4 years contributing, then ever so slowly entered the
    decompression. One day read an entheta article, then the
    avalanche of critical books of Scio and LRH. Then months on
    the Internet verifying court documents and all these personal
    stories. The sorting out was horrendous. Then Marty showed
    up and I could finally exhale. What I mainly learned are:
    1. The church are turning a blindspot to what this planet needs.
    2. They are labeling and mischaracterizing so many things out-
    side of their preconceived ideas of what they can influene.
    3. To change anything in the church you have to go outside
    their box to such a degree it would take years to accomplish.
    4. The church has no clue how to use LRH tech to change what
    is going on outside their little minuscule sphere of influence.
    (Don’t you just love these generalities)
    5. The main culprit for all these outnesses is DM (David Miscavige).
    6. The Tech works.
    7. LRH, although with all his outpoints was a genius.
    8. With the right type of implementation of LRH admin tech we
    could be lightyears ahead of where we are now with Scient.
    9. This planet (with all the 8 dynamics fully involved) could be
    helped tremendously with LRH tech.
    10. I do not think the Data Series with the Eval Tech has
    ever been fully used (sorry Alex and any other evaluators).
    Really digging in with in debt interviews, %ages, graphs,
    prognosis for the future, tons of data, with all 8 dynamics
    in full play how to salvage this planet with all of LRH tech.
    While we are bickering about who is an SP, a wog, a squirrel,
    PTS ad infinitum, the oceans have changed their chemical
    composition, the Middle East is on the brink of another war
    (same as I heard as a little boy in the 1950’s), the rain forest
    is being decimated at an unbelievable rate and on it goes.
    OSA can you please get real and start to help. I am sure you
    know what the first order of business is! Kurt and Linda, just
    look!

    • AMEN BROTHER!

    • It’s an almost planet as LRH said. We almost had Scientology.
      Well…in this case I can’t even say almost.
      What a friggin shame.
      I still have hope. I think that is one thing most Scientologists retain , hope.

    • Lars, great point about the eval tech. In the church, just like most Comm-evs, the outcome was usually pre-determined. How does one get a totally valid eval without any outside influence or even personal prejudices? Knowing eval tech is only the beginning. If something was really important, I would commission 3 separate evals on the same issue and then compare them, for starters.

  84. It’s worth remembering that whatever label we attach to someone is only valid from the perspective of that particular observer, and only in that location and moment in space-time. The rest of the time it’s best to say, “I don’t know.” If we want to know again, we have to look again.

  85. Marty,

    It appears you’ve stirred the proverbial hornets nest with all the interest and indeed, the impulse to respond from one who normally would not board such trains of conversation. ;) Commendable!

    I am grateful that I did not cross your path in your earlier incarnation. You were, due to all reports, portraying quite a formidable character.

    However, I am now encouraged by the fact that that you have more apparent clarity. Encouraged for humanity at large and for you!

    Your new efforts, to me seem to be heroic, at the very least; given the hot-spot you must have been in and no doubt still suffer with, in some measure?

    I was there, in SFO in the 70’s-80’s during the “million dollar caper”. I somehow, avoided the up and down slide to various project forces and other insanities growing in popularity at that period of time.

    It all had a very foul oder and made me wince. So, I sought and found a more fragrant place to be…and have looked back on occasion, but not with much affinity. My OT3 certificate has been amusing, somehow oddly comforting but mostly taken with some grains of salt. I have done well and I suspect due in some part to that certificate.

    The education gained from those reflective moments of that experience however have been priceless.

    It is my hope…my postulate that this new year will bring some re-cognition of the pain and confusion embedded in this incident. And that those who have been caught in the frozen energy of it, will find release. Indeed, that all of us may find a new and more productive way to spend our still valuable idealism.

    -peace

  86. To Mike: Looked up “Boyd…Fighter Pilot…” in Wikipedia. Interesting reference. I’d say Marty fits the comparison. But it’s also looks to be a good piece of knowledge to know…the man and his works.

  87. Yes Judgement.
    Sometimes I have wondered who has Ethics in this world, and I have the answer which is Oh yes I do ! And Actually So ! Poof ! Poof ! Poof ! Poof ! ROTFLOLL

  88. OK, I’m done on this one.

    I think if I could sum it up I would say we had a failure of semantics.

    Commence with the thumb-downing, or dumb-thowning, whatever you call it.

  89. burnedbutnotbitter

    Thank you for this post. I once wrote you a letter about OT “friends” being condescending to me because I was “only” Clear, but somehow they always wanted my guidance on their second dynamic. I feel acknowledged.

  90. The truth is that every word we use is a label for a concept and you can’t describe anything at all without using labels in this society. If someone fixes his fence he is a “carpenter” or an “amateur carpenter” or “a darn fool with a hammer in his hand”. One way or another we have to label something in order to talk about it.

    The problem comes when one generalizes. In Dianetics Ron talks about the fallacy of saying one thing is equal to another. This is described at length in Alfred Korzybskies book Science and Sanity. One apple does not equal another apple. They have different shapes, locations and colors – at least.

    So when we look at someone, we need to be able to differentiate to see how he differs and is similar to other people.

    Under the influence of the reactive mind people tend to identify. One apple does indeed equal another apple. A man equals a pain in the neck. Joe is an idiot. A=A.

    This is the problem when you talk about “judgemental” people. The generalization and lumping people into categories that don’t really fit.
    At the root of it is the reactive mind. The basic target of Scientology.

    Do Scientologists dramatize their reactive minds and “judge” other people more than others? Not my experience. Although if you talk about Church management, I might agree.

  91. I see a few people here think labeling is ok as long as it’s correct. That’s great if you’re the labeler and not the labelee. Who decides what’s a correct label and what’s an incorrect label? DM??? I’m sure DM feels all his labels are correct. Even without DM at the helm, what gives someone the right to label (judge) another human being?

    Applying a label to someone else implies judgement. Don’t judge others lest ye be judged. I think a lot of people on this blog feel they have been slapped with an incorrect label at some point in their scientology career, and to make matters worse, there’s nothing they can do about it. I don’t think it’s the role of a member of a religion to judge other members of that religion.

    FWIW, there are a lot more negative labels than positive labels in Scientology:

    Positive labels:
    Social personality
    ethics upstat
    Kha Khan

    Negative labels:
    Anti-social personality
    suppressive person
    chaos merchant
    downstat
    PTS 1-3
    PTS A-J
    NCG
    continuing overt case
    circuit cases
    corpse case
    criminal
    junior case
    aberrated personality
    aberree
    bugged student
    buttered all over the universe
    dramatizing psychotic
    drug cases
    dub-in cases
    druggie
    cleared cannibal
    computing psychotic
    figure-figure
    bypassed case
    1.1
    degraded being
    wog
    ethics bait
    hill-10 maker
    tiger
    dev-t artist
    worker-oriented
    dangerous auditor
    theetie-wheetie
    robot
    squirrel
    List 1 R/Ser
    bio-chemical personality
    joker and degrader
    psych
    darling of the psychs
    raw meat
    bitter defrocked apostate
    et cetera….

    (BTW, most of the above labels come from scientology scriptures)

    Ironically, Scientology accuses psychiatry of labeling. Pot meet kettle.

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      you forgot LSD Cases.
      Per Lrh they are damaged for their lifetime ! And a purif doesn’t help ! But I never have seen any real science or facts about it.!

      John Lenon, Paul Mc Cartney are LSD Cases and wrote the most beautiful that earth ever heard. This is real discrimination ! And the bulletin where he describes them is really horrible. LSD Cases are real zombies and are and were treated as such !

      How discriminating and invalidative !
      Or that people that leave the SO are DBs. Also very discriminating !

      Those statements have nothing to do with premises laid down in 1950 !

      Steve Jobs was a LSD Case. He became one of the most succesful Business man on planet earth !

      Can somebody explain to me the Science and facts behind this bulletin ?

      It wasn’t DM that wrote it but LRH

      Have a good day !

      • Roger it is not about a person being successful who took LSD. The problem was as was noticed in the SO in high production areas on Flag back in 1979, those that took LSD at sometime in their lives while they were sweating and running around on the base they would go onto “trips”. Thus they drifted out of present time. This would affect their ability greatly. I was there and saw this first hand. I also took LSD a few times before Scientology. It is stupid to do and does affect the person.greatly. Read the HCOB “THE BIO-CHEMICAL PERSONALITY. I joined the SO before the issue came out . I was glad it did come out. There were at least 7 LSD cases in the FSO that I worked with, all had problems. After they were not allowed to join and the new recruits that did not take the drug were much easier to work with…

        • Roger from Switzerland Thought

          Read the Hcob : “Years after they come off”.
          LSD
          YEARS AFTER THEY HAVE
          “COME OFF OF” LSD
          Characteristics of persons who have been on it from examination of 2
          cases:
          1.) They are disassociated—meaning they are separate from anything they are doing.
          2.) Whatever occurs has nothing to do with him.
          3.) Not responsible for their own action or anything else and it doesn’t occur to
          them that they ever should be.
          4.) Their emotions are shut off to a greater or lesser extent.
          5.) Consequences mean little or nothing to them.
          6.) They are stupid.
          7.) Normal actions that another can do easily get mucked up by them.
          8.) They are unpleasant to associate with.
          9.) They are de-humanized and can be vicious or irrationally cruel.
          Apparently they have become a sort of a vegetable or a zombie to a greater or lesser degree.

          Jay are you a Zombie ? Yes or no ?

          He examined 2 cases and so created a label for 1000ds of people !
          I don’t know the reference but I can remember that in the FO about LSD cases he writes that those cases have an irreparable damage that can’t be handled and so they aren’t qualified for the SO and have a stigma (label) for the rest of their life.

          Is that Scientology ?
          Discriminating people and labeling them Zombies ?
          Did you feel like being a Zombie ?

          • I read the HCOB .. He later came up with the solution in RJ 31. Read it. He also gave us the Purif and other rundowns to handle such cases. Now how about you MR. Critic. Do you have a C/ SERIES 25 line in? Do you audit and train people on a regular basis? What are you actually doing to stop the decline of this civilization? What is your training level? Did you complete your OT levels?