Scientology And Saving The World

In 1950 L. Ron Hubbard burst onto the scene tackling the attainment of the ends of Eastern spiritualism with the practicality mindset of Western materialism.   He developed two related subjects toward that end, Dianetics, and its outgrowth, Scientology.  Within two to three years he had described in pratical English terms having seen the universal truths as outlined in the Vedas and in the Tao Te Ching.  He also described modern exercises that he discovered and developed to bring others to that experience.  He spent the rest of his life attempting to undercut the route so that virtually anyone from any station in life or of whatever educational background could traverse it.  In that effort to reach and effect all, matters eventually became complicated.  An insidious parallel to helping and saving all peoples of earth evolved throughout Scientology writings.  That is, the stress became not so much to make Scientology accessible to everybody as much as to make Scientology mandatory for everyone.  This approach led to a type of dual personality for the subject.  On the one hand it intended to release an individual from the restraints of life and to restore freedom of choice.  On the other hand, it usurped freedom of choice and imposed restraints in the attempt to get every person there.

Control and restraint themes developed throughout Scientology writings.  It was justified by the repeated idea that Dianetics and Scientology contain the answers to every problem and every question that every person ever faced; with the repeated emphatic idea that no one else has anything of use to contribute to those answers.  The theme was evident in a substantial body of proselytization and ethics policy that justified any means necessary to leading the clueless to the only show in town. These policies dedicatedly applied wound up appealing to a broad spectrum of people as intended.  That included people who wanted to communicate better, to find their sanity, to improve memory, to sell more, to be more successful, to have more meaningful relationships, to make more money, to dominate and control others, to reach higher states of spiritual awareness, to be more powerful, to get off drugs, to learn how to study, and even to reach immortality.  In promoting to all those looking for these answers and more, and representing to those publics that those wants were all that Scientology was interested in helping them with, all the while intending and organizing to direct such people toward ultimately making Scientology the answer to everything weaved a strain of fraud into the woof and warp of its organizations.

Fraud requires as its central element the making of a misrepresentation that the communicator knows is false.   In the case of Scientology, the recurrent, systemic knowing lie has nothing to do with the lack of efficacy of Scientology itself. When a Scientologist tells somebody that Scientology contains the answer to his problem, as well as every answer to every problem that person will ever face, that Scientologist believes that representation implicitly. The knowing misrepresentation that virtually every Scientologist is guilty of making over and over again is that whatever particular problem a seeker wants solved is the only problem the Scientology organization is interested in solving.  In fact, Scientology scripture very methodically details how to use the solving of a particular problem as the bait to be switched toward creating a new bigger problem for the bait biter to pursue.  Scientologists will vehemently protest my use of words such as “misrepresentation” and “fraud.”   But, the fact of the matter is that many of the significant problems that have nagged or lessened the reach of Scientology organizations stemmed from this inculcated lie.

This is not to say that Scientology does not contain the tools to solve every problem every person faces.  A trained Scientologist is well equipped to solve a wide variety of human problems.   In fact, selflessly and ethically practiced Scientology does wonders in putting a person into a position where he or she is well equipped to resolve any problem he or she may encounter.  However, in carrying out Scientology policy that requires everlasting steadfast loyalty and fealty to the organization, the organization is hard-wired to ensure a person never believes he or she is so equipped. It is quite a trick.  In order to enforce that fealty and loyalty – and its concomitant, escalating contributions -there must always be something more wrong with the person being handled. And so, all too often a fellow works his way up the Scientology gradients of enlightenment for decades, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in the pursuit of the promised state of ‘cause over life.’   In virtually every case the fellow winds up being convinced to spend several tens or hundreds of thousands more to find out and solve why he never made the vaunted state of ‘cause over life.’

Again, this is not to say that the methods of Scientology cannot produce such a state.  It is to say that the effectiveness of Scientology is never realized because of the original, well-embedded lie that Scientology organizations are not interested in anything other than providing help with whatever is troubling the person who reaches for help.  Intead, the organzations are constructed on the principle that once a person checks in, he or she never checks out.  Individuals connected to Scientology organizations are programmed to find another problem to solve for the seeker.  If they cannot find one, they manufacture it. Let’s examine more closely how it works in practice.

Let us say that a fellow wants to overcome problems with communication.   Scientology offers and delivers a course on communication that thousands have extolled the virtues of.  However, Scientology Inc. staff are bound by policy that prohibits the leaving of good enough alone.  It penalizes staff who fail to immediately ‘re-sign’ anyone who successfully completes a course.   While the course might be a complete success in the eyes of the person who took it, it is an utter failure as far the organization is concerned if that same person does not immediately open his wallet and lay down more money for more expensive courses or pricey personalized counseling.  Again, that is not to say that the expensive courses and counseling are not worthy.  It is to say that Scientology organizations are prohibited by their scripture from ever leaving good enough alone.  They operate on policy that uses Scientology’s knowledge of the mind to manipulate all those who complete course or counseling services to re-sign for more expensive future services.

Scientologists are blind to the bait and switch nature of their own day to day operations for a couple reasons.  First, they justify the hustle by the efficacious results that Scientology services can and do deliver.  Second, that justification is reinforced and complicated by a steady indoctrination into the idea that mankind is doomed, non-Scientologists are worse than aimless, and the only answers to everything – including immortality – are covered only in Scientology.

It might be that Scientology’s greatest sin stems from its greatest original virtue.  It might be that the policy discussed herein was initially developed out of an abiding, strong urge to salvage humankind.  However, like every movement throughout humankind’s history that has begun perpetrating harm once it is convinced it is the only one capable of ‘saving the world’, organized Scientology seems to have perfected the art of ‘controlling’ in the name of ‘freeing.’

This state of affairs led to my posing the question, ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’

Being someone who finds tremendous value in the Buddha’s philosophy of the Great Middle Path, and L. Ron Hubbard’s use of infinity logic (there are no absolutes but instead an infinity of gradients at either side of 0 on any scale), I am interested in hearing peoples’ views as to the answer to the question posed.

UPDATE:

As a couple at least have challenged me to show any evidence whatsoever that Scientology Policy encourages bait and switch trickery, I picked up the 1140 page policy volume Scientology on sales and within a couple minutes found the two exerpts below.  The first is from Policy Letter entitled HANDLING THE PUBLIC INDIVIDUAL:
Example: Miss N has heard of processing.  She wants some.  She never did DECIDE to want some.  She just wants some. Now to ask her to decide ANYTHING about it blunts that purpose.  It is a thin purpose.  It quivers.  Don’t ask her does she want a book or want training or want a pin or want anything else. Say only, ‘Ah. You want processing.  That’s a good thing to want.  Be here Monday and bring ________ funds.’  That’s all. If she says timidly, “I only have _____ funds,” say, “Good. Bring them; you can owe the rest.  Be here on Monday.  In short MAKE Miss N RIGHT for WANTING, thus intensifying the want.  Make her RIGHT when she talks about money.  Then, being right she CAN come in Monday.  Simple.  Chances are, even if she works, she’ll still come in.  When she comes in she says, ‘I’m Miss N.  I’m here for my processing.’  Reception MUST say, “Ah.  You’re Miss N. Good. There’s the Accounts widow.  Sign up there.’ The Accounts says, ‘Here’s the slip.  Sign here.  Take the slip to Room _____.’  Reception says, ‘This way Miss N.’  Estimations says, “let me have your Accounts receipt.  Good.  That’s fine. Have you been processed before?  No?  Well, you soon will be.  This way please.  Your auditor is waiting.” The auditor says, “Over here, please,’ adjusts the pc’s chairs, etc., and sits down and says, “Start of session.”  At its end he says, ‘Be in this room at _______’ for Miss N’s next.  And so on.  When she gets her grade certificate she’s told, ‘That means you’re a Grade I preclear.  Get the book ____________down in Reception.  It will tell you all about Grade II.’  Miss N throughout is NEVER anything but 8-Ced. The general promotion told her what to want by saying she could HAVE it.  She expresses the want.  The org people say, “That’s a good thing to want.  You can have it.  And gives it to her.  That’s all. Just as you’d never ask a pc which command he wanted, you never as the public individual to decide.  You can teach them anything, particularly the truth.  But never ask them to decide.  By processing up the grades, this person will soon begin to see and be there and understand and decide.  And she’ll surely decide she’s a Scientologist, as it’s true all the way!’
Now, combine that with HCOPL 28 DECEMBER 1978 USE OF BIG LEAGUE SALES:
The caper is to assume the individual has already chosen to buy a specific item and then to get him to make some minor choice about it which involves him and makes him assume he has decided to purchase it.  It is a technique to bypass a large decision.  EXAMPLE: Person hasn’t decided to have processing, salesman ignores that and asks him if he wants his auditing afternoons or evenings.  The guy says evenings and forgets to notice he hasn’t decided to be processed in the first place.

569 responses to “Scientology And Saving The World

  1. This here article is a gem of wisdom and honesty. Now we are truly on the road to reforming the subject. I am tracking with you all the way.

    • Theo Sismanides

      Yes, Watchful Navigator, I agree it’s a great article except for one thing. It’s not the structure or policy that makes the re-signs so dreadful. This is actually crash selling. I disagree with Marty’s viewpoint here.

      LRH has given guidelines on this in policy actually. So it’s quite the contrary actually.

      Policy has been laid out to prevent such crash sells. I have posted further down 3 refs by Source which apply to the matter. And the matter has been isolated and dealt with by Source and is called Cannibalisation. It’s an org board problem and a Div 6 problem in particular.

      Div 6 is out, so Div 2 has to bail them out. Div 6 is broad, broad, broad public reach. I can’t stress enough the “broad” concept, here. And no matter what DM says the stats can easily show there is no broad reach into the world. So Div 6 activities are missing. So let’s cannibalise on our CF.

      An unseasoned Scientologist cannot visualize a WW Division 6 ideal scene easily because that is BIG, vast activity. DM’s Division 6 activity is kindergarden stuff. No Quantities there in the Thousands… He is stuck on “Quality” when the only Quality he was supposed to maintain was Standard Tech. DM’s Div 6 activity is pathetic and unreal otherwise the Idle Orgs would be full and running as Ideal real orgs which they aren’t.

      And of course lack of Div 6 is due to lack of Qual, Div 5, as Scientology is NOT correcting itself per Source. And Div 7 as DM has fucked it up as the leader. He is tampering with Source when he is NO Source and nobody IS Source. Source IS Source. And we now emerge as Custodians of Source and do a much better job and are immediately more accepted and more real in the world than DM and his church. The impact of Marty, Mike Rinder, Steve, Karen and so many others around the World just in a few months has made the subject (not the church) much more acceptable.

      Now we all try to interpret Source (this happens also by well intentioned beings) but as far as I can see each one of us in the indie field or the Freezone field has his weaker points. No one could assume the beingness of a duplicate (at least) of Source. This is why Source is there and in a written form so that we can correct ourselves and so that everybody, even the janitor, would have a say on this if he would quote Source. The Church could never correct itself, no Qual, and this is its biggest mistake organisationally. It drowned itself in DM’s tyrannical Ego to say the least.

      So this point of policy and structure pushing for re-signs is not correct. This should be clear to everybody. Please read my answer on this further below. So without Source there can be many organisational oxymorons. If, if Source is not fully duplicated, understood and applied. And as far as i can see both on Tech and Admin obviously there is much to be mastered yet. And Admin LRH says was not a complete work but a workable system. That it was.

      • Theo,
        I can understand your view and agree with much that you’ve written. It is my view that an even more basic and underlying missing element is that HCO and Qual were wiped out, no longer function as they were intended. So the org board cannot exist as it was initially drawn up by LRH. The Resign debacle is not a cause issue, it is a symptom, it is the result of prior outnesses. In and of itself, it does not have the same importance, it merely is a magnet for charge because it results in so much betrayal and damage on personal levels.

    • Theo Sismanides

      a typo there as crash selling should be crush selling…

      • Theo Sismanides

        Thanks Marty for posting my comment though I have expressed a disagreement with your viewpoint on how re-signs are pushed in the old regime and how publics are crush sold and made to go broke.

        This New Game we play here has taken Scientology to a new level. The Old Regime/Old Game operated on a one way (command type) of flow with no respect to Source (so basically Command Intention was not really Source Intention).

        The New Game moves this up much higher. It’s a game of no Enforced or Inhibited Agreement but one of Desired or Curious about Agreement based on Source. Thanks.

        • Theo, I am pretty ignorant of Policy, but I agree with you about the “Cannibalisation”. That was my thought also – that people who complete a service might be satisfied for awhile, so the effort should go into expanding reach towards new people – as you said, broad, very broad dissemination is what should be done, not reging and re-reging of people just completing a service. As the Churches serviced new people, eventually many of the first people would come back for more, of their own volition.

          This does not address why Cannibalisation happens in the first place. I am thinking of a book I was very impressed with by Elaine Pagels, titled “Beyond Belief”. This is about the history of the Early Christians and the formation of the “organized” Christian churches. It is a very good read, not a long book, but very lucid. It describes how and some of the why that led to the increasing rigidity and materialism of the Catholic church in particular. It seems to me the process, which took several hundred years back in those days, was paralleled within Scientology in a few short decades.

          • Theo Sismanides

            Valkov, yes the process repeats itself although it is in a fast forward motion here for reasons we know better.

            Cannibalisation, and this is my opinion, happens when there is no clear view at the top of basic basic things.

            LRH would arrive at the bottom of things and As Is situations because of that. That gave him enormous Space.

            LRH was an OT, he could create space and time where to locate energy and matter. LRH had space, he granted people that beingness… He set up the whole thing… one person on his own…. vast space hahaha!

            Now all of the rest combined are struggling to keep something there instead of being able to create new space and time to locate even more energy and matter (new bodies, lol) in those. That’s low on the Tone Scale.

            The more force you use the more you go down the Tone Scale as you apply more and more flows.

            It would be expected of a leader to at least have enormous space and allow other to have theirs.

            DM is a high school drop out who is obviously obsessed with controlling others through force, blackmail etc. Mired down to MEST that is.

            What kind of an Understanding of the basics do you expect from such a man? Much less an understanding of an org board, lines, terminals…. In one night he musical chaired the whole of FB when the Era of New Management.

            The fact that there is no space or time granted to Scientologists by Scn Inc. is a dramatisation by staff of DM’s ignorance of basics. It’s other determinism, it’s low on the scale and it’s camouflaged as a needed condition to help mankind. But all it is, is bad control ending up in cannibalisation.

            Theta can deteriorate to MEST unless it goes free. Evidently Admin has nothing to do with the degeneration of Mgmt (the Thetan in control) of Scn Inc. into MEST. The basics are out.

            When there is NO thetan but a bunch of know best entities leading an organism all kinds of weird stuff can ensue. I have not done my OT levels this life time but I can have a pretty good idea.

            • Thanks Theo. Yes, it is the upscale ability to create space that matters. LRHhad big plans for Sea Org members to be processed up to Clear and OT III as quickly as possible, so they could have similar ability.

              But it didn’t happen, wasn’t done, and look, the S.O.went way downscale as a result.

              One might say LRH’s original intention was subverted, the processing and training goals for S.O. members were subverted. Now we have that dumb thug Miscavige “leading” because no-one within the ranks stopped him. Although there were quite a few in Europe and in the USA too, who tried.

              • Theo Sismanides

                The end product of trying is “having tried”. I used to think that but, hey, Valkov, we are in a different game now. We have a New Game. Like a Phoenix, reborn from our ashes.

                Valkov, we are many. Two auditors are gonna be here in greece, one new person wants auditor training, many preclears. DM can’t handle the rapidity of this thing, now. It expands like mushrooms. In any case the church is our big pool, our Div 6, hahahaha, I like that. They need to keep on doing what they are doing. Normal condition, application of the formula.

                Two rights of a Thetan, the right to his own sanity and the right to leave a game.

                We offer them a new game now. We are now unmockable again as we ever were. We are back and that’s a fact. No DMs can stop the Indie field now or ever from now on. This tech IS out for the world and for the free people to use. And we are the ones who can do that and doing it. Restoring Standard Tech for the peoples of earth. That’s a star high goal. I am soooo happy! Thanks Marty, thanks Valkov and all the good people here.

                • Theo, I love this comment!!

                • Great posts, Theo!
                  I’m sooooo happy, too!!!

                  • Theo Sismanides

                    Thank you all, the New Game can be on a totally new Plateau… with how we view now existence, hahaha.

                    We have created a new space, hahaha, the Internet and especially this blog and new time (there is no time factor here almost, everything is so fast and we are all connected) so we locate energy (thought included) and a little bit of matter (some bodies there on their computers, hahaha) through them.

  2. Thanks for the stimulating article.

    I believe that the conflict of Scientology is inherent in the conflict between tech and policy. While developing the Tech LRH did a brilliant and compassionate jobs. No doubt he was able to isolate himself from the shackles of the mind, and develop a complete work. However, instead of continuing in a natural progression, he developed a body of policy that was many time based on short term interest.

    An example would be the case supervisor series (tech) in which LRH tells the CS that he only works for preclear. However, in policy he many times urges to ignore the needs of the individual for the needs of the organization.

    I feel that Scientologists should view tech as the essence of Scientology. Policy should be viewed as recommended guidelines. I believe that even LRH viewed it in a similar manner. The evidence of that are three policies: Senior Policy, Service, and Policy Letter Number One. In these policies he laid out the rules:

    Deliver what was promised.

    Never stop somebody from moving up to freedom, no matter any other policy.

    Maintain a good relationship with the environment, and everybody in it.

    In today Co$dm, Sea Org members pick and choose whatever suits them and discards the rest. Tech, the basic philosophy, and the tenants are just ignored.

    • when i first got in scientology,it was pre sea org. I liked it much better, I know it was fun being on a ship and an adventure talking about clearing the planet and wearing uniforms, ron was clever creating the game that way,i feel it was a mistake.
      it also wasnt a religion when i first got in, i was told it was an applied philosphy, i also liked that better, after growing up catholic i didnt need to join a religion.
      being around orgs for 20 years,i always thought there were to many staff on admin lines and not enough auditors, i use to see staff at asho, ao, and flag walking around looking busy, i thought what do they do. i just wanted to walk in pay my money and get auditing, the routing form to me seemed like dev t. i would get stupid letters sent to me that were out dated, they didn have a clue about me. a lot of staff wasting there time,and always short of auditors on staff.
      you need policy, but it got to much, i ran several successful companies with out to much policy.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Hahaha, Roger excellent point.. I was wondering around ASHO as a recruiter… 1991 to 1993. No one wanted to join… hahaha I should have known better.

        Streamlining such things is important and your viewpoint here is important. I think LRH says the ratio is 1 to 2 for tech and admin and then when they get many it gets to 1 to 1? I am not sure exactly.

      • Probably because you are a Thetan who can think straight.
        I think one the problems with policy is, that a lot of people use it by pushing the few they know, but lack conceptual understanding of the whole picture. I have seen this wreak havoc not only in Orgs. and Missions, but also in Scientologist-owned companies.
        I once way back had a talk to missionholders (with Diana Hubbard in the audience…) saying that we didn’t use policy in the mission…
        Since we had Tech somewhat in, to get a few guys on course and in an auditing chair didn’t seem complicated enough to go do the FEBC.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Under the Radar,

          This is so important. Jim Logan pointed out to a ref. THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANISATION, WHAT IS POLICY.

          Right there LRH talks exactly about that. A post can only be kept by a Thetan.

          I have seen all the staff SUPPRESSED, UNDERPAID, NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED ENOUGH for what? For fear of what?

          I pointed out one Reference, an HCOB, man, on translations and got demoted!!!!!!

          It was like there was no one around. But all this started from the top!

          LRH was IN COMM with the whole of the organisation straightening it out.

          Like in A History of Man LRH says you don’t have to process the Genetic Line Incidents because the Thetan can straighten out the Body himself.

          You can’t build an organisation on straws as you can build an sane organisation with NO Thetan there leading it. It’s gonna be a mess.

    • This is an excellent point and probably very true. I think the Management Series contains the most relevant Policy and should be where people spend most of their time studying. That’s because the Management Series isn’t a series of details for compliance but is a framework for thoughtful application. So if you truly understand and apply the Management Series, you’ll make the right decision whether you know the OEC or not. It’s the true tech of management.

      My 2 cents.

  3. Bravo Marty! I think you stated the conundrum very clearly. That’s exactly it. Thank you.

  4. Brilliant Marty!!
    One of your best posts ever.

    You clearly lay out the conflicts within Scientology.
    As you say once you get a win, you are never “released” without paying or resighning. What ever happened to “come back when you want more auditing!”? I know that you offer that and I really like being able to reach and withdraw from the subject at my own discretion.

    I personally think that the planet has much better chances of making it, if people are allowed some self-determinism in thier own spiritual progress.

    As for whether organized religion is an oxymoron or not, my answer is no.
    I think that organized religion has its place, if it’s truly ORGANIZED.
    I think having a loose group of Independents auditing and training in the field IS organized. I think this type of organization DOES stand a chance of expanding into the public and gaining wide spread popularity.

    As for RCS, it is NOT ORGANIZED and is doomed to fail big time!!

    • The senior triangle of Scientology is Knowledge-Responsibility-Control. But where it is well known that the three components of the lesser triangle of Scientology — ARC (Affinity-Reality-Communication) — add up to Understanding, I don’t believe LRH published what KRC actually add up to if anything. But I think I have a good idea: integrity.

      I agree with Tony that the problem with the CoS is not that it is organized religion, since the CoS is NOT a religion. It is an extortion racket shaking people down for money. It uses religion as a cover.

      There is nothing wrong with organizing. It’s part of control. The opposite of organized is disorganized. Does anyone want to participate in anything that is disorganized? That is also a word that particularly describes the Church of Scientology. It operates in conflict with it’s own fundamental principles and purposes. So again, Tony is right.

      What I really like about your post here, Marty, is that you are actually wearing the real hat of ethics. That is a hat we all should wear — nobody should be immune from examination. But here Marty is wearing the hat in an on-purpose way.

      There is another aspect to the out ethics of the Church which actually traces back to a rather large character flaw of LRH’s personality. That character flaw does not negate the technology. Auditing works, period. As I have said many times, I’m sure the designer of Apollo rocket had character flaws. That doesn’t mean we didn’t land on the moon. To assume character flaws in LRH = negation of the tech is sheer buffoonery… what we’d call in Dianetics an A = A = A equation. Notwithstanding all that, it is very important that we all as a group and as individuals understand what LRH’s character flaws were so we can have better insight into the world of Scientology in all it’s ramifications.

      It is a both a responsibility and a trust of group members to point out such wrongnesses because those things need to be weeded out. Why? Because if Scientology is about improvement, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

      So here it is: from my direct experience, LRH had the kind of personality that if you crossed him he would lie to wipe you out.

      He would label you a squirrel, label you an SP, label you anything to destroy your power and influence in the group. I saw this exact behavior dramatized by his own daughter, Diana Hubbard, when I took on the post of Scriptwriting I/C in 1997. I was the wunderkid of marketing. For 3 years everything I touched turned to gold. When Miscavige realized that I had moved into power he ordered that I be transferred into another division to head up — scriptwriting. It turned out that Diana who was holding DSIEI (Div Six Internal Exec Int, part of Exec Strata) wanted that post. So she attempted to take me out in my first days on post and by issuing an utterly malicious “knowledge report” chock full of the most flagrant lies — all Black PR on me. I was dumbfounded. Of course I was hauled into Ethics but the lies were pretty easy to disprove. They sounded utterly like “a woman scorned” but I had not even met her. What had I done? Well, eventually I found out and it was as I said above — she wanted the post and had been working for years to get there. She admitted it all to me. And when I went on, those hopes died. As it turned out, she ended up working with me anyway for the next 6 years.

      Anyway, I never forgot that experience and how badly it reflected on LRH, her father.

      Does that negate the workability of auditing? No. But it does explain what happened to virtually all of the “leading lights” of Scientology through the decades — announced at the start of each Congress only to be labeled a squirrel later. And it may well explain writings like this one published today by Tony Ortega from the OODs (Orders of the Day published on the ship Apollo) of August 19, 1970:

      “SQUIRRELS

      “Been hearing reports on a couple squirrels — Bernie Green (in NY) and Jack Horner (in LA). They’ve been goofing it up for ages. Typical no case gain cases, up to their ears in undisclosed overts. They’d sell their grandma for a fast buck.

      “Horner is wildly opposed to organizations or systems of any kind. He has the trick of talking somebody off the third dynamic into the first dynamic. He shows them how the system is doing them in and how it should all be only for No. 1. B. Green evidently got that way as a Terrorist in the Middle East. Horner totally flipped when he ruined one too many women. The first dynamic and the fast buck and how all systems are bad seem to be a common denominator to these poor nuts.”

      Now add in David Miscavige and you have the perfect storm. Let me explain:

      David Miscavige does not understand “infinity valued logic” or really anything of Scientology. He operates under the blanked assumption “ANYTHING LRH DID OR SAID = STANDARD TECH.” He is incapable of differentiating because he is insane by definition:

      “SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND IDENTITIES.” – LRH

      The key outpoint is “ASSUMED “IDENTITIES” ARE NOT IDENTICAL.”

      And so we have a fatal flaw in the organization, that started with LRH, was picked up by Diana, and DM certainly, but also I dare say it is known about by every Kool Aid drinking DM supporter and enabler. And they all have the same blindness which strikes right at the heart of the KRC triangle because they aren’t being fully responsible, they are not exerting control and for that reason instead of integrity, they have corruption.

      In my opinion, the ultimate problem with the Church of Scientology is not that it is an “organized religion” it is that it is OFF PURPOSE, and has been re-organized to align with various evil purposes.

      When evaluated against it’s original purposes, and this covers anyone’s experience inside the organization who is simply trying to forward those original stated purposes, it is disorganized in the extreme. Everyone’s hat gets knocked off to do IAS regging, which is not even an on-purpose activity. People are squeezed for money for things that have nothing to do with them getting up the Bridge, etc.

      And as for the purpose of dictating that everyone needs to move up the Bridge vs. making Scientology available to those who want it, I agree with you Marty that it is wrong on many levels. “Freedom” includes “freedom of choice” and you can’t give people freedom of choice by robbing their choices from them. Robbing people of their choices is called totalitarianism. It’s called slavery. No one is going to create a free world through slavery. It’s demented.

      • Steve,
        Thanks for this. It is interesting that one thing I am recounting in my larger memoir is the early observation for me in ’78 at then Int HQ (La Quinta) at the highest levels a seeming obsession with having to assign blame, and once assigned, thoroughly condemning the target of blame.
        Marty

        • Yeah, I hear you Marty. I watched the first edition of a new TV series called “Hotel Hell” with Gordon Ramsey (the ass-kicking chef). He finds the most out ethics guy imaginable running a hotel. Totally catches him stealing, etc. The guy is nattery, combative — every indicator. But Ramsey totally bypasses condemning him and instead doesn’t give up. He gets his ethics in by demonstrating to the perpetrator how illogical and self-destructive his actions are. The guy finally sees how HE is harming the group and corrects himself. I don’t know how much of it is Hollywood (maybe all of it) but it certainly seemed impressive to me. He just brings the whole group to see the exact cause and the “who” by fully exposing his crimes, but instead of blowing the fellow away, he persists in working with him and brings the perpetrator around. I kept waiting for the traditional next step “blow him away” — but it never comes. Hanging in Scientology normally occurs through the assignment of a condition (something most people hated), a justice action, getting busted off post, etc. You know Miscavige revels in blowing people away. He doesn’t use it as an absolute last resort. Volunteers (Scientology staff) who are working for pennies an hour don’t deserve to be “blown away” at the drop of a hat. Ramsey seems to apply “ethics gradients” better than anyone in Scientology ever did.

          • Steve, it is a great show as are all of Ramsey’s shows, but they are, in the end, Hollywood. Just like the old shows Bonanza, Big Valley etc in which in almost every episode, Ben Cartwright or Barabara Stanwick encountered an SP or criminal and “turned them around” with their own brand of good sense or charm of whatever.
            I actually had to get FDSing on these type shows because crims never turn around until you apply the tech to them. I got burned so many times by crims that I was in danger of being a criminal myself, so I got the FDSing and found it. You can use ethics to keep them from committing overts while you apply the tech, but beyond that a being is going to do what he is going to do because he (the analyzer) believes what he is doing is correct because that is what he was taught (see Original Thesis). So the only way a crim can be terminatedly handled is with FPRD, NOTS or Dianetics or in the case of an SP Power Processes.
            Other than that I love the idea of turning people around just by being Pollyanna around them. It works while the Pollyanna personality is in the vicinity and the crims are under the influence of the Pollyanna peronality but once the Polly leaves they go right back being crims. This is why you scratch your head when you wonder why LRH ever put guys like Herbie Parkhouse or some of these other execs who seemed to do well under LRH and turned crim when he was gone

            ML Tom.

            • Tom, Great comment. I don’t disagree with you. But are you possibly talking more about a confirmed SP incapable of case gain? Lots of people slip into out ethics, and later realize what they did was wrong and thereafter change.

              Where it gets weird in Scientology is where you have willing people volunteering for staff. They are giving up many things to do so. And they get hit with harsh ethics. Example: I joined staff in a mission in 1979. The day I started the whole mission got put on beans and rice. It was my first day and I got punished!

              I think there may be an aberration in criteria by which one evaluates staff in the Church.

              Let’s take a guy who volunteers for staff. He gives up a high-paying job, vacations, home ownership, nice car, and the ability to pay for his own Bridge! Later gets Comm Ev’ed when his stats go down. Are we really going to pretend that guy is a bad hat when he’s the only one in the city willing to at least be there? If we do, the whole activity goes into an unreality of condemnation. And one day you have the Int base.

              Besides DM being a crim, the Int base got to be a hellhole because they evaluate staff against the ultimate value of Scientology instead of the value of the staff member.

              IMO, that is a huge point.

              Here is a comparative I’ve mentioned before: DM has Scientology materials and services priced against the ultimate value of Scientology. The tech’s priceless so he charges nearly priceless rates — $4,000 an hour for auditing, and a book costs a full month’s wages in some third-world countries. It’s the wrong criteria.

              Scientology pricing is properly done against the purpose of helping a maximum number of people; thus the correct criteria are affordability and viability. The sweet spot for any price is that point where a maximum number of people can afford it, while yet enabling the org to be viable. Field auditors are having no problem finding that sweet spot. How come it’s so hard for Dave who it sucks to be?

              Back to Scientology ethics: the sweet spot is that point that recognizes the individual’s rightness as one of the most valuable people in the world, while still enabling the org to function as a team and grow. Many tools for staff and peer review have been developed since the early 1950s and orgs are ignorant of them (out of PT). Obviously an organization that lives in the past is destined to succumb.

              • Reward the upstat and penalize the downstat became penalize the upstat and reward the downstat.
                Then it became penalize anyone connected to it.

              • Yes, exactly Steve. Ethics is where it got weird. LRH said in HCOPL 24 Augu 1967 DISCIPLINE SPS AND ADMIN HOW STATS CRASH
                “Also it is a symoptom of an org under external pressure to come down on its own personnel rather than on the public or real SPs.”
                Paul Grady and I did an eval in 1986 and it was about what cause the cessation of the 70′s boom. What we found was the HEJS’s (Hubbard Ethics and Justics Specialists) who were trained in the Guardians Office. They were trained on LRH materials but at the end they were all given a final briefing by Jane Kember that their target, when they got back to the org, was the staff and the second dynamic in particular. So 2 of these HEJSes were sent to each org and the stats caved in. The staff were being targeted and the out ethics public were ignored. Stupid.
                LRH said in the same pl as above “I have never tried to make staff members “be good” . I have only tried to make them produce and wear their hat.”
                “To me a staff member whose stats are up can do no wrong.”
                Even then if an upstat staff member had downstats for one week, he was “Fair Game” to the MAAs.
                No, ethics in the hands of non-cleared people is asking for trouble. And it came in the form of Evil Intentions. All MAAs should be OTIII or above and had at least the basic FPRD form.

                ML Tom

        • Marty,
          I understand exactly what you’re saying. There seems to be no understanding of the cycle of blame and label/condemnation. It is as if “incorrigible” applied to all circumstances and the Tech cannot correct outnesses.

          • Yeah, it certainly was exacerbated by Miscavige; but it certainly existing before his arrival. In fact, he worked it very competently, and studiedly, to his advantage

          • So true Sinar. They are not using the tech to correct outness’.

        • Marty, this observation has always bothered me. How is it that blame must be found and condemned while at the same time, the FINDER of blame must have committed crimes against the blamed? Apparently, the Scientologist, being among the most ethical beings on the planet, is free from blame, and having found blame,, is thought to have a high level of confront rather than O/Ws against the accused. Oh my, lets hear it for double standards!

          Nancy

      • “But I think I have a good idea: integrity.”

        Steve, I think it is rather efficiency.
        (From my own philosophical view you can have integrity without much knowledge or control.)
        These three K, R and C add up to efficiency very well. What do you think?

        • Than we would have Understanding & Efficiency.
          And that’s what Scientology is about.

          • Theo Sismanides

            I would rather call it the triangle of Wisdom. A wise guy has control, knowledge and responsibility over fire… he doesn’t get burnt! After Understanding and many Understandings that you make, you just move higher to wisdom.

            Of course there are different levels of Wisdom as there are levels of Understanding. But as Understanding and ARC have to do with flows (Agreement, Affinity, Communication) in the realm of KRC, I don’t think one necessarily deals with Flows, like in Tone 40 for example. One thus moves into a higher sphere and there should definitely be some connection between the 3 corners of the lower triangle to the 3 corners of the upper triangle. Could be that there are harmonics there. LRH was very neat and orderly with such stuff, hahaha. If anybody has any such reference it would be good to hear that.

          • All very good suggestions.

            Upon a quick inspection of K-R-C – my take is it adds up to COMPETENCE.

            my 2 cents

            • Mine too – competence.

            • Hello,

              competence is a very good suggestion as well.
              Cause, competence, efficiency, effectiveness.
              Did LRH really left it to us to figure it out? :-)

            • thanks for the agreement and the other suggestions including ’cause’

              But we have 2 triangles, A-R-C and K-R-C and they are ‘connected’ by an ‘S’ for scientology at least in the symbol. Perhaps the 2 triangles add up to ‘Cause’

              Having gone up the bridge I know ARC increases as does ones cause level, so ARC is connected to cause level.

        • I don’t know, it’s a good question. Maybe effectiveness might be a better word than efficiency.

          • Yes, effectiveness is a good candidate, too.
            Ability is another one, though ability itself (as term) is somehow in-active, right? (I mean one could have all the ability but see no need to use it).
            Effectiveness and efficiency is the correct concept IMO.
            Effectiveness is more common to people, can be grasped with easy.
            I like Effectiveness. Efficiency is somewhat technical.
            (The PE course could be called Personal Effectiveness, too – not bad, new folks here in germany often had an MU with ‘efficiency’.)
            Thanks.

        • I think K, R, and C add up to Source or Cause. They are pretty much the same thing and Knowledge, Responsibility and Control seem to be the necessary ingredients for them.

      • “It is a both a responsibility and a trust of group members to point out such wrongnesses because those things need to be weeded out. Why? Because if Scientology is about improvement, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

        Steve you friggin crack me up!! But on top of that, your comment is spot on!
        Ultimately, don’t you think LRH would want the tech salvaged?

      • Thank you for that, Steve. I appreciate your insight. Very enlightening and as-ises much for me.

      • From what I remember of Clay Table Processing on the Pro Tr’s, KRC equated to Cause. I’m pretty sure there was a process that had that and could be confirmed in the CTP handbook.

        • Yep, that’s good. I do seem to remember LRH saying somewhere that the KRC triangle equated to “you” also… or something like that.

        • Theo sismanides

          Makes sense. Thanks

        • KRC equated to Cause.
          Sounds good.

          • Yes, I like this! No specific references to go on here except BARRIERS TO STUDY, but this thread has got me thinking. Better stated I might say KRC leads to the “Ability to cause”, but I think the end result might still be “Understanding”. Here’s how…

            I’m basically seeing the intertwined KRC and ARC triangles as The Bridge with its action being similar to the symbol for infinity (an 8 turned on its side), but this can be applied to any subject I think.

            We study subjects to gain knowledge of them, become responsible in those areas, and then control them, i.e. in becoming an auditor, or a doctor, or a rocket scientist. If the third barrier to study is the misunderstood word and one is backed off from an area because of a misunderstanding (has a lack of affinity for it), then he/she is not cause. Clearing misunderstandings in the subject of auditing does not make one an auditor, but doing so means they are no longer backed off from the area if they choose to engage in it.

            I see ARC coming in when one chooses to be cause in an area. In the above example, with increased KRC one can choose to enter the ARC triangle basically at any point. Clearing the misunderstood has given the person new affinity for the area as they are no longer backed off from it, i.e. they can choose to be “in” the area. This cycle could just as easily be entered on the ARC triangle first with one having an affinity for a subject and then seeking more knowledge about it. KRC then, would be the ability to cause, and ARC the application (or cause itself) leading to understanding. As one works both triangles understanding becomes greater and greater. We are accustomed to saying that ARC = Understanding, but isn’t cause itself understanding? Total cause would be total understanding would it not? So in my rational KRC is ability to cause, and ARC is cause.

            So…in Scientology (basically being the study of “You”) the triangles work with each other for a more complete understanding of “You” that can be infinitely applied. Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks for the opportunity to communicate my, “What does this mean to you” understanding.

            • Theo Sismanides

              DC2, good points. A higher harmonic type of thing. KRC being a higher harmonic. Most of the scales in Scientology have to do with harmonics. I feel the same is here.

              Now, i wonder if the 3 corners of those 2 triangles correspond somehow and LRH has laid out something about that. I think I read something but is very vague, can’t say for sure. Any ideas anyone?

              • I am not sure if it is useful to take this too far into the realm of symbols – ARC is a practical guide, but if you think about it, it is only a guide and a simplified one too. I am sure that if you think about it, you can recall certain situations in your life where the simplified concept of ARC worked a little bit differently from what LRH described (and you need to be off the Kool-Aid to even DARE making such an observation…). LRH’s description simplifies the workings of ARC – probably intentionally, to make the concept simpler to understand.

                A good example is meeting a person you have never met before, and don’t know much about – zero Reality, probably near-zero Affinity and zero Communication. Per the (simplified) ARC concept, a lenghty conversation should lead to more Reality about the other person and that should result in more Affiinity for him and that should in turn result in wanting to Communicate even more. But what if, as a result of your Communication, you find out that the other person has views that are completely opposed to yours and you fiercely disagree with almost everything he says? THAT Communication will actually LOWER Reality between the two of you from zero to a negative, and will therefore lower Affinity and you probably won’t be talking again any time soon. So increasing Communication CAN turn a missing (zero) Reality into a negative (sub-zero) Reality which starts the cycle of the 3 corners all going down, just as LRH described. But you started by INCREASING the Communication corner of the triangle, which, per the simplified explanation, should have increased the other two corners – but it didn’t.

                So a truer description of ARC would be a little bit more complex. It would include that each corner of the triangle effects the other two which can happen in different ways. The 3 corners are definitely not “hard wired” – it isn’t always true that moving one corner up or down results in the other two moving the same direction. To more precisely describe ARC, it should be taken into consideration that while the Communication element can only go from zero to infinity, the other two (Affinity and Reality) can go from negative infinity to positive infinity. And that’s pretty hard to describe using a triangle…

                So if you want to understand ARC, the triangle concept is a good guide to start with, but like most guides, when you achieve a certaing level of completence, the guide becomes a limitation. In this case, the phenomena the ARC triangle was designed to demonstrate is more complicated than the symbol (triangle) itself. There IS such a thing as negative Affinity and negative Reality. How do you draw up a triangle whose corners are sized 10 (Communication) -7 (Reality) and -2 (Affinity)? Well, that would be the everyday scenario where you have a long conversation with someone, and as a result, you disagree with them, but since you are tolerant of other people’s opinions, you don’t hate him too much for it, you just disagree with his Reality.

                So what? I LOVE what LRH did, I LOVE his research results and use them daily, but I personally refuse to treat it as a religion (I always protested that, even while in the SO). I understand that in order to maintain its independence and ensure its survival, at one point, Scientology HAD TO be categorized as a religion, or it would have been regulated out of existence. But that was for different purposes than correctly categorizing what Scientology actually was. It was to give it a chance to survive. Add someone like David Miscavige to that picture, and in true SP fashion, he takes every part of that handling out of context and does everything to turn what once started as a “study of wisdom” into a “faith in you leaders’ wisdom”.

                Scientology, in order to work, needs to be used as intended – as a search for wisdom, a road to more understanding, freedom and ability. None of those will come out of blind faith, obedience or any of the nonsense the “church” expects from today’s “Scientologists in good standing”. I appears in order to be in good standing with the church, you need to denounce the most basic tenets and principles of Scientology. How insane is that…?

                • Theo Sismanides

                  Globetrotter, this is one way to think of it. How about thinking that by Communication you have definitely increased your Reality (about that person) and have finally managed to stabilise on an appropriate for you Affinity level (for that person). In other words Communication helped you make an Understanding about the person. It does not mean necessarily that you go “in ARC” with everybody because that would be aberrative and I think Kool Aid drinkers are suffering from this. Not us, here.

                  Your Understanding increased, you made an Understanding that there is not much you would like (R) about this person. But this R is now higher than before and your Affinity is not alloyed because you now know who you are dealing with.

                  Moreover, it could be that the other person by increasing the 3 corners might wanna change some things that you wouldn’t agree with him/her and thus build really more of ARC with You and your Reality.

                  So Scientology is not going to go far if we don’t duplicate it, exactly as it is.

                  I don’t think increasing Reality necessarily means to Agree with someone. Reality is what is there to be seen so you definitely increase that by applying ARC.

                  Like you communicate with a wall. The Reality of it is There is a Wall here and that’s about it. You don’t Agree with any wall, it’s just that the wall was not so real to you before. And your Affinity increases too. Now if some misinterpret this and love walls, it’s not what ARC is all about.

                  • Globetrotter, you make what I think are very astute observations about the ARC Triangle. I agree with you that there are varying degrees of ARC and KRC in that each corner does not necessarily go up or down the same amount and that one corner could move inversely to another. Each could also go down together as well…after all, let’s not forget where “Not Know” got us. This is precisely why I think KRC = an “ability” to cause, and ARC = “cause”, but both as a choice. As I previously mentioned I think cause could be equated to understanding if total cause means total understanding. Thus ARC = Understanding as well…same thing.

                    I read in one of the other posts on this subject that KRC could equal Ethics, but I see ethics being the tool that assists a being to raise all corners of both triangles across ones dynamics. If, as Theo has mentioned, communication helped you to come to an understanding of the person and that understanding help to draw the conclusion that you do not wish to associate with them any longer, it means to me that this association does not serve the greatest good on one or more of your dynamics. This then, I believe, is an ethics decision even if only on a small degree.

                    DC2

                    • Globetrotter

                      Theo & DC2 – thank you for your comments on this – I always enjoyed this kind of conversations, and I believe THIS is what Scientology is all about – discovering, finding out for yourself, exploring, understanding… LRH himself said that his work is to be seen as something to use and not something to believe in. Somewhere along the line, this got reversed. I feel much better here, being able to discuss the original Scientology, LRH’s brand – something to be explored, tested and USED – not just studied and believed.

                      I see many Scientologists around me who think that the product of studying Scientology is “cognitions”. Ouch. Unless it has an impact on your actions, results, efficiency, success, happiness, etc. it ain’t Scientology. LRH didn’t do all that work so you can have happy thoughts about yourself and the universe, but so that you can LIVE better. And LIFE is not thinking, it is ACTION.

                    • Yeah…I enjoy this kind of conversation too. Thanks for the participation. Your comments helped me make a few connections as well. I hope you will find some of it useful in your quest for truth. See you in the blogosphere! DC2

      • Steve,

        In my mind, the sum of Knowledge, Responsibility and Control is Ethics. Ethics being the individual’s rationale toward the highest survival along all the Dynamics of Existence taken collectively – with the highest ethic level being long term survival, with minimal destruction along any and all of the Dynamics.

        If one were to view the Dynamics as a series of concentric circles (like a target) with the First Dynamic and oneself (Control) at the center, all one would have to do in order to master the remaining Dynamics would be to raise the easiest point on the KRC Triangle to raise – Knowledge.

        By continuously raising one’s Knowledge of the Dynamics (Background and History, Underlying Theory and Practical Application), one becomes more and more able to take Responsibility for the Dynamics as one’s KRC Triangle expands. By this method, one can eventually reach the goal of being all of the Dynamics as Control.

        That one’s ARC and Understanding also increases with any increase in Knowledge, it also becomes more desirable and enjoyable (and less of a perceived burden) for one to become Responsibility as the eight Dynamics.

        As one (Control) ultimately assumes Responsibility as Ethics, (Responsibility being “the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics” – LRH, [AP&A]) he will find that his sphere of influence has increased exponentially to encompass all of the dynamics as a whole – at which point his reality will obtain in other’s universes.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Scott, that’s good. Hmmm… Ethics! Tech and Admin come to my mind after you mentioned Ethics… I don’t know if they form a triangle by themselves, I dont’ recall any reference, but it would be interesting to see this.

          I could relate though Ethics with Responsibility, Tech with Knowledge and Admin with Control (yes, I like that definition for Admin, Control). Mission Tech was all about that. Ethics, Tech and Admin.

          Just a thought here about KRC.

          • Definitely Theo,

            Correct Ethics, Tech and Admin are the core ingredients essential to the success of any organization. Regarding the KRC Triangle, I was going at the subject strictly from the viewpoint of a being. However as you point out, Ethics, Tech and Admin would certainly be included in the subject as a whole as one developed and implemented long term survival solutions for flourishing and prospering in the MEST universe.

      • Captain Non-Sequitur

        Thank you for that post Thoughtful. :)

  5. Over the past 37 years I have walked a path parallel to the Church whilst being part of it at the same time. There were always things that I didn’t agree with. I just worked out ways of doing it my own way without being too obvious.
    What you have put forward is essentially true and provoking discussions like this will help to open our eyes to the optimistic goals and purposes that we had when we first discovered L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy and practises and hopefully rekindle our failed purposes.
    Personally, I have had a failed purpose for many years. My purpose was to expose as many people as possible to some aspect of LRH’s work. It might be a lecture on the Havingness Scale (or any part of the tech for that matter) . The person attending might have had enough wins to go away and tell someone else that LRH was a wise and sage man. This would then make it easier for people to feel safe about attending some sort of intro. I believe in the basic fundamentals. If you apply ARC to introducing Scientology to people you do it bit by bit, reach and withdraw, but always creating more communication, reality and affinity for the subject. Not ARC breaking people by being too pushy and introverting them up their assholes so that they leave upset and tell others that Scientology sucks.

    If a person doesn’t re-sign straight away it’s not the end of the world. If they’ve had wins they’ll go out into the world and let others know. I’m sure most Scientologists would be able to tell if the new person actually did get something out of what they did. Isn’t that enough for now?

    By applying this principle I have been able to get lots of people on the Bridge and a very high percentage are still pursuing Ron’s technology.

    Warning bells should have gone off decades ago when Scientologists stopped FSM’ing new people in the numbers that we needed to actually grow. The trust factor went out. People probably decided that it was better for someone to never look at Scientology as opposed to them being over- regged and “forced” by other determinism to do things that may not be in their best interests and losing them off the Bridge ARC Broken and also losing them as a friend. And worse still, mouthing off to others that Scientology is a nasty, pushy group.

    This was just bad havingness on the Church’s behalf and it really limited our growth and still does.

    The field has to trust the church to nurture new people who have been introduced to a brand new subject. On a broader scale this can never happen because there have been so few people properly introduced to Scientology over the past few decades. Shortages lead to bad havingness. Bad havingness results in down stats and must have. That’s one of the reasons we are such a small religion. It’s so simple it’s embarrassing.

    Many years ago Mark Shreffler did a lecture in the city where I live. There were literally hundreds of new people who attended, all brought along by friends. It cost $50. It was informative, funny and by the end the lecture the tone level of the audience was enthusiasm. People will come to something they trust and they’ll bring others. If ARC is applied understanding will occur.Why didn’t we look at this and learn from the obvious.

    Well, it was because of what Marty has written. There’s always going to be an LRH Policy to validate anyone doing anything…good or bad. And unfortunately the Org is always more righter than the field.

    We’ve just got to be intelligent and lead by inspiring people not controlling people.

  6. In a similar vein, no matter what your IAS status, it needs to be higher. Gave your last spare dollar to buy the Ideal Org building? Time to donate again, for the renovations.

    What? You want to take dance lessons, go camping, visit your aging mother, have some semblance of a life? You dilettante! Get your ass into the Org.

    Already on course full time? Rocketing up the Bridge? Still not enough; you need to join staff. And how often in the last 30 years has a staff member been told they had done their share and could take a breather?

    It never stops, and it’s never enough. Institutional Scientology is running a Can’t Have on living.

    • So true!!
      I used to tell my wife that all the time while on OT7, It’s NEVER enough!!!
      They will run you into the ground if you let them.

    • “It never stops, and it’s never enough. Institutional Scientology is running a Can’t Have on living.”

      Yes, that is very true. Indicates totally to me. Thanks!! At the end I felt more and more like I was prevented from “living”; always trying to circumvent to do some “living” anyway and somehow.
      It was also like you had to “sacrifice” something (- 6.0/ OMG!) – your money, -time, -space, -sleep, -relations, -friendship, -power of decision, your dynamics etc. – you name it.
      It was dedication at the beginning but then over the years it was more and more turned into “have to sacrifice”.
      After I was out (SO), one of the first things I did was travel to other countries and places and to do and enjoy some living on other dynamics than the (inverted?) 3D.

      • You hit the nail on the head Karola! Sacrifice. Totally accurate assessment of the C of S’s 3D. The “lightness of organization” always progressed toward and became a totalitarian dictatorship despite the fact that the production (and Tone Level) were much higher when the organization was ‘lighter”.

        Makes sense. Seriousness equals mass.

  7. Organized religion is not an oxymoron because the word “religion” explicitly is defined as a “set of beliefs” as well as rituals, hence organization is inherent in practice. Religion, Church and Spirituality are three completely different things that many confuse.

    One of the initial distinctions that Scientology had once upon a time (before it was corporatized and religionified) was that it was tool and practices to apply, not join or believe. One did it. There was less ambiguity.

    The problem with “religion” of any kind is that it is a generality, a label to which people subscribe with no subsequent qualification by or questioning of actions. A Christian Soldier (in the sense of going off to kill people) is an oxymoron.

  8. The twisted idea that there is a “must have” to have the person sign up again and give their money after completion of a seervce is a falshood. This is due to the misunderstodds and false data purported by indivduals in the first place. The main purpose for a person wanting to resign is to show that they are very happy with what they have just learned. If they have a reason they cannot go on to their next service it should be accepted by the registrar. Resigning is a method used by all organizations weather they are a church or not. But in the cos they are not “Self Determined” which is the goal of all of the auditing and training. Perverted policy ideas that come from idiot staff in an effort to make money makes it an unpleasent enviroment at the least.

  9. I was always interested in ” to reach higher states of spiritual awareness” be I was aware. I have checked out of Scientology Inc. because it was using my already awareness yet progress no higher. I am aware and I will persist with the tech. Someday ….

  10. I guess the problem lies with interpreting intentions. (There is a lot of truth to they saying, “the road to hell is paved with good intention.) I’m not sure if it was Hubbard’s era or other factors but many white western men had strong patriarchical thinking, and as with many minority societies in practice and theory, the only way they thought there was to help was to control. (A good example is colonalism or many Christian missionairies.) It was the trap of I/we know best for you, questioning of our superior knowledge of what you need will not be tolerated and viewed as insubordination, subject to punishment to keep you in line.

    This paternalistic mindset is embedded in Scientology – and that is one of it’s greatest dangers. Unfortunately, and I believe Hubbard well knew this, many people consciously or unconsciously crave a patriarchal figure to tell then what to do – to relieve them from the freedom, responsibility and danger of free choice. People swarm to a man who claims to have all the answers is like moths to a flame, with out ever considering it is highly likely they will get burned.

  11. Food for Thought:

    Religion, in general, is recognition of spiritual phenonmena
    in man, nature and/or the universe.
    In and of itself, it is a series of circuits that produce a mindset
    of hope and promise just “up there” or “around the bend” that is never ending.
    It is an R6 mechanism and is very well organized.

    A thetan is good. He invented a bank to keep others good.
    That mechanism went wrong. And that’s why we’re here.
    - LRH INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS

    Religion is the ethical nature of the being running down scale
    to cultural moral controls and glues and binds an individual
    in a mystery that is an alter-is of the origin(s) and future
    conditions of what is known as reality or the apparency of the
    universe.

    Is Scientology a religion? No. It does address the being
    that has no matter, energy, space or time. It does not address
    any religion nor verifies such.

    Is the technology of Scientology religious ritual? No.
    It is a gradient of applications that will raise the spiritual
    (non-MEST) awareness of the being to total self realization and
    therefore Truth or Truth Revealed.

    Does LRH see Scientology as a religion? Yes, but only in the
    conext of spirituality, as task that psychology abandoned so long
    ago.

    If one has run upper level processes and viewed the whole
    track of their experience, one sees the control factors that enslaved
    a being by confusion and mystery. One may have even been in agreement
    with the efforts to control the misdirections of others by laying
    the foundation of the mechanism in self and up through to
    the 3rd and 4th dynamics, and building upon it with alter-is
    on the 7th and 8th dynamics.

    So here are beings in meat bodies which modify theta awareness
    of truth and bring about aberration (misdirection) from source (self)
    and attention on a mocked-up other source.

    Another word for organized religion would be R6 control.

  12. “It might be that Scientology’s greatest sin stems from its greatest original virtue. It might be that the policy discussed herein was initially developed out of an abiding, strong urge to salvage humankind. However, like every movement throughout humankind’s history that has begun perpetrating harm once it is convinced it is the only one capable of ‘saving the world’, organized Scientology seems to have perfected the art of ‘controlling’ in the name of ‘freeing.’”

    Bingo! You have brilliantly described what I couldn’t sort out and adequately articulate myself. Thank you for laying these things out on the table to be discussed. Amazingly, I was struggling with this in session today and you have now put the final piece into my puzzle.

  13. I definitely felt like my gains were continuously invalidated in the course of operations at the Church. There is always a bigger problem and a bigger need and a more important “ruin” to handle that apparently needs more and more money. Yeah. It’s no one wants you to walk away happy and carefree enjoying your wins and newly discovered abilities. You are always to dwell in a ruin. That’s what I was starting to realize that some staff were continuously working to drive me down the tone scale into a loss and a sense of being incomplete unless you take that next step that is laid out before you. It is actually very non-survival.

    My ideal of Scientology service was always along the line of a usual service cycle like in a normal business. You come in, pay the money, get the service, have a result, and you are back to be totally free to move around and decide what you want to do next in your life – effectively completed cycle of action.

    • I shouldn’t say “no one” as I’m sure there are individuals who are okay with someone being free to enjoy a win, but I definitely agree that there is an operational mechanism to keep you in a “ruin” even if only on the 4th dynamic.

      There is always more money that is needed to save the planet from some doom just around a corner. If the modern day IAS was eliminated and donations were only collected for actual services, there would probably be less of a an effort to keep the entire congregation in a perpetual state of emergency or if that state of emergency resulted in more people becoming trained Scientologists and more people moving up the Bridge faster, it may not have been that bad of a thing after all.

    • You are now free to move about the cabin.
      I love those words.
      Independent Scientology needs to have it’s own slogan now:
      It’s your life you can live it any way you want.
      or, do you remember this one?
      Life is an art, master it!
      That one was pretty good.
      or…
      You are now free to move about as a thetan.

    • good point, my way around it,i lived away from l.a. and flag, would go to flag for the winter for 2 months get my auditing and go live life. my 20 years in the group i never bought the deal of saving the planet. you had to be very clever getting your wins and keeping them, avoiding all the scams the church had. in the end i never left the church ,the church left me.

  14. George M. White

    Marty,
    You hit some chords in your presentation.
    Since Mr. Miscavige has seen fit to declare my
    wife and I suppressive, I am in a much better position
    because an end to a cycle has been reached.
    The middle way is the path and that idea kept me
    sane and healthy during the dark ages from 1989-2010.
    The Dark Ages preceded your blog.
    My dearest friends from 25 years ago have passed,
    and I remember the stress that we all faced at the hands
    of the scientology organization. My FSM was terrified
    by the OT8 material and felt that any moment he would
    go into spontaneous combustion of his body. My other
    dearest friend died of cancer one year after completion of OT8.
    I survived the cycle on the Freewinds due to sheer
    force of will. Scientology cost me a ton of money.
    The early courses were certainly worth the money.
    However, the organization started drifting in the 1980′s.
    Miscavige was the worst of all possible leaders.
    No one had damaged the subject more that miscavige.
    I do not believe that organized religion is an oxymoron
    because Theravada Buddhism has survived for 2,600 years
    with a very loose organization. The Buddha did not appoint a
    successor. He organized the community of monks
    into a group with very strict moral rules. As you know,
    we have had dark periods when monks fell off the path.
    However, today we have some of the finest English
    speaking monks who write, edit and translate the Canon.
    The Buddha knew that only a few would grasp his teaching.
    Therefore, the Buddha predicted that his teaching would last
    only 500 years. Actually, the religion was wiped out in India
    so his prediction was valid. Modern technology has
    made the original path almost impossible and only a very few
    reach it. The Buddha did not strive for the salvation of the
    world. He used the simile of the gatekeeper at a fortress.
    The gatekeeper know that a few pass out of the fortress but
    he has no knowledge of the size of the pool of beings.
    Some in scientology scorn this policy and they have a right.
    The Buddha trained us to accept all religions.
    Scientology tried to do too much and overvalued
    its services. Quite honestly, only a handful believe that
    any form of scientology controls eternity.
    Even the Buddha did not answer the question of the eternal
    nature of the soul. He was silent on the issue.
    Scientology contains a science of being and a series of
    narratives which are difficult to accept.
    Theravada Buddhism does not even discuss these issues.
    We could never have a miscavige because miscavige is motivated
    by narratives and stories which overwhelm him.
    I wish the independent movement success and I fully support
    the replacement of miscavige for the greater good of society
    in general. I now consider miscavige dangerous to society
    as a whole.
    Miscavige reacted to your posting of the TR material
    because he felt you on his turf. Well I have news for
    him. He took a cheap shot at me with a worthless piece
    of paper mailed to my home. Now it is my turn to
    fully expose his truncation of OT8 and the real story of
    the real upper levels of scientology. The truth will be
    revealed.

    May all beings be well and happy!
    GMW

  15. Absolutely true, the very thing that rehabilitated determinism in people then walked all over and crushed that determinism in an effort to solve a wider, broader, 4th dynamic “problem” thus undoing the very work it had done.

    Wasn’t always that way. In 1975, I know for a fact that countless people went through a hard TRs course for new public, won like crazy and went off to use their new found abilities or abilities regained. They handled what they wanted handled. and went off to conquer the world. I know because I was one of the people that ran that course and, out of curiosity, checked up on a number of past students.

    The great futility about all this is that, in my experience, 1. People who win with Scientology eventually come back for more of their own volition. You don’t need to do weird things in an effort to force their hand. When they need more they know where to go and do show up. 2. The demand for real Scientology (Scientology applied well but also with a single, genuine, sincere desire to help the individual) is huge, far greater than real Scientologists could handle.

  16. If what you are organizing frees people then it is good. But…….. The organizers must be of high caliber integrity and spiritual realization. Devoted to serve a higher purpose other than self interest.

    Organizations are always tough and a bit crazy because we human beings are tough and a bit crazy.

    Reagarding serving a higher cause other than self interest, nothing does the trick better than serving that which is Supreme in Life.

    When a freed soul realizes a unified commonality with all life, when all of life is seen as ones family, ones personal relation, animated by the same Divine Intelligence masquading as individual actors on the stage, then the desire to help others becomes a Supreme Dynamo serving to empower goals, plans etc. because it is ones own family of selves that one is reaching out to.

    It becomes very personal: 80-08

    That Supreme Love melts all conflicting iniquities that seems to be the inevitable fabric of organization on this earth plane.

    And power comes to that one who serves that Greater Life

    Purpose, integrity, service
    Love all, serve all. Be victorious

    Under all circumstances

    • And knowing God requires experimentation and techniques that goes beyond the mind, body and emotions.

      Because knowing is not belief. Most people believe or disbelieve in God. Both are limited. Because these states are still speculative. And speculation is still mind.

      Direct perception of the Supreme being makes one aware of being the knower, knowing and the known all as one.

      It is the very essence of immortality because it is the ever conscious, ever existing, ever blissful Uncreated Absolute that has become the manifold creation of Matter Energy Space and Time.

    • Theo Sismanides

      Brian, I agree a higher Affinity point (if I can put it that way) is needed at the top. An all seeing Eye, hahaha, pan intended.

      DM does not even audit one PC to a win… this sucks… he cannot even write anything worth reading… this sucks too. He is a lunatic who got up there and the most craziest thing is so many believe him.


  17. Scientologists are blind to the bait and switch nature of their own day to day operations for a couple reasons.

    One of the things the “Church” promotes WIDELY is how the auditing procedures make you “more yourself” “I feel I am more myself” is chanted in many Success Stories.
    This means that fake identities and copied mannerisms and attitudes of others gets handled and deleted in auditing,
    So that you are the pure “essence” of who you ARE.
    However, what the “Church” of Scientology has done since 1986 and by gradient is very subtle and powerful:

    1. The lower grades are useful in liberating people from having their attention “stuck” to negative feelings, traumatic memories, harmful fixed identities, and other things that “stick” or trap people’s attention.

    2. As the “Church” of Scientology frees a person’s attention from negative content, it subtly takes that free attention and converts it into an identity called “Good Scientologist.” This an enforced identity created by persistent indoctrination.
    3. The Indoctrination converts free attention into an identity in which you are not “more yourself” but have become a “Scientologist in good standing” “Good Standing” means you slavishly obey or else you are NOT in good standing. Your identity is to serve the organization and do what they say with no power of choice at all. “I am, now Me, I am now more Me” is a joke. A child being severed in disconnection from his mom is NOT BEING “ME”. He is out of valence under the jurisdiction of OSA and other-determinism.
    4. As a “Scientologist in good standing” means that you are a Scientologist who will blindly obey the dictates of the Church as this is the greatest good for all dynamics.
    5. The bait and switch is this: The Church promises spiritual enlightenment but actually delivers an enforced identity, enforced obedience, enforced disconnection and enforced thought processes.

    A “Good Scientologist” MUST

    1) pay up on demand on all the frantic “reg” cycles $$$$$$ IAS, Ideal Orgs, Library Donations, CCHR donations, and so on.
    1a) Get others to pay up, even to take out 2nd 3rd trust deeds, get into future debt, fleece the public to the bone.
    2) Must de-friend on demand Facebook friends that the “church” deem are not drinking the kool-aid or are disaffected.
    3)Must disconnect immediately from someone ex-communicated with the “Church.”
    4) Must plead loyalty to the the “Church” and dump all friendships and connections with those who have woken up to the abuse, scams, misconduct, criminal conduct.
    4)Must not read the Internet. Must not write to those whistlel blowing on the Internet
    5)Must report to Flag for Security Checks and ethics interrogations when ordered.

    This is the ENFORCED IDENTITY, the “good Scientologists” are indoctrinated to believe that this is REALLY the pure essence of the New “me” they have discovered in auditing !
    A complete subjugation of self to the domination of what has been described as the Paranoid Cosmic Psycho-politics of the “Church” of Scientology.

    • Thanks for spelling it out bluntly Karen.

    • Karen #1,
      Truth you speak.
      I saw it happen in 1986 and that is a good year to pick for the change.
      By 1988 the “reg” cycles were beyond aggressive.
      In 1989, I developed my “fist policy”. When a “Reg” approached, I folded the ten fingers of my hands into very tight fists which were readied for
      battle. No one dealt with me in person after that. The next tactic employed was out of “Big League Sales”. They tried huge “tag teams” over the phone and in person if they could. When I met miscavige on the Freewinds, he does not know how close he came to being “decked”.
      In 1964, I was County Champion in wrestling. Having heard rumors of his violence , I was prepared to give him a “pinning” he would never forget.
      When I met him, he did not dare to try a strike.
      In a few months, I had all I could take of scientology.

      May all beings be well and happy!
      GMW

      • Too bad you didn’t deck, pin, and then Overboard the punk when you had the chance – just think how differently things might have turned out!

        Love your “fist policy” too. It ranks right up there with my “shotgun policy” (as in, “you (reg) have 30 seconds to get off my property, or you will feel the wrath of old Betsy on your behind”).

        May all former wrestling champions be well and happy!

      • Captain Non-Sequitur

        the history of credit cards, google it. Credit cards didn’t really hit till that time period. And yet LRH says never use credit. And he wrote that before credit cards existed. Just business credit existed, but no credit cards when the PL was written.

        Random thoughts on my part.

    • Karen,
      absolutely spot on! well said :)

    • Perfectly said. This is exactly what I experienced as a new OT V in 2005. I was living in a world of “musts” and “must nots”. Hardly the Bridge to Total Freedom.

    • I wasn’t in Scientology for long, but I came to see that you simply are not allowed to disagree with something you don’t like internally or agree with the things and persons the group doesn’t want you to agree with externally. You loose the freedom to simply explore, evaluate, and come to your own conclusions. You are made wrong and almost automatically labeled an enemy or siding with an “enemy” even at the intention of planning to look at something or communicate to someone “unacceptable” by the group. I think it is to a point when you begin to be afraid of your own thinking and intentions, your own level of agreement. You are afraid to agree with “unacceptable” and have to resort to dramatizing disagreement in order to be a “true group member.” In this way, you become your own worst enemy supposedly for the sake of the group. It is extremely suppressive and extremely unethical, everybody suffers in the end.

      “We of the Church believe

      That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

      Does it really say “all men” or am I missing something here?

      • “We of the Church believe

        That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

        This is PR, just a small part of the bait and switch. In practice, it’s no longer used, if it ever was.

    • Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

      How right you are, Karen! That is exactly what is so disturbing about being a member of the “church”. You lose your OWN identity and you lose your self-determinism in your constant pursuit of being a “good scientologist”. You become so concerned with this, that you stop thinking your own thoughts and eventually accept just about anything you are told without questioning it. All the while you have this nagging feeling, that you don´t quite know how to put into words, that something is altogether wrong. The fact of the matter is, constantly having to be a “good scientologist” makes you lowtoned and increasingly irritable. Finally one day you bump into Marty Rathbun´s site, because you´re beginning to have a few questions you´d like to have answered, and you suddenly meet someone, who has the audacity to analyze and criticize and discuss the church and its leadership. Oh what a relief! Here I found others, who felt the same as I did. I wasn´t alone!
      I´m beginning to THINK for MYSELF now – God forbid! I´m beginning to make my own decisions about my own life now. I´m beginning to realize that there are other things of importance in life besides studying “The Basics” and going to events or donating to The New Ideal Org or paying for the next steps on The Bridge. I am beginning to be able to distinctly pronounce the word: “NO”!!! If I continue on this path, who knows, I just might end up saying: “I feel, I am more myself”! And it never cost me a penny. – Just a bit of confront!
      Thank you all for the enlightenment!

    • Wonderful summation. One of the best communications I’ve ever read on the identity a Corporate Scientologist.

    • Marty, an excellent analysis of the central contradiction of the Church of Scientology: It packages, offers, and sells “Spiritual Freedom”, this while insisting and demanding that its Spiritual Freedom products are mandatory and binding upon the entire world.

      As Karen#1 has stated, the Church’s “Spiritual Freedom” morphed into an enforced identity. The paradox of Corporate Scientology, then, is that one cannot both be Spiritually Free and be a Scientologist.

      Thus, Corporate Scientology forces a radical choice upon its members: One can either be Spiritually Free or be a Good Scientologist. If one chooses to be Spiritually Free they are declared an SP.

      True Spiritual Freedom is anathema to Corporate Scientology or any other form of organized and incorporated religion. Indeed, the choice — to be free or to be a member in good standing — is seen in all religious movements that follow the same pattern:

      1. Identify and define a “central spiritual problem” that is said to be responsible for all of the suffering, pain, and ignorance inherent in the human condition. This central spiritual problem can be Sin, the Reactive Mind, Satan, or Illusion.

      2. Offer an apparently fast, incredible, and effective solution that allows people to break free of this central spiritual problem. In other words, an incredible spiritual high is achieved in which there initial gains and apparent life-changing benefits.

      3. Have so many people like the solution that it goes viral and a mass movement ensues.

      4. The incredible money and power generated by the mass movement begets an organization that creates a monopoly on the problem and the solution. The organization then proclaims that its “problem-solution” package is the only way to Truth and that all other paths are false and evil.

      5. The initial focus on spiritual work is lost as organization grows and over time does the following:

      A. Codifies its practices into scripture

      B. Creates an uniform identity and allowed set of behaviors for its followers.The organization then enforces this identity upon all of its followers in the name of Truth. The fact is that the enforced identity benefits the organization and not the individual.

      C. The scriptures + the enforced identify + allowed set of behaviors = the orthodoxy, or “Truth”, of the movement, this where “orthodoxy” and “Truth” are code words for organizational policy.

      D. Any deviation from orthodoxy is punished..One must “get with the policy” as it is the “Word of God” or “Source” or the “Revealed Truth” etc. Again, orthodoxy inevitably benefits the organization at the expense of the individual.

      E. As the reciprocal function of orthodoxy, the organization articulates heresy and punishes heretics with a vengeance in order to protect itself, its income, and its leaders.

      6. As time goes on, the initial and primary form of Salvation, or cure, offered by the spiritual organization loses its apparent efficacy and power. People discover that they cannot live on the mountaintop forever and that all spiritual highs are destined to end. Some people crash and burn. Others plateau into boredom and repetition in search of more spiritual highs.

      7. The organization must blame the inadequacies and failures of its spiritual system on the individual as the scriptures are inerrant as is the organization and its leaders.

      8. Spiritually free people leave the group or are chased from it by the True Believers. Over time, the group devolves into the lowest common denominator which is brutality and paranoia.

    • Well said, as usual Karen.

    • Wow, Karen! and Wow again! As a result of reading your duplication of the process being run on me by the COS over the years, I duplicated a bunch of what was left of this crap in my own universe ….and I actually Do feel more ME! And thank God you are not about to send me to the reg! :-) :-) :-)

    • In addition to “good Scientologist” there has been an additional identity created for some, of “good Sea Org member” – a sort of ne plus ultra of “good Scientologist”. I was being forced into this identity, and instinctively realized that it was ultimately going to kill me, and that was what motivated me to get out of Dodge.

      • HereNow
        I hear you.
        The “Sea Organization” is the ultimate in control.
        Punishments at Flag Land Base have escalated out the roof in spite of internet outrage at this conduct.
        How much you are permitted to sleep on not sleep is defined by senior THUGS in.
        I was around on the Apollo at the time someone in Flag Bureau was way late with an Eval and the senior blustered out to LRH that the SO member would not secure for the night (sleep) til the Eval was done and LRH said
        “NO ! Tired people make mistakes !”
        Sleep deprivation has becoming a common tool of Punishment in the Sea org.

        I just received a piece of promo ~~ a flyer with the headline
        FIND YOUR TRUE BEINGNESS
        and a success story by JB “I feel like myself.”
        What a load of codswallop !
        And finally as a Public your ethics is defined by how much money $$$$$ you donate.
        A highly favored person within the Church is one has given mega bucks and continues to give mega bucks. This is newly defined as “in ethics” even when shady conduct occurs in life.
        “Down-stat,” “out ethics” is not coughing up increasing sums of money.
        An astounding example is a Husband who badly beat up his wife some 3 years ago. She was beaten almost unconscious.
        What did the “Ethics Officer” do at Flag (Flag Service Org) in Clearwater ?
        Ask for money !!!
        He paid mega bucks.
        He got a free pass from Ethics.
        No amends. No penitence, no applied Ethics conditions. Not even an apology.
        They are now divorced.
        Money to the Church = Free pass of gross misconduct.
        One of the reasons why I put “church” in inverted commas…

        • Dear Karen
          “Money to the Church = Free pass of gross misconduct.”

          You know how bad that has gotten? A few years ago I was going directly to the CMAA FSO AO regarding KRs I’d written in an attempt to get something done about financial misconduct in my area. Yeh I did some donations, BUT the con to get me off his back on handling the KRs was to issue a commendation to me for my donations with ethics protection. Talk about a slimy operating basis. I certainly got the feeling that wasn’t the first time he used the boilerplate form for that action.

          • Starman 8.

            The being innately knows he is not being himself and is being pushed more and more into some “Sea org Valence” or “Public Scientologist in good standing” whacko valence. So he looks around and spots all the outpoints compared with the supposed “Ideal Scene.”
            What does he do ?
            He starts attacking all around with “Knowledge Reports.”
            Attacking the rest of the loyal flock with KRS ccd and broadcast to multiple terminals using Black propaganda techniques to malign a fellow Sea org Member or fellow Kool-Aid drinker.
            A private KR on 2nd dynamic issues ccd to 15 Org personnel !
            Character assassinate a fellow Scientologist by use of “Knowledge Reports” and cc every one and his dog !
            And round and round ti goes.
            Warfare within. Warfare of KRs even getting children to rat on their parents with Knowledge Reports.
            Business as usual in the “Church” of Scientology.

    • Very well put.

    • Karen,
      Excellent for putting the light on that new Corp. ID and how it is being MADE. Thanks!
      Greta

    • I dk about 1986. What I do know is that in 1981 force was used on me to be a “good Scientologist” when I received heavy ethics just because I didn’t think it was a good idea to miss an important family event, all because of some DoT who insisted I put in A LOT of extra time on course in order to graduate a few weeks ahead of target, all for someone’s stats. That was a stat-push you will say. Stat-push or not, that is when the “enforced identity” started for me, personally. We were clearing the planet. We had to get it done fast, for the Birthday Game.That was 1981. Five years before you claim it all began. For me, in 1981 it was all already there. The love bombing, the incessant control, the deconstruction of who I really was, and especially the bait and switch.

  18. Co$(organized religion) is the epitome of an oxymoron. The way LRH set it up it wasn’t so, but it has become so when the goal became $ instead of spiritual freedom.

  19. The Dwarf changed LRH’s rules and made his own to mirror spiritual freedom in his own image of the almighty dollar…for just himself and to hell with everyone else. He is truly an ONLY ONE – “Here is self determinism in the guise of selfish determinism and here is an individual that will most certainly be overwhelmed.” – LRH, PAB 84.

  20. Wow. That’s what I call throwing down the gauntlet.

    While I think “fraud” is too strong a term, I definitely think that the organization’s use of “standard business policy” (ala “Big League Sales Closing Techniques”) to run an organization which is supposed to be non-profit and philosophical/spiritual, was doomed from the start. Add on the “militaristic policy” that pervades the Sea Org (which manages the whole operation), and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Minimally, a good chunk of the Church’s policy needs to be revisited. If policies are not in alignment with the fundamentals of the subject (and many, many of them are not), then I think they should be tossed. If it were up to me, I’d say just start from scratch.

    Is “organized religion” an oxymoron?

    Scientology is more an applied philosophy than it is a religion. I think calling it a “religion” and then trying to fit it into the role of a “Church” was the more fundamental problem than the fact that it’s organized. Lots of “applied philosophy” groups outside the mainstream have become “organized”, and have not degenerated into a cult (e.g. accupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic).

    The big problem with “organized Scientology”, imho, is that it hasn’t had real active participation by the membership in choosing how the group gets organized, what it’s rules are, etc. And thus we’ve always been “other determined” on the 3rd dynamic. Not a very healthy approach for a group.

    • As always, thanks for the wise thoughts Margaret.

    • That was very good Margaret.
      The point you bring out about :”The big problem with “organized Scientology”, imho, is that it hasn’t had real active participation by the membership in choosing how the group gets organized, what it’s rules are, etc. And thus we’ve always been “other determined” on the 3rd dynamic. Not a very healthy approach for a group.”
      That was excellent!!!

    • Yeah, really good points Margaret! Excellent.

    • one of those who see

      Love this:

      “If policies are not in alignment with the fundamentals of the subject (and many, many of them are not), then I think they should be tossed. “

    • Margaret,
      I agree with you. And I want to add something along the same vein.
      When I left the SO in 2005, i became involved for the first time in my adult life, with corporations/companies, both as the sole director of my own company, as a board member and then chair of a national industry body, and then as a board member of a not-for-profit company. I also had the opportunity to do (twice) a prestigious and expensive course called the Australian Company Directors Course– a 5 day intensive course on corporate governance and detailing with all aspects from finance, to policy, to legal, etc.

      I found, initially, that it was really hard to get my head around some of the concepts of corporate governance, as I had worked in Scn for 17 years and been very trained on green on white policy regarding finance, policy, organization and so on. I had many held-down-sevens, or fixed ideas, about how an organization should run, as I was operating solely from the view that Scn policy worked — both in Scientology and also when applied to outside groups. So the idea that a corporate board, or in many cases management of a company, would routinely review and update policy seemed wrong to me. The idea that there would be a board separate to management, also was a hard idea for me to get my head around at first. I mean heck, my experience was that the Chairman of the Board WAS management.

      In the last several years I have come to see how vital corporate governance is — and this is for commercial companies, as well as for non-profit groups, charities, government agencies/bodies and more.

      When LRH passed away, there was no governance instituted. There was no actual “board of directors” or group who govern the organization — there was just DM taking on a title and using it to destroy people and assume complete power of the organization. A board meeting in RTC? There has never been one — not once. And even if there was, the board is currently not composed of people with the GOVERNANCE experience and training required — nor is there anyone who has the balls to stand up to the Chair and say NO!

      The plus of corporate governance is that it DOES give the membership (shareholders) a say. There is an annual general meeting and the statistics and information on the organization are provided and published. The strategy is public and can be commented on. And shareholders have a vote (ie, a say) in what the board is doing and where the company is going.

      Now many Scientologists would immediate cringe and say — but we already know that LRH says that a group cannot be trusted to make decisions, and will always come up with some squirrel idea (straight out of Keeping Scientology Working). But the other two alternatives are:

      1. Be led by a dictator such as Miscavige, who has worked dedicatedly for the better part of 20 years to destroy and change everything while claiming to be saving Scientology, or

      2. Have no organization of any kind – just an anarchy where the tech is used and abused, there is no real structure. In other words chaos and the undoubtedly, eventually, the loss of the tech. This is — of course — what DM accuses the Independents of doing. Which is NOT what we are doing.

      So — I think corporate governance has to exist — and the board would be answerable to the membership/parishioners – both in terms of organizational strategy, finance, policy and more. And transparency would be vital. Policy on communication lines, on finance, on reg’ing, events, and so on, would be constantly reviewed and changed or updated as needed — as the policy is simply the way to achieve the purpose and goals of the organization and must change with the times. And the purpose and goals of the organization have to be actually stipulated clearly and published — not just clouded in “Sherman-speak” events.

      The policy on hard sell is an example of a policy gone wrong. The disconnection policy is another. The perversion of Ethics is another example of policy that has been twisted and used to destroy and control — something that a functioning and operating governing body would have spotted and dealt with.

      Lastly — a well functioning corporate governing body would never have let the existing organization get to the size it is and I think would have instead kept management as a small operation of less than 30 people (not thousands as the SO has become), with focus instead on delivery capability and field auditors/groups/missions that are only loosely controlled and monitored. The organization would have ended up as a support structure that the membership can rely on as vitally needed Qual/Tech support — not as an nazi mind-controlling and life controlling entity that it has become.

      And to that end — Scientology, as an applied spiritual philosophy, could actually be disseminated with the original intent and purpose (to help mankind) and without the heavy handed bait and switch that has been used for years to control and extort money out of people.

      • Lana, Couldn’t agree more. I’ve had similar experiences since leaving staff, in for-profit and not-for-profit groups (large and small), at various levels up to the Board level. What you describe is exactly right.

      • Lana,

        Excellent point. When you get three feet back from this blog, you see how much suppressed communication there is on the subject of Scn, Sea Org, and various related subjects. Outside of the Mission Holder conference in the 80′s, there has never really been a forum for Scn’s to question, originate, discuss or review. There had been some attempts at “group engram” running, but never saw it after that.

        DM made sure that there would never be a forum like that again, and replaced it with the implant sideshow that is the international events.

        While the Mission Holder conference had it’s insanities, point was that it was effective in bringing Mission Holders back into the fold, until they were all declared again. I remember at the end of the MH conference at FSO, Heber made an announcement that the Church of Scientology was capable of reforming itself, this on on heels of the GO Execs going to jail and the bad PR that ensued. Much of the upset at the time from the Mission Holders was directed at the G.O.

        We have all had years of taking the bad with the good to the point of the boiling frog analogy that Dan Koon related. The disagreements, suppressions, loss of liberty etc. just got pushed down so we could get along with what we thought was “command intention”

        I am amazed at the amount of ITSA there is on this subject. Marty taps into various subjects and the geyser erupts.

        Mark McKinstry

        • Mark, thanks for that bit of history. I suppose you know that LRH C/S’d that whole management handling for the early eighties revolution. Some people list endlessly on why the early 80s independent movement was so rapidly conquered. The most important factor was LRH. He surveyed the disaffected and instituted reforms. For better or worse, they were only long-lived as his own body.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Marty, thanks again for providing the facility for sharing such an amazingly wide, yet illuminating
            variety of viewpoints..

            If I may, I would like to share some experiences
            I had during the post Mandela period, when Thabo Mbeki had become the new president of South Africa.

            As a general repairs contractor, I had been
            asked to do work for the newly formed MPD,
            (Institute of Multi Party Democracy) of S.Africa.

            The Chairman, was an extensivley educated
            man, Mr.Oscar Dhlomo, whose father, I’m told, was the first black man, to own and operate
            a bus fleet in the country of South Africa.

            Initially serving as a high school principal, in
            Northern Zululand, Oscar eventually resigned to take up positions in local government affairs,
            and was instrumental in the formation of local government development legislation and then
            worked with the leader of the Inkatha Freedom
            Party,Mangosuthu Buthelezi, jointly doing an enormous amount of the spade work for what was to contribute to the formation of the South African Constitution, a ground breaking democratic instrument, which led to what is probably one of the most liberated (and in all likely hood, it must be said, problematic!) of
            it’s kind, in the “human rights” focus of the
            world today.

            I had occasions to be be working in the office
            of the Institute’s chairman, Mr Dhlomo, and
            can only describe him as an incredibly down
            to earth, humble gentleman, of large stature,
            yet surprisingly quiet disposition. That he
            insisted that I continue to do the work in his
            office, after he had just flown in from J’burg,
            surprised me, but it needn’t have, as i was
            soon to discover.

            He seemed to relish being able to just “let go” with an outsider to talk to, (perhaps just good TR’s on my part!) and I soon found myself in an animated, personal conversation with him.

            I came around to asking him directly, what
            the concept of “democracy” meant in terms
            of forming a constitution, especially given
            the fact it was introduced to a then heavily
            (racially) polarized society.

            Mr. Dhlomo replied with words to this effect;

            “You form a democracy, initially, by getting
            agreement going between two people.
            You also establish that is okay to disagree
            with one another, without conflict occurring.
            “When you have succeeded in that, you
            have established a single “cell” of what is
            referred to as democracy.”
            “You may then proceed to multiply, from
            that single cell, to form additional cells,
            to build a larger co-operation of mutually
            respecting cells of this “democratic” ideal”.

            “And that, my friend, is democracy.”

            I will always remember Mr Dhlomo’s words.

            Calvin.B. Duffield.

      • Not to mention Miscavige’s De facto abrogation of the recourse to petition for redress of wrongs.

      • “…as the policy is simply the way to achieve the purpose and goals of the organization and must change with the times.”

        Excellent points Lana!

        Recently I completed a program at Harvard which covered many of the same things you mention the Australian Company Directors Course addressed. Not only does policy change with the times…it changes with the objectives of the organization. In other words, if the main objective is growth, policy MUST BE ALIGNED with this objective. Similarly, ROI being the objective policy must also align with this. An example is pricing policy…most likely lower for growth, and higher for ROI (Gee, which objective does CofM have?).

        Anyway, we can see this alignment requirement in much 3rd dynamic tech including the Admin Scale, which I consider one of the top 5 useful tools I’ve learned in Scientology. This makes me wonder though what objective was in mind when policies such as HARD SELL and HANDLING THE PUBLIC INDIVIDUAL were written. The question we must ask then is, “Do they align with the objective of creating a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war…” I don’t think they do.

        The above now becomes perhaps more complicated being that times are changing…especially in Scientology. Let’s consider for a second that all LRH policy (including HARD SELL) totally aligned with the aims of Scientology and that this was also the objective of the Indie movement. We could still not build a 100% on LRH policy organization and expect to succeed. The current church is so corrupt that the first time we employed a policy that is remotely similar to HARD SELL we would be seen by the public as the same old show and fail because it too closely resembles what many have come to despise about crush registration, etc. Policy then is also a reflection of “positioning”.

        Policy indeed has to change with the objective and with the environment. It’s sort of a living thing. I don’t know how many Admin Scales I have written, but I can’t think of one where policy didn’t change based at least on what I encountered in the environment that I found blocking my path. Many times I have selected LRH references that I feel apply, and written the rest myself.

        Doug
        (dougcookie2)

      • Excellent post Lana!
        I too have learned corporate governance and became a board member of a small non-profit corp.

    • great post Margaret, i was at asho when big league sales came out, i got in Scientology when it was an applied philosophy. and it wasn’t a military operation yet.
      now it has been over 60 years,since the group started, it is bigger then any other group that started in the 60s from the counter culture. now they have fancy buildings all over the world. Scientology is now a house hold word,not because of good works publicized ,it is known from all the bad pr in the press all over the world.
      so Marty made several good points ,thinking out of the box do you want to be connected to the name scientology? I never thought it was or should be a religion. it will be interesting to see what will happen in the next 20 years,and the freezone most auditors are in there mid 60s,will younger people take an interest in auditing and can they make a living and be able to raise a family, i have known Trey Lotz for over 40 years, he is the only field auditor i know who made a living auditing for 40 years.most of his pcs came from people falling off lines at the org. mission owners made a living but there staff didnt. i also think the missions were the best div 6 actions for getting people into orgs.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Roger, if the subject is going to continue and be picked up by younger generations outside of Scn Inc. which is gonna go as a world religion soon (it gets the most PR of all other modern religions and that’s a fact), is going to be if all those auditors like Trey Lotz as you mentioned auditing for 40 years, for example, are gonna think Admin…

        Admin is NOT just another piece of tech… It might not be as fascinating as Tech but when you deal with people you are dealing necessarily with Admin. I am happy LRH didn’t have too many fixed ideas about Admin and he gave us a workable system. Admin reaches OUT, in big chunks, and speeds things up, that’s all about Admin. If it doesn’t do that, well, it’s not Admin.

  21. one of those who see

    First of all, Marty I want to say that you exemplify a man with a free mind. I love that we are free to think with the subject of Scientology. My first thought in answer to your question was Ron’s origination about the Lightness of Organization – “I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a
    lightness of organization, a maximum of people,
    good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information.”
    What Scientology is Doing 6 June 1955 (Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress)
    I mean if one has an assistant, if an auditor is working with a C/S – well that is organization. But the Heart of the Subject needs to remain senior to any organization. The purpose of Scientology for an individual is freedom and restoration of self determinism. Therefore, in the application of Scientology one is always going in that direction whether during a reg cycle, ethics cycle or auditing and C/Sing. It looks like this is happening in the Indie Field.
    Obviously, imprisoning Sea Org members, blocking doors so a person can’t leave an event or reg cycle and all the various horrendous things going on in the church have nothing to do with Scientology. I was thinking about the recruiting done by the Church today. Another insanity and what It’s done to hurt our children and the spread of Scientology is a subject for another day. But I can tell you, I’ve run groups and organizations. If it’s a cool place to be, people join. Remember the word enlighten. Haven’t heard that in the orgs in a while. It was replaced with force.

    • Great post, OOTWS!
      As a long time HGC (Hubbard Guidance Center, the dept. in Orgs where auditing is delivered) auditor, I would run into this institutionalized insanity:
      One of my preclears would have a major gain, a big win. Per CS Series 20, if this win persists until the next day, it should be: “Come back when you want some more auditing” But no, the pressure for more Well Done Auditing Hours, Paid Completions, and of course, re-signing the PC for more services – all in the interest of Gross Income (and man, did it get Gross very often!!) “had” to take precedence. So the PC would wind up at the reg desk, the recruiter’s desk, or the IAS rep, and lo and behold, “Your PC is ready to go back in session!” and I would have to then rehab the win – which is never quite as good as letting the PC have their win in the first place.

      Of course, this “problem” of “the pc is on a big win” hasn’t been too frequent in the Cof$ for some time!! For some strange reason. :)

      Happily, it is occurring quite regularly here in the Independent field. And I am so jazzed when it happens, and quite missionary about “letting the PC have his/her win”. And quite often, their realizations and gains just multiply.

      • one of those who see

        Thanks Randy. I am beyond thrilled that real Scientology is alive and well outside “the buildings.”

  22. I think organization and religion go together not because organization and truth go together, but because organization promotes the spread and longevity of a set of beliefs. Some guy isolated on a desert island might have figured out Life, The Universe, and Everything thousands of years ago. But no matter how true and beautiful that guy’s belief system was, without a way for it to be propagated, it was lost to the ages. Similarly, an individual among multitudes could happen upon a set of truths that result in her total enlightenment. But if one of those truths is not “you must tell other people about this stuff”, then she’ll likely stay mum and nobody else will ever know.

    However, even belief systems containing the ugliest distortions of the truth and most demeaning views of the nature of human beings can be wildly successful in propagating themselves if they also happen to contain commands to convert other people to your point of view, whether by persuasion or by the sword. And these directives require organization to be maximally effective and persistent across generations.

    I think that having “saving the world” as a religion’s purpose is an advantageous trait in the process of cultural evolution–much like the giraffe’s neck proves an advantageous trait in biological evolution. But the giraffe is no more true or beautiful than the zebra.

  23. Marty, this ought to be your best post, yet!
    It also puts the finger on the exact problem, Ron, Scientology has faced,
    failed to solve and is still facing.
    How to salvage someone who needs to be salvaged, but does not want to
    be salvaged, worse, is not even aware of his need to be.
    Shall we just leave him or shall we somehow try to „handle“ him with what
    you correctly call lies and/or force?
    I had once opened a mission to get people through the Wall of Fire and ended up spending my time helping people earn a better living or get their wifes to talk to them again. Once their problem was solved, they happily thanked me and went on their ways, leaving me with a failed purpose and the burning question:
    What the f*** am I doing here!
    Even in reversed Scientology the question is there, (logically reversed),
    how do I get my friends out of Miscaviges church, when they don’t want to?
    One thing Miscavige taught us: increasing the lies and the force does not work!
    But then how do we solve the question you so brilliantly worded:
    How do we lead the clueless to the only show in town?

    • Marty, reading your post a second time, I saw that the question you posed was not the one I posed above but:
      ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’
      If we take organization to mean a group people organized around a common purpose, the answer has to be NO. Even an auditing session is a sort of “organized religion”. An auditing session with a CS, a D of P. etc. even more so. Add a registrar and you’re entering dangerous waters! But then the auditor has to eat, has he not?

      • Under Radar, I was once an auditor and DofP and registrar and some other things (whatever was needed really). When somebody came in after reading DMSMH, for instance, I might evaluate their OCA and as they were reaching for Book One, sign them up for a couple of intensives. Then I might actually audit them if we didn’t have a full time Book One auditor. During the process they might read a Scn. book or see this Grade Chart hanging on the wall and ask questions, so I’d enlighten them and sell them a Life Repair. (I wasn’t C/Sing at that time but I knew the C/S could write a tailor made auditing program. I was doing the DofP interviews on them to find out what they wanted handled, where the charge was, etc. I could even write the technical estimate and usually did after I got the hang of it. After Life Repair, in most cases, the person reached for more auditing and wanted to sign up for more auditing. By definition, a registrar does this, signs people up. So I might be the registrar on getting them a Purif. The easiest packages for me to sign people up for were their “Grade Chart package” which consisted of enough intensives to get through all the Grades. Especially if I audited the guy, then was his DofP, piece of cake. Easy. But easy because I knew the gains to be had from doing the Grades and we had good auditors and C/Ses to deliver them AND WE DELIVERED what we promised, without fail, even if we flew an auditor out to them. I flew over and delivered Purifs to a group, did Life Repairs, Book One on cousins and family members, TRs with kids. Delivery is the name of the game. When you do all those things, the only real goal is to get the person winning in life by going up the Bridge, getting LRH tech. I did Chaplain cycles with families in need. Whatever it took to keep everybody happy and winning. That’s what it was all about to us. Many of the now OTs came from our mission.
        We were an isolated and insulated group doing very well until the point that David Miscavige’s darlings took over. That was the beginning of the end of a real good thing.

  24. Li'll bit of stuff

    Okay Marty, thanks for the invite.

    Firstly, it is apparent that you may have been sitting with this
    “withhold” for a considerable length of time, by the unloading
    thereof in the above writing. So— “thank you for telling me.”

    Secondly, since this exposition amounts to dropping a bomb
    on the cherished beliefs of of a wide variety of scientologists,
    young and old—an act for which you have no doubt prepared,
    —-there will need to be a readiness to “handle the fallout!”

    The duality of purposes of the subject, often espoused by
    so many others, it must be said, never the less comes as
    quite a surprise to me, especially in terms of the hard hitting
    content you have unloaded here.

    At the same time—-very timely! And very necessary!

    Thank you for dragging open that rusty, clanking old iron
    curtain shielding the ghouls, goblins and crusaders behind
    Scientology. “The truth though often fought, will prevail in the end” —L.Ron Hubbard.

    Fortunately, the old adage—”the truth shall set you free”
    is as valid as ever! The backbone of Scientology, the genius
    creation of LRH,encompassing his AXIOMS, auditing tech,
    Codes and Scales and other wide ranging discoveries, will
    continue to produce daily miracles in the hands of those
    such as yourself, who deliver the tech in it’s purest form.

    And Marty, thanks also for giving us a much needed jab of
    (metaphorical) GH–(growth hormone!!) It’s about time we
    stopped taking things “so seriously,” by lightening up, and
    learning to laugh at all those feared “bogey men”, so we can
    FINALLY grow up!!!!

    Calvin.

  25. Dear Marty,

    I get what you are saying about the current APPLICATION of Policy and Bulletins as practiced within the COS with regards to allowing a student or person receiving counseling to simply have and enjoy the wins they experience without invalidating those wins by inferring that “something else is wrong” when someone does not immediately sign up for a new service. I have experienced this myself many times, even when the only reason I didn’t want to sign up for another service immediately was because I wanted to look at my finances first or think about what my next service should be.
    But, I don’t know of any of the LRH POLICY or TECH ISSUES you refer to that require this practice and you did not specifically refer to any in this article. If there are any, could list a couple? I would be interested in taking a look at them.
    I know that for years a lot of staff have gotten “orders” and “policy” reversed in their positions of importance on the admin scale and think that a policy = an order and vice-versa. I think that this is one reason why so many have blindly follow bullshit orders and do off policy actions. I also know that virtually all staff will follow “HCOB’s” and “HCOPL’s” written or changed after LRH kicked the bucket, even though he never even saw those issues.
    But I don’t know of any actual HCOB or HCOPL which MANDATES re-sign-ups.
    And anyway, the following (from HCOPL 13 January 1979 ORDERS, ILLEGAL AND CROSS – How to Keep Out of Trouble) ALWAYS applies:
    “If it seems kind of stupid it is probably off-policy or out-tech. Both tech and policy are anything but stupid. Most off-policy and out-tech orders are stupid because they are, at a glance, contra-survival.” -LRH

    That said, one thing’s for sure though: when someone has a win in resolving life problems or attaining personal goals using Scientology, they should be allowed to savor and enjoy their triumph with NO strings attached. You are so right in pointing out that to do otherwise is to violate the person’s self-determinism, which in turn tends to belittle what that person has just attained or achieved.
    If the water in the well tastes sweet and is healthful, then one must have faith that the person can and will find their way back when he or she wants another drink. It is up to them.

  26. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Dear Marty

    I can fully agree to it.
    Look at the grade chart and awareness levels. In theory when somebody started services in Scientology he is on hope and moves up the awareness levels as described on the grade chart, nevertheless that the dissem drill was thought for to disseminate to new people, the doctrine became to push down any unwilling Scientologist to ruin and invalidate all his gains.
    Even the wording has changed. Today Scientologists say you have to ” ruin” a Scientologist if he is unwilling or not winning.
    So you see OT8s being ruined and then giving lots of money to IAS in hoping they’ll do something good and don’t feel anymore bad after all those invals. They have wins on it , as the whole pressure by invals is gone for some time.
    To answer your question; any organized religion is an oxymoron in itself. This is the nature of Religion at all. Religion gives answers (faith, belief) to that what people can’t understand (unknown) and is wittingly used by the rulers to control people – see Putin and his friends, all former communists now running to church and putting Pussy Riots into prison for blasphemy !.
    In earlier times people were worshiping the moon, the sun, the winds etc. All things they couldn’t understand and were fearing, as soon they have knowledge about those phenomena and do understand them they are no more worshiping them and know how to protect themselves of the bad influences of it.
    So in fact there is nothing religious about Scientology as it should give understanding and knowledge about life, It has nothing to do with faith or belief (I’m not talking about the RCS which is a classical faith and belief system) and it was probably the biggest mistake of LRH to call it religious and make a church out of it and he got one with all the nonsense and the good as any church has.
    The main problem is the cultural lag. New ideas and discoveries need a lot of time to penetrate a society. From 1650 on the French and English and some Americans philosophers too postulated a new liberal, democratic society and asked for that any person has a right for schooling and an education for free and they meant that this would solve any problems of mankind as you would then have people that can think and take responsibility.
    Now, nearly 350 years later this simple and effective idea hasn’t yet penetrated the whole world. There are some countries in the western world that have nearly fully applied those principles and offer nearly free Universities for their people (Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany etc…) and are the most Liberal and freest countries in the world ( I know that many people now will criticize this and pull up all their conspiracy theories) and are economically the most affluent countries in the world and have nearlly no unemployment.
    LRH said in DMSMH that education is also processing and frees a person of aberration and this has been the most neglected subject in Scientology. I never have a seen a program to send people back to school to learn their Sciences, Geography, History etc.as this would put people into communication with the world around them and they would better understand their own environment and then there wouldn’t be a need for RCS as people have then the whole knowledge , not only Scientology.
    I know of many OT 7′s with no real education, but an ability to make money, that have weird ideas about the world, that are illiterate and honestly said just idiots and I would fear them and their ideas if they would be in Power.
    I hope that in the future the ideals of the 17 century will embrass the wjhole world and Scientology and Dianetics will become common knowledge and be learned at Schools and Universities (where it belongs to) and one hasn’t to call oneself a Scientologist but a human being that understands the world around himself !

    I dream about of making enough money to found some schools and universities.

    Just for fun; test some OT8′s of RCS on History, Geography or politics. :) :) :)

    Marty you outdo yourself !

  27. Marty, your synopsis of how scientology got to be where it is was fascinating. Former GOP candidate Santorum allegedly made some statement [I couldn't find a quote] that Obama was elitist in wishing every american kid could to go to university. Santorum’s reasoning? because most students go into university as believers in religion [ie the only one, Christianity] but come out as unbelievers. That was me. University taught me to think for myself whereas school before that did not. I did check out various philosophies and religions, including scientology which was thriving in that day, but decided I would make my own pathway in the world. Five friends checked out scientology on the same day by taking the personality test. These were five very smart youth three of whom were superb communicators and two were more reticent shy types. We were all given identical feedback from the scientologist interpreting the results – of course we all needed to take the communications course and all had the same personality defects that could be addressed by dianetics.

    To get back to your question I’m not a fan of organized religion. To me religion always implies an unponderable suspension of credibility. After the initial seed a religion first organises becoming a “cult” and then when it smartens up and then develops lots of followers becoming an “accepted” religion. But along that path compromises are made and the best parts of what made it attractive to begin with get lost. Self serving clergy for want of a better word usurp the original concepts. This has happened so many times. So ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’ No, but I’m not a fan of any religion that get’s organised, which is basically all of them.

  28. First of all, your article had a kind of ‘liberating’ effect on me. Finally somebody who faces the truth without being afraid of repercussions.
    Your analysis is very correct. I recognized everything.
    Your final question about the ‘oxymoron’ though looks hypothetical to me. I will explain why.
    Religion cannot do without a form of organization, because there has to be communication. That’s as basic as it can get. But it is in the running and the form and management of an organization that nasty things occur. These have a Source.

    A basic point is that Scientologists believe literally everything that is contained in the scriptures of Hubbard. They do not inspect and/or evaluate it for themselves or are not allowed to. What you describe here in your analysis are the flaws in the organization that were put there by Hubbard himself. Only, he would have recognized them by now if he were still around, or at least I would like to think so.

    Nobody in the organization is allowed to change one iota in the scriptures or have another interpretation that the one of management. For the ‘red on white’ I can understand that to a certain point. But for the ‘green on white’ it is a different matter. Policies are guidelines, containing hard won certainties at a certain time. But times have changed, circumstances have changed. And Hubbard himself said ‘Damn the rules’ if they do not work or don’t give results.

    Furthermore the statistics are no longer just a means, but they have become an end in themselves. Why? Because of the money. The Scientology organization itself, the survival of, has become the ultimate goal, not helping mankind. It is the wrong product. The bureaucrats have taken over (it happens to a lot of enterprises). Policy is out. It is a matter of ethics. And because there is no authority left in the organization to bring ethics in on those responsible, the organization will fail. It is probably doing that already. The organization will die, but only the organization. The ‘shell’ or the body, if you prefer.

    The movement however, the spirit so to speak, will be reborn in other forms or organizations. It is happening already. These now ones will now know ‘how not to do it’, they will have learned from the mistakes the old ones made.

    In the end it is just the cycle of action. As it is written in the Veda’s.

    Thank you for your inspiring article. This was my first, spontaneous reaction.

  29. Sorry, typo: ‘these now ones’ must be: ‘ the new ones’.

  30. An excellent essay Marty, that opens up many avenues of thought and discussion. To my mind, one has to take into major account what game folks on Earth WANT to play when it comes to religion. You’ll find that almost all religions on our planet address “ultimate” salvation, one’s eternity, etc. Even smaller or less codified “tribal” religions represent to their peoples, the “everythingness” of everything being under the control of their deities as they pray to various gods. The “religion game” here is never one of just finding some things to use to improve life or solve various of its problems. It is always a game of transcending all of life on Earth to reach a state of either one-ness with nature or all other beings and life or to sit next to God in heaven with Jesus at his other hand and exist in a blissful existence forevermore (IF one follows the dictates of said religion). Again, almost all Earth religions have this sort of ultimate goal (not just Judaism, Christianity and Islam with their one “big” God; look at Hinduism or Buddhism, which have their own ultimate states of enlightenment/awareness/transcendence of the physical universe).

    But I don’t believe LRH was just playing into this desired game to promote his own religion (even though folks get TREMENDOUSLY excited and “exalted” about the beginning of KSW or the PDC lectures and what they promise or call people to participate in; the ultimate crusades). I think it’s the game HE wanted as well. This is very clear in DMSMH where Ron outlines all the ways (EVERY way?) that Dianetics will change thought and life on Earth, cutting across almost every area of existence. LRH never just wanted to “compete” with psychiatrists or psychologists. He wanted to re-write all of the disciplines of thought on every subject, from justice to child rearing, etc. He outlines that all in DMSMH.

    So I think this environment and desire about what is wanted from religion is the first thing to look at when looking at LRH deciding (or just DOING with not much thought connected to it) to place Scientology onto the same tracks as the other previous religions on Earth.

  31. That is pretty well aligned with my own experience and path.

    I had many wins with Scientology, such as: improved communication and confrontation, improved ethics, the cancellation of the impulse to make others wrong, the resolution of chronic headaches, the cognition that I was manufacturing my own limits, the ability to blow somatics with Hello & OK or mock-ups, etc.

    But I was also unhappy, as there was this constant pressure to give always more money, the communication breaks with society and family, etc.

    Eventually I was financially broke, that was a disaster. I had to take refuge in my mother’s house, and I realized that my mother was eventually the only being on earth that had unconditional love for me. When you are broke the CoS is not interested by you anymore.

    But I had the “virus” of clearing, I was looking for a way to continue out of the CoS. When I discovered that the upper levels were about entities, I was not really interested. Eventually I found that Buddhism was a workable path for me, for many reasons. Meditation is quite powerful to be in present time on a daily basis and to break down mental automaticities.

    Meditation has been also validated by modern science: improvement of the immune system, salutary effects on telomere length, grey matter increase in the brain, lower blood pressure, improved longevity, curing depression with mindfulness meditation, etc.

    According to the Dalai Lama, spiritual improvement can occur only when being altruist. This means love and compassion for others.
    Love means: wanting others to be happy
    Compassion means: wanting to free everyone from suffering.
    This point is not stressed enough in Scientology, otherwise there would not be “The Hole”.

    Currently I feel that it should be possible to create a synergy between Buddhism and Scientology.

    For example many a beginner in meditation has this problem: a torrent of thoughts passing by. That takes a lot of training to be less effect of unwanted thoughts. Maybe some of these thoughts come from BTs? Could Solo NOTs help meditation?

    • “Could Solo NOTs help meditation?”

      Yes. I’ve always validated my scientology background (OT VIII, SO 8 years etc) for helping me become a pretty good meditator fairly quickly — as well as my own understanding of Tibetan Buddhism.

      Christine

      • Thank you Christine.

        Could other OTs from 3 to 8 answer this question:

        • Ask them directly. I keep this forum pretty much free of that type of discussion to keep it safe for the many within to look.

          • Sorry, English is not my native language, I am not sure to understand.

            Do you mean that you don’t want technical discussions?
            Or discussions about the content of OT levels?

      • absolutely. auditing helps meditation, the purpose of meditation is to be in the now,present moment, doing trs and auditing has the same goal. both roads lead to rome.

        • One of the cognitions I had while auditing on Solo NOTS, was that I was handling the reasons one did TRs. What does that mean? And this may just be true for myself. To me doing TRs was a drill that accomplished the purpose of being able to be there comfortably confronting. But, after a point on Solo NOTS, I was able to be there comfortably because of those things I had handled.

          • let is a great win being able to be there comfortably. i plan on doing some trs in the near future.

            • Captain Non-Sequitur

              in present time I am happy doing what I am doing, being and having. To that degree since I am not a criminal but just living my life in a safe place and living with others in a safe place, I am part of the “cleared planet” thing. I believe my actions are the same that I influence. I don’t have any demons to confront anymore.

              I believe it’s only the few that create problems for others. And unfortunately those are the ones that get into leadership positions. And they change the rules, ie DM.

  32. I don’t think “organized religion” is an oxymoron. Some religions may not be organized as to the data of their religions, but where most religions have ruthlessly organized is in how they go about controlling the behavior and views of their parishioners/public. You will see much organization in what you can or cannot do, what you MUST not do, and the penalties for all of these transgressions. VERY well codified and organized (and if not codified in a written way as is done in many religions, then organized very strictly in a passed down from generations cultural way). Judaism, Islam and Scientology are examples of very well organized religions (and as many Jews and Muslims and Christians are no longer in agreement with the original organization, so you will see that in Scientology as wel)l. Hundreds of millions of Buddhists kneel down in front of statues of “Lord Buddha”, a man who said he was not a god. So yes, there is organized religion and that organization itself ebbs and flows throughout the generations.

    • JP,

      “Hundreds of millions of Buddhists kneel down in front of statues of “Lord Buddha”, a man who said he was not a god.”

      In the Theravada tradition, which is only about 80 million, we “bow” as compared to kneel. I am not familaiar with the larger part of the Buddhist population. In addition, in our tradition, you are correct in that the Buddha said he was a man and not a god. However, the Buddha very clearly explained that he “was teacher of gods and men” The Canon contains numerous encounters of the Buddha with a vast array of dieties.

      May all gods be well and happy!

      GMW

  33. Stunning Marty, as per your question “This state of affairs led to my posing the question, ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’”, my view is that organised religions should offer ‘waypoints’ on the journey, unfortunately people will be people and those most unsuitable for power (selfish etc) are the ones that most search for it in any organisation.
    What fascinates me with Scientology (NOT Golden Age Tech) is the level of details of human behavior it contains.
    Maybe it’s better for religions (and scripture) to stay as a reference manual rather than a step by step micro managed map of the journey?

  34. Brilliant. Wonderfully irreverent!

    I’m not sure that “organized religion” is an oxymoron. Perhaps what matters is not so much if it’s organized, but if its manner of organization is true to the spiritual nature of the religion’s original intentions. Organization can too easily organize toward false purposes — power, control of others, self-enrichment of the organization and its leaders. The Radical Church of Miscavige has certainly demonstrated that in spades, as have many historical religious organizations.

    But organization can also be quite valuable. We have LRH’s quote(s) about the power of OT’s acting in concert rather than alone. We know the synergies that come from good organization.

    So I think the deciding factor is intention. Is every policy of the organization geared toward a spiritual purpose, the purpose of uplifting individual participants? Or are some (or all) of its policies tainted with intentions that are false for a religion?

    I do think it’s possible for a religion to organize in a way that promotes only true spiritual purposes — not that it’s easy! Perhaps the key is to adopt procedures to detect and prevent false purposes from creeping into the policies and activities of the group.

    Then again, perhaps it’s also better to organize as an association of independent practitioners, as the independent field has started to do. Nothing makes false purposes more evident (and repugnant) than another practitioner whose purposes and flows are clean and true.

    • Agreed! The Great Middle Way should be followed in the area of organized religion also. The Jews and the Society of Friends (Quakers) are examples of this. A loosely organized association of independent practitioners united by agreed-upon common purposes makes sense.

      I also think that LRH’s idea of creating the Church of Spiritual Technology with a democratically functioning board of directors and a democratically functioning Board of Trustees owning and controlling the copyrights could have worked too.
      Unfortunately, Miscavige got control of the scene when the CST was first forming. He apparently got pre-signed, undated “resignations” from everyone appointed and then, as a result of the IRS compromise, added the “special directors” (non-scientologist attorneys appointed for life) to the mix with veto power. The result is the dictatorship what we have today. At least this is my understanding of how LRH’s plan devolved into the current organizational scene.

      But I think that when you said that “the deciding factor is intention”, you stated a most important point. And I think that this is the deciding factor. Some organizational structures may or may not work out better than others, but any organizational structure, including “independent” ones, can be abused and corrupted, and depend entirely upon the purity of the intentions of their group members.

  35. ox·y·mo·ron   
    noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra  [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh]
    a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

    or·gan·ized   
    adjective
    1.
    affiliated in an organization, especially a union: organized dockworkers.
    2.
    having a formal organization or structure, especially to coordinate or carry out for widespread activities: organized medicine; organized crime.

    re·li·gion 
    noun
    1.
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2.
    a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

    Consider if Scientology was what it should have been based on it’s own codes and fundamental beliefs. We would have free thinking beings openly discussing important viewpoints including the state and direction of our own religion and whether it was achieving it’s goals..

    Historically, Scientologists who have done this are said to have “mutual out ruds” or are “anti org.”

    In the true sense this would mean having some agreement on the out reality of any negative things being perpetuated, a lack of affinity for things that were non survival and causing contraction instead of expansion and a willingness to discuss these issues. Instead we have been lead to believe that anyone who finds fault with the Church is a Black Propagandist, even if their intentions are good.

    I’ve just realised that during my 37 years in Scientology I have been a “covert free thinker”. Sometimes I spoke up and stood up for what I believed to be right. I was usually vindicated but damn, I wish I had of been more vocal and stuck to my guns even if the end result was having my head chopped off.

    Being a Scientologist and being an active member of the “organized” Church of Scientology were 2 different things. There were gross contradictions. At one point it seemed that the common denominator was to protect yourself from being singled out as a dissident, a downstat or a counter intentioned misfit. I chose to break the rules and policies that I knew were destructive but not to make too much noise about this. To a large extent I got away with it with my integrity intact.

    When people have to start protecting themselves from being squashed the game is over. To some extent Scientology has never been truly “organised” because if it really was we would be huge and the world would be a far better place.

    Every now and again a “maverick” would turn up and make incredible things happen. We all chanted “purpose is senior to policy.” But, the “organised” just plodded along writing KR’s on each other, blaming someone else for the stats being down and wishing that a new week would start. The “maverick” normally got shot down and was forgotten by history.

    The thing that attracted me to Scientology was the potential to to be part of a large group of individuals who used what they learned in Scientology to actively work towards bettering mankind, individual by individual and being able to change their course when there was a recognition that the current actions or admin scale may not be working or in some cases were actually destructive to the goal of a “world without war, insanity and crime.”

    Now here we are in 2012, fragmented and unable to internally turn the boat from it’s destructive course. Would it be more noble to go down with the sinking ship, where the passengers and crew have no idea of the impending dangers or to jump ship in the hope that your original purpose could still be somehow achieved.

    I don’t know whether I can answer the question being posed but when you look back through history at “organised religions” the road is littered with betrayal, power trips and general mass destruction more that not to the detriment of the fundamental philosophical values put forward by the “founder”.

    For me being part of a religion falls into two main categories. There are those who are petrified of the unknown and need someone else to tell them answers that make them feel safer and there are those who use whatever truth exists to peel the onion layer by layer to get to their own truth which they only believe because it is so real to them that it just “is”.

    I’d far prefer to be part of a group of “unorganised” mavericks who choose personal integrity as their weapon than to a group of “organised” people who are following the leader blindly in the hope that it will all work out OK.

  36. Marty: This is to date my favorite article of yours.

    Somehow you’ve managed to pull apart what for me was the big conundrum. A strong dedicated purpose to help others as well as myself WITHIN a structure that appeared to and did squash the individual?

    I believe you’ve done a masterful job.

    I’d like to add this thought — somewhere in tapes and/or policy LRH talks about government and “the people VS John Doe” and how the government is a HUGE scary force which feels as if it is unsurmountable. How does one person (me, for example) go up against this big goliath?

    And thus we all, when faced with an IRS audit or the need to go before a judge for a minor infraction, or faced with a lawsuit … feel small, intimated and most of us just cave in under this seemingly bigger than oneself entity? (which is made UP of individuals but FEELS as if it is ONE BIG “THING”)

    Scientology almost from the onset for me — ceased to be made up of individuals but gained it’s own life of “bigger than me” entity. Once my awareness of the organization grew beyond the comfortable ramshackle walls of Celebrity Center (on 8th Street, back in the day) and all the individual staff members of whom I knew well, I started to feel worried for my own survival/post/future.

    I became aware there was “Flag” and it’s staff and management, FOLO US, and almost countless other management organizations and networks (LRH Comm network) etc — ALL bigger than me, all more powerful than me and all granted the right to “squash” me IF I stepped out of some line.

    It wasn’t too bad at Celebrity Center because Yvonne, quite like a mama lion, kept the networks and management at bay. BUT, once I went to Flag whatever joy I had as an individual Sea Org member was soon obliterated by those “higher” than me determining where I would walk and sleep almost on a daily basis. Staff were sent on missions, berthing was unmocked, husbands/wives were separated by assignments elsewhere and there was the never ending threat of the RPF.

    From the horror stories I’ve heard about Int — it was beyond worse. There the individual is living in hell created by the concept that those above him are going to squash him to oblivion.

    It is truly the oxymoron of “organized religion” — Once “organized” there evolves an “entity” which ceases to be made up of individuals that one could communicate with and becomes a THING which can never be communicated with …

    Just my thoughts on this. Your article is something I will be sending out to my non-scientology friends. It communicates wonderfully.

    Thanks

    Love,
    Christine

    • Sorry for the punctuation errors … there are a couple of question marks that should have been periods. I’m not going to repost the entire comment ala dm redux but trust you can figure out that they were just a mistake created at 5:30 AM :)

  37. LRH made a number of key discoveries about life and how to live it better and happier. He also made a number of mistakes, and i think the biggest mistake he made BY FAR was in not insisting that the basic ideas of his OWN religion was actually applied IN HIS OWN CHURCH. And that mistake has had terrible consequences for the Church of Scientology’s health and existence. How do I know this? Very simple really. It’s what I saw right in front of me very eyes. I joined staff in 1970 and although soon there was an LRH ED that said “the world begins with TR0″, there was never, I repeat NEVER any effort, program or campaign (PR or otherwise) for staff members or Scientologists in general (in my org or that I ever heard about) TO APPLY TRs IN LIFE. In 1973 a Big League Sales Mission came to our org to get in the manipulative sales techniques of that horrible book, but we never had a mission sent from Flag to get in the most important basics of Scientology: TRs, the ARC Triangle, the Comm Cycle, THE TONE SCALE, etc. I never saw any of the screaming, out of ARC execs in our org EVER crammed on TRs, ARC, Tone Scale. Why do I mention Ron in a discussion of this? Well, the Big League Sales mission was from the flagship Apollo (the mission i/c was a Cl. XII – Mike Mauerer). Similarly, there was never ANY mention in my org with its 130 staff of using The Code of Honor or of being self determined or of much of ANY of the data in the basic books.

    I could write a book just on this subject. But I’ll just skip ahead to LRH’s last years.There’s a lot of vital stuff on organization in HCO PLs “Group Sanity” and “Third Dynamic De-abberation”, but Ron HIMSELF never appointed a deputy (in writing) to himself, never wrote a published and full program of hat turnover, published a power change condition write-up nor (apparently) did ANY apprenticeship of any kind (all per his own references/policy) to ensure a smooth turnover upon his death.

    And so it is no suprise when we also learn of arbitrary ethics actions on the ship (see Mayo write-ups, but there are a number of others) not following HCO PL Ethics Review gradients, taken by LRH. None of the above is to slam Ron. I’m just pointing out that you have a religion with a ton of great ideas and applications in it (all developed or overseen by LRH), and yet what the religion itself CONTINUALLY promoted over the years (from my own personal experience certainly from the 70s onward) was just the “mission.” “Clear the planet” was the big one in the 70s (nothing wrong with that certainly), salvaging the agonized future of every being in our sector of the universe, etc and ALWAYS how one NEEDS to contribute EVERYTHING one has (effort, money, time, etc) to the cause.

    In all the 35 years i was in, what SHOULD have been emphasized OVER AND OVER AGAIN?

    1 – you are a spiritual being who can take more responsibility for your own actions and integrity. You need to be true to your own goals and understanding of life.

    2 – you have the right to a viewpoint. You can increase your awareness and ability through training and processing in Scientology.

    3 – you do NOT need to go into agreement EVER with lower toned behavior/actions and have every right as a Scientologist to INSIST that ARC, Tone scale, TRs, ethics and the other basics of Scientology are applied.

    etc etc etc

    Had Ron sent Tone Scale Missions or ARC Missions or Code of Honor Missions to Orgs, there would be a flourishing and vital Church of Scientology today, full of HAPPY people who promoted Scientology just by showing their own tone levels to the public and the way they lived their lives (instead of the horror stories of all the people that have fled the church in various states of psychological damage).

    * the good news, as always – there’s still the tons of great and interesting LRH stuff that one can study and apply. This data does not have to be looked at as part of an all encompassing religion, but just for what it is and there is great value in that. In the next hundreds or thousands of years, folks will study and use Scientology as they find it valuable to their own lives. And it will HAVE to be seperate from imposed and punitive religion as it is in the CoS.

  38. LRH says it better than I ever could.

    Admin Know-How Series 9
    Expansion Theory Of Policy
    page 354 OEC vol 7.

    “It is an emperical (observed and proven by observation) fact that nothing remains exactly the same forever. This condition is foreign to this universe. Things grow or they lessen. They cannot apparently maintain the same equilibrium or stability…

    All our policy then is built on EXPANSION.
    It assumes we wish to survive.
    And it stresses the production and delivery of a straight nonsquirrel product.
    It is calculated to ensure a continued and widening demand by ensuring that product remains good and beneficial…

    As one can only expand by external demand for the product, if one seeks to expand in the absence of a specific demand for the product, one has war; and war doesn’t lead to expansion any more than burning heretics and other brutalities expanded the Catholic movement…

    CORRECT EXPANSION
    Expansion which when expanded can hold its territory without effort is proper and correct expansion.”

    LRH

    • Amazing post! Thanks Dan.

    • Theo Sismanides

      Thanks for the reference Dan… yes the man had something else in his mind than the expansion of the Catholic movement… LOL! And that is what Admin is all about: to speed up (not quickie) and expand (without effort, he says) a straight nonsquirrel product. Otherwise it’s not Admin or organization, however you wanna call it.

  39. miscavigeisscaredofsam

    “Is ‘organized religion’ an oxymoron?”
    If the definition of ‘organized’ is ‘To arrange in a desired pattern or structure’ then I’d say Independent Scientology is every bit an organized religion as is €orporate $cientology. The difference is the intention. So my answer to the question is no. I don’t believe ‘organized religion’ is an oxymoron. ‘Religious Dogma’ perhaps would be closer to the oxymoron mark (for me anyway).
    I have traversed the great middle path these past 4 years (also the path least travelled by all accounts). It has worked for me so far and given me about the best ‘case gain’ I have ever experienced.

    • If you consider Independent Scientology as ‘organized religion’ then you take me too literally or I have failed to articulate the concept I had in mind. I am referring to organized institutions. I guess the question is ‘how much organization is enough?’

  40. Marty, before I go to the comment I want to make I have to first comment on this term Middle Path. Recently, you wrote about the Middle Path and in it you concluded that Al Jazeera must be right because they’ve been attacked by both extremes. This conclusion bothered me for several reasons. When you label someone extreme it has a negative connotation and without explanation could be biased. Maybe they are both extremes or maybe one is an extreme. In World War II I would have called the Nazis extreme but I never would have called the Allies extreme. Assuming that Al Jazeera is right because they’re attacked by both sides is a prejudice viewpoint because it has a preset standard for judging them without any real examination. I didn’t mind you being wrong, but knowing that LRH had a real affinity for Buddhism, it really bothered me that he would have such high regard for something I think is so flawed. If Buddhism said you need to wear a baseball cap on Tuesday it wouldn’t bother me because it’s unimportant. But something as basic as the Middle Path is too basic to ignore. It effects how a person views almost everything.

    After being rattled for a few days over this I decided to investing the Middle Path myself. It didn’t take long for me to come across an article that cleared up the whole issue for me. My wife had agreed with me on this subject and when I read the following paragraph to her she immediately brightened up and said, “I can agree with that”. I’m attaching the full article at the end of my comment:

    “Middle Path” may be misunderstood as equivocal. In fact Buddhism is not as such. “Middle” means neutral, upright, and centered. It means to investigate and penetrate the core of life and all things with an upright, unbiased attitude. In order to solve a problem, we should position ourselves on neutral, upright and unbiased ground. We investigate the problem from various angles, analyze the findings, understand the truth thoroughly, and find a reasonable conclusion.

    Now to the comment I originally wanted to make. I never was a Kool aid drinker when it came to Scientology. I never believed that we have this moment in time to free ourselves or we’re doomed. I never accepted the idea that the bridge alone was the route total freedom. Having said that I do have an opinion that some might find “extreme”. I believe that Scientology should be pursued as being right for almost everyone and it is right to hard sell people on doing services. In almost every person I’ve come to know outside of Scientology they all live with conflict and pain that could easily be handled with Scientology. Other that the fact that DM has squirreled Scientology to the point of being unworkable he always had it wrong because he operated on the basis that it was right to shove it down the PC’s throat. The ends justified the means. Scientology can only be practiced by working with the willingness of the individual by being properly trained and by being up tone. My conclusion is based on years of taking the Middle Path in studying Scientology.

    Here’ the link to the full article about the Middle Path:

    http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

    • You noted: I never would have called the Allies extreme. Really? How about what they did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was that not extremist action?

      • I could get into a discussion about the morality of using the atomic bomb in WWII, but I think it’s a tangent. I think you have an MU in your interpretation of the Middle Path and I’d like to hear your reply to that. I have no problem being wrong here. If you have a point to make that corrects me I’m glad to admit it.

        • I fail to see the m/u phenom. Your definition does not conflict with my use of it, in my view

          • I’ve felt that you’ve defined Middle as being in between or compromising. The article I attached pointed out that that’s a misinterpretation of the word. I used the Al Jazeera example to point that out. If you insist that isn’t the case I’ll accept it and move on. If I think it comes up in the future I’ll probably point it out.

      • Or the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden, or the British & American carpet bombing of Germany for that matter. There was certainly extremism on the allies part.

        Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse 5″, who was an American POW in Dresden during the bombing, gives a vital perspective to the allies barbarity and extremism. Unfortunately,there are no clean hands in total war.

  41. The answer is yes, “organized religion is (indeed) an oxymoron”. However once we realize that it relieves the pressure to believe again, in whatever we know and feel to be true – this time, on our own accord, and in spite of any rules that we came to have to understand.

  42. Hi Marty,

    This is a bit long, but bear with me. Having spent years working this out, I consider myself an expert on this subject. The book of Case Remedies lays out – in simple terms – the exact way in which a person is supposed to go up the Bridge. And that includes safeguarding AT EVERY STEP the person’s self-determinism, ARC, and integrity. Sadly, this apparently got lost to a majority of well-meaning individuals who thought it more efficient to sacrifice ARC for “compliance to orders” or “stats”. In the taped lecture ARC from the First Postulate Tapes, LRH lays out why any sacrifice of ARC for “speed of results” won’t work. It’s the best reference I’ve ever seen on the subject.

    There is no bait and switch by Ron that I was able to find.

    What there is…based solely on the principle of logic…is a time-line, where the technology to resolve a certain problem didn’t exist…and so Ethics was used as Justice early on. But in 1972, Ron incorporated the Data Series into the Ethics tech…and by April 1972, had come out with the true Danger Condition. However, there are a number of other bulletins and policies which explicitly define how this condition is supposed to be done…and it is NOT the way it was done, from my experience, on the vast majority of Scientologists. Further Data on Correct Danger Condition Handling has 3 or 4 versions, only one of which is complete (the only complete version I was able to find exists ONLY in the IHELP Update Pack for Field Staff Members, c. 2004 or so…of which 2 editions of that update pack exist and both are good, but the second one is more complete.) I have both packs.

    What I am saying here is specific: As I studied the Ethics tech on my own, I discovered a time line where-in problems existed due to lack of technology and those problems were “temporarily” solved by using Ethics as Justice. But by 1972, Ron realized that was wrong and so in April 1972, he came out with the right way to do Danger…a MAJOR breakthrough on real Ethics…and stated in Further Data on Correct Danger Condition Handling that NOW…Ethics could truly be an ethical subject and not a Justice subject.

    It took me a bit of research to figure out what he meant by that line. But I solved it by reading the original Danger Condition from 1966.

    The idea that a person comes into Scientology with a problem he wants handled…and that the organization allegedly exists to provide to him the exact answer he is looking for, is correct. That IS the way it is supposed to be done, per the Book of Case Remedies. However, the idea of leaving well enough alone…and the fact that that isn’t what happens “per policy”…isn’t true. A person is supposed to be allowed to “have his win”. One good friend of mine had so much BPC on not being allowed to have his win that it literally stopped him from going up the Bridge any further. When he cognited that that was what had happened to him, he lost 20 years of age on his face…I saw it with my own eyes. That was a miracle to see that, lemme tell you.

    The real mistake, that I was able to trace down, the “why”…from my point of view”…was the abandonment of the sacredness of ARC. When ARC was no longer important…when “compliance to orders” became senior to ARC…there went the game. It was no longer “Scientology”, but some weird low-toned alter-is of it.

    “Severe Reality Adjustments” don’t exist anywhere in LRH that I was able to find. It’s a low-toned quasi-solution to an inability to get agreement or compliance using ARC only. That isn’t to say that force isn’t EVER justified…that isn’t true either. But at some point, based on Group Dianetics and other such articles, a leader is supposed to put the ARC back in as soon as the emergency is handled.

    And of course, with proper use of the Danger formula, the correct why for the dangerous situation can be found and this results in a resurgence in the being that is remarkable to experience and/or see.

    Granted, there have been times in policy where restraint and control were emphasized. But again, the mistake I discovered was the abandonment of ARC in all aspects of Scientology, with force being substituted for ARC…and there is no FRC triangle in Ron’s writings…it’s ARC and KRC. NOT FRC.
    (F being force)

    In other words, Ethics without ARC isn’t Ethics. Policy without ARC isn’t policy. Tech without ARC is most definitely not Tech.

    That, for me, was the main differentiation point between true Scientology and all other subjects.

    And although force was substituted for ARC by others and by Ron, from time to time…and much more so the closer to PT we look…the idea was, as soon as the actual emergency was handled, ARC was supposed to go back in. Ron did that…that was my experience with him personally. Others didn’t do such a hot job of that…if they did it at all.

    The theory that a person was deficient in something (or the staff member was) if the person didn’t re-sign…well, I dunno…when I first studied this subject, I was eager to learn more. If the previous course or action was IN…I definitely wanted more data and/or auditing. Learning how to produce miracles in others and myself…like WOW, you know?

    Stat pushes, compliance to orders becoming senior to ARC, but most definitely…out-tech…destroyed an org. But until one did a proper eval on what was done and how it was out-tech (the real ARC for the problem) and what WAS the correct tech (that was Qual’s function and we can see what was done to Qual over the last 30 years)…then it will become the priests and ogres and psychs and “SP’s” who become the why…and everyone who knows knows that’s a cop-out.

    The bait and switch thing may have become an intergral part of Scientology Inc…but it isn’t Scientology.

    And as far as the aberration that forces a person to foresake ARC for some imagined “efficiency”…however that works out in practice…as long as people have aberrations, there will be trouble. As long as aberrations exist that force a person to alter-is, alter-is is going to happen.

    Doesn’t mean we have to agree with it or use heavy-handed force to get rid of it. It means ARC rules. And if it takes some time to really get that ARC in in another, then so be it. Every objection to what Orgs do or don’t do…for me…boils down to failures to use enough ARC in every activity, failures to safeguard a person’s self-determinism and willingness at every step of the Bridge but ESPECIALLY in Ethics and Tech…and failures to locate the real out-tech (if it existed)…OR…the failure to allow a person to have his win…if a person didn’t re-sign.

    I once watched a really good FSM enlighten a person on the Grade Chart. It shocked me to see him do that, because no one had EVER done that with me in any reg cycle…and yet enlightenment IS the awareness characteristic of registration. It’s out-tech not to do that (when needed) and indicative of a lack of understanding of how ARC applies in all activities and why it must exists and must be safeguarded.

    My thoughts on the subject, and in my humble opinion, of course.

    chiun

    • Chiun,
      A good example of this was the early days of CCLA. Yvonne was a class 8 auditor and operated on ARC. Staff and public felt loved by her and would do anything for her! CCLA burst at the seams and during my tenure had to move into 3 successively larger buildings, first the old Chaplain house, then the office building up the hill and then the Manor.

      • Exactly…Thanks, Richard.

        There is also a point to be made regarding the subject of Scientology and what it handles…and the problem in dealing with a person who has no memory of past lives or even an inkling of the gains possible with auditing.

        Auditing does work and is priceless to those who got life-changing wins with it.

        But…it was worse than a waste of time to those who got “out-tech” and no real wins, because they often felt worse at the end than they did before they started.

        With the understanding of what REAL Scientology auditing produces…Ron created a guideline of how to deal with someone who has no clue and a lot of amnesia but yet has an idea that perhaps what bothers him or her could be handled.

        The bait and switch, in the case of RCS, became promising a person real Scientology, but then giving a person alter-ised Scientology (and from my 155 interviews on stalled Clears…what they were actually given was GROSS, GROSS, GROSS out-tech) but still calling it Scientology all the while blaming the person for lack of results.

        We shouldn’t confuse false or incorrectly applied Scientology and the chaos it produces with the real thing…which is why I will never call “that other group” or what they do Scientology. It isn’t Scientology…and they do not represent Scientology. They represent Miscavigology and , are a cheap imitation.

        chiun

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Chiun, you really do Ron proud! Perhaps one way
          to communicate your truth, may be stated thus:-

          ————-REAL ORIGINAL SCIENTOLOGY————— For the genuine, miraculous results you were promised!
          delivered in & by the INDEPENDENT SCN.. movement

          Say No!—- to the “the bait and switch!” swindling rip-off
          of the fraudulent, mind control imposter version, known
          as “The Church of Scientology (Inc.) sole property of, and
          under the exclusive control of C.O.B.(sic.) David Miscavige.

          Calvin.

  43. According to my 2 cents, the “church of scientology” is not organized but mis-organized. Some rules and policies are over-emphasized, while others are neglected. Just a few examples that I have observed :

    # certain policies and statistics ( like gross income ) are given more importance than other policies ( like the rule to take care of the staff’s auditing progress ).

    # short term actions are given more importance than long term establishment. I believe that every staff has witnesses the wild actionism on wednesday evening and thursday morning to “get the stats up”. I have never seen comparable efforts to get a Class VIII C/S into each org, or FEBC trained executives.

    # LRH stated clearly that the survival level increases with ARC, and that rough communication is only effective in rare emergency situations. Some “scientology” organizations apply this in the opposite way, making ARC the exception rather than the rule. How do they expect a high survival level ?

    # and last not least : LRH said that purpose is senior to policy. However, much more attention is given to the study of policy than to an increase of awareness of purpose.

  44. Marty, you make some excellent points. In my own case, I already knew early on that I’d be in this for the long haul and that I’d be spending a considerable amount of time and money to get to the highest level attainable. I had already experienced the pinnacle – but only briefly and not under my own control. My goal was to attain that state again – but in a stable and orderly fashion. I didn’t expect it to happen in a week. So the sales aspects in the organization didn’t bother me too much. It was not until the early 80s when it started to become intolerable – the extortions, the interrogations and witch hunts, etc. I lasted until 1998 – in retrospect way too long.

  45. Thought provoking post Marty
    ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’
    I don’t think so. I believe Scientology will continue into history as an organized religion, but in a decentralized form. The Co$ will eventually loose it’s monopoly and this will spawn many enterprising individuals to organize centers around the world that deliver ALL levels of training and auditing. The current Co$ will probably implode because, like Dear Leader, there is no functioning Division 5. SP individuals or organizations are not critical of themselves (can’t correct) and so eventually get burned to the ground by Russian and Allied forces.

    I am optimistic about the future of organized Scientology. The decentralized model allows you to go to another Scientology Center if you believe the one you are in is not applying the technology correctly.

    • An oxymoron is a figure of speech. Organized religion can exist and continue and even be considered “successful” and yet still be appropriately referred to as an oxymoron. For example, invisible ink is real and exists and has practical uses, but it is still an oxymoron. Marty poses this question in order to stimulate discussion about the essence of the topic, i.e., is it contradictory by its very nature.

  46. Some thoughts about Marty’s question.

    Organized: adj. 1. Functioning within a formal structure, as in the coordination and direction of activities.
    Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com

    From the Systems Theory viewpoint:
    ¤ Everything which is not completely random has a structure; theoretically it can be analyzed as a system, and its behavior may be predicted as a probabilistic function of different kinds of particular behaviors.
    ¤ From this viewpoint, even anarchy has some kind of organization (it has high, but not complete, randomity).
    System: A set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.
    A good overview of System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
    A quick overview of Systems Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

    So, in my view, these are the important questions:
    • What kind of organizations will (with high likelihood) make a religion to become oxymoron?
    • What is the likelihood of different kind of organizations to make a religion to become oxymoron?
    • What are the key elements which will make an “organized religion” to become oxymoron?

    Before trying to answer the above questions, I think, it would be handy to take a closer look at the word “oxymoron” and its application to the above questions.

    Oxymoron: noun: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined.
    Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com

    In my opinion, this analysis is handy:
    ¤ What part(s) of the system (organized religion) need to be incongruous or contradictory in order to be considered an oxymoron?
    ¤ How much incongruence or contradiction needs to have the system (organized religion) in order to be considered an oxymoron?
    • In the context of Marty’s writing, oxymoron refers to incongruence or contradiction in the core goals of the system (organized religion).

    • That it takes the “help” of the forced thought control of a religious group (organized religion) to assist an individual achieve the goal of that religion (independent thought/self knowingness/personal salvation/immortality) is a conflict of interest. That’s what I answered “Yes” to in Marty’s question in my earlier post.

      My view is a religion is supposed to be a personal spiritual journey on a path to “save” one’s own soul, I thought. External force from others inhibits progress to this end. Achieving awakening isn’t something one achieves at the demand and thought control of an organized religious group.

      Organized religion is an oxymoron to me because it inevitably leads to control of the individual … taking their souls (individuality) from them, which is the opposite of what religion is purportedly supposed to help one achieve.

      Organized religion TAKES souls, not SAVE them.

      Is there any evidence to the contrary?

  47. Marty,

    In my experience, organized religion is an oxymoron. My personal journey was a messy evolution, and not a straight line. It started with devout Roman Catholicism, a side journey into alcohol and drug addiction, joining a 12-step program (am still in it 30 years later), trying Catholicism again (failed), trying Protestantism (fail), Scientology (read books I found unreadable and went to churches I found off-putting – fail), and finally settling in with the bone-simple practice of Zen (just sit and breathe – it felt right – I also have a great personal teacher).

    There was nothing organized about the journey. I definitely colored outside the lines. But, it took what it took. I think the leaders/guides in some organized religions would be less than pleased – this kind of journey doesn’t fit with a fundamentalist approach.

    I continue to enjoy the tie ins between your subject (Independent Scientology) and Zen. Posts like this keep me coming back. When the drama becomes history, I’m sure there will be more folks like me coming forward.

  48. Theo Sismanides

    Marty, another great article,

    However when you say that:

    ” Again, that is not to say that the expensive courses and counseling are not worthy. It is to say that Scientology organizations are prohibited by their scripture from ever leaving good enough. They operate on policy that uses Scientology’s knowledge of the mind to is doomed, non-Scientologists are worse than aimless, and the only answers to everything – including immortality – are covered only in Scientology. ”

    I heavily disagree. Which scripture says that? DM says that and Mgmt says that. I would like you to see the following and applicable scriptures of LRH on the subject that say exactly the opposite:

    1) HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JUNE 1965
    AREAS OF OPERATION
    ….
    Scientology will grow if Division 6 reaches the broad public. Scientology ceases to grow where an org cannibalizes off CF only and has no Division 6.

    Info packets, new mail lists, book sales, ads even for the BS Course and even personnel are all Division 6.

    Get it?

    If Division 6 were allowed to cannibalize off CF there’d be no growth, so it can’t have CF. It builds CF for the org.

    New unreached bodies = Division 6.

    People who have no real org business = Division 6. The broad public and
    unreached areas are reached and owned by Division 6. Without it we never grow.

    L. RON HUBBARD

    2)
    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 JANUARY 1972
    PR Series 15
    POPULATION SURVEYS

    ….

    We are about to push on Div VI giving new TRs the Hard Way, Basic Courses and the Public Dissemination Manual to give you new public before old CFs are totally cannibalized.

    This will keep the BOOM expanding.

    3) L. Ron Hubbard EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE
    LRH ED 65 Int December 1968
    SERVICES, ILLEGAL OFFERING
    The offering of higher services the org or Franchise is not authorised
    to give can result not only in EC removal but also can
    crash the stats of the org.
    The test cases of this was Joburg which, to get solvent, illegally
    started offering Power Processing. The org got briefly
    solvent, then crashed. It took a long long time to rebuild South
    Africa again and it was laid open to enemy attack due to its
    long weakness.
    The bad effects of offering unauthorised higher services are
    these:
    (1) The org is not schooled or equipt to handle them technically
    and have case and training failures;
    (2) The org cannibalizes its Div 2 Central Files by feeding on
    only upper level Scientologists without getting in any new people.
    This flow suddenly runs out and leaves the org flat on its
    face. Nobody is left in the files. No new names have come in.
    Equals no income.

    END OF QUOTES

    What you are describing there as “scripture” and “policy” is actually the opposite.

    Scripture and Policy provide against that.

    The failure of Scientology to me is lack of Skilled Administrators

    One definition of the org board as to be found in the Admin dictionary:

    11. a refined board of an old galactic civilization. We applied Scn to it and found why it eventually failed. It lacked a couple of departments and that was enough to mess it all up. They lasted 80 trillion. (SH Spec 57,
    6504C06)

    With DM on the help Scientology NOT ONLY lacks some departments but has REVERSE departments. We ALL agree on this.

    So “organized” to me is not really Organized. How come LRH did it? Of course he was no saint and made mistakes. But Scientologists at that time were not CANNIBALIZED (to that degree, I hope, I don’t have all data) but I know that back in the 90s, the Athens mission here on a busy street in Athens used to do Body Routing. Since 2000 that i came back that Div 6 activity/function/hat had ceased or was done in a very limited way.

  49. The contrast between the star-high goals of Scientology and the criminal activities developed to make it appear that the goal was being achieved have been visible to the public at large for years. The power of Scientology technology has been continuously invalidated because of the insane push to push the stats ever higher so that the public person almost never has the chance to enjoy his or her win before the vultures descend for the next donation.

    In auditing and in life, this non-recognition of a successful action is invalidation of the power of the technology and acts as a betrayal of everything the person hoped to gain.

    It is a direct outcome of the fact that current management is not tech trained and LRH warned us about this in the very early years of Scientology.

    We in the independent field need to avoid falling into the trap of non-delivery and the use of false PR to cover it up. Open communication between preclears and practitioners about results and difficulties alike will keep our lines open.

    We have a fantastic technology available to us. Let us not lose this chance to see it widely applied.

  50. Dear Marty, I wholeheartedly agree with your observation. There is also the fact that anything & everything that is given a life of it’s own (such as a church), does everything it can to survive. Can you have an individual with
    all their abilities, choices, freedoms live in a controlled church with all of it’s
    restraints? Yes, there are reasons for following rules & restraints when a path is followed to reach a goal. A church can be set up to help individuals reach personal achievements. But what can I say, “once a free being, always a free being!” Within one individual, different & opposing personalities can be enjoyed. In the same way, a church with rules must
    let the free beings in it, be free. My belief with scientology is that it’s a philosophy that became a church, which made the philosophy difficult to practice. I say, here’s to free beings everywhere!

  51. Looking 4 Myself

    You’ve hit the nail on the head Marty. A very well articulated article of one of the main faults of the “Church” of Scientology vs. the philosophy of Scientology. I believe if the policies of the Orgs would have been to do nothing more than offer solutions to that which the person walking into the org, mission, etc. was looking for, the Church would have become a juggernaut in present time.
    Human beings living on planet Earth have many problems that they have to handle in order to live a happy, effective life.
    If church policy would have had the wisdom to help people only with the problem he came in looking to solve and nothing more and had effectively handled that situation for them, chances would have been very good that they would have come back for more solutions to other problems they were trying to overcome without any coercion being necessary.
    Understandably, the church in order to thrive would believe that they need to grow as fast as possible to pay the electric bill and other MEST necessities that are germane to running a large organization let alone a mission.
    If the Church had done nothing more than send promo to people that had already done a course or received auditing on all the facets of life that Scientology can effectively handle instead of pressuring people into taking another course or receiving more auditing which flew in the face of self-determinism, the church would have expanded anyway. That and general promo of the same nature to people in the public reaching for answers to problems as an introduction to what Scientology is. People who had already been helped by the church would have been receptive to such promo without the hard sell and I believe eventually would have come back for more services or, more important to expansion, would have recommended them to family and friends to try out based on their past success with the courses they had taken.
    I think nothing promotes a product better than satisfied customers. Fortunately or unfortunately, the future success of Scientology is now in the hands of the Independents. The failure of the organized church makes that job tougher than it needed to be.

  52. “Is organized religion an oxymoron.” No.
    Religion for many is simply something they strive for themselves in their own way. Re-Ligare, to bind back, in this case to the source of ones creation. But many want a group practice. They want to act out their beliefs, prayers, hymns in groups. Its not for me, but i have family who have explained to me that it is what they want. Christians call it the “communion of saints”, So I do not think organized religion is necessarily an oxymoron.
    In terms of scientology, and the nature of its practice, being organized is not something that elevates the religious experience involved. It only elevates the income.
    Thanks for breaking ground on this Marty. Your article was more of whats needed.

    • “…because whenever a religion- you see, a religion is different than a religious philosophy, very different – a religion is that thing which is
      given as a package to a people about which they are not supposed to reason, and under thought and duress is used to control that
      people onerously. And you find many of these religions are completely bare of aesthetics. And then when they come up to higher
      levels of action, they actually get up toward theta for a while, and then they will slide back into a MEST religion wholly. They very seldom rise up. That is why an individual is almost never a mystic and a religious person at the same time. We need differentiation in those categories in order to understand that anything used as a control mechanism is the MEST universe.” Hubbard College Lectures, Mar 52, #27.

      • Thank you Jim. I was looking for that quote by LRH. There are others where he talks about religions not too highly which I’m having trouble finding now.

      • Theo Sismanides

        yes Jim, the difference between Religion and Mysticism. Mysticism is higher… way higher. Religions are for nations and peoples to keep them in some type of order. hahaha, are we back then on that Philosophy frontier and out of religion?

  53. I am really happy that Marty is coming out with these types of write-ups. It
    will move the TA, but he is doing so while speaking the truth. I agree 100%
    that the postulates that created and held in place the administrative horror
    we see today are: 1) I am source and my tech is the only one that can help
    mankind, 2) We must, with heavy ethics, save everyone on the planet.

    This also raises two huge questions:

    1) How did LRH make those administrative choices, instead of following the
    Buddhist way of letting people travel their own path and using the tech as
    they see fit? Did he simply do it to make Buddha wrong and to continue his
    assertion that he himself was source? Was it just the psychological
    condition of megalomania? Why, why, why? I do not accept that it was a
    logical choice to help…I think it was more disturbed than that…it was
    more to cover his tracks or simply out of a basic ser fac/aberration. The
    choices are just too disturbing and illogical.

    2) How can anyone create such great technology and such a complete
    codification of life’s truths and at the same time create such a suppressive
    planet wide and organizational effect? This is the real big question for me
    that is hard to deal with. I can only say that there are many a geniuses
    that were crazy-assed and brilliant at the same time, but whenever I try to
    duplicate it, I just have a terrible time with it. Can the mind actually do
    that? It appears so.

    What have you all come up with, as I am sure these questions have swam around most of your minds.

    • jonsty,
      You are asking questions which I researched last year. You might try to look at LRH “The point when the PC goes Clear.” It is a 1961 lecture and it is in my opionion one of the major milestones in scientology. Ron Hubbard claims that 10,000 years before recorded history, he learned basic Buddhism. He places Gotama’s enlightenment of the level of a simple exteriorization “Be three feet back of your head”. Of course this has nothing at all to do with Theravada Buddhism or the Pali Canon.
      The main point is that he derived his ideas of the Buddha from some other
      tradition, not original Buddhism. At this point, he was free to go his own way. You can build all of his work on this his own foundation which is the opposite of mindfulness.

      May all beings be well and happy!
      GMW

  54. Great Post!!!!!!! Thanks for working so hard to blast the mind control walls constucted to block this realization.

  55. Any idea, movement as scientology is multi faceted. Many forces, viewpoints, importances & directions make up scientology & the people in it. Where I think the movement went wrong first was to become a religion & then organized church. Another thing I want to point out is how one activity in the organization’s management has by far taken over & outweighed everything else. This is the activity of “product officer-ing”. I see as similar to the concept as balancing intelligence & force. The push, push, push of getting “products” leaves out the most important part, what is the quality of the product you are getting? This idea of pushing for products is a very “American” idea, you know, efficiency. Well, if you like the american throw away culture that is obsessed with a flurry of activity then join the church of scientology. Push, push, push…..Beat, beat, beat. Does that sound familiar? Hey baby, where is the love? Where are the children? How about smelling the flowers? I dare say, we do not & will not march & wear uniforms!

    • Intersting when you compare your observation to the many lectures on the subject of MEST being dicated or manifest in quantity while theta is expressed in quality.

      • And I would add one other thought to this — the word commodity. People have become a commodity in the RCS. They are a number, whether “Bodies in the Shop”, “Resigns” or even “Completions”. It is the manifestation of beings (theta) as MEST objects and it is pervasive.

        David Miscavige and his RCS have become commodity brokers. And when the commodity of Completions is in decline, the commodity becomes “new people reached” and when that sucks the commodity becomes “square feet of buildings.” Quantity is all, quality is nothing.

        • Yes Mike, commodity, but more to the point: CONSUMER.

          I believe that when LRH picked up the PR “technology” and its related marketing “technology” and introduced it into the organizations of Scientology, he and therefore all of us, fell into the same yawning pit that most of the western nations fell into: consumerism. BUY BUY BUY BUY. You have to have consumers to sell products to. And you must always have more products to sell to the consumers so they can continue consuming from you. PR and marketing is used to get them into a frame of mind so they will buy what you offer on YOUR schedule, not theirs, to satisfy YOUR needs, not theirs. In the case of corporations, that’s to make profits. PROFIT. The product is secondary as a result of the consumerism think which is at the heart of public relations, propaganda and marketing.

          Add to that picking up metrics as a means of measuring job and sector performance, which came out of the field of computer technology and turned out to be a major disaster for the British government under Thatcher, for people did whatever they needed to do to get those quantities and quality went right down the tubes.

          If you haven’t watched the Century of Self series yet, you really ought to, for the very real consequences and drawbacks of these three methods of managing “people” as “commodities” are clearly demonstrated.

          There is a hysterically funny (and sad) sequence in the series where hospital workers are given a time / quantity quota to get people off a gurney and into a hospital bed. Their jobs depended on making that quota. They couldn’t make the quota so they took the legs off the gurneys and called them beds.

  56. I would like to commend you on “spotting Source” here. You do not exclusively blame David Miscavige for what you are observing here. And that is very refreshing.

    You might examine The Bridge itself as a rigid and fixed case program based on a one-size fits all “conveyor belt to spiritual freedom” ideology. I don’t think that spiritual freedom can ever be based on a cutter-cutter, one size fits all, basis. But it is this fundamental structure to Scientology, which LRH introduced in the early to mid 1960′s, which forces Scientologists into the “bait and switch” program you described to keep people moving along its central conveyor belt.

    If you can imagine a Scientology with no Bridge to Total Freedom in it, then you are looking at Scientology as it existed in the 1950s and early 1960′s. As a case supervisor, if you look at a Scientology with no Bridge in it, then you can see a multitude of processes available to you which can be fit to individuals to help them along their own spiritual path – wherever they may be.

    Then, I believe, you can imagine a Scientology with no fraud or bait and switch in it, with each process designed to help each unique individual, and their individual case, to get more and more free spiritually.

    I applaud your social courage and intellectual honesty here, Marty.

    Thanks for this post.

    • Thanks, but I do not consider the Bridge (which is the path) as part of the ‘organization’ I am discussing. The proof is that is that the Bridge is alive an well outside of organization; and in fact, by my observation, far more effective.

      • I can see why you say that.

        Without the social coercion of a cult surrounding the delivery of the Bridge, a practitioner is much more free to create a safe environment for real case gain for unique individuals and their cases. Totally agreed.

        But the Bridge is the central stable datum in Scientology. With no Bridge to look at, it is very difficult to imagine what Scientology is at all – if you haven’t read all the books yet. So on one hand, the Bridge as a stable datum serves a very good purpose.

        But per “Problems of Work” stable data also cause problems, too.

        • This topic is as interesting as the headline. Marty correctly states the bridge is a path. And we all know one does not have to fully complete one level before experiencing the gains found in another. You correctly state that if someone knew what processes to apply in any situation, they do not need a bridge for reference.
          Like Henry Ford and the production line, the bridge is a useful tool if for no other reason than matching the training level of the auditor with the PC, and a reference chart with some mass to help understand the abilities to be gained along the path. If all practioners were Class XII, then the bridge would not be as useful or necessary. But even as a symbol, it has vlaue.
          I do not see the “bridge” as the problem. Its a tool, like a gun. Depends on who is holding it and what they intend to do with it.

          • I think this collapse of the ‘bridge’ with ‘organization’ is arbitrary, non-sequitur and plain inapt.The Bridge is not arbitrary. It was arrived at in encountering and solving those barriers to making it to Clear. One becomes a Class XII by attaining a thoroughgoing understanding of that bridge.

            • I appreciate the point you are making when you call this “inapt”, but I disagree.

              I think that the Bridge is the ultimate unexamined assumption in Scientology these days. It was not when Hubbard first released it. It changed Scientology as a subject, fundamentally and forever, and I believe those changes apply directly to the problems you detail in your post.

              Before there was a Bridge, there was no push to get the person on to their next service – as you describe it in your post – because your “next” service did not even exist. As a Scientologist in the days before the Bridge, there was just “more”, not “next”.

              But most importantly, without a Bridge to tell you what to do “next”, every Scientology service would be based solely and only on what the pc *wants handled* and not on what the Bridge dictates to do.

              If you can imagine a Scientology with no Bridge in it, then you can see what I mean.

              • Tooky,
                but what about the “awareness levels”, what do you think about them? – Karola

                • Theo Sismanides

                  Good point Karola, same applies to the org board and on those awareness characteristics i know how they go as a cycle. Same applies to the Bridge of course and foremost.

                  • Captain Non-Sequitur

                    the problem I think Karola is stating is that the bridge is evaluating for the pc on what his/her next action should be, as opposed to what the pc wants handled.

                    • Captain Non-Sequitur,
                      No,… the opposite is the case. When I realized the logic and brilliance in the sequence of the awareness levels (on the org board and on the bridge) it made totally sense for me then. I did not feel evaluated at all, but actually more certain. Or let’s say, I have no problem with getting evaluated when the indication is correct (by the way, I think the whole life is an evaluation somehow). I trusted the C/Ses with their technical know-how at the beginning and was having great gains. When I realized that “Executive C/Sing” was going on later, it was over with the trust – but even then I was still winning with the tech.
                      In the cult of Miscavige you get one wrong indication after the other or get forced to do “actions” which don’t indicate or which are simply suppressive; that’s the problem in my opinion, not the Bridge itself.
                      Even regarding the Indie movement I realized that I went up the steps of the scale. – Karola

                      AWARENESS CHARACTERISTICS
                      21 SOURCE
                      20 EXISTENCE
                      19 CONDITIONS
                      18 REALIZATION
                      17 CLEARING
                      16 PURPOSES
                      15 ABILITY
                      14 CORRECTION
                      13 RESULT
                      12 PRODUCTION
                      11 ACTIVITY
                      10 PREDICTION
                      9 BODY
                      8 ADJUSTMENT
                      7 ENERGY
                      6 ENLIGHTENMENT
                      5 UNDERSTANDING
                      4 ORIENTATION
                      3 PERCEPTION
                      2 COMMUNICATION
                      1 RECOGNITION
                      -1 HELP
                      -2 HOPE

                    • KA, Additional info:

                      Awareness Characteristics
                      Total Freedom

                      Power on all 8 Dynamics

                      21 Source
                      20 Existence
                      19 Conditions
                      18 Realization
                      17 Clearing
                      16 Purposes
                      15 Ability
                      14 Correction
                      13 Result
                      12 Production
                      11 Activity
                      10 Prediction
                      9 Body
                      8 Adjustment
                      7 Energy
                      6 Enlightenment
                      5 Understanding
                      4 Orientation
                      3 Perception
                      2 Communication
                      1 Recognition
                      -1 Help
                      -2 Hope
                      -3 Demand for Improvement
                      -4 Need of Change

                      Levels below “Need of Change”
                      from human to materiality:

                      -5 Fear of Worsening
                      -6 Effect
                      -7 Ruin
                      -8 Despair
                      -9 Suffering
                      -10 Numbness
                      -11 Introversion
                      -12 Disaster
                      -13 Inactuality
                      -14 Delusion
                      -15 Hysteria
                      -16 Shock
                      -17 Catatonia
                      -18 Oblivion
                      -19 Detachment
                      -20 Duality
                      -21 Secrecy
                      -22 Hallucination
                      -23 Sadism
                      -24 Masochism
                      -25 Elation
                      -26 Glee
                      -27 Fixidity
                      -28 Erosion
                      -29 Dispersal
                      -30 Disassociation
                      -31 Criminality
                      -32 Uncausing
                      -33 Disconnection
                      -34 Unexistence

      • Perhaps all of these problems with having a bridge would be solved by having it go from the left to the right instead of from the bottom to the top.

        It’s a bridge right?

        Then we wouldn’t have the status, invalidation and evaluation issues, instead we’d have someone who has traveled further on the bridge and can see the other side “coming into focus.”

        It’s amazing how communicative a visual orientation can be! Just turn it on its side and what do you know, its a remarkable journey instead of a visual statement of bottom and top.

  57. How about we create a world where we can all live. How about we develope the abilities to behold & enjoy differences. It’s not always easy, but that’s what life & living is about…..isn’t it? I noticed this the other day that DM must be obsessed with making everyone the same & getting rid of differences. God help anyone who is the same as me & if I turn out to be the same as someone else, I’ll kill myself! (don’t tell anyone @ Flag I said that or they’ll never let me visit!) The c of s needs to take off their own straight jacket & live a little.

  58. One more thing about the Bridge: if you step back, you may be able to see the Bridge as one long case evaluation. LRH told you that all cases are built the same, and that the Bridge is the basic case program for any human being on earth.

    All you have to do is reg a Mormon for the Purification Rundown to see that this is not true.

    I believe that the Bridge was created to make the marketing and sales of Scientology easier, so that everyone had an easily grasped “game to play” as a Scientologist. I believe that it was this solution which became the problem you are describing in your post.

    • Tooky,

      A Mormon may not need the Purif, due to his having avoided loading up his body with toxic substances. But the Purif is not a REQUIRED step on the Bridge for everyone. It is a remedy for people who have taken too many drugs. That said, it can benefit almost anyone. But Church management’s attempted executive C/Sing of it for everyone was just a stat push.

      The standard Bridge has many points at which “wants handled” CAN get handled, if the C/S is smart enough to do that. The Flag-only rundowns especially provide that opportunity, but a lot can be done with Grad 5 tech. Also, LRH said on the Class 8 course that any and all processes from any point in Scientology’s history can be standard tech if and when used properly, as needed to supplement the Grade Chart without replacing it.

      The point of the Grade Chart is that LRH also wanted people to increase their general awareness and ability, beyond merely taking care of their “wants handled.” He wanted them to get strong enough to be able to confront higher levels of processing where they could blow more charge per unit of auditing time. He was going for a total jailbreak, not just a more comfortable experience in jail (meaning trapped in a meat body on prison planet Earth).

      Don’t confuse misapplication of the tech for the tech itself.

      • An excellent reply, Diogenes. You obviously know what you are talking about.

        However. You wrote:

        The point of the Grade Chart is that LRH also wanted people to increase their general awareness and ability, beyond merely taking care of their “wants handled.” He wanted them to get strong enough to be able to confront higher levels of processing where they could blow more charge per unit of auditing time. He was going for a total jailbreak, not just a more comfortable experience in jail (meaning trapped in a meat body on prison planet Earth).

        So here you are saying that LRH knew better than the person himself how to free himself, and what was best for them.

        Isn’t that evaluation? And maybe even invalidation?

        Right at the core of Scientology?

        • No – this line of discussion has gone the full route to inversion. The Grade Chart in essence simply memorializes the barriers to clearing and to life itself.

          • All right.

            But for me, planet Earth is not a prison – it is an endlessly beautiful place to be. And being a human being is not a degraded thing at all. In fact, it is a continuous miracle, constantly unfolding before me.

            So, for me, what Diogenes describes would be an evaluation, and an invalidation, of my own existence as I see it, right?

            • I never said it was. If there is nothing there that appeals to you, walk on. See? You’re right, you are not in prison.

              • The point was that the Bridge evaluates for the pc. And before there was a Bridge in Scientology, that evaluation, and those “control and restraint themes” that you described so well in your post, did not exist.

                But mostly I just want to say this was an excellent post that you wrote Marty. It is a free-thinking and independent piece of writing. I very much appreciate the work you are doing.

                • ACK. enuf sed.

                  • Li'll bit of stuff

                    Perhaps, when “one” has an unflattened
                    button on “self importance,” it becomes a
                    little too much to expect “one” to let go of
                    perceived “evaluation and evaluation” as
                    being superfluous in transcending to the
                    “humility of vast wisdom” ensconced by LRH

                • Tooky,

                  Hello? Of COURSE LRH knew better than the person himself how the person could free himself! Just like your doctor would know better than you how to cure a particular disease, or your general contractor would know better than you how to build your next house, or your CPA would know better than you how to keep your taxes as low as legally possible!

                  If a person feels evaluated for or invalidated by being put on his next step on the standard Bridge, that’s just an indicator that something else needsto be handled first. Maybe something from a lower level was left incomplete. Or maybe it’s time for some more “wants handled” auditing. A competent auditor, backed up by a competent C/S, would handle this successfully and oh so routinely, giving the pc the gain he wanted, while also getting him up the Bridge.

                  Of course, the auditors and C/Ses in the Church are at this point NOT competent, so all too often their solution for a pc who feels evaluated for or invalidated is to accuse him of just nattering (because how could the org possibly be wrong?), and then send him the Ethics for the “what are YOUR crimes, mister” loving care he needs.

                  Again, don’t confuse misapplication of the tech for the tech itself.

                  As for your disagreement with Earth being a prison planet, and “trapped in a meat body” being a degraded state, you are certainly welcome to your own reality. Don’t let anyone take it away from you or enforce a different reality on you.

                  That said, just for fun you might consider what the ideal trap and prison would be. How about one that provided interesting and satisfying games to play while inside, so that no one would think about getting outside, and those few who did think about it would be treated as wierdos, and thereby be herded back into conformity?

                  Put little kids in a big enough room, with lots of interesting toys to play with, and lock the door. They’ll be perfectly content for hours. Put them in that room as soon as they’re born, with no information ever available about there being anything outside the room, and they’ll be content to stay in the room their whole lives.

                  I will tell you this, though. As much as I want to increase and stabilize my ability to get out of my meat body, and become able to leave this prison planet whenever I feel like it, the wins I have in that direction in my auditing also leave me more and more happy with my ordinary life here as an Earthling human. Both “sides” get better together. The problem is not with meat bodies and Earth per se. The real issue is power of choice as a spiritual being.

                  • Li'll bit of stuff

                    diogenes, brilliant explanation indeed! You certainly filled in a whole bunch
                    of gaps for me too. thanks so much.
                    Calvin.

  59. Another similarly comparable concept is with the balance of force & intelligence and sameness & differences. Force is like sameness & intelligence like differences. The ability to permit differences is intelligent while force does not allow differences.

  60. morelivesthanacat

    In LRH’s time it didn’t cost hundreds of thousands to do the Bridge. In 1978 the cost of OT1-OT8 (“when released”), was just over $8000. These included 10% membership discount.
    And the co-audit route was encouraged up to Clear.

    By 2002 “OT Eligibility” at Flag was $7865 alone (including 20% IAS discount)

    OT 1-8 was well over $60,000 and that’s because that figure includes ONE INTENSIVE each for OT 4 and 5 and OTVII “eligibility”, because you can no longer buy the level, but pay for it by the intensive at $7865 a shot. Not to mention the endless squirrel sec checking at the same rates for every “6 month check”.

    I’m sure it was cheaper at the other AOs, but the order of magnitude of price increase and WAYS TO MAKE MORE MONEY (“eligibility”, paying for an OT level “by intensive”) was not something LRH introduced. Gee, name’s slipped my mind at the moment, but it was some dwarf SP.

    Now I don’t think the disparity is inflation.

    My point is, LRH did his best, even while knowing all along it was probably doomed to failure given the history of groups on the track, to create an organization that would make it both possible and easy for just about anyone to go up the Bridge and achieve their inner most desires. And when you got there, you were done. There weren’t then “objectives” to do. Nor Superpower (which he did for STAFF–in 1978, not public)

    And, back in the day, I don’t remember ANYONE complaining about it. They wanted to move on and registrars (also human) were there to help. I don’t see anything wrong with SOME ATTEMPT to build a strong organization standardize the route.

    And maybe if he hadn’t been betrayed by a few zealots around him who started creating turmoil around him during his last productive years (L1RS mission that started wiping out executives in all the big orgs, local Security situations–all created internally) when he was (at that time) churning out NOTs, KTL, Life Orientation and Superpower, just maybe we would have had 10,000 real OTs (not the modern Reverse Scientology version), and just maybe they would have gone on and started to bring order to their various sectors of society (Scientology Zero), or started new missions around the orgs and all the rest of it.

    A long shot–and he knew it–, but just maybe Scientoloy would have started to get out there and be used at a grass roots level by real Scientologists applying it, and just maybe some of the big names and celebs out of CC would have become real Scientologists who would really popularize it and help get it known and understood.

    Who of us out here would have done it better?

    I’m not with some of the others raving about this post.

    I don’t care that he wasn’t perfect. I do know how much he cared and how much and enthusiastically he worked to improve things organizationally each time something went awry. It was a battle never before won by any being or organization and that didn’t phase him from at least trying his best for the better part of a few decades.

    I worked with him. I know how he was, and and could give a hoot about his so-called short comings as he also gave a hoot about the past failures of others, self included.

    Yes he was demanding and yes he’d give you a good wack (figuratively) when you needed one, but if you took heed and made one iota of positive improvement after that, he’d notice even if you didn’t know he did. And if you didn’t now, he’d let you know in the most amazing way. I have stories, but I’m not telling them. Dave can stuff it.

    I thought the post on Objectives was fantastic. And I don’t think LRH himself would disagree. He wanted people to get the subject across to others. What the hell! That’s all he ever tried to do his entire life. When did he ever come down on someone lecturing about Scientology off-the-cuff back in the days when enthusiastic Scientologists used to do so?

    But I don’t see anything productive coming out of attacking the flaws in policy that was meant to form the agreement of a constructive group that truly did have the power to help bring order and sanity.

    It takes a sane staff to interpret and bring about the intended result of policy. And so, in building the world with broken straws, it’s no surprise that it went the way it did in the end, particularly with a zealot SP at the helm with a different agenda.

    What to do?

    The tech is still there. There are some good people out here. So just carry on.

    Maybe some time in the future there will be enough of us sane enough to understand and apply the Service Policy as concerns organization. I don’t have it to hand, but it explains what “rules” are and also points out that if the rules get in the way of service, “…to hell with the rules. Get the show on the road.”

    For Scientology historical price lists, you can go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/43551697/Scientology-Historical-Prices

    • morelifesthanacat
      Love your post (and your name!)
      I’m one of the ones who praised Marty’s post. I didn’t read it as a critique of Ron. I did read it as a problem inherent in the situation of having to bring
      people to understanding that there is something wrong with them.
      (like with ALL OF US!)
      Applied with conceptual understanding and inherent good will even
      Les Dane can be applied to help (Okay, maybe not Les Dane!)
      It’s like the RPF. Nothing wrong with it. But in the dwarfs hands a tool to suppress like no other. So can we blame Ron for not foreseeing the dwarf.
      Maybe, but then he might have written for people up the line who can
      and do think conceptually and use what he wrote to bring to understanding the people of earth.

    • in 1970 i did thru ot7 for about 2,800 bucks, and the 2nd time thru up to solo nots at flag was 60,000
      counting 10 winters at flag up thru 1986 when i left . so 20 years it cost me 4,000 a year which was affordable, after 86 it would have been 300,000.

  61. Hi, my name is Markus and I’m from Switzerland. Thanks Marty for all that data on your website. I don’t call myselve yet an independent….i’m getting all the data through the net…and confront all that!!! It’s not an easy way!
    I believe on this planet earth (actually in the MEST-universe) everything is organised and we (thetans on the state we are at the moment up to OT8) need to have things organised, because if not there will be only chaos.

  62. Marty this was a great post!
    Here is my simple 2 cents
    I remember when there was tons of theta and we resigned because we were winning.
    Then came the pressure regging. My help button kept getting pushed to donate. From there it went to pure intimidation the further I went up the Bridge. The intimidation turned to extortion (after all they held my eternity in their hands).
    For the longest time I gave the benefit of the doubt that these people truly were believing that they were saving the planet and thats why the huge “intention”.
    It is my belief now that those are the minority. The majority, especially IAS, know damn full well what they are doing.
    If I work for you and you tell me to defraud and lie to customers am I not culpable if I do? Of course I am.
    If you are a Reg and are reading this then please re-read it and really get it.
    Then walk away from it so you can knock it the F off.

  63. When I was about 17 years old & “pervading” for “what is true” about life & living, I wrote a list of principles that became my bible. They included the cycle of action, infinity valued logic, principle of survive, dynamics of life & a few more. Then a few years later I “discovered” scientology. To note, I was born into a lutheran family & during catechism asked why we were the “only true believers”. Luckily, my pastor was compassionate & advised me to look for myself. Then after I was “in” scientology I realized it too was the “only way”. The “only way” concept is not & does not work when it seeks to eliminate all other ways & differences. When this path of elimination is begun, it becomes indescriminate.

    Back to the subject of quality vs quantity. What’s funny is I was in the EPF for a few weeks in about 1976. We were refurbishing the Manor & I saw this “flurry of activity forcing “products”. It was insane….poor work, etc. I wrote a painter’s hat, presented it to the EPF MAA (Ted) & was shown some one-liner out of an LRH policy that too much attention on quality is suppressive. I left a few days later, returned to route out & was declared an SP for not wanted to stay in the EPF. I did A-E, continued to pursue the bridge. Lot’s more stories, but to stay on point, I was declared an SP again
    recently for “associating with riff-raff or some such thing”. Oh well, I guess I deserve it!

  64. Morelivesthanacat, What to do? is the million dollar question. I appreciate your viewpoint completely. I enjoy this subject because it’s such a huge problem with zillions of angles to it. Really, we’ve come full circle. We have seen “heaven….nirvana” & had it destroyed. Whatever & however we each see a new world, it will be better that the one we have, no? It is especially aggravating to know something could be better & be faced with the challenge of creating it. My whole life has been about understanding & solving this problem.

  65. I think the beauty of this post & subject is that it concerns the incredibly important subject of “how can we have a better world?” This is our world & we all should care about how we can reach this condition. I love all people who care about this & am interested in what they all have to say. As it has been said, we’re all in this together whether we like it or not.

  66. Great Post Marty.
    Scientology was doing a fantastic job in the 70′s. Saving Mankind
    on Earth looked real to me so I joined staff. Best years of my life.
    All these programs to Clear everyone going full steam .Then one by one
    these programs fell by the wayside.
    IMHO Man will seek to Survive, meaning grow, propsper and flourish.
    The tech works and produces miracles. Im for getting D.M. off the lines,
    cancel everything he did that alters or deletes Rons words, reinstate all of Ron’s original works,warts and all. Reinstate all Missions and checksheets that made Clears in droves. Restructure cost of services, cancel the IAS, Only the Reg is a Reg, not all of the staff in an Org.
    Thats my opinion, Im Old School and Friend of LRH.

    Keep doing good Marty, your Blog is the high point of my day.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Tango 23,what you you have said, of course, is ideal,
      and there are probably not many who would disagree
      in principle. Providing “bases” from which to operate
      such as the old successful mission models, are the
      most likely eventual outcome, post miscavige!
      Certainly, the way things stand, public interest is at
      an all time low, and therefore, it is mostly the solid,
      hardcore trained, old school that are properly placed
      to carry forward the delivery of life changing tech and
      broad scn education, that are required to handle the
      future growth of an otherwise “resistant” public.

      Ever changing times and values, dictate that the old
      VFP of “sheeple”, though popular with polit bureaus
      and populace controlling elites, are seeing increasing
      resistance to being “dumbed down”where people are
      free to explore the explosion of information on the net.

      Practically any information is downloadable today, and
      the cyberworld has, in many cases, killed off booksales
      altogether by delivering information for almost nothing.

      So, what you said at the outset, may need to have a
      much different form, since little additional supportive
      income would be derived from expensive book sales
      that would have few actual buyers.in the future scenario.

      Much has already been written on this blog about a
      future reformation, and its possible formats. But one
      thing for sure, for Scientology to survive well into the
      future, it has to cease being am elitist institution for
      the fleecing of only the wealthy, and instead become
      an affordable, vital movement for the upliftment of
      ANYONE who wishes to reach for it.

      I believe the creation of THAT successful model, remains
      the biggest challenge facing the future of Scientology.

      Fortunately, we have probably the greatest generator
      of a better operational ideas right in front of us, that
      is, the collective free power of independent Scientologists
      made possible through This very blog—MOUALH!

  67. VERY interesting read. Thank you. It speaks volumes that this is typical of YOUR output whereas DM’s typical output consists of belligerent, foul-mouthed rants and, publicly (at least in his power-presentations), deliberate and increasingly-desperate obfuscation.
    IEG xxx

  68. My answer is to openly embrace independent groups as the means of organizing Scientology. I think it is very important for me, as a 20 year corporatist, to acknowledge that the Free Zone had it right all along.

    Also, I think it is important to not focus on how David Miscavige and the corporatists are destroying the subject of Scientology. But to instead focus on how I’m going to create Scientology’s future. Otherwise, I might slip into a bit of PTSness.

    I see the value in fighting his crimes. And I am grateful that we have happy warriors like you, Marty. But we also need a lot more people who want to create their own scenes. Kinda like the Mission network was actually meant to function.

    By the way, on that note, I was actually sad that the mission in Tennessee wasn’t doing so well. Those mission guys are the best people in the corporate world, IMHO.

  69. Is organized religion an oxymoron? No. Organization is at the heart of all living forms and systems.

    Organization and organism are from the same root word, organ: O.E. organe, and O.Fr. orgene (12c.), both meaning “musical instrument,” both from L. organa, plural of organum, from Gk. organon “implement, musical instrument, organ of the body,” lit. “that with which one works,” from PIE *werg-ano-, from root *werg- “to do,” related to Gk. ergon “work” and O.E. weorc (see urge (v.)).

    The work to be done by the organizations of the religion of Scientology was to a) train people how to audit, b) provide materials for use in training people how to audit, c) provide auditing support services and d) assist trained auditors to improve their skill.

    The auditors and the organizations are expected to uphold a) the core principles and standards of auditing and b) the ethical precepts of the Creed and Codes and the fundamentals expressed in the Way to Happiness.

    Forcing people to audit, forcing people to get auditing, forcing people to support auditing and organizations that train people to audit is a violation of the principles of auditing and immediately results in no auditing.

    The focus should have been on making and safeguarding auditors and preserving their rights to audit within their own venues, groups and communities at their own discretion and trusting them to do so.

  70. Great post. One of the best for sure. For it opens up even more avenues of communication. And where, IMO, is this communication going? In my mind, it is only toward further duplication and as-isness. Now the question here truly becomes, where does this duplication eventually lead?

    Does it lead to the answer of “organized” religion? Or even of whether or not religion is important or even oxymoronic? Or are we all just individual souls or errant philosophers attempting to answer some very very basic questions, that may or may not have been answered by Scientology, despite some very very good doors initally being opened?

    I for one feel that most of all of what Marty has penned, and the other excellent relational questions and answers to it, by its readers, need a further look in another direction. That direction and question being: Who or what is Source?

    The problem (as well as the solution) with Scientology, despite its many many great pieces of tech, is that it was originated by one being. And while one may have their own opinions (Personal Integrity etc.) about LRH’s writings, both his personal beliefs, as well as his carved-in-stone tech, the more ‘organized’ Scientology became, the less one could either have self-determined thought, much less personal integrity etc.

    This problem of who or what is Source, is further complicated and bifurcated with laying down unalterable methods of passage through Scientology (aka KSW 1), to allegedly enable a ‘squirrelly-alter-ising-neophyte’ to begin to look, act and finally create for himself (sans alterations) – all the while ‘doing it standardly’ etc. Alas, for at some point, that ‘Source’ viewpoint (you) ultimately begins to think for itself, and begins to take issue with some of the views of the original Source of the writings (LRH) and the problem further expands and exacerbates.

    For, when one ultimately realizes it (whether one wants to or not) YOU are Source. But the bugbear on all of this is: so is everybody else! And this is where granting of beingness, ARC, rightness and ultimate freedom come fully into play. But the real key issue with being Source has to do really with only one thing: Responsibility.

    The reason we have multiple sources, as well as kool-aid drinkers and clubbed seals etc., is that in general people DO NOT want to become Source and take responsibility for their own cause and games. They simply want the ‘blue pill’ (ala Matrix). They want all the effects, sensations and distractions – and none of the cause. For it was that Static determined a long time ago (See Factor #1) that it was only going to deal with ‘effects’ and NOT its causal nature.

    Everyone (as Source(s) are simply just ‘playing games.’ Games were a solution to the problem Static had with itself as an essence and Cause (a topic for another day), and winning and losing, up and down, right and wrong etc. etc., became, and are still today, the order of the day. As LRH puts it in FOT, all games are aberrative, some are fun. So, if they’re all aberrative, why are we still playing them?

    The route through these games we are playing, all of the – them vs us, rightness and force, winning and losing etc. etc. is apply pan-determinism, ARC, duplication and an intention to fully and responsibly become Source in our own right, finally and once and for all.

    For factually when one can get through the myriad of games it is playing (even terminalization or the concept of becoming bigger or better “OTs” etc.), and to arrive back at more of a Static-state, questions like ‘organized religion’ etc. become minuscule and moot.

    A great fundamental place to start would be MSW (major stable win) OT TRO. For this, per the earlier significant post, is where Scientology truly began – as well as ended…

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      ” A great fundamental place to start would be MSW (major stable win) OT TRO. For this, per the earlier significant post, is where Scientology truly began – as well as ended…”

      +1

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      2cents! Thanks for a grand tour via one who has been
      around the neighbourhood a few times and is very
      familiar with the “sights and history” thereof.
      Of course, understanding of “the Factors” by LRH, in
      their entirety, including the duplication, manages to
      accomplish the reduction of the apparent infinity of the MEST universe, to Zero, while, as you implied, establishing
      the causal nature of the being, the life static. “The game,” set up by LRH, appears to sum up, via “the Bridge” as taking the being (conceiving itself as “zero”) to the (extant, but unrecognised) state of “infinity.”

      Your closing paragraph, encapsulates the essence of the
      truth, IMHO, but just to add this:-
      Parked off in Heaven, or Nirvana, or Cloud nine, or just
      CONTINUING to exist as our “departed” are doing,(sans
      a game!) is what causes us to leave the misery of being
      parked off in the grandstands of eternal spectatorism,
      to join up for yet another fresh round in “the game”.

      Hell, at the end of the day, what’s infinity sans interest?

  71. Another important observation is the one about there is not simply “understanding”, there are understandings. What I mean is that again, I think it’s important to see & absorb differences, details in everything. In the current c of s, you have a management that wants everything to be the same because it’s easier to manage that way. In our new & “better” world we are all creating, would not it be of more ability & higher quality for all of us to understand & enjoy our differences rather than the alternative of doing away with them? I will give an analogy: I played with a group of musicians. The most fun, invigorating activity was improvisation or creating freely together. Can you imagine a world like that? Believe me, that does not work with push, push, push, beat, beat, beat.

  72. “Is organized religion an oxymoron?” is the question posed.

    Short answer – no. There is a 3rd Dynamic, and beings work together, in religion or otherwise.

    Longer answer – I agree with the above posters, Chiun and dan (Expansion Theory of Policy post). I include The Structure of Organization: What is Policy? as a reference as well, among others.

    I studied the entire OEC/FEBC/DSEC very, very early in my Scn career. Lots of water has passed under this bridge since then. I don’t disagree with the Opening Piece in terms of mis-guided attempts at “resign” despite anything for example and some of the other egregious illogics present in abundance.

    I have never felt, nor have I ever been involved in any sort of “bait and switch” and it is not just denial of any such thing that I’m sitting on.

    The entire structure, all of the policy, any philosophical musings in a policy, any policy that is obsolete or inapplicable to later circumstances (see the PL, What is Policy?) has been to me, and from what I understood when I read the original OEC so many decades ago as a young man, always and as the most senior policy and operating datum, been to facilitate the delivery of the body of technology, including the study and duplication of that body as part of a complete route in Dianetics and Scientology.

    In an albeit short run as an independent practitioner, over the past year, experience has confirmed for me the hard one fact that Tech Results are achieved by the intelligent operation of ethics, tech and qual. A succinct statement of this is in CS Series 56 HOW TO GET RESULTS IN AN HGC.

    One of the early posters on this article, Espiritu, mentioned a request for specific references to support the “bait and switch” as referred to in the Opening Piece. I agree with that request, and in the spirit and letter of HCO PL 13 March 1965, Issue III, THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION:WHAT IS POLICY?, e.g., “…policy, to fit and be of benefit, must be itself born out of great insight and familiarity with the facts.”

    L. Ron Hubbard had both great insight, and familiarity with the facts.

    This is a long enough answer, for me at this time.

    • That should be “re-sign”, with a hyphen, in para 4 above.

    • Of course you don’t feel that way – I noted that Scientologists don’t feel that way at all. As to policy examples, just randomly opened Vol 2 OEC to this page from HANDLING THE PUBLIC INDIVIDUAL:
      Example: Miss N has heard of processing. She wants some. She never did DECIDE to want some. She just wants some. Now to ask her to decide ANYTHING about it blunts that purpose. It is a thin purpose. It quivers. Don’t ask her does she want a book or want training or want a pin or want anything else. Say only, ‘Ah. You want processing. That’s a good thing to want. Be here Monday and bring ________ funds.’ That’s all. If she says timidly, “I only have _____ funds,” say, “Good. Bring them; you can owe the rest. Be here on Monday. In short MAKE Miss N RIGHT for WANTING, thus intensifying the want. Make her RIGHT when she talks about money. Then, being right she CAN come in Monday. Simple. Chances are, even if she works, she’ll still come in. When she comes in she says, ‘I’m Miss N. I’m here for my processing.’ Reception MUST say, “Ah. You’re Miss N. Good. There’s the Accounts widow. Sign up there.’ The Accounts says, ‘Here’s the slip. Sign here. Take the slip to Room _____.’ Reception says, ‘This way Miss N.’ Estimations says, “let me have your Accounts receipt. Good. That’s fine. Have you been processed before? No? Well, you soon will be. This way please. Your auditor is waiting.’ The auditor says, “Over here, please,’ adjusts the pc’s chairs, etc., and sits down and says, “Start of session.’ At its end he says, ‘Be in this room at _______’ for Miss N’s next. And so on. When she gets her grade certificate she’s told, ‘That means you’re a Grade I preclear. Get the book ____________down in Reception. It will tell you all about Grade II.’ Miss N throughout is NEVER anything but 8-Ced. The general promotion told her what to want by saying she could HAVE it. She expresses the want. The org people say, “That’s a good thing to want. You can have it. And gives it to her. That’s all. Just as you’d never ask a pc which command he wanted, you never as the public individual to decide. You can teach them anything, particularly the truth. But never ask them to decide. By processing up the grades, this person will soon begin to see and be there and understand and decide. And she’ll surely decide she’s a Scientologist, as it’s true all the way!’
      Now, combine that with HCOPL 28 DECEMBER 1978 USE OF BIG LEAGUE SALES:
      The caper is to assume the individual has already chosen to buy a specific item and then to get him to make some minor choice about it which involves him and makes him assume he has decided to purchase it. It is a technique to bypass a large decision. EXAMPLE: Person hasn’t decided to have processing, salesman ignores that and asks him if he wants his auditing afternoons or evenings. The guy says evenings and forgets to notice he hasn’t decided to be processed in the first place.
      You want me to go on? I suggest rather that you pick up volume II and study it a little more closely.

      • “Say only, ‘Ah. You want processing. That’s a good thing to want. Be here Monday and bring ________ funds.’ That’s all. If she says timidly, “I only have _____ funds,” say, “Good. Bring them; you can owe the rest. Be here on Monday. In short MAKE Miss N RIGHT for WANTING, thus intensifying the want”

        We apply this policy and it works very well.

      • I agree Marty there is a huge problem here, but to me it goes back to the difference in character of a religion vs. a philosophy. Scientology seems to have started off on the right track — was being put there for anyone who wanted to participate as a philosophy that was rooted in scientific principles. That was philosophical. It got people looking. How can anyone pursue a philosophy except through their own deteriminism? How can anyone pursue science without testing to see if a particular theorem works? But then Scientology changed into a religion. Religion does NOT imply practicality, testing, or observation to see what works and is therefore true. Religion implies one thing: faith. No need to think any longer. No need to observe. Just trust us. Pay your money, do your next step and you’ll see the light. And the problem with that is many people didn’t ever see the light when they got to the end. What they did see was the fact that they had spent all this money and time pursuing something that never materialized.

        Their goals never materialized because they weren’t participating from the start, in my opinion. Hey, the tech works for me. Everything talked about as possible for OTs, is there for me. I don’t have ANY failed objectives. But I participated from the start. I personally dug through books and HCOBs, and more than a thousand LRH lectures that I didn’t just “listen to,” I analyzed so I could understand what he was saying every step of the way. I correlated everything.

        To me, calling Scientology a “religion” makes me want to throw up. It seems so perverse and deviant on every level. There is a bigger sky out there. To me, calling Scientology a “religion” is the misnomer of the century. We don’t need it. No one needs it. “Spiritual philosophy” is what Scientology is and that is-ness fulfills every need and more. The problem with “organized religion” isn’t “organized” it’s “religion.” The whole subject is a corrupt and perverted bait and switch for the real thing: spiritual philosophy. Wisdom only comes through exploration. Philosophy means “love of wisdom.” The Bridge requires participation or else it doesn’t work.

        So I think this policy that you quoted by LRH was indeed misguided. Staff need to encourage people to LOOK for themselves. Coaxing them to participate.

        When it comes down to it, that is what you are doing in this very post. That’s also what I’ve done through everything on Scientology-cult. And the product has become a new generation of Scientologist who ARE participating. What we are pushing is Understanding — the only track, per LRH, that has absolutely no liability connected to it.

        Thanks for your insights.

        • Thanks Steve. Good points you make. On the other hand, Scientology certainly serves well as the religion of many. When they get married they want a Scientology ceremony. When die they want a Scientology ceremony. When they suffer an egregious loss, the want to be ministered to; with empathy and understanding just as any Minister worth his salt provides. I was married with a Scientology ceremony and wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ve married and I’ve buried (actually spread ashes) others as a Scientology minister and will continue till this clay hits the clay with a Scientology ceremony, hopefully.

          • I agree with Marty – I’ve never had a problem with Scientology being a religion. I prefer “applied religious philosophy” and “applied philosophy” is fine too. But, dealing as it does so effectively (when properly applied) with the spirit and its relationship to life and the material universe, it seems to me Scientology has every reason to be accepted as a religion.

            However, I don’t think the problems stem from Scientology being a religion. I believe they stem primarily from its having been a MONOPOLY (until recently). Because, when you have a monopoly of something others consider extremely valuable, even vital, there really are no restraints (other than self-imposed) on your behavior, either as an organization or someone who works for the organization.

            A monopoly has absolute power over whatever it is they “own”. And thanks to Lord Acton, we know what happens when someone has absolute power.

            There are still many who cling to the idea that it is only through the Church of Scientology that they can walk the “route out”. But their numbers are dwindling by the day.

            The monopoly has been broken, regardless of whether the Church survives or dies. The Bridge, as laid out by Ron, can be accessed and traversed from a growing number of venues.

            Once everyone still loyal comes to understands and accept that fact, the corruption that is a byproduct of the monopoly will inevitably become a thing of the past.

          • Thank you Mary for creating such a stimulating forum and for your endless diligence as moderator. Here’s my answer: I think anyone that wants to call Scientology their religion has the right to.

            However, what I’m actually suggesting is going outside the box and creating a new category for ourselves while retaining the powers we have every right to conduct. I did not mean we would have to cease conducting Scientology ceremonies. These things are part of the powers we own. I would never suggest we give them up and walk away.

            I see no reason why a spiritual philosophy couldn’t have ministers, conduct marriages, funerals — all the things you are talking about. Maybe I’m wrong but it sounds like you think if we don’t call it a religion, then we can’t have these things. I’m suggesting we RE-DEFINE what a spiritual philosophy is and what it can do. We create a new category: a spiritual philosophy that can also do all the things a religion can do. Sometimes what has gone before can act like false data, forcing us into a given direction, when there may yet be a solution no one has ever thought of before.

            No power on Earth can stop us from creating something new. One of the biggest challenges to dissemination is the fact that Scientology is new and there’s nothing really like it. So why not create a unique category for it? We actually can do that. The Church cannot. They have to be a Church. We can simply do what we want because we are a movement.

            it’s like LRH’s description of grammar. Grammar is the result of usage, not so much the guide of usage. What we do establishes what can be.

            • Everyone is free to practice in the context they see fit. The Founding church of Scientology, D.C. Circuit Court of appeals decision makes that clear. It also makes clear that if it is done in a religious context, it is afford the protections of the religion clause of the First Amendment to the US constitution. If it is not, it is not afforded such protections. The latter makes it answerable to such entities as the FDA, and Psychological practices laws and the agencies that enforce them. It also makes such activity fair game to civil suits; irrespective how frivolous. For my part, it is a religious activity. Not because of those factors. Instead, because that is simply waht it is. Just today I completed the delivery of more than two intensives of life-changing FPRD, and concluded it with forgiveness. A more spiritual, religious experience – for me and my pc – could hardly be imagined.

              • Marty,

                Exactamente. We can define “religion,” “philosophy,” and “spirituality” as we wish within the context of our own consensus of minds and epistemological discussions. However, we also live within a culture and society of laws. We depend on the legal guarantees these laws and agreements currently afford. I’ve always thought that when LRH suggested we have a narrow window of time and space to “go free,” he had in mind a historical perspective that the notions of the Enlightenment era (on which the US Constitution is based along with the human rights protections we enjoy) may be only briefly dominate political thinking. Too easily, greed and power and fear of a global scale could sweep these “quaint” notions aside, and we go back to the status of “prison planet.”

                Furthermore, I don’t have a button on thinking of myself or my group as “religious” even though I don’t actively participate in any church. Also, my observation is that religion often helps people with simple stable data – such as the Ten Commandments or other similar codes that encourage pan-determined survival and social good. Most thinking people understand the function of religion socially and don’t take it to extremes. I don’t think we need be afraid of being labeled a “religion,” and the term “applied religious philosophy” works very well for me.
                Leonore

              • How wonderful. Forgiveness has long been forgotten in the COS when it comes to confessionals and, I believe, FPRD also. It is good to see that it is alive and well in your practice! Thank you for doing that. And I too agree that the practice of Scientology is a religion…..for me at least.
                You’ve got my curiosity about the court decision you refer to. I’ve never heard of it and it sounds very important for the independent field. If you could post the name of the decision, I would be very interested in reading it.

              • Theo Sismanides

                Marty, I agree with your viewpoint on religion. Though I would love just a modern philosophical movement, life is not lived alone!

                Just by the fact that you are actually delivering auditing you can have a much wider and wiser view of the spectrum here. An auditor must have the ability to create that intimacy with life (PCs) otherwise he is cut off by “natural” selection. Then he must understand life from a much higher viewpoint and seek to protect it as long as he can. The combination of an administrator being an auditor is unique. Basically I think this is DM’s problem. He is not an auditor, he wanted to be just an administrator. Not possible for too long. On the contrary you made it and so you can now get the benefits of it.

                Then on a 3rd dynamic basis I think that the factors you posted above about the protections of a religion are vital for the expansion of such a movement without too many casualties or avoiding turning it into fair game as you mention.

            • I agree with you.
              And I think it would be a good idea to start something to promote this new category.
              There are many sites concentrating on the wrongdoings of the organization (CoS).
              But I think Miscavige (junior) should be bypassed completley.
              At this point I don’t think the church(TM) can be reformed anymore.
              But people in the chuch can be invited in a positive manner to look at alternatives. There are tons of email adresses collected.
              This will hit Miscavige more than anything else.
              How about a website without the usual natter-natter?
              Just Scientology.
              (I know, there is many truth, but it is tough to grasp at once – and so the “lurkers” go “PTS” to the “bitter apostates” and need a handling before they recieved the message, LRH brand Scientology is in the Independent Field now.)

              I think there are much more people lurking than we think.
              But they mostly can’t see any alternatives as the average Scientologist is used to look at Scientology promotions designed per the Art-Series.
              This is not true for many “promotional” sites in the Independent field (freezone too).
              I don’t think it should be in an overwhelming, implant-like manner.
              Just as you said, a new category.

              Just some thoughts.
              Of course blogs like this and your scientology-cult (and many others) are important and need to continue as they are very valuable in discharching the 3D engrams.
              For this I owe you many thanks. This is great service you do.

            • Steve,

              Interesting comment. But I am afraid it doesnt quite work that way in reality.

              We operate in societies that afford protections to the practice of religion not extended to “movements”. Of course, those protections can be twisted to attempt to hide abuses (like the RCS does), but they do protect everyone’s rights to choose their path to spiritual enlightenment and participate in the practices that bring them there.

              I have experienced what it is like to have litigants sue you without the protection afforded a religion. Or the oversight of various government agencies who are restrained by laws that prevent them meddling in the affairs of religion. The category of “religion” has value. There is no doubt in my mind (confirmed by numerous courts and scholars) that Scientology IS a religion. I wouldnt be in a big hurry to abandon the protections that categorization provides — even practitioners who the church might want to take legal action against have an invisible force field erected around them as long as they keep practicing their religion.

              • I think the bigger issue was with the use of the word “church”. It was probably more needed, and accepted, back in the early 1950s. And it probably helped in the IRS decision. But I think it’s a loaded word and may have outlived its usefulness, as it also carries the idea of “western religion” along with it.

                I think that now that Scientology is widely recognized in the world as a religion, and the fact that new age and eastern ideas are more widely recognized and accepted in western societies, it might make more sense to use neutral words like “center for spiritual philosophy” (or some such) instead of “church”.

                • Hmmm. Interesting point!

                  • Yes, I think the term “church” created lot’s of antagonism through decades.
                    It’s a loaded term. The positioning is not good enough for a spiritual philosophy like Scientology.
                    Religion is still OK, but in the universal meaning of the word.
                    Religious or spiritual philosophy is best.
                    “Center” represents correctly what an Scientology organisation does.

              • Yes, Mike I appreciate that and I get your point. I am not saying get rid of all that. I’m saying we evolve further into a path perhaps no one has ever thought of before.

                There is another aspect to this issue that has every bit as much to do with the real world and the consequences of how we define Scientology. The public asks, “What is it?” What we answer makes a BIG difference. Why? Because if they perceive you as a LIAR, they write you off. And when we call Scientology a religion in the western world, I don’t care what the academics or legals say — because I’m talking about a reality among the human race — it is a deal breaker for 3.5 billion people. THEY don’t care who says it’s a religion if to them they can see plainly that 1) we don’t teach anything about God, 2) we don’t teach anything about Christ, 3) we do NOT hold Sunday services or Saturday services, 4) there is no faith required. Go ahead and call it a religion and they know one thing: You are a liar. And their interest is terminated. The king has no clothes.

                We can all pretend what we call Scientology has nothing to do with the future. “It’s their problem to figure out what Scientology is.” Or you can decide, “Well, if we don’t call it a religion, we’ll all be wiped out by courts and government.” Maybe so. But the consequence of this are so enormous that — I’ll tell you want — most people are in sub apathy about it. They don’t even have any feelings about something that should matter an awful lot to them.

                At its inception, Scientology was conceived as a solution to the threat of human self destruction. It’s in the first chapter of DMSMH. The workability of Clearing was based on the simple observation that if enough people in a group are Clear, the tone level of the entire group rises sufficiently to defuse self-destructive tendencies.

                Hence the fundamental ethical ideal and purpose of Scientology remains to reach as many individuals as possible as rapidly as possible. That does not mean to force Scientology down everyone’s throat (a self-destructive act in itself), it means to make the knowledge and services available and accessible to as many of those people who want it, as rapidly as possible.

                The legal necessity to call it a religion is so ingrained it is nearly impossible to get people to even consider that there could perhaps be a different solution — something creative and out of the box, that would actually use the various motions surrounding the subject to our advantage.

                Grade IV deals with the ability to move out of fixed conditions. This situation is every bit due to a computation made about what Scientology had to be in order to survive. My point is it’s not the only possible solution since there is not just one solution for anything. There are combinations of things, creative ideas… we are not the Church. What we might be able to do is not what they can do.

                When we call Scn a religion, we make it inaccessible to half the population on Earth. It’s a destructive act. It is what is making our job nearly impossible — so difficult that many people have abandoned the challenge altogether. Yet the cause of our own difficulty is ourselves; we are defeating our own mission and the purpose of help.

                I haven’t said what the exact solution is. I’ve only so far pointed to the problem. I’m looking for another way through the minefield.

                I look at the human race as people on my side. They are not my opponents. They are my team. If they have an issue, I try to find out why. What kind of a leader would let half his people step on land mines? A solution that does not enable them to have a freedom of choice is not a solution in my book.

                It is not possible to market something that people DO NOT WANT.

                So I’m trying to get us all to look and think in new directions no one has ever looked or thunk before. We need to do that because the optimum solution cannot be to condemn half the human race to a conclusion that Scientology is a fraud. They are not flexible and they will not bend if you call it a religion.

                LRH called it a science. Later he said religion. Yet it’s supposed to be the road to Truth. If we can simply find a way to stay with truth, perhaps by thinking outside the box, we have the chance of opening every door that currently stands closed before us.

                • Steve great write up. when i got in in 67 it wasnt a religion and it isnt now, it is a philosophy i like the road to truth.

                • Excellent post, Thoughful. This conundrum needs re-questioning.

                  Is Scientology defining itself as a matter of convenience at the expense of integrity? Did it follow a path because of suppression by another group, called government? Did it follow this path when the group in Scientology was PTS?

                  Did the group in Scientology permanently handle their PTS condition from their suppression by government?

                  Do governments have the right to interfere with a movement who is not doing any harm?

                  IMO, the handling was a temporary solution. It wasn’t a long-term victory. This temporary handling came at a big price, loss of integrity, IMO. It caused or allowed the avoidance of a permanent handle.

                  IMO, the permanent handle is to deal with the suppression of government.

                  As it is, we have a PTS civilization. It’s not just in corporate Scientology. We’re not done de-PTS’ing. Sociopaths in positions of power, running our planet, are not being handled. They’ve ruined our economy and have consistently encroached on our Freedoms.

                  Where is the attention on this? Great Scientologist investigative journalists in Freedom Magazine used to put a lot of attention on exposing the corruption in government. I was so proud of Scientology then. As far as I can tell, this has been stopped. Why? Who stopped it? Who is picking up this ball for Freedom now?

                  Isn’t the entire mission of Scientology supposed to be about Truth and Freedom?

                  I know with certainty this is NOT the perception in public. I would go so far as to say that the current perception of Scientology is the opposite, that Scientology is about Lies and Slavery. Scientology has been scorned so much that it almost seems delusional that it’s possible for the name “Scientology” to be held in good broad public esteem. As of now, it’s thought of as a bizarre and abusive cult, started by a science-fiction writer and should be stayed away from. How does one promote in this environment?

                  Perhaps it’s time to re-think the beingness of the subject. For a subject which is supposed to teach one how to handle the problems of life, it’s not bidding too well for itself in handling its own scathed identity and its own problems. If it can’t handle this for it’s own identity, how is anybody supposed to believe it can help others with their problems? There’s an utter lack of credibility here.

                  Do we just forge on trying to promote and deliver Scientology, and hope for the best that the attitude towards Scientology will eventually turn around, and people will eventually realize Scientology is a good thing for them? How many generations will that take? Is this realistic? Or does Scientology need to be completely re-branded with a clean slate so there is no stigma of its abusive history attached of which objections has to be constantly overcome?

                  IMO, religion itself is a huge key-in. Are we sure we want this approach? Is yet another religion needed on Earth?

        • I agree with Steve that the word Religion introduces the idea of Faith. That faith permeating intot he body of the philosophy helped to sully it.
          I can also see Marty’s point about it being helpful as a religion or religious practice.
          Somewhere in there is a basic problem, probably higher than my pay grade to sort out.
          There are lots of out points and plus points in and around this area. For example as a religion, Scientology gets some protection. As a philosophy it could be much more subject to attacks. On the other hand if it was practiced as it is in the Independent arena there couldn’t be much control exerted on it could there?
          As a philosophy it sould be used much more responsibly I feel as Steve points out. It is too easy as a religion to put it all on “auto pilot” and pay your money and get into “heaven”. And as the Christians say ” A rich man has as much chance of getting into Heaven as a camel does of passing through the eye of a needle.”.

        • “To me, calling Scientology a “religion” makes me want to throw up. It seems so perverse and deviant on every level. There is a bigger sky out there. To me, calling Scientology a “religion” is the misnomer of the century. We don’t need it. No one needs it. “Spiritual philosophy” is what Scientology is and that is-ness fulfills every need and more. The problem with “organized religion” isn’t “organized” it’s “religion.” The whole subject is a corrupt and perverted bait and switch for the real thing: spiritual philosophy. Wisdom only comes through exploration. Philosophy means “love of wisdom.””

          Thoughtful, I’m in agreement here. IMO, as I’ve written earlier, Scientology took a wrong turn when it redefined its beingness from “the science of knowing how to know” to a religion.

          Science holds sacred questioning everything. Religions do not. In religions, the right answers are already lined out for you in black and white in their TEXTS, and their doctrines and creed. You either agree, or you’re a heretic. In science, one is NEVER a heretic for disagreeing.

          Religion is a control mechanism. Even Hubbard said this in his early days. So why LRH thought he could convert Scientology from a science (even Scientology’s ROOT word is based on science) into a religion, and then somehow avoid the pitfalls of it becoming an authoritative and a severely controlling organization that inhibits and stops individual thought, as all other religions I know do, is dumbfounding.

          • Li'll bit of stuff

            Wayne, both Steve’s and your own view hold firm in
            the rough & tumble of divergent opinions. The one
            mitigating factor, as I see it, by the religionist view,
            is that Scientology DOES, by virtue of it’s “umbrella”
            nature, over arch into ALL aspects of human exist-
            ence, including faith,belief, purpose, worship, birth
            marriage, death and religious rituals, etc. and I
            sincerely believe that Hubbard himself must have
            wrestled long an hard to arrive at his eventual
            declared description : “applied religious philosophy!”

            Calvin.

      • My response carried the ideas of THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION: WHAT IS POLICY?, that’s why I referred to it. In other words, there is a Review function for all policy. I also have mentioned repeatedly on this blog of yours, REFUND POLICY and the very telling statements there, that ARE policy as well, being “green on white”:

        “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff, as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s the whole story of the GPMs. So why not have live orgs?

        “Policy is only vital where agreement must exist between two or more thetans working together. Beyond that it fails. A needful policy is “We’ll start work on time” since without it the org goes ragged. A useless policy would be “The
        Registrar must always smile at an applicant” for that puts a datum where a person should be.

        “So there are two kinds of policies- those needed to obtain work-together ease and those which seek to put a datum instead of a being in a position. The less you have of the latter the better things will get. The more reasonable the former, the more work will be done.” PL 23 Oct 63.

        The first example you’ve given here to me as to my denial of the state of being “inculcated” to wittingly or unwittingly be a pawn of the “bait and switch” of LRH’s policies, falls under the REFUND POLICY material, as well as material as far back as AP&A, where YES the preclear is “8-Ced”, most decidely (by the AUDITOR);
        “The auditor and preclear are a group.
        “To function well a group must be cleared.
        “The clearing of a group is not difficult. It requires but little time.
        “The relationship of the auditor and preclear is not parity. The auditor lends himself to the group as the control center of the group until the preclear’s sub-control center is established under his own control center’s command. The role of the auditor ceases at that moment.
        “The auditor necessarily owns the preclear. He owns the preclear on a lessening basis until the preclear owns himself.”

        Is that last paragraph a “bait and switch”, where you as the auditor run Tone 40 commands, as in CCHs, to the end where the preclear is under his own control?

        The other reference you have given me is one on Big League Sales. Well, let me say this about that. I hated BLS, from the moment I opened its cheesy cover and throughout its Death of A Salesman pages. It is Glengarry Glenross. It is a loathsome book, and I have NEVER used it. Puke, barf, raaaaaalph. So, that one doesn’t have much to do with my frame of mind in my purpose as a Scientologist. I have never crammed a single person on it. I have never referred anybody to it. The whole thing is repugnant. That’s me though, and somebody else may like it, use it or do whatever with it. So much for that “inculcation”.

        LRH said, clearly, with no reservation in THIRD DYNAMIC TECH, which was the very first essay in the Management Series I studied, that 3rd D tech is incomplete, with some key basics isolated and like DMSMH, a bright mind that can think with it, can achieve much.

        I’ve NEVER considered anything else about organizational policies. I still don’t. Yet, I realize that this man has consistently shown me his humility, his insight, his genius, his care, his life devoted to helping ME live a better one. And that I may do the same for others. And with that spirit I study the group’s policy, and in light of WHAT IS POLICY?

        Perhaps you consider me indoctrinated, in- “doctrinairre” even.

        That’s a big swing and a miss, my friend. And you ARE my friend.

        • Thanks for so thoroughly making my case, my friend.

          • Not really.

            It’s all in that first quote from Refund Policy.

          • Marty,
            I’ve often thought about something Annie told me, in those days just before Dave declared me, while she and I were working out what to do about the scene at Int.

            This is an anecdote. She told me that LRH had said to her he wondered whether or not he should just cancel ALL green on white policy. He was loath to determine the 3D FOR the 3D. He said much the same thing in a lecture I can’t recall the name of; hey, this is YOUR group, you decide, you make it what YOU want.

            In the final analysis – we are.

            • Thanks Jim. Yes, we are.

            • That’s good Jim.
              Isn’t that what ARC ultimately is? Things people don’t like get rejected and it doesn’t matter WHO says them.

              • Tony,
                The topic of things people don’t like is a fascinating one, to be sure. Acceptance/rejection, what condtion something has to be in for a particular being or group to accept them, to reject them is one of those not so obvious ones.

                Like the Missed Withhold phenomena. You know, here’s this person really upset, and with “good reason”, about somebody. Heck, look at all the nasty things they are describing were done to them, and boy does it sound reasonable too. Then, and maybe contrary to everything a person might think is “apparent”, a check into “is there something you’ve done that this person nearly found out about?” and BANG goes the meter, or off the meter, the upset ceases, on a dime it stops.

                Cleaned up, the upset is no more.

                P.A.Bs 15 and 16 go over Acceptance Level Processing. It’s one of those topics that is a “much more than meets the eye” sort of ones. In fact, what meets the eye, is not at all what really is going on.

                • I agree Jim it is a “complicated” subject. But if people understand the premis behind things and still reject it then you will have a hard time implimenting it. People are willing to look for MWH’s if they understand the principle. But if you keep grinding them on and on, you will get a revolt.

                  • Tony,
                    If you have to grind on and on for a MWH, then it’s time to check for something else. Wrong BPC. The right BPC handles the upset.

                    But the point I was making was on Accept/Reject. Those P.A.B.s.

                    • I know Jim.
                      The point I was making had to do with accepting/rejecting also in relationship to what people are willing to do third dynamically. A thing could be good to do but not understood well and rejected. Or a thing could be understood well and still rejected, such as disconnection policy.

        • Nice post Mr. Jim, well spoken. As with anything in Scientology one must grasp the concept and use it toward survival. PL Theory of Scientology Orgs also will fit nicely with your post.

        • My favorite PL of all time. Who’d have thunk it, such simplicity and sooth, coming out of something called the the Refund Policy! Kudos!

        • Hello Jim.
          Thank you very much for this comment.
          “HANDLING THE PUBLIC INDIVIDUAL” was never a red flag for me and I always understood it in the coherence with the AP&P quote you provided.
          However I have seen too many people taking this HCO PL too literally.

          I don’t think there is something particularily bad in controling the public up the line.

          But lots of crap arises when the regges are PTS and dramatize Can’t-Have – Must-Have on their publics.
          Nowadays this particular reference is poison in the hands of Miscavige (junior), the literarism-enforcer.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Great PL, Jimbo. Thanks for the differentiation there on the two kinds of policies. You are Div 5 and a Keeper of Tech there, there… hahaha. Thanks!

      • I see your point. But here is another, equally valid LRH policy from Vol II which gives another perspective to regging:

        HCOPL 4 JUNE 1959 DEFINITION OF A HOT FILE

        “Any person who has expressed interest in writing or call-in for training or processing of any kind is a HOT FILE.
        This must be handled in such a way as to HELP the person achieve his goal. This is highly personalized. Salesmanship and selling is OUT. We assume now that the person must be helped to achieve what HE wants, not what WE want. His job, family matters, time, all become the interest of Resgistration, and we ADVISE him by mail or personally how to get what he wants.
        We DO NOT keep SELLING training and processing to a person who wants training and processing. It’s sold. We help him achieve his goal by getting information and giving advice.

        ALL REGISTRATION PERSONNEL

        PLEASE master this principle. It will treble service and income if you do. There is a penalty for violating this.”

        But I get it that Scientologists can, have and do apply the Handling the Public Individual policy and other HCOPLs with a lack of wisdom and in ignorance of other policy. And, to my observation, this HAS been the usual application of registration policy in the COS.

        • Yes, I think the real problem is literarism.
          t is pushed hard in the CoS – don’t think: read it – drill it – do it.
          No understanding – only a pattern.
          Instead of a thetna, there is a circuit at work.
          This is what Miscavige (junior) desparatly tries to create -> Operating Circuits.

        • It is contradictions like this – which exist aplenty – which when combined with threats of eternal damnation for not following the letter of the writings absolutely literally which creates the most nasty form of cognitive dissonance.

            • Actually, I really don’t get your comment Marty. In fact, maybe I’m not getting something about this Opening Piece, for which I assume this “contradictions exist aplenty” response alludes to.

              Perhaps I should make my self clear, lest there be any doubts. I am “with Hubbard”. I don’t find “cognitive dissonance” in the work. The material, from the get go, is “of a piece”.

              The man that did the work has my unreserved, unmitigated, respect and my un-alloyed affinity.

              • Jim,
                I think you are demonstrating congnitive dissonance (or as LRH descibes it; the confining solution, postulate, or intnetion that invariably ‘solves’ the prior confusion) right here in real time. I’m here for you if you ever need me. Vaya con dios, Amigo.
                Marty

    • “Short answer – no. There is a 3rd Dynamic, and beings work together, in religion or otherwise.”

      Beings work together or they stick together. Through case or engrams or goals or needs or whatever. After I finished my OT3 I had a different take on groups than I did before I started the level. Mostly, I see groups as people that are stuck together by mutual handicaps / confusions / protest reads/out ruds. I did not say all. There are differences in groups and third dynamics. Not all third dynamics are healthy situations. I believe the majority of them are not.

      This planet has been on lock down for a long time. And with the case burden people tote, the fourth dynamic in itself is an enforced one. All the way down to the bottom of the CDEI scale.

      Joining groups in itself can cause a person’s case to get stirred up, as it did with the crew that took out the World Trade Center.

      I think with all things you have to consider the purpose. The purpose of this planet. The purpose of the group.

      The Church of Scientology started out with a good and noble purpose.
      There have been sub purposes planted into it that have risen in priority. This happens often in organized religion. It also happened in organized crime. Which is a third dynamic too.

      • Oracle,
        I think I understand when you remark on the difference between working together or sticking together, as in obsession. Not sure, but going on what I think I’ll try and contribute something to that idea.

        This universe seems to have a sort of rule of thumb, and that is that if you take a sensible thing, anything, and enforce it it can become aberrated.

        The Dynamics themselves are a sensible thing, for a long game, and a complex interweaving symbiosis. They have also been enforced in implants.

        If one considers, at least theoretically, that it is kind of idiotic that immortal beings are trying to survive, the Dynamic principle of existence, the arbitrary division of that principle to arrive at the 8 Dynamics, becomes a paradox. A sort of “oxymoronic” situation in itself.

        “Survive” is the middle of Create, Destroy. Those two end pieces were used to implant GPMs, contradictions, opposed, ideas held in polar opposition, to get the persistence of “survive”.

        Now, persistence, survival, duration and time as a playing field all are pretty good ideas. Until they become enforced. Then, as you mention, the scale goes down, Inhibit follows and then the whole thing starts again, lower down, more solid, less fun, “deadly serious” becomes real. Reverse that spiral, and you’ll find L. Ron Hubbard, with a shit eating grin, saying “hi, nice to see you. Have a rum. Put your feet up. It’s a pretty nice day.”

          • Oracle,
            I’m missing some sort of gradient scale association here. Not getting the jump to this video from the previous comments, or thread of them. The sequitur is not clear to me. The aspect of duplication in the comm formula is not happening.

            As we used to say when the ball went foul, “Li’l help”.

            • It is completely clear to me, follows perfectly.

              • So maybe you could pass on a “li’l help”. I missed something.

                • Here’s my understanding: The minute anyone (you, L. Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith) starts preaching about demons, implanters, or any other outside agents on someone’s case, and thus tells her something outside of her own considerations is what makes her tick or not tick, you have begun to reverse the process of self-realization and spiritual freedom. Maybe I am reading too much into the intent of her reply. But, that is what it meant to me.

                  • You read way too much into it. I just didn’t get the video in relationship to my comment. My comment had to do with hers, re: stuck in a group as opposed to working with one. If I mistook her point, then I mistook it.

                    However, mine had zip, zero, nada, sfa to do with HER as a case, or otherwise.

                    Oh yeah, you mis-read me. Again.

                    • I should clarify my response. I see that the last line of yours you seem to be referring to the significance of Oracle posting that video of a large Christian service, and that has something to do with my comment about GPMs and the difference between enforced Dynamics and causitively, in present time, supported groups. I still don’t get that sequence of the video to my comment. However, I’ll accept your interpretation as good as any, since none is forthcoming from Oracle at this point.

                      The fact that a being is responsible for their condition? Yes. That’s true. However, mis-identification, mis-ownership, mis-take can and does occur, particularly in implants. Umm, I can’t see any issue with this. A being spots the source of a consideration, the truth of it, and it as-ises.

                      As to mis-reading my intention, well, that part I get. That you made no mistake about. That I am fully familiar with. And this is the LAST time Mark Rathbun, in this life, that I will have that, from you.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Welcome back. Since you keep reading after bidding adieu, maybe you’ll hear this one last bit of advice, stop working so hard on mocking it up.

                  • I call it leaning on sermons and hymns.

                    ser·mon/ˈsərmən/
                    Noun:
                    A talk on a religious or moral subject, esp. one given during a church service and based on a passage from the Bible.
                    A printed transcript of such a talk.

                  • Your understanding took me by surprise. Your translations are brilliant.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Apparently, not appreciated by all. But, hey, I’m not here to entertain. Btw, I never meant “TO” by “her” as hard as he mocked that one up.

                  • “Here’s my understanding: The minute anyone (you, L. Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith) starts preaching about demons, implanters, or any other outside agents on someone’s case, and thus tells her something outside of her own considerations is what makes her tick or not tick, you have begun to reverse the process of self-realization and spiritual freedom. ”

                    I knew the auditor’s code was important to observe for the benefit of the P.C.. Auditor’s code breaks have annoyed me at times in session.
                    I only understood it before as a way not to knock the P.C.’s ruds out. But I had not thought too much about the theory behind it and what happens with these code breaks. This is an absolutely brilliant statement as to what the auditor’s code seeks to avoid. Why Hubbard wrote an auditor’s code and the need to use it. I knew about it before but it just moved under me with this explanation as something I can think with now. Not only in a session but in social intercourse. If a summary like the one above had been prefaced to the auditor’s code,
                    I think it would have made a world of difference in the world of auditing.

                  • Dear Marty,
                    With that reasoning, all of Dianetics, itself, would be a reverse process since LRH said (while giving full credit to Freud) in Dianetics that much of people’s behaviour and many of people’s ideas stem from a source that they are not aware of. I don’t think this is what you mean to say,
                    or is it??

                  • Theo Sismanides

                    Marty I sent an email here on these discussions! I am not gonna go into the video here by Oracle listening to the Holy, Holy, Holy for 2 minutes but I will state that if you are offering here to audit cases for free i am a candidate, too. Oracle might consider to buy some auditing though as this is not the place to lay down one’s case, IMHO.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Do not NOT review the material and then accuse someone of laying down her case. Your proclivity for choosing sides and then criticizing the OTHER side, without even examining, demonstrates the problem with the mindset Scientology tends to instill.

                • Jim, My comment to you was about self realization.

                  I became aware on OT3 that most groups are clusters O.K.? Your comment in return was a sermon about survival, the principles of existence, GPM’s, the 8 dynamics, scales, etc etc, that had nothing to do with comment I made about a SELF realization I shared with you.

                  Your response was about someone’s else’s realizations passed on to you, which you forwarded to me. You reversed the chart I laid out from my SELF realization onto a chart of Hubbard’s realizations. And you delivered a sermon.

                  I contributed a hymn to the sermon.

                  • Well thank you. I see your intent had nothing to do with Marty’s interpretation, nor mine for that matter.

                    Good on your win on OT III.

                    My point, not all groups are “clusters”. That is my “sermon”.

                    • If it’s OK with the moderator, to post this addendum.

                      P.S. Alas, some become “cluster f’s”.

                    • Marty’s interpretation was brilliant had everything to do with my intent. He just took my protest read, converted it into and acknowledgement for me and a constructive and theta translation for you. He raised the bar on the social intercourse for both of us.

                    • I made the same point. I said, “I did not say all.”

                      Organic gardening groups, community farming , cooking classes, book clubs, people uniting for construction purposes such as Humanity for habitat, the Peace Corps, which exchanges resources with the purpose to educate, mostly a teacher exchange with other countries, foreign exchange student groups, Toys for Tots, which collect toys for children who may not have any otherwise a Christmas, seem to be pretty theta.

                      I am sure there are many others.

                • Jim, It was YOU that asked for a “li’l help”. Marty gave you a lot of help with his response. There was nothing he said in that post that was not the truth. In fact, he made a very important point. He summarized the purpose of the auditor’s code!

                  • That was a HELP flow.

                    • Theo Sismanides

                      Oracle, as far as I know Jimbo has gotten a lot of help from Marty and vice versa. It would be good if you could find what was the problem in your communication here as I am trying to understand some things. Usually Jimbo is not so much into significance and I like his “didactic” ways as he is one who uses policy to base most of his allegations. I have been helped very much by the presence of Jimbo here on Marty’s blog so I think we can straighten out some things. Thanks!

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Wrong target.

                  • A “li’l help” in understanding what the video had to do with my comment. I now understand you were considering my comment didactic. OK. That is not what I had in mind, for you or anyone else. I was merely commenting on the idea of groups being obsessive or as I hope to achieve, a cooperative, present time effort in coordination. In fact, reading my comment again, it’s pretty darn clear that I validated you, with the CDEI observation. How on earth this can be construed as some other intention is something else.

                    So it is.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Let go.

                    • Let go? I have, you are on your own big fella.

                    • Issuing my own cram. I should have said it better than I did.

                      Refresh:

                      Marty: This state of affairs led to my posing the question, ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’

                      Jim: “Is organized religion an oxymoron?” is the question posed.

                      Short answer – no. There is a 3rd Dynamic, and beings work together, in religion or otherwise.

                      I should have ASKED, ” If the third dynamic is an organized religion of beings working together to assist in things which inhibit survival and destroying things which assist assist survival, would you see it then as an oxymoron?”

                    • Sorry, almost there.

                      I should have ASKED, ” If the third dynamic is an organized religion of beings working together, to assist in things which inhibit survival, and destroying things which assist survival, while seeing themselves and selling themselves as a third dynamic which is assisting in survival, wouldn’t that be an oxymoron? ”

                      And to Marty’s question :

                      Marty: This state of affairs led to my posing the question, ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’

                      I could have simply answered:

                      If the organized religion is a group of beings believing themselves and selling themselves as those assisting in survival, when they are actually assisting in things which inhibit survival, and destroying things which assist survival, then yes, that organized religion would be an oxymoron.

                      If a person believes them self to be, and is selling them self as one assisting in survival, when they are actually assisting in things which inhibit survival, and destroying things which assist survival, then that person would be an oxymoron.

  73. Oh yeah, Ted, the EPF MAA was Ted Horner, a fellow Denverite @ the time. Well thanks Ted, if you’re out there. I didn’t like it then but am happy it all worked out!

  74. So here’s a question. Can the formal Church of Scientology & the independent practice scientologists “get along”? Look @ it this way, by an official group of scientologists identifying itself & cordoning itself off from the rest of us…..it makes it really easy to know who NOT to get involved with! For me it’s similar to when I kept having barriers put in my way of doing “the bridge”. For the longest time I would stand back up & continue to participate in the c of s until I realized they were protecting me from them!
    After I realized that, I dusted myself off & am fine after all.

    • Matt: “So here’s a question. Can the formal Church of Scientology & the independent practice scientologists “get along”?”

      No, they can’t get along. Not as long as they are creating an implant station by not-isness and we are uncreating it by as-isness. Kinda like asking if a bank robber can get along with a cop.

    • “Can the formal Church of Scientology & the independent practice scientologists “get along”?”

      If you mean by that, each minds their own business, absolutely not. Corporate Scientologists are flowing power to a man and an organization who is continually destructive to Scientology tech. It’s not OK. It’s difficult to flow affinity to people who support such destruction.

  75. Maria, What you say is totally right. It’s really very simple!

  76. I have stumbled across GPM’s within Scientology. I find myself still working through them at times. One of the first things for me, that helped me keep a perspective, is that when I read anything by Hubbard that had word “you” in it, I knew he was not talking to me. I don’t know why. Because I see people read stuff he wrote and they seem to think he was talking directly to them. When he never met them. It started when I read the K.S.W. and he wrote, something like, “The life of every man woman and child depends on what you do here and now in Scientology.” I thought, “He could not possibly be talking to me.” Then I thought, “He must be talking to himself, because this seems like his bag.” O.K.. So I saw the difference between us. When I read, “Do what Ron would do.” I thought, “Why the hell would I ever do what Ron would do? I’m not Ron. I’m not even a man.” I mean, some of things I read made me laugh. I am thinking I could write a book here that would be hilarious. I thought often about become a stand up comic just for Scientologists. But then I realized I would not have an audience because of the “deadly serious” activity. I wasn’t serious when I got into Scientology and I did not want to be serious about anything. I got my fair share of critisism. “pts to the middle class” “reasonable” “drug case” on and on. What was really weird for me was when I went clear. I attested to, over a period of days, many things as the Dianetics Clear policy had not come out. Keyed out clear, Native state, keyed out OT as they tried to audit me and I just kept itsaing. Finally they told me to leave and come back when I felt like more auditing. I came back the next day. “Why would I want a day off?” After two weeks of trying to continue on Dianetics, you know, I kept saying, “There is nothing there. I mean this resource has vanished.” I never ran an engram after that. They thought I was a resistive case and I got Lx’s. I loved it! Still, then time to return to Dianetics? “There is nothing there.”

    “Go home, come back later.” They said. “But I don’t want to go home.” I protested. “You have to go out and get keyed in again.” They said. For real?

    That took like ten years O.K.? Anyway, I could not believe other people actually ran engrams after going clear! I heard about it. I just didn’t know how they did it. Because some said, “Locate…………” ????

    When I finally did get “keyed in” again, I had already had a DCSI. Now I am sitting at Flag saying, “I can’t possibly be clear”. So I have a CCRD. I am confirmed as “clear”. I am still caved in though. I say, “I can’t possibly be clear.” I get a second CCRD. I am confirmed as clear. I say, “Do I look like a fucking clear to you?” The auditor says, quite irritated now, “BUT YOU HAVE HAD THE CLEAR COG!”
    “Oh really? Pray tell what was it?” I ask. He says, “I can’t tell you.”
    I say, “You can’t tell me my own clear cog?” “It’s confidential.” He says. “If I told you, then how can it be a secret from me?” I ask.

    I mean, yeah this stuff went on. I just knew when I bumped into a wall in Scientology, I had to shift gears and go off and do something else that worked for me. I saw other people hit a wall and become imbedded in it.

    Hubbard had a lot of answers for a lot of people, a brilliant, genious.
    But in the end, people have to come up with some of their own answers. And a lot of people are not up to that. In then end, if you are a product, you have to come with your own answers altogether. No one will ever have better answers for you, than yourself. I have thought a lot over the years about the culture, about the differences between and other people. Why? How? I prefer to come up with my own answers, for myself.

    I think the biggest difference between myself and others, is that I was not interested in suffering. I was deeply suspect of any suggestions that I should suffer as a result of my exploring Scientology. In fact, any suggestion that I should suffer, from anyone, I see as a red flag.
    Punished for exploring Scientology? That was something I never agreed to. I did not feel I owed that to Hubbard or anyone else. I saw other people get into it. Suffering, Sacrifice, punishing themselves and others. That was a place in Scientology I did not belong. I have been called “selfish, self determined, and dilettantish.” As a result. I just looked at the person ser facing on me and thought, “Misery? Um, No Thanks. Like, go peddle that stuff on some other corner.”

    I had to go all the way up the bridge into solo auditing and through two L’s before I could look at a Scientologist and admit, “Drugs were highly beneficial for me and that’s just the way I feel about it.” Funny, The other said, “I feel the same way.”

    Yes, organized religion is an oxymoron to the extent one substitutes other people’s truths for ones own truths and these conflict. A truth for someone else can be a lie for you. But each person is capable of sorting these things out for themselves. What is true for you can be a lie for someone else.

    One of the scariest things I have seen in Scientology, is when you talk to people and they only repeat Hubbard’s words for 80% of the conversation. We are all capable of reading his books. When you get pages flying out at you from someone’s face it’s kind of spooky.

    • Thanks for the fascinating perspective.

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      Fascinating !
      I also got an LX for the same reason ! :)

    • “One of the scariest things I have seen in Scientology, is when you talk to people and they only repeat Hubbard’s words for 80% of the conversation. We are all capable of reading his books. When you get pages flying out at you from someone’s face it’s kind of spooky.”

      The Oracle, good post. Some of my family members are this way. I can hardly communicate to some of them without having loads of Christian scripture hurdled at me in writing and verbally. The spooky part to me is knowing you’re not hearing the real person right there in front of you, you’re listening to another person they’re in the valence of. In my case, I’m watching the valence of a person in an ancient tribe in the Bible.

      • That reminds me of a time I got approached by a Christian in a coffee shop. It was about 4:00 in the morning, I don’t even remember what city I was in. I was 16 and I just wanted to have something to eat and go to sleep. I am waiting for my breakfast and this young buck walks up to my table and sits down. I swear he looked just like all of these pictures you see of Jesus Christ. That hair, the beard the brown eyes the whole package, and he is carrying a bible and looked to be 24 to 26 years old.

        He slides into the booth and sits across from me, starts up on this clearly practiced patter about how all of the bad things I have been, done, had and thought, are caused by demons. He goes on in the tone of complete sympathy and forgiveness. “It is not you, it is Satan. You are innocent. It is the Demons. You can give yourself to Christ…” He is going at it 45 minutes. Finally he waits to see what effect he has created, the big brown doey eyes gazing at me in sympathy and “love”.

        I knew what he was thinking, a young chick like me out at 4:00 in the morning. A real sinner.

        A few months earlier I had had Integrity Processing and run responsibility process’.

        I was done eating and I leaned across the table and said, in a very real concerned way, “You know, when I do something wrong I admit I did it and I don’t blame it on some little demons floating around my head.”

        His face shape shifted into a gas tank leaking gas. It was like a stop watch that dropped ten seconds at a time as all sympathy and love escaped him. For a minute I thought he was going to hit me. “You little fucking bitch!” He sqeaked.

        He picked up his bible and walked out.

        • This story is very relevant to the Scientology situation. A very similar frame of mind to that fellow is inculcated in an dramatized by long-term, veteran, ‘high case level’ Scientologists.

          • So true Marty. As an OT 8 I can ‘attest’ to that. Here’s an example of how it’s done, taking the literalness of LRH and ramming it down everyone’s throat:

            “Anything for which the individual feels any misemotion—antagonism,
            anger, fear, grief, apathy—is something for which he has not accepted responsibility; and there is misemotion only when an individual refuses to accept responsibility in that sphere of action.” LRH, CAUSE AND EFFECT, February 1952

            So that is part of the idle org reg packs. And of course used whenever someone exhibits misemotion to the fundraising. It spreads from the SO fundraisers and then amongst the so-called OTs and readily used.

            The result is if you dare to exhibit below 2.0 this is the enforced reality justification.

            • Wow

              • I think we’ll have much to talk about, from the public side of the fence. Thanks for the ack :)

              • Marty, this is what I was describing earlier on this post. These things are squirreled and altered/misapplied admin tech. Miscavige reads some bit of LRH and somehow gets from it that it means PC’s should be beaten before session or something (or be routed to an IAS reg after). It’s his own tone level and case and then it trickles down to the Orgs and throughout the Church. I still feel like you are pinning it on LRH and I don’t get where that it coming from.

                The church forces everything. It is below 2.0. These things including “Policy” are crammed down peoples throats. That doesnt mean the LRH writings are wrong or harmful. It’s the group and the application that is incorrect.

                When I use Admin Tech in my business I crack open a volume, find some good applicable references and get some data that helps me handle something. It’s not absolute cut in stone law. Thats below 2.0. Maybe you should separate the writings from the Church tone level.

            • For real? This is what the Idle Orgs “reg” packs have? I would ask, “What are you “registering” me for?

              Registration: The number of persons registered; enrollment.

              beg :
              1. To ask for as charity: begged money while sitting in a doorway.
              2. To ask earnestly for or of; entreat: begged me for help.
              3.
              a. To evade; dodge.
              b. To take for granted without proof.

              There is a major BEGGING situation in the Scientology culture. Especially taking for granted without proof. I never even asked to see something in writing from Hubbard that OT8 should be delivered on a ship! It turns out he says it will be in the A.O.’s.

              The people begging for money for the buildings are nor registrars, they are not enrolling anybody on any service. They are evading and dodging selling and delivering Scientology services and getting people up the bridge , taking for granted without proof, they should be begging for real estate investment money from members of the Church.

            • Theo Sismanides

              Starman8, This is two value logic. I think people who see the registrar should know this. I will repeat this… just because DM is getting a very bad show on the road it does not mean that WE all now forget Source and blame it on how many contradictions are there.

              I used to be in the Academy studying bit by bit. Clearing up words as a foreigner. I could see all the quickies in study tech. Look up the word, bum bum “clear it up”, derivation? nah… any brighter nah….? oh finished the course, WOW!!!

              This is the problem with Scientology. Source is NOT duplicated yet fully. Whoever claims to have FULLY Duplicated Source yet, is a liar. Except for DM who is a lunatic and an SP. Let’s be OTs, not just Thetans.

              LRH says why are you afraid of your neck? That is the real problem. To be afraid of YOUR neck. Just shove it back to the registrar and say: I don’t see how this applies. End of interview. Keep one’s position in space.

              • “Just shove it back to the registrar and say: I don’t see how this applies. End of interview. Keep one’s position in space.”

                Very true. I don’t think many people can keep one’s position in space. I know I do that very well and it ruffles regges to the extreme. It’s usually followed by make wrong, but I consider the source!

                Regarding the KSW debate on ‘the’ – my 2 cents, isn’t LRH merely referring to having the correct non-squirrel Scientology technology? Doesn’t communicate to me as being THE only technology.

                • “Regarding the KSW debate on ‘the’ – my 2 cents, isn’t LRH merely referring to having the correct non-squirrel Scientology technology? Doesn’t communicate to me as being THE only technology.”

                  Starman8,

                  This should answer your question;

                  “Scientology is *THE* only workable system man has.” (Emphasis mine)

                  - HCOPL 14 Feb 1965 KSW Series 4 Safeguarding Technology

                • Theo Sismanides

                  Starman8, yeah thanks for the duplication.

    • Hi Oracle,
      You are an excellent communicator!!

    • In my own delving into GPM phenomena I ran into the curve of curves whenever “you” or something similar is recorded anywhere in or near an equation (it’s more raw, blunt explanation is covered in Dianetics when the word ‘you’ is recorded in an engram phrase). Answers require a question and solutions require a problem, there never seems to be a suitable 3rd option to break the merry-go-round.
      3rd Dynamics are a very good source for answers to who you are and also where you are. Every one of them are false to varying degrees otherwise you wouldn’t be in one at all. The term aberration does has its rightful place in creation.
      Getting an absolute of you as an answer or solution is taken very seriously in this universe – I’ve noticed members of groups are very quick to prempt any agenda they have with identifing you or they begin their sentences with “you”… A master of creation or any uptone artist doesn’t require an order or agreement to do something or to get something happening. Quite often they welcome you onboard with the simple requisite of can you contribute something creative or just be good fun to have around.
      TO, I agree wholeheartedly with your findings that answers must be self obtained or at least have your own honest agreement. The Church is no longer a happy place to seek spiritual solace, it’s so damned you need to do this or do that and none of its members are honest enough with themselves to actually know who they are as individuals – they ooze deciet.
      It’s a trickly playing field we find ourselves in but it’s best kept lubricated with honesty and respondsibilty. Bodies especially when they get older and a spiritual way out don’t seem to be all that co-operative as a joint venture.
      I enjoy your posts.

      • “A master of creation or any uptone artist doesn’t require an order or agreement to do something or to get something happening. Quite often they welcome you onboard with the simple requisite of can you contribute something creative or just be good fun to have around.”

        So true. Vital information!

  77. Great article!!!
    …and I loved your book!

  78. In the beginning during the 50’s Ron was freely moving about and the research was moving ahead at a fast pace. The constant and continuing lecture series kept interested peoples abreast of the latest findings and procedures advanced along this path of spiritual enlightenment. Organization was minimal.

    Trained auditors operated in small groups and organizations or on their own charging whatever they deemed reasonable. The movement bloomed. The controls were minimal.

    As the movement and the methods grew and improved those trained yesterday in yesterdays techniques became a pariah to the newer methods developed. LRH denigrated these yesterday trainees in public forums under the banner of the new and improved. Their ‘sin’ was they weren’t keeping up with the new and improved. This does not mean that the newer materials were not improvements; they certainly were but the chastising set the stage. Either you were up to speed with today’s methods or you were not doing your best for your P/C’s and possible even inhibiting them. This was LRH’s ego overriding his better judgment.

    This view carried through his entire carrier, his methods alone are sanctioned, all others are shunned. Now this is not to say that this is bad necessarily but it is a point on which the entire movement pivoted and still does to the point of self destructive policies later developed and issued to enforce this sanctioning on all those who enter.

    Now before any yowl that standard tech is held in this wise let me say I understand the need to maintain a standard. Certainly when traversing the mine field of the human mind and the need for an accurate map.

    The problem is one of damning yesterday’s cars because todays are an improvement. Obviously yesterdays car still works, maybe not as well or as smoothly but you can still get to the store and back. LRH never let the market decide for itself which car to buy but enforced the buying of the always newer car, his newer car.

    As the original household, neighborhood and community type of movement evolved to organizations, central organizations and world headquarters with sanctions, controls and penalties on certification and delivery and the demand for statistics a chasm was created within the organization. The chasm was a dearth of ARC and a demand for the always newer version or be castigated.

    This lowering of ARC for their public and fellow staff defaulted to using the established rules (policy), absent any connection to the individuals they serve. In other words, as the organizations grew, the level of ARC for the individuals in it and their publics fell. A fall from grace was dealt with harshly.

    Any visit to a LA area DMV is demonstrative of how this works. The individuals in the DMV have no personal connection to those they serve and follow the rules rotely. Individual circumstances hardly ever bear on their established procedures which have been laid down in steps 1,2,3,4. Everyone is put through these steps whether their circumstances dictate it or not. This is the nature of organizations. The bigger they are the higher a manager rises, the less connection he has to those he purports to serve. Eventually the manager is managing the organization, and people and product are just numbers.

    In order to produce that product in volume something of this structure is necessary. The problem is the disconnection between the organization, the people in it and the individuals it serves.

    So in answer to your question; No, I do not believe organized religion is oxymoronic. I do recognize that it can be problematic absent a real connection between those running the organization, those working in the organization and their public.

    Make ARC within the organization as high priority a priority as it stats. Without it, punitive measures for compliance and the stat push mentality eventually rule.

    • Very interesting. Thanks

    • This view carried through his entire carrier, his methods alone are sanctioned, all others are shunned. Now this is not to say that this is bad necessarily but it is a point on which the entire movement pivoted and still does to the point of self destructive policies later developed and issued to enforce this sanctioning on all those who enter.
      This is true and this needs to be recognized as LRH expressed some “meanings” during his work which are not really accurate.
      Many of these “facts” are harmless, but some have unpleasant side-effects and some need to be stripped as false-data as they can stop the ability to learn in different fields. Some are just ridiculous if a person learns about Scientology and LRH talks about a subject where the person may have fluent knowledge of. This can cause the person refuse further study of Scientology.
      Trying to un-create the track of “other-intentioned” philosophers wasn’t an easy task for Ron. I understand his motives. And it doesn’t make me think bad of him. It’s just important to know that he was not a God. He was not a perfect being. There are no perfect beings. There are beings to try to be better tomorrow than they are today. But absolutes can’t be reached. We just can be better.
      The best approach is to apply the “What is true for you is true for you” rule.
      It should be possible in Academies to refuse a datum (many of them are of no importance for the application of Scientology anyway).
      It’s not possible today in Orgs.

  79. Fond memories are being evoked … being in an org on a Thursday morning and catching the Deputy Commanding Officer screaming about “failed resigns.” Another: sitting in the reg office on a Thursday morning and being begged by a reg to “please buy something” because his only prospect so far fudged and he has zero stats for the day.

    • And some unfond memories of standing in HCO at ASHO listening to a teenaged MAA screech at a middle-aged Briefing Course student and demand that the student write up O/Ws for wanting to take an LOA from course.

      • And they can’t figure out why there are so few BC students.

      • Was this around 2005 at ASHO Foundation ? Teenager name of Dagne, by any chance ?

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

        • I think it was more like 2007 … MAA was Dennis Robb, I believe, and maybe he was not a teenager anymore, but maybe like 20 years old.

          • Yes, ASHO Foundation.

            • What is it about ASHO Foundation MAA’s? Do they deliberately try to find SP’s for this post? LOL. I had my own problems with the ASHO F MAA way back in 1979 when he personally declared me an SP (no justice), and escorted me out of ASHO. He apparently didn’t like me writing previous KR’s on him. It was then I determined the orgs were insane. That was the end of my Sea Org career. (I’m thankful I never got too deep in the mud.)

              • Theo Sismanides

                Hahaha, Safe I have been a recruiter at ASHOD. I was of the few “foreigners” there. Ended up at ASHO as I was not fit for translations uplines being just Greek, English speaking, with a Degree on Law… DM couldn’t have me up there… me either. So was put to ASHO. I was lucky I had studied parts of the PDCs when in Athens before going to the SO in Denmark (1990) before I went to the US (1991). In Denmark I got my first M9 by Phillipe Lombroso and was keyed out. Though I had a Proficiency in English I started for the first time understanding how to understand words I didn’t know.

                So, arriving at ASHO I did a lot of wordclearing myself. Who was the Sup there? Can’t remember his name. There was Bill Skrivars or something (don’t recall his last name) in Qual I think, some girl name Penny, an Anne something was the HAS, a very fine lady but otherwise not so bright in my opinion. Lisa Hamilton and Mike were there, Mike on Foundation, two great people, I am glad they are here now…

                ASHO was a school for me but just because I was left alone to do my thing there and study LRH on my own off post time. Otherwise it WAS crazy, hahaha. We never had a Captain of any real caliber. That was the problem. No Thetan there really. Rich Cohen tried to do some things but he was not the bright either. I could say this because he didn’t have a full grasp of the org board. He was calling me a squirrel because i wanted to apply the org board on the CF post I held in 1994 and the CF was huge and I wouldn’t make it if I filed ALONE! ASHO was just a typical SO average org floating around in PAC. No nerve there for a Class VI auditors making org.

  80. Personally I do not see a problem with “organised religion”, per se. It is useful to have a collective body (or series of bodies) which draws people in and allows them to congregate peaceably in relation to a shared goal.

    There are other good reasons, such as producing figureheads to represent a religion on the world stage, promoting general global awareness of its existence, as well as of course codification and archival of texts, and so on.

    In theory.

    The problems come when doctrines, rules, and viewpoints become so concretized in the main body so as to unnaturally limit the freedom of all individuals who associate with it. Many people want spiritual freedom but sometimes the compromise is too high for what can turn out to be some paltry scraps. All religions are guilty of this to some extent or another.

    I think that, in part, the answer is a combination of reform on the macro level and some allowance of individual interpretation and practice on the micro level.

    The purpose of a spiritual path is to bring the individual to a state of knowledge and wisdom, which they are then able to apply in their current life and maybe even in any other form of existence to come. If the central governing body has too much power or influence over the thoughts and feelings of an individual, then this state of knowledge cannot reasonably be achieved in its vicinity.

    The Church of Scientology is in a very critical position because it has been established as the sole source of dispensation and activity regarding the subject itself.

    Oftentimes, when cults rear their ugly heads in society and cause untold damage, the main religious bodies have the privilege of saying “oh, they are not really related to us, they’ve distorted the teachings for their own sordid purposes!”. This is not possible for the CoS to genuinely claim. And of course this has the devastating effect of poisoning the entire well in the eyes of the public – the very people who are supposed to be won over en masse.

    Regarding Buddhism: despite being an extremely profound and compassionate philosophy, it seems that no amounts of checks and balances have been able to create truly problem-free organisations. I think this proves that the defilements of the human mind are very powerful and there’s no easy solution for enlightenment.

    The positive side is that there are many paths with their various views and practices, which different kinds of people are attracted to. This can be seen to have happened naturally, or intentionally through different expressions. I believe this is what Buddha had intended, such as expounded in the Lotus Sutra.

    As long as we connect, freedom is ours.

    The other side of this meaning, however, is that one path can never be for everyone. Having said that, basic meditation and yoga have become acceptable practices in our society today, so at least the general population can reap some benefits and, in the long run, gain clarity of mind.

    I appreciate Hubbard’s efforts to reach a wide amount of people through the dissemination of Dianetics. Counselling is also an acceptable practice in our society and it is easy to see the potential for bringing people in through this door.

    There is often a reason why specific paths exist, so I don’t think it is the best idea to completely combine Buddhism and Scientology together, but I don’t see any reason why they cannot both be followed with presence and awareness.

    • “There is often a reason why specific paths exist, so I don’t think it is the best idea to completely combine Buddhism and Scientology together, but I don’t see any reason why they cannot both be followed with presence and awareness.”

      I don’t see any reason to combine Buddhism and scientology. In fact,
      I would keep them distinct. In fact, I would not change one word of the
      Buddha’s teaching.

      GMW

      • All depends on whose 500 years after the fact words you are referring to. But, can’t really argue with the 4 Noble Truths and great 8 fold path. In my view, Scientology works wonders when used to assist someone in what some say the Buddha said is a construct (4 Noble Truth and the 8 fold path) that one personally works on continually.

        • In my own particular situation, I would say that scientology worked best at the level of ‘emotions’. The 4 Noble Truths and the 8 fold path can be viewed at the mundane and the supra-mundane level so a conclusion is difficult.
          By ‘emotional’ level I mean what the Buddha would refer to as feeling and consciousness. Others may interpret the value of scientology in
          different ways. There are many assists in scientology which also have real value. Although I would not compare the TR’s and meditation, I would grant that the idea of ‘present time’ is of real benefit.
          Buddhism has its drawbacks because it is very difficult to attain the first step of the 8 fold path in modern society which is ‘right view’
          ‘Right View’ is simply seeing the world as it is with all of its stress.
          To a certain extent ‘right view’ is like pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.
          At the time of the Buddha, it is reported that ‘right view’ was easier because distractions were not as common in ancient India. In addition, the ‘wandering seekers’ were primed for something new such as what the Buddha offered.
          It is obvious that corporate scientology is a huge block to the Buddhist path or to any spiritual insight. Therefore, we have the independent movement as the real essence of scientology.
          In this case, I see the auditor/pc relationship as indeed helpful.
          This relationship makes for speed in progress. The barriers to the understanding of the Buddha’s teaching are substantial. I’ll give you a story of my own. When I started to learn Pali, I thought that I would never need to go back to English. However, I found that the teaching actually transcends language. As one would say in scientology,
          you reach ‘know’
          I don’t recommend a combination of buddhism and scientology.
          In fact, in many ways they very different. However, I acknowledge
          the contributions of auditing.

          May all linguists be well and happy!
          GMW

          • Hi George,

            Good to hear from you again. It is interesting that you have studied Pali!

            I understand what you mean about how the teachings transcend language. However, it is possible for meanings to get lost in translation or to not be conveyed adequately enough – a simple example being “dukkha” as “suffering” – not entirely wrong, but it can lose some flavour. So it is always important to have knowledgeable translators

            But I agree that these truths can be discovered regardless and, in that sense, we can go beyond words.

            I do think that many people have enough experience with suffering in life to become interested in walking the 8 Fold Path. And, as a society, we at least have some kind of abstract idea about karma, even if it’s just “what goes around comes around”. So it’s a reasonable enough starting point.

            I see what you mean about Right View – a lot of people are satisfied with seeking happiness just for this life alone and in that regard have no real interest in or drive for total enlightenment. But, I think that even just by seeing buddhist symbols, at least people will create a positive connection for future lives and be reborn in a place where they can practice dharma.

            My point earlier regarding “combining Scientology and Buddhism” was more that I don’t see it as being a good idea to try and calculate or figure out a way to create some kind of new two-headed beast.

            Having said that, if there are Buddhists who see value in certain methods or techniques such as auditing, then I don’t see why they cannot be practiced. Same goes for Scientologists who find shamatha and vipassana helpful.

            Also, there are circumstances where Buddhism has changed form in some ways, such as the Taoist influence in Ch’an / Zen, or the influence of native Bon in Tibet. The former seems to be a case of natural absorption, whilst the latter is often held to be a product of insight. But all of the original texts are still intact and the final meaning of enlightenment hasn’t been modified in any way. If anything, dharma has been brought to the widest possible audience.

            This is sometimes going to happen, and who knows what the future holds?

        • Marty,

          Agreed – the 4 Nobles and 8 Fold have the ability to stand up in their own right. I think you can really throw them around and they will always be able to pass muster.

          This is not to say that Gautama’s observations about other realms of existence and past life events aren’t useful. It’s just that, in order to verify them, we need to become more spiritually advanced and use powerful methods to observe this phenomena for ourselves.

          I had noticed that LRH observed that Gautama wasn’t the first to have ever taught these fundamental truths – it’s just that he made such a splash that he’s come to have been identified with them in our current age. In fact, this is an orthodox Buddhist position and a perfectly legitimate view at any rate.

          On the whole, I have become more curious as to Hubbard’s own interest in Buddhism. What I have found so far is that there is certainly more than just a little basis for discussion.

          The major points I have discovered about LRH’s views are:

          1) Buddhism is true;
          2) It can produce complete results; and,
          3) Scientology is a distinct discipline.

          Now of course there are lots of caveats and if’s and but’s to all of this. But it is interesting all the same and I look forward to further study.

  81. I once asked myself what the ideal spiritual group should help an individual achieve:
    1. To discover and follow one own’s path.
    2. A very high degree of freedom from need or dependency on the group or ob outside sources or influences in order to keep on growing.
    3. The ability to be being a soul, to operate from the viewpoint of being a soul as opposed to being a group.

    In my view, Scientology failed in all 3.

    The wisdoms and “awarenesses” I gained from my involvement in Scientology and from Ron’s wisdoms was and is priceless.
    Ron’s description of what a soul is all about is the biggest factor in having become aware that I am not the ridges, flows, energies in my world. That, allowed me to become objective to them and do whatever I wanted with them.

    The concept of flows and ridges is an extremely precious to me because, to me, is what my “case” was and is mostly about.

    But I believe that Ron’s intent became: 1) to make me dependent on him and his viewpoints for my growth and the viewpoints I should be assuming; 2) to make me dependent on the e-meter for finding out what was going on and not going on in my world (as opposed to a gradient system which increases the knowingness of the person); and 3) to have me assume the identity of a Scientologist so that the unlimited viewpoints a person who is able to be being a soul has and can have are prevented, occluded or dimmed.

    The wisdoms that Scientology contains have a tremendous amount of potential and ability to help achieve the 3 pts. I mention.
    I do have to say that, to me, many of the “wisdoms” were very destructive, but that is an essential part of finding one own’s path.
    My hope that it happens is still the reason that 27 yrs. after I left Scientology I am still connected to it and keep wanting that the great parts of it, the consciousness it offers, helps others achieve their own “soulhood” without having, as a requirement, to assume a group identity.

    The accomplishment of helping a soul find his own path and be guided by it, is, to me, the most unselfish and decent deed I can think of.

    I am very glad to have read what Marty has written.

    • Great post.

    • Theo Sismanides

      Luis, the real us is a 7th dynamic. Not because I have read it by LRH or the E-meter told me. It’s because I always felt this way and now I know it through Scientology. It is true that many Scientologists see spirituality through LRH and that’s it. Through the scriptures and their cases. But as one moves along, as one clears up words and definitions and moves onto the Realm Of Concepts one has no other way than to Understand Who He Really Is. It is with this Understanding that one starts the long journey of Being Oneself and then maybe just BE.

      I would expect that many more Scientologists would be reaching those states but this is not the case. However, because of our common language and terminology we can still Understand better each other than many others. This strong 3D of ours keeps us afloat and keeps us moving up. The 3D after all is the axis on which survival turns. So i expect from now on that the Game is changing, that we are going to have more souls finding their own path. We have just started a new game on a new plateau. Out of the Box… hahaha!

      • Thanks Theo for giving me your viewpoints.

        You are very right. As one is able to make happen becoming more “soulful” and less physical (inside), even if it is initially through a path created by another, one ends up in one finding one’s own path (and establishing one’s own viewpoints).

        I see that it is happening here in this blog.

        Regards,

        Luis

  82. Marty, above you said:
    “If you consider Independent Scientology as ‘organized religion’ then you take me too literally or I have failed to articulate the concept I had in mind. I am referring to organized institutions. I guess the question is ‘how much organization is enough?”

    We have a four tech to one admin ratio here. No more organization is needed. The stray admin points that are missed by the “one” admin terminal are simply picked up by the tech terminals on a “need to handle” basis. The ARC is so high in the group that each member intuitively knows what he needs to do to maintain that level.

    There are some personal observations which I have seen and consider true:

    Without force and fraud, no scientology group will grow beyond the level of competence of their auditors, case supervisors or course supervisors.

    Admin people added who do not merely serve the auditors and supervisors are worse than Dev T, they are leeches.

    A private practitioner who is truly competent as an auditor and C/S can, in fact survive very well with no other assistence. Word of mouth is, in fact, sufficient to keep one busy. BUT one does need to spend several hours per day maintaining his comm lines, or hire someone to do so.

    Some people want a “big booming organization” in order to maximize their positive effect on their community. Many more want a “big booming organization” for self-aggrandizement, to feel a part of something important, to “be right” or to dramatize thier whole track evil purps to get others to be obedient.

    Personally, I don’t want a big booming organization. I want a tight, high ARC group of like-minded individuals who train others to go out and do what we do. The idea is to have hundreds of groups all over the country. Groups who relate to their communities, serve the needs of their communities, are in ARC with the people and things in thier communities and augment, rather than impose.

    We’ve started four such groups now and they are all financially independent and financially viable. They are also quite different organizationally.

    I also want to assist others to achieve the level of spiritual freedom I have achieved by correctly using the tech to restore their personal self determinism and their ability to be pan determined.

    How much organization is needed to accomplish this? Very little actually.
    Once the tech is in, the admin is virtually second nature.

    • Beautiful.

    • Les – You have it perfect. Your administration is only that needed to support the technical delivery. I would say that what you have fits the definition of the best organization.

      “THE BEST ORGANIZATION (from 9 Nov 1968 Standard Admin) Vol 0

      The best organization is one which has a thetan over it, methods of working out its problems, basic actions and a good desirable product. It adapts itself to its environment or surroundings or conditions of operation so as to expand to greater or lesser degree.

      Such an organization must have a clear-cut purpose and fill a definite need in order to survive.

      Its services must be more valuable that what it costs to produce or furnish those services.” end quote

      As to the oxymoron and organized religion question. The current church is like a cancerous growth. Structure for the sake of maintaining structure.
      From the same reference already noted we can see what applies to it:

      “Where an organization violates these very fundamental things, it sickens and will eventually perish. …

      Such is the persistence and power of a once-strong organization that it can continue for a very long while, feeding inward on itself. It gradually contracts and eventually becomes a memory only.” end quote

      Les, you and your group, in my opinion are correctly applying this reference – whether by design or chance. Either way your success it delivery is the main thing that matters. VWD!

    • Good ideas on what is needed and useful. ie, A Charter establishing a league could be enough organization to hold things together, create “belonging” and allow and foster expansion.

    • I concur. Les, you describe it perfectly. THAT is to me, where the Independent Scientology community is headed.

      There is technical delivery with your auditors and your supervisors. I must say however, that there must include a Qual function/unit (either inside the group or outside) that ensures standard TRs, metering, training and delivery, Flub catch, cramming and correction). There also needs to be the line to handle ethics/PTS/SP situations that prevent gain or cause rollercoaster (again, either as part of that group, or as an outside unit that can be called upon). It is that simple.

  83. I came in @ 1990, but I believe much of the attutudes and practices of the current church, even when based on policy are not as LRH intended. I have observed policy and tech being followed “correctly” yet with slight twists and alterations that are sometimes hard to see, particularly since they occur slowly over time.
    I don’t believe the comp/resign thing is a problem in a benign, friendly LRH org. It’s a problem in Miscaviges squirrel orgs even though it’s “on policy”, you know what I meean?

    Running good control on a public individual who doesnt quite know whats going on with all this interesting stuff just yet, again fine in a on purpose LRH Org. But in a squirrel Miscavige “Org” it’s actually quite dangerous to your mental, physical and spiritual well being. Good policy and tech in a rotten organization don’t wok right because the purpose is out.

  84. Great article and great comments coming about also!

  85. I am not, nor have ever been a Scientologist. So, Marty, this article and subsequent comments really cleared up a lot of questions for me. It was very good work and very enlightening. I also like the fact that you have blown the doors open, but have posted very recently that you are available to help others recover once they are out of the “Church”. So, knowing that people are reading your blog who are still on the fence, you have given then an option to help them with the shock that they are probably experiencing.

    Is organized religion an oxymoron? Yes, I do believe it is. I consider myself a Christian. I read the Bible, I try to follow the word of Christ and live what I consider to be the right way. Here’s the oxymoron part. Many, many people I know and have known have hid behind Christianity as an all purpose “get out of jail” free card. They cheat on their wives, steal money, lie to their loved ones and friends. Then, they go to church on Sunday, sit through service, ask for forgiveness and then Monday – Saturday, it’s back to business as usual. I stay completely away from organized religion and prefer to explore and grow my spirituality on my own (along with my husband). The hypocrisy is maddening.

  86. Got this email from a friend a few days ago. Don’t know about the veracity of the numbers, but I think the point is quite apropos.

    THE NIGHT WATCHMAN

    Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.
    Congress said, “Someone may steal from it at night.”
    So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
    Then Congress said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?”
    So, they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
    Then Congress said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?”
    So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.
    Then Congress said, “How are these people going to get paid?”
    So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people.
    Then Congress said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?”
    So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an AdministrativeOfficer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
    Then Congress said, “We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back.”

    So they laid-off the night watchman.
    NOW, slowly, let it sink in.

    Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter…

    Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?

    Anybody?

    Anything?

    No?

    Didn’t think so!

    Bottom line is, we’ve spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an
    agency,the reason for which very few people who read this can remember!

    Ready??

    It was very simple… and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

    THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY was instituted on 8/04/1977

    TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

    Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

    AND NOW IT’S 2012 — 35 YEARS LATER — AND THE BUDGET
    FOR THIS “NECESSARY” DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR.
    IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY
    100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!

    (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY,

    “WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?”)

    34 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.

    Today70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

    Ah, yes — good old Federal bureaucracy.

    NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM,

    HEALTHCARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

    Hello!! Anybody Home?

    Signed,

    TheNight Watchman

  87. Another masterpiece of honesty. Thank you.

    I haven’t read all the comments so far, but here’s my two cents:

    “He spent the rest of his life attempting to undercut the route so that virtually anyone from any station in life or of whatever educational background could traverse it.” But only if you are “able” enough to afford it. So is it for everyone, or is it only for the “able.”

    I remember when being taught to sell books, if the person said they were happy and had no complaints, one was to ask if they would like to become even more able in some area. “Scientology can help you with that!”

    My reality is that Scientology has some answers and can be of benefit, and it also has some flat out wrong answers, but the idea that it has “all the answers” is just plain stupid, extreme arrogance. I think it is a cop out that whenever something bad happens, a “Scientologist” flippantly explains it with “Oh, he had out-ethics,” “Oh, he must have MU’s,” “Oh, he is PTS,” or “Oh, the tech wasn’t standardly applied.” These are another way of saying, “I can’t do anything about it and don’t truly understand it, but LRH said it must be one of these so that’s what it must be.” It’s the same as The Why is God. Welcome to Faith and Belief. Might as well start praying.

  88. I’m sorry man, I’m not getting the “Update”. I’m just communicating back here, and I don’t mind your communication, but I still think those policies are pretty spot on when dealing with sales/registration in an organization. It’s fine to do things differently independently, but I don;t see LRH’s policies as being incorrect in their true, original purpose and application.

    Again though, I feel these policies are misapplied and squirrelled by IAS Reges and even org reges and there are outnesses such as good two way comm and cross purposes that lead to people being bullied into emptying their accounts and maxing out credit cards to buy ideal orgs. I don’t think thats LRH.

  89. Marty, so I have a question for you, I’ll lead up to it. You were there in the midst of things witnessing the culture @ int & within management. I’m sure you’ve explained some of this already but since we are discussing here the subject of c of s, church vs no church, church vs tech. It appears as though one man, DM, has sabatoged & retains sole control over the c of s. It could have been different, evolved differently. How do you think one man could do so much harm, still be in power, still be followed?

  90. While I was doing the alternate route to Clear it became evident to me that life on earth is full of dichotomies and paradoxes and there appeared to be no escape from them. True freedom would be, among other things, freedom from dichotomies and paradoxes. Being a thetan (immaterial) stuck in a body (material) is just one of those situations I for one would like to be free of. Permanently.

    Religions (in general, not just Scn) imply that their product is freedom. Religion itself is not freedom. One strives for freedom via a religion or school of thought. So, if any religion wants to put anyone on a ROAD to freedom, then it must (or ought to) be properly organized. I feel any and all religions promise freedom and yet look at the world today. I’d say they failed miserably. It’s possible that the reason for their failure is because they’re actually NOT properly organized. Perhaps “organized religion” is more wishful thinking than anything else.

    Freedom could well be, simply, a viewpoint. Get the viewpoint and there is no longer a need for the “school of thought” or religion that one followed. In other words, one can step off the organized road and arrive at the destination. Or perhaps I’m being too simplistic or naive and, besides, no money could be made from that idea! (tongue in cheek)

    The aforegoing is what is true for me.

    Marty, brilliant article!! You’ve validated how I feel about that enormous button that apparently MANY people find a screaming out-point but we can’t quite articulate it as clearly as you have.

  91. “is organized religion an oxymoron?”

    Whew! Now THAT is a charge-loaded question of 4th dynamic proportions.

    My answer. YES … if organized religion is defined as “A hierarchy of authority designed to thought stop individuals, prevent them from questioning, and enforce the morals of its beliefs upon the individuals of the group with threat of punishment for the sake of saving their immortal souls.”

    I’ve been studying another religion, Christianity, and how that organized religion was and is controlling and suppressive. Studying how another religion went suppressive is less stressful as there is no personal charge involved for me. It’s easier to be three feet behind that religions head, and then parallel the same behaviors I see with Scientology.

    I’m concluding it’s impossible for organized religion not to be controlling and abusive. Thousands of years of religious history has proven this fact. IMO, the subject of Scientology went by the rails when it redefined itself from “the science of knowing how to know” to a religion. It’s much easier to control people with the beingness of a religion, not so with science. It’s also easier to wobble on an alleged “fact” without criticism.

    There are “SINS of Texts” in any religion, whether it be the Word of God or the Word of Hubbard. Humans tend to take religious texts literally and believe and buy “ALL the whole” with just belief itself, instead of reasoning with each datum of the texts. The “Word” (whoevers it may be) becomes infallible, not to be questioned. To question the Bible or Hubbard becomes heresy. THAT is the problem with religion. It inevitably results in controversy, abuse of other people, and even wars.

    As Aziz Ness wrote;

    “There’s always going to be an LRH Policy to validate anyone doing anything…good or bad.”

    Scientology isn’t alone. Practically all religions’ Texts somewhere can justify abuse. That’s why I call them the “SINS of Texts”, which I borrowed from John Shelby Spong in his book, “The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Text of Hate to Reveal the God of Love.” Scientology scripture also has Texts of Hate.

    To be an “ist” or “ion” “um” “ism” of any kind of authoritative religion is a package deal and requires a complete belief in the whole, and for NO Text in that religion to be questioned.

    Religions by their nature allow no real room for questioning everything, and is certainly not encouraged, nor do questions even want to be heard let alone answered. The Church of Scientology has clearly demonstrated this over and over and over, as have most other churches in the world. This idea of this UN-questioning is the opposite of science, which encourages questioning.

    Organized (authoratitive) religions by nature are controlling. If one is being controlled, they are being lied to. This is an extremely important “freedom datum” I’ve learned from Hubbard. In the more frank days, LRH didn’t say positive things about religion, either. It was only later with the religious angle was there seen to be benefits.

    Organized religions are always authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate one’s free will. They’re power structures which aim to convince you to give away your power (independent thought) for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people, under the guise (justification), promise of one’s spiritual development/salvation. When one subscribes to a religion, they unknowingly enroll in a hidden mindless minion training program. Of course, religions don’t market themselves as such, their guise is salvation in one form or another.

    Religions are proven to be effective at turning human beings into sheeple, into a group of followers. Independent Scientologists cannot deny this has happened to corporate Scientologists. Religions are the chief instrument of social conditioning, with governments a close second.

    Religions operate by eroding one’s own self confidence, creating doubt, in one’s own intellect, and they gradually convince you to put your trust into some external entity, such as a deity, prominent figure, or infallible book … only to feel a bewildering betrayal later IF the truth of you being controlled is found out.

    By convincing you to give your power away to something outside yourself, religion conditions you to be weaker, more docile, easier to control, and not independent with free thought.

    Religions actively promote this weakening process as if it were beneficial, commonly branding it with the word faith, in Scientology … being externally controlled by a group while you still have a seemingly unending number of spiritual problems is a “necessity” and justified to reach “total freedom”. What religions are actually promoting is submission, which is suppressive to the very idea of spiritual growth and freedom.

    Control in Scientology, or any other organized religion, has become “the end justifies the means”.

    I’m moving away from the habit of identifying myself with ANY belief or religion. I’m not the group identity called Wayne the “Scientologist”, nor am I any other of these group labels of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Deist, or Atheist. I’m a BEING. Period.

    As Karen#1 says so truthfully about the organized religion of Scientology,

    “The Church promises spiritual enlightenment but actually delivers an enforced identity, enforced obedience, enforced disconnection and enforced thought processes.”

    This is true of ALL organized religions I’ve seen.

  92. Wow, Marty, great article! And thought provoking comments…
    I remember when I studied the OEC course and went to look back at all of the older versions of the Scientology Organizing Board I was suprized to see that the original 7 Division Org Board had Division 6 as the Distribution Division.
    My understanding was that a person would arrive in the Organization, get signed up for services in Division 2, pay money to Division 3, get service in Division 4, get checked to see if he/she was a product in Division 5 and then head out into the wonderful world to use the Techniology in Division 6.
    Then, if and when the person was ready they would go sign up for more services.
    My understanding was that Scientology was trying to distribute causative people out into the environment to use the tech to build a better world.
    And that sounded good to me!
    I started Scientology in 1980 and it always looked to me that there was an effort to push and push and push, NEVER leaving decisions up to the persons self determinism (which, if I recall, was said by LRH to be the same as leaving the decision up to the persons Reactive Mind).
    I could count on one hand the number of times I heard someone who just completed a service told: “Come back when you want more!”
    And so, instead of the movement concentrating on simply attracting more and more new people, letting them have wins at their own pace and contributing as they felt like, it became a super-heavy control type thing (like a cult!)
    And it seems to me that things have just gotten worse, much worse. Now self -determinism (not to mention pan-determinism!!!) have NO part in the current scientology organizations. The entire movement is directed at creating other-determined people, also known as robots.
    I would say that Scientology, as currently practiced by the Official Church of Scientology is VERY well organized, to make robots out of people and suck in as much money as it can.

    • Andy, thanks. On that same score, one of the last things I saw Miscavige do in the early 2000s was to forcibly implant management to accept that the same theory you just espoused, had – rather than causative, free people in society as product – STAFF MEMBERS as the product. All public were to be made Field Staff Members, which really meant STAFF MEMBERS, which really meant deployable, Miscavige agents. Twisted. He got his wish – only there is about 1/5 the willing public (deployable agents) as there were then left.

      • Wow…so in effect he changed the Product of Scientology from Free Beings to…..Slaves, er, “Staff Members”.
        Reminds me of a song from the ’80′s…

        “Your lights are on, but you’re not home
        Your mind is not your own
        Your heart sweats, your body shakes
        Another donation is what it takes

        You can’t sleep, you can’t eat
        There’s no doubt, you’re in deep
        Your throat is tight, you can’t breathe
        Another sec-check is all you need

        Your lights are on, but you’re not home
        Your will is not your own
        You’re heart sweats and teeth grind
        Another implant and you’ll be mine”

      • Just to confirm this, the OT Ambassador program states in no uncertain terms that everyone is on the org board. Period. It issues direct orders and targets to OTs. I was sent a copy of it by email by another OT who was trying to convince me to come to the OT Ambassador meeting so I could get activated as REQUIRED. I was assured this was command intention from the very top, David Miscavige himself. The program is signed WDC. No other name indicated. Now I know WDC is the Watchdog Committee. When did the Watchdog Committee become the senior command line for OTs?

      • Marty,
        I think in one of the events after 2004 (it might have been 2006 or so), he made a big announcement at an event that “the entire planet” was now on the CoS’ (his) Org Board. He had it all worked out in his head that he ruled the world. No one apparently had a choice in the matter. Talk about twisted.
        Maybe someone else here remembers the event I’m thinking of.

        • I think it may have been the event where he went over Idle Org strategies. The Idle orgs would have Idle missions surrounding it and they in turn would start more Idle missions and then they would create more Idle Orgs, blah , blah, blah and then dm would rule the world, blah , blah blah, torture, blah, injustice, blah, lobster tails, blah, blah…

  93. Had a thought, what sort of opposition/future was envisaged when LRH wrote all that Policy as well as creating a militaristic Sea Org. That opposing sleeping giant has no need to be awake with Miscavige at the helm.
    The powers that be on planet Earth have little to fear, there is much order in the choas of present life.
    Start freeing people for real enmass and then the disorder created will be on scale never before experienced. I sometimes think the plot gets totally lost in the complexity.
    Has Scientology become a minor game? Or perhaps in actuality it always has been.
    What sort of future do you see?

  94. On the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation under “Q Command over environment” it is stated at tone level 4.0 and above “Dislikes to control people.” Under “Y Method used by subject to handle others ” it is stated at tone level 4.0 and above “Gains support by creative enthusiasm and vitality backed by reason” . Scientology promotes pan determinism. If one applies scientology principles, less and less “organisation” is needed, as co-operation and pan determinism will be the order of the day. This is what LDW (Les) is applying and it works. Of course it will.

    Is ” organised religion” an oxymoron? It depends where on the tone scale the religion is, imo. Scientology only needs its policies to get going. They shouldn’t be necessary to keep going if members move up the Bridge / move up the tone scale. Sadly, one of the biggest outpoints today is the failure to deliver the tech to staff and SO, and stalling public with “re-do”, if not breaking them. Compounding that felony is the domination and nullification of staff and SO, the nearer they get to the pinacle of the organisation. And that is why Scientology is so “organised”. When it moves up the tone scale, it will self regulate and will “dislike to control others” and will “gain support by creative enthusiasm and vitality backed by reason”.

    Of course, if one wanted to suppress staff and SO, and wanted to control and micromanage everything, the last thing one would do is allow training and processing for staff and SO. Miscavige and those of his ilk should read “Science of Survival” again and ask themselves what the hell they are doing.

  95. Thanks Marty for this post, and for completing my grade IV and getting me thru the basic list of FPRD. Since 2007, I was convinced that FPRD would help me get it on with life. I didn’t realize that it would crack and handle of all of the shit of this lifetime that I put myself thru as well as some earlier ones too. I spent 4 years trying to get my FPRD from the COS only to be put off, conned and falsely sent down a road of endless objectives combined with out-admin and out-ethics COS cycles. I came to your Casablanca and accomplished all of this in 6 days!

    No stops, no catch-22’s, no regging for other crap, no fraud, no re-sign pressure, no bait and switch, no BS period, just right into it and thru it. Wow, that’s a big difference. A to B with no bullshit in between. If only kool-aid drinkers could experience that! Who knows, maybe someday the COS will reform back to that. Someday when DM is long gone, maybe they will have a chance my friend. At least I am putting out that postulate for them.

    Thank you and Mosey too for making feel so welcomed here and so at home. I really enjoyed just hanging out with you guys and Chiquita. It was also cool to just chew the fat with you about all of what has been going on. Thanks for the references and recommended books to read. It’s nice to become part of the world again and participate with independent Scientologists in their quest for a saner delivery of LRH’s tech.

    Looking forward to seeing you soon for the next chapter on the bridge and in life.

  96. I’ve just begun reading an expose on the Obama presidency entitled “The Amateur”. Absolutely fascinating. Quotes that introduce the a few of the early chapters might have some pertinence here:

    “Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody.” – Mark Twain

    “It’s not about charisma and personality, it’s about results and products…”
    - Steve Jobs

    “The true fanatic is a theocrat, someone who sees himself as acting on behalf of some super personal force: the Race, the Party, History, the proletariat, the Poor, and so on. These absolve him from evil, hence he may safely do anything in their service.” – Lord Billingsley

    • Just so people don’t think I endorse such juvenile pursuits as promoted here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/books/edward-kleins-invective-laden-obama-book.html

      • Sigh…

        • ditto, echo

        • Captain Non-Sequitur

          no worries Kevin.

          Question. Scotty and Sandy Cinchar. In, out, maybe? Any data.

          • Scotty & Sandy are very much in though I’ve given my best shot and continue to do so to educate him on what’s going on. Outside of my family, Scotty was my closest friend in Scientology. He has a mortgage brokerage business in downtown CW.

            • I wonder how much he feels that his mortgage business is tied to the local scientology community. All those refi’s to take out equity and give it to the IAS. Don’t disconnect and all that. He knows what is going on and just cannot bring himself to face it and disconnect. He needs a business plan which does not rely on his sphere of influence as his bread and butter.

              • I’m sure that is a factor as are his friends that he’s known for decades which is the case for most Scientologists. It’s not easy to walk away from 30 years of friendships, business connections and family. I know. I did it though it’s worked out pretty well for me with the exception of still being disconnected from my daughter. Scotty is really one of the good guys. I have nothing negative to say about him. He and Sandy have raised a wonderful son. That being said, now that their son is an adult I haven’t heard that either Sandy or Scotty have headed over to HCO Flag to route back into the SO nor have I heard that their son is biting at the chop to do the same.

                News from the inside: An old acquaintance checked in with me this past week. His exact words: “There’s a lot of dissension within Scientology these days”.

                • Kevin, I hope it works out. Scotty is a good guy. But he goes along and gets along which is not a recipe for change. His may be a transition only after more of his old friends, like you, lead the way.
                  Or something cataclysmic happens. Who knows which will come first. But one or the other will occur.

  97. As a seperate and related point I would like to bring this up.
    The point of being able to communicate freely about the subject of Scientology and LRH. Part of the trap involoved here is that if you say anything negative you (in some camps) will be condemned as having evil purposes, being a squirrel, A to J, an SP, all sorts of vile invalidations just for the simple actions of saying what you think.
    Isn’t the whole crux of Scientology being able to itsa things and differentiate and become more familiar with things?? Then why is it that some would have you NOT be able to discuss Scientology and LRH?? I think that LRH played a big part in not being able to discuss the subject and himself in any but favorable terms. Hey, I think he has lots of great plus points and has created some great tech. But if you take him at this word about ” if it’s true for you, it’s true…” Then we MUST have this right to discuss ALL things. Hey! Scientology is important to me, and I want to communicate about what is important to me.
    By the way, I always had a button on those ascots that LRH wore, they really bugged me! Lol!! :-)

    • Yep – saw that all the time. Ron actually talks about it on one of the congresses, about the “perfect Scientologist.” I’ll have to dig it up when I can access to them again.

    • “The point of being able to communicate freely about the subject of Scientology and LRH”

      Excellent, Tony.

      Freedom of thought and communication is “out of use” in corporate Scientology. Controlling others is IN. Individual Freedom is OUT.

      That anybody has to even bring up this core idea of freedom of speech, whatsoever, explains the tyranny of the church. Let me change a couple words in your sentence to highlight the tyranny of corporate Scientology’s control of speech.

      The point of being able to communicate freely about the subject of Science

      The point of being able to communicate freely about the subject of Obama

      Would anybody bat an eye about communicating anything they wanted about science or Obama?

      This demonstrates how religions suppress free communication, not just corporate Scientology. This suppression is NATIVE in religions. If the “wrong” thing is stated or questioned, it’s heresy. This can only happen when a subject, organization, and/or idol is worshiped. No subject, organization, and/or idol is worth worshiping.

      Scientology should have never been put in a position to be worshiped. It’s just a damn subject, albeit a fantastic one! Had it not been redefined early in its life, it wouldn’t be worshiped today. Neither would Hubbard, Miscavige, or the church.

    • The FBI and the police must be learning some things from corporate Scientology on how to abuse free speech. Here they arrested a marine for posting “unacceptable” posts on facebook, without charging the marine with a crime, and then they detained the marine in a mental institution.

      (Theses are issues the CofS Freedom Magazine should be on. But, of course, corporate Scientology no longer respects freedom of speech and our Constitution.)

    • “If it’s true for you…” versus KSW#1 is in IMHO the Catch 22 of Scientology.

      • Kevin,

        If you constrain KSW#1 to just “auditing application” (which was its original intent, per RJ68), then I think you can still “believe what you want” but maintain “standard tech in application” and pretty much avoid the catch-22.

        Now “Creed of the Church” vs. “Suppressive Acts list” … now THAT is a catch-22.

        • Agreed.

        • I do agree that your example is also an excellent example of a Catch-22 but LRH did not confine KSW#1 to “auditing application.” See the first few paragraphs of HCO PL “Keeping Admin Working” where he makes his view crystal clear.

          • I’ve always had my doubts on who “put together” the Keeping Admin Working PL. It was dated a few months after LRH’s passing. But in any event, even “standard admin” allows for changes to policy and rules.

            Example (from a post below [thanks Terrill]):

            HCOPL THE STRUCTURE OF AN ORGAINISATION
            WHAT IS POLICY? 13 March 1965 issue 3 says this:

            ”Periodic sweep-outs of of antiquated and didactic laws (rather than general concepts and sub purposes) must be undertaken by a being, organisation, group or race or species.”

          • Captain Non-Sequitur

            it’s pretty obvious KSW doesn’t work for adim tech. People just need to look and see that orgs are not the size of old st hill. after what 30 40 years. How can this be?

            • Great point Captain!!
              Has anyone seen an Idle Org really flourishing and prospering?? I mean , it doesn’t mean that it can’t be done, but if RCS is SO EXPERT then WHY don’t they do it??????

              • I have not. I can tell you that in Tampa there are SO staff holding down non SO posts and the staff still needs to moonlight. The only Cl V Org that I had a report on that was packed was St. Petersburg Org in Russia. This was two or three years ago. They were not an “Ideal Org” and I understand there was little interference from management, due, I imagine, to location and language barriers.

        • Ditto, Margaret! Even with RJ68, I believe that’s obvious in reading just the PL. Amazingly, KSW HCO PL is misapplied, without reason.

          However, I have my own contentions with this Scientology corporate Policy Letter. It is a Policy Letter, not Tech. If I was in corporate Scientology saying what I’m about to say, it would be heresy, a sacrilege, and an ethics offense. I would be severely ridiculed and punished. If I was in the Sea Org at Int, I’d surely be put in “The Hole” for a long time. At minimum, the RPF until I found my MU and decided Hubbard is always right.

          Once one questions the infallibility of one HCO PL by LRH, and shows it to be incorrect, then it opens the doors to other PL’s being fallible. Once Hubbard is viewed as a fallible human, as everybody else, there can be clear and rational thought on what he said, without feeling a sense of righteous indignation and the feeling of necessity to be an apologist.

          My contentions with this PL;

          1) The presumption of #1. “Having *THE* correct technology”.

          Saying, “Having *A* correct technology” would be more correct. Saying “the” assumes an “only one”. Hubbard would have to be omniscient to know that ‘nobody else’ on Earth had *A* correct technology, too. In fact, he’d have to be God with the ability to read billions of minds.

          Henry Ford had *A* correct technology with the combustion engine. It didn’t mean he had the only one. Refinements of his engine were made by other individuals (not “groups”). It didn’t take away his original principles. It wasn’t as if these improvements were a invalidation of Ford. If a technology really is a technology, isn’t it open to being refined to become better? The same goes for better organizations, or any product or service for that matter.

          Is the original discoverer of something the only source capable of improving and refining it? From my observation, ANY technology can be refined. We’ve witnessed this over and over again in history.

          2) Nobody I know claims that “groups” can make discoveries. Only individuals do. So why does LRH go on making this bizarre argument?

          IMO, the “group” argument is a straw man, a red erring. It is a logical fallacy. So is the appeal to authority.

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

          This PL set himself up to “never be wrong”. It was his Serv Fac. What this PL did was set in motion the idea to never question LRH. It set in motion a Scientology version of worshiping another inerrant Being. It later set in motion a freeze in technological development after his death.

          IMO, this was Ron’s biggest overt. He had overts, too, like everybody else. In spite of this, this doesn’t make less of the extreme good he did.

          The valid hat of real research and discovery to improve lives has been dropped by corporate Scientology after LRH’s death. My question is;

          Should independent Scientologists follow suit?

          • Correction: Should read “even withOUT RJ68″.

          • Safe, I get what you’re saying about “a” vs “the”. But Ron also modified it elsewhere by saying that “it’s not perfect, but workable”. And so it seems to me that the overall intent of KSW is if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. as opposed to “we’re the ONLY possible way”.

            I think the whole “a” vs. “the” question can be taken to an extreme — and has been. I like Geir Isene’s suggestion to add “How to Study Scientology” by LRH — which reminds us to take a “very critical” look at Scientology — along with the KSW#1 policy that is required to be at the beginning of every major course.

            Geir’s blog post on this:
            http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/how-to-study-scientology/

            • Let’s look at this “little” word difference and see the huge difference in meaning;

              #1 Having *THE* correct technology”. (What LRH said in KSW)
              #2 Having *A* correct technology. (What he should have said)

              The word “the” points to a specific thing. That’s it. There is no other.

              There is a world of difference between 1 and 2. Nowhere in updated KSW versions are listed any errata sheets which suggest there is a modification of #1 above to the #2 meaning.

              You’re referring to HCOPL 14 Feb 1965 KSW Series 4 Safeguarding Technology

              In this HCOPL, First, Ron says two times in one paragraph that Scientology is A workable system …

              “Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.”

              Then he reiterates … “Therefore it is a workable system.” Then he says it again, “Scientology is a workable system.” Finally, he says something totally different … “Scientology is *THE* only workable system man has.” Then later, yet again, he says, “Scientology is a workable system.”

              Five times in this HCO PL he says Scientology is *A* workable system. One time he says Scientology is *THE* only workable system.

              Which one is it? Is it “THE ONLY” workable system or is it “A” workable system. To me it looks like an A=A is used here, To identify “THE ONLY” with “A”. To me, it appears to be hidden inculcation, a sort of written hypnotism which most don’t catch. First you say what people can easily believe and remember several times. Then you say what you want them to THINK, once. Then you re-enforce it with what people can easily believe and remember again. There you’ve implanted the A=A. You remember one thing, “A workable”, but you think another “THE ONLY workable”. See? Quite wicked, IMO.

              Even if you don’t believe this is an implant of data LRH wanted you to believe, it doesn’t matter. He still said quite authoritatively and omnisciently that “Scientology is *THE* only workable system.”

              So your statement of, “And so it seems to me that the overall intent of KSW is if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. as opposed to “we’re the ONLY possible way” is incorrect. LRH DID say Scientology is the ONLY way.

              Let’s go one step further … the idea of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

              Microsoft DOS 3.3 operating system was not broken. It was very stable and a favorite version. Had Microsoft had this “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” false philosophy, we wouldn’t have Windows today. Microsoft kept upgrading their OS until we have Windows 7 today, soon Windows 8.

              If this same “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude was used by all software development companies, and they never upgraded their software, we’d still be in the software dark ages with very old clunky software. I could go on and on and on about the value of upgrading technology in any industry. I’m sure you get my point. Upgrading technology speeds particle flow and convenience, and saves time and money.

              Bill Gates didn’t have to write a scary fear of God BG PL titled, “Keeping Windows Working”, and then admonishing programmers for trying to improve Windows OS. It was a given that programmers would, at minimum, maintain the workability of the OS technology, and remove the bugs and vulnerabilities, but better yet, actually improve the end user usability.

              It appears KSW has implanted this neurosis fear, bordering on psychotic, about improving the workability of Scientology technology, which LRH improved himself all along … yet apparently, believed that everybody else was too stupid to do so also. It was only his BELIEF in the lack of intelligence of others. It does not make it true.

              • Safe, this is not meant as offense.
                The use of THE instead of A is correct in the context.

                This is number one on the list and all points below reference to THE correct technology.
                KSW is about THE technology of Dianetics and Scientology.

                • Even if I concede that “the” is the correct usage in #1 of KSW 1 and that part may be a poor argument for my core argument, your data doesn’t argue the most important facts;

                  That Hubbard believed in his own supremacy of beingness, that he was the ONLY ONE capable of research and discovery of Scientology Tech, and his claim that Scientology is the *THE* only workable system.

                  Not only did LRH believe this about himself, but he got others to believe it, too. It’s based on BELIEF. There is no specific evidence and facts he gave which would make any person of reason to believe it’s true. Generalities were used. The KSW policy letters has several logical fallacies (incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness).

                  This is really the core of my argument, which I see has been ignored here so far. I empathize and understand it’s not easy to confront.

                  Hubbard implanted this false belief. It has resulted in a “Tech freeze”, and bizarre behavior of Scientologists (such as that witnessed by the front cover of Marty’s book, “What is Wrong with Scientology?”). It is one of Ron’s “Sins of Texts”, just as much as Christianity has their own Sins of Texts in the Bible, which has implanted false beliefs in their own religion that has resulted in abuse.

                  For a subject which is supposed to teach “knowing how to know”, it apparently missed teaching these very important specific fallacies of logic;

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

                  This isn’t to invalidate the current workable Scientology Tech. It’s GREAT! Nor am I trying to condemn Ron for being human, one who also had overts himself. What is, IS. However, the failures in Scientology indicate there is more to be known, that more false-data (belief) stripping needs to be done, and that the work is not completed, IMO.

                  • You’ve made some good contributions to discussions for several weeks. But, you are wandering into the area of ad hominem of late, and I don’t find it very productive.

                  • Safe, frankly. I understand what you are saying, but KSW#1 is about KSW.
                    But the 10 Points could be applied to any other technology as well.
                    You need THE correct technology to do something.
                    You can use the 10 points to “safeguard THE technology of starting cars”. What ever tech you take. There is always THE one Tech, the cristalisation, that which works.

                    Let’s concentrate on things that works. That’s Standard Tech and KSW applied.

                    • SKM,

                      I’m not sure what’s trying to be sold here, but that boat ain’t going to fly with the 7 billion John Q. Public or with me. That Scientology is the only workable tech to save mankind is too unbelievable. Such a bold statement ARC breaks.

                      Nobody see’s Microsoft and Apple saying, “We have the only workable operating system to make your computer run your programs efficiently.”

                      If they did, not only would people think they were lying (and they would be right), people would think the companies were nuts (and they would be right about that, too). There is no difference making such a statement with Scientology, either.

                      Each and every religion claims their own religion is the only tech/practice/path to save mankind. However, nobody in their right reasoning mind can possibly believe they ALL have the only way. If there was an only way, only ONE of them could have it.

                      Even if the “the only workable tech” statement were true, it is a huge ARC breaking mistake to say just from a marketing point of view.

                    • @Safe,

                      I understand.
                      The marketing aspect of if it is not that good. Agree.
                      It doesn’t sound as Scientology was for everyone.
                      But I agree with LRH that there is no other Tech like Scientology.
                      There are other religions and I really love them all – I like the multifariousness of religions.
                      However, I do not interprete the KSW Series so literally.
                      I know there is The Tech.
                      There is no other.
                      We should keep it working and workable.
                      Correctly applied, with understanding, we can even help others with their beliefs – I did it on many occasions. I never try to convince anybody in the correctness of Scientology Philosophy (and its religious concepts, let alone the miracles of the tech). That’s not what I am after and this wouldn’t be KSW (imo).

                      And if you know of any other technology to free thetans, let me know.

                      It’s true, we shouldn’t eval and inval other religions and their systems.
                      This creates zelotism.
                      Zelotism stops critical thinking.
                      Without critical thinking there is no way a being will work out an optimum solution.

                    • “However, I do not interprete the KSW Series so literally. I know there is The Tech. There is no other”

                      I’m glad to hear you don’t interpret the KSW series so literally. Therein lies the divide with Scientologists. Those who take Hubbard’s words completely literal (the fundamentalist Scientologist) and those who are willing to question what Hubbard said, the liberal Scientologist, which is where I’m at, though I’ve stopped defining my beingness as “Wayne, the Scientologist.” I’m just me, a spirit.

                      Fundamentalist Scientologists have the same attitude as Christian Fundamentalists and that is …

                      “The doctrine of Bible (Hubbard) inerrancy”. In Christian lingo, it proclaims that the Bible (Hubbards written works) is inspired Word, entirely without error or contradiction, and therefore entirely authoritative. The Bible, it is asserted, must not be subjected to modern science or historical research. On the contrary, those disciplines must be subjected to it.

                      “The Bible is the Word in full, by special inspiration, as a supernatural directory for the use of the world to the end of time; for the very purpose of providing a sufficient authority for faith, that might be independent of all human judgement and will.” – John W. Nevin 1851

                      See any similarities here? Literalism is a trap which stops questioning, and thus stops reasoning. Literalism creates inculcation. Miscavige didn’t even get Scientology literalism right. He went off and invented unworkable technology. I have no problem with Scientology refining itself into even more workable tech, but I have a problem with making it unworkable like DM, the biggest Scientology squirrel on Earth.

                      Perhaps this is where the confusion is about what I believe. I’d be thrilled if there was ever a Scientology Tech Version 2.0, as long as the workability really progressed. Already, Hubbard went through many “versions” of tech, keeping it alive and growing. I know it’s said that Scientology Tech is workable. LRH told us that 5 times in Safeguarding Technology PL. Is it really out of question Scientology can’t be made even more workable (efficient, faster, attaining higher levels?). Or is the idea of “Get busy and build a better bridge” no longer in use because fundamentalist Scientologists say so?

                      Is Scientology now a dead tech as far as further development, and it’s a sin to pick up where LRH left off? Are fundamentalists really waiting for Hubbard’s return to an Earth body so he can write up his research while he’s been out of his body for the last 26 years? This looks like a matter of total Faith. Do we count on this? Or do we assume that Hubbard would want some brilliant minds to continue where he left off?

                    • roger weller

                      great post

  98. This is one of the best things you’ve written, Marty and I hope more like this will be forthcoming.

    Is organized religion an oxymoron? No, I think not. Since life is organized out of the chaos of Mest, organization is not antipathetic to life or its constructs such as organized religious groups it uses to aid itself.

    The subject of Scientology has been mashed into a ball of sameness by those who lack the ability to discern differences, similarities, or identities. In such a person’s mind, Policy=HCOBS=LRH=Stats, etc.

    You have taken a bold step toward teasing apart this mashed ball of Scientology. This is a vital thing to do if the amazing and good parts of Scientology, mainly the auditing methodology and its philosophic underpinnings, can go forward and not be discredited due to their proximity to those parts of Scientology that no longer, or never did, fully serve the subject.

    Once the parts are separated, people will have a greater chance of differentiating for themselves, and then they too, have a chance to become Source of their own lives. And that is the very point.

  99. “As the universe is full of beings and one lives with them whether he likes it or not, it would be to anyone’s interest to be able to have functioning groups.

    “The only way a group jams up and (a) becomes difficult to live in, and (b) impossible to fully separate from, is by random and counter-purposes.

    “If one thinks he can go off and be alone anywhere in this universe he is
    dreaming.

    “The first impulse ofa hostile being is “to leave” a decent group. What a weird one.

    “The only reason he gets in jams is his inability to tolerate or handle others.

    “There’s no road out for such a being except through.

    “Thus all we can do to survive even on the first dynamic is to know how to
    handle and be part of the third or fourth dynamic and clean it up.”
    HCO PL 6 December 1970, THIRD DYNAMIC DE-ABERRATION.

    • Even the Nazi party?

      • Sorry, not quite getting this question. Do you mean that “even the Nazi party” could be cleaned up?

        • No takes on that one I see. Well, assuming I’ve picked up the right question, I’ll say YES, even the Nazi party can be cleaned up. What’s more, in the absence of that, the Nazi party will persist, and does.

          For my money, in general, “Nazi” is nothing more or less than a solution to a problem. An alter-is, not a duplication, and like any “solution” that isn’t a duplication, it persists and becomes the next problem to “solve”. The cure becomes the malady.

          I think that quote, and the entire PL, which covers the Admin Scale, and what LRH observes about being unable to fully separate from a group until purposes are sorted out is exactly the solution to the whole idea of “Nazi”.

          It’s a E Purp, “Nazi”. And the way out for Nazi’s then and now, and eventually in the future, is to run out that E Purp, sort out the Admin Scale, and instead of “surviving” by the insanity of causing to succumb larger and larger swaths of the Dynamics, which doesn’t fly, clean up and get the anti-symbiote tendencies rooted out, and actually survive, with the rest of life.

          It’ll work for Nazi. It’ll work for Scn, Inc.

          Scientology works. The challenge seems to be getting it duplicated and applied. The fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, us girls and boys.

          • Theo Sismanides

            Jim Logan wrote:

            “Scientology works. The challenge seems to be getting it duplicated and applied. The fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, us girls and boys.”

            Ameeeen!

            (hahaha, I love preaching, too)

  100. This is why I have been saying Scientology will not save the planet. It will be more than one group working together to do so. Scientology did not find all the answers but it did find some important one’s.

    Money is a big part of the problem as I said before but since one is in a box it is hard to see out of that box.

    It is also why I say it need peer reviewed and verified on it’s effectiveness. I know it don’t catch everything. My case is a prime example of that. They never caught I was ill for some time but neither did the doctors. The body causes some strange feelings for sure. (I know it is not all body but it does effect things or case.)

    I never liked the admin tech for the above reason. I tossed it in the trash can of life a long time ago before I was out of the church and probably one reason I am out. I never bought some of the things told me.

    I learned not to be in any group because groups always manipulate and use peer pressure to control a person. It does not matter the group. I had it in the FZ and even the Resource based economy guys but not so bad with them as they always like to have verified scientific proof and that is where the tech falls down at. There is none via a peer review.

    So as a supporter of the IDEA of the Resource based economy and a supporter of the IDEA of auditing I refuse to get into the crap involved in groups and being pushed to agree. Both sides have much good and data the other side can use. One can even verify the other by research. The above post is my proof of what the current economic system does not work. It is dishonest and it matters little if you try to be ethical for sooner or later the demands of the current system of economy will cause anyone to bend to it’s will.

    It is why I know the church don’t have all the answers. I used to be a the stupid one thinking auditing can fix anyone and now I see where I got that from. It is fostered in the church that it can do so. I learned the hard way no it can’t. It takes education, experience and empathy to get there. I seen OT still very brainwashed. I got the ole FZ peer pressure a few weeks ago just because I said the tech should be peer reviewed and junk like the post above should be tossed.

    I tried to get a comm line going between the two groups but I have found that either side is not ready. One side does not understand the basics of exchange my dynamics. Maybe a few do but most spot the church policy on money. The other side often thinks we are nothing but MEST. (not all of them.) They do got a lot of data that is needed and even a possible verification of what and engram is and how it comes to be but they had no answers to that fact.

    One day the junk will be taken out of the tech and one day the Science guys in the RBE will see there is a spiritual world and that is when we build a new world. Otherwise one is missing the other half of the data.

    I know many will not see what I say here but a few that understand the RBE buit people such as HP Acada on FBook do get it and understand why. She even wants to go to college to get her degree so she can counsel under an offical liences and it is auditing.

    Oh yeah the tech don’t teach people their basic human rights such as saying no, or what is called boundaries. One can’t all the sudden discover something that one did not know existed. Yes people are that low. That covers in education and I consider why people still go PTS after the PTS/SP course. Not all the data is there.

  101. Marty: There’s something else I think is a factor in the “end of course crush reg” cycle.

    I attribute it to the statistic PDC or Paid Completions.

    It’s a point system based on the value of the course in dollars and value to Scientology in general.

    For example, if you do one of Miscavige’s Basic Book Courses, that’s 1 point on the stat. IF YOU RE-SIGN IMMEDIATELY, THAT 1 POINT TURNS INTO 2.

    Completing the SHSBC (Class VI) was I believe about 1200 points when I finished the SHSBC. If I re-signed immediately, that 1200 points was doubled.

    What has happened in the 35 intervening years is that the number of training (auditor training, classed auditors) completions has precipitously dropped. So the PDC has dropped precipitously as well in lock-step.

    So in the past 20 years, orgs have to depend on things like PTS/SP comps, Objectives re-dos, Golden Age of Tech drill courses, tape courses, and basics book courses to prop up the PDC. So the “unusual solutions” like crush-regging enter in.

    And it really must piss off the POB that after a person completes OT VIII there’s nothing to re-sign for.

    Now looking back at my study on the SHSBC, it seems to me there was a point in time when “double PDC points for immediate re-sign” made sense.

    In 1963, the only place the SHSBC was instructed was at Saint Hill Manor itself.

    Lots of people went from America to UK to do that course.

    But, it was a long, thorough course. And most foreigners (Americans) found that they would finish a part of the SHSBC but then have to go back home and earn some more money, or bail out their floundering businesses, or actually get back in comm with their 2Ds.

    When that would happen, very often, the person would not return to finish the SHSBC.

    So LRH introduced a “bonus system” to keep SHSBC students on continuous service, with the idea of making Class VI (Clearing) auditors for the world.

    The system then got introduced for auditors on the Levels with the intent of making Class IV auditors.

    But now the system is applied to everyone.

    And without training completions (Class IV, Class V, Grad V, Class VI, Class VIII), there’s no PDC to be had. It’s in SCARCITY.

    And somewhere along the line, reges who didn’t get their re-signs got penalized with cramming, O/Ws and Sec Checks.

    The crush-regging is a stab at survival to keep from getting penalized.

    And it leads to the conclusion that Scientology wants to keep you entrapped. Very cult-like.

    No wonder people who get off course rarely want to go back.

    Now, I hunted for references on the PDC stat for hours and didn’t find a good reference that would illustrate my point. I hope other readers of this blog can help me with that. Even a photocopied page out of an org’s stat glossary would help me.

    P.S. The way the church runs now, you can never get “out” without getting declared. It’s expected that you’ll just sign, and re-sign, and re-sign, and re-sign… That’s the “eternity” a Scientologist has signed up for. At what point is a Scientologist free to enter the life and livingness of the world and the universe?

  102. There is a bait and switch.

    The bait is auditing and the prospect of realizing one’s full potential as a free being. That first big cognition, major stable win establishes the reality that this really can happen.

    BUT

    To get that auditing one MUST become a MEMBER of the IAS. This is not a choice. It is a requirement. To refer others, one MUST become a Field Staff Member. This is not a choice. It is a requirement. To audit others in the field one MUST be a member of I-HELP. This is not a choice. It is a requirement. To use the study technology in the school one MUST sign a contract with Applied Scholastics. This is not a choice. This is a requirement. To contribute as a staff member one MUST sign a contract. This is not a choice. This is a requirement.

    At no point does anyone explain the penalties associated with handing in one’s resignation as a member of the IAS, I-HELP, FSM, staff, etc. At no point does anyone explain that you will be subjected to harsh ethics, shaming, guilting, blame, SP declare, excommunication, disconnection, dismissal, all of which are used to enforce the memberships you were never given a choice about in the first place.

    At no point does anyone explain that you will not ever be allowed to use what you have learned in Scientology without the permission of the Church of Scientology. No one explains that you will only be able to use or speak of this information and knowledge as approved by the Church of Scientology.

    You might not find this out until you wish to discontinue your services for good or just for now, or when you go to leave the Church or staff or perhaps when you express disagreement with the Church of Scientology. If you are one of the truly unfortunate, you will have introduced your friends and family to the Church of Scientology and now you can be threatened to do what you are told, how you are told and forget about this idea that you are going to leave without suffering loss.

    It is nailed in place by the line in Keeping Scientology Working:

    “When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe — never permit an “open- minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us — win or die in the attempt.”

    And kept in place by the justice codes governing leaving, leaves, resignations and expressed disagreement with management and its methods.

    None of this is made clear when one is given a six-month IAS membership and offered courses and auditing as a new person. Or when you buy your first annual. And especially when you are regged to buy a lifetime. It is only when you go to leave (these days, even temporarily) or you study these materials as a staff member that you find this out. This is also when you learn that there is no other organization offering these courses and auditing other than squirrels and suppressives.

    Of course, if any of this was made clear, no one would ever begin in the first place. This is a deceptive practice. It is a bait and switch. No two ways about it.

    This is a far cry from realizing your full potential as a free being.

    This is not the result of organization. It is the result of monopolization.

    • And Maria, compare those Justice Codes (which now number over a hundred in the “Suppressive Acts” list alone in the later “Intro to Scientology Ethics” book), to the original “Creed of the Church” which includes “think freely, talk freely, write freely” and “the inalienable right to conceive, choose, assist or support ones own group”.

      How can one have “inalienable rights” to these things if it is considered “suppressive” if one does so?

      This is a fundamental contradiction, imho, between the basics/original intent of the subject, and later policies and rules.

      • How about the idea of False or pretended PTSness where one is PTS to good hats? You probably can’t name being PTS to dm inside of the cult.
        The truth is he is proabaly the one who is pretending PTSness to all the good hats that he has disembowled over the years as an excuse for his own evil purposes.

        • Yup, that one too. A lot of policy is really designed to support the senior in almost all situations.

          I haven’t watched that series “Century of Self” yet, but I suspect based on what I know of the period and Maria’s comments, that this sort of management approach was very pervasive in the 40s/50s.

      • I wrote up and exposed these sins against the church (a total of 273) back in 1999. That’s when the “church” went after me for alleged violation of their copyright.

        Whoever wrote up the Creed of the Church of Scientology either had an MU on “inalienable”, or used this word knowingly, knowing that one’s rights in the church could be signed away on paper.

        The word “unalienable” should have been used (as it is in our original Founding Fathers’ Declaration of Independence). It’s a much, much stronger word.

        “Inalienable” means nobody can sign away your rights except you. This word leaves a loophole where you can abridge your own rights with a signature. Governments know this. Thomas Jefferson knew this, as well, and so did not use this word in our Declaration. Did the church know this?

        “Unalienable” means not even YOU can sign away your rights. Your rights are INCAPABLE of being abridged. Those things which are “unalienable” are from God or Law of Nature, outside of commerce, and impossible to “alienate” by external force or by personal consent.

        I cringe whenever I hear the word “inalienable” being used as if it really has any power. As one writer in the link below puts it …

        “The difference between “inalienable” and “unalienable” is similar to the difference between a bean blower and a 50 caliber rifle. They both fire projectiles, but where the flying beans are virtually harmless, the 50 caliber bullets are absolutely lethal.”

        http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

        The link above describes the distinctions of both words very clearly.

        Not only is David Miscavige trying to rewrite Scientology history by altering and deleting LRH’s works, other squirrels who built the Jefferson Memorial are rewriting U.S.A. history by altering what Jefferson said IN STONE, wrongfully inscribing that he said “inalienable” in our Founding Document, rather than using what he really wrote, “unalienable”.

    • Captain Non-Sequitur

      agreed

    • “This is not the result of organization. It is the result of monopolization.”

      Awesome post, Maria.

      As far as I know, Scientology is the only religion on planet Earth that’s monopolized. On that alone, is it any wonder it’s so thoroughly scorned?

    • Jean-François Genest

      ► MONOPOLIZATION sums it up perfectly !

    • Great post Maria. I do suspect that there is simply far too much “the only hope for mankind” kind of stuff embedded in the green on white to make it inevitable that the not-very-bright, the self important and the semi-hypnotic would hijack the entire subject. I was slated on this very blog a while back by some for suggesting that KSW #1 was a deeply flawed document, but honestly, I don’t think I was that wide of the mark. “win or die in the attempt” and such sentiments will be taken too literally by many.

  103. Organized religion may be a poor substitute for an individual seeking to raise his (or her) states of awareness and ability, but I don’t think it’s necessarily an oxymoron. Now, total spiritual freedom provided by a paramilitary priesthood? That’s an oxymoron!

    • Well put.

      • Very well put. If you knew nothing of Scientology or its history but proposed forming a “religion” managed by dictator who had a provenly violent past, who ordered his top lieutenants to act like cold chrome steel, who ordered that the parishioners pay and pay till they had nothing left to give, and who demanded 100% loyalty at pain of eternal damnation I’m guessing it wouldn’t recruit too many members.

        Quite the OP – what a discussion!

        Not much I can usefully add to some of the sublime comments above, save to say that the discussion itself is wonderful. It’s incredibly liberating that there is nothing “off limits” when it comes to free and open communication. The debate around whether Scientology was destined to become an abusive cult due to intrinsic doctrines laid down by the founder, or whether it only became such due to the inadequacies and foibles of human beings, will rumble on and on. I have concluded that in order NOT to have become a cult, it would have taken a group of top people in 1986 who had such a rare combination of guile, courage and intelligence that it was nigh on impossible to acheive. How on earth would this group have “sold” the notion of dispensing with vast swathes of the OEC to the faithful, without being labelled squirrels, heretics? How could they have said “well, the Sea Org has served its purpose – now is the time to disband it”? And then there’s the question of whether the Orgs would have survived at all without the Les Dane-style hard sell that LRH himself promoted. Would there have been enough ambient demand for services WITHOUT the hard sell? Who knows. I sure as hell don’t – but I embrace the conversation and the many bright beings taking part in it. Thank you all, and Marty for taking it on. (I bet “Minerva”/ DM will have a field day with this one!)

  104. Marty,

    In an attempt to answer your question, I’ll borrow the following:

    “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
    Albert Einstein

    That said, the utter and complete deification of this man, LRH, that I’ve witnessed over these past decades is what I perceive to be the downfall of the corporate enterprise, RCS. POB piggybacking on and parlaying off this has been the final nail in the coffin of this now recognized dangerous cult

    Yeah, he’s the new Pope….

    It’s a big universe out there and there’s a whole lot of stuff to explore and contribute to. Free beings should splurge on it. Many do but within the confines of the self-constructed and constrained ‘cult’, with what I’ll characterize as “Inc.Think”, force rather than intelligence takes over and is hammered in viciously and violently.

    Never-the-less, Red on White is right. I look upon the other stuff with a jaundiced. calloused and cautious eye. Self-serving, attempting to survive, Borg-like idiots on staff and public have a tendency, if not obsessive compulsion, to rattle off some irrelevant Source crap and deliver it with some synthetic “tone 40″ glassy eyed intention. Seen it. Done it. Been there.

    The applied philosophy has not and never will die. The lunatic church will though. In fact I hear the death rattle.

    By the way, thanks for one of the most thought provoking and enlightening essays and threads I believe I’ve read so far in the past few years here.

  105. Man. There’s a lot to this, Marty. I tell you what, this post stirred up a hornet’s nest. Over 200 comments like a flash!

    I don’t agree completely with your assessment. I believe that at the time Big-League Sales and getting people to guide public into the org made sense. There was a time when basic sales techniques were needed by orgs, because orgs were hanging out shingles and not engaging in marketing and sales activities.

    It is a basic sales datum that you don’t sell someone who is already sold. In the Miss N. story, she wants auditing. She is SOLD. So, sign her up. This is basic. I can see the case where Miss N. comes in and the book store officer says “great! You want some processing. But, you know what, it all started with Book One, and so, it’s only $5… or, really, we like to start people on the comm course, or perhaps you’d like to come to a PE lecture on Sunday – Joe is really good!” This is Q&A. She wants auditing, give her auditing.
    There is nothing wrong with this.

    Also, there is such as thing as the bridge. And it is easy to wander off lines on a win. If you have just completed Grade 0, sure, you can wander off and communicate away, but Grade I is the next step, and there is no harm in someone asking you to continue. There is nothing wrong with this. I know I wanted my next levels.

    Sales techniques are valid if done ethically. I know it reeks of filthy lucre but at the end of the day, you need people who know how to work with people to get them to buy. Ethics is key here, because the product that is being sold has to good, and truly needed and wanted by the customer. A good sales person can demonstrate and establish the need, and help the customer find a way to get it. I hope most people here can recall good regges along with the bad that they have dealt with at orgs.

    Now, where the problem is is in how the church has been pretty much screwing up on everything: Roteness. Rather than be sensible about it, they latch on to a policy and kill the hell out of it, so that the policy becomes the problem rather than the solution.

    I don’t consider that the reason for this is because Scientologists believe “Scientology is the only way, and that we have a planet to clear you SOB!”. I consider that the reason for this is because Scientologists have allowed rote, non-thinking following of policy because challenging it is such as cussing nightmare. Hence the idiotic application of the re-sign policy. Hence the idiotic application of a lot of outdated policies.

    I do get the theme, though, which I saw in your book as well, which is: There is a point when you are done. You can graduate from the bridge and move on a to great life. As Karen pointed out so well above, Scientology helps you be more “you”. How much “you” can you be? This, by the way, was why I stopped at OT IV. I EP’d OT III completely – and here they were asking me for more. Sorry – done. And that is a message that is completely lacking from the church – that you can be done. Not done with life, of course, but done with having to repair it. Back in the day, the OT levels were supposed to be about ability gained, not disability removed. I see none of that in the currently line up.

    But to get back to this post – there is nothing wrong with ethically helping people get to the point of EP’ing the bridge, and sometimes sales techniques can be a useful tool.

  106. The Church of Miscavige uses “covert invalidation” and “nullification” to control the staff and public. The criminal activity is standard operating procedure, especially at FRAUD SCAM BASE. Would most of you agree the method used to control others is listed above? Just curious. You are never enough – never can give enough – never can be enough. I had enough!

  107. MARTY
    “An insidious parallel to helping and saving all peoples of earth evolved throughout Scientology writings. That is, the stress became not so much to make Scientology accessible to everybody as much as to make Scientology mandatory for everyone. This approach led to a type of dual personality for the subject.”

    Great post and particularly the above point.

    IMO one should follow the admin scale as the best guide as to what to do. Far as I know LRH didn’t write a specific admin scale for Scn. However I believe he operated on a dual goal on his own admin scale, as expressed above. There is a tape where he comments he would knock people out and drag them out of a prison camp if they wouldn’t follow his advice to leave. [ very loose translation]

    I believe admin scales should be re-evaluated from time to time also.

    I was suprised to see the CO$ website on Admin scales state this:-
    ” Policy
    Policy consists of the operational rules or guides for the organization which are not subject to change. ”

    This is not part of Org series 18 THIRD DYNAMIC ABBERATION
    which is the main PL on the admin scale.

    However HCOPL THE STRUCTURE OF AN ORGAINISATION
    WHAT IS POLICY? 13 march 1965 issue 3 says this:-

    ” Periodic sweep-outs of of antiquated and didactic laws ( rather than general concepts and sub purposes ~must~ be undertaken by a being, organisation,group or race or species.”

    I think LRH did tech for blood. His admin seems more like a fun game for him, and contains much good stuff, but also other material that gives a non optimum slant. As an example he said he solved the problem of succession. Let the successor do the OEC/FEBC. Guess that one didn’t work out!

  108. Oh, I don’t consider “organised religion” an oxymoron. Intereacting with others requires some organisation. However ” organised religion” has a bad name because they usually ended up dramatising some idiots obsessions, bank or whatever. because they got in power and could.

  109. Religion is a part of (human) life on earth. To ask “is organized religion an oxymoron?” is to ask “is ‘organized life’ an oxymoron?”. IMO the only place where this question is answered is in Existentialism, which says “life is chaos”, in which case, the answer is “yes”. So if you are an Existentialist, the answer is yes. If you are not an Existentialist, the answer could be anything, proving that life is indeed chaos.

    Then there’s Science, which tends to inspect “the oranization of life”. Social Science inspects “the organization of religion” as well as other social institutions. In Social Science, organization itself is problematic. My personal theory is that any social organization should be kept in check by limiting its size. In other words, we should take our cues from the natural world. For example, mono-cultures are bad (against life). When any organized entity (organism, biological or social) becomes too large, it becomes problematic. Monopolies are bad (against life), period, whether its a virus or a corporation. Small groups (such as families) that become problematic simply die off. But large ones do not, due to “strength in numbers”. So in conclusion, size does matter, especially when it comes to the greatest good, in which case organization size should be inversely proportional as you approach the upper dynamics. This is why man has gravitated towards monotheism. If there were unlimited Gods, man would be very unhappy and we’d all kill each other trying to appease them all. One God is much “cleaner”, although the chaos does not allow us to agree on whose God is THE God. Perhaps that makes another case for why “organized religion” IS an oxymoron.

    Hugh Urban’s book explains “why Scientology grew so fast”. But Scientology’s tipping point is past and now it is in decline. It’s only a matter of time before it dies off. But you Indie guys, as a small group, can flourish and prosper. As long as you don’t try and take over the world.

  110. A breath of sanity.

    Cheers.

  111. Marty, every word of this is so true. Thank you so much for writing it, you deserve a medal – I have one you can have. This article should be on the front page of every newspaper because it certainly makes clear to any reader, what the intention of Scientology was and what has actually happened to Scientology. For those of you who are in doubt and working out when to leave. My tip is: leave now. It is heaven. Bliss. Your life will be unrecognisable. There is nothing hard or scary or horrid about it after you have pressed the “send” button on your fabulous, hastily written, goodbye email to the Church. Yes, the sad fact is that you have been conned by the Church as it is today. The world is a fabulous place full of millions of fabulous people who are kind, and warm and smart and successful and fun to be with, and they are waiting for you to make your mark in it as YOU. Not as some clone of “Dolly the sheep” or when you reach OT 65 and you have studied the Basic Fairy Tales for the 75th time. Leaving, in actual fact, turns out to be no more serious a move, than the day you rode your bike alone, without the training wheels. But the benefits are immense and endless and more profound that anything you will be paying dearly for right now. I am sure you have secretly been thinking those benefits of leaving might be good for you!! Well wind back the clock and practice “what is true is what is true for you” and be free again. You do not have to belong to any particular group outside Scientology. You can be with this one or that one, or no one. The great thing is – you can do and say whatever you like and you don’t have to answer to anyone. This blog is a great meeting place because thousands of people visit it every day. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with every comment, or article. As in normal life, you do not have to be or do or have anything. You choose. And you can even choose, and then change your mind, and choose another group if you want – and the one sure thing is, nobody out here will be declaring you for leaving!! Ha ha! The only way out is out! See you out here!!! It’s absolutely amazing!!! Love Wendy Honnor

  112. You do, Matt Plahuta, sound like a really nice guy! Like morelifesthanacat and so many many others. Love all you guys this morning!

  113. Rodney McCormick

    Scientology will NOT save the world; but David Miscavige will beat the living shit out of you if you think otherwise. . .

  114. Rodney McCormick

    I think he did this to his wife, ‘Shelly’, but we can’t be sure – since no-one has seen Her in years. . . Do you think He killed Her!?!

  115. The current C of S is a web of lies with its primary focus on controlling you. They use the concept of hatting = control = income to the letter except they have only one intention: take every penny you can from the member, its better in our pocket then theirs. DISGUSTING and outrageous. If you look at the promotions you get in mail its all about giving money and donating to the IAS!! I’m not sure how many people are leaving SCN but I heard the orgs are pretty damn empty. Is that true?

  116. Great post Marty,
    To answer your question: No It is not an oxymoron, as at the very core of every religion is the purpose to organize human beings into a coherent group and to harmonize their diverse impulses and viewpoints into a generally agreed universal goal.

    The conflict is between the originally stated goal of the religion and their actual practices, with the resultant chaos, disharmony and never ending warfare between human beings, caused by the very organizations that sought to remedy human suffering in the first place.

    What I consider an oxymoron is a “religious being” or a “religious thetan”.

    In my very personal view, that identity is a fundamental character flaw, denoting a very basic weakness, incompatible to our very nature and as ridiculous as thirst is to a to a water molecule.

    After all we are it; we can’t help but to have direct experience with the eternal. Why masquerade as a so called spiritual, religious being , when you already have it all?

    Thank you for giving me the chance to express my views,
    Conrad

  117. Hey Marty, fellow travellers…

    What a post to have a “quick look” at…

    I think you answered the question already.

    Symantics (is Scientology really a religion) aside it is simply a matter of balance which you already alluded to in your post.

    Taking the “sliding scale approach” as it were, I think there is a model or formula to be found by sliding the scales of purpose, acceptance and results, assuming of course the best of those three elements are examined.

    I haven’t seen too many “Religions” get this right but there are some. But are they religions? Oh it gets soo complicated!

    But you are nothing if not brave to pose this riddle to all.

    I would say this though. How long ago did we (humans) develope argriculture (organisation of the energy required to physically exist)? 9000 odd years ago? And what percentage of the planet is able to eat a balanced diet? Compare that to how long ago we started even considering the subject of mental energy and nourishment. A silly point to make perhaps but I think it is important to remember that, historically speaking, we are very much in our infancy when it comes to the subject of the mind and spirit (as opposed to belief/worship of god/s, etc).

    Rather than trying to figure out the perfect answer/solution to the question/problem I think it best to simply ensure progress is being made in the right direction. That is of course subjective I know and as such lies another riddle.

    Anyway, before I dive into more philosophical ramblings I must dash… My stomach needs some of that balanced diet! :-)

    My best to all on your respective journeys!

  118. I thought fraud was a rather strong word. I think misduplicated intention might be closer. I understand LRH’s predicament of a fast dwindling society and a race to inject enough sanity into it. Just studying other civilizations and the indicators before they went South, might instill some desperation. So Hard Sell, I can understand.

    It’s an interesting point of conflict. The very principles of successful business consist of moving products/services and collecting money yet the Tech transcends these materialistic pursuits and should be absorbed with full self determinism. So there is a basic conflict there.

    But regarding this quoted PL on Handling the Public Individual … the example LRH gives is basically about “Mrs. Pattycake” or “Mrs. Not-Quite-Sure” coming to an org and basically NEEDING direction to get started. I haven’t read that particular PL in a while but I do recall it’s gist.

    I’m not sure that a person CANNOT make up their minds about what to do next. In fact, it should be pretty simple if someone is enlightened on the Grade Chart. And the only job of the Reg is to enlighten that person about the next service. I don’t know where crush regging came into it. Maybe there is a difference between hard sell and crush regging. At any rate, I’m sure LRH would have likely taken another look at these policies as it relates to NOW. I do recall a lecture where LRH talks about people wandering in and out of Scientology and that this was OK.

    Lastly, consider the fact that if a person truly had wins with the course, doing the next one is probably not going to be an issue. I mean, who wouldn’t want to continue? On the other hand, Miscavige has thrown enough red tape there with his insanely high prices AND unreal checksheet items and times (GAT drills, etc) that it’s no wonder crush regging NEEDS to be done.

  119. This is an excellent and truthful article,an excellent asessment of what really is the case with Scientology.

  120. I haven’t read all the comments here, but I would like to briefly answer the question you posed about “organized religion” being an oxymoron. I would say the answer is “yes”. One of my favorite maxims is “Your BELIEFS don’t make you a better person, your BEHAVIOR does”. If organized religion brought about broad improvements in behavior, I would say it was a good thing. Unfortunately, organized religion has brought about Inquisitions, suicide bombers and other atrocities – all in the name of religion. I am sure there are many examples of benign behavior brought about by organized religion, but I believe that sooner or later all religious organizations have to focus most of their actions on the survival of the organization itself to the exclusion of any original altruistic intent that might have been present when the organization first formed. In the years after I left corporate Scientology, I have learned to “go to church” in my head and take my own individual steps to improve my personal behavior. And I find that much easier to do without an organization looming over me.

  121. “This state of affairs led to my posing the question, ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’”

    This is an old conundrum for sure. Krishnamurti decided in 1929 that organized religion was inimical to promoting spiritual growth in the members of that religion so to prevent that from happening he dissolved his own organization. Some might be interested in reading his thoughts on the matter since they pertain to many of the issues you are dealing with: http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-krishnamurti/dissolution-speech.php

    Note: I am not a Krishnamurti follower, I don’t even know much about his philosophy. But I have long admired this decision of his, if for no other reason that it showed that he was an “ethical guru” who put the well being of his followers over that of his organization or himself – the exact opposite of CofS.

    • An effective guru is really no guru at all.

      • Yes, in that they cannot lead to individual freedom.

        Re bait and switch, Scientology data that goes along with that well is the lecture tape “The Five Conditions”, specifically the condition of Emergency in which he says to “promote” that one has eggs when one doesn’t THEN prepare to deliver by finding some eggs to supply. In the example, when he does find eggs, they are brown eggs which people weren’t expecting so he say to launch a campaign to convince people that brown eggs are better than what they were expecting.

        Consider how that same scenario might have played out in Hubbard’s discovery and promotion of Scientology.

    • Thanks for the link. A very interesting point. In order to be fully realized and fully yourself, and fully free, you cannot place yourself either above or below other people – you just have to be. Deceptively simple.

  122. What were our Founding Fathers opinions about organized religion?

    “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” — Thomas Paine, 1794 The Age of Reason

    http://www.christianitydisproved.com/onlinereading/the-age-of-reason-by-thomas-paine.html

    “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

    Ditto, Sirs.

    Had corporate Scientology been around then, I’m sure Paine would have mentioned this church institute, too. The priests in corporate Scientology are clearly hostile to Liberty.

    I suggest both Tom’s of Liberty would say “Yes” to the question of organized religion being an oxymoron.

  123. Well !!! One thing for sure Marty – you know how to keep stirring the pot.

    (not calling it a kettle, mind you :)

    I think I saw it on FB but I LOVE this quote: “Life begins at the OTHER side of your comfort zone.”

    The trick is to SEE what is your comfort zone, to SEE how one has weaved his/her life into a PATTERN of acceptable easily CONFRONTABLE parts, and then to have the courage to SOMEHOW step over all of that …

    It’s not easy. It’s not fun and it’s too often never done. But because it’s not done often, we have those who call themselves “scientologists” “independents” or “ex’s” or “buddhists” or “husbands” or “wives” or “friends” or “lovers” … all labels … all comfortable in some way and all ultimately
    a recipe for suffering.

    (this comment was is prompted by the earlier remark about cognitive dissonance — )

    I’ve found the less I expect my life to “work” the less suffering I do.

    IMHO what Marty is attempting to point out through his blog, through his comments and through his book(s) is that IF we are to have a joyful life, we need to NOT embrace extremes. In fact, I would take it one small step further — embrace (cling to) nothing, recognizing that there is nothing permanent no matter how good/bad/neutral you might be.

    The ONLY thing permanent is not OF this physical world.

    You can call it you, theta, buddhanature, zen mind, the way …

    And once you call it any of those – it’s now become part of this world and thus duality arises again and off you go :)

    Love,
    Christine

    • If there is anything of importance lacking in Scientology technology it is the lack of emphasis on learning to let go. Here is one paradigm that I think works. There is back and forth on whether Scientology Grades result in ‘releases’ or ‘abilities.’ I say, a release is the demonstration of an ability if you recognize it as such.

      • Christine & Marty,
        So many thoughts from this string of postings. I believe we can agree that this is all part of the game of life. Nothing fixed and a flux in motion at all times.

        “Sit down before fact like a little child,
        and be prepared to give up every preconceived
        notion,follow humbly wherever and to whatever
        abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”

        T. H. Huxley

        To me that is part of letting go. Any person who merely hangs on to their fixed ideas cannot and will not change. As to the Grades and their outcome. Could it not be that the applied auditing technology results in a release and that the evidence of this change of state is the ability gained? Not that it matters that much. A correctly done procedure results in both and I don’t believe one can exist without the co-existence of the other.

        I don’t have the reference at hand, but have quoted it before in posting. The bank (aberrative mind) is made up of UNEVALUATED DATA. Whether this occurred in a moment of pain and unconsciousness, as in an engram, – or – the wholesale agreement to the opinions and wordings from DM, SO members or even LRH.

        Only be the evaluation of those datums of knowledge that we accept, and thus become a core of stability to build upon, can we make our life what we dream it to be. Strip away the unevaluated data and we see a good being with increased abilities. In my opinion that is the value of the technology of Scientology, and that is what can be had in the field and group of independent sentient beings such as I find here (as well as elsewhere – we are not the only ones as you both know.)

        • the ability to really let go is OT. It is true cause. you have to get out of your mind to let go.

        • Sapere : “The bank (aberrative mind) is made up of UNEVALUATED DATA. Whether this occurred in a moment of pain and unconsciousness, as in an engram, – or – the wholesale agreement to the opinions and wordings from DM, SO members or even LRH.”

          Thank you for this — it’s have helped me to understand this particular line from a Tibetan Buddhist chant:

          “May confusion dawn as wisdom”

          Huh??? as well within Tibetan Buddhism EVERYTHING is considered part of ones path — not to be rejected. Huh???

          But your post helped me to see that all of existence is there in the reactive mind — and once it’s evaluated it becomes potentially wisdom …

          Simple. :) :)

      • Yes, and that is a very strong message.

      • I’m not sure, Marty. The PDCs, particularily the lecture “What is wrong with the MEST-Universe” covers this concept very well.

        But it’s true on admin lines, for sure.
        Must-Have / Can’t have is however spoken of (especially on registrar lines). For me this is the opposite from “let-go” (if I can have something, I can let it go – there is no other way).

      • I say you get what you get, when you get it, no matter what the purported release state claims. CS Series 1 says it all. Obviously, many have failed to duplicate some key points in this reference. Also, the HCOB on persistent FN’s has been heavily violated, in the recent and distant past. A portion of the line that talked to me personally was “can last for days, months, even years”. If someone has the exact quote, please move in and set the record straight.

        I thought your post was brilliant, by the way. I liked very much what I have read about in the “old days” of Scientology at St. Hill when many smart and highly trained auditors were working out different rundowns and reporting such to LRH. I particularly enjoyed reading the write up by John McMaster, the first Clear, (circa 1969) and what he had to say about the S & D rundowns.

  124. Perhaps all could be solved within Scientology if the “Two Rules for Happy Living” were “ruthlessly” applied. But how does a reg do so when one has been drilled to within an inch of one’s life to get someone through the “enforce”. Another Catch-22?

    • IMHO although the 2 Rules for Happy Living are a nice “slogan” but the first one (or the second don’t know the proper order) is completely unworkable, IMHO. (Only cause those things that another can have easily)

      How can you ONLY cause those things that others can have easily without being 1) a doormat or 2) a chameleon 3) two faced 4) without a back bone and the list goes on.

      I think that one should look at ones life. See IF the actions one lives by are being done in order to ENABLE another to not have to confront the difficult parts of life. OR IF there is a co-depency in ones actions and with others or another …

      My closest friend has told me again and again that even IF it appears untenable … if someone is still doing what seems strange it’s ONLY because it WORKS for them.

      On some level.

      Sometimes it’s necessary to cause an effect that another CANNOT have easily and then let go.

      And pray for them, in whatever way one knows how.

      Christine

  125. Excellent article Marty. Nice to see that your purpose is truly enlightenment and you are not trapped in the paradox of conforming in order to be free.

  126. FCDC Class of 74

    Great post Marty it really explained what happened to me from the seventies forward a lot of BPC blown. I has been a wonderful day readingthe comments as well. Thought provoking. Thank you. Bill

  127. Gerhard Waterkamp

    I guess Marty is having fun posting this question; ‘is organized religion an oxymoron?’
    Organization creates synergies, so it is of course a valuable tool for any activity, even pursuing a religion.
    I went into the tech dictionary and looked for the terms “Transparency” and “Accountability” as without those any Organization is at extremely high risk of getting hijacked. I was not surprised those terms were nowhere to be found.
    Imagine the shape Scientology could be in today, if green on white had the same amount of emphasis and written words for these two: Transparency and Accountability; – as for example on the subject of SP declares and ethics violations and penalties.
    LRH was aware and wrote about those concepts for example in HCO PL 9 Jan 51, An Essay on Management, “drop no curtains between the organization and the public about anything.”, but when it comes to policy to implement it in one or another way there is utter silence in the green volumes.
    Imagine David Miscavige being forced by green on white to transparency. Not talking gibberish at the New Year’s events, but having to report on income and spending: $5 Million, to first enervate and then shut up Debbie Cook, $5 Mio to entertain Marty with John Allen in a role of yucky the animator, $5 Mio to titillate Mike and follow him around wherever possible. Not to mention the other $10 Mio for additional MAA staff so the SP declares that are in straight vertical expansion, can be handled.
    That alone would make all the poor Schmucks who just spend all their money for their sec checks, IAS, Super Power and Idle Org donations, and are now facing the foreclosure of their home, raise the question of Accountability. That would finally make for some interesting New Year’s event.
    Had green on white spelled out, that accountability increases as one moves up the org board, – while the janitor is accountable to the people using the facilities, the General Manager is accountable to all customers, shareholders and the general public. If this had been laid out and implemented firmly in policy there might have been some damage to the image of Scientology been done over time, but at least nobody could as easy go haywire with it like DM did.
    Independent Scientology will need some forms of organization to move forward in this society. There can be no doubt about it. Activists will burn out and lonely wolfs have only one lifetime. Cooperation and Organization will make things easier and allow for protection and sustainability. The fact it has failed before is not testimony to the assumption that organization is bad, it is an opportunity to observe and learn and get it right the next time.
    I think this thread has many great examples on learning and observing, thanks Marty, for starting this.

  128. To respond to your question about organized religion being an oxymoron, Marty, I’d suggest that you first clearly and fully define your use of the word “religion”. If you are meaning a primarily philosophical concept, unfettered by the rigors of day-to-day living, then I’d have to respond that “YES, most definitely, Organized Religion is an oxymoron. If, however, you are meaning a recognizable, hence duplicate-able, practice meant to translate and apply a cohesive philosophical construct into daily life in order to enhance one’s perceived ability to attain higher levels of enlightenment, and, of course, offer such a path to others so inclined, then I’d respond that, “NO, Organized Religion is not an oxymoron, but, rather a necessity.”

    As regards Scientology and Dianetic Tech, I think I’d have to say that, while there are some well trained and highly disciplined practitioners that can deliver a broad spectrum of services to their clients while maintaining decent quality standards, they are a minority. Most folks- even the best intentioned- simply need at least a small group to consistently put out a decent product. And, I would further contend that those few well trained and highly disciplined practitioners that can do it never would have achieved such levels of competence without the benefit of a rather large group being involved in their training and interning. Hence, for all practical purposes, and especially for the delivery of a quality Scientology product, MOST DEFINITELY, Organized Religion is NOT and oxymoron.

    Addressing your contention (with which I heartily agree) that Scientology Inc. has devolved into a bait and switch scheme to extract more and more money from an ever decreasing number of active public, your scenario of the hows and why’s doesn’t really resonate for me. Not that I think it’s incorrect, just, maybe, incomplete. But your organizational involvement, and the years over which it took place were much different than mine. To me, Corporate Scientology’s path down the dark road leading to today’s “Crush Regging” began back in the day when Org’s were encouraged to sign on for staff anyone and everyone who could fog a mirror and put pen to paper. Combine that with the fact that 50% or more of the GI had to be sent to Int, and you have a bunch of not particularly “up-stat” (by social standards) staff who got paid pennies per hour, and had bare minimums of training running around these places delivering services to public sent up from Missions. Sure, there were some real gems here and there, but overall, Org Staff was not where most people wanted to go after getting trained to the higher levels. They wanted to go back to the Missions.

    Missions, by contrast, only had to send up 10% of their GI, and only needed to staff up for the functions their public flow was demanding. They could pay their producing staff a decent wage, and could present a relatively “up-stat” image to the public. They didn’t need “Big League Sales”, because the product was selling itself. So you ended up with Missions having more well trained staff, more income, and way bigger traffic flow than Orgs. The bait and switch, as you laid it out (at least for the most part) didn’t take place, because it never had to, and the Mission Holders who any sense realized immediately it would be a path to self destruction, if chosen.

    The destruction of the Mission Network, instigated, or at least condoned and continued by DM was nothing more than a money grab. It worked for a while, but the flow of public kept getting smaller and smaller. Bait and switch, crush regging, or whatever you want to call it are simply natural symptoms of a Scientology Inc corpus infected with the cancer “prosperity envy” and plain old greed. Death is sure to follow.

  129. Marty, your observation says so much in a powerfully condensed way:

    “…the stress became not so much to make Scientology accessible to everybody as much as to make Scientology mandatory for everyone.”

    It logically follows that if Corporate Scientology is to be made mandatory for everyone then:

    2. Corporate Scientology must become the mandatory universal enforced identity.

    1. Stats must exist in order to track the progress of Corporate Scientology’s expansion into the mandatory universal enforced identity. The policy that “stats must increase each and every week” is a reflection of the mandatory nature of Corporate Scientology: Each week, more and more people must and will, by whatever means necessary, become Corporate Scientologists and this must continue until this is a Corporate Scientology planet.

    2. Corporate Scientology justice and ethics exist in order to interrogate, incarcerate, and punish all those who violate the will, intentions, and purposes of the Corporation.

    3. Those who do not make their stats or who are assigned blame for some problem are singled out for incredible punishment by the Corporation. To avoid punishment, stats have been falsified and lies have been told. To avoid the Corporate Scientology’s culture of continuous punishment, however, many people have blown or just left. Thus, Corporate Scientology has been consistently crippled by its own former members due to its own punitive efforts to make Corporate Scientology mandatory.

    3. Fair Game must exist in order to “handle” those who speak out against Corporate Scientology. If Corporate Scientology is to be mandatory, then Free Speech cannot exist as regards the Corporation. Therefore, Free Speech directed against Corporate Scientology must be punished by all legal and illegal means possible.

    4. Corporate Scientology must consistently lie to itself, its own members, the public, and the media about its stats, expansion, and atrocious conduct in order to perpetuate its core belief that it is waging a noble war to become mandatory in the face of global suppression from the Psychs, critics, the Indies, and the media

    5. Forget the Tech; the ultimate bait and switch is this: The EP of Corporate Scientology is IAS membership. The mandatory enforced identity is that of a “Good Scientologist” who is forever working to increase his or her IAS Patron Status.

    6. Those who do not perpetually work to increase their IAS Patron status will be interrogated, incarcerates, and punished for violating the will, intentions, and purposes of the Corporation.

    7. Finally, Corporate Scientology cannot be made broadly available to those who lack the wherewithal. It would out exchange to give away that which is priceless. Therefore, these people will be given copies of TWTH and offered Sea Org membership in order to put in their exchange with the Corporation.

  130. Sorry a cleaner answer.

    Q: “Is organized religion an oxymoron?’

    A: If the organized religion is a group of beings believing themselves and selling themselves as those assisting in survival, when they are actually assisting in things which inhibit survival, and destroying things which assist survival, then yes, that organized religion would be an oxymoron.

    If a person believes them self to be, and is selling them self as one assisting in survival, when they are actually assisting in things which inhibit survival, and destroying things which assist survival, then that person would be an oxymoron.

    • It would be up to each individual, to know, if they connected to an organized religion, if that religion is assisting them in survival. And the bottom line is this, if the person decides that it is, if they are right or wrong either way, they will live with the results.

      In Scientology, there are people that are pushed out against their will. And there are people that walk away because they no longer feel they are being assisted.

      I can not speak for the conflict inside someone they might feel from having been pushed out or kicked out against their will.

      I can say this, it is a person’s right and even a duty, to walk away from some group that is inhibiting their survival and destroying things that assist in their survival.

      The big OVER RIDE in Scientology is when a person decides that being connected to the Church of Scientology is not assisting in their survival, and they leave, and the Church or someone in it INSISTS they ARE contributing to their survival and penalizes them for deciding it is not contributing to their survival.

      Religion and self help are ELECTIVE subjects in America and most other countries. Not ENFORCED laws.

      It is TABOO in Scientology to decide that your local Church or your Church group is no longer contributing to your survival. And thoughts such as these are inhibited suppressed and attacked. Against the backdrop of the ethics book and the doubt formula!

      Nevertheless, each person has a right to decide or know about these things, even a duty.

      The Church of Scientology “knows” the only reason you are leaving is because of your crimes, NOT THEIRS. And they ONLY, not you, have the right to know or decide these things for you and there can always only be one right answer for everyone all the time. And that answer is that Church is assisting you.

      Well, that is a conflict of interests. A member in that group is the only one looking out after his own interests if he is capable. The Church is looking out for their interests. It is in their interest for everyone to believe and agree all the time that every Church and every part of the Church and every member of the Church and every project in the Church is aiding the member in survival. This is a MUST (enforced) think and to think otherwise brings consequences or threats of punishment and loss.

      Worse, the members and staff are not permitted to consider if the Church or David Miscavige is assisting them in survival. This is also punishable, although doubt IS a human condition!

      This consideration and perception and ability humans have to decide or know if some influence is helping them or not or suppressing them, is a gift, a natural talent. It is a gift to be able to decide what / who is assisting you. And what / who is / will inhibit your survival, and is destroying things which assist in your survival. A person can not survive without this ability turned up full volume and realized and it is a perception innate to a thetan like smell or hearing to a dog. When it is ordered to be suppressed and a person begins to suppress this ability within themselves, they are set up to self destruct.

      • If I wanted to be a wholly compliant Scientologist that agreed that anyone who left the Church did so because of their crimes, even then I would have to ask myself, “Hubbard left and did not come back. What are his crimes against the Church of Scientology?”

        • Beyond all of that and moving forward to present time, this conversation became possible . That in itself is a miracle against the backdrop of walls placed between us. When I finished L12, all I could say was, “All of the conversations I never thought would be possible, became possible”.

          Thanks to Marty and the bright, thinking, intelligent people that sit at his table, there is another conversation that needs to become possible. It is one sided. But this is my conversation to David Miscavige that has become possible:

          The entire subject of Scientology and events of Scientology for me, were one thing. Hubbard selling and teaching knowledge.

          All of that knowledge has been disseminated freely now in the wind and is available to anyone reaching to have it.

          You are not the author and you have indulged in unjust enrichment.

          What is it YOU have to sell in the marketplace these days? I am still trying to figure out YOUR value in this equation.

          Let’s look over your defining moments:

          You made sure Karen’s son could not reach out to her. How has that assisted anyone?

          You made sure Rena Weinberg was degraded and humiliated and set up for losses under your charge and it has now become public. How has that assisted anyone?

          You made sure some thug drove by Marty’s house, and he almost hit a child with his car. How has that assisted anyone?

          You made sure Hubbard’s most devoted followers , volunteers, were imprisoned, degraded, humiliated. How has that assisted anyone?

          You made sure people thought they had to buy you a ship before you would stop running a can’t have on an OT level. How has that assisted anyone?

          Managing the selling and delivery of Scientology got to be too much for you and you established beggar units to survive. How has that assisted anyone? I see no products even from the begging. No booming Orgs and no delivery of Super Power even in two decades of successful begging. So how the fuck has that assisted anyone?

          You cancelled all of the certs of every auditor on this planet, even the ones Hubbard trained and certified. How has that assisted anyone?

          You bought an apartment in Hollywood and had it renovated under the name of the Church by Church staff and Church donations exclusivity for your own use. How has that assisted anyone?

          You have ordered people to lie on national television to the point of it becoming a comedy. How has that assisted anyone?

          You sent a crew of domestic terrorists to Texas to silence and suppress Marty and his wife. How has that assisted anyone?

          You pretended to know something about C/Sing at Flag and left a dead body called Lisa Macphearson behind. How has that assisted anyone?

          You destroyed the mission network Hubbard spent 37 years building.

          Pray tell, How has that assisted anyone?

          You tortured, humiliated, degraded and abused Debbie Cook because she would not contribute to a false report. How has that assisted anyone?

          You lent a Sea Org Member dedicated to L.R.H., to a movie star for personal perks to upgrade his toys. How has that assisted anyone?

          You physically abused people who gave everything they had to a better world. How has that assisted anyone?

          I could go on another 40 yards at least with this space.

          Sure, I know you did an offer and compromise with IRS. Thousands of people do it every year. I also know how much money was hoarded to settle that deal. By the way, where is the change?

          The point is David, you think you are assisting people with your presence.

          ” Insane Certainty: Would be no certainty at all, or a certainty asserted by only one or two people and disagreed with by all others.” L.R.H.

          Who is it in the “certainty”? You and Monique Yinling?

          “Insanity is an individual assisting things which inhibit survival and destroying things which assist survival.” L.R.H.

          Who have you assisted?

          Lawyers in squashing the protest reads.
          P.R. people spreading false reports to cover your ass.
          Liar.
          People who are willing to physically abuse others on command.
          People willing to take hush money.
          Beggar units.
          Stalkers.
          Domestic terrorists.
          Spies.
          Plants.
          Private (1.1) investigators.
          Lobbyists.
          Soldiers who torment on your behalf.

          All of the above inhibit survival for a living.

          What have you destroyed that assisted survival?

          The reputation of L.R.H..
          Many staff and friends of L. Ron Hubbard.
          Auditors all over the world.
          Many Orgs.
          The mission network.
          The Narconon Network.
          Standard tech.
          Member’s trust.
          Good faith.
          Good will.
          Promise for a better world.
          Knowledge.
          Good staff.
          Safe space.
          Trust.
          Marriages.
          Babies.
          Children.
          Reputations.
          Careers.
          Sanity.
          Clears.
          OT’s.
          Public.
          Students.
          Working installations.
          The influence of Scientology knowledge into the community.
          Bridges.
          Comm lines.
          Scientologists.

          What was it you did not predict because of your own handicaps?

          There actually are people that are capable at reading, writing, and arithmetic.

        • I’m puzzled about LRH disappearing from the public view from October 1979 on. I ask, “Why?” He allegedly wrote 3 letters on 3 February 83 to prove he was still alive, which I find odd. The end part of his life is a mystery to me. I’ve wondered if it was blow phenomenon, or if something was done to him with malice aforethought. I hope this mystery gets cleared up some day.

          “Why going through so much trouble and complications to prove some person is still alive? L. Ron Hubbard for example could easily have prepared a self-recorded videotape showing yesterdays newspaper. But no, we get into special formulated ink, handwritten letters with fingerprints, and sworn affidavits.”

          http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1_lrh-whereaboutsd.html#lrhbreakssilence

  131. Religion as organized system is based on power and acceptance of ideas of others. The absorption of those ideas, meaning developing your own power and autonomy (self-determination) however, is threatening for the system and for the other members. The result is that some forms of religion destroy spirituality.
    Spirituality is essentially an emancipation proces, a proces to freedom. But there is also a fear from freedom (lots of books about this fear). Many people do not choose spirituality (if they have any choice at all!), but they choose religion in an institutionalized form.
    The word religion means to connect back (re-ligare) with ourselves, with who we really are. And who or what can help us with that? The teacher or guru you are with at this very moment is the one that suits you the best at that moment. Others will warn us: be careful, he takes all your money! Or, he is misleading you! But as long as the discipel does not notice that he is being deceived, then that is the very lesson he has to learn before he can leave that teacher or guru.
    We get the sects that we need, we get the conflicts that we need, the deception we need, to be able to really understand. Some of us take longer or very long to finally see it. The moment you ask yourself ‘What am I doing here’, is the moment you step out of the role of victim, you look at yourself and take up your own responsibility. You start thinking for yourself.
    That’s why Buddhists say: ‘If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!’ Because if you meet Buddha and you bow for him, you forget that you are yourself the Buddha, you loose your spirituality. That’s why Christ said: you don’t have to go to church. You are me. Don’t bow for me.
    So if you meet Misgavige …
    The moment He acclaimed from behind the pulprit: ‘Welcom to church!’, he signed the death-warrant on spirituality and on his own church.
    (With thanks to the works of E. Schneider).

    • “But as long as the discipel does not notice that he is being deceived, then that is the very lesson he has to learn before he can leave that teacher or guru.”

      True. I see that as a similar concept to “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. I felt if I stayed in Scientology, it would have eventually killed me. In hindsight, the greatest ability I gained from the experience is a hard wired extremely high-powered bullshit meter (thank you, Mr. Hubbard!). But not everyone comes away with the same thing.

      The problem with organized religion is you cannot be an Individualist and survive in an institution. By their very nature, institutions are anti-Individualist. That is why even Theistic Existentialism could never become an organized religion, because Existentialists will never agree on everything, (but they have no problem with that). Hubbard erred when he craved institution as a necessary outcome of his craving acceptance.

      Today when people ask me what my religion is, I say, that’s very personal and I choose not to discuss it casually. I believe that personal beliefs cannot be discussed rationally within groups. Attempts to do so ultimately wind up in conflict -> power struggle -> Absurdity, etc. I only discuss it with my most intimate connections whom I trust to do so with.

      “Organized Religion” is an oxymoron because Thought Control (spiritual dictate) cannot = Spiritual Freedom, ever, as some astute commentators have pointed out. This is why EVERY organized religion has its problems. “Organized” is defined as “having or consisting of parts acting in co-ordination: having the nature of a unified whole: organic.” This condition only occurs in nature. “Religion” may be “natural” to the human mind (at the current level of evolution), but “Organized religion” is anything but natural. Organized religion is equal to “spiritual takeover”. When biological takeover happens in nature, it results in disease and death.

      BTW, this has been the first article/discussion on your blog (Marty) that I have found interesting enough to engage in. In the very very beginning, Hubbard encouraged discussion groups in the field to discuss new letters he released. Unfortunately KSW squashed such discourse, and such discussion became culturally taboo within Scientology very early on, long before Dave assumed power.

  132. How much of Scientology is borrowed from the wisdom of Kabbalah?

    • I would say none. There is some common ground found in the axions on creation. But that common ground is found in other areas as well, ie Plato, Eastern philosophy, Old testment,etc.
      I personally find kaballah more difficult to understand than other explantions on creation. I am not knocking it, It has its uses and if someone wants to use it as some sort of Path or to supplement their understanding, thats great. But to me it was not user friendly.

  133. It could very well be an oxymoron.
    It’s a bit like theta vs MEST.
    Theta in its pure state is not entangled with MEST and that’s why it’s pure.
    When theta starts tackle MEST universe it gets sort of “dirty”, it gets sort of MESTy and I consider this is also what happens to a true “religion” or philosophy when it starts spreading its message.
    Maybe it does not have to be this way but it has been this way, and big times, with Scientology.
    Since in order to disseminate its message got herself involved in all kind of shit.
    Was it right? Could be. Was it wrong? Could also be.
    Is on an infinity valued logic that it can be better understood.
    I think a lot of it was wrong because if that wouldn’t be the case by now it would have had a tremendous impact on society and this ain’t the case.
    A lot was also right because a lot of people including me found answers to the riddle of existence, answer that we could not find elsewhere.
    So it is possible that there could have been a better “Scientology” organizationally speaking, but LRH did what seemed right to him at that particular time and I have a lot of respect for him and for his choices but mostly for his intentions.
    And his intention in building and having an organization to spread and support the religion he created was to spread the message and make planet earth a better place.

  134. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    This is the best thread ever.
    The best and most intelligents coments ever made.
    People thinking their own thoughts, having their own opinions and not just paraphrasing LRH.
    We are indead moving a litle higher and there are no boundaries in the universes we will explore.
    It’s about time that Scientology moves forwards, comes into pt and then evolves further from there on.
    LRH started the subject but it hast to evolve further, it can’t stay static . Exciting and great future ahead of us.
    „Self determinism, transparency and accountability“ ist the slogan at this point of time.

  135. In terms of continued control of group members wasn’t one of the original purposes of WISE, as written in the LRH advices on WISE, to basically keep tabs and continued control of those who left staff? It’s been a very long time since I read the advices so I may not have it right.

    • I don’t recall that, and read everything he wrote on the subject. You might be thinking about mentions of ex-staff (GO in particular) using their Scn comm lines to prosper and siphon off staff. He wrote a lot about that.

      • Like I said it’s been a very long time since I read the WISE advices and you are obviously more versed in the subject than I am. I’m certainly aware of the use of WISE to protect Orgs from public using Org comm lines for business purposes or distracting staff but I do not recall it was directed specifically at ex staff or (ex GO in particular). Perhaps there’s someone from the early WISE Int days who can chime in. Hey, Paul Discher, you out there? :-)

        • Kevin – WISE was to control the external influence of those promoting onto the org comm lines that you couldn’t make enough on staff to support yourself so here is a nice job to make some $. Many of those businesses were ex GO, ex SO and ex staff who were personally known to the current staff. This came up in some eval’s at the time. If Alex is reading this he might have some more input.

          Your early WISE guys would go back to Hamish Hamilton. (before the Paul Discher time period – I believe Paul was still in Boston as ED at this time.) Hamish was handling the WISE office at Flag in the side of the Clearwater Bank building if my memory is correct.

          It was less to keep track of former staff than to control their influence into the org’s. “External influence” became a bigger issue and even resulted, in part, in the Roll Back issues. This was to further find “external influences.” Hope that helps.

        • WISE has more than one purpose. In regards to staff, its focus was to keep scientology run businesses from using Orgs as labor pools and distracting staff from their Org posts. If staff came to rely on moonlightling for income it undercut the need to get the Orgs stats up. There were GO staff and ex-staff who has businesses which fell into this category. But they were not the majority of the businesses who were perceived as causing the problems and they were not the primary WHO behind the eval. The idea was get some control on these businesses and keep them off Org lines. It also had the purpose of getting these businesses who used the tech paying a percentage for the privelige. WISE was even used to chase down rogue field auditors who were not paying.