The Enemy

I commented twice in the discussion on the post Scientology Regression that there is no enemy; the malady is having to have one.  Apparently, Scientology instills the firm belief that there are people worthy of the label ‘enemy’, and that such people must be depowered and dispensed with, or in some cases made to be and act in an acceptable way.  I’m sure someone will cite to What Is Greatness?, originally published as a magazine article in March 1966, to stop this train of thought.  In that case, someone else can just as easily cite HCO PL The Responsibilities of Leaders, issued as policy less than a year later, which justifies murder provided it is carried out stealthily against the enemy of a worthy enough power.

You even have a self-auditing process in Scientology designed for people deemed by authorities in the group to have acted in a way that warrants the label ‘enemy.’  That formula requires the individual to change the very essence of his being – his very concept of his own identity – to conform to the liking of the powers that be in the group.  That can be a rather dysfunctional, destructive process given the fact that finding out who one really is is the end product of the Scientology bridge itself.  In order to be accepted back into the group he must, in addition to other steps, ‘deliver an effective blow to the enemies of the group one has been pretending to be part of despite personal danger.’

I think it is worthwhile for someone who has adopted Scientology beliefs to think about what notions have been inculcated into oneself about labeling people as ‘enemy’ and treating them as such.  Think about the effect it might have on your relations and your own peace of mind.  For contemplation about how to deal with anyone who might declare you an enemy of him or her, an apt passage from the Tao Te Ching describing what is a ‘great man’ might assist:

      He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.

463 responses to “The Enemy

  1. I have been interested in this blog for about a year now and this topic of enemy has brought up thoughts I have had from time to time.

    Scientology and the word Scientology and Ron Hubbard mean so many different things to so many different people. To Paulette Cooper it means an evil force that tried to destroy her life. To Lisa McPheason it means the same. To an auditor who has helped people it means the power of good. To a sane application of ethics it means the power of good.

    One of the things I learned from Ron was the power of words and terms. I like creating terms when I feel one needs to be created.


    That means you try to lesson culpability by comparing it to something else.
    For instance, you try to handle something with someone and they tell you you do the same thing. Or months ago I posted about a women I knew who was harmed by the GO and someone posted back “yeah, but look at how much good Scientology has done.” And they never addressed my idea.

    If you go into a hospital and tell the doctor you have a pain in your stomach the doctor doesn’t do a test and say, “why be so negative? All your other organs are fine.”

    So here we have Marty talking about all the harm that is possible and did occur with an aspect of the ethics condition and then we have many many entries saying what wonderful wins people have in proper us of ethics.

    Ok……. fine…… But that is not what Marty is bringing up. He is revealing an ailing organ and you are saying that the lungs, live, eyes etc etc are fine.

    It is impossible to get to the bottom of a problem and resolve anything with NON CULBABILITY BY COMPARISON. Impossible!

    Marty is not questioning the sane use of ethics. He is stating that inherent in the formula is a twisted philosophy that creates enemies. He is not saying that evil does not exist. He is not saying that some people are not dangerous like thieves, tyrants, killers.

    NON CULPABILITY BY COMPARISON has only one goal. The denial of culpability so as to blame the person bringing it up. It is a thought stopper on steroids because it gets the originator tricked into defending themselves.
    And the issue is never handled.

    So if someone brings up that Ron orchestrated the destruction of Paulette Cooper, just watch what your mind does. Does it go to all your cognitions or all the good you’ve seen in Scientology?

    You will never be able to see with clearity the true nature of the Paulette Cooper saga if you default to Scientology is good. Of course it’s good! When you are using it for good. It is no inval on it’s goodness to realize that horrible bad has been done in it’s name.

    Separate the two. And don’t justify or deny the bad by comparing it to the good. You will never resolve this maze of incongruity.

    And I believe that is what Marty is courageously doing. The organ needing surgery is the processes of creating enemies. Not that ethics is good when done well.

  2. Am interested in how the Us vs Them developed. Is it simply attributable to LRH’s military background? For instance, hazing in the military is quite common, along with harsh ethics/justice. The military also refer to people not in the military as ‘civilians’ and a job outside is, ‘civvie street.’

    It’s really a shame that the biography has never been published as a bit of contextual understanding would be very helpful.

  3. And what causes a person to use NON CULPABILITY BY COMPARISON?

    1) And inability or refusal to see one’s self or an issue
    2) a refusal to be self critical or critical of something
    3) fear of being wrong
    4) need to be right
    5) inability to reason correctly
    6) a strong emotional attachment to seeing something a certain way and refusing to budge because critical thinking has been suspended with strong faith, or because having critical thinking meant punishment and rejection by the group that one has considered the “only way.” In other words, becoming an enemy.

  4. Did LRH create his own enemies and instilled it in his Philosophy?


    • Psyches, journalists, CIA, FBI, squirrels, blown scientologists, anyone critical of Scientology etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

      Psyches are part of upper level theory. Fair game, blow to the enemy, destroy them utterly, sue into submission.

      Portland85……… yes! Ron did create enemies and made them part of his philosophy.

      • His personal isseus indeed, CIA and FBI where really sick organizations back in the day. Journalist and Psychs. He should have had more character to handle them. BUT I REALLY HATE AMERICAN PSYCHS THAT SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL ILNESS AND ADMINSTER SHOCK THERAPY

      • Brian, please challenge me.

        • Cat Daddy lol, I have never had anyone asked me , “please challenge me” quite like they way you just did. For some reason it is such a refreshing communication! And makes me smile.

          Look…….Ron was great ok. He did some amazing things….. Amazing. His passion for research, his giving hope and purpose to all of us here, his creating a fun group when it was wroking well in student environments. The Scientology parties, his love of words and study, his love of helping a stranger with auditing. Our first out if body experience, helping another to solve their suffering as an auditor, going from atheist to man or women of spiritual knowledge etc etc etc.

          But Ron then needed to protect all that. I could even undertand why. He saw something beautiful and new ( forget about the money part for a moment, let that one go) that needed care against a crazy world. Ok I get that.

          But seeking to destroy………..destroy mind you!………… his critics.
          Not have a public debate or use the power if good in Scientology to win in the public square. But to seek utter destruction of critics…… To destroy a women. He sought to sabotage a womens life…… A jounalist……. A writer.

          That was a crime against the First Amendment: freedom of speech

          You could talk of the crap in the CIA, FBI etc etc forever. You may be right or you may be brainwashed. But when Ron started to target people for harming, that’s when Scientology became a drooling mass of barking mistrust: a junk yard dog, a thug.

          There is only one enemy, the noise and crap in our head, our own personal weaknesses to over come. And when Ron institutionalized his war against critics and created a war room, the B1; he ceased being a sage in the lineage of the Buddha and became a cult leader.

          Ethics was the tool, destruction of enemies became the goal.

          • Brian I understand, but the bottomline was that Hubburd did not like boredome and that is why I understand his whole voyage.. He practically fel into the trap he preached others not to fall into, I would i am not Ghandi or Nelson Mandela, It’s hard to be a sage.

            whit regards Niels

      • Brian, your posts have always been helpful to me. Thank-you.

        I steal some of your stuff and pass it on to those I am lucky enough to be with.

        That’s how much I appreciate your presence.

        Please keep rockin’ it!


      • You think that’s outside the box?

  5. Enemy, David Miscavige please come to the Netherlands, You will never do that because you are a scared little boy.

  6. This Post is worth putting on Golden rod and famed with a guilded frame.
    Even Jane Kember wrote a Blue on Blue stating “WE create our own enemies” so true. Well done Marty !!!!


  8. My final comment on this matter:

    I’ve used the lower conditions, on myself, to greatly increase my own beingness, doingness and havingness. It’s a personal matter.

    That’s the way we use them here.

    In the Co$ they are merely used as an operation to coerce one into an artificial and arbitrarily acceptable 3rd dynamic valence and to force one into subservience.

    • Exactly. I fully agree. There is no Ethics in the church. It is a judgment. It is not self-, but other-determined and so has nothing to do with original Scientology and original creeds of the church.

    • Thanks Les,

      You can bet your bottom dollar ‘lowers’ are a subservience
      servo-control mechanism when applied within the extant cult.

      The remaining few are fixed in some serfdom or slave-like valance. I’m not surprised. Some humans are irrepressibly compelled to do the same dumb things over and over again.

      And isn’t that a recognized definition of insanity?

  9. Is there a difference between enemy and things like adversary, or someone who has goals opposing your own?

    I’ve never really been good at the enemy thing. I don’t think it’s good to have in ones universe. It’s one of those things I cant seem to do for too long. It’s like trying to mix oil and water- it tends to settle out to it’s natural state.

    However, if somebody is f-ing things up on purpose they may need to go, or get handled. But it should all be as smooth as possible with the best for everybody involved. I actually think that is what the enemy condition is about (in my mind anyway). instead of destroying the guy or firing him or expelling him you try to handle him and he goes up to doubt and decides what to do- one way or the other.

    But whats the difference between “enemy” as you use it here and defending against an attacker or protecting your organization from something that has the intention to destroy it?

    Is there a way to oppose something and work against it without falling into this trap? I can think of some examples where there are enemies and it just gets into games really.

    I live in a small town and some didn’t want a liquor store so they fought it and won. Then a few years later the liquor store people got it on the ballot and won. Now there is a liquor store. I’m sure there was some “enemies” in that scenario. Was it fair to everyone? No Was it the best solution? I don’t know. Was it the end of the world? No.

    It’s getting into some semantics here I think. It’s pretty easy with Scientology to shift meanings around a bit and make it sound bad, but it’s just as easy to go the other way. I can do it all day if you want Marty. You tell me how somethings bad and I’ll tell you how it’s good.

    • martyrathbun09

      I helped expose and prosecute gang members in my town. During the course of it, they put a hit on me – actually tagged my house; then conducted drive bys. I sat outside to protect my wife for two weeks all night long with a double barreled shotgun across my lap. Did I ever consider these kids the enemy? No. Did I make the streets of that town safe? Yes.

      • Marty,
        While in the Sea Org did you consider the psychs the enemy? Did you consider the IRS the enemy?
        If not , while in the Sea Org did you consider you had any enemies or that the church did?
        Is the definition of enemy useless?
        If yes (about having enemies), what made you decide that this was a wrong course of action?

        • martyrathbun09

          If you don’t get my position by now, I don’t think you will.

          • This response is another example I think of what diogenese is talking about above.
            Or is it that you are so enlightened that a mere mortal cannot duplicate your hightened awareness?

            • No, I think it is more like I have a communication problem which has also alleged on this thread. This has degenerated into word play.

            • Tony, Marty is not saying enemies do not exist. He is saying that having enemies is part of a church doctrine that may have created them when they did not exist. Enemy is so strong in the psyche of being a Scientologist that you can’t even imagine what Marty is saying. You default to “whadya mean enemies don’t exist?”

              You have been indoctrinated to conceptualize the need to fight bad guys to save the universe. It is part of your world view now and you can’t see how you have carefully, with the sincerity of a passionate student, accepted into your mind, the creation of an opposing terminal that gives justification for cosmic war, to save the earth, from the enemy that you spent so much money to learn about.

              • Tony, where is the CIA, FBI, Psyche now. Have they just up and decided, “oh well let’s not fight Scientology anymore!” where are they????
                The only destructive force fighting Scientology is Scientology. The need to have an enemy as a spiritual vurtue is causing Scientology to self destruct.
                It is eating itself alive with attack the enemy. It has become the enemy to itself.

              • Brian,
                You don’t even know who I am or what my beliefs are so don’t be so eager to tell me what I think.
                I never said that I consider the IRS, psychs or anyone else an enemy to me. That is not “part of my world.” I do consider dm to be an enemy of mine and my friends. I believe that the word enemy and it’s concepts have a use in life.
                I agree and did agree already on this blog that a lot of enemies are fabricated.

                My questions were to him and not you. I appreciate your attempt to handle my universe. But you didn’t.

                • By the way Brian, my questions to Marty above were not to convince him that those groups were real enemies.

                  I was curious to see if when he was in the Sea Org if he DID (at that time) feel they were enemies or if he had this same philosophy about “no enemies” while he was in the Sea Org?

                  Also, if he DID think they were enemies at the time, when did he change philosophies to the “no enemy” style and why did he change? (I am curious)

                  My interest was in his reality and didn’t go into what my philosophy is on the subject.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    Tony, did you ever read What is Wrong With Scientology?

                    • Yes. I read both of your books and liked them a lot.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Thanks Tony. The answers to all your questions that you asked of me on this thread are in WIWWS in spades. I can’t say it any more thoroughly than I did there.

                    • Sorry Marty,
                      I don’t remember everything in the books. I might need to be reminded from time to time. Either that or it’s back to M-9ing.
                      I feel if there is a conversation going on the blog, it in some cases, may be better to thoroughly handle the questions rather than leaving loose ends. It is the desire of the audience to actually be in 2wc with you and it seems that you reject that occuring to some degree.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Thanks Tony. Some things require spelling out. That is why I wrote books and am writing more. In short, the answers to your questions are, I integrated, evolved, and transcended and am continuing to do so.

                  • Ok, I understand Tony. I don’t know you and texting places are really no way of getting an accurate sense of each other.

                    And I know this communication was between you both. But this is a public forum.

                    I’ll tell you when I lost the enemy bit. It is when I realized that they were Ron’s enemies and not mine. When I was convinced he was projecting his enemy out of his mind and convincing you and me to fight against them to save the world from becoming a rock forever and ever. Scientology’s version of eternal damnation.

                    Tony, the war against the evil SPs came from Ron. We bought into the drama.

                    • Thanks Brian.
                      I agree that Ron created a lot of enemies for himself. I was never in the Sea Org so I never “fought” them except by giving cold hard cash. And maybe mentally a bit.

                      I think there are people on Earth that do not have the best interests of the average person at the forefront of their mind.

                      Whether you want to call a person who gives another person an “enemy” or not is not that important to me. It’s just semantics.

                      What is important is how you handle them. I think with most people if you want to change something in them you have to get in communication with them and use ARC and give them some idea that makes them WANT to change their own behavior.

                      If they are criminal, you may need to put them behind bars where they can’t hurt others. If they are social outcasts you just have to deal with it.

                    • And here we go again, folks, another SHOWSTOPPER.

                      I love the people I have lost to the church. As well as those I might still.

                      They’re out but not stably free yet.

      • I think thats an example of having to oppose something but being wise enough to not go into the enemy thing. “Enemy” seems like anger band which is a stuck flow right? Who wants to be stuck? It sucks to be stuck.

        For some reason I’m thinking of the movie “Get Shorty”. Theres a few scenes in there where Travolta wins in different ways without fighting.

        This one is cool, but theres another one where he punches James Gandalfini and then befriends him.

    • So Chris, I suddenly got interested. You mentioned earlier in this thread that you had escorted around a CATS spokesman during your time as DSA. I was CATS main, and only, on-the-road-spokesman. I did the gig you speak of. Where was it? Why don’t I remember you? Huh.

      Please help me refresh my memory.

      Vic Krohn
      CATS Co-Founder

      • Well, I’m not sure. This was 20 years ago. This was a guy I would guess in his 20s, maybe 25. I think his name was Chris, but that may be wrong. No one else ever did radio shows?
        It seems like he said he was “filling in” or “helping out” or something like that. Do you remember anything like that? Was it you? Did you come to Phoenix 20 years ago and do the talk radio circuit for a couple days?

        • Thanks for this. Yes, I did go to Phoenix for a radio show tour. And I remember staying with a chiropractor. There was also a flat tax v sales tax debate with our guys (CATS and the Cato institute) and US Rep. Dick Army’s guys.

          We had local spokespeople, but I did Phoenix cause it was close to LA.

          Like you said, it was about 20 years ago. I remember most of the DSA’s, back then but I guess we didn’t quite connect.

          Again, thanks for filling me in.


  10. What about cleverly defeating an opponent? A known and pan-determined game.

    If you had some clear, definite action available to you that would put Miscavige out of business tomorrow would you do it?

    • Hell no. I want him in that prison, not running around among us.

    • Chris, there is a very crucial difference between the creation and culture of the “enemy game” as is so often dramatized between groups throughout Earth’s history and confronting and handling either a great societal injustice or an individual that threatens one’s survival. The latter usually needs to be done either in immediate self defense for one’s very life or the long term prospects for one’s survival (or one’s group’s survival).

      A great example of the latter is the life of Martin Luther King. (I highly reccomend Stephen Oates’ biography of King). MLK did not hate or engage in the creation of the culture of “enemy.” But of course he recognized insanity and evil and threat to survival, and set out to actively handle it.

    • “What about cleverly defeating an opponent? A known and pan-determined game. If you had some clear, definite action available to you that would put Miscavige out of business tomorrow would you do it?”

      Short answer: YES.
      Long answer: In a New York minute.
      Longer answer: Once he is out of business, he is no longer an opponent.
      If he decides not to be an opponent, he is not in the same business.
      If he stays in that same business, there exists a postulate saying that he is in that same business.
      When that postulate disappears, we still have other postulates and bigger games to play.

    • Hi Chris

      You asked: “If you had some clear, definite action available to you that would put Miscavige out of business tomorrow would you do it?”

      Hmmm.. You see, without more data that would be tough to decide.

      Right now I consider that David Miscavige is valuable to the future of Scientology – the subject and technologies.

      Sounds a bit crazy yes? But consider that his actions have produced more “real” Scientolgists, or led to the freedom or de-PTSing of more Scientolgists than would likely have happened in most other scenarios. This is an amazing opportunity for each of us to confront and handle this kind of thing.

      I consider his demise be best orchestrated by his own hand.

      Somewhere between now and when he turns into a total raving loonie, those still under his suppression may still make the jump to realizations of what is happening, and give them the opportunity to handle whatever PTSness they may be experiencing, for themselves, and by their own determinism. Should an intervention occur, some will inevitably get stuck into considering him a martyr and redouble their resolve that he was truly enlightened and was taken down by some, or all, of the suppressives that he railed against.

      I personally have no desire to see him punished, as it would likely just reinforce the valence that he dramatizes and fixate him even more. That ultimately does no good for anyone. Given the opportunity, I would tend rather to help “fix” him than bury him in this state, or worse. Pushing him further into his insanity only makes our work harder in the future, and he will certainly be in our futures, one way or the other.

      Eric S

  11. gretchen dewire

    DM will destoy himself with his own force.It probably wont be as soon as we would like it to be though. We can just step out of the way and let it happen. That said, I still think it is wonderful that Marty and Mike have these blogs where we are free to tell our stories and communicate. Thanks again guys

  12. Speaking of enemy, I just have to share something here. Roland is either a class lV or a class Vlll.

    “People don’t get what the famous “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” means.

    It does NOT mean that you should extract vengeance for a slight. It was said as opposed to the normal human practice of Vendetta – i.e. you insult or injure me, and I have carte blanche to do whatever I want in revenge.

    The “Eye for an eye” was intended to say – ONLY an eye for an eye. That is, the response to injury is measured and appropriate, thought out and not emotional and vengeful.

    Gandhi, and Jesus too for that matter, were saying “Do what it takes to get a good result, even if this means doing nothing.”

    Roland Aldridge

  13. Marty: “I am trying to make people uncomfortable to take them out of their cult mind set. Others are trying to make them comfortably numb.”

    Quoted for truth.

  14. I was pondering the concept of ‘enemy’ as if it might be something real to ponder. I was in comm with ‘Big Me’ aka ‘Higher Self’, ‘Bob’, ‘ING’ (internal guidance system) and whatever other label I feel like assigning to ‘It’ about this notion of there being an enemy and in the midst of this comm I suddenlyay, I go to my YT page. There’s a video there at the top of the list that I’m instantly attracted to. I don’t know if others who watch it will see its relevance to this topic, but for me, it’s quite obvious.

  15. Marty I have to commend you for exploring the approach of “integration, evolution and transcendence “. I believe it is right on.

    This is exactly what is needed for people in many new religious movements who aspire for more freedom than their religion is ready to grant them. It is an excellent way for them to continue on their journey to explore new spiritual heights without having to turn their back on their religion or on others.

    Also, I like the nobility of standing for something, not just criticizing the movement you just exited from. There is something so ordinary about just criticizing and not inspiring, guiding, towards some destination, or building something.

    I see someone here quoted LRH as saying: “Don’t be AGAINST something, be FOR something.

    ”That’s a great statement. There are too many people who leave a religious movement, but are unable to formulate for themselves (let alone for others) a workable path that is integrative, inclusive, open-minded, peace-oriented, and aspirational.

    I see that the person posting as “Simple Thetan” wrote a comment which I find quite telling: “Marty and the group,
this blog is really helping me break the shackles of the mind and become again a free thinker.” That’s so great to read, kudos to you and your team.
    Integration, inclusion, peace and love for all will prevail!

  16. Hi Marty,

    I mean this post with the utmost respect.

    I really have to take issue with the way you tend to blow some people off.

    I will be the first to say that you have been a hero of mine and I know you probably don’t care about being one.

    You bring up fascinating topics and I do think you bring people to a higher level.

    I do think also that once a person gets into the role of “opinion leader” they have a tendency to have to “be right”. It seems to me that you may be falling into this trap to a degree.

    You have many, many stellar abilities and you have some shortcomings also. I think you would be more real to people if you shared more of your “decompressings” too, as a lot of us have done.

    It is all good to make people uncomfortable to make them think and wake up. But when they then try to ask you questions and be in communication and for you to brush them off is contrary to your stated purpose as far as I can see.

    Obviously, you can do what you want. But since you tell others your ideas, I thought maybe you would like to hear some too? Maybe not.

    • Thanks for your views Tony. I appreciate it. I will make an effort to improve my communication skills. However, since I have a hell of a lot more to do than deal with 200 originations on this blog alone – including researching the way out of this trap – I may not live up to your standards. But, I’ll try.

      • I understand.

        You have broad shoulders and I know people like to jump on them. Including me, sorry for that. That was a great ack by the way… :-)

        • And Tony, your intention to help shows through loud and clear… :-)

          Personally, I have had remarkable and quite stable gains from the combination of:
          1) NOTS-style *service facsimile* handling,
          2) reading and digesting several of the books from the recommended
          reading list here, and
          3) reading and considering the posts and comments from this blog.

          ALL of these things are the direct result of Marty’s, and Mosey’s help.

          Thus my comment about a personal debt and paying it forward towards the beginning of this thread.

          I am certain there are many others with gains similar to mine.

          And finally, while we can all benefit from constructive criticism, it’s also important to balance it with the well-deserved acknowledgement.

          Thus this post.

      • Marty, I’ve known all along that part of the reason for your sometimes short and dismissive replies is that you just don’t have the time to answer every comment in depth. I appreciate your pledge to try to do better. I also want to say that for what it’s worth, I think you’ve done a great deal of good — indispensible good in fact — with your blog. Thank you for that..

      • For those of you who have never moderated a blog or forum, I can tell you from experience that it can be very time consuming, sometimes maddening, extremely rewarding and often a very thankless task.

        I know this because I modded the scnforum that Geir Isene set up at one point and OMG! People don’t see the half of it!

        I was attacked as a moderator, often criticized and believe me, you don’t even want to know about the posts I didn’t let through! These were often offensive beyond any reason, written to intentionally upset, offend and attack.

        That being said, Marty, I am sure that you could perfect your communication skills, but even so I am DELIGHTED beyond all reason that you take the time every day, day in and day out to produce and moderate this blog. If you suddenly lapse or feel like taking a chunk out of someone from time to time or just don’t feel up to creating an amazingly enlightened response every time, I will certainly understand! But thanks for acknowledging Tony, who I think is a great person who brings much to this blog!

    • Hi Tony, you know well by now I appreciate your sentiments and thoughts. Although we’ve never met – yet – I can see you are a straight talking guy. Here’s what I see:

      Marty’s blog was never called “Let’s handle the Church” or “Get DM”. It was always “Moving on up a little higher”. So while the emphasis might have changed over the 3.5 years or so the basic point hasn’t really, I believe. Marty made it real clear to me personally on the phone once that there would be no Church Mk II or even a structured “field” – it was always about getting others to get their own lives back, with or without LRH tech. The first and necessary step for any Churchie still “in” is to get OUT! That hasn’t changed. Nobody gonna move up anywhere while still “in”.

      Now – it may be that those who are newly coming out may find the last 6 months of Marty’s blog a little “out gradient” – as their attention is still bound to be fixated on the cult and all its indoctrination and baggage. Fine – there is host of blogs and sites they will easily find if they look, including Steve’s and Lana’s. Then there’s Friends of LRH, Save Scientology, Old Auditor’s, etc. and, of course, the archives of this one.

      Plus, I would bet my bottom dollar that Marty wouldn’t turn ANYONE away who was still spinning and genuinely needed help, even if they were skint (correct me if I’m wrong Marty).

      I would hazard that anyone “suggesting” Marty do things this way or that haven’t read or understood his first two books – particularly the last chapter of the second.

      Personally I still enjoy the game of getting people out and free, and annoying the hell out of my local OSA – I see it as a hobby, much like philately but with added harassment and fun, and without all that fiddly sticking things in albums. As a working parent of two young ‘uns I don’t have the time to spend long weeks studying advanced Eastern meditative techniques or tantric philosophy – but just the books I’ve read as a direct result of this blog, and the blog itself, have made my life immeasurably better. And I thank, again, not just Marty, but all who contribute here.

      I try and apply “what an Executive wants on his lines” – every minute not spent finishing his next book but trying to untangle some minor upset on the blog is wasted IMHO. I just want the next book – I think it will answer and handle a LOT of what seems to be upsetting some here.

  17. Great topic – think about the 3rd party law – now think about Scientology – now think about the reference “the person is so restimulated they don’t know who the real sp is” – now think about the reference – “covert and overt invalidation is the social intercourse of the sp!

    Can you spot the 3rd party to all conflict since you became a scientologist – for me – scientology became the 3rd party to all of my conflict!

    • I’ve thought about this. Not with regards to myself, but with regards to others involved.

      When I was involved with the Church I just viewed everyone as being there on the same terms. They were friends of Hubbard’s, as I was a friend of Hubbard’s. It was that simple. Didn’t matter what they were doing or being beyond that. Sea Org no different than public. Friends of Hubbard’s.

      The friends fought among one another. I didn’t borrow any of his friends for my own personal use. And I did not inherit his enemies either.

  18. The concept of Enemy is in essence: something you cannot control. The latest definition of OT I remember is: „the distance around him (I forgot if added „in his environment“) that he can control“.
    If you can control something then you cannot have an Enemy. Thus the Enemy formula should be in the direction to enable you to control that part of your life you see an Enemy. If you feel the need to fight an enemy you are not in control. Actually those doubts within you create an enemy condition if not resolved. In other words: those areas of you life where you know what you want do have no enemy situation. An enemy can only exist if you are a) total effect or b) you do not have a clear concept of what you want.
    If you want to fight an enemy by force and this is your decision you can do that. That is your game. If you do not want to do that go up one step and resolve your doubts. If you cannot resolve your doubts the enemy condition is ongoing. The really difficult task is to resolve your doubts. And the much more difficult task after that is to make known your decision. That would be liability in fact. You tell your environment what you decided. If you do not want to do that (for social reasons or if you are afraid to say it or whatever) you right at this instant are in doubt again and the enemy is showing up. This process can be very fast. The faster the better you are in control of your environment. It goes bang bang.
    I did learn that the really hard way in my life. That is the other side of the coin of increased ability without the proper steps done on the bridge to resolve my aberrations. My doubts about myself created the situations I have to face in my life. Still ongoing.

  19. Just some random (or not so random) food for thought:

    When people say Marty disagrees with LRH we should see which LRH is he disagrees with?
    50’s ? 60’s? 70’s? 80’s?
    (or perhaps 90’s? as some people speak/think of him as if alive)

    Phil Spickler describes in his video how money motivation went from bottom of the scale to top of the scale.
    (Sorry but it seems I had to post the video again)

    (right around 3:18 onwards is the part that applies)

    I dare to disagree with the money motivated LRH.
    I also dare to raise suspicion on those who favor that LRH.

    LRH doesn’t even agree with LRH.
    No matter what your opinion on money motivation is, one of the LRHs will disagree with you!

    Which LRH are you going to listen to?
    Well If I may recommend why not listen to the one that makes most sense.

    People can change.
    Especially when they dabble in stuff like SC.
    Some for the better.

    I don’t consider myself the same person I was 10 years ago.

    I think referring to LRH an indivisible entity is a mistake and one huge A=A=A.

    • “Some for the better.” I realize I should have written Many for the better.

    • Yes let’s all jump on Phil, who are you ? A=A=A, “nPretty Nasty Swear”

      can you eleborate on your argumentation A=A! ???

      • Can you please tell me which part of what I’ve said comes through as “let’s all jump on Phil” ?

        I have the utmost respect for Phil.
        Please re-read my post with that in mind.

        My message is about people not being able to see the difference between LRH’s different ‘personalities’ throughout his life.
        That is the A=A I’m talking about.

  20. Marty said : “I think it is worthwhile for someone who has adopted Scientology beliefs to think about what notions have been inculcated into oneself about labeling people as ‘enemy’ and treating them as such. Think about the effect it might have on your relations and your own peace of mind.”
    Very simple and to the point. It’s interesting to see how much confused answers (and some very wise ones) this single post generated. You are definitely bringing order, Marty!
    Yes, this enemy notion is also a very “yang stuff” and this one alone, imo,was enough to destroy any possibility of real spiritual gains in corporate scientology. I worked several years with a group of OT7 and didn’t see any peace of mind, quite the contrary. I had constantly to handle controversies, dichotomies and adversity. Sad story, though to confront. And what you wrote here since a few weeks constitutes a great healing process for a lot of us. Thank you Marty

  21. One of my favorite quotes on compassion ever:

    “But what if I should discover that the least among them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the very fiend himself – that these are within me, and that I myself stand in need of my own kindness, that I myself am the enemy who must be loved – what then? ” -Carl Jung

  22. What is an enemy? Well, IMHO, it’s not a person or a group or an organization or a government or a thing or a place. If I perceive an enemy existing outside of myself, what I am perceiving is a story, a figment of my imagination, that I have fashioned then projected onto a target or targets that might be seen or might be unseen (the unseen ones are most efficacious) in my environment. It could be that others have also fashioned stories about an enemy or enemies that are similar to my own. And together, we make the stories come to life, we make them appear solid, formidable and real. Thus we have a game.

    The idea of an ‘enemy’, the belief that an enemy exists, is based in fear. Fear is about the future. It is located in the fifth dimension. The dimension of probabilities (at least that’s what some physicists are calling the fifth dimension). If one has an enemy, the enemy is the vessel of their own fear. The fear that there is a high probability that they are going to lose something that they don’t want to lose or get something that they don’t want to get. The ‘something’ might be symbolized by mest but mest is not it. The ‘something’ is an experience. The so called ‘enemy’ is actually a service to one as the enemy reveals, by reflecting back to the person, their projection of their own unconscious fears. This can be most helpful if one knows what’s going on but if one doesn’t know what’s going on they will just “beef it up”, make the story more real, give it endurance and all the while keep imagining and adding more stories to it. Thus, the illusory universe appears to expand.

    The idea that anything exists outside of self is a story. There are no others and there is no ‘out there.’ The universe(s) that appear to be outside of self are projections from within. Where is within? Well, it sure ain’t inside the body! The body is a story.

    As I zoom in here on Marty’s blog and listen to all the comments through my eyes and note the numerous differences and similarities, it certainly appears that there are many individuals here offering perspectives peculiar to their unique self. And some it seems, by my interpretation, appear to be moving on up a little higher and some not so much. However, if I zoom out and get a much broader view, I don’t see separate individuals each with their own label, I see multiple expressions of ONE. Then, zooming out even further, completely out of time and space, where there is no such thing as a ‘further’, the ‘expressions’ are recognized to be a dream. Is the ONE having a dream? No. Not exactly. Imagine that your body is the ONE and that a subatomic particle in one of the body’s quadrillion cells has a dream. I suspect it’s more like that.

    Of course, everything I just said through my fingers is only my opinion and has no more weight than that.

    • So what would be your take on a statement like: “shit happens” ?

      • “Shit happening” appears to be random. However, in one’s passage through space and time there is no random. You cannot help but be in the right place at the right time. Even making and leaving a typo in a comment is not random. :) Do I believe this? Not completely, not yet. But, the more I integrate this notion into my perspective with regard to the events (tiny and large) that manifest within my journey, the more sense it makes. If nothing else it reminds me that I have a choice in how to respond. I will either choose to view the happening as a lesson being presented or choose to assign it some other significance that, more than likely, will only serve to diminish my personal integrity in some way.

        • I know exactly what you are talking about when addressing the random phenomena. I have been trying to wrap my mind around this for quite some time. The way I perceive it is that indeed nothing is random from a certain level but that level from which something (or anything) ceases to be random is not necessarily available to us. If it was then there would be no such thing as random to those who achieve that state. Randomity at its core seems to rely on lies (false/omitted info). I tend to think that it falls into the absolutes are unobtainable category. If you did achieve total control over random then this would cease to be a game and this universe would cease to be a shared one. Who knows what would happen then. I doubt that even OT8 would get anyone to such elevation and I also doubt that this would/should even be the goal of OT levels and SC tech.

          Therefore one must in absence of such absolute accept the fact that “shit happens” I don’t care how OT one claims to be I think if they are here in this realm “shit does not happen to me” can only be stated if one is lying to self.

          As usual this is all merely my opinion/view.

          • I’ve been looking at this further and when I came out the other end my conclusion for now, at least, is that whether shit happens or doesn’t happen whether it’s random or not random is not all that important. What, I believe, is important is how I choose to respond to any given manifestation that happens in my field of perception. How I respond will determine my experience. And that always, regardless of my interpretation of what I perceive, that I respond from a place of Love and peace rather than from a place of fear, judgement and condemnation.

            • That is a very good point/attitude/goal Monte. Seems like we are on very similar pages and as a result I don’t even know now why I threw my original question at you. I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time :) I think it must have been this: “And together, we make the stories come to life, we make them appear solid, formidable and real.” I realize I seem to have a basic disagreement with the concept of things being solid because we are making them be that way in present time. But who cares. Just thinking out loud here anyway.
              To me present time is something we perceive only when we are affected by this machinery called the universe we (or who cares who) mocked up. To me the mockup is in the past when we speak from within the game (which is what I am doing now). Which may seem like an unimportant detail but I think it is the part that expresses the fact that there are certain strongly agreed upon (or set) rules which can’t be bent. (Or at least not easily) Outside of the game I agree with you again there is no such thing as time. So if I take time out of the equation then what I think we have left is a fixed thing (the machinery of the universe). This may or may not be the same thing as the static LRH talked about. I call it the universe rig because to me that expresses the fact that there are static rules. Some of these can be bent (maybe) but only when the attention of other beings are not attached to it. This of course is just a theory but it is my way of explaining the weird and wonderful things that can happen when makes and holds postulates.

              The universe is like the bushes in the shrub maze in the movie Shining.
              They manifest when you are not looking. Except these aren’t hostile by nature. (Just my idea :) )

  23. Great post Marty, you hit the bull’s-eye again.
    Yes, the lower conditions for me were a blatant control mechanism from the start.

    I was particularly frustrated by the Enemy, Treason and the Doubt formulas. So I rejected them from the beginning and refused to do them. Hell, the only worthwhile doubt formula that I ever did was to tell the cult to screw off!

    The Enemy formula in particular is a clever bait & switch on the Bridge, having failed to deliver what they promised; the Church is now cleverly coercing you into some kind of shortcut, group enforced spiritual cognition, to keep you under their wings.

    For anybody who has gotten out of his head, and looked around a bit, The Enemy formula is nothing but a self listing, self spinning exercise.

    Here is a clue on “Find out who you really are”:

    You are not a Scientologist! You are not a Sea Org member! And thanks god for that!

  24. Hey Marty. Dang I come in late on these articles.

    “There’s a liability to being sane, you know. You get friendly with all the people you used to hate.”

    This is my datum now but originally told to me by Hubbard. (3D Criss Cross Assessment Tape).

  25. Well, here is my summary of the lowers conditions in the Sea Org;

    Confusion, Find out where you are:

    Wow, I seem to be in some kind of collective group engram, where a bunch of people are going around thinking they are part of the Galactic Federation Death Star.

    Wow, some of them are absolutely convinced they are part of the Borg Cube.

    Wow, I’m definittely in the wrong fucking place!
    Treason, Find out that you are:

    I’m basically nothing and intend to keep myself that way. No thanks, I don’t want to be Borg.

    Enemy, Find out who you really are:

    I’m basically nothing again and very happy about it. Please not again, do I really have to be Borg?

    Doubt Formula:

    I never wanted to be part of The Collective, Borg doesn’t work for me.

    I join the group of free beings who know that all identities are basically not true, and who can be whoever they damn please to be.

    We are not Borg but we do come back!

  26. I agree. The only time you have an “enemy” is when you are in a game or games condition. As we rise, we become more pan-determined and there are no enemies. The only way you can have an enemy that influences you is if you agree to let the enemy influence you – or indeed, consider the person an enemy in the first place.
    An SP or psychopath is not “an enemy”. The psychopath just is. They are doing what they do, like a shark or a wolverine. The SP or psychopath doesn’t even see you, or comprehend how what he or she is doing affects anyone but themselves – and in the case of the SP as defined by Ron, they are not in present time anyway, and you are not perceived at all. Therefore, it is you, not they, that is labeling the person an “enemy.” The more enlightened point of view would be to consider them someone that you make allowances for so that they do not affect you or your loved ones.

  27. Mary Freeman has a funny point, (Tatiana Baklanova clip above)

    Below Confusion there is the condition of Delusion, and the formula is: Fall on your head.

  28. morelivesthanacat

    A few random comments after scanning through most of this.

    1. I happen to think LRH would be quite happy with Marty’s work and approach. Organizations grew up to the degree that people were too lazy too actually work at it themselves. Too lazy to read what he read. Too lazy to investigate and apply principles toward betterment of conditions. It was a long shot to try to overcome the shortcomings of most people and I think he knew it would probably fail. Can’t fault him for dedicating his life to trying.

    3. So Marty’s got the right idea. Study the works of those who figured out some stuff on the subject, but think for yourself. After all, that’s the whole idea that those who figured out some stuff wished to impart to the rest of us. Nothing wrong with a helpful push in the right direction, but you’ve got to do the walking. LRH covered it on “The Road to Truth”. And most of the rest of the time in those days he was trying to tell us how to put on those boots. No one or no organization can put them on for you.

    • martyrathbun09

      More Lives, I took out your point 2. I really don’t want to get a character fight going with folks. Unfortunately, many are still in the throes of having to have enemies, and I think where you are going with 2 is going to resurrect a lot of the drama. I don’t think it belongs here. You cool with that? (for those watching, it had nothing to do with me)

  29. morelivesthanacat


  30. There are no enemies.

    There is, however, purpose.

    If your purpose is to build a big tower, and you need to destroy a few forests and mountains to do this, then you can do that. Purpose, desire, will .. such is the nature of the thetan entity, itself, at work and play.

    But if there are other thetans, whose purpose it is to live in a jungle and nurture a simpler way of life among the beasts and trees, and they suddenly find themselves surrounded by machines and death and disorder of construction, well then .. that is another purpose.

    Such flows of purpose, they do exist, they are a real social thing, we use all sorts of language to describe these things.

    There are two, particular, words that are used to describe all this mixing up of purpose, which I just think need to be observed:

    * * *
    en·e·my [en-uh-mee] plural en·e·mies, adjective
    1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.
    2. an armed foe; an opposing military force: The army attacked the enemy at dawn.
    3. a hostile nation or state.
    4. a citizen of such a state.
    5. enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another: Let’s make up and stop being enemies.
    # # #

    Oh, this word .. antagonism .. it is but a branch of such a large, large tree:

    * * *
    an·tag·o·nism [an-tag-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
    1. an active hostility or opposition, as between unfriendly or conflicting groups: the antagonism between the liberal and the conservative parties.
    2. an opposing force, principle, or tendency: Her plan to become an actress met with the antagonism of her family.
    3. Physiology . an opposing action, as by one muscle in relation to another.
    4. Biochemistry, Pharmacology . the opposing action of substances, as drugs, that when taken together decrease the effectiveness of at least one of them ( contrasted with synergism ).
    5. Ecology .
    a. a relationship between two species of organisms in which the individuals of each species adversely affect the other, as in competition.
    b. the inhibition of the growth of one type of organism by a different type that is competing for the same ecological niche.
    # # #

    Believe it or not, but there are some in the world whose purpose of enslaving their fellow men with chemicals, machines, the wanton order of society into compartmentalized ‘labels’ appropriate for an antagonistic master, seriously does cross the purpose of a Scientologist.

    This is not to say we ‘should have enemies’ or ‘do have enemies’, but there is most definitely a scale of “man is just a sack of chemicals, the world is overpopulated, we are vermin upon the earth who ought to die in endless future wars” up to “man is a spiritual entity who can solve his problems by recognizing the theta/MEST engram and using ARC/KRC to resolve things, here and now, in present time”. Yes, I said from ‘down’ to ‘up’, but if you like, flip the chart.

  31. Related here is the tao: yang invoking yin, yin evoking yang. Are they enemies, no. It is impersonal. They depend on each other. They are alway moving one into the other “conquering” each other (so to speak.)

    Above is described how persons have purposes and how biological finity gives rise to cross purposes and to enemies. Whether our enemy is personally targeting us or not, the impact is personal. How to fight?

    If yang is coming at you ( or yin) the way of tao (as embodied in tai chi principles) would be to not try to match it. Yang against yang is clashing, who ever has the “most” will win but will have also just made themselves a bigger target for the balancing yin they have invoked.

    Another principle is “sticking” – you stay connected to the enemy so you know where it is at any given time – sticking is like listening, it does not mean engaging, it is more like following in a very soft way, in an invisable way. Point: it is visable to you, you are not visable to it.

    Another principle is called ” yielding.” Body and mind yield, not to the enemy but to the impersonal of what is, becoming harnessed by that force, be it yin or yang doesnt matter, relaxing into the ground while remaing soft and flexible to air, no resistance.

    These tai chi principles are guidance for riding the dragon that eats it’s own tail i.e. How to fight is to align with the tao.

    Don’t these principles bring to mind the auditor’s preparation as described in WIWWS?

    This post and responses have been so beneficial as players demonstate their sticking and yielding.

  32. Three years ago a friend recommended and strongly encouraged me to read the book, The Disappearance of the Universe, by Gary Renard. I just added it to my books to read list and went on. This past summer I was in a bookstore and came across a used copy of this book. It was in very good shape and only ten dollars. But, I didn’t purchase it. Three weeks later I’m in the same bookstore and the book is still there. This time I accept that it is time for me to read it and so purchase it. I read the book and it incites me to do some major adjusting in some of my very fundamental perspectives. Interestingly, The Disappearance of the Universe turns out to be a “can opener” for another book; A Course in Miracles (ACIM). The metaphysics as presented in ACIM has been pretty much a “mind fuck” for me (I just don’t know another way to put it). On top of that, even though it is most definitely not a Christian book, it is written with a lot of Christian terms. That took a while to flatten (turns out I had more than a little charge on these terms). Also, discerning what is metaphor and what is literal keeps me on my toes.

    Earlier today I was reading Chapter Nine in ACIM and I came across a paragraph (actually many paragraphs) that prompted me to think of this blog post. Here’s an excerpt:

    “If your brothers are part of you, will you accept them? Only they can teach you what you are, for your learning is the result of what you taught them. What you call upon in them you call upon in yourself. And as you call upon it in them it becomes real to you. God has but one Son, knowing them all as one. Only God Himself is more than they but they are not less than he is. Would you know what this means? If what you do to my brother you do to me, and if you do everything for yourself because we are part of you, everything we do belongs to you as well. Everyone God created is part of you and shares his glory with you. His glory belongs to Him, but it is equally yours. You cannot, then be less glorious than he his.”

    The idea that we are all actually a Oneness is and idea that has gradually found resonance in me. Slowly but surely I am beginning to see me in everyone and everyone in me. As this perspective expands, I am noticing that the imaginary lines that separate people into classes, hierarchies, levels, categories and so on, are becoming increasingly blurred. That noted, I am noticing a new level of peace within that I have no earlier familiarity with that I can recall.

  33. I found this of great reading

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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