Evolution

Below is a republication of a section of What Is Wrong With Scientology?  that addresses my second piece of advice for future vitality of the subject of Scientology (the first was covered in the post, Integrate).  Please share your thoughts about these thoughts.

Evolve or Dissolve

During my three-year hiatus from communication with any Scientologists, I worked with a man named John Kelley as a writer and editor for his alternative newspaper in Corpus Christi. John is a retired cognitive-behavioral therapist.  One day I asked him to describe cognitive-behavioral psychology to me.  He said that the therapist guides the patient to review his past, in order to assist him to come to realization (cognition) about his own behavior.  The central idea is that a person’s behavior can only be changed for the better when the individual self-determinatively recognizes the need for it, and decides to do so himself.  The therapist does not invalidate (chastise), or evaluate (tell the patient how to think about himself).  Instead he simply guides the person to look, so that the patient may come to cognition.  In short, John described the heart and soul of the Scientology auditing process, probably better than I had heard any corporate Scientologist attempt to do so in the past.  Comparing my discussions with John to the fevered anti-psych rallies of Scientology Inc. got me to thinking about evolution.

Scientology culture has become so “creationist” in thinking as to be as intolerant and blind to the idea of evolution as the most far-out evangelical cult. After 27 years on the inside, I did not fully recognize that fact until I read Ken Wilbur’s A Brief History of Everything.  Wilbur very intelligently treats the subject of how humanity, culture and civilization have evolved, and continue to.  Wilbur does not write about Darwinism, fossils, apes and genetics.  He writes about the changes we as thinking people go through every day, and their cumulative effects on the world community over years, and even centuries.  Like Hubbard, Wilbur’s thinking goes so far outside the box he must create new constructs and even nomenclature to describe the concepts he offers.  An honest study of that book would startle a Scientologist.  What Wilbur discovers and shares from a philosophical perspective aligns with Scientology as closely as the quantum physicists’ discoveries noted in the last chapter.  The indirect validations of Scientology in his chapters dealing with spiritual and philosophical evolution are remarkable, particularly when one sees there are no mentions of the subject, and no indication the author has any familiarity with Scientology.

Ironically, while A Brief History to me is a validation of Scientology technology, the organizations of corporate Scientology and the culture it has spawned fit squarely into Wilbur’s description of medieval times, dark ages of stunted and regressed evolution in human history.  Those were the times when the church punished and tortured intellectual and scientific renegades who dared to explore outside of – and thus potentially make discoveries contrary to – church doctrine.

Comparing my experience in corporate Scientology to my experience outside of it, and measuring both of them up to accounts and evidence of how philosophy, religion, psychology, and self-help have evolved over the past 60 years, it became apparent to me that Scientology Inc. is not only ignorant of the evolution of thought on Earth, it is fighting it.  It is as absurd as Don Quixote’s tilting at windmills.  But it is far sadder than the story of the man from La Mancha.  Quixote’s fantasy did not visit much harm upon a lot of others.  Scientology Inc. is betraying its own people and the philosophy it purports to hold a monopoly on by, among other things, condemning others who are attempting to evolve.

Where did behavioral-cognitive psychology get the idea that the only effective change could come from within the patient? Certainly not from Scientology – that would be the last place targets of corporate Scientology would look for answers. Perhaps it got it from the same place Hubbard did: Eastern thought. In a 1954 lecture, aptly titled Scientology: Its General Background, Hubbard let his people in on how he developed Scientology auditing.  Quoting from early Buddhist literature, he explained some of Scientology’s bedrock principles:

And that is simply this (this is from the Dhammapada): “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. It is founded upon our thoughts; it is made up of our thoughts.” Interesting, isn’t it? The next verse, you might say, is “By oneself evil is done; by oneself one suffers. By oneself evil is left undone; by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself; no one can purify another.” Well, it’s just as you say: You can’t grant beingness to the preclear and overawe him; you’ve got to have him working on self-determinism or not at all, if you wanted to give that any kind of an interpretation. In other words, you’ve got to restore his ability to grant beingness or he does not become well. And we know that by test.

As covered throughout this book, those bedrock principles, which serve as the magic that Scientology can be when in well-intentioned  hands, have been shattered by corporate Scientology practices which add up to the crippling of self-determinism.  And during the decades it took to reverse Scientology practices so thoroughly, traditional mental health practices apparently have adopted some of the same universal truths Scientology is predicated upon.  Evolution has thus left Scientology behind. That is not because evolution or the psychological arts and sciences have discriminated against Scientology. It is because the monopoly Hubbard once warned Scientologists against allowing to arise has steered Scientology against evolution.  Scientology has become that which it so forcefully resisted.  Meanwhile,  that which it continues to resist no longer even exists.  If Scientologists do not learn to evolve, their vitality will continue to dissolve.

194 responses to “Evolution

  1. Another gem from your book that I had forgotten about. Makes me want to go back and read it again. Seriously, people, this is some good shit here.

  2. This was perhaps my favorite chapter in your book.

    “You’ve got to restore his ability to grant beingness or he does not become well.”

    What I’ve discovered in my years out of the church is that this ability to grant beingness or one could say CARE for the person in spite of that person’s behavior (knowing that “bad” behavior isn’t the BEING, rather it’s the very things that obfuscate the being) went from bad to untenable IN the corporate church …

    BUT, as we’ve witnessed, IMHO, on this blog care/compassion are thought of as a sign of separating oneself from KSW. It’s all about slamming in ethics, slamming out tech … slam this, slam that.

    The words themselves are aggressive. When words are used that are intended to drive in “anchor points” — and cause someone to introvert, then the intention is to be CAUSE OVER — or POWER OVER someone —

    Which fails to bring about what LRH said in your italics paragraph — you have not enabled the pre clear/person/friend to restore his OWN ability to grant beingness.

    What is Wrong with Scientology IMHO is that rather than encourage basic decent human conduct by remaining open to the foibles of humankind — by working constantly at unconditional love —

    It’s ONLY conditional love that is granted. Some conditions are worse and more egregious than others (like IAS give me all your money and then we will love you) but what is rarely demonstrated amongst those of us who have been involved for years is UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

    The love a mother has for her newborn, without which that baby could not survive 2 days.

    And guess what — neither REALLY can any of us survive without unconditional love. Oh we survive, but we survive as isolated beings cut off from each other by walls of conditions.

    You and Mosey are two of the most unconditional loving people I’ve ever had the pleasure to spend time with. It is no wonder to me that your PCs flourish. You really care and more than that, you like them.

    Christine

    • What she said.
      🙂

    • Theo Sismanides

      Τhe “Master” is exactly this

      “in spite of that person’s behavior (knowing that “bad” behavior isn’t the BEING, rather it’s the very things that obfuscate the being) ”

      I am so happy, that in 2013 I go to a movie to see “a life” of LRH and there is this compassion in it by Paul Thomas Anderson. It’s thrilling.

      Anderson at least captured that: LRH wouldn’t let go off any Johachin.

      • Theo — as much as I loved the Master I had a different take on the movie.

        Anderson was definitely brilliant and it stirred plenty of warm feelings towards LRH but I didn’t have the same perspective of The Master vis a vis Joaquin Phoenix and his decision to leave.

        Goes to show, somewhat, that we each view through our own lens …

        Which is really fine as long as we are able to not consider that another is FULLY bad when there might only be a portion of what he/she has done we don’t agree with.

        Here’s my take — which I got from a wonderful Tibetan monk: The 17th Karmapa — paraphrased — he said, when we disagree or have an argument or are betrayed by someone we tend to then think 100% of that person is bad — when it’s only one piece.

        I try to remember that — although I haven’t conveyed it that well. It’s this tendency to be 100% about someone — good or bad that really messes us up.

        IMHO

        So, I’m 85% with you on The Master🙂🙂

        Love,
        Christine

        • Theo Sismanides

          Ι see, Christine. Joaquin Phoenix was such a character. Anderson’s role was very difficult to try and portray LRH in 144 minutes!

  3. Come together as one but alone? Create , create, that will build Scientology for sure.
    Arc with yous.
    Darren may

    Sent from my iPhone

  4. Marty, I think it unfair to call what is practiced (Black Dianetics) in the Church of Scientology, “Scientology” it clearly IS NOT Scientology!

    And if actual Scientology was allowed to be practiced – staff members were actually Trained and Audited up the Bridge and could operate at Clear or above, and if All the Policy LRH developed was available and staff were actually trained on it so as to be able to have judgement with and apply it, then there would be at a least a good chance of having a Sane Group that could accomplish what LRH had in mind. I think HCO PL 6 December 1970 THIRD DYNAMIC DE-ABERRATION clearly explains much of what is wrong with the group and the mis-management of the CoS and how it became INSANE.
    As your buddy Jason Biege once quipped, “only Scientology can fix Scientology” but I think more accurately stated: Only The Standard Applications of LRH Tech and Policy can fix The Church of Scientology. So in that sense, Evolution could occur.
    But frankly I don’t think it will happen within the walls of the current church even if miscavige was gone. I only hope for the sake of this planet that it can happen though, as I don’t see any evidence anywhere that it can or will occur without Scientology.

    • Truth is the truth.

      The moon is still the moon no matter who’s pointing at it or how well they do so.

      Semantics are a necessary element of communication but it is not the important element.

      Truth is truth.

    • You know Steve, I was stuck in “All psychiatry/psychology/psycho analysis is BAD”
      I was stuck in it for a long time.
      It is a load of rubbish. Codswallop. Propaganda.
      I was so stuck in it, then when I had a wealthy client buying a bunch of Thomas Kinkades and found out he was a psychiatrist, I was so conflicted ~~ I wanted to cancel the sale! Such was my brainwashing.
      I felt I was doing business with organized crime to do business with a shrink !
      As further communication occurred, I found out he was a forensic psychiatrist ONLY. He testified as an expert witness on gruesome crime scenes.
      He is a top gun contributor to the Humane Society, ASPCA and on initiatives for more kindness to farm animals.
      I researched him on the web and was stunned to find out how involved he was on 3rd and 4th dynamics.
      He and his wife gave more back to society in massive charity involvement, than Scientology INC in its entire history that never contributes to anyone and only begs more MOAR money.
      After this experience I went on my own journey into the Scientology myth “All Psychiatry is evil.”
      I would hope that you take some of your own journeys. You will learn a lot.

      • I understand that dilemma Karen, since before, but especially since moving to CA, and especially when you are in business for yourself as I have been since 1982, as a Scientologist inside the fold. Outside the madness of the world itself actually invites one to examine, reexamine and even though you don’t have to do business with anyone, you are free to make that call yourself, by your own observation and personal ethics. And it takes some looking and knowing and integrity to get there. I could tell you many stories as I know you could. One day soon we will. :–)

      • Hi Karen,
        I know what you mean. We have all heard of and in some cases even witnessed barbaric, inhumane, and abusive behavior by psychiatrists. There is, unfortunately, a long history of that kind of brutality in their field. There have been, however, and ARE psychiatrists and psychologists who do NOT condone inhumane treatments. To lump them all into one category together is absolutely A=A=A, as well as flat out dumb if one is REALLY trying to improve the field of “mental healing”.
        Interestingly, there was a Scientologist by the name of Dan Stradford who founded an organization called Safe Harbor Foundation which seeks to encourage practitioners who use the more benign therapies.
        http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/
        I have no idea if he is still connected with the COS, but I can’t imagine them tolerating his multi-valued view of psychotherapy.
        Also, many years ago (before DM) I remember reading in COS publications about psychologists who were using Dianetics as their therapy of choice. And Catholic priests who found OW technology useful in receiving confessions. And psychiatrists who used only nutrition. But not today.
        We need to validate the goodness and kindness in others.
        So perhaps, more important than integration, is DIFFERENTIATION and, as you point out, ADMIRATION of people of good will.

      • Yes Karen #1, so let’s do some more differentiation here on this point: Let’s not attempt to have Steve Poore violate His Own Reality on Pysches. You and others can go on and on about this but not in a million years are you or other here ever going to convince me that LRH was wrong about this. Not when I’ve seen with my own eyes (first hand) for the past 30 years, many hundreds of examples. First of all we know that “absolutes are unattainable” and secondly I never stated here on this thread or anywhere that ALL PYSCHES ARE BAD. Thirdly, you and others here have no issue with me on, Should CCHR and CoS have handled the situation better or more effectively? YES!

        And lastly, if Psyches and Psychologist (therapist) and self-help gurus were so damn effective, then why haven’t societies across this planet actually “evolved” and the planet population become more sane, less violent, less wars, more actual real humanity, more individual liberty – MORE FREEDOM? Is this all a cause of a very small number (tiny in relationship to 7 billion population) Corp Scientologist, and SO members committing daily atrocities? (Should they be exposed and handled? I think we can all agree to that one).

        No, the only chance we have, all of us and our future generations, is to somehow forward with Real Scientology Tech, including Admin, one- by -one de-aberrate the individual, groups, leaders, government – thus the peoples of this prison planet we call earth. LRH was right on these points. If someone here has an effective way to better the Tech, to accomplish all this, then have at it, and please let me and other actual Scientologists see your results before you expect us to support you – all squirrels and all Freezoners, and Ron’s orgers need not apply. Meanwhile, I am going to do everything in my power to forward the above and I hope more actual Scientologist will join us.

        Steve Poore

        • Do you believe they are a special breed of being, born and raised on another planet and shipped to earth to infiltrate and booby trap our society?

        • Steve, I share your reality on “psychs” and the educational system.
          The population is being led by “false authorities” for too long.
          I don’t want to generalize it (nor play the “chaos merchant”). But it is like it is.

        • I hate to disappoint you, but statistics show that worldwide incidences of war and violence has been on the decline for a very, very long time.

        • “And lastly, if Psyches and Psychologist (therapist) and self-help gurus were so damn effective, then why haven’t societies across this planet actually “evolved” and the planet population become more sane, less violent, less wars, more actual real humanity, more individual liberty – MORE FREEDOM?”

          Scientology has been around for quite sometime itself. Why hasn’t it been able to solve these conundrums that you express so passionately? And please don’t say “out-ethics” or “out-tech”. I may vomit.

  5. Marty, I truly enjoyed the blog today! I am in total agreement ” If Scientologists do not learn to evolve, their vitality will continue to dissolve.”

    I have met and known behavioral therapists who were and are very caring. I also asked what it was they actually did with a patient/client and the answer was the same, “get the person to take responsibility for his/her actions. It was not until I got into Scientology that I saw many attacks on therapists, PR on exposing the so-called abuses. Abuses yes there were and perhaps still are. The all equals all never did equate with me. It certainly became a great way to produce a lot of money to store in DM’s coffers.

    • Carol,
      I think one of the problems may be that the ‘owners’ of the technology that can help one to more accurately differentiate, associate and identify have turned it into the technology of radical identification through insane association. Hence, I give interviews in Germany and the church calls me ‘the best friend of Ursula Caberta’, I publicly debate with Tony Ortega and the church turns that into me being ‘best friends with LRH enemy Tony Ortega’. Just personal examples of something they specialize in. A=A=A.
      Marty

      • They are right, Marty, you shouldn`t even TALK to them. And your new crazy friendship with stupid psychological practices fits your character. I knew all that before. If you would have confess that from the start, this Blog would have vanished at once. I think you are trying to come to a stop here. You aren`t interested in continuing this Blog. In the last three years you did and said everything you were able to, and that wasn`t enough to give your former Church even a scratch. The opinions here are so diverse, and contradicting, you are no group anymore really. This group of “Independendents” is about to destroy themselfes, like it happens to every SP Group. I must admit, I´m not sad about it.

        • opinions here are so diverse

          Attributes of a Clear or someone high on the emotional tone scale (per LRH):

          “Searches for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality.”

          “Strong, able, swift and full exchange of beliefs, ideas.”

          (Source: Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, “Science of Survival”.)

        • snowhite, you don’t even have a clue! you appear and you disappear with comments that show you have no understanding. Differences in opinion are a good thing.People come to their own conclusions. In the COS as it is today that is not acceptable period..

        • I would rather be part of a group of people that can speak their minds than be part of a group where you are all forced to believe the same thing and if you step out of line or question you are attacked . The last few years of being in corporate $cientology were the worst of my life.Constantly hounded for money and coerced into mind control behavior with three swing f/n and “ethics” mind modification. It is a pleasure being out here and arguing sometimes.
          One time while on Solo Nots I called up the local ED Mark Arnold in Seattle. We were close to getting the Idle Org and the “church” had told us all along that we could finance it. We had around 200k earnest money down on it I believe. We were then told from the church that we would NOT be able to finance the Org and if we didn’t come up with the balance of the money it looked like we might lose the earnest money. I called Mark up and asked hom about all this and told him I was going to write a KR up lines. He said ” If you would just help out more and be less critical we would be closer to the goal.” I told him ” If I have to do what ever you want me to do in order to be your friend then you can kiss my ass!”
          This got me recalled to Flag, because I was on Solo Nots. I was pissed because this was going to cost me a lot of money and time away from work. I get to Flag and get interrogated by Martin the MAA. A nice kid about 23 but very robotic. He put me on the meter and started probing me for crimes. He woulds say something like ” Have you been watching child pornography? I would say “no!!” Then he would say “what’s that??!” ,”that!!”, ….”that!!” and try to steer me to my crimes. This went on for about an hour until I said this is bullshit. At least give me a sec check where I can answer the question and have a decent comm cycle with someone.
          So then, I get two intensives of Sec checks by Paul Koval. He was pretty good and had a good comm cycle. This whole trip cost me about 20K and I gave them their my Solo Nots materials back becasue I was so fed up with their crazy behavior.
          So Snowhite, forgive me if I don’t share your reality and love for the cult that you are part of. You can’t make RCS any better. I tried writing up reports about the over regging and other out-points and nothing ever happened. In fact it got worse. Snowhite I am afraid you are just a robot doing the bidding of an SP.

        • HA HA HA! Thanks for the laugh, Snowy! Keep up the good work.

        • Dear Snowblind, You are a perfect example of what many corporate “Scientologists” have become. Thank you for contributing and making Marty’s point that much clearer.

        • “In the last three years you did and said everything you were able to, and that wasn`t enough to give your former Church even a scratch.”

          I guess that’s why you are here posting…

          If this blog didn’t give the Church a scratch I believe you’d be busy with other things.

        • “Independendents” – loving that!

          Missed you Snowhite…Don’t be a stranger. It’s genuinely good that you post here, for all sorts of reasons. It’s good to have a voice, isn’t it.

        • THAT is an excellent piece of satire … isn’t it? =D LOL

          If not, I have a REALLY big yawn saved up just for a 1.5 rant like that.

        • Brilliant.

          No really.

          Just brilliant.
          🙂

        • Zat you Davey? Likely not without a CSMFDHSBAH or two. Carry on, sounds like you have some points you want to further discuss.

        • Snowhite — Hope you get well soon. Sincerely.

        • Yippeeeee! A troll to play with!

          [poking to see if it bites]

  6. Journey Continued

    A very heartening and good read Marty. I am happy to see that there are those out there that have freed themselves from the dogma of belief, enforced or otherwise, that is thrust upon corporate scientologists daily.

    The truth is not the truth because someone says it is, it is the truth simply because it can be independently observed and verified – it is truth because it is simply true. In my experience the application of auditing technology, as well as many aspects of the ethics and administrative technology that Hubbard created, can and do achieve remarkable results. But Scientology is a body of knowledge and technology that are just tools that we thetans can use to help improve our conditions. Once the tools are seen as being more powerful or in some manner superior to the being that they were designed to help, then the tools can become the tools of mans’ enslavement and oppressors’.

    • JC,
      Your second paragraph is so good I copied it for future reference.
      Thank you and a big Ack to you and your astute wording on this.

      And…Marty, ack to you for getting this discussion going despite the threats of out Ksw coming from the howlers. Keep it coming. There is good discussion going on in my home this morning regarding this topic.

  7. My first thought is stunned. Spot on! Well worded! I’m continuing to read your book to try to make sense of the last 24 years of my life. Being in corporate scientology was like being in a box of opposites and you are validation that I was not “off the rails”.

  8. If Scientologists do not learn to evolve, their vitality will continue to dissolve.
    It is not just that any evolution would not be permitted, or even wondered about, it’s that this kind of origination would cost $100,000 in sec checks, chits for “Enturbulatiing Tech and Qual”🙂🙂 numerous trips to the Ethics Officer, OSA investigations, Non enturbulation orders, and reverse Black Dianetics. YOU DARE NOT think of anything more within……
    BUT
    All religions plateau at a certain height and that is that.
    In Scientology it is OT VIII.
    Yet we see the unbelievable fact that OT VIIIS leave the Church in a flurry, OT VIIIs that are in a state of agitation, instability, insecure, hyper, uneasy, unsettled and EP Scientology by searching the Internet, if not posting on the web and many end up on Marty’s blog, some posting anonymously.
    BUT This post is about EVOLUTION, so we need to examine the OT VIIIs who had it all and reached the “pinnacle.”
    OT VIII is where it ends.
    Hence, I will post again an example of an OT VIII George Baille.
    He is an old comm line of mine when he was a regular 6 pack Joe on the Apollo, now an OT VIII. He is unrecognizable. He got to the top. Here he is.

    • Tory Magoo says “look at both sides”. I left the church only a year ago and only then started following her. I have to give her credit and say I agree on that and other points.

      When deciding what side to be on, LRH says in the doubt formula page 101 Intro To Scientology Ethics, step 6.

      ” Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics…”

      I got into Scientology in 1975 to get away from an oppressive mainsteam christian church that didn’t want it’s members to look at anything but their interpretation of the bible. If you didn’t, you’d certainly burn in hell. As I grew up, I couldn’t believe that anymore, because I saw too many good people outside of that particular christian denomination.

      Which led me to LRH who said to look . Scientology means knowing how to know. That means looking and learning and deciding for yourself. What’s real is what’s real for you.

      Watch the George Baille video above. Watch a Tory Magoo commentary and ask yourself who sounds more like LRH.

    • @Karen#1: thanks for the link on youtube. I watched it and was struck by the reactions of this OT8. Wow! Who is the real fruitcake here …
      On the other hand it reminded me of what I read in a book by Leslie Stevenson ‘Seven theories of human nature’. He describes when an ideology or belief system is a ‘closed system’ (like Christianity and Communism). Criticism of the ideology is attacked in two ways: 1) explaining away, justifications etc., 2) by attacking the motivations of the critic: his motivation is analyzed in terms of the belief system, e.g. “you are stuck on an electronic incident of the timetrack”, “you are an SP”, etc.
      If one is concerned with the truth of falsity of a theory, then the motivation of the critic is not relevant. What he says can be judged on its own merits. Therefore this second tactic is irrational.
      That’s what this video shows: the irrationality of the believer.
      Reading Popper, what he says on ‘closed systems’, I have come to the conclusion that Scientology is a closed system.
      Also, the book of Arthur Koestler ‘The Ghost in the Machine’ is very interesting to read in this respect. Although I am thinking at the moment that the real Ghost in the Machine is David Miscavige.

    • This video is a textbook on how NOT to deal with people. Some EP.

    • Pathetic. And the poor bastard is projecting his own electronic circuitous implants still, apparently, in full restim.

      OTVIII?

      NOT

      But a frog out of water comes to mind.

  9. Evolve, grow, mature and increase understanding are really
    the fundamentals of auditing. Someone asked me what I
    wanted to study after my grade IV and I realized I had just
    become so incredibly interested in every subject you can lay
    your hands on here on planet earth. The eagerness was
    tenfold compared to before the auditing. After some years
    in the church however, you were not really supposed to read
    anything else than LRH so I had to cover up this quest.
    It wasn’t until 40 years later when I started the decompression
    this thirst surfaced again. Then Marty gave it a real boost in
    recommending all these wonderful books. It is kind of stupid
    to have to say but it is OK to want to further your knowledge
    outside the realm of Scientology. Then of course you will find
    out how much data there is out there that totally corresponds
    with LRH writing and that in itself can make it fun!
    Thanks Marty.

  10. I really enjoyed Marty’s books and appreciate the reprint of the portion he just posted. Very sincerely, if anyone has not read the books, I strongly recommend them.

    In my opinion, he has pointed the way out of CoS’s current difficulties, and that is the way through — telling the truth and taking responsibility.

    The church has lied about so many things from stats to policy to OT level content. Just one example, watching Tommy Davis (where the heck is he now) lie to national media saying there was no such thing as disconnection was just a major foot nuke. Reprehensible from an organization that knows that the truth results in as-isness (put in Eastern terms, release from maya or the world of illusion) and lies or alter-isness result in persistence (descent right back into the mud).

  11. I want to say two things in response to this. First, I not only agree with everything you say here, I welcome.it. While my favorite chapter of your book was “Integrate or Disintegrate,” and particularly the part about your relationship with Mosey and her father, my next favorite chapter was this one.

    Secondly, what you say here is inconsistent with a strict interpretation of KSW. Then again, you recognized that when, in an earlier thread, you responded to chrismann9 as follows:

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/integrate/#comment-248674

    “martyrathbun09 | January 12, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Reply

    If you were following KSW to the letter, you wouldn’t be anywhere near this blog for the past three years.”

    I am NOT quoting your words back to you to invalidate you. On the contrary, I’m trying to highlight an extremely important point. Evolution is, by definition, inconsistent with a strict, fundamentalist, “creationist,” purely deductive interpretation of KSW. Nothing can evolve if nothing can change..

    I suspect that some here will troubled by the idea of abandoning a strict interpretation of KSW. I understand. But sometimes one has to make a choice, and I agree with and share your choice.

    • Maybe not the Tech, but rather the frame-of-mind and group-think should evolve as to how to integrate Scientology better in the society?

    • My comment is not countering anything you say, but is rather a follow-up to Chris Mann a few postings back which I was late to respond to. It was regarding KSW and this is what I said:

      Chris and anyone else this may apply to: Though Marty says he has stated his point over and over again, there still seems to be some fundamental confusion and disagreement here.

      The fact that he isn’t being duplicated in full is also an acknowledgement of exactly the points he has made.

      I’m not going to interpret Marty, but let me share my own observation and school of thought and maybe this will shed some light on the subject of KSW and LRH being “right” or “wrong”.

      Nowhere in any of the blog posting by Marty that I have read does Marty say or even insinuate that you shouldn’t apply the tech exactly. Now what does applying the tech exactly mean? It means different things at different levels.

      At the beginning of the training levels it means to apply your commands, processes and sequence of commands exactly as written. I have never seen Marty negate this.

      Higher on up, past Cl VI and especially VIII it means to apply the tech based on the PC in front of you so as to handle his/her exact problem, whatever it is. It includes “playing the piano” but is fundamentally based on a superb understanding of the anatomy of the mind and therefore ALL tools available can and should be used and this too is applying the tech exactly at this level. Nowhere have I seen Marty negate this.

      I haven’t observed Marty audit, but I can bet my life on the fact that when he uses a process he uses is exactly according to his understanding of the tech. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have a PC call his mother-in-law while on a session break on the Power processes; I’m pretty sure he doesn’t run NOTS on an ARC straightwire PC; I bet he doesn’t run NED on a confirmed Clear, etc, etc. Maybe I’m wrong here, but there is nothing in any of his postings which indicates otherwise.

      Has Marty stated that you shouldn’t apply the tech exactly? No, in that context he hasn’t. Has he stated that KSW as a policy and its implementation and application has resulted in a Church and environment that not only is not working demonstrably, but also shows that the “problem(s)” started way before DM and if anything DM only used the existing scene to forward his own means? Yes, he has.

      So, in one way there seems, by Marty’s own postings, to not be a disagreement how to apply the tech of auditing, but rather what KSW did as far as the mentality of the organization and individuals.

      It was very clear that integration was part of an LRH strategy in the 50′s. Just read the first 4 books. It is also very clear that integration got annihilated by the mid-60′s, witness KSW and other policy in that series as well as Justice policies from the mid to late 60′s.

      This was not changed by DM, or someone else but this was changed by LRH. Does Marty say LRH was “bad” because of it? No. Does he say the auditing technology and the principles of the applied philosophy is less or not valid or should be squirreled? No. Does he say that LRH had some evil intention in doing so? No. Does he say that LRH did so? Yes. What it means and how LRH should be viewed is up to you to decide. Marty is just asking you to look but is not stating otherwise.

      He simply says that throughout the history of Scientology certain policies and practices went into play which resulted in how Scientology is today and he has pointed out that maybe Scientology today is not as effective as it should be, at least as far as integrating it into society as a whole, its general acceptance, etc. Does he say the applied philosophy is bad? No. Does he say it is the only workable philosophy? No. Does he try to open our eyes to the true workability of the tech as well as other points of view so as to forward technology, philosophy and principles that have empirically been proven helpful, workable and constructive? Yes.

      Does he REALLY try to get people out of the ingrained cult-think? YES!

      Marty has not only been privy to all the traffic ever issued by LRH, is familiar with the auditing technology as well as the organizational technology and history, but has a great ability to differentiate and point out things to consider.

      Yes, Marty doesn’t hand us the “answers” on a silver platter but rather he is inviting us to think for ourselves. Isn’t that after all what LRH was always trying to do?

      Thanks for listening, Ulf

      • Wow — perfectly stated.

        Multitude of thumbs up!

      • Bingo! Ulf this post is one of the best ever – you said what I’ve tried to say to Chris and others recently – this is exactl;y how I see it. Hopefully I have enough wisdom to know there are plenty things I DON’T know – and I have no doubt my perspective on all things Scientological would be very different with the breadth of experience of some one like Marty. Well said Sir!

    • I suggest people reread, again, KSW. Please. Read it in a new unit of time, now that you are independent. Realize this was written in 1965. Read, especially, this:

      “Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive.”

      What are we?

      I again refer to the HCOPL “Style of Auditing” that is the epitome of the progression of competence (which LRH lays out as the progression of auditor competence, but which applies to ANY field). You can’t walk into a Scientology center, or a Yoga center, or a bakery, and say “Yes, sure! But I KNOW A BETTER WAY!” You can’t be a master without learning well the basics. You cannot extend Scientology without knowing it. And, there is no reason to do something different that DOES WORK. You learn and become a master. You learn the meter, you learn TRs, you learn Model Session. You learn the techniques. Then, you have number 3. You can then improvise with it – still having the correct technology. You KNOW it.

      Mr. David Miscavige is NOT freezing Scientology. He is altering it, for the worse. He and his enablers are NOT doing KSW. He has indeed introduced incorrect technology, incorrect applications. Group “confessionals?” Copper rods? Three-swing FNs? Palaces masquerading as “Ideal Orgs?” He and his followers are very weak on 3. And 2, for that matter. How can you keep Scientology working if you don’t know what it is? Is there any more proof needed that the Church of Scientology has sunk back into the mud?

      I see nothing in KSW that prevents ME from viewing and noting the value of, say, the Meyers-Briggs personality assessment. Or, PTSD treatments that some Psychologists have dreamed up. Or the New Testament. Or Yoga. Or “The Secret.” But I will not start assessing Yoga Asanas on the meter to see which one “indicates.”

      Ron wrote KSW in 1965, and he has been dead now for 27 years. He’s been dead for longer than Scientology was in existence in 1965. Surely Scientology can produce a product of individuals freed from their banks, who are no longer subject to the bank’s control of shooting down constructive ideas. Surely, Scientologists can own the subject of Scientology. But no matter what, there is no other way to move forward.

  12. This is a real WHY – perfectly articulated – if there ever was one. It opens the door wide to a handling.

    Restoring self-determinism is what is fueling a recovery of all that is good about Scientology, outside the Idle Orgs.

    My co-audit twin and I – we once staffed one of those orgs – are living it. And it’s great.

    -Scott Gordon – Auditor Class 0+

  13. “Evolve or Dissolve”
    During the 24 year period since leaving Scientology, we continued to
    receive tons of mail. I estimated over 10,000 letters and brochures.
    Finally, as a result of posting on this blog, the mail stopped about
    five months ago.
    My favorable attitude towards Scientology has actually increased.
    In fact, I managed to uproot residual anger during this period.
    I think that the mail was very counter-productive for the scientology
    religion. In fact, the title of this blog should be read by Mr. Miscavige
    and his staff. If you really want to attract me to scientology,
    start by sending some messages that I can accept.
    You can start with any type of positive emotion and I will
    be happy to respond.

    By the way, I am very grateful to Marty and this blog for
    putting an end to such a great waste of postage and paper.

    George M. White

  14. In my opinion this is simply not correct.

    I became a scientologist in 1975 as a 19 year old. Had my experiences, became OTIII, and got the Truth Rundown in 2009, whereafter I simply stopped all my activities inside the Church.

    In 1975 people considered me “insane” talking about past lives and extra terrestrial life.

    Today I talk to wellknown and respected physicists at the University in Copenhagen about the same subjects. And I am not SP declared nor in any bad standing, so I can freely talk to my old friends in the Church about it too.

    To say that Hubbard and Scientology has not furthered evolution on this planet, is to me the biggest outpoint I have seen to this date on this blog. The Church is furthering evolution every day. They know very well that I do not endorse the way they are doing it, but from where I see the universe, they continue doing so every day. And so do I.

    • I think you rather missed the point. Nowhere does marty say that LRH or SCN hasnt contributed to human evolution on this planet.

      Rather, as i read it, his point is that while SCN has indeed had its impact, the membership themselves have so trained themselves not to LOOK at things as they currently are, that they cannot see how certain aspects of society (ie, those evil psychs) have come to embrace the same tenets that bedrock SCN.

      This is dangerous for the church becuase it is practicing A=A on a massive scale and treats anyone it considers as competition as the devil incarnate, when in fact many of these practictioners are not suppressing anyone.

      This creates entheta where not need be and will in one wise or another come back to hurt the church.

  15. I agree and applaud you for saying so. Since leaving Scientology, I have gotten a lot of benefit from reading other self-help books Having lived in fear of psychology for so long, I was surprised that I got so much from “Learned Optimism”. But it was great.
    BTW, I just finished reading “The Shack”. I loved it. Thank you for recommending it.

  16. Great observations Marty, with you almost 100%. My only issue with this is that when you say:

    “”Scientology has become that which it so forcefully resisted. “”

    You really mean the Church of Scientology. Scientologists, students of the subject, will recognize far in advance the oncoming creep of the valences being resisted, spot them, blow them, and continue to evacuate the Universe of enturbulation. I have no problems talking to SP’s, because I’m Auditor trained. If I were a newbie staff member just trying to get some HE&R-type individual through a comm course, he’d make my life hell – but as it is, this particular SP goes in session the moment he starts communicating, and we’re slowly locating the source of his dilemna. None of his hatred of Scientology bothers me in the slightest bit – As I truly have Certainty on the Subject – and yet slowly he is coming around and seeing his own failures for what they are.

    So the flipside is, we may become what we resist, but eventually what we address and process while wearing the Auditors hat becomes Theta.

    In fact, I think the conflation of the Church of Scientology with “Scientology”, which could mean the Subject, the Culture, the Zeitgeist, etc. – this is a bit of a problem in the current flow of our efforts as a 3rd dynamic on this site, I think.

    We must differentiate between problems created by the Corporate Church, and solutions provided by Scientologists, independent or otherwise. They are there for the discovery.

    I truly believe that we, Independent Scientologists, must take back the word Scientology and make sure it is dusted off, and that the differentiation between the criminal acts of the Usurper and his Minions in Corporate Scientology, and those actually *doing* some Scientology, is made.

    Black Scientology within the Church of Scientology has blackened Scientology. But there really is a light side. We Scientologists would do much to engage these topics, as you discuss, with as much verve and intelligence as we can muster – for as long as we remember that we must enlighten on the subject – The Subject – of Scientology, while all the while accepting responsibility for, and accepting the repair of, the Church of Scientology and its criminal behavior.

    Consider it part of the Liability and subsequent Danger formula that we incur for having been spotted by society as “Evil Scientologists” who do not make the differentiation so easily – in fact, for whom the word Scientology is an entirely evil conflagration of concepts.

  17. Also, one more thing:

    ” Meanwhile, that which it continues to resist no longer even exists.”

    Not true, in my opinion. My observation is that Psychs (individuals dramatizing the Psych track valence) have overrun our previous position, and now own our Church. They are now, also, in full control over the US Military-Industrial machine.

    That which we once resisted now owns us.

  18. At the beginning, there was no postulate of war between scientology and psychology. The following and peaceful text was in the 1979 old dianetics book, not in the basics one. If it was, it would be in full contradiction with the actual violent campaign of the Church of Scientology again psychiatry. Well, does a spiritual group need absolutely an enemy to destroy ? To prosper, does he need absolutely a mortal enemy ? I don’t think so. The ennemy is the reactive mind, not people. The day we shall have thousands and thousands of auditors with good and stable spiritual results on their PC, other old practices will naturally decay. No war is needed.

    1979 : Chapter « Key in the engramm » , Lrk said :

    “Many persons investigating the treatment of the mentally ill by psychiatrists and others in charge of mental institutions are prompted, when they discover just what the pre-frontal lobotomy, the trans-orbital leukotomy and electric shock actually do to patients, to revile the psychiatrists as unworthy of his trust and accuse him of using it to conduct vivisection experiments on human beings. That any possible hope of recovery via dianetics may be gone for these unfortunate patients in the majority of cases should not be blame upon the psychiatrist and neurosurgeon. These people have only followed their teachings in various universities and have practiced such actions merely because they believed the problem of the mind could not be solved by anyone. A witch-burning attitude toward these people is very far from the one adopted by dianetics. Pointing to the fact that they have murdered minds which would otherwise have recovered, labeling them “mind snatchers” and making a horror story out of their actions is far from rational conduct. On the whole these people have been entirely sincere in their efforts to help the insane. By contagion of aberration such people have been subjected to enormous stresses in this work, having had their own engrams in continual restimulation. They can be cleared and their experience is valuable. Legislation against them such as that recently mentioned by a senator who was familiar with dianetics, horror stories about them in newspapers and a general public antipathy as well as the medical doctor’s traditional distrust of them cannot but bring about a disorderly condition. Dianetics is a newly discovered science and is non-partisan.

    In French :

    De nombreuses personnes ont enquêté sur les traitements que les psychiatres et les responsables d’établissements neuropsychiatriques administrent aux malades mentaux. Lorsque ces personnes découvrent l’état dans lequel se trouvent les patients à qui on a donné des électrochocs ou sur qui on a pratiqué une lobotomie préfrontale ou une leucotomie transorbitale, leur première impulsion est de cracher sur les psychiatres et de clamer haut et fort qu’il ne faut pas leur faire confiance et qu’ils ne font rien d’autre que se livrer à des expériences de vivisection sur des êtres humains. S’il est vrai que la grande majorité de ces patients a perdu toute chance de guérison et que la dianétique ne peut plus rien pour eux, la faute n’en revient pas entièrement aux psychiatres et aux neurochirurgiens. Ces gens n’ont fait qu’appliquer ce qu’on leur a appris à l’université, et s’ils ont agi de la sorte, c’est parce qu’ils croyaient que le problème du mental humain était insoluble. Loin de nous l’idée de déclencher une chasse aux sorcières contre ces gens. Il serait irrationnel de vouloir à tout prix mettre l’accent sur le fait qu’ils ont irrémédiablement détruit des personnes, ou bien de les qualifier de « bouchers », ou encore de dépeindre leurs actes comme autant d’atrocités. Dans l’ensemble, les efforts de ces gens pour aider les malades mentaux étaient parfaitement sincères. A cause de la contagion de l’aberration, leurs propres engrammes ont été continuellement restimulés et les ont soumis à une tension et à un stress considérables dans l’exercice de leur profession. Ces gens peuvent atteindre l’état de clair et leur expérience est précieuse. Je sais bien qu’un sénateur qui avait étudié la dianétique voulait récemment proposer une loi destinée à les bannir. Je sais bien que les journaux publient des articles virulents contre eux. Je sais bien que le public ne les porte pas dans son cœur. Et je sais bien que les médecins généralistes, par tradition, ne leur font pas confiance. Mais ce genre d’attitude ne peut qu’alimenter la polémique et engendrer une grande confusion. La dianétique est une nouvelle science et préfère rester neutre.

    • You’re right! I hadn’t noticed that text was deleted from the latest edition of Book One! In the 1959 New Zealand reprint, which I believe is verbatim from the first edition, it is a footnote at the end of that chapter.

  19. Personally I think that Scientology as subject cannot evolve and will eventually dissolve. Much assisted by the dealings of Miscavige who has misappropriated the church, its scriptures and its funds. A more proper name would now be: The Church of Miscavige, which only cares about your donations. But this is not the real reason.

    It cannot evolve because of its own tenets: there is only one source. Any attempt to ameliorate something is labeled as ‘out-tech’. It cannot change.
    Nature thrives on diversity and change. Scientology is only one of the many ways to attain liberation of unwanted barriers.

    What is left of true workable wisdom, can be gotten much easier with other writers and ‘prophets’. E.g. Eckhart. And of course good old Buddhism.
    Yes, Scientology was for me a failed purpose, but also a very interesting lesson, I don’t regret it at all. It teached me a lot. Especially what is liberation and what is not.
    Still, I wish that it could evolve itself for those who want to continue with it. The flower could blossom again with the proper nourishment.

  20. ex class v staff member?

    In many ways scientology has traded places with it’s nemesis however one factor reminds constant. Right from the beginning scientology has sanctioned the discussion of spiritual matters, with the admission of a possible god in DMSMH. Psychology and psychiatry from the beginning neglected to mention it. This has not really changed. After leaving the corporate church and considered the possibility that I may have been tricked into rejected something valuable. I did indeed find some help there but I never ended up discussing past lives or god and was in fact warned not to waste my time with it. Unfortunately there is big difference between admitting the existence of spiritual reality and creating conditions where recognition of such is possible and as far as I can see the corporate church no longer provides the latter.

  21. Freedom: To be able to know, be, do, have anything, especially to assume any viewpoint.
    So the “inc. Scientologists” (and all are not like this) who only sees by the material of the church and can’t have any other viewpoint, like new ideas or even old but not “church approved”, are indeed trapped while Scientology is supposed to lead to Total Freedom.
    IMHO.

  22. First off, I agree that the Co$ has gone completely off the rails. But I disagree that the evolution of other practices have left Scientology behind. My wife and I raised 4 children who were all very active in our community. Over the years we experienced dozens of children who had personal problems that resulted in some type of mental health handling. In every case that I had any knowledge of the immediate solution was to put the kid on drugs. I never once heard of a kid having any type of counselling where they looked within and it brought about change. In cases where I have seen therapies used, the session usually ends when the person experiences a grief charge. How many times have you heard a mental health person say that it will take years of therapy to handle something that Scientology auditing could handle almost immediately.

    There’s no question that there have been plenty of brilliant people who made profound observations about mental health and spirituality long before LRH and after LRH, but LRH put this complete package together and it works. I’m a believer in evolution and it may eventually surpass Scientology but I think that’s going to take a while.

    I have one last observation that I think is relevant. I’ve come to realize in recent years that the ability to duplicate and follow instructions on a high level, like practicing Scientology takes a person who can think for them self. You might think the opposite is true, that people who adhere strictly to following LRH’s tech aren’t thinking for them selves when actually they are. The current Co$ has not duplicated LRH and they aren’t thinking for them selves.

    • Paul J – Please see my post below in reply to yours.

      • I agree with you that science is constantly evolving. Science can evolve collectively because discoveries can stand independent of other discoveries. If someone is wrong in developing a new land telescope it has no effect on how the Hubble telescope works. Scientology requires that everything works together. Whether or not LRH originated parts of the tech, he was able to sift through data and put something together that works and gets a great product. I don’t see how Scientology could ever evolve the way other subjects do. Dealing with something like spirituality involves too many individuals with bad motives. DM is a good example of that. Keep in mind that I’m not a believer in the idea that Scientology is the final answer that will set everyone spiritually free. If an individual came along who created something better I’d be open to it. It might happen tomorrow and it might never happen. For now, I think the best thing to do is to practice Scientology exact how LRH created it. It works.

  23. Some who read this chapter Marty, especially those with pre-concieved fixed ideas who dont actually read to understand your meaning, might get the idea that you are advocating changing the tech, ie. “squirreling.”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I didnt get that you are thinking or advocating altering auditing tech. Its more about the “Admin Tech” (which i have said in other postings is not a true workable tech in the same way that auditing is) and certain church policies which create a bunker culture that is unable to exchange true communication and ideas with the human community at large.

    In other words, and its an important point..you dont say “Scientology” must evolve….you say “Scientologists” must evolve. Not the “tech” but the people, the community. They must change their policies and outlook so they arent ignorant of the real world (always a dangerous thing, just ask any holocost survivor) and so that any personal enlightment they might enjoy may spread thru osmosis into the greater community, and vice versa.

  24. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Here a true story about the “Tech” used in the “Wog World”

    My Wife’s niece was sexually harassed (Verbally and touching her) by an uncle at the age of 15 and at the same time forced by her parents to vist this crazy uncle continously.

    by the pressure of her parents to see him and the 1.1 of this uncle this young lady was totally confused, shy and not in pt at all !

    When we asked her about it, this girl had a fit and was crying for hours and was totally hysterical.

    As I knew a customer that was helping in that school she was (a psychologist), I called him and asked for help as this uncle went to court accusing her of telling lies ! A big mess and more hysterical tears. The school offered the help of a psychologist that we accepted. She saw that girl for over 2-3 years periodically and the only thing she did was to let her talk and guide her in direction of a positive life. Standard Pts Handling. And she fully disconnected from this uncle.
    Now this youg lady has a profession and her first 2d, is very active in life and very uptone and enjoying it. There was never any mention of offering her drugs. The psychologist just wanted her to confront the whole situation and live a good life ! Also the court very fast was able to determine that her uncle was crazy !

    During this time this Uncle continously tried to black pr us as we were Scientologists. The court wasn’t interested in it and the psychologist only meant that there is Lots of good stuff in the tech of Scientology. Many times times the psychologist was consulting us and wanted to discuss the case of that young lady.

    No Drugs, no lobotomy..nothing just understanding and common sense.
    Is that so difficult to get results ?

  25. WOW! Marty, you’re up against a very tall order here in attempting to convince me that as a group (APA) and its membership (Psychiatrist) is somehow a group of Benign practitioners only out to improve people and thus the society at large. Though I’m not questioning your experience with your father in law and certainly there are exceptions that can be sighted in any group, there is just way too much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    As a business consultant and FSM for more than 28 years dealing with hundreds of non scientologist and their families, conducting thousands of one-on-one extensive personal interviews about their personal ruins, I have seen the results of Psychology and Psychiatric “therapy” and the devastating results of MD and Psych prescribed Psychotropic “anti-depression” drugs. I’ve seen hundred of businesses and family’s destroyed. Frankly the devastating and destructive effects of Psyches and Psych drugs on societies across this planet pale in comparison to the atrocities (and there way to many) of Corporate Church of Scientology in the last 35 years since LRH relinquished control of the church.

    Psych funding: Look at what our government is currently pushing hard down the throats of the American people though most of its (controlled) “main stream” media outlets: Gun Control and MORE FUNDING for Mental Health. Look at the amount of Psych funding for “Psych therapy and Psych drugs in the 2,300 page Obama Care Health Bill!

    Look at the overwhelming glaring evidence on TV ads 24-7 of how all what ills you can be handled by a Psych Drug. What are the effect of these? I can state unequivocally that they create in the patient a drug induced euphoric mind state of unreality and a no- responsibility – a delusionary, unpredictable person, capable of murder and suicide.

    Is it really any accident that most, if not all of these school shootings have behind them “under psychiatric care” shooters! One can look this up completely independent of CCHR claims. The evidence is irrefutable!

    Is “One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest” really just a fictional account of Psyche hospitals, only to make a good movie?

    Look at the demise and down-fall of many hundreds of famous celebrates, even in recent times including OJ Simpson, comedian, Phil Hartman’s death by his wife, the implosion of Mike Tyson, Actors, Judy Garland, Francis Farmer, many famous musicians, too many to name – hundred if not thousands of famous people, (I’m sure others here can multiply this list many times) not to mention many thousands not so famous – all products of Psyches and their co-conspirators Big Pharma. Ever been to a Big Pharma sponsored seminar for MDs and Psyches to promote their latest drugs? I have.

    Where is the well disserved outrage in all this? Who is behind this? Why? Why is there not more media coverage and books written about this? This is a much larger story and conspiracy than CoS Cult. Are the forces behind what we have witnessed in the complete neutering of the effectiveness of our Church of Scientology the same players? Is there really Vested Interest forces at work here attempting to control a population? I recommend anyone here interested in all this, read: “Creature from Jekyll Island by G.Edward Griffin. And, no he’s not a Scientologist.

    So, No, Too much of Psychology and Psychiatric “therapy” is toward further convincing patients that they are Effect of their past experience, Effect of their Environment, Not Responsible for their Condition and Not Self Determined. Not exactly a workable route toward moving up a little higher. – Steve Poore

    • Here is the problem with discussing this. You have constructed a straw dog by mischaracterizing what I said as: ” the (APA) and its membership (Psychiatrist) is somehow a group of Benign practitioners only out to improve people and thus the society at large”. I never suggested that. Take a look at how you redefined what I said. I think this rush to redefine (identify, or alarmingly associate) gets ingrained through Scientology study.

      • Fair enough Marty, but maybe you’re mischaracterizing me by “ingrained through Scientology study.” Without “Scientology Study” it’s highly unlikely that either one of us would have escaped the Cult and even now having discussion.

        • Well, I asked you to examine what lead to your redefining what I said. If it wasn’t Scientology culture, fine. True dat on your other point.

          • I probably do still have some of the culture with me, and maybe I was a bit too harsh about some statements you’ve made in recent times, so I’m guilty too of being off point to that degree. So I apologize for redefining what you said. I just take exception of anyone validating sources that are so far afield of anything as anti-spirituality and anti-humanity as most psyches are. I don’t believe you’ve seen what I have and I know I haven’t seen and experiences what you have.

            • Again, when you note this, I think you are reading into what I actually said, ‘validating sources that are so far afield of anything as anti-spirituality and anti-humanity as most psyches are’, and are again over-generalizing on the second part. But I appreciate your views, for sure.

          • By the way Marty, I like and agree with most everything you stated on this blog, I feel it was mostly balanced. I just felt compelled to speak out about the psyches and also to state that if there is going to be any meaningful evolution in a barbaric society, such as we live, it will be because of Scientology and Scientologist practicing real Scientology and not because of the physical sciences, and feel good self-help books. That’s not to say others don’t have value to contribute, they do, and I value any person of good- will and anyone who truly helps others by whatever means. They could all benefit from what we know too.

            • Steve,
              I can certainly relate to your viewpoint and can say that I have been dealing with a family member that shares what you stated to a tee. I also have shared that viewpoint although I currently do not. I now consider it to be a ‘false datum’. You stated:

              ” I just felt compelled to speak out about the psyches and also to state that if there is going to be any meaningful evolution in a barbaric society, such as we live, it will be because of Scientology and Scientologist practicing real Scientology and not because of the physical sciences, and feel good self-help books.”

              IMHO a persons ACTIONS are driven more by their BELIEFS that factual observed data. And in this case the family member shares your viewpoint and believes:
              “that if there is going to be any meaningful evolution in a barbaric society, such as we live, it will be because of Scientology and Scientologist practicing real Scientology and not because of the physical sciences, and feel good self-help books.”

              As a result of this belief, she is absolutely unwilling to look at any other ideas, concepts, etc. She remains hung up at doubt and has been in that condition for years. She also cannot apply the data pertaining to hang ups at doubt which point to PTSness and FALSE DATA. She will not examine the data because of the belief she holds which is that only “Scientology and Scientologist practicing real Scientology (in an ideal org) can make any difference in our “barbaric society”.

              I do not consider that the above comment is a fact but rather a generality and recommend it be inspected per the data series. I do consider that some of the more ‘barbaric social mechanisms’ are practiced by those who support organized religion without inspection.

          • Marty, I don’t speak for Steve, but as I read your Book last summer and particularly in this chapter I looked around for examples whether or not what you say is true in the real world.
            This quote from your book is true for me, I see a lot of evidence for this:

            “Comparing my experience in corporate Scientology to my experience outside of it, and measuring both of them up to accounts and evidence of how philosophy, religion, psychology, and self-help have evolved over the past 60 years, it became apparent to me that Scientology Inc. is not only ignorant of the evolution of thought on Earth, it is fighting it.”

            There was a evolution of thought outside the Church of Scientology, whereas Scientology, Inc. stopped at some point to even “deliver what they promise.” And it’s very true they are fighting and encouraging people to fithgt without using their obnosis skills first.

            But this quote is not necessirly true for me:

            “Where did behavioral-cognitive psychology get the idea that the only effective change could come from within the patient? Certainly not from Scientology – that would be the last place targets of corporate Scientology would look for answers.

            There where many people from the times of Dianetics and later who read LRH materials and sure enough they adapted some concepts to some degree. Maybe not the “behavioral-cognitive psychology” branch particularly, but there was sure enough some kind of mimicry in the different fields of psychology. So what isn’t true for me in this, is “Scientology – that would be the last place targets of corporate Scientology would look for answers”. I also think LRH was first targeted by the psychs, because he dared to invent a technology and say it’s better than the psych-tech of his days.

            In my opinion Steve makes an important point. We shouldn’t forget that LRH was right about the source of suppression and we shouldn’t close our eyes for these facts. Even though the vast majority of “psychs” in the world may have social objectives, it is not true that the system is build upon humanitarian ideals.
            I know, you didn’t say that either, but I only say, we shouldn’t forget this.
            It’s also part of the “Code of a Scientologist” (the revised version from 1971).
            Fighting “Psychiatry and Psychology” never was a good target (and is a generality).
            Fighting its abuses, always.

            • “So what isn’t true for me in this, is “Scientology – that would be the last place targets of corporate Scientology would look for answers”.

              Totally get that this is not “true for you”. However, I challenge you to do some research to find out what is actually, factually, true in regards to where behavioral-cognitive psychology got this from.

              And, apologies for the interjection. Did not mean to be rude.

              • No need for apologies, but you missed my point.
                I don’t care, really, where they got their sources from.
                I only say, it’s not true for me that someone wouldn’t look for answers to from where he was targeted.

                And remember good old CO LRH ED “Genius” (21. July 1980)?
                There LRH uses “24 Qualities That Geniuses Have in Common” written by whom? A “Psych”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_A._Barrios

                The problem of the SCN vs PSYCHS game is generalization.
                I am sure LRH himself was able enough to see the difference between negative and positive aspects of the different aspects of “psyche-ology” (and the above reference is evidence enough).
                So should we.
                The emphasis on “all psychs” is stupid, of course; not only this, generalizations of this type further stupidity.

                (I hope you understand my comment, despite my lack of english skills)

      • Amen to that!

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      Marty was discussing something very DIFFERENT than you answered to !
      Many people are daily helping other people.
      It’s a matter of what one looks at ! Is the glass half empty or half full !

      For 40 years I was hearing those conspiracy theories but never saw anything about that demonstrated some factual truths.

      Mentally, it is a big problem and confusing to fight an ennemy one can’t see !

      For 40 years I was trying to fight against a conspiracy I never have seen. Very foggy !

      • The real tragedy is that if the individuals in CoS/CCHR had actually made well thought-out, reasoned and intellectually honest arguments, then a meaningful exposure might have been made of the abuses still in the psychiatric industry.

        Instead, the whole thing became about implanting Scientologists with an “anti-psychiatry” command, i.e. the anti-thesis of what Dianetics and Scientology are supposed to be about. All one has to do is go to one of the regular DM events or the “Psychiatry: Industry of Death”, to see the evidence that rational thought has left the building.

      • Go to a german Kindergarten and have a conversation with a teacher about Kids, education, family matters. You won’t find the conspiracy, but sure enough you’ll find its product.

  26. KSW, KSW, KSW. When LRH wrote it he could just as easily have used two old English phrases. The first: “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” And, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” In other words, stop trying to fix something that isn’t broken and if the research and development line is a free for all, where anyone can do whatever they want, we are all going to hell in a hand basket. And besides to truly work with the subject you first have to know it so get busy knowing it before you start changing it.

    Unfortunately, KSW was used in later years, not as a means of keeping the couselling procedures from being altered willy nilly or prevent them from being taught badly but as a means of thought stopping and to construct very high walls around what became a cult of seclusion.

    It is my personal opinion that even within the indie field, long held, ingrained fears associated with violating any of the points of KSW still stops some people from studying the tech in their own homes, you know just pull out that pack and study and drill it (they just have to wait for a more formal study set up) and it certainly stops them from getting out there and using the tech to help others because they don’t have a this or that and oh my god that is a violation of KSW because anything other than utter techincal perfection accompanied by an utterly perfect organizational set up is a violation … god help us. For goodness sake! As indie Scientologists we are a field activity! As in “indie field.” And what makes anyone think that that fixed location org we` are all waiting for with all the attendant posts filled, worked for Scientology? It didn’t, it failed, because it lacked one thing — field activity around it — people getting out there and using Scientology. Orgs became stranded islands, more and more isolated and most withered on the vine. A statistical fact, I’m afraid.

    KSW or rather how it was used became a big fat safe solution, a ser fac to guard us all against failure and like all ser facs, in the end, it became the problem and with its peverted reversal created the very thing it was meant to prevent. It still is one of the main problems, IMHO. As the old man said: “Scientology will go as far as it works.” So true, but if we don’t ever get out there and use it …

    • In the Church I got to where I was afraid to do an Assist. Some people at my org were heavy-handedly “corrected” for doing touch assists “wrong”. There is an atmosphere in the church that discourages any technical application.

      • Great point Chris.
        When I was on Solo Nots in the cult, you would be sec checked every six months on lots of different topics. Some of the topics were; falsifying worksheets, out tech, mis calling f/n’s, this type of stuff. At first when the auditor would get reads on you, you find stuff to be “cooperative”. After the sec check you go to ethics and if you “falsified worksheets” you would have to do a lower condition, because this meant you were only a breath away from being a true SP, squirrel. This hard line approach never made sense to me. I mean, I WANTED to benefit from the tech. If I made mistakes I wanted to be corrected. But when it became SO SERIOUS it got me very uptight about the whole subject and hard to stay in session,. Instead of being interested in my own case, I was trying not to fuck up so I wouldn’t wind up in ethics and being pushed to buy 8 book packages as a liability formula.

    • Research in the “wog world” is not a free for all. When LRH did work that he called research, he was doing something different in my opinion than what most of the non-Scn world would consider research — his research was self-study, inner journey, observation of others, and trial of different processes. This is a type of research and it has some of the benefits of genius insight. But it was more in the nature of a Thomas Edison in my opinion than a scientific research project.

      Where research in the “wog world” differs is that it has to follow principles — not that people don’t cheat. Research would include thorough design and review of projects for logical flaws or bias. It would include objective means of establishing results and analyzing them. It would often use statistics to determine objectively the level of significance of an outcome being likely due to chance or being a result of the “treatment” being studied. It would depend on random samples and blinded studies. It would explore all alternative explanations for results.

      I’m all for exploring and exposing abuse of drugs, ECT, and other methods that are of great concern in the psychiatric field. But condemning psychotherapy and all “psychs” across the board and claiming that “psychs” are the only reason for crime is A=A=A thinking and it simply makes CoS sound shrill and nuts — especially when parallel charges can be leveled against Scn from psychotherapists, if they were so inclined — that some people have not been helped, that some lives have been damaged, that some suicides have occurred, that people and families have been ruined financially, that the stress of disconnection has affected people, and so on.

      The things that could easily be studied through valid research would include rates of illness, IQ over time, comparisons of populations pursuing other practices, self-sense of happiness and other effects, and much more. Things that would be very hard (I think) to study scientifically would be the spiritual aspects — awareness, sense of being in present time, exteriorization, etc. If Scn works (and I have seen it work both as PC and auditor, and I have seen its flaws too) — test it! Convince people! Get past the “it works” mantra, which falls flat on “wog” ears, because everyone claims something works for them. Prove it — be from Missouri.

      Hell, if just one person demonstrated OT capabilities to a level of scientific certainty, CoS could not possibly train enough auditors fast enough because of the hordes beating down the doors!

      Put another way, evolve! Evolve is just another way of saying stay in present time so that one is engaging the present situation via new opportunities. It’s just another way of saying Survive!

    • Haydn – “it failed, because it lacked one thing — field activity around it — people getting out there and using Scientology.”

      Very good point! So True.

      The Independent and Free True Scientologist Delivering True Scientology IN THE FIELD is THE OVERRIDING ANSWER.

    • Yep. KSW is a masterpiece. Ron was pretty hot when he wrote it, but it is a manifesto of the Individual, and of what it means to know something and protect it from being butchered by someone else.

      The Church of Scientology as Miscavige has crafted it is proof that KSW is a valid policy letter. Look what happened to the church for failing to properly apply it?

      But, in order to apply it, you have to know it. The problem with the church is that certain staffers were “applying KSW” when they had no clue! So, having the correct technology became “Having DM’s Technology.” And they just skipped over number 3 (knowing it is correct) straight to enforcement.

    • Haydn said:”KSW, KSW, KSW. When LRH wrote it he could just as easily have used two old English phrases. The first: “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” And, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” In other words, stop trying to fix something that isn’t broken and if the research and development line is a free for all, where anyone can do whatever they want, we are all going to hell in a hand basket. And besides to truly work with the subject you first have to know it so get busy knowing it before you start changing it.”

      I wish LRH would have said it this simply. I am afraid that LRH had alot to do with the tech being so gaurded and wrought with penalties. This lead to fear of using the tech and no or little field activity to support the “Islands of sanity”.

      • Here are some parts of the offenses and penalties that apparently LRH wrote. I got them from the recent addition of Introduction to Scientology Ethics. I think it illustrates how rules can be used to make a subject dangerous and also how it can allow a true SP to take over the group and use LRH’s own policy to gain support from the not quite bright.

        Errors:

        Auditing goofs.
        Minor alter-is of tech or policy.

        Misdemeanors:

        Knowing and repeated departures from Standard Technology, instructional procedures or policy.

        Continued association with squirrels.

        Refusing an E-meter check.

        Auditor’s Code breaks resulting in a disturbance of the preclear.

        Crimes:

        Harmful. Flagrant and continued Code breaks resulting in important upsets.

        Being or becoming a Potential Trouble source without reporting it or taking action.

        Receiving auditing while a Potential Trouble Source.

        Withholding from local Scientology executives that he or she is a potential trouble source.

        Failing to report a PTS to local HCO.

        Organizing or allowing a gathering or meeting of staff members or field auditors to protest the orders of a senior.

        Refusal to accept penalties assigned in a recourse action.

        Refusal to uphold discipline.

        Allying Scientology to a disrelated practice.

        * Crimes may result in suspension of certificates, classifications or awards, reduction of post, or even dismissal or arrest when the crime clearly warrants it.

        HIGH CRIMES: * These consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts.

        ~ I will give some examples of these ~ ( These are just a few)

        Unauthorized use of the materials of Dianetics and Scientology.

        Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission of license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.

        Intentional and unauthorized alteration of LRH Technology, policy, Issues or Checksheets.
        Developing and/or using squirrel processes and check sheets.

        Public disavowal of Scientology of Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.

        Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.

        Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it.

        Demanding the return of any or all donations made for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the donations muct be refunded but this policy applies).

        Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person of Group by HCO.

        Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Supressive Acts.

        Mutiny.

        Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it to properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “ to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology.”

        Neglect or violation of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working: (this one kills me)

        That was actually only a small sampling of SP acts. Obviously all of us here are total SP’s if we were to buy into the fact that all these codes are absolutes and had to be applied without fail.

        The subject just got to be too damn serious and I think it is like the Titanic cracking up on an iceberg now. What of it can be salvaged remains to be seen. It will only be salvaged by those with some common sense and willingness to keep working at it.

        • Tony,

          I know, this is the crux of the dichotomy that Scientology is today because on the one hand you have the heavy ethics or rather justice materials and on the other LRH also said: “An auditor learns to audit by auditing.” In other words, they are going to make mistakes and you correct them and they get better, all covered in the C/S Series. Per those materials LRH was gracious towards those learning to audit and I chose to write from that viewpoint. And, in my experience, when training auditors that way it works wonders, as you would expect.

        • The one area Ron went over the top was in the so-called Justice tech. I understand his reasons for doing so, but the proof is in the pudding, and the justice codes in the end caused more trouble than they were ever worth. Pretty much the entirety of ethics as it pertains to one person assigning someone else a condition is in the same category.

          There is value to the ethics conditions when done correctly and with kind and loving guidance. But we all know that rarely happens in the church – it is “we’re gonna shoot him from guns!”

          I was comm-eved twice in my life. Both times they were a mockery of justice. I was assigned multiple conditions in my life. Once in a while they would be correct, but that was the exception rather than the rule. When I applied the ethics principles to myself, I had wins. When I let someone evaluate for me and assign them to me, all hell broke loose.

          I am not some low-stat non-producer. I was doing well on course, auditing WD and VWD sessions, etc., and yet the MAA or others felt I was somehow out ethics. Oh well. Their loss.

          So, I have chucked it all. I read the “Scientology Ethics” book with about a ton of salt. It is the one area that requires serious analysis to get value out of, because the codes you listed here are ridiculous. Period.

          • Hi Haydn and Grasshopper.
            I was a fully hatted (not hated)ethics officer and Dir. I and R. This was my post for many years,as well as Chaplain. I studied the ethics/justice tech pretty extensively. I have had great wins applying ethics conditions and applying them to others. Having said that , I do recall LRH saying that Man cannot be trusted with justice…etc, etc. so why LRH went so hard to make it available to the mere mortal I don’t really get.
            I don’t know where I got this, but there is this idea of LRH having an Old and New testament in Scientology. In this case the Old testament of Scientology is the ARCfull, loving, granting of beingness style. The New testament of Scientology is the fire and brimstone, sec checks, SP’s around every corner, criminals and db’s everywhere style. I myself only really subscribe now to the loving Old testament style. That is where I have recieved most of my gains from. The harsh heavy ethics/justice style has some short term workability but is a dead end in the long run, imho.

            • Hi Tony,

              Agreed. The harsh stuff begins as early as the 60s and develops further with the formation of the Sea Org. Then in 1971, LRH disbands worldwide management (non-Sea Org based at St Hil in the UK) and the Sea Org are it, instead of perhaps being three feet back of everyone as a highly trained group of advisors, they are left holding the baby and have to run the whole show. That short term, emergency use of ethics you describe becomes the norm.

            • I never heard it described in “Old-” and “New Testament” terms, but there was a definite shift in Scientology in 1963, and you can see it and feel in on the BC (since BC tapes run from ’61 through ’66). The Cuban Missile Crisis in ’62 and the FDA raid in DC in early ’63 changed the game. In the first case, nuclear war was very narrowly averted. In the second case, Scientology was under direct attack by the US government. It suddenly just got “real” and you can see it in the writings and tapes of the period.

              I love the first three or four books of the tech vols – the early fundamentals. I think if we had just avoided the justice engram, we would have had a much better time. The tech from the late 60s and 70s was awesome as well.

              I did my Comm Course in ’72, HQS course in ’73, Student Hat in ’74 HSDC in ’75, and my academy levels at ASHO in ’76. I cussing loved it. I loved it! I was a teenager, it I swear to God had I not been doing Scientology at the time I would have been on drugs.

              From a technical perspective the basic technology was found in the ’50s and delivery was perfected in the ’60s and ’70s. Metering in the ’50s was very crude. The Mark IV in the early ’60s made clearing possible and accurate reads a reality. Anyway, from my perspective, the “high ARC” part of Scientology was alive and well all the way through to the ’80s, except for the SO – and SO culture invaded the overall church in ’82 and got worse.

  27. Marty, “Where did behavioral-cognitive psychology get the idea that the only effective change could come from within the patient? Certainly not from Scientology” -…

    Why would psychologist and psychiatrist not study and learn from Scientology, LRH? Hell, They Know It Works!, if not why attack it (Dianetics) from 1950 onward (APA). Their attacks were just more covert than LRH’s attacks against them. And yes, I’m sure some used it for good, but far too many used it as miscavige uses it, Reversed – to do their slave masters bidding, to protect their vested interest and to line their own pocket books.
    And beside, the Psyches haven’t need to attack Scientology for the past many years, as they have already won their prize. – FOR NOW, ANYWAY. That is until the Indie Movement can really gear up and reverse this De-Evolution. “dissolving effect” – my 2,000 cents, (inflation, you know)

    • Why? Because every attempt to utilize any discovery by LRH is violently punished by the ‘church’ of Scientology. I think it is a tremendous disservice to L. Ron Hubbard and humanity that his discoveries are not integrated and evolved into society. It was his original intent that they be so. Now, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard are not even in the conversation – because to do so is to invite punishment. Exhibit A in support of my contention is my life over the past four years.

      • Marty, fortunately for me I was brought up with many faiths and could choose for myself what I witnessed worked! I married into a family with a Jesuit Priest who was very bright and was responsible for teaching the now in-charge of Belize men and women to read and to write. We would discuss LRH and his teachings and it opened up a wanting to know more on the part of Father Urban. He never made me wrong nor did I make him wrong. He saw the “rightness and workability” in it all.

        Scientology technology works and can and does contribute to making this world a better place in spite of the DM’s of this world!

      • Hearing it 2nd hand how the NN started with their
        use of the Tech (TRs and CCHs) and got drug
        addicts (even people on heavy medical/psych drugs)
        off their addiction, it was definitely not in a clinical environ.
        They just worked with what they had and the main
        KSW present was the “dedicated glare”. Then when
        they reported up to LRH, even he was impressed with
        the RESULTS. It is also called research.
        Imagine that being done today; they would be called
        squirrels in a second.

    • Steve,

      It seems the key figure that influenced Ron Hubbard AND the two considered to be the fathers of congnitive therapy (Ellis and Beck) was Korzybski of General Semantics fame, particulalry his work Science and Sanity. It is clear Korzybski influenced Hubbard, Campbell, Heinlein (the whole Sci Fi community) and later Ellis and then Beck. And since both Eillis and Beck came after Hubbard, and knowing the science community (backed up by recent further reading) it is also possible that when the scientific authorities rejected the work Hubbard offered them they did so not because they thought it utterly worthless but because they considered him an upstart challenging their cosy paradigms. So it is possible in publishing his works (Dianetics), Hubbard may have influenced Ellis and Beck in a general sense (it is clear that “non-pros” have influenced pros in a general sense over the years by writing books in many fields) but there is no doubt Ellis and Beck did their own reseach line into the human mind in the 50s and 60s.

      But if Hubbard did influence such schools of thought if only in a general sense it just makes Marty’s point doubly telling — the world has been moving forward while Scientology Inc has regressed to the stone age. .

      • Agreed Haydn, As I’m sure you know, LRH acknowledged many times in many writings and lectures that he would not have been able to get where he wanted to go without all those great men before him and their invaluable contributions. And yes, CoS Inc has certainly “regressed to the stone age…” in that I have no doubt or what Marty said about it.

    • For those who are interested in the briefest of histories of psychotherapy, which really traces back to ancient times, read http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/history-of-psychotherapy/.

      CoS seems locked into a protest against the behavioral school (Skinner et al) that focused on human behavior in an animal, stimulus response sense. That is only one slice of the history of the field. Focusing on it to exclusion would be like insisting the stripes make the totality of the zebra.

    • Hi Steve;

      I doubt the ‘mental health’ community attacked LRH or Dianetics because they recognized it worked. From all that I have read on the subject, which is extensive, the ‘mental health’ community had zero understanding of Dianetics or the research LRH produced in later years.

      My conclusion was Dianetics was attacked solely because it was a threat to their own interests, financial, personal, whatever. In the early 50’s, there was much media attention on the subject of Dianetics, and that LRH was continuing research without being controlled, research into their field of ‘expertise’. The idea that someone not of their group, not of their ‘skill set’ could garner so much attention was considered a threat that had to be answered.

      I know of no reference anywhere that states or indicates that the reason for the attacks on Dianetics was due to it’s workability. If you know of any, none CofS sources, then I’d be very interested in reading them.

      There are always exceptions to the rule, and perhaps some practitioners did see the ‘workability’ as a threat to their own status in one way or another, but if this did result in opposition, it would not be because of the workability, but because of the threat to their status.

      Thanks.

      b

      • Bob Grant, your said: “My conclusion was Dianetics was attacked solely because it was a threat to their own interests, financial, personal, whatever.
        Please ask yourself: why would it be a threat, if it they didn’t know it
        worked?

        • Why? Because they may have thought it was ill-founded, poorly researched, and not properly studied and documented. Because they may have thought that popular movements are sometimes misguided — that people can follow like sheep. Because they did not like that someone could claim comparable or better success achieved on his own compared to the years of higher education they had to achieve. And so on. And certainly in some cases, maybe many or most, they sincerely cared about their “patients” and did not want to risk them to a new, unproven, non-peer reviewed system. Because they may have been worried about consumer fraud. And so on.

          And yes, I am sure it was also, in small or great part, protection of their own power, position, professional prestige, income, and so forth.

  28. great write up,i will read it again

  29. The problem you identify with Scientology in the Church is obviously correct. Regarding “the Subject of Scientology” though, In my opinion that problem would be corrected by restoration more so than evolution. Evolution of individual thought, or society is a good thing, but at this time I dont think any technical evolution or integration is needed to resolve this problem.
    I apologize, I have not read your book so maybe it is further explained there in a way I would understand. From this chapter or excerpt I am not getting a clear message and that may be just me. I feel Scientology Technology and Application should be restored and freed. Evolution of the group is needed, but not Scientology itself IMO. Would you agree with that? Thats the part I dont quite get from this.

    I think for me some confusion is caused by a dropping of a differentation between the Church and Scientology as a subject. You say “… advice for future vitality of the subject of Scientology”. To me this suggests that all aspects of Scientology must evolve and integrate to have future vitality.
    But I also get the idea from some of your statements that you believe Scientology should be applied correctly. Where are your drawing the line?

    I will say, it is fine with me for anyone to take any part of Scientology and use it any way they think best, so long as it does help, or atleast not harm people. I just dont think it is possible to try to prevent or control use of Scientology. Thats something the Church is way off about. If the Church was “on the rails” I would want it to control application within it’s own walls, but not outside. I think LRH said this more or less in a few different ways.

  30. Paul J,

    Yes, Scn is a living breathing thing. The basics of it are in place, and it does work, and is evolving quietly. It came as a bit of shock to me to hear that Training Routines were not LRH’s origination. Those were the result of a study group trying to find out why LRH consistently got more action out of a PC than other auditors. I know someone who has looked very carefully at a “simple” TR 2 (an acknowledgement) and has remarked that the “end phenomenon” of TR 2 is not the auditor saying “OK” clearly enough to be heard completely. The EP is the PC feeling that what he said was understood. A critical distinction. The ability to do this is by no means limited to Scientologists (or auditors). Some socially skilled individuals will manage to look carefully at you and find just what it is you did that you would feel good about being acknowledged for, and will find how you like to be acknowledged. How many of us have “flunked” when the wife shows up with new fingernail polish (and we didn’t notice)? Or a kid who finally got an “A” in a subject, and we just said, “Um … good. Now wash up for dinner.” That doesn’t mean we should abandon Scientology and go to finishing schools or look elsewhere, and it doesn’t mean “Scn is incapable of evolving”. It means it has just started its evolution. In science, it is not scrapping all the axioms that makes for evolution, it is gradually refining, exploring, exploring, testing. Evolution, someone MUST have said, is a quiet process, often unheralded. Revolution has great heralds, but sometimes results in several steps backwards on the evolutionary scale. Scientology is mainstream philosophy, an evolutionary culmination of thousands upon thousands of years of it.

    I got around to reading “What Is Wrong With Scientology” and have been surprised to find myself reading my own thoughts (that’s a compliment to Marty). It was shocking, since I of course thought that my thoughts were my thoughts alone, original genius if you will, and no one else had such clarity of vision as yours truly. Now it’s clear to me that great minds think alike, and that when truth is known, it seems to resolve into perception of the same truth, not some more creative and more original truth. Evry day, in every way, I’m getting better, and better, and better.

    Just for the joy of chatter, did you know that the discoverer of nitroglycerin blew up his own lab? Flattened it, literally. Matchsticks was all that was left (Alfred Nobel is also credted with having discovered plywood). A flask of nitro had been left overnight (almost overnight) on a table, untouched, no earthquakes, no rats – just a very explosive innocent-looking little liquid. They were thinking about scrapping nitro because it was simply too unpredictable. Then on some later date some guy accidentally spilled some onto a pile of sand and was extremely surprised to find himself still in one piece – mixed with inert granular material, nitro is called “dynamite” and is very stable. Surprise, surprise, pleasant surprise. You can even play catch with it (har, har). That’s the difference between “evolution” and “revolution”.

    Carcha.

  31. I don’t have the R & D volumes any longer; I wish I did!

    I’d like to find and produce verbatim an excerpt from one of his early lectures where Ron said that it wasn’t really that psychiatry was so bad, it was more that Scientology needed an opponent; that a game was necessary for the group called Scientology and that games require opponents.

    So, as I recall from my reading of this transcript, psychiatrists were more or less chosen by LRH to be our opponents. (Perhaps someone could find that exact quote? As I recall, it was indexed.)

    I think that explains a good deal of the story of the organizations and of the rationale of some of the more troublesome policies of Scientology.

    There are some policies that align perfectly with the core of the Axioms and Logics (e.g., the target series, much of, perhaps all of the Admin Know-How Series and many, many others) and there are others that are set up to make a game for Scientology. These policies include most of, if not all of the “Justice Codes”, Ethics Review, good ol’ “Sit 3″‘s “bait and badger”, the concept of “duty being the highest motivation” and the whole mentality of “making the penalties for non-compliance to gruesome to confront”, disconnection, fair game.

    When I first joined staff, I remember, when things slowed down, someone would pull out HCO PL, OT Orgs and we would rehab our purposes.

    From that policy:

    “THERE IS A LAW ABOUT THIS — ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO RESTORE LIFE AND ACTION IS TO REKINDLE THE FAILED PURPOSE. THE STOPS WILL AT ONCE BLOW.”

    This rehabbing action takes just a few minutes and produces administrative miracles. In comparison, carrying out a Comm Ev typically takes a few hundred administrative hours by keeping staff members up half the night and frequently caves in at least one person. Sometimes it caves not just the people being hung… but the members of the committee as well!

    A little quiz for you: which material– the failed purposes material or the comm ev material — did Ron say came from “the OT VIII materials and could practically revive the dead”?

    These “gamesy” policies are possible useful in urgent moments, similar to the artificial emergency that is created by a rough football coach in haranguing his team to win against their opponents, or in the insults of a marine corps sergeant bringing up the necessity level of his troops to take a hill.

    Perhaps these policies that created the game for us were once useful: when Scientology’s numbers were very, very small, and when we were all convinced that the whole planet was truly in jeopardy and we were the only way out. I did not object to them greatly, as long as I felt the group expanding, as long as I saw a LOT, LOT, LOT more good than harm.

    (It was also good to see “back in the day” that people would get cleaned up after “being shot” and amnesties would come out from time to time that would give the group a reboot!)

    (Ah, pardon my reminiscing! “Those were the days, my friend, I thought they’d never end, we laughed and sang!”)

    But, for me, that sense of expansion started to diminish in the mid to late 70’s after the first several months of the price increases, when most of the Class IV orgs started drying up into being very unhappy places and just a couple of orgs and missions and the AOs and Flag were the only one’s really delivering much Scientology. When more of the talk got to be that we just needed to get a bunch of OTs to the highest levels and the bottom fell out of the bridge.

    We were already in the sick bed when DM rolled into town; he certainly hurried an already disintegrating scene. And he’s officiating at the funeral now… but, wait! There’s still a pulse! Let’s dig this thing up!

    We can’t turn back now! We were let out, or got ourselves out, of the game. We’ve found out that we were lied to, as one of the many games conditions. Amongst the lies: The world has certainly got some tough spots, but it’s not the insane and psychotic jungle that we were impressed to believe it to be. It’s not ran by depraved men. Scientology is not the only solution (and it is less and less likely to ever be considered as even a welcomed part of the various solutions to the degree that it is pressed forward with an arrogance that it is the only solution).

    I’d love to see Scientology advance again into the world. I think it can. I think that it can happen within the “corporate church” and in the field. But on an individual basis. I think it could even be a crusade; I think it can happen by us each rehabbing our own and each other’s failed purposes, and sticking to the core beliefs of Scientology. I think we should all become experts of Scientology Zero.

    And be a lot more friendly to each other!

    In closing,do you remember this from your Minister’s Course? From the intro to the book,Great Religions by Which Men Live:

    “When we look across the borders to other religions, we tend to look down from our self-assertive heights. We like to point out how naive and superstitious are the beliefs of people in other geographical and cultural areas, how immature their gods, how fantastic their practices. We forget that if an Oriental looked at us from his heights he would find many of our Christian practices and even our beliefs equally incredible and many of our religious manners fantastic.

    “It is unfair to measure any religion by its lowest expressions. All religions have their heights as well as their lowlands, and the heights are to be seen clearly in their creators, their founders, and their great literature. The measure of a religion is its best ideals. We expect others to estimate our religion by its best expression; and, in turn, as an elemental courtesy, we should judge others by their best. A Christian always prefers to have Jesus of Nazareth represent his religion when it is judged; and those of the other faiths would choose their best prophets to represent them when comparisons are made.

    In Scientology, we have our heights as well as our lowlands. Divorce yourself from it’s lowest expressions! The measure of Scientology is its best ideals. Let’s just focus on all the good stuff and “no-create” this non-sensical stuff that muddied the whole thing up.

  32. “I think it is a tremendous disservice to L. Ron Hubbard and humanity that his discoveries are not integrated and evolved into society. It was his original intent that they be so. Now, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard are not even in the conversation – because to do so is to invite punishment”

    Marty, I completely agree with you, and this is really a shame. However, just because other self-help therapist, even psyches don’t give credit to LRH or Scientology, don’t think for a minute that they haven’t learned from it and use it.
    It is very too bad that the subject has been made such a mockery of that they don’t want to associate with it by giving credit. It’s also too bad that even Scientologist feel this way today. Personally, I haven’t found this a problem when doing one-on-one handle steps, especially now that I’m doing it from what is actually true and I’m able to get others to differentiate, as now I’m able to do between Scn, and the CoS.

    • You make some great points Steve.
      I think that if Scientology tried to change things through ARC instead of force and make wrong it would have come a lot further than it has.
      Just because yu grant some beingness to something doesn’t mean that you have to agree with it. An auditor has to grant beingness to some very abberated people in order to recognize the native rightness and goodness of the being. If you connect with that you can then get somewhere. If Scientologists could grant beingness to different therapies and share thier ideas with them, I think you would see Scientology seeping into the culture at a much faster rate. I so think some people are criminal and need to be seperated from society, such as dm and others that do very destructive things in the name of help.

  33. Marty,
    I learn something new from all that is said in this blog,diffrent points of view.
    Have my own crosses to bear and all of that but coming to a better understanding of Corporate Scientology from both of your books hitting the mark. Thankyou.

  34. How quickly we are to start to label the discussion points again rather than observe them for what they are. Once we label, all the generalizations arise to decide if “it’s good” or “it’s bad,” avoiding any real look at the points. Does it fit in with my preconceived notion of the order of things in my universe? Where do I fit that thought and do I applaud or condemn it?
    Reading the responses I am heartened and dismayed but ultimately hopeful the discussion continues, not to approve or disapprove one direction or the other but to discuss and air these thoughts out for the freshness they bring to the overal discussion of the board. Keep it going. But why have to label and then begin the judgement based upon that label? Look at the idea! Try it on for a moment, see how it can serve understanding or not. Decide on the greatest good for greatest number of dynamics as to how it is to be applied or dumped. Communication is the highest point of ARC and ARC is the components of Theta. Labeling stifles Comm and leads to erroneous conclusions. IMHO.

  35. Very well written. I have found people are very open to the philosophy of Scientology when they realize I am not interested in dragging them into an org or mission. The reference to the church’s in the dark ages is very apt.

  36. Pr ist nicht Wahrheit !

    I can’t remember the name of the guy who invented/discovered the wheel.
    I’m I then off Source when driving my car ?

    If I change the design of a driving wheel that it doesn’t look look any more than a wheel, I`m I squirreling ?

    The companies selling GPsTechnology are they off-source if they don’t mention that it is only working because of the discoveries of Einstein ?

    I raised my kids with ” Love” but can’t remember who gave me the knowledge to do it. I’m I off source ? Was I squirreling as sometimes I became angry ?

    Engrams exists and are per my own observation a demonstrable truth ! I know it. It was discovered by LRH with the help and lots of work done by many people before him . Without the work done by many other people he wouldn’t have been able to discover it or at least so fast.
    To whom does this knowledge belong ? To the C.O.S ? The Indies ? The psychs ?
    Would it be OK to study this knowledge and try out knew things ? (when not hurting people).

    If somebody one day finds a better way of getting rid of Engrams, who would be the source then ?

    If LRH comes back under a different name and builds a better bridge, who would be the source then ?

    What is the importance of knowing the Source of specific knowledge ?

    I’ve so much knowledge and I’m using zillions of different technologies in life but don’t know all sources of it.

    To whom belongs real knowledge ?

    I taught the ARC triangle and study tech to 100ds of people without mentioning who discovered it. Will those people squirrel it or be less efficient in applying that knowledge because they don’t know source ?
    And if they develop some technology out of this knowledge, are they squirrels ?

    Newton, Einstein etc.. will never be forgotten and zillions of different technologies have evolved out of their discoveries.

    Are the people using this knowledge off source if they don’t continually mention their names ?
    Are they squirrels if they advance this knowledge ?

    Knowledge is yours and belongs to everybody !

    You can’t do anything wrong when using knowledge that is yours !

    Daily, you’re using all kind of knowledge without thinking about the sources of it and daily you get 100ds of result as you applied the knowledge correctly and in the moment you don’t get results you know you did something wrong and mostly you can find out what you did wrong and correct yourself.

    Mankind evolved and learned of it’s failures (Theta Mest theory).
    Why shouldn’t a Scientologist not be able to do that and correct himself (a natural course of action that any kid follows) ?

    Just some questions that went through my mind re. the ongoing discussion.

    There is no need of attacking a person because she thinks different. What does it help ?

    Only when differentiation is applied new knowledge will be created, As when there are no different viewpoints all is equal all, as its a two terminal universe and you need 2 different terminals to develop power.

    IMHO

    • Yep. Agreed. Truth is truth. In regards Scientology, some people like to obsessively change things, and I myself have seen bad interpretations of LRH data in action, so knowing something came from LRH instead of some other person makes a difference to me (source). But, ARC is ARC whether Ron wrote it or not.

    • Well, this wacky business of “Scource” probably stems from the simple fact that CO$/RTC has tradmarked LRH’s name and they dont want anyone buying anything or disseminating anything that doest lead back to INCOME to them. Simple as that.

      • I always thought that source meant “supplier” and in this case supplier of technology and philosophical materials. I remember LRH talking about how people bought LRH’s brand and stayed away in droves from other brands.

        I was surprised to learn that others thought it meant that he was the origin or source-point of the truths embodied in the works encompassed under the name Scientology like a mystical channel or Messiah or something like that.

    • A wonderful perspective. Thank you.

  37. Marty. Completely agree with all of this. Scientology got off to an early lead in the field of self-development and LRH’s brilliance in developing the “tech” spawned and or inspired dozens of other practices and applications. But that early role as the leader in the field was relinquished as the “chuch” became what it is today. I would mention to Steve Poore that suppressive and controlling practices in the field of mental health that LRH and the rest of us reviled, are still reviled. Psych drugs as the treatment of first choice must always be questioned or challenged. No one has gone soft on any of that. Whats being pointed out is that the field of “counselling” has very much diversified over the last 40 years and not every one with the the letters ‘psych” in their title is a bad hat or doing harm.

  38. I agree the entire book is well written. As far as this subject of evolution is concerned, I don’t feel evolution should be given the necessity or importance it is getting. Evolution is already an inevitable part of this process of games. The entirety of what Hubbard tried to have integrated has been convoluted by Miscavige, again simple change and hence evolution. I agree application of the philosophy in the field will be the saving grace of Scientology whatever side of the fence its on. ARC Bill Dupree

  39. Just some info to add to the evolution and source of some of the currently prevailing philosophies of psychology to contribute to the ongoing discussion:

    One of the major threads in current psychology began with Maria Montessori in the early 1900s, who introduced the idea of respecting the unique individuality of a child and fostering a self-determined, self-teaching, self-correcting learning environment, based on the belief that children should be free to succeed and learn without restriction or criticism. Her work has come up largely through the transactional analysis line and where it is seen reflected in the self-actualization concepts of Maslow. The best selling books “Games People Play” and “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” gain focus from this rationale. Maria’s work was based on hands-on work first with learning disabled children, and from there to children without disabilities. She was a great observer and dedicated to doing what worked. Very big on practical application i.e. the proof is in the pudding.

    Another major thread was Transcendental Meditation, which became the subject of hundreds of studies and tremendous interest and impact and from there to a fascination with eastern religions, Buddhism, Vedanta & Mysticism.

    The third major thread was the Esalen Institute out of Stanford, including Alan Watts (tudied Carl Jung), Richard Price (studied Sri Aurobindo) and Michael Murphy (studied Sri Aurobindo), and Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) to name a few. They coined the term Human Potential Movement and their influence has been powerful in think tanks. These guys explored anything and everything that could possibly open and expand the untapped reservoirs of human potential.

    All three of these threads shared the belief that treating someone so they would be “normal” was a grave disservice to the true potential of humanity and that changes in the individual only came from within, and forcing individuals to do what they do naturally (seek self-actualizaton & happiness) is actually counter-productive.

    • Maria,
      I understand, too, that Carl Rogers had a tremendous influence on twentieth-century and modern psychological thought and therapy. Many of his core therapy approaches are very reminiscent of the Auditor’s Code, and Scientology ideas such as “granting of beingness”. Rogers called it “unconditional positive regard”.
      And he had ideas very similar to the concept of being “out of valence”, which he called “incongruity”.
      And his use of the word “self”, if replaced with Scientology’s “thetan”, are nearly identical in concept — though Scientology takes it further, of course, to embrace the deathlessness of “self” and its fundamental distinction from the body.
      I know that Sarge Gerbode (the Scientology psychologist from the 1970s/1980s) listed Carl Rogers as one of his primary influences when he was trying to bring dianetics into the world of psychology under the name Traumatic Incident Reduction (TIR) and Metapsychology in the 1980s/90s.

      • Good catch Margaret — you are right! Carl Rogers really belongs on this list! He was indeed a major influence, maybe deserves his own thread, but probably most influential on the human potential movement thread.

      • Very Interesting! Thank you, Margaret and Maria, for mentioning Carl Rogers’ therapy. Explains to me for the first time, why my father, who was a practicing psychologist – and often said he mainly used Roger’s “Client-centered” approach – never evaluated for me or anyone in my family, when we were discussing problems or difficulties. He was actually quite generous in what Scientologists call “granting of beingness”, and in his patience & willingness to listen.

        My father had some impressive stats for a number of years, as a court-attached psychologist, in reducing the divorce rate in his county, by virtue of his counselling of troubled married couples that came to the court seeking divorce. He was quite justifiably proud of the numbers of marriages he helped salvage with his Rogerian non-judgmental approach.

        So, I knew from experience with him that he was not an “evil psych”, and this was difficult to get ethics officers in the Church to understand, when it came up.

        This post by Marty, and your comments on Carl Rogers’ contribution to what is known broadly as “talk therapy”, have made me more aware of how my father’s example as a loving, well-intentioned and effective practitioner helped me to recognize how being a Dianetics and Scientology Auditor might be a useful thing to pursue, when I encountered it in 1970 as a college student seeking something worthwhile to do with my life. I had not recognized that before, fully.

        Makes me prouder than ever of my father, and of the example he set for me – which assisted me in having an on-going 42 year career in helping others with the very effective “talk therapy” called Scientology auditing.

        I DO decry the abuses of psychiatry, where they exist, and the corrrosive results of Big Pharma on our culture, which are extensive – but those are a whole universe away from what my father practiced.

        As a side note, one of his favorite books before he passed away in the 80’s was L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth. And he told me he had been impressed by LRH’s Terra Incognita – the Mind article published in Astounding Science Fiction in the late 40’s. Who knows? That may have even helped guide his own search at the time.

        So, are we evolving yet? I think we have a good chance, through this kind of understanding and differentiation.

  40. There are MANY MANY spiritual beings who are around now and in the past that knew all of what the basic Scientology tech is now. If you really do your research you will find that Ron could not have made one process with out the help of these spiritual beings. I see it over and over again in my research. I really feel for others who don’t venture out and find all the great treasures on this planet that are here for the taking… .I have had more cognition’s on my 7th and 8th since I left the church than I ever had inside. It’s a stifling place to be and people are living a lie if they think for one moment that Ron figured this all out on his own. In my opinion he gets way more credit than he really deserves among these group members. But then again isn’t that the purpose? Put your blinders on and believe Ron is THE SOURCE….Only then can one feel he is “special” This is the real dwindling spiral.

  41. I loved this chapter in the book, Marty. It is obviously true. My view is that Ron was very well read, and I see no reason for anyone not to be well read. We should not fear knowledge! How stupid is the idea that you can be corrupted by reading, say, “The Secret” or any other words written by any other person? What a condemnation of the very name of Scientology (“Knowing how to know”) for anyone to say we should NOT read or look at anything!

    I am a defender of KSW because it is true that someone should know a subject very well before thinking about how to extend it. And also because it does champion the individual and because it lays out how to achieve the ability to know Scientology (Items 1, 2, 3, and 4).

    KSW point number 1 does not imply that “Having the correct technology” is a finite state. That there is a pool of technology that is 100% complete, and 100% contained, that we must wrap ourselves around and never do anything with. The proof that this pool is not absolute is in LRH’s own actions. The OT levels came after KSW – they were added to the pool of “correct technology.” XDN, the drug rundowns, the Int rundowns, a load of correction lists. Word clearing.

    It is up to us to determine now what number 1 means – what is “correct technology”? We trusted the church to do this for us – and boy did it screw up! So, we need to take ownership of it, and determine for ourselves what number 1 is – and we need to do this by studying and knowing the subject – and other subjects as well.

    And, I recall, LRH was supportive of this. “If it’s true for you,” remember.

  42. “Scientology: Its General Background”

    Great stuff, The Phoenix Lecture ©1968, Chapter I-III, a must read.

    ML/A

  43. Evolve or Dissolve?

    Alright, how about this for an evolution -how about we evolve into Scientologist that LRH can be proud of and we take our technology and our church back!

    We have some very good people here, good hearts, and good intentions. I am always impressed with the quality of writing and ideas and the stories of fellow Scientologist (and non Scientologists).But after a year now of visiting Marty’s site what I see is outrage, disbelief but renewal and healing as well. What is missing for me in all this is any real level of action. We talk and talk and blog and write and don’t do anything to significantly change the scene.

    David Miscavige is and SP, we know it now let’s do something about it and remove him from post. How? I am asking you Marty, Mike, Amy, Debbie, Wayne, Ulf, Dan, Karen and every other Sea Org who can be gotten to join in and apply standard Scientology and convene a Court of Evidence on DM. Let’s announce a plan to do so and publish the date and location which will be open to all Scientologists and the press. I am asking you to make a sincere push by putting back on your Sea Org uniforms (literally…those uniforms are a very powerful symbol and display the idea of group and unity) and hats and assume your right to act. You signed a billion year contract and are Scientologist and therefore have every right to take action.

    DM says that power is assumed, fine then lets assume power and the right to act. Let’s set a date and location and begin to gather witnesses to be deposed. Let’s find Pat Broker and get him there! Let’s get Debbie back up there as well. Let’s get this testimony filmed, let’s get it uploaded to U-Tube, get it on DVD as well and distributed to the press. Let’s act boldly and announce to everyone the goal is to remove DM and put in place the three part administrative structure LRH had set forth for when he was gone.

    Much of the power from the above will come from the show itself. The nerve to do it, getting the press involved. News of it would go through the Scientology community that a showdown is underway and the people are going to have to make some choices. Let’s force the hand and see just how much support DM..

    I suggest we state that Ray Mittoff, Norman Starkey and Heber Jentzsche will be asked to oversee the transition once all the evidence is in on DM. Scientologist will easily accept these men because there already well know and also will help extinguish and idea there is on outside power grab taking place. The reinstatement of all Standard Technology and LRH as Source will be the primary duty of these three men.

    I suggest we state we intend a blanket amnesty for all Sea Org members who wish to return to the Sea Org and forgiveness of any debts they may owe the church and any pending Ethics actions are suspended and forgiven.

    The Church in my mind can be saved and the assets are there to finance its recovery. DM is very weak let’s take action now to topple him and take back the Church.

    ……more to come very shortly!

    • Go for it. Not the purpose of this forum though.

    • Yes, Go for it! Reconciliation is a reliable ferry.

      ML/A

    • Hi KFrancis. If you are doing this and convening the “Court of Evidence” I would be interested to know something about you. Can you give a bit of information about yourself — name, history etc. Thanks.

    • Great idea KFrancis. We’ll all get our uniforms back on, get our pictures taken and then dm can sue us for impersonating Sea Org officers and get damages.

      dm isn’t very weak. NO ONE with over 2 billion is weak for god’s sake – he doesn’t have to run a country on 2 billion – just a few limping orgs.

      Seriously WHOOOOOO are you — said the red queen

    • Aside from the LRH Archives and the $$$ and MEST, does the Chruch still have anything left that’s worth saving? (Not forgetting the kool-aid drinkers who once were free beings and hopefully will go free again someday.)

  44. miscavigeisscaredofsam

    I think you’re bang on Marty. I’m maybe not coming in from the same direction as you but all roads appear to lead instinctually and unavoidably to Rome.

  45. Hello Mike,

    I am not convening a Court of Evidence. I am asking you and other Sea Members to reunite and convene one.

    Mike, by survey you were more popular than DM. You,Marty,Debbie have great visibility and are opinon leaders. I believe teamed up in a unified push you could take back the Church. The push to do so has to start with an idea to do so, I want to present one.

    My name will mean nothing to you. I am just a guy. I am just a guy who thinks it time we step up and push DM out.

    I have done a lot of courses and made it to OT 4. I have no paticular accomplishments in SCN to share. Maybe my only credential for offering and idea at all is that I love Ron and believe he would want me at least offer an idea.

    • Oh, well thanks for the idea. Though honestly, I have a somewhat jaded view of people telling me what I should do…. For several years I watched numerous people advise me that I should “go the authorities” and “walk into the FBI and spill your guts” — many variations of this and other advice to do things that a) I was already doing or b) I knew from experience would be a waste of time. You would be better off figuring out what YOU can do to bring about the objective. Because the advice you give yourself IS going to be within your parameters to do and on your purpose line. Believe me, I am doing what I can and what I believe is the best course of action to take based on my experience, knowledge, available time and willingness.

      I am not trying to shoot you down — but simply suggest that your talents would be better spent figuring out what YOU can do because that WILL lead to something. Tossing out plans for what other could do doesnt usually result in much.

  46. My two cents on this topic goes like this: Do I believe that “STANDARD TECH ALONE RESOLVES ALL CASES”? (ref: HCOB 28 August 1968 OUT-TECH)

    I find myself recognizing that

    (1) The bulletins on ILLEGAL PCs, ACCEPTANCE OF (HCOB 6 December 1976 RB,HCOB 11 February 1980 R) make it impossible for standard tech to resolve all cases! If you don’t accept preclears, you can’t apply standard tech to them, right? So there’s no real way to demonstrate or prove that standard tech alone resolves all cases!

    (2) I know dozens of OT7s and OT8s that have reached the top of the “STANDARD BRIDGE” without having their cases resolved. One in particular I know of that completed OT VII has been near death so many times that my only conclusion is that the case hasn’t been resolved OR that STANDARD TECH wasn’t applied to the case. In any case, STANDARD MONEY had been paid to address to the case and a STANDARD ATTEST had been done. Yet the undesired condition or case state still existed!

    (3) If I believe that STANDARD TECH ALONE RESOLVES ALL CASES, in 1968, STANDARD TECH had not been codified. Therefore, it was not COMPLETE. Since 1968, STANDARD DIANETICS as described in DIANETICS TODAY (printed in 1975), NED (issued in 1978), Interiorization Rundown (issued in 1971), Fear of People List, PTS Rundown (issued 1972), Disagreement Check (1972), Primary Correction Rundown (1972), Expanded Dianetics (1971), False Purpose Rundown (1984), South African Rundown (1973), Introspection Rundown (1974), Student Booster Rundown (1975), Purification Rundown (1978), Scientology Drug Rundown (1980), Happiness Rundown (1984), Asthma/Allergy Rundown (1985), Scientology Marriage Counseling (1988), Metalosis Rundown (1991) and KTL/LOC (1991), amongst others had all been codified and issued.

    So even when LRH was bold enough to say that “STANDARD TECH ALONE RESOLVES ALL CASES” at that point in time Standard Tech hadn’t been solidified into something permanent, finalized, and immutable.

    Standard Tech was being codified and issued up to the point LRH died.

    (4) It seems hubristic to me to claim that everything that needs to be handled in a case has a handling as codified in Standard Tech. For example, “Standard Tech” does not have a handling for a case that is complicated by Bodies in Pawn. This is known in Scientology, YET THERE IS NO DRILL FOR RECOGNIZING IT, DEALING WITH IT, AND TOTALLY HANDLING IT. Expanded Dianetics says that part of addressing a full ExDn case is running ARC Breaks using Expanded Dianetics Tech. YET THERE IS NO DRILL FOR RUNNING ARC BREAKS EXDN STYLE. The WANTS HANDLED Rundown is part of ExDn tech yet there is no equivalent rundown for things the pc wants handled on the OT Levels, AND THERE IS NO DRILL FOR IT.

    Because there are of such examples of case conditions for which there is no specified tech and no GAT drills, again I say, it is hubristic to claim that everything that needs to be handled in a case has a handling codified in standard tech.

    Because David Miscavige has a Crashing Misunderstood as to what Standard Tech is, the Tech is frozen in a state where hundreds, nay, thousands of parishioners are forced to undergo “no-auditing” (see Tech Dictionary), bleeding money into church coffers for no case gain.

    I’m not endorsing the kind of quickie-based squirreling and finding “tech” where none exists a la David Miscavige.

    I’m suggesting that tech needs to be codified where none exists to handle case conditions that weren’t recognized when LRH dropped his body in 1986. If you look, even when LRH claimed that “STANDARD TECH ALONE RESOLVES ALL CASES” even he was evolving and codifying tech to handle case conditions that weren’t covered under the “standard tech” umbrella in 1968. About one Rundown per year, in fact.

    What evidence do we have that LRH’s death occurred because LRH had run out of things to undercut or address or handle?

    Miscavige’s word?

    Puhleeeeeeze!

  47. LRH speaks in 1969 of “cultural lag”. Now the lag is over with the society but the church didn’t notice.
    In 1974 LRH talks about the psychs are vanishing and from 1982 they are again the biggest whole track ennemies. Out point, contrary fact?
    I just think that no data written about “psychs”, FPRD and all that “real OT level over OTVIII” are from LRH. It’s not. New OTVIII is not an LRH level. OT9, 10… don’t exist.
    Ron journal 35 and up are fake. Especially Ron journal 38.
    I’m a churchy like you, but it’s 30 years that I observe those lies. It’s so gross that none can see it.
    All this “psych” shit from 1982 never was written by LRH.
    If you compare it with Not’s, it’s not at all on the same research line. It has nothing in common. Who invented all that crap, I wonder…

  48. Kfrancis,
    Easier said than done. D.M. has at his disposal Billion/s in offshore accounts, loyal followers,private jets and an ship on the high seas as a remote command post. You want to storm that Bunker Master Chief ?
    With what , spitwads, water ballons,and a sling shot ? Debbie Cook has her Millions and lives on a beautiful Island under the French Flag,what pry bar you going to use to get her to atternd this tribunal ?
    Good intentions, just not the right answer to a big problem that took years
    in the making.

    • Tango:

      “Good intentions, just not the right answer to a big problem that took years
      in the making.”

      Not so sure. The only necks that will be available for hanging will be those who step up and out to do this convening.

      KFrancis has stated he/she isn’t going to even come forward on this blog with his/her name. Just a nobody OT IV —

      So I think KFrancis should gather all the other nobodies and once he’s got about 500 (about the number of people who have come forward with their real names) … meet at some place and decide what a group of 500 might be able to do.

      For inspiration he might go see

      “Les Miserables” — come up with a group ballad, ask some indy musicians to craft some music.

      It’s got all the makings of a success🙂

      .

    • Tango…..I get you and your point is taken.

      But allow me to just say this ( even if it may expose continuing naivety in me..ha ha..) all of the above assets were once in the possesion of Saddam Hussein and he ended his life in a tiny dirt hole and finally at the end of a hangmans noose. DM may appear to be firmly in power but I suggest to you and others that it is a mirage we are looking at.

  49. Off topic, but I suspect of interest to people here. Tony Ortega quotes Mike Rinder on The Atlantic magazine debacle:

    ******************************
    “It REALLY shows desperation and fear about the upcoming media nightmare surrounding Larry Wright’s book. That ad cost some cash.

    Interestingly, it is ONLY trying to make Miscavige look good to his existing income base. It isn’t written for the general public (i.e., readers of Atlantic). They don’t give a damn about “Ideal Orgs” and could care less how many of them he “opened” (Funny they are now including re-”opening” old “Ideal Orgs” like Buffalo, DC, Los Gatos and San Jose). And it’s all about Miscavige. This would be like the Mormons trying to promote their religion by talking about Thomas Monson and showing pictures of LDS temples. Weird. And it would turn off anyone they were trying to convert. When they pitch new people (like ANY other religion) they pitch their beliefs and the good work they do for people and how joining their church is going to help you.

    Miscavige wants to be able to show this to the suckers at his next “international event” (March 13) and pretend it’s “massive media coverage.” And for those that ask, it will be “this is what your donations to the IAS pay for.”
    *******************************
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/01/14/the-atlantic-magazine-becomes-scientologys-newest-ideal-org/

    And to note an observation from another forum, “As a result of this stroke of genius someone has managed to get David Miscavige “positioned” with both the Taliban and Dread Cthulhu.”

    http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/dread-cthulhu-leads-his-cult-t.html

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-is-a-vibrant-and-thriving-po,30910/

  50. Fuck the slave masters whoever and where ever.

    I’m no ones ‘yes’ man.

  51. What has happened in the Church over the last 3 decades is more like involution than evolution.

    LRH had envisioned a network of field auditors, franchises and orgs with balanced exchange at all levels. Preclears who had taken their first bridge steps in the field would move up to higher level services at the orgs; the orgs would train auditors and back up the franchises and the field. The network was designed was intended to expand as orgs produced auditors and auditors went out to serve the public. (The pattern of a network of balanced flows with gradual expansion is a succesful one in this universe – look at any tree.)

    The Sea Org was originally a small elite of scientologists at the higest case and training levels with an overall supervisory role. And although they signed billion-year contracts to prove their level of commitment, LRH may not have expected they’d be needed for quite as long as that.

    The changes introduced since 1982 (or maybe even earlier) have all been in the direction of collapsing this network inward. Flows became one-way, all to the centre. Field auditors were prevented from auditing, franchises (missions) were destroyed, and any of these people who stayed on had to work for an org. Then the orgs were bled of staff and resources by the international networks of the C of S, and their staff were pressured to join the Sea Org. Mithoff’s quickie lower bridge pushed Org public into becoming AO public even if they still needed Grades or if their state of Clear was later questioned. So many people seem to get rushed up to the NOTs band and then parked there until they make impossible contributions to the C of S.

    The Sea Org long ago ceased to be an elite, even recruiting raw public, and is now swallowing up all the remaining org staff. The aim seems to be for all C of S members to become Sea Org, with the RTC taking over the SO’s original role.

    Okay, none of this is news. But see what I mean about involution, or structures collapsing inwards?

  52. Another article of interest. Off-topic as to this post, but certainly addressing a topic that has been much covered on this blog:

    Buzz Feed: Is Scientology Self-Destructing?
    Scientology leader David Miscavige has been trumpeting his church’s “milestone year,” but the mysterious religion is alienating scores of its most faithful followers with what they call a real estate scam. With anger mounting and defectors fleeing, this may be more than a fleeting crisis; it may be a symptom of an institution in decline.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexklein/is-scientology-self-destructing

  53. @Dan Locke

    “So, as I recall from my reading of this transcript, psychiatrists were more or less chosen by LRH to be our opponents. (Perhaps someone could find that exact quote? As I recall, it was indexed.)”

    Well, Dan, I think LRH also said that all games are aberrative. ( That might not be an exact quote.) Games are fun to be sure, but apparently they are also aberrative. Interesting, hunh?

    • LRH said that in a lecture I listened to. Sorry I don’t offhand recall which one, except it was from the 1950s I believe.He said as I recall it, that his election of Psychiatrists as the “enemy” was somewhat arbitrary and he could have chosen some other group, BUT he chose them because he himself had been a “psych” on the whole track and thus felt they fit the “enemy” bill pretty well.

      It has never been clear to me exactly who he meant when he used the term “psychs”. In general it seems he was referring to suppressive beings who were into trapping and implanting others. Sometimes he seemed to be referring to certain priestly and quasi-religious groups.

      Simply having a degree in Psychiatry wouldn’t necessarily make one a “psych”. But given that a suppressively inclined person works by infiltrating and subverting any constructive, uplifting field such as education, religion, or therapy; if the heads of the World Psychiatric Association, for example, were of this type of person, the entire field would tend to be degraded over time. Because they are engaged in the opposite of MOUALH.

      They may be said to be engaged in Moving Things Down A Lot Lower.

      It is also necessary to distinguish between psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Psychologists in the USA, not being MDs, do not have the power to prescribe drugs. They are much more likely to be focused on mental therapies.

      And it’s wise to remember that psychiatrists who prescribe psychoactive drugs develop for themselves a “residual income”. This is an unintended(?) consequence of FDA warnings and monitoring requirements for prescribing physicians. They get paid well for every 15-minuite monitoring appointment they have with their patients, which are usually once a month. This can amount to $1,000 to $2,000 “extra” monthly income for a psychiatrist. So the grassroots outcry and efforts to protect people who are prescribed these drugs have led to increased income for the psychiatrists who prescribe them.

  54. I ask myself this question on a personal level since I had been in contact with Scientology. It is like sitting in a room surrounded with concrete walls. Sometimes I can drill a little hole through that wall. I can look through that hole. Then I think Scientology is good. Next day the hole is gone and I am again surrounded by those walls. Then I think Scientology does not work, to hell with it. Want nothing to do with it, waste if time. Flipping back and forth. Trying to figure out to drill bigger and lasting holes. But did not find the drill bit that could do that.

    • The first line of Keeping Scientology Working says:

      “Having the correct technology.”

      To do what? Correct for whom? Correct under what circumstances? Correct under what conditions? Correct for what purpose? Correct by what standards? Correct when?

      There are hundreds of processes and corresponding methods and organizational policies that could be said to be the correct technologies of Scientology. They can also be the wrong technology for a particular individual. For example, NED is a wrong technology for a Clear. OT 7 is a wrong technology for a new person who has not had the earlier auditing to prepare them for OT7. Almost all of them are the wrong technology for a person who is getting baked every day or guzzling down a couple of cases a beer every night.

      How about workability in terms of the overall aims of Scientology:
      A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology. First announced to an enturbulated world in 1950, these aims are well within the grasp of our technology.

      A civilization without insanity?
      What is sane civilization? How do you know its sane? Who determines what is insanity? Who determines what is sanity?

      Without war?
      Complete world domination, even under a tyranny, can end war. Is that acceptable?

      Without criminals?
      What is a criminal exactly? Are we (on this blog) all criminals according to Scientology ethics codes? Would changing the laws count? Changing the laws on drugs – decriminalizing drug usage and trafficking, would empty the federal level jails in the U.S. of half its inmates and state prisons of perhaps 20 percent.

      Where the able can prosper.
      How able does one have to be? How do you determine if a citizen is able? Able to do what? Prosper in terms of what? Is this only applicable to humans?

      And honest beings can have rights.
      Does this mean that the PR / Propaganda / Marketing technologies of Scientology will no longer be acceptable? Is an “acceptable” truth really honest? And rights — what rights? Which beings? Is this only for human beings or are dolphins included? How about ETs? How about disembodied beings? Do dishonest beings have rights? Are autistic children beings, and does it count only when they CAN have rights? What is prospering for a cat? A tree? Are trees honest?

      And man is free to rise to greater heights.
      Free of what? Greater heights of what? How do we know if its greater? Does this apply only to the species of being called man, mankind? If so, what about those who believe that mankind is nothing but an egoistic construct entrapping a spiritual being? Is this individual men? Or is it only man as an entire species? Does it count if 1 man out of the entire population is an absolute genius beyond all previous geniuses?

      And how about this line?
      We seek no revolution. We seek only evolution to higher states of being for the individual and for society.

      How about that. The very subject and essence of Marty’s post.

      But even so, what is a higher state of being? Some will say that a happy, healthy human being is nothing more than a trap for an immortal being, little better than the domestic cow placidly chewing its cud in a field of plentiful grass living only to be slaughtered. Some will say a higher state is that which cooperates fully on a global scale and that individuality IS the problem and not the solution. Some will say that there needs to be an effective eugenics program to weed out the weak and disabled. Some will say that higher states mean moving mountains at the blink of a thought. Others will say that is a state of delusion and madness. And on it goes.

      For me, it really comes down to this: If LRH can have his say and opinion, then so can I and so can you and so can BF Skinner and so can Marty. And out of that discussion, and turmoil and conflict arises change.

      Is it higher change?

  55. @Valkov
    “LRH said that [that all games are aberrative] in a lecture I listened to. Sorry I don’t offhand recall which one..”

    Here is another quote about psychiatrists I thought you might find interesting: “There are certain things which I have decided to be mad at in this universe. I’ve decided to be mad at psychiatrists. There is no reason why I should be mad at psychiatrists. Really, the sensible thing for me to do about psychiatrists is simply go over and talk to them, make a couple of patients well, show them how they can make bigger fees, pat them all on the head and you’ve got Dianetics and psychiatry.But there is no randomity there. No randomity at all. They’re never going to hurt a preclear, really. I can rave and rant about electric shock and prefrontal lobotomy—you can pick them up in the next life and they’ll be as good as new.” LRH Source of Life Energy. Introduction: The Q List and Beginning of Logics page 11

    • Yea, LRH said a lot of things and it all depended on what hat he was wearing at the moment and what mood he was in– too bad he didn’t take his own advice.

    • Thanks overall10, that is similar to what I heard him say in a lecture, about electing Psychiatrists “to be mad at” somewhat arbitrarily.

      This points out to me, that if Scientologists spent more time listening to LRH’s lectures or reading the transcripts, they’d have a better idea of how to evaluate it all for themselves instead of following the slanted interpretations put out by Church Management and other would-be “know bests”.

      • It also points out that LRH was instrumentally involved in setting up the game as it has been played out and is still being played out.

        Yes, Miscavige and his ilk have taken the CoS in truly insane directions, but they were able to do so by cherry-picking things LRH actually did say and promote, such as electing “psychs” as a group “to be mad at”.

  56. It’s good that you recognize the similarity of Dianetic auditing to psychotherapy. You may think Hubbard originated it; I know it to be the other way around, but regardless, that’s one of the reasons Hubbard vilified the “psychs” and tried to block people who had had psychiatric care from being Scientologists… because they’d know Hubbard’s claims of originality are false. Because believing Hubbard originated Dianetic therapy (which works) is the key to getting them to pay more for more for the sci-fi stuff. I’m proud of you, Marty — you’re circling around it and slowly coming closer to the truth.

  57. Marty,
    a beautifully written piece. Even the Catholic Church had to come to terms with ‘evolve or dissolve”.

  58. The Church IMHO cherry-picked the psychs as an enemy for two reasons 1) as an effective fund raising strategy and 2) to unify parishioners. I read somewhere that LRH said that Scientology isn’t about the Truth. It is about what works. And choosing the psychs as our enemy has worked effectively on both accounts.

    • True. Despite everything I have heard and read, my own take on it is that he was rejected by the New England Journal and by psychiatrist as not having scientific evidence. He was looking for acknowledgement and didn’t get it but instead got inval and the whole idea of running engrams was just a joke to them, especially past lives. So, they became ‘the’ target. Of course, he doesn’t like the ‘medicos’ either, or lawyers (but he sure did have to use the lawyers) and ofcourse DM LOVES his lawyers!

  59. Hi Marty – I am half way through “A Brief history of Everything “ by Ken Wilbur. Thanks for your recommendation. I don’t see it as a validation of Scientology technology. The OT levels and certain aspects of the bridge are about becoming cause over MEST etc., essentially becoming a sort of super being. Ken’s levels of ascension are more about achieving the Buddhist awareness of the universe and becoming one with the infinite void or nothingness
    .
    Perhaps you see the state of the Static in Scientology axioms as being equivalent to that state, I can agree with that, however the focus on the tapes and bridge is being a powerful OT that can manipulate the universe around him – LRH talks on tapes about OT’s ripping the air cover of this planet, tossing other planets into suns etc. A very ego centric viewpoint, quite the opposite of what Ken is espousing.

    When I listened to the BC tapes, LRH is down on meditation, nirvana, being one with the universe etc., saying it amounts to self denial, and if you read KSW 1 he states it is self-abnegation, and ends up in desolation and stone idols. So I don’t see how Ken is validating LRH. In fact, if you look at Kens scale of ascension, ego centric is the bottom of the scale, and the next rung, socio centric, the “our way or the highway”, “our group is the only true group” is an apt description of Scientology itself. His scale goes up from there.

    I am glad you recommended the book. I had no idea it existed. It is quite a handful, but it sure paints a negative picture of Scientology, it’s organization and its’ technology and the Bridge to OT / Total Freedom.

    Mimsey

    • Mimsey,
      Thanks. I was referring to the need for gradient scales and levels to achieve increasing awareness. In other books and talks he writes/speaks of the need to sort out ego – even strengthen – in order to transcend into higher states of consciousness. I think Dianetics and Scientology are unparalleled as a path to doing so. Problem is the ego is something to transcend and Scientology never gets off of reinforcing it.
      Marty

  60. This post is what I have been trying to tell you and it is not only in psychology that the world advanced. It is advancing to a natural law resource based economy as well.

    I found some auditors who understand what I am taking about finally and said yes it is a solution to handle the world’s ills.

    Now I wish some of the rest you guys would see that as well. It is a evolution and it is based totally on exchange by dynamics and therefore is natural law. Money is not natural at all. Nor is it proper exchange as well in this day and age.

  61. When I originally commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a
    comment is added I get three emails with the same comment.

    Is there any way you can remove me from that service?
    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s