Deconstructing Scientology

This is an excerpt from an upcoming book with the working title ‘Deconstructing Scientology.’  It is directed toward those who are considering the possibility of dipping a toe into dianetics or scientology study or participation.  My failures over the past three years in attempting to help former members graduate from the subject informed a whole new line of research into some of the darker arts that L. Ron Hubbard mastered to make people so apparently incapable/unwilling to learn.  

Hypnosis

The most diabolically effective form of hypnotism would probably thoroughly convince the subject that it was impossible to hypnotize him.  It seems that only in that case could the idea be implanted that no awakening and de-hypnotism would ever be desirable or even possible. It would inculcate the opposite of the old adage applicable to any reform, or even education, activity that the first step to recovery or learning is the recognition that there is something to recover from or to learn.  If you were thoroughly convinced that you were more awake than virtually all of humanity, there is no chance that anyone could convince you to possibly take a look at waking up.

Imagine this scenario for a moment.  You take up a course of therapy and study that convinces you that if you dedicatedly address a particular category of subconscious incidents (those anchored in unconsciousness and pain) you will have erased your subconscious mind and all of its automatic associative responses.  The practice promises to render you virtually immune to sub conscious suggestion because you are permanently erasing that mind system or mechanism – in this case related as a tangible, factual entity – that makes you susceptible to such.  The practice of concentrated attention toward past experiences produces some feeling of catharsis, just as countless forms of psychotherapy, meditative and contemplative practice inevitably do.  Thus heartened, you assiduously follow instructions and devote a substantial amount of time and treasure to the endeavor.  The required sacrifice alone conditions you to fight to justify the experience so as to account for the years and resources devoted to it.

Each session of therapy leaves you that much more certain that you are that much less prone to sub conscious persuasions.  While following this course, you also take in a tremendous volume of opinions, prejudices, life-directing philosophy and mythologies from the source of the methodology that is making ‘erasure’ of your sub-conscious a reality.  You are fed a comprehensive, romantic and imaginative new universe view.  It is reinforced every time you encounter evidence against its plausibility. That is because your new universe view characterizes any information conflicting with your new universe view as evidence of the validity of the new universe view under attack by ‘flat-earther’ holders of traditional universe views.

You implicitly trust virtually all of your indoctrination because you find the therapy cathartic on some level and you are so grateful for being given the opportunity to forever be free of hidden persuasions directing your life.  Your experience is being validated and reinforced by sophisticated, organized positive encouragement all along the way.  That – combined with ample mythology adoption – elevates your cathartic experiences to levels of exhilaration.  You are led to believe that these feelings of exhilaration are super human states making you sort of an elite, special being.  You are literally told you are among the upper tenth of the upper ten percent of humanity, simply because of your participation.

The indoctrination becomes part of you because, consistent with the principles of conversational (or covert) hypnosis, you are given to believe you are assimilating it of your own volition.  You are repeatedly told that nothing you are being told is true unless you yourself accept it, so that analytically you are certain data cannot be being imposed upon you, but instead you are self-determinatedly evaluating its truth or falsity and use.

All the while all the data input is being poured into a sub-conscious that could not be opened wider for unfiltered receipt of information and suggestion.  That is because you are convinced that you have no sub-conscious, auto-associative mind.  As noted already you are given to believe you have ‘erased’ that hidden persuader.  Of course in reality you have as strong a sub-conscious as anyone else.  It is probably even far more hair-trigger given all the counseling you engaged in to take the edge off your incidents anchored in pain and unconsciousness. That you have a sub-conscious, auto-associative faculty is patent.  Otherwise, you would not be able to draw a breath.  You would not be able to direct a spoonful of corn flakes into your mouth in the morning.  You would last about five minutes on a busy city street before you walked in front of a bus or speeding car.  You would not be able to perform any of the myriad intuitive tasks human beings routinely carry out daily.

Just as you have come to believe that you are making trillions of analytical, conscious calculations every day in order to function, you consider all that you have been taught during your mental therapy devotion is analytically evaluated and understood wisdom.  Yet, by objective observation of people not wed to the same therapy your behavior is in many ways far more reactive than before you engaged in the therapy.  If such observations are shared with you, you will reactively, automatically associate such with sociopathic characteristics of the type who oppose the magic of erasure of the sub conscious, associative mind system.  That is part of your indoctrination.  Just as certain as you become that you are a member of the top one percent of humankind, you truly believe that such negative people are part of the sociopathic bottom 2 ½ percent of humanity. You will move away from such people and replace those bonds with people who have received and abide by your therapy and its indoctrinations.   Again, indications of the possibility of your having entered an elaborate trap are converted into reinforcements for the walls of that trap.

By now, you might recognize that what is being described here could be characterized as an extreme, exaggerated case of the mechanisms of fanaticism.   You might have noted some more subtle forms of the mechanics outlined so far as being present in the far-out fringes of political or religious isms.  Such indications are not difficult to recognize when there is some distance between you and the object of your observation.  By entering those mechanics into such a super personal, ultra subjective activity as psychotherapy that works with the deep recesses of your psyche, those mechanics are far more difficult, if not impossible, to detect.

622 responses to “Deconstructing Scientology

  1. Awesome post. But you haven’t failed. Each of us does this or not for ourselves. You’ve been there and willing and offering to help. Maybe the very best help is to have documented your own journey and deconstruction. I believe that is adequate.

  2. The most diabolically effective form of hypnotism would probably thoroughly convince the subject that it was impossible to hypnotize him.

    • We all know there are simple words Hubbard did not master — like the pronunciation of “galaxy.” In this lecture I hear him mispronounce “ardor” and “rapport.” (He seems to say “ar-jur” and “ruh-port.” Those were just a couple I noticed.

      So … was he tipsy or stoned, or just not fully literate?

      • I don’t think it’s nice to play the “being literate or not” game.

        • Cat D., accurate or you to call this a game.
          I recall Ron saying that he made a deal with his British students at St. Hill. He would use the British pronunciation for some words in exchange for the American pronunciation of others, such as ‘th-ay-ten rather than th-ee-ten. Also, gal-AX-y was a common pronunciation for GA-laxy in early 1900s England.

          I had no trouble understanding what Ron was saying in his lectures. I didn’t always agree with everything, but I understood it. Tomato, to-mah-to.

          There are certainly more important topics to discuss, such as: Is the ‘reactive mind’ a separate ‘thing’ that one carries around with him, or is it a portion of yourself which one has cordoned off with invented mental barriers. It’s existence, in some form or another, is obvious, but what is it really. And is it worth the trouble to try to do something about it.

          Emotional ‘hypnosis’ has many flavors. Many people have hypnotized themselves with systems designed to avoid discussing anything substantial. Humor, insults, picking at irrelevant details, misdirecting attention are common methods of discounting what another is actually talking about. ALLOWING ONESELF TO BE MISDIRECTED is another method of avoiding a subject being discussed.
          Mark

          • Typo:
            Cat D., accurate OF you…..

          • Mark wrote:

            Is the ‘reactive mind’ a separate ‘thing’ that one carries around with him, or is it a portion of yourself which one has cordoned off with invented mental barriers. It’s existence, in some form or another, is obvious, but what is it really. And is it worth the trouble to try to do something about it.”

            Is it really obvious that the reactive mind exists?

            How so, exactly?

            What may be emotions and sensations and non-verbal, non-analytic phenomena arising from consciousness may have nothing to do at all with the storage of moments of pain and unconsciousness.

            By calling this the “reactive mind” and seeking to “erase it” because this is supposed to produce a person with the claimed abilities of a “Clear” is obviously false – since no “Clear” has ever been produced by doing this approach.

            So why, exactly, is it obvious that a reactive mind, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, exists?

            If there are no Clears, then why would there be a reactive mind?

            I await your intelligent and thoughtful reply, Mark.

            Alanzo

            • Some assumptions in your post and some logical fallacies, ‘hasty generalization’ among them. Also ‘equivocation’ and ‘circular reasoning’.
              The lack of “clears” (as you failed to define them!) doe snot ‘prove’ the non-existence of a “reactive mind” – especially as Mark qualified it – “the existence of, in some sense”.
              You might as well claim that Marty’s “automatic associative mind” does not exist. Is that concept not a restatement of the idea of a “reactive mind”, stated in other words? What about the idea of a “subconscious mind”? Does such a thing exist? Where’s the proof?
              Given the evolving definitions of “Clear” over the years, there is no proof that erasing some part of the mind leads to specific abilities. Especially if one considers that each individual is unique in some sense, then erasing that part of his/her mind might produce people with widely varying abilities.
              I would say that in postulating specific abilities for a “Clear”, LRH was himself guilty of a “hasty generalization”.

              • There is no scientific evidence of a reactive mind Val. None. It was only Hubbard’s creation.

                • Sure, sure. Is there any “scientific evidenc” for “mind”(the biopsychiatrists don’t think so), “unconscious mind”, “subconscious mind”, “automatic associative mind”, “collective unconscious”, “personal unconscious”, “ego states”, “ego”, “superego”, “id”, etc etc etc etc?

                  These are all “constructs” of “thinking”. Is there any “scientific evidence” for the existence of “thoughts”? “Feelings”? “Moods”?

                  Gimme a break! But feel free to prattle on…..

                  • “An example of an Engram in the book Dianetics is of a child whose father beat his mother while the child was still in the womb (Engrams can be recorded from conception on in dianetics). The child was knocked unconscious from the beating and was in pain when the father yelled “Take that! Take it, I tell you! You’ve got to take it!”5 When the child grew up and something (perhaps the sound of the father yelling) occurred within the child’s surroundings that was similar to the recordings in the Engram, this keyed in or triggered the Engram, and the Reactive mind would take over, effectively shutting down the Analytical mind to a degree and controlling actions based instead on the moronic interpretation of statements made in the Engram. Thus this child, because of the “Take it!” statements in the Engram, becomes a kleptomaniac. ” Jeff Jacobsen
                    ………………………………………………………………….

                    So what are your thoughts about this Val?

              • Yea Valkov. What you said.
                Mark

            • Hi again Alanzo.
              In respect to the reactive mind: ” It’s existence, in some form or another….” in addition to my comments over the last months are clear. You have read my observations on the various pivotal understandings that have been termed as Clear. I don’t call it Clear, I call it various pivotal understandings.

              You have also read that I don’t agree with Hubbard’s assessment of erasure, even though he stated that actual erasure is a returning of the memory being looked at to normal memory. It is common that when an engram chain is ‘erased’, it is difficult or impossible for the PC to remember the incident after that. To me, that is an indication that there is a lot more going on that the PC has yet to discover. There are additional reasons why the individual is putting the memory in the back, which he is not up to looking at currently.

              In my view, putting the blame on things such as instinct or genetic evolution or even brain chemistry is just shirking responsibility and a justification for not knowing.

              To me, reactive mind was a working metaphor for the various invented compartments that an individual has set up within himself for various purposes. I believe that discovering these purposes can be therapeutic and beneficial to many. IF it can be done without caving an individual in.
              Worth a shot, Mark

              • Hi again Mark

                Your comments on the “reactive mind”caught my attention.

                Regarding “when an engram chain is erased…”

                I offer another possibility.

                Suppose that some, or all, of the “engrams” (or other incidents) that could no longer be found were actually not “real” recalls in the first place. Suppose that they were “incidents” created by the PC to satisfy the request/demand of the auditor to seek and find another, earlier, incident.

                Perhaps these types of creations, pictures, incidents, or whatever, are not accessible through the same mechanisms as “normal” recall. Like the content of dreams perhaps.

                Perhaps they are the effect of the same mechanisms that make dreams less accessible than actual “lived” experiences.

                Perhaps these created “incidents” do not carry the same recovery “flags” and thus we find them harder to access.

                Perhaps rather than looking for the “memory of an actual occurrence” in the “time” it seems to have occurred, look instead at the “this-lifetime” session in which you “recalled it” (or, as I am suggesting, possibly created it.) You may have better success.

                I say this because, for myself, I have noticed that the “incidents on the ‘erased’ chain”, that are within this lifetime, are still recallable, and the data remains consistent throughout multiple recalls. Details are often easily available. My recalls of “recalls” outside of this lifetime are sketchy at best. Something is certainly different about these two.

                Perhaps it is because, as you say, “that is an indication that there is a lot more going on that the PC has yet to discover.” And “There are additional reasons why the individual is putting the memory in the back, which he is not up to looking at currently.”

                Perhaps it is something else entirely. (I could mention other possibilities, but the above is the direction of my current thinking.)

                Eric

                • From Memory Recall

                  “For therapy purposes, an accurate recall is a response given by the mind to some item or question. It is not digging into the mind, or imagining what might have happened. It is letting the mind respond freely, and when there is no response then recognizing that fact.”

                  At any point when mindfulness is not applied then the “recall” is suspect.

                  ________________________________

                • Eric.
                  Excellent, excellent comment of yours. (Had to say it twice)

                  The feel and flavor of so called memories can vary greatly. You indicated that formerly believed past life memories were more ethereal and much less certain than present life recalls. This indicated that they may possibly, or even probably, be invented, made up to satisfy the desire to make the auditing successful.

                  I have had this experience, especially when my auditor said, “Well, what do you think MIGHT have happened. There was always something not quite right about those sessions. Several times, I made up some cognition which seemed to make sense at the time. I’d get the F/N and leave smiling.

                  Yes, these ‘memories’ are like dreams in that they seem to disappear, never to be seen again. I have since reviewed these sessions myself, and gotten cognitions that the auditor would not have expected.

                  But there are many memories which are crisp and clear. Some of those I have verified on a trip to southern Ga. USA, and some time spent in the Rhine area of Germany and France. Never cared much for Europe. Now I know why. I used to hate, Hate plowing muddy dirt.
                  Mark

                  • Hi Mark

                    Thanks for the “excellents”. Much appreciated.

                    About the ethereal aspect of some recalls, and making up cognitions… I had similar experiences. Much of the time I considered that the auditing was not addressing me at all. Even so, I manged to find a way to have some very enlightening realizations.

                    I found the processes and the approach of some auditing to very interesting, and allowed me to open some doors to other realities, and explore my existing and other possible “whys”, postulates etc. Like a good discussion, (with myself, in the case of auditing) it was a vehicle that helped me re-evaluate many of my “fixed” ideas.

                    Just so we understand each other here, I was not saying that ALL “memories” that one recalled from times “prior to this life” are false or “pure creation”. I understand that some recalls are more than a little convincing, and some are supportable by physical universe verification. I have some of those too, but from what you say, it seems like those are not “erased”, in that you seem to still have access to them.

                    I freely admit that many of the phenomena of the mind, and of the physical universe too, are still well beyond my understanding.

                    • Eric and Mark, as part of the construct, the SOLE thing that is being removed by the auditor is CHARGE.

                      CHARGE, 1 . harmful energy or force accumulated and stored within the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had. Auditing discharges this charge so that it is no longer there to affect the individual. (Scn AD) 2 . the electrical impulse on the case that activates the meter. (HCOB 27 May 70) 3 . stored energy or stored recreatable potentials of energy. (HCOB 8 Jun 63) 4 . the stored quantities of energy in the time track. It is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the time track. (HCOB 13 Apr 64, Scn VIPart One Tone Arm Action)

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Hi Marildi.
                      You quoted the Tech Dictionary:
                      Charge: ” 4 . the stored quantities of energy in the time track. It is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the time track. (HCOB 13 Apr 64, Scn VIPart One Tone Arm Action)

                      You emphasized the word ‘SOLE’.

                      In my experience in the last few years, LRH made a significant error stating this and was compounded when it was put in the dictionary. He also contradicted this in other writings. (Not currently at my disposal, sorry.)

                      Mental ‘Charge’ is actual and often expresses itself in the physical universe as demonstrated by the meter and some other phenomenon. BUT IT IS NOT THE SOURCE OF ABERRATION, IT IS A SYMPTOM. Working with the purpose of relieving this charge can be therapeutic, and can temporarily take some pressure off of an individual which can assist him in being in a condition where he can find the actual cause of his difficulties. To dwell on charge and mass only is to set oneself up for future losses, as demonstrated by many. Charge/mass can and will be re-created as soon as one has a reason.

                      Sorry to state this over and over, but I believe it to be important. It is a correctable flaw which should be understood by all.

                      Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
                      Mark
                      PS: Blowing a lot of charge/mass can make someone feel so good that they are un-auditable for days or weeks. But then, a big bag of pot can do the same thing.

                    • Hi Mark,

                      I should have emphasized another word too and said “charge is the SOLE thing being REMOVED from the track.”

                      The other relevant and aligning datum is “postulate off equals erasure.” Thus it’s the POSTULATE that could be said to be the source of aberration, not charge – which, as you say, is only a symptom. In other words, I don’t see that Ron was “dwelling on charge and mass only.”

                      Per the whole construct, you are right in saying that charge can be recreated (another definition of charge is “stored energy or stored RECREATABLE potentials of energy”), but charge capable of being “recreated” would be the case if the auditing only brought about a key-out rather than an erasure. Basically, I don’t see anything that needs to be corrected in either Ron’s construct or in yours, the two of which seem to be saying the same thing.

                      However, your statement that a big bag of pot can “do the same thing” (effect key-out) is only true as far as it goes. Ron described pot (and other drugs) as producing a “biochemical release” (which would be a key out), but he also stated that such releases ADD mass. So in that sense, it’s not really “the same thing.”

                      The NED Auditor course has data that filled in a lot of missing gaps for me.

                      ARC.
                      marildi

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Hi Marildi.
                      You said and quoted:
                      “Per the whole construct, you are right in saying that charge can be recreated (another definition of charge is “stored energy or stored RECREATABLE potentials of energy”), but charge capable of being “recreated” would be the case if the auditing only brought about a key-out rather than an erasure.”

                      We probably agree on this, but I will try to convey my understanding. Release and erasure are the words which came to common use and are as good as any. It is my view that it is a gradient of understanding, of how much of a whole idea and set of circumstances and occurrences that one has ‘figured out’. It is a quantity of how much are you still hiding from yourself. The more you are willing to look at, and the more you have figured out, the more of an ‘erasure’ it is. The whole puzzle of the past can be likened to a big 3 dimensional spider web where everything connects to everything else.

                      Take confusion A. Get a good understanding of what happened and why and a lot of the confusion resolves. But connected and related confusions still hold on to it and can negate, to some extent, the original understanding. Get a good understanding of confusion B and C and a deeper understanding of A, B, and C are achieved. But there is still D thru Z there with little threads attached to A B and C. The more threads that get broken, the better and more stable an understanding you get for each thing and for the entire web as a whole. It’s an interconnected, quantity thing.

                      Charge, mass is an invented, mechanical thing that you learned to use in order to handle life, and then lost (gave up) control of. You now create and discard mass constantly and obsessively as your attention and purposes shift from minute to minute, day to day. It doesn’t have to be that way. We actually trained and practiced using/handling mass and energy and how to put it on automatic. It was fun and convenient and that is part of the reason it stuck.

                      Hope this helps to understand my observations.
                      Mark

                    • Marty, I see the three comments I posted yesterday are still in moderation. Is there some reason for this, or was it an oversight? Thanks.

                    • Mark C. Rathbun

                      Rejected. I’ll post a response to the post and the issue it raises or makes; not your covert cult peddling.

                    • Hi Marildi

                      Understood. I am aware of Ron having stated that.

                      However this appears to be one of those pesky cases where pretty much any reference can be disputed by another reference.

                      For instance, In the Tech Dictionary, under “erasure” (which is what we were discussing,in part) it says: “Erasure, 1. the act of erasing, rubbing out, locks, secondaries or engrams. 2. apparent removal of the engram from the files of the engram bank and refiling in the standard bank as memory. 3. erasure, in essence is a knowingness process rather than an energy rub-out process….

                      You see what I mean? Perhaps these definitions of “erasure” only apply to Dianetics… (or do they even really apply there?)

                      Mark and I were simply comparing notes regarding some of those concepts, specifically addressing the concept of “erasure”, from our own personal viewpoints.

                      A similar discussion regarding “charge” might also prove interesting.

                      Eric

                    • Eric.
                      The phenomenon of ‘mental charge’ is very complex and has been refined over a very long period of time. A big subject.

                      Hint. ‘Charge’ is not the actual problem. It is not your actual ‘case’ for lack of a better word. It is a reminder, a via, used by you to remind you of your actual case, and then distract you from looking directly at it.

                      The mechanics of how you adopted this practice is long and complex, involving how you manipulated energy and used it for various purposes, how you tied emotion to vibrations, how you associated thoughts and feelings to different wave shapes (the ‘quality’ of energies), but it is understandable.
                      Mark

                    • Eric: “However this appears to be one of those pesky cases where pretty much any reference can be disputed by another reference.”

                      Hi Eric,

                      Yes, I know what you mean. However, the problem of contradictory references may not be a problem at all. Valkov recently posted a link to a very interesting Wikepedia article on “double bind.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

                      Here’s a quote from it (caps are mine, for emphasis):

                      “A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. THE DOUBLE BIND OCCURS WHEN THE PERSON CANNOT CONFRONT THE INHERENT DILEMMA, AND THEREFORE CAN NEITHER RESOLVE IT NOR OPT OUT OF THE SITUATION.”

                      As for how to “confront the inherent dilemma,” the following was stated under the section “Theory of logical types” (my caps again):

                      “A message is made up of words and the context that modifies it. THE CONTEXT IS OF A HIGHER LOGICAL TYPE THAN THE WORDS. For example, the word “cat” cannot scratch you. The real animal and the word cat are of two different logical types. Another example—this one of purely nonverbal communication among animals is: two puppies are playing and they growl at each other and nip each other gently. The first level of the message could be described as, ‘I am threatening you; I will bite you’ A higher level of the message is, ‘this is play fighting; I won’t hurt you.’”

                      Just thought you and Mark might find that of interest. I did!

                    • Mark

                      Hmmm. Sounds like you have some interesting ideas there.

                      Maybe I will just have to get busy and have a look into that area, and see what I come up with.

                      Eric

                    • Hi Marildi

                      That is interesting regarding the “double bind”. I had not seen it applied to communication before.

                      In my thinking “the double bind” related to any situation wherein one was confronted with the situation where he was “damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t”.

                      In these conflicting reference situations, I have only found it objectionable when one reference was being used to refute the other. If both references are looked at for their individual value and not used as weapons to overwhelm one another’s viewpoints, communications would tend to go a lot smoother.

                      I have come to see that all arguments seem to basically be attempts of each party to overwhelm the data and evaluations of the other. When the attention is directed towards areas of agreement the conflict aspect dissipates.

                      Thank you for your input.

                      Eric

                    • Eric: “I have come to see that all arguments seem to basically be attempts of each party to overwhelm the data and evaluations of the other. When the attention is directed towards areas of agreement the conflict aspect dissipates.”

                      That’s good input too! And I’m workin’ on it.😉 Thanks, Eric.

                    • The mindful discussion procedure shall help.

                      ________________________________

                    • Eric, the “double bind” was observed and described by Gregory Bateson in the 1950s, and the concept was developed by Jay Haley in particular, along with some other psychologists also starting in the 1950s. It is more complex than just “damned either way”, although it includes that. It involves also being unable to comment on thr situation, and not being able to leave the situation either. That is why it’s called a “double” bind.
                      It really closely corresponds to what Hubbard calls “supression”.
                      Here is a very succint desciption:
                      http://www.traumahealed.com/articles/step-away-from-double-binds.html

              • “Reactive – Analytical” aspects of a mind is a dichotomy.

                Like any dichotomy, Reactive-Analytical aspects may be presented on a sclale with infinite gradients, with neither reactive nor analyutical presented as absolutes.

                When we look at the mind as a matrix in which defintions are connected with logics, then reactive will be those routes of thinking where fewer options can be activated as compared to analytical routes of thinking.

                What reduces options that can be activated, sounds very similar to hypnotism where, probably, all options are eliminated, and the person acts along the only route of thinking that is left.

                So, hypnotism will be on the extreme left on the “reactive-analytical” scale.

                ANALYTICAL: Many options allowed in choosing the routes through “definition-logic” matrix of the mind.
                REACTIVE: Few options allowed in choosing the routes through “definition-logic” matrix of the mind.
                HYPNOTIC: No option allowed in choosing the routes through “definition-logic” matrix of the mind.

                .

          • Hi Mark

            Sure… Let’s discuss “the mind”.

            I personally do not consider that there is any such thing as a “reactive mind” or an “analytical mind” either. “Reactive” or “analytical” are terms describing one’s responses to various stimuli or data, not the stimuli or data themselves.

            I consider that we have access to our memories, to a greater or lesser degree, and those memories, (and mental skills or failings,) we label “mind”. I consider that this “mind” does not exist except in present time, and to the degree that it is being created in present time. (deliberately or subconsciously.)

            I consider that there is no such thing as “erasure” of memories. I consider that they can be difficult to access, or be easily recovered, to a greater or lesser degree. The data is not GONE, it has simply been re-evaluated.

            I consider that one can review and adjust his responses to his memories and abilities by viewing them and re-evaluating them. The results may prove to be progressive, inhibitive or inconsequential.

            I consider that any workability assigned to “auditing” is achieved simply by a person so re-evaluating his data. This can be done by reviewing his memories, by acquiring new data, or by entertaining various imagined possibilities.

            I have come to the conclusion that much of what is considered “recall” of “incidents” may actually fall into the latter category.

            I consider that the “truth”, or actual existence of any past memory, is actually of little consequence in the results of “auditing”, or likely any other similar mental therapy. I consider that any “results” are achieved solely by the re-evaluation of data, by whatever means.

            Regarding your question about whether or not it is “worth the trouble” to do something about the mind. Question is “how badly are you interested in change?”

            Eric

            • Good afternoon Eric.
              Excellent article of yours. Describing the mind, consciousness, memories, reality in different manners is important in getting a good grasp, for yourself, what we are actually dealing with. Obviously, any one set of words cannot describe life completely.

              You used the terms re-evaluating of data and review and adjust his response. I have used the term examining my past and others have used the term re-aligning of existing data and new data. All these are important, additional angles of looking at the mind with the goal of being a more complete understanding.

              Most everything you said aligns with what I have been writing for the last few months. One point that I consider important is the discrimination between actual and invented events. Creative thought is natural and important, but it is vital to know that it is what it is. Many on this blog will consider this a ridiculous statement, coming from me. No matter.

              For me, I have come to find out that reactive mind, analytical mind and such phrases are metaphors for parts of my self which I have invented and compartmentalized for various purposes. The quest to find these purposes is working out quite well for me. Others may have different paths to follow.

              I could tell you exactly how and why I began to separate my memories from myself and pretend to ‘carry them around with me’ like a secret diary, but that would sound a little Hubbardesque. It all started with an error that I didn’t want to own up to.

              Your thoughts and opinions are valuable. Would like to hear more from you on this. Looking from different angles, resolves the tangle. OK, poetry is not my first line of work.
              Mark

              • Hi Mark

                Thank you for your response. Seems we are aligned in a lot of this.

                I like the bit where you call the various aspects of “mind” parts of yourself.

                Regarding “creative thought” and it being “vital to know that it is what it is.” I do not think that that is important in producing change, but it does seem more comfortable when one believes that he is “viewing reality” because otherwise he will find his sanity questioned. But, recently, I am tending to consider “reality” (as in “actuality”) a bit overrated. If one considers the possibility that the entirety of what we experience is all a delusion, then why spend so much time seeking “actuality”.

                Perhaps we might profit from just sitting back a bit and really enjoying our delusions. Calling them “reality” or “actuality” or “delusion” doesn’t necessarily alter the experience we get from them.

                The thing about knowing what is a creation and what is apparently an observation is is some value, for sure. but in figuring things out, either seem to produce results

                I harken back to some information I got regarding the “placebo effect”. Research seems to indicate that approximately 30% of people respond to simple “suggestion” in affecting their cure. The power of the mind, or strong belief actually seems to work “miracles”. I have suspected for some time that the same kind of mechanism is responsible for many of the wins and life changing effects of auditing, or study, or religious beliefs, or perhaps even forms of meditation etc.

                I have used the term “strong magic” on this blog in the past, to bring up this concept. My use of the term relates to a movie I saw when I was a teenager. It involved a witch-doctor who kept upping the gradient of what his “patient” needed to do to effect a cure until the cure was achieved. He was a fraud, and had no real skill, except for that one tool ( aside from the appropriate “mumbo-jumbo”). For instance, He might do something like require some blood from a poisonous snake (the patient would have to be fairly determined to be cured to go to that length) when that didn’t work he would require something more and more difficult for the patient to do. He would always say, upon news that the person had not improved, “We need stronger magic.”

                I suspect that some of the results of auditing fall into this category. The bridge is a gradient of stronger and stronger “magic”. (and dare I say, the appropriate “mumbo-jumbo”)

                Does that mean that I am saying that peoples wins and changes and “cures” are false? No. What I am saying is that it seems many people are capable of healing themselves with postulates and decisions alone…

                As I suggested in my post, It doesn’t matter what it is that gets the person to change his postulates, it seems to be that when he does, things change. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, hypnotism may be tapping into this same mechanism.

                The mechanism seems to exist.
                Some people have become proficient at using it.
                Some uses are benign.
                Some are not.

                Hmmm… Ya got me going….

                More later…

                Eric

        • You are right Cat Daddy.

    • These sound like a pastiche of excerpts from various lectures.

  3. This caught my eye: “The most diabolically effective form of hypnotism would probably thoroughly convince the subject that it was impossible to hypnotize him…” “You take up a course of therapy and study that convinces you that if you dedicatedly address…” referring to the concept of ‘convincing.”

    What you describe is real to me and this convincing is so, so subtle that it just acts a the ‘hook’ to follow this or that and the indoctrination can begin and continue as long as you allow it.

    One may be looking for something or trying to learn certain subject and, I suspect, the trap occurs when one “takes that something IN’ rather than really observe it while maintaining that distance/space between you and the desire to learn/observe X subject.

    Is so subtle that I fell into this trap and took enormous abuses to finally give it a ‘that is it’ and, after reading and understanding all what you have so far posted in the blog, plus my own conclusions, I for now can state that the possibility to dip my toes has been replaced by something different and far more interesting for me.

    I can’t thank you enough for the keen observations so far shared.

  4. Bravo Marty.

    There are those who when they fall overboard and are brought back into the boat — attempt to sink the whole boat and failing that, jump back in the water to drown.

    You’ve helped more people than you can possibly know. People tell people etc etc …

    Those you’ve not been able to help move away and up from Scientology — cannot see at THIS point.

    I’m betting that as you continue to deconstruct scientology even more wisdom will evolve and your generosity of spirit will find yet another book … and some others, formerly unable to wake up, will wake up.

    It just one crack at a time. Letting the light in.

    Windhorse

  5. Marty wrote:
    “It is probably even far more hair-trigger given all the counseling you engaged in to take the edge off your incidents anchored in pain and unconsciousness.”

    That statement rings true and I covered exactly that in meditation related to Hubbard. This whole idea of the engram was far too limited in scope. When the mind concentrates on such memories for a long time, it gets contracted. I think Hubbard is the primary example since he died with a contracted mind, one which was limited. He needed loving-kindness meditation but in his state of constant anger – as I am told by those who knew him – it was impossible for him.
    Speaking of “hair triggers”, the most extreme I ever ran into was Laurie Guerin or Webster. She tried to steamroll me!

    GMW

  6. Normal People getting old. No thethan stuff:

  7. Margot Diaz Learned

    Marty, this is so fascinating. My friend and I were just talking about exactly this last night. Scientology is the long con. We were both victims, but no longer. I realized that the whole concept of “evaluation” being evil was ridiculous since we were inundated with evaluation everyday from the tech we were constantly reading and digesting and spitting out in the form of cognitions in sessions. It was just supposedly the “right kind” of evaluation. I also saw that as a Clear and OT I still had incidents with incredible emotion connected to them, even though I had processed them many times in many ways on my journey “up” the bridge. I had cogs, and BDFNs etc., but I was inculcated. I was an auditor, but I didn’t have to be. I knew the drill and I got through, blew charge and then two days ago when confronted by that incident again there was all that emotion again, but with a different viewpoint that made me see the insidiousness of the tech and it’s thought stopping properties. The desire for easy answers when life throws you curves. The compartmentalizing that I saw at first when I left is so much larger than I first could see. Deconstructing Scientology is a long process. It takes time and remember the first stage of grief is denial (a river in Egypt, lol).

  8. That is awesomely insightful and clearly stated — and hits the key points with pinprick precision.

    The mechanisms are, I feel confident, applicable to other cults too.

    Marty, your work has not failed me in any way. I owe lots of my “coming back” from the damage done by Scientology to you, as well as others like Mike, Karen, Tony, etc.

    If this is part of a planned book — I can’t wait to read the book!

    • Agreed. I am happy to see that Marty and Jon Atack, two writers whom I greatly admire, seem to be moving into synchronous orbits

  9. Gerhard Waterkamp

    I cannot see how you have failed. You are on a journey and share your journey. This is an opportunity to observe and get inspired to continue on ones own journey. That is all you can do, honestly share your insights, create a space for discussion and offer help.
    I feel you honestly speak your mind as you move along and what else could anybody ask for?
    Somebody said the principal crime is to take something from someone without their agreement. This can be simply material possessions or could be spiritual as to take the truth away from somebody by deception and lies or even his life.
    As long as you speak the truth as you see it you are not taking away from somebody but by sharing your views you give.
    And you haven given a lot of inspiration, controversy, food for thought. Great stuff for people who want to learn and discover their own path. And I think you helped a great many.
    Some people for different reasons simply do not want to learn or leave the prison cells of their mind. That is their choice. It was often upsetting to me personally when I ran into people who simply do not want to open their mind to some reality and reason as hard as I tried. But I come to think after I tried my best and communicated my views that it is their choice not mine. If the truth is put out and they do not want a part of it. I wish them happiness.
    You did a lot for people to look at some levels of reality and reason. You can’t fail as long as you honestly communicate your views and try to exercise reason with love.
    I feel LRH committed the cardinal crime towards other human beings, by taking the truth away from them in a very tricky way. While often speaking the truth and advising it, he proceeded to envelope them in lies and deception. As you said in your book excerpt: “The most diabolically effective form of hypnotism would probably thoroughly convince the subject that it was impossible to hypnotize him.”
    That is exactly what happened in many cases.

  10. paolo facchinetti

    Rejected by moderator – explanation below.

    • Sorry, this is no longer a cult promotional ground. Incidentally all you ever contributed here was falsity laced judmentalism, which only ever served as more evidence of the facts detailed in this post.

  11. Marty, so true, so frapping, absolutely and brilliantly stated TRUE!

  12. Nice work.
    Please further imagine that instead of joining, you were born into Scientology. Isn’t DM 2nd generation Scientologist? 2nd generation brings with it a special kind of arrogance that I think comes from ‘everything important was learned before we were 5 years old’-itis. (Are joiners more likely to leave than 2nd generations??)

    Now consider that around 150 years ago, 2 important things happened.

    1st, Joseph Smith, the Mormon, dropped the ball. He didn’t start setting up wards all over the world to provide:
    1. free babysitting
    2. free food storage and shelter in case of natural disaster
    3. a job and a place to live if you needed one
    Instead the Mormons, for the most part, kept their money and resources internalized. The ‘new religion’ that promised to represent our Big Brother Jesus Christ, let humanity down. (Don’t get me wrong, if you ever need help with the back yard or cleaning out the garage, call a missionary. You don’t have to get baptized to ask for, and receive, their help. Their are, similarly, Scientology groups helping out around the world, not requiring membership to receive help. Both Mormonism and Scientology have friendly PR, using truly friendly people – goodhearted people. Likewise, many former Mormons say they’ve “escaped” from Mormonism.)

    2nd, the Rockefellers founded Standard Oil, and the American 1% was born. We soon began to be hugely influenced by their (and their 1% friends’) desires for us as ‘the masses’.

    Those things happened around 6 to 7 generations ago. At this point, our arrogance is apathetic. We can see what’s happening around us but are powerless to do anything about it without ruining the lives of family, just like Scientology.

    I believe a lot of people are going to appreciate your book, Marty. I look forward to reading it.

    • I have friends that are Mormons and have had business dealings with them as well. I have only had great experiences and friendships with them. I have found the ones I have known to be very sincere and straight up in dealings and relationships. They have some great policies about survival that includes the people around them. They invest heavily back into their children’s education and their communities. I have found them to be very supportive in friendships and business relationships. Very open. Not judgmental of me at all and they have never used their religion to put walls between us.

      • I have had similar experiences with Mormons that I have dealt with.

        Isn’t it amazing how much meaning and feelings of well being can come from believing in lies? People can base their whole lives on completely made up stories and derive so much meaning from them.

        You either seek to live with the truth, or you settle to live with lies.

        There are many benefits to settling to live with lies.

        Right, Oracle?

        Alanzo

        • I don’t know that Mormons live with lies just because they have a different understanding than I do. I really don’t care to discount them. I don’t know that their stories are made up either. Maybe they are all on the right path, their path. They seem to feel they are in the right place at the right time so I assume they are. You’re the one that just got busted posting a false report on this blog on the last thread. Maybe you should retread the ten commandments, as in “Thou Shalt not bear false witness”. That’s just simple good policy.

          • I see that I upset you again, and I can see why.

            My post to you was worded pretty harshly, and I apologize for that.

            To me, the idea that Joseph Smith found golden tablets in the ground in New York state and they were in an ancient language that he was able to translate – especially with his arrest record for conning people out of treasure on their lands – I really will not stoop to say “Well maybe this is true for these people.”

            I am just going to go ahead and say that it is not true. There is absolutely no positive evidence in support of this claim, And all other factors, like his ability to speak Hebrew, or any other language than English, his arrest record, etc. all point to his not having found these tablets.

            However, Mormons, just like everyone else, get plenty of brain spooges off of their beliefs. And their lives are clean and productive, and seemingly happy (accept for the teen rapes, of course.)

            So yes, people derive benefit from their chosen religious beliefs – even when they are false.

            That’s what I was trying to say. But my post to you sounded accusatory.

            Sorry.

            Alanzo

            • As Marty pointed out, people live by their “narratives”. So the Mormons, so everyone else, even you. You have a narrative about LRH and Scientology that you believe in, and you soapbox about it constantly. And cherry pick data to support it. Did you know that there is an informal logical fallacy called “cherry-picking”? Is your particular narrative that important? It is just one narrative among billions on this planet. I think my family’s narrative is more interesting than yours. But you feel free to denigrate that. Oh, well.

            • So every Mormon = Joseph Smith. I hadn’t looked at it like that.

              • “So every Mormon = Joseph Smith. I hadn’t looked at it like that.”

                You really have a duplication problem.

                You really should get that checked out.

                Alanzo

                • Thank you for your suggestion that I consider myself handicapped and have less affinity for myself. How was that for improved duplication?

                  • Thank you for your suggestion that I consider myself handicapped and have less affinity for myself. How was that for improved duplication?

                    My point was not about you, Oracle.

                    It was about the human phenomenon of the good feelings that come from religious belief, whether those religious beliefs are true or not.

                    Your interpretation of what I post is your own. It is like you are grabbing an arrow out of the air that was not aimed at you, and piercing your own heart with it.

                    Such a tragic beauty. Such a forlorn and sad victim.

                    Is your suicide a political statement? A drama-filled PR stunt?

                    Yes. I think it is.

                    One of many.

                    Alanzo

                    • I read it. I know where you got it from. I didn’t get played. Maybe next time you will do better. Keep plugging, you’ll get some road kill from somewhere. It’s like throwing oatmeal against the wall, you gotta see what sticks!

            • There is a case to be made for Nephi (the book of Mormon guy) to have taken an Ark of the Covenant when he fled across the ocean. If so, there could have been gold plates inside. If Joseph Smith found these, and was able to translate them you might expect that they found roads and cities where the book says they would be. They found the roads and cities.
              But where are the golden plates?
              Did he melt them down to start a bank? Is that why he made witnesses swear that they saw them?
              I don’t know, but I do know that the bank failed so it wasn’t God’s will that he do that.

            • “I see that I upset you again, and I can see why.”

              You did not upset me. Sorry to take that away from you.

          • The Oracle wrote:

            “You’re the one that just got busted posting a false report on this blog on the last thread.

            LOL!

            Really?

            What was my “false report”, Oracle?

            Alanzo

            • Alanzo | September 12, 2014 at 4:33 pm | Reply

              As Milestone 2 (and The Oracle) says, Clears and OTs be nuthin but a bunch a broke-assed bitches!

              The Oracle | September 12, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Reply
              Woah Alanzo, that was an alter is. I never said clears and OTs were a bunch of broke assed bitches. I said that is what was published on that blog. Let’s try to maintain some standard of truth here.

              Alanzo | September 12, 2014 at 6:51 pm | Reply
              You bet, Oracle!

              Clears and OTs are floating on an existential boat of mutha fuckin paar-tay of existence.

              Got it.

              Alanzo

              • Well, alright.

                But Clears and OTs is some broke assed bitches, Oracle.

                They is.

                Alanzo

                • That is probably more sensational than the fact that you are a liar. You respond to an obvious bust for lying with another lie to cover your ass. Creepy but interesting.

                  • The Oracle wrote:

                    That is probably more sensational than the fact that you are a liar. You respond to an obvious bust for lying with another lie to cover your ass. Creepy but interesting.

                    You are so dramatic.

                    There are no clears and OTs as Hubbard defined them, Oracle. There never has been even one produced by Scientology.

                    So anyone who considers themselves “Clear” or “OT” from their Scientology brainwashing is a broke-assed bitch.

                    That is not a lie.

                    That is the truth.

                    You are never going to say this. So I will.

                    So who’s the liar, Oracle?

                    Alanzo

                    • Al: “So anyone who considers themselves “Clear” or “OT” from their Scientology brainwashing is a broke-assed bitch.”

                      This perfectly expresses a major fallacy of thinking. They may not have achieved whatever Hubbard supposed or projected the result might be, the ‘book’ result, but that does not mean they did not achieve anything at all.
                      In fact they may have achieved a significant and desirable change of state. And many people are on the record about this, who are not “broke-assed bitches” But hat was likely before your time. Also, it depends on which definition you apply.

                    • The major I see is that what you guys are doing is thought of as a discussion. There is no discussion when accusations are flying back and forth.

                      Another fallacy is that a Scientologist is unable to apply Scientology tech to communication.

                      Another fallacy is that an ex-Scientologist is unable to apply the natural code of civility (Buddhist tech) to this exchange.

                      All I see is that ego is ruling both sides.

                      An understanding of mindful discussion might help;.

                    • When did you become so un-fun, Vinaire?

                      Oh. I know.

                      It’s when you became a Booodhist.

                      Now everyone else has to be one, too!

                      Alanzo (:>

                    • What is your definition of fun, Alanzo? To make Oracle excited? Well, that’s more fun than Scientology for sure.

        • Seriously, I can’t even say something nice here about someone else, to someone else, with you parking yourself in front me and and demanding some kind of tax, or covertly publishing an essay about how handicapped I am through some nebulous generality.

          I don’t believe in negative numbers. That is all you push. I mean, you really put forth a lot of effort to reduce people into a negative number. Trippy math.

          Listen, there is no such thing as a negative number, that is a belief system. Nobody on this planet is a total liability. Even if someone is laying in a coma on life support, people in that hospital have a job and take home a paycheck because that lifeless body is laying there. There is still social value in that human being.

          I know you have had a lot of training in this kind of think about how useless others are. This is the kind of think that leads to ethnic cleansing goals and purposes.

          I don’t care to be dismissed by you personally or socially.

        • The problem, Alanzo, is that no one really knows what is a lie and what is real. Hell – we could all be part of a computer simulation and all we are is silicon (or whatever). http://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromReview.html

          • “The problem, Alanzo, is that no one really knows what is a lie and what is real. Hell – we could all be part of a computer simulation and all we are is silicon (or whatever).

            I understand what you are saying, Grasshopper, but some thing are lies in religion.

            As in knowing things are a particular way, and intentionally altering what you know to be true in order to deceive someone else about the truth that you know.

            That’s a lie.

            And I’m going to go ahead and say Joseph Smith lied to his followers about the golden plates.

            This is not as easy to prove as LRH’s lies, but I am not going to fool myself or anyone else. There is no benefit in that.

            I don’t get any kind of brain spooge off of believing these lies, and I think it is a liability to build your life on religious lies.

            Been there done that.

            Alanzo

            • Well, I agree, but some lies are pretty sturdy. For example, in the beginning of the Book of Mormon, there is the testimony of 11 people who claimed to have seen the plates, so it’s not just Smith. Joan of Arc claimed to be visited by angels. Did she lie? Or was she mistaken in her visions? Or did she really get visited by angels?

              In the case of science, are scientists lying when they claim all life is material and only material? Are atheists lying to you when they say there is no god? Are Christians lying to you when they say there is?

              My point is, we don’t really cussing know. We estimate based on the facts we see the prejudices we have. I have read psychiatric texts that say it is “obvious” that Joan of Arc was crazy and “obviously” was seeing hallucinations instead of angels. And the only reason that statement is made is because the author has to reject that there is such a thing as an angel. We have the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins arguing vociferously against the existence of God – and they are really, really convinced they are right. But they don’t really know, do they? Well, maybe Hitchens does now that he’s dead and enjoying the Eternal Tropics.

              People blame religion for all sorts of ills. But it was not religion that dropped the bombs on Japan, and it was not religion that gassed the Jews in Germany, and it was not religion that ran the Gulags in the Soviet Union. Mao was not religious – he killed over 50 million people. Leopold was not religious – he killed 8 million. It seems to me that the godless are a hell of a lot more efficient in killing people than the godly.

              But – to the point – we all base our beliefs on a set of basic assumptions. And the assumptions are probably wrong.

              • Grasshopper wrote:

                “We have the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins arguing vociferously against the existence of God – and they are really, really convinced they are right. But they don’t really know, do they? Well, maybe Hitchens does now that he’s dead and enjoying the Eternal Tropics.

                LOL! That is funny, and very well put!

                Excellent post, Grasshopper.

                You made very well reasoned points that are very hard to argue with.

                It’s been said that an agnostic’s position is “I don’t know.”

                And a militant agnostic’s position is “I don’t know, and neither do you!”

                You wrote:

                “But – to the point – we all base our beliefs on a set of basic assumptions. And the assumptions are probably wrong.

                I could not agree more.

                But some of those wrong assumptions are worse than others.

                Knowing lies by a “religious” leader are the most destructive assumptions to build your beliefs upon. These types of lies are all designed to get you to work against your own self-interests.

                No genuine spiritual teacher spends one second trying to deceive his followers.

                Not one.

                Alanzo

              • Grasshopper: “But – to the point – we all base our beliefs on a set of basic assumptions. And the assumptions are probably wrong.”

                There is no absolute right or wrong. As long as we recognize assumptions for what they are, and know that they are not absolute, we are ok.

                .

          • I know what is a lie and what is real. But truth is relative. I don’t think all people that believe in God are ass holes living lies. Maybe they have a God I don’t know. The world doesn’t revolve around my ass. Every single person on this planet sees something I don’t see, and knows something I don’t know.

            Hubbard made huge efforts to “put everyone on the same page” with “standard tech” and HCOB’s and the whole lot of it. Even clothes! These are unattainable goals and everyone was set up for one big fucking loss, on that score. As a group goal.

            When I see people that come out of that, and they are still on a rampage to get everyone on the same page, I have to ask myself WTF?

            Nobody is ever going to be all on the same page. Ever. Seldom even in a simple family unit.

            If you really need to be on the same page with everyone else all of the time, as far as the eye can see, you need to come back in your next life as a resident on a chicken farm.

            Otherwise people have God given rights (if you will) to choose, to live, to experience, to do their own math, to seek their own rewards and endure their own penalties. I have not been issued any special license to condemn others as a “higher knowingness”. This is exactly the kind of narcissistic attitude condoned at “certs and awards” and with the “move up in status” campaigns.

            Any farmer that gets up at 4:00 in the morning, works the Earth until dusk to feed hungry kids is holy status in my mind. The coal miner . The fisherman. And a host of other good willed people, come home at night and bow their humble heads in prayer and give all the glory to someone else. That is not stupid hallucination in my mind. That is a humble glory you can not buy. Because I respect that, does not make me an asshole either.

          • How am I supposed to compare that farmer to the Sea Org Member who sat as his desk all week, barking orders and threats,come Thursday at 2:00 he is running around with a $1.09 in his pocket, homeless, government issued clothing, beaming that he is in affluence?

          • I really don’t care what people are dabbling in because they are curious, because they are aware or unaware. When you are mixed up in course of activity that is devoid of mercy and compassion, even if it is a simple conversation, the result is going to be very murky.

          • If we look at awareness as relative motion then we can be more objective about what is truth. Harmony among various awareness shall be an indicator of greater veracity than when there is disharmony among various awareness.

            And maintaining that harmony under different contexts shall be an indicator of still greater veracity.

            Thus, there is a scale of truth. Please see

            The Nature of Awareness (Part 1)
            .

        • P.S. Take your comm ev and shove it.

      • Exactly, Oracle! Practically perfect in every way. A model for all of society. So, go back 150 years and ‘be Joseph Smith’. He started a bank instead of setting up wards with free babysitting 24/7 for one and all, and emergency rations for everyone in the area. It would have taken time, but if they had started back then, it would have flourished.
        That really would have been ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ our Big Brother who loves us all. If they would have done those two things, free babysitting and emergency rations, then over the course of the last 150 years, just about everyone on the planet would either be Mormon or Mormon friendly. The emergency rations would have saved people in every disaster from then until now. Not only that, the children would have been raised with the seeds of kindness that the Mormons sow.
        So, just like with L Ron, LV got to Joseph Smith and made him do stuff wrong. The issue with black people was no prophecy from God. Some of the things he said were amazing. The structure of the church is supposed to be like a ladder. Each person has a family home teacher who represents their ward. That person answers to the ward bishop, who answers to the stake president on up to the President/Prophet.
        This is very much like the organization in the military. This is very orderly.
        When I began my in depth study of the Bible, I was already aware of the 8th article of faith ‘we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.’
        When I found inconsistencies in all of the translations, including the portions Joseph Smith was said to have corrected, I tried to inform the Priesthood. They refused to listen. So the ladder structure didn’t hold up for new information. My hieroglyphics professor said my theory cannot be disproved. It would change the way everyone thinks about the Bible.
        On occasion, missionaries visit me. I will always chat with them, but once a set of 3 girls ‘called me to my covenant’, right before I got a letter from my bishop informing me that my tithing wasn’t paid up. Well, I’ve been inactive for 42 years so I won’t be paying tithing. They never harass me, but they really want that tithing. If they had given the free babysitting, I would have paid tithing, but if they had given the free babysitting for the past 150 years, our planet would be a much finer place to live.
        But I’m not worried about Mormons or Scientologists. I am worried about the 1%. Both Mormons and Scientologists are microcosms of humanity. We can learn from the mistakes of both and build a better world.
        But in the mean time, LV is sucking up pieces of life force by turning humans into demons. Human trafficking and pedophilia are sicknesses of the soul and they must be stopped. It is unhealthy for one and all.

          • Hi Grasshopper,

            I think before 15 billion years ago there was a lot going on in a less corporeal Universe. I think God was having problems with some of His inadvertent creations. Imagine if everything you ‘thought’ came alive. God had to deal with some of His more obnoxious creations by making the physical universe. I believe that Planets, Stars, Galaxies and the Universe have souls. In addition to their own souls, Planets can be used to detain the obnoxious inadvertent creations we might refer to as demons.

            I think God created Sleep so that our Planet’s detained spirits would have Time to change into a being compatible with life in Heaven. The metamorphosis should take billions of years. When our dying Sun burns off Earth that metamorphosed spiritual individual will be free to join the Heavenly Hosts.

            Unfortunately, here on Earth there were some problems and our ‘detained spirits’ woke up early and in a state of tantrum.

            That tantrum spirit is LV – short for Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter – because that’s where I first contemplated the evil spiritual motivation…just tantrum and chaos and torture and hell. He needs to go back to sleep for five billion more years.

          • Lucy Verr?

  13. Marty, from my own experience, the trap you are so well describing is part of any spiritual path, and certainly of a religious one. You can even find it in some buddhists schools (oops, I will make some ennemies here…) Looking at the finger instead of the moon is a universal human-monkey characteristics.
    No “system” can fully describe or handle what is beyond all systems. Do we have then to condemn all systems, philosophies and spiritual paths ? Read Dogen, and some other Zen masters, this question is an old, very old one.
    I want to keep it short, with this sentence from the Bhagavad Gita:”When you have pierced the veil of delusion, then you can become indifferent to the voice of mere scriptures”. When…Then…

  14. Marty, who are you talking about in your article?

    The cool-aid drinkers? The Indies? All of them?

    Well, if you are talking about the Indies they have graduated the church and not use it as a via anymore. Why graduate from a subject which is not really known much less applied fully by a single group on this planet. And, yes, one doesn’t have to be authoritarian to do scientology.

    In my opinion this article is true for the “professional pc”.

    The irresponsible, lazy and do-it-all-for-me, low toned thetan who wouldn’t train, would adore his auditor (I have seen such cases) like a god and that would be it. No training, much less, no realisations and no responsibility for his Dynamics. Just a 1st dynamic type of person. That applies to such a person.

    I am glad I was in the Sea Org from one aspect: you are OT by definition. The wins that I had and my ability to word clear myself and graduate from the pc-case-humanoid band gave me, I guess, a totally unique view of Scientology. I have done so little auditing compared to others and yet my certainty on things is strong enough.

    It looks like Scientology for the most has been not a tool but a VIA to cover for their insecurities and uncertainties. In that sense I agree with your article.

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      “and graduate from the pc-case-humanoid band gave me, I guess, a totally “unique view of Scientology.”

      I knew it.You’re a big thetan and raised above the bank and I’ll not ask how you did it or try to comprehend it.

    • In my opinion ‘Thetan’ is a very hypnotic concept. Those who believe in it are hypnotized.

      >

      • Condemnation noted and entered into VCOB 14 Sept 2014.

        • You need to take a much closer look at the concept of thetan.

          • Suggested cram logged and accepted.

            • Oracle, you have been very nice lately so I shall tell you a secret.

              “Hypnotic associations are not integrated within the person’s ‘definitions-logic’ matrix. They are compartmentalized in the mind. They appear to be rational within that compartment and so they persist. Inability to break through such compartmentalization keeps the hypnotic influence in place. The remedy is to look at one’s thinking process in a wider context.

              Hypnotism may be resolved by examining one’s considerations, beliefs, and conclusions in a wider context with mindfulness.

              So, compare the concept of thetan to similar concepts in other religions, such as, soul and atman, and note the similarities and differences.

              • Vinaire, Since you have been so nice to me lately, let me share a secret with you. I have never operated with a concept of thetan or thought with the word thetan. Sorry that you assumed as much. I only made note of your condemnation. I have my own ideas about such matters. I don’t need to compare other’s data, I have always been happy with my own understandings of spirits. It has not been a huge secret in society or something I have ever needed someone else to define for me. I know what a spirit is and I think the rest of planet does too. It is not some big secret for spiritual intellects only.

    • Theo says.. ” my ability to word clear myself .”

      Theo I mastered the Dictionary in the 3rd grade.. I’m not getting that as a big win.

  15. Thank you for this.
    The horror of Scientology becomes more and more clear. It truly is horrifying. The only people who can see it are probably those that were ‘in’ to the deepest level and managed somehow to get out of it. This must be a mind altering experience – like coming back from the underworld or hell.

  16. Some serious meat and potatoes, with extra gravy. Delicious. Thanks, Marty.

  17. Dreams:

    I guess I’ve been luckier than many in a backhanded way. (many don’t remember their dreams or don’t have nightmares on a regular basis) Most of my life I’ve had horrific nightmares. Part of my life those nightmares matched how I felt during my waking life. Depressed. Anxious. Suicidal.

    Those feelings were never hidden from auditors and yet nothing but nothing could or did resolve those nightmares.

    Later after leaving scientology – they persisted. It clued me in to an interior world that I could not fool by pretending or even being upbeat during the day.

    I reasoned that IF I had such debilitating nightmares that would occasionally be so bad that when I woke up the same crippling feeling would persist for a few hours in the morning … something was seriously amiss.

    Throughout my life and even more so with scientology I had developed a very “certain” coat of armor — a confident demeanor which was just a lie but it protected me.

    I learned about dream states. Hubbard conveniently promoted that dreams were nothing … don’t remember the exact quote but very dismissive.

    I didn’t embark on dissecting my dreams with new-age-ish dream books that gave a meaning for every color, clothing etc in the dream. No. I just KNEW that IF these nightmares existed they were aspects of my subconscious — aspects of me.

    While starting to meditate years ago — the dreams became more frequent and worse — to the point I stopped meditating and at times was anxious about even going to sleep.

    I continued to study buddhist thought though as well as other traditions. More recently having worked through a myriad of fixed ideas stemming from my adoption of scientology principles and bunches of other things …

    My dreams are almost aligned with how I feel during the day. Pretty darn good. Working my way successfully through the maze we call life — with its twists and turns, hopes and fears and the desire to be of benefit to myself and others.

    Marty has done a masterful job with deconstructing scientology. I have learned something with each new post.

    He might not be the second coming but he is certainly one generous and good man.

    Windhorse

    • Thanks for sharing that. The Kosmic Consciousness series got me curious about dreams. Dream consciousness is an entire state of consciousness dismissed by scientology – even suppressed by instructions to take certain vitamins to stop them. I don’t know about getting into deep literal interpretations; but when one ceases to suppress them they can open up some interesting vistas and insights.

      • Marty — ditto on Ken Wilber and Kosmic Consciousness. Ken is really the person who gave me the green light to start meditating. (and learn about the various states of sleep — deep dreamless sleep and dreaming and REM) —

        For those interested in 10 hours of seriously interesting but not la la la philosophy … get Kosmic Consciousness … 10 hours of question and answers between Ken Wilber and Tami Simon. Profound stuff …

    • Hi Windhorse, You remind me of my childhood. When I was about 5 years old, until I was about 10 years old, sometimes I’d get a nightmare and I was about 5 years old when I discovered how to decide to leave the nightmare. It was a certain key that I’d always remember if the nightmare got to a point of being too scary. I’d always remember the key at that time and use the key to open a door which would bring me into a fully awake state. So right before the monster would eat me I’d just simply leave the monster’s world by using my key. I’d wake up and within a few seconds of being awake I’d be greatly relieved and feel like laughing about it, and would go back to sleep knowing that I could fool monsters anytime I wanted to. It was a great pleasure to me to do a disappearing act right in front of the monsters. The key wasn’t something that I ever had to design or figure out, it just came to me by necessity once when I got tired of the monsters chasing me in the nightmares. It worked, so I remembered it, and I always remembered that it was my personal key that the monsters would never understand, and I remembered that it was pretty foolproof and always worked. It wasn’t the design or significance of the key really. It was the fact of what I thought about the key which was my confidence that I knew it worked. And I always had it as part of my knowing-ness if and when I might need it in a nightmare. I should have thought up a key to make the fun dreams last a little longer!

      I told a couple of kids that I trusted when I was 5 years old what my key was so they could escape the monsters too. One of these kids told me recently, after he was in his 60’s, that I changed his entire life by telling him about my key.

      • Al —

        You were certainly a wise 5 year old. And lucid.

        Indeed what you did – with your key – is what is done (not a key per se) with those who are able to “wake up in the dream” — also known as “lucid dreaming” or dream yoga.

        I’ve been able to do this actually now for a few years MOST of the time — unless I happen to lose my mind and have too much sugar before bedtime.
        There is something to be said about sugar and nightmares. Not just a way for moms to prevent their kids from eating sugar🙂

        Thanks. I love the bit about having changed the entire life of one of your friends …

        The key bit is a great metaphor as well to life — wouldn’t you say?

        • Thanks Windhorse. I’d have to say things can be pretty cool for a 5 year old. And, as Vinaire also noted in his comment below here, the key is a great metaphor as well to life.

      • That’s great! Did you have such a key while in Scientology?

    • Windhorse, I forgot to tell you that it looks like you did really good at sorting out the dreams successfully that you mentioned in your post.

      • Speaking of dreams, I got into bed last night and started having some really odd visions. Reptile like figures were roaming here and there, then rodent type of creatures seemed to be running from me, pictures of digging in the Earth and hunting hairy things. I finally got up and turned on the light to discover my weenie dog had sneaked in the room and was my bed tearing up a cookie monster back back some kid had left under the bed. His pictures were floating all over the room.

  18. “The practice promises to render you virtually immune to sub conscious suggestion ” this Idea is in itself is a suggestion, but since you are already immune you don’t realize you are being implanted with a mechanism to accept all of Hubbard’s suggestions to be totally trapped, therefore you believing that you are immune do not realize you have been trapped.

  19. I don’t believe it is possible to help a group wake up wholesale. It is an individual process, and unless there is some psychological trick out there to break the spell, currently and from my own experience and observation, a person will take an enormous amount of abuse and loss before they begin to see that something is not right with the adopted universe view, and that it is not the way to heaven, a perfect world or godhood. In my case, even a very close brush with death was not sufficient. I still feel that a person will only look when they regain their capacity to ask questions, meaning they are using their own mind again – ask questions and realise that the outside world is doing so much better, and search for answers there.

    It is true that one must first realise one is ill before one will seek for a cure or a doctor. An adopted universe view that constantly tells one that one has never been healthier and is on the road to superior sanity severely hinders such an understanding.

    I do feel that the reasons why people cling to the need for the promises of this universe view to be true and to work are as varied as the people themselves. Each may need to look into themselves, and look at other fields of study, to gain a broader understanding of why they are the way they are.

    In my case, psychology has helped the most, as in that field many people have studied issues over decades, and their findings have helped me understand myself (childhood abandonment shed a lot of light for me). Again, I would have never reached past the in-built indoctrination against everything “psyche” had it not been for my utter despair.

    So I don’t know how you can say you have failed, Marty, since I don’t know what exactly you were attempting. People reach when they reach, and when do finally do, they are generally incredibly grateful to find that someone has actually taken the time to understand what they went through. I know I was, and still am, with every article you write, and everything that the community here contributes.

    • “What is not hypnotism?” Is a good question to ask oneself.

      Can hell, heaven and God move into the scope of hypnotism?

      >

      • Absolutely, and the opposite of denying or resisting them doesn’t work in the long run, like assuming an atheist or materialists belief system.
        They are part of the dichotomies that make up the matrix of mind.

      • Vinaire

        Let’s go back to what hypnotism IS for starters.

        I consider hypnotism is simply getting someone to agree with something that he didn’t evaluate for himself.

        A “hypnotic state” is any state where one is acting on data or instructions that he has not evaluated for himself.

        This seems to be aside from what is a generally agreed upon as “truth”, or not.

        “What is not hypnotism?” seems to be the tough one.

        How does one know for sure that he is exterior to any hypnotic influence? How does one know for sure that his decisions, and even his “truths”, are not the result of inculcation?

        I do not know that one can.

        I do not feel that any quest for invariable truths, or “really true truths”, is going to lead anywhere except to fixated ideas (read..no longer available for re-evaluation) in a fluid and changing universe. I consider it counter productive.

        I consider that being willing to freely re-valuate your data leaves more room for growth.

        What seems to be the key to growth is not whether or not you are RIGHT, but whether or not you are still willing to look.

        Eric

        • Eric, I can’t subscribe to your definition of hypnosis. Not because of what it says, but because of what it leaves out, that has to do with it’s central characteristic as I see it, the generation and compulsion of automatic behavior on the part of the hypnotized subject, beyond his ability to resist or control. I’ve always viewed that as the essence of hypnotism.

          • Hi Valkov

            Yes, I apologize for the over simplified and incomplete definition.

            Your additions make it more complete. Somehow, at some level, overwhelm is part of the package, but that overwhelm can be very subtly done.

            It was the “what is not hypnotism” part that I was really trying to address with my post. I may have shortchanged you there too, but it was what I was thinking at the time.

            Eric

        • Hi, Eric,

          Thanks for giving a try to define hypnotism. I have worked out a “reality-centric” approach to understand hypnotism as follows.

          https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/deconstructing-scientology-2/#comment-318284

          .

          • Vinaire

            Thank you for that link. You have some interesting views there.

            When I wrote my post I was being rather simplistic. Perhaps my views were not wholly inaccurate, but certainly incomplete. I really should not have started off with the announcement that I was going to “go back to what hypnotism IS for starters.”, and then gloss over it.

            Perhaps I will get into a full deconstruct at some point. It seems it would be wise to understand the mechanisms involved from more than a dillitant’s viewpoint.

            Thank you for your post.

            Eric

  20. Scientology is just a small part of cultural conditioning.

  21. An absolutely top notch dissection of the “tech”. Keep up the good work, Marty.

  22. Bravo!

    Its classic L Ron Hubbard to warn people about the very thing he was doing to them. Given the 20-20 vision hindsight provides, one of the most blatant was the day he told people that the only way to control someone was to lie to them before immediately lying to the very people he was addressing. One of his most sophisticated plays was the introduction of the “Brainwashing Manual” into Scientology literature. It was presented as an example of what to watch out for yet actually provides a case study of how Scientology works on its followers. Diabolical, indeed.

  23. This is really a great post. I am always in awe when I see how fast you woke up from the control mechanisms that were imposed on you. I am convinced that if I had been in your shoes, I would have fallen under the same spell, and I can imagine it would have taken me much longer to wake up. I am so happy to read all the replies from people like Karen, windhorse and others.
    Please give my regards to Mosey. I confess this is in the realm of speculation, but following your blog closely and what you have written I do get the feeling she was essential in this whole process, given that by necessity she always must have had an outsider view on this whole subject.

  24. The following is one version of an experiment that has been repeated numerous times, notably by UK’s Derren Brown (http:/*/www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTobS-09fBQ).

    There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

    A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the “proper” suggestions to make this “true” were given, such as “you will NOT see so- and-so” etc… When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

    Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

    So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room… that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described… the door was opened and shut to provide “sound effects,” and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

    Guess what happened?

    He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

    Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain “censors” in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

    The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are “allowed” to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society – our peers – to believe.

    Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject’s awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this “anomalous” activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

    So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapies to stop bad habits do not work – they attempt to operate against a “belief system” that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

    One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

    In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe – the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his “belief center” – even if that activation was fraudulent.

    And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist – the “official culture” – and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the “Invisible Man” because he chooses not to see him.

    Which leads to a certain Mr. Émile Coué, who, in the early 20th century, discovered that suggestions were working far better when his patients were not induced into hypnotic trance (http:/*/www.psychomaster.com/books/emile/)… who gathered quite a following in the USA with his method (http:/*/gordonsander.com/2000/04/day-by-day-in-every-way-i-am-getting-better-and-better/) and who established arbitrary laws for his therapy:
    .
    1. When the will and the imagination are antagonistic, it is always the imagination which wins, without any exception.

    2. In the conflict between the will and the imagination, the force of the imagination is in direct ratio to the square of the will.

    3. When the will and the imagination are in agreement, one does not add to the other, but one is multiplied by the other.

    4. The imagination can be directed.

    … that was in the 1920s!

    The above should sound familiar to anyone aware of a later version featuring “auditor,” “PC” and “Bank.”

    Marty, thank you for the taking apart… might be able to build a lawnmower with some of the pieces🙂

    • This is an excellent post. The fact the Scientology is more successful in Western cultures compared to the Eastern cultures should give one a pause.

      There is something in the Western culture that prepares one better to be hypnotized by Scientology more easily.

      >

  25. Here is an interesting question. My experience with scientologists number in the hundreds, not in the thousands, so I don’t have a large statistical base. Do you know of any scientologists who graduated from college and became successful in an ethical field of work AFTER GOING CLEAR/OT?

    I could understand the numbers being a bit skewed, BUT NONE??? That is kinda telling. Especially with Scn. being the self proclaimed masters of learning. Hmmmmmm.
    Mark

    • Mark,
      Your question started a review by me of study tech and its value.
      I am only one addition to your sample as I have no knowledge of anyone else who completed the OT levels.

      “Do you know of any scientologists who graduated from college and became successful in an ethical field of work AFTER GOING CLEAR/OT?”

      After completing OT VIII in 1988, I did make a career change into computer programming and I was very successful for 12 years. It was a very difficult change because I had to un-learn study tech to do it. I was an excellent student in college using study tech that I learned in the sixth grade – basics like index cards, repitition etc. At the end of graduate school in business, my grades dropped after the completion of the Scientology study material. I concluded at the time that study tech was great for learning Scientology, but of little value in advanced areas. On further analysis, I could see the problem with study tech in the business world or the world of academic study. Basically, I started a Ph. D
      program with Scientology study tech and dropped out. The reason is that the MU, gradient and lack of mass ideas did not work well for me in areas other than Scientology. To really learn a subject, I really needed my own old method which works. Advanced knowledge requires independent thinking, the clash of viewpoints and just plain old common sense. Actually, the low gradient approach is too slow. The mind is actually a quantum machine unlike anything Hubbard imagined. Thus the only way for me to learn advanced subjects is to apply what works. Thus Scientology study tech has its own value but it is limited.
      At one time, I thought that Hubbard did not understand Buddhism because he did not apply his own study tech. Now I see it from a new point of view. I think Hubbard had too many fixed ideas and he would have failed to learn Buddhism even if he applied his own study tech. Study tech does have value in learning but I see the same problem with it now. To really get to know a subject, I need views and conflicting opinions. My mind can “sort” like a computer and it can put together solutions. Study tech, in my opinion, is weak in that area.
      GMW

      • “Actually, the low gradient approach is too slow.”

        George, I think it was more a matter of the CORRECT gradient, not that it had to be a LOW one. Specifically, the “skipped gradient” was what got a student in trouble. That just meant that he hadn’t mastered what came before well enough to be able to get the next gradient, or step, up. The fast student would be able to take bigger steps (gradients) than a slow student, and wouldn’t be required to take a “low gradient approach,” as that would be too slow for him, as you indicated.

      • George wrote:

        “Advanced knowledge requires independent thinking, the clash of viewpoints and just plain old common sense.

        I found, for a certain period after Scientology, that I would constantly check to see if my own independent ideas corresponded with the teacher or leader’s ideas in that area. I would experience a kind of anxiety that my ideas might not be “standard” enough.

        You have to realize how UNLIKE me that was. It was even unlike the “me” that got myself involved in Scientology because Scn was new and seemingly original, rebellious, and unlike anything offered from the society at the time.

        That anxiety about being standard enough was definitely a Scientology-instilled implant. Which I have since blown, of course.

        Now when I study, I compare my own independent ideas to the teacher’s or leader’s ideas in order to compare and contrast our views. This helps me to evaluate my reasoning to make sure it is on a solid foundation, and to point out where the teacher or leader is being fucking stupid or a clod-like moron.

        Next, I’m going to examine the implants that I have picked up from being a critic of Scientology.

        I’m sure there’s nothing there.

        Alanzo

        • Yes of course Al, there’s nothing there. After all “critics” are absolutely free of any kind of ideology….. 🙂

        • Alanzo wrote:
          “Now when I study, I compare my own independent ideas to the teacher’s or leader’s ideas in order to compare and contrast our views. This helps me to evaluate my reasoning to make sure it is on a solid foundation.”

          This is great and it is what I do now. The Buddhist monks at our Vihara stress the same point. The Buddha did not require that we accept anything he said without personal investigation.

          GMW

      • Funny, I found my knowledge and use of study tech an absolute asset in learning programming, Lean Manufacturing, systems analysis, etc., etc.

        • “Funny, I found my knowledge and use of study tech an absolute asset in learning programming, Lean Manufacturing, systems analysis, etc., etc.”

          Study tech works when the definitions are right and critical thinking is allowed to resolve disagreements.

          ________________________________

      • George: “Your question started a review by me of study tech “

        Study Tech is limited in that it doesn’t question wrong definitions. It takes for granted anything that is written. It is well suited to indoctrinate people in Scientology.

        If find Subject Clearing to be much wider and saner in scope.

        ________________________________

        • vinaire,
          Thanks for the link. I remember it from a few weeks ago when I checked it out.

          vinaire wrote:
          “Study Tech is limited in that it doesn’t question wrong definitions. It takes for granted anything that is written. It is well suited to indoctrinate people in Scientology. ”

          My conclusion also.

          GMW

        • Study Tech is limited in that it doesn’t question wrong definitions. It takes for granted anything that is written.

          No it doesn’t. That is BS. Study tech is a method to understand what it is you are reading or studying. You look up the words as you need to – fully, and in as many dictionaries or other references as are required. Where it makes sense and you need to, you demo out in something other than your head that which you are studying – so if you are studying how a differential works, for example, you can draw it out, demo it with a demo kit, or do it in clay, or something else – if you need to. Gradients are used so you don’t “boil the ocean” trying to learn something. It is hard to learn multiplication without first understanding arithmetic – and it is hard to do arithmetic without some idea of what numerals are supposed to be, and how they relate to quantities. For example. There are also the Logics and the Data Series, and data on duplication which could be considered to be part of Study Tech.

          You cannot reject something that you don’t understand. I understand, for example, Alan Watts’ concept of God. I applied study tech to it. And I understand it, at least as much as he described. I don’t agree with it completely, but I understand it. Actually, I find it quite beautiful – I find myself wishing it were true. But to me, it’s not. At least I know what it is I am analyzing.

          The Tech world is full of bullshit. I can read a press release or white paper, and understand what it says, and can call BS on it because I know what it says and what it means and can address it for what it is, not for what I misunderstand it to mean.

          The level of illiteracy in the business world is astounding. Astounding. People say that most amazing BS, they use the wrong words, bad grammar, incorrect usage – all the time. In emails, in print, on web sites, and in business proposals and contracts. I see it ALL the time. These people have college degrees, most of them. Many have Masters’ – MBAs, Masters of Computer Science, etc. I guess binge-drinking beers in frat houses does not make you literate. The reason I see it all the time is because I have a foundation in study tech and I can use it. The level of illiteracy that is happening in Church publications these days is yet another proof that they are not even applying their own technologies.

          • Grasshopper: “No it doesn’t. That is BS. Study tech is a method to understand what it is you are reading or studying.”

            Well, I knew a study tech before Scientology that helped me graduate as Master’s in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. It was very relaxed and gave me full freedom to think critically. That method is now part of SUBJECT CLEARING documented on my blog.

            What I was talking about was the study tech practiced in Scientology. It is unduly made very complicated. Just read all the bulletin’s on word clearing on type of definitions. It straight-jackets one to accept all Hubbard’s definitions. If one disagrees with any Scientology definition then it is your misunderstood. The Scientology definition is never wrong.

            Hubbard was totally mistaken in delineating beingness to be the source of all reality. This definition of Static comes from a limited human-centric viewpoint. If I ever questioned Scientology Axiom #1 in Scientology I would have been hounded with word clearing and cramming till I agreed with Hubbard’s definition. It goes against the Vedic definition but that doesn’t matter. One must agree with Hubbard. Scientology Study Tech is there to make sure one does.

            Sorry Grasshopper. You may want to take a look at Subject Clearing on my blog. It covers what is missing in Scientology Study tech.

            .

            • Well, there is what people _do_ vs. what people _should do_. I mean, at some point you need to be responsible for what you agree to. If you disagree with the first axiom of Scientology despite word clearing, then why are you even in the room?

              Allowing yourself to be talked into agreeing with something is not study tech.

              • Well I understood the basic principles of Study tech even before I came across them in Scientology. What new I learned in Scientology was clearing root meaning and following word chains. That was good. That helped me learn new subjects.

  26. I think that the point where an activity (religion, philosophy, etc) begins to mirror or act like hypnotism is when a person decides in some way that he cannot disagree (or has no right to ethically disagree within “the group” or universe he is in). One of the components of effective hypnotism of course is that the subject carries out on command (complete agreement) the hypnotic suggestion.

    I left the CoS in 2006 (after 35 very active years) when I suddenly realized that it was considered that I no longer had the right to disagree with any “command” on how to handle ANY area of my life. But I later looked at how we act throughout our “Scientology lives.” Despite the essay on personal integrity and LRH’s early education lecture where he talks about encouraging a student to reject data he is given, Ron did a 180 on this by the end of the 1950s.

    In having participated (as a student, a twin and a course supe) in THOUSANDS of check outs, I never ONCE heard any student voice a disagreement with anything LRH said (and that includes myself as the person getting the checkout). He was simply NEVER wrong. In fact a standard checkout demands that the student demonstrate HOW what LRH said was true. Of course one could voice a confusion, and then the remedy was ALWAYS to find out what one didn’t truly understand (or one would have simply accepted the data as true). The remedy was usually to find what misunderstood words were causing the confusion (WC Series 16R – it is ALWAYS a word at the bottom of the confusion), but then it was revealed that the reason one did not accept the true data from LRH could also very well be that one had earlier FALSE data that did not allow one to accept “the truth.” Thus students in Scientology identified all sorts of earlier subjects they really knew NOTHING about as “false” and thus preventing them from accepting the true data from Ron. If a person actually voiced in a church of Scientology that LRH was wrong about some things or disagreed with any HCO B or PL, he of course would be considered having “counter intention” and would be “an ethics particle.” (I’ll add that one could not disagree with any inflow of data from LRH on an early issue even when Ron himself radically changed the data himself!) LRH was “source.” (one does not disagree with the source of truth …. one accepts … accepts … accepts)

    There is NO self determinism (as in hypnosis) when one cannot do ANYTHING but accept what one is told. This is quite irrespective of whatever truth I found in Scientology or case gain I made (a considerable amount on both counts). I would end my post here by suggesting that one does not have the power of choice over data from a source (and thus the data begins to act not unlike commands) if one cannot find anything he disagrees with or rejects from that source (whether it be LRH, Ayn Rand, Nietschze, the Buddha, Thomas Jefferson or any other source). That’s my opinion anyway (which of course all are free to reject or disagree with)

    • Reality is agreement (hypnotism). Haha.

      >

    • Total, agreement, total acceptance equals total control. Just the opposite of total freedom. Thank you Joe, for your story. It aligns completely with my article “Large Common Universes”. It is not surprising that agreement can be manipulated. It is surprising that it can be done so broadly.
      Mark

    • Joe,
      Exactly. Great comment.
      The test if the system you are studying permits you a heuristic approach or not is if you can overtly REJECT it. Not only in your mind, but in the immediate environment, including it’s source data, practices, instructors, etc.

      Obviously Scientology is commanded over anybody studying it.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heuristic?s=ts

    • Joe, I agree with you that LRH did a 180 degree turn at some point. Perhaps if it had been fully allowed (or would be allowed even now, in OR outside the CoS) for the student to apply “How is it this way?” / “How isn’t it this way?” to the materials – that single piece of study tech could have prevented the erosion of self-determinism.

      • Mirildi, I don’t think there was a total turn around with LRH. I believe that is how he was as a person. It was his way or SP declare. This is his MO.

        Ron did not tolerate any criticism, any reasoned disagreements. That intolerents of criticism is at the heart of his problem on all levels.

        Disagreeing with his written works was actually imprinted into his student’s mind, by study “tech”, as a problem with the students ability to study.
        Disagreement and criticism from journalists and outside agencies was the cause of his wife going to jail.

        Sovereign thinking was praised by Ron. Then when sovereign thinking is demonstrated it is punished by Ron.

        Control and power and cash; these were Ron’s true love.

        True free thinking students were his enemy. It was never really a goal to free people.

        Free people think for themselves and are impervious to the delusion of “Ron says” masquarading as intelligence.

        To a very large degree Scientologists are an army of misinformed minds. Criticism of Ron is/was never allowed.

        But criticism and destruction of critics is part of church doctrine, thus making the hypnotized lemmings quite dangerous.

        • Here’s a little more of the science to it:

          • Claims to be trained as a scientist — really? Where?

            Is published through Hay House — don’t get me wrong I love Hay House as a publishing house BUT it’s VERY new agey.

            Is New Age bad? NO. Is it TRUTH? Hmmm not sure.

            He sounds VERY convincing … is he right? Hmmm not sure.

            This particle break up in Geneva is now old news …

            BEWARD of scientists claiming to be scientists or gurus claiming to be gurus …

            In other words —

            The middle way JUST might be the best option.

            Just saying

            • Windhorse, I read a report that described some experiments which support Gregg Braden’s ideas. Here is one of them:
              —————————————–
              EXPERIMENT #3
              The third experiment was done by the Institute of Heart Math and the paper that was written about this was titled: Local and Non local Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA. (Disregard the title! The info is incredible.) This is the experiment that relates directly to the anthrax situation. In this experiment, some human placenta DNA (the most pristine form of DNA) was placed in a container from which they could measure changes in the DNA. Twenty-eight vials of DNA were given (one each) to 28 trained researchers. Each researcher had been trained how to generate and FEEL feelings, and they each had strong emotions.

              What was discovered was that the DNA CHANGED ITS SHAPE according to the feelings of the researchers: (1) When the researchers FELT gratitude, love and appreciation, the DNA responded by RELAXING and the strands unwound. The length of the DNA became longer. (2) When the researchers FELT anger, fear, frustration, or stress, the DNA responded by TIGHTENING UP. It became shorter and SWITCHED OFF many of our DNA codes! If you’ve ever felt “shut down” by negative emotions, now you know why your body was equally shut down too. The shut down of the DNA codes was reversed and the codes were switched back on again when feelings of love, joy, gratitude and appreciation were felt by the researchers.
              […]
              Gregg Braden says this illustrates a new recognized form of energy that connects all of creation.

              This energy appears to be a TIGHTLY WOVEN WEB that connects all matter. Essentially we’re able to influence this web of creation through our VIBRATION.
              —————————————
              http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/gbraden2.html

              • Those reports I believe were done by Braden himself.

                In any case, I can’t won’t and find it pointless to “debate” with you.

                A quick look at Braden’s website and the links he provides AND THE BOOKS he offers/suggests in his store — are pages and pages of books about the Illuminati, the Reptilians, David Icke …

                Got bored checking through them but surely the Protocols of Zion must be there somewhere.

                • Windhorse: “Those reports I believe were done by Braden himself.”

                  I don’t know what you are basing your “belief” on, but regarding those reports, here’s a link to the article that was cited, which the reports were based on: http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/HeartMath%20article.pdf

                • In addition to the experiments Gregg Braden refers to, there is the research of Dr. Bruce Lipton, who discovered that it is thoughts that determine one’s DNA – in other words, proof of mind over matter, or “function monitors structure.”

                  This 2-minute video is titled “Dr. Bruce Lipton – Change Your Beliefs, Change Your DNA”

                  • Sorry, that vid is the one titled “Our cell membrane can change our DNA.”

                    Here’s the 2-minute vid titled “Dr. Bruce Lipton – Change Your Beliefs, Change Your DNA”

                    • I haven’t looked at this video yet but I am quite certain that function monitors structure. I experienced such last week which I describe in a lengthy comment I made above that landed in the wrong place. Last week all I had was function. And I could tell that structure wanted to better itself to support function. If anybody should get depressed, and I say this only because I care about people, follow your doctor’s advice but also go out and do some stuff that you like and your structure (mind, brain, body) will will all get better.

                    • I meant to post this comment under marildi’s video titled “Change Your Beliefs, Change Your DNA. ” I did also listen to the video.

                    • “I haven’t looked at this video yet but I am quite certain that function monitors structure.”

                      Function may monitor structure, but function does not come before structure. Function and structure must appear simultaneously, and must evolve together.

                      .

                    • This appears to be a fallacy. Just take a look at body-builders and weightlifters. Or any kind of physical training. Or the studies of the brains London cabdrivers.
                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/

                    • Valkov, I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. I shall just stand by what I see with mindfulness.

                    • Logic and thinking are not the same as mindfulness. I submit that if one is mindfull, one might see the shortcomings of logic and thinking.

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      Logic and thinking are not the same as mindfulness. I submit that if one is mindfull, one might see the shortcomings of logic and thinking.

                      I would agree with that.

                      For instance, in this exchange of ours:

                      Valkov wrote:

                      Mind has been described as a mirror of the senses. Thus mind is also “maya” or “samsara”, just as sense perception is. It is not where you can find truth. But it might be a place where you can find beauty.

                      It depends on who’s looking in the mirror! (:>

                      The best description I have seen reasons thusly:

                      Since the mind does not cause itself to exist, it has no inherent existence of its own. It is considered empty of inherent existence.

                      Because the mind is empty of inherent existence, and has no qualities of its own, it can reflect the qualities of all things.

                      Thus, the mind is like a mirror.

                      Alanzo

                      iamvalkov | September 16, 2014 at 6:37 pm | Reply
                      Thus when one ceases to project a material world, mind also ceases, does it not?

                      I was going to answer:

                      “It seems that the reasoning would lead us there.

                      But I have no idea whether that is true.”

                      And right there you have *a* limit to logic and reasoning.

                      Why do I get the feeling that you want to argue against the use of logic and reasoning in order to keep justifying Scientology, though?

                      It’s just a feeling.

                      Call it “intuition” – which may be as simple as recognizing a pattern, or as deeply profound as reading your thoughts and intentions like tuning a radio to your frequency.

                      My intuition contains no logic, and I used no reasoning to produce that feeling.

                      But the feeling’s still there.

                      Make the feeling go away, Valkov. Assure me that you are not trying to invalidate the use of logic and reason so that you can continue to prop up the lies, exploitations, and spiritual deceptions of L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology.

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, this is a perfect illustration of how you turn an apparently thoughtful reply to one of my posts into a propaganda piece. I can only assume you had the punchline in mind when you started writing, that it did not arise in natural sequence. The whole comment was apparently a lead-in to the bit about “scientology lies” blah bla blah.
                      Is some entity the source of your chronic suspicions about me?

                      However, you also misrepresented my post entirely, by saying I was trying to “invalidate” the use of logic and reasoning. That is a “straw man”. Are these ideas being “fed” to you? What I actually posted was that logic had its limitations, not that it was “invalid”. It is valid as far as it goes, no more and no less. And I said nothing about “reason”.

                      If you “think with” the Buddhism you know, I think you will see that teaching
                      in Buddhism – that World and Mind arise simultaneously, and when you quell one, the other is also quelled, and you have Nirvana.

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      What I actually posted was that logic had its limitations, not that it was “invalid”. It is valid as far as it goes, no more and no less.

                      Thank you. That makes me feel so much better.

                      Alanzo

                    • Right. You can notice that in your “discussions” with Alanzo.

                    • Valkov: “Logic and thinking are not the same as mindfulness. I submit that if one is mindfull, one might see the shortcomings of logic and thinking.”

                      Right. You can notice that in your “discussions” with Alanzo.

                      .

                    • Perhaps it is not me, but some other entity that is laying that feeling on you? Check it out.

                    • Val said, ” But enough about LRH. When you were a “counselor”, what were you selling your clients?”
                      ………………………..
                      And I answered above..

                    • Al Brown | September 17, 2014 at 3:36 pm | Reply
                      “I haven’t looked at this video yet but I am quite certain that function monitors structure.”

                      That might depend on the marriage.

                    • Oracle: “That might depend on the marriage.”

                      Hilarious!

                  • OH Marildi.. Again, Google is your friend. Debunked Fraud.

              • When you are ignoring the body, you are also ignoring the DNA. Scientologists are taught to do this.

                In my opinion, body is an important part of “you”. It should not be ignored or looked down upon as “MEST”. That is so stupid.

                • Vinaire: “When you are ignoring the body, you are also ignoring the DNA. Scientologists are taught to do this.”

                  I’m not sure what you are referring to – i.e. that scientologists are “taught to do this.”

                  • Thetan-mind-body is a single thing. They are not separate entities in some absolute sense.

                    • I’m sure this will be a blow down for all Necrophiliacs.

                    • Stop it, Oracle. I was drinking water when I read this. Keyboards are expensive.

                    • And your proof of that, my friend?? I have floated above my body and looked down and seen myself in a chair. I am not alone in this experience. Unprovable personal experience is allowed in Mindfulness. How is it communicable??

                    • You were hypnotized

                    • Well, I was waiting for my ride to high school. I was half dozing, but I knew I couldn’t fall asleep because my ride just beeps and I didn’t want to miss it. All at once, I was floating up. I turned my head and I sort of floated around to the right and saw myself in the chair.
                      Then the horn beeped and I went to the car.
                      Do you believe we have a soul that continues on even after the body ceases to exist, Eileen?

                    • Compartmentalization of knowledge by religions into “spiritual” and “physical” has contributed greatly to hynotism.

                      From :The Nature of Hypnotism”:

                      “Hypnotic associations are not integrated within the person’s “definitions-logic” matrix. They are compartmentalized in the mind. They appear to be rational within that compartment and so they persist. Inability to break through such compartmentalization keeps the hypnotic influence in place. The remedy is to look at one’s thinking process in a wider context.

                      Hypnotism may be resolved by examining one’s considerations, beliefs, and conclusions in a wider context with mindfulness.

                      .

                    • “And your proof of that, my friend?? I have floated above my body and looked down and seen myself in a chair. I am not alone in this experience. Unprovable personal experience is allowed in Mindfulness. How is it communicable??”

                      I have had similar experiences. I class them as a temporary visualization in response to unfixing of attention on the body. I have explained it in greater detail in Being Self-centric & Scientology and elsewhere on my blog. Just search “exteriorization” or “interiorization.”

                      ________________________________

                    • I will read it. Thanks, Vinaire🙂

                    • I will, Vinaire. But I still might not agree. Too much other evidence from other peoples’ experiences, as well as my own, to just blow it away as hypnosis.
                      I think if we have lived 100 lifetimes, then our current body is 1/100. Our 99/100 is in the collective consciousness. THEY are the smart ME. THEY are my ‘spirit guide’ of sorts. That 99/100 is obviously the combined total of 99 other lifetimes and that entity uses me as a sort of game piece in this physical realm. I choose to take corporeal form to do a physical task – even though I don’t consciously remember that choice . Most people are asleep right now. If they wake up and realize they are like game pieces and that by working together we can attain a common goal of HEALTH, then we will save our world.
                      It makes sense that we have a function, IMO.
                      I won’t have time to read until later, but I do so love your blog, Vinaire. You’re into physics. All about ‘setting the unit’. Love it!

                    • granny: “I will, Vinaire. But I still might not agree. Too much other evidence from other peoples’ experiences, as well as my own, to just blow it away as hypnosis.”

                      I am not looking for agreement. I am simply making an observation.

                      A visualization is just that. “Out of body” is a very common visualization. It may be happening just in the mind. It seems to be of the character of a lucid dream.

                    • Check on the web, all the benefits of the endorphin release. You’ll be surprised to discover that it gives the feeling of floating outside the body🙂

                    • Hmm, I will. So, endorphin release is the brain’s way of allowing us to exteriorize. The ability to control exteriorization may enable conscious contact with our own higher selves, as well as our Angels. Thanks, Flo!

              • Marildi, if this research is re-creatable, then it would go a long way toward explaining why it is that children who grow up in very unhappy or stressful environments, ON THE AVERAGE, are often not as attractive as those who grow up in what is considered a ‘happy’ environ. No research, just observation. Anyone can point out exceptions, it just depends on how objective your observations are.
                Mark

                • Mark: “…if this research is re-creatable, then it would go a long way toward explaining why it is that children who grow up in very unhappy or stressful environments.”

                  I get what you mean. In essence I think the research has been “recreated” by Bruce Lipton, for one. See the vids I posted.

              • I can speak as a researcher. This is a nonsense study. Sorry.

            • Gerhard Waterkamp

              Some say ‘new age’ is a creation of the black occultists to further distract and maintain their knowlegde differential that allows them to control large parts of the population- as they created control religions in the past.
              Do not know if that is correct or not.
              But such a strategy is believable. Fill the minds people who search with all kind of stuff to keep them at bay to find out what number is pulled on them.
              LRH came from the occult and he was a master of these strategies and tactics. One could say he was a used car sales man at large. Telling the customers anything they needed to know and never dreamed to be possible about bad used car sales people. And once those who listened were convinced to be in good hands and dropped their defensese of critical thinking, he sold them a really, really expensive shitty used car.
              David Miscavige is like the service manager of this dealership. His sales person who could make up the shit and actually sell has left so he beats the crap out of his existing curtomers in an effort to keep the profit margins up.
              Some used car owners did not like the service they were getting (and the beatings) and took their used car somewhere else. Many were so thouroughly sold that they still hold on to the believe that their 1974 beat up Buick Estate Wagon with fake wood they bought for $300k is the only car that really works and they plainly refuse to even look at a 2014 Prius for comparison.

              But I digress….

              • Gerhard: “Some say ‘new age’ is a creation of the black occultists to further distract and maintain their knowlegde differential that allows them to control large parts of the population- as they created control religions in the past.”

                Cameron Day says something similar, and that some (but not all) of the “light workers” of the New Age are “false light workers.”

                “First, patriarchal religions were formed and imposed on as many people of the world as possible. Anyone who didn’t adhere to one of the major religions was an outcast for much of history, until the last century when the
                ‘Theosophist movement’ was born, which set the foundation for the ‘new age movement’ to emerge in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The new age movement has continued to gain momentum as it has attracted many of the people who turned away from the hypocrisy of patriarchal religion.

                “The corrupt demiurge seems to have an ‘easy answer’ for any of the inner turmoil that humans experience. If religion doesn’t serve to appease an individual, then the new age will do just fine. It’s all the same to the demiurge, as long as we ‘pick a side’ that it controls. This is why we need to transcend sides all together.”

                http://www.ascensionhelp.com/blog/2013/08/23/why-i-am-no-longer-a-light-worker/

                • Here is Bill Robertson’s take on this topic, from 1987. (Those allergic to Capt. Bill may skip this.) It is titled “False Bridges”.
                  http://www.freezone.org/cbr/e_abr_02.htm

                  • I read it, Val. Lots of interesting data. One thing I found that relates to some of the recent discussion was this:

                    “What is this MEST Universe anyway? Well, it’s a complex composite case made by all the players in the game.”

                    (MarkNR, you should read this. Here again is the link Valkov posted: http://www.freezone.org/cbr/e_abr_02.htm )

                    • Val, I see what you mean – Capt. Bill did have a very similar take to various others who have observed that there exist forces – in one form or another – whose intention is to control.

                    • Thanks mar. It seems to me CBR was in 1987 already saying that the CoS had started to sell a false Bridge. He said a few things quite directly about how the purveyors of a false bridge will make folks feel they are “OT” because they go into debt and bankruptcy, and it’s OK because they can drop the body and go on without paying off their debts. Isn’t that exactly what the CoS has been doing since LRH passed?

                    • Bridge or Sky? What the hell is the difference?

                      “Let’s sell these people a piece of blue sky.”

                      – L. Ron Hubbard to an associate in 1950, soon after the opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY: SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS AND L. RON HUBBARD EXPOSED, Lyle Stuart/Carol Publishing Group. 1990)

                    • The Blue Sky comment was to Valkov

                    • But enough about LRH. When you were a “counselor”, what were you selling your clients?

                    • I wasn’t selling anything to my clients Val.

                      I was a Case Manager/ Counselor .. I assessed them to determine what my client needed to successfully transition into the community.
                      1. Work Training / job skills/ How to write a resume/ job interview etc.
                      2. G.E.D. HS diploma, College preparation etc.
                      3. AA/NA meetings
                      4. Housing Homeless Shelters, Low income housing
                      Budgeting, Cooking, Cleaning skills… Parenting classes
                      I worked with Federal and State Agencies. I was a life coach for the Mentally Ill, the Vets, Homeless etc.

          • Maraldi..I googled Greg ( also spelled Gregg) Braden and Fraud and Sham came up repeatedly. Just wanted you to know that he has been debunked over and over.

        • Brian, my guess about the future of scientology is that there will be some people who practice it with good intention, good understanding, and good judgement, in spite of whatever LRH’s or anybody else’s use of it was in the past. And the people who do attempt to practice it that way will have success to the degree they get good results with their clients. Thus, what is beneficial in scientology will live on, and what isn’t won’t. That’s how I currently see it.

          • I agree.

            Yet, what do you think about the running of BTs and track events that Ron insists is the way out?
            I can only see the grades or creative processes being of value.

  27. The problem is when havingness goes down the reactive mind becomes very powerful and when havingness is increased is has little or no effect on a person .
    I do not believe that Dianetics or Scientology can adequately increase a persons havingness with its current primitive level of technology.

  28. Nice deconstruction.

    I still dislike the use of the term “hypnotism” because of the tendency people have to discount it or think they understand what you mean when they don’t.

    This particularly applies to those still enfolded in the Scn Matrix.

    That said, it is clearly evident
    that people in Scn have ideas instilled in them that they ordinarily would not embrace without Scn conditioning to get them to accept those ideas.

    I really look forward to your book.

    • Surely they instill ideas which you had not before .. that’s new, you know, it is a new technology .. never before found out about .. only LRH found out about the R6 bank .. and the ruin of this and all Universes ..

      Let’s say it in this way: some people are more stupid than others, and LRH found out to make everybody to a god .. but if you have ever meet in your past a stupid person then you know that you became stupid yourself .. sure .. why, ohh, everybody can mock up as much bullshit as he wants and can believe in such stuff .. you may let it go .. but the stupid person do not ..

      The R6 bank is .. why you think such bullshit in the first place .. why you come up with such bullshit as real .. in Dianetics: Why you did stay there when your mother tried 10 abortions?

  29. You are literally told you are among the upper tenth of the upper ten percent of humanity, simply because of your participation ..

    Yes, that is what I have learned very early after my participation, and then on and on again .. it was a group agreement within everybody felt him as much better as source as the other .. ping pong game ..

    I myself have no game to feel me better than another .. sharing ARC/U is a game which should stay as a basic ..

    What is ARC/U .. it is not to promote you as the upper of the upper .. it is only the ability to be a friend to friends .. and rejecting to have enemies .. it means in progress on the bridge you can collect more enemies than friends and it means you left out people and engage on certain people who are on your side .. for becoming a power being.

    I will try to give an explanation out of my own experience: My mother was always called as my suppressor. Years of years I should always diconnect from her, because she would shut off my sucess with her suppression .. so I could leave my mother alone and would become then a Super Thetan ..

    Logical was only that I had some ARCX with her which made something in one way or another difficult between me and her .. I found it myself, and she did not like it when I spoke against her .. and I said her it is the same with me ..

    We are now in freedom .. no suppressor there .. that’s real life not spinning around how able I am or how unable others are ..

    If you run around with the idea that you are one of the most famous people on Earth because being a Scientologist or on the OT Levels or Clear .. you are really down in a specific reactive mind .. but really ..

    • The whole hypothesis about game in Scientology always appeared to me artificial and forced. I see many Scientologists believing in it. It just promotes conflict. I think that belief to be part of hypnotism of Scientology.

      >

  30. Marty, this sentence leaped out at me:
    “My failures over the past three years in attempting to help former members graduate from the subject informed a whole new line of research into some of the darker arts that L. Ron Hubbard mastered to make people so apparently incapable/unwilling to learn. ”

    I have experienced the same difficulties. I can raise someone’s tone level easily, but it has been most difficult to get someone to allow themselves to have a first and second dynamic after being a devoted Scientologist, especially someone who has been in the Sea Org.

    Scientology conditioning is pervasive and is extremely difficult to undo.
    Congratulations on breaking out of that hypnotic state on your own.

    • “it has been most difficult to get someone to allow themselves to have a first and second dynamic after being a devoted Scientologist, especially someone who has been in the Sea Org.”

      Pre.Cise.Ly

      Operative word is ALLOW.

      Sea Org members are on revved up “must save mankind and I can do it”

      (for whatever their own personal reasons are)

      Once no longer IN the Sea Org … they have been known to resort to all manner of destructive behavior … not the least is continued workaholic behavior precluding genuine 1st dynamic or 2nd dynamic life.

      Some — including myself — never developed a “1st dynamic” —

      I still can’t just relax and enjoy the day. I’ve been up since 5AM — have already gone to meditation. Have packaged a bunch of thank you gifts for a retreat that was held. Set up a new printer. Am about to head back to meditation center and pick up a couple missing items to ship tomorrow. Read Marty’s blog. Sent emails to friends etc …

      AND it’s a gorgeous probably almost last days of summer …

      And I feel AS IF I’m on speed — all very justified by “I enjoy working”

      Seriously?

      • Just recently I was walking through town on one of those last, beautiful days of summer, and I saw all these people around me, sitting on benches, relaxing, smiling, talking to each other. I felt like an alien and thought – what are they doing? How can they do that? And then it hit me: I have unlearned how to relax, have fun and play. Though I’ve seen this before, I never realised it as clearly as then.

        I hope one day I can learn to fully let go and play again, and leave anxious business behind. I wish the same for you🙂

        • It is confusion and inconsistencies that keep us tense.

        • Letting Go,

          What kind of things did you really enjoy doing when you were a kid?

          • I loved to draw and paint, and made up stories for myself. I used to read a lot. Now I feel dead inside. I haven’t painted in years, and when I tried a while ago, realised I no longer could. It’s probably my biggest loss in life. I used to connect to something magical when doing art. Now I’m on antidepressants (just started). I hope they will help me on the long road to recovery. Nothing else has.

            • OK. Well maybe hook up to a public art school? and begin drawing or painting a little here and there, whatever you like, even copying other people paints or drawings, don’t worry about the quality it comes back later with more practice.

              Also I don’t know where you live, but there are a few things that people completely overlook, that are so simple that once you get used to them you’ll be amazed to what you were deprived:

              we need a lot of sunshine, open spaces, like beaches, parks, hills, preferably grassland and trees. We need to be in contact to the earth, shoeless, as often as we can. Just goof off, walk, hike, bike. just keep it simple and earthly like the Tao says. (in other words don’t do like scientologists say)

              There is something also about synthetic foods that drive people to despair by their lack of nutrient density, again it is so damn obvious once you understand it that you won’t believe how could you be deprived of such basic requirements.

              Her is a link: http://www.westonaprice.org/

              • Conan, thanks. I’ve thought about going to a public art school, and I probably will do that – when the depression has subsided enough that there is actually a point. I don’t know if you’ve ever been there yourself, but I certainly have never experienced something like this. I used to be able to just soldier on through, now I can hardly bring myself to care. My theory is that once the numbness comes off, meaning once you start to get in touch with how you feel (emotions, physical sensations, biofeedback), you may become overwhelmed with what has been bottled up all those years. Just too much trauma, at least for me. Trying to do art has been more painful than it has healed, but perhaps with medication I will be able to overcome that. It is hard to explain.

                You certainly have a good point with nutrition and nature. I usually cook from scratch, but could definitely improve on the vegetables. Thanks for the link.

            • I will keep my fingers crossed that the antidepressants will soon kick in. They are truly miracle drugs that provide you with the serotonin that you lack. Good luck LG.. I will be thinking of you.

              • Thanks, babybunker. I’m keeping my fingers crossed, too. Already I’m starting to feel like I’m coming out of a fog. I hope the dead-end thinking will cease at some point (the sense of having made a trap of my own life). A previous supporter of CCHR, this is just one more misconception I am happy to shatter.

                • Oh Yay.. I felt 100x better after I was put on antidepressants .. Just keep coming back to Marty’s Blog..He is deconstructing this material in a very analytical way.

                  But Congrats..you are taking the medication that your body requires. That was a big step for you! Woo Hoo.. You are coming out of a fog. But YOU ARE COMING OUT!

                  Many of us are waiting for you in the sunlight sweetie..

        • Aww Letting go.. I read this sign , ” It’s Never Too Late To Have A Fun Childhood..”

          and it really hit home to me. Spontaneous fun.. Flying a kite, go fishing, go to the fair and eat a fabulous Funnel Cake. Go to the Beach and get wet.

          As Nike says, ” Just Do It..” So grab life by the tail and enjoy!

          PS I go to movies all the time by myself and pig out on Dots and popcorn because I loved doing that when I was young.

          • I love that sign🙂

            I think I’ll print it out and hang it up in my office. The best place to be reminded of play!

            • Yep! One day LG.. Your fog will be a memory as you walk through the park. Do you have a dog? Mine light up my life.

              • I myself do not have a dog, but I love them very much. They are a joy to cuddle and play with.

                • Well.. I would run out to get one… ( If you can have one where you live) You will unconditional love and the dog may just be a new chapter in your life.

                  He/she will need you as much as you need he/she and will give you a purpose to get up and out.

                  So how are the antidepressants working. You actually sound hopeful. Hopeful is good. Just keep taking them. You’ll be amazed at the colors you will see. You are just coming out of a colorless bleak world.

                  Baby steps… It won’t happen over night. There is joy. I promise you.

        • Letting go, I wish I could help. I don’t know you or exactly the mix of things that brought you to this unhappy state. But I do know others who share your state, and I do know what burdens them. They worry as they have no faith in a higher power or in things happening for a reason or in alignment with Karma or some higher plan. They need to control the outcomes and are always tense and worried that things will not turn out for them as they wish. That worry is tied in with their pride and ego. They have trouble relaxing because of this. Their pride and ego also is a factor in their feeling that they are missing out and the grass is always greener for the other person. That person sitting and laughing on the bench could be having a rare moment in an otherwise sad existence. Few enjoy a carefree and relaxed existence. Its a mistake to think others do and only you are burdened and unhappy. I love your name, “letting go”, as its a basic premise in 12 step type program or philosophy. The bumper stick says “let go-let god”. Its not for the weak. Its humbling and many have died rather than get their relationship to a higher power, whatever it is, in alignment. When that is done, happiness and contentment can return. Only then will you be willing to embrace hobbies again. If I am missing the mark, my apologies. But this is what I know.

          • Friend of Bill’s, far from missing the mark, you practically scored a bull’s eye. I have an issue about having faith in a higher power that I have not been able to properly discuss with anyone. You see, in the aftermath of deconstructing and understanding what has happened to me in scientology, I no longer feel capable of having faith in anything that has not been measured and scientifically verified. When the representative of a religion or belief system tells me of their faith, I view it instinctively as an attempt to control me in some way.

            I have practiced gratitude, and in doing so found that the world does seem to move as if in a perfect dance, and my life appears to be smoother, and I seem to be guided to the right person or information at the right time. It is just that I have begun to question everything, including faith, and whether there is a high power (Why would it even care? Have you seen the size of this universe?) or if such circumstances and serendipity can be attributed to subconscious processes.

            I chose the name “Letting go” because it was what I wanted at the time – to let go of scientology and pain. I have been letting go of far more than I ever thought ever since, including many, many views about people and the world. A good thing, but that process itself is disturbing and often deeply depressing.

            • “I have an issue about having faith in a higher power that I have not been able to properly discuss with anyone.” .

              One must have faith that one can become better, that something can pull one up to that better state. That would be higher power.

              To me that higher power is mindfulness.

              ________________________________

              • Belif that ther is something greater than yourself. Being able to be the flower and not needing to be the sun. Usually a higher power is something outside of oneself but with which you have a connection. It can be a deity, cosmic consciousness, or even group support. This reduces ones pride and ego. You are able to spot and give up “false” identities along the way . Giving up the need to control the outcome is quite a relief for many.

              • Mindfulness to me is like wet soap. Everytime I reach for it, it seems to be somewhere else.

            • Letting go, I am glad I was in the ballpark. I am glad gratitude has helped you. I also think that forgiveness is a huge tool that a person can use to free themselves up a lot. But back to the higher power, I would suggest that you read the Big Book, so called, of AA. It does a great job of presently interesting and humorous accounts of folks who found that higher power connection and / or relationship, and went on successfully from there. Its a great read, and contains guidance that anyone can use. I highly recommend it. The 12 steps that are associated with it are a very workable tool, as well. But just reading the book will give you a great lift.

            • ” I have been letting go of far more than I ever thought ever since, including many, many views about people and the world. A good thing, but that process itself is disturbing and often deeply depressing.”
              …………….

              Oh LG as former counselor I have observed this behavior often. You are in the process of grieving. It’s very close to grieving the death of someone you loved and trusted.

              Kubler -Ross examined the 5 stages of grief..
              1. Denial and Isolation
              2. Anger
              3. Bargaining
              4. Depression
              5. Acceptance

              You are exactly where someone in your situation would find her/himself. You just keep on keepin on.. Seriously I admire your strength and your continuing to post here.

              http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/000617

              • LG, baby is quite right about the stages of grief and grieving. One can grieve for any loss – the loss of goals, lifestyle, hopes, dreams etc. Older people and terminally ill people grieve also for the impending loss of themselves and the life they know and are living, which they are soon to lose.
                Keep on trucking!

              • I know the Kübler-Ross model well. Although it apparently is disputed (according to Wikipedia), I have found it very helpful in understanding what is happening. I guess in my case acceptance of uncertainty (that nothing is certain and that “truth” is a workable premise at best and a shaky foundation at worst) is next, and I find acceptance difficult. I equate it with apathy in scientology, even though I know intellectually that it is something different. I equate acceptance with giving up, and that is hard to do.

                • Letting go, you say that you equate acceptance with giving up, and that is hard to do. Forgive me for making some simplistic observations on the subject. If one does not accept being a mail clerk or a truck driver because one was supposed to be an astronaut or physician, that could be a pride/ego issue. One can either go to medical school or get comfortable in their own skin. Walter Mitty escaped into his false identities. I think most people have done that.. Its borne of pride and ego and not from our true identity. Also, inability to accept uncertainty might be a need to control. Again, pride/ego. Hard to be at peace when your practicing multiple identities and and not willing to let go. There is enormous relief in store when one spots and lets go of those identities one portrays oneself as being. The late Vernon Howard of the New Life Foundation has some good material and tapes on that.

                  • PS: I referred to my observations as simplistic due to my level of understanding, not the comprehension level of the reader.

  31. “My failures over the past three years in attempting to help former members graduate from the subject informed a whole new line of research into some of the darker arts that L. Ron Hubbard mastered to make people so apparently incapable/unwilling to learn.”
    ——————-
    As a matter of fact, the following was posted (apologies to poster, I lost the link to your post which I also edited a bit) on this very blog a couple years back:

    “The only other time I have personally witnessed what I saw in my son was a time years ago when a friend of mine was hypnotized by her brother in front of me and her boyfriend. Her brother asked me what I would like him to have her do after he woke her up. I wanted to see if she would repeat something that she would considered silly under normal circumstances. I said, have her get up and flush the toilet every time you tug at your collar.

    “So he gave her the command, then woke her up. He tugged his collar, she got up, went into the bathroom and flushed the toilet, came back and sat down. He tugged his collar again, and she did it again. And again. After three or four times, I finally asked her why she kept getting up to flush the toilet.

    “First, she just said it needed flushing. She did it again. And again, I asked her why she kept flushing the toilet. Each time I asked her, she would make up some lame reason as to why she had to flush the toilet.

    “She got more and more annoyed at me for asking, but she did it again and again upon command and could never see that there was anything strange about it.

    “Her brother hypnotized her once more to release her of the command, but what an amazing thing to have witnessed.

    “This is what I saw in my son. He could not answer a simple question but only parrot the party line.”
    —————————————–
    I guess that, if there is indeed any failure, it would reside in finding a way to wake up someone that’s in deep (hypnotic) trance… which, I gather, is a work in progress?

    • Found it (the link):

      KRoyce | February 23, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
      at: http:/*/markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/kristina-royce-perspective/#comment-185384

      Belated zillion thanks for your post Kristina.

  32. Anyone who has studied L Ron Hubbard’s disinformation about what hypnosis actually is, and how it works on a person, is not capable of seeing what was done to them by L Ron Hubbard.

    In order to learn what hypnosis actually is, and how it works on a person, it is necessary to study practicing hypnotists who have had nothing to do with Scientology, and to be willing to NOT use any Scientology at all to understand what these hypnotists are saying.

    This is probably the fastest and surest cure for the Scientology mindset – to learn what hypnosis actually is by studying it without any pre-conceptions from having listened to L Ron Hubbard about it.

    Hubbard lied to Scientologists about what hypnosis was and how it worked. And he did this, very intentionally, to use hypnosis on Scientologists to take every thing of value from them that they had.

    Alanzo

  33. Hi Marty, thanks for another interesting post. This does a great job of deconstructing scientology, I have nothing to add to that. I will share a link to this in a few places, it is conscise and thorough and accessible. I think people coming at this subject from all angles can learn a lot here.

    One part that stood out for me was this:
    “By entering those mechanics into such a super personal, ultra subjective activity as psychotherapy that works with the deep recesses of your psyche, those mechanics are far more difficult, if not impossible, to detect.”

    This, IMO is the most important part to understand. When psychotherapeutic techniques are abused, they can do enormous harm. It has always been of the utmost importance to me to work against those who engage in such abuse. The damage done is insidious, because it is invisible for the most part, and it is cumulative and expanding by its nature. The more people harmed this way, the more people who then do this kind of harm to others, sometimes in the blissfully (willfully) ignorant belief that they are spreading “sanity” across the entire planet.

    It has a momentum, which is why it is not enough to just sit back and wait for it to die out — there is no reason to assume that it will, without help. The deconstruction that you offer here is exactly the kind of “help” I am talking about. A sharp vajra blade to cut away the confusion. Here’s hoping folks will take it in that spirit, and use it well.

  34. I also wanted to share a book recommendation with you, Marty. I thought I would share it here, because some of your other readers might find it interesting as well.

    The book is titled “Original Mind”, and the author is Dr Dee Coulter. She was one of my instructors in college — she taught cognitive studies on the undergraduate level. She used a lot of interesting approaches in her class, and I looked forward to every session. She conducted interviews with her students — as a teaching tool, as well as to gather data for the book she planned to write some day. I consider her one of the most gifted teachers I have ever encountered. She gave me questions that I am still meditating on and learning from today, twenty years later.

    She finally retired, mostly, and this is the book she was talking about all those years ago. It is a summary of all of her research and learning in the fields of education, neurology, and psychology. She is a brilliant human being, and a joy to talk with on any subject, and that comes across in her writing. Here is a link. Or, if you don’t want to deal with Amazon for whatever reason, you can use the second link to see more at her website.

    http://www.amazon.com/Original-Mind-Uncovering-Natural-Brilliance/dp/1622031946
    http://www.originalmindbrilliance.com

    • Thanks CV. When I get the chance…not sure when that might be…but its on my list.

    • Thanks CV. On my list…when I get to it, I’m not sure.

    • CV, this book looks very interesting. Thank you for suggesting it. Before I buy it though, could you tell me if it also has exercises that do not require one to have a small child at hand? I read the first chapter on Amazon, and the first exercise says take a walk with a 2 1/2 to 4 year-old. I don’t know anyone with a child of that age I could do the exercise with, so that one would be moot for me. What I would like to know is if all exercises are like that, or if there are also some the reader can do by themselves.

  35. Wow Marty,

    Really meaty stuff. All I can say is that there is no possible way for anyone to understand and fully appreciate what has happened in Scientology, without going out into the larger field of the mind and studying different models, constructs and possibilities for how we create this incredible complex process.

    If Scientologists cannot even do that, just to look around and explore what other people have to say about the mind, there is no way in hell they will ever be able to integrate their experiences with the rest of the world.

    Just the act of looking somewhere else begins the process of decupling your self from Scientology’s induced fixations. It is very healing and does not invalidate any insights you actually got from it.

    • Conan wrote:

      Just the act of looking somewhere else begins the process of decupling your self from Scientology’s induced fixations. It is very healing and does not invalidate any insights you actually got from it.

      Exactly, Conan.

      This is a point that has not been made enough: Leaving Scientology completely behind does not invalidate any of the wins that you got out of Scientology.

      In fact, the process of thoroughly examining and evaluating Scientology is a spiritual exercise in itself and produces many very valuable “wins” of its own.

      When you place Scientology in the tashcan forever, you very much take all your wins with you.

      Alanzo

  36. Marty, the hypnotism element in Scientology is not looked for, in part, because Hubbard spoke to derogatorily about hypnotism. Yet, that had not been my personal experience with hypnosis prior to Scientology. Add to the fact that Hubbard was a master hypnotist prior to Scientology, and I carried a perfect balance of “Cognitive Dissonance” that I lived with for most of my time in Scientology.

    One day I was going into session when it hit me —- it took years of pondering, because I didn’t notice it for most of my time in – “Model for a Session”. All of my auditing sessions – no matter who the auditor was – began with the exact same procedures.

    Once a series of ritualistic steps that led to a ‘hypnotic trance state” work, they only have to be repeated for the hypnotic state to be entered. All these years, no matter what my “level”, or who the auditor was, I would enter into that ‘hypnotic state’.

    LRH place hypnotic commands and procedures at the beginning of every auditing session and then ‘told’ us that hypnosis was BAD…

    • Nancy wrote:

      “LRH place hypnotic commands and procedures at the beginning of every auditing session and then ‘told’ us that hypnosis was BAD…

      Yes. A classic misdirection technique.

      When a Scientologist finally allows themselves to see this, the amount of energy and effort that went into deceiving Scientologists over so many decades by L Ron Hubbard is astounding.

      It’s why Scientology has been called one of the most pernicious and damaging brainwashing cults ever devised.

      Alanzo

      • Alanzo,

        You have repeated yourself enough about alerting us to the situation. Now could you focus more on the wisdom of the ways of getting out of this situation!

        ~ sayeth the cripples to Zarathustra

        .

        • I’m not sure what you are asking of me.

          I’m too busy repeating myself and running around like a chicken with my head cut off. (:>

          Can you re-word your request so that I may duplicate and understand it.

          Alanzo

          • How does one de-hypnotize oneself?

            • “How does one de-hypnotize oneself?

              I don’t think that is a worthwhile goal.

              It’s like saying how does one de-breath one’s self?

              Or how does one de-mood one’s self?

              Hypnotic states are a natural and essential part of being human. The only thing wrong with hypnotic states are that you are vulnerable to suggestion and mis-ownership of suggestions.

              Hypnotic states such as prayer, meditation, and highly focused concentration are all extremely valuable states.

              Hubbard made hypnotic states BAD for Scientologists while he exploited the very worst in them by putting Scientologists into hypnotic states and telling them that they were not in hypnotic states so that he could implant them with suggestions.

              This is also not as all-powerful as he made it to be. But it certainly does soften them up. And as one brainwashing tool in the arsenal of brainwashing tools in Scientology, he used it as much as he possibly could on Scientologists.

              Hypnosis is not what Hubbard said it was.

              Alanzo

              • So, what is the difference between real hypnotism and Hubbard’s version of hypnotism?

                I want a scientific answer from you.

                .

                • Vinaire,

                  Like all things Hubbard, it is the deceptive, covert way he went about it.

                  Real hypnotism puts you under a professional. It is overt and agreed upon by the patients. It begins and ends within a professional environment, whether psychological, medical or forensic .

                  In Scientology the process begins by vociferous denials that you are being hypnotized. Then you go from being put on a “reverie” by a caring auditor to eventually being toss around the Scientology labyrinth at the mercy of various interrogators, police type Ethics Officers, incompetent auditors, an assortment of religious eager beavers and other nefarious characters.

                  Continuous reporting for more “non-hypnotic” type of hypnotism, seals the life long addiction.

                  The process then gets turbo charged by massive amounts of indoctrination and political/religious type implantations.

                  The hypnotism is finally cemented by an assortment of inquisitorial terror tactics and biblical damnations that prevent the subjects from letting go.

                  By the time the subjects awaken from their ” VGI, totally lucid” stupor, life has gone by. And here is the clincher:

                  No OVERT hypnotism has actually taken place.

                  Thanks Ron!

                  • Conan, So, Scientology is basically botching up hypnotism. They can’t apply it professionally, and in that process they are harming people.

                    In short, they are squirreling hypnotism. Now I understand.

    • I was a dog PC during most of my auditing. Now that seems to be a plus point.

      >

      • Very possibly you never went under, for whatever reason. Understandably you would look like a “dog pc”, when in truth you were SOOOOOO the lucky one!

        • It may be because in some ways I am autistic. That is what my wife and kids tell me.

          • Doubtful autistic … but possibly somewhere on the asperger’s syndrome scale most often asperger’s are quite high functioning … I know and know of several people who are. (as far as I know one cannot be “some ways” autistic; however Aspergers takes on many different looks … if you haven’t read up on Aspergers I suggest it. Fascinating. Opened the door for me to understanding someone in my life.

            BTW it is thought that Einstein might have been someone on the aspergers spectrum)

      • This is like me .. was a dog pc .. but under this rules you are more forced to take the tech then others .. you have to believe in it .. in my case it did result in a protest ..

    • I felt never in a hypnotic state when in session. The procedure was surly to go self-centric .. looking for out ruds .. but it means the meter said it and not the obnosis of the auditor ..

      It means, you can pick up a problem which is not there .. get an ARCX about that and have a missed withhold .. easy to do in praxis .. but in my experience you can go down the problem 500 billion years where you gave a postulate not be be any longer where you are .. nice, or not?

      To honor for LRH, he has never said to run ruds this way .. the ruds are not intended to let you go into a hypnotic state .. but happened to often .. but it is Modell session on the other side ..

      Means simply only one thing .. if you go down on problem which is not there, you have very fast an ARCX and missed withhold .. and this is a problem which you did not have at the beginning ..

      • Friend wrote:

        I felt never in a hypnotic state when in session.

        If you were ever INTERESTED IN OWN CASE and WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR to the degree that you had no attention on the room or the auditor, but only on the incident that was the answer to the auditing question, then you were in a hypnotic state.

        Creating a pc that is IN SESSION through the use of TRs is creating a pc who is in a hypnotic state.

        This is something that David Miscavige never understood because this is something that L Ron Hubbard never told anyone what he was doing by developing the TRs. He was creating a technique that would teach Scientologists to out each other into hypnotic states. It was “out-pr” to say what he was doing, so he never said it.

        But that is what he was doing.

        Alanzo

  37. Brilliant post.
    One of the very first things that I had to come to terms with when I left Scientology and the RPF and Sea Org and all that was the fact that I was just another person here on Earth. I wasn’t a stellar, mega, Earth mover and shaker. That the years that I had spent working for the church had really amounted to nothing. Time spent. Period.
    Facing up to, much later, that most of those years, I spent helping to enslave people further by contributing to and instructing them in the hypnotic and very self destructive practice of Scientology saddened me to no end. The “wins” were just the “high” that any drug addict would crave and would keep them coming back to the pipe to continue to destroy themselves. The realization that I was filling that pipe and helping them to destroy themselves still haunts my nightmares.
    It is a lot to take in. I trained a lot of people. Hundreds. I hope one day to help recover all of them to the real world. It’s the least I can do.
    I think looking at all of you actions in regards to Scientology is kinda like staring into the abyss. It is vast and scary and unknown. There are a lot of, “if I had made a different choice here this would have happened” situations. That is easy to do in hindsight.
    The only thing to do now is to break free of the ingrained hypnotic commands and try with all your might to be yourself, be a good person and keep your eyes and arms wide open for those that may be trying to get out of the fog. They need us.

    • Well said. I also think it’s kind of lazy or unhelpful to the healing process to simply say “well Scientology’s a cult and that’s that”. Could act as a kind of thought stopping all of its own. So I think these posts and alternate views are fantastic and I can’t wait for the next book(s). Truly understanding the subject that one has been intimately involved with for – in my case nearly three decades – is an ongoing but thoroughly enjoyable experience. And personally I love the actions of bringing about better understanding for those still in. I don’t see it as “fighting” anything; more like a really enjoyable hobby.

      • Martin thank you for what you said. I keep with the “Scientology is a cult and that is that” viewpoint for one very important reason, the safety of my children. Recently someone who I grew up with, who isn’t a Scientologist either, suggested that perhaps our sons could do TR’s together to help them to communicate better. (They are typical boys and like to sort most disagreements with yelling and hitting. Which of course is unacceptable and we are working on manners.) Immediately I said no. Why? Because TR’s can be fun. I had fun lots of time doing them. I came up with some of my best comedic material doing them. And that is the problem. If TRs are fun they what about the rest of Scientlogy? Isn’t that fun? And that is how it starts. You feel good, have a win, make a friend, have a cognition and BAM, you are sucked down the rabbit hole chasing that good feeling over and over while you empty your bank accounts and mind to do so. And as children it would be even more dangerous. The church LOVES to rip kids from their homes and turn them into drones who do their evil bidding while learning that their family isn’t important or necessary to save the world.
        So yes I throw the baby out with the bath water if you will. The entire subject is dangerous and,in my opinion, the single most destructive and evil cult on the planet. Nothing from it will ever be beneficial in any form.
        I am still working on wiping the last vestiges of Scientology from my mind, the lingo, the endless references and Chinese schools that are meaningless and destructive. The day when I can no longer recite KSW or the code of a Sea Org Member will be a happy one for me. I will truly be free.
        My kids will never know what it is like to be trapped inside yourself, wandering around, wishing you could get out only to be left alone, going in endless circles of perpetuation and fear. They will be as happy as humanly possible withy the skills they learn and get to live whatever life they choose.

        • Your post brings tears to my eyes, BBall Jane – so very eloquent and poetically expressed.

          I thoroughly understand you.

          I hear that heroine is awesome for a toothache. You just can’t trust the heroin dealer to NOT keep selling it to you after your toothache is gone.

          Aspirin’s better.

          Alanzo

        • I hear you completely. I stopped doing contact assists and so on with my kids some time ago for much the same reason. I make a conscious effort to not use the lingo and thought patterns. I believe I still have a long way to go before I have truly left it behind. The most destructive and evil cult on the planet? I don’t know but I am (happily and willingly) keeping an open mind on that. When you see the unspeakable horrors being committed by other brainwashed sects/cults in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere (in the name of religion) it’s kinda hard to give it such a distinction, but believe me I completely get where you’re coming from. And FWIW your previous posts have been very inspirational to me.

          • Martin,
            Thank you for your kind words. That means a lot.
            Yes there is a LOT of violence in the world right now.
            Too much. I don’t really know if it is more than before or if we just know more about it than before because of the 24 hour news cycle and internet, but it is too much.
            Without condoning anything that ISIS is doing at ALL I will say this for them. At least they actually follow through on their threats and craziness. They are commanding the world attention because they really are creating an actual effect on the world.
            We are all upset about Scientology because it hurt all of us. Scarred us mentally and some of us, as in my case, physically as well. But over all, in the world, Scientology is nothing. It means nothing. It is a tiny group of delusional people who are throwing their money and time toward an imaginary truth and in actuality it affects no one else but those select people.
            I say that it is the most destructive cult because no one who goes into it leaves unscathed. Scientology burns itself into your subconscious for life. You can’t wash it off. You never stop thinking about it or wondering if they are thinking about you. You mess with ISIS you are pretty much dead. At least with them there is an actual EP.

  38. “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds!”
    – Bob Marley

  39. I took the liberty of reviewing your posts this year, because I was curious about what you meant by this:

    “My failures over the past three years in attempting to help former members graduate from the subject…”

    I was going to ask you directly, but then I figured the answer would be in your own blog posts. In December you announced “A Course in Graduating from Scientology” and you wrote some follow-up posts about it earlier this year.

    The stated goals of the course are “The course does not prescribe a particular ology, ism, or path. Instead, it is designed to equip an individual to choose and blaze his own way,” and “It might be that you by then hit a point where Scientology is sufficiently contextualized for you that you can let it go and move on.”

    Full post: https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/a-course-in-graduating-from-scientology/

    You followed up in March with “Awakening from scientology” parts 1, 2, and 3.

    Am I right in assuming that this attempt is one of the things you are referring to in this post?

    Now, six months later, you are saying that this effort failed – and you are saying that the reason why is “the darker arts that L. Ron Hubbard mastered to make people so apparently incapable/unwilling to learn.”

    Wow. I mean, I am trying to see this at face value and give you benefit of the doubt, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. “They disagree with me! They are hypnotized!” Really? Are you seriously going there?

    I read this post, and of course I recognize people who are zealots, who have internalized what Hubbard had to say, and then closed themselves off to everything else because they have all the answers. I was that way myself when I was 16 or 17. People become a “man of one idea” before they can become men of many ideas. And there are lots of people in Scientology, as we both know, who reject all evidence, refuse to put Scientology in context, answer all observations of anything tech-related with LRH quotes to the contrary, and condemn everyone as evil those who would challenge Ron or the subject. Of course we have seen these people.

    What surprises me is that from what you are saying, people who took your course – people who already left the church – did not graduate to your satisfaction. So, that leads to the question: What does “graduating Scientology” mean as you use the phrase? Is it “Scientology is sufficiently contextualized for you that you can let it go and move on.” Is that correct?

    Is “moving on” a criterion for “graduating from Scientology?” As in to leave it all behind and sail to a new shore? If that is the case, I can’t agree with you on that definition. There are lots of reasonable, non-hypnotized people who have found value in Scientology. It is my position that you can take value from Scientology and use it without being subject to hypnotism or the “darker arts” of L. Ron Hubbard.

    But I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I have looked into your writings to see what you mean about graduating, but I have found no single paragraph that sums it up, so I gleaned what I could from your writing.

    To me, graduating from Scientology means to:

    A. Realize that there is other wisdom out there than is contained in the works of Hubbard – and be willing to look at it and consider it,
    B. Realize that not all of what Hubbard wrote is gold – in fact some (or even most) things are flat-out wrong,
    C. Acknowledge that there are people in the world who disagree with you or what your positions are, but who are nonetheless good-hearted people, and D. Be humble in your knowledge, and realize that you may not have it right.

    That’s what it means to me, and I have known people who were Scientologists who more or less have done the above. From what I read, your definition of graduation is different. We are both reasonable people, and we can both reasonably disagree on details. I think we both agree that for anyone who is or was involved in Scientology to grow as a person, they _must_ look outside Scientology to contextualize it and gain wisdom, and they _must_ confront the evil and bad as well as the good.

    Mark

    • I am not griping. As per usual, I am calling it as I see it. Of all the leading forums on the subject, this is the ONLY one that consistently has been driven on that basis. I know what has been supported and pursued and I know what has not been supported, and what has been rejected and attacked. There is no support – expressed agreement and support are two entirely different things practically – for assistance in graduating from scientology. Having given of myself (with the gracious sacrifices of my wife) for years in trying, I have a) observed what makes it difficult – and more dishearteningly, distasteful – for people to do so, and b) researched the source of such thought patterns, and c) researched the origins of the implantation of those thought patterns. My turn of focus is beyond emotion or intuition. It is practical, almost even simply mathematical. I have so much time – and even that is no longer my own. Given the effort vs demand/reward it is impractical to work with damaged people who consider themselves not just undamaged, but in many ways superior to most. And that informs my direction toward focusing the diminishing time I can devote to the subject toward informing people why they should not get into this mental dissonance – as difficult and time consuming as its reversal has proven to be – in the first place. Only a couple of weeks ago, you yourself were defending scientology with the likes of this: “Nothing I read in Scientology ever said to act like an asshole.” To make such an asinine assertion would require either a tremendous propensity for lying or a serious case of implanted cognitive dissonance. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the latter, I’d love to help you. But, if what I have done in five years has you at that stage, there really is nothing else I can think of to do. So, I opt to warn people from putting themselves into such condition in the first place. Label my road and choices – after all, it is the scientology way – however you like. It makes no difference – beyond possibly serving as validation – in the final analysis.

      • Thank you Marty for taking the time to reply. I truly appreciate it.

        Regarding the “asshole” comment, I guess we all are guilty of asinine comments from time to time – and you remember you smacked me down pretty good. I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt. And make no mistake, you have already helped me, as you have helped many others.

        I totally understand your reasoning regarding direction, and I can see why you would shift to placing a sign over the whole subject “here be dragons.” There are dragons there.

      • Perhaps most individuals who believe themselves harmed by Scn. have to move on completely before coming back to Scn. or any other spiritual science, in order to be able to look at them objectively.
        Mark

    • Mark (Grasshopper),

      This is a good rebuttal. You shine in this post. Nobody can decide for another at what point one has graduated from Scientology. As I indicated elsewhere, Scientology is just the tip of an iceberg. There is massive social, cultural, and moral conditiong too. Read Nietsche.

      Nobody can cure another, but the person himself. All you can do is to provide simple instructions from the sincerity of your heart. Such instructions must be offered freely without expectations and with no strings attached. It is like throwing seeds into the wind. Some seeds may germinate now. Others may germinate centuries later. That is what Buddha did.

      The goal should not be to simply graduate from Scientology. The goal should be to resolve inconsistencies and make one’s way toward complete absence of conditioning. Buddha called this state Nirvana.

      The argument should not just revolve around Hubbard or Scientology. The argument is much bigger. It revolves aound social, cultural and moral contexts. You should also keep that in mind.

      Scientology is not all wrong because it contains knowledge from sources other than Hubbard. Hubbard is not all wrong because in his sane moments, he did contribute positively to the subject of knowledge. I am very aware of that.

      By simply focusing on Hubbard and Scientology, we may completely miss some bigger sources of conditioning and also those of enlightenment.

      The aberration that I see here is fixed attention on Hubbard and Scientology. See Inconsistency in KHTK

      We need to widen the context here.

      Sincerely,
      Vinaire

      • Thanks, Vin. I know what Marty is doing is important. Providing context and additional information and a suggested path out are good things. I guess the goal is self-actualization, really, isn’t it? If you are honest and truthful and unflinching in reviewing who you are, and in seeing what is there, whether it be Scientology, or Buddhism, or neuroscience, or whatever, can only lead to better things. Shirking away because someone disagrees with your core belief limits you and does not affect anyone but you.

        I am the first to admit having been incredibly protective of my beliefs and dismissive of others’ beliefs. Over the years, however, I found that I have personally gained as a person by dealing with it. “Dealing with it” however, does not mean falling into lock-step with yet some _other_ person’s point of view, it means looking at it, acknowledging the veracity of it, and coming to terms with it. It is hard to acknowledge that your gurus, whoever they may be, have feet of clay – but most do. I have found that I can take wisdom from people even if they have feet of clay. Even if they believe in things contrary to what I have found. Even if they forward a world-view completely foreign to my own. Wisdom is intertwined among the stories. And some of the stories lead you into Hades. So – we walk the fine line.

        • Yes, Scientology provides a good example to help one understand the various aspects of hypnotism, conditioning or “maya.” What Marty is doing is valuable.

          Hopefully, people will understand Marty’s work correctly, and use that understanding to become aware of more subtle aspects of hypnotism that exist in society and culture. I am reading Nietzsche to become more aware of that.

          ..

    • I believe that Marty is on the right track.

  40. My first sight of you was watching the ‘Mike and Marty Go Fishing’ episodes on YouTube. I was taken with your deft handling of the tackle and catching procedures as the two of you recounted your experiences. It was delightful to observe your agile hands acting in concert with your agile mind. Since then I have been following your journey with great attention and gratitude.

    In most teachings that purport to encompass the whole being, there is some correlative physical discipline. In my case, for instance, the Gurdjieff Movements. Other examples would include Sufi Dancing, Tai Ch’I, Ch’i Quong, etc etc.

    Perhaps your efforts to deconstruct, open up, renew your clients would benefit from including some physical ‘Work’ as well?

    • That’s a great point Aurora, about a correlative physical discipline. I found that qigong (or chi gung) was very beneficial. for both the physical and non-physical well being. It puts you in present time.

  41. I am totally happy with dianetics and the non confidential processes of Scientology. I have seen sick people get well and able people become more confident and happy with their lives. Nobody was being hypnotized.
    The science fiction was crap. But that is so obvious I don’t really think any of us are seriously taken in by it any more.
    You are beating a dead horse.

    .

    • If you say it makes sick people well and the able more confident and happy then the RCS(radical corporate scientology) will take credit for that and capitalize off it.

    • Kathleen wrote:

      I am totally happy with dianetics and the non confidential processes of Scientology. I have seen sick people get well and able people become more confident and happy with their lives. Nobody was being hypnotized.

      People were being hypnotized AND people were getting well and becoming more confident and happy. Both of these things are true.

      It was L Ron Hubbard who told you that hypnosis was “bad” and that it made you more unconsciousness. And it was Hubbard who said that auditing was the opposite of hypnosis.

      These are lies Hubbard told you.

      Hypnosis does NOT make you more unconscious and auditing is NOT the opposite of hypnosis. Auditing IS hypnosis – a highly developed, well organized, and sophisticated form of it.

      In fact, if a person new what hypnotherapy does and how it operates, it is easy to see how much of a contribution L Ron Hubbard created to that field.

      I know this sounds like I’m slamming Hubbard here, but I am not. It was Hubbard who told you that hypnosis was bad, but he only said that because he knew that it had a bad reputation among the public, and he also wanted to take advantage of the vulnerabilities to suggestion that hypnosis creates in people.

      Hypnosis is not bad. In fact it is one of the most therapeutic states that human beings experience. Prayer, meditation, absorption into a good book or movie, and auditing, are all related to hypnosis.

      Learn about hypnosis and hypnotic states from hypnotists who have never studied L Ron Hubbard. Set aside what Hubbard told you about these states of mind and look at this with new eyes.

      You’ll see what I am saying.

      It’s actually quite fascinating.

      Alanzo

      • And by the way, by the ethical standards that hypnotherapists follow, L Ron Hubbard was one of the most unethical hypnotherapists ever.

        No ethical hypnotherapist would ever try to convince you that they were not using hypnosis on you. This is the sickest. most criminal thing that a hypnotherapist could ever do.

        And that’s what L Ron Hubbard did.

        Yes. Now I am slamming Hubbard.

        And very deservedly.

        Alanzo

      • “Hypnosis” has been extensively redefined since 1950. The 1950 view or definition of it is what LRH used. Your argument indulges in a form of “Historian’s fallacy”.
        You have not defined what you mean by “hypnosis”, therefore we your readers have no way of knowing whether or not what you mean by the term is the same as what LRH meant by the term, and might assume that in your mind, PDH is A-OK and a harmless practice. Or that the CoS version of it is OK, too.
        What’s a little brainwashing among friends, in a good cause, eh? 🙂

        • Let’s see if we can define ‘hypnosis’ from scratch, using a “reality-centric” approach.

          (1) Mind is a matrix made of definitions. These definitions are connected to each other by logic.

          (2) Each definition may itself be a matrix of considerations and more basic associations.

          (3) This kind of matrix structure may go to deeper levels.

          (4) Thinking is basically activating associations along a certain route in the matrix.

          (5) Output of thinking would be the sum total of the logic vectors along this route.

          (6) This output from thinking may be influenced by
          ….. (a) Changing the associations among the definitions
          ….. (b) Changing the definitions themselves by deeper manipulations of considerations.
          ….. (c) Redirecting the route of thinking within the matrix.

          (7) This influence can be just be on surface or in deeper levels.

          (8) Such influence may create inconsistencies in the mind.

          (9) Such inconsistencies may be compartmentalized in the mind.

          (10) The inconsistencies may appear consistent and rational within the compartment.

          (11) Hynosis will limit thinking to such compartments, so that inconsistencies won’t stand out.

          (12) A large scale example of such a compartment would be a culture, or a religion.

          This is a quick look at the phenomenon of hypnotism.

          .

  42. In my opinion, hypnotism enters through the wave-length of THINKING or associations in the mind.

    Hypnotism works by generating associations in the mind that are standalone. Hypnotic associations are not integrated with the wider associations that make up the person’s “definitions-logic” matrix.

    That is why a perfectly rational person can be made to get up and flush the toilet every time the hypnotist touches his collar.

    The remedy to hpnotism does not come about through use of logic as in “figuring things out.”

    The remedy to hypnotism comes about by simply looking more closely ar the areas of inconsistencies.

    See Mindfulness 11: Contemplate thoughtfully

    When some know-how works, but a person does not fully understand why it works, he starts to blindly follow the source, or purveyor, of that know-how. This is a form of conditioning.
    .

  43. The inheritance of the mavericks of this and other worlds:

    There was a guy, way back when, who noticed something about his environment:

    “Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses – Plato, ‘The Republic'”

    The key word being “culture”… you know, that thing one grows up with and within, like fish in water… that thing that’s so in one’s face, that one is ‘it.’

    Of course, in order to jar one out of one culture, one needs to immerse in another one to be able to compare… hence the usefulness of multiculturalism… like:

    “What do you mean you don’t sacrifice chickens to your god!?!”…
    “… and she doesn’t get angry?”…
    “… waow…”

    Going back to Mr. Émile Coué (http:/*/gordonsander.com/2000/04/day-by-day-in-every-way-i-am-getting-better-and-better/), he noticed another phenomenon having to do with the “terrain” of his applications:

    “…in order that the more suggestible people who are most easily and quickly cured may infect by their example and convince by their cries of delight and astonishment the more phlegmatic individualists who scoff…. [43]”
    “The jovial old man would begin the typical conference on a deliberately light note, cracking jokes, laughingly chiding a couple of the most downhearted not to worry so much about their health. Once satisfied that he had created the proper regenerative mood, Coué would show individuals how easy it was to “get better.” [44]”

    Yep! Islands of succors to become the seas… a monocultural world where there is nothing left to compare it to. Well, that’s a big, all black and white spiritual ice age, all controlled by human’s common denominator… you know, that thing that favors contagions!

  44. This post is the last piece of the puzzle for me , and one , I realize. that will require infinite patience on my part, but at least not shooting in the dark when engaged in conversation with people struggling and trying to understand the “good versus bad” of LRH and other mind boggling inconsistencies. They are fragile, neither here nor there .
    It explains a lot , the “zombed out state” I observed in my relatives after a visit to the org, having to lock my daughter in the house during a recruit cycle because she was in a state of shock and couldn’t function ( she woke up suddenly from a trance in the street , watching people eating hamburgers !) and on and on and that’s the most obvious stuff unfortunately.

  45. christianscientology

    Hi Marty

    It’s all very well to deconstruct Scientology, but when do we get to re-construct it.

    Ron has stated there is no place for love in Scientology because it cannot be defined, if Scientology is to be re-constructed it will be necessary to “take love out of the waste paper basket” and restore it to its rightful place which is to oversee understanding, instead of just being one corner of the ARC triangle.

    Until the eighth dynamic is recognised as truly source, nothing constructive can happen. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” Proverbs 9:10

    Love and ARC
    Pip

    • Pip, Did you know Christ is a construct of 400 centry Roman bishops ?

      • christianscientology

        I presume that should be 4th century Roman bishops.

        Christ or THE ANOINTED ONE pre-dates the Roman Empire. I am sure man has been looking for THE CHRIST since the dawn of time, and in fact many Scientologists believe that they had found him in LRH.

    • Hi Pip,

      You wrote: “Ron has stated there is no place for love in Scientology because it cannot be defined…”

      I don’t believe he said “there is no place for love” — rather, he said that the word “love” had too many definitions. So he chose to use the word “affinity, ” defined as “the feeling of love or liking for something or someone.”

      And as far as I can see, affinity cannot be separated from communication and reality, since you wouldn’t be able to have “the feeling of love or liking” if you weren’t able to even perceive, i.e. communicate with, or have any reality on something or someone.

      Love or affinity essentially does oversee understanding, because you wouldn’t have understanding without it — ARC=U.

      ARC (including love🙂 ),
      marildi

      • christianscientology

        Hi Maraldi

        I know you are a stickler for acknowledging source, so please forgive me for how I phrased my post. Here is the source of my evaluation.

        On a tape that was part of the check sheet for the study course L.R.H says that because of his engineering approach to the problem of the human mind every word used in the technology must have an exact definition and because of this, since there is no exact definition for LOVE “I am putting love into the waste paper basket along with all the pulp novels written on that subject and am replacing the word LOVE with the word AFFINITY, which we can define as THE CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE”. That as I recall is a fairly accurate rendition of Ron’s actual words. He also said “I developed Scientology because of my love of understanding” possibly on the same tape.

        The Greeks have several words for LOVE. Three of them being EROS – sexual love, PHILEO– brotherly love/friendship, AGAPE – UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

        The Bible having been written in Greek, uses AGAPE to describe the love of God, but all LOVES have a PERSONAL TOUCH.

        This is what is missing in Ron’s understanding of affinity, it is LOVE DE-PERSONALISED, and consequently it does not matter how much AFFINITY there is, it still lacks the personal touch. I believe L.R.H. has said something to the effect that AFFINITY is a scale of attitudes that falls away from the co-existence of static etc. and that is intellectually true, but to really understand what AFFINITY is, it is necessary to understand what STATIC is.

        Scientology could be viewed as COSMIC HINDUISM and that is why it is so addictive. It is indeed “the religion of religions”. As with Hinduism it uses the concept of NETI NETI (not this not this) to define STATIC, hence the definition of static in Scientology is not what a static is but what a static is not.

        STATIC IS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. Something quite different from AFFINITY and by nature must always precede ARC, hence it is LOVE and UNDERSTANDFING because without love there really isn’t any true understanding. True understanding is WISDOM therefore it is written “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. Proverbs 9:10

        Love and understanding
        Pip x

        • christianscientology

          Dear Maraldi
          You cannot have it both ways. You wrote “Love or affinity essentially does oversee understanding, because you wouldn’t have understanding without it – ARC=U”.

          Logic dictates that if AFFINITY is an integral part of ARC and ARC=UNDERSTANDING then it cannot “oversee” understanding. On the other hand because LOVE is something quite separate from AFFINITY it can indeed oversee understanding. Or as I have frequently said “you can love understanding (Scientology) but you cannot understand love, therefore LOVE is greater than UNDERSTANDING so holds the position of pre-eminence.

          Love and ARC
          Pip

          • ChristScn, Marildi.
            I THINK I am BEGINNING to see what you both are talking about. I will try to state it in my simple minded way.

            Affinity is a part of love, but love is not necessarily a part of affinity. Affinity would be a sub set of love. Similar to a dove is a pigeon, but a pigeon is not a dove.
            Mark

            • I think you summed it up pretty well, Mark NR. “Consideration of distance”. How close would one want to be to a rabid dog, or a hungry tiger?
              ARC possibly might include Love only at the very top, at coexistence as Static.
              I think this scene from “Fiddler on the Roof” expresses it well:

            • christianscientology

              Hi Mark

              “I think I am beginning to see” that is music to my ears. Not I hope because of some service facsimile that dictates my thinking, but out of a genuine desire to find common ground with my fellow man.

              I am still ruminating on your analogy of a dove and a pigeon, and wonder if you picked that combination intentionally. Traditionally the dove has been a symbol of PEACE which is aligned with LOVE but the pigeon is something quite different, in fact they are known as “flying rats” down our way.

              Love and ARC
              Pip

          • Pip: “I know you are a stickler for acknowledging source, so please forgive me for how I phrased my post.”

            I’m actually a stickler for this: If we are going to discuss what Ron said, let’s first determine what he actually said. And unfortunately, I got a different understanding of what was said in what you quoted.😉

            BUT, my dear Pip, what you stated above I would agree with! So maybe we were just running into the problem of words and semantics – and I think you expressed the whole idea much better. Here’s what you wrote:

            “STATIC IS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. Something quite different from AFFINITY and by nature must always precede ARC, hence it is LOVE and UNDERSTANDING because without love there really isn’t any true understanding.”

            From the above, it would seem that the philosophy of scientology does acknowledge unconditional love, since everything else proceeds from the Static.

            Love AND ARC,
            marildi xo

            • “It would seem that the philosophy of scientology does acknowledge unconditional love, ”
              ………………………………………………………………
              On paper only Marildi..Think about it..

              1. Disconnecting from family and friends isn’t love
              2. Regging people who have NO money to give isn’t love
              3. Working people to the bone for little food, money isn’t love
              4. Breaking people’s spirits isn’t love
              5. Fair Gaming isn’t love
              6. Degrading those with a different sexual orientation is NOT love
              7. Punishing through RPF and the HOLE is not Love
              8. Putting children in a Chain Locker is NOT love
              9.Putting children in Day Care while parents worked around the clock is NOT love
              10. Having people ratting out each other other ( KRs) is NOT love
              11. Lying is NOT Love
              ” THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.” LRH

              • “Lying is not love.” Did you have any children? Did they believe in Santa Claus? How about the Tooth Fairy? God and Jesus? What did you tell them when, say, a grandparent or someone else they knew died?

              • Do you know that “cherry-picking” is a recognized as a “logical fallacy”?

                I have met plenty of good decent people who used scientology constructively and did not indulge in any of that list you posted, except possibly for the “lying”, as anyone has probably “lied”, if only socially.

                • OMG.. You call ME a cherry picker.. are you kidding me? Hahahaha You of all people! haha

                  I refuse to argue with a Hubbard Apologist.

                  • Then why, baby, do you post addressing me, if you do not want my reply?

                    • Val says, “Then why, baby, do you post addressing me, if you do not want my reply?”
                      ………………
                      Because I keep hoping that will read a reply from someone who is “Moving on up”.. but all I get is something that is a programmed Scientologist response.

                      For you to pull out one thing from the list I wrote regarding Marildi’s statement about Scientology having unconditional love was Bull Shit.

                      You compared the lies that one gives to a child about Santa to the lies told to and by Scientologists.

                      Do I recognize that there are good people in Scientology YES. Do I recognize that to be a Scientologist that one had to do something that was against their value system and character? Absolutely

                      It does not make them bad people they are under mind control.

                      You present Scientology mostly as fond memories, unicorns and rainbows. Marty and others are attempting to inform and educate based on their experience and research.

                      There are those that are lurking. One of us may say just the perfect words to them to get them to ” Wake up.” And one of us may say the perfect words to get them to remain deeply in this Mind Fuck known as Scientology.

                  • baby, hahahahahhahahahhhahaha. Not to mention Hahahhahahah. And also, ha.

              • Baby, you might be interested in the context of that line, from a lecture given in 1952:
                ———————————–
                When you speak of “The Creator” you are probably speaking of something entirely different than implanted religion. Religion is always different than truth. It has to be, BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.

                When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control you. One way or another this individual is trying to control you. That is the mechanism of control. This individual is lying to you because he is trying to control you – because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not “is going to”, but “is” lying to you.

                Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person who is trying to control you is lying to you. He’s got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody anything close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you can’t control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that very often Command has this as its greatest weakness. It will try to control instead of leading. The next thing you know, it is lying to the crew. Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of a sudden the thing blows up.

                Well, religion has done this. Organized religion tries to control, so therefore it must be lying. After a while it figures out (even itself) that it is lying, and then it starts down tone scale further and further, and all of a sudden people get down along this spring-like bottom heresy) and say, “Are we going into apathy and die, or are we going to revolt?” And they revolt because you can only lie to people so long. Unfortunately there is always a new cycle of lying. As I use the word “Religion” it has nothing to do with the word “God”.
                —————————————–
                “TECHNIQUE 88: “OVERT ACTS, MOTIVATORS & DEDS ” CONTINUED,
                25 June 1952.)

                http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes%20in%20order/5200c00%20tape%20transcripts/WEB/5206C25C.HTM

                • Sort of sums up scientology doesn’t Mirildi?

                  • Absolutely it does. I get that LRH was of a different mind in 1952.

                    • Upon reading the post did you take any time to contemplate illogics you may have owned and mistaken for your own through scientology?

                    • Yes, I did, Marty, and I agreed with many of your observations. But I would have to say that I had mostly already seen those particular illogics as a result of reading and participating in quite a few blog discussions over the last several years.

                      I will admit that it took a good while for me to realize that I was assuming everything LRH said was true, BUT I did come to see that and to begin evaluating his statements for myself. So, even though I was a “scientologist” I was still capable of recognizing there was “something to recover from or to learn.”

                      Some of what you wrote in the blog post I did not personally experience – like the idea that as a scientologist I was convinced it was impossible to hypnotize me. I don’t remember even coming across that notion. But I would have to agree with what you wrote here:

                      “While following this course, you also take in a tremendous volume of opinions, prejudices, life-directing philosophy and mythologies…”

                      What I would add to that, however, is that there are many things that were stated that I still consider to be quite useful to know. Things like the different scales, study tech, and TRs, to name a few. And I am always surprised to find out how much of what LRH had to say has also been discovered by others in the decades that followed.

                      I myself did a lot more study than auditing, which is why I probably got more out of it than auditing. For example, when I completed the Key to Life Course, I was amazed to find that some of the material I had previously read was so much more understandable. In fact, the pages themselves seemed literally brighter to my eyesight, and I would guess that was because some mental mass had been removed in the context of study. In any case, it wasn’t that I was looking for that to happen – it just did. And I’ve had similar experiences with auditing where changes occurred where I felt much brighter in certain circumstances – which, again, I had no expectation of.

                      Irrespective of any of the above, you are definitely right that there was a lot of indoctrination about the superiority of scientologists and that this made for arrogance and fanaticism. And later on – cringing!🙂

                  • I think it sums up the CoS. Are the CoS and Scientology “coterminous”?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Upon reading the post did you take any time to contemplate illogics you may have owned and mistaken for your own through scientology?

                    • I don’t think I have misowned those particular illogics. Especially the one that the CoS IS Sceintology. That is simply one organization’s attempt to monopolize the subject for the sake of its own power and profit.
                      Kinda like the Roman Catholic Church claiming it is the “only true Christianity”, and declaring all others to be “heretics” to be Excommunicated, and if possible, burned at the stake. THAT would be an illogic indeed. Couldn’t possibly ever happen, right?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      The question was, did you take some time to contemplate whether it might be the case?

                    • I would have to say that is a work that has been in progress for the past 4-5 years, since I discovered all the information about Scientology that is available online. So, no, I answered your posted question based on what I have reviewed to date, without taking any additional time to contemplate. That will proceed as it proceeds, which with me is often, slowly.

                    • I see illogic in using the word Scientology period.

                      One needs to simply look at all this data in terms of useful or wasteful knowledge.

                      ________________________________

                • Thank you Marildi ..Marty wrote my very thoughts.

                • mar, she is absolutely not interested in that. 🙂

                  • That line is a good example of something LRH said that gets passed around by people without them knowing or even being interested in finding out the context. I knew this particular context excerpt would tend to incriminate him, but to me he does not come across as having the intention to control people – at least not for nefarious purposes.

                    • Marildi said, ” I will admit that it took a good while for me to realize that I was assuming everything LRH said was true, BUT I did come to see that and to begin evaluating his statements for myself. So, even though I was a “scientologist” I was still capable of recognizing there was “something to recover from or to learn.”
                      ………………………………………….

                      You are starting to open your mind Marildi. I am proud that you are willing to take the risk regarding examining words that Marty and others are presenting.

                    • You are starting to open your mind Marildi. I am proud that you are willing to take the risk regarding examining words that Marty and others are presenting.

                      Thanks, BB. But tell me something – are you and other critics also “willing to take the risk regarding examining words” of those who are presenting positive things about scientology?

              • christianscientology

                Hi BB
                One of the indicators that unconditional love is in the air is the willingness to FORGIVE. Ask me how a person or an organisation stands in relation to unconditional love and I will tell you subject to their willingness to forgive. I rest my case.

                Love and ARC
                Pip

            • christianscientology

              Hello Maraldi dear

              As I wrote to Marty, it is all very well deconstructing Scientology but the time has come to start the process of re-construction.

              I have been aware of the basic out point in the technology for some 35 years but it has taken this long to be able to communicate it to Scientologists in a form that can be duplicated.

              To understand Scientology it is essential to differentiate between THETA and A THETAN although they have many similarities they also have fundamental differences. Theta could be defined as INFINITE GOODNESS, here we are speaking of the 8th dynamic, infinite quality with the potential of infinite quantity.

              Every Scientologist is intuitively aware that there is a basic difference between THETA and EN-THETA. When THETA-STATIC becomes enturbulated by MEST, EN-THETA ensues. Put another way, when goodness locates in space and time it is possible for “badness” to be the result. So although A THETAN is basically good, it is capable of “bad actions” to the degree it considers itself MEST and loses sight of its basic nature which is THETA.

              Hence THETA is UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. A thetan is located in space and time which introduces the concept of DISTANCE, the definition of AFFINITY (the consideration of distance) therefore LOVE and AFFINITY have as much similarity and difference as THETA and A THETAN. Here I am differentiating between SPIRIT and SOUL, even though they have similarities.

              Love and ARC
              Pip x

              • Dear PiP,

                I totally got it! You have said it so well!

                Love and ARC,
                marildi xo🙂

                • christianscientology

                  Hi Maraldi

                  I am glad you totally got it, and thank you for saying I have said it so well. Except I am not quite sure what you got and what it was that I said so well.

                  Lots of love
                  Pip
                  P.S. Thanks for the x but what is the o?

                  • Pip, take it as a “Scientology acknowledgement” from Marildi. It is a simply pleasant way of communicating that you have been heard. There is no intention behind that ackknowledgment to clarify anything through discussions.

                    An acknowledgement is meant as a stop in Scientology.

                    • christianscientology

                      Thanks Vinaire for explaining my reality for me, and maybe when you were in Scientology you used an acknowledgement as a stop, but that has never been my reality.

                      I have understood that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and leaves the other person satisfied that they have been duplicated. In fact to request a person repeats what they think has been said works well in improving duplication. You might add that to your “MINDFUL DISCUSSION”.

                    • Sorry, there was no attempt to explain your reality to you. Take it as my opinion only of what I think of Scientology acknowledgement.

                    • From Tech Dictionary,

                      “An acknowledgement tends to terminate or end the cycle of a communication, and when expertly used can sometimes stop a continued statement or continued action.” ~ Hubbard

                      As anything else, people learn what is stressed. I have seen people in Scientology to use acknowledgement to control the other person’s communication. Your experience may have been different.

                      Personally, I think people naturally know how to acknowledge, and they needn’t be “taught” acknowledgement as in Scientology. When a person is applying mindfulness, he learns naturally by himself how to acknowledge. I have been working with non-Scientoloists with Mindfulness, and that is what I have observed.

                  • Hi Pip,

                    What I got was how you are relating theta and thetan to unconditional love and affinity. I basically saw it that way too since I think of thetan as encompassing theta. However, I can see how that would not communicate as logically as your way of expressing the comparison.

                    And an “o” stands for a hug, silly.😉

                    Love,
                    marildi xo

                    • christianscientology

                      My dearest Maraldi

                      Ah! “Thetan as encompassing Theta”. No what I am saying is the other way round. Theta encompasses a thetan. However a thetan can choose autonomy from theta by assuming a viewpoint and then considering it is that viewpoint, at which time it becomes located in Space and Time and becomes A THING. Theta is a NO-THING when theta locates in space and time by postulate it becomes A THING.

                      I believe Marty has written a book “What is wrong with Scientology”. Well of course NOTHING IS WRONG WITH SCIENTOLOGY that is what is wrong NO-THING. As I have said previously the definition of THETA in the tech is not what theta is, but what it is not. The best description of THETA I know of is in 1 Corinthians 13 “Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”

                      When we finally give up all our self-created identities this is what we will be left with.

                      Love and ARC
                      Pip
                      P.S. Thanks for the hug too.

                    • Hi Pip,

                      By “thetan encompassing theta,” I meant that a thetan contains (or encompasses), as an aspect of its beingness, the quality of theta or ‘life’. But I could also say, as you do, that “theta encompasses thetans,” since thetans do contain theta and thus they are in that “set” of theta, so to speak. I don’t think we are actually in disagreement; it’s just a matter of wording.

                      That’s a beautiful quote from First Corinthians. And I do get the main point you are trying to make, and am glad you have reminded all of us.😉

                      Love,
                      marildi xo

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Maraldi

                      Let’s try this another way. THETA has no mass, no wavelength etc. A thetan has the same properties but when a thetan becomes located in SPACE and TIME he tends to forget that his/her essence is THETA and through consideration becomes separated from theta – becomes INDIVIDUALISED. He no longer has no MATTER ENERGY SPACE and TIME because he has assumed an identity that is SEPARATED from theta which is LOVE. In this state of “believed” separation a thetan can no longer give or receive love, however he can operate with A.R.C. To return to his true identity he must surrender all his identities, the problem is he believes that without his identities he will cease to exist, because he is convinced his very SURVIVAL relies on his self-created identity. It is his desire to survive that inhibits him from receiving ETERNAL LIFE, which in truth he can never loose, but without this knowledge he is in fact not living but SURVIVING.

                      It is when we realise there is no death, that the possibility of LIVING becomes a reality. The website that Independent Spirit has posted explains it from a first-hand experience. This is all stuff to do with the 7th dynamic but the real change takes place when we embrace the 8th or infinity dynamic.

                      Love and ARC
                      Pip oxo (same as xo but more flavour)

                      P.S. Everywhere I use ‘he’ please read ‘him/her’

                    • It is amazing for me to see how many people buy this self-contradictory hypothesis that THETA has no wave-length. I think that they just want to identify with such a thought. Such desire to be identified is the basis of hypnotism.

                      >

              • Pip said, ” As I wrote to Marty, it is all very well deconstructing Scientology but the time has come to start the process of re-construction.”
                ……………………………………………………………
                Respectfully.. Marty is ” Moving Up Higher. ” Re-construction would be going back to the abyss that he has painstakingly worked his way through.

                • christianscientology

                  BB

                  There is only one valid reason for deconstruction especially as Marty is using that word, and that is to facilitate re-construction.

                  Most people who have been in Scientology and have left feel very let down, but that is because they didn’t understand Scientology in the first place.

                  I was thrown out of “The Church” and it was not until I could confront that I had been hurt by the organisation and it was when I forgave them that I was free of my need to be involved with The Church. Ron has said “all organisations are suppressive” and presumably that includes Scientology organisations.

                  If someone or group is suppressive to a person, that person has only three options
                  1. Handle, 2. Disconnect, 3. Remain P.T.S.
                  I choose to handle, because I love Scientology and would re-join “The Church” tomorrow and willingly sign a “Billion Year Contract”. The fact that they go to ‘red alert’ if I as much as enter an org. is probably my saving grace.

                  Love is a Scientology Org’s Achilles heel, Ron has said that “Communication is the universal solvent” but without love communication is just a lot of hot air.

                  I know Marty believes he is “Moving up Higher” but in reality what he is doing is becoming more human, and less blinkered.

                  Love
                  Pip

        • “Scientology could be viewed as COSMIC HINDUISM and that is why it is so addictive. It is indeed “the religion of religions”. As with Hinduism it uses the concept of NETI NETI (not this not this) to define STATIC, hence the definition of static in Scientology is not what a static is but what a static is not.”

          NETI NETI leads one to an understanding of “no definition.” It does not lead on to STATIC because static has a definition.

          See The Ground State of the Universe

          ________________________________

          • This appears to me to be a squirrel cage. If you speak of an understanding of “no definition”, is that right there not a definition? You are defining it as having no definition. That is not logical Mr. Spock. Better you just point to the moon.

            • In this universe there is a dichotomy for everything. So there has to be
              “Definition – No definition”
              “Awareness – non awareness”

              All dichotomies can be expressed as an infinitely graduated scale. One loses it when one thinks in terms of absolutes.

              Val, you argument smells of absolute thinking.

              • My point remains. “No definition” is the defintion of one end of the graduated scale. This smells like the limitations of that kind of thinking. Better to get off the squirrel cage and go beyond it. Or don’t. It’s entirely your choice.

              • Vinaire

                Hmmmm…

                You said…”All dichotomies can be expressed as an infinitely graduated scale. One loses it when one thinks in terms of absolutes.”

                I think you might want to loosen up your belt a bit on that one. I say this, in part, because your statement above sounds like you have assigned it “absolute” status.

                It seems that your statement follows from the OPERATING PRINCIPLE that “absolutes are unattainable.” I would view that whole concept a lot more carefully before I fixated on it as an “absolute”. (perhaps, expressed in your own terms… within that statement itself, there are inconsistencies)

                Personally I reject it as an absolute. (and I consider that “absolutes” are potentially possible.)

                Eric

                • That is the weakness of logic when one starts to apply it in an absolute literal manner.

                  Mindfulness might help.🙂

                  • Sorry Vinaire, I really don’t know what you are actually trying to say there.

                    For instance what, or who’s logic do you find “weak”, and what, or who’s literalness are you addressing?

                    I brought this subject up, not as any kind of attack on you, but because I have simply heard that platitude trotted out far too many times, as though it is some absolute, unquestionable truth.

                    I am challenging that presumption and the statement itself.

                    Are you viewing it as some kind of axiom, some “self evident” truth?
                    Do you consider that it is an absolute truth, or do you see it as somewhere on an infinite scale of “being true”?
                    Would that not also put it on some infinite scale of it “not being true”? (by its own construct)
                    Why can’t it absolutely not be an absolute truth?

                    Should we even be discussing it when its very statement contradicts itself?…. except that it keeps getting trotted out…

                    Perhaps we should craft another statement to replace it.

                    How about…” In some cases absolutes appear to be unobtainable”?
                    Such a statement is both consistent within itself, and more likely to be closer to some kind of “truth”.

                    What do you think?

                    Eric

                    • Here is how I see it. You may see it differently.

                      Of all the dichotomies in this universe, the most interesting dichotomy is “awareness – no awareness.”

                      If you are out in interstellar space with nothing else there, you shall be hardput to determine if you are totally still or moving at the speed of light. In short, you will have no awareness of your motion in the absence of something else to compare it to.

                      Awareness depends on relative motion. When there is no relative motion there is no awareness.

                      .

                      Awareness may be reckoned from the reference point of “no awareness,” similar to the way numbers are reckoned from the reference point of zero. This reference point may be looked upon as a curtain. We don’t know what is behind that curtain. Awareness will come about only when something emerges from that curtain. That would be the emergence of relative motion.

                      We may postulate a reference point of no awareness or relative motion.

                      .

                      There is no definition possible for whatever is beyond this reference point because there is no awareness there. Speculation of what is beyond the reference point would be like negative numbers. In other words, speculations shall simply be awareness of a different kind. We would still not know what we are not aware of.

                      So, the degree of awareness, whether it is real or speculative, may be reckoned from the reference point of no awareness. This shall provide us with the degree of relative motion present. It would also provide us with the “degree of definition” that is there.

                      Awareness is the degree of definition or relative motion present.

                      .

                      The premise “AWARENESS = RELATIVE MOTION” pulls awareness out of subjectivity and treats it objectively.

                      For example, when one is totally in the present moment and finds oneself completely free of thoughts, it does not mean that there is no relative motion. There is still the awareness of present moment; and that shall be relative motion.

                      When “being in the present moment” is compared to “deep sleep,” where hours pass in a blink of an eye, then the latter seems to be closer to “no relative motion.”

                      Awareness may be treated objectively in terms of how much definition, or relative motion, is there.

                      .

                      We know the universe to be there because we are aware of it. No part of this universe is, therefore, without definition or relative motion. Nothing in this universe can be totally still. Any notion of “static” with potentials shall be relative only, because it has a definition.

                      Our universe is a universe of awareness. Everything in this universe is in flux. Absolute static is not part of this universe.

                      The above is my logic. It contains a premise as a hypothesis. We shall see as this hypothesis develops if we could convert it into a theory.

                      The future will tell.
                      .

                    • Vinaire

                      Regarding your post “Here is how I see it…..”

                      I actually see nothing in your post that addresses any aspect of my post on absolutes at all.

                      I understand that it wasn’t your topic to begin with, and that I have no right to expect you to answer… so I’ll tell you what… maybe we should both just let it go and move on.

                      Eric

                    • I don’t mind discussing “absolutes” only if you have a question on it.

                      ________________________________

                    • Vinaire

                      Sorry… I’m done.

                      Eric

            • christianscientology

              Hi Valkov
              I have taken up this very point with Vinaire and he assures me that he has had a change of mind and will no longer refer to “the ground state” as having no definition but BEYOND DEFINITION, although I have not yet convinced him to add “as far as human understanding is concerned”. That is my next step.

              Love and ARC
              Pip

          • christianscientology

            Vinaire
            By definition that which has no definition cannot exist in this universe of Matter Energy Space and Time. Hence “the ground state” is beyond definition in terms of our understanding within this universe.

            L&U
            Pip

            • Pip: “By definition that which has no definition cannot exist in this universe of Matter Energy Space and Time. Hence “the ground state” is beyond definition in terms of our understanding within this universe.”

              I think I have figured a way out to explain this better. Non-awareness is like a curtain. We are not aware of what is behind it. And that is the meaning of “no definition.”

              .

              • christianscientology

                Dear Vinaire

                Fine! However there is no such thing as non-awareness. That is in the same mind set of the tree falling in the forest – does it make a sound?

                As I recall there is a scale in Scientology something about KNOW to MYSTERY, which is like a scale of awareness, but I think even that falls short of complete mystery.

                I thought we had already agreed that there was no such thing as “NO DEFINITION” every “THING” has a definition only NOTHING has no definition which is quite different to NO-THING which is the meaning of life http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm

                Love
                Pip

                • Dear Pip,

                  I think that we are running into semantics. I have now revised the following essay to clarify what I am looking at. Hope it satisfies your curiosity about my viewpoint.🙂

                  The Nature of Awareness (Part 1)

                  Vinaire
                  .

                • Pip, stressing on agreement is a Scientology thing to manipulate the other person. It is a cousin of hypnotism.

                  Let’s focus on coperation and understanding, and not talk about “binding agreements”. Please see how to handle confusions through discussions.

                  Application of Mindful Discussion
                  .

                  • christianscientology

                    Dear Vinaire

                    I believe that you and I are working from different stable datums. I find Scientology an extremely workable technology when properly understood and used within its limitations.

                    You have completely lost me with your “binding agreements” the only binding agreement I know of is “my word is my bond”.

                    Love
                    Pip

                    • Pip, what you are talking about is a promise made, which acts as a “word given.” It is something very explicit and easy to confirm objectively. I have no objection with that usage.

                      That is not the case as in the following usage by you.

                      I thought we had already agreed that there was no such thing as “NO DEFINITION” every “THING” has a definition only NOTHING has no definition which is quite different to NO-THING which is the meaning of life …”

                      Here things are not so straightforward, explicit and objective. There can be several different interpretations. It is a deep subject and requires continued discussion to come to proper understanding. Your attempt to bring in the use of “agreement” as “you had given me your word” is more like trying to control my thinking.

                      This, I think, is one of the ways in which Scientology tries to control thinking of others.

                      .

            • Marty is deconstructing Scientology. I seem to be deconstructing Christianity.

              “God is dead!” ~ Nietzsche
              “Human-centric viewpoint is exposed.” ~ Vinaire

              • Vinnie.. God is very much alive. When I look into my grandchild’s eyes I see HIM.

              • christianscientology

                Dear Vinaire

                I see nothing wrong with deconstructing Scientology or Christianity, in fact it would be my contention that only a Christian could, with love, deconstruct Scientology and only a Scientologist could, with understanding, deconstruct Christianity. Anyone else is likely to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’.

                Scientology addresses the problem of the human mind, while Christianity tells us why we have a mind in the first place. Anyone who would make the statement “God is dead” has obviously missed the whole point of the nature of God. God was never alive, GOD IS LIFE, and life can never die, for it is eternal just like STATIC. In fact they are one and the same, GOD IS DEAD would be typically a human-centric viewpoint.

                Love
                Pip

                • It is the human-centric viewpoint that made us believe:

                  (1) Earth is at the center of the universe.

                  (2) The Sun revolves around the earth.

                  (3) The earth is flat.

                  And now it is making us believe that self not only stands separate from reality, but it also creates this reality.

                  The reality-centric viewpoint assumed by science is much broader. That viewpoint is also reflected in mindfulness. This is the viewpoint that truly defines what is love and God.

                  The universe does not start with a humanlike awareness that is projected as God. That is just a human-centric viewpoint. The universe is simply an evolution of awareness as relative motion from simple to complex. Divinity lies in this evolution and not separate from it.

                  The reality-centric view of God is one that has evolved with the universe. This concept of God is much more abstract than simply humanlike.
                  .

          • Vinnie.. Who said this..? ” It is indeed “the religion of religions”.

            Scientology is not a religion. It is a cult.

            • christianscientology

              Hi BB

              I wrote that post. Ron Hubbard said Scientology is the religion of religions. Whether Scientology is a religion or a cult will very much depend on one’s point of view on both religion and cults.

              In fact a case could be made that all religions are a cult, and from that viewpoint Scientology could then be seen as the cult of cults.

              Love
              Pip

  46. I hear a deafening silence on the frequency, harmonics, metallurgy post of mine. When I was a teenager delivering pizza to Marshal Space Flight Center at Redstone Arsenal, I would chat with engineers about engine chamber pressures and cooling methods. It was very interesting, to me any way. Exotic materials are used when a machine is pushed close to the limit of what it can do without breaking, yet 100% reliability is an absolute.

    One gentleman was working on the uneven burning of kerosene and liquid oxygen in the trust cones of Saturn engines. This caused extreme vibration as the fuel exploded hundreds of times a second instead of burning smoothly. Changing the shape and angle of spray nozzles was a long and tedious process of experimentation. Sounded like fun to me.

    Never met Dr. Von Braun. He was usually on the top floor. He had such a good sense of how fluids and gasses behaved at extreme speeds and pressures.

    Those were very enjoyable times.
    Mark

    • Mark: “I hear a deafening silence on the frequency, harmonics, metallurgy post of mine.”

      I thought it was fascinating but way too technical for me to comment on it. But if the suggestions you gave to those engineers came from your recall of “high technological societies” on the whole track, it would apply to this thread since there has been discussion about the validity of Ron’s “sci-fi.” Maybe you should re-post it on this thread.

      • Hi Marildi.
        Thank you for suggesting I post some whole track physics memories again, but no, there is little interest on this site. Most of those here are getting away from all things Scn. and don’t really want to hear about such things.

        You may recall my paper on continuous nuclear fusion which I posted here and on Vin’s site. I discussed the basic principles with an engineer at the Browns Ferry nuc. plant and an engineer at General Research in research park here in Huntsville. They both understood the idea of manipulating particles with resonate frequencies but mentioned there was not enough objective evidence to justifying the expense of a large research project to find out. It did not quite ‘click’ with Vinaire, himself a nuclear engineer. A couple of hundred million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. Also, that the emotional attitudes of basic matter played a part in their behavior kinda shied them away. No worries, we still have lots of oil and natural gas and lots and lots of coal.

        Most of the individuals here are in repair mode and that must be completed before they can move up a little higher. There are a few others whose purpose is to assert their rightness and Hubbard’s wrongness. Unfortunately, Ron gave them plenty of fodder to continue in this endeavor. A parallel would be, if a man is talking about dominating his woman, and at the same time explaining how to cook venison, the recipe would be lost on most people. Sad. But it is the way it is. I have no grand assumptions that everything I say is right, and to assert so would be foolish, and a disservice to anyone who might indicate on something that I may have actually gotten right.

        Just as importantly, assuming my rightness would blind me to other peoples information that I may need.

        By the way, VINAIRE, why does Beryllium emit particle radiation when excited? Does the EM radiation added congeal to form new particles, or does it make the existing particles unstable and break away from the strong force of the atom? Just curious. Hard to find information on that.
        Mark

        • Mark, I appreciated all you wrote, every point you made. As usual!

        • “By the way, VINAIRE, why does Beryllium emit particle radiation when excited? Does the EM radiation added congeal to form new particles, or does it make the existing particles unstable and break away from the strong force of the atom? Just curious. Hard to find information on that.”

          I am of the opinion that no subparticles reside in an atom. They get created only as a part of atomic reaction.

          An atom contains electromagnetic waves of increasing frequencies as one moves toward the center of the atom. The waves at the center of the atom are so dense that they appear solid (the nucleus). These waves are locked up as standing waves. When an atom is bomarded by radiation or other atomic partcles then parts of these waves break off as subparticles. Similarly, when an atom gets highly excited, parts of it may break off and appear as particle radiation.

          EM radiation gets absorbed and creates a more excited state in an atom. When an atom is allowed to nomalize itself it lowers its energy by emitting EM radiation. This is just a very general explanation.

          Vinaire

          ________________________________

          • It seems that a 4 proton atom does not have very stable harmonics internally. When Be9 is excited through alpha or gamma bombardment, a neutron will jump out, leaving Be8 behind. This is completely unstable and will break into two alpha particles and later combine to form multiple isotopes of helium and carbon. Be8 has a half life of 17×10-17th seconds. Under neutron bombardment, it produces 2 helium atoms and 2 free neutrons, making it a neutron multiplier. Under alpha and gamma bombardment it produces 1 free neutron making it a neutron radiation producer. When used as a neutron modifier (dampener) the free neutrons are at a much lower energy state than those absorbed. (Below .03eV).
            Mark

    • Mark, this subject may not be the dessert of choice for many. Post your preferred email address and I’ll discuss it with you off-blog.

      • 2NDXMR, good to hear from you. My primary field is electrical engineering, mostly factory work and machine control computers, but I have had a strong interest in physics, fluid dynamics, and materials science. I had fun building dams in creeks as a child. Although I loved the rhythms of math in school, calculus was a bit tedious for me. I always wanted the quick answer. My how things change.
        marknr@husmail.com
        Mark

      • 2ndxmr

        Hi. I was hoping that you would catch this one.

        Sounds like you and Mark might have lots to talk about.

        What you two could possibly come up with through sharing data and ideas….

        It is exciting to imagine.

        Eric

  47. Marty,

    Without getting wordy, I can assure you that your efforts herein have provided the stuff I and others needed to be able to move on.

    The Cultification of spiritual knowledge that Ron laid out and stifled won’t continue without a bunch of cash (IAS) .

    Sincere thanks to you and Mosey for having helped me and others just get over “It”.

    The real fun began here-

    • This is one of my favorite videos of all time.

      When it came out, my family was gathered over at my sister’s house, and I told a little bit of Marty and Mosey’s story as I knew it, as an introduction, and then played them the video.

      They all laughed their asses off, and they somehow came to understand things about me and about Scientology that I had never been able to explain to them before.

      Thanks for this video, Marty. It really is a work of art.

      Alanzo

      • Yes, It really is a work of art, .Alanzo.

        As such it’s a metaphorical statement about the lunacy Ron created, fostered, promulgated and promoted.

        God help anyone still clinging on to his ‘truth’.

  48. A great read for people who are deconstructing Scientology is the new book, “The Power of Habit” by Charles Duhigg. It’s Available on iTunes, Audible and Amazon.

    The book demonstrates how corporations and others “implant” habits into people without their knowing of it. And how strong habits can be broken.

    It goes into the neuroscience of habituation and is brilliant.

    • I haven’t read this book, but it rings true to me. These days it’s all about using sophisticated methods to sell people and keep them sold. In their sleep, if possible.

  49. Gerhard Waterkamp

    I think people are hypnotized by their own mind.
    All it is at the very bottom is the lack of understanding that the human mind is built to store, filled with and contains nothing but arbitrary data.
    People mistake their mind for a container of truth. That is the first fundamental error that leads to so many undesirable things like judge-mentalism and the enslavement of thinking.
    Some data may be useful at certain times under certain conditions, but that does not change the fact that they are in nature arbitrary and not the truth.

    All Religions are a set of arbitrary data enforced and agreed upon in such a degree by the individual, that they are (mis)taken for truth. They use the natural hypnotization of people by their own minds. But enhance the effect through the use of fear to re-enforce the natural hypnotization. So came about hell, brimstone and the possible loss of eternity.
    Societies use similar methods of avoidance and fear to reinforce the hypnotization through the mind. Somebody who appears in a white dress at a funeral in London will probably receive the same rejection and condemnation as somebody who appears in black at the same event in China. Society has a tendency to punish anyone for not obeying the arbitrary data that make up its culture. That instills fear and so re-affirms to better take the data in the mind as truth.
    Practiced love (not to confuse with affection) and tolerance of an individual seem to be correlated with its ability to look past his own mind, not confusing the data his mind has received as truth, but being open to observe the truth. On the other hand one could say the hypnotization by their own mind is the deepest and strongest with Fundamentalists of any color. It may not be an accident that fundamentalists tend to act without love.

    Once a person understands his mind does not contain any truth but just arbitraries, once a person has overcome his own tendencies wanting to believe (his mind) the person can truly start to see and stop to judge. And I doubt such a person could be easily hypnotized.

    And vice versa the more a person mistakes his mind for a source of truth, the person can be led to all depths of Hypnotism. (being put under some one else’s control, as the data that fill your mind come to 99% from others, – if that estimate is not too low.)
    That is why false data stripping works. It does nothing to free a person from the believe that truth contained in his mind, but it shatters the firm belief into one arbitrary (being now labeled as false, as if not all data in the mind are “false”) and allows another arbitrary to take its place. The employment of methods to re-arrange data and their labeling in the mind so they better fit and support a body of data, rather than freeing people for real by helping them to recognize that any believe in the ‘trueness’ of data in his mind is misplaced, is a clear testimony to one’s intent.

    I would theorize that any time a person is freed from a psychosomatic illnesses or unwanted condition, the person has changed his believe in some portion of data in his mind.

    In this view any win achieved in Scientology is at least a partial “let go” of believe into data in one’s mind. So by filling a person’s mind with data one can produce wins once one releases the “believe” in this data. Tell them until they are at level so and so, they are at risk and you can produce at level so and so remarkable “real” wins.
    Rather than helping people to understand their (mis)placed believe in data in their mind and take steps to make them more free for real, you can develop a system to remove and add content to their mind at your will. As you now control the data in their minds you now just need some system of re-enforcement through fear or otherwise to enhance the natural hypnotization of an individual through his mind and voila you are now in control of that individual.
    While busy doing so you tell the individual that you are working to set him free and you have satisfied the definition of the technical term “mindfucking”.
    Looking back I personally was very lucky having had an experience in my twenties when I was a conscientious objector. While participating in a training to teach non-violent behavior the coaches made us participate in a game where one group of participants got blindfolded and had to master an obstacle course, led by one leader not being blindfolded (but not being able to communicate other than touching). It was a disaster and everybody blindfolded was furious about the leader doing such a poor job. After all the blindfolded steamed off their anger, the coaches explained how another group of players was blinding, harassing, pushing and so forth the leader of our group making it impossible for him to lead.
    This experience had at least for me the effect to look at mind, data, reality and action more closely and realize how I naturally took what was in my mind for truth although I was fully aware I was blindfolded and could not see what was going on. I acted on what was fed to my mind, ignorant of any truth, when I gave the leader a good earful about his incompetence. 
    It taught me a lot and looking back may have inoculated me to be consumed by Scientology.

    • Great post.

    • Good post.
      Mind has been described as a mirror of the senses. Thus mind is also “maya” or “samsara”, just as sense perception is. It is not where you can find truth. But it might be a place where you can find beauty.

      • I am wondering if “maya” is the same thing as awareness.

      • Valkov wrote:

        Mind has been described as a mirror of the senses. Thus mind is also “maya” or “samsara”, just as sense perception is. It is not where you can find truth. But it might be a place where you can find beauty.

        It depends on who’s looking in the mirror! (:>

        The best description I have seen reasons thusly:

        Since the mind does not cause itself to exist, it has no inherent existence of its own. It is considered empty of inherent existence.

        Because the mind is empty of inherent existence, and has no qualities of its own, it can reflect the qualities of all things.

        Thus, the mind is like a mirror.

        Alanzo

    • Is it the mind that has worked out this realization?

    • as the data that fill your mind come to 99% from others, – if that estimate is not too low .. it is to low, because all your mind contains is what you have seen .. and it is never you .. or what?

      But see, all of it stems from the idea that you have a mind. If you think so, it is quite simple that everything what you ever experienced is part of your mind. Forever. You can not erase it .. it is still there for you alone ..

      Look at a stone on your way, and find out what he has to tell you. Do it with a tree if better for you. What is this? Has a stone a mind? No, he will never come to your doorsteps and try to explain his experiences .. but if you ask him about .. he will tell you .. surely he will, because it is all what a mind is in his basic .. it is only you and your ARC ..

      I have never done the OT levels (which seems good to me) .. if a person would go down the track with such an BT he would found nothing .. simply because planet earth had not such a desaster 75 Mio years ago .. it is a fiction of another mans mind .. what I mean is, that you can create as much mind as you want .. but in nature there is only ARC and no mind .. a mind comes only up when you find something out of your ARC ..

      Following, your mind is only filled with things you will complete or bringing to an end .. that’s a mind as you describe .. so there cannot be a thetan who hang up 75 Mio ago on an implant and try to worse you .. if you believe in it .. I will tell you that is you yourself who do it ..

      When I read LRH about his Bridge and Tech .. I learned that he will only push out his own ARC as a general ARC .. means he pushed out his mind as a general mind .. so what? What? What is this?

      If I do not pick up LRH’s ARC breaks as my own .. I will be declared as an SP .. anyway .. there is hypnosis .. and as the consequence you may see that Scientology is a way to create a mind .. mind in a certain form of ARC breaks, which you may have in one or another way yourself ..

      You should not believe in a mind .. there is no mind because it is always you who think about you as a mind and you remember your experiences or your lookings .. but it is you who do that not a mind ..

      I will stop here my comment, because I could write 500 pages about

      • Let’s tell a story out of my life: In my town there was a circus who had a lion in a cage. An old one but a big one. As a young boy, about 8, I went in his cage for speaking with him. He was very afraid of it, people around were exhausted that I could be there where I were ..

        Anyway, I spoke with this lion about me an him .. I told him that I am sorry for him being alone without other lions and so on .. his head was as great as my whole body .. he was not hungry .. he did not like to eat me .. all people around were very exhausted .. the lion and me not .. we had our talk about being there where we are ..

        It means, when I had used a mind then I were never gone in this cage. I have only used ARC .. I was not in fear about my dangerous doing .. others did mean that I wanted to kill me ..

        This comment is only to show that ARC is mind .. and that any idea that a mind creates ARC is completley wrong ..

        • “This comment is only to show that ARC is mind .. and that any idea that a mind creates ARC is completely wrong ..”

          Friend, it sounds like you are saying that A, R and C are the components of THETA, which is what LRH also said. As for the mind, here is a definition of ‘analytical mind’ from the Tech Dictionary:

          5. we say the analytical mind is kind of a misnomer because most people think it’s some kind of computing machine, and it’s not, it’s just the pc, the thetan. (SH Spec 23, 6106C29)

      • Is a person different from his mind?

      • Here is my model for the mind.

        A Model of the Mind

        .

      • If all that is in your mind came from others, is it possible that your mind came from others too?

        I know this is a silly question. It appears silly because the difference between you and others is artificial.

        What are you made up of? What are others made up of? What are the similarities? What are the differences? What are the identities?

        Meditate on this stuff. It is enlightening. Haha!

      • I believe that the basic substance that one is made up of is “awareness.”

    • Well, here is something to consider. Don’t you think a body has you hypnotized? It is producing your reality for you. Sight, smell, taste, tactile, auditory, etc., is keeping you in a reality (agreement) with the human race. I’m not saying that all experience of these things is the same person-to-person – just that there is a common base. Now consider a bat who’s primarily sense is echo location. Do you think that creature is experiencing the world in any way similar to yours?

      So what does that tell you about “truth”?

      • I agree. The “objective” physical universe is determined by the body, which has us “hypnotized” in that it tells us – through the pre-determined, specialized inflow of data – what to believe is “truth.”

        • Instead of saying: “‘objective’ PHYSICAL UNIVERSE…” – I should have said that: “objective” REALITY is determined by the body. So the question of “What is “reality”? does seem to boil down to simply a subjective consensus.

      • SELF (You) = MIND + BODY

        Thetan is part of a hypothesis put forth by Hubbard. It is very subjective and it is very difficult for most people to examine objectively.

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        Truth is what has happened and what is happening. There is no truth in the future. Does it matter that “what is happening or has happened” is perceived within certain limits of perception? Does it changes the quality of it and makes it not a truth?
        There is a difference between a totality of perception (perceiving anything and everything) and truth. Truth is a quality and can exist within limits of perception.
        A human being would describe an incident with the sensory perceptions it has available to him. So he would say a red car ran a red light. Now if that is indeed what happened he speaks the truth and it does not matter if a bat could not confirm it, because the bat has different sensory perceptions?
        As long as we are not trying to discuss absolute truth in a philosophical sense we can still differentiate truth and non-truth based on something that has happened and is happening.
        Unless you want to follow the slippery slope of denying there is actually something out there that can be observed. Now that would be total hypnotization.

        • Thanks, Gerhard.

          If I understood you correctly your point was (to put it simply) that what is in the mind was not real in that it is basically relative. My point was the same but I also see it as applying to perceptions.

          Of course “truth” is a gradient and relative until you hit the level of “absolute truth”.

    • Listen, when David Miscavige orchestrates one of his events, and he gets up on stage in all of his showmanship glory, and he announces:

      A. Everyone is blind.
      B. Hubbard was an over product maker.
      C. Everyone’s certs are cancelled planet wide.
      D. Every one is ordered to do a retrain.

      And the whole audience of Scientologists stands up and applauds him, what do you think just happened if not: entrance, mesmerize, spellbind, enthrall, transfix, captivate, bewitch, charm, enrapture, grip, rivet, absorb, fascinate, magnetize?

      • That said, I don’t think asking questions to people always hypnotizes them. A surrender of your will to someone else, creates a situation where you agree to be directed. You do the same thing when you go to the dentist and lay back and open your mouth.

        And sometimes I don’t know what I know, until someone asks me. I don’t really have much of a ridge on people asking me questions. I like it.

        Giving commands such as “sleep sleep sleep” “bark like a dog” etc etc, That is more of an order, than an inquiry. That is an over ride of a person’s self governance. So, an order to always say “Yes Sir” or “Comply with out question or back flash” ….. these ideas are a form of other governance. These are “suggestions and directions” people can be responsive to.

    • Are you “highly responsive to suggestion or direction” in an auditing session? You PAY for someone to tell you where to look.

      I’m not complaining about it. Worked out fine for me. But I’m not going to pretend it isn’t what it was.

      People get hynotized watching a movie on television. You permit your attention to be directed by someone else. It is what it is. The same thing happens when you read a book. It is the only way to learn from a teacher, you become responsive to direction.

      • Are you “highly responsive to suggestion or direction” in an auditing session? You PAY for someone to tell you where to look”.

        “I’m not complaining about it. Worked out fine for me. But I’m not going to pretend it isn’t what it was.”

        “People get hynotized watching a movie on television. You permit your attention to be directed by someone else. It is what it is. The same thing happens when you read a book. It is the only way to learn from a teacher, you become responsive to direction.”

        Bingo, Oracle!! Frickking Bingo!

        Exactly!!!

        Hypnosis is as innocuous, and as dangerous, as exactly that.

        Plus, you misown some of the things you are told by others while in a hypnotic state because your attention is narrowly focused onto one thing, to the exclusion of the environment or source of the communication.

        Being “implanted” by a positive suggestion is only mis-owning the source of the idea – you thinking it was your idea when it was actually somebody elses.

        Once you spot the source of the suggestion as not your own, then judgement and context returns. And your ability to critically examine it.

        Alanzo

        • Jesus Christ you sound like another fucking implant telling me what it is.

        • You have worked full time on the Internet for years to convince everyone that Hubbard is their item. A fucking dead man. He is not my item. Stuff it. David Miscavige is my item.

          • Watch whom you empower.

          • The Oracle wrote:

            “You have worked full time on the Internet for years to convince everyone that Hubbard is their item. A fucking dead man. He is not my item. Stuff it. David Miscavige is my item.

            I know that this is just going to make you angrier with me, but you can’t use the Scientology Think of “Items” here to figure this out.

            David Miscavige is the cause of some things.

            L Ron Hubbard is the cause of other things.

            Thinking in terms of “my item” will never sort these things out.

            (Ducking under a desk for the resultant blowback….)

            Alanzo

        • The innocuous idea that there is a “you”, and that there is the “other” who is not “you”, is the result of a very basic hypnotism.🙂

    • Yes, it’s a bit more than just “agreement without inspection”.

    • Hubbard even admits it. See Science of Survival Book 2 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN (COLUMN AM – Hypnotic Level).

      • “Hypnotism is an address to the reactive mind.” L.R.H. SOS pg 217

        My own view on my own auditing is that all of the auditing up to clear, was in each session I was being directed towards addressing the “reactive mind”. I did surrender my own will and usual directions to that of someone else, and I permitted them to push my attention and thoughts into other directions I wouldn’t ordinarily go.

        It was a form of contact assist with the “reactive mind”, for me.

        What is that lower level auditing if not address to the “reactive mind”?

        Does this mean people were never hypnotized before they got involved with Scientology?

        I don’t think so.

    • Marty is spellbinding.

      • You know what comes to my mind when you say spellbinding? I think there is a whole new breed of mind fucking O.S.A. plants on the scene who work full time to re stimulate people with wrong items and wrong indications. Buddy up and push buttons through private emails. Not more than ten people had my personal email address until I dropped it on someone new very recently. Suddenly, I kid you not, for the last three months I have been signed up by someone else for life insurance policies, and anything else coming in that could possibly push a button. I think OSA has gone real down and dirty with the mind games. I mean, really tripping with black magic, spiritual war fare. And it’s gotten so low, people can’t think with it. Because they wriggle in with blasphemy. And I see the harmony pulled asunder while that little buggy eyed pimp Miscavige waits and hopes people are pulled and weaken with the ebb of time. You see what happened to his Las Vegas bottom bitch Devon? How did that work out for you Dave? That little buggy eyed pimp sent his legal crew in to Texas and threw the Church of Scientology under the bus in a heart beat to take the heat off of him. Don’t you think he is willing to send people out here to push Hubbard and Internet enemies as the target to pull attention off of himself? And his minions will go to the mat for him. I don’t give a fuck if everyone else out here is misdirected off of him as a target. Not me. That is the puppet master as far as I am concerned. If I was running the Church I would have cancelled the RPF and a whole lot of other bullshit. Hubbard himself wrote a policy letter saying to go through the policies and throw out the ones that become a detriment. David did it for the IRS, he threw out every policy letter that made a disparaging comment the IRS. I see people out here being hypnotized and they don’t even see it. I don’t see Marty casting spells or binding people or being spellbinding. As far as I am concerned, that is a fucking OSA dead agent line. What I want to know is how many of you guys are being pimped by David Miscavige?

        • What a waste of energy!

        • Oracle —

          Am I being pimped by dm?

          If I were to say — no way — then I’d have “certainty” with a capital C.

          What I will say is that I watch my credit cards and those of a friend LIKE A HAWK. I do not friend anyone on FB I do not personally know and have defriended “friends” who I knew only because of various “tribal AKA group affiliation. I never click on links I do not know. I am as mindful as I can be when driving. IF I see a car/truck in my neighborhood that I don’t know … I’m cautious.

          I am MUCH more aware of my surroundings I believe than I’ve been in decades. Because

          I no longer take someone at their word.

          There is a fine line between distrusting, naive, conspiratorial, tribal …

          And being mindful.

          A work in progress.

          Windhorse

        • Over the past year, everyone out here is a “WHO”, except David Miscavige. That was orchestrated.

        • When is the last time you saw anyone with the Causative Leadership Course pack or doing the anti Q and A drills? David really stamped on that hard. I’m not Q and Aing with all of his bullshit. :Little warlock mthfker.

        • Oracle, your use of the word “fucking” is spell binding. It is amazing how many times you use it.

          • How’s this for hypnotic and spell binding? Angels singing, clouds, the whole nine yards.

            • T.O., more hypnotic might be angels screwing on clouds etc?

            • I mean hell, if you don’t have a reactive mind before watching this, doesn’t it just make you want to mock one up? I loved that big squishy blob!

              • LOL! I have a different idea of reactivity as explained in The Nature of Hypnotism:

                Restrictions may be placed on how one thinks by following means:

                (a) Fixing the definitions by deeper manipulations of considerations.
                (b) Fixing the associations that can be made among definitions.
                (c) Fixing the route within the matrix along which associations may be activated.

                Such restrictions reduce the routes for thinking available in the mind.

                Thinking is reactive to the degree restrictions are placed on the routes that can be activated in the mind.

            • That’s worse than “fucking” for sure. Do you watch such things?

            • Hi Oracle,
              Angel don’t have bodies. They use our brains to ‘think’ to us. They play our brains like harps. If the harp string is there, they can ‘pluck’ it and make us think a thought. Therefore, if you ask a question and the ‘string’ isn’t there, they can help you build it so they can answer your question.
              They can also cause things to happen synchronously to show you they are really there.
              Synchronicity is a powerful tool for testing them. Ask them to cause it and they do.
              Give it a try!🙂

              • “Angel don’t have bodies. They use our brains to ‘think’ to us.”

                That sounds like body thetans.

                ________________________________

                • If body thetans are good guys working toward the Health of the Universe, then I agree. If they are evil and torturous, then that would be demons.

                  • Angels and body thetans are the product of hypnotic trance generated from a human-centric viewpoint.

                  • granny, here’s some info on “entities”:
                    http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?s=entities

                    And, check out his posts about “spritual rescue technology” for more info on the subject.

                    • Hi Iamvalkov,

                      Wow – i spent over an hour over there reading. I liked the picture of the entities, however i think they should be nested like those Russian dolls.

                      The more I investigate L Ron and the subculture he created, the more i appreciate his genius, while at the same time feeling so sad that he was beset by demons from the moment he descended to help us. They pulled him off track at every turn.

                      And now, the best representatives of that subculture have splintered off and tried to do right by the truth, while constantly having to wade through the crap. In the mean time, Earth is going to hell in a hand basket.

                      You know, it sucks to be sick. I wonder if everyone can agree on that. And if we can all agree that it sucks to be sick, can we agree that health would be a goal? From there, can we assume that every entity wants to be healthy? Can we agree that Earth is alive?

                      The further you go forward in these questions, the more open to debate they become.

                      Rather than try to get everyone to agree, I would suggest that to motivate the world, we play a game. The rules are simple: reincarnation is real…in order to reincarnate, you need a womb to grow in…look around the world and see where you might end up…any place you don’t want to be reborn needs to be fixed.

                      If the whole world would play this game, a lot of good could be done. But instead, we are running around in our daily ruts – too busy to really do anything productive outside of those ruts – and we are not thriving as a species.

                      It takes a disaster to bring people together, and that is just sad.

                      I sure hope we can figure out how to work together before WWIII breaks out. I don’t want to ever have an answer for the question ‘where were you when the first bomb exploded’.

                      I know there are vast numbers of entities around us. They can use our brains to help or hinder us. We share space with them. We can’t escape.

                      I have very strong feelings about Marty being important. If I am correct in noticing that Scientology is a microcosm of Earth’s current state, then I want to support a person who escaped and is trying to do something positive. If we can all work together, I think we can heal ourselves and our world.

                      Thanks for showing me the links!

                  • Here is one of the original posts about Spiritual Rescue Tecnology:
                    http://spiritual-rescue-technology.com/?p=16

              • Granny, I’ve got angels. We are in good harmony.🙂

                • Ladies, I need Angels! Because…..

                • You know those Russian nesting dolls? Well, you are the tiny doll inside and you share space with Earth, Sun, Galaxy and Universe. So you are constantly sharing space with those 4 individuals. Those are Big Angels. Then there are little Angels who have graduated from corporeal existence who work to help bring Earth to a state of Health. There is so much possibility for Angelic interaction with humanity.
                  I’m glad you are comfortable with your Angels, Oracle.

                  • I actually did used to have Russian nesting dolls that I got from a friend who used to smuggle merchandise out of Russia. Krugerrand, furs, caviar. All kinds of great things. Thanks for bringing back some great memories.

                    • My pleasure, Oracle!
                      Remember to ‘be’ that tiny doll on the inside and realize you are sharing space with all the bigger dolls. They want us to be healthy. We are their helpers. They don’t have ‘hands and eyes’. WE are their hands and eyes. We are the immune system for all the dolls.
                      Have a wonderful day!

  50. Marty, I feel you have listed many of the components of my 37 years of hypnosis in Scientology. It was definitely hypnosis. Working 80 hours per week and getting $10 per week pay as a church staff member in the early 1970’s and being happy to have the $10 was not un-hypnotized conduct for me.

    There are some tools he developed that I still like and many that I don’t like. I’m still sorting this out for myself. He had a good ability to create and tell stories. I read Battlefield Earth book twice when he first wrote it because I was amazed at the fact he could create an entire universe with his imagination and make it all believable. I feel now that I believed in Scientology and Dianetics too much stuff that was just his imagination.

    • I guess if Scientology really did “work” then at some point the cognition would be “Crap – I’ve been hypnotized!” Maybe that was OT IX. (I jest, of course)

  51. What a fantastic job of articulating exactly what is going on at the heart of the church of scientology. It’s interesting that the purpose of scientology focus’s on creating exactly this game. People are turned against themselves and replaced with a mission for scientology. What’s interesting is, it’s perhaps one of the only isms which preaches the hidden greatness of self(not God)

  52. Now, for the discombobulator:

    “The Chinese authorities have also found that they can even take children who are not known to be psychics, and in the presence of the naturally psychic kids, the normal children can perform the same wonderful feats.”
    [China’s Major Mysteries Paperback – February 15, 2007 by Paul Dong (Author) http:/*/www.amazon.com/Chinas-Major-Mysteries-Paul-Dong/dp/0835126765]

    These feats are described by Paul Dong in his “China’s Super Psychics” book and which he concludes to be the result of qi/chi gong’s “Empty Force” mastery; you know, like this kind:

    “… a live insect was marked and placed inside a tube. The tube was sealed so that any attempt to open it would break a fine hair glued inside.” The tube was set on a table in front of Zhang, with two experimenters watching. “Several minutes later the insect, still alive, was outside the tube.”

    Otherwise known, in some school of thoughts, as “OT abilities.”

    The discombobulator is that, in the same way as culture, mass hysteria, aberration or healing; “OT abilities” are “contagious”! Which might have led to sayings like “An OT works best with OTs” or “One has to be OT to become OT” as much as “Birds of a feather…”

    So, to me, “reactive mind” or “Theta sphere of influence”: same beast working on resonating harmonics of energy fields!

  53. Hubbard was known as an exceptional hypnotist and a gifted con man. Miscaviage is neither, no hypnosis skills, sleazy con man. DM tries to lead through raw power and threat. Perhaps that is why Scientology is failing. Lucky for the world that a more gifted man did not gain leadership when LRH died.
    OT: LRH was really out of (presence) for his last few years. Maybe he had “blown.”?

  54. AND something you will not google because you will not KNOW to google — there was a Hungarian who discovered what Planck won the Nobel Prize for FIFTEEN YEARS before Planck …

    But Planck won the prize and the honor through history …

    It’s all about TIMING and probably comm lines or intention … not sure

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

    • This actually belongs BELOW the youtube of Greg Braydon.

      In any case — Rado although he discovered the field PRIOR to Planck — Hungarian wasn’t exactly the GO TO language.

      Planck was German.

  55. Hi.

    My own experience in “graduating from the subject”, from any unhealthy subjects, provided me with quite satisfying truths as to the mechanics involved in keeping one’s attachment (different that a healthy connection) to the subject of Scientology, and why any attempt to enlighten will fail as it is highly dependent on the willingness of the person to graduate. More importantly on the person seeing a great benefit, especially long term, to graduating.

    If the person NEEDS that attachment, he/she will defend it and protect it “to the death”.

    If that attachment is preventing the appearance of intense loss, especially the loss of self, and/or of the presence of a state of fear, insecurity, pain, and disempowerment that inhabits one’s world, no steps towards graduating will take place.

    In my experience, in order for one to free oneself from any attachment, one has to first recognize that one needs it and is identifying with the subject so that the subject and one are being the same. As one cannot detach from oneself, one cannot detach from the “oneselves” or “myselfs” one is being and cannot especially see that whatever viewpoints and energies one is attached to are separate from one and can be moved away from. The loss of that attachment is literally a loss of self.

    One cannot, in my view, become objective to what one is being or believes to be one.

    Once one can recognize the identification, one gains the power and strength to gain control of it.

    One of the best ways to recognize attachments, the “whatevers” one is being, is to simply be willing to examine and then examine whether any resistance, any pain, any strong impulse to defend or protect or attack or seek agreement gets activated in one’s universe whenever that attachment, that beingness is being criticized or questioned.

    If you feel pain, resentment, outrage, anger, fear, a sense of loss, desire for vengeance, a NEED to ridicule, to make wrong, to find something right with what is being criticized, to seek other comments that do the same or commenters that agree with you , then be grateful Marty has, at the very least, given you a way to discover what should not be present in your universe.

    While considering that Ron and Scientology are quite evil as they succeeded, especially in me doing OT VII, in having me create and encase myself in false case (energies) and with the viewpoint of others being responsible for it, in me making my life, for a few years, be a quite horrible and terrifying experience, I came away with the most basic and workable concept of who I was and was not: A soul, a zero, in which I was not the energies, viewpoints, emotions, identifications, “physicalities” that abounded in my world and so they were all open to be, quite gently, be shown the door out.

    Regards,
    Luis

    • Very interesting post, Luis.

      Especially this:

      If that attachment is preventing the appearance of intense loss, especially the loss of self, and/or of the presence of a state of fear, insecurity, pain, and disempowerment that inhabits one’s world, no steps towards graduating will take place.

      Good food for thought.

      Alanzo

  56. Hi Marty.
    What I am trying to say is, that maybe I have been looking at this After Scn. subject all wrong. I have noticed in the last few months that many people have written comments about the difficulty they have had with doing normal things and thinking in a normal way since leaving the Church.

    I have written many comments about separating the wheat from the chaff, of keeping the workable knowledge of Scn., no matter where it came from. But it appears that for many, if not most, that is impossible. Certain attitudes become ingrained and subconscious, causing them to be very difficult to recognize.

    I was saying that perhaps it is true that for most, the whole hard drive must be dumped and a complete reboot is necessary to get an accurate view of the field of the mind/spirit. That especially those who were especially harmed by Scn. and are now carrying that upset are unable to view anything which carries a reminder of Scn., any similarity to it, and must wash it completely in order to rise above it and carry on.

    I am not a typical case (no one is) and I carry my own demons which I am working to resolve.

    I scoffed at parts of your posts lately as they seemed to become more and more cynical and antagonistic towards anything Hubbardian. But I am seeing, as I communicate with more ex scientologists in the real world, that you have noticed the same thing as I.

    It is very difficult to paint a beautiful painting over a soiled canvas.
    Mark

    • Where does ‘antagonistic’ come from? Scientology programming? The simplicity of what I wrote is that scientologists have been programmed with dead certainty that they have not been.

      • Marty: “Where does ‘antagonistic’ come from? Scientology programming?”

        LOL, good one, Marty.
        Mark

        • You think it is funny, but did you examine where it did come from? For that matter, upon reading this post did you take any time to contemplate illogics you may have owned and mistaken for your own through scientology?

          • Afternoon Marty.
            Yes, I have looked at habitual and ingrained constructs from a lifetime of exposure to Scn. Recently study tech. I actually never noticed that study tech is set up with the specific idea that everything written, by Ron anyway, is exactly correct. Oh, he mentions evaluation and discovering for yourself that it is true, but the system does not actually allow that.

            There have been times when I believed myself to be above the fray, too smart for that, and other similar attitudes. But in recent years it seems that the smarter I get, the dumber I get. I’m doing a lot of re-evaluating.

            One thing is absolutely certain. I have unbased fixed opinions. Part of ‘My own demons’ that I mentioned.

            As for ‘antagonizm’, I was actually looking at my own thoughts more that trying to highlight any believed outpoints of yours. In my haste, I did not make that clear.

            The joke, although the moment for humor has passed, was that I mentioned antagonizm for anything Scn.like. You asked where the antagonizm remark came from. Then asked , Scn. programming? Yes, I found that funny and thought it was intended to be so.
            Mark

            Hope you did not miss the point that I am coming to agreement with you that Scn. programming is more difficult to handle than first thought.

            • Thanks. So you are retracting your characterization of my writings as being antagonistic to scientology?

              • Oh, of course your writings are often antagonistic to Scn.
                I’m retracting that it is necessarily a bad thing.

                Sometimes you gotta call dirt, dirt. I’m saying that I am recognizing more dirt as I go along. I am also agreeing with you that the pieces of clear quartz and little gems are harder to pick out of the dirt than previously thought.
                And you gotta really watch out for the dog poo.
                Mark

      • As someone quoted some time back, it is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.
        Mark

    • Mark, isn’t it a question of their old “stable data” (“held down 7s”) having been replaced by new ones?
      It seems most people need “verities” to hold on to, to align and cope with the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”?
      How about this?

    • Difficulty may arise after leaving Scientology if one discards the Scientology frame of reference quite suddenly with nothing to replace it with.

      A better approach would be to examine the Scientology frame of reference bit by bit and replace it gradually as one comes to a better understanding. One can do this by handling large chunks at a time. Others may have to go slower. Either way it is fine. It takes as long as it takes.

      ________________________________

      • Vin said: “It takes as long as it takes.”
        Yes, everyone is different. It seems to me that a great number of people have great difficulty on their own. There are very few skilled, mindful, high ARCL people like you and Marty. Most people need competent assistance.
        Mark

  57. Marty,

    Yes you got to the basic reason behind this lunacy.

    To begin with any and all states of inward concentrations are forms of hypnosis.

    The yogi system and Buddhism describe them all from the lightest to the deepest, and they also assign the correct importance to whatever you find in the mind and how to go about confronting it.

    All of them are self-induced states of mind, any of them could help people find out about themselves and reality. No need to become anti-meditation or anti-auditing, just anti-stupidity.

    All of these states become superfluous once you got where you need it to go, as they are NOT your natural state of awareness. No need to keep beating the same horse once you got to your destination.

    As far as what you would find in the mind, let’s not get really complicated here: “objects of mind” are well…..”Products of thought”.

    Any attempt at reifying thought, or building the mind into something super complex like Hubbard did, is all about controlling people and making money.

    Scientologists’ complete lack of common sense, traced back to the Grand Joker himself, is in attempting to reinvent the wheel and to rename all of these states along with what you find in the mind, as proprietary, unique and created out of Ron’s omniscience.

    To make things really bad, in Scientology you are coaxed to surrender your control center to somebody else, which in my opinion is where any help, and particularly hypnosis becomes really dangerous for obvious reasons.
    When you turn that very act of faith into a lifelong reporting requirement not only to pseudo-therapists but to an entire organization of lunatics, you are asking for a shit pile of trouble.

    I don’t know what else to say. We came to study consciousness and we ended up studying Hubbardology. Well get up, look up somewhere else and keep moving

    • Conan wrote:

      “To make things really bad, in Scientology you are coaxed to surrender your control center to somebody else, which in my opinion is where any help, and particularly hypnosis becomes really dangerous for obvious reasons.

      Exactly. And Hubbard used hypnosis in exactly this way on Scientologists for exactly these obvious reasons.

      When you understand hypnosis, and you compare what Hubbard told Scientologists what hypnosis was, it is truly disgusting.

      Hubbard deserves to burn in hell for what he did to Scientologists, as anyone would who would use hypnosis on people in this way.

      “When you turn that very act of faith into a lifelong reporting requirement not only to pseudo-therapists but to an entire organization of lunatics, you are asking for a shit pile of trouble.

      Yes. Any independent auditor whose only training is in Scientology is one of these pseudo-therapists. And since they are still following Ron’s orders, you are also asking for a shit-pile of trouble by reporting the contents of your mind to them, too.

      Real therapists have to be licensed. Licensing, including the licensing of hypnotherapists, safeguards against a therapist violating your rights and exploiting your vulnerabilities as their patient or client.

      This is the core problem with entrusting your mind to any Scientology practitioner – Indie or Churchie. Not only are they not licensed but they perform all kinds of techniques that are designed to implant false memories, thus creating a false self-identity, and they use hypnosis very very unethically.

      When you look at it this way it is easy to see that Scientology is one of the worst possible choices for mental therapy in which a person can participate.

      Alanzo

  58. “Hypnosis :The induction of a state of consciousness in which a person apparently loses the power of voluntary action and is highly responsive to suggestion or direction.”

    What is being said about Scientology here can also be said about Christianity. Remember the Dark Ages. That was much worse.

  59. I’ve not really said that Mind = ARC .. I said only if you refer to a mind then you refer to your ARC or ARCX .. that is what you can hold in storage for your own purposes .. you can hold on it or leave it .. it will not change the world, but it will change you to some degree ..

    Let’s say a simple thing. When you was born in this lifetime, you did not had an idea about your mind. If you remember it good you know that you did only look around as good as you could do it .. completely no idea about a mind .. you felt your body, and you knew that you are there .. no mind ..

    So on, when you die, you go out of the game .. it is again no mind. Why, oh it is difficult in this tread to explain .. but when you give away you anchor points there is nothing .. only you with yourself .. and you may completely blind or you can see like before .. you do not know how it will be then ..

    A lot of OT success was given about ordering a thetan back to a new body. They gave never a report about a success on that .. naturally, because it is impossible to control that .. so what I am saying is that you generate a mind between your birth (or before) and your desth .. and than you loose it all at once ..

    Can me somebody tell here how it is to get a new body? Real experience is asked ..

    If somebody answer, I will tell also my experience too .. okay, I certainly acknowledge it is completely nuts to ask for it .. 99,99% of all people which I have asked about told me nuts .. nobody was interested in how or why he got his body .. but when you go into mind .. huhh ..

    sorry for this comment ..

    • I don’t believe in a thetan existing separate from a body, who then enters the body or leaves it.

      ________________________________

      • I don’t believe in a thetan existing separate from a body, who then enters the body or leaves it ..

        That’s like me .. it goes not the way as nearly all scientologists believe in, but they believe in it, and so they get an idea about OT .. why not it is a nice story to think so ..

        Something is wrong in the story from LRH .. I myself came never clear with it, got a lot of Out-Int handlings, but did never grasp what it should be really .. go in .. go out .. it means that a thetan flys around .. yes, yes it is a nice idea that you can fly around like a ghost .. nice viewpoint ..

    • Friend: “Can me somebody tell here how it is to get a new body? Real experience is asked.”

      I personally do not have recall of this. but one time a friend of mine wrote to me about his experience. He said that when he was between bodies (between lives), there was no feeling of having an identity, yet there was awareness of self. But then “awareness changes like the snap of a latex glove being put on a hand: one moment you are aware of the glove going on and then ‘snap’, you release the glove cuff and it conforms almost invisibly to your hand. With the body assumption, the ‘snap’ comes when one fully fits into the body and awareness changes from awareness of self to awareness via body perceptics and full identification as a body. It took that whole fitting-into-the-body routine to change awareness.”

      • It can be awfully lonely, being kicked out on the side of the road with no way back. Individuals will do almost anything to avoid that.
        Mark

        • Too cryptic for me, Mark. Can you elaborate?

          • Yes, Marildi, I just threw out a phrase that suddenly struck my mind. The ‘kicked out on the side of the road’ comment was related to the desire to be a body, human or otherwise.

            In my travels, observations, examinations, there are a tremendous number of things, principles, events that relate to this. Being thrown out of the game of life, being ‘kicked out’ is just one. It is one of the few hundred or few thousand ones, but the quantity of related incidents is tremendous. It has become very complex. Don’t worry, it gets simpler.

            There were many times we ran a body or some other type of avatar by remote control while we hid around a corner, then denied that it was us/you/me doing it. Sort of like if you ran your R/C car into your dads feet, then broke a vase, then ran and hid and said “No, dad, it wasn’t me” It is a fun game, controlling things from a distance, anonymously.

            There was a period near the end of the games universes era where one of the most popular activities was to figure out more and more clever ways to hypnotize, implant, control each other. This was a particular period, but it lasted for a very very long time. We were tricked, and tricked each other over and over and over again. It was fun at the time. It was just the thing to do at the time. Some pushed this game more than others.

            I have barely scratched the surface on this. The sheer quantity can be overwhelming. This is why that the more I look, the more I realize that PAST EXAMINATION IS ONLY ONE OF THE STAGES OF WORK IN ORDER TO GET BACK TO FULL STEAM, TO BEING COMPLETELY CLEAN AND ABLE. But it is a stage that one must go through, no ifs ands or buts.

            One can read the Tao and meditate and lead a good and wise life. One can have a good career, a loving family and be fairly happy. But to be unwilling to look at your past decisions, to be afraid of dangers involved, to say it is all imagination is to thoroughly bar yourself from any significant improvement. Many other practices have their place and can be quite therapeutic, but this is ONE ROAD, AMONG MANY, that must be traveled.

            The rediscovery of lost wisdom and the gaining of new knowledge, exercises, drills. new adventures will all be part of the process. You may go completely bonkers and cave in big time, then have to restart in a hundred years or so, but the necessity will still be there waiting for you. Might as well get started. I’m tired of this cycle and it’s time to change it.

            Perhaps I was fortunate that I studied Scn. and eastern philosophies early and was not satisfied with either. Perhaps I gained enough serenity and understood the comm cycle and ARC well enough that I was not particularly enturbulated by BTs. Why Ron never overcame this, I don’t know. Perhaps his history was a bit too rich for him to confront. But these skills can be acquired by anyone now, and the road can be opened up. One wise thing that Ron said to Clearing Course students is that it is like digging a ditch. You just have to keep chipping away at it, on and on, a shovel full at a time.

            I consider it worth the effort.
            Mark

            • Mark N said:

              “One can read the Tao and meditate and lead a good and wise life. One can have a good career, a loving family and be fairly happy. But to be unwilling to look at your past decisions, to be afraid of dangers involved, to say it is all imagination is to thoroughly bar yourself from any significant improvement. Many other practices have their place and can be quite therapeutic, but this is ONE ROAD, AMONG MANY, that must be traveled. ”

              This is more Scientology induced ignorance. You can not possibly have a clue what meditative and contemplative practices are, and state:

              “But to be unwilling to look at your past decisions, to be afraid of dangers involved, to say it is all imagination is to thoroughly bar yourself from any significant improvement”

              Really Mark, what is next, meditation is for theetie- weetie, dilettantes?

              • What Mark’s logic seems to be recommending is to take up “unreading items”. Why should one be digging into the mind, or in the past, when there is no active charge in the present?

                Normal meditation is enough to bring inconsistencies to notice. One can then look at the inconsistencies more closely until they are resolved. This can be done as a routine. There is no need to go any farther and arbitrarily dig into the mind or look at the past.

                • Vinaire.
                  Unreading items. I didn’t mention or imply anything about this subject, but I have mentioned this in the past. Very early ideas, postulates, opinions which were adopted as basic operating principles do not read on the meter. There is no confusion, no conflict, no inconsistency. Later occurrences which conflict with these basic operating constructs may give reads, which can then lead you back to the earlier decisions, which can then be re-evaluated.

                  Also, occurrences which happened before energy and mass were automatically stored and used usually will not read, unless it is attached to conflicting incidents which occurred later, when mass and energy was adopted as a basic part of your thinking and emotion.

                  You said: ” One can then look at the inconsistencies more closely until they are resolved.”
                  Then: “There is no need to go any farther and arbitrarily dig into the mind or look at the past.”
                  These two sentences are inconsistent.

                  A quick glance at past inconsistencies can produce a release state and is temporary at best. A thorough examination of occurrences can produce a thorough understanding. The goal obviously being a resolution of the past so one can be truly in present time. Any past examination which does not produce this is worthless at best and damaging at it’s worst.

                  Hence the bad rap it has gotten as of late with some people. Not to mention those who are simply unwilling to well up the gumption to attack things head on.
                  Mark

                  • Mark,

                    The reasoning underlying my comment about “unreading items” is as follows.

                    (1) According to your posts about your research you attention seems to be fixed on the time track of the past. I do not understand why should one be ransacking the real or imagined facsimiles of the past.

                    (2) Normal research starts from looking at data in the present, and unearthing data about the past through excavations in the present. One does not go just digging into the mind.

                    (3) Even in auditing, one follows a chain of reading items starting from some unwanted condition in the present.

                    (4) So, I have no idea how you are going about digging in your time track under the pretext of “research.”

                    What kind of a trail are you following, and what is the basis of that trail.

                    Regards,
                    Vinaire

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Vinaire asked:
                      “What kind of a trail are you following, and what is the basis of that trail.”

                      It is about time I wrote up a description of my methods, procedures and purposes. I will do this over the next few weeks and post excerpts for others to examine. I have mentioned bits and pieces of my work in a generalistic way, and that was intentional. My procedures are my procedures and are not yours or anyone elses. There are some common phenomenon among most people and they can be addressed broadly, but even then, these have to be addressed at the right time in the right way to be real and helpful to each individual.

                      I strongly believe that each individual must develop his own path to improvement and must be developed primarily by himself. Learning the basic principles of life that are common to all will assist that person, but it cannot be forced on a person, it can only be offered.

                      Giving anyone advice which is not right for them will only give them a loss on taking advice, regardless of the accuracy of the advice. That is the reason that I keep most of my posts general. When I have recognized that something could be easily used by all, I have posted it. Such was the case with finding an intention that you gained from someone else.
                      Mark

                    • I am sorry to say this but whatever you written as your research so far , it does not tie together as something consistent and coherent for me.

                    • Research tends to be that way. Until all or at least sufficient data is in, looking for a consistency and coherence which ties it all together is liable to be fruitless.

                    • I think one should be clear about one’s hypothesis, otherwise there is no research.

                      >

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Vin.
                      My purpose is to un-stick my attention on my past. That is ALWAYS kept in mind. I am making progress, bit by bit. The pile of concerns mentioned by you, Marty, Alanzo, Brian, Conan and a few others are well founded. Several have caved in from work done poorly in this direction. I have no intention of this happening to me, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If I end up passing through there, I’ll tell you all about it. Wish me luck.
                      Thanks,

                    • OK. That is the first things that has made sense. Your attention is getting drawn to the past, and you want to unfix it. That is something personal to you and may not apply to others.

                      What do you think of the following essay that deals with such situations with attention?

                      Inconsistency in KHTK
                      .

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Thank you Vin.
                      I have used your principles of inconsistency and unstacking (and variants of) many times. It opened up many additional things to me.

                      Our viewpoints differ on several things, but your work, to me, is quite valuable. You are “Doing something about it” and are succeeding.

                      You have my admiration for your efforts and accomplishments. Looking for more in the future.
                      Mark

              • Conan, is what you stated above based on your own ideological beliefs? Or do you have some sort of direct knowledge or direct line to truth?

                Seriously, I can’t see how it can be anything else than one of those two possibilities.

            • Mark, I kind of guessed it had to do with games.

              You wrote: “This is why that the more I look, the more I realize that PAST EXAMINATION IS ONLY ONE OF THE STAGES OF WORK IN ORDER TO GET BACK TO FULL STEAM, TO BEING COMPLETELY CLEAN AND ABLE.

              The part about “past examination” reminded me of the famous quote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” –George Santayana

              Then you wrote, “The rediscovery of lost wisdom and the gaining of new knowledge, exercises, drills. new adventures will all be part of the process.”

              That brought to mind this quote: “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps. (from Ability Magazine article, “Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?”)

              And you are obviously right that Scientology training needs to be both extended and supplemented.

              As ever, thanks so much for your thoughts.

              • All the answers lie in your deep past. A central tenet of scientology.

                • What about the datum that 50% of the available gains come from training? Even if you want to discount the data as having any value, wouldn’t you at least agree that the practice of auditing exerts a discipline on the person that raises their general ability?

                  When students would come back from an internship to the course room to do their next level of training, there was a noticeable difference in them. My perception was that they were more self-confident and sharper – more able overall. This is another one of those things that I wasn’t looking for or even thought about before I observed it.

                  • That is precisely the problem of requiring membership – and training – in the field of psychotherapy. What is the source of the ‘gain’? Addressed in detail in my book. You are a member of religion that has as a central tenet that ultimate answers lie in the deep, infinite, and unreachable past. Also addressed in the book. Not that it will have any effect on you.

                    • “Not that it will have any effect on you.”

                      If you’re using reverse psychology on me, I’ll take it as good intentions towards me. Maybe even an indirect vote of confidence – I think that’s the second time!🙂

          • Mark N is referring to somebody without a body, stuck in between lives, being a “hungry ghost”.
            It is a perfect example of Scientology’s corruption of innate awareness states into some kind of religious mythology. Hubbard use that spin to crate his own “report back scenario”.

            Scientologists really need to inspect that crap that Hubbard sold them.

      • It is not your own experience .. it is from another, and I can not ask him for himself .. I myself know nothing about change of awareness .. I refer to the awareness scale of LRH .. LRH gave them numbers (do not know why) .. it goes from Source down to No Existence .. for me, you can be aware of both at the same time .. and following you are aware of any level as givem from LRH at the same time .. is this that what you mean with a snap .. which would then mean it is changing viewpoint and take over anchor points ..

        Let’s say you go to the station on venus (as visualized in Odysee 2000 from Stanley Kubrik) .. means you change viewpoint and get new anchor points and are aware of this new space ..

        In Death, you change surely anchor points, because the stable data (the body) is not longer useable as a terminal. The body is death.

        In Birth, you have a new terminal, but with which anchor points? The awareness of a baby as a baby is more or less pure .. anchor points are in a small space ..

        Do you see in which field I speak? LRH speaks about it in a certain way, but it seems his look about .. not mine .. so and it goes down to the point that his idea of a thetan is not my view of the affairs ..

        This blog is called “Deconstructing Scientology” .. so I come up with this matter, because scientologist believe they run from one body to another since billion of years .. and when they knock out all this banks they have freedom .. freedom from what?

        When I read or heard LRH it was clear to me that he spoke sometimes this way and then that way. He invented a lot of stuff which would be in the time between dead and birth .. his idea that you get implanted at this timespan goes with his ideas of engram and bank ..

        If it is true what he has reportet, then I should really go on and free me in this probably short period of time .. if it is untrue, I should not believe in ths stuff .. because it would be a trap ..

        Scientology and LRH can be deconstruct for my view about his teachings about death and birth .. for my knowing he gave only one lecture about death .. and this was on Illusion or Truth ACC .. and a part of it in the book Have you Lived before this Life ..

        Sorry, but I need somebody who has real data about it for himself .. it is not helpful to have report about persons who has nearly lost his anchor points .. because this is a fight position .. and there snaps a lot ..

    • Friend,
      if someone drops his body he also leaves the space time of this world.
      In case something happens in between life there is almost no memory of that.
      If someone has no memory of that anything could have happened.
      If someone believes in big bang then all is fine. No thetan, no between life. Life had been created after this universe created itself.
      In case you do not believe in that, then life was there first. Then souls, thetans, gods, spirits exist.
      Outside this universe there is a hierarchy, structure and seniority.

      The universe had not created you or you being aware. Nor did you create yourself. Nor did you create your body.
      But we forgot about this and can only speculate.

      This forgetting had been done.

      If someone has no memory on that he can be told everything. He can be sent back into a body anytime any place. One life Earth 1952 to 1985. Next one 1926 to 1952. Or even 1926 to 1955 (overlapping).

      The rabbit hole is very deep.

  60. Marildi: “I’m not sure what you are referring to – i.e. that scientologists are ‘taught to do this’.”

    Scientologits are taught that Thetan-mind-body are separate entities in some absolute sense.

    “Thetan-mind-body” is a single thing. These are not separate entities in some absolute sense.

  61. Here is an essay inspired by this blog.

    The Nature of Hypnotism

    .

  62. I post my last week’s activities here for all party animals who may be studying the relationship of the mind, body and spirit here on this blog:

    Last week, for certain reasons, I had about 100 times more pain in my body all week than a body is supposed to tolerate and still want to live. I also spent 2 days and 2 nights without sleep. I don’t take narcotics because I have had an idea there is still value in being awake if possible. But what did I do instead of giving up the body? I went shopping.

    I posted a mile long comment on this blog last Thursday and then I went shopping and I did errands all week. I ran around sort of being dead. And it wasn’t so bad. It was interesting because my body and mind were hindered so I had to do things myself. In that condition running around town on errands I noticed every single person I saw looked beautiful to me. Everyone had such an attractive presence that was clearly not physical. I fell in love with every woman I saw. I felt that I wanted to shake hands with every single man; felt a kinship with every single child. Marty’s essays rang more clearly. But I looked at things. I touched cars in parking lots and wished they were mine. The physical universe was very attractive. My brain and body wasn’t working too well so I had to step up to the plate myself. Lots of thing LRH had said kept coming up for me and seemed correct and helpful too. 100’s of things I’d read from LRH came up for me as being true and I haven’t read any LRH in a decade! That is encouraging I think. It wasn’t a discussion about LRH but his research results was pouring up for me by the barrel load. And I’ve only read and listened to part of his vast mind-body-spirit tech. I have studied all of his administrative technology however. This report may have value as research information for anyone researching the body, mind and spirit relationship. For anyone who doesn’t find a use for the stuff LRH researched and published it is possible you might have a use for it when you die. And as well, the love I felt for everybody during this week, and I even felt some love for the church people, I think is possible as to how LRH started out his life and lived it. I think he cared. I felt a rant coming, so I’ll stop here.

  63. For those intersted in a deeper look into what the CoS actually does, I recommend this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

    First described by Gregory Bateson around 1950, the concept of the “double-bind” was adopted and studied by psychologists like Jay Haley and others. They studied, essentially, “crazy-making” communication, and some believed it was the interpersonal component in making some people “schizophrenic”, aside from any genetic tendency. A double-bind is more complex than the ordinary “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. I think the CoS exemplifies this type of communication.

    • iamvalkov,
      I noticed the “double bind” in Scientology towards the end of my stay in
      1989. When I took a fresh look at Scientology in 2009, after having been out for over 20 years, I saw mostly “double bind” even in Hubbard’s core teachings.
      I called it “double perception” but is is essentially the same thing. People in Scientology are trapped in many “double binds”. The ones who stay in simply work the confusion into logic.
      GMW

  64. Here is Gregory Bateson’s Amazon page:
    http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Bateson/e/B000AQ27PA/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1411017370&sr=1-2-ent

    And of particular interest are books by Jay Haley. He worked with and chronicled much of Milton Erickson’s work, and was th efounder of “brief therapy” and “strategic therapy”, both approaches to handling just the problems a person needed handling, rather than selling them on a “course” or “Bridge” to an uncertain destination. He was a deep student of hypnotic techniques.

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=jay+haley+books&sprefix=jay+haley%2Cstripbooks%2C242

  65. This thread seems to be all messed up. What happened to the sequencing of replies?

  66. Marty: “My failures over the past three years in attempting to help former members graduate from the subject informed a whole new line of research into some of the darker arts that L. Ron Hubbard mastered to make people so apparently incapable/unwilling to learn.”

    I believe that the success here would have been to make former members to see Scientology for what it is. Obviously, this would mean to take a person with a viewpoint interiorized into Scientology, and get that viewpoint to exteriorize from Scientology. Exteriorizing the viewpoint would mean getting the person to look at Scientology data in a broader context that includes other similar subjects. A failure would mean that very few people were willing to look at Scientology data in a broader context.

    I do not know how Marty organized his course. All I know is that one cannot fight indoctrination with reverse indoctrination. Freeing a person from indoctrination would require a lot of granting of beingness.

    Personally, I would take the following approach.
    (1) Expose the person to a wider context of which Scientology is a part,
    (2) Allow the person to re-evaluate Scientology in that context.
    (3) Help him along in that re-evaluation as needed. But let him evaluate for himself.
    (4) Some may be able to re-evaluate faster than others. So, let them take their own time.
    (5) Do not rush them to any conclusions. You just want to get them started on this road.
    (6) You cannot apply a pre-set criterion of graduation to them. To me the criterion for success would be that the person has become familiar with the wider context, and he has started to re-evaluate Scientology data.
    (7) I would graduate him when the criterion in (6) is met.

    I don’t know the criterion that Marty used. Hopefully, it was similar to the above.
    .

  67. The problem with “deconstructing” Scientology, or anything else for that matter, lies in the very nature of “deconstruction”. This idea or philosophical process is (perhaps purposely) defined in vague and obscure terms. Check out the following English Dictionary definitions and see what you think:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deconstruction
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deconstruction
    One may also check out the International Encyclopedia of Philosophy if one really wants more “clarity”.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/deconst/
    Even though this last site’s definition states, “to deconstruct is not to destroy”, if one follows the descriptions of the process described on this site it is obvious that its purpose is to dismantle (primarily wording) for the PURPOSE of finding errors in that which is being “deconstructed” rather analyzing plus points as well as the minus points in arriving at one’s conclusions or conjectures.
    All of these definitions of “deconstruction” indicate the intention to look specifically for the negative rather than to simply look.
    Claiming to be using the process of “deconstruction” announces a renunciation of infinity valued logic and balanced analysis.

    • Scientologists can really get their panties in a twist with those dictionaries. Try this,
      Merriam Wesbster, deconstruct 2. : to take apart or examine in order to reveal the basis or composition of often with the intention of exposing biases, flaws, or inconsistencies.
      If you don’t see the need or utility for that, then God bless you.

      • Well, I don’t wear panties …not that there is anything wrong with that. 🙂
        But I do use dictionaries for the purpose of understanding words that people use to communicate, as do you.
        And studying all of the definitions of a word and other dictionary entries, as we learned from Hubbard, gives one a broader understanding of that particular word.
        But the definition you chose for “deconstruction” actually illustrates the point I was making when it says:
        ” to take apart or examine in order to reveal the basis or composition of often WITH THE INTENTION OF EXPOSING BIASES, FLAWS, OR INCONSISTENCIES.” (Capitalization added for emphasis.)
        A balanced analysis on the other hand is always looking for and acknowledging both the positives and negatives in the subject being examined.
        If one or the other is emphasized or ignored, then the result will be an incomplete report which results in a skewed analysis, which in turn can result in a false report.

        • Wake up.

        • Espiritu, the part of the definition that you put in all caps was preceded by the word “often.” So from that, we would have to admit that it isn’t ALWAYS the case that deconstruction is done with that intention.

          But I understand what you mean by “a balanced analysis” as opposed to there being “confirmation bias,” which is defined as follows in a Wikipedia article titled “Cognitive Biases”:

          “The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.”

          Actually, that’s just one type of research bias in a long list presented in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

          • I agree, Miraldi. True that theoretically deconstruction would not necessarily have to concentrate on the negative. However, as that definition says, it “often” does. The other definitions also imply or in some cases actually state that implicitly searching for the negative is part and parcel of “deconstruction. I think it is fairly obvious that this is the usual application of “deconstruction”. It seems to me that there is a “cognitive bias” built into the deconstruction process by its very nature.

            • I hear you. I think there is a lot of truth to what you say.

              Btw, funny Seinfeld joke you made. “…not that there is anything wrong with that.”😀

    • To me, “deconstruction” is to look at a subject in a wider context than that of the subject itself. This allows for better examination of its concepts for inconsistencies.

      Resolving inconsistencies may result in the destruction of some concepts and the strengthening of others. It is as simple as that.

  68. christianscientology

    I find myself going P.T.S. when I write on Marty’s blog and especially on this thread of Deconstructing Scientology.

    I see no reason to deconstruct anything for any other reason than to fix it or throw it away. Ever since I have known about Scientology I have been a firm believer in either handle it, disconnect or remain P.T.S.

    If I have a domestic appliance that stops working my first action is to deconstruct it in an effort to find out why it has stopped working. If I find the fault and fix it that is great and the situation is handled. If the fault is not worth fixing then it goes down the dump and I disconnect.

    Scientology at the bottom line is a set of tools in a tool box. Either they work for you or they don’t. If they work – great, if they don’t work then fix them or disconnect. Scientology does not work to the degree that the factor of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is not seen as an integral part of the subject. This is the missing/broken part, fix that and Scientology runs just fine.

    This is why I call myself a CHRISTIANSCIENTOLOGIST because
    LOVE without understanding is ineffective
    UNDERSTANDING without love is dangerous
    LOVE and UNDERSTANDING is DIVINE.

    Love and ARC
    Pip

    • Pip: “Scientology does not work to the degree that the factor of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE is not seen as an integral part of the subject. This is the missing/broken part, fix that and Scientology runs just fine.”

      I don’t think that I have seen UNCONDITIONAL LOVE properly defined even in Christianity. It is something very subjective. As long as it remains subjective it is prone to misinterpretation.

      How does one see unconditional love as an integral part of Scientology? The concept of Affinity does not come close to it because there are too many justifications in Scientology to put affinity aside.

      Was unconditional love used to handle Lisa McPherson? I don’t think so. Public relations of Scientology were more important.

      Is unconditional love applied by all Christians? I don’t think so. My guess is that this is such a vague concept that it cannot be taught without hypnotic conditioning.

      • christianscientology

        Vinaire

        Unconditional love is not easily defined although it is well expressed in Galatians 5:22/23 “But the fruit of the Spirit is, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”. Even though it is subjective once experienced it is impossible to misinterpret. It’s a bit like “falling in love” when it happens you know it has happened.

        There is NO LOVE in Scientology. Scientology is about “nuts and bolts”. The inventor of some fancy new nut and bolt might love that fixing but it does its job irrespective of whether you love it or hate it. Any love that is in Scientology is not in the tech but in the person who is applying the tech. Scientology works proportionally to the amount of FREE THETA that is in the operator. AFFINITY and LOVE are completely different concepts. You can fake closeness to another person, and at the same time hate their guts that is why so many people feel betrayed by Scientology. A technology is AMORAL and is at effect of the user. Don’t blame Scientology for the shortcomings of human beings.

        Lisa McPerson’s situation was badly handled, the result of putting SURVIVAL before COMPASSION.

        No! of course unconditional love is not applied by all Christians but then Christianity is not the bench mark. JESUS IS, and yes Christians are as susceptible to hypnotic conditioning as anyone else is, but that does not change their aspiration to be CHRISTLIKE.

        Love
        Pip

        • It appears that the only way to understand Unconditional Love is to accept Jesus as a package.

          This acted as a trap also, because the Church could add all kinds of things in that package. It must have been done for Dark Ages to come about.

          This is an intersting parallel between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scientology.

          So, what do we learn from all this? Stay away from ideologies. Look for yourself and practice mindfulness (see things as they are non-judgmentally).

          .

  69. Christianity has been more deeply hypnotic than Scientology can ever be.

    • Vin said: “Christianity has been more deeply hypnotic than Scientology can ever be.”

      And Islam (Moslem, when I first heard it) pushes it’s followers toward self degradation, the degradation of others and extreme overts. An excellent way to entrap people. I have found no rose bush (philosophy, religion) which has no thorns.
      Mark

  70. What I actually posted was that logic had its limitations, not that it was “invalid”. It is valid as far as it goes, no more and no less.

    I am with you Alanzo, logic is not always logic because of his limitations .. so my comment may not meet your point ..

    So on, logic goes with ARC .. doesn’t matter what LRH has said abut it, it is simply how you look at it ..

    So see, I met this wife and her understanding of ARC was how much she was beloved .. had nothing to do with ARC .. but with the ARC others gave to her. It means, when she had an ARCX she claimed that others did not stay in love with her .. she claimed never that she failed herself to stay in ARC .. she claimed only when she felt not beloved that she has an ARCX

    Basically it is a SerFac .. strange one .. such things are not logical .. in this case it is only a bad MU .. but she run with that up to OT VII. Logic? There was never an auditor who got this illogical concept of her .. so when she get one word where she feels herself not beloved .. she dramtize an ARCX ..

    There is no logic in it .. it is logic for her .. but it is not logic ..

  71. I think the Church of Scientology has gone into the valence of the reactive mind. They have P.C. folders that they cull data from to throw out words and phrases and incidents to restimulate people if possible on the Internet and through email contacts. I think they have gone full blown into the the valence of the reactive mind. Anyone that can distance themselves from it would be doing themselves a big favor. Any association with it should be cancelled. That is, if you still have a goal to be clear. The Church has mocked itself up as a reactive mind under the leadership of David Miscavige. Full of doubt, introverted, self invalidating, reactive as opposed to pro active, way below 2.0 on the tone scale and a fully dramatizing psychotic.

  72. The prime trick of hypnotism seems to be to compartmentalize areas of understanding. This way something that is obviously irrational, can be made to look rational within the small compartment. The trick is then to confine the attention of the person to that compartment, and he would not be aware of the irrationality of his thinking and actions. This is the process used in cults, such as, Scientology.

    A good exercise is to take something that you have taken for granted as being rational, and then examine it within a larger context than what you have been allowed to.

    Here is an interesting example from science of all places. The universe should be considered as a whole per its definition. If people talk about “multiverses” then there is still a superset called UNIVERSE that would include all the multiverses. Some people are trying to convince us that instead of a universe there are multiverses. By carving out a suitable multiverse some hypotheses have been forwarded as rational, which may not have strict scientific proof. This is being attempted with the String Theory.

    We can play with these multiverses, but the superset will always mean a UNIVERSE.

  73. I’ve become somewhat of an expert on firewood. I’ve learned that good wood will burnout punk wood. Also, punk wood will smolder and set up the conditions for a chimney fire, a serious matter.

    What’s my point and (if I may a Metaphor)………

    Scientology became ‘punk wood’ because it was not allowed to be tempered (burnt) by objective examination by its own creed.

    LRH’s creation is a smoldering stinking mess. Who’s responsible?

    Shouldn’t we start at the self-proclaimed Founder and his blatant crap?

    That Ron had some ultimate solution to this universe and others is as delusional as any I could ever fictionally come up with.

    It is true: We should move on.

  74. andreas vonlanthen

    Scientology
    and you by seek😈!!!!!!

  75. Pingback: Scientology Thought Control