An Open Letter to Tony Ortega

reference: yours at,

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/l_ron_hubbard_top_25_crippling_scientology.php

Notwithstanding your prediction, you won’t hear any howls from me Tony.  Only a long sigh of disappointment.

You start out your opus on L Ron Hubbard with an interesting incongruity: the Village Voice sanctimoniously talking down on somebody for being “a bigamist” and an “occult dabbler.”  Really?  Who do you expect to stand out of line and swim against the current at the height of the Cold War, McCarthyism, and state sponsored institutional psychiatry?  The monogamous, obeying, church-going Ozzie Nelson?  I would think the Village Voice of all fairly influential publications would understand this:  If you want to find someone to step outside the box and question the manner in which humankind has been doing business for thousands of years don’t call on Little Lord Fauntelroy.

The first crux of your attempted take down of L Ron Hubbard begins with a straw man burning of what you quote a religious scholar as calling the church’s “mythological hagiography” of Hubbard.  Tony, name an established religion whose founder or messenger is promoted by its organization with anything other than a “mythological hagiography.”

You then “prove” it’s all by Hubbard’s design by taking a third-rate propaganda piece (Russell Miller’s Barefaced Messiah) and converting it into, well, your Bible.  It is the same technique being used by mainstream, corporate media for the past sixty years to make fun of and tear down that which it doesn’t have the intellectual integrity to attempt to understand.  So, just as you introduced your hagiography burning by allowing yourself to call my “bullshit”, please allow me to call yours.

I explained to you at some length my own considerations about Hubbard’s hagiography; and explained to you that most Independent Scientologists share them.   First, I told you that I was not the kind of person to allow someone’s alleged “biography” to influence my evaluation of the workability of methods suggested by that person.  In fact, I told you that I caught myself beginning to do so when I first entered a church of Scientology in 1977. But, it wasn’t in the way you’ve inferred is the only way to evaluate the worth of Scientology.  I saw a photo of Hubbard in his naval uniform, with some plug as to how this showed him to be credible.   I nearly made an about face right then and there because to me the last cred I would credit in the field of the mind and the spirit would be someone’s stint as an officer in the US Navy.  But, I decided to keep an open mind and stay focused on what he had to offer;  and more importantly to test for myself whether it produced a result.  Remember, I was a writer for the alternative paper at the University I had attended before all this; I had been honing my bullshit detector for some time.

Whether Hubbard was a blood brother to Native Americans, an Eagle Scout, a teenager who in the 1920’s once used a pejorative term to refer to Chinese, was responsible for killing a sub full of people, considered homosexuality deviant in 1951, or generally went about his life with a bigger-than-life swag really never figured into the equation for me.

So, your part A, for me, is not much more than much ado about nothing.

As for your part B, the recitation and condemnation of the very few words you cherry picked out of the millions Hubbard wrote and spoke on the subject of Scientology, your techniques were even more disappointing.  I’ll cite some of the words you chose to characterize as policy, and give each passage a touch of context.

a.     “The only way you can control people is to lie to them.”

Tony, I have heard more than one one-hour lecture by Hubbard where takes this axiom and ruthlessly examines it toward forever freeing those listening from ever being controlled through lies.

b. Your repeated references to and quotes on the Hubbard Policy Letter Keeping Scientology Working:

In context, again as I explained to you, outside the culture of the church that policy letter, Keeping Scientology Working, means ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”   That was the meaning my wife summed up as gleaning from it.  As you know she had never set foot in any “church” of Scientology, and therefore was uninfluenced by the culture of Miscavige that interprets virtually everything for people, when I asked her to read it.  But, apparently her view doesn’t count, not when it might slow down a witch burning of L Ron Hubbard.

c. “There’s only one remedy for crime — get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!”

Is Shakespeare condemned for having prescribed a disappearing of all lawyers to remedy the world’s ills?  Is Michael Moore condemned for cheerleading for the abolition of all Capitalists to create peace on earth?  Certainly not in your publication. Further, it really doesn’t sound much different from the attitude you’ve espoused about Scientology in your article on Hubbard.   Glass houses?

d. “A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.”

Tony, while you know damn well that I – and all Independents I know  – take exception to any attitude or conduct even reflecting adherence to the above sentence,  let’s add a broader type of context.  Apparently the mental health field is sixty years later coming round to Hubbard’s way of thinking.   I am reading a book (The Sociopath Next Door) by a prominent practitioner in the specialty of repairing the victims of sociopaths.  Her description of the sociopath reads like a modern day rewrite of Hubbard’s descriptions of what he then called the covertly hostile person, and later called the suppressive person.  The psychiatrist announces that modern psychiatry cannot cure the sociopath, and muses for 3 pages beating around the bush about what then to do about them – the subtext is clear, she wishes it were 1951 and it was politically correct to say “quarantine them”, but alas, it is 2011 and she winds up babbling into apathy over the problem.

e. “MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.”

A Finance Office policy.  I think if your job is Finance and you do things that do not add up to making more money and getting others to do the same, you are not long for finance (whether you are in the Finance Office of the Catholic Church, the United Way, or General Motors). To infer this policy applies broadly to Scientologists is just a plain cheap shot.

To place L Ron Hubbard above David Miscavige in your rankings of those doing the most to “cripple Scientology” does everyone a disservice in my opinion.   L Ron Hubbard died twenty-five years ago.  He wrote what he wrote.  He has no further say in what people do with what he wrote.  Following your logic, the solution would lie along the lines a good old-fashioned book burning.  Further,  you are naïve to assume there are more active Corporate Scientologists (whom Miscavige demands read Hubbard the way you have chosen to) than there are Independent Scientologists (who don’t miss the forest for the trees and choose to apply what Hubbard wrote in a sensible, lawful, respectful manner befitting the age in which they live).  Your final article tells the latter that they are no different than the former – that all are condemned to read and apply Hubbard as you and David Miscavige have chosen to.  Worse, you aid and abet a dangerous sociopath by providing him with the ultimate defense  – Hubbard made him do it.

I respectfully disagree.

While Independent Scientologists might be inclined to howl, I can guarantee you  one thing.  They won’t investigate you, they won’t threaten you, they won’t attempt to intimidate you, they won’t threaten to sue you, they won’t sue you, and they won’t do much of anything to make you even slightly uncomfortable.

I’ve got news for your Tony.   Those facts right there about how Independent Scientologist will conduct themselves towards you is living proof that your article was dead wrong.

Peace my brother.

670 responses to “An Open Letter to Tony Ortega

  1. Thanks for saying that. I appreciate it.

  2. Thank you, Marty.

  3. “…how Independent Scientologist will conduct themselves towards you is living proof that your article was dead wrong.”

    Marty, fabulous open letter and I loved the conclusion… it is so true!!

    • Seems like the independents have less power than the mighty church and when the church was small it acted like the independents now(not much corruption lawless blind obedience) How will the independents handle power once they are mighty like the church is today? How will an organization be prevented into turning corrupt by power and greed just like the church has?

  4. Thank you Marty!

  5. Actually, organized Scientology is very much the legacy of LRH. The fact that independent Scientologists must escape the church in order to conduct their practices in a non-abusive atmosphere is proof that what LRH created is deeply flawed. That you can rescue something of value is less a validation of Hubbard as a genius than of the power of an idea subjected to the forces fo evolution. I truly hope that you help lots of people and contribute to society, but it simply isn’t necessary to elevate LRH to messiah to do ti.

    • Who raised him to messiah status?

      • Whether or not you raise LRH to messiah status is not the point–you’re being overly literal in order to ignore the truths in Dan’s statement.

        That said, I do think I get why defending LRH (the man) is so important to you–it’s the only way to continue to appeal to those still stuck in the church. But, really the subject and religion of scientology is not LRH but his *work* which should be judged wholly separate from the character of it’s creator.

          • “Gossamer” — as butterfly wings, which are light and easily destroyed… But in this context, I cannot agree.

            I get it; all that a man is does not negate truths he may have found along his journey– and yet as well does not negate those flaws he had and that so many of us have.

            Ron was flawed and came from a different era; paranoia of the ‘fifties, cold war consciousness, etc…

            As an outsider, it might be more obvoious to me.

            So many of his policies were frightening in their totality. It’s hard for me to see otherwise.

            I say take what you need, and leave the rest.

            And also, I very much admire your and Marty’s desire to help people along on their journeys.

            Observer

            • Please explain how a man who exposed the dirty laundry of the CIA, KGB, Psychiatry and other muderers, hunted by many governments, can be paranoia. I think he must have been tremendously strong and smart to survive and prevent Scientology from being taken over during his life.

    • minus 1 for stupid.

    • Dan, I can assure you that any atmosphere of abuse is no legacy of LRH. So many short-sighted people fail to follow through and make that differentiation.

      And “Messiah”? No one who understands and applies the philosophy of Scientology considers him to be anything other than a man who came up with answers that can be applied to a predictable result. You seem to be the one with the Messiah label for him. Don’t force it off on others.

      • I can assure you that any atmosphere of abuse is no legacy of LRH.

        Really?
        Two years ago I studied the PDC´s. Sadly I do not remember the exact lecture number, but I marked the line big and fat. The context of that part of the lecture is the neccessity to bring sombody in PT, before running
        exteriorization processes like it was done at that time.
        basicly LRH says:….in order to bring somebody in PT…beat him……

        Now: There are probably rare situations in life, where it could be helpful
        to apply it. (Lets assume soldiers or sailors are going nuts during a battle
        or storm), but its a root for abuse. Its given as applicable technology,
        and the worst thing is:”…………one cannot be puished by applying LRH
        policy,bulletin or lecture”.
        Now: If DM will ever be comm-eved and accused of staff beating, and he is refering to that part of the lecture, what are you doing then?

        • Dude, you really did not understand the PDC.

          • That type of “eval” does not help.
            I assume I shall claryfie the tape until the sentence disappears.

            • Probably your last comment here Freddy, unless you can manage to pull yourself up above 1.1 on the Tone Scale.

              • I really have come to enjoy your blog. I am horrified that you would kick a person off your blog as they have a different view. Isn’t respecting a person’s view (tony at vv counts here as wel) what the indie movement is about? Freedom of speech!🙂

        • Fatfreddy:

          There is a “famous” buddhist story about Naropa (student) and lama/teacher Tilopa. After much teaching and still Naropa didn’t “get it” –
          Tilopa slapped him upside the head with his sandal. (circa 1050 CE)

          Hard enough that Naropa went unconscious. Upon waking up —
          He was enlightened.

          This story is told over and over HOWEVER I’ve never seen a teacher try to emulate what Tilopa did and slap anyone with a sandal.

          Sometimes great teachers BECAUSE of their personal understanding
          and skill can do something that if I were to do – or you were to do – would become a dog’s breakfast.

          dm in part is a perfect example of someone who TRIES and pretends to emulate this teacher (LRH) but lacking his OWN understanding, wisdom, maturity and kindness makes a disaster out of everything.

          Others, following this sociopath (those locked in, Tom Cruise etc) continue to make a disaster more of a disaster.

          I don’t remember that part of the PDC although I’ve heard it several times but that doesn’t mean LRH didn’t say something like what you heard. BUT, you heard it through your lens, your ears and seem to have missed the essence of the piece.

          WH

          • Marty Rathbun’s ability to confront is truly amazing.

            Tony Ortega, although making some valid points about the character and history of LRH, clearly does not in any way, shape, or form duplicate Scientology.

        • Oh really. That’s like saying that to make a person experience being exterior of his body, you shoot him. Perfectly true, but not a form of therapy. Use some judgement, man.

          • I did not neccessarily criticize LRH. Beside the fact that I never used that “tech”, I wanted to point out that it is, or could be missused by a person
            which applies what is written: word by word. (see comment by windhorse)
            I cannot figure out a conceptual understandin on this sentence except: “Beat him” and it means “beat him”.
            If LRH was laughing or saying that he makes a joke it would be fine, I would not discuss it.
            And finally , let me know what you concept of “beat him” is.

            • Freddy, let go of the tree, turn around and behold the forest.

            • You know Fat Freddy, you may be right about having observed that one sentence. I know for a fact that there are a few statements that effect throughout his nearly 4,000 recorded lectures. So are statements about pretty much every facet of life.

              For example, when LRH was developing the “Routes” as covered in “Creation of Human Ability” and many, many accompanying lectures, LRH came on stage with a cowboy hat and a 45 caliber gun, fired the gun in the air and announced that he had come up with a very efficient way of accomplishing exteriorization and he was calling it “Route 45”. This was done in an entertaining and insouciant manner and not one person attending would have taken this seriously as it was not meant as anything other than a good joke on life and provide another entertaining lecture, as compared to the rather dull academic lectures so commonly given in the 50’s.

              If you really listened to his many lectures with an objective view, as compared to concentrating on out-of-context one-liners, you would discover that LRH constantly and continuously uses anecdotes and little stories, either from his personal life or from historical books and materials, to illustrate better for the audience what he is talking about.

              This was all done in order to ensure his audience got a full conceptional understanding of the subject, so they would be able to apply the technology in auditing and hence obtain results. LRH always tried to explain every law and every piece of technology as clearly as possible so it could result in workable application with little or none left to interpretation.

              This is more than can be said of pretty much any other religious text book. Observe the Bible for example. First of all there are historical evidence that the modern context of the Bible was severely edited both in regards to what would be included, as well as the text itself. This notwithstanding, how many passages in that Bible couldn’t be interpreted three ways from Sunday? As a matter of fact, they have been. Witness the numerous denominations that have sprung up because of it.

              Also, I could take a sentence out of context in the Bible and I could easily turn it into the most satanic statement, AND, I would be quoting the Bible.

              The same goes for the Koran and most other religious works.

              Though I personally agree with a lot of what Buddha taught, as it is mostly common sense, mixed with a strong love for humanity, it is still a fact that the existing scriptures were compiled from verbal memory almost a thousands years after Buddha was alive. A thousand years is a long time for some passages to possibly be altered.

              The amount of LRH writings and lectures which lay out the compassion and love for humanity and treating one’s fellow man well are in the thousands, but people like you get stuck on one sentence. This not only shows a complete lack of comprehension of the subject, but also proves an approach to the study of the technology, not for personal application, but to dissect the information to find faults. There may be faults to find which can be proven, but how important are those few, if any, when there are thousands of workable, constructive and positive truths?

              When one analyzes a subject one has to weigh and compare the data in full otherwise one is doing an incomplete research.

              Now, not many people can easily gobble up ALL the available lectures, books and writings from LRH to instantly form their own opinion, but why not go through some of the latest work of LRH that he issued before he past away, specifically his short booklet, The Way To Happiness. If there is anything that sums up LRH’s way of thinking in a better way than this I’d like to know about it. Nobody in their right mind would come to the conclusion that LRH advocated violence, abuse and what not after reading this, and LRH did state something to the tune of, “If I am to be remembered for any one thing by humankind, let me be remembered for The Way of Happiness.” This is not an exact quote but the concept is right. (Maybe someone could provide the actual quote here.)

              So, in summary Fat Freddy, we can continue to argue about the significance of one or a few out-of-context sentences, or we can look at the bigger picture and I’m willing to bet that nobody who has objectively tried to understand the full overview of LRH’s teachings have ever come to your conclusions.

              • +1

              • Wonderful comment Raul.

                And concerning WTH, that is pretty much spot on. I dont know that anyone here is going to have access to this as it comes from an LRH despatch that I have read a number of times. I have referred to it on this blog before.

                Your contributions to this blog are greatly appreciated.

              • Raul,
                I can’t find the exact references but it is very often mentioned on this blog that the teaching of the Buddha was written down “500-1,000 years after the Buddha’s death and a lot of errors were introduced.” I also get calls from the Flag Land Base and someone always says it to me as a counter point that Buddhism is altered tech. This happened about 3 weeks ago.

                For the record, the actual date of recording is 29 BCE which is exactly 454 years after the Buddha’s death. Also, the system was quite complex. To keep accuracy, there were groups of monks assigned to each major section of passages. The number involved in the retention was extremely large to be sure not one word was missed. Also, in the 5th century BCE before written tradition, there are reports of people with remarkable memories. They did not write so they relied on the memory – different. Also, the Chinese and the original Pali scriptures are almost perfectly identical. It is very difficult to alter the tech because the Buddha in 45 years of teaching said the same thing so many times
                May all beings be well and happy!

                • Sorry George, I should have picked a different example, knowing you would be reading. Also thank you for the correction of the date and the additional information. I have only sketchy knowledge of the subject but would be interested in learning more.

                  I only brought it up to illustrate something as it seemed somewhat likely that something relayed verbally could have some alterations. As I don’t really know, as I wasn’t there, I should probably shut up about now, but I will say that of any world religion, Buddhism has the most sensible philosophy, at least the core fundamentals – not the various (and different) practices around the world. The other is the Tao Te Ching (just a book – not a religion) which Marty has mentioned before. It has more truth written before Jesus Christ than all of the Bible combined. Oh no, now I’m probably stepping on someone else toes…

                  Anyway, good talking to you George. I always curious at your insight and what your personal experiences may be.

        • I’ve just listened to the full set of PDC lectures- unedited, 1980 cassette version. I’m on my second time through at this moment.

          There was no lecture where Ron said to beat someone to get them into PT. For whatever reason.

          So, you go dig up this mystery lecture- tape # and min/secs.

    • Hubbard passed away almost three decades ago. When he was on the lines Scientology was BOOMING. When I routed onto HQS there were 300 people on the Dianetics course in that Org. Hubbard was in New York and he C/Sed me on the Integrity Rundown pilot when it was first released. The place was happy and booming and alive. The fact that Tony can make him responsible for what has happened over the last thirty years only shows that even Tony sees him as source too. People really have a HUGE M.U. on that!

      • I’d likely be dead or in jail if not for LRH’s tech but to say Scientology was ever BOOMING is a joke. I doubt you could find a single Scientology Org staff member from the past 40 years whoever made a living wage or any Org that ever produced more that a few public Cl IVs in a year. There may have been individual Orgs that had decent stats for short periods of time but there has never been an overall sustained Scientology BOOM. About the only stat that expanded was the number of Orgs which pretty much plateaued by the mid 1970s (at least in the U.S.).

        • This is a false report. There have been booms. I saw it myself.

          • I guess it’s all in the definition of what a “Boom”is . Like I said find me one CL IV Org staff member who has made a living wage for any kind of decent time period or a CL IV Org that produced more than a handful of Cl IVs in a year. Hell even LRH said Boston went Saint Hill Size in the mid 1970s but Boston later imploded within a year after the infamous “Command Team” left with their postulate checks between their legs. Sorry but in 35 years traveling around US Orgs my observation was most staff had to moonlight or be supported by spouse and very few auditors were ever been produced.

            • Your definition apparently equals “well paid staff.” I think that is rather myopic.

              • Marty: Staff pay is an indicator as are the number of auditors made and in both cases non one would accuse Scientology of ever having boomed in the past 35 years. I doubt you could go to any city where there has been Org and find more than a handful of auditors and very few of those could actually audit a session to any kind of result. I doubt anyone on this board could prove otherwise. I believe the tech works to a very large degree but the organization has been a failure and has only survived to the degree it has because so many very good people have been willing to work for peanuts for so long. And that would be OK had Scientololgy actually “boomed” but by any measure it never did.

                • Thanks for correcting yourself, without even apparently being conscious of doing so. If anyone wishes to understand that comment, check this guy’s thread. He started out with the assertion there NEVER was any boom. Now he’s amended it to 35 years. He’d be wrong on that score too – but at least there is some sign of case gain.

                  • LOL and nice bull bait! Anyway I “amended” it to 35 years as that’s my actual time spent observing U.S. Scientology Orgs first hand. But I don’t think anyone would argue that there was very nice expansion of the number of Orgs through the 1960s when the Org network (at least in the U.S.) was mostly established but even then I don’t believe there were many if any Cl IV Orgs that were ever “booming”. At least in my travels (and I’ve been to nearly every Cl IV Org in the U.S.) I’ve never seen a “booming” Org. The closest Cl IV Orgs I ever observed “booming” were Stevens Creek and Orange County. The Creek later imploded as did OC when they screwed up the WISE feeder line. Correct me with specifics if I’m wrong.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Check Nancy’s post on missions. Missions boomed for more than a decade.

                    • E4L — Guess you missed DC org when they had 200 students and were delivering 750 hours a week. Or Miami. Or Munich… There are a lot of orgs through the years that have truly been flourishing and prospering. In the last decade, you would not find any org that was “bookiung” only a few that have been propped up for “Ideal Org” PR events that POB was going to attend (wonder what happened to those things — havent seen one since Tampa opened their Ideal Ideal Empty Org?

                    • Expelled 4 Life

                      Marty: I agree on Missions but most if not all later imploded: COSMOD, West End (NYC), SF Mission & Dallas to name a few.

                      Mike: I think I said there were examples of orgs that had very good stats for periods of times but they didn’t last. Miami is a good example. Ditto Boston (see LRH ED 339R) and FCDC. Also I’m only well versed on U.S. Orgs.

                      Opinion: Orgs are too micromanaged and always have been. The real producers in Orgs are are micromanaged from outside the Org and from within the Orgs. I can remember getting orders from my senior, the LRH Comm, the Flag Rep and the FBO. Too many “cooks”. And they were all operating off of approved programs mostly written by Ron. I also think the proportional pay plan is an utter failure. Missions probably did better as they had far less management and fairer pay systems.

                      But let’s get real: Go to Boston, New York, DC, Miami or SF – these are all some of the “better” Orgs that have been around for decades. How many auditors will you find in the field? Almost none. Those that you do find probably don’t know the difference between a C/S 53 and a Green Form let alone the Laws of L & N.

                      Fact: For decades Orgs have produced very, very few auditors and even fewer who could actually audit.

                      Sorry but if there was a “boom” I missed it and any such “boom” didn’t produce but a handful of auditors.

    • Indy’s escape the Church to practize the original LRH legacy; our successes proof it to be unflawed. The flaws are the Church alterations we escape from; their horror proofs it to be their flaws.

  6. Mr. Ortega,

    You oughtta go to Marty’s house and try out some auditing.

    What you might discover is that LRH’s technology is going to keep right on working for as long as man walks the earth.

    This is because it helps when used correctly. And sometimes it helps in a blinding, life-changing way.

    Scientology isn’t going anywhere. The cult that Miscavige has built over the last several decades is not Scientology. And it will die.

    It is easy to write off LRH as a nut job if you’ve never put his technology to the test personally. But in all fairness, if the world could suddenly be witness to the worst, most unethical, most embarrassing things from your own lifetime, would it mean that everything you’ve ever written, produced and been recognized for as a journalist is suddenly bogus? If the world caught you lying, looking at porn, drinking too much or using recreational drugs, would it be fair to then publicly promote the idea that your work is no good and that you are your own worst executioner?

    Hubbard made Scientology. Miscavige made it ruthless and evil. Miscavige is number one on the list. Cruise is number two, due to the highly publicized craziness from ’05. Truth be told, Marty and LRH shouldn’t even be on said list. Frankly, it’s beneath them both. The cult is imploding all by itself. Marty is simply in the unique position of knowing the modus operandi of the cult leader extremely well and is using his knowledge and innate responsibility to evoke important change.

    This is a serious issue with real people being crushed in a very ugly way. Your article is poorly informed and thus is shooting the wrong target. This helps no one.

    Please keep on writing about Scientology but please differentiate a man’s weaknesses (and we all have them), from his life’s positive, helpful, informative and lasting accomplishments.

    With respect,
    Bryan Ubaghs

    • +1 Damn good! Serious thought! Helped me resolve a big issue for myself right on the spot, and it’s plain as day!

    • Scientology is SUBJECTIVE and at best a journalist is OBJECTIVE and as such can miss the mark by a mile. A person who has never had a tech related win, blew charge, changed a life-long condition cannot put the subject in proper context and weigh what is important from what is trivial (Eagle Scout vs NED auditing).
      Tobin and J Reitman put in their pieces “people believe in results” (they were trying to be fair) but that was about all they could say. They couldn’t attest to its workability, nor in their mind, is it a FACT THEY CAN SUBSTANTIATE AS A REPORTER therefore it does get “much ink”. What do get attention are the sensational details that both they and their readers can understand. So Tony O’s finale was not a surprise, though he seemed to take a real pleasure in ripping LRH.
      We live in a sound bite culture and for anyone who has not experienced auditing or training what is mostly like to stick with them is the outrage over abuse in the church. First impressions matter and those researching the church today are not likely to come away with a good impression.
      Regime and policy change is a requirement; unfortunately we have had to go external to force it. By going external we have laid out dirty laundry that creates a long PR “road to hoe” in changing the perception of Scientology as a subject. We want people to differentiate the theology from the actions of its members but that is easier said than done. If you doubt that just look at the Catholic Church. The bible does not advocate Priests molesting children but those crimes/cover-up crippled their PR, membership and collections.

    • Brilliant!! Comment of the year, IMO.

    • Great post Bryan!!

  7. Tony Ortega was duped and swallowed the Gerry Armstrong LIES and HATRED.

    He is best friends with Scott Pilutik’s.

    Tony Ortega bought the Scott Pilutik’s story (i.e. Gerry Armstrong version) hook line and sinker….

    Gerry Armstrong posts as VEDA on ESMB and word for word the sentences are Gerry Armstrong sentences.

    • There are other witnesses who served under Hubbard. E.g. Hana Whitfield or Sharon Stainforth.
      All I’m trying to say is that Tony’s (and my) opinion surely is not solely based on Mr. Armstrong’s claims.

    • If Scott Pilutik is pushing the “Gerry Armstrong version,”, why then, when I search Armstrong’s own site, I find that Armstrong has reproduced IRC logs of Pilutik and others (including myself) criticizing Gerry for being a first-class nutcase? Speaking only for myself, I’d be very annoyed if someone said that I was following a Gerry Armstrong line, when I’ve made it abundantly clear over the past I don’t know how many years that I think Gerry is absolutely crazy. I really think you need to look elsewhere for your boogeyman, maybe it’s the facts that are bedeviling you?

      • Mirele :

        You and I agree on on one issue Gerry Armstrong is crazy.
        Of note he never points out any Miscavige abuse, he only attacks LRH and he does it with venom.
        I don’t think there is a more TOXIC poster on ESMB than VEDA (Gerry Armstrong).
        Wonder why he would reproduce IRC logs of Pilutik naming him a nut case.?
        See this linkhttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/saddam-bill-wgert-and-me.html

        Gerry offers himself a hostage for torture and grandiosely declares he will reduce nuclear arsenal. The babblings of a nut !

        • Gerry was gone before DM took control. That may explain it. I could be wrong but last time I saw Gerry was November 81 and he was extremely beefed up about life.

        • VEDA on ESMB will not publicly say who he is and insists that he must remain anonymous. This is absurd because a public figure such as Brian Embry then he would not need to hide his identity.

          VEDA is Gerry Armstrong and his 2D Caroline. They spew hatred as VEDA so they can have a sockpuppet. Meanwhile they pose as the sanctimonious and pious windbags as Gerry and Caroline on OCMB.

          Gerry is at the effect of LRH and has always been.

          • “Veda” has admitted to being the researcher for “Messiah or Madman” on ESMB.

            Gerry does share some of the attitudes of “Veda”, but a closer read of them both will bring out the differences.

          • ED ~~
            With all due respect no researcher/independent assisting the writing of a book, could have such mad-dog-rabies attacks on LRH.
            And why on earth would Brian Embry want to attack Marty and Mike as a full time occupation?
            Come On Come on.
            Never in the history of ESMB has Emma so quickly defended an outing even rushing to assert IP addresses were incorrect.
            Ahhhhhhhhh the cover is blown.
            You see, it has been corroborated more than you know.

            Gerry Armstrong = VEDA on Ex-Scientology message board.

            • ED:::
              The problem with Gerry is that when he took $800,000 in hush money, he agreed to $50,000 fine for each breach of contract.
              And Veda has 6300+ posts on ESMB attacking LRH, The Church and Mike and Marty.
              Each of the 6300 violations are $50,000 a pop.
              Gerry Armstrong never finds anything wrong with Miscavige or current management. Only Marty, Mike, the Indies and LRH !
              I apologise if I am giving Armstrong a lot of space on this site today.
              He has been so Toxic for so long with no defense from M and M so I am going to come out swinging.
              Gerry is a user and a con man who grabbed $800k from the church to shut
              up and go away. Then he wiped his bottom with
              that contract and took money from people to appear an expert witness.
              The church sued and the court ruled that Gerry broke a contract. That’s
              all. Gerry broke a contract. Gerry bawled about this. The Marin court
              finally had it with Gerry’s mouth and ruled him in contempt of court and
              gave him a jail sentence. Gerry turned this into a whiny screed that
              has lasted for decades about how he is being persecuted and will be
              killed in jail.
              How Marty and Mike need to help him while he screams venom about them every 2 hours.
              Gerry is a staledated ethics particle who had his day in the sun.

              • Obviously Mr. Armstrong is not “staledated” if Mr. Control Signal cannot control himself enough to just stop paying him any attention. Gerry has his own issues to work through so please just shut up about him already. Has he appealed to you personally for support? Then communicate with him directly about that. Not here.

                LRH said:

                The following is now laid down as policy:

                There is so much good in the worst of us
                And so much bad in the best of us
                That it ill behooves any of us
                To talk about the rest of us.

              • I am well and personally familiar with Gerry’s “whiny screeds”.

                I wonder at your motivations in supporting the church’s line on Gerry.

                I sympathize with Gerry’s feelings that Mike and Marty have not been as forthcoming as some (he for one) would like, about time form place and event of the church’s past.

                I believe that the chaos and disruption he and others cause is necessary to break the established order regarding scientology. It is unpleasant, but brings to view issues we all have failed to confront.

                The money you talk of was all drained away fighting the church’s legal attacks, the very same type of situation the church is trying to get Marty in. Dissemble much?

                I am familiar with both “Veda’s” and Gerry’s writings and there is a substantial difference in focus and style.

                Who would ever have thought that I would write in (meager partial) defense of Gerry? Not me, but there it is.

            • The fact that Emma publicly comments on her members IP address’s is more troubling to me that whether or not Gerry=Veda.

              And your stream of comments is very interesting as you seem in support of a church favorable line.

              If you were to assert that Gerry Armstrong was Bent Corydon’s researcher/assistant in the creation of “Madman or Messiah” I would consider you to have made an argument worthy of being discussed.

              Your first sentence “no researcher/independent assisting the writing of a book, could have such mad-dog-rabies attacks on LRH.” is non sequitur.

          • Who gives a fuck who VEDA is?

            Why do you care?

        • Thanks, Margaret, for this and your other incredibly well-researched posts.

        • It would have been polite, Margaret, if you had asked me first before posting my email address. (So I could have said no)

          And also the freezone mailing list is closed membership, and it is also impolite to post from closed groups to open ones without asking.

          I don’t believe I know you. I will make it my business to correct that.

  8. Marty,

    “Worse, you aid and abet a dangerous sociopath by providing him with the ultimate defense – Hubbard made him do it.”

    Pretty much sums it up for me. Thanks for this reasoned and measured response.

  9. The enemies of my enemies are not necessarily my friends. Sam forbade me to post here but hopefully she won’t be too harsh on me for saying what I feel must be said.

  10. Hubbard has touched my life in such a positive way, I can’t imagine doing anything other than love him warts and all.
    I’m truely sorry some feel they must hate him and blame him their ills. I’m not one of those people and I consider him a friend.
    “Responsibilities gravitate to the person who can shoulder them; power flows to the man who knows how” Elbert Hubbard circa early 1900’s

  11. This calmed my anger I’ve had all day, since reading Ortega’s article.

  12. A guy finds some breakthroughs and writes them up.
    People try out a step, or two, from his approach and like the results.
    Word spreads.

    That was, and is, the simplicity.

    Thanks once again Marty for dealing with the complexities.

  13. Ortega seems to be the kind of “journalist” that is interested in keeping his readership stats up more than truth.
    As for Gerry Armstrong, one needs only to look at the degraded state of his personal presentation.

  14. Thank you Marty!

  15. Marty,

    I’ve been following your blog since you first started. I’ve commented randomly. Mostly complimenting you on things you’ve done that I’ve admired. This isn’t one of them. I applaud Tony Ortega for stating THE TRUTH. He did not sugar coat, as you do not on the things that you are passionate about. I know LRH policy is to “attack the attacker”, but I think you should reexamine what you are doing here. You label Russel Miller’s piece as a “propaganda tool”, but I challenge you to refute, with facts, anything in that book.

    You find solace and enlightenment in the teachings of LRH. However, there are scores of us who have found only confusion and pain. My father abandoned me (at 2 months) and my mother after adopting the LRH concept of how children are simply fully adult thetans in a smaller body. Therefore, he did not need to “father” anyone.

    I don’t expect you to post this, and, based on the responses I’ve seen from you towards others who try to engage you in intelligent debate, a cold and truculent response is what I should expect. However, I hope you will surprise me.

    I do admire you, Marty (and especially Mosey!), and I think you are trying to do the right thing here. Just know that from the bottom of my heart.

    Love and good things to you…. 🙂

    • wogson,

      I challenge you to refute, with facts, anything in Dianetics.

      Love and good things to you …. 🙂

      • Carcha,

        I’d be up to that challenge. I’m not sure how much time you have, though. For starters, LRH said that “Clears don’t get colds.” My pop went Clear in the mid-eighties. Since that time he’s had colds, bronchitis, and pneumonia at least once. Jason Beghe went Clear twice. I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet he’s had colds, too.

        Cheers.

        • Watch the Clearing Congress films. You are cherry picking like a spectator.

        • Looking at the intervening posts, congrats on looking. Not everyone is able to separate emotions from facts and logic. The ability to experience emotions fully in the present, as appropriate to existing situations, unencumbered by long-past situations, and the ability to look, is what Dianetics is about. These are natural abilities. I’d stress the ability to fully experience emotions, especially positive ones. The book “Self-Analysis” gives lists of questions that one can do all on one’s own.

      • The only empirical scientific examinations of claims of Dianetics have falsified them. See the “Science and Dianetics” chapter of Jeff Jacobsen’s _The Hubbard is Bare_: http://www.xenu-directory.net/opinions/jacobsen19940524-5.html

        If Scientology or Dianetics “work,” for any definition of “work,” then it should be possible to empirically demonstrate some objective measure under which people using Scientology or Dianetics do better than those who don’t. Is there any evidence that Scientology clears are happier, healthier, live longer, are more successful, have fewer colds, have fewer divorces, engage in less abuse of tobacco or alcohol, are more intelligent, or perform better on any other measure than the general population? If not, why not?

    • I agree with you wogson –
      I am also a little confused by the tone of the responses here …and all of the snippy responses to any sense of support for Mr. Ortega. I though you were all so glad to be out from under these horrible policies that were layered over what you feel are good, true , usable “tech”. So why is it such a big deal that Hubbard was say , a little whacky or eccentric ? ( to be delicate ) You have all turned into the gaggle of the movie ” Heathers”.

      “In the end, Tony is simply not looking at the entirety of L. Ron Hubbard, and the subject of Scientology. He approaches the man, and the subject, with blinders on, hoping only to find things that confirm his preconceptions”

      This man is a professional – his job is to not have blinders on , and i believe he does that job very well .

      “I guess we thought Tony was an ally. Maybe he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Maybe he is naive. Maybe he is greedy… Maybe all of the above.”

      that is just a mean thing to say to another person . that is personal ..has nothing to do with the article or opposition to it . i know everyone here is an adult . I also know that the internet gives us some freedom to express things in a tone that we – as adults – might not do otherwise …but what is the goal of your movement ?? On the one hand …you want as much help exposing the crazy stuff miscavige is doing …to the outside world . Great …lots of us who support human rights – not just scietologists rights _ are on your side and spread the word . Let’s say there are ..for the sake of argument …there have been 200 brand new viewers to this blog in the past month . Say not one has ever read an LRH book , never been in a sci building , yadda yadda . ( and have intention to )

      How do you think the first impression has gone so far ? Until today ? I think what Mr. Rathburn has been going through with the t-shirt retards , Berlin , video of the talk show in Berlin , more defections , all looking pretty good for
      the indie’s – not good for the short nut job …and all along the way …Mr. Ortega helping to get the word out . Even if only 75% of what he wrote about Hubbard and some of the things he did to other human beings ,are true, he was crazy- .can’t rationalize it …so what ?? there have been some murdering Popes and TONS of baby fuckers in the Catholic Church – they don’t defend the Popes – ( ok yes …they defend the baby fuckers but exposure makes it harder )if the “tech” is what works …like the psalms work for some Catholics …why protest to Hubbard being #1 ?? Ortega has been researching and writing about the sci subject for a long time – these statements he wrote interests me as being part of the answer

      ( about Hubbard ) “he provided no mechanism for Scientology to alter itself (like, say, the U.S. Constitution) or grow from his shadow.
      AND

      “By making Scientology the most important thing in Scientology, Hubbard rendered Scientologists subordinate to the religion, in turn rendering fundamentalism the norm as opposed to the exception”

      your tenents/ tech either works for you , or it does not . The basic message seems to be a positive , self help , self reflecting type of thing ( at the first level of the onion ..like most “religions”) why not just be positive with that ? instead …you start to sound like nutty cult followers …a defense of non sense like a Squeaking Fromme . Seems most here – and Misgavige – are on the same side with one thing …making sure the legacy of the guy who started the roller coaster to begin with …stays looking good . Define irony . THAT is what is looks like to ppl who
      “has no subjective reality on Scientology” (and for good reason )

      .

      • Well said, Kim. 🙂

      • Kim, I am following your reasoning here.

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and in most cases “truth” is relative, i.e. what is true to you from your observations and experience, may not be true to me or others, and vice versa.

        As this is Marty’s own blog and he has a certain line of experience and certain truths that are undeniable truths for him, I would think that he would defend the points he made. Wouldn’t you if someone was countering you on something you knew, because of your broad experience, to undeniably true?

        I cannot talk for Marty, but I would say that he is fairly tolerant for personal views and opinions, and he is respectful of other beliefs, but when someone is trying to shove something down his throat that he doesn’t believe to be correct, I understand fully that he wouldn’t be entirely compassionate towards that person and in that moment.

        One thing I think is important to differentiate is that LRH’s writings concern auditing, training and how to run an organization.

        He did write some works on the subject of children and marriage, but even on these they were written in relation to auditing in most cases.

        There were some books published on this subject, but these were not “written” by LRH, but based on compilations, mainly from lectures, of passages where children and marriage were mentioned.

        LRH never purported to write a textbook on anything other than Scientology auditing and training and he even jokes in his lectures how the one thing he never got to understand was women.

        Scientologists have however (incorrectly in my own humble opinion) tried to apply what LRH said to every facet of their life. The basic technology could be applied to every facet of life, but when one is taking individual statements from lectures that were meant for a specific application, usually related to auditing, and making them “apply” to random things in life (because it was the “only thing” they could find in writing by LRH) then one is not only NOT applying the technology, but we enter the field of something that could be classified as robotic.

        The other factor to consider is what circumstances LRH was in when he made the decisions he made. With the amount of legal pressure he was under, not to mention the last years of false reports from DM, how would you have handled it? Maybe you would have acted differently, but my point in bringing it up is that he wasn’t in any sort of normal circumstances for a family man, or any regular person for that matter, not to mention that he dedicated his life to spreading a technology he considered would benefit man.

        I have also spoken to numerous old-timers who were around when LRH was directly running things and from their accounts LRH was fairly reasonable about family matters. For example, if an SO member got pregnant they took an LOA until the kid was school age to be able to take care of the kid. I’m sure there were exceptions to the rule, but considering the SO was the highest order of the Church, one can only compare to other high orders of religions and consider how they deal with the subject. Munks and nuns aren’t even allowed to have a family, but this is generally accepted by society as a rule. One could shoot holes in this, but because there seem to be a common acceptance, one usually doesn’t hear any flack in this corner. But what’s the difference really? Just people’s personal considerations of what’s right and wrong, coupled with the general acceptance of the society around them, coupled with the fact that it isn’t particularly news-worthy at this stage and hence not controversial.

        I think if one gave allowance for the fact that LRH wrote a technology for how to spiritually advance humanity into being more rational and compassionate and improving conditions, and was not attempting to write manuals on how to rear children, or how to exercise, or how to stay physically healthy (though he may have done a few comments on these subjects), etc., then it becomes easier to differentiate the real truths of everything that can be found on the internet. I believe Marty agrees somewhat with what I’m saying and from this standpoint one could understand all the arguments and comments on this blog a bit better.

        I’m not even trying to argue against you Kim, you’re just hitting on a disagreement I get with reading some of these comments which shows to me that someones opinion(s) may have been formed despite shallow research and experience. Again, opinions are allowed, but surely someone who has a strong foundation of knowledge behind what they consider true will defend attacks to spread unsubstantiated falsehoods, or incomplete information, no matter who respectful he is of others beliefs.

        Thanks for listening.

        • This Raul cat is on fire, imho.

        • Transcendent wisdom!

        • Hi Raul,

          Great post. I am a big stickler about people doing their research before forming an opinion. That includes both sides of an argument. Scientology has been a part of my life since birth. My mom made sure that I did not enter the organization directly because she deemed it dangerous, but I’ve read all the books, been audited, etc. It hasn’t really done anything for me other than create confusion. However, Marty has turned me on to the Clearing Congress films which I intend to watch (thanks, Marty!). I wasn’t familiar with these so I think the responsible and pragmatic thing for me to do is to view them with an open mind.

          I must say that the basic tenet of Scientology, which you stated in the opening of your post, has always confused me since I was a child. “True is what is true for you.” Out of all the “word clearing” that Scientologists do, I think they missed this one. Truth is “a verified or indisputable fact.” It isn’t open to interpretation. Something is either true or it is not true. It isn’t relative.

          When you base an entire belief system on the concept that facts are relative and all you need to do is “will” truth and fact into existence, you get the kind of controversy associated with Scientology. People who understand the actual meaning of the word “truth” take issue with this dogma, and with good reason. LRH did a good job when he kind of blurred the line between the concept of fact and belief. He’s not alone, however. Most religions do this, just not so insidiously.

          It is a common theme among “true-believers” to say to the skeptic, “well, you just don’t get it.” Please consider that perhaps they do get it. They just don’t agree.

          Cheers.

          • If that datum is confusing to you, then I would not waste your time on the tapes or any other Scientology study. Really.

            • Why not? I’d like to understand. I’m trying to understand. Can you not help me? Am I not making an effort? This is extremely frustrating. Really.

              • Hello Wogson

                First I want to say I am sorry that your father abandonned you when you where two months old.
                Being a thetan in a small body just means that you have to respect the baby as a real person,not as an animal which could only eat and cry and sleep.A baby is a person and as such has a personnality and perceives and responds to the environment.I have never seen a two months old baby being able to care for itself,change itself,go to the grocery store….you see what I mean.A baby and a child needs someone to take care of him,physically but also emotionnaly :have you seen a baby smile when you talk to him? or intellectually:the child has to learn from someone:there are books but there is also lead by example…
                Regarding the relative truth:take ten people,put something over their eyes,so they cannot see.Put them around a huge elephant,and tell them not to move.They can only use their hands to perceive the animal in front of them:One will feel the trunk,one the right anterior foot,one the left anterior foot,one the tail…Each has his own “truth” about what they have in front of them:it is the same animal,but they each have a different reality.If you allow each person to move a little,they will have the same reality than the person next to them,but will still disagree with the person on the other side of the elephant.
                If you take the blindfolds off,they will have the same reality for the animal,because they will then be able to see the whole elephant .But at each point they were sure that they perceived the truth…
                So things can be relative to the environment,the experience you have had before…The more you study a subject,the more your viewpoint can shift..
                I hope this helps

                Sandra

                • Thank you, Sandra. Your post is very kind and understanding. 🙂 I get it. My only point is that there’s an elephant there! It doesn’t matter that you had a different reality on it until the blindfold was off. At the end of the day, it’s still an elephant. I think you get that too, though. 🙂

                  Much love to you!!!

              • OK, I’ll try to put what you called “True is what is true for you” into perspective.
                Hubbard said that to point out that it doens’t matter what he or some other person says, it wouldn’t be a true statement to the listener unless the listener has sufficient information or experience to see that it is true.
                A case in point is what Galileo Galilei said about the Earth not being the center of the universe. It took a long time before the Catolic church accepted that as truth. Before that point, it was true to the church that the Earth was the center of the universe, that is what “True is what is true for you” means.
                You are confusing “true for you” with “ultimate truth”. That the Earth was the center of the universe was truth for the chuch, while the ultimate truth the whole time was that the sun is the center around which the Earth moves, while only being a tiny part of a galaxy, etc.
                What is true for you might not actually be what is the utlimate truth in a certain question, but you act upon what you consider to be true. That is all, and once in a while you might find that you’ll have to change what is true for you, based on new information or new experiences. That’s the process of living and learning.

          • Wogson, I think I’m following your reasoning here.

            Truth, as a thing unto itself, is not relative. If you got this idea from my above post then I’m very sorry.

            Truth in Scientology is nothing different than the pure dictionary definition.

            What you do have however, and that is nothing unique to Scientology, is that there are certain ultimate truths. For example, in this physical universe there are certain physical laws which react a certain way when effect by elements from within the physical universe. Those laws are numerable and could be considered truths within the physical universe.

            But “truth” can also be what is true for an individual based on his own reality of things. Let’s say you witness a robbery and you see a guy in a red jacket stealing a purse. You saw it and you have no doubt that this is the case. It is true for you and you would swear on it.

            Now, there was a second witness and that witness swears the guy in the red jacket was trying to help the victim and the victim gave him his purse. The second witness sees this to be true and he swears it is the case.

            Obviously, the exact truth in this case can only be one thing, but for each of the two witnesses, there are two scenarios which are true to each one of them. This is what I mean with relative. Yes, one of them is wrong, or maybe both are wrong.

            But in Scientology personal integrity and “what is true for you, is true” teaches that as long as you stick to what you have observed as “truth” you will remain mentally sound, in a very simple explanation. It doesn’t much matter if your “truth” can be disproved. What matters is that you stick to what your own personal integrity tells you is right or true.

            This is one aspect of Scientology and it is directly related to personal integrity, which is directly related to case state and case gain.

            Then there is the matter of the laws and axioms of Scientology. These are truths in themselves as they have been proven workable with no exceptions when applied exactly. These are not to be confused with a person’s own reality and his own truths.

            Where Scientology is unique is that you are not forced to make these truths your own truths, as you would violate your own personal integrity, and hence worsen your own state of case. However, LRH wrote millions of words and recorded thousands of lectures to enable you to dissect these truths and put them into application to empirically observe that they are in fact, if not ultimate truths, at least very workable. This is what you learn in training to audit.

            You have to be willing to have some faith in these truths until you have practiced them and seen for yourself that they are in fact workable, but it still has to be within your own reality and acceptance or they will not result in case gain, for yourself or those you try to apply it to.

            So, as you get more trained and get up the Bridge, your own truths have a tendency to align with axioms and laws of Scientology as well as many other truths and you start seeing things for what they really are. It is a gradient scale approach.

            One could say that the top of the Bridge could be said to be the Ultimate Truth and the road there is a gradient scale of finding more and more truths leading up to the Ultimate Truth.

            Now, the official Scientology has started to reverse this process and you are indoctrinated to have blind faith and adhere to certain truths whether or not they are true to you, and even in auditing some levels and applications have been altered to force you into a certain conclusion without it being your own truth. This is done, as far as I can see, for whatever crazy motives of David Miscavige, as well as pure monetary gain.

            These various situations can of course cause a lot of confusion.

            Seeing the Clearing Congress films is a VERY good idea. Not only do you get a very good idea of LRH himself, but he very much touches on this subject and if what I wrote above doesn’t clarify it for you, then I would think it will by seeing those films.

            But, you have to see those films with an open mind, i.e. if you already have pre-conceived ideas about some things which you are not willing to shake, then you may not benefit. One can only learn if one knows oneself that one doesn’t know all, and that there are new things to learn. So if you watch them with that attitude I’m sure things will sort out for you.

            Hope this helped.

    • I mean ( have NO intention to )

    • LRH implemented family time every day for staff. He loved his wives and raised a big family. He even thought that mothers should take at least 6 years to raise their kids before working in the SO.

    • Hey wogson,

      Just a little comment. The whole adult thetans in a smaller body may be true, however I believe the article you are attempting to reference is How To Live with Children wherein what you say is spoken of, but it is also very true that LRH states in the same article that guidance is the responsibility of the father/mother. Therefore to me, this means being “fathered” as you put it.

      Perhaps your dad had a misunderstood on the subject or some such confusion. I’d check that out before throwing away the entire subject based on your father’s misinterpretation (no disrespect) of what LRH was attempting to get across.

      To me, and this is my interpretation, one is supposed to be “guided” or “fathered” but the parent must have respect for and understanding with a being who is learning (or re-learning if you believe in past lives), the ropes and how to get along in life. I’m sorry if this was not the case for you.

      I have observed Scientology parents to be some of the worst and best. The best ones I have observed really understood the hat of a parent and duplicated the data on handling children. The worst parents were the ones who assumed “we’re all just thetans, no empathy, no understanding, grow up, you’re a Scientologist now, you’re going on course now, etc etc”. Those parents never really understood that doing such was the worst way to raise a child. I’m fortunate enough to have had both kinds of parents and combined with my reading on the subject (in the now unpublished 2D book) I was able to put things together much later with a good understanding having lived with good control and bad control. I hope I’ve been clear with my writing here.

      FOS

      • Hey FOS,

        Thanks for this. Your writing was crystal and your point is well taken.🙂 It may not have been the “use” of LRH principals but rather the “misuse” that prompted my dad to behave the way he did. I had not really considered that.

        However, I would counter that the same thinking could be applied to the way Scientologists view psychiatry and psychology.

        Cheers.

  16. Those quotes and the criticism of the “official” version of LRH early history are very commonly used as “proof” that the whole subject of Scientology is for the birds.
    I’ve been responding to the same false ideas for some time on Swedish web sites, though not as eloquent as you put it.
    Maybe I’ll just translate your answer next time the same ignorant viewoints are voiced, and then just link to this page for the original text.

    • Thank goodness for a sensible voice here at last.

      Scientology may well work for a number of people, but that is no excuse to cover up or lie for and on behalf of ANYONE, especially the founder.

  17. Not surprised at Ortega’s list.
    The whole thing was always a farce and the only truly surprising thing is that this community fell for it…again.
    The next time anyone feels the urge to get their name in print or chum up to media types, keep in mind their agenda is vastly different than your own.
    And those of you who swoon at the promotion of your favorite hero on some media outlet or “documentary” or whatever, remember this as well;
    You’re being had, used, played, conned, bamboozled…fill in the blank.

    • “This community’? How arrogant and inaccurate. “Fell for” what? And who are you targeting with “swooning” over “favorite heros”?
      Marty on Mosey’s computer.

      • You, me, Amy, Jeff H, Tom DV, Chris Guider, Jackson, Christie and anyone else who has ever stood up in the media or spoken to law enforcement. I guess David L knows better, or best…

      • “This community” is well…this community. The people who read your blog and feel a sense of “community” therein. “Arrogant and inaccurate” to identify this as a community? hardly
        “Fell for what? That Ortega was somehow gonna be different. I seriously doubt you or anyone else saw LRH as # 1 coming. Two weeks ago, would anyone reading here have guessed at #1? Yesterday? Just sayin, the surprise to me is that anyone was surprised. He had LRH picked from the beginning I bet. Even while he was pretending to be your friend and compadre.
        “Swooning over favorite hero’s” is a reference to future expose’s and media events. Wait and see how you feel while watching Bunkers “Knowledge Report” for example. If anyone thinks the subject or LRH is gonna look anything other than a complete farce…well..as they say in the South, “Bless your heart”.
        I’m not a fan of people getting their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of LRH and the subject. (inserted unpopular comment there) So just chalk me up as not subscribing to the rationale that it’s necessary to depose the tyrant. I disagree.
        The media’s job is to report on, or in some cases create controversy.
        Conflict, strife and scandal are their stock-in-trade. They are advertiser-dollar driven and haven’t the slightest care in the world about saving souls.
        I’m not saying be rude or impolite to them. But don’t be surprised

        Sorry if it sounded arrogant. I was pissed and hadn’t vented yet.

        • Yeah, arrogant. I didn’t fall for anything. I communicate. Some people pick it up. If someone does something unfair they hear from me.
          m on m’s computer

        • Well David, I predicted he would be No. 1 as a number of people that read this blog can attest. What’s your point?

          And as for your statement that you dont subscribe to the rationale that it’s necessary to depose the tyrant — well, your compassion for those who are abused as a result is much appreciated. You just go on living your life and let others take care of doing something about it. But don’t sit in judgment of them, it makes you look arrogant and self-centered.

          • My comment about deposing the tyrant was not well stated. Of course the tyrant must go. The sooner the better. I meant, with admitted poor sentence structure, that pandering to Ortega types has little impact on that effort.
            So with that clarified, I’ll give your side comment a pass. If you read it as me saying there was no need to depose the tyrant then I can see your confusion.

            • Thanks for your gracious understanding of my confusion caused by your poor sentence structure.

              Now that I understand what you really meant — that in fact the tyrant must go — I can, without confusion, state that I am still of the opinion that you are clueless.

              If you understood what motivates the tyrant, you would understand how wrong you are in your opinion that “pandering to Ortega types has little impact on that effort.” But clearly it would be pointless to explain this to you.

              • I agree with David’s statement that you quote. I don’t pander to anybody. Nor, however, is my goal the removal of a tyrant.

        • David, I too predicted — weeks ago — that Ortega would pick LRH as #1. When I realized it a couple weeks ago, I felt betrayed. But at the same time, I can’t say that I was surprised. Tony Ortega has never allowed himself to go outside his comfort zone to honestly understand Scientology or LRH …he’d no doubt feel like he was being “brainwashed” if he found any value in the subject. It’s self-imposed thought-stopping, of course, but it’s pretty common amongst the irrational critics.

        • Excellent post.

          Ortega is just another small-fries Merchant of Chaos Troll, not to be taken seriously.

          His entire “The People who destroyed Scientology” Series is totally sub-moronic to begin with.

          The press is impartial, and in that in the end they stick the knife into everybody involved in any Controversy.

          “In all the history of Scientology no interviewing reporter ever helped. They all meant the worst when they acted their best and we are always sorry ever to have spoken. Even if the reporter is all right, his newspaper isn’t and will twist his story. We have done best when we have blocked off reporters and worst when we’ve been nice.”

          (HCO PL 26 Dec 66 PTS SECTIONS, PERSONNEL AND EXECS)

          “In other words, the moment a reporter discovered that he could not write a bad story, he did not want to write any story. And this applies to reporters who are “friendly,” who promise faithfully all good intent and good press, and who have even been processed successfully. They wrote knowingly inaccurate libel, whatever they said.

          If this is the general intent of the public press, then it is our experience that interviews are better forgotten and that press releases should not be engaged upon and that reporters should not be granted interviews, whatever they promise. Dianetics and Scientology would have made far more progress had there been no single word about them in the public presses.”

          (Ability Mag ca. March 1955)

          “Conflict must be injected where there is none. Therefore the press has to dream up upset and conflict.

          So any time spent trying to convince press Scientology works is time spent upsetting a reporter.

          On “(4) People pass it along to others,” press feels betrayed. Nobody should believe anything they don’t read in the papers. How dare word-of-mouth exist?”

          (HCO PL 10 Dec 63 THE DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT)

          “There is also friendly press. But a friendly-talking reporter is often the most suspect. He was so nice in the interview, so vicious in his article.

          The brand of black propaganda is very easy to see in writing twists.”

          (HCO PL 21 Nov 72 ISsue 1, HOW TO HANDLE BLACK PROPAGANCA)

          Also, the following are good reads:

          HCO PL 14 Aug 63 PRESS POLICIES
          HCO PL 11 MAY 1971 Issue II (PR Series 6) OPINION LEADERS

          • Thanks for the ref’s Formost.
            I was accused of being “clueless” by Mike R above for trying to convey LRH’s attitude on the subject.
            I think I’ll stick with LRH.

            Anyone else that doesn’t think engaging the Press is the best or only strategy, please have a look at this:
            http://www.freeheber.com/index.php?title=Reform_Strategy

            • David, who said the “best” or “only.” It is this apparently habitual propensity of yours to redefine what people state to then tear it down that got me refuting you in the first place. The very habit I was chastising Tony Ortega for. Think for yourself my man, and get out of the rut of having to live by “quotes”, whether those quotes are L Ron Hubbard or God.

              • I once had a discussion with someone who was very close to LRH. It was on this point of people insisting that they wouldn’t do anything unless LRH said to do it. The person’s response was that LRH “was a very smart man. But he expects us to be smart too.”

                I thought that said it all.

            • Anyone else that doesn’t think engaging the Press is the best or only strategy …

              It’s just, what LRH stated is inevitably going to happen, and if one is doing Scientology either in the Church or the Freezone, I would think the above posted References would apply.

        • ” So just chalk me up as not subscribing to the rationale that it’s necessary to depose the tyrant. I disagree.”

          So you enjoy having a tyrant at the helm of your religion?
          I toyed with your sentence above again and again and I keep coming up with the same conclusi

          • Please revise the last sentence – let’s not turn this into name calling – I know I used an adjective, but let’s not escalate to nouns.

        • David:

          I read Marty’s blog everyday. I also started following Tony Ortega’s blog some time ago.

          I was absolutely certain LRH would be #1. NOT because I wanted LRH as #1 but because I read enough of the comments and subsequent replies from Tony.

          I’m unwilling to do the usual. Put PEOPLE into BOXES. All journalists are bad. Don’t care about saving souls.

          All commenters on Marty’s blog are good.

          All women are weak.

          All men are dogs.

          I mean — when do those BOXES get mitigated with … well, some men aren’t dogs. 🙂

          Individuals, one conversation at a time, mitigate BOX mentality.

          Mindful speech it’s called.

          WH

    • Some people just lack the intelligence to understand Scientology.

  18. If you were to study Sir Isac Newton, independent of his scientific discoveries, you’d think he was a complete crackpot. The brightest people I know don’t usually fit inside the bell curve of “acceptable thinking” because…well, they don’t think inside that friggin’ confining bell. Bright boys and girls just don’t see things like “normal people.”

    Thank God! Otherwise, humans would be living in caves.

    Also, the more dynamic an individual, the more “apparent” his/her flaws. A meek and meager personality could have the same flaw as a greater portion of their beingness and no one would notice. But, in a huge personality, a flaw can have the force available to a couple of normal people, while being just a fraction of the energy available. Like an elephant stepping on your toe as opposed to a flea jumping up and down on it.

    So, that the average person on this planet doesn’t understand LRH is no surprise. That the average person can’t put all aspects of LRH in perspective is no surprise.

    Been there, done that with this article in the Voice. Just another blip in the radar that fades into the past–rather than a creative impulse that builds toward the future.

    • Very astute comments, OUAT! You nailed the heart of the matter.

      • Publius

        Thank you. I shall add it to my collection. But, I’m not sure whether to add it to my heart collection or my nail collection. I’m afraid that removing the nail might reduce the value, sort of like taking a collectible toy out of the wrapper.

    • Yes, Michael, not too shabby. Not too shabby at all.

      You touch on a prevalent technique these days — the legal term I think is ad hominem. There is no real data or observation presented. it’s about the character(s) and the flaws. News, politics, salespeople, children, adults tend way to much to go into these significances and avoid like some black plague anything remotely resembling observable data, actions, effects. Ah, that would require something on the order of TR0.

      • Bruce,

        Here’s an entertaining question, “when does confront cease to be an exercise/drill?”

        • Oh, Mikey, you favour me with a question! Thank you!

          Confront is never an exercise/drill. It is a native ability that one just might be able to recover. TRs help one recover it. As a native ability, it can be exercised, yes, but I don’t think that use fits.

          So it goes in my universe. Work for yours, although it may not be yours?

          Bruce

  19. Marty,

    Thanks, and I agree with you 100%.

    Tony has no subjective reality on Scientology, so it is not possible for him to see any forest. He is stuck on the trees, most of which are old and dead, that wood having been chopped a hundred times already.

    The thing that cannot be denied is that while L. Ron Hubbard was alive, his ideas and writings (NOT his biography) spawned a movement that circled the globe. If you believe all the “anti-hagiography” statements, this all occurred despite his false war record, bigamy, not having a pilot’s license etc etc. Of course it did! Those are red herrings. Interesting biographical material, but irrelevant to the subject of Scientology. In 50 years I have never met a *single* person who got involved in Dianetics and Scientology or remained in it because of L. Ron Hubbard’s biography, hagiography or any other graphy. And I suspect not a soul has left the church for that reason either.

    Tony seems to subscribe to the Tommy Davis school of illogic he so famously used with the New Yorker. As Tommy Two Tone so brilliantly posited it: “If his war record isn’t true, the Dianetics and Scientology are based on a lie and can’t be true either” Tony’s version: “Hubbard’s biographical whoppers are an integral and inseparable part of Scientology’s own history and public image, Scientology’s and Hubbard’s credibility are likewise forever fused together.” Now that is disappointing. Tony Ortega following in Tommy’s footsteps!

    What Tony didn’t seem to notice or comment on is that what had grown through the mid 80’s has been being steadily dismantled by Miscavige NOT because he has lied about Hubbard’s biography, and not because he has been an abusive, power hungry megalomaniac, but for the much more fundamental reason that he has been systematically making what DID work, into something else entirely. A vulture culture that takes and delivers no results. But then, with no subjective understanding of the subject, I don’t expect Tony to see this.

    Based on Tony’s logic, it would be Abraham that is the number one person crippling Judaism and Mohammed for the Moslem faith and Jesus (or God?) for Christianity. And if Tony were to argue that those are inapt comparisons, then it would certainly be Thomas Jefferson that is the number one reason for the decline of the United States society.

    Somehow Tony also got the strange idea that “older” religions have changed with the times but Scientology has to “contend with Hubbard’s vast doctrinal output, much of which finds him dictatorially micromanaging in a much different, far away time and place.” Where his notion came from of how fast religions shed the past and adapt to new times is a mystery. Tony, when were African Americans even considered people and allowed to enter a Mormon Temple? Celibacy of the priesthood? How about the Christian radio commentators that cite Leviticus to proclaim that homosexuality is bad? If that’s keeping up with the times, then I doubt there is really a problem here.

    And the final long-felled tree that Tony somehow found in the forest (apparently with the guidance of Jon Atack – not known for either his knowledge of Scientology or his balanced approach to life) is his assertion that L. Ron Hubbard “mandate[d] that the survival of Scientology be the most central, guiding principle in Scientology.” This is NOT the Scientology I am familiar with – I would go out on a limb and say the real mandate of Scientology is achieving personal survival, understanding and enlightenment. At least that’s the Scientology I know and have been involved in for 50 years.

    But as you said Marty, my feeling about this is disappointment, not anger. In many ways Tony Ortega has shown a level of courage that you normally ONLY find in a “true believer” who has a reason to fight for what they know to be true. So, it sometimes comes as a bit of a shock to be reminded that he has no subjective reality on Scientology. And certainly with his readership, he has been criticized for being too “pro-Marty” and to not have LRH on his list would have caused way more screaming and protests than he will hear from Independent Scientologists (and the Kool Aid drinkers are thankful because now they can prove to their sheeple that *anything* Tony Ortega says can be ignored because he is “anti-LRH”).

    • Excellent summation, Mike. Definitely a +10 and another +10 for Marty.

    • well said. Thank you.

    • You’re a poet.

    • Marty and Mike,

      very well stated.

      Mike, I think you sum up Tony’s intention, and to give him the benefit of the doubt- possibly dilemma, very clearly in your last paragraph.

    • “…So, it sometimes comes as a bit of a shock to be reminded that he has no subjective reality on Scientology…”

      Neither does DM, it sounds like.

    • i’m leaving because of the false data in the lrh biography. My whole life (I’m 19 now) lrh has been a hero in our family, someone to aspire to, my chosen career path into the navy is based on his life. i have had a poster of lrh in my bedroom since before i could talk. i have all his fiction, including several first editions that i treasured. i have old letters that my grandfather gave to me with lrhs signature. i used to sleep with them under my pillow. the last weekend i spent together with my grandfather before he died, just me and him, we put together a model of a corvette, just like one from the squadron lrh commanded in the north sea. .

      and my mom is leaving too. it was the 100th birthday event that got her looking, though. my folks came home from that full of questions. my father has gone the other way. his reasoning is that if the church is in so much trouble and fighting such resistance that dm is forced to “put on a brave face”, scientology must be close to achieving something momentous and, for him, its “all hands on deck”. he’s even sold his business and gone back on staff. but my mom looked at the entheta and the first page on the internet i showed her was the new yorker article. now my parents are sleeping in separate rooms and dad will be moving out after i head off to college next semester.

      i’m only grateful now that due to my other grandfather (who my mom never talked to for the last 27 years of his life) there are enough funds for my college education. i only found out shortly after my 18th birthday when i received a letter from a lawyer. dude, you should have seen the drama to see if the funds could be released early or what *exactly* the words “college education” meant in a disputes tribunal. Oh, yeah, and equal measure gratitude to my mom for the agonies (yes, agonies) she endured to keep me out of the sea org. even i gave her untold grief when the recruiters first called, back when i was 15. but no. it was her postulate that all her children would go to college, end of story. (thanks mom, you lurker you🙂 – love you)

      so, when i leave the family home in a couple of weeks, the poster, the books, the letters, and the model corvette will stay behind, along with all the lies. i will be more free then than i have ever been.

      • Good for leaving, too bad for your father. Tell him that if things get worse and worse while Davey has been declaring one SP right after the other, it’s not because he’s having an impact but because he declared the wrong people. Stats going down doesn’t mean doing more of those things that got them down and expecting a different result; that’s insanity. Tell him that to evaluate he’ll need all data and not just one side so he can come up with the right conclusion. Scientology is the science of comm, not the science of breaking comm. Is he a Scientologist…. he must communicate…
        Good luck!

      • What you and your Mom are doing has taken courage and integrity. I hope you will keep us posted from time to time.

      • Maxwell, these are such momentous times for your family. I hope and pray that your family will come back together. Perhaps you could let your Dad know that if things at the org are not as he thinks they should be, that you will welcome him back. All the very best for your future.

    • Vox Clamantis in Deserto

      Wow! All I have is this to say: Based on what I have read here, there is a strong case to be made that the best Scientologists are to be found outside of the org, not in it. The open letter to Tony Ortega and Mike’s comment here proves that to me. I whole heartedly agree with your thoughts on this subject. Your stated positions also show how pan-determined you guys are and the world is a better place because of you. I am a scientologist of somewhat long duration and I have never posted here before, however, this post by Mike and the open letter by Marty prompted me to post, finally. (I have followed this blog since Sep. ’09)
      Thank you.

      • one of those who see

        Vox! Welcome. So glad you decided to communicate.

        • Cox Clamantis in Deserto

          One of those…
          Thanks for the ack and the welcome. I’ve always appreciated your comments. I have a lot more to say, but I’ll leave it for another time. I just couldn’t resist on this topic of LRH.

      • Vox,

        Pull up a chair, take a load off. Care for a can of ARC or some popcorn?

        • Vox Clamantis in Deserto

          Carcha,
          Thanks for the invite. In due time. But I’ll tell you what, I’ve blown tons of charge just reading this blog and a load has come off already!🙂

    • Excellent! Thank you, Mike.

    • Brilliant Mike. Masterfull communication.

    • Mike,

      Well thought out…. and I can’t agree more.

      I have been reading Tony’s work for several months and I must admit that I really enjoy reading what he writes.. he’s got a way with words.. very enjoyable and clearheaded and thoughtful.. poetic, actually.

      My main concern about Tony picking LRH as #1 was the same as you:

      “(and the Kool Aid drinkers are thankful because now they can prove to their sheeple that *anything* Tony Ortega says can be ignored because he is “anti-LRH”).”

    • Mike, I never knew you to be so incredibly smart and understanding and I now see that I listened to DM’s opinion of you instead of forming my own, but then again, there were no such thing as getting personal at Int.

      There was always a rumor going on that you had the highest IQ on that base. After having followed your comments throughout these blogs I would have to conclude that this rumor was in fact true.

      It would be great to meet up one of these days and converse. There is no doubt of true logical and analytical thinking when one sees it and this definitely applies to you and Marty, and Mosey!

      Despite the multiple views on this blog and despite the fact that Tony’s article will fuel Davey Miscabbage propaganda against Marty, your words of simple truths will hit home with those who are willing to see, and those are the ones who matter.

      Thanks for doing what you’re doing!

      • Raul, what you say about your view of Mike applies exactly to my view of you. I almost went off on it on the post that I acked “great post man”. But, since you mentioned it here, I’ll mention it too about you. Amazing how Miscavige could turn brother against brother and make 600 like purposed people suspect and dislike one another, ain’t it?

        • Oh man, is that ever the truth. The amount of 3P and vicious gossip circulated around that base by POB boggles the mind. I have met a lot of people who were there who I had repeatedly heard bad things about from POB — about how they were incompetent fools, incapable of doing anything, evil degraded beings. And they are incredibly competent, successful, intelligent, caring and wonderful people out in the “real” world (and I do mean real, as Dave’s World is completely divorced from reality and is truly a different universe that operates under different laws).

          It is truly tragic to think of the wasted talent on that base. It is astonishing. And it is even more astonishing that so many intelligent and competent people are sitting inside that little piece of North Korea having been convinced that it is some sort of paradise on earth that they should grovel and scrape before Dear Leader for the privilege of being allowed to walk on its hallowed ground and breathe its precious air.

          I read all of Raul’s comments this morning and these are the thoughts that tumbled forth. And I dont even know who Raul is in real life, but its obviously someone who was at the Base, and probably someone I heard a lot of 3P about.

        • You know Marty, as I was reading/writing today I just came to this astounding conclusion. No doubt that I thought that you, Mike and others were quite sensible (actually surprised me) as I didn’t have too good of an opinion of either of you from Int, neither did I have a good opinion of practically anyone else who left, and I’m sure all of you didn’t have a good opinion of me either.

          However, it makes total sense as Miscarriage dinged in year after year after year how ALL of us were SPs, degraded beings, unproductive, incapable of producing anything, etc, etc and with the many meetings and briefings and the constant exposure of everyone’s latest little secrets, we all just started to almost hate everybody else.

          Now there were some very unlikable people, and there were some very likeable, but the vast majority of people were in this middle zone of just being “bad” and even if you didn’t think so, you had to make yourself think so as Miscarriage had said so, and, you couldn’t counter what he said.

          Wow, only now do I realize the effect that actually had, I mean you guys are actually OK🙂

          Anyway, the good news is that I changed too, once I got disconnected from that scene and though I’m still not Mr. Popular around my current area, at least I’m effective and do have many close and good friends with whom I can talk about anything – a quality you cannot experience within the official CofS.

          Thank you for having me here, and I’m sure I will be of great use for the future. I’ll be official soon, just a few things to wrap up.

      • Wow Raul. I think you may be guilty of the topic of much discussion on this posting — creating a hagiography of Mike Rinder.

        I speak from my heart and my experience. And I thoroughly enjoy the freedom of being able to do so without concern about whether it is acceptable, approved or going to popular or unpopular (no, if I am honest, I get some satisfaction out of balancing the flows of being able to say without limitation things that I know are unpopular with POB).

  20. Marty, Thank you.

    One of my favorite sayings with regards to LRH on a similar point comes from the one and only Jan Weiss: “I don’t care if he got it off the back of a cereal box, it WORKS!”.🙂

  21. Rock on, Marty. Still batting a thousand.

    Tony, there is a difference between hearing and listening. Marty can help you with that.

    Good luck hiding from all the P.I.’s Marty is gonna sic on you! Oh wait… They’re following HIM!

    • Tony Ortega is hereby declared a suppressive person – he is evil. He has never helped anyone. He is bad.
      He is to be followed by PIs and harassed day and night.
      All Indies on Facebook must immediately remove Tony from their list of friends (Facebook police to ensure this is done with a follow-up black propaganda campaign on email lines).
      Plants must be placed on all of Tony’s comm lines to ensure that Tony’s life, livelihood and family are destroyed at all cost. Tony must be put into the state of mind where he can trust no-one.
      OSA must run a covert operations to get Tony arrested on trumped up charges to ensure that his reputation is so thoroughly maligned that he no-longer has any credibility with any newspaper in the future.
      Tony must be investigated for all of his ‘crimes’ and personal secrets and these must be posted prominently where everyone can read them and will come to understand what a horrible, degraded, worthless piece of crap he is.
      Tony’s family members and closest friends are to be contacted immediately and convinced to disconnect from Tony and have nothing more to do with him.
      OSA agents are to ensure that Tony never sees his parents or children again.
      Tony must be utterly demoralized and destroyed. He is the enemy….

      Tony… you get it don’t you? You just can’t sell it.

  22. It is too bad that Tony Ortega did not interview any original Apollo Crew or Sarge or Sinar or anyone that actually worked directly for LRH.
    I do not believe that Scott Pilutik that Tony credits so much for the article
    EVER

    +++Had a session
    ++++interviewed several that were with Hubbard for periods of time
    ++++read a book or listened to a tape.
    ++++worked on staff

    Scott Pilutik is a lawyer. But how is he an authority on Hubbard ?
    +++++++

    I spent 3 days with a Religious Scholar in recent times who is writing the next book on Scientology. He came to visit for 1 day and stayed 3 days !!!! (Thank you Sinar for coming and spending 1/2 a day with him as well)
    I took the Religious Scholar in session. A 2 hour session.
    He later said it was the BEST day of his LIFE !
    I will give a free session to any media, authors, journalists, religious scholars etc who want to experience auditing.
    Sinar and me were able to undo in 3 days much of the Black Propaganda he had been fed for the previous 18 months.

    The “Church” couldn’t do that. This forthcoming entire book will be the result of in depth interviews with all concerned ~~ the scholars seek out the Indies more and more.

    Thank you MIchael Fairman for doing a 5 hour interview with a Religious Scholar as well !

  23. Once again Marty, thank you for your integrity and courage to speak your truth. It happens to be my truth as well as many other people who read and participate in your blog and movement. It is a rare quality that you posses to tell it like it is and not be afraid to piss someone off if they behave badly.
    I guess we thought Tony was an ally. Maybe he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Maybe he is naive. Maybe he is greedy… Maybe all of the above. What I am impressed with is your constant willingness to be ‘unpolitical’ and fight back- even when you may be alienating a “seeming” ally. I love that you are not too proud to shift gears and slam back with as much force as necessary yet also, without misemotion. In the end, you wish him peace and I know you mean it. You are setting a very important example for anyone who ever aspires to overcome tyranny and ignorance. It is no small task- what you are accomplishing- and I want you to know- it does not go unnoticed. Thank you sir.

    • Joy — I dont think Tony is not an ally. And I dont think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, naive or greedy, I think he has no subjective reality on Scientology, Thus he can only observe it objectively. He said nothing new about LRH in his piece, It is pretty old and worn. Trying to be objective about something as personal as what Scientology provides to individuals and why it is so important and valuable. Tony Ortega isnt a religious scholar either. But he does have tremendous courage and he has stood up the monster that so many others have backed away from — and for that, he deserves a lot of credit.

      • I agree with that completely. I appreciate what Tony has done on his coverage and reporting…but, I too, was very disappointed with his choice on #1. He has no personal experience to know that the knowledge LRH has imparted to us is incredible, regardless of any personal details to his life.
        No…the #1 man crippling the Aims of Scientology that we strive for is none other than David MisCavige.

        • Tony is a journalist. He has an opinion. Journalists have to create conflict in order to get their crap to sell. It doesn’t matter if they believe in it or not – “will it sell?” is what matters to them. They have to survive. Telling Tony he is full of shit just feeds the conflict and misses their whole point: “Who gives a shit what anyone thinks and what is right and what is wrong, am I making sales?”.

          ML Tom

      • I must say, I don’t disagree with you Mike. I guess the word disappointment is the most accurate because he seemed so insightful…and as you say, so courageous, but alas, with no actual subjective reality, how could he understand to the fullest? I wish he would take Karen up on her offer of free sessions for media personnel… He would surely have a more accurate picture of -at least- the importances…he would understand more fully, the magnitude of LRH’s gifts.
        It’s like someone who’s never been ‘in love’- really, truly IN LOVE… Or someone who’s never had a child… If you’ve never known true magic, it seems very implausible… understandably… Those feelIngs and realities are truly impossible to imagine if you’ve never truly known them…spiritual awakening/expansion/freedom are only conceivable if you’ve ever been lucky enough to taste them… Just like trying to describe chocolate ice cream to someone… You really just have to taste it… Otherwise it is just too easy to believe it is just too good to be true… Easy to be cynical, easy to be stuck on facts and mechanics…easy to be literal… Let’s get Tony in session so he can taste the missing element- the chocolate ice cream…!

      • mrinder

        I noticed he did not attack the tech directly in his article. He was wise to restrain his editorial to the well worn attack against L. Ron Hubbard. I took his editorial,(it cannot be called reporting because there is little or no proof of anything contained in it) and did an outpoint/pluspoint analysis of it. In his editorial he has not quoted a single thing about his biography that L. Ron Hubbard said, in L.Ron Hubbard’s own words.

        Also his added parenthetical comments are mostly “added Inapplicable data” and appear to be included simply for their “sensationalistic value”.
        Whether the original information given is true or not is has generally not been substantiated. I had actually thought that he was a better journalist than that. That this appears to not be the case saddens me.

        That he appears to hold these personal opinions about L.Ron Hubbard, I can live with, but I am afraid that I have lost some confidence in his ability to investigate thoroughly and his skills at evaluating data.

        All that said, I also thank him for his assistance in helping to expose the travesty that is David Miscavige’s version of Scientology.

        Eric S

      • +1

        Thank you for pointing out Tony’s courage and the others who have done so.

        WH

      • Mike, your point is well made. Marty, great open letter with many important points. In my mind, Ron was certainly a genius, but I think that to fully recognize the value of his work, one DOES have to study it, understand it and apply it (preferably become an auditor). Even some “exes” like Tory Christman have little respect for his work (and I think it may have something to do with her not becoming an accomplished auditor of others). So, it’s unlikely any journalist (Ortega, Reitman, etc) will have any true appreciation of the scope and context of LRH’s work. At the same time, I think the lies put forth over the years about LRH’s life are just an indicator that every one of us has the responsbility to evaluate EVERY thing of LRH’s that we read or hear and evaluate it in the context of our own reality and observation (personal integrity). I also think it is important in the sense that we decide that we DO have the right as full beings to REJECT any LRH datum (especially certain policies such as “Conditions – How to Assign” where Ron says that groups thrive when ethics are savage). LRH went on the run in the 70s after the COS committed numerous federal crimes and many, many overts. I think it IS important to realize that he was a human being with numerous failings that might have also influenced some of the ideas that he gave his followers. AND at the same time to recognize his genius and the ideas he had that have enlightened and improved so many people’s lives. I no longer have any trouble doing both.

        • Data like “Ethics are tight and savage” should be read and evaluated in context, the Pl being about SP’s and DB’s. They should also be evaluated along with other data like “Normal Formula, 2. Ethics are very mild”. So indeed, some evaluation and self determination is needed.

          LRH had to run because he exposed the Psych racket and CIA black ops what almost nobody else did and lived to tell; prove being the declassified CIA documents half a century later.

          I don’t say he was perfect but a lot of black PR is just what it is; black PR.

          • Erwin, the PL I referenced above has nothing to do with SPs. It’s about how to handle staff members in the org.

          • You mean this?
            ….. Orgs where Ethics is tight and savage grow in numbers! Man thrives oddly enough only in the presence of a challenging environment. That isn’t my theory. That’s fact. If the org environment is not challenging there will be no org. We help beyond any help ever available anywhere. We are a near ultimate in helping. At once this loads us up with SPs who would commit suicide to prevent anyone from being helped and it lays us wide open as “softees” to any degraded being that comes along. They are sure we won’t bite so they do anything they please. Conditions correctly assigned alone can detect and eject SPs and DBs…..

            From: HCOPL 20 Oct 1967 Conditions How To Assign.

    • Truly. I do not much agree, quite frankly, with Marty’s use of Media and Government to combat the abuses of DM, but I DO admire his fighting spirit, and he has my support in hoping it (Marty and Mike) will win out. Gawd forbid if he doesn’t. Right now he is our (our planet’s) best hope.

  24. Marty,

    Thanks very much, your analysis of Tony O’s final piece on the series is precise and addresses the exact points of logic on the article which is needed.

    Tony O’s #1 article reads exactly what an OSA PR who typically shunts blame of POB’s actions to LRH would do and was a huge disappointment. Perhaps if #1 had been the Creator(s) of the Internet it would have been the correct item as it is POB’s(who should have been #1) total downfall. The fact of having speed and ease of communications exposing untruths and secrets.

    • “Perhaps if #1 had been the Creator(s) of the Internet it would have been the correct item as it is POB’s(who should have been #1) total downfall. The fact of having speed and ease of communications exposing untruths and secrets.”

      Amen, Sinar! Excellent point.

  25. While I adore Marty and all of those who have had the courage to speak out that I lack as of yet, I’m kind of upset at his upset but can see his viewpoint. I was born and raised in scn and went through all the bs most other kids did. I got nothing out of auditing, hated course and the mindless drones clapping at LRH’s baseball glove from 70 years ago. I just got “out” this past year and have been going through emotional turmoil that is sometimes unbearable. I personally hate LRH for claiming to have found the answers to the universe while duping so many people around him to pay every dime. My mother included. I miss her. Her spark. She’s a robot now and doesn’t believe in unconditional love due to “all that she has learned” in scn. She too can’t stand the actions of dm and his minions… I wish I could at least get her to you, Marty. But I digress. I guess when you’re raised to clap and cheer three times at some ugly dead guys picture after at least 3 hours of reading about total bs… It wears on your ability to empathize with those who still admire and respect him. But I still love you, Marty.🙂

    • +! I’m very sorry about what happened to you. Hang in there, and have faith that it does work out well in the end.

    • Dear notafraidanymore —

      I’m so sorry to hear this too often told story of parental abandonment by seemingly uncaring parents. Believe me WHEN/IF your mother wakes up to what she has lost, her pain will be MUCH more than yours.

      Hating LRH will not give you the nurturing childhood that you long for. Seeing your mother as a robot, is counter-intuitive to creating NOW a relationship with your mother.

      Go to Barnes and Noble or Amazon and buy “When Things Fall Apart” by
      Pema Chodron. I know it will help ease that ache in your heart and enable you to find a way forward.

      There is definitely the possibility of the love you desire. As an adult you will have an opportunity perhaps to have your own child and nurture that child AND there isn’t a grandmother ALIVE who can resist her grandchild, IF you are forgiving enough to share🙂

      Love,
      WH

  26. It should be noted that no one here is suggesting that Tony Ortega be fair gamed or harmed in any way. No one is saying that he is an SP and he needs to be quarantined or killed.

    LRH was a liar and he stole much of the technology from others. That does not take away from the workability or lack of workability. I do think he started getting a little paranoid in the mid sixtys, when he wrote KSW and he was way way to much into himself but like I said it doesn’t mean scientology works or doesn’t work.

    I have had wins on the lower levels, the upper levels, from what I have read in LRHs own handwriting seems like a bunch of crap, to me that is but so does virgin birth.

    • Jeff – I have to comment as I have read a few comments about LRH “stealing” his ideas from others. No doubt LRH built on some fundamental ideas of others (for example, Freud made well known the very important and vital discovery that past events one was not consciously aware of, can dominate one’s life and actions in the present – and LRH took off on that), BUT ……. the techniques and procedures of auditing (the processes, how they work, how to audit them, to what end results, the Auditor’s Code, etc etc etc) as a package, is stunningly original and workable.

      • Joe – Yes, and there is much more to it. Freud pointed to the subconscious. LRH jumped on it, and with his genius for spirituality and human caring pulled all the pieces scattered over history together in a coherence with the actual achievement of the goals of having Knowledge. As he put it, “to arrive”. A 4,000sf huge jigsaw puzzle of half-inch pieces with no picture as a guide would be a simple task, by comparison. The BIG secret? Love. (And a sense of humor!)

    • Jeff,

      Have you studied the research line from 1950 to at least 1955? I hear the comment often expressed that LRH “stole much of the technology from others.” However, when you look at the progression of ideas, you see a consistency that seems to contradict such an assertion. You see a singular viewpoint being applied–though “singular viewpoint” has implications that don’t work here.

      Certainly, LRH was well read. Certainly, he was capable of using what he read. But, the same applies to every human being. Name any person who has made significant contributions to humanity and you’ll find someone whose work is based in the contributions of those who preceded them.

      We’re all carried forward on the shoulders of others. Even our language depends on those who preceded us. Our thoughts are steeped in thoughts we’ve gotten from others.

      So, do we go through life footnoting where each idea came from?

      And, if you’re a researcher, do you credit every assistant? Even when you are making the choices, not the research assistant?

      You study science and you’ll find scientists competing with one another and ripping each other off all the time. You find ideas forming and being added to. Take the “Big Bang Theory” which might turn out to be completely false. Should we vilify science?

      There is nothing new under the sun. Such a claim. Ecclesiastes and Shakespeare. Whoever wrote that in Ecclesiastes probably stole it from someone else. But Shakespeare ponders the idiocy of such a concept in sonnet 59. And Ambrose Bierce added, “There is nothing new under the sun but there are lots of old things we don’t know,’

      Then, you get Socretes, Plato and Aristotle playing around with “The Idea” that perfection of consideration that precedes the physical manifestation. Just when does Awareness conceive something, and how long does it take to bring that conception into reality? Does God or Spirit or Awareness conceive an outcome millions of years before it comes to fruition?

      How long ago did the “Idea” of Scientology exist? Certainly, thousands of years ago. Hubbard even suggests this in his poem “Hymn of Asia.” And who had access to that “Idea” in the interim? Who played with the concept?

      Just because an idea is in play doesn’t mean only the source of that idea can make use of it. Like a basketball, any player on the court can get their hands on it and score. And stealing the ball is a good thing when you help your team.

      To make claims of stealing ideas puts you in the middle of a river when the ice begins to thaw. Suddenly, what seemed solid begins to crack, and you have nowhere to stand.

      Should we trash the “Mona Lisa” because other artists had painted portraits before? Didn’t that bastard Da Vinci steal his idea? Wasn’t he a horrible person, brash and surly? Burn all of that thief’s works! Burn them all!

      Isn’t art in the rendering? Isn’t creation in the rendering?

      So, who held the brush that painted the original Scientology?

      And who kept throwing other paint on that canvas? And how did the artist respond when he tried to restore his work? How would you respond if every time you created something, critics and associates came along in the evening and completely distorted everything you did? Would you wake up, see the damage and smile? “Ah, that’s okay, they were just having fun. Boys will be boys.”

      Or would you take steps to handle the vandalism?

      I think most of the criticism of LRH was/is directed at his attempts to handle the vandalism. Most, not all.

  27. Marty

    I would like to repost my post on the last thread, if I may……

    Damn…

    OK. We will just have to keep on doing what we are known for;
    Revealing the truth, and applying sanity and intelligence to the situation. I doubt if it will even slow us down because we have become a powerful force of Theta and understanding, and we are armed with a technology that actually works. If you are well “anchored” in the tech of Scientology and are using it in your life, no one can strike you down.

    In Hymn of Asia L.Ron Hubbard wrote:

    “Appoint Amongst you
    Some small few
    To tell about me lies
    And invent wicked Things
    And spread out infamy
    Abroad and Within
    And to stand before
    Our alters
    And insult and
    Lie and tell
    Evil rumors about us all.

    For all is LIfe
    To Buddha.
    All is Life.”

    LRH

    When the truth is in your heart, it is your shield and your sword. Move into battle confidently. for though they may stop your body, they will never conquer TRUTH.

    Eric S

    • Perfectly fitting for this post too, Eric.

    • That’s a beauty, Eric. Thanks for re-posting it.

    • Jesus is quoted in the gospels as saying similar things numerous times, for example in:

      Mathew 10:22 – You will be hated by all men for my name’s sake, but he who endures to the end will be saved.

      Mark 10:33 – Behold, we are going up to Jersalem. The Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes. They will condemn him to death, and will deliver him to the Gentiles.

      10;34 – They will mock him, spit on him, scourge him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.

      It’s not just Jesus who is perscuted.

      Luke 11:49 – Therefore also the wisdom of God said “I will send out to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute.

      50 – that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.”

      There are numerous similar references in both the New and the Old Testaments. The point being that prophets/messiahs tend to think that they are validated in that role to some extent by being attacked by the non-believers, scoffers, etc……. or maybe they would like to be thusly persecuted and thus defended by their loyal followers.

  28. one of those who see

    Well done Marty!!!
    In the sky somewhere is a commendation on Marty Rathbun for:
    Applying the Price of Freedom
    Promoting differentiation which is sanity
    Living and communicating the truth
    Application of Communication as the universal solvent
    Setting a good example
    …And traced out in a cloud are the initials LRH

  29. Tony Ortega has fallen into the trap of saying “[fill in the blank] is bad”.

    I for one am tired of these cats who – for whatever reason – tend to elevate the subject above the being. A subject (such as Scientology) by definition is “Under control or dominion of… [a being]”

    Tony, subjects are tools for use. People use subjects as tools to help them achieve a desired result. The subjects of Dianetics and Scientology are used to free beings from the mental shackles that prevent them from achieving a higher state of being.

    Black Dianetics and Reverse Scientology are used by people to enslave or destroy beings. Is there anything you do not understand about that?

    Dianetics and Scientology are subjects, subservient to beings – tools for use, if you will. Just like any other subject is a tool for use. A subject is not a source or a cause. Only beings are a source or cause.

    In this vein, here’s an example of how I use Scientology as an Independent Scientologist: I’m talking to a person and he tells me that something is ruining his life. After telling me, he originates needing some help to handle his ruin. I say, “I can help you with that” and proceed to use the correct Scientology remedy(s) to salvage this being from ruin and bring him to understanding. Voila’! The person is now better and more able than before.

    I also now know that the wrong way to do it is this: When the guy originates needing help, I say, “Scientology can handle that”. Not only is this elevating the subject above the being, but nowadays it is also often an instant turn-off because of the intractable Black PR associated with the word “Scientology”. David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology have now ensured that this approach doesn’t often work.

    Also, think about it. Essentially this approach is just as ridiculous as saying, “Freudian Analysis can handle that” or “Haitian Voodoo can handle that”. Once again, using a different tool, you’ve fallen into the trap of elevating the subject above the being.

    In order to remedy this dangerous situation, the trick is for Independent Scientologists to use whatever display of technique that they need in order to help people first – THEN (if they’re curious) bring them to understanding on the subject of Scientology. Some people don’t want to know what it is… at first. They just want help. Of course when someone asks you, “What is that?” or “How can I find out about that?” it is perfectly okay to tell them, “It’s Scientology” and then refer them to a book, etc.

    Or you can just say, “It’s just something an Old Man taught me.”

    Ultimately, consideration is senior to mechanics. But you’re not so sure, are you Tony?

    Don’t let your “Monsters from the id” rule your life, Tony.

  30. I was impressed by the tone, reasoning and respect of Marty’s open letter, and the thoughts of the commentators above. I thought the Internet should have been No.1.

    • You’re right Graham; the Internet is No. 1. That has done the most to cripple radical Scn.

    • The internet is just a via.
      Communication is the weapon with which we are fighting back 🙂

      • Of course it’s a via but without it and it’s instantaneous way to deliver communications, the Indie movement and exodus from the cult would not have progressed to the degree it has.

        The Internet has absolutely had a crippling effect on the cult. It is No. 1 whether it makes in on “the list ” or not. DM has no control over it. Zero, zip, none. His only solution is to forbid his flock from looking at it. That only works for so long, then they look and out they come as we’ve seen over & over & over by people’s testimonies.

    • Graham as i told you already once when I saw you the first time, you’re not an Ogre as portrayed by the Church, but a real Gentleman and i loved the exchanges we had !

  31. Thank you Marty for saying exactly what I was thinking. If Mr. Ortega would study the references in context, he would have a whole different viewpoint.

  32. Outstanding Marty. Thank you for expressing what many of us would like.

    I will have to find those references where LRH states a number of times to the effect a) LRH as an individual is much less than the body of work so don’t put much emphasis on him and b) LRH as an institution is not that individual so make sure to distinguish.

    Bruce

  33. Marty, thank you. Tony you don’t have a clue about what Scientology has to offer. I feel sorry for you actually. You have not had any direct experience with the subject and what it can do and does for man/women. this world has to have Scientology in order to survive. Without the teachings of LRH we are truly doomed. I see it on a daily basis out there in the world and my God save us all! DM is nothing but a greedy, money grabbing, psycho that has been allowed to continue, actually not much different than the criminals running our government and corporations.

  34. Marty
    Wonderful rebuttal. May I add that Tony’s disappointing view is an exact duplication of current church thinking — in reverse — Hubbard is bad equals Miscavige is bad equals Scientology is bad. Read the commentators on his blog and that is reflected over and over by those who don’t know a “hawk from a handsaw” They can’t get though Hubbard’s books or policy letters or bulletins. They call the work gibberish, unreadable and insane. This from carping jackals who have obviously not taken the time to study the work, no less apply it. The same is apparently true of Ortega.

    If EVERYTHING negative said about Hubbard were true, and I along with many, many others here believe that some of it is in fact true, the application of the ARC and KRC triangles, the analysis and use of the communication cycle, the understanding of the overt-motivator sequence, the concept of the social and anti-social personalities, the tone scale and it’s ability to predict behavior, “Clean Hands Make A Happy Life”, “What is Greatness”, Kindness”, Manners” and countless other writings, makes life better for the person who UNDERSTANDS AND USES them and improves the lives of those around them. If Tony and the rest of the snapping dogs would really take the time to understand and apply just ONE of the above principles they would see.

    But, Marty, you know as well as I that they are doing what it has always been easy to do for the great majority of ill- or non-informed “critics” – whether by pen, typewriter and now computer — glib “clever” attacks against what they really know little or nothing about. And as you also said, that happens most to the one who stands outside the box, and pushes the envelope, whether in literature, art, music, drama, politics, philosophy or religion. I suppose it comes with the territory. History shows over and over and over, that the naysayers and the finger-pointers are the ones who wind up not even a memory.

  35. Very well written Marty🙂 Spot on.

  36. Marty (and Mike above) … you both nailed it. My sentiments exactly. (And you too Karen.) You guys are great.

    I did do a bit of “howling” over on Tony’s blog … or at least gave a few rebuttals. (But no worries Tony, promise no lawsuits from me. LOL.)

    In the end, Tony is simply not looking at the entirety of L. Ron Hubbard, and the subject of Scientology. He approaches the man, and the subject, with blinders on, hoping only to find things that confirm his preconceptions. And yes, Mike, I do agree that it translates largely to “no subjective reality”. But I think it also translates to an inability to take a “not know” approach and look beyond one’s world view.

  37. Seeking As Isness

    Marty you’ve got class – thanks for all you do.

  38. Maybe Mr Ortega has been nobbled.
    After all, Fame, Money and Power is what it’s all about, isn’t it?
    Except that, in 40 years of intense study of L Ron Hubbard, I never noticed that about him.
    Just the opposite, in fact.
    Tony hasn’t done his homework, he’s just gone for the cheap shot. Not so much a scholar as a hack.
    Pity.

  39. Marty, tell Tony to get his NOT’s and stop invalidating himself. People have case whether they want it or not, so the end of case should be a relief for him!🙂 Especially with people like the Church of Scientology of New York for neighbors!

    • I don’t think Ortega wants any NOTS auditing; and neither do I think he’d appreciate having it recommended to him, Lawrence.

      Politely disagreeing with him, and giving reasons for those disagreements – as Marty just did – is really far, far more sensible.

  40. And Tony, we won’t shun you and fairgame you just because you are a reporter. Even though you fairgamed us in your blog earlier this week:

    ” And let me tell you, it’s not often that Scientologists are ever funny or clever.”

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/scientology_ove.php

    I agree that Scientologists are way too serious in general. Most of them are hard workers and they face unique challenges other people are oblivious to. But they are the most intelligent lot of people I have ever known. You have only known an inkling of the Scientology community Tony. You are great at investigating and reporting, you are a true professional at that. But you are nowhere near being a professional about the culture at large, you are only a spectator.

    • I mean, you are a professional spectator of course. That is what reports do, they spectate and report about what they noticed.

    • theoracle, I think it’s important that the term “fair game” not confused with “criticise”. In this life we do not have the right not to be criticised. But we do have the right not to be fairgamed.

      The example you give is a criticism of scientologists. You may argue that it is not a fair criticism and you may be right about that.

      But criticism is not fair game.

      • O.K. I skipped over some red tape. I’m busted!

        • In fact, your “correction” feels like a wrong indication. I think I got it right. But thanks for caring about me and my perceptions. I’m in a high condition on perceptions, I am not in confusion. But thanks for the offering. Oh me oh my I’m stable as a heart beat!

      • But I have been thinking about your suggested cram and I still have disagreements. A blanket declare that all Scientologists are stupid and cleverless just FEELS like a fairgame action to me. So, I go on intention rather than dictionary definitions. I don’t know if that makes me the illiterate you suggest I am. I am thinking, not.

  41. Fantastic response!!

    I hate when Miscavige’s Scientology slurs its critics by cherry picking facts. Someone smoked a joint once? “He’s a confirmed drug user”, and the implication is that we can’t trust whatever he has to say.

    It was a huge disappointment to see Ortega use the same tactic in his post about Hubbard. Everyone knows the guy was flawed. It’s beside the point, which is a valid one.

    I don’t know why Ortega didn’t devote the bulk of his time to the issue of stewardship. He’s right (from my non-Scientologist perspective), that Hubbard did Scientology a big disservice by not thinking through how it should continue without him. I don’t know enough to know whether or not his ideas are worth preserving, but it seems like they do a lot of good for a lot of people (but also a lot of harm to others).

    Hopefully, the Independent movement will come up with a way to keep Scientology working for people long into the future, the way it works for them. Or maybe the Independent movement will simply revert to the old franchise system before Scientology was re-organized, and the issue of stewardship will really be left up to its practitioners.

    The Buddha didn’t set up a church hierarchy. Maybe with the type of spiritual knowledge (not even sure if that’s the right characterization) that Hubbard developed, a “church” organization is not the way to go.

    Anyway, I was so impressed by Marty’s restrained, humorous, and rational response. Keep up the great work!

    • Great men tend to have great flaws. Don’t cross the river if you can’t swim the tide. That’s not on great men, it’s on you.

    • The idea that LRH did not consider how Scientology would be run after he died is not correct. He designed a beautiful structure of interlocking boards where checks and balances would prevent any one person from gaining too much power and subverting the church. These documents were legally prepared and filed with the state before his death, and are publicly available.

      The full details of his plan are available on this great website: http://www.savescientology.com/

      Control of the Church of Scientology was not handed over to Miscavige.

      He got his power and position by usurping it.

      • Great point Trey and may I say, now that I am reminded of you, not all great men have great flaws.

      • the idea that LRH did not consider how Scientololgy would be run after he died… is not only NOT correct. It is one of the biggest lies still going on.

        For one thing, look at the OEC/FEBC volumes. Thousands upon thousands of pages on how to run an organization, how to create one, how to fix one, the purpose of an organization in the first place, why businesses and organizations fail time after time.

        The answers are not only there, but so are the solutions.

        What the lie is, is that David Miscavage is “an executive.” Because he is not. He is an usurper. He is a walking, talking falsehood. He is Judas. He IS the lie behind the failure of the church.

        If anyone would bother to read a little Green on White, they would see how what Ron instructed us to do, and what the “church” is actually doing are two totally contradictory things! Policy is picked over and only bits and pieces are used, The rest is discarded. As things move forward, more and more will be discarded. Soon, DM will be demanding that all statistics NOT be kept, because he can’t handle the truth. (Yes, just like in the movie.) He can’t. I saw a post the other day: SF Day org is in total non-e. A formerly St. Hill size “Ideal” org is crashed and burning. What I thought was interesting was how so many of the stats crashed the week following the last March 13th event.

        Sorry, I digress. Ron told us what to do. The Tech is precious, and the whole point any of us are here. But let us not forget he did leave us a Tech for Administration. It should be equally as precious. Were it regarded as such, none of us would even be here today… would we?

        Would we?
        Ponder that one.

    • Jim, go to http://www.savescientology.com or .org to see the structure LRH developed to ensure that Scientology would continue after his death.

  42. Dear Marty and Tony,

    I appreciate your use of the pen, so to speak, to address this important matter.

    George Washington was rumored to have had syphilis, yet at his eulogy the country agreed that our founding father was, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen….” This moral rumor, substantiated or not, never put into question for me his great works, especially presiding over the writing of the our constitution, which holds true today and has been a work of sanity that protects us over 200 years and counting.

    So weather GW chopped a cherry tree and then couldn’t lie about it–or if maybe his publicist was into the hyperbole of the day and made it up, then leaked the story to the press–it is neither here nor there for me now. Only his workable utilitarian works hold value to me today. I don’t care if he yelled at his wife, kissed one to many girls, or said something nasty to a good friend he later regretted.

    I’ve never bought into the over-glorification of Ron. I would cringe at events when the Biographer would go into hyper-hyperbole about him. Or when we had to give tens of standing ovations within one single event. The hip-hip-hoorays embarrassed me and made me feel uncomfortable. What I’ve believed in, and continue to believe is my truth in how much better my life became when I used the tech in my life. I feel the same way about any technology or set of beliefs. Do they work or not?

    Moreover (I had to sneak in some more Shermanspeak for Mike R.), my friends and I in the underground (for now) value the case gain we’ve made. It’s priceless to us. We’ve exchanged completely for it. No one, in the official church (attempting ‘loyalty checks’ or metered interviews, which are phony polygraph checks) or not, friendly to Ron or not, will be able to touch our gains or take them away. Our gains are ours.

    Peace Marty. Peace Tony

  43. “Peace my brother.”

    Marty, those words are the perfect expression of how your practice of scientology is different to… you know.

    I may disagree with much of what you wrote, or see malignancy where you see the benign, but below those disagreements lies a firm foundation of respect for each other’s rights to think and believe as we wish that is not shaken by differences of opinion.

    A long time ago, I wrote on this blog that a field of scientological interpretation will likely need to grow, much as the enormous field of biblical interpretation has. Already, you are expressing methods of interpretation that require viewing LRH’s writings in their cultural context and distinguishing between universal principles and more transitory culturally relative statements.

    As you and the Indies know far better than I, discussion about these things was not permitted in the CoS. But in the Independent and critical fields that discussion will flourish.

    I hope you and other Indies can enjoy the process of formulating, expressing, explaining, teaching and learning. It will likely be a neverending process.

    May it always find you at peace.

    • Reminds me why I like you🙂

    • Heather G

      I am going to piggy-back onto your post here.

      One of the things that I have noticed more and more ,of late, seems to be an identification of LRH Tech, with LRH policy, and lumping it all together.

      In my mind they are quite different. More different than similar. The basic similarity, or common factor, if you will, is that LRH wrote much of both. Beyond that their purposes are aligned, but different.

      The Techs of Dianetics and Scientology are designed to enable a being to become more self determined, and to thereby create for himself, and others, a happier and more fulfilling life. The tech that LRH created, when applied exactly as written, produces those results to a greater or lesser degree. Specific pieces of tech are designed to target and handle specific aberrations and difficulties. Some of the processes that Ron developed were found by him to have limited use and were usually replaced by more effective procedures. It is these processes and procedures that comprise the “Standard Tech” of Scientology. Other processes may well be developed in the future, but they would NOT be included in Scientology Standard Tech. That door is closed per KSW#1.

      And then there is “Policy”
      Here are some definitions of Policy (by LRH)

      POLICY, 7. policy is a growing thing, based on “what has worked.” What works well today becomes tomorrow’s policy. (HCO PL 13 Mar 65 II)
      8. policy is derived from successful experience in forwarding the basic purposes, overcoming opposition or enemies, ending distractions and letting the basic purpose flow and expand. (HCO PL 13 Mar 65)
      9. policy is a guiding thing. It is composed of ideas to make a game,
      procedures to be followed in eventualities and deterrents to departures. The basic policy of an activity must be the defining and recommending of a successful and desirable basic purpose.
      14. a method of bringing about communication along certain matters which lead to a higher level of survival. They lead to a higher level of survival if they are good policies. They lead to a lower level of survival if they are poor policies and they lead to complete disaster if they are bad policies. (SH Spec 39, 6409C15)

      Policies are not “written in stone” necessarily. Obviously, if it were to be found that any given policy was not, or no longer “…forwarding the basic purposes, overcoming opposition or enemies, ending distractions and letting the basic purpose flow and expand.” then it would be wise to replace it with new policy which DOES those things. LRH has written and cancelled many policies. They do not ALL apply, ALL of the time, in EVERY situation. Some of them were CANCELLED, presumably because they were found to create more harm than good The “following of policy” requires judgement and careful observation, to ensure that increased survival across the Dynamics is the outcome.

      I think confusing these two, Tech and Policy, or assuming they are “the same thing” (identities) and are to be treated the same, or follow the same rules, will cause no end of difficulties.

      Eric S

      • Eric,
        I wonder if the differentiation needs to go deeper. Is policy 3rd dynamic tech? And how do you differentiate the 3d tech on handling unwilling, aberrated members of the group as opposed to running an organization of rational/analytical beings?
        Much of the protest about policy centers around efforts to handle aberrated members. The argument is, “if Hubbard could make clears and OTs, why use such strict/harsh methods?”
        The failure of understanding is realizing which tool is applied to which application. “Why use jack hammers to nail up a picture?” Uh, … we don’t.
        But, differentiation requires analytical thought rather than reactive thought, so…

        • Right, OUaT. I wonder if some of the problems arise due to applying 3d tech with respect to people who have left the group! (Need the 4d tech.)

      • That’s precisely the kind of analysis that I had in mind, Eric. No doubt people will find a range of areas of agreement and disagreement, over time.

        There’s a terrific little book called “How to Read the Bible for All it’s Worth”, and a companion book “How to Read the Bible Book by Book”. These books come to mind sometimes when I think of what might happen with Scientology – that scholars of Hubbard might write guides elucidating the principles of interpretation, the key, universal writings and show how different LRH writings might be handled differently on that basis.

    • Kevin Bloody Mackey

      Very wise words Heather. Very scholarly. This indeed may be the way forward for Scientology, guided by the same principles that helped Christianity navigate a changing world successfully.

  44. This is a great example fo discussing things and letting people have freedom of speech.
    In the Cult of Scientology headed by misscabbage, you are not allowed to discuss your feelings about LRH or the way Scientology is ran. It is a dictatorship.
    The only way Scientology will make it’s way as a useful subject into the future is to be able to confront and communicate about opinions related to Scientology. Good or bad.

    • Right, Tony.

      And the only thing that makes Miscavige’s dictatorship bad is that it is not a Benevolent Dictatorship. It is a Malevolent Dictatorship.

      And thus, like many before it, it too shall pass.

  45. Thanks Marty, for getting right on it in such a constructive way.

    Tony’s last article is a shame and a disappointment, but what could I expect from someone who uses second-hand sources and data, and perhaps let’s others dictate what he publishes to some extent?

    I say that because I couldn’t help but notice the tone of the last article was different from many of the previous ones. It struck false notes that were largely absent from previous articles of his, and many of the “conclusions” seemed predetermined.

    Perhaps the last article was written first?
    Anyway it seemed contrived and indicated to me a loss of journalistic integrity somewhere along the line. It’s the omitted data that glaringly stands out.

    One of the positives I take from it is although it is an obvious hatchet job on LRH, Tony hardly mentions or passes any direct judgement on the philosophy/self-help tech, which is a welcome omission under the circumstances.

    At least Reitman and Urban didn’t buy the party-line of the “antis” hook, line and sinker.

    But it’s true – Tony did a hell of a lot to publish the exposes of Miscavige and the corporate CoS, and for that he deserves credit. Hardly anyone else has stepped up to do that! And many of his posts did present a more balanced report.

    I suppose the bottom line is that sensationalism rather than truth sells newspapers.

    • V,
      Agreed on the tone of the series, it seemed to be a crescendo of sorts followed by the Brooklyn cheer as the last note.

    • Great observations, Valkov. I agree too that the final article felt a little too over-the-top and contrived — like he was trying hard to get back into good graces with his homies, the antis, or something after giving so much coverage to Marty. But ultimately, I’m glad he DID give that coverage to Marty and is willing to stand up to the CoM/DM. He does deserve credit for that.

      • And Margaret you deserve credit for about 100 posts in the follow-up comments after the LRH as #1 article appeared. In my opinion you single handedly kept the haters and misinformed engaged in an effort for them to see both sides and allow context. What seemed destined to become a blood thirsty mob you tamed into a discussion on the merits. WOW lady. When you cover someones back you do it in spades. Hats off to you.

  46. Beyond everything, having DM #2 on the countdown and Hubbard #1, practically positions DM with Hubbard. Just a complete sabatoge of all of Tony’s earlier messages. He sabatoges his own message to get a kick in on Hubbard. People know the man has been dead for almost thirty years already. Who will be his readers now but the anti Hubbard people, the people who fight against Hubbard’s ghost???? 99.9% of which never came into any contact with Hubbard in any capacity. I ran a poll once on ESMB asking who had ever read a book by Hubbard from cover to cover and I think one person responded.

    • My thought too, TO. Tony sabotaged his own ‘previous’ posts. That’s what made me wonder if the last article was written first, and the articles leading up to it were then written after the first article? Kinda like having the punch line to a joke or the conclusion of a story, then working back to fill in the beginning…..

      Isn’t that exactly what LRH said about reporters decades ago? That they were given their story before they ever left the newsroom to start “researching” it?

      • I read it the same way you did. But in all fairness we, owe it to Tony to understand him too. He is a writer / reporter/ entertainer by the mere fact that he has to have a fan base / readers to keep his own pay coming in. That’s simple enough to understand. When you have fans and you are in the entertainment business, sadly, I know all too well, it’s all about approval from the bodies and things can get very murky. You do have to keep exchange in with the fans who make your pay check possible. I don’t think Tony could have wriggled off that countdown without throwing the hate groups a bone. That doesn’t make him right or wrong, it just makes him another entertainer out here trying to survive.

        • And yes, Hubbard knew the game.

        • Unbeknownst to many, David Miscavige has been an entertainer himself for a long time too. A narrator and a ring master at the events. He too has become the effect of applause over time. The problem is, the people he is supposed to be serving is the Sea Org. To command is to serve. And with the air of a spoiled celebrity he tramples all over the people he is paid to serve. I dare say he will adjust himself through future lifetimes to a usefulness.

          • That is why people like Marty and Mike and Tom Devoght and Karen and on and on survived whole. They had a holy remunerative purpose, outflow. They were they to serve. The biggest complainers in this game are the ones who thought they should have gotten something they did not. The ones who cared about the others and served, they are still whole and healthy. And sane. Yes, Hubbard was right, outflow is more holy and more remunerative. You look at people that have ANYTHING, they gave and contributed and served. DM has screwed up a simple CEO desk job with his demands to be SERVED and his demands to be contributed to. Such very elementary simple shit.

        • He is not self employed, he is paid by the Village Voice corp.

  47. Marty, Mike and everyone — spectacular commentary. Would like to contribute a comparison I often give. I drive a car that accelerates like a bullet, pulls 1 G in a turn, looks like a freaking work of art. I don’t know who designed it, but it’s quite possible that person had serious flaws. Fortunately for me, those flaws are not relevant. Why? Because my car works.

    When I bought it, my ENTIRE thought process was “does this shit work?” The answer was yes. It never occurred to me, “Hang on, what about the guy who designed it?”

    The process of entering Scientology is no different because (please hear this) it’s not about worshiping anyone, especially LRH; it’s about the philosophy.

    What brought me into Scientology was the same thing that brought me into ownership of my automobile: it’s workability. I started learning about Scientology — I didn’t know anything about Hubbard and didn’t care either. What I cared about was fixing my problems and the discoveries I learned enabled me to do that. LRH’s history is actually as irrelevant as a mole on your mother’s ass.

    In a sea of bullshit, it’s amazing to find something that works. And Scientology does. It raised my IQ 19 points, a fact verified on multiple IQ tests. It enabled me to fix life-long problems that nothing else could address. It enabled me to regain abilities I didn’t even know I had. It enabled me to finally answer the most important questions that face every individual including you: Who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? What happens after we die? And finally, it enabled me to follow my goals despite everything and have fun whilst I’m at it.

    The tech works. That’s what I care about. That’s all I care about. LRH had flaws. Guess what? Just like you and me and everyone else. Okay, brainiac can we please get past your fixation because LRH’s flaws are no more important than the flaws of the designer of the Golden Gate Bridge. The Golden Gate works. People cross it every day. It’s not going to stop working because someone discovers the designer was… a human being.

    So you say Hubbard was a whatever. It doesn’t mean jack to me, except in one respect: it makes the magnitude of the workable technology he created, and the thousands of discoveries he made, stand out in even bolder relief.

    Steve

    • Perfect analogy Steve. I am going to use it myself from now on. And I may even credit you when I do so😉

    • EXACTLY. It works, the rest is trivial. Fantastic post, as usual Steve.

      • Well said Steve. I know what you mean. The test is always in the major, basic, stable datums that are axiomatic in the workability of any subject.

        Not to go off on a tangent here but one of the things that I like most about LRH’s work are the mathematics and physics corollaries that are so evident in this “science of life” that is Scientology. He really took care to ensure that the technology of Scientology was provable and workable. He also did a great job on documenting the history, background and underlying theory used in the development of the subject of Scientology. His codification of the techniques used in the practical application of this subject are likewise stunning in their scope and ramifications for our future.

        Steve, I raise my glass to you sir for this beautiful analogy. And by the way, my brother just took me for a ride in his new Grand Sport. What a rocket ship!

    • I’ve been thinking about this a bit today. I think the problem is that we’re approaching this from different paradigms.

      When I choose what scientific laws to apply, I don’t care about the character, spirituality or morality of the guy who first discovered them. Likewise when I select a car or a computer or a kitchen appliance. I sure do not want to become like any of numerous clever engineers, designers, scientists etc whose characters (in my opinion) are not worthy of emulating, though I might admire their achievements and knowledge in some respects. Workability, design and value for money are what count. I’m going to call this my technology paradigm.

      When I choose to devote myself to my religion, however, it’s all about the character of God. The character and spirituality of Jesus and how he treated people are essential to my faith. The christian life is the spiritual journey of becoming LIKE Jesus. It’s not about what works. WWJD – the cliche is “What Would Jesus Do?” – is a question christians ask themselves, not because what Jesus would do will WORK, but because a Christian wants to BE like Jesus, in character.

      This is the religious paradigm, at least as far as the Abrahamic faiths are concerned. In each of those faiths, the nature and character of God -whether known as Allah, YHWH or Jesus Christ – is key. Because God is the Source of life and of the faith. The character of the Source is essential, and the life of the believer is about being close to God and becoming like God in His character.

      The character of a scientist is largely irrelevant, because one does not undertake a spiritual journey to become close to and like a scientist if one buys a machine that uses his scientific law. It’s just a machine. It either works or it doesn’t.

      I think people like Tony who place high value on the character of the founder of a religion are approaching Hubbard and scientology using a religious paradigm. The way you guys talk about the tech and Hubbard, arguing for the adoption instead of the technology paradigm, reinforces for me that the category of “religion” doesn’t sit comfortably about scientology.

      I suggest that, whether or not they are right, most people in western culture are attuned to thinking about character when they consider religion and workability when they consider science and technology. Maybe we’re all wrong and you’re right. But the reality is that, unless and until people adopt your paradigm, the character of Hubbard will continue to matter to them. And for many people, that will keep them away from scientology. Sorry, but that’s just reality.

      • Heather – this is an intelligent and fascinating comment. You bring an interesting perspective that I appreciate. I had not really ever looked at it this way and I can understand this view, though I must say it runs contrary to a lot of fundamental principles that I hold dear (and its probably why I could never be a Christian).

        But let’s take a more recent example. Joseph Smith. By anyone’s yardstick (except perhaps a Mormon’s) he was not a great example of someone who’s life you would want to emulate. He was involved in all sorts of money making schemes, had creditors all over him, various other unsavory aspects to his life and a story about meeting and angel and finding golden tablets that only he could translate and were never seen by anyone else that stretches credulity. But does anyone in this day and age seriously consider the LDS NOT to be a religion (and boy are they focused on secular wealth). But, the Mormons have done exactly what your religious paradigm would dictate — Joseph Smith has been sainted and in their eyes he was a messenger of God (and any flaws he had can be brushed under the rug as you get a pass when you are God’s voice on earth…).

        But, by that standard, perhaps the attempts to turn L, Ron Hubbard into a saint are exactly why Scientology FITS the religious paradigm? It took a while for the Mormons to get Joseph Smith into the saintly category…

        My view is that perhaps the paradigm of what constitutes a religion is in need of an update.

        Thanks for the provocative comment.

        • The paradigm she poses is her own opinion and not a legally recognized paradigm. Scientology has been recognized throughout western civilization as a religion, while explicitly stating its tenets call for no worship, and that it does not recognize a anthromorphic God. I fought that fight (as did you) for more than twenty years and won. To hell with granting Miscavige the privilege of destroying that hard won recognition.

          • I totally agree with you Marty.

            Heather’s opinion offered some insight that I found valuable, especially in light of upcoming events.

            And I certainly understand it is not a legal definition — of all countries in the world it is Australia that is on the cutting edge of defining what a religion is — and it isnt as Heather describes it. And I know she knows that, I think she was trying to offer some insight into how people look at things. It sure doesnt make them right, but her comment was food for thought and provided some ideas I hadnt had myself about how to communicate the truth.

            I think, ultimately, her paradign is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as by that standard, the C of S is trying to fit right into that groove. And that, as you know, is one of POB’s greatest failings — he seeks to be mainstream. He wants to “fit in.” He wants to be known for the things he believes are important in society — having nice MEST, being seen with the “right” people, being “accepted” by the status quo. And in that regard, he is the antithesis of LRH.

            • One problem with the Mormon comparison on this topic – most devoted mormons have no idea about the unsavory side of Joesph Smith’s life. The LDS church has carefully white washed J. Smith’s bio for believers and Mormons can get in big trouble for reading things not sanctioned by the church. About 8 years ago I had some clean cut, true believing young LDS missionaries on my door step. While they could quote verbatim long passages from the book of Mormon they didn’t know Joesph Smith had multiple (& very young & already married) wives, no idea he was convicted of fraud in NY, no idea the original text to the “Pearl of Great Price” (part of the core Mormon books) used by Smith was found in a museum in 1968 and was actually just a typical Egyptian book of the dead bearing absolutely no relation to the text Smith supposedly translated from it (they couldn’t read hieroglyphics 150 years ago, they could in 1968), no idea Smith’s first wife denounced his celestial marriages, no idea most archeology and genetic research has totally debunked Smiths stories about life in ancient America and tribes of Jews living here, etc….

              In fact it’s far, far more likely that most well informed non-Mormons know more about Smiths true life history than the vast majority of Mormons.

              Religions and organizations have a vested interest in keeping unsavory truths about their founders or core foundations from the flock- keep away anything that could shake their faith or decrease their numbers. Most of the time if they have the power to prevent them from reading or finding out about it – they do and punish those who dare to seek it out.

              • Yes, religions based on “belief.” And you’ve sort of hit at the heart of the matter here, Scientology is not predicated upon “beliefs.” To the extent one falls into that trap, is the degree to which he or she has missed the entire crux of the subject.

              • Sunny — That was my point exactly. This IS the paradigm Heather was talking about. People think that religion mean aspiring to live the life of their founder, so Mormons have created a hagiography for Smith. They have nothing else to offer — those religious leaders provided no technology, no way of attaining enlightenment other than to live their life as they lived theirs. That is why I commented that perhaps it is time for a new paradigm. (I also note that Joseph Smith’s flaws are not a big secret, and are certainly not promoted by the LDS, but there is no clamor to say they are NOT a religion because of it).

                • I have recently gotten active with the Mormons again, so I am quite certain that the main emphasis is on Jesus and the atonement. Members are encouraged to strive to emulate Christ, not Joseph Smith. Sure, the Sunday School Joseph Smith is whitewashed, but I prefer the complex, enigmatic Joseph Smith.

                  My problem is that my mind seems to have grown a bit in the 21 years since I left BYU, got into Scientology, etc. I am having trouble putting it back into the box. Ultimately though, a church is just a group of people with certain shared beliefs.

                  • Bryon,

                    With you 100% on this.

                    I know quite a number of Mormons and on the whole I find them to be wonderfully industrious, ethical, “clean” people who truly have an amazing 3rd dynamic that truly supports one another. No slight on Mormons was intended in anything I wrote, I was simply trying to give some analogies.

                • Ah, Mike, this is where I must disagree with you. Christianity has nothing else to offer? Christianity (and Judaism, I don’t know about Islam) is greater than you conceived possible. For the Spirit of God himself lives within us. The spiritual journey that I mentioned, of becoming like Christ, is a journey of “walking” or “abiding” in the Spirit of God. And that one concept is so profound that I dare not attempt to explain it with mere words.🙂

            • Mike, thanks for giving me enough credit to realise that I wasn’t relitigating the legal issue. Marty can have his legal win.

              But I think there is value in understanding that a court judgment might stand as a historical turning point, it does not necessarily follow that the whole community: a) knows about it; or b) agrees with it. The High Court of Australia (well, several of its judges; not all of them) determined that, for legal purposes, a religion does not need to involve a deity, however, the reality is that many Australians disagree with that position of the court, or simply don’t know that the court so held. The UK courts, to date, appear to disagree with the High Court also.

              Consequently, many people categorise Buddhism as a philosophy and not a religion. For the same reason.

              It doesn’t matter to me. The High Court has made its decision and the law is settled in Australia. So, the legal meaning of “religion” has shifted. But the general meaning of religion is shifting, and it is some way behind.

              I think it makes sense for scientologists to understand the traditional paradigms, so that there’s a greater possibility that you will understand where others are coming from. Just as I have taken the time to try to understand where you are coming from. Communication 101.

              Mike, thinking about Joseph Smith, I am open to being corrected here, but I would have thought that Smith was in the nature of a prophet, rather than a deity. Likewise Abraham and Mohammed. Their character, while interesting, isn’t critical, because they are not God/Source. The character of Allah, YHWH and Jesus is crucial.

              I can see that the use of the word “Source” of LRH creates confusion for some. Joseph Smith is in fact a good analogy for LRH, although I think Smith probably claimed his writings were divinely inspired, unlike LRH.

        • Heather, Mike, Brilliant insight. Before Scientology was a religion, it was a philosophy, postulated as the science of life. It was made into a religion for defensive reasons — because vested interests manipulating the US government wanted to regulate the training of auditors and certify them. This would have opened the door for Scientology to be mixed up with psychology, because the state could then demand that auditors have X number of hours of training in psychology, etc. So Scientology — what is actually a spiritual philosophy — “became” a religion, to shield it from outside intervention, or really to shield it from being destroyed.

          Yet the fact remains that Scientology is NOT a religion in the western sense. There is no faith required. We don’t worship anyone (outside the idiot Church — they DO worship LRH and they definitely worship Savior Miscavige, they really do). They would not admit that, but they do. Blind devotion and all that. Let’s call a spade a spade; it’s worship.

          So, actually I don’t fault Tony that much for his observations because the truth of the matter has been obfuscated by DM to a great degree, by ignorant people who are worshipers in the CoS, and also by LRH who made Scientology into a religion which is asking for trouble, because 50% of the population finds it offensive. But as stated, there was a good reason for him doing so.

          To me, religion is something that people engage with on a platform of faith. That is not Scientology, not even remotely. Scientology is like engineering and that was the analogy LRH used more than any other early on.

          Scientology was the point where science and religion met. It was a scientific approach to the human soul, with the intention of understanding, and the intention of rehabilitating people as the spiritual beings they are.

          The tricky thing is, Scientology deals with all the things religion deals with — life after death, the human soul, supreme beings, spiritual abilities. But it comes to them from a different door. Religion comes to these things from the doorway of faith. Scientology comes to them from the doorway of, really, engineering. Personally, I like that engineering doorway better. I never liked having to accept anything on faith and it bothered me greatly that unlike everything else, there was no way to prove or examine the facts of existence. With Scientology, I gained the methods to investigate everything for myself and to discover what works and what thereby was true. And I have done those things.

          To many, Scientology is a religion. But that’s like putting on a pair of jeans about 6 sizes too small. There are great problems with that, the grandest of them being the fact that declaring so pretty much wipes out all opportunity for more than 50% of the population of earth being able to freely avail themselves of Scientology, because they are NEVER going to reach for something that looks to them like a “false” religion. To them, religion IS faith. Lacking that, Scientology appears to them as a sham or a con.

          I don’t think they are very smart to think that, but me thinking that is not going to change their minds. What people “think” on the subject of religion is based on their own observations, and that is rooted in their own personal integrity. To argue with such people that Scientology is a religion is to go against their own sense of personal integrity. They can SEE for themselves that Scientology is not based on faith. So you are never going to talk them out of it no matter what you say. Oh, they will say they agree with you for the sake of ending the argument, but they don’t really agree at all.

          To update the paradigm of what the human race considers a religion is never going to work because you are bucking up against their own personal integrity. Try it. I have and that’s how I know. It won’t work. Moreover, the CoS has been trying to do that for almost 60 years and it hasn’t worked yet. If people won’t accept Scientology as a religion, you can’t just bulldoze over them; it’s because something is wrong.

          I don’t agree you can compare Scientology to Mormonism or anything else. Scientology, the road to total understanding, has no comparison to any other -ism and the rules governing it’s dissemination are unique unto it.

          I am a marketing guy. My job in the Church was to figure out how to make Scientology understandable to people. I know how to do it now. I’ve figure out every part of the problem. I know every barrier in the road. I’ve explored and crawled all over each one and inside and under it. So I refuse to call it a religion because I know what the public wants to hear. They want to hear the TRUTH. No lipstick on the pig whatsoever. Then they can decide if they want it or not.

          If LRH made mistakes or had flaws, we need to be honest about it. If the Church is corrupt, we need to be honest about it. Honesty is what people want.

          LRH called Scientology the road to truth. Well, by god, that is also the only way to present it: as what it really IS. It is not a religion because it is broader than that. It IS a spiritual philosophy and a scientific approach to understanding ourselves and it includes the means to rehabilitate who we really are. To say Scientology is a religion is to do it a monumental disservice, and to instantly insult several billion people, and to flat out guarantee that they will never reach for Scientology. Calling Scientology a religion is a deal breaker for them so uttering the lie actually prevents Scientology from accomplishing it’s own purpose.

          The mission of Scientology is one of help. If you label it as a religion, it prevents about half the human race (by actual survey) from accepting that help. That’s an overt of magnitude and runs contrary to our own philosophy. People’s own religious beliefs prevent them from reaching for another religion. Whereas nothing prevents anyone from learning about philosophy.

          And I do not agree that the reverence and acceptance Scientologist feel for LRH makes it a religion, either. People love anyone who helps them. David Miscavige is making LRH into a saint because he is malicious and that is a prime way to derail the subject.

          So no, I’m not going to argue on how Scientology is a religion. It’s stupid and pointless. To call Scientology a religion is to do a disservice to everyone because it’s bigger than a religion.

          A religion is a body of knowledge that has no proof; it is founded on faith. It’s all about FAITH. What some of us haven’t realized is that people value faith and think it is VITAL. So if we call Scientology a religion to most people A) It’s a flat out lie and a degrade. B) It’s a crime of magnitude on the human race, because by saying that we are denying several billion people the chance to better their lives through LRH’s discoveries and that is denying them the tech, a crime of magnitude.

          Scientology is a spiritual odyssey, a philosophy that encompasses the subject of religion like a cloud encompasses a mountain top. Let it protect itself as a religion. But call it what it is.

          • Great post Steve. I would say that Miscavige has already turned LRH into a God (a suppressive act of magnitude, and a set up for continued assaults) and annointed himself a Saint; and he is steadily attempting to replace LRH in the unwanted and dangerous position of God.

          • Great post Steve.

            Buddhism is not considered a religion by most buddhists. Certainly the Dalai Lama and other high lamas do not consider it a religion. It IS a philosophy and a way of life based on the words of the Buddha. The KEY building block is … don’t believe what I say JUST because I’m the buddha, but because you have tested it and it works for you.

            However, I would say that almost ALL buddhist centers at least in America ARE listed as religious organization for tax purposes and in order to place them somewhere on the scheme of things. Buddhism definitely isn’t a business, nor is it strictly a charitable do good works organization – so it fits in well as a religion.

            But a religion with a God to worship or anyone else to worship and not built on faith.

            WH

            • See my comment to JF. I really recommend Lawrence Wright’s Saints and Sinners. Particularly the section on Will Campbell. I think you might rethink that position that Buddhism involves no faith. Perhaps not belief, but faith, yes. Big difference, and an important one.

              • Marty: I’m going to read the book you recommend.

                And to be more clear — buddhism does involve faith at a certain point — there is a LEAP of faith that must occur in order to fully be in turned with ones lama and the buddha. At least this is very true in Vajrayana Buddhism which I follow.

                George White practices Theravadan Buddhism of which I know very little so he would have to weigh in on this.

                You are quite correct to make a distinction between faith and belief.

                (for example — when someone decides to take the meditation instruction of someone and TRY it for the first time — that requires some faith that he won’t be harmed — as an example of a basic level)

                WH
                PS: Thank Mosey for her sweet thank you card. The two of you are completely class acts. Who sends cards these days instead of a quick email. Lovely Texan lady that’s who.

                • WH,
                  In Theravada Buddhism, we do have faith but it plays a very limited role. I have heard many talks by monks about this subject especially to new people because it is always an issue. In Theravada, we say you need faith at the beginning. First, you need faith in yourself. You must believe that you can achieve higher states. Secondly, and this comes later, you need a little faith in the Buddha. You must feel that he was an enlightened being.
                  In Thervada, the faith at the beginning fades away into a certainty. The factors of enlightenment are then developed. In Thervada, you can’t go anywhere without “Right View” which is the first of the eightfold path. In fact, we get a large public coming through our Vihara. I might add that the more Scientology advertises in Tampa Bay, the greater our inflow. Most come in because they say that the Scientologist just memorized an answer and that they could not really ask questions. Somehow the Scientology representative was giving them the truth but they could not question it. We get very few to return because Theravada Buddhism has renunciation, non- violence etc. Also, there are so many flavors, and most people just want to shop around. We had a high-level executive in our Vihara for over two years. One day he announced to the monk that he had enough of Buddhism and he was going to India to meet Sai Baba, a current favorite Hindu guru. The monks, according to tradition, wished him well with no attempt to stop him. We have total freedom to come and go as we please. In Thervada, ‘Right View” is the KEY. So much has been written about it and the Buddha stressed it over and over. There are even books that suggest that the reason Buddhism spread is because the culture of India at the time was primed and ready for “Right View”..
                  In the 2,600 years since the Buddha, “Right View” is far more difficult to achieve. In Theravada, the Buddha just said “come and see” so we do very little promotion and we don’t push faith in theoretical views which the Buddha cautioned us about.

                  Much loving-kindness,
                  GMW

                  • I can’t find the exact references but it is very often mentioned on this blog that the teaching of the Buddha was written down “500-1,000 years after the Buddha’s death and a lot of errors were introduced.” I also get calls from the Flag Land Base and someone always says it to me as a counter point that Buddhism is altered tech. This happened about 3 weeks ago.

                    For the record, the actual date of recording is 29 BCE which is exactly 454 years after the Buddha’s death. Also, the system was quite complex. To keep accuracy, there were groups of monks assigned to each major section of passages. The number involved in the retention was extremely large to be sure not one word was missed. Also, in the 5th century BCE before written tradition, there are reports of people with remarkable memories. They did not write so they relied on the memory – different. Also, the Chinese and the original Pali scriptures are almost perfectly identical. It is very difficult to alter the tech because the Buddha in 45 years of teaching said the same thing so many times in repetition.

                    Much loving-kindness,
                    GMW

          • Steve, you said a religion is a body of knowledge that has no proof; it is founded on faith. It’s all about FAITH.
            Your right that the majority of people see it that way and scientology runs into a wall. But religion is a practice or belief that brings one closer to their spiritual source. Faith is not a required part of this. Scientology can rightfully be described as an applied religious philosophy, though saying its an applied spiritual philosophy would be a much smoother road to travel as your examples and experience so rightly explain. To me, and by definition, faith and worship are note required parts of a religious system. But to each his own choice of paths.
            I think the biggest obstacle to fitting into society has been the lack of true charity amd the abundance of greed. If we walked the walk instead of just talked the talk the acceptance level would have been so much higher, whatever we called it. Only the fundamentalists would be upset, and your not likely going to reach them anyway. Using something so closely resembling the christian cross was also a huge mistake. Just my opinion. Hindsight is 20/20.
            I am all for calling it what it is, as you suggest. Hopefully it will reach a safe point from which it can underpromise and over deliver. That usually is well received.

            • Scientology does involve faith, just as turning a key in an ignition switch does, or a Christian attempting to emulate Christ in order to achieve some intended result does. I think a problem lies in the people not being able to differentiate between faith and belief. There is a chapter in Lawrence Wright’s book Saints and Sinners, where a back and forth on the subject between Larry and Will Campbell breaks it down really well. Belief? That is a whole different ball game – something that should play no part in Scientology; and if it does is a departure from Scientology.

              • Marty

                Exactly
                You noted; “I think a problem lies in the people not being able to differentiate between faith and belief.”

                Faith and belief are words that have been used and misused so much over the ages that it is probably impossible to get a wide acceptance of any particular definition for either.
                The two words are often used interchangeably, or one is used to define the other.

                Almost any argument involving either will usually boil down to differing definitions. Almost any discussion involving either, will usually only “resolve” when the definitions of the words are thoroughly agreed upon. If the parties involved have not agreed upon the definitions of “faith” and “belief”, any discussion involving the use of the words is unlikely to produce much agreement.

                Eric S

          • Steve,

            Yes , yes, I ca fully agree with your viewpoint !
            LRH was far ahead of time and still is !
            His solution was to make areligion out of it, so he could continue his work.

            But an engram, a thetan or past are facts that can be scientifically proven, but nobody dares as it wouldbe against the establishment.
            But, I nearly 100% certain that in thes next yearsome universities will shout: “Eureka” Mr. Hubbard was right !!!!! We have tested it and can prove it!
            and that’s it .it will become common knowledge and the whole world will be co-auditing and nobody will talk about any religion or believe in that he’s a thetan. he’ll know it.
            Nobody will have a monopoly on it. this is our job !

            • Yes LO, that’s right and there have already been MANY scientists who have independently verified what LRH spoke of way before his time. Dan Koon knows of one such scientist — has a set of lectures from the man, all of which confirm the existence of engrams as “cellular” memory. There are many more.

          • Watch out, Steve, Marty doesn’t like it when people say Scientology is not a religion.

            • Huh?

              • Well isn’t that why my post up the page got such a tetchy response? You assumed that I was trying to undermine your legal win. As I recall, you didn’t even address me directly, but just referred to me as “she”.

                • Why are you so touchy. I responded to Mike because I was addressing his interpretation about re-interpreting Scientology because of the paradigm you offered that one must WORSHIP and recognize a anthropomorphic GOD in order to be a religion. Read the Australian High Court decision – your paradigm is your opinion, it is not the law. Nothing “tetchy” (whatever that means) about it.

                  • Maybe I’m touchy because you jump down my throat sometimes when I have no reason to think I’ve invited it.

                    Naturally, I’ve read said High Court decision many times. My paradigm is my opinion. I made clear that it is not the law (in Australia). But it is not only my opinion.

                    I won’t insult you by giving you a link to a dictionary definition of tetchy.

              • PS. For what it’s worth, I think the High Court made the right decision to cast the net broadly in determining those “religions” that should be protected by the constitution. That doesn’t mean I think the traditional definition of “religion” was wrong, though.

      • Heather G,

        You be a smart cookie. Here are some things to consider:

        Isn’t it odd that because there may or may not be A God or single creator, that the paradigm for religion might well be based on a lie? And thus, the requirements for a subject being considered a religion are rooted in fallacy and ignorance?

        Is religion not the study of who or what created life and the universe? And does the character of that creator matter? Do we allow ourselves to worship a God who seems to enjoy wars and death, disease and mayhem, mixed in with all the glory, beauty and goodness? Or do we create subgods to explain away that character? Even if there is not such a sub-god who is actually responsible for what we view as suffering and evil?

        Who really decides the nature of the creator of this universe, the creator of life?

        If science is the study of laws and conditions which make up life and this universe, doesn’t science, at some point step into religion? And doesn’t religion as a quest to know the creator and what is created at some point step into science?

        And how do we know? How do we know God? How do we know science? Don’t we know through knowing? So, don’t religion and science (as paradigms) both come down to knowing?

        So, isn’t the study of knowing the path to both religion and science?

        Gnosticism preceded Jesus and might well have served him.

        Thus, might there not be another paradigm that is missed, that is neither about tech nor about religion? Another choice that can be offered and understood? (Must religion be based in worship?) Might there not be something that transcends both?

        Just some potatoes for the soup.

        ps: way back in 1950, LRH was talking about Dianetics crossing over into realm of religion. And he was serious.

        • Michael, you said ;
          “Thus, might there not be another paradigm that is missed, that is neither about tech nor about religion? Another choice that can be offered and understood? (Must religion be based in worship?) Might there not be something that transcends both?”
          There is another paradigm beyond the Nature based religions of Earth with their reliance on worship. There may be many. The chapter on Man and their Gods in the book Thinking and destiny by Percival would be a challenge for someone like yourself to put down. You can read it online at the word foundation. Start on page 647 if your in a rush..

          • John,

            I’ve been meaning to get that book, so a free copy is welcome. Want to get a copy of Korzybski’s stuff also. Haven’t read Science & Sanity since 1969, sitting in a hooch in Cua Viet, huddling under a blanket while the monsoon rains pounded the roof.

            Read some of Percival this morning. Sun was shining. Not so dramatic. All was peace.

            I’m fascinated by what individuals experience and how they interpret that experience. What does one extrapolate from an experience when one posits factors that seem to lie beyond the experience? Such as, “Who or what created this?” What meanings does one assign, what explanations?

            Having the integrity to express what you’ve perceived is one thing, but what if the integrity is rooted in delusion or fixation or misunderstanding? What if the meanings you assign are rooted in meanings passed on through culture, be it met-, mega-, or micro-culture? If the meanings are merely conventions, pat interpretations rather than true understanding?

            I watch individuals vehemently defend conceptual constructs that have been passed to them, as if these conceptual constructs were inherent and essential to survival. It’s not as if the person discovered these ideas himself. But, instead has allowed another to be the source of his thoughts.

            It’s fascinating to watch these ideas being converted and distilled into rightness. Just as thought/spirit/theta can become more and more solid, ideas can take the same course. So, you have degrees of “rightness” that emerge from the highest reaches of understanding and cascade into impenetrable ignorance and solidity. The idea birthed in understanding and promise becomes so right that understanding becomes impossible with hope turned to despair.

            To be able to look for oneself, without the need to reference anyone else… To be the source of one’s own perceptions and meanings…

            Who will we allow to be our god? Who will author our thoughts? Who will script our lives?

            Religion? Who shall take the pen from this hand and make scene my life?

            Worship? If I were to worship, if I were to find glory in anyone or anything, it would be in LIFE creating what is beneficial and beautiful.

            That is religion enough for me.

            And what will fulfill that religion? A diet of intellectual carbs and sugars, of empty and meaningless mental calories? Too often, I hunger for what lies beyond the social interchange, beyond the logic, argument and debate, beyond the ideas and words so carelessly espoused. Ideas and words deemed so substantial and right, but which are so ephemeral and flimsy.

            Sigh.

            Ciao, John, I have to go do some looking.

      • Heather,
        I can see how what you are saying applies to Christianity in that Jesus presented himself as the Son of God and put foreward the idea that one would experience God through him and even the symbolic consumption of his body in Holy Mass.
        LRH did not do that.

    • And, Steve, it is a good rule of thumb to beware of people who judge others based on their worst aspects rather than their best. It rather says more about the judger than the judgee. If Tony Ortega were to judge LRH by the best of his life instead of the worst of this life, he would have ended his list at #2. But to do that he would have had to actually read (and think about) a book like Scientology 0:8 The Book of Basics, not to mention the uncherry-picked version of Science of Survival or even Problems of Work. Or maybe listen to the Phoenix Lectures. And then ask himself, “I wonder if any of this might have something, anything, to do with me?”

    • To Steve/Thoughtful
      Wow, what a response! The proof IS in the pudding and that is the bottom line for so many things. How many musicians lead or have led insane lives doing insane things…but the music they produce may be something you just don’t want to live without. The creation can be a thing of beauty even while the creator is in agonizing pain . It’s all about the Aesthetic Mind. LRH speaks straight to the heart of millions,all the while dealing with an incredible amount of stuff including his own big case. You’re right, makes it even more amazing that Scientology is workable. You take what works for you and use the hell out of it. Tony is simply another unoriginal idiot.

    • That’s reason and intelligence talking. That’s what I love about Scientologists.

    • Steve: Excellent commentary.

      Thanks

      WH

    • So you’re saying just because the tech “works”, it doesn’t matter that LRH was a pathological liar who died separated from his family and in poor health? You don’t think his condition should be a reflection of the subject? It doesn’t sound like he was Total Cause Over Life does he?

      If the tech works, you should be able to demonstrate your well-honed “OT abilities” like what is stated in the book History of Man, e.g. “tipping hats at 40 yards”. Perhaps you should define what you really mean by “works”, e.g. “feel better”? Are you Total Cause Over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time?

      • The fact remains that you do not know who you are or why you are here on this earth. You don’t know where this is going or what will happen when you die. I owe you nothing. I’m simply pointing out to you (out of kindness) that the tech works. I don’t have to demonstrate anything to you. Why? Because you are stone blind — not because you can’t see, but because you won’t see. You refuse to see. Demonstrating anything to you is pointless. You don’t need me or anyone else to “prove” Scientology works. That is something that is self evident. Read a chapter from a book and then go test it and see if it works. All the tech is like that. But you will never actually do that, because you aren’t actually sincere in any of your questions. You are insincere. You are simply one of those shallow people who takes pleasure in convincing others we are all trapped. It alarms you that some people are not trapped and say there’s a way out. Stay in that box you’ve created for yourself. You are your own jailer.

        • Exactly.

          Yet another excellent comment.

          Thank-you Steve.

        • Every religion considers that they have all the answers to the questions like “who am I?”, “why am I here?” and “what happens when I die?”. A cult considers itself to be the ONLY ones who have all the answers, and that everybody else “just doesn’t get it”. I don’t need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or work as slave labor to get access to the answers in a real religion. So thanks, but not thanks I’ll continue to be a lowly “wog”. It is self-evident to me that there are no OTs. OT 8 John Allender, with head-mounted camera, is the laughing stock of the internet. Is that the best that scientology can do?

          • Darth Anonymous,

            Got what you say, and I’m not trying to quarrel with you, but I’ve just got to ask, how does one die in good health? (Being funny and nit-picky I know.)

          • DA — I’m not trying to argue with you, but your assumption is incorrect. Christians do not have the answer to these questions. I’ve never met a Christian who felt he had the answers to these questions and the Bible says (paraphrased) “for now we see through the mirror dimly.” They just accept these things as unknowable. As Scientologists we don’t have the answers to these questions either for the simple reason these are not questions that someone can answer for you. What Scientology has are the practical tools — actually technology — for you to discover these answers for yourself. Because deep down, you actually know. If you don’t give a shit about any of that, no one is forcing you to look. And no one here is making a single penny from anything you do either way. John Allender is a jack ass and no representation of anything except the result of Scientology applied in reverse — to make slaves. Because that’s what he is, a slave… of the worst kind.

            Scientology technology is like a pump. Used correctly it can pump flood waters out of your basement. Run in reverse, it can flood your home. Run Scientology as intended and it helps people become more free and able. Run it in reverse and it can turn people into slaves. Any technology works the same way.

    • Is there a photo of who designed your car in the car? Is the manual for your car named after the designer? Can you still drive the car if you criticize the designer? Sorry but Ron’s bio does matter as he represents Scientology. The problem is Ron put himself on a pedestal to the public. We all might not care as we’ve had wins but the general public cares and that is how Ron wanted it. It was Ron’s policies that put him on that pedestal so we all shouldn’t be upset that the public pays attention to his bio. Personally I don’t care but the general public does.

      • When I started in Scientology there were NOT photos of LRH in the books. They were little green works and were not fancy. The books are not named after LRH, he was the author. I DO criticize the designer and I still am a Scientologist moving up the Bridge. Ron was not perfect, neither are you and neither am I and neither is anyone. Ron did not want people to worship him. That, along with all the fairy tales about LRH being perfect, are coming from David Miscavige.

        • I believe you are missing the point. For the most part I could care less about LRHs “warts”. I love his quote, “even heroes have lice”. My basic point is LRH made it policy to position himself and Scientolgoy as all but one and the same. Nothing wrong with that but none of us should be surprised that the general public wants to know about LRH as part of their taking a look at Scientology. When I first began in Scientology I was fascinated with LRH and his “story” and adventures and all that he had done. Most Scientologists love hearing “Ron” stories. The bottom line is that Ron’s bio is important for at least PR and marketing reasons. Ron himself put himself front and center in all that is Scientology” “Hubbard Guidance Center”, Hubbard Dianetics Course”, “Hubbard Communication Office Bulletins”, etc. So again don’t blame the general public or even the media for being a bit put off by how he fudged his bio. I don’t see how Tony can be blamed for pointing it out. It is what it is.

      • Expelled4Llife

        It was not Ron who put himself on a pedestal.

        I do not recall very many instances where L. Ron Hubbard specified how people were to treat him as particularly special, I do however recall an amazing number of references on how he thought we should treat each other.

        L. Ron Hubbard was a philosopher. He was a practical man. He developed procedures that got results. His philosophy was to help your fellow man. I think he has achieved that to a significant degree.

        • Beg to differ on that one WW.
          I was in the LRH Comm NW and there were many programs and advices aimed specifically at putting “LRH” on a pedestal.
          However, to put it in perspective, the thetan behind “LRH” knew full well that “LRH” was just a valence and a personality. He was playing the game of creating a Name.
          In my opinion, that game was totally unnecessary as the technology and its results would have taken care of that automatically.

          • Nomnom

            OK I stand corrected.
            One question I am left with though is, “Was it actually LRH who wrote the programs and advices, and was he the one pushing them?”
            When I was on staff in the mid 90s there were endless unnecessary and distracting programs being pushed. I feel it was one of the larger nails in the coffin of our org.
            I agree that pushing those programs, that you cited, was also unnecessary.

            Thanks for the info.

            Eric S.

            • Hi WW, It’s been a while, but there were many “Consultant” telexes to LCI (LRH Comm Int) from which programs were written. The proclamations, keys-to-the-city, etc are some that come to mind.
              I imagine that the series of booklets that came out by “Friends of Ron” in the 90’swere similarly part of some earlier advice ( Humanitarian, Adventurer, Poet, Music Maker, Artist, Adventurer, etc).
              Agreed – not necessary!🙂

              • Nomnom

                OK, But my point was that Ron was never a big promoter of getting some exalted status. I do not know exactly who originated these items, but I will bet that it was NOT Ron.

                Also, I will tell you right now, if Dan Sherman were to actually write L.Ron Hubbard’s biography, it would be such a load of garbage that it would be worthless.

                Ron said what he said about his life. Maybe all of it is true, maybe not, but at least let’s hear it from the man himself, and perhaps those telling anecdotal stories of personal experiences with Ron. I am interested in neither hyperbole nor nay-saying from third parties. Let’s not pin on Ron other peoples fantasies

                Eric S.

        • Oh please. LRH offices? KSW? Source? Photos everywhere? Everything named “Hubbard” this or that. And that’s all cool but don’t be mad when the general public and media scrutinize the old man.

          • Expelled 4life

            Hey, I have absolutely no problems with people scrutinizing LRH’s life. He did what HE did, HE said what HE said, but I simply ask that people do not saddle him with all the other crap that has been generated about him, on either side of this discussion, that does not reflect either of the above. Attack him if you believe that he deserves it, or if it is important to you somehow, but at least stick to the facts.

            Have whatever OPINION you want about him, but please do not try to pass it off as TRUTH if it is not supported by the facts.

            Eric S

            • Expelled 4 Life

              My opinion is Ron was genius and the lower grade chart (I haven’t done the upper Grade Chart) is brilliant in almost all ways. Model Session is one of the great discoveries / creations of the 20th Century. I also believe there are major flaws in ethics, justice and admin tech but much of the ethics, justice and admin tech is remarkably workable. I also believe Ron had personal flaws and we shouldn’t be surprised or even upset that they are reported. It is what it is.

    • Great analogy Steve, I wish more people could be as practical with subjects.
      Another analogy, although a little gruesome is the bird Man of Alcatraz – Robert Stroud. He was a murderer (twice) and was never to be released, yet he studied birds and even wrote a book on bird diseases. His procedures are still used today and he has been referred to as genius in the field.
      Do you think the people whose pets have been saved by his technology or the birds themselves give a hoot about Stroud’s past or activities?
      If it works it works!
      Be smart enough recognise what does and you are indeed a wise person.

      • Sherb, that’s a good point (and a great film by the way). I think the Tech is invisible to non-Scientologists. I don’t know why that is, but it’s as if nothing is there for them at all and they all uniformly behave that way.

        Thus they wrongly assume that LRH is the big attraction to Scientology… as if his “magnetic personality” was what attracts people into the religion. To us, that is about the dumbest thing we ever heard of.

        LRH said people are asleep. Being asleep, unawareness… same thing. He wrote about this particularly in one of the public Scientology motion pictures which was intended to enlighten people on the objectives. I think there’s a lot of truth in that.

        Maybe if we treated non-Scientologists as if the tech were totally invisible to them, we might make more progress with them. They say “yrawr, rawwrrr, ayack, wrack” and we say “There are three component parts of understanding: affinity, reality and communication. Are any of these things missing in your life?” ;-P

      • Or ask, “…which one of these things best describes your upset with Scientology?”

    • Steve, I will use this analogy too… it’s creative, poetic and… well, thoughtful. Thanks so much.

  48. Hmm. I can see the logic behind Tony’s pick but I wouldn’t justify it in the way that he did.

    Sure, Hubbard created the Scientology organisation and without him, it would have never existed. But his policy, the decisions he made and the techniques he applied did not prevent that a sociopathic person like Miscavige would eventually come to power. In that, Hubbard indeed made a significant contribution to the current sad state the “church” is in.

    I believe even if basic auditing techniques have a positive impact on people, there’s still a good reason why the organisation turned out the way it did with Miscavige as top dog.
    Dianetics and Scientology was supposed to be an easily applicable therapy/philosophy. But it is not that easy “technology” people can just apply and be happy with. Some basic things may work out for you (arc triangle, study tech, etc…), others don’t and when you’re looking deeper you’ll notice there are numerous other books of his, and volumes and volumes of green on white and red on white.

    As I have gathered from Marty’s and other independent Scientologists and ex-Scientologist postings, it literally takes YEARS to get a comprehensive understanding of all of Hubbard’s works, or be “fully tech trained”. And with the ambiguity – that you’ll inevitably find in a large body of works – you can justify almost anything to yourself or others.

    • Dr Faust

      It is a fools game to “try to prove” anything to anybody, and every person’s journey is unique.

      So, what are we left with? (the short list)

      Well…

      Believe in yourself.
      Know that you are capable of being the person you always wanted to be.
      Use those things that you KNOW work.
      Do not be afraid to learn and try new things.
      Care about the world you live in. It is yours.
      Help others when you can.
      Enjoy your creations..

      Eric S

    • “But his policy, the decisions he made and the techniques he applied did not prevent that a sociopathic person like Miscavige would eventually come to power.”

      So how are we any more innocent than Hubbard?

      That’s the things with the ant anti anti hate groups. It was all so bad? Why didn’t THEY make it better? The Orgs are not beauty salons! It takes a village in Scientology too!

      • “So how are we any more innocent than Hubbard?”

        You didn’t write policy.
        As to the rest, I’m sorry, I didn’t understand what you mean by it.

    • You sure “can justify almost anything to yourself or others”, but you may as well use Scientology to help yourself and others to grow spiritually to the greater understanding of life, greater ability to handle life, greater ability to get the job done. As it was already said, Scientology is just an effective tool, it is a technique to gain knowledge and abilities. And if somebody misuses a hummer to brake things or to harm himself or others with it, are you really going to say that a hummer is no good, or will blame the hummer creator?

      • Please note that my first comment was never meant as an attack against the application of Dianetics or Scientology, by individuals, and in fact it isn’t. It’s also not an ad-hominem attack against Hubbard.
        I do not invalidate that you have had great wins, personally, applying some of his teachings.
        However, that you had these wins does _not_ negate the fact that even with Hubbard still alive, Miscavige managed to undermine the whole corporate structure so that he could apparently seamlessly take over when LRH died.

        Now – notwithstanding your personal wins you experienced during auditing – according to Hubbard, the state of clear should greatly improve one’s ability to survive on all dynamics, which would include Scientology as its third dynamic. And even though I realize that there are later levels to come, the attainment of clear should already weed out lots of aberration present in any individual.
        The question all independents will have to honestly ask themselves is, how then was it possible that the organisation was ever allowed to be run by

        a) …people who are clearly severely aberrated or even SPs (like Miscavige).
        b) And why didn’t the clears/OTs present, that have already been produced according to standard tech, manage to intervene in time to prevent the current sad state of the “Church”.

        My line of reasoning is and always has been that, while I acknowledge the wins that you attribute to the “tech” personally, I believe it is dangerous to base a huge organisational structure on presuppositions, like: “Power can safely be entrusted to the unaberrated because you can be sure he _always_ strives for the greatest good on the greatest number of dynamics”, when in fact, these presuppositions may later turn out to be flawed.

        As to the argument in my original post, the ambiguity:
        Marty said that “disconnection” was one of the most harmful things ever implemented by Scientologists, and that disconnection was cancelled by Hubbard himself. I agree. Still, at one point in time, this policy was written up. Same with Fair Game, where the application of “declaring people fair game” then was cancelled. What was cancelled? The application of the fair game policy? Or just calling people fair game but you would continue to do the same stuff you did before?

        The problem is with the sheer volume of works, you will inevitably increase the room for interpretation. The question then is, who does the interpretation? How do you trust this interpretation to be not counter-survival?

        This, and the fact that there were apparently no effective failsafes whatsoever against people like Miscavige assuming power, are two contributing factors to Scientology’s state today. Tony Ortega’s pick may have more truth to it than you want to admit after he took those easy potshots at Hubbard’s biography.

        • Scientology could only be taken over by SP’s after LRH died and not because he wrote wrong policy. Davey could climb only because he was legally empowered by false documents that LRH couldn’t change after he passed. Later he was given full legal power by the tax attorneys of CST, the (il)legal owners of the copyrights.

          After seeing what the government take over would lead to, the real Clears and OT’s, very powerful as you state, started their own delivery which has expanded till today in the FZ, despite all Davey’s legal efforts to thwart it.

          LRH never laid power in a few good people but in a whole management structure with checks and balances. You’re right that interpretation by idiots is a dangerous thing and should be checked by others and by extensive policy, thus the KSW series and others.

          The fail safes LRH tried to implement were successfully circumvented as he wasn’t on active lines due to the tremendous amounts of government oppression that kept him off direct lines. That was the only reason for the attacks on LRH; it allowed the attorneys to step in with falsified legal documents that empowered Davey, who in 1993 empowered them with the copyrights.

        • Dear Dr. Faust,
          Thank you for clarifying your comm, I understand you better now.
          The question of “how then was it possible…” puzzled me too for a while until now – yesterday, to be exact. I have been honored to be audited by Marty on Grade 2, that have attested today to my great satisfaction, and will be more then happy to share with you – one of many – my cognition on the grade that solved the mentioned puzzle for me:
          IT IS THE DOUBLE STANDARD SITUATION.
          It is the gap between the awareness level and actual doingness.
          To increase the knowingness, shift the view point and rehabilitate the ability is a great, honorable, totally worth to be validated FIRST step in the direction of spiritual advancement. BUT here comes the but: there have to be the second step done that will complete the cycle of action, and that is DO, act, practice the new (well forgotten but now returned) ability, apply it in life and get the final valuable product – life changed to better. It does not end with a ability gained moment, you have to earn this ability by using it, continuously, earn it again and again and each and every moment to come, in the new unit of time. How much theory is worth without it’s application? And you probably already know what I am about to say – the wonderful, beautiful, powerful ability just gained through auditing is going to disappear like a morning fog before sun as if it never was there, if the second step did not come again and again after the first.

          “You have to walk the walk”, as Marty says – and boy do I understand him now what he meant!

          Now, if you look at the church with that little data in mind you may see all that people been pushed through their levels and grades to the greater and greater awareness without adjusting the doingness line to the new awareness level, new responsibilities, new value systems. That creates the out-Ethics situation. That causes the abilities loss (and OT-VIIIs acting like PTSes, robots or clowns).

          Nothing wrong with the Tech, the question is “how and whether it was applied?”

  49. Agree to disagree…live and let live…sounds like a plan.

  50. I think what you (Marty) and Indies fail to realize is that Tony Ortega’s job is somewhat editorial in nature. He has free reign to make his own conclusions and to write about them, conclusions which may be based upon verifiable facts. His Scientology series was never about being politically correct for Indies, and, most important of all, what Indies do not realize, is that not everyone loves Ron… not every Ex, and especially not every WOG. Isn’t that WHY you call them wogs? Because they DON”T get it?

    Who is being more unfair- the guy who overlooks Ron’s faults and the unflattering details of his past and life, or the guy who feels they are important enough to mention? Answer: Neither. The guy who is being unfair is the guy who has a serious problem with the other guy for speaking his views. Tony Ortega did not write Marty an open letter about why Indies are wrong for saying all those nice things about Ron and following Ron’s advice all the time. His point was, Scientology is wholly Ron’s invention and doing, so if it has serious problems, we only have Ron to blame. Apparently Ron never planned for getting ill, getting old, hostile takeovers and being conned himself by incompetent minders and young sociopathic upstarts. Perhaps if Ron hadn’t estranged every family member and child he ever had, there would have been some loyal blood nearby to really look after him and his legacy. Etc.

    Some people DO care what kind of PERSON their Guru is. Such is the nature of Man; we are not all the same. I used to think Scientology made me more an individual. When I had the cognition it was really trying to make me think the same as every other Scientologist, I left. When I come here, I am reminded of this. Because you guys tend to sound off mostly in unison.

    If you thought Tony Ortega was on your side because he wrote some nice things about you, then you have no clue what journalism is all about. Since journalism is a wog activity that is generally looked down upon by Scientologists, per your Founder’s attitude about the media, perhaps you should not have such high hopes for it.

    Anyway Indies, don’t give up hope for yourselves. It’s not the end of the world just because Tony Ortega doesn’t love Ron.

    • MVT wrote: “His point was, Scientology is wholly Ron’s invention and doing, so if it has serious problems, we only have Ron to blame.”

      The “Jefferson/Washington conundrum”. They had slaves? Shouldn’t we?

      “Apparently Ron never planned for getting ill, getting old, …”

      Right, because writing the 7 green volumes of policy were clearly the signs of a man who didn’t take any responsibility for the future of the organization he helped to build.

      “…hostile takeovers and being conned himself by incompetent minders …and young sociopathic upstarts.”

      So you’re saying it’s reasonable for every CEO and Board to plan for a sociopath to take over once their gone? Laughable. The horrible irony is, Hubbard DID just that … and probably too much!

      “Perhaps if Ron hadn’t estranged every family member and child he ever had, …”

      You’re clueless MVT, every one of LRH’s real family loved him to the end, and he them.

      “It’s not the end of the world just because Tony Ortega doesn’t love Ron.”

      LOL. Tony is ultimately the blind man that he is trying desperately not to be. A wise man once said: that which you resist, you become. Sadly, Tony is the model example.

    • MVT,
      It’s fine for you to speak for yourself, but please, do not speak for me or presume to speak for others as you did here “…what Indies do not realize, is that not everyone loves Ron… not every Ex, and especially not every WOG.” and here “Anyway Indies, don’t give up hope for yourselves.”
      Thank you.

  51. Oh, let’s keep in mind that life at its best moves toward clarification, toward understanding. That you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you have to continue to disagree. Nor that your affinity must be reduced. Good arguments get the blood flowing. Keep the communication flowing. The ideas exchanged.

    I like to ask myself, “Why do they believe that? What are they seeing and why?” Then I question my own view and belief, just as an exercise, just as a means of strengthening and adjusting.

    I don’t think Tony had ill intent. He just sees what he sees. And he would lack integrity if he tried to pander to Marty or the rest of us by saying that what he sees is not what he sees.

    Just because we don’t like what someone does, doesn’t mean they lack integrity. In fact, individuals with integrity tend to piss off a good portion of the world on a regular basis. (but so do individuals with absolutely no integrity–ain’t figuring stuff out a bitch?)

    Subjects that are strenuously debated evolve. The old stagnation aphorism. Interest, intelligence and creativity lead to advances.

    All great ideas and movements stir up controversy in clashing with the status quo. ( But, then again, a lot of meaningless, ignorant ideas and movements stir up controversy in clashing with the status quo.)

    Point is, the controversy is irrelevant. Just a bit of dissonance. Which can lead to understanding.

    Lead to understanding on both sides.

    For those willing to examine, evaluate, analyze and reach beyond.

    Tony isn’t betraying anyone. He’s just saying what he believes. From information he’s got, much of which is contradictory.

    I think it behooves Independents to set an example of understanding and communication (with affinity about realities) rather than get ARC broken because an author fails to understand what many who have been studying Scientology for a long time do not.

    Goodness, look at how many individuals who have studied Scientology for decades come out, get exposed to anti-LRH material and suddenly become rabidly anti-Scienotlogy. ESMB has a snoot full.

    I think LRH could confront and be responsible for the controversy he excited. He managed to control it. And keep on communicating. I think those of us who wish, can do so too.

    I would still sit down with Tony and have a cup of coffee, talk about whatever. He stands up for what he believes.

    Whether we agree or not.

    Just a few thoughts.

  52. What strikes me is that Marty is speaking out for LRH and the subject.
    The silence from the CO$ is deafening and speaks volumes.

    That said, there is “good’ and there is “bad” and the truth encompasses both.

  53. “By making Scientology the most important thing in Scientology, Hubbard rendered Scientologists subordinate to the religion, in turn rendering fundamentalism the norm as opposed to the exception. While it’s hardly the case that all Scientologists follow an ends-justifies-the-means rationale, history finds no shortage of dangerously fanatical Scientologists under Hubbard. Whether it involved organizing a bomb-scare to implicate journalist Paulette Cooper, staging a hit-and-run accident to frame then-Clearwater mayor Gabe Cazares, or infiltrating the IRS, Scientologists have repeatedly exhibited an unflinching willingness to ignore laws and ethical boundaries in order to protect or advance Scientology.”

    I’m sorry. I don’t think Scientologist A = Scientologist B = Scientologist C.

    I consider myself a Scientologist.

    I don’t consider I should be pigeon-holed like this.

    I’ve found this generalization and those made by other journalists offensive.

    I watched all of Mark Bunker’s “Knowledge Report” clips and am really offended by the way that some of the interviewees were allowed to paint all Scientologists the same color, even though the person was obviously only speaking about their experiences on the Int Base and on the Apollo.

    I really wish that TonyO had interviewed a spectrum of Scientologists in order to formulate and arrive at his viewpoint when writing this part of his series.

    By the way, is Jesus responsible for the predatory homosexual Catholic priests?

    That generality doesn’t work, either. And it’s just as offensive.

    • I watched all of Mark Bunker’s “Knowledge Report” clips and am really offended by the way that some of the interviewees were allowed to paint all Scientologists the same color, even though the person was obviously only speaking about their experiences on the Int Base and on the Apollo.

      CO$/DM op-terming Indies seek to find commnon ground and ally themselves with those who differentiate not between the actions of CO$/DM and LRH Technology. Guys like Ortega/Bunker merely push the “Bad COS/DM” button to effectively rattle the Indie Cage into co-operation with their medias/ventures which hurts not only the Church but the Freezone/Indies too. Way too much short-sightedness here. LRH has been down that Road before, it’s covered in Policies, no need to go over the same ground again.

      Referring to it as “accepting differing viewpoints”, but their actions/products indicate an entirely picture.

      After DM is gone, there’ll be another “must get rid of” target … and who cares anyways?

      I ‘disconnected’ from the Church, I’m not ‘handling’ them. Thus I could care less whether Adolph Hitler or Mother Teresa runs the Church. I focus on SCN Tech delivery in the Freezone, and DM, Ortega, Bunker, etc. are just noise on the line.

      The Church does good things and bad things (Agenda Trolls believe it’s either all bad or all good), and “reforming it” does not even make the top 100 Spot on any magnitude of importance affecting this planet that needs to handled. Moving up the bridge is what really counts.

      • *Moving up the bridge is what really counts.*

        I agree.

        Do you have a plan on how to help those who are being blocked from going up the Bridge and butchered by the squirreling and blood sucking in the RCS?

        • Do you have a plan on how to help those who are being blocked from going up the Bridge and butchered by the squirreling and blood sucking in the RCS?

          Hi Mike.

          As I mentioned in previous Posts, exposure of the ill inner workings of the Church are an essential part so that when a Co$er decides to look, he can evaluate the information for himself, and come to his own decision. I would not step beyond those bounds, since anything beyond that is up to him. No different than the whiff of the “Bouquet of the Tech”, it’s up to him to take it or leave it. To suggest Indies/Freezone have a responsibility to “salvage” them is utter nonsense. Even LRH has no contract with any big Thetan to do so.

          If I can come to a conclusion on my own whether I want to pursue Bridge with CO$ or not, so can anyone else. As long as the data is out there, that’s as far as you can go, no further hand-holding or baby’ing required. It’s entirely their own Choice.

          Neither Bunker nor Ortega are doing those “poor CO$ souls” or the Freezone/Indies any favours by attacking Hubbard or the Technology, because they supposedly have “differing viewpoints” we should be playing patty-cake with. (They know exactly what they are doing). In Fact when Kool-Aiders see the Indies/Freezone associate with such Ilk, they’re outta here in a splash. Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t actually the doing of CO$ to subvert the Tech delivery in the Freezone by feeding blog-readers plenty of motivators to incite them to attack Targets that have no valuable final product. They are not leaving the Church to play to the same IAS games condition on the other side of the fence, but to do their bridge at reasonable rates where there is no other hope for them financially.

          I have no doubt that Tech Alterations exist, but I was not around at that point anymore to witness it. And again, the Information is out there for anyone to beget himself. Same goes for “bridge-stops” and “blood sucking”. I have no regrets for the 20 years plus I spent at the Church and if one would suggest I was drinking the Cool-Aid I would have laughed at that, and would still to this day. But then things have obviously changed, and a Time came when I had to review my Course up the Bridge and decided to perma-adious the Church. No Drama connected with that. And its not all Mountains of Chocolate and Rivers of Milk in the Freezone/Indies Movement either.

          Your experience with the Church is different than mine. You have seen things I have not, and except for the money-gouging, the rest of the upsets and disagreements have been relatively mild. I know for a fact you had an extremely rough ride under DM, and I don’t want to make less of that, and have no doubt you are fully entitled to every Grievance you have presented, but it also happens to be a Fact that dramatizing motivators scews one’s compass and lessens one’s causitivity. I have no intention to give any wrong indications, but this, and other blogs are just loaded with them, and results in Attention to be drawn away from Matters at hand … namely moving up the Bridge.

          If you want to present Mr. Cool Aid Drinker a viable Option, present the Bridge. Dramatizing DM day in and day out has no end in sight, and solves absolutely nothing for anyone in the Freezone.

          Just my 2 devalued cents …

          ARC,

          F.

        • Exactly, Mike. Since OT and responsibility go hand in hand, how would people in the Freezone propose to balance the factors of knowledge, responsibility and control? Moving up the Bridge and vastly expanding one’s knowledge, without also taking responsibility for the damage being done daily by the “church” and trying to curtail (control) its abuses and the horrible repute they continue to create for Scientology on a daily basis (which blocks the rest of the planet from ever reaching for the tech) = a recipe for personal disaster. Reference: the senior triangle in Scientology (OT = knowledge, responsibility, control). That is the biggest difference between the Freezone and the Indie movement. The Indie movement accepts responsibility for doing something about the criminality and the abuse, while ALSO moving people up the Bridge. One simply can NOT make it to OT without stepping up the plate of responsibility. It’s impossible. I believe that trying to move up to OT while not taking responsibility is frankly suicidal and supporting that conclusion are an awful lot of dead bodies in the CoS.

  54. I sure wish LRH had adequately documented every step of his life from birth to death. I wish he had never been married, but remaind utterly celebate in every way. I wish he had been a consientious objector in the second world war. I wish he had never used the wrong fork at the dinner table. I wish he drove a prius instead of a juagar. I wish he never wrote fiction. I wish he never tried to make his mundane tasks in life seem wild or his wild tasks in life seem tame. I wish he hadn’t been so careless with semi-colons.

    But when I audit my PC and lifelong problems vanish, and he’s happy for the first time in years…well, I’m glad he developed the tech.

    The end.

    • Great comment, LDW!

      It has always seemed to me that the most important truth by far about Scientology is that the tech works to improve people’s awareness, conditions, and lives when properly applied.

      However, I admit to also having had difficulty accepting the idea that one can entirely separate the effectiveness of these particular tools from the man who discovered them.

      The car and other mest analogies don’t work all that well with this subject. Of course, I do not care about the foibles of Henry Ford when it comes to evaluating his car. But with Scientology, it’s different, because Scientology is meant to be applied to PEOPLE with the promise of attaining certain well-defined results, among them improved awareness and rationality.

      LRH received plenty of auditing over the years, so it would not be entirely irrational for someone to expect him to be a good example of what Scientology had to offer. Not necessarily perfect, but a good example nonetheless.

      That is why the notion that he could have ended his days on Earth as an isolated unhappy fearful recluse has always been a disturbing one for me. At the very least, that would indicate that the tech he developed was not properly applied to him! I admit to finding that a very difficult proposition to accept.

      But in the final analysis, I know what I know, and I’ve experienced countless wins from the tech regardless of how Ron ended his own journey. However, deep in my heart, I hope the stories of a sad and lonely end at Creston are untrue, and that Ron was able to depart having experienced the totality of the wins, gains, and joys his discoveries made possible for the rest of us.

    • Kind of puts it in perspective.

  55. mrinder,

    Nice. Very tidy dismemberment. Can I have some ribs when they’re done? (Seriously, nice rebuttal to the article. I’ll remember not to try to lie to you.)

    At risk of becoming part of the barbecue myself, I read the article one time through – haven’t studied it – but is it possible that the effect of the article is behign irony to separate Scientology the subject from LRH as an icon? The article doesn’t attack the practice or the philosophy. Nor does it attack those outside the Co$. In fact the principle target of the article seems to be the Co$. And the article does seem to drive a stake through the Co$ heart.

    I met some guy recently who keeps himself up to date, and had read a bunch of garbage about Scn on the net, but decided to check for himself. He asked me about Scn. I gave him a book. A few months later I asked him how he liked the book. The guy said he was about half-way through, reading it over section by section, making sure he got all of what is in it, because, as he put it, there’s a lot there to get, and get good! It’s not the kind of book you just read over, he said.

    Scientology has suffered from those who are looking for a quick out, a thing to follow, an easy way. And it is a quick out and an easy way, when you compare it to lifetimes of Buddhists. The subject cannot be swallowed like a pill and nothing more. So those who are truly interested, will be those who further the subject the most. And those people are the future of Scientology. And those people are smart enough to see through necessary gimmicks like a free toaster or a model in a bikini.

    LRH himself cautioned to not accept somethng simply because he said it was true. He urged each to look for himself and evaluate for himself. Those who accept things simply because “Ron says” are, to me, the enemies of Scn, principally because what they read was never duplicated to begin with, and even when it was, it was mis-evaluated and mis-applied.

    • Great comment Carcha.

      • Margaret, thank you. I’m little and soft-spoken and get kicked around a lot, kind of like a soccer ball nobody can quite figure out, but I still l-o-v-e to be appreciated. You married?

      • It would be nice to meet you someday, married or not. It’s surprising to me how many have posted such intelligent and caring commentary to this topic. This is what Scn is supposed to be, IMO – real people, real thoughts. No one to shout “Get back on course!!”

  56. It used to infuriate me when I would read critics of LRH. I knew the Tech worked and it didn’t matter to me if LRH told tall tales about himself or not.
    But my response is more measured these days. I still know that the Tech works but toward what end–happiness?
    I know many, many Scientologists who are not happy but yet would also swear that the Tech works.
    And if I had to choose between Happiness and Total Spiritual Freedom, I would choose Happiness. I’m just saying….
    I don’t think Scientology has all the answers but claims it does. I find that objectionable, .especially since the subject itself emphasizes the importance of honesty. And the fact that LRH did not have war injuries and therefore could not have discovered Dianetics through his efforts to cure himself, begs the question–How did he develop Dianetics, What was his motivation and Why would he lie about it?
    Anyway, those are my thoughts.

    • Ann wrote: “And the fact that LRH did not have war injuries and therefore could not have discovered Dianetics through his efforts to cure himself, begs the question–How did he develop Dianetics”

      Ann, it’s untrue that LRH didn’t have war-related injuries and maladies. When asked by a reporter for the 4-Dec-1950 issue of LOOK magazine (the 2nd largest magazine in the US at the time, by subscription) what those war-related maladies/injuries were, he described them with specifics. When his war records were released after his death in 1986, those descriptions matched the war records exactly.

      None of the authors of the anti-LRH “biographies” (Russell Miller, Jon Atack nor Bent Corydon) mentioned this fact — though evidence suggests that they were familiar with the LOOK article — nor did Chris Owen who authored the LRH website attacking Ron’s war record mention this (though to Chris Owen’s credit, he has back-pedaled over the years on other anti-LRH claims).

      So I wouldn’t so easily buy into the anti-LRH rhetoric — even if The New Yorker repeats it.

  57. Marty, thank you for you wonderful answer.
    Sometimes the positioning wins over facts. This can lead one to make an incorrect estimation or expectation.
    A “journalist” is positioned through various channels in many ways that do not met the factual reality:
    A journalist is not a detective. A journalist is not a judge. A journalist does not always say the truth and he does not always lie. A journalist is not some kind of secret agent, not a psychoanalyst and not a philosopher.
    A journalist produces articles, pictures, (news) pieces in the media. In the first place he or she is a human being, who has to eat, to live, has to handle his personal live. This human being has taken on a role or a profession to earn the living. Often, this role is a solution to the problem of living.
    If he or she stays with his writings within the reality of his or her audience, life is not to hard. He can resort to slogans or ideas that have been accepted before. He does not need to explain or defend his view. He does not need to understand matters in deep. (He would only rarely do the Academy-Courses and audit a few preclears to then write a little article, half a year later, saying “Scientology works. I tested it.”) He has to produce some amount of writing and therefore tends to quote what others have written before and it seems to be safe.
    (Noam Chomsky has written a lot about that and explained how censorship takes place through the necessity to stay within this framework of slogans. Only rarely you would be given the space to explain a different view detailed and in a differentiating way. And if you place your view outside that framework without getting the space for explanation you just look like an idiot and are rejected. Read Chomsky’s works on that. He is very sharp.)
    In different times and different places these frameworks of slogans change. Only 100 years ago you would have been shouted down and lost your job, if not worse, if you would have written that “a woman should have a right to vote”. Or test it today, in the US, say loudly that “Gaddhafi had been the #1 ally of the US in fighting Al Quaida” and watch the reactions. If you don’t explain it, you will be rejected in many places.
    How a journalist deals with the above depends on his ability to look himself, his ability to raise above the level of group think (of what he thinks his group is or what his group accepts as fit to print. Own and new views could be created by him and this is a strong power in his hands.
    As I see it, it all depends on that human being, that has taken on that role of “a journalist”. It could require tremendous strength. Because he is at the center of this “framework of slogans”. We are not.

  58. Really wonderful response to Tony’s article. What Tony has not the first clue about is that his entire series, which I thought was excellent as a whole, has made Scientology safer to practice by those who are actually interested in PRACTICING IT, not simply disclaiming about it. Those whose opinions about things are formed by what they read or hear in the media can turn their attention to other issues, let someone else’s opinions about Scientology live rent free in their heads and continue their lives as members of the “precariat,” i.e., the 99 percent of us who live their lives precariously, at the mercy of the 1 percent who are running civilization’s money scam.
    The way a subject like Scientology expands most stably is through word of mouth through people one already trusts, such as a spouse, family member or close friend and these are more genuine connections.

    • Thanks Dan. Maybe this might be another way for Scientology to survive… “through word of mouth through people one already trusts, such as a spouse, family member or close friend and these are more genuine connections.”

  59. Thank you for an interesting insight into the thoughts of a scientologist regarding the founder L Ron Hubbard.

    IMO L Ron Hubbard was a charismatic scoundrel with a vivid imagination and the gift of the gab; he was a lot of things but he was no fool.

    Regardless of my thoughts on scientology I acknowledge that it’s creation along with the church of scientology is impressive.

    It intrigues me that your arguements appear to accept L Ron Hubbard for who he was warts and all rather that try to define him as someone he wasn’t. You even state that to you it doesn’t matter, that you judge the product on its own merits rather than those of its creator. Regardless of my views on scientology I can respect that; I had assumed you and yours would try to revise history to make L Ron Hubbard more than he was. Seems I may be wrong.

    • Thanks, Dean. It’s one of the joys of being independent to be able to see anyone for who they are (love it – “warts & all”); to comment freely; to disagree without being enemies. Nice!

  60. Oh yeah, I’d put Miscavige as number 1. LRH is dead.

  61. Great comments by Marty and by everyone on this blog. What being an independent scientologist means to me is being able to evaluate for oneself, to decide for oneself, to be able to view conflicting viewpoints and make my own decision on whether I agree or not. It is not being afraid to look or to debate these issues. I think that is where personal freedom has evolved for me.
    I can read all about the faults of LRH and think ‘man he was just as f…ked up as me’. But then I can view all he produced and created in his life, and think, well what does that say about me?
    Or better yet, what does that say about Ron?

    Tom Price

  62. I suspected Ron would be #1 or 2 since the list started. Who else could it be? I’ve read Ortega, just as I’ve read other reporters who write about Scn. No one can truly write about any subject without being involved – any subject. Movies and tv shows where computers, for example, are an integral part of the story are laughable. Example from Jurrasic Park: little girl walks up to a computer, says Unix! I know this! And starts hacking away.

    Most reporters are detached from their “story”. they are other than what they write about, and because of that, a lot of stories come off like the reporter is dissecting a frog. Read reporters who were “embedded” with military units. Soldiers come off as strangers doing strange things for strange reasons. Read a New York reporter writing about a mid-west fair, or 4-H show, or logging operation.

    There us no way Tony Ortega could have written anything other than what he wrote And, really: I don’t care. I don’t care what he thinks about Ron, or me, for that matter.

    Now, Tony makes some valid points. What he is dead wrong on is this: Scientology made us more able, and has given us the tools to look at and evaluate Scientology and Ron’s legacy. Because of that, Scientology will survive, and is surviving. There will be no “eventual demise.”

    Fr

    • Sorry for the “fr” at the end- darn iPhone!

      Since Tony felt he should enlighten me (“grasshopper🙂 ), I do have something to say to him in the light of a new day:

      Tony, you have more that once wondered why this is not a national story. You can see that something if happening, and you get that it important. But you are missing the mark. Your “spidey senses” are tingling, but you are not getting it. You need to dig deeper. You need to flush out the blue pill and see what is really going on: you are witnessing a birth, not a death.

      You appeased the reporter “gotta be objective” gods. Now find out what’s really happening. You haven’t quite snatched the pebble.

      Grasshopper.

  63. Applause to Marty Rathbun for addressing out-of-context sentences plucked by mass-thinking to perpetuate “Ah-ha! I-told-you-so” diatribes against L. Ron Hubbard. Your writing is balanced and , most important, shows original thinking and logic, er, common sense…which is, unfortunately, not always so common. Bravo.

    I’m posting here after reading The Village Voice, and will comment what I did there about the Voice’s “gran slam doozy” #1 revelation as Hubbard being the # 1 thing crippling Scientology.

    His article was poorly titled to begin with — Tony Ortega’s Voice series more aptlly should have been entitled “The Top 25 People Crippling the Cultification of Scientology”.

    I was disappointed, as I hoped Ortega would bring some originality to the weighted, polarized pitchfork rabid witch-burning leveled at L. Ron Hubbard — with more fervor, I add, than is hurled at serial killers and Wall Street crime.

    But first let me post some comments that I know pertain to the rabid phenomena against Hubbard:

    “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.”
    ― Jonathan Swift

    Now, about the Village Voice cobbled together case against L. Ron Hubbard:
    Yawn. The article stitches together a bunch of over-used cliches taken out of context. L. Ron Hubbard was a genius whose writings have helped many people. That simply cannot be left out of the mix by any reasoning, intelligent, observant, informed (subjectively & objectively) person hoping to depict an accurate portrait.

    Hubbard was an individual who lived bigger than life. But the bottom line is, other than creating and writing via research and hard work the processes (applied practices) of Scientology, Hubbard the man has nothing to do with it!

    If you hold up the smoothest, silkiest hair in a microscope and magnify it, it will appear like a craggy, rough, tattered, dark quagmire.

    There isn’t a human being who has lived or thought or accomplished big who could hold up to that kind of magnification and look like a silky smooth hair.

    Hubbard impresses me, and I respect him. I have read and listened to his works extensively without “belonging” to any group other than the human race and human being interested in understanding the relationship of consciousness to the material world. Scientology as an applied practice provides relief and observable results for many. That’s an accomplishment. It will continue to do so.

    What’s next? Are the dunces trash the Easter Bunny cause someone pigged out and got a belly ache? Or had a cavity and thought chocolate would be the remedy?

    Nothing about Hubbard, good nor bad, interested me in the subject. The subject itself eventuated admiration and respect for Hubbard. It is unshakeable not because I deify him, but with the same unwavering respect I have for any person who rises above their humanity to create, to contribute, something of value. When I say ‘the subject,’ I am talking about more than plucking sentences out of a few places, or the abuse of dunces misapplying writing toward personal, vested agendas.

    I caution anyone about taking another person’s opinion about anything unless s/he has first hand experience from which to evaluate, and in this case it applies.

    Overall, many thinking in the people internationally on our little planet have been relieved by this process of differentiation between Scientology the practice, and the Cultification Corporation $cientology.

    • DJ wrote: “Nothing about Hubbard, good nor bad, interested me in the subject. The subject itself eventuated admiration and respect for Hubbard.”

      Perfect summation. My interest in Hubbard’s life is a curiosa … an interest in what possibly went on in this man’s earlier life that could have given rise to such a brilliant subject. But in the end, it could have been invented by Snoopy and it wouldn’t have mattered. The subject truly stands on its own.

    • “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him.”
      ― Jonathan Swift
      man I love this one!!!
      you are a genius on your own right!
      +100

  64. Marty,
    Your response is awesome! I couldn’t agree more with all that you said. Tony is being lazy and short sided. He takes the same quotes (out of context) that are used by the usual suspects who want to bash LRH. He has no idea of their relevancy to the policy from which they came.

    And yes, lucky for his ass, you or anyone else who is out of the church and supports the tech will not reduce their own theta or that of another just to motivate and assert rightness. He is, and will continue to be, the result of his own misadventures. One alwasys does a much better job of self destruction than any enemy can postulate, so he can share the blackness with the likes of Davey.

  65. Operation Pheonix 77

    When you have experienced the wins from L Ron Hubbard like i have. There is no turning back from it. It is the Truth to me and i can feel it at the core. A knowingness that cannot be described & cannot be shaken no matter what. If feels so good, secure & certain. It can only but win. I am sooooo glad that i finally found it again. It is all going to work out & fall into place. Now….let’s go home!!!

  66. Sharing some favorite quotes that apply to L. Ron Hubbard, Earth and the general topics here:

    “Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.”
    ―Fulton J. Sheen

    “In the republic of mediocrity, genius is dangerous.”
    ―Robert Green Ingersoll

    “Few people can see genius in someone who has offended them.”
    ―Robertson Davies

    “Genius is never understood in its own time.”
    ―Bill Watterson

    “The poets’ scrolls will outlive the monuments of stone. Genius survives; all else is claimed by death.”
    ―Edmund Spenser

    “If you’re going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh; otherwise they’ll kill you.” ―George Bernard Shaw

    “All great truths begin as blasphemies.” ―George Bernard Shaw

    “Great spirits have always encountered violent oppostion from mediocre minds.” ―Albert Einstein The second part of this quote, not as often quoted: “The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.”
    ————-
    (Marty Rathbun, thanks again for this excellent blog article and the inspiring discussions. You’re very fair in your comments and observations.)

  67. My God you are a brilliant writer (and masterful at the art of debate). Well done, Marty.

  68. Since this is about L. Ron Hubbard, I thought I would post a poem written by an old friend who does have a subjective understanding of Ron’s technology, having practiced it since the late 60’s, and has taken the long view of its implications, when it is properly applied:

    For LRH

    War? Torture? Slavery?
    The despoliation of our planet?
    But for Ron that may have been our legacy.

    What from our age will be remembered?
    What will be our legacy?
    What great enough and timeless
    To cause men in ages hence
    To admire what we accomplished here,
    And to praise us for our work?

    Two things will speak well for us.
    From our troubled past
    We saved a bit of the best
    And, thanks to Ron,
    Who built the Bridge and showed us the way,
    We made a new beginning.

    We lit a torch, began Ron’s work,
    And started to free beings
    Long imprisoned
    In the ever deeper dungeons of their minds,
    Dominated by ancient agreements
    Out of place and time,
    Acting out life in a world of shared illusions.

    All this –
    So that in some future age,
    Free men in their starry dominions
    Will look at our planet Earth,
    And marvel . . .
    That in all the magnificence of the universe
    It should have been here
    That freedom had its birth.

    –WCM

    • Beautiful Randy!

      (btw, are you the Randy who lived on Coronado Ave in ’71 with a couple other guys from Colorado?)

      • Thanks, Publius, on behalf of my friend WCM, who remains under the radar for now.
        And yes, that was I there on Coronado Street in Hollywood in ’71, with two other Colorado guys. I did the HSDC at CCLA, Robert Almblad was one of my student PCs in that apartment. (Hi Robert!)

        A bit later I twinned with Ray Mitoff on the Acads 0-III, then Ray and I both joined the SO and were in the Tech Training Corps under the never-to-be-forgotten-and-endlessly-radiant Yvonne, while Heber ran the Div VI.

        Those were Golden days, and Nights of White Satin.

        (Yes, we played the Moody Blues a lot after hours in that house, as you can tell🙂

        Had my first session from a CL VIII, Trey Lotz, then at his digs in the Westlake Lanai – and by the way, he is NOW helping me get back “in the chair” again as an Indie auditor and CS! I’ll be posting on the excellent Free and Able site before long…

        Marty, what you are doing for so many of us – principally by GETTING THE TRUTH OUT THERE NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, while setting a wonderful example of DELIVERING the tech all the while – its just staggering how valuable your actions are! Just look at all the ripples spreading out in the pond (actually its more like the ocean!) from your splashes and how far they are reaching!!

        Here is a poem I read at Poetry by Candlelight on the stage at CC that year, after passing the 2-hour NO blink TR-0:

        You are the one, my friend.
        Time has just begun, again.
        The space dissolves between our eyes,
        Now I realize,
        Who it is that sits before me.

        [FREE HEBER!]

        [To: RAY MITOFF:
        MIKE, MARTY AND KAREN BLEW – SO CAN YOU! Just bring that mandolin that you played so well after course, back in ’71. You have lots of old friends out here that will help!]

        Publius – (or anyone!) Please feel free to contact me at randy-dot-investor-at-gmail-dot-com (leave out the “-“s and convert the “at” & “dots”, of course). You got me curious as hell about who you are!, I’ve enjoyed your posts a lot here, by the way. And thanks for the pleasure moments!

  69. Tony,
    Were you hoping for a torrent of howling Indies? It’s far better for a young journalist looking for good reader ratings to write a controversial and sensationalistic piece that creates a strong reaction than it is to report on the more mundane truths in the matter.
    How come your reader’s poll doesn’t come close to matching the rankings in your ‘story’?
    You may be interested to know that LRH’s writings include references to journalists who already have their story before it even goes to press regardless of any factual information you give to them. I guess you proved his point.
    No howling needed. I wouldn’t give you the satisfaction
    Disappointed but not surprised that yet again the typical ‘journalist’ pulls out the typical white-wash job to ensure that a ‘news’ article has enough ‘controversy’ and ‘sensationalism’ to ensure continued readership and support from sponsors.
    No howling. Just a quiet smile in the acknowledgement that LRH was spot on about the media.
    Many many thanks for helping to expose the human rights abuses of David Miscavige and the corruption of the church. That is appreciated.
    However, today you have done much to ensure that those still trapped inside David Miscavige’s cult garner even further distrust of the media and you have ceased to be a credible source of information for them. Factually you just helped to keep them trapped inside.
    Try telling the Catholics that the virgin Mary was a whore and Jesus Christ was a charlatan and then try to convince them that you want to help them…

    • PS
      Your reader’s poll places David Miscavige at first position. I’m sure you’ve made him a very happy psycho today by forwarding his agenda to ensure that he gets away with his crimes by blaming them on ‘books’ and ‘policies’. How gleefully the mass murderer walks away while the world is blaming video games for his actions.

  70. Pure aesthetics. This is the problem with DM the entertainer. He has made everything in Scientology very, very, ugly.

    • Sorry, but I don’t see DM as an entertainer. He’s not charismatic, he’s not funny and he’s an awful singer (as we saw in the recent “We Stand Tall” video).
      He does deliver a decent speech, with the help of teleprompters, voice augmentation electronics and the little box he stands on.

  71. Saying that L. Ron Hubbard is the person responsible for the corruption of the religious philosophy he created is like saying Buddha is responsible for the slaughter of Tibetan monks.
    Illogical, sloppy and just downright idiotic.

  72. Marty, an absolutely brilliant rebuttal. Thank you.

  73. Some wonderful posts here. Specially liked those of Marty Mike and OUAT

    And the cereal box quote.🙂

    Karen is always a joy to read.🙂 Her post reminds me of something from
    a div 6 FSM comment:- ” Don’t disseminate, penetrate. ” I don’t think I’m
    exact in that quote but I hope I’ve communicated with it.

  74. Control Signal | September 29, 2011 at 12:44 am |

    “Gerry Armstrong posts as VEDA on ESMB and word for word the sentences are Gerry Armstrong sentences.”

    I don’t think this is true. Someone on ESMB made a comment that Veda was Gerry. I teased Veda about it. Got lots of flack as usual for “outing”
    someone.

    The person who made the comment later said she ” was losing it”.
    Emma said that per IP addresses it wasn’t possible they were the same person. I didn’t think Veda was Gerry at all. I havn’t read Gerry for near
    on a decade, and had some exchanges with him back then on ARS. He struck me as not too bright. Veda of course quotes all sorts of critical info, probably similar to some of Gerry’s posts. But seems brighter …..except when he’s bashing me.

    • Whoever has been following A.R.S. in the last decade easily knows who Veda is — and he is not Gerry Armstrong.

      • I find it interesting that people so apparently offended by a man’s alleged lies about his past identity go to such great measures to obfuscate their own present identities.

        • “Great measures”? Posting under a nick (or pen name) is incredibly widespread, it doesn’t require “great measures,” and in any case, someone else’s anonymity is a completely irrelevant argument when it comes to try to refute and/or excuse Hubbard’s lies.

  75. I loved reading Marty’s open letter to Tony here and the terrific responses from so many others including Mike Rinder, Steve (Thoughtful), and others. It gave me a chance to reflect for a few minutes on Ron Hubbard and his many lectures and books and I can do nothing but smile. I am happy that I am not missing the subjective reality on Scientology.
    I wonder what Ron Hubbard would say if he were here today about not having had the proper license for his barnstorming airplane activities when he was a young man, as Tony Ortega points out? I can hear him laughing now.

  76. Maybe we can answer with something Ron wrote:
    (Advanced Procedures and Axioms.)
    „LOGIC 12. THE VALUE OF A DATUM OR A FIELD OF DATA IS MODIFIED BY THE VIEWPOINT OF THE OBSERVER.“

  77. Wisher had written: “But, really the subject and religion of scientology is not LRH but his *work* which should be judged wholly separate from the character of its creator.”

    I fully agree. And let me tell you why.

    I don’t have a problem to switch on a light bulb. That had been developed by Edison, who ripped off Tesla (according to what Tesla said) and who killed an elephant to “prove” that his competition (Westinghouse) was wrong. That’s certainly not something I appreciate.

    But I live here and now, and when it is dark a light buld can be very useful. Who would say “Edison killed an elephant, that’s why I don’t turn on the light” ?

    Same thing about LRH. I have my own opinion about how his organization contained the germ of abuse and decay. I don’t have to tell myself that anything and everything he did was perfect, flawless and the top of sanity.

    But I live here and now, and I have some responsibility for what’s going on here and now. And I will use anything that proves to be useful, without considering the personal history of its creator.

  78. Who is the Lombar Hisst ?

    Thank you VERY much dear Marty, for defending LRH, our common friend.

  79. I respect how you feel, Marty, and the many here. I personally was ordered off of my much needed medication for Epilepsy, by L. Ron Hubbard, in 1972 and due to so many Grand Mal Seizures I had (until My Mother broke in and saved my life,literally) I have just about no short term memory So for me, yes, he IS #1. I (and many, many others) have lost ALL of my 30 years friends and husband of 27 years–thanks to his “Disconnection” Policies. So yes, I feel he is # 1. DM is doing more damage–no question. But who was he trained by? I know I won’t be popular with this. Marty may not even post it….but I believe IF we ALL can just talk this all out—somehow, some way—we shall find peace and harmony that WILL help us all.
    I do love you all🙂 Tory/Magoo

    • Tory
      With equally due respect it really doesn’t matter who ‘trained’ Miscavige. Not all Scientologists behave the way he does. We have a technology and we can use it for harm or good or we can walk away and say it doesn’t work. Those are the choices.
      Miscavige chooses to use Scientology to murder spiritual beings and to control, destroy and manipulate anyone who might expose who and what he is really.
      I choose to use Scientology help others.
      It’s the intention that makes the difference.
      A drug can be used to kill or cure.
      That being said, I understand that you have your own personal experiences and a right to your own opinion and wouldn’t dream of making you wrong for them. You know what you know.
      Hugs.

      • Sam,
        Thank you SO much! That is *exactly* what I mean.I appreciate you taking the time to share you views on this, as well as acknowledge mine.
        I agree about people …many people..such as yourself and really the vast majority here who are using the tech to better their lives. I have no problem with that, and have stood up for your rights, despite many others being unhappy with me…all the way to their own ‘disconnection’ of sorts. I know that drill…I’ve lived with it for 11 years, on and off. Popularity isn’t my goal: Truth and freedom are. Hugs to you, too🙂 Tory/Magoo
        PS: And yes, thanks, Marty, for posting this!

        • I know you’ve got my back Tory. I’ve got yours too.
          And group agreement is that last thing I crave these days, especially when it comes to any member of such group deciding who any of us may or may not communicate with or befriend.
          We’ll figure it all out.
          Together.

          • one of those who see

            Dear Tory and Sam,
            I love this. So well done to you both. The Achievement of the “Aims of Scientology” is paved with communication. Love you guys!

          • Thank you, Sam!
            Love it: “We’ll figure it all out. Together”.
            Music to my ears.
            Again, thank you.
            Tory/Magoo
            PS: You have to teach me how to make that heart, please.🙂

            • PS: thanks to “one of those who see” also. As I’ve said many times,
              communication was taught to me by my parents, WAY before I ever
              joined Scientology. I used to say the same as you: “It’s because of Scientology” (All the good things I had).
              Then, as I woke up…I realized I had these skills years and years before I ever joined Scientology. My Dad was a professional broadcaster, my Mom a Journalism major, my Grandfather a Doctor and great storyteller.
              All of these people gave me *great* gifts I use, daily.

              I will say LRH did have a great gift for putting things together and marketing them so others could easily understand them and pass them on. That, for me, was his greatest gift to me. Love to all🙂

            • LOL
              On a Mac you go to ‘edit’ on the menu then click on ‘special characters’. You’ll get a whole library of shapes to choose from: ♥♧♋☀☂☁…
              Don’t know how to do it on windows but I’m sure there are similar features.
              have fun! 🍀💜👽

    • Tory: On a more positive light … you have perhaps paved the way, albeit painfully, for others with similar physical obstacles to receive auditing AND take their needed medication.

      Years ago people were told to get off their high blood pressure meds and then that was changed.

      And I wonder if it was LRH himself who ordered you off — but someone thinking they were following policy OR someone on the SO #1 line answering “for” LRH.

      But, I definitely hear your point.

      And applaud your closing lines — IF we can talk this all out — we shall find peace and harmony that WILL help us all.

      Love,
      WH

      • WH….thank you, also! Whether he wrote that letter, or not, is inconsequential to me, as I fought his writings, for 30 years. Trust me…I can quote them ALL.
        This may be redundant for many, however new for some, thus I’m saying it:
        Of course I asked the D of P (who at first had told me when I arrived: “ALL of your earlier medical handlings have been suppressive”). But a few months later, was ordering me off my medication (For Epilepsy) before I could do OT 4, just as all the earlier “Suppressive” handlings had done.

        I ended up fighting the ENTIRE Flag Land Base, (Tech team) in 1989, including ALL the C/S’s and top dogs.. They had pulled out ALL 3 of the main “medical” Policies I’d fought for years. I had my own handles for each one, including a letter from LRH’s personal Doctor, Dr. Denk, (my Dr also) saying it was fine for me to get auditing: “The medication I take is NOT a mind altering drug”.

        When they STILL said “NO GO”…that’s when everything changed. You see..I’d been fighting that for over 20 years. Not just with the C/Ss..but also with many of the public, who “knew” what I needed, despite having ZERO medical training. Also,
        I grew up with my Dad, Paul Christman, a professional Football Quarterback and big game player. So I said: “You want to play hardball, let’s play hardball. You show me where it says I cannot get auditing without my medicin”. For anyone who may read this….just so you are armed too, here’s the fact:
        It boiled down to one line, in one HCOB, saying “On upper OT levels someone should not be on medication”.

        This year (1989) DM and gang had changed ALL of the “OT” levels to “Pre-OT levels” OT 8 was THE FIRST OT level. So I said: I **Know** people on OT 5-7 for sure who speak of things they’ve handled with that auditing. So? I think *you ALL* have MU’s on what LRH meant by “Upper OT levels”.

        I insisted my folders be sent up to RTC to Ray Mittoff (Who was THE Top Tech person then), as I was sure they had an “MU” on “the tech”.
        It took about 1 month, finally one of the Top Senior C/S’s called the Flag Tech Sec to say 1) They needed to apologize to me for ALL that I’d been through. 2) I had a FULL OK to do from OT 4-8
        3) They WROTE a Senior C/S deal saying that IF someone tries to get off of their medication, and cannot with natural means, and their Doctor says it’s Ok, that person should be allowed to get auditing while taking their medication, giving my story as an example.
        (Snr C/S 127 or s/t..sorry I forget the exact #)

        Many people at Flag were then allowed onto auditing, who had been stopped due to their medication. It was my single biggest “win” in C of $ I had, honestly. (Esp re management and over coming their BS)

        Sorry that was SO long, but IF it helps ONE person be armed against C of $’s insanities re medicine, I’m happy. One man who DID go along with their BS re Epilepsy died because he followed them and did get off ALL medication. IF you have a medical condition, I cannot stress it enough: Get a NON-Scientology (not member of C of $) Doctor, and DO follow what he/she says!
        Thank you, Windhorse..I appreciate your words, too🙂
        Tory/Magoo

        • PS: Oh yeah: And they “Crammed” the entire technical team at Flag re their medical “MU’s”. I thought that meant just the C/S’s. Someone from Flag called me. When I said that, she said: “”You don’t get it, do you? I mean EVERY single Sea Org member who was in tech, at all, did that “Cram”..even tech admins”.🙂 For those reading this who would then think, well, why did you then leave? Please see my YT site ToryMagoo44 for all of my story. It’s all there, or just Google Tory Talks to CFI (center for Inquiry/skeptics).

        • Tory, I can relate to your story. When I was a child, I had epilepsy with grand-mal seizures. The doctors could tell from the EEGs that they derived that I had a benign (rolandic) form and this prediction turned out to be true. But I did receive medication, “Timonil” (or Carbamazepine, which is also used in psychiatric applications) to prevent any further seizures from happening. I guess I am an “illegal PC” now (not that I’d really care), even though the doctors discontinued the therapy 15 years ago, after the illness went away on its own.

          Now to the point: One upset with Scientology I have is the promise that the application of the tech would “handle” psychosomatic illnesses. That’s not the problem yet, the problem is that in Dianetics, most illnesses are described as psychosomatic, including a simple cold. I wonder how many people have died due to medical conditions going untreated. You can relate from your own personal experience that this reluctance to take meds got you two of your teeth knocked out during a grand-mal seizure. If the wrong objects had been in the way, this seizure could have turned out deadly.

          Of course I’m not in the position to know about Jett Travolta’s death and how he was treated. But his mother’s fierce anti-psychiatry stance begs the question whether there was a serious effort to get his condition under control. And I’m not talking about unproven, and meritless therapies, I’m talking about medication that allows millions of epileptics on this world to lead normal lives that would have no chance otherwise. In the case of epilepsia, the drugs to keep the illness under control happen to be also used by psychiatry.

          • Thank you, Dr. Faust, for your comments. Congratulations on
            getting over it. I may be myself..have not had a seizure in 20+
            years—but Dr. Denk (and others) have all agreed it best I continue
            taking the medication as it is so well controlled, and living in LA,
            IF I did have a Grand Mal Seizure driving–well, obviously it could
            be fatal not only for myself, but others, too. So …I persist.

            Re Jett—I made a video “To John Travolta” after his son had died asking him to PLEASE step up to the plate and tell the truth, on a few levels.
            He did finally admit his son was Autistic, and I highly doubt he was on
            the correct medications needed, for the very reason you stated. But that is my opinion. Phillip Gayle had the same problem, (His Mother was a spokesperson for CCHR) and he ended up jumping out of a 15 story window of M.I.T. (University for those who may not know it). His fellow students did put up a Web site in honor of him, saying he did need psychiatric help ..but could not get it due to the ties with C of $.

            Sad…very sad..and true. Thus, I speak out..hopefully reaching some people who might get caught in C of $’s endless insane medical abuses.
            My love to you,
            Tory/Magoo

    • Tory,
      I know you do respect the feelings of people here. You also stand up for what you believe. I respect you on both counts.🙂

    • Hi Tory,
      It is such a sin, the way you were mistreated.
      That the correct reference, “Physically Ill PCs and Pre OTs” was not correctly applied in your case is a travesty.
      luv you too

      • Argh: Just hearing that name still gives me chills. Thanks, LDW—very much. Yes, I began speaking out because I figured IF I can help ONE person not get abused the way I was, or keep one child/young person from taking their own lives (I know 7 now, personally, how have taken their own lives, who were in C of $), or help any families/loved ones re-connect, or help ANYONE wake up and get out of there…it’s worth it.

        The joys I’ve experienced because I made the leap in 2000, because I announced on the Net: “Magoo Left the Building” have literally been far greater than I could have EVER imagined! I love you ALL and I pray we ALL can find common ground to share this love. (and to those who I *know* will see that as corny—hey, as was said in one movie I love:
        “I like corny…corny is good”. As Seinfeld just said last week: “I teach my kids to be goofy. We need more humor in this world”.🙂 Love to ALL,
        Tory/Magoo

    • Tory, thank you for telling us this. I suspected that you felt that way about LRH, but didn’t know why. I am sorry that you lost your short term memory due to Grand Mal seizures. My mother has lost her short term memory due to a blocked artery and I know how this is. It is a tragic situation.

      I was advised to get off all medication in 1971 in order to receive auditing,and for me, that advice worked very well. But, it was only aspirin and the lowest dosage of valium. I don’t know how much was known about epilepsy in 1972, but perhaps it was not well known how destructive seizures can be, or to what degree the medications prevented seizures. I have a friend who was labeled an illegal preclear and not able to receive auditing due to taking Epilepsy medications for a very short time as a teenager. Her sister did have epilepsy, and died from a seizure.

      From your writings and videos, I have felt that you genuinely want to help people, and it makes me feel badly that you think LRH is the #1 as an enemy of Scientology. I have had so much physical, mental and spiritual gain, that it makes me feel badly that you had this experience.

      Thankfully, you are willing to communicate to find peace and harmony, and I consider this to be one of the most important ideas that is part of the philosophy that I learned from Scientology. It is my fondest wish that someday you could feel better about what happened to you. I know you gave a lot of years to Scientology and worked very hard at it.

      Love to you,
      Catherine von Ach

      • Lady Min,
        :sigh: Thank you for at least reading what I wrote and responding. That means a LOT to me. My experiences are far different than your average person who joins C of $…and I respect all of you who love LRH. There are facts that are out there re LRH. I’ve said forever, even when I was back “in” ..sent out to handle the “critics”. I told OSA: “1) YOU are CREATING your own enemies and 2) As long as you insist on painting Hubbard as all white, you shall have people fighting you, as he was NOT”.

        The day people can say: “Ok, he did lie about certain things, he wasn’t ____” etc. acknowledging his very proven darker side……….I think that is the day we will all be able to to come a lot closer. When people try to paint that as “not important”..you’ll always have people like me saying:
        “Pardon ME?” Are you *honestly* saying my living with No SHORT TERM MEMORY is no big deal and had nothing to do with LRH? ::no:: Doesn’t fly. If you say “L Ron Hubbard did have a dark side, I recognize that. However, he also did put together some very useful things that I love”. That I can respect and totally go along with. He did. I don’t think he’s ALL bad…but hey, I am far from seeing the man as “all white”. But…ya know what? I doubt he’d ever want to be painted as all white, either. He was, as I saw it, for a long time, a man of the people. As my mother-in-law used to say (who knew him from 1950 on): “Ron was a rascal”. She saw *that* side of him, and that is what she loved.

        It was only when he broke away from the people (which I believe was due to his own personal issues, fears, understanding of his own bad deeds–or imagined bad deeds) that he lost touch with what he got into this for, and things, from that point, when down HILL FAST.

        Yes, I joined Scientology for that very reason: to help others. It’s totally ironic that I’ve been able to help FAR more people now that I’m out than I ever could when I was “in”. C of $ sells “Freedom” but they enslave people. They sell “Communication” …and yet they stop communications. They sell “responsibility” yet DM won’t be responsible for *a* thing he does..even when he admits he did something wrong.

        Hubbard is # 1 because we wouldn’t even know each other if it was not for L. Ron Hubbard. I’ve yet to read the entire thing Tony wrote, so I’m not for or against that, and it looks like Marty has broken down what he felt was wrong…and I respect that, too. Again, my hope, my dream IS that quote that is by LRH and many other great people before him: A peaceful world without war, where good men and woman can survive and help each other do better”. That’s a paraphrase…but I’m sure you remember it. Take care, be well, and as the Moody Blues said so well: QUESTION!!!!🙂 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmOZFAYeurY
        Tory/Magoo

        • And then on the other hand Tony could just be writing to see how people respond to “shades of Tony on Hubbard and Scientology”.

          • Doubtful Tony wrote it for *that*. I know Tony–I’ve spent quite a bit of time with him as he did my very first interview, in 2000. He’s a Class Act and would not write something to see how people respond to “Shades of Tony on Hubbard and Scientology”. No, I don’t believe that to be true. He’s a good man, spent many, many hours doing this, and I think, over all, he did an excellent job. Granted, Marty and possibly you and most here disagree with what he wrote re LRH. I respect your views! I consider it wonderful that many of us can agree to disagree, and stay in communication.🙂

  80. You know… I read this stuff and sigh.
    I did however work something out, there’s such a huge difference between a postulate and a fixed idea – it shows so easily what you perceive the future holds.
    Kill true Scientology and you’ll never know what could have been – cheap shots within the media are so short term, it makes a mockery out of a dream.
    Doesn’t anyone have any fun anymore?
    Well done Marty I hope your words are heeded.

    • Media don’t create dreams…………men, woman and children do.
      Don’t forget that, ever. It’s in your hands.🙂 Tory/Magoo

      • Dear Tory,
        I am very sorry for the inappropriate, incorrect and sheer OUT TECH C/sing you received at the Mecca of Technical Perfection
        When people like you, Amy and Mat Scobee, Jeff Hawkins Chuck Beatty, Mike Laws and other dear friends (who served the Church often for more than half to 2/3rds of their lives) when folk like you come to the conclusions you do ~~it speaks volumes of how the Church handled you within.
        Even louder to me than what you say, is what the end result is of “Church” handlings and “Bridge” for all of you who served decades inside.
        How easy it for the “Church” to throw out labels ~~ Suppressive Person ! Adulterer ! Child Peddlar ! Cross dresser ! Deadbeat staffer ! etc etc. and how impossible it is for them to look within to see their own huge omissions and overts.
        Due to the fantastic and malicious name calling of unsavory identities on their hate websites ~~ it calls for the ABSURD conclusion, that after being a Sea org Member or Staff or Public for 30 years or so ~~~ the end result instead of becoming an advanced spiritual being one becomes ~~
        A Terrorist ! A Prostitute ! A Deviant Sexual Pervert ! A Batterer ! A Violent Felon !
        They actually promote on their hate websites the end result of what their veterans Church members have become !

        !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Thank you, Karen! Very well written, and I feel the same about every other person who experiences this phony “church” of $cientology’s fraudulent lies about them, often breaking up their families (as mine with my “OT 8” now X-husband after 27 years). What kind of “OT” can one possibly think he or she is, when they refuse to even speak with their very own family?

          And yes, how easy for the “church” to spit out names, put downs, black pr, about all of us who have spent the greater part of our lives trying to support Hubbard and the “church”. Only (ONLY) after years of trying to make it WORK…did any of us finally see the *true*, awful picture:
          David Miscavige could *care LESS* about the Sea Org, Staff, volunteers and public.

          The saddest part for me, and I’m sure for you and many reading this is our friends, and family, who are still trapped “In”. With ALL that has gone down, and the availability of information now on the Net for ALL to access, it’s almost unbelievable that they keep their heads in the sand, pretending they are free, or soon to be.
          YOU ARE NOT, if you are *in”. You are in a very, very long TRAP and there is ONE solution: Open the door and walk OUT. PERIOD.

          Come on………….do it. TONS of your “old friends” are right here, ready to hug you, greet you, laugh with you, help you. We know..we’ve ALL been right where you are, too. Come on: DOOOOO IT!!!
          My love to all🙂 Tory/Magoo

  81. At risk of upsetting other ‘critics’ of CoS i will sort of throw my hat into the ring with the Indies on this one, As i have said before i am a Critic of Scientology and until spending the time i have on marty’s blog, and my own personal research and experiences over the last couple of yeares, LRH was at the TOP of my ‘hate’ list.
    That view has changed as i see there is a method of using the Tech that can be beneficial, i still wish LRH hadn’t created the CoS , however he left an invaluable trail in the Tech and writings to help fight the corruption and insanity that it has evolved into.

    I think that LRH provided the knowledge of human behavior, good andv bad which is sometimes difficult for ‘good’ people to accept that such evil behavior is possible from some.

    As a Critic we always say ‘look at tyhe whole picture’, yes as one starts to delve into the CoS from the outside quite frankly it has a ‘stench’, but that is not the fault of the Tech, it is how some choose to use it.

    The forest is much larger than many realise, and failure to look with open eyes can lead to snap decisions.

    • That is very true. LRH provided the knowledge of human behaviour, but human behaviour got in the way. Whether Scientology is good or bad depends on whether it is actually used or misused.
      The need to look at the whole picture is true for both “sides” in the argument between churchies and critics. Most indies are indies because they have looked at both sides and do see, if not the whole picture, then at least a large part of it.
      And LRH put a huge forest out there. Bring your compass and go for a hike.

    • scilonschools,

      The strongest assets to a science are those who can see its flaws (I remember reading that somewhere once). Makes sense. Some physicist probably. Btw “bat-shit crazy science-fiction writer” still cracks me up! I would join WWP but I’m afraid my mind will get corrupted, my will bent, my soul stolen.

  82. I intend this comment to be respectful and objective. I really care about all of you, please do not duplicate this as hostile but as a point of view that may differ from your own.

    The average person is raised in a household where worshiping a god and his son are commonplace and acceptable. The son, even though obviously mortal, is considered to be the son of god and therefore a great person of great importance. Many hang on every word he spoke, even though three people heard different things from the same man, making the works questionable. All of these people have something in common: they worship a man and they worship a god. In our culture, this is acceptable.

    It is by this gauge that Americans understand religion, philosophy, and theology. There must be “someone” they can worship, or rise to the status of worship. Then there are the people who can only understand one’s philosophy if that one has “someone” to worship. The idea that character worship could be absent from a philosophy is something that is widely misunderstood, especially when that philosophy is “mysterious” to the public at large. The desire to understand the philosophy is overridden by the assumption that something must be getting worshiped in order to be a “religion”.

    Some people in Scn either in the church or out hold LRH as something of important deity, because they need to identify religion as the worship of someone instead of a working, common sense theological and philosophical way of life. This again comes from Abrahamic religions and their identity of worship equating to religion. To the outsider, Independent Scientology as well as the Church of Scientology can define LRH as a viable foci of worship of sorts, which undermines the mortal nature of a man.

    There are points in everyone’s life that one would like to polish or gloss over in order to appear better than what we are. There are points in everyone’s life where mythical importance becomes obsolete. The only time it doesn’t is when worship of someone comes into play. LRH was a man, who had his problems, who had his stories, who had his cons, his divorces and his not so shining moments. This just means that no man is worthy of worship, idolatry or deity status, even Jesus; a subject you can read about in my blog.

    Tony Ortega has defined religion inconsistently as being worship of someone, and to some extent to some people it is, yet for those who do not worship LRH or raise him up as a deity we are lumped in with those that do so blindly, There is a failure to recognize that a religion can exist that does not worship someone because that is what defines religion to those who fail to really understand what it is. It’s not Tony’s fault that he doesn’t understand that, he is a product of Abrahamic theology that has its neat little boxes to whom all of us are filed into. A rather narrow point of view, but a point of view none the less.

    One day, perhaps Tony will come to understand.

  83. I told you so Marty, but no, you knew best. Where did yout think this was going to go? Were you not fully hatted as a PR? Even your cradle-robbing buddy Rinder got blind sided by this hatchet job. Shame on you Marty. This is exactly what happens when you attack the Church of Scientology. What’s the handle? Do you seriously think a WOG like Tony could duplicate LRH? Besides, what you are doing is off-policy and squirrel. We’re supposed to be building Ideal Orgs, and yet you’re just pulling the rug out from under them. Show me the HCO policy letter on “Independent Scientologists”? Thanks for nothing. You’re just another squirrel who’s time has come. Time to get off your soap box and let the Real Scientologists take over to clean up the mess.

    John Allender – Squirrel Buster International

    • And the policy on Ideal Orgs is being followed??? ROTFL!The SF Org has been “Ideal” and a birthday game winner for more than five years and they still haven’t made one public into a Cl IV Auditor! 98% of the staff have to moonlight. How about the Creek and Los Gatos? How many public auditors have they made since going “Ideal”? Zero. Wake up and smell the grande coffee.

      • John Allender,
        I am flabbergasted by your unbelievable blindness.

        I am an old timer, pre-David Miscavige who KNOWS that Scientology works. And it just si happen that Scientology works to benefit ALL human beings. Obviously you are either being paid a lot of bucks by your Master David Miscavige to do this, or you have so many MU’s that you have gone trully insane under the influence of your also insane “leader”. You are acting as if you are fighting a war!! This is not the Vietnam war pal. Waging war against those who disagree with David Miscavige insane policies is not written in any HCO PL I know. And I know every single one of them. I have seen you act and by golly you could never convince any real Scientologist that you are a Scientologist.

        Scientology, as I learned in the 1960’s is all about helping other human beings become better and have a better life, my friend. It is not about waging war! In fact, Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health (you should read the original LRH version of it and understand it) is about creating a world without war, insanity and crime. On that score, you are not with it.
        A quick analysis of your person, based on what I have seen of your behaviour tells me that:
        1) You may not be a Scientologist at all but just raking in a lot of buck for doing what you are doing, or
        2) You have been blindly influenced by your insane leader and are blatantly disregarding your responsibilies as a Scientologist, or
        3) You started with a good heart seeking help from Scientology and you built up so many MU’s that you became insane and you have been recruited by another insane man, your leader David Miscavige.
        However, Real Scientology being what it is, can help you. You don’t have to join the independents. You can help yoursef by starting with the genuine DMSMS by LRH, then perhaps you could find some good (trained in Real Scientology) soul who can put you through a hell of a lot of word clearing on whatever little you have read of the real works of LRH until you understand what Scientology is all about, and then perhaps Life Repair, get your O/Ws of (those that you aware of) and then, if you are still willing, carry on to your Grades O-IV.
        That’s my advice. Until you do that, no one in the world of Real Scientologists will take you seriously.

        With good will for you,
        AC

        I believe number 3 could be correct, but you know

    • Fabulous! There goes your proof that the C of S and Squirrel Busters are connected.

    • Allender

      You’re an embarrassment to all that IS Scientology let alone an OT Vlll.

      You are blind and have not the faintest idea of what the Ideal Org policy is about.

      You run around with a camera on your head – is this your idea of Scientology?

      You are a clown & the ‘church’ you represent is a corrupt organization.

      Btw, show me the HCO policy letter on the IAS … Golden Age of Tech … the altered books & tapes … the re-issued HCOB on F/Ns … etc., etc.

      Need I say more?

      • Dennis,

        Please don’t call John Allender an OT VIII. That is a misnomer for someone acting the way he is. There are certain results from the OT Levels which he’s not only not showing those results, he is showing the darkness at the bottom end of the scale. Perhaps he has been made to think he is an OT, but he certainly is not the kind of OT that were attaining the real gains way back then, when LRH was alive. Lots of squirrel “tech” can make it happen every time.

        • Thanks for the correction Alex.

          You are right – John Allender is a long way from being the pinnacle of Scientology.

          He is the offspring of squirrely tech, a pseudo- ‘church’ and a leader & his henchmen gone mad.

    • Real Scientologists? They are not “real Scientologists” they are puppets on Miscavige’s strings, dancing and flailing about like fish out of water at a world they have filled with shadows and enemies ill perceived. You are akin to a squawking child, stomping your feet and kicking sand at the kids who you rationalize are beneath you. We have evolved beyond your little tiny world of paranoia, tainted tech, and financial traps to keep Miscavige working not to keep Scientology working. Your inflated ego has become so massive you are unable to see that which you try to destroy is existing peacefully without puppet strings or a hand in their sock puppet telling them what is wrong and what is right. You are so pathetic that you are barely worth the effort of dethroning, as the throne you perch yourself on is a perpetuated lie, a manufactured falsehood, and a manipulative tyrannical seat that will be pulled from beneath you as soon as you too step beyond the bounds of Miscavige. Your descent will land you on the outside looking in, your SP declare in one hand, and your filthy little sock puppet dangling in the other. For even the “greatest of liars” will fall as the support of their house of cards teeters and sways in the winds of truth. You are an ignorant, irrational moron who needs a camera on his head and a ridiculous tee shirt to feel like a real man all the while appearing the fool. People like you drink the Kool Aid laced with inaccuracy, outright lies, abuse, and unacquainted reality meant to keep you from the reality around you, the truth, and attaining sanity with independent thought. You are little push button robot, going through your programmed motions, an idiot savant.

    • Ha! Mr. Allender. Confirmed by you that SQI is 100% related to Cof$. So, please clean your back yard and present the “actual” SFOD stats to DA these “http://media.sfweekly.com/7291832.0.pdf” and “http://media.sfweekly.com/7291833.0.pdf” from SF Weekly. OK?
      Come on, show us the truth or otherwise it is SF Weekly revealing the truth. A lot of people here used to work in orgs and know how stats graphs look like.

    • John Allender,
      Is this really how you think a Real Scientologist talks and acts? Reread what you wrote here. Any non-Scientologist reading your comment is thinking that you have proved the point you think you are attacking.
      John, from one OT8 to another, you need to wake up! Truth revealed my man! What does that mean to you? Being able to see truth. Remember? If you deny truth, you deny yourself. That is not freedom. The scene needs to be confronted. If you really care about Scientology or your church, you will do just that. Then things will sort out.

    • Mr. John Allender,
      Thank you for posting.
      I invite you to learn about the Buddha’s teaching without delay
      I am willing to help you and Mr. Miscavige and others in the COS.
      Your manifestations of ill-will with the camera on your head need to be
      handled
      Your eternity can be cleared with some basic instructions.

      Much loving-kindness,
      GMW

    • Who is the Lombar Hisst ?

      I agree John, the Indepentends are not a solution. A strong church is needed to get the job done; but of the other side i couldn´t find a policy from LRH regarding the IAS asking all few months asking the parishoners for meanful! donations. And where is the policy about abortions ? look at book 1 page 161 (german version) and see what LRH says about this matter ! Who is responsible for the suggested abortions (this info is NOT from the internet) in the SO and what should be done with this person ?

    • John Allender
      You state it: ” We’re supposed to be building Ideal Orgs”; but you don’t say : “We build ideal Orgs”. How true !
      It seems that deep in your heart you know the truth.
      Thank you for telling it !
      When Lrh was around we weren’t supposed to do something…We just did it !
      Quite a difference !

    • Mike predicted it but what’s worse is that most of the critics contend that LRH lied because Davey dreamt up a fantasy biography for LRH.

      You’re supposed to build ideal orgs and not idle orgs, the only things that rolls out of your program. Per LRH an ideal org has space to audit pc’s and train auditors but your orgs have space for being space; no auditors made and no pc’s cleared. When I left Flag there were 14 CL XII’s; look at them now! You even managed to dwindle the total amount of Clears and OT’s!

      You know the stats are down the past 2 decades despite tremendous amounts of declares, now that wouldn’t be if the right SP’s were declared, would it? Meaning you’re attacking the none SP’s. Corollary, you helping the real SP’s!

      And here’s your ref on buildings:
      We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material, and so forth. And it keeps growing. But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters.
      LRH “The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology”

      And your ref on an independent Scientologist is the Code of a Scientologist, especially:
      2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.
      4. To decry and do all I can to abolish any and all abuses against life and Mankind.
      5. To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health.
      10. To work for freedom of speech in the world.
      15, To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in ALL its applications and variations in the humanities.
      AND ALL OTHER CLAUSES!

    • HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 OCTOBER 1969

      BPI THE RIGHTS OF THE FIELD AUDITOR

      The field auditor has a right:

      I . To his own group.
      2. To the loyalty of the people in his group.
      3. To send any of his group to a Central Organization for training, coaching or special processing and have them returned with their group loyalty and attachment undisturbed.
      4. To express his needs and desires for co-operation to a central organization, other groups or auditors without fear of retribution or reprimand.
      5. To place his name and address on the title pages of publications from the central organization and circulate these in his area.
      6. To publications from a central organization at a discount in proportion to the number he distributes.
      7. To respect for his training and experience.
      8. To respect for his certificates.
      9. To have and to hold his certificates without cancellation by anyone forever.
      10. To communicate Scientology and to bring about a civilization for mankind.

      L. RON HUBBARD

    • H John,
      Your comment is exactly why the “church” is failing.

      It is so full of know best arrogance that it turns people off right away.

      Marty and our cast of expert Scientologists will be the only thing that saves the philosophy of Scientology.

      Your boss and you with your head cam are destroying the philosophy by showing the world how badly it can be interpreted.

      • The head cam is what really killed me Tony. He is like “Tele-Doctor”, you know you call like a toll free number and say you’re sick and a professional phsyician shows up to help you, Tele-Doctor. And he looks like a doctor in his head cam.

    • ::clap:: :clap:: Ahhhhhhhh the Scientologists pushing C of $….the few,
      the non-able, the fully brainwashed. Thank you, John Allender, for proving SBI IS part of C of $, Int…as we all knew, but it’s always great to have you all prove it. (Thanks to Tom Cruise, too! He’s done a great job, also).

      As my Dad, professional football Player (Quarterback for the Chicago Cardinals) and Color Man for NBC in the 60’s used to always tell me:
      “Tory, Monday Morning Quarter backs are a dime a dozen. Everyone *knows* what the Team SHOULD have done, the day after. The difference is this: They were NOT in the Game!” Same for you, knucklehead! You, Mr Pinhead extraordinaire, show up AFTER the entire list has been posted, too try to slam anyone? :::pfft::: Go try to sell some books, moron. It’s Thursday before 2:00 and YOUR C OF $ STATS ARE DOWN, AGAIN!~!!! Say “hi” to Gavino, Yaude and Davey boy…and tell them this:
      Tick Tock, Tick Tock:: Time is on *our* side!!!🙂
      Tory/Magoo

    • Are you the real John Allender?

      • No kidding. I have been fascinated reading down through the various comments, pro and con, well-thought-out viewpoints being expressed, true ARC being established, broad historical context being embraced…Then I hit “John Allender’s” comment and it’s almost comical, it’s such an outpoint…I can’t wrap my wits around anyone being this blatantly stupid…

        I think it’s a troll.

    • So Mr. Real Scientologist,

      When was the last time you took someone in session? Received a session yourself? Created an auditor?

      And please, don’t insult your own intelligence by saying you are “bettering mankind” by sinking a paddle boat, driving a golf cart and making mediocre videos.

      Underneath it all, you are better than that.

      • AL: In the immortal words of Tonyh Ortega, I must call bullshit on the characterization of those videos as “mediocre.”

        Those videos are comedy gold that will go down in history… They will not be forgotten and neither will John Allender and friends. They are sort of like the guy in tghe NFL who picks up the ball and dashes to the endzone, starts doing endzone dances, throws the ball into the crowd and then comes the realization that he ran the wrong way. These incidents are shown over and over again and people find them very amusing, usually in proportion to how much of a fool the person made of themself doing their endzone dance.

        With that as a yardstick, Allender and Co are classics.

    • It’s a useless activity really to attempt to counter Allender’s viewpoints, which are more implants than anything else. But I can’t help but comment on his little name calling about Mike Rinder. As far as I know, Rinder’s companion is a previously married, FULLY adult WOMAN. She’s not a baby and was not in the cradle (nor is she a teenager). Oh, and Mike is not some 70 year old guy either (not that there’s anything wrong with being 70 and wanting to be with a beautiful woman – I’m heading towards that age myself). But my point here is that this is what the communication level is that Allender and all these “hate web sites” engage in. They name-call and villify and viciously attack people personally (because they can’t counter their IDEAS). And this is why, after one quick run through, I don’t waste my precious time reading any of them.

    • John Allender, You are so off purpose, out to lunch and out of tune with your own fourth dynamic (the urge to exist as the human race) that you can’t understand what is happening. You have replaced reality with delusion. You have lost touch with everything that is really important in Scientology by aligning yourself with Miscavige instead of being loyal to the human race which is the only reason the CoS exists in the first place. Do you realize that? The Church ONLY exists to help the human race. The Church was created as an expression of love for the human race, and now you’ve perverted off that purpose and dubbed in a new purpose to be loyal to the Church for it’s own sake. Are you nuts? Or just a moron bent on extermination?

      You are now so out ethics that you publicly denounce a member of your own fourth dynamic as a “wog” in all caps, saying he’s incapable of duplication. Oh, I think he duplicates far more than you realize.

      In your all-consuming effort “to stop” you are “fighting” when you should be “operating.” Riddle: What happens when someone turns on their back on their own 4th dynamic and starts to attack the human race? What happens when someone decides to be the cancer instead of being the solution? I dare say you are going to find out. I’ll be watching the obituaries to see how it works our for you.

      PS – The fourth dynamic says, “Hi freak.”

    • Dear Mr. Allender, if you consider yourself a Scientologist, I may conclude that you are willing (or feel it is your duty) to read and follow policy.
      Please read in Vol 1, p. 160 and understand and apply it. We are not the enemies of Scientology. We make it strong by making it clean.
      Worsel

      “It is hereafter a fixed policy rather than a verbal policy that no person guilty of unpunished current lifetime crimes for which he could be blackmailed by subversive elements may be employed by any Central Organization or HCO and insofar as it can be made effective, franchise holders. No such person may be given or continue to hold any certificate.
      Further no person of known or unknown criminal record or liability in the eyes of the law may be employed by HCO or a Central Organization without being cleared both casewise and with the law of the area.
      Immediate compliance with staff employment standards OCA‑APA, IQ and aptitude is required by me of all organizations.
      To this should be added an E‑Meter check for criminal records or undetected current life crimes which could be used for blackmail purposes by subversive agencies in assisting our destruction. Any serious crime on the third or second dynamic should place the person in the forbidden employment category to be remedied only by clearing as a case and as required with the law before further employment or use of any kind may be given or made of them.
      Association Secretaries are requested to intercede for such detected persons with the law at the person’s request to mitigate punishment.
      L. RON HUBBARD”

  84. I haven’t read all the comments but I think most of you are missing Tony’s point which is basically that Ron’s stretching of the truth about his bio and some of the facts and non facts of his life have made it harder for Scientology to be taken seriously by the general public especially in age of the internet. Were the Church to confront and acknowledge this to the general public instead of putting LRH on a pedestal it would IMHO be much better. “Yes our founder had some quirks and personal flaws much the same as SIr Issac Newton, Ben Franklin or even John Lennon. Most geniuses do. But he sure created a practical, workable system for self improvement…” But then again it was Ron who laid down the policies concerning how source was to be promoted. Sigh.

    • Expelled4Life:

      I disagree.

      When I started my involvement with buddhism, someone mentioned to me some unsavory rumors and truths regarding one of the top Tibetan lamas to come to the USA.

      I immediately went home and started a long google search. I read the rumors, I read the facts and then was led to a fabulous Treatise by the man who took over the organization at his father’s death.

      Had I NOT been told of the rumors etc., I doubt that I would have found this Treatise as it’s not that well known and wouldn’t have said then and there —

      Damn, this man is the wisest living man I’ve ever read. And thus began my journey into my buddhist path.

      Scientology is NOT taking seriously because of what dm, Tom Cruise,
      Jenna Elfman, Kirstie Alley and others have said IN the media which makes them sound CRAZY and because of what dm continues to say via his minions that make him sound really paranoid, stupid and out of touch.

      The internet will only continue to be the friend of those seeking truth — until (heaven forbid) it is censored.

      WH

      • I think Scientology and LRH would have been better off if Ron had communicated his bio accurately and was a bit more humble i.e. do we really need Ron’s photos in every room of of every org and an LRH office in every org, etc. Did we really need “how I rose above the bank…” and all that? Do we really need to the clapping at a photo of Ron at the end of course? Like I said I don’t really give a damn but Ron represents Scientology and that is how he wanted it so we shouldn’t be surprised that the public looks to Ron the man to get an inside into Scientology.

    • You make a good point E4L.
      It’s been generally acknowledged, even by most Indies, that LRH was not perfect and, in fact, had some False Purps.
      Nevertheless, that should be irrelevant in that the subject is not the man.
      As most here can attest, the subject is full of gold.
      I think the only time when LRH’s personality should be taken into account is when it is clear that personality has mixed with truth, for example in the subjects of ethics and justice and money.

    • E4L,
      Here’s my take on it. In 1975, I heard all manner of crap about Hubbard before starting in Scientology, true and false. I couldn’t have cared less, because workability was my objective. Later on, I found the glorifying of him very offensive–it got in the way of his philosophy, as though he had to be perfect to have created something beneficial to humanity. It defied logic. It was like saying you had to BE perfection first, before you could strive for it.
      Would my reaction have been different with the current internet information? I really don’t think so. Searching for workability is entirely different than searching for a guru.

  85. Marty, thank you for “holding the ground”. Thanks for who you are and for all you are doing, for this article particular.

  86. Ortega was on a thunder roll and in the end his list plopped. Even his readers did not agree. The valid points about LRH and organizational structure and future leadership should have gotten LRH in the top 25, but thats about it.
    When Scientology was doing well in the 70 and 80’s when LRH was alive, it wasnt LRH who was crippling it because it wasnt crippled. Now, 25 years since he died, the man who is not even alive is the one to blame? I dont think so. Probably pre-ordained as another blogger mentioned. LRH is the biggest name in scientology so he gets the top spot. He tried to make it fit somehow. But it doesn’t. LRH belonged on the list, not on top of it.

  87. MY PERSONAL LETTER TO MR. ORTEGA:

    Dear Tony:

    It is my perception that you are an honest man who is using his position and skills to provide the public with the truth as you see it based on your investigation of the subject of Scientology. And of course, I will continue following my perception unless you prove otherwise.

    Having said that, I would like to provide you with some verifiable information which is based on my personal experience as a Scientologist. Please hear me out.

    I am currently 70 years old and live outside the US. I started my career as a Scientologist in Mexico City in the year 1968, after reading the book written by Mr. Hubbard titled Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, which I imagine you have looked at in the course of your investigation. Many people in the 60’s wanted less wars, crime and insanity. In Mexico we wanted less corruption and crime. For me, the information in that book and the therapeutic methods included in it represented hope. After practising such methods and applying them to others I concluded thet it was not only workable and effective, I actually decided to follow Mr. Hubbard to the end of the earth. Me and my mother, who had also read the book, decided to dedicate our lives to the betterment of the Human Race using what we believed was the fastest, most effective method we had at that time. In 1971, after having further verified the workability of the Dianetics therapy by applying it to ourselves and many other people who then wanted to pass it on to as many other people as they could, we joined what was called the Sea Organization, an elite group dedicated to globally expand Scientology. At that time Scientology was regarded as a Philosophy and not as a church, although I think if it had been known as a religion, we wouldn’t had cared less. The status didn’t matter. The results were what made us dedicate our lives to it.
    In 1975, after Mr. Hubbard decided to create a land base in Clearwater Fla. I joined what was then called the Flag Land Base, I was thoroughly trained on management procedures and eventually became one of the people who’s sole purpose was to further Scientology around the globe. We were called Evaluators and our job was to analize and evaluate data arriving from Scientology Organizations around the world. As I understand, you are familiar with a policy called Keeping Scientology Working? Well, It was our job to see that the Organizations around the world didn’t falter concerning that policy. Every time we evaluators saw a downtrend on their statistics, we investigated, found the problem and cured it using the many policies Mr. Hubbard wrote for such cases, and there are several volumes on Managemnet and Adminstration that I imagine have not been available to you in the course of your investigation. Mostly, if you read Mr. Hubbard’s policies on management/administration, you would find them full of Common Sense. They were all aimed at Keeping Scientology Working.
    Sure, as in any large organization, there were INDIVIDUALS who made mistakes while doing their jobs, but there were also a LOT of training and corrective methods. If you care to read Mr. Hubbard’s Ethics and Justice policies (not just the stuff the media and anti-Scientologists keep on
    highliting), you will find a picture quite different from what you have perceived and advertised. And you could also read about the Qualifications
    Department, which was largely responsible for correcting mistakes made by practitioners of Scientology/Dianetics therapy procedures.

    Sure, us people who were in the Sea Organization were underpaid, etc. but we were there on our own volition, trying to help make this world into a better one. And from my point of view, we were succeeding, Scientology was trully expanding around the world.
    I am sure that if you took an interest, you could be provided with statistic evidence of how much and how quick Scientology expanded between 1968 to 1982. 1982 which for many of us marks the beginning of the decline of Scientology because it was around that time that Mr. Hubbard became too old and ill to have an active hand as a Founder of Scientology, he was no longer available to us for advice. He began to rely on other trusted people and eventually Mr. Miscavige, one of the trusted people, took control and from there on all litterally went to hell. Bit by bit Mr. Miscavage cancellell or ignored Mr. Hubbard’s policies and went on creating his own perverted version of Scientology therapeutic procedures and the Ethics and Justice policies that had kept the group together and Scientology working for so long and had benefited so many individuals and their families around the world, not just in the USA.
    What you can see now is NOT Scientology as it was before Mr. Miscavige took over. What you see now is a money grabbing, criminal organization intent on making a lot of money by conning and fleecing innocent public, using the image of what Scientology once was and hiding behing a name that is very dear to many us, someone who provided us with methods of becoming better people, caring and understanding and more successful in life.

    All of the above, Mr. Ortega has been written from the bottom of my heart. I hope you read this and realize that what you have perceived in the past is not all. There is more to this current situation than meets the eye. As an old man, I advice you to dig deeper and find the Truth.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Castillo

  88. ADDITION TO MY LETTER TO MR. ORTEGA:
    Today you will find that the old evaluation Unit and Qualifications Department has completely dissapeared and subtituted by what is called OSA, which purpose is to attack and harass and destroy anyone who is not in agreement with Mr. Miscavige and his new policies and “technical procedures”.

    Alex Castillo

  89. Focus on the prize! The White House petition is slowing down and is currently (only) at 1,621. Put it on your Facebook and mail it to all your friends like I did. Post it on Reddit, Digg, Stumble upon. I’ll let you do it, but if somehow I don’t see it, I’ll do it myself.

    To comment on the above discussion, please think long and hard about what we as a society have achieved through objectivity (science, engineering, medicine, etc.) vs what subjectivity has caused. Subjectivity is what always gets us in trouble.
    Even morality can be evaluated objectively. Check out the “Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris.
    Make a serious effort to replace your subjective thinking with objectivity.

    • Petition at 3288 now. Tony Ortega promoted the link on his blog today, maybe that helped.

      Link to petition: EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND ABUSE. http://wh.gov/4Os

      Repost of helpful instructions: You do not, repeat DO NOT have to state a zip code. Many have no entered their zip code. It requires a name and an Email address….that is all.

      If you are having trouble signing, here’s an easier way to do it ~~ Go directly to this link to register, saves the layer script from slowing you down.
      https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/user/register

      THEN paste in this link and sign the petition:
      http://wh.gov/4Os

  90. Looks like this is getting some Tone Arm action.

  91. How could LRH be the number one person taking down the CoS when it grew under him and this changed after he was gone. It’s illogical.

  92. Well written response Marty.

  93. “Peace my brother”
    Perfect way to end the post to Tony Ortega.

    The white-hot criticism from Mr. Ortega actually reminded me of Mr. Miscavige’s Bulletin written in 1996 in which he destroyed OT VII and OT VIII
    auditing without really understanding it. The intent to harm is the intent to harm regardless of the form or the time period. The Village Voice in this case is, in my opinion, falling into the trap of Miscavigeology.

    Personally, when I first sought refuge in the Buddha, I went through an early stage of ill-will towards the magic and occultism of Scientology which I had to handle. Then I realized that despite those flaws, that e-meter auditing is unique and that it does produce a beneficial result. For this L Ron Hubbard deserves credit. Those who were harmed deserve compassion. I think that Mr. Miscavige should have a good look at compensation to those people instead of his policy of ill-will.

    Let it go, Mr. Ortega
    Peace my brothers,
    May all being be well and happy
    Much loving-kindness,
    GMW

  94. Marty, Mike and all on this blog.

    I am on a roll and I am thinking that perhaps it would help if we, the ones who really know what it was like for Scientology and us personally up to the end of the 80’s, would tell the readers how Scientology was doing before Miscavige took control after the death of LRH. Some of us were staff, many were public, and we all had setbacks during that time, but I believe that most people frequenting Marty’s blog are people who experienced the real thing and that is why they are here contributing to the effort of telling the truth about the new “Scientology” as it was invented by David Miscavige and his followers. Sure, many of us have experienced the vindictive, “destroy that person” “ethics policies” methods Miscavige has been practising for the last almost 30 years. Why not highligh the THEN and NOW to make it clear to everyone that there is a DIFFERENCE, that A doesn’t equal A. That there is a SIMILARITY but that SIMILARITIES are SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL. Currently and for years the media and the general public and ex-scientologists who got somehow mess up by incorrect application of Tech and Ethics, blame LRH and the whole subject of scientology for all their troubles in life (I have met a few of those , during my internet travels and some of them were people I worked with during my stint at Flag).
    But the truth is not about who got messed up or who is right and who is wrong, according to my way of thinking. The truth is: does Scientology correctly applied works in favour of individuals who understand it? Did it work before Miscavige? Did it benefit many people? Why did it spread around the globe between 1968 and the mid 80’s like wildfire before Miscavige?

    Outside of continuing to make efforts to dismantle the Church of Miscavige and his link to the the name of Scientology in order to protect a workable philosophy and the innocent, I think we should PROVE that up to the early/mid 1980’s, Scientology was a GENUINE AND WORKABLE
    PHILOSOPHY WHICH CONTAINED POWERFUL THERAPEUTIC METHODOLOGY THAT ACTUALLY HELPED PEOPLE ON THEIR WAY THROUGH LIFE.

    So I hereby call on old timers who, to whatever degree received benefits from the application of Scientology, to forgive their whatever impermanent troubles they suffered, and tell how it was THEN.

    SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND IDENTITIES (may not be and exact quote but that’s what I remember from long time ago). Correction or cramming welcome. I got plenty of time:))

    The general public and the media perceive the whole subject of Scientology as an “evil cult” intent on robbing people and destroying families. That is the case NOW, no contest on that perception. But it was not the SAME BEFORE DAVID MISCAVIGE TOOK CONTROL.

    Once again, from the bottom of my heart.

    Alex

    • Yeah, I can agree with you as to what it was like in the 80s and the dramatic (but introduced subtly) changes that altered everything by the early to mid nineties. Scientology as practiced in the Org ceased to “feel good” and was being replaced by a hunted feeling by 1990.
      In the mid 80s we made plenty of auditors and a major problem was finding enough PCs for them to get through their courses. We scoured friends, relatives and hunted around the the front of the Org for anyone who wanted auditing. The academy boomed, filled up and student co audits started getting the place buzzing with activity. The laughter and activity just seemed normal, we didn’t have time to introvert or think it could possibly be any other way. The future looked great and we trusted the SO and never considered what was coming down from uplines was anything else but standard.
      What I see in retrospect that started the rot was the reissuing of the Academy Level packs and checksheets, then came the new co-audit courses which altered and watered down the abilities and the fundamentals of auditing. An example was green auditors per checksheet were not hatted nor drilled on putting in buttons on questions, I personally had to check many folders, recheck the questions and get the PCs winning again. It took me off my post to a fair degree. I complained but it all fell on deaf ears and the rest is history.
      Yeah, the 80s before the infection spread was a blast, remember the saying – “if it isn’t fun it isn’t Scientology?”
      I’d walk back into an Org in a heartbeat if it was run the way LRH wrote the Policy for it to be run – I like fun!

    • Alex,
      As I have posted on this blog in other places, I was in Scientology from 1973-1988 and achieved OTVIII. My trip to the Freewinds was a great experience and I did achieve great benefit. When Miscavige really entered the picture, I left to practice Buddhism.
      During the first few years in meditation, I had to handle the ideas that came up regarding the occult and magiical practices of L Ron Hubbard.. Once this was completed to the end , I began to see the man in the light of his accomplishments which involve the skillful use of the e-meter.
      I do not agree with the ‘religion’ of Scientology, but I see clearly that auditing is of great benefit to people who want and need it. It is also practical.
      This tradition must be preserved in the hand of the Independent Movement, and I support the Indies for this reason.

      Much loving-kindness,
      GMW

      • George,

        I’m curious what you see. Not here on this blog, but I’d like to understand, to see your reality, your experiences. So, if you post elsewhere…

        • OnceUponaTime,
          I really don’t post anywhere else except this blog. Our main practice centers around Tampa, Florida where I have been available for questions from the public for the last ten years. If you are not in that geographical area, I can set you up with e-mail access.

          Much loving-kindness,
          GMW

      • Tank you George. Scientology was never and it isn’t a religion. In my day it was known as an Applied Philosophy. You know why LRH allowed to become a church. Those who consider Scientology a religion are clearly ignorant and have misduplicated the whole enchilada. Or they just call it
        “my church” out of habit or are parrotting because “everybody knows” it is a religion. Calling it a religion implies that there is some omnipotent entity that should be worshipped! What nonsense. I know LRH never thought of himself as a god and i think he would have laughed at such idea. But maybe Miscavige REALLY thinks he is an all powerful god who should be worshipped, cherished and protected from Infidels such as the Independents? Obviously he did carry out his own Ethnic Cleansing by destroying the Infidels, and now he has only a handful of True Believers who wish to destroy those who don’t believe in him. Of course, none of that has anything to do with LRH’s Scientology.

  95. Thank you, Marty.

  96. I think that there are a lot of assumptions about Scott Pilutik here, by people who’ve never talked to him.

    Scott has done a lot of research on Scn. I don’t care if he was never in CofS. There are critics out there who’ve read more Hubbard than a number of Scientologists have. Scott’s no Armstrongite- he’s a very moderate critic/skeptic.

    The thing with critiques of Scn, Hubbard, Miscavige, any of that is that there are differing perspectives and interpretations. I’ve seen both faulty and good ones from those who’d been in Scn.

    And a bit of facetous levity here- how do you know Scott’s never been in Scn? remember there’s always last life…

  97. I think the whole Tony O series was a distinct threat to Marty’s business. Marty’s only source of clientele are those disaffected $cino’s recently blown. He can never get any fresh meat ‘wogs’ to fall for his scam. The only fresh meat he has gotten so far is Mosey and God only knows what abuses she had to put up with to finally pick up the cans. For Tony O to place Marty as #3, DM as #2 and ElRon as #1 is fucking with Marty’s business plan! To claim that ElRon was full of bullshit makes Marty and his followers look bad, for Marty to be #3 makes him look bad in front of his syncophants, and Marty can’t REALLY tell what he knows about DM, because if DM loses his position and things actually change for the better in $cientology (yeah right) then no more defections, and that means no more customers for Marty, Inc! Follow the money!

    • Get off this blog mister/ mrs.billy ray, you are just an ignorant nuisance, have no place here and your stupid comment doesn’t hel any one but yourself trying to ge attention. Personally i don’t welcome you. When you have something intelligent to say, ask the moderator if you can post.

    • WOW!
      How many winning PCs on your lines at the moment?
      You do audit…
      don’t you?

    • Billy Ray
      Spoken with great stench — right out of your ass — propelled with a hefty addition of gas from who knows what primordial marsh Please crawl back into the slime from whence you slithered.

      • :clap: ::clap:: Well said, Michael!!!🙂 Hope to see you again soon.
        My best, Tory/Magoo
        PS: “Bill Ray” …Sorry, won’t waste my time. MF said it best. You stink.

    • Billy Ray, sorry you go it wrong. Start over at the beginning and try again, dude. If all Marty wanted was money he sure as hell would not be doing what he is doing right now. There are a lot easier ways to make money that don’t include having to fight for your beliefs in the face of constant abuse, harassment, stalkers, private investigators, and creepy thugs leering at your wife.

    • Billy Ray — everyone isn’t just like you; just because money drives you does not mean others aren’t moved by more noble pursuits. You’ve been watching too much mediocre sit com and TV slime time. LOL!! That’s your idea of an Ah-Ha! moment about Rathbun? LOLOLOL!!!!!

    • Billy Ray, if bullshit was gunpowder you’d be dynamite.

    • Billy it appears you are quite familiar with having to consort to abuse to pick up the cans. It is of course nothing unusual within the official Church, and hadn’t you been personally subjected to it, I doubt you would have rendered your sentence about Mosey.

      I don’t know Mosey, but I have observed one thing with that woman, and that is she has one hell of a personal integrity and any cans she ever picked up would have been because of her own free will. Isn’t that a concept, eh?

      Doing and thinking something out of free will is of course something you have learned is “weak”, “reasonable”, “dilettante”, ad infinitum, so it comes as no surprise that you would suggest such an action.

      What abuse did you have to go through to pick up your cans last time you didn’t donate enough or decided to do something on your own, and what abuse will you go through unless you make good on your “crimes” of just having attempted to do a single other thing than kissing Davey’s behind and donating more money.

      The overt doth speaks loudly in accusation…

  98. This was my comment on Ortega’s blog:

    “I think the reason why L. Ron Hubbard should rightfully have the #1 spot is that he OVER PROMISED. It has been 60 years and there are still no Clears and OTs as per the original definitions. On the contrary we see OTVIIIs who are in deep spiritual trouble, even down to committing murder and suicide.

    I’m with the “Indies” that there’s a lot of good to be found in Hubbard’s work, a lot. But I think the subject will die out on that point alone, it does not deliver what it promises. The whole structure is built on the basis of these promises.”

    I agree with Marty and Mike that in the end what stands is the volumes of tech/policy/books/tapes that comprise the subject of Scientology. When applied correctly it produces miracles in my opinion – but it does not produce Clears and OTs. I wish that KSW was merely “if it aint broke, why fix it”, but that’s not what it says. I don’t see how the subject of Scientology can be reformed because the promise of Clear and OT is an absolute integral part of it.

    • It will never deliver what you consider it promises so long as you continue to adhere to the hidden standard of comparing yourself to “OT VIIIs” or anybody else for that matter.

      • Marty, with all due respect, I absolutely admire you for everything you’re doing and a read the testimonials of the people you audit. As I said I think the tech produces miracles. I don’t think I have any hidden standards for having taken at face value what was promised. On the contrary I wish the subject could be reformed so these promises get out of the way. I, for one, could not really care whether I can blow a man’s hat off with psychic powers, but I do want clarity, increased abilities, peace of mind etc. which Scientology tech actually does deliver.

        • > I don’t think I have any hidden standards for having taken at face value
          > what was promised. On the contrary I wish the subject could be
          > reformed so these promises get out of the way.

          I think what you have said is very powerful, and very true. Scientology reformed in the way as you describe is one that I will probably not really find anything with to criticize. What you wrote can also be seen as a continuance to my first comment here, where unrealistic presuppositions have empowered Miscavige to take over.
          Yes, the described characters of a clear (or OT for that matter) are at the very heart of Scientology as a philosophy and how Hubbard says a society should be built. Using unrealistic expectations to build a new society will ultimately fail.

  99. As I said, yesterday, Tony Ortega is not a friend to ‘scientology’, whether you are a died in the wool kool aid slurping “Churchie” or an Independent, like me.

    He’s not a friend of the Independents and he’s sure not a friend of scientology, your article, Marty, makes that abundantly clear.

    Finally, in reference to your uncalled, fairly irrational and histrionic attack on me yesterday:

    “‘Dude’, you could use with some de-cultification. Your reads like something out of the Church of Scientology International press office. With “intend to destroy”, “getting in bed with”, “advertising such evils”, “”aid and comfort”, “enlist these people”, you sound like you are issuing from David Miscavige’s dictaphone. It is this op terming, labelling, and individuating from anybody who does walk lock step with you that makes you a cult. Wake up, evolve.”

    Really? What’s that all about? One day I’m a stooge for David Miscavige for saying that Tony Ortega and Janice Reitman are not friends of scientology, and the next day, you are raking Tony Ortega over the coals for the same thing I did, the day before? How does that work? Do I get to disagree with you, or anyone? Or do I have to ‘walk lock step with you’ in order to avoid being deemed to be ‘a cult’? Sheesh.

  100. Tony Ortega has updated his article at the end with the following statement:

    UPDATE: Marty Rathbun has posted a fascinating response to this article at his blog. Please go there and read it. I think it’s a great rebuttal that should help anyone gain a better understanding of the Scientology independence movement. — Tony O.

  101. To cut the to quick- There’s a point everyone can agree on: LRH was not a sociopath. However, David Miscavige is so inclined, without a scintilla of doubt.

  102. You want to know how clueless – and destructive – David Miscavige and his cult members are? The following is their response to Tony’s article on LRH and my Open Letter in response. They have elected themselves broken pieces – they are not even in the game:

    MARTY RATHBUN’S BIG GUNS KEEP FIRING BACK AT HIM
    Marty Rathbun has been trying to present himself as being pro-Scientology and pro-LRH for about 2 years now. He’s repeated it daily for the deluded dozens who lavish lickspittle praise on him on his blog, and hit his little “donate” button.

    But now, once again, Rathbun has proven himself to be the master of the “foot-bullet.” Rathbun might want to rename his shack the “ACME Attack Factory” because just like the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote, each of his new big plans seems to come back and bite him in the butt.

    Marty’s been feeding sensational, alarming, and false copy to a third-rate porn advertiser for months now, blithely thinking his own message was being forwarded, and that Marty was being made to look like some kind of respected source.

    Now his favorite reporter turns around and dumps right back on what Marty insists is the keystone of all that Marty is about: LRH and the Tech.

    He led Rathbun around by the nose for months, then turned around and slapped him in the face. He might as well have said, “Here you go, Marty. You thought you were using me, but I was using YOU the whole time.”

    Surprise, surprise. Rathbun lays down with a snake and is dumbfounded when he gets bit.

    But Marty acts like he’s not bit at all; like it’s just a “disagreement” between friends. He hasn’t even got the guts to show offense. If he did, his sycophantic minions would laugh him off his own blog, which they would do if there were an honest one among them. Instead, Rathbun just acts like he and the snake have differing opinions, but everything’s still A-OK in Marty World.

    This was supposed to be another one of Rathbun’s “big guns” that would do in the Church. And once again, it just comes back and fires at Rathbun himself.

    I’ll state what the reporter is too covert to say to you, Marty:

    You thought you were using him, but he was using YOU. And now he’s made you look the fool, like others before him.

    If you didn’t have so many overts you might be able to SEE that the “friends” you’ve aligned yourself with to propagate your anti-Church messages are not friends at all. They are and have been simply using YOU for their own destructive ends. They care not one whit for what you pretend you believe, or for what your stated but phony purpose is.

    They will keep turning around and throwing you under the bus, Marty. Too bad you never did any standard tone scale drills. Too bad you read the tone scale and decided you knew it all already. Too bad you were afraid to look at the tone scale too closely for fear you would spot yourself.

    Too bad you were so myopically obsessed with your own bizarre, conflicting messages that you couldn’t look up and see that you were being used like the tool you are:

    Sweeney trashes LRH and you consider it a success, and helping to get your word out.

    Lawrence Wright trashes LRH and you consider it “fine journalism.”

    Caberta works daily to make LRH’s works illegal, and you publicly endorse her efforts.

    Mark Bunker spends decades trashing LRH and you welcome him with open arms.

    Jason Beghe trashes LRH in vicious ways in the media, and he’s your “best friend.”

    Now the reporter trashes LRH and shoves it in your face, and you support his efforts still, because you don’t always “see eye to eye.”

    What a no-confront case you are, Marty.

    Each one of them publicly make you look like the fool you are, and you do nothing about it but bend over and say “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

    You’re a moron, Marty. Or as you would spell it, a “maroon.”

    I’ll say this, and maybe, just maybe, you’ll be able to look this over and get some gain from it:

    You withdrew your allegiance that you once granted, and betrayed much, much trust in some of the most duplicitous and honor-less ways ever seen. Did you think others, like the SP’s you thought you were using, wouldn’t treat you similarly?

    Did you think that people who treat Scientology and LRH with such attempted degradation and treachery wouldn’t turn at least some of that on you? And what do you imagine they say about you behind your back for being such a flaccid dupe?

    And are you so naïve as to think this is the last time it will happen?

    But what does Marty care? It keeps a few dozen similar lunatics hitting the “donate” button on his blog, so he doesn’t have to get a job and can keep “making a living” from attacking Scientology.

    • White-hot, boiling attacks from agitated Miscavigeology minds.
      An angry mind is like boiling water – that is the simile used by the Buddha.
      The ill-will from Miscavige is direct proof of deluded mental states.

      May all beings be well and happy!
      GMW

      • You may recall that LRH noted an angry man tells lies.

      • Dear Dave, (or Sherman, or whoever wrote this silliness)

        Inquiring minds, those dozens (who are actually thousands now) still wish to know the following:

        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for false reporting the actual production stats of Scn worldwide?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for beating staff?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for the suppressive act of refusing to himself be security checked?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for misappropriation of funds?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for creating such negative PR that Scientology is at the very bottom of the list of religious acceptance?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for destroying the various boards which LRH wanted in place after his death?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for presiding over a 50% decline of membership in the past ten years?
        Why have you not comm ev’d and removed miscavige from post for gross out tech including pretending to preside over Class XII c/sing when he himself has absolutely no auditor or C/S certification?

        I will tell you the REAL why. It is one of two things. You are either suppressive like miscavige and want the Co$ and the technology to be destroyed.
        Or, you are so PTS you work for SPs only.

    • How vindictive and mean-spirited is the official Gloaterandum from David Miscavige “church”….and how pathetically off the mark.

      As if the “Church” of $cientology has won friends for L Ron Hubbard? Au contraire, especially when they go after good and decent people, artists and dreamers as wrong targets. The whole world looks like an “SP” to $cientology Corporation. And <i<their cowardly dishonest antics have tarnished the subject and Hubbard.

      The way I see it, these conversations are cleaning up the mess.

      Fortunately, people who enjoy real Scientology are disproving the BRAND of Miscavige: Duplicitous, Invalidate, Aggressive, Lying Robots.

      Brilliant people able to observe and think such as Mark Rathbun have opened up a much needed conversation with the public. Thank you for taking the subject of Scientology out of the “Us vs. Them” psychotic game being played by the manipulative Corporate $cientology. <–Their abuse of trust and help is *egregious* and unconscionable as they cheat and kick below the belt.

      Score One for Intelligent Life and 0 for Coward Impostor Weakling$.

      What a pathetic little Gloaterandum but so consistent with Brand $cientology!

    • Well anyway, I, for one, am proud to be one of
      ‘The Dirty Dozens’.

    • Who is the Lombar Hisst ?

      Marty it´s your merit that Ursula Caberta has admit publicly in german TV that the exercise of Scientology is OK to her. It feels now better to be a scientologist here in Germany. Thank you again for this. But i´m afraid this one point, as described in the above post, is correct; Caberta, Wright, Bunker etc. are USING YOU for their own perverted goals, and as i guess you will experience that in the next future like you have just done with Ortega. As a trained scientologist you know well what you have to expect from people like them; a knife in your back, nothing else. Please be careful not to hurt the future of Scientology; maybe you should change your strategy regarding this kind of connections. Greatings

      • “Knife in the back” sounds familiar. Basically you’re saying, people are 1.1 on the tone scale, because they don’t agree with you on the subject of LRH and his tech? Do you realize, that you’re actually violating the creed of a Scientologist that says people may utter their opinions freely onto that of others?
        Did you not notice, that Tony didn’t with one word attack Marty? And that is simply because – as far as even we critics can tell – Marty didn’t abuse anyone anymore after he left the organisation.

        Dude, I have never hidden my opinion. Nor has Caberta done so. Or Tony. In fact, I wrote a lengthy post where I told Mr. Rathbun what to expect dealing with Caberta. How is this “hidden hostility”?

      • Marty has accomplished a hell of a lot. Look at this blog. Look at this page with all its wonderful free communication. Look at the wins of his PCs. Imagine how many people have had failed purposes restored. Think about, for instance, how Karen is once again auditing. Think about the theta that has been freed up with a whole bunch of correct indications.

        I don’t think Marty needs any back seat drivers. He’s doing just fine.

    • Marty and all,
      I believe that the 3 recent events: Tony Ortega’s article, John Allender showing up on this blog and Miscavige’s response are nothing more than diversionary tactics to distract us from the real target which, at the moment is to GET ENOUGH SIGNATURES ON THAT PETITION TO THE WHITE HOUSE in the available time. So this here old soldier suggests: DON’T TAKE THE BAIT folks. I think DM is scared of that petition being accepted by the White house and ending up in a real investigation of his dishonest, criminal activities. That is my humble opinion.

      Alex

      • I agree. If in fact David Miscavige has been physically and emotionally beating his staff, if he’s really stealing money from donations and putting them in his own pocket, if he’s really trashed the various boards of directors so no one inside can do anything about it, then it really is a matter for the FBI.
        I signed and encourage everyone else to sign.

        If all these allegations are false, that will come out and folks who really believe miscavige is a “white hat” will be vindicated. hee hee hee, snicker snicker….sorry, I couldn’t really say that with a straight face.

      • Link to petition: EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND ABUSE. http://wh.gov/4Os

    • Marty, these guys literally have the patented David “Ant” Miscavige view of life, the world and everything. You know who they remind me of? Charles Manson commenting on world events from his jail cell.

    • POB and his ever dwindling band of Kool Aid guzzlers are SO oblivious to the world, and so desperate to “get Marty” no matter what, they don’t even SEE what they are doing.

      Picture this: An entheta article about L. Ron Hubbard appears in national media.

      Does Tommy Davis (or whoever is being POB’s spokespuppet these days as Tommy is conspicuous by his absence, perhaps he blew again?) do anything to correct it? Does POB raise a finger to defend the honor of L. Ron Hubbard?

      No, instead they sit around and snigger at the person who DOES come to the defense of LRH.

      And they don’t get the irony of it at all, rushing to make their own stupidity known to the world as fast as they can.

      They are not maroons. They don’t have the intelligence for that title.

    • Shermanspeak has a destinctive “flavor” (cherry flavored Koolaid perhaps). It started to show up at the int events, then it was recognizable in the “Ron mag” series…God, it hated that crap, even then.

      This has the same feel to it. This is written by a particular individual. Likely one micro-managing psychotic.

    • The way I see it is that dm and his henchmen have been destroying the philosophy of Scientology. I have seen this firsthand and have heard many stories that corroborate this fact.

      The cult fails to put it’s own ethics in. dm is a coward and is unable to own up to his own overts.

      This forces people to go outside of the cult to get justice.

      The media in the US is too cowardly to get the truth out so all avenues have to be utilized.

      It is like a body with cancer. The philosophy has been invaded by a malignant cancer and now it has to be burned out.

      Not many have had the stomach for the job. Marty is the cheif surgeon on the case. He has a team that is helping him and they are all doing a great job.

      Sometimes while fighting cancer you lose healthy tissue.

      The war must be won. Some battles are not blowout victories but are victorious in the casualty counts.

      This is not a clean job, but a job that should and is being done. Today was a chemo treatment and wasn’t necessarily pleasant for all concerned.

      Today the patient has a chance of making it.

      If we left it to the cult the patient would be long gone by now.

    • The author of this piece seems to be in a very unhappy place. It is so full of hatred and venom it’s quite difficult to ascertain what they are actually saying. A very long bath might help. Candles, some herbal tea…

      On the other hand it might just be the product of a mind so unhinged and extremist that only indefinite leave in The Azores would do it.

      • Yes, someone who can’t gat [sic] above 1.9 (Hostility). No peace. A very unhappy place. Cramped, stuffy, and getting smaller all the time. Purpose: to put others in pain, bleeding some dry of funds for nothing, bleeding some dry of ARC, then using those funds for hostility.

    • > Each one of them publicly make you look like the fool you are,
      > and you do nothing about it but bend over and say “Thank you sir, may I
      > have another?”

      This one sentence in the entire write-up is key.
      This one sentence shows what makes David Miscavige tick the way that he does.
      It is exactly how bullies at school think, who are foreign to using their brains once in a while.

    • Marty

      Well, the comm from whoever wrote that diatribe was pretty predictable, non?

      The main intent behind this seems to totally be to drive a wedge between you and … well… everybody. The writer doesn’t seem to be aware of any
      tone levels other than his own.

      Also he appears to have concluded that you are obviously totally evil, because you trust people, you give the benefit of the doubt, you are willing to communicate, you consider people have a right to form their own opinions, you enjoy helping others, and probably pretty much anything else that a sane person would value.

      This person does appear to be following this blog though, because the majority of the statements used in his attack are phrases that have been used on this blog to attack David Miscavige.

      I just had a chuckle..
      I was mocking up David Miscavige’s rant and rage that would have resulted in this letter. I was envisioning David Miscavige, after hearing that “one accuses others of their own overts” came up with his own special twisted interpretation.
      I could see him yelling ” You total F***ing imbecile, don’t you even know the tech on that “the overt doth speak loudly” thing? well I want you to ACCUSE HIM OF ALL OF MY OVERTS, and I want you to do it LOUDLY, or you will be on beans and rice for all f***ing eternity! God, I’m surrounded by F***king morons!”

      Eric S

    • “Jason Beghe trashes LRH in vicious ways in the media ………” Product of CC INT! Right? There’s your G.A.O.T. trophy!

      Why the dedex ded dedex all over the internet with wrong items, wrong targets, slander and inval?

      WHO is bashing Hubbard? David Miscavige is bashing Hubbard it is just covert. What was GAOT but an announcement that Hubbard had nothing BUT overt products? Look at how Hubbard’s closest friends have all been thrown under the bus as SP’s don’t you see how that is trashing Hubbard?
      It is covert but it is serious degradation of Hubbard. And YOU are, or are working for that international pimp.

      • Exactly, DM does it very covert. Some time ago I read the book ‘Ai! Pedrito!’ by Kevin J. Anderson, and really got quite a surprise. The plot is based on a story/incident from LRHs life, and is itself exiting. But the character supposed to be LRH as a young naval intelligence officer, is portrayed as an unsuspecting naive kind of idiot who fall into trap after trap and only escapes by luck. All the other characters in the book are described in a normal way which fit into the plot. How the author could write in such a character assignation of Hubbard and get it approved by DM only makes sense now we know DM hates LRH. For Mr. Anderson to sell out his integrity as a writer and create such garbage must have included a big sum of money. It is definitely the last book I have read of that turncoat.

    • That diatribe is the 100% dead on expression of the attitudes at Int (read DM’s mind). That is a true and accurate expression of the party line emanating from Building 50/Int/OSA. It is how those folks actually feel and see the world. It is precisely the mindset they MUST assume to have the slightest chance of surviving their day to day lives. The rank and file Gold staff member, of course, can think his or her own thoughts while out mowing lawns of washing pots in the pot room, but those “on COB’s lines” must dramatize this valence 24/7 or risk having the ire beam turned on them. Not a fun way to go through life. A good while back, though, I stopped feeling any great degree of sympathy for those still there because if I can blow, if Marty can blow, if Mike can blow, if Steve can leave, as have so many others, then those still there have chosen to stay for reasons of their own.

  103. Eloquently well written by Marty, Mosey and all who contribute!

  104. IMPORTANT: If you haven’t already done so please send out the link to your FB page and/or email list to sign the petition to have dms church investigated.

    I’ve noticed the signatures have slowed down. While I’m sure with the remaining time we can easily meet the 5,000 target — no need to slow down.

    Just requires some attention. Don’t let this important petition not at least get the signatures it requires. Don’t let dm use this as yet another reason why he’s a genius. (because even WITH 5,000 signatures you can bet he’ll call it a MAJOR win and prove he’s a genius)

    Thanks.

    WH

  105. (sorry for the long comment — if bored skip to the end where I mention TR0 introduced in the most unlikely places🙂

    I feel this is important to remember. Please pardon me as I draw from the only 2 philosophies I have studied and practiced.

    Scientology as a philosophy and/or religion is a scant 60 years old.

    Buddhism is about 2600 years old and during that time it has spread beyond India where it started. And has gone through many many changes and has almost been lost in places like Tibet for a few hundred years.

    Today, it has spread to the West by Lamas who have left India to teach. In the West we mostly have Tibetan Lamas teaching and their students, so it looks MUCH different than the buddhism of Japan, India, China and other easter countries.

    Scientology today runs the risk of being lost. THIS is the battle that Marty, Mike and others who feel strongly about LRH’s philosophy are working hard to prevent.

    The scientology of dm does NOT resemble the scientology I joined in 1972. And yet, what stands the risk of being lost entirely is the whole subject.

    What IS important is keeping ones eye on the VIEW. Without a clear view it is impossible to walk along any path.

    I believe the view that it extant is to remove dm as the head of the scientology movement.

    ONCE that has been accomplished – then those that wish to present a NEW view will be free to do so, without the shackles of PIs, reservation taps, headlight wearing faux scientologists.

    The critiques rail against all things LRH (except for a few like Tory) and obfuscate what the real issue is.

    I’m not planning to return to an auditing chair nor do I recommend auditing to others HOWEVER I would be saddened to see something that I KNOW is helpful vanish from our world.

    AND btw — just the other day — while at a seminar I was GOBSMACKED to be directed by the director of the seminar to find a person, sit across from him directly with eyes open, not a fixed stare and look at him for 2 minutes. Then close my eyes, contemplate something or other and reopen my eyes for another 2 minutes.

    OK — sounds a HELL OF A LOT like TR 0 to me🙂

    Seems like the tech is finding its way into various business venues and others. One little smidge at a time.

    Love,
    WH

  106. What is stupendously remarkable and moving about this discussion is that it is a free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints regarding an extremely volatile subject — an intelligent and passionate discourse. Something that is not allowed to happen in the current church environment.
    All views, extreme and otherwise were expressed, challenged, rebutted and challenged again, without the threat of being dragged into Ethics, made to endure a security check or being labeled this or that. That smells like freedom to me, the heady aroma of which has been sucked out of the course rooms and auditing rooms that now make up the square footage of the Church of Miscavige. Everyone, take a bow!. (I’m bowing too)

    • /me bows

    • Michael,
      Well-stated.
      If it could ever sink into DM’s head (fat chance), freedom of discussion is the exact remedy that is needed. However, Miscavigeology is based on wrong view. A real leader would be aware of the remedy in the now and would implement actions. Miscavige right now was perfectly described by LRH when he said “he is like a kamakazi pilot in WWII frozen at the controls while the zero goes into a dive”

      Much loving-kindness,
      GMW