In the Church of Scientology it is always your fault if you disagree with any material. You have misunderstandings (M/Us – yes it’s right there in M4), you have a lack of mass and need to clay demo the concept, you have transgressions in the area (Overts), you are PTS (a Potential Trouble Source), or you’re just plain stupid.
The material is never wrong. You are.
Even when the materials are later claimed to have been wrong in the first place (ref. Golden Age of Knowledge), it is still you that were at fault.
So what happens when a person disagrees with the material while taking a course in the CoS? He gets sent to the word clearer. He gets cleared right down to the last dot. If that doesn’t work, you get sent to the Qualification Division to get your understanding of the material sorted out. Still disagreeing? Then there is always the ethics officer. She should be able to fix you.
Somewhere along the line, the student will either a) really believe he is the one at fault or b) invent some odd way to make the materials right – by paper clips, chewing gum or some other MacGyver hack.
The student ends up invalidating his own viewpoint (or he ends up quitting the course). Making less of his own viewpoint and understanding, he ends up making less of himself. His personal integrity starts to slide. He blanks out his own viewpoint and is really “not quite there” as a student to really evaluate that material anymore. He becomes robotic. He starts blindly trusting the material just as he starts to blindly distrust himself every time a pesky disagreement comes creeping in. He becomes more fanatical.
Robotic. Fanatic. I have seen that. Have you?
64 thoughts on “When disagreement is forbidden”
It’s really great to see you wake up, Geir, keep on waking up!
I have been quite awake for a long time. Feeling any drowsiness yourself?
I’ve always believed Geir is awake.
Seems more likely that Pete Griffiths is waking up to the idea that “Scientology” is not the same as the “Church of Scientology”.
Let me point you to the basic fact, that Scientology itself is not Scientology… If you understand what I mean on that 🙂
CoS is composed of low-iq beings that cannot discuss anything. To try to do so is to enturbulate their weak minds and stable data and to cause disorder. Tyranny cannot tolerate disorder as order is the last superficial speck of theta left in such a debased group. As long as a low-class GEs the likes of DM are in charge current culture will remain the low-toned circuitous mockery of what CoS should be.
I never like the elitism that is practiced by many Scientologists.
I never liked elitism in any form by anyone. Can’t say I care for arrogance much either. But my particular peeve is sweeping (and condescending) statements about groups of people, inside or outside.
As a Word Clearer, I always made sure I understood the materials as well as I could before word clearing another person on it. Whenever there was disagreement, I had the person make lots and lots of real life examples of how that datum could be correct, or how that datum could be incorrect. In fact I myself used to learn a lot while getting the other person to go through this exercise. I always took the broad contextual approach at first rather than focus on a word or a comma. I also referred to the derivation of the word more than to individual definitions to allow flexibility in creating those examples. I also kept other references at hand to allow the person to look at that datum in different contexts as dealt by LRH.
In short I used to allow the person as much space as possible to really air that disagreement. And somewhere along the line it just used to click and the person could now look at the material that he had disagreement with, and could interpret it in a self-determined way so it made sense to him or her. People always used to go away happy after word clearing with me. In my word clearing I used to very seldom rely on the e-meter alone. I could really perceive the condition of a person based on the indicators in front of me.
There were times when a person realized something and said, “I think LRH means this… he could have expressed it the way I am looking at it now.” Of course, I could see wonderful indicators and knew that the disagreement was gone. I never asked the person to explain or justify his understanding.
I just knew that the same material can be interpreted in many different ways. What is important is that the consistency in the mind of that person be maintained. If there is a basic or crashing misunderstood then his whole system of his understanding (viewpoint) could be straightened out in one shot if there already was a consistency in his mind.
I really had a ball word clearing others. 🙂
Too bad I’ve never had a word clearer like you.
It feels nice being out of that game and free. It made me paranoid. Also helped the thought I was always wrong too.
I’m happy for you Fancy. I am learning, right now, the true paranoia Scientology will bring into those lives that aren’t even affiliated with it.
In 2006 right before I left I saw this injustice on my ex wife. I thought it was bullshit and left the cult. She stayed.
I wonder what was the reason for LRH to design it that way…?
What is wrong with the Church of Scientology is that it is enforcing a certain pre-set interpretation of LRH materials. It is not allowing people to air their disagreements with that interpretation and have their own understanding. Thus, what we have in the Church today is enforced dogma and not free thinking. I compare this corruption to the corruption that took place in Christianity after Paul took over.
Christ was a rebel. If one followed his example, rebelling against dogmatic aspects in a culture should be admired in Christianity. But it is not.
LRH was a free thinker in many senses. If one follows his example, and thinks freely, then that trait should be admired in Scientology. But it is not.
Both Christianity and Scientology seem to have been corrupted by the same thought virus.
Hmmm…. thought virus.
Maybe Vinaire knows the answer to this question of mine — I personally never studied the full technology of word clearing.
As I recall, the point of word clearing was to ensure that the person understands the materials. Period. I think there is a big difference between understanding what you have read and agreeing with what you’ve read. Isn’t there?
IMO there is a misunderstood word and that word is “understanding” and I believe how this happens is that the term ARC is substituted for understanding and along with that the idea of we all agree, we all have high affinity for, and we all have entheta or disagreement free communication. But I am not so sure that even this substituted meaning is what a word clearer is supposed to be accomplishing with word clearing.
That’s where I think it gets all snarled up. Perhaps Vinaire or others can shed some light on what word clearing is ACTUALLY intended to accomplish?
I got trained as a Word Clearer on Flagship Apollo in early 70s when the HCOBs on Word Clearing were being issued by LRH. Concurrent with those W/C Bulletins Data Series PLs were also being issued. Daily OODs carried LRH’s comments on Word Clearing and Data Series. I was soaking up so much knowledge that I was always keyed out. To me both Word Clearing and Data Series fitted beautifully with each other. I looked at word Clearing as finding the “why” of a person’s confusion and handling it. As covered in Data Series PL “Narrowing the Target”, one needed to start out broad and then narrow down to words or symbols in the materials. One had to get the person to find that misunderstood on his or her own determinism. Perfect accord had to be maintained without any evaluation or invalidation. For me it was like a teamwork where my student and I both dug into the materials to get to the bottom of the confusion. Looking at the purpose of that material was part of word clearing. How could one understand the material correctly if the context was not clear! To me Data Series approach was a part of word clearing. It has always been that way for me.
Maria, you are right in saying that the point of word clearing is to ensure that the person understands the materials. This does not translate as robotically agreeing with a superficial interpretation of the materials. One needs to understand what “understanding” means in the first place. To me it means that no outpoint stands out when looking at an area… everything is consistent and in harmony withing oneself. Many a times, disgareement with materials translates as a conflict with a datum that the person has been holding on to all his life. One then investigates the disagreement by putting that datum next to the materials and looking at both and discovering what doesn’t make sense. People carry lot of misunderstoods without knowing. Those misunderstoods come to view only when a disagreement with some other datum arises. The new datum simply activated the dormant misunderstood.
When one equates “understanding” with ARC, it is first and foremost ARC with oneself, or ARC with one’s extant understanding. It should all be consistent. There should be no dissonance in how one is interpreting those materials to oneself. I hope I am making sense.
Thank you Vinaire. That was an awesome response and I have to tell you that it opened up a new vista of understanding on this subject for me. I do understand the concept of consistency and handling any personal dissonance — I find that if I can’t get to the bottom of something to where I feel totally satisfied, it sits in my universe as a bullpen item that I am always looking for the resolution of. So yes, it really makes sense what you said!
It is very hard to tell at times what is “vintage LRH” and what is the “thought virus.” Many a times the “thought virus” can appear in what we perceive as LRH’s own writings. So, where does one draw a line?
In my opinion that “line” is the LINE OF CONSISTENCY in all knowledge. One should always trust one’s own judgment in seeking that consistency. LOOKING helps.
As DATA SERIES says… Thinking can only tell you where to look. It is looking that tells you what is actually there.
LRH says the purpose of ethics is first to handle counter intention than to handle other intention. So ethics does not allow you to think freely even under normal circumstances where you do not harm others. At the end all the Scientologists will be required to become Sea Org members, slaves and robots.
“the purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions from the environment. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness from the environment”
Scientology was fun for me and I did a lot of dissemination until ethics did not prove to me that I am not free (in the positive sense of the word) in the system of Scientology. Than I looked again and I have to see that ethics is right. They are doing what LRH wants them to do. Otherwise he would not organize such a system. Period.
Maybe the present Church is a bit exaggerating 🙂 in that direction but they are basically following LRH.
There are many positivity in Scientology but Hubbard’s son was probably right. On the long run Scientology is black magic. Admin tech proves that and makes it so.
Where the Church can even violate labour laws and the courts back them saying “it is a religion so we do not interfere” can they go away even with murder on the grounds that they are religion?
Per LRH policy, an upstat can even get away with murder (you can find under kha-khan in the religious scripts, the green volumes). No wonder the Church behaves like that when LRH writes things like that. And I bet you are wrong if you think this is not literally meant.
This is admin tech. Voila.
“That’s what producing, high-statistic staff members are – Kha-Khans. They can get away with murder without a blink from Ethics…. And Ethics must recognize a Kha-Khan when it sees one – and tear up the bad report chits on the person with a yawn.”
HCOPL 1 Sep 1965 (reissued 5 Oct 1985) “Ethics Protection”
“Get away with murder” is an English idiom which means “get away with a lot”. It doesn’t literally mean that people are allowed to murder others — and LRH was using it in the idiomatic sense.
With that said, the concept of “the occasional error by an upstat should be ignored” can be — and has been — taken to completely irrational extremes in the CoS to mean “who cares if they destroyed that person’s financial future … they got in tons of GI for the Org last week, so we will overlook the damage that was done”. It is “the ends justify the means” thinking and is completely short-sighted and ultimately destructive.
Additionally, the whole “ethics is first eliminating counter-intention’ness and then we eliminate other-intention’ness in the environment” thing is definitely potentially dangerous. I guess if a self-contained group wants to remain focused (e.g. if Ford wants their employees, while they are working, to only focus on making Ford automobiles, instead of focusing on making GM cars or basket-weaving), then I don’t have a problem with that. But the problem is, this “ethics = no other intentions” thing again gets taken to ridiculous extremes in the CoS to control the lives of not only staff, but also the lives of public Scientologists, particularly as they move further up the Bridge.
This, minimally, invites people to violate their own Code of Honor — particularly “Be true to your own goals”. It also creates “the group is everything, and myself, my family and other groups are less important” thinking. It’s pretty destructive when taken to irrational extremes, as is done in the CoS.
Sure, I agree. And thanks for the clarification of the idiom.
The CoS has fallen into the trap of Collectivism. But they are not alone. Collectivism versus Individualism is a 4th Dynamic issue which every individual on Earth needs to get sorted out asap, IMO.
Here is a link to a clear understanding of this 4D problem …
To be honest. He should have never worded it this way, given the fact that not all of his “students” were native speakers of the English language. And even for English speakers, the ambiguity is inappropriate for any scientific purposes.
True, but to attribute his use of the idiom to him advocating murder is beyond silly.
Certainly not. The question still remains: what are you allowed to get away with then? How far can you go before you can expect punishment? That is open to interpretation, and frankly, thus to abuse, as you see in the current implementation of the “Church of Scientology”.
No code of law can be built upon such vagueness.
That would hold if his use of that idiom would be the only “law” he prescribed. The rest of that tech shows the actual rules of conduct. An idiom should not be taken out of context and proclaimed to be a litteral intention. That is beyond silly.
But that is what inevitably will happen. I can’t count the stories where I’ve read people say they have not received justice in front of a CommEv because the perpetrator was “upstat”.
I believe alot of the ethics system is built upon the premise that people who are “clear” will not do “criminal acts” as that would run counter their nature of being clear.
Another premise is that only an ethical being can truly be upstat.
Excellent point Isene,
Thanks sweetie 🙂
“the purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions from the environment. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness from the environment”
This particular quotation is taken out of context from the training materials for an ethics officer charged with the responsibility of ensuring that standard technology is delivered in a safe environment. It was taken out of context by whoever produced the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
Since it is out of context, the surrounding material that described who it applied to and what it applied to, i.e. counter intention to [fill in the blank] isn’t present. The results are not pretty and run counter to the intention of this post in a Church of Scientology, which is to ensure a safe environment in which auditing can occur, and to ensure that auditing technology is being applied correctly. Everything else is secondary to that.
The entire book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics” is pretty much out of context materials, open to all kinds of mischief. It was once a very, very small book but then someone combed through the entire collection of LRH policy letters and bulletins and excerpted every statement made by LRH as to what the various crimes, etc. were. 90% of the policy letters applied ONLY to staff members. Now they appear to apply to anyone and everyone. The book itself is out-ethics as it is counter to the original intention of the ethics materials.
Excellent point! By taking it out of context, ethics got turned into a monstrous morality in the Curch of Scientology.
Wow, you said it about expanding the Ethics Book.
I remember seeing in one version of the ethics book where such things as going by a misunderstood on your post, or some such wording were listed as high crimes. Such behavior could only be at the most, a misdemeanor by any rational person, yet there it was. There must have been enough complaints about it because this high crime has subsequently disappeared from the latest version.
As I recall, back in late 70s/early 80s, LRH was particularly peeved at a few individuals in the sound area at GOLD who had misunderstoods on their posts and equipment and messed something up for the umpteenth time, and in anger, he made it a high crime to go by misunderstoods on your post. This was robotically taken out of context (LRH being pissed off when he said it) and it became enshrined. At least it is out of the latest version.
But, still listed in the high crimes, is “neglect or violation of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working.” Thus, it is a suppressive act to be a new person just finding out about Scientology and not quite to the point with the technology of “knowing it is correct”. And every single person on the planet who is not trained, who doesn’t “know the technology” is guilty of “omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology.”
This robotic failure to evaluate importance, failure to examine a datum in context with other data is responsible for a great deal of suffering both for the individual and those effected by such nonsense.
Hmm… good catch.
The KSW high crimes are a case in point. If you read the actual policy letter, it SPECIFICALLY says these are high crime for executives/administrators i.e. “neglect or violation of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working.”
The craziness is that the specific reference to executives/administrators is not mentioned in the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
What baffles me is how the Church books authorization unit could have even approved the publication of this book in its altered form. My bet is that the publication of this book in its altered forms marked the beginning of every bit of insanity we are seeing today. It is an incomprehensible, authoritarian and downright baffling collection of rules, rules, rules, must, must, must, and penalty, penalty, penalty. No compassion. No forgiveness. No differentiation. Just STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.
I made the news back in 1999 when the “church” forced AT&T to reveal my real name under my “Safe” identity.
The reason? Because I posted the 274 rules of the “church” from the expanded 1999 (squirrel) edition of Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
It’s obvious, the church did not (does not) want these rules (crimes of the “church”) to be broadly known to the public. Nobody I know, in their right mind, would ever knowingly subject themselves to all these “ethics'” rules.
The real why behind me getting hunted down by CoS is not because I violated their copyright (amazing for a “church”, huh). The real why is because I exposed their totalitarian rule by revealing the list of 274 crimes. It made them look like a pink elephant in the living room or exposed the emporer not wearing clothes.
AT&T caved in and revealed my identity to CoS. CoS rushed it through and I never had enough time to fight. Here’s a little history of what happened.
The list I wrote included items such as “Discourtesy and insubordination” and “committing a problem,” as well as 272 other “crimes” of the Church of Scientology.
I definitely hit a sore spot and a button with CoS. To this day, I believe this information should be driven home hard. But it’s not, and it stupifies me why it’s not being used.
Wow. And kudos to you.
I have heard this argument alot and it is a blank reply I get from many Scientologists to my inquiries. It is not always valid. The very nature of quotations IS that they are taken out of context. You cannot quote a whole book, can you? It is true, you can take quotes out of certain contexts and they get a completely different meaning. But you can quote in a way, that this does not happen. Either by providing sufficient text, or by explanatory remarks on your behalf.
Maria, you wrote: “The book [Intro to Scientology Ethics] itself is out-ethics as it is counter to the original intention of the ethics materials.”
Agree with you on that. Throughout the 80s, the book just grew and grew, including more and more out-of-context internal policies that were to apply to staff and Sea Org … but were now being blanket applied to everyone, including public. The 1998 and 2007 were the largest versions yet. It was pretty ridiculous, compared to the simplicity that was used throughout the 60s and 70s in the book Intro. to Scientology Ethics.
One thing of note though: that quote above about “counter intentions” and “other intentions” was not included in any version of Intro. to Scn Ethics, not even the latest 2007 version (at least not that I was able to find). It was originally written as Flag Order 909 and then issued as an HCO PL “Ethics” on 18-June-1968. The statements in it (“REMOVE … FROM THE ENVIRONMENT”) are quite broad, and are definitely open to poor interpretation and attack, especially if treated as a standalone document.
With the CoS going on its anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology campaign in a big way since the 1980s — truth, balance or context be damned — it’s very easy to see how that policy, and others, could be (and are being) abused in the CoS.
The responsibility for the execution and understanding of the tech/ policy is ultimately in the hands of the student. This is a brutal fact, but this translates out to anything else one touches upon in life – how you deal with it use it, etc. is ultimately your responsibility.
I had the good fortune for the most part to have pretty damn good tech/ qual terminals around me in my initial training phase (pre-GAT).
The primary thing that I took away is the above mentioned “In the end there is only me responsible for me and all that touches me” viewpoint.
Seems free will still reigns no?
It is tougher these days for sure in these Black Scientology times emanating FROM the CofS, but that does not take away our personal responsibility in these matters…
With the pervasiveness of the internet and the “search for truth” impulse that inhabits us all to a greater or lesser degree, there is no way that we can loose the parts of the subject that are workable.
Disagreement may well be forbidden in the current CofS, but the laughable thing is that to those that understand and have *actual* understanding will keep their integrity (or restore their integrity once the truth wallops them upside their head!) and quietly or noisily depart from the alter-is that the CofS has become.
Actually, I’m seeing it all the time right out here, not just in the cos. LOL
I would make a bet that those people you speak of were already robots. The robot in them just got beefed up thru the system in the organization and made them even more “right” for being one.
Well, it’s a work in progress. I recall a few people trying to introvert some of us newcomers, way back when, by throwing around the famous labels we all are familiar with. Like 1.1, DB, liar, PTS, a case, low toned, etc. It would always be around Reg time. LOL My attitude was always “If I am that then I am that. Meantime I’m a work in progress”. LOL Used to tick them off cause they couldn’t find the button they wanted to hit on.
I think of Barbara Streisand “Memories” while writing this. 🙂
I know many, many people who work in the Sea Org. I watched them grow up from babies to teenagers, raised by parents who “taught” them to be “Scientologists” by example and family discipline, educated them in schools that used study technology, and forwarded (verbally) ideas, however poorly understood or used, of Scientology. As an example, in their schools a visit to the Ethics Officer meant that you were “in trouble” just as a visit to the Principal’s office in public school meant that you were in “trouble.” They were raised with “be upstat,” “no case on post,” this is “out-ethics,” “that’s entheta,” “knock it off,” “you have MUs,” that’s not okay,” and so on, all of which bypassed their own self-determinism at a very, very early age.
All too many of them were recruited into the Sea Org as young teenagers, bright and fierce and loyal to their family upbringing and their Church and they in turn recruited their friends and younger siblings. This has been going on now for at least two generations and the consequence is that the whole Scientology training/philosophical approach has been “encultured” through familial indoctrination. Who could have predicted that? Not me. I never saw it coming. I raised my own children as best I could with Scientology principles and did my best not to “enculture” them and inadvertantly violate their own free will and power of choice on participating in auditing or training. I tried to raise them to be thinkers, free thinkers, but inevitably ran into problems with their “encultured” friends in and out of the Sea Org, their “encultured” teachers and a host of “encultured” staff members, public events pronouncements and so on. These “encultured” second generation Scientologists want so badly to make a difference, to make their parent’s proud, to carry that torth of freedom, but their life experience has been so minimal and their education so constrained that they simply cannot see what that really means.
And I can feel their shock and hurt and dismay when they come up against a free thinker, an Independent, an adult who did not have such a constrained and limited upbringing.
And all I can say is that we Independents have our work cut out for us, to undo the damage done. Unwitting and unanticipated, at least in my case.
I didn’t know that gun was loaded. I do now.
Amazing post. Thank you.
Wow! What you say speaks 100% sooth to me! I had to stop everything for awhile and think about what you said. What a amazing cognition you had, and it triggered me to cognite too. Thank you. Thank you!
I was reared to be indoctrinated (programmed/implanted) in the Christian religion. It took reading C.S. Lewis in his book called “Mere Christianity” to get half-way out of this implant. His book summerized what all Christians believe, not just a sect of it.
The person who took me the rest of the way out of the Christian and Bible implant was Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason.”
Only then was I able to look at Scientology without any religious implant.
But little did I know that even Scientology was able and DOES create a family implant legacy, passing from generation to generation, which inhibits free thinking on the subject.
Wow! I’m still catching my breath about this! Thank you again!
I find what you wrote especially fascinating after recently listening to Ron talking about religion implants in the tape set …
“Technique 88” Tape 8b – Overt Acts – Motivators and Deds
This tape is a “must” listen for one to understand what has happened with the Scientology organized religion and church, or any organized religion and church for that matter. Highly recommended.
Little do many know they have traded one religious implant for another, and then passed it on. Implanting isn’t just some long gone, distant past “whole-track” stuff. It is being done in PT either knowingly or unknowingly!
What a “game” of getting others to unknowingly implant others!
Again, thank you so much for that post, Maria. Just when I thought I was totally out of the implant with a completely exterior view, you show remnants of it left that I still didn’t view. 🙂
Ron duly warned that Scientology could be used as an implant.
For the record, I still endorse scientology as a subject and technology for moving up in awareness. However, I get hesitant calling it a “religion” when we have such a heavy, bad track on religions and churches used to pervertedly or even unknowingly implant fixed ideas.
It pays to be vigilant.
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” — John Philpot Curran
Speech upon the Rigght of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.) as quoted in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, NY, 1953, p167 and also in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, Boston, 1968, p479
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind and monopolize power and profit.” – Thomas Paine
I recommend this issue of the Truth Seeker Journal which is dedicated to Thomas Paine …
Click to access Truth%20Seeker%20Vol.%20135,%202009%20-%20The%20Resurrection%20of%20Thomas%20Paine.pdf
One can download a pdf and audio version of Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason” in a torrent file here …
From lecture DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCIENTOLOGY AND OTHER PHILOSOPHIES 23 Jun 1960.
— Now, I say to you, “Well, man is basically good.” And you look at me and you say: “Well, that’s fine. I’m glad Ron thinks so.” I hope you say this, and not: “Aha! Ron says man is basically good. Therefore they are basically good and that’s all the thinking I have to do on the subject.” You lazy bones!
The lecture is in the London Congress on Dissemination and Help series.
Great supplementary quote. Thanks.
IMO, Ron had some MU’s on words such as “self-determinism” versus what I believe he meant, instead, was “self-determination”. Look them up. Very different meanings.
Also, there is apparently a crashing MU on the term “inalienable” versus “unalienable” in our Church Creed, which uses the word “inalienable.” America’s Founding Fathers knew the difference, and deliberately used the word “unalienable” in our Declaration of Independence.
Also, there was an MU on “individualism” versus “collectivism.”
What ended up happening with the Church of Scientology is it grew into a collectivist, totalitarian monster.
All the above is part of the 3rd and 4th dynamic engram which I don’t believe Ron had totally cleared himself, IMO.
Just what if Ron realized, the later part of his life, the unintended monster (overt?) he created? Could that explain his blow?
That LRH left without the properly turning over his research and executive hat still stumps me. Right now, apparently, the CoS is waiting for Ron to come back just like Christians are waiting for Christ to return to save them. Could this be?
24 years later; Where is Ron the Being?
Interesting point you’re touching on, Mr. Geir.
I have brought this very same argument to our DSA in Stuttgart, over a year ago. I asked him, why were people invalidated before the release of the “Golden Age of Knowledge”? 10 years ago you KNEW the tech was correct. How could you have agreed with the “wrong” texts and the transcription errors? (In Germany by the way, the people are not told it’s transcription errors, but the translators fucked up). Now it’s suddenly not? Something just doesn’t add up here.
He was squirming like a worm in sunlight and tried to tell me how these basics were not the “tech” and only the policy letters were. Pretty laughable 😀
Yes, it’s a pretty lame point emerging from conscious dissonance.
IMO, independent Scientologists need to take much more responsibility in the pickets, rather than leaving it up to anon picketers. Many of the annoners are at cross purposes with real Scientologists. Some even want the entire destruction of LRH Tech! The annoners main public they’re connecting to are mostly non-Scientologist passer-byers of the Orgs, not church Scientologists.
So we have two challenges:
1) To get annoners to agree with our style of picketing much more effectively to Scientology public and staff Scientologists so the annoners harmonize with our effort.
2) To truly connect to church Scientologists in pickets so they will LOOK.
I posted the following ideas on Marty’s blog and felt it would be notable to post here too …
Here are a few more ideas I believe will impinge hard in pickets, and show church Scientologists that we really are Scientologists legitimately protesting …
STOP KSW ABUSE!
Scientologists for KSW!
Scientologists for PURE LRH!
Stop Altering LRH Tech!
End the Squirrelling!
REMOVE the Squirrels!
Find the REAL SP’s!
We want 100% LRH!
“Look! Don’t Listen.” – LRH
Say NO to Destruction of Tech!
Keep LRH Tech Alive!
IMO, these show verisimilitude to members of CofM. We’ve got to move them up to a level of believability and curiosity. How can they possibly not wonder what’s going on with these signs?
Eventually, but hopefully soon, they will cognite we are real Scientologists.
Many anon protesters are doing a horrible job of actually connecting to church Scientologists. The church members just look at them as loony bins.
Be WE Scientologists have the power to turn that around, and can truly connect with church members, IMO. Good ol’ ARC.
Good points. I see many anons botching their job completely (some say they want to reach scientologists inside the CoS, but I haven’t seen that effectively done by them – ever).
Thank you, Isene. A similar post was not greeted with as much enthusiam on Marty’s blog, to put it lightly.
I, too, have never seen anoners be effective communicators to church Scientologists either. But how could they? They can’t speak from the pureness of heart in what we know.
IMO, if all that protest attention was spent to be much more effective communicators, the existing church public could be emptied in record time to disable a suppressive Reverse Scientology management.
Unless existing management staff become more aware and use courage to confront DM, I never see CoS getting ethics in on itself. I’ve lost hope of that ever happening over the last 11 years.
So I see no other way to solve this dilemma other than to hit the finance and staff lines, as “cruel” as that may seem to some who are less informed.
I believe many anoners have the right idea and intent. They’re just going about it incorrectly. Real scientologist have an R factor to truly communicate in scientologese once they’ve found a com line with a church scientologist.
With the protest signs I’m suggesting, I believe church Scientologists will be able to pick up our pure intent of good, not evil. That’s where the anoners miss the beat.
Imagine a CoS “church” surrounded with all these signs in a picket. A church scientologist may even get the idea it’s a demonstration sponsored by the CoS themselves? lol.
How could church Scientologists read wickedness or evil intention into these signs? Unless there is heavy paranoia on their lines, they can’t!
Instead, it would have to puzzle them to no end, wouldn’t it? Especially if this was done repeatedly. Wouldn’t they finally get curious to communicate to find out what’s really going on?
How could church management be believed if they tell public Scientologists and Staff that these people holding those signs, such as “Say NO to Destruction of Tech!”, are SP’s? lol.
Church management would have no credibility saying this with these signs. If they did, that alone would raise a red flag to some church members, wouldn’t it?
Pickets are effective ways to communicate if done in ways that impinge with high ARC. If our goal is to take our church back and for CoS to get back on-source, I think this is one of the best ways to do it.
However, herein lies the problem I see;
How many brave, independent Scientologists are willing to “out” themselves by picketing, who are not in fear of CoS?
Many “can’t” even do it online, let alone in front of an Org. Of course, the answer is for each individual to get their confront up. Just a few high-confront and courageous people such as you, Marty, and Mike isn’t going to work.
But with numbers, we CAN succeed.
Agreed. Please carry on your quest here.
How was your comment greeted exactly and why wasn’t it received well?
Thank you so much Isene. 🙂
That last I checked the comments of a similar post there, I got …
1) I am not your personal army.
2) I think their efforts are much better spent deliverying or contributing to the delivery of Scientology.
No acknowlegement for the idea which felt close to an inval. Not everybody is a trained auditor of pure LRH, nor do many feel safe yet even exposing themselves, never-the-less delivering Scientology auditing and courses outside CoS!
Scientology needs to be made safe again. Scientologists need a safe environment without duress. Those Scientologists who are not auditors could use, I thought, some positive action ideas to be effective in creating that.
Yes, it’s important to get the many to pitch in. Many different ideas and many different angles make for a more thriving and lively scene.
However ignorantly unintentional they are, it’s the public Scientologists and most church staff whom unknowingly continue to propagate the evil (the suppression of pure Scientology) with their financial support and slave labor.
Of course, I’m always open to listening to more effective ways to stop the suppression and perversion of real Scientology.
But I can think of nothing potentially more effective, and this idea certainly hasn’t been tried on a broad scale.
Take the lead.
There are no orgs or missions where I live or I would be standing in front of an org myself, for sure.
But what I CAN do is openly “out” myself (picture and all) and try to communicate this idea and energize it, which is what I’m trying to do now.
I’ve been leading in other ways, too, by posting alterations of LRH works, the “before’s” and squirrel “after’s”.
(With the exception of my grammar and spelling (lol), my strong suite has been writing “power” communication which impinges and persuades. My background is copywriting. The acid test, of course, is if it “sells”. We’ll see about this idea, huh. :))
Goodie. When I said “take the lead”, it could imply any action that leads. Your writing is a good example of that.