Keeping Scientology Working

I  noticed there were several contributors recently commenting that Keeping Scientology Working (L. Ron Hubbard Policy letter of 7 Feb 65) ought to be adhered to to the letter.  Some commented that they agreed that as far as ‘technology’ was concerned Keeping Scientology Working was supreme and unalterable, but that they didn’t necessarily agree with applying it to Administration (Admin) policy.

Well consider this from Policy Letter Keeping Admin Working (Policy Letter of 10 July 1986 I):

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin.  The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration – POLICY.  

Now consider this from Policy Letter Admin Degrades (10 July 1986 II) :

The following actions or omissions are classified as HIGH CRIMES:

…2. Adding comments to the Org Exec Course or other administrative checksheets or instructions, policies or directives labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or ‘it doesn’t need to be followed exactly,” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the standard administrative data in which he is being trained.

Having established that Keeping Scientology Working extends to administrative policy too, please read the following Suppressive Acts from HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB:

Violation of any of the eleven points listed below which are Admin Degrades:… (which includes the passage above from the Policy Letter Admin Degrades)

Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or ‘to save the organization from the higher offices of Scientology.’

Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.

Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.

Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.

Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.

A) Do you agree that these policies should be followed with unvarying adherence?

B) If not, where and how do you draw the line on unvarying adherence with Scientology tech and policy?

451 responses to “Keeping Scientology Working

  1. Re: A) Hell no. Policy should be applied with common sense. Maybe the only PL that should be applied robotically is the first policy LRH ever issued, quoted here in full: Maintain friendly relations with the environment and the public. Corporate Scn Inc. violates that all day every day.

    • Awesome answer! How about marking the 7R graph with red and blue pen on special graph paper at 10PM every night or else, for example? People who are trying to go free are regulated in every move to such minuscule detail? Whoever invented all this first of all opened the door and prepared the grounds for DM with his micromanagement and, second, had secret doubts about people being basically good and about Scientology working and succeeding in making freer and more ethical beings.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Misha, policy didn’t open the door nor prepared the grounds for DM. It was us who did it and it is us who can undo it.

      • >How about marking the 7R graph with red and blue pen on special graph paper at 10PM every night or else, for example? People who are trying to go free are regulated in every move to such minuscule detail?

        No, people who are trying to help others go free are regulated in that regard, and the reason for it is so that the standard of help can be recognized, globally, wherever it occurs, for what it is: standard technology.

        There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring organizational standards. Where last century it was 7R graphs with red or blue pen at 10pm, this century it is MS Word or correctly formatted and composed emails, or .. HTML5.

        Without such standards, there is no forward organizational progress. LRH put that policy in place with regards to 7R graphs so that all staff members – helping others help others – would have a way by which they could recognize production and continue to allow it to occur. Without such standards being enforced, there simply is no way to move forward.

        Since its a staff policy you are referring to, while conflating the ‘free from regulation’, I conclude that you’ve got something mixed up. If you think that regulation is not a means by which you can attain freedom, then I suggest you try taking a new look at the word “regulation” in some other context. Perhaps gardening?

        Regulation is necessary for all growth to occur, and having standard administrative practices by which staff can observe growth is, in my opinion, very definitely appropriate.

        • I agree. I loved that graphed empty papers that demands to be filled in with plans and projects, and still use them now occasionally. There was a special time for creating a future. Actually sitting down and concentrating attention on tomorrow, postulating what it was going to be. And then drawing the graphs weekly to get to the point of goal I set to myself – I only enjoyed the game, still do it. I remember working as course sup in Russia, and not underestimating the value of that graphs. I kept them all in the desk drawer. And a CO at the time told me to not only put them on the wall, but “work on them”, put some attention into them, Do something with those graphs. I never forget the effect it created. They helped focusing attention on the goal and postulate things that would then “suddenly” happen. Maybe I just love the empty paper – it always tackles my imagination and “begs” me to create something on it – to draw a picture, to right a poetry or a story or a project for the next day! :)

    • infinite-valued LOGIC

    • Gayle Smith aka TroubleShooter

      Good qns.

      The very first thought is that I’m out of the church because of the extent that KSW was NOT kept in while still inside. If not there then where? We’re on this forum discussing this because of the failure to Keep Scn Working INSIDE the golden triangle – cob-rtc-ias. If nothing else has been learned it’s been that KSW is in a person’s heart, not defined by red or green words typed on a piece of paper. KSW is a create-create-create. It isn’t MEST. You have a car. It’s dirty. You take it to the car wash and get it detailed. You inspect it and it’s clean!

      The effort to KSW is as arbitrary as any ones behavior toward anything in life. I could go down a list of issues this post opens the door to but to sum up where I stand on it in general it would be that I have KSW in my heart. Where that puts me on OT levels materials = if you’re not at that level of the Bridge DON’T read the data just because it’s available to see. It is out-ethics to do things that will upset your case or that are ethically violating your integrity thus creating side trips on ones desire to go UP the Bridge.

      I’m grateful that the OT levels are available outside the church as opposed to feeling I’m drowning in the Sea of Squirrel. I’m OUT of what I concluded is an out-KSW group. This is indisputably similar to jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire scenario. This is the argument many kool-aiders have used to “handle” those who are waking up. They say that “Oh yes, oh yes you are right, there have been problems but they are getting fixed and leaving and joining the likes of Marty and his group won’t solve the problems but put you in an even worse out-KSW scene.”

      I didn’t leave cob’s creation to improve the KSW condition on that third dynamic. I did it essentially and in Scn terminology as a result of what I believe is a natural thing to do, handle or disconnect from my source of suppression. At the end of the day it’s ones’ own actions that are going to be looking back at you in the mirror. If you’re not happy, if the emotions about cob, the betrayals, the losses stay in the anger band or lower you need to consider getting in to session with one of the many good auditors out here. One can’t walk far with a boulder on their head.

      To speak further about KSW, I have seen many paths people have chosen that lead them toward the same place we want to get to. They don’t call their paths “Scientology”. Experience inside the church doesn’t give anyone the right to call their “alternative Scn” out in the independent world Scientology. If they are open and honest about their invented, alternative procedures then great. It’s been found that they aren’t all so ethical about this point. To that I’ll differentiate easily and speak on what I think is right and wrong. But it’s judgement on the subject that makes this matter easy for me to sort out for myself.

      There is a lot of criticism from others without any valid doingness on their part to deliver it; please be quiet or relieve yourself of your need to criticize in a way that doesn’t stop those who are doing the rightest thing there is to do in terms of KSW which is to deliver LRH’s tech and do so with the purest heart you can.

    • “Maintain friendly relations with the environment and the public.” by infiltrating the government…?

    • Let’s use some common sense, eh? The OECs and Management Series consist of the historical record R&D path of both organizational POLICIES and PROCEDURES as administrative guidelines and methodologies were evolved over decades in the same way that the Tech Vols do (at least they used to until issues were omitted from more recent editions and/or ascribed to LRH when they were actually written by other authors, e.g. the policy on 7R daily graphs was actually written by Mary Sue as stated in earlier editions). A THOROUGH understanding of them gives one the ability to think with all the data as to why the state of the art is what it is. One doesn’t need to put “historical”, “old” or “background data” on checksheets as, when any series is read in sequence, the evolutionary changes are stated in the policies themselves as well as what previous issues any latter issues refer to, modify or cancel (though admittedly, there are some extant issues that escaped correct reconciliation in this manner – an obvious administrative oversight, at best). Just look at the Data Series or the Org/EstO Series and you see that. Therefore, including such comments on a checksheet would open the door to a hidden data line.

      With respect to “unvarying adherence”, that, too, is covered. POLICIES are “guidelines” whereas the PROCEDURES that are contained in certain policies (e.g. Short Form Product Clearing, False Data Stripping, etc.) are proven, workable methodologies – processes – of Scientology 3rd Dynamic technology. Squirrel the latest evolution of THOSE at the risk of not achieving the standard EP.

      When a policy GUIDELINE gets in the way SENIOR POLICY (i.e. Deliver What We Promise) or stops, “to hell with the policy” – LRH. When “unvarying adherence” to a superseded or out of context PROCEDURE is demanded, to hell with he who is demanding such.

      There is also a policy called “Issue Types” that delineates the relative gravitas of the various types of issues, of which there are many. Assigning a monotone of high importance and invariability to every type of issue written by LRH, whether it’s an HCO PL, an LRH ED, an advice, a Flag Order or an OODs is equally idiotic. So is enforcing an HCO B as if it were HCO POLICY – that’s as moronic as sending someone to Ethics for eating Haagen Dazs because it runs afoul of the PEP Bulletin.

      The “admin tech” is the body of knowledge for group Clearing without having to Clear every individual in the group (that’s up to you Red on White guys and gals). When applied fully and correctly with common sense and a clean heart against the relative importances of the Administrative Scale, it’s the Theta-MEST Theory in action. When applied half-assed, selectively and/or with evil intent, those ignorant of it can become adverse effect of it. Which is how we got to where we are today.

      By the way, according to the admin tech, any of you who were ever illegally removed from post still own that post and are authorized by policy to take whatever actions are consistent with that post and your KSW/KAW responsibilities. Only you can abandon them. Put that in your unvarying application pipe and smoke it.

  2. I’ve always thought KSW is Scientology’s own version of the “10 Commandments” in Christianity, Not a lot of wiggle room left by either author of said dogma.

    • To me, KSW is a lot more like 2 Timothy 3:16:
      All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

      (That’s the way it’s most commonly translated.)

      This verse is used by many (maybe most) Christians to claim that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. Again, it’s an insistence on rigid, unwavering, unthinking, unvarying adherence to something, dogmatically.

  3. Scientology was created for, and exists solely to improve conditions and make for a saner planet and happier lives. Adherence that forwards that supreme goal is how I view it. Am I making others’ lives better? Then keep doing what I am doing? Is someone dragging the marked and mapped practical solution down into the mud for personal profit? Then they ain’t on the same page and aren’t valid.

    That’s my two cents.

  4. IMHO, it is robotic adherence to tech and policy that causes the problems. You have to be able to think with the data and see whether it applies in a given situation.

    Also what I have seen of attempts to apply the admin tech (or what somebody thought was the admin tech) in a business, was that the results were pretty awful. But there again, it’s the robotic application that is often the problem. “Everybody must have a stat graph stuck to the wall by their desk”, for instance.

  5. In my opinion, this earlier datum is senior to KSW: “What is true for you is what you yourself have observed to be true, and when you lose that, you have lost everything.”

    Although I’ve never been on staff, I have worked for several WISE companies that tried to adhere to the admin tech, and what I have observed to be true is that much of that tech acts as a serious disincentive to individual initiative and creativity.

    • Agreed.

      And if and when you join staff, best to be well informed of the current fads and trends of following which policies, because at different times in Scientology history, the fads were less harsh than now.

      People inevitably figure this out, and choose whether to join staff based on what they observe, on the ground, wherever they are.

      This is why so many quit within the first couple months, on staff, they just weren’t well informed, and when they live some ;irrationally harsh staff situations, they quit.

      Field Auditor and Group level activity, can even get overly harsh, like as IHELP has made it.

      Best to use “what is true for you….” as senior policy OVER KSW 10 points applied by staffs who wish to dominate.

      And just swing “what is true to you….” as SENIOR policy within the 10 points, that most has to be applied, since KSW enforces “what is true for you….” just as much as KSW PL enforces any other policy.

      Greatest good for the greatest number, can be incorrectly added up, by those in control in the staff hierarchies, which is how fads occur, well, I guess fads are simply “bank” of those in the dominant staff positions to say what IS current emphasis on whichever policy.

      Which is why, it’s been so hard to attract really sane smart top leaders to hold their ground, at WDC and Exec Strata levels. That’s long range the only zone in the whole shebang to undo this Miscavige era of misplaced emphasis and making others wrong with policies.

      Factually, all of the thousands of accumulated wrong SP declares these last 40 some years, are horribly against KSW policy, all are KSW policy violations, and should be cancelled.

    • It is true. So either you
      1. take this datum as part of KSW and you are allowed to take this datum in or
      2. this datum knocks out KSW or
      3. KSW knocks out this datum.
      As an interpretation… I would say the above.

      Is there a policy letter on how to align policy letters? It is possible to align policy letters in the ocean of policy letters?

  6. I do not agree that Admin policies should be adhered to strictly. Policies in the areas of Disconnection, Fair Game, and Declares have led to untold trouble and, in fact, suppression.
    Letting the Admin types have unbridled control over the Spiritual Tech has found its ne plus ultra in the regime of DM.
    The “Admin Tech” particularly shines in its analytic tools such as Data Series and Why Finding. The Debug tech is pretty cool too. I’m not saying there isnt great stuff in the Green Vols. But as a coherent technology, it doesnt hold a candle to the power and effectiveness of the Spiritual Tech and certain aspects of it are downright dangerous.
    With Regard to the Spiritual Tech, i’m all for faithfull adherence. With regard to Admin Tech, i say use what works and discard what doesnt. If a policy is more trouble than its worth, then consign it to the dustbin of history.

  7. The two KAW PLs are dated July 1986. They were not written by LRH. Their validity is nil. Therefore:
    A) No.
    B) Unvarying adherence with any Scn tech and policy should be limited to HCO PLs and HCOBs that can be verified as having been written by LRH.

    • Unvarying adherence to any policy is robotism. Think for yourself!

      • And I don’t mean “violate policy just to prove you are thinking for yourself.” There are cases where you have to say, “How does this apply? What does it IMply?” An example is when I was auditing objectives on my three-year-old nephew who was terminally ill. As we were doing reach and withdraw on the most significant item, his baby bottle, he looked up at me (sitting on my lap since he could not maintain his own balance) and pulled that bottle away and hit me in the forehead so hard I saw stars. I had to think fast. “PC has an overt on the auditor. Means PC is out of session. How to get him back in session?” I took the bottle and did a contact assist until it was okay, I said, “There, that’s okay now,” and we continued. there were plenty of other instances where I had to APPLY policy even if it had never been specifically mentioned.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Lynne I think most of us are saying the same thing. However, taking down KSW is what took down Scientology. It was a stable datum in a crazy world. Exceptions and diversions especially by reasoning people should not really stray away from tech and policy. But they could interpret policy in a more clever way. That does not mean that policy is old or should not be adhered to. And not robotically for sure as this is what the Cof$ does.

      • Yeah I totally agree Lynn. Wrote this in a hurry – I was late for a rugby match.

        We must think for ourselves and evaluate whether a policy letter or bulletin is destructive or valuable. Unvarying adherence is indeed robotism.

        And blindness.

    • It’s actually impossible to have “unvarrying adherence” to PL’s and HCOB’s. If you apply the PL (On Personal Integrity)where it states “if it’s true for you it’s true, and if it’s not true for you it’s just not true, even if I said it.” then you would be violating another PL or HCOB if you kept your integrity in and didn’t do something that was not real to you. Even LRH said that absolutes are unobtainable, so with that in mind, realize even if you want to apply “unvarrying adherence” it is impossible to do so.

    • Agree.

      Some HCO PLs could be changed BUT only with alterations shown in the Policy Letter plus the WHY the original PL was altered and by whom.

      See here Re authorship of the PLs.

    • Let’s look at the facts here, besides opinions. The July date on the HCOPLs is… a date written on a paper. Those are not the dates the texts have been written – numerous examples of this. Actually, those PLs were read to the SO staff at staff meeting the day after LRH funerals, i.e. Jan 1986, as a final conclusion and evaluation of his whole work on policy and tech. I consider those as his final message and do fully agree with those. These were probably written way before he died. And, without admin Tech, Scientology would probably have disappeared from this planet by now and this website would not exist.

  8. I believe that tech should be followed with full adherence. I am not as convinced about admin tech (policy). I have not yet seen the evidence that it always works. It is quite possible that there are conflicts between tech and policy.

  9. No line. Erase KSW. It was the beginning of the end of Scientology. At least for me – I bet for life at all. Life is change. KSW is a dramatization of static of something which is not, or, in Scientology terms, a service fac. It freezes and allows no change and tries to move Scientology senior to life. Such tries drive towards black static – and that’s what happens since KSW. Miscavige is just an accelerator. >

    • KSW was not necessarily a service fac, but it was sure set up in a way that could be used as a service fac and was used HARD as a service fac–no consideration of what was going on, and the only interpretation allowed was the one which enabled the person applying it to YOU, to get whatever objective it was they were trying to get.

  10. No, I do not agree.

    I believe the “unvarying adherence” is the root of much evil in the RCS. You quoted a number of things from the SP Acts PL which of course “prove” you (and virtually everyone who is going to read this blog) are an SP. And that IS what the “unvarying adherence zealots” in the RCS firmly and unshakably believe. And so, the ratio of SPs to “good guys” keeps mounting (violating another more fundamental LRH datum about the percentage of SPs in society and another LRH datum about the means to detect an SP through a majority of SP traits).

    The problem is that the more robotic and literal the people are, the more they will tend to pick things that are not of senior importance as the things to be literally and blindly followed. It is a corollary — the more robotic the less able to differentiate relative importances.

    EVERYTHING has to be judged by PURPOSE and RESULT. If you cannot do this you are doomed. “Good” Corporate Scientologists are forbidden from questioning ANYTHING and thus you see “Ideal Orgs” because they just “know” there is a policy of that name, the IAS because “LRH says” there should be a membership organization, “three-swing FNs” because the word rhythmic is in a definition etc etc. And this DOES extend to tech and case gain, it is NOT limited only to policy and admin. If you want to do almost anything, I can find a line from LRH that can be used to justify it.

    The ONLY guarantee of success is to remain analytical and judge by results and retain enough self determinism to be able to differentiate relative importances.

    After all, virtually every person on this blog, has ultimately done that. Previously, to some degree or another, they had allowed themselves to be trapped inside the North Korean style thought stopping machine and had done things against their own interest and survival — though well justified within that bubble as being “on Source.” And eventually they broke free of the robotism and started looking and evaluating for themselves. And that took courage. That fact alone, that it takes courage and a lot of soul searching to get out of the mindset that to look at the internet or read a newspaper is bad, should make the point clearly to anyone — robot think and literal obedience is bad for health.

    • Great insight, thanks.

    • Mike Rinder, you are still the “SPOKESPERSON”
      for Scientology! That was well said!

    • Thank you Mike! A copy of this essay goes in the little “self-defense” pack we keep of brilliant LRH quotes and clear-thinking commentary.

    • And I agree with you Mike. 100%

    • But one is not able to retain self-determinism or differentiate relative importances while spending their lives in a cult. I had to agree with every tech or admin policy, even when it was some supe or so member’s interpretation of it. Almost 30 years of this constant make wrong of my opinions, feelings etc left me a shell. It was this way in 1975 up until 2004, when I left. That is now how I see Scientology.

      • Martha, from ’78 – ’92 I took services at the Burbank mission, Orange County Org, Celebrity Center, Pubs, AOLA, & Flag. In all those places I was almost never made to feel that my opinions were wrong. The only exception was a few individuals who had it as their nature to make anyone wrong no matter what the subject was. Believe me, I’ve had my share of disagreements and I do let it be known. In ’92, while arriving at course one day at OC Org, everything changed. From that point forward, I experienced what your describing throughout Scientology. The DM era had arrived for me. By ’94 I was off lines. I’m sorry to hear you always experienced this. The one thing I had felt was that this area was a strength of Scientology.

    • mrinder wrote:
      “Previously, to some degree or another, they had allowed themselves to be trapped inside the North Korean style thought stopping machine and had done things against their own interest and survival — though well justified within that bubble as being “on Source.” And eventually they broke free of the robotism and started looking and evaluating for themselves.”

      That is my story :)

      • Roger From Switzerland Thought

        I’m still in that process, it’s not an easy way, factually sometimes it is very horrible when realizing what ” IDIOT” I was.

        In those moments I think sometimes life would be just nicer to live as a robot and in a bubble :) :) :) :) :)

    • Thanks Mike for speaking for pretty much all of us. You are right that there is not a person on this blog, save a troll or two, who has already condemned robotism and stood up for common sense.

      There is one Scientology “model” with which no one in history has ever had much problem with, and that is the auditor.

      It may be overly idealistic, but IF every Scientology staff member was bound to follow the Auditor’s Code on their posts, if we made it senior policy, would that give a workable model? An auditor never reacts, never makes the pc wrong, just goes on being effective. Can an org as a whole be made to follow the same code as policy?

      Maybe it’s too idealistic or unrealistic. But I know in Marketing and Dissemination it would be doable. On Tech lines it would be doable. On Ethics lines it would be doable. As an aside, in the early 1980s when a person was sent to Ethics he was simply encouraged to talk about the problem a little, then asked what condition applied and encouraged to apply that condition. There wasn’t a lot of eval or inval.

      Why in the middle to late ’60s did Scientology become so militant, moving down the CDEINR scale into enforcement and inhibition of behavior? (CDEINR stands for curious, desired, enforced, inhibited, no, refused — a scale of how people react to the effort to understand things around them, curious being the top and refusal at the bottom).

      Part of the solution, may be for us to recognize what was going on when LRH wrote these policies. He was just starting to research into the OT band. And he was trying to turn over the hat of administration — first to Worldwide and later to the Sea Org — while he carried on his technical research. Even into the ’80s he commented on the importance of his technical research not being interrupted by organizational matters.

      However, before we condemn too harshly what we don’t understand, let’s look again at these policies:

      Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or ‘to save the organization from the higher offices of Scientology.’ THAT is exactly what David Miscavige did! Read it again!! You, me, and many others were the “properly constituted authorities” which DM torpedoed for his own personal profit and power.

      Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations. Again, THAT is what DM did and how he demolished the Church and we all stood around stupidly while he did it and let the ship go down. Finally, we came to our senses and are now trying to do something about it.

      Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened. Bingo, another direct hit. How many times did DM make “public statements” against Scientologists? Hell, that’s all he ever did at the Int base. And how about his publicly condemning LRH training from the Academy Levels to the Class VIII Course as “The blind leading the blind”?

      Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee. Guilty again! DM is not actually who LRH named to run the Church. And his post of “COB” is just a made up post without the authority to do what he does every day — run the Church.

      Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee. And today we have DM as “New LRH” hawking his own “New Era of Mis-Management” and “Golden Age of Implants” with 3-swing FNs and all emblazoned with Scientology trademarks and service marks.

      And now we are going to criticize the very policies that DM violated which resulted in the destruction of the Church? It’s the WRONG TARGET.

      As I’ve said before, the answer is in the Admin Scale. Here we are in this blog questioning POLICY. But above Policy lies PURPOSE and GOALS. Evil purposes can corrupt ANY policy because purpose is senior to policy.

      You are never going to make a policy that can’t be corrupted by an evil purposed individual. Not even LRH could do it.

      As I see it, the real problem here isn’t POLICY, it is that we have an evil son of a bitch with corrupt PURPOSES.

      Here’s what we should have been done. In 1990, IG Ethics should have tapped me and a few others on the shoulder and said, “We are going to relieve DM from command because he’s intentionally mis-applying Ethics to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and…” listed out the above crimes. “Here’s the Ethics Order.” I would have said, “It’s about time. Let’s go.”

      The problem is not “unvarying adherence to policy” — for 30 years the Church has NOT followed policy at all.

      • Excellent!!!

      • You make a lot of very good points Steve.
        I agree that dm did violate all those things, yet if the policy is to be taken as an absolute then we are all violating it too. How about the policy of not going to the press?? Dm didn’t do that , but some of us outside have. Does that make us guilty of an SP act? I don’t think so. But am I violating Keeping Admin Working?

      • You posed this scenario:’Here’s what we should have been done. In 1990, IG Ethics should have tapped me and a few others on the shoulder and said, “We are going to relieve DM from command because he’s intentionally mis-applying Ethics to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, and…” listed out the above crimes. “Here’s the Ethics Order.” I would have said, “It’s about time. Let’s go.”’
        The problem with your regretful, recriminatory scenario is that it couldn’t have happened because he was more ‘on policy’ than anyone else at the base at that time. Hence, the post. But, I got your answer to my questions – loud and clear.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Marty I was not there in 1990. But I was there in 1999. I have a lot of beef (not with you) but with management at that time as I was persecuted for following HCOBs. So forgive me if this sounds off topic or I have said many times, but I use it as an example to show that DM didn’t want to apply certain HCOBs and management at the time couldn’t do otherwise.

          We had even written with Olga Vernardou my then wife to RTC about those HCOBs since 1996 and got back a hidden data line type of answer by some Selena (don’t remember her last name) to forget about it because at Int there is materials by Selena we don’t know about.

          I think what Steve wants to say is that some kind of coup d’ etat could have been organised even if it would fail. I think that’s all he is saying. DM was certainly not the most on policy guy in 1999 or even 1995. Golden Age of Tech (alter-is of the tech), New Era of Mgmt (alter is of admin). No need to talk about the alter is of the Ethics Tech (DM had that down cold).

          So I know DM was not the most on policy guy from the translations. He fucked everything up when he did a “research” of LRH refs. and couldn’t find the very HCOBs on the subject matter. WOw! what a research. He said that the Translations were at the Stone Age era (one of his invalidations as you know his style).

          In one of those Translations HCOBs was the text titled “ON SOURCE'” which I am sure you are familiar with. In the maiden voyage 1999 as I was on the decks and watching the mandatory video I saw the hypocrite to quote that very text from that very HCOB, the one he didn’t want applied.

          In REDs for EU # 5 (I think) LRH was saying that the Why for Europe was the non application of the Translations Series HCOBs.

          And it’s true that this line never went in exactly as LRH wrote it even I believe at the times of LRH. He was indoctrinating a certain missionaire to do it as they went to Denmark on a mission on a CBO which has been used as a reference in the Translations Unit. But whereas he says in there that Sight Translators must be used (those who can read and translate instantly) and actually Sight Translators of the caliber of the United Nations, I don’t think this happened, and I am thinking now maybe due to lack of finances. The translations on tape were bad. True. But that does not mean the policy was incorrect.

          DM had all the money in the world to hire Sight Translators in mid and late 90’s. But he never did apply those HCOBs. Because he wouldn’t sell books and because Orgs would boom as LRH says in those HCOBs that the tape courses (that is, the courses are delivered first only on tape) are immediately delivered to Orgs and are sold CHEAPLY in the Academies where the student listens to them. He even lays out the order of what is to be translated in what order so there is solvency. So the orgs would make auditors and trained Scientologists in Europe and other continents.

          I am using this example many times. I want to apologise if I sound fixated on HCOBs. I am sure there are more cases where DM didn’t apply many many HCOBs. Should I start talking about the Mimeo? It’s a joke? It disappeared. Only at Int and FLO there was a mimeo. Not in orgs? My Why? So that staff cannot attach PLs and HCOBs with their reports and so LRH would be off the lines as that was his main line of TALK and POLICY. So, no LRH issues available, just verbal data.

          So, again what Steve wants to say is that this could be the only way. Not that it could be done or even should be done. I think we are now in a better game. A NEW game, Marty. The point is to form up a better group and work as close to each other as possible. Oh, and get many more churchies in our Div 6! Some might graduate immediately to Div 2, who knows. I still abide by the Org Board and the organising of the group to achieve our NEW purposes. I am happy I am here and for the first time in Scientology’s history after LRH’s times we can speak our minds freely. Even discuss KSW, lol. Ok, I can have even that.

          The KRC thing, is crucial here. We got the ARC. We got to move a bit higher on that KRC thing and we will be light years ahead. You have done so much on this.

        • that is an amazing datum, how is it that “he” meaning DM, was the most ‘on policy’ individual on the base at the time, if that is true it would explain a great deal

        • Never at any time in history was DM more “on policy” than anyone else at the base. That was DM’s own personal propaganda which you apparently bought into possibly because it was hidden by DM’s personal attacks on you. In 1984 when I first went to the Int base within 24 hours I had established the Int base was the most suppressive location on earth. I saw people eating dinner in the mess hall standing up. They were not allowed to sit down to eat so everyone could see they were in lowers. In other words, they were being publicly humiliated and degraded. How does that jive with the ARC triangle? It doesn’t. In 1986 the order came to abort all babies. How does that comport with the 8 dynamics? It doesn’t. RTC staff were confronting on a via of “cold chrome steel” — the most arrogant people on earth! How does that comport with TR-0? It doesn’t! It’s the direct opposite. Yet you actually say here that DM was the “most on policy”? He was not and I’m not the only one who thought so. I asked an exec in the Snr C/S Int Office, CMOI, why the people at the Int base seemed to be “total strangers to the ARC triangle” — she knew exactly what I was talking about.

          In 1989 I found DM was intentionally mis-pricing LRH books so that the price of Dianetics in 3rd world countries was the average worker’s MONTHLY WAGE. How does that comport with dissemination? It doesn’t. I proposed a handling because thousands of people were being kept off the Bridge. DM rejected it out of hand. I KNEW then he was suppressive.

          In August 1990 DM went psychotic after the flood and assigned everyone on the base Confusion. How does that comport with Ethics tech? It doesn’t.

          In November 1990 I said the problem with the Int base is the top executives were intentionally mis-applying ethics to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Spot on right and I was immediately assigned to the RPF based on a mysterious “Interog” that I never saw which apparently made people I didn’t know “enturbulated.” How does that comport with Policy? It doesn’t.

          No, DM was not the most “on policy” he was a psychotic fruitcake from Day One. Finance Police anyone? How about verbally declaring people like Dean Stokes? Where is that in LRH Policy? There were plenty of people who DESPISED DM as the epitome of anti Scientology since Day One. And also DESPISED the aloof RTC who were empowering him.

          People can call themselves anything but that doesn’t make it so. DM pronounced himself the “most on-policy person at the Int base.” But it was sheer propaganda and actually as IG it was your personal job to spot and handle him. It’s not recriminatory for me to say so, it’s fact. That was your post, man! Forget handling the IRS. Forget everything else you ever did on post during your tenure. If the ONLY thing you ever did in all those years was sniff out DM you would be the biggest Scientology hero of all time. (The good news is, you still have a shot at that crown).

          You were like a bomb dog trained to sniff out explosives and all the while you had a clicking radioactive Atomic Bomb strapped to your own back and you never smelled it? And finally it exploded and destroyed the entire Church and thousands of lives. Hundreds of people DIED — not metaphorically, but in reality, from cancer and accidents due to out tech and PTSness. The problem wasn’t “policy” the problem was IG Ethics RTC never understood his own hat and never wore his own hat to root out the one actual subversive destroying everything. Instead, you helped DM subvert the entire Church.

          On the day you left in 2004, you took with you the worst record of any ethics terminal in the history of Scientology. Every one one of your “accomplishments” helped empower DM. You were the absolute WORST ethics terminal in the history of Scientology. Instead of getting in ethics, you put ethics OUT in every way possible. DM was the worst SP in the history of Scientology. That makes you the #2 worst SP in the history of Scientology… until 2009.

          Luckily you came to your senses and are now making good. Are you overts still so big you can’t confront them? Have you confronted the number of people who died, the number of divorces, the number of fetuses murdered due to the failure of IG Ethics RTC to do the job he was entrusted with? Is that why you reject even looking at the A to E steps to see if they apply to you?

          Hey, it takes one to know one. I was suppressive too for supporting DM. After I got smashed down by a spurious RPF assignment and forcibly separated from my wife, I was so desperate to get back with her I SOLD OUT the planet and started supporting DM. I followed his suppressive policies and a person who follows suppressive policies is suppressive. But I came clean. And I made good. You are still ridgy and “getting confused,” now surveying people on Policy. WTF? Of course Policy can be improved. Of course some Policies need to be cancelled. That wasn’t the actual problem. Policy lies below Purpose and Goals.

          I have written this because you seem to be questioning Policy yet you personally have the worst production record in the history of anyone in Scientology of enforcing Policy. You even recently criticized someone for quoting LRH Policy. It’s not all bad of course, since 2009, you seemed to turn around and have since done more than any person living to get in DM’s ethics — done more, worked harder, risked more, and put up with more shit from DM, and been more selfless than anyone I know. BY FAR. So props to you for that.

          As for your 2-question survey, both are loaded questions. And you are asking the wrong questions. The problem is not “unvarying adherence.” One can only apply policy with UNDERSTANDING and with the live intention TO HELP. “Unvarying adherence” without understanding is idiocy. Applying Policy without the intention “to help” is NOT Scientology because Scientology IS Understanding (ARC) and Help (KRC). The very policies you cite as prohibiting what we are doing are the very policies that you helped DM violate to destroy Scientology.

          Carry on with the stellar job you have been doing which is handling the 10-ton elephant in the room. That opens the door to handling Policy. Or, keep being at times an out-ethics, ridgy mother fucker. The choice is yours bomb dog.

          • Well, good luck to you and Jim Logan on your neo-cold, chrome steal KSW ride.

            • I just don’t get it Marty. I guess I still come here because there was something that was important to me being discussed. It’s your blog. Do whatever you want. I don’t get your intentions though. I don’t quite get if have decided you are enlightened and are trying to group audit people to have your same cognitions about Scientology. I don’t know what you see as your “hat”. I just don’t know what it is. On this posting I feel like it is a setup. Something a lawyer would do, you know. It’s defining both sides of the debate.
              Is there some great truth in group agreement? There must be some purpose to the opinion surveys. Maybe it would help if you either just said what you think, and/or gave the reason for these surveys, or squirelly group auditing or whatever they are. It’s turning into some weird little cultish thing in itself. I didnt think I would be accused here of not negatively criticizing LRH (sorry Tony). It’s like on Steves sites where you have to answer if DM is a criminal or not. Here you have to answer if KSW should be followed and if LRH is nuts. It’s like you are trying to baby-step us to have cognitions that you have had or something. Just lay it out there and get it over with.

              • Did you read “What Is Wrong With Scientology?”

                • No, not yet sorry. I had the idea at some point that most of stuff was on the blog and I generally read every blog (not replies, that would be a part-time job), but evidently there is more in the book.
                  Someone gave me some advice once that if you want to know whats really going on blow shit up. I’m totally paraphrasing it incorrectly, but essentially I’ve been playing a bit of “devils advocate” here to get things moving. I was taking a debate stance in other words. I’m reading your most recent post and it looks like there what I would call “real meat”.

                  • I still think you could be more ARC with some of these guys. Who cares if they disagree with you. I just think you risk alienating people and creating enemies where it’s not even remotely necessary or helpful. These are cool dudes who have ARC breaks.

              • Hey Chris,
                I posted a comment on the next blog post of Marty where he states his Mission statement. It addresses “LRH bashing” and some different ideas about it.

          • Steve — I suggest you think a bit more before your write. This has just degenerated into recrimination, blame and name calling. It does no good to anyone. Except DM.

          • morelivesthanacat

            Steve, your “smartest person in the room arrogance” is irksome. And so is your “hardest working person in the room” attitude.
            Regardless, this thread points up why organized religion never works.
            So quit trying to organize it.

          • It may appear to be about “the past”, (For those that have not run the Clearing Course Platens and are still mocking it up). But WHY is “the past” getting mocked up and being used to harm attack and suppress Marty? That doesn’t have anything to do with Marty, It has to do with other peoples PURPOSES in the present.

            And what I see, is that anyone who is connected to Jim Logan is working to harm attack and suppress Marty. Thereby his dynamics, including his wife. Where are the doubt formula write ups that were done before the decision to harm attack and suppress if you all are so K.S.W.?

        • The whole purpose of policy is to help get Scientology delivered. In 1990 David Miscavige had just finished a decade where he been instrumental in dismantling the Missions and had corrupted management into a tool to suit his own purposes. I wasn’t there, but all reports say that his actions has acted to DECREASE Scientology delivery. Yet you say here he was the most “on policy” person in the Int base.
          So can you clarify for me what actions Dave took that observably increased Scientology delivery?

        • Marty,
          My estimate of David Miscavige, based on all that I have read here and on others’ websites in the last couple years about yours and others experiences, MY OWN perception in 1981 that there was a bad apple in the bunch (associated with CMO), a heavy duty third partier, a covertly hostile element – is that DM NEVER was the most “on policy” person. He is “on policy” the way Jean Valjean’s Javert was following the law. No, DM was a Machiavellian individual from the get go. He may have walked the walk and talked the talk, but he was no savior or Scientology post raid. He maximized the chaos for his own ends, in my opinion, and whether out of stupidity or intent set up the fall of Scientology for the next decades. HE WAS ON A DIFFERENT SET OF GOALS AND PURPOSES, imo.

          I am not claiming some sort of super insight here; I left for my own personal matters and didn’t think I’d be effectual anyway, but I had hoped to come back professionally and help. I watched what happened, and the bloated promises and posturing never manifested. I had my suspicions about DM since the day I heard him speak for the first time through video of the “IRS win.” SNAKE, my intuition said, even in the face of good news (partly because of what I knew behind the scenes)! From that moment, I never sent another dime to the church and took a LONG step back, though I have always considered myself a loyal Scientologist.

          Maybe going through some level of regretful self-recrimination is necessary on all our parts to get to a point where we can take what we’ve learned and move on as OTs. I LIKE a LOT of what Thoughtful (Steve, right?) said.

      • Dear Thoughtful,

        you wrote:
        “As I’ve said before, the answer is in the Admin Scale. Here we are in this blog questioning POLICY. But above Policy lies PURPOSE and GOALS. Evil purposes can corrupt ANY policy because purpose is senior to policy.”

        what you write rings true, but it is founded upon one assumption: that the purposes of all users of Hubbard’s system of policy are good. It does sound good in theory, but one cannot make that assumption.

        • The purposes of all users is definitely not good. Just like anything else — guns, cell phones, automobiles, computers, knives — any technology can, and will, be misused by malicious people. Sure you can alter some of the technology, but it doesn’t solve the real problem. A decent person applying Hubbard’s policy creates a very different picture than malicious people “applying” the same thing (but actually not applying it at all).

      • WOW. WOW. WOW. YES!

      • Steve,
        Very astute analysis of DM’s High Crimes… and Purpose over Policy. I can’t agree more.

        What should have or could have been done with DM early on or even later in his career is a complete mystery to me. Maybe nothing could be done, because nothing was done? Besides LRH, there were plenty of talented people around DM to prevent him from having his way and becoming the one-man absolute dictator of Reverse Scientology that he is today.

        Anyway, maybe human’s can’t be trusted with absolute power because it absolutely corrupts? I don’t know. It’s a mystery to me…

      • “The problem is not ‘unvarying adherence to policy’ – for 30 years the Church has NOT followed policy at all.”

        I was on staff under DM’s regime for 3 1/2 years. What you said is awfully real to me.

      • again, a well thought out response, I would only add that policy has the built-in assumption that there is good intended individuals, groups and organizations to follow it, obviously untrue within the CO$, so why are we examining policy?

        • Yes, that is the question Pissed Wizard. Data analysis shows that the vast majority of the outpoints trace back to intentional and unintentional mis-application of Policy by DM and his supporters over 30 years. A small minority of outpoints trace back to Policy and a small minority of outpoints trace back to LRH. And an even tinier minority — okay, microscopic — trace back to the “problem” of Scientologists being judgmental. Obviously if we handle the ELEPHANT in the room it will be EASY to straighten out wrinkles in the rug i.e. questions of Policy. And it would also be EASY to straighten out LRH’s actual biographical record and issue truthful, factual and humble information about him. None of the mistakes LRH made can tarnish the value and merit of the technology he developed, so why tiptoe around his flaws? It this the road to truth or not? Then #1, the CoS should be truthful about the way LRH is presented and liars begone.

          Obsolete or incorrect Policy can simply be cancelled — which is nothing unusual at all. There are hundreds of LRH policies that are completely ignored or which have been discarded over the years — many of them by LRH himself, many more by DM. If anyone wants to ADD IT UP, the fact is DM does not follow policy or even basic Scientology (biggest outpoint of ALL). Here’s an example of tech DM does not follow: ARC triangle. Has anyone ever heard of it? Apparently if you use affinity and reality in your communication, you go further than if you use condemnation, fear and intimidation. Here’s another piece of tech DM doesn’t use: every being survives on 8 dynamics. So why in the Sea Org Communism is it all cut down to one dynamic? Why in the Sea Org did it become Policy to MURDER their children before they are born? Go infanticide!!!

          It’s the most blatant, flagrant, suppressive, psychotic divergence from the Scientology Tech that could possibly be! I don’t care who ordered it. And how it is possible the people in charge did not see what was so obvious to the entire rest of the world the entire time? Maybe a few people had an ethics blind spot the size of Jupiter. Maybe the worst, dumbest, non-human executives in the history of Scientology were all made “Captains,” loaded up with gold braid who enabled DM and crushed all dissenters, including myself who was assigned to the RPF when I said in 1990 that the problem with the Int Base was the “top executives are intentionally mis-applying Ethics tech to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation” — correct observation.

          A usual excuse of such people, even years later is to blame the tech. Blame policy. Blame “Scientology.” And they are eager to find agreement on that. But it’s not the road out. The road out is to accept the fact that one fucked up stratospherically. And then to take responsibility and make up the damage done and put things right.

          DM said numerous times that everyone at the Int base was suppressive and he was right — they were suppressive for not stopping DM! Apparently most people are DBs who WILL avidly support only a suppressive. Good, fine! Spot it and you don’t have to be degraded any longer. Move on up a little higher.

          Hey, I would never mention any of this, but if now we are going to launch onto how Policy is the problem? Oh, come on. This is so off the rails it isn’t funny. The problem isn’t “Policy” it is each individual’s own utter failure to learn and duplicate and understand policy, and their propensity to mistake psychosis for “power.” DM is not a “powerful being,” he’s just psychotic. DM isn’t the only person who is like that. It’s a whole class of people and they all behave exactly like him.

          Maybe this explains why now we are questioning “policy” and other issues like Scientologists being “judgmental.” We are off course.

          Policy is not difficult to solve. The reference is HCO PL TECH in OEC Vol 0. LRH says exactly what to do, and that in itself is SCIENTOLOGY POLICY. You simply ask yourself, “does this policy produce a product or does it produce a confusion.” If it produces a confusion, then it is supposed to be cancelled or fixed per LRH.

          • Steve, you say:

            **************
            “Obsolete or incorrect Policy can simply be cancelled — which is nothing unusual at all. There are hundreds of LRH policies that are completely ignored or which have been discarded over the years — many of them by LRH himself, many more by DM.”
            ***************

            Two issues. First, you note that DM cancelled policy. Yet you largely, and repeatedly in this and other threads, chastise DM for NOT following policy. Which is it? Can he properly cancel (i.e., not follow) LRH policy? Or not?

            Secondly and more fundamentally, now that Ron is gone WHO in an extremely hierarchical, top-down and, yes, KSW, church structure has the power, right and LEGAL authority to cancel (and thus change) policy? WHO decides? YOU?

            How does this work, precisely? One can, and indeed should, “cancel” or “ignore” policy when Steve “Thoughtful” Hall says they should,, but also be chastised for not following policy when Steve “Thoughtful” Hall so determines? Really?

            I believe you have been entirely unfair to Marty. Do you have any idea what the LEGAL structure of the Church of Scientology is? Do you have any idea of who has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to make decisions? What is it, precisely, that you think Marty should have done LEGALLY? Could have done LEGALLY?

            And if you did know, what the hell did YOU do about it?

            And who set up the structure putting DM in power? And if not LRH, who set up the structure that ALLOWED DM to gain power?

            And if you say DM did not legitimately assume power, where is the lawsuit YOU filed to challenge his assumption of power?

    • Mike, you said so eloquently what I thought. Thanks.

    • Mrinder
      +1 +1 +1 +1
      Yes absolutely.
      The “Church” lures in people on the promise of personal enlightenment and to handle their ruin and make them into advanced spiritual beings.
      But soon it forces them into group conformity and doing everything for the group, where almost anything than slavishly working for the group is NON-KSW.
      This is a bait and switch.
      Want to take a day off ? See a Movie ? Spend time your kid ?
      Dilletante ! Frying other Fish ! Get in your KSW and knock off your demand for a full day off, we have a planet to clear !
      I have seen “Keeping Scientology Working” mostly used in a way to suffocate and crush the individual and make any first dynamic or even second dynamic meaningless and counter to the forward motion of the group needs only.
      Therefore the whole pretense that you come into Scientology to become “more yourself” “stronger and more advanced” in Scientology Inc is a fraudulent claim. You are in Scientology to give your $$$$$ money and your future money and your hours of labor to the good of the “Mother Church” and if you don’t agree ~~ you are NOT Keeping Scientology Working !

      • Addendum:
        A sentence to wards the end of Keeping Scientology Working Policy Letter is
        The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.

        This is taken by Radical Official Scientology to mean you SACRIFICE yourself and everything you have NOW NOW NOW.

    • Absolutely! There are importances in policies depending on situations. Survival, good products, good pr as result and friendly cooperation with society and people are of senior importance. All the basics you find in the 51 materials are of senior importance. What are we trying to do? Stats? Numbers? Birthday game points? Or are we trying to make a good auditor who will be an asset for his pcs and for society. Are we trying to make someone perfect? Then if he finds he is not, he’ll just stop to audit! Or are we trying to make an auditor who will know what he can do and what he can’t? This is more honest. He will never be perfect! Importances! What are we trying to do? What product is going to mean good sense good survival, good sane image for people good case gains? Certainly not an amount of points or stats. So that’s right, what purpose we go for, what are the important things? We never did that in the Church. What a waste of willingness.
      JLS

    • Bravo Mr. Rinder

    • i totally agree,and on another note,all the years in the orgs it was total dev t every time i went on lines,and all the stupid letters and mail i would get. i would have rather seen 10 percent admin people and 90 percent tech. looking back at it now it was a mess.

    • “EVERYTHING has to be judged by PURPOSE and RESULT.”

      From everything I’ve read and seen personally over the last five years it is obvious that miscavige has two major purposes: 1. His own self aggrandizement 2. Obedient Thetans.

      He succeeded for a short time. But his results are disclosing his evil purps and his empire is crumbling.

    • Purposre is senior to policy in the Admin scale. An SP will use good policy to stop things which are pro-survival; thats what he does. I son’t know if LRH screwed up and made a few bad policies, but I don’t really care. The problem is that we failed to do what LRH told us and allowed and sometimes condoned the situation we find ourselves in. LRH saw the pitfalls we now find ourselves in and he warned us, but some of us didn;t listen. One has to have studied enough policy to see where LRH was coming from in order to judge what LRH was doing.

    • Excellent Mike,
      Thank you!!!! :)
      Greta

    • I agree, Mike.
      Literal adherence to policies educates robots. It means you can’t use your analytic mind which is supposed to become more clear by processing.
      A group of OT 8s who has no reactive mind at all can’t think for themselves and can’t tell things are not going in the right direction? Or can’t say which policies apply to certain situation? Nonsense.
      Or you can use policies per letter but than included as well that you can put aside policy in certain situations and can think for yourself. The problem that I do not know any policy letter where Ron directly pointed this out. There are much controversies here.

    • Mike, that is really a good observation. I like it. You made me laugh too. Because I seem to recall from 1 or 2 books I read by LRH that 20% of the society is made of real SP’s. But no WAIT! :) DM Has just discovered and announced that it is actually 65% of the society that is SP’s! Why by golly, look at all the SP Declares he has (provisional and non-provisional) to prove it! :) My favorite BLOG sometimes! :)

  11. I think all policies that reduce a practitioners free will and impose restrictions of use regarding any technology to enhance free will should be canceled.

    Whenever you are dealing with people and processes, you have unknown input to the processes. And with unknown input in a process, you cannot have a fixed process producing a set result. You must choose between a fixed process (such as in testing) yielding variable results or a set result – and that requires a flexible process. A flexible process kills any notion of policies such as KSW. And KSW kills any notion of reaching set results (such as freeing a being).

    This is further covered in my article “Processes, Automation and Human Potential”:
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73825672/process.pdf

  12. a) No
    b) With regards to policy, I would rely on that old touchstone – Does it work or get the desired result? Based on these references, literal adherence to policy as it is written would stick any organization at 1965, pushing paper around to terminals and not using those fancy computing gadgets. How on earth can anyone subscribe to this? From my own personal experience of extensive study of policy and its application, you could take all the OECs and reduce it down to about two volumes. Certainly there are some great discoveries there and some very workable concepts. But I think a great majority of it is LRH micro-managing the hell out an org. How is one supposed to “create” their post if it can only be done his way??

    But, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. The largest, most productive organizations in the history of mankind have been built on “wog” technology and policy – NOT Scn. If Scn Admin Tech really was a secret weapon to boom any organization – well, it wouldn’t be a secret for long, because everyone would be using it – regardless of the source. And that has never happened.

    I feel Tech is a different story, since as a subject is closer to basic “truths” and is built on a foundation of axioms. Much closer to “natural law” than any policy could be.

  13. a.) No.
    b.) I would draw the line personally to applying the red on white exact. But I still wouldn’t do things if I didn’t see eye to eye with it. For example: Word
    clearing tech is red on white. I like to clear words and if important I will clear all the definitions and derivation. But I don’t always do this and sometimes doing it is a real pain in the ass. I think there is another crime listed in the justice codes about getting a court of ethics if you don’t apply study tech. This for me is sort of an enforcement and police action. That is just an example. But I totally agree that his tech and admin should be preserved as a body of work in an unaltered form. I think that if Scientology had been formed as an open market, feild activity like it is forming up now, then people could apply it as they understood and agreed to it. Yes, you would get some with bad results, but over time you would see the areas that were working best by result and it could boom from there.

  14. It is all covered in HCO PL Expansion — Theory of Policy.

    Looking back at my thirty one years working for the church, I lost track of the`number of times people robotically and stupidly followed policy to a destructive end and bad result because a) they could not think with what problem LRH was trying to solve when he wrote the policy (its context), and b) were not using it to create and further expansion which is the only purpose of policy. It was a key factor on why many orgs struggled and was a why for us in Birmingham until we wised up. Corporate Scientology today is a perfect example of the above. They have taken it to the nth degree.

    If we were to have followed policy to the letter when in the church, who the hell were we supposed to report Scientology Inc.’s abuses to? Church Management? They were compromised and turned you in. RTC? Thats’ the guy carrying out the crimes. Telex Ron? He passed on.

    So you now we have the crazy situation whereby Scientology Inc. and David Miscavige is killing Scientology, it has never contracted so far, so fast, and we are “violating policy” by speaking out against the abuses and taking actions to deliver and expand Scientology in the indepdenent field?

    I don’ think so.

    • I agree with most of what you say here.
      At the beggining when you say “it’s covered in policy” as if all we have to do IS follow the policy. I think the point is more like almost anything you want to do is “in the policy” I will bet you can find a policy that justifies a lot of what dm is doing. To me LRH wrote some brilliant, brilliant stuff, and he wrote some weird shit too. People need to come to grips with this. There used to be a Scientologist (Sea Org guy) (Frank Zern) from applied scholastics or somewhere who would give talks to the field about study tech and he would say he would occasionally lie just so you would have to think about what he was saying and whether it was true or not. (He was an excellent speaker) I think that if people approched LRH’s writings like that, it would help them to really confront the data and differentiate.

      • “LRH wrote ……..some weird shit. People need to come to grips with this”

        Tiger… I am not willing to come to grips with the fact that LRH wrote some “weird shit”. I don’t feel I have to. Have you considered that what LRH wrote simply exceeded you personal acceptance level?

        More than a few people have bolted from the church upon reading the OT III level materials. Does that mean then that those materials are “weird shit” or is it possible that at the moment those folks were reading their personal acceptance level got exceeded?

      • Tony,

        I am talking about the policy of all policies — the fundamental theory behind why policy needs to exist in the first place and what it does.The philosophy of policy if you will. By definition, you have to learn to think with policy, any policy, not just Hubbard’s. How it is developed too, like what do you do if there isn’t sensible policy that covers the situation you are in? Think Ron Hubbard’s policy specifically and exactly covers every situation? It doesn’t. It doesn’t cover the one the indies are in right now, for example. If we robotically followed policy we wouldn’t be speaking out or delivering in the indie field. And I can tell you it doesn’t cover specifically and exactly what you do when you find yourself running an org with no phones or heat, no staff, half a million dollars in debt and located in a people-less warehouse district because things, per policy, were never meant to get that bad.

        I tell you Tony, if someone knows not just Ron Hubbards policy (admin tech) but the theory of policy you can work wonders. If you try to apply it robotically you fall on your arse. You have to be able to think with it. A tech-policy analogy would be this: A guy walks in with a headache. A trainee auditor only knows touch assists and since the guy has a pain in the head, he robotically goes ahead and uses that “policy” (gives a touch assist). The guy feels worse. The trainee auditor looks around and finds the HCOB on two-way comm, reads it, uses some TWC processes. The guy feels worse. The trainee auditor quickly bones up on Book One because the headache “must be an engram” and uses Book One. Now the guy feels really bad. Around the time the trainee auditor is ready to give up on Scientology because “this stuff doesn’t work,” an experience auditor walks in, does the right assessment on the guy with a headache, finds he has out-int and fixes him up to rave result. Of course, the trainee auditor now mistakenly thinks that every headache must be, has to be out-int even when its not. This tech analogy (showing how polocy can be robotically applied to a bad result) is how many of Scientology orgs went.

        I agree it looks like policy justifies doing almost anything but actually, again, it just looks that way. If you are operating to cause actual, real improvement, real expansion you should not be using or applying policy that does not create that affect.

        That is what I am saying.

      • It’s true you have to think with it, which means you
        need to know it (policy and admin), know all the
        nuances and the overall encompassing Tech
        and Policy. It takes study and and a mind which
        can think, discern, differentiate etc and see what
        works with the best result on the 8th dynamics
        still with KSW in mind. And you do not have
        to be a rocket scientist in KSW when applied
        competently to people in the subject whether in a
        course room or in auditing nor in a business
        environment.
        Very true also about Frank Zurn, he thought with
        the subject and of course at times got in trouble
        with the uneducated young CMO messengers
        because of it. (By the way his wife Laurie Zurn
        has been in the hole for years and the SO members
        in ABLE INT has been told all this time that she is
        “on a special project” as a shore story!?!*! and they
        have 2 kids!).

      • This is a fascinating topic to me.

        Thanks Marty for giving us the opportunity to talk about these things.

        I recall while on Solo Nots the VERY strong desire to audit the subject of Scientology and spot and differentiate out-points that I saw and didn’t make sense to me and created tons of BPC for me. I could never get away with it because if I did bring up out-points in my auditing then I was “critical” and had to go right in on pulling Overts and withholds on myself and different OT case handlings. It was very frustrating. Scientology was probably the biggest area of charge on my case while on Solo Nots, yet I wasn’t able to audit it from my own reality.

        To address KFrancis and Haydn. A lot of points were brought up and to Haydn I will mostly say that I think we are on the same page.

        To KFrancis who brings up my comment that LRH wrote some “weird shit” I will answer it this way. I made it onto Sol Nots and dealt with a lot of higher realities if you want to call it that. I had big wins on OT 3 , NOTS and Solo Nots. I have had times where I went into a session feeling extremely massy and out of PT and after a short review session, felt like a million bucks. I will say that the OT case story wasn’t and still isn’t 100% real to me. It is VERY real to me that I have experienced much wins and gains from having the subject audited. Therefore whether the theory behind it all is true or not, I don’t really care because of the wins I received.

        Having said all that I will say that for me, LRH writings fall loosely into several arbitrary categories:

        A.) Extremely workable viewpoints that help a person understand life better and therefore have a happier life.
        B.) Extremely workable tech and policy that enhance the person and/or group.
        C.) LRH’s opinions that are outside of an individuals reality and yet may be true. True to some and not real to others.
        D.) LRH’s statements which are outside of most or everyone’s reality that are seemingly stated as facts and also have no apparent proof anywhere. It is this category that I labeled “weird shit”.

        As a percentage for each category from my experiences studying what I have in the academy levels, PDC, ethics officer Full hat, Dir I&R full hat. The basic books and lots of tape series, I would place it somewhere around:

        A and B.) comprise about 80%

        C.) About 15%

        D.) About 5%

        Some of these writings that are included in category C and D have a very damaging effect on A&B. and actually act as contrary facts, which give rise to people protesting the whole body of writings and spoken words.

        Some examples of category C and D are things like LRH was skidding down the street using a tractor beam, that Scientology is the road to TOTAL FREEDOM and is the only route out. I think there are adequate stories that LRH described that actually contributed to the fact of some considering him a God. If he could actually do some of the things he said he could he would be some degree of a God. These things that he spoke about regarding some of the godlike things he did seem to be demonstrably untrue. If he was a God or super OT, then why did he allow the current state of affairs to occur? If he was just a man who developed some great tech then you would have to conclude that he said a lot of things that just weren’t true. That is what I meant by people having to be able to get over hearing LRH say “weird shit”. If you see him say something that is just off the wall, you don’t also have to say that all of his communications are now bullshit. They aren’t. Most of his communications are fantastic and very helpful.
        I personally believe that LRH sort of lost it at a certain point and started writing things that were against his earlier works. The so called Scientology Old testament is the ARCfull, philosophical genius stuff. The Scientology New Testament is fire and brimstone and gnashing of teeth. Heavy ethics and justice, rollback, List one R/Sers, DB’s, etc. There is still a lot of good stuff in his later writings. It is not a total bust. Anyways I could go on for awhile with this, but for now I think this suffices for what I wanted to say.

        • Nicely stated – I consider your A – D above covers just about everything, but frequently it was nigh on impossible to ascertain which of his statements should be taken as A, B, C or D. He was very emphatic and persuasive. While listening to a tape for example and you’re thinking “yeah, that’s right, Ok that makes sense” (A and B), suddenly a completely off the wall idea slips through, (D), that in its own right you would not agree to in a month of Sundays. But you’re already in a responsive frame of mind and it sticks. And it’s back to KSW and eventually you become Tom Cruise (but without the mansions, failed marriages and private jets.)

          I remember while doing my Marketing Full Hat reading in one of the Plantery Dissemination issues that Earth was a “vastly underpopulated planet”. That was stated as fact – a self-evident datum, not as opinion. Well I say “No it’s not”. We’re in serious danger of creating a barren planet with many or even most forms of wildlife extinct, largely due to overpopulation. But it was buried amongst some very sage ideas about how to market – so I kind of accepted it. This is the basis of “cognitive dissonance” in action. You “know” from KSW that if you don’t agree with it you go back to the wordclearer till you do. But you also know that it’s not right, but…

        • Your „very strong desire to audit the subject of Scientology“ is a very interesting comment line. Then you indicate that LRH lost his way by „I personally believe that LRH sort of lost it…“ I think you are not the only one who wonders about that.
          I want to add my point of view that might also be considered „weird shit“. Thus I try to be a bit logical here:
          a) List one Rock Slam contains e.g. Scientology and LRH. Something that is audited and that is rock slamming is something from the past usually or has connections to something in the past. So, why and how the term „Scientology“ can rockslam?
          b) My personal observation: the time track 1983/1984 has lots of „blanks“. Here is something hidden. Cause is usually a charge area from the past that is out of reality.
          c) In order to clean up b) one has to go earlier similar to b). OK it looks like that Scientology on this planet has no earlier similar. But that would be an auditing evaluation. Do not evaluate and simply apply basic auditing tech.
          d) something that looks weired either in present time or in past time cannot be resolved by logic. It has to be audited to the point of cognition, as-is-ness and very good indicators.

          • My personal observation: the time track 1983/1984 has lots of „blanks“. Here is something hidden.
            +1

          • Hi Schorsh,
            To your:
            a) I understand that a rock slam indicates a hidden evil purpose. So if you R/S on Scientology or LRH then you might have an evil purpose towrds those things. That is the theory I believe.
            b) I don’t understand your meaning.
            c)You could audit Scientology and if you went earlier similar you could possible find other organizational upsets with other groups that were similar. When I talked about wanting auditing on Scientology I meant in solo I could use rudiments or use correction lists to debug out-points I saw in Scientology. I asked several times for a disagreement check, which is a very intersting type of auditing. To no avail. As I said, if you have critical thoughts about Scientoloy in the RCS, then you have sins you need to purge yourself of. For nobody who is “really clean” has any “bad thoughts” about Scientology.
            d) This looks like your own comment.
            I think things that look weird can be resolved by logic.

            Have a good one!!

    • Theo Sismanides

      Haydn, thanks. I usually follow your comments because I like to see the sanity in them. After all you have been a successful Administrator and your view on this counts.

      This is quite some differentiation. In a crazy situation are we violating policy by speaking out against the abuses and taking action? Hell, no.

      So policy is policy and life and people and organisations is another thing. To say that Policy creates the problem today (not DM or all those who, though they knew it was against policy, they followed his orders) is a lie and is inaccurate.

      People cannot think with the data. Situations go uninspected. And then they use policy to stop you from doing something about the crazy situation. This is exactly what happened to me in the Sea Org, the paradox being a “disaffected” guy standing up for HCOBs!!

      What the people around saw was that I was going against seniors and senior management! Then I was a disaffected and the word started spreading around. People who had no clue what had happened just knew I was disaffected nothing more. They were too busy to deal with their own posts and life to really care to find out. So the black propaganda kept its ground. And of course no HCOBs were applied and of course those who knew it was the right thing to do to apply the HCOBs just (that’s my guess) cave more in from fear of losing their eternity too. Well they kept their post, names and carriers.

      Was policy to blame for this? Hell no. Wasn’t LRH crystal clear in KSW? Oh, yes. Weren’t we all “studying” KSW before every course? That’s the roboticness. To have to study something over and over with the same misunderstoods. To me, the thing went over board because people needed KTL before anything or the Primary Rundown. I think we are looking at serious problems of misduplication and misunderstandings especially of the Admin Tech before we can judge IF it does apply. LRH needn’t care a damn what some people think of it. Because they didn’t develop that Tech much less understand it. On top of all if we call Administrative Technology what Management has been doing all those years, LOL, I think they apply a very small fraction of it and it shows now in the way things go… It’s only DM now and no one else. He managed to isolate everybody. So Management must have gotten too low of a understanding of that technology to end up in the Hole, literally.

      FROM KSW:

      “Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can
      bog down in any area.
      The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty
      that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven,
      Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad
      point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the
      more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation.
      (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves
      against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it
      wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate
      the bad. ” END OF QUOTE

      Had people defended one guy defending HCOBs something would have happened. The fact that no one else spoke out just shows exactly what LRH says above. People couldn’t confront (e), the Bank. We know better now (hopefully).

    • Correct Haydn, we are not the one’s trying to “splinter off” Scientology. DM already did that and the CoS IS the biggest splinter group in history. Since the CoS has abdicated their posts, the only properly authorized representation of Scientology are people like you and me and other real Scientologists. Policy is not the problem. The problem is PURPOSE. Purpose is senior to policy. Always was and always will be. And you can’t fix purpose by messing with policy.

    • Haydn. Nice one, and in answer to Marty’ question:

      Within the context of the C of S all of this is true. If you are within the Church and playing the game, then this is the framework of the game. You had better play it this way.

      If you are out here you have freedom of choice.

      If you choose to apply the red-on-white tech then my opinion is you should do so exactly to get the result the author of this tech predicted. To do otherwise would be to arrange for yourself a title of natural born squirrel. Once you have understood and studied and applied this tech, then maybe you can invent your own regimes but then call it something else.

      If you choose to apply the green-on-white then my opinion is you should do so with full understanding and judgment.

      As Andy and some others have stated, you can sincerely make a mess of things in a commercial or public organization by applying green-on-white without judgment. Sincerely.

      The admin tech has policies and then it has policies. By doing a very thorough and careful study of all policy, all policy, including FEBC and ESTO references and tapes, and then go out and apply this stuff to a large number of various organizations, you will find, IMO, that a lot of it is adaptable to this non-org scene.

      At the beginning of the OEC volumes, policy one, LRH suggests you adapt it to the scene. Yep, adapt it. That means exactly that.

      As Martin points out, don’t go in with blinkers on when applying marketing solutions to the company. As Andy suggests, regimented C of S applications have pretty much zero to do with what you face in a typical commercial organization.

      You need that amount of organization required to achieve your purposes and goal. Not more and no less.

      I walked into a company that was crazy, organizationally. Nuts. The guy had a good product. He was below his break-even point. Using one reference, Expansion, Theory of Policy, I decided to only look at demand. To hell with org boards and stats and drawing lines and Ad Councils and ethics and product de-bug checklists or waiting for the green volumes to play Dixie. I got some surveys done. Cranked out a spot-on promo sequence, buttons, positioning included. I shoved this onto the front of the product and got out tons of the pieces to the right targets. Sales rocketed. Now, production-wise, he knew what to do. I put an admin terminal on post to catch all the noise and help get the product out with invoices and collections close behind.

      Then a bit more promo and distribution and organization, always matching the volume. He went from 200,000 units a year to 2.4 million in local and export markets. Done and dusted. Not rocket science. Judgment.

      I went to a luxury hotel for a consult and did an assessment of the scene. Slow normal volume and profitable. The owner was in bad shape and staff agitated and a bit confused. I dug and dug until I could understand the scene and found the ‘why’. The general manager was cutting the power of the owner in a number of ways. He was covert and full of it. He was entrenched and controlled the contacts who were referring clients to the hotel. I told the owner I cannot consult this organization nor him unless he got rid of this guy first. First time that my first action was this one.

      Once indicated to him he blew down and he knew this was right. So did all other senior staff. He was terrified the clients would dry up and referring firms stop dealing with his hotel. He almost backed off doing the right action. I shook hands and asked him to commit to this action. He did. The stats jumped up. The clients were delighted. The referring organizations breathed a sigh of relief. Once done, I did not have much else to do. Judgment.

      In amongst the green-on-white are gems. How to clean a car at Saint Hill is a policy. So are the data series. Right there you have the answer.

      Put in enough to get the job done. Use what you need. If you can, as Andy suggested, hire the one who wants to be there and contribute. Dump the others. Point the gang in the same direction. Use only stats that actually are needed to achieve this. Throw out the rest. Understand ‘wog’ financial tech and systems and software. Allow staff to suggest how things should be done by being inclusive, transparent, informative, light, interested. High ARC and high KRC.

      Policy is useful if you know it well and can use it. There are some things you cannot avoid using if you know this stuff. Why? Because it is in the factors and axioms. Tons of green-on-white is in fact natural law. Some of it definitely is not. Use other authors and systems if it contributes to the game and achieving your objectives.

      In the real policies, the natural law ones, LRH expresses what is. Expresses what is there and part of the design. In the other ones he writes what he thinks would be good for HIS organization. Nothing wrong with this, workable long-term or not. Use it in your commercial organization at your peril.

      Judgment is absolutely and definitely required. Me thinks this is true for an expanding Independent scene.

      IMO you cannot take KSW and the Standard Admim references literally, outside the C of S. Should you do that within the C of S? I do not believe this should be done BUT to hold the place together you need very enlightened leaders who know their stuff cold. Top guys. Like we have out here.

      What the C of S has is a guy who is not tech trained and who is not admin trained and to cap it all is an axiomatic sociopath, where IQ and intelligence don’t seem to coincide.

      He will simply destroy the place because he too is surrounded by organizational natual law.

      This is an interesting one.

      Within the context of the C of S all of this is true. If you are within the Church and playing the game, then this is the framework of the game. You had better play it this way.

      If you are out here you have freedom of choice.

      If you choose to apply the red-on-white tech then my opinion is you should do so exactly to get the result the author of this tech predicted. To do otherwise would be to arrange for yourself a title of natural born squirrel. Once you have understood and studied and applied this tech, then maybe you can invent your own regimes but then call it something else.

      If you choose to apply the green-on-white then my opinion is you should do so with full understanding and judgment.

      As Andy and some others have stated, you can sincerely make a mess of things in a commercial or public organization by applying green-on-white without judgment. Sincerely.

      The admin tech has policies and then it has policies. By doing a very thorough and careful study of all policy, all policy, including FEBC and ESTO references and tapes, and then go out and apply this stuff to a large number of various organizations, you will find, IMO, that a lot of it is adaptable to this non-org scene.

      At the beginning of the OEC volumes, policy one, LRH suggests you adapt it to the scene. Yep, adapt it. That means exactly that.

      As Martin points out, don’t go in with blinkers on when applying marketing solutions to the company. As Andy suggests, regimented C of S applications have pretty much zero to do with what you face in a typical commercial organization.

      You need that amount of organization required to achieve your purposes and goal. Not more and no less.

      I walked into a company that was crazy, organizationally. Nuts. The guy had a good product. He was below his break-even point. Using one reference, Expansion, Theory of Policy, I decided to only look at demand. To hell with org boards and stats and drawing lines and Ad Councils and ethics and product de-bug checklists or waiting for the green volumes to play Dixie. I got some surveys done. Cranked out a spot-on promo sequence, buttons, positioning included. I shoved this onto the front of the product and got out tons of the pieces to the right targets. Sales rocketed. Now, production-wise, he knew what to do. I put an admin terminal on post to catch all the noise and help get the product out with invoices and collections close behind.

      Then a bit more promo and distribution and organization, always matching the volume. He went from 200,000 units a year to 2.4 million in local and export markets. Done and dusted. Not rocket science. Judgment.

      I went to a luxury hotel for a consult and did an assessment of the scene. Slow normal volume and profitable. The owner was in bad shape and staff agitated and a bit confused. I dug and dug until I could understand the scene and found the ‘why’. The general manager was cutting the power of the owner in a number of ways. He was covert and full of it. He was entrenched and controlled the contacts who were referring clients to the hotel. I told the owner I cannot consult this organization nor him unless he got rid of this guy first. First time that my first action was this one.

      Once indicated to him he blew down and he knew this was right. So did all other senior staff. He was terrified the clients would dry up and referring firms stop dealing with his hotel. He almost backed off doing the right action. I shook hands and asked him to commit to this action. He did. The stats jumped up. The clients were delighted. The referring organizations breathed a sigh of relief. Once done, I did not have much else to do. Judgment.

      In amongst the green-on-white are gems. How to clean a car at Saint Hill is a policy. So are the data series. Right there you have the answer.
      Put in enough to get the job done. Use what you need. If you can, as Andy suggested, hire the one who wants to be there and contribute. Dump the others. Point the gang in the same direction. Use only stats that actually are needed to achieve this. Throw out the rest. Understand ‘wog’ financial tech and systems and software. Allow staff to suggest how things should be done by being inclusive, transparent, informative, light, interested. High ARC and high KRC.

      Policy is useful if you know it well and can use it. There are some things you cannot avoid using if you know this stuff. Why? Because it is in the factors and axioms. Tons of green-on-white is in fact natural law. Some of it definitely is not. Use other authors and systems if it contributes to the game and achieving your objectives.

      In the real policies, the natural law ones, LRH expresses what is. Expresses what is there and part of the design. In the other ones he writes what he thinks would be good for HIS organization. Nothing wrong with this, workable long-term or not. Use it in your commercial organization at your peril.

      Judgment is absolutely and definitely required. Me thinks this is true for an expanding Independent scene.

      IMO you cannot take KSW and the Standard Admim references literally, outside the C of S. Should you do that within the C of S? I do not believe this should be done BUT to hold the place together you need very enlightened leaders who know their stuff cold. Top guys. Like we have out here.

      What the C of S has is a guy who is not tech trained and who is not admin trained and to cap it all is an axiomatic sociopath, where IQ and intelligence don’t seem to coincide.

      He will simply destroy the place because he too is surrounded by organizational natual law.

      This is an interesting one.

      Within the context of the C of S all of this is true. If you are within the Church and playing the game, then this is the framework of the game. You had better play it this way.

      If you are out here you have freedom of choice.

      If you choose to apply the red-on-white tech then my opinion is you should do so exactly to get the result the author of this tech predicted. To do otherwise would be to arrange for yourself a title of natural born squirrel. Once you have understood and studied and applied this tech, then maybe you can invent your own regimes but then call it something else.

      If you choose to apply the green-on-white then my opinion is you should do so with full understanding and judgment.

      As Andy and some others have stated, you can sincerely make a mess of things in a commercial or public organization by applying green-on-white without judgment. Sincerely.

      The admin tech has policies and then it has policies. By doing a very thorough and careful study of all policy, all policy, including FEBC and ESTO references and tapes, and then go out and apply this stuff to a large number of various organizations, you will find, IMO, that a lot of it is adaptable to this non-org scene.

      At the beginning of the OEC volumes, policy one, LRH suggests you adapt it to the scene. Yep, adapt it. That means exactly that.

      As Martin points out, don’t go in with blinkers on when applying marketing solutions to the company. As Andy suggests, regimented C of S applications have pretty much zero to do with what you face in a typical commercial organization.

      You need that amount of organization required to achieve your purposes and goal. Not more and no less.

      I walked into a company that was crazy, organizationally. Nuts. The guy had a good product. He was below his break-even point. Using one reference, Expansion, Theory of Policy, I decided to only look at demand. To hell with org boards and stats and drawing lines and Ad Councils and ethics and product de-bug checklists or waiting for the green volumes to play Dixie. I got some surveys done. Cranked out a spot-on promo sequence, buttons, positioning included. I shoved this onto the front of the product and got out tons of the pieces to the right targets. Sales rocketed. Now, production-wise, he knew what to do. I put an admin terminal on post to catch all the noise and help get the product out with invoices and collections close behind.

      Then a bit more promo and distribution and organization, always matching the volume. He went from 200,000 units a year to 2.4 million in local and export markets. Done and dusted. Not rocket science. Judgment.

      I went to a luxury hotel for a consult and did an assessment of the scene. Slow normal volume and profitable. The owner was in bad shape and staff agitated and a bit confused. I dug and dug until I could understand the scene and found the ‘why’. The general manager was cutting the power of the owner in a number of ways. He was covert and full of it. He was entrenched and controlled the contacts who were referring clients to the hotel. I told the owner I cannot consult this organization nor him unless he got rid of this guy first. First time that my first action was this one.

      Once indicated to him he blew down and he knew this was right. So did all other senior staff. He was terrified the clients would dry up and referring firms stop dealing with his hotel. He almost backed off doing the right action. I shook hands and asked him to commit to this action. He did. The stats jumped up. The clients were delighted. The referring organizations breathed a sigh of relief. Once done, I did not have much else to do. Judgment.

      In amongst the green-on-white are gems. How to clean a car at Saint Hill is a policy. So are the data series. Right there you have the answer.
      Put in enough to get the job done. Use what you need. If you can, as Andy suggested, hire the one who wants to be there and contribute. Dump the others. Point the gang in the same direction. Use only stats that actually are needed to achieve this. Throw out the rest. Understand ‘wog’ financial tech and systems and software. Allow staff to suggest how things should be done by being inclusive, transparent, informative, light, interested. High ARC and high KRC.

      Policy is useful if you know it well and can use it. There are some things you cannot avoid using if you know this stuff. Why? Because it is in the factors and axioms. Tons of green-on-white is in fact natural law. Some of it definitely is not. Use other authors and systems if it contributes to the game and achieving your objectives.

      In the real policies, the natural law ones, LRH expresses what is. Expresses what is there and part of the design. In the other ones he writes what he thinks would be good for HIS organization. Nothing wrong with this, workable long-term or not. Use it in your commercial organization at your peril.

      Judgment is absolutely and definitely required. Me thinks this is true for an expanding Independent scene.

      IMO you cannot take KSW and the Standard Admim references literally, outside the C of S. Should you do that within the C of S? I do not believe this should be done BUT to hold the place together you need very enlightened leaders who know their stuff cold. Top guys. Like we have out here.

      What the C of S has is a guy who is not tech trained and who is not admin trained and to cap it all is an axiomatic sociopath, where IQ and intelligence don’t seem to coincide.

      He will simply destroy the place because he too is surrounded by organizational natual law.

      This is an interesting one.

      Within the context of the C of S all of this is true. If you are within the Church and playing the game, then this is the framework of the game. You had better play it this way.

      If you are out here you have freedom of choice.

      If you choose to apply the red-on-white tech then my opinion is you should do so exactly to get the result the author of this tech predicted. To do otherwise would be to arrange for yourself a title of natural born squirrel. Once you have understood and studied and applied this tech, then maybe you can invent your own regimes but then call it something else.

      If you choose to apply the green-on-white then my opinion is you should do so with full understanding and judgment.

      As Andy and some others have stated, you can sincerely make a mess of things in a commercial or public organization by applying green-on-white without judgment. Sincerely.

      The admin tech has policies and then it has policies. By doing a very thorough and careful study of all policy, all policy, including FEBC and ESTO references and tapes, and then go out and apply this stuff to a large number of various organizations, you will find, IMO, that a lot of it is adaptable to this non-org scene.

      At the beginning of the OEC volumes, policy one, LRH suggests you adapt it to the scene. Yep, adapt it. That means exactly that.

      As Martin points out, don’t go in with blinkers on when applying marketing solutions to the company. As Andy suggests, regimented C of S applications have pretty much zero to do with what you face in a typical commercial organization.

      You need that amount of organization required to achieve your purposes and goal. Not more and no less.

      I walked into a company that was crazy, organizationally. Nuts. The guy had a good product. He was below his break-even point. Using one reference, Expansion, Theory of Policy, I decided to only look at demand. To hell with org boards and stats and drawing lines and Ad Councils and ethics and product de-bug checklists or waiting for the green volumes to play Dixie. I got some surveys done. Cranked out a spot-on promo sequence, buttons, positioning included. I shoved this onto the front of the product and got out tons of the pieces to the right targets. Sales rocketed. Now, production-wise, he knew what to do. I put an admin terminal on post to catch all the noise and help get the product out with invoices and collections close behind.

      Then a bit more promo and distribution and organization, always matching the volume. He went from 200,000 units a year to 2.4 million in local and export markets. Done and dusted. Not rocket science. Judgment.

      I went to a luxury hotel for a consult and did an assessment of the scene. Slow normal volume and profitable. The owner was in bad shape and staff agitated and a bit confused. I dug and dug until I could understand the scene and found the ‘why’. The general manager was cutting the power of the owner in a number of ways. He was covert and full of it. He was entrenched and controlled the contacts who were referring clients to the hotel. I told the owner I cannot consult this organization nor him unless he got rid of this guy first. First time that my first action was this one.

      Once indicated to him he blew down and he knew this was right. So did all other senior staff. He was terrified the clients would dry up and referring firms stop dealing with his hotel. He almost backed off doing the right action. I shook hands and asked him to commit to this action. He did. The stats jumped up. The clients were delighted. The referring organizations breathed a sigh of relief. Once done, I did not have much else to do. Judgment.

      In amongst the green-on-white are gems. How to clean a car at Saint Hill is a policy. So are the data series. Right there you have the answer.
      Put in enough to get the job done. Use what you need. If you can, as Andy suggested, hire the one who wants to be there and contribute. Dump the others. Point the gang in the same direction. Use only stats that actually are needed to achieve this. Throw out the rest. Understand ‘wog’ financial tech and systems and software. Allow staff to suggest how things should be done by being inclusive, transparent, informative, light, interested. High ARC and high KRC.

      Policy is useful if you know it well and can use it. There are some things you cannot avoid using if you know this stuff. Why? Because it is in the factors and axioms. Tons of green-on-white is in fact natural law. Some of it definitely is not. Use other authors and systems if it contributes to the game and achieving your objectives.

      In the real policies, the natural law ones, LRH expresses what is. Expresses what is there and part of the design. In the other ones he writes what he thinks would be good for HIS organization. Nothing wrong with this, workable long-term or not. Use it in your commercial organization at your peril.

      Judgment is absolutely and definitely required. Me thinks this is true for an expanding Independent scene.

      IMO you cannot take KSW and the Standard Admim references literally, outside the C of S. Should you do that within the C of S? I do not believe this should be done BUT to hold the place together you need very enlightened leaders who know their stuff cold. Top guys. Like we have out here.

      What the C of S has is a guy who is not tech trained and who is not admin trained and to cap it all is an axiomatic sociopath, where IQ and intelligence don’t seem to coincide.

      He will simply destroy the place because he too is surrounded by organizational natual law.

      This is an interesting one.

      Within the context of the C of S all of this is true. If you are within the Church and playing the game, then this is the framework of the game. You had better play it this way.

      If you are out here you have freedom of choice.

      If you choose to apply the red-on-white tech then my opinion is you should do so exactly to get the result the author of this tech predicted. To do otherwise would be to arrange for yourself a title of natural born squirrel. Once you have understood and studied and applied this tech, then maybe you can invent your own regimes but then call it something else.

    • Haydn, I think that PL is among the two or three most important in Scientology, making the point that you INTERPRET (yes, that is the word Ron uses here) policy in terms of expansion. Of course if that datum was applied with intelligence and theta, there would have been very few problems in the Scientology world. But that datum gets lost in the sheer BULK of LRH policy. Talk about a hugely bloated system of running an organization! But I think the key factor in policy that somewhat dooms it is the weight that LRH puts on certain subjects. Yes, you can query an order. Yes, the EO and Qual need to correct execs when they are off base. These points covered. BUT … do a review of your SSII and you will see in the mid 60s, LRH making the point over and over and over again how the real problem a senior has is his juniors’ non compliance and the dev-t they create; how stats are being HELD DOWN by these juniors and how you need the erhics presence and confront to handle all of the counter intention and slackness below you. It is VERY CLEAR what LRH himself thought was the problem with lack of expansion. Soon this became a tech matter as well as he became fixated on OWs and evil ints as the cure-all (Ls, integrity processing, EX DN, happiness rd, false purpose rd, list one rs handling, etc etc etc) And thus developed a very significant (and ultimately destructive) segment of Scientology third dynamic culture..

      In anlyzing any activity ,it is not enough to just look at the elements in the activity, but also the weight and importance given each element.

  15. How sure can we be this HCO PL (Admin Degrades, 10 July 1986 II) was written by LRH?
    Both above Issues from 10 July 1986 say in my OEC vol. 0 (edition from 1986!) the following in the head of each PL:

    (This HCO PL was written in October 1985 but did not get sent to Mimeo. It was recently found and is now being issued as was originally intended.)

    And HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB was revised 8 January 1991.
    There we have DMs alteration of the Policy Letter and his attempt to have a monopoly for things he accuses others doing:

    Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or ‘to save the organization from the higher offices of Scientology.’

    Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.

    Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.

    Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.

    Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.

    In my opinion there is nothing really wrong for a Org being on-source. Applying the Admin Tech.
    But after DMs alterations in Policy Letters (just a few), the whole direction of Organisations and its Modul Operandi changed in such a way as to allow him to be “the chosen one”.
    Admin Tech is fine and important (OK, we could argue about wheter or not using Mimeographs this days).
    DMs alterations are the real issue.

    • I think your post is somewhat of an example of Marty’s main point.

      Your first question is “did LRH write them” as if that is the thing that matters. Shouldn’t your first question be “do they make sense” instead?

      • Ya think, ey?

      • Hello Dirk.
        Sorry for my “knee-jerk” response yesterday. You just sounded as if you were Marty’s personal assistent.

        To answer you question: How do you know I didn’t do that before posting my comment?
        In my view, the above Policy Letters (from mid 1986) are harmless compared to the revised “HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB – Suppressive Acts”, which was revised 8 January 1991.
        It was revised 5 years after LRHs passing. Lot’s of time for David Miscavige to determin which “Acts” should be considered High Crimes in order to protect his very own, brand new cult and his monopoly.

  16. Very interesting questions and then… too much to write to really discuss the situation. However:

    Question a) Yes
    Question b) even though a) = equals “yes” there is a line, or even several lines to be drawn –

    Above tech and admin there is Ethics that needs to be taken into account. And, part of Standard application is the rule that before ethics tech admin goes out there is some Tech that went out beforehand.

    That part of Tech should be gotten “in” before the cycle ethics tech admin can be then adressed. That part of Tech is probably very basic, like ARC, like Auditor’s Code, …, like “in-sessionness”,….

    KSW #1 gives a sequence which does apply in any discipline – this would be a cycle every Musician would go through when practicing his Art. Same for any trade, discipline – or for an Auditor or Admin, or Ethics.

    When this cycle above is “out” – not applied – usually one goes into a lower condition. Someone flubs a command, process, rundown – that person is in a Danger condition, can thus correct the Tech and get the ball rolling. If the person doesn’t have the Tech, or doesn’t know which one is correct – there is the liability the person will consider he or she is in Normal or even inPower, and then continue to apply out Tech. That makes a squirrel. In Tech but similar in Admin.

    Thus context is important too – a good C/S will design a program which will parallel the pc’s case. Attempting to put every pc or pre-OT into the same mould would be foolish. Policies were designed to handle 3rd dynamic case – in the org and the case exterior to the org. Running then policies that were designed to handle, for instance, situations during the Cold War era is akin to running a Stale dated C/S on a pc. Scn Axiom 38 does apply, and stupidity might be to apply Policies designed to handle a situation then and there to a situation here and now.

    Ethics being senior to Tech which in turn is senior to Admin, one would not apply Tech which would violate Ethics, would be or enhance out-ethics. Similar, one wouldn’t apply Admin, even correct standard admin, to enhance out-tech or out-ethics.

    Thus even if, for me a) = yes, this is where I would draw the line ;-)

  17. There are a number of problems with these policies:

    1. LRH died on January 24, 1986, six months before the issue of Keepîng Admin Working and Admin Degrades in July 1986. Therefore this issue can only be a BPL (Board Policy Letter). If it is valid, then none of the BPLs that were canceled and removed from the new editions (circa 1990s) of the OEC and FEBC volumes should have been removed. That was the reason given for the new editions — that the BPLs were being removed because they had been issued by others. And of course, this includes the policy on HCO Standing Orders that include the standing order that all mail addressed to me(LRH) shall be received by me (LRH)… It is obviously old and physically CANNOT be applied.

    2. In the 1970s, when a new policy was issued, there was a mimeo distribution on each new policy letter (and tech bulletin) issued. It clearly designated which posts and organizations the policy letter applied to. Perhaps 20% of all issued policy applied to Franchises — legally and by policy Franchises did not have HCOs!. There was a policy that laid out how to correctly write a policy letter with the distribution correctly noted and how HCO was to make the distribution. It also covered the importance of issuing the correct policies to the correct hats and orgs. From a study of these, one could determine if a policy letter applied to a mission or a Class V organization. Applying a policy letter intended for the operation of a Class V organization to a small Franchise could be very destructive and LRH clearly stated that to apply a destructive policy letter was off-policy. He provided a policy on how to query an order based on a destructive application of policy. I believe the policy letter is called “Orders, Query of.”

    3. There was also a policy letter discussing the importance of retiring material in policy letters that had become dated due to changes in the laws of the land. Perhaps someone has this reference — it was deleted from the 1990s OEC volumes. A classic example is the laws about adultery. I saw an LRH directive stating that adultery is illegal. It probably was illegal at some point in the past. At present, it is not illegal in any state in the U.S.A. As well, no criminal or civil prosecution can be based on adultery, no punishments, no suits for damage, and no legal remedy of any kind can be brought on it in 48 states because the suit would be based on the constitutionally illegal premise that one individual can own another individual. So now that LRH directive contains false data that can get the Church into trouble for violating laws forbidding prosecution on this basis.

    4. Policies DO NOT apply to all Scientologists as indicated in these two 1986 policy letters. A direct consequence of these policy letters is that orders, directives and policies that were intended specifically for Sea Org units have been erroneously applied outside of the Sea Org, even to public Scientologists. This may explain why some Staff Members have taken to issuing direct orders to public Scientologists. It also explains how high crimes that are applicable to ADMINISTRATORS such as found in KSW end up in the Ethics book as being applicable to anyone!

    5. The admonition: The principles of unvarying adherence…apply just as severely… are completely contradictory to the data in What is Policy, Orders, Query of, and a number of other policies that teach that policy is a GUIDING PRINCIPLE and NOT a rule, order, directive, etc.

    6. These policies from 1986 are in violation of HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 MARCH 1965 Issue II Technical and Policy Distribution, which contains the following excerpt: When re-releasing an old policy letter, always blue pencil out everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters. You can still salvage a lot that still applies – a surprising amount. But try to cut out the contradictions with our modern policy where they exist. After all, we were children when we first tackled teaching and Admin. As we grew, we became wiser. But even our Admin childhood has wisdom in it and in some places even more fire and interest. Don’t release contradictory hats where you can help it. Modernize them with a blue pencil whether you retype them or remimeo them or not. The copyright signature line on this policy letter was: LRH:jw.cden

    I did the original DIR OF I AND R full hat from 1978, starrate, M4, clay demo and product clearing. I see no option but to order, query these two 1986 policy letters which MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!!!!!!!!! Even the policy letter KNOWLEDGE REPORTS is insane – no distribution on it, and no possibility of applying standard ethics as public Scientologists DO NOT HAVE POSTS AND STATS and are invariably CLAY PIGEONNS!!!!!!! I simply refused to apply them or act on orders emanating from them. My string pulling (which ended up here on the Internet) finds a Sherman Tank at the end of it and that Sherman Tank has a name — DM and whoever carried out DMs orders on these policy matters.

    • Maria: Wow — this is pretty complicated.

      Are you saying that you don’t believe the Knowledge Reports PL was written by LRH? And that the flaws in this policy trace back to DM? Because I do know it was written by LRH. I just found it difficult to sort out your overall conclusion and I am interested as you obviously have studied quite a lot of policy….

      • Yes, it is complicated. You know, I did not write any of those policy letters but I was made to starrate, M4 and clay demo them. I could not see how to apply them in any other way than to work with the principles back then and I still do not see how you can apply some of them without violating others of them on this basis.

        Then LRH is 100% personally responsible for the insanity that we see now for he utterly ignored earlier policy on policy distribution, protection of upstats, and earlier policies on using PR as the correct tech in the public sector and public Scientologists became clay pigeons the day it was issued. And the policies I studied on my hat pack were either BOGUS or OLD – NO LONGER USED.

        My conclusion on policy has been that it was likely skewed by CYA reports, incomplete data analysis, and myopic observations from S.O. missionaires who somehow failed to notice that the real reason orgs were booming where they were was because of the tremendous success of the Franchises, which spilled public into the orgs right up until the day that DM destroyed the Franchise network. They were successful because they used good ARC, talked to people, and largely followed the Auditors Code instead of using COLD, CHROME STEEL, threats, and fearful reporting of other peoples overt acts – acts that became ones own if you did not report them.

        And so it is Mike, that today, with this information that you have provided that LRH wrote that policy letter — that LRH and I part ways, for I will never support the use of that policy letter to create an atmosphere of dread, fear, and suspicion as it has been used.

        • Oh boy – I accidentally hit the post comment button before proofreading.

          The second paragraph should read: You say that LRH wrote the policy letter Knowledge Reports personally — then LRH is personally and 100% responsible…

          I will add that I find the materials in the FEBC Management series to be principle based and for the most part extremely valuable when used with common sense. As for the rest of it, I cannot tell you how many hours I spent trying to sort out all of the complexities resulting from changes over time and how many hours I spent in Qual cramming on policies that simply did not make sense. I finally concluded that I could only work on the basis of sorting out senior policies and principles and if a post or org specific policy violated those, then I applied the senior policies and prinicples and damn anyone who wanted to torpedo me for doing so. Of course, when I was on staff, that meant I had to always be upstat for the second my stats went down then I had no ethics protection and of course was assigned lower conditions. I decided not to continue on staff. Then I decided not to associate with orgs or Missions unless I had money and was going in to do a specific service. Then I decided that I would no longer service Scientologists in my business, after WISE demanded a percentage of my gross income for that privelege. Then I decided I would research what the hell was going on with the Church of Scientology on the Internet after I was sent the resignation Geir Isene wrote. Then I decided that I would not support the Church of Scientology at all.

          I consider auditing to be valuable. I think the only hope for getting it used is in the Independent field.

        • I find your reasoning correct and applicable, and am sure that this way Scientology will expand.
          From my experience this is true. When I joined Scientology in Tel Aviuv we had a HUGE mission, and since the moment it was ripped off by the SO it never been as big and as happy.

        • Maria — thanks for seeking to clarify. I do not believe there is any simple answer except one. Bear with me.

          There are a LOT of factors at play — I agree that things were skewed by CYA reports. There are also many conflicting LRH references. There are hidden data lines — who knows whether things are actually LRH or not after he left the Apollo (some know more than others as they happened to be around him during periods subsequent to his accessability becoming limited). There are contrary facts and confusion and uncertainty.

          The only stable data is YOU — and your ability to think and reason and your intentions and what gets results.

          You don’t need to “part ways” with LRH because of a single policy letter. That’s the other side of the coin from “I blindly follow what LRH says.”

          I am sorry if I ARC broke you with the revelation that the Knowledge Report PL was written by LRH — and there were also specific orders from him about how it was to be implemented and that programs were to be written to accomplish that. I agree with you, the KR PL was used to create an atmosphere of fear. But does that invalidate everything else that created happiness and freedom for people? Of course not.

          L Ron Hubbard was a MAN who did things good and bad and was right and wrong. More good and right than bad and wrong in my estimation, but that’s why its really not a good plan in life to follow everything he said blindly.

          • I completely agree with you Mike on all of what you wrote and it is good to know that there was a program that went along with that policy letter.

            When I said LRH and I part ways, I should have specified that I was speaking in terms of that policy letter and the results and damage it produced. The damage is VERY real. We, who post on this blog and others like this blog, are the proof the damage done.

            I never followed LRH blindly, not ever. Not on anything. I always thought I had the right to say to him, this is a dangerous or destructive order, policy, directive and I will not apply it. I wrote him about it. I got a cookie cutter answer, clearly not written by him, instructing me to go to qual. I queried that policy letter. In proper form. NOTHING NADA NO REPLY.

            I always gave LRH the benefit of the doubt. I carefully studied whatever he wrote, always from the point of view that I could have MUs, lack of data, and so on. But if I ran it through the procedure outlined in Defeating Verbal Tech and could not get anywhere then I applied the final step on that policy letter: IF IT CAN’T BE RUN THROUGH AS ABOVE IT’S FALSE!

            Just for info on this blog, here is an excerpt from ORDERS, QUERY OF:
            It occasionally happens that an order is issued or a policy is enforced or is found to exist which if put into full effect in a certain area would result in loss or destruction. Someone told to man up, for instance, all admin departments, sees that this would upset the tech-admin ratio. Instead of putting the order into effect he should query the order with (a) the name of the issuer and the exact order, (b) the reason it would result in loss or destruction if put into effect, (c) a recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve. (HCO PL 15 Dec 69II)

          • Mike said: “You don’t need to “part ways” with LRH because of a single policy letter. That’s the other side of the coin from “I blindly follow what LRH says.”
            I agree 100% Maria. See my long post above if you feel like hearing more of my thoughts on the subject.

          • Mike, you say, “You don’t need to ‘part ways’ with LRH because of a single policy letter.”

            The truth is that for years, indeed all of the time I was in the corporate Church of Scientology, one DID have to “‘part ways’ with LRH because of a single policy letter.” Or perhaps more precisely, one was “parted with” — i.e., referred to ethics and, if one did not eventually succumb and comply, eventually declared and disconnected.

            It was full, complete, LITERAL KSW or the highway, And compliance with KSW as determined by whomever happened to be in power at the time.

            I agree that in Independent Scientology one need not “”part ways’ with LRH because of a single policy letter,” if for no other reason (given the views expressed by some here) that no one in Independent Scientology has the authority, much less the power, to order anyone to ethics, declared or disconnected. That is a good thing. It may also be the point, or at least part of the point, of Independent Scientology.

    • Thank you Maria.
      I so appreciate your input. Honestly.

    • Of course, the new location will have 500 films scripted by who knows who in TOTAL violation of both KSW and KAW. Not to mention the complete re-write of Scientology principles found on the official Church website.

      In 1978 all such materials were CANCELED and FORBIDDEN because they were not written by L. Ron Hubbard. Who is writing these scripts — that is the question that needs to be asked. And who canceled the successful introductory lectures from the 1970s. And who canceled the policy on how to distribute policy.

      And who canceled the policy on Leadership – More About which was culled from an LRH lecture VERBATIM. It said, and I quote: To lay down a big plan for Scientologists and say, “This is the organization and this is what we are going to do: steps one, two, three . . .” is saying that none of you have a right to think or plan. The only thing we can do inside Scientology is hold the communication lines of Scientology and its service in an orderly state. And we can keep the show on the road. But this is an inside perimeter.

      These days, I regard all policy with a jaundiced eye, especially all policy issues starting around 1978. I once thought that policy was approved by LRH himself, but clearly that is not case per information provided by the very individuals who worked on these policy issues (based on articles written on Scientology-Cult website).

      We had a working, and very successful line up to introduce people to Scientology in 1976. By 1982 every single element of that line up was -CANCELED and or ALTERED. Now that is INSANE. And again — who canceled these successful actions is the question. And there is the SHERMAN TANK.

    • Does this mean that Erin Banks has replaced Karen Pouw as CSI spokesperson? What Karen not volatile enuff?

      • Erin Banks has been the “voice of ideal orgs” for some time. She goes to the opening and conducts tours. She is not allowed to do any of the “heavy” stuff…. (and neither is Karin, she is simply a name on the bottom of the page for the stuff spewed out of Dear Leader’s dictaphone).

  18. When first in Scientology, I sat down and read KSW. My initial thought was: “He really must have made it. If not, Hubbard was nuts.”

    Please understand that I am also one who values so much of the technology and the adventure that i was involved in. That said, I now read KSW in a totally different way…it is the evidence of pure megalomania in LRH. Who would ever write that they are the only way and that they are the only one to EVER have found the way. If one does not exactly adhere to his ideas, then they will likely die.

      • Hey Tiger, Please explain what exactly is so funny about this post.

        • “He really must have made it. If not, Hubbard was nuts.” This was funny because I can recall feeling something similar.

          “That said, I now read KSW in a totally different way…it is the evidence of pure megalomania in LRH. Who would ever write that they are the only way and that they are the only one to EVER have found the way. If one does not exactly adhere to his ideas, then they will likely die.” This was funny also. I don’t take the whole thing so seriously anymore. I don’t think it is a “deadly serious activity”. The only way I enjoy Scientology is when it is applied light heartedly. All this serious shit is for the birds.

    • I see nothing wrong in someone recognizing and stating their own accomplishments and capabilities. Hollywood and Wall Street and Washington are full of people like this – some of which actually have merit.

  19. For me it is clearly B. The general idea is if it is true for me I can use it and recommend it – whether it is Tech or Admin.
    If I look at policies, they were written, obviously, as part of the Danger formula applied when a bad situation happened.
    We are living and situations are changing and therefore some policies have to be changed because they are not preventing Danger conditions from happening but creating new Danger conditions (like disconnection).
    Personally I think that attention should be on the Tech side. The Admin side can be dismissed with because right now, anyhow, all the tech delivery that I know of are not that big that lots of Admin has to be involved in running them,

  20. I once expressed an interest in joining staff and was told I did not qualify because I have been in the SO. I was shown a policy to the effect that I was a downstat because I had left the SO. I am no downstat, and so that was (and is) not true for me. I know/know of many ex-SO who are not downstat. I took a bit of a loss on that, but then concluded that LRH was wrong from my point of view. That did not diminish my trust and respect for many things I have learned and experienced, which are true for me.

    The senior policy, IMO, is that what is true for me, is what is true for me. That trumps all policy. I don’t think that LRH intended a slavish following. Perhaps blind obedience is a starting point, but as a person’s awareness, understanding and responsibility increases, then I believe an ever growing degree of freedom follows. Just like growing up into adulthood. That’s the whole point, except the growing up is spiritual.

  21. This is a bit long, but I’m going to use LRH’s own words to answer your question.

    CENTRAL ORGANIZATIONS EFFICIENCY
    (Re-issue of HCO Policy Letter of May 22, 1959)

    “One could say with bitterness that the only place some Central Organizations show self-determinism is the HGC and then only on processes.
    We are getting too big to refuse to make decisions locally. If we are going to bring self-determinism back to man, we’d sure as the devil better display it in ourselves and on our jobs.
    Once the basic purpose of a post or department is known, only two things should then be necessary:
    1. Self-determined and responsible continuous creation of department and post, and
    2. Holding the communication lines rigidly in place.
    No number of specific, detailed orders can remedy anything if these two are not in existence. Specific, microscopic orders on how the job is to be done is not only impossible but defeats the purpose of posts…

    When I appoint or confirm a Scientologist on a post, I say “There, he’ll handle that area.” I don’t say “Now I’ve got some more nursing to do.”
    If we are to bring self-determinism to Man, we must be prepared to exhibit it ourselves. Defining self-determinism as it applies to departments and posts, is very easy—It is the willingness to decide and act in a causative manner toward the traffic and functions of that post. When we have a person on a post who is the total effect of that post, we have the post caving in on him and the tendency to pull the organization in with it. Only when the person on that post can assume positive and effective cause
    do we have gains in dissemination, units, ARC and MEST.

    There are two ways of being a total effect—just to fixate and act not at all, just to disperse and throw everything off with resultant confusion to all.
    We must come to orderly cause point on every post. We must, we must, we must.
    The full statement of function of every post is necessary or we have duplication of effort which we can’t afford. But why beyond that do people demand decisions by others? Information they need. Traffic they need. A rigid communication system and exact lines they need, but decisions?
    How psycho can you get? Given information and the purpose anybody can make a decision. Unless he’s batty.

    Right here and now I declare us to have become of an age to grow up.
    Here we must decide, are we to have a Mussolini empire where only Rome could decide? Or are we to have tightly run departments and posts, taking their own causativeness over their functions and traffic.”
    LRH

    I’ve read every single policy letter in the entire OEC and I can tell you without hesitation that the majority of them are utterly unnecessary if your goal is to restore self-determinism to other beings.

    I can also tell you that many policies are conflicting, outdated, were never proven workable, actually suppress the application of tech and tech terminals in general.

    Most policy was written for “Orgs”. An org by definition has at least 25 staff (two of which are auditors posted as staff staff auditors). If you strip off the usless deadwood, I bet there aren’t actually 20 “orgs” on the entire planet.

    It’s up to each person who runs a delivery group to determine their own policy and through experience, refine it for their own needs.

    • Totally agree!

      You said: It’s up to each person who runs a delivery group to determine their own policy and through experience, refine it for their own needs.

      That was what the successful franchises did right up until the day they were forced to do otherwise. Their successful actions were utterly ignored and canceled based on the false idea that the orgs were booming because of policy. They were not booming because of policy, they were booming because the Franchise program was a screaming success. The Class 4 org in our area had dismal statistics, and not because Franchises withheld public from them but because ASHO, AOLA and FLAG, all Sea Org orgs, ran AMAZING EXCITING events directly to our Mission public BYPASSING the Class 4 orgs and telling us that if we wanted STANDARD tech, the BEST Scientology had to offer, then public should come directly to them. And they backed it up with reges that were incredibly effective at signing people up for service. They did not care one whit what happened to the Class 4 org in the area in terms of production or statistics. They did not care what happened to our Mission either and would routinely reg public for services we offered, and were very good at delivering, thus destroying our income line-ups and flows, bypassing and denigrating our tech personnel.

    • Wow Les. Thank you! That is exactly, perfectly the way I feel/think about this. That blew tons of charge for me. Working with a small group of people, all with the goal of delivering tech (for the restoration of self-determinism of the being) the admin policies became a huge burden to that delivery (because they were applied rotely) and drove the group completely off purpose.

    • Great reference and part of Scientology’s Old testament which is the ARCfull part.

      The New Testament started I think, somehere in the mid 60’s. That is the harsher Scientology and reflects a marked change in LRH imho. He still did a lot of genius work in this period also.

    • Very nice Les. I appreciate the LRH reference. These gems like a 1959 reference to growing up as an organization or becoming a Mussolini dictatorship are invaluable for putting 2013 Independent Scientology and Reverse Scientology into perspective. I hope and trust that someday we will have all of LRH’s original materials (un-altered by David Mussolini) accessible to everyone by a simple Google search.

  22. The quotes given here and questions posed paint a perfect picture of the problem that is created when Scientologists are expected to think in black and white, in a world that the philosophy says can only contain shades of grey.

    The Miscavige era (and probably pre-Miscavige as well…but I didn’t see that era) has enjoyed intra-organizational op-terms like “Absolutes are unobtainable” vs. “Perfection is the only standard acceptable” and “What’s true is what’s true for you” vs. “The only thing that is true is what LRH wrote” and “Constructive ideas only come from individuals” vs. “Individuals must not have their own ideas”.

    KSW was a solution to a problem of people altering existing SCN tech to a point where the workability of LRH’s tech was reduced down to the point that it really became a problem. In that context, KSW makes sense.

    But KSW has become a tool of oppression; a catch-all / be-all / do-all “hammer” used to crush anyone who steps out of line with the official Miscavige-sanctioned truth.

    And that fact that it CAN be used that way, is proof to me that the policy is not workable, ANYMORE.

    Someone can apply KSW for themselves, to themselves, in their own sphere, to their own reality. But as an organizational policy, it has failed. An individual can hold true to its concepts. But KSW can no longer be enforced to the betterment of the group, in my opinion.

    Because truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    “Have the correct technology”. Sounds great. Who decides what is the correct technology? Oh, it’s written. Who decides what it means? Oh, You clear the words. Who decides when the words are fully cleared? Oh. When the person doing the word clearing decides the person being word cleared has agreed to right ideas. What happens when the person being word cleared refuses to agree with the “sanctioned” meaning of what a word (let’s just say “rhythmic” for example) means? They get crushed, using the hammer of “KSW”.

    Again, the fact that this CAN HAPPEN and DOES HAPPEN, means KSW has failed in it’s original goal.

    The person at the top of the org board decides what “correct” is. When LRH was running the show, that could work. Beyond that, not so much.

    So, people leaving the Church in protest of offenses against KSW, are in their way, applying KSW, but is that what LRH intended when he wrote that policy? For people to leave the Church and practice as individuals outside of Church control? No, of course he didn’t. But now it’s become a truth (for me) that in order to apply KSW as a concept one has to violate KSW as written.

    Again, not what LRH really intended.

    And that, in my opinion, is what happens when a BLACK and WHITE dogma is enforced on a group that supposed to understand that there is no such thing as BLACK and WHITE.

    And that, in my opinion what is wrong with organized religion. No one can give you your eternity. You already have it. “Agreement” does not get you closer to it. It’s the one thing you never lost in the first place.

    • Hi there! :)

      Your comment makes the most sense to me, thanks for sharing! It is very real – I am with you on looking at and evaluating not only the letter itself, but intention behind it, the condition the author was in, and the situation it aimed to handle, in regard if that was a temporary argent solution and if it was going to be good in a long run applied generally.

  23. A)
    YES providing Tech and Admin are unvariably applied by everyone to every other.
    NO as long as Policies and Tech are not applied standardly. This brings about new Policies or change in Policies and Tech.

    B)
    Over time, the line move following the reality agreement of the group and its subsequent violations fo Policies and Tech.

    It is impossible to have a binary computing on that.
    PLs must be applied according to a situation, situations must be evaluated using Data series. ( Which at their turn are PLs…)
    PLs can’t really be grasped if Tech is missing.
    The only binary option for me would be : we actually sincerely apply Tech and Admin or we go fishing. But applying doesn’t mean enforcing. When communication is shut, everything else is shut.

    Mike is right, Purpose and Result are the driving thing.

    LRH says the following at the Introduction of the OEC course. He certainly knew that Admin was a no exception thing.
    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1969
    THE ORG EXEC COURSE INTRODUCTION

    “The only real trouble these orgs ever have is not a failure to apply policy but a failure of the whole staff to know policy.
    Wherever a portion of a Scientology org is in confusion, you will find that the staff members in that portion have not done the Org Exec Course. They may know a few policies. But outside that, anyone can come along and say “this is the policy” or “what you’re doing is against policy,” and being ignorant of policy they develop the idea of some vast unknown area and go downhill.”

    “Even dictatorships come about only because the citizen doesn’t know basic organization. Thus authoritarian rule exists only to the degree that its subjects are ignorant of the fundamentals of organization.”

  24. The concept of blind adherence is insane in itself.
    Scientology is a body of work , in an ideal scene , individuals study, make the tech their own,that is to say it becomes part of the frame of mind they operate from, with common sense.
    In the actual scene,this idea is skewed by the fact that there is an insane leader intent on forbidding common sense .
    Lets take the policy on how to take a shower.Well it served a purpose at the time ,so everyone could have hot water.
    If the housing conditions get better,should someone be assigned a lower condition for enjoying the shower a few more minutes? Silly

  25. I still get emails from the church, from time to time.

    In LRH’s day, email didn’t exist.

    So, per policy, sending emails is a “violation”.

    See how ridiculous this is when one robotically follows policy…..especially as the decades proceed forward and technology changes all around us?

    Pretty soon, we will live in a world where nobody would even think about sending letters through snail mail anymore. And so the entire Letter Reg process changes utterly. That is unless one is “glued” to policy through their own idiocy.

  26. My answer to this is from a few threads back. KSW#1 was the moment Scientology became a cult:
    Martin Padfield | January 23, 2013 at 8:59 am | Reply

    Well, what LRH actually says is: “Three is acheived by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and and observing that it works that way.”

    That doesn’t leave a lot of leeway. It does assume, as Dirk says, that the tech and everything about it is infallible – and by extrapolation if you don’t get the expected result you are doing it wrong.

    Now, most usually this is probably true – but it doesn’t allow for judgement or common sense. It’s just “take my word for it”. Furthermore it must be applied “ruthlessly”, not with love and understanding; Executives MUST challenge with “ferocity” etc. Don’t worry if it is “unpleasant or unsocial…” – it is a “deadly serious activity…”

    This is, as Jason Beghe memorably said, LRH banging the desk. In the SAME policy LRH says that every man, woman and child’s existence for eternity depends on what you do with this information. No – it doesn’t. Sorry, but it simply doesn’t. If Scientology wasn’t destined to become a cult before this policy letter, it was inevitable after it.

    • Martin,

      I couldn’t agree more.

      KSW has plus points on the logical side of weeding out obvious tech/policy alterations which may in fact do harm and cause the organization to shrink.

      But, at the same time, it heads off into another direction entirely. It becomes very heavy-handed and threatening and serves as a massive control mechanism for the weak-minded individual who must rely entirely upon somebody else to guide him into his own eternity. Or, in this case, to aggressively force him into a certain, narrow direction in his life (and thus extract a lifetime of adherance and finances from him, all based upon creating unnessecary, yet very real, fear).

      The mechanism therein is eerily similar to burning in hell forever if you don’t blindly follow a man who supposedly lived a couple thousand years ago (no offense to anyone…..just using an apt analogy).

      KSW is a 1.5 tone level communication. As such, I dare say it contains much that simply isn’t true.

    • No – I disagree. If anything, it may have been the point where we stopped arguing over things we already know are true. Like “The meter doesn’t work!” and “TRs are hypnosis!”

      I get your comments on “ruthlessly.” There are two sides to how to deal with training people on course:

      1. Be a pussy about it and just allow anyone to do anything in your course room, and
      2. Cut the shit and get the person trained.

      Ron meant number 2, and in my opinion, he went over the top in ’65 because his people were over the top wishy-washy the other way.

      And apparently, since people continued to allow wishy-washy responses to people, say, smoking cigarettes during TR0 or exalting the virtues of doing grades 0-4 in five hours (which the church is doing NOW in the Flag promo I have been receiving), requiring several re-issues, apparently he wasn’t harsh enough.

      I don’t focus on the harshness. I focus on numbers 1-10 and the truth of that. Numbers 1 to 10 are true of any technology, not just Scientology.

      NOTE: “Having the correct technology” does not mean a static pool of knowledge. “Correct Technology” is a living thing. Ron came out with a lot of tech after KSW was written.

      • You could have and still can train people without having KSW. As many have said here before KSW could have been stated much plainer and with more ARC. This reference opened the gates of fanatacism. Look at Tom Cruises speech and see the fanatacism it reached.

          • Just listen to this crap!!

            • Yikes! I just listened again – really illustrates the point.

              “…it really is KSW… I don’t mince words with that…it’s re-reading KSW and what needs to be done…and I am going to put in that guy’s ethics…and that’s all it comes down to…” etc etc.

              This guy – Cruise – is a product of that policy letter. Let’s not forget that LRH re-issued it verbatim TWICE – “it was true then it’s true now…” He didn’t say, “You know what, I was a bit angry when I wrote that and…”

              No – he meant it all literally. He ordered it rammed into our heads as the first thing to study on every course – over and over again. He wanted fanatics and that’s what he got. And look where it’s got us.

              And I say again – to tell me that MY eternity depends on what I do with this policy letter – indeed my family’s eternity and all my friend’s eternity – well that wasn’t just a bit misleading – it was actually dishonest – even cruel – looking back on it. He is effectively saying ” If you don’t apply this policy letter TO THE LETTER you will all go to Hell” – literally. To then go on and extrapolate the concepts of it into ALL of Scientology policy – if indeed that’s what he did – was a surefire guarantee that organised Scientology would be a cult from then on.

              • Hello Martin,
                I rather think Cruise is the product of Miscavige.

                And, if you like, what would “apply this policy letter TO THE LETTER” look like?
                What is there to apply in this PL besides points 1-10 in your opinion?
                And what is wrong about it?

            • I’m still trying to wrap me head around the statement that Cruise would like to take vacations, but implies that he can’t because his dedication level won’t allow him to with the world still to save …… and then Oprah does a show later from his new vacation home in Colorado … was the world saved when I was watching football one day?

        • Yes, I get it, but on the other hand, just because people overdo something does not mean it is screwed up. Thing about “Make it go right!” from an SO member trying to get you to cough up more dough, or “What’s your f’ing withhold!” every time you mention an outpoint. People can get fanatic about anything.

      • You’re right Grasshopper.
        I agree with this and the another (longer) comment.
        The “harsh” tone stem from the things you mention, accompanied by different other situations from around 1965.
        Points 1-10 are true for any other technology if you want.
        There is no other way of keeping something working (and even correcting it) besides 1-10.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Grasshoper, thanks I am of the same frame of mind!!

  27. For me KSW 1 is there to remind you to apply the tech correctly. Auditor’s code and all. It’s exactly what DM church doesn’t do. They are applying tech not to free but to keep people under control. It’s all twisted, and of course as it says in the policy all this homo sapiens calling themself scientologists are ok with the incorrect tech applied as incorrectly as possible.
    They are heading at the destruction of scientology because of no results and poor results.
    We are here in this blog only because we were subjected to out tech and we are protesting against it
    And look at this line :
    “Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or ‘to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology.”
    That’s exactly what DM did using RTC.
    He “save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology.”yes he did, the higher officers were for exemple but not limited to, David Mayo and Marie Sue Hubbard. The camera boy saved us from the class XII senior C/S international, auditor of LRH, and from Marie Sue Hubbard.
    Shall we really thanks him or declare him SP?
    Declaring DM would be saving the church from an authoritarian personnality. It’s on “an essay on management”of 1951.

  28. I see it’d be very easy to post semantics and policies where LRH contradicted himself at different times, including on the subject of admin tech where LRH clearly stated such things as policy being a guideline, and the more thetan you have present, the less policy you need, etc.

    Factually. the way I judge all admin tech is does the reference apply and does it equate to increased expansion? One has to look at the intention behind a reference as well. KSW’s intention was to stop the derailment of Scientology. And this could work as a guideline in LRH’s lifetime because one always had a recourse to LRH himself if all else failed.

    But now that he is gone, where is the policy that covers, a corruption of the whole damn system because of tyrannical dictator? There isn’t one. LRH had some hope and faith that with the check and balances he set up, we could never let it come to a monopoly or black Dianetics scene. It has, thus the exodus. So sure the exodus is “off-policy” but you have to look at the fact that it was written when LRH was around (obviously) and he wanted things to be handled within the group. We no longer have that terminal in place.

    Back to the policy thing. There is enough places where LRH says that his PLs are a guideline toward expanding and expansion. I think the intention of the HCOB’s and HCOPL’s is that one doesn’t ALTER or add to, an already workable technology; ie auditing procedures and admin procedures (such as the technical how-to’s of admin such as conditions, post purpose clearing, etc.)

    There is a big difference between policy as a guideline written to help in the expansion of orgs versus an administrative procedure that has an exact sequence or command, such as Ethics conditions or Debug steps, etc.

    • “Where is the policy that covers a corruption of the whole damn system because of a tyrannical dictator?”

      Where indeed? And just prior to that, where is the policy a group should apply to select a sane and capable replacement when the previous leader departs? Considering the microscopic detail in the Green Vols for so many activities, I find it ironic there is nothing in there for dealing with one of the most critical events in the life of an organization.

      • I think LRH neglected this very subject due to bad experiences having the earlier organization wrested from him.

        He didn’t want to even suggest a path that might result in that policy being used to depose him. Again.

  29. Give every Scientologist their CL IV, CL V and Grad V Exams and see who passes them. Who even knows the tech? My guess would be of all Scngist, 2 1/2 percent would pass those exams. Neglect of any of the 10 points of KSW is a high crime.
    A. No, policy can become old and no longer apply, example, all the policies on WW. Axiom 58 applies.
    B. The Tech, yes, modified by Logic 6.

  30. As remarkable as it is to me – I am now considered a senior citizen. Discounts at movies and such.

    As such, I have less life/living ahead of me, than behind me. (notwithstanding any possible rebirth :)

    I am therefore keenly interested in my own sadly failed attempts but always heartfelt to lead a good life as I go forward. This would be doing as little harm as I can, caring for others, being honest and forthright AND most importantly NOT assuming that I know what is best for another person or HOW they should go about achieving it.

    Who REALLY lives and breathes in someone else’s moccasins?

    I found scientology in 1972. I was 25 years old. From the age of 12 forward I lived in a world of my own delusion. The world in front of me was too painful, thus I lived inside.

    When I discovered scientology, I quickly climbed the grade chart, and executive ladder. I was then able to ENSURE that rather than be “less than” others — I could be “more than”. And people would now “judge” me not on rumor or gossip but on stats.

    I had rank and rating. Later as a Non-SO member, I was fortunate to have money. And again, I had status.

    I lost all of it … and THE ONLY PEOPLE who cared for me were my family.

    Family who had NEVER BEEN scientologists (who, to their credit actually supported my years as a scientologist) but who had NO STATUS to lose and no promised “eternity” to lose, by supporting me.

    We can argue day and night that “Disconnection” was cancelled and then brought back and made more egregious by dm.

    But – I challenge anyone here to plant an apple seed and years hence have a pear tree.

    So, my answer is unequivocally a) NEVER and b) I draw the line whenever after much thought, I conclude that someone has decided FOR me what they cannot possibly know.

    The moccasins have always been mine. I have just forgotten from time to time to walk in them.

    Love,
    Christine

    • In Portland, Oregon we are not senior citizens but Honored Citizens. And for a $2 ticket an Honored Citizen can ride the light rail system all day long, to all corners of the city.

      • OMG — honored citizen? Sounds so British.

        I still have trouble being a senior citizen and luckily so do the ticket takers :)

        Portland is one of my favorite cities – the Benson one of my favorite hotels.

        Where, months before the Battle of Portland, at breakfast in the Benson’s London Grill there was a table of 4 — one man was seated with his back to my ex and me.

        Another got up, went to the men’s room and as he returned looked straight a me. (my ex and I had been quietly eaves dropping on their conversation) He said — “do I know you?”

        I said — yes, yes you do, Mr. Starkey. I was staff at the Flag Land Base.

        At this point, the man with his back to me — turned around. David Miscavige.

        My ex stood up, shook dm’s hand. We said a few polite words.

        That evening, my ex went to the bar … for a beer and to sit in the lounge … dm was there. Scotch (or something like it) in hand.

        This was repeated every evening for the 5 days we were there.

        dm living and dining in 5 star splendor off the largesse of the scientologist Marshall Goldblatt (RIP) who bankrolled the entire 6 months or more for the higher ups in scientology (Heber and others later one) at the Benson.

        The glory of being a top dog in a church, while those who toil and “believe” get the scraps. Crashing at local scientologists, sleeping in the park …

        Truly amazing. And this type of high-rolling did start with dm. LRH with his faults which I freely see – tried to help himself and then mankind.

        Constant quibbling over policies begs the question …

        Where is the heart?

        • I was the fourth guy at the table. DM was not drinking Scotch. Goldblatt was not financing the hotel or the dinners for us or the attorneys. The church was.

          • Seriously? How funny.

            One of the other 4 was one of the lawyers.

            Goldblatt definitely paid over $250,000 towards the Benson bill. Heber was a good friend of Marshall’s and Marshall was asked. I figure the bill was probably higher.

            As for the scotch — can you be so sure? My ex would see him late in the evening (11PM). Were you by his side all the time?

            In any case, funny that the 4th person has finally after all these years – showed up.

            I have never forgotten that morning at breakfast —

            Christine

            • At the time of the Battle of Portland (this breakfast thing preceded that and dm was confident the church would win the Christofferson trial) …

              Scientologists were hit up constantly for money to finance the “Battle of Portland” — I always through Marshall paid the Benson bill directly since it could have then been a write off — however, perhaps he just gave $$ to the churches coffers for this.

              In any case — it’s moot — since ALL the funding for the church comes from scientologists. It’s HOW the church spends this money which is rather appalling.

              I’m sure you agree :)

              The Benson for example was the most expensive hotel in Portland at the time. There were less expensive hotels not far from this part of town.

              • I am the first to expose wastage of church funds. We were at the Benson because that is where our lawyers chose to stay and we were working 20 hour days. I wouldn’t obsess with this example – it is meaningless in the bigger scheme of things – see for example my book The Scientology Reformation.

                • Absolutely — I actually figured it was something like this — ie the attorneys.

                  Don’t worry — I’ve always been amongst the first to order your books.

                  Am hoping you are afforded enough time to write your 3rd book — a better more balanced history of scientology.

                  Christine

    • “I challenge anyone here to plant an apple seed and years hence have a pear tree”. Thanks. Just wanted to repeat it

  31. Thats what you mean by I wouldnt be here if I was following KSW to the letter?

    I don’t know why all the complexity.

    He’s just saying that it works and he found people tend to mess it up and he gives the reasons for this which I find to be true.
    I think possibly some of these later PL’s were not LRH, but I dont know for sure. I question anything written or (compiled) in the 80s.
    Was “Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee” in HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB? It must have been added in 86. That seems like an RTC thing.

    I think the church is not following these policies anyway and therefore does not qualify as the “Scientology Organizations” mentioned. Therefore it is really an individual choice. No one can make you apply Scientology Ron’s way. Although a group or organization (independent?) has every right to demand it’s members/practicioners follow these policies. If they dont want to they can find another group or be on their own I guess. It might require some work, study and handling of false data to really get KSW “in” at this point, but I see it as more of an attitude and intention than an unvarying adherence. How can someone “follow” KSW on teaching or applying what an FN is when they have been given false data on what it actually is for example.
    The Churchs supposed adherence to KSW is a lie so i dont think that can be used as an example of the bad consequences of KSW. Almost everything Miscavige has created in Scientology can be shown to be against HCOB’s and HCOPL’s. This is nicely presented on the Friends of LRH site. http://www.friendsoflrh.org/COBvsLRH/

    No one is going to pull a John Allender “Tech inspection” and come watch you audit with their arms folded. Everyone is free to apply Scientology as they wish. I personally choose to try to get it as close to written and originally intended by LRH as possible. The Church gets pretty crazy about it, but thats something else. i dont know what that is, but whatever you call it, it’s no good. I see it as more like if I was studying some other subject, like Buddhism or Kung Fu or something I would appreciate it if the materials were the original materials and not some “new way” developed by some guy who thought he knew better and had a bunch of MU’s on the actual materials. But I’m not going to try and shut down this guy for doing his own thing. I would just appreciate if such place where I could learn these original materials existed.
    I don’t follow anything blindly or with unvarying adherence. I perhaps duplicate and decide to apply something, but if anyone is equating that with fanaticism or blind obedience I disagree. I simply duplicate the materials and try my best to apply them as intended. Thats not always easy because as we have seen it’s possible to alter application with verbal data (3 swing FN’s) or with incorrect materials (EM9,9a), etc. I would say the people who allowed that to happen despite their own knowingness that it was incorrect did not apply KSW.
    When you witnessed Miscavige editing the EM9 film to include incorrect reads you were not applying KSW. Miscavige and RTC are not Scientology. LRH is Scientology. The materials are Scientology. So from that one failure to apply KSW we had how many hundreds or thousands of auditors who never made it, cant audit, dont audit or are auditing incorrectly and messing up cases?

    • I think an issue I have here is you lump all these policies together and call it “KSW” including parts from later PL’s that seem to be inapplicable to our current situation. The points you give from Suppressive Acts from HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB are null and void in our current situation. That in no way effects importance of the original Keeping Scientology Working. It is not null and void by association.

      • Did LRH say that these policies were optional? Does he say if some violate these policies because they have good reason that they are exempt?? LRH was dealing with dm while he was alive. Wouldn’t you think that LRH would have considered dm to be a duly authorized executive? You seem to be somewhat of an LRH apologist. I don’t mean this as an insult really, it’s just that you never seem to see that what LRH wrote was wrong in any way shape or form. I haven’t read all you wrote so maybe I have that wrong.
        I feel that some people have the consideration that if you critique LRH then you are somehow evil or are suggesting that the whole subject be destroyed. I don’t feel that way . I think it is important to differentiate what worked and what didn’t. For example , LRH set up the current system for Scientology which was very much like a monopoly. Maybe if dm hadn’t destroyed the mission network, this current system would be much more workable. But I believe that LRH was still around when dm destroyed the mission network. Where was LRH then?? Why wasn’t he monitoring things?? The system he set up is failing. Face it, he screwed the pooch to a large degree later in his life. It’s ok though. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    • I really think you need to rethink KSW series 1 again- your post is demonstrating Marty’s point.

      You say “Everyone is free to apply Scientology as they wish.” That seems totally counter to KSW series 1, which sends the exact opposite message- nobody is free to do whatever they wish. You will follow exactly as written, with a steely glare in your eyes. That’s point 10- to be done ferociously in LRH’s own words.

      If you had that attitude, you wouldn’t post what you just posted, and you definitely wouldn’t read other posts here where people disagree with LRH, discuss new ways to use the tech, etc.

      You are softening LRH’s words, I think!

      I don’t think you follow KSW at all. That’s a compliment, by the way- good for you!

      • KSW 1 is just a piece of paper unless you apply it. Thats what I meant. I dont know where the church is as far as trying to stop groups or independent “orgs”, but I think for just individual practice you are pretty much free to apply scientology any way you wish. That why I dont quite get all the complexity and debate. It’s as if some people still think they have to “fight for their freedom” or something. I think those days are past. If you want to burn sage to cleanse the spirits in your auditing go ahead. I think I’m probably a “Orthadox” Scientologist or something like that. But I do think Scientology is for use in life and one shouldnt be bound to the letter so much so that it becomes senior to anything else. Then it just becomes a religious practice or ritual with no understanding.

        • I don’t think anyone would have any problem with someone saying “You should try to keep this material pure as it has proven to be workable.” “It has gotten very good results and if you change it quite a bit, you may lose it’s workability” ” All things are in the directon of results”, ” Anything said here is not to create robots. You do have to think for yourself, but duplicate and use it the way I say first and see for yourself if it works.”

          I think that R-factor would have been recieved much better and would have created less confusion and alter-is.

          I do recall LRH sayig something about even if you made mistakes you still get results. (Oh yeah! It’s from KSW 1) He talks about the guy who is getting rave results, of course his model session is poor, but it’s just a knack he has…. etc. then later LRH says something about the results he was getting was from the Scientology he was using or something to that effect. My point is that I have had gains even with some very bad auditing. All we need to do is to tell people duplicate and apply the tech for the pc. Buit if it looks bat shit crazy to you then don’t violate your integrity, just don’t do it.

          How about this idea?? What if a psychologist started to use book one techniques and got people to contact engrams and he just overran each engram to death? Ran them all about 100 times… Wouldn’t this be better than drugging people? If the tech was seeping into society should we then say “you psychologist over there!! You are a squirrell!! You are violating KSW and should be shot!!!??? Should we do this?? Or should we be somewhat happy that the tech IS seeping into society? Does this mean that WE are not Keeping Scientology Working?? Does this mean that we need to run Dianetics like the psychologist is??? (no.)

          My belief is that is if we could get the tech applied better and better and more and more broadly , then we would be getting somewhere.
          My contention is that under the current applications of KSW it stiffles the tech being applied and the policy that is applied is IDIOTIC at best.

  32. My favorite line was when Ron wrote that there are only one out of 18 beings that are able (or something to that effect) And of course WE ALL thought that we were that One…..Talk about separating people and making others feel inferior……I look around today and “the ones” that think they are The One… are the most destructive. I think this whole religion needs to rethink it’s purpose on this planet.

  33. A) That’s how LRH wanted it.
    B) Not a Scientologist, so I think it can all go in the bin.

    If you consider Scientology to be the brainchild of LRH, and if you vary the tech one iota, you are not practicing Scientology — you are practicing something else. And once you open that door, you start to see that’s okay, because LRH borrowed liberally from other sources. I recommend a session with a good psychologist to see the true roots of Dianetics.

    • I recommend you learn a little more about Scientology. It is not what you think it is, and I am sure you would want to know that.

      • I think your post would be more worthwhile if you elaborated. Why does this person need to “learn a little more about Scientology?”

        Sans explanation your post just sounds like an unnecessary put-down, I think.

        • Why? Because his/her comment indicates a complete lack of understanding of what Scientology is. And, the person is posting here – so there is interest in the subject. So, rather than just dismiss the comment as a post made by an ignorant fool, I thought it might be better to be constructive and invite the person to find out more about the subject, so his/her opinions on the subject could be based on facts rather than hearsay and rumor. I see nothing wrong with that – I should think anyone would want to know something about what they are commenting on.

      • Grasshopper, this is a refrain I hear a lot. Fact is, I have learned quite a lot about Scientology, and my view of it has not changed. It’s all a matter of perspective. Some people are more prone to believe in it; some or not. I fall into the “not” category. Near as I can tell, what is helpful about Scientology is taken from other sources (Eastern philosophy, common psychotherapy) and some is sci-fi. You have to believe in Hubbard and the veracity of his discoveries in order to accept it — and that is the reason for KSW’s existence. I do not find Hubbard a credible source, therefore I do not believe in Scientology.

        • I think you are wrong.
          I would say that most people get the most benefit from auditing.
          Auditing tech was developed by LRH and is fantastic when used benevolently. Lots of people have had it used in this way and have had life changing wins.

        • Fair enough. I appreciate your response.

          I will say that you don’t have to believe in Hubbard to accept it. I made a point a few posts ago about the e-meter. It works, and can be demonstrated to do so by someone who knows how, whether Hubbard was a charlatan or not. I loved the YouTube video by a couple of anon kids who “proved” the meter did not work as advertized because when you squeeze the cans the needle moved. It was as laughable as someone seriously arguing the the Earth was created intact 4000 years ago.

  34. A: No B: I looked at policies as guides for the effects that were wanted in place. That never circumvented my own self-determinism or common sense. Just as there are no absolutes, in change everything is in a fluid state. I agree the tech should be maintained in its truest form but adaptation for the third dynamic must have policies as moving as life is. In 1970 KSW seemed to fit the situations facing the church now not so mush as it has been usurped from within. ARC Bill Dupree

  35. Gerhard Waterkamp

    I think Mike Rinder really stated the only sound policy:
    “The ONLY guarantee of success is to remain analytical and judge by results and retain enough self determinism to be able to differentiate relative importances.”
    When I read KSW my first impression was: ‘Wow, he was really pissed off when writing this.” So I tried to understand what was causing this KSW sledgehammer to come down. When I related this to my observation that many people on staff in Orgs or in the Sea org were rather robotic and often seem to lack the ability to operate with some common sense. (Even more so than in the “wog” world.) I figured LRH lost trust in Scientologists at that time to behave with understanding and good reason and in an attempt to protect the tech he came up with KSW to shell shock everybody into compliance. That was a very low toned approach to things, but could be justified as a short term stop gap measure, but never as a long term strategy. And he might have had a better long term strategy with KTL and other programs to bring staff to higher levels. Some people wrote in this blog about those and how RTC disbanded them.
    I also justified this policy given the fact that people tend to alter things, not because things are not working, but because they often cannot find their own mistakes in application. So pushing hard through this barrier in tech training and internships might make sense. I kind of agreed this policy had a place in tech training until a person had gathered sufficient skill, experience certainty and mastery of the tech at which point KSW should become obsolete.
    So in a nutshell KSW to me looked like a stop gap measure. The way it was taken from there to an absolute by the COS is just the proof that one can’t cure robots by treating them as robots.

    • “When I related this to my observation that many people on staff in Orgs or in the Sea org were rather robotic and often seem to lack the ability to operate with some common sense. (Even more so than in the “wog” world.) ”

      I agree. Quite an out-point really that the “wog” world has more common sense than most Orgs that I have seen being ran. Actually it is a HUGE out-point. Here is the group that is supposed to be creating a sane world by creating sane people and you get such a level of stupidity that one can hardly believe it.

      • About 10 years ago I started an overseas property business and it started taking off in a big way. Then against my better judgement I hired a local Corp Scientologist to take on the PR and some of the marketing. Date coincident with that, the business started a slide downwards from which it never recovered. Just sayin’

  36. When you don’t read the entire body of the tech ideas like this come up. Following policy to the letter is pretty stupid, if not just robotic. I agree with the following from HCO PL EXPANSION THEORY OF POLICY “Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.” That’s pretty darned clear.
    The next thing I believe in is from HCO PL CENTRAL ORGANIZATION EFFICIENCY “If we are to bring self-determinism to man, we must be prepared to exhibit it ourselves.” Read this whole PL and see what LRH was trying to accomplish with policy. Both of the above are in OEC Vol 0 .
    There is actually an HCOB to cure robotism in orgs. There is actually a process that all staff were supposed to be run on called process S-2 “From where could you communicate to a victim.” If this process were really run on all staff, I assure you things would have turned out a lot different.
    Now, anyone trained as an engineer knows that there are exact steps that are taken to achieve a specific product. I studied electrical engineering and I can tell you that anything that has a formula needs the formula followed to reach a desired product. Dictionary definition of Technology: “The application of a science to achieve certain objectives. The body of methods and materials used to achieve such objectives”. The derivation is “technique”, “art” and ” skill”. So with Dn and Scn we have technology that is subject to precise application. LRH is saying that if you work for me you better apply the technology I have affixed my name to just as I have applied it. That is his right. He’s the one who worked it out while we were getting high on weed. Now people feel like the tech belongs to them and that they have a right to alter it all they want. that’s just plain stupidity. You’re missing the point. How would you like to fly on an airplane where the engineers and technicians did whatever the hell they wanted to do with the tech of aerospace engineering?
    All LRH is saying is that Scientology processes work if you apply them exactly as he said to. He’s the one who researchd them and saw them work. So after the research he says apply the tech and people say “That’s evil”. OMG. For anyone to promote “not following the processes exactly” is an enemy to the workability of technology. The funny thing is that much of this blog has been dedicated to KSW and the departures from the DM regime (3 swings of the needle, study tech knocked out, squirrel use of confessional tech etc).
    Out here in the field you can do whatever you want to with the tech of Scientology and Dianetics. I can even find you a current field auditor who can audit you on “three different bridges”. He’ll deliver Dianetics and even Power Processes on OTs if you want. He actually collects money for this. And I can guarentee you he doesn’t understand what he is doing with the tech. Hasn’t a clue.
    But when one puts an org together and start to deliver, you had better deliver the real deal or you will have trouble not too far down the road with the government and high priests and so forth because of non-delivery.
    As far as admin tech, read the above policy letters I cited. Good stuff.
    ML Tom

    • Thank you for writing this!

    • Well said Tom.
      The Independent world is a land of cowboys and Indians where the buyer must be aware… some auditors are good, some are not so good. There is a lot of uncertainty. But, there is one thing that is certain: you are guaranteed to get only squirrel tech in the RCS because the DM regime has uniformly required robotic adherence to the (as you said) 3 swings of the needle, knocked out Study tech, squirrel use of confessional tech, IAS, etc…

    • Theo Sismanides

      Tom, though not an engineer I got a good grasp of the precision of technology though the meticulous job of LRH. I saw that if you do the steps it works. Like in engineering. That may sound simplistic, unpopular and all the rest. I really saw it works. As we move on we might be able to think with the data fully and go ahead and have the certainty of what We do works too. I don’t think this applies in the lower levels. I think LRH wanted to give Man a route out and it IS a narrow path in the beginning. The problem is that such narrow paths are not so palatable with Man. Well… that’s another story. Thanks for sharing your view on this. I do agree.

  37. A. No.
    B. I draw the line at the point of purpose: what do I need to apply to accomplish that purpose.

  38. The technical processess should be followed up and applied exactly as LRH wrote them; these tech processess have never ever before existed and are what makes it possible for a being to go free. Policiy are agreements so survival actions can betaken for the optimum survival of a group so delivery can occur. The yardstick then is follow and apply Policy to expand delivery and if it stops the delivery of the only tech that will make beings free, then the hell with it. However, the only thing that could make “Policy” not work is suppression and alteration of it with the purpose to stop tech delivery. Lets keep it simple and apply it in a way that tech can continue to be delivered, after all that is the primary purpose of Policy.

  39. “Policy is a guiding thing. It is composed of ideas to make a game, procedures to be followed in eventualities and deterrents to departures.
    The basic policy of an activity must be the defining and recommending of a successful and desirable basic purpose.” LRH – THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION WHAT IS POLICY?

    Below Grade IV we expect beings to substitute dogma for direct observation. Which may be one reason LRH stated that posts were better left unmanned than filled in some cases.

    As far as KSW is concerned, I have found application of the 10 steps in just about ANY technological environment I have been in – computers, construction, etc.

    On the admin side, again, policy is junior to purpose. Ethics Gradients, for example…no point in continuing to raise the gradient if Ethics has gone in.
    It quickly degrades into cruelty….

  40. I always thought policy was intended for running orgs, acctually i think that if someone will try to use all of it outside the inviroment of an org it won’t work, but could also create troubles. Just my thoughts, can someone explain me?

    • Simon B.
      LRH’s administrative policies were successfully applied to many service organizations like dentistry services, chiropractic services and any service department in larger organizations from sales departments to insurance claims departments to entertainment services, like acting. And, this was the source of a tremendous amount of wealth and power in the Church of Scientology, especially between 1976 and 2009. But, in 2009 David Miscavige threw Scientology “under the bus” (sacrificed Scientology) to save himself from being exposed as a miserable manager and now these LRH administrative policies are in such disrepute (because they are associated with DM’s horrid management style), that it would be difficult to get even a “foot in the door” (short introduction) into ANY service organization, larger than a hot dog stand!

  41. A)Yes when it comes to LRH authored Tech. Auditors and CS’s are bound by codes in this matter, and intended results are based on application accuracy. As far as Admin goes it exists to allow Tech to be delivered. There is no ONE PL that does this, but a concept of many Policies and the KRC to apply the Policy which will achieve the purpose. Senior to all Policy per LRH is the enhancement and quantity, quality and viability of Standard Delivery. So on B), as long as Policy isn’t used to stop, such as in the corp. church, and delivery of training and auditing is thriving, the correct policy to expand those actions should be applied to THAT SCENE, with purpose in mind.

  42. Well, from my point of view;

    When I read the OECs from the 70’s, what really impressed me was that it was clear to me that some of the policy letters where straight out of the 1st dynamic tech; LRH was obviously – to me – thinking about how a basic first dynamic principle used in auditing could resolve a third dynamic issue. There weren’t too many of them, but it was fun to pick them out as I studied the vols.

    All the rest of the admin, ALL OF IT, can be tossed into the garbage and burned. The only exception would be those policies on ‘investigations’, such as Why Finding and Data Series; any one who studies these polices can see in them first dynamic tech being used.

    No group needs any admin policy. Any tech delivery group can succeed beyond measure based solely on;

    1. Three way coaudits
    2. C/Ses
    3. Craming
    4. Course Sups
    5. Word Clearers
    6. Someone to help in ethics if any want ethics help

    No other posts are needed, except maybe someone to make sure the bills are paid.

    Any who bring in none coauditing pcs can easily make the necessary arrangements.

    As the number of three way coaudits increase, the numbers of the others will also increase,

    BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY ADMIN POLICY.

    As soon as you start to introduce admin policy, you are going off purpose, probably in the direction of making money.

    This was my conclusion after studying the OECs; they were largely off purpose. Proof is the obvious fact that the vast, vast difficulty the CofS has ever had, maybe even all of it, is due to it’s policy. I know that some will think that the trouble comes about because policy is misapplied. That is irrelevant. The troubles stem from the fact the policy exists in the first place. If it didn’t exist, then so called misapplication couldn’t occur. DM used policy for his usurpation, and uses policy to keep people enslaved. Surely that is enough to see it for what it’s worth.

    This is extreme, I know, but I happen to think it is close to the truth. It seems to me that every policy letter is a solution to a problem, and tech trained terminals know how that ends up.

    ALL policy can be jettisoned and the momentum to Clear the planet would increase, since to me, policy is one of the barriers to that end. Policy is designed to ‘channel’ ie control the efforts of Beings to achieve increased spiritual awareness.

    One of the reason there is probably more actual auditing going on in the Indy field than in the CofS is because the Indy field largely doesn’t use any policy.

    To me, KSW is valid, but I don’t have any objection to others doing what does them good, providing it doesn’t slow down or harm anyone else; all I demand is that you don’t call it ‘Scientology’ if you do to in that direction.

    End of my two cents.

    • Oops;

      “all I demand is that you don’t call it ‘Scientology’ if you do to in that direction.”

      should read;

      “all I demand is that you don’t call it ‘Scientology’ if you do go in that direction.”

      End of Oops.

    • I agree with much of what you say her Bob.
      One thing I always wondered is that “common sense” seemed to be missing from the running of Orgs. Frequently there would be “no toilet paper”. Like this is the worst PR that can be imagined. Come on! Go buy some toilet paper. Common Sense. Common sense, don’t let a db hand out as a staff member that isn’t really contributing anything and try to debug him all the time. I mean most smart people know alot of these things innately. I like the idea of just getting the tech out there to as many people as possible and expand delivery. I do think that LRH outlined some great ideas on how to expand delivery and those should be used while continuing to use common sense at the same time

      • hi Tony;

        When you have a clear vision of your goals and purposes, all you need is common sense. Anythng else is distractive.

  43. The answer must be A) Yes.

    ML/A

  44. Great question Marty.

    Definition of POLICY:

    “a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.”

    versus

    Definition of LAW:

    “a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.”

    The problem with the word “Policy” in Scientology is that it’s been redefined to mean “the law.”

    And any policy (law) ever written by LRH must stand forever as law.

    If you think about it, that completely removes any self-determinism of those who run the organization to guide their own future with any real sense of self-determinism.

    Ironic, when you consider that self-determinism is the very Goal of Dianetics.

    Their hands are so tied in so many wrong ways, they will never make even the tiniest particle of a dent in clearing this planet. Much less actually even truly BEGIN to clear the planet.

    I remember as a Class 5 org staff member so many years ago, when I heard someone talk about clearing the planet for real, I always laughed inside, at how unreal it really was as an idea, with so many binding, counter-productive rules and procedures, that VERY few people would be willing to agree with!

    Such as the Sea Org schedule, as just one example.

  45. Policy is still subordinate to Goals and Purpose (Admin Scale). Also, it seems to me that if one went on a search of policy one would find plenty of instances where there are conflicts and exceptions and competing concerns and advices that direct one to apply policy (in particular) intelligently in context of overall goals and purposes.

    One of the reasons it is far preferable to have higher-toned, intelligent, and broadly educated leaders is that they tend NOT to apply rules, laws, policy, orders robotically. Hopefully, they apply with reasoned context – always an eye to goals and purpose and ethics. (Definition here: reason and the contemplation of optimum survival).
    Leonore

  46. A) I believe that purpose is senior to policy. So those policies that have down themselvesto be unworkable can be ignored.

    B) Where I draw the line is a very long and squiggly path that marks out the data that is true to me. There are gems in the admin tech that are true to me. But there is too much that I have not seen effective. But I’m willing to throw any of it out if it doesn’t further the purpose of doing Scientology.

  47. I had a bit of a cognition on leadership a few days ago. I saw something about Ron Paul that got me thinking. I liked Ron Paul. His words really indicated to me as being closer to truth than what you hear from anyone in congress or from other presidential candidates. However I think he would have been a terrible president. I cant know for sure, but I dont think he would have been able to get anything done. It seems to me the same things that prevented him from gaining wide support of voters and the party would have made him unable to create any effect as president. I believe there are certain qualities a leader must have and some of them are “reactive” or appeal to the reactive mind. You could say it’s a carry-over of animal type behavior, or “implants” or give some psychological mumbo-jumbo explanation for it and they might all contain truth. it seems to me that a leader must be dominant, assertive, confident, always right, strong, forceful etc. Theres probably a long list of qualities that could be made. Things they have in common are they are absolutes, they are illogical and dont really add up to good “leadership”. Thats why a guy like Ron Paul who possibly could have some actual solutions to putting this country back on track is ridiculed, laughed at and destroyed by the masses. People dont want that. Most of them want “daddy” or “God” to tell them what to do. The world is scary and they need somebody to make things simple I guess. if you dont take on those qualities you cant be a leader, really.
    You cant be uncertain, undecided, open to others opinions or data. People see that as a weakness and you will lose your power. Our political leadership is a nothing but a battle for dominance. It doesnt have much to do with actual leadership or what is best or most logical.
    What I am getting at is that from LRH’s writings it seems to me he was aware of this and took on some of these qualities in his handling of the organization he created. You must have some of these qualities to be a leader of a large group- an effective one anyway. I think that what some are disagreeing with are these qualities. LRH could have been nice, quiet, open to suggestions from others, democratic and agreeable and all that and maybe that would have better, I dont know. We wouldnt have a subject called Scientology, or it would be a very small thing that nobody cared about I think.
    I get this concept of quicksand relating to things like this. Think of the group reactive mind as a sand pit. In order to do anything in life you have to dig a space which immediately fills back in with sand. For LRH to do what he did- all the research and development he had to dig a pretty big space and hold it there to create some space to operate. That takes a lot of theta to do that. Rarely do the actions necesary to do this have group agreement. -Just thinking out loud.

    • Hi Chris,
      I was smiling as I read your comment and was going YES! YES!! and then I thought of Ghandi, and the current leader of the Buddhists. These apparently were/are soft spoken men and yet they have a nice following and have/are making a difference on planet Earth. After thinking about them and I am sure there are others that lead from a “soft spoken and analytical basis” that got results, I again found myself thinking that you are excusing or justifying LRH’s out-points. It’s ok if you want to or need to. That is just my observation and could be wrong

      • You mean the Dalai Lama? That a very unique exception. He is sort of placed in power and flowed power by believers. He’s not really a leader. It’s a pretty good gig if you can get it. Ghandi, I would say he may have had more of these characteristics than we realize. I think his image has been cleansed like LRH. He also relied heavily on other tools to control people and get support I didnt include. I’m not saying he wasnt a great man.

      • I think if LRH had been more like the Dalai Lama Scientology would have ended up more like Transcendental Meditation or something. They would have their little black and white fliers and a few centers here and there and you would look at it and say “hmm, that looks sort of interesting…oh well” and keep walking. It wouldnt have ruffled anyones feathers or made much of an impact.

        • I don’t think so.
          If you look at how the Indie organization is setting up, you will actually have NO leader. I guess the jury is still out whether or not this organization pattern will work or not. I feel that if the sp was removed and the potential legal threats were totally erradicated that the Indie field would spread like wild fire without any “Leader”. If this did become true then I think this would disprove your theory. I do think it has some validiity more so in “human” organizations. If we are ever going to make it , I don’t think any organization that leads with an attractive “reactive” leader will ever make it happen.

  48. Do you agree that these policies should be followed with unvarying adherence?

    No. Simply because I’m not donating the rest of my life for the “cause”. Let me put it this way: Who in the hell signed me up for a crusade? The end goal of Scientology should not be “Lets all just do Scientology services”.

    There is nothing wrong, not even slightly wrong about having interests outside Scientology. Besides, if you are a Scientologist then you are frequently applying Scientology; word clearing, ARC, how to not have problems etc….

    For that reason, I would say that according to the Tech Dictionary, I fit the definition of a Scientologist. I have a Scientologist’s orientation towards life in general.

    But really? Am I supposed to sacrifice everything else in life to clear the planet. Sorry, but that’s just not for me.

  49. Concerned Citizen

    This morning I received in my Inbox a very applicable reference. it is an excerpt from the lecture Scientology milestone one 3 March 1952. Note it predates both references above:
    It is titled “Knowledge and self determinism.”
    The very first paragraph says:
    “Scientology in its widest application could only be applied by the very very sane. So its first application is the creation of sanity amongst the able”

    Elsewhere in level 4 materieals LRH defines insanity or rather the whole that swallows sanity as the “safe solutin” the uninspected automaticity that forgoes judgement. He also metnions that codes are tools that will never be superior to ethics as defined by one’s ability to use judgement in determining the greatesrt good for the greatest number. Or the equation A=A=A=A.

    To so rigidly adhere to policies that one fails to observe the intenet and meaning of the set policies,thereby excersizing necersary judgement in application is to act insanely= Miscavige’s brand of Scientology.

    Lastly there is the definition of Responsibility. “THE NON-RECOGNITION AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION BETWEEN ONESELF AND ANY BEING, IDEA, MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME OR FORM, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF FULL RIGHT OF DETERMINISM OVER IT.” I’d like to add emphasis to “Idea” and “Form” in the above list. Policies are “Ideas” and “form” a system can be defined in its ultimate simplicity as exactly that ideas with structure or form. a system is a tool. To the keen student of history it becomes plain that when any ideology abandons it’s philosophical pursuit in favor of its systems and rituals it has lost it’s soul because of necesity it abandoned all responsibility depositing full trust in a “System” = “idea, form” Nothing practiced in the absence of responsibilty can ever produce unifomely good resyults. Selfdeterminism must be senior always.

    Failure to excersize said responsibility is exactly what trapped me, at the root of it was my fear of being mistaken. It takes a lot of guts to be 100% responsible for one’s actions and use of any tool. It takes a lot of guts to truly observe what is, with no justification or other identifications. Sanity is also defined as being able to diferenciate, some things seem identical, but are not. so the questions is not wether complete adhrence is valid or not, the question in my mind is, will the application of this datum result in improved conditions or aid the attainment of the goal? Policy is a tool, as is Tech. Just like any precision instrument, take an altimeter and a gyroscope, both will assist you in deterninig your relative location. If you misuse either you will obtain the wrong result, and suffer the consequences of miscalcualting your altitude or direction. But if you choose to use the altimeter when a gyroscope is what you need, it will never give you the result you need regardless of how closely you adhere to its correct use.

    So the correct question, in my humble opinion is not whetehr to closely adhere to policy, but wether we are sane enough and responsible enough to know what policy (tool) to apply when. It takes a lot of guts, and we will make mistakes and should be willing to own those, recognize them and fix them. The alternative is to bandon workable tools.
    Wouldn’t it be insane to pronunce the proper use of hammers wrong, simply because someone used a hammer using the correct (procedure) to bash someone’s skull in?

    So are we responsible enough to know when the gyroscope vs the altimeter should be used? There is no perfect in this universe, but I think it is worth a try.

    • Lastly there is the definition of Responsibility. “THE NON-RECOGNITION AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION BETWEEN ONESELF AND ANY BEING, IDEA, MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME OR FORM, AND THE ASSUMPTION OF FULL RIGHT OF DETERMINISM OVER IT.”

      Perfect!

      I was thinking about this earlier in the day as another great reason not to follow anything without question or “blindly”. When you are trying to learn something you know you are getting guidance from someone else but it is your own deternminism that is guiding you to learn from certain people. You would not allow yourself to be trained in child raising by a drunk on the beach. You would choose someone who seemed to be getting results in child raising. You shouldn’t allow someone to teach you admin who cannot show a good result. DM hasn’t shown a good result so why would anyone follow his lead? LRH showed some excellent examples of improved people and that lead a lot of people to ALLOW him to teach them how to do it also.
      LRH also allowed an SP to take control of his organization, he had been dealing with this SP for years on a personal basis. So one must pause and ask if this admin tech is the best of all worlds. I mean , no doubt there are some brilliant ideas and data in the admin tech. But a person has to use judgment if they want to find the real workable tech. Hey, the proof is in the pudding. For those of you purists out there, that feel a need to apply everything by the book. Where is the beef?? If you are a master at LRH and think it should all be applied by the book why aren’t you doing it? And if you are let us hear about your success.
      I can see a happy little auditor auditing away, making a decent living and NEVER wanting to EXPAND or needing to be hitting constant Highest evers. So what?

  50. I have a question that i have not been able to answer:

    I get how each individual can make his own choice about KSW or in discerning what elements of tech to use. If you are a field auditor, then no problem as you are either on your own or in a small group. But my question has to do with how can a larger group become unified and moving forward with these kinds of deep-seated questions about KSW and the tech? I want it to happen…i am just not getting how. Maybe the future is all about small groups. i do not know.

    • jonsty,

      It’s true enough that a group of folks need to come to some agreement about how to interact between themselves and other groups. It’s the R of ARC applied within a group.

      My boss elicts agreement from me and my colleagues on how we do our jobs, the company has rules I should follow (I can’t sell the customer list to the competition) and the whole country is subject to wider agreements (such as tax). These are necessary to get a group to work smoothly.

      And there’s nothing wrong with that.

      The problem with Ron’s admin tech is that it’s an enforced reality – hundreds of rules about every little thing rammed down your throat and you get no choice in the matter. You do not get to agree (no R), your opinion is not sought (no C) and the tone is low (low A). Hence, no ARC, no understanding and a whole bunch of resentful people.

      People are going to band together into whatever size group they feel like having and feel comfortable with. This could well differ from area to area.And they are going to come to their own agreements about how to conduct themselves, and they will mostly make up the rules as they go along, adapting as they see fit. Humans have always done this, so people trying to build delivery orgs should be no different.

      Alan

      • Concerned Citizen

        My only answer to that is the definition of team memeber, specfically the part most often left out “The trick is to become an individual and a member of the team at the same time, the only way one solves that is to come up tone till he can do it”

        In my opinion- And I do mean opinion, LRH’s admin policy is flawed, but in comparison with other organizational technologies I have encountered, it is the sanest most effective one IF and this is a very big if, applied sanely and responsibly.
        Alan is right in that any group ultimately does create its own agreements.

    • concerned citizen

      JONSTY:
      The only answer I have for that is the full definition of a team, specifically the part often left out ” The trick is to become and individual and a member of the team at the same time, the only way one solves that is to come up tone untill he can do it”

      ALAN, You said:
      “The problem with Ron’s admin tech is that it’s an enforced reality – hundreds of rules about every little thing rammed down your throat and you get no choice in the matter. You do not get to agree (no R), your opinion is not sought (no C) and the tone is low (low A). Hence, no ARC, no understanding and a whole bunch of resentful people.”

      Precisely my point. In this universe created by zillions of viewpoints, there is no one size fits all. That is why you can’t have rigid policies with sweeping invariable applications. The exception makes the rule, because there will always be exceptions. It is all in the approach.

      In my view, LRH’s policy is far from perfect, but compared to earlier and even newer organizational systems, it is still superior. SOmeone said something about policy being always inviolate and eternal. Not so, LRH has in his FEBC materials, the excat procedure for amending policy and cancelling policy and writing new policy. But none of it means anything if a live viewpoint is not there to excersize judgement in a responsible maner. Living is fast and hot, it is unpredictable, I say take the tools and use them as sanely as possible.

      • CC, you said “LRH has in his FEBC materials, the excat procedure for amending policy and cancelling policy and writing new policy”

        I’m not familiar with that issue, can you give me a PL title and date? I have a full OEC and MGMT Vols set so can look anything up (but never did read them from an FEBC viewpoint – I was a mere staff member trying to figure out how stuff works)

  51. By definition, policy is not something that must be adhered to 100%. Your application of it has to be monitored by whether or not if forwards the purpose of the activity. That principle is part of standard admin. Adherence to a particular policy – as if it is a rule or law – is incorrect.

    I would treat anything Ron wrote after he went into seclusion as worthy of suspicion. The reinstatement of disconnection for example, contains a major flaw in logic. Nobody every compromised the freedom of individual Scientologists to not talk with someone if they didn’t want to. Yet that was the pretext to give the Church the power to force people to disconnect when they didn’t want to?

    The Sea Organization was corrupting the data he was receiving as well as his return communications.

    In any event, Scientology policy has a purpose. To get more auditors trained and more auditing done. If the policy you are applying doesn’t achieve that then there is something wrong and its up to you to figure out what that is. Bottom line is that if your stats are going down and you are mistreating people, its something you are doing or not doing. Don’t blame Ron because he never, ever want that situation to occur. He ALWAYS worked to get more auditing done.

  52. Just finished Wrights book. I was amazed at how little I actually learned. I had heard 90% of the book, just from following this website for almost 5 years now.

    Quick question about the Garcia lawsuit—I am sure dM constantly moves around and in isolation, exactly HOW are they going to get him subpoenaed? I would assume they would try at one the many Idle Morgue openings, but wont acess to him be super restricted?

    Thanks in Advance, my internet friends

    The loveable Bed Man in Okc (just a friendly reminded, I am NOT speaking for the group, as a whole) –tongue is deep in my cheek

  53. Marty…

    …seriously… I need to finish this essay and get it to you…

    …my fingers cannot type fast enough.

  54. I have defended KSW #1 time and again. It is a masterpiece. But, what am I defending? Mindless adherence to ever single datum L. Ron Hubbard or COB or the “Board” has uttered? NO.

    First, a word about the versions of the PLs you cite. Ron was dead in July ’86. So, I take this with a ton of salt. But even so, “Standard Admin” is not the same thing as “Policy”. “Standard Admin” lays out the strategy in guiding principles of getting Scientology administered and applied. KSW #3 “Quality and Admin in Central Orgs” has as its first line:

    “The function of the administration personnel in a Central Organization is to make technical quality possible and get it delivered to Scientologists and the public.”

    Standard Admin would be goals, policies, procedure, and guiding principles that achieve the above. Does every policy do this? Certainly not. Would a policy that does not do that be “standard admin?” No.

    To me, in order to understand KSW, one must understand what EXACTLY is meant by items 1-10. Ron emphasizes numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10 as very important, and they are… BUT in order to DO 7, 8, 9, and 10 you need to have items 1, 2 and 3 for sure, followed up with 4, 5 and 6.

    And in fact, it all boils down to number 1. “Having the correct technology.”

    Now, is every single word Ron mentioned “Correct technology?” No, it is not. Absolutely not. Creative processing, for example. Certain methods of processing that have been superseded by later methods, such as initial methods of listing, certain methods of assessment, certain ways to ascertain the EP of processes, how to do e-metering.

    So, to me, number 1 is the MOST important item in KSW #1. “Having the correct technology.” And, frankly, you need to be well trained to know what that is (numbers 2 and 3). Not to be elitist about it, but it is what it is.

    Now, back in the day when Ron was running things, we did indeed have a set of technology that was mostly “Correct technology.” And, so you did your courses and you learned it. I would say that 90-95% was “Correct Technology” with some outliers here and there. For example, I was crammed pretty heavily for doing CCHs the way a BTB (Board Technical Bulletin) said to do them. Out tech, condoned by the church.

    But now, Ron has been dead for 27 years as of this week. That is a long, long time. We have Mr. David Miscavige polluting the tech, and also decreeing that ALL data Ron ever write IS CORRECT TECHNOLOGY, AND is not even doing that. So, the church has violated KSW #1, point one.

    At this point, the church and DM have failed at their job. Failed to “make technical quality possible and get it delivered to Scientologists and the public.” So, WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT CORRECT TECHNOLOGY IS ON OUR OWN. Individually.

    The people who hate KSW #1 seem to do so because it seems to be enforcing dogma. It is NOT. And also they don’t like the tone – Ron’s insistence that people are aberrated and have a bank corrupting their decision making capabilities. Actually, people know people are crazy – they just don’t like Ron calling it out. They also seem to not like the “We’d rather have you dead than incapable” phrase. Seems people construe that we will use R2-45 on people who are not capable. I know of no cases where this really happened (joke, except some people cannot take one).

    BUT. What if we HAD a pool of Correct Technology? What if we studied it and KNEW it, and KNEW it was correct? And I mean correct technology like “in order for a wheel to stay on a car, the lug nuts must all be present and torqued down correctly.” What if you went to a car shop that did NOT do this? Used cheap nuts, and only 3 instead of 5, and put them on hand-tight only? Or replaced lug nuts with rubber bands because they are more Eco-friendly? Doesn’t 7, 8, 9 and 10 make sense in this situation? Why is it okay for auto-mechanics to do dangerous things?

    Alright – to answer your questions:

    A. No. Absolutely not, and this is NOT what KSW says (at least the copy that I know LRH wrote).

    B. I draw the line at what I know to be true based on what I studied and applied in Scientology. It is individual. I no longer rely on others to tell me what is “Correct Technology.” I used to draw the line on what Ron actually said, and now I have gone beyond that, and look to the purpose of Scientology as a guideline.

    • Hi Grasshopper,

      We haven’t talked in ages – hello there! :-)

      I agree with the intent you express here, but must disagree with all the detail. I too long ago figured out what KSW1 is really all about, and it’s not about table-banging. Points 1-10 apply to almost any technology anywhere.

      But KSW1, AS WRITTEN, is doomed to fail and is virtually guaranteed to produce a DM and destroyed orgs. Why?

      Consider it’s audience: every staff member studying every hat, and every Academy student on any course from Student Hat on up, and again at the start of every course thereafter. I’ve even seen it quoted extensively at fundraisers….

      This PL is not some esoteric in-joke that contains a huge pearl of wisdom for those who’ve studied all the more intro publications. It’s not the Class VIII joke that auditing is nothing more than ask a question, get an answer, ack the answer (which is 100% truth and staggering in just how true it is BTW :-) )

      No, this PL is rammed in your face every opportunity Ron got to ram it in your face. And it says so right at the top, atomic branding-iron style. It’s not a temporary measure to knock WW into shape after they screwed up and has a life of 6 months. Oh no, the PL itself says that Ron re-issued it twice, and it is now so important it should never be retired. And it gets distributed to everyone. New public encountering this PL early on in their Scn experience cannot possibly come to ANY OTHER CONCLUSION than that this is the most important PL there is, including everything in it, and everything else they read must align around it. How could they possibly think otherwise?

      What would happen if you openly said in any org at any timeframe from 1965 onwards that you thought KSW1 had to be read and interpreted with huge amounts of discretion and judgement? You’d get your ass roasted good and hot! Because KSW1 itself says that must happen! And so the dwindling spiral starts, the one that has roboticism at the end.

      So whereas you are completely correct in how an intelligent man should understand KSW1, the PL itself contains the seeds of it’s own destruction and makes it effectively impossible to properly understand it. Unless you were willing to be declared that is.

      How Ron could go so out of ARC with the public and make such a colossal error in judgement is beyond me. It makes no sense and is completely out of character for the man judging by what he wrote and said the 15 years prior. It’s a huge outpoint and ticks all the illogic boxes!

      I honestly feel that Ron was almost always out of touch with the staff and public in terms of the third dynamic – my reading is that he almost always assumes he’s talking to an intelligent person who already knows how to differentiate and is not literal in their thinking. That is a foolish assumption as it’s observably not so, and yet so many PLs after 1965 are written in this style, and nowhere is there an equally well-published and well-known guideline on what the intent and objective is.

      So when I say the entirety of the Admin tech that is not in the 3 management Series vols should just be chucked in the bin and ignored, the above is why.

      Alan

      • Hi Alan!

        Excellent points. Ron was indeed VERY trusting – to a fault. And he figured his friends would do the right things with the policies and procedures he put in place. I mean, the SO was supposed to be an intense OT activity, but smoothly running because everyone was supposed to leave their case at the door (or on shore). Just like he had to undercut the tech, I feel he needed to undercut the admin. Some people are just plain vicious, and Ron gave these vicious people some pretty powerful tools.

        As for KSW, my take away has always been “Learn it before you call it wrong.” or You need to be expert in the tech to understand it. I mean, the comment from some guy here about how Ron just stole everything. That is ignorant. No. How can you say something is bullshit when you don’t know what it is? I never understood that. And, learning it exactly as written, trying it exactly as written, is the way to see that it does, or does not work. And, if you are a supervisor, one would think you trained lots of students. So, the likelihood that when 99 out of a 100 times a process does what it does, but when Joe Alterman runs it, the PC red tags – the likelihood that the process is to blame and that Alterman really applied it exactly but the process is screwed up… is close to nil. At least, Alterman should be challenged.

        I see people jumping to devastating conclusions ALL the time. I work in IT. It is ALWAYS the computer’s fault. Never the user’s fault. People cannot SEE what they are doing. They will TELL you they did X when when you WATCH them they are DOING Y. They DO Y and tell you they are DOING X. They cannot perceive it. Why do you think screen sharing support is so important in IT? Because the USER cannot perceive what they are really doing, and the support person MUST SEE DIRECTLY. Absolutely the same with auditing, only more so. The student SAYS that they ran process X – but they are doing something completely different. And the different thing does NOT work. I’d be pissed too, if I were LRH. This is what KSW is about.

        I truly believe the the idea that “if you know the tech it will protect you.” I challenged the cussing hell out of qual and HCO when roteness was applied to me – or when I was wrong, I took correction like a man. But, someone trying to railroad me (like when a student on the Justice course called me a “borderline suppressive” because I didn’t get TA in session I took them to the mat. The idiot was using M1 sessions to measure TA – when I was off the meter for most of the time. Idiot.), I just killed them with tech. I learned exactly where each datum was and what each reference is, and understood the context, and it did make sense to me, so it was tedious to have to school some idiot MAA or wayward kiddie-CMO brat, but schooled they would be.

        Some CMO chick tried to do “rollback” on me. I refused. “Show me the reference!” Chick: “It’s confidential”. Me: “Then it is a hidden data line or squirrel.” Why do non-SO people allow rollbacks to be run on them? As far as I know they are squirrel, because I never saw the ref, because it is supposedly confidential.

        The fear is what is wrong. The fear that you will “lose your eternity” because you pissed off the wrong SO member. That has nothing to do with KSW. It has everything to do with people being assholes and getting away with it, and people forcing their warped point of view on people.

        Being a Scientologist is not easy.

        Cheers,

        Mark

        • Theo Sismanides

          Mark I like your clear points and your views. I share them. I was in the SO and got into a fight with the CO CLO EU and Management why when a research was done in 1999 about translations the Very HCOBs on Translations (Translations Series on Red Vols) were not applied and be put back into activation. I was shocked to see that the CO CLO EU came back from uplines with something else as “tech”. I raised hell in the CLO EU. I was sent to the decks and still the staff knew that I was protesting. Only my then wife, secretly would support me. Nobody else did anything about it. It was too painful to be losing my own religion right there. I became a cook, was reading the PDCs and had huge cogs and wins. I was building my own universe. However, I failed to take responsibility for the SO. It was not just a tech matter, it was now an Ethics matter and it involved everybody. That I failed. I considered myself not big enough or responsible enough to start talking to individuals as much as I could and see what we could do. It was not easy. There was a Regime which was so Solid that logic wouldn’t handle it. Only Force would. And there was not enough Responsibility for that. I admit that. It pains me even today to think of it. It was crystal clear that management were squirrelling and staff would buy it just like that. It was a very ugly scene. All the beauty and sanity of Scientology had been gone. However, one thing was not gone. My Integrity and my own universe. So, I started my own journey in my own universe. And that might not be so easy or sometimes I can be irresponsible and look back and say you missed that chance but, hey, I will tell you something. You need FORCE to handle this Universe. Incredible amounts of FORCE. Some is being recollected here through all those people, here. We share the same views in many cases. We have decided to gather up our FORCES again and we use them wisely. It’s the first time that this happens since I left the Sea Org. Even if it’s a blog action is taken, too. This is different than it used to be. We are on safe “ground”, lol, the internet, all of us spread around the world. Something better is going to come out of this.

          It was not easy for the staff to do much. That might sound as a justification and it surely is. But I think, WE, Scientologists, had to go through such an era of suppression. It’s the fate of this planet. What we will LEARN out of this experience is of tremendous value. Once I thought all management was bought and corrupt. Now, several of them are amongst us and do so many things for Scientology. This is completely different than it used to be.

          • Thank you Theo, for this. It is amazing how we can feel culpable for the actions of others. In your case, you went to the decks rather than compromise and I find that very honorable.

            My view is that while we, as members/former members of the church, share responsibility for what the church has become, the people who actually committed the crimes are the ones who are guilty of the crimes. It is easy for someone to point the finger at us and say “How dare you leave the church! Where is your responsibility! Where are your KRs?” My response is: “Why are these things happening and why are the people who are actually doing these stupid things refusing to correct themselves? Why are they still doing them?”

            It is not my fault or your fault that DM created and ran The Hole. It is not my fault that people are on the RPF for years. It is not my fault that women in the SO are forced to abort their children.
            The people who are guilty are the people who DID the actions. Our job is to help expose this, but we are NOT guilty of it.
            Glad to know you, Theo.

            • Theo Sismanides

              Thanks Mark, glad to know you too. I know I know, it’s not a feeling of guilt exactly… See, I can hardly explain it but when you see the SO as a joke because of this insanity, you feel mixed feelings. I felt it was up to me to make my point. That was soooo obvious, such a glaring outpoint! Still nothing moved, lol. Thanks for your answer and your good words…

              But the beauty of it all, is that after 10 years now we are so so so many… And this is the amazing thing. This planet is under heavy suppression. We couldn’t be exempted from that in my opinion. The thing is what are we going to do about it, now. And I think we are doing it.

        • Mark,

          I duplicate you on this, I really do. I get the same thing out of KSW that you do. And I also work in IT so I have to deal with humans all the time and know what they can do with technologies that are designed to be used in exact ways.

          But you, I and almost everyone else here are sort of a breed apart. We’ve already proven we like to think for ourselves at least some of the time, and most of the rest of the population can’t or won’t do that. I mean no disrespect to the rest of the population – we ought to grant them beingness – and if people want someone else to make the hard calls, then I suppose we just have to recognise that and work with it. It’s true enough the most people do need and want rather explicit guidlelines or rules in their day to day life, and policies gives them that.

          My main point here is that KSW and most of Ron’s Green on White cannot possibly work out in the world. There is just so much scope for it to be abused or misused or misunderstood. Let’s say we terminatedly handle DM tomorrow and he goes to live on Jupiter. Now, church policy makes it very difficult to change church policy. Others have quoted LRH where he says in many places that policy is supposed to be adaptive, but nowhere does he say how to do this (huge error of omission). Let’s further assume that Marty or Mike or someone with similar knowledge and smarts steps up to the plate and announces they will tackle this problem of getting the PLs straight. Now the lack of policy on how to change policy kicks in and a large chunk of the 5,000 Scientologists left in the world will protest loud, long and with much HE&R. I doubt the task of fixing the PLs will ever be completed under those circumstances.

          To make matters worse, if the policy is not fixed, there is a very real risk that a DM version2 will come along and the cycle repeats. That’s why I say the admin policies are unworkable. Sure, individual PLs are valuable and some of the Management Series (especially Data Series) are pure gold, but taken as a collective whole with KSW leading the charge, they form an unworkable collection of writings.

          Choices as I see them:

          a. chuck the whole lot in the bin, or
          b. retain the PLs but pull their teeth and claws, or
          c. archive the whole lot where Google can find them for those interested and let people do with them whatever they want and organize themselves any way they see fit.

          Over the last day I’m now tending toward c, especially as that is what will likely happen to CoS anyway.

          Alan.

          • Yes – you are right. I mean, I am doing what I am doing and I am not following Green on White. If I ever start a group, I will not slavishly follow the OECs doing it. Tech is senior to Admin and policy.

            I have seen admin tech in the business world. Most of it does not apply – because it was written to run Scientology, not a profit-seeking entity owned by someone who has hired employees. It is ugly. WISE is a disaster. The WISE Charter Committee is an old-boys’ network that cannot do anything worthwhile.

            We are in interesting times. DM will go one day. Scientology will only live by people who apply it. I really did not like having to step outside. It will be really crazy when the house of cards folds.

  55. Very good questions Marty, ones I have debated with friends quite often over. Some great thought provoking answers too!

    A) No

    B) At the point where it is not the most optimum action for the most number of dynamices.
    My proviso on B is that the policy be thoroughly understood as to its meaning and what it is meant to fix and whether the context of the PL fits the context of the situation at hand.

    I believe the tech of Scientology can be made to work in the hands of people above 3 on the tone scale and that they will see when it cant be made to fit in.

  56. a. No.
    b. At the beginning, before it even starts. There is no line to draw!

    First, some nomenclature. Ron makes a fundamental error with green on white and he makes it throughout – he equates Admin technology and policy and doesn’t differentiate between them.

    Admin technology is exactly that – a technology. The tape “Standard Tech Defined” does a great job of defining how technology works; the Admin scale is a technology, the Data Series is a technology; The Ethics Conditions are a technology.

    KSW and Admin Degrades are NOT a technology, they are Just A Bunch of Rules. The Computer Series is not a technology, it’s some observations with no method or defined deliverable product. The bulk of The OEC is not technology either – heck we have ancient Mimeograph, Addressgraph and how to wax a car in there! At best these are a minor hat write-up and don’t even vaguely approach policy never mind 3rd dynamic technology.

    KSW and Admin Degrades make many fatal errors, and almost anyone with some training in critical logic can tear them to pieces in seconds: all the rules Marty quotes assumes that management will always be hunky-dory and fine, never make a mistake and things work like they should. Well, surprise – they are right now not working like they should and there is ZERO green on white anywhere describing how to deal with this. A Comparable datum would be grossly incomplete repair lists for auditing tech.

    Policy Letters get their authority from being Policy Letters, and the thing that gives Policy Letters their authority is by virtue of being Policy Letters. That is circular logic. There is no PL anywhere that describes when and how a PL should be retired, how to retire it, how to get new policy accepted, and precious little in the way of categorizing PLs per importance. Basically, all PLs are eternal, they never retire, you never get new ones and they are all equally important (unless you apply your own common sense). Well, that’s just a huge case of A=A=A; witness how RCS currently operates (any old policy that justifies handing over money is quoted whenever convenient).

    I say Ron dropped the ball on 3rd dynamic admin tech hugely. Actually, he fucked up. And seeing as KSW is nothing more than Just A Bunch of Rules (albeit sensible ones to one who can think), then I’m free to accept or not accept them any time I see fit, and they are in no way binding. I long ago chucked KSW out the window and replaced it with my own ability to think.

    I’ve said more than I intended but less than I could, so I’ll stop now. I think y’all get the idea.

    Alan.

    • Alan, you should read the PL on Battle Plans. It is a clinic on admin theory – goals and purposes driving strategy driving programs and planning driving specific projects and activities driving tactical activities contained in Battle Plans. He does talk about retiring policies – and he has done so. The problem is that Ron is dead, and the idiots that took over are not capable of running the show.

      Of course, Ron also said that if a thetan was in charge of a post, there would be no policy needed. The person just makes it work. This is, to me, a backward was to say that policy is for idiots who cannot think. ;)

      Mark

  57. For 35 years and numerous checkouts both ways, I thought that there was only one REALLY main point being made in Keeping Scientology Working. Boy, was I wrong. FIRST …. let me say that the part of KSW I COMPLETELY support is what seems to be the major part of the PL which is to keep IN the rules of auditing procedure and to be completely unreasonable – when auditing is said not to work – in uncovering the actual errors in procedure that were made and then correcting them. After 11 very successful years as a CS (and more as an accomplished auditor) I have a PERSONAL reality and true understanding of how and why LRH’s rules for successful handling of cases work and that they indeed DO work when correctly (standardly) applied.

    The other part of KSW, which is quite insidious and a bit evil in its goals of controlling beings’ viewpoints in the area of third dynamic authoritarianism is sprinkled throughout the PL (not that I feel every part of the theme of being dedicated to the great task ahead is necessarily wrong or bad, nothing wrong with being dedicated to a high purpose in life, and especially one that is to forward survival for all beings). This starts out with letting the reader know that the purpose of Scientology is the highest in the universe, continues that democracy is a bad thing (thus one takes orders from above, does not contribute to shaping his leaders’ actions nor does he have any approval hat in what programs or projects he is told to implement or REAL right to disagree, despite Orders, Query Of) and ends with a very pointed part about what the dedication level of every person involved in Scientology needs to be. Unlike many years earlier, where Ron mentions the housewife or the student learning Scientology to help themselves or others in life, now they are expected to be a full balls to the wall group member dedicated to the group purpose above all (which is logical as the agonized future of every ….. depends on what they do now or else leave the group.

    One could certainly argue that there is nothing wrong (indeed a lot right and very exciting and fun sometimes too) to take on this viewpoint and task. But I can tell you from personal experience as having been there first hand as a staff member through many decades that besides a sort of euporia that was created in one as this last section was being read (yeah, I admit, it was kind of a “high” – felt good) – that there were also VERY heavy track buttons being pushed and VERY heavy dramatizations being put in. I’m talking about the whole COMMAND thing – the whole authoritarian religious righteous thing – “you will be given orders – you are expected to do everything you are told to the point of death – the future of this sector of the universe depends on YOU – so stop fucking around with what YOU feel and what YOU want to do, and GET FUCKING WITH IT if you want to remain a part of this group.” (Axion 2 might talk about your ability to have infinite viewpoints and opinsions and 8-8008 might talk about you creating your own universe, but bub, THOSE DAYS ARE OVER in Scientology!) And that attitude was laid in over and over and over again in COUNTLESS ways both to staff members and public, as to what they did on every single dynamic, first starting with how they spent their time and money, it was no longer considered a PERSONAL decision, but a group one.

  58. NOTE: I haven’t read all the comments to this post before posting my own.

    This post is not a full, comprehensive listing of the various references on the topic of whether KSW as originally written includes “policy” per se, it didn’t, when written on 7 Feb 65.

    The reference given in the Opening Piece, Keeping Admin Working, has a date of 1 July 86. Patently LRH did not either write or approve this policy. He died in January of that year. Even if it was “advised” prior to his death, there is no way he could have seen the final issue and he could not have approved it.

    Neither did he approve the additions, written in after Jan 86, to the 23 December 65, Issue I, PL, that made what was not originally a “high crime” but in 1970 (the re-issue of KSW) became a high crime for “administrators and executives” for actions that neglect KSW.

    LRH did not write or approve Admin Degrades, as it was issued following his death. These are compilations done in RTRC. Again, even if there is some advice, there is no way he could have seen the final issue, and no way he approved it.

    This isn’t being “picky”. There are Contrary Facts. Here’s one:

    PL 4 March 65 RA, Iss II, TECHNICAL AND POLICY DISTRIBUTION, was revised and re-issued 7 July 83. LRH was very much alive in 83. This policy states the following:

    “7. INSTRUCTION AND ADMIN POLICY ARE ALMOST IMPORTANT AS TECH. ”

    It also states this further in this PL:

    “The thing to guard against in releasing teaching and admin policy letters is the change factor. Teaching and admin evolved with our formative years. Thus, patterns and policies, like our tech, grew better. Growing better, some of it became obsolete.

    “When re-releasing an old policy letter, always blue pencil out everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters. You can still salvage a lot that still applies-a surprising amount. But try to cut out the contradictions with our modern policy where they exist. After all, we were children when we first tackled teaching and Admin. As we grew, we became wiser. But even our Admin childhood has wisdom in it and in some places even more fire and interest.

    “Don’t release contradictory hats where you can help it. Modernize them with a blue pencil whether you retype them or remimeo them or not.

    “That way none get a chance to invalidate a really great achievement-teaching that works despite aberration and Admin that works amongst Men.”

    Here’s another contrary fact from PL 23 Oct 63, REFUND POLICY:
    “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 GPMs. So why not have live orgs?

    “Policy is only vital where agreement must exist between two or more thetans working together. Beyond that it fails. A needful policy is “We’ll start work on time” since without it the org goes ragged. A useless policy would be “The Registrar must always smile at an applicant” for that puts a datum where a person should be.

    “So there are two kinds of policies- those needed to obtain work-together
    ease and those which seek to put a datum instead of a being in a position. The less you have of the latter the better things will get. The more reasonable the former, the more work will be done.”

    Policy 11 April 70, THIRD DYNAMIC TECH:“If a study of our Third Dynamic Tech is approached from the viewpoint that it is for use and
    when known, understood and used that it will deliver an expected result, then one has a proper framework for the study of it.

    “If one thinks it is a series of orders, or just some random ideas, then one will not have the use of it.

    “The short span of men’s lives inhibits the full development of any one subject in one lifetime.

    “Thus there is a lot of room for further expansion of our Third Dynamic Tech. But the basic laws can be found in it and many exact drills are contained in it and it has great value in any zone of application.

    “What we now know and use of our Third Dynamic Tech is all that has forwarded our survival so far.

    “Thus its wider understanding and use in our own organizations is the key to prosperity and expansion.

    “An “old experienced Scn executive” (who has a lot of this know-how) can go into a collapsing org and boom it. The data he is using is all in these policy letters. He knows it is there for use and he uses it in action.

    “The elements he uses are in HCO Policy Letters.

    “The data encompasses Third Dynamic Tech. It is applied very much like one applies the First Dynamic Tech to the individual.

    “In its present state of development, like early auditing material, Third Dynamic Tech is used to think with, and only the bright mind will achieve its full potential in action.”

    This PL, THIRD DYNAMIC TECH of course aligns completely with the fundamental descriptions of policy, EXPANSION -THEORY OF POLICY from Dec 66 (AFTER KSW was first issued) and STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION- WHAT IS POLICY? from March 1965, again FOLLOWING KSW of 7 Feb 65.

    There are many others that would contradict the premise that LRH wrote and/or approved of the two dubious issues referred to from July 1986. He patently did not approve them no matter what he may have advised (and who knows what that actually stated IF it exists and I guarantee DM’s ability to duplicate advices, policies, instructions, tech, or even the methods of catching a fish are non-existent).

    This argument, over whether Scientology policy is the same as Scientology Tech, is specious. It isn’t.

    This accusation that by posting on this blog one is in violation of KSW is speciious.

    The consolidation of a position, the usurping of the Church, the issuance of contradictory policies and in several instances “tech” AFTER LRH left and even before (in the case of the spurious, specious issue PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION), was and is ( he continues to do so with issues in the 2000’s carrying LRH’s byline!), an effort by a Suppressive Person to undermine and destroy Scientology and Scientologists.

    • Interesting, so where do you draw the line on tech and policy and whether written or authorized by LRH or not? Is there a particular date you use? That is an untrue assertion regarding PTS and Disconnection. He ordered it reinstated.

      • I draw the line where it is. I also differentiate policy from tech, as it is different.

        LRH did not write PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION. That assertion is very true.

        What he may or may not have ordered is contained in those orders. It is not in the issue he didn’t write.

        This whole problem, of identifying policy with tech, originated in RTC. You were there, you forwarded the party line enthusiastically. Here it is again, and you still have the MUs. Policy is not tech. KSW applies to TECH. The policies, for the bulk of them, come from a time period AFTER KSW was written, and the differentiation exists. The only identification that occurs is in “policy” written after LRH was dead. Policy that David Miscavige’s RTC, of which you were an integral part, foisted off on Scientologists.

        Here it is again.

        The first barrier to learning is considering you know it all already. This falls under the tapes I referred to the other day, the 4th London ACC and the First and Second Postulates. “Not know” is prime, and “Know” is the Second Postulate and persists. (See R2-40 in COHA for further data.)

        • I was L. Ron Hubbard’s Legal Executive when he wrote PTS and Disconnection and he had me clear it with his attorneys before issuing it. You were not even in the Sea Org at the time as I recall.

          • Marty,
            Do you have any more information that you can share on Robert Vaughn Young’s statement in an Affidavit where he says:

            “…The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of ‘Disconnection.’ The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology.”

            • Vaughn was a consummate propagandist, many of which techniques he learned and perfect in the church. If you read his material from that time period – he was carefully attempting quite skillfully to throw doubt about who was in charge during LRH’s final years. The major legal action he was working on was Larry Wollersheims ill-fated attempt to challenge LRH’s will years after the fact. Vaughn did work on the PL, much as DM worked on the books, editing an LRH despatch (the verbatim PTS and Disconnection PL) into bulletin/policy form at LRH’s direction.

              • The “Disconnection Canceled” Policy Letter is still valid (as it wasn’t canceled).
                The “PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION” 10 SEPT 1983 HCOB may or may not have been written by LRH. I don’t care, as the whole Reference makes sense excepts for the paragraph I’ll cite below.
                Disconnection is useful if the person really is PTS and doesn’t know how to handle or couldn’t handle.

                BUT enforced disconnection as written here in this HCOB?
                To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of the suppressive—in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labeled. (Ref: HCO PL 23 Dec. 65RA, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS)

                Whose idea was it to implement this paragraph?
                Marty, I have no reason not to believe what you say. But if different persons (including Vaughn) worked on the compilation, how can we know, that THIS paragraph wasn’t inserted by other source (not LRH).
                As you say, time and again, you had no personal contact with LRH.
                I understand: “I was L. Ron Hubbard’s Legal Executive when he wrote PTS and Disconnection and he had me clear it with his attorneys before issuing it.” But how did it look like?
                How can you be sure 100% that the HCOB “he had you clear with attorneys” was the same Issue which later was distributed to orgs and public?
                Please let’s pull this string.
                If this paragraph really is from LRH it is probably the biggest mistake he ever did to the Scientology Movement (and its dissemination) and he should have known from experience from the 60’s that this would crash the orgs.
                I support Jim Logans view, that many issues from the 80s are suspicious.
                They were filtered by two guys who managed to suppress LRHs comm lines for their own benefits.

                Therefore I’d like to ask you to pull this string:
                Can we be sure 100% that the HCOB “he had you clear with attorneys” was the same Issue which later was distributed to orgs and public?

                • Yes, L. Ron Hubbard wrote it. But, in the final analysis who cares? There is ample other authority for enforcing disconnect in policy. Hence, this post – and others like it.

                  • Marty, you say: “Yes, L. Ron Hubbard wrote it.
                    You have seen the original or the compiled issue only.

                    And: “ But, in the final analysis who cares? There is ample other authority for enforcing disconnect in policy.
                    I do. There is still the HCO PL 15 November 1968, “Cancellation of Disconnection”, which NEVER was cancelled.
                    And there is lot’s of tech and policy from the 70’s on this subject which was later (in the 80s) changed to compliment the below paragraph:

                    “To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also supportive of the suppressive—in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labeled.”

                    If you are 100% sure, that the final issue is from LRH and that (including the above paragraph) it was authorized by LRH as-is (still today) then there are 3 possible situations:
                    A) LRH was in a much worse condition at that time than I (and many) suspect and would like to admit
                    B) You were played by DMs dirty tricks more than you would like to admit
                    C) LRHs foresight was so brillant, that he saw this HCOB as the only way to export Scientology into the Independent Field (as the above paragraph is very effective in producing defectors).

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Read the thread. Then if you want answers to all the questions you’ve alluded to, read my next book.

                    • I’ll happily read your next book, Marty.

                      But I would appreciate if you answer this simple question:

                      Marty, you say: “Yes, L. Ron Hubbard wrote it.”
                      You have seen the original or the compiled issue only?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Ok, I’ll write it again. The PL is essentially vebatim from a despatch from L. Ron Hubbard directing it be put into PL form and issued. That I saw. Vaughn was assigned to put it in PL form, a task on the order of Miscavige’s self-imposed task of handling the semi colons in Ron’s books.

                    • Thank you.

                    • Sorry for being a pain, Marty.
                      But in order to exclude my point (B) above completley:
                      do you remember wether the dispatch was handwritten (by LRH) or typewritten?

                    • This is a joke no?

                      The answer is it was typewritten.

                      Oh, but how do you know it was his typewriter?

                      Well, it was printed on a printer after being transcribed.

                      So, who is it that transcribed it as that is the only person in the whole world that REALLY knows?

                      Well, her name was Susie Bennick.

                      So, how do I get hold of her?

                      Here’s her number….

                      Hi, Susie, do you remember transcribing the PL on PTSness and disconnection?

                      Errmmm, I typed thousands of LRH transcribed despatches, orders and issues. I think I recall that one….

                      And did he write this paragraph….?

                      Wow, I can’t recall in that detail….

                      Aha, that proves it. It was NOT written by LRH…..

                      Now what?

                    • Now what?
                      Now I see that the source is not 100% reliable.

                      In the other comment I already wrote, the cycle of re-establishing of the “enforced disconnection” began with the issue of SPD 28 (eleven months before this HCOB/PL was issued).
                      You and Marty have been there at the time.
                      I understan.
                      How can you be sure the whole cycle wasn’t set up without you having noticed it as such?

                      I appreciate your work.
                      I am not trying to ridicule you.
                      Today you say we were used by a sociopathic SP.
                      When did you notice it?

                      You said “I quit, I am done with Miscavige”.
                      When did it started? He was duping LRH, all his opponnents, potential opponents and he didn’t trust anyone (even Shelly is gone because she missed his W/Hs).

                      I am not saying LRH was a saint.
                      I am saying he was duped and brought into a dangerous position, cut from all communication lines but one.

                      You can lough about my viewpoint.
                      But you can as well admit, that you don’t know for sure, that this HCOB/PL (or this tiny portion of it) was written by him.

                      You may also ask “what difference makes it whether or not LRH worte it or not? There is lots of inconsistency in other places/subjects too.”
                      Yes, but with this particular “tool” it’s different. This tool is the most powerfull tool in Miscaviges tool-box.
                      The sequence (SPD, HCOB/PL 11 months later, rewrite of different PLs after that) is no coincidence.

                      I rather would like to ask you to help us to look at this whole period of time. What is the WHY for the above “policies”? Who would benefit from them? LRH knew from experience that they will back-fire.

                    • But you can as well admit, that you don’t know for sure, that this HCOB/PL (or this tiny portion of it) was written by him.

                      True enough.

                      And I didnt watch him write DMSMH. And have seen hundreds of typewritten manuscripts of PLs, HCOBs, books etc. And based on your standard, I admit that I don’t know for sure that they were written by LRH, anyone could have used a similar typewriter.

                      This reductio ad absurdem argument is silly.

                      Honestly, I dont care if you believe he wrote it or he didnt. I can only try to impart what I know in the hope that it will help people gain a better understanding of things. I don’t make them up. I don’t tell stories just to hear the sound of my own voice. When I have some information that seems relevant to the topic, I make it known if I have the time to do so. You want to keep engaging in what is essentially a meaningless back and forth. I have given you all the data and views that I have on it.

                      Make up your own mind based on what you know.

                    • “Honestly, I dont care if you believe he wrote it or he didnt. I can only try to impart what I know in the hope that it will help people gain a better understanding of things. I don’t make them up. I don’t tell stories just to hear the sound of my own voice. When I have some information that seems relevant to the topic, I make it known if I have the time to do so. “
                      Yes Mike and thank you.

                      The only point is, I don’t need to choose whether or not I believe LRH wrote it. This wouldn’t open a door for handling. The correct question is: WHY is it there? WHO would benefit from it? What is the (evil?) purpose behind it.

                    • I guess a conclusion to all this is if you wanted to be a purist that you can’t be SURE that LRH wrote any of the materials issued becasue they all could have been altered by someone else with some evil purpose or just errors.

                      This would be total proof and logic that one should not follow blindly ANY of his writings. You should only apply and use things that make sense to YOU. That is personal integrity. YOU be the judge.

                    • Tony,
                      yes – to some degree it’s exactly as you say.

                      Prior to KSW#1 there was the “Clearing Procedure, 1957″ Issue and LRH wrote this:
                      “… I charge you with this — look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots …”

                      We can’t be allways shure whether the Materials are ginuine or not.
                      Even CDs are manipulated today.
                      I think if we had a “Materials Reservation Unit” with open communication channels like this blog, this would be a great service to forward and saveguard the Materials.

                      This could be done.
                      Maria suggested something like this below.
                      I think this is a great Idea.

                      I don’t believe “Admin Tech” needs a 100% adherence. Not for Field Auditors at least. Why should they lollygag their time with things they doesn’t need. But I am sure any Field Auditor would benefit from the study of the materials. The larger the center (org) the more Administration could come into play. But it’s up to them. Like the PL about missions says (from 1970), if they want to survive well, they may use it – but no higher authority should enforce it.

                      Technology, the application of Scientology Processing is different. Very different. These are two different subjects. I’ll leave it at that.

                      I enjoyed talking to you ;-)

                • SKM — a lot of the discussion on this thread seems to miss the forest for the trees.

                  The issue here is the literal interpretation of the writings of LRH.

                  One paragraph out of that HCOB being right or wrong makes no difference to the big picture. Whether issues from the 80’s are or are not authored by LRH is also debatable forever.

                  I promise you, if you want literal interpretation and parsing of sentences, I can find a “quote” to justify virtually anything. INCLUDING disconnection. Even including disconnecting from those connected to suppressives. Believe me, there are a LOT of references that say a LOT of things. And if the argument is about whether a certain paragraph says this or that and whether that means you should or shouldn’t do something, then this is making the whole point.

                  You have to apply logic and judgment. Be able to differentiate and assign relative importances.

                  It is a style of argument you rarely hear outside of Scientology: “Look, I know that everything in the physical universe demonstrates that things are this way, but just look at this sentence written by LRH, he says it isnt, so therefore, it cannot be.”

                  In many ways, I share your wish that things written in the 80’s didnt exist, as that is when things became especially harsh, unforgiving and “us against the world” and it comes through in MANY issues from that time. If it makes you feel better, pretend they don’t exist and they are not written by LRH and so can be ignored when convenient. But I caution you not to read any Guardian Orders from the late 60’s or 70’s and watch out for the stuff about WISE and the criminals destroying orgs and the List 1 RSer issues….

                  Please, don’t put your head in the sand. This is reality.

                  • Dear Mike,
                    believe me – I am not a literalist. Not at all.
                    I do “apply logic and judgment” and I am “able to differentiate and assign relative importances”. Otherwise I wouldn’t be here.

                    I also understand all the “Guardian Orders from the late 60′s or 70′s” and other stuff originated even in the 50’s. Of course these where issues to cope with some havy stuff and then later it was a outpoint-correct cycle up to a point when LRH had to “hide in the mountains”.
                    I am not naive. I take nothing for granted only because “authority” says so. I like to pull strings more than putting my head in sand.

                    Please see my comment here.

                    • OK, good for you. I hope you are able to deal with the concept that the paragraph was written by LRH. You seem to be having a bit of a hard time with it….

                    • No Mike. I don’t have a hard time with it.
                      Not personally.

                  • Mike,
                    regarding this: “And if the argument is about whether a certain paragraph says this or that and whether that means you should or shouldn’t do something, then this is making the whole point.”
                    While the whole Bulletin is written in order to help PCs and Students on their road along the bridge, the paragraph I quoted above is there only for the purpose of consolidating the power over all commlines of parishioners.
                    This was used by DM in order to consolidate his power and dictatorship.
                    He was much more interested in this “tool” than in helping parishioners.

                    • Sorry to disappoint you, but that WAS written by LRH. How it has been used is the tragedy. Same with a lot of things.

                    • Yes, Mike – the tragedy it was used.
                      And that’s the whole point. This is the situation which makes me suspicious wether the whole, final HCOB/PL was directed by LRH as we find it today.
                      Why?
                      Because the “tragedy” began before the HCOB/PL was issued.
                      The “PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION” was issued 10 SEPT 1983.
                      But the SPD 28, “SUPPRESSIVE ACT, DEALING WITH A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON” (which NEVER EVER was written by LRH) was written 13 August 1982! This is eleven (11) months before.
                      So we have a tendency here. A purpose to make the SPD 28 seem “legal”. (As it was surely hard to convince any Scientologist they should “listen” to a not-standard-LRH issue.)

                      Again, I am not putting my head in sand.
                      I try to collect data in order to make a correct conclusion.
                      My conclusion for now is: DM was looking for the correct tool to concolidate his power over all Scientology Organizations.
                      He managed to write the SPL.
                      This wasn’t enough, as he wanted ALL Scientologist know, that they shouldn’t be in communication with “Suppresive Elements” or else.
                      Therefore he needed a better “tool”.
                      I don’t know enough about the specifics how it came about that LRH came up with the advices for “PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION”, but one thing is for sure: At that time all his communication was controlled by TWO guys (DM/PB).

                      So good for you, if you believe LRH wrote this particular paragraph.
                      But please see, that this time in the history of Scientology needs still some “3rd Dynamic auditing” and Belief is not part of the valid process.

                    • But please see, that this time in the history of Scientology needs still some “3rd Dynamic auditing” and Belief is not part of the valid process.

                      I couldnt agree with you more. TRUTH is what is needed.

                      Unfortunately, when truth is presented, if it doesnt match the “R” of those reading it, it is rejected.

                      You are STILL trying to argue about this paragraph of a reference. As if it somehow is so incredible it just couldnt be true. And honestly, the only datum that makes this “incredible” is the idea that everything LRH ever wrote is perfect, consistent and matches the mental image picture that the reader has of him. And if there is something that doesnt match up to that ideal — in spite of any evidence to the contrary — “it could NOT have been written by him and ‘good for you if you are so stupid as to believe he wrote that paragraph'”.

                      Do you realize what you said? The people that WERE there and did see it tell you one thing and you reject it; why? Because it “couldn’t have been written by LRH”? And what leads you to that conclusion? “He would never write anything inconsistent”? Or “he would never write anything mean”? Or “he would not write something that could be misused by others”?

                      You said you apply logic and are a free thinker. Seems you are a bit stuck here…..

                    • ” And honestly, the only datum that makes this “incredible” is the idea that everything LRH ever wrote is perfect, consistent and matches the mental image picture that the reader has of him.”
                      No, I am nothing like that.

                      “Do you realize what you said? The people that WERE there and did see it tell you one thing and you reject it; why? “
                      Because ALL they have seen was a document. And they “assume” it is 100% LRH.

                      You said you apply logic and are a free thinker. Seems you are a bit stuck here…..
                      No, I am not. I am not even charged.
                      I pulled the string up to a point where I know, the line was not 100% reliable.
                      Thank you.

                    • I pulled the string up to a point where I know, the line was not 100% reliable.

                      Good job. I hope you did the same with DMSMH and every PL and HCOB you didnt observe LRH personally write.

                    • How about his taped lectures? Have you ever noticed any inconsistancies in those?? He is speaking in the tapes. Listen to the PDC’s and see if he says anything unbelievable as if it’s truth.
                      My question to SKM is: Do you believe that LRH was capable of error? And if so have you ever percieved any things in it that you disagree with?
                      If so, what are they?

                      Just curious.

                    • Dear Tony,
                      I wonder how you concluded I couldn’t believe that LRH was capable of error.
                      Of course.
                      There is lots of things I disgagree with him. There is lots of inconsistency in many concepts regarding the 8th dynamic (his ever changing speculations etc. But fair enough, he never insisted those speculations are the TRUTH).
                      Also I don’t approve of many things he said about other religions, including but not limited to his different version about Jesus.

                      There are also lots of different franchise concepts he had I didn’t agree with him.

                      But this is not the point in this thread.

                      It’s not even important to me wether or not he wrote the HCOB/PL (or this tiny portion of it).
                      I am not the one who says: “I know the truth and I don’t need to look in this direction anymore”.
                      To me it’s more important to ask WHY the enforced disconnection was reinstalled. What was the situation? And if LRH wrote it, what led him to do so? [What (false) reports?]
                      You see, we don’t know if he did. Not 100%

                      Let’s assume he wrote it: then WHY?
                      Let’s assume he didn’t: WHO did it then and with WHAT purpose?
                      The 3rd Dynamic “blind spot” at this time perion is there for a reason? Don’t you think?
                      And the “blind spot” remains no matter if we assume he wether wrote it or not.

            • PS, if we want to apply Jim Logan’s standard – and despite his protestations to the contrary, he is ‘believing’ Vaughn Young over me – then OT VIII is not LRH, nor is Mission Earth, the FPRD Series, and hundreds of other policies and bulletins from the 80’s.

              • If I can add to this discussion. We are not litteral and finally don’t care if LRH wrote PTS ness and disconnection. Really????
                It’s a major wrong indication on this fucking universe! It was thought to isolate the so called “squirrels” previous SNR CS int.
                Miscavige is a traitor to scientology. What proof do you bring that LRH wrote or ordered this piece of destruction?
                I know, who care? But the guys in the church are caring a lot, maybe regrettably.
                If it could be proven that this “PTS ness and disconnection” was not written by LRH nor approved by him and communicated, then the power of Miscavige would fall appart.
                When i first read it my perception was : it’s not LRH. But knowingness is not a proof.
                Maybe I still love LRH and cannot accept that such a so smart man who wrote for exemple the data series could have written such a piece of shit. No !!! Never.

                • Anybody notice a similarity of several simultaneously posted replies (all arriving a 1/2 day after the comment)? Ya’ll are still in the cult, while being dead certain you are not.

                  • I’m not having a “cultish mind”. Not at all. This issue is simply an incorrectly included datum, and I always felt it’s wrong.
                    If having perception and trusting it is being on a cult, then well I qualify for being on a cult or at least to still being a scientologist while being opposed to “COB”.
                    And sorry, I’m anything but “cultish”!

                    • If I might add one last thing. Let’s say we will never know if LRH ordered or wrote “PTS ness and disconnection” but from the idea of Data series that the basic law is the important thing over the “incidental fact”, you can study the lecture : ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT OF SIENTOLOGY
                      3 November 1955
                      It’s 100% opposed to disconnection, and is a basic law. Here is an extract but please listen or read the full lecture :

                      “You can repair a guy, see. You can process him, you can snap his ability up to where he could handle that post. You get the idea?
                      Unless, one—that’s the way it exists today, there isn’t a question of
                      technology or auditors today—you could do it. Or you could face up
                      to the squirrel situation he faces, you see, and try to do something
                      about that, or you could just leave it alone. But I’ll tell you that you
                      don’t do this: Boot him out of Scientology. Give him a hand. Give
                      him a hand. “

          • Highly suspect. I’ve long since dispensed with “reliable source” as a datum.

            I have now to take your word on this? Ummmm…no.

            • Of course you don’t. And that, combined with your adopting the Vaughn Young conspiracy theories (he authored the piece in support of challenging LRH’s Will years after the fact), is one reason why you are stuck in an endless rabbit warren. On the one hand, you are constrained to follow L. Ron Hubbard’s words literally. On the other hand, per your standard on what is authentic or not (apparent, though you will not answer the simple question that the post raised on that score) you can question (read arbitrarily pick and choose) everything issued in LRH’s name since the day in 1979 he left Scientology bases for good. That would include The Way to Happiness, FPRD, OT VIII, many revisions and updates to NOTs technology (including making them OT levels), etc, ad infinitum. As to your covert swipe at me, while you were licking your wounds, I was obtaining permanent religious status for Scientology (which LRH ordered was paramount to all other POLICY and priorities in his final years) which in no small part ultimately allows you perform the profession you are currently engaged in. You are welcome.

              • You apparently paint me with the brush you covered yourself with for those years you claim to have been the “second in command” next to Dave Miscavige. Those years you violated ethics, tech and admin with abandon, creating that atmosphere of suppression, right along with whomever it is you seek to blame for your acts now. This latest, including your comment that DM is a product of the “system”, and now this system is Keeping Scientology Working.

                Now I’m not much for your generalities about all these LRH issues that contradict each other, echoed by Mike Rinder now. You’ve yet to actually produce the “dox”, but the accusations fly.

                Watching that video the other day on The Hole, in a new unit of time, the egregious facts emerge. You were there and very much involved in the entire lead up to that insanity. An integral part of probably the most suppressive group in the history of Scientology, RTC. And, as you admit, from the get go.

                Your initial “question” re KSW was answered. You can’t accept that answer possibly, as it doesn’t jibe with the conclusions you seek. Nor the conclusions you cling to, white knuckles and grimaced face.

                Vaughn Young claimed he wrote the issue. You now acknowledge that he “worked on the PL”. And then assign “conspiracy theories”. I stated LRH did not write the issue. He didn’t. It was compiled in RTRC, based on LRH dispatches. What those dispatches actually said, well, who knows, and your recollection, or Vaughns for that matter, don’t amount to a hill of beans for me. Your both “hidden data lines” when it comes to it. I base my observations on the issue itself, and have traced this in an article I posted. Above, the poignant section was quoted by another poster. This is the “still beat your wife” aspect that is what DM, you and all the way down, used to destroy so many relationships over these past some 30 years, to smash lives. Mine included.

                Now, you ascribe “literal interpretation” to me?

                That milieu, that resulted in the original dispatch, was an emergency. The dispatch recommends a handling that falls under “emergency orders”, i.e., the materials of the Urgent Directive. The dispatch itself, arising from the false reports of the scene. The 3D engram following.

                I understand completely why LRH wrote the original dispatch. I understand completely what he intended to achieve, and did. I also understand completely how you used it subsequently, literally, for decades. I also understand completely that the issue, as written, needs to be cancelled. And that is based on my own observation, my own study of Scientology, and my own conceptual grasp of Scientology – (see my article 3D Engram.)

                The rest of your screed, OT VIII, FPRD, et al, is misdirection.

                The case you’ve brought up in the OP (Opening Piece), that “policy” is subsumed by 7 Feb 65, is sophistry. This idiocy was foisted off by RTC. I witnessed it. I protested. RTC declared me, and you enforced the disconnection of my wife and I. All based on YOUR “literal interpretation” of LRH materials, and to which materials you now seem to seek a scapegoat for your acts.

                I’m not much for your interpretations.

                • Thank you for the live demo, exhibit A in support of the views detailed in the book What Is Wrong With Scientology?

                  • I checked and there is no Exhibit A in your book.
                    I understand your insinuation, but I wonder why you cut off the comm.
                    Jim did a great job with his assay about the PTS/SP tech. At least he documented technical alterations and insights how tech went OUT on this subject. It’s a hell of a work he did in KSW#1 regarding ONE: Having the correct technology:PTS/SP tech which brings results.
                    I salute him for this.

                    I can’t say much about the other things he wrote above. I am not Judge Dredd. I hope you consider to have a look at some of the points he mentioned.

                • “You were there and very much involved in the entire lead up to that insanity.”

                  He also audited Tom Cruise and Jason Beghe and cleared people with the tech while you used the tech to enturbulate others to the point of getting declared and dismissed as a VOLUNTEER.

                  YOU are the one that got declared in the Church. And it wasn’t because you were noble or brave or helpful. It was because you set people up for losses and enturbulated the fuck out of people.

                  YOU were qual at the Int Base. Why didn’t you correct all of these staff ?

        • Jim — you need to take a deep breath.

          You quoted the EXACT right thing that would seem to apply to you here with your very accusative and antagonistic posting: The first barrier to learning is considering you know it all already.

          I just put up a post with some references from the OEC and then saw this from you. Take a look at those references.

          And I too know that PTSness and Disconnection was specifically ordered issued by LRH. How you can be so sure of things of which you have no personal knowledge and assert them so antagonistically, is a mystery to me. And it doesnt reflect well on you.

          Not sure what you are trying to prove, but at this point I don’t think you are convincing anyone of anything other than perhaps making them wonder whether your Grade IV is unflat.

          • Mike,
            I have no problem breathing. Having just read your following post, I can’t see any discrepency with the PLs I’ve referred to in my post.

            KSW is specifically referring to the TECH. It says so. No other LRH authored policy contradicts this (including the ones you mention). Standard Admin is Standard Admin, its own subject and covered in HCO Policy.

            The premise of the Opening Piece identifies Policy with Tech and that KSW is referring now to Policy as well as Tech. It isn’t.

            From there, the arguments are off the rails.

            Neither you nor Marty has shown any facts that LRH wrote the PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION issue. He had advices, he had lawyers and Marty claims insider data to the lawyers, but still the fact remains, the issue is a contradiction, it necessitated rewrites of other issues up into years and years after and neither of you has demonstrated the LRH wrote the issue.

            Neither have you demonstrated he wrote issues after he was dead, including the falsification of issues related to PTS and disconnection.

            Leave off with the ad hom things Mike. You can’t skull read over here anymore than I can across to you. It’s “judgmental” n’est pas?

          • Mike,
            PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION is rather off the topic. I brought it up. My bad.

            The topic of the OP is the A=A of KSW with “policy”. The references brought to the table in this OP are two issues written and published after LRH was dead.

            The materials you’ve brought to the discussion regarding Standard Admin are LRH authored, incontrovertibly. The materials I’ve brought to the discussion on policy are also incontrovertibly authored by LRH. Those issues don’t contradict themselves.

            I’ve not gone through every reference that applies. One that stands out is that in ANY case, ANY policy is subservient to DELIVERY of Scientology auditing and training. An evaluation of importance of policies is vital. They are not all of equal importance and there are Senior Data.

            I don’t wish to Q&A off into discussions of who wrote PTSNESS and DISCONNECTION. Marty says he was there and should be relied upon. Vaughn Young says he was there and should be relied upon. Frankly I don’t rely on either. I was wrong to enter in a distraction to the main topic.

            I am aware of the milieu of the orders to re-instate disconnection, and also have read my fair share of LRH advices and orders. They are after all, “advices” and “orders” and Data Series One applies.

            As does Data Series 5:
            “It is odd but all the “facts” you protest in life and ridicule or growl about are
            all one or another of the outpoints.
            “When you spot them for what they are, then you can actually estimate things. And the pluspoints come into view.”

            • You are correct on the topic.

              You are now shifting the sands to say that there are relative importances and that to examine that is vital. You have come around to the exact point I was attempting to make. Whether it be tech or admin, you have to EXAMINE the data. You have to be able to differentiate. You have to look at results. And that is just as true for “tech” as for “admin.”

              So, we are agreed on that.

              If you want to disagree that KSW doesnt apply to policy — and your first argument was that its because the two PL’s that were included for discussion were dated after January 1986 — then you exist in your own universe that does not relate to the Church. If you can, with a straight face, say that Scientologists do NOT think that policy should be followed to the letter according to “KSW” and to violate policy is to violate “KSW” (there are HUNDREDS of CommEvs issued charging people with violating the ten points of KSW for “admin” “crimes”) then there is no point even discussing this. It was the POINT of the original post which you seemed to ignore — as it seems you agree that literal following of KSW without judgment in either tech or policy is idiotic — but instead you launched an attack on Marty for some perceived thing that he apparently collapsed tech and admin as some sort of “OP”?????

              Of course there are TONS of contradictory references. You cannot follow EITHER tech or admin literally. You have to RECONCILE things and apply logic to them. But in spite of how insane it seems to argue against that — most Scientologists DO. They think only literal interpretation and blind faith are acceptable if you want to be a good Scientologist.

              The highest levels of the Sea Org still maintain that you cannot accept Registered Mail (because it says so in a policy) BUT they do accept FedEx that has to be signed for (because it isnt in a policy). Parse language, compare passages, argue dates — in the real world you cannot dispute that in the church KSW is considered to be like the word of God and it is as literally interpreted as the most fundamentalist Christian interprets the bible. I, and everyone else on this blog, have seen thousands of examples of this and most acted that way ourselves.

              But, you are of course free to believe anything you want.

              • Mike,
                I didn’t “come around” to your point. I have been there since I studied the OEC/FEBC in 1976, twice through. That point is made in the materials. All of policy, including the exact issue in question, KSW, is devoted to and to be aligned to, DELIVERY OF RESULTS.

                Those two issues, put out in July of 86, are used in the Opening Piece (OP) to prove some point that you generalize here with there are “tons of contradictory” references.

                That I don’t find this, and have been able to align LRH materials, to see the thread of purpose, to conceptually grasp the meanings and apply them and having studied the subject in depth, used it for decades to results, and change conditions on my Dynamics, AS WRITTEN, now seems to be some sort of issue for some. I’m a “true believer”, a new definition for what? Somebody who applies KSW? It would seem this is nothing more than “propaganda by redefinition of words”.

                Solving the issue of “literal interpretation” is done by duplication, understanding, and with application and further study, experience and well, it’s just so freakin’ obvious a COMPLETE Bridge, including training, and USE of the technology on another TO a result (the entire message of KSW) then JUDGMENT will arrive.

                The task is at hand. Correct targets will lead to accomplishment.

                I don’t see that correct target in this OP.

                Ideas substituted for live beings, exactly as described in 23 Oct 63, REFUND POLICY, is a dramatization.

                This article, isn’t going to handle dramatization – auditing, training and application does. Done PER KSW.

                What I see is just another “solution” that becomes the next malady.

                I’ve been disabused of this type of “solution”.

                • Jim,

                  I am still puzzled by the simple question. Do you still maintain that KSW doesnt apply to policy and that this idea was an OP run by Marty and Miscavige?

                  Just yes or no, as I have lost track of this in amongst all the diversions.

      • Isn’t it out-admin that LRH reinstated disconnection but did not cancel the prior issue canceling it in the first place? Granted the latter issue restored the “tech of disconnection”, it is very sloppy and problematic to not cancel the prior issue as a matter of clarity and administrative continuity. This could lead one to believe that he did not reinstate it in the first place and that the issue was written by others as some have asserted. Further, did it take LRH almost 20 years to obnose that disconnection had to come back in play for us to get gains, when it was canceled during the time of the greatest statistical growth experienced by the CoS, which would indicate that gains were certainly being delivered, sans disconnection as a condition?

        I wish I knew with total certainty just what the truth is on this. I may have to disconnect from the discussion of disconnection.

  59. I remember reading a policy in OEC Vol 3 years ago, that said something to the effect of, “If somebody gives you some money, give it to Mrs. Shorney, who will bank it.”

    One cannot apply that policy to the letter, or in any way at all! It is obvious that it is “old, outdated and no longer used”.

    As far as KSW 1 goes, I will ask you to look at it from the perspective of what is the Tone Level in which it was written? LRH was pretty peeved, and when one is at antagonism and in that band, one is prone to be a little loose with the truth. One is prone to exaggerate. For example, the statement that “Democracy has only pushed Man deeper into the mud,” is self-evidently false.

    Context is everything. What had happened at St. Hill that made LRH decide to slam in that policy? We have some clues and examples in the PL itself, but writing that PL and using such force to make people adhere to it was instrumental in the creation of the sad state of affairs that is Scn Inc today.

  60. Here is a great example of LRH violating Keeping Admin Working and could actually be construed as him being a hypocrite:

    PR Series 2. “NEVER USE LIES IN PR.” ~LRH

    I think it is quite plain that LRH lied quite a bit in his own PR. He is guilty of not keeping admin working and not applying his own teachings, at least in this case.

  61. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    I’ll not answer the question as I’m tired of discussing this specific subject !
    Word…words…significances.thoughts…words..and again words….and ideas and opinions…….no action!

    Somewhere on the student hat it states that when you have the right significance and the exact mass you’ll get action !

    Where is the primary rundown being delivered on that planet ?

    in KSW he talks about Standard Tech. And standard tech is red on white and nothing else !

    Book 1 isn’t standard tech, NED is standard tech. You would cheat a customer if you don’t deliver NED when he wants dianetics Auditing (this doesn’t mean book 1 is bad).

    There never was standard admin as this is an impossibility to have, except the basic ideas about admin. As the world is changing so fast the policy of today is no more applicable tomorrow !

    Why was Lrh continously writing new policies changing old ones etc….?

    Because the world changes !
    If the world would still build airplanes and cars as dictated by the policies of 40 years ago, I wouldn’t dare buy such a car or fly such a plane !

    Some few policies are for eternity like “keep your promises” , service policy etc…but they are also common sense ¨!

    That DM introduced the idea of standard admin immediatedly after the death of LRH means a lot !

    So, they still have CF files, routing forms, baskets, lots of paperwork and files and cd’s and books and still write letters by the thousands and lots of other nonsense which can be better handled by computers.

    In the classrooms there are still dictionairies while studying with a computer at your Hand and all materials on servers (even the checksheets) with a good search machine would double the spëed of the students. Where is that policy explaining that ?
    On the computer you’ll find definitions, masses, movies, pictures in a ¨¨millisecond while with books it takes hours !

    Some years ago I saw some SO Members cleaning windows with newspapers (there is better and faster tech for that) because there is a policy about it.

    If LRH would still be here, he propably would have cancelled more than 50% of the policies and would have written some hundred new ones like:

    – Promotion and Marketing on the Internet series
    – How to use Social Medias for Pr series
    – Wifi,the revolution for routing and speeding up the particle flow
    – How to set up a modern course room series
    – Scientology and Wikipedia. How to use it and enhance
    – Breakthrough in dissemination Scientology Materials on the Internet
    – The whole Scientology Materials on Computer project
    – Lectures on Iphones

    Please add any other ideas you have !

    Also would he have written a lot of Hcobs to improve and adapt current tech.

    I think what Marty has in mind is just to get the indies out of their own thought prison and rehabilitate the basic purpose, as most of them have been indoctrinated since 30-40 years. One can see that when reading the answers here.

    I hope that Marty, whose task isn’t easy, will not become upset at the Indies one day, like LRH was in 1965 and write a post with the same attitude as LRH had when he wrote KSW.

    IMHO

    • What are your actions?

      I don’t agree that communicating about heretofore suppressed subjects is dev-t or a waste of time. I think this is incredibly valuable, at least for me. If someone gets sick of it, then withdraw for awhile. No big deal. If you need action then go start up a Primary Rundown group or something and let us all know how it goes.

      • My God …could you be more condesending?

        • Not sure, Maybe I can give it a try.

          I’m actually not trying to be condescending. I’m serious. I am interested to see if he is going into action.

          I have observed sometimes that people are critical of “no action” when they themsleves are not in action. I feel if they want action so bad THEY should be in action. I don’t know if he is in action or not. I just suggested it to him, the same as I suggested it to you when you were screaming for action. I’m not against action. I like action. I just feel if someone wants it badly then they should be doing it. Does that make sense?

      • Con·de·scend·ing:

        1.Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
        2.(of an action) Demonstrating such an attitude.

        • Ok. Maybe I did come across that way.
          I am but a humble ex cult member. I know what I know and I can be wrong.
          I still have the above reality. I like Roger quite a bit. I have enjoyed his posts and I have enjoyed many of yours. I do have a bit of a button on people demanding action if they are not doing anything. This started when I was part of the OTC and always would get “suggestions” from people not doing anything.
          We met in Portland as I recall and I liked you both vey much. I don’t know if you are the man or the woman by your handle. Anyways, I know I rubbed you the wrong way. I got it.

          • Roger From Switzerland Thought

            Tony,

            This subject is quite confused for me and above is my reaction (rant) to it. It’s just a matter of blowing confusions that accumulated in the past.

            I studied once KSW and it was ok for me and I didn’t reflect much about it but got the point about that I should use my wits when applying Scientology.

            But then many times I was forced again and again to restudy it, was told I must have MU’s on it and I’m not applying it and each time that happened I was having very high stats.

            Once I doubled the GI of our Org and had a long affluence trend on GI but the Org Manager and CO were upset at me as I did’t always get every cent in before 14:00 on thursday and I was protecting my publics from insane pushes.

            A Sea-Org mission arrived then and investigated. They found out that I never have read big league sales, but was using¨ Arc, and their conclusion was that I’m squirrelling and so was put off post . 2 w eeks later they put me back on post as GI really crashed in the meatime, but then they got a remote registrar on post (got heavy commission) who used big league sales and was promising everything to the public when he sold auditing, he promised that people will make lots of money after 2 intensives or they finally will get a 2d after auditng, like a fortune teller. The guy had very high stats, it was unbelievable but the people that bought those services were wrecks after the auditing.This registrar pocketed in his money and then left very fast when the Org crashed fully. It never recovered !

            I have experienced dozens of such stories, I was an idiot of going back each time and continuing, but it was nearly impossible for me to ever undesrtand what the hell really went one. I’ts still a big riddle for me. Mostly I was told to apply KSW to the situations. More I did it less sense it made and that’s one of the reason I don’t wan to discuss it anymore, but now I did that.
            :) :) :) :) :)

            I could go on and tell more such stories but as I said

          • Roger From Switzerland Thought

            significance + mass = action

            The Philosophy and Technology of Scientology has in itself some natural course of action, when a new person learns about it and has wins in it. It’s simplicity in itself.

            A person reads about Dianetics or Scientology.has some hope, then gets some wins and would like to whole world to experience the same, wants to open a mission or become an auditor or just wants to continue his normal life.

            Here comes then the Org or whatever and wants to make out of this enthusiastic person a real hardcore Scientologist and feeds her with all kind of data (KSW, Psychiatrists, Ennemies, Ethics, Sps, Squirrels, Entheta……….) and the result of it is a person that stops it’s initial actions and just wants somehow to get up the bridge, in the hope she will then be able to handle all this enturbulations, while in the first place she wasn’t enturbulated at all, but winning and willing to disseminate.

            So what happens here is:

            wrong significance + mass= no action
            significance + wrong mass = no action

            Isn’t it simple.
            As Marty stated later on this thread, he just wants the right significances and masses and so we will have “ACTION” !

            Scientology isn’t in the outside world, it isn’t in books or tapes. It isn’t in words or policies. Scientology is in yourself, it is YOU. It rehabilitates your own knowingness !
            Why should we throw Words, significances and wrong masses at a being that understood what it is and not let him go the natural way that is build in the Philosophy and he’ll rehabilitate his own knowingness, perhaps sometimes with a helping hand. Simplicity.

            Millions of people have built huge organisations or groups on planet earth with common sense and purpose alone, they didn’t have tons of policies written by one person.

            Why weren’t we able to do that ?
            It seems wogs build better Orgs than we !

        • Jeez KFrancis! Posting the definition of condescending to educate Tony because he obviously has an MU? The most ironic thing I’ve seen all week!

    • Roger — see the comment I just put at the end of this thread.

  62. If we go back all the way to 1954 or so, a decision was made that LRH’s activities were religious in nature, and most important and fundamentally a business model was adopted.

    The utter horror we witness today is a result of those (in hindsight) erroneous early decisions. Once religious recognition became the end all there was no turning back.

    What was and is an Applied Spiritual Philosophy (Red on White) became the top-down egregiously Jim Jones-like zealotry and kool-aide drunkenness we observe today.

    My point is this in a brief picture: Everything became from the “Founder” rather than from the “Author”.

    ‘Green on White’ became the monster within and thus a self-actualized cult morphed into this ugly creature witnessed today led by a now multi-decade cretin: POB.

    A free market technique is the only hope for salvaging those valid and uplifting technologies Hubbard provided. This is why independence is the only current way out of this morass.

    Scientology’s corporate independence freedom movement follows the natural laws of free beings.

    Thus, this revolt was inevitable.

    Let’s carry on and godspeed.

    • Tom says: Scientology’s corporate independence freedom movement follows the natural laws of free beings.

      Yes it does. Unfortunately our society, culture and government does not.

      There are not a lot of options under government legislation in the U.S. for organizations like Scientology, which works with human or spiritual potential. And you MUST choose an option — every enterprise MUST report income and pay taxes according to its chosen category. That is not an option. Failing to address this point can embroil a group in all manner of governmental intervention.

      Call it luck or call it misfortune, LRH developed Scientology just in time to qualify as a 501c3 Church. Prior to 1954, there was no such thing as a 501(c)(3) church. All donations, contributions, gifts, etc. given to churches were automatically tax‑deductible under the old English common law, known as the “Law of Charities.” Then in 1954, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D‑Texas) sponsored legislation which brought churches under the new 501(c)(3) section of the Internal Revenue code. As a part of this legislation, churches would incorporate, and having that status, they could not be sued in a legal action.

      This was flanked by the National Mental Health Act (1946), which called for the establishment of a National Institute of Mental Health. The institute was first authorized by the U.S. Government in 1946, when then President Harry Truman signed into law the National Mental Health Act, although the institute was not formally established until 1949. Funding for the NIMH grew slowly and then, from the mid-1950s, dramatically. The institute took on a highly influential role in shaping policy, research and communicating with the public, legitimizing the importance of new advances in biomedical science, psychiatric and psychological services, and community-based mental health policies.

      Out of this grew the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. This was born in 1961 as the American Association of State Psychology Boards. It was the product of the American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Professional Affairs Committee on State Licensure. One of its first goals was to facilitate mobility for psychologists throughout the United States and Canada. It was obvious to those who first formed ASPPB that the bedrock of any mobility movement would be a standardized examination that would be taken by those aspiring to become licensed as psychologists. The Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) was created to meet this need.

      There is NOTHING in between these two – religion or science. This is insane but that is the reality of the legal situation. The approach taken these days by the APA and the policies evolving out of the NIMH is to absorb any practice that infringes their claimed territory, forcing it onto boards of examination and licensing restrictions for the protection of the public.

      The original format of Scientology flew directly into the teeth of this effort, as it offered the layman the opportunity to explore his own potential as an immortal spiritual being. There is no slightest doubt that it is a spiritual activity, just read the definition of the word thetan. Ergo – it IS a religion.

      And there is your can of worms. It still is a can of worms, and slowly and inexorably, the regulations tighten their noose and gather in what is now referred to as alternative health practices, holistic practices and self-care. They have teeth and they bite. They have billions of dollars at their disposal and countless regulations and legislation granting them practically unlimited power to run you out of town if you do not play by the rules.

      If you practice this as a business, a profit making entity, then you will be adjudicated to be a business and you will definitely and without a doubt fall under the classifications and regulations of the physical and mental health industries which have now extended their jurisdiction to the human potential arena.

      Until such time as these constrictions are addressed in the larger society and recognition of a layman rights to practice human potential activities as a bonafide spiritual activity outside of the purview of the mental health industry, it is prudent to organize ones activities in ways that do not open you or your fellow spiritual practitioners to invasive governmental intervention.

      I think that many of the policies that were issued were intended to address this exact issue and I would not be surprised to learn that this was the real reason why the franchise network had to be completely overhauled. You have to realize that many franchise holders were making immense profits PROFITS — i.e. personal income from what should have been non profit religious entities. And they did not want to give up their handsome profits. That was a big part of the war that happened in the late 1970s. So, what would you have done when their actions jeopardized the legal existence of every organization in the world?

  63. KSW was drilled into us. I always believed it was to be followed to the letter. If one didn’t, you were a squirrel. Why would Lrh write it? I never once got the idea in Scientology, that I could disagree what source had written.

  64. You know, when I got into Scientology I had no idea of thetans or rules that had to be applied to the letter, but I learned about those things and when I applied them to my life, my life got better. I noticed that if I applied study tech to the letter, I found my mu’s and understood and could apply what I had learned. So it goes on and on with tech applied and policy applied exactly. Thanks, Ron

    • Well, then you should turn yourself into the Org and start your A-E because you are violating the policies that Marty listed in his post. So…if you want to be real “standard” then route yourself to ethics.

  65. I like and very much appreciate this discussion. I thank Marty for posing the necessary questions and providing the necessary underlying data. I thank everyone for contributing. The discussion is fascinating and enlightening.

  66. Some commenters have tried to make a distinction between Tech and Admin/Policy, primarily by arguing that Keeping Admin Working and Admin Degrades were issued in 1986 and thus they are “not LRH.”

    Of course nobody can dispute that LRH did not write or approve anything in July 1986. Even if someone who was in RTRC explains that there were a lot of issues that had been ordered compiled and issued by LRH and were sent to him in 1984 and 1985 that were never forwarded (and should not have been sent to him in the first place, but just issued according to his direction) – but because they were never forwarded they could not be dated in 1984/5 and just “appear” in 1986. This would never satisfy those who try to make this argument.

    BUT, that argument is predicated on the idea that these 1986 issues are inconsistent with earlier references and that LRH NEVER intended Policy to be covered by KSW or that in his estimation it is a less precise subject than tech.

    Anyone who has studied the OEC has read plenty of policy that makes clear STANDARD ADMIN was on a par with STANDARD TECH. There is ONE way to do things and if you don’t follow it to the letter you are squirreling and destroying things.

    A very brief review of policy in the OEC (where there is no dispute about authorship) reveals these selected quotations:

    THE INTRODUCTION TO THE OEC

    This course contains the basic laws of organization.

    Thus this is not just the Scientology idea of how an org should run—most of it is vital basic discovery.

    Man did not really know the principles of organization any more than he knew what made his mind work before Dianetics was published.

    It could be argued or pleaded that this huge body of data should be made into texts capable of general application by businesses and countries. The one effort to republish these policies in other terms so badly altered the material that it became a hopeless bog even though attempted by a very successful business man. He himself was applying the originals direct to his company and it soaringly became rich. Then he decided to rewrite it all, greatly altered and edited, for his employees and his business went on a toboggan slide. His correct action would have been to send his employees to take the same course he took-this very Org Exec Course. And let them adapt what they now knew to fit their own posts and activities. Instead, he cut them off from source and what he wrote for them was only as much as he had gotten out of the course from his own viewpoint.

    At least there are Scientology Orgs around which are successful living models of these policies and org form.

    ANY FAILURE OF THESE BASICS AND POLICIES IS IGNORANCE OF THEM.

    HCOPL 9 Nov 68 STANDARD ADMIN

    .. just as we blasted our way to 100% results with STANDARD TECH so we can thunder straight through to victory using STANDARD ADMIN.

    Handling or serving in an organization successfully, one has to KNOW the actions and activities of the organization and its area so well that one does not have to think about it. One just does it or one indicates or works with what or who does it.

    HCOPL 25 Jan 71 SQUIRREL ADMIN

    There are right ways to handle a group. This is the single fact which most often escapes people attempting to handle groups.

    Also for every correct solution there can be an infinity of wrong solutions.

    The right way is a narrow trail but strong. The wrong ways are broad but all lead into a bog.

    HCOPL 4 Jun 71 STANDARD ADMIN

    There is a way to do something right. The right way to do things are called TECHNICAL PROCEDURES or TECH when it comes to auditing or scientific or mechanical processes.

    There is a TECH of ADMIN. This would be the right ways to do administrative actions or organize something.

    There are correct ways to do things in ADMIN. For each correct procedure there can be an infinity of incorrect actions.

    This has been tested over and over. By the book=prosperity. Offbeat use or ignorance or nonapplication = collapse.

    The source of STANDARD ADMIN is an HCO Policy Letter

    • And I agree. The question is – is every single PL that exists “Standard Admin?” And the answer is NO. The problem with Miscavige has his minions is that they are rotely and stupidly and unthinkingly applying “policy” and having the nuts to call it “Standard Admin” just as a three-swing F/N is “standard tech.” Imagine thinking that sending the “Squirrel Busters” to Texas is “Standard Admin!” Or that the current so-called “Freedom” magazine is “Standard Admin.” Or the stupid denials of the new book is “Standard Admin.” That pisses me off!

      There is a lot of wisdom in Green on White. People can misapply anything and call it “Standard.”

    • Mike Rinder – permit me please to respecfully disagree with you re: LRH policy (or standard admin as you refer to it here) being on a par with the standard tech of auditing. In my opinion, not even in the same ballpark, not even on the same planet. Auditing tech is tried and true. Any experienced auditor or CS knows how the rules work in auditing and has EXPERIENCED them working countless times, and so should have a great reality that there IS standard tech in auditing. LRH policy no doubt contains some good ideas, but there has never been any demonstration of it working as a SYSTEM (not isolated ideas in isolated circumstances) any better than any other organizational system in the world, certainly not as a STANDARD system per the definition of that word. Of course ultimately it hasn’t proven to be workable these last 30 years in the most senior parts of the CoS. And again I emphasize there has been NO demonstration of sustained “standardness” of success by use of LRH admin – and I’m not talking about an org booming for a period; yes, I have been in an org which boomed for a while applying what LRH writes about exchange and VFPs – Henry Ford (who was a mental case half the time) and Steve Jobs believed in these things too and became stupendously successful in applying them, as have millions of successful businesses and organizations, pre and post LRH. They are not secrets, nor are most of the other sensible things LRH has said about organizations.

      • To add an example here on how LRH policy is far from standard (which in itself is not really a criticism, as I don’t think it SHOULD be standard in the way auditing is or even could be). Handling a large group over time will present an almost infinite amount of situations and call for all different type of solutions (though one could certainly use some rock solid stable data and fundamental guidelines, which are actually in LRH policy). Though LRH did in fact provide some very key PLs which SHOULD HAVE been the guiding light on making decisions in all these circumstances, I will note again that the forest has gotten lost because of the trees. Because LRH policy is so stupendously bloated and bogged down by Ron’s hobby horses which he goes over again and again and again, staff miss the MOST important ideas and principles he writes about.

        Here’s an example. HCO PL Senior Policy. We all know it. We always deliver what we promise. Oxford American definition of SENIOR: High or higher in rank or status. I’m limited in dictionaries right now, but I’m guessing there are even better and more applicable definitions. But if you understand that senior policy is HIGHER in rank than other policy, you get the idea. So if a student can ONLY come in Monday and Tuesday mornings to study, you let him, if you promised that he could study at your org. If you promised a pc he would win in auditing, and your intern blows three intensives cause he can’t FN the 53, then you give the pc three more intensives because YOUR auditor screwed up (even if HCO PL Rebates says not to do that). Why? Because Senior Policy is SENIOR!! Capisce?

        So how come I cannot recall ANY staff member in decades on staff ever applying this PL? (not saying it never happened, but obviously not when I knew about it). My own analysis of that? LRH spends four PLs going over the incredible minutia of every kind of arcane form of Dev-t (and lots of clay demos on course), but NO PL with actual examples of applying senior policy (ditto HCO PL Service – how can we break the rules to give unselfish service). You could say LRH wants us to THINK with the data. Fine. Agreed. No clay demos of breaking the rules to give unselfish service, no essays on how delivering what’s promised is SENIOR to other PLs and how to apply it, no stress or pressure on staff (that I have seen) to apply these. But stats???? Oh yeah, over and over and over again, THIS idea is driven home in PLs ad infinitum. Essentially, if Ron has a hair up his ass about something, you hear about it till you are blue in the face. And this is his fatal flaw when it comes to expressing himself (generally, but specifically on the third dynamic). Most of LRH’s good ideas on the 3D got hopelessly lost in the tons of words he provided and the MAIN ideas, the SENIOR ideas would go by the wayside, so that you wound up with pc’s getting lousy service and not winning while Debbie Cook and Hy Levy, sterling beings though they might be, are watching the clock hands tick down to 2 pm on Thursday. WEIGHT. EMPHASIS. LRH missed big time on these. He would have profited studying how Lincoln communicated his ideas. Curiously, Ron did not often make this mistake in auditing tech, where he mostly emphasized the MOST IMPORTANT points to successfully handling a pc.

      • Joe — you are NOT disagreeing with me. I agree with you 100%. I am only pointing out the references. I do not believe policy/admin is in the same ballpark as tech. The admin, after all, only came about as a means to an end — enabling the delivery of tech. But I do not think anyone can seriously contend that LRH and the church don’t hold policy/admin tech to the same standard of “Keeping Scientology Working.” It is considered a High Crime to alter policy or misapply it or fail to apply it. Just as it is with tech. In the minds of Corporate Scientologists, if its written by LRH it is to be FOLLOWED to the letter.

        • Mike,
          You are draft of fresh air!

          I really appreciate your observations; it is really frightening to behold how Scientology & Scientologists have over time degenerated into a modern version of the old Christian bible thumping zealots.

          It is disheartening to see how some “old timers” come out to attack Marty, because he dared to touch LRH’s “sacred scriptures”.

          Are all of LRH’s writings supposed to be inerrant?

          The sorry state in what Scientology has sunk, has nothing to do with some of what LRH wrote or what he did?

          It is all David Miscavige fault? Please, please.

          The purpose of Dianetic & Scientology is to free the mind, not to occlude it or fixate it again, regardless of who said what, and what LRH wrote or did or didn’t say or write, then please use your own freaking mind!

          Thank you

        • Richard Lloyd-Roberts

          Following anything to the letter is robotic and misguided. I see Christians blindly following their pastors or preachers and getting led down the garden path to nowhere. Problem is in COS is like all other practices there are strong and weak people. The strong lead the weak with their version of the truth and their interpretation of things. That’s a weakness of being a robot.

          • Excellent observation. Thankyou.

          • I have to disagree that ‘following anything to the letter is robotic and misguided.” If you are talking about outdated policy( like how to treat LRH’s children when at St.Hill has nothing to do with p.t. and it doesn’t even need to be read) or policy which is inapplicable to a circumstance, then okay. I agree that people need to think with a policy to make sure it is the one that fits the situation and that it is the latest LRH revision. However, your broad statement is far too general.

            As an auditor, I had no problem following the tech to the the letter when auditing others or when auditing myself. I did it because it got results. Does that make me a robot?

            I have followed reciepes to the letter. Is doing so robotic?

            However, the tons of LRH Admin policy is over kill and I agree with Joe Pendelton that it isn’t on the same page as the tech, though Ron tried to make it so…as Rinder was showing by example…the LRH policies are not as ‘standard’ as LRH would like us to think, as they do require intelligent application and the ability to discriminate between what will work in one’s own org. When LRH was alive, it wasn’t impossible to query up management lines, and it appears that people close to Ron who found outpoints could bring his attention to it, but using personal judgement or successfully querying policy hasn’t been universally true for the bulk of staff IMHO. However, the idea of policy was to help staff with information that had proven successful so that people didn’t reinvent the wheel or push their own ideas which may not have worked.

            I think that policy is needed, as how many people ran an organization prior to becoming staff (just think of all the kids in the SO and at class 5 orgs who have barely been educated and who have virtually no life experience)? Even successful adults who join aren’t allowed to use their own ‘think’ because it is considered ‘know best’. I understand where LRH was coming from on this idea of standard policy, but there was so much written! Yet staff are so focused on their own day to day work, trying to get in time to study, while working outside the org just to make a living, that most can’t or won’t bother to really think with it. In a class 5 org, you really have to be very strong and hold your position against weird orders and you have to hide somewhere if you need to read policy off hatting time!

            So, in theory, Ron thought that we would all read and duplicate all the policy he wrote and we would apply it as written, but management pushes down so many orders that people are more worried about ‘saving their ass’ than ANYTHING. We all assume the policy is correct because it came from Ron. Testing it out on our own and decided if it did or didn’t work wasn’t and isn’t expected. We had to use it, but if we didn’t like it there was real option to not use it if ordered to do so. This is unlike the tech, where one can buy a book and read it alone and decide if it works. If you take a course and don’t like it then you can blow it off. But once you sign a contract, the adherence to policy is not a choice. Years ago I could never figure out why Orgs could never make enough GI to pay staff to live without moon lighting. If the policy was absoutely the way to go, and Orgs completed programs to get products out, why then didn’t the personal income follow? I use to think that LRH was so brilliant that only He could run a group successfully and that the rest of us just couldn’t keep up no matter how trained. Then I started thinking that maybe he really didn’t expect staff to personally make a lot of money which is why he stuck to the unit pay system. I know what he says about wanting staff to do well and that it is up to them to raise their income. He said he could run an org and get the pay up, but to my knowledge he doesn’t say how much the staff earned at St.Hill when it was doing well, and if this pay was an actual living wage. I had once asked the management person who was in charge of hiring for the “ideal’ orgs, which orgs that were ‘ideal’ had staff that did not moon light. The answer was “none’. It hadn’t happened in LRH’s time either. So, how workable is it to have ten tons of policy and ten tons of programs coming down the line with TM’s and have orgs run successfully? NOT Workable. Policy, taken individually and used appropriately can be a breath of fresh air, but Scientology as an organization has NEVER been run successfully.

        • I agree with Mike about Tech and Policy. The Tech is a complete body of work that was, and still is way ahead of its time. Only now, Psychologists are starting to stumble on it in their independent research.

          Policy is a mish-mash. Some of it is well thought through, like the Marketing Series and the PR Series. But other policies are a knee jerk reaction of a temperamental man (although a very smart one) to a situation.

          The bottom line is that there are companies today that are doing very well without LRH Admin tech. I look at those for guidance.

        • I dig you Mike, thanks.

    • This explains to me, why the lot of W.I.S.E. materials don’t work. They’re “secularized” up to a point were they’re not recognizable.
      I agree with LRH that there is something like Standard Admin. It’s not everything green on white, but there is a Admin Tech and it works if applied.
      Consider someone using statistics in some enterprise without the tools from the Data Series (what is the ideal scene) or without the Target Series.
      Today in Scientology a lot of Basic Management Tools are not in proper use anymore.
      I suspect this comes because Miscavige never understood the Admin Tech or Management himself. It came down the command lines and there we are – talking about the standardness of Admin Tech. But it wasn’t applied for decades. :-)

  67. A) No.

    B) Where they depart from the tenets postulated in L. Ron Hubbard’s, “An Essay on Management”.

  68. Marty,

    I have been reflecting on the many posts that you have made on this blog in the last couple of months and the wide divergence of opinions and viewpoints. It is truly enlightening.

    When this is coupled with the reports of past conditions and situations from multiple viewpoints, it seems obvious to me that without a tool such as this blog and its broad spectrum of available information, including the impact of various actions on individuals in the short and long term, and the scene that evolves, evolved and is still evolving, it was impossible to truly discern the efficacy and integrity of the various policies that were issued over time. Therefore I am reluctant to harshly judge LRH and the executives who sought to formulate policy, directives, plans etc. It is so easy to look in the rear view mirror and say — that was a bad turn!

    I believe it could be much more possible to formulate and monitor policy, plans, programs, etc. with a much higher probability of success now — especially if tools like this blog are employed — but only if those multiple viewpoints are viewed without bias and without preconceived belief systems or authoritarian dictates. Of course, there would need to be a tolerance for the inevitable hashing and bashing as people find their way through the losses, betrayals and ARC breaks.

    I think it goes without saying that every policy letter ever issued was intended to solve a particular barrier, or to align and forward individual, post and organizational purposes. Context, culture and existing situations are critical to evaluating a policy issues value, importance, alignment, cohesiveness and potential for abuse. And that is what a blog such as this provides. And it is a desperately needed step now and in the future too.

    This is transparency at its best, no one afraid to say what they really think, or afraid to offer information that may have a bearing on the discussion at hand. I see that you have welcomed people on this blog who have never been Scientologists and people who once were and are now very much opposed to it. I often wonder if it is possible to embrace this completely, thrive from it and forge a library or compendium of thoroughly reviewed materials from which people can draw the best of it, with full caution noted where there is potential or past abuse.

    I think of a progression like a Wikipedia Cliffs Notes featuring the original materials, their context included, with an ongoing restatement of clear principles derived and extracted from information and discussion in modern day terms and technologies, with an ongoing feedback mechanism to monitor ongoing discussion, results, and comments. This could be very powerful. With that in hand, If someone wants to apply the materials just exactly and only as they once were, well, all the power to them, but I cannot see how anyone can rely on them just on the basis that LRH said so and therefore it must be so.

    Thanks.

    • I hear ya. I am raising issues so that people question some serious, debilitating stable datums so they can move up from past fixed conditions. I believe a number of responses to a number of these postings indicate the activity is much needed. I think Scientology can work wonders when it concentrates on removing such aberration and complicates lives when it installs arbitraries.

      • Yes I know you are! From the bottom of my heart, I sincerely thank you for doing this, and I am so grateful for the sincere, wonderful people who are contributing to this process. Tears of relief are running down my face as I write this to you!

        • Maria-

          I just want to say that in my opinion your cogent and well thought out writings are in a class by themselves. Thank you for sharing your ideas and thoughts!

      • Hey Marty!!
        I’m getting great TA on this!! Thaks for the processing that I could never get while in the cult.

      • Roger From Switzerland Thought

        On any sujects thousands of books are written.
        Just some few dare to wre eporters herite about and discuss Scientology !
        I don’t talk about the books written by journalists.

      • I think we all appreciate you bringing up these points for discussion, Marty. I have some strong views, but I don’t think I am always right and I very much get benefit out of the exchange of viewpoints with the folks who post their comm on your blog.

      • A) No
        B) Definition of responsability, the Q’s, Observe by yourself.
        When I started in Scientology in 77 (I was 23) I was quite interested in the History of Religions, and I thought the first part of KSW was a brilliant tool against the degradation of any kind of technology, material as well as spiritual. The 10 points were THE answer, but I must say that I was scared by the fanatical aspects of the last part of the PL…

        Scientology is a HUGE body of knowledge, evolved on a timespan of 30 years. You have to know it well before being able to play freely with it.

        Two references which resume my attitude about that, one from LRH, the other one from the Tao Te King:

        “Service 29 OCTOBER 1959
        I don’t care how many rules you break if they’re broken to give unselfish service to one another and the public. We live for service not for rules.
        Where there’s a group to be helped or a preclear to be processed or a student to be trained, see that it’s done; and if it gets done, don’t count the costs in broken rules.
        We are essentially an evolutionary group. All of us together. We must not fetter ourselves beyond increasing our own efficiency, nor must we entangle our purposes with arbitrary laws which do not further our cause.
        We are essentially breakers of “now-I’m-supposed-to’s. ” Don’t fall into our
        own new rituals so hard that we are no longer brave and effective.”

        Tao Te king;
        “Without the tao,
        Kindness and compassion are replaced by law and justice;
        Faith and trust are supplanted by ritual and ceremony.”

      • Thank you!

        I would have just hit the “Like” button, but it seems to have been removed.

      • Marty, the last several posts along these lines have been very thought provoking. They have resulted in many wonderful and instructive comments, some of which have filled in some holes for me. Once again, thanks for what you do.

      • I also much appreciate this blog. Thank you Marty.

      • This sounds familiar, is it a Socratic (Hegel?) thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

        Help me out on LRH reference on this?

        ML/A

  69. On a bigger picture, Scientology is an effective tool in a particular area to forward a particular goal. It is not absolute, and there will be time for everyone to run out Scientology itself to get free from it. Right?
    Getting the job done is important, and sometimes unusual solutions may take place – like auditing over the phone to handle a critical sit. right away. But it should be evaluated as appropriate and adequate solution to the problem, but not standard in a sense of set of rules. It should not become a new rule, I guess.

    I feel from reading the KSW that it was written out of despair to keep Scientology from misuse by “not so bright” or those labeled as “broken straw”. KSW policy letter itself was a not standard solution to the problem, if looked at from a Scientology philosophy view point. KSW letter does not fit with lots of Scientology principals. Because it was a shortcut coping with a critical situation, not a true handling. The true solution would be and is to raise people up the tone and high enough IQ BEFORE you train them as auditors and BEFORE you take them on staff, so they ARE bright enough to gain a full conceptual understanding of a tech and ability to apply it wisely.

    LRH was rushing toward a big goal he set for himself, he was running out of time and was trying to use a shortcut by demanding “no case on the post”. But it would not be a case, if you could turn it on and off at will. Why would bother to get audited, if you could be not influenced by case on demand? He was trying simultaneously to build a new civilization and to raise the people up to it. But it has to be done in sequence – you first raise the people’s tone level and IQ, then teach them to be auditors to help others.

    There would be no need for this letter, if the job was done in the right sequence.

    Here is a link to LRH hand written copy of KSW.
    http://wlstorage.net/file/keeping-scientology-working-handwritten-and-typed.pdf

    • I’d like to make it clear that I am not trying here to be a “smarty”, or make LRH wrong in his views or actions. I admire him and respect way to much to even think in that direction. I think that the solution he used was the right one locally – at that particular point in time and in the situation he observed and addressed at the time. It was not standard from the view point of normal operation, it was coping with emergency. But when emergency is handled, the policy should not stay in charge at the next level condition. The normal condition asks for a different approach. Continuation of coping after emergency will bring back and actually create another emergency.
      Look at the Sea Org – they operate as if the emergency is still there, and by that operation they actually create another emergency in the new unit of time. I really see it as problems of the same nature.
      As an example, in my home town – St Petersburg – in their class 5 Org, the whole staff is cleared and on their OT levels. Doable.
      I still see that KSW is a valuable and actual letter for some orgs. Those with not so bright for whatever reason staff.

    • Tatiana, this is brilliant! This is so true.

      It could be summed up as Ron saying “Okay guys. I know you have a case. I know you know some of this and saw that it worked. Okay, we have a planet to clear so push your case aside and let’s get busy.”

      We saw where this led to. Very few people can suspend their case for years at a time. I admire those that tried.

      I like the handwritten PL – thanks. It is interesting to see the edits. The original scope was supervisors – and that makes a lot of sense.

  70. boy this is a hot subject. Since Marty referred to AKH series 50,51, &52, and someone mentioned these weren’t LRH, I was wondering if anyone has any inside skinny on whether these are or aren’t LRH. I was in the SO when these three policies came out and they got a cold reception and weren’t trusted, but I had no way of telling if they were LRH or not, even by reading them. These required high crime checkouts for admin which never got done.

  71. Marty

    Damn, you are going to make me really have a look at this aren’t you?
    (this could get a bit long…)

    OK…

    First off, I personally would fear for the sanity of anyone attempting to apply the entirety of Scientology and Dianetics, including all technical procedures, admin procedures, and ethics procedures, and encompassing the full breadth of the Philosophy upon which it is all based, without using their own judgment in its use. Due to the fact that tech and admin, and ethics were developed along a line of continuing research and development, there are often several distinctly different handlings written up as Tech or Policy for a particular situation, some of which are found to be totally opposed to each other. There are built in conflicts.

    Therefor it is my opinion that there is no way that Scientology can remain sane in its activities without the application of judgment. Judgment is key. Without judgment there will be no sanity.

    By the very fact that this point of “totally standard”, in alignment with KSW, keeps coming up for debate, demonstrates that it is not going to be a simple pat answer that will resolve it for everyone.

    And the reason for this is that wherever you have more than one person you will have more than one viewpoint. That should be a “given”. (except when totally robotic enters the picture)

    It does not matter how “standard” or “exact” you demand something be, when you are dealing with beings you are going to end up with slightly or significantly different “understandings”, even if all case and tone level considerations are set aside.

    The problem is magnified when you are dealing with people who have learned the data or process from written materials, without any input from someone training them, who themselves was trained and “qualed” by someone who was doing it exactly in the same way as the originator of the materials trained him.

    This is where internships come into play. It is with good and thorough internships that “standard” starts to become a glimmer of possibility. But these internships (and they would be required for all activities) must be done by competent people who themselves were properly interned. (leading all the way back to Ron, in this case)

    So that comes back to me. How am I going to handle this issue for myself? Well, I am going to attempt to use judgment in how and when I use any piece of “tech” of Scientology. (and it seems Ron has put Ethics procedures, auditing and training procedures, and Admin procedures all under the covering term – Tech)

    I find that the more of Scientology that I duplicate and understand then the better my judgment, in the use of Scientology technologies, becomes.

    Eric S

  72. Marty, thanks for this again. I do have something to say about this post.

    My view on Scientology after 30 years of involvement with it, in one way of another, is that the damned subject is set up as one gigantic bait and switch mystery sandwich all the way through.

    I came for Dianetics and found the Church of Scientology in its place. Not the scientific and cool approach to the mind that I was sold on by LRH’s book, but a cult with all the same trappings that have made idiot’s religions forever.

    I did not wanted to join any religion, but I got this one nevertheless, I did not particularly care to learn Church policy but I got it anyway.

    What in hell does canon law have to do with the freeing of the mind? It has never done so and it will never do so.

    And it is not KSW only; just read LRH’s policies on the security governing the upper materials, and you can see the beginnings of this Cult from Hell.

    My secret fears when I joined this “Philosophical Movement” was that I’ll find myself, thirty years later, the target of religious morons and at the effect of a bunch of Church Administrative policy.
    Well that came to pass. Didn’t it?

    Why? Because it has always been so, the ubiquitous religious idiots always build their freaking uber organizations using their freaking canon laws to get rid of any aware being. And they are always happily assisted by their zombified flock.

    These idiots cannot have the “unbearable lightness of being” so they will always use Church policy to build the MEST they crave so much , and it will be done at your expense of course.

    So for LRH to write and laid down his Administrative policies on equal footing with his Spiritual Tech was a monumental mistake only comparable to creating a damned Church out of his beautiful philosophy!

    We need to abide by Church Management policy equally to auditing or our direct spiritual experience? Come on!

    I’m sorry but I didn’t come for this crap, and if LRH was my auditor I will let him have an ear full.

    Marty brings a very valid point, and he is the first one that I know of who dares bringing everything in Scientology up for debate, and it should have been so from the beginning, for whatever you set up above you will surely end up owing you.

    Let’s move on and grow up, the nanny would not alway be there for us.

  73. I think the problem with the KSW policy letter is that it breeds fanaticism and literal application and with that, good judgement and common sense go out the door. Fanatical thinking opens the door to creating cult-like environments such as the Int Base. I’m sure in DM’s little mind he’s only applying “KSW to the hilt” in his ethics application and is only being unreasonable about it. One of the most noticeable aspects of the DM’s “application” of policy is that it is very LITERAL. That’s because DM is very literal. He probably also thinks that the “R2-45″ process gives him license to go out and shout someone, which I’m sure he has at least contemplated.

    I think any and all of LRH’s policies on ethics and admin need to be carefully reviewed for their tendency to be abused. This includes:

    1) SP declares and policy regarding communication to “declared SPs”.
    2) RPF
    3) Hard Sell
    4) Fair Game
    5) Free Service Equals Free Fall (a religion should be free)
    6) Do we still need a paramilitary group like the Sea Org or has it outlived it’s original usefulness?
    7) Policies regarding homosexuals
    8) Policies regarding “illegal PCs”
    9) Policies regarding treatment of “psychs” – do we really need “psych busters”?
    10) Bait and Badger
    11) Policies regarding “squirrels” and “splinter groups”
    12) Policies regarding freeloader debts

    Anyhow, I think any reform of Scientology should throw out those policies and practices which have proven to be harmful and/or are too likely to be abused.

  74. Slightly off, but ”If it’s not written it´s not true”.

    Despite being in the front end with Computerproject and such, are you (or anyone else) aware of any LRH writings concerning the Internet?

    ML/A

    • He died in ”86. The 1st web browser was ready in ’90. So, that would be a no. I read all his advices on computers. No internet.

  75. Theo Sismanides

    Marty, on A) If we had a normal scene in Scientology, YES. As we don’t have a normal scene and it has been a guerilla war for me at least since 1995, when I understood, what is going on, NO.

    on B) I think I presented my views on my comments to others above. In essence on Admin I wanted to say that people, because of the very bad example of DM and how he uses the “Admin” tech have now developed a natural detest about it. But Admin is not to blame. Of course judgment is needed on what and how you apply it and when. But the issue to be applied in a specific circumstance is not to be questioned about. Oh, yes, the translations HCOBs spoke about Reel to Reel Tapes. That you can do without. But to throw the whole bulletins and policies out because of that is stupid and suppressive. So, as life moves on and it changes due to the world’s technology new ways to apply those policies should be found.

    But the Basics of Admin are there. And those Basics of Policy must be clear to a good Administrator. If he doesn’t know those then he can go around and BE a tyrant. We have our example. DM took a great deal of responsibility, no doubt about it. But because of his megalomania and his other flaws and the fact that he wouldn’t listen to anybody he ends up now the way he does. Policy is there to be implemented by the top, not be tackled with.

  76. Wow, this has sparked a lot of commentary! My response to a) is qualified. I have taught nursing school. Nursing is a kind of tech. When people are learning something new that can harm others if misapplied, it is critical that they follow procedures exactly as taught . Once they have mastered the tech and can now think with it, adjusting methods, finding better ways to manage situations, and improving the tech becomes possible. LRH shut down this latter potential with KSW. KSW is important while learning the subject but becomes a barrier once mastered.
    Question b) see above. The subject of Scientology is pretty big, and takes a long time to master with lots of consistent study and practice. The admin tech does not have the same type of impact on folks that auditing tech does.
    So I get KSW but feel blind adherence should disappear once mastery has been achieved.

    • Great comment – but I do take exception that Ron shut down “improving the tech”. The technology in 1965 was different than the tech in 1969, 1975, 1980, etc. The tech evolved and changed, and what is “Correct Technology” is defined by what is workable and correct.

      DM had a huge “KSW” campaign in 1982 timeframe where he laid in the KSW engram. It is the SO that interpreted KSW as unvarying commitment to what is written.

      Your description of how to master nursing is a great analogy.

  77. Richard Lloyd-Roberts

    KSW yes. Admin tech. Well being on staff I never saw it applied so one has to ask if todays current state of affairs is because it either doesnt work or it was never fully applied.

  78. Once again, I should make it known that I am not a scientologist, however I am interested in your faith. Rather than just adopting &/or incorporating one philosophical worldview I try to be eclectic. While I haven’t read a lot of Mr. Hubbard’s writing, he doesn’t seem like the type of person that always followed “the rules”. Perhaps that is what made him an exceptional person. I think that he would acknowledge that there will be times in life when a person needs to think outside of the box for the greater good. I don’t think he wanted scientologist to be a bunch a robots who simply did only as they are told. If he had done that himself, there would be no tech, no Dianetics & no church. What independents are doing right now is, in it’s essence Scientology. Just as Hubbard recognized when his concepts were not being adhere to, he simply packed up an started another organization that was true to his ideals.
    I think that if he saw what was happening to the church under it’s current leadership, he would be the first to recognize that it was time to make a change for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

  79. I really believe that KSW should be regarded as a temporary and local solution and applied to those “not so bright” he described in it. Saying that a subject or tool should never change or never be questioned out of concern that “not so bright” will break or lose it is a local solution. Only dead things do not change. Well… they change too, but really slowly. Making Scientology to not change is running into the wall of dead end. In order to keep it alive it should be questioned, tested and explored continually by everybody who wants to make it his own.

    The situation with other practices now is also very much different.

    So again, applied at the right time to the right people, that PL is vital and necessary. But the joke is that the “not so bright” that this letter was aimed at are not bright enough to comprehend and to adhere to this letter.

  80. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    ” But the joke is that the “not so bright” that this letter was aimed at are not bright enough to comprehend and to adhere to this letter.”
    :) :) :) :) :) :)

  81. You know – one thought. Everyone who participates in this blog is violating Church policies by doing so. By definition, then, everyone posting obviously believes in their heart of hearts that these policies are wrong, and therefore, are rejecting a blind adherence to “LRH policy.” So, our actions are demonstrating that if KSW is to be applied to admin at all, it is to be applied with personal judgement. And that is a good thing!

    Mark

  82. In my humble opinion, the moment LRH wrote KSW and people start following it like robots an otherwise great, beneficial movement was turned into a cult. David Miscavige then took this still somewhat beneficial cult and turned it into something utterly evil;

  83. A) Do you agree that these policies should be followed with unvarying adherence? No. That would be rote, stupid, and glib.

    B) If not, where and how do you draw the line on unvarying adherence with Scientology tech and policy? As others have pointed out, goals and purpose are senior. Take the silliness of blue asbestos on the Freewinds. Someone allegedly refused to recognize the asbestos as a problem because LRH had only written about fiberglass. So the person was being rote, stupid, and glib. He or she would not go an inch more or less than policy said.

    Yet the _purpose_ of that policy was to have a safe ship. The purpose and goal is expandable to new situations and new information. Purpose and goals keep things alive. The inflexibility of rote application (which necessarily excludes every scrap of experience gained since the policy was written) makes for death and non-survival. In the case of blue asbestos, death and non-survival may unfortunately become actual facts for people who were exposed, after the latency period for the disease to develop.

    Or take Fair Game. The use of the term “fair game” was rescinded, but the unpleasant things that can be done to “SPs” was not. In fact, those actions were reaffirmed when the term “fair game” was canceled. So what was the purpose? It was along the lines of safeguarding Scientology from truly bad people with truly bad intentions (some would say, protect from things like Miscavigism). Now look how literal application bit the CoS in the butt in the Paulette Cooper case. The Guardian’s Office (and this was pre-Miscavigism and pre-OSA) felt they had to destroy Cooper. They almost succeeded. But where was the common sense? Had they succeeded in killing Cooper or getting her imprisoned, all they really achieved was committing an overt using Cooper’s book as a motivator and getting CoS in legal trouble and driving hordes of potential “customers” away. Stupid is as stupid does.

    A far smarter approach would have been to say, alright, we get Ron’s _point_ (his purposes, etc.). Now what option can we choose that will not get CoS in trouble (something that won’t be illegal, unethical, criminal, etc.) and use that to convert the negative book into a positive outcome? In other words, make lemonade from a lemon? One simple way that “wog” organizations use all the time is to commit themselves to managerial practices dedicated to continual quality improvement. Imagine if the CoS response had been simply that “While we may not concur with Ms. Cooper’s conclusions, we care deeply about everyone’s experience. We will investigate each allegation, publish the findings, and share how we will be using those findings to improve services and communications wherever possible. We have a wonderful technology that has helped millions of people, and we therefore want to achieve the best experience we can for those we can serve.” Might not have shut Cooper up, but that is not the point. The point is more in the martial arts realm of taking her energy, not blocking it, and instead sidestepping and using it to align with CoS commitment to continual improvement. It would have made CoS look secure, confident in its products, modern and not extremist, forthcoming, dedicated to caring about what people think and experience, and so on.

    Fixed application of policy made CoS look like Naze “Brown Shirts” and missed the whole purpose — increase security and safety of the religious beliefs and technology. The church response went totally out gradient. It would be like a homeowner deciding to defend against an intruder by setting off a suitcase nuke instead of perhaps showing a sidearm and calling 911. Stupid is as stupid does.

    And rote, inflexible application of anything without attention to purpose and goals is just that — stupid, stupid, stupid.

  84. Wow! What a question. As an OEC graduate and a lot of other admin study as well as a follower of Marty’s blog for almost 2 years not to mention an officially declared SP,.I am going to give what appears to be an unpopular answer. I would say yes.to the standard application of Admin tech.
    I have read most all the above comments and it appears to me that what they have in common is disagreement with misapplication of standard admin.
    To give an example which I’m familiar with and is a “hot” topic. Let’s take the topic of SP declares and disconnection. There has been considerable mention of improper SP declares and the associated disconnections. It is standard admin that ” a person or group may be falsely labeled a suppressive person or group. Should the person or group claim the label to be false he, she, or they may request a Committee of Evidence ….” “The committee must pay attention to any actual evidences that the person or group that is accused of being suppressive may produce, particularly to the effect of having helped Scientology or Scientologists or a Scientologist, and if this outweighs the accusations , proof or lack of it, the person is absolved.” . If we look at the admin degades above in the post it would appear that many appear to be violated in comments on this blog and so could be labelled “high Crimes” worthy of SP declares yet it is also evident that the majority of posters making these have without question have majorly assisted Scientology etc. Also it is not standard admin to robotically apply policy. I could go on and on with exaples but this above will serve for now. Nice question Marty.

  85. A little story by way of practical illustration. When we were running Birmingham Org, we reviewed all LRH refund policy. As with other subjects there were conflicting issues. We concluded and decided that for the sake of Scn and the org we would implement the true spirit of LRH’s refund policy and to hell with with the “3 month clause”, expulsion and what have you. Of course we didn’t want refunds and did all we could to prevent them but made it easy for someone to get a refund if they truly desired it. We just said, “gives a chance to correct any out tech and if you still want a refund we will pay it.” Some, after auditing, decided to withdraw their request. Others accepted their money back though they seemed a little surprised that it came that easily. In giving their money back we “created a friend” in a strange but understandable way. We didn’t declare , shun or expel them. Some of those who refunded in the years we were there came back into the org and wanted to resume services. As per LRH’s earlier issues on the subject we just had them sign a waiver that said they would no longer ask for a refund and they resumed service without penalty. We are not talking about a large number of people here but had we followed later policies on the subject or senior orders based on KSW and ethics policies we would have made enemies out of thoe people, of that I have no doubt. The above, exactly per early, basic LRH policy on the subject kept us relatively free of attacks during the time period we had it in, of that I am sure. During that time period we made many friends and very few enemies which helped us get local property tax exemption, for example, which the org has since lost, I believe.

    • Great judgement in the use of Policy. :-)

    • Perfect example Haydn.

      Some here would say “I don’t think those later references were written by LRH — they couldn’t have been as they are inconsistent/mean/unfair/not the spirit of Scientology…” And that is the mindset of the fundamentalist. Those in the church will follow them to the letter. And that is the mindset of the fundamentalist.

      This is why you and Lucy expanded the org so well. And why DM hated you so much….

    • And the net result was that Birmingham Org was THE place to get your lower Bridge in the UK. It used to annoy the hell out of AOSH and SHF that public were going up to Birmingham to get their Grades, and they would try and find a reference to prevent it – but I know several who commuted there and stayed for months because they knew it was friendly place that delievered standard tech. Great example.

    • one of those who see

      Great Haydn, I think we win, when we take the Force out of Scientology. That’s what you did, in my opinion. People refunding expected a ridge – no ridge. Cool. Why make enemies when you can keep friends?

    • I wish that Int management had the common sense that you exhibited.
      They didn’t and here we are.

    • Great info Haydn!

      I worked on the final Refund/Repayment Routing Form, and how you applied refund policy is way better than the routing form (which was and still is a nightmare in terms of delaying giving repayments and refunds)..

      I know that Missions very often did exactly like you did, which is quickly give the money back, to their relatively new public who wish to quit.

      When I was researching the reference that Missions used, they told me they applied Keeping Scientology Working, where it says:

      “If they’re going to quit, let them quit fast….”

      http://tinyurl.com/ywhgaf

  86. There has been commentary that judgement must be used when applying policy, that it should be interpreted against expansion, that there is too much and much that is contradictory, that relative importances are not readily
    discernable. Not sure if this quote below has been mentioned but its also very relevant. From this one may surmise some policy needs merely rewriting rather than wholesale junking.

    Anyone up to rewriting KSW1? :)

    ” Periodic sweep-outs of antiquated and didactic laws ( rather than
    general concepts and subpurposes ) ~MUST~ be undertaken by a being, organisation, group or race or species.” HCOPL 13 Mar
    1965 THE STRUCTURE OF AN ORGANISATION WHAT IS POLICY?

    • I’ll re-write KSW 1. No problem. I think I could boil it down into about three or four paragraphs.
      I use to hate “being punished” by having to M-9 all that mumbo jumbo. What is it mystical code that requires hours and hours of meticulous study to get his point that he doesn’t want his stuff altered?? And if we do, then we will destroy the planat?? Real nice… Thanks Ron!! You gave me a lot of wins and you created an organization that was Hell to operate in. Overall I would say you did a superb job, but in some areas you failed miserably.

  87. Following orders or regulations in a human society example: As you might know, we in Germany have streets full of traffic signs. If every driver would stick to the rules the traffic would collapse. Our government produces something like 60.000 pages of new laws, how to apply law or regulations and explanations how to interpret those laws and regulations a year. Every year. No single person can handle this. How do we continue to have a running society despite all that laws and regulations? We ignore them and do „common sense“.
    If I had been in session with my preclear and the session bugged. What did I do? I put away my tool and looked at the preclear and asked him „what is going on?“.
    I have been on staff. I did apply policy. But the time I ran out of money I pushed aside all those nice policies and made money.

  88. one of those who see

    First of all, I must complement Marty on your Confront and Willingness to bring these topics up for discussion. So since you have been what I perceive as extremely brave and honest, I will try to be so here. I found some of the application of Scientology paralyzing. The degree of certainty needed in “never go past a word you don’t fully understand’, or in attesting to completions. I remember being really good at a particular post, but in conflict because I wasn’t doing it exactly according to policy, so had back off on the post.

    In listening to the David Mayo talks and watching the video of the AAC, he seemed to be taking the force out of Scientology. He had faith in the good will and willingness of people. He figured if they arrived on course, they actually wanted to get the tech and finish. No force needed. I agree.

    I think we need to keep the goal of Scientology in view at all times. Restoring self determinism, keyed out beings, freed beings. Where policy or tech is not achieving the above, it is not workable and I don’t care who wrote it. If we are using our judgement on the above, then our worries of whether LRH wrote this or that in those later years are not that much of a problem. The point is results.

    The pain in trying to go up the bridge in an org became bigger than the freedom to be attained there, so I left. I found a safe space to go free with an Indie Auditor. And that is the simple truth.

    From: KSW Series 2 A message to the executive secretaries and all org staff
    QUALITY COUNTS
    “…When I see an organization staff panting after newspaper publicity or going mad on the subject of dissemination, and at the same time turning in to me bad results and poor student quality, I know somebody has their targets mixed up.

    Quality is the only (the word “only” should be in italics) thing that counts. If quality in training and processing is not given first rank and constant priority by secretaries or Executive Secretaries, then all the administration in the world will not make the grade for any Central Org.

    Deliver the goods. That’s a crude way to put it. But if you want a new and better civilization, you won’t get it by advertising or worrying what people think of you. You will get it only by releasing and clearing people and sending them out into the society to get the show on the road in all branches of human activity, including Scientology…”

    Agree with LRH on the above completely.

  89. Oh for God’s sake.

    Of all the so called “dedicated Scientologists” commenting here – who is actually auditing anybody? And of all those so-called “dedicated Scientologists” inside the Church who of them are actually auditing anybody? See what I mean?

    It is all another crock of ……….!!! While all the Scientology fanatics both inside and outside the Church are engaging in useless dialogue about the theory of the application of the technology – that they probably have no intention of using on anybody – SOME people are actually auditing people and helping people every single day. There is a vast difference between the experts on the theory and the experts on the application of any useful information. What is the possible use of the technology of “electricity” if nobody bothered to switch on the light!

    I think it is time that you all pulled your heads our of your backsides, and went home and audited your next door neighbour. Next thing you will be erecting a large, expensive “Ideal Morgue” in your street just in case you get the urge to help somebody!!

    The Church of Scientology is dead. Not long to go now for the implosion to be complete. Not because it’s technology didn’t work. But because hardly anybody used the technology, therefore allowing plenty of scope and free rein for Slappy and his criminal buddies that hijacked it. Slappy did all he could to stop it ever being used in the future by giving big shiny awards for “Not Doing” to all the people who thought they could buy their way to freedom, and stomped on all the auditors who ever tried to start a session anywhere in the world. He particular hates people who try to organise auditors into auditing more!!! :-)))

    Well, the tiny little group of fabulous people worldwide who “do” use the technology to help others are the only ones with any authority to comment on the entire subject – I reckon. The rest of you are hangers-on. You are all at the party with no invitation. Like dead cats at a wedding you hang around the back of the ambulance, trying to get a piece of the action. If only you knew how stupid and useless your hollow bombastic arguments sound to an active auditor!

    The only way out is out. What you do once you are out is really up to you and if you were always a person who left it up to somebody else to get the work done, then the bad news for all of us is that won’t change whether you are inside or outside!

    I am accepting new members every day for the Worldwide Auditors Guild and they are joining up. If you want to audit people and find out what KSW really means, then I can help you. Email me.

    If you want to exchange emails about the theory of policy and theory all about how to change the world and you want to know which course you should do next YAWN!!! – perhaps give Slappy a quick email. I am sure he can organise for you to have a real good confidential, just for you, briefing about that, soon!! Have you credit card and your ego handy!!

    Wendy Honnor

    • “Oh for God’s sake”.

      That pretty much sums up how I am feeling about all this now. I like to work things through and get a better understanding of what went on and why.

      But the people of Earth need auditing. We need to get busy.

    • I like your rant but I think it’s still beneficial,( at least for me) to discuss all of this. I am not auditing right now so in your mind I guess I have no right to discuss all of this. I beg to differ. I put in over 30 years in the cult and did lots of auditing and so forth and I don’t like anyone trying to cut my comm.
      It’s great that you are auditing, I think that is fantastic.
      I do believe that there are lots of people wandering around like zombies trying to make sense out of some of this stuff. If it had no value then I think nobody would be coming here to get in comm. I think I get your overall message that the most important thing of all is to audit, and I don’t really disagree with that.

    • My God Wendy…….I am standing in admiration and applauding.

      Thank You!

    • Wendy — here is an excerpt from the book Notes on the Lectures, from the chapter entitled Group Dianetics:

      ****************************************
      The maintenance of rationale in the body of group ideas is paramount in
      importance and the group becomes aberrated and needful of clearing each time the rationale of the body of ideas is penetrated or deranged by an irrationality.

      The problem here is the problem of the introduction of arbitraries. Each
      time an arbitrary rule is entered into the group ideas and rationale, the group tone deteriorates. The group tone depends upon the agreement (reality) amongst the members of the group on the ideas and ideals and rationale of the group, upon the intercommunication of the members of the group one with another, and upon an understanding by the members of the group of the rationale and problems of the group. An emergency situation as faced by the group may occasionally make it impossible for some member of the group to communicate all the reasons of his
      actions to the rest of the group. At such moments the group is called upon to supplant communication and understanding with immediate compliance. The group does this instinctively only when it has faith in and belief in the rationale and ideals of the member who demands instantaneous action. As soon as instantaneous action has ceased, however, all such rules and orders should be clarified and explained and discussed by the entire group for its understanding and its further communication.

      Here then is the cycle of a group receiving an engram: The group ideals and rationale in handling or attacking MEST receive a shock from the MEST which it is attacking, making an emergency situation exist. There is a turbulent area created between the ideals and rationale of the group and the MEST. The emergency status of the situation has to do with compressed time — something obviously is happening so swiftly that a full use of communication is not possible, and communication must be supplanted by arbitrary rules or commands. As soon as the emergency is over, it can be observed that an engram has been implanted into the group. The clearing of this engram consists of an examination by the whole group of the arbitraries, which is to say the orders and commands
      which were issued without explanation, and demanded instantaneous action on the part of other members of the group. The person or persons issuing these orders should demonstrate how the situation existed and the why and wherefore of the orders. In this way an engram is cleared out of the group. Rational discussion of the situation and complete communication of the situation restores the ideals and ethics of the group.

      [...]

      The person or persons selected by the group to be the auditor or auditors to the group discover the existence of engrams by the existence of arbitrary commands. They then proceed to discover the basic-basic on the chain of engrams (turmoils) and, after due examination, not only of the arbitrary orders but of the entire status of the turmoil, publish for discussion and information of all the members of the group everything which can be discovered about the situation and with all evidence which can be collected. This is not done with a view to introduce punitive action. It is done with a view to acquainting the group members with the situations as they existed. Processing takes, you might say, a bunched up time track (bunched up by a moment of emergency or moment of fancied emergency) and straightens it out by arranging all of the data upon it. This effort at processing will be utterly defeated should the auditor to the group pay any attention whatsoever to the consideration the public or other groups may have for the group, to the reputation of any individual involved in the moment of emergency, or to any idea that members of the group itself may grossly be upset by the discovery of certain facts about its members.

      [...]

      The auditor to the group must be composed of persons fully schooled in the ideals, rationale and ethic of the group, and whose integrities are not questioned by the group. The whole key-note of the group auditor is honesty and truth — uncoloured, unvarnished and unsuppressed data. In this way a good auditing job can be done. The auditor of the group is discovering what has been done to the group and is running it.

      There is no need of going over and over one of these engrams beyond exposing the information thoroughly and competently to the view of all and permitting all members of the group to discuss that information as they wish. The group itself may then decide upon certain actions, but so long as the group itself is doing the deciding and not an individual or a few individuals, no engram is created.

      ************************************************
      This is a valid process. It raises tone. It is long overdue.

      Note: This book was REQUIRED by LRH to be starrated in one of the HCOBs in the Tech Volumes. It contains pages and pages of information that 100% CONTRADICT everything that is enforced and twisted in the current corporate Church culture. As far as I have been able to find, this is the ONLY entire book that was required to be starrated as a vital component for training auditors.

    • Ya ya so what Wendy – ? Not every one wants to be an auditor of others or audit others. I never did and I don’t want to in the future and I’m not less than any auditor. There’s lot of hats. And if the bullshit about the most valuable being is an auditor blah blah helps give a narrow minded auditor have a bigger ego – good luck with that. Well done on your auditing. ML Mum.

      • For those who consider Ron’s thoughts to be worthy of consideration, “What We Expect of a Scientologist” is a must-read in this context

  90. When I first joined staff, I had read all the books that had been published to that time (OEC Vols not yet published). I remember how shocked I was that admin staff were not adhering to the Auditors Code. All that I had read in Scientology, beginning with DMSMH said that this was the way that groups were supposed to run.

    Then I was shown all this green on white, some of it very good and exciting, but much of it just seemed to create pain and unconsciousness whenever it was put in use. It was used to invalidate.

    My own personal opinion is that all policies should be inspected against the axioms. Those that not-is (attempting the use of force to handle an unwanted is-ness) should not be used and those that line up with expansion and creativity should be backed up and used.

  91. Marty, when you want to apply KSW you should align all policies with KSW. And if you get into a barrier how could you go ahead without giving your interpretation?

    On the other hand, ethics is common sense. You can’t know all policies by head, so you use common sense. Part of that calls for interpretation at least sometimes. Further if you say “I think this other policy applies as well to this situation”, that can be as well an interpretation…

    If you are a robot you quote, qouote and quote other policies but if you are a human you kind of “interpret”. Not distract but try to reveal the meaning what you have to the other person. He can also interpret, you discuss and you can come up with something close to original intention. But there is no 100% of that. “Interpretation” is part of evolution.

    But if there is an authority, he just says: “This policy applies.” Even if that is not true. And strictly speaking this way he does not “interpret”… But of course that is an interpretation.

    When you align many things in Scientology, you take into consideration other policies or other previous experiences with application of policies. If you do it intelligently, you should kind of “interpret”. It is nonsense to say you can’t interpret. That way you get robots.

  92. I also think that policy letters are too numerous, can’t cover each and every situation and not so clear and not so well aligned that you could apply those as told.
    I guess one of the reason management does not make PLs and other writings available in electronic form because by electronic search you can easily find the conflicting or non-reasonable, etc. parts of “technology”.

  93. Marty,
    Let’s have an essay contest on who can re-write KSW the best!! Lol. That would really get the fur flying.. Lol!!
    We could debate on each paragraph as to what LRH meant and so forth and then boil it down and ommitt the irrational and issue a clear statement of sensible policy. I really think it could be done. :-)

    I guess I truly am a heretic.

  94. I’ve been off the line for awhile and have to admit that I haven’t read all the comments here so some of this may have been covered, but (as I feel this post is really getting to some meat in the “independent” world, at least on this blog…) here (as my handle implies) are my 2cents:

    All this talk (Q&A) about whether or not something is KSW, or Standard, or on-policy, or LRH (or whomever), or in what mind he said what or when or wrote it etc. etc. is completely missing the point.

    The point of Scientology (originally – not today in corporate $cn) was to make OTs. What are OTs? They are “Sources.” In other words, independent Viewpoints, Cause points, Origination points. In other words, they are Cause Point Sources that can independently OPERATE and Cause things, without application, connection or even affiliation with any known or unknown viewpoints and dimensions. Please see the Factors and Axioms for literally ALL you need to know on this. But I give you one for thought, Factor 28:

    “The resolution of any problem posed here by is the establishment of view-points and dimension points, the betterment of condition and concourse amongst dimension points, and, thereby, viewpoints, and the remedy of abundance or scarcity in all things, pleasant or ugly, by the rehabilitation of the ability of the viewpoint to assume points of view and create and uncreate, neglect, start, change and stop dimension points of any kind at the determinism of the viewpoint. Certainty in all three universes must be regained, for certainty, not data, is knowledge.”

    LRH was source of Scn. That is all. From the beginning, WE were supposed to DUPLICATE this tech and become our own “Sources.” One reference to this is a training film LRH wrote for the Class 4 Internship called “Why TRs.” In it LRH describes that he won’t always be here and we will be called to duplicate and put in SCN on other planets etc. To non-believers (of past lives etc.) this clearly spells it out that YOU are Source. Beginning here and into the Future…

    Another one of my favorite areas where he talks about this (and he did this in hundreds of places…) was in the Student hat. There are lots of references here but in Training: Duplication (tape #9) he talks about getting above simple duplication and Understanding (U = about where most people arrive and never go beyond unfortunately. ARC but never going into KRC…) into making it your OWN data and then arriving at the ability to JUDGE something. Reason, logic, creation and innovative ability are at this realm and level.

    KSW has nothing to do with making something “your own.” It is rote assignation for one to follow, without opinion or scope. Outside of session this is disasterous.

    In RJ 68 LRH (in his own words) says that KSW as the implementation of Standard tech was misunderstood. It was meant for “Technical” application – inside a session. EVERYTHING else was open to your determination of how, what or where – or not – that you wanted to do with it. All books, tapes, policy etc. was on a “use or not” basis. Inside of a session, however, standard tech applies inexorably.

    Now, the mere fact you can hardly find RJ68 anywhere even on the net anymore is a testament to how badly the current $cn mgmt doesn’t want you or anyone else to know that. (Including also of course that in his own voice LRH cancels disconnection and sec-checking as well…)

    Bluntly,YOU are the Source for and of You ultimately. You use what you want from SCN (or anything you want or wish to see) and OWN what you will and throw away the rest.

    The fact that lots of independents are still sticking to agreements of the past (such as KSW) is a testament to the necessity to 1) have reality; 2) be part of some ARC-exchange (a group or terminals); 3) Fear of being Source. This third one is a tough one. For it puts one squarely in the middle of KRC, regardless of consequence.

    I believe I’ve posted at earlier times about LRH’s moods and states: From 1950 to about ’55, he believed in free thinking and independent action for thetans. Creative processing lack of results there led him to look for other answers. Obviously people were still mis-duping, alter-ising and not getting results. Then In ’59 he found Overts and that opened another door and closed creative processing forever. Then in ’63 he had another shift (more dark -another story) and finally in ’65 he wrote KSW, completely shutting the door on independent thought and action.

    I understand his reasoning: he just couldn’t get people to duplicate and apply what he felt was standard and necessary.By his assessment the tech worked and by this mean, he “knew” people weren’t doing it right: He and his subject were failing – and this “couldn’t happen!” So he did a 180 degree turn-around (from the ’50s) and ended free thought and action and built a Bridge with barriers and walls and at some points – apparent freedoms.

    And he never came off it. He mellowed a bit with TWTH but in the end, it allowed for You-know-who (the Dark Minion) to come along and force his way into this gulag we now despise abstain from.

    The one thing that Larry Wright and all others that scream about LRH’s shortcomings don’t get is that outside of the charismatic, blustery, and even fabulist dreamer, that could throw more shit on a wall to see what stuck – more than any other being in history – there were nuggets within that shit that were and are more priceless than anything ever slung before.
    If one hasn’t experienced real as-isness in a session – you couldn’t possibly know what I’m talking about! Yet from there one goes to having as-isness in life. And one can only thank LRH for that!

    But it takes really looking, real courage and complete willingness to be one’s own Source – within or without SCN – to see what those nuggets are – one’s that you have made your own!

    And truthfully, since it is very debatable that much OT levels really exist or will be made beyond the current ken, one needs to find these buried nuggets, and own them, and USE them, so that they can and do propel one to OT and beyond (in one’s own recognition and consideration). For without this lookingness and ownership of these nuggets; we get lost in shit, like everybody else – and blackness and cinders all.

  95. BriefMomentInTime

    One of the favorite sayings in an Org was – “purpose is senior to policy” sure enough, per the admin scale – Goals, Purposes and then Policy.

  96. Marty – I think this if thread illustrates anything it is probably that your third book is much needed! The 3D engram is not flat! Any ideas on when it might materialise?

    Apart from that – all I can say is – Keep up the good work.

  97. TONY D
    “I’ll re-write KSW 1. No problem. I think I could boil it down into about three or four paragraphs.
    I use to hate “being punished” by having to M-9 all that mumbo jumbo. What is it mystical code that requires hours and hours of meticulous study to get his point that he doesn’t want his stuff altered?? And if we do, then we will destroy the planat?? ”

    Thanks. :) My greatest skill is word clearing. I gather M9 was for those literate. Pretty much the same as M7 for those not so literate.
    Thanks for the challenge :)
    I too shall give a rewrite of KSW1.

    Got to put my money where my mouth is.

  98. Out here we have judgment and this means turf disconnection policy, whoever wrote it. No lines to be drawn. Use it or not. Same with KSW.

    Jim, Thoughtful, Marty, you add to the color of the blog. I love it.

    I think we have a case for compiling those policy references that embody natural law and that are in the axioms and factors.

    We all use the ‘admin tech’ every day.

    If a person alongside you starts falling due to feeling faint, do you quickly bypass all habits and routines and grab her to avoid her crashing to the floor? Of course you do. It’s natural.

    If a payment is missed on your credit card do you call the card company to put things right while arranging a payment to get you back to ‘normal’ with the company? I am sure you would.

    If you are chilling in your car listening to Dave Mathews Band and 99% of the time this is the usual, but suddenly a dog runs in front of the car, do you handle suddenly and immediately? Of course we do. It’s natural.

    If the teakettle stops working do you get it fixed? Sometimes. If you do, this is product 3 of Org Series 10, correcting the establishment.

    Same with Apple repairing an iPad. That’s their product 4, repairing the product.

    What this blog is doing is prompting the repair of policy as part of the establishment, product 3.

    We can’t get away from this damn admin tech!!

    When driving down the street and you turn right at the correct spot driving on the correct side of the road, are you following Org Series 2, Organizational Genius? (Designating channels for types of particles and arranging sequences of action). I think so.

    As many have said, judgment is needed, not literalness.

    KSW is not natural law, so it is something else, maybe a decree, a statute, a standing order maybe. If LRH had 3 lifetimes to work this all over he would have. He didn’t. Later he was out of it. Sad. Cut him some slack, take what he wrote and use judgment as he suggested.

    To do this requires some serious study of all of the policy. Sifting and looking and understanding the incredible context of all this writing. His definition of policy morphed over the years. Reading it from cover to cover shows this clearly.

    I am still learning.

    Like Lance. DM for bicycles.

  99. After spending the last hour and a half trying to make it through all the posts on this discussion and following the various points being made, I will briefly make my 2 cents known: (no one will probably ready it though since it so far down the chain)

    – I agree with what Mike Rinder said on this subject regarding what is true and what you should follow. Not because Mike Rinder says so, but because it is what I myself have observed and witnessed to have worked and is true for me.
    – Following anything literally without questioning it in your own mind until you have conceptual understanding of what is true for you is mindlessly following someone else. We were all guilty of this even when LRH was alive. He was not perfect. The good outweighs the bad in my opinion. That being said, if he were still alive now and told me to do something I did not believe for myself, I would decline.
    – The piling on Marty for not having done something when he was IG Ethics is not fair to Marty or those that were there when DM took over and turned for the worst. We all know we were indoctrinated to follow “Source” to the letter. LRH’s orders were supreme. We all believed that it was the greatest good. When he died, many were not privy to what LRH’s actual intentions were when he left and assumed that DM was the one who knew what those intentions were. As someone who worked directly for DM and shared an office with him for almost 7 years with just a sliding door separating us, I can tell you that he kept things very close to the vest.
    – Those of us who saw early on that DM was out of control and was not going to be following policy and was abusing staff, saw no way of overthrowing DM at that time. There was no possible way of doing so. We didn’t even know we thought the same way. Instead, we left rather than put up with his shit. All the other senior executives at the time were in the same boat. They thought DM was following what LRH wanted. To question him was out of the question. It took time for some people to come to their senses. Eventually many did and now we are seeing effective actions to change being done from the outside.
    – And finally, who cares who wrote PTS and Disconnection when it was reissued. We all know that Disconnection is a terrible policy originated originally by LRH and was completely misapplied and should be cancelled and disregarded. It is one of the greatest mistakes made by LRH in my opinion and should have been changed to something more correct. If that makes me “Off Source”, so be it.

    That’s all.

  100. In essence many policies are the internal laws of Scientology. If we look at them that way than this applies:

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

    LRH tried to make SC so that everyone can join. Clearly that didn’t work out so well on the long run. SC is not for everyone. Those who did not belong and were not really getting the tech made a bunch of policies necessary as they were making a mess of things. As I read some of the policies I could just see how LRH must have felt like ripping his own hair out while writing some of them. Good people do not need policies to act responsibly. There are of course policies which cover updates due to ongoing development of the tech which are crucial. Also common mistakes should be covered so others do not fall into it. But there are a great number of policies which try to guide those who never belonged. I can’t help but to question the usefulness of these since such people will likely take the policies as an enforcement as opposed to true wisdom. Common sense is indeed necessary for all the policies and those who do not get why they were issued on the first place will find ways to go around them anyway.

  101. WOW — this blog is BETTER than even the best TV has to offer.

    Now if we could find some funding, some good scripting we could put together a melodramic TV series.

    It will have the necessary elements that make good TV. Drama. Suspense. Celebrities. An element of the divine. Back-stabbing and intrigue. Fantastic buildings. Bankruptcy and suicides.

    Several pots calling the kettle black and more sacred cows than anyone could imagine.

    Herein is comedy. And also tragedy.

    But what amazes me most is how, even knowing that things were seriously bad … it is still BLAME.

    It’s blame dm for being an SP and then blaming oneself for supporting an SP, therefore being an SP but then figuring it out.

    If someone tells me they acted in a suppressive way BECAUSE they were under the influence of an SP I have to seriously wonder at the circular thinking.

    Seriously, none of us are innocents. We got into scientology for whatever reasons we did. We stayed IN even after we knew things were amiss — either with dm at the helm or LRH — because it WORKED FOR US.

    When it stopped working for us — we left.

    What do I mean by working for us? — it forwarded our own agenda/ego/situation.

    So I have to laugh when it’s ALL dm or ALL LRH …

    It’s ALL only and forever ego. Slice it. Dice it. Do whatever you wish but it is always your own ego that defends, attacks, or is neutral.

    Oh, several here will say — NO. It’s your out-ethics. THAT is what is causing YOU to behave the way YOU do.

    Really? Can you be so sure? Are you so omnipotent that what appears to you as out-ethics is actually in-ethics. Are you not perhaps confusing ethics with morals?

    The wisdom traditions – of which SADLY LRH/Scientology has yet to be included – all have a common thread …

    “Let he without sin cast the first stone.”

    AND saying — oh, I had sin, recognized it and NOW am free to point out YOUR sin …

    Well — that isn’t what WISDOM says.

    It’s what ego says.

    IMHO, Marty and Mike and a few others are ATTEMPTING to bring LRH’s workable/viable pieces up so that someday he MIGHT be included as one of the wisdom traditions.

    The way it is currently with scientologists IN and amongst some indies — no way will he be accepted as WISDOM. Just maligned as cult leader.

    Sad. Really very sad.

    • And amidst your tears Windtalker, rejoice and be exceedingly glad.

      These men were our warriors, they fought the fight the best they knew how under circumstances that were deadly dangerous for this entire group.
      They inherited the sins of the Guardians Office, the relentless march of vested interests jockeying for control of the minds and hearts of men, the myriad errors of judgment and foolish decisions and actions along the way all hidden from view to protect the group, its leader and its future. Yes, there were atrocious actions, no doubt about it. But do not forget that out of this was born the Freedom of Information Act, industry wide reforms, court actions preventing monopolistic control and harassment of non-mainstream religions, spiritual practices and alternative health practices.

      On the wider view, where nations clash and blood is shed, we women cry. Our men fight. When they return from the fight it is a time for healing and finding better and less destructive means of settling disputes and conflicts.

      And here they are, some of them. I say we should embrace their passion, their love, their dedication for their group. Yes, there will be recriminations, there will be struggle, there will be conflict for that is the world as it is. But out that can be born greater love, greater understanding and compassion. But only if the session is not interrupted.

      “Never regret yesterday, life is you today and you make your tomorrow.”

  102. Haven’t had time to read all of these threads, but I think this quote is very relevant to the discussion.

    LRH lecture Differences Between Scientology & Other Philosophies 23 June 1960:

    “If it is true for you, it’s true. And if it’s not true for you, it still isn’t true. Not even if Ron told you is it true. It’s just not true, that’s all…
    ‘Faith. You must have faith,’ he’s not talking Scientology. He might be talking something else but he’s not talking Scientology…
    In the final analysis all you can get anybody to do is inspect himself, his environment, life, and find out what’s true for him. And those things that are true for him, they’ll be pretty true. And you’ll find out that if he does it all the way, then we all agree on what’s true.
    But the second we all agree on what’s true and that these things are truths, then we can get very lazy and we never have to think of it again, and Ron can write it all down in a book, and the next generation that comes along has to memorize this so they will know what the truth is. Well, that I don’t think any of us want to have happen.
    That’s Scientology as I see it from my own particular viewpoint.
    It doesn’t say that the numbers of truths are limited or that they are very few. It doesn’t say anything except that if we look we can learn.
    And all it says, in the final analysis, is that as far as we’ve gone we found out that it paid off very, very well. By looking, we learn.”

    • One of those who see

      Bravo Christie, Very Relevant. This is Scientology to me and in reading this, my ARC for Ron… well would just like to hug him. This is the right road.

      • I was a member of the “next generation that comes along and has to memorize this so they will know what the truth is”. That didn’t work. We did things because it was “policy” and they were wrong. I never want to be part of that robotic lifestyle again.

        If we can think for ourselves, and have our own view about anything and everything, including what Ron says, if we are free to agree or disagree to any piece of information, then we have our own minds and our own sanity.

  103. LRH said that the true test of anything is it’s workability. When it comes to the Tech, plenty of evidence is present to show both its workability and its value when applied standardly (not to be confused with being applied robotically). I include the Ethics Tech in this, but only when applied to get Tech in and for no other reason and only when applied standardly and intelligently, for example as is the case with Mary Freeman’s highly successful LRH-approved Integrity Program.

    Policy, on the other hand is only there to support training and Auditing. Where it does not do this or is applied simply for the sake of applying it, it becomes unworkable and should be cast aside as often, when it gets to that point, it often gets in the way of training and Auditing.

  104. I don’t like the tone of KSW for Tech or Admin and agree that the use of force is the antithesis of what I thought Scientology was about. I agree with “One of Those who see”: “I think we win, when we take the Force out of Scientology.”

    • Someone posted earlier that the original distribution list for KSW1 was Course Sups, Director of Training and Director of Processing. So I went looking for it, but didn’t find the original. I do however recall seeing a printed copy of the hand-written original years ago. And sure enough, by memory, that is the original distribution.

      I can’t give evidence for that of course but let’s just assume for the moment it’s true. And suddenly it all makes sense. A student who continually muffs it has not learned standard routine Scientology. An auditor who can’t do basic actions like work the TA needs to go to cramming as he missed the boat on something basic. And if Ron was sick and tired of trying to get these simple ideas through the thick skulls of some Sups and Ds of P, then one can see why he wrote it in the tone he did.

      Now, does KSW1 apply in the same way universally to everyone? No, I don’t think so. I think the real audience is still Sups and Ds of P and the PL is there so that students get reality on why Sups do what they do the way they do it!

      To me this is a sensible reading of KSW1 and much more in line with the bulk of what Ron wrote. The next time someone shoves the “little brown church in the vale” reference in your face and implies that KSW1 is what gives that reference teeth – well you know what to do.

      Alan.

  105. I have never been a Scientologist, but I find all of Marty’s posts and most of the comments quite fascinating.

    I have dedicated 35 years of my life to another new religious movement. This gives me a perspective to understand what you are going through.

    My observation is that whenever the founder of a religion departs, soon thereafter, the people left behind have to address 12 fundamental questions. The debate around these questions usually is challenging: it creates finger-pointing, conflicts, defections, polarization of opinions, and the birth of splinter groups. Often, all factions, in spite of their often harsh disagreement, just tries to do the right thing,i.e to make the most out of the legacy of the founder.

    Here are the 12 difficult conversation topics which I have identified as being those that pretty much any religious movements has to address after the founder departs. It looks like you are addressing all of these questions at this time. Here they are

    Purpose and promise
    What is the promise and purpose of this path? Make the better a better place? Realize oneself? Both? How do we see the causality between the two?

    Unicity of source
    Was the founder the only source? Where there other sources before, during or after his life, that allowed people to accomplish the same results?

    Boundaries to realization
    Can the individual become a source like the founder? Or will there always be only one source?

    Leadership
    Does the new leader have the powers of the founder? Is the new leader to be regarded like the founder? Is he/she infallible? For what? How should one relate to the new leader, vs. the old one?

    Unicity of tech/dogma/practice
    Are there other techs leading to same result? Or is this the only tech?

    Adherence to tech/practices
    How unvaryingly should one adhere to tech? Is it possible to adapt tech according to our own likes and dislikes? How do we reconcile “unvarying adherence to tech” with “thinking for oneself?

    Adherence to admin
    How unvaryingly should one adhere to admin? Is it possible to adapt admin according to one’s own likes and dislikes?

    Heart vs. regulation
    Where is the terrain for realizing the promise of the founder: in your heart, or through following regulation? If in combination of both, in which proportions? What are the possible scenarios?

    Dealing with the unexplainable
    How do we explain to the media and public our tech-or admin-related beliefs or actions, that are quasi impossible for outside people to understand?
    Every new religion has things that they did or are still doing that are quasi impossible to explain to an outsider. Maybe there are beliefs that are hard to explain to an unaware world. Maybe in the growing stages of the movement, some statements were made, that were too extreme. Some numbers were exaggerated. Also, how do we discuss tech or admin related topics that are quasi impossible to understand from the outside, like penitence, monastic life, sacrifice, etc..?

    Social dynamics
    How does the religion and its members integrate or not with the rest of the world, i.e how does it deal with socialization, tolerance and relationship with other lifestyles and religions?

    Mechanisms for change
    What process and policies are in place to adapt tech and admin to a rapidly changing world?

    Conflict resolution
    What are our processes and policies for resolving internal and disputes?

    Looking back at what I went through when i left the movement, my view is that 360º tolerance is the best way to keep furthering one’s own realization. I experienced much anger, but, looking back, it delayed my own realization. Anger is a funny thing in that it gives you the illusion to diminish your opponent, but in reality it diminishes you.
    I see that you quote Buddha sometimes., Buddha said that the 5 impediments to realization are Ego, Greed, Anger, Lust (defined as wishing things that one does not have) and Attachment. Many years after leaving a new religious movement, looking back, I see that I wish I had resolved the anger issue faster and moved one more rapidly to embrace new avenues for clarity and fulfillment.

    As I read more of your posts and comments, I will keep posting other comments. Thank you for the energizing conversation.

    • This is a 5 minutes quote about Hubbard’s Big Game from the whole of 1 hour 15 minutes lecture by Phil Spickler – Scientologist from 1952, who worked with Ron Hubbard in Washington. The video was recorded on 12.07.12
      This video in whole (as well as other videos), articles, paintings and more can be found on a website “From Stanford With Love” at http://community.freezone-tech.info/phil-spickler/
      The comments on that website are redirected to Phil’s e-mail.

  106. B:
    – Unvarying adherence if it’s about Scientology Organizations, running Scientology Tech or its administration;
    – Freedom to adapt to one’s own activities to choice one’s own randomity and responsibility, if it’s about one’s own private businesses.

  107. You say ‘these’ policies, yet everyone has talked in general about policy and policy vs tech.

    My answer is NO to the policy regarding ‘saving the organization from higher ups”. Ron made it almost impossible to put in ethics on seniors. The current situation with DM is a perfect example. I understand the “splintering off for financial gain” is something he didn’t want, and we were not supossed to be in agreement with that. I don’t like the policy mainly because it essentially makes mangement untouchable, when in fact it is often management that is messing up and shoving wrong whys or impossible targets etc down on the orgs making day to day org business harder. Sometimes organizations need saving from the top!
    In general, Ron wanted us to treat Admin with the same reverance as tech. but there was way too much policy for most class 5 org staff to assimilate. Even when staff do the OEC, I haven’t seen this help get products out any better because management micro manages anyway.

    On the other hand, I don’t think policy has ruined Scientology. I think LACK OF CORRECT POLICY has ruined it and always did. Training and hatting of staff is an example. In Ron’s day and this day, there is still violations on getting a person on post. Stick anybody on a post to ‘cover it’ but don’t do a proper apprenticeship and don’t get the person hatted on key policies and allow them the real time training on their hat and then when they fail, it is thier fault. Furthermore, the ESTO SYSTEM is and always has been OUT. Orgs just don’t get established right to begin with, so most of the trouble comes from NO POLICY APPLIED OR WRONG POLICY APPLIED.
    If one goes to the OEC to find pertinent policy, then yes, the policy which looks like it will open the door to handling should be correctly applied as presented as first try. This is based on the fact that the policy is supposed to be workable.

    I think that any org could be easily run on just some key policies, and that if the ED’s and Execs were OEC then they shouldn’t have to be micro managed. If the ESTO system was really in, and staff actually were trained and made stable it would all run well. It is also important, to me, that staff have some training and auditing in Scientology before being on staff. Or, the staff auditing and tech training is set up as part of the day activity. Ron says alot of things about the care of staff and how all should be auditors, but there is emphasis on that is practical sense. Staff are often very ignorant in terms of Scientology. All the good intentions and ideals go to the waste side because Ron wanted everything done NOW NOW NOW, and people who are not trained experts on their posts are not going to be able to meet the crazy demands without squirreling or messing up to some degree. DOING SOMETHING RIGHT AND GETTING A TRUE PRODUCT NEEDS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR EACH PERSON. UNREAL TARGETS MADE WHEN PEOPLE ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY HATTED IS DISASTEROUS. A TEAM OF REAL PROFESSIONALS CAN LEARN TO DO FASTER WITHOUT SACRAFICING PRODUCT, BUT THIS HARDLY APPLIES TO MOST SCIENTOLOGY STAFF. So, we can talk about ‘good’ policy, and ‘bad’ policy and if one has the right to disobey or change policy etc, but I think that the lack of DIFFERENTIATION AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE AS TO WHAT POLICIES ARE REALLY NEEDED TO GET TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF SHOULD BE THE ONES APPLIED. IRONICALLY, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE MOST ABUSED.
    IF THE STAFF IS TRAINED AND APPRENTICED, AND HAD DONE SOME BASIC TRAINING AND AUDITING, THEN THE ORGS WOULD HAVE A SOLID FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO BUILD. BUT THIS NEVER WOULD BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ‘ADDED TIME’ . I SAY, ‘HASTE MAKES WASTE’ as the orgs NEVER have produced enough, long enough, to properly support the staff. So, the Staff Status’s and the whole admin set up needs to be revamped to make is actually workable.

  108. Re: the discussion on the Disconnection Policy. IMHO, the Policy could be thought of as making sense, if the condition of being a Suppressive was provable, which it isn’t. A case can be made against ANYONE. Who is a Suppressive has always been a matter of opinion, not science–not truth, but opinion. Policy exists for just one reason–to get the Tech in. If it isn’t doing that–forget it. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line we were taught that LRH’s words were golden. That is a big mistake. When the right to evaluate and disagree goes out the window, so does the whole point of going free.

  109. In this second part http://youtu.be/PBnjAk1Wq00 of the last video of February 26, 2013 Phil Spickler – Class VIII auditor, oldtimer from 1952, shares his view on a famous Policy Letter “Keeping Scientology Working”. All parts can be found and commented at http://community.freezone-tech.info/phil-spickler.

  110. Pingback: Scientology: The ultimate trap | Geir Isene

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s