Non-Peakers vs. Peakers

Abraham Maslow was a 20th Century psychologist who did a lot of work in the field of the psychology of spirituality and religion. He carried on a tradition started by William James in the late 19th Century. James and Maslow observed that there was a great divide that made reconciliation of materialist thought and spiritualist experience daunting if not impossible. For a primer, see Maslow’s Religions, Values and Peak-Experiences and James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience. In summary, they understood that the spiritually-inclined could not be understood or taken seriously by a class of materialists. Maslow referred to the latter as ‘non-peakers.’ That is, people who seemed constitutionally incapable of peak experiences, a term he coined for personal transcendent spiritual events. These have variously been described as glimpses of or connections to non-duality, unity consciousness, or God.

Whatever the description, the peak experience by its nature defies words. The futility of relating such through language was noted 2,500 years ago by Lao Tzu in the opening verses of the Tao Te Ching: the unnamable is the eternally real. General Semanticist Alfred Korzybski put it this way in the 20th Century: the map is not the territory.

More recently physicists have applied science to validate Lao Tzu and other Eastern sages (and in a way the likes of Korzybski, Maslow and James too), see The Tao of Physics – Fritjof Capra, The Unobservable Universe – Scott Tyson, The God Theory – Bernard Haisch, Biocentrism – Robert Lanza; to name but a few of many. In various ways the authors argue that the evolution of science is beginning to reveal the accuracy of what spiritualists have attempted to describe since antiquity as the true nature of the universe.  It is a nature that transcends the limitations of language and two-value logic.

In his essay “The Will To Believe” William James addressed why the materialist/spiritualist debate is a dead end street. It is because while materialists write off any spiritualist argument as being predicated upon belief, the materialist’s ‘certainty’ of the dual nature of the universe is just as strongly founded upon faith. To quote U2, both sides are coming from “a place that has to be believed to be seen.” But, the materialist is dead certain he is not. A better appreciation for the truth of James’ conclusions can be found in Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything. In a simple, matter-of-fact manner Bryson demonstrates that all branches of science rely upon faith in theories.

Having spent three decades exploring scientology and another decade examining its nemesis, the Anti-Scientology Cult (ASC), I believe the answer to the ASC-Scientology perpetual conflict may lie in the observations of James and Maslow. As much as ASC’s Scientology debunking is embraced by the infotainment, scandal-obsessed media –  which ASC’s leaders have chortled effectively makes Scientology fair game – the ASC is more of a belief-based culture than Scientology is (a self-acknowledged religion).  ASC’s means of attempted conversion to its materialist world views can be  more zealous and coercive than anything it accuses Scientology of.  Attempts to ameliorate ASC’s extremism have been met with the most vicious, surreptitious back stabbing; carried out with crusade-like fervor.

But, put all that hypocrisy aside for the moment – it leaves a lot of room for debate. Let’s focus on one  fact that cannot be disputed. It is published for the world to see. That is, all ASC fora (Underground Bunker, Mike Rinder’s blog, Ex Scnsts Message Board included) default to making ruthless fun of that which Scientologists swear Scientology does for them spiritually. While wrapping their periodic scandal-mongering around a noble reform flag, ASC sites most consistently revel in denigrating professed results of Scientology applications as nothing but the bunk. It is a critical component of ASC membership. It justifies all of its ass clown hijinks against Scientology. It operates like a bedrock article of faith. The highest attainment in ASC is the firmly expressed certainty that peak experiences are delusions of the weak minded.

Those who got something useful from their Scientology experience but ever felt afraid or embarrassed to share it might agree with some of this. They might also reinstate the power of their peak experiences by perusing some of the references cited above.

273 responses to “Non-Peakers vs. Peakers

  1. Thank you.

    Quoting one of my favorite Tibetan teachers — from a very long and respected family lineage Dzongsar Khysentse Rinpoche:

    “If you underestimate relative truth, If you overestimate ultimate truth this becomes a violent path.”

    Clearly what we are witnessing is that ASC as well as current Scn adherents ARE a violent path.

    Ridicule by the way is violent to some. Note the suicides committed by youngsters who have been bullied or ridiculed on line.

    Dzongsar Khysentse is not a stay in a cave teacher — he is the successful film maker of “The Cup” (about soccer) and “Travelers and Magicians” – as well as the head of a large foundation that he started.

    Windhorse

    • Agreed. And to those on the UB who have laid claim to ‘loving’ Marty and Mosey and ne’er having breathed a bad word, I refer you to all the oh-so-funny recent shoops of Marty freely distributed across the various ARS and Facebook forums. You ‘love Monique’. Really? So you must think ‘Monique’ finds the cruel accusations and characterisations of her husband as hilarious as you do?

      • Sam, the only kind of ‘love’ most of these self-righteous, self-deluded hate-spewing clique members know is that psychopathic “beat them for their own good” ‘love’ of the psychotic child abuser.

        Michael A. Hobson
        Independent Scientologist

  2. Gerhard Waterkamp

    Not 100% sure I share this view about peak experiences in Scientology. In my analysis to the most part they are fake and a delusional shadow of the real thing. The hype and silliness of the ‘enlightened’ in Scientology makes this IMO abundantly clear.
    A true transcendent experience occurs is a very intimate thing and for sure not something you advertise with a bullhorn. You leave that to the snake oil salesmen and advertising their fake derivate.
    I also disagree that Mike Rinder’s site necessarily ASC. Day for day the CO$ lies and deceives people creating real damage, not only financial but also spiritual. Shining light and making fun of this delusional world is a worthwhile effort as it can save people from falling into the pit and being damaged.
    So not everybody or everything criticizing Scientology is ASC just based on that fact.
    What makes ASC ASC is the unbridled narcissistic arrogance, nastiness and delusion combined with the same disregard for values of basic human decency as one finds it in the church.
    The reason for Hypocrisy is the absence of any true connection to self. Knowing yourself you know your values and they are what is guiding you. Without it you are left with a ‘camp’ mentality. He/she is in the other camp so anything she/he does is bad and vice versa.

    The reason Trump is able to garner so much support despite his own hypocrisy is just the proof that this problem is not limited to Scientologists of all kinds. The loss of values, which are IMO a sign of awareness to a higher plane, leaves an individual all to often to this ‘camp’ mentality.

    It is the role of Religion to offer a path to this awareness letting an individual feel its own connection and develop his own values.

    There is the magnitude of the crime: Scientology claiming to be a religion as it actually takes the values away from an individual and replaces it with a delusion and fake spirituality. Thus you have the “value free” individuals in the church and ASC doing the same thing having at each other.

    I do not think there is any more clear proof of the destructiveness of Scientology as in this scene playing out. And anybody giving Scientology the credit for peak experiences is just plain failing to carefully examine the existing scene.

    • Pretty much agree. I think if Scientology were everything it claims to be its stats really WOULD be straight up and vertical. The Scientology experiment was an interesting study in human nature, but as a vital new humanitarian/religious force it is an utter failure on every level.
      I think it’s time to drown the baby in the bath water, smack its parents upside the head, and move on to more interesting and progressive philosophies.

    • There is only one prerequisite for a transcendental experience: total absorption of the mind into pure consciousness.

      And that can take place anywhere. It is accompanied by great joy and an expanded sense of awareness.

      It happens in Scientology, a bad accident, near death experience, meditation, being saved in the Christian sense, sitting on a park bench alla Ecart Tollie, being slapped on the chest by a liberated sage.

      When the mind dissolves and we become aware of our incorporeal nature, that is the condition required for peak ecstatic perception. It’s experience is beyond the reach of the mind. But when it is experienced, the mind comprehends it’s nature.

      Reason, speculation, deductive or inductive reasoning is impotent to bring this state about.

      It is experienced when we dissolve the incessant occitaions of thought.

      When these gross waves of mind are neutralized, the nature of this state is self revelatory and self existent.

      It is who and what we are in essence.

    • Yes, Mike Rinder is one of the good guys.

    • Rhea A. White, (Secretary of the American Parapsychological Research Association and friend of Ingo Swann’s) coined the term „Exceptional Human Experience” (EHE) to distinguish it from just exceptional experiences:
      „One aspect of EHEs that makes them exceptional is that they are unforgettable – no matter what explanation is offered for them.
      On the other hand, when a reasonable explanation is presented for an exceptional experience, the experience is usually dismissed and forgotten.
      If it cannot be dismissed, then the experiencer needs to pay special attention to it. It then becomes personal, as if directed at the specific person involved, and it begins to affect the person.
      Then it is no longer simply a past event. It has become a growing, dynamic experience that is somehow related to or relevant to the person and will not go away.
      It requires that the experiencers deal with it, or somehow incorporate it into their reality threshold.“
      Now in Scientology many of us have experienced EHEs (or peak experiences). These are the reasons I believe that Ex-Scientologists remain connected to the subject and the Tech. These peak experiences cannot completely be invalidated, that however much one tries, they will not quite go away…
      They are in my opinion also the reason that most of Ex-Scientologists, even when they have „wasted“ fortunes or tens of years on staff or in the SO, when asked, whether they regret it, say: NO!

      Marcel Wenger

    • Very well said and I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.

    • QED on Gerhard and his post here,

      who has been one of many open invalidators of the Scientology experience in certain venues. Complete with the peer pressure and introverting guilt aimed at those of us daring to say the tech did and does some of us some good.

      It’s actually just a huge lie (and re-write of history) that many people didn’t see actual value in the technology (becoming the auditors), and then that they and others didn’t experience the actual, tangible benefits of focusing on various zones of life and directing attention to be focused on useful therapeutic targets within a safely constructed talk therapy (safe in the sense of session methodology, -not- the church environment).

      The “tek” (as the word “technology” became transposed in the ASC environment) was once correctly seen as the “bait” for what became the “trap.” Now after a long line of “my experience was worse than yours/ my response to it is tougher” (see also “Games People Play”: “Ain’t it Awful?”) it has become just “tek” – all merely some kind of “hypnotic mind control” (admission by the way, that it is some kind of an effective tool, without admitting it can cut both ways depending on context and intention of its use).

      I also have to take exception to your interpretation of Marty’s post, just because Rinder’s blog is included in the list of “ASC fora.” It is not the content of Mike’s blog that is being placed in this category, but the typical ASC crowd reaction to the revelations posted there. It is a “free speech” zone to Mike’s credit, and people there take liberal swipes at LRH and it inevitably includes the now-familiar, knee-jerk conclusions that “it was all a fraud” and therefore “you can’t have experienced anything good in it.”

      (This whole line eventually morphs as per Marty’s current posting above and the one that followed it, into “…it never did anyone any good – it was all a fraud – we were all deluded – gosh we were so dumb…”)

      As I see it, Mike Rinder has provided a highly valuable service to our broader community, extending Marty’s earlier work once done here and helping people make the transition out, with the kind of information given that fits their frame of reference. That it is also going to be a haven for the less cool heads amongst all of us concerned, is inevitable with such a free moderation policy. But unlike other, similar forums, Mike wisely stays at a safe distance from the ugliness in the pit, and so it never really gets so ugly.

      The most astounding and frankly inexcusable, “invalidations” (ad-hom or overly-generalized attacks) are done by those who continually ignore the numbers on orders of magnitude, of all those sincere souls from 1948 to the present day, who in spite of LRH ego and misrepresented motivations, put their considerable talents into the therapy angle of a unique attempt to put philosophy into action, and made -that- part of it sometimes work wonders.

      I think the knee-jerk invalidators – when they are not actually themselves deeply wounded, and so remain understandably in violent rejection of the whole package – want to take refuge in the fact that the psych and pop-psychology environments still have not completely caught on to the psychological roots of the numerous and extensive uses of logical fallacies embraced by those seeking to justify a position and/or engage in all-out war.

      These are those common, cultural blind spots that would surrender to even a casually – even self-administered – honest reflection along the lines of “You Can Be Right” – a deceptively simple and tame process for effectively getting a person “down off his high horse.” And some of what critics charge is a Scientology blind-spot (“scientology thinking”) is actually an American blind spot that fuels both sides of these discussions. This country has long been choking on its own “rightness” in being the long-running, unwitting pawn of royalist world politics fighting its wars, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the post-traumatic-stress era following 9-11, 2001.

      Hubbard did many things apparently, just to satisfy his personal whims and make himself right, that in his dishonesty and hypocrisy deeply hurt others. It is to his credit though, that he declared Scientology free of politics – something few other groups – including notably ASC – are capable of even contemplating.

      That is to me, the whole underlying value of Marty’s post here. He is getting at a deeper “Why” – if you will – about the polarization of the actual wounded and their numerous, oh-so-righteous hangers-on, against on the other end, an extremely complex and brilliantly evolved “religion” (yes in quotes, because of its overall effects on the human behavior of participants, not because it does not provide a genuine path of spiritual enlightenment for some). Neither belief-based side seems capable of coming off their extreme positions anytime soon.

      At some point the Scientology rabbit hole takes a 180-degree turn, and one finds that there may well be an even more sinister operation ongoing of consciously and unconsciously sequestering valid and valuable mental technology inside not just titanium vaults, but in the above-ground vault of odious authoritarian cults opposed by multiple, sometimes-odious authoritarian counter-cults.

      Both are guaranteed by human nature (given what they were handed – that toxic $cientology package eventually brought about in efforts to -supposedly- make it more available) to continue sequestering valuable answers and techniques long into the next slavemaster eras.

      And many of the medical doctors and psychiatrists in their equally odious authoritarian cult for the most part, remain just as they were in 1950 – in complete denial or ignorance of any effort to understand spiritual distress and existential despair, and continue going through prescription pad after Rx pad for their convenient and commercial chemical alleviation solution – and so on it goes.

      In fact, it is open to question whether or not Hubbard himself was part of that sequestering process – so powerful a flow it is (it is even taking over post comments here) – and whether it was intentional on his part or just on the part of those “above his pay grade” (i.e. – was he a “rogue” agent, or a committed agent playing the “rogue”? – both? – did he even know which he was?).

      And if it was indeed Hubbard who mainly failed to demonstrate sincerity in his stated goals of resolving this impasse between science and spirit in an accessible and understandable manner, then let him stand guilty as should be charged. At no time has his hypocrisy ever been more obvious than today, after the connecting of dots made possible by modern Internet communication.

      Hubbard is also by the way, for Scientologists reading this, the actual “hidden third party” behind a good lot of these (ASC vs. Church, Tony vs. Marty and vs. DM church, Old v. New Independents, ) “unresolvable conflicts.” And I do not say that with a whole lot of rancor or bitterness, but only after long study and working through most of that inevitable bitterness. LRH planted the very “hidden data line” in the public he claimed wasn’t there, with arbitrary and commercially-motivated confidentiality, Flag Orders, secret advices and even secret anti-staffmember briefings including the FEBC tapes. And he pitted “help the person” Tech, against authoritarian-abitrary and control-based, Admin. He even pitted the “upper levels” against the widely-celebrated (even privately amongst a lot of the ASC as admittedly therapeutic) “lower levels.”

      As he succumbed in the “maybe I’ll take you with me” range near the end of his days, he boasted recklessly in writing to the highest attainees of his upper levels that they still had yet to “find out who they really were.” He also had stated before in so many words – both secretly and openly in different ways – that “lower level” gains were “nothing” in comparison (is it any wonder that the primary activities in the Independent field are centered around the “new OT” upper levels?).

      Hubbard was one incredibly “PTS” (“bipolar” – cyclically evil alternating with saintly) being who lived in almost continual rage (and illness) – perhaps a lot of which was at selling his soul to the very masters he claimed to be in opposition to (find out for yourself whether 30 years after his death and 60 years after the founding of Scientology, the government is willing to release ANY of his intelligence files! – “Denied for Reasons of National Security”? – Why that? And why does ex-Village Voice reporter Tony Ortega fly into a foaming rage and personal attacks every time I bring that salient fact out where he finds me doing it?).

      L. Ron Hubbard – perhaps one of the “greyest hats” (white hat=good guy) that ever lived – once tried to convince us (and himself, I suppose – back in 1966) that there were no such “grey hats”!

      There are an awful lot of people who apparently feeling infinitely betrayed, deep-down relish the concept of joining the dark side of the man in destroying his own creations – and this is of course, their right – rather than engage in the seemingly hopeless effort of understanding just how and why these creations were once energetically and perhaps even sincerely attempted, and why they had to come about in our place and time…

      – not – in the way that they did, but in the way that they ‘should have’ done.

      • Wow. Awesome post, Watchful Navigator.

        Would you clarify what you meant by “that toxic $cientology package” in this sentence:

        “Both [“odious authoritarian cults opposed by multiple, sometimes-odious authoritarian counter-cults”] are guaranteed by human nature (given what they were handed – that toxic $cientology package eventually brought about in efforts to -supposedly- make it more available) to continue sequestering valuable answers and techniques long into the next slavemaster eras.”

        Are you referring to the “Golden Age of Tech”?

        • Marildi –
          “that toxic $cientology package” refers to much of the “admin” and even parts of the tech (great examples – “Sec Checking” from the wacky “Joburg” to the coercive “Truth Rundown”) that were tainted by other-than-noble objectives secretly pursued by Hubbard in his quest to build up the very monopoly he warned us about in PDC #20.

          And – I forgot to mention the OSA secret orders as another “hidden data line.”

          To re-iterate a key point (sorry so much of my rant was disjointed – thanks for indulging me – I’m getting it finely tuned as I go) – I still think the technical package is unique, helpful, usable and highly valuable. I also think that the more one pores over the history (Hubbard’s biography in parallel with the technical development line) without a blind eye to Hubbard’s crimes, the more one can sensibly extract the good and delete the bad.

          Marty did a fine job of that kind of analysis in his book “What is Wrong With Scientology?” covering the Grades, as I remember – perhaps there is much more there that I don’t have to hand at the moment…

          I find that David Mayo, Clearbird and Ken Ogger (The Pilot) did a fine job of that, too, but they did not have quite as wide a data set of reports as we do now – especially after the Alan Walter posts on the old ESMB.

          • Thanks very much. That answers my question.

            In the interest of helping you fine-tune your thoughts (and mine🙂 ) would you summarize how the “Alan Walter posts on the old ESMB” would assist in an analysis of Scientology?

            • There was another point you made in the first post above:

              “these creations were once energetically and perhaps even sincerely attempted, and why they had to come about in our place and time…
              – not – in the way that they did, but in the way that they ‘should have’ done.”

              You say, “had to come about in our place and time.” Can you expand on that also?

            • The ESMB posts by original Saint Hill student Alan Walter give one a glimpse into the trouble Hubbard was getting into with Mary Sue at Saint Hill. It mentions the comment to Reg Sharpe along the lines of “hey – I’ve figured out how I can rule the world” (paraphrased) in mid-1964 right as the GPM research was dropped in favor of the Study Tech (that students Chuck and Ava Berner had brought him).

              This foreshadows the February 1965 issuing of KSW#1, written right after he’d emerged from illness which he said (to Ken Urquhart, as reported by Atack) brought him “close to death.” Following KSW #1 we find the shaping of Scientology into a cult with ethics tech and secrecy. And there are many, many more… (events which led up to abandoning Saint Hill and starting the Sea Org)…

              (these posts are neatly packaged by the way, at paulsrabbit.com )

              Also – your other request –
              “…had to come about in our place and time.” Can you expand on that also?
              – Yes –

              I think that with the end of Manifest Destiny, the American culture, at least – possibly the human race – needed a safe method of looking into the mind and a “do-it-yourself” psychotherapy for discharging trauma. This movement was started up with the release and success of Dianetics.

              I really do think there is a chance we could have become an authoritarian mental health culture had things gone along without alternatives.

              Then the movement expanded to include “applied philosophy” – a bit crudely attempted – but no one else was doing it on that scale.

              I realize that Hubbard turned that movement into a religion, and that lots of good and lots of bad things came about, as a result (isn’t that the story of the human condition?).

              The bottom line is, and my interest lies here: A free people needs a liberating, easily workable, improvement therapy, and it should be freely available to anyone without the coercive connotations of a cult (whether religious or medical).

              • Thanks much for the additional data about Alan Walter’s posts, and for the link.

                As for your answer to how Hubbard’s “creations…had to come about in our place and time” – that really struck a chord. Especially the last paragraph:

                “The bottom line is, and my interest lies here: A free people needs a liberating, easily workable, improvement therapy, and it should be freely available to anyone without the coercive connotations of a cult (whether religious or medical).”

                Beautiful perspective. I wonder to what degree that interest exists in the general population and whether it is more common among people who ventured into Scientology. Hubbard suggested it was, such as where he wrote: “That’s a big purpose. A broad field. A star-high goal. But I think it’s your purpose, too.”

                You might be the one to do a scholarly analysis of Scientology in the context of world history and improvement therapy. You write well and have the necessary knowledge – and will. Someone has to do it, before no one is left who can. It “has to come about in our place and time,” to borrow your phrase. 🙂

      • Thank you. So much, so well said.

  3. I’m with Gerhard in that I see a lot of nastiness among some individual members of ASC, but there’s a massive false equivalency here: ASC does not steal money from its followers, does not sign children to billion-year contracts, does not exploit child labor and encourage abortion, does not demand that members of a family cease to communicate with and offer comfort to each other, does not mount ongoing efforts to destroy people’s lives, does not send squirrel-busters to harass the disaffected, does not build slush funds comprising billions of ill-gotten dollars, does not build a global real estate empire with money taken from the faithful and then misrepresent the effectiveness of that empire, and on and on and on. And I don’t recall Tony asking anyone to give him all their money and decades of their lives in exchange for a peak experience.

    • “ASC does not steal money from its followers”
      Karen de la Carriere

      “does not demand that members of a family cease to communicate with and offer comfort to each other,”
      Karen de la Carriere

      “does not mount ongoing efforts to destroy people’s lives,”
      Karen de la Carriere

      “does not send squirrel-busters to harass the disaffected”
      Some picketers and Anonymous members

      Just sayin’

      • Reads like a confession to me.
        Just sayin’

      • I can’t help but notice that Timothy is talking about many members of a group while you are talking about one specific person. Huge difference.

      • That’s the funniest shit I’ve seen all day🙂 To rebuttal Karen’s statements:
        “ASC does not steal money from it’s followers” No. They just set up GoFundMe pages and lie about it. Saying they need to raise $50,000 for a Scientology project. 5 years later ya find out the money was pocketed so they could pay their rent & go on shopping sprees.

        “does not demand that members of a family cease to communicate with and offer comfort to each other,” That’s the funniest one yet. Karen constantly orders people to unfriend & disconnect from anyone who questions or disagrees with her. I am a recipient of Karen’s Scientology style disconnection policy.

        “does not mount ongoing efforts to destroy people’s lives.” Yes The ASC can and will do this. I was the victim of a pre-planned exploitation by David Love. He is a member of the ASC. He illegally recorded me & tried to have me falsely arrested. So he could make a profit from a Scientology documentary. It ruined my life because of The psychological torment I was put through. Karen did absolutely nothing about this.

        “does not send squirrel Busters to harass the disaffected” Are you kidding me? The ASC does not have Squirrel Busters. That is true. They have cyber trolls who harass the shit out of people. The ASC cyber trolls are the equivalent of The Squirrel Busters. Cyber stalking & harassment is just as bad as personal harassment.

        So..I get what you’re trying to prove. But you’re using very bad examples. Also, you’re using a horrible spokesperson for the point you’re trying to make. No disrespect intended towards you.

        • Gerhard Waterkamp

          Karen engages in black PR campaigns. Scott Campbell responded when I told him she was vicious lying about me to destroy my reputation, that this was not correct. “She wants you to die!”, that is what he gleaned for her campaign.
          So, yes the methods are the same but still on one side a nasty old lady and billion dollar corporation on the other side. The corporation has money to send private eyes to my home until the neighbors chase them off. The old lady can only pull wool over the eyes of some easily deceived schmucks.
          I still think there is no comparison between ASC and CO$ because of this.

          • Scott Campbell used to be a FB friend of mine. He’d constantly say snarky rude comments to me. I get sick of it. So I finally asked him wtf is his problem. He went off of me calling me a ‘stupid cunt bitch’ He called me a cunt about 5 times openly on my wall. He literally freaked out on me for no reason at all. People have told me that is way out of character for him and he’s a nice guy. So I don’t know what his deal was that night. I’m guessing maybe he had to much booze & had some liquid courage going on. Either way, it was very creepy. I blocked him &haven’t heard from him since.

          • I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater so fast there. There are other possible sources of FAR larger funding capabilities than the COS has, which it is just a blip on the radar by comparison.

            Not to mean COS doesn’t do the things you say, I’m sure that it does. But I don’t think Karen and perhaps others got where they are by accident. I’m sorry to have to burst any bubbles here but she just isn’t that good.

    • OK, using the ASC versus COS model here. Let’s have a look.

      *steal money from its followers.
      Scientology doesn’t “steal” money from people, it asks/pressures for donations for various somewhat spurious purposes.
      ASC outlets also do the same. Donations to support the continued activities of certain individuals are asked for and given, also for somewhat spurious purposes.

      *sign children to billion-year contracts
      No, I don’t think the ASC people do this. However, some of them probably sign their children up to eternal contracts with God for their “souls”.

      *does not exploit child labor
      Can’t answer that one, would have to see what ASC members are doing with their children. Do they make them work? Do Chores? Some could call that “exploiting” child labor, if they were being dramatic.

      *encourage abortion
      Have any ASC members encouraged abortion as an easy option to get out of the “inconvenience” of pregnancy? I’m betting yes. And for the Catholic radicals among them, who are against abortion purely on religious grounds – well, they don’t count because they’d say that, like it’s a crime always, about ANYONE who points out that abortion is an option.

      *does not demand that members of a family cease to communicate with and offer comfort to each other
      Well, I’ve seen a number of ASC members *demand* by attempted peer pressure, that my husband should leave me, that I should leave my husband, that my father should stop supporting me and offering comfort, my son should stay away from me, and in fact ALL my children should stay away from me.

      They are just as bad as scientology, if not worse in that department.

      **does not mount ongoing efforts to destroy people’s lives.
      There are some ASC members and sycophants that definitely do this. Terril Park has spent more than a decade trying to destroy my relationships with others, for example, and I consider him ASC. I could name a number of others.

      **does not send squirrel-busters to harass the disaffected
      No, they don’t, but they do send sock-puppets to harass the disaffected, every damn day in some cases.

      *does not build slush funds comprising billions of ill-gotten dollars
      I wonder about that one, I’m betting there probably are some serious slush funds back of some prominent “critics” of ASC – to stick with our model here – but I can’t say for sure right now.

      But that one and these one –

      *does not build a global real estate empire with money taken from the faithful and then misrepresent the effectiveness of that empire

      Are TOTALLY the Catholic Church, WAY more than scientology could ever dream to be. And…there are not just a few ASC members who are Catholic and pressing/controlling quite hard the “info” that Tony gets to make his “attack scientology” posts.

      Just saying.

      Virginia

      • Thank you. Good post Virginia.

      • that is some incredibly flimsy logic.

        “Can’t answer that one, would have to see what ASC members are doing with their children. Do they make them work? Do Chores? Some could call that “exploiting” child labor, if they were being dramatic.”

        the claims against the church don’t involve “chores”

        same with the abortion claim. this blog and the comment section is a testament to the kind of flimsy logic that allows a person to get sucked into scientology in the first place.

        a lot of rambling false equivalence.

        • I defer to your magnificence, hopelessly illogical person that I am, it was completely unwarranted for me to even consider such a comparison without the Logic Committee’s approval. I’ll go stand in the corner now, weeping over my inequities.

        • I agree. Even if some of her claims were right, like the chores thing w/ children, are these chores being forced to be done in the name of this ASC?? Or if I support a friends abortion it is being done in the name of ASC. Very flimsy logic indeed.

  4. Well said, Marty.

    ASC members are from that class of society who are not able to discern differences. That is one def of insanity.

    It is also of that class of society that is referred to in:

    Do not throw your pearls in front of swine, for they shall trample it beneath their feet in to their manure.

    Or that class of society which is referred to in:

    Do not throw what is holy in front of dogs.

    Dog politics: If they can’t eat it, or fuck it, they piss on it.

    Also that class of society which is only intelligent enough to bitch and complain and argue to defend their ignorance, stupidity overts and their right to be that way.

    Now all that being said:

    In the 70s I used to attend a New Thought Church, in Calgary of which the pastor often referred to Maslow in his sermons. That was well before I knew anything useful and was seriously and desperately searching for the answers to the problems of the mind and life. I searched high and low and read 100s of books and did not find any answers until in 1997 I was so sick and aberrated that I was actually contemplating suicide. But did not want to. On Good Friday of 97 I was sitting in bed crying. I realized my mind was totally screwed and I was a hopeless mess of which many tried to help me but failed. I said a simple prayer: God I want my sanity back. And fell asleep for about 15 minutes. I woke up and turned the TV on and caught a commercial in progress advertising a book which claimed to have the solutions to all a person’s emotional problems. The book was called dianetics. That is a miracle. Long story short I had a copy but did not read it. and read it then. By Saturday evening. I was overwhelmingly consumed by the book. I do not remember how, but some how I found a number and called it about 8 PM and it was the COS in Toronto. I asked for more information and they guy asked me if I wanted to come in for demo? I did not know what a demo was, but I accepted the offer. An appointment was made for Easter Sunday.at noon. I went there and got a demo from a WISE guy, because the staff guy that was assigned to me did not show for up for work. Thank God for that, because later I met the guy, and I am glad he did not give me the demo. The WISE guy was an top notch guy and a top notch bk 1 auditor. He gave me about a two and a half hour session and immediately after that I felt I was pulled out from under a rock pile. The state got better and better and I had a good release of about two hours. That was my resurrection. From then on long story short, I found my way to the fz and the Free Spirit Journal and connected with auditors starting with Bob Ross and then Robert Ducharme and continuously got better and better. Now I am doing TROM and still making improvements.

    I was sufficiently able to discern differences and separate the pearls from the garbage in scn and found my way.

    Yes, there is enough good in scn and spin off fields that a thinking discerning person can find their way and fix themselves up.

    Dio

  5. What an insightful post. I just hope this doesn’t mean you’ve already completed the housekeeping and left nothing unsaid or undone (as you phrased it). You probably have more food for thought to offer. Scientology – in all its meanings – can be the basis of a very large area of inquiry and discussion.

  6. Good article.

    I always like to make sure to differentiate between the subject of Scientology and the Church of Scientology. I have definitely had “peak experiences” using Scientology. I have also had many of these type of experiences from studying and practicing other things that are not called Scientology yet nevertheless wound up being “knowing how to know.”

    I have also had these experiences from just plain living life. In this, I have also come to realize that the journey is the goal – not the destination. These “life lessons” have also convinced me of another truth – that the lesson shall continue until it is learned.

    People need to learn their own lessons. They might learn the hard way, but sometimes that is the only way to learn.

    • Dan Koon, I have to give you credit for posting this comment. You might be misguided about certain things, I really don’t know, but you seem to have a clean heart.

  7. Chunks of the ‘admin’ tech I still find useful today. The ‘auditing’ though I pretty much despised from day one and suffered all the way up through to OT VI before deciding it was kind of stupid to pay so much money just to run a massive head-fuck on myself (or maybe I’m an SP who never made real case gain). Sure I learned things and I had massive ‘cognitions’ but nothing I don’t think I could have found following a myriad of other ‘paths’. So I got something good out of Scientology in terms of finding a tiny piece of the overall puzzle of life but on the whole the best thing I learned was how to fight them at their own game.

  8. Marty, your own site hasn’t been as non-ASC as this post implies. I agree that ridiculing Scientologists for their wins isn’t cool. While knowing (for example) that no Clear has achieved what’s described in DMSMH, there’s no denying the bunk element, especially when the CofS is now validating its members for straight donations the way they used to for training and processing completions.

    That said, spirituality is where you find it. My personal favorite is that we are all different manifestations of God, which means we are each on our own path. I respect that in others, though at times it’s easy to lose sight of this understanding.

    The irony here is this post seems to put forth the duality of you somehow being spiritually above other former Scientologists. Haven’t we all been admonished enough, Marty?

    • “While knowing (for example) that no Clear has achieved what’s described in DMSMH, …”

      Sounds like you are the one issuing admonishments. I’m glad to know someone has finally interviewed every clear and established a scientific fact at last though.

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        Oracle I have seen hundreds of Clears none came even close.
        Why don’t you give us your list of the people who have achieved the full EP?

        • When I get around to interviewing them all, I would love to forward the results to you. But it seems you have already covered that with others???? I just didn’t know. I didn’t use the words full E.P..I didn’t brag about achievements. I have not claimed to have any list. I just admit I do not know so I can not make claims for everyone’s state of mind. I am glad you and others know. Consider me uneducated about all and everything. I have said many times I am not an expert. I do not have a list prepared for you Gerhard. Please accept my apologies. Your list seems to be working for you anyway. I am sure you are more aware and more highly educated than I am. I struggle to be free of the burden of negative attitudes but it takes some intention not to mock them up. I hope to evolve.

        • The definition and EP of Clear is “No longer has *their own* Reactive Mind” (redefined a bit when NOTS was issued). Even in DMSMH, it was “No longer has a Reactive Mind”. Hubbard certainly speculated heavily on what abilities and characteristics he thought a Clear ought to possess as a result of no longer having a Reactive Mind, but as there were no Clears at the time that book was published, it could only have been (evidently over-optimistic) speculation.

          And let us not gloss over the fact that his model of the human being in Book One was an entirely organic MEST viewpoint of mind and brain being equivalent which had to be thrown out when the preclear was discovered to be some sort of spiritual being whose existence is independent of the MEST body. Lots of consequences to that fundamental change in the definition of the preclear. I’m incredulous that so many people seem to have never gotten the memo when it is plainly written in so many of the published materials in the early Red Volumes, for f*ck’s sake.

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

  9. Quite a good blog article!

    In short, my Scientology LONG detour life, prior to Scientology I was a Materialist.

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

    After unfortunately taking too much LSD, I thought that the soul was somewhat real and that “soul flying” was a real event, and thus the new age groups and mystical groups that sold “soul flying” in their various ways, were valid spiritual paths.

    I slapdashedly and hurriedly phoned up all the various groups in Phoenix, in the summer of 1975, where I was going to Arizona State University, and stumbled into Scientology thinking Hubbard’s books and charts seemed to be authoritative evidence that the Scientology exteriorization was indeed a much desired acquiring of “soul flying” or “soul astronauting” flying free of the body at will.

    Sounded like a good deal to me! Even if it took 10-20 years of “lower levels” and getting up to the “OT” bicycle riding where the top Scientologists really do get that skill to soul fly at will.

    I had drug “peaks” and sometimes intellectual “peaks” after reading some really new well laid out explanations of life.

    Me prior to Scientology, I liked Carlos Casteneda, Baba Ram Das, John Lily, so I was an almost “peaker” peaker,

    My belief in the “soul” or spirit happened suddenly, within a few weeks on the PAC RPF while I was getting audited on I think, the Basic FPRD Form (after years on the RPF and thousands of hours of Truth Rundown and hundreds of hours on sec checking, and even “repair” given by Rich Gilbert, Class 9, I got a lot of pretty good Green Form 40XXX “Resistive Cases” stuff, where you probe your prior to Scientology beliefs quite a bit, including PTS Rundown where I explored being PTS to the “intellectual” class of thinkers).,

    Anyways, in the end of my RPF program auditing, which was only getting me up to the beginning of the FPRD Forms (I had a LONG, years really, of auditing to go, I took LRH’s writings of the early 1970s seriously, where LRH spoke candidly that it took “some cases” a LOT of auditing, way more auditing that is “normal”, so I happily spent my almost 7 years in the RPF thinking that in the next lifetime I’d plug away at the rest of my “case”).

    I gave in my own mind, 125 plus pc folders of Dianetics (old standard, new NED, and even Expanded Dianetics “left side handling”) I did a pretty large chunk of Hubbard’s pretty standard auditing stuff. Not at all complete, a large amount of pretty lower level stuff, no body thetan exorcism (NOTs) at all.

    Just a lot of what I thought were genuine past-lives engrams on my Dianetics and NED and Expanded Dianetics, and also a huge huge amount of past lives “evil purposes” stuff which you get into on the Truth Rundown if you do like you are told, and you run EACH chain into past lives turmoils (confusions with their problems with their first moment of the confusion that stemmed from that even earlier “problem”, see the FPRD issues with their picture sequence of supposedly how your long ago past lives turmoil ended you up with your “evil purposes” and so forth which we are supposedly still tripping over).

    Scientology is a HUGE amount of spiritual therapy.

    I would say I “peaked” and I had prior to Scientology taken LSD, and it’s almost wrong to discuss in any positive way LSD “peaking” which is the 1-2-3 hour period when the LSD trip is at it’s “height” and you are “tripping” out of your gourd. Saying I liked it, is wrong, but back then, when I was peaking on LSD, I did have the idea that it was about the best experience ever possible in life.

    Anyways, that’s why I’d disagree, that “peaking” is only spiritual and un-understandable. I had personally some great “peak” moments on my way out of Scientology, when I realized at two points, one with my first RPF twin, and then secondly with my second RPF twin, two steps that stretched out over 7 years, and continues to stretch out today.

    I had that similar ecstatic simplicity of mind and pure ecstasy feeling during a period of auditing when I was out at Happy Valley, and Clark Morton was auditing me. And then again with my later twin Mai Wheelis, near the end of my RPF program, meaning when I concluded I should NOW, at that time in late 2001, finally fess up that I wanted OUT of the RPF, get back to real life.

    The two times during my RPF auditing when I thought I’d made up my mind, my “peak” good mindset similar to drug highs and just calm state of mind, I resolved that I should now happily get back to outside world education, basically, and get out of Scientology. But that’s not an allowed and not to be spoken “peak” result of the RPF program, although it ought to be an allowed and never disparaged option for RPFers who realize they happily wish to leave Scientology.

    Later, near the end of my 7 year RPF stint, in a two week period I came to the conclusions that my past lives were bogus, made me so happy, and that’s what happened at the end of Mai Wheeler’s FPRD auditing on me. I realized that past lives just MIGHT not be true, but my imagination. It made me so happy, the happiest of my whole RPF program, in those moments. If the RPF were a good place, it ought to allow people to leave on a “high” note, which I was, during those sessions I realized my past lives were bogus!

    And with Clark Morton’s RPF auditing, I think my “peak” moment was when I realized outside wiser minds had it over Hubbard.

    I think “peaking” can also occur when you realize something is bunk.

    Today I’m a very happy materialist again.

    The best idea of what most likely is behind he secret of the whole universe and all time and space, is the not very much spread idea of eternal return.

    I stumbled on this idea prior to Scientology, and it again is my belief of what the big all time and space pattern of the universe is, again.

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

    It’s a materialist idea, but if discussed in detail, it explains to me why everyone’s viewpoint is over eternity something that will get full and equal weighing.

  10. “I also disagree that Mike Rinder’s site necessarily ASC. ”

    This is my viewpoint also. Marty knows Mike well so may have info
    that I and others do not. I don’t recall Mike ever making fun of the
    spiritual side of Scn. Certainly makes fun of the organisation, DM,
    and possibly at times the policy. This is nearly always fact related,
    OT committee notes, and todays post about recycling the 1993
    “The War is Over” event are examples. Does Mike still appreciate
    some of the tech? It is not apparent nor is it apparent that he no longer does.

    • “I don’t recall Mike ever making fun of the spiritual side of Scn.”

      I do. For example, he mocks various OT wins that are published

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        Marildi, if those are published as great accomplishments to make others cough up large sums of money and are often the most foolish and silly statements, I think there is nothing wrong with pointing it out with humor.

        Nobody is going into the private diary of John Doe and publishes the found inner thoughts here to make fun of it.

        If the church is putting out this silliness to rip off new customers I think nobody has a real reason to complain when people comment on it.

        You make it sound as speaking out about the nonsense of the church is already a crime. I think it is still a worthwhile activity.

        The issue is much to often people get lost in the insanity of this cult and continue to carry it with them when they are out of the church. I do not think Mike is one of them.

        • “Marildi, if those are published as great accomplishments to make others cough up large sums of money and are often the most foolish and silly statements, I think there is nothing wrong with pointing it out with humor.”

          Well, Gerhard, I think you might not notice the belittling of spiritual gains because you too consider them “foolish and silly.”

          On one blog post, Mike wrote, “Here are some more outrageous claims about Super Power…” and then he presented a series of success stories and put certain sentences in red to indicate how “outrageous” they were. Here are a few of them:

          “I fully realized WHY theta has provided me the 57 perceptions.”

          “Magnetic fields produce a strong pull on the body I never would have noticed before.”

          “I got my rhythm back! Also my ability to differentiate speeds of rhythm got validated.”

          http://www.mikerindersblog.org/bob-duggans-sp-success-and-other-grandiose-claims/

          • Gerhard Waterkamp

            Marildi, what the heck has the above do with spiritual gains?
            “I fully realized WHY theta has provided me the 57 perceptions.”
            This is as fake and hollow as it gets.
            There is a difference between a spiritual experience and fake gejokel.
            Like a teenager: “Oh my god, I am so excited Justin Bieber farted. I think I see a whole new Universe.”
            Not every nonsense has to be validated.

            • “Like a teenager: “Oh my god, I am so excited Justin Bieber farted. I think I see a whole new Universe.””

              Although crass, you still made me laugh over that one because there’s some truth to that idea.

              I, too, have seen “wins” that sound more like Game Show host answers or Multi-marketing late night tv shows than anything truly spiritually uplifting or enriching.

              BUT…I don’t also then think that noone *ever* had an experience like that while re-familarizing with their own selves, even if they happened to be sitting in an auditing chair when they finally chose to do it. The chair is incidental, the being isn’t.

              Well, my 1 cent anyway.

            • Gerhard: “Marildi, what the heck has the above do with spiritual gains? ‘I fully realized WHY theta has provided me the 57 perceptions.’ This is as fake and hollow as it gets.”

              I agree that some wins are fake and hollow, but whether or not that particular one is fake would perhaps depend on one’s “filters.” Some of the 57 perceptics aren’t perceived via the normal senses of the body. One of those is “Emotional State of Other Organisms.”

              Mike was making fun of one person’s gain of being able to perceive magnetic fields, for example. I suppose anyone with the filters (beliefs) of a materialist would do the same. But, as you may know, science has its own dogma and beliefs that are materialistic. Rupert Sheldrake lays this out in this TED talk – which, btw, was at first banned by the science community.

              • These talks were not banned by the scientific community; that is not what happened at all. For info on what happened you can read about it here
                http://blog.ted.com/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/

                • Frodis 73, I got that Sheldrake’s talk was banned by TED based on the opinion of their board of “scientific advisors” – who I think we can assume speak for the orthodox scientific community.

                  I looked over the post you linked – which is a TED site. Here’s an excerpt from a different site, with documented info on the whole controversy:

                  “After the talks had already become popular on YouTube, certain activists from the atheist/materialist camp complained, leading TED’s anonymous board of scientists to determine that the talks ‘crossed the line into pseudoscience’. Unfortunately, TED’s initial critiques, scant on details though they were, proved so erroneous and/or slanderous that they’ve since been stricken out and rebuttals from Sheldrake and Hancock appended. To begin with, I recommend reading that original post on the TED blog. [The link to that post is then given.]

                  “TED subsequently set up separate discussion threads for each talk, buried on their site by the way, to house all further comments on the matter. One might expect that a more substantive, well reasoned argument for why the talks were removed would then be given there. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests from hundreds of supports of the talks, that hasn’t happened. Even TED’s curator Chris Anderson stated that ‘Maybe I’m expecting too much for this forum, but I was hoping scientists who don’t buy [Sheldrake’s] ideas could indicate WHY they find them so implausible.’” [Seven relevant links are then provided.] http://sebastian.penraeth.com/post/46115422948/teds-spectacular-fail-ideas-worth-suppressing

                  In any case, the controversy over TED banning the talk wasn’t the actual point of my post; it was the idea that science has its own articles of faith. The 18-minute video of Sheldrake’s TED talk (posted just below) regarding the “The Science Delusion,” speaks to that point.

                  • I am very aware of the whole controversy and also that that was not your point. I was just correcting you that the “scientific community” as a whole did not ban this video, it was TED talks and they remedied the situation as you can watch them on their site and many other places.

                    • Okay, thanks. You are right. Technically, it wasn’t the scientific community, at least not directly.

                      With regard to TED, I got that they were essentially forced to “remedy the situation” because of the overwhelming public outcry, which the article I linked documents.

              • Gerhard Waterkamp

                Marildi, I do not think Mike make fun of one person. The statements are taken from church publications and are usually anonymous. They get normally published to drum up new business.
                If you feel every tender plant of thought when it relates to actual or fake spiritual gain belongs in a nature reserve and under special protection then that is your opinion. And you have every right to feel that way.
                But in a greater realm and common sense and decency I think it is very well allowable to comment on those if they are made as I explained before in a public context.
                So under common sense calling Mike Rinder’s Blog a hate site is way out of left field.
                You may personally not like it, but I think it is fair and square to comment the marketing fund raising efforts, even if they allege to present spiritual gains.

                • “If you feel every tender plant of thought when it relates to actual or fake spiritual gain belongs in a nature reserve and under special protection then that is your opinion…You may personally not like it, but I think it is fair and square to comment [on] the marketing fundraising efforts, even if they allege to present spiritual gains.”

                  Sorry, Gerhard, but that is a misrepresentation of what I said. The opinion I expressed was not about ALL publicized “gains,” as some of them might very well be superficial – or even what you would probably call “fake,” but I have seen no evidence that they are not real statements. To say they are would be a typical ASC made-up “fact” in order to add more fuel to the fire. I should say “fake fuel.”

                  My point was simply that Mike has been known to pooh-pooh ACTUAL spiritual gains – which he apparently doesn’t even recognize as such due to his own beliefs and mind-set.

                • “The reason Scientology tech is rejected by the scientific community is while it does make all kinds of promises it is faking and lying at every turn.”

                  I think you’re just blowing smoke (“stating something in a way that conceals the truth”). Where does the “scientific community” state Scientology tech is “faking and lying at every turn”? That would be a very unscientific stance since there has not been a single scientific study made, as far as I know. Do you know of any?

                  “So, when you look at the long term effects of Scientology processing the evidence clearly points to personalities narcissistic in tendency and highly delusional. And I may add maybe even over sensitive, when their ‘spiritual gains’ are challenged.”

                  What “evidence” points to all that? I’d say it depends on what one is willing to look at – and on whether or not it is actually “scientology” that’s being looked at.

                  Sorry, but I don’t wish to continue going round and round with you about all this. You’ll just be stating your views and I’ll be stating mine – views based on our own experience and interpretations. It’s futile to try to take up the whole subject of scientology in one exchange, or even a whole thread – or even a whole blog/forum. Many of them have tried to do it and none could resolve it to everyone’s satisfaction, to put it mildly.

              • Well Miraldi – you’ve done it again. Here goes a few days following up on Sheldrake. Great video and a follow up I listened to. If you keep posting such things I’ll know something about everything before it’s time to meet my maker/enter the void.

                He got put in the “naughty corner” for suggesting the possibility of “paranormal” occurrences – LOL

                • Stick with me, kid.😉

                  Seriously, though, I think Sheldrake is on to something with his morphogenic fields, also called Body fields, and morphic resonance. Here’s a crash course for you, 3 minutes and 2 minutes respectively:

        • Btw, on the comment thread of that post, even Dan Koon had something demeaning to say:

          “As for there being 57 perceptics you must have missed LRH saying on a lecture (I think the Human Evaluation series) that he simply stopped at 57. He figured he had made up–er, discovered, enough at 57.”

          I don’t think Dan would ever have said “made up” if he had not been influenced (I won’t use the word “brainwashed” as ASC posters do) by all the negativity about LRH. To this day (I saw him on a very recent interview), he is a proponent of the tech. I don’t think he has ever done Super Power, so that comment was a cheap shot – but politically correct on Mike’s blog.

          • Gerhard Waterkamp

            Marildi, I hate to break it to you LRH made all of this up, end to end, top to bottom, he is source. He did use the work of others without giving credit where credit is deserved altering it to fit his needs though, yet still claiming it is all his creation.
            I also do not think knowing the true biography confirmed and corroborated by documents and numerous witnesses is being “brainwashed”. Talking like this just gives the impression you desperately try to stay willingly ignorant of the facts.
            I have done up to OT 7 several Super power rundowns, all L’s, FPR and what not.
            There was not much spiritually in all of it, instead there was plenty of misdirection, ego pampering and fake.
            And If there was any it had less to do with auditing and more with my own power of observation.

            • “He [LRH] did use the work of others without giving credit where credit is deserved altering it to fit his needs though, yet still claiming it is all his creation.”

              That’s considered “common knowledge” in the ASC, I know, but it’s not entirely true, IMO. In any case, what LRH certainly did was to build on others’ knowledge and, most importantly, created practical applications of it in the form of the tech. I realize you think little to nothing of the tech, but not everyone agrees with you on that.

              “I also do not think knowing the true biography confirmed and corroborated by documents and numerous witnesses is being ‘brainwashed’.

              This is sort of a Straw Man fallacy. I was referring specifically to what Dan Koon had thrown out, and I’ve not seen anything to corroborate and confirm that flippant remark.

              “There was not much spiritually in all of it, instead there was plenty of misdirection, ego pampering and fake. And If there was any it had less to do with auditing and more with my own power of observation.”

              It is truly unfortunate that you had that experience, Gerhard. However, I don’t think you would deny that many others had good experiences. A number of them have said so on this and other recent threads on this blog alone – and this blog doesn’t particularly attract that type of poster, from what I’ve observed.

              • Gerhard Waterkamp

                Marildi, here is the problem with “good experience”. Many have good experiences when eating overly sugary foods or other junk food. The problem is in the long run they get fat and sick.
                So citing “good experience” as a criteria is very short sighted. One has to account for the bigger picture, long term and other effects of these “good experiences”. It is called looking for the whole truth.
                That is what good science does, it collects factual data as objectively and comprehensively as possible. (there is also a lot of bad science, but that is a completely different topic in itself, and then there is fake science which is Scientology) The reason Scientology tech is rejected by the scientific community is while it does make all kinds of promises it is faking and lying at every turn.
                Remember how auditing claims to raise intelligence? Well the way they measure it in Scientology, giving the exact same IQ test with a few weeks apart, is a fraud. And every beginner in psychology knows that a test gets learned and giving the a test a second time in shorter order will result in nothing else than higher IQ values. Yet that is how it is done, because it fits the agenda.
                There is no regard for truth in Scientology, what matters is what Ron says. And if the observable facts do not agree they get bend. The most despicable thing in Scientology is skeptical thinking. You better get rid of it quick.
                So, when you look at the long term effects of Scientology processing the evidence clearly points to personalities narcissistic in tendency and highly delusional. And I may add maybe even over sensitive, when their “spiritual gains” are challenged.

            • Well, didn’t go well trying to get your quote into nice indented italics like Alanzo, Sigh.

              So I’ll just do it the old-fashioned way.

              “the true biography confirmed and corroborated by documents and numerous witnesses”

              Gerhard, I beg to differ.

              If you are referring to the “true biography” as told by the ASC, well, in a lot of ways they are just as bad a the COS in that department.

              They are both SPINNING documents (and even witnesses in some cases) in only two ways. Hubbard the Inter-Galactic Hero super Black Magic ring break-up man, and Hubbard the pill-popping failed intelligence Cult head.

              Neither one addresses the deep intelligence aspect or the many total locksteps that both Hubbard and Scientology have always had with the CIA and British intelligence in behavior modification programs.

              Please don’t get just as “brainwashed” into thinking those are your only two choices. Not that you are brainwashed, perhaps a better word would be information-controlled.

              Read MORE. Don’t stop.

              Virginia

              • Gerhard Waterkamp

                The major events in LRH live are well documented and differ greatly with from his claims. As the CO$ so the ASC has their spin doctors agreed.
                We should not forget their thinking patterns are the same.
                That is what makes it so important to really get Scientology’s way of thinking out of ones system for good.
                But there are numerous factual accounts that are from reliable sources and corroborated and one can look at those without putting some spin to it.
                The “barefaced messiah” is a well researched book.

                • Agreed.

                  With one caveat – While Barefaced Messiah does contain a number of well-documented items, it also has some rather large (and kind of important) holes in it – particularly related to the mysteriously perfect locksteps I previously mentioned. So, you’re right, in that case it’s not a “spin” on the facts, the spin is on leaving certain facts OUT.

                  Good to talk to you Gerhard, thanks for your response.

                  Virginia

            • (My reply to the above was posted under Gerhard’s other comment by mistake. I’ll repost it here.)

              “The reason Scientology tech is rejected by the scientific community is while it does make all kinds of promises it is faking and lying at every turn.”

              I think you’re just blowing smoke (“stating something in a way that conceals the truth”). Where does the “scientific community” state Scientology tech is “faking and lying at every turn”? That would be a very unscientific stance since there has not been a single scientific study made, as far as I know. Do you know of any?

              “So, when you look at the long term effects of Scientology processing the evidence clearly points to personalities narcissistic in tendency and highly delusional. And I may add maybe even over sensitive, when their ‘spiritual gains’ are challenged.”

              What “evidence” points to all that? I’d say it depends on what one is willing to look at – and on whether or not it is actually “scientology” that’s being looked at.

              Sorry, but I don’t wish to continue going round and round with you about all this. You’ll just be stating your views and I’ll be stating mine – views based on our own experience and interpretations. It’s futile to try to take up the whole subject of scientology in one exchange, or even a whole thread – or even a whole blog/forum. Many of them have tried to do it and none could resolve it to everyone’s satisfaction, to put it mildly.

      • If you have examples I’d love to see them.

        Wins and successes are often written spur of the moment in an
        excited state of mind. Not always well written. The state of “OT”,
        “cleared theta clear” if ever achieved has only been so
        spasmodically.
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spasmodically
        spas·mod·ic (spăz-mŏd′ĭk)
        adj.
        1. Relating to, affected by, or having the character of a spasm; convulsive.
        2. Happening intermittently; fitful: spasmodic rifle fire.
        3. Given to sudden outbursts of energy or feeling; excitable.

        OT and cleared theta clear have not been achieved by many if at all.
        I’ve surveyed this and I’m speaking as one who briefly did so.

  11. I looked at some of the links Chis Shelton provided with some of his videos once (I never watched his videos). While Chris was promoting an ‘ASC’ agenda he was actually forwarding agnostic materialist propaganda. I don’t know how the ‘Anti Scientology Community’ morphed into the ‘Anti Spiritual Community’ but I suspect the fundamental materialistic teachings of Atack And Beverly have much to do with the shift of focus (ducks to avoid flying missiles from the Bunkeroos)

    • I could have told you *that* was going to happen, I think it was probably part of a plan all along.

      • You don’t say?
        http://openmindsfoundation.org/about-open-minds/team-and-structure/review-board/jon-atack
        Favourite Quote:: “Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honour for many generations, in many places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that some god inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters or priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be rational, and conform your conduct thereto.” – Buddha’s Kalama Sutta (aka Jon Atack aka a gazillion socks and puppets all over the internet)
        By the way I’ve always wanted to know – how much does Atack get paid to promote his agenda on the Bunker? Tony? Karen? Is it more than Pete Griffiths was going to pay him for his ‘expert’ legal advice? (20K was the going price the last time I asked).

        • Wow. Apparently he left out an unspoken clause.

          “After examination…UNDER OUR RULES…believe what you yourself…”

          See, *then* you can proceed to have a belief. Not a truth, fact, etc. – A BELIEF.

          That’s just fricking wonderful logic there.

          (face palm)

  12. Personally I got nothing out of Scientology of value that lasted but I do understand hypnosis on a whole new level. In fact – Scientology dismantled my belief system and when I left – that crumbled. I had never felt so messed up in my life.

    No – Scientology needs to be completely destroyed … Too many lies and double speak. Ron was not “source” – he was sauced! I started smoking when I joined the most ethical group on the planet and smoked a lot due to stress from shattered life “I created” using the tech….

    I did Quit smoking using free hypnosis sessions on you tube. It worked too!

    I get a ton of help listening to Diane Langton (or some name close to that) she is “a Psych” who studied complex trauma and healing from it.

    I believe Scientology traumatizes people

    • I agree with you. Does that make me a member of the ASC?

      • Psychiatry and Psychology both have a LONG history of traumatizing people. Does that make me a scientologist?

        • So does every other medical field. They are saying we will look back on chemotherapy one day (some are already saying it) and be disgusted that we were so ignorant and cruel. Kind of like how we look back and laugh in horror that they used to drill holes in people’s heads to cure a myriad of diseases.

  13. I now believe that one of the worst things that you can do to yourself, after having been involved in Scientology, is to become an Anti-Scientologist and invalidate the life experiences you had while in Scientology.

    Many Anti-Scientologists, like Tony Ortega, are of the atheistic never-in variety. And I think that accepting their destructive assumptions about spiritual pursuits is especially harmful to anyone who ever participated in Scientology.

    Degrading and demeaning yourself as a Scientologist blocks many very valuable insights that you had during your time in. Atheistic never-ins are really never going to understand those lessons, and hanging out with them, even becoming an atheistic materialist yourself – I think – will ensure that you never learn the lessons that you personally need to learn.

    And yet so many people come out of Scientology and dive right into a group of atheistic never-ins who are incapable of understanding what happened to them in Scientology.

    It’s too bad. I think it is important to talk about this and to let people know that becoming a bitter, derisive asshole to your former self, distorting and invalidating whole swaths of your own life, is not the best way to respond to having been involved in Scientology.

    Much more productive and constructive responses exist. And these more positive responses can lead to huge, life-changing wisdom from your own experience.

    This is not to say that Scientology is a sustainable spiritual pursuit by any means. After a fews years of participation had passed, Scientology became completely unsustainable for me, as it has for the overwhelming majority of people who ever looked into it.

    But I still think it is important to exhume all the gold you can get from your time in Scientology and to move on down the road with it.

    Anti-Scientologists are never going to let you do that.

    Alanzo

    • “It’s too bad. I think it is important to talk about this and to let people know that becoming a bitter, derisive asshole to your former self, distorting and invalidating whole swaths of your own life, is not the best way to respond to having been involved in Scientology.”

      What about ex- scientologist’s that fear their being ‘nice’ (or ‘productive and constructive’) about their bad Scientology experiences (disconnection, financial destruction, lies, manipulation, creation of ‘must destroy’ enemies etc etc) may encourage others to ‘try it out’ to ‘see for themselves, being a wholly unacceptable inadvertent ‘encouragement’? Is there never a time or place to, well, just ‘complain’ about the abuses of & in Scientology?

      I’m not referring to or addressing the Anti-Scientology-Cult phenomena/folks. I’m referring to exes that were no doubt damaged by Scientology, though acknowledge the moments of value they received. Of which I imagine number in the thousands (or 10’s of thousands by now).

      People like Mike Rinder for example, and his blog followers. The Mike Rinder Blog that Marty includes in his post as being part and parcel of the ASC group (yikes).

      I appreciate your post and your insights (as to theory), but in real ‘materialist practical terms’ (lol) where would you send such (I won & I lost) exes to communicate, if communicate is what they want to do in Life?

      Martys blog?

      • Larry Moore –

        What I am talking about is not a social activity. It is an intimately personal activity where you review your life and reasons for getting involved in Scientology, as well as both the good and the bad that happened to you there, and you come to your own decisions about them in a disciplined way – without cognitive distortions or any one else’s emotions or attitudes – and without being influenced by anyone else, or any group view of Scientology.

        Again, it’s personal. Hanging with others on the internet, being disgusted all day every day, and even re-interpreting your own experiences with a bunch of other negative and toxic people is just bad for a person.

        • Thanks Alanzo, your last comment……:

          … “Again, it’s personal. Hanging with others on the internet, being disgusted all day every day, and even re-interpreting your own experiences with a bunch of other negative and toxic people is just bad for a person”…..

          ….helps me to clarify my question, being namely:

          Is there anywhere on the internet that exists (that you are aware of) where an ex-scientologist can express their ‘post scientology, disciplined reviewed, good and bad, absent cognitive distortions, absent any one else’s emotions or attitudes, absent being influenced by anyone else or any group view of Scientology, that is not labelled as (or is) either a Pro or Anti Scientology site?

          Kind of like a ‘Rodney King’ internet Scientology discussion site thing? (smiling).

          Thanks again for your initial response. Much appreciated.

    • I completely agree with you. Soon after I joined ESMB I regretted it and happily got banned. Scientology wasn’t everything in purported to be, but I got something from the experience that I personally feel was necessary in my spiritual evolution. Never-ins sometimes annoy me, because as bad as Scientology can be, the world outside it can be infinitely worse. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    • Gerhard Waterkamp

      “I now believe that one of the worst things that you can do to yourself, after having been involved in Scientology, is to become an Anti-Scientologist and invalidate the life experiences you had while in Scientology.”

      Alonso, It appears you are implicit attributing life experiences one had while in Scientology to Scientology. That is what the church wants you to believe. Life experience is the fruit of your observation, there can be a whole cirque de sole show happening around you, if you do not observe you will not gain anything from it.
      Falsely attributing is one of the tricks used in Scientology.
      Being against such a fraudulent system does only invalidate the life experiences unless one has falsely attributed them to that system.
      I learned a lot during my time in Scientology the vast majority was not what Scientology wanted me to teach.

      • Gerhard wrote:


        Alonso, It appears you are implicit attributing life experiences one had while in Scientology to Scientology. That is what the church wants you to believe. “

        It may appear that way, but I am not attributing life experiences, or even my “wins” in Scientology, to Scientology.

        I am attributing them to myself.

        And that’s my point.

        You make your own wins in Scientology. And so invalidating your earlier self as a Scientologist simply invalidates yourself.

        Alanzo

        • I think I kind of like how you put that. Invalidating self is certainly never a good idea. It’s a kind of a hamster wheel where one is chasing a put-up carrot called self – you can never quite “catch” it. I’m sure it’s endless entertainment for some, but it’s not for me.

        • Gerhard Waterkamp

          OK, thanks for the clarification. We are saying exactly the same.

          Except I would not even use the word “win”. ‘Insights” or ‘recognition’ seem to more accurate.

          • Gerhard wrote:

            “Except I would not even use the word “win”. ‘Insights” or ‘recognition’ seem to be more accurate.”

            Yes. Very good point.

            Alanzo

  14. I like these two guys, and one of them sure was appreciative of “peaking”, but both are “Materialists”

    http://bloggingheads.tv/programs/current/science-faction

    Me, I’m a blogginheads fan, and I can tolerate the MeaningofLife subsite’s discussions, where Bob Wright talks with some really high level meditators and others on all kinds of spiritual paths.

    http://meaningoflife.tv/

    But I’m a “born again” Materialist, but I enjoy the above discussions on meaningoflife where the speakers are fully literate in philosophy history and spiritual history.

    I’m for adult education, and hopefully everyone keeps adult educating themselves.

    • Another favorite I love is “School of LIfe” on YouTube

      Tons of 10 minute excellent summary of great human history thinkers, including lots of Asian great thinkers.

      https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel/playlists

      • Chuck

        For a while there, I had noticed you were promoting Mike’s GO expose videos and then you stopped and left a strange private comment about the freezone at his youtube channel (the comment then disappeared for some weird reason so he wasn’t able to answer).

        I don’t really care one way or the other if you talk about Mike’s videos or not – it’s the CHANGE that was so clearly obvious and unsubstantiated.

        So….

        Did someone tell you something bad about us? Perhaps Karen?

        I know Scott Gordon and a few others have told me of this happening behind our backs.

        Virginia

        • Things like we’re “channeling Hubbard”, or “we attack everyone that disagrees with us”, or “we’re loons/mentally ill”, or “we’re conspiracy theorists” or “we created a HASI in order to sue Freezoners” – those are just a few of the ones that I know of that have been spread around back channel (and not so back channel) quite consistently.

          • I was the first name on the section of your website devoted to collecting info to sue FZers. You and /or Virginia posted about being audited by LRH after he died.

            You deny the above?

            You now claim to have only joined CO$ to spy on it. You trained up to at least grade 3, was a GO member and Virginia reached OT 6 both in the church.

            You want to live with the truth it can be tough. Please do it properly.

            • Are you talking to Mike here, Terril? Because you’re answering my comment but it’s like you’re not talking to me.

              But, I’ll answer anyway.

              You are who first began to spread the lie that Mike created a HASI to sue FZers.

              Do you deny this? Has there ever been one “suit” by Mike against a freezoner? No. So why have you spread this lie for over a decade? What’s your purpose in doing that?

              Re: audited by LRH – no, Terril, we never did auditing with “LRH”, but yes, I certainly gave that impression – what was it, 16 years ago now?

              Do you now insist that I *did* get auditing from LRH? Ok, but you’d be lying.

              As to your being the “first name” that was merely an uploading/admin issue – it wasn’t because you were “important” as you seem to think it was, and you were not being “declared” either – which I believe is the other thing you like to lie about that.

              Here’s what you *have* been doing for over 16 years now. You have been trashing Mike and I to ANYONE who even mentions our name.

              Are you going to stop that now?

              Because if you’re not, I have no interesting in talking with you any further.

              Virginia

              • Add – I have addressed at least the “channeling” point before, but you seem intent on ignoring it because you don’t like what Mike or I said about it, in explanation.

                That’s fine, you can do that, but you don’t have a right to put words in our mouth when we have made clear our position towards both scientology and LRH.

                It’s as if you wish we did actually have those views, because you think it’s easier to attack us with.

                Not so easy now for you apparently, other than you have attempted to modernize your attacks to call me at ESMB – what was it? – oh yeah, a “serial conspiracy theorist”.

                You have some serious issues in being abusive to women, me, for example, and you have even gone so far as to stroke my son in considering his mother a “true sp”, someone whom he has to take psychiatric drugs to recover from (you did that on WWP forum a few years back) and an all around terrible person. That’s just disgusting Terrill, and you need to just stop.

                Virginia

              • “As to your being the “first name” that was merely an uploading/admin issue – it wasn’t because you were “important” as you seem to think it was, and you were not being “declared” either – which I believe is the other thing you like to lie about that.”

                For someone who denies they had a section of a website for
                collecting data for possible use in lawsuits you appear to have
                interesting insight into the admin issues involved.

              • “As to your being the “first name” that was merely an uploading/admin issue – it wasn’t because you were “important” as you seem to think it was, and you were not being “declared” either – which I believe is the other thing you like to lie about that.”

                For one who claims not to have part of a website dedicated to collecting info for potential lawsuits your insights into the admin issues of such are interesting.

            • And I would add, I have a similar question for you as I asked Chuck.

              Have you been bad-mouthing us to others behind our backs to try and influence their thinking about us?

              And please, no equivocating.

              Virginia

              • “….Have you been bad-mouthing us to others behind our backs……”

                I am such a has-been at this point Virginia, and NO, I think freezoners are better than official Scientologists.

                IN terms of who I would recommend someone go to, if someone is a hardcore believer in tech, and in past-lives, and in their “OT case” (body thetans needing dealing with), then I’d recommend anyone with those core believes to GO TO THE FREEZONE for camaraderie and tech stuff.

                There was a time a few years back, when some really sharp cookie young people, right after the anonymous smart college kids I’d chat with, they’d pretty much back me into the corner arguing that even the freezone is harmful to a person’s mind, due to the falseness of the ideas of one as a soul, one’s past lives therapy and one’s “OT case” stuff being all false, and WHY was I even promoting freezone as an option, now I did have to agree with the young people’s arguments against even the freezone.

                In terms of responsible mental health options, for sure, I believe since I am a non-Soul believer, that proper mental health and non spiritual mental therapy is correct, over top of recommending anyone with mental health issues to do the freezone.

                I do agree that bad mouthing can sometimes be bad.

                But I have more greatly been influenced by arguments that say the soul “case handling” of Scientology’s (freezone which is delivered in a more benign and decent setting compared to official Scientology’s rapacious ripoff and infinite hurdles to ever getting up the Bridge to even try the Hubbard higher level processes, etc), are both wrong to even promote, if I believe there is no soul.

                So, on that big argument, is it correct to even promote soul therapy (even the more decent delivery freezoner Scientologists do on each other), over proper “materialist” mental health, then I have to say I’m on the “materialist” mental health side of the argument.

                I don’t read the crap smearing stuff.

                I wish Karen would get interviewed on tech details before she dies though, and I like to hear from the Class 12s and details of people’s “cases” including LRH’s “case” at the end of his life.

                Just what was LRH running into, in his own mind, and what was he writing on his solo worksheets.

                To me, the details of what LRH believed, in detail, I’m still very interested, even though I am sort of permanently out of the promotion of soul therapy or soul exorcism tech of LRH’s.

                I think for the benefit of the Scientologists long into the future, a hundred years from now, that those persons, and everyone else who isn’t a believer, I think the actual facts of LRH’s beliefs at the end of his life, be told accurately.

                I’m a great hoper that Ray Mitoff gets out, and lives long and writes all his final tech observations of LRH’s case at the end of LRH’s life, and that Ray tells of everything tech wise just for history.

                • Mike and I are not freezoners, Chuck, just in case you didn’t know that. We’re not any form of scientologist, per se. Oh, and by the way, that question you’re answering wasn’t actually for you, but what the hey – thanks for answering anyway!

                  Virginia

        • HI Virginia,

          No one’s “black PRed” me, either way. I’ve read stuff, but no private phoning or even nothing I’ve read swayed my pro or against.

          I think we normally have each of our own accumulated ideas, and that no member to member ideas has bugged me.

          I’m more returned to my prior to Scientology education, and I’m slowly just getting along in adult education.

          Scientologists to me are practitioners of the tech, meaning you do course training and then auditing of each other, on the tech.

          I’ve always felt that Hubbard’s writings on the tech would be the core subject of Scientology.

          Then all the admin rules and Sea Org rules and all the rest of the crap that “protect” the organizations that LRH just kept building up to run the movement, gets most of the outside world’s hatred.

          The tech of past lives auditing, of lower grades, of all the various angles to addressing “cases” and all the stuff of the details of LRH’s writings on the tech, that always to me is core Scientology.

          The freezoners seem to focus on core Scientology, the tech, training and delivery of it to one another, and that seems just thus the freezoners would be thus more where outsiders should go to do core Scientology.

          I don’t believe in the soul, so I can’t be a Scientologist.

          One big advantage of the freezoner Scientologists, is that they at least will talk and email.

          Official Scientologists, I have a few who talk to me, but in general, the official Scientologists are tripping over their self-penalizing rules.

          I’m no Scientologist though.

          I like to hear expert theoretical discussion of Scientology’s “case” stuff even though I don’t believe it.

          And I’m always curious where long range the freezoners are going, I’ve liked almost all of the freezoners I ever knew as people.

          I very much liked Mike’s GO exposure videos, they are just so important for history!

          I forget my comment.

          I had read other comments saying some freezoners are just as reactive negative and cut all communication with “SPs” and I may have feared of becoming in that category of “SPs” who even the freezoners were disgusted with.

          I’m a Wikipedia “Materialism” and “Physicalism” believer, so I’ll never likely ever change on that point, so all of the “case” stuff that past lives and body thetan exorcism get into, to me can at best only be placebo benefit for a person.

          I am just an informed observer of freezoners, and believe they in general likely will have longrange influence back on official Scientology, hopefully, to longer down the road temper official Scientology’s viciousness.

          Scientology is a past-lives, soul therapy practice to me.

          I think freezoners certainly need more voice at the table of the public discussion of Scientology.

          • Ok Chuck, thank you. Like I said, it was a weird comment but it’s also from a couple years ago. But, since we hadn’t heard anything else from you – thought I better check witcha just in case.

          • ‘Official Scientologists’ ‘Unofficial Scientologists’ ‘Independent Scientologists’ and ‘Freezoners’ (Karen included): Why do you call yourselves ‘ex-Scientologists’ when you aren’t? And what should those of us who wish to put an end to your precious ‘tech’ call ourselves in that case? ‘SPs’ perhaps?

  15. Yeah, it was getting pretty weird out there, even more antagonism from people who don’t even know me if I said something positive about Scn. When I used to post I always tried to separate the old stuff from what it has become. I definitely did not get anything out of the new altered garbage, especially the changes made to the administrative policies and “ethics” rules, The only benefit I got out of all that was enough abuse to make me want to run away and I did, and I love my new life.

    But no one can tell me I did not get anything out of my experiences with learning and applying the original tech. Nor can anyone tell me that the people I audited over the course of about 15 years were truly not benefiting at all when they laughed with great relief or came to some realization about themselves or solved a problem that changed their lives, relationships and futures for the better.

    It’s definitely not for everyone. Nothing is for everyone except air and water and food I suppose. The horrible results and abuse of the new “interpretations” (and wrongful application of the old stuff) have made a terrible name for everything scientology, new, old and anything yet to come.

  16. “ASC’s means of attempted conversion to its materialist world views can be more zealous and coercive than anything it accuses Scientology of.”

    Wow. That covers a huge swatch of territory. Perhaps it was mis-write that was overlooked during editing?

    • A miswrite. Sure. Mark is just kind of stupid and flighty like that, never seeing the big picture, overlooking the details. He’s a real mess, poor guy.

      (lifts eyebrow)

      • Virginia, I get that you appear to be an AASC (an Anti-Anti-Scientology-Cult) individual, and I share your sentiments in that regard. And human beings that write often are not generally-absolutely immune to an occasional oversight. And beneath those ideas, the idea that ‘conversion to materialist world views by ASC individuals can be more zealous and coercive than ANYTHING it accuses Scientology of’ is an amazing statement worthy of asking for clarification or substantiation. Ok, maybe not on a blog, lol. But family disconnection and personal destruction as policies of ‘conversion techniques’ by a multi million dollar global-empire seem difficult to top by a group of loosely affiliated, or non affiliated individuals typing away in the basements of their parents (or grandparents) homes. Ok, the basement thing was a joke…smiling. The prior statements, sincere.

  17. I personally got a lot from Scn and nothing anyone says will take this away. I am a bit sad that others have tried to inval it or try to make less of it. It is a whole new world out here.

    • Yes, Jan,

      I agree with you.

      There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything.

      Like I said, Don’t throw pearls in front of swine or what is holy in front of dogs.

      Dio

  18. A great example of a toxic Anti-Scientologist who enforces his own cognitive distortions on Scientology onto every one else is ESMB’s own clown, HelluvaHoax!

    This guy explodes onto anyone who makes even the slightest positive comment about Scientology, and their own time in it. As if his own dysfunctional self-hatred for having been in Scientology is the only way to see it, and he very arrogantly and destructively denigrates any Ex who tries to interpret their time in Scientology positively.

    He’s the kind of guy who makes the Anti-Scientology crowd so bad for Ex-Scientologists. He is very intelligent, and can be quite funny, too. But he is stuck in a destructive mindset about Scientology. The views he forces on others through ridicule and denigration are poison for them.

    I hope he learns to spot his own cognitive distortions (from behavioral psychology), and starts to pull himself up out of his own bitter hell-hole. Maybe then he can be more helpful to Ex-Scientologists, which I think, at his core, he is trying his best to be.

    Alanzo

  19. I recognize what you write. During my time in Scientology I had some really good wins and even some peak moments. Also some bad experiences of course. But these don’t take away the good ones.
    At the fora you mention it is hardly possible to discuss this. I understand that an objective discussion with ‘never-ins’ is not possible. How could they discuss something they never have experienced? But I don’t accept their total rejection of all that Scientology has/had to offer. The general tendence there is to ridicule. They don’t know what they are talking about.
    After leaving Scientology, it will take some time before the bad things are dealt with and forgotten/forgiven and the good things come to the surface.
    It make take years. I know of several people who have experienced this also.
    And now I have come to the conclusion that it would be a sad thing if those good things of Scientology would disappear, e.g. the Grades, the Auditor’s Code. Maybe a true Renaissance of the real Scientology will be possible. Or maybe some of these things will find their way in another setting. Maybe somebody could write a book about these things in a total new unit of time.

  20. I’m not exactly a fan of Maslow, to put it mildly, but I think, Mark, that you have well-encapsulated the bait-and-switch that has become prevelant (sp?) in both ends of the scientology spectrum.

    One switches materialism for spirituality, the other switches spirituality for materialism.

    WHAT are they both so afraid of, one wonders.

    Virginia

  21. The “peak” experiences I had in Scientology from Dianetics through ten years on OTVII, were indeed highly spiritual – the perception the endlessness of space, the clarity of the perceptions themselves, the power of creation, the understanding of the interconnection of all life and matter, and the understanding of love as a true solvent. What these experiences did not accomplish was what I was led it believe they would accomplish – more lasting relationships, continued work, super recall, an end to illness, a lasting serenity, and vastly increased abilities in problem solving, control of others and the environment. This I see now was Scientology bunkum. There are those who never see it as bunkum, and they deserve my respect. I was wrong in validating a post here that tore all believers of Scientology technology to shreds. Getting back to my “peak’ experiences. They most often occurred after auditing – solo and otherwise. A few, very few, occurred while studying. The experiences at the FSO, would diminish on a decline, until the next experience, and would fade and disappear altogether when I left to return home. The experiences at the AO, while on OT III to V, would diminish and fade when I left the building to get to my car a block away. What I’ve come to realize about those “peak” experiences, were that they were in part the result of Hubbardian hypnosis, and in part a real look into my essential nature. That real look I believe can be gotten elsewhere with a variety of disciplines. It can also be gotten, by honestly communicating with nature; which I have engaged in over the last few years. The insidiousness of Scientology is that it continually dangles the “carrot” of those “peak’ moments (which, in my experience, do not last or change one substantially) so that one constantly wants more (at exorbitant costs). As I posted before in a lighter vein, it is like eating Chinese food. It tastes delicious and fills you up, but a half hour later you are hungry once again. One cannot fault the deliciousness.

    • Chinese food often has MSG to make it “taste” more. Perhaps that’s the problem with scientology’s presentation – it’s got spiritual MSG in it.

    • Well said, thank you!

    • Michael Fairman: “What these experiences did not accomplish was what I was led it believe they would accomplish – more lasting relationships, continued work, super recall, an end to illness, a lasting serenity, and vastly increased abilities in problem solving, control of others and the environment. This I see now was Scientology bunkum.”

      Can I ask how much auditing of others you’ve done? I think that’s a significant factor in most of the abilities you listed. And the training side of the Bridge (which includes internships) was stated to give 50% of the potential gains.

      As for the auditing side, I think Marty explained very well in this talk why the gains aren’t lasting – and how they could be if the abilities gained were focused on and practiced, which they easily could be.

      • “… if the abilities gained were focused on and practiced, which they easily could be.”

        Agreed. But, as you know, I don’t agree that one needs scientology to do that. Say, with telepathy and clairvoyance, for example, scientology definitely does not have any real methods for focusing on and practicing those abilities, nor reliable people to do that with, even if they had such a thing.

        • Hi Virginia,
          Isn’t it telepathy that is practiced on the NOTs levels? In any case, I would agree with you that one does not need scientology to achieve any of the various abilities.

          • Not really marildi, no one “practices” telepathy on NOTS. They can’t really, due to the fact that any telepathy is highly limited by and restricted to the NOTS procedures alone. That doesn’t exactly lend it self to any in life development.

            • Okay. I see what you mean. How about the old OT levels, then?

              • Hey Marildi. I drew a blank at the moment I was replying to your question, but have since checked into what I think you may be asking that about. The old OT levels had some drilling of various things, but none of them were specifically about engaging in two way telepathy with actual people and not BTS or bodiless spirits. I asked Mike and my father, and although there were “intention” drills – that’s really not the same thing at all, as what I was talking about.

                Virginia

      • Except for several PC’s on Book One, and several on Levels 0, 1 and 2, I did not audit others much. The HDA, and the three levels were the extent of my auditor training. (among a number of other courses). Would that have made a difference? It’s impossible for me to say. I recall that the great majority of times, when I attested to completions, I was certain that what I had gained was permanent. I lived my daily life from the point of view of these new awarenesses, but very little changed. Watching Mark’s video, I see why perhaps that was the case. It was not the Tao that gave me my Ying but Nature, after a studied reading of Emerson and Thoreau. I suspect had I seriously availed myself of the Transcendentalists before Scientology, I would have not fallen for the original carrots.

        • Michael: “Except for several PC’s on Book One, and several on Levels 0, 1 and 2, I did not audit others much. The HDA, and the three levels were the extent of my auditor training. (among a number of other courses). Would that have made a difference? It’s impossible for me to say.”

          Thanks for being so willing to look!

          I can’t say for sure either, but I do think it’s possible that training and the discipline required in auditing – especially doing a lot of it – would have honed some of the abilities you listed.

          “I lived my daily life from the point of view of these new awarenesses, but very little changed. Watching Mark’s video, I see why perhaps that was the case.”

          Again, I commend you. You obviously have the ability to be there and look and communicate. If you gained those things from scientology, what price can be put on it with regard to the quality of your life? (Take that as rhetorical if you like.🙂 ) But I have to admit, I always really liked your beingness as an actor.

          “It was not the Tao that gave me my Ying but Nature, after a studied reading of Emerson and Thoreau.”

          Beautiful. And believable.

          “I suspect had I seriously availed myself of the Transcendentalists before Scientology, I would have not fallen for the original carrots.”

          I can believe that too.

          Cheers!

    • Michael Fairman – Thank you! What you described as “peak” experiences fading a block away etc…. is exactly what I experienced. It never lasted and I had to spend more and more money and more and more time. The fees the Co$ charged were a complete rip off considering they were delivered by slaves working for nothing being treated inhumanely.

      • Yes, it would have been completely different if they were delivered by slaves working for little or nothing IF they were treated humanely.

        Then it would be a true priesthood.

        • Slavery is A-OK as long as they get their vittles and medical care, see. Scientology should have followed the Catholic religious group format a little more closely on that one. Somebody send DM a cramming order.

  22. The experience of Scientology had by each person is/was as varied as the men in the tale of The Blind Men and The Elephant. Add to that tale near murderous intent in some of the Blind Men for the others whom disagree in their experience. Then add the recruitment of armies of those who never personally experienced The Elephant at all to punish those who disagreed and we have the current situation ASC versus RCS versus Independent practitioners of Scientology versus Independent practitioners of various offshoots. At least that is one way of viewing it, I reckon.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist

    • I’m not familiar with the Blind Men story, but it might relate to it can always be said that anything I learned in scn I could have learned it elsewhere. If I learned it first in scn and it was a foundation or platform for expansion, is something wrong with that?

      • Richard, you should have familiarized yourself with the parable, then. No, it is entirely disrelated to your remark.

        • Michael – The parable appears in wiki and I checked it out. In the last year I’ve gone through an entire evolution of rexamining my scn experience of almost 40 years ago. I’m at peace with the subject seeing that many parts were valuable while other parts I would call programming.

          I’ve wondered how an Independent would present scn to a newbie. What parts would be kept and considered valid and what parts would be discarded.

        • Oops – I forgot to change the address after making a comment on another blog

        • As I said earlier, nice parable. There is one part of the story you missed:

          Namely:… then add the recruitment of armies of those who HAVE personally experienced The Elephant ……to punish those who disagreed.

          Can you see the omission? In your parable only those who HAVE NOT experienced the Elephant are ought for punishment (ASC?). While in reality those who HAVE experienced the Elephant have created unimaginable punishment against those who ‘disagreed’ in far greater numbers over time by degree. Think Paulette Cooper…..etc….

          Which omission would imply you are a practicing Scientologist Michael. Or restated: A practicing Scientologist authored the parable.

          • Larry, in the parable, those who *have* experienced “the Elephant” were already included as “the Blind Men”. My original comment stands. Nice try.

            Michael A. Hobson
            Independent Scientologist

    • Very nice analogy. Rich.

  23. Thanks for the references. Scientology refuses to die or go away because LRH too a lot of wisdom and repackaged it. Now its backed by a lot of money. 20 years ago I thought that someday Scientology would end up like the Christian science reading rooms. I still think its going in that direction. It will exist, but the pulse will be faint. Its physical existence will not matter. As far as peak, LRH used a good definition, serenity of beingness. Its a worthy goal and there are many paths up the mountain. In scientology your more likely to fall into a hole or fall off a cliff than reach the summit. But I am sure some have caught glimpses.
    I think the eastern philosophies describe the material and non-material well in regards to which one is real and which transitory or not permanent.
    Alonzo is right, do not throw out the baby with the bath water regarding whatever you have invested your time and effort in on your spiritual path. Effort should not be a waste, just an opportunity to learn and grow. And Marty is offering more material for those seeing a middle path so they can continue to move on up a little higher.
    We should share wisdom where and when we can with those who seek it. But from Matthew 7:6 in Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” What pearls LRH took and incorporated into his teachings have ended up in the underground bunker being trampled.

  24. I know some people who have done basic auditing and Scn applications that feel their lives have been changed tremendously for the better.
    I also know people who have made it to OT8 that think Scn is a crock.

    I think some Scn for some people can be helpful (and maybe it’s the whole bridge for some) if they believe in it. But, I don’t think it is helpful for everyone nor does everyone benefit from all of it.

    My personal opinion is that I already was the person I thought Scn made me and I had the ability to do all the good things I attributed to Scn before I started. In fact, in a lot of ways, I was better off. The one thing it did do for me was emphasize the spiritual side of myself and life.

    There were instances of spiritual uplifting but, the overall outcome in my eyes, was more bad than good. And, that’s how I view it, as a whole. Trying to sort the good from the bad for me just creates more cognitive dissidence because they were always intermingled. There was rarely good without bad.

    I honor other people’s viewpoints on it and I prefer not to argue the point or be “handled” by those who believe. I have friends who believe and I love them for who they are.

  25. Scepticism is my nature, free thought is my methodology, agnosticism is my conclusion, humanitarianism is my motivation.

    I am therefore not someone who agrees with any non-evidenced based pontifications of religions. Since all religions require “faith”, the belief in something without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary, I do not agree with any religion’s broader teachings; I might agree with some of their teachings but disagree with their motives or reasoning.

    I see all religions and many other groups that exhibit similar traits on a sliding scale as to their benefit versus their harm.I like Steve Hassan’s BITE model for instance as a self-help guide to identifying if the group you belong to is dangerous to you. It is subjective so not strictly speaking a scientific method, but as a mechanism to get the user to inner reflect on their own situation it is very valuable.

    All religions purport some kind of continuation of life for which there cannot be any proof; even reincarnation has failed to be demonstrated, let alone the paradise in an eternal afterlife or an eternity of torment in another. Such beliefs, therefore require faith which as a sceptic I do not have.

    I am an anti-theist, anticultist and, subsequently, an anti-scientologist These three aspects form my world view. I am an ASC member, it seems, although I do not recall signing up and paying any dues to an ASC.

    I am sure there are others who could be classed as ASC members but who have disparate motivations; they may be deists or theist with some other religion. They may just be trolls.

  26. “Those who got something useful from their Scientology experience but ever felt afraid or embarrassed to share it might agree with some of this. They might also reinstate the power of their peak experiences by perusing some of the references cited above.”

    That sure worked for me. And those references led to other great references, such as “The Brain’s Way of Healing” by Dr. Norman Doidge.

    Basically same story for Viktor Frankl and “Man’s Search for Meaning.”

    Oh yeah, and Mark’s full series of posts.

  27. Marty , I love few last post’s….. You have that “something” , that can make commenter replay to one’s own post .
    Thank you.
    Big hello from LRHs Bulgravia.

  28. Rhea A. White, (Secretary of the American Parapsychological Research Association and friend of Ingo Swann’s) coined the term „Exceptional Human Experience” (EHE) to distinguish it from just exceptional experiences:
    „One aspect of EHEs that makes them exceptional is that they are unforgettable – no matter what explanation is offered for them.
    On the other hand, when a reasonable explanation is presented for an exceptional experience, the experience is usually dismissed and forgotten.
    If it cannot be dismissed, then the experiencer needs to pay special attention to it. It then becomes personal, as if directed at the specific person involved, and it begins to affect the person.
    Then it is no longer simply a past event. It has become a growing, dynamic experience that is somehow related to or relevant to the person and will not go away.
    It requires that the experiencers deal with it, or somehow incorporate it into their reality threshold.“
    Now in Scientology many of us have experienced EHEs (or peak experiences). These are the reasons I believe that Ex-Scientologists remain connected to the subject and the Tech. These peak experiences cannot completely be invalidated, that however much one tries, they will not quite go away…
    They are in my opinion also the reason that most of Ex-Scientologists, even when they have „wasted“ fortunes or tens of years on staff or in the SO, when asked, whether they regret it, say: NO!

    Marcel Wenger

    • Peak Experience, Transcendental Experience and Exceptional Human Experience are essentially synonyms with slight differences. Not yet mentioned are Cognitions of Being and A Moment of Clarity.

      These are ephemeral and I think some people might attach goals or an expectation of a permanent state of being to them. For example “Now that I’ve experienced (this), then (something else) will happen.”

      One time, non scn or drug related, I sat in “What is isn’t, and what isn’t is” for about half a day. A realization from that was that pondering the meaning of life was an exercise in futility so why bother?! I don’t walk around in that condition but it’s remembered.

  29. I love the referrals to hypnotism with Scientology. There is a lot of truth in it.

    hyp·no·sis
    hipˈnōsəs/
    noun
    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.

    I submit my list of hypnotic elements:

    Restaurant menus.
    Highway signs.
    The flashing lights of a police car.
    50% off sale signs.
    Bakery smells.
    Human touch.
    Your children.
    Your pets.
    Rain.
    A great book!
    Great music!
    The smell of someone when you smell the Sea or Earth about them.
    A smile.
    A touch.
    Walking through Japan town in San Fransisco. (food smell)
    Silk.
    Cashmere.
    Puppy breath.
    Baby breath.
    Fried potatoes.
    Fried green tomatoes.
    Sexual encounters.
    All night diners.
    Ocean.
    Competition!
    Admiration.
    Sudden wins.
    Instant victories.
    Sudden memory.
    Strokes of luck.
    Applause.
    Mystery.
    Winning Karma.
    Cash on delivery.
    Television.
    Strange magicians.
    The stars, some bars
    Occult and Greek mythology.
    Grits and eggs and even
    Scientology.

  30. I am glad that many here can incorporate their positive experiences with Scientology with their present life. However, I hope you are able in turn to respect the pain some exes experienced within the church. There are many life experiences that shape a person and those who experienced abuse have a different story to tell. That does not invalidate those who had positive experiences. That would be dualistic thinking.

    • Sorry for the italics!

      CORRECTED VERSION:

      Hi Ann –

      You make a very good point when you write:

      “However, I hope you are able in turn to respect the pain some exes experienced within the church. There are many life experiences that shape a person and those who experienced abuse have a different story to tell.”

      I’m a person who was in Scientology for 16 years, spending 7.5 of those years on staff in low level missions – not in the Sea Org, and especially not at Int Base.

      In 1999-2000, when I first got out, former RTC Exec Jesse Prince was telling stories of the craziness that went on at the Int Base. One story he tells is of an SO member with breast cancer, who was placed, with no medical treatment including pain medication, in an empty house on the Base, alone, underneath an air-conditioner, and told to “end Cycle.”

      She screamed in pain for weeks and no one did anything to help her. They were ordered not to.

      When I read about that (and many other stories of abuse) I got very very angry. I could not believe that I had been deceived so thoroughly by these people. I would have NEVER given 7.5 years of my life, working for free for them, while they did things like this to people – if I had known anything about this.

      And this person wasn’t even an “enemy” of Scientology. She was a loyal SO member to the end.

      So I actually forgot about myself and my own experiences and began doing everything I could to expose Scientology. I wanted to warn the public so that those completely inhuman fanatics at Int Base could not lie to or deceive anyone else ever again.

      During those years, having forgotten all about myself and my own experiences, I began to re-interpret my own experiences in Scientology from the viewpoint of all the horror stories of abuse that other ex-members were writing about.

      A person tells himself stories about his own life. My stories about my own life started to become distorted, and I began to assign all kinds of harm, lying, and abuse to people in my life who were simply being biased in favor of Scientology, or “tribal”.

      The fact is, coming from the cornfields and staying at the mission level, I never saw any abuse in Scientology until I started being exposed to Sea Org members.

      The Sea Org is the culmination of LRH’s brainwashing technology development. And it is the Sea Org which emanates almost all the crazy fanaticism in Scientology. I think it is important to recognize that. Low-level non-SO org staff members can become radicalized – especially after they are “handled” by SO management execs – but they usually have moderate their fanaticism pretty quickly when they come back home, or the public will be too horrified by them.

      The fact is that there isn’t as much abuse in Scientology outside the Sea Org. I think it is very important to remember that.

      I had to become more disciplined in telling myself stories about my own time in Scientology. I had to re-examine my sometimes over-emotional reactions to what I had learned that Scientology was doing to others and ask myself things like, “OK. That woman was forced to die underneath an air conditioner. But was *I* forced to die underneath an air conditioner?”

      My answer in this kind of disputation process was “no” – it only felt like it was done to me. Then I had to ask, “All right then, exactly what was done to me?”

      The great majority of Scientologists never joined the Sea Org and public of non-SO orgs were never exposed to their brainwashed fanaticism. You should not let SO stories of abuse become your own – if you were never abused. And if you were abused, you should maintain discipline in how you interpret that abuse for yourself, so that you do not allow that one incident of abuse in Scientology to ruin your whole life thereafter.

      One of the most damaging things about “Scientology-watching” for Ex-Scientologists, is replaying and re-telling any abuse you suffered over and over for others in order to expose Scientology. You can create a PTSD type situation because you keep telling the same stories over and over and are never allowed to move on.

      Thinking with cognitive distortions can be a major cause of anxiety and depression. It’s important to watch out for these distortions in your own self-talk and be as disciplined and truthful as you can be with yourself.

      Few critics of Scientology have been more supportive of those who have been abused in Scientology than I have.

      So I know exactly what you are saying.

      It is an important point you made.

      Alanzo

      • Sorry but I have to say this about what I just wrote here. It’s wrong:

        “Few critics of Scientology have been more supportive of those who have been abused in Scientology than I have.

        Should be:

        “Almost all critics that I know write and act in support of those who have been abused in Scientology. I did too.”

        There. Corrected.

        Wow.

        Alanzo

      • Alanzo, Thank you for your response. What you said about the ex- OSA members having the most difficult experiences makes sense. I guess a person in any group will suffer more if they sacrifice their sense of self and self-esteem to conform to group consensus.
        The one thing that does seem to harm the regular member is the disconnection policy. Requiring a member to cut off any family that criticizes their faith sends up a major red flag. Do most members experience this or is it a small minority? Are independent Scientologists required to do this? Unless you come from an abusive family, cutting off contact from your “roots” is like cutting off your arm. This question is for anyone. Thanks.

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        Alonzo, While you are correct on the physical and mental abuses as well as those repeatedly scream about them, I believe you overlook one important point though.
        There is a more hideous less obvious abuse people suffer from Scientology. They get systematically deprived of the truth and treated like mushrooms,- kept in the dark and fed horseshit.
        And while there are abuses of this kind in ASC as well, it is not as institutionalized as it is with the CO$.
        Lying and deceiving people robs them of their lives and are the root and leads to the many other abuses we are all to familiar with.
        Same as you I stayed mostly at the peripheral and never got into the sea org as it was obviously an insane crazy part of the group.
        But still I think lying to people in a systemic malicious way is a very serious abuse. LRH has build Scientology on a foundation of lies and deception, about his own life, about what Scientology does and almost anything of value in it is a pulped down version of either common senses or the work of somebody else.
        The fact there were some insights and positive aspects to be had does not negate that the system as a whole is a virtual pig stall and saying so does not negate oneself or invalidate oneself. That is plain nonsense. The same as using the fact many Auschwitz survivors are saying the conditions they had to endure taught them valuable insights and lessons for life to silence criticism about concentration camps.

        There is on the other side no point in regret or beat oneself up for falling for these lies. But a pig needs to be called a pig and one should not try to put a lipstick on it.

    • I’m with you, Ann. And, I think we need to respect those who have spoken out. Without them, things would be a lot worse.

  31. I’m confused Mr Rathbun. First off, since when are you and Mike Rinder not friends any more? I have seen YouTube videos etc of you two fishing and reminiscing etc. I thought you two were cool? You “seem” to be debating between ASC and Scientology like an unbiased third party at this point with some serious underlying leaning towards Pro-Scientology. I’m not on any side. I get why you have problems with the UB. It’s trashy typical media reporting. Your actions and your words seem very conflicting. Do you now wish to take back all of the anti Scientology stuff you’ve stood for since you left the church? I’m totally confused by your recent defending Scientology, it’s leader etc. I can understand not wishing to attack any side at this point but you seem to be on the side you weren’t on a year ago and steady disconnecting from those you’ve associated with the last ten years. Is this just a new chapter to a new future or is the “tech” starting to make sense to you again?
    Kind regards to you and your family.
    CT

    • Mr Rathbun, I too was surprised you and Mike Rinder are no friends anymore . I would appreciate you confirm it to be factual. What’s happening? Are you back in the Church ???? Thanks.

      • Mike has been conspicuous enough in his absence. It’s pretty clear he wants no part of publicly defending Marty and Mosey for whatever his own personal reasons are so there isn’t much point trying to pour salt into the wounds of either man by reminding them of their past friendship.
        Ask Mike the same question and you’ll probably get the same (unspoken) response: It’s personal and not for gossip fodder on the Bunker so mind your own goddam business.

        • Sam, I do not know about Mike Rinder, but I would be willing to publicly defend the Marty and Mosey had I known what I am defending. No information was given, hence defence is not possible.

          • I wasn’t ‘upbraiding’ you or anyone else for doing otherwise. I know who my friends are and I know what they are capable of doing (because I’m very picky about who and what I allow into my life to start with). Call me weird but sometimes I defend them just because I hate bullying and it’s the right thing to do.

      • Is Marty back in the Church? Lol… Clearly you need to post on the Ex Scilon Vapid Board, if you don’t already. I don’t buy the “There are no stupid questions” idea, because clearly there are stupid questions.

        Yes, Marty openly quotes and even at times endorses the viewpoints of some psychiatrists and psychologists. Scientologists just LOVE that! Why DM does it all the time!

        Yeah I’d say the evidence is strong that Marty is back in the Church. DM will probably make him the Inspector General again. Mix a little psych data in with the tech. DM is ready to join the 21st Century and move away from Hubbard. Lol….

    • Fishing for a non-existent conflict, eh? To what end, I wonder ?

      • Not fishing for any sort of non existent conflict. I was asking because twice between recent posts and comments Mr Rathbun has referenced Mike Rinders blog and both times didn’t really refer to it in a positive fashion. I was just commenting and curious about whether or not they were still cool with each other. Not a big deal

    • flappjaxx sounds a lot like John Suggs (editor of Freedom Magazine) who appeared on an earlier topic as “Kilgore Trout III” and indie thinker might be his sidekick or the same guy. At any rate, antagonists will keep trying to back Marty into a corner – lotsa luck with that – lol

      • flappjaxxx/Mr CT – I posted my comment before your reply appeared. indie thinker uses four question marks after his inquiry. Current scn’ists get very excited when writing their success stories, often using multiple exclamation points.

        • I really am not trying to start anything and actually wish I hadn’t implied anything about the tech. I apologize to anyone who thought I was trying to start anything negative. I’m a never in watcher and nothing more. I’m not about conflict with anyone. I’d rather everyone just get along. I apologize to Mr Rathbun and family. I guess I missed something along the way. Respect to everyone here

          • Laughter! – Hey CT – If I had a nickel for every internet faux pas I’ve committed I bet I’d have a dollar! Some people have a problem with “never-ins” but I don’t. There is a wealth of information and insight which comes through on this blog which I call “the collective wisdom”. Keep coming back!

            • P.S. I just committed a faux pas. What you just now said was sincere and I wasn’t laughing at that, but reflecting about how bad you got tromped for your initial comment. Internet conversation can be a bitch.🙂

              • I’m not new to the internet so I’m fully aware how people can be behind their keyboards. I actually thought more about my initial comment after I wrote it instead of while writing it. Not the first time I’ve spoken/written before letting my brain catch up to my mouth/hands. I shouldn’t have even said anything about the tech or which side anyone is on because after reading over again, it’s completely irrelevant. It was a lapse in intelligence and judgment on my part. I’m sure I’m not the only person here to make a bad call in his/her lifetime. Difference is I don’t tromp people for having an opinion or for asking questions. Thanks

          • “I guess I missed something along the way.”

            I guess you did flappjaxxx/Mr CT – glad you finally caught it.

  32. Marty wrote:
    “James and Maslow observed that there was a great divide that made reconciliation of materialist thought and spiritualist experience daunting if not impossible….. In summary, they understood that the spiritually-inclined could not be understood or taken seriously by a class of materialists. Maslow referred to the latter as ‘non-peakers.’

    “O ye Lords of Truth without fault, who are forever cycling for eternity . . . [please] save me from the annihilation of this Region of the Two Truths.” — Egyptian Ritual of the Dead.

    GMW [ ]

  33. I have one last question regarding this post “cherch” world.

    How do some people who find the tech useful in there lives, who use it and maybe even give or receive auditing justify being outspoken critics? I’m talking about currently, not what anyone did before.

    I figure they believe that people differentiate between scn, the “cherch” and LRH and DM. But, people looking in from out here don’t differentiate. It’s all the same to them.

    It seems a little self defeating.

  34. In the early nineties the band Queensryche had a hit song entitled “Silent Lucidity”.

    I think what I see on a couple of boards/blogs is “Noisy Vapid-ity”.

    • And I’m standing next to you..in Noisy Vapidity. I like that! lol

    • You have to go Full Retard to get stuck on ESMB.

      Never Go Full Retard

      http://www.alanzosblog.com/never-go-full-anti/

      Alanzo

      • “The era of the Fierce Internet Anti-Scientology Warrior is over. Cool out.

        Heal yourselves from your war wounds.

        You won.”

        Is this Alanzo’s advice to people who have lawsuits in process still? Drop your lawsuit, get over it and move on? You have won, you have no more personal need to pursue adjudication?

        • Those people aren’t fierce internet scientology warriors.

          Those are people who have lawsuits in process still.

          Alanzo

        • “Is this Alanzo’s advice to people who have lawsuits in process still? Drop your lawsuit, get over it and move on? You have won, you have no more personal need to pursue adjudication?” — Really ?

          The straw stuffing of your man is showing. There is no version of English I am aware of where activities in courts of law equate to activities on the Internet. Try again.

          Michael A. Hobson
          Independent Scientologist

        • He never said drop a lawsuit. He never alluded to a legal arena. No, it was not his advice to people who have suits and he never said it was. Calm down . You are inventing ideas, and throwing them at yourself, and then reacting to them. You are caught in a hall of mirrors.

  35. “Hush now don’t you cry…” Yep.

  36. A couple of comments.

    Here’s a sentence from the blog:

    “In a simple, matter-of-fact manner Bryson demonstrates that all branches of science rely upon faith in theories.”

    What does this mean?

    I’ve heard people of a spiritual bent say that science requires faith. But how so?

    How does the theory of gravity require faith? How does the theory of evolution require faith?

    Evolution, gravity, and plenty of other scientific theories (not a hypothesis, but a theory) are testable, measurable, and repeatable.

    Does that mean science always gets it right?

    Of course not.

    But that’s the beauty of it…science self corrects. Spirituality is something completely different, and the two are not related at all.

    Second, let’s talk about this part of the post:

    ” It is published for the world to see. That is, all ASC fora (Underground Bunker, Mike Rinder’s blog, Ex Scnsts Message Board included) default to making ruthless fun of that which Scientologists swear Scientology does for them spiritually.”

    Yes and no.

    Yes, there are some people who will mock those who say they got any benefit (spiritual or otherwise) from Scientology.

    But, for the most part, I think the mocking is limited to those OT8 testimonial-type videos. (The really over-the-top ones.)

    Because I’ve seen people say that they benefited from the communications course, or a few other courses, and most people don’t mock them for that.

    Even Ross and Carrie (a couple of skeptics who did a 9-part podcast on Scientology) were able to come up with a few things they thought were useful.

    I do think Scientology gets mocked more than mainstream religions, but not because it’s a religion, but because of all the things associated with it (Xenu, etc).

    So the mocking probably isn’t as extensive as you think it is, but it’s definitely there.

    If you’re ok with me asking, what are some of the spiritual benefits of Scientology you think are being unfairly mocked?

  37. “Whatever the description, the peak experience by its nature defies words”

    Ya gotta see it to believe it. Or is it the other way around.

    When it happens, the Ego vanishes and for a brief moment there is undisconnected understanding. If you practice letting go, you will.

  38. From the blog post: “…the evolution of science is beginning to reveal the accuracy of what spiritualists have attempted to describe since antiquity as the true nature of the universe. It is a nature that transcends the limitations of language and two-value logic.”

    The true nature of the universe may yet be describable in language. Below is a video of a lecture by Michael Persinger, “a cognitive neuroscience researcher who studies brain functions, sub-consciousness, remote viewing, information field and possibilities of telepathy. He believes humans share emotional connection over great distances.” (Quoted from the description below the video.)

    In the early part of the lecture is a depiction of what seems to be the Akashic record – described in scientific terms. Btw, Ingo Swann is featured in the discussion of remote viewing, which is also early in the vid.

  39. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Again an endless discussion:

    I have seen People that calls themselves materialists being very spiritual and full of love…
    I’ve seen religious People behaving like materialists….

    Who knows everything and can judge truthfully ?
    Here a good Text that I found (http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/labels.htm )-perhaps it will help:

    One of the most common terms used by young people to describe others is “loser.” That’s not a description, it’s a label. Some examples of the countless other labels we freely use to ‘describe’ others include fundamentalist, delusional, perfectionist, idealist, realist, extremist, terrorist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, pessimist, pacifist, narcissistic, optimist, racist, liberal, homophobe, jerk, stupid, pro-life, pro-choice, two-bit punk, and loud-mouth.

    The problem with labels is they are merely shells that contain assumptions. When we are taken in by a label, we are taken in by opinions and beliefs. That is, we willingly accept statements without evidence of their validity. The assumptions become stereotypes, which soon become put-downs. Before you know it, we are engaged in name-calling or verbal abuse.

    People are complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional. When we apply labels to them, we put on blinders and see only a narrow view of an expansive and complicated human being. Did you ever buy a plastic container or bottle of food at the super market with a huge label on the lid and sides that prevented you from seeing the contents? That’s what the labels we use to ‘describe’ people do, they obscure the contents of the individual.

    When speaking about others, there’s nothing wrong with using descriptions. Novelists do it all the time. But there is a big difference between descriptions and labels. For example, think about the difference between saying “Tom is tall.” and “Tom is a liberal.” ‘Tall’ is a description because it is based on a fact; it’s just another way of saying “Tom is six feet, four inches.” When we call Tom a ‘liberal,’ however, we empty the word of meaning. Here’s what I mean. What are you, a liberal, conservative, or other? The answer is on some issues you are liberal and on other issues you are conservative or other. Right? So, how can I describe you by a single term? If I were to do so, I would reduce you to a one-dimensional artifact of the profound person you really are. Wouldn’t that be grossly unfair? Isn’t that good enough reason to avoid the consumption of assumption?

    The use of labels is more than unfair. It is hurtful as well. Despite the nursery rhyme about sticks and stones, words can be painful. Take 16 year old Holly, for example. Here’s what she has to say, “I’m kind of shy, so people often label me as stuck up or snobby. It bothers me to see people defame those who can’t help whatever is being said about them. Hopefully, if people see it put into words, they’ll realize how stupid it is to stereotype people they’ve never even met.”

    Once we understand the power of words, we will want to do more than avoid using them to diminish others. We will want to use them to encourage and inspire them. Yet, if we don’t remain vigilant, we can inadvertently slip into using labels. Here’s an example taken from my own writing. In my previous column, I wrote, “Those who make the effort to follow their dream, whatever it is, never regret it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the slackers, do-nothings, and loafers, for they will live with regret, disappointment, and sorrow.”

    I wanted to forcefully express how regrettable it is that some people are not willing to make the effort to improve their lives. But I didn’t have to resort to name-calling to do so. Instead of writing about ‘slackers, do-nothings, and loafers,’ I could have (and should have) written the sentence as, “Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of those who don’t, for they will live with regret, disappointment, and sorrow.” After all, suppose a reader is stuck in a rut and can’t get out. How would he or she feel about being called a ‘slacker, do-nothing, or loafer’? Wouldn’t they rather be encouraged than put down? So, if I offended a reader, I apologize. Admittedly, sometimes a little ‘tough love’ may be called for. But the problem is it is far easier to be tough than to be loving.

  40. A very thought provoking comment. Thank you Roger.

  41. Hi Marty, I track with you very much on this. I read Maslow and the Tao before Scientology (30 years of it) and I recently read the Biocentrism book,
    I have long been frustrated by friends and loved ones who are “non-peakers.”

    I also find that “peakers” often attribute their peak experiences to their “only true religion.” Especially “born again” Christians. Trying to get a this-is-the-only-true-religion peaker to understand that others have similar and equally valid peak experiences seems very difficult. It is a similar gulf that is seen between peakers and non-peakers.

    Cheers,
    Jerry

    • I hear ya Jerry. I think all of the one-way-out folks would find even more meaningful peaks by correlating the cause of their own to the causes others attribute theirs to. It seemed to do so for me. And that got me to questioning my judgmentalism of what others (includings Scientologists) found workable. Ken Wilber’s mapping (as opposed to his own guruing) is a good introduction to that type of thought.

  42. Marty,
    great article.

    I was in Scientology for the spiritual “thing”. I had peak experiences and spiritual ascensions since the age of 9.
    Scientology helped me understand some of them. Anyway I left as I didn’t like how it was run. I think underneath the bombastic, exaggerated “hard-sell” and stupidly grown organization there are some good nuggets in the tech.

    Since I left ca. 5 years ago I have grown spiritually more than in the 18 years since I first contacted Scientology.

    Your blog was a good help in the process. Even watching you going through your own process… I was not always in 100% agreement with what you’ve said and I don’t think I ever will be. But that’s not an issue for me.

    Just wanted to let you know that I understand you to a large degree.
    I have no interest in fighting the church or preserving the technology anymore. There is so much wisdom to be for those willing to open their hearts. As well as techniques to be used for those willing to look into the mirror or their own creation.

    Kind regards,
    SKM

  43. Beautiful post Marty.

    I think perhaps the dynamics are not concentric circles for everyone. Very possibly, many. Mine certainly do not start with #1. Piggy backing through the remain seven to “survive”.

    These are all just parallel universes to me. Some more interesting than others. And you can think of them as being created by you, as opposed to you, surviving through them. And others surviving through you, as the dynamic.

    Each person has their own reasons and purposes for living. You can’t beat people up for having different reasons or purposes. Some people may want to “let go”. Letting go, might be a purpose for them. It is not a law. It is just an item.

    Having, may be someone else’s purpose. It is not a law either.

    Plenty of people ride the seventh and eighth dynamics all across the planet. If someone tells me they have met with Jesus, I believe them. Just because I haven’t doesn’t mean it isn’t true for them. I view him as GMO. God’s Messenger Org.

    There are materialists that ridicule everything invisible they can not see. And these are the ones that complain most bitterly about being violated with their invisible items. “You stole my pride”. “You ruined my piece of mind” “You dashed my hopes” “You destroyed my trust” “You don’t understand why I have this attitude” blah blah blah they have invisible items that are very very important to them also. They are KNEE DEEP in it.

    While someone else is pushing religion on them, they are pushing attitudes back. There is much more invisible product being moved around and exchanged on a daily basis, that material. The materialists are loaded with it. They peak out on pushing attitudes.

  44. Just as an aside….When I first saw the title of this thread I immediately thought of tripping on LSD. Lol…

    “Peaking”

    • LOL! Great site!

      I have to laugh…

      Alanzo🙂

    • A question for C:

      Does Karen talk about her auditing pcs in the OuterSpanks?

      Is she a critic of Scientology there but a lover of the tech elsewhere?

      How does this work? How can you be a Class 12 auditor who audits pcs using standard tech, following KSW all the way, but also be this big critic of Scientology with members of Anonymous in your group, etc.?

      I don’t get it.

      Which is the real Karen?

      Alanzo

    • Holy god…this certainly connects a lot of dots for me. Mark Plummer, aka Warrior is one of the admins?

      So THAT’s what happened…

      (multiple face palms)

      I’ll tell you what I mean.

      I bought something from him on ebay a year or so ago, and he sent me a note all happy and excited to know it was me, asked how me and Mike were doing and so on. I was looking for a back issue of the old Freedom magazines put out by the Guardian’s Office so I asked him about it.

      He was totally willing to do that, cheerfully replying he’d check into it. His responses by email were fast, and no lags and then all of a sudden – dead silence.

      I emailed him twice (I think, I’d have to check my records) checking on the item he was supposed to be looking for. No answer.

      I then contacted him through EBAY and received a rather frosty reply telling me not to talk to him through ebay, basically, and to email him. VERY different from just a month or so earlier, how he was behaving to me.

      I then emailed him again…long story short. To this day he has not replied to me, won’t talk to me, won’t tell me what happened, why the change, even though I asked him.

      NOW I get what happened – SHAME on Karen De la Carriere and her ridiculous man-rug husband.

      Can’t have ANYONE being even vaguely friendly with me – is that it?

      What a bunch of sickos.

      Then there’s Peter Moon on the member list…oh boy. THAT is really bad, considering what I know about him.

      There’s more but I’m so riding on how cool it is to know what happened with Mark Plummer, I think a celebration is in order.

      But before I do? This is for Mark Plummer.

      ====

      How much did Karen BUY from you on Ebay or PAY you to buy your soul?

      SHAME ON YOU.

      I did NOT deserve that kind of treatment.

      ====

      Virginia McClaughry

    • C – sent you a comment at your site asking you a question.

  45. I wonder if this C guy happens to have screen shots of Mark and Karen talking about my ebay purchase and using my real name…

    • The “C guy” won’t have screen shots because I don’t talk about my eBay customers online to anyone, ever.

      • “C” responded at their blog – He didn’t have anything about us but asked if it may have been deleted. I can’t answer that about anything you may or may not have said, but I told “C” another member could about other events that they took screenshots of (not to do with you).

        I would like that other member to come forward.

  46. Virgina:

    Regarding your “connecting of the dots” and about why I “didn’t answer” you:

    There are no dots to connect. I did answer. Here’s what I said:

    “Hello Virginia,

    “Yes, I did [get your email]. I regret that I have not been able to get to my storage facility to check.”

    Then I politely asked:

    “For future correspondence, if your message does NOT concern an item I have listed (or an item you purchased from me) on eBay, please send the message to my regular email”

    Your story about what allegedly happened is not what happened. My reply is not a “rather frosty reply” and I never told you to “not talk to [me] through ebay”. I simply told you that I do not wish to have my eBay messages involved with communications about items that I have not listed or sold on eBay.

    That’s all there is to the matter.

    As for never getting back to you, I have been busy with other things, and I have not had the time to look for the Freedom magazines you asked about.

    And for the record, I do not disclose details about my customers online.

    Also for the record, Karen has never bought anything from me on eBay, nor has she “bought my soul”.

    I’m not for sale — never have been, and never will be.

    • Wait – did you just publish the actual text from a PRIVATE ebay conversation, with my name included, on a public forum?

      (face palm)

      • I responded with my words from the email, only. I own my words. You made an untrue allegation. And in order to refute it I posted my exact response to you.

        And regarding your statement about my using your name on this public forum, I will point out that so far, Terril Park has used your name twice, Marisa Sigmond has used your name once, Chuck Beatty has used it twice, Larry Moore has used it once, and Miraldi has used your name once — all on this one page (not counting other times anyone has used it on other pages on Mark’s blog.

        Oh, and you yourself have used your name no fewer than 16 times on this page alone. And one of those times you even signed with your first and last name.

        So why did you single me out?

        • I don’t think any of that was my point, but if that’s what you thought it was then I apologize for the lack of clarity.

          My comment about your using my name was what you thought it was, a gentle reminder that you shouldn’t be doing what you did, and that’s all I am going to say about that.

          I wonder if do not actually know or understand why I singled you out, from all the names of people who are members of Outer Banks, to talk about.

          I would have thought that I made that clear already, but that was me thinking you were following along the conversations in recent posts here at Mark’s blog, and had seen an earlier comment of mine where I had been contacted about some things that went on there at outer banks.

          I talked about you because you are an admin on Karen’s Outer Banks private list, who happened to be someone I at least knew and had *some* previous personal interaction with, who had left me with a rather less than a good impression of the state of our relationship (as mentioned earlier today).

          Prior to finding out that you were an admin for that private group, I had been told privately involving some detail that the admins and mods of that group had engaged in a putdown of someone for posting a link to something at our blog. I was told that Karen and Tony Ortega, as well as Jeffrey Augustine engaged in a sort of dog-piling, as I understand it, on the person as well as us and our blog indirectly.

          Do you recall these events?

          The person who posted the outer banks records could not find them but offered the possibility they may have been deleted.

          Did you delete them or know who did?

          Your change of behavior towards me, finding out that you were an admin on a private group where some pretty antagonistic behavior towards us had taken place – formed the “dots” that were being connected.

    • You are misrepresenting what happened here, but I’m not going to do what you did today. It’s a good thing, for you, that I’m actually not the crazy, evil B**** that some are so set to portray me as, is all I have to say.

      You have nothing to worry about from me, Mark, I’m just sad you’re treating me this way as compared to how you were initially, but there’s nothing I can do about that – it’s all on you.

    • Mark,

      I will apologize for not first asking you if you had *any* influence from Karen OR ANYONE ELSE, that may have caused your frosty change, and instead jumping right to the topic of it being because of ebay or other monetary influence.

      I was pissed, it was extreme, and I’m sorry.

      That said, will you please tell me what was the real reason you went from cheery and friendly to frosty and barely communicative?

      Virginia

      • Earlier, you wrote: “I then contacted [Mark] through EBAY and received a rather frosty reply telling me not to talk to him through ebay, basically, and to email him.”

        There was no “frosty change” on my part, and I have already pointed out that my reply was not “frosty”, and I never told you “not to talk to [me] through ebay”. I posted my exact words to you verbatim from my message to you. I _asked_ you, “For future correspondence, if your message does NOT concern an item I have listed (or an item you purchased from me) on eBay, please send the message to my regular email”.

        My message was not telling you to not “talk to [me] through ebay”. I was very specific in my request, which included the word “please”.

        Now please re-read my request, and see if you understand the difference. Here it is again:

        “For future correspondence, if your message does NOT concern an item I have listed (or an item you purchased from me) on eBay, please send the message to my regular email”.

        Frosty the Snowman may be frosty, but I’m not.

        • Thanks Mark, I didn’t actually have a confusion on that point, which is why I did email you, several times actually, after that. My point was both the formality of the above quoted response as compared to previously, combined with the lack of response to emails after this – taken together they did create an impression.

  47. Nope, not frosty at all. You’re the picture of friendliness even now.

  48. With all due respect, mcclaughry, you said to Mr. Plummer, before he responded to you, “How much did Karen BUY from you on Ebay or PAY you to buy your soul?” That kind of talk could turn anyone a bit frosty, I should think.

    • Different frosty Nance – from much earlier and without anything warranting it at the time.

    • But, I see what you’re gently actually pointing out, and you’re right. I should have asked Mark if he had *any* influence from Karen (or similar) whatsoever that caused his frosty change, rather than jumping right to it being ebay or other monetary influence.

  49. Off topic?

    Having surfed the internet for years and years, I must say, this blog is the most intellectually stimulating blog I have found, in years and years. Notwithstanding its moments of silence…..lol…..The discussions are not only robust but are more often than not, grounded in honest inquiry. And while emotions occasionally flare up, more often than not it is the intellectual prowess that wins the day, or at least the argument of the day. Lastly, whilst the concept of ‘journey vs destination’ is fairly well known in most more philosophically educated circles of the world, I would suggest this blog is a hint (if not a great hint) at the possibility that the journey and the destination are one thing, being merely two sides, as it were, of 1 coin.

    • “…the possibility that the journey and the destination are one thing, being merely two sides, as it were, of 1 coin.”

      Sounds right to me. What’s life about? Living.🙂

      Your mention of blog discussions made me think of one of the most interesting scales in the “book of scales,” Scientology 0-8. Strangely, I couldn’t find this scale in the new “Basics Books” edition.

      AN AWARENESS SCALE

      Aware of being aware

      Awareness of an environment as sufficient communication

      Knows of the existence of communication

      Communication with the intention to communicate

      Communication with significance with somebody else

      Communication with significance

      Communication with self with significance (worry)
      (Even here, some slight awareness that he is thinking a thought and communicating with the thought he is thinking.)

      Unconsciousness (Absolute unconsciousness is, however, unobtainable.)

    • What a wonderful comment!

      Virginia

  50. I think a very helpful thing to do in almost all cases is to let people decide what they believe. If someone feels better and gets a spiritual benefit from meditating with crystals at midnight on the full moon then they do. Just ack what they tell you about it and let them have their own thing.

    I have a hunch that I know so little about spirituality and life that I am not qualified to tell anyone how it is. Does anyone really know what life is, what we are, where we came from, what is consciousness etc? I don’t think so. When I realized this I felt depressed and empty, then I rejected and became angry with religion, but now I just see it as people like me who are interested in answers to these universal questions.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s