Scientology Literacy and Blackmail

Scientologists take a great deal of arrogant pride for allegedly possessing the only effective technology for producing super literacy.  But is it super literacy or super literalness that it ultimately produces?  Try asking a dedicated Scientologist a simple question under oath where the honest answer might not make David Miscavige and Scientology out to be infallible, and you will understand the question I pose.  I have spoken to many journalists who have been driven around the bend dealing with Scientology’s form of super literalness.  Honestly review the  arumentation you have received, or even used yourself, from Scientology staff and field staff members, registrars, public and officials at mass events.  It is even omnipresent in the never-ending streams of publications spit out by Scientology organizations.

Here is an example of how this super literalness plays out in institutional behavior of Scientology organizations and how they interact with the world at large, from Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior:

“By way of example, until I just recently re-read the following Hubbard Guardian’s Office Order, I would have vehemently argued that Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard never countenanced blackmail.  Sure, they promote aggression, intimidation and fighting fire with fire, but just as surely not the commission of felonies as serious as blackmail. L. Ron Hubbard uttered the following on July 1, 1968, in a briefing to Mary Sue Hubbard about how her Guardian’s Office ought to be conducting itself:

We try to isolate who is creating the unrest and giving the orders. But even while we’re doing that, we try to collect “protective materials.” Archaeological and scientific and social studies might very well result in disclosing Mr. De Gaulle’s peculiar liaison with Hitler. That’s protective material.

All of a sudden somebody is jumping all over us in “Wango-bingo” and all it would take would be a quiet phone call. That’s one way to keep order. That is an intelligence method of handling things. It’s not blackmail, because blackmail is demanding money and that has nothing to do with it. “You jump on us, you’re dead”— that type of material…

…So, Mr. Big decides to knock us flat in Bongville. All of a sudden it cools by the simple reason that we already know that the head of the public health service at Bongville has three wives. What you normally do is leak it to him. Somebody goes out and has dinner with his daughter as a perfect stranger and says, “You know, I would be awfully careful of jumping on those Scientologists in Bongville if I were you. You know somebody ought to tell your daddy that there’s some wild rumor—of course, we don’t know what the truth of it is—that actually you have three mothers. And they know that over there.”

In the context of protecting the power of Simon Bolivar (read: L. Ron Hubbard) I understood this just as Hubbard said: “It’s not blackmail, because blackmail is demanding money and that has nothing to do with it.””

 

241 responses to “Scientology Literacy and Blackmail

  1. Super-literalness and not superliteracy… LOL! Well said.

  2. Whatever drew you to it in the first place??

  3. Oxford Dictionary has a def. 1.2 “the use of threats or the manipulation of someone’s feelings to force them to do something:”

    But it doesn’t really matter what dictionary one refers to, a dedicated Scientologist will do anything to defend Scientology. There is no question of right or wrong. It is all-or-nothing. And when a hater (read “questioning person”) voices their doubts about the tech, the indipendent Scientologist will go into the same protective, dehumanising mode, no question of right ot wrong.

    • Sounds like the definition for intimidation. Blackmail implies leverage via some hidden info that is dangerous for the victim. As for your experience with idiots in my religion I am sorry. But on a planet with the average IQ of 100 what can one expect? Religion is a stable datum for many and stable data being stable one obviously is not open minded about them. A true OT and scientologist has no other stable datum but himself and can freely talk about anything to anyone.

      • Pascal, IQ has nothing to do with decency. The men who devised the final solution for the Jews were highly educated and intelligent.

        The idiocy you talk about is in Ron’s elitist writings. His “only way” “only hope for man” cult writings.

        Intelligence has nothing to do with being a decent person. But the brainwashing in Scientology can make a decent person and indecent person.

        And that brainwashing was accomplished by a very intelligent human being, yet highly immoral: Hubbard.

        • I think you and I have different definitions of intelligence and brainwashing. And I’m shocked you give credit to Nazis. Then again, I am not.🙂

          You must think Arsenal brainwashes hooligans in the UK and that is why they commit mayhem at every futbol game.

          Every religion thinks it is the only road out and strives in that direction, so they are all cults in your vast expansive mind? lol

          The sad part is that if I would only audit you, you would get it. But I never wanna audit jerks so how will this ever end…:/

          • Pascal, thank you. You have single handedly illustrated that independence from the church is not a gaurantee of being independent from Scientology doctrinal elitism.

            Your expression is important to be heard.

        • Decency is a value system adhered to that includes truthfulness, kindness, do unto others etc.
          Decency is not an intellectual capacity. It is a value system, ascribed to by any intellectual capacity.

          When people do cruel things, like GO/OSA, it is not for lack of intelligence; it is for lack of a moral compass of decency. That is a philosophy not an IQ.

    • So now it’s negative PR generalities against the Independent Scientologists – a bit dehumanizing, don’t you think? But then you don’t question whether that is right or wrong, either I reckon.

      Michael A. Hobson
      Independent Scientologist

      • “…now it’s negative PR generalities against the Independent Scientologists”

        Ironic, isn’t it?

        • marildi, it’s called “learn as you go”🙂

          It helped me, as I have begun to understand something I have been wanting to understand about myself for some time.

          • LG, I never got from your posts that you have some sort of ax to grind. You strike me as sincere and I’m happy for you.

      • I take it you see yourselves as one of those who attack on sight?😉

        • Michael, for further illustration see Pascal’s remark to Brian calling him a “jerk”. By the sound of it he’s an auditor.

          • Pascal is an auditor. He says, ”The sad part is that if I would only audit you, you would get it. But I never wanna audit jerks so how will this ever end… :/”
            Spoken like a true scientologist.

          • Pascal Dorian is representative of noone but himself. Independent Scientologists are no more homogenous than Anonymous. We have various factions and individuals who are not part of any faction. No one Indie speaks for or represents the whole of Independent Scientology.

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

            • Hello Hobson

              You wrote:

              Independent Scientologists are no more homogenous than Anonymous.

              Maybe you are glossing over the fact that any kind Scientologist, whether Churchie or Indie, is a follower of L Ron Hubbard?

              Maybe?

              Good to see you posting here again. I would say that, as the Voice of Independent Scientology, you have a lot to answer for.

              Wouldn’t you?

              Alanzo

  4. Who’d think a religion founder would so prolifically write so much stuff about keeping the movement on the road to achieving what that founder thought the movement should be headed for?

    So many irreligious entrenched aspects to Scientology.

    One thing I’ve notice, and absorbed from watching the freezone Scientologists’ behavior, especially the Ron’s Org people, is their not even going into the whole Guardian’s Office and OSA writings (repackaged from LRH’s GO era writings).

    Thanks for bringing up and repeating the founder’s actual words and the context, and laying out why the official Scientology movement it still stuck in.

    Question, do you think the lawyers who happened to have great experience in the corporate world, particularly these corporate legal docs that limit the staff’s free speech to discuss their staff and Scientologist lives in official Scientology, to you think that is more Hubbard, or more the lawyers his lawyer finding rules or Miscavige’s input, or all 3.

    The legal docs shutting ex members from telling their lives, is abominable.

    Please comment on the new staff docs, contract and muzzling doc, on Tony Ortega’s blog recently, sometime in the future please.

    I’ve love a little history and your general thoughts on the lawyers’ impact on Scientology’s overly legal doc history for their members and staffers! No Rush, just anytime up the road if you think of it.

  5. I agree with LRH, it’s not blackmail. It’s a low-toned form of political self-defence and condonable only for a group that is expanding and clearing the planet i.e. is in a condition of power. Of course present day Co$ is in a condition of confusion and any Machiavellian behaviour as described above is utterly unacceptable and should be crushed by all means possible.

    Ideally a group has able beings that can handle upsets using ARC. Scientology makes us able, so to be unable shows that one is not a scientologist or a poor one at best and in no position to hold important posts in any Scientology org. Maybe this logic would empty the church?

    The desperate low-toned measures LRH implemented just shows how adequate leaders are scarce in the church and probably on this planet in general. Such solutions have never been successful in the long run and have always came back to haunt us.

    Flourish and prosper is the only long-term handling to invest in. But I’m afraid the church has been led by conflict-hungry beings who preferred other roads, sadly.

    • So Pascal, you blame the incompetence of rank and file Scientologists for this militaristic tactic of Ron’s?

      You give Hubbard justification to behave this way because scientologists don’t have enough ARC to handle people?

      The “greatest good” makes decent people into indecent people.

      Scientology is the only religion I have experienced, for myself, that has harming people as a doctrine: disgusting.

      • I do. Movements that have changed civilization on this planet were causative due to having true leaders. Scientology has yet to have one. LRH never pretended to be anything but a man and tried his best to carry the religion as far as he could.

        Again I do, the church did what it could as would any group with the intention to “save the world”.

        The “greatest good” makes stupid people into cruel people often yes.

        All religions have harming people in their justice codes. I invite you to visit a market in Saudi Arabia or any “Inquisition Museum” of the Catholic Church. Disgusting it is, but justice and human nature often are too.

        • This is something about Scientology culture that bothers me in the extreme. There is always someone to blame. Suppressive media, lack of leaders, excess of SPs, psychs, DBs, “world gonne madde”, on and on. It is never the tech that is at fault, it is us who fail the sacred science. Why do you believe that? If you don’t, why are you making excuses for what has become a spiritual mafia?

          The comparison to Saudi Arabia and the Inquisition falls short. The Church of Scientology is not operating in the 16th century and it is not operating in Saudi Arabia. It is operating in the United States of America, in the 21st century.

          • I have not issues with the Tech. It works when applied and gives you back yourself, which is not much for most beings on this planet, but it’s a fresh start at attaining a decent eternity. Scientology is like Karate, both work but a black belt is not guarantee of a good fighter e.g. UFC fighters. Bottom line it’s the people who are to blame and always are. they choose what to apply and not apply, what PL or HCOB to grant importance. Wether to use “What is Greatness” or KSW #1.

            Scientology is all over the World, the crap we see here only happens in the USA and think American culture has a lot to do with it. Hell, Islam is nutty in the Arab world, not in Malaysia for example. Even an Arab will tell you it’s his culture that is wrong with Islam, not the religion itself. The assignment of importances as would say LRH. Or simply Judgement, sadly something granted by a yet unreleased OT level. Ironic.

            • Pascal says “Scientology is all over the World, the crap we see here only happens in the USA and think American culture has a lot to do with it.”

              Pascal, that is an incredibly intolerant, generalizing and possible bigoted statement: discrimination.

              Scientology only in America destroys families and does harm, and the rest ofvthe world is just fine.

              Yeeeiks!!!

            • I grew up in Scientology outside of the US. It was far from lovely. I agree that one would need to become proficient in it, but here you are again, blaming failure on people. Have you looked into psychology and what it has learned about the mind?

        • I am just a man. Real men have standards of decency. Ron took drugs, orchestrated violence against dissent, created an only way cult, put himself on messiah status.

          This is not just a man.

          But on the other hand, if you believe Scientology to be the only” most workable way to save all mankind then your next step is “greatest good for the greatest number.”

          Then violence against the “only hope for man” is a logical conslusion to save all of the universe from Scientology eternal damnation.

          A perfect recipe for depravity and becoming a willing hound ala Bolivar.

    • Condition of power? wow… using force, causing fear in others in order to have what the SELF wants? That is not power….

    • The means are the end.

    • Awesome post, Pascal. You are capable of looking at the bigger picture, with an understanding of the true value of Scientology irrespective of how it has been misunderstood, misapplied and abused.

      And you are right that LRH stated correctly that it was not blackmail per the U.S. legal definition:

      “Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging information about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless money is paid to purchase silence. It is a form of extortion. Because the information is usually substantially true, it is not revealing the information that is criminal, but demanding money to withhold it. http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/blackmail/

      • Yeah I wish others would handle their BPC on the subject and get some perspective to boot. We’d have more constructive debates instead of boohoos looking for catharsis in a cesspool of sympathy and hate.

        • That’s how I feel about it too. Thanks for expressing it so eloquently.

        • Pascal, could you please give an example of “boohoos looking for a catharthis in a cesspool of sympathy and hate”

          Would love to hear it.

          • Just an after thought since Pascal will not answer my question:

            Please note the two words he puts together in association. To him, sympathy and hate, are in the same category of depravity.

            This is beyond a doubt wonderfully illustrative of what I have been positing regarding sympathy and it’s illustrious position on the tone scale, in past blogs.

            • Right as usual Brian. Oh by the way, what will I have for breakfast next Tuesday?

              • Ah, you are here Pascal. Good day to you. You have tweeked my interest. Could you please tell me what you mean by “boohoos looking for a catharsis in a cesspool of sympathy and hate?”

                And an example, in context, if you will, so I understand.

                • I could. But if you cannot duplicate what I wrote, I doubt explaining it will cause any more duplication on your part. Sorry buddy. Clear your words yourself and maybe you will get what I wrote. Or grow a pair and say what you really wanna say about what I wrote.🙂

                  • My My, Pascal.

                    But I truly wanted to get your take on it.

                    Ok, I asked a few times. I will respect your desire not to.

      • These links might provide a less literal-minded interpretation:
        http://www.hg.org/extortion.html
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/873

        • LG, choosing the definition that fits the context has nothing to do with literal-mindedness. There certainly are other definitions, but by the context LRH was apparently using the legal one with the idea that his advice was not against the law. How moral or wise it was is a different issue.

          • marildi, the definition I presented to you is the law. What you selected was a biased aspect to make your own view right. You too are an eternal apologist. Do you ever get off your couch and actually do Scientology or do you just discuss it?

            • marildi, I’d like to ask forgiveness for my tone. It was not helpful.

              I find I come face to face with myself when I come here. It’s uncomfortable, but helpful. Loving others sounds cool until you go out onto the street and actually meet people. So being here today has helped me finally understand something I have been wrestling with for a long time: Attachment to other people’s viewpoints. It’s a journey, and I am learning. Thank you for being here.

              • Letting go, you have my sincere admiration for all you wrote in the above.

                In another comment you asked me about the meaning of Scientology. Just now you reminded me of this:

                “The goal of Scientology is that the thetan be his own principal orientation point, and that he have the ability to use or discard any other point of reference.” (*Creation of Human Ability*)

                Thank YOU for being here.🙂

                • That’s a great reference. That book probably contains some of the best wisdom in Scientology philosophy. And I’m only just coming up to being my own orientation point (by asking myself “what do I actually think about all this – not from a reactionary position, just what do I think about it?”). Interesting, but rocky road. My goodness, rocky indeed at times🙂

      • Jeez Marildi –
        I might be mistaken, but it appears to me that you are blocking out the opposing factual data to your Scn beliefs in an attempt to reduce the disharmony & dissonance and “entheta” you might be feeling in your universe from seeing L Ron Hubbard teach Scientologists to commit crimes in the quote that Marty gave.

        This was probably part of Marty’s Full Hat Pack. And quite a few others who worked at Int and elsewhere in Scientology.

        Do you have this conflict going on inside you?:

        Scientology Helps People
        vs.
        Scientology Destroys People

        There is lots of evidence of Scientology destroying people, and Marty has given a Hubbard reference which tells the Scientologist to threaten to destroy people. And yet you look away from it, and try to find anything you can to keep from confronting it.

        Here’s more evidence that may pile on the cognitive dissonance for you. I’m sorry if it is uncomfortable, but for public safety reasons, it needs to be confronted.

        http://www.hg.org/extortion.html

        Extortion Law – Definition

        Extortion (also called blackmail, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense.

        Gaining someone’s silence about other criminal matters, or the attainment of tax exempt status, or even getting a person to drop a lawsuit or other action, are all gains in consideration from the threat of revealing information.

        Wouldn’t you agree?

        Alanzo

        • Alanzo: “Scientology Helps People vs. Scientology Destroys People”

          What I don’t agree with, my friend, is the indiscriminate use
          of the word “Scientology.” Many people either don’t know the difference or refuse to see the difference.

          • This is another way to reduce cognitive dissonance by parsing words and definitions.

            If “Scientology” doesn’t actually mean “Scientology”, but some undefined subset of “Scientology”, then you can deny that Scientology writings by L Ron Hubbard exist that order Scientologists to commit crimes.

            It’s exactly what Marty is writing about when he says “literalness”. It’s a super mercurial thought-dance that Scientologists (and almost any other member of any group does) to avoid seeing things that may threaten their existing world view.

            It’s entirely human.

            But it leads to lots of trouble because it blinds the adherent to data that he should not be looking away from.

            I’m as guilty as anyone of this. I was involved in Scientology for 16 years, and I looked away from plenty.

            Until I simply could not do it any more.

            You, Marildi, are much more twisty and limber and cognitively mercurial than I could ever manage. You must do yoga or something.

            Do you?

            Alanzo (:>

            • Actually, it’s the law that parses words and definitions – including what legally constitutes blackmail. The word can be and is used in that sense by many people, when that is the intended meaning. Aren’t you “limber” enough mentally to see that it has nothing to do with being literal?

              And are you saying that you can’t see the difference between Scientology as “a philosophy and tech” and Scientology as “an organization”? There are at least those two definitions – two distinctly different ways the word is factually used.

              Tell me you are capable of at least that degree of differentiation. And that you’re not just turning a blind eye to what you KNOW – so as not to spoil the fancy-sounding, slick rhetoric that brings you admiration from certain quarters. That would be a lot of ego for a Buddhist, wouldn’t it?

              • It seems you truly enjoy trying to find what would make someone feel bad and then use it.

                It is sounding to me as if you are strategizing how to cave people in by using aspects of their lives to use against them.

                Mmmmm, I wonder???

                • First sentence deleted. While I’ve given those who have asked for it some leeway, as you have noted they’ve demonstrate the very points of attempted education and I don’t want this degenerating any further.

                  • Understood, thanks Marty. I was being a bit over protective of Alanzo. Will not let that type slip by again.
                    Good call.

                    • Thanks for looking out for me, Brian.

                      But Marildi and I are old friends. And she really is a good hearted, and very intelligent person.

                      If she was being mean to me, I’m sure she had her reasons. (:>

                      Alanzo

                    • You always hurt the ones you love ♪ ♫ ♪ …

                    • Thanks Alanzo, and my apologize Mirildi.

                      Thoughts that have occured to me as a result of not live up to an ideal.

                      Humility vs aggressive communication.

                      My ideal is love, humility, patience etc. These are a practice. A philosophy or guide post to help me self correct in the direction of the ideal. They are not characteristics that I have perfected. But because they are my ideal I adjust myself to them in order to strive to have them become part of my nature, my personality.

                      In Scientology, I have found humility to be an absent concept. It is nowhere to be found. But attack is certainly an ideal that Scientologists demonstrate. Dissent itself is considered something to fight, something to crush, something to kill. And humility a weakness.

                      I know I have communicated many elevated concepts that I have learned from great sages. These concepts like love for God, do unto others, humility, patience etc are things I strive for, not necessarily things I’ve attained.

                      The aggressive styles of communication demonstrated on this particular blog of Marty’s is a great illustration of something.

                      To me it demonstrates the power of the written word. The power of a chosen philosophy and the personality derived from repetitive practice of that philosophy.

                      Some say Ron is dead and he does not matter in scientology’s present condition.
                      But to me, being belittled for mispelling, and receiving aggressive communications, personally, is proof positive that the Scientology philosophy of Hubbard’s breeds aggression because aggression becomes a practice, a repetitive action, that then becomes an aggressive person.

                      Humility: one of the most difficult and personally impowering virtues to aquire. But if they are not an ideal to strive for, a philosophy to make your own; the options are aggression, self protection, attack and ruin utterly.

                    • Come on Brain, quit screwing with Miraldy. It wuz funni fo awhile, but come on…. Marildi, when he misspells your name, do you still know who he is talking to ? Just have fun with it.
                      On the other hand, if you both become totally civil, My life will become dull.
                      ARCL, Mark

                    • Mark, thanks for the well-intended comment. But the misspelling wasn’t actually a serious complaint on my part. The real point I wanted to make is about the alter-ising of LRH and Scientology that goes on, not just with Brian but others too.

                      Basically, when someone says LRH said or did such and such, or that Scientology says this or that – and then the actual reference is quoted which shows their statement to be inaccurate – that should be the end of it. But unbelievably, it continues to be repeated. This happened with the definition of “sympathy,” for example – the actual definitions LRH gave were quoted, and yet the same false data was repeated.

                      Another example was the remark made that “Ron claimed he went to heaven and that heaven was shoddy and rundown” – an obvious attempt to put Ron in a bad light. I then quoted the actual issue, which indicated clearly that Ron was talking about an implant station that was mocked up to look like heaven, and said that he had been there – and so had the rest of us. That was all there was to it. But the next thing I knew, the same remark was being said again.

                      It’s times like the above when I know there is either an inability to duplicate or else there is no honest intention to actually discuss and come to any truths but only to denigrate as much as possible, including with any falsehoods you can get away with.

                      Another thing I don’t think is right is all the stereotyping of “Scientologists.” Stereotype is defined as “a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.”

                      The generalizations about “Scientologists” may be relatively accurate for those in the CoS, but Independents vary just like any other group, including Christians or Jews or whomever. And if any of those other groups were talked about in such negative generalities, I don’t think it would be condoned – but with “Scientologists” it’s considered perfectly fine to do. Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth.

                    • Yeah mature debate is hard to come by. Most have petty games and you trying to as-is it is not welcome, naturally.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      When you find another forum that meets your discriminating standards let me know.

                    • Marty, I hear ya.
                      Digesting what is believed to be immature debate can be as insightful as reading what one already agrees with. One must examine both sides of coin and currency to understand it’s full value and authenticity.
                      Mark

                    • Your forum is the best so far if that’s what you wanted to know Marty.🙂

                    • Pascal D.
                      I hope my comments have been uptone and maybe enlightening at times. I have posted some comments in the past that were a little covertly insulting. They served no useful purpose. I ran across a few incidents that related to that intention. I am looking for more.

                      Instead of disagreeing with or discounting others opinion, I try to put forth principals that bring clarity and understanding. Perhaps I’m doing some good. Worth a shot.
                      Mark

                    • Well said. Marty gave us a good space here to talk in freedom about Scientology, we need to make the most of it by exchanging viewpoints and gaining wisdom.

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Marildi

                      And a very valuable 2 cents with it is. Somewhere I remember it being said there is no point in trying to reason with an angry person. Maybe that is true for any situation where one is faced with an ARC Break. The only solution is to apply the tech for resolving ARC Breaks.

                      Love
                      Pip

                    • Hi Pip,

                      Right you are as regards the idea that reasoning can’t always be done – especially on a blog thread. The tech for resolving ARC breaks could work alright, but that can sometimes require quite a bit of tech – which isn’t generally feasible in a blog discussion. The way it seems to me is that the biggest missing ingredient for failed discussions is intention – first of all, the intention to communicate. And intention is a key component of the communication formula.

                      Love, marildi

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Marildi

                      Forest8008 recently suggested “flow it love”. I recall doing a course outside of the org. and what I remember most was learning how “the admiration particle” is critical in the communication formula. Perhaps that is close to intending to grant the other person beingness.
                      Love
                      Pip

                    • Mark, ha ha ha. That is a good one. Ok, I’ll continue rattling Mir-i-ldi for your entertainment Mark. Or should I say Merk🙂

                      For some reason I got Miraldi with an “a” in my head and it stuck.

                      It was not intentional Mirildi. Sorry if it offended you.

                      Oh no, I am being nice to you. I may piss off Mark now because the tussle makes him feel alive. Oh what to do😦

                      Some men like sports, I love spirited discussion.

                      It is a very strange state of affairs to get to know people through a screen with characters typed into it.

                      It is quite possible that none truly knows each other.

                      Our reactions to our fancy, of who we think each other is, is probably so far from truth.

                      Hell, for all you know, I may be Tricksie who loves black tube dresess.

                      And Mir-A-ldi is a male Polynesian back hoe operater. Ha ha.

                    • I love this site. Life is good, it always was, I just didn’t know it.
                      Mark

                • I guess it always seems harsher when the shoe is on the other foot.

              • Marildi wrote:

                And are you saying that you can’t see the difference between Scientology as “a philosophy and tech” and Scientology as “an organization”? There are at least those two definitions – two distinctly different ways the word is factually used.

                OK, so you have defined the “Scientology” that is the subset of “Scientology”.

                Thank you.

                So the writings of L Ron Hubbard on Scientology which taught Marty to use techniques of extortion on people were part of which “Scientology” above? The “Scientology” that is the philosophy and tech, or the “Scientology” that is part of the organization?

                Hubbard was most definitely teaching a technique to Marty in how to handle people who know too much or need to be shuddered into silence, or from whom they needed tax exemption.

                Wouldn’t Marty have been applying “Scientology” as a technique if he had ever taken Hubbard’s advice on how to handle people here?

                So you are saying that “Scientology”, the philosophy and tech is the one that destroys people?

                Or is it “Scientology” the organization that destroys people?

                I’ve got the mercury gathered into one area now, and we are going to try put our finger right into the middle of it.

                Watch what it does.

                Alanzo

                • Scientology is a tool. How you use that tool defines you as a scientologist. A Scientologist would have been able to sit with Paulette Cooper and handle her with 2-way comm. But noone was able to do that so they resorted to “intelligence” crap that LRH “wrote” about but that in reality has been used by humans since the dawn of time.

                  Scientology to me is the Tech that sets man free. Admin tech is mostly a “best practices” codex that LRH observed. You don’t even have to use it if I recall a small print in the Green Volumes (as opposed to KSW for Tech).

                  People must stop confusing the desperate measures that incompetent people on exec lines (including LRH) have done with the religion and philosophy. The Catholic Church has erred countless times and noone blames Jesus or Christianity yet their evil actions all stem from bad judgement calls on how important was some stupid datum from the Bible.

                • “So the writings of L Ron Hubbard on Scientology which taught Marty to use techniques of extortion on people were part of which ‘Scientology’ above? The ‘Scientology’ that is the philosophy and tech, or the ‘Scientology’ that is part of the organization?”

                  Al, your mercurial ability is second to none. Talk about calling the kettle black.😉

                  We’ve been through all this before but I’ll play along. The answer to your question (as if you didn’t know) is that what Marty and others outside of the CoS are doing in PT when they audit and train is application of the philosophy and tech. What Marty and others did (and some are still doing) as part of the management of the CoS is part of the organization and application of policy.

                  • Marildi wrote:

                    We’ve been through all this before but I’ll play along. The answer to your question (as if you didn’t know) is that what Marty and others outside of the CoS are doing in PT when they audit and train is application of the philosophy and tech.

                    What Marty and others did (and some are still doing) as part of the management of the CoS is part of the organization and application of policy.

                    OK, so thanks.

                    Auditing and training to audit is application of philosophy and tech.

                    Management of the CofS is part of the organization and application of policy.

                    So you have divided up Scientology into these two parts.

                    Now what is the purpose of this division?

                    We were talking about Scientology that helps people and Scientology that harms people.

                    Are you saying that the Scientology that helps people is the auditing and training and the Scientology that harms people is the management of the CofS and the application of policy?

                    Because I can point to many things in the auditing and training that harms people and many things in the management and application of policy that helps people.

                    First, let me just say that this division of the two “Scientologys” that you have made did not come from L Ron Hubbard. He divided Scientology into ethics, tech, and admin and he said all of it was necessary to reach total freedom, and all of it was 100% workable and beneficial when correctly applied. It was the game where everyone would win. This viewpoint runs throughout the actual philosophy of Scientology as created and developed and maintained by L Ron Hubbard.

                    Right?

                    So.

                    What, exactly is the purpose of YOUR arbitrary division here?

                    What does it do for you, exactly?

                    Alanzo

                    • Al: “So you have divided up Scientology into these two parts.”

                      No, what I said was that there were “at least” those two uses of the word. One is that it’s used to refer to the core/basic philosophy and tech, mainly referring to the basic books and to extant HCOB’s.

                      And the other common use is to refer to the organization/movement – e.g. “Scientology has been steadily shrinking.” Or the CoS version (lie): “Scientology is the fast-growing religion in the world.”

                      “…I can point to many things in the auditing and training that harms people…”

                      Misapplications can definitely harm people. But other than that, what in auditing and training do you consider harms people?

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      No, what I said was that there were “at least” those two uses of the word.

                      If I understand you, you are saying that your divisions are not divisions of the Scientology philosophy itself, but they are a division of the two uses of the word “Scientology”.

                      Per you (and not L Ron Hubbard), the first use of the word Scientology is:

                      1. That it’s used to refer to the core/basic philosophy and tech, mainly referring to the basic books and to extant HCOB’s.”

                      And the other common use is:

                      2.“To refer to the organization/movement – e.g. “Scientology has been steadily shrinking.” Or the CoS version (lie): “Scientology is the fast-growing religion in the world.”

                      OK, so in your 2-division use of the word “Scientology”, what purpose are you trying to achieve?

                      Are you trying to say that that use of the word “Scientology”, when it refers to 1, is harmless and always beneficial – when correctly applied – or what?

                      I have heard other Independent Scientologists say that the training and the tech and the philosophy of Scientology are all beneficial, but it’s the green on white – by L Ron Hubbard – that is harmful and should be discarded.

                      But I say there is “tech” on how to handle life all throughout Scientology by L Ron Hubbard. In the 3 parts of Scientology that he created: the ethics, the tech, and the admin of Scientology, he said that they all 3 contributed to the results of Scientology itself: immortality and states of being where nothing could strike you down.

                      Right?

                      Those states could not be achieved by anyone without all three.

                      So I am trying to understand the purpose of your dividing the use of the word “Scientology” into two parts.

                      Are you saying that if Scientology was written by L Ron Hubbard on green on white it is bad – and not the real Scientology.

                      And if it is written in the Basic books, and written in red on white, then it is good, and the “real” Scientology?

                      Or what?

                      Just trying to figure this out here, Marildi.

                      Because I got to tell you, to me this division of the use of the word “Scientology” has never made any sense. This parsing of the word “Scientology” has no purpose when I really examine it.

                      So what is YOUR purpose of using this 2-part division of the word “Scientology”?

                      Please explain it to me.

                      Alanzo

                    • There is ethics tech and admin tech but “the tech” is auditing and training. And LRH specifically said that all of tech is contained in HCOB’s. I myself included the basic books as part of the meaning of Scientology as a philosophy and tech because they contain the the axioms and principles the tech is based on.

                    • Critics of Scientology is just one example of an LRH HCOB from 1968 which violates every axiom and ideal in the Scientology basic books, but is consistent with Hubbard’s technology on sec checking which he had been developing since 1959 – also part of the “tech” of “freeing beings”.

                      Right?

                      So you see that I am following up my point to you that there are things in the tech which are harmful, and there are things in policy which are helpful.

                      So dividing up Scientology between two uses of the word “Scientology” is simply parsing the definitions in order to avoid seeing the problems within it.

                      Again, Hubbard divided Scientology into Ethics, Tech and Admin and said that all three were necessary to reach total freedom.

                      If I’m wrong about that then let me know.

                      I hope you can see that there are contradictions here with regard to LRH’s Scientology as it exists as a subject, and your ad hoc/post-hoc justifications for continuing with it as a post-Church Scientologist, right?

                      Again, you have every right to pursue what you want to pursue, but there are huge holes in your presentation of Scientology as a subject. If you are satisfied with your explanations to yourself about what Scientology is all about, then that is fine.

                      But don’t tell me or others that my, or their, understanding of Scientology is wrong because you clearly are not up to confronting basic truths about the subject and its Founder yourself.

                      Alanzo

                    • The Tech is auditing. It was there first and the other 2 only came about to cope with 3rd dynamic expansion. You can remove Ethics and Admin from Scientology, but remove Tech and you have… Well… Church of Scientology circa 2014 and the opinions it inspires in most people.

                    • Alanzo: “Critics of Scientology is just one example of an LRH HCOB from 1968 which violates every axiom and ideal in the Scientology basic books, but is consistent with Hubbard’s technology on sec checking which he had been developing since 1959 – also part of the ‘tech’ of ‘freeing beings’. Right?”

                      No, not right. The thing about that “HCOB”? is that there’s a little note at the top that states: “Originally issued as an article in ABILITY 199 on 5 Nov. 67. Issued as an HCOB on 27 Aug. 87.”

                      Obviously, someone decided – after LRH’s death – to make it an HCOB and call it “tech”. Sorry but your argument is very unconvincing.

                    • Marildi wrote –

                      Obviously, someone decided – after LRH’s death – to make it an HCOB and call it “tech”.

                      Is it really obvious?

                      Or is this another justification or dub-in on your part?

                      Yes, I think it is. You don’t really know, do you?

                      DUB-IN!!

                      Don’t start examining your dub-ins and justifications, Marildi. Your whole house of cards might start crumbling down!!!

                      I’ll bet you have David Miscavige pictured in your mind, , sitting down at a table with a bunch of LRH’s magazine articles, his tongue sticking out of the side of his mouth, with a red pen, crossing out “Ability Magazine” and writing in “Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin”.

                      Is that picture in your mind as an explanation for how this came to be an HCOB?

                      That would be dub-in!

                      Dub-in is the Scientologist’s Deadliest Disease!!

                      I think I will write an ACOB on this!

                      Alanzo

                    • Marildi asked:

                      But other than that, what in auditing and training do you consider harms people?

                      This is only one small answer for you, Marildi. The full, answer to your question would go on for many pages. But these short quotes begins to get the answer for you.

                      “The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood.”
                      ― L. Ron Hubbard

                      Note the word ONLY in the above sentence.

                      “… all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.”
                      – L Ron Hubbard

                      Note words “all” and “only” in the above sentence.

                      “People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and the hard-bound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must must must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn’t matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job or a session. The cause is the same.”
                      – L Ron Hubbard

                      Note that he says OWs are the one cause of leaving and is the “factual fact and the hardbound rule”.

                      In light of these stable data in auditing and training, re-read Bill Franks, the former ED Int of Scientology describe what L Ron Hubbard told him and David Mayo:

                      http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?22265-Bill-Frank-s-story-about-brainwashing-%28thread-merge%29

                      “The despatch was entitled Very Confidential underlined. He went onto say that if ‘you or Franks ever reveal any of this information that I am about to reveal, the consequences will be severe for SCN.”

                      He then wrote ” a person does not blow due Overts or Witholds. He blows only due to ARC BKs”.

                      “However, If any of this information ever became public,I would lose all control of the orgs and eventually Scientology as a whole”.signed “LRH”

                      This is all basic and fundamental tech in Scientology that are learned and applied in auditing and training. Scientologists are drilled on these “laws”, put them in clay, false data stripped on them, and even declared and expelled and fair gamed for not following them to the letter.

                      I hope this begins to answer your question.

                      Alanzo

                    • Yes, Al, you’ve answered my question. But your data is incomplete, per my understanding of the tech. For example, on the quote about “all PTSness,” there is another issue which states:

                      “As noted from the first pilot, false PTSness must be watched for, as unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness. This should be suspected when your ‘PTSes’ start going above 20 percent of staff and public.” (HCOB 20 Oct 1976 II, “PTS Handlings”)

                      In case you might have a problem reconciling the two bulletins, note that the one quoted above is dated later than the one with the quote you gave about “all PTSness.” And there is a datum (in addition to the one that states all tech is in HCOBs) which states that later issues take precedence over earlier ones.

                      As for the hearsay from Bill Franks, here’s a quote from an HCOB written back in 1965:

                      “ARC Broken Pcs are easy to identify. They gloom and mis-emote. They criticize and snarl. Sometimes they scream. THEY BLOW [my caps], they refuse auditing.” (HCOB 29 Mar 1965, “ARC Breaks”)

                      I’m not highly trained and an tech expert either, but my basic reply to you would be that where the tech is being applied with good results (and that definitely is still occurring), I believe there is a direct relationship to how fully and conceptually it is understood. However, trying to discuss it in a blog exchange is too time-consuming at best, and isn’t what I’m interested in doing. But I understand better why you think it is harmful.

                    • Marildi quoted:

                      As noted from the first pilot, false PTSness must be watched for, as unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness. This should be suspected when your ‘PTSes’ start going above 20 percent of staff and public.” (HCOB 20 Oct 1976 II, “PTS Handlings”)

                      So to resolve the problem of LRH contradicting himself, then we are supposed to take the later issue.

                      But that does not resolve the contradiction .

                      “ARC Broken Pcs are easy to identify. They gloom and mis-emote. They criticize and snarl. Sometimes they scream. THEY BLOW [my caps], they refuse auditing.” (HCOB 29 Mar 1965, “ARC Breaks”)

                      Again, another contradiction from LRH.

                      Don’t you think you should stop glossing over contradictions and step back and take a look at these things without justifying them?

                      Alanzo

                    • I’d call them clarifications. And theory is not the important thing in Scientology, it’s the practice and most importantly it’s results. To repeat what Marty told me Alanzo, if you find a better way out, let me know.

                    • Alanzo: “Don’t you think you should stop glossing over contradictions and step back and take a look at these things without justifying them?”

                      Talk about a loaded question. And do you still beat your wife?😛

                      And besides, like I say, it would take too much and too long to even get into it – and would almost certainly be futile anyway. Maybe I will word clear you some day, though, Al. Wouldn’t that be fun?😉

                    • OK so you do see that if I said to you on Monday, “The cat is black”, and then on Friday I said “The cat is white”, then this would be a contradiction if we were talking about the same cat.

                      If I said to you, “Just take the later of my pronouncements” then this would not resolve the contradiction but simply gloss it over.

                      Right?

                      You could dub in all kinds of things about Alanzo: “His research during the week produced new discoveries and made him change his mind”, or “The cat went to the hairdresser during the week and had its fur died”.

                      But those would simply be dub-ins, justifications, on your part.

                      Underneath all your dub-in and justifications for Alanzo, (you sweet and loyal thing) the statement I made on Monday would still contradict the statement I made on Friday.

                      Right?

                      Alanzo

                    • And let’s not forget how out-grades comes as a downward spiral from fixed ideas to ARCX to OW on down… You need to address it the other way around though. And let’s not confuse a blow with doing a doubt condition and leaving. Again literalness can be a problem where lack of judgement and integrity is involved. I think what’s true for you is the prime directive no matter what a desperate group might say.

                    • Makes sense, Pascal – the whole theory of the Grade Chart is relevant. As well as this datum that you reminded me of: “ALL ARC BREAKS STEM FROM MISSED WITHHOLDS.”

                      Hey, I had a win on this thread. I had been thinking that the statement about “Scientologists” being literal was in reference to former Scientologists who continue to be pro-Scientology in certain respects. But now I see that “former Scientologists” would include virtually all the critics who post here – and literalness applies quite well to many of them.😉

                      You also wrote: “I think what’s true for you is the prime directive no matter what a desperate group might say.”

                      Amen, brother!🙂

                    • Alanzo …… “He then wrote ” a person does not blow due Overts or Witholds. He blows only due to ARC BKs”.”
                      Thank you for your post. It is on acknowledgement on what I have realized about 30 years back.
                      It About 30 years back I had the life changing Cognition, what was my universe about and around me and how I understood it, what the Universe really was about and that cog. has brought back the simplicity into my life and I no longer worried about the sessions that I will mess up or over run. This new reality solved the mystery for me.
                      COG: There was nothing more to my universe, how I felt, what was wrong, had too much of something or too little, the upsets, the angers toward self or others, the disappointments which were caused by losses, the dislikes: some things I was not willing to have in my universe, the frustrations because not attaining the goals… not having the postulates come in, the feeling of being defeated, the fears I have had which continually hunted me; in other words every aspect of my life [ and plus the communication was a big issue] all these things happened or not, simply because I had no idea, no understanding why those things what I continually experienced were happening to me.
                      THIS COGNITION brought the understanding that I was in that mass because I had nothing more than ARC-B’s with self, with others in general with the Universe itself and these ARCB’x I have been piling up [they could not be as-ised because I did not know how!!!] for eons and everything existed in my universe because of me “not understanding, not knowing, and not having reality on what was happening in my life; universe.
                      From this day on I concentrated on running the Rudiments because there is nothing more than ARC-B’s one kind or another one experiences at any given moment.
                      PS: since than Dear Alanzo life as I know is one wonderful experience.
                      It has been great education for me to read posts like yours and hundreds of other persons, and that brought greater awareness and many cognitions simply because your realities-knowledge-understanding is are so different from mine.
                      And I also realized why others have not accepted my way of auditing… I only run items as ARC-B’s and use the extended Rudiments.. But that handles everything, every situation, every sensation, every consideration agreement=reality ever been born. And I also realized that only handling the ‘’self’s ARC-B’s will free the being ..A Being is who is still ‘’doing’’. The Intangible -Infinite is not a Being, Infinite is who has no attachment to considered realities.
                      Namaste.
                      Elizabeth

                    • Marildi –

                      Have you ever seen anyone else act like this?


                      “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary.” – George Orwell

                      Like, for instance, have you seen me act like this?

                      When?

                      And please be specific for me.

                      Thanks.

                      Alanzo

                  • Please refrain from evaluating what I allegedly do. You are invariably inaccurate when you do.

                    • Marty, I remember an exchange I had with you myself some time back where you said you audit the whole Bridge. You may have posted otherwise since then, but if so I haven’t seen it. I did get that you integrate other things, but thought you continued to audit as well.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      The walls of your prison of literalness show no sign of weakening. It is apparent that words won’t change that.

                    • Sorry for my lack of understanding. I even got the idea that when you did audit, it was standard tech by the book. Now I’m thinking that you may audit but because of what all you integrate (not meaning “mix”) with the tech, you feel there is a big difference between that and the misleading statement that you audit. Please correct me if I’m wrong – I feel I actually do pretty well understanding communication most of the time.

              • Hi Marildi.
                I see what you’re saying. I encounter it often. When someone is thinking in a particular direction, their thoughts skew in that direction. I see that in myself often. I am working on my blind spots one by one. I can’t change the world in one day, but I can change myself, one day at a time.
                ARCL, Mark

          • christianscientology

            Hi Marildi

            “Scientology Helps People vs Scientology Destroys People” makes as much sense as Hammers help people vs Hammers destroy people. Scientology is a TOOL and it depends on the users INTENTION whether it helps or destroys.

            When I read some of the posts on Marty’s blog I wonder whether the posters have understood what Scientology is. At the bottom line SCIENTOLOGY IS UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDING and until a person can duplicate concepts like AWARENESS OF AWARENESS and the STUDY of STUDY they will not have a hope of understanding understanding. As LRH has said “The world began with T.R.0” that was true yesterday, is true today and will be true for ever. In biblical terms it is expressed as “BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD” Psalm 46

            Love and A.R.C.
            Pip

            • christianscientology wrote:

              “Scientology Helps People vs Scientology Destroys People” makes as much sense as Hammers help people vs Hammers destroy people. Scientology is a TOOL and it depends on the users INTENTION whether it helps or destroys.

              One of the things that happens a lot when talking about Scientology is that Scientology itself gets re-defined and presented in a different context than it actually exists.

              Scientology is actually not a tool like a hammer is. I know (or at least I hope) that you are speaking metaphorically when you say that. The problem with metaphors is that you can not take them literally and then begin your logical reasoning from them.

              You have to get very real to begin your reasoning process.

              Scientology is a religious or spiritual philosophy. It contains orders to the Scientologist, with the threat of social censure and even expulsion and fair game, if not applied exactly as L Ron Hubbard dictates in the philosophy itself.

              The user of this philosophy is the Scientologist. And the Scientologist’s intentions in applying this philosophy are very much addressed in the philosophy itself.

              Marty’s cited passage by L Ron Hubbard to apply techniques of extortion on people is done in the name of “help” within the proper context of the Scientology philosophy. If any Scientologist ever took Hubbard’s advice, and actually extorted another person to protect Scientology, it would have been with the intention to help.

              And that is all the Scientologist would see as he destroyed the other person.

              This blindness to the effects of following the Scientology philosophy and carrying out Hubbard’s orders to the user is the whole problem which Marty was talking about in his post above.

              When you apply Scientology as a dedicated Scientologist, you can destroy people and never see what you are actually doing.

              Thus, Scientology as a philosophy, does not make a person more aware of themselves and what they do. “Know Thyself” is not the end result of Scientology as it is practiced as a philosophy over time. A person becomes more and more divorced from knowing himself and the consequences and results of his actions as he applies the philosophy of Scientology over the years.

              That is the point of Marty’s post.

              So no, Scientology is not a hammer, or even a tool. That is a metaphor and can not be taken literally if you are to end up with sound reasoning.

              Scientology, is a philosophy that is applied over time by a Scientologist, and which makes most Scientologists LESS AWARE and MORE DESTRUCTIVE the longer they remain in it.

              And that point is supported by a LOT of evidence that exists everywhere Scientology has consistently been applied just as L Ron Hubbard said to apply it, such as Int Base, such as long term Scientologist as The Squirrel Busters, such as David Miscavige, etc etc etc – , just as Marty’s post shows.

              Alanzo

              • christianscientology

                Hi Alanzo

                I don’t think I have ever seen Scientology as a religious or spiritual philosophy; for me it has always been knowing how to know through study, or knowing in the fullest sense of the word through study.

                I lasted about three weeks in The Church before I started collecting an Ethics file. The next year or two was spent with the Church kicking me out and me requesting Com Ev after Com Ev. In fact I am still trying to get back into good standing with the Church but the C.J.C seems to have gone out of communication with me, and I haven’t got round to asking him why.

                The Church and I have had a stand-off for the past 30 years at least. They accuse me of being an S.P. I say I am not. They say I must do steps A to E, I say I cannot without agreeing I am an S.P. and that is not real to me.

                But working on the datum of “the supreme test of a thetan is the ability to make things go right” I stay in communication, that is using Scientology as a tool.

                Regards

                • So Pip, with all we know about the church, you still want to belong to it? Get in good standing?

                  And you identify with being a Christian even though Ron claimed to be the ant christ?

                  • christianscientology

                    Hi Brian

                    That is not an easy thing to answer. Just supposing 50 people who had left Scientology turned up at St Hill together, with nothing but LOVE and UNDERSTANDING, what could the church do? The church overwhelms because it is always the group verses the individual.

                    Take this group of posters on Marty’s blog, there are as many viewpoints as there are posters, and no-one it seems is willing to relinquish their point of view. If as a group we could recognise we are NOT our view points and unite in our true identity which is SPIRIT, THETA, LIFE we would be an unstoppable force. It is no good going on the attack we need a genuine desire to be part of the church and to be accepted as a new breed of Scientologist, dare I say it, as ChristianScientologists.

                    If Ron claims to be the anti-Christ, which I am not convinced he did, all it shows to me is that even a great mind can lose its way. I just struggle at the thought of LRH coming up to me and saying “hey Pip guess what, I am the anti-Christ”. Anyway I am NOT a Christian, I am a ChristianScientologist. If you want to know Our Beliefs and Our Mission Statement, click on my photo.

                    Love and ARC
                    Pip

                • christianscientology –

                  you wrote:
                  But working on the datum of “the supreme test of a thetan is the ability to make things go right” I stay in communication, that is using Scientology as a tool.

                  Remember, metaphors are useful as a way of describing something. But you should never forget what it is that is being described. You say that Scn is a “study”.

                  OK, that’s closer than a hammer.

                  What I interpret you to be saying to me is that because L Ron Hubbard said you were a thetan, and that was true for you so you accepted it and began seeing yourself as a “thetan”. You then listened to him when he defined what the “supreme test” of a thetan was, which is to “make things go right.” And because you accepted LRH’s definition of you, this became YOUR supreme test.

                  See how that happened?

                  You took LRH’s definition of your self-identity (thetan), and based your actions with the Church of Scientology on it. And this has continually led you into brick wall with them for 30 years.

                  What if you thoroughly questioned and examined the idea of a “thetan” in a new unit of time – not using Scientology to question it and examine it but using ideas outside of Scientology, such as christianity. What if you applied Logic 8 to it?

                  These things are not tools in reality. They are ideas and statements about who you are or aren’t. An idea is not a hammer or any other tool. Some ideas are useful, but that does not make them hammers.

                  Ask yourself this: How useful are ideas and statements about yourself and others that produce a stuck condition for 30 years?

                  You let LRH define who you were, and you then accepted his idea about what your “supreme test” was. Once you accepted that you were a thetan, and adopted Ron’s ideas of your own self identity, then you let him define all kinds of things about yourself and what you should be doing, and how you should handle your own life.

                  Don’t let L Ron Hubbard or anybody else define who you are. After you accepted his definition of you, you then have to keep looking to him to find out who you are after that.

                  Getting you to change your self identity – who you tell yourself you are – was Hubbard’s first trick on you. Once you accepted his definition for you, all the rest of his tricks followed from there.

                  So remember, Scientology is not a tool. It is a study of ideas, just like you said.

                  Alanzo

                  • christianscientology

                    Hi Alanzo

                    Your post got me going so much so I put it at the top of priorities to reply to. I never said “Scn is a study”, I said Scientology is knowing how to know THROUGH study.

                    Secondly LRH never said I was a thetan if anything he said I was a SPIRITUAL BEING; however that was something I already believed. In fact I never saw myself as a THETAN until I fell foul of ethics and was assigned a condition of ENEMY. In working with the enemy formula “Find out who you really are” I came to the conclusion I needed to understand who I was in terms of the AGREEMENT in Scientology.

                    Incidentally I don’t see myself as A THETAN without recognising what is DOING THE SEEING that for me is THETA.

                    Going on from there, my own personal test is the ability to make things go right. I was trained as a marine navigator and the test of making things go right would be if sailing from A to B and arriving at B and not C. That to me seems like COMMON SENSE.

                    So no that is not how it happened. As for being led into a brick wall that is covered by our family motto WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE, and don’t forget water is softer than rock but it still wears it away.

                    There is no datum of comparable magnitude outside of Scientology for although “Scientology can solve the problems of the human mind it cannot solve the PROBLEM of the human mind. As ACIM rightly points out the problem of the human mind cannot be solved because the human mind is a figment of the imagination. That that does not exist cannot be solved, it can only be WOKEN UP FROM, man is asleep he needs to WAKE UP.

                    In terms of the “things of the spirit” the technology in Scientology consists of TOOLS. Useful for operating in this three dimensional world but that is about it.

                    I do ask myself why I am not back in good standing after 30 odd years and obviously I have more lessons to learn, after all Jesus spent a life time standing against hypocrisy in Judaism.

                    No I don’t look to LRH I look to the Lord Jesus Christ, he defines who I am and what he says I am is “the same yesterday, today and for ever”.

                    I cannot help wondering if you are not in fact projecting your beliefs onto me, fine, but that is how YOU see Scientology.

                    No Scientology is not a tool, it is a set of tools in a tool box, and no it is not a study of ideas it is more a STUDY IDEA. As Ron said “I developed Scientology because of my love of understanding.

                    Love and A.R.C.
                    Pip

                    • I can see that there were many parts of your self-identity (who you tell yourself you are) that were already in place when Scientology came along for you and seemed to align with what you were already saying to yourself.

                      And I have to say that “WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE” is an extremely enlightened concept.

                      Do you know where LRH ever said that?

                      I don’t think he did. At least I don;t recall him ever saying anything like that. I got from him that he was always trying to avoid being ADVERSE EFFECT, and that his “OT states” were all about avoiding effect and assuming cause.

                      But I have to say, once again, that when you say that Scn is a set of tools in a toolbox, that you are using a metaphor and when you are not describing what something actually is, but using a metaphor to describe what it is like instead.

                      Metaphors are not real. And a logical string of reasoning that begins with a metaphor takes you farther and farther away from reality the more you reason with it.

                      This is an important logical error that many Scientologists make called “reification”.

                      LRH did this a lot.

                      I can see that you most definitely think for yourself, christianscientology, and I would only hope that you continue to examine the roots of your reasoning to continue to make it more and more sound.

                      If I upset you too much, I apologize.

                      Sometimes people get stuck in unexamined reasoning. What else is Marty’s blog for if not for testing and poking at the unexamined parts of reasoning that we have settled with during our times in Scientology?

                      And during our times after Scientology, as well.

                      Alanzo

                    • christianscientology

                      Alanzo, That’s amazing. The fact that you can duplicate my “family motto” is so life affirming, words fail me!

                      As far as I know LRH has never made this statement, it comes out of my understanding of the biblical account of the life of Jesus. The account says that when Jesus was agonising over what lay before him (his crucifixion) he says to his father “if it is possible for this cup to pass from me, nevertheless not my will but thy will be done”.

                      It is my contention that at this moment he became WILLING EFFECT and the outcome could not have been anything but TOTAL CAUSE. Put in Scientology words, THETA is THE FATHER, THE SON is a thetan. Here are two wills, theta creates thetans and in doing so gives them AUTONOMY, independent wills.

                      The choice is then “do I exercise my will independently of THETA (LOVE) or do I submit my will to THETA/God/Love/PERSONHOOD”. If I choose autonomy from love I gain the world but lose my SOUL. If I resist the pull of the MEST UNIVERSE, MY SOUL and my SPIRITUAL ESSENCE become one.

                      There is a saying I love “HE IS NO FOOL WHO GIVES UP WHAT HE CANNOT KEEP TO GAIN WHAT HE CANNOT LOSE”.

                      You could not have validated me more than duplicate my family motto.

                      Love and ARC
                      Pip

                    • christianscientology wrote –

                      HE IS NO FOOL WHO GIVES UP WHAT HE CANNOT KEEP TO GAIN WHAT HE CANNOT LOSE

                      There is a very interesting story that a wise man tells about cult leaders. In his experience with dealing with many cult leaders, and with many cults, the followers of any cult leader are often more intelligent and more spiritually advanced than the cult leader himself.

                      This causes the greatest fear and jealousy in the cult leader, but the follower never notices it because the follower is so egoless and sincere.

                      Awesome, christianscientology.

                      Alanzo

                    • christianscientology

                      Thanks for that Alanzo. I think what you write is very true. It reminds me of something LRH wrote about the two types of people who “fall foul” of ethics; the very unaware and the very aware.

                      The unaware use Ethics as PUNISHMENT, the aware use it as DISCIPLINE, primarily on themselves.

                      Regards
                      Pip

          • marildi, what is your definition of Scientology? I must be one of the “many people” who use the word indiscriminately.

      • Miraldi and Pasqual, I am so glad you are here. You are a perfect illustration for all to see.

        Thank you for showing us all the mentality of those who would harm others to protect “the only hope for man.”

        This is the GO/OSA mindset. They may be closer on this blog then we suspect.

        • I guess you aren’t above name-calling either, in spite of your self-righteous claims.

          Maybe you would even like to start a witch hunt?

        • The mentality you mention is the one that pervades the American government, military and people. It’s called fighting for what you believe in. Nothing wrong in that. And try to write my name right, it’s too easy if you cannot spell.

          • Pascal, there seems to be a duplication problem with Brian. He has yet to duplicate the spelling of my name after dozens of tries.

            • Trouble duplicating? Should we declare him? Should we label him as low toned. We all know everyone fits in a little box with a label, right?

              • Whatascam, I remember the days years back when I was dumping out of my consciousness some Scientology perspectives.

                The big one was was: Human evaluation. In Scientology there is so much data to use to judge people. It is amazing. Ron gave people psychological weapons. And Scientologists use them as you have just reacted to.

                Thoughts like: oh he is 1.1, stuck in grief, griefy, an SP, low toned, banky, can’t duplicate, not in present time, wog, PTS, meat body etc.

                It felt so good to trash most of this elitist hog wash and just see people for who they are and not with a Scientology judging mind filter.

          • Hahaha, Pasquale… (is this better for NON super literalness?)

            In any case, I do agree with you: some people do like Centrifuge… It gives them a sense of separation/individuality and belongingness they couldn’t attain otherwise. Good to see you around.

            • It’s nice to be back paparis. A = A = A is the modus operandi of most people here. Hard to focus on debating when I feel like running 8C on my adversary to shape him up.

              • Hahaha, hi, man. Good to see you using your sword here. Nice movement you got there. Seriously now, I loved the way you articulated things and the ideas behind it.

                I don’t know what really happened to Marty, Pascal. Αs to me, the Paparis (lol, a greek nick name Pascal used to call me with a long time ago on Facebook groups, no need to explain the meaning I guess) has been here since the inception of this blog and I have seen the transformation of Marty all the way.

                No kidding a great guy and with great writing skills. But at a certain point of time everything turned upside down. There were no more Indies, there were only those who could “transcend”. Transcend to what? To where? I couldn’t get it. There we had all those things and stable data that gave us a basis of some agreement and understandings and now, we all had to “transcend”. But I still haven’t got what that means. Transcend to Where and to What?

                There was no concrete thing to Transcend Into. That new freedom was too vague for me at least. So, that was it. After that there was a big Reality break between the Indies and Marty. And those who would adhere to Standard Tech, a thing which Marty obviously didn’t get while in the church and now wouldn’t still get it, were called Fanatics.

                However and on the bright side of things Marty is always open to philosophical discussion and debates and he doesn’t hold onto past charge or whatever. So this site now is open for allegedly constructive criticism on Scientology more than constructive uses of the subject. And by constructive uses of the subject I mean seeing to it that Scientology processes are applied to people and that people train on those processes.

                And lastly, a thing I at least see very seriously, is that Marty and Mosey amidst all of this, are having a legal battle against the church with a new born baby on their lap. Now, that is something to be admired, no kidding.

                Anyway, that’s life. I am not even commenting on the issue here about the “blackmail” thing. All I can say is that LRH did what he did against so many enemies and he did make mistakes and he was mean at times and he had to be who he had to be in order, yes, to protect some higher qualities. Anyone, anyone who could SEE such a worthwhile purpose while we were ALL playing basketball and smoking pot, would act like that.

                A teacher doesn’t have to be all fair and right all the time. But he has to be most of the times and on important issues. A thing that doesn’t happen with DM. He just HAS to be right, all the time while he IS wrong most of the times and on important issues.

                This was and is a battle for those who don’t want to understand. You cannot just leave your troops unarmed. LRH was a fighter and he fought for you and me, guys. Arms and guns are not nice things to have around but the certainly serve a purpose when that is needed for the continuation of a movement. Taking a phrase out of a book without its historical and social context of those times is just an attempt to at least give it some more importance than one should. I love the definitions of words and being accurate about them and I think LRH was one of those who defined words in a most accurate way but on the other hand when there is a war one doesn’t just care about re-definitions of words.

                Finally I can’t get it when I see Brian who keeps calling Marildi, Miraldi. It looks like below super literalness there is another level of super alterisness.

                • Good observations Poustis. Marty is doing good, better than most who have been through DM’s rinse cycle. The court case shows promise and if won I’m sure even Ron would sign his liability condition.🙂

                  • ‘even Ron would sign his liability condition’. Are you SERIOUS??!

                    Have you confronted any of the FACTS about LRH, from outside the church propaganda mill? Your granting unconditional ‘ethics altitude’ to the man, is the action of an apologist.

                    Wake up and smell the cappuccino.

      • “And you are right that LRH stated correctly that it was not blackmail per the U.S. legal definition:”

        But it is extortion, which is just as illegal, and need not involve money. LRH was either ignorant of that fact, or being willfully deceptive.

        • Can you give a quote and link for the legal definition of extortion? And please see my comment to Scott at the bottom of the page.

  6. The writings and lectures of L Ron Hubbard are the source of virtually ALL criminality and abuse in Scientology. Scientologists, when they are harming people, are simply following the “religious beliefs” of Scientology as taught to them by their Founder.

    Hubbard knew that people did what their religion told them to do, and that peoples’ actions sprung from their beliefs. He also knew that the “religious beliefs” that he taught Scientologists would be protected by the US Constitution.

    The Church of Scientology is a criminal organization that is protected from prosecution by the freedom of religion in the United States.

    That’s a problem.

    Alanzo

  7. Psychological warfare:

    “Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR), or the basic aspects of modern psychological operations (PSYOP), have been known by many other names or terms, including Psy Ops, Political Warfare, “Hearts and Minds”, and Propaganda.[1]

    Various techniques are used, and are aimed at influencing a target audience’s value system, belief system, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”

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

  8. Thank you for putting in the right perspective these differences between literacy and literalness.

    But to arrive to the use of such measures is indicative that you have something very big to hide; if you are clean there is no need to hide and, far less, use corrupt handlings in an attempt to defend yourself.

    If you have really nothing to hide you can leave in peace. That is honesty with oneself and others and from there you can communicate rather than attack.

  9. I believe the real definition is Extortion🙂

  10. blackmail
    — noun
    ANY(my caps) payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.

    Ron was a great distorter of language. Actually I think manipulator of language more accurately illustrates him.

    Sympathy, grief, open minded, reasonable etc were redefined. The out come of these redefinitions is a person who thinks they are evolved and rational, but in truth have become a cult member with deranged world views.

    Having a messiah redefine black mail to a young student and then create the opportunity for that young student to black mail people is evil.

    Flat out evil. And to defend this approach from Ron is evidence of brain washing.

  11. I like your article.. since I am far from supper literate .hehehe on that I cant comment but on black mail how it is used in our daily life I have explored. Black mail is a communication weapon and control mechanism it is a tool to achieve ones desire and it is used regularly, by parents and in other relationships.
    Mothers and fathers use this tool to control the off springs behavior: many children were disowned by parents simply because they did not obey and love was denied and that kind of black mail withholding LOVE Affection is very effective control simply because we do great many things in order to be loved and liked.

    Example of control; Black mail : if you behave: you will get on extra slice. Darling if you buy me that house, fur coat, car, diamond ring or take me to Bali for vacation I will love you for ever!
    If you get your grades up you get the car!
    It seems blackmail is connect fear of loss, we might lose if we don’t do or do something what others want…
    Black mail is a form of communication to force others to get something, supper literate persons can twist the words into shapes-meanings by finding words which could cover up the black mail.. the demand can be hidden yet the undercurrent of the meaning still would be there.
    Since you have twisted my arm, I will do that f-ing thing, but only because you have done that, I hate your guts for it… Black mail , no matter what form it comes at the person it is noted even if that demand was sugar coated and not forgotten but filed.

    • What you describe, withholding until or promising love if the subject does X, sounds to me like extortion. I understand blackmail to mean “I will harm/expose you unless you do X”. A fine difference, admittedly. In the first instance, you will only not get what you didn’t already have. In the second insatnce you will get something you definetely do not want to have.

      It also depends on the jurisdiction. Here is the UK section:
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21

  12. Brilliant Marty. After shedding the layers of Scientology conditioning, it is interesting to look back at those “Simon Bolivar” Dedicated days of quick, curt answers that you are drilled to give within an inch of your life and finally being able to actually communicate.
    The lying that you are coached into becomes truth, just like George Orwell describes so eloquently in 1984. War is Peace and all that. And you march in time to the lies and they become you. You don’t think. You just spew these crazy bits of data at whatever comes at you. And you believe that you are “cause” because you know more than these enemies.
    Being free of that insanity and thinking, truly thinking and pondering things of all types has been a wonder. It has freed me.
    The only thing I don’t regret from my 8 years in the Sea Org, and even the last three that were spent on the RPF, was I met my husband and with him I have two beautiful children that are my reason for living. I would do it all again to have them. But I am so very happy they will NEVER know any of it. Now that my whole family is free. And I owe you a GIGANTIC debt of gratitude for that. Your books, and your frank conversation with my mother blew open the doors for her so she could free herself. I couldn’t do it but you did. So thank you. Thank you so much. I owe you BIG time. And don’t hesitate to collect on that. I am serious. Thank you.

  13. DM: hand picked

    • Tyrants are never picked, they simply occur in total leadership vacuums. I don’t even blame the guy, he’s dramatizing 100%. Nevertheless justice is not so compassionate, e.g. how Gaddafi and Hussein ended up…

      • Pascal, look who is talking here. Those who left DM take over or even assisted him. I never did. I was declared for opposing his alter is in translations since the year 2000. And now we have come to this. DM: hand picked. And Marty allowing this comment. Let’s see if mine gets through.

        I want to say that Pascal is right that each and every person on this blog or wherever is responsible to a certain degree for the ending up of the Scientology leadership into the hands of Miscavige.

        thanks Pascal. that was a good show here tonight. At least you are fair and fairness has its price.

        • Come on Malaka, every group goes through a cycle like this. Daddy died and the dog took over the house. Those present did what they could to keep the family together. I would not even be surprised at the whole INT crew in the hole being pussies due to some leverage DM has about destroying Scientology all together. Tyranny is an ugly thing, but as Plato remarked (and stfu about him being Greek) it is not sustainable for long.🙂

          • Re malaka… are we going to talk Greek here or what? I believe “malaka” maybe a bit more known around the world.. meaning “jerk” and it’s used in everyday language in the sense of “friend” or “buddy”, too. (oh, god… greek has gone far down…. hahaha).

            Now back to Plato…! Yes, that’s true it can’t last long. What I like here and I have to ack Marty on this, is that no matter what, he is a tough guy. We may quarrel or have different viewpoints. But Marty is Marty and me I am me. And I can express myself and this blog has an open minded (no quote, unquote) approach to things.

            Good to talk to you anyway. thanks for sharing some interesting views. Still in South America?

        • christianscientology

          I am with you guys Theosismanidest and Pascal, the root of the word responsibility is RESPOND-ABILITY, the ability to respond. The opposite is TO REACT which is to act again. I say ‘opposite’ but in truth there is no opposite, to react is just a failure to respond.

          To respond is an ABILITY, an ability that can be gained by the study and application of SCIENTOLOGY.

          Best wishes
          Pip

          • Yes. Scientology turns off the noise and let’s you think and act rationally from your own viewpoint. At least for some lucky bastards like moi.🙂

          • Pip, I really appreciate what you wrote in your comment: “…the root of the word responsibility is RESPOND-ABILITY, the ability to respond. The opposite is TO REACT which is to act again. I say ‘opposite’ but in truth there is no opposite, to react is just a failure to respond.” This is a definition I can work with. I recognize that I need to become more cognizant of where I am operating from with regard to my ‘respond-ability’ and work to increase it.

            The following three quotes (I think) speak directly to one’s ‘respond-ability’ and how important that is in the grand scheme of things.

            “To learn to see- to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow things to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit of approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This is the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not respond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the obstructing and isolating instincts.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

            (‘…one must acquire a command…’ – one must become adept in respond-ability.)

            “…man has but to right himself to find that the universe is right; and during the process of putting himself right he will find that as he alters his thoughts towards things and other people, things and other people will alter towards him. ~ James Allen

            (‘…putting himself right…’ – getting in touch with his respond-ability)

            “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” ~ Victor E. Frankl

            (‘…power to choose our response…’ – when one has respond-ability one has the power to leave the proverbial “trap” and transcend.

            • christianscientology

              Thanks Monte. I loved all those quotes. That one by James Allen “man has but to right himself to find that the universe is right” very ACIM. And that one from Victor E Frankl “between stimulus and response there is a space”. That is the essence of T.R.0

              All good stuff

              Love and A.R.C
              Pip

      • “It is a frightening level of bravery to use men you know can be cruel, vicious and incompetent.” LRH Bolivar

        In my opinion Ron was no victim. Ron was an orchestrating genius. Ron saw in DM a vicious and cruel person ready and willing to do violence against Ron’ imagined or real adversaries.

        He instructs us in Bolivar how power is to be protected. What power? Ron’s power of course.

        Ron saw in DM the cruelty of a willing hound. He instructed him to punch people and spit in their faces.

        Ron knew what he was doing. Even if the enemy was the dark shadows of his own schizoid paranoid tendencies.

        DM foot the bill quite nicely.

        Bolivar is the blueprint for how to keep power: violently.

        How does DM keep power? Like any tyrant: violently

        • Actually LRH blames Bolivar for not having been violent enough. That is why he failed in LATAM, he was too soft.

        • Brian, Ron would never allow any Scientologist to be declared for insisting on the application of specific translations HCOBs like in my case.

          DM, did, does and will do. This is the difference.

          LRH was NOT to put there ideal buildings, do foolish and childish and boring PR events and threat, beat up and act as a bully against people because they didn’t comply. He was there to get YOU and ME into Scientology somehow this lifetime. And I think he did, didn’t he?

          I am sorry, some of you guys miss the point.

      • Pascal, It is interesting to see that that chip is still firmly ensconced on your shoulder. Part of your DNA? Actually, it is good to see you posting here.

  14. Emotional blackmail:
    • The psychological misuse of a person’s emotions or insecurities in order to influence their behavior
    • a way of persuading someone to do something they do not want to do by making them feel guilty about it
    • a form of psychological manipulation – it’s “the use of a system of threats and punishment on a person by someone close to them in an attempt to control their behavior”
    • the stirring up of uncomfortable feelings in somebody, especially sympathy or guilt, in order to persuade that person to do something
    (http://www.memidex.com/emotional-blackmail)

    Besides the initial love bombing, this EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL is practiced from day one. If you don’t toe the line, you are not allowed to “go free”, move up on “the Bridge to Total Freedom”, you don’t “save mankind”, “clear the planet”, get rid of your “reactive mind”, have all these wonderful successes which the others apparently have.
    You are also dammed for eternity and guilty that others are too (Hubbard: “The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology”). Duh!
    The emotional blackmail gets also extended to your personal relationships with disconnection and “SP”-declares. The supposedly superior Scn “ethics” and (in-)”justice” systems – with their insane rules and lacking of common sense – are the tools for this.

    About the “Bolivar Policy”: Miscavige is not even applying his beloved and for justifications used “Simon Bolivar”- policy. Hubbard said something about giving power to your friends. Firstly Miscavige doesn’t have any friends but serfs; secondly he disposes of them when not of use anymore or destroys them (or tries to) if he sees them as a threat to himself or his position.

  15. The trick here is finding the right target for you attacks, blackmail. I haven’t met everyone on earth. but of the thousands of persons I have met, none of them struck me as someone who would ALWAYS find the right target EVERY TIME.

    Sometimes one must defend himself, but when one attacks on a different line than one is being attacked, he puts himself at risk. You are becoming that which you are supposedly defending yourself from. If you have to hide what you are doing, you’d better rethink your line of defense.

  16. For anyone not familiar with this, I thought it might be interesting just how well versed at “literal-cy” David miscavige is. This is part of a court ordered sworn testimony of David Miscavige taken some years back.

    Here is an interesting part taken from this document:
    It provides a glimpse into the devious mind of David Miscavige.
    …..

    “… QUESTION: Did you ever study all the Organization Executive courses, Mr. Miscavige?
    MISCAVIGE: Well, what do you mean by that?
    QUESTION: Well, there’s a set of green volumes generally referred to as the OEC Volumes.
    MISCAVIGE: Mm-hmm.
    QUESTION: Is it a course format?
    MISCAVIGE: The OEC volumes?
    QUESTION: The OEC volumes.
    MISCAVIGE: No, they’re in volumes; they’re in books.
    QUESTION: When you study the OEC volumes, it’s a course that you take, isn’t it?
    MISCAVIGE: There is a course, but you say, “when you study the OEC volumes, it’s a course that you take,” and I’m telling you it’s entirely inaccurate.
    QUESTION: The OEC course is entirely separate from the OEC volumes?
    MISCAVIGE: Yes. Maybe. That’s 50-50. No. I mean–no, it’s not an accurate statement. …OEC means Org Exec Course. So you’re asking me if I took the Org Exec Course course. Of course I didn’t, because there’s no such thing as the Org Exec Course course. (See RTC’s authorized wording above–Ed.)
    QUESTION: But there’s an Org Executive Course?
    MISCAVIGE: Yes.
    QUESTION: Did you take that course?
    MISCAVIGE: Which one? That’s where the confusion is entering here.
    QUESTION: All right. How many are there?
    MISCAVIGE: When, now?
    QUESTION: How many Org Executive Courses are there now is fine. …
    MISCAVIGE: I don’t know what you mean by that. I really don’t. You’re confusing a set of volumes with a course. What exactly are you asking me?
    QUESTION: I think the question stands for itself. …
    MISCAVIGE: You asked me how many Org Executive Courses are there. …I don’t get it. How many Org Executive Courses? There have been numerous. That’s my answer.
    QUESTION: Have you studied the OEC Volumes?
    MISCAVIGE: What do you mean by that? Really, I’m serious. Clarify for me–
    QUESTION: (Y)ou’ve taken the OEC? You have taken a course entitled the Org Executive Course?
    MISCAVIGE: No. Taken? No. I don’t–I don’t even know what that means, “taken.” No.
    QUESTION: But you’ve done the Org Executive Course?
    miscavige’s attorney: I don’t know what “done” means.
    QUESTION: Have you been certified as having taken the Org Executive Course?
    MISCAVIGE: I don’t think so.
    QUESTION: Have you graduated from the Org Executive Course?
    MISCAVIGE: No.
    …..

    And this is the guy who currently runs the Church of Scientology?…

    WOW!

    Eric

  17. Redifining the meaning of words was a particular sweet trick of L Ron Hubbard. Wich he makes clear how that works in the lecture “Deteriation of Freedom”.

  18. It’s not blackmail,
    It’s extortion.

  19. Blackmail. Definitely blackmail. “In blackmail, which always involves extortion, the extortionist threatens to reveal information about a victim or his family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

  20. From dictionary reference.com
    just1 [juhst] Show IPA
    adjective
    1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
    2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
    3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
    4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
    5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.

    From websters:
    justice 6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings.

    If one were to have one’s “literacy” restricted to only definition 6 of the websters, one could come to the conclusion that what miscavige is doing in court is using justice. He’s milking the system which has been legally devised to assist the guilty in escaping justice. Even perjury and defiance seem to be treated as minor infractions to the court, while brilliant legal strategy is trumping actual justice. There is no truth, reason or fairness in the Co$. Their committees of evidence are mere charades. They attempt to use the legal system to get away with shit, not to procure anything resembling real justice. “Ruin them utterly,” is the order of the day.

    I audited a large number of staff while on my internship. I also worked with a large number of staff in various positions. My assessment is that they are largely semi-literate. With their new game of massive glossaries giving only one definition of a word (the one miscavige dictates) they are quickly becoming more illiterate. And they are becoming more and more super literal because they don’t understand anything other than, “we’re right and you’re an SP if you don’t agree with our rightness.”

  21. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extortion

    1: the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice

  22. This link goes to 100 characteristics of cults. In scanning over the list, and probing into some in more detail, I easily recalled concrete examples where Scientology fits at least 98, and possibly 99 of the characteristics.

    The only one it does not have at this time — and may it never — is mass suicide.

    The link touches on many cults — and some branches of major religions function like cults — not just Scientology.

    The perverse behavior of Church of Scientology is really not unique; it is standard fare for a whole area of recurring human behavior: cults.

  23. At some point it must be acknowledged by the true literal believers that Hubbard was a one-of-a-kind, self-aggrandizing LUNATIC.

    Meanwhile, among those so inclined, criminality and green on white reigns.

    None-the-less, there are folks who will swear LRH is some God-like figure. I was one of those so importuned.

    I am free now. I hope you are too…………

  24. The dress down of a “God”

  25. it maybe irrelevant but to memory of Paco Delucia who passed away yesterday I dedicate this concert to all fellow Spirit Seekers (Meeting Of The Spirits)

  26. I understand just post this:

  27. This is what true belief can make you look like in Christianity: http://paxromano.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html

    This is what Scientology can deliver — the “hidden statistics”: http://whatstheharm.net/scientology.html

  28. L Ron Hubbard is correct: technically its not blackmail, Its extortion.

  29. My experience re words: a student cannot grasp a text. He reads over and over and looks up words but he simply cannot grasp it. I ask the simple word clearer questions and then follow it back to its roots. Usually way back in time. Then after getting the “charge behind” off that word or word chain then the student can grasp this text.
    I did not audit much, but what I could observe was, that using word clearing with the meter often results that an implant is popping into present time.
    Thus if one is using word clearing tech and does not follow it to the root of the charge those students or preclears are left with bypassed charge that is near present time or even in present time. And as there is an implant connected with it you have now a “handle” to that person. This is one side of the story.
    The other side is, that the student still does not grasp the text plus has some charge attached to this text. This student has no other chance now than to pretend understanding and adopting the interpretation of this text from others.
    By the way, I always had the idea that this “blackmail light” is normal operation in politics. You do not as we want, we know something, if you do not act as we want now we leak it to the press…. operation.

    • Hi Schorsch. What you write relates to what kept me in — some of the stuff truly seems to work. Where I’m at is an unbending call for double blind scientific studies. The mind can trick itself too easily to do otherwise. If the “tech” is valid, it will stand up to research scrutiny. If there is an alternate explanation, we would want to explore that in the spirit of seeking truth.

      As to blackmail light being normal in politics, hmm. I don’t work in that field, but if you watch the series “House of Cards” you certainly see both blackmail light, and dark. Certainly some politics functions somewhat like that.

      I think the difference is we almost _expect_ politics to work like that (politics = poly (many) and tics (blood sucking insects). But we do not expect modern religion to work that way — but that may be a naive view too. All evangelical/converting/only-way/exploiting religions seem to seem to have a sick, common theme of the ends justifies the means.

      • Hi FOTF2012. You know what is true or false. If you loose that know then there is no substitute for this “I know”. But the mind is full of false knows. So in the state we are usually in it is very difficult to tell if we are really knowing or not. The usual answer for me is to consult others to find out if that what I believe to know is real or not. But in case of Scientology this might not work.
        When I told some non Scientologist of what I have observed then he thought that I am a blind follower. If I told that my Auditor then he, the Case Sup or Ethics Officer thought that I am nuts, need some help to get into present time or should be thrown out.
        This is basically an out of communication situation. This is also a “blackmail light” situation. You cannot tell certain things. Even in Auditing. And that is the sad story about Scientology. If you cannot tell anything to your auditor then Scientology does not work. (if you tell anyway but then have to go to Ethics, put on a nuts case programme, declared or whatever is the same as not telling)
        My entire history is packed with throw outs, SP declare, accusations to be PTS, nuts, dangerous, not on board… Why? I did not stop communicating.
        As communication usually has not only an entertaining purpose but also the purpose of “duplication” on the other end of that line. Means, the receive point of the communication in essence changes his ideas a bit or even acts according your communication. And if you say “freedom” in a slave world or group then you have to be silenced.
        By the way: usually while auditing I could see the time track, pictures of the preclear very well and thus had not very much trouble to see if it is real or not. A real life situation recording is different to a fake memory recording.

        • Hello Schorsch:
          “By the way: usually while auditing I could see the time track, pictures of the preclear…….”
          Mark:
          You may or may not have realized the magnitude of the statement you just made. Seeing other individuals experiences, pictures.

          When one loses the obsession to carry memories around with him in MEST form like a diary, usually some time around the various states of release labelled as “Clear”, he may tend to pull in other individuals experiences. This can lead to undesirable, obsessive comm lines. “Clears are at risk”. OT-3/Solo NOTs are primarily dedicated to separating oneself from overwhelm and confusion in this area. A problem for some more than others.

          Handling these lines one by one can be therapeutic and may be necessary for some at first,but a basic realization of oneness and individuality is the real goal. The ability to easily accept or ignore these lines becomes possible.

          Which brings us to an important point. This is an ABILITY. One that can be used and enjoyed, as you have noticed. Used wisely, it can be employed to gather data, resolve confusions. But there is another valuable unseen use.

          As one is looking down his own past, there are incidents of missing data leading to confusions and inconsistencies. This locks them in place, holds your attention in a timeless search for resolution. The needed cognition is not always possible by standard auditing. But often, OTHER INDIVIDUALS DURING THE INCIDENT HAD DATA WHICH COULD RESOLVE THE CONFUSION.

          THEIR TRACK CAN BE EXAMINED TO GAIN THE ADDITIONAL DATA. That time has passed and their attention is no longer directed in your vicinity is irrelevant. You and I are locked in this one way time track, but there is simultaneously a timelessness, an always now that also exists, just as we are all one, but also separate individuals. All experience is available, past and present, yours and others.

          When you can have total ARC with, become one with the guy who murdered your children, complete ARC, mindful confront, the mechanics of reactive thinking dissolve. Clarity ignites.

          I have just touched on this ability and am working to master it. This is really getting fun now. Once you feel confident of not being overwhelmed by many experiences, give it a shot. The willingness to be and do what others are, were, and do and have done are the key. Be willing to experience anything.

          Happy hunting.
          Mark

        • Hi Schorsch. I was reading your post and thinking of a reply, when I also read Mark’s post, which I consider to be excellent.

          There is an ability that some OTs call “skull watching” that can manifest as an ability to see the time tracks and present time pictures of another person.

          Though I do not claim to be OT even in the Scientology world, I believe I know what you mean when you say you could see the pictures of the PC. I’ve done that on occasion and have tested it outside of an auditing setting, and have startled the heck out of some people. I cannot do that at will. It tends to happen when I am in strong rapport (“high ARC”) with someone.

          From my point of view, such an ability is real in the sense that I have experienced it and have so far not found an alternate explanation. However, from a scientific, investigative, research point of view, there could be (and frankly I expect that there will be) explanations that may emerge that are different from the Scientological explanations.

          Here is a point where Scientology diverges from science. In Scientology the phenomenon of seeing time tracks is explained. Source said so. End of story. In science, there is always an openness to competing theories and better models and explanations. In other words, science is not about belief at all, but about falsifiable theories: once you can find an exception to a supposed law, you have falsified one theory and have to find a new, better, broader one.

          My suggestion is to of course validate what you have seen and experienced, while being open to the possibility of many explanations for the experience. Best wishes to you, Schorsch.

          • Hello there. Thanks for the acknowledgement.
            As I said, looking back another’s track is not something I have mastered. It has happened a few times during past examination. I have gotten into the habit of ‘loving’ those in past incidents. Looking at all viewpoints at the time. I have been able to be others without agreeing. Just totally looking.

            This began when I started to realize that there is one past track with many viewpoints. Each viewpoint has value. I am one single viewpoint. I am also the whole viewpoint. One side effect is that I have found a love for others I never knew existed. People call me congenial, warm.

            Being the guy who convinced you to be small a long time ago (an incident) doesn’t make you cold or without morals, it brings resolution and freedom from those decisions and the willingness to make or not make new ones. Now, action when needed, and peace of mind and heart are becoming simultaneous. I find it is easier, lately, to always be on guard for betrayal and trouble, and trust everyone fully at the same time. That is a little harder to put into English.

            When people do stupid and hurtful things, I don’t hate them, I don’t even dislike them, I just want to assist them to overcome their intentions that are not really theirs, and help those who have been harmed. If I can’t help someone right this minute, I let them be, knowing I’ll get back to them sooner or later.

            I’m having a good time.
            Mark

  30. WARNING. WARNING. The following quotes from the Dhammapada, if applied, are known to bring about a state of conceptual understanding. Literalist proceed with caution.

    Those who fail to distinguish
    The nonessential from the essential
    And the essential from the nonessential,
    Will, in feeding on wrong thoughts,
    Fail to attain the essential.

    On the other hand, those who correctly perceive
    The essential as essential
    And the nonessential as nonessential
    Will, in feeding on right thoughts,
    Attain the essential.

  31. WARNING. WARNING. The following quotes from the Dhammapada, if applied, are known to bring about a state of independence and freedom of viewpoint. The faithful and other religious followers proceed with caution.

    Mindfulness is the path to immortality.
    Negligence is the path to death.
    The vigilant never die,
    Whereas the negligent are the living dead.

    The foolish, the unwise,
    Surrender themselves to negligence,
    Whereas the wise man protects mindfulness
    As his most valuable possession.

  32. I have been wondering about something recently. Is false data stripping just a fancy way of saying thought modification?

    • Letting go,

      Depends who is doing it and what is the intention behind it.

      A wonderful word to be acquainted with is DUALITY/ DUALISM.

      It is an integral part of life, and it may be one of the fundamental errors in Scientology, in that it was not emphasized enough as an ever present phenomena.

      • Conan,

        Dualism as in opposites, contrast?, black and white thinking? Another issue that I have wondered about lately is the concept of “ego”. When I read baout it, it sounds like it is sort of the spiritual bogeyman and is to blame for everything we don’t like about ourselves (including impeding our enlightenment, whatever that is). Couldn’t it just be a disowned part of ourselves? I’m not asking you to tell me what to think, just point me to someone who will😉

        • Letting Go,

          Probably do the course that Marty is offering?
          You can get exposed to top level views about all of this. See other philosophical systems at work.And I also wouldn’t discount Scientology neither.
          Then pick the system that is closest to your heart.

          • Conan, I am🙂

            I’m also looking at a variety of systems, and have put a book by Thich Nhat Hanh on my list, as well as a couple by the Dalai Lama, to get at least a superficial understanding of Buddhism. I’m also looking at psychology, and I’m slowly coming out of the “not enough time” fog, realising that I have my whole life to understand all this, it doesn’t have to be done yesterday (and therefore not get done at all).
            I’m also beginning to get in touch with how I really feel, which is an area I drew a blank on in recent years. The concept of “following your nose” has led me to the right place with surprising accuracy. So I appreciate your advice to pick what resonates with me.

        • Hi Letting Go, the “ego”…when considering the extant multitude of perspectives and definitions that abound on it, seems to be one of those ineffable concepts like ‘consciousness.’ It’s definitely an abstract and abstracts are difficult to be definitive about.

          I study A Course in Miracles and in that course the “ego” is described as being a thought system and not an entity. And, the “ego” is something we (Spirits) made so it is an artificial construct. Also, per the course, there is absolutely nothing positive to be found in the “ego.” It’s completely insane.

          What the “ego” actually is, if it even IS…I couldn’t begin to say. And, personally, what it actually is or isn’t is not all that important to me. What I look for are definitions that have at least some viability for me even if that viability is transitory. Sort of like Newtonian physics being a viable but transitory step to Quantum physics.

          A book that I think does an excellent job in presenting a viable description of the “ego” is The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard.

          • Hi Monte, thanks, you put your finger right on it for me. Ineffable, it is like discussing something of which every teacher has their own concept. I like your approach. It’s better than gripping that “ego” and wanting it to be something. But I needed to start somewhere.

            I have been observing a fascinating development in my life: answers are coming faster and faster now, oftentimes the same day. I still don’t know if spirituality really IS, but I am loving the journey. Thanks a lot for the book reference, it is on my list along with The Book by Alan Watts.

            • Letting Go, “ineffable ” has become one of my favorite words! 🙂 You mentioned that you have been observing a fascinating development in your life i.e., answers are coming faster and faster now, oftentimes the same day. I too have been experiencing the same phenomenon. I suspect that it is an indication of becoming more in alignment with the ME I really am as opposed to the ‘me’ I’ve been pretending to be.

              Letting Go and Crashing Upwards, I just came across a 32 min video that, even though it does not mention the word “ego” once, it does the most amazing an entertaining depiction of that ineffable concept that I’ve ever seen. Also, it manages to communicate the core message of A Course in Miracles (a 1,500 page (give or take) book) within its context. I’ll add it to this comment. But first….the “inner me” wants to say something…

              Concepts like God, Holy Spirit, Consciousness, Christ, Mind, Within one’s self and so on, are abstract. Abstract concepts are ineffable. Therefore, all words, analogies, metaphors, allegories, parables or other symbols are just that i.e., symbols (often many times removed) that we use to represent and communicate that which we cannot actually conceive of. Using symbols is really the only way that we can communicate and explore the abstract with one another. And it is in our exploration of the abstract where we learn, evolve and transcend into states of higher consciousness and understanding. This is our way to pull ourselves out of complicated and competing specifics and see the bigger, broader picture.

              Of course, the obvious liability with using symbols is that they are open to myriad interpretation and definition. If this inherent liability with the use of symbols is recognized and understood, the probability of the liability becoming a problem is greatly diminished. However, as we have all observed and experienced, the symbols we use are all too often taken literally, put forth as fact, used to judge and condemn others who don’t believe our particular “truth,” turned into rigid and sometimes sadistic belief systems, assigned tremendous false importance, and used to justify all manner of atrocities in relationship to arbitrary physical and spiritual hierarchies.

              Until we can see through all directions of time and space (even beyond time and space) and we really know what everything is for, why assume we’re right about anything?

              • Monte, this is one of the best comments ever – from you or anyone else. Bless you!

                I’m looking forward to watching that video later today.🙂

          • christianscientology

            Hi Monte, The disappearance of the Universe – Good book!

        • Crashing Upwards

          Letting go: what a great name you chose. I am commenting on your “ego” mention. I like what Monte said about it being a thought system more than an entity. At some point it does seem to be how one will identify themselves, however, and so it can seem to be an entity. If we identify and take pride in our house, car, education, etc, and over identify who we are with those, its a false self. There must be hundreds of authors and many systems which can help one identify and loosen the hold of the ego or false self. I can name a few which I have come across and which I got something from; 1) Roy Masters-Foundation for Human Understanding, lots of books and tapes specifically tailored towards dealing with pride and ego, 2) Vernon Howard-New Life Foundation, same as Masters, particularly good book in my opinion was the Mystic Path to Cosmic Power, a title which grabs attention but certainly and thankfully does not try to deliver “Power” in the same way that scientology tries to promote it, 3) Gurdgieff and the Fourth Way. Focus on a person being able to identify and deal with their false identities. There must be dozens of others which other contributors here could recommend. From what Monte writes, “A Course in Miracles” seems to fully deal with the subject as well.

          • Crashing upwards, thanks! I like the name too, and have seen it’s a long, gradual process that started with “how do I even let go?”

            Overidentification is another interesting aspect I’ve been looking at recently. I like how you tie that together with the ego thought system, makes sense. I’ll put your books on my list too, they sound intriguing. The power Scientology promotes sounds very “ego driven” to me, from what I’ve understood so far.
            I have the A Course in Miracles as KIndle, but have found the 1000+ pages a little daunting to start.

            • Crashing Upwards

              Yes, it is identifying and then letting go of the many false identities we take on in our lives. And some which we let define us in a big way. The book that was recommended on this Blog, “The end of suffering”, had a great cartoon of a man stating; “Do you know who I think I am”. That is it in a nutshell. A lot of relief is found in shedding those identities and the activities which go along with them.

            • christianscientology

              Letting go – One page at a time “Sweet Jesus”!

    • Yes.

  33. I think with all this…
    “it IS blackmail”, see this definition.”
    “No, it is extortion, see this definition.”
    “No, it’s really coercion…

    What I see here is that the whole point of Marty’s post is being played out right here.

    At some point one has to exteriorize from the definitions with a “conceptual understanding” rather than fixating on minute nuances of the various definitions that one can find. When communication becomes a battle of definitions, it seems that the battle for “rightness” has become more important than understanding.

    Going back to the original quote from L. Ron Hubbard in Marty’s post, what is the concept that you come away with? Is it whether or not the word “blackmail” is defined correctly, or that Ron has somehow justified doing the things that he describes?

    Getting too focused on words can act as a “misdirect”. It is semantic sleight-of-hand. Just about any concept can be proven or disproven when one’s attention is directed to the minutae of specific variations and nuances of every word used to communicate that concept.

    Misdirecting of attention is the main tool of charlatans, magicians, lawyers, liars and con men. It is not ALWAYS used to harm, but one is advised to keep one’s eye on the bigger picture.

    Eric S

    • Eric, the discussion on definitions came about precisely because some wish to whitewash LRH’s conduct, and must cling to a certain definition in order to succeed. Agreed that it is misdirection. I, for one, have yet to transcend the need for an enemy.

  34. Marty

    Did you get the e-mail that I sent to your gmail address?

    Eric

  35. LRH was quite a double edged sword. I’ve chosen not to let his dark side take away from the positive benefits I got from the cult. For me personally a handful of truly negative experiences vs skills and knowledge I can use for a lifetime.

    • ThetaPotata, I would say that is the correct evaluation of importances.

      • And who cares about the people who have been harmed, and continue to be harmed?

        They’re not you, right?

        They’re just being “victims” and are no concern of yours.

        You’ve got your “wins”, that’s all that counts, right?

        Alanzo

      • That post was simply someone voicing his own experience, which for him was just “a handful of truly negative experiences.” Maybe you would rather that only those who had the worst experiences be allowed to tell their story?

  36. Regardless of the qualifying criteria for the definition of blackmail, blackmail is essentially the worst overt one can commit, according to LRH…

    “The greatest overt act in the world is making other people guilty of overt acts.” –LRH

    and

    “What is the basic overt act? The basic overt act is making people guilty of overt acts.” –LRH

      • Next step is Impeaching a President……..Oh wait

      • Hi Miraldi,

        First I would say that yes, your definition of “guilty” does fit.

        Second, I would say that observation without pre-characterization is the best course of action in all things. It’s impossible to see others and circumstances as-is if you don’t do that first. Acceptance of others and circumstances as is would be the next step. Circumstances and beings do not change unless things are done this way.

        It would be naive to think that an immortal being would give up a consideration (or course of action) because of something as trifling as blackmail. Blackmail is merely a crude expedient in a short-lived incarnation.

        • Thanks, Scott. I agree with what everything you wrote, all of which is based on fundamentals of Scientology that I understand the truth of. What you expressed is a very broad and long-term view, it seems to me. Would you agree that in the shorter term, the following excerpt from the essay “What is Greatness?” might at times be applicable?

          “Sometimes for the sake of the safety of others, it is necessary to act, but it is not necessary also to hate them…

          “One must act, one must preserve order and decency, but one need not hate or seek vengeance.

          “It is true that beings are frail and commit wrongs. Man is basically good but can act badly.

          “He only acts badly when his acts done for order and the safety of others are done with hatred. Or when his disciplines are founded only upon safety for himself regardless of all others; or worse, when he acts only out of a taste for cruelty.

          “To preserve no order at all is an insane act. One need only look at the possessions and environment of the insane to realize this. The able keep good order.”

          • Hi Miraldi,

            Yes, “What is Greatness?” is a profound article based on timeless truths. In regard to the quotes you cite, I would say that the degree they are workable towards would be monitored by the definition of the word “Serious” in the Dn & Scn Tech Dictionary: “SERIOUS, when interest is important because of penalty. (PDC 59)”. In other words, where do your interests lie?

            As far as “keeping good order” goes, that is also strictly a MEST universe game. In fact, in the Factors lectures, LRH himself says that what a being is doing in the MEST universe is trying to organize it. In that regard I would venture to say that beings might mistakenly believe that the ethereal and highly mutable spiritual universe operates on the same principles as the MEST universe. This is only because their perception of it is colored by all of their previous experiences in the MEST universe – including of course their most recent paradigm of experience and beliefs.

            • Hi Scott,

              I see what you mean about that PDC quote on the definition of “serious.” Thanks for that. It cracked the door a bit as regards what seems like a paradox to me. So this is good!

              With respect to LRH, I don’t think we can know for sure where his interests lay at different times. It’s hard to imagine how he would get caught up in being overly “serious because of penalty” when he himself apparently understood the trap of it. And from the materials I’ve studied and some of the people I know who benefited from the tech, including myself (at least to some degree) he seemed to understand a lot about “the ethereal and highly mutable spiritual universe.”

    • I have found a helpful viewpoint to take when re-reading these sweeping, authoritative statements is: “Whom does it serve?” The code of honour falls apart into very different pieces when seen under that aspect, particularly “never fear to hurt someone in a just cause” and “never withdraw allegiance once granted”. Very useful for training dogs to set upon your perceived enemies. This is not necessarily the (whole) truth, but it helps to get as many outside viewpoints as possible. To quote LRH in contrast to LRH merely keeps you in his thought processes, and then you are thinking with a dead man’s thoughts. Round and round in circles we go.

      One of the saddest things for me about the Church of Scientology is that it must have started out as a very fun, free affair. Then it began its slide into fear (perhaps it always was fear-based to a degree). Now it is all fear, palpable even (or especially) out here. I’ve read any stories of people who were there in the 60’s and 70’s and one common theme is that it was fun. It seems to be a big loss. And that brings me to another thing I realised: It is an incredible luxury that we enjoy, to be able to meet here and discuss contrary issues in Marty’s virtual living room whilst he and Mosey and William remain under siege. It’s a real luxury we are afforded, and I know such conversations would be impossible in the walls of the church.

      Somehow everything LRH said about seriousness went out the window and was euphemismed into “be unserious and give us all your money!”

      I hope they find a way to put the fun back in one day.

      • christianscientology

        You are so right Letting Go. In the late ‘60’s’ and early ‘70’s’ to be at St Hill was both fun and exhilarating, but having said that there was also a dark side to it. People were held in high regard because of their positions on post and I was aware that some executives saw their status as their raisen de’tre.

        I remember when I first went to St Hill and lived in a shared house with many Scientologists, when a programme came on T.V. like “Songs of Praise” (Sunday evenings) many of those viewing would be quite intolerant about the content of the programme. In those days I was not particularly religious and would possible have seen myself as nominally Christian, but I still found some of the Scientologists attitudes disturbing.

        This arrogance that “we have the answers to all mans’ woes” was the seed of a future fall. It is said “pride cometh before a fall”. Proud people as a rule don’t have much fun; they are too busy maintaining a reputation.

        Regards
        Pip

  37. Pingback: Rundown on Intelligence | Moving On Up a Little Higher

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