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.


…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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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,


    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.

  5. 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.


    • Thanks. I’ll address the business of how to train in a post later this week.

      • Thank you Marty.

      • 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.

          • 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?


  6. 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.

  7. 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.


  8. “The softest things in the world overcome the hardest things in the world.”
    Lao Tzu

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. Lisa Mc Pherson, an Expiring Scientologist.

    I wish I had known her

  14. 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

  15. 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.


    • 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.

  16. 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

    • 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.)

  17. 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.


    • 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Hi SKM

    Been promoting the FZ for 12 years or so.

    Hope this works :)


    • 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. Individual hands may vary is size and shape, but there is only one way to hold an instrument.

  24. 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 the person involved determines the outcome. A somewhat balanced and social person will only use a harsh punishment in extreme necessity. A psychopath will make it the order of the day. A balanced social person would only order disconnection in the most extreme situation and only after many hours and much opportunity and would grease the path to reconciliation as much as possible. A psychopath will demand enforced disconnection at the drop of a hat or for spilled coffee and slam the door on reconciliation forever.
    Scientology is a precise technology with exact results. When used exactly it works. The fact that Scientology works is not a reason to close the door on all other learning, knowledge and viewpoints. In fact, a normal social person is very tolerant of other people and their viewpoints. A psychopath demands unthiniking obediance, instant compliance, no deviation from accepted thought patterns.

    Could all this discussion just be because Marty is a normal, social human being, and DM is a psychopath?

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      That’s it ! You said everything about the subject.
      Nice conclusion !
      What’s next ?

    • 1. You want to compare a “spiritual technology” to a car?

      If a motorcar and the organization to build it and sell it was specified with the same contradictions found in Scientology then each car coming off the production line would be different, there would be arguments among the workers as to what the designer intended, there would be wild claims made about the performance of the car (9000 miles per gallon! never breaks down!) and of course it could never be improved or its weaknesses fixed despite newer more modern models being built by competitors.

      All the while, despite widespread public criticism of the car, public inquiries of the safety of the car, the faithful workers still trumpet how great the car is, and that those who experience problems must be driving it wrong.

      Henry Ford was no scientific genius, he stood on the shoulders of centuries of scientific and technological progress, he re-used the inventions of others and innovated to find a way of assembling the vehicles to make them affordable and reliable.

      And since he had found a way of delivering “a precise technology with exact results” he declared that no-one must ever change his design or assembly process and to this day we all drive around in black Model-T Fords, such is the way of “technology”.

  25. markthehungarian

    Another fascinating post by Marty and proof, if you need any, that he’s sticking to his original goal, that of “Moving On Up a Little Higher.”

    Sticking one’s head in the sand in order to shut out the outside world is no way to take stock of where you are and what you believe in. It is impossible to refuse to read and ignore any other point of view and then maintain that you are independent or a free-thinker. History is littered with the remains of civilizations which took the view “we’re the best, and I don’t need to know anything about anywhere else, because we’re the best. I know, because a higher-up has told me.” It’s BS.

    IANAS, but I have often read that Scientologists pride themselves on their ability to confront. I assume that this means being able to listen and read other viewpoints while still maintaining a Scientology course through life,. Surely cutting yourself off from more knowledge is a demonstration of a lack of confront, or the willingness to keep yourself at a low level of enlightenment. I don’t think this is a state anyone should aspire to.

    Knowledge is something that we should all strive for. Fortunately, there is no limit to how much we can learn or know, so it is a horrible state of affairs if as an individual, we look in the mirror and say “that’s enough for me,” or “I’m full.” While this could be understandable 1000 years ago, today, with the technology available at our fingertips, not learning more is a very sad state of affairs. Worse still, using mind-games to blackmail others into *not* learning more is, in my mind at least, a high crime.

    It is nothing more than fascism.

    When I was in medical school I remember doing well at an anatomy exam and uttering the words, under my breath, “I know it all.” My examiner promptly failed me (it was an oral exam). When I asked why, he said “if you think you know it all, you know nothing. It is only when you learn more, much more, that will will realize exactly how little you know.”

    I was angry he failed me, but in retrospect I realize just how right he was. Let me end with some quotes…

    “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” – Plato

    “No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance.” – Atwood H. Townsend

    “There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.”- Goethe

  26. Marty, first I applaud your mission statement it shows where your coming from even though you should not have to explain yourself. Second I’d think there should be a little more allowance of beingness here I mean it is your blog. And third I appreciate the aid in finding the path around the potholes blown in the bridge by COB. Just a thought. ARC Bill Dupree

  27. Nice piece from Anderson Cooper and Lawrence Wright about the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K5yBlyvefY

  28. A quote from Isaiah Berlin:
    “(People) cannot live without seeking to describe and explain the universe to themselves. The models they use in doing this must deeply affect their lives, not least when they are unconscious; much of (their) misery and frustration … is due to the mechanical and unconscious, as well as deliberate, application of models where they do not work … The goal of philosophy is always the same, to assist (people) to understand themselves and thus operate in the open and not wildly, in the dark.”

  29. Thank you for this mission statement Marty. Very well said and you make yourself very clear.

    There is such a thing as “need of change”. People that are exiting the Church are at “need of change”. This is what I see.

    Some people may be at “need of change” with some habits they have formed within the Scientology culture.

    All in all, “need of change” is an organic cycle and not a crime for anyone. You have owned the “need of change” in a constructive manner and embraced it well.

    I think some others who are not aware they are in “need of change” who insist that “nothing change” at the same time, are just in a GPMish situation.

    Then the issues surface. “How much do we change?” “How much do I change?” “What part of this culture should we change?” “What policies should we change?” “Is it allowed to change?” “Isn’t it a crime to change?” Blah blah blah……. and more important, I ask myself, why is anybody being attacked at all for being up to need of change? As if it were a crime? That is all the O.S.A. staff are doing. Attacking people for being up to need of change. Well, it’s right there on the grade chart! They just are not up to need of change.

    So, when someone comes along in this group of Independents, who are clearly up to need of change, and sends the message, “Don’t change anything”, it will not fly.

    Disconnection is at -33.

    Need of change is at -4

    “At the level of “need of change” (-4) one is aware that he needs change in his life, and has actually reached quite a high state of awareness. Many people are not up to this level, and are therefore stuck in the unfortunate condition of wondering how they can endure that which they believe cannot be changed. Scientology is for the person who sincerely wants change, wants to become better and more able. Scientology thus helps the able to become more able.” L.R.H.


    I have pondered on a few occasions if it might not be a good idea for everyone to go up the bridge eight times. As each of the dynamics.

    I can only assume the staff in the Church are still using comm baskets.And would become very alarmed to find they had vanished. Even though Hubbard was using telex half a century ago.

    Hubbard himself said, “Function monitors structure.”

    Scientology is a structure on many levels from a body of organized knowledge to a culture. There are people who think they should be monitored by these structures. And want to be monitored by these structures and want these structures to monitor others. O.S.A. itself is a structure to monitor. The product of the CofS right now is disfunctional people.

    So here we go. “To disconnect or not?” “To RPF or not?” Well, what will simply assist you in functioning? Does Scientology need the R.P.F. to function? Does Scientology need David Miscavige to function? Does Scientology need new buildings to function? Does Scientology need it’s customers and staff to disconnect to function?

    Approached with this question only, it is a simple task to understand what changes might be highly beneficial and what changes would be harmful to undertake.

    A person need only look at you, sitting down in Texas auditing, functioning very well and getting products, to know what is needed for the Scientology to function. Or to look at any of the field auditors out there auditing P.C.’s in their office or living room, to know what wanted and needed for the Scientology to function.

    To make the R.P.F. function out here, one would more or less need to employ a full time dominatrix. It would just be cheaper to go up the bridge.

    • One could also ask themselves, Where their notions and purposes could be placed on this chart. The purpose of O.S.A. would be -20 to -31 area with the goal to drive perceived enemies to -33 or -34. Isn’t the purpose of Scientology to rise above these levels? So, does the Church actually need this for the Scientology to function? Fairgaming happens. The United States just recently bombed Bagdad, 46% of the victims were women and children. Did we really need to do that to function as a nation? I doubt it.

      Awareness Characteristics
      Total Freedom
      Power on all 8 Dynamics
      21 Source
      20 Existence
      19 Conditions
      18 Realization
      17 Clearing
      16 Purposes
      15 Ability
      14 Correction
      13 Result
      12 Production
      11 Activity
      10 Prediction
      9 Body
      8 Adjustment
      7 Energy
      6 Enlightenment
      5 Understanding
      4 Orientation
      3 Perception
      2 Communication
      1 Recognition
      -1 Help
      -2 Hope
      -3 Demand for Improvement
      -4 Need of Change

      Levels below “Need of Change”
      from human to materiality:

      -5 Fear of Worsening
      -6 Effect
      -7 Ruin
      -8 Despair
      -9 Suffering
      -10 Numbness
      -11 Introversion
      -12 Disaster
      -13 Inactuality
      -14 Delusion
      -15 Hysteria
      -16 Shock
      -17 Catatonia
      -18 Oblivion
      -19 Detachment
      -20 Duality
      -21 Secrecy
      -22 Hallucination
      -23 Sadism
      -24 Masochism
      -25 Elation
      -26 Glee
      -27 Fixidity
      -28 Erosion
      -29 Dispersal
      -30 Disassociation
      -31 Criminality
      -32 Uncausing
      -33 Disconnection
      -34 Unexistence

      • The mission statement is at 16 purposes.

        If a person has surfaced at -4 need of change, he certainly MUST get up to demand for improvement at -3 to move upward. That is the REAL crime in the Independent Movement! We are demanding improvement!

        “The Church denies……….”
        “The Church denies………..”
        “The Church denies……….” This is at -21 secrecy.

        You air some of those “secrets” and you pull them up to -15 hysteria. Maybe they get up to a little -7 ruin, as in, “Are we ruined by this?”

        Yep, in case you did not notice “ruin” is up there at -7.

        That tells you where the Church needs to go before things are ever going to get any better over there.

        Anyone out here can see Miscavige is ruined already. He will never admit it. The staff have no idea. They do not have access to books and internet and news. It is quite illegal for him to not report to all of them what his condition is, as he is in charge of R.T.C. and that carries with it fiduciary trusts for the Sea Org.

        And so, we are all S.P.’s because we are informed and we are up to need of change, demand for improvement, and upwards. While they sit over there is quiet, slow, -28 erosion.

  30. SKM,
    You are all over the place.


  31. I totally agree with what you write in your post Marty. I also agree with what Dan Koon writes.

  32. Excellent opening post and excellent comments and commentary also. What I wonder is do some people here actually imagine or believe the church of scientology can be reformed (even as a start) by simply removing David Miscaviage from power?

    That seems wholly improbable to me. Everyone in the Sea Org and in upper mgmt have spent how many hears being indoctrinated into the ‘culture of insanity’? Does anyone expect that with DMs removal the entire group that has been serving him and mimicking him will simply say, ok, lets all change our entire way of being now. We will henceforth be decent, honest, compassionate? That just seems so unlikely to me.

    Someone earlier on this thread (I believe) posted this link: http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-dirty-dozen/
    which I found incredibly rich with insight. The Dirty Dozen.

    But the sheer depth and breadth of the insanity of the DM regime seems so pervasive in the entire organization that a ‘take over’ / ‘reformation’ seems nearly inconceivable to me. Although I wish it were possible from a personal point of view.

    Just wondering if any thought has been given to the problem of entrenchment, and any possible / viable solutions to it.

    Lastly, I agree wholeheartedly when DM is gone, via removal, imprisonment, absconding or whatever, the prime opening will appear for at least an attempt at reformation. I just can’t yet imagine how one (or many) would be able to, well, clean house of the existing (DM servants) before occupying or staffing it with, cleaner beings.

  33. Just as a late comment, but here it is. Just who did LRH refer to in RJ67?

    Here’s a rallying cry. Let’s us take this to its natural conclusion.

    Yeah it includes you too POB.

  34. Marty writes: “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 commend his rejection of excessive reliance on blind faith and trust this is not trust what LRH was asking for.

    I know however from my own experience that at times, I have rejected new ideas based on my gut reactions or first impressions and that, by acting too quick, I missed an opportunity to broaden my understanding: these new ideas, for me to embrace it, would have required me to overcome my mental frames. And if I had had a little bit of blind faith, and given these new ideas the benefit of the doubt, I may have evolved into a whole new realm of understanding.

    By refusing any amount of blind faith, I see now that I missed quite a few opportunities to learn. I’ve had other situations when I stuck with something I did not understand, out a little bit of blind faith, and a couple of weeks later, I understood that it all made sense and felt glad I had stuck around. Now Im learning to give new ideas the benefit of the doubt and ponder many possible ways to look at them. Most, while I believe that, with age, my judgement has become more accurate than ever before, ive also learned to be wary of jumping to my own conclusions.

    Does someone here some value in using small doses of blind faith as a mean to not miss a chance to access new understandings which may at first appear to be off?

    Thank you for the many great postings, I enjoy very much the interaction

  35. This is only one test for the right path: more happiness, more benevolent power, more realization of our immortal nature, mind over body, soul over mind, intuitive wisdom and more love and appreciation of others. Ever increasing and full of hope.

  36. Hello Marty, I have been following your blog with interest, and true enough, your action is absolutely vital for the restoration of the power and the hope of Scientology, and for the millenniums to come – I mean it. And you really took responsability for repairing this situation.

    On this particular issue (“KSW”), I’d like to share my view. I’m sorry, I don’t have much of references at hand, so take it as a viewpoint. I usually favor the “middle ground” solutions and must say that you and Tom both have a point. However I highly suspect that your real respective practices in life are not so different – may be we’ll find out even that Marty would be more “KSW” than Tom in real life ; in other words, what is the practical issue and everyday life application coming out of this somewhat philosophical positioning? By the way, you are a bit emotional on this subject, Marty, and could get your point with less words.
    My view truly balances more towards Tom’s side, but I’d like to share another light on this. Before Scientology, I had been following a somewhat “wisdom” approach, and that kind of approach generally holds that you will progress with the help of a “master”, someone who has realized in himself what he teaches, and “a man knows no more that what he is”. I discovered LRH as a real master, although when I discovered Scientology, some aspects of the orgs seemed to me really corny, authoritative and — lacking of ARC (35 years back). As to LRH, when I read the progression of his thought (which denotes ability and implies cycles of actions in itself), the ability to make it reality within the third dynamic and handle all randomity, inabilities, broken straws and sabotage, I witness that he IS up to what he “knows” (and can’t even imagine all what he might know). I have no absolute reverence for LRH, don’t think he is perfect (he will thank me for that) and don’t think he made no mistakes. I however think he made 1000 times more right actions than each of us.

    I had in my young age envisioned to create myself some kind of a holistic group, with much research into human abilities. I consider myself to be well equipped with intellect and courage, but I must say I could not discover one thousandth of what LRH discovered (that’s a very moderate statement). And to paraphrase LRH, if I had found this thousandth, I would probably be famous and respected by now.
    Now, I was extremely interested in what LRH was, how he was thinking, his way of handling things, as much as in his concrete discoveries. The method, way of being indeed. And what struck me as an evidence is this enormous power he had, on a literally “physics” basis: the number of completed cycle of actions and handlings, let’s say to the hour – like the electrical power of a machine, even if we know a thetan is much more sophisticated than a machine. I like calculus, and would say that it would take about 200 hundred years to a grouped formed up of 100 superior individuals to elaborate this practical path to freedom or an equivalent path in terms of effective freeing up of beings – as it is a way, not a simple set of tools. A sequence, remember. (Parenthesis: one of the first things David Mayo did when out of the Church was to change the sequence of the bridge to “improve it” and remedy to its “obvious defaults” – like Miscavige with his objectives run on OTs).
    Only that this 100 members group – being a group – has close to no chances to make it, i.e. 0,00000000001% chances. So I endorse this KSW statement that “a quarter of a century convinced me that a group…”.
    Which brings us to the next subject: splinter groups. There have been attempts in the past to re-create organizational set ups bound to deliver Scientology. Although being inside the Church, I have been believing for long that they were called “squirrels” only to bring discredit on them, while they were genuinely trying to apply standard tech. I then found out that they were usually actually squirrel – not necessarily intentionally – just because they COULD NOT apply standard tech. They could not build an environment where they were able to apply standard Tech.
    Concerning other groups and searchers, I had the great opportunity to actively participate and research in other spiritual groups before Scientology, and, while inside Scientology, I was able to work with other groups in the frame of religious freedom actions in Europe, and I must say I was struck by how little power (real spiritual power) these groups have, as well as the individuals that compose them – however high their conviction might be. I respect them fully, I have friends among them, but don’t envy them. Remember the considerations of LRH about truths, expressed in Dianetics and later – which I fully endorse: the true facts embedded in former or other spiritual/healing, usually few, are fully offset by the false data that surround them, which makes the whole into a non workable way. I witnessed that, to a very marked degree.

    Just one example of this: in one interview, the Dalai Lama stated that he was not sure of being a spiritual being, and that if “Science” proves out to him that he is only a conglomerate of atoms, he will abide with this. This tells it all. Yes, these are usually good people, however this not the point at all.
    As far as “independent research”:
    LRH concluded at one point (don’t have the issue – Green Vol 6 ?) that only orgs would support Scientology, and that Scientology would not make it without orgs. (That’s where he explains why he’ll stop doing congresses); he meant Scientology orgs, built up on the 21 dept scheme, with all the processes researched, tested and formulated in policies.
    And most splinter operations hit the same wall: how do we set up a workable and viable organization? With all the different viewpoints colliding as you may imagine.
    My evaluation is that current orgs – local orgs, with all the wrong directions they get, apply probably 50 times more scientology processes (of all kind) than “honest splinter groups”. I believe that yes, the policies are of extreme value, yes honesty and competence of staff is important, but I am quite “mystical” – although evaluated and rather obvious – about it : the actual Church incorporates LRH postulate in a way that cannot be duplicated in a separate structure, and more, he built it up brick by brick, year after year with his constant interest and powerful postulate – that situation will not be duplicated either. I believe that if you take the 50 best technical personnel and the 50 best management personnel on the planet, and they want to create a new separate Church, they won’t make it. I don’t take much risk saying that. They might create one org that operates – not sure, but not 200 orgs and 250 missions.
    To make it short, the strategy I would envision for what we try to solve is not to “evaluate scientology”, or “evaluate Ron Hubbard”, but to simply have Scientology applied in a standard environment – an org, where the admin scale would be in. Not that difficult actually, remember the fall of the Berlin wall. Maintaining a lie requires a lot of continuous force, and for a big lie, an extenuating effort. The Church can redeem in a very short time, not necessarily with huge efforts.
    I believe we must change the Church from the internal side – even if piloted from outside. I think this is the best chance for this universe, except that LRH is probably working on something at this minute, assisted by a group of a-bit-less-broken-straws.
    Now, back in 84-85, I was lucky enough to read a “squirrel” issue, called “Ability” I think, in which David Mayo was writing among other splinter groups or individuals. You had all kind of viewpoints in there, from Mayo who wanted to make people cycle through the lower Grades – so they don’t lie at the examiner – and wanted to restaure the Chistian vertues, to people saying LRH was a squirrel – changing other’s previous ideas – or that everybody should be his own Source. At the same time, I was studying the first Blue Volumes (1950 -1951) and lo and behold, would find that, almost one for one, for any “improvement” or “remedy” imagined by those splinter groups or individuals, there was already an answer in the 1950-51 lectures : LRH had had the same idea, had explored and tested the “improvement” and had discarded it as a dead end, explaining why.
    On the Eastern front, we had the Bill Robertson group. After his death, in 2000, I found once a text by one of his close assistant trying to establish a “transmission status”, i.e. you were trained by Bill Robertson himself (1st level), or trained by somebody who was trained by him (2nd level), etc. as an attempt to remedy to a somewhat uncontrolled dissemination of upper materials, and auditing thereof, often without proper training or required lower levels audited. Like a bottle the open sea, quite desperate.
    Now, Marty, be cautious, I sort of recognize in some of the current discussions a hint of those “new ways or remedies” imagined back then by splinter members, that were already discarded in LRH’s research in the early 50’s. This is up to you, but be aware of the tons of ways, improvements and data that LRH has intentionally discarded as being not workable. A great part of evaluation consists in DISCARDING false data or wrong investigation trails, and LRH was a real master in that sport – rightly in my mind.
    Also let’s look at “complexity and confronting” – HCO PL 18/9/67: there could easily be an idea that “orgs cannot operate correctly” and that one has to invent a new way or new types of groups to deliver Scientology, and build up from there a whole philosophy of how scientologists should be, etc., thereby clouding up the original intent. I believe all these “new ways” have already been evaluated.
    And Tom,
    I think we need to address something, that we have to confront – and I am afraid to say I see very very little of this: what did we do wrong? What did LRH do wrong to create the current situation? Because it is obvious we created this, and that LRH created this – if I follow your viewpoint , the tech is not guilty-, so what did we do wrong? The area to investigate might be way before Miscavige’s putsch (87) and more into the 81-83 period. My current viewpoint is that it is not the texts, nor the “ship” – the org, but rather the piloting of the ship that went wrong at some point, with no effective reaction of the members of the group. Too long to develop. From there we can open the door to a correction.

    • CR (Ioda),

      This is one of the best and most thought-provoking posts I have ever read on the question of what direction Scientologists should be taking. Bless you! I’ve already shared the link to it with a number of people I know.

      You have impinged on my universe. Much ARC, marildi :)

  37. Hat off 4 you Marty,you really has the gift with words and you are dead accurate.I also wants 2 thank Tom 4 making such a nice example ;)

  38. Another angle 2 this is explained very well by this man..(Collectivism vs Individualism)

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s