Why Scientologists Cannot Be Trusted

Max Hauri is the head of the only reportedly growing independent scientology operation in the world. It goes by the name of Ron’s Org.  That apparently stands for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’s organization.’

Max recently sent out via mass e-mail one of his secrets taken from Ron himself on how he manages to keep the faithful on board.  Here is the piece he e-mailed in full:

“No, a Scientologist—an auditor can pay the debt. A Clear can never pay the debt. A person who is just Clear and can t audit could never pay the debt.”

________________

A Scientologist can pay a Scientologist: he can co-audit with him. Sometimes Scientologists get known for paying their debts. And they owe every tradesman everyplace and they owe bills all over the place, and every finance company is ringing them up on the phone, but they are known amongst Scientologists for paying their debts. When you audit them, they give you some auditing in return. You get the idea? That’s the idea of a Scientologist’s debt. And nobody gets in trouble faster than somebody who has received fifteen hours of auditing and now it’s your turn and he never turns up for the appointment or he never makes it possible. People aren’t quite aware of why they start curling a lip at this auditor, you know, and saying, “Well, he should have some more training, really, you know. He needs to be shoved back into it again.” No, a Scientologist—an auditor can pay the debt. A Clear can never pay the debt. A person who is just Clear and can’t audit could never pay the debt.

Now, because he is sensible of being somewhat overwhelmed by the auditor, in terms of having more done for him than he could ever do back, his mood could vary. And it’s only fair that a Clear would be permitted to pay it back, one way or the other, on the auditor’s terms. So whatever he paid you in cash—which didn’t pay for it—you can always ask him, “Well, now you owe me a favor.” You know, something on this order and just let it stand. Or he can pay you back. He can go out and make the society more decent to live in.

That’s a sensible way of that. But he’d have to become an auditor to do it. You get the idea?

Now, it’s true that individuals who engage in the marts of trade, in better condition, people who are handling political spheres of one kind of another have their uses. And in such a case where somebody is in such an area, you can ask to be paid back, not a favor in that area, which is a finite favor of, “Get this piece of paper stamped for me,” or something like that, but it’d have to be a fairly large favor, or this fellow ever afterwards is enslaved to some degree.

And if you ever audited somebody like a prime minister or president, or something like that, why, people over at the Treasury keep trying to write you out checks for astronomical sums that couldn’t be added up down at the Greenwich Observatory, so forth, say, “Well, what are you trying to do, pay for the auditing? Ho-ho. Boy, aren’t you ambitious! Oh, well, send it down to my bank manager. He’ll know what to do with it, I suppose. Now we’ll talk about paying for the auditing. You owe me a favor.” And it’d be a favor something like, well, govern the empire well, or something like that. See, it’d have to be in those terms of human relationships. And that’s about the only way a fellow could get paid.

L. RON HUBBARD, Founder

5th London ACC: The Skill of an Auditor, Part I, 11 November 1958

I noted in a post last year how L. Ron Hubbard corrupted the Rogerian client-centered therapy he borrowed from without credit.  The first corruption was the requirement that the client had to be a member in order to gain from the experience (see On Becoming A Person).  With membership comes a lot of control mechanisms that are antithetical to the self-actualization scientology sells the promise of attaining.  (see Identification and Membership).  Something that I never explained about these corruptions is explained very eloquently by Hubbard himself in the passage above.   That is with membership – even after paying exorbitant fees for scientology counseling – comes a continuing obligation.   Or as Hubbard more bluntly puts it ‘a debt’.

I have written before on how the church of scientology uses those created debts by application of dozens more Hubbard policies on how to dominate society and shudder into silence and weakness those who scientology has abused and who then complain.  Office of Special Affairs (OSA, Church of Scientology International’s – CSI’s – intelligence, dirty tricks and propaganda agency) has maintained, expanded and used a massive data base called the ‘power comm lines data base.’  It is continuously fed information culled from ethics files, auditing files, and various reports on communication lines scientology discovers its members maintain.   So when trouble brews in an area for scientology, the data base is consulted and the scientologist who the data base denotes as knowing people who might be influential in the matter are deployed to ‘repay the debt’ Ron refers to in the reference above.  And the scientologist invariably does whatever favor is asked, for not to would be to subject oneself to what Ron describes as “or this fellow ever afterwards is enslaved to some degree.”

With scientology’s dwindling membership, and growing reserves, a lot of this type of activity is more directly simply paid for.  See for example Corporate Scientology Mercenary,  Scientology Inc.’s Lobbying Machine, , Scientology Inc’s Secular Invasion of Washington D.C.David Miscavige The CheaterMonique Rathbun vs David Miscavige By the Numbers.  But, the scientologists’ communication lines are still constantly being combed and utilized.  The smiley, laser-intentioned scientology celebrities are some of the most chronic and blatant – and destructive of justice and social order – offending operatives.

I am not suggesting that Max and Ron’s Org are going to these lengths.  But, certainly Max and Ron’s Org are running a cult that impresses upon its members a firm belief that they are forever in Ron’s (via Ron’s Org’s) debt.  The moment a continuing debt is entered into the psychotherapy equation, it leaves the realm of therapy and enters the zone of mind control.  Nonetheless, I thank Max for passing along his secrets of success from Ron Hubbard.  It has opened my eyes to the fact that apparently scientology can only survive when it creates members who believe they are forever in debt – and thus become never-ending sources of income and deployable agents against societal interests as they might impact scientology.

435 responses to “Why Scientologists Cannot Be Trusted

  1. Great post.

    • I saw Marty Rathbun posting on ESMB in 2009, no love, onley understandable atacks from very very deeply hurt people. I was not hurt by Scientology. I decided to communicate on his newly formed blog back than. I have never ever regretted that decision. As long as I was reasonably civil he accepted me posting on his blog.

      I alsoo respect Marty Rathbuns investigative nature and he does put the finger on the things that are not right in our socïety and in Psychology and Psychiatry because they are open ended Sciences and open for Debate.

      Marty Rathbun has done some bad shit in the name of the Church of Scientology. So have many other people. I will not discard people for being led astray by false guru’s

      Niels Martens

  2. Excellent analysis Marty.

    There are a lot of “obligations” that are inculcated as part of being a scientologist, perhaps none more controlling than the “Code of Honor” and “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” The former is especially binding (blinding?) on Sea Org members who sign a “contract” for eternity. But the latter is more broadly applicable to ANYTHING the church wants — to me it is the overriding datum that underlies why scientologists cannot be trusted. You watch people blatantly lie in court testimony and to the media and it is based on the idea that it does not matter as long as it is “the greatest good” and that is ALWAYS what is good for the church as “of course” the church is the ONLY factor that positively influences ALL dynamics.

    I am certain that you cannot trust a member of the church. I have found people who still consider themselves scientologists, but no longer consider themselves as part of the church to be trustworthy. But it is also my experience that those who are inherently honest also tend to not lie to THEMSELVES about what they see, and as they distance themselves from the church, most come to the conclusion that being a “KSW” scientologist is just as flawed.

    • Thanks Mike and Marty,

      I endorse and confirm your analyses wholeheartedly.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Mike. We dealt with the ‘KSW scientologist’ issue more than 18 months ago. If you go back and look at the history you might see that the outfall from it was not a small factor in the creation of your own blog. We are going far deeper than KSW, because it goes far deeper than that.

    • Absolute spot on analysis Marty and Mike.
      I could not agree more.

  3. Marty Wrote:

    “I am not suggesting that Max and Ron’s Org are going to these lengths. But, certainly Max and Ron’s Org are running a cult that impresses upon its members a firm belief that they are forever in Ron’s (via Ron’s Org’s) debt. The moment a continuing debt is entered into the psychotherapy equation, it leaves the realm of therapy and enters the zone of mind control.”

    Exactly.

    Excellent observation, Marty.

    I paid out a lot of money and I spent a LOT of time working for Scientology for free.

    It’s amazing that anyone would continue to feel indebted after doing something like that. But I did because it was continually instilled in me to feel that way as part of my chosen religion.

    I’m sure many other Scientologists have been similarly fooled.

    The questions is – when is your exchange ever actually IN – per Ron – with Scientology when you are a Scientologist?

    Answer: NEVER

    Alanzo

    • Alonzo,
      You: The questions is – when is your exchange ever actually IN – per Ron – with Scientology when you are a Scientologist?
      Answer: NEVER

      That is not correct.

      You only have a billion yr contract.

      After a billion yrs, your debt should be paid in full.

      Dio

      • The funny thing is Only if one would live that long !!!

        • Hadley,

          That was just a bit of friendly, acidic, “tongue in cheek” sarcasm ( and a bit of a jab) for Alonzo, to emphasize the absurdity of the “trap” of the billion yr contract.

          A fool and his mind, time and money are soon separated.

          If you don’t use your mind, the church will use it for you.

          If you don’t fill your mind with the stuff you think it should be filled with, the church will fill it for you.

          But you can’t say that Hubbard did not give you an option, or did not give you the keys to the way out of the trap.

          The keys to the way out of the trap are written in Scn, a new slant on life, in the ch called “How to study a science”.

          Anyone who would of diligently done their homework would of found it.

          It appears that there are more than one version of the book and ch floating around. All should be read.

          Dio

          • One has his /her right for view / It was not a critic / or if you took it as that it was not meant/ I was making a point only of The mention of One billion / thats all..

      • I’d tender that on the day your contract was up, you would find out that you still owed something to the cult and would be expected to pay up …………….or resign for another term.

    • martyrathbun09

      You noted: “The questions is – when is your exchange ever actually IN – per Ron – with Scientology when you are a Scientologist?

      Answer: NEVER”

      That is the ugly truth. So much so, that it applies even to David Miscavige.

      • absolutely the cog I had just before I left. It is never ending and therefore in my opinion creates a frantic way of living life and I am at peace with myself thank you very much!!

      • “…it applies even to David Miscavige.”

        Yes. This is why I feel enormous pity for the man.

        But don’t get it twisted — I pity him like I pity a rattlesnake run over in the road and writhing. It is pitiful to see any living thing wind up in such a state.

    • I gave my 12 years of life to Sea Org. What did I gain?

      I gained a lot of experience. I value it still.

      I am also glad that I got away from Sea Org when I did.

    • Another Thought

      You said “It’s amazing that anyone would continue to feel indebted after doing something like that. But I did because it was continually instilled in me to feel that way as part of my chosen religion.”

      I know what you mean! But we get inculcated with the idea that we are lucky that Hubbard found the way out for us. A lot of that goes in as faith because I really can’t recall a moment when I actually really objectively saw any road out, or whatever the road was leading me out of. It was just faith and belief. It just becomes a pattern of thought.

      Yuck.

    • When I left the cult more than 20 years ago, I felt that I had to pay my ‘freeloader’ debt. I left after only fullfilling 1 year out of a 2 & 1/2 year contract. But after reading Bent Corydon’s excellent book, L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman? I decided to leave the cult for good. I wound up giving the org about 1/4 of the debt. Even that amount was absurd. For a year I endured poverty-level wages and no pay for weeks on end.

      Yes, I agree with Marty on this point that Scientology is about always feeling a debt to it and to it’s founder. For those still in I feel so bad for them and hope they wake up one day.

      • Rob Roy and everyone else,

        Everyone should go on a serious campaign to educate everyone that is asked to pay a freeloader debt or is paying a freeloader debt to the co$, that that is a lie. No one has any debt to the co$ for anything. It is a scam. They just have to be deprogrammed and educated, into straight thinking.

        Everything the co$ says or does, is NOT FREE of fraud, deceit or some con game or any other bullshit.

        No one owes the co$ anything.

        They are the slickest con artists, and scam artists in the world.

        Dio

  4. At first I did not see the quote that way. The very first example, “He can go out and make the society more decent to live in,” which is what I choose to do as a Clear. I do feel like I “owe,” but not anymore to scientology, or even to LRH. I do have more attention and ability to give, and while I am alive and kicking, it gives me joy to pursue the purpose I was hooked into to begin with – to leave the world a better place than I found it.

    But Hubbard lets out a “Freudian slip” in those last examples. “Get this piece of paper stamped for me,” was his operating basis – even back in the days of the 1958 5th London ACC.

    Post-1964, “govern the empire better” includes an occasional “dull thump in the dark” or even “blaze of the enemy camp” (Bolivar reference – both).

    The words sounded good – hell, they were damn inspiring. But I won’t let his dark side ruin any of that for me. But neither will I feel the slightest obligation to “save the legacy,” beyond those features which are truly freed of ego, greed or authoritarian control in the guise of “taking this planet.”

  5. Well thank you Marty! I agree! So much for ” think for yourself”.

  6. ‘Nuff said!

  7. Pingback: Scientology Drama | Geir Isene - uncut

  8. I’d like to give another reason that Scientologists can not be trusted:

    Scientologists are following references and quotes that have nothing to do with their own lives as it exists in the situations they face right now, but in stale references written by someone long ago who never knew them, and who never faced what they are facing right now.

    Being a Scientologist is like following a recipe for a life that never happened to you. Because the life that happens to you right now is totally unique and never happened to any one else before.

    Where Scientology emphasizes present time, it is valid.

    Where Scientology prescribes a canned handling for what you are facing in present time, it is trying to control you, and is totally invalid.

    This is the overwhelming majority of Scientology.

    Alanzo

  9. Providing help or assistance to another with the premise that the recipient has to pay back places the deliverer of counseling (or whatever is delivered) in a very low position; is a negation of a natural flow to give; it does have a vested interest and is solid and dishonest to oneself.

    When you give willingly without expectations of how the other should act or even reciprocate what he received YOU feel good man. There is nothing like giving because it makes you feel good and because you allowed another to be the way he deems best.

    I can see the control mechanism used then and now and fortunately many of us decided not to be slaves.

  10. I am reminded of the question:
    According to Chinese tradition/proverbs… what happens when you save somebody’s life? Is the person you saved indebted to you, for the rest of their days? Or are you, through the act of saving their life, now responsible for their life?
    It is difficult to put a value on a big favor, or an act of friendship.
    Are you saying that it is a disservice that Ron’s Org is doing?
    (And returning favors is common in all fields, just look at politics. It doesn’t justify misuse.)

  11. When I first ran across that LRH issue, I think while doing the SHSBC in ’74, I really didn’t think anything was sinister about it. In fact, I quite agreed with it. But, then, I understood it to mean that the debt was owed to the 7th/8th Dynamic. Spiritual freedom, in other words could never be repaid in terms of MEST, but only with equivalent coin; the delivery of like spiritual freedom to another or others. When interpreted to mean that the debt is incurred to a specific group or individual, and that it not only can, but SHOULD be repaid by means of MEST, it becomes a very different, and very dark matter indeed. Reversing any spiritual freedom with the imposition of enslavement. Any money, MEST or services offered for spiritual services would never be in consideration of repaying any debt, but only to help in providing housing and sustenance to the service provider such that (s)he can continue doing good works without being distracted by the necessities of the material world.

    • That’s exactly how I read the issue, Jim. And I still don’t see anything sinister about it either.
      Of course sinister people could apply this in a sinister manner and have, but that sort of behavior by sociopaths has been going on since the beginning of time. Heck, just a few hundred years after Jesus of Nazareth brought his message of Love to the world, “Christian” organizations were killing and torturing others in his name during the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.

    • Τhanks Jim, I fully agree.

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        Well, everybody has his own interpretation of a text and then there is the truth on what happened and what is happening.
        A group was created, dedicated followers were made, a military style command structure was established and a slave labor force created for a single leader. Even years after they left the organization many feel a deep obligation to the leader.
        Those things were created, not just by the text Marty posted here, but by many others of the same type. Sometimes subtle but with constant repetition the message of ‘debt’ and ‘obligation’ to the group and its leader was openly or sublime expressed and anchored in the mind of the followers.
        Those are observable facts, not opinions or interpretations. When we come to the question of LRH intentions in doing so, we enter opinion again, because LRH was a master of deception and one could never be sure, what he really thought. Was he just after power and eternal life for himself? Did he believe he was the savior of mankind? That is where one can only look at his life and his actions and try deduct from there, what he really thought.
        I closed that chapter for myself having arrived at the conclusion that LRH was a power addict and would do anything to protect his power. That is how he lived his live with mixed in episodes of overactive imagination and delusions of grandeur, followed by deep depression.
        But I disagree with the broad generality ‘Scientologists cannot be trusted”. It always depends on whom and in what area. But then on the other hand some of the more literalistic followers can get pretty annoying, even nasty and I would rather keep a good distance to many of them.

  12. I figured this out a while ago. I picked at him for doing the FSM thing. I used to be one of the sheeple sad to say but slowly real life sunk in.

  13. Really enlightening post and comments.🙂

  14. I never felt a debt. I always had more on account that I used as a public, and I spent more time on staff as a volunteer than I ever spent as a customer. But certain people did try to run it on me that I owed them something more than I was giving. I viewed those people as pimps. I guess you have to be from inner city……….. You view product officers as pimps. MAA’s as cops. Int execs as politicians. Abusive seniors as bullies. CMO as the F.B.I.. The you figure out the Church is just like the hood, with the same kind of people in it.

    This eternal debt things sounds like the Godfather taking care of people and expecting to be called in for a favor some day.

    • I mean, the staff can’t see it. Even when David Miscavige is riding in the back of limo texting to his juniors , “Go suck %#*%& on Hollywood Boulevard!”

      But if you grow up in inner city you know about these hats by the time you are in second grade, because your friends teach you to avoid them.

    • David Miscavige is a successful pimp. Sorry. Someone had to say it.

      • Definition of PIMP
        : to make use of often dishonorably for one’s own gain or benefit.

        Synonyms
        abuse, capitalize (on), cash in (on), impose (on or upon), leverage, milk, exploit, play (on or upon), use, work

        Origin of PIMP
        Middle English pymple papule, German Pimpf young boy, kid, literally, little fart, Pumpf, Pumps fart
        First Known Use: 1701

        • Mark N Roberts

          “Little fart.”
          Oracle, that is just precious.

          • Here is your “Big Fart” :
            http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-24/news/mn-1015_1_life-with-l-ron-hubbard
            he Mind Behind the Religion : Life With L. Ron Hubbard : Aides indulged his eccentricities and egotism
            The Scientology Story. Today: The Making of L. Ron Hubbard. First in a six-part series.NEXT: Part Two– The Selling of Scientology.
            June 24, 1990|Joel Sappell and Robert W. Welkos | Time Staff Writers

            L. Ron Hubbard enjoyed being pampered.

            He surrounded himself with teen-age followers, whom he indoctrinated, treated like servants and cherished as though they were his own children.

            He called them the “Commodore’s messengers.”

            ” ‘Messenger!’ ” he would boom in the morning. “And we’d pull him out of bed,” one recalled.

            The youngsters, whose parents belonged to Hubbard’s Church of Scientology, would lay out his clothes, run his shower and help him dress. He taught them how to sprinkle powder in his socks and gently slip them on so as not to pull the hairs on his legs.

            They made sure the temperature in his room never varied from 72 degrees. They boiled water at night to keep the humidity just right. They would hand him a cigarette and follow in his footsteps with an ashtray.

            When Hubbard’s bursitis acted up, a messenger would wrap his shoulders in a lumberjack shirt that had been warmed on a heater.

            Long gone were those days when Hubbard was scratching out a living. Now, in the early 1970s, he fancied silk pants, ascots and nautical caps. It was evident that the red-haired author had enjoyed many a good meal.

            It was a high honor for Scientologists to serve beside Hubbard, even if it meant performing such dreary tasks as ironing his clothes or ferrying his messages. But, for some, it was also disconcerting. The privileged few who worked at his side saw personality flaws and quirks not reflected in the staged photographs or in Hubbard’s biographies.

            They came to know the man behind the mystique.

            They said he could display the temperament of a spoiled child and the eccentricities of a reclusive Howard Hughes.

            When upset, Hubbard was known to erupt like a volcano, spewing obscenities and insults.

            Former Scientologist Adelle Hartwell once testified during a Florida hearing on Scientology that she saw Hubbard “throw fits.”

            “I actually saw him take his hat off one day and stomp on it and cry like a baby.”

            Hubbard had been hotheaded since his youth, when his red hair earned him the nickname “Brick.”

            One of Hubbard’s classmates recalled a day in 11th Grade when the husky Hubbard, for no apparent reason, got into a fight with Gus Leger, the lanky assistant principal at Helena High School in Helena, Mont.

            “Old Gus was up at the blackboard,” recalled Andrew Richardson. “He taught geometry. He was laying out this problem and Brick let loose with a piece of chalk and he missed him. Leger whirled and threw an eraser at Brick, who ducked, and it hit a girl right behind him in the face.”

            Hubbard wrestled with the teacher, then stuffed him into a trash can, said Richardson.

            “We all got to laughing and he (Leger) couldn’t get up,” Richardson said, chuckling at the memory.

            Richardson said that, while the students helped their teacher, Hubbard stormed out and never returned. He left to be with his parents in the Far East, where his father was stationed with the Navy.

            In later life, one thing that could throw the irascible Hubbard into a rage was the scent of soap in his clothes. “I was petrified of doing the laundry,” one former messenger said.

            To protect themselves from a Hubbard tirade, the messengers rinsed his clothes in 13 separate buckets of water.

            Doreen Gillham, who had who spent her teen years with Hubbard, never forgot what happened when a longtime aide offered him a freshly laundered shirt after he had taken a shower.

            “He immediately grabbed the collar and put it up to his nose, then threw it down,” said Gillham, who died recently in a horseriding accident. “He went to the closet and proceeded to sniff all the shirts. He would tear them off the hangers and throw them down. We’re talking 30 shirts on the floor.”

            He let out a “long whine,” Gillham said, and then began screaming about the smell.

            “I picked up a shirt off the floor, smelled it and said, ‘There is no soap on this shirt.’ I didn’t smell anything in any of them. He grudgingly put it on,” said Gillham, who added: “Deep down inside, I’m telling myself, ‘This guy is nuts!’ ”

            Gillham said that Hubbard had become obsessed not only with soap smells but with dust, which aggravated his allergies. He demanded white-glove inspections but never seemed satisfied with the results.

            No matter how clean the room, Gillham said, “he would insist that it be dusted over and over and over again.”

            Gillham, formerly one of Hubbard’s most loyal and trusted messengers, said his behavior became increasingly erratic after he crashed a motorcycle in the Canary Islands in the early 1970s.

            “He realized his own mortality,” she said. “He was in agony for months. He insisted, with a broken arm and broken ribs, that he was going to heal himself and it didn’t work.”

            According to those who knew him well, Hubbard was neither affectionate nor much of a family man. He seemed closer to his handpicked messengers than to his own seven children, one of whom he later denied fathering.

            “His kids rarely, if ever, got to see him,” Gillham said, until his wife Mary Sue “insisted on weekly Sunday night dinners.”

    • “You view product officers as pimps. MAA’s as cops. Int execs as politicians. Abusive seniors as bullies. CMO as the F.B.I.. The you figure out the Church is just like the hood, with the same kind of people in it.”
      Best analogy ever! where I came from you had to be a certified OT to be a pimp….the rest of us were just hoes!

  15. Grasshopper (Mark P)

    Good job on misinterpreting this.

    Mark

  16. Wow Marty, thanks!

    I’ve never read that quote before, but I’ve seen other references from Ron-Deus, stating more or less that one was forever indebted to Scientology and his Lordship.

    I also agree with Mike Rinder’s comment on “the Code of Honor to US” and “the greatest good for the ONLY Dynamic you are allowed to have” that they are pretty damn binding by themselves.

    Scientology is a creepy cult of mind control, so I agree with your very honest and courageous statement that Scientologists cannot be trusted.

    The reasons are simply that Scientologists have bought into Hubbard’s Omniscient status, and they think they are incapable of perceiving Reality and attaining Gnosis without Scientology Tech and off course without Hubbard guidance.

    It is very unfortunate, but I still see similar dramatizations in the independent field, as these seeds are carried internally by Scientologists, and they are having a very tough time detecting and eliminating these imprints.

  17. Truth revealed. Thanks Marty

  18. The point is… All who receive auditing ought to get trained and audit others. That this was not mandatory, is, in my opinion, the real downfall of the Church. If Ron’s Org has put this “in”, it IS the secret of its success.

    • I see it this way too. Those who are trained tend not to interpret things so literally and to see the bigger picture.

      • martyrathbun09

        You noted: “Those who are trained tend not to interpret things so literally and to see the bigger picture.”
        This is I suppose an attempt to imply that the commenter has engaged in more advanced training in scientology than I have. The person who posted it is a) not a trained auditor, b) never made it his profession. As such, this comment fits the definition of trolling – at best.

        • I didn’t mean to imply that. I do have auditor training but nowhere near the amount you have done, let alone your experience with the tech. What I said was just a general observation of auditors I’ve known compared to those who weren’t trained and experienced in the tech.

  19. This reminds me of the Maffia practice: giving protection by enforcing favours. In the context of Scientology: I promise you spiritual eternity (‘a rose garden’), but you will have to do what I want. Is it not Faust and the Devil?
    Scientology: selling you soul to the devil.
    It is blackmail pure and simple.

  20. RON’s stands for Rons Orgnzation and Network for Standard Tech.

    In some countries in Europe, you are tax-exempted if you are an association, and the member fee doesn’t have to be high at all, like 10 dlrs is usual. Like all sports clubs in Denmark are associations with members, membership cards and yearly renewal.

    Per

    • Per Nicely put and the clarification exactly what rons Org is . I certiantrly remember the day we formed that name with Capt Bill way back . Much respect to you Dear per/ Maria from UK /Blog name Hadley/

  21. I am sorry that you cannot recognise anymore the difference between “an obligation to pay back” and the “obligation to yourself to do something about it”.

    In other words LRH has put an “obligation for DUTY” which is quite an odd thing but it looks like still needed for the state we are in. (by the way, I see this state manifesting all around the planet daily with new wars, wars that never end, politicians who never solve things, bad things going on and on and on).

    So, an obligation for duty.

    This is quite weird but still it’s a safeguard against so much aberration that (apparently) exists around. Even in Clears and above as it looks like. I read the text and all it says is there is no way you pay with money for auditing. Do something about this society, that’s a fair pay back. We are not talking about psychotherapy here. I hope some here, do remember what all that was meant to be before some “bright” folks started tampering with Source. Even if you are the prime minister and want to pay with a big cheque, still you owe me a favour. Not for me, but for you, the prime minister. Govern the empire well… Otherwise you are enslaved!!!

    Oh, some people try to not-is Scientology… They try to not-is it from their conscience. To no avail. Well, it looks like it cannot be not-ised. Why? It’s the thing closest to your (true) conscience that exists around. It’s like that one love you once had and then lost. No other love can be closest to you than that. Even Miscavige and those who are backing him up cannot not-is Scientology. They couldn’t not-is it so they try to alter-is it for a long time now.

    So, you owe it to yourself to do something about it and that’s the little “favour” you owe to the auditor or to Scientology or to Hubbard or to God or to whoever anyone feels indebted.

    I am sorry, I am not a fanatic Marty. It just happens, it looks like that on the materials of Scientology that I have read, I managed to get a clear crisp understanding so that I can see that it’s unique. The materials and the knowledge in them are unique.

    I don’t care what happened afterwards. Why the organisation became suppressive and started all the persecutions of loyal Scientologists. You were part of the Mgmt at the time I was declared SP (2000) for insisting on the application of the Translation HCOBs. To no avail. I was forced out and the HCOBs are still in the Red and Green Vols. And the planet is going down at a mad rate now. Need I extrapolate on that? I will just mention the name Gaza. Still in those HCOBs LRH had the solution for the translations of the materials of Scientology in a cheap form and high quality for all of Planet Earth. After all my efforts in vein and great surprise why they wouldn’t be applied, it became a matter not of applying the materials or not (that obviously was not the intention of Mgmt). It became a matter of Who and Why?

    There is no other such material on planet Earth. And it’s value because of that is immense. Now, to stop that material from being known to others is a good way to go insane. It’s just the principle of the dynamics and the survival of a being through the survival of his/her dynamics.

    So, you owe me a little favour, you know what I am saying?

    • Theo,

      “There is no other such material on planet Earth. And it’s value because of that is immense. Now, to stop that material from being known to others is a good way to go insane. It’s just the principle of the dynamics and the survival of a being through the survival of his/her dynamics.”

      That falsehood is how Hubbard got you and others stuck on him and his solutions as a collapsed single point of access to knowing.
      Buddhism alone, with all its traditions and sects, is the largest reservoir of knowledge of the mind and reality in this planet.

      Never mind that YOU are at the access point of knowing.

      Never mind that it is YOU who knows, observes and communicates.

      • C o/nan, it is true that BUddhism and the Vedantic world has accumulated an enormous amount of ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ about the mind(s) and beingnesses of, well, beings. However it is also true, at least to me, that those areas are every bit ‘cults’ and cultlike as The Cult (oops – ‘Church’) of Scientology.

        It appears to me that LRH’s “scientology” differs in some of the specifics of the ‘tech’ and also in how he envisioned the ‘end product’ – ‘the living of a better life and playing of a better game.’ Those were not the goals of vedanta or Buddhism. Buddhism is more egalitarian that Vedanta, but nonetheless prescribes a total commitment to the 8-Fold Path, whereas in Vedic times an ideal society was apparently envisioned as being set up along rigid caste-system lines.
        Plato also believed in a caste system, with limited opportunities for many of its members.
        It reminds of something LRH apparently prescribed – “First, bring Order.” Of course that is a basic attempt of any living being. It seems to me the best we can do is choose what kind of order we attempt to bring to society; in other words, what kind of ideal scene we envision and act towards.

        • Valkov: “It seems to me the best we can do is choose what kind of order we attempt to bring to society; in other words, what kind of ideal scene we envision and act towards.”

          I think the idea scene was expressed in “The Aims of Scientology”:

          “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.”

        • Valkov,

          I didn’t suggest that Scientologists run to the nearest Shanga or throw themselves at the feet of the first guru they find,

          I pointed to the fact that Buddhism contains the largest reservoir of knowledge of the mind in this planet, and that the information is now available to all.

          Scientologists find themselves in Hubbard’s boat doing laps around Hubbard’s lake, thinking that they are in the ocean.

          Essentially Hubbard’s huge bag of tricks, like the one that Marty is presenting here, are designed to keep you in his boat.

          If you want to connect the dots, you need to look elsewhere and begin sailing toward the ocean.

          Then, what is being done in this blog will be self-evident, and Scientologists will be able to truly integrate with the rest of humanity.

          Happy sailing to all!

    • Still Theo, it is in the affluence condition to pay every bill and not make future commitments. If you are forever in debt , even after you paid already, you can never do a proper affluence condition.

      Suggesting to someone that they have a debt they can never repay, suggests the favor or service wasn’t given freely with a clean heart. And there were strings attached.

      There are many hidden strings attached in the Scientology culture. Look at how the people violently turn on someone who decides to “move on” with their life and put the church in the rear view mirror. You have to get your Houdini on to extricate yourself from it. WHY? WHY? Because the think is that you owe them something you can not pay back.

      The staff are convinced they have an ongoing debt, otherwise they wouldn’t toil for 25.00 a week 24/7. Try to take a holiday as a staff member.

      The Church has been in the position to pay their Sea Org staff decent wages for decades. They just don’t do it. The idea is that the labor is OWED.

      I’m all for volunteering for a good cause and donating my time and money.
      But NOT when someone suggests I OWE it.

      Look at how unacknowledged, trivialized, policed, and suppressed the Sea Org Staff are.

      When do the staff ever get thanked? Never. Never. It is always run on them that they have a debt they can not repay. Just like the “duty” button you are pushing here.

      Look at the Church of Scientology right now and see what we all created out of a “duty to our fellow man”. Which one of your fellow man that you know deserve to be sucked into that culture?

      Hubbard was famous for not paying his bills before he mocked up this game. Maybe he thought the pleasure of his company put the people who knew him into a forever debt. One person that trusted him had to travel to Florida and slap a law suit on his ass to run control on his finances. While he attempted to sail off with the man’s girlfriend in a boat he used the man’s money to buy.

      Hubbard was in “must be contributed to” all of his life in a chronic manner.

      Running it on someone that they have a debts they can never repay to you puts you and your organization into chronic “must be contributed to”.

      • When you suggest to someone they have a debt they can never repay, you are condemning them to an existence of eternal adolescence.

        Who do the recruiters go after? The adolescence. What is the mindset of most Sea Org Members, who must obtain written permission to leave the building, are fed by others, told what to wear where to sleep and when to go to bed? Adolescence.

      • “Hubbard was in “must be contributed to” all of his life in a chronic manner.”
        I had a huge realization about this recently…that “must be contributed TO” attitude ran rampant in the church at all levels. It’s taken me a while to get rid of it in myself even. It’s wrapped up in the constant judgmental attitude of the group.

    • The front doors of the Church are propped open now because they “must be contributed to” and the beggars run it 24/7 on the members. “Move up in contribution status” is the new game. MUST BE CONTRIBUTED TO
      is the chronic condition of David Miscavige.

    • martyrathbun09

      Theo, I am happy to see your communications have ratcheted down the violence level. I think it makes you a far better advocate for scientology. However, you noted: “We are not talking about psychotherapy here. I hope some here, do remember what all that was meant to be before some “bright” folks started tampering with Source.”
      Son, do you forget the book L. Ron Hubbard designated as ‘Book One’ – thereby making it scientologists’ equivalent to the book of Genesis – is subtitled, The Modern Science of Mental Health. Would you prefer I use the term ‘mental hygiene’ to describe your program? If you read my writings, and investigate my citations and experiences, I think you will some day learn that the only one “Source” has to blame for tampering with “Source” is “Source” himself.

  22. I think freedom from and obligation to do not mix well.

    What is he saying? That if I see one of his trained therapists and feel good about it, I am obligated to become a therapist myself and heal the world? Is he saying that, essentially, I myself have nothing of value to give to the world if not his therapy?

    I grew up with this burden. The idea that no matter what I do, I will always owe, because after all, Ron thought of the tech, not me. This can lead to strange delusions of grandeur and a sense of irreversible worthlessness on one’s own part. It can also lead to (or stem from) a sense of godlike entitlement on the speaker’s part or his proxies.

    The only way at its level best.

  23. This is a very good point you bring up, Marty.
    In my outlook on life and, more specifically, on its spiritual side, I now hold the fact of such “contracts” as anathema.
    Let me explain: someone gives you knowledge you can use spiritually to enhance yourself. Someone may give you help in times of need. I consider it really wrong if that someone then comes over and says: “Now you owe it to me to do something for me.”
    It’s wrong and it degrades the whole thing. It’s an enslavimg mechanism. I now see that clearly, after I have been greatly helped by this lady I know, who taught me meditation and she did it without any hooks and attachments. She taught me that any such spiritual practices and aids must come free of any charge or duty.
    She taught me that the instinct to help others must be free of any willingness to be repaid and the only repayment should be in the satisfaction of having helped another. I would even go so far as saying to be proud of having helped another.
    I now take pride in helping others without repayment and I refuse to be given any sort of material “exchange”. I, personally, do not see any sort of spiritual practice as work. I could never open an “auditing practice” and make money out of it. It feels wrong to me.
    If someone wants my help they can have it for free or go somewhere else. If they feel inclined to help me, in return, I will most willingly accept their help, without the encumbrance of having to “pay off the debt”.
    It’s the way it works and I make it very clear for everyone I help.
    I believe that, if this outlook were extended to all forms of human services, from schooling to medicine and so forth, Earth would be looking at the next spiritual evolution. Right there and then, we might evolve into our next density.

  24. Debts. The biggest one is the one the Church of Scientology owes to the thousands who sacrificed years of their lives to help it grow, only to meet with betrayal after trust. Its a one-way organization which by its very DNA is out-exchange with its own. Its take, take, take. Lets consider those thousands of Auditors who were never given the time to get their own auditing or given enough to live on while SO reserves were always fed cash. The universal corps which never happened. There are debts outstanding, and they are owed to the current and former staffs and society by an out-exchange organization. Auditors are valuable people because they can or try to grant beingness to others. But along with everyone else they are used, abused and cast aside once they questioned authority or were low producers. If you were looking for an example of a parasitic and out-exchange organization, the Church of Scientology would serve as an excellent example. L. Ron Hubbard was a master manipulator who used our most altruisitic tendencies to squeeze as much blood out of us as he could. There is a debt to be paid. And it will be paid. Each has their own Karma or destiny. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

    • Loki,

      Like someone once said:

      The most dangerous lies are the ones almost true, or partly true, or truths that contain embedded lies (like a Trojan horse).

      The truth can be the best bait in the universe.

      The more truth there is on a cognitive set up (a fabrication), the more the truth acts as a glue to hold the embedded lie in place, which is thereafter not inspected, but defended to death.

      Dio

    • singanddanceall

      I’m reminded of the policy one reads eventually once one joins staff at an mission, org, or SO.

      You know, the one that says “No Case of Post”.

      Isn’t there even an ethics condition for a crime or something of having “case on post”.

      If that is the case, then maybe I should re-evaluate the PL to include “no case in life”, or maybe even “no sae in session” LOL

      Instant “clear”……….LOL

  25. For ever being in debt and always owing the boss a favour . . . hmmm, now where have I heard that technique before. Oh yeah, the mafia.

  26. Ruedi Maurhofer

    This is a little bit racistique, Marty. I agree / concur with you very much regarding the analyzed functions. But by taking a bad habit or routine with which the world is interstratified and blaming it to Scientologists or LRH especially, you are not helpful. The words responsibility, duty, solidarity or their concepts are misused across most universes. Good if and where this misuse is discontinued – but to blame it especially to a group (kind of “race”) which is just one drop of water in the sea I can’t applaud.
    I wouldn’t trust Scientologists in this matter, true. But the people whom I would trust in this matter are, of those who I know, countable on my both hands (and perhaps I would need the feet too, didn’t count really). Scientologists are not the selected ones for this bad routine, they are just no exception. You make them an exception with your wordings, which I call a bit racistique.

    • +1

      Insightful.

    • martyrathbun09

      You noted: “This is a little bit racistique, Marty.”
      This sounds like something Sean Hannity has said or implied countless times about Barack Obama; each time betraying – if one really watches – that he is accusing others of his own misguided intentions. Entering race into the equation is as rational as entering cat’s eyes. Yours is a self-interested ideological group that you choose to be a member of. Scientology’s proclivity for screaming for discrimination and human rights protections is another disservice it does to actual racial groups who had to fight for their rights to equal protection under law. None of those people signed onto programs like scientology’s that claims ‘you are the ones who own the planet’, and then go about treating all others as if they in fact do.

      • Ruedi Maurhofer

        Good PR-handling in good old Scientology style – attack. One other thing which LRH has driven to some perfection and indoctrinated, but was there before him and is there after him – as your comment shows, for example.
        The only group I choose to be a member of is the “foundation for ecological development”, which’s ideology is probably the most distant possible from the given cause. (I didn’t choose awarely to be a member of “man of the white race” and “Swiss citizen”, which latter I also don’t see any point to change (what for?) and former I may perhaps change for next life, but couldn’t before, and which both are not ideological any more or less than others of comparable range). Thus you cannot attack “my group”, only me and my values, please, if you don’t want to really enter what I pointed to.
        If you really don’t understand what I meant with “race” / “racistique” here, I apologize for not having chosen the best words and made it sound more critical than it was meant. Probably “partial” or “biased” would have been the better choice, after second look into my vocabulary and the english dictionary. Doesn’t change, from my sight, anything on the substantial pointing – except one takes it for PR.
        If you wish to discuss this substantial pointing, you’re welcome. But I won’t enter a bossy fight.

  27. In spite of a lot of truth in peoples views ref Max Hauri email notification to Mark Rinders blog .
    Some data to put the whole issue of Rons Org inperpective and that is some recongnition to Capt Bill Robertson since he actually is in fact the one that started the Rons Org up. .Ref Admin Breifings 1-2-3- 4/5 6/ and it was through him and many that helped him along the road to where it is now .Theirs many that privately deliver and hold camps and conventions both within europe and russia . It has a reputation of maintaining High ARC.

    We began with little rumours of indepts way back mid 1980’s or latter part , and the private chats in peoples houses began getting to hear who had been diseffected . Then there were groups speaking of alternatives outside the church , hense a recruitemt process took place in West Germany Frankfurt with some loyal people close to Capt Bill.. Myself located Capt Bill Robertson who then was in Spain working with another scientologist in the jewelry business , Capt Bill as he has always been known was a Class 8 came to visit in frankfurt on a tour he was doing for his work within Spain.

    He knew myself from St Hill when he was married to Joan Robertson.
    many of the first Class 7’s were made there. Peter Sparshott. Connie Braodbent , J Mc Master loads could be named. .Anyway. Over a meal with freinds myself and some others invited him to stay and there had been a lot of people asking how could they be csed outside the church and carry on.

    We provided a place for him to stay. and a place to CS and do auditing /and train people . Thanks to the frankfurt people that made that possible.I am very proud to have been part of that and to ensure there were made ways for any and all diseffected people from the church to be able to receive there bridge . Capt Bill was well liked in the Rons Org and people appreciated his value of knowledge .He gave a tremedous amount to Rons Org .
    He was a wonderful person and I had the pleasure to be his communcator and assistance to setting up the rons Org europe up until the end when he sadly died. But it carries on.Thank you to Those that helped throughout along the wayboth in Europe and America Australia South africa. England and Russia etc. / Hadley

  28. I wanted to dispute this blanket accusation about Scientolgists. In the worst way. I could not with reason, because there was always something there to remind me. Of the treason.

    But there were people that reached because they cared. I remember them too clearly. Maybe it was just that moment and me and them. But it mattered and my trust was warranted. They matter too.

    • This kind of reminds me of something that happened to me, that I have never shared with anyone before. Not that is was the biggest things that happened to me in Scientology.

      But, when I decided to join the Sea Org, the local people where I was on lines kind of staged an intervention to talk me out of doing that.I blew them off.

      When I left the Sea Org, I paid off my Sea Org Debt before I left the building so I was in good standing. I was still in communication with all of the Scientologists I knew.

      I was kind of down in the dumps with “survivors guilt”, and a whole bunch of public in the area got me into an office of an opinion leader. He called one of the people that had been one of my very very best friends in the Sea Org, and put her on speaker phone. He asked her what happened to me and why I was not around. In front of all of them I heard her fair game me and discount me in every way possible. That treason really blew my mind.

      But they were there for me. That was really heavy. That really shook me up.
      And it really helped me move on.

    • Alan Hubbard I could trust. I don’t really care if nobody else could trust him.
      That guy threw himself in front of every pot hole I could have fallen in at the Flag Land Base. In the worst moments of my life he ran under me like bridge over troubled water. That guy was medicinal 24/7. I was able to trust that Scientologist. The problem there, was that I did not trust myself. And I let us both down.

  29. Wow. Thanks, Marty.

    That’s probably the most important observation I’ve encountered that expresses why “the hook” can set so deep that even after one has departed the cult, the obsession continues.

    One’s most intimate realizations and desires have been “owned” by L.Ron Hubbard, and thus the “Church”. It’s implicit in the whole culture: gratitude to the holy saviour which can never be repaid but only somewhat balanced by tying others to the same yoke.

  30. Great post, Marty.

    Being a Scientologist is like being married to THE ULTIMATE NARCISSIST. It’s a complete one-way-street. You are forever in debt to me because I say so. A very unhealthy relationship that only has one solution – DIVORCE.

  31. Dharma-duty, righteous obligation is not a policy of payback like Ron so strictly and authoritatively has just written.

    Obligation is an act of free will, spawned within one’s own conscience, determined by one’s own sense of right and wrong and freely given, not by an authority.

    Ron is here mixing religious obligation and Scientology expansionism.

    And to a great degree he is denigrating the state of clear by implying that a clear is incapable of creating actions valuable enough to give back.

    What if a clear, because he was clear invented some desease curing medicine?

    Once again we have a brainwashing for receptive sheep. A “must be true” because it is in writting.

    The entire agreement of “if it’s not in writting it is not true” is brainwashing by the written word.

  32. Man, this one really got me thinking.

    A couple of years ago Anita and I decided we wanted to expand our training area. We hired a guy to sup for us. His penchant was not suping, it was just one-on-one auditing. He was very skilled. He’d been on staff for many years, was very well trained, but had been stuck on Grade II for over 20 years. His “case” was not in good shape.

    He did a great job helping train some auditors and solo auditors. We moved him from stuck on Grade II all the way through NOTs.

    When he told me he was going to leave the academy and go out on his own to audit some out of town PCs he seemed to feel like he was somehow letting me down.

    I looked at him and with utter sincerity and I told him, “You don’t owe me anything. Our exchange is completely in. Your life is your own to live.”
    I could feel a burden lift off him when I said that. I could also feel a liberation in my own universe.

    To me, the entire purpose of auditing another is to help restore that person’s power of choice. Completing the cycle of imposed obligations would seem to be a necessary part of that. We are done. You do not owe me, I do not owe you. We are both free to remain involved in some mutual activity or we are both free to move on.

    I don’t owe anyone my help. No one owes me anything for my help beyond the agreement made when it was offered. I’ve delivered hundreds of hours for free. The idea of implanting an obligation of future recompense is actually repugnant to me…it traps both of us. A willing exchange in abundance is nice, but not really necessary and certainly not required. An exchange in abundance with the hidden intention of, “now you owe me,” is actually a con.

    • That is awesome, Les. Thank You.

    • Great post Les. XXOO

    • Nice Les. Thanks for saying that.

    • Beautiful, Les. By your example you show that it can be this way. And this is definitely the way it should be. Sometimes when one assists someone out in a big way that changes their life in a positive manner, they do feel indebted on different levels even though they may have exchanged monetarily for that help. They value the help which they have received far more than the money they paid. This is good. It is called “exchanging in abundance.” But on the other end of the “transaction” it is true that the other guy can sometimes feel indebted. The way I apply this policy in my life is that if someone brings up feeling this way, I just ask that they help someone else when the opportunity arises. “Pay It Forward” in other words. Sounds like this is exactly what your guy is doing. I am sure that your CS has already said this but, “VERY WELL DONE”. : -)

    • Perfect comment Les.

    • I’ll put my comment here under Les’ comment as wish to say something about debt, and I like what Les said.

      Les said: “The idea of implanting an obligation of future recompense is actually repugnant to me…it traps both of us. A willing exchange in abundance is nice, but not really necessary and certainly not required. An exchange in abundance with the hidden intention of, “now you owe me,” is actually a con.”

      I think Marty’s post brings rightful attention to how “debt” can be used as a dangerous tool to enslave others.

      When in 1972 I first heard LRH talk about the “dozen men” in RJ 67, that intrigued me, so at a later point in my life I spent time researching. Des Griffin’s book “Descent Into Slavery” was helpful. Basically what happened is in the mid and late 1700’s and from that period forward a certain European banking family learned how to create banking relationships with governments and then put the governments in debt to them. That is now the global scene with all the governments that matter being in debt the same way. I think these days this is now widely understood. Governments answer to those they are indebted to. I don’t see that changing. Debt can be a wicked tool. Very wicked.

  33. Another reason Scientology can’t be trusted:

    Their front groups like CCHR are not motivated by pure helping. They are PR activities meant to sell products.

    When Scientology aligns with other religions, it does not do so in good faith. They actually feel these religions are dramatizing R6 and they use the positioning as PR to sell products.

    When Scientology goes out to help with disaster it is to sell products as the final stat.

    And Scientology cannot be trusted because their cosmology of space opera creates a delusional definition of society thus inspiring actions to fight the shadows of cosmic evil SPs that have their beginnings within the persecution complex unconscious of Ron himself.

    Scientology is the institutionalization of L Ron Hubbard’s psychology, fixed ideas, some original approaches to the mind, need for money and power, and total ignorance of the true nature of spirit.

    • You grant no beingness or rightness to anyone that has profited from Scientology. You grant no value. Even though you yourself saw some value or experienced some value at one time. That is the same as invalidating yourself. The way you define Scientology is not the way I define it. You make nothing out of it all and you make nothing out of Hubbard. You don’t own one minute of the “You” that sat on post as a Sea Org M.A.A.. And you thereby make nothing out of everyone that walked with path as a curious. Seriously you come off as consistently hysterical. Just pull yourself together and own something, anything. And try to pop away from the constant blame.

      • This is a great comment, Oracle, particularly the part where you mention that someone who has had benefit from Hubbard’s Scientology, and then grants it and him no value at all, is also invalidating themselves. I am sorry that LRH apparently acted weirdly and did some nasty things in his life. I have compassion for him and for anyone who was negatively affected. But I will not therefore deny the real benefits I have had in my life from having his discoveries applied to me and the benefits that others have had by me applying them to others. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
        My favorite analogy to this phenomenon is Sir Isaac Newton. He is documented to have had several psychotic breaks, was depressed, and acted in a bizarre manner at times, etc. So now what? Do we invalidate his valuable discoveries the fields of Calculus, the laws of motion and the law of gravity?

        • Espiritu wrote:

          “My favorite analogy to this phenomenon is Sir Isaac Newton. He is documented to have had several psychotic breaks, was depressed, and acted in a bizarre manner at times, etc. So now what? Do we invalidate his valuable discoveries the fields of Calculus, the laws of motion and the law of gravity?

          Once again, your comparison of L Ron Hubbard to Isaac Newton is inapt, at best. At worst, it’s a delusion that many Scientologists share, probably based on a high degree of scientific illiteracy.

          Calculus, the laws of motion, and the law of gravity, were all presented – by Newton – to Newton’s peers. They were scientifically scrutinized and criticized and tested by them, his results duplicated in countless independent experiments, and found to be sound for 100s of years now – producing manned space flights to the moon and spacecraft link-ups with comets just this week.

          A belief in Isaac Newton, and an adoption of his ideology, is not required at all to use his discoveries in physics and math.

          L Ron Hubbard’s “discoveries”, on the other hand, were not allowed to be tested by anyone else, and anyone who scrutinized or even criticized them was fair gamed by him and his followers – with not one of his discoveries able to be duplicated by any one else who was not also a kool-aide drinking Scientologist.

          One must totally buy in to the ideology of Scientology for L Ron Hubbard’s “discoveries” to “work”.

          The two men and their discoveries are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, and are NOT COMPARABLE AT ALL.

          You are such a good writer and such an obviously smart man. Yet you keep comparing these two completely different men and their work.

          Why?

          Alanzo

          • Apt comparisons to L Ron Hubbard in terms of the man and his work:

            The Dalai Lama and his Buddhist commentaries
            Jim Jones and The Peoples’ Temple
            Karl Marx and Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto
            Freud and Psychotherapy
            Adolph Hitler and MeinKampf
            Will and Ariel Durant and “The Story of Philosophy”

            The Founder of Scientology was a founder of an ideology (like Communism or Freudian psychotherapy), but not like a scientist and his scientific discoveries.

            Scientology is an ideology.

            There is nothing in Scientology that has anything to do with science.

            Scientific literacy is a real thing that one can learn many valuable things from, especially in the way that our society runs today.

            Scientific literacy is a must if you are going to understand Scientology and put it into its proper context, and if you are going to make apt connections of comparable magnitude to it.

            Read this short article to get started:

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

            Alanzo

            • Alanzo,
              Methinks thou doth protest too much.
              Methinks also that thou mighteth findeth benefit in looking up the words “belief” and “believe” in a dictionary.
              Beliefs are ordinarily the results of conclusions based on observations. Everyone has “beliefs” including those who identify themselves with the label “Scientist”. Every “Scientific” theory is a belief. A “Scientific” fact (or any “fact”) is nothing but the preponderance of agreement on a theory. The only time beliefs can be detrimental is if they become fixed beliefs which a person then refuses to re-examine.
              Methinketh also that thou geteth a bitteth arrogant when thou slingeth about words like “Science”, Scientifiic”, and “Peer Review” with such wild abandon as a means to discredit a point of view.
              Did you actually read the bullshit Wikipedia article that you posted? It implies that there is a special group of people who know how to observe and reason and that apparently most people can’t. In other words “you are stupid if you do not agree with my point of view”.
              Here is an excerpt from that article:
              “A scientifically literate person is defined as one who has the capacity to:
              -understand experiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning,
              -ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences,
              -describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena,
              -read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions,
              -identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed,
              -evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it,
              -pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately.”
              I mean, come on Alanzo. I highly doubt that you buy this shit yourself. Talk about being a “believer” in the worst churchy sense of he word. The article is just chock full of vaguely defined buzz words and vacuous statements.
              Regarding it being necessary to “believe” Scientology in order to observe whether it works or not, in my study of the subject of Scientology, I never believed a word that Hubbard said was true unless I observed it to be true for myself. I am L. Ron Hubbard’s “peer” and that is how it was meant to be since he designed the subject as a heuristic science.
              Sorry for the $50 word. Here is what I mean by Heuristic in this usage: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/heuristic
              I humbly appreciate your compliment about me being good writer. Thank you. I don’t know if my being a good writer is quite true for me, but I do feel that I can think fairly clearly. I use the logic of Socrates and Plato (and also Hubbard) to the best of my ability. I do not need a “peer”, appointed by God knows whom to tell me what is or is not real or true for me.
              And so my dear friend, Alanzo, may I suggest that you try out some parts of the spiritual technology of Scientology yourself and then see for yourself if any of those things are true for you. If they are all false, then it would be fair to say that Scientology is complete bullshit……for you.
              And as for Newtonian physics, I hope that you do not depend on peer review to tell you whether or not Isaac’s principles are true when that apple lands on your head. :- )
              And now, methinks that I too hath protestethed too much. : -)

              • Espiritu wrote:

                And now, methinks that I too hath protestethed too much. : -)

                Shit!!

                You took that one away from me!! I was going to use that on you!!! (:>)

                There is a difference between a fact and a belief, Espiritu.

                If you go outside to your back yard and read the thermometer, and it says 90 degrees, then it is a fact that your particular thermometer at this particular time and place, reads 90 degrees.

                That is a fact.

                A belief would be that global warming had something to do with your thermometer making that reading.

                Facts and beliefs are different.

                Sanity and correct decision-making requires that you can see that difference.

                This is such an important distinction in thinking which L Ron Hubbard tried to blur in Scientologists that it is probably one of the most damaging things that happens to a person once they adopt the ideology of Scientology to do their thinking for them.

                I do understand what you have to say about the tyranny of a scientific establishment. When science is used to supplant religion, there is a very dangerous possibility of a priestly class on a par with a Scientology government.

                But being scientifically literate actually makes you understand the limits of science.

                Really. Scientific literacy is important. You have rejected that importance, and that is why you continue to compare L Ron Hubbard to Isaac Newton.

                I have shown why your comparison is inapt.

                Thank you for answering.

                Alanzo

              • Oh! Oh! Espiritu!!

                I just thought of a great question to ask you about facts and beliefs!

                If reality is agreement, and so few people agree that Scientology is true, then how can Scientology be reality?

                Do you see the problem with this Scientology statement that “reality is agreement?”

                In Scientology thinking, facts are just widely agreed upon considerations, as you said.

                So what about those facts that no one agrees upon?

                Like when Isaac Newton laid out the 2nd law of thermodynamics or Alan Turing invented the math for the first computers – no one knew anything about these things and had not had a chance to agree upon them yet.

                So under your Scientologic, how could they “turn out” to be true?

                Weren’t they true all along, despite anyone’s agreement with them?

                Awaiting your intelligent reply….

                Alanzo

                • I nominate this for Most Disingenuous Post Of The Year.

                • Mark N Roberts

                  Hi there Alonzo.
                  Thank you for the ack. in your post earlier. I will address it a little later.

                  As I recall, all the extant physical and mathematical laws in effect today were developed long before me or Ron or Newton or Moses. Myself, and I BELIEVE everyone else, agreed to them when we bought tickets into this universe. They were actually in development even before this series of large common universes. One of the earliest was formerly referred to as the games universe, which I more properly categorize in the large common universes. The home universe, I put in the group of games universes. Small, locally manufactured universes built for enjoyment and competition by local vendors, so to speak. (This was a fun time) The tone scale was also developed during this time. It’s original purpose was to be able to give and receive interesting sensations. (Emotions were later used for punishments, penalties, but it didn’t start out that way.) Enthusiasm, action, and serenity used to be the primary ’emotions’.

                  I hope you find my little fairy tales at least entertaining. I should write stories the way A. E. Van Vougt did. He audited with the purpose of getting Sci. Fi. material. Space opera, mind control stories. My Father discussed this and Scn. at a dinner with him.

                  He once wrote a story about a guy who was very lucky at gambling. Natural luck. He was nabbed by the casino owners and kept at a drug, hypnosis, sex center for a week. Sort of a non stop orgy, run by doctors. He was never lucky after that. That story rang a few bells.
                  Mark
                  The Weapon Shops of Isher, The Weapon Makers.

                  • Mark, your first- hand data – observations of the track – is invaluable.

                    • Marildi actually wrote:

                      Mark, your first- hand data – observations of the track – is invaluable.

                      I have these “first hand data – observations of the track” too, from my own auditing on FPRD Basic Form, FPRD First Dynamic Form, and from various other auditing actions that I had while in Scientology.

                      These auditing incidents, as described by Mark NR, seen in one’s mind as responses to auditing questions, are not invaluable.

                      In fact I have found that any value assigned to them has to be sprinkled with lots of caveats and placed in many conditional bins. As day to day reasoning and decision-making go, these auditing incidents and “observations” can be a huge liability if you take them too seriously.

                      Story telling is the basis of self-identity. And when you let these stories dominate who you tell yourself you are, you become delusional.

                      That is not invaluable.

                      Alanzo

                    • Alanzo: “As day to day reasoning and decision-making go, these auditing incidents and ‘observations’ can be a huge liability if you take them too seriously.”

                      There’s still hope for you Al, as expressed in this comment by The Oracle:

                      “You just let people drift off their illusions and face the truth about it all. And I guarantee you, that person will drift on over as time goes on and see, yeah, there were some good things I can think with and use. Maybe 20% or 5% or if they kick off and in between lives becomes a real and current issue, they might think with 60% of it.”

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Hi Alonzo.
                      I’d love to hear some of your ‘observations’, uh, I mean fantasies. Most of mine are as a poor dirt farmer or laborer. Nothing dishonorable in that, just not as good a story. Most of my stories weren’t beaten out of me by a Senior Sec Checker.
                      Mark

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Guess I’m just lucky.
                      Wish you luck.
                      Mark

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Thanks Marildi, it’s been a wild ride.
                      Speaking of which, did you catch my comment on resolving past ethics conditions multiple flows? Wow.

                      Spent a couple of hours on it today. Sheee..iiiiitt. Pardon me.
                      The confusions, the heartache, the losses, the ARC breaks that could have been averted. The problems that will be averted and solved in the future. And that is just keeping it local. (This lifetime.) I am not ‘doing’ ethics formulas on past conditions. I am resolving errors made due to lack of knowledge and lack of a pro-survival agenda.

                      I still have a lot of work to do. The exact methodology, structure, safeguards, before going deeper.

                      To borrow a phrase from Ron, “I never cease to be amazed at the quantity of gain available.” And this is rich.
                      ARCL, Mark

                    • Yes, Mark, I did see your posts on resolving past ethics conditions, and I really admire your work – all of it!

                      One niggling thought keeps popping up at me that I’ve been meaning to ask you about. It relates to this passage from 8-80:

                      “Thus there is a compulsion early on the track to have facsimiles. Then as one ceases to ‘know,’ one is at length no longer in control of his facsimiles but is their victim. Given enough facsimiles a man dies, a theta being decays until it can’t even be a Man.

                      “How, then, does one strip away facsimiles from the present time of the preclear? The auditor would have to audit billions of them to erase all the facsimiles the preclcar has made or ‘borrowed’ and which now act heavily upon him, giving him illness, degradation and aberration as well as amnesia as to his actual past.

                      “We can rehabilitate the preclear by raising his ability to create energy and thus bring him to a ‘speed’ which has sufficient output for him to overcome facsimiles. We do this by erasing or reducing certain facsimiles and, in doing so, retrain our preclear to produce a higher energy potential.”
                      .

                      I think the above approach is what LRH basically continued to try to do – i.e. to get pc’s to reduce enough of their facsimiles that they would then be capable of doing processes that would bring them up to such a “speed” that they could overcome any un-run facsimiles.

                      From what I’ve gathered, pc’s weren’t generally making it on the original OT levels, before NOTs was developed, apparently due to the influence of entities. And if the original OT levels had been kept on the Bridge, to be done after NOTs and before OT VIII, I wonder what would have resulted. Reportedly, the NOTs processes were not intended by LRH to replace the original OT levels, and OT VIII was supposed to have been the first real OT level (below which are “pre-OT levels”).

                      Actually, I wonder what in fact has resulted for those pc’s outside the CoS who have followed that original route. I have the impression from accounts I’ve read that some of them truly are getting positive gain in terms of OT abilities.

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Hi Marildi.
                      Sorry for the delay. I consider these questions important. All I can give you are my opinions based on my observations which are such a small part of the whole picture.
                      LRH via Marildi “….The auditor would have to audit billions of them to erase all the facsimiles the preclcar has made or ‘borrowed’….” Context being that this is impractical and boosting an individuals HP is a better way.
                      I believe that I may have given the idea that examining my past is the only work I will do. Others have stated that past looking is a dead end and actually dangerous.
                      Ron said later”…. to get pc’s to reduce enough of their facsimiles that they would then be capable of doing processes that would bring them up to such a “speed” that they could overcome any un-run facsimiles. ….”
                      I think he was on the right track but didn’t get it quite right. Oh, no insult intended, no one before or since got it perfect for everyone. He got really stuck on BTs and also never fully resolved basic GPMs and got hung up on implant GPMs. (According to my observations and experience.) These errors effectively barred him from doing thorough past track work. Many past track incidents and chains need to be traced back to more basic considerations, even after the cognition, basic, prior confusion, etc. Recognizing when to and when not to do this is vital.
                      But the premise is quite valid and, for me, correct. This can make more positive processes possible, which in turn, will further open up the vast confusions on the whole track.
                      I don’t believe that every moment of you’re vast past has to be reviewed. But it certainly needs to be more complete than is currently being done.
                      As far as the order of the OT levels, I think it needs to be completely re-researched, having now the luxury of 60 years of successes and failures.
                      Mark

                    • Hi, Mark,

                      My turn to apologize for the delay. Your post sort of got lost in the shuffle! But in mainly, I just wanted to thank you for considering my question and for the thorough answer you gave.

                      I think it’s great that you are doing all this research – and getting so much out of it. That in itself says to me that it is valuable work, and potentially so for many others too. I really do get the feeling that you’re on the right track. And I love the other topics you write about too. You go from the most “down home” stuff to the most esoteric.😉

                      ARCL, marildi

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Facsimiles.
                      As far as I can see, it is something that started off simple and got very complicated. (Isn’t that always the case.)
                      First let me separate considerations/opinions, and facsimiles. Considerations are basic operating principles that we operate by. It is how we decided to do things. We have all made every consideration on every subject, many times over. We choose which ones to follow from moment to moment, day to day, era to era. We get stuck on some for awhile, maybe a long while, then something happens and we switch and do things another way. They are all justified by countless times of proving them correct, then we change our minds and justify the other side, backed by countless ‘observations’. Down through the ages, ‘identity’ has been hopelessly entwined with purposes, opinions, considerations. This is part of the phenomenon of ‘permanent restimulation’.

                      ‘Good times’ and ‘accomplishments’ are the most basic, most powerful, and most difficult to recognize and be free from, of considerations. They make up who you believe you are, your likes and dislikes, what you like and want to do, how you prefer to operate. Your opinions. Your basic operating principles.

                      Then facsimiles got added to the mix. They are a mechanical thing, added later, usually as a suggestion, then as a requirement. Some are carried around with you day and night, year after year, but most are brought up and thrown away moment by moment. It is not exactly accurate that you carry a complete record of every moment at all times. But you do carry the capability of creating a record to be viewed of any moment, at any moment. This is the actual mass, energy that shows up on a meter or adds weight to a body. The mass that is being created/discarded minute by minute of every day. This has become an obsession and has gotten very complicated.

                      But it is secondary to and driven by basic opinions, operating habits. They are the ‘things’ which can thoroughly obscure the ‘whys’. We use facsimiles as a constant reminder of our basic opinions, a previously mentioned ‘string around the finger’. This string around the finger became an endless number of nooses around the neck. We have used them for so long that now we can’t do without them. To compound the problem, we have organized them into little machines. Example; 2+2, 27×11. A machine built from facsimiles to do a particular job for us. A machine, obsessively rebuilt from memory every time we need it. WE LIKE IT, SO WE KEEP IT. We can do it better ourselves, but the machine was cool, clever when it was built, so we got used to it and now depend on it. Same with the so called reactive bank. Rebuilt each time we obsessively think we need it.
                      Example; I felt better in the past when I drank fresh iced tea first thing in the morning. Now I really ‘want’ fresh iced tea in the morning. Example; There were several times when a child stopped doing a dangerous thing after being whipped. Now I whip them often to keep them from doing dangerous things. The insanity is justified by past opinions and just gets deeper and deeper, little by little, over an enormous length of time. None of this is new, but I hope it is a little more understandable.

                      Yes, I examine a lot of facsimiles, but always with the purpose of finding the underlying considerations on which they are based.
                      Mark

                    • Mark, I think I got all that. My question would be, when does the search for considerations, purposes,opinions and identities end – when they no longer exist?

                      As an analogy, I was looking at the being’s identity as being similar to their physical body. In other words, it has a certain shape and size, certain abilities and disabilities. I think Ron may even have said that theoretically one could gradually as-is a body. But why would we want to do that – the body is a structure that we use to play the game we’re playing. And that also seems to be the purpose of the “mental body” which shapes our identity in this universe.

                      Maybe this is what the Buddhists are essentially doing – setting themselves free of, or at cause over, their “spiritual body, ” i.e. their identity – at least on a temporary basis with respect to those who have reached nirvana but are still alive and functioning with both a body and a spiritual identity. Would that express your quest too?

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Marildi.
                      ….”when does the search for considerations, purposes,opinions and identities end…”
                      I have no idea. Sometimes I have a need for a big juicy hamburger. Once satisfied, the need is over,,,till next week. I have plenty of time.

                      Perhaps the time will come when the need is done…for a few millennium. Then I’ll drop back and have another look. Perhaps I’ll come to a point where I will completely change the parameters, completely do away with the rule that your past affects the present and future in an undesirable way.

                      … “mental body” (spiritual body) which shapes our identity in this universe… ”

                      I think of all these things as invented add on’s. I’m just looking for every instance where I gave up my choice. To be able to be congenial or ruthless, a mechanic or a poet, a leader or a follower, easily, without repression or obsession, as conditions call for. Of course, having the wisdom to know who to be and what is the right thing to do at the right time is all part of it.

                      Having complete control over your knowledge, not your knowledge having control over you.

                      The final step? Having absolutely no concern about this whatsoever. This will come at the end, not at the beginning. Starting with no concerns is apathy, ending with no concerns is serenity.

                      “The way out is the way through.” You have to do the deeds to reap the rewards. Doing is senior to thinking. Endless contemplating interiorizes one into the mud and just makes your butt sore.

                      So few on this site are ‘Doing’ anything to make worthwhile improvements in themselves. Sad. Like Bill Clinton arguing over the definition of ‘is’ or ‘the’. If one haggles for a week, trying to decide whether the tomato plants need a little more nitrogen or a little more potash, the plant dies from lack of water.
                      Mark

                    • Searh is all about spotting and sorting out inconsistencies. It ends when all inconsistencies have been sorted out.

                      ________________________________

                    • Thanks, Mark. You answered my question completely. Very insightful comments and so practical. And btw, for you to say in a recent post that I was practical was a nice compliment coming from you, and appreciated.🙂 The other thing is how “light on your mental feet” you are. I came up with that phrase one time and no one fits it better than you.
                      ARCL,
                      marildi

                  • Mark answered:

                    “As I recall, all the extant physical and mathematical laws in effect today were developed long before me or Ron or Newton or Moses. Myself, and I BELIEVE everyone else, agreed to them when we bought tickets into this universe.

                    So FACTS were developed then, way back on the track, by agreement of the thetans as they bought the tickets into this universe.

                    So that is when FACTS became the same as BELIEFS?

                    So you also say there is now no difference between a FACT and a BELIEF because of this whole track agreement?

                    I’m wondering how many Scientologists, when they really think about it, think there is no difference between a FACT and a BELIEF.

                    Alanzo

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Alonzo.
                      “So that is when FACTS became the same as BELIEFS?
                      So you also say there is now no difference between a FACT and a BELIEF because of this whole track agreement?”

                      Seems quite a stretch from my original comment, but , OK, got it. You are quite clever.
                      Mark

                    • Mark wrote:

                      It isn’t a matter of being clever. It is a matter of being able to see the logical consequences of thinking with Scientology.

                      IF, as you say, “all the extant physical and mathematical laws in effect today were developed long before me or Ron or Newton or Moses. Myself, and I BELIEVE everyone else, agreed to them when we bought tickets into this universe.”

                      Then the extant physical and mathematical laws in effect today are, as Ron said, only “agreed upon considerations”. And as a thetan, you can disagree with them and make your postulates stick.

                      Right?

                      This is the whole logical rationale for the rehabilitation of the thetan as described on the PDCs and written in 8-8008.

                      A logical consequence of this thinking is found in Scientologist’s posts such as Espiritu’s and yours: that FACTS are just really BELIEFS held by thetans.

                      So if I’m just being clever, and you do not think that facts are the same as beliefs from this way of Scientology thinking, then please tell me the difference between a fact and a belief.

                      Alanzo

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Here is a little mind game, just for fun.
                      Lets say you are a psychic, you can read minds. In fact, you can see and feel others thoughts. You’re really good. You are also a member of a club of psychics who meet every Thursday night for brandy. They are also really good at this.
                      Each meeting, one member dreams up a little scenario. This time, a meadow with a giant oak tree in the middle. All the other psychics can read your mind and see the meadow and tree. But one member wants to add a gentle breeze and the smell of honeysuckle. You and everyone else can read minds so they all feel and smell it also. You all put these imaginations together into the same imagination. It’s fun and you all practice putting imaginations together. Joe over here, puts in some dirt and flowers. Jennifer sees herself laying in the grass in a blue dress and everyone says yea, that’s nice, I’ll join in. Everyone adds their little pleasantries and it becomes more rich and varied.
                      The whole game becomes more like a melding or a sharing of minds. By the end of the eventing and 4 brandies later, you all forget who made the meadow in the first place. Well, it’s time to go home but someone says “We made a really good one this week, it’s a shame we have to lose it.” All say yea, lets put someone in charge of memorizing it and saving it each week. Someone says “I’ll do it this week.” You all have total recall and it’s no problem. Next week it’s all there ready to add more to.
                      A few weeks later, Adam says “Instead of one person remembering it, we will all copy a picture of it and we can visit it through the week when we need to get away for awhile.” Sounds great.
                      The group gets larger, there are lots of psychics in your neighborhood. Each is proud of the little special things they imagine and add to the club’s scenario. People begin to prefer this paradise to their mundane daily lives and become addicted to it. Some begin to squabble over what should be added and removed. They elect a board of directors to approve of changes. Members are tired of arguing, so they all say “Yea, that’s a good idea.” A couple say “No, that’s not fair, who are they to say what is right and fair?” They get removed from the club. One of them apologizes and agrees to be nice from now on.
                      The club grows. Some go off their rockers and start to stay in the game longer and longer, it’s very addictive. More and more become completely psychotic and stay in the dream all the time. They cant even think of themselves outside of it any more. Some get kicked out for making trouble or messing up sections that everyone else liked. They always came back and promised to be good.

                      How long would it take for this dream to become completely real and solid. A week, a century, a millennium” How real could it get once the outside world is forgotten. How hard would you fight or how low would you grovel to stay in, when the alternative was a completely mundane, worthless existence, practically alone.
                      A cute little story, but of course, it could never happen to me. There is no such thing as a real psychic, and I’m too smart to get sucked into something like that. Not me.
                      Just a cute little story.
                      Mark

                    • Mark –

                      I realize that this is how you tell yourself it goes. This is your explanation for how the world got here. It is a scientologist’s cosmology.

                      I also realize that, as a scientologist, you believe that everything we see is only an agreed upon consideration and that reality is agreement.

                      But do you see yourself evading the issue we are discussing? You are dancing around it and never addressing it.

                      Can you see that you are off onto a euphoric splurge of magical thinking?

                      The question was: what’s the difference between a fact and a belief?

                      Remember?

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, you just haven’t duplicated Mark – or LRH.

                      Facts are those beliefs that have (purportedly) been demonstrated to have universal agreement. And the only reason they can be demonstrated as such is that they are BASED on the universal agreements that form the basis of the (this) physical universe – such agreements as the laws of physics.

                    • Al, you just haven’t duplicated Mark – or LRH.

                      Facts are those beliefs that have (purportedly) been demonstrated to have universal agreement. And the only reason they can be demonstrated as such is that they are BASED on the universal agreements that form the basis of the (this) physical universe – such agreements as the laws of physics.

                      Thanks for finally answering, Marildi.

                      So facts are a subset, a kind of belief.

                      Thank you.

                      Can you see that if you were wanting to think critically, and to evaluate the evidence which supports your views, that thinking that facts are beliefs would get in the way?

                      Remember the LRH reference “The Anatomy of Thought”?

                      How does The Anatomy of Thought PL fit in with your definition of a fact here?

                      Alanzo

                    • “Thanks for finally answering, Marildi.”

                      The question was fully answered by Mark – you just didn’t get it.

                      “Can you see that if you were wanting to think critically, and to evaluate the evidence which supports your views, that thinking that facts are beliefs would get in the way?”

                      No, Al. What I see is the specious use of semantics on your part. Your confusion comes down to frame of reference.

                      In the context of the physical universe and objective knowledge, beliefs/agreements are known as facts. Those who consider reality to be basically agreement have no trouble differentiating what “facts” are as opposed to beliefs.

                      And LRH isn’t the only one who looked at reality as agreement – for example, Tom Campbell, the physicist and consciousness researcher, basically says the same thing.

                    • You are familiar with Data Series 1 “The Anatomy of Thought” by L Ron Hubbard, right?

                      He makes a very clear distinction there between FACTS vs OPINIONS, not defining facts there at all as you have defined the term.

                      Now, Marildi, you are the master of rationalization. I’ve seen you rationalize away the most blatant and colossal contradictions in Scientology, yet find the teensiest inconsistency in the criticism of it, ignoring all elephants in favor of keeping your present Scientology worldview intact.

                      While I understand your L Ron Hubbard 1950’s viewpoint of facts as a subset of beliefs, I’m wondering how you will reconcile.LRH’s 1970’s viewpoint as facts as very DIFFERENT from beliefs. He goes ob for pages there about how different they are, and how considering them the same or even similar is a source of insanity.

                      So one more time, Marildi, for the viewers at home, can you demonstrate how you rationalize this contradiction in Scientology thinking?

                      Alanzo

                    • “…I’m wondering how you will reconcile LRH’s 1970’s viewpoint as facts as very DIFFERENT from beliefs. He goes on for pages there about how different they are, and how considering them the same or even similar is a source of insanity.

                      Geez, Al, you are really slow to duplicate. No wonder your criticisms of Scientology materials are always so off base.

                      I suggest you re-read what I already wrote. It’s as simple as that: Frame of reference. Context.

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      “I suggest you re-read what I already wrote. It’s as simple as that: Frame of reference. Context.

                      Looks like I caught you flatfooted this time.

                      The LRH of the 1950’s was laying out a philosophy that classified facts as merely beliefs.

                      But the LRH of the 1970’s Data Series was railing about how stupid and insane his staff members were for not being able to recognize that facts and opinions were different.

                      It’s almost as if he is blaming them, even calling them stupid and insane in that PL, for using Scientology to think with.

                      You have no rationalization for this contradiction in Scientology, Marildi?

                      Really?

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, sorry to butt in when you are feeling you are on a roll and got marildi on the ropes, but I noticed that for the second time on this topic, you are conflating OPINIONS and BELIEFS. That seems like a bit of an unwarranted assumption, that OPINIONS = BELIEFS. LRH distinguishes between FACTS and OPINIONS, not between FACTS and BELIEFS. Is this a deliberate sleight of hand on your part? Some of that hypnotic misdirection, perhaps?

                    • Val, you have the wrong rope metaphor. Marildi isn’t on the ropes. Marildi has given Al enough rope to hang himself.😉

                    • I think he was starting to FEEL he was going to get the best of view, not that he actually had or did.

                    • I knew dat.🙂

                    • Actually, the same concept is expressed in Buddhism:

                      “In order to avoid a confusion it should be mentioned here that there are two kinds of truths: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca, Skt. samvrti-satja) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca, Skt. paramartha-satya). When we use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc., we do not lie because there is no self or being as such, but we speak a truth conforming to the convention of the world. But the ultimate truth is that there is no ‘I’ or ‘being’ in reality. As the Mahayana-sutrdlahkdra says: ‘A person (pudgala) should be mentioned as existing only in designation (prajnapti) (i.e., conventionally there is a being), but not in reality (or substance dravya’.”

                      (from *What the Buddha Taught* by Walpola Rahula)

                    • Marildi wrote”

                      “Actually, the same concept is expressed in Buddhism:”….

                      This contradiction in the Scientology materials has nothing to do with the Mahayana concepts of ultimate and conventional truth in Buddhism, Marildi.

                      And just because something is mentioned in Buddhism does not make it true.

                      You are avoiding looking at this contradiction in the LRH materials, Marildi.

                      How do you rationalize this contradiction in Scientology terms?

                      Alanzo

                    • When I say the Buddhist idea quoted is the same concept, I mean in a general way – in that both of them express a “conventional truth” which seems to contradict a more fundamental truth.

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      “When I say the Buddhist idea quoted is the same concept, I mean in a general way – in that both of them express a “conventional truth” which seems to contradict a more fundamental truth.”

                      L Ron Hubbard never said that there was an “ultimate truth” and a “conventional truth”.

                      You’ve had to reach all the way over into Mahayana Buddhism to find your rationalization for this contradiction in Scientology.

                      You do realize that some schools of Buddhism reject this teaching by the Mahayana’s.

                      And also you do realize that this is purely a way that you have grasped upon to explain away a contradiction in Scientology.

                      Right?

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, I’ll just let yet another specious post of yours speak for itself.

                    • Marildi –

                      It is your own endless rationalization which keeps you trapped.

                      You yourself (from LRH’s teaching) said that facts were a form of beliefs.

                      And now you have to rationalize and defend that thinking when presented with not only how crazy that is – which you know as a word clearer – but even L Ron Hubbard said that not knowing the difference between fact and opinions (the crippled thinking that he himself put into Scientology) was the basis for incompetence and insanity.

                      It is the rationalizing that YOU are performing here which forms your own trap.

                      Can you see yourself rationalizing this?

                      Why can’t you just day that facts are facts, beliefs are beliefs, and the two are different?

                      Because LRH once said they weren’t?

                      Then later said they were?

                      If I equated facts with beliefs, would you rationalize for me too?

                      Why not?

                      Alanzo

                    • Btw, your cohort, Geir, also sees it as a “common reality” and a “consensus reality” (consensus being defined as ‘general agreement’) in his article “On Will”:

                      “Think of the Potential Cause as a blank piece of paper. From this paper arise points (separate cause points) that decide to BE (able to draw on the paper). Each point draws its own small picture (its own universe). As two points interact with their drawings, they start creating a common reality. As additional points interact with their drawings, a broader consensus reality emerges. Wikipedia is an example of such a co-created reality, as is the virtual world of Second Life.” (Geir Isene)

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Hi Alanzo. Hope I haven’t misspelled your name in the past.
                      Good discussion point.
                      Fact:
                      5 years ago I had a mini stroke at the right base of my brain. I was walking clumsy and slow due to lack of proper communication through the starved nerve cells. My left arm was slow and weak.
                      Blood thinner halted the immediate damage. Two weeks later, no improvement. I had a series of physical and auditing assists over two days. At the end of the last session, I was running up the stairs.

                      Belief:
                      I believe that the assists were the primary factor in improving my condition.

                      Opinion:
                      It is my opinion that Dia/Scn processes done well (not necessarily by the book) can improve SOME physical outpoints in SOME people.

                      Results not typical, your results may vary. Always follow warnings and report any side effects.
                      Mark

                    • I like your reasoning, Mark!

                      It demonstrates critical thinking and a disciplined use of the correct assignment of similarities, identities, and differences.

                      Thank you for that.

                      Alanzo

              • Espiritu,

                The guy who wrote this wikipedia thing is pretty close to 100% correct.

                Quoting you: there is a special group of people who know how to observe and reason and that apparently most people can’t.

                In other words “you are stupid if you do not agree with my point of view”.

                My insertion: That is pretty close to 100% correct. To make it 100% correct I would have to rewrite it. If something is not seen or understood, exactly the same, someone evidently has some degree of intellectual or perceptual impairment or MU.

                Here is an excerpt from that article:
                “A scientifically literate person is defined as one who has the capacity to:
                -understand experiment and reasoning as well as basic scientific facts and their meaning,
                -ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences,
                -describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena,
                -read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions,
                -identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed,
                -evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it,
                -pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately.”

                End of quote:

                I you disagree in principle with him you are evidently by definition, psychotic, at least to some degree.

                This subject is also pretty well in alignment with Hubbard’s chart of Human evaluation.

                You would have to be evaluated and placed on Hubbard’s chart of human evaluation, to find out exactly where you are at. It appears to be below 2 on columns D, M, and T.

                Psychosis:
                A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.

                psychosis

                1. (Psychiatry) any form of severe mental disorder in which the individual’s contact with reality becomes highly distorted.

                1. a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality.
                2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia.
                3. severe cognitive disorders.

                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                Two types of discussions or arguments:

                Eristic
                characterized by disputatious and often subtle and specious  or and spurious  reasoning.

                Specious:
                superficially plausible, but actually wrong.

                Spurious
                not being what it purports to be; false or fake.

                Dialectical

                “Dialectical argument is a cooperative, two-sided truth-seeking art that requires having the right knowledge on the subject to be properly qualified to discuss the subject, education and training in proper communication skills, a mind that knows what truth is, is capable of recognizing truth when encountered, a constructive and balanced attitude, and using the best available empirical science and facts,  partial only to the truth, to compute the most superior computation, the highest truth possible,

                whereas eristic dialogue is one-sided, quarrelsome, and antagonistic, usually based on specious and spurious reasoning and  opinions and beliefs, instead of facts..” — From Douglas Walton’s 1999 book One-Sided Arguments (paraphrased)
                 
                “Does free speech tend to move toward the truth or away from it? When does it evolve into a better collective understanding? When does it collapse into … the pointless and eristic game of talking the other guy into crying ‘uncle’?” — From an article by Mattathias Schwartz in the New York Times Magazine, August 3, 2008

                The truth is not determined by who wins an argument, or by opinions or beliefs.

                The truth is the truth.

                The truth is determined by facts, by how well an idea works, and how many problems an idea or body of knowledge solves. How much understanding a datum gives to a subject.

                Def believe: To accept something as true without proof. To raise an opinion to the level of a truth or fact without proof.

                All other defiinitions of the word believe are wrong.

                Most people mistake the word “think” for the word
                believe”.

                In stead of saying “I believe……what ever” …………

                They should say: ” I think………whatever”. ………

                It is poor grammer.

                A belief is a confession of ignorance.

                Believing is a function of the intellectually challenged, or dishonest.

                Believing in something means you did not do your research to learn the facts of a situation or subject.

                Dio

                • Mark N Roberts

                  Very good information Dio.
                  I find myself using “I believe” as a disclaimer, to prevent sounding arrogant or superior. I will use it more wisely in the future.
                  Thanks, Mark

                  • Mark,

                    Quoting you: I find myself using “I believe” as a disclaimer, to prevent sounding arrogant or superior. I will use it more wisely in the future.

                    Filbert deals with this in Excalibur revisisted:

                    The trouble with accepting a “loss” is that you set yourself up for more losses and then failure. It is a postulate on a slippery slope.

                    Same with if you playing a game with a child and you take a loss to give the child a win.

                    Dio

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Thanks, Dio.
                      I have noticed that in myself before (over congeniality) and need to be reminded from time to time.
                      Mark

          • Is Alanzo is quite finished attacking you for the comment you addressed to me?

        • There is something inherently very wrong with people that insist you should not be glad. It is running a “can’t have” on the things you be grateful for. It is repelling.

  34. It is hypocritical for Hubbard or any scientology organisation to claim its CUSTOMERS have any sort of altruistic “debt” to pay when they themselves are in the BUSINESS of SELLING scientology for cold, hard CASH.

    Hubbard never understood altruism. For all his talk of “helping people” and civilising mankind, he always wanted something in return. That is why scientologists do not help the homeless, feed the hungry, or donate their time in any significant way outside of furthering the commercial delivery of scientology therapy.

  35. I have long considered that anything any CofSer says about the subject or the organisation or any person ever involved in either, just the party line they themselves have been fed. Since they have embraced fear and abandoned free observation and thinking in order to follow the herd, their considerations on those subjects are of no value

    I think that Marty may have read the dark side of the above quote. To me it simply means that when you have been freed, you owe it to yourself to help free others in whatever manner you are able, but I can see how it can be twisted and interpreted in a negative way.

    b

  36. For me, this post prompted me to look at the seeming loss I experienced when I let go of my scientology identity, which had become wrapped up in so much erroneous ‘debt’ that serving that ‘debt’ was its primary focus. The so called ‘loss’ of my scientology identity was actually a liberation of some magnitude.

  37. There are a few times in those gray years 74-2007 that I recall being right there seeing it all as it was and one was when doing an enforced Liability formula I realized I was working up the conditions on my own from some other lifetime overt and the hell with anyone in my vicinity telling me what was what on my conditions or my solutions to them. I was ‘volunteering after all’. I really did have a f**k y** attitude except for when I didn’t. That was probably what got me tossed out. At least I’m surviving and learning something new every day🙂 Wake up guys! It only hurts for a bit.. “Way out is way through or whatever ~ amazing I’ve forgotten another generality..

  38. Megalomania. Obsessive compulsions. Lies and over-the-top exaggerations. A Messianic Christ-like delusion…………..

    (Feel free to fill in the blanks.)

    Therein briefly lays in the traits of THE founder. The founder of a 20th century cult. The pains and angst he authorized upon the innocents bears no forgiveness.

    ‘He’ certainly wouldn’t or didn’t.

    I find the time-date of this scripture closely follows the departure of L. Ron Hubbard Junior. This is about where I consider Ron displayed his contracted (or inherent) insanities.

  39. Marty, I agree that this policy has been and personally know still is applied as you suggest by the COS, but I do think that the title of your post seems to be a bit of a blanket accusation. It is too broad.
    I think that there are people who post on this blog who consider themselves to be Scientologists (though not the churchy kind) who are trustworthy people. I include myself.
    It doesn’t feel good to be painted in a negative way with such a broad brush.
    Imagine if some other demographic group were inserted into the title of this post: “WHY ( _____________ ) CAN’T BE TRUSTED…..”
    That has been done countless times in history.
    It is a generalization. It can cut communication between good people.
    I do understand your point of how the policy you quote has been applied oppressively…. but ALL Scientologists have not done this.
    And at this point in time I would not be surprised if there were more Scientologists outside of the COS than “in” …..thanks in large part to you.

    • martyrathbun09

      You noted: “Imagine if some other demographic group were inserted into the title of this post: “WHY ( _____________ ) CAN’T BE TRUSTED…..” That has been done countless times in history.
      It is a generalization. It can cut communication between good people.”
      I have so imagined. I put into your blank the closest fits I could imagine. The American Nazi Party, The John Birch Society, The Socialist Workers Party, The Unification Church, among others. Fits like a glove. ‘Demographic’ is an inappropriate adjective. Yours is a self-interested ideological group that you choose to be a member of. Scientology’s proclivity for screaming for discrimination and human rights protections is another disservice it does to actual demographic groups who had to fight for their rights to equal protection under law. None of those people signed onto programs like scientology’s that claims ‘you are the ones who own the planet’, and then go about treating all others as if they in fact do. I see the only people using this post as a impetus to cut communication with others are scientologists who are conditioned to believe that to look at any corner of their doctrine objectively is potentially lethal.

      • I think Marty is mostly right, but I think the headline should read: “Why you should not trust a Scientologist”.
        Maybe you can trust a single Scientologist, there is that chance. The question is: with what and where. Given the conditioning and mindset of the average Scientologist, you have to concede the likelihood is very high that the person in question feels a stronger loyalty to his Scientology organisation than to you. Marty just described one of the manifold ways the organisation establishes control over you.

        We do have established that Scientology actively seeks political influence. We know that Scientology is not an organisation that acts in the common good but is strictly self-interested and leader-centered.
        This is one of the reasons, why I do not want to see any Scientologist in a public servant function.

  40. I’ll offer up another explanation of Hubbard.

    He offered-up an alternative to the New World Order.

    His was as bad as the other. Empires and their attempts die ugly deaths.

  41. Another Thought

    Personally, I feel “help” is “help” and should be freely given without expectation of return. “Help for Help’s sake” – basically. This is one more example of the “little agreements” one gets inculcated into to develop dependencies.

  42. Lest we forget…………….

    • I actually think it helps to be grounded while auditing, to drain released charge off the body.

      I don’t think it needs to be 1/2 inch or larger in size.

      I have a long telephone extension wire ( about 15-20 feet) with stripped ends.

      One stripped end taped to a three foot piece of “1/ 2 copper water pipe bent into a triangle” and the other end taped to the copper house water pipe which goes into the ground to the city water main.

      I keep my barefeet on the triangle piece, while auditing, if I remember to do it.

      It is very logical. Like grounding for static charge or lightening.

      Same principle.

      It also helps to walk on the lawn barefoot after a heavy session, for 15 or 20 min, where there is body charge (cellular charge) released. You only know this, if you have experienced it.

      There are two kinds of charge, the one that blows like a volcanoe from the head (mind) and another from the mest body.

      The charge from the mest body does not release and dissipate like the charge from the mind.

      It also helps to take a good thorough, vigorous, deep penetrating, rub down shower after a heavy session where there is heavy body charge released.

      Also good to walk into nature, walk down a hiking trail, in the forest, along a stream or river.

      You get replenished with good energy, that way.

      Very helpful.

      Dio

      • Dio, you are talking about something that is commonly coming to be called “Earthing”. A meditator/therapist recently told me about it. There are now earthing products being sold, earthing shoes, earthing beds etc.
        http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/04/18/earthing-important-discovery-or-mumbo-jumbo/

        • Val,

          Yes, and no
          I know about earthing. I have my bed sheet grounded.

          But I was not talking about earthing, per se.

          I was talking specifically about grounding for auditing and having a via for draining off body charge.

          Body charge can be of such very large and dense mass, that it is debilitating, if not drained off.

          You can feel like dying or wanting to leave your body.

          Same principle, though.

          Dio

          • Thanks for the clarification, Dio.

          • Mark N Roberts

            Funny you should mention ‘earthing’.
            Back in ’76’ a chiro in Birmingham Al., Dr. David Graham, was treating a patient who had some chronic defects in her hips and legs. He was using acupuncture in an attempt to restore proper communication in her hip. He touched one particular point and she had a small reaction and then said “I was thinking of something but now I can’t remember what it was”.

            After that, two of the joints in her hip began to correct themselves. An anecdotal incident for sure, but the point is that mental mass/energy CAN manifest itself as real physical energy in the real world and contribute to body problems. Discharging this energy is akin to a release which could last a day or a lifetime if not restimulated again.

            As long as we are firmly attached to this phys. universe, we are subject to it’s terms and conditions. Read the fine print and you can work with it more wisely.
            Mark

  43. Hi Marty, Its been a long time since I’ve commented.
    The subject of exchange is very important to me. One of the things that always rankled me in Scientology was the warped ideas concerning exchange. On every flow I have witnessed all sorts of insanity run in on people, staff and public. To be honest, I had the idea (until now, that is) that the aberrations about exchange came from others, not Hubbard. The idea in Scientology that if you permit someone to receive they will become a criminal is complete bullshit. But Scientology runs it on everyone, while taking and taking and taking and giving nothing…
    Also you can spot someone who is a slimy scum bag by the fact that when they DO give something, its always with a string attached.
    Thank you again.

    • Andy,

      Re: The idea in Scientology that if you permit someone to receive they will become a criminal is complete bullshit.

      You make a very good point with those words.

      That is similar to, the common datum that if you help someone for no exchange, they will not appreciate it. Or appriciate it as much as if they had to work for it or pay for it.

      That is also mostly bullshit.

      There are a large sector of society that are so damaged from failed parenting, that they are so screwed up that they are useless.

      They are unemployable.

      Thieves and beggars are caused by “failed help” and implanted with (read; abused) “can’t have”. As in constant: no, you can’t have that, no, you can’t have that, no, you can’t have that.

      They were not given the things they were entitled to have as a child.

      They are abused into helplessness. A form of “implanted helplessness”. They are so abused and blocked on every flow from abuse, they become psychologically damaged, They become helpless.
      Acquired helplessness.

      These people need the right kind of free help, and get them primed so they can help themselves and work up the gradient to be able to compete in normal society.

      It is criminal not to help those kinds that ask for help or want to be helped.

      They do appreciate it.

      But it has to be seen from the right perspective, with the right knowledge of such matters, as a degree of helplessness and as a gradient.

      Those who have been there, at least to some degree, will best understand.

      At the same time, yes, the pc should be encouraged to provide some exchange as to his ability.

      In the bible it says something to the effect when a rich man is asked to give all, and he gives all his millions,

      and a poor man is asked to give all, and gives all his pennies, God considers as if they gave equal.

      Dio

  44. “Eternally grateful” does not equal “eternally in debt”. This is a false datum that a lot of scientologists have: no matter how much money one donates to the church, one can never truly have their exchange in with LRH. This kind of thinking leads to criminal, out-exchange operations like the IAS, Super Power, Idle Morgues, etc. Ironically, no matter how money is donated to one or more of these front groups, it is never enough. This introduces more lies as to how the money is spent. Or, one of the IAS reges like Howard Becker tell you the donated money will give one “fourth dynamic case gain”, which is just another lie. It’s easy to buy into it and become self deluded. Scientologists can’t be trusted because:

    1) There is no transparency as to how the money flows within the organization.
    2) There is ALWAYS a need for more money.
    3) One is told lies as to why the money is needed and/or how the money will be spent, e.g. “handle Germany” or “eradicate Psychaitry” or “Clear the planet”.
    4) One is told the lie that any Scientologist who has ever “benefited” in any way from the Tech is eternally in debt to LRH.
    5) One is awarded a bogus “status” for being a “dedicated scientologist” (high roller).
    6) High rollers/whales within scientology receive preferential treatment.
    7) The registrar will blow smoke up the ass of the selectee. Insincere love bombing at its finest.
    8) The registrar will say anything to close the deal. The registrar justifies this as being “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”.
    9) The church will then lie and claim the advanced payment for service is really a “pure donation” and is therefore non refundable, even if the service is never delivered (another example of out exchange).
    10) The cycle starts again at #2 above.

    IMHO, real help doesn’t have a price tag or come with the requirement that it be reciprocated. The Christian religion, which scientology eschews, has the concept that any individual has an intrinsic worth and is deserving of help. In the scientology universe, only upstats are deserving of help, and even then only those who can afford it ($$$). Free service equals free fall. The DBs and Wogs will just have to wait their turn. The able helps the able. Flow power to power. And don’t ask where the money goes. It’s an inherently corrupt system.

  45. Same here Jim, Espiritu, Theo.
    To read something sinister into what Ron says here you need to have some held down 7 re. Scientology and LRH. (A condition sadly rampant in the independent field at this point of the game).
    All Ron says really is that you can’t “buy” your way out to the trap!
    But nice of Marty to ack. Ron’s Org. as the only expanding independent Scientology Org. in the world. From what I know they don’t push this piece of data more than another, they try to understand and help others to understand LRH’s legacy and they train and audit and by doing so have kept expanding over three decades by now.
    Marcel Wenger

    • Marcel wrote:

      “All Ron says really is that you can’t “buy” your way out to the trap!”

      This is a very consistent characteristic with blinkered Scientologists: Dubbing in their more reasonable, or less insane or abusive, interpretation of Ron’s writings when it is convenient for them to do so.

      But here we have the text actual from Ron which exists and right here on this blog post and can be inspected:

      This is what Ron actually wrote:

      “And if you ever audited somebody like a prime minister or president, or something like that, why, people over at the Treasury keep trying to write you out checks for astronomical sums that couldn’t be added up down at the Greenwich Observatory, so forth, say, “Well, what are you trying to do, pay for the auditing? Ho-ho. Boy, aren’t you ambitious! Oh, well, send it down to my bank manager. He’ll know what to do with it, I suppose. Now we’ll talk about paying for the auditing. You owe me a favor.” And it’d be a favor something like, well, govern the empire well, or something like that. See, it’d have to be in those terms of human relationships. And that’s about the only way a fellow could get paid.”

      You do notice that in his example Ron accepted the check that was written for the astronomical amount, and then asked for a perpetual favor, claiming that this was “about the only way a fellow could get paid.”

      1. Receive an astronomical amount of money
      2. Say “You owe me a favor”. Then ask for and continue to get a perpetual favor from the person.

      So this reference is not saying “All Ron says really is that you can’t “buy” your way out to the trap!” as you claim above. Your interpretation of this tech is completely wrong.

      Per Ron’s tech, you must have an MU on this text about how Ron teaches auditors to receive payments from pcs. Otherwise I would say that you are selectively misinterpreting Ron in order to hold on to some delusory, yet more comforting, view about what Scientology really teaches.

      How could Ron’s Orgs be such expanding orgs – which they claim is because they apply Ron exactly as he said to apply it – and yet demonstrate these kinds of MUs that you display here?

      Alanzo

      • Dear Alanzo
        Please explain your comments copied below not sure I get you.

        Per Ron’s tech, you must have an MU on this text about how Ron teaches auditors to receive payments from pcs. Otherwise I would say that you are selectively misinterpreting Ron in order to hold on to some delusory, yet more comforting, view about what Scientology really teaches.

        How could Ron’s Orgs be such expanding orgs – which they claim is because they apply Ron exactly as he said to apply it – and yet demonstrate these kinds of MUs that you display here?

        I do not get into the political money side of the blog thread.

        From Hadley:
        Just for info I wrote on Mark Rinders blog . something similiar which was
        as follws.
        Rons Org title Is actual called Rons Organization Network for Standard Tech , it was given that name in the late 1980’s formed by Capt Bill Roberston and a selected few . So Capt Bill is the one that setup the Rons Org in the first place
        It had been started in Frankfurt with some loyal friends of Capt Bill and myself we ran it for just over 10 years and very succesful aswell, the only reason it was not contiuned by Capt Bill is becasue he sadly died.

        He did not leave a head to carry on .He left those he trainedas Cses to indept deliver to any one in their areas and thats what today Rons Org is doing and they deliver training camps as Capt Bill did today in Europe / Russia , Its also done in america and South Africa./ and far and wide
        Back In The days of the setup there were quite a few old timers and well trained who had been diseffected and left the chruch in Europe of which some were Very good Mission holders that supported us at the time. The ref to the setup of Rons Org is Admin breifings they are 1/2/3/4/5/6 see the RonsOrg Indepts free zone website. It gives a good background. and its purpose.
        Rons Org today would not have existened if we had not gotton the support of many people wanting to help and find a way to educate any one leaving and diseffected by the situation in the Church . Frankfurt made that possible so Capt Bill made that possible for any one to contiune with their bridge ..Their were also other private Indept areas starting up during that process aswell.outside of Ron’s Org.

        Of which Capt Bill is highly thought of within Rons Org and validated for who and what he was. and for what he has done. I was part of that setup and assisted him as his communicator throughout until he died.
        Myself had done 30 years in the church included in that is St Hill/ Sea Org /
        Flag / Indept / Rons Org.
        So with that in mind those back then are largely responsible for the success for what it is today.

        I hope this fills you in on The Rons Org beginning.
        Sincerely Hadley.

        • Hadley wrote:

          “I do not get into the political money side of the blog thread.

          The political money side is in the blog thread because the political money side is in the reference from Ron in Marty’s post.

          The political money side was placed in Scientology by Ron. And Ron teaches the political money side to Scientologists – like he’s doing here in this reference.

          The money side, and the tech of exploiting your pc’s resources and connections and relationships by making your pc feel perpetually obligated to you as the auditor is what Ron is teaching in this reference.

          So that why it’s being discussed in this blog thread.

          Does that make more sense?

          Alanzo

      • Alanzo, you quote:
        You owe me a favor.”And it’d be a favor something like, well, govern the empire well, or something like that. See, it’d have to be in those terms of human relationships. And that’s about the only way a fellow could get paid.” You make this look horrible.

        I don’t get you either, sorry. You quoted the key to this whole article, where
        he reveals what kind of favor he means: “govern the empire well or something like that”, and the debt is paid. not a personal favor. And you see this exact point as negative and enslaving. Why?
        I sell people pianos, some of them very high quality and costly. Many of them come back to me in person or in writing and say they don’t know how to thank me for truly helping them find and fulfill a life dream. Embarrassing…I got fully paid, right?…Then I do tell them to just go and play and enjoy the best music they can, and use it to spread beauty and hope and fun…and that’s it. No slaves…
        I am honored to owe many people a lot. I owe my parents I owe my good friends, I owe Mandy Kember my great “clear” auditor (I wish to god she gets out of the CoS) and I owe an incredible man, Marty, for giving me a brave hand out of the CoS deepest hole, and I owe Dani and Tami of Dror, for their support and love…the list is very long, it makes me proud. But make no mistake, it is all by my free will, my own decisions, owing them, not their dictates. So I am not enslaved but enriched. And I feel so.
        And all this lovey dovy owey stuff will not cloud my judgment or truth perception. I hope..!! If I don’t agree with Marty, or Dani or Ron Hubbard, then I don’t, no matter what I owe. The 2 don’t mix. And if I have a great auditor named Aviv, to whom I owe too, I won’t forget my previous incredible auditor, Tami, just because she is no use now, as I won’t forget Marty, Mandy, Ron and yes, Buddha….I owe them all. And still can be free.
        With their help.
        And you know, without stepping on anyone’s toes, I owe Max Hauri too. I do. When I was a frightened Indie beginner, not knowing anyone, Max cared and tried to help from far away, detached from any interest. I was confused, he wrote and explained, spent time. Later he was the 1st Indie I actually met, when visiting Europe as a tourist. And he shared dinner with me and smiled and listened to all I had to say. With his nice wife Erica and their friends. And that was that, there was not a chance I would do any service there. Doesn’t matter. Nice people. They cared. I owe them. They want nothing from me. My choice. And I do things different than them. So? who cares? I don’t.

        Marty, your point here is clear, this was interpreted like you say by the CoS and used to enslave and bind. True. It does not have to be like that IMHO, even reading and applying this very article.
        Hemi

        • WOW

          Thank you, Hemi!

        • Mark N Roberts

          In an Ideal Scene, it is like a brand new love affair. Both sides are competing with each other to do MORE for the other. The church has become like an old nag, enforcing and insuring that YOU do YOUR part
          Mark.

        • Hemi, Not everyone can walk the middle path. But you seem to be very capable in that regard.

        • Hemi wrote –

          “I don’t get you either, sorry. You quoted the key to this whole article, where he reveals what kind of favor he means: “govern the empire well or something like that”, and the debt is paid. not a personal favor. And you see this exact point as negative and enslaving. Why?”

          What is the definition of “well” that Ron is using when he says “govern the empire well”?

          Is it the same definition he used for “good” in the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics?

          Yes.

          It means, “govern the empire in Scientology’s favor, or else”.

          Scientology ultimately is not a spiritual technology, although I am sure that you and others use it that way, Hemi.

          Ultimately, Scientology is a fascist totalitarian political ideology which also uses hypnotic and socially coercive brainwashing techniques in order to force people to do its bidding.

          If there was ever a subject intentionally built to be abused, or to use to enslave people, it is Scientology. While it has many uplifting spiritual ideals, it ALSO has many other ideas that are meant to abuse and to control and to destroy people who may just disagree with it, let alone block its “progress”.

          These abusive parts of the subject get used on people whenever they need to be used. While Hubbard taught to grant people beingness, he ALSO taught to shudder people into silence, and to destroy them utterly and without sorrow.

          Scientology is both good and bad,

          While a lot of people, in good times, accentuate the good in Scientology, the bad is there to be dramatized any time it is necessary.

          The question is, if Scientology was meant to be good by its founder, why did he put so much bad in it for Scientologists to apply?

          Sorry. The bad exists in Scientology because L Ron Hubbard wanted Scientologists to create a fascist totalitarian state where Scientology was the government, and no one “below 2.0” on the tone scale was allowed to have any civil rights of any kind.

          And “2,0 on the Tone Scale” was also left undefined so that it too could be used against anyone Scientology deemed was not acting in its favor.

          Alanzo

    • Oh Marcel, You are quite the trust worthy one right? Implying Marty is not a clear and invalidating his state of clear by labeling him a held down 7? Dishing out a wrong item, inval eval and declaring someone an overt product?

      If you are such a true believer why are you discounting Marty as a clear, OT and trained auditor who can OBNOSE?

      If you have such a protest read you, don’t even own that a with hold was missed.

      You are a prime example of why you can’t trust a Scientologist. Because they will use the tools to SUPPRESS harm and attack based on their own purposes. Most of which they are not even aware of so they can own them.

  46. Geeze Christ I have no idea why anyone would get miffed by this blog entry!

    The Scientologists do not think Scientologists can be trusted!

    Why the hell are the cream of the crop ordered for a sec check every six months? Because they trust them?

    Why the hell do you think Hubbard instituted sec checks, and knowledge reports? Because he trusted them?

    Why the hell do you think there are staff quals and P.C. quals?

    Why the hell do you think David Miscavige travels around the Orgs surrounded by body guards?

    Why the hell is it that 99.9% of the Sea Org staff are kept in the dark about where the Int Base is?

    Why the hell do you think any staff member wanting to leave is sec checked to death?

    Why the hell do you think ethics officers are installed in every org?

    Why the hell do you think there is a policy to disconnect?

    Why the hell are staff asked to sign gag orders if they want to be on staff?

    Do you think all of the above is because Scientologists can be trusted? Hubbard did not trust them. They do not trust each other. If they did, all of the above would not have been installed in the culture.

    You see the top Church management lying on national television, through the media and in courts right before their own membership as if this is the thing to do.

    Keep it real.

    • I honestly wish I could see things as clealy as you do. Thanks for pointing out what you notice.

    • Another Thought

      No, no, no – it is because O/W!!!! No one can be trusted with overts and withholds! (Kidding.)

      Actually, you’re exactly right. Distrust is inculcated into every facet. Video sessions, sec checks, quals, HCO Security Guards, fences, and on it goes.

  47. Thank you, Oracle, for injecting sanity and lucidity into this, as you always do. The mental contortionism some will enter into to try to hold onto their fixed beliefs, is staggering!

  48. Wasn’t it Ron who said (paraphrase) …when you give a toy to a child it is his. It does not belong to you. You do not control it, the child does. AND you do not use it to control the child. A gift is a gift and implies no exchange. A being is a production/creation unit. Giving is it’s own reward for being allowed to produce/create. It is true that a being is happiest when he produces more than he receives.

    Exchange is an agreement, which, when among parties with high affinity, is akin to a trade which benefits both parties. It is entered into freely, without coercion, and is quite often unspoken. Again, it is an opportunity to produce/create. It can strengthen the free flow of affinity which is also beneficial to both or all parties. It implies no undesired control.

    Exchange between individuals or groups where affinity is junior to the agreement (the primary communication is through the agreement) is slightly different. The exchange is spoken or written and implies an agreed responsibility. It, again, benefits both parties when the responsibilities are fulfilled. It, too, can strengthen ARC. In a proper exchange, there are no hidden expectations or coercion. The terms of any failure to complete the agreement are known and agreed freely. These terms are also to the benefit of all parties. WHEN THE EXCHANGE IS COMPLETED, BALANCE IS MAINTAINED. START CHANGE STOP IS COMPLETED, CYCLE DONE. The new increased ARC may make way for future exchange. Again, an opportunity to produce/create.

    When there is coercion, hidden data, hidden expectations, uncommunicated terms, THERE WAS NOT AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It is an overt agreement, therefore no real agreement. Those who coerce, hide data and expectations did not have the intention of a proper exchange. Further contribution to the offending party is not required, beyond keeping one’s own ethics straight, and would actually be a new overt on your part. You can assist the offending party to understand and correct his error. Failing this, cutting communication is in order. (Handle or disconnect on the matter) Different areas of exchange between the same parties can be separated. (Important) I have disconnected comm with Old Navy’s men’s shirt dept. but I still communicate with their children’s clothing dept.

    Here is where it gets tricky. Flow 0, self to self. When one coerces himself, ignores important data or hides expectations from himself. This is more common that one thinks. When you enter into an agreement which you have falsified to yourself, you have also falsified it to others. Make equitable amends and the cycle is complete.

    Here is one place where fifth flow (observing another’s self to self) comes in to play. This is when another is coercing or falsifying to himself. In the grand scheme of things it is your responsibility to have the skill needed to recognize when another is being false to himself. But in the real world agreements sometimes need to be enforced or seek recourse, when something has been taken or damage is done. Common sense rules the day.

    Falsified agreements require no exchange and it is an overt to yourself to continue them. Exchange does not have to be exact. The problem is when you know you are lacking and you have made yourself smaller. This is all basic tech that the church has forgotten and replaced.
    Mark

    • Well said Mark.

      When you give a toy to a child, without conditions, you are priming his havingness correctly. That is gradient one of the havingness cycle, or dynamic. If that is aberrated in any way, his havingness will be aberrated for life to the degree the first havingness was aberrated. A lot could be written on this subject.

      Dio

      • Mark N Roberts

        Why, thank you Dio.
        And thanks for expanding on that. Info on getting children started in life is so important. Most anyone can recall experience on particle flow when it is put forth in a real way. Such as when the person receiving starts pulling on the flow, the giver tends to slow down or stop giving. This is most easily seen in children and can set a lifelong precedent.

        Flows are a MEST universe thing and not truly basic to a being, but the purposes were set VERY early on the track. The “throwing a rock back and forth” is a common incident to most and instilled many near basic purposes carried forth to this day.

        Get a chance to read the rest of my post?
        Mark

        • Yes, I read the rest of your post.

          More on giving and flows:

          There is a proverb that says something to the effect:

          Do not give to a rich man, because surely you will be poor.

          Dio

          • Mark N Roberts

            Thanks, Dio.
            It seems that much of the knowledge of life is universal, just needs to put in an understandable way to the recipient.

            I would change the word ‘rich’ to corrupt. On the history channel, it was mentioned that the legend of Robin Hood was originally “Steal from the corrupt and give to the oppressed”.

            In my life, I have met more honest, generous wealthy people than rich thieves. Yes, I have met many rich a$$ holes as well. I’m not blind.
            99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
            Mark

    • Wow. What a lot of mental gymnastics you guys have to go through to justify paying Ron for your “spiritual freedom”.

      • Mark N Roberts

        ” mental gymnastics”???
        Seemed all very basic and straightforward to me, except for the fifth flow.(Recognizing anothers self to self) Each of the points mentioned, I see in daily life.

        It was clear that I was in agreement with Marty’s post. Coerced and enforced exchange is an overt agreement and not an agreement at all. Being tricked into coercing yourself is the most common of all overts committed in a reg cycle. It is hidden and insidious.
        Mark

    • Mark N Roberts

      This is all part of the search and discovery of what “knowledge” is correct, what has minor errors, which has major errors, which is completely incorrect, and which is actually suppressive.

      This applies to Scn., Buddhism, Hindi, Christianity, Psychology, old wives tales, etc. etc.

      (1) Ron was mostly right when he said that PCs don’t get the case gain expected when it is given for free. MOST PCs TEND have poorer case since THEY get out exchange and other case gets restimulated which is not immediately handled by auditing. (2) Effort and necessity level is also reduced.

      (3) Also, auditors do a poorer job when they are undernourished and sleeping outdoors. Auditors are in fact valuable and deserve a decent life. Ron seems to have latched on to the first point for his own purposes later in his life. The church admin then took it to new heights, or should I say lows. The third point was completely forgotten.
      Mark

    • Well said Mark! That fifth flow opened my eyes! It’s true!

      • Thank you, Oracle.
        I believe this to be an important little bit of tech for anyone who is working to find the source of acquired opinions and purposes.

        I discovered this while looking for subtle ways that I acquired these things on the early track. Interactions and observations of others (others to self, others to others) gave me many intentions that I used and carried with me for a long time. The added complexities are many and varied, such as tricked and enforced agreements, and assumed identities, especially those that I believed helped me win or stay on top.

        But as some medicine’s say, ‘for occasional use only’, there were a few times when I observed and agreed with some intention, purpose with no interaction from the source and no interaction between others. This is especially true of times of instruction/education in a group setting. It is closely related to flow 3, others to self, but is not exactly the same and may not be recognized when searching on flow 3. Sometimes it is just enough of a hint to find the actual source of something, especially when looking during times of no stress or pain or when times were great and opinions formed and became stuck.

        It also applies, as I mentioned before, when someone had an internal stress, confusion etc., that later affected you. It has been the key a few times when the actual source of something could not be ferreted out completely. It’s usefulness needs to be studied for others besides myself, for those who want to find the actual, most basic origin of purposes, intentions, opinions which are not actually your own. I believe it should be added to just a few of the upper level processes and repairs. Not all, as auditing should not generally be cumbersome and complicated.
        Mark

        • I love this. You might be interested to know, I spotted flows on ethics. There are flows on ethics, like, spotting someone’s condition towards you, and others conditions to others. Now I can add the fifth flow to that!

          • Mark N Roberts

            Thank you, Oracle
            I will consider this a little bit of exchange for all the data and assistance you have given me. LOL. Really though, I am glad that I gave someone something useful. That dissolves the need for exchange.
            Mark

          • Mark, It’s great that you spotted that. It was always there, “hidden in plain site”, and I never thought of stating it the way you did.

            THE ONLY ABERRATION IS DENIAL OF SELF

            “Now, where, wherever—wherever man—wherever man finds himself deeply instilled and engrossed and surrounded with mystery, he is actually in conflict with himself, and himself alone. That is why processing works.

            “The only aberration is denial of self.

            “Nobody else can do anything to you but you. That’s a horrible state of affairs. You can do something to you, but it requires your postulate, your agreement or your disagreement before anything could happen to you.

            “People have to agree to be ill. They have to agree to be stupid. They have to agree to be in mystery. And actually, early on the track did agree to being hornswoggled.”

            — L. Ron Hubbard

            Excerpted from the lecture Survive & Succumb, delivered on 5 July 1959. This lecture can be found in the Theta Clear Congress.

            • Val,

              I do not understand what you meant by posting this quote of Hubbard, :

              THE ONLY ABERRATION IS DENIAL OF SELF
              “Now, where, wherever—wherever man—wherever man finds himself deeply instilled and engrossed and surrounded with mystery, he is actually in conflict with himself, and himself alone. That is why processing works.
              “The only aberration is denial of self.
              “Nobody else can do anything to you but you. That’s a horrible state of affairs. You can do something to you, but it requires your postulate, your agreement or your disagreement before anything could happen to you.
              “People have to agree to be ill. They have to agree to be stupid. They have to agree to be in mystery. And actually, early on the track did agree to being hornswoggled.”
              — L. Ron Hubbard
              Excerpted from the lecture Survive & Succumb, delivered on 5 July 1959. This lecture can be found in the Theta Clear Congress.

              Me: And I am glad that you did, but I have this to say about it:

              I have been told this BS by scientologists who are parroting Hubbard, many times before. And I totally disagree with Hubbard on this one. This one really pisses me off.

              There is such as thing as entrapment and enforcement.

              I was told something so stupid that, if a child is beaten or raped that it was the child’s fault, because he denied him self.

              This is the height of bullshit and garbage.

              It even contradicts other things Hubbard said.

              It is a datum that has not been honestly and impartially evaluated,

              and parroted and defended to the extreme.

              For what ever reasons, Hubbard often talked out of both sides of his mouth.

              Like Geofrey Filbert said, less than 1% of what Hubbard said is true.

              So to get the “good” out of scientology, takes a keen and intelligent mind to do a lot of outside the box study and research (to study a lot of other data of comparable magnitude to get understanding) and then gleen scn with the highest degree of scrutiny and critical thought. According to Filbert’s write up, he did so, and is one of the very, very few who did so.

              And anyone who has not done similar is not qualified to argue or defend scn, because they are only parroting Hubbard, and Hubbard said that is a slight aberration. That is an understatement.

              And at the same time, I must give credit where credit is due and say that the 1% is very, very valuable.

              It is similar to panning for gold.

              Dio

            • Mark N Roberts

              Hello Val.
              As fully exposed in the article I sent you, the first, original, most basic of all sins, alterations, is denial of self, beingness. That’s not me. That is something separate from me. That is something else. It is over there and I’m over here.

              Second. I didn’t do that, it’s doing it on it’s own, I’m not responsible, I am not cause.

              Denial of beingness and denial of responsibility. That’s not me, I didn’t do that. The very first of all lies. These are the two original considerations that started it all.

              Again. THESE ARE THE TWO ORIGINAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT STARTED IT ALL

              All the pain, confusion, evil. disappointment, misery, death.

              All the joy, pleasure, love, experience, randomity, excitement, interaction, creativity.

              All of livingness spawn from these first of all active considerations. Every experience suffered or enjoyed have at their heart these two thoughts.

              I have spent a very long time and endless effort looking at every moment surrounding and following these thoughts. Similar to astrophysicists looking at the first minute of the big bang, then the first second, then the first thousandth of a second, then the first trillionth of a second.

              I also discovered that there is no basic basic which clears up everything which follows. “When a basic is found on any line of thought(incident), the next thought up becomes the new basic.” (paraphrase LRH) He did not fully realize the importance of this principle. Or maybe he did but could not fully resolve it. He built up a tremendous amount of BPC which barred further enlightenment.

              Did you get a chance to read my articles?
              Mark

              • Mark N Roberts

                Also.
                My thoughts on how Dia., Scn, really got started.
                Ron met a lot of people. He read a lot. He had a curiosity about how people worked. He was very bright and had the ability to put forth a tremendous amount of effort toward something he was interested in. He had an uncanny ability to look through a lot of clutter and see to the heart of a matter.

                He got lucky and found a few truths. This led him to further discoveries. A few bright, hard working people recognized the value of this line of work and joined him in the search for further discoveries.

                He had a few particularly nasty defects which he was unable to give up. He was unwilling to allow others to help him with these, which barred him from full resolution of many areas of life. He had some particularly nasty, embarrassing O/Ws which he thought would forever discount his work and destroy the church. His unwillingness to handle these items eventually discounted his work and is destroying the church. These failures alone eventually destroyed his mind and body.

                I claim to be no saviour. I have gotten lucky and found out a couple of things which have allowed my work to continue. When I was receiving life repair many years ago, I had an auditor with very little ARC. Technically proficient but no real understanding. I was ARC broken. I looked at this problem on my own for a long time. Then I saw it.

                I was the one with an ARC break. I was the one who was upset. I was the one who was not getting further case gain. It was MY case. The ARC break was within me, and he just exposed it. I owned it. I have not been angry with another individual since.

                Next, after seeing some whole track incidents and realizing how long the track actually is, and after studying eastern philosophies, and then recalling being in session and being anxious to complete a process and for the session to be over, that this was an outpoint, I saw something else.

                I have lots of time. I have all the time in the world. There is no need to be impatient. If I don’t find the solution to what I’m looking for right now, no problem, no disappointment, no BPC. During auditor training I read what can happen when an F/N is called too early or too late. Cutting off a potential cognition or invalidating gains made. Then it clicked for me.

                Not only do you live life in the moment, in exact present time, but you also audit in the moment, right now, in exact present time. Get a cognition, you have it, right now, period. Going past it looking for more is a completely new unit of time, invalidating nothing from the moment before. Not getting an expected realization does not invalidate anything previous and is not a failure, but an opportunity to find more things tomorrow. No expectations, no failures, infinite time to look. No getting interiorized into By Passed Charge. No wasted effort. (There is no such thing as wasted effort, effort is infinite.)

                A little insight and a lot of well timed luck. The journey is just beginning.
                Mark
                PS: Going over Vinair’s writings on Mindfulness added to the serenity and patience.

                • Mark NR wrote:

                  “I was the one with an ARC break. I was the one who was upset. I was the one who was not getting further case gain. It was MY case. The ARC break was within me, and he just exposed it. I owned it. I have not been angry with another individual since.”

                  That is quite a cognition! Truly enlightened.

                  This is the kind of gain that can be had in Scientology – at some times and by some people.

                  But of all the people who have run ARC Breaks in Scientology (almost anyone who has ever had auditing) how many had this kind of life-changing cog on that information?

                  I submit that it was YOU who created this cog, and this enlightenment for yourself. You arranged Scientology in the exact way that YOU arranged it – accepting some things and rejecting others (although you were supposed to standardly accept ALL of it) , and YOU put the auditor there for YOU to interpret Scientology in the enlightening way that YOU did.

                  Ron never taught the full cog that you got here.

                  He probably never even had that cog, given his behavior for the rest of his life.

                  Every win you got out of Scientology, you created for your self.

                  Every one’s wins are so different from Scientology, and of such a different nature – by picking some things they emphasized in Scientology and ignoring other things that were not supposed to be ignored – that it must be true that all wins in Scientology were created by YOU.

                  And you alone.

                  Alanzo

                  • Alanzo to Mark NR: “I submit that it was YOU who created this cog, and this enlightenment for yourself. You arranged Scientology in the exact way that YOU arranged it…”

                    I would agree. But isn’t that always the way it is – with anything?

                    To me, it is the major reason why different pcs have very different cogs on the very same process. Or why different students get a different depth of understanding from the same materials – I saw that so clearly as a word clearer.

                    Each of us traveled on whatever path we did before we ever got into Scientology, and we brought with us what we had accumulated. You might even call it karma.

                    Still, the fact remains that the potential for such gains as Mark expressed IS there in the methodology of core Scientology – together with what the individual brings to it.

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      Still, the fact remains that the potential for such gains as Mark expressed IS there in the methodology of core Scientology – together with what the individual brings to it.

                      Yes, it is there. No doubt about it.

                      But the potential for these same gains, created by you, are in a lot of other things, too. And those other things don’t have the brainwashing and abuse built into them that Scientology has.

                      See?

                      If it is you that creates your cogs, then why not create your cogs in a much more sustainable, less dangerous way than Scientology?

                      Alanzo

                    • Alanzo: “But the potential for these same gains, created by you, are in a lot of other things, too. And those other things don’t have the brainwashing and abuse built into them that Scientology has. See?”

                      No, I don’t see. The main problem with most of your posts is that you can’t and/or refuse to differentiate the different forms of “Scientology” from one another. In my comment above, I used the term “core Scientology,” which would be the form based on the original discoveries about the mind and spirit and which was geared to bring about self-determinism and personal freedom.

                      Furthermore, I don’t know of “a lot of other things,” as you put it – or even ONE other methodology – that is capable of producing as much gain, in the same amount of time, to a majority of individuals, as core Scientology auditing and training does. That is an viewpoint based on my observations in the late 70’s and 80’s, especially early 80’s, before alterations started creeping in. And the reports I hear and read about the practice of core Scientology outside of the CoS would seem to confirm that viewpoint.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      “the different forms of “Scientology””. No such thing, according to scientology.

                    • Maybe my wording can be argued, but I’m pretty sure that what you have practiced in the past and called Scientology auditing was not what is being practiced in the CoS. However it should be worded, it was not the same thing.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      incorrigible

                    • It’s just one way of conceptualizing it. There are as many ‘forms’ of scientology as there are people who have made some part of it their own. LRH describes this quite clearly in a lecture from 20 April 1955, in which he talks about “scientology” vs. “para-scientology”. This is available in a (probably) abridged form as one of the “Classics” series, “Para-scientology or superstition and things that go Boomp in the night.”
                      Basically it’s the idea that it’s all “para-scientology” until one has grasped some part of it in some way, experienced some part of it, then one gets some reality on it it and that part one has grasped becomes “scientology” to one. It’s the difference between “internal” and “external”, in Wilbur’s scheme of quadrants. Thus it may be “scientology” to you, that there is only one way to do scientology according to scientology itself, but it is not necessarily so for anyone else.` And your opinion is, after all, not binding on anyone else. But I imagine to those with Sea Org experience, “scientology” is quite different than to those without, for example. A person who has been on Sea Org staff for years without getting the training and auditing they were promised, will see and know a completely different “scientology” than someone who went Clear in the field by training up to HSDC, co-auditing, and getting auditing when needed from a Field Auditor. Unbelievably different, I would say! 🙂 But I imagine a person in the hierarchy at the Vatican would see and know a very different “Catholicism” from a public parishioner who has benefitted by being a member of an uptone congregation far from the Vatican.

                    • Marildi –

                      You say that my problem is that I do not distinguish between the different “forms” of Scientology.

                      I say that anything written or spoken on the subject of Scientology is Scientology.

                      So this “form” of Scientology which you have carved out and distinguished between others “forms” of Scientology in order to prop up your existing worldview – is this “core Scientology” written by L Ron Hubbard?

                      Are there other forms of Scientology – not “core Scientology” – which are also written by L Ron Hubbard?

                      If that is the case, how can you tell them apart?

                      And also, isn’t this just a form of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy”?

                      “The use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:

                      Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton [(England)] Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen [(Scotland)] man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.

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

                      Why yes, I think it is.

                      Alanzo

                    • “Are there other forms of Scientology – not “core Scientology” – which are also written by L Ron Hubbard?

                      If that is the case, how can you tell them apart?”

                      You can tell them apart, I believe, by studying the relevant policies, orders and directives. Does the Sea Org operate on the same basic principles as Field Auditors and Missions, for example? Org personnel have stated “We do not use ARC.” Obviously, Field Auditors and indeed any auditor, to be effective must understand and use the principles of ARC, if s/he is to obtain the gains postulated for the pc, by LRH in, say, 1955, or 1960, or whenever.

                    • “Org personnel” should read “Sea Org personnel”, in my comment above.

                    • Al, you wrote: “…is this ‘core Scientology’ written by L Ron Hubbard? Are there other forms of Scientology – not “core Scientology” – which are also written by L Ron Hubbard? If that is the case, how can you tell them apart?”

                      Yes and yes to the first two questions (more about the second one further down). As for the third (how I can tell them apart), I wrote in an earlier comment that I used the term “core Scientology” to mean the “form” that is based on basic principles about the mind and spirit and was geared to bring about self-determinism and personal freedom.

                      I don’t think you would deny that there are many people outside the CoS whose practice is based on those basic principles and on processes developed from them. And it really doesn’t matter if LRH himself was the first one (if he was) who changed the tech into something that violated basic principles and truths and thus made it unworkable – it still would not be “core Scientology.”

                      Actually, I even consider that people who are have made changes to the tech LRH developed to essentially be practicing core Scientology – IF those changes more closely align with the basic truths that LRH discovered about the mind and spirit, and also align with the original purpose of raising awareness, ability and self-determinism. Medicine, as another example, changes and is improved upon – and is still called “medicine.”

                      So no, what I am talking about is not a “true Scotsman.” Maybe “true Scientology,” however.🙂

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Alonzo, Marildi.
                      Marildi.: (My wording) MarkNR was probably bright enough and insightful enough to recognize the workability in Scn. and avoid the pitfalls in the road.

                      Alonzo: (My wording) MarkNR was oblivious to what was going on around him and never really recognized the harm that was occurring to others, merrily going about his way.

                      My take on it. Probably a little bit of both.

                      I always looked for the best in people since I was, well, 2 yrs old. Before that, memories are a bit fleeting. Mothers smile, trapped in a cradle, etc. I was fortunate. In all my years, my Mom and Dad only argued once, over the Nixon, McGovern election. (That we knew of). My Dad had quite a bit of Dia. auditing before I was born. He was an easy goin’ guy
                      Mark.

                    • I’m curious – was you dad for McGovern?

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Marildi: “I’m curious – was you dad for McGovern?”
                      Oh Marildi, let’s not spoil our friendship.

                      Hint.
                      The second word in the definition of charity is ‘voluntary’. The first word is just an article of grammar. No one should have the authority to take your toils (money) by force at gunpoint (IRS) and give it to someone else. People are very charitable when the need is real and the flow is not enforced.
                      Read Ron’s little talk about his growing up in the midwest. How, when someone was down on their luck, they swallowed their pride and accepted help, swearing to repay it when they were able. No one went hungry.

                      Exchange was voluntary and rarely expected, but accepted and appreciated.
                      Mark

                    • martyrathbun09

                      An interesting fact. Unlike the industrialized north and agrarian south, the Midwest did not import masses of people from abroad to create slave labor pools; then abandon them once they had served their purposes or got educated enough to organize. To say that the state has no role in looking after the welfare of the masses the wealthy import then leave jobless when they’ve made their billions – because, heck, that’s the way we did it in the Midwest – is naive at best.

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Hello there Marty.
                      Thank you for your attention. Good to talk directly from time to time.
                      I didn’t really want to turn this in to a political rant or even a discussion, but I’m the one who just couldn’t keep my damn fingers off the keyboard, so I should at least respond.
                      Politico-economic conditions vary and of course cannot be described in one paragraph or one book. The north is not the south is not the midwest. The corrupt will find a way to oppress and control in any environ. Particular problems need particular handling. The dust bowl, the depression, industrial trusts/monopolies, all needed their own solutions which included the govt. (Taxpayers + Politicians) Unusual conditions call for unusual measures. I should have recalled that before my first comment. As I said, most people are very generous when the need is real. A few realize that they can get in on a cut of the ‘generosity’ action. They then promote and enforce generosity for a bigger cut. Real charity then begins to dry up, increasing the need for enforcement.

                      But when some cultural defects become ingrained in the group think and are promoted by particular individuals for their own gain, it spreads to all corners of society. Take as much as you can and give as little as possible is one of those defects.
                      Most people are neither corrupt nor saints. A few corrupt guys can undo a lot of effort by the few saints. The rest tend to be swayed and go along with the current norms. An ethics presence and necessity level help to steer people toward honesty and self responsibility. Both are greatly affected by the existing authority.
                      But there is a constant, existing since the cave man days in most societies.

                      The world rides on the backs of an able few. Punish them and we’re all screwed.

                      Most wealthy people I’ve met were pretty honest caring people. Some were not. The ones who are not really stick in your mind and make it really tough for the rest of us, employee and employer alike.

                      I foolishly thought this line of thought would apply to exchange and owing, but it is a can of worms that does not really belong on this site.
                      Thanks for your patience. Most will agree on the general principles stated but will differ on the particulars, such as the percentage of corrupt to honest and the gradients in between.
                      Mark

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Thanks. Last I heard 37% of America’s wealth is owned by 1% of the population. Your datum ‘The world rides on the backs of an able few…Punish them and we’re all screwed’ could – and has – served as a primary justification for continuing to increase that disparity (which has grown in leaps and bounds in recent decades). It certainly serves as scientology’s mantra for focusing on the wealthy and damning the poor.

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      G’mornin Marty. I see one of our differences in viewpoint.
                      I grew up and live in Huntsville, Al, which, since 1960 has grown to become the silicone valley of the south. The rocket city. Real hunger is almost unheard of, almost. Of the 10s of thousands of homes built in the last few decades, the great majority are 2-3000 sq ft. There are almost no homeless here. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land under active cultivation surrounding the city.

                      I have never been to NY or Detroit or LA. 4 yrs in Atlanta was enough for me. I have little experience with the dog eat dog, get it while you can attitude which festers in crowded inner cities which tend to trap and smother the common man.

                      The people I have worked for were for were hard working bright people who cared for those under their charge. I never worked for a J P Morgan or Henry Ford type. I led perhaps a bit of a sheltered life. I decided that if I wanted to get ahead, I would have to do it myself so I worked 2 jobs and studied electrical engineering.

                      The willingness to apply effort was always very high on my list of desirable traits. I have met and worked with countless people who were unwilling to put forth any significant effort. I never felt they deserved any more than the most meager existence. I love them and am willing to help when asked. But respect or exorbitant charity, No.

                      I have done many thousands of hours in disaster assistance, free home repair, education assistance, habitat for humanity etc etc all my life. Some work was appreciated, some was not. I always appreciated the fact that I could do it. Help is often it’s own reward.

                      Hope this gives an indicator of the source of my viewpoints.
                      Thanks, Mark

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Good for you Mark.

                    • Mark and Marty, below are some excerpts that give the context for Hubbard’s remarks about charity, including the context with regard to the time period in which his remarks were written. Interestingly, it also includes some comments that relate to the blog post, with respect to owing one’s work amounting to slavery. From HCO PL, “Rewards and Penalties” 6 Mar 66, Issue I:

                      “You cannot give more to the indigent than the society produces. When the society, by penalizing production, at last produces very little and yet has to feed very many, revolutions, confusion, political unrest and dark ages ensue.

                      “In a very prosperous society where production is amply rewarded, there is always more left over than is needed. I well recall in prosperous farm communities that charity was ample and people didn’t die in the ditch. That only happens where production is already low and commodity or commerce already scarce (scarcity of commercial means of distribution is also a factor in depressions).
                      […]

                      “There is nothing really wrong with socialism helping the needy. Sometimes it is vital. But the reasons for that are more or less over. It is a temporary solution, easily overdone and like communism is simply old-fashioned today. If carried to extremes like drinking coffee or absinthe or even eating, it becomes quite uncomfortable and oppressive. And today socialism and communism have been carried far too far and now only oppress up statistics and reward down ones.
                      […]

                      “No good worker owes his work. That’s slavery.

                      […]

                      “Charity is charity. It benefits the donor, giving him a sense of superiority and status. It is a liability to the receiver but he accepts it as he must and vows (if he has any pride) to cease being poor and get to work.

                      “Charity cannot be enforced by law and arrest for then it is extortion and not charity.”

                    • Miraldi,

                      Re: vows (if he has any pride) to cease being poor and get to work.

                      This statement is more the voice of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and abuse, than not.

                      ar·ro·gant
                      1.: having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people : having or showing arrogance

                      2 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
                      3 : showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance

                      It is a very common viewpoint and mantra.

                      Like: Get to work you lazy SOB.

                      In another place, Hubbard says something to the effect of: you cannot hold a good man down.

                      That could be better paraphrased to: You cannot hold a man with a healthy mind down.

                      Because a man with a healthy mind is naturally creative and ambitious. If you put him in shackles, he will find a way to break them and run away and do something.

                      A man with a healthy mind will not stay on welfare for very long if he does land up there in some bad twist of faith or misfortune.

                      In other words people on welfare are unemployable.

                      There are lots of business people and average healthy people who scoff and snear at people on welfare and say: get to work you lazy SOB.

                      But tell them to hire that person on welfare, and they will say, oh no I do not want that SOB working for me. Or if they do hire them, they will soon find that out, because they are very much PTS.

                      And the fact is that everyone is onl;y as good as they have been bred and brought up.

                      If you have a problem with a product, it is not their fault, they are doing the best they can with the hand they have been dealt,……. you have to check with the factory for the cause.

                      If you have a bad product, you have to go and give the parents a slap.

                      So that statement of Hubbard’s is the voice of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and abuse. Hubbard has to be given a slap for that statement.

                      Dio

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Marildi;
                      RE: Rewards and Penalties.
                      I recognized the value of this article at age 11, when part of it was included in the back of Dianetics. It applies now more than ever.
                      “Statistics alone” were later raised to a level above humanity, but that is a whole nother story. To discount this article on that point alone, and ignore it’s inherent value indicates a prior agenda.
                      Mark

                    • Sorry, clarification Marildi –

                      I say that anything written or spoken on the subject of Scientology BY L RON HUBBARD is Scientology.

                      Alanzo

                    • Marty wrote:

                      incorrigible

                      Yes. It’s amazing. I’ve been watching it for years.

                      But her incorrigibility can be useful.

                      Without Marildi, there would be no one to use “You Can Be Right” to prop up their arguments. Or to supply the endless justifications and rationalizations that Scientologists use to remain Scientologists against all reason and factual evidence.

                      As she outputs these endless streams of rationalizations, they can be held up and taken apart in front of others who may not have thought about them before.

                      After a while, it becomes like shooting fish in a barrel. And when people see that, they start identifying and shooting down their own rationalizations as they pop up in their own minds.

                      Marildi will probably never be anything other than a Scientologist. But others, watching her and her thinking as she displays it on their computer screens, can see her as a warning for themselves.

                      Alanzo

                    • And I could sum up your posts in a single word: SPECIOUS.

                      At best.

                    • Alanzo: “Marildi will probably never be anything other than a Scientologist. But others, watching her and her thinking as she displays it on their computer screens, can see her as a warning for themselves.”

                      I think it more likely that people will read this and see you as the warning.

                      By the abuse you manage lay down on others in the Scientology experience.

                  • “You and you alone”. That’s totally a solipsism, and is not true. If you had been able to do it alone, you never would have gotten involved with Scientology, or scientology. it is pure _ _. 🙂

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Thanks Val.
                      The gradient from needing assistance, wanting assistance, working toward improvement with assistance, working toward improvement without assistance, complete responsibility for self, is well explained and easily understood. To not understand this requires effort. It seems that the difference with Alanzo and my self is merely when and how much.
                      Mark
                      And, of course, where to get that assistance.

                  • Good evening Alonzo.
                    Thank you for the credit, it was a big realization.
                    Hope I didn’t give you any misunderstanding. The ARC break was not on something being audited, it was with the auditor. Funny, he didn’t attempt any repair questions. Should have been clear on the meter. It was clear as day on mine years later. GAT auditors, go figure.

                    I had read it, and kinda knew it already, that my case is my own and I am completely responsible for it. But I never would have really recognized this fact, or been able to do anything about it without assistance. Everyone needs a little boost up to that first rung of the ladder, and usually two or three rungs.

                    If I had to discover and develop all this knowledge and methodology by myself, I think I would just sit on the couch with a few cases of beer. As it is, I have the luxury of picking out the workable methods from the junk, as 60 yrs of trial and error by thousands of persons have discovered, and coming up with a few additional methods that I noticed along the way.
                    Thanks, Mark
                    Mark

          • Mark N Roberts

            Oracle.
            Four, and sometimes five flows on ethics conditions.
            Previous failed marriages, family stresses, school days, work ethics, Scn. training, PTS situations, life decisions, education decisions, relationships of all kinds, changing purposes between lives and early in lives.

            Damn, girl, you have hit a gold mine. Cognitions flooding in. How others ethics (moment to moment decisions as well as life decisions) affect mine. How my ethics affects others. Inadvertent and intentionally affecting others and vice versa. So much to look at. So much to resolve. So much to finally understand.

            Thank you, thank you.
            Will be out of comm for a few…. (some period of time).

  49. I’m only up to about 1955 in listening to LRH lectures, but I would have interpreted this excerpt as meaning something like “You owe me a favor along the lines of you helping move the society on up a little higher. Govern the empire well, take care of your family well in the sense of uplifting them when and how you can, etc”
    But then, I tend to reject the severe interpretations of things.
    It does appear to me that somewhere along the line, LRH got really hard-nosed, politically speaking. Maybe it really sunk in that he was swimming with the sharks?
    I say this because he lectured in 1955 about the difference between ‘good auditing’ and ‘bad auditing’, a ‘good auditor’ and a ‘bad auditor’, and it was all about whether the auditor was raising the the pc on the tone scale by putting the pc ‘at cause’. The ‘bad auditor’ put the pc at effect, the ‘good auditor’ was not doing that, he was bringing the pc out into higher realms of being knowing and ability, not pushing him down. He also said that was why an auditor low on the tone scale would inevitably be a bd auditor, because he would be trying to create an effect on the pc, period.

    So the quote as posted doesn’t quite add up, for me. Although I do understand that in practice, it is how the CoS and perhaps many Scientologists act towards others.
    When I was having contact with Scientologists I never felt that I was pressured to ‘owe’ anything, although it seems to be a common theme in ‘success stories’.

    • “take care of your family well”

    • Great post! Thanks Valkov. Now that you mention it, someone with a continuing debt is not being pushed up to cause. I was in the Sea Org for six years and I think I may have a different reality. Because the staff there really do feel the “public”, who were called “pool pigs” while I was there, really do have debts they are not paying. If they have not joined staff they are “holding out”, if they have not donated to the I.A.S beggars they are out ethics. There is always this view that the only ones that are really current on their debt are the Sea Org members. And of course, they all have like a billion years more to go before their obligations have been fulfilled.

  50. Jenny Craig is being ass raped by spokesperson Kirstie Alley. Seiously. She tweeted she was “ass raped”, the spokesperson for Jenny Craig.

    Here is she is getting paid millions from them, her only source of income right now. And she tweets something like that. Because she disconnected from a friend and he mentioned it in an interview.

    This is a perfect example of how she could NOT be trusted. It doesn’t matter to her that she threw those “wogs” under the bus to get back at someone who “ratted her out”.

    Scientologists think they are taking responsibility for mankind because they are going to get them up the bridge. So whatever you do to a few of them to save the rest doesn’t matter.

    In fact they take zero responsibility for anyone outside of their circle. Zero.

    They take very little responsibility for anyone inside their circle either. If they did, there would be no such thing as “punishment”.

    See the idea launched called “penalties and rewards”. You never really see the word punishment, that is avoided, but punishment, is there in the form of ethics conditions “harm attack suppress”, R.P.F., comm eves, B of I’s, post removals, offloading staff, all the way down to straight up beatings by David Miscavige. You are obligated to punish others through disconnection.

    You see how the trust placed in Kirstie Alley by a major corporation was carried? You see how a Scientologist can justify the treason outside of the Org? What condition do you think David Miscavige is in towards his fellow man when he perjures himself in court? That’s treason.

    They do not own the treason if it is driven down upon someone outside of the flock.

    This is exactly why they can not be trusted.

    When you do an ethics condition and you have to decide to “harm attack or suppress” someone else, you are being asked to fall into an enemy condition towards someone, while you are doing a doubt condition!

    Well, what happens if you doubt that you want to be in an enemy condition towards someone? You are then labeled “reasonable” and “theetie wheetie”.

    Frankly, I think it is very fucking “theetie wheetie” when you can not take responsibility for any one outside of your own tribe, and you think you are an OT.

    • Just look at the MILLIONS David Miscavige has spent in court because he can not own his treason on Monique Rathbun! He spins the wheels to create MORE injustice.

      John Allendar OT8 does not have the HUMAN Decency to apologize to that woman.

      The “Squirrel Busters” down there wallowing in an enemy and treason condition and not owning one piece of it.

      You see how the treason and enemy condition has bled through their own organization and set THEM up for the losses?

      This is exactly why Scientologists can not be trusted. Because they can not think with the Scientology, and apply it in their every day lives.

      They can wallow in treason and enemy all year long against someone else under the banner of “religion and love for L.R.H.”. While they can’t even think with the most basic principles of Scientology.

      I do NOT consider such people Scientologists.

      And here you see David Miscavige plugging to his flock how he is expanding the religion across the planet, and they can see the guy is not even a fucking problems release. Because his pending basket is full of law suits. And he can’t walk up to the front door of anyone’s house and say, “How can I make this right”?

      And they throw more money at the beggars to keep it going.

      Because they love LRH? Because they know Scientology works? I don’t think so.

      • How is this for full blown PTSness? These people were so PTS they rose above POTENTIAL trouble sources to ACTUAL trouble sources. ATS. And the Church leader obsessed with voyeurism, sat daily watching these people via video create trouble all over Texas which spread planet wide and was even shown in documentaries.

        Seriously? How “wobbly” can you get?

        • Take the Scientology out of it. O.K.? This is adolescent behavior. People generally do not place a lot of trust in adolescents.

        • Kirstie Alley, John Allendar, CCHR, OSA, Int Management, the PATRONS and all the other people “moving up in status”, are PTS to the Scientology class.

          • While ser facing on everyone else as being PTS to the middle class.

          • PERFECT!!! PTS to the Scientology class.

            ABSOLUTELY — to see this type of rude dismissive behavior in people is simply well — just — untrustworthy to the max!!

            Would I trust a scientologists? Not with my cat/dog/house plant/or even to take the garbage out property to the curb.

            WHY? Because ON A DIME they could decide I am no LONGER worthy of receiving civil human behavior – depending on how the wind (or current flavor of the scientology month) was blowing.

            I am learning to TRUST MYSELF because I have inherent wisdom and kindness. It’s just been buried or covered over.

            Much like a diamond before it is cut and polished.

            The SECRET is that each human being is the same — an uncut, unpolished diamond.

            The joy in life is uncovering that.

            The tragedy in life is thinking otherwise.

            The compassionate thing is to recognize that regardless of outward behavior, there is an immortal diamond within.

            The trick is to know WHO might be so buried as to wish harm, permanent harm on you and yours.

            You then have to be WISE enough to figure out how to disarm the person before he/she harms you and cuts short your worthy life or the life of your family.

            Not to deify Marty — BUT he appears to have figured this out pretty damn well and has the willingness to share.

            HINT to those “scientologists” who find some other “scientologists” trustworthy —- READ Marty’s recommended reading list — otherwise you’ll still be spinning on a ball of mis-information. Serious mis-information I now believe purposely disseminated in a delusional need to hold his (LRH) followers locked into his orbit.

            Windhorse

        • For your info, I was targeted when they sent an un witting cancer patient to my home. They sent him here as a set up, thinking I would violently react and harm a cancer patient..Although they have my P.C. folders in which I have attested to clear , theta clear, native state, clear OT. David Miscavige does not believe in Scientology O.K.?

    • Mark N Roberts

      Oracle.
      You have gained an accurate and conceptual understanding of real ethics. You can clearly think with it, better yet, you can work with it without having to think.
      It is always a joy to see someone who displays actual knowingness.
      Mark

  51. People are trained to mistrust in Scientology.

    Anyone who is below 2.0.
    Anyone who is PTS.
    Anyone who critical.
    Anyone who is not on the bridge.
    Anyone who is involved with “other practices”.
    Anyone who is selling any other kind of self help.
    Anyone who isn’t a clear.
    Anyone who has ever had a psychiatric experience.
    Anyone who has ever been a P.R, flap.
    Anyone who has left staff.
    Anyone working for the government.
    Anyone who a journalist.
    Anyone who isn’t enthusiastic about their Scientology experience.
    Anyone who holds back personal information from the Church.
    Anyone who gets a hard on.
    Anyone devoted to a family that are not Scientologists.
    Anyone who will not join staff.
    Anyone who with holds money from the organization.
    Anyone who goes to the police for help.
    Anyone who seeks a refund.
    Anyone who does not “report in” on a frequent basis.
    Anyone failing to report their friends and family for stepping out of line.
    Anyone who is on the R.P.F..
    Anyone who marries a “wog”.
    Anyone who is a psychiatrist.
    Anyone that has ever taken drugs.
    Anyone that has ever reverted to drugs.
    Anyone devoted to another religion.
    Anyone who mainly associates with “wogs”.
    Anyone who is a judge.
    Anyone who is a police officer.
    Anyone that has ever had an “out 2D”.
    Anyone dis satisfied with a service.
    Anyone who isn’t through OT3.
    Anyone who isn’t in the Sea Org! (They can not even marry outside of the group)
    Anyone who does not attend events.
    Anyone who does not perform when called on for a favor.
    Anyone associating with someone who has been shunned.
    Anyone who is a member of the press.
    Clears. (See the fate of John MacMasters)
    OT”s. (They need to be sec checked every six months.)
    Class Xll C/S’s. (See the fate of David Mayo)
    Int Execs. (They are all in the hole or declared.)
    Sea Org members. (95% of them are not allowed on the Int Base).
    Scientologists. (Need ethics officers in every organization)
    Children. (outlawed at the Int Base and in Orgs)
    Anyone in legal trouble.
    Anyone owning to the I.R.S..
    The I.R.S..
    People that report.
    People that don’t report.
    Anyone who squeals.
    Everyone who doesn’t squeal.
    Anyone that leaves in the middle of a service.
    People who do not appear when subpoena’d by the Church’s MAA.
    People who do appear when subpoena’d by the courts.
    Investigators.
    People who protest when being investigated by the Church.
    People that celebrate holidays.
    People that have lives away from the Church.
    Spectators.
    Lawyers.
    The middle class. (If they weren’t suppressors people would not go PTS to them.)
    People who do not have money for service.

    I’m sure the list could be extended. But you get the point. If you are a Scientologist, who can you trust? Your auditor? What happens at the end of your session? It is REPORTED to someone else THAT DAY.

    P.C. folders were to contain AUDITOR’s NOTES for the AUDITOR and the C/S, NOT for OSA, your senior, oppressive staff and various web sites.

    I don’t think Marty is the one with TRUST ISSUES.

  52. Hi Marty.
    On the surface the title,”Why Scientologists Cannot Be Trusted” can appear as a generality and at first glance give one mixed feelings about your purposes. But I read the post thoroughly and see that you explained in detail and principle exactly who you were talking about.

    You also laid out, in your own words, how this aspect of Scn. was born, how and why it spread and how it became ingrained. This was an excellent and important post.

    If any fault can be found (blogs being what they are, breeding grounds for discussion, differing opinions) it would be the lack of acknowledgement for the good guys, past and present, in and out of the CofS who struggle to help their fellows with what they have.

    I am very much a Scientologist (study and discourse of knowledge) although I am not a card carrying member and do not receive services or support the official organization. Most people seem to consider me a stand up guy and when I find a fault with myself or one is indicated to me, I work to correct it. I’m not perfect, but if you don’t strive for perfection, you’ll never get close.

    But then, you will probably agree that any one person who agrees with every single word of any other individual is a mindless fool or a tape recorder with legs and hands.

    I value your work and sanity. Please continue.
    Mark

  53. Marty, I am completely group-free at the moment, and probably for the moments to come too. Like I have said before, I havent been studying nor practicing scn in a long time. I dont think it’d be wrong to have a few non-professional sessions nor do I think to not do it wrong either. It’s just not very possible to happen. And I would never turn against you to be favoured by some boss. I am not a Scientologist that way. I am not Scientiologist in the way most Scientologists would expect me to be. I just don’t see much connection between the things we have been talking about in here and Hubbard’s words. I dont have ‘the right’ understanding, I have my own. Maybe that’s why I didnt fit in Scientology groups. Thus, I understand your defition of scientologist too. I’m not upset about it. What upsets me is the idea my local cos might be feeling uncomfortable with my blogging, and been studying my OWs over and over, to be prepared for battle. Should I go hide now, or…?

    I’m grateful to Hubbard and love him, but I’m not in debt. Anyone who tried to convince me failed untill we disconnected. I only wish I could do more for our old common caunot to have free people, not for Hubbard, nor SCN, but for them. Isn’t that why you blog? Cheers.🙂

  54. The thing David Miscavige did not count on is immunization. Third or second Scientologists that could be not suppressed.

  55. I know now that I was completely unconscious the entire journey…but when I woke up I no longer wanted anything to do with it.
    But I have to say, it’s a great way to make others beholding to something… kind of like Hitler did with the German people.

  56. Here’s a great movie recommendation for you, Summerwind.

    In the scene where they hold the book burning rally, count the number of times they sing the word FREEDOM as they in their nationalistic nazi songs.

    Hubbard knew what buttons to push with us – the ones that would make us blind to what he was actually doing.

    Alanzo

    • “Hubbard knew what buttons to push with us – the ones that would make us blind to what he was actually doing.”

      Alanzo, Again reporting on the invisible. I don’t know how you can write things like this with a clear consciousness. Making statements that are totally unverifiable and un provable. This is what you imagine he was up to. Yet you state it as a fact. It is not. It is your attitude towards him. That is what it is, your chosen attitude.

      Stating that people are guilty of crimes which you can not prove, and can not be proven, is injustice and slander. That, is true. If the facts warrant his condemnation, can’t you just stick to the facts? Now, you have to report on his purposes and sinister intentions? The invisible as you imagine it to be, about a man you never met.

      If you didn’t have a needy purpose to HATE and ATTACK and BLAME you could be out planting tomatoes or some such thing. You decide your purposes. I can only guess but, when you came into Scientology, you walked in the front door with this same issue. but a different terminal.
      Someone you needed to recover from? Someone on your lines that you hated? Someone you had a history of attacking?

      And I suspect long after you have forgotten Hubbard, there will be another, and another.

      • Oh look.

        I pulled in another series of overly emotional screeds from The Oracle.

        I must have called out L Ron Hubbard for exploiting the spiritual vulnerabilities of people for his own material gain again.

        I know he was “just a man”, Oracle. But how many men do you know who went to the lengths that L Ron Hubbard did to deceive people so that he could take everything of value from them that they had?

        I don’t know many people who have done that at all.

        Do you?

        After all these years you are starting to acknowledge how paranoid L Ron Hubbard was, and how greedy he was. That’s progress.

        So now name some men that created a toxic spiritual deception like Scientology which exploited every vulnerability he could find in people by stuffing it with every mind control technique he could locate and ruining the lives and families of thousands of people for his own material gain.

        Name some men who have done that.

        After all, if he was “just a man” like me, or you even, then name a time that you were in a position of spiritual influence and power over someone else as their spiritual teacher and you got that person to sign a billion year contract to work for you for free and then put them on rice and beans while you lived like a millionaire, put children into chain lockers, threw people overboard, and made them push a peanut around the deck of your ship with their nose until they were covered in blood.

        While you laughed.

        Name a time that you hypnotized someone and got them to pay thousands of dollars for more hypnosis from you – mortgaging their assets many times to the point of bankruptcy – while telling them that you were not hypnotizing them, you were waking them up!

        Name a time that you got all your slaves to attack and destroy utterly anyone who even questioned you, or criticized you for what you were doing.

        Name a time that you called for the elimination of all civil rights of any kind for anyone you deemed to be lower than 2.0 on the tone scale.

        You’ve never done that?

        You never would do that?

        Well L Ron Hubbard did that. And much more.

        Yes, Oracle. L Ron Hubbard was “just a man”.

        But he was not like you or me.

        We would have NEVER done anything like that.

        But L Ron Hubbard did.

        Alanzo

    • Mercy works both ways. The truly curious might ask themselves, “What happened to Hubbard right before he wrote the policy about _______ ” ?
      He was a man. Things happened to him too. Bad things. Unjust things. And a lot of gnarly people crossed his path. Yet you seem to discount his position as a man needing to be understood, as you yourself would like to be understood. As if all of life should not apply to Hubbard because he was a writer, an explorer of the supernatural, and he made an attempt to organize and solidify a methodology. As if failure on his end should not have been possible. And you are not the only one. And you could have known better. You have your own handicaps that predispose you to your attitudes and final conclusions.

      • Sorry, Oracle.

        My screed above to you should have come under this screed of yours to me.

        Alanzo

      • Oracle,

        Great, nice, very brave of you, go after Alonzo. The post and the criticism was written by Marty, why don’t you attack Marty?

        Alonzo wrote : “Hubbard knew what buttons to push with us – the ones that would make us blind to what he was actually doing.”

        There are about five years worth of the most sophisticated mind control tricks been exposed and audited out right here. Hubbard is the source of that black operation.

        And you my dear have a horrible time identifying and overcoming the crap that was run on you by his cult since you were a kid.

        Why are we not acknowledging the good things that Hubbard did?

        Because we have not finished auditing Scientology, when we are done with it, the good, the bad and the ugly will be self evident. And frankly to praise Hubbard seems to act like throwing gasoline into the fire, it makes Scientologists more self righteous and less able to inspect Scientology with equanimity.

        In the mean time, you and other Scientologists are still dramatizing what this post is about. Every time we get close to the core of the implant, some of you pop up like the old Dianetics circuits and begin acting like “bouncers”, ‘deniers” and “groupers”.

        Please don’t attack the people that are helping bring down this cult, we can’t restore to you all the losses that Hubbard and Scientology brought to you and the people that you love, but at least we can help bring closure to this insanity.

        Peace to you.

        • Conan: “And frankly to praise Hubbard seems to act like throwing gasoline into the fire, it makes Scientologists more self righteous and less able to inspect Scientology with equanimity.”

          And frankly to CONTINUOUSLY CONDEMN Hubbard seems to act like throwing gasoline into the fire, it makes DEDICATED CRITICS more self righteous and less able to inspect Scientology with equanimity.

          • ++. Both sides are ‘partisan’ and really have no claim to objectivity as long as they promote just the one side and fail to acknowledge the other.

            • Yes, and the cries to “bring down a cult” get expressed as “eradicate Scientology” when there is no differentiation made. I see more of that than I do those who would salvage the good of Scientology denying the potential pitfalls.

          • What’s it to you, marildi?

            • I don’t understand your question, LG. Or are you just trying to indirectly make some point?

              • “And frankly to CONTINUOUSLY CONDEMN Hubbard seems to act like throwing gasoline into the fire, it makes DEDICATED CRITICS more self righteous and less able to inspect Scientology with equanimity.”

                What’s it to you?

                • I already got what you were replying too. If you don’t get the point I was making, I don’t feel like explaining it. And if you do get it, I suppose your question is just the generations-old childish taunt.

                  If you have a sincere question, why not just be overt about it?

                  • Well, you obviously don’t trust me, in keeping with the post’s theme. No need to be so aggressive, though. I simply noticed that when certain people come out with a certain type of criticism, you clash against them with equal force. This results in an equilibrium, not change. I went back in the archives on this blog some time ago and noticed this has been going on for several years and does not really seem to have changed, so I wondered, what’s the point? You are not going to change their minds and they are not going to change yours. Yet still you throw peoples words back at them, just like you did to me now. I would like to understand this operating basis.

                    • “…you obviously don’t trust me.”

                      Firstly, I don’t see how I “threw your words back at you.” I tried politely at first to have you clarify what you were getting at and then you basically just repeated yourself, so it didn’t look like you wanted to have a sincere comm cycle. But thanks for explaining yourself now.

                      “You are not going to change their minds and they are not going to change yours.”

                      I guess both “sides” have the same point of view – which is to do our best at mitigating what we feel is the spread of false data, or the lack of true data. I’m guessing that your own sentiments are not aligned with mine or you probably would have made a similar remark to someone who has your point of view.

                  • Actually, I just quoted your words back to you as a TR2, and because I thought that perhaps my question was not clear in the previous context. I wanted to keep it as unambiguous as I thought possible.

                    “And if you do get it, I suppose your question is just the generations-old childish taunt.”
                    This assumption was actually deigrating and intentionally hurtful.

                    It’s true, you did not throw my words back at me (altered, like you did with Conan). Instead you assumed a fighting stance and started to use force, as above.

                    At least I have an answer. Thank you for that much.

                    • Letting go, you may not realize it but the way you started out this exchange, with the words “What’s it to you?” came across the same way you are describing mine – like you were “assuming a fighting stance.”

                      I tried to word my impression of your question in terms of “IF this is the case. “But I’m sorry if you felt it came across as denigrating.

                      As for “intentionally harmful” – there again, what I wrote was intended as a response to your harmful intention IF that was what it was. And the reason I had my doubts about that was because I haven’t seen you post that type of comment – other than one time, and you immediately apologized for it. So again, sorry about that. Peace, okay?

                    • marildi, thanks for clarifying. I see now how it came across to you. It really was meant like a shrug of the shoulders. Like “wouldn’t evasive judo be better?” Peace🙂

                    • I don’t really know how evasive judo would be applied on a blog discussion, but maybe I should find out.😉

                      Anyway, thanks for the cool reply!

        • Conan, You wrote: “Please don’t attack the people that are helping bring down this cult”

          I am not attacking Alanzo.

          It is not along MY purpose to “bring down” or destroy or booby trap any organization or culture or civilization. I am not interested in ethnic cleansing.

          Don’t bother trying to enforce your purposes on me. I have my own purposes and they sure as hell do not align with yours. So it is just going to scramble your circuits to park your self on a comm line between me and someone else.

        • +1!

    • Suggest you read this, to understand what hit Hubbard’s lines right before his big itsas (policy letters) on the more sinister nature of man.

      http://www.amazon.com/Call-Me-Burroughs-A-Life/dp/1455511951

      Before he introduced himself as a “curious” at Saint Hill, he was scouring third world countries and paying very, very young beggar boys, desperate, half starved, and ragged, coins to perform anal sex on one another. Not gossip. He bragged about it in his letters to Alan Ginsberg. And so much more I don’t care dish here.This was after he got away with murdering his wife in Mexico by shooting her in the forehead.

      They got him through clear at St. Hill. And off drugs after decades of drug abuse. This is the tip of the iceberg. God only knows what his auditor and C/S had to go through. And then he openly attacked Hubbard and the Church. This is what came before the heavy ethics and all the paranoid policies about the evils of man.

      Hubbard was a man too. He had limits just like you do. You decided to regard him as a God. Then as some evil sociopath with nothing but evil intentions.

      He has children and grandchildren that read the internet. What did they do to you? On one forum now they are displayed, one, a baby. Now due to the publicity, a target for any psycho mad at the C of S or Hubbard.

      Mercy, compassion, understanding, and care work both ways. All the time, between you and other people. He was a people. And there are other people, that do not deserve to be dragged into this circus and never volunteered to be a part of it.

      Human decency is required on this Earth for every one to win.

      • This looks fascinating. Thanks.

        Alanzo

        • The child molester was highlighted as an worthy opinion leader to the uninformed here:

          http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/08/william-s-burroughs-and-scientology-setting-the-record-straight/

          • This is the first I’ve heard that he was a child molester, and a wife-killer.

            In fact, I’ve read a bit by and about Burroughs, even visited his house in Lawrence, KS and talked to his estate manager when I moved back to the cornfields from LA. I studied the Beats, and even created a beat poet like character in something I’ve written.

            I’ve never heard this before about William Burroughs. Perhaps this book is the long suppressed GO DA pack on him.

            I am definitely going to read it. And if it turns out to be true, it will still be totally unrelated to what L Ron Hubbard did to Scientologists.

            Or are you trying to make a cause and effect relationship here?

            William Burroughs’ crimes drove L Ron Hubbard over the edge?

            Before Hubbard met William Burroughs, everything was fine. After that, Hubbard created all the abuses in Scientology?

            Is that what you are trying to say?

            How exactly are these related?

            Alanzo

            • I’m not on trial. Don’t read the book.

              • I can see that you do not like logic and reason.

                Harshes your buzz, doesn’t it?

                Alanzo

                • “I can see that you do not like logic and reason.”

                  I can see that you would like me to have less ARC for myself. What the fuck is up with that?

                  • The Oracle wrote:

                    “I can see that you would like me to have less ARC for myself.”

                    That is a very strange interpretation of what I would like for you to have.

                    Very strange.

                    What emotional fluttering got you over to that branch?

                    Alanzo

                    • Is ‘reason’ superior to ’emotion’, in your book?

                    • Is ‘reason’ superior to ‘emotion’, in your book?

                      Now this is a good Socratic question, Valkov.

                      I think that where emotion fools us into thinking something is true which isn’t, then in that case reason is more important and superior – IF it can be used to re-establish what is true.

                      Reason is like a compass – a tool outside ourselves that can help get us where we want to go – if we know how to use it.

                      When reason takes all the love, and compassion, and human understanding out of life, then emotion is superior, and heals us back to being whole and human again.

                      Too often, The Oracle does not temper her emotion with reason, and becomes lost from what is true. If she could learn to use reason to temper her emotion, she would be as valuable to herself and others as anyone could be.

                      When you are a Scientologist, learning to use reason will heal you and make you human again.

                      When you go too far with reason, and become a soulless atheistic materialist, emotion will heal you and make you human again.

                      A human being is made up of both reason and emotion. It is both of these which make us whole.

                      And being human is all we can ever be, and all that we would ever want to ask for.

                      That’s what it says in my book.

                      Alanzo

                    • It’s odd that you don’t see it, Al. That is my felt perception of you as well. It is how you communicate with some of us, kinda like a Mr. Spock with an axe to grind. Little to no ARC much of the time. So I think T.O. nailed it there.

                • “Harshes your buzz, doesn’t it?” You wish!

              • Oracle –

                Did you actually read this book? It’s 650 pages.

                Here’s part of a review on Amazon by Booklist:

                Though homosexual, he married a German Jew while in Europe during Hitler’s ascent, saving her life, then later accidentally killed his second wife. Miles illuminates every facet of Burroughs’ life, from his passions for guns and the occult to his depthless hunger for drugs and boys, visual and audio art, and crucial friendships with Allen Ginsberg and artist Brion Gysin.”

                Yet you wrote:

                “he was scouring third world countries and paying very, very young beggar boys, desperate, half starved, and ragged, coins to perform anal sex on one another. Not gossip. He bragged about it in his letters to Alan Ginsberg. And so much more I don’t care dish here. This was after he got away with murdering his wife in Mexico by shooting her in the forehead.“

                You distinctly said “murdered”.

                Is this reliable information from you, Oracle?

                Or just an overly emotional imagination and manipulative rhetoric on your part?

                I am definitely going to read it.

                All 650 pages.

                It’s on my Kindle now.

                I’ll be sure to report back on your accuracy as a writer who conveys the truth of the subjects you choose to write about.

                Alanzo

                • Again prosecutor Javert, I am not on trial here. So you read a review and challenge my report? So what is the book is 650 pages? What has that got to do with anything? I didn’t recommend that you read a review. I recommended that you read the book. You are so blood thristy you read a review and suggest I am a liar, that I didn’t read the book and what I read in it I Didn’t? Why would your mind even go there? And you interrogate me because you read a review? then initiate an interrogation? And so the potential for abuse that Alanzo laid into the Scientology experience has become real yet again.

                  • By the way, you haven’t bothered to read my review, because I haven’t written one yet. I don’t mean to imply that Burroughs was not brilliant and perceptive and well educated and well traveled. He was. He was bigger celebrity than Hubbard than Hubbard when he got involved with Scientology. And he always praised the auditing tech, minus the sec checks.

                    I grew up on the fringes of the beat generation, in San Francisco, Berkeley and New York. So, the book was an easy read for me. I was already familiar with the characters.

                    But if you read the book, you begin to understand what Hubbard was dealing with, when he took on Burroughs.

                    By the time you put all the pieces together, it is all rather comical.

                    Burroughs and Hubbard , both of them dominating men, dancing around one another at Saint Hill.

                    I suspect Hubbard was genuinely very fond of him. But it is clear from his books. lifestyle, and his letters, Burroughs was most aloof, in all of his relationships. Not even connecting with his own child, which he dropped off on his parents to raise after he shot his mother.

                  • Did you read the book or not?

                    Alanzo

                • Short video clip of Burroughs. You can see by his demeanor he wasn’t a likely follower, he was a leader. Brilliant, charismatic, beautiful and intense. Hubbard must have had his hands full.

                  • “Jesus Christ said that by their fruits ye shall know them, not by their disclaimers.”

                    Excellent.

                    “Beat” is short for “Beatitudes”.

                    Alanzo

                    • I read a lot of policies on the HPE and I course, and on the PTS SP course on character, that I had no reference point for. As I went through this book most of them popped up before my eyes. Several, “AHA!” moments.

                      In Scientology you see these policies or HCOB’s, some are scientific. As in: “This means that, (such as needle reads etc.) Do this and that happens.” These things you can just demonstrate for yourself to determine if it works. And that is that simple. If it does, it simply does.

                      Then you get into esoteric paths where opinion enters, such on personality character, etc. And, if you do not have a reference right there in front of you, no example, no personal experience, I myself am left with the question, “Why did he write this? Or, “What problem was in front of him that he was trying to solve?” And that is where my mind goes. Not on what he wrote, but on his life. Since he never gives the background information on why he wrote these things, one can only guess.

                      I think that is where people mock up a lot of very interesting things instead of just putting these ideas on the side in case they pop up later when you have some reference for them. Which is what I mainly did. Sort of in a pending basket. Something you don’t think with now, but at some time in the future, perhaps they will make sense if you can actually see it evidenced.

                      We are missing a lot of background data. There is never a back ground story. There is just, “This is the way it is.” You can verify it or you can not. I lived a few decades before I could make sense of some of the things I read.

                      So, there were cluttered pending baskets in the mind that I was still trying to sort through. Where to put this? Will there ever be a way to think with this? Throw it out keep it in?

                      So going through this book answered a lot for me.

                      Aside from the fact that my mother was totally pts to the beat class, and her siblings went totally pts to her, and the shit rolled down.

                      I found them all repelling at that time. They all seemed to be in a state of confusion and there was a lot of covert inval because I didn’t want to be “a hippie kid”. I was wearing six inch heels at the age the age of twelve and dreaming of Errol Flynn and cocktail parties.

                      It turns out, the makers of the beat generation, were too. Money, luxury, travel, and cosmopolitan living were their standards. Only their followers were running around barefoot and sleeping on floors and living on fish and chips, and doing nothing but getting high and protesting about it all.

                      Kind of like the Sea Org.

                    • The Oracle wrote:

                      ” I was wearing six inch heels at the age of twelve and dreaming of Errol Flynn and cocktail parties.

                      You were a throwback flapper bohemian girl, obviously ascendant to the Algonquin Roundtable.

                      My older siblings were hippies, and I never understood the lineage into which I was forged until I found myself reading Proust in the City Lights bookstore, and crying my eyes out at the beauty of it all.

                      That was me in my 30’s, while I was still a Scientologist.

                      I did not realize that the Beats caused the Hippies until then. And when I did find that out, I realized a huge debt to these Dharma Bums who jumped trains and who tried to reject their parent’s post-depression drive for grubby materialism.

                      It was good for me to find a bridge to the past after growing up in a “generation gap” world. This alienation from everything earlier sent me into the cult of Scientology as an answer society to the world that my parent’s generation had created and which was falling apart all around me.

                      A great documentary which reminded me of that alienation-world, which we all grew up in, is something I wrote about on my super-secret blog that hardly anyone is allowed to visit.

                      I’m extending a special invitation to you here, Oracle, in case you want your mind re-blown from that long ago forgotten set of causes which made us who we are today.

                      http://www.alanzosblog.com/scientology-source-family-cult/

                      Alanzo

                    • At least Hubbard figured out a way to provide for his flock. I have to give him that. But that probably isn’t going to make any sense to anyone else but me.

                      David Miscavige was so misplaced in this theater. He never wrote a book, never made any discoveries of any value, could not apply the tech, was not spiritual in any sense, was not well educated, did not have much life experience, and had a poor identity as a sickly wheezy kid when he walked in the front door of Saint Hill.

                      I understand the whole Scientology theater a lot better now.

                    • Thanks for the invite, I will check it out. XXOO

                    • By the way, the author of the book did not get a lot of facts right with time place form and event, of Burroughs romance with Scientology. But that is pretty obvious to the reader if you have been involved with Scientology. It doesn’t matter at all, to people reading the book that have not.

    • Sorry Alanzo. I myself have not been entirely honest. And I have my own ser facs. I don’t understand what kind of lives and backgrounds people come from, that get hung up on this as a major situation or a major problem.
      Scientology and LRH have been the least of my problems. And the best of my solutions.

      I don’t grant beingness to people who have had this as their biggest problem. I don’t have the reality. It seems to me like a Cafe Society issue. I have my own confusions.

      I am handicapped also. I think, “These people do not know what is like to be hungry, homeless, the minority paying for crimes they never committed, social outcasts in a real way, desperate on every level, homeless, needy, and so many other things”.

      And I think, “They are weak and softy and so very overwhelmed and stuck on how they should have been “contributed to” and were not”. They have no idea of what it is to scratch for another day of living. They can shun beans and rice because they do not know what it is like to be half starved. They are fragile and pampered.”

      And I give discount points to them. And excuse it. And then, I read the originations and I go, “Damn! These people are really viscous sadistic mother fuckers. The knives are out and the sadism has no end!” And the evil coming from the cafe society is so much more than I thought possible.

      And, I still don’t get it.

    • I mean, what about the education from this experience? Doesn’t that count as some value to some people? No! Apparently not! They don’t even appreciate the education! I struggle with this and other supremacy attitudes.

    • And Alanzo, The reason I buck up against you here, is that I sense a purpose for perversion on your part. And by all means correct me if I am wrong. But, Marty has this panoramic view of the streets all the way up, north east south and west of this Scientology thing. He walked the path in every direction. And I don’t know who else did.

      And his purpose is impart VITAL INFORMATION about it, and YOU translate that his purpose is to attack. And you contribute to something that actually does not exist.

      And, he makes these comments that are so true, and you turn them into a way to attack.

      And, I don’t see that as his purpose. And, it is like a wrong item for me.

      • The fact that you think he has evil intentions that you can contribute to, only tells me you are still PTS to the Church and those ideas. And those ideas are FIXED IDEAS. Policy is FIXED IDEAS.

        • Doesn’t mean I don’t love you. I do.

        • The Oracle:”The fact that you think he has evil intentions that you can contribute to, only tells me you are still PTS to the Church and those ideas.”

          Many of the fervent critics seem to me to be LESS FREE on the subject of Scientology than the proponents who can see the uniquely positive aspects.

          • Making self right and others wrong used to be a past time of the idle rich. At least we live in a world where everyone can dabble in it now. Sometimes a ser fac is the force that gives you meaning. It is not possible to learn (inflow), and ser fac (outflow), at the same time. Just one of those difficult choices people get faced with in life. I find when I try to point out something to someone who is really wallowing in it big time, they can not inflow the new information.

            This is exactly how the CofS puts people on a shut down. Once a person is propped up to ser fac on someone else, and the Church has a huge ser fac case, say, to ser fac on “anyone who speaks out”, you get the Scientologist running the ser fac and they can not hear what the person speaking out is saying. Because the purpose is to make them wrong. So they can chant the truth 24/7 and it falls on deaf ears.

            It doesn’t occur to everyone, that the ser fac starts at sign up with the OCA. “You are wrong” (look at your graph), and we are right (We can fix this).

            The hard core Scientologists are running a ser fac. “I’m right and everyone else on the planet is wrong”. This is a thick smelly glue that holds a lot of people grouped. If they didn’t assume everyone on the planet was “in bad shape” they wouldn’t have the need to “save every man woman and child on it”. You really have to mock up a huge “I am right and everyone else is wrong” to get on board.

            And then what do you have to do to stay right? You just have to stay on the bridge or on staff. What do you think these big donations are? A ser fac. “I did it why can’t you?”

            So, you attract a lot of people who are comfortable within a ser fac being the force that gives them meaning. And the Scientology experience was basically, a vehicle to ser fac on others. The real loss when they depart is having the ser fac ripped out from under their feet.

            So they mock up a new one and run that. “I’m right and Hubbard is wrong.” “I’m right and Scientologists are fucked up”.

            And if you took them off this planet all together and did a memory swipe, they would just reappear on Jahagatar or whatever, and continue with whatever tools are available there to make self right and others wrong.

            It is a PURPOSE.

            • “There is an irrationality about ‘being right’ which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.

              “The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical persons. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.”

              (HCOPL 1 Nov. 70 III, “You Can Be Right”)

              • Marildi brings out The Big Guns, laying down fire from a quote by L Ron Hubbard called “HCOPL 1 Nov. 70 III, “You Can Be Right”.

                And there we have it.

                The ultimate ser fac from L Ron Hubbard for Scientologists to use to make anyone wrong who questions or criticizes their world view. Like a dirty safety blanket, they can cling to it whenever they need to.

                This one used to be used by Scientologists all over the Internet when I was first getting out, held out like a crucifix to a vampire.

                I have not seen it used in a long time.

                I don’t think you can understand how manipulative and just wrong this reference is.

                Will you be pulling out “Can We Ever Be Friends” next and make me sit through that?

                Alanzo

                • Let me re-phrase my make-wrong of LRH’s “You Can Be Right.”

                  If you know the basics of social science, and any Scientologist or former Scientologist should, you will recognize some of Hubbard’s ideas in this bulletin coming from cognitive dissonance theory.

                  And if you knew the full cognitive dissonance theory, you could see where Hubbard deleted things from it so he could write this for Scientologists, and why Hubbard’s cut up version of it here is unworkable to the point of being false.

                  Where cognitive dissonance theory brings a profound understanding of yourself and others, this only makes people wrong because they are always trying to be right. It is used by staff and Sea Org to break down a Scientologist’s will to hold a position contrary to theirs. And this is NOT the result of having thoroughly learned cognitive dissonance theory.

                  https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=391536743&ign-mpt=uo%3D8

                  This link is to a beginning Social Science course taught at Berkeley. In this course, there are three days in a row where the instructor goes into cognitive dissonance theory in full, and I can tell you that it is quite enlightening. You actually have a better understanding and respect for your fellow man, and yourself, after you hear those three lectures.

                  Unlike the result of reading L Ron Hubbard’s “You Can Be Right”.

                  I know that it’s not very respectable of me, but I can’t remember which three lectures are the lectures on cognitive dissonance theory. You probably aren’t interested in “psych” theories any way.

                  But you can’t say I didn’t try.

                  The whole course is free on iTunes, and it is really really good for anyone who has ever been involved in a cult.

                  Really.

                  Alanzo

                • “Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.” –Karl Popper

      • Oracle,

        Well ok. You got all self righteous with Brian too, and you missed Brian’s observation of “Dharma-Duty”

        A lot of people got sucked into Scientology, because they have made prior pledges to spread the Dharma.

        Hubbard pulled the rug under everyone’s feet with his sleigh of hands.
        He went from a scientific Mental Health Therapy, to Ron-Maitreya, then to Ron-Deus and finally to Ron-Lucifer, all through out demanding total loyalty and eternal obligation to his Lordship.

        The above hocus-pocus is called the WRONG TARGET.

        ” A mistaken objective wherein one believes he is or should be reaching toward A and finds he is or should be reaching toward B is an outpoint.

        This is mistaken identity. It is also mistaken purposes or goals.”

        Needless to say it produces a huge amount of confusion and conflict in people’s mind, so they become ripe for the implant.

        Oracle, you don’t have a deep understanding of “The Middle Way”, if you did, the “wrong items” will be self evident to you.

        And you still have not find your Static point. When you do, what you want to do with Scientology will be possible, but it won’t look like its current form.

        Best of luck to you.

        • “…what you want to do with Scientology will be possible, but it won’t look like its current form.”

          Now you’ve touched upon what is actually being wrong targeted. NO ONE except the CoS is promoting Scientology in “its current form.”

          This “somehow” is not-ised.

          • Marildi,

            What is not-ised by you and the other Scientologists, is that you are studying first and foremost CONSCIOUSNESS. Not Hubbard and not Scientology. Those are the speaker and the medium, they are NOT THE OBJECT.

            You might think that my statement above is ridiculous and even moronic, but that misperception costed thousands of people their freedom, and when they waked up, they found themselves trapped somewhere inside Scientology mind control prisons, or with their children taken away by the Cult, in financial ruin or persecuted.

            And all of the Hubbard cheerleading that you are doing here, is not going to change the facts that the entirety of Scientology Upper Management along with its Technical Hierarchy, ended up imprisoned and subjected to brain washing by other Scientologists.

            So until I see enough evidence that Scientologists can demonstrate real independent thought processes other than regurgitating biblical Ron, I’ll be a critic of Scientology, whether it be dependent, independent or codependent.

            So first things first my dear. Know that you are studying consciousness, then Hubbard and Scientology will fall into perspective.

            • “What is not-ised by you and the other Scientologists, is that you are studying first and foremost CONSCIOUSNESS. Not Hubbard and not Scientology. Those are the speaker and the medium, they are NOT THE OBJECT.”

              Dub in, much?🙂

              Seriously, Conan dear, if you didn’t get from my posts that I consider Scientology to be a MEDIUM – a via, a route – and that in “its current form” (using your wording) it is NOT a medium for the study of consciousness, then you are reading my posts with fixed ideas.

              You apparently have preconceived notions about anyone saying anything positive about Hubbard or Scientology – in spite of the fact that you admit he is speaker and that Scientology is the medium leading to the object.

              Anyway, I’m glad you do understand that. It’s really all I’ve been saying and is the reason I sometimes “regurgitate” the speaker’s words that illustrate the true medium. And it’s why I object to the medium in its altered forms not being recognized as such, as they do not lead to the object.

              • Marildi,

                The only thing that I get from your post is that you are hard core literalist, holy roller Hubbardologist.

                You will do great in Bible School.

                • Resorting to Ad Hom instead of speaking with intellectual honesty to what I wrote says a lot about you and your views..

        • I have charge on bawl babies. My bad.

        • Conan, your indication that I am running “self righteousness” is a false report. A wrong item.

          If you re read my post, is it clear I was making an effort to display rightness in Hubbard, NOT myself.

          And none of that communication was written with you as the intended recipient. For just this reason. I can make someone else right and it translates through your fucking circuits and scrambles, into me trying to make myself right. I can talk about granting others beingness and it translates to you that I am handicapped in character.

          • Oracle, you don’t have a deep understanding of “The Middle Way”, if you did, the “wrong items” will be self evident to you.

            And you still have not find your Static point.

            • I don’t have a purpose to find a static point. So it is easy to make me wrong for not finding one. Aren’t you the witty one!

              • Oracle, that is where Scientology supposed to have taken you by now.

                Finding your unmoving point, that you are not data but that data revolves around you like confetti. That you can be without any reference point.

                Not the other way around.

                • Can this be done?

                  • L.G,
                    Yes, but I’ll be very careful with whom and how you go about it.
                    You are very bright so I know you will understand what I mean.

                  • My current speculative understanding is that Native State is achieved “in passing”, not as a permanent stable state. It is possibly inherently unstable. There are quite few LRH lectures on the subject in the 4th London ACC series. He actually says quite a few things in those that may come as a surprise to those who hear them.

                  • Personally I would guess that T.O. has visited Native State more than once.

                • “Oracle, that is where Scientology supposed to have taken you by now.”

                  I have no idea about your “supposed to” thinking. That’s on you. I don’t lean on “supposed to” thinking.

                  I’ve been taking myself to where I need to go.

          • The Oracle wrote:

            Conan, your indication that I am running “self righteousness” is a false report.

            Your false report report should be taken to the department of redundancy department for certification and filing.

            Alanzo

      • To be more clear. Marty is actually lifting ARC in the world. He is building bridges for communication. He is pointing out things that put people in communication. He is making reality clear. He is improving ARC between peoples. Lifting up people’s ARC.

        You Alanzo, and you are not the only one, are using the blog to scurry around and pass out invitations to hate. Your purpose is to reduce people’s ARC.

        And there are a few people that have worked to reduce ARC for this blog and the activity here.

        I have had a textbook S.P. on my lines off and on for some time. There is a lot of information to digest when it some to sociopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, other ill willed influences.

        I purposely stopped “fair roads and good weathering” this person on my lines recently and really pulled the person in close to face.

        I had all of these puzzle pieces that were scattered about on the table, about understanding people, and they all did not add up all of the time.

        For instance, I have known low toned people that were not treasonous.

        And I have known people who could be suppressive and also watch your back. And push you up.

        There was just so much to put together and so many things to add up,and so many things that did not add up. I was looking to find ONE thing, ONE thing I could think with that was a constant trait of someone of ill will and what was the real damage they were doing.

        I finally found it.

        It is people that attack your ARC. They extend invitations to hate, with the purpose of reducing your ARC for others, and thereby reduce your ARC for the world.

        And oddly, this was the reason I never went into the Scientology fold with blind faith. There were too many requests in the culture, to be out of ARC with others.

        And this one thing is my only gauge now and it has been spot on. People who attack my ARC. Because all of my potential and happiness revolves around that. And when someone is attacking that or trying to unmock that, they are trying to unmock me.

        The person asking you to hate, the person asking you to shun, the person asking you to disconnect, the person asking you to have less ARC or demanding no ARC, the person asking you to condemn someone, the person asking you not to care, the person making you guilty for love and desire, the person running running “Can’t Have” ARC, that is the mother fucker you need to watch out for. That right there is your killer virus that is going to put damage on your lines.

        It is a very covert theft of your life force to chop down your ARC. And it is the worst thing you can steal from someone else.

        ARC is truly the only real treasure we possess.

        • And when someone is working on you to have less ARC for yourself, you have a real killer on your hands.

          And I think this exactly where the Church folded. Especially the Sea Org and what they run on one another. It was a minus ARC situation when I was there.

        • T.O., you are so good at articulating my own perceptions and instincts.

        • This black PR line going around about Marty and this blog, that the blog is blowing people off the bridge and putting them out of ARC with Scientology, is a blatant lie.

          Blind devotion, blind faith, fanaticism are NO ARC conditions. No ARC for self. Letting someone else think for you is a no ARC for self condition.

          IF people are blowing through that no ARC, and coming up to having some small degree of REAL ARC for Hubbard and Scientology, which involves REALITY O.K., and it is REAL, that is an improvement.

          Hubbard was REAL. He is not a figment of your imagination you developed through reading policy. If a person is to move off a point of synthetic ARC and shift onto a line of REAL ARC, there is going to be some ADJUSTMENT. Which is right there on the awareness characteristics.

          A person’s ARC for Scientology is not proportional to P.R. sorry it is just not true.

          A person’s ARC for Scientology will be proportionate to their reality using it for IMPROVEMENTS they can know about. They can’t use it if it is unreal to them because their devotion is based upon “belief and pledge of allegiance”.

          You just let people drift off their illusions and face the truth about it all. And I guarantee you, that person will drift on over as time goes on and see, yeah, there were some good things I can think with and use. Maybe 20% or 5% or if they kick off and in between lives becomes a real and current issue, they might think with 60% of it.

          Little genuine ARC, and even lack of ARC, is far better than synthetic ARC built on illusion, trust, hope and faith. These are things that happen when you can not KNOW.

          And after all, Scientology is knowing how to know.

          It is NOT “knowing how to have blind faith, knowing how to keep your mouth shut, knowing where you should not know, knowing how to trust, knowing how to believe, knowing how to pledge allegiance, knowing how to harm attack and suppress, knowing how to be a member, knowing who to avoid, and all the rest of the alter is that people have made of the Scientology experience.

          Everything Marty has been attacked for, has been for helping people to know about something. And the suppression has come from the Scientologists. What kind of outpoint is that?

        • “And this one thing is my only gauge now and it has been spot on. People who attack my ARC. Because all of my potential and happiness revolves around that. And when someone is attacking that or trying to unmock that, they are trying to unmock me.”

          Brilliant insight, T.O.

  57. The problem is that the inconsistencies between how SCN is supposed to be, and how it is, is not found only in SCN criticisms, but also in SCN in practice –the degree of that is unknown to me. Thus, I find it pointless to say ‘Well, Scientology is not really like that. The truth is that Scientology is…”. Which is why I hesitate to take either the part of any side.

    Example: A critic by reading KSW1 can figure out that there is an amount of pushing from LRH to Scientologists to work, to leave their disagreements behind, to become fanatics and so on. A Scientologist in the middle might say, that it is not pushing, and that he works on his own determination because he agrees the planet is in a bad shape and needs to change before it gets too late. But the real problem is that some Scientologists (not saying ‘all’, as I don’t really know all) indeed takes it as pushing. And not only that, but they also push others with it. Actually with it, and with a ton of other texts. I really do get it when I read about it in here and elsewhere, that LRH made a controlling group and so on. The thing -with me- is I am not open to getting pushed, and I wasn’t open back then either, which also contributed to me being at odds with individuals of high status from time to time –and eventually leave too. For me Scientology was to be done freely. You can’t tell people how to run their lives to be ethical, and then read to them -by LRH- that self-determinism is senior to ethics, and that without self-determinism you don’t have ethics. What that simply says is if you don’t control your self, if you are controlled by others, you can’t be ethical. So then imposed ethics is BS. Just like all fighting is BS, if you consider that in Scientology all conflict is created by a third unknown person, called a third party, and that without such a person, conflicts don’t exist –in Scientology theory.

    So then, how come “Scientologists at war” and harsh ethics and stuff like that? Well, go figure. That’s why I don’t follow. I have friends here and there (and dare I say potential friends in the Church, too, if we ever get back in touch), but generally, I strongly disagree with the Scientology I’ve known, in practice. It is authoritarian and the ‘find out for yourself’ to a degree hypocritical. I find out for myself by perceiving for myself, not believing. And the LRH texts for me, are texts. They are not ‘how things are’. I believe that’s how LRH wanted people to consider his texts, even though he did describe therein how things were, from his viewpoint. I express my viewpoint too -about ‘the world’- from time to time. I’m no less a brainwasher than him, then.

    If my friends from here and there, are not longer friends of mine because I’m at odds with their groups, that’s too bad –for them. As nowhere in that ‘çode of honor’ such a thing is to be found. For me, ‘friends’ are third dynamic too. I have friends psychologists –since my teens. I don’t agree with them about psychology, but other than that, we are friends. They’re good people.

    I’m no fighter for Scientology nor anything else, although I would defend myself or a beloved one, if it be really needed. If freedom was to be imposed through fighting suppression, well, we should all join an anarchy movement. But fighting is not freedom. When you fight, you aim to reduce the other’s freedom –his freedom to be, to think, to act and so on. I don’t want to do that to anybody. Some times I might do it -temporarily- but it doesn’t feel good. I think fighters, ultimately, fight themselves, and cannot be in a good shape for as long as they fight. I don’t think that I am God, but I think God is everything, and so yeah ultimately we fight our self –but that’s high philosophical stuff, anyway. Just explaining how I view things.

    • *to not be misunderstood, I do see usefulness in good-intended criticism, in the presence of important secrets which are of concern to Scientologists. I have heard the notion that the critic criticizes himself and so on, and -in short- that he dramatizes. But the thing is that you get to read about viewpoint -from people who know Scientology from the inside- that you don’t get to read by members of Scientology. And the reason for that is (many or most) Scientologists, the way we had been taught, witheld things from ouselves so as not to be labelled ‘bad’ and so on. We were not even supposed to think of disagreements, if we did…you know what. Call me a liar, please.

      So whether there is dramatization involved or not, is beside the point. The point is a wake up call was needed by those who needed it. I see it more like ‘things fall into their place’ –hopefully with as few victims as possible. And anyway, that somebody dramatizes and I get to experience that, is a very victim viewpoint. I don’t believe it.

  58. I no longer consider myself a Scientologist.
    I will say that I have found some nice gems in the written material and have had some nice realizations through auditing.
    I will also say, as a “construct” or a unified whole, Scientology seems ultimately confusing and unsuccessful in it’s stated mission. Therefore the construct must be flawed overall.
    I think anyone who serves a master under threat of violence or duress cannot be trusted. Whether in corporate scientology or the military or other groups. I think there are always exceptions to the rule.

  59. Maybe religion is attracting the evil much more than any other group. As religion has as a main goal to fight evil and stamp evil out. Then evil fights back and occupies those that try hard to get rid of it. Scientology did also try hard to stamp out the evil. As evil did grow stronger Scientology did try to be stronger than evil. Thus the “urgency” push or “group” push. We had not been the only group in history going that way. Others did fail and we did fail too. I have no solution. The only thing I know that I am not holy and can be very evil. This is my best guarantee not to harm others.

  60. My personal reasons for not trusting a Scnist is that went faced with moral dilemmas they cannot be expected to always do the right thing. When the org is involved and exerts it’s influence, the devoted Scnist will always side with the church, which may not be the ethical choice. When this happens good people do bad things.

  61. The LRH quote cited above can be interpreted in more than way. It CAN be viewed as simply a statement that when one is given much, one might consider oneself morally obligated to give back to others in a similar way, that helping others is a key factor in one’s own happiness and in overall survival for all. Considering on a SELF DETERMINED basis that when one has received many blessings in one way or another, that one has incurred some sort of a “debt” is not necessarily a bad thing and may actually be a very good thing and a source of great happiness to many. It looks like LRH in this reference is using this word in such a way.

    Still, when it comes to looking at LRH’s intention regarding ANY statement he makes, I think you do have to take it in CONTEXT with all his OTHER statements and also viewed in a sort of time line to see where he ultimately was going as he made his statements (or laid down truth and law that Scientologists were bound to accept and follow). I can’t cite many references in this limited space of course, but take a look at his policy of the late 60s on ranking one’s motivation. “Duty motivation” is the highest. This short statement by itself seems fairly harmless and might even seem to be laudable for one to follow what one considers one’s obligation to one’s group. But think about this more deeply. Duty motivation to WHOM? Duty motivation to DO WHAT? HOW does one determine what actual actions are one’s duty? And NEVER forget that LRH ranks this above “personal gain” which as stated briefly is not very exact. Does this mean that one gives up a motivation of doing what one considers survival to oneself in favor of a duty given to one by an external source that one HAS to follow? And that one has to do this ALWAYS when ever called upon?

    You can look at this and various parts of Keeping Scientology Working and it is clear to me that from these sources and many others, that Ron slowly but surely laid a groundwork of agreement with Scientologists (who by their very membership agreement in the group were bound to accept whatever LRH said as truth and follow it) that they would allow their actions on all their dynamics to be controlled by HIS viewpoints about these dynamics (and turn on a dime if HE did). That is NOT self determinism of course and never forget also, that “non compliance” with LRH’s views ALWAYS came with penalties of one sort or another and were always accompanied with an amount of threat or force. That obviously is not “total freedom.”

    • Mr. Pendleton wrote:

      “You can look at this and various parts of Keeping Scientology Working and it is clear to me that from these sources and many others, that Ron slowly but surely laid a groundwork of agreement with Scientologists (who by their very membership agreement in the group were bound to accept whatever LRH said as truth and follow it) that they would allow their actions on all their dynamics to be controlled by HIS viewpoints about these dynamics (and turn on a dime if HE did). That is NOT self determinism of course and never forget also, that “non compliance” with LRH’s views ALWAYS came with penalties of one sort or another and were always accompanied with an amount of threat or force. That obviously is not “total freedom.”

      You do have to take teachings like Marty showed that he gave to auditors about how to get paid by their pcs, and place them into the whole context of his writings, his lectures, as well as his “unpublished” orders, and his actions and behaviors – both long term and short term – as he set up, created, and maintained Scientology over the years.

      A huge mistake many people make is to look only to his books (which were mostly all written from 1950-1955) and were meant to be Broad Public Issue. It is a mistake as well to only look to his BPI Tech Bulletins and Policy Letters to interpret L Ron Hubbard.

      Any analysis of LRH’s statements which looks only to these is going to come up with inaccurate conclusions about LRH’s intentions behind his words and actions because that is a woefully incomplete data set.

      For instance, he said things like “If it isn’t written it isn’t true” even though he DID things and ordered things that were never written down. These things are still true – even though they are not in writing.

      And then there are other writings that are confidential, like the GO and OSA Network Orders, which reveal a diametric opposite kind of standard Scientology to the BPI issues of books, tapes, HCOBs and PLs.

      Like all hypnotists, directing and misdirecting peoples’ attention through prestidigitation was one of L Ron Hubbard’s greatest skills. You can’t be fooled by the hand-wavings.

      You have to look into the areas that he did not want you to see.

      Another great analysis, Mr. Pendleton.

      Alanzo

      • “You have to look into the areas that he did not want you to see.”

        Why bother? Just take the “BPI” as you call them, basic principles, and use them. Do you do this? I know Marty does. Do you audit people for their own benefit? No. The rest follows.

    • Excellent Joe.
      This is a good example of the flawed construct I wrote about above. You can take lots of his writing as stand alone and get some nice stuff out of it. Taken as a whole it becomes a complex labyrinth that can leave most people very befuddled. Take the example of “What would Ron do?” I never liked this statement even when I was a bot. Ron would quit a game if he was being played. At least that is how I saw it then, but other people would interpret this as a reason for you to give away your house because “RON did everything to keep Scientology alive”. It was like a non-stop debate on proving that you are okay to live your own life. I used to tell my wife “It’s never enough”. No matter how much you donated or volunteered they would always come back at you harder the next day. It sucked being a corporate scientologist. Glad I’m gone.

    • Joe, just as it is with cognitions in auditing, each individual interprets the meaning of words in accordance with their own level of understanding or enlightenment. Some require more structure than others as they aren’t yet at very a high level of self-determinism. I think LRH tried to express things in ways that would cover the bases in pointing a wide variety of people in the direction of more and more self-determinism – again, just as he attempted to do with auditing.

      The word “duty” has the following definitions to choose from:

      : something that is done as part of a job
      : something that you must do because it is morally right or because the law requires it
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duty

  62. A proper session is one where each participant is being an “auditor,” and he is auditing the “group mind” relating to a topic.

    A part of this group mind says, “I know it all.”

    The result of auditing out this part of the group mind would be equivalent to attaining a level above Scientology Level OT VIII.

    http://vinaire.me/2014/08/01/khtk-sessions/

    .

  63. Natural Philosopher

    For decades I was stuck in the idea of ‘owing a debt’ to Ron and to the world as a staff member and Scientologist and could not easily shuck it off even after leaving the Sea Org. I was plied with ‘ways to make up my debt’ by OSA, especially buying Basics, to put in libraries. Fortunately I didn’t have an unlimited credit card! It has taken a long time to get out of that ‘idee fixe’ and find an equilibrium in my life. Actually Scientology, Miscavige and TC owe ME, for a variety of reasons. I could enumerate the many different circumstances where the balance sheet is in my favour rather than the other way around. Fortunately I am now able to underscore the bottom line and get on with living, without feeling I owe any Scientologist anything. And feeling that I am no longer a slave to that autocratic society. Thanks Marty, for some very astute observations!

    • “For decades I was stuck in the idea of ‘owing a debt’ to Ron and to the world as a staff member and Scientologist and could not easily shuck it off even after leaving the Sea Org.”

      I ran it out as survivor’s guilt.

  64. Another Thought

    This is interesting, this business of “debt” to Ron or Scn.

    A story I know is of a guy who gave a third of his waking life to his church to help, what he thought, the purposes of it. He got very little in return, but was convinced (and convinced himself) that he wasn’t doing enough and there was more to learn to be able to do. He then gave more and another 2 years of his life, all waking moments, to learn to deliver practically everything an org could deliver, and another 4 doing so. Lost his family and home. Gave it all (and lost it all).

    You know what? The culture was inculcated to demand even more of him than he could give, as his giving anymore would put him in serious legal trouble. He’d get into trouble if he wasn’t there handling the growth of the org and he’d get into trouble because he couldn’t manage the new legal obligations in his life from the fall out. Only because of that (he’d lose both if he didn’t handle the obligations), did he have no choice but to originate to leave, and as he was “routing out” it was his confessional that made him realize how bullshit and out exchange the whole situation was – and he just left, and left them far behind him.

    In that view, with all the purported good he had done, the scenario became so unbalanced that it really could be said to be the church (or its culture) that owed him, considerably, based on the logic I see from that reference.But it would never be that way.

    I imagine this is not the only person who experienced this, by far.

    This game of “ledger”, e.g. the only way to clear the “obligation” is to reciprocate by similar action rather than exchange agreed upon, is a really sort of twisted barter. Lots of different ways it can be manipulated to the benefit of the “creditor”. I mean really, in any “business”, a person could be made to be extremely happy and satisfied with their services or goods purchased. They would refer others to the business because of their desire for their friends to get the best or something. Does that then add further obligation to “be a better human” or “pay back by similar action”?

    It gets very dicey when applied on the spiritual bent. Spiritual gains and their value are supposed to transcend the material. How potentially damaging would it then be to then demand or imply a further favor from someone helped? It must imply to that person that he is in further debt beyond what the agreed upon recompense was to be, and I think, to a marked degree, decreases the value and virtue of the gain. It is quite a nice bit of control, to say the least – makes a slave.

    The quote almost has such an altruistic ring to it, but, man, it just looks diabolical in consequence.

  65. Here is a little reminder why Scientology is an endless hamster wheel, and why Scientologists are hopelessly stuck inside their religion:

    The religious mind,

    The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that believes in religion. You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist.

    A religious mind does not seek at all, it cannot experiment with truth. Truth is not something dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or whatever religion you belong to.

    The religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is -what actually is.

    http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20140309.php?t=Religious mind

  66. Hi Marty,
    Excellent points made but I feel you are a little unfair to
    The FZ and Ron’s Orgs.

    “Max recently sent out via mass e-mail one of his secrets taken from Ron himself on how he manages to keep the faithful on board. Here is the piece he e-mailed in full:”

    You merely quote the LRH reference Max quoted.

    This is the only thing Max wrote:-

    “Dear friends
    Chris pointed out a nice reference.
    Maybe it is time to become an auditor! Why not now?
    Much love Max”

    A nice gentle invitation.

    I would have commented before but I only just found this in my spam box.

    Ron’s Orgs train more auditors than all others including COS
    combined. Scientologists would regard that as commendable, and as one I do.

    You imply this is one of Max’s secrets to ” how he manages to keep the faithful on board.” Its clearly a “secret” Max himself only just discovered. I have had long associations with RO’s, have several personal friends who’ve studied with Max and Erica and for a couple of years was a member of a founding RO, that is one which hasn’t as yet got people who can deliver Excal. And I’ve met Max, Erica and Otfied Krumholz. I also did my second OT 2&3 with Erica as C/S. There has never been any effort to get me to continue further, and In fact I havn’t. The most I’ve seen of a deliberate effort to “keep the faithful on board” Is a single mail to let people know what date a particular training camp or a conference will be on, and
    very occasionally an LRH reference.

    “But, certainly Max and Ron’s Org are running a cult that impresses upon its members a firm belief that they are forever in Ron’s (via Ron’s Org’s) debt. ”

    I’d call that a very strong overstatement. In fact just today I heard that Max
    had given some materials to some people in the US, and there were no strings attached at all.

    Also note from Les Warren’s post That he is strongly against putting people into a feeling of debt. And its clear from the post that ROs are not the only Independent scientology operation that is expanding.

    • Terril
      Yes and as a matter of fact the founding of Rons Org was Capt Bill Robertson and theirs many outside of the current running of the Rons Org and didn’t take servcies or get training from the Hauri’s but did with CBR and trained under CBR that do a very good job in training people .
      Theirs at least 15 Cses I know personally that do deliver outside the current network. The network success today is partly due to the extreme loyal people that supported CBR to set the rons Org up I was agmonst that as CBRs communcator and theirs a lot of ground work that was done to bring about the success it is today.and some times people forget what was done.

      The fact is Max made a simple comment and the perportion of it is blown out and shouldn’t be and with lots of criticial comments on LRH . .Its about time to end the critics of LRh to be honest.He is not here to defend.

      His daugther Diana is still in regardless of her state of mind under the influence of DM no matter what , I do beleive she would defend him and her mother if they were here. The aren’t

      • You noted: “The network success today is partly due to the extreme loyal people that supported CBR…”
        All cults are founded on this same principle.

        • I don’t think popular support is enough to make a cult. Extreme support may go in that direction. There is probably a gradient of cultishness, and it seems people often follow to various degrees a cultic path. One example would be following a particular martial art for example.

          ==========================
          Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups – Revised

          Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

          Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

          ‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

          ‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

          ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

          ‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

          ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

          ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

          ‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

          ‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

          ‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

          ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

          ‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

          ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

          ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

          ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

          ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

        • It does not necessarily follow that all groups founded on this principle are cults, does it? Unless the definition of ‘cult’ is way extended to cover many groups not normally thought of as cults.

          • martyrathbun09

            I don’t know why you would try to pin me into absolutes. But, extreme loyalty to a single personality as the catalyst for a group? Pretty cultic.

            • I’m sorry Marty, I didn’t want it to sound like I was pinning you to anything.
              I personally have an extreme view of things cultic. I can relate to those who grew up in the Sea Org or Scientology as ‘feral’ children. I grew up largely outside of any specific cultural matrix, born into a Far Eastern Russian family that ended up broken and scattered. I grew up in Japan and the United States, but not really belonging to either. I have been sharply aware of cultural relativism all my life. I feel like Heinlein’s “man from mars” still.
              The word “cult” means something different to me. It is a construct that does not well describe reality to me, because I see no datum of comparable magnitude being used in these discussions.
              The first for letters of “culture” are c-u-l-t- Every culture I can see looks a lot like a “cult” to me, webs of enforced agreements and “everybody knows”es, of “that’s just the way things are”, all stuffed with moralities and musts and shouldn’ts etc. I think people who think reality is not agreement are just plain blind.
              I can’t think of a single group that does not have cultic aspects. To belong, you must subscribe to its tenets, whatever they are. This applies to social clubs, schools, fraternities, political orgs, governments, military orgs, any business especially corporations, families, etc. The Internet has made this very evident, just by reading the comments. Humanity is largely off the wall, myself included.
              At the same time, I cannot help but see people as basically having value and usually, the best of intentions.
              Ultimately, I see the choices available to human beings as sorting out and choosing the lesser of all the available ‘evils’, or give up participation in any and all group dynamics because they are all “cults” in one way or another. To the extent hat the human is a herd animal, s/he wil always be suceptible to belonging to groups. Where does one go, to live like Grizzly Adams these days? I guess it’s still possible in Siberia……
              The ideal of an egalitarian group has yet to be achieved on earth, as far as I know. Survival demands obedience. This is why some religions are viewed as dangerous, as when the “powers that be”, felt threatened by Christianity in its early days. The convinced Christians did not give a shit if they died; the simple fact of death was not enough to keep them in line, so they were a threat.
              Case in point – the government of China has just announced they will be writing an official, government approved Christian theology for Chinese Christians. The reason? To have a theology more appropriate and fitting with Chinese culture. 🙂

        • It might be a cult but many appreciated the Church under LRH and Who has delivered outside regardless.Don’t like the tone sorry.

    • Terril Park wrote:

      “Also note from Les Warren’s post That he is strongly against putting people into a feeling of debt. And its clear from the post that ROs are not the only Independent scientology operation that is expanding.

      How can you tell that Scientology is expanding?

      A Scientologist’s lips are moving. (:>)

      Terril, it is possible to mis-interpret and mis-apply this tech from Ron to Auditors on how to get paid by their pcs. Apparently Les Warren is doing that. And by your report, so does Max.

      But it is still being mis-applied by them.

      And there is always the possibility that these squirrels will someday clear their MUs and realize what Ron was actually saying to them about how to standardly apply this reference. And so the potential for abuse that L Ron Hubbard laid into Scientology will then become real.

      See the problem?

      Alanzo

    • I don’t think it’s unfair. It’s just an honest view. Don’t get me wrong, I found Max, Erica and other Ron’s Org people to be extremely nice and caring. They helped me a lot when it made sense for me to be helped with Scientology. But later on my view on Scientology changed and the few things that bothered me uniformly came from the fact that they were applying standard Scientology. So I will always love to meet those people, chat, discuss or do things for fun with them, provided they agree – but I’m afraid that I won’t let myself be processed with standard Scientology any more. I don’t see any possibility to do standard Scientology without ever failing in some aspect due to inherent shortcomings in the subject.

      • Vitek,

        I see and understand your point, re applying standard tech scientology.

        After 60 = years of experience with scientology, it is high time time to stop, take an impartial and intelligent viewpoint and question (evaluate) everything.

        And start with a clean slate.

        There is a considerable amount of tremendous good in scientology. But there is a greater amount of tremendous bad in scientology. On these blogs of Marty’s there has been a lot of good evaluation, to parse a lot of datums to determine their value and untangle and uncover hidden false data and traps. To separate the wheat from the weeds and chaff.

        All of scientology has to be gleaned for the good and useful data and build a new or rather real bridge. I say real bridge, because there was no real bridge in Hubbard’s bridge. It was a combination of, research effort, business plan and mock up and a lot of pieces held together by covert sinister, insidious and evil postulates, plain bullshit, crafty salesmanship, argument and force.

        The egnimatic nature of Hubbard was that Hubbard was as much evil as he was genius. So was the product called scientology.

        (Side note: I really suspect that Hubbard was not the source of the genius. It was some entity (or entities) channeling through him. )

        The source of genius injected undeniable truths and messages into Hubbard’s words. The wise and intelligent will find them.

        One is: I blazed the trail, now go and build a better bridge.

        If you can’t build a better bridge, or real bridge, you flunked scientology.

        If you can only parrot Hubbard and deliver standard scientology, you are nothing more than a mindless parrot or robot. Hubbard said that is a slight aberration.

        The data to begin to build this new bridge or real bridge is laced in throughout scientology. It is like a formula or outline.

        The data in “How to study a science” has to be fully understood and applied.

        Dio

        • I had this idea for many years. Others too, here and there. But I couldn’t do it by myself and I never saw it happen. I remember Geir trying to incite something on that order on his blog. The result was a lot of general discussion, almost none applicable outcome. And I have no idea how to make that happen.

          Therefore I left the subject. If there was something valuable to learn, I’ve taken it into my thought. Now I’m interested into more effective or straightforward solutions (“The power of Now”, Faster EFT). There are many people with a lot of applicable knowledge, although their approach may be different one to another. I don’t see a reason why to limit oneself to the pieces of information presented by Hubbard.

          • Vitek,

            I developed a better, faster, more powerful, much deeper penetrating EFT back in 2008.

            It was a matter of necessity, because standard EFT was impotent for my case.

            I read the Power of Now back 8 or 9 yrs ago.

            It was ok, but not powerful enough for my case.

            Someone said that he was into scientology before he wrote the book.

            How much scientology?

            I have no clue.

            But I think Tolle, cleverly waters down and disguises basic scientology principles, or principles which have their origin in scientology.

            In regards to: not to limit oneself to the pieces of information presented by Hubbard.

            I did not say that.

            If you read and understand what is written in “How to study a science”, …… that is what it says:………… in order to understand scientology, ( and develop a new and better bridge) you have to read all subjects of comparable magnitude (to scientology) in the known universe.

            That statement would contain : Not lmiting oneself to scn principles.

            All subjects of comparable magnitude means all subjects that try to help man solve the problems of the mind and become more able and then become a homo novus.

            In other words read all religions, all philosophies, all spiritual healing stuff, all mind improvement stuff, all psychology and psychiatry stuff, and all self improvement, all personal and professional development stuff.

            And all other bridges and processes developed by people who did some or all of scn, then did their own thinking and developed what they did.

            When you do that, and do it correctly, you will be able to build a real bridge.

            That is the formula that Hubbard used to develop scn in his day.

            Dio

            • Thanks for clarification. Yes, better “bridge” would be OK. But I don’t suppose it would look and feel much like scientology.🙂

              Well done on improving EFT. But I emphasize once more that I don’t speak about EFT, but about Faster EFT. I know there is another branch called PEAT, but Faster EFT is simply much easier to reach🙂

  67. singanddanceall

    ” No, a Scientologist—an auditor can pay the debt. A Clear can never pay the debt. A person who is just Clear and can’t audit could never pay the debt.

    Now, because he is sensible of being somewhat overwhelmed by the auditor, in terms of having more done for him than he could ever do back, his mood could vary. And it’s only fair that a Clear would be permitted to pay it back, one way or the other, on the auditor’s terms. So whatever he paid you in cash—which didn’t pay for it—you can always ask him, “Well, now you owe me a favor.” You know, something on this order and just let it stand. Or he can pay you back. He can go out and make the society more decent to live in.

    That’s a sensible way of that. But he’d have to become an auditor to do it. You get the idea?”

    —————————–

    This whole thing is Hubbard’s use of Rhetoric (persuasion) to keep people in.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

    “Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.

    Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. […]
    Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. […]
    Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. […]
    Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question.”

    —————————-

    The auditor is denoted as credible and has altitude over the “clear” who is not trained. (ethos)

    The debt, the owing of a favor which also includes money, is the appeal to the non trained “clears” emotions. (pathos)

    Hubbards mini speech here is trying to use logic (logos) to keep people in the hamster wheel. And his speech here also implies “clear” and auditing are priceless and also work. (logos).

    Hubbards use of Rhetoric is everywhere in scientology as a persuasion means. I find it interesting that Hubbard never taught us Rhetoric when he himself learned and used it.

    • “Hubbards use of Rhetoric is everywhere in scientology as a persuasion means. I find it interesting that Hubbard never taught us Rhetoric when he himself learned and used it.

      Shhhh!!

      Don’t let the cat out of the bag.

      Ethos, Pathos, and Logos walked into a bar.

      They sat down and the bartender, to Ethos, said, “Who the fuck are you?”

      Ethos said, “I’m who ever I need to be for you to believe me.”

      The bartender looked at Pathos and said, “You look sad, like your dog has died.”

      Pathos said, “If that’s what you need to feel in order to believe me, then yes.”

      Then the Bartender looked at Logos.

      Logos looked back at the bartender.

      “What’ll ya have?”, said the bartender.

      “A whiskey.” said Logos.

      Alanzo

  68. Alanzo.. I lurk because of you. Your insight is brilliant and spot on. You have a lot of fans out there! Your words are gold. Thank you xox baby

  69. OOPS forgot to add.. Of course I come here to read Marty’s blog..I always have. I am a long time lurker!

  70. I was labelled a mercenary because I wanted $25
    an hour to audit for field groups and missions.
    Also because I wouldn’t join/sign a contract for
    any group. This was in the LA area early to mid
    80’s.

    I started to realize it was more about the $ than
    it was about the PC.

    Seems the field groups and missions had some sort
    of secret agreement to only pay $10 per hour as everywhere
    I went that was the amount they would pay. And that didn’t
    include paying admin time….folder work, FES’ing etc. That stuff
    was supposed to be done for free.

    I was a great guy and highly commended for having done the
    BC and internship….until I started asking for $25 an hour plus
    admin. I must of misunderstood the part about auditors being the
    most valuable people on the planet.

    Then I was just a pawn (we have a interned CL VI audtior for you)
    in their game of money and prestige.
    I thought well I will just start my own group then IHELP came out.
    Just another form of control.

    Per this thread, I guess I did still owe after almost 3 years of being
    on training courses, internships and many hours in the chair.

    Seems it was good when I’d audit a staff member that needed help
    for free but heaven forbid I ask for money or some sort of exchange.

  71. Practically everything the CO$ has ever done, has been illegal.

    They could still be successfully sued for practically everything they ever did, by someone who wanted to learn to be his own lawyer (that means acting pro se).

    The real law is on the side of truth.

    The best place to start is by buying this cheap homestudy law course:

    http://www.JurisDictionary.com

    Dio

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