You Are Free To Use Scientology

Date coincident with news of Independent Training, Miscavige’s mosquitoes are swarming around all involved.  It is quite comical.  His intelligence resources are getting scarcer, and more incompetent, more rapidly than even we anticipated.  I’ll try to save him some time.  Here is what we’re up to. 

There is nothing you can do about it.  So, save your publics’ hard earned donations for something more productive, like maybe building Ivory Towers.   Or don’t, the more randomity from your quarter the more interesting the game.

242 responses to “You Are Free To Use Scientology

  1. Boo Ya!
    Preparing to deliver in Keston, Kent.
    Can’t wait to get some ‘The Birthday Game’ going again for real 😉
    Ain’t nothin’ no-one can do about it!
    In your face McSavage.

  2. Wow! Sweet!!!!!!

  3. Fantastic insights! In 2011, in a digitized society, copyright laws are obsolete.
    Security is an endless chase
    ‘How do the Miscavaige version of the church stop people from stealing the technology’?

    It’s a question I get asked nearly every day

    My answer is honest and unexpected – “you can’t.. get over it!”

    If Hollywood, television broadcasters, the music indusrty and even software developers like Microsoft can’t stop pirates and theives, with the massive budgets they have.. what chance do we have?

    IAS can spend a lot of time and money trying various ways and products to protect material.. but don’t think for a minute that it is fool-proof… or rather hacker proof!

    The first thing DM must change is his “mind-set.”

    Scientology’s written technology is a consumable media. (Maybe more can be made?) This is the competitive advantage.

    Pirates do not create. This is their flaw.

    DM will never Re-think security issues and understand that Pirates will bring you more PCs.

    • Who wants to set up their life as a pirate and thief? We’re not talking about “stealing” anything, are we?

      • I downloaded Open Office for my PC because I didn’t want to pay for Microsoft Office. This wasn’t piracy, even though Microsoft didn’t get the money I would have otherwise paid them. Money from the sale of LRH books and lectures now only goes to destroying his legacy.

        LRH said: “The work was free, keep it so”

      • Mb6,
        No, we’re not.

  4. Dear Marty and Mike,
    Thank you so much for this video. This clarifies the use of the technology. Through the years, there have been so many conditions and restrictions and rules and regulations put upon the technology by the Church, that at times I was scared to use it. I have long been a book auditor and a volunteer minister, before it became popular and the thing to do, and also used to go out on my own and sell books door to door. I sold them to business clients and anyone with whom I came into contact. Now, as an Independent, it is nice to know that I can freely use the technology to help people, without restrictions, to help create a better world! As for selling books, if they are my own copies, then I can sell those also. They are my personal property, so I am free to do with them as I want.

    “The Perfect Dissemination Program”, as laid out by LRH in the HCO Bulletin of 23 September, 1959, Issue II, is one of my favorite HCOB’s. In it LRH says “The conditions of a perfect dissemination program would be , of course, maximum dissemination with minimum effort. This adds up to an instantaneous postulate which soars around the world without even using space. Now, I may be fairish at postulating but at the moment, due to state of case no doubt, I am not quite up to doing this. Therefore, as far as we are concerned at the moment we have to have some mest in the line.” I had not read this for some years, but looking at it in a new unit of time, we now have the means that LRH described with the internet, where ideas can soar around the world without using space, (well, a little bit, maybe, if you call “cyberspace” space. This is really fantastic, as we are much closer to being able to have a perfect dissemination program. Thank you Mike for bringing this up in the video; this gives me lots of dissemination ideas. I used to have a goal of being the #1 FSM on the planet, (I like to THINK BIG), and this video has given me the viewpoint and the freedom to still be able to work on this. LRH says somewhere that thetans never really give up on their goals, and I guess he was right, as this one has been totally rehabilitated! You guys have made my day!
    Much love, LM

    • You have my postulate about becoming The # 1 FSM on the planet. May all theta be with you my love.

      True ARC,
      Edie

      • Thank you, Edie, I had totally forgotten about this goal until I reread “The Perfect Dissemination Program” after Mike Rinder mentioned it on the video. Somehow the purpose got failed when I got declared, while working on some very important dissemination projects making inroads on public lines and, during a time that I had never done more to help Scientology during my 30 year history. Someday I will tell this story. I never thought that this purpose could be revitalized, it was so failed. But the video and LRH policy completely revitalized this purpose, and I had the realization IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE. With the advent of a strong Independent field and the revitalization of training, it is now possible to activate again as an FSM, as there are and will be more auditors and training centers where selectees can be sent! I have been disseminating and doing touch assist and nerve assists all along, (my purpose to help people did not get failed), but now it is possible to disseminate on a larger scale, like I was doing before. The addition of your postulate to mine makes this goal very REAL. My heartfelt thanks not only for your postulate but also your expression of ARC.
        All my love, Catherine von Ach

        • My, my, my but what beingness you allow me. Thank you. Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun are doing great things and so is the Independent Field and soooooo many others. What a “Grassroots” this is. How empty some of the orgs are now too. The true LRH ones won’t be empty as we have the caringness for people and not big beautiful buildings and glossy magazines. There was an “e-meter” film that was made in Africa about “Setting up a Session” and at the end of it this guy said “when will they ever learn?” Too bad a lot of films aren’t being shown now, as I’ve heard that “suppressive” persons are in them.

          I’m proud the video of those two at the top revitalized you as it means all of us will win that much more.

          Much love sent your way,
          Edie

    • Lady Minn
      Beautiful goal.
      Mine is that the UK will win the Indie Birthday Game next year.😀

  5. What Mike says around 4:30 into the video is correct. It follows LRH advice on handling the field and the purpose and goals of the field. Let the field get on with it – auditing, training, disseminating – and if/when they screw up, go to a higher org to get straightened out or to get your pc/student cleaned up. But it is run so backwards now, and has been very much so since at least 1981 and especially since the 1982 MH Conference. It is all about control, and yes, Have before Do before Be. The whole of the Ideal Org mentality is based on having to have before one can do. This is a failure in leadership. And we’ve all seen the outcome of this think: GAoT; Ideal Orgs; GAoK; having to be Class VIII before one can audit; having to have 100 copies of every book in an org before one can sell or disseminate; and the list goes on.

    Scientology was a gift from a great man. Use it to better your lives and the lives of those around you: friends, family, strangers. BE a Scientologist and we’ll all be making the old man smile, wherever he is.

    Cheers and Happy New Year! Time to make some Clears!!!

    Chris

  6. “Knowledge is Free”

    -Anonymous

  7. Gary Morehead aka "Jackson"

    Marty and Mike,

    I know you don’t see it this way but I’ll say it anyway….!! Another hard cold factual fact delivered by two simple GENIUSES!! As stated in definition 3 in the American Heritage Dictionary…. The prevailing spirit or charachter, as of a place, person, time, or group. Jeff, Steve and a few others belong in the catagory too….. but anyway!

    Time and time again David Miscavige spends hundreds of millions to try to find what he believes is the truth and fails each and every time. In fact he walks away having spit in his own eye leaving those he is “reporting” it to with obvious LIES. You both along with many of us here spend NOTHING on providing FACTUAL UNDENIABLE TRUTH and it spreads like wild fire.

    YOU WON’T FIND LIES here my BROTHUA’s and SISTA’s!

    Come join US!

    Hey David Miscavige, since you are here can you tell me and the others seated at the table where your wife SHELLY MISCAVIGE is at and how she is doing?? …… and where is HEBER JENTZSCH?? How is HE doing? When can the world expect to see the Church of Scientology’s President in the public eye once again?

    — Jackson

  8. Great things to know!! Italy is going strong too!!😀

  9. Well done, Marty and all the others.
    It’s runnin on all eight cylinders now.

    David Miscavige,
    You’re outta Kansas now, Dorothy. You’re a collossal blunder.
    You couldn’t sell a hooker on troop train.
    You’re finished.
    And all that had to be done was to furnish what you had in your hands.

    • “You’re a collosal blunder.”
      That is so true. History will remember David Miscavige as a confused treasonous fool. A man who had the jewels of the universe in the palm of his hands.
      He could have been loved, known for and rememberd as the man who carried through with the postulates and legacy of L Ron Hubbard. He was positioned to be a hero, admired and respected through time.
      Instead he will die lonely, hated and small. His name will be mentioned and those that hear it will sneer and laugh in disgust. He is pitiful.
      David Miscavige IS a colosal blunder.
      Good observation Cowboy Poet.

      • Sort of reminds me of a story I once heard from LRH about Simon Bolivar and Manuela. Some different but ending up in a ditch and no followers. Mi scavinger is a vulture as he is eating souls and barring the way out. Not anymore though. yeah

        hip,hip, hooray
        ML,
        Edie

    • CB
      Sure is the right indication for me. Thanks.

  10. This is basic – thank you very much. Let the clown Miscavige go **** himself with his copyrights.

  11. Good info. There is much misunderstanding and confusion surrounding this topic and you guys have just put it straight. The Church naturally benefits from this confusion and misunderstanding and does nothing to correct it.

    The basics on it are very simple and you have just very nicely explained how it works.

    Anybody in the independent filed that needs instant hatting should listen to this video.

    Well done Marty and Mike

  12. Tony Dephillips

    Brilliant!!
    This is what people have been waiting to hear.
    The rules of the game.
    The flood gates will now open.
    Great job Marty and Mike.

    • Geir,
      Every point but one – ‘open source’. Open source is NOT Scientology technology. It’s something else with all kinds of versions extant; Miscavology, Robertsonology, Phone Auditingology, and the list goes on.

      • With copyrights gone, Open Source becomes default.

        • Geir,
          I believe Jim is saying that there is a line in the sand where it becomes something other than Scientology.
          John Aaron

          • John,
            That’s exactly what I’m saying. Scientology IS Scientology. Change Source, it ain’t.

            You can do what you want Geir, or anyone, but if it isn’t L. Ron Hubbard’s spoken or written words then it ISN’T Scientology. Period.

            • Jim, the well known problem with the other “ologies”spinning of Scientology is when you run them on someone it leaves undesirable mental masses on their cases most of the time except when you are very lucky and get some sort of occasional keyout.
              Question would be “do you feel that lucky? or do you want to do what is the proven true and tried LRH method!

            • Did you read the article?

              The answer to what you are objecting is in there.

          • I don’t get the issue here. Geir’s first 2 bullet points specifically state:
            # All the public works of L. Ron Hubbard freely available on the Internet.
            # This material should be published in its original, unaltered form.

            So Standard Tech will be categorized as such. There is no problem, as long as someone does not represent their altered works as “standard tech” – but DM is already doing that.
            Of course Ron’s Orgs can publish their material if they wish. Anyone can publish anything they want to publish. Even now a person can publish whatever they want on Lulu.com or Kindle. Just format correctly and upload. A person can make their publications available for free download from Lulu.com, for example. You can select the license you want to apply. For a print copy, of course the printing and delivery cost must be paid.

            The only problem in “open source” might be related to issues of “truth in advertising”.

        • Possibly I’m misunderstanding ‘open source’. I’m taking it as the source code is open, thus it can be changed. In the case of Scn, the source is LRH, that isn’t going to change. If it does, then it’s something else. That’s fine, but call it that, like Miscavology or whatever else it may be.

          • Right Jim. See my comment just above. Fact is, it’s been altered all along by various people, with the chief “alter-ist” at this point being DM himself, who represents his overt product as “standard tech”. And of course he copyrights his junk, so that’s no guarantee of getting unadulterated LRH.

            If someone could go online and download the Handbook for Preclears or the Volunteer Minister’s Handbook in their original form, free or for pennies, that’s “open source” to me. It has to do with the kind of license you put it under. I believe Lulu.com has an explanation of the 3 main kinds of licenses available, from most restrictive to least restrictive, which would be the “open source” type license.

      • You want to outlaw that list?

      • Open Source: Open to scrutiny, development, debugging, available to the masses, enhancement, unhindered by market forces

        • OK. I have some books published on Lulu.com. They are copyrighted, but even so, I could select to make them available for free download. For print copies, someone would have to pay the printing and delivery costs.
          But right now, no-one has the right to copy these books and sell them for their own profit, or even, actually, to print their own copies to give away.

          However, I could choose to make these books available under less restrictive copyright licenses – including giving anyone the right to reproduce them in part and in whole without penalty, excerpt, re-write, use for screenplays, whatever. It’s my choice to “open source” them to whatever degree I choose to do.

          It mostly has to do with who has to right to copy them and how they may use the contents. I could actually design my own license under which I could make the books free to copy, but stipulate they may not be altered (re-written)in any way. This is already common online in the sale of ebooks with “limited private label rights”.

          That would be the kind of license I would favor for LRH’s original, pre-DM works

        • CD,
          HCO PL Safeguarding Technology is a cogent writing.

          If ‘open source’, as Geir is using it, means tweaking a workable route, ‘developing it’, finding what LRH ‘missed’ then he, you and any other human has every right to do what they will.

          It won’t be Scientology. Period. Call me ‘doctinnaire’, call me what ever you want. You come to my course, you come to my cramming chair, you get LRH’s Scientology. Period.

          • Jim is very correct here. Scientology as pertaining to auditing technology works when applied per the laws of the subject as developed by L. Ron Hubbard. While I am no longer in agreement with some of Ron’s ideas as to the third dynamic, I have never encountered anything about auditing tech which needs to be improved or revised to be successful. It just needs to be USED correctly with UNDERSTANDING. Anyone who has been successful as an auditor and/or CS over a long period of time has a personal reality on standard tech. If someone alters auditing tech, it may be something useful or not, but it is NOT Scientology.

            • KSW doctrine IS NOT Scientology

            • Joe, my point here is that “squirrelling” or altering LRH has nothing to do with copyrights vs. “open sourcing” the materials of LRH. If anything, a case could be made that having strict copyright restrictions actually encourages squirrelling, because the unaltered materials are less available.

              “Open sourcing” the LRH materials means making them more freely available for everyone to use, by allowing people to make their own copies of their study materials.

              As in download your course pack and print it off, and off to the Courseroom you go.

              Repeat – it has nothing to do with “squirrelling”. It has everything to do with removing the existing barriers to anyone being able to have the materials.

              • Valkov, I too am completely opposed to copywriting religious materials of any kind (including any Scientology materials). I have no doubt, that should a lawyer take this on, that eventually it would be ruled – per the First Amendment of the US Constitution – that the free exercise of one’s religion entitles one to copy any religious materials.

              • Freedom Fighter

                “Open source”, in the computer industry, means that the source code for a particular software application is available for anyone to alter. It does not mean that the actual software, itself, can necessarily be widely distributed for free. I think this is where the confusion is coming in. When I hear “open source” and Scientology in the same context, I cringe because to me that means opening the Tech up to being “improved” upon by anyone. If you mean “free for anyone to USE”, then just say so.

            • Please do read the links I offered. The answers are in there. Valkov is doing a splendid job at explaining the content of those articles. If you did read them, you would spare Valkov the time.

              • Geir,
                I read the links. I also read the links in the links. I read the link on ‘Open Source Religions’.

                I said I agree on your points, save one, and that is ‘Open Source’ and since you linked to it, include ‘Religions’ on that.

                This isn’t confusing to me. You want Scn materials freely available in a modern world. You want the integrity of the materials maintained and have proposed a copyright paradigm to see that is upheld, while at the same time allowing reproduction and distribution. Fine.

                Then you mention Open Source. I looked up the term. I looked up OSReligions. I don’t want to belabor this endlessly, but I don’t have any interest in Open Source (as defined in the links you provided) Scientology.

            • Joe Pendleton, you wrote:

              “If someone alters auditing tech, it may be something useful or not, but it is NOT Scientology.”

              You`re damn right!

              • Snowite

                Thank you for that.
                You see… there are points of agreement!
                I do not think you are going to get much disagreement on your post.

                WW

            • Joe, I find your post most appropriate regarding the tech as I have researched many methods prior to Dianetics & Scientology including Crowley’s procedures of getting the advanced iniate to recall past experiences coupled with past lives and verifing them ,Freudian analysis regression techniques,hynotism etc.
              The tech as we have it was developed as the most workable system to date is my own observation without any hypocrisy on my part that I am aware of. (I welcome any splash of cold water on this from anyone)
              As for the third dynamic policy and some other ideas Ron had stated that I now find were experimental .
              I also find some of these policies and ideas inconclusive in their hoped for results in actual application to the organisations of which I held a number of posts in over the years.
              For example why was there always a conflict being generated by the Admin sector against the tech sector who each were able to quote the policy they were following to the letter.
              The routine answer was “purpose is above policy” yet it was hard to determine what the real purpose was in some of those cases is my experience .
              Fighting each other to a greater or lesser degree analysis is what I saw demonstrated such as the FBO taking as much of the weekly gross income to send up lines while killing the staff pay and leaving unpaid bills as a constant problem in his following of the FBO command intention to grab all money in sight and send it up lines..
              This was the reality and the imposed slave condition on the staffs that was given a lot of lipservice but never really resolved by anyone form the bottom to the very top..
              .

              • Oldfox,
                In the PL THIRD DYNAMIC TECH, which is the first frontispiece issue in the Management Series Vol, or it used to be, it says ‘In its present stage of development Third Dynamic Tech, like early Dianetics, is something you think with and the bright mind will achieve its full potential’ (paraphrased as I’m in a new space and haven’t found the materials here yet).

                This ‘think with it’ is iterated in the PL Refund Policy in OEC Vol 3 and the idea that posts are better manned by ‘live beings’ and not automatons with ‘ideas substituted’ for those live beings. That’s the whole story of the Goals Problem Masses and who needs that? (Again, paraphrased.)

                Omitted is the product of the org, well taught students and thoroughly audited pcs who have learned and experienced what a GPM is and run them out. Then you get a DM type situation of robotic application of poorly grasped sentences and incidental facts of an isolated PL.

          • Jim, I think the main issue here is making COPIES of written/recorded materials. That is what COPyrights are all about. The world ought to be able to make and have as many copies of LRH works as we need so every man, woman, and child can have a complete set of the original works, optimaly, downloadable at no cost.

            Squirreling is not the issue. There will always be some squirrels, tinkerers, “experimenters”, whatever. It will always be “caveat emptor”.

            The issue is the right to make copies. Right now, a copyright holder can prohibit others from making copies of copyrighted works. Thus, they can effectively create a monopoly, where if you want it, you MUST buy it from them. This allows them to charge whatever they want, restrict who gets it, even make it unavailable, if there is nowhere else to get it. By altering the training check sheets, DM has actually made the original checksheets unavailable to the public, by representing his as “standard”, and putting the originals out of view. Plus, he has created the impression that the originals may not be duplicated(copied) and distributed by others because they are still under copyright(when it is likely they are not, anymore.)

            These are the real issues. “Open source” is not about altering the tech, it is about the right to freely make copies of the books and other materials and distribute them freely. It is about the type of license under which the materials are made available.

            • V,
              I’m with you on this.

              Again, the term ‘Open Source’ as it’s defined relative to computer software models, and extended to Open Source Religion, and the ideas propounded under that rubric are of no interest to me. That’s simple.

              Copy rights and their management are apparently discretionary and that whole topic and the concept of freeing it up so, like say the Original Thesis which started this whole thing, they can be freely copied and distributed and used is something else, as I understand these issues and from what I read of Geir’s links.

          • HCO PL Safeguarding Technology. I detest KSW doctrine.

            It halts development and it turned things in to MEST
            RULES, RULES, RULES

            Hubbard said it himself . Scientology existed before him and will exist after he has gone. Knowing how to know is alsoo knowing ho to see. Besides there are many sources that feed the river that is Scientology. In actuallity it’wil be Jim logan’s Scientology a person will be getting. Your reality of what L. Ron Hubbards Scientology is Jim. Jim who are you to say what is scientology / knowing how to know and what is not ? I call you a little bit insecure rather than ‘doctinnaire’. As long as you make people happy who am I to judge. I recommend the Phil Spickler Video’s

            • CD, what you post is only half-true. If a person is using the original
              LRH checksheets and original unaltered LRH materials, he will be studying LRH’s scientology, not Logan’s.

              That is in fact the whole point of KSW – study the original unaltered materials and master those. They aren’t “broken”, so there is no need to “fix” them.

              Once you have mastered what is already developed, OK, maybe you can add to it by developing something further.

              But I don’t think you’ve done that yet.

              That’s all KSW is.

              • “The Study of Life” In my opinion KSW is what is holding the subject back. And the Sea Org is the “MESTification” of that.

                KSW is a solidifying effort.

                Can’t you see, Cant you see, Theta turning into MEST all these don’ts and make wrongs. All these rules, and what for you say, and what for. Rules are made by rulers can’t you see ? Dictators are the stuff of rules. They strangle life ond so fort and so on.

                • An utterly uninformed and unqualified opinion.

                • CD,
                  You’re very harsh on yourself. For more than a year you’re devoting your time and effort to the largest, most intelligent and effective KSW movement on the planet. Not only is solidification absent, the opposite is so thoroughly impinging in the Church that many on lines are reported to secretly cheer our KSW efforts. Don’t say you haven’t learned a lot yourself as you’ve already changed many coats.

                  It’s the non understanding of rules that introduce make wrongs and don’ts. It’s not following KSW that made us slave to a dictator. KSW is there for us to escape the trap and go free to where there are no rules. We’ve been brought down by rules and now being trapped in them, we can’t just say: No Rules. The answer is learning the rules and learning how to become cause over them; very nice game. For as far as I know, nobody has done that before Scientology and no one has done that since and if they did, they forgot to leave us a roadmap.

                  The discussion about copyrights really imparts the need for something that establishes what the original LRH works are, how to keep them pure and how to tell them from alterations. Even Snowhite, who thinks he owns the copyrights, agrees. There may be many technologies that do the same as Scientology but I don’t know of any. If you look at Phil, I recommend to compare his tone level and beingness to M&M and after that, place your bets.

                  • It’s not the Standard Tech you want I opose. There are other things in that policy letter I opose.

                    I understand one has to have rules to be able to play a game. It are the penalties I am worried about when somebody commits “a crime”

                    I do not place bets, Marty helps people out of the Church and Phil just made some things clear for me.

                    Hey Erwin you are preaching to the choir.
                    Copyrights be damned, I recommend going over Karin Spainks work.
                    “Sources to defend oneself with when sued by Scientology.”

                    http://www.spaink.net/cos/idx_coskit.html

                • CD,

                  When I left Scientology and first got on the internet back in the heyday of alt.religion.Scientology and alt.clearing.tech, I watched what happens to the subject when individuals are given free reign to do whatever they wish. You turn a workable subject into something hit or miss.

                  LRH said that about 22 percent of the population will improve if you do just about anything for them. So, you get individuals coming up with processes that work on themselves and on a few other people, but will not work on the other 78 per cent of the population.

                  LRH had mapped out most of OT phenomenon back in the early fifties. It wasn’t finding more data about OT and the laws of theta that was the problem. Even the NOTs material existed in rudimentary form by 52/53.

                  The long term problem LRH experienced in dealing with humans was finding those processes that would get a person up to the level they could actually be audited. How do you actually get a thetan there and in session when he’s so buried in valences and bank that he’s not there at all? Scientology always works when you have a thetan actually there communicating. Always. The failures come when you don’t have someone actually there communicating.

                  And because you have individuals who don’t get results because their auditor or c/s really didn’t understand the material and who were trying to handle a different case than the pc actually had, you get this impression that “Scientology doesn’t work.”

                  Scientology does work, when correctly applied. And the only way to ensure that Scientology is correctly applied is to have a policy like KSW. If you don’t have such a policy to keep Scientology working, human beings will demonstrably mess the whole subject up and make it eventually unworkable for 78 percent of the population.

                  Now, this is written by an individual that does not toe the line. I do whatever I want. I research whatever I want. I experiment with whatever I want. Those who know me, shake their heads and say, “That ain’t Scientology and you’re walking a tightrope over hell.” But, I take what risks I choose and I am a staunch advocate of individuals moving up the bridge standardly, per KSW, and then taking whatever path they choose.

                  Just because some guy can do handstands on steel girders fifty stories up a skyscraper under construction does not mean the general population should climb up and try it.

                  An organization has to be firmly in place, has to hold a position to generate power. That’s just the laws of physics and theta. There’s nothing wrong with solid. Thetans love a good solid. Thetans love to make the most solid thing they find even more solid. Just for the hell of it. Lots of power and sensation and interest in creating and making solids.

                  KSW holds the tech firmly in place so the organization can generate power.

                  On the other hand, using the technology correctly will free you from all those points of fixation and solidification over which you no longer have a choice.

                  The freedoms of a society, given our current mentality, can only exist supported by laws. You surrender some freedoms to have security and manage chaos. Most of us impose laws on ourselves. Some of us can’t. And a game requires both freedoms and barriers to be interesting.

                  So, seeing KSW as only a barrier might be a limiting consideration that prevents broader understanding of its purpose. KSW also provides a much broader freedom than is not surrendered by using its structure.

                  Michael

                • CD,
                  Maybe you formed an opinion of “KSW” with data from another source? It seems like maybe thats whats going on. I think an understanding of KSW is gained from:

                  Being truly and honestly interested in Scientology for the purpose of improving your life and Dynamics.

                  Reading the actual KSW series in it’s entirety (no out of context quotes, interpretations or summations, actual documents as written by LRH).

                  Clearing any words and using Study Tech.

                  Even then, I still “get it” more as I go along. When I first came into Scientology and read KSW1 and Technical Degrades, which are at the front of every coursepack I got it, but it has become a lot more real to me as time passed.

                  And to give my extremely brief opinion of what he meant to say with KSW-
                  “I researched and developed Scientolgy. I know it works as-is. Do it my way and it will work for you too”.

                  I can dig that.

                  • Thank you for sharing your own expierience with the subject matter.

                    I have onley read this:
                    http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=9
                    I don’t like this sentence:

                    “Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.”

                    In light of what hapens next:

                    I do not like the claim Hubbard makes (dox? ):

                    “Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife
                    died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. ”

                    Again a sneer against you know who, Interesting since Hubbard has puit a lot of Psychology and even stuff Psychiatrists came up with (Jung, Freud) into Scientology (PABs), And not all surgery is bad, and I know of someone else who has gotten into punishments himself:

                    “Man has never before evolved workable mental
                    technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve –psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment,
                    etc, ad infinitum.”

                    And this Jem:

                    “Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian
                    jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.”

                    I will keep my democratic country thank you very much, works fine for me and even for Erwin.

                    It is NOT the standard Tech that I opose, but the opinions Hubbard sprinkled around in the Policy letter.

                    I fully understand you want Standard Tech. But please see that I do not share the belief in the bits I quoted.

                    • CD,

                      I used to know CL before she hooked up with Jerry “all we gotta do is allege” Armstrong.

                      She’s one person that I wouldn’t consider an objective source on the subject of Scientology or even an expert on the subject.

                      She reminds me of one of those ex smoking smoke free Nazis.

                      Did you know that she was once more gung ho on the subject than I was?

                      She claims she’s a “Class IX” when actually she is a Grad V who did the Advanced Course Specialist Course.

                      Meaning she never did the SHSBC or Class VIII.

                      She has a right to her opinions about the subject but as far as I’m concerned she extrapolates in the extreme just like you.

                      For instance you quote:

                      “Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian
                      jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.”

                      From some kind of alarmist perspective of some kind like her.

                      I don’t see anywhere where he proposes some other system of government.

                      As you and her claim by extrapolation based on some kind of leap of faith or logic.

                      What I see is that Ron is complaining about the pitfalls of popularism and democracy.

                      Are you saying that they are both perfect institutions and that no one has a right to complain about their possible flaws?

                      Sacred cows that can’t be gored?

                      If so.

                      Then you’re are the pot complaining about the kettle being black.

                      This is the kind of so called “Democracy” they once had in Soviet Russia and East Germany.

                      You know “The Peoples’ *Democratic* Republic of Germany”

                      This line as well:

                      “Man has never before evolved workable mental
                      technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve –psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment,
                      etc, ad infinitum.”

                      Name one mental technology that was developed before Dianetics that actually worked well and consistently?

                      Now we come to this quote you seem to object to as well:

                      “Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife
                      died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. ”

                      So are you saying physical abuse is a good thing?

                      And that preventing someone from physically abusing another is a bad thing?

                      By the way do you also support psychiatric death camps?

                      Finally you say you don’t like the following paragraph:

                      “Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.”

                      Funny thing neither does the current “management”.

                      I mean they have neglected this policy letter for almost 2 decades while claiming to abide by it.

                      CD if you don’t like it so much why not join the SO?

                      I mean if they cancelled this policy over there tomorrow it probably wouldn’t change their operating basis one iota.

                      So if you don’t like KSW go join staff at CIAtology.

                      Me I like the policy and I’m sure the *majority* of others who post here do as well so if if we were going to apply popularity and democracy to the scene here.

                      You’d be the odd man out.

                      Don’t you just love democracy in action CD baby?
                      😉

                    • DFB aka Dfb99

                      Where do you live CD?

                      It may not be a Democracy.

                      For example, the U.S. is not a Democracy.

                      Also, does he mean a Democratic government or another definition of democracy??

                    • I live in the Netherlands DFB. We have a representational Democracy with a Constitutional Monarchy. Our Economic sysem is a Mix of restraint Capitalism and Socialism.

                      These are our rights as dutch citizins:

                      http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html

                    • Both very dissapointed human beings, nuff said.
                      RJ , I consider the US a faulty Democracy. I heared more than once Scientologists going on about a benign king and such. I do know Marty has campaigned for the election of Barack Obama. There is another piece of text were hubbard says that the Orgs will become the law as “Islands of Sanity” I don’t want Scientology rule in my country thank you very much.
                      Physical abuse is wrong but the dieing of Cancer claim I do not take it as thruth immediatly.
                      More claims were made, dox please.

                    • CD, the Founding Fathers of the USA never intended it’s government to be a “democracy”.

                      The form of government here is a “federal republic”.

                      The extreme of a pure “democracy” would be a situation in which out of a population of, say, 1,000,000 people, the 500,001 people in the majority could dictate to the 499,999 people in the minority.
                      No-one’s rights would be protected in such a scenario.

                  • CD,

                    Just because someone rails against something does not mean they support its opposite.

                    Me I prefer a Constitutional government here in the US where the Government abided by the Bill of Rights and didn’t place itself above National and International law.

                    No way do I support a monarchy benign or otherwise.

                    I think what you are referring to is a lecture by Ron where he says political philosophies are a solution to the problem of succession.

                    No where in all the lectures that I’ve heard does he say he supports a monarchy of any kind.

                    Also I would personally be against a theocratic state of any kind including Scientology.

                    Especially after seeing how far off the rails it can go.

                    Politics and Religion mix about as well as nitric acid and glycerin or oil and water.

                    I suggest you read the following HCOPL:

                    (Begin fair use)

                    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
                    Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 JANUARY 1968
                    (Reissued from LRH SECED 56 INT June 14, 1965)
                    Remimeo
                    BPI
                    POLITICS. FREEDOM FROM
                    1. I hereby declare Scientology to be non-political and non-ideological.
                    2. Politics and ideology may be no part of any decision to train or process
                    individuals, and any such interrogation shall cease to be a part of any application for
                    training, processing or membership.
                    3. This does not change any policy relating to suppressive persons. It does
                    delete any words in any form which seek to bring about a statement of political
                    allegiance or antagonism.
                    4. It must be kept in mind and brought forward emphatically that Scientology
                    does not work in the absence of official control and no matter who sought to use its
                    principles, has uniformly failed in the hands of non-Scientologists and organizations
                    not controlled by the Central Organizations of Scientology or myself.
                    5. The reason for this declaration is the consistent disaster visited upon her
                    “allies” by the United States government and the efforts of that government since
                    1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology in the United States rather than
                    forbid or stop it and the role played by the United States in inspiring the Victorian
                    State attacks in Australia. Scientology technology is no longer offered to the United
                    States government in any effort to assist her in political ends. Our participation
                    extends only to our willingness to process U.S. officials as individuals unconnected
                    with their political aims, if as individuals they are not debarred by other existing
                    policies relating to treating the insane or our Ethics system.
                    6. All statements attacking any political entity or ideology are hereby
                    withdrawn and cancelled in any lectures or literature.
                    7. Scientologists may be members of any political group on this planet without
                    restraint only so long as these individuals or that group do not attempt to seize
                    Scientology for their own warlike ends and so make it unworkable or distasteful by
                    invidious connection.
                    8. Scientology is for a free people and is itself on this date declared free of any
                    political connection or allegiance of any kind whatever.
                    L. RON HUBBARD
                    Founder
                    LRH:jp.rd
                    Copyright © 1968
                    by L. Ron Hubbard
                    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

                • CD, were/are you a trained, interned auditor? Somehow I doubt it. If you were, you would no doubt have had the opportunity to study folders of people who received auditing in pre-1968, for example.

                  From that study, you would know how wild it could get, in terms of alter-is. You would understand how easy it is for well-intentioned people to take a workable process and mangle it to shreds because they presume to “know best” how to handle a particular case when the going gets rough.

                  I’ve read some blogs etc where someone will natter about how LRH ranted & raved during the Cl. 8 lectures. Well, if you saw what he saw in 1968 in terms of how far off the rails of workability the tech could go, and how fast, you would no doubt gain some appreciation for the appropriateness of his anger and the profound wisdom that permeates both KSW and Tech Degrades.

                  There is a Standard Tech. It works when properly applied. To the degree it is not properly applied, its workability is lessened. Properly applied, it is the most spiritually liberating set of tools man – LIFE – has ever had. Whether we’re in or out, each of us has some responsibility for seeing to it that the tech and tools given to us by LRH are applied exactly as he intended them to be.

                  • Thank you for the time you took to reply to my comments.
                    A lot happened in 1968 of wich we have different views.

                    I am an Anon. I wish the best for you all.

                    28 May 1968

                    A POEM WRITTEN BY LT. DIANA HUBBARD
                    UPON COMPLETION OF O.T. III

                    The sun set over the low wallowing hills
                    And the mist did gather in its swirling silverness
                    T’was the breathless still and the Autumn twilight
                    That turned the day to night

                    Endless plains lay themselves before me
                    The green grass was mellow and sweet
                    The purple distance beckoning my feet

                    Oh, that pain were not so sharp
                    Oh, that memories did not haunt
                    The journey is long and my heart is heavy
                    Far into the darkness alone I tread

                    And where is the land of Milk and Honey?

                    Pure golden light Invades the silver night
                    The shimmering dawn breaks over the sky
                    Its crimson heralds scattering
                    I see far straight this one time

                    Milk and Honey is both grotesque and offending
                    Sweet Angels detestably without purpose
                    There is no one but I to take the load

                    With the dawn comes grief
                    And the tears bring relief

                    I resume my journey a much more honest being.

                    Diana Hubbard

      • Shall we consider Scientology to be a religion or a science? A fixed dogma cannot evolve, and this is the usual definition of religion. However, I don’t believe this was the intent of LRH, even when he wrote KSW. Actual movement on the bridge must be accompanied by a continual increase in knowledge and responsibility. Along with this comes better control. Therefore, at some point one must gain the ability to create his own bridge.

        In the church, people reject successful application in the name of “KSW”, when they don’t fully understand this “sacred doctrine” they are supposedly protecting. Let’s not make this same mistake. People should be free to help others in the best way they understand. “Open source” to me means that the original work is not altered, but only added to based on successful results. Is this not implied by the word “technology”? People reasonably expect technology to evolve with time. If you don’t expect that, maybe you need to stop using the term “standard tech” and just say what you really mean, “standard doctrine”.

        • Bryon,
          I agree with some of what you say, but clearly you don’t see the difference between technology and doctrine. See my comment to CD, just above your post. All you have to do to make your point, is do the entire standard TRAINING bridge the way LRH laid it out. Once you’ve mastered that, then you will be qualified to move on to “evolving” the technology.

          I don’t mean to sound harsh, but a person can’t evolve new technology until he’s mastered the existing technology.

          All your other “shoulds”, “oughts”, “expects”, and all that – well, who is the “you” whom you are addressing in this post? We are not a generality, here.

          • “You” means Jim Logan, but I wrote my posts before these others were posted. So, my post is a little out of sequence and does not fit with the discussion. I feel I have gotten a lot out of Scientology, but I am not tech trained. I do not personally want to do anything other then LRH scientology.

            The problem is, if LRH himself is not around to sort through what he actually wrote, and what someone else wrote in his name, then we cannot assign an absolute to them and call them “standard tech”. If people simply take responsibility for their own personal comm lines to LRH, it will work itself out.

            • Bryon,
              On the trip yesterday I was enjoying some of Korzybski’s Science and Sanity. It seems to me one of the issues he’s addressing, maybe the main one, is exactly what is going on in places in this discussion – the meaning of terms and the sundry different meanings in sundry minds.

              Standard Tech was defined in the Class VIII course. If you read Michael’s superb discussion of KSW above and then read Steve Halls’s latest article on Scn Cult Stroke of Genius in light of the actual meaning of Standard Tech (it’s in the Tech Dictionary) and the barriers presented that are handled in sequence on the Grades, leading to Clear and OT (defined, researched and grasped in the early 50s and refined as to attainment and techniques to undercut the barriers to attainment) then you’d know what I mean when I say KSW is the shit, Standard Tech works and there is no need for me, or any I am applying this stuff to and with, for a better mousetrap.

              What do you think Standard Tech is? Since that’s the entire point of KSW it would do well to have the same concept being discussed ( and not whether or not there are idols in the jungle).

        • I think that when you start taking a known technology and then change it for any reason, including natural evolution that you have to give it a new name.

          For example, if one were to take the subject of language. Latin is the derivitive for several other languages but one doesn’t call these evolved languages Latin, they are called Spanish, Italian, etc.

          If open source means that one opens the door to altering, modifying or whatever term you prefer, then I am not interested. Scientology is Scientology. Anyone wanting to do something different, can’t call it Scientology. IMHO.

          • Karen

            You said:
            “I think that when you start taking a known technology and then change it for any reason, including natural evolution that you have to give it a new name.”

            I think this is the definitive point here.

            Here’s my take on this.

            It is not a fact that there cannot be other “paths” or other “technologies” that may lead towards spiritual freedom. They will simply not be Scientology Technology.

            LRH has never said, to the best of my knowledge, that there could not be improvements. Move beyond Scientology how, when, and why you might choose, but you will have left the known and workable path that is Scientology.

            The point that LRH seems to be making in KSW#1 is that this tech (Scientology and Dianetics processes) works as written. Do not mess with it if you want it to work. It already works. Variations may be hazardous to your health and your spiritual progress. Safeguard Scientology Technology. Use it as written.

            However, it is demonstrable that Scientology does not “have the answer for everything”. LRH never said it did.
            Scientology is defined as “knowing HOW to know”. It is not “knowing WHAT to know”, or WHO to know, or only knowing this or that. It sets no limits on what else you may need to know, or be, or do or have in your continued existence and your journey toward “optimum survival across the Dynamics”. ( if that is, in fact, where you even choose to venture).

            It is an incredible set of tools. It is a useful set of tools. It is , perhaps, the best set of tools that I have ever had, but it is just one of many I choose to have in my “tool kit”.
            I simply don’t call any of the others “Scientology”.

            WW

    • Perhaps “open source” is a poor choice of term, Geir. By definition, open source implies that anyone is free to alter it free of legal restriction on doing so.
      Frankly, “open source” describes what is already extant in the Freezone community and elsewhere; people altering LRH tech and calling it something else, often without crediting LRH in any fashion, be it TIR, Identics, or whatever. I see it again and again – some ex-scientologist writing up his version of the wisdom of the universe, wisdom clearly inspired by LRH’s work (if not a direct replication of such) but when you look for even a mention of LRH, Scientology, or Dianetics, there is none to be found. And by “look”, I mean search the entire site using Google’s site-search function.
      No, Geir, “open source” is already out there. Anyone can read LRH and come up with his own version and call it anything he likes and that is perfectly legal.
      What I think we are looking for could better be called “closed source freely available”, i.e. the unaltered materials of Scientology available for distribution and republishing freely. As you well know, Geir, this is closer to the concept of “copyleft”, as opposed to copyright.
      I do not know what plan Marty, et al, may have for breaking the copyrights on LRH materials, if that is his plan at all. That seems a tough nut to crack. But, as we are seeing, that is not a nut that need be cracked. The materials are out there in abundance – you can buy them from Bridge or you can buy them on eBay. One is free to apply Scientology and charge for the service provided that one does not advertise using trademarked terms. So the doors are pretty wide open.
      As an aside, IMO, the concept of trademarking the free practice of a religion is much less legally defensible in the United States than the copyright issue. I do not think it would take much to get that handled in court but it would probably necesitate forming”The Reform Church of Scientology” or something to invoke the protection of religion statutes.

      • I agree with most of your comments but did want to make one clarification. Although many have not given LRH credit where it was due, Sarge Gerbode of TIR did do so in his book. I have seen several articles which indicated that Gerbode’s ideas were derived from the time he spent in Scientology. He has been an open book on this subject.

  13. The sky has cleared and the sea is calm with favorable winds – the destination is abilities gained, full steam ahead…. yee haaaa

  14. Very interesting topic. Loved the video, a couple of observations. Legally blind guy drives and reads, not casting doubt, just wondering if you meant to say that. Second, the copyright issue. You nailed it on the head, but there is confusion amongst people standing on the sidelines afraid to become Independent for the fear of retribution for use of materials. I have heard some say it’s a Trademark, that would be the use of a Trademarked “meter”. Copyright would be COPY or distribution of material that is copyrighted without consent.

    How would using a LRH book be any different than using the bible or say the book called The Secret. If you can buy it, you can use it. Just not reproduce it or change it, and claim it as your own.

    I really wish there was a “New Independent Scientology” that we could join that would allow the actual true meaning of Scientology to be taught. Without the glam and the glitz, just the real meat and potato’s…

    • I meant what I said, he is legally blind, reads, doesn’t drive.

      • Marty,

        I was going to jump in and explain that the Russell Targ is legally blind yet that didn’t prevent him from riding his motorcycle.

        There’s a scene in my book relating to this.

        Regarding copyrights GiGi what you say as I understand it has merit if you look at the fact that Scientology is a “Government Approved” Religion.

        I’ll side step the debate about whether it is more a science. One that has been raging since HASI was incorporated in ’52 and write that in my opinion that the seeds of destruction for creating a monopoly of the subject were sown in ’93 with full IRS recognition of Scientology’s religious bona fides.

        As far as I understand the First Amendment protects us in “establishment” and “exercise” as you can see:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

        Thus as someone suggested we could *establish* something like the ‘Reform Church of Scientology’ and *exercise* our religion without interference by the USG.

        It would be questionable if they could legally and Constitutionally apply copyright and trademark law since as far as I understand since they apply to secular activities.

        See Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the founder’s intent for establishing copyrights, trademarks and patents:

        “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”

        As you can also see it reserves this “exclusive right” to “authors and inventors”.

        So aside from the religious factor is also the fact that Ron assigned these “rights” to RTC and CST under certain conditions and stipulations which both failed to meet according to their incorporation papers.

        RTC obviously has failed to “maintain the purity” of the tech and CST failed to handle the scene like they were supposed to by applying the “option” they were granted.

        For whatever reason they failed to do these things whether it was some vast conspiracy or because of the ravings of a psychopathic, sociopathic lunatic under the false flag of “command intention” is immaterial.

        Either way it is a fait accompli that CST and RTC have *failed* in their fiduciary responsibilities and all officers involved are civilly and possibly legally liable for this *failure*.

        By virtue of the fact that by failing to do so they have perpetrated a fraud on the Founder and the public who entrusted them with this responsibility.

        Now as far as books are concerned.

        The reason why books cost so much is that they are very expensive to print and promote.

        Issuing on any kind of E format or POD would almost eliminate that expense.

        Leaving promotion which on the internet is quite cheap with such things as you tube you can reach millions with out having to buy expensive air time on the major nets.

        Also with desk top publishing you can make business cards and other promo for much cheaper than issued by the Church that is more ethnically suited to the public you’re trying to reach.

        For example back in the day when Diana and Fred had started the “Dianetics for every mind” campaign back in the late ’90’s a bunch of us thought of going to motorcycle swap meets with a big banner saying something like:

        “You probably have an owner’s manual for your bike.

        But do you have one for your mind?”

        Anyway thanks to “command intention” that campaign never got off the ground.

        But it was a good idea just the same.

        Well I think that covers my ideas on the matter.

        • Right on, RJ.

          And as for materials, every college student today owns and uses a laptop.
          All we need is a reference site from which we can download the books, lectures, checksheets, bulletins etc, and students are good to go without the expense of buying glossy books.
          Those that wanted nice hard copies could still buy them from print-on-demand sites like Lulu, once they were uploaded there. They would not be cheap, but even Lulu offers bulk discounts.

    • For OSA; there are various valid, perfectly workable and accurate for spiritual enhancement purposes Wheatstone Bridges (meters) available. Don’t need the Mark whatever it is now.

      Oooops.

      • Not to mention software that turns your laptop into a fully digital meter with automatic TA, records the entire session for playback, etc. I don’t have one . . . yet. But hell, why carry around a lead weighted Mark Super VIII Ultra in a big case when you can have your notebook do more with much less and for much less.

        • Joe, now that is a hot thought. Anyone doing this?

          ML Tom

        • Joe,
          Yep, the technology is moving forward. I’m still using my Clarity meter. It’s got knobs, a Tone Arm and the works. Of course, in my digital recording studio, a Korg D3200, I have faders, knobs and the rest cause I like ’em. I play acoustic Gretsch drums too. They smoke any pads. I like ’em too.

        • Which PC based meter do you mean?

      • I saw that recently online. Are those actually legit?? They work?

        • First,
          I haven’t looked into these beyond a cursory view. I do know that Clarity Meters ARE legit, the ‘hard copy’ ones that is. They work exactly as they are supposed to work. Clarity is also one of the ones with a computer compatible meter program. If it’s anything like the hard copies then it’s well worth looking into in my opinion. Like I said, I’m a bit ‘old school’ at this point. Havingness and all.

      • I’ve got a couple of the old wooden boxed meters and have read that I should just throw them away as they can’t be fixed. Anyone know about this? I’d like to get rid of them as they just add to the basement clutter.

        Michael

        • OnceUponaTime

          Noooo…

          I love E-Meters. I don’t know what it is. Especially the old “wooden box” ones. I love wood and I love e-meters so I love me some old wood e-meters.

          I think they are 90% of the time easily repairable. Usually it’s the battery. Atleast sell them on eBay or something, or donate them.
          Send them to Jim and Johnny. Send them to me.

          Theres an old Mathison thats been on eBay for a long time.

          • DFB & Quicksilver,

            I have no use for these meters and have no interest in profiting from them. Nor do I feel like fixing them or figuring out how to make them work. They served their time and I got my value.

            E-mail me at originalpicovolt@hushmail.com. I live in the midwest if that matters.

            Also, anyone can email me at that address if you have an inclination. Sometimes I only check it a couple of times a week –if that– as it’s just a safe feed for those who are security conscious.

            Michael

        • Depends if the meter’s circuits are damaged or if it just needs the batteries replaced.

          The way to test is by trying to charge it first.

          If you can’t charge it then replace the battery.

          Once charged you put the meter on a stable surface, test, set and trim and calibrate to 1500 ohms by attaching the resister to the leads and plugging the leads to the meter.

          The TA should be at 2 or there abouts on your TA dial.

          If its way off.

          Deposit meter in nearest trash basket.

          If it is.

          Attach a pair of cans to the leads and make sure they don’t touch and adjust the TA until the needle goes to the set position on the dial.

          The TA at this point should be somewhere between 6 and 6.5.

          Watch the needle.

          If it stays where it is or drifts slightly then the meters fine.

          If it rock slams or starts moving in a ragged ticking motion then toss it or get someone to fix it.

          Reference is the Book Emeter essentials.

          • Thanks RJ.

            Hey, on this part:
            “The TA should be at 2 or there abouts on your TA dial.
            If its way off.Deposit meter in nearest trash basket”

            What causes the TA to be off? Is it not a replaceable component- a resistor or something?

            • DFB,

              I’m not an electronics expert.

              But I would say it could be the POT (Potentiometer) or possibly a resister.

              From my limited understanding of the Wheatstone Bridge your POT balances the resistance of the calibrator or PC.

              Then again there is a resistor that operates at set which is 1500 Ohms when the meter is unplugged.

              So it could be one or the other or both.

              Chances of replacing them are good if you have another meter to cannibalize.

              Then again it could be the circuit board is toast.

              In any event unless you’re good with delicate electronics and a soldering gun I’d say skip it.

              • Yeah, I probably wouldnt dig into a newer meter but an old MkV or older I might. Just for fun.
                I’m sort of an amateur electronics “expert”. I know enough to start working on something and then realize I don’t know what I’m doing.

                I’m pretty good at soldering and replacing components but I need to learn how to read schematics better. I think thats my main weakness. Some of that circuitboard stuff is too tight to work on anyway.

        • The other thing that used to go on the older meters (British Mk iV, British MK V) was the carbon pot – this could be replaced. The manifestation of a crapped – out carbon pot was a an erratic needle motion while moving the tone arm … similar to a dirty needle.

          Aside from that, they are excellent meters … many used these for every step of the bridge.

          If you have all the gizmos for them and still don’t want them, I will gladly take them off your hands🙂

          • I agree QS the British MK IV and Vs are good meters.

            The Ol’man ran QC on ’em till ’66.

            So are the American made Vs produced by HEM (Hubbard E Meter).

            Deltas …..

            Depends if it was made on a Monday or a Friday.

            Mk VI is my meter of choice.

            The last one Ron was personally involved in the development of.

            Like IVs and Vs he ran QC on the first batches and used one himself for his solo levels on NOTs and above.

            As far as I’m concerned the Super VII and Quantum are overpriced and over rated.

            Both have needles are far too light as far as I’m concerned.

            They also can be influenced by static from the glass over the dial.

            Also the variable sensitivity on the Quantum can obscure F/Ns especially after a blow down.

            Not to mention that the promo on it increasing and decreasing in relation to mass is actually BS.

            (The increase and decrease is actually based on resistance not mass so the sensitivity can be influenced by false TA)

            They work as long as you’re aware of the above draw backs.

            (Just don’t polish the glass covering the dial with a Kleenex or something before session and expect a slight com lag on a BD………F/N ing item

            I was forced to get one for the Golden Arches of Tech and still use it as a back up meter per Checklist for Setting up an Emeter and Session.)

            I have no idea what the Mk(8)Ultra (obviously they either missed the irony or are finally being more truthful) meter will be like but if history is any judge it’ll probably be an unmitigated disaster!!!

            If Miscavige was involved in its production.

            Already rumor has it that they put pin connectors on the original model (I mean who uses pin connecters these days!!!) and that about 500 of them are sitting in storage.

            In which case I suggest that any Churchie reading this buy a Mk V which I believe they are selling as the “work horse meter” for your lower levels and get a Mk VI or VII later for your Ad Courses.

            I don’t know what kind of software program they have planned to go through those connectors but I wouldn’t trust it.

            Even if its just “Diagnostic” software.

            The same ol’ tune will probably be playing that you need to send your meter in for repair.

            Cha Ching!!!!!!

            Also I suggest before buying a meter that you read the original Emeter Essentials Clearing Series 1 and The Book Introducing the Emeter Clearing Series 4.

            Both books were edited by Miscavige’s hated op term (which just happens to be one of the items on List One) Mary Sue and written by the Ol’man himself.

            Not Botwo the squirrel!

            As far as I’m concerned a meter has to fulfill three requirements.

            It has to give the correct TA reading.

            Read on the PC’s bank instantly with no delay.

            And most importantly display when an F/N has occurred on the process or rudiment you’re running.

            If it doesn’t do that.

            Send it to Dave.

  15. Great video. Given the fact that the cult no longer practices Scn but instead uses a DM altered version, aren’t they at some risk of losing it all? This could be an interesting legal challenge some day. How can they call themselves Scn when they aren’t even using it? DM, are you reading this? Are you starting to feel a little nervous? Good!

    I mean, is the cult applying anything that’s LRH? We know the auditing tech is absolutely atrocious. Ethics is used to punish. And the Admin tech……. what Admin tech? When you’ve got the CO of Flag on video regging for the IAS, that’s proof enough that the Admin tech is also long gone. Yeh, the video may have been pulled off youtube but we all saw it. Gross.

    While I’m on the subject of Admin tech, hey dwarf, why is the repayment line sooooo slow? Anyone trying to get a repayment needs to let the gov agencies know about it. Go on-line to the Attorney General’s office in Florida and California. If you’re living in another country, make sure you cc your Ambassador in the US and the US Ambassador in your country. A little heat never hurt. The cult can’t refuse repayments.

    • WE, you are damn right.

      • The S.O. promo I got in the mail yesterday was stamped with IAS postage permits. The IAS is financing SO promo? Could that be because the orgs’ income is so low that there is no money at the FLO level to fund the mailings?

        I’d say the current push is “The IAS funds everything in SCN anyway, so just donate to the IAS”

    • WE,
      RTC is a squirrel group. Hence, CST has the obligation to buy back the rights. If CST doesn’t (because in reality it’s DM’s Alter Ego, which see) then they are very much open to close and penetrating scrutiny, as a registered California Non-Profit Corporation, by the Court. No Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protection there. Wide, spread, open.

      Not only that, but with this comes a perq, DM, pants down, on his li’l lonesome, thong and all and CULPABLE.

      Dave, if I were you I wouldn’t go on any Harley rides. PTS (even to yourself) is not what you wanna be riding that really nicely painted bike. Which reminds me, didn’t you have Sea Org members paint that thing?

      • Jimbo,

        I doubt if the COB goes on any motorcycle rides or poker runs ’cause probably there are few bikers who are ex churchies who might wanna key that pretty pearly paint job by “accident” of course and “mistakenly” drop a few lovin’ spoon fulls a sugar down the gas tank.

        Besides him and Tom are nuttin’ but a coupla RUB poser wannabes anyway.

        You wouldn’t catch ’em dead at a run….

        And I mean that figuratively of course😉

  16. My favorite M&M video yet! The message is clear and true: Anyone is free to use Scientology. Without permission or authorization. End of story.

    Just Me

  17. At the beginning of each Tech Volume is printed an excerpt from the “Clear Procedure” booklet: “The work was free. Keep it so.”
    I think we honor the highest and best in LRH when we take this to heart.

    On another note, at least one ex-RTC member stated that the copyrights HAD expired:
    “31. In early 1983 I attended a meeting at Scientology’s ASI office in Los Angeles. In attendance at this meeting were David Miscavige, Lymon Spurlock, Vicki Aznaran, Patricia Brice and Edith Buchele. The meeting concerned Scientology copyrights. In particular, David Miscavige stated that Scientology was “in trouble” concerning the copyright status of the many published materials of founder L Ron Hubbard. Concern was expressed that many of Mr. Hubbard’s published materials had become ‘public domain” because the materials had not been registered with the United States Copyright office for many years. David Miscavige stated that Scientology had failed to register copyrights for thousands of pages of Scientology material written by Mr. Hubbard. These records included the numerous policy letters and bulletins published by Mr. Hubbard. In particular, Mr. Hubbard published “Policy Letters” (always published in green ink on white paper and intended as administrative directives) LRH ED’s (Executive Directives) which are used for various topics, (always issued as blue ink on white paper) and “Technical Bulletins” published with red ink on white paper covering technical aspect of Scientology such as Auditing techniques, Policy and Ethics.

    32. At the same meeting in early 1983 David Miscavige specifically ordered Patricia Brice (who at the time was L. Ron Hubbard’s personal secretary and an employee of ASI) to begin the process of mass copyright registration filings for all of L. Ron Hubbard’s materials. This order was given despite the fact that Mr. Miscavige was already aware that many of the materials in question were already in the public domain. Thus, I know from personal knowledge that in mid 1983 Scientology began a massive program to register Mr. Hubbard’s material with the United State’s Copyright office.”

    (from http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/jesse_prince_affidavit.html)

    • Freedom Fighter

      If you read the reference that the quote “The work was free, keep it so” came from — aka in context — it refers to free from alteration, something the CofM has long since proven it’s incapable of. I looked this up a few months ago and can’t for the life of me remember what the reference is (Jim, do you know?), but I highly recommend checking it out.

      • FF,
        Not quite sure what you’re referring to here.

        • I believe “the work was free,” means it was not owned by the slave masters, and should not be in the future.

      • FF

        I agree with Mockingbird.
        I don’t know of any reference that claims that LRH was talking about alteration of the tech. That sounds to me like an alter-is or confused idea.

        The quote in context (as much as I have found anyway) is at the beginning of each tech volume and is:

        “I’ll not always be here on guard.
        The stars twinke in the Milky Way
        And the wind sighs for songs
        Accross the emty fields of a planet
        A Galaxy away.

        You won’t always be here.
        But before you go,
        Whisper this to your sons
        And their sons –
        “The work was free.
        Keep it so.”

        L. Ron Hubbard

        • Freedom Fighter

          Thenks for providing more of this, Sam. I’d swear I’d found the actual reference (as opposed to the quote, without listing the reference it came from, that was slapped at the beginning of the new tech vols — the old ones don’t have this, BTW), but my memory on 0-4 hrs. of sleep lately is failing me. This came up on another thread either here or on one of the other blogs and I was able to dig it up. I may still have it wrong, but I’d swear that the information that precedes this quote in the reference it came from talks more about someone getting ahold of the tech and using it in a way other than was intended (aka DM). “Free” in that context, to me, meant free from alteration, outside influences, etc. I’ll keep digging and post the reference as soon as I find it.

    • I’m no copyright lawyer, not even close, but I think the extensive re-writing of/addition to the LRH materials which resulted in the publication of “The Basics” is related to copyright issues. It is possible that if one takes public domain works, re-writes them and adds to them, then he can copyright them all over again. It may be that changing only a few lines maybe enough to create a “new” and copyrightable work. This is often done with books of maps or street guides – they often contain a couple of intentional mapping errors to make them different from an already copyrighted version from a different publisher.

  18. Guy’s,
    Good points and I agree on the two areas of need.
    1. a way to make the materials freely and broadly available.
    2. an Internet/technical vehicle to disseminate the application locations, resources, statistics and such under one umbrella.

    Number one is solved by the Wikileaks model. (distributed and mirrored servers hosting)

    Number two is solved by the CMS (Content Management Sytem) known as a Wiki.

    Both will take a collaborative team with different skills. There’s some finance (not a lot) needed, web developers (especially wiki admins like myself, and server side experts) and content creation by a lot of interested parties (no shortage there based on the popularity and value of the subject matter)

    Six months ago I wrote an article on how to “break the monopoly” if anyone is interested: http://www.freeheber.com/index.php?title=Break_the_Monopoly

    Please get in touch if anyone has any questions.

    • David,
      If you are willing to communicate with me at bluecharm@hushmail.com, I’ve got another independent that’s versed in this area and you guys can carry this forward.

      • Thanks Jim, will get in touch.

        I saw a comment on an earlier post to the effect that it would be nice to be able to see all the Indy stats around the world. like…
        # of Indies, # of auditing hours, # of completions, # & location of practitioners…that sort of thing.
        The semantic wiki would be a place where a simple form could be filled out in say, 1 or 2 minutes from anywhere in the world, and it would automatically update and present the global results in real time…for anyone to see.
        Just one example of the power of this thing. It’s technology available now with no need to wait for someone to come up with a solution to what’s being discussed.
        (geo-locating, projects, LRH Bio repository, complete reference library… are some of the other things this platform will handle)
        If I had the time, money and inclination…I could build it myself.
        I don’t have all those things and a part of me wishes I could just step away from all this and enjoy my other pursuits.
        Seems I have this damn curse though. You know, the one that compels one to try to help.

        • Sounds totally cool Dave.

          Hey, on the curse you mention, me too! Take a look at PAB 91 in a new unit of time. It helps.

  19. one of those who see

    Back from vacation. Happy New Year all! Great news about forwarding LRH’s intention regarding training Auditors with a new center opening up!! Hooray! Standard Scientology is happening, happening!!
    Marty & Mike – thanks for this video. Your clarification is very helpful.

    Need to make an old movie reconmendation. Just watched “Dead Poets Society” in a new unit of time. May be one of my favorite movies of all time. Perfect for the Real Scientology Movement!
    Some quotes from the film:
    “I always thought the idea of education was to learn to think for yourself. ”

    “When you read, don’t just consider what the author thinks, consider what you think”

    “[quoting Henry David Thoreau] “I went to the woods because I wanted to live deliberately. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life.”

    “Boys, you must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Don’t be resigned to that. Break out!”

    “Now we all have a great need for acceptance, but you must trust that your beliefs are unique, your own, even though others may think them odd or unpopular, even though the herd may go,
    [imitating a goat]”

    To Freedom! To Happiness! To Life!

  20. Marty, great points.

    I just cogged on what I was running into when I was managing the Sea Org orgs and other continents: The crush book debiting syndrome that the Church has. I had to work overtime to stave off this debit madness because orgs and public were going insolvent and all that was happening is people were buying tapes and stuff and foregoing training and processing. Nothing wrong with owning tapes and books, but when a guy, who was in terrible case shape, turned in his processing $ for tapes, he usually disappeared from the scene.

    But the cog is this: DM doesn’t see a book or tape as a Dissemination item. He only sees these items as cash. He had his own little fognition that public will be polite and purchase ACCs for $10,000 and all he has to do is promote them a little and put a reg onto them that will make them just wrong enough to purchase them. Then he sits back and goes”. “Hey – who has to get new public? We got dupes on line that buy tons of this shit. Man, this is fun. These guys really berlieve this stuff works. Great and I’ll keep selling it to them.”

    And then he looks at training and processing and decides that it too is a commodity and can be sold as well. He says: “Shit, I can sell this stuff to the same fools that believe in the book stuff”. And then there is the granddaddy of them all – IAS. ” Now that is a commodity because these people sell HOPE and if there is one thing church people need it is hope. Man I can sell hope all day long.”

    Not only is his thought process STUPID, it is SUPPRESSIVE at best. It just shows how he hates people, especially Scientologists.

    Yes, we are free to use Scientology because we are the only ones that will use it to free people from their banks, not to use as a commodity.

    MLTom

  21. Hilarious about the intell gathering “mosquitos”!

    The communication line between the Catholic Church and it’s defectors and critics is something official Scientology should study and learn from.
    The Catholics are so many degrees more tolerant of their critics.

    Oh gosh, I have a thought from the blue, but can you Marty or Mike Rinder remember WHO was the AVC person (when AVC was in RTC in the 1980s) when the whole OSA adoption of the old Guardian’s Office “policy” “tactics” was condoned and reissued as the “Office of Special Affairs Network Orders?”

    Because to me, little Chuck Beatty Scientology amateur historian, it is VERY important in making your case Marty and others, that DM is the ultimate “who” bad person, to find IF that particular AVC authority person who “okayed” all of the OSA Network Orders that were chock FULL of the earlier time period Guardian’s Office Orders, if that AVC person was completely tuned to DM’s thinking when approving the OSA Network Orders!

    There are SO MANY fine points that transpired in upper ranks Scientology bureaucracy history, which people who lived those moments I wish somehow we could plumb their memories, to find the facts showing the footprints of DM’s mindset on AVC, to PROVE that DM most definitely is the main culprit even in terms of the OSA Network Orders being adopted as “official church policy”, which is what is stated in the byline of the OSA Network Orders.

    Marty, I know you and others are just loathe to worry about fine details about history, but I believe these fine points DO matter.

    Since LRH died, things have gone “officially” so off the rails, that technically, per the policy rules and approval lines, the details of HOW things in the OSA Int realm have “gone off the rails” is key to the backlash against Scientology, which unfortunately (or not) impacts the independent movement.

    My question is who was AVC at Int who was the actual AVC Aide Int who approved all the issues that came out re-released in LRH’s name, the OSA Int Network Orders?

    And was that person independently (more LRH) minded, or DM minded?

    To me, any ex AVC people, like Bob Browning, Mariette Lindstein, if somehow if THEY could be surveyed to answer this question and reflect on the atmosphere back then when they approved the OSA Network Orders.

    I’m curious to what degree DM influenced their decisions on approving the OSA Network Orders (reissued with LRH’s byline).

    Chuck Beatty
    amateur Sea Org historian
    ex Sea Org, 1975-2003
    412-260-1170

    • Chuck,
      As IG Ethics I ran a mission that compiled them – at the direction of my senior, Chairman of the Board RTC David Miscavige. I pre-I/A’d every one of them before Miscavige gave final ok to each that was issued. As was and is his wont, he micro managed it.
      Marty

  22. Thanks Marty and Mike for another big eye-opener! Awesome news. This along with the course room(s) opening up is the absolute best! Next stop, co-audits! OMG–something else LRH said to do that makes auditors AND gets you up the Bridge, way better than camping in the HGC. (Said proudly by an old Co-Audit Sup.) Whooo-hooooo!

    • Hey gato,
      Co Audits ARE going to be a part of the new training center. You are absolutely right, that’s THE way to go, and that’s the way we’re going.

      Sooner, than later. In fact, I’m off tomorrow on the adventure to establish the course. Keep in mind all, this is a Be and Do, we’ll leave the Golden Palace ‘have’ before you can do to DM. MEST being , inverted SP that he is.

  23. Impartial English Girl

    That was a very interesting conversation. It prompted me to wonder the following:
    1) The gentleman discussed at the beginning of the dialogue is disabled – are disabled people (whether mentally or physically – or both – disadvantaged) welcome into Miscavage’s version of Scientology? Present evidence seems to suggest that anyone who is deemed to be anything less than “perfect” is not wanted in CofM. Other, more established, churches often take steps to accommodate wheelchairs, make services and materials available in formats more appropriate for folks with special needs (such as large-print, braille or audio versions of books), etc. Hypothetically speaking, if a young man who happens to have Down’s Syndrome or is a quadraplegic expresses an interest in becoming a Scientologist, would he be welcome in DM’s organisation?

    2) Under copyright law, surely LRH’s original works will be out of copyright 95 years after the first publication date and CoM wouldn’t have any authority to censor distribution of the ORIGINAL LRH books?

    3) The nearest major library to me has Scientology books available for anyone with a library card to borrow. I’ve seen them on the shelf.

    Keep going with the good stuff. Have a great year in 2011.

    IEG x

  24. When I first saw the words “The work was free. Keep it so.” at the front page of Vol 1 of the tech vols (the set I bought with my own money at 16), it became my stable datum – my mantra. It’s the theme of my blog. All this crap about copyrights, trade marks, etc. – the work is free. Period.

    There used to be a valid reason to “protect the marks.” But, that was squandered. This stuff is too powerful for any one person or even group to hold. It is like trademarking “mathematics” or “nuclear physics” or, or that matter “life.”

    How cussing wonderful that this man took a book – one that is no longer in print – out of the trash and started to apply it! With no sales, with no expectations… That is golden. As the Jeff Goldblum character said in “Jurassic Park”: “Life will find a way.” Indeed it will, and indeed it has!

  25. Theo Sismanides

    Very useful info as we are moving to the Era of Dissemination of Scientology, real Dissemination of real Scientology not Miscavology. Scientology is a free subject, no one owns the subject and there are no monopolies to true knowledge and to knowing how to know. Whoever wants to put barriers on that IS suspicious. So, we are moving on as per Admin Tech to Administering the Tech in a Free Way. And this is the Independents and the Freezone and of course under the banner of Standard Tech. Excellent video, expecting to hear more from you guys.

  26. Love the hatting action Marty and Mike.

    One of the things I really enjoyed about working in Div 6 was watching people read a very small amount of LRH and start instantly applying it. We have available to us such a priceless gift to mankind. Watching a person give their first session is just mindblowing because they always come out the other end blown away that they were able to help another. Some come in to handle their own first dynamic difficulties but in very short order, they want to help another. Failed help is such a HUGE button in society and when one is able to help the result is phenomenal! The case gain on this alone is easily visible as one starts to recognize that THEY can do something effective, right now. And the brilliant thing about all of this is that it doesn’t take a lot of training or money to do it.

    The main problem with the church is that it is so stat oriented that it has robbed the public of the true greatness of the tech by quickied delivery.

    My ideal scene is to create an environment where someone can come in and get as much delivery as they need/want in order to feel competent about their ability to help others and to recieve as much delivery as needed to see that the tech works and that they can improve conditions in their life simply by applying it. As they begin to apply the data successfully, let them keep learning more through study of R and D data, tapes and drilling.

    My goal would be to help them get to a point where they know and I know that they will continue to apply what they have learned because it is now their own.

    When Ideal Orgs issue first started getting emphasis it was with the idea that people could come in and just read a book in the “library” or come in for a tape play. I’d love to create this for reals. People interested in and applying the tech, getting wins in life, becoming more cause and coming uptone. Now, that’s a game I can see myself playing!

  27. I think Trey Lotz said it best in that Scientology is not something you are IN, as if it was Amway or Tupperware. Scientology has tools you apply to better your life and those around you. One does not need to be connected to a bloated, overpriced squirrely LRH – hating organization like DM’s cult to use the tools of Scientology.

    I never saw the common citizen progress up the Bridge in the church in great numbers when I was in. It just is not planned for such and I am sure that is not a fluke.

    I recently received a letter from a reg asking me what my postulates were for the new year. I wrote back and said, in essence, “to stay out of debt for the rest of my life”. They wrote back as if to say, “good postulate, good luck, and let us know when we can help you again”. It was as if they were saying ” Well, if that is your postulate, we cannot help you now.”

    Charge blew. Big time. I need an exam now.

    Good info as always, Marty. May the winds carry you to Olympus to feast with the gods at the table of unlimited knowledge.

    Centurion

    • Great point Centurion! it’s the difference between being “Cause” and Effect” or being Interested vs.being Interesting. One can be a passive “sheeple” IN the Co$ fulfilling one’s ‘belongingness’ needs, or one can be an active, effective person using the tools available and ‘belong’ anywhere.

  28. Theo Sismanides

    It’s been some time now that I feel a wicked flow of Theta whipping DM’s troops! It’s kind of invisible though I must admit Marty has a lot to do with it through this blog, but all he does is being the Hub once again around which that wicked Theta Flow can flow and imbue life to long forgotten postulates. Once again that Force, that Theta Force is here and blowing all barriers away. It’s a futile resistance that DM’s troops are putting up against that Theta Force now. The Wave is coming!! DM hold on to your rods, you are going to be washed away!

  29. Marty what used to get me was when a public would go to Flag study the OEC or any admin course for that matter, come home apply it to his/her business Wise would step up and tell them to hand over 10% of the income the company brought in……WTF. Many people bought into this.

    Good video, LRH wanted all men to have the information to better themseles and others. It certainly makes for a sane environment.

  30. This is truly becoming a marvellous year 2011🙂🙂🙂

  31. The fact of the matter is, any time a product can be digitized and downloaded over the net, there really is NOTHING you can do about it. For instance, many musicians finally understand that their recordings/videos are simply promotional tools used to get live gigs where they can make a decent living off ticket sales and licensed band clothing, etc. Most authors understand they will not make much with book sales, excluding such blockbusters as the Harry Potter series. For fiction, you make your money selling your story and having it made into a screenplay and (hopefully) successful movie, which will drive book sales and associated peripherals (clothing, dolls, etc.). However, customers want the real deal. Under normal circumstances, they will NOT buy bogus merchandise, neither will pc’s knowingly buy squirrel tech.

  32. HI Marty!

    Happy New Year to you and so it is to be with the message you bring about the importance of the Ivory Tower and making AUDITORS. HELL YEAH! It’s kinda weird to even hear it being talked about seeins’ how it hasn’t been mentioned in over a decade now right?!

    I’m tracking with you and those who have had their sleeves rolled up caring to this vital aspect of saving Scn.

    It’s good to be back after a sebatical to handle some personal business but it’s done, successful and now the new year is going to bring more auditors I just know it now. Thanks to all of you!

  33. What I’m picking up from OSA bots is that they are trying to figure the ‘angle’ in all this. What are we doing this for. Because we’re SPs bent on destruction of Scientology? Money? What?

    Hey, it’s damn simple. We have experienced the gains available and we want others to have a similar opportunity. That opportunity is blocked by David Miscavige. We are bypassing that broken line, just like LRH said to do. Just like common f’ing sense says to do.

    I have NO COMPUNCTION about bypassing this SP or you guys that continue to hold him up because he’s playing on your loyalty to LRH and Scientology. F’ing dupes, if you continue.

    There is NO needling doubt about the correctness of effort. That’s hard for you to grasp I know.

    This effort, this time, is DIFFERENT. By the time you figure that out, you’ll be here with us, or you’ll be sitting on a curb wondering what happened, or you’ll be taken down with the li’l SP or you’ll be enjoying the Amnesty and re-grouping and coming back to make some actual progress forward.

    You are facing actual SCIENTOLOGISTS, OTs, trained, experienced and with the Ideal, Ethic and Rationale you’ve read about.

    Man, what a freakin’ blast.

  34. Tony DePhillips

    Since resigning from the church of mudcabbage I had a cognition.

    The cog was that the Scientology that I learned and made my own is mine. IMO I can use Scientology anyway I want in life. It is mine and I have the right to do that.

    I agree that all LRH writings should remain unchanged so people know what is his work.

    From where I stand I do not see the goal of full OT as a finished product. By anyone.

    Once a person has gone as far as they can using standard LRH I think they have the right to go forward and use the Scientology they know to continue the quest for full OT. (actually I feel any person has the right to use whatever tech he wants to use to improve himself. I may not agree with it but they have the right) I don’t believe that LRH wanted robots. If he in fact didn’t finish the full OT research and if one was never produced, I feel that we need to be able to think on our feet when the time comes for us to continue that research. That would really be owning the tech.

    I think the cult of mudcabbage has really made inroads in making people fear to use the tech without Mommy’s permission and made it so riddled with punishments that dm almost acheived his desired goal of monopolizing the subject for financial gain .

    I think the Independent group when asking for leadership was really asking for what was delivered here today. How to go about using the tech without fearing legal action from the cult. Now the Field Generals within the Indie movement can go about applying the tech without fear.

    The leadership provided was in terms of intelligence and legal expertice and ethics and integrity. It is not in the form of more Mommy and Daddy management, which is all we got from the cult of cabbage.

  35. Marty, Mike and other beloved beings,

    There was one song that resonated while I partook the conversation you immortalized above. It is beyond words for me to express my utter appreciation and admiration for what you both, and everyone else here has done and continues to do to free us all, that is Mankind in general, from the condition we suffer: Ignorance.

    Blossoms are what we seek and bequeath.

    ML, Tom Gallagher

    • I want a direct link……

      I’ll try again.

      • Tony DePhillips

        James Taylor has skills.

        I couldn’t resist throwing this one down…

        • You know something Tony-

          Behind my thoughts tonight is an overriding inclination that points out INTEGRITY can have and often does have a cost.

          In short, I’ll pay that price. Many do and here they are. You too.

          More are welcome. It’s really a small price relative to what we face: Eternity. The choice is freedom or slavery. It’s a state of mind.

          I’ll end off on a high note- I love Taylor and King!

          • Ditto! Wow……James with Hair🙂 Even *I* hadn’t seen that🙂
            Love it, thank you, Tony and James. God I love him🙂❤
            His soft, loving voice has helped me through more hard times than I can write.

  36. Mike Rinder made a great point: David Miscavige and IAS have regged the hell out of Scientologists to put free LRH books into libraries. Therefore, the intent of CoS is to have LRH Tech freely read, widely used, and applied. It is a brilliant observation by Mike Rinder, a one time key CoS strategist who served with LRH on the Flagship Apollo while DM was shining shoes on the EPF.

    *****
    An interesting related link: http://www.l-ron-hubbard-bibliotheca.org/text/Adminscale_on_the_Project_International_Foundation_L._Ron_Hubbard-Bibliotheca_%26_-Archive

    /////

    • Thanks for this link. Who is the author of this site, do you know? Very interesting and needed project.

      • Lady Minn, I don’t know whose website it is. I found it while researching online. What impressed me was the site’s technical knowledge of manuscripts, archives, preservation of paper, and “Non-conventional literature (NCL, also called grey literature).”

        I posted recently on OCMB that OCMB has never altered LRH Tech. Rather, OCMB has always simply documented and compiled it as an online resource for anyone’s use. In the crazy, upside down world of David Miscavige it is quite extraordinary to notice that critical websites such as OCMB have not altered LRH whereas DM has done nothing except alter LRH.

        There is a middle ground emerging where some of the Indies and some of the Old Guard and Anons see a middle ground where this is all about Freedom of Speech and a common fight against the Tyranny of David Miscavige and CoS.

        The Independents have far more friends than they may realize. In 2011, the real issue for so many of us is seeing the Tyranny of DM end. How or when this happens I do not know. What I do know, what I have seen and narrated at OCMB, is that the Karmic Vortex continues its inexorable work. Again and again, I watch this Johnny Cash video to remind myself that people like DM and MY can run on for a long time but sooner or later God will cut them down:

        /////

  37. Bravo Marty and Mike,
    This video was a treat.
    Supporting a “Church” that ABUSES Sea Org Members, enforces disconnection between parents and children, gouges parishioners for everything they have is so wrong.
    Good estimates from solid information is that 1/3 of current parishioners are looking at the web and watching all this go down.
    Lots of good wishes and high fives to my friends on this Blog.

    • Hi Karen. Welcome back from the holiday rush!

    • Tony DePhillips

      Hi Karen!!
      Hope you had a great Christmas season with your art.

    • Karen,
      You’ve brought up a key point that distinguishes DM’s corrupted CofS and what’s going on in Independent Scientology; the forged, false ‘HCOB’ PTSness and Disconnection. That and the squirrel as squirrel can be forged and false FN issue are two key points for why we are NOT the CofS under DM and have NO affiliation and aren’t in any competition with that specious falsehood.

      The whole point is we want nothing to do with the corrupted CofS under DM. We also want nothing to do with any suppressive ‘technology’ or oppressive dictatorships masquerading as valid help and succor.

      The other thing that we want NOTHING to do with and aren’t associated, affiliated, or in any competition with is that GAT gibberish. Ucky, ooky, yucky poo.

      (Take note Ms. Yingling. Clearly distinguished. Enjoy the lucre while it’s flowing. It won’t be for long.)

      • Dear Jim,

        I could not agree more.
        ++++DM’s Cult includes using pc folder data against someone who departs.
        ++++Extreme harrassment with PIs, outrageous demands for employers to terminate the employee when ordered by OSA
        ++++Issuing “secret Declares” kept under lock and key with Ethics officers.
        ++++=Complete waste of Law Enforcement time by making up the most salacious and vicious lies called in ANONYMOUSLY
        to Law Enforcement.

        Yes, while they scream about Anonymous, they do their dirty deeds ANONYMOUSLY using the same hidden identity.

        I wonder what pridge Monique Yingling feels, sucking in her high six figures annually to protect a criminal “Pope” the “Pope” of Scientology.

    • Wow! ONE THIRD?!?!?!? That’s incredible. I had no idea it would be such a high stat. Sounds “straight up and vertical” to me!
      Karen, when you come and see Marty in the spring, fly into Austin, and we’ll visit! Good to have you back on the blog. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU, AND LET’S END DISCONNECTION IN 2011!!!!
      ML, LM

      • ♥♥♥♥ Lady Minn !! ♥♥♥♥

        Girlfriend !!!! ~~ I will visit….. we can have a blast recalling old times and adventures !

        ML Karen

  38. Here you go, guys.

    L. R. H. in Clearing Procedure, 1957:”The work was free. Keep it so.”Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this – look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots. If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further. I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away. You won’t always be here. But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons – “The work was free. Keep it so.”

    Scott

    • Thanks, Scott.
      The emporor truly has no clothes!

    • Tony DePhillips

      Perfect.

    • Scott,
      That valid part of the ‘religion of Scientology’ is exactly on point. That is the fundamental differentiation of any Church of Scientology and the actual written and spoken words of LRH.

      The CofS under DM is slanted and pitched. It has very unclean hands. Hence, Independent Scientology.

    • Scott, thank you so much for this reference. I was going to try and find it and put it here as there have been so many discussions about what “The work was free. Keep it so.” means. It becomes very simple and clear when seen in the context of the full quote. Thanks for KSW!

  39. Marty, you said in this video that you don’t have to abandon Catholicism to be a Scientologist. However, there is audio footage on the Internet of LRH talking about the idea of Christ simply being an Implant. You know, R6 type of stuff. In fact, if you reach OT 8 you will learn that LRH had some pretty nasty things to say about Jesus. I should know, I am a former OT 8 who has left the cult. So, if you believe that LRH is “Source” (ALL Scientologists do; Corporate, independent, freezone, etc) then how can you reconcile a belief in both Catholicism and Scientology simultaneously? Or any other religion and Scientology?

    • Greg — I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this is a serious question (for whose benefit remains unclear). A catholic picking up the Scientology Handbook does not have to abandon catholocism in order to apply study tech or anything else in that book. Nor would he have to abandon Judaism if he read Dianetics and wanted to run out some engrams. That was all Marty said to the old man. Now, I happen to agree that it is strange for people who have had a lot of auditing and training to still consider themselves a practicing catholic or jew or muslim or anything else. But as with everything in the subject, its a matter of personal reality and “what is true for you is what is true.”

    • Tony DePhillips

      Hey Greg,
      I made it onto OT7 in cabbage land.
      I still can see how a Catholic can be a Scientologist and go up the Bridge. So what if LRH said that Christ is part of an implant. If it is still true to you then don’t give it up even if LRH had an opinion about it. If you pick up the solo cans and get TA and you feel better then that is great. You may blow down that you knew Christ or whatever. Cool. It’s your ride and your life. Scientology shouldn’t be a totalitarian regime the way it is under mud cabbage. Think for yourself..I mean REALLY, do it.

    • Greg: I like to look at HCOB TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC when resolving questions like this.

      Plus, what happened to “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation.” (Ability 125)

      Are you saying you’ve run this implant and know who put it in and why? Wow, impressive. In my 10,000 hours of auditing self and others, I’ve never met someone who encountered it and ran it.

      I’ve never met anyone who encountered a GPM with the same physical description as LRH gives in Tape 6310C29 ROUTINE 4
      (SHSBC 349).

      There’s thousands of phenomena described by LRH that I’ve never actually observed. Doesn’t make them true. Doesn’t make them untrue.

      My rule of thumb is: if Ron said it or wrote it, Ron said it or wrote it. If I try it in a session and it behaves as described and resolves as described, it’s fact and worthy of continued application. Either as an auditor with a pc, or as a solo auditor.

      Ron’s OPINIONS about Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are to me just that.

      My $0.02 worth.

    • I’ll jump in on this one, too, because it is an issue that is hammered a lot by “critics” and is bound to come up for handling from time to time in dissemination.

      Hubbard is Source of the Tech. All the rest is his philosophical musings and ideas and his opinions. In lecture, he also referred to Jesus as “a powerhouse trying to bring Wisdom to the West”. Perhaps he later changed his mind, perhaps something else. But it is his OPINIONS we’re talking about here.

      To me, it seems Scientology is the most recent expression of the Perennial Philosophy – the river of wisdom about life that runs throughout history and has found expression in the Vedas, Taoism, Buddhism, and yes, Christianity. In fact one of it’s oldest expressions is in Judaism, in the Kabbalah. This is a wisdom tradition whose roots go back over 5,000 years!
      Here’s a bit from Wikipedia about it:
      “Kabbalah (Hebrew: קַבָּלָה‎, Qabbalah lit. “receiving”; Qabala) is a discipline and school of thought concerned with the mystical aspect of Rabbinic Judaism. It is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between an eternal and mysterious Creator and the mortal and finite universe (His creation). While it is heavily used by some denominations, it is not a denomination in and of itself; it is a set of scriptures that exist outside the traditional Jewish Scriptures. Kabbalah seeks to define the nature of the universe and the human being, the nature and purpose of existence, and various other ontological questions. It also presents methods to aid understanding of these concepts and to thereby attain spiritual realization.”

      Progress in Scientology does not mean one has to abandon one’s “roots”. One may choose to celebrate them, instead. I have found that the more Scientology I know and understand, the more I understand and appreciate other, older traditions, and feel like acknowledging and honoring them. They represent all those who kept the flame of hope alive through the eons, and also contain quite a bit of truth and pieces of “tech” which were not entirely off the mark.

      Judaism is particularly interesting, because it is a culture based around a “tech” for survival. The customs and traditions are based on the principle of promoting survival for their group members, and it has worked for a long time now – they count their calendar as going back nearly 6,000 years.

      Remember the Jewish toast – “La Chaim!”? It means “To Life!”

      • Valkov , that’s really a great post being demonstrative of the datum of comaparble magnitude and perhaps leaning in the direction of orders of magnitude.
        I have researched those areas myself and did it from the advantage of using Scientology to evaluate the data with and had many interesting cognitions from the process.
        Further your statement of”also contain quite a bit of truth and pieces of “tech” which were not entirely off the mark” was what I saw for myself and I am glad you shared that in your post.
        It is good to be free to able to look ,question and become more aware in all apsects of life for a change.

    • May I also add some opinion about catholocism. I am a roman catholic. In school in bavaria we had 2 hours a week educating us on this subject. We had to write an essay about Jesus. As I had been out of present time during my school time most of the day I missed the part with Jesus. Thus I wrote an essay about Jesus as I knew from recalling that time. It had been a mixup of recall of that time and later on the track education. But had nothing to do with what is known now of Jesus. I also contacted something that looked like an implant with some approximation of that time Jesus lived.
      Thus by my observation: even if there is some implant of Jesus or similar things that make it look like that the catholic church is based only on implanted material then this would not exclude that Jesus did actually live and act as reported. You could add: maybe Jesus did know about parts of implants of R6 and used its symbols and words to „market“ his ideas. Scientology is not the only religion knowing about implants of the past. Scientology did study that in depth and made it possible to resolve it but there had been always people on earth that had recall on them. And did use the knowledge of implants.
      My opinion: You can be as up as OT as possible but still can beleive in any other religion. As up to this point Ron never talked about who created you. And as you did not create yourself (I guess) then there had to be someone who created you. If you know about religious implants then you can stripe those off of your religion and get back to the TRUTH they had to offer. Scientology and other religions can co exist. And other times far back on the track had also some good wisdoms on those points you cannot learn in Scientology right now.

      • Like Jesus like “Merlin” Does’nt the LRH tapes titled RESPONSIBILITY AND THE STATE OF OT mention about the Magi’s interest in Jesus getting going brothers ?

    • In the 1981 HCOB LRH wrote called “OT VIII”
      there is no mention of Jesus whatsoever. This
      “HCOB” which says those things is a forgery
      meant as some kind of black PR on LRH and the Tech.
      Someone in Europe admitted that he fabricated it.

    • You’ve proven you are no former OT VIII by making that statement.

    • Greg,
      I will comment on your statements of “if you believe that LRH is “Source” (ALL Scientologists do; Corporate, independent, freezone, etc) then how can you reconcile a belief in both Catholicism and Scientology simultaneously? Or any other religion and Scientology?”

      LRH is SOURCE, as in source of the technology we use to increase spiritual awareness and ability. You then refer to a “belief” in Catholicism or any other religion. Scientology does not require any “belief.” As others have responded to you, what is true is what YOU have found to be true. Apply the Scientology technology and see the results for yourself and you will find truth for you.

      We simply understand that some concept of a supreme being or concept of infinity is part of life as we know and understand it. A religious practice, such as Catholicism, may define this supreme being and your relationship to it. That makes it no more nor no less true for me. It is YOUR belief and you are entitled to it. I cannot prove or disprove your belief – it is yours and others who also believe.

      To apply Scientology technology – study tech, auditing, ethics, etc simply includes the concept of the supreme being and leaves your belief in the details to yourself. I personally spent almost 2 hours in discussion with a Catholic priest and we did not disagree on the spirituality of life. He fully understood my agreement in something else and that his belief may or may not be the correct one.

      In SOS supplement 1 of Sept 1951 LRH stated “for a long time people have been talking about and fighting for and dying because of the Eighth Dynamic. Every Sunday morning people go to church to express their belief that the universe was created. Two or three thousand years ago the Greeks were talking about the Prime Mover, Unmoved. Every time the problem of the origin of the physical universe comes up we have to postulate a Creator or else have no answer to give.”

      Further, in the Journal of Scientology Issue 16-G of June 1953 he stated “the eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.” Greg, you are here and you can observe the universe around you. Obviously is was created at some time, somehow, and it is continuing to remain here. Your belief of who, what or how is YOUR religious belief. To help increase your certainty and awareness of yourself doesn’t take away or force change upon your belief.

      To a Catholic this Creator may be god as they believe in. To someone else it could be some group agreement. I don’t know the answer for you and Scientology doesn’t tell me what to “believe.” Never has LRH implied he is source and creator of this universe. He is the source of Scientology and it is a technology and tool for use in life. I study, apply the technology and my awareness and knowledge of life increase. I think we have to get way on up the line and a lot higher before any of us will know all details of this postulated “Creator.”

      Your key comment is that it is a “belief in both Catholicism and Scientology simultaneously.” Your belief does not have to be identical to mine, or Marty’s, or Bob or Joe or whomever. We each are responsible for our own decisions and thoughts. We are cause over our belief’s – whether to agree or disagree. And we have the ability and right to change our belief’s and agreements.

    • Wow Greg I’m not even OT VIII and I know that Jesus was a pedophile HCOB was nothing but a bunch of concocted BS.

      It was part of what was called the “Fishman Affidavit” which contained quite a few alterations of the original tech with just enough truth to throw a few curves.

      If you claim you are “OT VIII” than I respectfully submit that you are full of shit.

      My suggestion is you either get a life or back to posting on ARS and OCBM where you can gull the natives.

      Here you’ll find honest to goodness Scientologists who are wise to that shit.

  40. I think the only thing they can hold over you is your membership in the Church .

    I mean, how could they possibly have any right to stop you from applying the Tech as contained in the books and materials they sell.
    It would be like a law book publishing company coming after you for using information in one of their books to resolve a legal matter. Or a woodworking publisher trying to stop you from building a bookcase in your garage using techniques from their book which they sold you.

    It’s rediculous.

    • You got it DFB, they don’t have any right to stop anyone from using the knowledge, training and auditing.

      The next step is to break any monopoly they have left on the availability of the LRH materials, so LRH can be made freely available to anyone who wants them, without having to buy them from the “Church”. I’m talking about whole enchilada – LRH books, lectures, checksheets, HCOBs, Policy Letters. Anything a person needs to get trained and audited the LRH way with no extra B.S. like having your arm twisted to donate to phony “campaigns” etc. Everything available free or at nominal cost and free of B.S.

  41. I did a massive study on all of the copyrights and trademarks of LRH and the materials in the 90’s. Here is the problem that the church has. A lot of what you think is copyrighted (not fiction works), is actually not enforceable by them because of the way the copyrights and trademarks were filed and transferred in the 80’s, it was a legal blunder that the church or legal powers at be don’t want you to know. For example you have a lot of social betterment groups who are actually saying they enforce the trademarks/copyrights, or who hold the trademarks however they don’t have anything in writing – it is all tacit consent between ABLE, WISE, etc and Author Services and CST, which doesn’t quite hold up in court with he said she said from a dead author. In order for them to get anything in writing, Author services has to document certain legal rights to transfer which if they do will unmock their entire corporate structure. Similar to the Mark Headley case if they win or lose on appeal. It is a double edge sword.

    If there are any trademark/copyright attorney’s in the indy group, it would be well worth it to get a legal opinion and thorough research of all of the trademarks for LRH non-fiction works.

    • Wow, thanks for posting this Lucy!

    • Lucy,
      Understood. I am not an attorney. The other problem they have is what copyrights they do own are owned by CST. RTC, in its licensing with CST, only has jurisdiction over the Church and its groups. Independents are not part of any of these. Therefore standing for legal action must come from the copyright owner. That brings CST or ASI into the arena. Are they willing to open these corporations and their directors and trustees to be questioned under oath. A challenge to the transfer of copyright ownership gets back to the will, and the signed will changes the day before LRH passed.

      This is a can of worms. What copyrights are owned, are owned by CST. As we are not part of any RTC affiliated group it is CST that must enforce. Then to the question of the copyrights on original source materials and whether or not these were transfered correctly, originally filed correctly and which ones were renewed correctly.

      I will try to keep it simple. Anything LRH wrote prior to 1963 had to be renewed before the 28th year or it went to the public domain. Any lecture done outside the US before 1996 had to renewed by its 28th year or went to the public domain. Anything written/spoken prior to 1978 had to be renewed by 2006.

      We are talking about thousands of issues and items which needed to have been renewed. I sincerely doubt that all were renewed timely. So any enforcement by CST depends upon proving correct transfer of ownership (or they have no standing to enforce anything) and that it was renewed timely.

      The later books, etc are new copyrights to L Ron Hubbard library. We are interested in all items prior to 1978, which is a LOT of tech and lectures.

      And then there is the issue of all of the court case filings stating this is scripture for the religion of Scientology. So now, how does the same group go to court to prove its just a commercial item and not religious in nature.

      This can become a quagmire quickly. I have no idea what OSA, etc will do but whatever is done will prove to be a 2 edged sword. Open CST to legal under oath questioning and the possibility of all seeing the public record in the legal action that the ownership is up for grabs. CST is NOT a church yet it claims to own and control the “scriptures” of a church. Any action to deny an Independent Scientology from the practice of their religious beliefs possibly becomes another cause of action in restraint of religious freedom by a commercial entity. Any collusion by attorney’s and SO staff to deny constitutional rights is also illegal.

      This is far murkier than it should have been. This discussion is on ownership of the materials. Application of the materials is not at all under anyone’s control. Simplest answer would be allow the Independent’s to practice as they want. If the Church thinks its application is better then promote that and the public will go there instead.

      • S.A
        Vgd points. One question: Why 1978 and prior? If the benchmark is 28 years then surely it would be 1982 and prior, or am I missing something?

  42. If legal, we all oughtta start a project to transcribe the HCOB’s and HCOPL’s so that they can be transferred to a free, tech website for the world to utilize.

    Hell, we could toss in the Basics too, whichever version is deemed closest to original source.

    • Right on. Such a database would also serve the function of protecting consumers, because anyone could look up the LRH issues and discover whether what they were being given was original LRH, or a squirreled version. This would afford protection from anyone who claimed to be delivering “standard tech” when they were really delivering something else.

      But I’m not so sure about The Basics. I think all the editions published prior to 1985 0r so are still around, so I would vote for compiling those online whenever possible, but I’ll defer to those who are more knowledgeable about the various editions.

      I have heard that Ron’sOrgs, who are reputed to deliver a very standard lower bridge, don’t use anything published after 1976 in their training. But I don’t know how they arrived at that cut-off date.

  43. thx for the clarification on copyrighting and the use if LRH materials. Good data

  44. dm:
    “I don´t worry going deaf because I stopped listening when I was a teenager”

  45. Hi Marty,

    You’re not going to publish this.

    My thesis is this: You keep claiming that you & Mike are the one’s practicing “real” Scientology, and that DM has hijacked the faith and has “radicalized” it.

    That’s not really true, though, is it.

    DM practices a particularly vicious form of Scientology: Disconnection on a whim, physical violence, brutal Fair Gaming, liberal use of the RPF.

    But these are all policies initiated by LRH. It was LRH who oversaw the crimes committed against Paulette Cooper. It was LRH that had his wife take the fall for Operation Snow White.

    It was LRH that had a child locked in a chain locker aboard the Apollo, and threw people overboard for disagreeing with him.

    I submit to you that you’re the squirrel. You’re practicing a Scientology without the RPF, Fair Game, Dead Agenting, Disconnection, etc., This directly violates LRH policy. It is not Scientology as practiced by L. Ron Hubbard.

    DM’s version of Scientology may be “radical”, but if it is, it’s only a more extreme extension of what began under Hubbard. If DM is overly concerned with revenue, for instance, he’s only following Hubbard’s exhortation, “MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY”.

    I think pretty much all religion is fictional, and Scientology even more so. I’ll fight for your right to practice whatever faith you feel the need to practice, and if you can practice Scientology without the massive fraud and abuse that’s been its calling card since the 50s, I have no problem with it. But don’t for a second believe you’re upholding LRH’s original intentions regarding Scientology. His original intention was to “start a religion”, because “that’s where the money is”. He was the 20th Century’s greatest con man. He made up Dianetics in a desperate bid for quick cash, and when it became a surprise hit, he parlayed it into the “religion” he’d once dreamed of forming. DM is merely upholding the tradition.

    I think you’re generally a pretty good guy, and I enjoy your videos, but you need to do a couple of things. 1st, you need to gather all the knowledge you have about the “church”‘s criminal doings, organize them, and bring the material to the FBI so that DM can be properly prosecuted for his crimes. 2nd, you need to wake up to Hubbard’s true nature. He was as much a criminal, in his own way, as DM, and there’s a massive amount of evidence to support this. If auditing works for you, hey, knock yourself out. It’s your right and I wouldn’t dream of stopping you. But truth is truth, and you need to face it.

    I will continue to watch your struggle with DM, and am rooting for you. I will also continue to don my mask and periodically protest at the local org (and, by the way, I’m 55 and not an ex-Scientologist).

    Good luck, and never stop questioning….

    • Why don’t you hang up the mask for a moment and learn something about that which you waste time hanging on corners attempting to upset? You truly don’t have a clue. I don’t need or want you defending my right to do anything, thank you. I can defend myself quite adequately, should the need ever arise.

      • Hold on there Marty. This guy was obviously there with LRH from the start. I wonder who he is? Wow, the stories he could tell us….

        Django, you should elaborate on these points! Fill in all the juicy details.
        Time, place, form and event. Don’t withhold it. You obviously have a lot of firsthand information. (end sarcasm)

      • Tony DePhillips

    • Davey doesn’t practice any form of Scientology but only the suppression of it. He takes the policies of LRH and reverses them to prevent anyone to improve. When LRH found out that his policies like Fair Game were used to justify illegal acts, he cancelled them because of it. He even had specific policy to abide by the rule of law, he wrote The Way To Happiness in which he specifically explained why not to commit illegal acts and went to the courts to get his rights legally. Now if Marty refuses to use illegal acts, it’s because LRH didn’t allow them and thus is Marty acting in accordance with LRH. If Marty wants money, why is he publicizing how everyone can get Scientology for free? If LRH wanted money, why didn’t he sell Scientology to the Russians or Americans that both wanted to use it for their mind control programs and even went so far as to call him back to active duty to get their paws on his Technology. Instead, he fought 25 years of expensive legal battles with the most aggressive and over funded government bodies like the FBI, IRS, FDA, APA, etc, that cost him almost more than he made? All your extensive evidence of his so called crimes have never been vindicated in courts. If it was real (which you still buy), how could it result in the widespread legal recognition of Scientology?

    • “Good luck, and never stop questioning….”
      Might want to take some of your own advice there buddy.

    • Django,

      I understand your conclusions about Scientology and how you got to them by a study of various documents on the net.

      But if someone wants to really understand this subject he has to do more than studying texts. Scientology deals with awareness, and that is something that cannot be related just by reading texts.

      I know and face the true and apparent contradictions of the subject and its author. But I also have witnessed phenomena that have proven to me BEYOND ANY DOUBT that Scientology is not a scam and that LRH was not just another con man.

    • ROTFLMAO! As LRH said “Laughter is rejection.” Hang out with Alanzo much?
      Here’s a song for you, Django (That handle SO doesn’t fit you!) Have a nice life, anyway.

      I look at you
      all see the love there that’s sleeping
      While my guitar gently weeps
      I look at the floor
      and I see it needs sweeping
      Still my guitar gently weeps
      I don’t know why nobody told you how to unfold your love
      I don’t know how someone controlled you
      They bought and sold you.

      I look at the world and I notice it’s turning
      While my guitar gently weeps
      With every mistake we must surely be learning
      Still my guitar gently weeps
      I don’t know how you were diverted
      You were perverted too
      I don’t know how you were inverted
      No one alerted you.

      I look at you all see the love there that’s sleeping
      While my guitar gently weeps
      Look at you all…
      Still my guitar gently weeps.

  46. Independent Scientologist

    As soon as I left the church in late June, I recognized that I was free to use whatever part of scientology I wanted to and boy did I start doing exactly that.

    There just isn’t any excuse for a scientologist to not work on his or her Bridge on a daily basis, where that’s auditing or training (or even just study of the materials). Or help another scientologist on their Bridge.

    Get it while you can, folks – it’s not unthinkable that scientology could some day have to be an underground activity. It’s dangerously good at freeing people!

    – Ron Matlock

  47. This can only be the one and only Keith ____. Marty, they don’t come more SP than this one.

    I’m going to put it to you this way Keith and for all of your other masked buddies out there who badmouth LRH. LRH had his faults as any other man does, like when he wrote Fair Game HCO PL. I am sure he was pissed off when he wrote it. Like in a moment of passion. I can only assume some SP really pissed off LRH unlike anyone could. Probably someone like you who pretented to be a friend and pretended he wanted the same thing as LRH and then tried his best to sabotage LRH. In the moment of emotion and passion he penned that PL. It wasn’t his best writing, but I understand it. I’ve been that pissed off by SPs who try to subjugate.

    And okay, let’s look at overboarding. It wasn’t done by LRH as invalidation as it is done by DM with the intent to belittle and invalidate. From what people who were there told me, it was done as fun. And if they didn’t want to go overboard, they didn’t have to. And LRH didn’t keep people on the ship as slaves or prisoners. If they wanted to leave, he actually helped them.

    And yes, he did lock Mike Mauer in the chainlocker, but Mike told me to my face that it actually saved him because he came out of it with a major cognition and trained up to be a Class XII auditor.

    You see, LRH did things with ARC ane no one got hurt or damaged when he did them. DM on the other hand thinks he is doing what LRH had done a few trimes as a way of handling things. But the difference is that LRH didn’t use the chain locker as a way of torturing people. He used it with Mauer and it worked, but he never did it again to any one else. If there were a chain locker at Int he would have used it over and over again, after he beat the crap out of people. That’s why, you are an SP because you took an incident and turned it into a generality, just as DM did.

    You left out R-2-45. LRH said it is a wonderful exteriorization process. People of lower tone are convinced LRH meant to shoot someone. I don’t know what it means myself. Not enough information there there to tell me.

    But here is the real scene: LRH was loved by everyone he met. This I know from personal experience with people who worked with him. LRH has helped more people in one month of his life than your sorry ass has in 20 lifetimes, yet you judge him. And I know he has helped. I ran out engrams on all 4 flows and I saw the changes and saw that it worked. DMSMH was popular because it worked. Yet your generality tried to lead readers to believe that it was popular for an unknown reason.

    I see all of LRH’s faults (not too many, actually) and because of all of the good he has done, I would say his good outweighed his faults by 900,000 to 1.

    Now, what have you done to help anyone or anything, Keith. Or should we ask your young daughters?

    ML Tom

  48. A belated Happy New Year to you all!

    What a start to 2011! This IS going to be a great one!

    I had the opportunity to meet and stay with Tony & Marie-Jo DePhillips over the New Years holiday. New friends … what can I say, the visit for me was superb! I even got to vent a bit … hell, it was great to have such caring terminals to yap to. Failed purposes restored, plans to get onto Solo Nots this year and get going on training … it is all good!

    I also had the pleasure of meeting many other people who post on this blog on New Years eve – What a group! It is very rewarding to see so many caring individuals wanting to make things better for all.

    Thank-you again to Tony & Marie-Jo, and to Marty & Mike for giving us the opportunity to connect up and play a better game thru this blog.

    There are so many others to thank … the list would go on & on – suffice it to say that the future looks bright indeed!

  49. Pingback: You Are Free To Use Scientology (via Moving On Up a Little Higher) « My LRH

  50. Marty and Mike,
    I’ve been “under the weather” (Literally here in LA~) so I missed this thread.
    I just wanted to add that in the late 80’s I became a “Flag Legionnaire” and we who did this put on Book 1 seminars, all over the country, and was growing world wide, when it was stamped OUT. (Riggs Eckleberry, who ran it, was incorrectly declared SP and that ended it). But I can say, from first hand experience, that your average Joe got trained on Dianetics and many were co-auditing in the field, having nice gains. Just thought I’d add that. Best to all, welcome back to Karen J, and Happy 2011 to ALL 🙂

  51. Hi again, Marty,

    Thanks for posting my screed above. The general wisdom around the protest community is that you don’t allow posts critical of LRH, and that’s obviously not true (or has changed, or whatever). I’ll attempt to address some of your comments, and those of others.

    I think I’ll leave the mask on, both at live protests (which I’ve attended, though not nearly enough), and online. You, of all people, know what can happen when OSA finds out a critic’s identity.

    No, I wasn’t there with LRH. I got into this thing fairly recently (before Anonymous, but only by a month or so). Am I only “studying texts”. No. I’m watching videos of ex-members, reading stories of ex-members, people who were close to Hubbard. I’m reading some history. And yes, I’m questioning. I’m taking into account that some folks may be exaggerating the negative side of their experience with LRH to grind an axe.

    But the stories of Hubbard’s cruelty are, if you’l pardon, legion, and they have a remarkable similarity. The Fair Game policy is in writing: LRH’s own words on official Scientology documents. Is there somehow a way that I’ve misinterpreted the words “May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed”? And let’s say he cancelled Fair Game (he didn’t. He only cancelled CALLing it Fair Game). Does anyone miss the point that he implemented it in the first place?

    Do you think he had no knowledge of the plan to utterly ruin Paulette Cooper? Of the largest infiltration of the Federal Government in history?

    Oh, I’m not this “Keith” (I assume Tom M. means Henson. Never met the man). I was never in, didn’t know anybody who was until I got involved in this scene in late ’07.

    As for Marty pointing out where people can get Scientology for free: Bravo. I never claimed Marty’s in it for the money, certainly not in my above post. If Scientology is to survive, Marty’s much more benign, low-key approach is obviously the way it should go.

    I’m merely pointing out that the abuses of the corporate church started under LRH, were in fact written into church scripture, and implemented by him.

    As for “LRH was not just another con man”? I agree. He was the most successful con man of the 20th Century. Very few cons survive the originator, and one of this magnitude, well, it’s truly an achievement.

    • I don’t generally allow continued propaganda by those with no subjective reality on the subject. Gotta show some respect for those who frequent this joint.

      • Marty, doesn’t the Book of Case Remedies pretty well cover this situation?

        I have asked myself more than once, “Am I getting involved in an unseemly dispute with the uninformed?”

        It’s particularly annoying when someone who has zero experience of using the tech, with great certainty proclaims LRH a “con man”.

        Talk about not seeing the elephant in the room!

    • Wow Django if several people repeat the same lie therefore it must be the truth.

      Obviously you know about as much about psyop as you do about the Founder of the subject of Scientology or the subject itself.

      The same people repeating the same lies about someone does not make them true.

      And as far as I’ve seen Ron’s critics are basically the same people.

      What makes you think he knew about PC?

      Why?

      Because he should of known.

      Seems like circular logic to me,

      Also the biggest infiltration of Government ever?

      Get real!!!!

      By who?

      American citizens who were legally employed by the Federal Government in compliance with the “CRA”

      Ever heard of that?

      Or something called the ‘Bill of Rights’?

      One of the biggest moles in history Robert Hanssen happened to be a member of Opus Dei.

      In fact there are a lot of employees the Federal Government and members of congress and even a few Presidents who belonged to cults like for example the Masons.

      Are you saying these people “infiltrated” the Federal Government as well?

      Thankfully the Founding Fathers were more tolerant than you are.

      Anyway I suggest you actually read a book on the subject of Scientology instead of spending your time disinforming yourself.

      You could probably start by reading the whole policy regarding fair game.

  52. “You could probably start by reading the whole policy regarding fair game.”

    I probably should. I know Marty has:

    “I have no intention of ever going back to the Church of Scientology – in any capacity whatsoever. I believe it has been so thoroughly rotted to the core that it is a lost cause.  Having the benefit of a lot of hindsight, I doubt whether organized religion of any kind is very workable.  I deplore and would never even consider practicing fair game, disconnection, SP declares, RPF and a plethora of other abusive tricks the current C of S practices.”

    Marty Rathbun, Aug 25th, 2009

    Marty apparently considers Fair Game abusive, so you might want to take it up with him…

    • Django,

      Do you actually know what “fair game” actually means?

      I can assure you the use of the term did not begin with Scientology.

      This is the problem with people who seek to acquire “knowledge” by exclusively using the internet as some kind of electronic pedagogue.

      I suggest you crack open a few books.

  53. Dear Mr. Rathburn, 
         You wrote,”This blog is intended as a refuge for those making the transition from Miscavology to the real world.” If it’s your wish for me not to post here in the future I’ll willingly comply. I’m not a Scientologist by any definition I’m aware of, but I’ve studied spirituality, religion, philosophy, & sciences pertaining to the mind for most of my life. When I read LRH’s writings & people’s posts here I find similarities to my own beliefs. My purpose in posting here is an attempt to gain understanding of the essence of Scn seperately from the Cof$ enterprise. 
         Your insights & interpretation of LRH’s writings come across as sane, positive, logical, inclusive & intelligent. Church of $cientology members I’ve communicated w/ do not act like that to me, instead appearing out of touch, uninformative, negative, & defensive. I look forward to reading your posts & have gained a new perspective from them. I agree that science has abandoned the study of the spirit. Fortunately, science evolves. Does Scn evolve? Does Scn include science? From my understanding, LRH never said that future advances were not allowed to be made from his writings, he just didn’t want his writing itself altered (or the tech). From my very limited education in Scn, I derived that LRH saw experience as the best teacher. I haven’t seen proof that he was in any way against education, logical thought, or scientific, technological, social or cultural advances. It appears to me that the Cof$ (since run by DM) forbids these things. If LRH was alive today would’ve he taken these into account? As I understand Scn, it’s the study of the spirit. Studies, of any type, grow as new knowledge is discovered. 
         I don’t think LRH intended for auditing to exchange the ‘reactive mind’ for a subserviant one that doesn’t question or use logic. IMO DM is intending to use it that way. I think LRH intended for it to assist people in examining the ‘reactive mind’ & how it creates prejudices which may distort reality so they can gain spiritual power & clarity. How does this process differentiates between the ‘reactive mind’ & true intuition? 
         Why aren’t the basics of Scn allowed (by the Cof$) to be discussed? Do FZers offer any discussion or information about it? Another thing I got from LRH’s writings is that he intended Scn to be as inclusive as possible. That would mean good relations & IMO that’s why he did away w/ the fair game policy. LRH was human. He lived in a certain time period which he had the opinions of, but I believe he advocated using what works. Would he have had different opinions now? 
         There’re SO many topics included in Scn that are interesting to me & not being explored by any other group. I’m quite interested in subjects some call ‘paranormal’ such as O.B.E.s, astral projection & travel, psychic phenomena, remote viewing, past life experiences, touch/energy healing etc. Initially I was hoping to learn what Scn was about & what it does that’s positive, but in trying to obtain answers I’ve encountered some individuals who have nothing I want. I sense that you & others here are different. I still have no answers. Will any FZers tell me any of these things? I’ve read the Cof$’s entire site. I still know very little about what it’s supposed to be or do. I’ve read Dianetics & the LRH texts available for free occasionally online. I do NOT wish to buy texts from the Cof$, but I’d like to read more. I’ve unfortunately had no luck @ the libraries I have access to either.
         Here’re some questions I have. Does KSW really mean making more $ for DM or does it have another meaning? Idk where to start, so any advice would be appreciated. Does the FZ have a website for beginners or people who are just curious? Is there a word or abbreviation for Scn as practiced by the FZ to differentiate it from the way it’s practiced by the Cof$? What are high level OTs like? Can I meet or speak to one? What’s the ultimate goal of Scn? Is there anyone who (or a Scn text which) can help w/ controlling & dealing w/ paranormal spiritual events or abilities? In the FZ is it acceptable to agree w/ parts of LRH’s writings & not others? How can I learn the truth about auditing? Is the only acceptable E-meter the one sold by the Cof$? Is there someone who teaches people how to co-audit? Is it safe/acceptable to experiment w/ an E-Meter? 
         Obviously I have lots of questions so I’ll stop here. From what research I’ve done so far, the one thing I’m sure of is that I want nothing to do w/ the Cof$. If I’ve been inappropriate or offended anyone in any way I apologize. I’d really like to learn about Scn. Thank you. Stew     

  54. To all,
    I just wanted to add that I acknowledge that my opinions are those of an outsider who has no experience or education in Scientology. I don’t claim to be an expert or even that my opinions are necessarily correct. I’ve read lots of the comments above & while these subjects are being discussed & debated I don’t see a final concensus. To put it simply, I’d really like to know which parts of Scn do all Scn’ists agree on? Which parts are unalterable? What is ‘tech’ exactly & is it seperate from LRH’s other teachings? LRH has written SO many books & idk which are helpful to begin understanding Scn & which are Science Fiction. I also don’t know how to be sure I’m obtaining unaltered materials & do not wish to pay the Cof$ for them, but am willing to buy them secondhand or another way. Just wanting to clarify. Thanks again, Stew

    • Stew, couple things to keep in mind. LRH documented his work as it happened. When he discovered things, he wrote about them and did lectures. He released technology over the course of many years, and he would find out better or simpler ways to go about the procedures as he kept working/researching. He did not wait to figure everything out and then write about it. In the meantime he already had workable procedures and people were improving from applying them. So he released it as he proceded.

      One of many examples of this is the 1950’s book DMSMH, Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health. Lots of people read it and used it and benefitted. By 1973 (when I started) there was a course called the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Auditor, which he created and brought results for the preclear quicker and codified/standardized the procedure for the auditor.

      He wanted to make it as easy as possible for a student to understand and apply the tehnology so he kept researching. I’m trying to keep this short for you but also give you a little perspective.

      What I, as an independent agree on are all the earlier *tehnical* works which I know he did himself. There are some folks who have a very exact time line or sequence of what began to get messed with and when–I don’t, but I am wary of anything after 1984 personally. (I hope one of those knowledgable folks jumps in here and can shed a little more light on that.)

      If you want to experience a little bit, get with someone you have a good, mutual trust with and read that Dianetics book and do some on each other. Take care to do it properly, don’t be careless in learing the procedure, and insist on the same from your friend. This way you are finding out on your own. This is what thousands of people did in the 50’s, still works now.

      Be sure you get an edition of that book that was released originally in the 50’s or anywhere through to the late 70’s. Don’t get one of the recent fancy-schmancy re-re-re-repackaged books which has been “updated” or whatever they are saying. Get one the man himself wrote cover to cover and realize that is WAS written back then and it isn’t going to read like a novel or textbook of the present day. You can probably find one on ebay and it won’t be expensive like they are today within the “church.”

      Good luck on your search—keep questioning.

      • Gato,

        Good on you for taking up Stew’s questions.

        On anything after ’84 being apocrypha.

        All I gotta say on that is that the CCRD pilot which was conducted in late ’85 was personally supervised by the Ol’man.

        And he didn’t wrap up OT VIII till the beginning of the following year.

        So you’d be missing some important tech if you made that proviso.

        I’d say apply HCOB Tech Correction Round up to this whole scene though we can say with certainty that anything written posthumously couldn’t have been written by Ron.

        No matter how many times Miscavige claims that he is somehow channelling the Ol’man.

        Doing as “LRH intended”

        Yeah whaaaaateveeeer!!!!

        I think it’s more like what the FDA intended.

        Anyway Stew while I’m attached to this thread.

        I’ll say that I would evade and avoid anything written by our lil’ furry friend Botwo the Squirrel (Based on the Works of …get it😉 ) like a bad case of rabies.

        (Think of that time you read the book and then saw the movie.

        Well in this case the squirrels at Squirrelotology take “derivative” to whole new levels not even Hollywood could possibly imagine!)

        Anyway buy first edition books if you can get ’em or if not anything published by Pubs Org or Pubs Org DK (Denmark) including the original Tech Vols.

        Stick to getting cassettes or reel to reels on lectures though you could check some of the torrent sites as I think many of them have been converted to Mp3 format which you can download for free or some nominal cost for a bulk DL.

        Most of these are on Amazon or any other used book seller on the net and there are some sites that offer downloads of all the books.

        Due to the DMCA they move around….

        If you catch my drift😉

        Meters the same.

        Anyway if you want to coaudit Stew there are many of us Techies on board here who will be more than happy to help ya out.

        Any further questions you can contact me at archangel88(AT)hushmail(DOT)com.

        Ml

        RJ

  55. Stew, your thinking and conclusions about Scientology seem quite accurate.

    I do understand the problem – with over 3,000 hours of audio lectures and over 3,000,000 published words by Hubbard available, how does one choose where to start?? Not to mention the controversy about whether or not the new editions (“The Basics”, published 2007) have been altered/added to in undesirable ways….

    I would suggest this. Here is a list of good “starter materials”. Theyare available on Ebay. These are not my links, I just put them in so you could see examples. There is no reason to spend a lot of money, the older or used editions are perfectly good. Better, sometimes.

    You will need a copy of the book Dianetics, plus I recommend the following:

    They are all on EBAY right now.

    Book: Evolution of a Science
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Dianetics-L-Ron-Hubbard-1983-Hardcover-Illust-/380291942280?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item588b2a8788

    Lectures and Demonstrations (These are audio lectures)
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Dianetics-Lectures-and-Demonstrations-L-Ron-Hubbard-/320637089823?pt=US_Audiobooks&hash=item4aa775b81f

    Book: SELF ANALYSIS
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Self-Analysis-L-Ron-Hubbard-/260680179613?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item3cb1bfdf9d

    Book: HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Handbook-Preclears-L-Ron-Hubbard-1990-Hard-/260693633996?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item3cb28d2bcc

    Also, depending on your geographical location, there maybe an Independent of Freezone training center or group near you, where you could find out more.

  56. This video hits the nail on the head in my humble opinion. This copyright scam issue needs to be resolved as a top priority. Thank you for clearing things up for people! “The work was free – keep it so.” – LRH.
    Couple more comments here on the importance of this:
    A) It KSW#1 Having the technology.
    B) DM constantly attempts to use PR to try to get people to believe that using the Tech independently is a “Crime” or “Illegal”. This is the phantom grip that the CofM has on its parishioners: If you don’t think the way you are supposed to, you will be out and loose the tech.
    C) Independents still
    thinking that this is true will sit still and do nothing because it would be an overt. This is not entirely conscious. Its the mechanism of the good old thetan withholding himself from a presumably “harmful” act.
    That is my few cents about this for whatever its worth.
    One more thing: There is a website http://www.stss.nl which has been making available original LRH materials for download freely and openly. I have been following it and it has been up and running for over a year now with the church not even attempting to shut them down it seems. Why not if they are so grossly and openly violating the oh-so-holy copyrights of the CofD? All I can figure is it is because they know that if they would go to battle on this they would loose it and set a legal precedence. The site has all its legal arguments clearly published on the site itself (makes for some interesting reading) and these arguments would undoubtedly become part of any court case.
    Again, this is just my few cents to all of this.
    Please let me know if I can help in any way. This is one of the most important issues to solve in my opinion.

  57. something went wrong with the italics in the last post. Sorry about that.

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