Deconstructing Scientology

The next book preview follows, working title Deconstructing Scientology: Mental Therapy or Thought Reform?  Reference,  Antidote to Scientology Slavery.

This book traces and contextualizes the origins of Scientology’s cosmology.

Topics of treatment:

How science fiction and fantasy writer L. Ron Hubbard drew from five central influences to create and market a self-proclaimed ‘modern science of mental health’.  Chiefly influenced by Sigmund Freud (and subsequent therapies derived from his work), Alfred Korsybski (and his brainchild general semantics), Aleister Crowley (and his black magic cult  Ordo Templi Orientis), smatterings of both Western and Eastern religions, and nautical/naval/intelligence training, Hubbard packaged and artfully peddled what he would ultimately claim to be the only road to total freedom.

How Hubbard spent the rest of his life attempting to make good on Dianetics’ promises to invariably deliver a perfect, or clear, mind. How that effort resulted in the formation of a pop psychology cult and how that morphed into a fatalist religion with a fascist bent.  How the insistence upon claiming 100% standard workability – in the face of roughly placebo range percentages of long-term satisfaction attained – necessitated the inculcation of belief and the implementation of strict discipline meted out against doubt or dissent.  Hubbard’s self-proclaimed messiah stature completed the conversion from the field of science to the field of religion. How the messiah metamorphosis was accomplished by methodically wiping out record of Hubbard’s five primary influences and claiming his revelations instead to have been derived, with himself, from an other-worldly provenance.

How Scientology amassed wealth and power by developing into an archetypal bait and switch operation.   New adherents were baited by claims of an heuristic, rational, secular approach to mental therapy and once enjoying some results were then switched into a monotheistic, bigoted, and vindictive religion.

The book demonstrates how inculcated fixation with ego (exacerbated by many levels of positive reinforcement), fear (compounded by a self-contradictory philosophy and formidable bureaucratic apparatus to enforce it), delusion (inculcated by hypnotism techniques), and paranoia  (instilled by continuous preaching of doomsday scenarios), resulted in a toxic mix of cognitive dissonance as the dysfunctional end product that the world today knows as Scientology.  The ‘only road to total freedom’ results in the adherent attaining certainty in his or her possession of super-human powers while at the same time maintaining just as certainly that he or she is at bottom a victim by virtue of attaining those powers.

Notwithstanding this ultimate result, the book argues that Hubbard and his work cannot be dismissed wholesale.  In spite of whatever flaws led to Scientology’s ends, Hubbard possessed practical genius. His determined drive to fame and fortune – before his precipitous fall – by following his own methodologies left some insights in its wake.  But, because of the totalitarian mind control mechanisms interwoven throughout the subject and its reliance upon mystery and secrecy to maintain loyalty and power, Scientology cannot survive the age of information.  In the end, it was Hubbard’s plentiful draconian policies calling for blind devotion, unflinching loyalty, monopoly and conquest that guaranteed the subject’s demise.

Ultimately, Deconstructing Scientology reveals the dichotomous nature of a subject offering some workable methods of expanding individual determinism and awareness at the self-defeating cost of demanding self-imposed ignorance and forfeiture of conscience.

305 responses to “Deconstructing Scientology

  1. Dave, You might learn something form this book.

  2. I like this preview.

  3. Very much looking forward to this.

  4. “roughly placebo range percentages of long-term satisfaction attained”

    I would guess that those percentages were not based on earlier, core Scientology but on the later, corrupted “CoS Scientology.”

    • Not in my opinion Miraldi. I use to get Advance magazine in the early seventies. It was such a joy to get it monthly. I was 18 years old and very accepting of all things metaphysical.

      There was a section of the magazine devoted to OT success stories. These stories were related to completing OT levels.

      It was so many years ago but here are some of the printed stories of OT powers I remember because it inspired me to go up the bridge.

      1) An OT driving in a car and making a few miles disappear so he got to his destination sooner.
      2) people levitating
      3) one guy making his car go through a heavy metal link chain and the car not touching it

      One OT 3 at the New York Org, when I was in the Sea Org told me that she created a “Teddy Bear Universe”

      The stories of self deluded fanciful abilities abound in Scientology. And you can’t disagree with people because it’s an ethics punishment for degrading OTs: enforced delusion

      I also was subject to it. I thought I was a famous composer, my friend thought he was a famous composer, I met many Christs in Scientology, many Mozarts, Beethovens, my X wife thought she was Mary Queen of Scott.

      Environment can be stronger that will. Peer pressure is quite powerful.

      Claiming make believe delusional powers is part of the Scientology culture.

      The auditing levels tell you you are going to get them. Then, to make Ron right people imagine that they so have them. After all, we spent $100,000 it must be true.

      Now, I am saying these things while at the same time acknowledging that these powers are true abilities native to a freed liberated being.

      I am also acknowledging that people did have metaphysical experiences that were real.

      But answer me this: I never had someone tell me that they were a disease ridden, toothless, smelly, ignorant and unlettered peasant. Which is probably more true within our last couple thousand years.

      Ron was Buddha, Cecil Rhodes, a charmer of vestal virgins, a chalvery general, a Xenu fighter etc etc etc.

      The spiritual path became a caricature of the ego’s desire for name, fame and power.

      That is because spiritual power, cause over, was and is the god of Scientology.

      So yes, I agree with Marty, there is great placebo in Scientology. Great amounts of well paid for self delusion.

      But a very important point to make is that people did get amazing results from there own self efforts at using some of the truths that were in Scientology.
      Being that these are true states of being and are native to the thetan, soul; direct perception of truth and native abilities can be forthcoming when the correct conditions present themselves.

      But it is also important to know that Ron was not a liberated master. He was not enlightened.
      And so he inculcated his imperfections and personal delusions into the fabric of his church.

      • Brian: “But a very important point to make is that people did get amazing results from their own self efforts at using some of the truths that were in Scientology…But it is also important to know that Ron was not a liberated master. He was not enlightened.”

        I think most of us are in general agreement with the two statements above. The difference seems to be a matter of which of the two each of us considers to be more important to focus on – and, at least for some people in each camp, how begrudgingly we admit to as little as possible as regards one of those statements while hell bent on amplifying the other. We need to lessen our obsessiveness, don’t you agree?

        • Yes I agree Miraldi. The focus is a choice. Both sides are important as far as truth is concerned.
          The reason my focus is on the side I am on is to stir the pot because the manipulation of facts have been askew as far as believers are concerned, on the other side.

          The truth will always find a way to support benevolent Scientology.

          My experience and purpose here, thanks to the liberality of Marty and Mike, and feeling that my views are important, is to expose what I consider the dangerous and immoral side so people can reconsider things to extricate themselves from these ideologies.

          People will see me the way they do. What they think of me is none of my business. The fact that I can be here saying what I say is a good thing. Imo

          The interpretation of what I write is dependent on your experience. Some people applaud what I say and some think I need to be kicked off these sites.

          I am not seeking agreement. I am seeking clarity/truth, and attempting to convey what I think is important at this time.

          Do you think Miraldi, that I can be better at communicating about these things? I invite your views if you see how I can improve my approach.

          Thanks Miraldi

          • And my dear passionate Miraldi, I am doing this for myself also. Being that I was so young when I became a Scientologist for 11 years, I am still finding some vestigial imprints, layers of unconscious mind, that are still resident within me, not useful to me anymore.

            They are layed in so subtlety as to avoid easy detection. My writings have also helped me to see these hidden, once assumed as truth, wrong knowledges.

          • “My experience and purpose here, thanks to the liberality of Marty and Mike, and feeling that my views are important, is to expose what I consider the dangerous and immoral side so people can reconsider things to extricate themselves from these ideologies.”

            Okay, but my experience on the internet has been that the dangerous and immoral side has been stated to a far greater extent than the plus points of Scientology. So if you are “seeking clarity/truth,” as you wrote, you should realize that past a certain point of constant hammering of the negative, the effect is to twist and obfuscate “benevolent Scientology.” Especially when the same old refrains are repeated over and over – which, btw, is a tactic of propaganda! In other words, albeit in reverse, you may be committing the same mistake/sin the CoS has been committing, i.e. putting a slant on truth. Maybe you’re just trying too hard?

            • paolo facchinetti

              Well stated. the good and the bad of Scn and LRH were already deeply analyzed in the 80s. There was also a book of Bent Corydon called “L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?”. But Scientology and Dianetics are disciplines where many bright people contributed, not only LRH who of course was the founder: Reg Sharpe, Alan Walter, John McMaster, Oto Roos,. Geffrey Filbert, David Mayo just to mention few of them, so it is important not to throw away the baby with the dirty water. It is a pity if someone who spent dozens of years in Scientology (or anywhere else) is not able to take some positive out his experience! Many many people thanked me for the help I gave to them through my use of what i consider good of Scn. also few psycholigists found helpfull what I have written without ever mentioning Scn of course.

            • Thank you for your reply Miraldi. Well I certainly don’t want to be a propagandist. Or be associated with the tactics of propaganda as you just mentioned. 

              Is it possible that you can point out what I have actually written that falls into the definition of the word?

              I certainly don’t want to be like the church. 

              So what have I written that uses the tactics of propaganda?

              propaganda
              — noun

              1) information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

              2) the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

              3) the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

              • Brian, the specific comment I made was that it is a tactic of propaganda to repeat “the same old refrains over and over.” The known propaganda principle is that if something is repeated often enough people begin to believe it for that reason alone – regardless of it possibly being slanted or incomplete. That’s why we should ALL be careful of our facts and not be tempted to overstate the case and minimize anything that contradicts our own firmly-held convictions and beliefs.

                In different words, I am of the mind that what we put out into the universe contributes to creating its reality. And I would rather more heavily emphasize a positive creation – which would include having the negative facts too, of course, but not to excess.

                And with that I wish you a Merry Christmas! :)

                • paolo facchinetti

                  Marildi i don’t know you personally, i read casually some of your posts few monthes ago and now again, but for me you are a living exemple of a “good product” of processing! I have forgotten to mention about people who contributed to the tech Irene Munford with her Dianasis and Richard. I don’t know if we are friend on FB, but for sure we have common friends so please add me or if we are already friend send me a message! Merry Chrstams! You should write a more interesting book!

                  • Thank you so much, Paolo. Your validations made the holiday even merrier. :) And thanks for the additional data too. Sorry for replying too late to wish you a Merry Christmas but I hope you had a joyous one! Unfortunately, I don’t do facebook since I prefer to put my internet time in other places. Anyway, I wish you a Very Happy New Year! And see you on future threads. :)

                • Greetings Miraldi,

                  I have given some thoughts to your words and have concluded:

                  because other responses to my posts have been positive, except for a few negatives, and because I strongly feel an open reasond criticism of Ron to be healthy, I will continue, as long as the Marty and Mike allow, to attempt to communicate what I know to be dangerous and harmful doctrines taught by Scientology’s founder, and to include him personally in those criticisms.

                  My motive, though not properly understood by some, is good:
                  Return of intellectual sovereignty to those leaving the cult by shining light on toxic concepts once considered holy writ.

                  Thank you Miraldi for your input.

      • Brian: It was so many years ago but here are some of the printed stories of OT powers I remember because it inspired me to go up the bridge.

        1) An OT driving in a car and making a few miles disappear so he got to his destination sooner.
        2) people levitating
        3) one guy making his car go through a heavy metal link chain and the car not touching it

        One OT 3 at the New York Org, when I was in the Sea Org told me that she created a “Teddy Bear Universe”

        Spyros: That shows that at least they aimed for OT back then. That’s what OT is supposed to be, Brian. OT, if you define the word, has nothing to do with realism. Instead of that, now, some make jokes about ‘OT’. Have you heard the one with the waitress?

        • Hey Spiro, I have given up the idea of spiritual powers having any value as a goal.
          My present understanding relegates spiritual powers as an outcome of spiritual practice, and a double edged sword bedfellow.

          Spiritual powers as a focused goal and group agreement, without the fundamental building blocks of moral thinking and living, leaves in it’s wake the spiritual carnage we see as Scientology.

          • Hi Brian. I do see you point, and agree. It’s a delusion that ‘powerful’ (dominative) people have any powers.

            After having experienced some bossing around in some SCN, (some called ‘8C’) I can figure out what one may mean when he says ‘power’ or ‘powers’. But that is not what I mean by OT. There’s nothing wrong if you can be at cause. You can’t be other than cause. And yes, in life if you intend to harm, you can’t be yourself.

          • *I said ‘in some SCN’ –very incorrectly. It is can be in SCN as much as it can be in society and in groups in general (and in marriages and I dont know where else). This rising through the ranks to forcefully control others…If one should rise through ranks it should be to assist others, because he wants to do it more than others.

  5. Quote for today:

    A Thought to Ponder from The Urantia Book

    “It is a fact that religion does not grow unless it is disciplined by constructive criticism, amplified by philosophy, purified by science, and nourished by loyal fellowship.”

    (1088.8) 99:3.7

    • I don’t think people who run Churches want to admit they are dabbleing in theater a little bit, and they acquire fans. They have to establish a fan base to expand. Just like musicians. “Loyal fellowship” means a fan base. They need to perform some service that makes their followers happy or they can not survive. People go to Church for emotional support and to be enlightened and bought uptone, the same reason they go to Jazz clubs.

  6. Can’t wait to read this book . This preview promises a lot of answers to my questions .

  7. I can see it will take very good writing to disentangle all the doctrines,philosophies and techniques LRH had exposed to then arrive at the simplest workable truths he did come up with in his path.
    Also I can see it will provide sanity by seeing what is valid and what was misused for other personal and organizational purposes.
    I look forward to your writings and exposure of what so far you have described in this blog. Thank you Marty.

  8. Scathing. Confront the evil, then discover the good. I’ll be looking for the book Reconstructing Scientology in the future.
    Mr. Enthusiasm I/C
    Mark

  9. Blimey Marty – that’s quite a synopsis. Do I even need to read the book now??? This last line answers the question I posed on this blog a while back – and realised the answer even as I wrote it, which was: Was it worth the sacrifice of some degree of self determinism to achieve the fabled “higher states”? The answer is obviously NO, but: “…subject offering some workable methods of expanding individual determinism and awareness at the self-defeating cost of demanding self-imposed ignorance and forfeiture of conscience…” pretty well expresses it perfectly. Can’t wait to read the whole thing.

    • BTW, that’s a hell of a quote from the Daily Mail interview: “‘I was trying to justify all that time I had dedicated to Scientology because I couldn’t admit to myself that it had been wasted. But I am done with it now.”

      • I read that too and I don’t buy for one minute that your time in the church was “wasted”, Marty. Because of the years you spent on the inside and the realizations you’ve had in your continuing quest for the truth on the outside, you’re uniquely positioned to help others who’ve been victimized by Scientology. Keep up the good work.

  10. sounds interesting. Looking forward.

  11. Very accurate collection of sources.

    The only item I would add to the list of ingredients would be Pavlov.

    Plus whatever else Hubbard drew upon when he secretly authored the Textbook on Psycho-Politics back in the 1950s. As early as the mid 1960s, this was called, by the Anderson Inquiry in Australia, the blueprint for Scientology.

    Oh, and perhaps P.T. Barnum might be included as an ingredient.

  12. It sounds tragic and dramatic and like just what I need. I am absolutely looking forward to this one and hope that reading it will help me unstick myself from the subject and have a life.

  13. Wow. Seems very on the money. Somehow my experience with Scientology was more positive than it apparently should have been. I did most of my services in the early and mid 1970s when the more draconian policies of the SO had not filtered down to the public level, the brush off quickie tendencies of the 1960s had been dealt with and the fatal release of the Dianetic Clear bulletins were still a few years off. Somehow I found one of the sweet spots in Scientology’s history and i am really thankful for that.

    • Dan,
      I also think that to a large degree you get out of it what you put into it.
      Marty

    • Dan, could you please clarify what you meant by “the fatal release of the Dianetic Clear bulletins”? Or post a link on any comment/article you or others have written about this.

      • Marildi,

        Here’s a pretty good article by Dan on it:
        http://silviakusada.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/going-clear-by-dan-koon/

        But maybe Dan has written others, and can point them out.

      • Not sure if this link will work, but here it is: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

        It’s to an article from around 1990 by David Mayo. It can be found by doing a search on David Mayo, Clear and is from IVy (International Viewpoints) magazine.

        One line from the article: “It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were ‘clear’ at a certain point…”

        • Mayo was made such a villain for so long. When I read his writings and see him talk, I find him warm, sensible, and brilliant. He tells it like it is without malice. Wish he could have been more active in the Ind. field.

          • Yes, but the above article by Mayo adds more confusion to the state of clear. It does not lessen it.
            When he says: “Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.” It sounds as if someone wouldn’t ever arrive at the point of Clear from where he then could take the upper steps on the bridge.
            I like Dan Koon’s article above, because he is humble enough not to pretend that he knows better than LRH.

            • SKM,

              You: because he is humble enough not to pretend that he knows better than LRH.

              Me: Any student worth his salt, should be better than his teacher.

              Bonafide teachers and masters tell their students so.

              If you can’t be better than your teacher you flunked.

              Even Jesus said: Why do you marvel, ye shall do greater things than I do.

              Dio

            • “CLEARING, 1 . a gradient process of finding places where attention is fixed and restoring the ability of the pc to place and remove attention under his own determinism. (HCOB 28 Feb 59) 2 . what is clearing but regaining awareness that one is himself, and regaining confidence. (HCOB 1 Feb 58)”

              Personally, I think any activity that increases awareness is an activity that increases awareness. Try skiing at 50+ miles an hour as a valid form of therapy. It works for me. Waaaaaay more effective than the endless CCHs and a lot cheaper too.

              From my reality there is a certain awareness one achieves when “clear” and at that point, Dianetics and engram running is no longer the correct tech to help a person continue to move up in awareness. I went “clear” on Dianetics and had wins similar to the one’s Dan Koon mentions in his write up on that track. That particular level of awareness only left me when I became embroiled too closely with a Co$ group (PTS?). Since getting out, full resurgence.

              Absolutes seem to be unattainable. Forget the labels, just run the process if you are interested and stop running it when it seems to no longer be producing positive gains in your own estimation.

              I would also say to quit asking others as authorities to tell you what you are looking at. No one is an authority over what you yourself see. Got that? That’s an order.

              • Haha, like your humor, Mr. Warren.

                Frankly, thank you for chiming in.
                I am not interested in labels and badges at all. Actually, for ne it was always about enlightenment (personal and transpersonal).

                As to the PTSness. Did you ever think about it, why LRH called the PTSness in “More about PTSness” HCOB middle class PTSness? It seems to apply to any group which tends to overimpose (or “implant”) its standards or goals over you.

                Regarding the state of clear and authorities. Clearing is to a large degree a group activity (even if it was only a group of two). Therefore in order to make it, one will need at least some faith in the partner (or guide, or group) one works with. The confusion about the state of clear destroyed the trust for many people. In the last 10 years I saw clear after clear was told he wasn’t. It’s a mess. Past life clears are not even considered anymore on church lines (see the report from Don Schaul from Israel). Talking about “authority” I tend to think about its root meaning (etymology). This is nothing bad in my opinion – we all learn the entire life from different sources, and if you want to learn a specific art technique, there is nothing bad to hook up with someone who is more experienced in that field (without ever loosing sight of it that it is you who is processing and integrating the data into his working knowledge).

                I wish you and yours Merry Christmas and a prosperous and blessed 2014.

            • The upper bridge? The upper bridge is about “implants,” as told to you by Hubbard, and about “body thetans,” as told to you by Hubbard.

              And after you’ve spent years running Hubbard’s “case,” what is the result?

              Did you not notice what David Mayo wrote about Hubbard’s PR and marketing motivation?

              That means that Hubbard was willing to modify the “tech” so as to generate desired PR and to make money.

              Hubbard, and this is in a 1978/1979ish HCOB, was concerned about the “reputation” of Dianetics. Why would that be? Was it the result of anxiety in Hubbard brought about by the FBI raids and the resultant legal complications? Perhaps. Around this time Hubbard also reverted to once again writing science fiction novels, and wanting to be identified as a science fiction writer, which was completely contrary to what he had written in the early 1970s.

              Hubbard, for whatever reason, or whim, or motivation, made a number of changes. Dianetics now routinely made clears. Keyed out clear was now the same a clear. Cheap clear, like cheap grace, became the overnight “reality.” Scientologists happily agreed. Of course, the missions, many of which were affluent (and had money Hubbard wanted), were then accused of “holding onto clears,” etc. Mmmmm….

              Around the same time, people (“OTs”) who, for years, were certain they had no more “BTs,” once informed by Flag, now knew they had, not a few, but thousands more “BTs.” Again, (in this case “OT”) Scientologists happily agreed.

              That’s when I began to see the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over Scientologists.

              That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some potentially beneficial ideas and methods in Scientology, but it does mean that the relationship of Hubbard to Scientologists resembles too closely that of a hypnotist to his subjects.

              • I’m glad you still can see some beneficial potential in the technology.

                As to the point regarding Dianetics – it may be, may also not. Lots of guessing.
                Just stay around here. It will be a hell of a fun, Norwood.

                • Not as much guessing as you, at this moment, might like to believe.

                  But a lot of examined evidence, and a lot of reasoning.

                  Keep in mind that much of the information that some newly liberated former members of the “church of scientology” – thanks to Marty – are seeing for the first time, has been around, and examined by others, for several decades, even before the Internet.

                  It takes time to sort it out. It took me time, and it will take you time. There’s no rushing it.

                  • Yes, we are sorting. That’s why it would be cool if you add more specifics to your assertions. Otherwise I put it into the appropriate bin in my memory banks.

            • I read Mayo’s article some time ago and it cleared up many questions for me. Depends on one’s perspective. Drop me a note and I can send you a more detailed explanation of some important principals of the different layers of case.
              marknr@hushmail.com

        • Norwood, I read that article by Mayo and I would say that although he talks about “clearing” as something that continues all the way up the Bridge, he does in fact give a specific definition of Clear – which indicates that he too found it to be an achievable and specific state. In other words, a relatively “absolute” state of case. Here is his definition:

          “no longer chronically affected by engrams” or “engrams no longer in chronic restimulation.”

          When I read the above, I thought of the following from CoHA:
          ————————————
          “These [pictures] are only partly permanently created. Other moments of the past become recreated only when the thetan’s intention is directed to them, on which these parts spontaneously appear, the thetan not voluntarily creating them.

          “This forms the Time Track. Some parts of it, then, are ‘permanently’ in a state of creation and the majority of it becoming created when the thetan’s attention is directed to them.

          “The ‘permanently created’ portions are those times of overwhelm and indecision which almost entirely submerged the thetan’s own will and awareness. Such parts are found in implants and great stresses. These parts are in permanent
          restimulation.”
          ————————————

          What I extrapolate from the above, combined with other data (including Mayo’s definition) is that a Clear no longer has the “permanently created portions” of the time track in restimulation.

          And I get that LRH put “permanently created portions” in quotes because of the fact that, in the face of auditing, those portions are not actually “permanent,” i.e. they are no longer in chronic restim once the state of Clear has been achieved.

          However, per the above quote I get that a Clear can still be restimulated since the majority of the parts of the time track are still “being created when the thetan’s attention is directed to them.” This seems to be what causes all the confusion about the state of Clear. Nevertheless, it is quite an achievement to no longer be in CHRONIC restimulation.

          • You’re twisting what David Mayo wrote. Fortunately, the link to the article is right above and can be read by anyone.

            • That was a direct quote. And you are free to quote anything that contradicts it or shows it to be taken out of context, which I don’t think is the case.

              • Here is the full context:

                “Perhaps what we have been calling ‘clear’ is ‘no longer chronically affected by engrams’ or ‘engrams no longer in chronic restimulation.’ As such, the state would be more accurately described as a state of release or as a state of reduction. In other words, it would mean that the majority of a person’s aberrations had gone into abeyance.”

                “Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.”

                Based on the above and the rest of the article, whether the state is called “Clear” or a “state of release” or “state of reduction” – Mayo is nevertheless acknowledging that there is indeed a specific state that is accomplished at the point LRH called “Clear” – and Mayo simply feels that calling it “Clear” is a misnomer.

                • Perhaps current Clear should be called Grade 7 release. Perhaps OT-1 and 2 should be called BT prep A & B and OT-3 should be BT-1.
                  In my work I have come across perhaps 150 major milestones covering different areas of case. I have been using variants of Routine 3 to examine confusions and considerations of my past. There are many other methods of gaining understanding and relief that I will explore.
                  I have discovered that full Dianetic erasure of an engram chain is actually a release point in that it will relate back to an earlier consideration, postulate.
                  I have a more detailed write up of 3 important principals regarding this area. Drop me a note.
                  marknr@hushmail.com

                • Firstly, the full context is the entire article, linked above, not your excerpt.

                  You miss the point that Hubbard was willing to corrupt the subject for the purpose of enhancing his image, and for the purpose of making money.

                  Another item. A 1986 interview with David Mayo:

                  http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm

                  • Right, not “full context.” What I meant was “the surrounding context.” However, you seem to agree that there is nothing in the entire article that contradicts that portion I quoted, since if there were I imagine you would have quoted it by now.

                    Also, I don’t equate what Mayo said with your interpretation. Look at the difference:

                    Mayo: “It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were ‘clear’ at a certain point, and that they therefore had no reactive mind.

                    You: “…Hubbard was willing to corrupt the subject for the purpose of enhancing his image, and for the purpose of making money.”

                    As research went along, LRH found that Dianetics could not be continued past a certain point or it would result in harmful consequences for the pc. But Dianetics auditing nevertheless did achieve a huge gain at that point, in that the individual was no longer in chronic restim – as confirmed by Mayo in the article.

                    LRH apparently felt it would have been discouraging to change the term “Clear” as it had been firmly connected to Dianetics. In fact, there were other terms too that he admitted should be have been changed based on later research, but they were already in common use and such changes would have confused everybody. As for “Clear,” it being a very significant term, he openly admitted that research required the definition to be changed.

                    Basically, Ron’s assessment of how best to handle changes in research may have been misguided at times, but I believe he did his best while taking all aspects into consideration.

                    • Hubbard was majorly concerned with money-getting (even more than usual for him) post the 1977 FBI raids – raids which Hubbard blamed on Mary Sue, even though he was the Mastermind behind the mess. After the FBI raids, Hubbard had a mental and physical breakdown, and regressed, to an extent, to the time before he knew Mary Sue: a time when Dianetics made Clears (at least in its hype), and a time when he was writing science fiction. Out of Hubbard’s neurosis came pronouncements that Scientologists, predictably, instantly accepted as the TRUTH.

                      It was a very convenient “truth” for Hubbard as, as earlier mentioned, his attention was, even more then usual, on MONEY. Telling people they were already “Clear” and needed to get out of those rich fat Missions and go UP LINES, meant $$$ where Hubbard could easily access it. Hubbard also wanted more bodies in the Sea Org, and the Missions – who he did not trust – weakened. This drama came to a head in late 1982.

                      If you obtain an old copy of ‘What is Scientology?’ from 1977/78, you’ll see a bar graph that shows the number of Clears made between 1966 and 1978.

                      In 1969, 1,218 Clears were made.

                      By 1978, the number – steadily slowing every year – had slowed to 278.

                      It was almost a flat graph.

                      Hubbard would have seen this.

                      And Hubbard’s priorities were: 1)Wanting more money 2)Concerned about the “reputation of DN” 3)Technical considerations.

                      To the Scientology “tech” people, of course, only the “tech” part is believable.

                      By the way, in the late 1960s and most of the 1970s, plenty of Clears had Dianetic auditing. It was standard tech for over a decade that, when an OT “had somatics”: “HE NEEDS DIANETICS.”

                      Then, overnight, it became “DEADLY” to audit Dianetics on Clears, etc.

                      A very fishy time in Scientology.

                      But there are many other – earlier – examples of similar thinking by Hubbard. And it’s always a mix of MONEY, EGO, and then “TECH.”

                      Maybe it’s time to step back a few paces, squint one’s eyes, tilt one’s head slightly, a re-look at the “Scientology” and Hubbard.

                    • Marildi,

                      My conclusions are based on more information than has been posted, here, in this thread. What’s posted here is a start. A beginning.

                    • Just curious, Norwood. Besides all the indirect knowledge you have acquired, did you have much direct observation/experience with Scientology, i.e. auditing and/or training?

                    • Good to know that. Would you mind saying something more specific about what you did and what you did or didn’t get out of it?

          • I think you’ve nailed it very well with these quotes and your extrapolation.

            Frank Gerbode (whose excellent book ‘Beyond Psychology’ owes a lot to both Hubbard and Mayo) aptly called this state the Turning Point. The point where a person can no longer be overwhelmed by their mind, because they have regained responsibility for creating it. This was my own experience 41 years ago, and it’s still as stable and bright as ever.

            A Clear, by this criterion, can still as-is scenes from the past and have more cognitions since they haven’t yet viewed every moment of their track and taken over ownership of it. But they can stand apart from their aberrations, view and handle them; and possibly they no longer need an auditor to make progress. Sort of analogous to a ‘word clear’ who still has MUs from their past but can now recognise and handle these by themselves. Clears can spot incidents, date/locate them, or handle the past by comparing it to present time (as in Dennis Stephens’ TROM). I believe the key difference is that after the turning point of clear we don’t need to create facsimiles, but can look at the actual past in the same way that we look at the present time environment.

            • Hi, David. Sorry, somehow I missed replying to your post earlier. Thanks for telling me about the Gerbode term “Turning Point.” Your description of it as being able to “stand apart from their aberrations, view and handle them; and possibly they no longer need an auditor to make progress” is very real to me. And what a good analogy you made with a “word clear.” However, I’m not sure how true the other part is – that “a person can no longer be overwhelmed by their mind.” I was thinking that a Clear, and I suppose the Turning Point as well, is “no longer in chronic restim” (as Mayo described it) – but that there would still be portions of the track that could be restimulated. Maybe I misduplicated you.

              Thanks also for reminding me about TROM. I have been meaning to check that out! :)

          • What I get is that Mayo was supposedly given the ‘tech hat’ by LRH, and that while Mayo denied one of the most basic things in SCN –Clear. It makes perfect sense. So not only we have unattainable OT, we can’t even have Clear. I think I’m going back to the Church.

            (LRH wrote btw that if a Clear has a picture, it is not his own.)

            • I’m kidding, I can’t go back to the Church either, as I’m lazy and don’t make money, which automatically makes me out-ethics, and which consequently makes me SP, after all I would tell to my EO after he/she would tell me such a thing.

            • Hey, Spyros, don’t be lazy :P – you need to word clear that Mayo article. And my posts too. LOL

              No, Mayo doesn’t at all deny Clear. He simply makes the point that at the point of Clear the person has lost the portion of the time track that has been chronically in restim (no small achievement, mind you) – but that there are other portions of the track that can still be restimulated, and therefore the person can become more and more clear as auditing continues. What I get is that he is basically objecting to the use of the word “Clear” at that point on the Bridge since it is misleading in that it isn’t an absolute. Seriously, that article is very illuminating, IMHO.

              • Hey Marildi. Merry delayed Christmas :)

                What you explained to me is what is what I explained to you too, only different words :P In DMSMH to destimulate but still have reactive mind was called Release. Clear=no reactive mind at all. What you described resembles Realease more than Clear. When you deal with circuits, in the pre-OTs, you deal with their reactive mind, not the Clear’s. If the Clear still identifies himself with the body (and consequently the circuits) he may as well consider he has one. But if you insist he has a reactive mind, you invalidate his being Clear.

                • Spyros, Merry delayed Christmas to you too! :)

                  I agree that what I (Mayo) described resembles Release more than Clear. Actually, in 1965, LRH wrote about a “Keyed-out Clear” and said that “this is a simulated Clear, we call it a “Keyed-out Clear” quite properly. But it isn’t a Clear, it’s a Release. The person has been released from his reactive mind. He still has that reactive mind but he is not in it. He is just released from it.” (HCOB 2 Apr 65)

                  HOWEVER, in l978 he stated the following:

                  “I have now determined there is no such thing as Keyed-out Clear. There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.

                  “The definition of Clear, to re-emphasize the most accurate statement of it as given originally in Book One, Chapter II of *Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health*, is: A BEING WHO IS UNREPRESSED AND SELF-DETERMINED.

                  “The state of Clear, whether achieved on the Clearing Course or on processing on Grade Chart materials prior to the Clearing Course, can be very accurately determined when it is attained, as there are specific evidences which accompany the state.” (HCOB 24 SEPT 78RA
                  III, Re-revised 31 Mar 81)

                  My understanding is that LRH started out with a higher, more “absolute,” goal for the state of Clear but discovered that at a certain Release point, further running of Dianetics was detrimental to the pc – so at that point he accepted as “Clear” what he had earlier called a “keyed-out Clear.” In a true sense, it’s a Release, as you say. But what a Release – A BEING WHO IS UNREPRESSED AND SELF-DETERMINED. Or, as Mayo later put it, “no longer chronically affected by engrams” or “engrams no longer in chronic restimulation.”

                  • Thanks for looking all that stuff up for me (and others) :)

                    I see the logical sequence that Keyed out Clear=Dianetic Clear=Clear meaning that Clear is just a keyed out state. But it could be the other too –that Keyed out Clear=Clear=No reactive mind at all.

                    Logically, if one knows now that he created that reactive mind, or himself as a preclear or something of the sort, can be a preclear again, have a reactive mind again etc. But the difference is he can do it, be it, have it -or not- and he knows it. It’s an ability now. That’s the Clear’s cognition. If one pointed out to him that he still has a portion of that reactive mind -and he doesn’t know it- that Clear’s cognition would then be invalid, he wouldn’t take responsibility for creating that reactive mind in the first place, if he believed what he was told. And of course he could then re-crete the reactive mind and perceive it too.

                    What say you?

                    • What say I? I say it depends how you are defining “reactive mind.” Defined the way Mayo did, a Clear wouldn’t “still have a portion” of it. In other words, the particular bank that had been in chronic restim would no longer be so.

                    • Fine I wont insist, because I dont want to add to the doomy gloom that case if powerful and eternal and if you have the wrong technique you’re *beep*-ed. I would, if I sat and analysed what overruning a Clear could do some more :P Oh how many articles I have read about the present squirrel tech and how we’re beeped because DM squirreled the tech, that I despaired myself. In the final analysis, thought>techniques. If you think so, then so it is. Happy but true.

                    • When I got out of the Church I was too careful, and a bit of a squirrel hunter. I was like ‘why u allow dudes like (name) mix with SCN, although he admits he is a squirrel?’. I did it a bit too much and I wanted 100% purity of tech. The problem was I didn’t even know what 100% pure tech was lol. Even now I’m not sure what is by LRH and what not (I just don’t wonder anymore). So, I guess I got into more ARC with doomsaying –“The implaters have taken over! We’re not gonna make it!” It didn’t help me much :p

                    • Hey, Spyros, I hear you. I look at it this way: You learned a lot from all your stupid mistakes. LOL :D And me too!

                      Btw, I don’t know if anyone knows what 100% pure tech is, because of not knowing who actually wrote and/or who revised various issues. But I think the bottom line is that Ron was right about “word of mouth,” and those who succeed in the future will be those who are practicing a workable tech and getting results – whether straight from the correctly chosen HCOB’s, or a divergence from them that gets better results. JMO

                    • Yeah, whether one mostly agrees LRH or not, he could still agree that what matters is the EP –the ‘workability’. I think SCN apparently applied by-the-book, could be horrible if one didn’t intend to achieve something good. Also, the other way around. I cannot explain logically some things, but in some cases of LRH texts (mostly the very spiritual stuff)I just know it is like that, and the process can work. Afterall, I got into SCN voluntarily.

                      You know, you could sit and chat with somebody and for as long as you do so, the person could be Clear (or even better) –maybe not a permanent but no reactive mind. And you could sit and tell him how he is at effect of the ‘world’ and turn him into a bit of a psycho too. If one cannot experience something that he is not creating, then to become aware (create and experience it) of something in order to resolve it, could be a sneaky (or even unintentional) trap, if the problem is not resolved. I have done that too -mostly with myself- although I didn’t intend to turn anyone into a psychotic. But now I mostly insist to give more credit to truth. The truth is not that a being is a victim nor a perpetrator. If that was true, it could never be resolved :) And SCN-3rd dynamic speaking, I wish all conflict could end, because it’s not truth either.

                    • Didn’t get around to telling you, but I really liked this post. :)

                    • * As per what I have studied by LRH, the posing and resolving problems was a function of the analytical mind, but it was not a function of a thetan. The mind, generally, was described as a ‘part of man’ but not a part of the thetan. The thetan can create and perceive –it can create and perceive minds too. And I recently thought if the EP of Grade 1 is that the person has no problems, you see, it’s time to advance from the DMSMH mentality, it’s not even Scientology.

                    • Hello Spyro: Good to ‘speak’ with you.
                      The mind, reactive mind, Theta, Thetan, analytical mind
                      I have been a Scientologist for 45 years, recently considering myself an independent. I have a fair grasp of the detail and ‘flavor’ of Rons work and his intentions. Perhaps a few of the things I have learned can add some clarity. Perhaps you know these things already.

                      These were all working metaphors for various aspects of an individuals case. ‘Case’ being defined as anything which prevents one from fully operating fully in present time with full knowledge. A very broad subject.
                      They were a way of compartmentalizing various aspects of how an individual operates, common phenomenon, so that they could be attacked in an understandable way.
                      If one’s family were slaughtered by small purple men, and these were the only small purple men you had ever seen, and then a friends crops were ruined by small purple men, it would make perfect sense to be predisposed to wariness when it comes to small purple men. (An actual incident.) If one later learned that the race of small purple people were generally benevolent and kind, and that a few bad apples were captured and imprisoned, it would probably temper your disdain for them. But the wariness may still be there. That’s reactive. It was a decision not, fully realized and reversed. A conflict forgotten. Multiply this by a large number and it can appear to take on a life of it’s own.

                      Next, you have a job, friends, a home, hobbies, etc. All requiring lots of attention. But what you really want to think about is your boy/girlfriend. So you set aside a bit of your self to take care of these things while the main ‘you’ can put your real attention on what you really want. That way you’re not constantly bothered by all this other stuff. This, you allowed to grow to encompass most of your activities and intentions. Analytical mind.

                      A body has lots of things going on which often require attention. A somatic mind, yea, that’s the ticket. Add all the rules and procedures required to operate in a physical universe and, well, you get the picture.

                      But this has become very complex and consuming, leaving little attention to think clearly and operate effectively. Especially since you have already decided that you didn’t want to do it all and, later, that you couldn’t do it all.

                      But now how does one assist this guy in getting himself back in fighting shape? Tell him to find and understand and correct all these old decisions and he’ll say “HUH”. So you tell him there is this thing that is holding him down that he can attack and be better off. They are separate from him and he can “get rid of them” Tricks were developed to “get rid of charge” and “unburden” a case. When done skillfully, they can help one to feel better and think more clearly.

                      But eventually one has to realize that all these little machines were created by and are being held in place by the individual himself. They are not separate from him, but are a part of him. Hell, they ARE him in fact. Now, you get rid of these devices you have made to do work and handle life for you, and you’ll quickly make new ones. “Heck, I can’t do this all by myself 24-7, it’s too much for me.” Truth is, you ARE doing this yourself, just denying it. Putting up pretended barriers within yourself and calling it something else. But in reality, it’s all you.

                      The solution? Use the ‘tricks and methods’ to unburden your case. Do those things which produce positive gain to increase your confidence in yourself. But keep in mind that the real goal is to examine your own decisions and understand why you made them. Regain the willingness to make new decisions in present time. See just a few of these original decisions and it gets really fun. I have laughed a lot lately.
                      Mark

                    • Hi Mark, good to read from you too!

                      I have been studying DN and SCN since around ’94. I think in my case, the duration doesn’t matter as much, but in yours it does, as you can compare and find differences between present SCN and 45-years-ago SCN. I personally cannot do that, I can only compare between what I have studied and what I have experienced.

                      I think what you wrote before could be a good alternative ‘What is Scientology?’. :) I too have been making such thoughts about case and how it can affect me or others, for a while now. And yes, I know those tricks and methods can be workable. Marildi and I have been chatting for a while in here and in another blog, and knows about some of my considerations, but for somebody who doesn’t know me, my ideas might seem a bit odd and he/she wouldn’t know the logical sequence of our discussions.

                      There is something I would add in my version of ‘What is Scientology?’, and I would put it first in terms of priority –the axioms and a thorough explanation. I used to have the consideration(s) that case is a standard thing that is there, and will be there until it is handled. But now I think that when somebody engages to spot specific portions of case, an they appear there, and they read on the meter, they are created in that moment alone, they haven’t been there all along, unless somebody has been busy creating all that stuff all along, which is rare.

                      That’s one thing I have been trying to explain. But my original purpose in writing in blogs was to point out what I would call ‘reverse Scientology’ or what others call ‘Scientology’, because I wanted it kicked out. But as I have been writing my considerations, I have been realizing as well that my considerations were considerations –I have been as-ising them to some degree. To generalize, I have been considering myself and others potentially victims of reverse Scientology a bit to much –too much at-effect viewpoint, which isn’t true, that one is at effect. To be at effect one must assume the viewpoint of another ‘self’ than his original self, be it the viewpoint of a body or another thing (static is not a thing). So, to point out that he is a body is not a very beneficial thing. And so, anyway, I have nearly run out of purposes, in writing in blogs, but I can still enjoy the company. I think ARC can work :)

                    • Spyros: “I used to have the consideration(s) that case is a standard thing that is there, and will be there until it is handled. But now I think that when somebody engages to spot specific portions of case, and they appear there, and they read on the meter, they are created in that moment alone, they haven’t been there all along, unless somebody has been busy creating all that stuff all along, which is rare. That’s one thing I have been trying to explain.”

                      It sounds like you are talking about the difference between chronic restim (where you say “busy creating all that stuff all along”) and non-chronic restim (“created in that moment”), which can occur because of being triggered by the environment. (Correct me if I’m wrong on that). Mark’s emphasis on “old decisions” – i.e. old postulates – is very similar to your emphasis on considerations. Since considerations are “continuing postulates” by definition.

                      You also wrote: “To generalize, I have been considering myself and others potentially victims of reverse Scientology a bit too much – too much at-effect viewpoint, which isn’t true, that one is at effect. To be at effect one must assume the viewpoint of another ‘self’ than his original self, be it the viewpoint of a body or another thing (static is not a thing). So, to point out that he is a body is not a very beneficial thing. ”

                      Nice! Well said. :)

                      I especially liked the last part: “And so, anyway, I have nearly run out of purposes, in writing in blogs, but I can still enjoy the company. I think ARC can work.”

                      I heartily concur on each point! :P (= ARC ;) )

                    • Thank you, I like you too :) Yes, we agree over all points. I too define consideration as irresponsible/continuing creation/postulation, I don’t argue. It’s just that unless I sat to think about that SCN stuff I didn’t create those considerations either, so the continuing is relative.

                      I think that to consider something to be ‘reality’ instead of your own thought, can be a nice way to create it irresponsibly and make it sticky –make it a consideration. “I’m not thinking it, it’s reality.” It becomes sticky to the degree that you think of that reality to be sticky. You sort of tie them together onto each other.

                      About the chronic restimulation, I don’t know what to say, as that restimulation sounds mysterious to me :P Logically, for as long as one thinks of self (self here meaning potentially being all dynamics, not just the first) as at-effect, he dramatizes. I count that as case alright. I don’t know whether it’s reactive mind. I think ‘reactive mind’ pertains to the 1st dynamic alone. While the at-effect can pertain to any dynamic. If -for example- your 3D is in danger, there could be some reactive mind resimulated by it, but the 3D case is another thing. You can deal with the reactive mind’s charge thoroughly, and still consider your 3D to be in danger, though it would no longer affect you as 1D. But one can deal with the 3D situation as well.

                    • Okay, totally got that – it isn’t true for you. I have no problem believing that “chronic restim” is not the case for everybody. On the other hand, for some people it seems to be quite true. I had a friend one time tell me that the moment she went Clear was like having a heavy “backpack” suddenly lifted off of her. Not that everybody who goes Clear has that kind of experience, but I thought hers really illustrated the idea of chronic restim being “discharged.”

                      Your comments about considerations remind me of this section in the Phoenix Lectures book:
                      —————————-
                      Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is CONSIDERED is. If you don’t consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that’s that.

                      “One has affinity because he considers he has affinity. One has reality because he considers he has reality. One has agreement because he considers he has agreement. One has disagreement because he considers he has disagreement. One has a Dynamic because one considers he has a Dynamic. Any of the eight parts of the Dynamic Principle of Existence, any part of the Cycle of Action, of Create-Survive-Destroy, of Affinity-Reality-Communication, the Chart of Attitudes top and bottom, the entire scale of emotions, the Know-to-Mystery Scale – all these are preceded by a consideration. In other words they are postulated into existence.

                      “But right with consideration we have the most native and intimate mechanic which precedes all other mechanics and that mechanic is Is-ness [Is-ness: “an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an as-isness. This is called, when agreed upon, REALITY”]. We have to consider that we can consider before we can consider an Is-ness. One considers that one considers and therefore what one considers is, IS!! Anything that is, is considered as being. What is, is as it is considered to be.”
                      —————————–

                      Or maybe I should put it the other way around – your comments about considerations remind me of this reference. :P

                    • Miraldi and Spyro,

                      After my Dianetics demo, I had a very good key out or small release and I felt like I was pulled out from under a rock pile. From then on I was hooked on processing.

                      Then getting into the study of scn was like being dragged out of a stormy sea and being bashed against the rocks, onto the dry shore and out of the storm.

                      Dio

                    • Dio, that’s amazing. Very well done! I really give you credit. :)

                    • Yes, nice quote. I don’t try to surpass Ron’s stuff, I only reffer to what Marty mentioned about Scientology 0,1,2 etc. SCN includes all those things, and although it’s understandable to do it to some degree, -especially- in Div 6 and generally in the beginning, after a while things should get more simple, more causative, and case be considered less solid. Judging by what I’ve read, it seems LRH wanted that, and he didn’t want people to struggle with the same stuff forever. I don’t remember where, but I remember reading about a book one Clear being below the grades on the Bridge. That should tell one something about the DMSMH mentality. Like with all stuff, It’s a good book where it applies, but don’t overrun it.

                      After I replied to you yesterday I realised I replied to your Mayo’s ‘chronic restimulation’, not Mark’s. Maybe the consideration that I am Spyros, can be a very sticky one as it would be tied on a MEST is-ness, and that could be a chronic restimulation by itself, indeed. So with the cog of what you basically aren’t all that stuff would leave, along with the backpain. Maybe…just maybe. I mostly talk about my own case, when I talk. There’s a reason why a auditor is not supposed to evaluate another’s case :)

                    • Marildi and peoples, I started writing in blogs about a year ago, and now that it’s 2014 (in Greece) I’m deciding to quit. I’ve done it before but now i’s for good. Nothing personal, it’s just not my game anymore. Yeh I like to help people that are perplexed with SCN, but I’m tired of recreating my 20 year long ago SCn time track pffffffff I’ve learned, had fun, pleased, outraged people, but this has no meaning for me anymore. If I had broken up with somebody and intended to get back to her, it would make sense to do talk about it, but now SCN sounds like a weeping widow to me, as I’m certainly out. I have no wars to win either, \so… Keep in touch if you like, I’m just not interested in this specific subject anymore.

                      Wish you all you want in 2014 and beyond without any limitations.

                    • To SPYROSILLUSIONIST:
                      I have much enjoyed reading your comments and communicating with you. Hope the new year and beyond are filled with joy and adventure. Life can be a lot of fun and there is much in store for you. I consider you a friend and will keep an eye open for you.
                      Mark

                    • Thank you Mark! And thanks for taking the time to explain stuff to me too! :) I liked your point of view. I found you on facebook hihihihi maybe see you there. :)

                    • Aw, Spyros, I read your post with mixed feelings! First of all, I’m going to miss you and your unique viewpoints :( and all the fun and interesting exchanges we had. BUT I am also happy for you that you completed an evolution and came to a good resolution for yourself. Your analogy of the weeping widow was rather poetic – the artistic side of the little devil! :P Anyway, I really understand what you mean about the game being over for you. I’ve been going in that direction myself and am gradually participating less. But up to now, I’m still learning, so will continue a while longer. When I’m done, I’ll probably do facebook – and will definitely do the friend request and be in touch. :P Meanwhile, I hope you drop in to the blogs once in a while! When something really interests you. That’s what I’m aiming for too. Thanks for the New Year’s wishes and I wish the same for you – have a Very Happy New Year!! ;) :)

                    • Hey M, thanks for your kind words :) yes SCN over, friends not over. I just don’t like the problem analysis anymore. ‘My brains hurt’. When I started to write, I did it mostly to share my views with others, and I’d like to assist if I could, but I was also motivated by something that had happened to some close-to-me person (the usual disconnection). I was just late to keep my intergrity. Instead of doing it back then I was doing it now. So then I started to write about such people and their practices, and in the process I got more and more involved and abberated from my original purpose. But now I don’t want to put any more attention on them either. And I’m at peace about that incident too. There’s a reason why I left. No point in looking back. The subject at large is interesting, but the present situation as I perceive it, is yucky. And If the founder is not there, why should anybody be? Or was he just a body? Am I? Are you? ‘Think about it’, if you want to think about something Scientologistic. :P

                      If I say I’m gonna miss you too, it will be like a loss, and you can reach me anytime. So, I’m saying have a good time :)

                    • Very nice, Spyros. This is a great example of the comments you’ve posted that have brought about my affinity and admiration <3. So I’ll end off by saying the same to you, my friend – have a good time! :)

                    • Oops. I meant start my post (above) by quoting this part of yours: “About the chronic restimulation, I don’t know what to say, as that restimulation sounds mysterious to me”

                    • Spro:
                      Don’t give up on examining your past existence. It’s the greatest show on earth. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll be amazed. Don’t take it to seriously and it can be the most fun you ever had. It really gets better and better.
                      Mark

                    • I’ve done that. I haven’t examined every possible thing, but enough to know that I have no past. The past is not, for me. My U is blank, when I make a ‘my U’. That cycle of action was meant to end some time. Now I’m interested in other stuff. The past is not needed to be free. ‘You’ are free. ‘You’ can make yourself seem unfree. And by the way, with creative processing nobody ever people didn’t do anything with any pasts. Hint.

                      Be well. I’m supposed to not talk about that stuff anymore :P My way now is totally way-less or ‘my way’ :)

                    • Spyro,

                      Re: I’ve done that. I haven’t examined every possible thing, but enough to know that I have no past.

                      After studying and evaluating the idea of past lives, from every point of view, for many yrs, my viewpoint on that is that, anything is possible.

                      It seems to me also, that I do not have a past life.

                      But there is sufficient “circumstantial” evidence that some people do have past lives. At the same time, some of it is BS, some appears to be valid, and even in some cases, verifiable.

                      But how many “Napoleans” and “Cleopatras” can there really be, when compared to the number of people who claim to have been them and other historical figures?

                      Dio

                    • Hi Dio. In the final analysis, that is a question that each one of us can answer to himself. When I said before ‘I have no past’ I didn’t mean past lives in specific, just past in general. I guess (just guess) from a theta + body viewpoint past lives can exist. But theta doesn’t really live as a human, that’s just pretense.
                      :) Spyros

                    • Glad you have achieved your goals. Let’s get a few more in such a state.
                      Life really can be fun, but we’ll need some not so fragile individuals to play with.
                      Mark

                    • Life really can be fun, but we’ll need some not so fragile individuals to play with.
                      Mark

                      Yes, Mark you are right.

                      The stupid, the ignorant, the feeble minded and faint hearted will be left for the barbeque and the worms.

                      LOL :)

                      Dio

                    • Mark, I think the game to help people is a good one, and I could support it. I have tried to support it through SCN as well, based on data. Let me rephraze that: Because it made logical sense to me to support it through SCN, I attempted to do so.

                      Theta can know. It doesn’t need to evaluate data to know. It’s basic function is to create and to know, thus Scientology as ‘knowing how to know’ which could also be called ‘knowing how to as-is’. What ‘you’ get to know is your creations. Those creations include much more than one dynamic.

                      I appreciate Ron’s work and the work of most others in SCN, but I was PTS to that group. The more supportive I was, the more PTS I became, and the more counter intentions I drew in from all dynamics. It simply wasn’t ethical for me to be supportive. I drew in motivators because although I had it all figured out, I also knew -as theta- that something major was out.

                      I don’t want to invalidate the good intentions and good work of some people. In the final analysis, SCN is for you what you make it be. But there is such a thing as an average group agreement, with which I have major disagreements. Thus, I can’t support Scientology in public, as I would be making an overt by promoting a suppressive group. I believe -based on data- even Ron withdrew his support (although he never really stopped trying), thus the missing OT levels. He even wrote about it: “Handle the out ethics, or no OT levels.” “We receive attacks because of no results”. Mister John Doe being on top of the Bridge shouldn’t experience the reverse vectors he experiences. He should divorce, and he shouldn’t be broke, and he shouldn’t be a piece in a game and and and. Something major is out.

                      Sea orgs sign billion year contracts, but where is Ron? Did he leave because it was so jolly good in SCN so he decided to move on? I don’t intend to be eternally loyal to a group that is at treason. I can take care of my dynamics, SCN or not.

                      By the way, I didn’t handle my case so much with SCN, although I’ve done it with SCN too.

                      Sorry for my aggression. I’m only aggressive towards myself, to counter my past support.

                      Spyros

                  • Anyway, I wont insist with the mechanical aspects. For me there can be many roads…If something works, it’s a good road. I just wanted to say that so that pre-clearness wont last forever.

                    Generaly speaking, case should end at some point, if one intends to end it. The potential to create case -or anything else- can never end. The ‘I can’t…’ ir the ‘I am forced to…’ are creations too. Besides, in theory, all thetans started from not having case, and wound up thinking they have it (if they did). It was an ability all along.

                    • Here’s another reference for you (you’re welcome :) ) – applicable to what you wrote above:

                      “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps. Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe.”

                      “But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that.

                      “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps.

                      “Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe. Scientology is the data necessary to live.

                      “If everyone were now to concentrate only on how to get clear and forget all about how to stay clear, we’d be back in the soup in a century.” (from Ability, Issue 70 [1958, ca. late March], “Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?”)

                    • Miraldi,

                      Quoting you: “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps. Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe.”
                      “But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that.
                      “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps.
                      “Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe. Scientology is the data necessary to live.
                      “If everyone were now to concentrate only on how to get clear and forget all about how to stay clear, we’d be back in the soup in a century.” (from Ability, Issue 70 [1958, ca. late March], “Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?”)

                      Me: Thanks for posting that. That’s certainly one of Hubbard’s better dissertations. And there is a lot of truth in those words and more than what is just visible on the surface. Like a lot of his stuff.

                      I have did a considerable of amount of study and research (my own version of scn) before I learned about Hubbard’s scn. And a fair bit after. I learned a lot.

                      And everything I learned is worth practically nothing without the data in Hubbard’s scn. And of that I glean very carefully. It’s key data.

                      Dio

                    • Ditto, Dio. Double ditto. ;)

              • *the why I repeat about the OT levels is not because I wan’t to throw thunderbolts to my enemies which I usually don’t have. It’s because the full ‘Clearing’ of all dynamics, would be something above Clear (on the first dynamic). And if that’s not delivered, you see how one can be coaxed to consider himself abberated again. I don’t think it is luxury to talk about OTness. I think it’s essential. And I think it should be of interest to all Scientologists. This not-isness of OTness pisses me off, really. I think it’s hypocrisy and betrayal to get one started on some trip and leave him somewhere in-between, and call him crazy because he speaks of thetans as thetans and not as bodies. That was the objective of Dianetics (the Clear body) then things changed. The objectives became theta clear and cleared theta clear. Why doesn’t anybody talk that stuff anymore? Old stuff? What about that ‘prison planet’, and that prison universe? How do you deal with that?

                That shows to me the necessity for either the SCN tech to be restored, or for new ways to exist.

        • Thanks Norwood, that’s a wonderful issue. I wish David Mayo were more active these days, his insights are invaluable.

    • I agree with you Dan. This was the ‘sweet spot’ timing for me also. I loved my experience in Scio. I did the whole right side of the bridge for about $40K. Plus lots of courses.
      I don’t regret a thing. After being out since about ’85 I have distilled what works for me and thrown much of the BS stuff into file 13. I am not guru chaser, or adorer. I am not stuck on ‘standard anything’. Far to rigid, stick up your arse mentality. Scio I believe attracted explorers, so being open and not confined is true freedom.
      Merry Christmas

    • Dan,
      If it had not been for the positive experiences of training and auditing I’d have kissed my eternity good bye a lot earlier.

      The mention of the ‘fatal release of the Dianetic Clear bulletins’ also intrigued me – because that saved my then sorry ass – thank you for that excellent article of GOING CLEAR.

      A few comments to that article if I may:

      Unfortunately the VERY first action David Mayo issued to be done after the Dianetic Clear HCOB was released, was a “DIANETIC CLEAR INTERVIEW”.
      It was just a few 2WC questions same or similar as they were later on the DCSI and still later on the CCRD. But that was ALL. There was no set up for it, no clean up of the BPC, no rehab. My own story of going clear 2 years earlier was awesome but having to run EXDN over it was…eh, not funny to say the least.
      Anyway, so there was just an attest and Yo-heave onto OT I.
      There might have been a small elegibility check just before.
      David Mayo and all Tech trained people should have known better! That includes myself.

      Same as you I noted the first wave of Dianetic Clear attests were people that had been horrendously overrun. What a wave of excitement and relief that was at AOSHUK in September of 1978.

      I’d like to share 2 stories I have never broadly shared to make this more real.
      – My body by then was so bad off (grades done without checking flows for reads plus lots of EXDN all after having gone Clear) I had to go see a Chiro in London every week. As he worked on my back I told him about the Dianetic Clear HCOB that had come out. Suddenly his hands stopped working on my back, he didn’t say anything.
      The next week I came back and the chiro told me he had told a real Scientology old-timer – that came in a wheel chair- about Dianetic Clear and that old guy got out of the wheel chair and walked! Talk about miracles when the tech is being correctly applied with correct indications!

      – You mentioned about ‘cracks in the Physical Universe’. Here is another story along those lines: Very shortly after the Dianetic Clear HCOB came out I looked at the grey sky above AOSHUK. Suddenly the sky behaved like a frozen river in spring when the ice breaks up and an enormous quantity of energy drained off from that space above the castle. It was like several people had had the exact same postulate or cognition at the exact same time and focused into the exact same space and the energy broke up violently. It felt like an as-isness on the 3rd Dynamic. It was over in seconds.

      I have never experienced anything like it since then. Same goes for my going Clear in a break between 2 Dianetic sessions. I would not want to miss either as both were just totally awesome.

      The next wave of Clear attests became more and more people whose cases had never been cracked. Many slipped through the cracks somehow.

      Regarding the additional data of there ‘only being about 4 natural clears on the planet’ I can only say “OMG”!!! What a HORRENDOUS OMISSION! That has caused a lot of troubles to a lot of people who had various unhandled case aspects.

      Sure the price increases caused more hard ship on the public but Tech and Qual did not hold the line. The REAL BASICS were out. HCOB 5 AUG 1965 RELEASE STAGES was not being applied.

      When I came to the US and held the Sr C/S post at CCI in 1984 the situation was even worse than in EU. I wrote it all up and sent it to Sr C/S INT and RTC and shortly thereafter got RPFed, excuse me, I got GCTed.
      GCT = GOLD CONSTRUCTION TEAM. Out of harm’s way to write more pesky reports…..and frankly I was way, way too tired to write any more reports!

      There definitely have been some serious pendulum swings on this subject and people suffered unnecessarily this and the other way.
      The good thing is it CAN still be handled.
      Greta

      • Zephyr,

        Lots of people were “over run” on Dianetics. Why? Were they “Clear”? Not necessarily. They were just bored and disinterested in doing any more Dianetics.

        However, it was forbidden to say that. What was permitted – after 1978 – was saying “Wow! I’m Clear!!! Dianetics is terrific that it made me Clear! No more Dianetics for me! Zowie!”

        And for OTs, who were bored with Dianetics, they could similarly say, “LRH says ‘No more DN on Clears’,” etc. It became safe to not refuse DN.

        Besides there was now NEW ERA DIANETICS for OTS where the OTs would soon discover that those pesky “BTs,” that they thought they’d rid themselves of on OT 3, were still around and by the thousands. And NOTs would handle – once and for all – the OTs “somatics.”

        Yippie!

        Don’t underestimate Hubbard the hypnotist.

        Glad to see the information in this thread has been helpful to you.

        • NP
          You are right, there were a lot of other case outnesses other than being audited past going clear. That’s what I described in the 2nd wave of ‘clear attests’. Those outnesses and BPC were not being handled correctly as the Dianetic Clear INTERVIEW did not provide those tools.
          However these phenomena are different than when being audited past clear.
          It takes INDIVIDUAL sort out, NOT an announcement of a generality at a
          staff briefing that ‘some of you may not be clear’ as DM did.
          Greta

          • I wasn’t referring to “outnesses,” but never mind. This thread is done.

            I hope someday you’ll be able to see the hypnotic spell that Hubbard had over Scientologists.

            A person can help himself or herself break free of that spell by trying not to automatically use so many Hubbardisms when expressing himself or herself.

      • Greta, thanks for sharing all this! One thing that really caught my interest was what you wrote here:

        “Very shortly after the Dianetic Clear HCOB came out I looked at the grey sky above AOSHUK. Suddenly the sky behaved like a frozen river in spring when the ice breaks up and an enormous quantity of energy drained off from that space above the castle. It was like several people had had the exact same postulate or cognition at the exact same time and focused into the exact same space and the energy broke up violently. It felt like an as-isness on the 3rd Dynamic. It was over in seconds.”

        There is actually scientific evidence that such things happen! Here is an excerpt from one article, from a National Geographic website:

        “Chances are, you probably remember exactly what you were doing on the morning of September 11, 2001, at the moment when you first learned about the attack on the World Trade Center. And if you were one of the millions who stared in horror at the television images of smoke billowing from the crippled towers, you undoubtedly can recall the intense, excruciatingly painful surge of grief and anger and sadness that you felt.

        “You may be surprised, however, to learn that Princeton University researchers believe that so many people around the world were affected in the same way that their collective mental energy actually altered the operation of computers.
        […]

        “Since the 1990s, the Princeton researchers have been trying to measure this hypothetical giant, humanity-encompassing hive mind, by tracking the effect of events on a network of computers around the world that are set to churn out random strings of numbers. But the world paid relatively little attention to their efforts, until Nelson published this paper, ‘Coherent Consciousness and Reduced Randomness: Correlations on September 11, 2001,’ in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2002. It reported that the traumatic terrorist attack, which caused a powerful outpouring of emotions across the planet, had a measurable effect upon the network’s computers that was extremely unlikely to have been caused by chance.” http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/06/9-11-and-global-consciousness/

        • Marildi,
          Thanks for your input on this.
          It’s a fascinating link. From the data I have (Dowsing groups) it seems to works on good as well as bad emotions, which makes sense.
          Greta

          • Greta, it does make sense. In this video, Gregg Braden talks about scientific evidence of electromagnetic waves – of all kinds – that extend for many kilometers beyond our bodies. LRH basically said the same thing in 8-8008 (section on “Creative Processing”):

            “In that the beingness of an individual is actually extended for miles in all directions around him, if not much further, any idea or thought or past thought (as there is no past) is part of his beingness…”

        • Miraldi and Greta,

          Re: “Very shortly after the Dianetic Clear HCOB came out I looked at the grey sky above AOSHUK. Suddenly the sky behaved like a frozen river in spring when the ice breaks up and an enormous quantity of energy drained off from that space above the castle. It was like several people had had the exact same postulate or cognition at the exact same time and focused into the exact same space and the energy broke up violently. It felt like an as-isness on the 3rd Dynamic. It was over in seconds.”

          In particular:
          It felt like an as-isness on the 3rd Dynamic.

          When I read this, this thought came to me:

          Matthew 18:20

          King James Version (KJV)

          20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

          Merry Christmas,

          Dio

  14. Marty, I admire your productivity and push through and follow through. That is in a Hubbard quote about courage ;)

  15. That sounds intriguing, to say the least. I will read that book, and can’t wait for it.

    I like that you look at the current state of affairs of CO$ and then take your knowledge and write something that pertains to it. It makes your work current and valid.

    Thank You

  16. It would be ideal if you could make a fourth grade level reader picture book version of your book, (something similar to the GAOT ll products) so people still on lines could understand it. Perhaps someone could volunteer to edit it and translate it for the super literate? Lots of child like drawings and photographs would be very helpful.

    I just realized an executive escaping from the Int Base would have no idea how to even understand your post above without tutoring. It could take one of them on their own a week to get through a simple post and understand it. Think of all the words they are unfamiliar with, as most have not read a book published outside of the Church. It would be like trying to read in a different language. Then there are the ideas the words represent. Below is a list of words and phrases a glossary probably would need to contain, for someone leaving the Int Base to understand this post:

    Reform
    Deconstructing
    contextualizes
    cosmology
    Aleister Crowley
    magic
    cult
    Ordo Templi Orientis
    pop psychology cult
    placebo
    messiah
    archetypal
    bait and switch
    heuristic (had to look that up myself)
    monotheistic
    ego
    bigoted
    cognitive dissonance
    dysfunctional

    As a result of the self imposed ignorance. The self imposed ignorance manifests in recent publications by DM.

    This could also explain why DM and OSA and the other Int Execs have been so hostile and violent towards you. MU’s.

  17. This sounds like a fascinating book! I can’t wait to.read it.

  18. heu·ris·tic
    hyo͞oˈristik/Submit
    adjective
    1.
    enabling a person to discover or learn something for themselves.
    “a “hands-on” or interactive heuristic approach to learning”
    noun
    1.
    a heuristic process or method.

    This would be a very foreign notion for one of them. It would probably require a clay demo and possibly even some processing.

  19. Can’t wait for this. This post is truly a great teaser. Separating the wheat from the chaff in all of this. There is workable tech. And there is also much cognitive dissonant balderdash. Cant wait to read your imminently qualified analysis of this Scientology enigma!
    What you say may free many people from their chains. I hope you feel peace and anticipation. ;) peace & ARC

  20. Great to see so many organized ideas. Your post gave me a great overview
    of your current direction. This is one book I might enjoy.
    Energy to you from the Path of Buddha,
    George M. White
    May all beings be well and happy

  21. Amazing interview in the Daily Mail, Marty. Your journey so far has been an incredible one. Your new journey of fatherhood will be a much more pleasurable and rewarding one!!!!

    However, it’s shocking to hear how the church’s fair game operations have affected Mosey. I hope Mosey knows she has a great many more friends than enemies, and the enemy camp is continually dwindling while her friends grow in number every day.

    So many people think very highly of Mosey. We are good judges of character out here at the lunatic fringes of the Internet and the overwhelming consensus is that she rocks! Please send her our love, Marty.

  22. I want a copy of the leatherbound edition!

    Alanzo

  23. Impressive and scholarly synopsis. I hope it’s a best seller!

  24. Have spent a fair amount of time deconstructing Scientology for myself since my resignation two years ago. It will be interesting to see if your evaluations match mine, Marty.

  25. My toughts about Scientology amd L Ron Hubbard in one single song

  26. Marty,
    Monotheistic? Well that is just priceless!!

    It goes along with Mike Rinder’s “Vessel of Satan” as the all-time best epithets for the lunacy.

    JA,JA,JA, I’m still line charging!

  27. Marty, I left ten years earlier than you did. I’ve had a bit more time “on the outside” to digest everything. What you wrote is really quite brilliant. Spot on 100%. Massive props to you.

    Merry Christmas to you and your family!

  28. Although the existence of the subject of Scientology has provided (and still provides) you with something of interest to write about and a some income, your hostility and disdain for L. Ron Hubbard have been palpable for quite a while, Marty. Have you NOTHING positive to say about LRH’s life work currently?
    I know that you have acknowledged the benefits of Scientology & Dianetic auditing previously on this blog and in your earlier books. Have you changed your mind about that, or are you simply concentrating exclusively on the negative aspects these days?
    Unfortunately, I can no longer recommend this blog to people wanting to find out what Scientology is “really” about (meaning a balanced view), because I don’t see that you are doing that recently. Your comments on the subject now seem completely slanted in the negative direction and tainted with a condescending disdain for the subject and its originator.
    I recognize and respect your right to say what you think and feel, but I have that right too and have just exercised it.
    Thanks.

    • Espiritu. Marty is entitled to evolve his viewpoints on the subject as he decompresses. We all are. I have never read him totally dismiss anything that what was of value that LRH formulated. He is deconstructing the parts of the subject and organization which have been used to hype the subject, its founder, and to keep people controlled. Its a lot to confront. But its needed. LRH’s reputation and the regard in which he was previously held is going to suffer. It cannot be helped. The higher up the ladder one climbs or positions them self, the farther down the fall. Marty is not an LRH apologist. I do not blame him a bit. What’s more important? LRH’s reputation or being able to understand the how’s and whys of the subject. For anyone interested in the truth, its the latter. We have all had our blinders slowly removed to realize we had misplaced our loyalty and adoration. We lost years of our lives and riches. Very few are now left on the sidelines with their pom-poms jumping up and down. Eventually they will be gone too. The stadium will be empty. The game is relocating to new venues. What was true and useful remains. History will ultimately judge LRH and his role in our worldly matters. Right now many are trying to get at the truth and put it in context. That is how I see Marty’s work. Its important work. In the end it may just be what gives LRH any rightful chance of being placed among the worlds great thinkers and philosophers.

    • It is my experience Espiritu, that Marty has always been a defender of those elements in Scientology that help people to over come suffering.

      But in the culture of Scientology, criticism is a mortal sin.

      Criticism is equated with ‘attack’ and not the free exercise of rational self determined thought based upon one’s own experience: integrity

      When we become comfortable with opposing views, criticisms that question the very foundation of our world view and beliefs, it is only then, that we are on the road to truth.
      The road to truth cares not for incestuous agreement and flattering pats on the back.

      The road to truth is fierce in it’s dispassionate attitude towards beliefs, opinions and assumed knowings.

      It is quite uncomfortable to directly perceive that what we have accepted as truth is not.

      And getting accustomed to that discomfort becomes a joyous experience if truth is the goal.

      A truth seeker is a warrior iconoclast. Seeking to destroy any false graven image of false beliefs within.

      Warrior iconoclasts make believers quite uncomfortable.

      You are lucky to have Marty making you feel uncomfortable. Be patient and let the process bring you through.

      It’s fucking worth it!! Lol

    • Here is something positive:-

      “Ultimately, Deconstructing Scientology reveals the dichotomous nature of a subject offering some workable methods of expanding individual determinism and awareness at the self-defeating cost of demanding self-imposed ignorance and forfeiture of conscience.”

      We don’t have to self impose ignorance or forfeit our conscience
      however, and we can learn to decide for ourselves whether psychologists,
      doctors and medicine, philosophers, ect, ect are the great satan.

      However if still in the RCS we are not allowed to read the internet
      and are bound to not speak to those named “SPs”.

    • From Dn Axiom 112:

      “Affinity manifests itself as the recognition of similarity of efforts and goals amongst organisms by those organisms.”

    • Espiritu,

      Thank you for your curiosity.

      I think.whatever anyone says about,

      The Church
      Hubbard’s life
      Hubbard’s ideas
      The culture in the Church
      The culture around the Church
      The Independent Movement
      The technology itself (All very separate things),

      One can only know these things from experience and not from borrowing other’s views. I have been getting auditing or solo auditing religiously for the past 12 years. Reading and speaking and exchanging ideas about it, is just a pleasure derived from curiosity.

      My sons have been getting auditing, have had some bad experiences with a few psychopaths, have read everything on the Internet, seen South Park, read all about XENU on the net, been bullied by friends for their curiosity, have had some ups and downs. I have made no attempt to sensor people from their lives or information from them. I have made no attempt to steer them. They are doing fine and they are getting auditing also. They are deciding for themselves.

      This idea that one must “not look” or not listen or not co habitate with differing views and these are dangerous or to be feared, has not been true for anyone here in my home.

      When I started out in the Independent movement we were hiding and sneaking and practicing like refugees. Auditing in closets, hiding materials under floor boards.

      This has all changed because of Marty’s efforts.

      He stood up when nobody else would. He took the heat. He took the hits. He took the heat while everyone else grabbed the chance to form and establish groups, and pick up the cans and get somewhere without OSA kicking down the front door.

      I think he has earned a platform to share his views without people threatening to disconnect from him out of fear he is doing some damage.

      He has assisted things which assist survival. He has inhibited things which inhibit survival. That is the definition of sanity.

      Whatever freedom the Independents have today to set up shops, blogs, Orgs, academies, practices, with out suppression on their lines, he bought it all to pass.

      If was he just another person chanting scripture and spreading worship, I would probably still be renting motel rooms in discrete locations to get my auditing.

      There has been an enemy line floating around, (born by the current C of S culture) that Marty is steering some people away from the subject of Scientology, by pointing out non optimum results. I have found that to be very far from the truth. The more I move the undesirable consequences from my view, the more case gain I get and the more promise I see for better tomorrow and and better way with this magic.

      Marty is not afraid to put a qual hat on and wear it.

      I applaud him for his integrity, and for the vast freedoms he has made possible for all of us.

    • Espiritu
      You are speaking completely from YOUR paradigm. ie. the lens with with you view life. Your viewpoint, based on your time track.
      You have never been fair gamed.
      You have not been under seige for 199 days with a posse of crazy stalkers neither have you 300 hate pages on your life on the internet with intimate pieces of confessional data.
      Why are you visiting this site at all ? This is not your “tribe” or group.
      When you experience horrific, despicable, unconscionable warfare against you, from an entity masquerading as a *RELIGION* earlier wins evaporate and fade away.
      Henry Thoreau said
      The cost of something is what I call LIFE required to pay for it, immediately, or in the long run.
      The cost of life Scientology has HUGE HUGE boomerang collateral damage which is LIFE cost. Not talking dollar cost, Life cost.
      I am not the only example of losing my only child to the Crime syndicate as a cost of being loyal and slaving for them for decades.
      If a husband gives his wife generous gifts, fur coats, diamonds, the newest corvette, and then beats her senseless, comatose, is she wrong to forget about the “wins” and generosity while she gets *WISE* to her husbands dark side ?

    • Hi Espiritu;

      I agree that earlier posts in this blog were of VERY great value in helping CofSers and X-CofSers destim and dePTS, I used it all the time to do so, but now I don’t since the posts no longer align with that purpose; to a CofSer or an X-CofSer, they are incomprehensible.

      Clearly Marty has moved on in the direction of integrating what he sees of value in the tech and philosophy, with other philosophies and understandings in the world around us. I have no problem with that at all, it too is necessary.

      All this is my opinion, above and below, but I think I understand the problem Marty is solving; If you want two gears to intermesh, one being the values of Scientology and the other gear being other values in the world around us, if the gears are all bunged up with grime and pebbles, they cannot work together. From what I understand of this post by Marty, he is cleaning out the grime and pebbles in order to see exactly what the gears really are, and then how they can be meshed in with the world around. Grime is grime and pebbles are pebbles, and where ever they are found, they must be cleared away, and in some cases there will be disagreements.

      This is the direction Marty has been moving towards for at least a year now; I guess it is all coming to fruition.

      Personally, although I have no disagreements with the direction Marty is heading, I do wish there was another blog that would help CofSers and X-CofSers come across the true data as to what happened to ‘their’ Scientology. These persons are among the most valuable Beings in the universe, and any efforts made in the direction of freeing them up will greatly boost cleaning out the grime and pebbles.

      This comment will self destruct in 30 seconds …

      • I do wish there was another blog that would help CofSers and X-CofSers come across the true data as to what happened to ‘their’ Scientology. These persons are among the most valuable Beings in the universe…

        • “These persons are among the most valuable Beings in the universe…”

          Give me a break. Let me guess, you are one of those “CofSers and X-CofSers.”
          You are at the blog you’re wishing for. The mountain of data is growing,
          You can figure out what happened to “your Scientology. ” The stinging is the medicine at work. It is simpler than you think, and it is free. There is no “exchange” for spiritual truth and peace that passes all understanding.
          Have a great 2014.

    • burnedbutnotbitter

      I get this all, but I do see a problem brewing, although I will no doubt read the book. Marty, thanks for all you’ve done.

      I am not a placebo effect. I am a real Dianetic Clear, Grades Result, and FPRD Result, and more. I feel like Dan Koon, I got so much out of Scientology, maybe I was always in the right time and place, maybe I put a lot into it, maybe I was just lucky. My wins still go on. I still listen to LRH CD’s. I just had to get out because of the corruption and horror show, but I still love the tech.

      So when you write this book, be careful not to invalidate the gains of us out here who are out but left because of their conscience. And there are more of us than you know, in the Independent movement and out.

      • burnedbutnotbitter

        And let me add trained auditor to that list because that changed my approach to life in a permanent way.

      • Mary Rathernotsay

        When we were still “in” we referred to our case level as some type of identity due to our confusion. But after being “out” for some time if you are still feeling like your “case level” is your identity you might want to sit down quietly for a bit of reflection on who you are.
        I don’t claim to know much, but I do know that I am no more my “case level” than I am my address or my resume.

    • Sorry, I didn’t plan to “comment and run”. I had a feeling that my post might stir up some strong feelings and I apologize for not replying to others’ comments. For the past 2 days I have been doing meter drills, helping people with their lives and getting ready to celebrate Christmas with my large extended family.
      I admit that I have never endured what Marty, Mosey, Karen, Mike and others have at the hands of DM and his goons, so I can only imagine what it would be like to endure that. If I had endured that experience it surely would have colored my viewpoint. And yes, I do view the world, including Scientology and Ron through the filter of my own experience,,, like everyone else. And like everyone else, my experience goes back a long way.
      But the gist of what I was trying to communicate is that I feel that it is inaccurate to emphasize only the negative aspects of LRH and his work. To me doing so is communicating a falsehood. Even if one has come to the conclusion that Ron is “the devil”, should not one at least give the “devil” his due? Sir Isaac Newton, the great physicist and mathematician had documented psychotic breaks. Thomas Jefferson was a philanderer and a bigamist who is well known as a slave owner who eventually freed his slaves… at least most of them. What is less well known is that the slaves he never freed were his African-American children and their mother! So, does that mean that we should throw out the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and decide that calculus is BS?
      Here’s my last question to those who object to my suggesting that it would be more fair to balance descriptions of the negative aspects of Scientology and Ron’s life with the positive:
      Would your existence as a person be better or worse right now if Ron had never existed?
      I really can have it if your honest answer is yes.
      But my honest answer would be no, I perceive that my existence would be far worse if I had never come across this guy with his very helpful Spiritual Tech.

      • Espititu, I am so glad you posed that question on how ones existence would be if we had not found scientology. I never gave it any thought until now. I can honestly say that it certainly could have been better if I had used any number of teachings when I was searching for answers at that point in my life. I know that is a fact as I have since found and used them. And in hindsight, for every gain I made with scientology, it saddled me with other issues or reinforced some negative aspects of humanity that every person inherently has and needs to rise above. Having spent only an average amount of time with scientology by this groups standards, I suppose I am one of the lucky ones who at an early age went on to live life outside the bubble. Until 4 years ago I had never heard of Marty Rathbun. But I have followed his blog writings and read his books. My observation is that he has treated Mr. Hubbard with due respect and credit. Of course we each are at a different place in our spiritual evolution and relationship with the subject of scientology and its founder. My objection to your post is your inference that Marty has NOTHING to say good about it. Its just not reality. Perhaps its frustration with Marty as he may be moving away from seeing LRH as you do. But as long as he deals in the truth or honest opinions, it should not hurt you. If you need to shut it out, that’s your choice.

        • Hi Thomas,
          Thanks for your thoughtful reply. (And I also appreciate the other thoughtful replies to what I had to say, too.) I did not say that Marty has never had anything good to say about LRH and Scientology. What I said is that he hasn’t had much good to say about either for some time now. (about 6 months) That’s what I meant when I said “currently”.
          I too started reading this blog right about the time that the Truth Rundown came out. What was communicated was appalling but at the same time the message had an uplifting effect because finally someone was telling the truth about the state of mind of the “leaders” of the Church. I decided then and there that if people of the ilk that Marty described were running the organization, then I could no longer support it. When I heard Tommy Davis’s ridiculous rant denying everything, well, I’m not the most experienced auditor in the world but it was very obvious who was telling the truth and who was lying. I also have great respect for the moral about-face that Marty did in cogniting, removing himself from the “lobster pot” that he was in and all SO members and many public are in, before his integrity got “cooked”, in exposing the evil intentions and activities up lines, and then seeking to heal those who have been harmed. I have great respect for Marty. But I don’t automatically believe everything he says any more than I believe everything Ron said just because he said it. I try to observe what I see and then come to my own conclusions by integrating it into other observations I have experienced. I also reserve my right to state my views and support that right for every other being. I have no need to shut out anything that Marty has to say and I do not feel personally harmed by anything he has said. I hope that he always keeps speaking his mind.
          I got it that you did not get that much out of your Scientology experience and I also got it that you got more out of other teachings. As I mentioned, I have gotten more out of Scientology. But I too have searched for and found truth and other helpful things in other teachings both before and after discovering Scientology. I have never thought that there is anything “wrong” with this. To me, anything that uplifts is valid spiritual technology whether it is Scientology or not. A few of the teachers, other than LRH, who have enlightened and continue to enlighten me are: Lao Tze, Gautama Siddhartha, Jesus, Mary Baker Eddy, and the traditional teachings of the Quakers (Society of Friends).
          Here is a thought from the Quaker philosophy…..

          “Walk Cheerfully Over the Earth, Answering That of GOD in Everyone.”

          I try my best to practice this teaching every day as best I can.

          I admire what Marty has done very much and respect his motivation for creating this blog. That is why I am writing this on Christmas Eve.
          Merry Christmas to all.
          Now I’ve got to wrap a few presents!
          Love, Espiritu

  29. Sounds fascinating Marty and as with your other books, I’ll download it from Amazon and read it as soon as it becomes available.

    I think one of the principle challenges in evaluating Scientology (and this appears almost impossible for most folks to do) is to separate its many thousands of components so as to look at which of these may be “gold” and which ….. my not be (and this includes any fact about Ron’s genius or insanity as well).

    Quick story (which most of you can come up with a similar one I expect). When on the BC, one of the exercises was to diagram every one of the Dianetic Axioms (about 250 of them …. takes a while, and I was in no rush as my main purpose for being on the course was to cognite and get case gain). Well, after making many diagrams of energy flows and how they affected a being mentally and spiritually, I encountered a particularly traumatic incident in my life. One of the things that kept me reltively sane during this period was visualizing what was happening to me as incoming and enturbulative energy flows and then when seeing this for what it was, just realizing I could handle these flows as they were JUST energy, without getting overwhelmed. My point is that LRH was in fact, ONTO something here in these axioms and the truth that was in them was extremely valuable to a being – me – just IN LIVING LIFE.

    Now that bunch of invaluable truths is what it is (to me anyway). That doesn’t mean I am not aware of LRH’s insanity and failures, BUT it does mean that his moments of genius had tremendous value for me. Of course after 35 years, because of the insanity, I felt I had to leave the CoS in 2006,as it became intolerable for me. But I am still applying the truths that worked for me. On balance, I do think the scale tipped to the positive for me.

    But I remain interested in the whole story, and different takes on it. So look VERY forward to the new book.

    • “My point is that LRH was in fact, ONTO something here in these axioms and the truth that was in them was extremely valuable to a being – me – just IN LIVING LIFE. Now that bunch of invaluable truths is what it is (to me anyway). That doesn’t mean I am not aware of LRH’s insanity and failures, BUT it does mean that his moments of genius had tremendous value for me.”

      Great post, Joe. IMO, a lot of attention (both praise and criticism) is given to auditing and not enough to the “invaluable truths” that exists in LRH’s works. One primary example would the principles of communication and the drills created to be able to apply them – TRs. And I agree with your last sentence too.

      As for the principles about life, here’s a relevant paragraph from CoHA (note, emphasis in caps is mine):

      “There are two distinct divisions in Scientology. The first is philosophic, the second is technical. Under the philosophic heading one discovers the ways and means of forming new ways of life and of evaluating or creating standards of livingness and beingness. BY THIS KNOWINGNESS ALONE, AND WITHOUT PROCESSING, IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY THAT A NEW WAY OF LIFE COULD BE CREATED, OR AN OLD WAY OF LIFE COULD BE UNDERSTOOD AND BETTER ENDURED OR ALTERED. Under the technical division we have a long series of developed processes…”

  30. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
    -Albert Einstein

    Looking forward to reading your book.

    • Voltaire,

      I will take Einstein’s line of thought (as you posted) a step further back to that of Immanuel Kant to say that ideally ethics is based on or arrived at through reason.

      (If I recall correctly, Hubbard also credits Kant for much of his knowledge and understanding on ethics.)

      A person uses reason to determine the difference between right and wrong. And to “reason” could be added LRH’s words, use reason to determine that which does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of dynamics.

      That goes back to the old maxim:

      Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and it’s counterpart:

      Don’t do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you.

      In order to use that maxim a person has to use reason (i.e. good reasoning). Should I do that or not? If not, what should I do? What is the most superior computation or what is the best thing to do in a particular or given situation?

      That is the formula for reason.

      I think it was Dennis Stevens (of TROM) who said that reason is the science of logic.

      This data and process eliminates the need for “beliefs” and “believing”.

      As a belief is in fact nothing more than an inadvertent confession of ignorance.

      When you say you believe something, you are actually admitting that, I do not know. By believing in something, you are only making an assumption that something is true. That is intellectual dishonesty at it’s worst, and at it’s best; intellectual ineptness .

      If you could or would go through the effort of doing the necessary research (or just use plain good reasoning and common sense) to find out if that particular datum is true or not and if you could prove it, then you would know.

      You would KNOW with certainty. You know because you can prove it.

      If you could not prove it, then you either, know it’s not true, or the other option is you are still not sure (the results of your research are inconclusive).

      There are three states of knowingness:
      1. you know
      2. you don’t know
      3. you are not sure.

      Beliefs and opinions fall under two and three.

      Different datums, different subjects, need different criteria and methods for proving. Some are simple and others are not.

      Scientology is the science of knowing how to know.

      If you know how to know, there is no good reason why you need to believe.

      I can’t figure out why any scientologist, worth his salt, would use the words “belief” and “believe”, unless he flunked scientology?

      That means, he went through the whole process, the whole bridge, (like a sheep) and fooled everyone and learned nothing, did not cog, including fooling himself.

      He only at best became a foolish robot.

      Def of “to believe”: 1. to raise an opinion, an assumption, a hearsay, a fabrication, to the level of a fact without proof, or without evaluation or adequate evaluation. 2. to accept something as true with out proof.

      Read about Kant:

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

      Ignorance, beliefs and believing are the source of all of the worlds problems (conflicts) .

      When people stop believing and starting thinking and use good reason and common sense, to evaluate data, conflicts will disappear.

      See Georgia stone henge commandment # 4:

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

      http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

      Dio

      • Hello Dio:
        I have fallen into a habit of saying “I believe……” when relaying conclusions I have reached after seeing strong evidence of it from the work I have been doing. It has been an effort to be polite, not wanting to invalidate anyone who has not yet seen the surrounding facts, principals. Also when I make a statement of ‘fact’, it draws out arguments from those whose attention may be on other things. Arguments serve no useful purpose and hide any actual facts the arguer has. Discussion is valuable.
        But it is time to change my ways. I will relay my experiences as facts, and opinions can be drawn from them as beliefs.
        Thank you for your posts. I learn from all those I read.
        Mark

      • Dio, I recall that for a while as a scientologists, I too, developed a somewhat disparaging outlook on the word believe and its various forms. But, I must admit, I never had nearly as much zeal in disdain for the word as you demonstrate in your writings. I’m reminded that through our definitions we impose our limitations.

        Personally Dio, I got over my ill feelings toward the concept of believe and now, understanding more about the world of perception in which I seem to exist, embrace the many versions of the word believe as being more appropriate and accurate than the concept of ‘know.’

        In order for a world of perception to exist, we must believe that there is a subject and an object; that something can be more than or less than; that there is such a thing as different levels; that it is possible to not know; that it is possible to know; that learning is necessary; that proof is necessary to validate to others that what we believe we know is true is true and so on it goes. I believe that the one thing we can actually come to know in a world of perception, a world that is always open to interpretation by the observer, and where the interpretations are always filtered through myriad beliefs and considerations, a world that is in state of constant change…is to know that we don’t know.

        Dio, you wrote: “I can’t figure out why any scientologist, worth his salt, would use the words “belief” and “believe”, unless he flunked scientology?

        “That means, he went through the whole process, the whole bridge, (like a sheep) and fooled everyone and learned nothing, did not cog, including fooling himself.

        He only at best became a foolish robot.”

        Dio, if a person had to know in order to be a scientologist there never would have been a CoS. In order for a person to be a scientologist and remain as a parishioner, in good standing, with the church, a person must believe, have faith in, trust a tremendous amount of things (without having any proof). The first thing one has to believe is that it is possible that LRH has actually done what he claims to have done. If a person believes that then they can become a scientologist. And as they become more and more a scientologist they must adopt a most extensive belief system to remain as one.

        In my thirty plus years as a scientologist, I believed a great many things, including believing that I knew, yet, ironically, I never really knew anything. I just believed I did. And that belief system was what composed what I thought of as being my personal integrity, my ‘truth.’

        Experience is always preceded by choice and what we choose to see we behold. Reasoning, analysis, comparing, evaluating are only necessary in a world of perception and at best will help one to win agreement for a particular interpretation. And, at worst, will serve to perpetuate a world of perception where spiritual beings desperately seek a truth that will forever remain elusive.

        Know is Truth and Truth is constant. It does not change and it requires no proof to validate it. Interpretations of perception, though, do require ‘proof’ for validation. Truth IS. There is no such thing as something being partly true. What is taken for being truth in a world of perception is based on what one believes and beliefs change, therefore, any so called ‘truth’ is transitory and not truth at all.

        Dio, I am making no attempt to convince you of anything or trying to change your mind. I am just stating what I believe at the moment.

        • Monte,

          Re: Your reply to my post on “ethics” “reason” and “believe”:

          If I agreed with you, then we would both be wrong.

          Understanding what you are looking at, do not need interpretations. All you have to do is see what is actually there. Do not look through beliefs or colored or dirty glasses.

          When I see a dog on the lawn, I do not believe I see a dog on the lawn. I know I see a dog on the lawn. I know it is not a cat or a moose or anything else. I know a dog when I see one.

          Although I despise the word “believe”, the only time I would say or agree it is appropriate to use the word
          “believe” is when I am not sure of something.

          So I might or could say I believe this or that, and I will qualify what I am saying to explain or define that I mean I am not certain on that datum. And I will keep my evaluation or analytical faculties focused and processing on the subject until I can get certainty.

          *****************************

          In addition to my earlier post, in regards to ethics and what governs ethics, I had a couple of after thoughts:

          0ne being that there is the problem of common sense not being common. Common sense is actually in reality quite a rare sense.

          Def: common sense

          1. Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

          2. common sense – sound practical judgment; “Common sense is not so common”; “he hasn’t got the sense God gave little green apples”; “fortunately she had the good sense to run away”

          Common sense is a sense of caution, concern, innate intelligence, good judgement and duty of care that everyone is expected to have. Everyone has a duty to have and use common sense. Failure to have or use common sense could give rise to legal action and institutionalization to protect public safety.

          Two: Then there is such a thing as “scruples”.

          scru·ples
          1. a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action.
          “I had no scruples about eavesdropping”
          synonyms: qualms, compunction, pangs/twinges of conscience, hesitation, reservations, second thoughts, doubt(s), misgivings, uneasiness, reluctance More
          “he had no scruples about eavesdropping”

          2. hesitate or be reluctant to do something that one thinks may be wrong.

          3. An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action.

          4. motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person’s thoughts and actions.

          5. an “innate intelligence” that a sane and intelligent person (an unaberrated person) has that tells them from gut feelings of what makes sense or not, of what is right or wrong.

          Common sense, good judgement, innate intelligence, are pretty much the same thing.

          I will tell you a story:

          The husband of my dad’s sister (my uncle) was such a man. He died a few yrs ago at 99. Same with his wife.

          This man did not have enough education to be able to read and write. He barely could sign his name. It was said that he had about grade one or two.

          This man had a lot of common sense and innate intelligence and very sound ethics and morals. He was born in the remote wilderness and to not all that great of a family. But this man was lucky. He married a very good woman. He began as a farmer. Cleared and broke fresh virgin land for farming and prospered. Then they moved to a small city and opened up a restaurant. They still farmed the farm. He had an amazing amount of good business sense too.

          This man knew enough not to have more than a single drink at a social function. He knew enough not to smoke or defile the temple in any way.

          They were always naturally very health conscious. They had a superior sense of right and wrong.

          They had a very sound marriage. They worked together like a well matched team of horses at all times. It was amazing. As compared to a lot of marriages where one is a horse and the other is an ass/ donkey.

          You can’t plow with a horse and an ass in the same harness.

          They prospered well all their lives and died millionaires.

          This couple stands out in my mind and memory as probably the most outstanding successful marriage and couple that I know of.

          His wife had maybe grade 7 or 8.

          And in their school days out in the country (a hundred yrs ago) where they had to walk to school two -three miles, school was when you could make it to school, when there was not work at home to do on the farm. So school attendance was not consistent. Then there were Canadian winter storms

          This couple made it on basically only little more than innate intelligence, common sense and scruples.

          These same faculties and senses are used in everything. And it ties right into the subject of “believing”. There is such a thing as a sense of knowingness. You don’t have to believe, because you know. You have confidence in your innate senses.

          (I recently read somewhere that we have or supposed to have 105 senses. )

          I hope that is enough to make my point. It is hard to explain common sense to someone who does not have it.

          Dio

          You know a real fool, when you are talking sense (truth) to someone and he calls you a fool (or argues with you).

          The truth is nothing more or less than the most right answer to any problem or subject.

          • Dio, you state: “If I agreed with you, then we would both be wrong.” Now I might be misinterpreting both your intent and your message, but, it seems to me that with this statement you are saying what is true for you is ‘right’ and what is true for me is ‘wrong.’ Is that what you mean by this?

            Also, I want to explore this. Going back to your earlier comment, you wrote:
            “I can’t figure out why any scientologist, worth his salt, would use the words “belief” and “believe”, unless he flunked scientology?

            “That means, he went through the whole process, the whole bridge, (like a sheep) and fooled everyone and learned nothing, did not cog, including fooling himself.

            He only at best became a foolish robot.”

            Dio, this definitive statement that you made is coming from a belief. It is not knowledge. You have observed, judged and concluded according to what you believe. As a person who realizes that my journey, much more pleasant than not, in scientology relied heavily on my believing in a belief system, I could take offense to what you are saying. Indeed, I could easily imagine that you are indirectly calling me a ‘foolish robot.’ That, in your eyes, I would be less than. However, I recognize that what is true for you is true for you just as it is for me, Therefore, I don’t take what you’re saying personally nor am I offended by it. I understand that you are speaking from your truth and not compromising your personal integrity. However, that said, one not compromising their personal integrity does not give license to assign diminishing labels to others.

            You state: “You know a real fool, when you are talking sense (truth) to someone and he calls you a fool (or argues with you).” I believe the ‘fool’ is the person who is not willing to recognize that everyone has their own point of view and that there may incredible variations between points of view. We never argue over facts, we only argue over interpretations.

            Then you state this: “The truth is nothing more or less than the most right answer to any problem or subject.” The consideration of their being something more or less right, more or less wrong, can only exist in a world of perception. A world where there is a subject and an object. In actual Truth or Know there are no ‘degrees of,’ there is no polarity.

            Dio, we can have many people standing alongside a grass covered park and each person has their eyes focused on a dog running across the park lawn. Every person there, without any doubts or reservations, knows they are where they are and that they have just watched a dog run across the park lawn. And they will be very certain about what just took place. If every person in this particular group of people is interviewed and asked to describe what just took place…the description will vary from person to person. The descriptions vary because each person has a different perspective. That is; each person has a different interpretation. And the interpretations cannot help but be filtered. The person’s interpretation of what they have perceived is what they know to be true. Hence, each person will have, to one degree or another, a different ‘truth’ regarding what occurred in the experience.

            Dio, in an earlier comment you wrote: “When people stop believing and starting thinking and use good reason and common sense, to evaluate data, conflicts will disappear.” Personally, Dio, I think that when people recognize that everyone has a different perspective and that there is no need to enforce a particular perspective onto another, that it is actually possible for different perspectives to collaborate and cooperate with one another toward a common objective…that’s when conflicts could disappear.

            • Monte,

              The only reason people see something different from what is actually there is because they see through their aberrations. Read Dianetics.

              Dio

              • Dio, you and I have had the occasion at different times on Marty’s posts to have an exchange of perspectives. I always benefit markedly by engaging in these exchanges of thought with you. I am enormously grateful to you Dio.

                BTW, I have read Dianetics several times and doing so had a tremendous impact on my trajectory in my journey of self discovery.

                Dio, as someone who has read A Course in Miracles a couple of times, you might recall the first law of chaos as mentioned in the text of that course, which is, everyone has their own truth. Then to add in what you said about the only reason people see something different from what is actually there is because they see through their aberrations…well, here’s a thought for you to ponder upon….could it possibly be that perception itself, ALL perception, is nothing but aberration? Or, another way to put it…is it possible that perception itself is the reactive mind and what LRH described as being the analytical mind is actually a component of the reactive mind?

                Monte

                • Monte,

                  Keep this in mind:

                  There may be my truth,
                  and there maybe your truth,
                  then there maybe the “TRUTH”.

                  Which means neither of our truths maybe the “Truth”.

                  What is true for you, is true for you, does mean that your truth is the “TRUTH”.

                  The catch in the statement “What is true for you is true for you” is that your truth could be an aberration. And as long as it serves you or you are happy with it, so be it.

                  Most people cannot handle the real TRUTH.

                  Most people are happier operating on lies and false and limiting data.

                  That is why Hubbard said that when you communicate with a person especially an aberree , and want to talk sense to him, that you can only do so from a half a tone scale point above him.

                  If you speak from a higher tone level, or theta level, he will boil over.

                  Every level of the tone scale has it’s level of truth, relative truth.

                  That is why the people who crucified Jesus did so. They could not handle the high level, high theta TRUTH that Jesus spoke.

                  My experience has been that truth is relative and you will unlikely be able to know the real truths, the highest degree of truths, until you ask that EMPTY SPACE in front of you to teach you the TRUTH in all things and ask non ceasingly.

                  That EMPTY SPACE is alive and well, and omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

                  Ask it is to give you wisdom, knowledge and understanding in all things.
                  When you are ready your teacher will appear. Because the universe does not throw it’s pearls in front of swine, nor does it throw what is holy before dogs.

                  People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand. (Proverb paraphrased)

                  When you have the right knowledge, you can solve any problem.

                  And nothing is given to you unless God gives it to you.

                  Gain wisdom, knowledge and understanding and they shall be as a crown of glory for you by day and a guiding light by night. (Proverb)

                  (Knowledge means the right knowledge and the right knowledge is equal to the TRUTH.)

                  Dio

                  • Dio, my apologies for such a delayed response. I was preparing to respond soon after you last posted on this thread but before I got to it my computer crashed. It’s now working again so I’m picking back up where I paused the thought.

                    The exchange of perspectives that we have engaged in here has, for me, been a wonderful demonstration of how perception is nonspiritual. However, we do do our best at trying to spiritualize it. I have no doubts that you and I and as many others as there are others, could discuss, debate, argue, share, compare, measure and so on and on what is true for us individually until way past the time when the cows come home or hell freezes over or the fat lady sings and never even come close to recognizing that TRUTH that would be the same TRUTH for each and everyone of us.

                    I believe that what we refer to as being reality is simply agreed upon misperception and that actual reality is invisible and not contactable while in perception. And the idea of there being such a thing as a physical form that is aware and perceives is but the dream of Spirit. I’ve reached a point Dio where I consider TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, LOVE, REALITY and ONENESS as being ineffable.

                    I do recognize that there is misperception and true perception and that through true perception (perceiving things exactly as they are), misperception (a condition of believing the unreal to be real and where everyone can have their own truth) can eventually be completely cleared away. True perception is the end of fragmentation and is a unified field. Another way to put it would be to say that true perception is where there is exact duplication among each and every viewpoint i.e., one truth, the same truth, for ALL.

                    As mentioned earlier Dio, this exchange has been rewarding and I am most appreciative for the experience. I really don’t think our points of view are all that different but the words and definitions get in the way.

                    Peace Out ~ Monte

                • Monte: “…is it possible that perception itself is the reactive mind and what LRH described as being the analytical mind is actually a component of the reactive mind?”

                  Very interesting way to view it, Monte.

                  May you have a Merry Christmas! (And a transcendent one. ;) )

                  You too, Dio. :)

                  • Miraldi,

                    I also wish you a very blessed Christmas.

                    And as well to you Monte,

                    Dio

                    What was true yesterday, is not necessarily true today.

                  • Hi marildi! Since I am typing into this box comm for you I am in the past. I must say that it was odd for me (and still is a little) to discover that there is no such thing as ‘the present’ in linear time. There is only the past. The realization gives the auditing command, “Come to present time.” a whole new meaning. However, in realizing that the present is not even in time, the command requires a bit of adjustment. Perhaps this wording might work better…”Be in the present.”

                    marildi, thanks much for excerpting my suggestion to Dio that he might ponder the possibility of perception itself being the reactive mind. In your commenting upon this you prompted me to look further and in so doing I was able to clarify some things for myself, which came out in a reply I just posted to Dio.

                    I have a couple of extraordinary movies to share with you marildi that I figure you will enjoy. You can watch them on Youtube. The first one is almost an hr long and it really touched me. For whatever the reason, it brought a lot of grief up to the surface to be experienced. The title of this video is: The Animal Communicator Full.

                    The second movie is an hour and a half long and is a German production so you’ll have to open the envelope icon and activate the subtitle feature. The name of this video is: In The Beginning There Was Light Full. It’s a fascinating movie about people who live on light without consuming any food or water.

                    Until the next past moment seems to arrive….Much Love!

                    • Monte, much love in return!

                      And I have made a note of the movies you suggest.

                      Happy New Year to you! May your every past moment of it have been wonderful. ;) :)

      • Hi Dio;

        Well, very interesting, and I agree with most of it, but one thing I’ve learned about ‘belief’ is that ‘belief’ is just a postulated reality, and in itself it is not a negative or ‘ignorant’ thing to do. We all postulate realities, view what can be, not what is, with the idea of moving in that direction, that is what ‘belief’ really means, at least to me.

        I think the ‘belief’ referred to in your post is more of a ‘helps me survive’ type view that must be held onto regardless of reasons not to do so.

        I ‘believe’ that certain realities can be attained, both personally and socially, but I do not ‘know’ I will attain them, or others will attain them. I ‘know’ I have the ability to bring them about, but, the rest is ‘belief’.

        If I’ve read your post wrong, then, never mind.

        • Bob,

          I ack your reply to my post on believe.

          Believe is a very bad word.

          I could write a small book on it, but I do not have the time.

          I will say that is a very much unevaluated word.

          The word believe is used very often as a default word when the speaker actually should use a more accurate word.

          Just watch TV and notice when people use the word believe. Really analyze and define what they really mean, and think what word they should really be using.

          Often people use the word “believe” to slip the other person an uncertainty or a lie.

          You will see that people are very sloppy in their choice of words. The worst one I see is that they chose to use the word “believe” when they can’t think of the right word to use. Just watch closely.

          George W. Bush said they (his admin and the CIA) “believe” Iraq had WMD and convinced the USA and it’s allies to invade and pretty well destroy Iraq and they found none. Wars and conflicts are mostly caused by differing “beliefs”.

          A belief is not a fact.

          Believing in something does not make it true.

          A belief is a confession of ignorance.

          Believing is the function of the intellectually challenged or intellectually inept.

          Hubbard developed his own language or terminology with very specific definitions, because words in common usage were improperly used or had inaccurate meanings or could be misunderstood, or whatever reason he did not use them. Many great scientists and thinking people develop their own terminology.

          Common language, especially amongst lay people, but often enough amongst educated people, is very sloppy.

          Believe is one word Hubbard did not address and should of.

          And that word could well be one of his downfalls, as in: “the war was lost for the lack of a horseshoe nail”.

          Dio

          • Bob,

            PS:

            … the most common misuse of the word believe is it’s substitution for the word “think”. When people say they “believe”, they actually mean they “think”. They mistake “believing” for “thinking”. There are many more misuses, but they do not come to mind now.

            But when I listen to people talk, I do realize what misuse of the word “believe”, they are making.

            Another very common example of sloppy thinking, ( or rather simple unconsciousness) is when people call a restroom or a washroom; a bathroom. Like in a restaurant, or other public place, people will say where is the bathroom?

            Although there may be the exception, I have yet to see a restaurant or public place have a bathroom.

            Bathrooms have bathtubs where a person can take a bath.

            That demonstrates and proves that most people are not fully conscious.

            Dio

  31. Tell Mosey she looks really sweet on that last picture of the Dailymail article. Oh wait.. the photo must be from Germany, right?

    Anyways, this journey of yours over the last years was so exciting to follow. Thank you for letting me (us) share in it. All the best to you.

    – Thilo

  32. Madora Pennington

    Really looking forward to reading your book.

  33. That was a Christmas gift for me. I actually am getting emotional.

    Namaste Brother and Merry Christmas! To you and your loved ones.

  34. Blood of Jesus discovered and analyzed, and found to have only 24 chromosomes; 23 from mother and 1 from Father:

    :http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/the-blood-of-jesus-found-on-the-ark-of-the-covenant

    Dio

  35. I think this is appropriate.

    Gotye Don’t Worry, We’ll Be Watching You
    Hey
    What’s your name?
    Don’t worry
    And don’t be afraid
    We won’t hurt you
    Hey
    Lost your way?
    Well don’t worry
    Just do as we say
    And we won’t hurt you
    It’s hard
    The world can lead you so astray
    It gets harder
    It’s hard just to keep the faith
    Do you need a reminder?
    Of the love that we gave you?
    Don’t worry
    You’re walking away
    But we’ll always be watching you
    We’ll always be watching you

  36. I look forward to reading your book. It sounds like it will be a fair and informative work on the good, the bad, and the ugly in Scientology.

  37. Well done, Marty. I am very happy that you are able to be so honest and clear-sighted. The only thing I would argue with is that it’s a bit of a slander to call Crowley’s OTO stuff “black magic”. You realise that all that “Great Beast 666″ stuff was just PR and Crowley’s magick is not necessarily evil…

    • Marty grouped Crowley with other notable brilliants in this post. There is blatant black magic in the Church of Scientology.

      “Black magic has traditionally referred to the use of supernatural powers or magic for evil and selfish purposes. With respect to the philosophy of left-hand path and right-hand path, black magic is the malicious counterpart of benevolent white magic.”

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

      Scientology is a study of magic, and if ever a group of people used magic for evil and selfish purposes, it is David Miscavige. He is steeped in black magic, and so those that do his bidding.

      Crowley was not afraid of black magic and he embraced it. He also had some selfish purposes, he blatantly dramatized them. It is true he aligned himself with some black magic. He also understood white magic with genious, and spoke of both as merely positive and negative energies. He was very flexible.

      • I think, if he had not wallowed in the heroin and opium as he did, he would have had a greater audience. It confuses people when you present yourself as at cause over the supernatural, but enslave yourself in such a very ordinary way to a poppy plant.

        • Anyone using Scientology for evil and selfish purposes, is dabbling in black magic.

          What is the purpose for fair game?
          What is the purpose behind false reports?
          What is the purpose behind accepting money from someone for “help”, and then ensuring they are left as road kill?
          What is the purpose behind unmocking another human being, your brother?
          What is the purpose behind discrediting others and sending false reports around behind their back?
          What is the purpose behind excluding others?
          What is the purpose behind throwing up “the past” of someone else to restimulate them and others?
          What is the purpose behind sitting the P.C. down for sec checks and insisting they “mock up the past” after you have promised them they are no longer bound to carry that with them?

          These are all evil and selfish purposes, and this IS dabbling in black magic.

          Who / what would have such purposes? People who prefer to dwell with and practice in black magic.

    • No, Doloras,
      I certainly don’t realize that Crowley’s writings are “just PR”.

      Even if that was true, then it is the most irresponsible PR imaginable. Because some readers will take it verbally and try to apply it … including Crowley’s instructions how to sacrifice 10 year old boys, and his justification that this is good for the boys ( and even better for the magician ) !

      And yes, sacrifice means “kill” according to the Great Crowley himself.

      • Hans,

        I am glad that you addressed the outpoint on Crowley as you did.
        I read some of Crowley’s work and it was sick and evil.

        Dio

          • T.0.
            Quoting Doloras

            Well done, Marty. I am very happy that you are able to be so honest and clear-sighted. The only thing I would argue with is that it’s a bit of a slander to call Crowley’s OTO stuff “black magic”. You realise that all that “Great Beast 666″ stuff was just PR and Crowley’s magick is not necessarily evil…

            Me: My point was I disagree with Doloras’ POV on Crowley as not being evil, and acked Hans for doing so. As I was going to post to that effect.

            When I was reading some of Crowley’s stuff a while back it gave me the creeps and a nauseated stomach so bad I had to quit.

            You say that Crowley was against child abuse, and an advocate for children’s rights> Etc.

            I did not read that and I am not drawn to read any more of it than I have, at east at this present time.

            I do not like the vibes that come off his work.

            It does not ring as a source of truth for me.

            I prefer to spend my reading time, reading something a lot more beneficial to me.

            If you are correct, evidently Crowley’s work is a mix of some good and some evil, like LRHs. So like anything else the interested reader must evaluate and glean.

            Another thing is that some authors like to slip in some good stuff (truth) to sell their bad stuff (evil). Like sugar coating.

            The best bait in the universe is truth.

            The worst lies are the ones almost true. The more truth there is on a cognitive set up (a fabrication, a con job, a lie) the more the truth acts like a glue to hold the embedded lie in place, which is thereafter not inspected, but often defended to death. Unknown.

            Dio

      • “And yes, sacrifice means “kill” according to the Great Crowley himself.”

        Do share something to substantiate this charge.

        • “Sacrifice” has various meanings, in it’s usage and meaning as noun, verb, v.t. and v.i.. Very different meanings.

          I have never seen a reference by Crowley where he asserts when he uses the word “sacrifice” it means “killing”.

          But it is very possible I am less well read than you.

          I did read something about sacrifice he said bit did not take it to mean killing. And I do not recall killing instructions in any of the books I read.

          Other meanings that convey mercy and kindness:

          To give away etc for the sake of something or someone else. “He sacrificed his life trying to save the children from the burning house.”

          An offering to a God or Gods. This occurs through instruction and enlightenment as well as “death”. This is, is effect, what priests do at Baptism. What registrars do when signing someone up for service. What beggars do to their fellow Scientologists. What course supervisors do when they “supervise” minds and hearts.

          ENDURE. Endure the loss of; “He gave his life for his children”; “I gave two sons to the war”.

          Part with a possession or right. All parents are expected to sacrifice these children considered “possessions” to their own freedoms, rights, and self determinism at some point.

          Present as an act of worship; “offer prayers to the gods”

          Letting go. Probably most used today with personnel that are sacrificed (e.g., surrendered or lost in order to gain an objective)

          In human action, human activity, act, deed – something that people do or cause to happen.

          • I think if you could revisit his writings, you would find Aleister Crowley was one of the strongest advocates for children’s rights of his time. He was against all forms of child abuse, and has said that if he were in political power, he’d have parents who bully their children arrested. Moreover, he was unequivocal that abuse of anyone’s rights is contrary to his religious philosophy of Thelema.

            • “… acts invasive of another individual’s equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions.”

              “The formula of this law is: Do what thou wilt. Its moral aspect is simple enough in theory. Do what thou wilt does not mean Do as you please, although it implies this degree of emancipation, that it is no longer possible to say apriori (my note: relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation) that a given action is “wrong.” Each man has the right – and an absolute right – to accomplish his True Will.”

              “Ethics is balderdash. Each Star must go on its orbit. To hell with ‘moral Principle;’ there is no such thing; that is a herd-delusion, and makes men cattle. Do not listen to the rational explanation of How Right It All Is, in the newspapers.”

              Aleister Crowley

              He has NO history of abuse or violence on, or towards, another human being. NONE.

        • “It is an error, to assume, that the victim gets hurt. Quite the
          opposite – this is the most blessed and savoury death, because the elemental spirit is transformed directly to a deity – the exact goal of its efforts during countless incarnations. … intelligence and
          innocence of this male child … and male it must be”.

          ( re-translated to English, from Crowley’s book “magick in theory
          and practice” ).

          • Seriously? You have taken this out of a significant context so that it could mean anything anyone wanted it to mean. And it has no translation of the word sacrifice by Crowley. Still, if you prefer to think he drummed up baby brew………………..

  38. “The only happiness you will ever find is in you.”

  39. Marty, it’s amazing how many right indications you’ve packed into a few short paragraphs. And that’s just the preview! Another book on my ‘must read’ list.

  40. My open letter to David Miscavie:

    What the hell is wrong with you? You have a restraining order on you in Texas, a pending suit against you for wallowing in domestic terrorism, and you send your soldiers out to wallow in domestic terrorism in Clearwater Florida now? Haven’t you learned anything? What is it going to take for your dogs to think of something else to do besides suppressing harming attacking and fair gaming other people? If your GAOT ll books are so interesting, who aren’t they parked at a desk reading them?

    • If Mark Bunker didn’t have his own personal history of stalking and harassing Scientologists, he could slap a another restraining order on your ass!

    • Wise beard Man

      His words are Wise

      His face…Beard

    • Oracle, I agree with your comments about how crazy looking Miscabage’s actions are, except, when you said to him: Haven’t you learned anything? He does not think or act like you and me. He is a psychopath, all he has learned very very well is that he can keep sending out loyal soldiers, he does have plenty of money and plenty of people who are so blind he can send others out as soon as the first wave is shot down.

      His Ponze scheme is very deep and secure – coffers are flush, army full of loyal kamikazi/jihadist/Nazi/scientologists who will DIE for him and Sceintology (like KSW asked for way back in 65). I personally believe that micsavage will never stop (he will NEVER learn this lesson), he believes NOBODY will dare refuse to fight for him (for Scienitology, for the planet….).

      I even think time is on his side in some ways because old timers who are reliable first hand witnesses are dying, or stepping away or paid off to go silent, or “well discredited in the usual ways” and it’s pretty easy to get the in-house Scn to hold the line against “bitter defrocked apostates”, “SP’s”… etc. so all of “us” out here are long since de-friended and of little influence to insiders.

      Miscavage will count on, to the bitter end, self policing thought stopping to keep working for him, and keep feeding him plenty of foot soldiers and funds for a long war. It’s his strategy, and to him it is a fine strategy and its working.

      BUT, with Marty and others still putting info out there – such as this new book, perhaps help will come to defrock HIM from somewhere unexjpected.. That’s what I hope for.

      Thank you Marty for keeping on, in spite of everything

  41. IMO This blog’s creator has never been closer to the true state of “clear” than he is today.
    “Love” is the answer. It has always been the answer, and it always will be. It’s what holds this world together.
    “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

  42. The question to ask is „how do you know what you know?“ (to be considered to be true) Some may say „I have observed it“. Others may say „I recall it“ or „have a picture of it“. But if you look at your past, picture or no picture, what is the proof that what you remember is what you have experienced in the past? You have no proof. The only proof there is, that what you see or experience in present time is acknowledged by others. All other „know“ can be challenged. Even by yourself.
    You can shake certainty simply by questioning someones „know“ rather easily. A professional can ask you what you did have for breakfast and within 5 minutes you agree that you do not really know that. Another 5 minutes later he can turn on psychosis. This is not very difficult to do if you know how to do it. A mild form of this tech is used selling you something.
    So, now I should be convinced that what I experienced in Scientology belongs to the placebo effect.
    I have no arguments that this is not the case. But I know what I „did have for breakfast“.

    • Well said. You’ve brought new meaning to “What is true is what is true for you.” And that sums up “the truest truth.” :)

  43. Marty,

    I will get a copy of your new ( newest) book.
    I read a lot.

  44. OSA Axiom : if we harass someone long enough and heavily enough and really give him a hard time for years, then he will finally present logical seeming arguments and ideas that Scientology is virtually complete BS.

    Examples : Gerry Armstrong, Arnie Lerma, many others, most recently Marty Rathbun.

    ( Yours truly has also observed that phenomenon on himself, when OSA cared to spend at least a million of their parishioners’ donations on him over some years. After they had ceased their op, the effect vanished. )

    • Wow. Interesting.

    • I don’t observe OSA giving birth to people and their views on the super natural.

      I observe OSA creating an ARCXen field, out P.R., and generating hysteria and resentment with domestic terrorism.

      Hubbard said if society were to get rid of all the police, the crime would stop. Then he mocked up his own police force. OSA.

      Marty discusses situations and consequences with these social dynamics that can be observed by anyone. In a thoughtful manner with specifics. I do not see him in the same arena with Gerry, Arnie and the “many others” we don’t even know who.

      • Oracle,
        you are a long term follower of this blog and have certainly observed the change. Very few years ago Marty was a staunch defender and adherent of LRH tech. Today Marty believes that “Hubbard packaged and artfully peddled … a self-proclaimed ‘modern science of mental health’”. That’s quite a change in attitude, isn’t it ?

        A person’s attitude, feelings and way of thinking is influenced – among other factors – by his environment. I wouldn’t wish on anyone the around-the-clock suppression and criminality that Marty had been exposed to and still is. Marty didn’t go psychotic as some people might have done, even with much lesser suppression. But he could not score a full victory, couldn’t get the OSA mob finally handled and could not exert complete control of this situation.

        This leaves but one way to deal with it – the level of thought ( or counter-thought, as LRH would have said ). And when someone has to crank up his counter-thought ( also called criticism ) this goes hand in glove with a change in attitude towards the general subject ( as I have observed on others as well on myself ).

        • “And when someone has to crank up his counter-thought (also called criticism) this goes hand in glove with a change in attitude towards the general subject (as I have observed on others as well on myself).”

          Han, thanks so much for your insights! What you have observed would explain some things about many people. And I’m glad you had the additional (and rare) insight to include yourself – which got me to look at it for myself too.

          Wow, simple pain association?

    • Very perceptive statement Hans. Too bad the folks in the CoS are incapable of seeing this.

  45. I want to share a ESMB post on health:

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?34387-Real-Doctors-techniques-compared-to-Scientology-techniques&p=889181#post889181

    “I work at a hospital in Information Services. The hospital is full of mostly sick people being treated for various maladies. On Friday I got a cold and felt miserable. Runny nose, sore throat, coughing, headache, and an achy body. If I were still a Scientologist I would have gotten an assist from an auditor and racked up two hours of auditing at $500 per hour and had a PTS handling and been made to disconnect from someone or something.

    I am not a Scientologist any longer and so I went to the doctor on Saturday. The doctor checked my blood pressure, Oxygen level, did a test to see if I had flu or a cold (it was a cold) and prescribed some antibiotics and some cough medicine. The total cost for the medicine was $7.97. The doctor visit was $75. The grand total was $82.97 and the next day I felt completely healed! My cough was gone, the body aches and pains were gone, the runny nose and all of the other symptoms were history and I didn’t have to disconnect from anyone.

    Had I gone the Scientology route it would have cost me at least $1000 for the assist. I would have had to disconnect from someone, made a donation to the IAS, and I would have still had the miserable cold with all of the symptoms. Let me tell you it is far better to go to a real professional when you are ill rather than get an assist at an org. The doctor tech works. Scientology tech doesn’t. “

    • Cat Daddy
      In the 70s you might have gotten a “Body Communication Process” just because you needed it for free from a friend and the cold completely gone.
      I mention this because that is what happened to me. The astonishing power of a simple process.
      Greta

    • Just a quick note here Cat – I was in the tech area of Scientology for 35 years and with the many hundreds of preclear folders I supervised, I never once saw someone’s going to ethics for a cold (or any illness) result in a disconnection (well, I should say disconnection from someone who was still alive; a number of people located some person from the past who was usually deceased and on some other occasions, was living in an unknown area, thus the person was effectively “disconnected” from them). Also I never saw anyone with an illness or injury pay for a touch assist, which were routinely given by a student when someone really needed one. More extensive auditing assists also were usually given to “in house” students or staff by other students or staff without charge. This is how it was in my org.

      • Understood, The Ex Scientologist poster was making a joke than

        • CD, I know Dean very well. He wasn’t making a joke. There was cases of this at AOLA now and then. You know, I think what it is maybe that after a certain amount of betrayal on my be bitter towards the betrayer. Dean is a wonderful guy but perhaps can more easily focus on the ‘wrong’ then the right because of betrayal and I don’t blame him. To be so betrayed as us SO members were hurts for at least a while.

    • Let me make another point here please, Cat. I love Tony’s blog and read it every day. And while I might only look at ESMB once a month, if that, I never post on either blog. Tony doesn’t really KNOW what Scientology is, and the people that do post on his blog usually tend very strongly in one direction. I did make a posting ONCE. Claire Hedley had given a very incorrect impression of Upper Indoc TRs in my opinion and I made a post that made the point that the purpose of the drill was not actually to talk to or yell at an ashtray. Geez – you’d have thought I was a PR man for Hitler or Stalin. I was accused of being an OSA agent, a troll and numerous other things. And while I certainly don’t disagree with Claire on many points, she also gets quite a number of things wrong, but it is obvious that the blog posters act as just a “yes, sir” chorus to whatever negative thing is said, and don’t want to hear anything else.

      I am very, VERY aware of LRH’s psychological problems and the mistakes he made that have and will result in Scientology’s continued decline for the foreseeable future. And I’d like to see even MORE discussion of that in the blogs as the rise of the fascist CoS is one of my major interests in the area of the Scientology experience.

      BUT…. the relentless negativity of many folks is oftentimes caused by a complete lack of actual personal experience in Scientology (or they were never trained as auditors). This is why I so much respect the opinions of Marty and Karen #1 s people whose opinions are very much informed by their own experience and observations. Without EVER mentioning the name L. Ron Hubbard or the word “Scientology” I KNOW I can take a person off the street, spend about 15 minutes hatting them as a preclear and then audit them on Self Analysis to a VERY good win. And have actually done this. Almost all of Scientology is extremely workable and applicable done just between two people out of context to any other activity. Which is why I think the REAL STORY of the downfall of the CoS and the shrinking of the numbers of people interested in/involved in Scientology is how this VERY workable and enjoyable I must say, cycle of action was slowly but surely put INTO the context of the “1984” experience for so many people. A real shame I think. Though personally I just moved on to another stage of life, no longer living in the USA, travelling the world and “digging the scene” all over the place (as we used to say).

      • Yes, agree.
        Back to the cold. I usually talk to the “Virus” and suggest that he finds another host. Usually it works.
        Or if the Body has some pain, I talk to him to find out how I could be of any help. Usually my Body can handle it alone. Or I help him getting rid of the “electronics part” of the pain.

      • I think the most positive expieriences come from interaction with good people

  46. Miraldi and others:

    http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

    Clear

    By David Mayo, USA.

    • That seems to be the same link Norwood posted. Thanks anyway.

      Btw, Cat Daddy, please check out the correct spelling of my name.

      ARC,
      marildi

  47. Well Marty, if you keep this up, I’ll have to have a ‘Marty’ shelf in my bookcase … looking forward to it, both the new book and the ‘Marty’ shelf.

    Have you ever considered using this blog as a book, as series of books? I think it would be a magnificent work, both for enlightenment and references, there is SO much here … I’d definitely get one.

    • And just think, if you use this blog, from post number one onward, you’d not have to write anything, it’s already done!

      And, you can add a new volume every year without having to do anything!

      Think about it …

  48. You have come a long way since you left the church of scientology, IMHO. “Welcome to the real world.” – Morpheus, The Matrix (1999)

  49. I feel I did a worong by/commited an overt ? against mr, Hobson. Why I feel bad, not because of a beliefsystem like Scientology or another.

    Time to listen to wise words again.

    NYC Anonymous Annoys A Scientologist Until He Snaps

  50. It must be so hard for Scientologists to see the flawa in their Founder.

    I had to acknowledge this man was not who I tought he was:

    • Not Kennedy but Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands

      • Well, Kennedy himself had feet of clay. He was a womanizer and was probably a pain pill addict. Another great person, Mandela, started out as a violent communist revolutionary. Another American hero, King, was also a womanizer.

        All three of those men achieved greatness that has been broadly recognized despite their flaws.

        We know Hubbard had feet of clay too. Did he achieve greatness? I don’t think history has decided yet. Does a great man with the urgency to save the universe really end up spending his latter years writing sci-fi, being in hiding, and using drugs? Or was the greatness only an apparency no matter how compelling it seemed? Was there, or was there not, a real wizard behind the curtain?

        • Well the footage is of them talking about preventing war between Indonesia and The Netherlands at the time about a small part that was still in dutch hands. Alsoo it was feared communists would get in on the action.

  51. Marty, this sentence from your post caught my attention: “But, because of the totalitarian mind control mechanisms interwoven throughout the subject and its reliance upon mystery and secrecy to maintain loyalty and power, Scientology cannot survive the age of information.” Then, within this statement, this, in particular, really got me to pondering: “…reliance upon mystery and secrecy to maintain loyalty and power…” Marty, IMO, in this statement, you have managed to encapsulate into the proverbial ‘nutshell,’ the basic perpetuating modus operandi of this illusory world.

    It is the mystery that is never completely solved that traps and holds our attention in the mind’s projection (the physical experience that seems to exist outside ourselves). No matter what answer we discover or how many answers we discover, there are always more to discover. There is always more to learn, always more to know. And we go through lifetime, after lifetime, after lifetime and so on searching for answers and understanding, but the ‘know’ in this world, that is really what we’re searching for, is not a real know it is only a belief. We only search through beliefs (illusory stories) in this world.

    Secrecy is a protection device that we all use from time to time to protect something or someone. Secrecy involves setting something apart, hiding it, keeping it concealed. And how do we hide what we have set apart? We erect a veil or multiple veils, between what we are protecting and that which we are protecting it from. The veils are holographic illusions in the form of stories. A few such stories in this world are…that if we keep looking in the experience, we will find what we’re looking for; that there is good and evil, that we are bodies; that there is life and death; that there is nothing outside the experience; that the experience is real, and so, so, so, many more. We live our lives, make the choices we make, and have the experiences we have, according to the stories we believe. This world i.e., the entire cosmos is, I believe, the ne plus ultra story that only seems to exist between the story we believe we are and the truth we know we are. And it is we, through our believing in the stories we are told and tell ourselves, that maintain this seemingly incredibly formidable veil.

    If you would be interested in getting some really basic stories, that many a person uses to decide upon what choices to make during their life journey, dismantled, I suggest watching a video on YT titled – Illuminati Exposed – The video Alex Jones won’t show or talk about. Note: other than for being able to find the video on YT, the title, IMO, was just used to grab viewer attention. It’s pretty much a non sequitur. Although, I did find the info presented to be most illuminating. :) (enough so that I spent 3 hrs watching it)

  52. Jean-François Genest

    This is awesome. Thank you very much for doing this.

  53. WOW! You have come a long way since I first started reading your blog! We left Scientology about the same time although I was a public “Scientologist.” Your comments on Deconstructing Scientology are very well thought out and written, You have nailed it! I came to a similar conclusion while listening to L. Ron on the SHSBC tapes. That’s when I confronted the fact that he was making it up as he went. I don’t recall what series of tapes I was listening to at the time but I came to the realization agreeing with this science fiction by a BS artist was “mind bending.” I could make a choice, 1. Continue to listen and go into agreement or 2. See it for what it was and call a spade a spade. I decided on the later as I knew it was BS. Funny how that realization can come so sudden and complete after all the years of living the “Truman Show.” I left and didn’t look back. For me and probably most everyone else who leaves, It is very difficult to leave all the old friends behind and a way of life that one has been following for many years. But, I was an “ot5″ and “class 5″ auditor so I knew what the consequences would be so there were few surprises in the aftermath. Once out, I started forming new friends and joined a more traditional church. BTW, Christianity also has it’s workability and It’s been around a long time, for good reason. Today my life is very good and I have many new friends. I have flourished and prospered without L Ron or his “church.” My family that is still in Scientology have disconnected from me but with so many members calling it quits, I am confident that they will discover for themselves what this “church” is really all about and we’ll be a family again.
    I understand that there are many injustices concerning the “church” and COB but at the root of it is L Ron and his craziness. No doubt he was a genius but non-the-less, also a nut case. I totally agree with you that after putting forth his ideas in Dianetics, “Hubbard spent the rest of his life attempting to make good on Dianetics’ promises to invariably deliver a perfect, or clear mind.”
    It was not to be.
    Congratulations, you are getting to the cause of all the problems and troubles of the group. I will be looking forward to your new book and hoping it comes out on tape.

    • burnedbutnotbitter

      So here it is again… There is no need to invalidate those of us out here who are Clear. Maybe we could split hairs over the “invariably” adverb, but I don’t like the direction this is going in. No thank you.

  54. It seems an Atheist like me can make it into heaven

  55. I have most of the pre-Miscavige Scientology books and tapes. In doing some “winter cleaning” I came across my “The Book of E-Meter Drills” by L. Ron Hubbard and compiled by Mary Sue Hubbard, copyright 1965, 1967.

    In browsing through it, I was struck by the detail. I think it is that richness of detail that reinforced so many of our beliefs: how could so much detail be worked out if it were not true and scientific?

    In looking over the “Sunday Funnies” on Ortega’s site, I was struck by something else: who the heck is proof-reading their flyers and publications? They seem to always have a sprinkling of typos and ungrammaticality. (Is that why everyone has to redo Student Hat? :-)

    And in deconstructing Scientology, it occurs to me that Miscavige et al have painted themselves into a corner: (a) having told such ongoing whoppers about Scientology expansion, they hardly can tell the truth now; and (b) if they did tell the truth, it would be one of global downstats, which would put Miscavige et al in a lower ethics condition.

    I personally suspect that at some appropriate and necessary future point, Miscavige will declare a Marcabian SP takeover of the church, and flee with his “loyal officers” to a Third World country, perhaps Colombia, with a billion or so in cash and the deeds to billions worth of property worldwide. Heck, you can buy a lot of protection in some of those countries for a lot less than a billion. Feliz año nuevo y viva la causa!

  56. Marty, are you an auditor or what? Why do you then speak that badly of LRH. Sorry, I didn’t wanna read more of your article. I maybe missing the point. IF you are an auditor… well… I think you should know better. Unless I am very stupid and blinded and AS-ISed all I did myself just by my sheer imagination. I didn’t get much of auditing and I didn’t practice much of auditing others except for Book 1. But I did read Hubbard and had my cognitions and had my wins. It looks like there are a lot, a lot, a lot of misunderstoods even amongst… auditors. This is why they can’t get their act together. I am pro-Hubbard no matter what you say. I have, it looks like, though a foreign language speaker, less MUs than many. You turned to an enemy to Hubbard, Marty. The man who helped you the most. Why?

    • “The man who helped you the most. Why?”

      You have got to be kidding me – I guess you missed the EP – we’ll call it “Truth Discovered”.

      But don’t worry – I have the solution:-

      Please return to the first entry in Marty’s blog and start from the beginning again.
      Then read all his books in order of publication.
      Then read his recommended reading list.
      Then read the Daily Mail article.

      Should take you about 4 years. However, this is the “quickie” grade.

      If you’re still struggling, then maybe you’re going to have to bite the bullet and give about 25 of the best years of your life to the church, and then go back to the beginning again.

    • Theo, I expect from pro-Scientologists (and pro-humans and pro-thetans) to care about happens to Scientologists. That ‘duty’ is senior to the duty of defending any brand whatsoever. If you went to our local Church here and told them that something about it (specific) harms them and pointed out how it harms them, you would be accused of 3rd party, and entheta spreading, and being down the tone scale, and probably being an SP too. That would have a portion of truth, as you would be causing some enturbulence indeed. But if that enturbulence was to get that problem dealt with, in one way or another, it would be pro-survival enturbulence. If things were mostly OK and you went to the Church and caused enturbulence, you would be the bad guy indeed.

      The ‘avoid entheta’ and ‘stay uptone’ was used to cover/conceal suppression in my experience, which was the huge (in terms of quantity) entheta. If you noticed it or even pointed it out, you were accused for it.

      If a group is supposed to do something and does it, nobody has any business to mess with it. If the group does the opposite -or even partially the opposite- of what it claims, then there need not be any ‘bad guys’ to accuse it. The ‘bad guys’ is the group itself. If you consider Scientologists your friends then you simply don’t want them to be in such a group. And although they have the right to do whatever they please with themselves, you have the right to point out that they are dumbasses as well. That is part of what is called intergrity. Intergrity doesn’t necessarily mean to be in agreement with others.

      I personaly don’t have any problem with Scientologists being Scientologists in groups or outside, in general. But if Scientologists are entangled is some sort of a brainwashing that I have known by experience, it could even be an overt of ommision from my behalf to not point it out, if I was passing by, no? Sadly Hubbard’s name can be used for brainwashing as Scientologists like and trust him and if anyone would want to harm Scientologists, he would have to do it in Hubbard’s name. It’s all done in Hubbard’s name in Scientology groups. Whatever overt anybody does in Scientology, he says that Hubbard put him to do it. If you invalidate somebody as a thetan, as an OT, if you attempt to control like like a puppet, you say it’s Scientology –that Hubbard put you to do it.

      Well, that’s why Hubbard gets fired at by critics. If you don’t want Hubbard to get fired at, you can try to stop such ‘Scientologists’ from using his name to justify their overts. Or you can also do good things in his name as well. The second might work out better (accent on truth), if the Bridge wasn’t beheaded and everyone insisted that it’s all there can be because it’s called ‘Standard Tech’.

  57. Scientology cannot survive the age of information. You said that.

    And I say: Independents can.

    But you didn’t have the guts to follow that through Marty. Indies can survive the age of information and you kind of started that.

    Though there was a Freezone, long before you and there were Indies long before you. You just named them so, and then you trashed us.

    So be it… Sell your books Marty. But they are not going to sell like Hubbard’s. you ain’t the game maker here. I wish you could make some of those people here follow some of the rules of the game and do something. I wonder why you are still auditing if you so disbelieve the system. But I no wonder anymore why the so called “Management” (to which you belonged somehow at that time, 1999) trashed me when I spoke about HCO Bs on translations. It’s because you didn’t get it Marty, neither you nor the others in Management. Or if they did, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Well, it’s called Standard Tech. So you know.

    Try your version of auditing procedures then and we will see how you are doing. Meanwhile you apply LRH and then you speak bad about him. What a joke! If you call that transcendetalism… I wish you could listen Marty. Outside a session. But it looks like no other viewpoint counts for you.

    If you keep sending me those emails I will be responding accordingly. You had it all and you trashed it. I wish you and Mosey at least now can have Miscavige apologise in court. You are still making amends to Hubbard, boy, and you aren’t getting it. Stop speaking badly of Source. Cause you didn’t get it. We are not fanatics here as you called us. We have seen results. And all I have seen from You is your books and how you want to sell them. What’s the use? To make money? Or to give a new fresh viewpoint to people? There are so many books in the world. What’s the use for some more? Hubbard didn’t just write books. He guided people to certain results.

    You are playing with the church and Scientology. You made the differentiation between the church and Scientology and then you trashed Scientology.

    Take me off the mailing list if you dont’ want to get such messages.

    Otherwise get your act together and THINK. Who helped you the most Marty? Even with the TRs course you did and went exterior. Please. Let’s differentiate a bit here. Attack the church and how (including YOU) they made what Scientology is all about today. But don’t attack Scientology as such or Hubbard ’cause you aren’t going to arrive far enough.

    • I don’t send emails to you. You have subscribed to the blog. To discontinue email alerts you will need to unscubscribe.

      • ok, my mistake. I should have thought of that.

        However the confusion in our lives Marty is huge right now and instead of contributing to a motion you added more confusion now.

        I see you wouldn’t change a bit in what you think; attacking Scientology as a whole and not differentiating anymore between Indies and the Church.

        Take care and wishing you and Mosey good luck with the legal fight with the church.

    • Let’s do the math on this Theo. O.K., so what you are saying is this:

      Scientology always works +
      Marty is a trained auditor +
      Marty is an OT +
      Marty has had his grades +
      Everything Hubbard said is true +
      Scientology always works
      = Marty is all fucked up.

      • It just seems to me, that anyone doing this kind of math equation, has serious doubts about Scientology and it’s benefits.

        • This is the same as saying Scientology doesn’t work.

          • If Marty is all fucked up, all of the value you have placed on the addition, is false.

            Does it ever occur to anyone that when people get up the bridge they can start to form their own conclusions and ideas?

            The purpose of Scientology is not to make robots that can’t think for themselves! And come to their own conclusions!

            Even Hubbard said, “One day you will be free of Scientology”. But when people FINALLY hit that point they are declared suppressive!

            Well not everyone has a purpose to be a SLAVE or see through someone else’s eyes FOREVER.

            Get over it! Hubbard didn’t promise people that or insist on either! Stop making Hubbard out to be a fucking S.P. that never wanted anyone to think for themselves!

            • This is the biggest fucking alter is in this whole arena, and a major WHY.

              • “Someday you will be free. Free of me and Scientology too”. L.R.H.

                He PROMISED people that. HE set that goal up there.

                Yet, when people arrive, they are declared an S.P. and stripped of every honor and wound and scar they earned getting there!

                Who the fuck set that up? And why are you copying it? That is INJUSTICE!

                • T.O.

                  You: “Someday you will be free. Free of me and Scientology too”. L.R.H.

                  Me: I am glad you posted that.

                  There are several similar statements through out his work.

                  Another one is the article: How to study scientology ( or how to study a science). If a person read that article and properly understood it and properly applied it, ( not only the word, but the spirit of it) they would easily find their way out of the trap.

                  As I have been saying for sometime, scn was likely a complex set up. It was a freedom and a power for the wise and a billion yr trap for fools, to follow a carrot tied on a stick which was tied to their own backs.

                  The truth is not determined by man.

                  I think the evidence sates that Hubbard knew what he was doing all along.

                  I could often read between the lines or between his words what he was not saying, but meant.

                  For the most part he could only speak stuff that people below 2.5 could handle. They were sheep. They needed a savior in the flesh. They needed someone to think for them. And they got what they deserved.

                  This world is merciless, it will screw you, lie to you, steal from you, punish you until you smarten up and think for yourself and do things right.

                  God is not a respecter of persons. The sun shines on the good/ holy and the wicked. The elements of nature consume the good/ holy and the wicked.

                  But Hubbard left the keys, (the directions) to the way out of the trap hanging on the wall in plain sight, for those with eyes to see.

                  And said things for those with ears to hear the directions to the way out of the trap.

                  People who are spiritually blind and deaf would not see or hear those datums.

                  So in my opinion the evidence indicates that Hubbard is off the hook.

                  Read and study everything and glean and hold fast on to that what is good and chuck the rest up to experience.

                  And be thankful for all things good and bad. Being thankful for adversity tends to have a magical quality to turn adversity into a blessing pretty quick.

                  That follows or parallels Newtons law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

                  Dio

  58. Interesting discussions in this thread! I see these discussions as a valid form of third dynamic auditing. That’s why we have to go over the bad and the ugly as well as the good.

    If we do not confront (and if people who are “in” do not confront) the bad and the ugly of Scientology, in what sense can they possibly rise above the third dynamic totalitarian prison camp they are in?

    To work through what is false about Scientology is, on the third dynamic, analogous to getting a PC to work through alter-is and not-is to confront truth, to get in his/her own valence, to dismantle service facs, and so on.

    To work through what is painful about Scientology on the third dynamic is analogous to helping a PC run through engrams, locks, secondaries, blow ridges, and so on.

    Scientology’s effort to help a PC work through the often painful and confusing convolutions of the mind should, by analogy, make Scientologists be more — not less — willing to really work through organizational, third dynamic issues with the church itself.

    Yet it is hard to take on a totalitarian regime that strives to make you believe your eternity is contingent on your loyalty to the church, that your departure will result in your very bad fortune, that your reading of certain materials out gradient will give you pneumonia or kill you, and so on.

    What has changed the balance so that now more and more people are speaking out? There has been an evolution in this too. At first, there were the legal actions and lawsuits against the church. But most people were stifled and controlled. They left quietly and kept shut up. When a powerful, litigious group declares you an enemy and fair games you — or threatens to do so, you tend to shut up. When an organization holds records of all the most intimate details of your life — your auditing “confessionals” — it has you by, shall we say, the “short hairs.” Most people then just shut up about their bad experiences, and do their best to move on from the loss of time, life energy, money, friends, and dashed dreams.

    But this outlook has sure changed over the years. Freezone and Independents emerged as valid options for many. Anonymous kicked the church in the teeth and got away with it. And the Internet has shown the absolute idiocy of the Kool-Aid drinkers: only Scientologists can make themselves look as bad as Tommy Davis did, as Mary of CCHR did, as the “OTs” did in robotically demanding to know “what are your crimes?” to various people, or, near the top of the cake — the inane Squirrel Busters with the stupidest get-ups seen on the Internet in quite awhile.

    Finally, people can talk. And like a PC who finally finds the voice to express his/her pain, the voices are roiling up on the third dynamic. Charge is blowing. Truth of people’s experience is coming out. Illegalities are being exposed. And (as Hubbard would put it), disorder is blowing off as a new level of order is seeking to emerge.

    Iff (and that is not a typo) Scientology goes through the painful process of getting clear (pun intended) on what is the bathwater to throw out and what is the baby to save, then it might reform and be of true service to all. If it does not do that, Hubbard will indeed still have smashed his way violently into history — but as a cult guru, and not the lofty savior he may have truly hoped to be.

    That’s a long way of saying that this forum is healthy. It is a means of accomplishing third dynamic auditing (in Scientology terms) or it is a means of spitting out the cyanide from the Kool-Aid and seeing what is left of value. And really, there may be lots left worth value, research, validation, and application.

    • FOTF 2012, I thank you for writing the above. Well stated. Because no one is taking away anyone’s “wins”. To those here who have expressed concern over bashing LRH or scientology, it may be rooted as a threat to their personal feelings of past success on the first dynamic. I ask them to look at the bigger picture across all the dynamics. That organization which previously held a monopoly and which helped you has morphed into a totalitarian thought control organization. The very opposite of what it stated were its goals, honestly or not. The good in the subject or its founder which helped you is not going away. Auditing and courses are available outside the church. No one is asking you to confront the remaining evil. Your free to hold LRH blameless. Your free to keep a copy of KSW under your pillow. But you look weak complaining about one of those who is willing to confront the evil. There has long been those attracted to and involved in scientology who are first dynamic focused. And if they joined staff it was to get free auditing and training. And there are those who were primarily motivated by achieving a better world. Marty is still on his 3rd and 4th dynamic mission. As long as he deals in facts and his opinions and conclusions are honestly arrived at, his work is incredibly valuable. If it bursts the bubbles of some, well, you can thank him later rather than sooner. I am thanking him up front.

    • FOTF2012, very good post.

      One question (not rhetorical): Do you (or anyone here) know if LRH himself said that “your reading of certain materials out gradient will give you pneumonia or kill you”?

  59. Roger From Switzerrland Thought

    Dear Marty,

    On the first page of Dmsmh it was written:
    ” Dedicated to Will Durant”
    I think you did not take this in your reflexions and researches.
    Many of the Ideas inherent in Scientology Philosphy and admin tech are derived from the books of Will Durant (Story of Civilization), but I think Hubbard stopped reading them in the sixties when Durant was a writing about the age of reason. There aren’t many Ideas of those times in the Scientology phisolosophy excepting utilitarian ethics principles.

    I found for example a description in Will durant books of some education principles developped by an educator around 1650 which were described as following:
    – Teach the pupils the words by looking them up
    – get a balance beetween theory and the real thing through application and showing them the real things
    – teach on the level of understanding of the pupils

    Another thing I found was the Definition of a static (by Montesquieu or Descartes, sorry can’t remember who wrote it) nearly word for word except it wasn’t called a static.

    Will Durant wrote his history with the Viewpoint of that Individuals Kings, Emperors. Artists, Philosophers or Scientists with some Ideas or actions changed the whole history. There are many accounts of a King or emperor that comes along and in very short times creates a huge affluence and big expansion etc…There is no account of a group of people changing the destiny of mankind, always only individuals. So there Ron got his ideas about the group only destroying.

    I found in those volumes 100ds of Ideas that Ron adapted to Scientology and when I finished to read them the first time I was OUT OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, as I was able to understand what a main Source of Scientology was and that many of the so called ” Discoveries” weren’t original, but known since 1000ds of years and history was just repeating itself !

    I read also some other history books which were looking at the incidents from a different viewpoint and one sees then that it is not only a matter of individuals but trends, evolution and things developping in a natural way.

    The downfall of the roman empire was not a lack of technology about the mind or ethics but in fact a normal consequence of the barbars not having the same resources in their cold regions and wanting the same wealth as the romans, so they kept coming down from the north and overwhelmed them !
    The same as people from 3rd world countries try to flee to the western world and are ready to die for it and I don’t think that auditing them or distributing the way to hapiness will hinder them in fleing their miserable lifes and dreaming about a new life in a western world.

    The “Pax Romana” dured several 100ds of years while the “Pax Scientologia” never existed. They had a hell of technologies which we are using today and improving.

    Also in the books of Durant there is the idea that many great things of individuals were only achieved trough their religious faith and that without faith they wouldn’t achieve such great deeds, while at the same time he describes how religion is used to control people by the people in power and themselves not believing in it.

    Will Durant didn’t take his work too serious;
    As Durant says in the preface to his first work, Our Oriental Heritage:

    I wish to tell as much as I can, in as little space as I can, of the contributions that genius and labor have made to the cultural heritage of mankind – to chronicle and contemplate, in their causes, character and effects, the advances of invention, the varieties of economic organization, the experiments in government, the aspirations of religion, the mutations of morals and manners, the masterpieces of literature, the development of science, the wisdom of philosophy, and the achievements of art. I do not need to be told how absurd this enterprise is, nor how immodest is its very conception … Nevertheless I have dreamed that despite the many errors inevitable in this undertaking, it may be of some use to those upon whom the passion for philosophy has laid the compulsion to try to see things whole, to pursue perspective, unity and time, as well as to seek them through science in space. … Like philosophy, such a venture [as the creation of these 11 volumes] has no rational excuse, and is at best but a brave stupidity; but let us hope that, like philosophy, it will always lure some rash spirits into its fatal depths.

    —Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, preface

    but LRH did take his own work deadly serious. But his interpretations of many things about our civilization and it’s history are very simplistic – the way any religion interprets the world- and are aimed at people that don’t reflect too much. It’s sad but true, i failed for it as I just was 16 and lacked an education and the Internet.

    I doubt that LRH ever read Voltaire or Rousseau.

    I admire your work Marty and as I have foreseen on your Blog 3 years ago you have achieved a lot and you’ll be remembered in History while DM will be a tiny remark.

    • Thanks for pointing this out, Roger. The 3 barriers of study from 1650 – that’s quite amazing !

    • Fascinating post, Roger!

      I grew up with Will Durant books in the house, especially The Story of Civilization volumes. They were easily the most browse-able books in my dad’s library, for a young sponge like me. But I hadn’t made the connections you have, as far as how much LRH may have adapted from them. Or to put it more charitably, how much he may have been inspired by them.

      I tried googling for the 3 Barriers quotes you mentioned- and haven’t found them as yet. But I came across some interesting quotes from Will Durant, that I think are pertinent, for example:

      I know how unfashionable it is now to acknowledge in life or history any genius loftier than ourselves. Our democratic dogma has leveled not only all voters but all leaders; we delight to show that living geniuses are only mediocrities, and that dead ones are myths. … Since it is contrary to good manners to exalt ourselves, we achieve the same result by slyly indicating how inferior are the great men of the earth.

      In some of us, perhaps, it is a noble and merciless asceticism, which would root out of our hearts the last vestige of worship and adoration, lest the old gods should return and terrify us again. For my part, I cling to this final religion, and discover in it a content and stimulus more lasting than came from the devotional ecstasies of youth.
      – Will Durant – The Greatest Minds and Ideas of All Time

      Also this:
      Power dements even more than it corrupts, lowering the guard of foresight and raising the haste of action. – The Reformation, by Will and Ariel Durant, (1957)

      Best, Randy Merry Christmas!

    • Roger, you wrote: “I found in those volumes 100ds of Ideas that Ron adapted to Scientology…I was able to understand what a main Source of Scientology was and that many of the so called ‘Discoveries’ weren’t original, but known since 1000ds of years and history was just repeating itself !”

      There is another thing to consider, which LRH pointed out in several places in his works. Here is one way he stated it:

      “You can have a million interpretations and one truth. What makes the road hard to travel is that the interpretations (or alter-ises) are, every one of them, liable to be given the same importance as the truth. There can be an infinity of «facts» and only one truth, so that one truth gets lost like a drop of water in the ocean. Which is the drop of water? I’ll tell you what the drop of water is: it is the point of observation.” (HCOB “Auditor Beingness”)

      The point I’m making is that LRH should be given credit for being able to correctly evaluate, first of all, and then assemble so many truths.

      Btw, in the Student Hat lecture “Study and Intention,” he gave the following credit to Will Durant:

      “For instance, Will Durant in writing ‘The Story of Philosophy’ and attempting to clarify philosophy, and so on, if he’s still alive, actually spent the entire latter part of his life in seclusion in California in shame and horror because so much hell was raised with him for writing that textbook to make philosophy simple and comprehensible to others.”

      And I believe he did read Voltaire and Rousseau, but I don’t know the references offhand.

    • Noah Webster, (Of Websters Dictionary) taught his students by having them clear the major words and then read the text. In 1806 he published his first dictionary. He was instrumental in world clearing for a planet. He was also accomplished along many other avenues of putting order into education and into society.

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

  60. Thanks Marty, I’m tracking with you and it helps align parts of my past experience while inside in the cult and as I continue with the subject out here in the real world. Look forward to reading it.

  61. From a 1986 interview of David Mayo. The below excerpt concerns the time when David Mayo was working directly with Hubbard, circa 1978:

    “What worried me was when I saw things that he did and statements he made that showed his intentions were different from what they appeared to be. I began to realize he wasn’t acting for the benefit of Mankind, it worked partly that way, and it may have started out like that, but in later years, in his own words, he had ‘an insatiable lust for power and money’. He told me he was obsessed by an ‘insatiable lust for power and money’. He said it very emphatically. He thought it wasn’t possible to get enough. He didn’t say it as if it was a fault, just that he couldn’t get enough.”

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm

  62. Jesse Prince, ‘The Ever Changing Tech of Scientology':

    http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/jesse.htm

    “…all these actions were taken to increase income… But I want to make it clear that the whole idea came from LRH not Miscavige. Miscavige was continuing to carry out LRH’s orders…”

  63. To Theo Sismanides,

    My friend, you live close to that part of the world, which became ground zero for the Christian apocalypse that I’ve written about before.

    A nasty implant took roots in the West, circa 1350-1550 AD. It significantly altered the human mind, and thwarted human reason and our innate sense of spirituality for many centuries afterwards.

    The first effect of that collapse, was to implant on human beings, the idea that ONLY ONE BEING had the truth, ONLY ONE GOD existed, and ONLY ONE BOOK spoke his eternal and universal words.

    The second effect of that collapse, was to implant on human beings the idea that NO PARITY would ever exist thereafter, between all beings and this SON/GOD/HOLY GHOST construct.

    It carefully implanted the idea that human beings could ONLY transcend (that is, to die to our animal self and be reborn as our spiritual self) by accepting this new Mystery as a fait accompli; so PARITY to GOD, or the possibility of personal transcendence, was forever barred from the human psyche in the WEST.

    The psychotics went to great lengths, once they consolidated power, to obliterate all sources of knowledge, and most of the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years and millions of people, was vanquished or significantly altered to suit their new implanted meme of ONLY ONE SOURCE.

    It created in the West, for many centuries, a VACUUM of most of the diverse ancient sources of human wisdom, so we lost all perspective that Mind and Reality belong to each one of us.

    Then, in the last century or so, the pendulum swung heavily to the other side, now effecting the perception that ONLY matter exited.

    It is in that stupefied, amnesic and conflicting state, that many of us walked into Scientology, never suspecting for a moment we were entering the kingdom of a powerful Magus.

    Theo, you need to not only understand and use LRH technology, but at some point, you will be developed enough to view yourself on a PARITY with Hubbard. That is all my friend.

    Merry Xmas and best wishes to all the wonderful people that post on this Blog!

  64. Mary Rathernotsay

    Hey Marty
    My first impression of your synopsis for Deconstructing is that it’s going to be a dark subject. And that you have a huge ability to confront by taking on such a dark subject. If you can confront this enough to research and write it, then I can confront it enough to read it.
    I have long puzzled over how so many otherwise sharp people not only got pulled into this mess, but then remained in it for so long despite the numerous red flags flying all over the place. I almost do feel the possibility of some dark magic at work in Scientology.
    If you were to complete the book Deconstructing, it will surely be a help in assisting folks in figuring out what happened and why.
    There are many of us who would like to believe that years of our lives were not totally wasted, and that sacrifices that we made were not for nothing.
    I would like nothing more than to leave it all behind me, but there is still something there which just does not want to let go.
    Here’s hoping that your next book, whether it’s Deconstructing or one of the other two you mentioned, helps to bring closure to folks.
    Also, please do not doubt that you are helping many folks with your writing.
    If not for you, Mike, and a handful of other brave souls there might only be silence where there is now free speech.
    I am very grateful.
    Peace & Love

  65. I might suggest “The Self Beyond Itself” by Heidi Ravven. This book deconstructs modern ethics and brain science. It’s pretty dense reading, but if you want to know how people operate individually or in a group, you can’t pass this up.

  66. Marty, sometimes when I read your posts they feel like a punch right in my face. I really need to calm down my TAA and then I look at your post from a completely different angle haha. My charge -in your posts- is not about SCN, but LRH. Because I like the guy. I have separated him from SCN. But I do understand why you put COS and FZ in one bucket (‘Scientology’). I can understand it because I am out of the SCN game now, and I can have a more neutral point of view, and I don’t need to defend my 3D. Moreover, I make no monies out of SCN, nor do I try to dominate the world through SCN, so, if people quit using it, it wont make any 1D difference to me either. So, I’m free to write whatever I want, and change my mind as well. And when I write something, I do it mostly for people that I care for to read, and hopefully it may have some good impact on them.

    I have seen a bit too much the things i disliked (to put it lightly) in the COS be repeated outside of the COS, and so that has made me say ‘Scientology’ too. I never met Miscavige, so I never disliked anything about him directly. It was tons of stupid ideas, dominative attitudes, and brainwashing techniques that I disliked in the Church. The notion that if DM was gone, things would be OK, sounds like sci fi to me. It’s most probably the desire of somebody (or plural) to become Miscavige in the place of Miscavige. The notion that LRH was the originator of the things I disliked, is not true for me either. BUT yes, for some people it would be best to discard SCN altogether than to experience that thing…And people should understand, if they think LRH was a good man, he wouldn’t want them to suffer for Scientology either. I mean persistence and loyalty is good, but to suffer is the christian way to go about it (yeah I know, you disagree :P ) He wouldn’t want you to dump your friends and family to follow his ‘right’ way, nor believe and obey some bloody ‘ethical’ idiot like sheep. That’s what I think, as so I have read by him. And the more independent I tried to be, the more those people hated me, because they were very knowledgeable and ethical. What Miscavige? I never met the guy. I met many such guys though. How can you blame a man you never met (well, most of you) and ommit to observe the obvious? Is that Scientology?

    No, I don’t mean everyone. I mean ‘where the shoe fits’. Good people should not be offended by things that i say. I know there are many. I don’t hint anything about such people.

    There can be many ways to go about Scientology and spirituality and the Bridge and all possible Bidges, but if it doesn’t lead where it should, screw it. Never accept suppression/oppression, unless of course you’re natural born Churchies, so then enjoy your independent Churchying. But those who don’t like it, should not follow like sheep.

    I would love Scientology to be used for help and spiritual freedom. To the degree that it is, I support it. To the degree that it is for the opposite, I destroy it.

  67. Wow, Marty.

    I probably have not looked at your blog in a year.

    What a change! Very impressive deconstruction of Scientology!

    Congratulations and welcome into the light.

    I never fit into the Scientology mold because I felt and thought many of the things you do now throughout my career in Scientology. I was always a problem that Qual and HCO tried unsuccessfully to “solve”. I got involved in a Mission in 1978 and tried to make it work. It was a friendly and loving place. When I got to an org in 1981, joined staff, and saw the madness wrought by Miscavige and the “Finance Police” in 1982 or so, I had a major WTF moment. I read “Scandal of Scientology” at the public library but Cooper’s misunderstandings and misrepresentations looked nothing much like my perception of Scientology so it was not much help. Kind of like the folks that get all fixated on the “yelling at the ashtray” thing while missing the simple point that it to teach that intention not equal volume.

    I knew Hubbard was a bullshitter from the first time I listened to him in depth on the Student Hat. I had been raised my a bullshitter and recognized the type. Of course, Hubbard was world-class while my dad was simply a journeyman. But just as I did not discount my dad because of this flaw, neither did I discount Hubbard. I was still willing to try and make it work. After all, all the folks around said it worked, right? I just had to keep my opinion of Hubbard to myself. Ergo, problem.

    Still and all, I think there is a lot of good in Scientology and would be happy to be a part of it if the the good could divorce itself from the bad. I see Hubbard as an imperfect tool (LOL) that developed something of value but contaminated it with his imperfections. I like to say that God does all his work with broken tools.

    Anyway, major congrats on your new life and especially on your new addition. All the best to you and Mosey.

    disinfected
    (now you really know what that means)

  68. Pingback: Scientology Armageddon | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  69. I just watched a good documentary on CBC’s (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) The Passionate Eye:

    Scientology at War

    Click here to watch:

    http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Passionate+Eye/ID/2417067847/

    Well done Passionate Eye

    Dio

    • If anyone has not watched this doc that I posted, i highly recommend that you do so.

      To the best of my knowledge (TTBOMK) it is the first quality, objective public doc made by a major network that gives an honest balanced and intelligent viewpoint on scn.

      TTBOMK It is the first to tell the public about the independent field.

      TTBOMK It is the first to separate the subject of scientology from the COS. It is well done and features Marty, Monique and Tony Ortega.

      Watch it and tell me what you think.

      Dio

  70. This ad is from Hank Levin former editor of the Free Spirit Journal which many of you may not know about. The FSJ was the main fz comm line before the internet.

    Hank is an auditor, author and lecturer and manufacturer of the Clarity meter.

    He has a 15% off sale on now and extended to Jan 12.

    Clarity Meter Year-End Sale Extended…to January 12!

    In consideration of our friends and customers whose busy holiday schedule caused them to miss the end-of-year deadline for our 15%-off Holiday Sale, we are extending the sale date to Sunday, January 12, 2014!

    Everything on our website is being offered at a 15% discount through Sunday.

    Click here to go to the website!

    http://clearingtech.net/

    Note: To save web-mastering fees, the prices on the website itself have not been changed. Place your order on the site, and the discount amount will be credited back to your credit card or PayPal account!

    Have a splendid 2014!

    Hank Levin

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