Mission Statement

This began as my promised response to Tom Martiniano’s Op Ed that was posted on this blog on January 22.  It expanded into a mission statement of sorts given intervening events.

Before I take up particulars of the Op Ed, I want to establish a foundation.

First, I believe that L Ron Hubbard developed a workable spiritual-based psychotherapy that when applied as prescribed – according to its axioms and fundamental laws – routinely produces a well and happy, self-determined, unrepressed being.   Since leaving the church of Scientology I have applied that exact path to three individuals – from knowing little to nothing of Hubbard or Scientology to the state of Clear (quite in addition to hundreds of hours of auditing at all levels of the Bridge).  Doing so outside structured, policy-controlled Scientology is far less complicated.  There is little need for listing and nulling, extensive correction lists and the like because there is none of the sundry evaluation (under the justification of ‘ethics’, ‘pts/sp handling’, ‘justice’, or other organizational concerns) that inevitably enters when the process is complicated by later policies, and even tech, that stray from and contradict the laws and axioms which make auditing, and the Bridge, work.  I have objective and subjective reality on the workability of Hubbard’s technology.

Second, by his own admission L. Ron Hubbard could not have, and would not have, discovered that well taped path had it not been for centuries of free thinkers who came before him, most notably Sigmund Freud, Alfred Korzybski, Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama.  I believe that Viktor Frankl’s treatment of Freud would have served Scientology’s future far better than the wholesale condemnation (read denial) that was later visited upon him and everyone ever influenced by him.  In the early fifties Frankl acknowledged Freud much as Hubbard originally did, noting that he was the first to look into the mind and show us that it could be done.  Frankl also acknowledged that Freud – like himself, Hubbard, and the rest of us – are influenced at least in some measure by the times in which we live.  Thus, he reasoned, one should not dismiss Freud wholesale because he, growing up in Victorian Vienna, was wrong that everything could be answered by one’s sexual hang ups.   By the same token he noted that it is just as shortsighted and stupid for us not to recognize Freud’s limitations.  To give credit where credit is due, he concluded that if he (Frankl) were able to see a little bit farther over the horizon than Freud it was because he was a mere midget standing on the shoulders of a giant.  If Scientology continued to acknowledge its once acknowledged legacy, there would be far less fuss (read impossibility to the world outside of the Scientology cult) about acknowledging Hubbard’s contributions and legacy.  There would also be a far deeper understanding available to students and practitioners of Scientology of that which they study and practice.  Further, I agree with Hubbard when he once freely admitted that had he not discovered the path he did, someone else ultimately would have.   I believe he limited future discovery beyond his horizons by later claiming his discoveries were not inevitable by the cultural evolution of humankind and his contributions to it, but instead were due to some mythic quality of his own cosmic character.

Third, because I have successfully understood and applied the technology of L. Ron Hubbard to intended result, over and over again, both in the church of Scientology and out while under intense attack by the same entity, I have earned the right to have my own opinions on the subject – as have others.   Hubbard himself acknowledged that right in the first lecture he delivered on the subject of how to study, Studying – Introduction, 18 June 1964.  If others do not have that same level of certainty of application and result I can understand their steadfast unwillingness to think with and discourse on the subject.   But, to attempt to dissuade those who have – and to condemn them with belittling labels and false accusations about  their alleged history – signifies a weak certainty on the subject in my opinion, and is anathema to the notion of broadening one’s horizons and is suppressive to the exercise of the one ability Scientology has always promised to deliver,  knowing how to know.   As will be made clear as we proceed, I would be very wary about putting a loved one’s spiritual destiny into the hands of such folk.

Fourth, with respect to philosophy, I believe that the understanding and level of application of Scientology I have demonstrated, over and over as above, helped to render me – and others – capable of the activity of philosophizing.   I happen to believe Hubbard had it right when he stated in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course:

I hope no man ever falls into that trap because it blocked human thought and human progress. Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject…and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now, that is incredible. If you had a Doctor of Philosophy, you would expect that Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize. The professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy. No sir, that’s how you keep a society static.

…and

…Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking…

I believe that volumes of subsequent technical and policy writings of Hubbard put it into the minds of Scientologists that the above no longer held true.   To the extent one believes that he or she is precluded from philosophizing, by the writings of Scientology, Scientology has become no better than what Hubbard accused modern university education (or psychiatry and psychology for that matter) of being for the philosopher.  Continued adherence to such fears and beliefs will as Hubbard noted ‘keep a society static.’

Fifth, I believe that the primary reason Hubbard was close to a half-century before his time in discovering his workable psychotherapy was due to his starting with the presumption that beings are spirits, and not physical matter entities subject to scientific reductionism.  Today, many people are engaged in ‘integral’ forms of spirituality and psychotherapy and some acknowledge that in order to achieve success in either requires the practice of both.  In accordance with Hubbard’s above-noted prophesy, deep study in these fields has convinced me that within years Hubbard’s route will be discovered quite separate and apart from his own discoveries.   The reason it will be ‘quite separate and apart’ from Hubbard’s discoveries is that by his own firm policies the entities he created to disseminate his ideas are known for one thing above anything else. That is, that if someone attempts to practice and explore Hubbard’s ideas outside of their narrow-minded control, or criticize them in any forum, that someone is subject to being destroyed utterly if possible.  It is a difficult row to hoe getting integral philosophers and practitioners to listen to anything emanating from Hubbard due to the hazards attendant with doing so.  My mission to date has been to attempt to accelerate the ability of mankind to better its own lot by recognizing and applying some of the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard.   I have held the idea that an “Independent Scientologist” movement might contribute to that effort to raise the world’s collective understanding.   I am convinced that to the extent its members preach blind adherence to Hubbard and wholesale dismissal of the ideas of others (particularly of those upon whom L. Ron Hubbard chiefly relied upon in developing his own technology)  the Independent Scientologist movement may become more of an impediment than a facilitator.

Having established my foundation, I will specifically address Tom Martiniano’s Op Ed piece, which clearly represents the wholehearted views of a number of Independent Scientologists:

Some say that LRH is not the only technology that there is, nor is his philosophy the only one that works and that following his technology or values only is being blind or being robotic.  That’s fair and in theory is a solid viewpoint, but in practice it is fatal.

Fatalism, and the installation of fear, is the demise of any ‘technology.’  In fact, by definition, to claim and instill the idea that there is no other possible route takes one right out of the realms of ‘technology’, science, and even rationality.   It goes against the very workable technology – term used advisedly – that L. Ron Hubbard developed on how to study or learn.

Once an injunction is laid down that it is ‘fatal’ or even detrimental to look outside the parameters of what another has said – be it a wise man, Hubbard or God herself – you have stripped a person of self-determinism and freedom to think.  To think with, attempt to integrate ideas with evolving thought and technology, and foremost to discourse philosophically in terms evolving thinkers are developing are means by which humankind advances.

Hubbard himself once noted that if something is done in the pursuit of understanding it contains no liability (paraphrased as I don’t feel constrained to have to do lengthy searches to find quotations in order to think and discourse).   That axiom has served me well, and hopefully will continue to do so.

Realize that ANY attempt to write against L Ron Hubbard is an attempt to destroy that which frees mankind from their traps.

First, one ought to define what constitutes ‘against’.   It implies – and literally means according to at least some of the more hard core supporters of Tom’s position – contrary to any idea of Hubbard.   I contend that if you use this as a standard, you have instituted the process of ‘thought-stopping’ and have rendered yourself a less bright, intelligent and enlightened being than you were before you adopted that standard.  You are certainly free to do so – but once you have, you have left the realm of the pursuit of truth and entered the ranks of  fundamentalist religionists.   We have seen as much in recent days on this blog.   I asked people to consider where one draws the line on literal compliance to L. Ron Hubbard’s policy writings, and in return I am treated as an enemy.   When you go there, there is absolutely no difference between what you have done with your own thought process than what a fundamentalist Christian or radical Muslim has done with his or hers.  The only possible counter argument to this is that L. Ron Hubbard is different than Jesus Christ, God of the Old Testament, and Allah.   In fact, that is precisely what Tom’s piece promotes.  Such an argument will be about as effective in the world as those that the fundamentalist Christian and Muslim advance to one another.   Such absolutist thinking ultimately leads to persuasion by force and violence.  The best chance for forwarding that position – as destructive as it is – would be by zealous support of the church of Scientology and its supreme leader David Miscavige.

Is Scientology the only route out?  Yes.  It is the only applied philosophy that has the OT sections (which were removed from the bridge by David Miscavige).

Here is the demarcation point where Scientology bumps  into the glass ceiling limitations imposed by firmly held religious belief.  But I can’t address this fully in a forum with such a limited attention span as this.  I foreshadowed some of it in my book What Is Wrong With Scientology?   I invited discourse on it.  Those most violently in disagreement with it chose not to discourse, but instead to run a quiet, back channels ‘he’s not with Ron’ campaign.  This topic will be explored in far more detail in books coming out later this year.  In the meantime, look at the logic of the above statement.  It is precisely the same logic repressive clerics and politicians used to suppress the truth that the earth rotated around the sun for centuries.  The ‘logic’ went that if the earth were not portrayed as the center of the universe, holy scripture would be invalidated.  The ‘only route out’ became continuing ignorance (anyone trained on Grade IV technology knows what that statement constitutes).  Incidentally, the parenthetical comment about David Miscavige is about as anti-KSW as they come – L. Ron Hubbard never issued, nor prescribed any OT Level above OT VIII.   The group agreement interpretation of what Tom has evidently accepted as the L. Ron Hubbard real OT Levels may well afford some case gain of some sort to followers, but to pass them off as the L. Ron Hubbard OT Levels above VIII is specious.  It is rather peculiar for a guy condemning people who don’t march lock step to every word of Hubbard to be adopting and preaching such arbitraries.  It is like a kettle accusing the pot of being black.

Yes, you can read the Tao or read Buddha and so forth, but you would have to sort out a lot of wheat from a lot of chaff to get to Nirvana.  

This is a straw dog argument contention.  I have never suggested, nor even hinted, that anyone should read  the Tao or the Buddha in order to reach ‘Nirvana.’    I do contend, however, that remaining beholden, lock step, to the writings of Scientology – exclusive of any study outside of it – condemns an individual to ultimate misery, not only for himself but those he or she is intimately connected to.  That is partly because he or she will be denied the one lesson both Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama taught that by omission puts a glass ceiling on Scientology.  That lesson can be summed up in two words, though it takes a lot more than mere recital of them to learn it – Let Go.

The  Scientologist hallmarks of arrogance, aloofness, meddlesomeness, pedanticism and strained intensity are not an accident.  They are inbred by scripture.  Ironically, the technology that perhaps better than any other can make the Way of Lao Tzu and the Buddha practically attainable winds up making that attainment impossible, by the implanted spiritual mechanism of ‘clinging’, ‘holding on’, or ‘mocking up’, in short, the inability to ‘let go.’  Lao Tzu and the Buddha and the Dali Lama, for that matter, have important things to say that beautifully complement Scientology.  But, one could never see that if he or she vowed to follow the next bit of advice.

Should someone follow L Ron Hubbard blindly?  I would say so because it would be better than stumbling around blindly for the rest of your existence.

Be my guest.   That is your religious right.  I fought for your ability to exercise it for the past thirty-five years.  And I’ll likely go on doing so till this vessel returns to the clay.

But, do not attempt to pass it off as anything other than religious belief.

And do not expect that such think and practice will popularize the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard and lead to more broad scale study of them.   The world is evolving.   Doomsday threats, fear tactics, and commands do not gain much traction in this day and age.   At least  not in the direction of educating, enlightening and alleviating the problems people face.

I do not wish to unsettle the beliefs that people hold if they wish to remain in the static comfort  of their Scientology beliefs.  Those beliefs are just as valid, and protected constitutionally, as more traditional, accepted faiths.   You may find some level of solace in the validation of those beliefs on this blog.   But, the theme of this forum is just as its title says, Moving On Up A Little Higher.  So along with the validation will always come  questioning and exploring and the attempts to broaden horizons and transcend.  So, if you wish to remain in the static comfort of your belief system, I suggest you not visit here.  It could be unsettling for you.

I have been accused by at least one ‘Independent Scientologist’ as not being ‘with Ron’ for espousing such views as I have here.   I beg to differ.  Attempting to command compliance with Ron’s ideas by blind faith, or anything resembling that methodology – whether Ron commanded such a course of action in moments of distemper or supreme, transcendent wisdom – is about the greatest disservice one could do to the propagation of his workable ideas.

I still believe Scientologists (of whatever stripe) have to make these choices: integrate or disintegrate, evolve or dissolve, transcend or descend.  Blame, irrespective of how you dress it up and dish it, won’t make those crossroads disappear.   Blame will take you nowhere but to victimhood.

569 responses to “Mission Statement

  1. Excellent Marty !

    • I would not call myself a scholar, but throughout my life I have read a little from many different philosophic viewpoints from the Buddhist philosophers, New Testament, Socrates, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Freud, Mary Baker Eddy, Quaker Philosophers and others, as well as L. Ron Hubbard,. I have found LRH to be an amazing synthesizer of Seekers of Truth who went before him as well as an great researcher and discoverer of truths in his own right. In my opinion his work has resulted in a sort of culmination of many of the intentions and purposes of others who preceded him. Not all of those intentions and purposes, but many. I think that it would be invalidating those great beings and philosophies to say that their works produce no results or that they did nothing original or unique. It would also be a lie, and I appreciate Marty pointing out this truth.

      Regarding KSW, I’m not sure who is right and who is wrong or if it’s just a matter of viewpoint. In my experience it is pretty workable to apply the Tech exactly as recommended. Whatever the case, ANYTHING can be applied blindly, without perspective, or meanly and the result would be crap. It is all about the result. A psycho could find a way to twist or ignore Jesus’s admonition to “Love thy neighbor as thyself” as a justification for murder. It actually happened in the Inquisition. So NO tech is safe from corruption in the hands of morons or madmen. I have always assumed that Ron expected people to apply his tech in an intelligent, benign manner. I remember him saying in an HCOPL something to the effect of “if it seems kind of stupid, it probably isn’t Scientology”. For anyone who wants to know the reference, it is HCOPL 13 January 1979 ORDERS, ILLEGAL AND CROSS, HOW TO KEEP OUT OF TROUBLE.
      The reason I am giving the reference is because I want other people to be able to read what was says themselves and come to their own conclusions.

    • I am not saying sorry to piggyback but this is going up on the boards. You moved me to tears not because I always agreebut because of the honesty of your piece

      Niels

    • I took Tom’s remark about the OT Levels as referring to the “original OT levels” which were removed from the Grade Chart, and not as referring to any levels above OTVIII.

      Tom, was I wrong about this?

      • So did I.

        • Then I guess I am not understanding the following commentary of yours:

          “Incidentally, the parenthetical comment about David Miscavige is about as anti-KSW as they come – L. Ron Hubbard never issued, nor prescribed any OT Level above OT VIII. The group agreement interpretation of what Tom has evidently accepted as the L. Ron Hubbard real OT Levels may well afford some case gain of some sort to followers, but to pass them off as the L. Ron Hubbard OT Levels above VIII is specious.”

          If Tom was referring to the “original OT levels” and not to levels beyond OTVIII, how does your comment apply? The “original OT levels” were removed from the Grade Chart, if not by Miscavige, by someone else? Would they not properly be on the Chart after OTIII and NOTs (if needed) and before OTVIII?

          I have been re-reading the threads about “OTVIII Revealed” from 2011, here:

          http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/truth-revealed-about-ot-

          viii/

          Comments there seem to indicate the following: 1. The OTVIII that has been delivered is not the original “LRH OTVIII”, which has in fact never been delivered.

          2. Instead, what has been delivered is “New OTVIII”, a Miscavige concoction and even so, only half of what the whole level might actually comprise, has been delivered.

          So I can’t help but think Tom was referring to the Original LRH OTIV through original LRH OTVIII, as having been removed from the Grade Chart by Miscavige. As all the levels above OTIII are dubbed “New OT” this and that,and have been for quite a long time.

          In which case you may have inadvertently argued with a Straw Man by mis-stating or misunderstanding what Tom was actually saying…..

          That’s just what I’m getting from reading what has been
          written on both sides so far…..

          • I am simply pointing out the contradiction – the post is vehement about following KSW, and that passage from the same post is making some hidden data line pronunciamentos. The proof is you are asking questions of it.

            • My point was simply that I did not see where Tom made any attempt “to pass them off as the L. Ron Hubbard OT Levels above VIII”. To me, this makes your comment seem a bit non-seq.

              “To every thing there is a season”. There are times when it is appropriate to apply and follow the KSW principle, even zealously. That’s part of any kind of training. Cooking, driving, computer etc. In writing computer code, for example, any added or omitted space or character out of place will screw it all up and produce a fail.

              Certainly I see auditing that way. It needs to be done exactly, but with complete presence. Which you have been attested to have by others.

              So I do get your point, that we don’t want to get locked in to rote and mechanical, robotic performance, blindly and unthinkingly going through the motions. That would actually be a failure to Integrate what we are supposed to be learning and applying in a living and life-giving way.

              On the other hand, I actually don’t believe Tom is promoting any kind of robotism either.

              • Valkov,
                Tom was saying that the original OT levels (OT IV-VII) were taken off the Bridge by Miscavige, and that they are now best done after Solo NOTS.
                Marty is saying that Miscavige didn’t remove them from the Bridge, LRH did. And so to re-add them, as Tom is suggesting, is not *strictly* KSW.
                Marty isn’t necessarily saying it’s bad, he’s just saying that it shouldn’t be done as though “it’s what LRH wanted”. (Correct me if I’m wrong on any of this Marty.)

                • Not quite. I was pointing out his hypocrisy in do-or-die KSW while making written pronouncements about OT levels that are rank third, fourth, fifth hearsay from someone who made it up as far as I know.

                  • Well I guess I’ll wait for your book to be published, as I feel lost in this discussion because of the lack of any specifics forthcoming here.

                    My angle is largely trying to get a clear picture of “What is a valid Grade Chart these days?” and associated issues. The Grade Chart which first interested me was around 1971 and there have been changes since that one. A principal change being the apparent removal of the original OT IV through original OT VII, (and what about OTIIIX?) and what I had understood to be some Rundowns called NOTs now are rechristened as “New OT IV, “New OT V” etc etc on current Grade Charts, and the “original” levels apparently not part of the Bridge anymore.

                    So I am interested in the original OT levels who removed them and possibly why?

                    Because I had in fact met quite a few people who had done the “old” line-up and their gains were quite impressive.

                    • Yes, I am interested aswell.

                    • Valkov, I don’t know if this will help or not but Dan Koon wrote the following on Geir’s “OT 8” blog post thread:

                      2012-12-11 at 23:33
                      “…At one point, LRH was reported to have considered the idea of doing away with OT III and in fact ordered David Mayo to do a pilot of taking Clears (or OT IIs) and putting them straight onto NOTs. I have seen the dispatch. The pilot never got done thanks to a little friend whose initials are also DM.”

            • I don’t know if this fits exactly with what you guys are talking about, but if the “new” OT Levels were messed up in some way wouldnt that be “out” KSW? From there you would have to figure out what the correct materials are, or what order they go in etc. Who would do that I don’t know. I don’t think forcefully asserting one has the correct technology means one is following KSW.

  2. Richard Lloyd-Roberts

    Since leaving the COS I have studied Napolean Hill, Joe Vitale, Christianity and the Secret. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are other answers and I think LRH would be with you.

  3. Stellar Marty.

    And as a practicing buddhist who is well studied … not just a wikipedia knowledge or cursory knowledge … my buddhist practice was and continues to be enhanced BECAUSE of what I learned in Scientology. What LRH gave me. So, I agree wholeheartedly with what Marty has said about scientology enhancing my path.

    Therefore, I am forever grateful to LRH for what I gained which has enabled me to continue my own personal pursuit of enlightenment for the benefit of myself and for all sentient beings.

    And am delighted that Marty has had the courage to attempt to tackle this subject. How to bring this philosophy into the world. He is doing this by extolling us to integrate it, evolve it and transcend.

    It’s really not that impossible. Just requires a willingness to let go.

    Let go of EVERYTHING you consider holy.

    Everything you consider as comfortable.

    Everything you consider DEFINES you. (I am an auditor, I am a wife, I am a plumber, gardener, actor etc)

    Everything that puts ground beneath your feet.

    And definitely stop being CERTAIN. Absolutely certain.

    And start being comfortable with uncertainty.

    There is where life begins.

    For it is there that you are present.

  4. I applaud this. If Scientology is to be accepted, survive, flourish and prosper as a meaningful, effective and helpful religious movement and applied religious philosophy in the future, it can be only on this basis.

    Conversely, I oppose what I have characterized elsewhere as the Wahhabi, Counter-Reformation, strict KSW wing of the Independent Scientology Movement.

  5. Excellent choices even as an ex, integrate, evolve and transcend. Thumbs up!

  6. I’ve studied lots of other spiritual philosophies and to some extent continue to do so but no matter what I study I have never seen the advancements made by Scientology and more important I have never seen any other philosophy that was able to routinely advance so many people in such a little time. Hinduism for examples could take you many, many lifetimes. So for those reasons I continue to think of Scientology as man’s greatest hope. Some of those other philosophies are now thousands of years old. If they had been all that effective I think we would have seen better results by now.

    • I agree with you, Kelly. I was a student of religion and philosophy prior to finding Scientology. Studied Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, various versions of theosophy. Studied sociology, psychology and parapsychology. All had some truths, even psychology.

      I don’t think anything else on the planet is even in the same ballpark as Scientology. As a spiritual researcher, LRH was in a class by himself. (And I DON’T agree with ALL of his ideas.)

      I believe Marty when he says it’s easier to audit people successfully outside of the organizational suppression.

      • I agree with you too, Sofia. I studied many of these religions and philosophies too, prior to finding Scientology. Nothing I ever encountered, or tried, held a candle to Scientology.

        I think it’s possible to divide many of us into 2 groups: those who had a lot of education and “real world” experience prior to finding Scientology, and those who did not.

        I can see how many in the latter group would perhaps feel cheated or constrained or even (to invoke a familiar term) suppressed by the “closed system” aspects of Organized Scientology. No doubt about that.

        Whereas those in the former group, at least the ones I know, never felt threatened in similar fashion. I never gave up my freedom or ability to think for myself or to observe and participate in the broader world, so in many ways, this whole discussion is rather foreign to my experience.

        I also agree, 100%, that it is easier to audit people successfully outside the organizational suppression. Truer words were never spoken. And, along that line, I would sure like to see more auditing wins from the indy field posted. They used to appear fairly frequently; I found them very inspirational and motivating.

        • I like to see the wins too. Inspiring. As for the recent intra-indies controversy, seems clear to me that if the church dies or if it doesn’t, there are some here who will form an org and apply all policy. I say let them. There will be those uninterested in an org and the risk of renewed spiritual tyrrany, and they will keep the org-dwellers honest, while applauding all successes.

          So, if someone like Gern forms an org and sometimes coaches PCs to disconnect, someone like Windhorse will be around to blow the whistle on anything that gets abusive.

          Meanwhile, paying PCs will vote with their feet, and the practitioners/orgs who get the best results will be some of the most popular/successful.

    • I don’t know if what is described as the “workable tech” will ever be able to overcome the church’s history and some of Hubbard’s more megalomaniacal statements to get a fair shake from the public at large, but I do believe the approach Rathbun is endorsing carries the best chance for that happening.

      Scientology will almost certainly continue to be a punchline in the public consciousness as long as it’s being sold as “man’s greatest hope”, “the only way out”, “superior to man’s invention of the wheel”, etc….. It seems some have a hard time grasping just how off-putting these types of declarations are to non-Scientologists, especially in light of some of the church’s more unsavory historical episodes. If one of the ultimate goals is to spread the tech, zealotry only provokes a large percentage of the uninitiated to dismiss the subject out of hand.

      • Scientology is clearly a faith to some. The crackpot absolutism that can be observed in such comments are fueled by religious belief and the attachment to Hubbardian dogma. Simple extremes make for extremely simple thinking, but often denies logic, the expansion of knowledge and intellect, and a deeper understanding of life imho.

    • Defender of Theta

      Spot on. The proof is in the pudding – the real case gain produced by any practice.

      It is not only great, but vital, to identify and articulate the correct cosmology and metaphysics. A few great sages have done so.

      THE huge challenge, however, which all others have, in large part, failed, is developing a technology that would work with a large number of people, not just a few of high consciousness who could duplicate and apply high truths this lifetime.

      I mean no invalidation of the great Beings who have helped, and continue to try to help. I mean no insult to the great Avatars, who have, for the salvation of Man, descended (at great risk), to this place.

      But, just look at where a good amount of Buddhism has ended up, and most of Buddhism in Japan:

      — Not being able to broadly produce Moksha or Nirvana, a little before 140 CE some Chinese Buddhist masters began to believe that the world (and, cases) had gotten so solid and there was so much avidya (lack of awareness of spiritual truths and embrace of falsity) that it was not possible for most people to obtain Enlightenment in this place (this Universe or at least this sector). Hence came about one of the major schools of Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism:

      —— “The central teaching of Pure Land Buddhism is that nirvana is no longer practical nor possible to attain in our present day. Instead, one should focus
      on devotion to Amida (a Bodhisattva), which will gain one enough karmic merit to go to the Pure Land. The Pure Land is not an eternal destination, but a pleasant place in which all karma disappears and nirvana is simple to attain.”

      http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/sects/pure_land.htm

      The Pure Land, in this view, is a less MESTY “safe environment,” where one can make case gain. Basically, and I mean no insult, this branch of Pure Land Buddhism, not having an effective technology, just gave up on trying to get a Product, Enlightenment, at this time and place.

      LRH did not give up, and ATTACKED the problem, with a demanding, engineering approach that had no willingness to accept any stops or “mere explanations,”

      Yes, in a way he did dismiss almost all the spiritual technology efforts that went before. And, yes, maybe he did not have the most empathetic attitude toward the failures of his predecessors, in essence faulting them for Q&A, not pressing on and getting a Product, a fully developed, workable spiritual technology.

      But, no matter his attitudes, the question is, “Was he was right?” My study and experience with the Great Traditions says he was. I believe, for example, that the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignacius do not consistently produce a tenth of the results of taking someone up to Grade 0. Not because they are wrong, but because they lack the requisition precision, application detail, the “engineering implementation.”

      Another example: It is wonderful that the Catholic Church developed the confessional, as a regular practice, and I am sure it helps many (and likely also misses withholds in cases, too!). But, how does it compare to a full Grade II and FPRD? I study Catholic theology and get gain from study of their basics, but, there is simply no comparison, in my view.

      Now, it is also true that one can take whatever is true, above, and fashion a HUGE service fac out of it. And, that is what too many in the Church did, and what the Tyrant (DM) really does. But, that is not Scientology, nor the fault of the Tech, KSW, etc.. It is the fault of those who service fac’ed, and ser fac’ing is not Scientology.

      Just because the basic premise of the KSW PL is true (in my opinion), does not mean we have to be assholes. :)

      Fred

      • Fred, I am happy we can talk here and we can all, for the first time, express our views openly about Scientology. And basically that we can see the Tyrant AS IS. As The Tyrant. So this will As Is, too, rather soon. We are many we are getting more and more.

      • Fred (Defender of Theta), you made a point that should be at the forefront of our minds – which is that Scientology works, and it works for greater numbers of people, and it works faster by far than other paths to enlightenment. I should add to that – as far as I know. And if it is true, then that is one of the biggest reasons, or possibly THE biggest, to do all we can to ensure it survives. This echoes what LRH too has said, apart from my seeing it for myself.

        Even if Scientology doesn’t achieve the attainment of “enlightenment” (or whatever the personal goal may be), or doesn’t do so for everybody, it minimally puts them in a more advanced condition where they are more capable of carrying forward in that direction. That may be done with the help of other traditions,which they are now more prepared to gain from, or simply by forging their own path to truth.

      • Fred,
        Interesting post regarding Buddhism and the fact that Ron went forward. I always wondered when a Buddist knew they had reached Nirvana. How do they know that it isn’t just a major key out? Do they consider being exterior the ‘proof’ in the pudding. Just curious.

  7. It has long been obvious to me that there is more past OT VIII and the road there is just beginning. We can’t just stop there and admire the view, but we will need to put one foot in front of the other and continue on, on our own.

    • free of the cult

      Check out the early PABs. Most of them were oriented for self-auditing. Also, don’t forget the PDCs and SOP 5 & 8.

      For myself, I’ve had some very good wins using Certainty Processing. PABs 3 & 4. To a large extent, I’ve recently got the monkey off my back which had been there all this life (certainly since puberty – man does that key in some heavy duty stuff). In fact the monkey was more like a gorilla that’s make King Kong like like a punce.

      Go for it.

  8. Excellent Marty!

  9. Thanks Marty.

    Dots connected. :-)

  10. After spending decades being FORCED to think a certain way, ACT a Certain way, friend/unfriend by order of who I could even speak to and who I couldn’t, even having endured the horrors of Old Gilman House, and basically making myself as robotic as they come (my own doing) I love what you wrote Marty.
    I love the fresh air. I love transcending everything I was so imprisoned in and I see the benefit of having a 360 degree view rather than tunnel vision.
    Thanks Marty !

  11. Gerhard Waterkamp

    I wish I could write and express myself as you can. You really pulled my gut-feeling to daylight here. I did have and have ongoing gains from the technology, But those gains are in the direction of becoming more and more my own. While I do agree with discipline and listening to a teacher when acquiring a skill, this teacher and teachings cannot become my all and everything controlling every aspect of my life and my thought processes. If so that would only impede or prevent the becoming.
    No wonder there are no OT’s in the COS.

    • free of the cult

      Yeah. At times you need to have smeone point the way. But! sooner or later you have to stand on your own feet and think for yourself – not to mentin being responsible for yorself.

      Afterall, the shit you’re in is one of your own creation (your energy) and it;s only you who can uncreate it.

      Go for it.

      • free of the cult

        See PAB 15 – Acceptance Level Processing.

        “The only therapeutic factor possessed by man is his own spirit.”

        • free of the cult

          While you’re at it, go to PAB 80 “Scientology’s Most Workable Process”.

          Check out the second part of this PAB, “Bottom Rung of Dianetics Found”.

  12. Your post shows excellent thinking. Any other choice forces one into thought stopping or other logical fallacies. The fundamentalist is often not the best example of her creed.

  13. “Should someone follow L Ron Hubbard blindly?  I would say so because it would be better than stumbling around blindly for the rest of your existence.”
    Tom’s statement above is two-valued logic.
    It presupposes some of us adults aren’t capable of three-valued logic.

    • I think of it as a straw-man argument, because in fact no Scientologist *ever* follows LRH blindly. Every single action you can do in Scientology, every checksheet, every Auditing program, every single Policy: REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK FOR YOURSELF, with open eyes, and with increased perception, awareness, and observational abilities, and if your ability TO SEE is in any way impacted by what you are doing, then you are doing it WRONG. Scientology is enlightenment, refined; it is the way out of the darkness of not-knowing why things are the way they are.

      If you find yourself ‘blind’ in Scientology – you are not doing Scientology, but instead something else.

      So I think the straw-man is that there are ways to ‘blindly follow LRH’. There are no such methods in Scientology; perhaps it is a common practice in the society from which you – or those around you – are derived, but in no way is it a requirement that you be blind in Scientology. If anyone disagrees with me, I invite them to provide an example, plain and simple. I doubt you will find a single circumstance, if you are honest, where the requirement to NOT SEE is enforced by LRH. Maybe by others, but never LRH. Never.

      • What a great post. I could not agree more.

        The pressure from the group think however is often unconfrontable. To continue participating, you must adopt various black panther solutions. You must begin to pretend. I can give all sorts of examples of this. Withholding something on your mind that needs to be handled, because you KNOW if you bring it up, you will be delayed weeks getting back home, and your credit card will be charged up yet again. So you decide not to address it. And so on.

        But, as you say, this is NOT Scientology! It is a perversion of same – but because it was a monopoly, because there was only one place you could get it, and because there was still some things of great value there to be had, you start playing this game of pretense and avoidance and submission.

        But none of that is Scientology.

      • Gern,
        I tend to agree with you. I am so glad you articulated this point. Good point made, too, by Publius – the phenomenon and effect of group bank and 3D pressures on one’s decisions, choices, attitudes.

        I guess I don’t know what all the fuss is because I really haven’t felt forcibly impelled to “follow policy blindly” to be “On Source.” Really, it’s kind f the opposite for me in the way you discuss here. This is especially so for me in regards to the whole subject of Ethics: REASON and the contemplation of optimum survival.
        Leonore

  14. What you espouse seems more workable and more likely to have a long life than what is current cultivated in Miscavology. I know a Scientology minister that was (gasp) declared for bothering to look at the world around him and seeing what people were saying and thinking and addressing that directly rather than planting his stance and saying “this is what Ron said and you’ve got to believe it”. His approach was encouraging people to think and apply the data rather than feeding it with a ramrod down their throats. His lectures and Sunday Services attracted people rather than repelled them.

  15. I have followed for weeks the various topics and comments. I have found comments and posts that I both agreed with and disagreed with. Mostly I have still seen truth. Back to labels and judgement. We have a subject and procedures we can use to become more able, more aware and more alive. That is our choice to make.

    I study many subjects and read daily. We all have a life to live and it is moving along on all of the dynamics. For those that enjoy an LRH reference I would give you Ability Issue 74 – Scientology and the Reactive Mind. I know that I do best when I believe what I find to be true. I find LRH’s statement here to be true for me.

    LRH stated “In Dianetics the reactive mind was that thinkingness which went on without analytical inspection.”

    If one just gives some thing, action or person a label – or agree’s with a label – both may have been done without analytical inspection. Free to see, to observe and to read the viewpoints and efforts of others is of benefit. It is merely analytical inspection.

    I have not found processes more effective than auditing but that does not mean I will not converse with a counselor. One of the most enlightened people I have ever met is a PhD Psychologists, teaching in a major university a graduate level Psychology program. Yet, I find almost nothing we discuss contradictory to my understanding of life, of auditing, aberration, etc.

    I fully maintain a stable datum that I find to be true that all of mankind is basically good. A label, title, profession does not make any inherently bad. The value I believe LRH expected was for me to be free to think on my own and for my thought to be more rational through the use of Scientology auditing and training.

    I have found the success is to integrate, to move on up, to include others into my dynamics and to interact in such a way that my life and their is better for the meeting of minds. There is more good to be observed and used from the writings of LRH to better life for all. The fruitful writings and experience of those who have moved along this path before have also helped. I do not spend much time on the foibles, errors, or mistakes that may exist, and have existed.

    The future is ours to make. We find, study and use the tools available to make that future better for all. Our personal integrity and willingness to observe and know what is true for us is a major basic foundation. Our thinking should never have the blinders made of the lack of analytical inspection. That is the only rational future in my view. I look forward every single day to moving on up a little higher. I thank all of you, and your various viewpoints, for helping in this journey.

  16. How dare you think for yourself and think freely! :) Thank you for bringing it back to philosophy and the search for truth. LRH differentiated between religious philosophy and religious belief. Scientology is supposed to be religious philosophy, but Scientology Inc and still some Independent Scientologists follow it like a religious belief.

    • Another way of saying Let Go is saying Stop SerFac’ing. Stop needing to insist on your own rightness and insist on the wrongness of others, stop needing to dominate and not be dominated, stop insisting on your brand of survival and hinder the survival of others.

  17. I must say that I quite like where you are coming from in your “Mission Statement”. Mine would look somewhat similar should I put it to paper.

    As I have said in the past, I hugely value this blog and the contributors to it because this kind of open communication was something I really didn’t even know I was missing, until I found it here. I strongly feel that free communication and transparency are the only way to actually achieve any form of “freedom” that I value.

    One of the reasons that I spend so much time reading and participating in this blog is because I find it quite an adventure. Although it is sometimes a bit uncomfortable at first, I like being challenged in my viewpoints, particularly because I do not want to stagnate in my progress to more “reason” and spiritual enlightenment. (which I find quite closely linked) And if I have mis-evaluated something I would really rather find out about it so that it will not trip me up in my later evaluations.

    I also have come to the conclusion that using “multiple viewpoints” as a starting point for any evaluation of data, is key to a sensible outcome. And since I find that an excellent ability to evaluate data is very fundamental to sanity, so also would be a willingness to experience various viewpoints and incorporate them into one’s evaluations. This, of course, doesn’t mean you have to agree with any of them, but one is wise to at least LOOK.

    Eric S

  18. Fellow citizen of the world, I salute you!
    And I applaud your efforts!

  19. Well, first off I say this is good and thank you. There are some good ideas here and some truth. With that though for some unknown reason you feel it neccesary to define and label “others” in order to advance your own ideas. Why does your “mission statement” have to be 90% about how wrong others are who arent fully accepting your ideas? You are making wide assumptions about people disagreeing with you.
    I think you writing this will help sort things out though. I’m trying to be nice so I edited out all the bad words. I dont get why you would use Toms writing like that though. If you were debating or he knew you were going to do that fine, but if not I think it’s not so good (had to edit that last part).

  20. Beautifully and wonderfully stated Marty!!! Your mission statement reflects your viewpoint of spiritual expansiveness, intellectual growth and the basic rights and actuallythe basic attributes of a being, that is, to consider and to create.

  21. I suppose my view is quite limited; perhaps not all that encompassing; very simplistic really. Essentially, I consider if it works, use it. If it doesn’t work, look for one that does.

    Also, if it works, don’t try to fix it. Not that it can’t be improved upon, but it’s like the old days of Harley Davidson Motorcycles; I’d rather have a rice burner – a Japanese bike – and go for a ride than spend the day trying to find why the crank is leaking. On my bike, I use a spray to polish it, because I’d rather go out and ride than spend time using a turtle wax. The joy of having a bike is using it, not fixing it or waxing it, but maybe for some, the fixing and waxing is the enjoyment. Nothing wrong with that.

    So, if some tech works, use it. If you would rather not use it, but go and find something else, anyone is welcome to do so.

    I’m not interested in going on some search to find another workable technique, I’ll use the tech that works. When I hit my ceiling, I’ll be in a very good shape to carry on.

    I would never condemn another for looking. I would only condemn another if their looking damaged the progress of others. I know for a fact that there is more to find. As I commented on in a previous post, Ken Ogger did some research that opened up whole areas that I personally know do exist, and procedures to get in and out. It was all based on a in depth knowledge of the tech of LRH; it was on LRH’s shoulders that Ken stood when he moved on a bit higher. Without that understanding, nothing would have happened. Tragically he was alone.

    So, those are my considerations; if it works, use it. If if doesn’t work, or if for some reason you don’t like it, go out and look and find one that satisfies you, just don’t give up on it.

    • Bob Grant
      Ken Ogger “The Pilot” was publishing LRH while pretending it was his own work. His mother was a very early 1950s Dianeticist. At this time she had access to a huge amount of LRH work, including taped lectures. It is not clear whether she stole it, or had trunk loads for safe keeping and then kept it. Ken Ogger took these works and published them on ARS taking the glory of being the author of these unpublished works.
      He eventually killed himself. An unusual end act for an enlightened “Guru” of any kind.

      • Could you please furnish some specifics on that Karen. Such as something Ken published and a reference to original LRH material it was plagerizing? Otherwise is sounds like DA material being forwarded in the fashion of the church. IE Believe it or else, no proof forthcoming, contrary to the spirit of this Posting of Marty’s.

        Is this something you observed yourself? Or were told was the case.

        • Oscar ~~ Ken Ogger’s mother ended up being C-S 5 on the Flag ship Apollo. Her name was Louise Kelly. She hoarded by the truckload everything to do with spiritual/metaphysical etc. for years and years long before here SO days. As she did with early LRH works.
          I only pursued this for myself because I knew Louise from Apollo days.
          This blog is not about Ken Ogger and I will not continue discussing it. Neither can I betray my sources of information. In this case I got it from Louise Kelly comm lines that I am comfortable were credible. Do your own Internet research. Google is your friend.

          • Thank you for the response Karen. I am familiar with who Ken was and who his mother was and his history. I read Kens postings contemporaneously.

            I have not asked you to betray any confidence, only to point to an example of the thing you have accused a dead man of. You can’t or won’t. Plagiarism is the direct copying of someone else’s writing and attributing it to oneself. Please point to an example of Ken using LRH’s words without attribution.

            This posting by Marty is about blind acceptance of what you are told versus inspection and knowledge based on personal experience. Yes it may be your reality that Ken was a plagiarist, but you do a disservice to use your authoritative position to assert it and then decline to back up your assertion with evidence.

            This is the same sort of thing we are talking about the Church doing, insisting on a certain viewpoint and enforcing it with authority while disallowing individual inspection.

            You perhaps consider Ken’s rewriting of a bridge using the paradigm of scientology, to be plagiarism, but that is a very narrow viewpoint. He worked without financial gain to openly TRANSLATE valuable technology into words that were unrestricted by the Church of Scientology. http://freezoneearth.org/pilot/sscio/index.htm

            He also added his own considerable insights and worked to expose the church for its crimes well in advance of many of the current “independent scientologists”. He paid for this by being reverse audited using NOT’s and L’s materials by people IN the church at a time when both you and Marty were still highly involved.

            Did he perhaps cut Ron (or the church) off from some royalties? Perhaps. But his efforts were in the interests of greater good, not as you assert self interest or establishing himself as GURU.

            RIP Ken.

            • Oscar
              I will try to see if my sources would be willing to talk to you and reveal more to you, Bob Grant and Watchful Navigator.

              • Karen,

                You claimed: “Ken Ogger “The Pilot” was publishing LRH while pretending it was his own work.”. Now you are referring to unnamed persons who apparently told you this, rather than just pointing to the specific things Ken supposedly published as plagiarism.

                Is this something you are actually aware of as specific facts? Or are you just passing on something unexamined that you were told?

                I don’t need to hear from or know your secret sources. The factual data would be sufficient. A reference to something Ken posted/published and corresponding LRH material. Both of those items should not require your sources to be revealed. Just tell us the actual facts you know.

                If that is not forthcoming, I would ask you to retract your aspersions.

                • Oscar
                  I will not withdraw any such statement,
                  Ken Ogger plagiarized LRH.
                  I am satisfied that he did.
                  I do not have to prove anything to you.
                  I am not going to spend my time researching this.
                  This is not a court of law and you are not a Prosecuting attorney and I am not under deposition.
                  I made an observation on this blog.
                  I am sorry your identity and web sites depend so much on Ken Oggers writings and belief in him.
                  Sometimes the Truth is uncomfortable.
                  You don’t have to be so shaken up.~~ keep believing he was SOURCE.
                  That is your right.
                  I will keep stating he used ripped off LRH writings, in a pretense he was a philosopher that is my right.
                  Got it ?

                • Oscar, (cc to Bob Grant, Watchful Navigator, et al.)

                  Oscar said to Karen #1, “I don’t need to hear from or know your secret sources. The factual data would be sufficient.”

                  Are you kidding me? …..What the **** are you talking about? Do you call what you have been saying about this “Pilot” guy “factual data”? From what I have read it appears to me that he keyed himself in in a big way somehow, which turned him into sort of a nut job.
                  If you have chosen him to pilot your ship, then I sure hope that God is your co-pilot. But that’s your thing.
                  However, when you suddenly appear on this blog from wherever you appeared from, insult Karen by accusing her of “casting aspersions” and then demand that she retract her stated opinions unless she is “not forthcoming” with information which you demand …then it just makes me wonder even more where you did appear from.
                  Karen in not obligated to prove anything to you to your “satisfaction”. She said what she said. She expressed her opinion and spoke her piece. She has been posting here for a long time and many people know her for her integrity and kindness. I personally have met two people who she audited a while ago who are both wonderful example’s the potential of LRH’s tech in the hands of a skilled practitioner.
                  Can’t say the same for you, Oscar.
                  And it is not appreciated when you attack such a person of good will.

                  • I asked Karen to point to an instance of where Ken Ogger posted or published the writings of LRH. She is the one who made the accusation, yet she says she would have to do research to find an example, and refuses to do so. Thus I call into question her assertion. I haven’t insulted her by asking her to prove her assertions! This whole “mission statement” post of Marty’s is about the difference between thinking and observing for oneself vs blind adherence!!

                    I think the freezone is full of fruitcakes. My spiritual practice is mostly buddhist. I just happen to like ken and find value in what he wrote. That is why I popped up out of nowhere.

                    I also think Karen is a gem, a sincere, sweet and very highly trained and accomplished person.

                    Your rant against my finding the truth of her assertions, is the sort of mindset that I left the church because of. Don’t poison independent scientology with the same reactionary attitudes.

                  • This is getting wierd …

                    I don’t read Oscar as ‘following’ Ken Ogger, but respecting what Ken was attempting to do. As I said a few times now, I don’t defend what Ken did as being right or wrong, but I admire someone who attempts to improve his condition and is willing to assist others to do so.

                    Yes, Ken restimed something he couldn’t handle and nose dived into the universe he was trying to lift himself out of, and yes he had 2d hangups, so what, everyone here has ‘hangups’ of one sort or another? The tragedy is that there was no one he could turn to who had the tech to help him when he really needed it.

                    No one is asking anyone to ‘follow’ Ken.

                    As far a Karen’s comment being accepted because of some ‘altitude'; I’d be even Karen would disagree with that. All Oscar did was ask her for some references re; what Karen said, no big deal, easy to do.

                    From your comment re Ken, I’m curious as to how much of his writing have you read? This is not a hit of any kind, just would like to know so I can evaluate your comment.

            • Oscar, you Freezoner’s seem to be following everyone except LRH. To defend Ken Ogger is to defend someone who was was a physical, spiritual, and financial wreck. Ken lived in a house with 50 or 60 cats that was full of kitty litter boxes. Ken’s wife who thought so little of him that she outed “The Pilot” to OSA.

              If Ken was “The Pilot” then he flew his life straight into a mountainside when he killed himself. “Self Clearing” did not work for Ken because he did not write large parts of it. Ken had a colostomy bag, sexual issues, a car that was a reeking garbage can, and yet he wanted to be some kind of wise man. That was Ken’s problem: He lied to himself and everyone else about who he was. Ken was a walking philosophical Ponzi scheme: The more he took LRH’s material from that big pile his mom had given him, the more LRH he had to take.

              The internet allowed Ken to create himself as he wanted to be and not as he actually was. Ken borrowed liberally from LRH’s stack of research papers he had gotten from his mom. Ken used these to create his online persona as The Pilot. The rest of Ken’s stuff was a mishmash of New Age stuff he took from the books he had scattered among the boxes of kitty litter or stacked on top of his piano.

              • And not to defend him? Who among us is so low as to be worthless?

                And you parrot Karens claims, also offer not a shred of proof and fair game the memory of a man whose work you are probably unfamiliar with!

                Do you know why Ken had a colostomy bag? Google is your friend.

                Should all those with colostomy bags be disposed of without sorrow?

              • Hi KO;

                How do you know that what Ken wrote was from LRH? Are you saying that LRH did the research into the various universes that Ken wrote about; that LRH did the GPM line plots for those universes, and yet never told anyone about any of it, and absolutely no one has ever bothered to mention it?

                And so what if he took stuff from some hidden bunker of boxes somewhere and used then as a guide in his search? You can’t jump from that to he stole from LRH?

                Re; the ‘New Age’ comment; Wow! How out ethics to go out and actually look! Son of a Bitch, the guy otta be crucified … oh wait … isn’t that what you are attempting to do … ?

                Ken never, ever pretended ‘Self Clearing’ was original to him. He made it very clear he was rewriting LRH in such a way that OSA couldn’t stop anyone from discussing or using it.

                His wife turned him into OSA … why would you even comment on that? What does that have to do with anything? And the cats … well, I’m not a cat person by any means, but again, so what?

                Can’t you and the other attackers simply put up some TPFE about how Ken took LRH and claimed credit? Truth. Nothing you or the other attackers have actually produced any ‘truth’, and that is not too much to ask for, is it.

                Your comment about Freezoners not following LRH … hmmm ever read ‘Generalities Won’t Do’? Or, better yet, listened to the tape the data came from, same title?

                My name is Bob Grant. What’s yours?

      • Karen
        Wasn’t (The Pilot) Ken Ogger’s Mom/Sister (there is an interesting story there – Ken was raised by his grandparents to regard his Mom as his sister, and they his parents) the Qual Sec, Louise, who received the “Talk on a Basic Qual” briefing from LRH on the Apollo?

        I have an interesting and unpublished message to friends that reveals this and that Louise recruited DM and associates in the mid-70’s and was made to sign a confidentially bond to the GO when these recruits were ripped off for a “special, secret project.” (I still do not have her last name and I am waiting for permission to publish the Ken Ogger’s message in full on my blog.)

        That last part however, was excerpted and is reproduced on my blog post:

        http://watchfulnavigator.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/david-miscavige-investigators-guide-to-the-criminal-history/

        Having read all that Ken wrote, observed that he did seem to have access to a hidden data line – then last year I learned who his mother was. I found that Ken was both an intelligent critic of LRH and a defender of LRH from the rabid anti-Scns. I did not ever observe that he took credit for an LRH work.

        I am not sure that he suicided himself, or was “suicided,” by another.

        There is a reason I call myself “Watchful Navigator.”

        Ken Ogger did a lot of interesting and helpful research and tech discussion, and made basic processing tech available to people, free of charge. A radical step for the late 90’s and an overdue project for the current day.

        FreeScientology is what I have named it:

        http://freescientology.wordpress.com/

        • Ken was found at the bottom of his pool with his hands and.or feet wired to a cinder block.

          The comments from his girlfriend at the time regarding Ken’s comm and activities don’t indicate that someone was about to commit suicide.

      • HI Karen;

        Yes, Ken did attempt to explain Scientology for new persons and he did use LRH material, reworded, to avoid getting hit by OSA … I guess. He attempted to rewrite everything, keeping it as close to LRH as possible but worded in such a way that he wouldn’t get hit.

        Can you imagine just how much work that was, attempting to explain to new persons exactly what Scientology was about, and how auditing works, and how the grade chart is set up, and the procedures; enormous effort on his part. Also, he never got dime for it, as far as I know. When he crashed, and became destitute, he did look for someone to publish his own research, but as far as I know, he NEVER got a dime from what he paraphrased from LRH.

        Back then, LRH’s material was still scarce and hard to find. Ken was attempting to make it available to all. That he succeeded is evidenced by the fact that OSA never could touch him.

        Ken’s rewriting of LRH is NOT what I am referring to.

        Ken did a lot of personal research not touched upon by LRH, or at least never made public by LRH, such as the universe that precedes this one, the ‘Penalty Universe’ and the universe that follows this one that Ken referred to as the ‘Mud Universe’, given it’s characteristics. He researched and discovered the GPM line plots for both, as well as other universes. It all sounds kinda … nuts I guess … but I know for a personal fact that what he was writing on the ‘Penalty Universe’ is spot on, as I came across what he was writing about a long time ago, I even know the ‘names’ of the two Beings who created the games in that universe. I never did the GPM line plots for it but only because I haven’t finished handling this universe yet; one at a time. And, given how he described the ‘Mud Universe’, the one we fall into if we fail on this one, is definitely to be avoided, unless you like to suffocate.

        Anyway, this will sound like a nut case to any who have never really sat down and read and paid attention to what he was attempting to do, especially to KSW fanatics. There have been comments here and elsewhere as to the fact that the ‘Bridge’ may not be complete. What Ken did is what all will have to do eventually if it is true that the Bridge is not complete; ie at some point, find their own way.

        As far as Ken taking his own life. Are you familiar with the circumstances, not just of his death, but of who and what was going on around him over the previous several months? Ken crashed and burned, and he had no one to help him get fixed up. The person he turned to, whose name I will not reveal, was a squirrel of the first order, his auditing would destabilize anyone.

        I read everything Ken wrote, and I read it as he made it available. Ken shared all he came across, he never kept anything that he felt was of value to himself. I’m not going to defend what he did as being right or wrong, but I admire the guy for the strength to go out and look for ways to better the Bridge.

        Ken is one of the good guys.

        b

      • Karen #1 – one minor correction, Ken Ogger posted his materials to alt.clearing.technology, not alt.religion.scientology.

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

      • I was curious about Ken Ogger and met him in L.A.. He was in a very bad condition. He was in an Andy Warhol valence. But not quite in such a good condition as Andy, a very bad copy. Andy was actually competent. Even if he was prone to hysteria. I will not elaborate. I will not go into specifics about what I saw exactly, but I knew that someone so clearly in Ken’s very non optimum personal condition was clearly awash on the sands of discontent. More accurate, tortured. I felt a great sympathy for him when I viewed his court attendance. A weekly meet up at a Greek cafe in Los Angeles. He became very lecherous towards me when he clearly had a male companion with him, he was involved in spiritual sadism of this sort. The companion became very drunk and then also propitiated towards me. Saying everything Ken could not say for himself. Like a CMO messenger. It was very disturbing. It was obvious Ken was not even a clear. He was a twisted muse. They were all so very fragile. Unkept and in an obvious lower condition on the first dynamic. A twisted mockery of Scientology. They loved being a very bad product of the system. That is a purpose. And there are people who have that purpose. There are people that make it go wrong as a purpose. The sooner people confront that as an issue the sooner they will understand this arena.

  22. Marty,

    You have very eloquently defended your “inalienable right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely” your own opinions and to “counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

    It’s a little startling actually that you would have to do so with this group, but since you apparently do have to, thanks for doing it so well. You create a little breathing room for the rest of us.

  23. You had me at “god herself.” lol. What you have written makes me think of a axiom many Scientologist say, “that you don’t have to “believe” in Scientology, it’s a technology with no belief required.” Yet most of the Scientologists I have encountered are the most extreme example of “true believers,” on par with any extremist, fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. If I understand what you have written correctly, you propose actually putting LRH back in the realm of philosophy and away from blind faith adherence. Philosophy, by nature, is meant to be open ended and exposed to all manner of critique and debate – its an ongoing discussion of being & exisistence. I think it’s a marvelous idea and the only viable way to create a flourishing Scientology community, rather than just another cult. (One Scientology cult is enough!)

  24. To call Scientology as a “taped path” assumes a Topography of Consciousness in which everything except Scientology is deadly terrain. Hence, the notion of a “taped path” superimposes a fundamental limitation upon Consciousness.

    Consciousness exists prior to all identities. As Scientology is an identity, it is a binding modification of Consciousness. To assume any identity is to also assume all of the benefits and liabilities of that identity. Scientology offers a spiritual technology that is heavily laden with baggage.

    Fair or unfair, Scientology comes with baggage. Scientologists can complain about the baggage, or, they can insouciantly throw the baggage over the side and get on with doing Scientology. Why remain committed to carrying unwanted baggage?

    Zen Buddhists long ago threw out the ponderous scholastic baggage of Buddhism.

    The Bodhidharma said, “Directly point to the human mind; see one’s nature and become a Buddha; do not establish words and letters.’”

    Zen is based upon Buddhist DNA. However, Zen emphasizes looking directly at Life as opposed to formalizing experience in books of doctrine.

    From my point of view, the ongoing Indie debate represents something akin to a series “Buddhist versus Zen” types of distinctions that need to be made regarding the subject of Scientology. This is good because such a thing will never happen inside of the Church.

    Not everyone left Buddhism to engage in Zen. In fact, many Buddhists cursed the Bodhidharma. In fact, the Bodhidharma asked a simple question that caused him definite trouble:

    “Patriarch Bodhidharma went to Nan Ching where he listen to Dharma Master Shen Kuang explain the sutras. When Shen Kuang spoke, the heavens rained fragrant blossoms and a gold-petalled lotus rose from the earth for him to sit upon. However, only those with good roots, who had opened the five eyes and the six spiritual penetrations were able to see that. Now! Isn’t that wonderful?

    “After listening to the Sutra, Bodhidharma asked, ‘Dharma Master, what are you doing?’

    “I am explaining Sutras,” Shen Kuang replied.

    “Why are you explaining Sutras?”

    “I am teaching people to end birth and death.”

    “Oh?’ said Bodhidharma, ‘exactly how do you do that? In this Sutra which you explain, the words are black and the paper is white. How does this teach people to end birth and death?’

    “Dharma master Shen Kuang had nothing to say. How did he teach people to end birth and death? He fumed in silence…

    “When angry, Dharma master Shen Kuang used his heavy iron beads to level opposition. In response to Bodhidharma’s question, he reddened with anger and raged like a tidal wave smashing a mountain. As he whipped out his beads, he snapped, ‘You are slandering the Dharma!’ and cracked Bodhidharma across the mouth, knocking loose two teeth. Bodhidharma neither moved nor spoke. He hadn’t expected such a vicious reply.

    “There is a legend about the teeth of holy men. You must not ask about the principle, however, because it is too inconceivable. The legend says that if a sage’s teeth fall to the ground, it won’t rain for three years.

    “Patriarch Bodhidharma thought, ‘If it doesn’t rain for three years, people will starve! I have come to China to save living beings, not to kill them!’

    “So Bodhidharma did not let his teeth fall to the ground. Instead, he swallowed them and disappeared down the road. Although he had been beaten and reviled, Bodhidharma could not go to the government and file suit against Dharma Master Shen Kuang. Those who have left home have to be patient. How much more must a patriarch forbear.”

    ref: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/142598

    • Thank you for that valuable lesson. Yes, letting go of one’s personal identity is the portal to full Consciousness – enlightenment has been described as “dying before you die”. An interesting spiritual exercise is to chant one’s name out loud over and over until it begins to lose its significance.

      Perhaps partially because my own Zen-inspired spiritual practice can be best described as attempting to maintain a state of “alert, unthinking presence”, I have not really been spending much time thinking about exactly how Scientology has affected my current state of Consciousness. However, there were certainly concrete results I was able to personally observe as an auditor and case supervisor. Witnessing the “whirlpool effect” as precisely described by LRH when indicating someone’s core service facsimile or seeing the tone arm come crashing down division after division when auditing a person on dianetics after they give the “clear cognition” are two experiences I will never forget. Frankly, they were miraculous.

      It has now been a little over a year since my own existential crisis and public departure from scientology after 35 years, and I know the scientology portion of my personal journey is not yet over – I also know that the universe provided me with this experience for a reason and that it will be revealed to me in due course. In the meantime, this blog has been a stable datum for me during times of confusion and IMO has provided a “safe haven” for those seeking to unravel the conditioned, radicalized behavior ingrained by the church (for those independent, self-proclaimed “REAL” scientologists – not so much :-)

      P.S. re: KSW and admin tech – having done Vols 0, 4 and 5 as part of my Snr. C/S full hat, my viewpoint of administration while on post was that it was only valuable to the extent that it served the purpose of getting and keeping a pc happily in session and making gains – period. To me, delivery terminals were the “sun” of the org solar system and the admin terminals were the planets – most often the “gas giants” ;-)

      • That should have read ADMIN vols 0, 4 and 5.

      • J. Swift says
        Fair or unfair, Scientology comes with baggage. Scientologists can complain about the baggage, or, they can insouciantly throw the baggage over the side and get on with doing Scientology. Why remain committed to carrying unwanted baggage?
        The “baggage” I believe is how bad the very word “Scientology” has become.
        Ad week, the Bible of the Advertising world calls Scientology Inc “Incendiary”

        http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/real-problem-atlantics-sponsored-post-146553

        using “blatant propaganda”.
        It is not just Marty’s blog posters that read through the lies that David Miscavige is one of the most important men of our time and that expansion is out the roof with 30 more Idea Orgs rah rah rah.
        Another way of saying “you get the CONDITION you do not assign” is saying “you get the reciprocity of who you connect with.”
        Atlantic Magazine received a black eye for reportedly accepting $50,000 to run a puff piece on Miscavige.
        There was consequences to taking dirty money to publish lies.
        The internet lit up with Twitter, Google, Facebook lighting up the night sky enraged and disgusted with Atlantic Magazine and within hours The Atlantic pulled the Scientology puff piece on Miscavige.

        The President of the Atlantic was woken up at night in his home at 11:30pm at night to make a decision on pulling the Scientology Inc puff piece because the flap was so bad and popular culture and future clients went into an uproar reminiscent of Hill and Knowlton days and Hill and Knowlton dumping the Scientology account.
        The Atlantic Magazine fiasco went down only days ago.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/the-atlantic-scientology-post_n_2477987.html

        Miscavige is not only toxic, he is radioactive. There is fall out even having a CONNECTION to him by proxy with Scientology.
        Very high rollers like Bob Duggan ($25 million donor) remove the word “Scientology” from any and all their websites.
        Notice that no celebrities not even lower level members like Kirstie Alley have NOT com forward to speak up about their Church in the current bloodbath.
        A Scientology connection can be career suicide.

        • Thank you Karen#1 for posting this. When one recognizes the 360 degree view you have, it is enlightening, educational and encouraging.

        • Karen #1, thank you for shedding more light on all this! I have been noticing the same thing with the celebs.
          All this said, I still find it pretty easy to do a standard Handle Step on the uninformed non-scientologist. They mostly are just confused about what they hear, read – and a little bit of TRUTH and 2 Way Comm… they, the ones who are somewhat up tone anyway, can differenciate and accept the value of The Tech, as long as they Know I’m anti, and not connected to the cult, Co$ .

        • Hi Karen;

          “A Scientology connection can be career suicide.”

          This is such an unbelievable situation isn’t it!

          I remember when Jessie Prince was ‘busted’ for having a pot plant in his back yard, it was later revealed that OSA had sent an agent in to be friends with Jessie. When the jury at the trial found out that Scientology was involved, they cleared Jessie regardless if he was guilty or not because the connection to the CofS tainted the case.

          So much for creating a safe environment, for befriending your neighbours.

  25. Marty,

    Thank you for this rather definitive position statement. Despite what may have been reported to you about me, I think pretty much along these lines, myself.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist

    P.S. – are you perhaps referring to the “Straw Man” Fallacy of Argumentation
    when you say “straw dog” ?

  26. So hard to find words to express my appreciation for the intelligent and compassionate guidance from Marty’s articles and contributed comments by so many others found here for the last three years.

    Posting brief Knowledge Reports on David Miscavige’s technical degrades here under this name, was factually my path to exile and expulsion.

    This Mission Statement that Marty just posted feels to me like a milestone culmination of wisdom accumulated over all the struggles – all the fights and the rest points, too.

    I have personally arrived at many of these same conclusions independently (while carefully continuing to evaluate and put in practice the valuable technology as given in Hubbard’s writings). But I would not have gotten as far as I have or as happily, without the stimulating, wise and carefully chosen words given here with a helpful purpose – that of easing the transition from betrayal and fanaticism in the corporate-controlled church, on up a little higher to freedom with understanding and healing, outside it.

    All that and more, I’ve found here, following soon after I finished the Truth Rundown and quietly decided I was through with the Miscavige corporation.

    Hubbard once promised:
    ”If you will just stay with me on this line, up to the first milestone in Scientology, and bring yourself up to a high level of ability and apply yourself to that, you will be free – free from me and from Scientology too!“ – L. Ron Hubbard
    from 520303 HCL 1 – Scientology – Milestone One

    And thanks in part to the vision and guidance seen here, I feel that I now have the best of both worlds in front of me – even this late in life with all the losses of friends and family:

    1) Scientology is now ours, just as LRH originally intended. The best of the workable technology of Scientology and its fruits are ours in freedom. For me and I hope others, these fruits include an increased appreciation for honesty and enhanced ability to perceive truth.

    And that means finding flaws where before, to even look with a critical eye was strictly prohibited.

    Most importantly for our co-audit, the ability to “let go” of the fanatical push for organization that repackaged much of the original technology as “Class VIII,” has led us back to the magical quest for ability throughout most of the early days of research and discovery, that culminated in the 1960-61 “Bridge” – soon lost in the overwhelming challenges, excitement and frustrations that LRH experienced through the Saint Hill GPM research, 1965 KSW “ethics” groundwork for organization, and the wild adventures at sea that forever changed the course of things better and worse, fixing more and more of the personal enhancement technology, into ecclesiastical ritual.

    Now the elusive quest for ‘operational spiritual being’ seems no longer so elusive. Its apparently invented IX’th level, “Character” would actually itself be more properly a prerequisite(!) Real character – like that shaped by the school of hard knocks against personal integrity.

    2) The best of what the rest of humanity has to offer is truly ours for the study. Society is similarly fixed in its attention on material things and we have the model and experience to help (and more importantly, to learn even more in the interaction).

    Yes, for me it’s sometimes painful to continue to encounter unthinking fanaticism out here – highly similar to what I thought I left behind – but you know? – that is actually a product of the pain and betrayal we are all recovering from (and let me add to all that my own willful ignorance and contributions to the tyranny that I have yet to take full responsibility for).

    These ‘fanatics’ in varying degrees are not my enemies – not by a long shot. I was one myself not that long ago. Compared to some others, I could be viewed that way. After all, I have rapidly established a new career out of counseling with the technology and continue to study and use it as much as before, although with a perspective I never would have achieved otherwise.

    Leading by example – as demonstrated here – is the best way.

    My friends are mainly and simply those who have glimpsed the promise of hope and help in Scientology and wish to see that promise take shape in reality – somehow, some way. Some actual unity in purpose between the doubters, defenders, ‘dilettantes’ and enthusiasts may yet be accomplished, as it often is right here.

    Valuable in all this, has been the simple courage to state the truth here as you see it. And the hard work that went in to presenting it does not go unappreciated. It sure has helped me and the people I know.

    As it was once stated so well:
    “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

    • “Scientology is for the people and of the people. It belongs to them. They are receiving it. They like it. Bear with our troubles with the dull official and authority and go out and make a happier world.”
      PAB 62 – 20 Sep 55 (Tech Vol III p188)

  27. My inner compass says the excellent piece points the way to freedom and expansion of workable technology for the betterment of humankind.

    I recognize that for some people, their stable datum is getting clobbered. If the stable datum was “exact, invariant following of HCOPLs, HCOBs, etc.” then it might feel that they are jumping out of what they feel is a lifeboat that in fact became, from another viewpoint, a straitjacket.

    The stable datum has to shift up a level higher — back up to goals and purpose — to realize that HCOBs and HCOPLs are _tools_ toward those goals and purposes. Then you will still be aligned with Ron’s dreams and efforts and hopes — noble things all, his flaws notwithstanding. And by identifying with goals and purposes, you are much more likely to make those goals and purposes fully your own than if you have what amounts (if I may wax Freudian) to a an internalized superego perched on your shoulder telling you 24/7 all and the only specific things you must do or not do. That is not freedom.

    So thank you for the excellent read and the profoundly important leadership. Plus you gave me more fun for the evening than studying data analysis in R or GNU.

  28. I’m going to read this again on Sunday morning, with a cup of Starbucks (Yes, I live in Seattle), in hand. I think it’s a profound and wise piece of philosophy, truth be told.

    • Yes it is – possibly the wisest and most profound posting ever. I had to read it twice actually, and am still “winning” on it. It is the most accurate summation of EXACTLY what drew me to Scientology in the first place. Factually it is a rehabilitation of what I intuitively knew LRH was trying to achieve all along. That I can agree with observations such as “The Scientologist hallmarks of arrogance, aloofness, meddlesomeness, pedanticism and strained intensity are not an accident. They are inbred by scripture.” – without any negative or assertive reaction confirms I have most certainly moved on up a little higher this last few years.

      This blog continues to be a magical journey in itself – pray Carry On! Now I really can’t wait for next book…

  29. Well said Marty! And I look forward to your next book.

  30. David St Lawrence aka oldauditor

    The dichotomy between a workable technology and a fundamentalist religion can be seen in the results obtained. Those who can see what a workable technology entails and are willing to contribute their own observations and ideas to its advancement have a bright future.

    I see you as one who not only has a bright future but are willing to take responsibility for creating it as you see fit.

    Responsibility is cause. Fervent belief is becoming effect of someone else. The choice is ours to make.

    • I agree! And thanks a lot for making the differentiation. This is crucial for ALL of us! Everybody has to come out and speak out. This is not Miscavology here. This is a Free Terrain. And Scientology has been in jeopardy for many many years. There is nothing to fear here and there is nothing to hide either. Please come out and speak now. It’s our, our children’s and our grand children’s future.

      • Yes it is our children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s… future. If the entirety of the original materials dives out of sight leaving only the badly butchered versions, then that would truly be a problem. Imagine this material used only and released only in a form used to denigrate and control. Yikes!

        • Theo Sismanides

          Maria, I agree. It is my opinion no matter if some people want to see this as far fetched or I don’t know what, that a Scientologist should maintain a true group to keep on creating the dynamics. Thus, at least (some) Admin is needed. We cannot all be doing the same things. I think there will be a day when we will understand more of the use of Admin and start utilising for our purposes.

          For example I am into printing and recently there is no much work due the crisis especially here in Greece. Someone else works on something else that is of use. We can do things as a team with stronger bonds each time.

          Keeping the Correct Technology is one of those tasks.

  31. Brilliant!

  32. That was an excellent post, Marty. I cannot help but be touched by the beauty in the freedom you’re experiencing, just from reading your words.

    I don’t mean to belittle your post with a comic reference, but it reminds me of the scene from Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”.

    Brian exclaims, “You are all individuals.”

    And the crowd responds in unison, “Yes, we are all individuals!”

    There are people that need the comfort of knowing someone else has figured things out for them, at least for a while. And I find it very easy to be in awe of how well Ron did it. But he did it so we could be free. Thank you for that reminder.

    • There’s another “Life of Brian” quote that comes to mind – the masses (read literal Scientologists) are calling Brian (read LRH) “The Messiah”. Brian’s Mother appears at his side saying “He is NOT The Messiah – he’s a very naughty boy!).

      • “Mum, do I really have a big nose?” .. ‘Sex, sex, sex .. thats all you younger generation think about’ .. ;)

        Aligns with our Freud datapoint today, eh?

  33. I have come more or less to the same conclusions and opinions. Please feel understood and acknowledged whole-heartedly, Marty !

    It defies my understanding why someone could think “Marty is not with Ron”. From all I have read on this blog Marty does an excellent job as auditor and case supervisor. He also tries to stop the crimes and abuses in the ‘church’ by whatever means seems available. All this aims at a world with less insanity and crime – I’m sure LRH would applaud that.

  34. The more you study, observe, think, and write the more sense you keep making. Keep going!!!

  35. Kudos :D

    “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

    I also like the way John McMaster* stated it:
    “Know the truth, and you shall set yourself free”.

    *John McMaster:
    Clear #1 (certified as such, although may not have been first to achieve state.)
    Research Auditor for Search and Discovery (S&D’s) to find a suppressive terminal, (his findings that a “what”, not a “who” gave better results, this was dismissed by LRH, but it handle the full responsibility of the being for setting up the situation, pulling it in and feeding it).
    Research Auditor for Power Processing.
    Declared Suppressive by LRH.

    • I think the crux of the what/who situation which led to the schism between McMaster and LRH hinges on a very important distinction.

      There is very definitely an introversion that can occur when *what* is addressed in an incident, instead of *who*. Its the difference between MEST and Theta, in fact, in two simple words, a key fact in the entire Theta-becoming>MEST game.

      A very important discovery by LRH with regards to spiritual rejuvenation is that its not enough to set oneself free. You have to be willing, and able, to set others free, too. And you have to actually do it. This is such a huge button for so many, that it is clearly a source of aberration, but again: LRH discovered that it was *the* key to gaining ability in the Theta universe: Help. Flatten the buttons on all flows with regards to Help, and you are creating a real powerhouse of a Thetan, wow ..

      • Wonderful time it bring up help – It’s the piece of tech that “sold” me on the subject of scientology.

      • Regarding the who/what:
        When addressing the “what” you are addressing the mechanism the being created to bring into being PTSness.
        Its an earlier similar, “postulate on the chain”, from my understanding.

        This “what” can be running on automatic and act as a on-going intention to create mutual hostility. It can create a “marionette SP” out of the being, who may be very caring and helpful to other being or kinds of beings (ones that their is higher ARC with).

        Fear a dog and it bites, for example.

        That’s just my understanding though, my philosophizing.

        I don’t mean it as an introverting or make-wrong type of action, just an unveiling of truth procedure.

  36. For a long time I read esmb and thought it a good to place to go in order to have conversations that explored topics one was punished for in RCS… No more. Seeing criticism of this latest blog post is stunning. When suggesting to educate and think for oneself is being criticized then there’s nothing left to conclude except that the opaque blindness so manifest in the majority of that group is the result of an invisible and insidious covert dogma as it claims to be untethered to any cognitive bias ultimately leading to bitterness and stagnation as the inevitable and resulting prize. Ironically, they are an inversion of those they claim to supersede in awareness and understanding.

    • Furthermore, maybe Martiniano’s breed of interpretation concerning Scientology ought not call itself “Independent” but rather “Co-dependent.”

  37. To me, the more the need to have one’s viewpoints be the most correct or the more one is attached to a viewpoint, the more other-determined, the more subjective, the more intolerant, the more fanatical, the more egocentric, the more unaware, the more dark one is likely to be being.
    One of the best ways, in my view, to dim a soul, is to entrap it in fixed viewpoints and beingnesses (identities).

    Having lived most of my life attached to many limiting and sabotaging (to growing) viewpoints and to beingnesses which would make me feel secure and/or valuable and/or superior to others while keeping me distant from the experience of feeling inferior, flawed, rejected or a failure, and having found out how incredibly destructive that was to me and my life, I now seek to not become attached to any viewpoint, whether self created or not, or to whatever beingness presents itself or is presented for me to assume.

    Given a choice, I am resting on the viewpoint that the beingness that presents me with the most freedom to be and think and act or not, that allows me to welcome, for viewing, all viewpoints and thus establish and follow my own path , that nourishes and develops my strength to recognize and correct (if I want to) my imperfections, that encourages me to be being faithful to the principles and acquired wisdoms I want to be being faithful to, and makes more possible my accomplishing of what I want. A beingness that increases my desire to cause harmony within myself, with the world and with the people around me, to assume responsibility, to be more independent, to become more objective, to confront any negative that affects my life so as to transform it always, into a very-glad-it-happened positive experience. That urges me to become spiritually “naked” (transparent) and at understanding so as to be able to connect to cause love. A beingness that makes happen a multitude of awesome, to me, consistent experiences when I am able to be walking it: I am simply a soul seeking to grow.

    • Beautiful Luis… thanks! That opening view on Beingness helped me a lot today!

      • Thanks Theo!
        I just read your acknowledment (a few days late) and I am admiring your humility and your very obvious commitment to growing.

        “Your” soul shines.

  38. You are a good and wise man Marty.
    It can be heart breaking to try and help your fellow man and realize the depth of their robotism. But take to heart that you have made happy a number of free thinkers. I believe that even LRH ( in his better days) would give you credit for what you are doing. I believe that you are forwarding the intention of his true works.
    Thanks.

    • Well said Tony. I agree whole-heartedly. I truly believe that LRH wanted us to be “free thinkers”, not robots. And if by some chance that was not his intention and he “duped” us all, that certainly is the greater-good and is the path that I am following. My days of “blind devotion” are over.

  39. Marty, thank you for this. Brings peace and broadens horizons.
    In my limited understanding I have always thought that in Scientology one may become dogmatic only for one purpose – the purpose of learning the theory fast, a student is not expected to philosophise but to learn and then find the truth in practice. Hubbard’s favourite was “’cause we don’t have time”. Somehow, this principle got transferred to many other sections of Scientology. Perhaps, there was some overall idea of staff self-evolving to level of understanding from blind obedience, perhaps the technology and people’s Bridge progress was hoped to take its part in it, too. But it didn’t happen in required amount. And it is not heading for it in the CoS. And it is not even being hoped for such evolution when you look at growing zealotism with which obedience is required. If I remember well, in Creation of Human Ability there was a beautiful lecture saying also that there was some added quality to Scientology not to become a trap for man as other philosophies because of its ability to as-is itself. Hopefully, what you and others do might be demonstration of this ability. And one part of the process might be us saying what Scientology is and what it is not. In my view it is very valuable and very smart tool for spirit and his living life. But it is not the spirit and it is not life. It doesn’t substitute it. It should help to free it. That is THE GOAL. And that is my goal, too. However, when I find limitations in Scientology (meaning philosophy, application and organization) to provide for achieving this goal, this goal is senior to Scientology and Scientology will be questionned not the goal of achieving spiritual freedom. If we all do that honestly, I am sure all the good things in Scientology would be validated and all the bad avoided (and for ideological purposes you may blame the squirrels in the future :)). To be a Scientologist is a very strong identity and this identity is cultivated (perhaps the word “cult” has to do with it – just a joke), but if you want to be really free as a spirit you will have to get rid of all identities or at least be free to assume and let go of at will. :)

    • The ‘time’ arbitrary is a critical factor in making otherwise workable technology something else. Good observation in my opinion.

      • Well, when you think about what TIME is, and how it brings a Thetan into the MEST universe, it only makes sense that the degradation of the Church has occurred because of this Time factor, right? In my view, Time really is arbitrary; it gets aberrative when it isn’t. Which is often, hah hah, what a nasty trick .. ;)

      • Marty i am jumping in here to post what i meant to post days ago when Flo suggested others take in the PDCs.

        http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/l-ron-hubbard-by-tom-martiniano/

        I never posted because generally I don’t feel I belong here. I don’t agree that this “is your living room” but respect your monitoring policy as such.
        I’ll try to do better, in the spot light of living room lights.
        But I don’t have the time or skill to edit my comment to fit and so here it is anyway…I believe it has a bit of relivence and merit. Again I’m here but I’m not. Sorry

        Flo this is absolutely correct!
        I have no formal training or Auditing to speak off, I have listen tho…
        .. to hundreds of LRH tapes. The PDC Series have been on my to-do list for years, but put off maybe because of the sheer volume of them or just timing, (the technical end bothers others but not me) although very much technical I think that times are a changing!  In light of the fact there where very few OTs when LRH delivered the PDCs i think everyone can enjoy these extraordinary and very powerful Lectures. 
        I wish they where online somewhere. Maybe they are….anyone know?

        I been following Marty for a few years now and this is one of the most interesting threads I’ve seen. The comments priceless.    

        Thanks to all of you, the great work from Steve Hall, Marty and many many many others. Authentic Scientology; “Keeping LRH Working”, as I say. Its making headway more and more everyday. 

        Lately I been taking in very interesting viewpoints from others, (no viewpoint is an invalid viewpoint in my books).  and some of these individuals (Dolores Cannon, Alex Collier, Marshell Summers, and Bashar- all have interesting things to say- many times VALIDATING LRH’s original work.) Some are bizzaar to say the least…nevertheless popular and cutting edge as LRH was with past lives circa 1956.

        Long ago (1991 for me) I felt the future of Scientology was postulated by LRH to be further developed, by default -by others. How is this not possible (true) if we are to reach the stars and beyond? 
        This is why, while at Flag, hearing a Class VIII Trainee trash David Mayo,  …I just didn’t buy it. It seemed like bullshit natter, even tho this was the first I ever heard of Mayo.
        Having seen enough at Flag and my Org I was out a few months later, loosing faith in the Org. But never LRH. And never those MOST important: auditors.  Those on Tech Lines. To this day I never have. Where are they all??
        It was my opinion then as now that the third dynamic aberation or “bank” if you will, was ethics and admin, not the “Tech Staff”.  I was disgusted back then that tech was pushed so harder on public yet fully neglected for Staff and SO. If Admin were “cleared” then wouldn’t Tech slam in intelligently? I reasoned. This might be the case today. Less Admin more Tech results in moving up higher. 
        I simply never had the impression LRH had it totally taped. Certainly not from him..
        Clompleting the Bridge Techically was: as needed, and not IF needed, that was then and still very much my reality today. 
        I think the watch words to Auditors from Hubbard was “be effective”. And the gates to God left wide open.  Only the very suppressive, the Pope or DM; or an absolute fool would lay such aberration on that line. Utter insanity isn’t it?
        As it turns out, and it is my reality- not only are there contactees from other parts of our Universe with use today, even THEY know little about God, but that He IS. Just as Hubbard found. Let’s not fool ourselves, we are not alone. Google those above.
        Anyways, the paradox that the Tech is complete yet it is not holds true IMO, just as “man is basically good” despite uncomprehencable evil !? Or that Total Freedom is possible “only if there are traps from which one can experience Freedom from” to para phrase Hubbard.
        Our struggle is simple, to get the tech out there. And not to horde it..

        • You ask what happened to the auditors. I can tell you what is a practical set of circumstances that happened to a lot of them when proportionate pay was enforced and org boards issued — they were posted on the org board at much the same command level as a receptionist, and their pay was every bit as poor in a struggling organization. Before that time they were often paid hourly and made a good living at it and they were pretty much treated as THE most priceless and important staff members in the Scientology world. I personally witnessed at least eight trained auditors quit because they really could not support their families in the mid 1970s and had to go get jobs in the public sector.

          Over time, I also saw more and more harsh treatment of tech personnel and continual demands for re-trains at their own expense because of a new bridge component or advancement or correction or whatever happened to be the latest release. In some cases they could not continue auditing at all, for example, there was an order that all auditors had to do the Pro TRs course before they would be allowed to continue auditing. Believe me, that was disruptive! And of course, now we have the GAT materials and demands that they retrain all over again. Quite an insane evolution as far as I am concerned.

          Also auditors do not do well when they cannot get wins on their pcs. It really matters to them and they will not continue long if they find that what they do runs their pcs into the ground. That will be the consequence of the 3-swing FN arbitrary and coercive sec checking methods.

          Finally, in one area I witnessed that there were perhaps three remaining tech terminals and the Guardians Office was working on them constantly to join the Guardians Office in favor of being an auditor. True story. Same story on the technical training corps — all too often they were treated as an admin recruitment pool.

  40. It is good to communicate about what is disagreed upon, because sometimes, hopefully that leads to better understanding and helps us all to move on up a little higher. But I think that lately when discussing disagreements, sometimes hearts have not been tempered with what joins us together. I think that this has lowered ARC in many instances, at least it feels that way to me, and I don’t think that is the original intention. This is just an observation of mine. And listen, I am a nobody. I did not put in years of my life in the Sea Org. I do not believe that I am nearly as highly trained an auditor as many who post here.
    But here’s what I am getting at: I think that if I picked up the cans with Marty, Steve, Tom, or other highly trained auditors posting here, the sessions would end with me all smiles, new abilities, etc. no matter who was auditing. I am pretty sure that if I trained with any of you I would become a better auditor. ARC is very important to attaining these results.
    Of course it’s OK if y-all disagree, but I’m reminding you that ARC makes those results possible.
    Kumbayah, brothers.

    • Espiritu, first of…. you are not a nobody! Not approved, lol! Jokes aside, you are not a nobody. I have been in the Sea Org and sometimes people around me, my daughter, my son, my girl friend and many others teach me things… I think your point and your observation is veryyyy correct. Affinity has to increase especially because of the distance thing we are all experiencing here. One thing I am experiencing lately is that having been a Scientologist, apart from other things that I omitted, one thing stands out: Emotion.

      And I don’t mean misemotion. Feelings…. Emotion. Feeling for the other person. There is a gap there. LRH put the emphasis on Reason but not Emotion and I think this is still to be worked upon by us. ARC is so vast that we are now opening up those flows and areas of ourselves. We can speak freely, disagree and still keep our position in space. When was this happening in Scientology before? Never. So in this I will agree with Marty, let’s transcend.

      • Thanks. I agree on all points. I was mainly acknowledging the many people who comment on this blog who HAVE contributed way more than me to the expansion and application of this subject which I feel is so vital for the enhancement of and very possibly the survival of mankind. Just respecting that hard work and dedication. And regarding what you said about emotion, yes I too have often observed efforts to suppress emotion as if it is somehow not “rational”. There ARE lots of emotional tone levels above 2.0 . There is always some emotion going on with a thetan all the way up to 40.0 on the tone scale! It seems to be something that we just do.
        Perhaps the false data about “no emotion” was unwittingly disseminated by that wonderful pointy eared guy from Star Trek. :-)

  41. I think this is one of my favorite posts you’ve written.

    I think I’ve observed’ve a kind of odd two-camp situation in the Independent Scientologist field. Why do people leave? It seems their answers sometimes fall into two camps.

    Camp one says: hey, this church is abusive. This can’t be right. There must be a better way. I don’t like the Scientology I experienced. The main problem with DM and the Church is that they are totalitarian. I’m not learning to know how to know, and I’m not becoming a free being. In the independent field we can help people become free.

    Camp two says: hey, this church is abusive. It is not following LRH and it is not KSW. The main problem with DM and the Church is that they do not follow LRH’s words and tech to the letter. In the independent field we can accomplish this goal.

    Of course I’m oversimplifying and I’m sure many indies fall into both camps simultaneously. But it’s quite clear that some of the people posting comments here recently are entirely in the latter camp. In my opinion, they are still mentally in the Church, at least to some degree. They are in a comfort zone.

    Feeling you have all the answers and LRH has all the answers is comforting, but it is just not reality.

    Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking post.

  42. Wise and beautiful words

  43. Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

    In the beginning, when I visited this site, I felt it consisted of a bunch of fanatics with a high level, intellectual knowledge and understanding of every single word Hubbard had ever written and that if you questioned or expressed disagreement with anything about Hubbard or Scientology, you would immediately be considered a heretic and boo´ed out. I didn´t like that atmosphere, since it very much reminded me of the church. What I´m looking for is TRUTH, wisdom and understanding – not other peoples opinions and belief systems shoved down my throat. For this reason I feel a great sigh of relief with what you are expressing here. I find it much more enlightening and liberating. I mean, how will you ever get the answers, if you´re not allowed to ask the questions and express your concerns?

    Karen expresses my feeling perfectly: “I love the fresh air. I love transcending everything I was so imprisoned in and I see the benefit of having a 360 degree view rather than tunnel vision.”

  44. Theo sismanides

    Marty, I see where you are coming from. As a first note (I don’t have much time now) I would like to say that as Indies we have all our freedom of choice and our judgement.

    That one “adheres to LRH scriptures” does not mean that one Blindly follows the Tech.

    The Tech IS so Vast as you move up that there is ample space there. Maybe a basic thing that LRH wanted to avoid in the lower levels was for people to get lost, thus he did what he did.

    I will give an example from the PDCs as soon as I get on my computer, I am on my cell phone now.

    Overall I think we are on the right track that of ONFINITE LOGIC.

  45. Dear Karen,

    Marty is definitely a breath of fresh air! I too am indebted to him for daring to LOOK and COMMUNICATE what he sees widely.

    But now I want to say something that I have observed about you, Karen: NO ONE ever deserved the kind of treatment or environment you describe less than yourself.
    You are a jewel of caring and understanding in what is an often uncaring world.
    So, as you transcend, please feel free to highlight all of the pain and suffering on all dynamics from those bad times, and then just hit the freaking delete key! :-) :-) :-)
    All of the PCs you’ve ever audited or CSed for want you do do this. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

  46. I choose to integrate, to evolve, to transcend. There will be others from whom I will learn; others who may point to a path or suggest I evaluate for myself a thought or viewpoint; past, present, and future thinkers. But I will swallow nothing whole hog. I will continue to move on up a little higher.

  47. I believe that Tom had a point about following blindly. By that I take it to me duplicating the processes and procedures as developed by LRH. Above Duplication, however, comes Understanding and above Understanding comes Judgment. If you try to short circuit that progression I think you wind up at Judgmental, not Judgment. Everyone is at a different point in this progression. Marty, in my opinion, has duplicated enough and understood enough to where he is able to exercise some judgment.
    I am midway through Lawrence Wright’s new book and it has become apparent to me why Dan Sherman will NEVER finish a biography of LRH. So, Wright’s book will have to serve. If I can assume that at least most of what Wright has penned is accurate (and I have no real reason to doubt much of what he reports), then LRH was the consummate bullshit artist. For me, though, that doesn’t alter for a second what I experienced in my own auditing or training or auditing of others. In fact, in a way it validates the outsider aspect that I have always admired about him and Scientology. Some of the stunts that LRH pulled on his wives and children are reprehensible, yet that doesn’t change the value of the Chart of Human Evaluation for me.
    I say that in reference to Marty’s open-mindedness about considering other schools of thought. LRH, like Picasso, stole from everyone. That does not mean Picasso was not, arguably, the greatest artist in history, nor that LRH doesn’t belong on the Mt. Rushmore of All Time Great Beings. In his own way, LRH said precisely the same advice offered by Lao-Tze and Buddha: Let Go. Except he said “Don’t Ridge.” If you don’t ridge, nothing can stick to you, including Tom’s op-ed, Marty’s response or this comment.

    • ” If you don’t ridge, nothing can stick to you, including Tom’s op-ed, Marty’s response or this comment..”

      Wise words in their own right.

    • You remark that LRH was the consummate bullshit artist. Yep, brown eggs, and theres no extra charge for them!

    • Good one Dan!! You got skills.

    • Here’s my take on the recent debates and discussions.

      I read Marty’s “mission statement” as a purely personal statement of insight and accomplishment. It is a plateau he has reached that others may reach sooner or later.

      If you see eye to eye with it, great! You can hold it as an ideal or maybe you have actually accomplished to a similar level; but to Marty,it is an actuality because he has already lived it and continues to live it.

      The 3 points of Integrate, Evolve, and Transcend are right enough but there are conditions attached to the actual attainment of them and they are not in truth “states” of attainment or status,but action words that point to ongoing processes of living. One never achieves a status of
      “I have evolved and therefore I am done evolving. Now I’ll just watch TV and drink beer forever.”

      Let’s look at the first step of Integrating. One must first Integrate Tech into himself, before one can integrate it into society. This simply parallels the dynamics.
      As the dynamics are somewhat arbitrary divisions of the overall Dynamic, one integrates Tech into oneself by applying it to society, if only to one individual at a time. Thus it is always “by our own bootstraps” that each of us moves on up higher. There is always a leap of faith involved, that “if I do this, this will result”. Even though we stand on the shoulders of those who went before, it is still at first a step based on faith, expectation not yet known to one’s self as fact.

      This is why what Tom wrote is as right, as what Marty has written.
      It is neither necessary nor desirable to disagree with Tom, in order to agree with Marty. Or vice-versa.
      In order to evolve and transcend, one needs to be able to integrate both viewpoints in a non-reactive way, because they are each valid at the particular level of game they are addressing.

      I was born and grew up in the Far East and it seems to me the West lacks a sense of discipline.
      As LRH said, the dominant philosophy in the West has been to survive by “striking a hard blow”.
      In the East, it has been to survive by disciplining one’s self in the face of adversity.

      LRH brought the very Eastern concept of discipline through drilling, to the West. Scientology training is all about “drilling”, drilling, drilling.

      It’s totally parallel to Asian methods of training in martial arts, for example. One does what the Japanese call “kata” (forms), over and over and over rotely and without variation until one
      masters them, building on the most elementary ones towards an increasing complexity of effortless action. This is reflected in Scientology training through the Academy Levels, on to the SHSBC and
      then Class VIII. Each step leading to increased understanding and ability to judge accurately. Thus it is inappropriate to insist for a student auditor just beginning training on the Academy Levels to “evolve” and “transcend”. KSW is appropriate for him. One must learn to walk before he can run, much less fly.

      And incidentally, the word “yoga” is derived from the same root as the word “yoke”. It denotes a discipline one assumes of one’s own free will. Thus I see KSW as appealing to each individual’s free will, asking each to assume responsibilty for executing Tech as exactly as possible, in
      accordance with his own level of understanding of Tech.

      This is how I perceive the spirit and intent of Tom’s “op ed”.

      This IS how anyone begins. This is what KSW refers to, or “Keeping Buddhism Working”, or “Keeping Kungfu Working” or whatever. But there is another aspect to this, too.

      Many religions have an “outer” and an “inner” aspect. The outer aspect has to do with the idea that not everyone will attain enlightenment very quickly, if at all. For these people, a good religion provides rules and mores to follow which lead to decent social behavior and restrains
      contrasurvival behavior as well as constructive directions for more successful living.

      The inner aspect is the actual training in the philosophy and tech of the religion for those so inclined. The CoS has failed spectacularly in both aspects.

      Judging by what Sarge reported to Lawrence Wright about LRH’s state of mind in his last weeks, about
      feeling he had “failed”, I think LRH saw how far short of his goals he had fallen, in establishing the CoS as a “good” church in accordance with his own ideals. But that’s an aside.

      The point is one must learn Tech before one can Integrate it, and one must Integrate it before one can Evolve it, and only then can one Transcend it. Thus it does begin with KSW. It is like LRH did say,
      that some people have it confused with “the right to have their own ideas”. These kind compulsively “do things my own way” in opposition to anyone else’s way. This fixation of course simply constricts them
      and makes them unable to learn from others and leads them to reinvent the wheel over and over again. Such a one can’t learn any Tech because of a simple inability to discipline one’s self by following
      directions.

      One cannot “transcend” by choosing Marty over Tom, or Tom over Marty. One limits one’s self by identifying one’s self with either viewpoint to the exclusion of the other. One falls away from
      pan-determinism by doing so. I think it’s in FOT, that “identity closes space”. That’s it in a nutshell. I think Ken Wilbur’s synthesis of Western Individual Psychology and Eastern Transpersonal
      Psychology into a series of evolutionary steps by which an individual, expands and rises above that from which he starts, addresses this kind of issue. In order to evolve, one has to be able to perceive and validate the rightness of what appear to be opposed or incompatible viewpoints.

      Think about this – how many people in the entire world, have grasped and mastered enough of LRH’s Tech to Integrate, Evolve, and then actually Transcend it? How many, out of what – 7,000,000,000 people?

      I’d guess a small handful. Only practiced Auditors and C/Ses. That’s Marty’s actual public for this mission statement. Who else will understand? ESMB? Tony O’s fan club? OSA? I think not.

      Marty, I’m sure glad you’re were here to publish this, and give us all a place to post our thoughts. This blog has done me a world of good.

      Tom, I’m equally glad you stepped up to the plate to write and publish your Op-ed.

      Thank you, guys!

      • Valkov: Thank you.

        To me, this post is one of the more brilliant ones we’ve had the good fortune to read.

        And I second your sentiment — this blog has done me a world of good.

        I strive to not swing from one side to the other in all aspects of my life … but old habits/stains/aberrations die hard.

        I personally look forward to hearing that Marty and Tom both walked together and Mosey and Linda fed peepers.

        At the end of the day, both men are courageous. Which is the necessary, IMHO, ingredient needed to truly step up and help another being.

        Christine

        • “To me, this post is one of the more brilliant ones we’ve had the good fortune to read.

          Ditto that. Valkov, truly an insightful and beautiful post. Thank you.

      • .”Judging by what Sarge reported to Lawrence Wright about LRH’s state of mind in his last weeks, about
        feeling he had “failed”, I think LRH saw how far short of his goals he had fallen, in establishing the CoS as a “good” church in accordance with his own ideals. But that’s an aside.”

        I didn’t read Wright’s book, and not sure I will, however that statement about Hubbard saying he “failed” is quoted in many posts nowadays. Could someone get hold of Sarge and ask him the exact form, context,etc to get exactly (if possible) what Hubbard was referring to? Did he feel Total absolute failure? Did he fail to clear the planet while he was alive? Did he fail to establish an entity to carry on his work? Did he fail to tie his shoe laces? Whatever – that generality just is of no use whatsoever

      • Dear Valkov, a brillant post as Christine says. No one put this better. Maybe because you are coming from the Far East… maybe. I really loved what you so eloquently wrote.

        I have paid so much attention to this one post of Marty’s than no other. Because I feel it’s crucial. And YOUR POST SUMMATES IT… ALL!

        The significance one has to go through here must be taken into account. I am thankful to myself and LRH for the study tech. I did a lot this life time. I accomplished a lot myself. But if it wasn’t for Ron, a teacher and a friend to me as you as to everybody here, I wouldn’t have done.

        Marty has borne a tremendous weight upon himself. He doesn’t listen about Admin, ok, I have told him many times but I guess under the Tyrant he found Tech as his Item. I don’t blame him. He might want to philosophise and do good with that. This is your right Marty. But there is more at stake here. Once you get close to Power or Source the position becomes very dangerous. Miscavige, Marty, will feel that soon. I bet you for all the bad you saw from him… HE will see it soon. I feel with you, Marty, because you have done more good than bad. Valkov says, LET THOSE WHO NEED TO INTEGRATE, INTEGRATE. AND THOSE WHO ARE READY TO EVOLVE, EVOLVE, AND THEN THOSE WHO CAN TRANSCEND, TRANSCEND.

        We all have things to learn and this forum has provided me a lot of scope for thinking and speaking my mind and soul. So I am thankful and I want to pay back.

        Thanks Valkov for summating it ALL in this post. Let’s move on guys….

      • Valkov

        Thank you for that. Beautifully put.

        Eric S

      • Valkov: Just a great, thoughtful and highly appropriate comment, IMO.

        I see this daily now in Solo course students I am training. One is an experienced Cl IV auditor, who has audited hundreds of hours, (back in the 70’s) – but had not audited for 30 years. Now, by putting her through her “katas” (drills) clearing up a few confusions she had, she is now reaching for more understanding of WHY the tech works, (the opposite of following it blindly) and has rehabbed her purpose to audit others again, which is so gratifying!

        Another student is a novice auditor, doing his meter drills rather dutifully, but based on the unshakable certainty on case gain he has gotten from doing all three L’s recently. And he is starting to reach for how to get more understanding of the tech and why it works, as well.
        Both are going to be excellent solo auditors – I am making sure of that, using LRH’s training tech, with lots of individual attention to their wins as they pass up through the gradients, toward that confidence and proficiency in these skills which can lead them to unimagined transcendence.

        I am achieving incredible gains on Solo NOTS myself right now, due largely to my Indie CS and I having duplicated the original LRH data & drills and gotten the concepts of how its done. The walk is there to be walked!

        Thanks to Marty and all of you who, through live communication, are helping keep the dream alive, while helping us all shed that cultish arbitrariness that has stopped so many for too long.

    • I too am about half way through the FREELEY AVAILABLE IN THE UK Wright book – and to be honest it’s a jolly good read. So far it has assisted in my overall understanding of how the “church” came to become what it has. Some recent posts and comments on this blog make a lot more sense within the context of LRH’s early life and the beginnings of the church. I accept it may be as much as 5% inaccurate, but I’ll take 95%. It doesn’t feel like a hatchet job to me, whereas Miller’s did rather.

  48. Spoken like a true free being. If we can’t think outside the box, we will be bitter and miserable.

  49. The write up is very encouraging and postive looking at on the
    overall sudject of beleif Thank you

  50. Hi Marty,
    I totally agree with what you have said. Rock on!
    Cheers,
    Sarah

  51. Fascinating article. Perhaps its just me, but I recall early in my Scn education and voyage reading something LRH said that just did not make sense to me. Some flat out seemed backwards. But has been said many times on this blog, my stable datum always was “what’s true for you is true for you.” When I read that, it turned me from a skeptic to an individual willing to move forward with Scn into a seeker of more.

    I recall auditors saying “let me show you a reference” and I would read it and say “I don’t agree with that.” The auditor would ask me to read it again or clear words, and I would reply that I understood it fully, but disagreed with it. I would ask them to pull out the reference on “what’s true for you….”

    I always had the viewpoint of I was willing to have my reality changed (and many times it did), but not because the auditor thought I should, or because LRH wrote it.

    For me, this worked flublessly. Measured by my own stats in life, my wins, gains, and personal abilities skyrocketed. Literally, my gains were nothing short of something I could have only imagined. I recall times where I didn’t agree with something LRH said, and that later I did see it that way. However, this certainly did not happen every time. There are still things I don’t agree with that he wrote.

    To think there is only one right way to do anything, is itself a trap. Perhaps LRH was more right than anyone, I really don’t know. I haven’t invested the time into another practice like I did in Scn.

    I have not audited in “too long” and look forward to moving forward with an auditor that understands my theory.

    Thanks Marty for this article and this blog.

    • I am tracking with you for sure on this.

      What attracted me to L Ron Hubbard and his teachings (Dianetics and Scientology) was that they seemed to align with my already existing way of thinking- I didn’t have to “fit a round peg in a square hole”.

      Understandably, I was so ecstatic to have finally found a group on the same page with me.

      However, as the years of my involvement stretched on, I ran into situations that dampened my enthusiasm. Most I excused away with- “I have no disagreement with the tech itself, It’s mis-application of the tech that is the issue here”, which I made countless efforts to correct.

      But with the source of much of the mis-application coming from the highest echelons, I found I had little to no recourse. Besides, these claimed to be operating on LRH’s dictates. In some cases this was true, particularly earlier “Source” references regarding discipline.

      What was missing? The ability of individuals to think for themselves instead of requiring constant guidance from “Source”. How odd to have someone else responsible for one’s handling of “truth” since the derivation of “Scientology” is “knowing how to know”. Besides, LRH stated “Scientology does not teach you. It only reminds you. For the information was yours in the first place.” Fundamentals of Thought- Chapter 8-Causation and Knowledge

  52. Marianne NICAUD

    Well… I agreed with a lot of things Tom said and I agree with a lot of what you say Marty.
    Maybe it’s the only route and maybe not… But even if I still think that, for the moment, it is the only really workable route which can be done in such a short time, I agree that what is really important is to be able to open one’s universe along the dynamics, increase our ARC for other people, understand their belief (at least not closing the door to it is a progress), grant beingness, etc, etc, etc. Because I think that the way out is TO BE THE EIGHT DYNAMICS which means high, high, high… ARC for everyone and everything.

    ML,
    Marianne

  53. As a technologist, I find much to be amused about with this Mission Statement.

    Technology works, or it doesn’t. Technology which doesn’t work, doesn’t persist as technology – maybe as something else, such as cultural art, or miasma, or styles of turmoil, but not as technology.

    This is a fundamental truth inherent in all human culture, it is unavoidable and simply true. If you try to pound a nail with a watermelon, you won’t get nearly as much built as you would if you just used a hammer. The hammer, working, is persistent technology – because it produces the desire result, over time, time and time again. Melons rot.

    LRH knew this, recognized it as a key to the path out of the misery of the human spiritual condition, and applied it .. every .. single .. step .. of the way, in developing the Scientology applied religious philosophy. One need only look at LRH’s personal library/book list to see that he, indeed, stood on the shoulders of many, many giants .. taking what worked, what was a hammer, and leaving the rotten melons alone.

    Those who would idolize LRH, turn him into some sort of god-like figure, are simply *not Scientologists*, because doing so is not a technological feature, not Scientology, but instead rather a cultural computation. In a society such as America, or Western Europe, where auto-/techno-cratic idolatry is a standard, normal part of daily life across the boards, such aberration is however to be expected. This is Cleared Cannibalism in our Church today, we can see it very clearly and very distinctly, and we ought to be thankful for the observation of this phenomenon, by LRH, which allows us to be cause over it – rather than effect.

    There are currents of cultural movement which will be forever with us, until we all learn better. Turn on the TV, you will be inundated with non-workable technology for improving your life, from the very moment the electrons pump through the wires, until the switch is off and the cord cut.

    What is important to us today, as Scientologists, is this question: what works? How we ask this question, and how we answer it, determines the degree to which we all proceed, together, towards a higher spiritual plane .. or not.

    As a student of LRH, and of Scientology, and as an observer of the Scientology cultural phenomenon distinct from LRH and from Scientology (the Subject), I can only say what has worked for me .. LRH works for me. His ideas, his philosophy, his principles .. it is among the purest form of spiritual discourse in which a person can engage themselves.

    That is not to say that other authors and other subjects don’t have their use, their real application. But in terms of truly enabling the individual to enhance themselves, to enlighten others, and to bring better understanding and higher states of being to the universe which we all occupy, LRH simply has no peer. The man wrote every day of his life, he cared truly about the spiritual universe and the nature of mankinds effort to understand it better.

    The policies of LRH, given in HCOPL’s, HCOB’s, Lectures, Books, Advices and so on .. these tools *WORK*. If it weren’t for the fact of their actually working, they wouldn’t have been included in the subject in the first place, because LRH himself made the decision to include that which works and discard that which doesn’t work.

    Look, it is a cold, blunt, honest fact: Fair Game, Disconnection – these tools *WORK* and they are there, in the doctrine, for a damned fine reason. They work. I have personally had to use them, and every single time applied, get the desired result: less enturbulation, more sessionability, greater control for the individual over their own lives.

    But how do we define “working”, in the big picture?

    Its simple: Operating Theta. Theta, Operating.

    Do you truly know what the word ‘operating’ means? Do you truly know what Theta is? (Rhetorical question, I’m addressing the reader, you there on the other side of these words, not Marty..)

    If so, then it is because the description and the path, and the means, of personal discovery by which these two concepts are joined and recognizable .. in PRESENT TIME, as in RIGHT NOW .. were granted you by LRH. He worked, very hard, to ensure that OT’s could be made, that Theta could be returned to an Operating state, throughout it all .. and not a single damn page of any Scientology material published by LRH will detract from that fact.

    LRH had a lot of help, it is true – nobody gets through things like the Wall of Fire, or the 4th-dynamic Admin Scale, alone. It truly is a matter of Help, which is the core currency of all Theta, everywhere. That Theta must help Theta in order to Operate is such a key datum, that anyone who screws it up is going to find themselves becoming MEST – the *opposite* of Help – pretty damn fast. On all flows.

    If your mission statement is to help others attain a greater understanding of themselves, Theta, and become better able to Operate – well then, we are on the same team. If, at times, you detract from that, or produce results in opposition of the continued state of Theta, Operating, then .. we will see the schism widen. I know of no true OT who cannot use the world of spiritual, cultural understanding, for the benefit of others as well as themselves. If you are OT, yet unable – due to some held-down-7 – to engage in a course of discovery of .. lets say .. the Q’oran .. or the Talmud .. or the Bible .. then you are not truly operating. An OT can – and SHOULD – engage in all human spiritual culture with a vigor not seen elsewhere, any time before.

    When you pick up the hammer and start to build your house, you are operating that hammer. An Operating Thetan, then, operates Theta. If you don’t know which end to hold the Theta hammer, of course .. you will need help .. and LRH is one great, immense, source of help in that regard. Discount his discoveries and point of view at your own peril; the man operates.

    With that said, I stand behind anyone who practices Scientology to help themselves help others. If that is you, Marty – or anyone else, it will be because the Help itself is recognizable, clearly, and in forms which can be easily understood by all involved.

    LRH helped us by giving us the tool we need to help ourselves, help others. If that ever changes, then you are simply not doing Scientology but rather something else.

    • Gern:

      Your voice has always been a bit puzzling to me. I cannot tell who you really are. I’m not questioning your desire to remain anonymous …

      Rather I am puzzled by your point of view. You seem to walk a fine line while at the same time tossing out bits of discord.

      At this point – we seem on this blog to be at a fork in the road.

      Or perhaps better stated by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

      “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

      Marty has offered and others (Mike, James’, Garcia’s, Karen#1 and a few I’m no doubt forgetting) how to embrace what LRH has given us, integrate, evolve and transcend, into our being and move forward … leaving a trail.

      I think you are not on the same path as many of us here but you don’t *really* say that; instead it feels as if you might be stirring the pot and as such, forgive me if I’ve completely missed the mark, you might be part of the over the fence, behind the scenes campaign that says — incorrectly in my mind and obviously many others — that Marty isn’t WITH LRH.

      Would you be so kind as to more categorically state your position?

      Leaning over the garden fence with whispers has never been very courageous. And to those who have engaged in a behind the scenes campaign against Marty YET say THEY would have gotten rid of dm.

      I say — good grief. How ridiculous. Even now – completely free from the worries of the RPF or worse you engage behind the scenes because you appear to lack the courage to come forward directly without knowing you have at least a few others in your corner. Although I don’t agree with Tom M., he demonstrated courage with his very definitive position about LRH and policy which he sent it to Marty.

      Courage isn’t deciding that you’ll fight when you have enough followers — it’s doing the nearly impossible alone and others then follow. Win or lose you are willing to give your life trying.

      Think MLK, Gandhi, the Buddha, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Aung San Suu Kyi. I’m sure you can come up with others.

      I’ve asked this a bit less head on of you before and you’ve never answered. Perhaps you will now.

      Christine
      PS — Just to be clear — I’m NOT asking IF you are NOW going to follow Marty; rather asking your OWN view point about spirituality. Does it end with what LRH has written? Or might one evolve beyond?

      • I’m certainly, most emphatically *not* working behind any scenes.

        I have no hidden intention; my point of view ought to be clearly visible by now for anyone who cares to follow my position: I’m *with* LRH, and anyone else who wants to stand in that corner.

        I believe that there is much more to be gained by applying Scientology than not. Its as simple as that.

        Perhaps you haven’t been able to duplicate my position because you are hung up on my identity, which is necessarily hidden for now for my own reasons, although Marty knows who I am .. but I assure you – I have absolutely no problem, whatever, with an investigation of any of the ‘other’ spiritual leaders to which you refer. In fact, as a Scientologist, I find it of utter importance in this public age for us to engage such a discourse, especially publicly!

        You see, 2 decades ago I made the same conclusions as Marty, based on my own direct observation of DM and his Usurper gang, and I up and left the Church with the same conclusion: we Scientologists *must* integrate, evolve, transcend. I’ve been out in the world doing exactly that now, for longer than most in this scene as yet.

        • Thanks Gern.

          As I said – I have no interest in your identity.

          I just wanted to hear more emphatically your point of view and I have now.

          Thank you for answering and as I said, if I’ve mischaracterized you as one of those behind the scenes – I’m sorry.

          You just appeared “out of nowhere” and to me were somewhat equivocating. I just couldn’t really understand you.

          Not sure about your last statement about being out in the world longer than most. I’ve been out since 1993 but it’s not a contest –

          What is important, to me, is giving those who want to learn, grow, evolve, decompress etc a platform in which to do so — free from orders from others to say who they are, to be told we are less than if we aren’t auditing etc etc.

          This blog provides a big tent and for that I am very appreciative.

          Again – thanks for your answer.

          Chrisitne

          • Well I think there is a lot of alignment between us Christine, and when the time comes there may well be a new revival of the scene which allows us all to practice freely, without threat of suppression – from the Church, or otherwise.

            I’m protecting my identity not just from the Church, but the enemies of the Church as well – which, in my current environment, would subject myself and my loved ones to a great deal of suppression indeed. Germany is *not* a safe environment for the practice of Scientology, its a real fact, whether in the Church or otherwise. I have had real operations run on me in order to suppress my ability to expand my business, its a sad fact. We are but a few steps removed from re-education camps being enforced on us Scientologists by the German government. It has already happened in a few cases.

            About my last statement – you are right, its not a competition, but I stated my position so that you would know that I do, indeed, concur with Marty on the three points we must all do, as an operational strategic policy. I believe that integrate, evolve, transcend is a really good way to communicate the strategy, which if you look at it, also aligns with the current Condition formula for the scene.

            As to ‘appearing out of nowhere’, know this: there is a group of Scientologists out there in the world who have disconnected from the suppressives in the Church a long time ago, who are operating orgs, and who are really producing Auditors and PC’s. Its not just the Freezone, or Ron’s org – there is, really, another Sea Org, composed of members who WEAR THE HAT and GET THE PRODUCT. I’ve been waiting for Marty to appear in the scene for a decade, and I was here from the very beginning, in perhaps a different form. Again, not a competition – but I do want to indicate that Marty – and his team – are not alone.

            I truly think that LRH knew this would happen; and thus, the policies we have are applicable within, and outside the Church, equally. It is my intention to continue to participate in this dialogue as much as possible, in order to make the point clear to all: Scientology, used correctly, WORKS. The way to Keep Scientology Working, the best way, is TO USE IT. Anything that detracts from that, I believe, will only blunt the tool we have given.

            • Gern Gaschoen – Several points.

              First, did it ever occur to your that, particularly given its history, the reason Germany may not have been overly hospitable to corporate Scientology (the only Scientology it has known until VERY recently) is your and others’ belief in Fair Game and Disconnection?

              Secondly, we “are but a few steps removed from re-education camps being enforced on us Scientologists by the German government?” “It has already happened in a few cases.” Really? Evidence? My understanding from a prior post by Marty is that is NOT the case. See:
              It’s Safe to be a Scientologist in Germany

              http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/its-safe-to-be-a-scientologist-in-germany/

              Thirdly, “there is, really, another Sea Org.” Please, no. The last thing Independent Scientology needs is another Sea Org. Particularly if, as indicated previously, you intend to enforce Fair Game and Disconnection

              Finally, “the policies we have are applicable within, and outside the Church, equally.” [Fair Game as you discussed previously? Disconnection as you discussed previously?] Good luck enforcing those policies. And REALLY good luck enforcing those policies against me and anyone I care about.

            • My godness! What are you saying? I had NEVER those problems here in Germany created by government or whatever – never. Not as staff or public. If there were situations like antagonism it was always somehow created (mostly by unreality like a teacher telling all the students he is a Scientologist because he needed to do so as he would be otherwise labled as PTS …. and such stupidity).
              I experienced however from a big company their adherence to the code that religious beliefs are not of concern as no one wanted to get dragged to court due to discrimination. On the other hand however I saw a lot lot disrespect regards the laws of this country by Scientologists and we were taught that they would suppress us and they are evil and they would poison our water and such bullshit. And when you look at the proven history of the Guardian Office I would be very carefull in dealing with Scientologists as I could never be really sure if they do not want to spy on my company etc. –
              You can create an “enemy” by seeing the person next to you as such and then treating him as such. He will eventually become an enemy as he gets pissed off by this wrong indication, this wrong behaviour towards him.

        • Gern, I believe your point of view came through very clearly and I would be happy to stand in your corner with a highly workable Scientology hammer in hand.

          • Thank you KFrancis. I believe that the time will come, soon perhaps, when we can indeed work together and get the line straightened out. We will know each other, when the time comes, by our statistics.

    • Gern, Very well stated!

      I’d just like to add a bit:
      Scientology is workable to the degree that it gets a desirable result. The Tech may not be perfect, LRH never said such. It is workable when applied correctly.
      I believe the biggest part of the problem, even when LRH was in charge, is that THE GROUP, with Banks in common can be counted upon to alter, degrade, pervert The Tech and Policy, Thus KSW.
      But his issuing of KSW was No Guarantee that it would fix the problem. it obviously did not. Universe Corp may have fixed it – get all group members Clear. But LRH never seemed to get this IN. Super-power? not on LRH’s watch and absolutely, of course, NEVER on DM’s watch.

      I personally don’t believe, and I think the evidence is clear, that POLICY alone is enough to Clear the group.

      • The Policy only exists, and is put there by LRH, to get the Auditor in session with the PC.

        The moment that the Church of Scientology decided that real estate was more important than training Auditors and getting PC’s in session, it went completely off the rails. The Church of Scientology is now the Biggest Squirrel Group in the entire culture of Scientology.

        Policy exists, simply, to get the Auditor in session with the PC – that is the purpose of Orgs, and the purpose of all Staff members. It is the reason LRH described the OEC, the reason for the original FEBC, the reason, indeed, for the Sea Org Member Hat.

        That this purpose has been perverted by the Usurper and his Minions is a crime of immense dimension. We, Independent Scientologists – or just plain Scientologists, associated with each other or not – must do something about it. The situation is that this technology of spiritual exploration is going to disappear into the pages of history if we do not, actively and as a group, do something about it. We’ve already seen enough evidence of this fact.

        One thing we must do, is not start throwing away the tools provided us by others, before us, in building the Bridge. I do not agree with anyone who says “Disconnection is a bad policy, Fair Game is an evil practice” and then decides to chuck the PL’s .. when the time comes, you will find yourself re-inventing that particular policy. One-on-one, Independent Scientologists Auditing indiviual PC’s, in a Mission-style operation, maybe its not so necessary to have such a policy be enforced with such pressure; but the moment an Independent Org starts getting plants sent in on drugs to screw the scene, these policies will suddenly start to make a lot of sense again.

        And if you think that plants-on-drugs doesn’t happen, or is ‘too wild’ a situation to “really occur”, I suggest you have not had as much experience with society as you need. Suppressives *do* operate this way, in our organizations and in non-Scientology organizations, too. There really is a movement, a true effort, of people out there to eradicate all thinking on the subject of spirituality which does not align with their political world view of Humans as Animals. These people, these groups: they have a budget for such an effort. Anyone thinking otherwise is invited to take a look outside their box: Really LOOK. LRH was wise to include such policies as he did, because the scope of Scientology during LRH’s watch was a lot broader and deeper than the current Church has allowed to occur.

        • True that.
          And anyone who thinks different is naive.

        • Wow, I’m speechless. Your words strike home with power and truth. Reality check. They needed to be shared. Thanks.

        • Gern,
          I think many would agree with me that Fair Game is a wholly destructive idea. I can’t think of one way it’d be used legitimately and peacefully.

          Perhaps there are cases where disconnection might be legitimate- we all disconnect from people who hurt us or who are bad influences in our lives, after all.

          But I can’t see a single way fair game could be of use. Who deserves to be tricked, sued, lied to, and destroyed? Who is beyond the protection of ethics? Who is so horrid that they do not deserve a second chance and some grace? Isn’t scientology about helping people?

          The Cold War is over, and fair game is McCarthy-esque, I think.

          • I will play Devil’s Advocate for a very specific understanding of Fair Game. This would be excluding a person from recourse within the Scientology Justice system and excluding him from protection by the Scientology Justice system in the first place.

            Example: Scientologists are not supposed to sue each other outside of Scientology, but are supposed to handle things internally, within the world of Scientology, kinda like some Muslims feel they should handle things internally through their own Sharia Law courts instead of through Western Courts and the Western justice systems, even though they live in a Western society. Declaring a person “Fair Game” then, opens him up to being sued in outside courts or even brought up on criminal charges which he would be protected from as long as he is “in good standing” within his special community, whether Mormon, Amish, Muslim, or Scientologist etc.

            I believe this is how sane Scientologists understood the principle back in the 1970s. It was not seen as license to commit overt acts against the person. But I am personally aware of at least one occassion in which a new Scientologist on staff committed vandalism against another’s car, justifying this by saying “she pulled it in”. The fact is, it is in the human nature of some individuals to “go Nazi” at the least excuse, and of course this is in fact unethical 99.9% of the time.

            The “find a high board fence” principle could still come into play at some point however. Being of the anti-Vietnam war and anti military draft persuasion myself, back in the 1970s, I applauded operation Snow White and still do. Corrupt government agencies can be “fair game” when they are playing a rigged game which needs to be countered.

            At the same time, operation freakout on Paulette Cooper was somebody’s sadistic criminality running amuck.

            • Whoa! All from the same policy. A Church???

            • Yes Valkov, I remember it this way to as regards to not being able to use the internal Justice system of the Church. Mind you, I also remember being shocked at the vehemence of some of the materials and rather disenchanted.

              One thing I did not understand until years later was that the same advantage of being able to use and stay inside the internal system also barred Scientologists from using their rights as citizens to the country and state judicial systems, in effect stripping them of their rights. Double edged sword, that one.

              The result I saw in many instances was corrupted justice actions forced down peoples throats by the likes of the WISE Charter Committees or actions that served the purpose of the Church to raise funds instead of justice. I even observed people who were trying to get justice served within the Church being regged for lots of dollars by WISE arbitrators to pay for getting a business contract breaker onto sec checks under the notion of one is responsible for anything that happens to one. Lord, it was nasty!

              Then too the violations of labor laws, with Scientologists prevented from getting assistance from the labor board or court action, with an MAA making the employees do conditions and make amends to the IAS patron who was breaking the labor laws.

              • I’ve seen the same things over the years..i know of numerous occasions where “upstat” scientologists blatantly ripped off other scientologists in various business deals, then when the victim started to get threatening, pull them into a very one sided WISE arbitration where the WISE arbitrator always sided with the “upstat” rip off artist who was the bigger donor to WISE and the IAS. For this reason, i never joined WISE.

                A number of years ago, i entered into a business arrangment with a WISE guy on OT7. After several years of a relationship, which benefited him alot more than me (i flowed him alot of money per our agreement). When he arbitarily violated our agreement and began acting against my interests i tried to get him to knock it off. When he wouldnt, i just pulled out of our deal and stopped flowing him dollars.

                He tried to get me to go into WISE arbitration, but I told him no go. I was not a WISE member and it was he who breeched our agreement first. With my prior knowledge of how the WISE arbos go, and his IAS status level, there was no way i was going to pay for the priveledge of being ripped off.

                These people very much have a plantation mentality.

    • Gern, you stated: “Look, it is a cold, blunt, honest fact: Fair Game, Disconnection – these tools *WORK* and they are there, in the doctrine, for a damned fine reason. They work. I have personally had to use them, and every single time applied, get the desired result: less enturbulation, more sessionability, greater control for the individual over their own lives.”

      I think (hope) you agree though, that “disconnection” even having a place, has certainly been Totally Abused by CoS!

      • Without doubt, Disconnection has been used suppressively in the past, by the Church, unfairly and unjustly. I have absolutely no problems acknowledging that fact, and it would be a total failure for me, a Scientologist, to acknowledge this fact and the truth of the matter. I’ve seen this policy go totally haywire and just plain wrong, personally and on all the flows. I know it is a dangerous policy to put in the hands of a non-trained Staff member.

        But I also acknowledge the cold, plain, hard fact that Disconnection or Fair Game have both been very *successfully* applied in the past, as well. Where it was successfully applied, people got up the Bridge, got to OT, got their Auditor certs in a safe and prosperous manner, and so on .. thus, we didn’t hear much about the flaps of it. I myself have gotten Disconnection results from PC’s who really, really did need it. A great example, from my track, was the prostitute who needed to disconnect – really – from her pimp, before she could get her situation resolved. It was necessary, and a good policy.

        But where applied suppressively, it just makes the scene worse, and this is pretty clear when it happens.

        Which is why I think it very, very important that when Disconnection occurs, or Fair Game, that a proper, per-Policy Comm Ev is done, with public details, and in such a fashion that it is clear, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Fair Game or Disconnection were the Right Things To Do for the PC. Time, Place, Form and Event on all the other efforts that were made: 2WC, Dissem Drill, PR, Ruds, &etc. Oh, these things are not in place? Well then, up to the IJC to ensure that they are in place before the goldenrod gets wet.

        It is a very fine line, it is true. But I will tell you as an Auditor, strictly from that Hat: if you tell me I can’t use Disconnection when the PC needs it, or if Fair Game is discontinued without a suitable replacement that really allows *actual* suppression of the environment to be addressed, then I will tell you: No Deal.

        • I think you’ve lost it at the first step: having others impose whom should or should not communicate with. To then send it to an adjudicative body for review further complicates it. I don’t believe any philosophy or technology has any business granting another the authority or right to tell another to whom he or she may or should or should not communicate with.

            • Marty, Tony — I agree with both of you completely concerning disconnection.

              But — and forgive me if I am overly concerned about and a bit TR 3 on this — that doesn’t address the larger issue of Fair Game. As I said above, if the public gets even a hint that Independent Scientology supports or endorses, much less engages in, Fair Game, Independent Scientology is dead. All efforts to differentiate Independent Scientology from the corporate Church of Scientology will be for naught, and public support of Independent Scientology will evaporate.

              • I’m sorry, I thought that went without saying. Fair Game was the epitome of the policies I have alluded to as sewing the seeds of Scientology’s destruction.

                • Marty — Thank you. I didn’t mean to hassle you about it. I was confident that you felt and analytically thought that way about Fair Game. It is just one of those things that perhaps cannot be said enough, or perhaps need be said each time someone suggests Fair Game is acceptable. Then again, it is entirely possible that I overreacted to Gern’s comment and the entire subject matter.

                  • “Fair Game” KGB style is out – in the Independent Field we will establish a Shaolin Temple and if we have a need to defend the Org, you’ll see…

                  • The world is not so black and white, alas. I think the biggest problem with Fair Game is that, the user of the policy skips right past the important part and ends up reactively concluding that its okay to commit crime. Its never okay.

                    The ‘good part’ is this: if *all other efforts have failed*. That is such a key element, but its skipped .. I presume, because its quite general .. and omitted in the application. If you’ve tried communicating, if you’ve tried reasoning with the individual involved, if you’ve tried all the other actions that a trained Auditor can do to de-stimulate the case, spot the held-down-7, and release it .. if you’ve reported the problem to the local government, and yet you are still getting lied to, cheated, having things stolen from you, violently attacked. Well, Fair Game is a necessary action.

                    Try setting up shop in the streets of Guatemala, or Mexico City, instead of White-Urban Middle Class Americana, and you’ll see the true value of Fair Game as a policy, I assure you.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Gern,
                      This proviso that you continually interject is NOT in the Fair Game policy, nor any of the many other PL’s that align with it, and yet you are still getting lied to, cheated, having things stolen from you, violently attacked. You are mocking up straw men to tear down.

              • I don’t condone the criminal acts of the Church of Scientology, its staff, or those in its employment – in any way. I left the Church precisely because of the atrociously criminal actions that I witnessed occurring, being justified by those committing those acts with all manner of reference to LRH Policy, Fair Game included. I concur with Marty that Fair Game, as an organizational policy, is a destructive element with regards to Scientology, and I would certainly not wish for its continued mis-application anywhere, Independent, Reformed Church, or otherwise.

                If Independent Scientology is to survive, expand, and prosper, it must recognize good policy when it sees it, and discard bad policy.

                With regards to Fair Game, there are times when you need to use it as an immediate defense/survival tactic (not strategy) – not just in Scientology, but in real life as well. Those are desperate times, indeed, but the case does exist for a group to have to protect itself from attack – when all other efforts have failed – and to turn the tables, to make the game fair.

                In that sense, I believe Fair Game has its time and place – however I do *not* (emphatically, *NOT*) agree that it should be used carelessly and without conscience as a strategy by any organization, instead of dealing with the actual problem. Your characterization of me in that light with the thread you created on ESMB to single me out, particularly, is in my opinion, unfair, although I certainly understand your perspective given the charged subject and the Church’s own history of abuse with this matter. I also respect your right to communicate whatever you feel like communicating, to whomever you wish. I am now exercising that same right, fairly.

                I have been beaten by thugs in the street, had my life nearly taken from me, and if it were not for the fact that I was able to turn the tables and use the same methods being applied to me, on my attackers, probably would not have survived. There are certainly times when you have to turn the attack back on the attacker – especially when all other efforts at making peace have failed. As a practitioner of Judo, I find the motion of reflecting the energy back on the attacker to be an intrinsic, natural means of defense, and it is my opinion that this policy, though widely mis-used, mis-understood and mis-applied, attempts to implement this concept organizationally. It does so, poorly, because it is clear that there have been endless abuses of this policy thus far.

                In that light, CommunicatorIC, and given your rage on this subject, I would like to ask you to find an example when turnabout/fair game is appropriate. I have more than acknowledged the fact that there are *definitely* inappropriate uses of this policy; I ask you to find an instance, to be fair, when you might have to use Fair Game yourself in order to survive. I’m sure it is not inconceivable.

                • Your arguments are becoming (actually were from the outset) specious. For example, you claim this as justification for a Fair Game policy: if it were not for the fact that I was able to turn the tables and use the same methods being applied to me, on my attackers, probably would not have survived That is not Fair Game at all. Not even in the same universe. And yet, even it is unhealthy mentally and spiritually.

          • To add to it:
            When there is something worth to protect, you will do something in order to protect it – that’s how it is.
            The MEST universe (including the reactive mind) is not allways patient and willing to grant us beingness or let us follow our highest ideals.
            It’s part of the game.

            • Hello, is there a reason why my previous comment wasn’t displayed?
              Now this comments shows not there where I put it before.

              • Check the blog moderation policy – posted three times here.

                • Check the blog moderation policy – posted three times here.
                  Marty, is this a respond to me? (The nodes of the comments don’t show properly.)
                  If yes – well, I may repost my post with a little more deliberation.
                  I tried to defend Gern Geschehen’s viewpoint regarding Disconnection and Fair Game.
                  Of course, in the final analysis any being should decide by himself wheter or not he wants to disconnect.
                  Here are the first paragraphs from the

                  Perhaps the most fundamental right of any being is the
                  right to communicate.
                  Without this freedom, other rights deteriorate.
                  Communication, however, is a two-way flow. If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the right to not receive communication from another. It is this latter corollary of the right to communicate that gives us our right to privacy.
                  These rights are so basic that governments have written them into laws – witness the American Bill of Rights.

                  The problem is not disconnection, but enforced disconnection.

                  The other thing she (Gern) said, was about Fair Game.
                  I don’t want to repeat what I said before, but I want to say this:
                  Though “fair game” (a legitimate object for ridicule or attack) was abused in the past and may be abused in the future, there should be no reason for anyone NOT to defend what he loves.
                  It’s part of the Code of Honor.

                  • Sorry, the above Quote is from HCOB/PL “PTSness AND DISCONNECTION”

                    • SKM,
                      I read your posts. I do understand what you said.
                      However I still have my questions:

                      1) Why do we need LRH to have to write policy and clarify for us, things that should be obvious for us to see?

                      2) Why do we need a Big Brother organization to supervise and monitor our auditing and our life in general?

                    • Hello Conan.
                      To 1) Hubbard wrote corporational policies because this was his corporation and he thought this would be the best way to do it. There are some good advices in it, though they weren’t followed by for at least 30 yrs. The corporation he created is gone. It served a purpose for some time but was weak at some points – what remains is the lagacy of the body of work.

                      To 2) I didn’t say that. I very much like the way how Les (LDW) runs his activities as he writes here.
                      I think if Scientology is to survive, we’ll need more of such people who create a space where others can train as auditors. Helping each other. Class XII auditors will die out like dinosaurs otherwise. Scientologists of good will need to come together in order to preserve the workability of the tech.

                    • Conan – the short (and maybe the best) answer to your questions is – “we don’t”

                    • Look SKM, I’m like you pretty much for scientology. But this disconnection is just a piece of nothing in the midst of the ocean of good data. I’m one of those anyway who thinks LRH didn’t write it. You can spot the intention, it’s 1,1, it says pretty obvious things to make you agree and tells about groups declared SP by HCO! (the so called squirrels!)
                      And the idea of writing a disconnection letter is completely insane, it creates antagonism like hell.
                      It’s pretty obvious that if you don’t like somebody you just dont speak to him. Don’t need to be class 12 to understand this and no need of a policy!
                      It’s a political tool, not tech. It’s DM viewpoint and some other freaking SPs.

                      The guy who wrote this is more part of Top Gun than scientology.
                      Miscavige looks like a sergeant, how come not everybody hate him? In any movie he would be the bad guy! (he looks like Christopher Waltz with much less talent)

            • SKM, I love your posts here! thank you for being here and communicating. I for one, and I think many others probably feel the same way, feel your contributions ARE VALUABLE here.

              And Marty, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

              • Hello Steve P.
                Thank you.
                I’d wish I could express my thoughts as good as I do in german ;-)

                And I am also glad a power horse like you is amongst us!

                Love,
                SKM

          • Bingo,
            Gern almost had me convinced there.

            Please read “The Process” from Kafka.

          • YES!!! Exactly!!!! +1000

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

          • Ultimately, nobody should enforce communication or no-communication on anyone who doesn’t want help to communicate.

            However, its quite possible to *help* someone spot and locate a source of suppressive communciation in their environment, and its also possible to *help* someone work through the situation.

            That is the intention: help. If that element is missing, then you have a repressive, nightmare system – but if I’m trying to help you sort out your life, and its not sorting out because you’re attached to someone who truly doesn’t want you to help yourself, then disconnection is an answer.

            I understand your point about introducing the 3rd-dynamic aberration into the equation, but the point is, with an Int Justice Chief on post, he’d be there to ensure that the organizational overt of mis-use of the disconnection policy doesn’t occur. Thats his primary hat: justice. The fact that we haven’t had an IJC on post for decades speaks of the current situation: there is no justice.

            As for whether a philosophy should grant another authority to tell another to whom he or she should communicate: sure. Shouldn’t be necessary, should it? But if the job is to ensure that enturbulation is removed from the environment, so that real communication – between the PC and the Auditor – can occur, well .. its a necessary function.

            You, yourself, have demonstrated on countless occasions just how effective disconnection can be when applied properly, Marty. We’ve seen you close the door a number of times. We’ve also seen you march into the maw of the beast and demand to be communicated with. However, not all PC’s are in shape to deal with the frail subject of communication in the same manner as you. Having policies that prevent continued suppressive communication in place, when an Auditor is trying to get a PC in session and willing to communicate with the Auditor .. this is a necessity.

            Abandon this aspect of the applied religious philosophy as you will -but I bet, as you expand, you’ll find yourself re-inventing it.

          • Marty and Gern are both right here. Disconnection is at times needed, examples given above. But it is not the RTC or any other group that should enforce this. It is a personal matter done to get the goal accomplished and stop damage to someone. When in the COS from 1969 till I left in 1986 I commed, even as a staff member with who I damn well pleased and never took guff from an EO or MAA who tried to tell me who I could comm with. My Grades were in then and still are. It never got me in trouble and I did not think being admired for being a good little robot was worth giving up my rights as a Being.
            Gern mentioned the fact that there are others out here doing Scientology and auditing and training…besides those who call themselves Free Zoners, Indies or independents. It is true, and I started seeing this in 1970 with those who left the squirrel group of the church in the later 60s who had put in Quickie Grades. The church was squirreling and those who wanted a better tech left. many kept auditing and did not return. Much more on this perhaps later.

        • Gern Gaschoen, you are defending FAIR GAME, “per-Policy,” when a “Comm Ev is done?” On the ends justify means grounds that, “people [get] up the Bridge, [get] to OT, [get] their Auditor certs in a safe and prosperous manner?” Seriously?

          I am supposed to trust a Comm Ev? I’m supposed to trust the IJC? I’m supposed to trust YOU?

          And if a person is a NON-SCIENTOLOGIST victim of Fair Game, a Comm Ev and IJC approval is supposed to both authorize and justify such actions? If a person is a NON-SCIENTOLOGIST victim of Fair Game, YOUR approval of the Fair Game Order is supposed to justify it?

          Who determines when a Fair Game Order is justified to “defeat suppression?” A Comm Ev? The IJC? YOU?

          Who determines when a Fair Game Order against a NON-SCIENTOLOGIST is justified to “defeat suppression?” A Comm Ev? The IJC? YOU?

          And you really think people in civilized society are going to accept that?

          You are defending Disconnection determined and ordered by someone other than a party to the relationship at issue? Because you, all knowing Auditor and/or Ethics Officer, have the right and authority to decide for the PC AND FOR EVERYONE ELSE?

          And if I am a NON-SCIENTOLOGIST victim of a Disconnection Order, I’m supposed to accept and defer to the “authority” and judgment of some Scientology body or person?

          Who the hell do you think you are?

          Have you learned nothing?

          Apparently, the Wahhabi wing of the Independent Scientology Movement is a lot more scary, and indeed a lot more dangerous, than I first thought.

          Thank you for your honest disclosure. I will personally make sure your publicly stated views are republished far and wide.

          I want to be careful to differentiate. As I said above, I applaud and support Marty’s OP (opening post). This specific comment is not addressed or directed at the Independent Scientology movement generally. This specific comment is addressed and directed only to Gern Gaschoen.

          I hope other Independent Scientologists fully understand how dangerous are the opinions and policy recommendations expressed by Gern Gaschoen.

          If Gern Gaschoen’s above-stated opinions and policy recommendations are widely adopted by Independent Scientologists, you will eventually and inevitably become just like the corporate Church of Scientology you fled.

          Moreover, if the public identifies Independent Scientology with Gern Gaschoen’s opinions and policy recommendations, Independent Scientology will eventually and inevitably be shunned, feared, loathed and despised to the same extent, and for the same reasons, as the corporate Church of Scientology.

          • It’s hard to believe that someone agrees with Fair Game, unless that person is unaware of the all the church has done to innocent victims using their own members to play those tricks on. They made the enemies in the first place by not using the tech to handle breaks.

            • Its hard to believe someone has such MU’s on Fair Game that they can’t see when it is appropriate. I suggest you re-read the policy, in its entirety, and imagine a scenario when it is actually applicable.

              I’ve done the opposite – I can see many, many times when Fair Game is not appropriate, and we are sure, in our safe societies, that its not necessary .. but Scientology is not just for safe society. Its also for the un-safe societies, where police are just another suppressive mob force.

              • This automatic default to ‘someone has such MU’s’ for not agreeing with inhumanities goes hand in glove with your other stable datums I’m noting this morning. Thanks for graphically demonstrating what is wrong with Scientology.

              • I cannot believe that you are anything but a troll.

                Your statements appear purposefully intended only to create outrage and stir people up.

                Telling someone they “have MU’s” on Fair Game and should “re-read the policy” is bizarre. I doubt you have ever READ the Fair Game “policy” yourself at all. Accusing others of having MU’s on it? What “policy” are you referring to?

                You also use the old propaganda line of the IAS and Miscavige: “It’s a dangerous world. It requires unusual solutions.” And “you are all safe in your world, but it’s not like that out here in the REAL world”.

                There is no purpose for these statements other than trying to get people to bite and engage you in an endless back and forth “debate” about the absurd premise “Fair Game is really OK, if you actually understand what it says and if you use it in the real world.”

                It’s a strategy that has been used since the days of a.r.s. — inject the most outrageous statements and stir up a firestorm of argument with well-meaning people attempting to “reason” with the protagonist, but that will never happen as the protagonist was only interested in stirring up trouble in the first place. And it’s the perfect operation — because as soon as anyone calls out the protagonist, he/she screams “censorship” and free speech” or goes into pretended victimhood. And that person NEVER comes around and contributes anything useful — they either disappear or keep ratcheting up the level of nuttiness until they are ignored by everyone.

                You seem to have a lot of the characteristics of such an agent provocateur. I have never in my life seen anyone seek to overtly support Fair Game. Remarkable. And Marty has displayed enormous patience in continuing to post your drivel on the subject….

                Please stop beating the drum for the benefits of Fair Game and enforced disconnection. Next you will be offering up plans for each citizen to have personal nuclear warheads to protect them from the dangerous environment and the United Nations storm troopers that are amassing on the border….

                • Well put.

                • Mike I can agree with some of what you say here but labeling Gern a troll or agent provocateur just because she holds to her point of view seems to strong.

                  JIm Logan and Steve Hall where in here yesterday and they went after Marty pretty good are they trolls and provocteurs as well?

                • >>Please stop beating the drum for the benefits of Fair Game and enforced disconnection. Next you will be offering up plans for each citizen to have personal nuclear warheads to protect them from the dangerous environment and the United Nations storm troopers that are amassing on the border….

                  Mr. Rinder, you’ve done a good job of attacking my character, but is this not a discourse? Are we not having .. a conversation? Is this not a forum for the purposes of communication? I will refrain from your methods, and attempt to keep things civil – I expect it of you, as well, as that would only be fair.

                  All I ask is that you put away the stigma of what the Church has done with the policy, and attempt to see where the policy might actually have its use. Those circumstances are not as far-fetched as you think, and again – just because DM and his Minions have criminally stigmatized the policy, does not mean it does not have its uses. We do *not* live in a perfect world – certainly not, sir! I find it incorrigible that you would refer to my noting this fact as some form of lesser tactic; for I have been there, walked through those streets, and known the very masters of which I speak!

                  If you would like evidence of this policy having its time and place, I urge you to come to Europe and travel with me through the Eastern nations to visit the Independent Scientology groups, struggling to operate in places like St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Budapest, Belgrade, Zagreb and such .. in some of the most crime-riddled areas in the world. These forming groups don’t have pretty buildings in which to practice, there is no safely guarded marina in which to erect ones pulpit, but instead rather squalid slums governed by lords whose methods make DM’s antics seem but a golfing expedition by comparison!

                  Beyond the comfort of your circumstances, sir, I put it to you that there are places where the practice of Scientology *would* get you put on a hit list, if only for the fact that you are helping the enslaved to set themselves free from their masters, with Disconnection or Fair Game. The truly enslaved, heroin-riddled neighborhoods, gang-controlled regions of the world: these places need Scientology, too.

                  • And you have now reached the point, as I noted in my last comment, where you will be ignored.

                    This is like Monty Python’s Argument Sketch.

                  • ” Independent Scientology groups, struggling to operate in places like ………. in some of the most crime-riddled areas in the world.”……….
                    Is this the purpose of your post? To denigrate the independents?

                    • Gern Gaschoen

                      Denigrate? They’re being denigrated because they’re trying to improve conditions in places that need it? That’s some A=A.

                • Actually Mike,

                  the nuclear warheads are needed to protect ourselves from IAS reges who arrive at our houses in force in the middle of the night, from Squirrel Busters wearing cameras on their heads, and from sleazy PIs lurking in the bushes.

                  Shouldn’t all those creatures be considered “fair game”? :-)

                • Mike Rinder.
                  Thanks for calling it out.
                  ★★★★★ FIVE STARS ★★★★★

                • Mike, I agree.
                  Gern, I have to tell you that in your first comment or two on this thread, you had some agreement with me, I liked a lot of what you were saying, but it was not agreement on Fair Game. My acknowledgement however was misplaced (positioned) later on this thread after you made several other very out-pointy comments and then carried on with more over-the-top out-pointy comments.
                  Specific examples of the outpoints you’re asserting: “ know this: there is a group of Scientologists out there in the world who have disconnected from the suppressives in the Church a long time ago, who are operating orgs, and who are really producing Auditors and PC’s. Its not just the Freezone, or Ron’s org – there is, really, another Sea Org, composed of members who WEAR THE HAT and GET THE PRODUCT. I’ve been waiting for Marty to appear in the scene for a decade, and I was here from the very beginning, in perhaps a different form. Again, not a competition – but I do want to indicate that Marty – and his team – are not alone.” Uh?
                  “…who are operating orgs…” – Uh?, really? What are you talking about? “there is really another Sea Org,…” Uh? What? “I was here from the very beginning, in perhaps a different form.” Uh? From what beginning? “different form.” Uh? “Marty-and his team – are not alone.” Uh? Who is “Marty’s Team”
                  “The moment that the Church of Scientology decided that real estate was more important than training Auditors and getting PC’s in session, it went completely off the rails.” Uh? What? “the real estate…” Uh? Wow!, Really Gern? This “real estate…” is really late on the chain… – This “was the moment” Really? “These forming groups don’t have pretty buildings in which to practice, there is no safely guarded marina in which to erect ones pulpit, but instead rather squalid slums governed by lords whose methods make DM’s antics seem but a golfing expedition by comparison! “rather squalid slums governed by lords…” Uh? “Beyond the comfort of your circumstances, sir, I put it to you that there are places where the practice of Scientology *would* get you put on a hit list, if only for the fact that you are helping the enslaved to set themselves free from their masters, with Disconnection or Fair Game.” Uh
                  “The truly enslaved, heroin-riddled neighborhoods, gang-controlled regions of the world: these places need Scientology, too.” Uh?
                  This sounds like Miscavige’s version of perverting outreach programs for 3rd world counties. He’s going to Clear the Planet by the IAS (fraud) funding all this instead of Helping the Able become more able, clearing and training auditors – his usual reverse, perversion of LRH’s use of social outreach, social betterment programs.

                  I have to agree with Marty, Mike Rinder and others here. You don’t seem real or even on the same page… with what has gone on, is going on or what needs to go on.
                  Steve Poore

                  • Steve Poore: Breathing a sigh of relief. I had drawn a line in the sand after I asked Gern what he/she was on about … and he/she answered with more obfuscation.

                    And those who have consistently agreed with him/her are over on the side with Gern …

                    So – whew –

                    Thanks for making your position clear.

                    RADICAL fundamentalism is horrible.

                    More on this to follow after reading a heartbreaking story about the genocide caused by buddhist theravadan (not because they are theravadan but because that is the form of buddhism found in Burma) monks recently in Burma.

                    Heartbreaking.

                    • “I asked Gern what he/she was on about … and he/she answered with more obfuscation.”

                      At this point he/she has moved into ‘IT’ status as in …
                      ITSA TROLL!!!!

                      By the way Gern whatever you are…………try getting some air and if you still feel that way drop for 50 push ups and then 15 laps around the outfield. Then look up and take a deep breath…..

          • Theo Sismanides

            Communicator IC, I would like to know what is the Wahhabi section of the Independent movement. I would look up the word on the internet but then I thought to write to you to please explain as many have been using that word lately.

            I think all we can do is start labeling again… Hahahaha, reminds me of some people who did that practice. And then we talk about Fair Game…. oh come on people. Can we please get a bit closer here instead of drawing border lines?

            I think we all have something in common. THE MISUSE OF SCIENTOLOGY BY MISCAVIGE. And then THE USE OF SCIENTOLOGY OUT IN THE FIELD, INDEPENDENTLY. There is no Seniors here. There are no fractions. There is no Org Board, there are NO Orgs. THERE IS NO POLICY, even. Many Indies do not want policy and of course having no orgs you cannot be subject to policy.

            Gern expressed his views. Fair Game and Disconnection are not our only concerns. Actually I care less about them now as they are inactive and no need to apply them right now. Unless we become here Fair Game and some decide to Disconnect from us because we sound Wahhabi, some of us.

            Still having the MU on Wahhabi please explain how there are Scientologists here who sound Wahhabi to you. Thank you.

          • Safe in your safe society, sure, Fair Game .. well, we don’t “need” it.

            But Scientology is not just for the safe societies, those with just systems of order. Scientology is for beyond that horizon.

            • The preaching of the dangerous environment/universe is right up there with, and related to, ‘the ends justify the means’ as most principally what is wrong with Scientology.

              • I put it to you, that the fact you have no awareness of such places, nor the circumstances I describe, is what is wrong with *you*.

              • Marty I would have to say I am disciple of any preacher that carries the message that the environment is dangerous.

                1.The planet is littered with nuclear materials
                2.Religious zealots who are slobbering all over themselves to get those materials
                3.A planet awash in drugs and pornography
                4.The breakdown of the family unit a basic building block of a society
                5.The public schools that are now basically liberal indoctrination centers
                6.Widespread functional illiteracy

                • It might be cheaper for you to tune into the evening news each night.

                • None of those things makes the environment dangerous. The world is a beautiful place, filled with beautiful, interesting people. That’s my environment, and the one I create-create-create on a daily basis.

                  • I am glad that you personally are having a very nice time with life………
                    ….and just like that ( snap!)……. all the evils and sadness of others in the world has moved right back into Pandora’s Box.

                    • Huh? I didn’t say there was no pain or suffering. I recommend a fresh read of Is it possible to be happy? from NSOL. It might have been a while since you last got it.

                • @KFrancis,
                  I take personal offense of point number #5. This is such an overwhelmingly ridiculous statement that I almost didn’t comment on it. It is jibberish. I am a teacher. I know teachers who are very conservative politically and those who are not, but in both cases they work extremely hard to advance their students academically. I’m not saying that you can’t find a k-12 teacher who isn’t liberal. I’m saying that it would be hard to find one pushing an agenda with all the criteria that has to be met these days. Are you speaking of history teachers, music teachers, science teachers, English teachers? Have you viewed all the classrooms in the public schools in the country? Unless the answer is yes, they I strongly suggest you swallow your hyperbolic statement and try to carve it into something that more closely resembles truth.

                  Teachers don’t invent the curriculum. We are responsible for teaching classes of diverse student populations. In one class you can have several cultures and many students who are ELL (English language learners). The students are not at all the same gradient of learning, nor do they all learn the same way. We have to creatively compensate for the diversity. We have to appreciate it so as to reach every student. Then there are those students who are in the Special Education arena who are transitioning into main stream classes. They have special needs. The idea of pushing political agenda in the k-12 is a joke. It is not some massive conspiracy. Where did you get such ‘information’ ? Was it an experience with a child’s teacher? Was it a book or a perspective of which you disagreed ? Was it perhaps a news article written by a conservative editorialist or a rant from a conservative talk show? Did you experience a Rush Limbaugh moment? I am not convinced that you have come to this astounding perspective all on your own. You list it a statement of truth as though the reader will naturally agree with you, and this reader vehemently opposes your view.You can’t possibly know what is going on in all the classrooms in the country.

                  Pushing agendas may be more aligned with the intentions of some college professors because they have more opportunity to push their views when teaching history or political science or even physics. They are not currently under the microscope as are the public k-12 teachers, and many of them have published their own research which guides their curriculum. Even in this scenario, it may have nothing to do with “liberalism” but simply cuttin edge information.

                  Lastly, is ‘liberalism’ a bad thing? If so, what is bad about liberalism? Do you mean politically liberal? What denotes ‘liberalism’ in the classroom? Who decides if a teacher is pushing a ‘liberal agenda”? Why don’t you explain your answer in a short 500 word essay entitled “How the Evils of Political Liberalism are Pushed in Public School Classrooms” ? Be sure to include your references. I would be most happy to read it and respond. I’ll even grade it.

                  • Okay, so I rant in defense of teachers and I make a couple of typos in the process…oops! Should make myself do a ‘redo’ but there is no taking it back now.

                    • Jewel all I can say is I love your enthusiasm!
                      I wouldn’t dare go up against you at this point -In fact you already have my arm pinned against the table.
                      Uncle!

          • What is a “Fair Game Order”, and where does LRH describe it?

        • The good thing about a blog like this is that we can debate and oppose each other viewpoints ~~ something we could never do in the Church.

          Gern Gaschoen said

          But I also acknowledge the cold, plain, hard fact that Disconnection or Fair Game have both been very *successfully* applied in the past, as well. Where it was successfully applied, people got up the Bridge, got to OT, got their Auditor certs in a safe and prosperous manner, and so on .. thus, we didn’t hear much about the flaps of it. I myself have gotten Disconnection results from PC’s who really, really did need it. A great example, from my track, was the prostitute who needed to disconnect – really – from her pimp, before she could get her situation resolved. It was necessary, and a good policy.

          I will contest this viewpoint.
          I think the policy of enforced disconnection is Evil
          I think the policy of Fair Game is Evil.

          In actual true life, Disconnection is enforced between parents and children, husband and wives, bonded partners and business friends.
          In 25 years in tech I never came across a pimp/prostitute. I did come across destroyed families, destroyed personal relationships and all the toxic fall out that can be expected of the effort to harm and destroy family units.

          • Theo Sismanides

            Karen#1, you have every right to speak on this one. I am so sorry that so much A=A=A has gone into this. I am attempting to communicate on this subject and throw another angle in this, though I know that this A=A=A has destroyed our lives. But because you are such a being I did want to tell you that I second, “third and fourth” all you say about family units in Scientology. I am sure a Thetan would have done it better… muuuch better.

          • Thank you, Karen. I am right there with you on this.

          • I love you, Karen. Thank you for telling it like it is.

      • Reviewing the genus of fair game is instructive.

        The following is excerpted from HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 MARCH 1965 Issue II HCO (DIVISION 1) JUSTICE FAIR GAME LAW ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPRESSIVE ACTS THE SOURCE OF THE FAIR GAME LAW

        *******************************************
        “The reason a democracy or any wide open group caves in lies in its extending its privileges of membership to those who seek to destroy it.

        “The idiocy of doing so is plain. When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.

        “Democracy always faces this problem and so far never solved it. The constitution of the US permits people to refuse to testify if it would incriminate them (5th Amendment). Yet it sits by in courts letting people who are pledged to overthrow the government yet use their privilege to invoke the 5th Amendment. Idiocy is the right word for it. It does not make sense to extend the protection of the group to the person seeking to destroy the group. That’s like encouraging a disease.

        “Hence we have a Fair Game Law.

        “If a group member rejects the group, he rejects everything about the group and no further question about that. Certainly there is no question in his or her mind of salvaging or helping the group. Why should the group then seek to extend its protection over him unless it wants to defy its first right: that of survival.

        “So, in Scientology, anyone who rejects Scientology also rejects, knowingly or unknowingly, the protection and benefits of Scientology and the companionship of Scientologists. If the person never was a member of the group or if the person had been a member of it, the result is the same.

        “A suppressive person, wishing to work more damage, is the first one to cry for the protection of Justice.”
        *********************************************

        Fair game problems to do with committing illegal acts aside, the above delineates the problem that was being solved.

        It seems to me that the ideas outlined above have been a major factor in the escalating demise of Scientology, and the propagation of methods such as disconnection and the underlying principles of fair game. No doubt the existence of the Internet is a major factor here and policies like the above, and the problems they seek to solve really need a thorough re-examination.

        • Hello Maria,

          from the PL:
          “When a person announces he is no longer part of a group, he has rejected the group. He has also rejected its codes and rules. Of course he has also rejected the protection to which he was entitled as a group member.”

          the only “problem” is, that a group is always composed of individuals. When I no longer won’t to participate in group activities, this doesn’t mean I don’t want to stay in touch with single individuals of this group on another level (for example my Mother or Sister).

          Another problem was, after the installation of this policy letter, there were also too many SP declares (undeserved). And LRH recognized this problem, but maybe too late.

          Another big issue is, to say people who mereley are critical of Scientology are SPs. This isn’t true technically.
          This is a arbitrary. A=A=A.
          The “SP detection tech” wasn’t piloted enough.
          It’s not so easy to spot an SP in 5 minutes.
          This causes too many problems and like LRH says:

          “Man in his anxieties is prone to witch hunts.
          All one has to do is designate “people wearing black caps” as the villains and one can start a slaughter of people in black caps.

          “It is therefore even more important to identify the social personality than the antisocial personality. One then avoids shooting the innocent out of mere prejudice or dislike or because of some momentary misconduct.”

          – LRH, HCOPL 27 SEPT 1966 II,
          THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST

    • Hello Gern,

      I really like your independent, exterior viewpoint on Scientology.
      There is so much *workable* technology in Scientology.
      The problem is, at this moment in time, not many people are exterior enough to the things that happened to them.
      The value of ALL the legacy of LRH can (in my own opinion) be only extractet (on a individual basis) if we learn to 1) differentiate the subject from the corporation 2) exteriorize from our own (bad) experiences caused by a literal application of some “fractions” of the “legacy”.

      The Legacy of LRH is more than just some food for thought. But in order to see it for what it is, we really need to go three feets behind the current scene of the “evident” bad results of Scientology and its past and current corporations upon the world.

      So even I don’t know you, I can absolutley see what you were writing above.
      I like your views.

      • Thank you SKM, I appreciate your acknowledgement of my views. You are very correct that we must operate, constantly, exterior to the scene .. this is, after all, one of the very products of our religion in the first place: exteriorization. On all flows, across all dynamics, exteriorization is one of the most shiny, bright tools, LRH gave us. I really encourage us all to work towards this ability across the dynamics, on all flows. It is the only way out.

        • Right.
          Later tonight I will write a larger comment about my view on Marty’s “Mission Statement”. While there is not much I would critique about what he wrote, there is something I am missing in it.
          Have to do some work, but will put it in words later.

        • Gern, Thank you for BEING HERE AND COMMUNICATING! – you are singing my song.

          • I am with Steve on this Gern. You put together a series of terrific
            communications here today…..Thank you.

          • Re Gern’s later comments, I had some agreement on much of your early comments, but you lost me on the ones you made later, I’ll stand on the comments I made earlier about TOO MANY OUTPOINTS in your positions and outrageous claims -you’re not believable.
            Steve Poore

      • SKM: I’m going to insert a comment here that I’ve been mulling over all afternoon as it ties into your post.

        The problem as I see it is that Hubbard’s legacy that you speak of here is not “the Tech”. It’s the Sea Org, the RPF, children in chain lockers, the Hole and other abuses masquerading as “Ethics and Justice”. It’s the dissolution of families, coerced abortions, the abandonment and neglect of children in the name of the greatest good. It’s the bleeding dry of retirement accounts, second and third mortgages and the accumulation of massive amounts of debt in order to “go free”. It’s the harassment and intimidation of critics and the widespread character assassination of perceived enemies and the wholesale abuse of the legal system. Hubbard’s Legacy is the Church of Scientology and all that goes with it. As Legacies go, it isn’t pretty, and as much as one might wish it would go away or stop being discussed, it is the one thing guaranteed to endure.

        I am well aware of the desire of some to lay every evil of the church at DM’s doorstep, but it was Hubbard who wrote the policies that made these things possible and it was Hubbard who laid the foundation for DM. Marty was dead on when he said DM was a product of the system – he came up in an environment that shaped and molded him into the man that he is today. He too is part of Hubbard’s legacy.

        I’ve seen it written that the tech makes up for all of the negatives. It doesn’t. It hasn’t. These negatives have long overshadowed the positive of a psychotherapeutic counseling technique and have to at least some degree ensured that people will want nothing to do with the subject. I’m one of those people. I can’t get past the things I learned about Hubbard. I won’t pretend that I can. Instead of spending more time studying Scientology, I study other subjects in an effort to explain to my own satisfaction why auditing works.

        The tech should stand on its own merit, divorced from Hubbard and the egotism of “Source”, divorced from any labels including Scientology. I am of the firm belief that it works in spite of those things, not because of them.

        • If RTC and Int Management had actually followed LRH’s orders, and gotten a properly hatted Int Just Chief on post as a high priority, there would be Justice in the Church. The IG network itself was supposed to ensure that Scientology management lines remained just; clearly, the IG’s failed, given their connection with the suppressive Usurper.

          Since the Usurper and his Minions are actually only interested in the destruction of the Church, justice is the last thing on their mind.

          Done properly, the RPF can be an amazing thing for a person. I’ve seen hundreds of folks come off the RPF in amazing shape, physically, spiritually and mentally. You can surely find examples where the RPF was abused – but I have surely seen people for whom the RPF was the right action.

          Children in Chains – this is *DEFINITELY* a violation of Church policy, over and over and over again. Follow the chain of events for how that occurred, and you will find someone intent on the destruction of the Church of Scientology, forever – I guarantee it.

          >> It’s the dissolution of families, coerced abortions, the abandonment and neglect of children in the name of the greatest good.

          None of these incidents were just. Justice is not being served. I think, personally, the reason for that is that there is not an IJC on post, adjudicating as per the hat.

          • There were authorities on post (by the title IJC and others) during virtually all the activity she cites. Another specious argument by yourself.

          • Wow.

            I think your confront of evil is pretty low, Gern…perhaps nonexistent if you truly believe the things you’ve written here. Hubbard was SOURCE on every one of the things I mention, not Miscavige, not his “minions” as you put it, and the existence of any post has nothing to do with anything as the foundation for every one of the things I list was written in stone by LRH. I guarantee you that RTC et al could produce tomes of references justifying every action, even to this day. Miscavige is most definitely a monster, but he was created in and allowed to flourish by a framework that existed prior to his arrival on the scene. That he took it to extremes is undisputed, but I maintain that The Church of Scientology is a toxic organization from stem to stern and would be so regardless of who manned the ship.

            I was previously shocked and appalled at your statement condoning the use of disconnection and Fair Game, now you think the RPF was/is a good thing. Suffice to say, you and I live in two vastly different realities. I see cruelty, degradation, humiliation and abuse as evil, period, and anyone attesting to the benefits is suspect in my mind of having a severe case of Stockholm syndrome.

          • “I’ve seen hundreds of folks come off the RPF in amazing shape, physically, spiritually and mentally”.

            Have you now? Hundreds eh?

            Gotta go – just seen a hundred pigs fly past the window.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Kim, you are at a big loss…. Hubbard didn’t write the policies to suppress the good. Miscavige and his Minions used them to suppress the good. If there was and still is A=A=A it is not ALL Hubbard’s fault. I have seen more good from Hubbard than bad. I have seen more bad from Miscavige and his Minions than good. So, something does not quite fit in your computation against Hubbard. Try someone else(s).

          • One cannot expect anything to have been On policy or
            Ruthlessly applied By dm as one person put it as one blog
            writer wrote .
            The situation of where the church Policy as its applied now
            is DM’s application of ethics or justice which is altered to
            his version of how he thinks he will apply it and its his own
            made up application of it. Its not LRH’s .

          • Theo – Of course it isn’t all Hubbard’s fault – real people have done and are doing evil things as we speak in and for the CoS, and they should be held accountable for any crimes and abuses committed. But Hubbard wrote policies that allowed those evil acts to take place.The most aggregious wrongs have been, and are being, justified by reference to LRH policy. Refusing to see that is not healthy or productive. Laying the blame at the feet of a handful of youngsters in Sea Org uniforms may seem like a good idea, certainly it makes for a nice, tidy “Why”, but in actual fact none of the things they did or are doing would have taken root had it not been for a firm foundation previously laid into place by Hubbard policy. Should people have to answer for their acts? Absolutely. But so should Hubbard. CoS is his creation.

            You don’t have to agree with my assessment of Hubbard’s character, but to imply that there is something flawed in my viewpoint by referring to it as a computation is a stop thought mechanism and introversion technique, neither of which negate my opinion and neither of which will shut me up. I should think that anyone still practicing Scientology outside of the church would be perfectly capable of understanding how I might have arrived at my own point of view.

            • Theo Sismanides

              Right Kim, start labeling now. Label us all those who served Mankind as Thought Stoppers. I tell you WHO really WERE, ARE and WILL be THOUGHT Stoppers:

              THOSE WHO DID NOT FOLLOW POLICY WHEN THEY WERE CALLED UPON TO APPLY IT. THOSE WHO DID NOT HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY NO TO OFF POLICY AND OUT TECH ENFORCED BY COB.

              Call me what you will, I know one thing. Miscavige has ruined Scientology. I know that first hand. I was in the SO. Hubbard laid out a framework of workable technology, even on Admin. That people were coward and just were blind to see is NOT Hubbard’s error.

              If you think following Policy and Discipline under Sane Policy is Thought Stopping you have no idea of what Ron wanted to achieve with the Sea Org and what he DID achieve. If you think all this knowledge would go across the planet by a bunch of dilettantes, dream away. You have no clue of the amount of Force Hubbard had to apply to get the Sea Org going. And just because he knew how to handle Force with minimum casualties does not mean that DM’s show today is Scientology. Two different breeds of cat. So, I don’t have to do with the A=A=A of some people here who have no clue what it took to get Scientology here.

              Unfortunately one man (and I believe there are many behind him outside the Church supporting him) made it possible to ruin the whole thing. But it wasn’t just one man after all. We all have our share. And this is why I AM HERE. I don’t know about the rest.

              Oh, and I am not blaming youngsters. I am pointing out to Management after 1993 or 1994. This is where a lot of things happened and those are the WHOs.

              • The more you blame, the more of a victim you will become.

              • Theo: I labeled your action as a thought stopping technique. You turning that into me labeling you as a person makes it look as if you didn’t bother to read what I said. I spent a decade on staff and have a chunk of training under my belt – I have earned my place in this conversation, the same as you. Please address what I say, not what you think I said. If you’re unclear of my meaning at any time, all you have to do is ask me to clarify and I will do my absolute best to do so.

                I have some questions for you based on what you wrote here. What sane policy is it that you think you’re going to be following if and when DM is brought down? Are you going to get rid of those which have proven to be destructive and have opened the door for abuse? If so, how are you going to reconcile that with KSW#1? How do you plan to work around the items spelled out by Hubbard as High Crimes and Suppressive Acts if you decide to cancel, disregard or forbid the use of certain policies? And if all policies are still valid in your version of a sane group, then how do you justify keeping policies such as those covering disconnection, fair game, and the RPF?

                • Theo Sismanides

                  Kim, thanks. Ok, now, it’s me who lost it there on the labeling. So, allright we talked about that computation there. OK. However, I must tell you that I have deep respect for LRH and I wouldn’t easily take all those things people have to say against him, many times without specifics even. But I do get what you wrote.

                  On the second paragraph of your post and your questions. The Scientology Justice system offers a variety of gradients of Ethics actions. I always saw that there is little leniency within the organisations. This of course has to do with the top. If the top pushes for heavy Ethics, heavy Ethics it is.

                  I used to be a lawyer and gave up after 3 or 4 years of practicing as I saw what LRH had to say about Justice: You cannot trust Man with Justice.

                  Ok, now. Having been a lawyer and knowing the purpose of Justice I would say that one has to see the purpose Justice serves. It’s to keep a society safe and happy and being able to move on and survive. If a group goes down and some in the group perform contra survival acts, Justice should come in and stop those acts. That does not mean that one has to KILL EVERY OFFENDER and let them rot. Once Ethics is put in, Justice moves away. People can start changing miraculously after Justice has been used and they put their own Ethics in.

                  Scientology is very powerful and any punishment should be used on gradients. I am not able to tell you right off hand what should be done there but definitely some declares should be issued. As to Fair Game and how the RPF was made to be today, a concentration camp and a place for retaliation to staff by DM, I will say all this comes under “Command Intention”. If the only thing “Command Intention” sees is to PUNISH the “rebels” then you will have a lot of this. A sane manager knows exactly how much to use of Justice. Just a bit more than the inside pressure. It’s maybe me who doesn’t believe the broad use of Fair Game more than many others. I never used it in my life.

                  But to say that David Miscavige, for example, should not get the full array of Justice actions also would be wrong. Also others who have condoned his High Crimes. This is KSW and is of use here. Exactly here. If we let them just continue what they are doing and no one says that they are committing or have committed such and such High Crimes then we get that condition. That’s what happened to me. I failed to put Ethics in on the group who didn’t support me in the application of certain HCOBs and it was me who was put to Ethics. The High Crime though was not mine. Still failing on one dynamic can backlash on one.

                  I hope this clears a bit of where I stand on this matter.

                  Lastly I wanted to say that I haven’t idolised LRH. I never did. All I have done is study the man and seen so good in that, that I can hardly speak any bad about him. When I hear bad about him I feel the other person did not get the wins I had from the tech and I usually try to talk. It was not like that with you, I jumped on the gun, but now we can talk.

                  So, I want to ask you too, why you think LRH is responsible for the present condition? Policy is broad and has a lot of leniency in it, gradients of Ethics but in the hands of a nut case like DM, it can be turned into a machine gun which did happen. How is Hubbard responsible for this and not YOU and ME or any other Scientologist who just bought that condition from DM? What else could LRH do? It’s our condition. Not LRH’s. His legacy is not what you are saying, the church, the RPF etc. Do you know that ED Int published a Flag Order in 1995 which actually forbade Sea Orb members to have children in the Sea Org? How is LRH responsible for this and not the Sea Org who bought that illegal and actually criminal order?

                  I am here on this blog for the Justice Factor. Of course for other reasons too but mainly for the Justice factor. More and more people agree now as I saw it almost 20 years ago that Miscavige is the Who in the suppression of Scientology. Some see it’s LRH himself. This I cannot get since LRH wouldn’t take any part in this game now. He doesn’t have to choose sides necessarily. It’s one of those things you get after you move up high on the line.

                  This is our condition, Kim. Some don’t see it like this. But I do. To undo the suppression and keep the good stuff. We are now more educated as thetans, aren’t we? So, we can at least communicate and thus get reality on things that otherwise we wouldn’t before. If this reality, which is a higher reality of course (not something like “let’s kill all those traitors”, but something like let’s put in Ethics and create a safer environment for Scientologists to speak and act more freely and without retaliation), if this reality is increased amongst us we could work out miracles. But that necessitates a team of people who can be at a higher level of communication amongst them. This is where good use of Policy comes in, in my opinion. All the rest have been done to make the subject unpalatable to most of us, not just you and for other purposes.

                  • Theo: Thank you for your response, I can tell that it is sincerely written. I have a few thoughts on what you have said.

                    Hubbard himself wrote that ethics are a personal thing. The idea that another person or a group of people can “put ethics in” on another person directly disagrees with that statement, and since I personally feel change can only take place when it is sincerely desired and originates from within a person on his own determinism, I see the notion that anyone can put in another’s ethics as false. Aside from that, ethics was so horribly abused in the CoS that it is a poisoned term and subject, causing intense and often violent reactions among people who have been on the receiving end of Scientology ethics. Speaking for myself, the first person who shows up on my doorstep intent on “slamming my ethics in” will go home carrying his teeth in a bag. Granted, I am an ex, not an Indie/FZer or any other type of practicing Scientologist. Even so, I think if you spend much time looking into it you’ll find I am not alone in my thinking.

                    Scientology justice has proven itself to be a vehicle for abuse and has been used to supplant the legal system. I have shaky faith in the legal system, but I have absolutely no faith in Scientology justice. I want Miscavige tried in a court of law, not Comm Eved. I want him behind bars, not on MEST work. I want his mug shot plastered on every media outlet in the world. That said, I recognize that Miscavige is applying policy in a number of areas. He’s applying Fair Game, he’s applying SP doctrine even down to his dealings with people in the Hole. He’s applying ethics and justice policies. His application is extreme, no argument. Exes who have gone on record about their experiences in Hubbard’s time have said Hubbard had moments of benevolence intermixed with cruelty. I think DM has only cruelty in him, that he is ruthless and brutal, but the policies exist that allow him to do what he’s doing and those policies were written by Hubbard. That is why I hold Hubbard responsible. It’s all well and good to scream DM is misapplying it, or that he’s perverted it, but by literal examination of the policies themselves, he has carte blanche from Hubbard to do everything he is doing on those lines. Further, a closer examination of Hubbard’s own application of those policies shows that he too applied them ruthlessly.

                    I know that there are people who think that if you remove Miscavige, the problems all magically go away. I disagree. The Sea Org is a cult within a cult. I don’t believe it can be reformed. I don’t believe that it should be recreated in the field. Without extreme changes in policy and an outright rejection of quite a few, it would be only a matter of time before another Miscavige clawed his way into a position of power and the whole thing would start all over again. Give people ultimate power over others and they will eventually abuse it.

                    Hubbard was a man, and men are fallible. Why should every word he wrote be considered something worthwhile, or something necessary? Given his history, why should everything he wrote be considered reliable or trustworthy or even sane? Take what truly works from the subject and get on with it. It may even turn out that some measure of credibility is gained on the subject if it’s allowed to stand on its own merit and subjected to independent evaluation, rather than accepted because Hubbard said so and Hubbard can never be wrong.

              • I think you have a point in what you write .Its a disaster and
                those within that remain seemed blind to stand up for whatever
                reasons, Theirs others that stood up challenged and left.
                Those that watched and just didn’t say anything and
                allowned a control dictator to rule their surroundings and life.
                Its a mighty question why officals / plus family relatives
                never seemed to make enough noise over the In Hiding of their
                love ones and no com or controlled com.

                to challenged and threated.Why on earth didn’t some one
                speak up out side long ago to officials and press.

                • Hadley: People have been speaking up for literally decades! I am shocked that you don’t know about it. People have gone to the authorities about the abuses in the Sea Org since the 60s and 70s. The difference now is twofold: Anonymous and the Internet. It’s the age of information and the CoS’ usual tactics are no longer aseffective in silencing critics. An attempt to do so winds up on YouTube or in a blog within the hour.

                  Your comment does a gross disservice to the hundreds of men and women who risked everything to try to help those still in. You should do a little research.

                  • Thakyou for the insite Obviously its done from your comments
                    Sorry it was not met to offend and I acknowledge
                    all who do a lot to help those within just a lot is not widly know
                    outside US.

                    • Thanks Hadley. You didn’t offend me, I was just truly surprised you didn’t know about all the people who have tried to get officials to do something about the cult over the years. It’s the system that seems to fail, but I think that’s changing. Not as fast as we’d like, but change is still good.

        • Hello Kim Loss.
          Thanks for your comment.
          Yes, it’s a shame that the products of LRHs legacy are the way they are.
          You’re right, many things LRH wrote and did led to these manifestations.

          Now it’s up to everyone of us to decide if and, if yes, in what merits we want to use his legacy.
          You’re absolutley free to use it or not. Use the things you think are right for you. I have a feeling you’re strong enough to pick the diamonds for you.
          It’s your life.
          Wish you best.

          • Hi SKM: I am glad to see people picking and choosing from the body of work and taking what they want from it. I honestly think that’s the only sane approach to the subject, and I find that to be saner than either total acceptance OR total rejection. After all, none of us would have stuck around for very long if there was nothing of value.

            Thanks for the well wishes, I wish the best for you also.

            • Thanks Kim.
              I don’t know your track.
              In my view you have every right to free your mind of any experiences in the way you think fits.
              I’m with Jason Beghe on this one: “we should use Scientology in order to handle Scientology.” (Paraphrased)

              Reach & Withdraw is a valid process as well (LRH speaks a lot about it in a lecture named: “Creating and Confronting” – packaged in the series “State of Man Congress”).

              ARC,
              SKM

              • Hi SKM: I suppose my being here and on ESMB is a version of R&W – though I admit there are times when I squirrel it into something more along the lines of Slug and Stomp Off. :D I’m not sure that I agree with the idea of using Scientology to handle Scientology, but I do think communication is the key to understanding and ultimately to healing.

                • Correct.
                  Communication. Being there. Looking. Reach & Withdraw.
                  Will handle a lot for you.
                  There are three universes, you know. What is true for you, is true for you. And after all, you’re the only one who knows best who you are, where you go. And you make your own conclusions about all the other stuff, no matter with whom you communicate or what intentions or considerations they may have. Exteriorize a little bit from time to time ;-)

                  ARC,
                  SKM

    • Gerhard Waterkamp

      “The policies of LRH, given in HCOPL’s, HCOB’s, Lectures, Books, Advices and so on .. these tools *WORK*. If it weren’t for the fact of their actually working, they wouldn’t have been included in the subject in the first place, because LRH himself made the decision to include that which works and discard that which doesn’t work.”
      Really?
      I always thought the test of workability is performed by actual application and observation of results in large enough numbers to exclude random results.
      As I look and learn it appears the downfall of LRH came about ‘putting on the nasty’ when he encountered or perceived an antagonist, – interestingly contrary to almost anything he preached in other places in his philosophy. This ‘putting on the nasty’ almost appears as the original overt that never handled then infected the practice of Scientology in the COS and brought it to its current miserable state. In the big picture many of the policies and statements brought on later regarding being the ‘only way out’ , ‘saving the planet’ could be read as justifications that came after the overt. As Thomas Paine said: “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.”
      I recently saw a biography about Hugh Hefner, a shallow exploitative man, – so I thought. Until I learned he was a friend of Martin Luther King, he paved the way for black comedians and their right to perform in clubs, paid civil rights lawyers on his staff to help oppressed people. He shared a time period with LRH where anybody non-conformist seemed to have become a target at one time of their life of the FBI and the government. He was several times under attack from the government damaging his business, and when the FBI wanted to pin a drug case on him the FBI drove one of his assistant’s even to suicide. This brought him to the brink of physical collapse. But he apparently never started an operation “Snowhite”, never used his money to create organizations to orchestrate covert operations against perceived enemies, or framed the likes of Paulette Cooper. He just continued on his path and prospered. Not that I want to compare Hugh Hefner with LRH or I am a big fan of Playboy bunnies.  But imagine if LRH did not have the flaw to put on the nasty, or if he had not committed these types of overts. Maybe he had not created policies that isolated Scientology from society. Maybe he had not stated ‘the price of freedom is the constant willingness to fight back’, but ‘Responsibility is the price of freedom.’? (Elbert Hubbard)
      LRH was a mortal human being who harvested and added to a body of data he brilliantly used to create a technology to free individuals. He was not a holy man. When I studied in the academy I came to see in him a caring, loving and funny man brilliantly teaching me about the human mind. But I discover he had his flaws and these flaws seeped into policies and practices unchecked. And I find it outright dangerous to assume only greatness can exist in one person. There is plenty of space for other less favorable things as well.
      Blind trust in a name is no alternative to living, observing and trying to understand.

    • Gern,

      I found your post honest and provocative, refreshingly so. I mean no disrespect with the following questions. Though I had never thought of myself as such, I guess I might also be a technologist.

      I was recently speaking with a friend, whose evaluation of Scientology was, essentially that for every 5-10 datum that were almost inherently good, there were one or two that undid all the benefit of the others. ARC, KRC, Comm cycle, what is greatness, etc … these are almost universally acceptable goods. Then you have a management datum like “make the penalties for non compliance too gruesome to confront”, which is very easy to apply in a way that violates ARC, Manners, KRS, what is greatness, etc. etc.

      Certain tools give people tremendous negative power over others … witness COS disconnection, fair game, etc. Some how some of these tools seems to build or elicit the dark side of humanity, which really seems to be the problem here, they might even bring out or give a vehicle to execution of evil purposes, or simply destructive ego.

      How do you reconcile this? I don’t know how to reconcile this, and like you, I have used them in my life, sometimes with positive benefit and other times with negative. I have found, for myself, that acting too quickly with too powerful a “tool” often results in an unanticipated negative result.

      Also, as a technologist, you must measure results. May I ask what measurement you use for measuring the results of Scientology?

      • Mike
        This is quite an interesting question. And it seems related to the fact that 2 1/2%-20% (or 4%-7% if you are reading the Sociopath Next Door) posed against the constructive 80-90% give the illusion that the world is in an almost perfect balance of “Good” and “Evil.” This is I think, because it is so much easier to destroy than it is to create, in terms of effort. What gets built up in years of work at the shipyard, sinks to the bottom with one enemy torpedo.

        I think that LRH fought his own case and sometimes lost. And out of this came a few tools that could be and have been, seriously abused by the evildoers mentioned above.

        I think if we can get over the idea as a group, that the tech and admin is perfect and untouchable, we can build agreement on which parts to keep, and which to dispense with. That will be a happy day.

        (Of course the whole body of data will always be there for reference.)

        For obvious example, I do not think that any of us who have been adverse effect of Disconnection want much to do with that policy or the Suppressive Acts section of the Ethics book (which has been pointed to elsewhere as a guarantee that disconnection will always be practiced – single policy or not).

        I believe that to the degree we can accomplish that, we will have a safe group and a unified group. A safe group will attract more pro-survival attention and we will make friends more broadly and begin to accomplish goals that are right now sitting there failed and abandoned.

        Marty’s book “What is Wrong with Scientology” brilliantly accomplished the first step of this process, in my opinion.

      • Mike, your post reminded me of a passage in History of Man, which you may or may not think is relevant but here it is, From the last page of the chapter “The Theta Being” (or Chapter Four in the older edition):

        “You can, at your own choice, go on living with and processing this composite known as Homo Sapiens and create Homo Novis. You can use Dianetics to make hitherto impossible strides. But be advised that in this choice you are living with paradoxes which no philosopher in all the ages ever reconciled—the injustice of death, the depravity of human beings as in Plato, the penalty of assisting another, the impossibility of having good ARC and survival too, the liability of being kind and merciful and every ‘unanswerable’ religious paradox known. You, by persisting in yesterday’s reality are persisting then in problems which have never been resolved with the factors accepted. You are demanding of a MEST-theta composite that he be self determined when every zephyr from a hard universe contains death for him and can turn him like a top. You are demanding that he be ‘careful’ when his only salvation is to be carefree. You are saddling him with all the unanswered riddles of an aberrated life in an aberrated world. And you are condemning a preclear to the dwindling spiral— for the theta being as part of the composite decays fast and soon dies forever in the rigid apathy of MEST.

        “Thus this data is given you. In lieu of this data the only thing which could be given Man is the answering salute to the gladiators—they who are about to die.

        “As an auditor, the choice is yours to make—the paradoxes or the answer. I would not give you this data unless it can be demonstrated on any preclear with ease. And I would not give it to you unless you needed it.

        “Here it is.”

        [Directly following the above is the chapter "The Capabilities of the Theta Being" (Chapter Five in the older edition), which ends with this:]

        “There are two states of ‘Theta Clear’. One of these is a CLEARED THETAN, from whom all incidents would be removed. The other is the THETAN cleared of a necessity to have a MEST body. When we say “
        “Theta Clear” we mean the latter.
        [...]
        “So, again, as a final note on this chapter, let’s not go upsetting governments and putting on a show to ‘prove’ anything to Homo Sapiens for a while. It’s a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away and get into the rotogravure section and the Hearst Weeklies. But you’ll just make it tough on somebody else who is trying to get across this bridge. Let sleeping Sapiens snore in the bulk for yet awhile. Then meet some place and decide what to do about him and his two penny wars, his insane and his prisons. Tell people who want to invalidate all this, ‘Your criticism is very just. It’s only fantasy.’ Cure up the lame and halt and the incompetent with whatever display of technique you need. Protect Theta Clearing until there are a few.”
        :

      • Oh, I’ve definitely seen positive applications of “too gruesome” policy in my time. If your intention is to get production in line, but all you get is non-compliance and Dev-T from staff for whom you are responsible, getting too gruesome for failure is sometimes a necessary approach. I’ve seen this work, time and again, in non-Scientology organizations, over and over. So, I think there is definitely some merit to this policy. You don’t have to look far to see that this policy is actually the result of observation of a real social phenomenon, not exclusive in any way to the Scientology organization itself. I see it, over and over, in all local businesses. Last time I got my wheels rotated, the young guy who was busy texting with his girlfriend instead of doing the rotation got yelled at by his boss .. “Do you want to be fired? Well then put your phone down and do some work!”

        What I would say is, at face value, you probably haven’t *applied* the policy, but rather: *talked about it*.

        Do a demo of any policy for which you question its merit, and you may find ways in which it is, truly, applicable. You can’t “talk about” a policy to find its merit, you have to have actually used it somehow. I find merit in all of these policies – disconnection, fair game, too gruesome. There are times, in the big world, when these policies are entirely necessary – there are also times when they result in a disastrous mess.

        What matters, is the intention behind the application – the person *using* the policy is what makes the policy work, or not work. At face value, policy does nothing.

        Certainly, there is room for abuse – but in my honest opinion, the abuse of these policies is only possible because other, very important policies, were too easily ignored. Every time I saw someone using Disconnection/Fair Game suppressively, it was because of an earlier incident of total failure to apply *OTHER* very basic, very good, policies. Go earlier on the chain: its that simple. Disconnecting, but haven’t done 2WC with the individual involved? Flunk. Disconnecting, but no M/WH pulled? Flunk. Disconnecting, but no basic MU’s cleared? Flunk. Fair Game, but no Police Report filed? Flunk.

        With regards to Fair Game, the focus is too often on the fact that it grants Scientologists reprieve from internal ethics actions if they turn the tables on the individual involved. Do you know what this means? The fact is, Scientologists *do* get into trouble if they lie, cheat and steal. There are, very definitely, policies designed to prevent these actions from happening, or even being necessary in the first place. Scientology Staff-members get into a *lot* of trouble for committing overts on someone, in fact. Is that not clear in the Fair Game policy, itself? Because, I think it is quite clear, but then again .. I’ve M9 word-cleared the thing about 100 times.

        Fair Game is for the situation when all other Scientology ethics, tech, and admin actions have failed to resolve the source of suppression. If you’ve done all the previous things first, including going to the police and using local justice actions provided you by your society, and yet you *STILL* find yourself the target of suppression from an entity, then you will find the use for Fair Game. Main Street USA may not be the place for this policy, but Mexico City Mission sure as hell needs it.

        Too often, though, it has been applied to cover up some prior overt on the part of the user of the policy, who justifies their overts with the policy. I think, where Fair Game goes wrong, is when its really not applied in its entirety – only the overt side of it is used. But if you look close, it is a just policy. The purpose of the policy is, in fact, to give the Scientologist the ability to gain justice.

        • This ‘ends justifies the means’ mentality is most prominently what is wrong with Scientology.

        • Dear Gern,
          It might be true that there are situation in this world where the application of Fair Game or Disconnection seem the ultimate thing to do.

          However, when we look at the Tech as a whole, consider the prime postulates of the Philosophy we’re discussing here, itams like ARC, theta, …, and the resolution of any unwanted condition using the Tech – we’d have to first admit we either don’t use the tech or we dpn’t have it in order to use such policies as the Fair Game or disconnection ones.

          You mention your Judo practice. I liked Judo, but my preference goes to Aikido. Below you’ll find some words by Ueshiba that might show you another potential attitude when facing tensions, fights and the desire to use harsh measures to deal with opponents:

          I post it also here ’cause I find it appropriate to the subjest of this thread.

          “To practice properly Aikido, you must:
          Calm the spirit and return to the source.
          Cleanse the body and spirit by removing all malice, selfishness, and desire.
          Loyalty and devotion lead to bravery. Bravery leads to the spirit of self-sacrifice. The spirit of self-sacrifice creates trust in the power of love.
          Budo is not a means of felling the opponent by force or by lethal weapons. Neither is it intended to lead the world to destruction by arms and other illegitimate means. True Budo calls for bringing the inner energy of the universe in order, protecting the peace of the world , as well as preserving, everything in nature in its right form.
          If your opponent tries to pull you, let him pull. Don’t pull against him; pull in unison with him.
          Aikido does not rely on weapons or brute force to succeed; instead we put ourselves in tune with the universe, maintain peace in our own realms, nurture life, and prevent death and destruction. The true meaning of the term “samurai” is one who serves and adheres to the power of love.
          Foster and polish the warrior spirit while serving in the world; illuminate the path according to your inner light.
          Even though our path is completely different from the warrior arts of the past, it is not necessary to abandon totally the old ways. Absorb venerable traditions into this Art by clothing them with fresh garments, and building on the classic styles to create better forms.
          Day after day train your heart out, refining your technique: Use the One to strike the Many! That is the discipline of the Warrior.
          The Way of a Warrior cannot be encompassed by words or in letters: grasp the essence and move on toward realization!
          The purpose of training is to tighten up the slack, toughen the body, and polish the spirit.
          Iron is full of impurities that weaken it; through the forging fire, it becomes steel and is transformed into a razor-sharp sword. Human beings develop in the same fashion.
          Instructors can impart only a fraction of the teaching. It is through your own devoted practice that the mysteries of Aikido are brought to life.
          The Way of a Warrior is based on humanity, love, and sincerity; the heart of martial valor is true bravery, wisdom, love, and friendship. Emphasis on the physical aspects of warriorship is futile, for the power of the body is always limited.
          A true warrior is always armed with three things: the radiant sword of pacification; the mirror of bravery, wisdom, and friendship; and the precious jewel of enlightenment.
          Aikido is the principle of non-resistance. Because it is non-resistant, it is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. Aikido is invincible because it contends with nothing.
          There are no contests in Aikido. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests with nothing. Defeat means to defeat the mind of contention that we harbor within.
          To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is Aikido.
          The totally awakened warrior can freely utilize all elements contained in heaven and earth. The true warrior learns how to correctly perceive the activity of the universe and how to transform martial techniques into vehicles of purity, goodness, and beauty. A warrior’s mind and body must be permeated with enlightened wisdom and deep calm. ”

          With Love, of course.

          • Pierrot; -thank you for the reference, and I of course concur with that authors position.

            But the purpose of LRH Policy is simply this: to allow the PC to get in session with the Auditor. There is no other purpose.

            Fair Game, abused, has made a huge mess around the Church of Scientology organization, and I would say that the reason for this is because it is not being used for the purpose LRH wrote it. Instead, Fair Game and Disconnection are used to exploit the Minions, to enslave: and this is borne out by the actual, verifiable results, which we can see in the Church today.

            I absolutely concur that, organizationally, these policies have been the source of near-infinite trouble for practitioners of Scientology, and I would not attempt to justify a single act of the Church in these policies.

            But when read from the purpose “Get the PC in Session with the Auditor”, I see a use for them, both, as policies. If a person *WANTS* to go in Session, but is being prevented from doing so by external actors exercising undue force on their person, then Disconnection is a real solution. If a group *wants* to deliver Scientology services to its PC’s and Students, but yet is being attacked at every angle, criminally so, then certainly: Fair Game is a tool for that group to use in order to get the scene sorted. Absolutely, there are *OTHER TOOLS* and other methods – I do not in any way state anywhere, that Fair Game is the only solution to the problem – but if you’ve tried all else, while outside the door there is a braying mob attempting to burn the church and destroy its members with force – you must fight back. It is a policy, not a philosophy, and it has its time and place.

            I do not, in any way, condone the mis-use of this policy. The purpose, again, of LRH policy is to ensure that the Orgs have tools they need to get PC’s in session with the Auditor; go off that purpose, or use the tools for some other purpose – and sure, without question: not okay.

            • Dearest Gern,

              thank you for stating your position regarding this subject of Fair game policy and if we consider that one does post giving items for discussion in a genuine attempt to learn something on both ends of a communication line let me say this:

              Methinks your position is (absolutely ;-) indefensible in general but especially on this blog. If you assert “But the purpose of LRH Policy is simply this: to allow the PC to get in session with the Auditor. There is no other purpose.” and “The purpose, again, of LRH policy is to ensure that the Orgs have tools they need to get PC’s in session with the Auditor” – how do you reconcile this with the fact that the same policy was applied by those Orgs to harass Marty and prevent him to deliver sessions with him as an Auditor?

              Because the org considers him a squirrel? fair enough, that’s politics of the situation, but if he was delivering the same sessions he did, going through the same motions and getting the same EPs while auditing in the church he’d be a hero in there, the upstat case cracker auditor.

              Because the church does mis-use this Fair Game policy? come on – if there were no policies with a potential of creating “near-infinite trouble for practitioners of Scientology” in the first place, there would be nothing to mis-use. Hubbard knew there were those “not so bright” that have access to the tech or policy and WILL screw it. It’s written all over that KSW#1, yet, whether he cancelled it or not, it’s still in there in the materials. The church behaves like an unstable teenager in the field of mental health and society in general, and you don’t leave a teenager with a potential to play with a charged gun.

              As to the “disconnection” policy, I beg to differ. I never ever had to use that, quite to the contrary. The closest I got in that direction, if the going was too tough for the person to bear, was to advise a week of a break from the area of turbulance. You know, that old Dianetics rule that says that whatever engram is stirred up all will settle down and go back to normal in 3 to 10 days. To give an exemple, if I write here “Hubbard was a genius, his OT III work surpasses anything that was done in the field of philosophy by any Great Thinker that ever walked on Earth (which is true, by the way), and Scientology is the therapy which will be used shortly by every University graduate in the world” and then a critic or ex-scientologist has a deep emotional fit or glee of laughter and collapses while reading those lines, well, it will be all right and he’ll recover after some 3 to 10 days.

              And when I write “advise a week of a break” above, it might mean stopping to adress controversial subjects while still being with the concerned enturbulative persons. When the person does destimulate after those 3 to 10 days, and the Tech can be applied and is then in, I always invite the person to connect, by gradient if needed, with the area of enturbulation, with the persons or subjects that seemed to create trouble. Then audit it out to EP. This till the person can be there without flinching with ARC. ARC is the first postulate, not disconnection. See the book Fundamentals of Thought if needed, you don’t validate the unhealthy situation, you go for the first postulate, the healthy one.

              But then, there is a saying in French – when the cat is gone the mice dance. Hubbard is away and there are and will be different brands following his path. Same in Martial Arts, there are different brands of Aikido (“the way to the harmony of the spirit” – ai ki is the thing to do) – so if your way practicing Fair game and disconnection as you see fit is the path you’ll follow, be my guest. But we’re not playing in the same field anymore.

          • “To practice properly Aikido, you must:
            Calm the spirit and return to the source.”

            That piece was very wise and beautiful, thank you.

          • Nice comment. ;-)

        • There’s a workplace you would be very at home in – The Church of Scientology. I believe they’re accepting applications…

        • I like Gern’s viewpoint very much. Purpose is above policy. Any policy can be applied off purpose. SPs declare all good staff SP, while “applying the policy”, which by the way points to themselves as SPs – per the same policy. So policy is not stupid and usually designed for understanding, but can justify anything, as in any other group enterprise.
          To those – often ex-Int Base staff themselves – who think what’s happening at the Int Base is permitted by policy, and has been prepared by the system as a whole, I would like to propose this viewpoint.
          The Int Base and operations that are related to Int base impact directly about 0,1% – maximum – of the Scientologists. In other words, from the viewpoint of the 99,9% other ones, which I was part of until not long ago, what’s happening in Orgs and missions looks very much like a Scientology operation. No physical harassment, very light ethics (if any), people smiling in interviews, etc. I would have laughed extensively if you had told me only 10% of what’s happening at the Int Base, because thi s was impossible from my viewpoint. “Mathematically impossible” per policy.
          Of course, you will say, Int Mgt does everything so that nothing of its huge insanity leaks down towards the “exoteric” part of the organization.
          Now, THIS is the answer to the question. INT MGT WOULD NOT HIDE INT BASE REALITY AND OPERATIONAL METHODS to other Scientologists, if this WAS SCIENTOLOGY. Knowing very well it is not Scientology, Int Base practices are utterly and knowingly hidden to the bona fide Scientologists’ eyes, so that these people think they are governed by Scientologists, which is not the case anymore. OMITTED SCIENTOLOGY – the type of outpoint the most difficult to assess.
          Proof that Int Base practices are knowingly squirrel, and are not justified by policy, and by the way nobody tries to justify them outside the Int Base. The conventional answer about any squirrel practices existing in the high spheres – which are legions – is: “this did not happen”.

    • “Look, it is a cold, blunt, honest fact: Fair Game, Disconnection – these tools *WORK* and they are there, in the doctrine, for a damned fine reason. They work. I have personally had to use them, and every single time applied, get the desired result: less enturbulation, more sessionability, greater control for the individual over their own lives.”

      This comment is precisely why I will never stick my toe in the Scientology water. For a religion, a self-help treatise, a PAC, or even a philosophy to actually *codify* a hurtful and destructive approach as tenets to live by and call it “saving the planet” is one scary group.

      • I suggest you look outside your society and take a look at the rest of the world. Life may be grand in America, where you have a functioning justice system – but Scientology is not just for America.

        • PreferToBeAnon2

          Gern,
          1. You have NO idea what my background is. And, that is irrelevant.
          2. Are you saying that it is up to Scientologists to use Fair Game and disconnection doctrine to enforce whatever you deem as “justice” worldwide?
          3. Just to be clear, you actually think Fair Game and disconnection work? Given that these originated from LRH. I am curious as to what percentage of Indies still believe this. Anyone with a guess?
          Open, sincere question: Do folks on this blog want a group religious crusade or a self-help/spiritual philosophy focused on the individual to have life “gains”?

    • Disconnection is one thing. Enforced disconnection is quite another. A group that declares a person “SP” and then demands I sever all ties with them will lose my business. It’s as simple as that. It’s an insane activity that shits all over one of the most basic principles of Scientology: that man is as sane and safe as he is self-determined.

      Likewise for your interpretation of Fair Game. The policy stems from the belief there are goodies and baddies and no inbetween. The baddies are incurably evil, “have no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.” Sorry, but this is nucking futs. You can tell a lot about someone from how they treat those they dislike or oppose, imho. Remember What is Greatness? Where does that fit in?

      “The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend.” — Abraham Lincoln.

  54. For me , very well said!

    I’ve been out of the Co$ for over 27 year’s and have come to know and have experienced other enlightened practices. In order to grow one must open the window and let the sunshine in. To be FREE one ultimately has to be not stuck in any osiphy or ism as stuck is the total opposite of free.

    Thank you Marty for sharing your viewpoints.

  55. Excellent, Marty. I am with you in your mission statement. I should have known in 1976, when I was made to spend three weeks trying to star rate KSW as my first action on my $50 Div 6 Comm Course (and blew three times in the course of that), that I was entering a fundamentalist religion. Up to that point I was a free-thinking truth seeker trying to improve my lot in life, as well as the lives of others. But I was too young, vulerable and stupid to work out that was surrendering my sovereignty over my own mind as I got deeper into the organization. Yes, I got some gains from my 30 years in Scientology, but the quiet misery (or not so quiet) of being in a fundamentalist thought-stopping cult, without even realizing that is what I was in, GREATLY overshadowed those gains. I must say you’ve got me wondering what my experiences with the tech would have been like without all the repression that the organization itself applies to its members.

  56. Thanks Marty, brilliant! This planet is in need
    of HELP big time and so far I have not seen
    Scientology making a dent in that direction.
    But then again we do not know that for sure
    as where would we be today without all the
    auditing, training, philosophizing, integrating,
    application, understanding etc that emanated
    as a result of LRH teachings. If something that
    is delivering more and faster results enters the
    arena, what would you do? (Of course if this is
    the case Dn and Scio must be part and parcel
    of it as it is based on fundamental unalterable
    truths.) Well if you wanted to help the 8 dynamics
    here on planet earth the answer would be quite
    obvious. I used to read other philosophers etc
    just to see how much they really had figured out.
    Many big MEST breakthroughs have been done
    by two unrelated people on the opposite side of
    the planet at the same time. So far LRH is the
    only real star but as his tech and truths about life
    is entering (too slowly because of the bad PR,
    thanks DM!) the mainstream “think” there must be
    a positive impact. We have to be flexible and at
    the same time not diverge from what we know.
    When it comes to getting auditing I would not
    hesitate a second but choose both Marty and
    Tom.
    Thanks also Marty for making God female.

  57. “I have applied that exact path to three individuals – from knowing little to nothing of Hubbard or Scientology to the state of Clear ”
    I believe you, Marty.
    But I also believe that neither Sigmund Freud nor Alfred Korzybski, nor Lao Tsu, or Buddha, for that matter, could do that!
    Marcel Wenger

  58. For me Scientology is very simple. It is like a tool. Like a computer. Shure you can do lots of thinking with it. Or write lots of lines about Scientology. A bit similar to UFOs. You can read lots of books what others have (possibly) seen or experienced. But the day you see an UFO yourself is the day you know that UFOs exist. If you did not see yourself you can do lots of thinking and discussing about it. But that does not replace seeing one.
    Same with OT. You can read lots of stuff about „being OT“. That does not replace the experience of being OT. I had the luck (or not) to have a look at being OT myself. Currently my abilities are almost gone. Sample from right now: On Thursday I had a body problem. I did go to the Doc same day and he ordered a special investigation done on that body part. First call to a practitioner could get an appointment in 4 weeks. Second call: next day morning (someone canceled his appointment). I went there. (usually 1 hour waiting until you are called) I had started to undress and had been called in. (2 minutes waiting) Then got my results. Now I could get the next appointment for treatment this Monday. This is controlling the envirnonmet. Has nothing to do with luck. Has nothing to do with „pushing“ or „scream“ or „overwhelm“.
    Yes, I have open questions about Scientology. I could say, I did not „see an UFO“ myself. I have to wait until I die. Then I will see the rest of the story myself.
    That is my answer to LRH is this or that and why and and and.

  59. Marty,
    Thank you. We are on exactly the same page.

    Alex

  60. BTW, speaking of Frankl, an interesting article about him today:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/theres-more-to-life-than-being-happy/266805/

    Terrific read ..

  61. Thomas Schäfer

    Right. “Think for Yourself”. (Hope the church won’t sue me for copyright infringement)

  62. Marty, I am convinced that you have moved us all up a little bit higher….and for that I am thankful.

    I studied psychiatry before Scientology starting when I was 14. I eventually moved on to eastern religions and then finished all my research when I read Dianetics and Scientology, which was when I was 23 (I am now 65) The sheer volume of books on the subject of psychology and clinical psychiatry is immense and in their totality eclipses even Ron’s unbelievable volumes of work. So, when I read KSW in 1970, I understood Ron to say that “now that the answers have been found, you do not need to study these other subjects.” This made sense to me because I had already studied these subjects and I was finding more answers in 15 minutes of Dianetic/Scientology study than 1 year studying psychiatry or east-west religions.

    But, to this day, I never understood his comment in KSW about how did HE rise up to overcome the bank. He posed the question, “how did I do it?” but he never answered it, at least to my satisfaction. A mystery sandwich…

    I suppose it would be expedient to just tell your Scn followers to “believe” that going off the path he taped was the road to perdition. This would “speed up” one’s progress because his “followers or believers” would not stop to study the Freud’s, Carl Rogers’ or the I Ching (or “Yì Jīng”)’s of the world. (Heaven knows, you can easily park yourself for several lifetimes in any one of these subjects! Ha! We’ve all done it!)

    Anyway, IMHO Marty, you have earned the right to both pontificate and philosophize on the subject of the spirituality of man, whether it be Scientology or psychiatry or traditional religions (east and west). And, we are all better off for it. Thanks

    • clarification: I said’ “I suppose it would be expedient to just tell your Scn followers to “believe” that going off the path he taped was the road to perdition.” I meant to say, “I suppose it would be expedient for LRH to tell his Scn followers to “believe” that going off the path he taped was the road to perdition.”

    • Hi;

      You will find the answer to your comment;

      “But, to this day, I never understood his comment in KSW about how did HE rise up to overcome the bank.”

      … on tape number 10 on the Class VIII course.

  63. Prior to becoming a Scientologist in 1974, I did a lot of searching. As a philosophy major in college it was a hat I felt served me well.

    Along comes the wonder of LRH and the many limbs on the tree of Scientology to climb and swing from. Boy, who would not just want to feast on the picnic provided by the Bridge under the stewardship of the mother church? I did for 35 years.

    Let me say that as a successful businessman who brought Admin Policy to my movie theatre business where the stats leapt off the page, to a trained auditor and course supervisor and sometimes-proud Sea Org member, the technology of LRH worked.

    Yet, somehow I felt ashamed every time I would pick up a book that wasn’t in the Scientology bookstore. (I remember the loss I had when I could no longer get “How To Choose Your People”.)

    Marty, you have once again hit the nail squarely on the head! Like the Alka-Seltzer jingo says: “Oh, what a relief it is.”

    I have returned to visiting the great (and sometimes not-so-great) works of the philosophers with enthusiasm. Going “full circle” has made the circle much larger. By being part of the “Moving On Up A Little Higher” clan, I subscribe to, and support your Mission Statement 100%. I also know that life involves “doing” which is what drives me to keep moving.

    Thank you, sir!

  64. Thank you, Marty. Metacognition is not often applied in this day and age. What always astounded me when I was working in the DSA in Sacramento was the unquestioning response from some staff to orders from upper management that were goofy, unreasonable, and lacked even a modicum of common sense. As you know I no longer consider myself a Scientologist, independent or otherwise. I have utilized other modalities to help me overcome issues of this life and am much happier for it. I agree with you that the religious fervor and fanaticism have not advanced LRH’s significant discoveries vis a vis grades 0 -4 tech, etc. It always troubled me that mindless obedience was the expectation for staff and “parishioners” as I am not one for mindless anything…there is a lot to be said for common sense. One of the things I appreciated when I first got into Scientology was “if its not true for you its not true” which I took to heart. I suspect however that mindlessly accepting what you read and are told is much easier than thinking for oneself and deciding if it is true and workable. Hence the increase in fanatical christians, muslims, and scientologists. Your mission statement has truth and logic and thought woven through each word. Again, thank you.

  65. I truly commend you. Recognizing and then walking on one’s own path is not easy at all. Many claim they have done it, but few really do. I wish you all the luck and all the best.

  66. Is there a point with Scientology where one just knows what he knows? And even more important, where he is able to let others know what they know?
    Where there is no black and white, all or nothing way of thinking because one can now differentiate? Where you don’t have to be embroiled in the mechanics of how something works because you understand the concept? Understanding can’t be forced. There is no freedom through domination.

    When I left the church, I felt like I was being crammed back into a hole, I had already climbed out of because it wasn’t popular to know what you know. When I first started reading this blog, my world was very small (even though I thought it was huge). It was through reading the multiple viewpoints here that I was able to move out from under those constraints. When the ceiling of suppression came off, I had the experience of everything good I got from Scientology. I also had a lot more knowledge. There is nothing wrong with knowledge. It’s part of our journey. People have to be trusted with it.

  67. I speak from the heart when I say truly that leaving this religion and searching and seeking truth from other paths has boosted me higher than auditing or training ever did. The truth is that we are all going to end up at the same place again…..To our true nature…..Take whatever path you choose it doesn’t matter. The scam in Scientology is to make you think you have no eternity without it….But I am so grateful I studied it for so many years…..it actually lead me to where I am now and I’m totally over the “being pissed off at my self” for being so blind for so long. It’s a big beautiful world out there when you gain peace inside.

  68. Marty, I really think you make some very insightful and really important points here and I agree with much of it. I do want to make a few comments and disagree on at least one point if I may.

    LRH relates (I think in PDC) Christianity and the CDEI Scale and The Tone Scale. How Christianity at the beginning attempted to attract followers from Postulates down through the Aesthetics Band of the tone scale and then over time came down the scale to Inhibit and then eventually to Enforce, “you’re going to burn in hell…! if you don’t do… if you do…”
    So, maybe LRH, in for example KSW and other policy could probably be accused of this same route (coming down the CDEI and Tone Scale) and this would certainly be pushed down the command lines, and then “group think” further infusing this into the culture through contagion of aberration and away we go – and of course it’s obvious that the current CoS culture on an increasing gradient has taken this to a whole new level of extreme – leaving less and less tolerance for “free thinking” ,evaluation, judgment – freedom to Be, Do, Have. I believe it’s quite predictable that this will be Its (CoS’s) demise.

    As for “evolving”, for example (and LRH commented on this) as recent as a couple hundred years ago, it was generally accepted that you lived before, that you were A Spiritual Being, not just A Body. From my experience, (reality) I don’t find that most people today accept this idea. There is much proof of this if one cares to observe the ethics level of our current society.
    As LRH pointed out, even psyches (psychiatrist, psychologist) deny, ignore or are oblivious (ignorant) to their own subject’s origin: EG: Webster’s, Thorndike Barnhart, and most other good dictionaries agree that the word, “psyche” means; human spirit, soul.

    Marty, of course this is true of everyone here, but my experiential track is very different from yours, thus a large divergence of reality and opinion. IE, I’ve spent that past 30+ years working intimately with several thousand people “raw public” (not inside the church culture), those looking for answers, and me, attempting to help them with Scientology solutions to varying degrees of success. I submit respectfully, that you, on the other hand, spent about the same number of years working in and helping to create the very culture that you now so destain. I am not trying to make you wrong or guilty about this (I fully supported the cult too) – just pointing out that your viewpoint…, and that maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

    There is one’s reality and there is actuality. You have accused me of being “alarmist” about the current state of society – me questioning your “evolution” theory. I personally don’t feel it behooves anyone here to be lulled into some sort of a false sense of security about the current state of affairs on this planet or to be lead down a primrose path of unreality. I believe that this violates the very essence of Scientology’s second triangle, KRC – the C; Control, is not however workable at Enforce as I think we can all agree. There is much truth in LRH’s points on, … the social veneer make it seem mild…
    I have a strong purpose to help others but sometimes its necessary to wake them up, out of their semi unconsciousness, of being oblivious to the conditions of their dynamics, (their 4th dynamic is in serious trouble) in order to get them to see that they even need help – Awareness Scale.

    And I’d like to state this again: Bashing LRH, Scientology, The Tech may resonate for some who follow and post on this blog. Hey, if that HELPS others stay here and get more understanding, Fine. I do believe a better answer is for those so inclined, is to locate a good Auditor and as-is your Bypassed Charge in session, or study more LRH Tech and Policy – do both. In my experience, it’s the surest way to a higher level of understanding.
    And if this bashing and arguing turns some off and away from contributing to this Blog, then that is really too bad, as you may be missing opportunities to help others.
    Ask yourself this: how many Thousands of Scientologists across the planet benefit directly and indirectly from your contributions here?
    Those looking for a nice safe space with no HE&R, no bashing, no conflict, then I say grow some thicker skin, or start you own blog, or find one that is all sweetness and light – false and counterfeited ARC. But Really, how many of your friends are you going to truly help?
    My recommendation with LRH’s help: Let’s not waste time on petty ARC Breaks, let’s all “Flourish and Prosper” “There is no more deadly way to get even with a suppressive or an antagonistic person or a downgrading society than by flourishing and prospering. All a suppressive person or society is trying to do is prevent one from flourishing and prospering.”
    For those posting on this blog who want to argue and fight with others here of goodwill; how about more tolerance for a broader reality, let’s try to help them understand. But if they then demonstrate an unwillingness to look, to learn, to change, to be helped, IGNORE THEM.
    The Bank (reactive mind) will always stop the good and perpetuate the bad. I believe LRH was absolutely right on his point; that A Group, and that includes this group or Indies will never develop a workable Tech. If any improvement, “evolution” evolves, it will come from the individual. But the individual will not find group agreement here or anywhere else – that I’m sure of!
    Let’s continue to support Marty, Mike, Steve, Karen#1 and other in exposing Miscavige and his Cult, but let’s not “get stuck in on them.”

    For those “under the radar” “one cannot simply vanish in life, one cannot just become a nothingness. And the wrong way to handle suppression is to be low key and hope one isn’t noticed. This is simply agreement with the suppressive person or society.”
    I realize that there are many of you who may have some legitimate reasons while navigating through family connections. Should you get yourself more Hatted on how to handle those situations? Others: should you grow a set, raise your confront and communicate more to your family and friends? Who are your Real Friends?
    And for all of us: “Attempts at suppression are totally defeated in the long run simply by flourishing and prospering.” I say, USE LRH TECH to do this.

    “So there is the ultimate victory over any suppressive group or society. Not to do them in – as they are very busy doing themselves in…”

    And in your flourishing and prospering, don’t forget to Help Your Friends.

  69. After visiting with Marty and Mosey last October, I returned home to find a hurricane sailing right over my head. In fact, the eye of Hurricane Sandy went right over the top of my house without so much as a shingle nor more than a tree branch or two moved out of place. How remarkable.

    After working with Marty and Mosey on issues I believed were still holding me back from accomplishing some of my most central purposes, I returned to public education at a local high school. A young teacher had needed to leave and substitutes had been taking this person’s classes for more than the last month. I was asked to please come in and help fix the mess. I was asked a few days prior to the slaughter in Newtown, CT and started working there two days after. Again, this was amazing.

    The residual effects of my efforts to help there are still being processed by myself and the many people whose lives I touched and who so touched mine. Many powerful relationships have formed and my life is again unfolding along these primary lines of purpose. I am again dancing with my life and The Lady.

    Marty and Mosey had the purpose, courage and integrity to work with my wife Vicki and I as both individuals and a couple; as independent scientologist and ex- scientologist.

    For those who must cling to the literal word of *(fill-in-the-blank)*, this remarkable assistance may seem somehow tainted by the fact that not everything we did and said had anything to do with the works of L. Ron Hubbard, or anyone else.

    But it had EVERYTHING to do with us.

    So we obviously chose a path which facilitated growth, evolution, and transcendence. A path which Vicki and I would recommend to anyone.

    Love to all,
    Vic

  70. I agree with your writing here Marty.

    I believe that the biggest concern of LRH was that someone would take his proven procedures and alter them into an unworkability (some of which has happened in corporate COS). I don’t believe he wanted people to close their minds to what others had to say on the subject of philosophy (or perhaps the mind), but I can definitely see that especially during the 1960’s, 70’s, many people began really wandering off into other practices (or combining) that would quite possibly harm their cases or result in no results. There was a major influx of drugs into society and with this, “other think” that resulted in a deterioration of conditions rapidly. I don’t think he wanted people to flounder around “searching” for things that worked when he had already advanced and codified something workable that could be applied right now.

    Incidentally with what he personally was facing in terms of suppression during the 60′, 70’s explains why some of his later statements are so “absolute” or extreme on the subject of other people’s philosophy and in particular the field of mental health as so much of it had been muddied up and people who had wandered into those hands more often wound up in a worse condition. (For the record, I believe there are undeniably good psychs and bad psychs, the good ones choosing to listen and communicate versus the bad ones who want to tell you what to think and give you a drug).

    As you pointed out in the Study Tape (and which has been pointed out all over the place in his writings), one can sum up the workability of any philosophy or technology by a measure of it’s results. I’ve always understood (my understanding) that LRH’s intention was: Don’t alter the procedures that were mapped by him for they’ve been proven to work. Don’t mix his procedures with other procedures thus introducing the possibility of them not working.

    Does one need to stop learning what LRH put together to go study other philosophies? I’d say not, for Scientology goes pretty far in terms of increasing spiritual awareness. In other words, get all you can from Scientology for it is codified. But there is no need to denounce or close ones mind, to other philosophy. However at least know and be able to apply your Data Series and Study Tech to understand what you are looking at and if it is a workable thing or not. It’s that simple.

  71. Marty,

    I see this almost as a vision statement, it is deeper and broader than a simple mission statement. I also see it as a great expansion to your “the great middle path” perspective.

    Having been born in the subject, joining the Sea Org at 15. being in RTC by 18, I held a tremendous bias and arrogance towards Scientology. Now, I am embarrassed at the fervor with which I knew “we have the only solutions” when I had no experience or education to justify that position.

    One of the things I am still struggling to understand is what is a real end game for the subject, something that can be measured along the way to understand how things are going, or is it simply a belief type goal like the common christian goal “to become more Christ like”.

    My youthful involvement in Scientology was not for super powers or OT powers, or any other personal gain, but rather to help save the world, creating a world without war, insanity and criminality where honest people could have rights. If we look at the sum of the 60 years of our history, have we done anything measurable towards this goal, if anything effective at all?

    Is it a way to make more money and financial success, which is part of what my father believed? Should this goal even be a Church or rather a self help business? What honest data shows that Scientology even works in this way?

    Is it to live happier lives, raise better children, have better marriages, more satisfying work, happier and healthier lives? Or is it simply to make us feel better about ourselves? If it makes better marriages or better children, or leaders or workers, do we build statistical data? Or do we just make it a belief?

    I am reaching that point in my life where concepts of mortality are creeping in … I am wondering what I still want and need to accomplish in the +/- 15-25 highly productive years I have left. This also begs to ask, what, if any role or goals do I have in any aspect of the Scientology/whistle blower/underground railroad/human/activist / evil empire/ new birthing philosophy experience?

    • Michael,
      I don’t believe there is any ‘end game.’ The cycle of create-survive-destroy applies to the physical universe. Beings fool themselves that into believing that it applies to themselves, the creators of the physical universe. To the extent Scientology is used to introduce and enhance the spiritual universe experience, there is no ‘destroy’ in the cards.
      Marty

      • I like that!!!

      • If beings created the physical universe, wouldn’t it then follow that they
        eventually would have to “uncreate” it.
        Wouldn’t that be an ‘end game’?
        Marcel Wenger

      • One of the ideas that seems to be gathering traction in my world is that rather than measurable accomplishment, life, a life may rather be measured by how we treat it. Do we make things better, or do we exploit and pillage, do we help and protect the weak and innocent, the grieving and ill, or do we step on or ignore them in pursuit of a selfish goal. Do we share our blessings, or hoard them and flaunt them to build up our own egos.

        The western world and COS are very goal oriented, materially, financially, and with status. I know that such feelings in me have been debilitating … it is something I continually have to look at.

        Your recent posts bring up a spirituality in the philosophy that I don’t know I ever really grasped or felt.

        • Hi Mike. The charitable and compassionate golden rules for living life, of christianity, for example, are wonderful guides to live by. There is much in common between these and the philosophy of scientology. Certainly no conflict. But as you point out, the materialism of “churches”, and not only scientology, is something that detracts and is in conflict with the message. Mans lower nature versus his higher nature. The struggle to rise above the lower nature is the challenge. If you have never been exposed to christianity, and the lives of some of its saints, I think you might find a lot to appreciate in it. What your seeing around you that you admire and describe is embodied in that school of life.

      • Nice. What a great concept i.e. what it would be like to fully realize and actually experience that from whence I was a creator, or was part of the creators, of the physical universe. I suspect right about then I’d run into that Thetan that inhabited that clay vessel called LRH — that, no doubt, would be another great experience. Since that ain’t happening any time soon, I’ve got Marty’s blog.

    • Mike

      Hi.
      I find I want to stick my oar in here. Hope you don’t mind.

      If I understand what you are saying here it seems that you are searching for some “yardstick” for Scientology, and also for your life. If so, here is a little something that may be of some use….

      You could approach this from an “ethics” viewpoint.
      —–

      If you consider that “ethics” is partially defined as “that which is enforced by oneself, his belief in his own honor, and good reason, an optimum solution along the eight dynamics.” then it would seem beneficial to have formulated what your concept for “optimum” would be for each of the dynamics.

      If you have not done so already, I invite you to take each dynamic and formulate a clear concept of what you consider “optimum” would be like if you were existing “as” that dynamic…. as cause. (since they are all YOUR dynamics)

      I invite you to “go way out there” on this one. Do not limit yourself to a particular “scene” (such as how much you would love the woman you are currently with, or how well you would do your current job etc. I am talking about a viewpoint of optimum that is exterior to that, but would encompass it.) Look at such things as optimal communication level, action level, energy level, “havingness” level, ARC, etc.- on all flows, on each dynamic, and all eight combined. Be sure that there would be no conflicts between dynamics. Your first should be able to still be optimum within your optimum 2nd, 2nd within the 4th, etc. (potentially your dynamics should now be aligned, at this level, if they were not already)

      I have found that by putting my own concept of “optimum survival across the dynamics” at the top of my overall “admin scale” of life, everything below it falls readily into place.

      Whether or not, or by how much my actions move me toward it, is how I measure my ethics condition, what an “overt” is, and my concept of success. (I try not to be too hard on myself, success is a gradient thing, and even baby steps will eventually lead to the goal)

      It is my “yardstick”, my “Q” if you will.

      Hope this was of some value. You can reach me at “windwalker8008@gmail.com” if you choose.

      Eric S

  72. Dan Koon:

    You have pretty much summed up my conclusions:

    a. LRH developed a workable, spiritual based self improvement technology that often gets wonderful results. Ditto for the ethics & admin tech.

    b. LRH was a world class bullshitter and that must be taken into account when listening or reading LRH tech, ethics and admin.

    c. LRH did some nasty things to others and that must be taken into account when listening or reading to LRH tech, ethics and admin.

    Like we recently found out about Lance Armstrong, LRH was too quick to declare war on “attackers”. Part of LRH’s legacy is the development of some nasty, easily abused “tech” such as the RPF & disconnection. Speaking of disconnection I dedicate this to my beautiful daughter:

  73. I rarely comment here. I find what I read here more and more encouraging as evidence that a higher level of intelligent application of the subject is taking place. The result being, an inevitable progression of independent ownership and self determined application of the very most bedrock fundamental axioms and logics. Years ago I departed Scientology in disgust with what I was being shown by the organization. Later, I reengaged the subject completely free from that suppression and have come to the same conclusions as you Marty, in regards to the technology itself. Discussions like this give me hope that one day, the world at large will be more receptive to the workability that much of what Scientology offers. And, hopefully this blog and perhaps others like it will provide a means for others to gain a clearer understanding of what has happened in Scientology history, and also understand Hubbard better, warts and all, thus be willing to sidestep the land mines and move upward. Without the ability to look and evaluate the entire body of data in Scientology for oneself, (something apparently dangerous to do in some circles) the subject will never really be OURS to use. And, I’m pretty sure the old man would agree. Thank you for posting your position Marty, I think the distinctions you are making are important to consider.

  74. Now, you’re speaking my language! Well done Marty, well done. Thank you and huge theta hugs :-)

  75. For myself, I took the opportunity to study many religions and philosophies. I grew up in a family where my Mother was a Catholic and my Father a Russian Orthodox. I played the violin in a Lutheran church and a Jewish synagogue.I had friends who were Christians, Mormons and Christian Scientists. I learned things from all religions. Scientology for me was not a religion but a philosophy and I loved/love it. For me reading LRH was an awe moment!!! “finally someone duplicated me!!” I was determined to find out what I wanted to know in spite of the barriers within the organization itself. I will always be thankful to LRH and for what he has done for mankind.

  76. Dear Marty,

    Geat post!

    i have already, pretty much summarized my vp on this a few posts ago (where I mentioned the fundamental definition of Scn is knowing how to know) and I was glad you appreciated it.

    By the way, “God herself”? Getting pretty Wiccan, aren’t we? Joke.

  77. I will be posting here excerpts of the PDCs from lecture # 35 D.E.I Scale which is my favourite, so as to show that LRH and Scientology is not to be followed blindly but is a vast subject which has not been explored fully by anyone of us yet. So, we better keep creating it instead of undoing it:

    START OF QUOTE:
    “And the difference between the preclear that has to be chained down to have the boots put on him and me is, is I never wanted to be a slave and I never had to be. That’s all. I never agreed.
    It was very interesting – somebody was talking about science fiction the other day, Iwondered how much of all this was science fiction.
    Well, there’s science fiction and science fiction. Some science fiction’s bad, some science fiction’s good. Unfortunately, for your sakes, this isn’t fiction. I wish it were. If it were just a pleasant afternoon, we could all go on being slaves.
    But unfortunately – unfortunately it doesn’t happen to be fiction. Like the professor – I mean, the chair of physics up there said, „The diabolical accuracy of these predictions will be borne out by the most exacting research and investigation.“ Well, they’re diabolical because they take slaves away from those who would have slaves. And they set man free. And they’ll even set men free who don’t want to be free at all. And I think that is the most… grimmest jest.” END OF QUOTE

  78. Once again, thank you for your blog. And thanks to those that contribute.
    Maureen

  79. Thank you Marty.
    You said: “I have earned the right to have my own opinions on the subject – as have others.”
    Yes you/we have and it’s a privilege we have granted ourselves by NOT following ‘blindly’.
    I love how you have managed to ‘move me up a little higher’ in that due to several suggestions from your readers & you, I am now reading my very own copy of ‘Man’s Search For Meaning’. The ‘Gospel of the Buddha’ is on it’s way (replacing the one I’d tossed in the old days). And for months I’ve been goggling and studying many many more mentioned subjects.
    This has now given me viewpoints to compare and help with understanding Scientology MORE! How interesting that this would have been suppressed.
    Thanks for the classes :)
    Cece

  80. LRH: “It’s an interesting thing to look back and isolate the source, usually, of any given era or period or political entity. We look back into Greece and we can actually spot the exact people and the exact statements which became Greece. We look at such chaps as Pericles.
    And he postulated the future not only of Athens but for other Greek states, for the Roman Republic (getting pretty wide), for France, for England and for the United States of America. Because he laid down a singular principle and that principle was that the citizen should know more about government and should participate in it to the fullest extent. And this, carried forward—as he carried it forward in his own government—became the Age of Pericles. There was no higher level of Greek culture than this one age.
    “Everyone may participate. Every man’s voice should be heard.” And this was a wonderful thing and, so far as I know, had not been said before politically. And so we have one man giving forth a postulate, since he just didn’t say this should be, he said this will be. And he bent his own political efforts in the direction of making this come about.
    There is this background, there is this tradition: that Man has a right to his own opinions, has a right to study them, has a right to know his government and his duties as a citizen and to exercise himself in performing those duties. And he has a right to contribute to the society. And this we’ve known for twenty ¬three hundred years and so today call ourselves a civilized race.
    Men can become so depressed that they are not themselves capable of exerting their own self ¬determinism, because it doesn’t exist. We can give it back to them. We can give them that thing which twenty ¬three hundred years ago, it was stated they must have in order to continue to be free. Therefore, we have a stake in the game, too.”

    This was an excerpt from the lecture The Control of Hysteria, given on the 15th of April 1957.

  81. Bravo on this post!

    Personally, I am becoming much more comfortable letting go of “total certainty” about nearly everything. I still have a ways to go. But actually, it feels rather good and creates a desire to engage the world on a new level.

    Tom’s Op-Ed piece you published was written with an air of Total Certainty.

    It is interesting to me how frequently various church promo pieces have the apparently surveyed button, “Gain total certainty of…”

    IMO, desiring continuously to Gain Total Certainty comes from a place of anxiety, of wanting to resolve all those pesky and confusing shades of grey to a settled black or white. Certainty about what is and isn’t. Don’t have to think about THAT anymore.

    It seems to me that you feel many people might need to see your training and auditing credentials before they would grant you credibility or even lisence to philosophize on the subject of Scientology. In my opinion, any thinking person, who is sincere, and has some knowledge and practical experience with the subject has that right. Whether one continues to pay any attention to what they say depends on their ability to put forth a cogent argument on why something is or isn’t a certain way.

    Still here, still paying attention!

  82. I just want to say one last thing on this. It seems like Tom is being painted as an example of what is wrong with Scientology, or attitudes that will prevent future progress of the subject. I dont know how many posters actually know Tom so I thought I would share some things I know about him.

    Tom is a good auditor. The best I have experienced. He is an auditor who knows his tech and can “play the piano”. He runs processes standardly and gets the results. The auditing is very relaxed and natural. TR’s are unnoticable with no hint of the roboticism you get in the Church. If the PC even gets off in any way he smoothly handles it, but that is rarely necessary.
    He’s not a religious fanatic or a radical muslim terrorist or whatever labels you are using here. I found no evidence of any of the negative aspects you list here with Tom.
    Neighbors routinely flock to his house to talk about their problems and things. He doesnt force viewpoints or Scientology on anyone. He doesnt make people wrong or act superior.
    I think you are taking some negative aspects of the Church of Scientology and framing them in a way that might invalidate current practicioners of Scientology. Like independent auditors who have been auditing and getting standard results for years are suddenly radical or out of step with the future because they arent hip to your new way.

    • I like this post. I have known Tom for 25 years. The first thing we ever did together, he was FB, if not mistaken, I was RTC. I had just bought a 70 1/2 camero SS from one of the Hubbard kids for several hundred dollars. I didn’t even know how to drive at the time, had never driven a car.. It had been sitting there for many, many years. A car nut, Tom offered to get it running for me. I still remember the awe I felt when in less than an hour of his tinkering it roared to life.

      Later, at the end of my SO career, I was literally out on the streets homeless for several days, my family was all in Australia and I was too embarrassed to call for help. Tom was heading up CC Int renovations, somehow saw me, and offered me a job, he was still in the SO. I still remember him asking how much money I wanted to make, he knew I could do renos. I said minimum wage, $5.25 an hour, at the time I think. He said that was stupid, how about $15-20 an hour. I negotiated him down to $10-12. He gave me an essential means of support for my children and my first stepping stone to the real world.

      I remember Tom getting in lots of trouble for not following the word of policy, commev’s and all the rest, he followed the spirit and got it done, the hell with managements stupid programs. He created a real problem for management because he was one of the few that could really perform and get positive products, but he didn’t follow the rules.

      Tom’s recent posting doesn’t reflect the Tom I have known for many years. I suspect what may not communicate well here is that Tom may have a BRUTAL loyalty to the Man, perhaps not so much the ideals, but this is an exceptionally difficult concept to communicate. Tom is a tough strong man, ruthless in following what he believes is right. I experienced very little, if any bad or bad or negative intentions from him, he got the job done, but also worked to make sure people were OK.

      Tom is absolutely one of the good guys, despite any single sentence or paragraph he may write that I don’t agree with.

    • Chris.

      First off, thank you for hanging in there and continuing to voice your opinions.

      Regarding the issue with Tom seemingly being “targeted”. I am not absolutely certain, but I am thinking that Marty is not attacking TOM at all. Marty seems to be taking this opportunity to voice his opinions regarding certain types of “think” that he finds objectionable or limiting of one’s pursuit of freedom. Hopefully Tom was not “collateral damage”.

      I would even bet that, should he choose, Tom could restate some of the things that he has said, in order to defuse any unwarranted disagreements. Without more in-depth communication with Tom, I really cannot say what his core beliefs are, but I would pretty much bet that they are not that different from yours, or mine, or Marty’s, or perhaps most of the posters here.

      We are mostly here because we found things within Scientology, or the current Scientology church regime, that were not in keeping with our own concepts of “truth” or “workability”. Just sorting the truths out for each of us has likely been, or still is, a challenge. Finding ways to communicate it precisely is an even larger challenge.

      But there is much truth in the postulate that “communication is the universal solvent”. More communication has more possibility of clearing things up than less. In communicating one needs to be able to assume (view from) the other persons viewpoint in order to really “duplicate” that viewpoint.

      But in the end we are all struggling to make some sense of this mess that we call life and livingness, and sometimes misunderstandings result.

      But we have tools.
      Tools that can resolve this if we use them.

      Eric S

    • Theo sismanides

      Thanks for the data about Tom. I think we are going through some misunderstandings here, as most, I say, most Indies are some notches above the Churchies!

    • You said “I just want to say one last thing on this. It seems like Tom is being painted as an example of what is wrong with Scientology, or attitudes that will prevent future progress of the subject. I dont know how many posters actually know Tom so I thought I would share some things I know about him.”

      I haven’t read all the posts but I certainly don’t have a bad opinion about Tom M. I have met him and I think he is a great guy. All that is happening is that we are taking about ideas. Yes, there is some emotion flying around, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just because some people haved disagreements does not mean they have to condemn the other. This is a perfect example of “staying in communication” even if you aren’t liking what you hear. Maybe some will conclude that they don’t like Marty’s or Tom’s views and want to “cut comm”, well, that would be up to them. I like Tom and I like Marty. I think Marty’s view is closer to my own. Does that mean I don’t think Tom can audit well?? No.
      It can all get SO serious… Is it really all that serious?? Isn’t it ok to communicate ideas? Even bad ones without condemning?
      I probably overcommunicated my response to your post Chris, but I wanted to get some other thoughts in as well.

      • I do not have a bad opinion of Tom and the only thing I know about him is his post here on this blog. I got love, dedication, sincerity from what he wrote. I did not get that he wanted to force pcs or evaluate for them. I got that he thought that one would apply the processes as written (blindly) and the proof would come with the pudding. I very much doubt that you would find him locking people in a room and gang bang sec checking them because LRH said to be ruthless! I just did not get that at all from what he wrote. So I do not think he actually does run blind. The written word can be a difficult medium as it lacks so much nuance.

    • I just wanted to add more to this. (I need to stop saying “..one last thing”)

      In the Church “KSW” kind of sucked. It was used wrong, and these other things were just used wrong. I think Steve was saying purpose is senior to policy. So if you have a bad purpose how is the policy ever going to be “right”? So you’ve got all these “bad” policies like KSW, but when you take the auditor or Scientologist out of the Church you tend to lose these bad purposes (which werent theirs anyway). You take a guy like Tom who continues to apply and follow these “bad” policies but he’s not got all the bad side effects. In fact, there are no negative side effects I have observed and no harm done. If there is some negative effect an independent Scientologist practicioner creates by continuing to follow KSW I would like to hear about it. I would like to know how this is causing so much of a problem, and with some specifics please.
      I think these negative effects are not the result of policy or anything other than a bad, muddied purpose of the top leadership of the Church for the last 25 or so years. I was probably a bit arrogant in the Church. I had all the answers. I knew I had my “route out” and thought the world was full of “wogs”. Those were just dumb human emotions, arrogance, ignorance etc. I’m not going to blame that on Scientology. Those things are not necessary for Scientolgy at all. I don’t really get that personally from KSW1. I can see how some would read that into it, but let’s realise that is your own vanity and arrogance that got the best of you and get rid of that before you throw out the whole PL.

      • I agree with a lot of what you say here Chris.
        One thing I will say that I think is wrong with KSW 1 is that it is not real easy to duplicate. Look how much disagreement is running around here about it. I think if LRH said it in a simpler way we would not be having this discussion. Sure we all have “MU’s”. But couldn’t LRH communicate this idea without it being able to be interrpreted the way dm has ran with it? And most of us (good little bots at the time) ran with it too.
        You want examples?? How about the ten points themselves?
        I get the first three. After that it gets shaky for me. Take point seven: “Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.” This could mean someone writes some bad auditing tech then you hammer it out. This means there could never be anyone allowed to try to go forward with any of the tech. Or it could mean hammering out psychology, or psychiatry or Buddhism or, or….
        So this leaves a lot open for interrpretation and this is not good.
        If you say Tom is applying KSW and it isn’t creating any waves that’s all good. But dm says he is applying KSW and that sucks. And there could be all the shades in between. I think some people are just saying that the WAY LRH said it wasn’t clear and was part of the current problem in the cult. Can you see that???

        • Regarding Hammering out of existence incorrect technology: On the KSW-1 PL (HCOPL of 7 Feb, 1965) I feel that who it is addressed to and what it is about give me a pretty good idea of where and how it’s intended to be applied.
          If you are a student it applies to your study and application of your materials. If you’re a Sup it applies to your courseroom. If you are an ED it applies to your org. If it applies further than that I don’t know. You could apply it personally in life, but thats up to the person. KSW-1 being applied (or being applicable) on higher dynamics than that outside of the Church is probably rare. Maybe Tom Cruises “team” apply KSW ruthlessly or mercilessly, whatever he said. BUT I do not read anything in KSW saying we should destroy the “Psychs”. – OK, here gets into something I’ve been thinking about, and thats how policy is applied and when shifts occurred. I know LRH didnt like the “Psychs” and he criticized the profession to say the least, but did the Church and it’s members really feel and act the same way they do now? Now “The Psychs” are really put there and promoted as a solid enemy that must be defeated (with large donations) in order to save earth. Who really started that ? It would be interesting to know more about when changes occurred like that because if I’m looking at some current scene in the Church and assigning blame for it on a certain policy it would be more clear if it was the policy or something else to blame- a changed purpose or something.

          • I think to Tom Cruise, KSW means whatever Miscavige says it does. But is that KSW’s fault or Toms? http://youtu.be/zURYniW_foc

          • Hi Chris,
            It would be interesting to see who started the real heavy attacks on the Psychs. I think there is a real good chance that it was LRH himself and he spoke about them in pretty strong language, it ‘s not hard to see that some moron cuold run with it the way it had gone. Same with KSW. I think many people could interpret it to be “heavy” and to “attack” things. Maybe LRH didn’t mean it that way, but he could have written it in a clearer way. I get that he was pissed about all the quickie grades and all that. I still feel he could have gotten his points across in a cleaner and clearer way.

  83. What startle me the most is this kind of dichotomic, dualistic way of thinking from some of the commenters: “you are either Pro or Anti LRH…”
    From The Spectrum of Logics (Notes on the Lectures):
    “Primitive logic was one-valued. Everything was assumed to be the product of a divine will, and there was no obligation to decide the lightness or wrongness of any¬thing. Most logic added up merely to the propitiation of the gods.
    Aristotle formulated two-valued logic. A thing was either right or wrong. This type of logic is used by the reactive mind.
    In the present day, engineers are using a sort of three-valued logic which contains the values right, wrong, and maybe.
    From three-valued logic we jump to an infinity-valued logic—a spectrum which moves from infinite wrongness to infinite rightness.
    The computer of the mind by which all data of a problem is summed up works on this principle. Each datum has its own value of rightness or wrongness on the scale. The computer sums up these values and makes a decision. As each new datum is added, the arrow of decision moves according to the value of that particular datum.
    When the computer sits at dead centre there is in¬decision, no action. You can have an engram which keeps the evaluation scale stuck, so you can’t evaluate data. “I’m always right,” “I’m always wrong,” freezes the computer. An “I have to believe it” engram deprives a person of his sense of humour. He takes things too seriously. Realizing that it is socially bad not to have a sense of humour, he laughs when he sees other people laugh.”

    Tao te King:
    When they lose their sense of awe,
    people turn to religion.
    When they no longer trust themselves,
    they begin to depend upon authority.
    Therefore the Master steps back
    so that people won’t be confused.
    He teaches without a teaching,
    so that people will have nothing to learn.

    • A long time ago there was a new guy who started working at a business. He seemed to be causing problems somehow, but it was unclear how and he seemed like a “nice guy”. After a while it became evident that in conversations he would work in some version of “Isnt there something you dont like about this place?”, or “Isnt there something you dont like about Joe (store manager)”.
      Kind of a reverse-auditing command.

      Isnt there something you disagree with about LRH?

      Isnt there something about KSW you dont like?

      Isnt there some part of Scientology you find unworkable?

      And you feel like you arent hip or part of the new group if you dont jump in. I mean everyone is having these fabulous cogs. I dont want to be left out.

      • I dont mean anyone is a third party here. Just that there can be group agreement and that is not always good. Sometimes it can be good, but sometimes it can be bad. You get ten people- two who have fully duplicated M9 reference and done it correctly, three who have MU’s and have a hard time with it, three who had it enforced on them and two who dont know what it is. All these people chatting away in the break room about M9 and somehow they all leave having agreed that “maybe M9’s dont work”, when in fact they do work if you do it right and dont have them forced on you. .

        • Well, I would be the first to say that M-9’s could work and maybe do work. Anything if done on a self determined basis can work. The cult under the guise of KSW loves to enforce m-9’s and all sorts of other bullshit. A question to you Chris is how far did you get up the bridge in the cult?
          For me it was a pretty smooth ride up though OT5 and when I arrived at flag and that’s when I started having problems.

      • I have to say Chris that you are starting to sound like a bit of a bot.
        Are you saying that there is NO good reason to critique LRH or his writings?? I spent 30 years plus giving my wins and so forth so the flow in my universe is unblanced with my giving wins, applauding, yelling hip hip hurray, writing success stories and hoping to get an f/n so I could escape the Flag mind fuck. So forgive me if I don’t share your enthusiasm for not wanting to spot some out-points in the joint.
        What are we going to talk about?? How good everything is?? That sounds kind of theetie wheetie to me. I got an idea, if you want to start a blog and have the LRH fanclub and the glowing reports of admin club then by all means start it. You will probably be roaringly successfull.
        Hey, I had incredible wins from the tech. But I am not going to be a “yes man” and assume the position, because I had some life changing wins. I did have life changing wins. I made it onto OT7 and believe me that was a LOT of work. I had to jumpthrough a lot of hoops and earn a lot of cash. If the deal was that in order to get the life changing wins I have to be a compliant robot then count me out. And that IS the deal in the cult and is why I left.
        This argument about whether it’s ok to critique LRH and his policies may not go anywhere with some that are committed to the idea that it’s all perfect. I feel this conversation is getting circular. Sort of like two dogs chasing each others tails.

        • Ok Tony. I have realized I am starting to act not unlike some treatment I got from people in the Church after I “came out” so i’m going to end off on that.
          I believe, at this point, I fully understand the major concepts being kicked around here. I’m not stupid. Maybe I could write better. The fact that I “speed wright” might not help.
          I dont think it does much good to speculate why, but I still feel that some here are going off in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons. You are free to do that.
          In the end, perhaps (and I suspect) all paths lead to the same place.
          Right now I am going to hold KSW 1 as a pivotal stable datum for the future preservation and effective application of the subject.
          I am holding to my understanding of it (KSW 1) which I believe is a good, conceptual understanding of the key concepts. I think I’ve read it 50 times, gotten 15 Star Rates, 5 M9s and I did the KSW Course and I’m a Fast Flow Student.

          • Cool. Thanks Chris, that was good.
            I was just thinking; what would be the difference in practical application in the real world between someone who believed KSW 1 was very important and should be applied and on who thought it was over the top and helped to create a lot of the problems.

            KSW lovers: Would (I feel) Keep the current church intact. Keep the Sea Org intact, keep the RPF intact, keep PTS and disconnection in tact, keep the justice codes in tact, keep admin working tech in place. Unless any of these could be proved that LRH didn’t write them.

            People “down” on KSW: Think for yourself and apply the things that you want and see that work for you. Probably more on the lines of doing it as a free market structure with no control from a “mother church”.

            Something like this. I am sure even with this that there will be someone disagreeing with me. I guess you could have “infifnity valued logic” on all the shades in between. And maybe Wendy Honor had a point when she said ” For Gods sake!!” when she apparently got sick of all the blah, blah, blah. If most of us don’t even apply the tech of auditing I guess it doesn’t matter. But, I know that a lot of people still do and I am thankful for that. If I ever was in REAL trouble, and I needed help, I would not seek out a psychologist or a Monk, or a Priest…I would seek out an Auditor. I love auditors and I love the auditing tech.

            • I am more concerned with the Tech aspect.

            • Tony, I see KSW#1 a little bit differently than you.
              When I read the HCO PL it’s easy to see that LRH is concerned about TECH issues and its consequencies.
              It’s all about Tech in this HCO PL.
              He doesn’t speak about the lack of policy compliance. He speaks about what will happen if Tech is not applied correctly – what will happen to the PC.
              And if nobody pays attention to 1-10, the subject will finally disapear, will be useless or dangerous. One single alteration in the technology (3 swings F/N) and thousands of cases where mis-programmed.

              1-10.
              It’s all about Technology.

              • Got it. Despite what Keeping Admin Working says, lets put that on the back burner for now.
                Your point is that the red on white tech should not be altered at all ever? Never added to? ( I am just trying to make sure that I duplicate you first.) Is this correct?

                • I’m looking at this from the viewpoint of KSW applying to an Org or The Church, or even an Independent Org by their own free will choosing to apply it. If you open a Tony’s Scientology Center and tear KSW out of the coursepacks, or write your own stuff on it I wont suicide bomb you Tony, I swear. I will take no part in any Scientology jihad. The worst I will do is maybe choose a different Org Tony. Thats why ultimately it doesnt bother me that much.

                • Tony,

                  1) have you examined the KAW PLs for yourself?

                  2) Have you ever tried to use the ten points of KSW#1 to admin?

                • Thanks.
                  I think Marty’s next post addresses this quite thoroughly.
                  I will throw in another comment or two just because I enjoy it.. :-)
                  Who is the arbiter in your opinion on whether or not you are applying the tech 100% standardly? You or someone else?
                  If it is you , and then someone says that you are not doing it right, 100% then what do you do?
                  If it is someone else telling or showing you, how do you know they are telling or “showing ” you how to do it correctly?
                  What would you do if this authority showed you how to do it and you didn’t get a good result? Keep doing it the same way?
                  What if three different people interpret the tech three different ways and all three assert it is 100% standard?
                  What if later someone says they found LRH’s long lost OT9-15 materials in the cults archive somewhere , would this be adding to what is already there and be out KSW? What if nobody could verify whether this was written by LRH or not? All these questions are answered by one thing… Applying it for yourself and seeing if it works, just the way LRH describes it in the following post of Marty’s.
                  I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject Chris.
                  Oh…one more question. If you were out in the field and saw someone NOT applying KSW on the tech. How would you go about doing all the 1-10 points of KSW to stamp it out and hammer it out etc? Just curious.

                  • I guess you have to do the best you can and use your own judgement.
                    I think I answered the last part above. and I wrote some more applying to this on another of your posts.

                    • Sounds fair enough.
                      This is like one of those arguments you have with your wife and it gets all crazy and then you realize you thought she said “should” instead of “could” or something and then everything was fine… :-)

                  • How would you go about doing all the 1-10 points of KSW to stamp it out and hammer it out etc? Just curious.
                    How about education?
                    Maybe he never learned it the right way because no one was there to back him up?
                    Depends on the guy.

                    “hammer it out ” is this a idiom in the english language?
                    Like in “to hammer out a deal”?

                    I agree with you, Marty’s next post is superb.

  84. Well said, Marty.

    If Scientology is the/a “road out” and is the “bridge”, there must be an “out” and there must be a place the bridge goes. That place, in my opinion, is “life” – a better, more enlightened life. That life is post-Scientology, which is why I have considered myself a “post-Scientologist.”

    I sort of look at it this way:

    1. It is worthwhile to study and apply Scientology.
    2. When studying Scientology, study Scientology. Find a great courseroom with the correct check sheets, excellent course supervision, and the correct materials. When applying Scientology, apply Scientology.
    3. Realize that you are infinite and that there is no limit to what you can know and learn.
    4. There is a wealth of knowledge in the world, and it is fun and uplifting to know it.
    5. There is value in learning and knowing things you don’t agree with, because it helps broaden your own knowledge to see what is out there, and to look at things from different points of view.
    6. People are basically good. Most people are trying to get along, and when they are passionate about a subject that can “save the world”, they are usually passionate about it because they care, not because they want to prove you wrong. For example, when a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door, they are there to save you, not piss you off. That is a really nice thing they do. I do not agree with their beliefs, but I acknowledge their love and dedication. Same with Mormons. Same with Psychiatrists.
    7. Someone like Tom Mariano is afraid if we don’t put some rigor into our use of Scientology, it has a good chance of disappearing. This is a valid fear. However, becoming a slave to a philosophy that is supposed to be about freedom has brought us to where we are now – Mr. David Miscavige running a global slave camp.

    Scientology is not about slavishly doing anything. It is about freedom.

    • I really love this whole commentary, GH.

      When you stated, “…becoming a slave to a philosophy that is supposed to be about freedom has brought us to where we are now…” I was stopped in my tracks by the elegant simplicity of this observation. Thank-you, Vic

    • Defender of Theta

      You make excellent points, GH, and I love these two:

      .2. “When studying Scientology, study Scientology. Find a great course room with the correct check sheets, excellent course supervision, and the correct materials.

      3. When applying Scientology, apply Scientology.”

      This whole thing about “KSW” vs. “Freedom to think”, is, for us in the Independent Field, at least, a false dichotomy, in my view.

      One has complete freedom to think.

      One has complete freedom to devise one’s own bridge, path, etc,.

      It is simply that if one does devise his own route based in part on Scn, altering the Technology that LRH laid out, he should not call it Scientology. If one calls one’s services “Scientology” then those services should conform as closely as possible to what LRH wrote.

      And, it is not a question of me, or anyone else, saying what anyone should do. In my view, it is just a question of honestly representing what you are doing.

      My 2 cents

      Fred

  85. I really appreciate this statement of yours Marty.
    I must say that I am sure it will be misunderstood by who wants to capitalize on ignorance.
    And I want to validate your deep understanding of Scientology , the technology and the philosophy. So I can attest of having personally experimented your third point:
    ***
    Third, because I have successfully understood and applied the technology of L. Ron Hubbard to intended result, over and over again, both in the church of Scientology and out while under intense attack by the same entity, I have earned the right to have my own opinions on the subject – as have others.
    ***
    I have worked and I am working with you as a C/S and Tech teminal and for me you did earn that right 100%. And what I can attest is that you made me THINK with the tech and my understanding of it and the result obtained because of this approach had been huge.
    At times “I would have liked” to use …. the “canned solutions” – but you insisted on UNDERSTANDING, and I became a better auditor and a better person because of that, and leaned HOW to know.
    I must also say that we are in a priviledged position having done the whole Bridge, and having audited people on it – having sperimented the application of the “tech” inside the Church and outside.
    What I mean with this is that you, and I wlaked the walk and talk the talk.
    Not that other did not, or that can have a different idea.
    But I think that also LRH did not wanted us to just “ingurgitate” his philosophy, but that he wanted us to understand it, use it, think with it a because of it become better persons and help other to become such.
    This is a piece of advice that he said in his Journal ’68:
    ***
    Now this is what I have pointed out for some time, there are two branches to Scientology.
    One is Scientology the philosophy, it is a religious philosophy, but it is a philosophy and that is something you use to think with, to wonder with, to accept or reject.
    And the other is Scientology the applied philosophy and that is where it applies directly to processing.
    Philosophy means a love or pursuit of wisdom or a search for the underlying searches and principles of reality and we certainly have that in Scientology.
    A great number of principles of exist in Scientology, it’s probably the largest written, spoken body of work of any philosophy ever undertaken.
    Out of this many things can be made of and of it, we can say such things as “What is true for you, is true for you in Scientology”.
    This is a vast area of observations in the humanity.
    It is yours to think with with, work with, accept or reject as you wish.
    It is still there, it is still valuable.
    No matter how old the book is.
    No matter how old the tape.
    It is still part of the body of Scientology, known as philosophy.
    There is nothing authoritarian about it.
    It is yours to accept or not as you see fit.
    It is Scientology, the philosophy, nothing has changed it.
    ****
    I do think this summarizes the essence of your statement.

  86. Jean-François Genest

    Great editorial essay. Well stated Statement.
    LRH communicated great common-sense wisdom. So did others.
    « people are free to believe what they want to believe» he stated in a lecture. I experienced the fanaticism first-hand in the Sea Org, and it was not fun. It caused LOTS of ridges. In CMO and Flag Bureaux, I found we were FORCED into that “Sword of Damocles” state of mind, instead of being free to think, be ourselves and create.

    Utter obedience, submission and reverence to LRH, RTC staff and CMO Int staff did not produce good results. Common sense did. I saw Sea Org Members tremble in fear in front of David Miscavidge or that tyrannical AVC Aide RTC lady. It was not a pretty sight. It made me realize something was really wrong, and inverted.

    I am a proponent of free thought. I enjoy the ideas presented on the blog, and so far, I have enjoyed and learned good wisdom from the blog, and from the suggested readings. On my own, I would not have thought of reading «Man’s Search for Meaning» or «The Shack». Both are insightful. Myself, i continue to move on up a little higher. I don’t care if others think it is wrong for me to do so. ∞ Θ

  87. Jean-François Genest

    Additional note:
    The lunatics who harassed Marty & Monique for half a year, and those who believe it is justified to spy on them 24/7 – those are examples of religious fanatics who believe they are applying LRH to the letter, comma; and semi-colon. People can get down on their knees and adore them if they please. I never will. They are missing the whole point.
    ♫ “They’re free to fantasiiiize” ♫

  88. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    ¨¨Marty,

    I do fully agree with your statements and I’m really hayppy and thankful that you finally expressed what many people think and feel, but didn’t have the words for it or perhaps the courage¨to express it in public.

    You post today produced a big shift in my universe (a feeling like arriving on planet earth). Even, that I was waiting now for 3 years that you finally post those statements, as I was certain your above described way is the logical way to go, I’m totally surprised.

    I can’t write any well reasoned comment about the topic as I got to think it over for some days.

    2 days ago we were swinging back and forth beetween midlle age and reformation and now we are in the 18th century !

    What a big lap !

    Soon we’ll arive in the 21st century.

    With your blog you’re freeing tons of theta and this freed theta will create BIG THINGS !

    My eternal gratitutde to you.

    Evolution (darwin) or the conquest of the mest universe (hubbard) can’t be ¨¨stopped by religion or an individual. Theta frees itself endlessly from enturbulations at the end.
    ¨
    Many more will come after you .

    Thanks

  89. Marty, this is a great thesis. I do not have your vast experience of auditing independently, but my small experience validates yours. Auditing without the shackles of Co$ does work much better and much faster. I will bring here an example:

    I took a pc in session. He failed the metabolism test. Now in Co$ I would have sent him back to the Admin Personnel. They in turn, would torture him for an hour with vitamins, exercise and such. They might even have sent him to see Ethics. This is not what I did. I asked him how was his sleep last night (still on the meter). He admitted that his sleep was bad because he had his attention on a problem – huge read. I took up the problem and run it until I got a floating TA. The pc was happy. He had a win. I ended the session (that I never started). Just to satisfy my curiosity, I did the metabolism test again. Total success, alas PC on a win and cannot go in session.

    You may say to yourself “clearly a squirrel.” After all I violated model session. Here is what I was looking at:

    1. I have never listened to an LRH model session where he did not take in session a PC with no metab.
    2. I set up to take a pc in session to help him. Should I not at least try to help him, I would be betraying him.
    3. The pc was clearly in distress. The very reason he failed metab is the same reason he needed auditing. I was not going to put him in a vicious cycle where he cannot get help because he cannot sleep. I broke the cycle.

    In the end, I ask myself what would LRH do? I believe the same.

    What would Co$ do? Send him to see a 16 years old MAA, who would not have any compassion, and would be heavy handed and ruthless with him. The PC would not have won.

    • Grasshopper (Mark P)

      That is a great example. A perfect example. It is so edge-case that I can see you getting crammed (erroneously) for it my a rote C/S or d of p. Here you have a PC who is not sessionable (because of lack of sleep, not because of metab). In this situation it is an auditor’s code violation to audit him. But (and this is a big but) you did not audit him, you flew the PTP rud. Ruds are not auditing. Good work! This would have been missed by most people I knew.

      Mark

    • One of those who see

      standing ovation. I am printing this out for a friend to read who went through hell at an org regarding trying to metab.

  90. Marty, thank you very much for this.

    Your post are going higher and higher as one will expect, not lower and lower as some “authorities” have earlier suggested we should go.

    You took the words out of my mouth that I was about to post yesterday:
    “Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject…and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now, that is incredible. If you had a Doctor of Philosophy, you would expect that Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize. The professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy.”

    That above is one of the great omitted data from Scientology and Scientologist, and a never ending source of personal frustration for the last 30 years.

    So it has been the altered importance and generalization from LRH’s original injunction not to alter workable procedure and methods, into faithfully following his every word like a biblical mandate.

    In ancient times different spiritual modalities, “The Tech”, “processes”, “methods” or “procedures” for the mind, would have been called “vehicles”, I don’t know how that world translates into Sanskrit or Pali, but I made damn sure throughout my experience with Scientology never to forget or alter the importance of this subject from a vehicle into a divine mandate.

    I used my rudimentary and residual knowledge of the Tao and Buddhism to correctly evaluate and predict the insanity, stupidity and contradiction that Scientology had become.

    Both actions served me well, as I did not allow anybody to physically or verbally abuse me, and I was not imprisoned, RPFed or bankrupted.

    Scientologist did succeeded in stopping me going up the bridge, that they did, and they accomplish it by following and quoting the policies that LRH wrote.

    So I can unequivocally state that for me: Scientology was only denied by Scientologist following its own scriptures, and that those policies, despite all protests to the contrary, were written by its founder.

    So for those obsessed with being Scientologist and clinging to the tech, admin or otherwise, as if it was the last piece of truth they will ever see, here is an observation from LRH’s HCOB of 3 May 1972:

    “Degradation begins when the Thetan is interiorized into unwanted mass. It is completed when, having developed an appetite for heavy mass, he is exteriorized from it.”

    I think we have been unduly interiorized into this subject for too long; it is time to begin moving upward and outward.

    Marty you are a wonderful auditor, an as far as I can tell, one of the first true Philosophers that Scientology has developed.

    • Hi;

      ““Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject…and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now, that is incredible. If you had a Doctor of Philosophy, you would expect that Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize. The professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy.””

      This is EXACTLY the thinking when I studied philosophy at the U. I realized that what I was studying was the ‘History of Philosophy’, not philosophy. I was quite upset, but there was no road to where I wanted to go, except that one. It was interesting, but …

  91. I have heard a few people on this blog complain about “LRH bashing”.

    I wanted to say a few things about that. First the definition of bashing: bash·ing
    /ˈbaSHiNG/
    Noun
    Violent physical assault.
    Severe criticism.

    Definition of severe: 1. harsh; unnecessarily extreme: severe criticism; severe laws.

    I take it to mean unnecessarily extreme criticism. Key word is unnecessary.

    The reason I myself and I believe others sometimes criticize LRH is because there is a connection between him and the tech.
    Some people it seems, believe that if LRH developed the tech then it cannot be improved upon. (I think LRH actually said that in KSW 1.)
    I myself do not believe this. I think it can/could be improved on. What if Freud said the same thing that his developments can’t be improved on, or if Thomas Edison said his ideas cannot and SHOULD NOT be improved on? Would this be good?

    I’ll be the first to admit that I couldn’t have done what LRH did. But I will say that if some people smarter than myself fully duplicated the very workable tech of LRH and then attempted to carry on his work toward the Ideal being, I think it would be great.

    I think that is closer to the dividing line between some people in the Indie field.

    The question is, is there a good reason for any criticism of LRH??

    I think saying that people are “bashing” LRH can be a generality. I could break down LRH criticisms into some different categories:

    1. Harsh Personal criticism of LRH not based on any proof. Carping illogical hate mongering.

    2. Hateful criticism of Scientology that is not based on proof or reality.

    3.Constructive criticism of Scientology. Ethics, tech and admin and any and all writings by LRH.

    4.Constructive criticism of LRH, his life, etc.

    I think groups one and two would be fairly obvious. LRH is Satan and his followers worship the devil. Scientology is totally a money making scheme and has nothing valuable in it. Etc. I think most people would agree that this type of stuff is a waste of time.

    Is there any good reason to criticize or (a better word: critique) category three (Scientology)? I say yes. If we can isolate what went wrong and the good and bad that we perceive in different aspects of it then we can create a better game than the way this one turned out.

    This brings me to Category four, (LRH). Are there any valid reasons for critiquing him?? I say yes. Partly because if some see him as infallible then that would mean that all of his writings are infallible. Conversely if he is fallible then it would make sense that some of his writings are flawed and should be examined. They should be examined by everyone, not just a select few. And that is why I think it is very valid to bring up LRH and the way he treated his own family and people that supported him and his goals, and other things. There is ample evidence that LRH didn’t live up to his own writings on numerous occasions. This doesn’t invalidate his tech, but it shows that he is fallible and therefore gives good reason to examine his writings closely.

    I do think there are those out there who think “LRH bashing” would include any criticism of Scientology writings by LRH and that his life should be off limits.

    I think the real dividing line in the Indie field is:

    A.) Those who are willing to look at LRH’s life, his actions and all of his tech( any of his writings) for flaws and plus points. And are willing for open communication about these as a valid way of improving things in the future. It can also be therapeutic to spot real items for people on what went wrong in Scientology and why.

    B.) Those who are unwilling to look at LRH’s life, his actions and all of his tech and writings for flaws and do not want open communication about them. The reasons they wouldn’t I can only guess at.
    *Such as a feeling of huge respect for the man who created a tech that gave them such huge personal wins.
    * A fear that the tech will be altered and made unworkable.
    * Fear that if some of these flaws will invalidate their own participation in Scientology and bring about some realization that they may have wasted some or all or large parts of their lives. Or somehow shake their own personal stable datum’s. That Scientology and LRH are personally holding back a large confusion and if the stable datum is knocked away they will be back “in the frying pan”.

    I hope this communicates adequately how I feel about the subject. I also think giving attention to all the incredible tech and different wins that were had is very, very important to keep things balanced. In the cult I and many others were not allowed to freely communicate about such things (critiquing) without being given the indication that we had overts (sins) and were withholding these sins. Some of us were then coerced into giving large amounts of money to be purged of many invented sins in order to satisfy the Inquisitors. So this is a passionate subject for me. It is my God given right to communicate and I think there can be some cult “leftovers” in thinking in the way that criticism equals sins, overts, evil purposes etc…

    We of the Church believe
    That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.
    That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.
    That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.

    That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

    * (this would include LRH)

    That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.
    That the souls of men have the rights of men.
    That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.
    And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.
    And we of the Church believe
    That Man is basically good.
    That he is seeking to Survive.
    That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the Universe.
    And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man
    To destroy his own kind.
    To destroy the sanity of another.
    To destroy or enslave another’s soul.
    To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s group.
    And we of the Church believe
    That the spirit can be saved.
    And that the spirit alone may save or heal the body.

    I highlighted some of the points of this creed that are continually violated by people in the cult and also by some outside in the Indie field. These points by LRH I am in agreement with.

    • I always enjoy your posts, Tony.
      Today you are, in my opinion, in exceptionally excellent form.

      And it’s not just because i happen to agree with you.

      Les

    • Tony, right on brother! keep on communicating!!

    • As I read over the key principles, I realized that there is one that I do not agree with:

      “That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.”

      That line is an obvious swipe at psychotherapy and some other fields.

      I guess this depends in part on how one defines “mind,” “mentally caused” and “alienated.” Reconsidering Stephen Jay Gould’s proposal for non-overlapping “magisteria” (a domain of teaching and authority) of religion and science, I would say that maybe the magisteria should overlap in some places — while we are still gaining in understanding, there are some things that may be the proper province of both science and religion.

      Based on Ron’s words, the following, as studies of the mind, would not be condoned in non-religious fields: hypnotism, hallucination, human development (in the academic sense), optical illusions, phenomena like pareidolia, attentional blindness, IQ, EQ, cognitive ability in general, active listening and reflective listening, anything that could be called counseling, memory, memory techniques, development of analytical reasoning, logic, philosophy, study in fields like linguistics, and tons more. I frankly believe it would set the human race back centuries to have the study of the mind condoned only in religious fields — depending again on how one defines “mind” but it would take a pretty gerrymandered definition of “mind” to avoid a conflict with science.

      Frankly, one of the things that put me off was the sham transformation of Scientology into a religion. One day crosses came in, “church” peppered speech, clerical collars were adopted, a plethora of ceremonies was created, and Sunday “services” appeared.

      For me, terms like applied spiritual philosophy have appeal. Terms like religion and church have the opposite effect on my. And language that dismisses science from the study of the mind paves the way for the gullible to believe whatever they want in whatever religion they choose with no critical thinking involved. That to me is not the way out.

      Just my two cents.

      • Hi FTOF,
        I’m not saying that I agree with all those points either. I had some q&a on the one you mentioned too. I just primarily used it as a way to show some literalists that even LRH says in the creed that we hae the right to think freely and so forth.

        • Thanks Tony — got it.

          If that one point were just slightly reworded, I’d be behind that one too (and I love all the others). I’d reword that one along the lines of “the study of the mind cannot exclude or be divorced from the spiritual nature of humans and life.” Or something like that.

          BTW, today I came across an interesting line in Wright’s book “Going Clear”: “He [LRH] may have been grandiose and delusional, but the endless stream of policy letters and training routines that poured from his typewriter our after hour, day after day, attests to his obsession with the notion of creating a step-by-step pathway to universal salvation. If it was all a con, why would he bother?”

          Why indeed? The idea that a structured bridge can be built to enlightenment, remedying pitfalls along the way, is to me a revolutionary concept that deserves to smash its way into history.

          Prior to that, psychotherapy focused on the alleviation of neuroses, psychiatry in its worst incarnations had a guy traveling the country doing lobotomies and others giving electroshock and chemical shock to sort of blindly “hit reset” on the brain, and so on. Eventually those fields got more humane and started stepping a little into Eastern efforts at greater awareness (not just release from neurosis but release from maya, illusion, duality, etc.), and achievement of states of bliss (not just numbed out drug apathy) such as somewhat captured in the west in psychologies of self-actualization (Maslow), and the recognition that what we so easily deem madness may be of a different character altogether (e.g., work of Lang in Politics of Experience, Szasz in Manufacture of Madness, and so forth.

          Ron had some problems. He was very fallible and all to human. But he was also a genius. The idea that there can be a detailed, testable, procedural path to enlightenment will, I believe, stand as one of the greatest ideas of all time.

          Instead of fearing criticism of Ron, I suggest we give him the most valued particle of all: admiration. How cool to have a founder who was such a scalawag in some ways, so damn colorful, and with such tone 40 (intention without reservation) focused on creating a workable bridge?

          Back to Wright’s question: “If it was all a con, why would he [Ron] bother?” Anyone who has audited someone to F/N (floating needle, and screw the three swings BS), VGIs (very good indicators), and cognition (realization) knows why. I still remember the first F/N I got as an auditor. I thought to myself. Holy crap. It worked!

  92. Yes Marty, he was 50 years ahead of his time. Fortunately, the truths he distilled and codified are are being “found” or “discovered” by others now and the field of psycho-analysis will hopefully take a giant leap forward. Its a good thing. Your position will add wind under those wings.
    The organization he created to put scientology in use throughout the world attacked anyone using it outside their control. How nuts is that.
    Your description of a PC being audited from start to clear, without all the add-on bullshit is enviable. I think I would be walking around carrying my head under my arm had it been me. That is the way it was meant to be.
    This blog just gets better with age. What awesome contributors are here. I wonder what the state of affairs will be in 30 years when we look back on this moment. This blog is history making as it unwraps, validates and liberates the valuable material found in scientology. Thanks to you and others here.

  93. Defender of Theta

    Hello. It’s been a long time since I have posted here. I am posting because of the importance of the topic Marty has raised over the last couple weeks: Scientology, other practices and philosophies, and KSW.
    Marty, you have my greatest admiration for bringing the topic front and center and in giving a somewhat opposing view (Tom’s) front-page coverage. You practice what you preach.

    I am going to make some strong statements, so please indulge the following review of my quals.

    I was a psychology major at a major university. I did graduate work in Religious Studies with University of Chicago professor Mircea Eliade, likely the world’s greatest scholar of religious experience. I studied Chinese religious systems (including Chinese Zen Buddhism and Taoism) and Hindu religious systems, and other systems, reading key original works (the source materials, not interpretations) under the tutelage of Professor Eliade. The works studied included the Mahabharata, Upanishads, works of Shankara, Zoroastrian works, the Vedas, the Epic_of Gilgamesh, and the Tao Te Ching.

    I studied directly with, and was directly guided in meditation practice by, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, living with him for an extended period of time. His teacher was Guru Dev Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswati. Guru Dev was directly in the apostolic succession tracing back to Adi Shankara and was a Shankracharya, that is, holder of the “chair of Shankara.” Shankara is thought of “the most brilliant personality in the history of Indian thought.” Maharishi was on the mainline of Hindu spirituality.

    I then studied Buddhism directly with Zenkei Shibayama, who held a post that was like the “pope of Zen Buddhism”: He was the spiritual director of more than 500 Zen temples, and a Being of great awareness.

    Later, after I became a Scientologist, I studied most of Ken Wilbur’s works. I studied the fundamentals of Christian thought. I also engaged in New Thought study and practices (a Western form of spirituality). I have spent time with the Spiritual Director of the largest New Thought denomination, that has hundreds of centers. I study Jewish spiritual thought, including that in the Kabala.
    I weekly study Quantum Mechanics, which I believe is bridging the gap between science and spirituality.

    I never stopped studying “other practices” while I went up the Bridge.
    I love and admire all of the foregoing Beings and the tremendous efforts that went into their works. Their spiritual insight and works are astonishing. They are particularly astonishing given the challenges of figuring out what the spiritual problem is, much less solving it. And, that is the problem: coming up with Technology to solve Man’s spiritual problem.

    • Yes, several of the great sages do a better job of describing the Eight Dynamic and its relationship with the Seventh Dynamic that LRH did (and, that is perhaps not a fair comparison on my part, as LRH explicitly said he was not going to comment much on the Eight Dynamic).

    • Yes, I do think that leaving the Eight Dynamic out of Scientology (in large part), and emphasizing OTs, set the foundation for the tolerance of the sort of hubris, egotism, and narcissism we see in David Mischavige and some others.

    • And, yes, L. Ron Hubbard was far, far from perfect and had some exasperating characteristics, that I can only call aberrations, when it came to his personal life and behavior in some case.

    But, I believe the following is also true. Fasten your seat belts, I am not going to sugar coat this:

    • Based on my direct study and practice, if you add up all the effective practices developed by the greatest spiritual sages on this planet, meaning no disrespect, they do not add up to 1% of what LRH developed, both in terms of quantity and quality.

    Example: So, I excitedly study Ken Wilbur. He displays astonishing intellect, and a masterful grasp of the spiritual condition and challenges of man. I hurriedly get to near the end of one of his seminal works, to read his program, his insights into the “route out.” What is it? Keep a daily journal of your thoughts, study, and meditate. I thought:

    “That’s it? You wrote many masterful works of philosophy, but when it comes to technology, it’s one paragraph, and no real methodology is offered?”

    I can testify that what LRH said, though it can be interpreted as egoic and even arrogant, is true: There is no other real route on this planet. That is not intended as an invalidation. It is just what my decades of earnest exploration tell me.
    So, what about the Great Sages? My opinion, only: I think most of them are “Natural Clears” – or, if you will, Avatars, who “came down” directly from the Eight Dynamic, relatively recently. They DO live in high spiritual truths. I have lived with them.

    Some of them ARE able to communicate their reality, the Reality of the supremacy of Theta or however you style the Supreme Truth. But, lecture as they will, and try as they might, they seldom get much of a product on their disciples, beyond what a good, old fashioned Comm Course produced. In the few cases where they appear to produce more, I think it is usually because other Natural Clears were attracted to them, and got the “dust brushed off them” by their Natural Clear teacher, so their Natural Clearness could show though. I don’t think they got much in the way of erasures on their non-Natural Clear disciples . . . some key outs, but mostly a strengthening of the analytical mind, by study of high spiritual truths.

    The problem is that few earlier sages had any detailed insight into the mechanical structure of aberration, particularly as represented by the NOTS case, let alone did they develop a library of precise techniques to address it. They often have great poetry, describing who you really are, God Consciousness, etc, but though that can tell you where you should end up, it seldom gets you there.

    Again, I study these other authors daily, and I love them. I know two prominent ones and spend time with them. But, none of them ever developed a Correction List, e-meter techniques, an Int Rundown, etc. As a consequence, I have seen the good intentions and hard work of these wonderful spiritual sages stalled by the lack of Technology. And, that is where Lafayette Ronald Hubbard is the undisputed, clear Sage of Sages. Not because he is a God, but because of his down and dirty R&D work.

    Yes, we all have the right to our own opinion. We even have the right to alter the Technology, in my opinion, so long as thereafter we call the altered subject and techniques something other than straight Scientology. But, because we have a right, that does not mean we should exercise it, in my view.

    Yes, it is unquestionable that Scientology Technology could be improved. LRH says as much in Safeguarding Technology. But, I believe that KSW is, in its core, correct: the chances of a human being, at this moment in history, improving the works of the greatest spiritual technologist in the history of the planet are slim. Instead, the chances are that their “improvements” would be detrimental.

    If the Avatars could not develop rich, widely and deeply effective technologies, I am with LRH on the unlikelihood of others improving the Tech, at least until well after they have absorbed and applied all that LRH has already written. And, there is a lot of study and auditing to be done before we get to that point.

    Plus, advocating other technologies, picking and choosing what LRH to apply, etc. plays right into the hands of the Tyrant, David Miscavige. Why give the Enemy of Mankind, Scientology, and LRH any sort of weapon to use against the Independent Movement? It’s a PR world.

    It seems to me that the winning positioning is “INDEPENDENTS are the Champions of Standard Tech. David Miscavige is against Standard Tech and is a Squirrel.”

    I think the above is a winning positioning because I think LRH’s statement in this area is correct:

    The majority of Scientologist will stay away in droves if they think you are “not quite with LRH.”

    To wit, why do Scientologists leave and go Independent?
    • Amongst other things, in addition to abuse, because they came to realize that David Miscavige and his cohorts were not with LRH Tech.

    • Observation: many Scientologists would put up with the abuse, as long as they could get some semblance of Tech.
    • When they could not get straight LRH Tech, there was no longer a reason to tolerate the abuse.

    So, why adopt positions that look like the very thing that contributed to many Scientologists breaking with Miscavige?

    Being pro-LRH, and pro a reasoned application of KSW is, I believe, the winning position, not only regarding getting the best Technical results, but also in the PR battle.

    My two cents. Thanks for listening.

    Fred

    • Hello Fred,
      you are one cool thetan.
      I not only have a lot of admiration for your spiritual journey, I also agree with each point you made regarding LRH, Standardness of Technology and your final statement about the proper positioning of Scientology.

      I may ask one question:
      from your perspective, do you think that it was neccessery for LRH to also “harshly” defend the subject – with all means neccessery – in order to complete his work? Or do you think that he sometimes overemphasized the importance of the Tech and was a little bit “paranoid” (as some would like to suggest)?

      As I see you have a thorough grasp of the quality of his legacy backed up by your tremendous understanding of different spiritual pathes.
      What do you think would be a good route to preserve Scientology for future generations (I ask because of your background with other religions).

      Thank you!

      • Defender of Theta

        Dear SKM, thanks for your kind words. I am trying, but I have a long ways to go. In fact, the more I study and get auditing, the more I see how profound my imperfections are and how much more work I need to do.

        To answer your question: In general, yes, I do think it was necessary for LRH to defend his work vigorously.

        I think we all believe in freedom, but what LRH articulated in the Study Tapes is too true, within my studies. The Founder of a movement no soon dies, than some individuals, in their unfortunate, abberrated condition, begin to alter the teachings and lose whatever tech was created. Or, they even GO AFTER the Tech of the Founder.

        My personal belief, derived from my auditing, is that powerful structures exist in the Bank (GPMs in particular) that demand that good Tech is destroyed, hence the need for a certain ferociousness to oppose that reactive impulse.

        Real world examples of the problem and the need for real KSW:

        –LRH was not even dead before the Great Anti-Scientologist (do you like the play off of “the Great Satan?” – smile), David Miscavige, began to undermine LRH and his plan to end dictatorship in Scientology after his death (via seven boards, with 21 directors and trustees, to oversee Scientology) . Could you imagine what it would have been like if LRH’s plan was widely known and power had been distributed over 21 auditor-trained and well audited, senior people? (the LRH materials required that training)

        — LRH had only been gone a few years before the Great Anti-Scientologist began to covertly invalidate LRH and all the incredible auditors LRH produced (largely via the BC he personally taught) (who are also likely directly, or indirectly, in large part responsible for the Boom in Scn in the 1970’s).

        The Great Anti-Scientologist called these LRH-produced auditors, who generally produced results the world has seldom seen, “blind.” And only he, the Great COB, a failed Class 4 auditor with almost no hours in the chair, could correct the work of this stupid old man, Hubbard.

        This out of valance Squirrel had the audacity to call the mere codification of LRH’s works in the 1990s, the “Golden Age” of Scientology, as if he invented 0.001% of what LRH created. (If there was a “Golden Age” of Scientology, it was much earlier than 1995). And, others produced the bulk of the (so-called) Golden Age materials.

        I think that the Great Squirrel has more than demonstrated that what LRH taught in the Study Tapes was correct.

        As to your question about how to preserve Scn for future generations:

        1. Back up Marty, Mike, et al and the Independent Movement (and, acknoledge the Free Zoneners, who have been doing it since at least 1982).

        2. Get auditing and training going in the Field.

        3. No matter that Scn is not perfect, and acknoledgeing everyone’s right to free thinking and communication, acnowledge that LRH’s observations in the Study Tapes were accurate and adhere to KSW. Save creation of any new Tech until after we have fully implemented what we have.

        4. Identify the Correct Target: David Miscavige and the Miscavige Administration.

        5. Spread the word that:

        –That, after more than thirty years, DM cannot produce any document from LRH appointing him as dictator of Scientology, LRH was not a complete idiot and he strongly emphased putting things in writting. If LRH (supposedly) went to the trouble to personally groom the Tyrant (as he claims), why would he not take ten minutes and write something saying that is what he was doing? Answer: because the Tyrant made it up. LRH never took this poor excuse for a leader under his wing, intending him to be his successor.
        — That, to the contrary, LRH intended one-man rule to end on his death.

        Spread the word that, specifically, as expressed in his Will and the Articles and By Laws of CST:

        – That there is no “ecclesiastical leader” of Scientology; that supposed post was invented by the Squirrel, David Miscavige, for his own aggrandizement and in a feeble attempt to legitimize that which was nothing more than a typical, old, tired power grab by a psycho.

        -That the COB of the RTC merely has the authority to chair RTC board meetings, handling the administration of them.

        –Such a COB has no other authority and he has only one vote during such meetings.

        –Such a COB is junior to the Board of Trustees of RTC, who have the legal authority to remove him.

        — CST has three boards that are even more senior.

        -That, therefore, the Tyrant has no legal standing or authority other than as an admin (and, even then, it is questionable if he honestly and legally has even that limited position);

        -That, therefore, the Great Squirrel has merely created a phony position, by force of personality, like the typical SPs, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Huessain, etc. did.

        -That in truth, DAVID MISCAVIGE IS NOTHING. Though many still do his bidding, he has no actual legal standing or authority and as soon as this truth is widely recognized – that he is a usurper acting directly in contradiction to clearly expressed, written LRH intention, it will be like the Wizard of OZ (except the Wizard did not have such evil purps). LRH says that SPs in fact have no real power, deriving it from the manipulation of others.

        I don’t have all the answers, but the above might be a start.

        Thanks,
        Fred

        • Dear Fred,
          thank you very much for your advices. That’s what I am doing, actually.

          You said: “Spread the word that, specifically, as expressed in his Will and the Articles and By Laws of CST… and all the points you mentioned.

          Following is a quote from a PDF document from savescientology.com / Articles & Bylaws of CST:

          “The Church shall have the authority to manage, use and make available for use by other Churches of Scientology, the vast body of Scientology Technology that forms the foundation of the religion of Scientology. In so managing and using this body of truths and methods of
          application, the Church shall have as its purpose the responsibility of keeping Scientology working (i.e., getting the correct technology applied correctly.)”

          It can withdraw the right to use that technology. See, for example, from Article II:

          f. “Religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” shall not necessarily be coterminal.
          That is to say, the terms “religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” shall be co-terminal only so long as churches of Scientology continue, in the opinion of L. Ron Hubbard during his lifetime, and in the opinion of all of the Directors and Trustees following the death of L. Ron Hubbard, to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.

          Of course there is clear evidence, that the CST was completley corrupted by Miscavige.
          As you said, the Board of Trustees is gone and the church and its followers didn’t even noticed that there should be one, do you think that it would be a good thing to try, in the independent field, to re-establish a similar structure of high trained technical terminals?
          Not for the purpose to create a new corporation, but in order to (quote) ““shall espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure and maintain the purity and integrity of, the religion [sic] of Scientology, as the same has been developed and may be further developed by L. Ron Hubbard to the end that any person desiring participation, or participating, in Scientology may derive the greatest possible good of increased awareness as an immortal spirit.”

          While I don’t think, that there should ever be a corporate structure, it is my belief that there are still enough high trained terminals with enough means and insight as to help restore the original writings, help to establish on-source Auditor Training Facilities and much more things in order to preserve the purity of the Religion of Scientology and its applications.
          Do you think this should be a way to go? Away from the corporate structure with a self nominated CEO in the direction of (per KSW#1: “Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason.”) a group of trusted terminals who do not run the independent facilities, but rather serving in order to “espouse, present, propagate, practice, ensure and maintain the purity and integrity of, the religion of Scientology [...] to the end that any person desiring participation, or participating, in Scientology may derive the greatest possible good of increased awareness as an immortal spirit”

          In this writing we see, that it wasn’t LRHs intent to have a monopoly of the church in a way it came about. Monopoly, yes, too some degree, but it’s obvious that he was more concerned about the purity of the technologies and its beneficial effects to individuals, than any other single factor.

          Do you think this data should be more propagated and a establishement of a kind of a “General Consulate” would be a good thing?

          LRH also says in the KSW#1 (emphasis mine):
          “Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either.
          [...]
          There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”

          I appreciate your view on this.

          • Ya’ll are spinning your wheels going down that rabbit hole.

            • I don’t understand what you mean?
              It was a bad idea from LRH to have a board of trustees?
              Technical Terminals one can rely on?

              Miscavige is the SP who got rid of this org.
              Only a SP would.

            • And by the way, what does “Ya’ll” mean?
              It’s me, a single person, an idividual, who askes these questions.
              You think the linked PDF and its contents are a fake?

              • In east/south Texas and the deep South, “y’all” is a friendly way of saying “you.” It can be singular or plural- plenty of people will say “how y’all doing” when they see a friend.

                Anyway, I can’t speak for Marty, but in my opinion, you might be spinning your wheels if you lament the whole CST/board thing and expect anything to come of it. If you want to publicize that fact to help open people’s eyes to the lack of fairness and freedom in the church’s leadership, that’s great. But if you are expecting CST to rise up and throw out DM, or if you are expecting indies to put together a detailed leadership structure, you are probably spinning your wheels.

            • I still don’t have a mystery here, Marty.

          • Defender of Theta

            Hi SKM,

            Thanks for the validation. In answer to your questions –

            I do understand your concerns. There is certainly going to be the need for some sort of C/S Series 25 line, but that will be for each practitioner or group to work out, in my view. Right now, it is not such a situation, because the people auditing in the field are so highly trained and experienced.

            As to your other question, I don’t think we should try to create or re-create some sort of master corporate organization.

            I do feel that the Tyrant’s active counter-intention to LRH’s expressed intention, in his Last Will and Testament, and the Tyrant’s overt flaunting of the corporate law, via his defiance of the Articles and Bylaws of CST, RTC, and CSI, is a major point upon which he is incredibly vulnerable:

            — His entire regime has NO LEGAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL LEGITIMACY. I mean, that is amazing.

            — Yes, some say, “But, he has all this power.” He doesn’t. He has no legal or ecclesiastical power – the only power he has is the power he steals from others, via “Control by Domination and Nullification.”

            His domination of the Boards of CST, RTC, and CSI, and turning them into rubber stamps is not really an asset to him; on a long term basis, it is a liability. It’s like a gangster committing more and more crimes, amassing more and more money. But, the very actions that give him more “power” will eventual be his downfall.

            Spreading the truth about:

            — what LRH wrote in his Will and in the Articles and Bylaws, particularly as to one-man-rule ending on LRH’s death, with power to be distributed to seven boards;
            — the Usurper’s active counter intention to that LRH intention, and
            — his flagrant illegal actions in unmocking the boards,

            will, in my view, be a major source of his downfall.

            Remember, in seeking tax-exemption, the Idiot REPRESENTED to the IRS that Scientology was being governed by the 7 boards, according to the Articles and Bylaws of CST, RTC, and CSI. Think about it (smile).

            Fred

            • Dear Fred,
              thank you.

              “I do understand your concerns. There is certainly going to be the need for some sort of C/S Series 25 line, but that will be for each practitioner or group to work out, in my view.”
              Yes, I also think HGCs should work independently.

              “As to your other question, I don’t think we should try to create or re-create some sort of master corporate organization.”
              Yes, as I said before, a corporate organization is prooven to be not the solution for clearing. There should be no such thing as enforced obedience, accountability to a higher organizational entity, payment of license fees for the use of tech. This times are over.

              Remember, in seeking tax-exemption, the Idiot REPRESENTED to the IRS that Scientology was being governed by the 7 boards, according to the Articles and Bylaws of CST, RTC, and CSI.
              Exactly.
              The one important thing is, to educate peole about this hidden data (Articles and Bylaws of CST, RTC, and CSI, LRHs Last Will and Testament).
              The most important is LRH saying: “Religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” shall not necessarily be coterminal.
              If only more people (inside) would know this data, they wouldn’t think “The Ecclasiastical Leader” is Scientology and there is no Scientology outside his “empire” and we will do everything he says because that’s what LRH wants us to do for the rest of this universe.”
              It’s important to spread the “news” that LRH made a distinction between “the Church of Scientology” (being merely a corporation) and “the Religion of Scientology” (being the intellectual Legacy of Scientology).

              I should explain a little bit more what I mean when I said:
              … and a establishement of a kind of a “General Consulate” would be a good thing?
              I didn’t mean a corporate Structure (as already said) but more a group of people connected with the purpose to un-do the demaging alterations of materials, checksheets, the structure of the bridge (deviations in training line up, auditing).
              All the crap being added to or in any other way altered from the original intent (icluding 3-Swing F/N ;-)).

              Today in the Independent Field we find practitioners who left the church in different spans of time (even from the 70’s).
              There are so many different viewpoints as to what is the genuine LRH Technology.
              There are different editions of HCOBs and other materials in use and on the internet. Different associations adhere to different materials.
              Even different views about the Bridge itself (both, grades/dianetics and upper levels). The 1991 Edition of the Tech-Volumes already has its deviations and Miscavige will come up with a re-edition soon.

              It’s all fine saying: we practice independently.
              It’s also ok saying: we know the right stuff – we look for ourselves what works and the other guys got it all wrong.
              But this will only result in a no-standard at the end. With different “branches” of adherence, confusion.

              I mostly agree with you in this point:
              “Why give the Enemy of Mankind, Scientology, and LRH any sort of weapon to use against the Independent Movement? It’s a PR world.

              It seems to me that the winning positioning is “INDEPENDENTS are the Champions of Standard Tech. David Miscavige is against Standard Tech and is a Squirrel.”

              Love,
              SKM

    • Grasshopper (Mark P)

      Wow, Fred. I love this. Between this comment and Marty’s post above, and my own observations, there is a lot to digest.

      Mark

    • Defender of Theta, GREAT POST! love your viewpoint and attitude!

    • Beautifully put, I agree with you!!

    • Fred,
      Thanks for this. I had the same reaction to Wilber’s advice. And I, too, believe LRH’s technology is head and shoulders above any other practice. That is why I practice it full time as my occupation. But, I don’t read Wilber as a creator of any route. I read him as an academic who has done an unprecedented survey and distillation of all major spiritual traditions for use in creating integral practice and philosophy. I find it invaluable for evaluation of effectiveness of learning and practice. If you read my book What Is Wrong With Scientology? I noted that Wilber serves to validate Scientology without even examining it. I have a couple questions. a) What is your Scientology case level? b) What is your Scientology training level? c) I would love to see where you plot those levels – of the typical Scientologist at those levels, not one with the rich integral spirituality approach you have been exposed to – on Wilber’s major developmental lines: 1) Needs, 2) Worldviews, 3) Cognitive, 4) Values, 5) Orders of Consciousness, 6) self-identity. d) Do you believe it would enhance a Scientologist’s consciousness and value to evaluate himself against those scales? By the way, when I listen to Wilber interviews, I say to myself ‘God, this guy could use the Grades, and Dianetics.’
      Marty

      • Defender of Theta

        [I seemed to have trouble posting the following - Mods, if this is a duplicate, please ignore it. If not, please remove this comment, it you can]

        Hello Marty. Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate what you are doing in your practice.

        As to your questions:

        a) What is your Scientology case level?

        I got on NOTs and have done L11. Have received a couple hundred hours of auditing in the Independent Field. It has been terrific and I believe that with enough hours, in a non-suppressive environment, much of the Dream can be obtained. It’s like the 1970s.

        b) What is your Scientology training level?

        Tech: Did the Academy Levels, two Dianetic auditor training courses, and Sup training. C/S Series and I Case Supervised in an Org.

        — A bunch of Admin training: Data Series, PR Series, Esto Series, the rest of the Management Series, Ethics Courses, Staff Statuses, DeBug Specialist Course, etc.

        c) I would love to see where you plot those levels – of the typical Scientologist at those levels, not one with the rich integral spirituality approach you have been exposed to – on Wilber’s major developmental lines: 1) Needs, 2) Worldviews, 3) Cognitive, 4) Values, 5) Orders of Consciousness, 6) self-identity.

        — Unfortunately, the culture of the group (being largely xenophobic) did not greatly support development along most of the lines Wilbur mapped out. Many Scientologists are strong on #5 and, strong, in a way, on #6, and weaker on the others. Fortunately, those weak areas are relatively easy to fill in (whereas as true Case Gain — which is necessary for #5 and #6 –- often involves some extensive work).

        d) Do you believe it would enhance a Scientologist’s consciousness and value to evaluate himself against those scales?

        Absolutely. A Cleared cannibal is, indeed, a Cleared cannibal. Again, the fortunate thing is that correcting the other areas is not that hard, at least compared to identifying and undoing the reactive Bank. With the Tyrant on the run, we can fill in what is missing.

        Already, many are waking up within the Church, even if they have not gone Independent. Largely due to your whistleblowing and that of others. Your exposure of the Tyrant has led to the media flooding the environment with the truth, which is getting through the cracks to those still in the organization.

        Marty wrote: “By the way, when I listen to Wilber interviews, I say to myself ‘God, this guy could use the Grades, and Dianetics.’”

        Fred responds: Absolutely. That is the great tragedy, and the great crime of the Tyrant, making Scn such a bad word.

        Can you imagine if the few living Great Sages on this planet got AUDITING? I have had a project going on in that area, on and off, but by OT means. We will soon be able to act directly.

        As to Scientology, as a word and brand, being plutonium (the most toxic substance on the planet), I find that merely stating the truth about the scene – that the organization has become criminal and it’s leader is a mad man – often handles all objections, in seconds. It’s a reverse vector. I am more critical than they are! In response, I have had people interrupt me, trying to handle me on Scientology, explaining that, “Yes, but that does not mean the subject is bad (!).”

        I believe this has occurred because I was being honest and not lying to “protect” the organization. The Tyrant has it backwards. As you have said, Marty, when you tell the truth, it becomes part of your past, when you lie, it becomes part of your future.

        That future looks good, because we have reduced the lying and are moving strongly to truth. Thanks for your courage and leadership.

        Fred

        • Fred,
          Thanks for your great insight. On those scales – and their supporting literature – initially I was struck by how Scientology can rocket a person up them. However, when used blindly, or mechanically or literally (or a combination of all three) it results in a regression. For example, good auditing and training can and does easily raise an individual above individualistic and autonomous on the self-identity scale (Clear e.g.), but when literally applied thereafter regresses him back to ‘conformist.’ I believe that a broader exploration of wisdom along with encouragement to walk the walk rather than simply a single-minded drive toward scaling for ‘powers’ or ‘causation’ by any means necessary creates a hugely enriched experience – horizontal as well as vertical growth. Can I imagine the great sages of the world auditing? I envision that every day. I agree with you that lack of that is a tremendous crime against humanity. Would love to meet some day. If you are ever down deep south, let’s get together.
          Marty

          • Marty,
            Beautiful dialogue between you and Fred, pure pleasure to read.
            If you guys ever get together, don’t forget to put a mike between you two!
            Marcel Wenger

          • Defender of Theta

            Beautiful, Marty. And, well said.

            I was bowled over, and delighted, to hear that you and I share the same vision regarding getting Scn to the great sages. This will happen.

            Thanks for the invite. I will stay in touch.

            Fred

    • Jean-François Genest

      Defender of Theta, this is a very nice post containing very interesting info! Thank you for providing your background, and the results of your extensive studies and experience on those subjects.

    • I know the Dalai Lamas right hand, Lakha Lama, here in Copenhagen. His best advice to me ever, was when I was really upset about the danish government doing nothing about the ill treatment of muslims, during the Mohammad Crisis in 2006. He agreed completely that the government were cowards and were lying their teeth out, but the Lama would do nothing about it. I yelled at him, screamed and shouted, and he was calm and native state, irritatingly smiling. In the end I urged him for an explanation and he replied:

      Sometimes the best answer is silence.

      When I get upset and illtempered I run this advice as a mantra, and it usually works. I calm down. But this time it didn’t work. I will speak up.

      8-8008 is my Bible. I have studied a lot of other practices and philosopies, since the truth rundown in 2009, and nothing compares to 8-8008. It is a complete codification of the basics in spirituality.

      Before 2009 it was my vision to get that book on the curriculum for every physics student on Earth, and it still is.

      I don’t give a damn about Einsteins mistreatment of his wife and children. He was a genious in his field, physics.

      I don’t give a damn about Hubbards mistreatment of himself and his surroundings. He was a genious in his field, spirituality.

      I could give you, Marty, the same advice as the Lama gave me: Shut the f… up. However, I don’t think you will take the advice.

      I will continue my mission in moderate silence. Putting 8-8008 on the curriculum of physics students.

      In order to do that, I have created a physics theory that explains the mind, spirit and soul in physical terms, and it plays well with 8-8008, and all the sages of eastern philosophy.

      The theory is simple. We live in separate parallel universes, communicates and connects in the physical universe, and create our own future in infinite parallel universes. Consciousness, subconsciousness, the mind, soul, spirit and what Hubbard called theta is a mirror image of the physical universe you, as a being, experienced. And the mirror consists of antimatter. As-is-ing is the annihilation of antimatter in a parallel universe with matter. Annihilation gives energy, and that is one of the reasons auditing works. Read about it all on http://www.crestroy.com On that page, you will find my video presentation about the whole deal. That presentation is running right now on TV. And I will soon defend my theory towards physicists also on TV.

      Hubbard was so f…… damned right, and he was entitled to write KSW, as far as I am concerned.

      For now, I will shut the f… up.

      • I won’t ask you to shut up. I will however warn you that to look to a guru, whether a Lama or a Scientologist, for advice on how to conduct yourself is not ultimately a happy path.

      • I have to agree with you about the value of 8-8008 for physics students. And I’ll put in a word for the Axioms of Dianetics as the fundamentals of biology; some of these axioms could form the chapter headings of a standard biology course.

        Silence is a static – visiting it is therapeutic, but who can stay there for long?

    • Fred said: “It seems to me that the winning positioning is “INDEPENDENTS are the Champions of Standard Tech. David Miscavige is against Standard Tech and is a Squirrel.”

      BULLSEYE! That’s why I started reading this blog.

    • Defender of Theta……this is the perfect name for you.

      I so appreciate what you have written here today. I believe your communication is singularly well-reasoned, accurate and can be useful to anyone who wants to follow the road LRH has already laid out for us.

      Just genius at work…….Thank you Fred.

      • Defender of Theta

        My, what wonderful words, KFrancis.

        I deeply appreciate them. You made my day.. Without lessening my appreciation, the more auditing I get, the more I see my faults and my need to continue on the path.

        Thanks,
        Fred

    • Dear Fred

      Great post!! Could not agree with you more!
      Marcel Wenger
      Except for what you say about LRH “being far, far from perfect”, which doesn’t really mean anything and I doubt you know for a fact.

    • Indie-saurus-rex

      Defender of Theta: A sincere thank you for your post. The sentiments you put forth mirror my thoughts on the situation exactly. I only wish that this conversation was more commonplace within the Indie world. As someone who has yet to reach Clear and OT, I am concerned with how Standard Tech will play out within the Indie field over, say, the next 50-100 years.

    • Thanks Fred. I had the same experience with Eckart Tolle. GREAT insights into the Seventh and Eighth Dynamics but I think not equally great products. There is a ‘tech’ in Tolle’s work and elsewhere such as Sedona Method (developed by a one-time Scientologist) and Byron Katie’s ‘the work’ but in my experience great results only come (for most people) with direct help from a teacher. It seems LRH was right that the Bank and the society it informs are too much for most of us to rise above unaided. Perhaps if a few key people attain higher states the culture can be changed so the rest of us might rise up by simply absorbing the data. But for now with auditing Hubbard has given the masses our best practical means of attaining higher spiritual states. I too would love to see it used and promoted by our greatest teachers.

  94. It all comes down to money and control. You cant easily put the hoover on the old wallet, or command blind instantaneous obedience, if you also preach and encourage free thought and self-determinism.
    What Marty’s mission statement is all about, in my opinion, is his desire to create true Operating Thetans. It is simply not possible to be truely OT, if one cannot think for oneself. Understand for oneself. Philosophize for oneself.
    There is absolutely no danger to studying, duplicating, and understanding anything. And understanding it does not require one to AGREE with it. In the study materials, LRH himself makes this very clear. So to forbid study, to make it a crime, demonstrates a deep seated insecurity, and perhaps a disdain for knowledge in general.
    The very ground upon this universe we tread is uneven and rouph, crevasses and pitfalls abound. To claim to know the path through, but then to further claim one cannot know the path unless one also accept a pair of blinders for the walk, is in my humble opinion, more than suspect.

  95. Marty, I read your blog this morning and loved it. I rushed to find Jim and asked him to read it too. We were both excited because what you wrote was profound!! I have found most of what you have written over the last few months to be very profound.

    I always go back to my knowing that I would not be where I am in my spiritual enlightenment without having walked this particular path. The most stable win for me came from doing OT TR 0 and TR 0. It is easy for me to be completely in PT and not have a noisy head – or anytime I start feeling like I’m not in PT, I can spot it and get back in PT very quickly. This is amazing and I can’t tell you how valuable it has proven to be in my life.

    I had wins most definitely, and Jim and I were discussing how the wins were “weird” in the corporate structure because those wins were so weirdly invalidated with certain individuals’ efforts to control. I could go on about this, but that is not my point.

    Before I get to my point, I want to preface it with the fact that I have an unwavering ability to allow others to “be” and “do” what they want as far as their spiritual enlightenment goes (their religious beliefs). I honestly feel that every being on this planet is free to choose his own beliefs and I do not sit in judgement of those beliefs. Scientology’s creed states how I feel very well, too bad they do not practice it.

    When I was caught inside the suppression of corporate Scientology prison, I was a fairly good prisoner. I believed that it was the only path and that LRH’s words were all one needed. But I practiced it with my own personal integrity – something most on the inside don’t do – and this got me a reputation of being a “trouble maker” because I asked too many questions, and didn’t believe certain things until I saw it for truth.

    I say all this because it’s from respect, not antagonism, that I re-pose my inability to reconcile one fact that breaks the camels back for me. This seems to be not-ised by all.

    I want you, Marty, to address this. I respect your wisdom and I have gained great new viewpoints by reading some of your posts and books. However, if ANYONE could address it with something that makes sense and would as-is it for me, I’d be grateful.

    1. Why wasn’t LRH a shining example of the greatest technology on the planet? If LRH created something that was worth putting in a vault of titanium why, in the end, was he NOT a shining example of what he says it creates?

    2. If he chose to drop his body and move on, why didn’t he do it in a recorded lecture or an event bidding his group fair well and letting us know who he turned his hat over to?

    3. Why do we avoid the conversation of his death and the circumstances surrounding it. (read the certificate and medical examiners report). His death wasn’t done from a “cause point” for sure, and if anyone thinks it was, I suggest he would have said goodbye. It certainly seemed he was quite the effect of much during the last 6 years of his life.

    4. Why does it appear that LRH did not use the tech in his last 6 years? Various stories about how and why he was in “hiding”.

    5. Why didn’t he use his tech to handle the suppression of the IRS or whatever he was in seclusion for? With all his tech and as important as Scientology was, how could he not have spotted the “SPs”? Why would he have let all his life’s work go into the hands of SPs? I have heard so many versions of what happened and how this could have came to be, but none of them add up to a man who was a shining example of what Scn can do.

    Without these things answered to where it reconciles the outpoints for me I waffle. When I think back to the gains I got from the subject I immediately bump into this one fact – and can’t help feel that Scientology is not all that it’s said to be. I can’t even say it was “workable” if it didn’t work in his life! I do believe the wins and gains I got from Scientology could have been achieved elsewhere, but that is not the point. Anytime I drift to thinking I want the upper gains, I realize I need this answered.

    Will you please attempt to answer this? Anyone?

    • I agree with you on the TRs – which I am supervising at the moment in fact. Some have read sinister overtones into LRH policy references to forbidding ‘case on post.’ In fact, I found it empowering just as I find the TRs so. Who is to say that one cannot perfect his TRs and then have them in at will, and thus ‘have no case’ on demand? My view is that I was able to do so for years at a time during this crazy roller coaster of a life. Obviously, your wins are credible to me. As to LRH, I believe the contradictions have zero bearing on potential results, as you have shared. Personally, I wasn’t effected much by biography and personal attributes of others, other teachers, mentors or even LRH. But, apparently it means much to many. In the bigger scheme of things it may have relevance. I believe it requires to lots of context – particularly because of the potential for the technology as you shared – and I’ve been working on it.

    • Hi Meshell, i pondered exactly what you bring up and it concerned me too.

      In thinking about it, i’ve come to several conclusions. First off, in one regard, LRH was obviously a shining example of his “tech.” I mean, just look at all that he created in the way of tech! its staggering really. Any one of these gems of wisdom would be major accomplishemnts for any single being, yet he created hundreds, if not thousands of them.

      Second, he was his often, especially on the OT stuff, his own labratory animal. I’m sure that often things were run on him before they were fully mapped out, and i think that that must have taken a toll on his body.

      Also, he was a product of his times and he drank, smoke, and ate to excess at times. Also not good for the body. The body is a tool, and no matter how “OT” a being is, if they dont take care of that tool, it won’t last as well or as long. I’ve had a number of very OT friends of mine, older scientologiest who where very very very big and powerfull beings, only to be suprised by a cancer or something and then have that body die on them. Some of these folks thought because of the spiritual heights they had attained they could do anything they wanted to their bodies, or disregard the thing. It dont work that way. No matter how “OT” you are, just try never changing the oil in your car’s engine, or topping the oil off when its low. Just see how long that engine lasts!

      What was the deal with the last years of his life? i dont claim to know. I do know that he tried to do alot in his life, and his efforts missed the with-holds of alot of very powerful people and organizations, and cut accross the lines of some very powerful vested interests. In the face of all that, that he could continue to produce tech is amazing. But the last few years, i dont know that he produced much, and he did let guys like DM into the tent. Did his body have dementia by that point? did he just go affect and basically wait to die? i dont know, but i do know, that like you some very basic tech has had just amazing positive affects on my life, and as i dont consider the man to be a god, then i accept that he isnt perfect.

      Personally, i think by the 1980’s his body was shot, and he just didnt have that facility to continue to operate as he did. Also, perhaps because of his schedule of tech production and org exapnsion, he did some ultimately foolish things (or allowed them to happen), like the GO spy thing, and as his body wore out, he just sort of withdrew. Thats my guess.

      Anyway, i’ve had the chance to meet numerous old timers who knew LRH personally and worked with him closely at times. These are people i respect greatly, and they all held the man in the highest regard. So, my choice is to love the man for the tech he created that works for me, and not worry about the rest.

    • Hi Meshell. I will offer my opinion. LRH was a genius and understood how the mind and spirit worked. Fortunately for us, he wrote it all out. He may have rose above the bank so he could understand it, but applying what one knows to oneself is an entirely different matter. In that regard, LRH was no different than the rest of us. He was not able to stay “centered” and at peace with himself. He had faults, blind spots and possibly mistook himself for the sun when he could or should have benefitted from being a flower. His ego was in the way. Nothing special or unusual about that story. I think it makes him very real, and his achievement of mapping a route all the more remarkable. And there is no reason to not use the tech because the developer was unable to fully do it himself. I dont see any logic in that.

      • Hi Peter, I’m honored you took a shot at helping me reconcile with this. Thank you. My first thought though, is, if one is “selling” a life changing diet/health plan” and is himself a mess, overweight or dies from such – isn’t that relevant to whether or not one would find the plan valuable to do what the person says it does? I honestly understand how one can know something and applying it is a whole different thing. Believe me, I’m a casualty of that in areas of my own life – – however, we are talking magnitudes above this with LRH and Scn. Just by the nature of the subject he would have to be a shining example.

        I remember when I was on staff and I found it very difficult to work Div 6 lines and tell new people that they needed Scn because it could change their life and make them more able etc. when I was on foodstamps, living in a house of 10 people and couldn’t pay my bills…..(on staff pay). I was certainly not a shining example. However, Ron would have to be a shiny example, as would clears and OT’s.

        Just my thoughts.

        • Meshall, your right. Many of us have strong feelings on the workability of this or that, but our own inability to apply it makes us the poorest of poster children. LRH did not practice what he preached in many respects. Had he been able to, the church would be a far different organization than it is and the goal of a world without war, criminals, insanity, etc, would be closer. I am not saying its his fault, its just the way it is. Had he not developed what he did and released it, perhaps we would not even be here today. No one can say. You consider scientology and LRH as magnitudes above other subjects and beings. I think this is where you get into trouble. The individual is the wildcard. We are not all the same.

    • Meshell,

      I also was puzzled by what you bring up and it concerned me too. In thinking and researching about it, I’ve come to the following conclusions.

      In his early years, LRH was aberrated like (almost?) everybody else in this planet.

      He did R&D and created a tech which transcended his own (and ours) aberrations. During his R&D, like in every R&D, there were a lot of trials and errors. He used himself as a research subject, and you know what happens to a pc when the pc reestimulates charge but don’t clear the charge.

      What gave me the key to the puzzle was when I read Otto Roos’s story.

      Otto Roos was, during some time, in charge of LRH’s auditing. According to Otto Roos:
      LRH has more out tech on his case than ten people combined. He gave us a technology towards immortality, but he denied himself the only thing which could have saved him: auditing.

      http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html

      In other words, he sacrificed himself for OUR benefit.

    • Meshell
      You brought up and confront real out-points. Which is all to your honor.
      There is a truth in there somewhere. Exact time, place form and event.
      I wish I knew it. But I think it’s good to remember that these are out-points.
      And be wary of explanations like: The tech is good, but the man…
      Which, in my mind, is an even greater out-point.
      Marcel Wenger

  96. Oh Marty,

    You provocateur!

    Thanks for stirring up the proverbial hornets nest.

    It’s enlightening and fun.

  97. Marty, I had a lot to say, I wrote it all up, but I’m just going to bow out. I just really don’t want to go there. Take care.

    ML Tom

    • I’m sorry to hear that. Probably a good idea though on holding fire, particularly to the extent it was fueled by the other two fellows. Good luck.

      • Wrong again, I just now read the posts from “the other two fellows”. I hadn’t read them before. the reason I am holding off is because the noise of the champagne corks popping on the 12th floor is audible from Phoenix and I don’t want to give DM anymore wins.
        ML Tom

        • Thanks Tom. Would love to see your response though – if you are uncomfortable posting it, you can email it and we can iron it out together.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Hey Tom Boy…. there is no champagnes over there, boy… the champagnes are here… on this blog… cause you ROCKED THE BOAT, MAN….

          Hey, listen… little secret (we are gonna kick Marty’s ass, we are many…) hahahaha, big joke.

          Tom, Tom we are all here and we stand together. Many wrote that both of you guys ARE understood. BOTH…. and Marty is a big guy… had a lot on his own shoulders. Wouldn’t you agree? Now, you got some on your own. So, I hope I can get some shit load on mine too.

          You rocked the boat, man. And we can hear ya loud and clear. DON’T HOLD BACK….

          As to DM…. oh man… he is history… We are Moving On, Tom. THis is the only place some serious shit happens about Scientology. We might not be as eloquent like Marty (hahaha, another one joke, I am on a roll tonight) but we are a Team, man. Oh yes we are. That’s what Marty needs actually, A KICK ASS TIM… TOM! So, jump in. All of us are waiting for you my friend.

        • Tom-
          I think the only way OSA wins is if you don’t speak your mind freely.

          If the 12th floor is celebrating because people on this blog are having debates and disagreements and sharing their views, who cares? The 12th floor really only wins when people are cowed into silence or feel like it is not worth speaking out. That’s when their ridiculous operations are really successful.

          I appreciated your post because it helped to spark some really interesting discussions here. I hope you continue to share your mind!

    • Tom
      Even if you bow out now: You said your piece and I feel you said it well! Marty put it up there and said his, and said it well.
      A lot of bright people commented and said theirs. I have not read all yet, but I feel you got a lot of support, LRH got a lot of support.
      And this is what it is all about, LRH and his legacy, which now rests on our shoulders.
      We are all in this together, that we talk, is a good thing.
      What’s even better, is, that we audit. You do, Marty does. I do, others do. And auditing is what will eventually resolve this thing.
      Marcel Wenger

  98. “First, I believe that L Ron Hubbard developed a workable spiritual-based psychotherapy that when applied as prescribed – according to its axioms and fundamental laws – routinely produces a well and happy, self-determined, unrepressed being.”

    Having scaled all of the levels from totally introverted human to really happy thetan, I couldn’t agree with you more.

    The five PCs I currently have on my personal line-up will also agree.

    My opinion is that the future of the delivery of the tech will rest on sharing of successful applications and organization models. You do it your way and tell us what you do. We’ll do it our way and we’ll tell you what we do.

    Our model is very different than many. We have five staff. All are trained auditors. Admin is at a bare minimum. We care for everyone who walks in the door (auditing, training or just some help with life).

    We have no interest in expanding. What we are interested in doing is training others to be successful and teaching them how to audit and train others. Then we send them out to start their own group. No strings attached. We don’t hound them for their stats, force our org plan on them or even badger them if they stray. We help them succeed with standard tech and they then get the idea that they can succeed with standard tech. We help them with C/Sing, cramming, internships, further training and advice when they ask for it. Word of mouth keeps all five of us busy, with only one actual admin terminal in our group.

    A minimum of organization and a good relay of information with ever increasing quality of results. It is results and only results that will make or break the future of the tech that LRH spent most of his life putting together.

    The negative publicity created by goofy celebrities, the Co$ and miscavige’s crimes, our own prior failures to deliver good results and LRH’s own shortcomings are only handled by and are easily handled by RESULTS.

    No serv facs, no out of ARC arguments, no Know-Best, no efforts to form a new and improved cult…just a real understanding of the tech you choose to deliver and then honestly deliver it.

    • Thanks Les for what you all do and for sharing your keys to success.

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      Best answer to everything !

    • LDW….I love your straight forward sensibility and adherence to LRH materials the way Ron intended. I am fairly close to your area and hope to visit you someday if only to shake your hand and say thanks for keeping the tech. going.

    • Now, that sounds like a lot of FUN.

      I worked with Les and Anita at ASHO. I don’t remember exactly our coinciding years. I remember both were excellent examples of “a being causes his own feelings”.

      Even with no DM-ish person at our org’s helm, there was still an on-going emergency-punishment drive that seemed to put most everyone into a suppressed fight-or-flight mode with deer in the headlights TRs.

      Les and Anita as I recall never buckled in. To hear that this is the sort of attitude that they have towards the delivery of Scientology does not surprise me, but it delights me. Hats off to you and all the others who are delivering with this sort of viewpoint.

      • Hey Dan! Just so you know, Anita and I both love ya.

        Yea, we never buckled. When forced to assume the valence or leave, we left.

        Les

    • Hello Les,
      thank you. Sounds great.

  99. I wanted to add a comment that relates to a statement Marty made the other day in the comments of the previous post. I have spoken to three ex-CMO members who served during the 1990’s. All three without exception, and all independently said Miscavige was the most ruthlessly, on policy man in the SO.

    DM was raised as an adolescent on to be the ideal SO member and to only think with policy. He lacks the ability to even think outside certain SO confines of the SO mindset.

    What I think many people don’t realize, unless they were high in CMO or in positions like Marty’s, is that there are many things LRH wrote that arent for public or even general SO consumption. The CMO series, OSA network orders, the rollback series, LRH advices, lots more Im sure Ive got no idea about, etc… these are all things that 98% of Scientologists would not have access to read so they would not know what is real “policy” is or isn’t because they are not privy to certain parts of it because LRH intended it only for certain SO members.

    So people’s definition of “on policy” differs according to how much they have been allowed to read, or if they’ve read certi confidential materials and issues. Considering Marty’s position in the SO I would say he is one of the very few people who can accurately judge who or what “on policy” truly is.

    • Sunny, I thinks your points are accurate. I would add one policy to the thoughts though, and that is the policy re “using policy to stop”. He may have applied policy but for what purpose. One can use straight Scn to destroy and I believe he has demonstrated that in spades.

    • “I have spoken to three ex-CMO members who served during the 1990′s. All three without exception, and all independently said Miscavige was the most ruthlessly, on policy man in the SO.”

      This is the great lie that perpetuates his crimes. He is ruthlessly “on policy.”
      But the policy he ruthlessly applies is selective and serves his suppressive agenda.

      Show me the policy that authorizes:
      Using lies in PR
      Beating staff
      Humiliating staff
      Torturing staff
      Regging for donations
      Forcing public to desert their families
      Buying ostentatious buildings in the name of the Ideal Org.

      Only people who really don’t know policy would fall for his shit.
      Only people who don’t know tech would buy into his robot C/Sing and delivery.

      • LDW can I ask how high up in the SO you served? Have you read the CMO series, OSA network orders, the rollback series or the LRH advices for SO?

        As I said your definition of “policy” would differ as to how much data you were allowed to read and there is certainly a lot of policy by LRH that is eyes only for select SO members that you would have no idea exists unless you yourself were in CMO INT or RTC. Two of the people I spoke with were in the CMO after Hubbard’s death, but one had served during Hubbard’s time as well. Marty’s tenure goes back to the late 1970’s. I trust the opinion of these people whom I spoke and Marty – you I have no clue who you are or what your background is so your opinion means as much as the average Scientology public – who is also clueless as to what real policy is out there for the SO or how DM truly behaves in comparison.

        • It’s one thing for the Sea Org or CMO to each have their own policies to run on internally; it is something else entirely for those policies to be exported and inappropriately applied to orgs, missions,
          or public.

          This is clearly a case of “Loose lips sink ships”, as well as dodging the issue of whether or not these policies are constructive and productive, ie, whether they further the actual goals of Scientology, which are to train auditors and have well-audited preclears. If they are not contributing to Scientology’s basic mission, they need to be flushed down the toilet.

          Along with principles like “We don’t use ARC in the Sea Org”, which is in itself a lie. They use ARC all right. Poor ARC it sounds like, and they aren’t even aware of it! If they don’t want to treat each other
          with appropriate ARC, OK, different strokes for different folks I guess, but they need to use ARC with others if they want to accomplish anything constructive. That should be obvious.

          It appears that certain checks-and-balances have fallen by the wayside, when the Sea Org’s internal policies and special orders start being applied to public, for example. or even to local orgs. That means
          boundaries have illegitimately been breached and need to be put back in. And that seems to go back to 1982 at least.

          Since DM holds no truly existing post in Scientology, he makes up his own policy, not being bound by any existing policy as LRH never wrote any policy for the position of “COB” or “POB” or whatever non-existent positions.

          My point is that any special CMO orders or policies, if such exist, apply only to CMO and not to any other organization within Scientology. And, they would actually be junior to senior policies which CMO members would still be bound by.

          If these exist, then Marty needs to speak about them and lay them out for inspection, or forever hold his peace, because this smells like “hidden data lines” to me, if DM was “the most on-policy guy there” but he was following policies only he and a few others knew about!

          So I would like to know just exactly “how” DM was the “most on-policy guy” there? By what policies? Special “Int policies”?

          • Would most of you believed the actions against the writer Paulette Cooper in the early 1970’s were on-policy?

            • Of course not. Here is just one example of what most Scientologists actually believe, from the Creed:

              “And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man
              To destroy his own kind.
              To destroy the sanity of another
              To destroy or enslave another’s soul.
              To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s group.”

              There are many similar principles stated quite clearly by LRH and believed in by Scientologists.

              I have a short post upstream about “fair game”:

              http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/mission-statement/#comment-252081

              Which I conclude thus:

              “At the same time, operation freakout on Paulette Cooper was somebody’s sadistic criminality running amuck.”

              • Valkov, Who said this quote “At the same time, operation freakout on Paulette Cooper was somebody’s sadistic criminality running amuck.” OSA or the church? This is what they did and do. Most members don’t know and believe this BS. Yes, when they get caught they blame others or lie. Really, the individual members have no inkling of what goes on behind closed doors in OSA department and they are surprised, or not believed when or if found out. The policy’s by Ron are available on the net should you be interested and the many stories are believable.

                • dE, I’m not sure what your specific point is. Yes, policies are available to read. Hundreds upon hundreds of pages of policies. Most of them don’t apply to me, nor would I apply some of them. It’s exactly my point, that the majority of Scientologists do not believe in acting that way. Nor are they expected by LRH policy to act that way. That was Sunny’s question – did we here believe in acting that way, in the way that some acted towards Cooper. Do you?

                  Oh, the quote was of me, myself, in an earlier comment on this thread. Obviously you did not click through to my earlier comment where I wrote that.

                  Anyway, my main point is that the Sea Org was a cult with in the broader world of Scientology; the CMO was a yet smaller cult within the Sea Org; Both of those have in fact long since breached their boundaries and need to be restrained, curtailed, eliminated entirely, whatever. IMO

                  • “my main point is that the Sea Org was a cult with in the broader world of Scientology; the CMO was a yet smaller cult within the Sea Org; Both of those have in fact long since breached their boundaries and need to be restrained, curtailed, eliminated entirely, whatever. IMO”
                    I’m with you Valkov and I hadn’t looked at it in this way before.

      • Reluctant to bring this up as it will be seen as a “hidden data line” – but I’m sure Jackson and others can back me up on this:

        When in Security at Int Base 1985 I was shown an LRH despatch that finished with – I think this is roughly word for word – “and if all else fails smash his F***ing teeth in”. Now, he may not have meant it literally, but it was certainly being touted by senior security staff as a jutsification for heavy handed actions. I don’t believe this is the only such “advice” or despatch either. And of course a despatch is not “policy” – but everything written by Ron was supposed to be taken at face value and treated as if it were.

        I think that as long as one continues creating rationalisations for such writings there is little hope of moving up much higher with Scientology as one’s ONLY reference point. I personally welcome and would recommend Wright’s book, at least the half I’ve read so far – with its inaccuracies and all – because some of Scientology just doesn’t make sense – to me anyway – until you understand “Source” – warts and all.

        DM didn’t have to get too creative with some of the weapons such as this despatch at his disposal – and the use of FORCE was already well ingrained into SO culture long before 1986.

        • You were shown a purported LRH despatch which you had no means of verifying, I’ll wager. In 1985, the comm lines to and from Ron Hubbard were completely under the control of David Miscavige and Pat Broeker. It is simply not possible to know what purported traffic from Ron Hubbard actually was valid and legitimately from him.

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

      • Over-riding all LRH policy are the “Not leave INT Base ” binders ~~ hundreds of them of faithful transcriptions of Crime Boss Miscavige’s ramblings.
        These secretaries have logged every word of Miscavige’s cross-orders to policy.
        He has been reported to be followed around with microphones and typists and words from his golden tongue recorded and typed up in these binders as BIBLICAL artifacts.
        The typists do take out the vulgar language and extreme potty mouth language slurs.
        Often Int Base staffers have to “M9 every WORD Miscavige has said on a given subject e.g. “audio system.”
        Every Sea Org member in real time takes “Straight from COB orders over any green on white. This is the culture.

        • You shine the spotlight of truth about this situation, Karen. SO members WILL follow DM orders and his “issues” over LRH policy and tech. I have noticed this for years. And when they do this, they cease to be Scientologists in the true sense of the word. AND they also give the subject of Scientology a bad name.
          …Gee, maybe someday someone will do a project to correct all of the “mistakes made by the transcribers” when they took all of the foul language, racial slurs, etc. out of Miscavige’s drooling pronouncements…….then staff might get a “full conceptual understanding” what he was REALLY saying.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Karen#1, should I laugh or rather cry! You described it in a perfect way. DM was never there to issue policy since all the work had been done by LRH. I guess this made him feel inferior, always. He had to overcome it someway… Using the Sea Org for his squirrelling. How lower can one get?

    • Top secret papers for some selected to „eyes only“ can be dangerous. Those can be changed very easily and nobody ever will notice the change. By the way, I did read and study the rollback series (shure I cannot know if I did read the original or all or only part of it) back in 1984 and I had been not SO and only Cl 4 Org staff.

    • The CMO members you spoke to were delusional SunnyV. I had access to all “policy”. I even read orders coming down from Big P to Slappy excoriating him for his inept handling of V.A., RTC., et al. DM was a great perverter of policy, advices & the like. Those you spoke with were further gone than I thought one could ever become.

  100. Marty,
    Great piece of writing, love it. Thank you!
    One brief comment re the ‘blind faith’ which is -well- blind. When i ran into that with a Scientologist, -supposedly an expert- and then saw what he was individually doing tech wise (not so good) that blind faith which was supposed to impress, just crumbled in credibility. It wasn’t what was being said, it was what is being DONE that became important and showed where that person was really at.
    Greta

  101. I think, Albert Einstein expresses my thoughts the best to this post of you, Marty!

    “The one who follows the crowd will usually go no further than the crowd. The one who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been before.” -Albert Einstein

  102. As a child I understood what a cognition was and what a new world it could open up.When I found Scientology some 30 years ago I found that cognitions expressed outside of session and outside the subject , that is not linked to an LRH quote , where mostly met with a blank stare or automatically rejected as irrelevant .It didn’t discourage me to continue with the bridge but somewhat limited my sharing of life’s beautiful possibilities .
    When I read “what is wrong with Scientology”,(after getting over the title,fear and other things having sipped in me over the years)It rehabilitated this fantastic feeling that the possibilities are endless in the world of thoughts as well as my reach for the bridge.
    So Thank you Marty

  103. SKM, really?
    Do we actually need to have a policy that states a person has a right to his own damned life?

    The scenario espoused by Gern Geschehen above was best described in the book “The Trial” by Franz Kafka,

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

    A Board made out of Church bureaucrats, deciding if a person should or should not disconnect, or if somebody should be fair gamed? This is insanity and it is the kind of crap that has turned Scientology into a loony bin.

    I agree with Less Warren above, just deliver the auditing as promised by LRH and leave off all the add- ons please.

  104. Marty, this is my respond to your opening post.

    I agree on many points you make. I think Scientologists should be willing to share their knowledge and try to interact with others at any level of their lives. Anyone should be free to philosophize, to use his knowledge on a self-determined basis. And a Scientologist who understands what he has studied will be able to “correlate any part of Scientology to any other part and to livingness over the eight dynamics” (From supervisors code).
    Any person – including Scientologists (joke) – should be free to read and contemplate about everything he wishes. It’s the very core of life and it’s even part of the Creed of the founding Church.
    Assimilate as much wisdom as you wish. Use it for what ever purpose you like. Philosophize. The Ron I know will be happy – at least he says so ;-)

    But there is a line to be drawn.

    You yourself, Marty, are in the happy position of having crossed the bridge to the higher plateau. You walked the way through the Academy Levels, Briefing Course and up. Training, Internships, Practice – for years.
    And, frankly, I don’t think there is a shorcut to the perfection you may exercise today.

    It’s absolutley fine that you have your ideas about LRH and what he did wrong, could have done better – sometimes, speaking of him, you even sound like him speaking of other philosophers.

    But here is my plea to you:
    Don’t shut the doors for others to go in comm with ALL of LRHs works by overemphasizing your personal views of him.
    We need more Auditors. And they can only become good ones through being in comm with LRH. Let them go the Path – as you did. Or better yet, the “Rons Brand” Scientology.
    Have you ever experienced Rons Brand Scientology?
    I have only read in books about it, but I am sure this ideal scene is as living as we create it.
    This is a brand new time we live in. I am much for “integral” thinking and I don’t think we should desintegrate the Ideals of Scientology just because the Church went off the rails (no matter the reasons).

    So where should the line be drawn?
    In Training. Do it by the book. I don’t say cultivate literalism, but encourage people to study standardly. KSW. There is nothing background data or historical. If it’s on the checksheet of this level, indoctrinate them – they will find judgement eventually.
    This is for people who honestly want to become Auditors – not for afterclass philosophers or a community lecture.

    Encourage to apply admin, where it should be applied.
    As anywhere else in Scientology, there is a idealized destillation of concepts – open for those who on a self-determined basis work to help others.

    In KSW#1 LRH says:
    “Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason.”

    No Administration is good, as long as it seeks to serve only the corporation. Without real help flowing out it becomes rather a circuit machinery.

    But anyone engaged in the delivery of Technology will adapt administrational pullizy (pun intended) supportive for this activity, depending on its size, technical level of delivery and different other things.

    Again, we are in a new Millenium. We have learned our lessons and we can have a new look at LRHs legacy.
    Why should we concentrate only on LRHs “flaws” and “inperfections”?
    Actually, in doing so, we only use the party-line which started in the 50’s in a attempt to stop his activities.
    And we concentrate on the stop. The stop isn’t even there anymore – it’s a shaddow from the Kakka Kiki Sea.
    As I said before in another comment, we need to step back a little. We need to go exterior to the time-track of Scientology in order to see ALL the good things in LRHs legacy.
    And we need to find a way how to preserve it.
    And it will be only possible, as long as we cultivate (yes, cultivate) the proper Training of Auditors.

    Philosophers may read books about Scientology. Nothing wrong about it, if they like to adapt some of this stuff… They don’t even need to go to Orgs if they want find something out about Scientology.

    The best dissemination is word of mouth.

    When we concentrate on the ideals of Scientology, and when we use Scientology in a idealized form, we can ignore all entheta. We can even ignore the “official” Church of Scientology. There’s nothing to hide about the goals of Scientology, really. It’s a shame the Church doesn’t practice what they PReach, that’s all.

    For me, LRH is the Goal Maker. The goals of Scientology are very worthy. True, I am a Independent Scientologist, but I adhere to the Code of a Scientologist (the revised 1971 edition).

    While I like the concept of “moving on up a little higher”, Marty, please don’t forget that not anyone has achieved the Level of proffessionalism as Auditor as you did. Feed us with different philosophic viewpoints, yes – LRH encouraged me to study lots of philosophy, too. But don’t forget that there is only one way to become an Auditor, the most valuable profession on this planet.

    I’ll end this long post with a you tube video of Ken Wilber (whom I like and think, he is the most interesting philosopher of these days).
    Please pay particulary attention to Ken speaking at 10:10 m/s. There’s the whole spirit of my comment.

    Love,
    SKM

    • Thanks. I’ll address the business of how to train in a post later this week.

      • Thank you Marty.
        Appreciated.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Marty that would be great!

        • Theo, remember when I asked you for about the references on translations? I answered you then. I am sure you missed my comment.
          L,
          SKM

          • Theo Sismanides

            Hi SKM, sorry I thought I had answered it. Anyway, there are 2 main references which are included in the TRANSLATIONS SERIES in the Red Volumes.

            Those 2 had been issued as HCO PLs too.

            They are:
            20 Nov. 1971 Course Translation to Tape (T/C Series l) (reissued 23 Oct. 1974)
            21 Nov. 1971 Dianetics and Scientology in Other Languages (T/C Series 2)

            Those HCOBs are the Tech on translations. If we admit (lol) that HCOBs are the valid tech. Nevertheless I was persecuted for insisting they be applied!!!!? !!!!

            Thanks for your interest.

    • Indie-saurus-rex

      SKM: Just read your post right now, after submitting a lengthy and meandering comment of my own. I was trying to communicate the sentiments you present here. I just don’t think I did as good of a job. I agree with your thoughts. My fear is that if much of the sentiment found in the Indie movement has its way, say for the next 100 years, that the specific path LRH put aside for us, won’t be a specific path anymore. Which is fine, but only after is able to observe how, when, where and why it deviates. This is not a problem for current Indies with the experience and understanding that Marty have, but what about newcomers in 50 years?

      On a side note, I am becoming very interested in Integral spirituality and enlightenment. I have spent the last year studying works by Andrew Cohen and have made it a goal of mine to gain a better understand of Ken Wilber. Nice to see there are others out there with similar interests!

      • Hello Indi-Saurus-Rex
        (what a creative handle, BTW :-) )

        My fear is that if much of the sentiment found in the Indie movement has its way, say for the next 100 years, that the specific path LRH put aside for us, won’t be a specific path anymore. Which is fine, but only after is able to observe how, when, where and why it deviates. This is not a problem for current Indies with the experience and understanding that Marty have, but what about newcomers in 50 years?

        Exactly.

  105. If the end justifies the means and it is ok to defend by any means necessary “the tech”, then dm must be doing a good job.

    Someone could say that he is “misinterpretting the tech”. But if “I” were there and running things “I” would know what to do. And then I would be justified in defending “the tech” by any means necessary. And we would have another dm.

    I said a long time ago that the end doesn’t justify the means.
    The means is the end. Practice what you preach. Part of the problem is that Scientology preaches two methods, one uses ARC and the other is force. Some gravitate to the forcefull references and swear by them and others gravitate towards the ARCfull references. Obviously the best results would be by using both sides correctly. Anyone running the Church of Scientology would have ultimate authority and pretty much determine which references should be adhered to. (like dm is doing) (dm sets the tone) This pretty much proves that the system of creating a monopoly in Scientology is a failed pattern. It has to be a free body of data and free to be applied by others without control. Lots of people will apply it correctly and some will alter it and still get some results. I could still see an official church who would retain LRH’s papers and so forth. But the tech must fly free.

  106. Might shed some light on adherence to policy,

    Somewhere along OT III I discovered I could spot policy before I read it. In Organization, The Design Of The Organization (HCOPL 1 May AD 15 III ) I found the “the philosophical system” that explains it – the bridge follows awareness.

    Something that too gives one the right to play the piano.

    ML/A

  107. “The softest things in the world overcome the hardest things in the world.”
    Lao Tzu

  108. As you say Marty, it’s time to “evolve or dissolve.” To my mind with this “Mission Statement” you have evolved to the point where you are succinctly and thoughtfully stating the beginning of a process that, hopefully, will be embraced by at least some if not many in the independent Scientology community who truly wish to “move up a little bit higher.”
    Isn’t that what we are all trying to do in our own ways?
    The fact is that the world is a far different place than it was when LRH wrote “Dianetics” and formulated Scientology. And, my guess is that if he was with us now he, too, would have been evolving far beyond the rigid, hidebound dogma of corporate Scientology today.
    Indeed, that rigidity played a big role in my own abandonment of Scientology. Since then I, too, have explored other philosophies and religions.
    For a while, I studied Buddhism – not as an intellectual exercise but as a practical means to enlighten my life. To this day I meditate daily. A lot of people think meditation is simply sitting in a lotus position and instantly attaining a state of bliss.
    As you well know, Marty, it’s far from it. Meditation is a practical if not difficult exercise with the result (not easily obtained) that you are totally aware of everything going on in the physical universe around you and in harmony with it.
    I use this as an example because I believe there are other tools that can be used to enhance what real Scientology has to offer. The world now is pluralistic and all-inclusive, far from what it was during LRH’s time. My guess is that he would have welcomed this discussion, if not demanded it.
    Take for instance Viktor Frankl. Through his personal experience of the Holocaust he was able to observe and show how true existence embraces human suffering and not haphazardly discards it. My hunch is that his profession of psychiatry helped him both understand and survive Nazi genocide.
    Meanwhile, corporate Scientology – with it unyielding orthodoxy – puts forth that all psychiatry/psychology is evil whereas, Marty, you have truly observed that Scientology itself is a form of psychotherapy. Cognitive therapy, another methodology you have written about on this blog, has helped hundreds of thousands of people get in touch with their real feelings and locate if not neutralize the upsets in their lives.
    So I say – let’s hear more of this. You’ve formed a great framework here and now it’s up to you and, hopefully others, to put the flesh on the bones.
    As a side note – and with respect – I take issue with “Thoughtful’s” comment in an earlier post where he seemed to attack you for what you did or did not do during your time in Scientology Inc. I didn’t agree with it and I think it’s far time that we let bygones be bygones, especially relative to events that took place so long ago

  109. Marty, it seems you have some disagreements with my views.
    My last comment, which wasn’t approved, was my sincere respond to your opening post.
    I didn’t invalidate you in any way with my comment. I’d love you’d approve it or let me know why is it you wouldn’t do it.
    Of course you may also drop me a line via e-mail.

    • Sorry, I am not allowing this forum to be used as a platform to promote Fair Game.

      • OK.

        Appropos Fair Game.
        The only Fair Game I would promote is this movie:

        Have you seen it? It’s based on a true story.

        We’re living in different times as back then when it all started (in the 50s).
        LRH didn’t agree to shut up or sell out. And he thought big – he not only wanted to disseminate Scientology, he also wanted to keep a standard. A quite impossible mission. That things went wrong is no wonder. I am not justifying his deeds. Truth is, this was reality. Without it, we wouldn’t have the bridge today. At least this is my insight into it.

        But this times are over.
        Independents don’t need the Fair Game practice, as they do not centralize their efforts, are not up to create a corporate defense/intelligence group.
        There may come a time where people need to defend their rights, but this will be different.

        Enjoy the movie if you haven’t seen it yet.
        This is reality.

  110. If you are smart you endorse the “Master” movie becouse Scientology church is silent. On my part you will. No marketing shit.

    I will love you all

  111. So much to say and so little time and space on this blog to do so.

    Two things though if I may.

    1. Marty, for me, the clue to your “mission” (purpose, journey, etc) has alway been in the title of this blog.

    2. I’m not sure what the EP of OTVIII is these days but I always remembered it as being “truth revealed”. If that ever was the true EP then I have had the enormous pleasure of experiencing it… about 10 years after I left the cult.

    Of course this was very much a personal and wholey subjective experience but I will say this;

    The very next thing I experienced, mere milliseconds afterwards, was an almost overwhelming understanding that I was very much at the beginning of a journey.

    Someone commented (a few blog posts back) that they had “become OTVIII”. It struck me that if there is such a thing as an OT it certainly isn’t “becoming” something. I would offer that you are simply you, with everything else having disappeared. It isn’t a badge. It isn’t a job title. And it certainly isn’t a certificate with your name on it.

    But my views aside…

    …God speed Marty. You have the courage and the fortitude go where no one has dared yet. And the love and compassion to take as many people with you as are willing.

    • You hit the nail on the head with this one: The very next thing I experienced, mere milliseconds afterwards, was an almost overwhelming understanding that I was very much at the beginning of a journey. The problem with those who believe they have arrived is that they are, in reality, stuck by their own assertion.

      • Though I haven’t done a single OT level, conceptually this makes a lot of sense. There is no beginning and no end – just constant evolvingness. Ironically despite all the negative press, Wright’s book, the imminent collapse of the cult et al I have never wanted to get back in the chair as much as now.

  112. Lisa Mc Pherson, an Expiring Scientologist.

    I wish I had known her

  113. What would have happened if LRH decided that he shouldn’t touch or try to improve on what Sigmund Freud did or any of the other philosophers? There have been many ground breaking discoveries by giant men who could have said to the world: “Nobody else could have done this. Do not try to alter what I have done” etc. If others would have posted such warnings and later men heeded those warnings, we might all still be in the dark, huddled around a bonfire eating meat. Things have to keep expanding and improving, it is the way of the world

  114. Hi Marty,

    I supported you at the beginning and during some of the battles you have taken on. Yet I do believe that the route you have taken now is not the right one.

    When I left the church in 2005, I first thought that management was wrong, then I came to the conclusion that not all of the tech/admin/policy worked, then thought that maybe also LRH was a bit off the rails, then thought that large part of the tech needed rework, then thought that LRH was wrong and sometimes also a bit of a con, then one day I woke up and although I felt me so completely right in my analysis of the criticalities of scientology, I felt me unhappy…

    I think that route doesn’t work or at least it didn’t work for me. It is only when I reverted to the use of ethics, tech and admin by the book that I felt my life went well again. But that, of course, is just my experience.

    To me Scientology is a religion and the technology (ethics, tech and admind depured by DM’s alterations) it is a faith. I am not a fundamentalist either because I also work with psychs, life improvement guru’s and the like. Yet when we talk about scientology and the spirit I prefer it pure and without alterations.

    Having said that, you definitely earned the right to go your own route. I just said it didn’t work for me.

    Paolo

    • Thanks Paolo. Nice to hear from you. I think it behooves us all to keep in mind what Chris just posted on this thread about his realization after having had truth revealed to him: The very next thing I experienced, mere milliseconds afterwards, was an almost overwhelming understanding that I was very much at the beginning of a journey.

  115. LDW Quoth :-
    “We have no interest in expanding. What we are interested in doing is training others to be successful and teaching them how to audit and train others. Then we send them out to start their own group. No strings attached. We don’t hound them for their stats, force our org plan on them or even badger them if they stray. We help them succeed with standard tech and they then get the idea that they can succeed with standard tech. We help them with C/Sing, cramming, internships, further training and advice when they ask for it. Word of mouth keeps all five of us busy, with only one actual admin terminal in our group.”

    I threatened to rewrite KSW1. I think most will be happy I prefer
    to quote Les above as an excellent example of delivery success and an excellent treatise on expansion of our subject and keeping it working. Without using “hammering or knocking”!

    Been posting their success stories for years . Below one of my favorites. What a contrast to the ARC deficient “machine”. What a srory of empowerment. :)

    Success Story 12/28/09
    From a delightful 10 year old girl.
    Her dad brought her here from back east. She spent 3 days here.

    “I loved my auditing every second we had a session. I even loved the last 2 minutes of a session in a fiery sauna! :) I really liked it when my auditor made me lemon poppyseed muffins and let me audit her! I know the things I learned will help me later on in life. I will miss her and her muffins and lots more stuff. (P.S. The sauna will make you burn up 1 second after you step in! :))”

    Anita Warren
    Life Improvement Center
    http://www.lifeimp.com

    • Without using “hammering or knocking”!
      Haha, now I see what the beef with this HCOPL is – LRHs tone level. :-D

      It’s a very cute Success Story you posted.
      Very nice.

      (P.S. the link to your homepage doesn’t work… or so it seems at least. I am landing at a parked domain.)

  116. Respnse to Gern:-

    “Look, it is a cold, blunt, honest fact: Fair Game, Disconnection – these tools *WORK* and they are there, in the doctrine, for a damned fine reason. They work”

    Note that many fair game activities would be illegal. However Governments are who pass the law and thus the German government’s fair gaming of scientology and scientologists

    would no doubt be legal. Its not clear why you complain when you support the fair game policy?

    “I think the biggest problem with Fair Game is that, the user of the policy skips right past the important part and ends up reactively concluding that its okay to commit crime. Its never okay.”

    Note that its quite legal for a government to act. They decide what is or is not a crime. I’m sure it is the case, thus, that the German government committed no crimes.

    “I up and left the Church with the same conclusion: we Scientologists *must* integrate, evolve, transcend. I’ve been out in the world doing exactly that now, ”

    Please explain how you have committed fair game without having evolved to government power?

    The website for our internet Org.

    http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs/

    • I’ve actually never had to use Fair Game since leaving the Church. All other prior handlings found in Standard Tech have been sufficient to resolve the scene. Disconnection, I have applied, for good reason. But Fair Game? Thats pretty far down the slippery pole, and I’ve managed to keep a grip.

  117. I read in the article this great quote: “Hubbard himself once noted that if something is done in the pursuit of understanding it contains no liability.”
    A very interesting statement which resonates with me as I have had to deal with this kind of dilemma myself.
    I’ve seen situations where one person may sense that what they are doing is done in the pursuit of understanding, while the people around this person may believe that whatever this person is doing, he/she is doing it out of ulterior motives..
    Do you have any insights into how one can make a fair determination about to whether something is truly done in the pursuit of understanding or not, i.e how can one make a fair reading of the intent of another person? Thank you.

  118. Hi SKM

    Been promoting the FZ for 12 years or so.

    Hope this works :)

    http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

    • Hello Anita,
      I didn’t know you’re out of the Church for so long already.

      What is this “internet management org”?
      I read online about many interesting projects, including tech videos, I’ve also seen the independent academy checksheets.
      This is all good news.
      As I am not looking up all the different sites about the FZ I don’t know much.
      I only see there are different versions of “The Bridge” and I wonder if with time there will evolve a consens in all this. After all, “the Bridge is the Bridge” — as DK has put it once in one of the video-interviews from Tatiana.

  119. Indie-saurus-rex

    I agree with both Tom and Marty.

    Let me explain: Similar to many of you, I studied and practiced different spiritual approaches for years leading up to the beginning of my involvement in Scientology. I studied all the major religions both in my personal life and in university. On my own, I practiced meditation and yoga and became well versed in Buddhism and Hinduism. I also delved into New Age thinking and a touch of the psycho-analytical.

    All before finding Scientology.

    I found Scientology right around the time Tom Cruise performed his “couch jump” on Oprah. But my interest stemmed not from that but rather from meeting a Scientologist in a market in Johannesburg, South Africa and making a promise to him that when I returned to Canada, that I’d read Dianetics. I kept my promise and the rest is history.

    However, what is important in this story, apart from my existing knowledge of religions and spirituality (and also that I hold degrees in Sociology and Social Anthropology and Socio-Economic Development Studies) is that when I became involved with Scientology, I vowed that I’d read all of LRH’s works and listen to all his lectures prior to setting foot on the Bridge. I wanted to know what I was getting into first.

    That was 6-7 years ago now and I’ve completed most of his written book s and recorded lectures (still working on the SHSBC, however). So in total, I’ve spent the last 13 or so years studying with great fascination all the facets that relate to humans, their minds and their spirit.

    My perspective is that I agree with both Tom and Marty. Actually, I mostly agree with Marty, in that things have come a long way and there is much to be learned and experienced from other perspectives on the mind/spirit. People should close themselves off from looking as the truth prevails, even if it’s only “your” truth.

    However, where I disagree with Marty and tend to side with Tom – and this is a perspective that I never see raised within these “Indie” discussions – is that it’s pretty easy for someone like Marty (or any other long-time Scientologist who has suffered at the hand of Miscavige’s Church) to now hold the perspective that rigidity in terms of following LRH is a counterproductive practice. I say it’s ‘easy’ because it’s always easy to know the truth when one has experienced falsity and lies. It’s easy to know white when one has experienced much black. The garbage that you’ve experienced in corporate Scientology helps clearly delineate the benefits and shortcomings of other religions and spiritual practices. What might be easy for you to spot and accept or spot and avoid might be very difficult for a newcomer to LRH’s works.

    My point here is just that a person needs a solid, safe and structured foundation of LRH and his technology in order to be able to ‘think outside the box’ with it. At this moment in time – January 2013 – there’s no real risk of LRH’s technology becoming obsolete through a bunch of whacked-out Indie’s auditing people on OT23. There are a bunch of good people, like Marty, who are practicing Standard Tech in helping people move up the Bridge. But with the introduction of other influences, as legitimate as they might be, one can only wonder what ‘Standard’ auditing will look like 100 years from now. (I’d include LRH’s materials in this as well).

    In my opinion, what it should look like is EXACTLY as LRH laid it out. If a person wants to make a little ‘jazz music’ with Scientology Tech, no problem. But they need to know the Tech first, flaws and all. Problems arise when assumptions are made that newcomers will be able to see and understand all that went before.

    It’s a fine line, I understand. All of us want to avoid another disaster situation like the current Miscavige regime… and we all want Scientology to live on and flourish. And to have this, we can’t be rigid and unnaccepting of other perspectives and advances in knowledge. However, in an independent movement, there is no person or body that will work to ensure that, should everyone wind up taking a ‘left turn’ that there will always be a path ‘back home’.

    I fear that LRH Tech will eventually get watered down to the point where it will be effective, but only in the way that Buddhist practice or Hindu practice is – i.e. that years, if not centuries will be needed to realize its full effect.

    This is something that I feel is very important to discuss and engage in but yet is a topic that is never brought up. Perhaps it is because the lion’s share of Indies are those who are already ‘up the Bridge’ or highly technically trained and as a result, they are secure in their tech-knowledge and don’t worry about the preservation of what makes Scientology so effective in the first place.

    My 2 cents. Sorry for the length of the post. I wish their was better way to share my feelings with all of you – a way in which they would be broadcast and not buried underneath 500 comments!

    • Indie-saurus-rex

      Edit: Sorry, a section of my above post should read, “People should NOT close themselves off from looking, as the truth prevails, even if it’s only “their” truth.

      Without that “NOT”, that section reads exactly the opposite!

    • I second your sentiments.

    • My perception is that so much trouble has arisen, not because Hubbard WAS duplicated and followed, but precisely because LRH was NOT duplicated and followed. In brief, the Bridge broke. The question is to find the correct why. Based on what you have written here, it seems you are serious about getting what the man tried so very hard to communicate. It is somewhat like the law – there are those who see the intent, and do not quibble with the letter. But good judges know the letter very well.

    • Excellent Post! Lot’s of well-thought-out, balanced perspective here.
      Thanks!

  120. There’s often been comparisons made between what’s happening now and the Protestant Reformation.

    Continuing with that, if you look around you’ll see that there’s at least a dozen major branches of the Protestant churches.

    I’m not a student of this, but I think that each of these branches had a person as their initial leader who looked at the Bible and at the way things were being practiced at the time and thought it all over and then each in a way published their own “Mission Statement”. It was that leader’s well thought out argument about what the Bible really had to say.

    Some rallied around Calvin and the Presbyterians, others around Luther and the Lutherans, etc.

    No doubt at the time of origin for each of these sects there was controversy and consternation and “how could they think THAT about the Bible???” but there was enough that struck a chord with each of these variations that they grew and expanded. Hundreds of years later you can’t really say one of them has it right and the others don’t.

    I would be very happy even if the current corporate church survived. Why not? There’s fervent believers there fervently believing and raising their kids to be fervent. That’s OK. They’ve got as much right to exist and believe what they believe as anyone else does. And no one outside of that group need to ask them for a “license to survive” for themselves or their group or their set of ideals.

    There’s room for everyone. Those that don’t “agree” with Marty or with the church can go ahead and publish their own “mission statement” and run with it.

  121. I don’t want to sound like a total wiseguy dis-respecting all of LRH policy, when the truth is I do think that there is an amount of very valuable ideas that Ron expressed in policy. I particularly think he had some very important and necessary things to say about VFPs (definitions and writings on sub-products and organization and flow) and exchange as well as finance.. And while I think the Org Board as a fixed entity can actually slow down production and service and be harmful, I not only think there are some positive aspects to it, but the practical of drawing up my personal org board on LOC about 20 years ago is still bearing fruit in my life. Most of us do in fact have these divisions and functions in our life that we need to ensure are in survival mode, from Treasury to Tech (training) to PR hat (to make oneself known and well thought of can very much increase ARC for example in all areas of life) and on and on. My own feeling is the org board has turned out to be tons more valuable in my personal life (on all dynamics) than it has in a strictly 3D organizational sense. So there is definately very valuable stuff contained in LRH policy, but I like it as an amount of data that one can peruse and learn from and take from it what one wishes rather than as commands that one must be rigidly holding to in an organization.

  122. Individual hands may vary is size and shape, but there is only one way to hold an instrument.

  123. 1. if you want to go somewhere you use a car. Henry Ford’s personality, wives and children have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the car works. If you want to be able to see the source of problems and make them disappear, you do the grades. L Ron Hubbards wives and ego have absolutely nothing to do with the workability of the grades.
    2.Filling a car up with water instead of gas will not get you to the movies. Likewise doing your grades via skype will not give you the ability to see the source of problems and make the disappear.
    3. For a car you need an owners manual and basic instructions. There is also usually some kind of warning – for example – Do not use diesel fuel in this car! So it is with KSW #1.

    But in all things, the tone level of th