A Scientology thought experiment

Here’s one for the readers with at least some familiarity with Scientology. Expanding on my recent blog post on L. Ron Hubbard’s Administrative Technology and adding the whole gamut of Ethics Technology and mental/spiritual Technology:

What would the world be like if Scientology totally won out?

What if there was a World Organizing Board and the whole of our society structure was utterly and completely run by LRH policy and ethics, and where tech ruled the scene?

How would the world at large look like? How would the world function? Countries? Democracy? Religions?

How would our daily lives be? Would family life be different?

What would we do at work? On vacation?

Anything we couldn’t do?

What would be significantly different?

Pitch in and help me paint a realistic picture of a Scientology World.

1,130 thoughts on “A Scientology thought experiment

  1. I think the responses of the majority who post here are already obvious if you consider tech, especially admin and ethics tech, of the later decades (mid 60’s on, approximately) – those responses have already been stated many times. A more interesting discussion would be about the earlier decades and what kind of world they would create. That idea has not been discussed here much at all!

    1. Correction: A more interesting discussion would be about ADMIN, TECH, AND ETHICS of the earlier decades and what kind of world they would create.

    2. I am not looking for a discussion of the tech, ethics or admin. I am looking to piece together a futuristic world view where we extrapolate what we know onto total world domination by Scientology. Let’s write a bit of sci-fi together 🙂

      1. Okay, so by “what we know” you have in mind the whole dirty history of Scn. And you want to project all that into the future if Scn were to take hold of the world. Something like “2084 – Planet Scientology, an Orwellian Saga.”

        1. Only if that is what you believe it would be like. I welcome any angle on a future scenario. Not only a current CoS extrapolated, but also LRH’s vision extrapolated etc.

        2. If the Hubbard’s PR vision should become reality, then it wouldn’t be possible with Scientology. Otherwise you’d get nothing else than extrapolation of current Co$ or companies using the Admin Tech. In other words disaster, tones 1.5, 1.2 snd 1.1 predominant.

  2. I could not say Gere.
    I know many scientologists who run well and fluent lives by applying intelligently ethic conditions to thirs lives.
    Obviously if The Church would run it we could have the worse “capitalistic” state one could imagine,
    It could be even be a strong feudalism: vassals and bondsmes which could work for a whole life theirs ass off to be free next life
    or a hard monarchy where nevertheless some able persons could emerge and make theirs life happily
    but the major point is that the purpose of the Sea Org was to enroll everybody and export scientology at least to all our galaxy
    so a military technocratic state trying to fly to Moon and Mars
    one could invent others, but the only certainty I have is that it would for sure be a monarchy.

  3. This thought experiment terrifies me, and I have wondered about it before.

    A world where Scientology won-out would be for me a good definition of hell on Earth. A world where your thoughts and actions would be highly scrutinized for signs of dissent, where you wouldn’t know which of your friends and relations you could trust not to file a KR, where RPF “volunteers” would run past your house in their drab uniforms, fear in their faces.

    No free press. No independent judiciary. No democracy.

    Thankfully this is a nightmare that the freedom-loving peoples of this planet would never allow to happen, so I will try not to dream about it tonight.

  4. Assuming that ethics was applied properly, then the tech division would actually work.
    (FPA Cert’d)
    Other divisions may feel the squeeze at times, but expansion in wrong places would be brought to a minimum, At the same time to have to fill out a REQ form for everything and get approval jams up lines. Software outdated and locked in, computer operates through a proxy. Actual INTERNET not only not allowed, not able (unless bypassed).

    ESTO wouldn’t work in a family unless it was the goldfish….

  5. Hold on… in order to leave a job you would have to find a replacement, do a full write up, and train them. That would NOT work for family either.

    Reg’s would not exist because they are not ethical.

  6. In such a world, there would be other religions, but they would be barely tolerated, similar to how religions in communist countries survived, but did not flourish particularly. Those that stayed in such religions and did not “lose interest” and join scientology would be considered second or third-class citizens. They would be Degraded Beings because they could not see the “truth” of scn.

    Perhaps “squirrel buster”type crusader zealots would have attempted to convert those who steadfastly held their traditional religious views, but this, like similar attempts throughout history, would have failed utterly and in fact, likely strengthened the resolve of the beleaguered.

    There would be individuals of other faiths that joined scientology if only to avoid being considered second-class citizens, and thus enjoy the benefits of “membersip”, even if they barely, if at all, participated in scn services. Similar to how individuals joined the communist party in the USSR if only to get better housing, etc.

  7. Sorry. Treasury. Better i don’t multitask, eh? treasury would work, where one would do the accounting, another would oversee and approve in a family unit.
    Esto would be the neighbor watching out their window, Businesses would need permission to operate and pay fees, a certain portion (10 percent) of the money. People would pay off a house before living in it unless you have credit, If you did something out ethics the family and neighborhood would know about it. Your statistics would be posted on the wall. You would pick a career out of availability and train to become that career for a certain amount of years or you owe for education. If your stats were up on the job, you would be left alone. Pay would be on a hierarchy scale.
    Access to the Arts would be down.

    … I don’t see much difference… Except finances and education.

  8. Hi all,

    Well, I’m glad I read the comments before posting – I would have gone off-topic quickly.

    If I look at ‘LRH’s Vision’ – and I include some of the very basics: a world without insanity, war, etc., the Service PL, granting of beingness, exchange in abundance, ethics as ‘reason & contemplation of OPTIMUM survival’, ability & knowingness to a high degree, and the solving of man’s ills; I think it would be a pretty good world to live in.

    Unfortunately it falls far short of that vision and has for many years.

    I have always thought that any science or practice that would/could tackle these areas would likely manifest the most outrageous acts by it’s own members – sort of an evolution in itself – the insanities eventually blow off, but it can be a very long road.

    I have no doubts that LRH would have wanted this vision to be so – why one would spend years researching & documenting all that he did if only for money. Hell, he could have saved himself 10s of thousands of hours by coming up with some simpler get-rich scheme if that was his intention.

    1. Dennis, maybe it looks a brave and unfounded statement, but actually there is no ethics technology in Scientology.
      There is a good system of exploring overts and withholds and that can be beneficial. But this system based on what? Ethics itself is not defined in Scientology. It is said 1) common sense. 2) moral codes. 3) not moral codes but the greatest number for the greatest number of dynamics. This is not specific for the least and this is not clear and this is actually a mess if you examine this closely.
      Moral codes are different in different communities. But we all are humans. Indifferently if we live in Alaska, India, Europe, China or Tehran.
      It is wisely stated that ethics is a personal matter (I would add unless it is a “serious” transgression – causing harm or more harm to others – of the actual moral codes.) So it is wisely stated in one reference but other references pulls down Scientology ethics to the level of moral codes. And yes, this is because it serves better the aims of a cult.
      So when “ethics technology” of Scientology is a mess, than it ruins auditing however great the processing is, this fact ruins all the greatness. And honestly I think this is deliberate.

      1. Thanks for the reply … I agree with much of what you wrote.

        When I wrote it, I was going to mention Ethics & Justice & Moral Codes, and I probably should have to clarify.

        My own viewpoint is that if one combines LRH’s vision along with some sort of ethics/justice codes, those codes should work in the best interests of everyone and towards better/greater survival. I guess I look at other codes like the Ten Commandments, or the Way to Happiness … to me, a good basis for ‘clean living’. I’m not saying it is the best and could not be improved upon … just that it is a good start.

        As you mention, different communities have different codes of conduct whether it be a personal code, or group justice codes.

        Whenever I was handling someone, I would be looking to enhance their survival – not MY estimation of their survival, but to have them realize it for themselves.

        The church of scientology on the otherhand, has used these codes to threaten & suppress individuals, has expanded them to include almost everything short of breathing and generally driven any hope of justice within the church into the ground.

        That`s probably what pisses me off the most – hang out the carrot of freedom and then turn around and deny it to the masses.

      2. Huh? gOd, what about “Ethics is Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”? And the Conditions formulas.

        Ethical vs.not Ethical is implicit in many of the basic concepts of Scientology but they all align with the continuum of Survival. At one end is Optimum Survival along all the Dynamics, at the other is Succumb, failure, death, non-survival.

  9. That’s a very broad question.

    What would the banking system be like? Politics? Medicine? Legal? Academic? Etc.

    1. Watching Star Trek, I often wonder about these things. Only Deep Space 9 touched on the commercial aspect of the future outer-space existence.

  10. It’s a pretty big question for a “comment” but here’s a start. This is based on LRH’s original vision for the world – to play a better game. If that vision were being brought about the culture of Earth would look something like this:

    Individuals would be making progress in both spiritual growth and wisdom by going up the Bridge OR by progressing in those two ways on other paths. (One reference which that last would be in keeping with would be the Creed of the Church of Scientology as regards the right to one’s own religious practice.) There would be interest and motivation for taking such paths because of their development in the smallest unit, the family.

    Family members would be winning as a result of values based on Scn basics, such as TRs and the use of ethics tech (conditions, stats, etc.), etc.

    Both the workplace and government would operate according to the most basic admin and ethics tech (not the specific tech for Scn organizations), which would include such PLs as “An Essay on Management,” which itself is based on the most fundamental basics, such as ARC and KRC. Applying those fundamentals would require then a democratic organization and government.

    And overall, the world would be playing an increasingly better game.

    1. How would the Scientology go about determining what of LRH’s writings to use and when? How would some writings be discarded, if any?

      1. Having just read Maria’s comment wisely focusing on the tech, I would say that there should be a collaboration of the highest trained auditors to determine what is Standard Tech. Per my understanding this is the type of thing that Dan Koon and others did in the Church itself, sorting out various tech questions and even writing new HCOB’s based on LRH’s notes, making sure the new issues aligned with basic principles.

        I would also include in this vision of LRH’s goal of making a better game your idea of continuing the research where LRH left off and doing such would in fact be basic Scientology as well. One reference is DMSMH where LRH asks for help in building a better Bridge (here again, his early-years attitude). Another reference might be the top level of the Chart of Human Evaluation under “Reality (Agreement): Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. CHANGES REALITY [my caps].”

        Again, the central thread in this new world of Scientology would be the auditing tech, but auditing would not be forced on anybody as that would violate tech itself and many basic principles. That’s why in my concept of LRH’s vision there would be other paths people could take. But since everyone would have been taught the basics of Scientology at home and at school, they would have datums of comparable magnitude and would thus be better able to evaluate for themselves personally “what is true for them.”

        In addition to Scientology, other systems of knowledge including other tech, admin and ethics systems would be taught, particularly ones that followed the basic principles of maintaing and raising ARC and KRC and increasing higher levels of awareness. And such things as basic Scn admin and ethics tech could be evaluated against other systems with the aim of an ongoing evolution of workability in all spheres.

        1. Remember to include all of LRH’s visions – not just the one’s you like. No cherry-picking allowed 😉

          1. Ha ha! It occurred to me you might say that. But no – before all the contraditions came about as a result of expansion efforts, core Scientology was consistent, from what I can see, and therefore there really isn’t much reason to be concerned about cherry picking. Sure, even high tech terminals debate over tech points at times, but eventually they work it out. This is the best anyone could expect of any system that isn’t objective (i.e. general consensus) science.

            1. Gimme the full LRH vision materialized in a sci-fi future – let’s say in the year 2050.

          2. Hmmm… I’m not sure what you mean by the “full” LRH vision. I tried in my comments to give a general idea of his vision of “playing a better game,” without attempting to write a whole book, or write about things I don’t know a lot about (economics, government, justice systems, etc etc). The main point I was trying to make was that if basic Scn principles were applied (with their inherent intentions), all areas of the culture would evolve into more and more beneficial systems – and particularly if standard auditing were promoted and being done. The basic winning factor, then, would be that individuals would be getting closer and closer to their full potential – because it is the individuals who are the building blocks of society.

            What would evolve out of the best minds working at their increasingly better potential I don’t think I can say specifically (understatement! :-)).

          3. I can understand “the full LRH vision” only by restating it as “What was LRH’s IdealScene, in terms of Scientology”?

            An Ideal Scene monitors all the detailed actions that follow, and prioritizes them.

            1. The ideal scene is what he constantly worked towards – thus the closest to the ideal scene would be what we found in the latter part of his life.

          4. I don’t agree with this because in the latter part of his life there were more and more co-creators of the actuality involved. This diluted his influence over what actually occurred

            It’s a big difference between giving ACCs to small groups, and having organizations all over the world with other people running them on the basis of the best understanding they could muster. More and more responsibilty gets delegated; how well was the Ideal Scene duplicated by all those others?

            That would have been the purpose of codifying the various techs; to get them duplicated as exactly as humanly possible without his actual personal presence there monitoring it all.

            And that’s not even considering all the opposition terminals that were were counter-creating or just individuating away. Those were also part of the co-creation.

            So I would say the truest Ideal Scene was the earliest part of it all, when Ron was one-on-one auditing or him directly interacting with groups, giving lectures, doing group processing, giving workshops.

            Now it’s true that the Bridge was not fully developed yet in those days, all the research had not yet been done, so the Ideal Scene was not completely actualized.

            But what came later was LRH’s development of the Admin tech which was intended to enable the organization to expand and replicate itself fractally, repeating the same
            standard pattern. It seems inevitable to me that in the physical universe degradation of the pattern would occur, without sufficient direction by theta.

            If that’s not done, we end up with empty shells, forms without substance,”Idle Morgues” instead of “live orgs”.

            As Buddha said, All compound things decay”. Unless they are steadily infused with new life, granted beingness in new units of time.

            1. “I don’t agree with this because in the latter part of his life there were more and more co-creators of the actuality involved. This diluted his influence over what actually occurred”

              That does not rob him of any responsibility for what he created, though.

      2. It is really hard if not impossible. I would refer to a committee of OT’s, but it is very unlikely there would be a solid, common agreement. Besides all these people would look at this problem from the (sorry) narrow-mindedness of Scientology. Ron said: Look for the Source. And indeed. Look for the source from where his pick-ups, selections came from. Many came from tantric buddhism or even higher teachings I do not name this time.
        According to my experience I must say without a solid knowledge of this the above determining does not work.

  11. It would just be another collectivist fascism with all the current “Do as I say – not as I do.

    I couldn’t bear to imagine my grandkids KR’ing me for giving a touch or nerve assist without CS OK.
    The PR was to have a world without crime so that we wouldn’t have jails – We could weld up makeshift chain lockers and place them next to all the Hubbard offices across the planet.
    We could also copy the Muslims and have everyone stand and applause at the closest “bust” of Hubbard at certain times each day.
    And insist that Wall street and other exchanges have their stats available before 14:00 hrs on a Thursday so that Int could send out their CSW’s.
    God’s strewth Geir – Hypnotism and meditation would be forbidden and each org will have to have it’s own abortion clinic with a competent AO (Abortion officer) trained in SO ethics.
    Enough – It’s a horror I don’t want to imagine.

      1. Geir is doing a group session to get off our great charges on Scientology (i.e. Black Buddhism) and see us across into the Brave New World of Scientology. 😉

        just (semi)joking 😀

  12. If there would be a World Org Board, then we would become work slaves. 16 hours work per day, rice and beans, and all other amenity current Sea Org members have. Slave planet same style as it is being tried to accomplish by the current “establishment”. Just annother mask. So the choice is: Pest or cholera. Or blow away from this scruffy planet as I will do,when I quitt.

    1. In my opinion this is the most realistic scenario. This was the scenario in Hubbard’s life. At least the ideal scene:) Strange that people do not notice this.

      1. I remember a statement of Hubbard: Total Freedom requires total discipline.
        This brings up out-points and questions:
        Was ethics designed to get this IN ?
        Was he in fear of his own products – “OT´s”? ,
        because back on the track they used their power to mess up the (physical) universe ?

        Ethics in its most harsh application, is practiced in the SEA ORG. Why ? Total freedom is not available at all, not for publics not for staff. Why enforcing total discipline when no
        Total freedon is available.
        You see cross data, contrary facts which cannot be resolved.
        Some answers I found here:

        one of the most valuable dox available in the net, it answeres a lot of questions.

        1. ” Total Freedom requires total discipline.”

          That’s pretty much exactly what Buddha said, too.

          1. Spongebob, what does that phrase mean to you? I see two different ways of interpreting it:

            1. “Total Freedom requires total discipline” to be imposed by others on the one who has achieved total freedom.”

            2. “Total Freedom requires total discipline” to be imposed on himself (the one who has achieved total freedom).

          2. I thought of Nr. 1
            I did not take into account Nr. 2
            But you are right, it could be lokked at it both ways.

  13. (First of all, forgive me if my English is not fluid.)

    I can imagine two distinct scenarios.
    The first is the one for which I’ve joined Scientology the first place. The basic data in Scientology would be the first and foremost thing to apply. If other, later data would go against these basics, the later data would be followed keeping in mind the basic data.
    Still this world would be a kind of synthetic stuff. No real life, no real joy, but the “Scientology Veneer”.
    One of the first barrier would be that people are different. The basic data would mean different things for each person. Despite any world clearing. What about “attitude clearing”?:) When you define the word honest not by dictionary but by examplified conduct…:) Showing actual examples:) But still that would lead to a synthetic world.
    Second barrier is the dimension in which Scientology would be applied. “This is Sparta!” Sorry:) I wanted to say: “This is Samsara!”
    The third most important barrier is the “source” of Scientology (as a whole system), namely it’s Founder. I think, a person who can invent Fair Game Policy and such things is insane. So there can be serious flaws in the system which must be researched but that is quite a task.

    This scenario is the projection of real Scientology. It is already in implementation by the current “management” or David Miscavage. It is the projection of the good and bad in Scientology. It is the projection of the system, designed by a mind who designed Fair Game, disconnection, RPF and such himself. Who thought of everything, who wrote down policies about how to clean furnitures and windows with newspaper but who did not put down what to do when the system goes “black” (Black Dianetics and Black Scientology) who oddly enough only envisioned and forecasted this:)
    This scenario is the most fascisted, 1984 and Brazil type of world one can imagine.

    Third Scenario… which I can’t imagine and which was not in the question itself:) which would use the good stuff from Scientology intelligently and would not follow it’s astrays (put it here just really briefly):
    Useful stuff in auditing and philosophy would be kept, to advance the person spiritually. Regarding “Source” material an extensive research would be made to point out which material comes from where. For example: Body-mind-thetan comes exactly from the Buddhist principle: Body-energy-mind. Maybe there are more examples of that so for the better understanding and for respect, a research would be needed.
    Cultlike and any unprovable stuff would be cut off. Like “LRH is the Source of Scientology Technology”…(besides, I am not a robot and not a machine, so I do not need any technology to be applied on myself. Please…!) or for example, beating up bad people, like suggested in the Ethics book and such violent stuff which is only good for creating fanatics would be left out entirely 🙂

    It would be made available for the broad public in society for goodwill purposes.
    Right now Scientology pretends to forward religious freedom, but it is just a cover for combating it’s own rejection by society. In the future Scientology should be made broadly available as a subject not as a religion. And free application should be stressed. If a religion would like to apply this subject that religion the Church of Scientology should not apply any authority above that religion.
    Especially when it would be available for all than I would apply higher spiritual principles to follow on from there.
    As far as I can see there are limits in Scientology. It is not wise to pretend that it takes all or even just anyone to “Total Freedom”.

    But personally I would prefer this last Scenario. The workable stuff to be made widely available and without limit for goodwill application.

    Than the world could be really a better place.

    1. What I would keep from Scientology is the analytical approach that Hubbard took in consolidating past knowledge. I am only talking about the approach and not the resulting consolidation necessarily.


      1. Exactly, I agree Vin. It is supposed to be the “science of knowing how to know”. A method, or a collection of methods, including fundamental principles of discovering more methods of discovering answers, for each individual to discover answers for himself.

        Part of this is helping remove those factors/barriers within himself which prevent an individual from being able to see/know/discover answers/knowledge/data.

        The “resulting consolidations” which may have been a an appropriate response to any particular events or circumstances may not be appropriate at all ever again.

        Thus it is the intelligent application of fundamental principles in new units of time, in present time, is what is necessary. Rote, literal application of “policies” will usually tend to screw things up because they were developed based on some past obnosis, not necessarily for what is “happening NOW”. Fundamental principles expressed as “policy”, like “We deliver what we promise” do always apply but they need to be adapted to the obnosed present time situation. That kind of policy statement refers to postulated goals or ideal scenes.

        A “Here’s how we polish our shoes” may not apply at all. What if you’re in a culture that doesn’t wear shoes? That policy would be meaningless.

        I hope I am getting across the difference?

        1. LRH’s Ideal scene changed with time – reflected in the changes in the Bridge among other things. You can also hear it in the lectures and you will find a big change with the release of OT III – then the ideal scene is along the lines of a “salvaged sector”. It is well and sound that he kept adjusting the Ideal Scene IMO.

          1. OK, the basic foundation and direction of the Ideal Scene did not change, then. Only it’s scope expanded.

            An apple is an apple, no matter if there is one tree or a huge orchard of them. LRH simply expanded from having one planet of healthy apple trees to a having a whole sector full of planets with healthy apple trees. The original postulate was there.

            1. Not so IMO – the original Ideal Scene was to provide a tool. The later was a world take-over. Very, very different.

          2. Can either of you provide any reference? I found the reference below and it made me wonder – were there at some point changes in statistics that would have indicated changes in products which in turn would have indicated a change in the ideal scene? And if so, what is the reference?

            “Statistics must reflect the actual desired PRODUCT. If they do not, they are not valid.
            If they do, they give an idea of an ideal scene.

            “From a statistic reflecting the desired products, one can work out the departure from the
            ideal scene.” LEARNING TO USE DATA ANALYSIS, HCO PL 19 Mar 1972, Issue II

  14. Is the assumption that auditing is given the central / senior role and is being delivered without gross auditing errors, with calling F/N s as an acknowledgment / confirmation of already present VGIs / cog / EP and without arbitraries such as 3 times swing?

  15. Are people REQUIRED to have auditing? i.e. has it become the law, with no choice?

    1. I believe it would be impossible to require/enforce auditing, based on my understanding of the basic Ideal Scene of Scientology.

        1. Not really touche.

          The first part of the Introspection Rundown is the very simplest handling that is done today with psychotics in any hospital.- isolation in the very quietest possible environment where they can not hurt themselves, until they destimulate. This is not the only way, but it is basically a pre-locational locational. The person is “lost” and needs to be “found”.

          I’m not sure why an Intro Rd is necessary; in the past I had considered that a Locational would work; I did not know about the Introspection Rd. at that time, but I can see now it might be better because even a simple Locational might impact the person too much and leave too many footprints in his reactive mind.

          Assists and handlings like this are a much neglected area of Scientology which is a real shame because they are exactly what the doctor ordered for people in serious mental difficulty, who are experiencing a psychotic break, etc.

          Basically the Rd. as I understand it is an undercut to a standard Locational because the person is in a super-deep Confusion.

          As far as whether it’s “auditing”, there is a difference between Assists, locationals, CCHs and the like – 8-C procedures, and auditing that addresses the mind.

          Would you ask an unconscious accident victim for permission to give him an Assist?

          He might die while you’re still waiting for him to come out of his coma and answer you.

          No, you tell him you’re gonna do it and just start “Feel my hand”. “Thank you”.

          1. Here’s one reference:

            “The auditor and pre-clear are a group. To function well a group must be cleared. The clearing of a group is not difficult. It requires but little time. The relationship of the auditor and pre-clear is not parity. The auditor lends himself to the group as the control center of the group until the pre-clear’s subcontrol center is established under his own control center’s command. The role of the auditor ceases at that moment.” (AP&A)

            1. “The auditor and pre-clear are a group. To function well a group must be cleared.”

              This is demonstrably untrue.

              It is unfortunate that LRH makes such bold statements presented as fact and then go on building his argument on this “fact”.

          2. The auditor’s job should be to get the pc to LOOK and that is all. The auditor should not be doing anything else at all. He should not be making the pc look in a certain way. He should simply let the pc un-stack whatever is uppermost in the pc’s mind.

            So there is no need to “clear” auditor and pc as a group, as found in the KHTK approach. The KHTK approach can be applied by the pc oneself.


          3. Sorry, I didn’t post enough to give you the context for the meaning of “cleared.” Here’s more in that same section. The auditor and preclear are “clearing” things that get in the way of auditing. (I had my attention on the part about control as that was the point being discussed between you and Valkov).

            “THE FIRST ACT of the auditor concerns himself. He assesses the task rather than the pre-clear and assesses the matter within himself. He establishes whether or not he desires the pre-clear to become established under the pre-clear’s own center of control. To do this the auditor may find it necessary to straight-wire himself for the removal of any reason why he does not want this pre-clear to be owned by the pre-clear. He then postulates to himself what he wants to happen with this pre-clear and postulates as well that he can do this task with this pre-clear. He must feel these postulates solidly. If he cannot he must discover why he cannot. Thus the first session’s first minutes with the pre-clear are concerned with the auditor himself. He should take time out from the pre-clear until he himself is established in his task and then readdress the pre-clear.”

            Btw, you were missing context so this isn’t a valid example but in a way it shows how people can get a horrid idea based on an MU. Many of the comments here and elsewhere demonstrate this, IMO.

  16. I will attempt this based on the idea that auditing is delivered per the auditor’s code, without GAEs, and with the full agreement and participation of both the auditor and the preclear with due attention to the full EP with meter phenomena serving rather than dictating.

    By 2084, the entire world had been trained as auditors, both on the lower bridge and on the upper bridge. The Sea Organization, which had been operating out of ignorance of the reality released during auditing, had long ago ceased its endless efforts to control everything in sight, mainly because it is simply not possible to control individuals who have broken through the consensus reality. There was an apparency for a time that this could be done, but in reality, an entire new reality had been forming all along the way, one that could not be “owned” but only co-created. Nothing could interfere with that co-creation, for it is beyond the confines and limitations of ego-bound reality, beyond the bound of flesh and bone. Sec-checking fell away along the line as a tool of the fear-bound separate being faced with possible extinction.

    The food production regions of the world had been brought under cultivation, and those who love the land and its living creatures flocked to work the land. In fact, there was always a waiting list for these coveted tasks. Never again would there be a shortage of food, for a critical element for auditing is a well-fed preclear.

    Science and technology began to flourish long before the tipping point, as the most brilliant individuals began to extend and expand their consciousness well beyond the individual striving for fame, for patents, for exclusiveness. Questions that had been dismissed as mere subjective maunderings were now considered and quantum leaps were made.

    And so the problems of energy and scarcity were addressed.

    And love, love for one’s family, friends, groups, mankind, and all the myriad forms of life, it had expanded across time and space, and the birth of a child was greeted with joy, for each new body permitted yet another to participate in the grand game of releasing life from its bondage to fear and limitation.

    Art, music, adventure, all these became expressions of unity and diversity.

    Gone were the days of fears of scarcities.

    Gone were the days of fears of isolation.

    Gone were the days of fears of other.

    And in the far-flung communities of man, real community began to express itself. Coordination with compassion reigned supreme. There was no question of whether one should assist another, for it is insane to regard another as one’s enemy when the world is born out of co-creation. Instead, it is: brother, you have lost your way, will you take my hand, will you walk with me to a place beyond fear?

    Utopia? No.

    IMHO this would be the true result of the countless acts of compassion of the the most saintly individuals of Scientology, acting under the auditor’s code. The auditors. And in the end, it was the only thing that Scientology had to offer of value.

    1. Bless you, Maria! This is is the mountain we should be keeping our eye on and focusing our efforts on. Brilliant of you to pick out the only thing needed – correct application of tech. All else in an upward spiral would follow.

      We would be reading the details of your synopsis in future history books! 🙂

    2. Super well done Maria!

      I had already decided that I would not attempt to answer the OP on it’s own terms because should scientology come to “dominate” the entire world, it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State, among other things.

      Here is what LRH wrote about it:

      “Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products. One is well-trained auditors. The other is
      satisfied pcs.”
      “Tech and Admin policy exist only to assist making these two products IN VOLUME.”
      LRH ED 131 INT, Re: Life Repair Block, 8 Dec 1970 (OEC Vol. 4, p. 145)

      That is LRH’s “vision” right there in a nutshell. The simple assumption is that well-trained and well-audited people will then come up with better, more positive, more constructive and less destructive solutions to the world’s and society’s problems. Better solutions than war, for example, or economic systems that impoverish a lot of people while others get richer, “justice” systems that imprison a lot of people, psychiatric treatments that brain damage people, etc etc etc etc etc.

      Aside from the questions about what the OP actually means by “scientology”. The auditing tech? The admin tech? The data series? Hubbard’s own opinions, speculations and fantasies as opposed to any tech? It appears that already, people have problems sorting out what KSW applies to…… Witness what the CoS has been turned into……

      As LRH said, “We are not seeking revolution, but an evolution to higher states…..” Or words to that effect. Not necessarily a fascist or totalitarian dictatorship…….

      Those interested in governing structures might want to check out the http://www.savescientology.com site. That attempts to lay out what LRH’s vision for how he wanted scientology organizations to be governed after his death,based on verified documents.

      The end result of the dissemination and progress of scientology throughout the world ought to result in improved “standards of living” in various ways, just as the dissemination of other constructive technologies – plumbing, agriculture, medicine, etc etc does.

      We are talking about tools here. It is really irrelevant what LRH himself might have done if he were “king”. His vision(s) of that probably evolved overtime, and may have depended on how he was feeling any given day. Just as our visions fluctuate in the quality of their loftiness depending upon which side of the bed we get out.

      Someone would have to parse all of his words, to even arrive at any idea of what LRH’s total vision was. One would have to completely DUPLICATE the totality of Hubbard to really know what his vision was as to the specific applications to practical problems in society, medicine, law, etc. He actually addressed those kind of issues in Book 1, DMSMH. I think his basic vision was that use of the tech would be a good thing IF it was used forthe purpose ofmaking people brighter and happier, because then they would make better decisions and create better solutions.

      Other than that, this question is like a Rorscach test. Each person will project on to it their own hopes, fears, desires, wishes, and “must not happens.”

      If it helps sort out what is scientology and what is not scientology, that would be excellent.

      LRH himself said that all a scientologist should aspire to is “an empire of wisdom”, not any empires of money, political control, or any of that worldly stuff.

      1. Regarding KSW; I would like your comment on the policy titled “Keeping Admin Working”.

        I quote from paragraph #3 of that policy:

        “Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin. The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration – POLICY”

        And when we look at the definition of Third Dynamic, it follows that LRH intended this Strict Adherence to all green on white be applied to all third dynamics.

        1. That’s only one definition of Third Dynamic. Here’s a quote: “Any group, or part of an entire class, could be considered a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each PART of the third Dynamic and each one IS a Third Dynamic.”

          And in the context of that LRH quote I think it’s pretty clear which third dynamic he means.

          1. He mentions Policy as THE Third Dynamic Tech in many places. And yes, I do think it is clear that he means that Policy is the only True TDD in existence.

          2. I will quote another Policy Letter:

            This course contains the basic laws of organization.
            Primarily intended for Scientology Organization Executives, its policy letters are
            slanted toward a Scientology Org (short for organization). However, it covers any
            organization and contains fundamentals vital to any successful or profitable activity.
            This course also applies to the individual. Any individual has his 7 (or 9) Divisions
            and his 21 (or 27) Departments. Where one or more of these is missing in his conduct
            of life he will be to that degree an unsuccessful individual.
            No matter how organized any company, society or political entity will be as
            unsuccessful as it has these functions missing.

            And from the same PL:

            If anyone knew the Org Exec Course fully and could practise it, he could
            completely reverse any down trending company or country. Indeed, here and there at
            this writing men have done so.


            It could be argued or pleaded that this huge body of data should be made into
            texts capable of general application by businesses and countries. The one effort to
            republish these policies in other terms so badly altered the material that it became a
            hopeless bog even though attempted by a very successful business man. He himself was
            applying the originals direct to his company and it soaringly became rich. Then he
            decided to rewrite it all, greatly altered and edited, for his employees and his business
            went on a toboggan slide. His correct action would have been to send his employees to
            take the same course he took-this very Org Exec Course. And let them adapt what
            they now knew to fit their own posts and activities. Instead, he cut them off from
            source and what he wrote for them was only as much as he had gotten out of the
            course from his own viewpoint.

            At least there are Scientology Orgs around which are successful living models of
            these policies and org form.

            It is clear to me that LRH envisioned any third dynamic up to countries and the society at large implement As Much As Possible of the green-on-white. It was clearly part of his vision back in 1969 when this policy was written.

            Now, what would our society be like if we did follow this vision?

          3. Geir, in that quoted PL, LRH saying that policy contains the “fundamentals” and “functions” of any organization or individual, or even saying that in a specific case they should have “adapted what they now knew “ is not for me the same as saying that policy (or even its fundamentals) MUST be applied by everyone. I haven’t ever seen that directly or indirectly stated, only strong statements as to the potential value of policy if its principles were implemented.

            1. Read the policy letter in full. Yes, he says that those policies that are only applicable to an org are indeed only applicable to an org – but he advocates changing as little as possible – and then follow that to the letter.

          4. Okay, now I see what you mean – “advocates” – definitely!

            And this gets back to my vision (in achieving LRH’s vision) that the very core of Scientology and auditing tech would be a great guilding principle for an ever-evolving and improving society.

          5. “It is clear to me that LRH envisioned any third dynamic up to countries and the society at large implement As Much As Possible of the green-on-white. It was clearly part of his vision back in 1969 when this policy was written.

            Now, what would our society be like if we did follow this vision?”

            Never going to happen. You, and the others on this blog, along with the thousands that are now independent will never allow it this to happen, and the reference you have cited is very much at variance with the rigid and robotic approach apparently demanded by the policy Keeping Admin Working. This reference tells executives to pick and choose what to apply and how to apply it: “His correct action would have been to send his employees to take the same course he took-this very Org Exec Course. And let them adapt what they now knew to fit their own posts and activities.” It says nothing about blindly and slavishly and “standardly” trying to apply the entire body of policy of a Church organization to everything under the sun, moon and stars – that would be (and is) a ridiculous endeavor given the policies on What is Policy just to name one policy.

            As far as org boards go, the fact is that the CofS has been busily designing org boards vastly different from the original 7 div org board since the day that policy was issued and many, many policy letters were either canceled or revised during the time LRH lived.

            (I personally think that Keeping Admin Working was not issued by LRH, but is a very poor attempt to mimic KSW and scare the piss out of people – I think that because I see books approved during his time disappearing completely from sight, such as Notes on the Lectures and I see some really stupid directives coming out of the Sea Org that are supposedly from LRH.

            I should note that in my vision, there is no single totalitarian Church overlord. There is no need for it.

            1. Well, wouldn’t that have to be the case if Conditions were to be applied to the Church at large. One would have to expand – and into ever new Power ranges – until the whole of Earth was covered. Breaking an affluence is clearly Out Admin. And dropping below Normal gets Ethics into pretty frantic action – with an Emergency across the boards demanding action such as State of Emergency etc. I cannot see a Church on Policy not take over the world.

          6. Geir – do you personally apply the ethics conditions to your life? And if not, why not? And in your answer lies the answer to why the CofS will never rule the world.

            1. Of course it will never rule the world. But this is a sci-fi thread of sorts – a “What If?”. And as I said – extrapolating only LRH policy on Conditions, I see no other course of action for the CoS to aim to take over the world. Now, what would that world look like (even disregarding all the off-beat Miscavige stuff and only counting LRH’s intentions and written words).

          7. Geir – you are asking for a vision of a world that is impossible. If the Church was in power, and all the world on the org board, no expansion would be possible. So I guess the only conditions possible to be applied would be to address forces of nature and entropy. Since there are no excuses for down statistics it seems that entire areas of the world would be assigned lower conditions and those people would have to go work on unwanted tasks until some other random natural event or entropy caused those people to have to be assigned lower conditions. Of course, eventually more and more people would be declared suppressive. I guess they would have to be quarantined. Russia seems a likely candidate for suppressives, And the suppressives would create their own societies since no one in the Church would be permitted to communicate to them. Eventually the number of suppressives would outstrip the number of Church members and…

          8. Geir,

            “And as I said – extrapolating only LRH policy on Conditions, I see no other course of action for the CoS (other than) to aim to take over the world.”

            Here’s where I disagree with your statement of it – “To expand and deliver auditing and training all over the world” does not equate in my mind with “take over and dominate the world”.

            For example, the principle of the separation of church and state is a basic principle that would still apply.

            There is no other course of action possible, than to expand – as a Church. PepsiCola has no other choice than to expand – as a soft-drink company. Not as a church. It may compete with other soft-drink companies, takeover and dominate the market against them, but to think of it as a competitor to the CoS is apples and oranges.
            Soft drinks are not religions. They are different realms of endeavor, they co-exist they do not compete and try to take over each other’s markets and publics, although conflicts are possible.

            For example, Mormons do not drink tea or coffee. I believe it is the caffeine. It would be a stretch for a soft-drink manufacturer to try to eliminate the Mormon religion because they are in the business of selling caffeinated drinks! And vice-versa – Mormons don’thave put the Cola companies out of business to protect their flocks.

            In fact, the cola companies have created caffeine-free soft drinks precisely because there is a demand for such. Thus, cola and religion can co-exist, they don’t have to try to take over and dominate each other to survive. After all, what would a study break be, without Cola? Dreary!

            “Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products. One is well-trained auditors. The other is
            satisfied pcs.”
            “Tech and Admin policy exist only to assist making these two products IN VOLUME.”
            LRH ED 131 INT, Re: Life Repair Block, 8 Dec 1970 (OEC Vol. 4, p. 145)
            * * *
            “The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product
            vanishes, so does the org.”
            TECHNICAL DEGRADES, HCO PL 17 Jun 1970RB, Issue I (OEC Vol. 0, p. 14

            Separation of Church and State is the real issue, not whether a religion
            or Church becomes widespread. The problems arise when churches get into politics and get political power.

            Catholic and other Christian churches exist in virtually every country. Is anyone raising an alarm?

            The current CoS apparently has too much power in Washington because of the
            money it can throw around. This is a problem, but not insurmountable. And in fact, I feel this is only a problem because the current CoS is not deliveringthe goods; it is not following the senior policy of “We deliver what we promise.”

            If it were doing what it is supposed to be doing, delivering the actual originally intended VFPs, who would have a problem with that?

          9. Noooo! Let’s not paint a scenario on the assumption that Earth can never go into Power or it is doomed.

            Even if we were doing more than putting in basic Scn and auditing and were using condition formulas, in Power Earth would just have to expand into other frontiers – other adventures and challenges. And I’m sure those could and would be found – in outer space, deep in the oceans, in higher states of being – something somewhere!

        2. Does anyone have a link to this document? HCO PL 10 July 1986, Issue I, KEEPING ADMIN WORKING.

          I have been searching online and haven’t found it.

  17. I think if Scn proved the existence of spirits (or overwhelming evidence of it was accepted) it would change everything

  18. I think that a world with a kind of “enforced” auditing situation would be quite fearsome. A world with a kind of “enforced” ethics technology would be quite fearsome. I must admit I’ve seen great guys who never saw the light of Scientology and bad ones who were OTs. And it is not to invalidate. Scientology undiluted is not a universal solvent and not healthy.

  19. Hmm. Hard question. . .

    I’m answering assuming the use of Standard Tech Scientology that is KSW Compliant and applied as written per circa 1972?


    God Damn, this is going to get me flamed.


    Ugh …



    I think It would lead to genocide.

    With no oversight on Scientology’s Sea Org and a literal application of LRH tech, R2-45 would be employed AS WRITTEN AND DEMONSTRATED VIA LECTURE to remove from the planet all people who were “suppressive” and “anti-social” according to the Genocidal statements made in “Introduction to Scientology Ethics.”

    After the “PCs” assets were seized and submitted of course.

    Everything permitting such an insane genocide is allowed in Scientology Scriptures and lectures.

    Based on KSW, it would be a place without war, insanity or ANY ZEST OF LIFE OR FREEDOM.

    That is why I feel so deeply a liberal Scientology is needed that supplants the fundamentalist version purported by CoS and some independents.

  20. Lets put China on the RPF.

    Wait…. they are already on it.

    Geir, please file this post under a new category…..Scary Scary Posts

    1. I’m with you Brian, it does fall into the category of… scary, scary posts.

      And Marildi, no fear. We are here and full of life and we are part of an enormous wave of reality that is spreading through the world. We have friends everywhere. We even have friends in “high places.” The “battle” is already won, if there ever was such a battle to be won. That’s why I painted my first scenario the way I did. That’s the wave I experience in my every waking moment. But it isn’t called Scientology. Its called life.

      1. Right you are, Maria. What you say here and in your first scenario has been the kind of thing I have “sensed” too and I was sort of forgetting that. And you can tell from my own scenario that I also see things evolving into something that isn’t a Scientology world as such. It would be Earth in Power, not Scientology – basing that on the trajectory of Scientology itself. Yes indeed, the god of this particular game in the universe is “about” (in whole track terms) to win the game set up for “ourselves” ;-).

        Okay, I should relax and let Geir and everybody have their fun creating a sci fi story, and be happy that he inspired my own thought experiment – and the wonderful picture you painted! 🙂

      1. Thanks! As you probably guessed, I took a look at the length of that first website for Whitehead that you posted and pretty much put it on the back burner! But tell me, which would you recommend over the others, Whitehead, Oahspe, or Urantia? (Btw, I’ve ordered Tom Campbell’s My Big TOE.)

        1. I’d have to say Whitehead. Its really more useful in terms of sloughing off unexpressed / uninspected and very fundamental assumptions in both science and philosophy.

          1. Yikes, that summary is one scholarly piece of writing. It’s a pretty high gradient and would take a lot of word clearing, minimally, for me to actually study it. But from a light read-over tonight I got the idea that this process philosophy is an appealing one, and that Tom Campbell’s theory probably falls in that category. His book gets a little tedious at times, I’m finding, but is more my gradient. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though! And I did get out of that summary what I can use for now. It and the other two links you posted are still on my reading list of “Maria’s recommendations.” 🙂

  21. Per Science of Survival, anyone below 2.0 on the tone scale would have no civil rights of any kind. Therefore, it would basically be a crime – a situation where the government took away your rights – to be below 2.0 on the tone scale.

    So you would have to have some kind of “Tone Scale Police” who spotted peoples’ tones and hauled away those who were below 2.0.

    Then, if there were still any kind of rights that the society was recognizing (“What has rights? That bank? Those computing circuits?” LRH in Handling the Public Individual PL and tape called “8C” if I remember correctly) then there would need to be Tone Scale Courts where ethics officers and highly trained auditors testified as to the accused’s position on the tone scale. Once the “evidence” was in, and it was officially adjudicated that the person was below 2.0 on the tone scale, then the person would go somewhere where he had no civil rights of any kind so he could not bring down the tone level of the rest of society.

    This scenario is based on basic LRH references which I have given regarding the tone scale and civil rights in the society.

    If you want to look around and find an example of what society would be like if Scientology ran the world, all you have to do is go to any area which runs on Scientology now, like Int Base.

    And there ya go.

    Scientology running the world would be worse than the Taliban running the world.

    1. Actually, per Science of Survival, the person who was officially adjudicated to be below 2.0 on the tone scale and was stripped of all civil rights of any kind would need to be “disposed of quietly and without sorrow” per the standard LRH reference.

      Sorry. When I said he would be hauled away I was being too namby pampy – afraid to enforce and scared to offend. My non-standard application would be hammered out of existence, per KSW, in a Scientology-run world.

      1. SoS was published in1951, long before 95% of the tech which resolves cases and raises people on the Tone Scale was developed.

        “Disposing” of people found undesirable to have around , quietly or noisily, has in fact been the “standard tech” on Earth from time immemorial. And is still used today, as Osama binLaden found out first hand. Not to mention the millions in prisons right here in the USA…..

        But with the tech LRH developed over the subsequent years, that kind of solution would actually be unnecessary, if enough people learned to audit and did so.

        How about it Al, did you ever want to be an auditor? Lots of potential PCs out there, waiting and hoping for a compassionate, skilled person like you could be…..

    2. Alanzo: What is amusing about this is that moving the body to a different physical location in no way prevents the “spreading” of that tone level. It just moves the evidence or embodiment of it out of the line of vision. Its like stuffing trash under the bed. Its still there. You just don’t look at it any more.

        1. It doesn’t because Al said it does? 🙂

          Kidding. (Maybe)

          Now I will have to cull references etc. I work weekends, so there will be some delay.

        2. The short answer is, If IntBase were running on the Scientology Ideal Scene, it would be creating and exporting high ARC, theta, successful programs for enlightening people everywhere, outreach to the communities around it and the country and the world, etc. But I don’t see it doing any of that, so I believe it is not “running on Scientology”. Their results are quite otherwise.

          So as some guy quoted in the Bible said long ago, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

          1. But LRH created the Int Base. It has obviously changed a lot since his days – but in his days we still had the RPF, the RPFs RPF, the rule that anyone leaving the Int Base is auto-declared. And it was totally autoritarian. Did they export ARC in the late 70’s? With the Mission Holder Conference. I doubt ARC was omong their top products even under LRH. I believe it was a well honed command intention – a guiding vision and direction for Scientology world wide.

          2. OK, I don’t really know anything about the history of the Int Base, like when it was established or why, what it’s function or mission was supposed to be etc.

            However, if it did not contribute to the expansion of Scientology, then was it “running on scientology”?

            What was it’s purpose?

  22. Great thought experiment, Geir.

    It was the result of this very thought experiment which set me on the road to being a very vocal and die-hard critic of L Ron Hubbard and his Scientology.

    In the 16 years when I was a Scientologist, I worked every day – and for 7.5 years for free on staff – to build a Scientology-run world. I never actually stepped back and looked at exactly what kind of world I would be creating.

    I saw lots of insanity in Scientology orgs and in the Sea Org areas under full Scientology control, but I always looked away from it and told myself “that is not Scientology”. I would write knowledge reports in order to try to correct what I saw, which always went no where. I finally began to realize that the insanity I saw in almost every area under Scientology control WAS Scientology.

    Because of the way Scientology is constructed, it takes a long time for a Scientologist to realize this. There is always more Bridge to do above you which you don’t yet know about, always something else above you to study, always an area that is confidential like OSA, or Int Base, that you tell yourself – AND OTHERS TELL YOU – that once you learn about that then all of this will make sense someday. So you decide that you are not high enough on the Bridge yet, aren’t trained enough yet, don’t have clearance yet, or are too aberrated to understand why all this insanity actually makes sense. So you look away from the insanity, keep looking at the impossible ideals implanted in your head by LRH, keep your head down, and keep going.

    The fact is that what you see right now – right here in the real world – IS Scientology. David Miscavige beating people IS Scientology. Sea Org members lying and being totally crazy in front of TV cameras IS Scientology. Scientology is as Scientology does – not some ideal you have in your head put there by a guy trained in prestidigitation.

    Even though in one place LRH teaches that absolutes are unobtainable, he teaches every Scientologist to constantly pursue 100% standard Scientology. This pursuit of an unobtainable ideal blinds them to what is going on around them in the real world right now. Hubbard actually talks about this blindness on the BC, during the era of his development of the techniques of “SOP Goals”. He said that a goal is a thing that makes a person look away from present time.

    He knew what he was doing in the mid-60’s when he sprinkled so many absolute goals into Scientology. He was blinding Scientologists to what he was actually doing.

    1. No, no, no, no, no!
      It is YOUR REACTIVE MIND which thinks Miscavage is beating people, or if he is really beating people, and you think it is bad, is just because your bank.
      So take on your OT boots, get into session with lightning fast speed and go up your OT levels like a rocket in your local org or best at Flag! Mankind needs your help and Eternity is waiting for you!

    2. Al, the only objection I have to what you present in the above post is how selective you are about your data.

      By analogy, it’s like saying “Dropping atomic bombs on cities filled with old men, women, and children IS the USA”. Fuel-air bombs over Baghdad is America. Sending drone aircraft over Pakistan to kill villagers IS America. Beating gays to death or driving them to suicide IS America. Online bullying IS the USA. Rape and murder IS the USA. Drug addiction and trafficking IS the USA. Good health care only for the rich IS America.

      That is the kind of “thinking” that led a bunch of young Arabs to hijack some airliners and fly them into office buildings full of innocent people.

      Yes, all the bad things I mentioned, and more, have occurred in America. But that is not all there is to America.

      I am sorry to see you forwarding and perpetuating that kind of insane,one-sided thinking.

        1. Seeing that most people are basically good, it would be extraordinary for LRH (if in a position to shape the entire world) to use the tech to enslave rather than free beings. That would make him a genuine sociopath. Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary evidence and I myself don’t see extraordinary evidence for it.

          1. I have not implied in any way that he would use the tech to enslave anyone – only that his intention was to use the tech on every part of society – including the Admin Tech (albeit amended – as little as possible – to the organization at hand).

          2. In my opinion admin tech was an emergency handling. If it was leading to the human race becoming less free worldwide Hubbard would’ve evolved it, imo. I say this because it’s what most people would do in those circumstances.To think otherwise is to think Hubbard was some Hitleresque tyrant which i don’t believe is true. Sorry just wanted to express that 🙂

            1. I understand your opinion.

              To understand the whole of the texts, the contexts and the possible intentions behind them, one would of course also factor in such historical facts as the Sea Org, Sec Checks, RPF, Fair Game policies and practices (Paulette Cooper etc.) and the formation and operations of the GO. This together with all the Good of Scientology, the increased abilities, understanding and the enlightenment will paint the whole picture. There is the tendency of people debating this subject to disregard one or the other.

          3. Agreed Geir, also any stress Hubbard was under at the time that might not have been there if Scn was succeeding.

          4. Not only Hubbard imo. I think the environment was not conducive to Scn getting fair treatment and SO, GO etc were a response to that. Had attacks on Scn ceased I think policy would’ve changed to reflect the changing circumstances (maybe after a comm lag :))
            Hubbard often stated things with certainty at the time e.g. ‘THIS is the cause of insanity’ ‘THIS is how to run an organisation’ etc but he did replace certainties with other certainties as time went on

            1. IMO the SO, GO, OSA and other such solutions became themselves problems. If the solutions would have been good, they would have been effective in solving the original problem. It hasn’t.

            2. Totally agree, Geir.

              In the Mission/Org I was at, trouble started as soon as the G.O. set up shop: staff rip-offs, secretive, etc.

              Even after OSA took its place, they were into the same tactics

        2. How so, Geir? Shade of the same – what? Got an example? I do select my data only when I feel it is necessary to do so because someone omits presenting it in his/her post and generalizes from only negative data or only positive data. Either way, that is propaganda to me. Then I select and present what I feel is the contrary, omitted data, to bring it closer to depicting reality.

          Take ESMB for example. I think ESMB is a representative slice of human life. It contains, as Synthia posted, all the “good, bad, and the ugly”. It is a typical representation of human life. It is like any city – it contains ghettos and good neighborhoods. ESMB actually has some Boddhisatvas there, who post little but witness it all and rigorously follow the 2 Rules, whether they call themselves Scientologists or not, it is how they conduct themselves, not in the labels they place on themselves.

          It also has the gamy manipulators, the would-be Gurus, the overwhelmed with bpc, the guys who stand on a soap-box and address the crowd but no-one in particular with their rants, the witch with the poisoned apples, etc etc.

          They are “typical humanity”, and don’t forget they were almost all “Scientologists” to one extent or another. Many were staff, many were public. There is really not much consensus among them. They tend to accept each other inspite of vast disagreements.

          They were what LRH had to work with.

        3. You do realize that all my statements above referencing all those destructive acts as “This IS America” were as analogies to Al’s statements about Scientology, and not my own beliefs about America?

      1. Valkov –

        You are right that context is important. I said that when I was a Scientologist, I would look at the insanity in areas under Scientology’s full control, and I would say to myself “That’s not Scientology”. I was not the only Scientologist to operate this way when faced with the craziness that exists in Scientology.

        I said that when I was a Scientologist, I had ideals for what Scientology actually was, put into my head by Hubbard’s early books, and I refused to see anything bad or insane as “Scientology”.

        It was within that context, where I stopped denying – as Scientology – all those insane things I was seeing when I finally realized that “Scientology is as Scientology does”. I quit denying what I was seeing in front of my face.

        That is an important step for a Scientologist. It is the first step to being able to see the true results of Scientology right before your eyes. Scientology isn’t just “What is Greatness?” It is also the secret Network Orders of the GO and OSA. It is also the bad and crazy stuff too.

        That was my point. Not what you made it out to be.

        1. Al, what is missing here is the that if it is missing the “VFP”, if it is not producing the correct end results, which are well-trained auditors and satisfied winning preClears, I don’t care how much “Policy” it appears to be following and how apparently “standardly”, to me it is NOT Scientology.

          By which I mean not in accordance with the fundamental goals, ideals, and purposes of Scientology. Intelligence and counter-Intelligence, “perimeter defense” is supposed to be just that – defense against attack from outside, so the “inside” can continue to deliver what is needed and wanted by the individuals who are seeking the VFPs.

          I had several family members associated with the CIA and some military Intelligence agencies. The GO, OSA etc are analogous.

          Read “Mole Hunt: How the search for a phantom traitor shattered the CIA”, by David Wise for the reality of a game that nobody wins. Anyone associated with those type of activities is very likely to get tainted and degraded, either by their own actions or by others. Their is actually no way tostay sane in that business.

          Yet Intelligence agencies and counter-intelligence agencies are a fact of life and most countries have them. Apparently they are necessary.

          I think LRH was trying to create a world in which they would not be so necessary, a safer world. Yet you propose the thesis that it was all a lie on his part, and that he was really trying to create a world that would be more dangerous to most of us!

          Well, bubba, it’s really up to you. What kind of a world are you going to help make? And what tools are you going to use?

          All I see you doing is running around telling people “Don’t use tools! Tools are dangerous! And the guy who invented tools invented them to hurt you with, not to help you with! He was a liar when he said tools were good! Stay away from tools!”

          That’s my conclusion about you, after 2-3 years of reading your posts. I think somewhere along the line you lost your confidence in yourself and stopped trusting yourself. When you get that sorted out, I think you will be OK.

          1. Valkov; Let’s pretend for a moment that Scientology has totally won out in the world. Everyone except a very few are happily moving up the Bridge and some 90% of the world population is Clear or higher. Let’s also pretend that Al here bluntly refuses to have anything to do with Scientology. Now, would your handling in your post above constitute your effort in helping Al? Or would there be another part of the ethics tech more appropriate to help him get rid of his case?

          2. This is a good question.

            In a world run by Scientologists, what would happen, per policy, to those who disagree with Scientology, those who criticize it, and those who legally oppose it – politically, philosophically and morally?

            In a Scientology run society, where are the checks and balances on Scientology’s power and abuse?

            Please cite the relevant references from LRH.

            Clue: Look to areas run and controlled by Scientology now, and the policies, tech, ethics and justice extant in Scientology now. Because of KSW, there will be no changes to what you see now, and what we will all get later.

            1. Alonzo: “In a Scientology run society, where are the checks and balances on Scientology’s power and abuse? ”

              You seem to continually equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology or some of the goofs that have brought the subject into disrepute.

              Are you saying ALL scientologists or anyone who practices the subject to be abusive and power hungry?

              Clarifying your opinions may help.

          3. Valkov wrote:

            Al, what is missing here is the that if it is missing the “VFP”, if it is not producing the correct end results, which are well-trained auditors and satisfied winning preClears, I don’t care how much “Policy” it appears to be following and how apparently “standardly”, to me it is NOT Scientology.

            Fact: Throughout its history, the majority of people who get involved in Scientology eventually leave it.

            What if Scientology can not produce the VFPs that it claims it can?

            Isn’t that ALSO Scientology?

          4. Dennis –

            We are talking about a Scientology that runs the society on LRH tech, admin and ethics.

            That system, developed by Hubbard, was supposed to emulate a “benign monarchy”. It has not, as we all now know. It’s an anti-democratic, anti-rights monarchy all right, with no checks and balances on the power of its monarch, but it is far from benign.

            Scientologists doing their best to apply Scientology have produced that. It sure wasn’t the Rastafarians, right?

            Does that make every individual Scientologist is power hungry and abusive? Certainly not. And I never said that.

            But as a collective, this is what the majority of Scientologists have produced through following the ideology of L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology.

            Isn’t that correct?

            And before you answer – do you know the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?

          5. To answer this question of yours, Geir:

            “Valkov; Let’s pretend for a moment that Scientology has totally won out in the world. Everyone except a very few are happily moving up the Bridge and some 90% of the world population is Clear or higher. Let’s also pretend that Al here bluntly refuses to have anything to do with Scientology. Now, would your handling in your post above constitute your effort in helping Al? Or would there be another part of the ethics tech more appropriate to help him get rid of his case?”

            If I were in that world, and I were Clear or even a Grade IV release, I am well aware that I would probably handle Al much more constructively and helpfully. My own case in reaction to others is unfortunately something I am aware of and have to struggle with on a daily basis.

            I do not know what the actual “correct” handling for Al’s case is; however I do believe that in some cases, “The wrong thing to do is nothing.”

            So just as you felt you needed to “Put your foot down” towards some poster(s) on ESMB, I sometimes feel the need to put my foot down when Al posts something that strikes me as particularly thoughtlessly one-sided.

            Any and every wise man from Buddha on up to Hubbard, has taught that it is not wrong to invalidate error, that it is in fact necessary, and that to fail to do so could be an overt act of omission.

            In a Scientology world, Al doesn’t have to have anything to do with Scientology as far as I’m concerned; it is his right to have nothing to do with it.

            However, currently he is very far from “having nothing to do with Scientology”. He is still completely involved with it, like angry, bitter ex-husband who can’t stop thinking about his ex-wife who betrayed him.

            He is actually addicted to Scientology. He is driven by his own first postulate about it. It is the energy of that postulate that makes his current condition towards Scientology persist. As LRH writes in Self Analysis I believe it is, when a guy is stuck in a failed relationship, what needs to be straightwired is not the jilt(betrayal), but the times he loved the girl(the subject, in this case).

            Unlike Marty and a lot of others who have left the CoS behind but still use scientology and hold to their ideals, Al fits the exact definition of an “apostate”. He has abandoned his own ideals and basic purpose, to instead oppose them, which means he has to oppose himself, his own first postulate.

            Why am I so bluntly and aggressively confrontational with him at times? Why do I evaluate like crazy at times. It’s violation of the Auditor’s Code, right? I’ll tell you a secret – evaluation is not always bad, and is sometimes what will bring another uptone.

            LRH has some great reflections about this, in his lecture “Third and Fourth Postulates in Living” from the 4th London ACC lectures. I believeit’s the 4th lecture, given October 4,1955.

            it is a course of action I decided upon back when we were on The Scientology Forum a couple of years ago. It is how many addiction therapy groups work, I won’t go into the
            theory of it, which is basically that straight talk works best with some people.

            I do think Al is hard-headed, like Vinnie; being Clears, it’s not really necessary to pussy-foot around them.They are very much “What effect on self?”, as I see them. They sluff off adversity and plow on ahead. It takes some stubborn hard-headedness to get banned from ESMB!

            This has turned into a long exegesis of my own personal behavior and thinking. Well, there it is.

            I do the best I can with what I have to work with. By which I mean – my mind, myself. And I think Al knows that.

            1. As you are prone to tackle the man rather than the ball at times (referring to your interchange right here with Al), I will let you in on my thoughts on this;

              It is almost as Valkov and Alanzo is the same person; Janus. You are both to the extreme – Al vehemently attacking, Val adamantly defending. You are black and white (not quite sure who is the white one). You use similar tactics to forward you biased viewpoints. The viewpoints are unshakable. No matter what arguments arises, the viewpoints remain cemented. They seem mostly at display for the casual readers rather than to engage in any fruitful viwpoint-molding process.

              So vAl (or Janus if you prefer); Would you ease off on the quarreling with yourself?

          6. Geir –

            It is almost as Valkov and Alanzo is the same person; Janus. You are both to the extreme – Al vehemently attacking, Val adamantly defending. You are black and white (not quite sure who is the white one). You use similar tactics to forward you biased viewpoints. The viewpoints are unshakable. No matter what arguments arises, the viewpoints remain cemented. They seem mostly at display for the casual readers rather than to engage in any fruitful viwpoint-molding process.

            So vAl (or Janus if you prefer); Would you ease off on the quarreling with yourself?

            For me, the subject is and always has been Scientology. Not Valkov. I have huge respect for Valkov. He turned me on to one of the best books I’ve ever read “Beyond Belief” by Elaine Pagels. It answered so many questions for me.

            Again: My subject is and always has been Scientology, not Valkov. My talking about Scientology is what pulls in Valkov’s personal attacks on me. Valkov’s subject is me. I always try to return Valkov to the subject – Scientology.

            And Valkov always returns to the subject of me.

            This thread is a perfect example of what I am saying.

            And now, let’s return to the real subject, shall we?


          7. I hear you Geir. Always have. think I addressed that in my post, along with various related issues.

            To answer your question – I will if Al will. If he doesn’t want to, I don’t either. I have noticed that Al has changed and is often less extreme, is more centered, so there is hope for us.

            Sure, I adamantly defend – when I perceive that I am vehemently attacked. Is that not natural and right? I do not see it as quarreling. I am showing Al what he looks like to me because I think he needs to know what kind of effect he is actually creating. He does the same for me.

            Past a certain point, I don’t think there is anything wrong with directly responding to someone who rubs one the wrong way, and is doing it deliberately, which Al has in the past said he is doing. If Al wants to play Socrates, he should expect to receive some hemlock along the way. And I think he knows and accepts that.

            Yes, we are playing to the readers. Al has in the past acknowledged that too.

            Between us, we present a more balanced view! It is like a courtroom drama, one of the most popular forms of show on US television.

            Psychologically, I show him what he rejects about himself, he shows me what I reject about myself. It’s what psychologists call a symbiotic relationship.

            1. “To answer your question – I will if Al will. If he doesn’t want to, I don’t either.”

              You do realize that you are letting Al define you here, don’t you? You are in no unclear rendering showing Al to be Cause and yourself to be effect Effect in the debate between you. And I do question whether that is the wisest choice.

          8. Thank you Geir. Thisi s a helpful post:

            “You do realize that you are letting Al define you here, don’t you? You are in no unclear rendering showing Al to be Cause and yourself to be effect Effect in the debate between you. And I do question whether that is the wisest choice.”

            I am indeed pondering the wisdom of trying to overwhelm him right back, and am considering the alternatives

          9. Al, your post above in which you say this: “For me, the subject is and always has been Scientology. Not Valkov”, not once, but twice, gets a ROFL from me. 🙂

            You do realize that in that post, you did exactly what you say you don’t do, that Valkov does? You made an “address to the man”, as Geir called it.

            My dog Bad Valkov (he is a feral Borzoi mix raised by wolves) is straining at his leash because he wants to bust in here to growl that “Al is a favor-currying bootlicker for trying to paint himself as an innocent halo-wearing goody two-shoes who is better than Valkov, when he does exactly the same thing as he accuses Valkov of doing, grrr grrr”, but I am restraining him this time……

            Even Bad Valkov the dog sees that Al takes this incident of Geir counselling Valkov to be more helpful to Al, as an opportunity to make himself look good at Valkov’s expense…..

            ROFL 🙂

        2. Al, here’s part of what you posted:

          ” I said that when I was a Scientologist, I had ideals for what Scientology actually was, put into my head by Hubbard’s early books, and I refused to see anything bad or insane as “Scientology”.
          It was within that context, where I stopped denying – as Scientology – all those insane things I was seeing when I finally realized that “Scientology is as Scientology does”. I quit denying what I was seeing in front of my face.”

          I would say that “Scientology is as Scientologists do”. That illustrates the true causations involved. What Scientology “does” is co-created by all those participating in it, by their actions, commissions and omissions, all of them.

          I suggest that if you go back to your original understanding of Scientology and start acting on those again, all will be well with you and you will be helping others by empowering them to achieve their own goals. You know that Gandhi quote was going around a few months age, “Be the change you want to see.”

          The things you said “That’s not Scientology!” about, you were most likely exactly 100% right about those, they were contrary to the Ideal Scene o fScientology.

          1. Valkov wrote:

            I would say that “Scientology is as Scientologists do”. That illustrates the true causations involved. What Scientology “does” is co-created by all those participating in it, by their actions, commissions and omissions, all of them.

            I can totally agree with this.

          2. I’ve got to agree Valkov. “Be the change. . .”

            Another friend of mine said a “Sea Org member would do what he does whether or not there were ever any Sea Org.” Another way of saying to be yourself and do the good that you see needs to be done whether you have any group agreement at all.

            Wisdom for the ages. And really, as I look at it, can anyone really do more? Whether or not LRH was a “good” person, or whether or not he “applied” Scientology after writing it all down is kind of a side show, isn’t it?

            As off-topic as this drifted, this thread is making me work out some of the confusing feelings that I have toward LRH. However, working out the particulars about how effective is Scientology is not a side show, is it.

  23. Alanzo:

    “This pursuit of an unobtainable ideal blinds them to what is going on around them in the real world right now.”

    I’ll take this a step further and say: this pursuit of an unobtainable ideal BINDS them to what is going on around them in the real world right now..

    ” There is always more Bridge to do above you which you don’t yet know about, always something else above you to study, always an area that is confidential like OSA, or Int Base, that you tell yourself – AND OTHERS TELL YOU – that once you learn about that then all of this will make sense someday. So you decide that you are not high enough on the Bridge yet, aren’t trained enough yet, don’t have clearance yet, or are too aberrated to understand why all this insanity actually makes sense.”

    Indeed there is more bridge. And that is where I met you. And that it where it really unravels. Down to the ground of being.

    1. Maria wrote:

      I’ll take this a step further and say: this pursuit of an unobtainable ideal BINDS them to what is going on around them in the real world right now..

      Excellent point. In addition to LRH saying on the BC that a goal blinds a person to his own present time environment, he also said that a goal controls a person’s actions and behavior.

      He knew what he was doing when he installed absolute goals into Scientology. It’s just exactly as you say, Maria. He was BINDING Scientologists to Scientology.

      1. I’ll take this a step further and say: this pursuit of an unobtainable ideal BINDS them to what is going on around them in the “real world” right now…

        If one is subscribing to Scientology, that will be part of that “real world.”

        If one is subscribing to Quantum Physics, that will be part of that “real world.”

        If one is subscribing to LSD, that will be part of that “real world.”

        Its the subscription that is binding.

        Apparently anyway.

  24. Many of the posts here express fears about what would happen if a CHURCH of Scientology became the Government of the planet.

    Rightly so. That would void the separation of Church and State, setting up the possibility of a feudalism like the Dark Ages in Europe or more recently in Tibet under the Buddhist Lamas.

    Religion and government/politics is a bad mix.

    1. Please consider this:

      From HCOPL 26. Oct 1967 “THE PUBLIC DIVISIONS”.
      On the purpose of Div 6:


      1. In a lecture entitled “Future Org Trends” given
        January 9th 1962, L. Ron Hubbard said:

        “You want to know what happens when you clear
        everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that
        [Scientology] center can become used for is a
        political center. Because by the time you’ve done all
        this, you are the government…”

        “Once the world is Clear – a nation, a state, a city
        or a village – the Scientology-organization in the
        area becomes its government! And once this has taken
        place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology

          1. Here’s an excerpt of what I found in the original transcript (or so the site claims). Note that the first paragraph you quoted is there but instead of an ellipsis it contains additional words at the end. More significantly, the second paragraph you quoted isn’t even in this transcript but a completely different one – and does not provide the same context and meaning at all.

            “…You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you’ve done all this, you are the government and you’ll never be able to refuse it.

            “Therefore, these things should be provided for, and this thing should be looked over – And everybody in Scientology should be cared for. And the idea of asking for somebody to go out and sweat it through and stumble and fall on his head and collect his funds and that sort of thing – that day should very soon come to an end. It hasn’t come to an end yet.”

        1. Whoa!

          Tell you what — if I had seen that within the first couple of weeks of my arrival to do the Comm Course I would have run as fast as I could out the door never to be seen again!

        2. Alonzo, where did you find that quote? I downloaded the lecture (it’s BC lecture #225) from a website which claims they have only original LRH materials. I couldn’t find that quote in it. http://www.stss.nl

          1. Marildi –

            That quote is in many places on the internet. I took it from one of them. If you do a relevant google search you will find the places where it is quoted.

            I tried to also find the transcript you were talking about and I came across a place on whyweprotest.net where they had also analyzed the transcript and had the same trouble you had finding that 2nd paragraph in their transcripts. Here is there discussion back in 2008:


            That may have been a misquote, or it may not. There are (at least) two instances of that 2nd paragraph not being able to be found in the copy of the transcripts provided. That BC tape should be found and scoured.

            As Gier has pointed out, there really is no question that L Ron Hubbard wrote policies and Advices and other issues with the goal in mind to take over governments. His whole trip to Rhodesia had that purpose, as well. I have provided another reference below – the whole reference itself – as further evidence of this.

          2. Thanks, Alanzo. I already did a google search and could only find it on such sites as zenu, lermanet and whyweprotest, which makes me wonder if it was simply spread around among anti-Scientology sites by someone, without actually having been taken from ANY transcript. That paragraph isn’t in the original one for sure, which you can find at http://www.stss.nl under SHSBC tape #225.

            As for “no question that L Ron Hubbard wrote policies and Advices and other issues with the goal in mind to take over governments” you guys have yet to give a reference that actually says that. I can believe that there have been statements to the effect that Scn would become part of every facet of society due to citizens themselves becoming Scientologists and wanting to put the practice in everywhere. But that’s a lot different from wording it as if LRH wanted world domination by a C of S ruling government. You say his trip to Rhodesia had that purpose – where’s the quote? I’m willing to look.

            1. So, is it plausible to state that LRH envisioned that every person on the planet would want to become a Scientologist?

          3. My impression is more like he envisioned the growing numbers of people and the positive influence they effect would be enough that Scn would gradually become a dominant force – but not a despotic one. And it seems his words are being stretched to mean the latter.

            1. SO, it is plausible then to say that his intentions was that everyone would Want To Be (free will) a Scientologist?

            2. Totally agree Marildi,

              I don’t think LRH envisioned all scientologists marching in & taking over City Hall, but I do think that with auditing happening in large volume in the field, the chances of scientologists working in the government realm would be commonplace.

              And, I also think there would be somewhat of an uprising from those who were not scientologists similar to blacks/mormons/women getting into office.

              Theta (and I mean THETA unlike the current church) would permeate & as-is/destimulate.

              It’s an evolution.

            3. But would the evolution naturally end up with everyone wanting to go up the Bridge. Is that a plausible future scenario?

            4. Interesting scenario … plausible – yes but i expect a there would be a few who would resist. An example: One who has experienced enlightenment & awareness increases thru another practice. They may not want to change and be totally satisfied in their current state. Would these who do not want to become scientologists become outcasts or would they be accepted as themselves?

              Should this person be allowed to BE, or forced to accept the current flavour? Who is to say that HIS practice is not the REAL answer and that it is WE who are delusional? Or are either of us delusional? Or both?

              I thought it would be interesting for another to see thru my eyes at times after getting out of session – I thought at times that anyone in an aberrated state, if they had a choice and could see what I saw, would surely choose the state I was in. Now, I have changed and wonder if at times it is ‘I’ who is delusional. This is my current ‘battle’ – am I actually seeing what I am seeing? Is it all just one gawdawful dream from which I will awaken?

              On another note, there may be other practices or routes to ‘freedom’ on other planets or far away galaxies or universes/dimensions … who’s to say what we have here on earth is the sacred cow?

              I think I better do a locational … Lost in a Lost World (Moody Blues)

            5. “Should this person be allowed to BE, or forced to accept the current flavour? Who is to say that HIS practice is not the REAL answer and that it is WE who are delusional? Or are either of us delusional? Or both?”

              Well, LRH already answered that: Scientology is the only road out. Not one among many, not the best amongst a few. It is the only way. So, the question then becomes, what would make a person resist the only salvation he has?

            6. Well, from a scientological point of view it would be case.

              Would that person change their mind if he were popped out of that case for a moment and given a choice? Is that ‘popping out’ of another a choice we would be justified in taking if we had the ability.

              This type of scenario gives me the willies … visions of 1984 or worse.

            7. Well, if that person is not willing to look at his own case, then that is a matter of ethics. In a society where 90% of the population is scientologists, then it must surely be obvious to that majority that the remaining resistive cases are ethics cases. The only way to handle such cases are with proper ethics. Now what part of the ethics tech would we apply?

          4. Ha ha! You are smart. Good TR 3! I did know that I wasn’t actually answering your question and for two reasons. One is that I honestly don’t know the answer (by means of a direct reference), and personally I don’t extrapolate it the way you do as I think LRH was wiser than that. Besides, I hate to come across like I’m just being contrary to whatever you say (or whatever is said against Scn/LRH) because I don’t want to annoy you, and also because I’m wary that you will interpret my answer as nothing more than knee-jerk. (Sometimes I think you are still assuming that about me. ;-))

            The other reason is I’m a bit confused about the intention of the thought experiment. Is it to imagine a world in which all LRH tech was already being applied and how that would be? Or is it to determine how things would evolve in the attempt to bring about LRH’s vision of an expanding Scientology (in which case it may in fact not play out to where all tech and only tech were being applied).

            (The great thing about you, Geir, is that I do feel you are “a real terminal” and that I can communicate fully if I want to. Or dare to, ha ha! :-))

            1. I have no assumptions about you. I take whatever you write as what you write without reference to any past discussions. Everything is anew. Same with everyone else.

              Marildi; I really like you 🙂

              I want to paint a vision of a future where every effort has been made to implement every part of LRH’s writings in all corners of the world. I want to explore the end product. The extrapolated future world. And I tell you, it’s damn hard when people try the best they can to defend an already made-up viewpoint.

              C’mon guys!

              Now: TR3, Marildi

          5. 🙂 I consider myself highly re-assured – thank you! And I really like you too!!

            Okay, what you said makes much more sense than to start with an assumed evolvement. Just one other thing about it, then – I do think we have to discuss what LRH did or didn’t say and clear that up as well as possible. Otherwise, the experiment won’t necessarily be based on actual Scientology or what LRH actually intended. I think it will be fun and enlightening if it’s an actual thought experiment and not just an exercise in imagination. based on misconceptions. That’s the reason I keep wanting to get the reference for statements being made about LRH’s intentions, etc I hope you agree!

            On your question, it’s not a cut and dry, black and white, yes or no kind of thing. I suppose you could say that he would have liked everyone to benefit in ways that I’m sure he thought were uniquely available in Scientology (in fact, I can say I know this, as he did say so). But I can’t picture him trying to force such an absolute, and I can’t imagine that he himself would not have been flexible enough to “audit the society in front of him.” Personally, I’ve come a long way from thinking that only Scn had the answers and, additionally, I’ve come to understand that people are individuals and both need and want different things. So it’s hard for me to imagine that LRH hadn’t or wouldn’t have figured that out too. 🙂

      2. OK. This, like any LRH quote, needs to be considered “in context”. Like Al’s quote from1962, should it prove to be valid, and I think it could be valid.

        Both quotes depend on a context of assumptions that run along these lines:

        1. Auditing tech has been applied standardly enough that whole neighborhoods, cities, etc have been “cleared. By this I understand that the majority of individuals in them have achieved the state of Clear or are well on their way towards it.

        2. Presumably, Admin tech was applied standardly and sanely enough to facilitate the Clearing of people .

        3. An underlying assumption here is that people are basically GOOD, thus Clearing them leads to increased rationality and goodwill on their parts towards their fellows, a greater acceptance of diverse viewpoints etc etc, all the “good stuff” we were looking for when we got involved.

        Clearly, at least to me, cleared people would become “the government” by default, not by any other means. If someone wanted to run for City Council or the School Board, of course they would. If they were perceived as trustworthy and intelligent etc they would likely be elected. But by default, if everyone were Clear, then the government of that area would also be Clear, right? Duh!

        My point is that there is not necessarily anything sinister in those quotes. They are sinister only if you or your “case” puts a sinister spin on them. They do not have to be read that way.

        But keep them away from Chicken Little, he would start a stampeding, witch burning panic with them!

        1. Totally agree Valkov.

          It’s the spin that is put on some of these quotes that really has me rolling my eyes.

          You paragraphs said it all:

          “An underlying assumption here is that people are basically GOOD, thus Clearing them leads to increased rationality and goodwill on their parts towards their fellows, a greater acceptance of diverse viewpoints etc etc, all the “good stuff” we were looking for when we got involved.

          Clearly, at least to me, cleared people would become “the government” by default, not by any other means. If someone wanted to run for City Council or the School Board, of course they would. If they were perceived as trustworthy and intelligent etc they would likely be elected. But by default, if everyone were Clear, then the government of that area would also be Clear, right? Duh!

          My point is that there is not necessarily anything sinister in those quotes. They are sinister only if you or your “case” puts a sinister spin on them.”

      3. “From HCOPL 26. Oct 1967 “THE PUBLIC DIVISIONS”.
        On the purpose of Div 6:


        Geir, I don’t think the political definition of “government” is the one intended in the above quote but rather this one: “direction; management.” The political definition wouldn’t make sense as none of the Div 6 stats or promotional actions have anything to do with a purpose of “political rule.”

        Also, earlier in that same PL is this line: “Our task is to make a cleared civilization.” This should be the context for the last part of the quoted purpose: “…TO MAKE AND GUIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF A CIVILIZATION.” In other words, grammatically, “MAKE” would take “A CIVILIZATION” as its predicate, and not “GOVERNMENT” as its predicate. So the meaning would then be “make (a civilization) and guide the government of a civilization.”

        1. Maybe “direct object” is more understandable than “predicate.” (My grammar is rusty.)

        2. To “make and guide” the civilization will inevitably intrude on politics and any part of the society – including that of legislation, courts, organizing of cities and counties, etc.

            1. It is slightly different to put it on the Org Board of a church. Also, I remember COB on the opening of Mountain View Ideal Org referring to an LRH policy where he says that every function of a society is on the Org Board of the church – the police, the government, everything. On The Org Board, Under Dep 18/Div 6. I think there is little doubt that LRH wanted every government on Earth run according to Scientology Tech – both Red and Green on white. And if it was a perfect system, who could blame him?

          1. Sorry, my dear Geir, but so far I haven’t seen any direct reference to what you say, only interpretations. And mine differ. 😉

            Can you please quote what is under Dept 18 that leaves you with little doubt?

            1. Rather than that – I will see if I can dig up the reference that COB quoted.

              And I let Al back up his reference. As I have seen similar references to his in other lectures, I have no doubt about LRH’s goals for the whole of the planet – including that of Clearing it.

          2. Okay, cool. I doubt that COB was quoting a PL, though. Here’s a link for OEC Vol 6. I just used the “find on this page” feature to see what there was on “government” and “police” and found nothing related to the org board and nothing else of interest.

            Btw, it’s nice that you added, “And if it was a perfect system, who could blame him?” 🙂

            Click to access OEC6_txt.pdf

          3. And it was also nice where you wrote, “I have no doubt about LRH’s goals for the whole of the planet – including that of Clearing it.”

            Let me say too that what I have understood was that LRH did not want orgs to get involved with government at all, and stated it was not the goal of Scientology to be political. I can probably find the references if you aren’t familiar with them.

            1. Yes, he stated that. He also stated that he wanted to make and guide government of society. And he created an Admin Tech that he envisioned be used in every organization. And he created a church that runs on the policy that it must forever expand until every man, woman and child is on their org board – and there is the policy that every member in a Scientology org IS on it’s org board and subject to standard ethics in their lives.

          4. “And he created a church that runs on the policy that it must forever expand until every man, woman and child is on their org board…”
            That says something much different from your OP imagining how it would be if “the whole of our society structure was utterly and completely run by LRH policy and ethics, and where tech ruled the scene.” A society running on LRH policy with a Scn org board pattern vs. one being run by the Church “on THEIR org board” are two very different things, aren’t they?

            And we have yet to find a reference for COB’s verbal statement that “every function of a society is on the Org Board of the Church.” Also, I googled the quote posted by Alanzo, supposedly from the lecture “Future Org Trends” January 9th 1962, and can only find it on such sites as zenu, lermanet and whyweprotest. I can’t help thinking it may have been spread around among anti-Scientologists and who knows where it originated.

            1. As Chris pointed out, the natural extension of the CoS is to out-expand the world and the Org Board is the vehicle (ref. Org Board and Livingness), thus the link to the OP.

  25. Michael Shermer has AMAZING “false data tech!” In this TED talk he demonstrates how we come up and believe FALSE DATA.

    The extended version of this amazing research is in his book “The Believing Brain.”

    Now THIS is what “Clearing” is about IMHO. Learning how our mind deceives us and using reason to circumvent the hijackings!


    1. That was great.

      But there is one thing:

      If you can stimulate certain areas of the brain to “see” things that the brain has evolved to perceive – like the “God Helmut” – it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. It means that you can screw around with the brain and turn perceptions of things on and off, and that’s all.

      Perceptions of things are not the things themselves.

      1. True. Just because I perceive you as a true Scotsman who would never fall for the true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t mean that you are.

        Because no true Scotsman would fall for the true Scotsman fallacy.

        1. And I hope Alanzo doesn’t fall for the ad hom fallacy. 😉

          C’mon, kg, he made a good point!

          1. Marildi, I’m paying Alanzo a backhanded complement! He posted about the “True Scotsman” fallacy over at scnforum.org. And then I used the fallacy against itself.

            The True Scotsman fallacy goes like this:

            A Scottish man that thinks the Scots are the bee’s knees reads of a crime done by a Frenchman and says “This is horrible, no Scotsman would dare do such a thing!”

            And he REALLY is invested in the idea. He really thinks he Scots are morally superior beings.

            Later, he reads of a man born and bred in Scotland committing he same crime. He then declares that “No TRUE Scotsman would do such a thing.”

            So he retains his bigotry about being Scottish.

            This is common in religions.

            I am an Alanzo fan. Now for the play on words:

            “To me Alanzo is a True Scotsman that would never fall for the True Scotsman fallacy.”

          2. Yes, I uderstood the backhanded compliment and it seemed like you were insulting his comment by insulting him that way (although kiddingly). However…you did start out with “True” so I guess if you just hadn’t followed that with the “compliment” I would have understood it as an ack. Better work on your acks if you want to keep your Honorary Scientologist status. 😉

    2. I’ve been thinking more about this video over the last few days and its main message – about the brain seeing patterns. It’s quite profound, actually.

      Particularly the sequence when he shows you various oblique patterns and has you look for the figures (sometimes) in them. That is a fundamental part of thinking he has identified there. The patterns you see in your environment lead to the conclusions you make.

      On this blog, we see each contributor presenting the patterns they see in the Rorschach blot of Scientology. Very fascinating.

      There is one thing I see from the pro-Scientology contributors here – eternal optimism. They truly believe, despite all historical evidence, that human beings will apply the best ideals of an ideology for the good of all – even those who are in the “out-group” of that ideology. History has shown over and over that ideologies followed and enforced, have led to catastrophes, genocide and totalitarian nightmares.

      But maybe that’s just my own pattern that I am seeing through the big Rorschach blot of history?


      1. Alonzo & Bunkai, Call me crazy — beginning about two months ago I did TR0 (confronting with eyes open) on the snow of an untuned channel on my TV set. I’ve done this about 10 times for approximately 30-40 minutes at a time. Why? To see what I would see.

        With no particular purpose and no expectation but only with interest I watched. After a short time the dots became not just homogeneous but a field of dots with varying shades of dark and light. This too changed and after a time shadowy shapes from X’s and wavy lines appeared and drifted across the screen. At other times, ball or spherical shapes appeared and twice they became 3 dimensional with approximately 1/2 the sphere appearing to bulge toward me from the front plane of the TV screen.

        There are more images from shadowy people to other geometric shapes and shadowy blotches I could describe however, I feel the experience was much more interesting for me than for anyone reading me write about it. What’s my point? I dunno, it seemed to fit with yours and KG aka Bunkai’s post.

        (A control that I used was to tune to analog TV to a channel which has no local broadcast. Was I successful in screening out any and all actual broadcast signal? I tried to but cannot say with certainty. For one more frame of reference, I would say my attitude conformed with KHTK basic exercises)

        1. Wow Chris … your television experience sounds like a re-run of portions of OT2 🙂

          1. . . . and so what I demonstrated to myself was that given a plain field of oscillating black, grey, and white dots that I consider held no inherent pattern but potential patterns only, my mind was able to organize the perceptions increasingly into forms under my control. I do understand that the black cat was my own.

      2. It’s not that we are “optimists”, it’s that we have had enough, and have no choice. “Better to light one candle, that to curse the darkness.” There is no choice, either fight if necessary, to survive, than to do nothing and quietly succumb. Those who push for the ideals to be applied may well be keeping the whole mess from descending into that dark final destination, whatever form it takes. Today, the CoS has assumed that form.

        Genocide and Totalitarian nightmares are created out of the emotional dynamics of the folks who create them. They have to do with power and money. Most genocides have nothing to do with ideals. Like the Rwanda massacres, or the killing fields of Cambodia. The only “ideals” involved there is the ideal o getting rid of the other guys so the winners don’t have to share the wealth with them.

        1. I agree. Even LRH said that all wars are, “Economic.” Ratchet that thought back down to the org level and see what battles were being fought and why.

  26. A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can pros¬per and honest be-ings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.

    – L. Ron Hubbard

    But, somehow, if The Church is the one to take charge, I don[t think this would be achieved. Actually, I agree with the person who said it would lead to genocide…

    1. Here’s one for you, Erk. And I think Al will like it, too. I actually took this quote from the Friends of LRH site, but it expresses my own basic thinking that Scientology is a set of tools. Tools are made to serve the people who use them, not the other way around. it’s like the Terminator scenario, where the tools (machines and computers) become cause and humanity becomes the effect of the tools it created. Additionally, the knowledge Scientology contains can be used for good or ill. The intentions of the people using it are key to the kind of future that might be created using Scientology.

      “It [Scientology] is not in itself an arbitrary, fascistic police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind. It is not a master of the mind.

      Scientology will decline and become useless to man on the day when it becomes the master of thinking.

      Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that. Contained in the knowable, workable portions before your eyes, there are methods of controlling human beings and thetans which have never before been dreamed of in this universe.

      Control mechanisms of such awesome and solid proportions, that if the remedies were not so much easier to apply, one would be appalled at the dangerousness to beingness that exists in Scientology.”

      Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20
      Formative State of Scientology: Definition of Logic
      6 December 1952

      1. It does contradict the Ethics Tech, however – the use of Sec Checks, including the search for List1 R/S and the whole range of Ethics offenses that require the policing force we see in today’s churches (or as well onboard the Apollo under LRH).

  27. The main problem I see with these discussions is that the people involved have already decided on whether Scientology™ is Good or Bad – and maintain a stance where the knee-jerk is in full bloom: Defend or Attack by default.

    I am trying to sort all this out for myself and I appreciate your help in maintaining an objective stance and as a neutral a viewpoint as possible and evaluate LRH’s text without projecting one’s own wishes as to what it would hopefully mean. I am myself working hard to maintain this standard.

    1. My view is that Scientology, assuming we are even referring to the same part(s) of that elephant, is inherently neither good nor bad, it is knowledge, ideas, and tools.

      Those are bad or good depending on what use they are put to.

      Might as well ask if an elephant is good or bad.

  28. No, Geir, I don’t think it necessarily does, because we are talking about something other than unreasoning adherence to some belief system.

    Also perhaps we are not clear on what the “separation of church and state” means, or it means different things to each of us. In some of the European countries, there is an officially recognized state religion.

    But in the USA, the main issue is seen to be that the state is not to favor any one religion over others, but to let each one have equal rights with the other. Conversely, ministers are not allowed to use their pulpits for political purposes, such as promoting or supporting or favoring any one candidate over others. The law forbids them from doing this.

    This is what I mean when I refer to separation of church and state. Now, if everyone, every single person, of a country were convert to exactly the same beliefs, the question would become moot; if all are in total agreement, who is there to protect by separating church and state? However, as far as I’m concerned, a person does not ‘convert’ to Scientology because it’s not basically a belief system (Except maybe someone like Al might appear to have been ‘converted’ at one time. But in fact I believe there is more to Al’s story than that.)
    Now the question might arise, can a person benefit from, or use Scientology, and still be a Christian, for example? The way I see Scientology, of course he can, just as any technician, engineer, auto mechanic, or say, a psychologist, can be a Christian or of whatever faith, because we’re talking about faith,belief, vs. practical knowledge. Scientology as a technical subject has nothing to say to me about what I must believe about God or angels or anything else; what’s true about Scientology is what I have observed myself, or whichever of it’s ideas I have agreed with, often based on what I believed to be true before I ever came across Scientology.

    An automechanic can believe whatever he believes about God or cosmology, there is no inherent conflict that I can see, in the existence of a religious auto mechanic. One doesn’t have to choose to be one or the other, one can be both, and further, one can choose his religion.

    As far as LRH’s goals for the planet, well, he’s apparently not around, and even if he were around now or in the future, we just might have something to say about our own futures, don’t you think?

    1. Tell me how you could 1) clear everyone on Earth and 2) salvage this secor of the universe (with everyone getting thorugh OT III) without Scientology being the religion that Everyone adhers to (despite them perhaps also being Christians, etc)? And by that, everyone would be on the CoS Org Board as FSMs, volunteers, IAS members etc.

      1. Geir, what would Scientology going to do with us idealistic, touchy-feely, materialistic, hippy types who don’t want no freaking Scientology?

        I think the “undiscovered tech” for such a case like mine would play out like this:

        KATAGEEK: “Auditing? I don’t need no stinking Auditing! You guys are stuck in the BITE model of mind control. How are you going to clear me if I say no? EH? EH? …HEY! … HEY! … PUT ME DOWN! … MMPH! … MMPH! … MMPH! … MMMMMMMPHHHHH!”

        CS: “This is your third NEW R2-45 mass clearing session correct?”

        AUDITOR: “Yes.”

        CS: “Good. First get your TRs in. Today you are going to clear a hundred beings in three minutes starting with this one – a real 1.1. But he’s lucky, he’s going to be clear instantly while the rest of us have to work it out ourselves.

        AUDITOR: “Yes. He and all these are most fortunate. They will be perfectly clear and able to return to earth to learn the OT levels IF they become worthy. Yesterday, I successfully transitioned over a hundred new clears with NEW R2-45 standardly.”

        CS: “Your stats are up!”

        AUDITOR: “I needed a partner to maintain the TR0 afterward though. I am still weak. I still need help with focus afterward.”

        CS: “That’s normal at first. In a few months of this everyday, this will be easier but remember – it is never easy. This tech is the hardest to confront, but you GOT here and are able to perform it and that says a lot about your thetan. Remember, you must have PERFECT TRs so that you can communicate and sustain everyone you clear today. After your three minutes of clearing these beings, you must sit in the chair for at least 2 hours in PERFECT TR0 to keep these thetans PRESENT in this room. Now, Inspect all 100 chairs and make sure the bodies and heads are secured and completely immobile before you begin. THEY MUST NOT MOVE.

        AUDITOR: “Ready Sir.”

        CS: “TR0 with R2-45 with TR0. START!”


        1. God WHAT WAS I THINKING?

          Never mind. Please delete this post.

          This idea does NOT need to be read by Scientologists.

          It … could … happen.

          1. Never mind. Leave it.

            This is the monster humanity has not yet learned to face. Our ability to make mass murder seem like something holy.

          2. Please just post the piece and delete all my subsequent replies to it (including this one).

            If you feel it is inappropriate, delete it if you wish.

        2. To avoid this horror, we need to learn that we don’t need one perfect Religion, but rather

          “Many Perfect ReligionS.”

          1. To avoid this horror, we need to learn that we don’t need one perfect Religion, but rather
            “Many Perfect ReligionS.”


          2. Yes, we don’t need one perfect religion, we need perfect religionS.

            I stole this phrase from Malcolm Gladwel who stole it from a food marketer. There are plenty of religions looking to be “the one” but THEY ALL DON’T GET IT.

            It’s not ONE. It’s many. Working together.

          3. Maybe Katageek, but this blog is about as deep into religionS as I want to be involved.

            When we search for ourselves and commune together as we are here, this is philosophy or spirituality. When we begin to tell others “how it is,” then we have religion or government.

            I enjoy your posts. You present a gritty side that I find helps smooth the splintery edges.

          4. “I enjoy your posts. You present a gritty side that I find helps smooth the splintery edges.”

            Well said. (You really have a way with words, Chris.)

            kg, I agree with Chris. 🙂

        3. Yes, this could happen, but it would not be in accordance with the fundamental purposes of Scientology, which is tobe “the game where every one wins” by producing trained auditors and happy winning preclears, Clears, and pre-OTs.

          What I find remarkable, is that no-one on this blog is mentioning that “R2-45” happens daily and has been happening throughout the history of mankind on Earth, all outside of the CoS and long before the CoS or Scientology existed! Virtually every government on Earth has departments to implement “R2-45” on whoever it perceives as it’s enemies. And on a mass scale!

          Hubbard makes a joke about it, and some people get all up in arms about it. Does that indicate some bpc floating around? He should have known better, that it would be like joking about or even saying the word “bomb” when you’re going through a Homeland Security checkpoint at an airport….

      2. Why strive to Clear people who don’t want to be Clear?

        By “everyone” I can only understand “everyone who wants to be Clear”.

        Eventually I suppose literaly everyone might want to be Clear, but that will take as long as it takes, for those to come around.

  29. Is the church of today an inevitability fi the church is run on all and strict LRH policy?

    Or could the church be something else while still adhering to ALL of the Admin tech?

    … food for thought in our futuristic vision.

    1. Geir, if the Church were being run strictly on LRH Admin Policy, it would be “delivering the goods” in ever increasing numbers. “The goods” being more trained auditors and satisfied Preclears and pre-OTs. It is in fact not doing this, and that’s why it’s failing to expand and is in fact contracting and well on it’s way out of existence.

      The sole reason for any organizing policy, any Admin to exist at all, is to accomplish a goal, ie to “deliver the goods”. To have a bureaucracy for it’s own sake without products to deliver is absurd.

      Imagine Ford Motor Company ceases to manufacture and sell cars. What will happen? How long will it survive? Look at Chrysler. It survives in name only, after being bailed out by the government twice. Government bailout = “donations with no exchange”. It helped some people keep working, but in the long run, what happens? Non-E. Chrysler is not the same company it was, but still there is an entity there that manufacturs and sells cars.

      If Chrysler or Ford or any company stopped producing and selling a VFP, how long would it’s “Bureaucracy” last? They could follow all of their Admin Policies perfectly, but without products to exchange, how would they survive?

      They can seek bailouts, investors, loans, etc, but if they have no intention of manufacturing and selling end products it’s just a scam, if the money is not going into increased production, sales, and delivery. And it becomes meaningless to talk about how well and standardly they are following their “Admin policies” if they are not producing anything people want or not producing anything at all.

      1. “Geir, if the Church were being run strictly on LRH Admin Policy, it would be “delivering the goods” in ever increasing numbers. “The goods” being more trained auditors and satisfied Preclears and pre-OTs. It is in fact not doing this, and that’s why it’s failing to expand and is in fact contracting and well on it’s way out of existence.”

        Why do you assume the Admin Tech would work if it was applied as written?

      2. Geir is asking a valid question why Admin Tech would supposedly work if applied standardly as written. I have a similar bias toward the admin tech as you and think you are on a good track describing them as “tools.” I think you have made a good point by characterizing them in this way. On the other hand, from my own experience on post, I have many examples of producing my product over the top of or in spite of following policy which was being applied to me. I have gotten rather than an attaboy into ethics trouble when violating policy in order to get my product on post. (These are MEST products, buildings build, roads build.) I also have many examples of not being allowed to follow standard finance policy, because “this cycle is very hot” and “this cycle comes directly from COB” or when trying to force a senior to follow a policy being told that I was using policy “to stop.” My Hill 10’s were continually being caused by my seniors and not by the environment around me. My environment was controlable much more so than any senior or “command intention.”

        In WOG life, I get a lot done. My life is strewn with products. I never ever put up with or acquiesce to craziness at work (such as insane schedules, insistence that I violate OSHA regulations, etc.,.). My business and my life is not run per LRH Admin Tech although much of my success conforms with actions which would be per policy. There are many many examples of LRH ADMIN TECH which I could endorse, such as “The Promotional Actions of an Organization.” Many more. I do not see them as bad tools nor destructive. Neither do I see them as unique and exclusive to the world of Scientology.

        1. Chris, you just made my point –

          Doesn’t all that just tell you that COB et al are not actually following LRH policy or philosophy?

          1. Val, I hate to digress to the “common sense fallacy” but many or most people that I worked with had no clue what it took to “get work done.” They were untrained in normal things and mostly untrained in Scientology. While good intentioned and good in heart, they tried sometimes mightily only to fall flat. Then the justice actions would kick in as if they were intentionally sabotaging. I saw this rarely. Most lack of production on post was due to lack of training or correctly posting.

            What I really see is that “these people” don’t run LRH policies in the way and with judgement and with the ARC as you or I would run them. I don’t know whether or not I can even follow strictly LRH policies because I don’t need them. For me, tell me what you want and where you want it, then turn me loose. I don’t need help getting up in the morning and I don’t need help staying on task. Too many vias create a stop and LRH policy sometimes fails by creating too many vias. I have a whole load of examples and experiences with this type of thing. In my own business, I don’t run my finances according to LRH policies, don’t have weekly FP meetings, don’t make my employees write a CSW when they need a pound of screws. I trust them and give them the means and tools to get their work done and get out of their way. They typically appreciate this and sometimes someone abuses their gas credit card or buys something at the supply house for their side job, but typically I just handle it with them and everything becomes copacetic without a comm ev or ethics orders or long winded interviews or sec checks or conditions formulae.

            Maybe these things are better left to the thetan in charge or whatever. All the minuscule micro-managing that occurs using ALL LRH policy in a company chokes it down. And seriously? I would never consider mixing church and state to that degree ever. Maybe in this there is a lesson. Maybe the lofty aspirations of religion should only be on the Admin scale around Purpose or Goal and never lower. Maybe there is a problem with this.

          2. Great post Chris! Something from real life. About he “justiceactionskickingin” – that right there sounds like a huge outgradient misapplication of Ethics.

            Was it on the principle of “if they’re going to wash out, let them wash out quickly”? (Many are called, few are chosen” ?)

            It’s obviously poor use of personnel otherwise.

          3. “Was it on the principle of “if they’re going to wash out, let them wash out quickly”? (Many are called, few are chosen” ?)”

            Maybe Val. For sure it had to do with your post on “compassion.” Sea Org are not allowed to have compassion. Stats and constant heavy ethics do not leave room for compassion. There is only room for measuring purported “production.” The Sea Org is run in the way my imagination as a child pictured 1950’s cold-war Russia. You know the one – the one where Khrushchev bangs his shoe on the table screaming “we will bury you!”

            Like cops giving out traffic tickets, one is not only allowed to but expected to increase the ethics gradient (amount of force) until the desired result is achieved. (“she with the pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me…”) In the world of the Sea Org, might makes right.

  30. There was a point in time for me, 1984 to 1988, when I lived a life in the Sea Org at CST/LRH Archives which was quite fulfilling for me. Day to day activities? Communal living that I would describe as being like “in service” at a mountain resort or retreat. I think I could loosely describe it similarly to the day to day life in B.F. Skinner’s WALDEN TWO. My daily life was very different from the lives being experienced in the service orgs at PAC and at Flag. Sometimes my life was like being on the RPF due to the hard physical work, but I never thought much about that. My life has always been rigorous and MEST work seems natural to me.

  31. LRH’s intentions toward a worldwide org board are clear. I don’t know how his intentions could misconstrued at all. His famous lecture “Org Board and Livingness” highlights his most basic thoughts and purposes for the org board and goals of Scientology organizations.

    1. groups as small as 3 and unlimitedly large in scope. (This was Marildi’s earlier reference to “millions” and that failure he found was due to a “couple departments missing.”
    2. “more communist than communism.” (This was said humorously but he certainly meant it.)

  32. I do understand through history that “start-up” groups suffer. Almost all fail utterly and disappear. These problems, injustices, and even deaths do not alone set the tone for the futures of a groups.

    Despite a rockier start-up than Scientology, a contemporary group that is succeeding despite any reasons is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — The Mormons. How unlikely is this? Possibly we should compare the two. Without saying, the stark differences in the approaches of the two organizations differ utterly in function but not so much in goals. And by goals I mean both proselytize heavily for expansion. Another group is Islam. All share heavy expansion goals but more omniously these share the goal of “take over.” Islam would install Shariah Law. Scientology would install Standard Policy including ethics and justice. Mormons also run a tight ship. More subtle than the other two, Mormons lives are monitored closely by the church and tithing as well as free service and obedience to the bishops is a foregone conclusion.

    1. So, according to the historical expansion results, the Mormons have a better Admin Tech than LRH’s?

      Certainly Falun Gong has an incredible Admin Tech that the CoS should adopt immediately (?)

      1. Yes, but why? For fair comparison, I think we should compare the Mormons of the 1820’s to the Scientologists of the 1950’s.

        Several ideas come to mind:
        1. Their organization evolved, adapted, overcame tremendous obstacles.
        2. Without backing up my opinion, I would say they have “better” heart. Mormons care for one another. They stock a “Bishop’s Storehouse” filled with commodities which are distributed freely to the needy.
        3. They too began as communists like the Sea Org, but evolved away from this.
        4. How do Scientologists express their feeling of community?
        5. Bishops and all Mormon activities are performed by the members without pay. Of course Scientologists work without pay as well as most churches of any faith. But most clergy of other faiths work for pay and sometimes very lucrative pay at that. Mormon Bishops work a job to support their lives then donate, on a rotational basis, their time gratis.

        Maybe someone has more ideas on this?

        1. Hi Chris,

          Like you, I think this is an evolution and I expected things to go somewhat like it has. The comparison to the Mormons is quite similar: break-away groups, independent thinkers, radicals/fanatics, and eventually many groups as there are today.

          Years ago in the Mission where I first got in, we were all looking & working towards that basic vision of ‘a world without insanity, etc.’ and really did treat others with decency & respect. The general idea was NOT the taking over of the world like a coupe or thru force, but, thru enlightenment. Put simply, the amount of theta and agreement that this was an honourable and worthwhile goal and working constantly towards that mountain would eventually destimulate society and life would be better.

          I remember LRH mentioning in a tape that if you took the heavily pts drivers off the road, this would greatly reduce & likely eliminate accidents & carnage on the roads. Traffic would just flow. Similarly, a planet or society in which nuts & suppressives were destimulated would theoretically run better.

          My point is that the basic visions I think are quite good. Yes, there are some policies that need changing – who knows the situation that prompted some of these – I wasn’t there; but I do know there was a lot of hands in the pie in the early ’70s – look at the whole BTB/BPL evolution let alone the individual issues that were produced by others.

          Personally, I have always worked towards those basic visions despite some of the bizzare & degraded behavior of some staff/SO & public. My thinking was/is that if I align my actions towards a survival goal, and that includes not only my dynamics but the dynamics of others, that it IS the only way to go. I shudder to think of my disposition if I agreed with and took part in the general trend of the current Church of Scientology.

          It’s just not me.

      2. Mormons see their church as the reformation of the reformation of Christianity. My own observation sees this as a possibility. This might be equated to the current independent Scientology movement.

        What will the face of Scientology look like in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? This is the topic of this thread. I hate that we drifted so far off into discussing whether or not Scientology is “bad or good.”

        1. I think I can see a pattern of “Oh no, I am not going to paint that picture, because it will reflect badly on Scientology, which I believe/know/wish is all good”.

          But this is beside the OP – I am simply asking to paint a realistic picture of how Scientology – as envisioned by LRH and through his books and lectures, policies and bulletins – will be like some decades from now.

          1. . . . from me? I was not flinching from doing that, I was trying to steer back onto topic. Before predicting the future of Scientology, I was just exploring the mechanics of why organizations work or fail.

            1. No-no – not to you. Not at all. It was a general comment – and perhaps least of all directed at you.

        2. The point I have been making is along the lines of the OP, as I see it.

          Scientology is anti-democratic, authoritarian, and very totalitarian. That directly addresses the OP because a world run by Scientology would be such a world.

          1. It is true that Scientology gives no room for democracy. LRH berates the very concept in many places – and there is no trace of it in any of the organizational structures he set up.

          2. In his own words, he preferred a “benign monarchy” (you might have mentioned this already). By his own standard, a democracy could only begin to survive in a society of “clears.” He felt that people were way too aberrated to govern themselves.

      3. Mormons practiced polygamy as a survival tactic until that tactic became a liability greater than a benefit. Under tremendous scrutiny and pressure, they let it go. Their splinter group, the Fundalmentalist LDS church hung onto “standard tech” of polygamy and you can see in the news today where this has gotten the pedophile and leader of FLDS Warren Jeffs.

        1. Not to mention the Catholic opposition to birth control. This is solidly based on the Biblical injunction to “be fruitful and multiply.” It’s colonization by outbreeding the natives, for one thing. The principle is applied in many cultures in many different ways. Look at the idea of a “harem”. The rich powerful guys in those cultures get to have more offspring…..

          Protoplasm is in fact immortal……

          1. haha I don’t know if protoplasm is immortal but it sure is fractal! If the calculation is allowed to continue then the progeny of the protoplasm continue. If a break in the formula occurs for the reason of no progeny at the macro level or DNA malfunction at the micro level whatever, then that branch of the math stops. This has so many interesting ramifications that it boggles my mind. God I love how simply-complex this universe is.

            1. I agree Chris … harems are a good idea – they are a group activity and all are working for the same happy ending 🙂

    2. Wikipedia has some good articles on the Mormons. Joseph Smith and his followers were factually persecuted and there was even a “Mormon War” in Missouri, which resulted in a “Mormon Extermination Order”. The were chased from state to state until they settled in Utah which was not a state yet.

      Their cosmology is very interesting. They belive in the existence of thetans,,essentially.

      When I first read about Joseph Smith, I thought “maybe Scientology was not Hubbard’s first attempt at establishing a church…..”


      1. haha! Yes Val, I’ve had that same thought! Mormons do not believe in the blood of Jesus Christ, but believe in good works (stats) for salvation. If they are upstat enough, they might be one of the few chosen to move on and if so are rewarded with their own planet to run, etc.,. haha very similar indeed.

        In the many worlds scenario, LDS church may have already won. Also Islam. Also the Nazis. Also Scientology.

        1. One reason the Mormons are successful is because their churches have no professional clergy. Their leaders are almost always picked from a pool of successful business owners and/or leaders.

          People who know how to get things done and get it on a balance sheet and keep people working.

  33. I am trying not to show a bias for or against a group but to explore the mechanics of the organism of groups. This also was what LRH was doing albeit with the goal of taking over worlds.

  34. In the 70’s when one’s “clear number” was a status, I thought to myself that one day I might be visiting with someone “out there” and when they discovered that I was “an Earth Clear” that would hold a special status and they would go “wow!” haha

  35. I have considering the impact of the ethics materials – in their USE is the reflection of the good, the bad and the ugly of mankind. Long ago I was trained in ALL of the ethics materials and found myself in this weird position of being a “police officer” instead of an ethics officer with people appealing to me to make “Susy” be good – to do something about this or that one. When the prices for auditing and courses were at a reasonable cost, the job was really pretty easy and most of the time it was coaching people on how to ACTUALLY use ARC with the people around them. 9 times out of 10 they were getting bad indicators from people around them because they were so out of ARC and so invalidative/evaluative that they could jack someone else’s TA up within 5 minutes of talking to them! I even used the dirty needle drill to demonstrate just what it was they were doing to others and why those others sought to attack them. It doesn’t take much to get the point across doing it that way.

    This whole idea that if its all done “perfectly” then all “badness” is going to disappear is based on the notion that taking care of bodies, protecting bodies, controlling bodies is very, very important and meaningful. Is it really? Is that what we really want? A world perfectly devoted to caring for and feeding bodies, where no BODY ever comes to harm? Where all challenge and adventure is outlawed because it might produce some enturbulation along the way?

    That was the real message of the Simon Bolivar materials:

    “Unless there is something to free men into, the act of freeing is simply a protest of slavery. And as no humanoid is free while aberrated in the body cycle, it is of course a gesture to free him politically as it frees him only into the anarchy of dramatizing his aberrations with NO control whatever and without something to fight exterior and with no exteriorization of his interest he simply goes mad noisily or quietly.”


    “When the game or the show is over, there must be a new game or a new show. And if there isn’t somebody else is jolly well going to start one and if you won’t let anyone do it the game will become “getting you”.

    The way I see it, there can never be any true sanity in a world utterly devoted to physical bodies that by their very nature are going to die, must ever live in fear of extinction and are limited, so limited that their very purpose is to limit the bombardment from the forces and energies surrounding them and to detect possible dangers to them, and thus filter out any reality but that needed for the care and defense and propagation of the body.

    In either Scn 80 or 8008, LRH commented that earth is an egress terminal at this time. That might be true or not but sure as hell escape from entrapment in the body cycle is definitely a predominating effort of religions. Whether accomplished while in-body or at the time of death it is very much the effort of people running on a truly religious track.

  36. In the confidential HCOPL 15 February 1969 “Targets, Defense”, LRH set up the long term targets that must be achieved “to continue the longevity” of Scientology organizations.

    Here is the link to the actual issue. In keeping with Geir’s thought experiment, envision a world where these targets have been achieved in this issue.

    Click to access viewer

    1. I think that it is impossible to do the actions of an enemy without becoming that enemy or at least like that enemy. I have a number of friends who are really big on the banker/one world government/enslavers conspiracies – they all assert that those bad guys have already enslaved the world and we must FIGHT to stop them. Crappola. IMO you can’t fight something by becoming that something and end up somewhere else. But you can be across the boards and that reality can prevail, all without harming a single hair on their heads. Frankly I think the craziness is bone deep in ego-bound humanity.

      1. These are the targets that Int level execs, as well as the GO/OSA parts of the Church, and the Sea Org, have been operating on since it was first written by LRH in the late 1960’s.

        Again, LRH very much changed the nature and direction of Scientology in the mid 1960’s. And so envisioning any future world created by Scientology must include those changes LRH himself put into the subject.

        He was talking about disposing of people low on the tone scale quietly and without sorrow since 1951 in Science of Survival. I believe that he cooled that type of rhetoric until he had enough resources to pull off his totalitarian goals. And he hid behind a public facade of idealistic “freedom” pronouncements while running this covert agenda in the background.

        I know that many of you do not share my conclusions, but I have been out of the Church looking at this for ten years now. Maybe it’s a case of me becoming fixed and rigid in my viewpoints, and seeing only what I want to see, as many of you have told me I am doing, over and over.

        But I still don’t think so. Even today, on the Village Voice Runnin Scared blog, Tony Ortega has published some of LRH’s OOD’s from the ship in the early 60’s and 70’s which clearly – to me anyway – show that what I am saying is true.

      2. OK Maria, so what do you think of the “Occupy Wall Street” and other related movements?

        Is this all crazy conspiracy theorist crappola?

        What about the concept of the “1%”, the idea of the “rich getting richer” while others get poorer, the cost of living rising faster than wages, the people without medical care, etc etc.?

        I’m not saying I believe any of those people you know have correctly identified the villains, but in my own lifetime I have seen a downward economic spiral for most people in the USA.

        Europe is talking whole countries going bankrupt. Wars are being fought for control of natural resources in other countries.

        Conspiracy theories aside, i believe that if you want to know why things happen in the world, follow the money. When many are starving, some few are getting rich. When war is happening, and many are dying, some few are getting rich.

        When many are eating rice and beans and working 100-hour weeks for no pay to speak of, someone(and his cronies) are getting rich and eating gourmet meals every day. Where do we know that is happening?

        At the same time as the they are lining their own pockets and crashing the statistics of the organizations they are raping, they are holding public events extolling the virtues of the leadership and trumpeting the ever-increasing “expansion”.

        That seems to fit the very definition of a “conspiracy” at the very top of an organization, with the few lying to and misleading the many whose pockets they are picking the whole while.

        Reminds me of that “worker’s paradise” the Soviet Union, East Germany and other eastern bloc countries had going for all those decades……..

        But no, nobody ever “conspires” in secret, behind closed doors, to benefit themselves at the expense of others…..

        I really do believe there is a built-in denial about that kind of thing, that is widespread in this world.

        Makes me wonder who is benefiting/profiting by it?

        1. The wealth of nations are far greater now than 100 years ago. There is higher living standards, longer life expectancy… I see a spiral – but it is going up.

          1. Geir, I don’t see this in the USA. I see it being increasingly difficult to maintain the standard of living. I see wages stagnating as Cost of Living goes up. I see more people out of work. I see more people with less disposable income.

            It doesn’t matter what the Wealth of Nations is, if most of that Wealth is controlled by a few people while the large majority subsist and an increasing number live at or below the officially established “poverty level”.

            Granted the USA is a special case in terms of how good the standard of living has been in the past. I understand that “globalization” is bringing “parity” to the world to some extent, so a leveling of standards maybe inevitable, but that’s not what I am talking about.

            1. Even in the US, the standard of living is way higher than 100 years ago. Waaay higher.

          2. Geir, do you think a substantial welfare system (often found in rich countries) robs people of a certain amount of self determinism and therefor ‘life’? I wonder whether knowing you cannot starve or go without shelter or education no matter what you do takes away the pride of actually providing these things for yourself. Im thinking material wealth in a country (beyond the basics) doesn’t bring increased well being. off topic sorry, im just thinking out loud 🙂

            1. I think Norway is perfect – and the statistics are with me. Our welfare system is one of the best in the world. It works.

          3. Yes, I believe the standard of living in the USA is higher than 100 years ago. However, I have not been around to chart it’s course for that long. I have however, been around for the past 45 years, and the trend is definitely downward over the last 30-40 years. I have lived in the same town in the same state that long and I can see it. Cost of living is up enormously, while jobs and wages are down by comparison. Some of it can be attributed to the loss of the manufacturing sector across the US, as in auto manufacturing for example.

            But that doesn’t alter the fact that a small percentage of people are rich and apparently getting richer at the expense of a much larger percentage of people. And it is not necessarily because they are more productive, but because they manipulate markets. It is commonplace in the USA to read about the shrinking of the middle class and the growing gap between the have’s and the have-nots.

            It was largely manufacturing that drove the real wealth that existed here 40years ago. Now many of our best and biggest downtown realestate is owned by the Chinese and Arabs, and the Chinese scold the US for not doing more to protect the US economy.

            By the way, I will post a link you maybe interested in, to Robert A.Heinlein’s first novel. There is in it a whole chapter about a “board game” Heinlein devised, which he claimed could be used to test any economic theory ever invented by man, and that they all result in eventual bankruptcy by actual test.

            The novel is set in a future that uses the only viable economic theory that Heinlein was able to discover, that did not result in eventual bankruptcy, and the implementation of which led to a good standard of living for everyone in the world without exception.

            The novel is titled “For Us, the Living” and last I looked, it was available through Amazon.

            He calls it a board game. I think of it as a demo kit for testing economic theories.

            In the meantime, in my area, what I have seen illustrates Hubbard’s view in the essay on the Antisocial personality, that such create “economic duress” for the general population.

            It makes sense that if there are some people who are totally dedicated to controlling as much as possible of the available wealth and amassing wealth for themselves at any cost and without regard for others, that they would create “economic duress” for others. It would be away of keeping most people to busy scrabbling for survival to pay much attention to what the “elites” are actually doing.

            I believe the actual government of most countries and probably the entire planet is on the old Roman “bread and circuses” model – provide the populace lots of food, even if it’s of poor quality, and inthe “developed countries” today’s “circuses” are the big -screen TVs in every house, apartment, and bar, which show professional and college-level sports endlessly. Oh yes, and plenty of cheap beer.

            Yes, that’s the “higher standard of living” that is pushed, and the game is rigged so that even the “poor” can “just barely” afford it, by working 6 days a week or perhaps 2 minimum-wage jobs. Taxes have to be high so we can fight wars to “maintain” the “wealth of nations”(actually the 1%ters who are really “multinationals” and don’t really have much allegiance to any country) and also to build prisons in which to imprison the millions of people the USA keeps in jails.

            Talk about “quietly and without sorrow”! Prisons are a growth industry in the USA.


            “Come all ye faithless, thieving and corrupted”…. we need more criminals in the USA! Gotta keep those jails filled!

            OK, rant over.

        2. Valkov — I am probably the most conspiracy theory theorist I know! There’s a song entitled: “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” that pretty much sums up what I see on a tiny scale and on a large scale. We’ve watched two World Wars recently and regimes come and go, and on and on it goes and it can be traced back as far as written history goes on this planet. It seems to be pretty much irrelevant who is in charge, there is this consistent disparity between the wealthy and the poor, the entitled and the disenfranchised.

          The reason I said crappola was not to dismiss that this sort of thing goes on. Its like me saying that I thought Hitler’s grand plan was shitty. I just used the word crappola instead of shitty. I do think it is an unfortunate consequence of acting as an enemy does that you can end up being like the enemy you are fighting. The downtrodden riot and take over and what do you, the new guys in charge are soon top dogs gloating over the rest. Its an old, old game and one that I am personally very tired of. I find it infuriating that the same crazy attitude is alive and well in the behavior of the top leadership of the C of S. There’s a gazillion things that could have been done with the millions and millions of dollars regged from Scientologists, including finally dropping the flipping prices on auditing so a reasonable number of people could at least get some basic auditing. But nooo… we have to have a jet and a palatial apartment and fancy buildings and all the trappings of wealth and privilege. CRAPPOLA!!!!!!!!

          I had sincerely hoped that Scientology did have an effective weapon, called auditing, that could finally and for once and all bring an end to the madness and the crappola, And here we are posting on a website that is examining the reality of that.

          I’ll say it again. Crappola or if you prefer – for Gawd’s sake!!!!

          1. Sorry Maria, I must have misunderstood what you were saying!

            I thought you were saying that conspiracies did not exist, and that the idea of their existence was “crappola”.

    2. Thanks for posting the link, Al.

      It is a great link and I’ll say right of the bat, I see nothing inherently sinister in that issue, and here’s why:

      The whole thing is predicated on the thesis that – “Scientology is the only game where everyone wins”, and that there is actually an opposition to “everyone winning” which attempts to disperse or otherwise inhibit the delivery of Scientology services.

      From the text of the issue itself:

      “our only justification for doing these things is that Scientology is the only game where everyone wins”.

      From that viewpoint, if you are being attacked, eventually you will be driven to defend yourself, or perish.

      Since you were not around (as “Al”) during the Cold War, McCarthyism, the Vietnam Era etc I don’t expect you to understand. But you could at least study a little 20th century history to get some intellectual grasp of what the realities were.

      This goes to the basic issue that is not being addressed in this thread – WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? What did Hubbard himself think Scientology is?

      If you start interpreting things he said and wrote outside of that context, it’s every man for himself writing science-fiction indeed.

  37. An amusing thought came to me – what if the end result of that seven division org board encompassing the earth finds us in the Urantia realm of knowledge?

    Here are the seven divisions (controllers) of the grand universe per Urantia:

    “You have been instructed in the relationship of God the Sevenfold to the Supreme Being, and you should now recognize that the Sevenfold encompasses the controllers as well as the creators of the grand universe. These sevenfold controllers of the grand universe embrace the following:

    (1273.6) 116:5.2 1. The Master Physical Controllers.
    (1273.7) 116:5.3 2. The Supreme Power Centers.
    (1273.8) 116:5.4 3. The Supreme Power Directors.
    (1273.9) 116:5.5 4. The Almighty Supreme.
    (1273.10) 116:5.6 5. The God of Action — the Infinite Spirit.
    (1273.11) 116:5.7 6. The Isle of Paradise.
    (1273.12) 116:5.8 7. The Source of Paradise — the Universal Father.

    (1273.13) 116:5.9 These seven groups are functionally inseparable from God the Sevenfold and constitute the physical-control level of this Deity association.”

    It is interesting that the Urantia reveals at least a dozen or more sevenfold schemas, repeating again and again throughout the googleplex galactic immensity described in it.

    1. Maria, I’m not much for studying cosmologies, as it feels like they are a dime a dozen, but it also seems to me there are many correspondences among them, and that many probably have a common root, because the same numbers occur and re-occur – 3, 7, 9, etc.

      The Gurdjieff cosmology is interesting for someof it’s details.

      One is that the whole of Creation is seen as having a fractal form.

      Another is that the “Ray of Creation” has two intervals or gaps in it, which require “conscious shocks” or efforts to be applied, to maintain it’s progress or “flow”, because it’s natural tendency is to degrade(in an entropic sense) as it proceeds from it’s Source.

      Here are a some links and an excerpt:



      The Law of Seven is an ancient principle known to both the Pythagoreans and Platonists and was an integral part of the alchemical sciences as practiced during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance. In my opinion, the most lucid account of this esoteric law is that given by the “Fourth Way” teachers P. D. Ouspensky andG. I. Gurdjieff.

      In Chapter 5 of his book entitled” In Search of the Miraculous”, P. D. Ouspensky describes
      the “Law of Seven” as it was taught to him by Gurdjieff. It was a fundamental dynamic process whereby both
      the Cosmos (the macro-level) and individual lives (the micro-level) of people here on Earth were in a
      continuous state of transformation. The so-called “Absolute” was the fundamental source of all creation.
      Emanating from the Absolute, the process of cosmic creation evolves according to an ordered sequence of
      increasing complexity and density. This process follows a law involving the seven note Greek musical scale
      known on the macro level as the “Ray of Creation.” The universe as a whole comprises many such emanations
      from the Absolute. Unlike the Pythagorean model (see below), Gurdjieff’s scheme involved a relatively
      modern, sun centered view of the astronomical structure of the Cosmos. A diagram representing Gurdjieff’s
      “Ray of Creation” for the planet Earth is depicted in the table shown below.

      This Gurdjieff teaching is almost certainly a slightly updated form of the basic teachings of the Ionian
      Greek Philosopher Pythagoras of Samos (569-475 B.C.) and his followers in the Pythagorean School. While
      only fragments of the teachings of the Pythagoreans survive, we do know that they taught that the universe was essentially an organic whole which they called the “Cosmos.” The Pythagoreans also taught that the underlying structure of the Cosmos was mathematical in nature and that the principles of the musical octave constituted the key to understanding this mathematical structure. Pythagoras and his successors, like most people in the world until the 17th Century A.D., believed in an Earth-centered universe. In the 4th Century B. C., the philosopher Plato, a Pythagorean initiate, defined the basic structure of this Cosmos as a system of eight concentric shells with the Earth placed at the center of the shells. The outermost shell, a dodecahedron, was the realm of the fixed stars. Each of the other seven shells was considered to be a sphere associated with three things: 1) a note from the Ionian Greek musical scale (known as the Lydian scale in the 6th Century B.C.), 2) a planetary body which moved around the Earth in a circular orbit, and 3) a particular Muse (one of nine Greek goddesses who preside over the arts and sciences). The entire system was called the “Harmony of the Spheres.” In all, this cosmic system had nine levels counting the earth as the first level. The outermost level was the realm of the fixed stars which did not orbit the earth. No musical note was associated with the realm of the fixed stars.


      According to Gurdjieff the Enneagram is a universal symbol by which all processes in the universe can be
      understood. As the universe unfolds from the Absolute and elaborates itself in the Ray of Creation, its
      complexity increases over Time as the various gradations of energy interact according to the Laws of Three
      and Seven. Beginning with the Absolute, the Law of Three manifests in its most simple form as the three
      fundamental forces in the universe, the Active(Holy Affirming), Passive(Holy Denying) and Neutral(Holy Reconciling). At each step or note of the Ray of
      Creation the Law of Three multiplies and generates more interactions. The sequence of elaboration of laws
      given by Ouspensky follows a pattern of doubling at every level : 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96. Likewise, every
      note of the octave of the Ray of Creation generates within it octaves of sub-harmonics, leading to the
      formation of galaxies, suns, planets, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, animals

      Since these elaborations all follow the basic, universal pattern outlined by the Enneagram, we see that
      Gurdjieff had already outlined in the 1920’s what is now called the Theory of Fractals, which is based on
      the self-similarity of a basic pattern elaborated at many different scales. For example, the branching
      patterns of trees are similar to the patterns of leaf veins, rivers and blood vessels and air passages in
      the lungs.


      ABSOLUTE 1 do

      ALL WORLDS 3 si

      ALL SUNS 6 la

      SUN 12 sol

      ALL PLANETS 24 fa

      EARTH 48 mi

      MOON 96 re

      ABSOLUTE do

      “The Ray of Creation” in the teaching of Gurdjieff: The Absolute is the fundamental source of all creation.
      From the Absolute the process of cosmic creation branches and descends (involves) according to an ordered
      sequence of increasing complexity and density, following the law of the octave. The universe as a whole
      comprises countless such branchings from the Absolute; this particular diagram represents the “ray” containing our planet earth.


      “Gurdjieff focused on two main cosmic laws, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven
      The Law of Seven is described by Gurdjieff as “the first fundamental cosmic law”. This law is used to
      explain processes. The basic use of the law of seven is to explain why nothing in nature and in life
      constantly occurs in a straight line, that is to say that there are always ups and downs in life which
      occur lawfully.

      The Law of Three is described by Gurdjieff as “the second fundamental cosmic law”. This law states that every whole phenomenon is composed of three separate sources, which are Active, Passive and Reconciling or
      Neutral. This law applies to everything in the universe and humanity, as well as all the structures and processes.”

      The law of 3 I associate with what Hubbard said about the idea of a “2 terminal universe”, that actually a 3rd element was necessary to keep the terminals from collapsing. The terminals must be kept at a distance from each other for a flow to occur between them. He used the analogy of an electric motor, which has 2 terminals, but the essential 3rd element is the Base which holds the terminals apart.

      The number 9 also plays a big part in Gurdjieff’s system, in the form of the Enneagram diagram which is used to plot interactions of the Laws of 7 and 3 as the ray of creation flows through them – or something like that.

  38. LRH put quite a bit of thought into the general organizational structure of the “org board.” He said that it wasn’t simply a “command chart” but mimic’d the organism of living.

    Some concepts that I always liked about and was intrigued about LRH’s 21 department organizing board were:
    1. The intentionally expanding (conical helical) spiral beginning at department 1 and continuing on through department 21 where the improved and enlightened “particle” (person) was re-injected to the organization at department 1 where this cycle ran again.
    2. An “awareness characteristic” of each department. Reading left to right, each awareness characteristic lead one to another and department 21 lead back into department 1.
    3. Production concept of a thetan with a mind, body, and product, were represented on the organizing board by one division head (thetan) with three departments as the mind, body, and product.
    4. Clay demo’ing organization over and over left me with 7 conical helical coils wrapped around themselves – something like the double helical coil of DNA if it started out small on one end and got bigger as you go. This demonstration of course worked in either direction as I supposed the org board would work if it were mis-applied; as conditions formulae work in either direction; as ARCU works in either direction.

    If I think of more features that I felt were unique to the organizing board I will share. Anyone else have thoughts on these features? Is anyone as intrigued as I am? They never seemed quite to gel as I have written them and it is not clear to me if the design is flawed as the OP might suggest or whether no one duplicated and applied this piece of Scientology as Valkov asserts.

      1. Hmmm. I thought you were rather productive myself!

        (its a joke – after all we are all some kind of a thetan-mind-body production unit!)

        Oh it works just fine – its just there’s all this wrestling going on!! Team? We don’t want no steenking team! What?!? I have to be the body? Noooo….. !!! I want to be KING of the castle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Its like putting all these screamy cats into harness – ever seen a cat on a leash? Its a wonder to behold!

        All joking aside, its a bloody miracle the C of S exists at all after 50 years. Most groups don’t even get past 5 years. You should see the stats on new business start ups – they are dismal, truly dismal.

        1. It takes a strong Person to get anything off the ground. A Person and not a System is the determining factor whether an organization makes it in its infancy. The more the Admin Tech was pushed and the less “let’s just get the show on the road and deliver an excellent product”, the more the CoS went down the valley.

    1. LRH did mention that it was taken from an organizing system in use long, long ago, but that he fixed it. Well, maybe it wasn’t the right reason why it didn’t work.

      But I have to tell you that I had this amusing picture come to mind after I read your post. Here is a little cell which is a microscopic life form, and it too runs on a pattern like that — but what made me laugh was the excretion function. There’s always something there to “eat” whatever is excreted. But what if no one wants what is excreted? Now what? This is fun.

  39. The world would be one giant bore. Many would create new problems just to have…..well……problems. Without bad guys and injustice, we would be desperate to create new games that had some sting to them.

    I believe a thetan’s favorite trick is to fix everything up all nice and neat and then completely blow it all to hell, ultimately forgetting everything he ever learned and having to start anew.

    If everything were Scientology-perfect, I’d want to get off this rock at once! 🙂

  40. I’m really benefitting from reading everybody’s posts! And I do mean everybody – the very knowledgeable ones (who know a lot about either Scn or other subjects or both) as well as the guys just telling their experiences honestly (which I felt they all were) and also the ones posting relevant references. Thank you to all for your efforts

    So now I’m thinking about the fact that the evolution of Scn is already in progress and is at a point where, along with the fast-dwindling number of C of S members, there’s a growing number of Independents, some of whom are already auditing pc’s and offering courses. From what I read on the blogs, the Church’s days are coming to an end and it’s uncertain what will become of it. The major thing to note about the Independents is that they aren’t at all uniform in their considerations about whether to rigidly adhere to Standard Tech or revise it as they see fit. The same goes as regards which LRH policy – if any – to use.

    I’m guessing that the Independents will increasingly join forces as a more effective way to operate than going it alone, and the different groups will adopt varying degrees of LRH tech, admin and ethics, on a spectrum of little of it to all of it. I imagine there will be quite a few different ‘sects,” at least for a while, and it seems likely that the ones who adopt the most workable parts of Scientology will be the most successful and will grow the fastest. The question is – which camp will it be and what will be the nature of their expansion as far as how much they will predominate and what changes they’ll make to society?

    Quite a few lessons have been learned along our way (e.g. the SO, OSA, crush reg’ing, harsh ethics, etc) whether things went wrong as a result of misapplying LRH tech, admin and ethics – or because of applying those correctly. Either way, I think in our experiment we have to take into account the lessons learned – as the Independents themselves are doing – if we’re going to realistically project Scn’s evolution into the future. From its current point, we could either take it forward with those Independents who would toss out what they consider the unworkable parts of Scn, or those Independents who would stick to “orthodox Scientology” (perhaps including in that last group the C of S, on the possiblity that it will be forced to drastically reform and will be able to survive the whole scandal).

    1. If Scientology splinters, there is no way that LRH’s vision for Scientology (a world without…) will come true. To achieve that, one must have a thoroughly coordinated effort. To achieve planetary clearing requires a massive coordination, or else the splinter groups are left on their own to compete with psychology, psychiatry, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. No way Scientology can win without the coordination mustered by a properly run CoS.

      1. Planetary clearing would be impossible if people can opt out of the clearing process. If there is a choice to opt out, people WILL opt out.

        Like me for instance.

        With such a choice, the act of “clearing” a person would require forcing them against their will. LRH makes that choice clear in writing and in policy letters.


        I think “clearing,” “saving,” “liberating,” and “enlightening” the planet under the auspices of any religious tradition is JUST megalomaniacal messianic delusion.

        What if being yourself was just free enough?

        1. Well, let’s keep painting.

          What IF 90% would Want to go Clear and OT. Then how do we handle the rest according to LRH’s writings on the subject. What is LRH’s solution to the last 10%?

          1. I don’t have the reference for it, but in one of his issues LRH said that there wasn’t a need to clear 100% of the population – there would be a tipping point that would would effectively clear the rest. That made good sense to me – after all the bank is a common denominator held in place by group agreement, so really there is nothing need be done about this hypothetical 10%. Now whether or not anyone else would see that as so, I don’t know.

            What is obvious is that the 90% definitely will not see things the way the Church taken to seeing them. Just count up the number of people already declared, resigned or simply walked away and you can see that you can pretty much count on that.

            My guess is that the 90% or 50% or whatever percentage will not return to an embodied state and so there never will be a end to it.

            1. How could someone be cleared if they themselves do not take responsibility for their own reactive mind? No, that would not be according to the tech. I have seen that quote and I see it as this; When one reaches that tipping point, then the rest of the population would naturally follow suit. Now That would be concistent with the rest of Hubbard’s writings IMO.

        2. If the initial ethnic cleansing was successful, then would the Church loosen up, relax its grip on the remaining 10%? If it did, that would be a change in characteristic from the contemporary modus operandi.

      2. I remember many discussions over the years as to what constitutes ‘clearing the planet’. If I remember correctly, it did not mean that every Tom, Dick, Harry & their dog would have to attain clear; it was the theta/entheta level (however that would be measured).

        There is also a reference somewhere but I don’t remember where.

        This is also promoted by the church every few years depending what they are pushing ie. Super Power

        1. Sure – the definition of a cleared planet is not to clear every one – but what would we do with the remaining people?

          1. Well, maybe those remaining are the true blue suppressives and very heavy PTS’s to the point of being destructive. Separating them from the rest of the group may be a solution similar to a quarantine and then hopefully rehabilitate them.

            If it is simply a difference of opinion or viewpoint on whether one does want to get auditing or practice scientology or any other philosophy or not, then I can grant them that beingness. I’m not into forcing another to ‘agree’.

            On another line, I would expect a real confrontation between the enlightened group and the group of suppressives controlling the planet. These guys will not give up without a fight for control/power.

            1. “If it is simply a difference of opinion or viewpoint on whether one does want to get auditing or practice scientology or any other philosophy or not, then I can grant them that beingness. I’m not into forcing another to ‘agree’.”

              It’s not about what You want 🙂

              It is: What does LRH writing, extrapolated into that future, tell us?

    2. This is a great post, Miraldi.

      I think you have spotted a very important element here: taking into account the lessons learned.

      Spot on.

  41. I just realized that this idea of 90% clear / OT is a near impossible task, provided that people continue to have children. If you have 1,000 people – 50% male, 50% female, you have 500 couples. Let’s say those 500 couples have the average number of children – 2.3%. Within 25 years you now have an additional 1,150 people who may or may not be clear. So now you have more people who are potentially not clear than those who are. Since this is hypothetical, its not quite right but you can get a sense of what would be occurring.

    As well during the process of clearing the Buddhist community, for example, those people will bring their culture into the mix and that will change how life is perceived. Period. All the sec checking in the world will not be able to change someone’s mind about realities encountered during deep meditation. I don’t even think that sec checking will be effective on such a state. I can tell you for sure that if I don’t want to be in session, I am not in session. And when I am not in session sec checking does not work on me. Period. I can assure you this is so because I’ve been there and there is no response on the meter. Further, if I am not interested in my case or I am already in a floating TA state, might as well pack up that meter.

    I’ve done enough auditing to know when I have a floating TA. I often do. OFTEN. And it has been over 20 years since I had a major auditing action of any kind. I would love to put a deep meditation Buddhist monk on the meter. My bet is that they have a floating TA, just based on their descriptions of the blissful state they find themselves in.

    I think that while all this clearing is going on, the vanguard of integral science will be making very real strides and along the way will work out EXACTLY what occurs during auditing, if only in self defense. Which part of it is ACTUALLY effective? And what ACTUALLY happens at the point of cognition. That is the direction of integral science, process philosophy, and many other “new thought” movements. And they are picking up momentum – a giant wave of discovery and exploration into the wild wild world of what really is.

    1. According to the tech, there is no problem of reaching a level of 90% clears – because all the OT’s would clear enough entities that will thereafter take bodies and start off their lives as Clears or above. Now, the reason I chose 90% is because of a policy where LRH says that 90% are willing and the last 10% is “wholly defiant”. So how do we handle the 10% wholly defiant?

      1. Given the outrageous numbers of entities handled on the upper levels, I would speculate that the 10% would eventually simply be unable to be embodied. Of course, this assumes that entities are clear and that they would even want to be embodied. In fact, the assumption here is that anyone would want to be embodied / return. So really, all this is based on speculation. But I guess you could just pack up that remaining 10% and ship them off to their own little colony or if they appear again, as kg said, bang bang. Since we don’t have any prior experience with such a society or event that anyone can seem to remember, its all just speculation. For all we know, no clear or OT will ever return.

        1. What if there was a remaining 10% of a population of then mostly Scientologists actively using ethics, tech and admin for their own benefit – now how would they handle the remaining people (given that they are not out-embodied)?

      2. It’s “The Alanzo Problem”.

        How do we handle The Alanzo Problem?

        I love having my own problem named after me.

      3. “LRH says that 90% are willing and the last 10% is “wholly defiant”. So how do we handle the 10% wholly defiant?”

        But was that in the tipping point context or the context of the time he stated that?

          1. I think the reference would be HCOPL “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Sources of Trouble”:

            “e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism …Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.”

      4. Is it really true that the entities handled on the upper levels are “Clear” when they leave? I haven’t done the levels, but it never occurred to me that they would actually be “Clears” as in “no longer has his own reactive mind” themselves, at that point.

  42. Imo LRh thought as soon as Dn/Sn was seen to work empirically it would eventually become accepted. Leaders in their fields would at least have a good reality that their aberrations were separate from them. Just recognising the truth of this might be enough to make a huge difference.

    1. Right – so let’s imagine this does happen and that Scientology really wins the heart, soul and mind of 90% of the peoples of Earth. How do we handle the remaining 10%?

      1. According to LRH, a great amount of theta dis-enturbulates a small amount of entheta. That was how I always looked at the idea that the whole population would be effectively cleared if a majority were. Personal reality tells me that there would at least be a key out.

        And I also considered that there is probably some physics explanation for it – if not clearing, then keying out. You as a student of physics might know.

        1. But the clearing tech is very precise on this point. If the pc does not take full responsibility for his reactive mind, then there is no clearing.

          1. You’re right and I think taking responsibility mainly if not entirely involves viewing the underlying postulates – which would not have been done. So at best we would get Releases rather than Clears. However, that would still give us a “cleared” planet in the broadest and most important sense – i.e. the goal of playing a better game would have been achieved. Any other aims, such as everyone becoming Clear, would be at best Purposes on the Scn admin scale.

            1. I’d say a key-ed out SP is still an SP (per tech – the only auditing that handles an SP is that of Power and NOTs) – so how do we deal with the remainder?

            2. There’s also Integrity Processing, FPRD, and Expanded Dianetics to handle such cases.

              Granted, they are all handling the same ball of wax.

            3. According to LRH, they are only terminatively handled by Power and NOTs. BTW; That makes it a paradox to have anyone above OT 5 to be declared an SP.

          2. But a keyed-out SP wouldn’t be dramatizing – and wouldn’t be able to get keyed back in if the theta/entheta ratio were maintained.

            1. Really? How do you know?

              And if this was so, then an SP confined among clears and OTs in, let’s say the SO, wouldn’t dramatize. Has this ever been proven do we think?

          3. I believe that principle (about a large volume of theta in relation to entheta) is true, not only because I feel I’ve experienced the phenomenon (haven’t you?) but because, again, I think it boils down to sheer physics.

            We don’t have any scientific studies to go on, but I think we can believe LRH on that if we just recall times when we’ve been in a situation where, for whatever reason – some happy occasion, or even a dire one when everybody’s necessity level came up (which LRH stated is actually a key out) – no signs of restim were in evidence at all and everyone was “themselves” and uptone (in the case of a happy occasion) and/or non-misemotional and at their best as regards thinking and acting.

            1. The problem with that scenario is that one man’s ally is another man’s SP. There must be two sides or more to have a game. Who will volunteer to be the Bad Guy in an All Scientology World (ASW™)?

          4. “The problem with that scenario is that one man’s ally is another man’s SP.”

            That would not be the technical definition of an SP. But it seems you want to make another point which I didn’t quite get.

            (Btw, as ASW actually something trademarked?)

            1. No 😦 Not TM’ed.

              I am simply trying to extrapolate LRH’s text into a world where those texts are followed and then exploring how that world would be like. And I might had – having a real time recruiting painters.

          5. Hey, I’m painting! Or not? If not, please say again the picture you want to develop.

            I still think the tipping point thing would be an end game of sorts. And you haven’t falsified my theory. 😉

          6. We’ve been making the assumption that LRH insisted everyone must do Scientology. I’d like to see the actual reference for that.

            But assuming that’s the case, there is plenty of tech to handle those who are “unwilling” to participate in Scientology due to case or ethics factors or false data. And it may take a lot of tech and various pieces of it, but if indeed the tech does handle all cases they would eventually be handled.

            I think this discussion may come down to whether we believe the tech does work and is all that’s needed to handle all cases – or not. If it does, it follows that the whole of society would be handled, step by step.. And if it doesn’t – end of discussion. And no possibility of ASW™ 😦

            1. And if we extrapolate we get this:

              The CoS will expand into every corner of the world as it cannot do anything but expand per policy. It aims to cfree every person on Earth. And by the use of Scientology tech since that is actually the only way to set someone free. Everyone should then be a scientologist and would be on the org board of the CoS. They would then have to be on a regular course schedule per week and would be subject to ethics actions if not. If they do any out ethics in life, they would again be subject to the ethics tech. They would train and they would go up the Bridge. They would enter into leadership positions in the government and in all spheres of influence. And again, if they did anything unethical, they would be subject to ethics, tech and admin. They would be required to use policy to handle admin situations, and as LRH admin tech is in fact the only workable admin tech there is, using anything else would have to come under the heading of squirreling or out-ethics. Thus admin tech would be in use most everywhere. Leaders would lead according to LRH scriptures as doing otherwise is again couner intentional and out ethics. It should only be natural that they would want to be ethical as LRH has laid out, use the tech standardly and apply policy appropriately. Out ethics is treated with the ethics gradient and there would be a swifter justice system than the cumbersome judicial system we see in our society today. As no Scientologist could take another Scientologist to court (forbidden by policy), then our system of Law and Order would naturally be replaced by LRH’s ethics and justice policies. Every citizen would deem it only natural to write KRs on any outpoint they see, be it in the work place, in the Church structure, amongst friends or in families. PTSness is thus reported as per policy as it is a crime to do otherwise. No criticism of Scientology would ever happen as that is a suppressive act, and no one would leave Scientology and tell about it as that, too would be suppressive. No one would create any problems, and no one would have any unkind thoughts of LRH, Mary Sue or the CoS Management. Wars would be handled before any ARC break could escalate to that level of conflict. No drugs would be peddled, and the insane would be given the Introspection Rundown and then be given the proper auditing actions to again return to the Bridge and continue on their road to freedom. There would be no splinter groups as the CoS would hold it’s LRH given monopoly on all the tech. Psychiatry would long since have been obliterated and the same with psychology or any other practice targeted by LRH’s orders, advices or policy. Other religions would be tolerated, but only to the point where they would not in any way interfere with the progress up the Bridge for any individual. Christians would be crammed according to the Class VIII tapes as LRH says Jesus Christ did not exist. People would be free to worship their version f the 8th dynamic as LRH touced very little upon that subject. Since we would have a perfectly run society, KSW and Keep Admin Working would be enforced to ensure that no working installation would ever be tampered with and fall astray. It would be a society in harmony, of fun, laughter, ARC and respect for LRH. It would be a world without war, criminality and insanity. It would be a world that all of us have desired since millions of years.

          7. Wow, great summation. Now, if I didn’t know you as a much more liberal-minded being I might have taken it as an utterly serious, theetie wheetie pep talk. But as knowledgeable and somewhat subtle satire I really did enjoy it! 😀 (And I loved the ending. :-))

            My dearest Geir, I don’t believe the only interpretation of Scientology is a fundamentalist one. I think there is plenty of LRH that would temper all the things you wrote. Honestly now, don’t you?

            1. Of course one can pick and chose amongst his writings – drop some, take something else. Cherry picking is the only sane way to go here. But that is beside the OP 😉

          8. “BTW; That makes it a paradox to have anyone above OT 5 to be declared an SP.”

            Deal breaker problem that. Debunks doing the bridge as a cure for insanity.

            1. Other than those who slipped thru the lines onto the OT levels, I think the majority if not all of the SP declares on OTs are bogus.

              As for the ones who have suppressive tendencies, they didn’t make the grade in the 1st place – out-tech

          9. I read your epic post again and I really have to hand it to you for your wit :-D. And for thinking of just about everything! The naysayers are gonna love it – probably frame it, LOL.

            Well, I hate to be the party pooper but the fact is, to literally carry out whatever LRH has written, whether or not it applies to ACTUAL SITUATIONS, would in fact be – off-policy. One basic reference for that is HCOPL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy”:


            “The wisdom of the policy and whether or not it was a successful solution to some actually possible confusion or crisis determines whether or not it should be added or deleted.”

            According to that last line, certain policy could even be deleted altogether. I do agree with you that there are other policies that seem to require a rote application of admin tech. But if the new leaders of Scientology are well-intentioned and know their business, there’s no reason they wouldn’t be able to work out how to apply policy to forward the basic purposes – which is precisely what policy is for. (And if they’re really smart they might even find they can work in the kind of “liquidity” that you talk about :-).)

            Your post really got me thinking – there is probably a huge amount of revamping to be done and the new leaders do have their work cut out for them. But I believe they would have what it takes, as regards intelligence and purpose. Intention is what monitors anything and everything – with good intention or with bad, either way, leaders can get around whatever and/or work out whatever they want to. We’re always at the mercy of those in charge, in a sense. Nevertheless, IMHO there are some powerful Scientologists around whose postulates are going to win out. (And I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they recruited you :-))

            1. You are pointing out a very real inconsistency in the Admin Tech. In fact it cannot be applied fully. It follows the inherent problem of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in that any complete system cannot be consistent. LRH aimed for completeness rather than consistency in the Admin Tech.

              However – it is that one sentence against all the references cementing the rigor and the sentiment running through the vast majority of the Admin Tech that it is perfect and infallible. I believe most people will err toward the KSW approach. As we can see in the current CoS.

              I believe the dominating Independent Scientology view that the CoS is All Wrong, not applying Any Tech or Any Admin correctly and has totally Perverted Ethics is a wrong one. I believe it is a very biased and stigmatized view that is generated daily to foster the Independent Identity as a whole. I believe the current CoS is in fact practicing more than 90% correctly according to LRH. The last 10% includes your quote above and the policies aimed at keeping friendly relations with the public (hard to do when you apply the OSA attack policies) and to always deliver what you promise (this one is grossly out).

          10. Geir, good observation about Independents. I agree with you about the biased view on the part of some of them that the CoS is All Wrong – they definitely do a type of cherry picking which sometimes reminds me of what the sites of the CoS do in reverse (although the CoS also includes some outrageous lies, so it’s a loose comparison). To a degree it’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again (LOL).

            As for the admin tech, perhaps it really can be applied “fully” – if priority is given to basic principles. LRH made clear the “single factor governing it [policy]” in HCOPL 4 Dec 66, Expansion, Theory of Policy”:

            “It takes many things to ensure expansion. Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.”

            That right there tells us exactly how to interpret policy. And you named two other basic guidelines – deliver what you promise and maintain friendly relations. Those two policies, plus the one above and the one I quoted earlier would be more than enough to enable new management (or a new organization) to separate the wheat from the chaff and not throw out the baby with the bathwater (mixing my metaphors, ha ha) and I do believe there’s a baby to save.. Again though, it’s all about intention.

            The other thing is this – if you feel that the CoS is practicing tech 90% correctly then you would have to agree with Maria that the thought experiment has pretty much already been run in the physical universe. And besides, as I’ve said, if we want to take it forward from here and imagine what will evolve, I think the only realistic approach would have to include thinking with all the lessons learned – since that in fact is what many Scientologists are now aware of.

            1. Of course – but that would be another OP.

              I agree with Maria as I indicated. And that is the line we would extrapolate towards and beyond according to the OP.

        2. In a couple of my comments just above I quoted PLs that state policy is to be interpreted against EXPANSION and ACTUAL SITUATIONS, including ADDING or DELETING accordingly. Those references give the basis for not applying policy rotely and your reply was that this showed admin tech to be inconsistent. It just dawned on me that this inconsistency means the system does not actually violate Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, does it?

          Thus I see no reason admin tech couldn’t be successfully applied as those basic references make it completely flexible. All that’s required is being able to think with policy as aligned with actual situations and achieving expansion. In fact, I don’t even see why the principle of a more liquid org board might not be adopted – if that meant expansion.

          Here’s a quote that mentions “lightness of organization” and is applicable to this thread otherwise too:

          “And I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can do these things, we will win. But if we can’t do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way. …” (from Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress lecture #15 “What Scientology Is Doing”, given on 6 Jun 55) Copied from this site: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/index_scientology.htm

          1. In my opinion, policy cannot be applied correctly (in a knowing sense) in the absence of the knowledge of Data Series.


      2. I do agree that current admin tech followed to the letter could lead to a fascistic future. However, the stated aim is a civilisation without war insanity and crime and you could make serious inroads without having 100% of humans as Scientologists.

        1. The OP is about a Scientology World, not a “world without….” achieved any other way. We are examining here what would be if the world at large was converted to Scientology as laid out by LRH – all of the ethics, tech and admin. All of it.

          1. And that is the problem. The aim has been confused with the means.The means are NOT the aim. The aim is the aim. And that confusion has been a source of trouble since the day it was introduced.

            1. But LRH is a proponent of “follow the tech standardly and the result will be what 100%” – so “trust the process”, “trust the tech (ethics/tech/admin)” and thy result will be given. So, we will play by those rules and see what society we will have, OK?

          2. Yes, and LRH is the one who confused the aim with the method. And in doing so created an impossible goal.

          3. Based on the current world population of 7 billion, and guessing the current active C of S membership at somewhere between 70k and 700k, between .001% and .01%, with the percentage shrinking in comparison to world population. The shrinkage is because of the restriction against having children in the Sea Org.

            I studied the stats on the ratio between people introduced at the Mission of the 1970s and those who continued on and even in that exceptionally mild atmosphere perhaps 1 in 100 continued on for any length of time. Those who made it through to OT8? Perhaps a half dozen out of all the people introduced during my time at the Mission. There may be more than that but one has to consider that I alone personally contacted and introduced a minimum of 1,000 people to the subject at that Mission. Out of my personal 1,000 perhaps 5 continued for any length of time. Out of that 5 only 1 now remains active. And his days are pretty done too. 1 of them continued to associate for at least 10 years, 2 for another for 20, another for 35. Pretty dismal. I sent a number of people in after my days at the Mission, not one of them continued, but were so upset that I eventually stopped sending anybody in.

            1. Of course we know that the OP will never come true – given that the actual number of CoS members is around 50K and the CoS is on the verge of collapse – so yes, this is a sci-fi scenario OP. Let’s paint 🙂

          4. The OP can too come true – you never limited the thought experiment to the C of S, just Scientology. C’mon, Geir, you of all people I don’t expect to do an A=A and equate the two. 🙂

            (But seriously, I keep trying to say that we have got got got to differentiate or we’re all talking apples and oranges.)

            In any case, on this thread we’ve been painting with the broader brush strokes, haven’t we? And I think it’s been beneficial already!

            1. Of course it is about the CoS. If we were to extrapolate LRH’s writings to a Scientology world – then the CoS would be in control of all Scientology – just as LRH envisioned. There is no splinter groups in LRH’s Scientology. They are per definition squirrels and per KSW must be stamped out.

            2. Well, I sure don’t equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology. The church has become what they rail against.

              Maybe I was fortunate in that my early years we cared, were compassionate, really worked towards an ARCful planet, and went out of our way to help others.

              Yes, there were nutcases and some pretty sad cases but we carried on. Destructive behavior was looked down upon and instances of this were few & far between until the GO showed up. Then came witch hunts, declares by the dozen, David Miscavige, the destruction of the Mission Network, the IAS, OSA, etc … the rest is history.

              A white hat and a black hat can read the same policy or piece of tech.

              One will work to better himself & others; the other will rip you apart.

            3. LRH equated Scientology and the Church. Totally. And I don’t think there is any doubt about that.

            4. Yes, but if LRH saw what the Church has become today, what would he say/think? Personally I think he;d have a WTF!! moment.

              I can’t believe that he would have wanted it this way unless he had some deep dark intention to create 1000’s of tapes, HCOBs, etc to screw people around … a big leap there.

            5. Personally I don’t think he had thought about the long term consequences of following his writings. I think LRH was pretty short sighted and that most of the policies, ethics and parts of the tech are solutions to immediate problems. Making those solutions into long term solutions only creates new problems. And then you have a spiral of ever increasing written solutions that in turn creates new problems. The only way out of this is to trust people instead of a system.

            6. When I first got in, we were getting research updates weekly from LRH. He was continually looking to improve the tech and making new discoveries.I don’t think this was short-sighted – it was an on-going evolution.

              As for policy & justice: we didn’t use policy much early on – servicing the pcs & making auditors was the name of the game. Yes, there was a system of sorts but it was not stopping progress at the time. Justice actions early on were up to the ED ( the Mission Holder ). In those days they were autonomous other than a tithe from Mission Office WW.

              One of the main stumbling blocks was interpretation of policy. I’m not saying that there may be policies that were created to handle a certain sit and somehow became the norm when that was not the intention. Hell, the ethics book quadrupled in size from when I got in. It became a book to throw at others rather than help.

              The church is vastly different from the one I grew up in – it is now a ‘system’ as you put it. Individuals without dollars mean nothing, justice depends on who’s applying it and the tech/philosophy (what’s really important) has been degraded.

              While I agree to a great extent on your statement ” The only way out of this is to trust people instead of a system.”, I look at what’s happened by ‘trusting’ those people.

              A system of sorts is necessary if only to accomplish the VFPs.

          5. Dennis: “A white hat and a black hat can read the same policy or piece of tech. One will work to better himself & others; the other will rip you apart.”

            That has to be one of the most important points related to this thread (along with MU’s and false data). And that’s the reason why Scientology has to be differentiated from the Church nowadays. It’s true that LRH equated the two but that was a whole different era.

            Btw, as usual, I’ve been enjoying you posts giving your experience and viewpoints. 🙂

            1. Marildi,

              Yes – white hats & black hats.

              I agree that differentiation is key here – what is the intent of a person who contacts Scientology – to help, harm or destroy. Pretty simple really although sometimes difficult to spot some of these individuals.

              For me it was seeking or regaining knowledge, adventure, moving beyond the confines of current societal agreements & considerations, and my rebel-istic nature. 🙂

              For others, having a bit of tech (tech/policy/admin) fed their ev-purps and they left a trail of damaged products in their wake.

              I went thru junior & high school during the tail end of the beatnik movement and then into the hippie days – great times in that there were huge cultural changes and the aquarius/love/peace movement was forefront. Great times they were and scientology for me was an extension of that.

              After all, banning the bra wasn’t that bad after all 🙂

          6. Hi Dennis,
            This whole point about the white hats and the black hats really is the primary thing to keep in mind. Intention is the overriding factor, always. I sat up and took notice one day a while back while I was listening to an interview of Ron Paul (the Congressman, as I’m sure you know). He made a remark about political campaigns and said that it didn’t really matter what the platform was or how promising it did or didn’t sound. What mattered was the integrity of the candidate. Well, that got him points in my book.

            Okay, you got into Scientology before I did, but even by the 80’s there were still remnants of the 60’s and 70’s – long hair, loose morals and the antidisestablishmentarianism (ha ha! Remember that word?). It all went along with the freedom ideas of Scientology, didn’t it? And I take it your comment about “banning the bra” was a figurative one (corny pun just for you :-D).

            1. Marildi,

              Yes, I like to choose a candidate that way also. Years ago a platform was a sure thing. It slowly degenerated and now it’s a rarity when an item off a platform is implemented.

              Guys like Ron Paul (and although I am a Canuck I do follow US politics sometimes) I like – right or wrong they have the guts to say something and even moreso since he is quite independent.

              Antidisestablishmentarianism ?? Hahaha – yes, a big word at the time – we all sounded so learned when we used it let alone be able to say it 🙂

              Yes, ‘ban the bra’ – corny & figurative, but what a revolution – a little bit of ‘freedom’ in itself hahaha

      3. Good question. Well of course we could not allow them to breed. And we wouldn’t want to interact with those people as their unruly thoughts could be infectious. As they are obviously psychotic or worse and since sterilization would be expensive and all, and since their existence would only have a negative impact on everyone else who was actually on board and with the program I guess they have limited our choices. After careful, yes careful consideration, I believe the right thing to do is simply eliminate them. Yes, I think this is the only choice they have left us.

        1. Pull their air cover 🙂

          Well, maybe not.

          If in fact we had great abilities at that point, why not just pop them out of what they are in so they can have a look see. I would think the relief and cognitions at that point in time would blow their mind 🙂

          1. Now you are scaring ME, Dennis. Pop them out? Are we talking like hypothetical pop them out; R2-45 pop them out; or do you know something about auditing where they can be popped out? And if they don’t have the correct EP or cognition? Do we want free will or what? Do we only trust one another to be free if they can get their mind right?

            Not being snide – just because and I like what happens when we get a session is not proof that everyone would like that.

            1. Haha Chris … no no usage of a 45 cal.

              I was just thinking popping them out of their case/considerations for a moment. And yes, I did think about free will. I look more at is that person destructive, or simply has a difference of viewpoint.

              In the 1st case (destructive) there would have to be some sort of isolation and rehab. In the case of difference of viewpoint, I would let them be. I’m not into forcing my values on others.

              There’s also the theta effect … what effect would an OT group of 90% people have on the remaining 10% … it could be profound.

  43. “When the game or the show is over, there must be a new game or a new show. And if there isn’t somebody else is jolly well going to start one and if you won’t let anyone do it the game will become “getting you”.

    We clearly see this happening with contemporary Church of Scientology. Miscavige and crew won’t let people get on with the game of making auditors and clearing. Miscavige clearly has misapplied his power according to the Simon Bolivar PL. LRH also truly and well mis-applied the Simon Boliver theory of power even after the fact of writing it. Authoring it? Makes me wonder how or maybe why someone — anyone — sees clairvoyantly into a problem to where they succinctly comment clearly about the solution and then fail to apply the solution themself.

    I have often found myself in this predicament.

  44. https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/thought-experiment/#comment-11327
    Valkov, I think people generally accept that LRH was joking about R2-45. But LRH’s was not joking in his general attitude was that one could sacrifice the few in favor of the many.

    Was he experiencing a lack of or rollercoasting on dopamine? Was he both brilliant and delusional? LRH’s intention for the handling of power reads like a James Cagney gangster movie. I am not saying that his assessment is incorrect as it encompassed, it took into account how crazy our society seems to be with it’s wars and dramas and intrigues. But his assessment IS brutal and leaves no doubt in my mind, never had a doubt of how far LRH would be willing to go to protect himself and his, well, er, uh. . . himself.

    1. “…his general attitude was that one could sacrifice the few in favor of the many.”

      But don’t you remember he added that one would then go back and pick up (handle) the ones who were “sacrificed”?

      “…never had a doubt of how far LRH would be willing to go to protect himself and his, well, er, uh. . . himself.”

      I don’t see it, Chris. I know a lot of people have concluded something similar but it seems to me like a generality drawn from (often questionable) specifics without looking at the whole picture of all that LRH did and said. I’m sure he made mistakes – everyone does – and they may have been big ones but, here again, it’s the whole picture that would indicate his true purposes and intentions.

      Consider the Doubt formula – what were his products, the good as compared to the bad. Even when taking into account the worst occurrences in Scientology, whether perpetrated by LRH himself or Miscavige or whoever – consider all of that against the legacy of the tech (not that I’m saying anything now about means justifying ends!). My point is, I really can’t imagine that the tech could have been developed by a being who was primarily evil or even so narrow on his dynamics and outlook as to be inordinately concerned about protecting himself. Misguided maybe, but not evil and not even the lesser – motivated by selfish purposes.

      It’s a know fact that bad stuff attracts more attention than good and I think the bad is what we’ve all been bombarded with, especially on the internet. And some of us (like you and I in the SO) have our own bad experiences that carry a lot of weight for us personally. But I’ve seen you go back and forth on your views of “the LRH enigma,” so I just wanted to give you my 2 cents, for what it’s worth. Maybe it’s me – that I’m biased or blind or whatever, I’m not totally sure. But it’s good that the dialogue continues. 🙂

      Oh, one other thing. I do get that LRH was willing to use force and did so – but obviously, in some circumstances there isn’t always a choice of using reason. So on this matter too, the whole picture needs to be considered.

      1. An out cry about “using force” can be a red herring, too.

        A parent who picks up a child who is determined to go “thataway”, in order to get him out of the way of an oncoming car, is “using force” on that child.

        My point is that “using force” is a very general statement about scenarios that occur daily in normal life.

        A problem is defining what is acceptable force vs. unnecessary force, excessive force, etc.

        1. In case it wasn’t clear, what you’ve said was precisely the point I was making and what I meant by considering the whole picture. Thanks for the elaboration. 🙂

      2. 00. That you are biased in favor of LRH and Scientology is not in question, is it?
        0. I always consider LRH’s products. Scientology in books is his theory. Scientology the Church is both his legacy and his application of his theory — his experiment in real life.
        1. LRH blew from Int and went into hiding from the government and all his “enemies” and he stayed in hiding and died in hiding. I don’t think this is disputable. My question is “was his sole and solitary decision to do this the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics?” Was this important to do? Going out of comm with his parishioners and staff was the greatest good? After following LRH’s instructions to the T, he threw Mary Sue, Henning and the rest under the buss. Is this in dispute?
        2. Dave Miscavige grew up at the feet of LRH – for real. DM is LRH’s protegy, hand picked and groomed. Is this in dispute? if so, how so?
        3. LRH cut comm with everyone in his life including his wife who went to jail for him yet never ever ever betrayed him. This is not in dispute, is it?
        4. The net product after 50 years of Scientology is a rotting shell of an organization.
        5. Some say this is because the tech was applied and it wrong and some say the tech is not being applied which is wrong.
        6. I don’t have a disagreement with people doing what they want, where they want, and being free to believe what they so long as I am afforded the same consideration. Scientology does not adhere to this no matter the pretty language.
        7. You (Marildi) gave good and productive years to the Sea Org. You are not there anymore. I never ask you about this but I wonder why the loyalty to LRH and LRH ideals over the top of this separation? What was your reward for your years of service? (I’m really asking this.)
        8. I’ve got more but my post is getting too long and boring. I like that Geir’s blog is not just a “hen party” where we bitch about our sad sad experiences in Scientology. This post of mine is simply a devil’s advocate post — that’s all.

        1. Chris: “That you are biased in favor of LRH and Scientology is not in question, is it?”

          Well, I would have preferred you leave out the word “biased” but I guess it’s obvious. So…I cannot tell a lie – yes. That you are not in favor of LRH and Scientology, is that in question? It has occurred to me at times that you might possibly be operating over some BPC 😀 or false data or whatever – and maybe I’m operating over something I’m unaware of too. We probably don’t differ much at all in our biases – except for taking opposite sides most of the time :-D.

          As for LRH’s products – basically, the fact that he busted his brass balls (Geir’s term, I like it) to discover all he did and to develop the tech, seems to me to be the most significant product of all. And yes, I do consider the tech workable, highly so. This isn’t to minimize all the negative stuff, but there is so much difference of opinion on the matter as to who’s actually responsible and what LRH was really like.

          For example, you said, “DM is LRH’s protege, hand picked and groomed. Is this in dispute?” Yes – this is in dispute. I have no data that he was any more LRH’s protege than other Int staff, who did not turn out to be suppressive and many of whom chose to leave. You can even find people who worked very close to LRH – some damn him while others praise him and say what a great being he was to be around.
          Some of the claims about LRH are most likely true. Fact is, however, it probably wouldn’t much matter to me. He is a Kha-Khan as far as I’m concerned. And btw, we’ve all given a lot of lip service to not judging knowledge by its source and here we are, supposedly discussing what things would be like in the future if the tech were followed and yet much of the discussion is about LRH and what a bad guy he was.

          I tried to find a certain comment Maria posted on one of these recent threads. If I remember right, she said something about reading lots of data on the internet and concluding that it came down to just a few negative claims about LRH. Do you recall that comment? (Maria, if you’re reading this, please re-post it – you’re a reliable researcher for us.) Anyway, the point I’m getting at is that probably every single thing you said in your comment is in dispute – yes.

          To answer your question about my leaving the Sea Org – it was a culmination of all the changes for the worse that I witnessed in close to 2 decades on staff. As to what I got out of it, well, in a nutshell, not long after I left it suddenly dawned on me – I’m free! Not just free from the Sea Org, mind you – FREE. (I’m smiling from rehab’ing that. Thanks for asking :-). )

          Okay, playing devil’s advocate, you say? Well, you’ve heard the old refrain – the devil gets his due. So here you go – down-home Arizona style. (Btw, I’m the one on the right…I mean the left :-D.)

          1. This is what I mean by all the conflicting data. Here’s an excerpt from an apparent 1984 Comm Ev on DM. The data in it aligns with reports that DM sabotaged the comm lines of LRH.

            “In June 1981, Miscavige – as Chairman of the All Clear Unit – forged a dispatch purporting to come from LRH. This dispatch removed Diane Voegerding, the then SO CMO Int and Miscavige’s senior, from post. This was an act of Mutiny.

            “David Miscavige was a signatory of the splinter group RTC on 1 January 1982. There is no evidence that this group was authorized by LRH. The “legal” documents transferring Scn Trademarks from LRH to RTC bear a forged signature, and in fact Miscavige notarized these documents although he was a party to one side of the “agreement.” Further, re the forged LRH signature, according to two independent experts, John Swanson and Irmgard Wassard, Miscavige was a party to this forgery.

            “No HCOPL exists authorizing RTC. RTC has engaged in the perversion of Scn practices. Miscavige was personally involved in the gang Sec Checking of Jay Hurwitz, then CO LA Day, at Gilman Hot Springs in October 1982. This violates HCOB 30Nov78 Confessional Procedure, which states: “If the PC is not in session, you won’t get the withholds… A wrong or challenging auditor attitude can throw the scene off as there is a destroyed comm cycle.”

            It goes on to cite his major part in the Mission Holders debacle and many other atrocities. Here’s the link:


            1. I am aware of all that. But I have seen no indication that DM was not appointed to the Very Important Post of leading the All Clear Unit in the first place. And thusly he was indeed a highly trusted terminal for LRH.

          2. Marildi, Regardless of any bias, BPC, or dispute, I would appreciate your addressing LRH’s blow from Int. This is slightly off-topic but seems sequitur in the context of a “Scientology World.” I would like to get yours or anyone’s take on this enormous (for me) out-point as the culmination of his career of Savior of Mankind. Other leaders of successful culture-changing movements throughout the history of mankind have fronted up to their detractors with the truth of their claims. Some were martyred. You mentioned the Doubt formula in this context. What is your take on LRH wrapping up his life as a fugitive. Did this serve a useful purpose on the overall admin scale of the Universe saving Scientology? In hind sight, was this the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics? and why so? It is time I applied my own assertion that I do not believe in paradoxes. Any sensible input from anyone on this is appreciated.

          3. As far as DM goes, he may have been trusted to head up All Clear, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that he was trustworthy, nor does it infer that he was posted as he is now. I can tell you that he most definitely spoke of the C of S taking over the government in no uncertain terms at an event in the late 90s. I remember being completely horrified because it was in total violation of the policy on freedom from politics. As well, the dismantling of the Mission network very definitely happened under his regime. Many years later, I spoke to a veteran SO staff member who proudly told me that he thought DM was amazing because he had handled the Missions and that was good because they had been withholding people from the orgs and that’s why the orgs weren’t doing well. When I pointed out that our Mission tried to send people to the local org but failed because the public had been to AO and Flag events and had been regged to go there right away for OT sections instead of to the org for training, he said that DM had fixed that too.

            This concurs with Mike Goldstein’s information, which I do have personal knowledge of on many points of his story with the oppressiveness spreading into the Mission network in 1980, while Diana, under LRH’s orders, was mounting Operation Z – it was set up as an autonomous network outside of the control of the other networks. Mike said LRH was completely off the line when this went down.

            By 1990, pretty much everything had been put under control and there were even efforts to put Scientologist run businesses under WISE, paying 10% of their gross income to WISE.
            That was later canceled, because it was a deadly legal position – it opened the C of S to civil lawsuits if the businesses were adjudicated to be under WISE control.

            By everything I mean every network was now under the direct orders of the Sea Org one way or another. There was no MOWW, no GO, and now there was ABLE which demanded compliance in all the social coordination groups, including education programs, Narconon, CCHR, IHELP and so on. The IAS was implemented and became required membership.

            I can’t tell you how many times I had to bring out the policy letter What is a Scientologist to disabuse an over zealous SO staff member on just what Scientologists were supposed to be doing and how many times I referred them to the policy that says: it is not our policy to interfere with the private lives of individuals. The reaction was always the same – they looked like they’d seen a ghost and about half the time they admitted they weren’t familiar with the policy letters. I got the same response when I would pull out the booklet The Way to Happiness and point out that their behavior was not in keeping with the precepts.

            The main thing that was dropped from the policy issues was the distribution – the policies did have a distribution on the top left hand side of the issue that clearly indicated to which networks, orgs and posts the policies applied. Unless a policy had a BPI distribution, it did not apply to the public. The first policy letter without a distribution notated was Knowledge Reports and it didn’t come out until the mid 80s. In any case the insanity begins with the dropping of the distributions and their importance in terms of which policy applied to which posts. I might note that this business of applying policy outside of the Church was covered by distribution, now conveniently forgotten. It would be just plain batty to try to apply Div 5 policies to Div 3, but somehow this goes by the boards when it comes to applying policy in one’s life and to the public in general. Its A=A=A but only when it suits the purpose of someone trying to use policy to oppress or control. The Ethics book was edited in the same crazy way with policies only applicable to staff posts finding their way into the public zone. That’s how it grew from a little book to a giant tome of offenses.

            As far as the ethics policies goes, they are all based on post statistics. Public members DO NOT HAVE statistics. This renders the entire body of policy unapplicable to public. Since public members do not have statistics, they are automatically clay pigeons. And so we see the mess we now have.

            1. Good data – as usual.

              My point was only that DM was trusted with one of LRH’s most important missions ever.

            2. +1,000,000

              Well put Maria! I remember it exactly as you say.

              Yes, the distribution of the various policies/BPLs became quite a blur, and yes, that little ethics book sure grew.

              I remember whilst being a academy sup how the expansion of the crimes/high crime section became a real burden. Almost anything short of breathing was actionable. Each evening we came in new goldenrod was on the PUBLIC message board – staff were being crucified daily.

              I had a meeting with all my academy students one evening basically to let them know there were some real goofy things going on and if they had any concerns to see me personally, otherwise we were here to get the most out of the tech we could and we would stick with the data in our packs, not someone’s verbal crapola. The students heaved a sigh of relief and we went back to work.

              Shortly after, I became the target. Just before the noose tightened, academy stats were the highest ever in the history of that org … today, they aren’t even a 10th of what they were 40 years ago.

              Sad …

            3. And yet the growth of the ethics book was mostly due to inclusion of all the crimes strewn across a wide range of policies.

          4. LRH picking Miscavige among all the other people he had to pick from is also very important to examine.

            Miscavige was 19-20-21 years old. He had no auditor experience. He had never worked in a service org.

            I know of at least three Class 8 auditors who were in that inner circle at that time. David Mayo had been LRH’s personal auditor for 8 years and was Senior CS international – known throughout the world.

            Why did LRH pick David Miscavige?

            An important question to ask, and to examine.

            1. He was a Class IV auditor from St. Hill who didn’t finish his internship. But he did audit.

          5. I think LRH picked David Miscavige because Miscavige could carry out the command intention without Q&A. In other words, Miscavige was ruthless, and could have his conscience not bother him.


        2. My understanding based on reports by people who were there or knew someone who was there at St.Hill, is that David Miscavige was kicked out of the Academy for hitting a pc during his internship. He never completed his internship. Miscavige has asthma, and the treatment of choice back then was inhalents that are known to induce violent behavior in some people.

          He was a ruthless Missionaire and some respected him for it, although there are also reports that he wasn’t that good at it. He did run some successful missions.

          He apparently was the MissionOPs for some missions that included Bill Robertson, and possibly originated the term Severe Reality Adjustment at that time and taught it ot to Robertson. I suspect it was based on someof that experience, that Robertson saw the handwriting on the wall, and went off to start the Freezone, and a couple of years later signed off on a Comm EV of Miscavige.

          I still haven’t figured out why LRH kept Miscavige around, but all reports from folks who were around back then are that Miscavige had far less contact and mentoring from LRH, and played a far less in important role in things than some people give him credit for.

          As intolerant as LRH could seem at times, (R2-45), he was pretty tolerant of most people. Folks tended to destimulate and key-out around him. He tended to see and validate the best, most analytical side of people and probably did so also with DM. LRH didn’t give upon a person easily,and I imagine he saw DM’s potential for good as well as the bad. In any case he was not averse to using DM somehow, but I don’t think he saw DM as anything special.

    2. Chris, can you give me an example of LRH “sacrificing” some few or an individual in favor of the many?

      I’m not saying there aren’t, but examples for consideration could be useful/instructive.

      1. There were plenty – like several of the early high producers. Like Reg Sharpe. I have seen copies of a very nasty SP declare issued by LRH on half a dozen people where he actually did order R2-45 run on them(!).

        1. Is that an undisputed fact, Geir? Maybe it’s like the “reference” for taking over the world, where a paragraph got added – utterly changing the whole meaning – that never existed.

          And Valkov, the idea I recall (sorry haven’t thought of a reference) for “sacrificing” (figuratively) individuals had to do with not allowing some erring staff member to get in the way of production. If it took putting his head on a pike, so be it. But he would be salvaged afterwards with all needed tech.

          1. Except Marildi that not only were staff members not salvaged after head being put on a pike , but they never were able to reap the benefits of Scientology auditing unless they were willing to pay for it. You know this. You worked at Flag, Mecca of Technical Perfection. How many staff got enhancement? Medical help when needed? Sleep? Liberty approved: 1/2 day every other week if stats up? The promised 3 weeks vacation per year in order to smooth over family friction created by the Sea Org for no particular reason except that staff were viewed as an expendable commodity?

          2. Marildi –

            You are assuming a lot there when you say this paragraph “never existed”.

            That paragraph is completely consistent with LRH’s goals for Scientology taking over the government. It is in no way out of the ordinary. So to assume it never existed just because you have a transcript found on line that doesn’t have it in it is a large leap.

            For instance, go to page 4 and see the highlighted text in the pdf for HCOPL 15 August 1960 DEPT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

            Click to access viewer

            Also see Frank Oliver’s Full Hat documents from his days as an Undercover agent for the GO. The LRH references in his hat are not shown to rank and file Scientologists. This is why Frank put them online – so rank and file Scientologists can see the Scientology that Hubbard always meant to keep hidden.


            You can assume that the paragraph never existed, but what would you then assume about all the ones that do exist?

          3. Absolutely correct, Chris – and as you know, everything you listed is in violation of policy! LRH and Scn get blamed for what is interpreted as “bad policy” and likewise get blamed when the “good policy” isn’t applied. Let’s think about that. I can’t help but feel that it occurs because of bias and an impulse to make it all WRONG no matter what. Now, let me quickly add that if the shoe doesn’t at all fit, don’t take that personally. I know how it feels – when I stand up for LRH and Scn and get accused of the opposite (the intention to make it all RIGHT) even though I have also conceded some of the negative things. And I know you have had many positive things to say, not just the negative.

          4. Alanzo, I don’t think I’m assuming a lot when I say that paragraph never existed. I’ve searched quite a bit for it and only find it on numerous anti-Scn sites – and as you yourself noted even some of those have questioned its existence! As I said, it’s apparently not on the original transcript and that’s good enough for me. In any case, you’re asking me to prove a negative – shouldn’t it be you proving that it does exist?

            The second link you gave I wasn’t able to pull up, but as for the one with highlighted text that you say is “consistent with LRH’s goals for Scientology taking over the government” – did you note, first of all, that LRH writes that paragraph in this specific context: “in the face of danger from Govts or courts.” Here is the highlighted section you referred to:

            “The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by a high level ability to control and in its absence low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order.”

            Also note that it’s “compliance with the goals of Scientology” – not at all the same as “goals for taking over the government,” as you characterized it. I’m sorry, Alanzo, you aren’t the only one but I keep finding that criticisms are either generalities or are not based on any actual reference or the reference cited is mis-interpreted.

          5. Since LRH claimed to be Source he is to be credited as well as blamed because he did’nt fully apply poke-yoke. In other words, he didn’t fail-safe his technology.


          6. If LRH had properly claimed the contribution of others as well as his own contribution, he could be treated more gently.

            After all, it is the knowledge that really needs to be criticized and not any source.


            1. LRH did in fact validate many other individuals in the original books and many of the tapes.

              Of course those have now been edited out.

          7. Marildi wrote:

            As I said, it’s apparently not on the original transcript and that’s good enough for me. In any case, you’re asking me to prove a negative – shouldn’t it be you proving that it does exist?

            Yes. I also looked long and hard to find the missing paragraph and couldn’t. I believe this quote appeared in the full transcript in court documents and caused a lot of trouble for Scientology. Democratic and free societies, wishing to remain so, perk up their ears at anti-democratic, anti-rights movements like Scientology. And when teachings like this appear to them, they usually take action.

            I have absolutely no problem believing that this paragraph was taken out of the original lecture transcript, as so many other problematic pronouncements of LRH have been.

            Good riddance, ultimately, tho – right?

            I’m sorry, Alanzo, you aren’t the only one but I keep finding that criticisms are either generalities or are not based on any actual reference or the reference cited is mis-interpreted.

            Let me examine your statement closely here:

            Criticisms are either:

            1. generalities
            2. not based on any actual reference
            3. or the reference cited is misinterpreted

            All right.

            Do ALL criticisms of Scientology fall within those three criteria?

            Can you think of even ONE criticism of Scientology that might fall outside these three?

          8. “I have absolutely no problem believing that this paragraph was taken out of the original lecture transcript…”

            Al (okay if I shorten your name?), what I have a problem with is the forwarding of something in a way that doesn’t clearly state that it’s an uncertain claim. So if you do that, giving the specifics, I would have no problem with that.

            Of course there are criticisms of Scientology that fall outside those three things – many of them. There’s an ambiguity with language here. When I said “criticisms are either…” that could mean “some” or “all”. To illustrate, “roses are red” means that some roses are red. “Roses are flowers” means that all roses are flowers. It’s a grammar thing but I forget the terms for using nouns in these different ways. My point is that I just meant SOME criticisms, not all. And I specifically had in mind many of those on this thread as the “some.” Good you asked so that I could clarify it.

            I have a question for you too. What do you mean by “Scientology”? Some people use it to mean all the written philosophy and tech (all three techs), others think of it as just the auditing tech. Sometimes it’s referring to the current management and/or the whole organization including staff and public. Those are the main ones at least.

          9. Marildi –

            All right. I understand the grammar problem you are talking about. I am usually on the look out for cognitive dissonance reduction techniques being used to dismiss criticism outright, so as not to look at it, and to look away from the real results of Scientology. You have proven yourself to be extremely intelligent and quite able to discern the finer points of thinking and debate.

            I have a question for you too. What do you mean by “Scientology”? Some people use it to mean all the written philosophy and tech (all three techs), others think of it as just the auditing tech. Sometimes it’s referring to the current management and/or the whole organization including staff and public. Those are the main ones at least.

            Because L Ron Hubbard included the Church of Scientology as the main delivery vehicle for the subject of Scientology, I include the Church of Scientology under the term “Scientology”. The Church is an important expression and outgrowth of the philosophy. In fact, it is an important example of the results of the subject which we can all examine for its results and stats.

            I understand the complex game of twister that Independents and Freezoners have to play when they start in explaining “See, there is the subject of Scientology and the Church of Scientology and the two are not the same….”

            No, they are not the same. One is the manifestation and expression of the other.

            So that’s why I include the Church, it’s history, its staff and their actions, etc when I use the term “Scientology”.

          10. Scientology should be defined by what it is actually acoomplishing in the present time, whether it is through the Church of Scientology, or through the Freezone and independents.

            The knowledge, which Scientology reorganized has been there before. So, Scientology needs to be judged only by how it put that knowledge to use, and what the overall results have been in the society.

            If there are inconsistencies in what Scientology says and what it accomplishes then what it accomplishes has more weight. If Scientology’s accomplishment is inconsistent with what it says, and what it said was very desirable, then it would simply mean that Scientology has been a failure in accomplishing what it set out to do.

            That doesn’t bode well for Scientology as a movement.

            We need a new movement now.


          11. Al, thanks for the compliment. And so far 😉 I have confidence in you too.

            Here’s how I see it. As an analogy, there’s a level of truth to the idea that parents are responsible for the outcome of their “products” – i.e. the children they raise. But as an absolute, it doesn’t take into account the fact that children have minds of their own. Someone could say to that – well, if the parents really have done a good job of it and the foundation they laid was sound, all should have turned out well. There may be lots of truth to that – but not the whole truth, obviously. I think most reasonable people would agree with this.

            So there’s a certain amount of truth to what you say above: “The Church is an important expression and outgrowth of the philosophy…an important example of the results of the subject.” But there again, it’s not actually a full truth any more than it is to say that children are merely the expression and outgrowth of their upbringing. Just as it is with children, who have minds and free will and intentions of their own – so do and did all the free-willed individuals who have been and are involved with the Church.

            This is why I say that we can’t, using reason, consider the Church to be nothing more than, as you say, “the manifestation and expression” of the subject called Scientology. And this is why I personally am looking forward to the time we all start talking about the most significant thing to put our wits to – what will become of the actual subject of Scientology, the philosophy and the tech. I was about to post this comment when I saw Maria’s last post and I think she is saying something similar where she mentions “perennial truths”:

            “And methods of handling must be based on what’s happening right here, right now. My question is, are there perennial truths that can be considered in all situations and to all people at all times? Those are the real gems.”

            1. “Here’s how I see it. As an analogy, there’s a level of truth to the idea that parents are responsible for the outcome of their “products” – i.e. the children they raise. But as an absolute, it doesn’t take into account the fact that children have minds of their own.”

              This comparison doesn’t really hold as Scientology is put there precisely to handle the minds of people.

          12. “This comparison doesn’t really hold as Scientology is put there precisely to handle the minds of people.”

            Well, isn’t that primarily what good parents try to do – handle minds? Like Scn parents want to bring out the best in their children and “best” always comes down to minds/souls – the source of actions and results.

            1. But Scientology is much more than that – it is Only geared toward the handling of the minds of people. It is a whole science/philosophy/religion devoted to that subject. Different.

          13. Maybe I’m not following you. You say, Scientology is “Only geared toward the handling of the minds and people. And I guess you’re saying parents aren’t solely geared toward handling the minds of their children. Okay fine, but Im not getting the point.

          14. Oh wait. I think what you’re saying is that Scn is supposed to be expert in handling minds but parents aren’t and thus we shouldn’t have the same expectation about their products. Okay, well, now we’re back to that “method to LRH’s madness” and why he felt he had to push things hard and hurry up before some “pesky” thetan/s spoiled the game plan. If he could keep them out of the way and keep ahead of them, eventually everybody would be handled.

          15. I got your point, Geir. But did you get mine? The analogy is still good. The free will of children (and later as adults) isn’t fully under the control of their parents and neither are all the minds on Earth under the immediate control of Scn (the tech). That was never the claim. It was a matter of, given the right strategy and being able to GET TO all the minds (in time), the tech would work – on individuals.

            And as I said on the previous comment, the admin tech was aimed at making sure things evolved toward the end of clearing Earth before the plan was foiled by as yet unhandled (aberrated) minds.

            1. The fact that a parent fail to handle the issues of a child may point to a parent not being a complete and competent mind-handler. The fact that Scientology consistently fail to handle issues of its members does point to Scientology not being a complete science and a less than competent organization in the area of the mind.

          16. “The fact that a parent fail to handle the issues of a child may point to a parent not being a complete and competent mind-handler”

            Let’s assume the parent if a competent mind-handler (even theoretically), do you think the child would be fully under the parent’s control?

            1. No, but if the parent had many children and consistently failed to handle certain issues, then I’d say he or she is lacking in competence.

          17. Got it. (You’re good at analogies. :-))

            Well then, maybe the only thing left that we are in disagreement about is whether or not it was truly SCIENTOLOGY that consistently failed to handle its members. My idea is that Scn was betrayed – as a result of non-standard application. And if it was indeed non-standard application at the root of the problem, then what is needed in Round 2 is a more determined and more intelligent approach. That’s all, nothing more.

            You might call me Pollyanna or you might say I’m one of those optimistic idiots. 😀

            1. Scientology – as directed by LRH and according to his belief in systems – The system should have handled the issues with the CoS we see today. Tha fact that it hasn’t renders the whole idea of a cumbersome system pretty useless.

          18. Geir sez: “The fact that Scientology consistently fail to handle issues of its members does point to Scientology not being a complete science and a less than competent organization in the area of the mind.”

            Do you mean “failED to handle”, or “failS to handle”? And, are you talking about “the science” or “the organization”?

            I thought we had established that they are not the same thing.

            In any case, “issues consistently not handled” is too general to be very meaningful as written.

            Which issues? Which members?

            Lastly, it would help if it were presented as a differential – %handled/%unhandled.

            Surely there are issues Scientology “consistently did handle”?

            1. As I said – the organization IMO adheres to some 90% of the writings. And it consistently fails to handle issues with its members (and has since its beginning in the early 50’s).

          19. Geir, you are basically asserting as if they were known facts that (1) there has been 90% adherence to the writings and (2) that 90% is enough to determine that the system “should have handled the issues”? I could (as I usually do) give my opinion in return and say that I highly doubt those two assertions and state all the reasons why, but this isn’t actually doing the thought experiment, is it? Why don’t we now limit the discussion to the situations we’ve observed against whether they are/were in accordance with what is written – and state the reference. Otherwise, we’re just exchanging opinions and showing we’ve already made up our minds.

        2. I believe I have seen and read the same dox online, but I have no context for them.

          I have also read first-hand accounts of a person on the ship who worked closely with LRH and knew him well enough to not pass on orders he issued when he had lost his temper. She held them until he had cooled down, then asked him if he really wanted them executed(the orders, he he he 🙂 ) I believe. Originally in Scientology, any order could be “queried”.

          Was anyone actually shot?

          As far as SP declares go, how are they “sacrificing” anyone “in favor of the many”?

          I have no context for deciding whether those Declares were on the level or heads on a pike or what?

          Hubbard was a Pisces like my mother is, and I know she can be really hard to take, and she doesn’t even know it! She thinks she is an “easy-going person” and will tell you so just before she let’s you have it right between the eyes!

          1. Al,

            “Let me examine your statement closely here:
            Criticisms are either:
            1. generalities
            2. not based on any actual reference
            3. or the reference cited is misinterpreted
            All right.
            Do ALL criticisms of Scientology fall within those three criteria?”

            That’s entirely non-seq and an attempt to shift the conversation off-topic. Marildi did not state ALL criticisms are such, or that there are not other categories. Your question is itself an illustration of what Marildi said about critics!

            Have you or any critic you know ever in fact 1. generalized? 2. Asserted supposed facts not based on any actual reference, or 3. cited a reference and then altered it in your post so that it’s meaning is changed?

            The whole point is a critic that uses false data or falsifies data or misquotes references(a way of falsifying data) or generalizes from single instances or from carefully selected data, quickly loses his credibility. He would not make it as a serious journalist, or example, if he is too stupid or lazy or biased enough to not check his sources and just accepts anything presented to him as “fact”. Especially when it obviously confirms what is already known to be his personal bias.

            Bias, by the way, is not necessarily a bad word; it has an objective meaning as well.

      2. “Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”
        “Least destruction toward the fewest number of dynamics.”
        POWER FORMULA: Step 6. . . . So to live at all in the shadow or employ of a power you must yourself gather and USE enough power to hold your own — without just nattering to the power to “kill Pete,” in straightforward or more suppressive veiled ways to him as these wreck the power that supports yours. He doesn’t have to know all the bad new and if he’s a power really he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?” And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them — that weakens you and also hurts the power source. “Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.” “Well, he’ll say if he really is a power, ” why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you did it. Where’s my blue ink?” . . .

    3. Okay, time to deal with the “R2-45 was a joke” spin. V is spouting the standard line and hopes Goebbels’ principle of saying a lie loud and long enough will work.

      He actually directed it be applied to a group that took upper level materials IN WRITING.


      Since it is a JOKE Valkov, please tell me WHERE LRH HIMSELF DECLARES IT WAS A JOKE? And why is the father of Susan Meister not laughing? And why did Paulette Cooper have a real life story about it?

      These questions are RHETORICAL Valkov. But I’m sure you can write a 1000 words that don’t really answer them.

      If “It’s not in writing it’s not true” is TRUE, then where is the writing by LRH? I’m not talking footnotes added later, I’m talking official denial.

      Was it a joke when Jehovah said “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”


      Batshit murder aint funny. Unless the gun is pointed between my eyes. THEN I FIND IT FUCKING HILARIOUS!

      1. Thanks for the dig. This was the one I pointed to earlier here – although I thought it was half a dozen people declared. It turns out it was a dozen.

      2. OK, I take it back, it’s quite possible it was not a joke. However, in CoHA it sounds like a joke, the way it’s worded. I suppose calling it an “auditing process” could have been a code name for killing someone, but it makes no sense to include it in the book in a list of processes as though it really was one. There it obviously sounds like a tongue in cheek joke.

        Clearly if not a joke it’s not funny.

        Otherwise, Bunkai, you are quite correct, I spout. It is because I am really an overfilled teapot.

        I’m not sure what that makes you.

        1. Thanks for admitting the possibility Valkov.

          If you are an overfilled teapot what does that make me?

          Just a two-bit shadow of Ksitigarbha.

          Funny, Street and Smith’s pulp hero “The Shadow” from the 1930s loved the Colt .45 Automatic even though the radio version of him carried no gun. I don’t remember him shooting bad guys in the head though.

          As a kid, my favorite scene of the Shadow was in a DC Comic where he was strapped to an electric chair facing certain death. With his executioner ready to flip the switch, he could hear the laugh of the Shadow peeling through the air. Whether he lived or died, it didn’t matter. Only the laugh mattered. There was life in the laugh. There was freedom in the laugh. Live or die, the laugh won because it WAS.

          No super hero has ever lifted the Shadow’s laugh. Such laughter has always been reserved for villains.

          Silly Hollywood.

          He is unique in the world of hero fiction in this respect, and should remain so.

          BTW: Tthe symbol for Ksitigarbha (Jizo) is pronounced “Ha” and here you can see Ksitigarbha casting a Shadow in a delightful 10 minute clip of a BAD B-Movie …

  45. Geir –

    There are many references all over Scientology about how to handle the people who refuse to get on board with Scientology. Probably the basic reference is the ethics HCOPL on removing counter-intentions from the environment and then removing other-intentions from the environment.

    But there’s many more where that came from.

    In fact, I like to point out contradictions in Scientology, and when it comes to real-world specific LRH handlings for those who flat out refuse to get on board with Scientology, who criticize it, who go to the media about it, who oppose it in any way, I can’t think of any contradictions to the basic LRH policy I referred to above.

    Can you?

    1. From what I’ve seen, his attitude was mostly to ignore them and concentrate on the people who were interested. He only acted to handle those who he identified as making trouble for him/scientology. Otherwise he was live and let live.

    2. Ah but Alanzo, the first policy contradicts all of those: Maintain friendly relations with the environment. That one-liner policy was labeled as FIRST policy. Since it wasn’t the first in time sequence that had to mean it was the overriding policy over all other policy. And what do you know, years later, we get the booklet The Way to Happiness, which expresses the same concept in a wordy kind of way.

      I’m actually rather pleased to see you here. You see, the “Alanzo problem” was my biggest “kechung!” I had when I was on staff. I could not see how it was friendly to declare someone, no matter what their actions were. I could not see how it was friendly to decide that a group should be attacked, or how it was friendly to deliver an effective blow – at least not one that would be approved at the end of a liability formula.

      I think it went like this – if the person was considered to be a friend of the group, then all the “friendly” policies applied, and if they were not, all the “unfriendly” policies applied. Rather like separating the wheat from the chaff. The unfriendly policies are about detecting the chaff and then delineating the actions to be taken against the chaff.

      Its the same with the auditing. All the way through to the clearing course, its all about clearing up distorted thinking in oneself. After that its all about detecting and taking action against entities, and thus “decontaminating” oneself. What’s contradictory about this is that it is all based on the premise that one is a spirit, a center of awareness of awareness, the creator of creations and in fact the very genus of ARC. One who builds the world with thought alone – i.e. considerations versus mechanics.

      This is the major lesson I have learned in the last 10 years – if you attack another, you cannot do it without lowering your own ARC. Period. And it is nonsense that there is nothing of value beyond this earth-bound struggling existence with petty war and limitation. And that ARC is not divisible between “friends” and “foes.” You either have unlimited ARC or you have limited ARC. And it can’t be “pretend” ARC either, or there is no Tone 40 postulation. I either love you with no limitation (the zone of tone 40) or I fight you (bye bye tone 40.)

      Did LRH know that gun was loaded? Intellectually, possibly. Really know? Nope. I don’t think so.

      1. Did LRH know every ramification of his work? I don’t think so neither. But there is so much to know, you know?

        I surely enjoy this quote of yours, “And it is nonsense that there is nothing of value beyond this earth-bound struggling existence with petty war and limitation.” With that in mind and by applying the Auditor’s Code it seems there is hope for us yet.

      2. You definitely found a contradiction, Maria.

        First Policy is definitely not in line with that basic ethics policy. Or that basic ethics policy is not in line with First Policy. Either way, they contradict each other.

        I have to say, though, that having a problem named after me is more of an honor than being declared a Suppressive Person ever could be. Thank you for using “The Alanzo Problem” to make your point. Tell your friends as well.

        By the way, we’re running a special this week: 5 uses of “The Alanzo Problem” to make your point for only $5!

        Hurry though. Supplies are limited.

      3. Maria,

        A group or person can be “attacked” simply by telling the truth about him or them.

        Isn’t that what Alanzo and the like think they are doing? It is what Marty and his bloggers think they are doing – telling the truth about the CoS and DM in particular.

        Is telling the truth hurtful?

        I think, only to those who have something to hide, no?

        I think some of the objectors to Sceintology object precisely for this reason – here is a philosophy that promotes telling the truth! Oh horrors, they must be stopped, stamped out!

  46. Also a comment about the ‘famous” quote from SoS, about “disposing quietly and without sorrow”.

    That was written before there was much tech at all developed to handle them. It was before the clinical discoveries of what was actually going on in the mind of an SP, and the development of the PTS rundown and the Suppressed Person rundown, which reportedly handle and relieve even an SP case.

    Once those were developed, it was no longer necessary to “dispose of” in the most extreme sense of the word.

    Without that kind of tech, “disposing of” is exactly what the world at large is doing and has always done – lock people up in “asylums” and prisons, send them to gulags or otherwise exile them. That was how Australia was settled, with “criminals” from Great Britain. They were sent to Australia and of course many of them died. They were “disposed of without sorrow” by the British government.

    Now, if the available tech was actually used, the prisons and gulags and asylums could largely be emptied and I think that was basically what Hubbard was always working towards; otherwise, why did he bother to develop that tech?

    Less heat and more light, please.

  47. If all the executions of mad dogs (Ol’ Yeller) had been justified by then having made the environment safer I could have gone along with it. If stats — the ones you and I defend of Auditors made and WDAH’s, then I would still be on board with you and be defending standard admin tech as workable. The fact is that people have been shot since the beginning and LRH burned every bridge he ever had to anyone in the world until at last he had a single comm line to the world and that was dave miscavige. He lived the life of Simon Bolivar and though he didn’t die “in a ditch,” he did die surrounded by sycophants, alone in a fancy trailer house with his ass shot full of Vistaril. He could have died at home warm in his own bed surrounded by the ever-faithful Mary Sue and his children but he decided not to.

    Was he afraid? Did Scientology auditing technology fail to help him? Was he not responsible for his own reactive mind and so auditing not work on him? or / also did he mis-apply Scientology Admin Technology or does Scientology not work? It’s got to be some of these . . . After all the beautiful talk and all the beautiful prose, Scientology is a real mess.

      1. “Never” is a really long time.

        How would Otto Roos know what LRH had handled or not handled up to his last days?

        1. Well, you can take Mr. Roos story up to that point and then take David Mayo’s story after that. Then you can take various people’s story from 1981 – 1986 and I believe you will get the idea that nothing substantial changed from Roos’s description after he was ousted.

      2. Yes, Ottos`story is a very accurate,factual and “close to source” account which describes the basic basic, why and when SCN went out of the rails. Rathbun and Miscavige even Mayo are all LATER on the track. Therefore I consider it to be useless to deal with their noise. LRH missed to face the music in some important aspects of his life.

      3. That could be one explanation.

        Another could be that LRH had mental problems that he tried to “C/S” himself through developing various Scientology processes, and his solutions never cured him. The development of NOTs with David Mayo at a time when LRH was severely ill suggests this was the case.

        Supporting this is the fact that many people trained to spot various mental disorders have recognized many different disorders in LRH’s thinking (by way of his writing) and behavior.

        1. The great tragedy of it all is not even that he got caught in his overts to the extent that in the end virtually everything restimulated his OUT RUDS, but is the fact that he finally penalised himself horribly by denying himself the only thing which could have saved him, his own creation, AUDITING.” Otto Roos

          Could this be a Scientologist “diagnosing” symptoms of severe mental illness, and applying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to the auditing LRH received?

          I think so. LRH had TONS of auditing and every resource that Scientology could provide – the highest trained auditors, the latest available tech – every single resource it had. The idea that L Ron Hubbard himself had an “unhandled case” is a cognitive reduction technique designed to avoid confronting the fact that LRH had severe mental problems that Scientology can not handle.

          1. Alonzo: ” The idea that L Ron Hubbard himself had an “unhandled case” is a cognitive reduction technique designed to avoid confronting the fact that LRH had severe mental problems that Scientology can not handle. ”

            Cognitive reduction technique designed to avoid confronting the fact that LRH had severe mental problems that Scientology can not handle ?? Huh?

            More like a giant leap.

            Research is one thing, having a finalized version is another.

          2. I apologize Dennis.

            It is a cognitive dissonance reduction technique. I mistakenly left that word “dissonance” out.

            Do you know what a cognitive dissonance reduction technique is?

          3. Al, I tend to think LRH died as he lived – by choice. A man who could come up with a “process” like R2-45 would be fully capable of applying the principle to himself. As LRH said, a being has every right to leave the game.

            This does not speak to whether he could have been technically considered PTS or whatever “having severe mental problems”, for example

            What’s the difference between “unhandled case” and “severe mental problems”? Your main point seems to be there are things “Scientology cannot handle”.

            The usual invalidation of LRH and/or the tech of Scientology, or am I taking what you said the wrong way?

            Do you expect Scientology to force someone to live, who does not want to live anymore?

            Not gonna happen.

            Because the whole point of Scientology is to put a person up into a condition where he HAS CHOICES and the ability to exercise them – he can be good or bad, smart or stupid, knowledgeable or ignorant, help or hurt, live or die, by his own decision. He is not other-determined – unless he chooses to be, and then he can un-choose when he decides to do so.

            My point is that expecting Scientology to do anything else than restore and increase a person’s awareness and self-determinism is a false hope. It can bring a person up to where he is able to change his mind and live, IF that’s what he wants, not otherwise.

        2. Al posted: “Supporting this is the fact that many people trained to spot various mental disorders have recognized many different disorders in LRH’s thinking (by way of his writing) and behavior.”

          Having worked in psychiatry for many years, I can assure you that virtually every single individual on Earth can be spotted as having various “personality disorders”. And that is exactly what psychiatrists and psychologists are trained to do. It is built into virtually all theories of personality, including Buddhist psychology.

          You, me, Geir, virtually everyone posting on this blog could be found to have various “personality disorders”. That’s just the nature of the psychology game. But there are some here who appear to be free of them, just as in the population at large there are some people who seem to be free of them.

          1. I wrote “mental disorders”, not “personality disorders”.

            And my specific point was that L Ron Hubbard displayed distinct mental illness throughout his life which worsened as he got older. His applications of Scientology processes that he himself developed to cure himself (NOTs is just one example) did not work.

            You and I have never put a 5 year old child in a chain locker, made people push peanuts with their nose around a ships deck until they bled, developed a routine of “overboarding” for students who made mistakes, order “R2-45” on people who continue on with their own spiritual paths as they see them, develop “Fair Game” for people, etc etc etc.

            If you can step back, these are not the actions of a sane human being.

            Scientology was not able to help L Ron Hubbard’s mental illness.

          2. OK,plug in “mental disorders” for where I had written “personality disorders” and I stand behind what I wrote100%.

            Can you name for me, some famous people who were certifiably sane? Gandhi wasn’t. Martin Luther King wasn’t. JosephSmith, the founder of the “Mormon” church? Was Richard Nixon? Bill Clinton? How about “Ronnie Raygun”, who consulted his wife for astrological advice when he had decisions to make? What about the Joint Chiefs of Staff who ordered the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities full of civilians? Were all these people free of “emotional disorders?

            Yet they are admired by many, not for their emotional problems, but for the positive things they were able to accomplish, perhaps in spite of in spite their own “cases”.

            Why do I pick on you? Because you tend to present a one-sided view of LRH and Scientology. If you bothered to include the positive accomplishments of LRH and the positive side of Scientology at the same time you presented the negatives, I would give more positive feedback to your posts.

            But you seem to be simply unable to do that. Perhaps you have an emotional disorder on the subject?

            1. “Why do I pick on you? Because you tend to present a one-sided view of LRH and Scientology.”

              Then I suggest you pick on yourself as well every now and then.

          3. Geir, apparently you still didn’t get my point. I “pick on” Al when I perceive he is being very one-sided in his argument, cherry-picking his data to support what appear to before gone conclusion etc. The one-sidedness of my posts to or about him are only in response to the
            perceived one-sideness of his posts. It is an old deliberate “policy” on my part, from old The Scientology Forum days. When his post is not an overblown one-sided generality, I don’t respond negatively to him.

            Reading over Al’s more recent posts, I can see that my policy may need to be revised and updated. He is much more chilled out and balanced than he was then.

            I’m not sure what you mean by “pick on myself”? I, like any person, privately agonize over whether I have done the right thing, how can I do better, etc. I do in fact correct myself, change my mind, admit I was mistaken when presented with new data or a new point of view, etc.

            If you mean I should indulge myself in Chinese style “self-criticism”, well…..

            If you want me to format my posts to him differently, while making the same point, I can do that.

          4. I have a viewpoint. That’s all. And that may change and be different tomorrow, or even later tonight.

            Isn’t that a basic flaw of everyone posting here? That each person has a viewpoint? Do you except yourself?

          5. Al on LRH:

            “If you can step back, these are not the actions of a sane human being.”

            Al, that’s one man’s opinion.

            And I do not accept you as the ultimate Arbiter of who is sane and who is not.

      4. I think you hit on a good point Geir regarding LRH’s auditing. Who knows how much BPC was stirred up during research, or delving into areas far above the current tech level.

        Knowing how crappy I felt with an out-list or out-int, I can only imagine how he felt some mornings. And that on top of running a whole organization.

        I gotta hand it to him – it was a helluva run for one man.

        1. Yes. Being a pioneer into the mind must be some of the most challenging adventures anyone can come up with. And a person to undertake such an all-out adventure as LRH must have some serious brass balls.

        2. There are some good accounts on ESMB of the early research at St. Hill into GPMs and the experimental auditing being done, the search for workable processes for resolving the problems of the mind.

          It was factually quite brutal. All who were there were guinea pigs, and many were thrown into some horrible states of mind as a result of being subjected to processes that did not prove to be workable.

    1. Based on some things I heard just after he died, I have since come to think that by 1986 he was just plain tired of being LRH and didn’t really care to continue as such. There had been too much trouble, too many things had gone wrong, too many failures which he took very personally, and he was ready for a fresh start somewhere else. He did refer to this himself, that he “wouldn’t always be around”, and that there was a planet sighing for songs a galaxy away.

      I think he had actually completed everything he set out to do; when he developed the NOTs procedures, I think he fet his Bridge was complete. Or complete enough.

      It was time to blow this popstand and let others continue as best they could. The kids never grow up if you don’t cut the apron strings and let them grow up at some point.

      So he may not have wanted to get any more auditing for himself.

      I’m only 67, but I know the feeling – “Should I stay or should I go?”, as the song goes. And I’ve had an easy life compared to all the trouble he got himself into.

  48. There would be plenty of mental and psychiatric problems but no mental hospitals and psychiatric wards.

    The fact is that Scientology has no solutions for severe mental problems. Such people would be the responsibility of their family. Troubled people who cannot pay for their auditing may be herded into some kind if isolation camps. They would never be heard of again.


    1. Vin,

      I’d like to know what you base your assertions on?

      I worked in Psychiatry for about 13 years at a “leading midwestern teaching hospital” at the same time studying many materials of many different approaches to Mental health problems. I saw a number of good treatment approaches.None of them were accepted by mainstream “corporate Psychiatry” as taught in medical schools. They were seen as “the competition” by psychiatrists.

      Dianetics and Scientology has plenty of effective solutions because they are dealing exactly with problems of the mind and emotions.

      Get a copy of “Introductory and Demonstration Processes and Assists”. Most of the problems people go to psychiatrists for, are covered there.

      1. A friend of mine, who is still pretending to be in Scientology, has a son who has severe mental problems. The Church refused to handle him. She went outside the Church to independents. She was asked by the field auditor to pay $25,000 up front before he would even touch the case.

        Where is the compassion?

        She ended up using the mental services provided by government social services.


          1. The son is now much better. He is back at home. He is now in communication with his parents and responding well. He is still on meds and his responses seem to be quite slow.

            I said hello to him on Skype. He smiled and waved at me. His responses were very brief but he is there.

            His mother is now gradually taking him off meds in consultation with the psychiatrist. She is also planning to put him on Idenics counselling as soon as it is possible.


        1. Vinaire: ” Where is the compassion? ”

          I would have walked the other way if someone demanded $25k up front.

          I wouldn’t paint all auditors with the same brush.

          In the independent field, it’s buyer beware – just like buying a used car.

          I’m glad your friend found the help she desired.

    2. Vinaire,

      I worked with a guy who had severe mental problems. At the time I met him, he was being held (locked up) by the GO.

      A very good friend of mine and I took over, Pab 6ed him, fed him well, gave him vitamins and eventually got him a job.

      This was from a starting point of a very delusional fellow who believed he was receiving telepathic messages/commands from Chick Corea & LRH ‘To Investigate’. He also, around that time, climbed out of a window and went screaming naked down the street in 20-30 below winter weather.

      Yes, applying little jewels of tech can help even those with severe mental problems.

      1. There may be little jewels of tech, but will they be organized into social services for severely mental ill in the future Scientology world?

        What is the exchange there? I find the idea of compassion severely lacking in Scientology.


        1. Vinaire: ” There may be little jewels of tech, but will they be organized into social services for severely mental ill in the future Scientology world?”

          I guess they could be – that would be wise.

          Vinaire: ” What is the exchange there? I find the idea of compassion severely lacking in Scientology.”

          The exchange? How about goodwill towards others and a healthier, happier individual.

          ‘compassion severly lacking in Scientology’ – again, one big generality there … How about SOME individuals?

    3. Just to add: While I agree that CCHR’s closing of mental hospitals is likely a good thing to stop the abuses, having no substitute facilities was a big downfall.

      This was one of the main beefs I had with CCHR – close the hospitals and let the 1000s of patients who needed help roam the streets – a very stupid plan.

      Statements such as ” The fact is that Scientology has no solutions for severe mental problems. ” are, aside from being the usual generality, simply an indicator that one did not try.

        1. Yes, I am although parts of of the link are pretty sketchy.

          Trying is one thing, getting the item is another.

          Some definite mishandling there and a whole lot of missing info.

          1. All right. So it is clear that people tried to help Jeremy with severe mental illness with Scientology.

            But you say that “getting the item is another” thing entirely. Right?

            And now, you are saying that even though they tried, they mishandled him.

            Should I list other links where severe mental illness was not handled using Scientology and they too resulted in tragedy? Because I could, pretty much all day.

            When do we get to the point where we simply conclude that Scientology is not capable of handling severe mental illness?

            1. Just because those individuals in that individual situation failed it doesn’t mean everyone fails.

              I expect there are also many good stories too and countless sad stories.

              Painting a whole philosophy as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and generalities do not cut it with me.

          2. All right Dennis.

            If we just stick with one specific point: “Does Scientology cure severe mental illness?”, how many examples of its real world results in handling severe mental illness would you need before you decided yes or no?

            My point is that after 60 years of application, there are many many results that we can examine to determine these answers now. And because severe mental illness can be very dangerous, I think it is important to determine this. Too many tragedies have resulted from the blind faith that Scientologists have that Scientology will work in these cases. There really should be a point where Scientologists start referring severe cases to psychiatrists who have the knowledge and the resources to avoid these tragedies.

            And just to make sure I am not using generalities, I will list more specific cases for you:

            Lisa McPherson
            Quentin Hubbard
            Noah Lottick
            Robert DePlano
            Micheal Leube
            Bob Mills
            John Buchanan
            Richard Collins
            Patrick Vick

            Source: Google “Why Are They Dead Scientology” and leave out the people who died of cancer or medical neglect, and look at the ones who died of suicide. Depression is a dangerous mental illness that should be treated by professionals with the resources to avoid these catastrophes.

            If we had a world run by Scientology, the rate of these cases would explode.

          3. Al, far more people, percentage-wise, have died during psychiatric treatment than have died from their contact with scientology, or any scientologist’s attempts to help someone with mental/emotional problems.

            It is a fact that psychiatrists cannot “cure” mental illness, and they will tell you that themselves any day of the year. Absolutely, psychiatrists cannot cure mental illness, they know it and acknowledge it openly. This is not an “expose” on my part, it is an acknowledged fact.
            You are dreaming, and worse, you are once again purveying false data by talking about psychiatrists “curing” anyone. Probably just as you once oversold Scientology to some people. But at least then, you had some personal experience on which to base your claims and promises to them, about Scientology.

            Really, you need to rein yourself in, with these grandiose and overblown claims and statements you make. Especially if you have not had much personal experience with a subject, as I suspect you have not had much, with psychiatry.

            You just seem to jump from one bandwagon to another.

          4. The reason psychiatry handles serious mental cases with any success at all is it has an infrastructure designed specifically to handle them. It is a specialized area of endeavor which existing scientology institutions were not organized for. Serious psychiatric cases require secure dedicated facilities capable of being locked down, with 24-hour staffing. It is very labor intensive. And the only reason psychiatry has this infrastructure is because insurance companies pay towards them.

            There is plenty of scientology tech and philosophy that could be applied in mental hospitals that would improve psychiatry’s results.

            In any case it is not a question of psychiatry having some kind of superior “tech”.

      1. Does Scientology has broadly applicable solutions to handle severly mentally ill? If so, why is CCHR not pushing those solutions? Why is CCHR not organizing places where such people can be helped.

        By the way, my friend found lot of compassion and common sense in the government social service she got for her mentally ill son. Of course, he was put om meds, but he was also treated like a human being who needed help.


        1. Vinaire: ” Does Scientology has broadly applicable solutions to handle severly mentally ill?

          Yes, the first is a full physical by a medical doctor, and applicable medication/light sedatives and then there’s a plethora or assists that can be C/Sed.

          Vinaire: ” If so, why is CCHR not pushing those solutions? Why is CCHR not organizing places where such people can be helped.”

          That’s exactly what I said.

          By the way, my friend found lot of compassion and common sense in the government social service she got for her mentally ill son. Of course, he was put om meds, but he was also treated like a human being who needed help.

          That’s great. Glad to hear it.

        2. Just to add a bit of personal experience:

          My son was a passenger in a vehicle crash with his friend, an OTVIII and an OTVII (driver).

          My son & the OTVIII were helicoptered in to the hospital, his friend driven to another, and the driver was dead when I checked her.

          My son was in a coma for about 2 weeks, the medical people did their job, and I did mine as an auditor by assists to bring him out of it – many many hours.

          Long story short, each profession has their spot & abilities and can work along side each other comfortably if one chooses to.

          1. I’m sure that assists in that kind of a situation can help a person in a coma. If nothing else it gives him a sonic and tactile lifeline back to consciousness that can eventually take hold and help.

            It also gives loved ones something they can do to help, too.

            This must have been very difficult for you. Glad to hear things worked out.

        3. CCHR did push those solutions in it’s early days, until it was emasculated by David Miscavige and turned into a travelling sideshow by him.

          1. This is a complex area. CCHR was originally created to protect the civil rights of patients, who were often abused by the system in the USA, basically they were often incarcerated without consent and with no recourse. So among the goals was to end this kind of enforcement and give patients and would-be patients more self-determinism and end practices like forced ECT and forced drugging. CCHR actually was successful in changing the climate in the USA. Although there is a lot of work yet to be done, the consumer protection of “mental health consumers” has been increased.

            That’s one side of it, that has benefited even very seriously “ill” people who suffer from mental or emotional distress.

            The other side is much more complex; what needs to be addressed and understood is there is no consensus about what is “mental illness” or if the medical model even applies.

            There areas many different theories of personality as there are religious sects, and they can be very different, one from another. Another “everyone knows” is that psychiatry is a science, and that they “have the answers to mental illness”. This is as far from the truth as it can be. Psychiatry has AN answer, which is currently the “biopsychiatric” model. As I posted to Al earlier today, psychiatrists will be the first to tell you they have no cure for mental illness. They also steadfastly reject the results of any independent thought, research, or practical experience in favor of whatever flavor they are currently pushing, and those flavors are based on what insurance will pay for, because psychiatric treatment, especially if any hospitalization is involved, is very expensive.

            Psychiatry in many ways can be described in just the way critics of scientology describe the CoS – a big money-making front which does not deliver the goods as far as “mental health” goes. The main difference is psychiatry really doesn’t promise much and has the infrastructure to handle various types of people.

            The other problem is, who do you consider to be “seriously mentally ill”? Psychopaths, sociopaths, and the “criminally insane”? Any psychiatrist will tell those people are untreatable and the only solution for them is to “dispose of them quietly and without sorrow” by locking them up for life to protect society.

            They fall into the category of “character disorders”. OCD is also a “character disorder”. There are various others. All are considered to be basically untreatable. Some of them can “decompensate” and become psychotic; these can sometimes be returned to their compensated condition of basic disorder.

            On the psychiatric units where I worked, one was unlocked and the people there were there voluntarily; they were for the most part not different from you, me, or anyone else; they were the effect of a life crisis of some kind, had hit a bump in the road, and needed sometime to reflect, think, decompress, and 2-way comm with someone in a safe and quiet environment.

            But of course they were all diagnosed as “mentally ill” in some way. They had to be, otherwise insurance wouldn’t pay for their stay. The logic was, “they are in a mental hospital, therefore they must be mentally ill.”

            Perhaps the best approach to this topic for me to post some links to books by insiders?

            A good overview of issues in the treatment of the “mentally ill” is on Wikipedia:


            Another site is http://www.antipsychiatry.org

            Here is a specific topic that might be a good place to start:


            I view “mental illness” as a consensus reality that creates the Drama Triangle with it’s Victims, Rescuers, and Persecutors, per Transactional Analysis theory.

            Transactional Analysis is a theory and psychotherapeutic method researched created by a psychiatrist back in the 1960s. It is one of the many different often successful, methods that main stream or”institutional” psychiatry rejects in favor of prescribing drugs.

      2. I don’t think that was ever CCHR’s plan, to close the hospitals and just abandon the patients. I think their original plan was to reform the field of mental health treatment and the hospitals.

    4. There is no reason there would not be mental hospitals and psychiatric wards. Those would remain. The difference would be only what kind of tech was practiced in them.

      I seem to recall this actually happened in Italy, with CCHR’s help. An entire hospital came to be manged largely by the patients after the court shut it down thereby taking it away from the control of psychiatrists. The”new management” eliminated the authoritarianism that had been rampant in it, and instead applied more benign methods including compassion, TRs, and 2-way comm instead of drugs, electric shocks, and physical restraints in locked isolation rooms.

  49. Geir, you posted – “LRH equated Scientology and the Church. Totally. And I don’t think there is any doubt about that.”

    I have nothing but doubt about that. Here, from the http://www.savescientology.com site:

    “That is to say, the terms ‘religion of Scientology’ and ‘Church of Scientology’ shall be co-terminal only so long as churches of Scientology continue, in the opinion of… the Directors and Trustees [of CST] …, to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.”- L. Ron Hubbard, Bylaws of CST, Article II (f)

    1. Of course – but as I said LRH envisioned Scientology practice (as he set it forth) by a monopoly called the Church of Scientology.

      1. Yes but the “monopoly” he envisioned was by organizations that remained true to his original, fundamental vision, his Ideal Scene, using the tech that had proved workable.

        I sometimes think LRH’s biggest fault was that he way overestimated the fidelity of humans in general and how degraded they/we really are in bulk. On the other hand, sometimes I think he did not, as even as early as the PDC lectures he foresaw possible scenarios in which the CoS devolved in exactly the ways it has, by essentially being taken over by one “Dear Leader” whose Ideal Scene was entirely different from LRH’s own.

        I see the development of the CoS during LRH’s time as a series of “undercuts” he devised to cope with the actual situations that arose, from within and from without. created by the “perfidious humans” of this planet!

        Somehow it did not click for me right away, when I read your OP, that what you were talking about was “What was LRH’s Ideal Scene” vis-a-vis Scientology?

        If we duplicate that in our understanding, we can then do what the OP asks us to do – envision what the world would be like if LRH’s vision was fulfilled.

        1. “Yes but the “monopoly” he envisioned was by organizations that remained true to his original, fundamental vision, his Ideal Scene, using the tech that had proved workable.”

          Not quite true. He continually developed his ideas and ideal scene – as with the undercutting (TRs, Study Tech, SuperPower, Purif, etc). So, the organization would be true to his vision anno 1986.

          1. I can’t cite a reference at this time, but I believe the whole Ideal Scene was present from the beginning, 1950 or before. I’m sure here fined it and it grew in clarity and extent for him, but I think like the Static, it existed in spirit from the beginning and never basically changed.

    2. Valkov, CST is the back-up corporation to the Church of Scientology. It’s public relations (to the staff) was that in the event of the Church of Scientology Int’l being shut down by a government, etc., then the CST corporation would take over thus keeping Scientology in business as usual. The two corporations are, for this practical purpose, one and the same and exist only for legal obfuscation.

      I will not here address the darker, or fraudulent possibilities.

      1. Chris wrote:

        I will not here address the darker, or fraudulent possibilities.

        Oh Chris – where’s the fun in that? :>

      2. Al, I only was trying to answer to Valkov’s comments about CST and not the conspiracy theory of how the works of LRH and the assets of the C of S were stolen and removed utterly from the purview of Scientologists from right under their noses.

      3. Chris, I am going only by the incorporation documents as explained on the http://www.savescientology.com site Those are the legal reality and if the current regime is not complying with them then they are operating illegally, are they not?

        As well as possibly counter to LRH’s intent?

        1. Well it is a fact that we were briefed that CST was LRH’s idea and that it conformed to his intention to not let Scientology be “out of business” for even one day. LRH was alive for years while this went on so was the kingdom being usurped from the king in absencia? Draw your own conclusions.

          The way it was explained to us seemed both brilliant and benign. This is why I wrote what I did about not going into other possible darker motivations for setting up CST.

          It is going to take a grand jury and a tenacious team of prosecutors to unravel the accounting for CST. Ultimately, LRH’s “brilliance” in obfuscating the facts of his life and of the incorporation of Scientology and in assembling the GO and OSA intelligence agencies, works also in favor of insulating the coup d’etat from illumination as well as it worked for hiding LRH.

          If you enjoy the farce of it all, review MISSION EARTH for a veritable mapping of the whole of LRH’s view of himself as beleaguered hero and Savior. Even in his view of himself as hero there is little compassion involved even in this fiction. In this telling of his life, the basic motivation for “saving” Earth was to rescue it from earthlings so there would be something here left for IGM (Intergalactic Mining Co) to mine when it finally came up on its invasion schedule some 100 years yet in the future.

  50. I’d like to suggest that this OP is not a thought experiment at all. It is a logic experiment. It runs in fits and starts because it is attempting to construct a world out of illogical and fallacious thinking. The C of S IS the real thought experiment, carried out in physical reality.

    The real experiment is on the basis that an operating thetan simply operates. You put enough necessity in place and you get OT behavior. Its just that simple. The only problem is that OT behavior takes place at tone 40. Tone 40 is a zone where there is no divided mind, no dichotomy, just free-flowing, all encompassing ARC as found at the top of the Chart of Attitudes. Drop from the top, and bang! you are right in the thick of struggle and limitation and fighting and taking sides and on and on and on. Instead of putting people onto the OT sections after the Clearing processes, they should have been put on drills to do with maintaining top level ARC. And there we find the auditor who keeps the auditor’s code, in and out of session. Any game remaining then would be a clean up and maintenance operation, probably rather similar to what Elizabeth has been doing. The process is life.

    1. I think that’s a great viewpoint on this OP, Maria.

      I have been able to examine a lot of reasoning processes on this thread. The picture Geir wants us to paint is like one of those “patterns” that Micheal Shermer detailed in the video that Katageek put up.

      As a person is questioned about the pattern he sees, he reveals his reasoning for why he has presented this pattern for the future Scientology civilization. You can inspect reasoning there – how each person came to his conclusions.

      What’s so valuable about this is that the inspection of reasoning – inspecting others’ reasoning as well as one’s own – is what leads people to better conclusions. It’s where you get the chance to examine sometimes unexamined considerations. Once you see it out on your screen, you can make corrections to it, or correct others’ too – whether you correct them publicly or not.

      For me, I see a lot of “thinking with Scientology”, which is using the beliefs of Scientology to extrapolate and predict. I also see people using the standard explanations for Scientology’s failures being used to refuse to look at them.

      And of course, others see other things in my own reasoning process as well.

      Very valuable.

      Of course, it’s all you people who need to change the flaws in your reasoning.

      My own is perfect.

    2. “Instead of putting people onto the OT sections after the Clearing processes, they should have been put on drills to do with maintaining top level ARC. And there we find the auditor who keeps the auditor’s code, in and out of session. Any game remaining then would be a clean up and maintenance operation, probably rather similar to what Elizabeth has been doing. The process is life.”

      Maria, in this last part of your post you have basically described why training itself is a road to truth, a path to freedom. And more than anything it’s because of the hours in the chair which demand the discipline of TRs – the basic vehicle to travel on a route upward. The practiced application of TR’s is no doubt the biggest reason why experienced auditors have the lovely beingness they do.

      And actually what thrilled me even more was the last sentence, “The process is life.” That’s the process I happen to be attempting to run. I just haven’t been able to find quite the right words to express what it is. I’ve said things like I’m winning because of participating in the discussions here and in other communications, but simply put it’s just as you said – the process is life! Maria, you are really good at indicating the correct item. How many times have I said it already, but I’ll say it again – thank you!

        1. Geir, there are way too many good posts! Can you just ease up a bit with the provacative discussions?

          Kidding, of course. Good excuse to commend you, another thing I keep repeating myself on. 🙂

          1. Funny! I tell you, though, it’s becoming a full-time job just to read them all let alone comment. And I’m supposed to be cutting back! Maybe the holidays will help reform me but those HP-41 posts would really help. 😉

  51. “Any two people in constant association who will conduct themselves according
    to the auditor’s code will soon find not only that they are clear or almost as a
    group of two but also that their knowledge of, and joy in human relationships
    has been immeasurably increased.” from Notes on the Lectures

      1. Yes it does. I have been conducting my own experiment with it and the effect on myself and the other person I have been experimenting with has a source of much insight. Layer upon layer of poorly conceived notions simply come up and are parted with through nothing more than simple conversation and shared activity. There is no “pc” or “auditor” though, we are both simultaneously. You see, for it to work you cannot assume the other to be less than you are – the second that happens, it packs up.

        1. That is how I find KHTK to work. There is simply a discussion with stress on looking. There is no formal session structure.


      2. Yes, applying the Auditors Code to Life was commonly practiced by many years ago. That along side the Service PL, Manners PL, You Can be Right, the Professionalism PL and the concept of being 3 feet back of society’s head went a long way to quelling the savage beast.

  52. Marildi, Regardless of any bias, BPC, or dispute, I would appreciate your addressing LRH’s blow from Int. This is slightly off-topic but seems sequitur in the context of a “Scientology World.” I would like to get yours or anyone’s take on this enormous (for me) out-point as the culmination of his career of Savior of Mankind. Other leaders of successful culture-changing movements throughout the history of mankind have fronted up to their detractors with the truth of their claims. Some were martyred. You mentioned the Doubt formula in this context. What is your take on LRH wrapping up his life as a fugitive. Did this serve a useful purpose on the overall admin scale of the Universe saving Scientology? In hind sight, was this the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics? and why so? It is time I applied my own assertion that I do not believe in paradoxes. Any sensible input from anyone on this is appreciated.

    1. He did not blow. He resigned and was replaced as Executive Director in 1966 and continued on with the researcher “hat” for many years after that. Eg. 1967 – OT 3 was released. 1968 – Class 8 course. His last published work, as far as I can tell was the booklet The Way to Happiness, issued sometime in the 1980s.

      As far as the fugitive aspect – it started out as a need to wrap up research and mount the Sea Org and as far as I can tell he became very ill somewhere along the line. Then he was beached, as every SO member I can recall has been beached when too old or too ill to continue on post. That has been the fate of EVERY SO staff I have ever known who got too old or too ill to be on post. I know, I asked every time that one of them disappeared from post and I took the trouble to track them down at times to find out what happened to them. Beached.

      There is no provision for non-producing SO staff members who have gotten old or gotten ill. No retirement plan, no medical plan. Just beached. Is beaching a blow? I don’t think so. I think it is more like a fitness board action.

      1. Maria, I nearly missed this red herring. LRH resigned in 1966? I didn’t think anyone seriously brought up that obfuscation anymore. He might of “resigned” and he might of pretended to be away from management of the Church, but he continued to manage the SO for another 13 years until the WDC took over. Just as DM “doesn’t run the SO.” All these ruses carefully engineered with the help of Earl Cooley, to throw off the dogs — These kinds of inconsistencies and frauds are what throw someone like me, wanting to give LRH the benefit of the doubt, that throw me into a tailspin on the subject of LRH.

        When I asked about LRH’s blow, I wasn’t referring to his resignation (and “forgiveness” of 22 million dollars that Churches owed to him for research) I was referring to his blow from Int circa 1979, with the process servers hot on his trail. The fugitive aspect that I refer to is from this point forward until his demise in 1986.

        I empathized with your many-lives story and how you wouldn’t want to be scrutinized for every inconsistency about your life — me neither. But neither you nor I set ourselves up with the type of megalomania to put ourselves in that position.

        LRH did, and he blew. I think he ran like a scared little rabbit. I hate to even hint at the similarity to other despots who lived large, talked big, but never wanted to face the music. Other great men and women who stood for something bigger and better and more decent and civilized also stood up and stood out and were counted; the consequences be damned.

        LRH beached? I don’t think I’m buying that. Euthanized maybe – but he made those choices and I think the weight of his O/W’s finally sank him.

        1. LRH did, and he blew. I think he ran like a scared little rabbit.

          He should have been aware,that all his faults,every single one, will be picked up inspected, investigated and published just to nail him up the wall. And exactly this happened. While his tech brought me into a condition (10 intensive FPRD)
          where have now got an gloriole, and thinking about if it was an overt to squeeze a spider,
          he obviously has never thought about taking over responsibility for all the BS he caused.
          This is what he should have done:
          Yes, i sent kids into the chain locker. Yes I ordered to ruin Paulette Cooper. Yes I ordered to chase and harras Gerry Amstrong. Yes I prevented that ARnie will marry Suzette.
          Yes I had connections to the OTO, Yes I never was a war hero……….Yes ….and YES…..
          and Yes……….
          And finally: I apologize for everything I did and I am going to make up the damage.
          Scientology woud not have problems today.

        2. Chris, in a sense I think you are right, or almost right, in your conjecture about why LRH – 1. disassociated himself from the CoS, and 2. why he died when he did. And yes, it