The Quest: Quixotian or Gandhian?

On his ‘Dean of Technology’ course titled Class VIII, L. Ron Hubbard advises that the ultimate state of consciousness attainable in Scientology (dubbed OT, for Operating Thetan) is simple.  The state is attained when the individual no longer carries any lies with him.  An individual is as OT as he doesn’t walk about with lies.

So it is with Scientology itself.  As a subject it contains a wonderful body of technology for helping to strip a person of the lies through which he filters the universe around him.  The biggest problem with broad dissemination and application of that technology is its self-imposed prohibition on differentiating that technology from the broader body of Scientology work that is chock-full of lies.

Because of the religious cloak with which L. Ron Hubbard chose to enwrap Scientology, the discernment of truth from lies within Scientology is not an easy task.  L. Ron Hubbard wrote a large body of doctrine satanizing anyone who attempts to look at his body of work in a critical fashion.  In fact, the very term ‘criticism’ – at least when directed toward Hubbard or Scientology – has been solidly re-defined in Scientology to be the activity of only sociopaths and criminals.

Thus in 1967 Hubbard published an article in a Scientology journal for all Scientologists to heed and adhere to.  Entitled Critics of Scientology it pronounced the following:

Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea.  Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts…

…If you, the criticized, are savage enough and insistent in your demand for the crime, you’ll get the text, meter or no meter.  Never discuss Scientology with the critic.  Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown.  And act completely confident that those crimes exist.  Because they do.

Hubbard issued dozens of pages of directives to his church to investigate  – with the aim of destruction of – critics of Scientology.  When the ‘technical fact’ he preached above proved to be utterly false (as determined by the intelligence agency he created to prove it – called the Guardian’s Office), Hubbard advised the agency to skip the investigations, create and plant and then ‘discover’ and expose the evidence of crime.  He was particularly vicious and ruthless in his directives to destroy those who attempted to clarify, refine, or simplify Scientology technology so as to reach more people effectively.

In a 1955 Professional Auditor’s Bulletin Hubbard directed Scientologists on how to deal with Scientologists not toeing the line with the religious cult of Scientology as follows:

Personally, if I were an auditor and found my area being muddied up to that extent, I would have a definite feeling, if I permitted it to go on, that I was not doing all I could do to spread Scientology in my area.  I would have taken such a screwball out of the running so fast he would have thought he had been hit by a Mack truck, and I don’t mean thought-wise.  But then the difference between me and an apathetic auditor is that I fight, and I get things done.

Hubbard advised that such screwballs be sued in the following manner:

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

Hubbard dealt with what he called ‘squirrels’ (defined as those who alter Scientology) in such wise to the very end of his life.  In fact, the last person who served as his own auditor in the late seventies and who was the Hubbard-appointed senior-most Scientology technical  supervisor in the world, one David Mayo, was the final target of such Hubbard scorn.  When Mayo started practicing Scientology outside of the control of the cult in the early nineteen-eighties Hubbard directed that the church ‘squash him like a bug.’  Notwithstanding that Mayo’s essential ‘clarification’ concerning Scientology was that the violent, combative aspects were not true L. Ron Hubbard technology.

It is because of the above that the Office of Special Affairs continues to attempt to destroy my wife and me – and anyone else who does stand for truth when it comes to Scientology.  It is not because David Miscavige tells them to.  It is because they are religiously bound to attempt to destroy us by any means necessary.

The violent, reactive attitude toward ‘squirrels’ is so deeply implanted in Scientologists that even the latest ‘independent Scientology’ movement – which the church of Scientology dubs ‘squirrel’ – facily accuses people attempting to differentiate workable Scientology technology from its ample supply of lies as being ‘gestapo’, ‘war criminals’, and ‘Nazis.’

Ironically, this firmly implanted, combative attitude is one-hundred and eighty degrees, diametrically opposed to the attitudes, states of mind, and states of consciousness that sane, understanding application of Scientology processes are capable of bringing about.

My views and aims have not much changed in the past four years.  In sum, to the extent that that which works in Scientology can be differentiated from that which disables, by – among other things – radicalization, L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas have a future.  To the degree that differentiation process is killed, Hubbard’s ideas die.

I am letting it be known that in spite of the ample back stabbing, cur dog yapping, and undermining and severing of all of our sources of support that we’ve encountered in the past four years, we continue to pursue our course.  Whether the quest turns out to be more Quixotian or more Gandhian will likely be apparent by the end of this year in my estimation.

“Too much sanity may be madness.  And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be.”  – Dale Wasserman, playwright, attributed to Don Quixote author Miguel Cervantes in the play, The Man From La Mancha

“A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” – Mahatma Gandhi

325 responses to “The Quest: Quixotian or Gandhian?

  1. Thanks Marty for the clarifications and insights so urgently needed concerning the subject at hand.

    I recently ran across another quote from Gandhi that seems pertinent-

    “Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time.

    If you are right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind even if you are a minority of one. The truth is still the truth.”

    And one more quote that dovetails perfectly-

    “Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it.”
    – Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662)

    • Thanks for the quotes, Tom. Great ones.

    • “Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.”

      ― Dr. Seuss, Happy Birthday to You!

    • Excellent quotes, Tom! Thanks :)

      For me, I think that If you can’t believe your own truths, then you are a lie.

      • Mike:

        Your words: “I admire your courage and intellectual honesty. You have never been afraid to speak for fear of being unpopular or scorned by the zealots,”

        There are two ways of establishing a reputation, one to be praised by honest people and the other to be accused by rogues. It is best, however, to secure the first one, because it will always be accompanied by the latter.

        -Charles Caleb Colton

        Dio

      • Tater,

        How do you know that what you know is true?

        What if what you know is not true?

        Dio

        • Excellent question Dio. One that more often than not will be met with silence. Mr. Hubbard once said (paraphrased): “what is true for you is what you yourself have observed”. Period. What Mr. Hubbard failed to mention is that every observation requires an ‘interpretation’. Thus he was telling his audience that every ‘interpretation’ of theirs, was true. Which is, of course, blatant nonsense. But it feels really really good to the listener to hear that. Damn, I’ve been right all along!

          Spoken to a child Santa Clause becomes real. Why? Because the child ‘observed’ Santa Clause’ at the local mall just last evening.

          Nonetheless, the statement: ‘what is true for you is what you yourself have observed’ would carry significant weight (i.e. truth) had it been presented in the form: what is ‘real’ for you is what you have observed. Thus Santa maybe real for one at 4 years of age, and no longer real for that same one at age 5. Here then is truth absent vernacular trickery.

          It is the hallmark of a fool to believe all of their interpretations of all persons, places and things are true. Which leads to a fanaticism that is often betrayed by a strange empty glare in their eyes. And while I had never personally met Mr. Hubbard, I imagine that glare would have been present in his eyes, as he above all others ‘knew’ that what was true for him was true (for all).

          And he erred.

          • Yes. Larry,

            That statement: “what is true for you is true for you” is a fool’s trap.

            Today many people think that what ever they think or believe is the truth.

            When I hear people repeat that statement, it gives me clear evidence or rather “proof” that they are at the bottom of the theta scale.

            (and it gives me a bit of nausea too)

            It is evidence that there is very little useful mass between the ears.

            And I have to shake my head.

            Most people haven’t got a clue what the truth is.

            When asked what is their definition of truth?:

            The best you get is: the truth is the truth.

            Or “the truth is what is”.

            Those kinds of definitions are just plain nonsense, the voice of stupidity and ignorance.

            The question that also has to be asked is:

            What criteria do you have to determine that what you know is true or not?

            Dio

        • If you are in agreement with the vast majority of people, you are wrong. Start yelling “Support our Troops!” and you’ll have friends galore because you just joined a huge crowd of bodies poking in a pile of intellectual shit. The closer you get to the truth, the less support and agreement you find until you only know of a very small number of people in the whole world who agree with you and everybody else would think you are a nut if you didn’t keep your mouth shut. But then you know you are getting close.

  2. The ok to harm human beings came from Ron himself. The records are common place and establish Ron as the source: undeniably.

    The direct and obvious observability of this fact is rejected by years of agreement that it is a crime to be critical of Ron.

    Thus denial became the sacred task of every member. And denial became a psychological group characteristic. Denial became the glue that kept it all going. And reasoned or unreasoned criticism becomes an enemy to destroy utterly.

    It is ok to know these things. It is ok to know. It is ok to be critical of Ron. Perhaps the sanity of those leaving the church depend on allowing that criticism to occur. It is so impowering to really allow ourselves to know without the fear, to question without fear and to investigate without fear.

    • To say it is a crime to be critical of LRH is a misunderstanding, because it is the same thing as sayingf or example: “I work under the table in addition to being ED ot my org. I make a lot of money this way and don’t pay the government a cent in spite of the fact that I freeload on all their services. It is OK for staff members 1, 2, 3 & 4 to know this but not staff member 5 though they are all fully hatted and on post”. Well how can that be? This was the type of environment I became familiar with Scientology with for the first time, the New York Org, with the added luxury of the staff on the 4th floor where the GO was, plotting in front of me kill Paulette Cooper. Why could some people at the church know about Paulette Cooper, but not others if all is “on policy” as the church states? It is important to keep in mind as a rule of thumb, that Dianetics and Scientology were discovered and organized for the first time by a man named L. Ron Hubbard. What has happened in the WOLRD not to these discoveries since the time they were discovered is another matter and is an atrocity. LRH Tech is viewed by most staff members as a “get rich quick scheme” not something that produces lasting miracles when applied. People have come along, since these subjects were disocvered and announced by L. Ron Hubbard whose place in the world is make believe every day they are delivering these miracles to people that they are not. It is those kind of people ANYONE despises. People that take a good thing and miscontrol for personal gain. It only works for a short time. Soon, people catch on. :)

      • Lawrence, what happened to Paulette Cooper was punishment. When a bank robber gets caught breaking the law he gets punished. Paulette Cooper was punished for criticizing “the only hope for man “.

        She broke Ron’s law. A crime against Ron.

        And this is getting too weird guys: I have heard from numerous diverse sources that the GO engaged in mob style hits on people.

        My positive esteem in LRH just went sky rocketing down Lawrence.

        Bill Franks said he was asked to kill, you said you heard a conversation about killing, I had a friend hit by a car outside the hotel Martinique, the x GO women Margy on Tony Ortega’s site said she was at a meeting were killing was discussed. I knew an auditor that told me a GO pc got off a withold regarding killing for Scientology.

        That is FIVE different sources. FIVE!!!!!!

        What was shreaded in the orgs when the FBI raided?

        Your church, circumstantial evidence suggests, was involved in attempted murder or actual murder. The buck stops with Ron.

        Know wonder Ron was freaked out when records were obtained by the government. The ‘only hope for man’, the ‘incarnation of Buddha almost got caught sanctioning and or planning murder.

        Bolivar………. Holy sh-t. This will come out. All you GOs with evidence, please come forward.

        I am digusted that I was even associated.

        Teaching a philosophy that killing others to protect the “only road out” is ones duty to protect Power ( let’s face it, Ron meant himself when he used the word power) is evil and narcissistic.

        And if you can’t allow your mind to cognize this, you are in brick wall denial. It is just too unbelievable for you.

        This stuff is all over the internet now. They can’t attack thousands of people that know this data.

        This is not Ron bashing, this is pulling his witholds. Big difference.

        • I know the GO’s skelatons better than they even do. There were no ‘hits.’ And Bill Franks is simply lying.

          • A common stock in trade for Franks – lying

          • brian@hiddenstory.com

            What of Margy on Tony’s blog, and what of Lawrence on your blog?You also could not conceive of pets being killed, but the meeting with that fellow you had surely was suspect. Were you privy to all GO operations and their intentions to be able to be so certain?
            Scary stuff Marty!

            • martyrathbun09

              Got last names? Brian – don’t make the mistake of doing the same thing you so vehemently criticize.

              • Go on Tony’s blog. A few stories down. Picture and name of a women named Margy who was GO.

                The auditor was a friend in the early eighties who audited at AOLA. I would rather not have her involved. But she did tell me this, early eighties.

                You can discount Bill, I don’t know him, so I have no opinion other than what his interview said. He may be lying he may not. I don’t know.

                And Lawrence who responded to my post here. These two still remain.

                My vehement criticism is two fold: preaching only way and harming others to protect the only way.

                And this multiple sources from different people who do not know each other that claim these things to be true, is not far fetched owing to Ron’s green light on violence via Bolivar.

                It is a reasonable question. Also Marty, I have nothing to protect nor hide. So my looking into these “coincidences of info” is far far from me harming someone who disagrees. not even close bud ;-)

                This could be an interesting diolog

                • martyrathbun09

                  I don’t either. If early eighties she is either making it up or has some issues.

                  • EnthralledObserver

                    Is Margery Wakefield lying accoriding to the ALL KNOWING Marty…er Ron… no, wait, I was right the first time, Marty. Just becaue you might have at one time been at the top doesn’t mean secrets weren’t kept from you, or that you could possibly know everything. Just say ‘I don’t have any knowledge about what you refer to’ and leave it at that. There is no need to say everything you don’t know must not be true, that’s classic “If it’s not true for you, it’s not true” misuse.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Oh, Wakefield? Absolutely invented.

                    • No need to be rude guys. I am simply responding to information. Not trying to reveal truth.

                      It is ok to investigate anything, anytime and anywhere.

                  • No implications of you in my mind. The time was around 85 or 86. And these other people? Tony’s blog? And Lawrence here on yours?

                    Do you think the frequency of this info is worth considering? Are they all making it up and lying in your understanding?

                    The reason I brought it up is because I have recently a bunch of these allegations. Lawrence tipped the scales for me. I could not deny what crossed my plate.

                    Thank you for posting it Marty. And thanks for your take on it.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      No, I think you do a great service to the church of Scientology crime syndicate by insisting on repeating over and over discreditable information. See my posts entitled “The Great Middle Path” and “The Great Middle Path Redux.’ It is why I call you out on bullshit and will cease publishing now that you keep insist on repeating it.

                  • It may all be bullshit as you say. But I do not know that. Therefore I am interested in knowing the truth. Many a reasoned investigation has revealed something to not be true.

                    And simply you Marty, saying it is not true and everyone is lying may be true.

                    But I think you would agree that just because you say something is or is not true does not satisfy the rigors of investigation.

                    Things have been said, Bolivar was written, people have been harmed, dogs have been killed, families destroyed, children in chain lockers, old ladies thrown overboard, robberies, lies, counter intel, bribes, hate.

                    It would seem to me that investigation would be invited not condemned.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Don’t become that which you are resisting so hard.

                    • It is more an intense curiosity than a resistence. So what about Lawrence? There are five sources of this data. What do you know of Lawrence’s experience?

          • Guardian’s office dirty tricks, Intelligence Operations

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guardian%27s_Office_operations

            • I once witnessed church members grabbing (stealing) all newspapers that they could get their hands on — that day’s issue had a critical article on Scientology. That was not GO — just regular members. Would GO have done worse? Absolutely. Would they have murdered or planned murder?

              As to the killing of non-humans (pets or animals), I’ve heard many claims about that. One attempt I found credible was from Robert (Vaughn) Young and his wife Stacy Brooks, who believed they were under GO harassment with an effort to get them evicted from their property and get their cats (from their cat sanctuary) confiscated and destroyed. Vaughn was in the GO before leaving COS, Inc..

              As to the possible killing of pets, hey, so much for the 5th dynamic when one 3rd dynamics trumps all others. And that’s the point, true believers that the CoS,Inc. 3rd dynamic is the keystone to the survival of all 8 dynamics can and will do things to harm those other dynamics because they believe it is the greatest good for the greatest number.

              • Thank you FOTF for your input.

                From Bolivar to Fair Game and all the violence done in it’s name, each of these has gone beyond the boundaries of human decency: beyond doubt.

                And if the boundaries of decency has been crossed by these commonly known doctrines and actions, it is reasonable to conclude that other boundaries have been crossed that are not known.

                To deny the possibility, not truth, possibility, of a more nefarious violation of human decency, owing to already proven and despicably violated boundaries; is unreasonable. In my opinion.

  3. Taken to its logical extreme, the ‘Critics of Scientology’ article leads to Jenna Elfman, encountering a man walking down the street wearing a t-shirt that pokes fun at Scientology, without further ado accusing the guy of raping babies.

    Which of course adds to the general public perception that Scientologists are crazy. Well, to the degree that someone applies certain of Hubbard’s writings without differentiation, and without ARC, they Are being crazy.

  4. Great post,
    Keep the analysis flowing.

    ” I am letting it be known that in spite of the ample back stabbing, cur dog yapping, and undermining and severing of all of our sources of support that we’ve encountered in the past four years, we continue to pursue our course.”

    Miscavige missed his chance to really fix scientology. In the end,
    he was not bright enough. When he sent all OT8’s back to OT7
    in 1989, he was protected because he was claiming that he
    knew all of the answers. History has proven that Miscavige
    was adrift in himself. Miscavige never undestood scientology
    or the OT8 narrative which I read on the Freewinds.
    The confrontation with miscavige is only now starting
    in earnest.

    George M. White

  5. But Marty, from the very beginning, Scientology was built on lies and misinformation. Take away the lies and misinformation, and you no longer have Scientology.

    • Anonymous,
      Your words:

      “But Marty, from the very beginning, Scientology was built on lies and misinformation. Take away the lies and misinformation, and you no longer have Scientology.”

      Boy, I like that evaluation!

      That is a very intelligent superior computation!.

      Fresh thinking! Fresh air!

      Dio

      • Dio & Anonymous, I can tell from your statements that you were never Scientologists. Had you ever given a session and taken a preclear to a tremendous win, or yourself left an auditing session almost walking on air because you had a life changing realization, you would understand that if you take away the lies and misinformation, what you are left with is the actual foundation of Scientology, truths about life and the spirit (and you would also understand why people get very enthusiastic about Scientology when they start). Yes, I agree that LRH’s major character flaws and the playing out once again of religious fanaticism and its fascist cousin philosophies are what both Scientologists and ex-Scientologists have to very unfortunately deal with every day in greater or lesser degree. But those factors don’t negate almost “magical” discoveries of Ron’s like the communication cycle or the Affinity, Reality and Communication Triangle and many other countless truths that explain life and make it more understandable and joyous. Again, yes, I have to acknowledge that the “dark side” of Scientology can sometimes make me feel bitter towards my former friends and colleagues who now consider me someone that deserves their contempt, after almost forty years of my being a helper. But again, I also recognize I would have to make myself stupid and/or blind to forget all the tremendously positive aspects of Scientology that remain quite apart from all the useless and destructive aspects of the CoS, which I also have to acknowledge. Ah, irony … irony ….. to go from a blown out preclear who is more in communication with all of life to someone like Jenna Elfmann. There are your two sides, truth and craziness.

        • Joe,

          Yes. You are correct on every word.

          Yes. I have had lots of wins with scn. It saved my life more than once.

          It helped me understand life like I never could imagine.

          It helped me put into alignment everything I studied and knew before and after scn.

          I have helped others with scn.

          I love the sinner, but not the sin.

          I run everything through my BS detector to separate out the truth from non truth.

          I love truth.

          When I first read anonymous’ post, I thought it was great insight.

          So I said so.

          Then after some time, I began to reconsider what I thought and said and realized that what I thought about what anon said was not correct.

          I realize that he was not correct. He was wrong.

          He was just clever, in his evaluation, but not correct.

          He was using his “clever” faculty the wrong way.

          He was looking at things from the wrong end of the theta scale.

          So I retract and correct my viewpoint and posting.

          Thanks for your criticism, your correction.

          There is a right way to criticize and a wrong way to criticize.

          And overall or in general, a person’s critics are their best teachers.

          “Calm seas do not a good sailor make.”

          Critics on this plane, are the universe’s (life’s) form of auditing.

          Life is constantly auditing you in it’s own way.

          For every intelligent thing said, there is an equally and opposite stupid thing said.

          That runs a parallel to Newton’s third law:

          III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

          It tends to keep things in balance on this plane.

          At least hopefully.

          The trouble is that it seems like the stupids and crazies are winning.

          Dio

    • Anon, I’m sorry but I see this as a shallow, uninformed generalization on your part. Wha tdo you base it on?

      • EnthralledObserver

        Take the religious cloaking off entirely and explain precisely where Scientology came from? Where did every word written and stated by Ron materialise from? Can anyone at all, anywhere reproduce any of Ron’s magical, yet absent, methods of discovery and research?

        In the words of Jason Beghe… “Show me the fucking data”

        Despite not actually believing in God, nor believing Jesus was anything more than a man, I know the stories passed down through time that make up the Bible have historic origins and some truth to them backed up by actual evidence of their original existence. So don’t use religion as an excuse for not being able to produce it… if Ron’s original research of Diantetics and Scientology is real there will be some evidence of it left for scrutiny, if not… well it’s about time you ought to face up to the probability that Ron’s deceptions encompass the entirety of Scientology, and not just the parts that according to Scientologists don’t really matter.

        • EnthralledObserver

          Perhaps you are missing some data here.

          I obviously do not have the records, but I am pretty sure that they exist.

          I know that in the all of the Organizations of Scientology, records are kept of every session, some going back into the 1950s. We are talking about millions and millions of sessions, recorded in hand written notes, that were taken during sessions. There are many sessions so recorded by L. Ron Hubbard himself, plus his notes and observations attached to perhaps upwards of thousands of sessions that he personally read over.

          Besides that, L. Ron Hubbard has written and published millions of words of the results of his research. Unless David Miscavige has destroyed all of the original research notes, sessions and observations, it should all be there somewhere.

          This DATA.

          You reference the Bible as a source of some truth. I will not argue that point, but I beg you to notice that almost all of it was written well after the fact, and regarding Jesus, there seem to be none of his own writings. Anything that he apparently said, or did was conveyed by others, and generally well after the fact. Also I seriously doubt that any but a very few of those original writings exist for your perusal.

          So, I guess that leaves me questioning your logic a bit. You seem to be willing to see some truth in the one, that actually has virtually none of the original data, and negate the entirety of the one that pretty much has it all.

          Eric

        • EO, your rant is a red herring, here’s why:

          The techniques of Scientology evolved out of Dianetics, which is basically rather similar to psychoanalytic principles every other type of “talk therapy” is based on, ie therapies based on communication rather than prescribing pills, doing surgeries, inducing convulsions, keeping people in straight jackets etc.

          There is nowhere in this world an “scientifically validated” psychotherapy. How do I know this? I worked in one of the country’s leading psychiatric training hospitals for 13 years, which was at the time ‘psychoanalytically oriented’. I was also there for a little while as they transitioned to the ‘biopsychiatric’ model largely in use today.

          Have you ever read Freud, Breuer, Jung, Rogers, Fromm, etc etc etc? Tons of writing, not a shred of ‘scientific’ research and discovery. They are all based on subjective observations and theories.

          So you are right to the extent that ‘science’ has not yet found ways to test and validate the results of subjective therapies or any other subjective practices like meditation. Where are the ‘scientific research and discovery’ studies proving Buddhist techniques have ever led anyone to ‘Nirvana”?

          Your entire framing of the argument is wrong – it is a red herring. It simply doesn’t apply.

          • martyrathbun09

            You are wrong about no research and discovery. I am reading Rogers at the moment. He invited challenges to and systematic testing of his emperical observations – and only spoke tenatively of such propositions when they hadn’t been so tested.

            • I get where you’re coming from Marty. Early on, LRH also invited academia to do studies of dianetics I believe.

              Yes, various kinds of studies of psychotherapies have been done or attempted over the years. I didn’t make clear that I specifically meant the kind of ‘scientific studies’ some critics raise an issue about – basically what they call ‘controlled studies’ – double-blind or even single blind ‘controlled’ studies such as are done with drug treatments.

              Those kind of studies are not appropriate or, I personally believe, even possible for various reasons, for ‘soft sciences’ like clinical psychological therapies. There’s a lot of evidence for a lot of humanistic methods for change, personal improvement, developing human potentials, etc but it is almost entirely anecdotal or indirect or inferential and not considered to be really rigorous scientific evidence by the scientistic hardline critics, if I may generalize about them. Here’s what I’m talking about:

              Scientism sci·en·tism
              n.
              1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists.
              2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.
              ——————

              1. the application of, or belief in, the scientific method
              2. the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or
              investigation
              ——————
              1. Often Disparaging. the style, assumptions, techniques, practices, etc., typifying or regarded as typifying scientists.
              2. the belief that the assumptions and methods of the natural sciences are appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences.
              3. scientific or pseudoscientific language. — scientistic, adj.

            • I have always felt that scientology would lend itself quite nicely to a solid blended qualitative-quantitative study comparing the technology to other psychotheraputic methodologies. It always seemed a bit hazy when LRH discussed his discoveries but did not reference the data, which is empirical in nature and lacks statistical testing. Interssting discussion…

    • Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.
      Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Sherlock Holmes) Valley of Fear, 1915

      • Grasshopper, a bit of the Brits eh? :) If church members are all so Clear and such “well and happy high IQ human beings” then how come they have never been accepted into the MENSA Society? (the British founded group that only allows members with high IQ’s that pass a high IQ verification test) :) Why, because the Church of Scientology is packed to the rafters with liars. Lies about their IQ. Lies about their training. Lies about their church and family. Lies about their lies. :) Here is a link to the MENSA society:

        http://www.mensa.org/about-us#what-is-mensa

        • Excuse me, “Lawrence”, but how would you know as a true fact that no members of MENSA are also Scientologists ? What is the source of that data, please ?

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

        • Lawrence, why inject a straw man argument like that into this discussion?

          No-one in the world could plausibly claim that CoS members are “all so Clear and such ‘well and happy high IQ human beings’ “! Even the CoS does not claim that.

          “Well and happy human being was at onetime the stated EP of something called a “Dianetics Case Completion”. I think there were a few, back in the day – I mean the 1970s. I heard of one back then. And how many of the CoS members have attested to “Clear”? There have been precious few in the past decade.

          But the thing about Mensa is completely out in left field! In high school, I scored in the 98th percentile on the National Merit Scholarship Qualifyng Test. It was a status thing I could brag about back then, When I was 18, I might have been interesated in joining Mensa but I never applied.

          I doubt many Scientologists who went Clear would bother to apply. And I have known one or two Mensa members and they were perfectly nice people and indeed they were intelligent. But they were members because they wanted to be members.

          Can you imagine how many potentially qualified intelligent people are not members of Mensa? I’d bet, a lot.

          • Probably more than is suspected! :) I looked the group up after I read in the news about the recent Ricin letters sent to President Obama and other government officials. Link below:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/ricin-suspect-positive-tests-affidavit/2124767/

            Does it surprise anyone that a former indoctrinate into Mensa sends letters laced with poison to people to kill them with? Many people in the church BOAST that their IQ’s have risen, their abilities have gone up through auditing and training. Maybe so. So now is the time to become a Squirrel Buster? IQ Has nothing really to do with one’s abilities. An MU is an MU until cleared up. But it is an interesting group that seems to have a moral or ethical principle behind it. In my opinion. But I do think Scientologists (people that actually apply the tech to a real result) are the real “MENSA’s”. Thanks for the R. :)

        • Lawrence, I was once a member of Mensa, at about the same time I was doing my lower Bridge. Mensa has many special interest groups and one of those is (or was) Scientology, so I obviously wasn’t the only one.

          I quickly discovered that for the most part Mensa was a good fit for Ron’s description of a “group without a purpose” and I didn’t bother to continue with it, but your statement is patently false, as well as being irrelevant.

  6. The first 2 paragraphs could as well replace that ‘What is Scientology?’ book.

    I admire that you spent time in that group and near that guy, and yet you don’t have snapped terminals with him. Some intergrity and horsepower!

  7. agreed. good for you and good luck

  8. My main response to this latest epiphany is “better late than never.” :D
    Glad to see it coming. It needs to come. Thank you.

    I won’t even bother asking how Hubbard was in such great condition in ’80 to sick the mad dogs at his beck and call after Mayo. I’ll just figure that’s another story for another day.

  9. Nice post Marty.
    I always come back to those words; “If it’s true for you then it’s true…”
    The references that you quote from above are not real to me. I don’t believe that anyone who is a critic of Scientology or LRH is a criminal. I think those are the words of a paranoid.
    At the same time, I do see lots of workable tech he did develope and using that is a good thing. I am happy Independent auditors go forth and use the tech. As far as any of them backstabbing you goes, I haven’t seen that , so I think if would be better to give specifics. It’s not that I don’t believe you, it’s just that it acts as a generality.
    I am happy that you are differentiating the good from the bad. It is very helpful. I am sorry that the cult continues to pursue you and your wife.

    • Tony, a long time ago, before I discovered the exact DEPTH of the grave the Church of Scientology had dug for itself and the jumped in all on their own with their wild overts of omission and commision on me……..another thing happened. :) One day I saw a picture of Marty Rathbun while he was still in the Sea Org and this was my thoughts “You know, he looks like a friendly guy out of all those people. He looks like someone with real brains in his head and affinity”. Maybe, at that time, before Marty actually left the church, I was ALREADY not just critical but previously highly skeptical of anything a Church of Scientology said or did. :) If I had known Marty and said “Hey Marty, get the hell out of that cult group” would he have listened? Most likely not, because my name was not Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks or a true BIG WIG in church opposition. No, just a normal, small town guy, you see everyday who like “everybody else” get 100 hours of sec checks before starting the Studen Hat course for the first time! :) Am I an evil person because if he had turned to me for advice, I would have said that to him with proof of why? I like to know that LRH made SOME contribution to this society worthy of the next generation. Tony, today the first commercial spaceship liner had a successful test flight and soon you and me can by tickets to the moon and back on a Saturday. What happens if the evil Church of Scientology gets off this planet before you or me and brings their corrupt ideas elsewhere to flourish and prosper? I think you are being hard on Marty. I can come right out and say it, some things that LRH said and wrote in his life are the words of an idiot. BUT…Dianetics and Scientology are the words of a genius! :)

    • Tony, when I read your statement: “I always come back to those words; ‘If it’s true for you then it’s true…”, I received the concept much differently than ever before. So many times I’ve uttered these words, so many times I’ve heard and/or read these words uttered…If it’s true for you then it’s true…but, what does it mean to say this? Please excuse me while I use this to go off on a tangent. :)

      Whenever I preface an origination or comment with a disclaimer that informs the intended receipt point that what I’m about to say is “my truth” I am, of course, simultaneously implying that there is a probability that “my truth” might be different from the truth that my receipt point or others possess. So basically what I’m saying when I point out that my perspective is “my truth” I’m saying; “This is what I believe to be true.” My truth = My belief.

      Not only do I typically point out that what I’m about to say is “my truth” I also indicate that “my truth” is subject to change. In other words, it is possible that what I see as being my truth in the present moment might not be what I see to be my truth in a future moment. I consider “my truth” to be transient.

      If my truth is different from another’s truth, does that mean that the other person is holding onto a lie but believes it to be true? Or, am I the one holding onto a lie but believing it is true? What if multiple people seemingly observe/experience the same incident but each, after the incident, have a different “my truth” with regards to it…what would be the truth in this scenario?

      Marty begins his blog post with: “On his ‘Dean of Technology’ course titled Class VIII, L. Ron Hubbard advises that the ultimate state of consciousness attainable in Scientology (dubbed OT, for Operating Thetan) is simple. The state is attained when the individual no longer carries any lies with him. An individual is as OT as he doesn’t walk about with lies.

      “So it is with Scientology itself. As a subject it contains a wonderful body of technology for helping to strip a person of the lies through which he filters the universe around him.”

      I wonder…where, in a universe that seems to be a world of perception, where a being can have their own truth independently from the truth of others, where does a lie end and the truth begin? And who makes that call?

      • Monte,

        Re: your truth or the other guy’s truth, what is the truth? :

        First of all, the truth is nothing more or less than the right answer to any problem.

        Now for example to demonstrate, suppose, you and three other people were standing on each corner of a four way intersection.

        And an accident occurred in the intersection.

        And all four of you happened to see the accident happen.

        And the drivers were blaming each other.

        Then the police interviewed all four of you witnesses, as to what you saw happen.

        Now, it so happened that each of your versions of what happened were significantly different. Different enough so that the police do not really know what happened.

        The police were perplexed.

        Of all the different viewpoints, what are the possibilities?

        There are only two possibilities.

        1. All four of you are wrong.

        2. Three of you are wrong and one of you is right.

        In the first possibility, all of you would have seen something that was not there.

        That is what is explained in Dianetics, where if someone sees an elephant on the lawn, when there was actually a cat on the lawn, that person saw something that was not there. That is called insanity.

        So like wise in this case all of you are insane. All bearing false witness. All perceptually dishonest.

        In the second possibility, one of the four of you is correct and that one would be the sane one. The other three would have seen something that is not there, therefore those three are insane.

        There are no other possibilities, if all of your reports were different.

        That is the truth.

        Dio

        • Dio, thank you so much for wading into what I consider to be an enormously abstract topic i.e., the truth. What you had to say fracked my mind. :) Note: my use of the term “fracked” is in reference to the controversial hydraulic fracturing tech that the oil companies use to extract deposits of natural gas locked in shale formation deep within the earth. So, in other words, your statements blew up in my mind and consequently opened up deposits of encapsulated thought. Unfortunately, there is no possible way for me to convert all that I contemplated into words but I can attempt, at least, to convert a tiny fraction of what I explored as a result of your statements. That said, don’t build any expectations to encounter the profound as I do not believe anything profound will be expressed in my statements.

          Dio, it is obvious that you believe that what you communicated to me about truth is the truth. Now, the way I interpreted what you stated (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that you’re not referring to a “my truth” or a “your truth” but, instead, you’re identifying “The Truth.” For me, Dio, it has been my observation and experience that when a person is speaking what they believe to be “The Truth” they are, in essence, saying “That’s it! End of story. There is no need for further discussion as there are no other possibilities to be considered.” You actually demonstrate this Dio, when, at the end of your response, you state, “There are no other possibilities, if all of your reports were different. That is the truth.” But, even so, I am not convinced that you are the sort of person that would intentionally close the door on the possibility that there might be other possibilities. If you were that sort of person I don’t think you would be following Marty’s blog.

          Dio, I’m going to excerpt a few of your statements and then suggest other possibilities that you might find worthy of consideration.

          You wrote: “First of all, the truth is nothing more or less than the right answer to any problem.” LRH states in SC axiom #40: “ANY PROBLEM TO BE A PROBLEM MUST CONTAIN A LIE, IF IT WERE TRUTH, IT WOULD UNMOCK An ‘unsolvable problem’ would have the greatest persistence. It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts. To make a problem one must introduce Alter-is-ness.” Dio, whether you or I believe that this is a viable axiom or not let’s suppose it is and revisit your accident scenario. In your scenario what is the problem and whose problem is it?

          You wrote: “There are only two possibilities.

          “1. All four of you are wrong.

          “2. Three of you are wrong and one of you is right.”

          Dio, couldn’t there be a third possibility? Could it be possible that all four are right?

          There is an old saying that talks about a person looking at an elephant. According to the saying, a person cannot stand in one place and see the entire elephant. The elephant is much too large. In order to see the whole elephant the person has to walk all the way around it. Dio, metaphorically speaking, have you ever had to ‘walk around the elephant’ in order to get a complete view? I invite you to consider your accident scenario as being the elephant and that each witness (whether four or four-hundred) to the accident, as well as the drivers in the accident, are perceiving the ‘elephant’ from their unique physical position within space and time. But not only are they witnessing the ‘elephant’ from a physical locality peculiar to them, each one of them is interpreting their perception of the ‘elephant’ through an enormous multitude of filters i.e., myriad layers of programming, belief systems, conclusions, experiences, opinions and so on.

          Who, in your scenario, Dio…would be the one that could perceive and communicate the truth of the accident? Could anyone?

          You wrote: “All bearing false witness. All perceptually dishonest.” Dio, if a person truly believes their interpretation of their perception (their perspective) is the truth, can they, in all fairness, be considered to be ‘perceptually dishonest?’

          This is a good place to stop. Again, thanks so much for your response Dio. What you had to say was very helpful. ~Monte

          • Monte,

            I understand how your mind was fracked. That’s good. :)

            I hope your mind will work better from now on.

            Auditing sessions have a similar effect.

            Your elephant story is closer to nonsense than to usable or applicable data.

            Your viewpoint: Could it be possible that all four are right?

            Well, first of all you have to realize that there is such a thing as common sense and common agreements that we have on this plane.

            And ask your self: does believing in something make it true?

            If you believed the sun will not rise tomorrow?

            Will that make it true?

            If you believe you have the right to walk around naked in public, and pee off the side walk, will that make any difference whether the laws of the country will allow you to do so?

            To believe something means to accept something as true without proof.

            Now ask yourself why anyone in their right mind would want to do that?

            Belief is actually a confession of ignorance.

            A belief means you do not know what you are talking about.

            Believing is a function of the intellectually inept.

            Intellectually competent people only operate on proven facts.

            If they can’t prove something then they qualify that datum as such and operate with caution.

            The truth (the true answers) exists independent of whether you believe it or not.
            The truth is not determined by authority, beliefs, opinions or by who wins an argument.
            And the truth will not seek you, you have to seek the truth, if you want it.

            In order to determine what the truth is in the accident, the policeman will use common sense, good reasoning and logic and compare all of your viewpoints plus both drivers viewpoints then do an actual evaluation of the accident, look for how the cars were hit, look for skid marks, etc. By this means the policeman will determine the truth. Most likely one of the driver’s reports will align with at least one of you four witnesses.

            Then they would also look at the camera records of the camera that was monitoring the intersection, if there was one.

            Re: axiom 40: The truth is not determined by Hubbard. Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated. It contains flaws. It is sometimes true. It is not an absolute by far. Take it apart and test it against the known universe to see how often it is true and how often it is false.

            There may be your truth and there may be my truth, but neither may be the truth.

            There may be your truth, and there may be my truth and then there may be the truth.

            Dio

            • Hi Dio, I want you to know that i appreciate your perspectives and I am grateful that you are willing to share them with me.

              Dio, there is a time to communicate and there is a time to shut up. And for me, it is time to shut up. Thank you very much for the exchange. I am glad you are here.

              Monte

      • As you already know, Monte, it’s the person him/herself.

        Your words: “As I have mentioned in other comments on Marty’s blog posts, a few months ago I began exploring A Course in Miracles (ACIM) and little by little, as I read the course, my misperception of the concept of forgiveness was corrected. Now when I read the above quote from Gandhi about forgiveness…I get it!”

        Well done.

  10. “Because of the religious cloak with which L. Ron Hubbard chose to enwrap Scientology, the discernment of truth from lies within Scientology is not an easy task. ”
    This for me was always the biggest outpoint. When it was an applied philosophy it was UNSERIOUS, could be debated, criticized, etc.
    I know without a doubt, that in Israel the religious cloaking was the item that got the public and the religious Jews to fight Scientology.
    What is important now is to get the Fantastic WORKABLE Technology clear and posted so every person can reach and check, and calling it like it is APPLIED PHILOSOPHY of SCIENTOLOGY.
    That is the truth, and therefore will lead to the expansion and higher states of being.
    So what is needed now is a new name for the Scientologists who prefer to apply the tech without the religious, serious aspects.
    Anyhow Marty, I salute your courage and integrity!

    • I think LRH wanted to address everyone. That’s why the cross and dianetics and the gradients. I don’t think it’s bad. What’s bad is when the basic essense is lost, for the sake of the lower grades. And that now the COS totally not-ises the higher grades, and advertises itself as some religious psychology thingy. But I don’t think this is what Hubbard intended.

      • Pardon me, by ‘essense’ I meant choice over full freedom, full self determinism etc. It’s alright to play a game if somebody wants. But he should be able to not play too, without any other thing dragging him in. He should be able to live the kind of life he wants, if he wants, despite circumpstances.

        I personally don’t want to happily play the game of another, and feel good about it. I think this is what Scientology is becoming, that’s why I also called it psychology. It is about ‘uptone’ adaption, the way I see it.

    • Izhar,
      “in Israel the religious cloaking was the item that got the public and the religious Jews to fight Scientology.”

      Did the public at large fight Scientology or a small segement?
      This is interesting because in the USA, I cannot imagine the
      public at large fighting Scientology. I have often thought how
      difficult it would be to lift the statute of limitations on Scientology.
      If that “lifting” ever happened in the USA, we could get some
      very real reform. Also, the “cloaking was the item”.
      Did Israel ever “uncloak” Scientology?

      George M. White

    • In theory, your premise is fine and good, however there are pitfalls.

      As a philosophy, practitioners have no protection from government siezure of case folders, records of sessions, or even interogation of auditors to reveal the “crimes” of pc’s. As a religion, in most countries, practitioners have very strong, if not insurmountable protections from the government regarding compusion to divulge under priest-pentient protections.

      As a small activity, under the radar, this is probably not much of a worry. However, if the activity actually grows significanlty outside the confines of the fascist church, then anytime a government takes interest in an indvidual they know to have received independent auditing, their autitor and their case files are at risk.

      Therefore, i think it more than valid that some independent SCN practicioner may legall wish to organize themselves as a church or religion. I consider SCN a religion in they same way that origianal bhudism is a religion. A philsophy that deals with the spiritual states of a being and its eventual salvation, is indeed a religion, whether or not it deals with “gods.”

      • “As a philosophy, practitioners have no protection from government siezure of case folders, records of sessions, or even interogation of auditors to reveal the “crimes” of pc’s.”

        Perhaps this is why Marty has written that when he’s auditing he never writes down the actual content of overts.

        The Corporate Church has been shown that they will use things written down by auditors during sessions. For myself that alone is reason enough to never go “in session” there ever again.

  11. I have a clear understanding where your coming from,sometimes the truth hurts,And thankyou for taking a stand for truth when it comes to Scientology ,

  12. “Too much sanity may be madness. And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be.” – Dale Wasserman, playwright, attributed to Don Quixote author Miguel Cervantes in the play, The Man From La Mancha”

    Beautiful quote, as we can be Gandhian AND Quixotian :-)

  13. Both?

    Or neither?

    How about just…

    My quest.

    We all have them. Some are more valuable on the whole than others but all are important.

    Yours, in my opinion, will become more and more valuable as time passes.

    History will confirm that.

    In the mean time… thank you for trucking on brother. I for one appreciate it greatly.

    😊

  14. Marty, you say, “When the ‘technical fact’ he preached above proved to be utterly false (as determined by the intelligence agency he created to prove it – called the Guardian’s Office), Hubbard advised the agency to skip the investigations, create and plant and then ‘discover’ and expose the evidence of crime.” Can you give examples?

    • martyrathbun09

      Spelled out in some detail in my upcoming book. May post on it if seems relevant in future.

      • Marty, I have bought and read the Scientology Reformation book. I will buy your books to read them so as to get more data and an insight of those things that happened.

        Still when you say that Hubbard did such things everyone deserves to know those facts even if they wouldn’t want to buy your books. Otherwise it’s just a generality with no specifics. Also on Mayo, I don’t know and I have not read it if I remember well, anywhere on the Internet that Hubbard was the one who attacked Mayo. This is another thing that i don’t see any evidence of.

        • martyrathbun09

          Otherwise it’s just a generality with no specifics. And that’s suppressive too, isn’t it? If this is your only comment to this post I don’t know what purpose more specifics will serve for you. There are plenty in the post that warrant consideration.

          • Dear Marty, I am not an enemy first of all. You want to go ahead and say that LRH was a bit crazy or whatever you are calling him… please provide the evidence. this is all that I am saying.

            And yes, there is more consideration warranted by your post. But me as part of your 3rd dynamic I say that what you say about LRH warrants also evidence. This is not a one way flow. Some answers are warranted too. And me personally I am still in the dark as to who declared Mayo and how did LRH invented crimes for people who otherwise were OK. I know LRH would punish but he could also relieve people from their burdens, a technology we all availed of, unlike DM who only knew punishment.

            I think seeing your 3D and taking care of it would lift us all up.

            Please answer our questions, too, mine included.

            • You noted: ‘You want to go ahead and say that LRH was a bit crazy or whatever you are calling him…’ If you believe that is what my post did, then you think a lot less of L. Ron Hubbard than I do. I am just reporting the facts. That is the best any of us can do. You are free to reject them.

              • Marty, I am always in awe of how much free communication you allow to happen on this blog.

                But communication on a long distance line has its disadvantages, too. And we all suffer from this. So bear with me.

                Still, if you are going to make any statement about somebody we are supposed to give specifics and still you have not given any specifics about Mayo or LRH on my previous question.

                On being back stubbed: I am open minded without any quotes here and I am eager to listen to anybody saying anything. But still on this you are NOT alone. Many great people here have helped and you have been the target of suppression for a long time from the Cof$. So, trust us more and we can help, tell us what it is and don’t be “alone” because that is not easy. I have said it numerous times, Scientology does NOT work without a 3D.

                About LRH I have my own viewpoint.

                He might have been more bitter sometimes than expected but through his writings and Tech he was sweeter and kinder than many. So, in order to answer your post saying:

                “Hubbard advised the agency to skip the investigations, create and plant and then ‘discover’ and expose the evidence of crime. He was particularly vicious and ruthless in his directives to destroy those who attempted to clarify, refine, or simplify Scientology technology so as to reach more people effectively”, I would like to have more specifics. Otherwise, it’s not easy for me to answer this post as it suggests things without proof.

              • I simply don’t understand why it’s not OK to say – hey LRH was a deeply troubled man but the other side of that coin was that he beautifully curated many schools of thought into something workable. Like many artists do. Vincent Van Gogh. Hadyn. These people were nuts but still were very important to the growth of human thinking. I refer you to a book called “The Horse Boy” about an autistic child that learns that his defects come with the ability to think “outside the box”,

                Buddhism compels us to be here, now. Whether or not you believe you will come back or have an after life . . . . that’ up to you.

                I think what LRH did was start a body of research, like the human genome project or something. A field that would and SHOULD be enhanced by the contribution of other researchers and advocates like Marty who study and think critically and eventually make the tech even better. It’s about refining. It’s a body of work that can be improved and made even more powerful. Why is this so wrong to say out loud?

                I was there, wilting in the sun during his “photo shoots” in the caribbean, in the slums of Jamaica. i was scared. I was there when he was screaming and crying incoherently on the poop deck and demanding that children be contained in the chain locker for 3 days straight. He was not a well man. But he did start a great think tank that future generations – like Marty and Mike and the whole brave Indie crew – can improve upon.

                The moment you are expected to worship someone or to say that they know every single thing or to rely only on their words and dictates is when you become a slave. And worse – glad of your chains. We need to separate the man from his work. Sadly, DM uses this rote obedience to further his own nefarious goals.

                I don’t think there is any doubt in ANYONE’S mind – scientologist or ex – that LRH was very flawed and in some cases, reprehensible. I’m just saying that it doesn’t mean he was wrong on all counts. But this cult of worship to one creative and powerfully imaginative person who was also mercurial and cruel and selfish, well that where things went wrong with this important discovery. No man should be a god. No man should be “source” for thought and progress. We are all in this together.

                But discoveries are discoveries. Like Ben Franklin “discovered” electricity. We have improved on this basic concept, and give our thanks to that guy. But we don’t worship him. We don’t stop using critical thinking when reading his bio. To do anything else means you are ABSOLUTELY in a cult. Blind faith is NOT a pathway to truth. We endeavor in every other part of our lives to use critical thinking to improve our lives and the lives of our children. Why abandon that at the most important subject?

                The great discoveries of the world don’t rest with one person. They are a combination of generation after generation refining and validating the theories. If that wasn’t true we would still think the world was flat.

                LRH had some interesting and salient ideas that will help humanity. But he was also a deeply disturbed person who instead of being worshipped and coddled by the CMO, should have been HELPED. NURTURED.

                He was just a man same as the rest of us.

                I know I’m about to get flamed, but there you go.

      • Excellent. How’s the editing coming along? Make sure he takes out all those pesky semicolons or we’ll have to re-buy it every few years.

    • Marty,
      Below are LRH quotes directly from the Black Propaganda PL – now on the internet. This is what I know to be true, and if that PL is read fully in context one can see there was NO policy to manufacture and plant false evidence. To the contrary, the policy directs that one should find the truth. I never saw any LRH advices that said to skip the investigations, create and plant false evidence of crimes. I would have to see such in a format I knew to be true to accept that LRH stated such.

      1. “Our propaganda is dirty but it is not black because it is true. Black propaganda is essentially false.”
      2. “We won’t be running a black campaign as we deal in truth.”

      The wrongs done, illegal and immoral acts by certain GO members – they were IMO completely off-policy and contrary to mission expressed in PLs. They were acts of expediency, and sadly the bad karma of it all still ripples through time.

      If you have proof that LRH contradicted his own policy in some secret orders to Ops, I will look at what you have to say, but at this point, that statement really contradicts so much else I know.
      Leonore

      • martyrathbun09

        You noted: “and if that PL is read fully in context one can see there was NO policy to manufacture and plant false evidence.” Please take a look at what you wrote. You quote two sentences out of a single policy letter and then conclude that proves there is no other writing. Really take a look at that. It is that kind of mentality I am trying to help people with. “The wrongs done, illegal and immoral acts by certain GO members – they were IMO completely off-policy and contrary to mission expressed in PLs.” You ought to read my next book – I cover the history of working for LRH for the last 7 years of his life and at his direction purveying this very lie. “If you have proof that LRH contradicted his own policy in some secret orders to Ops, I will look at what you have to say, but at this point, that statement really contradicts so much else I know.” I doubt that you will. If you cannot see the point of my post from the policy and lectures that are published – some of which we have talked about on this blog, and quoted in this post – then I don’t think you there is a snowball’s chance in hell you will consider any of my ‘proof’ no matter how credible.

      • Leonore – I understand your quandary. In the idealized world all would be based on truth. I found much of LRH’s writings and lectures to contain much truth. That does not make it all true. Please consider that there are other writings, orders, issues, etc you have never seen. I have never seen most of it. I have seen enough sampling to know all is not true.

        “…we deal in truth.” LRH wrote that. Now watch the World In Action interview of LRH on the Royal Scotsman in 1967. About minute 13 you will see LRH asked about how many times he has been married. He looks right in the camera and says 2. When asked about his second wife he flat out denies there was ever a second wife. This really bothered me for a while as I was unwilling to accept it and could find no reason for LRH to not tell the truth. In the recording RJ 68 I think you will even find he names a daughter from his second marriage. That recording is not available.

        Further, if you ever had access to view some of the telex’s written by R during the initial time of the Flag Land Base. You will see him refer to some staff as “wall flowers” in a derogatory manor. This despite their current stats and the fact they were chosen for those posts by following the very personnel policies he had written.

        I would have been very happy to find that all of the organizations had the concepts and intentions that were covered in the ESTO tapes. From the basic goodness of a staff member and how to make them become more productive by increasing the rightness. Unfortunately that is not what prevailed. I know there is much valid data amongst the millions of words. That does not mean it should be swallowed as whole truth.

        • Leonore – addendum. There is so much good and truth within what he wrote. If we are unwilling to be responsible for deciding and extracting that truth then what chance do we have of attaining the outcome of its application. It may shake some stable datums – but then would those not be some false, or not proven datum of truth, that we lazily adapted and built upon. It was our choice to build upon that base. Now we need but to clean up what we created and move on up. To aspire to greater heights and viewpoints is the beginning. We still need to make it happen and not just get in line and follow the herd thinking someone else knows where the hell we are headed.

          • SA,
            If you watch that “how many times were you married” interview again, you will notice that LRH was damned pretty much no matter how he answered. If he had answered “I was married three times” the journalist voice-over would have been “Hubbard is lying… he was actually only legally married twice … the middle ‘marriage’ was bigamous”.
            He was damned either way — especially in 1967.

            • Margaret – Having followed many of your posts I fully understand what you are saying and I agree. As this data is the past and we are in the present then we shall accept what was. Moving on upward is the only way out of this mudball. You may be busy but I want to say thanks for the many things you have written in the past.

          • Gentlemen,

            I am not naïve and not ignorant. I accept (and have long accepted) that LRH was imperfect. I acknowledge that he wrote and did things that I would not consider moral or ethical. But so have I, and no doubt so have you.

            However, the preponderance of PLs, dispatches, LRH EDs, GOs, advices for B1 and the various Bureaus that I read (and M-9’d many of) coupled with the brilliant Data Series led me to conclude that LRH really was in balance a man of goodness and a man of greatness. I forgive him his foibles and human weaknesses and errors – some of which were not so nice.

            To me, being too much of an iconoclast just encourages people like Margery Wakefield (who is cited by others on this blog) to come forward with absolute insane assertions. Fabrications you rightfully call them. Others right here on this blog go right along, seemingly wanting to believe the worst. There are things she says that I know FIRST HAND are false. If one tries to counter assertions like hers, one just gets wrapped up in the craziness.

            Marty, I will have a look at what you write. No need to get angry with me. I think you’ve done a huge service with your blog, and I appreciate that you’ve done a lot for others. I have to go with my reality and experience. I am not some blind sheep or I wouldn’t be reading and writing here. Saying what I’ve said over the years has probably put my name on a list somewhere, too. So please respect that in listening to you and responding here at all, I’ve stepped outside to do so. However, as my idealistic self, I really do subscribe to the Code of a Scientologist, and I really do believe in my (and your) inalienable rights.

            I guess it will be disappointing to learn that LRH did mean and dishonest things in those 7+
            years, but I would still have to balance it with the goodness I know.

            Sapere Aude, thanks deeply for your kindness.

            Leonore

            • Leonore – I too have read most of what you studied. I truly find man to be basically good and LRH gave us some incredible data to help us free outselves from fixed ideas, false ideas and blind spots. I also can see in hind-sight there are references from LRH that lead to a blind obedience which becomes senior to thinking with the data. It may simply be unfortunate that he said and wrote some things – but in the here and now we have those who only follow the dogma of Scientology. Thus the door is opened to radical attacks, insane public actions (think of the camera heads at Mary’s house, public humiliation with the facts from Debbie Cooke trial etc.

              I see that one of the biggest errors was mixing bad intel actions with open PR. They lied in their PR and became public in their covert actions. The worst of both worlds. I had the honor of knowing the kinder side of Jane and MSH. That doesn’t blind me to the actions done in following and instituting LRH directives which in the end have done great harm.

              I have never met Marty but have found he is able to see all of the good in the tech and I believe is attempting to enlighten the areas where it went off the rails. This will allow us to move forward with what is truly workable and true data. Being aware and knowledgeable in where the false ideas have entered into the arena allows us to not use these and either remove them or work around them.

              We – you, I and the others here – entered into that journey on the road of truth and the way to higher states of awareness, responsibility and actions. To travel that requires a willingness to discern truth and correct our errors in thinking where needed. Think of the data series and that review requires humility. I believe LRH wanted a better world. I believe that is what we still want. I also think that is part of why many are upset when stable datums are shaken. We still have a dream of something better.

              Always enjoy your participation here. Smile, and enjoy the rest of your day on the other side of the planet. The future will be better for all who struggle to bring peace to their inner questions, confusions and mystery. The way out is the way through. One never knows when a simple post will create a chain of thoughts, decisions and changes somewhere in the world.

  15. Bravo!

  16. Thank you for all you do. Your help to the many is well noted. Your help to me and my wife, through your blog and books, has rehabilitated our purposes. We have your back!

    Ed Paulson

  17. I am with you Marty. I have mentioned before that (as David Mayo) surmised, the harsh, angry, paranoid Hubbard was not the one that developed Dianetics or the one that gave the Philadelphia Doctoral Course, or ACC 1.

    I truly believe that Hubbard went down tone to below antagonism because he did not avail himself of his own tech. When Otto Roos (the first Senior Case Supervisor http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html) tried to program his case, he was declared. Hubbard became afraid to give up his own overts.

    Had he gone in session and have his case resolved, I believe you would have seen a totally different Scientology today.

  18. Marty,

    This blog topic and write up is so much a breath of fresh air (another one).

    I began looking at scn with a critical discerning eye and mind shortly after I got into it 16 yrs ago this month.

    I run everything through my BS and lie detector.

    I operate on “how to study a science” to the nth degree.

    It is the only honest, self respecting, self determined, way to do anything.

    Hubbard had to install the enemy data, and the “How to handle the critic data”, to deflect people from seeing his crimes.

    Some of his crimes are revealed in “Nibs” transcripts and the Penthouse interviews:

    http://www.lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/tape-by-L-Ron-Hubbard-jr.htm

    and

    http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/penthouse-LRonHubbardJr-interview-1983.htm

    and Helen O”Brian :

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/dil/Dianetics_in_Limbo.txt

    and here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard

    Another problem is that so many scientologists’ confront is so low that they refuse to face reality and take an honest, evaluative look at things, especially his bad side, his crimes.

    It turns my stomach when some scngists look at him as holy and worship him and turn a blind eye to his crimes and rogue and scoundrel character.

    As someone said>

    The difference between a holyman (a sheople) (one who does not have “his own mind” and an honest, self determined, mindful truth seeker is:

    The holy man says the holy is truth and the truth seeker says the truth is holy.

    Dio

    • Dio, nobody talks about a holy LRH. But Scn is not a 1st, 2nd or even 3rd Dyn activity. It’s a 4th Dyn activity and LRH made that possible. There are people around the globe who cannot avail of the tech. 3Ds are gone, the Orgs of the church are putting up prohibiting prices. LRH developed a 3D tech also to help individuals. But that is not possible now. We are on long distance and trying to communicate without our bodies via the Internet and blogs via words and concepts. There is no org board no orgs. Scientology was not meant to perform 100% without strong group dynamics IMHO. It cannot contain so much truth and be kept in a bucket. Now, we are dealing with LRH if he was holy or not instead of creating such groups around the globe. I don’t think this is the right direction.

  19. In today’s world of Internet, Panorama, social networking and the ever-present rumble of connectivity and globalisation, the only way Scientology as a workable tech survives is allowing the discourse it has tried in vain to stop. I find it staggering Independent Scientologists exist that fight that. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – Indies like that have more in common with DM than they’ll ever admit to themselves.

    Debate, discourse, try-it-and-see – let people decide what works for them. I feel a little sorry for those who think that the only way their religion can survive is the force-feeding of the entirety of LRHs thoughts, with any deviation an aberration. It’s just not going to happen.

    • And yet it’s worse than that.

      They only force feed the thoughts that they want to at that time. From DM to the latest “standard” indie. They all suffer from the same polarised observation skills.

      If only it were the entirety of Hubbard’s thoughts they passed on… then one might clock the discrepancies and be forced to use their own noggin instead of strapping themselves in to the mystery tour bus.

  20. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Dear Marty,

    Straightforward and honest post. Very inspiring.
    You went into phase 2, 2-3 years after you started with your blog and dozens of others continue your initial work so that you can do what you are doing now, and I predict that soon you’ll be in phase 2 on that what you’re doing now, and dozens of people will take over. I’m very curious about what your next step will be on “moving up a little higher” ! :)

  21. I hope you take the Gandhian path…In the end you will win and so will many more of us.
    They hate you Marty because you know all their crimes…not a great position to be in BUT….this too shall pass if you take the road in which creates the most love and compassion.

  22. Marty, I believe your particular quest is Gandhian in nature. You have already born fruit in your endeavors, which by definition, means you are not tilting at windmills.

    Just today I was looking at my bookshelves of LRH books, and I thought to myself – “This is good! What the cuss happened?” I feel sometimes like it would be good to just pick up where we left off.

    There was a line in Wright’s book about how the Church of Scientology is an uncanny reflection of the man, L. Ron Hubbard. For the life of me, I cannot find the exact line, but it was a pivotal observation. The church was Ron, and Ron was the church. This is so true to me that it is clear that the SO and the church are not really a “Third Dynamic” but are really an extension of Ron’s first dynamic. The whole organization of Scientology was really Ron trying to figure stuff out, and a vehicle for letting him do so. He was the Commodore, and messengers were treated as if they were Ron, and in reality, all activities were activities designed to support Ron. The irony is that this massive first dynamic (“Yang on steroids” – love that description) gave birth to the philosophy of Scientology – but every single staff member (and many, many public) were in essence part of LRH – were in his valence, or were otherwise a cell in the organism called “L. Ron Hubbard.”

    When I was younger, all my writing sounded like Ron – used his voice. I was to that degree in Ron’s valence. How many times did you hear “what would Ron do?” How many times did you hear “do it for Ron” or “don’t let Ron down.” We gave up ourselves and became Ron. Not “Ron’s army” but Ron himself.

    The current church is now the extension of David Miscavige – who is absolutely a sociopath, and so all who are part of his first dynamic are also sociopaths. The church reflects this.

    The church is not now, nor has it ever been, a “third dynamic.”

    As a result, any attacks on the church were attacks directly on Ron.. So, no wonder he thought people who did that were evil. They were stopping HIM. Personally.

    Squirrels were shed cells of Ron Hubbard – they were no longer him, so they were therefore squirreling.

    It is as if the incredible richness of the tech was a grand goal and discovery of Ron, but no one in Scientology could profit from it because by doing do they necessarily had to shed Ron’s valence, and “leave the fold.”

    To me, this describes the reasoning behind the crazy “justice” and over-controlling side of Ron.

    Therefore, what is happening now is the necessary result of what Ron did. In order to really apply the best of the tech Ron discovered, we have to be free, and be ourselves, and we cannot do that while also “being Ron,” and definitely not by “being Dave.”

    • This also explains a lot about the “Simon Bolivar” PL, and the “Thetan-Mind-Body” theory of management – Ron was the thetan. We were not. Ron was the “Goal Setter.” We were not. “Essay on Management” and many of the other PLs on Admin Tech was really primers on how to extend Ron’s first dynamic out to the ends of the Earth, not ways to build truly true groups.

      • I think you’re right Grasshopper. In addition to other goals,he did want to “smash his name into history”.

        I roughly sorted out that he 1. Codified the Tech, then 2. Set about setting up a world-wide network of orthodox temporal organizations for the preservation and delivery of this Tech on a mass assembly line basis, 3. Wanted it branded with his name as the source of it all, and 4. Tried to get all this done within his lifetime.

        He coped with the obstacles he faced as best he could I guess. He seems to have felt there was no waffling, no turning back for him, on the decisions he made. Like any mass movement, it took on a life of it’s own. Did he ‘smash his name into history’? Only time will tell.

        I still think CoS recapitulated the histories of other established religions like Christianity and Islam, each one at best splitting into public ‘religions of belief’ and in the background having those who preserved and transmitted the ‘gnostic’ teachings the public religions were based upon.

        There is a good short book, of only 5 chapters by Elaine Pagels titled “Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas” which looks at what happened in the first 400 years of Christianity and how and why “orthodox” (and “catholic”) churches took the form they did, how the official “scriptures” were chosen and edited, and why the ‘gnostic’ elements were supressed.

        I think the parallels to how it has gone for ‘established’ Scientology over the past 60 years are amazing.

      • Grasshopper, you show an understanding I can relate to. There was a 3 year period where I got away from the organizations in a small commuity in Northern California and I allowed myself to entertain other viewpoints than those sponsored by LRH and the church. One of my cognitions was that I couldn’t be myself and be part of the group. Even so I still activated my “Ron valence” for some time. So stuck in that world was I that at times I considered the experience in my former practice (scn) superior to whatever religion or practice of those I ran into…. eg, “those whimpy Buddhists and meditators”…. they never went through the wall of fire ;)

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for the really interesting views.

    • A very interesting take.

      I came to the conclusi

    • Nicely thought through Grasshopper. There is truth in what you said IMO.

    • martyrathbun09

      GH, if you got this – “The church was Ron, and Ron was the church” – from Wright’s book and others too might get it, I may need to write a recommendation for the book. To me, that is like arriving at square zero – a very important point of departure, provided one wants to continue moving up.

      • Yes, I did. I will dig up the page number. It was a revelation to me – one of the best reasons to read multiple sources – and actually led to a string of cognitions about the 3rd dynamic in general.

        Wright’s book is such a great book. He really took incredible pains to be as fair as he could be. It was really masterful of him to contrast Ron’s grandiosity with his sincerity. It would have been very easy for him to descend to the usual yellow journalism treatment of Scientology, but the way he approached it opened the door to understanding.

        BTW, I also just finished The Sociopath Next Door – incredibly enlightening!

        Mark

    • Nice post GH. I remember when I joined staff in the mid-80s for a couple years. I went in thinking and expecting the group members to be thinking for themselves and practicing the core philosophy. I was shocked that there was such blind devotion to policy and taking every word of LRH’s so literally and without evaluation and thinking. It was at such complete odds as to what I thought Scientology was about.

  23. Those critical of Scientology are criminals, they might not have committed their crimes this lifetime.

    • And so the crime of destroying innocent people by manufacturing evidence of fake crimes can be justified.

      Welcome to Ealadha’s brave new KSW world.

    • EnthralledObserver

      But instead, for a change, let’s talk about YOUR crimes…

      Stop pointing fingers until you can look to yourself and proclaim perfection.

      And here’s a thought… what are the definitions of CRIMES? Who gets to decide what is a crime and what is not? How about, because Ron is dead, “I” do it from now on!

  24. I need a bow-smiley!

  25. Here’s one for you Marty, as well as for me and for all of us including LRH.

    It was written by an Italian, and sung by Gordon Lightfoot.

    Songwriters: GUERRETTI, GIOVANNI
    Through the woodland, through the valley
    Comes a horseman wild and free
    Tilting at the windmills passing
    Who can the brave young horseman be
    He is wild but he is mellow
    He is strong but he is weak
    He is cruel but he is gentle
    He is wise but he is meek
    Reaching for his saddlebag
    He takes a battered book into his hand
    Standing like a prophet bold
    He shouts across the ocean to the shore
    Till he can shout no more

    I have come o’er moor and mountain
    Like the hawk upon the wing
    I was once a shining knight
    Who was the guardian of a king
    I have searched the whole world over
    Looking for a place to sleep
    I have seen the strong survive
    And I have seen the lean grown weak

    See the children of the earth
    Who wake to find the table bare
    See the gentry in the country
    Riding off to take the air

    Reaching for his saddlebag
    He takes a rusty sword into his hand
    Then striking up a knightly pose
    He shouts across the ocean to the shore
    Till he can shout no more

    See the jailor with his key
    Who locks away all trace of sin
    See the judge upon the bench
    Who tries the case as best he can
    See the wise and wicked ones
    Who feed upon life’s sacred fire
    See the soldier with his gun
    Who must be dead to be admired

    See the man who tips the needle
    See the man who buys and sells
    See the man who puts the collar
    On the ones who dare not tell
    See the drunkard in the tavern
    Stemming gold to make ends meet
    See the youth in ghetto black
    Condemned to life upon the street

    Reaching for his saddlebag
    He takes a tarnished cross into his hand
    Then standing like a preacher now
    He shouts across the ocean to the shore
    Then in a blaze of tangled hooves
    He gallops off across the dusty plain
    In vain to search again
    Where no one will hear

    Through the woodland, through the valley
    Comes a horseman wild and free

    Tilting at the windmills passing
    Who can the brave young horseman be
    He is wild but he is mellow
    He is strong but he is weak
    He is cruel but he is gentle
    He is wise but he is meek

  26. The crimes they have committed have been done in this life or a past life.
    If you can’t find the crime they have committed , then look earlier on the track.
    I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of scientology is a criminal.

    • ealadha, then the key question to me is, What do you mean by “scientology”?

      Certainly anyone who actually looks at the current policies and conduct of many people connected with the CoS can’t help but conclude that it is a dangerous and criminally inclined corrupt organization from the top down.

      • I mean the original scientology that was developed by L.Ron Hubbard.

        • CommunicatorIC

          ealadha – Two questions, if I may.

          First, would someone following “the original scientology that was developed by L. Ron Hubbard” be justified in creating, planting and then “discovering” evidence of crime by a critic of Scientology on the ground that the critic is, as a matter of fact, a criminal, even if his real crimes occurred during a past life “earlier on the track?”

          Secondly, could you consider that possibility that, in Scientology terms, you have a ser fac, and/or have created a non-falsifiable hypothesis?

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

          That is, that you have a fixed idea, an irrefutable assumption, that you use to make yourself as a Scientologist right and critics wrong, and that is not subject to disproof or refutation even in principle? You assume, and pretend to “know,” that the critic MUST have crimes in at least one past life. If he says he doesn’t or, heaven forbid says he doesn’t have any past lives or whole track, you just “know” he is wrong and, at best, ignorant. There is no evidence he or anyone else can provide to disprove your theory. Since you “know” you are right, you have no need to consider evidence from anyone else. The critic is guilty of crime, and a criminal, not because there is any evidence that he committed any crime, but because you “know” he “must” be guilty — otherwise, how could he criticize “original” Scientology?

        • Thanks for the clarification.

        • Chris from Germany

          ealadha,
          I totally agree with you!!! Finally somebody says it!
          The quote of Ron it truth, it IS a technical fact, that anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal. Of course this is not the same as to never mention that something is wrong. Why then the policy to write KRs? Is a writer of a KR being critical or trying to KSW? Why is KSW 1 mentioning that the supervisor should have been at the auditor-student´s neck who said that “it didn´t work”? Of course many of us independents were called critical – but I am very convinced, for my part, that I have not been critical of Scientology, but rather fighting against the misapplication of Scientology – trying to drive it home to the E/Os that I was not in agreement any longer (= being “critical”), because I was and am trying to keep Scientology working!
          In short: The quote, per my estimation, is totally correct!! It is a technical fact to me. Still it is not meant to be misunderstood and misused to call those, who fight Out-Tech in the Church are being critical!!! We have to differenciate.

        • But here’s the conundrum: Ron seemingly didn’t want differentiation between the early “tech” of Scientology and the body of policy and later works – he said so many times and in many different ways. You either blanket accept “Scientology” or you don’t, according to many LRH references. There is simply no room for critical thinking, or the luxury of evaluation – despite his early assertions to the contrary. The distinction between an anti social personality and an anti-Scientologist was blurred to non existence right in the heading of the HCOB of the same name – they were one and the same thing. So a parent whose daughter had disconnected from them became “anti social” and “suppressive” (read evil) because they were “against Scientology”.

          In a one-dimensional world it may be true to say that some one who is against valid mental and spiritual therapies is anti social and has committed crimes – but even then I would hesitate before rushing to judgement personally. Who knows why some is “against” another person or subject without actually talking to them? In the last few years I have met over a dozen individuals whose lives have been ruined one way or another by Scientology – I’m not going to name names, take my word for it. And many others who died prematurely as a result one way or another due to their involvement with it.

          I think Marty is right on the money in the OP – and unless one can untangle the workable and good then “the broader body of Scientology work that is chock-full of lies” will be what the world at large sees to the exclusion of the really good stuff.

          • Martin,

            Yes.

            Any idea is only as good as it works.

            And if the good of scn is to be saved and used for the benefit of mankind, as per it’s intentions, it has to be gleaned from all of Hubbard’s words and reworded as much as possible, and call it something else and get to work.

            I don’t think the idea of trying to clean up scn and give it a good name is possible. It is waste of time.

            There is a lot of work to be done and the best we can often do on this earth is choose the lessor of two evils.

            If we continuously operate on that data of choosing the lessor of two evils ( or keep that in mind when faced with making difficult choices ) we will do better than most.

            Dio

        • The so-called “technical fact” that any and all critics of Scientology are “criminals” is an absolute. Per Logic 6, unobtainable and therefore incorrect.

          Hubbard originally said that only strained criticism was a sign of O/Ws. In HCOB 21 Jan 1960 JUSTIFICATION he states:

          “This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited…but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt…”

          This is a clear differentiation between valid criticism and baseless “carping”.

          In DMSMH Hubbard says Clear is an absolute state and one who reaches it will have perfect recall. I say this is bullshit, and that Hubbard LIED. Does that make me a “criminal” in your eyes? I genuinely want to know.

    • Ealadha, could you please explain your reasoning to “I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of Scientology is a criminal”.

      I would love to know your thoughts on this. Thank you:-)

      • If they had not have committed criminal acts they would not be critical of Scientology, instead if there was anything wrong with scientology they would sort it out, they would not have to be critical to sort it all out.

        • Ealadha,
          What criminal act exactly..I mean, are you talking about murder, stealing, jaywalking? Since you believe the “whole track” subject..Perhaps some crime on another planet..flying your space jet too fast. Not to be flippant but, what the heck are criminal acts. I guess it might just be too big for you to wrap your head around to say that Scientology can be harmful and the policies quite damaging to pliable minds..Don’t you think it a bit too convenient for Ron to say only criminals can be critical of COS..HMMMM? Sound like to me he saying..”Please no CRITICAL THOUGHT allowed!!”

        • ealadha, Chris from Germany,

          Have you ever heard of a motivator? Have you ever heard of justification? In non-Scientology terms, have you ever heard of karma? That what you put out is what you get? That which you sow, so shall you reap?

          How would you like it if a Christian concluded you were a criminal solely because you criticized Christianity (as LRH does)?

          How would you like it if a Muslim concluded you were a criminal solely because you criticized Islam (as LRH does)?

          Has it ever occurred to you that to be the beneficiary of toleration, you must also extend tolerance — including tolerance of criticism?

          Considering workability, did it ever over occur to you that saying, “anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal” can serve only to CAUSE criticism of Scientology?

          Again considering workability, did it ever occur to you (to put it in the nicest possible way with all of the ARC that is appropriate) that saying “anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal” makes you, and unfortunately by lack of differentiation other Independent Scientologists, look like fundamentalist, close-minded, fixed-idea, intolerant, extreme, zealot cultists?

          Yet again considering workability, did it over occur to you that saying, “anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal” will cause NON-Scientologists* who are looking to see if there is any real difference between Independent Scientology and the corporate Church of Scientology to conclude, “Nope, there is no real difference at all — they are all close-minded zealots and intolerantly dangerous?”

          I personally can differentiate between you and other Independent Scientologists. Unfortunately, I know many who cannot or will not.

          If I hadn’t seen you post here previously, I might speculate that you were OSA agent provocateurs posting here to make Independent Scientology look bad. You might want to think about that.
          ————-
          * If (as I suspect you might given the fundamentalist tone of your comments) you use the word “wog” to refer to or label non-Scientologists, I’m done with you and don’t want to hear another word from you.

        • Helmuth, speaking for Boskone

          For people outside Scientology, what avenues would you suggest to “sort it out” other than legitimate criticism backed with facts?

    • I agree with LRH that absolutes are unobtainable. Ooopsie!

    • Gerhard Waterkamp

      Oh boy. Fanatics I guess will never grasp the differentiation between an absolute and a situation. In absolute terms we are all out ethics criminals or we would not be here in the first place. That applies to people critical Scientology or supportive of Scientology AND LRH HIMSELF. So it is quite a redundant statement and on top a very useless statement when viewed in this absolute sense.

      In a situational view it is much more beneficial to consult the facts. I.e is the criticism born out of facts, ignorance or ill will. There is no replacement for true understanding. There are the ones cannot confront a situation and need “believes” and set rules. They replace confront and understanding with fixed ideas and stubbornness. They need the automaticity of judgement as they have no common sense left of their own.

      LRH knew all that. One of the big puzzles is, why this once towering genius elected to make absolute statements of this type in later times and initiated with it the decline of his own organization.

      Take a look at the tech dictionary at the definition of the “ideal pc” and compare that attitude with the one you agree with.

    • ealadha

      You state… “I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of scientology is a criminal.”

      I can see that you believe that.

      But there are perhaps a few other things to consider.

      First off, I think that you will find that EVERYONE has crimes in their past, if you include the entirety of their time track. So, if you consider that to be true, then EVERYBODY “is a criminal” in those terms. That pretty much confirms that Ron’s statement is true. All SCIENTOLOGISTS “are criminal”. All mothers, babies, priests, and saints, “are criminals”. But that makes the statement totally redundant doesn’t it? Ron surely would have known that, since he developed the tech that demonstrates it.

      Also, to attack someone who “criticizes Scientology”, without first checking to see if they are at all aware of what Scientology even really is, is just plain vicious. Who knows how ill informed or misinformed they are as to the core philosophy. Are you suggesting that that really doesn’t matter? That they should all be “squashed like a bug”?

      But you haven’t even specified whether you are including ALL of Scientology, the good along with the bad, in your statement. Or are you also suggesting that you do not acknowledge that there might be some things wrong with Scientology?

      So that begs the question for me… Why do you suppose Ron said such a thing? Do you think that he was earnestly trying to alleviate the suffering of mankind with that statement, or is it possible that it was a tactic to key his opponents in and make them back off so he could go about his business unhindered?

      In “The Hymn of Asia” Ron wrote (as Mettreya) “Choose from amongst you those who would attack me… for all is life to Buddha.. All is life”.

      Unfortunately, at some point he seems to have chosen to abandon this high toned response, and to go down-tone into antagonism and anger. It may have seemed necessary at the time, but it is a disastrous long term policy if one is seeking to survive optimally.

      Eric

  27. Marty,

    I have a sincere question for you, I have thought about much of this many times, and was only about to function in the Scientology world for as long as I did, overcoming cognitive dissonance by hand picking things that I took as literal, and others as figurative. Strictly speaking, by purists, this would be a violation of KSW and many other points, and especially a violation of the KSW culture or the purist. This by definition would have made me a non scientologist by cultural definition.

    “Lies” is a very emotionally charged word, I even found myself cringing when I first read it, but realize that I had desensitized myself with “shore stories” … “oh he is just telling a story to make or teach a point”. But if a teacher did this as a valid teaching method, how can he then put together a system that creates the KSW culture? There must be a flaw here.

    My question is this: What lies do you consider fall to the root of the current circumstances? LRH became hyper sensitive to criticism somewhere along the way, this trait has permeated the subject and culture. Many members have learned to lie to themselves and others to rationalize. I did it myself, the ability to lie and make up stories on the fly to justify the issues at hand rather than fix them was the biggest thing I had to work though.

    How much of it is from lies versus self centered systems put in place to protect from the above?

    • martyrathbun09

      You can begin with the ‘technical fact’ I noted in the post.That was repeated in a number of policies – many of which you are aware of having recieved LRH intell training yourself. That is so not-minor, well, read the post – the result of that repeated over and over ad nauseum has created a rather violent line of thought among Scientologists. That line of thought in many ways is more destructive (including self-destructive) than the horrors of the reactive mind. You’ll see more in my next book, and the book after that, and in posts (past, and future) here.

      • “the book after that”??? Blimey, I better put some more shelves up.

      • Marty,

        I let this stew in the back of my mind for a few days before responding, and read many of the other comments.

        When I remember the confidential LRH advice’s on intelligence and espionage, the things he personally directed be done against people like Mayo, all under a clouded identity of # # #, many of which directly contradict some of his most important ideas, what is greatness, flourish and prosper, etc. The hidden data line, probably less than 1/100th of a percent of people involved in Scientology got to read all of them … the lies become exceptionally difficult to separate from the truth. Absolute policies like KSW make the truth important, because those that have all the data in the COS are prevented by “secrecy” of sharing it. Though LRH wrote of the dangers of a hidden data line, the organization, its information compartmentalization, the manic emphasis on secrecy cement it as a part of its intricate structure.

        Spycraft and operations tend to corrupt the heart and soul and morality of those involved. Being trained or learning to lie without regret and with impunity, even being rewarded for such creates such a black state of mind.

        Then the “only one” mentality and culture, first LRH, then DM, and to a lesser degree others …

        For me I think the biggest “general lie” is the concept that Scientology has the only knowledge worth knowing to teach you, nothing else is worth knowing, nothing that they don’t filter is worth you looking at. As with it being flawless. If there is a future for it, the entire body of works must become public and be open to scrutiny and interpretation. Applying KSW to confidential information, highly sophisticated and workable information on how to make people go crazy or insane or type-3, how to destroy people perceived as enemies financially, emotionally, reputationally, cause divorces, legal harassment, etc. has no place in a spiritual philosophy.

        You and Mosey know my friendship and support is unwavering through the attacks that have been launched against you. In honesty, you guys have set a new example as the anvil upon which the combined arsenal of DMs sick little minds worst intentions.

  28. Dramatization is not unkown among psychologists

    The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma
    Re-enactment, Revictimization, and Masochism
    Bessel A. van der Kolk, MD*

  29. I was on to something in 2009. i am pretty consistent in never letting it go and getting to the bottom of it.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10943-006-9079-9

    • CD, it says I must pay US$39.95 to access it. Sorry, but no thanks,although I would like to read it.

      • I get it for free, so It’s either your fucked up Kapitalist system or Scientology Church.. Here you go:

        The Compulsion to Repeat the Trauma
        Re-enactment, Revictimization, and Masochism
        Bessel A. van der Kolk, MD*

        During the formative years of contemporary psychiatry much attention was paid to the continuing role of past traumatic experiences on the current lives of people. Charcot, Janet, and Freud all noted that fragmented memories of traumatic events dominated the mental life of many of their patient and built their theories about the nature and treatment of psychopathology on this recognition. Janet75 thought that traumatic memories of traumatic events persist as unassimilated fixed ideas that act as foci for the development of alternate states of consciousness, including dissociative phenomena, such as fugue states, amnesias, and chronic states of helplessness and depression. Unbidden memories of the trauma may return as physical sensations, horrific images or nightmares, behavioral reenactments, or a combination of these. Janet showed how traumatized individuals become fixated on the trauma: difficulties in assimilating subsequent experiences as well. It is “as if their personality development has stopped at a certain point and cannot expand anymore by the addition or assimilation of new elements.”76 Freud independently came to similar conclusions.43,45 Initially, he thought all hysterical symptoms were caused by childhood sexual “seduction” of which unconscious memories were activated, when during adolescence, a person was exposed to situations reminiscent of the original trauma. The trauma permanently disturbed the capacity to deal with other challenges, and the victim who did not integrate the trauma was doomed to “repeat the repressed material as a contemporary experience in instead or . . . remembering it as something belonging to the past.”44 In this article, I will show how the trauma is repeated on behavioral, emotional, physiologic, and neuroendocrinologic levels, whose confluence explains the diversity of repetition phenomena.

        Many traumatized people expose themselves, seemingly compulsively, to situations reminiscent of the original trauma. These behavioral reenactments are rarely consciously understood to be related to earlier life experiences. This “repetition compulsion” has received surprisingly little systematic exploration during the 70 years since its discovery, though it is regularly described in the clinical literature.12,17,21,29,61,64,65,69,88,112,137 Freud thought that the aim of repetition was to gain mastery, but clinical experience has shown that this rarely happens; instead, repetition causes further suffering for the victims or for people in their surroundings.

        Children seem more vulnerable than adults to compulsive behavioral repetition and loss of conscious memory of the trauma.70,136. However, responses to projective tests show that adults, too, are liable to experience a large range of stimuli vaguely reminiscent of the trauma as a return of the trauma itself, and to react accordingly.39,42

        BEHAVIORAL RE-ENACTMENT

        In behavioral re-enactment of the trauma, the self may play the role of either victim or victimizer.

        Harm to Others

        Re-enactment of victimization is a major cause of violence. Criminals have often been physically or sexually abused as children.55,121 In a recent prospective study of 34 sexually abused boys, Burgess et al.20 found a link with drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, and criminal behavior only a few year later. Lewis89,91 has extensively studied the association between childhood abuse and subsequent victimization of others. Recently, she showed that of 14 juveniles condemned to death for murder in the United States in 1987, 12 had been brutally physically abused, and five had been sodomized by relatives.90 In a study of self-mutilating male criminals, Brach-y-Rita7 concluded that “the constellation of withdrawal, depressive reaction, hyperreactivity, stimulus-seeking behavior, impaired pain perception, and violent aggressive behavior directed at self or others may be the consequence of having been reared under conditions of maternal social deprivation. This constellation of symptoms is a common phenomenon among a member of environmentally deprived animals.”

        Self-destructiveness

        Self-destructive acts are common in abused children. Green53,54 found that 41 per cent of his sample of abused children engaged in headbanging, biting, burning, and cutting. In a controlled, double-blind study on traumatic antecedents of borderline personality disorder, we found a highly significant relationship between childhood sexual abuse and various kinds of self-harm later in life, particularly cutting and self-starving.143a Clinical reports also consistently show that self-mutilators have childhood histories of physical or sexual abuse, or repeated surgery.52,106,118,126 Simpson and Porter126 found a significant association between self-mutilation and other forms of self-deprecation or self-destruction such as alcohol and drug abuse and eating disorders. They sum up the conclusions of many students of this problem in stating that “self-destructive activities were not primarily related to conflict, guilt and superego pressure, but to more primitive behavior patterns originating in painful encounters wih hostile caretakers during the first years of life.”

        Revictimization

        Revictimization is a consistent finding.35,47,61 Victims of rape are more likely to be raped and women who were physically or sexually abused as children are more likely to be abused as adults. Victims of child sexual abuse are at high risk of becoming prostitutes.38,72,125 Russell,120 in a very careful study of the effects of incest on the life of women, found that few women made a conscious connection between their childhood victimization and their drug abuse, prostitution, and suicide attempts. Whereas 38 per cent of a random sample of women reported incidents of rape or attempted rape after age 14, 68 per cent of those with a childhood history of incest did. Twice as many women with a history of physical violence in their marriages (27 per cent), and more than twice as many (53 per cent) reported unwanted sexual advances by an unrelated authority figure such as a teacher, clergyman, or therapist. Victims of father-daughter incest were four times more likely than nonincest victims to be asked to pose for pornography.

  30. SCIENTOLOGY IS UNDER CONTINUOUS SIEGE BY THE WORLD BECAUSE SCIENTOLOGY INC ITSELF IS CONTINUOUSLY ATTACKING THE WORLD.

    OSA do not need to be baffled at the vast escalation of Internet revelations and whistle blowing. They only need to examine their own DNA and look in the mirror.

    350 hate sites on Marty Rathbun ! Tabloid malicious hatred over the moon.
    What 501c3 *charity” carries on like this ?

    Normal people do not end up as OSA Thugs or Stalkers or calling government agencies ANONYMOUSLY to fabricate malicious crimes. OSA engineers it. They obey their OSA Network orders ~~ (former Guardian orders). As a result “Office of Special Affairs” is carefully trained to *ATTACK*.

    Even within the Church, most public attack each other, even with sheer gossip and lies under the guise of “KNOWLEDGE REPORT.” You say almost anything you want or make up as long as you call it a “Knowledge Report” and send to RTC. Just for the fun of it, a public ccs 15 others to spread it as a campaign !

    I recall an incident where a Sea org member “KRd” me for fighting and hitting Heber and ccd 20 others……LOL
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Only problem was that Heber was on the East Coast at the time, and the *NOISE* she assumed was a *FIGHT* was some other disturbance.

    ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK the dynamic thrust of existence !

    Knowledge report indeed ! :lol:

    • KAREN #1 – A spot on post. I love the unique way you deliver your message.

    • Karen #1

      ROFL
      “ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK the dynamic thrust of existence!”

      When I told the D of P that I was studying Theravada Buddhism,
      she attacked,attacked, attacked. She had me read a policy letter
      which claimed that all Buddhists were in a serious decline with
      a massive “GPM”, falling into an eternal ‘black hole’.
      ROFL.

      GMW

    • Karen#1, the first impression is that OSA behaves
      absolutely, totally, completely, unadulteratedly evil,
      but then you look again and their actions are just
      STUPID. Of course in the end that is what you
      become when you follow that pattern of behavior.

    • Karen#1 said:
      SCIENTOLOGY IS UNDER CONTINUOUS SIEGE BY THE WORLD BECAUSE SCIENTOLOGY INC ITSELF IS CONTINUOUSLY ATTACKING THE WORLD.

      Lol. Perfect statement.

  31. Marty – excellent and thought provoking post.

    “Real Scientologists” no matter their organizational affiliation, or none, label or none (other than proudly considering themselves “true believers”) consider they have a DUTY to “stamp out squirrels” and “destroy enemies.” Of course, all squirrels are enemies but not all enemies are squirrels. It is ingrained into the culture of Scientology and it is perhaps the most corrosive element of all.

    Part of the culture is the fact that people act according to the “accepted” behavior of the group. And while the more fundamental principles of Scientology and the technology of how to help someone gain spiritual freedom are full of understanding and compassion, there is much else in the broader subject of Scientology organization and operation that is not so oriented.

    There is an LRH quote that can justify virtually any position or action and another that can be used to justify the exact opposite. Thus, the ultimate paradox – in order to be a “good, On-Source, dedicated Scientologist” that does what LRH says (ie “Keeps Scientology Working” – read “don’t think or question, just do”) you have to decide which one of the different LRH positions you are going to apply (ie think). It becomes a dilemma – and which direction to choose is determined by the purpose of the individual and the “(group) think” of the 3D. And that is another paradox — LRH was repeatedly and harshly critical of “group think” and yet it is EXACTLY how the organizations are set up to operate. Certain policies are given higher importance or favored over others depending on the prevailing winds and today “what is OK” (20 years ago, it would have been absurd for ALL staff to be regging for booksales as you are not supposed to knock hats off, today it is the norm because books make booms and is the single most important activity for Scientology – same policies have been around the whole time).

    Some (including LRH) claim that this is simply a reflection of “inability to duplicate and apply.” But, after 50 years one would have to conclude the SYSTEM doesn’t work. If after 50 years NOBODY has been able to consistently expand orgs, then it is not the people, it is the “technology.” There IS evidence that the technology of freeing people works – there are results over 50 years, routine and visible. The “results” of everything else are NOT proven. There have been sporadic orgs that have expanded, but always a tiny percentage of the whole. There is NO sustained growth of any org over any extended period of time and the vast majority of the orgs are smaller than they were 30 years ago. And there are a lot of dead bodies and discarded people along the way.

    Yet this is a “technology” that professes to have ALL the answers and the solutions to everything. It is empirically flawed. It has NOT worked. And even if it was because people didn’t apply it – then the flaw is that after 50 years people COULD NOT apply it. This is not to say there are not brilliant insights and operating principles contained within this body of work – the Data Series is a masterpiece. But it claims to have ALL the answers when clearly it does not, and as long as you buy into that concept, you not only shut off observation, you are stuck in a hall of mirrors and as the efforts to find a way out grow more frantic, the solutions become more draconian and less compassionate. That applied to LRH and that pattern has continued to this day – there is plenty to justify the fundamentalist zealots who don camera hats and stamp out squirrel t-shirts and sit outside your house for months, as well as the “Facebook Police” and the “KSW Brigade”.

    I admire your courage and intellectual honesty. You have never been afraid to speak for fear of being unpopular or scorned by the zealots, and that is exactly what lemmings are afraid of and why they end up jumping to their death, following everyone else they know….

    • Brilliant points, Mike. Very insightful.

    • I think the application of Data-Series is the key. “Critics” itself seems to be a generalization and therefore an A=A=A, an assumption that non-identical things are identical.
      Technically, a person with a M/WH can become critical. The handling of this condition, when present, does work in practical application. Therefore I would consider that to be true, or at least working.
      But how about a person who is antagonistic? Or a person who is upset? Or protests (against some mistreatment)? Or has given up? Summarizing them all under “Critics” I consider to be an error opening the door to deal with persons in such condition in a wrong way and making a bad situation worse.
      How it could have come about that LRH maintained such statements or attitudes after his OT 2 or L11 or other actions designed to handle such looks to me like an outpoint. One would need to look into that if one could get data about these matters. Currently, that seems to be a blind alley. We cannot look into his PC folders and see how many runs he made through OT 2 or see if there were off-indicators after his L’s etc. I think it must have been a tricky job to audit LRH, since one dealt with an impressive personality, with a volume of ARC potential which could turn out a volume of emotion AND had the authority to order many things about the auditor or C/S when out of session.
      It looks to me like although LRH had developed cures for ills he himself had suffered under like the attitude “to harras”), the questions remain, if and how these cures had been applied to help him.
      Concerning the obvious absence of growth of orgs over such a long stretch of time I would suggest to apply the Data-Series itself. There have been many people involved, there can be many situations and the reason why one org failed at some point may not be the same as when it failed at some later point and these may also differ for other orgs or areas. I would say, the more general the look, the greater is the potential for a diffuse perception of a situation. Surely, there are questions that want to be solved.

      • martyrathbun09

        I have only ever seen this listing and nulling about L. Ron Hubbard’s intentions to lead to more listing and nulling. Who cares? He wrote what he wrote and ordered repeatedly that ‘if it is not in writing it isn’t true’ (from Ron). That is what we are left with. Yes, differentiate. But, differentiate what makes sense and works from that which detracts from that which makes sense and works.

        • Marty, I am not sure that we talk about the same thing.
          What I wanted to say was:
          1. To classify a person as “critic” puts several different classes into one. (It tends to create enemies. Differentiation of these classes permits different approaches and can eventually to turn a “critic” into a friend. Like if you find the correct point an “antagonist” may change; if one only saw a “critic” and tried to get crimes – or M/WHs he may get even more furious. His complaint may be founded, but you may only discover so, when you go into the specifics and let go of the generalized view.)
          2. Statements to the effect that “one be eight dynamics” or that “one, by blaming or fighting another element of one’s dynamics, one created an area of no-ARC, no responsibility and co control and therefore diminished one’s size and participation in life” look contrary to an order “to ‘harras’ a critic”. Because there are conflicting data I look at them in order to arrive at some decision if I should adopt one of them or none or both (in case they turned out non-conflicting.
          The method of evaluation I choose was the approach of Will Durant in “The Story of Civilization”, to take all the aspects of that time and situation together and so further the quality of understanding.
          You are right, LRH wrote what he wrote. For that reason I see no reason to go into some listing and nulling about his intentions: he wrote them.
          The question I have arrived at is much different: As to this very aspect of handling “critics” apparantly his own cure has not been applied to him. It is not a question about LRHs intentions, it is a question about his environment and how the people present around him then dealt with it.
          This is part of a broader question: How does one go about or deal with things in the vicinity of a strong personality? Would one be able to see points one wouldn’t understand or needed correction? And if so, would one feel able to decide to take all possible friction? Or would one rather try to evade the friction because it would be so violent?
          This behaviour can be understood, however left a truly strong personality without correction when he failed. (The Qualifications Div missing, or the second missionaire, as you like)
          I read reports of very old timers saying that they tried to hide when LRH got angry. Some of them critize him today for that. At that time they may have felt it was impossible to do something about that, but they were there so they could have done something.
          That is the other side of the “critic” and this question concerns us strongly as we may be either strong personalities ourselves or be in the vicinity of stronger personalities and have to deal with that.
          Thank you for your comment that made me think about that.

          • martyrathbun09

            Thanks. I was referring to the activity – clearly engaged in by you in your comment – of analyzing L. Ron Hubbard’s case in order to divine his intentions. I think that is unhealthy.

    • Maybe it’s time to distinguish “policy” LRH wrote to “protect” his corporation and policy which was created to expand orgs and Scientology.

      In the independent field no one cares about the corporation.
      Why should anyone – after all LRH isn’t around anymore and the corporation he left behind further developed to something LRH never would approve of.

      BTW I understand LRHs mentality of going after splinters in the way the quote described above. I don’t say it was a good idea, but I can understand he that he did it.

      Today we have no choice. We need to leave the church if we want Scientology applied to OUR lifes. That’s why we leave. And I am sure even LRH would understand if he stepped back and looked over it for one second.

      In the case of D. Mayo I am not sure LRH wasn’t fed with false reports. I don’t believe any of the reports Mayo tried to get passed over to LRH ever arrived.

      • martyrathbun09

        “In the independent field no one cares about the corporation.” That’s bullshit. I have attempted to get them off that fixation. Even though if anyone has reason to be concerned with it, it is me (since I have to deal with them) your hard core indies are fixated on Miscavige’s group to the point of non-stop yack and no delivery.
        “In the case of D. Mayo I am not sure LRH wasn’t fed with false reports. I don’t believe any of the reports Mayo tried to get passed over to LRH ever arrived.” So, what is your point?

        • My point is, LRH wasn’t aware of what was going on in the Corporation in the last years of his life, since his communications were filtered.
          Therefore bringing D. Mayo into the equation makes no real sense.
          It was all 3rd Party. The same was with LRHs family members, his wife and many other high ranking Scientologists.

          “I have attempted to get them off that fixation.”
          The people I am in communication with are not at all fixated in the Corporation (RCS).

    • “Some (including LRH) claim that this is simply a reflection of “inability to duplicate and apply.” But, after 50 years one would have to conclude the SYSTEM doesn’t work. If after 50 years NOBODY has been able to consistently expand orgs, then it is not the people, it is the “technology.”

      Been thinking just the same – but without the trademark Rinder clarity!

    • martyrathbun09

      Mike, that is a very clear picture you drew of the Scientology gpm. Thanks for the reference to Data Series tech (pretty much my lifeline while working for LRH between 79-86). Here is where I think I am having a huge fall off in terms of understanding with certain folk. I began an investigation and eval by noting a most glaring, central outpoint: contrary facts. That is, the first dynamic Scientology technology – sanely applied (big caveat) – is perfectly consistent with the Tao Te Ching (which best represents 2,500 years of spiritual wisdom – even according to L. Ron Hubbard’s unequivocally expressed opinion). The Scientology third dynamic technology is 180 degrees diametically opposed to the Tao Te Ching (which speaks liberally to governance and leadership), and so too 180 degrees (in many essentials) to Scientology first dynamic technology itself. The data trail is leading toward the answer to this situation: a technology proven fully capable of leading a person to greater heights of consciousness is leading toward a narrow-minded, neurotic, and hostile mentality. The hostility endendered by the simple act of gradiently sharing the data trail – while sometimes frustrating and distastefully dissonant – is educative, and thus part of the data trail itself. So, at the end of the day despite all brickbats, all in all things are all right in the heart of Texas.

      • Marty — appreciate the further explanation of the process you are following. I guess I kind of understood that, but the picture is now very clear. I am very happy that things are well in the Rathbun neck of the woods. Mike

        • Mike, Marty and all who have decided to stand on their own. This is what it is all about in the end. Finding truth and stripping away all falsehoods. The following vid I posted eons ago when Laura Ann’s story came out. It still reminds me of you, and others of like mind, willing to confront and change.

      • Marty

        This is a quote from Ron that a good friend of mine shared with me the other day.

        “…Therefor, you might say, the only thing that is ever wrong with a being, is scarcity of viewpoints…”

        This I like.

        Eric

        • Wow, Eric, great! Hahaha, makes perfect sense…. Hahahaha. I am line charging on this. Where is this from? I would like to listen/read more of that tape or transcript.

          • Hi Theo

            Actually the person who quoted it to me couldn’t remember where it was from, but was sure it was from a tape, perhaps the PDCs.

            Eric

    • Your comment got me thinking. If the data series works, why doesn’t every Scientologist who does it suddenly realize the inherent flaws in CoS and DM’s psychotic management? I’ve always wondered about these CoS programs that claim to get people to see the truth, yet still leave them blind to the big picture of their actual situation (I.e sheep lapping up DM’s fetid bullshit). Are their things in the data series that prevent using it to evaluate the tech or the church itself?

      I’m truly curious how this works. Is it yet another example of thought stopping?

      • SV, you don’t just magically wake up from studying the Data Series. It works as applied to a person, one’s own situation, family, post, area, organization, region, etc. Name anyone shooting up koolaid that would even think to apply the Data Series to the CoS, or Miscavige… out of fear of a few dozen hours of Sec Checks at the mere mutinous thought may be your answer.

  32. Radical Scientologists look at LRH data and consider the info to be absolute truths. Like devout Muslims who believe the Quaran to be the absolute truth, radical Scientologists start acting like fanatics. Hence they will go after people and try to destroy them just for the slightest criticism. Muslims and Scientologists have one thing in common. They go berserk when you criticize their religion.

  33. Great Post Marty.
    I got your book, Scientology Reformation, am reading it. Chapter 5
    page 35 blew charge on IAS reg cycles gone berzerk that I had at Flag.
    Keep on Cowboy.

  34. Marty, Rinder beat me to it, so I can only second what he said in the last paragraph of his post. You look at what needs to be looked at (and what others cannot confront) and you say what needs to be said (and what others fear ro say) and for the inner strength of character to do those things, I admire you. And because what you have done has helped me personally, I also thank you.

  35. “Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts…”

    I wonder why nobody thought of this when David Miscavige announced Hubbard’s books were an overt product, and so were the auditors he trained as he “released” the “Golden Age” of tech under HIMself? And cancelled the certs of every auditor on the planet.

    crit·ic
    /ˈkritik/
    Noun
    A person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something.
    A person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, esp. one who does so professionally.

    The truth is, we have all become critics. Even Miscavige and the Sea Org, the people in corp. Church.

    Hubbard urges people to “judge the merits” of Scientology early on. by noticing if it works or not.

    I guess his TR’s went out on some of the criticism he received later. He himself criticized everyone from the president to the Kennedys to the mental health institutions and learning institutions to other mental health professionals. His body of work is full criticism right up to “Old Misses Kettlebottom” as he referred to one lady on a tape.

    It seems the more serious he got about it all, the more it slid into the enforce band. The more self important he became, as evidenced by his service staff and those lighting his cigarettes for him, the more the criticism rolled in and the more serious he got. We have probably been there too, any Sea Org Member or OSA Member is as serious as heartbeat about exploring the occult. It’s comical on many levels.

    You can buy the stairway to heaven. By treating others as you would want to be treated yourself. If we had all along practiced this we wouldn’t be so bankrupt and desperate and clinging to soup cans in hope. Hubbard isn’t to blame. Nobody is to blame. It’s just turning it around through ones own actions and words. The today we stand in, we were busy creating 1000 years ago. It didn’t happen last week or because we stumbled across the path of Hubbard.

    Anyone who thinks they will come out on top because they paid for all the Church had to sell, is still fooled. They have their character they have to live with. Their choices and their purposes. I’ve seen people get all types of FPRD, sec checks, write O/W’s, turn around and pull the rug right under from their brother’s foot. They may have cleaned up some of the “past”, but did not change their operating basis so, they didn’t get much from the service. There are good reasons for “no case gain”. If you can’t improve your habits you can’t improve your case.

    Hubbard himself said “Anything you depend on you become the effect of.” He became very, very dependent on fans for support and applause. When you can’t light your own cigarette you have become very, very dependent. One of the last people he depended on was David Miscavige. For what? Reports because he himself did not want to LOOK. He wanted someone else to do it for him.

    Hubbard was everything or anything we could find by simply looking in the mirror. But exceptional in noticing conditions and phenomena. He had a high awareness of magic. I only “get the Scientology” when I view it as flowing across the magic dynamic. I know you didn’t read about that in the ethics book, but it is a dynamic for some souls.It is tightly entwined with an “ethics dynamic” that has nothing to do with “right or wrong or agreements” but simply, the art of creating your own reality through an awareness of forces and conditions. The highest form of ethics is creating your own reality. That is why Crowley said, ” Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” People are usually out of ARC with new realities on the outset. So in fact, this universe provides little freedom for a true ethics dynamic. Can be rewarded with new realities that are fun, such as Facebook.

    “Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one’s conditions.”Oh, L. Ron, you are so busted.”

    Unfortunately, creating your own can also be the highest form of out ethics. People tend is shy away from it because they have met sociopathic others who lean in on black magic and disturb others with it. The PURPOSE of another being makes positive and negative any dynamic. If there wasn’t a ribbon of negative flowing through Scientology, David Miscavige would not have stuck in it. Along with some others I won’t mention here.

    Viewing Hubbard as a cranky magus, it is not likely for me to go out of ARC with him. As these people create new realities and that is all we really have with Scientology. It is just a new reality.

    If you have a tech library and search the word “magic”, Hubbard uses the word over and over and over in his early lectures.

    A few favorites that I know for myself to be true:

    “This goes back a long way down the track. “The Second Law of Magic”, it could have been said to be, which is: Don’t be the effect of your own cause. ”

    Hubbard did go the effect of his own causes. Who else was he going to go effect but himself? Nobody else thought they could be at cause over him in this particular arena. And they were probably right because not a lot of people on this planet think with a magic dynamic. Down in Louisiana, over in Japan, you can find entire civilizations that have a magic dynamic within their life. But it is not common.

    In Hubbard’s K.S.W. series it is evident already that Hubbard has gone total effect of the “Scientology” himself. He is demanding that nobody else create any new realities. And only become part of and contribute to, the new reality HE creates. All magicality is gone from his voice. Yet even at that time all that were contributing were also creating this new reality right along WITH him. Perhaps this annoyed him on some level, which is why he went on a “source” acknowledgement demand.

    ‘Now, seventh dynamic – well, actually we had a whole cult of people back in the eighth century called the magicians who specialized exclusively in handling the seventh dynamic. And they were seventh-dynamic determined. And their studies were so concentrated on the seventh dynamic, that as we go back down the line, we discover that
    they were very, very poor on the first, second, third and fourth dynamics, pretty good on the fifth, fair – just vaguely fair – on the sixth, but terrific on the seventh. And these were men, even as you and I.”

    “The basic definition of affinity is actually lost in antiquity. The word was chosen, by the way, from the ancient days of magic. The magicians, the ancient magicians, used this word consistently and continually. It actually means “occupying the same space.”

    “Now, the conquest with death is a personal thing. They had not developed the facility, and this is not really part of being Clear, but they had not developed the facility to perpetuate their identity in the absence of an identified body. That’s the only trick. Now we’re really talking about something awfully esoteric, aren’t we, when we’re talking about this. We’re talking about something exotic, we’re talking about something that is magic, far beyond that sort of thing.”

    Hubbard’s affirmations:

    “I believe in my gods and spiritual things…my code is to be all things a “magus” must be…my magical work is powerful and effective…”

    Yes Ron, you did a very fine job indeed. The show maker attracts the audience, he does not create them. We have been entertained for decades long beyond your curtain call. You are daily on the tip of many tongues of those still mystified, curious, awed, outraged, confused, smitten, hopeful, grateful and terrified of your performance.

    And while David Miscavige picks over your typos and collects the tips, we have Marty here encouraging people to make their own new realities. That, on some level, contributes to your immortality, our immortality, and the magicality that makes the impossible, possible.

    Abracadabra my dear friend.

    • P.S. What is an engram but a new reality someone couldn’t digest?

      That is why the “K.S.W. / Fundamentalists / Bible Thumpers” are such a drag to the community. They react to new realities as if you are putting them through some kind of engram when you ask them to digest some new reality. They refuse to digest the new reality of Scientology and can’t even see that that is all it is. They are already overwhelmed by it and try then to overwhelm others with it. That is why it is all so low down in the enforce band with them. New realities restimulate them. Those people I do not see as enlightened by Scientology, but rather restimulated by it. And total effect of it.

      • OM, of the many voices on this blog, yours is completely unique, and one of the most profound.

      • OM, Wow.
        These last two posts of yours are so expansive, far reaching and inclusive. Dang! I’m being overwhelmed by them. But I’ll try not to overwhelm others with them out of respect. :-) What an astute observation that last one was. Thank you.

      • Oraclemysticism, you write in a great way. And it’s good to have new realities. I think we all can have new realities, this is an anomaly we are living, still Scientology is here and stronger. I don’t think we have too many radicals…. I think both sides need to take care of each other and increase awareness even through the Internet. This is extremely difficult. But soothing words can help, soothing words. Many of us have been wounded and look for some kind of resurgence. So, soothing words are good and expand ARC. New horizons too but as you say there is gradient scales and not everybody is on the same level to accept too big of a jump.

        • That’s why I didn’t just come out and point out to everyone that they have been dabbling in magic.

          • “But mysticism/occultism isn’t our source. Our source, actually, is magic. Magic is something that, today, is performed on a stage with prestidigitation. But magic actually has a much more vivid and noble history than a stage magician. It is quite remarkable that the magician attempts directly to use spirits to perform his will. And that is his basic modus operandi. That is his goal in practicing magic.”from a Lecture given on 29 January 1958, The History of Clearing by L Ron Hubbard.

    • martyrathbun09

      That right there is insight. Deep.

  36. When LRH said in the 60’s that anyone critical of Scientology had been found to have crimes, the context was very different from today or even the late 70’s. LRH was talking about people critical of AUDITING TECH, because until the late 60’s there wasn’t much happening of an organizational nature, and the abuses cited by later legitimate critics hadn’t really gotten underway.

    Those abuses, and the legitimate criticism of them, grew in direct proportion to the growth of the G.O. and the Sea Org, both of which were originally needed but later got completely out of hand due to low-toned staff members implementing LRH’s instructions in a totally serv-fac, opp-term, destructive manner. I know about this because I was there.

    When LRH talked about fixing muddied-up areas by taking screwballs out of the running, he was talking about muddying that was the result of actual squirrel delivery of tech. He repeatedly said that the only thing that muddies up areas is out-tech delivery. He was not referring to legitimate critics, because there really weren’t any to speak of until later.

    These early-to-mid-60’s references were appropriate and workable when they were issued, but became 3rd dynamic engrams 5-10 years later in the hands of people who shouldn’t have been on staff in the first place.

    LRH’s 1983 alleged instructions to squash Mayo like a bug were issued through DM, so it’s not certain that LRH actually ever so directed. And, if he did, it was after DM had 3rd partied Mayo to LRH to protect himself from being sec checked. Why LRH allowed himself to have ANYONE as his sole via on incoming and outgoing comm is a mystery, as it violates his own multiple viewpoint management system. But with DM as that person, and DM being a Commodore’s Messenger whose words were therefore to be taken by other staff the same as LRH’s would be, the door was opened wide for all kinds of destruction.

    That said, Mike Rinder is entirely correct when he says that after developing workable auditing tech, LRH failed to develop admin tech that was workable in the hands of the quality level of being he entrusted with it. That was the why for what happened to the organization. LRH didn’t have to be perfect, and Otto Roos may well have been right about LRH leaving too much unrepaired BPC on his own case as he rushed to advance his research. But I think the main reason LRH went down tone in his later years was his frustration with the organization not doing what he wanted done in the way of high-toned, compassionate delivery of auditing tech to actually help people.

    I disagree with Mike, though, that there were never any orgs that grew continuously for a substantial number of years. From the mid-60’s until the late 70’s, on trend many missions and orgs grew very nicely, some from zero to very large size with over 200 students on metered auditor training. There actually WAS a golden age, that in later years became the “what worked before” that DM ignored or deliberately prevented from being re-established through the Affluence Attainment and Broken Affluence formulas.

    There are NOT just 2 black-or-white positions on the scale of Indie loyalty to LRH. Some of what he did was fabulous, and some was, to put it kindly, an experiment that failed. The main thing from my point of view is that LRH vastly underestimated what would be required to create a sane 3rd dynamic out of beings not already far advanced on the 1st dynamic. His dictum of “staff have no case” was the statement of an ideal scene that was never anywhere near approached by the actual scene of staff members, except in some missions that admitted to the ranks of staff only trained auditors who had also received good case gain themselves. That requirement filtered out SPs and most PTSes, and worked where it was applied.

    I would much prefer to read articles on this and other blogs that discuss how to re-establish delivery of actual standard tech, in volume, both sides of the Bridge, NOW, rather than grinding endlessly on LRH’s imperfections both real and imagined. I am completely capable of observing LRH’s mistakes, and believe he was tremendously wrong about certain admin matters. I have my BPC about that, just as we all do or did. But I’m not in blame, shame, or regret about that. What I care about is what we do NOW to bypass the Church and make our dreams come true without it.

    Hopefully some future articles will discuss that.

    • martyrathbun09

      I told you how to deliver, but you didn’t listen. You had to have before you could do – in blatant violation of L. Ron Hubbard admin tech. This is not about “LRH’s imperfections”, it is about scripture that defeats the purpose of the tech. Resolve that in your mind, or forget ‘re-establish delivery of actual standard tech, in volume, both sides of the Bridge, NOW,’. The proof is out there – and pointed out in the post. Those banging your drum are banging drums, while engaging in that which I point out that defeats the subject. Hard core KSWers are the epitome of ‘talking the talk.’

      • Well, once again you’ve “attacked the attacker” instead of rationally discussing his actual points. This is your modus operandi. If anyone significantly disagrees with you, you take that as an attack, and absolutely will not engage in a two-way discussion that actually looks at his reasons for his point of view, and your reasons for your point of view, in order for both of you to find and/or agree on the truth. In other words, you avoid normal, high-toned, rational discourse. Instead, you fire off smart, cryptic, sound bite remarks, aimed at what you consider to be the guy’s weak points — real, imagined, or just made up — in order to put the guy down and dead agent him with your readers.

        You’ve done this with me and many others over the last 4 years. If anyone calls you out on this pattern, as I am doing now, you just attack harder. If the guy doesn’t back off, but keeps on trying to actually communicate above the level of fighting, you go into total rhetorical kill mode. And if that doesn’t work, you just moderate him out.

        Some of the commenters you’ve done this to did deserve it, but several others, including me, did not. And I’m very far from the only person who’s noticed this pattern, or who understands it in terms of PR tech and the Chart of Human Evaluation. To a degree, you’ve been dead agenting yourself by employing it.

        I’m NOT attacking YOU. I just disagree with you on certain matters that I think are important, and post here to engage in sincere discussion about them. I am 100% ready to be convinced that my viewpoints are invalid, but only if you present facts and logic that SHOW that to be so, rather than just antagonistically and dismissively asserting it from presumed altitude. If you’re right in your viewpoints, such a discussion would help you to convince others who disagree like I do, but haven’t posted about it.

        So, that’s it on that. In order to avoid an escalating flame war with you, which would get both of us and your readers nowhere, I will say no more in this thread.

        • martyrathbun09

          We all reap what we sow.

          • Yeah, so how about sowing a little love and kindness, big guy.
            Those vegetables are very good for you and everyone likes them! :-)

        • Diogenes, I’ve noticed in several of your posts that you do exactly the same thing that you criticize in Marty, i.e. “attack the attacker.” Your communication comes across as know-best and arrogant, as though you are here to teach Marty and others a lesson. I’d like to remind you that this blog is Marty’s living room, and you’ve been invited here to engage in discussion. Manners are the lubricant for social discourse, so I suggest that you drop the arrogant tone.

          Marty is auditing, training, writing, blogging and helping others. He talks the talk and walks the walk. It’s unclear what you do, except tell Marty that he needs to change his op basis on this blog. Perhaps if you shared with us some of your recent production in auditing, training and helping others, you’d have more credibility. But even if you do have substantial products, you are not senior to Marty, so please do us all a favor and quit trying to instruct or direct him.

          • Lora,

            I said above that I would have no more to say in this thread, but that was to Marty. Now that you’ve commented, I’ll make this one reply to you and anyone else who piles on in the same way you did, and then that’s it.

            Expressing disagreement with Marty is not an attack on him. It’s an attempt to open a discussion. When he refuses to discuss the actual disagreement, but instead goes ad hominem on the guy disagreeing, THAT’S “attacking the attacker.”

            The whole point of “attacking the attacker” is to direct attention away from the guy’s argument, and place it on him personally, so people will take their attention off of his ideas. It’s a technique aimed only at winning, not finding truth or building ARC. It has its place, but it’s basically making the other guy wrong in order to avoid his making you wrong. I think we should try to operate above that level.

            My description of how Marty “attacks the attacker” was presented in order to as-is his attempts to deflect attention off of the points I’d made. If he’d been willing to actually discuss them, I’d have had nothing to say about the way he handles his comm. We’d just have had the discussion.

            You just “attacked the attacker,” too. Marty seemed to withdraw from the exchange, but then you popped up carrying on for him, using the same deflecting technique. The points you raised are utterly irrelevant to the disagreement I expressed, and were nothing more than an attempt to change the subject. If I recall, you did this at least once before, too. Are you guys some kind of tag team?

            Scientology is “knowing how to know,” and uses as its primary tool the principle that “communication is the universal solvent.” Shutting people up because they disagree is therefore anti-Scientology. It’s part of what we all left the Church to get away from. It’s very disappointing to find it here in the Indie field. But then many of us were grooved into it during the years we spent on staff.

            The fact is that I admire much of what Marty has done. But I also strongly disagree with him on certain issues, on which I consider that he’s strayed too far from the workable portions of what LRH created. And, I’m not the only Indie who views him in this way, not by a long shot. I see nothing at all wrong with discussing these issues on his blog, and think it’s actually a healthy thing to do.

            • “I consider that he’s strayed too far from the workable portions of what LRH created.”

              Dio my friend, this is a little wide in coverage, as it has no specifics.

              What Hubbard created with Scientology was a new reality.
              What Marty has been encouraging people to do, is to get people to create new realities, just as Hubbard did.

              When an auditor is flying ruds on a P.C., you get “ENFORCED REALITIES” as a known affinity breaker.
              Yet, yes, strange but true, K.S.W. is not about creating new realities, it is about ENFORCING REALITY.

              Strange but true, I have heard auditors , trained auditors that have been at it for years, say things like, “It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand really understand it, just follow instructions as you are told.” That same auditor checks this as a RUD so he should KNOW this disturbs people. Yet, in all the hours he sat in the chair he just didn’t connect those ruds and integrate it with the rest of life. Here is someone auditing people by “procedure” rather than understanding. Yet an auditor attests to “understanding the materials and being able to apply them”. There is NO PLACE in Scientology ever created by Hubbard where he demands people attest to things they DPON’T UNDERSTAND and can’t apply, so you have to ask yourself, “How did this product get put off production line?” This is an enforced reality case. Anytime time Scientology is ENFORCED it becomes and ENFORCED reality.

              Now, if you look at the planet, people generally exist in enforced reality so they become accustomed to it as a way of life.

              That doesn’t mean it is an ideal scene. It may be “workable” to some, even preferable, but it is FAR from an ideal scene. That is why one can view this planet as a “prison planet”. (Hubbard’s words)

              “And, I’m not the only Indie who views him in this way, not by a long shot. ” “Strayed too far” These are enforce issues.

              Marty does not exist in the enforce band.

              Let me point out some DIFFERENCES for those that think Marty has the same duties as L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard had CUSTOMERS, and WORKERS. Both groups PAID and PAID and PAID him. He OWED them something in exchange.

              There are not any “indies” out here that consider Marty has “strayed” from the flock that are working for him. He does not have customers.
              So WHY anyone would attack him for any new reality he is creating is ABSURD. People need to come off the A=A thing. There was only one Hubbard. The rest of us were customers, workers, and curiosity seekers and patients. Some of us were students that learned a thing or two, listened, and understood. There is a policy letter by Hubbard called “NEVER FORCE A P.C.”. Why? “Because you will overwhelm him and set him up for a loss.

              “There is a K.S.W. series by Hubbard that says “Always force the student practitioner”. I ask you, how is an auditor who is sitting there auditing his ass off not understanding one fucking thing about what is really going on in that room having a win?

              And why is a crime to “stray” from one reality to another?

              People read this blog because they DESIRE to or they are CURIOUS about. You can’t enforce someone to read a blog. You can’t enforce someone what to write on a blog! This activity is all the way up at the CDEI scale.

              Scientology does not work in the enforce band. It makes clueless auditors that do the clueless P.C.s a dis service. Hubbard himself says ENFORCEMENT is OVERWHELM.

              It is true that there are people out here with the purpose to OVERWHELM and continue to be OVERWHELMED.

              Marty just isn’t one of them. THAT is a product of Scientology.

              • NOT a liability. It is AMAZING to see how some people really protest a true “product” of Scientology. Free from overwhelm, self determined, creating new realities, and as Hubbard describes a 4.0, “At 4.0 the individual has a high concept of truth and prefers constructive and creative truths. He seeks for NEW TRUTHS.”

                Nobody should have to apologize to anybody for seeking new truths. That is the marking of a suppressive society. There are people out here that will contribute to and are only comfortable in suppressive societies.
                “Do what you are told whether you agree or understand” is the concept of a suppressive society.

                A lot of people may feel so committed to a sentence, or a new reality, that they dare not permit themselves ” to stray”. A lot of people are doing better in an enforced reality of someone else’s, than the one they had made for themselves. They have a right to be where they are. There is an entire chapter in SOS called “hypnotic level”. “When an auditor finds his P.C. unusually suggestible, he should be very careful what he says to the preclear.”

                On Method Used By Subject To Handle Others there are three general categories:

                “The highest category would be one of ENHANCEMENT, where the individual seeks by example and good reasoning to lift the level of those around him to the point where they will partake of the projects of living with him. This would extend from 4.0 down to 3.0.

                The second category would be that of PUNISHMENT DRIVE. here the individual uses ALARM, THREATS, and the general promise of pain unless compliance is given by the others around him This area extends from 2.0 to around 1.3. (Nothing more alarming than the KSW series if you ask me) People around this tone level will be able to IDENTIFY with alarm, threats etc.. Does it ever occur to anybody Hubbard wrote along this tone level as a necessity to be REAL to people in this tone area?

                The third category is that of NULLIFICATION, wherein the individual seeks to minimize individuals to be MORE THAN THEY and so to be ABLE TO CONTROL them. This category would rather see a man sick than well, because sick men are less dangerous than well men according to the “THINKING” that takes place in this band.

                The unfortunate part of the conduct of the lower levels of the tone scale toward others is that it has as it’s invariable end the LOWERING of the tone of the family, associates, friends and SOCIETY of the subject. Yet the subject by no REASON or EDUCATION (below the point 2.0) could use ANY OTHER MEANS, FORCING the subject TO USE OTHER means only drives him down the tone scale. And as he descends, HE USES THE MEANS OF THE LOWER LEVELS HE ATTAINS.

                Here we have the dwindling spiral at wrok upon the environment of the subject and upon the subject’s associates, friends and social order.

                It is not danger by violence from the low toned individual about which the social order or the family should worry; it is this insidious adoption of DOMINATION and NULLIFICATION methods.”

                “Nullification actually begins with DOMINATION, but becomes very pronounced at about 1.3.”

                So, let me say that the people who are dead set on dominating and nullifying Marty, are also set on dominating and nullifying everyone else. You and I included. Either overtly or covertly.

      • Marty, your reply doesn’t seem to track with what Diogenes posted. As a reader I have no idea what private advice you may or may not have given to Diogenes about “how to deliver” and the tone seems inappropriate to what was posted, even if the point of view is a little different than the one expressed in this post. And there is also much agreement expressed.

        • martyrathbun09

          Well, you know who I am and you don’t know who he is. So why are you tripping on me?

          • Well, you are right about that. I don’t really know who Diogenes is. I’m just trying to understand why you said what you said the way you said it. . It doesn’t quite seem to track with what he said.
            Anyway, ain’t no trippin going on. I’m just trying to understand the thoughts and emotions behind the words. His too. I was requesting some illumination about that from you.
            By the way, “trippin” was a new word for me. Here is a cool definition from the Urban Dictionary for the benefit of other readers:

            http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trippin

    • Much of what you say here seems to ring true and the presentation was pretty well balanced. I have spoken with many old timers who where around BEFORE the creation of he Sea Org or the Guardian’s Office who made similar observations about LRH, the Tech, and the Admin. And many people who were around during the ’60s and into the ’70s did observe a “Golden Age”, if you will, for Scientology . It was expanding in numbers and influence on the society. Thanks for some perspective on this whole issue from someone who was there.
      And I agree that it is good thing to concentrate on “by-passing” the COS and destructive applications of the Tech, because it has put the subject of Scientology in a condition of danger. Sounds like the correct condition to apply with regards to the subject of Scientology to me.

      • I really don’t know how accurate the descriptions of the growth of the orgs are. From what I have observed, the Franchise network, which was later called the Mission network, DID NOT RUN ON ADMIN POLICY until the late 1970s. THEY were the successful organizations that FED the class 4 and up orgs. They did not apply LRH admin tech and they did not use any harsh ethics or justice. They did not use the fast flow hiring system. The Mission Holders and their staffs were personally responsible for implementing successful ways to introduce people to Scientology. LRH was not responsible for that and did not develop the policies they used in their Missions. The successful actions they employed were canceled by the implementation of LRH policies in Div 6, policies that were never proven to be successful. (as an example: no live lectures allowed, only LRH materials could be read to people at lectures.) The crest and crash of Scientology worldwide parallels the cannibalizing of that network starting around 1981, big crest from ripping it off entirely and then crashing as they fell into total Non-E under SMI.

        • Yeah. I What you describe is true to me too. From what I understand that is how it was supposed to work. Franchises, later called missions, were supposed to be the pioneers of Scientology and send new Scientologists to the orgs. And as far as public lecturers go, even Orgs used to have public lecturers. It was well know that an effective lecturer would inspired local interest in the subject and resulted in people signing up for courses. It was an important post. Now they have DM’s Remote-Control-Robot-Disseminator-System and empty orgs.
          SMI really did pour crushed glass into the gears of a machine that was working fairly well, and ground it to a halt.

  37. Marty, you write: “ to the extent that that which works in Scientology can be differentiated from that which disables, by – among other things – radicalization, L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas have a future. To the degree that differentiation process is killed, Hubbard’s ideas die.”

    I agree with you. It’s a bid challenge to differentiate, in any religious movement, that which works from that which radicalizes. More often than not, the attempt does not end successfully: the movement’s culture prevails.
    My personal belief is that truth does not always prevail. And that it is OK.

    I like this quote from Dr. Seuss, brought by Cat Daddy, which puts truth in perspective: “Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.” Looking at life through this looking glass, success has been accomplished already. Everything one may yearn for is here already.

    My sense is that what matters is to seek truth, to heed its call, and to embrace it when one is fortunate enough to come across it, and to stick with it through the waves in the journey on the ocean of life. Whatever happens around us during this journey, we have limited control over. My sense is that it’s best to look at success as an inner experience of fulfillment to be had, rather than as a sum of external accomplishments to be had. In other words, what matters is to win “the” war. Winning the battles on the battlefield of life matters less.

    My sense, Marty, is that whether your quest turns out be Quixotian or Gandhian, as you put it, what matters most is that your life remains fulfilled, or whatever word may resonate with you. Even if your quest ends up appearing as Quixotian, nothing wrong about it; there are no right and wrongs.
    On top of that, there is no clear conclusion as to what to make of the story of Don Quixote.
    When it was first published, Don Quixote was usually interpreted as a comic novel. After the French Revolution it was popular in part due to its ethic that individuals can be right while society is wrong and it was seen as not comic at all. In the 19th century it was seen as a social commentary, but no one could easily tell “whose side Cervantes was on”. Many critics came to view the work as a tragedy in which Don Quixote’s innate idealism and nobility are viewed by the world as insane, and are defeated and by common reality. By the 20th century the novel had come to occupy a canonical space as one of the foundations of modern literature. So as you can see Don Quixote is not a bad company to be associated with. At the very least, it elicits passionate conversations and commentaries..

    I do hope your quest reveals itself to be a Gandhian one. His quotes have shone a light in many of my dark days where a somber cloud of anger hung above my head…
    Some of his quotes ive love but found challenging to implement.:) I remember struggling with this one: “Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong…Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding”… (easier said than implemented…)

    These days, the one I am motivated by is: “Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances.” That’s a challenging one, but I like this challenge. To live my life in a place where I am at peace, and where whatever the day throws at me, I remain conscious enough to try to remain at peace, and succeed. When that happens, I feel the day has been a success: one more day gained.

    Thank you for this blog and for your candor, Marty.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Paul. This one right here that you quoted is key to this topic: “Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong…Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding”…

    • Paul, your quote from Gandhi that you referenced: “Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong…Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding”, until just recently, my interpretation of this quote would have been incredibly inaccurate. This would have been due to an enduring misperception that I held regarding the concept of forgiveness.

      As I have mentioned in other comments on Marty’s blog posts, a few months ago I began exploring A Course in Miracles (ACIM) and little by little, as I read the course, my misperception of the concept of forgiveness was corrected. Now when I read the above quote from Gandhi about forgiveness…I get it!

      Interestingly enough, the day after reading your comment and contemplating this Gandhi quote and too, thinking about Marty pointing it out as being key to this topic…my ACIM lesson for the day (#121) was: Forgiveness is the key to happiness. Then, today’s lesson was: Forgiveness offers everything I want.

      Paul, following are excerpts I’ve included from both those lessons. You and perhaps a few others might find them of some interest. By the way, thank you for sharing your perspectives through your comments. I always slow down when I’m reading your comments. Also, I very much resonate with your constant message expressed through diversity in your arrangements of words: “To live my life in a place where I am at peace, and where whatever the day throws at me, I remain conscious enough to try to remain at peace, and succeed. When that happens, I feel the day has been a success: one more day gained.”
      …………..
      Excerpted from ACIM Lesson 121:

      Here is the answer to your search for peace. Here is the key to meaning in a world that seems to make no sense. Here is the way to safety in apparent dangers that appear to threaten you at every turn, and bring uncertainty to all your hopes of ever finding quietness and peace. Here are all questions answered; here the end of all uncertainty ensured at last.

      The unforgiving mind is full of fear, and offers love no room to be itself; no place where it can spread its wings in peace and soar above the turmoil of the world. The unforgiving mind is sad, without the hope of respite and release from pain. It suffers and abides in misery, peering about in darkness, seeing not, yet certain of the danger lurking there.

      The unforgiving mind is torn with doubt, confused about itself and all it sees; afraid and angry, weak and blustering, afraid to go ahead, afraid to stay, afraid to waken or to go to sleep, afraid of every sound, yet more afraid of stillness; terrified of darkness, yet more terrified at the approach of light. What can the unforgiving mind perceive but its damnation? What can it behold except the proof that all its sins are real?

      The unforgiving mind sees no mistakes, but only sins. It looks upon the world with sightless eyes, and shrieks as it beholds its own projections rising to attack its miserable parody of life. It wants to live, yet wishes it were dead. It wants forgiveness, yet it sees no hope. It wants escape, yet can conceive of none because it sees the sinful everywhere.

      The unforgiving mind is in despair, without the prospect of a future which can offer anything but more despair. Yet it regards its judgment of the world as irreversible, and does not see it has condemned itself to this despair. It thinks it cannot change, for what it sees bears witness that its judgment is correct. It does not ask, because it thinks it knows. It does not question, certain it is right.

      Forgiveness is acquired. It is not inherent in the mind, which cannot sin. As sin is an idea you taught yourself, forgiveness must be learned by you as well…

      …………..

      From Lesson 122:

      What could you want forgiveness cannot give? Do you want peace? Forgiveness offers it. Do you want happiness, a quiet mind, a certainty of purpose, and a sense of worth and beauty that transcends the world? Do you want care and safety, and the warmth of sure protection always? Do you want a quietness that cannot be disturbed, a gentleness that never can be hurt, a deep, abiding comfort, and a rest so perfect it can never be upset?

      All this forgiveness offers you, and more. It sparkles on your eyes as you awake, and gives you joy with which to meet the day. It soothes your forehead while you sleep, and rests upon your eyelids so you see no dreams of fear and evil, malice and attack. And when you wake again, it offers you another day of happiness and peace. All this forgiveness offers you, and more.

      Forgiveness lets the veil be lifted up […] and clears your memory of all dead thoughts […]

      • I found the concept mentioned in this particular excerpt from the Lesson 121 quote above to be a revelation that took a while to bloom but bloom it did.

        “Forgiveness is acquired. It is not inherent in the mind, which cannot sin. As sin is an idea you taught yourself, forgiveness must be learned by you as well…”

        Occasionally, when I somehow end up…??? (no words for this place that is not a place) I view my actual self (not my Monte self) as being, among many things, perfection. There is no ‘sin’ in perfection so there is also no ‘forgiveness’ as ‘forgiveness’ follows ‘sin.’ When I took in the concept in the above quote, I slowly realized that I had somehow missed the point that the concept of ‘sin’ was something that I had to teach myself. Nor had it ever occurred to me that ‘forgiveness’ was also a concept that I had to learn. But if ‘sin’ is not inherent in the mind, if it’s made up…then why do I even have to bother with forgiving it? Indeed, how does one go about forgiving that which was never, or ever will be, real? That is what I am learning from the course.

        Here is another excerpt from the course in miracles that I came across this morning. I believe it aligns very closely to the notion of moving on up a little higher.

        “There is nothing we have been through, or seen, or done, that cannot be used to make our lives more valuable now. We can grow from any experience, and we can transcend any experience.”

  38. I don’t think anyone who has honestly considered the whole story of scientology and the cult that now calls itself “Scientology” could come to a different conclusion about the combative attitude, Marty.

    We oldies sometime gloss over the fact that Australia and (I surmise) the USA were tough, militaristic societies in the 1950s. People who’d been through WW2 accepted such things as wife-beating, trade union violence, gay-bashing, bullying of subordinates and overt racism as just human nature. Enemies were taken for granted: the robbers outside our doors, the foreigners on our borders, the Communists in hiding. Melbourne Org, which I saw around 1960 from an 8-year-old’s viewpoint, was full of war veterans like my father, and the kind of young adults who are attracted to any radical group that promises to remake the world. A siege mentality came naturally to them, as it also did to kids brought up on stories of war, cowboy shootouts and spacemen with ray guns. We saw the government, the police, all established institutions almost as our opponents even before the Anderson Inquiry and police stakeouts a few years later.

    If viewed in this context, L. Ron Hubbard’s preoccupation with enemies and constant readiness to respond to attacks, or his opinion that ‘only the tigers survive, and even they have a hard time’, might not seem so remarkable to today’s gentler people. LRH was not the abnormal sociopath that young Tony Ortega likes to paint him: he was a rather typical man of his time.

    A game needs opponents. An opponent is not necesarily the same thing as an enemy; but the two concepts could become confused by a forceful personality like LRH who is going all-out to win a vital goal.

    • martyrathbun09

      Interesting. A lot of your view is covered in my next book. On the other hand, there are contemporaries in related fields – who faced the same world – and much the same attack – and chose not to become that which resisted them. Their influence today goes far beyond that of L. Ron Hubbard. That which you resist, you become. I happen to agree with it. Applies to me. Applies to you. Applies to L. Ron Hubbard.

    • David Cooke: “A game needs opponents. An opponent is not necesarily the same thing as an enemy; but the two concepts could become confused by a forceful personality like LRH who is going all-out to win a vital goal.”

      Perhaps one of the more thought stopping LRH datums to me was “Life is a game” — and the rest of the stuff that went along with that.

      I never found life to be particularly “game like.” Didn’t seem to have a level playing field, seemed stacked in certain directions and for sure didn’t seem to make a lick of difference about your good intentions.

      In fact, it ALMOST seemed if you were warm hearted, honest and not intent on driving the “opponent” into the mud – you could guarantee you would not be the winner.

      And for that matter — WHY agree that life is a game — which by definition means winners and losers.

      We are actually ALL losers at the moment as long as we stay deluded and consider that there is no path out from suffering.

      But with the potential to understand the core mistake we, as sentient beings make regarding life — then all can be winners.

      Which SHOULD be with wish of all of us.

      “May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the ROOT of suffering.” Buddha

      Philosophies and some religious movements that base their thought NOT on ego building but on selflessness and thus helping to remove the false identities attached to a being … are the ones who have stood the test of time and will continue into the future.

      UNLESS someone(s) too intent on “WINNING THE GAME OF LIFE” choses the ultimate solution which would be to destroy all life and thus be — YIPPEE — the winner.

      Christine

      • I had trouble with the view of life as a game, too. As long as the emphasis is on competitive games between two players or teams, it does invite a player to move downscale and treat the other side as an enemy.

        I didn’t see any pleasure in competitive games like football or chess. But taking the position that “I am not competitive” or “I don’t play games” is itself a game. And it can even become a temptation to individuate from the footballers and chess players of this world and perceive them as the opposition.

        There other kinds of games, where the other side is not a being or group of beings. A mountain climber is playing a game of his own skill and strength against MEST. A stamp collector is playing against the difficulties of obtaining every stamp. But if they get into a games condition where they are struggling against rival climbers or rival collectors, they have gone a long way downscale from their original games.

  39. Maybe your best blog post yet Marty. Such powerful, direct writing!
    You will prevail.

  40. I think the datum is, PC critical… Pull the withhold. With that out of the way PC becomes analytical and can inspect. The Quest is Gandhian.

  41. “My views and aims have not much changed in the past four years.”

    You strike me as one who stands against the waves of case even more so as they grow. Me likes this.

  42. I think Ron did not define criticism very well and fully. There may be criticism which is really nasty, nattery, mean and that may be because of the missed withholds the person has.
    But not EVERY criticism has its root in such things. There are e.g. people who have ideals and care for it that other people behave like they wish them to be, e.g. mother criticizes child to clean up room. She is not mean. She wants her child to survive better and criticizes her child in that direction. “When people stop giving you constructive criticism, they have most likely given up on you.”

    http://tinybuddha.com/blog/constructive-criticism-is-a-sign-of-your-potential/

    And there are a lot other way and reasons criticism comes about.
    And there are a lot people who are not in Scientology anymore and criticize it because the still feel a bit love for this group and want them to do it RIGHT and therefore criticize bad behaviour and suppression.

    It’s a complete generalization and bad observation to say “Critique = Overts/Crimes” …
    And it does not work in auditing and if auditors and CSes persist on the PC that it has to work the PC mocks something up or dubs it in in order to have at least an answer.

    My oberservation and opinion :)

  43. The first time within Scientology I heard stories about LRH boarding someone on the ship I had the to that time un think able idea that I never would allow this to happen with me. Even if LRH would do it himself, I would fight him. Within Scientology that would be labled „list one rockslammer“ which I had been labled soon after starting Scientology.
    I never had to fight a real fight with blood or broken bones within Scientology. But this attitude itself kept me free enough to avoid being too much of a victim.

    • Yes, if you (even intend to) use force for a fair cause, you are bad. If it is used on you, whether it is fair or not, it is ethics. Oh wait, that is also called supression! I wonder why it isn’t included in that PTS/SP squirrel course. Or is it?

      I’m not going to fight, because some ‘OT’ idiot taunts me with infernal hate and “we will destroy you!”. But if I was foolish enough to be drawn into a fight with such a person, I would certainly hold nothing back.

  44. If it’s Hubbard’s cause that a group composed of 1000s of people agreed to some extent to go southwards, then why is it not those people’s cause?

    Really, if some dude in my org used the tech to mindtrick me, what does it have to do with Hubbard? He does it in the name of Hubbard alright. He takes a phraze and he adds his own meaning to it and says “Here it says you’re guilty…you owe me your life….blah”. But really I never read such a thing by Hubbard. It’s just that since Hubbard authored all SCN, one needs to use him to manipulate others. But in order to use, he must lie about it. DM has a hidden to LRH from around MSH’s and LRH’s departure from org lines, up to PT.

    • My truth of the matter was, when I swallowed things that I didn’t want, in the name of SCN (or anything else), that I acted against myself, and I accepted another’s claims as my truth. It cannot be that the ‘ethics’ officer, or some other perpetrator didn’t know that he did it to another.

  45. PS: And I really don’t like this fighting stuff shit and enemy talk war game dramatization …. Never have and never will. That’s not religious, sensible, responsible behaviour … not even human – not even animal (because they fight normally only to eat and not because of hate, power, greed, egoism etc.)!

    • I agree that fighting was a negative trait of SCN orgs, and in the end fighting was their end. Among other things it is against it’s basic principles. However, it hasn’t been rare for religious people to fight –even though they do it ‘for a good cause’.

      And I agree that criticism isn’t just one thing same for all. But on the example you mentioned with the mother and the child, I think that the mother should grant the child’s self determinism and let it be it’s own advisor.

      • Yes, that would be the best for the child. I did not want to say with my example that it is the correct behaviour in my view. It just should show the intention behind the behaviour of that mother…. ;)

  46. insightful post. I’ve always gone back and forth on Hubbard and how much he knew about the GO tactics back then. But you mentioned Mayo’s attack as a directive from Hubbard, and I realized I never had even considered that before. I just assumed it was DM since he had pretty taken control by then.

    I’ve read the accounts of Mayo’s story, which were pretty incredible and I’m sure I got the watered down version. Then there’s Paulette Cooper. I had always wondered if Ron was on the lines back then or if this Op was run entirely unbeknownst to him.

    Again, I relaized I was making excuses for Hubbard. The truth for me is that I’ve read those same paragraphs many times, but I never his words literally when he spoke like that….hhhmmm…I always thought he was being overly dramatic to make a point.

    My thinking in this regard may have been deeply flawed.

    • Brett, I’ve also had that feeling over the past 4 years or so. And I wasn’t even very deeply involved with Scientology.
      I simply wanted to think the best of LRH,
      I think that’s true of many of us.
      And that is actually a chief characteristic of a ‘social personality’.
      The fact that his tech helped many of us in various ways made it all the harder to think ill of him at all.

  47. TYPOS.

    DM since he had pretty *MUCH* taken control by then.

    but I never *TOOK* his words literally when

    my fingers can’t keep up with my brain.

  48. Very nice post Marty. I don’t see a bright future for Scientology. Miscavige will continue to run it into the ground.

  49. Your question – “The Quest: Quixotian or Gandhian?”
    Simple answer. The workable truth that moves one up a little higher.

    Many of us, and I suppose this happened to you also, go through a variety of experience as we sort through what we accepted and did not take the time to actually evaluate. The troubles come from making decisions based upon unproven data, evaluation and a personal discernment as to what truly is true for that situation or event. I appreciate this blog and the opening of new viewpoints and awareness.

    • Sapere Aude

      Yes. I am amazed at just how much I have taken for granted, or just adopted, unevaluated. My viewpoints on many things “Scientology” have changed over the last few years, mostly due to the insightful comments often posted here, and me reviewing my own viewpoints to re-evaluate my data.

      I am starting to feel that, however “comfortable” it may seem to adopt a viewpoint and then “stick to it”, fluidity of viewpoint seems to be more of a valid course, though scary sometimes.

      “Sticking to it” is, of course, fixidity, not a particularly survival stance in a fluid and ever changing universe. Then again, we are told that ” in order to generate power you need to have a stable base from which to generate it”.

      Makes for an interesting game of balances.

      Eric

      ( I actually just re-evaluated the datum that “i order to generate power you need to have a stable base from which to generate it”, and have surprisingly discovered that it is false. Of course power CAN be generated from a moving point, in fact the motion itself adds to the potential power.)

      Oh my… And so it continues….

  50. A powerful and moving article. This is the type of debate that I like to read. The law of karma applies to all. Hubbard was no exception. He created a ‘religion’ to shield against his philosophy against post WW2 America and psychiatric criticism.

    This dogma that he created, which has been followed to a ‘T’ by fanatics like Miscavige and the Sea Org is what will ultimately ‘Do in’ corporate Scentology. I guess this is what Hubbard meant when he confessed to ‘Sarge’ that he failed. He realized what happened and it was too late for him to change it.

  51. “Because of the religious cloak with which L. Ron Hubbard chose to enwrap Scientology, the discernment of truth from lies within Scientology is not an easy task. L. Ron Hubbard wrote a large body of doctrine satanizing anyone who attempts to look at his body of work in a critical fashion. In fact, the very term ‘criticism’ – at least when directed toward Hubbard or Scientology – has been solidly re-defined in Scientology to be the activity of only sociopaths and criminals.”

    Marty, well done. Very courageous, very brave of you. Let’s keep moving forward with this, until the house of cards crumbles.

    When any author/researcher puts forward a “Science” or a “Philosophical system”. His Thesis must be subjected to peer review and opened to debate and criticism.

    Not to do so is to invite the worst and the lowest aspect of human nature into the equation. To further compound the felony by making part of the group’s mission statement to viciously attack anybody who is attempting to clarify the presented subject, as any normal, rational human being would try to do, is a receipt for disaster.

    One then creates a religion, a cult, a monopoly, a mystery and finally an entrapment.

    The Sea Org Execs holed up at the Int Base, and elsewhere RPFed, imprisoned, abused and generally degraded were in my estimation the best that Scientology had to offer.

    They were primarily entrapped because they ARE good beings and they gave their word to LRH.

    One cannot really be degraded, as one is not a thing and therefore there is nothing to degrade.

    But one can become an identity, a valence, a thing, by the acceptance of somebody else’s imposed goals and by subjecting self to somebody else’s command.

    Then one becomes fixed into another created belief system, a sort of multiple layers cake universe to which one agreed to obey and pledged allegiance to.

    The degradation that one suffers is ONLY of that artificially created personality and ONLY within that arbitrarily created system.

    To undo the “damage”, one must review the construct that one unwittingly accepted and then further contributed to its build up by carelessness or by simply being overwhelmed.

    No freedom can ensue unless one completely inspects the “mystery” one so carelessly walked into, and no freedom can be obtained until one separates self from that beingness one was invited to assume.

    I used Dianetics and Scientology successfully to free myself from past entrapments and I see no reason not to use it to free myself and others from Scientology.

    My best wishes and respect to all Scientologists.

  52. The Pure Heart

    In the beginning there was the Pure Heart: Integrity, Loyalty, Trust, Honesty, Beauty, Honor, Pride, Faith, Friendship, Love, Fidelity, Harmony, Joy, Ideals, and a True Game. We all know these things.

    How were these things lost? By turning every one of them into a control mechanism by the slave masters. They thought for their benefit – but in actuality only ending up in the degradation of all including themselves. Now “everybody knows” these things are traps.

    Every life begins with a Pure Heart. Every child “learns better”.

    Every religion, movement, crusade and cause célèbre attracts people with the promise of the Pure Heart. The promise may be true in the beginning but in the end it is used to trap.

    We are evolving to the Free Heart. That is a Pure Heart with wisdom. We cannot renounce the Pure Heart. It is the soul of beingness – what makes existence glorious. But only with a crystal clear understanding of the intentions and actions of the slave masters can we be free. The heart of wisdom is to understand when the concepts of the Pure Heart are being used to enslave and when they are free. And that is truly the Free Heart.

  53. Hard to digest Marty but

    CRISTAL CLEAR ….

  54. As far as I am concerned, I switched from Quixotian to Gandhian mode a few years after leaving the CoS.

    When leaving I discovered on the Internet how much I had been lied to: there were no operating thetans, OT5 did not reveal the ultimate secrets of the universe, the first Solo NOTs completion died from cancer 6 months after attesting, when in the events she was pretending to have the ability to heal any illness, etc.

    For a few years I was posting very critical articles on the Internet, denouncing the lies, the implanting, the suppression, etc.

    Then I began following a path of integration of many different fields, looking at spiritual schools, religions, sciences …

    At some point I discovered Buddhism and I decided to follow Buddhist ethics (The Noble Eightfold Path) as I was sensing its rightness.

    Right speech is part of The Noble Eightfold Path.

    Right speech means:

    1) Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive.
    2) Do not slander others or speak in a way that causes disharmony or enmity.
    3) Abstain from rude, impolite or abusive language.
    4) Do not indulge in idle talk or gossip.

    I realized that my speech against the CoS was motivated by some kind of revenge and was not right speech.

    This new viewpoint dissolved my intention to post antagonistic articles against the CoS.

    I don’t know what happened to Marty, but currently he seems to have switched too from Quixotian to Gandhian mode.

    • Can you tell me more about this? Names, dates, etc. to the degree you can: ‘the first Solo NOTs completion died from cancer 6 months after attesting, when in the events she was pretending to have the ability to heal any illness, etc.’

      • Sorry, my memory was not perfect: she died 2 years and not 6 months after attesting:

        “Very little publicity was made of the fact that the first Solo Nots
        completion Betty Filisky died of cancer at age 57, less than two
        years after attesting. In 1988, I was considered to be amongst the
        very best Flag auditors. Betty Filisky had advanced cancer and I was
        assigned to audit her. The desire was to avoid a PR flap should it be
        ‘known that the first Solo Nots completion was also the first
        completion to die. I audited her extensively in Clearwater both at the
        hospital and in a priivate motel room (It was considered out PR to
        have her at the FLB: for one she was an illegal pc per policy and
        also she looked like someone who is dying). I audited her until she
        had a remission and she felt a lot better. 2 months later, she lapsed
        in coma and was dead 4 days later. The key handlings on the cases by
        the church was A) to keep it quiet that Betty Filisky had died of
        cancer at age 57 after being the first recognized Solo Nots
        completion. B) Punish all her past auditors and C/Ses for out-tech.
        c) Put all FSO tech and Qual go into a state of terror at the idea
        that one of their pc could ever go badly in the future and make them
        ready to take an)’ measure sane or insane to prevent any flap
        involving their ex-pcs.”

        Posted by Arnie Lerma in alt.clearing.technology

        From :

        https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=fr&fromgroups=#!topic/alt.clearing.technology/3Rw-vKqC3C0

        • martyrathbun09

          Thanks.

        • It’s a shame when any human being dies from cancer. Her attesting to an OT level had nothing to do with her getting cancer. However those who favored auditing over conventional chemotherapy for treatment of cancer died from irresponsible neglect. Capt. Bill Robertson had throat cancer and decided to use the ‘tech’ to treat it and his tumor grew so large that he couldn’t swallow and died. That’s the Scienology legacy of blindly following the ‘tech’ in favor of medicine and psychiatric treatment that really saves lives.

      • See also http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/NOTs.html

        The auditor quoted in my first reply is Pierre Ethier.

    • Two young Senior CS in France, OT3 and OT7 got a cancer nearly at the same time. The OT7 died (Lucille Podva), the OT3 (Nathalie Ohana) is in remission. A recent new OT8 (Martine de Garrigues) got a cancer less than two years after her attest… Some others french OTs are ill or in remission. What sad indicators ! There is really a WHY around the OT levels !

  55. Wow. Powerful words Marty. Thumbs way up!

  56. You’ve nailed it. (formerly my2¢)

  57. Thank you for having the courage to differentiate. The truth is the truth, good or bad. Lies only cause bad conditions to persist.

  58. There are two Scientologies:

    One was the early days. PDC, research, development, spirit-mind-body. From what I gather, it was an exciting time composed of several able people working towards finding answers towards spiritual freedom. The focus was the tech and on answers.

    The second Scientology started in the early 60’s and became an implant/engram with KSW #1 as the repetitive command.. At this point the focus became LRH and that he and the tech “were the only way.” Although policy that followed was often shrouded in the idea of truth and the tech, it is clear that protecting SCN-LRH was more the goal. This viewpoint of being “the only way” is antipathetic to success, to religion, to a compassionate viewpoint of man, and to humanity in general. It is born out of something ugly….

    I agree that differentiation is an important element if people are to escape from the late SCN trap, or if they are to make some sanity and continued use out of the tech, but I also believe it is equally important that the exact truth be disclosed as to what happened that changed LRH and SCN. In order for the engram/implant to blow, one needs to go to the earliest point, and possibly to the postulate made at the beginning. I have formulated my opinions based on the write-ups of the original Scientologists and do not feel compelled to communicate my conclusions.

    Today, we see people mired in the KSW viewpoint, the LRH is God viewpoint, the “save the Church at all costs” viewpoint. This can be seen in Scientologists both in and out of the Church. The problem is that Scientology should not even be about LRH or the Church. It should be about the tech. the focus became very mixed up. The tech, like mathematics, can live on its own. It can be studied and evaluated. It can evolve. It cannot be copyrighted. It just is. Use it if you want. Differentiate if you want.

    My problem is that I believe the whole subject, good and bad, could be swept away if the implant is not lifted, and I have no doubt what is needed for that to occur. There is still a very large elephant in the room, and I do not believe it has anything to do with the cold war environment of the 60’s.

  59. Marty, this may or may not be appropriate so I am totally fine if you don’t post it. Just wanted to communicate something to you. You are losing your old channels of support not because somebody is creating against you. It is all your own creation and that is a good thing. You have the integrity to follow your own path wherever it leads you and honestly communicate your findings. That is the LRH definition of courage. But you lose friends and support that way, you get closer to the cutting edge of Present Time. That cutting edge is where Magic meets the Physical Universe, it is mighty sharp, it offers very little foothold so most of your friends can’t follow. They are left behind operating from fear, fighting and pretending. When your truth was fighting DM, you had lots of followers and financial support. When you fought a lesser war to separate Scientology from CoS, you lost some friends. When you fought for integrating and transcending Scientology you lost Jim Logan and the gang. Now your search leads even further away from fighting so you can rightfully kiss your external support goodbye. So why don’t you start a non-profit corporation? What would be a good and worthy non-profit to start?

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Misha. I’m not motivating. I mention it as a relevant fact along the journey.

      • If you’re not motivating, that’s great. But if you’ve lost support, maybe it’s because you’re no longer providing what the Indie community needs and wants. And if that’s true, then you’re no longer providing the game your previous supporters want to play, and the game has to a certain degree become getting you. If I for one have ever seemed out to get you, that’s what’s behind it.

        Four years ago, you emerged as the leader we needed, and the good you did was monumental. But now you’re going off in a different direction. That’s your right, and I hope you find what you’re looking for. But it’s not what most of the Indie community needs and wants. It’s been like a bait and switch, and has bypassed some charge.

        I haven’t done any kind of conclusive survey, but my opinion is that what’s needed and wanted is just the delivery of Scientology, safe from OSA and purified of the Nazi bullshit added to it by admin types in the S.O and G.O., and perhaps even by LRH in his later years. And maybe not as immediately miraculous as we hoped when we were too young to know better. But Scientology nevertheless, not something else.

        • martyrathbun09

          I could have easily made you, and others of your ilk, my supporters. However, I’m trying to create a rather different effect on people, which has to do with restoration of their own causation. So, I’m happy to hear you have decided to play the game of getting me. Provided it was a self-determined decision.

          • What restores people’s own causation is standard tech training and processing that parallels their minds (“wants handled”) while moving them up the Grade Chart. Anything that doesn’t contribute to that is bullshit. The revival of Scientology will occur when we all cut back to that simple purpose, throw the coals on production, and grow an organization that avoids the Nazi cult bullshit that destroyed the Church. It’s that simple.

            • martyrathbun09

              Get started fella. There are no stops. You are welcome.

            • It would be so much easier to agree with you , close my eyes , follow the stream and pretend I am at cause and safe . Doesn’t it sound like being back in the Cos?
              And I say easier because I am still having a rough time confronting the truth as I understand it , I guess still dealing with the betrayal.
              Through this blog I have educated myself on many levels and recovered many abilities as well as improved the ones I was aware of.
              That is without any auditing or contact with an auditor , just by reading the posts and the many viewpoints that are so enriching and trying it out in life.
              I suffered from the single viewpoint all my years in the Church and will avoid it like the plague.
              Marty”s gradient to helping people educate themselves and therefore being more at cause , was very apparent to me since I started reading a year ago and shows compassion and understanding.
              I have enough examples of people (under the radar) refusing to get out of the mind set to know that we cannot rebuild on that base it will fail again , because they are looking to close their eyes again and follow the stream and being told they are safe . Defeats the purpose , doesn’t it?
              When I am ready to seek out an auditor and continue on my next step ,I will be a fabulous PC and can already taste the wins.

            • If standard tech is the only way, if previous scn processes, previous and future philosophies cannot provide a way. If we are thoroughly depended upon whether or not standard tech will survive, whether DM will be dethroned, whether some highly trained will train others highly, then freedom is just a slogan. It’s 2013, LRH is on org lines. Those orgs have changed. Potential is endless. It can be used to limit potential, or create on the basis of the greatest good, or endless other things. We are basically free.

        • Jean-François Genest

          « Four years ago, you emerged as the leader we needed »
          → Stop NEEDING a leader, and you’ll start making progress.

        • It seems to me Marty is delivering exactly “Scientology, not something else.”

          • Not when he calls the OT levels “metaphorical,” and recommends that people just go Clear and then live their lives.

            • martyrathbun09

              You are done here. I don’t have time to police and correct your serial alterations of my thoughts and words. Get a life.

        • This is the second time you have said “The Indies”.

          “And, I’m not the only Indie who views him in this way, not by a long shot.”

          “But it’s not what most of the Indie community needs and wants.”

          WHO is the “Indie field” may I ask? That you speak here on behalf of?

          WHO are the “most of the Indie community” who’s wants and needs from Marty have not been met? And in what way does Marty have debt with them?

          Perhaps they should brand themselves with a new name.

          in·de·pend·ent
          /ˌindəˈpendənt/
          Adjective
          Free from outside control; not depending on another’s authority.
          Noun
          An independent person or body.
          Synonyms
          free – substantive – self-contained – self-sufficient

          Really, you’ve got to have eyes in the back of your head these days with the word play.

          The message from the fundamentalists (all seven of them that I know about) is “Group up” “Tow the line even if you can’t understand why” “WE are here to get ethics in” “Curiosity and doubt = L.R.H bashing” “The lives of every man and woman and child depend on us seven, even three of us can’t keep a roof over our own head” ( a real command of the “ethics conditions” NOT, yet they are going to put ethics in on the planet).

          These people were having an identity crisis before they got into Scientology that never got sorted out, or they wouldn’t still be dramatizing the Sea Org valence they got freshly stuck in. None of them are putting a roof over my head or getting me or anyone I know up the bridge so what they think and what they want and need from me is a mute point.

          You ask them what they have done for me, and what I have done for them. I have not been a liability to them. The other way around. And I think I can say the same for Marty’s exchanges with them.

          They are marketing a BRAND the same as a peddler on the street selling knock off watches (because they sure as hell don’t work for or represent the Church of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard.) They might as well be selling hot television sets off the back of a truck.

          And if you were sit in front of them or spend any time with them personally, this is exactly the vibe they ooze. All of the fair gaming and witch hunts and blood letting out here care coming from two sources, O.S.A., the fundamentalists and their flock. Those people are on the same page and there is nothing “independent” about either group. They are ATTACKING Independence. And frankly, I think there is TRUE Independent movement out here that has had enough of that. And THEM!

          • I don’t know who the 7 are that you’re talking about. I don’t know anything about their plans. And I am not part of any opp terming between them and Marty.

        • “But it’s not what most of the Indie community needs and wants. It’s been like a bait and switch, and has bypassed some charge.”

          You know what has been a “bait and switch”?

          “Independents” attacking people for being Independent.

          They are calling themselves “Independents” when there is nothing “independent” about them. They are ATTACKING Independence

          re·gime
          /riˈZHēm/
          Noun
          A government, esp. an authoritarian one.
          A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above.
          Synonyms
          regimen – order – government – diet

          reg·i·ment [n. rej-uh-muhnt; v. rej-uh-ment]
          noun
          1.
          Military . a unit of ground forces, consisting of two or more battalions or battle groups, a headquarters unit, and certain supporting units.
          2.
          Obsolete , government.
          verb (used with object)
          3.
          to manage or treat in a rigid, uniform manner; subject to strict discipline.
          4.
          to form into a regiment or regiments.
          5.
          to assign to a regiment or group.
          6.
          to form into an organized group, usually for the purpose of rigid or COMPLETE CONTROL.

          There are some people out here introducing themselves as “Independent” when actually, they are building the “New Regime”.

          THAT is the bait and switch. Right there.

        • The last thing the Indie’s need is “don’t look – don’t talk”. Marty is doing a great job of discussing the things that needed to be discussed when we were IN and trapped. Now we are free – free to look, discuss, debate and disagree. That is freedom! Thanks Marty!

          • But he doesn’t really discuss disagreements with his ideas. He either ignores them or “attacks the attacker.” Never any real 2-way intelligent discussion.

            • martyrathbun09

              Bullshit. You are demonstrating the truth of the Criminal Mind HCOB. You incessantly accuse me of your own conduct.

  60. Interesting topic. But the lecture “Attitude and conduct of scientology” of 3 november 1955, just says the opposit. He says that one shouldn’t be mean, get it, read it… I can mail it, very great tape, incredibly basic..
    How are you so sure that it is LRH who said to squash Mayo like a bug ?
    Never seen it in writing.
    For sure Hubbard wasn’t perfect but you are maybe mistaking his intentions.

    • martyrathbun09

      Just the facts, Ma’am.

    • FG – Have you LOOKED? Don’t be so quick to defend – do your own looking – you are now free to look and think for yourself. The truth will set you FREE!! Just look look look!

      Part of the damage the Co$ has done to it’s members is this fear of looking – just believe whatever one is told!

      Well, that is not freedom – that is a regime!

      We are all now free to look and observe and talk about what we see. Get rid of that “fear based” indoctrination” that the Co$ IMPLANTED in our minds. That is not spiritual freedom!

      Thank you Marty for looking and the ability to say what you see which is the truth and the courage to speak up and just say it! I appreciate it very much! You are helping me tremendously!

      • Yes, “Blown”, I’m looking, and for a while. And I don’t see evidence except in what Marty said, that Hubbard said to squash Mayo like a bug. Did Marty heard it from LRH? Did actually Marty even saw himself LRH and when?
        The “squash the squirrels” business was more the idea of Miscavige. He is the creator of splinters groups with his SP declares on old timers in 1982/83.
        Mayo said that Hubbard wrote him a letter to give him the technical hat for the next 25 years. True, false? Who to believe?
        I don’t follow blindly Hubbard, and it’s true that “critics of scientology” has been uttered by him and elected as a very important data due to tone level below 2 of the users.
        But there are so many more writings which are generous and advocate freedom. I just received this quote from CC int, which sadly enough for them (but they don’t see it) is a condamnation of the authoritarian attitude of the church of Miscavige.

        “Well, all we had to do to get training nailed down was to nail down the entire subject of education. This is rather simple. But we had to find out exactly what education was, and why it was and why we adventured upon it. Now, I’m not going to try to give you the precision definition of education, because I haven’t worked it out for a book which will be published on education sometime this year, giving the axioms of education and so forth. But the basic definition of education, paraphrased, would be something like this (just something like this, you understand. Any one of you could take the thing I’m about to give you and phrase it better) — it’s just this: Education would be the act or system of relaying an idea, an art or a skill or a datum from one being to another, for the understanding and free use on the part of the other — of the other. Do you see that? It’d be the understanding and free use.

        “Education does not consist of relaying an art, a skill, an idea or a datum from one being to another so that the other will never afterwards be able to change his mind concerning it. So he’ll never afterwards be able to think with it. And will never afterwards be able to free himself of it.

        “Now, a scientist recently called us in some hysteria — we get a lot of this sort of thing here in Washington — from the Bureau of Standards, saying he had just picked up a manuscript of a book by some professor who was laying down the law concerning education to the United States Government. And this professor said, rather startlingly, that education should consist of a duress and a vigor sufficient so that the student would never afterwards be able to think otherwise or depart from the teachings of his professor. That book is either on the market or will be shortly and is a very authoritative work. Very, very authoritative.

        “Now, it’s all very well this chap at the Bureau of Standards, this scientist was justifiably worried. But he needn’t have worried too much, because we’ll be there firstest with the mostest. And anybody who thinks that, of course, couldn’t write, so there will be no popularity of the work, that’s assured.

        “The point is, here, that education embraces this idea of freedom of use and understanding of the art, the skill, the idea. It is not given to a student so that he will never afterwards be able to move out of it, you see? It’s never given to him in this wise. It can’t be because he is not able to think with it.”

        — L. Ron Hubbard, 19th American ACC, THE FOUR UNIVERSES, The Four Universes, 20 January 1958

        • martyrathbun09

          Forget Mayo. Read the post – and the quotes from L. Ron Hubbard in the post, and you still say this?: The “squash the squirrels” business was more the idea of Miscavige. He is the creator of splinters groups with his SP declares on old timers in 1982/83. You my friend are in denial.

          • But you offer no evidence. You just assert from presumed altitude. Isn’t that the opposite of the “free thinking” you espouse?

            • martyrathbun09

              You alleged: You just assert from presumed altitude. Better than carping criticism from anonymity.

            • The original Diogenes, Diogenes of Sinope of Greece about 2,400 years ago, was apparently the prototypical “troll”. He would feel right at home today on the Internet.

              He reputedly lived in a large ceramic jar turned on it’s side and stocked with his staple food – onions. He is remembered as the founder of the Greek philosophical school of Cynicism, which later was established as the school of Stoicism by others. From Wikipedia:

              “Diogenes made a virtue of poverty. He begged for a living and slept in a large ceramic jar[4] in the marketplace. He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He embarrassed Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates and sabotaged his lectures.”

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

        • The “squash the squirrels” business was more the idea of Miscavige. He is the creator of splinters groups with his SP declares on old timers in 1982/83.

          Hmmm… methinx you should look further. LRH ED 149 INT, 2 Dec 1966, “Project Squirrel”, is a good place to start.

      • Regime was a great word.

        re·gime
        /riˈZHēm/
        Noun
        A government, esp. an authoritarian one.
        A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above.
        Synonyms
        regimen – order – government – diet

        reg·i·ment [n. rej-uh-muhnt; v. rej-uh-ment]
        noun
        1.
        Military . a unit of ground forces, consisting of two or more battalions or battle groups, a headquarters unit, and certain supporting units.
        2.
        Obsolete , government.
        verb (used with object)
        3.
        to manage or treat in a rigid, uniform manner; subject to strict discipline.
        4.
        to form into a regiment or regiments.
        5.
        to assign to a regiment or group.
        6.
        to form into an organized group, usually for the purpose of rigid or COMPLETE CONTROL.

        There are some people out here introducing themselves as “Independent” when actually, they are building the “New Regime”.

  61. You end up with this idea : the church is as LRH wanted. That should please Miscavige, and the ennemies of Scientology.
    My concept is : The church is no more what LRH wanted than the inquisition was the will of Jesus!

    • Maybe that’s why, according to Sarge as quoted in Wright’s book, LRH said, shortly before he died, he felt he had failed?

      But I don’t think it was or is, as he wanted it to be. He originally had envisioned an ideal scene for it, and at the end of his life perhaps realized that what he had actually created was not it. Thus he felt he had failed.

  62. “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.”
    –Mahatma Gandhi

  63. one of those who see

    I am also on this road to differentiating the Scientology that moves us up a little higher from the Scientology that handicaps that goal. A lot of the time it is quite clear. Scientology is magical, it disagrees with the mest universe and sides with the thetan against the bank. This is the game where everyone wins.
    It’s about ARC, self determinism, integrity and freedom.

    Just received this quote by email from CCInt and thought it was appropriate to include:
    “Well, all we had to do to get training nailed down was to nail down the entire subject of education. This is rather simple. But we had to find out exactly what education was, and why it was and why we adventured upon it. Now, I’m not going to try to give you the precision definition of education, because I haven’t worked it out for a book which will be published on education sometime this year, giving the axioms of education and so forth. But the basic definition of education, paraphrased, would be something like this (just something like this, you understand. Any one of you could take the thing I’m about to give you and phrase it better) — it’s just this: Education would be the act or system of relaying an idea, an art or a skill or a datum from one being to another, for the understanding and free use on the part of the other — of the other. Do you see that? It’d be the understanding and free use.

    “Education does not consist of relaying an art, a skill, an idea or a datum from one being to another so that the other will never afterwards be able to change his mind concerning it. So he’ll never afterwards be able to think with it. And will never afterwards be able to free himself of it.

    “Now, a scientist recently called us in some hysteria — we get a lot of this sort of thing here in Washington — from the Bureau of Standards, saying he had just picked up a manuscript of a book by some professor who was laying down the law concerning education to the United States Government. And this professor said, rather startlingly, that education should consist of a duress and a vigor sufficient so that the student would never afterwards be able to think otherwise or depart from the teachings of his professor. That book is either on the market or will be shortly and is a very authoritative work. Very, very authoritative.

    “Now, it’s all very well this chap at the Bureau of Standards, this scientist was justifiably worried. But he needn’t have worried too much, because we’ll be there firstest with the mostest. And anybody who thinks that, of course, couldn’t write, so there will be no popularity of the work, that’s assured.

    “The point is, here, that education embraces this idea of freedom of use and understanding of the art, the skill, the idea. It is not given to a student so that he will never afterwards be able to move out of it, you see? It’s never given to him in this wise. It can’t be because he is not able to think with it.”

    — L. Ron Hubbard, 19th American ACC, THE FOUR UNIVERSES, The Four Universes, 20 January 1958

    • martyrathbun09

      ‘It’s about ARC, self determinism, integrity and freedom.’ Except when it’s not.

      • one of those who see

        Agreed. Not sure I was quite clear in my comment. The parts that are not about ARC, self determinism, integrity and freedom I am leaving behind. And it seems to be mostly clear and easy to differentiate the Scientology that is on the road to truth from the Scientology that is not. The quote I posted, sent by The Church, is LRH on the road to truth. What he wrote and spoke about when ON that road is absolutely genius. And it is amazing he was able to rise above the bank to do it. I choose to follow that road. And it seems to me that although all of us have our own viewpoints that is what David Mayo, Frankie and Mary Freeman and so many in the 80’s exodus were doing and it is what Marty, Mike, Les and so many of us in the Independent field are doing now.

        On a side note, the church is doing at least one good thing. It is still disseminating these great quotes by Ron that are on the road to truth. And they disseminate them even if at the same time they are violating them. Fascinating.

    • Isn’t it dumbfounding that they can send out quotes like that with a straight face?

    • Joe Pendleton

      Ron’s definition of “education” is quite a beautiful thing I think. He talks more about this in his earlier lectures on education and he was quite enlightened about the whole area (and he states his ideas on this in a very succinct, very to the point manner that really makes his points).

      It is also I think kind of fascinating to sort of “deconstruct” or analyze Scientology USING fundamental Scientology datums as explained by LRH.

      LRH makes the point frequently in DMSMH that dramatization is never a good thing, as the person is always robotic and unaware to a greater or lesser degree when acting out engrams from the past (thus not analytical). And while I think it is a vital thing in study to ensure that one has no misunderstood words and really duplicates and understands what he might disagree with or have another viewpoint on, I do think it is also EXTREMELY vital in true, honest study to be given the freedoms that LRH talks about in the above explanation of what true and honest education should aspire to. But in the context of heavy third dynamic and religious dramatization, Scientology moved away from LRH’s early and very fine ideas on the subject to the point that ANYTHING LRH said or wrote became IMMEDIATE truth to Scientologists, which was accepted again IMMEDIATELY with very little thought and all subsequent study became an exercise in “how is what I just agreed with actually true” rather than forming a viewpoint that something indicated as truth and THEN became a point of agreement (as was usually the case in our initial experiences with Scientology).

      Again, nothing wrong at all in ensuring that one FULLY understands a datum or policy before making up one’s mind on it, but just the term “disagreement remedy” is a very evocative and instructive term on the direction in which Ron slowly but surely moved in how he wanted his parishoners to act and to think when they recieved his communication. And yes, this became the culture on how to act and think when receiving any orders from “command personnel” or seniors (nothwithstanding the fact that one could in theory “query” an order – was there even a SINGLE org staff member in the freaking entire WORLD who queried Miscavige’s order/program to eliminate the very, VERY succesful HQS course and replace it with two courses designed to simply make more money?) So much for applying conditions and successful actions, but my point here is acceptance without thinking and elimination of the right to disagree.

      “If you cannot disagree, you cannot have true freedom of thought.” – me, 2013.

  64. A final thought (and quote)for the evening-

    “No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation.” – General Douglas MacArthur

    • Tom,

      General MacArthur’s words contains a flaw.

      Because irresponsible people are usually the first to argue that they have rights and freedoms, when what is not always evident they have covert intentions to incite or cause malice or something of the kind.

      The internet and other media is full if it.

      The NRA is full of it.

      I think that should be better worded that:
      No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom, unless he is responsible, for with freedom, comes responsibility. And freedoms cannot be given to irresponsible people.

      Apostle Peter saw through that a couple of thousand yrs ago:

      1 Peter 2:13:14:15:16 “For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.” For this is the will of God, That by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men as free, not yet using your liberty as a cloak for vice, but as servants of God. Honor all people. Honor the king.

      The last sentence could be reworded as such:

      Do not use your freedom of speech as a cloak (an excuse or a Trojan horse) for spreading, or inciting vice (malice).

      Dio

  65. “The point is, here, that education embraces this idea of freedom of use and understanding of the art, the skill, the idea. It is not given to a student so that he will never afterwards be able to move out of it, you see? It’s never given to him in this wise. It can’t be because he is not able to think with it.”

    Is that why Scientology got copyrighted? To make sure its free use by its students?

    Please, please, please.

  66. Criticism – perhaps the most misunderstood and abused concept in Scientology.

    The mere indication, from one Scientologist to another, that one is being “critical” is supposed to speak volumes – that if one is being “critical”, one “must have overts” (i.e. moral or criminal transgressions against that which is being criticized) and, by inference, any such criticism is motivated merely by a hidden agenda to justify, or misdirect attention away from, one’s transgressions by belittling the target of such criticism. And, due to the mal-intent, what’s said cannot have any basis in fact and therefore is a lie. And since enemies of Scientology tell lies about it, any criticism is an “enemy line”. Therefore, by criticizing, you have positioned yourself with “the enemy.” Two-value logic version: criticism = enemy.

    Another way of saying the same thing in Scientological parlance is, “That’s natter!” (chiefly British, meaning gossip or grumbling).

    As such, it’s a very handy and succinct verbal device for silencing and introverting another.

    But this now extends beyond criticism of Scientology alone. Criticism of ANYTHING means that you have transgressions, mal-intent and misunderstood words on that subject or event and therefore have lost objectivity. So, those so forcefully indoctrinated at length by the above abuse of the concept into the Scn, Inc. synthetic valence know better than to speak critically about anything and should any critical thoughts occur to them they instinctively introvert in search of their own mal-intent and transgressions and blame themselves for their “obvious” mis-perception of reality.

    Accordingly, outpoints (things that are illogical or don’t add up or are conflicting) in the objective world when/if noticed are instantly internalized rather than spotted and confronted. And the mental machinations and gymnastics necessary to rationalize any real-world outpoint as one’s own failing is a spiral of introversion that actively muzzles and precludes real objectivity and thus any real improvement.

    HOWEVER, this is an abusive cultural aberration based upon two-value (binary) logic and the inability to differentiate between mal-intended, gratuitous bashing of something (as abundantly evident in this thread) and objective, candid, factual analysis. Why? Because “criticism” is a word that can include either flavor and is used interchangeably to identify both. THE OUTPOINT IS THAT ASSUMED IDENTITIES ARE NOT IDENTICAL OR SAME CLASS OF THING. Therefore, if one is voicing an objective, candid, fact-base criticism and is summarily accused of “being critical” or “nattering” and fails to spot that exact outpoint for what it is (an abusive wrong indication itself based upon mal-intent), one will automatically internalize it and attempt to make that illogic make sense, i.e. attempt to make logical something that is inherently illogical – an impossibility. This is the EXACT MECHANICS of enturbulation (emotional upset) and is EXACTLY what’s meant by the derogatory “being reasonable” – trying to rationalize something that’s irrational, trying to create a logical explanation for something is in fact illogical. It’s impossible so all one does is spin mentally in cognitive dissonance (i.e. in a “maybe”).

    “Natter” in Scientological parlance is defined as (paraphrased) gratuitous, carping, covertly hostile hyper-criticism. And everything LRH said about such behavior is true. Even Shakespeare knew it as in his oft-quoted line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” When you see someone “nattering” per that definition, you can just know – purely as a technical fact – that they have similar transgression of their own, even if what they are saying is patently obvious! From a purely TECHNICAL viewpoint, the factualness of what’s said is of lesser importance than the observable fact of that behavior because it indicates some psychic travail which could be addressed to great relief and even greater objectivity. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU INDICATE IT TO THE PERSON! THAT’S ABUSIVE!! And getting them to disgorge their similar transgression in a confidential confessional session where all is forgiven DOES NOT ITSELF ALSO CORRECT THE REAL-WORLD, FACTUAL OUTPOINT OF WHICH HE COMPLAINED!

    Therein is another abuse. When someone complains about some factual outpoint, the above purely technical fact is then used to shrug off any responsibility for the factual outpoint being complained about! Complaint: “Why is there never any fucking toilet paper in the bathroom??” Abusive response: “That’s natter. Why don’t you go buy some?” The bathroom continues to go without toilet paper.

    So, in the absence of such abuses (good luck), is there such a thing as objective analysis and constructive criticism in the Scientology universe? Indeed there is. Much of Scientology policy and technical literature is replete with constructive criticism. The Data Series itself is the methodology of constructive criticism. There is even a Data Series policy for criticizing an evaluation (analysis) submitted by Data Series students for approval and publication entitled, “Eval Criticism”. The Quality Assurance line provides for constructive criticism in anyone’s ability to write and Instruct or Cramming Order (Corrective Action) on an observed outpoint for Quality Control review and adjudication. There’s the whole Staff Member Reports line (which are SUPPOSED to be straight factual delineations of what was observed and routed ONLY to the Dept of Inspections & Reports with a copy to the accountable individual), etc. So, the core methodologies certainly provide for and encourage constructive criticism. That Data Series evaluation, disinterested, objective investigatory and quality assurance procedures, etc. have been suppressed or abusively reversed within the RCS does not mean constructive criticism is not well provided for within the SUBJECT. Indeed, objective analysis and constructive criticism done appropriately and in a non-abusive manner is part and parcel of practicing good Scientology.

    Accordingly, a Gandian effort would appeal to reason and the better angels of our nature with objective analysis of facts and constructive solutions, whereas a Quixotian effort would appeal to our baser emotions by way of bashing and therefore be ineffective through self-dead-agency.

    • Beautiful differentiation between constructive criticisms and nattering criticisms – thanks for that

    • Absolutely brilliant discourse on the subject of criticism. As a graduate of the Hubbard Elementary Data Series Evaluator’s Course, I really appreciate your insight on this subject, having introverted many times on “Am I nattering, or am I objectively ciritical? Wow! Thank You!

  67. Marty, you write: “I could have easily made you, and others of your ilk, my supporters. However, I’m trying to create a rather different effect on people, which has to do with restoration of their own causation. So, I’m happy to hear you have decided to play the game of getting me. Provided it was a self-determined decision.”

    It is good to see that you are aware of your options, and that you choose consciously how to proceed.
    I see that your choices are not driven not by a concern for popularity, but by a concern for truth, and therefore may at times not foster popularity. Truth, sometimes, can be a solitary path. Mark Twain once said: “Always do right – This will gratify some and astonish the rest.”Herman Hesse speaks of the loneliness that is inevitable in making decisions. I have experienced many times in my life what he talks about: “There are moments in our life where we must become so alone, that we withdraw into our innermost self….But then our solitude is overcome, we are no longer alone, for we find that our innermost self is the spirit, that it is God, the indivisible. And suddenly we find ourselves in the midst of the world, yet undisturbed by its multiplicity, for our innermost soul we know ourselves to be one with all being.”
    I have been through many times where it appeared that I was distancing myself from people, as I not making the choices that would make me popular. But deep within myself I was looking for another vantage point within myself, another place from which to lice, from which I would be more accepting, more content, and in many profound ways more truly close to all those around me. My intent was not to take distance, it was to find a deeper closeness. But as in the end, it all worked out.

    It is so important to remain true to oneself, to remain uncompromised. I’ll leave you with this humorous quote from Albert Einstein, so true. “Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.” And that’s from the mouth of the Master of Relativity!

  68. Jean-François Genest

    Yes !! That’s awesome. Very enlightening. It makes total sense to me.
    I really love reading the results of your discoveries as your skillful Investigation/Evaluation(s) unfold. It reminds me of Marc Yager evaluations. [Please don’t be offended, I mean this with the utmost respect, a compliment of the highest order.] I also look forward to the publication of “Part 3, 4 …” of this fascinating series.
    Thank you very much for all you do ! Θ

  69. Thanks for what you do, Marty. Brilliant. Please keep it up.

  70. During all the time that I was involved with SCN, I did so because I had a sort of trust to LRH. It wasn’t some trust based on hope. Nor some kind of a trust based on that LRH would save me from some kind of an evil thing. It wasn’t anything similar to the christianity story. I never felt forced to pursue the SCN path. When I read in Dianetics (before I went to the Church) about the liability of an endwar, I still didn’t feel forced to run Dianetics for that reason. I did it mostly for myself, but not in a very selfish manner. I thought that by dealing with what I didn’t want to have in me, I would be able to deal better with life in general.

    In the COS there was constant pressure and ‘not much time left’. I first read KSW 1 while on Staff Status 1. I hadn’t read any other PL nor bulletin. I had only taken 3 div 6 courses. And I was very WTFed at the mock up I made after I had read KSW 1. “So, I got here to ‘heal’ myself, and I found myself obliged to work for this group forever” I thought.

    I joined in ’98, and it’s been quite some time ever since. And I have changed my mind about things (including SCN) many times. I never got to meet LRH personally, so I cannot say I have experienced him. But I have experienced some of his thoughts and I must say that up to this point (I’m no longer a SCNist) I have a great deal of agreement with him, but not in a fixed sense, it also changes too. There are gradients of agreement as well as gradients of ARC in general –such as the Tone Scale.

    My idea based on what I have experienced i my own universe, and not on LRH’s claims, is that he wasn’t some kind of a wimp, nor a tyrant. In the PDC he described how qa thetan should be able and willing to use force, BUT not necessarily use it. One should be free to create and experience what he decided, and that should include force too, as force kept a person pinned down (being afraid to experience it etc).

    I think some not so honest people took such refferences, and made LRH seem like a tyrant, because they wanted to be the tyrants themselves. Constant willingness to fight back,doesn’t mean for me to fight like mad, but rather to not be afraid to fight. Personally don’t excuse the fighting stance, considering that I know that the way to end something is to NOT create it anymore, and not to counter create it (fundamentals of thought).

    I think of him as quite an able being, and I don’t think he got victimised by any DM. If somebody thinks that LRH was such a poor victim, then why use his techniques anyway, wanna be a victim too?

    I think that the fact that his name is identified with the COS and the COS is identified with SCN, is done on purpose, to keep people safe from black SCN. So, I don’t counter create people that criticise and generalise about SCN and this and that. If somebody is up to grasp the basics of SCN, can figure out the rest –if they are alligned data or not. Thus he can free self from any black SCN too.

    I think his goal was not to make SCN a big, dominant brand, but to actually bring about a good effect with it, upon individuals, and consequently upon the 4 dynamic (not the other way around). I support anything that brings about any such similar effect, without harming people. ‘Deep down’ there is no reason to argue, as we experience our postulates.

  71. I don’t know what all the fuss is about real two way communication with Scientologists.

    This idiocy that “case progresses” only happens in a formal session is self defeating and one of the many way Scientologists imprison themselves.
    We are alive, we look, we perceive, we communicate, we learn, we cognite.

    That is life; this blog is a great example of a living philosophy.
    When you have a fixed idea about something, a contrary view to that idea will challenge you, it will produce conflict, you will feel uncomfortable and you will then have to LOOK and find out for yourself which one is true or if both ideas are wrong or whatever the truth might be.

    Scientologists have been spoon fed that counterfeited crap, called “Scientology”, for such a long time that they don’t even know anymore that is their responsibility to KNOW.

    It is not LRH, it is not your Auditor and it is not Marty’s responsibility to do the thinking for anybody.

    Scientologists really need to grow up to the fact that they are engaged in an actual philosophy and that they supposed to contribute to the motion, no wait until somebody spoon-fed their cognitions.

  72. “We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts…”

    Probably true. Good luck finding anyone on this planet that has no criminal past. Hubbard himself had a rap sheet.

    • Lol. But it’s a good way to introvert you.

      • Doesn’t introvert me. I am proud to have a criminal past. Look at all of the crimes I have committed just by blowing through the implants and reactive mind. I don’t think anyone who is not a criminal will make it up the bridge. If you are not willing to break laws ENFORCED upon you by those who prefer to DOMINATE , you will remain in prisons of beliefs and lies.

        Better to live by your own laws. The ones that you choose.

        We have violated every law of the prison system here just by going clear. And Hubbard helped us escape!

        The security system here needs to be updated. Not today. Not for a few thousand more years. Given the keys to escape, 99% of the people prefer to just lock themselves in new prisons they create. They don’t want to break anymore laws.

        This is the GPM. Once you “rehabilitate” the people they do not want to break any more laws. Then they will keep themselves in prisons. If ever there is a prison to dwell in, it is living by the laws made by other people. And surrendering to their domination.

        You have to become a criminal to get out of the prison. That is the GPM.

        If you can make people “want to be good” “want to be law abiding citizens” “want to get along” you can keep them imprisoned as criminals, for a very, very long time. Laughter! I’ve got to hand it to some of these thetans!

  73. I do think is VERY difficult to reconcile two very different aproachs to the same topic. For example what about:
    What Is Greatness? [March, 1966]

    “The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not.
    And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.
    For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope. For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair, and these are not the things of which greatness or sanity or happiness are made.”

    and the quote you wrote in the post:

    “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
    I ask to myself, how can someone decide which of those 2 statement that are completely opposite in nature and logic is the correct one to follow?Analyze the situation?See the context? One is practical and another philosophical?I don’t know, but I think there is no other solution than apply a very senior datum which is WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU IS TRUE FOR YOU.
    Also very true what Mike Rinder wrote:
    “There is an LRH quote that can justify virtually any position or action and another that can be used to justify the exact opposite. Thus, the ultimate paradox – in order to be a “good, On-Source, dedicated Scientologist” that does what LRH says (ie “Keeps Scientology Working” – read “don’t think or question, just do”) you have to decide which one of the different LRH positions you are going to apply (ie think). It becomes a dilemma”
    It becomes really a DILEMMA, a full blown GPM with no solution out of it, and in this GPM after one has been well implanted his power of choice is reduced to zero and so accepts or uses what is more fashionable at the time, or what he is ordered to do by some mighty authority.
    One can’t even use the DATE approach, meaning “this came earlier-this came later” because LRH wrote specifically that there is no such a thing as “old”, or “background”.
    So a possible solution is that a lot of writings are Hubbard OPINIONS as seen by HIM at a certain point of his life, organizational development etc, things that are very different from Laws or Axioms and assume a different value in thinking, in logic and in operation.
    When those differences are not analyzed and taken into account it becomes insane because sanity is an ABILITY and is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. And LRH says that that is also INTELLIGENCE.
    So we could be very stupid, and we can be made into being stupid – nevertheless is us choosing to take that road and we did took that road in the Corporate Church.
    There is dissonance in the writings – no doubts about that. So WHO will be telling us what is right and what is wrong, what is sane and what is crazy. Are we waiting for another guru?
    That which works in Scientology CAN be differentiated from that which disables.
    And I do think that most of Scientology does work and works wonderfully.
    L. Ron Hubbard is not here any longer to deal with this, he can’t say anymore this was correct, this was not. Is us that have to be able to evaluate the data that are given to us and decide what is correct and what it is not.
    This is impossible in the Corporate Church and this is the very reason why it is failing, because is not making people more able, more self determined, more INTELLIGENT, because their SANITY and INTELLIGENCE cannot be exercised fully.
    “So it is with Scientology itself.  As a subject it contains a wonderful body of technology for helping to strip a person of the lies through which he filters the universe around him.The biggest problem with broad dissemination and application of that technology is its self-imposed prohibition on differentiating that technology from the broader body of Scientology work that is chock-full of lies.”
    It is like that – period.
    Is under our nose, has been like this but we have forfeited our power of choice for some holy cow worshipping process and because we were made to believe that our eternity, our future would have been lost.
    Also politics entered in, conquest of the world entered in, money and greed entered in, several several other things did and the REAL goal has somehow been lost.
    When one cannot “criticize” (apply his own judgment) he has lost and forfeited his power of choice and has entered the very 1984 world that we all wanted to escape.
    In order to do that I think we can be both Don Quixote and Ghandi.

    • Well said Claudio. You are an able teacher with the reason.

    • I agree with much of what you say with regard to the insanity of the culture within the Reverse Church of Scientology (RCS). It is as you have stated. It developed from groupthink that does not allow for one to have his own viewpoint, requiring agreement and compliance with groupthink – which is in fact GROUP CASE.

      Every group has a case – not just Scientology groups. But one does not have to go into agreement with it. And if it’s insurmountable, one does not have to participate in it. That was Debbie Cook’s message. It is also why LRH urged selecting executives who can think around groupthink.

      Groupthink will omit context and incorrectly include a datum into a wrong context, obfuscating differences, similarities and identities (indenticalnesses), to create a falshood that forwards its reactivity. And groupthink will do so to the degree that group case is restimulated (e.g. when under external attack or internal suppression). That’s where the “lies” come from.

      I never had any difficulty reconciling LRH’s writings or spotting his falsehoods because his Study Tech and Data Series taught me how to research, investigate, think logically and – together with the Grades – have the humility to realize when, where, how and why I was wrong and how to correct it – even when I had slipped into groupthink myself, in or out of a Scientological environment. That’s real personal freedom, man.

      The prohibition on labeling something as “old” is ONLY ON CHECKSHEETS because the references themselves are dated and state was has been revised, modified or canceled – otherwise you could lose the historical trail of the R&D and thus have less depth of understanding. So, why allow someone to arbitrarily make that call (as DM has)?

      Using THE TRUTH to bring about the professional demise (“decease” was an obvious typo – just spot it for what it is IN CONTEXT) of someone who makes his living by character assassination and spreading rumors and false reports reconciles easily with “What Is Greatness” under the heading of tough love. If it was good enough for the G.O., why not for the agent provocateurs of corporate greed and enslavement? If one does not believe that there is an intense ongoing war for the hearts and minds of Mankind from multiple vectors on multiple fronts – even here – they’re whistling past the graveyard. But as per PR Series 18, TRUTH is the kindest and most powerful disinfectant.

      A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.
      Mahatma Gandhi

      The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.
      James A. Garfield

      A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
      Winston Churchill

      The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
      Winston Churchill

      I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.
      Abraham Lincoln

      Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.
      George Washington

      In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
      George Orwell

      I say that justice is truth in action.
      Benjamin Disraeli

      • The Tao Te Ching is a laissez-faire philosophy of governance, eminently workable and preferable amongst a sane populace. What defeated it, however, was groupthink, necessitating the rise of Confucianism.

  74. Flexible Flyer

    In my opinion Don Quixote practicing chivalry and Ghandi’s self-sacrifice were about help.

    Help has no unintended consequences or blow back from actual GPMs. The lower bridge keys it out but that’s it: By this logic you audit and train, and the auditors take center stage over the trust fund PCs. A few Christians figured this out long ago and called it faith, hope and charity. Unfortunately for those mired in the nightmare as I was, it’s not an option.

    The excalibur effect–both the good and evil rising (vast oversimplification)–in the Arthurian and Grail Legends (and in Shakespeare) have resonated with audiences at least since the beginning of bad heavy metal music. Camelot passed the Grassy Knoll and took a bullet. This was the agony built into life. Some of the famous who have fast-tracked have faces that look like plastic-surgery death masks.

    Scientology is not a finished subject. I wouldn’t change standard lower bridge. All else up for grabs. OSA attacks: dramatizations. Attacking those who can best defend them, a dramatization. A group of techie mucky-mucks getting together to advance the subject and serve others: a form of help much like Quixote or Ghandi. It creates good will.

  75. Interesting. Marty, how do you know that it was Ron Hubbard who ordered to squash David Mayo? This is not the story that David Mayo himself had presented:

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