Scientology in use

I recently got an interesting e-mail from one of the readers of this blog and asked her permission to post it here. It relates to a blog posts I wrote some time ago – I am not a Scientologist. Marianne has some good points:

Hello Geir,

I have been avidly reading your blogs (both of them) and many of the postings on the you started. Thanks for doing all that work over the years. As I read through the various materials on your site and then began reading Marty’s Rathbun’s blog, I had quite an epiphany, which I think is very much related to your concepts on tools and how you regard Scientology. I posted it on Marty’s blog on a thread announcing the new website. I wanted to send it to you rather than post it on your current blog because it appears that you are pretty much moving on — good for you!!

Its a beautiful website, carefully thought out and written. (referring to the new website)

I would love to see an addition to the information about Scientology, something I have found to be very true in my life.

Scientology is something I USE. I also USE my education. I also USE my mind. I also USE my body. I also USE my attitude. I also USE my country’s constitution. I also USE communication and CREATIVITY.

I am none of the above, for these are all things one does, not what one is.

I often see this on this blog, this effort to label someone as a “true” Scientologist or a “false” Scientologist. And depending on which “SIDE” one is on we get the labels: A squirrel. An apostate. A sociopath. And so on.

If I have an “identity” at all, it is “citizen of the universe.” I have found it fruitful to expand my view. Citizen: A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place.

This is from the 1953 Webster’s College Edition: Civilize: 1. To bring out of a condition of savagery or barbarism; instruct in the ways of an advanced society. 2. Cultured and courteous; refine.

I was hoping so much that there would be a return to the concept of Scientology is for USE. By ANYONE, Scientologist or NOT, who cares to learn it and learn it well.

I was hoping there would be a return to the principle that it is NON-DENOMINATIONAL and available to all of good will, with no one demanding that one BECOME A SCIENTOLOGIST, in effect or in reality denouncing one’s existing affiliations / membership. It was the basis on which I first took up Scientology training. I was told that it was perfectly OK that I was a Buddhist. No need to turn my back on my love and joy and experiences and my group. But it turned out that it wasn’t true, and more and more I found myself being pressured to denounce Buddhism in favor of Scientology, to declare myself a Scientologist.

I have long reflected on all this since I walked out of the CHURCH of Scientology. All these labels obscure the truth. These labels are all based on exclusion. Someone is not good enough, is awful, is detestable, is this and that and judge and judge and judge and judge.

I’ve had a belly full of this. Don’t you think its time to end this unworkable way of teaching Scientology auditing?

Make it safe and make it acceptable for the Rabbi in the synagogue to USE Scientology auditing. He can still be a Rabbi — a Rabbi who is a trained auditor. He does not have to BECOME A SCIENTOLOGIST. He can even deliver deliver auditing without calling himself an auditor, let alone a Scientologist. One who USES auditing to assist others. The same for the Christian minister.

It should be safe and acceptable for him to use Scientology. He does not have to become a Scientologist to do this. If Scientology is offered “identity free” then it will be freely used, by everyone, not just by those who are willing to forswear their original allegiances to become a new identity.

Even more fascinating, there were only two responses to my post, and one of them crystallized the epiphany for me. The person said:

You’re right. At some point it was not enough to be a student, to be a pc. That was the point when Scientology became a cult.

Anyway, I am writing to you about this because I really felt that I got to know you through all the many things you have written and your tolerance towards others who have shared their ideas and disagreements and so on throughout the last couple of years.

Thank you!


387 thoughts on “Scientology in use

  1. Extremely well stated. I wholeheartedly agree. Wouldn’t that be optimum. Thank you. 🙂

  2. Marianne,

    I have been saying something similar for years.

    This only goes into much more thought and detail.

    I call myself a loving, intelligent, responsible, unlimited free spirit who studies Scientology and as many other datums of comparable magnitude (that means the bible, the Oahspe, the Urantia and as many other religions and philosophies and personal and professional development data) as possible so I can understand the big picture.

    Knowledge and experience contribute to theta units. The more the better.

    I really like your idea that when one is asked to become a Scientologist, then it becomes a cult.

    That is so true. That hits the nail on the head.

    Many Scientologists forget the idea that one does not have to quit their former religion to become a scientologist, is a basic promo datum (tenet) of scientology.

    It should also become a tenet that one does not have to become a Scientologist to learn Scientology.

    Ultimately it should be discouraged or not allowed.


    1. I like that paragraph: “I call myself a loving, intelligent, responsible, unlimited free spirit who studies Scientology and as many other datums of comparable magnitude (that means the bible, the Oahspe, the Urantia and as many other religions and philosophies and personal and professional development data) as possible so I can understand the big picture.”

      Nice! thank you for that.

  3. Marianne wrote: “I was hoping there would be a return to the principle that it is NON-DENOMINATIONAL and available to all of good will, with no one demanding that one BECOME A SCIENTOLOGIST…”

    I don’t know why Marianne didn’t get a better response than she did on Marty’s blog as, from what I have gathered, the above would be the viewpoint of many people who post there, based on their general attitude towards Scientology. It is actually a pretty liberal viewpoint that Marty himself expresses, including the fact that he makes use of other philosophies and disciplines even in his auditing practice! (which he noted in his first book, for example).

    Recently, I too had an epiphany that came out of all the discussions and debates here that I’ve participated in for the last couple of years – from which I benefitted greatly! It seems to me now that all the evils that occurred in Scientology and all the controversies won’t really matter as regards its future. It will move forward based on its own merits because there are people who truly understand the subject who will put it into practice regardless of how anybody, including LRH himself, may have misinterpreted or misused it. That misuse would include the heretofore “unworkable way of teaching Scientology”, to quote Marianne again. The new website she mentioned,, is the latest and maybe the greatest sign yet of the direction that the “reformation” is going in. I subscribe to the idea that truth can’t be stopped, and I believe there are truths in Scientology that more and more people will recognize if it is practiced in a way that is based on its own principles .

    1. Wow. Thanks for posting this Geir!

      @ Marildi — You comment that is the latest and maybe the greatest sign of the direction the reformation is going in.

      I can only see it as a direction that is less abusive. But, at the heart of that website is this definition which is published on that website: “Independent Scientologists are not just Scientologists who practice Scientology outside the Church. Thousands of people have practiced “Scientology” outside the Church. It’s been going on for decades. We are something new because in our opinion “practicing Scientology” includes perforce the necessity to do something about the corruption within the Church. If we don’t, who will? Who is even qualified to figure out what to do?”

      So factually, this site takes the term “Independent Scientologist” and defines it in terms of actions AGAINST the “Corporate Scientologist” and DISMISSES the action of an individual who practices Scientology outside of the Church as being an incomplete / incorrect definition of a Scientologist. Also read the list of beliefs that define an “Independent” Scientologist. To my mind, this causes an inextricable link between two “opposing” entities, both claiming they are the “right” way and defining themselves in terms of what they judge unacceptable. To my mind, this is NOT independent. If you don’t believe me, read the list of beliefs.

      It was seeing the definition above that brought me to my epiphany, coming as it did on the heels of a very thorough reading of the forums and blogs I mention.

      Geir has left out a bit of back-story. When I originally wrote this post,,one of the paragraphs read:

      “Make it safe and make it acceptable for the Rabbi in the synagogue to USE Scientology auditing. He can still be a Rabbi — a Rabbi who is a trained auditor. He does not have to BECOME A SCIENTOLOGIST. But if he wants to deliver auditing, he does need to BECOME an auditor, one who USES auditing to assist others.”

      Geir responded: “A really good post. I agree with everything except the “become an auditor”
      to use auditing (because then logically one would have to also become a
      Scientologist to use Scientology). Your comment on that?”

      I came back with: ” …wouldn’t it follow that if one gets training as an auditor, whether you get it in or out of the Church of Scientology, you shouldn’t have to become a Scientologist to do that? The designation Scientologist describes a person with a set of beliefs – creed / codes / policies. The designation auditor describes an individual that has developed a set of skills. Instruction in that skill set is transferable between institutions of learning. How do you see it better phrased?”

      Geir wrote back: “Make it safe and make it acceptable for the Rabbi in the synagogue to USE
      Scientology auditing. He can still be a Rabbi — a Rabbi who is a trained auditor. He does not have to BECOME A SCIENTOLOGIST. He can even deliver auditing without calling himself an auditor, let alone a Scientologist. One who USES auditing to assist others. The same for the
      Christian minister.”

      And I saw that he was so very right about that, particularly since he pointed out that someone who gets a PHD in mathematics doesn’t necessarily become a mathematician! And he sure doesn’t have to become a “Harvardian” or MITist or whatever.

      In the new iScientology scheme, one is given a “role” or pre-determined fixation of fighting against the Church of Scientology as a defacto responsibility of an Independent Scientologist. Failure to take up that cause is then seen as a deficiency. I don’t see anything to do with what I hoped would happen and really I can’t for the life of me see the difference between that and opposing “psychs” or “squirrels” etc. etc.

      1. Thanks for that, Marianne. I stand corrected! I had not read the beliefs and frankly I’m surprised because that is not the viewpoint that I expected of that new website or that I thought Marty seemed to be endorsing by announcing it. He has expressed a very different basic outlook. I do realize that he and others have their own personal purposes along those lines, but I sure didn’t think Marty would go along with the idea that it become a part of Independent Scientology (if he has) – when it has nothing to do with the philosophy or technology of Scn. I am in agreement with the viewpoint you’ve expressed!

        1. Your welcome. I was actually pretty horrified. Now if you wanted to say you are an Independent you are immediately labeled as having that set of beliefs and motives. So really its the same thing – our way or the highway. And frankly, I find Marty’s blog often tedious in its choruses of adulation.

          The history of the “reformation” has also been re-written. IMO, the ONLY reason they are getting anywhere is the Internet. Without it they would be just as ineffectual as past efforts. I guarantee you that if David Mayo had access to the Internet, Marty, Miscavige and all those Execs who carried out these horrendous campaigns would have been buried six feet under before they ever got going. So I find it a bit presumptuous and arrogant beyond belief to dismiss the work of all the people who came before them because they are the “new” order, all righteous and whatnot. My guess is that they hope to raise a guidon that will clear the repute of Scientology by taking a clearly offensive action against the injustices and abuses to show that Scientologists really are “good” and “responsible” people. Who knows, it might work. But I doubt it. As I see it, any future will lie in a truly independent and unrestricted use of the subject rather than as the property or purview of a particular group. Something like the Clearbird project might work.

          1. “”As I see it, any future will lie in a ””’truly independent and unrestricted use of the subject”
            rather than as the property or purview of a particular group.

            right you are on that… all it takes is replace all the talk and get into session, that will bring the change….

          2. I agree, Marianne, it is horrifying. The stated requirement to be an Independent reminded me of the chapter “Reversal” in Marty’s first book, where he points out various things that began the change away from the original and basic goal of personal freedom. That goal would obviously include the right to choose one’s own ethical activities and purposes. Specifically, “ethics is a personal thing”.

            One of the first turning points listed was the shift LRH made when he issued “An Open Letter to Clears” – suddenly Clears were being told what their responsibilities were. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone taking on the valid purpose of doing something about the evils of the CoS, but I do have a problem with requiring this as part of “practicing Scientology” and for being an Independent Scientologist! That just doesn’t align with the philsophy at all.

            1. Quite right. One of the cool things I found on one of these blogs was this idea of “citizen of the universe” — I don’t think its a new idea, but when I saw it, I thought: “Ah. Now there’s a much better viewpoint!” Probably because the chorus of one of my all-time favorite songs is: “You are a child of the universe, no less that the trees or the stars, you have a right to be here…” So a citizen would be a “grown-up” participant I guess. 🙂 As soon as I expanded to the idea of such a citizenship, then various roles and personas fell into line with a perspective that is far more embracing and responsive to diversity and shifting circumstance. It also seems to take the time crunch out of the equation. I really like that. So, thank you to whoever posted that idea! I have been exploring the idea as I have been reviewing all these posts with an idea to come up with a list of the rights of a citizen of the universe. Maybe even a set of rights that would work for a multi-verse. LOL!

            2. Marianne, please take this as meant in goodwill but are you sure you haven’t developed a bit of an “allergy” to having any tangible (as with the symbols of words) connection whatsoever to Scientology, i.e. any term containing “Scientologist”. Allergies, from what I understand, are responses that aren’t actually based on natural phenomena.

              Or maybe I should put it this way – is this a pendulum swing? Maybe not with you but I sense with some people a pendulum swing from a previous attitude they had and have utterly changed their minds about, and thus they want to utterly change any previous “label” too.

              I guess what I’m basically saying is that words shouldn’t be granted that much power. Then again, recognizing that they do have great power you may be smart not to want a particular word attached to you personally. Okay, you talked me into it (LOL :D). It’s probably smart of you to strengthen the postulate to be far more “responsive to diversity and shifting circumstance” by associating yourself with the label “Citizen of the Universe”.

              But now I’m going to really push my luck and say that I wouldn’t doubt it if your “list of the rights of a citizen of the universe”, if not a mult-verse, could be made up from the tenets of Scientology. (Don’t shoot me. :))

            3. @ Marildi

              No, there is no pendulum swing going on. I just think it is a great way of expanding my world view — one that keeps me from contracting down to the interests of only one group in the world.

              if you review the creed of the C of S, it becomes very obvious that it is, at least in part, a restatement of the Constitution of the United States, couched in religious / spiritual terms. In my view, it is NOT original to the C of S at all, but a compilation.

              And my guess is that the Constitution flowed from this: “There is no single unifying belief that all Unitarian Universalists (UUs) hold, aside from complete and responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition. Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any religious background, and hold beliefs and adhere to morals from a variety of cultures or religions.”

              The above is the description of the beliefs of the Unitarian Universalists. Its easy enough to see that is most likely the source of the Constitution it if you look at this list of famous Unitarian Universalists:

              As much as I like the above, I also really love this declaration, penned by Will and Arial Durant in the late 1940s:

              Declaration of Interdependence

              Human progress having reached a high level through respect for the liberty and dignity of men, it has become desirable to re-affirm these evident truths:

              That differences of race, color, and creed are natural, and that diverse groups, institutions, and ideas are stimulating factors in the development of man;

              That to promote harmony in diversity is a responsible task of religion and statesmanship;

              That since no individual can express the whole truth, it is essential to treat with understanding and good will those whose views differ from our own;

              That by the testimony of history intolerance is the door to violence, brutality and dictatorship; and

              That the realization of human interdependence and solidarity is the best guard of civilization.

              Therefore, we solemnly resolve, and invite everyone to join in united action.

              To uphold and promote human fellowship through mutual consideration and respect;

              To champion human dignity and decency, and to safeguard these without distinction of race, or color, or creed;

              To strive in concert with others to discourage all animosities arising from these differences, and to unite all groups in the fair play of civilized life.

              ROOTED in freedom, bonded in the fellowship of danger, sharing everywhere a common human blood, we declare again that all men are brothers, and that mutual tolerance is the price of liberty.

              Note: The Declaration of Interdependence was introduced into the Congressional Record on October 1, 1945 by Hon. Ellis E. Patterson.

            4. Wow, awesome! Especially the declaration of INTERdependence by Will and Arial Durant. Thanks for sharing that. (All the posters here should review it daily! LOL)

              You know what’s interesting is that Will Durant was one person LRH listed at the front of the old “greenie” edition of SOS. I still have mine. It says:

              “Acknowledgment is made to fifty thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to…” and then he lists a couple dozen names, including Will Durant , prominently positioned along with Count Alfred Korzybski..

              Closely related to this idea, let me share something that I happened to have read just today in a Phoenix lecture transcript excerpt, where LRH was talking about the development of Scientology:

              “… it was inevitable as knowledge accumulated, that, sooner or later, somebody would have enough leisure time to look over the problem thoroughly from one end to the other and take all of the recognizable truths that were already there and add to them to a point where this [Scientology] could be accomplished. This was inevitable that this would occur. If it hadn’t occurred in this century, it would have occurred a few centuries hence.

              “…And it just seems to me like Man is a survivor type and sooner or later he would have…come up with these answers somewhere along the track. Maybe not for another million years, maybe not for another ten years, but sooner or later this answer would have been produced, merely because it is the answer for which Man has been looking for ten thousand years.” (excerpted from “The Phoenix Lectures” 20 July 1954)

              I thought that was pretty interesting,

  4. Marianne wrote: “I was hoping there would be a return to the principle that it is NON-DENOMINATIONAL and available to all of good will, with no one demanding that one BECOME A SCIENTOLOGIST…”

    Marildiv wrote: “I don’t know why Marianne didn’t get a better response than she did on Marty’s blog as, from what I have gathered, the above would be the viewpoint of many people who post there, based on their general attitude towards Scientology.”

    I have searched to find out what is their position viewpoint regarding Marianne’s concern. What I found aligns with Marildiv’s comment.

    From “About Us”
    ¤ “Independent Scientology is grassroots and community-based. It is not an organization, it is a movement. It is not an organized religion, it is a spiritual movement that believes the final authority on the spiritual evolvement of any one individual is the individual himself.”

    From “Beliefs of Independent Scientology”
    ¤ “Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy, scientific in approach, that qualifies as a religion in the Eastern sense.”
    ► “Anyone is free to practice Scientology regardless of race, color, creed, income bracket or sexual preference.”

    1. Yes, Ferenc, it is true that it lists those two as beliefs, but looking at the first few beliefs out of the 29 beliefs listed, I find that six of the first are in terms of the various actions of the corporate Church, with the seventh addressing the critical attitudes towards LRH himself.

      “Independent Scientologists believe,

      “Scientology” does not equal “the Church of Scientology.”
      Crimes, abuses and corruption are not Scientology.
      The only “acceptable truth” is full truth.
      LRH was neither perfect nor a sociopath.
      David Miscavige is a classic sociopath.
      Extracting donations under duress is robbery not Scientology.
      Under Miscavige’s influence, the CoS became a suppressive group.”

      But more to the point of what I wrote up, on the page ENTITLED “What is an Independent Scientologist?” the following definition is given:

      “Independent Scientologists are not just Scientologists who practice Scientology outside the Church. Thousands of people have practiced “Scientology” outside the Church. It’s been going on for decades. We are something new because in our opinion “practicing Scientology” includes perforce the necessity to do something about the corruption within the Church. If we don’t, who will? Who is even qualified to figure out what to do?”

      Read this paragraph and tell me it doesn’t dismiss anyone that is not working on the party line of this website, making it a “necessity” to fight the corporate Church.

      The corollary of this definition is, if you do not actively fight the Corporate Church, then you are NOT an independent Scientologist. This dismisses and disses the Freezone, Ron’s Orgs, and all other people who operate independently effectively degrading their work, their opinions and their independence. Fact is, there were independent Scientologists long before Marty et al became independent themselves and those independents were the target of their personal efforts to shut them down. That’s a fact freely admitted to by both Marty and Mike. Not only that, people who didn’t even say they were Scientologist, but practiced on their own were targeted. Now, it seems, they will be targeted as unacceptable because they choose not to take this particular party line.

      And trust me, if that website was produced by the corporate Church, there would be no forgiving attitude whatsoever, no cherry picking, no leniency, no talk of how the Church does allow this or that…

      I don’t think it gets any clearer.

      1. Below is a comment I posted last night on the “What is an Independent Scientologist” page (it’s almost the same comment as what I had already posted here) and below it is Steve Hall’s reply:
        # RE: What is an Independent Scientologist? — marildi 2012-10-19 02:05
        Steve, I am reminded of the chapter “Reversal” in Marty’s first book, where he points out various things that caused a change in Scientology away from the original and basic goal of personal freedom. That goal would obviously include the right to choose one’s own ethical activities and purposes. Specifically, “ethics is a personal thing”.
        One of the turning points Marty listed was the shift LRH made when he issued “An Open Letter to Clears” – suddenly Clears were being told what their responsibilities were. I have no problem with anyone taking on the valid purpose of doing something about the evils of the CoS, but I do have a problem with stating this as part of “practicing Scientology” and as a requirement for being an Independent Scientologist. I was VVGI’s about this new site until I came across this idea.

        Reply | Reply with quote | Quote 0 # 10-4 — Thoughtful 2012-10-19 10:43
        All I said is that an Independent Scientologist is someone who does take SOME responsibility. Are you not doing that already? I think you are already doing it, and I’m just saying that is what makes you different.

        He may be looking at it, correctly or not, in the frame of reference of “greatest good…” Whatever the case, it seems (as I would have thought) that he is more liberal in his views than how his description of an Independent comes across, as well as telling people what their “beliefs” are – no matter WHAT beliefs are listed. That’s religion, not philosophy. And yet, he contradicts such a stance with the kinds of things that Ferenc quoted, such as “not an organized religion, it is a spiritual movement”.

        Hopefully. Steve and the others working with him will reconsider at some point soon the political stance he has factually taken, just as he has done in the past with some of his blog posts that were later retracted. I say again that this new website has its strong merits – even now, since true Independents and Citizens of the Universe will USE what is USEful to them. 😉

        1. HUGZ to you for taking it up with him!

          And I do agree that it is a nice resource for people who want to learn Scientology beyond reading a book or reading about it on a blog. It is very professional looking and I’ve no doubt that many of the people who will publish their contact information for training and auditing are really, really good people and in some cases more highly trained that people in the Church!

          1. Well, ya see? Steve was right – I guess it’s true that I’m taking responsibility for the perversion of Scientology, no matter who or what the source. 😉

            And I’m sure you are right about there being “really, really good people and in some cases more highly trained than people in the Church!” Actually, I loved all you said and your willingness to give credit where credit is due in spite of the disagreements you have.

            Hugs back, Marianne! 🙂

  5. I agree and farther more, I think that in many instances Scientology contradicts itself when they preach that we should not label anyone but when you call your members or non-members a “clear”, “pre-clear”, antisocial, etc, basically they are labeling and at the same time they ask you to grant beingness and not to invalidate or evaluate. A great many Scientologists do just that and that’s why many members are leaving the “Church” or asking for reforms to actually follow the way Mr. Hubbard intended it to be. Scientology I believe, has lost its ways, is not about helping people anymore, it’s about gaining more and more member$hip. Scientology is one of the organizations that labels to the max! The fact is that labeling must be done but in a responsible way, if a person suffers from hyperactivity, well he/she is a heperactive, why call him/her something else, why pretend that what we see is not real?

    1. “The fact is that labeling must be done but in a responsible way,”

      The above sentence makes sense. The simple use of language to assign a word to some object or concept is the basic idea of labeling – but the word “label” has taken on a negative connotation due to the intolerant type of labeling that has occurred in Scientology (and elsewhere, for that matter).

      The suffix “-ist” denotes the following:
      “a person who practices, is expert in, or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.” (Random House Webster’s)

      The above includes the simple meaning of “practices”, which seems to me is synonymous with “uses”. Unfortunately, the meaning of “Scientologist” has for so many years been used to mean someone who practices what the CoS practices. It’s no wonder that people don’t want the label!

      In time the word should take on a more basic meaning. For now, a differentiation is made by saying “Independent Scientologist” – not meaning some arbitrary definition given to it by whomever, just what the words themselves imply: independent from the “official” Scn of the CoS.

      1. Shouldn’t independent be independent, period? i.e. not dependent in any way or affiliated with any group? Really, the iScientology people should call themselves Protestant Scientologists if they are so bound and determined to have a catchy label for propaganda and PR. Independent Scientologist is such an oxymoron if it means subscribing to the set of beliefs on the iScientology site.

        1. I don’t think we have to take that site all that seriously and grant it that much power or importance. Just because they give their own definition of “Independent Scientologist” doesn’t mean that it now becomes THE definition.

          And neither do I think the term “Independent Scientologist” isn’t useful in some contexts. For me, it’s just a way to communicate that I (or anybody else) practice/use Scientology but am not affiliated with the CoS. And I have no reason to not want to communicate that. Any reaction I get from people because of the bad name of so-called Scientology, I will handle (and already have been doing so) with the simple R-factor that the CoS has drifted widely from the actual philosophy and tech and that I don’t practice what they do.

          In any case, this website will probably be of great value as a central and practical resource for Independent Scientologists, including of course those who don’t go along with the so-called requirements given on the site.

          IMHO, there will probably be many versions of “Scientology” but the ones that will keep it alive and in fact put it into the future as a growing movement are those that most closely follow the core philosophic principles – and do so even as regards research to improve or advance the technology. Any improvement or extension wouldn’t be “squirreling” if it’s based on a full grasp of what Scientology truly is.

          1. But I will add to my statement that you have good points that we are witnessing a Scientology propaganda war. And in propaganda and PR, the label is EVERYTHING. It becomes what something stands for or against, as the case may be. The site is very carefully and skillfully crafted, and is a work of PR genius. Unfortunately it does inextricably link the new movement to the war against corporate Scientology. Perhaps it will go the way of the Protestant movement, which no longer defines itself in terms of the Catholic Church but it parallels a precedent that continues in the Christian Churches to this day and has been a source of violent and derogatory dispute and intolerance for centuries. Honestly I can’t imagine how to get around it, it seems that groups tend to act in these ways no matter how carefully conceived. My solution has become to take a tremendously expanded “beingness” or “identity” if you will, one that encompasses all and excludes none — for now being a citizen of universe serves really well as my first and primary allegiance while being a denizen!

        2. I am having a hard time with this “Independent” label because its definition sounds more to me like “Breaking away from the original source” which is not necessarily bad but is not necessarily good either! I would rather use the label of “Reform”. I would like to share some definitions of the these two words, independent and reform, I hope we are not talking semantics!
          Definition of Independent:
          1: not dependent: as
          a (1): not subject to control by others : self-governing (2): not affiliated with a larger controlling unit
          b (1): not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent (2): not looking to others for one’s opinions or for guidance in conduct (3): not bound by or committed to a political party
          c (1): not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) (2): being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living
          d: showing a desire for freedom
          e (1): not determined by or capable of being deduced or derived from or expressed in terms of members (as axioms or equations) of the set under consideration; especially: having linear independence (2): having the property that the joint probability (as of events or samples) or the joint probability density function (as of random variables) equals the product of the probabilities or probability density functions of separate occurrence
          Definition of REFORM
          transitive verb
          1a: to put or change into an improved form or condition
          b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses
          2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
          3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
          4a: to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking
          b: to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking
          Having Fun!

          1. We’re talking semantics.

            No, just kidding! Actually, I think by giving these definitions you’ve pointed out the key issue on the thread. According to those definitions, the overall concept of “reform” has to do with improving or changing something; whereas, “independent” mainly indicates being under one’s own control, determining one’s own opinions and conduct.

            I don’t believe that Independent Scientologists in general are attempting to improve or CHANGE (i.e. reform) the corrupted version of Scientology that exists in the CoS. That’s not the angle they’re coming from.

            Rather, they want to practice the original philosophy and NOT CHANGE its principles in any way. The label of “Independent” simply indicates no affiliation with the CoS (which has made changes), and by “Scientology” is meant the philosophy itself.

            (Those were good, thorough definitions – you must have a good dictionary, or a good online source. And yes, having fun! ARC! :))

            1. I totally get what your saying! Thank you for clearing that up for me! How high do you think is the likelyhood that recent editions of LRH mateirals have been corrupted as well? What I mean by this is – printed materials been altered to fit the needs of the CoS, etc, etc.

            2. I’ve been keeping my eyes open for the answer to that very question. The only thing I’ve come across so far (on Marty’s blog, I think) was that the definition of 2nd dynamic was changed from what it had been in the previous Ethics book editions. But the change was simply to add “creativity” to the definition and I happen to remember that particular change was added to the definition on the LOC course materials. Not only that but in SOS, on the Chart of Human Evaluation, at the then highest level of 4.0, it states “Sexual interest high but often sublimated to creative thought.” So I didn’t think it was a change worth complaining about.

              And I can’t believe we wouldn’t have heard or read plenty of complaints about basic book changes if there were any (or many), or if there were any significant ones. On the other hand, I have heard of severalinstances of lecture changes, with the implication that they indeed were significant (can’t remember the details now, though)..

              In any case, I haven’t made a comprehensive study of this, that’s for sure. Just giving you the data I do have and my speculations. Maybe someone else knows something more….

            3. Marildi, there have been numerous instances posted on various sites of changes to the books, but I don’t think anyone has gone through and done a thorough comparison of the various editions.

              Most recently an old-timer named Alex Castillo posted this comment on Marty’s blog. It’s long so I won’t copy it here, but here’s the link:

              One of the most egregiously changed books is “A New Slant On Life”, with many chapters/essays deleted completely, others re-written, wordings changed, etc. Some books have been “deleted” completely from publication, like “Notes on the Lectures”.

              The “Intro to Scientology Ethics” book has been altered a lot. Alex’s comment goes into some of this.

              It will probably take years to track down and sort out all the alterations that DM has done. And I haven’t even mentioned the Checksheets…….. those are probably among the most altered of all the materials.

            4. Sorry Val. I seem to be on a kick of getting my posts in the wrong place. See my reply at: 2012-10-23 at 01:29

        3. Tsk tsk tsk – she added, “…if it means subscribing to the set of beliefs on the iScientology site.”

          (Hi, Chris. You just can’t shake me, can you. :D)

        4. “Independent Scientologist is such an oxymoron if it means subscribing to the set of beliefs on the iScientology site.”

          I don’t think they have any swearing in ceremony, with drinking of blood and eternal damnation if you fail to memorize the rules etc. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The site is Steve Hall’s personal creation and perhaps what he would like to think is his own political platform. It reflects how he feels . It’s not binding on anyone. And even he may change his mind about it in the future. There are no membership cards to carry, no membership dues, and no secret handshake or salute. Anyone who calls himself and “independent scientologist” pretty much defines for himself what that is.

          1. I was once accused of making a mountain out of a molehill when I expressed disagreement in the Church of Scientology many years ago. In fact, I was discouraged from voicing my concerns. In retrospect, I should have made a mountain out of that molehill I saw. Would it have made any difference? I don’t really know.

            But here I am now, and it seems to me that while molehills can’t be mountains, they sure can undermine and wreak havoc anyway. Sadly, they are sometimes ignored, at least until the ground caves in below one’s feet.

            I’ve said my piece and participated in this discussion as best I can with what I now know — perhaps you think it is irrelevant or silly or whatever, but I think it does matter, at least enough to say something and raise a hand in caution. For all I know, its just a silly notion but at least I have brought some attention to it. It was kind of Geir to post the info I sent him, I appreciate that and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that ensued.

            1. Really appreciate your viewpoint and glad Gier printed it for those of us with similar views. Thanks again.

            2. Thanks for the reply, Marianne. I posted my take on the phrase “Independent Scientology”, that’s all. As a matter of fact, there are all kinds of nuances and distinctions that could be made. For example, the difference between using “Independent Scientology” (capitalized) and “independent scientology” (lower case). I firmly believe that each person will have his/her own different understanding of what it means. That’s just how people are.

              My point is, I can call myself whatever I please, and so can you. Or not call myself anything at all. “the map is not the territory”, that’s the bottom line. Language is a via.

              One can view the forest, and one can view individual trees. One can get down and look at a molehill from such an angle that it looks like a mountain. Or get so close to a tree that the bark looks like a bunch of hills and valleys. Or back way off and see a forest. It’s all in the perspective.

              And when someone is invalidating you, as they do in the CoS, the best thing to do is to disagree. Which I hope you have done.

            3. Hi, Val. Actually, what MadHatter was asking about was the “recent editions” of LRH materials, which was what I was referring to in my reply, and mainly I had in mind the basic books. That link for Alex Castillo’s post had a lot of interesting data but it had nothing about recent editions. For example, all the changes to “A New Slant on Life” that he listed out were with regard to a 1988 edition – and even the CoS/DM states that earlier editions of books had a lot of alterations. But of course that tells us nothing about the latest editions. Those are the ones I’ve seen next to nothing about as regards alterations to them and, as I say, I would imagine people would rightfully be in an uproar about it if there were a lot of them – or even any, since they ARE the basic books.

              Also, I agree with what you say on some of your posts, that it would be a colossal undertaking to sort it all out. However, doing such a task would fall in the category of “organization” and the principles to do with “cope and organize”, coping while organizing, would apply – i.e. cope and apply the tech while organizing for even greater production in both the short and longer run. In fact, that’s what is basically going on in the Independent field, not only as regards the materials sort-out but getting the show on the road in general – “cope and organize” seems to be the op basis. And I would say things are lookin’ up. 🙂

            4. Yes, it does matter.

              Perhaps this comment gives some perspective on what Steve was thinking as he put that website together.


              i do think it matters that you brought attention to the political element involved in calling it “the Independent Scientology MOVEMENT”.

              I was 20 years old in 1965. There were various “movements” afoot. The Free Speech Movement, the Anti-war movement, etc. One did not need to actually be a card-carrying member to be supportive. I did not let myself be drafted into the Army. So I was in fact part of a “movement” although I never joined any organization, or talked about being a member of any.
              We knew who we were.

              “Movements” always have a doctrinaire element. A “movement” needs a platform. How else will the public know what they stand for, and against? How will the media know, to inform the public? Descriptive labels are not in themselves oppressive. They are just name-tags. Tools. It is how they are used that matters. Hopefully that is what you meant.

              There is a movement of people away from the fascism of the CoS.A movement towards “independence”. You certainly seem to me to be a part of that, whether you formally or publicly affiliate yourself with any related group or not.

              Each of us is “An Army of One”, as those American TV ads used to say. We’re talking about individual integrity, and you seem to have that.

            5. I guess I’m old, because to me anything published after 1986 are “recent editions”. MadHatter did not specify the “latest” editions, released as :The Basics”, but the ones I have looked at are altered as much or more than those published in 1988 or 1998. They are altered because the CoS had already lost the copyrights to them. Thus, “The Basics” are based on the books published and copyrighted after LRH’s death, so the CoS could maintain their copyrights. And maybe for other reasons.

              My impression from looking at some of them is that some are changed even more than the previous editions had been.. The “Intro to Scientology Ethics” Basics edition now weighs in at nearly 500 pages, and seems to have a lot of filler in it. Nothing is credited, and someof thefiller seems to be “explanation” and “interpretation” of other parts, in other words, it’s just plain “evaluation for the reader”. This is the trend which started with the little Div 6 “public” Life Improvement courses and booklets. I seem to recall the original ScnEthics, published in the 1970s was way less than 100 pages. Gotta find my copy and take a look…..

              So, without comparing every single one with the original publication, I would venture to bet every one of the most recent editions are altered from the original edition of the same or similar name.

              So I think every alteration Alex pointed to does apply to the Basics, and maybe more so. Some seem to be more true to the originals, than others, from what I’ve seen. Unfortunately, without reading them, one won’t know if any text has been changed.

            6. You’re right – it’s not even a matter of whether the latest editions of basic books were altered from the previous editions as those too may have been altered. It’s just a good thing we have the original editions still around.

              I remember the first Ethics book I had, which was ultra thin. It’s several times larger now but I’ll tell you – I like all those additions! Interesting stuff from tapes or other books, etc. And actually each scale or code or whatever does give the reference source. Nor have I seen any “filler” type of thing. It may in fact be the case that a creditable job was done on these latest basic books even though DM no doubt would have had ulterior motives for doing so, based on all his other actions which don’t reflect any interest in preserving Scn.

              I read that whole post of Alex’s (long!) and to be honest I thought he was making some mountains out of molehills (to use the expression of the day ;)). Very possibly, or even likely, there have been deliberate perversions of materials but I imagine many of the changes were valid. I worked as a “proofreader” for the editions of books that came out around 1990, and what we did was to check the then current editions against either a copy of the original LRH handwritten manuscript or the dictatation transcript. And there were some editorial changes made too, such as with grammar, which was based on LRH advices that this should be done (as is usual with writers). There was definitely an effort to get it right although those editions were later said to be overt products. I still say it’s not an simple thing to unscramble, which is why I also say that cope and organize has to be the op basis.

            7. Marildi, just briefly: you may like the Basics edition of the “Intro to Scn Ethics” book, but look at who you are.

              It’s supposed to be an INTRODUCTION to Scientology Ethics, comprehensible to a new person. And that, It Is NOT. It is not a “freshman level” book. It’s more like a 3rd-year level book for someone who is Majoring in Ethics. It’s a complete turn-off, for anyone who wants a simple “Introduction” to the subject. As an “INTRO”, it’s overwhelming. As in suppressive.

              That’s my take, it may not be true that it is intentionally designed to be that way, but as LRH said, “The result IS the intention.” It’s about 500 pages. Granted, about 80 of those pages are Glossary, but to a beginner, I think it’s an overwhelming book that will not be read and understood.

            8. Oh, brother – I see now that you were saying “Ethics book” and then I repeated that but I was thinking “Scn 0-8”. That one has also expanded several times over – and that’s the one with all the additional scales and codes, etc. that I like a lot (all with references notations, as I said). But I see what you mean about the Ethics book, not exactly an “introduction” to ethics. It’s now more of a reference book on all the basics but elaborating on them, and really good as such, IMO. Maybe if they had changed the title to “Scientology Ethics” it would have been okay. Then again, I suppose anything other than an introduction might not have been what LRH intended. This brings up the quandary of whether anybody else can ever have an idea or do anything on their own creativity. Know what I mean? It’s debatable.

              But I definitely agree about the lack of giving the references for everything – not good! I’ve noticed that’s happening with LRH articles and excerpts in promo too, a lot.

            9. OK Marildi. I have no problem with the 0-8 book, that I know of. Especially if the time element isn’t dropped out, like having all the various evolving versions of the various scales is cool.

            10. Right, Val, evolving scales and many additional scales and charts taken from various books, lecture transcripts and issues of all types. All of them now in one place. There’ve been several times that I’ve looked in the index to see if there was a scale on a certain subject and usually there was.

              I’ve actually been thoroughly enjoying all the new editions of basic books. Havingness! Even with stuff you’ve read before, some of it more than once, it’s always amazing to read it again. You come to it differently, and it hits you differently. Can you tell I’ve been on book lines? LOL. But I always believed in what I was saying, from my own reading. Some people ridge on me quoting from the materials, but I think LRH said it at least as well as I can. 😉

  6. I share Marianne’s epiphany regarding what I do vs. who I am, and also her gratitude for the hard work, friendly atmosphere, and tolerance that Geir has shown and shared with his blogging.

    I don’t necessarily share her optimism toward Scientology, but I do share her desire to see the subject shared and used freely without the fascism with which it has become synonomous. In my view it is not important whether Scientology makes it<, it only important whether people make it. I like to think that Scientology can contribute to that, not as an authority but as a self-help subject that can help as other knowledge has helped us to look at ourselves freshly and with renewed confidence that through our own efforts we can obtain a better understanding of who we really are.

    1. Chris… well said… ” In my view it is not important whether Scientology makes it<, it only important whether people make"" how true.. scientology tech is useless if not used as it meant to be..

  7. Well maybe Optimism is another “label”! Just kidding! Unfortunately in Scientology Labeling has becoming to mean the same as “Invalidate” and I know this because I have heard many Scientologists refer to other people by labeling them in a demeaning manner. As I said in an earlier coment, labeling must be done in a responsible manner with the intention of finding out more about what we are labeling to be able to confront it.

  8. Great conversation here!

    Regarding labels: Labels, are basically names for things. They are short hand descriptions, allowing some quick reference points when communicating. They are usually pretty useful.
    Most people, however, really object to being “labelled”. I believe that this is because people are interesting, complex individuals and one label is rarely a complete description, or even very accurate.

    And when scientology wants to punish you, do they torture, imprison, or execute you, as is done in other totalitarian states? No, they LABEL YOU an SP!

    1. Hi, John Doe. You don’t comment often but I remember that you’ve made some pretty good posts. (How could I forget such a catchy, unique name? :D)

      The above post is good too. But actually, “Scientology” (the way you are using the word) does torture, imprison and maybe even executes. Chilling as that is.

      But notice in my sentence that I put Scientology in quotes since I don’t agree that the CoS is Scientology in its true sense. Your particular use of the word has become one of the meanings, I do realize, but I think it would be better if people said “the CoS” tortures…, etc.

      Well said on the point of labels being “quick reference points when communicating”. And I get what you mean about PEOPLE objecting to being labeled. However, with some labels and in some contexts the use of labels is perfectly valid and the most applicable way to communicate something. For example, I have no problem calling myself a Scientologist. Why would I since I agree with the basic principles and use them in life? It doesn’t mean that’s all I am. I’m lots of other things too that each can be (and are) summed up in a single label – mother, copyeditor, American, etc. I don’t ridge on being “labeled” any of those either.

      And I don’t ridge on being associated with the word Scientologist just because there’s another usage that is derogatory. It happens to be the correct description. As needed, I simply let others know that when I say I’m a Scientologist I mean an Independent Scientologist and that I’m not involved with the CoS or the form of so-called Scn that is used by that organization.

      Glad you joined the conversation. 🙂

    2. Wow John Doe, I just read your comment and I must say IMO, it is loaded, “simply” because being label a SP means mental torture and imprisoment for those who are not able to confront! I totally get what you’re saying – SPs will call those who oppose them SPs!

  9. As a general comment here; I believe it is a red herring, an unnecessary side-tracking to oppose the CoS in any way. The church will take care of its own demise. What independent scientologists should do, IMO, is to focus solely on helping those that reach out for help. Opposition creates opposition creates friction and drains energy that is better spent elsewhere.

    1. As a general comment, Ii agree 100%. I think the question is, is publicly exposing various facts and experiences one had in the CoS, “opposing”?

      Should people who leave the CoS just not talk about it, because that might be viewed as “opposing”? Should they not publicly decompress? And in the process, expose what is happening and what has happened?

      In general, I see that many of the most vocal “opponents” of the CoS are people who have had no direct experience or really know little of the CoS – like Anonymous, commenters on various blogs, etc.

      I am wondering who you have in mind, that “oppose” the CoS?

      I have in mind the 1960s and early 1970s, when “opposing” the Vietnam war and the military draft in the USA, actually brought about the end of the war, and more importantly, the end of the military draft in the USA.

      Gandhi, did he “oppose” the British in India?

      1. IMO one can tell one’s story and move on. I get asked by journalits now and then to speak my mind. And I do – because it takes next to no effort to give the journalist what he wants. But to spend large amounts of time and resources or go on a crusade is IMHO a waste.

        1. I think that’s fine. I also think it’s fine for folks who want to set up safehouses and an “underground railroad” for those newly leaving the CoS to do so. Or to create or contribute to, a legal fund to help someone being attacked by the CoS.

          There were many in the 1960s and 1970s who had solved the problem of whether or not they would be drafted, by finding a way out, who could have said “the heck with others facing that fate” and “moved on”, instead of setting up Draft Counselling centers and organizing antiwar and antidraft events. “Why bother to help others, now that I’m safe?”

          If everyone had done that, the war would have dragged on and on, and the draft, and young people would to this day be drafted to die in the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc etc.

          There is an old principle in some of the Eastern teachings, that you can only ascend so far, without bringing others up the ladder behind you. No-one mentioned it, there in Haridwar?

          1. Valkov, you make very valid points and I agree with them. Crusades helped many people and thank god people do stand up and be counted for truth, deliverance and helping others by varying means.

          2. I believe in positive ripple effects and out-creating the bad rather than lowering oneself to the level of conflict. That’s all.

            What happened with “As a general comment, Ii agree 100%.”?

            1. It’s exceptions that prove the general rule? The people who are most active in exposing the CoS are mainly the ones who were in it the longest and were the most active. They have much to atone for. Many express this on Marty’s blog. They sometimes feel like fools for having gone along with the corruption, even though it really did sneak upon them in covert ways. Or was snuck onto them. They nonetheless feel responsible. So for those, it is a matter of justice. They will eventually move on, when it is their time to move on. Each person has to decide for himself/herself, when that time comes. They have their own conditions to work through, that’s all. That’s why your “prescription” of moving on doesn’t work for everyone equally at this moment in time, but in the long run, generally, it is right and is what will happen.

              Your post can also be read as saying that one can act out of reason, without necessarily being prompted to act by the negative emotions of hatred, opposition, antagonism, vengeance. Even destruction can be a rational act, as when one puts down a mad dog, ending it’s life.One does not have to feel hatred for the dog, one might feel pity or compassion, but one must put it down to protect other lives, if there is no cure.

              So one can “oppose” based onreason, or “oppose” based on partisan emotion which may not be the best course.

            2. Valkow – so basically what your saying is that all this comes down to a full Ethics Cycle on behalf of those who left COS and now are IS and as you put it – they now need atonement for being part of that correction! This is very interesting! So the questions are – What were their motivators when they were part of COS and What are their motivators now as IS? and Who is going to make sure those in COS to a full Ethics Cycle?

    2. Great comment, Geir. I’ve been thinking about it and I see the high truth to it for those who are at that level of truth. And I got that it was said without any rancor on your part.

      It also blew some charge for me personally as I felt you had recently “cut the comm line”, at least on certain subjects, and weren’t even going to answer direct questions put to you. So anyway, I just wanted to communicate that since I always felt you were someone who could receive a communication. You probably remember me saying that way back. 🙂

        1. It’s a high viewpoint, IMO, and I tend to agree that it’s the most “workable”. But I suppose I would have to look at it the same way I did the viewpoint – i.e. it still comes down to a personal choice and that means what the individual sees for himself is the ethical thing to do, or what each person thinks is worth the “drain of energy”, or what their purposes are. Or we could simply say it’s a matter of viewpoint and, as you summed it up in the “On Will” article, a matter of considerations.

          I know that’s all you’re saying too – just expressing that for you it isn’t worth it and won’t yield the best results, and you’re putting it out there for others to consider. I think that’s a good thing to do because I think all of us have come a long way. Or at least we’re getting there. 😉

        2. Looks to me like you have done your scientology “bit”, more than a bit to be sure!. You created a wonderful blog, actually two, which helped so many people with scientology interests, including myself.
          My husband and I left it behind for years and with our talents helped many people in other ways and didn’t look back nor worry about it.
          Since he left I have handled my own personal incomplete cycle. When I feel my responsibilities are over I will move on… However, I will always educate others of the dangers in scientology. Yes, they will destroy themselves and a lot of credit goes to the ex’s exposures.
          So actually I’m applauding you for all your interest and work and look forward to your expansion to other areas. Know you are looked to as a leader with altitude.
          Everyone is on a path, just on a different brick. 🙂

          1. I agree. I think you, Geir, have done a lot, more than most who have left, to publicly “oppose” the CoS, by your Forum which Clare now runs, your blogs, and speaking out in various ways and publishing for the record your own thoughts on the CoS, the philosophy etc.

            Certainly no-one can expect you to do more than what you are doing and the things you have already done.

    3. @Geir, I know, it’s like we never learned what a goals-problems-mass was. The more vociferous independent Scientologists seem to be cut from the same cloth as COS Scientologists. Possibly there are less vocal Scientologists who just go about their business using what they know and like about Scientology without fanfare. On the other hand, KSW doesn’t leave any middle ground to occupy. This whole argument with COS has receded so far into my rear view mirror that I pretty much forget to be riled up about it anymore. On the other hand, I’ve kept an old telephone number that my oldest daughter’s mother knows and maintain an undisguised presence on the internet so that in the event that she ever needs or wants my help to leave the SO, I will be easy to find.

      1. I agree that there is no need for a full head-on conflict with COS but it is also important to keep certain pressure on them to perhaps open the eyes of people within COS who will speak up to oppose DM misdeeds and so they can start applying Scientology the way LRH meant it to be applied. Staying quiet as if nothing is going on falls within the boundaries of being as suppressive as some of them are.

        1. MH,

          If I remember correctly, Marty did not start the fight with DM. It was DM who wouldn’t let Marty alone after Marty blew. It is DM who to this day hounds Marty with PIs, surveillance cameras, and “OT minus VIII” Squirrel Buster morons harassing him and his wife in their little town. And DM is doing this to others who have blown from under his thumb. A lot of the demented harassment is documented on his blog, whether of himself, Daniel Montalvo, the Headleys, Mike Rinder, Brousseau and many others.

          I daresay those folks all just wanted to be left alone to live their lives, but DM came after them all. So even though they did not start the fight eventually they decided the only way it would end, is when they finished it.

          1. I totally get that and I think it is impotant for them to match his tone! And I am glad you said this for everyone’s to know, this way we all know who started the confrontation as such. I just would like to be sure that those who have moved away from COS are not perceived as the ones inciting any conflicts but rather as the ones whose intentions are to preserve LRH’s Tech the way he intended it to be and to this effect I farther think IS should keep enough pressure on COS to make sure they don’t hurt others via the alteration of LRH’s Tech.

          2. The same could be said of the Church of Scientology. It did not start the fight with the vested interests and government agencies that hounded it starting in the early 1960s, But LRH was certainly vocal and his writings are full of fighting words and scorching criticism.

            This is the same path that the Church went down, that ended up with a militant organization devoted to fighting enemies on so many fronts that the very word Scientology has become anathema, inextricably linked with a taste for conflict, war and aggression.

            Meanwhile, the attention gets focused on fighting the good fight and now we see that there are very few active auditors in the world, and even fewer being made in the Church.

            1. If, If If….. If less attention would be put on politics-policies of the church, if more devotion would have been put on the spiritual aspects what the Tech originally was meant for: to use it and not just talking around it: than by now the politics would be as-ised… and people would be posting their successes not their discontent.
              talk is cheap…dont get results

            2. Eliz, You are right IF. The church strictly relies on policies and can’t change them as the world turns, shame. Through finding the faults or what’s wrong, enabled me to differentiate the good from the bad stuff. That has been a success for me! Too bad the cof$ can’t do that. However, some ex’s are trying to continue the good by offering it. Good for them and those that want or need it.

            3. “The same could be said of the Church of Scientology.”

              However, Marianne, similarities are not identities. I think we need to put aside what happened in the past and just look at the face value of efforts to put a stop to the wrongdoings going on in the church. Seems to me it is like any other cause where individuals have picked what they think is worth fighting for. Or more basically put, people choose their own purposes and goals. And just because mistakes were made in the past, even huge mistakes, doesn’t mean we should never do anything “similar”. We have to think with all the data.

              I honestly find it hard to understand why people have a problem with anyone wanting to do something about what’s going on the the CoS – especially when those same people know very well the harm being done. Mind you, neither do I think they are necessarily obliged to join the fight themselves – especially if they would rather just get on with applying Scientology on one or more dynamics.

              I do happen to agree with you that it’s important to continue forwarding Scientology itself. But I haven’t seen that in general people aren’t doing so because of being focused on the CoS. If they do have both purposes, they’re probably working on both.

            4. That’s right Marildi. Similarities are not identities. But a pattern is a pattern, nonetheless. How do you break a pattern? You don’t repeat it. You find alternative methods of addressing that which the pattern perpetuates. To keep repeating an abusive pattern is a form of insanity in itself.

              The core purpose of Scientology is freeing and releasing beings. You don’t free and release beings by referring to them on a public blog as koolaid drinkers or bots or idiots and speaking of them with contempt and derision. This is too much A=A for my liking. By all means, seek to address abuses, but don’t do it by heaping on more abuse, That is perpetuation.

              Read the comments on Marty’s blog for Gawd’s sakes, read them with your eyes wide open and ask yourself if you would ever consider speaking so badly of someone who may very well have had nothing but a course-room experience or auditing, and knows NOTHING of what these highly aggressive individuals are up to now, or have been up to in the past – activities that have cost these people a fortune in donations for campaigns of aggression, excessive hourly auditing rates and their very reputations by association.

            5. Marianne, that seems a bit glib – I don’t see that a pattern is being repeated except in the very general way that one is fighting perceived enemies to oneself or one’s purposes. There are differences in the purposes and especially in the means to attain them. And the types of abuse of each are not at all comparable. So for me “a pattern is a pattern” doesn’t apply.

              You’re right that there’s contempt and derision by some of the posters on Marty’s blog, but I see comments from other posters very similar to what you’ve just said, opposing that kind of thing. I think it’s good that you and others are speaking out against it.

              As a matter of fact I’ve done it myself on his blog, way back – even telling those who were intolerant of what I had posted that they were being very much like the CoS! After a while of back and forth between me and them, a couple of OL’s who post there came to my defense and everyone got quiet. That’s the kind of I still see happening. (You shouldn’t have just assumed that I don’t read the comments with my eyes open. ;))

            6. No, Marildi. It is not glib. Consider the opening line of the latest post on Marty’s blog:
              “Please pass along to all Kool Aid drinkers you might still have on your email lists.”

              This is a very, very clear-cut pattern that can easily be discerned. Just because it is possible to see it in other groups or in society in general doesn’t make it any less a pattern.

              Put the squeeze on. Bring them to their senses. Push hard on them so they see they are suppressive? And recant? EXCUSE ME???

              It wasn’t good enough for the freezone to go and audit people. No. They are squirrels. It wasn’t good enough for individual auditors to audit. No. They must proclaim themselves publicly as against the Church and DM or they are stuck in doubt and can’t possibly make case gain. It wasn’t good enough for Ron’s Org to be doing well. No. They too are squirrels. It wasn’t good enough for Tory and Chuck to whistleblow. No. Their efforts were ineffective. And on and on and on it goes.

              Contempt. Derision. Disrespect. Using offensive labeling. Stereotypes.

              Is it not enough that these individuals have been lied to? Repeatedly. Is it not enough that that the ones who do know what the consequences are of leaving have to face the dissolution of their relationships and livelihoods? And what of those that don’t know this insider information, have only dealt with good hearted staff members, and are simply enjoying the same information that you so love? What of them? Koolaid drinkers. EXCUSE ME – what’s wrong with this picture?

              And here is one of the very people who worked for years perpetuating and spreading this pattern and deliberately deceiving these individuals FOR MANY YEARS turning right around and labeling them all (no matter what their circumstance is) as koolaid drinkers (people who take poison and commit suicide because their leader tells them to) because they do not know what is going on or who to trust or who to turn to?

              And BTW if you do not want to have comments such as “open your eyes” dished out to you, perhaps you should should refrain from making assumptions about similarities and identities and glibness.

            7. Marianne, I found a definition for “drink the kool-aid”:

              “To completely buy into an idea or system, whether good or bad. [Example:] Coach Bellichick got his players to drink the kool-aid.”

              Where Marty said in his post, “Please pass along to all Kool Aid drinkers you might still have on your email lists” he was referring to people still in the CoS. Do you not agree with the above definition as being applicable to them?

              I’ve already agreed with you about there being comments that are contemptuous and derisive, but, as I’ve said too, there are also posters whose viewpoints are like yours and mine, who post protests against such comments. Maybe I’m not getting the exact point you’re trying to make.

            8. Do you not agree with the above definition as being applicable to them?

              No. I don’t.

              For example, there is a vast difference between Sea Org Int staff who know about and perpetuate abuse, and actively hide it from the public and a person going in to a Mission staffed by friendly and helpful people to get their auditing. They are NOT the same breed of cat. How can one possibly apply the same standards and conditions to both? They are NOT both koolaid drinkers. The one doesn’t buy into at all. They know perfectly well that its a lie. The other has no idea that it is a lie because it is carefully hidden and given one hell of a spin, a spin that gains authenticity as it is passed down the chain of command to people who just plain well don’t think in terms of duping others. No. If they see something that is “off,” they pass it off as a bad patch, or a messed up staff member or perhaps peculiar to a particular locale. Does it even enter their reality that these seemingly trustworthy Int staff members would BALD FACE lie to them? Perpetuate the abuse? No. It doesn’t.

              Should that public person go online, they’ll encounter some of the WEIRDEST interpretations of the technology — example, the comm course is hypnosis you know. Anyone who did that course and got anything out of it is going to immediately dismiss the writer of the so-called “truth” about Scientology. I know. I did. I’ve read descriptions of Scientology technology that bear NO resemblance to my experience or knowledge. I read the so-called OT3 materials one day and almost fell out of chair laughing. That was the first time I’d heard that I was infested with aliens that I was getting rid of. I was supposed to believe that person? Or how about the scholarly treatises on Scientology being black magic, complete with Babylon working? I never saw such a thing. Did you?

              Oh and then I am supposed to go on Marty’s blog and read through thousands of insulting remarks about “people like me” and say wow. That’s me!! I’m a koolaid drinker! Oh that’s so good to know that this new Independent group has such a warm and friendly attitude, full of compassion, understanding and caring. (read as sarcasm) Nope. I’m supposed to ‘fess up and get on the bandwagon and berate those koolaid drinkers I left behind. Jeez Louise!

              So from Marty’s blog, the person is a koolaid drinker, from the Church of Scinetology, a PTS or SP, from other blogs, a TRUE BELIEVER, or a brain-dead Ron-bot, a squirrel, a wog, and so on. This is what we do to create a new civilization? Not bloody likely. It is rampant on the Scientology blogs. I haven’t seen it on Geir’s blogs. It is a habitual behavior pattern that does nothing but generate conflict and upset.

              The pattern is to use stereotyped labels to scorn, deride, shame, blame, defame, dehumanize, and CREATE a rallying point for and against. There’s the enemy. There’s the victims. There’s the good guys coming to “save” you. This practice is abusive. It is intolerant. It is a violation of human dignity and it is disrespectful of individuals. You are right, there have been individuals who have brought this up on Marty’s blog, all along. But this is a habitual behavior pattern and if the person who brings it up and decries it isn’t flamed, they may be half-heartedly acknowledged as being right — but there’s an immediate return to the pattern, even within a few comments.

              Marildi I know that you are aware of this pattern. You complain about it a LOT!! Don’t defend it, even for “the cause.” It destroys the very cause it supposedly forwards.

            9. Marianne, the thing you may not be differentiating is the use of labels that are assigned to people in order to twist the truth because of some ulterior motive, vs. using labels which actually describe a reality.

              As for the label “koolaid drinker”, it simple means someone who “buys into an idea or system, whether good or bad.” CoS Scientologists, no matter how much they know or don’t know about what’s really going on, or where they are positioned in the “hierarchy” of staff and public, are BUYing into all kinds of violations of LRH policy and tech – as well as violations of their own principles and integrity.

              The more naïve ones who don’t know the materials very well just take the word of the IAS reg’s as related to financial policy violations, or the word of their course supervisors regarding obvious violations of such things as the Technical Degrades PL, for example, which is read on every course. Student auditors accept the “correction” they get on F/N’s that don’t swing 3 times. And the list goes on and on.

              The staff or public who have been around longer may ask questions and get “handlings” in ethics – and those who are “handled” to accept the current misinterpretations and misapplications remain in the CoS because they biu the explanations and justifications they’re given. Those who don’t buy them are the ones who have left. At the upper levels of the organization, they’re buying DM’s version of management tech as well as everything else about Scientology in general that he decrees.

              No one said these people are the same breed of cat, but by definition if they are continuing to take part in the CoS, that in itself indicates they’re buying into what they’re being verbally told – rather than simply understanding what Scientology is as a result of their own study and use of it, and then remaining involved because they have found it to be truth and the tech to be workable.

            10. Thank you Marianne, took the words right out of my mouth…… 🙂 🙂

            11. Marildi, the definition you have chosen is NOT the definition being used on Marty’s blog. I repeat NOT. Here it is from the man himself. I just finished reading that blog and while I understand your effort to make this nicer than it is, it simply is NOT what is meant when they say koolaid drinker on Marty’s Blog.

              From Marty Rathbun’s Blog:

              martyrathbun09 | January 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Reply
              Larry, grow up and get into the 21st Century honey:
              Koolaid Drinker: People who believe anything they are told. people who refuse to change their minds when confronted with facts.
              a koolaid drinker is the liberal democrat who is liberal because they are told they should be. they have made no attempt to decide why they are liberal.
              often a koolaid “drinker” simply wants to hate anything a republican does good or bad. koolaid people are the vocal howard dean wing of the democrat party. the converse of rightwing loonies. koolaid drinkers are the ones that went first when jim jones said drink.
              – The Urban Dictionary


              Run a search on google using koolaid jim jones and you will see that I am not exaggerating or twisting anything I am talking about.

              Here’s some quotes from that search:

              Debbie Cook – Gathering Steam on Day 4 | Moving On Up a Little …
    …/debbie-cook-gathering-steam-on-day…4 Jan 2012 – Several of your posts use the term “Kool Aid Drinkers” in referring to … loonies. koolaid drinkers are the ones that went first when jim jones said …
              Miscavigetown on the anniversary of Jonestown | Moving On Up a …
    …/miscavigetown-on-the-anniversary-o…18 Nov 2010 – Jim Jones was “source” on koolaid. David Miscavige is carrying on the tradition. How come the FBI isn’t involved in this situation by now?
              The Nullification Of Scientology Inc. Management | Moving On Up a …
    …/the-nullification-of-scientology-inc-…9 Aug 2012 – The basis of the term “drinking the Kool-Aid” is a reference to the November 1978 Rev. Jim Jones Jonestown Massacre, where over 900 …
              David Miscavige is Basically Obsessed | Moving On Up a Little Higher
    …/david-miscavige-is-basically-obsesse…14 Nov 2011 – i submit the following for the remaining few Kool-Aid slurpee slurpers and lurkers. POB is the Jim Jones looking out for your eternal salvation.
              Grant Cardone – Turnaround or Turncoat King? | Moving On Up a …
    …/grant-cardone-turnaround-or-turncoa…20 Jun 2011 – Referring to parishioners as Koolaid-drinkers is alarming, and maybe calculated to be so. The mass suicide of Jim Jones’s followers is a 3rd …
              The Sorry State of Corporate Scientology | Moving On Up a Little …
    …/the-sorry-state-of-corporate-scientolo…5 Oct 2012 – Penny Atwell Jones Great refrence Ed for those that surf to look for the evil, ….. When deeply involved in Scientology, drinking the Koolaid and …
              David Miscavige – Paranoia and Cowardice | Moving On Up a Little …
    …/david-miscavige-paranoia-and-cowar…1 day ago – Please pass along to all Kool Aid drinkers you might still have on … Yeah, well if you think of Jim Jones on steroids then I suppose that’s right.
              Liberating Ain’t Easy | Moving On Up a Little Higher
     Jun 2012 – … of energy attempting to wake up Scientology Inc. Kool-Aid drinkers. … the human catastrophe, there are those that still believe in Jim Jones !
              Official Cult of the United States of America? | Moving On Up a Little …
    …/official-cult-of-the-united-states-of-a…27 Sep 2012 – Jim Logan | September 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Reply …… His parents are top shelf kool-aid drinkers, last I heard. …. reality entirely and provoke a kind of mass suicide like Jim Jones or mass murder like the Branch Davidians?

              You want to defend this? Why?

            12. Marianne, on one of the comments, Marty states: “The basis of the term “drinking the Kool-Aid” is a reference to the November 1978 Rev. Jim Jones Jonestown Massacre”. That’s simply the basis of the term and, as he said, what the term “is a reference to”.

              Other than that comment on the basis, which of those comments do not fit into the concept of the definition I quoted: “To completely buy into an idea or system, whether good or bad”? All of them do, from what I see.

              More importantly, I want to emphasize again that the use of labels has its place, and this involves differentiating between the use of false labels for ulterior purposes and the use of truthful labels for valid purposes. Would you agree and are you doing that?

            13. The term “Kool Aid drinkers” has Very clearly a Very negative slant 99% of the time it is used on Marty’s blog. I am sure you see that.

            14. Geir, of course it’s negative. Very much so. Marianne was objecting to it being used in reference to CoS Scientolgists – although it clearly applies to them. This is an example of how a “label” can be useful simply in terms of communicating an idea. That’s my point about labels – they aren’t always used in a harmful way. So to equate the Independents’ use of labels like this one with the kinds of labels the CoS uses seems to me to be a button, i.e. a reaction to it as a generality instead of being rational about it.

            15. I think it is important to clear up what “kool aid drinkers” means or is referring to – this derives from a mass suicide that occured back in the late 70’s in Guyana where near 900 drunk kool aid with cyanide and died. That been cleared up, basically when you tell someone you are a kool aid drinker, you are telling them you are killing your-self.

            16. My thoughts exactly MadHatter. It too easy to get into the gang bang of labels and that’s what it is.

            17. Marildi, do you really believe that the label applies to cof$ members? References to Jim Jones to me is far away from scientology or DMud. I don’t think the members would ever follow that path as it is extreme and labeling them such is unfair IMHO.

            18. deLizabethan, as I’ve tried to explain, although the term originated from the Jim Jones episode, the definition in common use today is simply “To completely buy into an idea or system, whether good or bad”. So yes, it does apply to most members today. Generally, those who are not “buying” but still haven’t left are members of the CoS in name only and haven’t left because they feel they have too much to lose by coming out in the open, with respect to relationships, business connections, etc.

            19. So in other words the drinkers comes down just to a slang with no meaning of Jones behind it?
              We could just say they are dumb shits or ass-oles, but kool aid drinkers are nicer words. Name calling none-the-less without any truth. Maybe we could come up with a nicer slang name?

            20. Look falks – the words “kool aid drinkers” refers to that incident that happened in Guyana (Jim Jones’ the people’s temple) where nearly 900 people drunk kool aid with cyanide and died, in other words, they committed mass suicide. so when you call someone a “kool aid drinker” you are basically telling them, you are committing suicide (killing your-self) plain and simple! When this term is used in reference to the members of CoS, it is being used methaphorically and not literally!

            21. Yes, Madhatter, I have understood it as metaphorical too. And so does the Wikipedia article on “Drinking the kool-aid”:

              “Drinking the Kool-Aid is a metaphor commonly used in the United States and Canada that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination…the phrase has been used in a variety of contexts to describe blind, uncritical acceptance or following. This usage began in limited circles in the late 1990s, and reached mainstream use in the late 2000s.”

            22. Wow, lot’s of research for the Kool-aid drinkers. Thanks, very informative. I’m happy for all of us who drink not!

            23. No Marildi. What are saying is that all C of S Scientologists are going to somehow know the insider SECRETS that Marty divulges. Somehow they are going to know that London Org is empty. Somehow they are going to know that DM drives a host of expensive automobiles. That he hires PIs and so on. And that they should have done their due diligence before joining. You know damned well that’s not how it works. How it works is they do a course and they like it and they have wins. They work and they have families and they don’t have time to spend hours reading Marty’s blog, watching TV and researching this group before they do a course. Then they bring friends and family with them because it is fun and it is fascinating and it does have a lot of truth in it. And the Mission staff members are friendly and kind. So are the Cl 4 staff members. And then they go to an event with amazing news and flashy presentations and dire enemies and they want to keep this nice group going.

              That is who the bulk of the public Scientologists in the C of S are. Good people.

              They can’t compare versions of the new materials to the old because the old were DESTROYED. They can’t talk to anyone about what happened to them, because they DISAPPEAR.

              This is not drinking koolaid out of laziness or stupidity or any such other derogatory reason. They are offered nothing else and have nothing else to compare to and no time or reason to look until they hit a bad bad situation. And then they do look and they distance and they try to leave and find out then and only then that there is no amicable parting possible. That’s the vast majority.

              There are koolaid drinkers who KNOW VERY WELL that things have gone wrong, have been altered and are not as they should be but not all C of S Scientologists are stupid sheeple. Lord I dislike this branding of an entire group of people with the same stamp.

              You need to read Marty’s blog more thoroughly. It is not just a a label to designate participation or listening to what one is told. It is down and dirty DEROGATORY, applied to anyone who doesn’t immediately walk away in protest and get on the “right side” of the war against the Church.

              You have challenged my reasoning throughout, inferring continually that I am not being rational. I provide you with quotations that are DEROGATORY and you agree they are DEROGATORY and still you come back with this seeming defense. It is clear that you want to defend this behavior one way or another. I’ve made my points, I’ve had my say, and I cannot see the point in belaboring this further with you.

            24. Marianne: “What [they] are saying is that all C of S Scientologists are going to somehow know the insider SECRETS that Marty divulges… And that they should have done their due diligence before joining…”

              Sorry, Marianne, but I believe that this last post especially, beginning with your first paragraph (partly quoted above) shows that you are the one who has misunderstood Marty’s blog – completely. What you claim they are saying on that blog is pretty much the opposite of what it is. To be specific, what “they are saying” is how insidious the mind control of the CoS is and how they themselves (Marty and many others) were caught up in it, for many years in most cases – not at how those still in should know all those things. Marty and others are in fact trying to give them some truths so that they WILL know more of those things.

              However, the fact that there are very understandable reasons why Scn’ists in the CoS are drinking the koolaid is actually beside the point of what is being attempted. Again – the key point is to shed light on the truth of what is going on so that those people who are still in the church will be able to see it. And Marty and the others are very well aware that some people do see what’s going on but are caught in very difficult positions to get out of. Thus, the effort is to encourage even those people to make the break by pointing out more than they already know and by posting the success stories of those who have freed themselves and found it was worth all the hassle to do so.

              I can see why you are up in arms with the understanding you have somehow gotten.

            25. Just have to do this again “Hear! Hear!
              You are spot on about the “good people” and it is so very true. Agree about the DEROGATORY’s on that blog. I got to where I just pass them up.
              I must add that this blog has become my most interesting one once again.

            26. Marildi, I was not going to respond, but I see that you have somehow gone from what I have been speaking of — which is a PARTICULAR behavior pattern which I saw on Marty’s blog to statement that I am condemning or attacking Marty’s blog and efforts in general. The fact is that I have not been addressing anything but that PARTICULAR behavior pattern on Marty’s blog. Not once have I condemned the entire effort or maligned the information in any way. Nor have I said anything to the effect that it is not important or valuable.

              It is a big leap to somehow conclude that I do not see any value in Marty’s blog because I do not see it as productive to use derogatory labels that are too sweeping. In fact, I think that the information (SECRETS) that Marty discloses is extremely valuable and important. But, may I point out that Les Warren and a number of other people were busy auditing and training people without a lot of fanfare and certainly without the need for labeling everyone else who didn’t see things their way or the right way or whatever long before Marty appeared on the scene and all without a lot of name calling and crusading. During the many years that Marty was busy being a koolaid drinker himself, Les was busy freeing beings.

              Most of the time Marty himself speaks derogatorily only of David Miscavige and his known foot soldiers or of individuals who could and should know better. Most of the time it is made very clear that anyone exiting can expect a warm welcome, the moment they cross the line from one camp to the other.

              Is there really a need for the derogatory labeling that is used? Is it really effective? I don’t think so. I think it is actually counter-productive. And so I speak out about it. I think what is effective is the revelation of the TRUTH itself. Case in point — Debbie Cook’s email has had tremendous traction on “koolaid” drinkers or people who have been duped. That email divulges truth without using degrading labels or attitudes towards the people whom she is addressing. The same is true of the site — Friends of Scientology. That’s what is effective. The truth. Consider the impact of Geir Isene’s declaration — and then read that declaration. It is powerful without all the name calling and derogatory slurs. His blogs are powerful and wonderfully free of this behavior pattern. I notice that it is your blog of choice. I don’t see you posting rah rah down with the koolaid drinkers etc. on Marty’s blog. I see you here trying to get a balanced and thoughtful review of Scientology being done.

              Please consider what you have said on this thread to me — I have spoken of a particular abusive behavior pattern. You have attempted to explain it away but telling me I have an MU, a misapprehension and an irrational response, and you have then gone on to assume and establish that I have dismissed the value of the entirety of Marty’s efforts. Re-read what I wrote and pay particular attention to the points I bring up.

              What is fascinating here is that early on, Chris assumed that I was optimistic, saying — I don’t share your optimism until I asked — what optimism? He had the grace to take note that he had jumped to a conclusion. Valkov suggested I go on witch hunts. Now you appear to have assumed the opposite of me, taking a stance that I am somehow against??

            27. Marianne, as just one example of where I got the distinct idea that your criticism included Marty (in fact, I don’t think you named anyone else), you wrote:

              “Consider the opening line of the latest post on Marty’s blog: ‘Please pass along to all Kool Aid drinkers you might still have on your email lists.’

              And you followed that with “This is a very, very clear-cut pattern that can easily be discerned.”

              In your post just above, you now say that the information Marty discloses is “extremely valuable and important” – but immediately following that validation you undermine it by contrasting him to other people who were active “long before Marty appeared on the scene and all without a lot of name calling and crusading. During the many years that Marty was busy being a koolaid drinker himself…”

              Maybe you can see from just what I’ve written above why your posts, while being very righteous sounding, have come across to me as specious and confusing. Your message has been mixed, to say the least.

            28. I think Marianne stands firmly in the clear on this one. Her logic is impeccable and she has been consistent throughout. I think you have dubbed in something other than she has written, leading to straw men on your part.

            29. Geir, the post I just made shows obvious inconsistency. Did you read it?

            30. Yes. I don’t see any inconsistency. I understand that you believe there is one in there, but I think you are mistaken.

            31. @Geir. Okay, I will read over her posts again. But what about the second post I wrote today, regarding the use of the label “koolaid drinkers”? Do you see my point there?

            32. I did read it. I think you are on thin ice and the ice is breaking. If I was you I would applaud Marianne for being right.

            33. Geir, I won’t have a problem saying she is right if she is able to give specifics that do show a general (i.e. not just one or two exceptions) abuse of the term “koolaid drinkers”.

            34. Marildi, what Marianne has said is as plain and smooth as sweet butter and what sweeter than the truth eh?

            35. Marianne, the other major thing I noticed is that although you refer to a “behavior pattern” with respect to labels in general, you have only specified the use of one particular label – koolaid drinkers – and even posted a string of quotes from commenters on Marty’s blog where that term was used. I read all of them and asked you if any of those comments didn’t actually fit the definition (I myself didn’t see that they did) – but you never answered the question. It seems you don’t disagree that they all do fit it.

              More to the point, however, is that you say this label is used “derogatorily” as if saying that is enough to show its use is hateful – when in fact the use of it is meant to be derogatory in order to communicate a gross outpoint that exists. It’s just a word that, like other words, applies to a certain isness.

              Even more to the point is that you haven’t given any specific examples that show the context for when it was used incorrectly or unfairly – in spite of my pointing out that it is primarily used for CoS Scientologists and that it accurately describes them. And just so you don’t now mush this in with other issues, I’ll note here again that I have agreed with you more than once that derogatory comments have certainly been made and that I too have protested many of those, but that is with regard to the ones that are incorrect, inapplicable, unfair or unnecessary. It may be that the term “koolaid drinkers” has been used in those ways, but you haven’t given any specifics to back that up. I would have been interested in those and likely would have agreed with you.

            36. @Marianne. p.s. Where I said “I read all of them and asked you if any of those comments didn’t actually fit the definition (I myself didn’t see that they did),,,” I meant to say that I myself DID think that they fit the definition.

            37. Marildi:

              I did post specific quotations. You even mention them in your post to me saying, “you have only specified the use of one particular label – koolaid drinkers – and even posted a string of quotes from commenters on Marty’s blog where that term was used.”

              You said you read them. They are clearly derogatory. I don’t think I am hallucinating, and I see that Geir confirmed that they are clearly derogatory too.

              Then you say: “I read all of them and asked you if any of those comments didn’t actually fit the definition (I myself didn’t see that they did) – but you never answered the question.”

              My answer: You offered a definition that is incomplete and sweeping as if it covers the full range of the meaning and use of this term. There isn’t a yes/no answer possible.

              Then you say: “It’s just a word that, like other words, applies to a certain isness.”

              My answer: No it isn’t. It is a sweeping label of other people, lumping them all into a stereotype, a stereotype inextricably linked with the suicide of 900 people under the orders of their cult leader, no matter what other definitions have now been framed.

              You say, “Even more to the point is that you haven’t given any specific examples that show the context for when it was used incorrectly or unfairly – in spite of my pointing out that it is primarily used for CoS Scientologists and that it accurately describes them. ”

              My answer: I completely disagree that it accurately describes CofS Scientologists and I wrote a great deal specifically explaining why I disagree. You have not responded to any of that.

              You say, “And just so you don’t now mush this in with other issues, I’ll note here again…”

              My answer: EXCUSE ME? I have been repeating the same information over and over again with a variation of wording but the same message. You have introduced a definition that serves your argument and choose to ignore the full definition and the specific quotations I gave showing its derogatory use. You have also introduced an inference that I am not rational, I am not specific and with this post the inference that I do not address your posts but instead mush in other issues. You want explanation, but you see the explanations as mushing issues?

              You continue, “that I have agreed with you more than once that derogatory comments have certainly been made and that I too have protested many of those, but that is with regard to the ones that are incorrect, inapplicable, unfair or unnecessary. It may be that the term “koolaid drinkers” has been used in those ways, but you haven’t given any specifics to back that up. ”

              My answer: “This is not true. I gave you at least 11 specific instances and a way to look them up for yourself. Go and look them up. I am not going to go and cull that blog on your behalf. Go and read it. As well, at the beginning of your post you acknowledge that I did provide quotations and you did read them. And you did see that they are derogatory”

              You say: “I would have been interested in those and likely would have agreed with you.”

              My answer: Too bad I didn’t present the information the way you think I should.

              You say, “More to the point, however, is that you say this label is used “derogatorily” as if saying that is enough to show its use is hateful – when in fact the use of it is meant to be derogatory in order to communicate a gross outpoint that exists. It’s just a word that, like other words, applies to a certain isness.”

              My answer: “It is not a word that applies to a certain isness. It is being used to refer to and identify individuals in a very uncomplimentary fashion. A koolaid drinker is not an isness. It is an identity and it is a stereotype.”

              You say: “Even more to the point is that you haven’t given any specific examples that show the context for when it was used incorrectly or unfairly – in spite of my pointing out that it is primarily used for CoS Scientologists and that it accurately describes them. ”

              My answer: I disagree. I do not think it is accurate as it is far too sweeping and it is a word with more than one meaning and by association is linked to Jimmy Jones and the infamous and well known suicide of 900 people. This is a terrible way to identify someone and a way that I don’t think it is accurate. It would be far better to choose a word that doesn’t stereotype in terms of identity and is not linked to the worst cult suicide that ever occurred in the history of the U.S.

              As far as undermining Marty Rathbun, you have generalized far beyond anything I have said. I was pointing out that truth can be revealed without name calling and stereotypes, and there is much good done in the world without it.

              it became crystal clear to me as I read all these blogs that one must raise caution when there are actions taking place that violate the dignity of others. I hold that to be true whether it be a C of S Scientologist, an ex-Scientologist, a critic, or an Independent. Of course it sounds righteous but how on earth can one discuss things without discussing them and how on earth can one set their sights on better or more productive means and methods without at least attempting to adopt some kind of principles or standards.

              If you disagree with all this, that’s your prerogative. But flawed as I am, I am still going to try to move in a better direction and that means recognizing wrong directions, discussing better ones, and raising my voice in caution and even censure. It does not mean that I dismiss someone out of hand but it certainly can mean that a particular behavior and action is non-optimum and even destructive in the long-term.

            38. Marianne, I’ll say again that of course the term “koolaid drinker” is derogatory and that the intention is to be so – just as you are being derogatory when you talk about “an abusive behavior pattern”. Although you don’t use a single-word label, such as “labelers”, you might as well be doing so. Not that I think anyone should have a problem with it if you did, as your intention is to communicate something that you in fact feel should be described derogatorily.

              The definition I gave for “kool-aid” drinkers wasn’t mine; it’s the one I found online and is the way I have perceived it being used on blogs. You repeat again that you’ve given examples of the use of the word and again you miss my point that you’ve given no context for them which shows how the term is being used – i.e. whether it’s abusively or to express a particular situation that does in fact exist. I called it an “isness” and you objected to that, saying that it’s not an isness but an identity. So I’ll be very specific and say that it is an identity that happens to exist as an isness.

              You say that I haven’t responded to your post disagreeing that the term applies to Scientologists, but I certainly have – it’s there right after your post on that subject.

              You also wrote: “It [koolaid drinker] is a sweeping label of other people, lumping them all into a stereotype, a stereotype inextricably linked with the suicide of 900 people under the orders of their cult leader, no matter what other definitions have now been framed.”

              The above is simply an assertion on your part. I haven’t seen that it is the case and I don’t see that you have shown that it is. Looking at it now, I can agree with you that doing so would take quite an effort and I don’t blame you for not wanting to make such an effort. I’m not interested in going to that trouble either. So I’ll just say that the above may be your perception but it hasn’t been mine. More importantly, from my point of view, the above statement of yours indicates to me that you do not understand the common use of the term “koolaid drinker” nowadays. In other words, I think this whole disagreement between us hinges on the meaning of that term and I think it is you who has the MU.

              Also, it’s not a matter of presenting information the way I think you should. It isn’t unreasonable to object to no context being given for a quote. But again, my asking for examples of context would, as you indicate, require some effort – especially if you were to show that it is indeed a general pattern of abusive use and not merely used in a minority of cases.

              At this point, it seems to me that with regard to the use of the term “koolaid drinker” you have had one perception and I’ve had another. It pretty much comes down to that. I don’t disagree with your basic idea as regards intolerance, which is easy for everybody to jump on the bandwagon about, but I haven’t seen that it is being done in the way you say.

            39. I have cut and pasted the following definition from the Urban dictionary. It is a current definition. It is not the product of an MU. I didn’t write it. It is the very same definition that Marty used on his blog to define the term for his visitors:

              People who believe anything they are told. people who refuse to change there minds when confronted with facts.
              a koolaid drinker is the liberal democrat who is liberal because they are told they should be. they have made no attempt to decide why they are liberal.
              often a koolaid “drinker” simply wants to hate anything a republican does good or bad.
              koolaid people are the vocal howard dean wing of the democrat party. the converse of rightwing loonies.
              koolaid drinkers are the ones that went first when jim jones said drink.


              There is also this definition from the Webster’s Online dictionary:
              Currently the term is mostly associated with the 1978 cult suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the Peoples Temple, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year, he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called the “Jonestown Massacre”, a large majority of the 913 people later found dead drank the brew. (The discrepancy between the idiom and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid’s relative obscurity, compared to the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.) The precise expression can be attested in usage at least as early as 1987.[1] The saying “Do not drink the Kool-Aid” now commonly refers to the Jonestown tragedy, meaning “Do not trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side,” or “Whatever they tell you, do not believe it too strongly.”[2] Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly is famous for using the term in this manner.[3]
              I don’t know where you got the definition you are using, but I think its pretty clear that Marty chose the definition that made sense on HIS blog. That’s where I found it in the first place for Gawd’s sakes. So if I have a false perception of the meaning of this word, I got it on that blog. But I have gone over the definitions since and I am very sure that I do not have an MU.

              But if you don’t see it that way, you don’t see it that way. And this is really going on.

      2. “,,,On the other hand, KSW doesn’t leave any middle ground to occupy.”

        That’s a viewpoint of the “more vociferous” critics.

        Seriously, Chris, you were doing just fine in the first few lines of your post, seeming to recognize that there are differences among Independent Scientologists – and then you made the above statement which is equating not only all Independents with each other but equating them with the CoS.

        Some Independents may be that literal about KSW; others will have a better conceptual understanding of the whole of Scientology and will either follow KSW accordingly (intelligently) or will develop their own policies – again, basing those on conceptual understanding of the whole.

        Whether or not it’s true that you “forget to be riled up” about the CoS nowadays, it sure doesn’t seem that you have become unstuck from the viewpoint that the CoS version of Scn is actual (true) Scientology. That’s actually a CoS party line that you’re apparently stuck in.

        You also don’t seem to have become unstuck from the impulse to get in a jab at “Scientology” at every opportunity (even creating your own opportunities at times, perhaps in spite of yourself). Or cheering when someone else does. I get that you are fighting a war that no longer exists. Outside of the CoS there is no one disagreeing with your criticisms of that particular brand of Scientology. No one. So I don’t get the purpose of all the criticism – unless, as I’ve indicated, you truly believe that no other conception of Scientology exists. That’s what it seems you are basically insisting upon, over and over.

          1. Good idea. 😀

            Actually, maybe you didn’t see my point at all, which was more like you should do your own censoring – of those impulses that I suggested you might be operating off of. But if you have a different take, why not just state it instead of being sarcastic? (Although, that was pretty good sarcasm, I must admit. ;)) You can be as open and straightforward as I tried to be. I’m bracing myself. 🙂

            1. Funny! So where do you want your shot? Hip or shoulder? — haha

              I guess I am thinking that we could apply, “When one does not feel the urge to either criticize or defend a subject or idea, then one retains one’s freedom in that area“ to this discussion of Scientology in use. Not to stop your thoughts nor to stop your commenting but to gauge how the comments make you feel.

              I found that blogging doesn’t have to only be endless proposing and defending of my own point of view or endlessly searching for support but used as a tool to pose my ideas off those of others and to make personal changes.

            2. Thanks for that link Chris. I really like it . Helps me understand myself better.
              I personally use blogs just to be in communication with others. I get ideas too and love to learn. Not sure with personal changes like you say, which come along if needed or wanted. I find that different points of view are very interesting as are people, and life…..

            3. Hip or shoulder, either one. My feet can’t take too many more foot bullets. 😀

              You made some excellent points about blogging. That’s pretty much what I’ve been working towards (believe it or not, hahaha :)). I think we could include, in addition to making our own personal changes, the idea of helping others too when the opportunity arises, or even making the opportunity, It’s a universal purpose, after all. Now, how that’s done exactly, is the other thing I’m working towards and working on. Anyway, it’s a combination of the two, don’t you think?

              Btw, I’ve only seen the term “blogging” applied to someone running a blog. You’re using it to mean posting comments, right? (I don’t want anybody to have a crashing MU on the very thing we’re doing here, LOL.)

          2. Hey Chris, in an exchange with Valkov about the basic books I remembered that a while back you and I were mocking it up for you, me, Shelley and Valkov to one day twin up on the Briefing Course. Do you remember that ? People change – by which I mean we might still end up doing that one day. Who knows? Only the whistler… 😀

            1. Ah, Chris, somehow I knew you’d say that about the BC. And yet, it seems in such conflict with your general comments. No?

              Funny line about being 25 again. (But we still are, inside. ;))

      3. Chris, you are fortunate in that. If DM was sending PIs to dig through your trash and shoot video of you, your wife and kids, renting a house across the street from you with surveillance cameras trained on your house 24/7, and had “OT minus VIII” Squirrel Buster morons following you around and harassing you and your wife in your town for 6 months, your attitude might be a little different? I bet you’d be on the warpath big time. After all, you have berserker blood running in your veins, big norsk!

        There is always a personal reason to be involved. You don’t have one, except for the daughter who’s still in, because you are being left alone to live your life unmolested.

          1. That’s easy enough to say if it hasn’t happened to you. Has your family been stalked?

            1. That does not really matter – I still see LRH being right in his view here. You don’t?

            2. Volkov.. you are ignoring the facts that people PULL IN what ever happening to them at the present time and that is nothing but re-stimulation to the original incident what has happened in their past life’s an their own track…
              You also discount postulates how they work… are you in sympathy since you are re-stimulated also? Dramatization is nothing but what?????
              Making something going right is what? Was there a failed purpose? You people know the tech… so why not use it sorting out the existing ARCB’s.
              When one confronts the re-stimulation the problems the ARCB’s vanish… so would the stalkers.. being stalked is sooooo dramatic… one gets lots of attention.. poor victim… lets pour on him more simpathy!!!

            3. Valkov ..
              PS.. Supporting the Bank, what that indicates and what the support causes?

            4. What I think about this discussion is it is based on a false assumption to start with, that there is necessarily a dichotomy between “Flourishing and Prospering”(F&P), and “Opposing” something. I see that as false, “either/or” thinking.

              I see no reason why a person couldn’t be Flourishing&Prospering, and at the same time be opposing some situation, in the sense of taking a stand for something and against something else, It’s not even clear what you mean by “opposing”. Does it mean exposing, bringing to light misdeeds, as some people are doing. At what point does whistleblowing or muck-raking activity become “opposing”?

              So far, this discussion has been entirely abstract and theoretical, which I feel is a waste of time. Let’s get down to cases. Who did you have in mind, when you posted the original comment about “moving on” rather than “opposing”?

              Without concrete specific examples, an abstract open-ended statement like that is just a kind of “Rorschach blotting(blogging?)”. It might stimulate discussion, but each person will read into it from their own life experience and little or no understanding is likely to result, without a discussion of the concrete experiences underlying their opinions. It’s what I call the Tower of Babel phenomena.

              My perception of some people who might be considered to be “opposing” the COS might be some Anonymous, and some hangers-on of sites like ESMB or Tony Ortega’s blog. Actually some of those might show up here or on The Scientology Forum, or on Marty’s blog as well.

              For some of these, it’s a social activity, what Transactional Analysts call a “pastime” – A pastime is a pre-set conversation around a certain subject. As when people talk about how the buses are always late in their city, or how terrible politicians are. It’s structured social chatter based around some common interest or pet peeve.

              Some of these people might well be F&Ping in life, others may need to get a life.

        1. Valkov, You’re displaying your ignorantly uninformed opinions about life in Scientology still yet again. You weren’t there to experience it and you surely don’t know what I experienced nor what I continue to experience. You’ve read a few books but you didn’t play the game and now you are avidly following the unnecessary drama and mouthing the party line from Marty Rathbun’s blog. Marty Rathbun has the game of his making and you seem bored to me.

          1. Chris,

            I don’t know much about life IN “Scientology”, by which I assume you mean life in the Sea Org or life as staff somewhere.

            But what I posted was, IF you were currently being harassed at the behest of OSA or someone in the CoS, I thought you would not be able to distance yourself in the way say you have done. I don’t think you would be able to “move on” with hired thugs, lawyers, and demented “volunteers”, etc impinging on you and essentially dragging you back into the scene. I base this on how I would feel in such a situation. I would be looking for how to fight back and put an end to it.

            Is there something I have misunderstood?

            1. My point here is not that I feel I am super informed about life “in Scientology”; I may well be ignorantly uninformed just as you say. That’s OK with me in that my opinions are based on the information I do have.

              My point is that you apparently feel you have information I don’t have, yet you refuse to enlighten me by sharing it. Now perhaps you have good reason to stay under the radar, yet you post under your own name etc. So just what is your game?

            2. I am not “staying under any radar” and I post under my own name as I have no reason not to as I am unafraid. I maintain my visibility for the purpose I stated before which is to make myself and my whereabouts known so that I can be found when people desire to find me. Some bloggers operate strictly under pseudonyms simply for conventional privacy – nothing wrong with that. Some are closet-independent Scientologists and don’t want to rock any boats. This isn’t so cool, but eh, this is a process that takes a while to come out of the closet and sometimes it takes a very long while. I was not very brave either but I was busy and very aware of the life-energy sucking vampirism of the salesmen and saleswomen of the Church of Scientology. This process had to run for about 15 years for me to emerge from the diabolically shameful treatment that I received in the Sea Organization, but today, I feel that I have the time and resource to lift me nose from the grindstone enough to make myself available to my friends and old friends who might like to find me.

            3. Valkov: “Is there something that I have misunderstood?”

              Chris: 1. If you think that Marty Rathbun is not playing a game of his own making, then I think this is a misunderstanding. 2. My oldest daughter grew up with me and without her mother, who stayed in the all-important world-saving Sea Organization where she remains 22 years later. Her mother could not see her daughter being destroyed in a Sea Organization dedicated to the eradication of families and first dynamics. Over two decades have passed since my ex-wife had news of her only daughter. My daughter and I moved on and built psychotically productive and suppressively rewarding lives outside the planet-clearing church. Even so, that old iteration remains though it recedes into and becomes smaller and smaller in our rear view mirrors. In summation, we moved on but I never belonged to that group of individuals that included Marty Rathbun, David Miscavige and their ilk — never. I think you misunderstand the long term effects of what they did together with verve. I think you misunderstand and underestimate the game those two play with one another today. 3. I think you misunderstand by underestimating the utter failure of Scientology to deliver its aims. Out of millions of people, everyone who ever did a service in Scientology is no longer a Scientologist save approximately 5 thousand COS Scientologists and approximately 5 thousand non-COS Scientologists. These few people never learned the meaning of opposition terminal or “goals problem mass.” They remain locked in a fruitless waste if energy battling one another. This is the group you seem to have thrown in with though you don’t seem willing to go on down to your local org and pitch in or start an independent one. So if you like that game are itching to play, the door is wide open now more than ever.

            4. Thanks Chris. Nonetheless, you have not answered the main point I posted – what would you do, how would you respond, if the PIs, “squirrel busters”, and lawyers came around your neighborhood? And how much are you actually following a policy in your own life, of not calling any more attention to yourself than absolutely necessary to leave that door open a crack??

              This is not to say you are doing anything wrong. I do not think you are. Just as I escaped the military draft back in the day, but I did not go into draft counselling activism myself. I moved on.

            5. The game one plays is of their own making. Make one that you enjoy and play it. That is my point. Marty Rathbun’s games condition is boring to me so I don’t play it. Your ‘what if’ question is answered.

          2. “You weren’t there to experience it and you surely don’t know what I experienced nor what I continue to experience.”

            Yes, exactly, you make the point of my last couple of posts for me. You make allusions to what you may be “continuing to experience”. I’m not living in the shadow of the Soviet Union or it’s equivalent, although my whole family did when I was younger. You apparently still are, though.

            1. Chris,

              OK, I see. You do not understand how I perceive and think about these things. So you are falling into arguing with a straw man, as Geir would put it,because you are misperceiving and misapprehending what I am saying in my posts.

              Of course Marty is playing a game of his own choosing! He’s the first one to come along who believes he can handle DM and is proceeding to do so. That’s precisely his virtue. He is the first one who can, I believe, do it.

              To understand why he is playing the particular game he is playing, you have to understand causality.

              Make a simple flow chart:
              1. Marty blows from Int or wherever he was.

              2..Now, DM has a choice of responses. He chooses not to let Marty go in peace, and comes after him in various ways.

              3. Now, Marty has choices of how to respond. He wants to be free of SM, but DM is not letting him move on.

              4. Marty chooses a game plan that he thinks will handle Dm terminatedly and free him of DM.

              5. He proceeds to carry the plan out.

              You see, at every step of a causality sequence, one has choices to make, alternatives to choose from.

              Why did Marty choose the particular game that he is playing? It is precisely because of his long association with DM. His alternatives are limited, conditioned by, that association and what he co-created with DM, whether he actually realized at the time or not, what he was actually co-creating. It doesn’t matter. He is responsible for it NOW, whatever he may have done THEN, out of ignorance. Thus he is forced to take action in that direction, of handling DM terminatedly. He is not absolutely free to do whatever. Some courses of action would leave more irrresponsibility on his track than others.

              So he has to take as much responsibility as he can for DM, and that’s what he is doing, by choice.

              We are really talking about “karma” here. His long close association with DM conditions what he must do now. And it also suits him better than anyone else, along with Mike Rinder and a some others, to deal with DM.

              That’s why he is playing a game that is not the same as the game you are playing. You were in DM’s orbit, but you were not as close toDM as Marty way. You probably had little or no direct contact with DM. You did not walk into the IRS offices in DC, with DM. So therefore your choice of game is conditioned by different factors and considerations. It does not fall to you to deal with DM directly. It is not your lot. It is Marty’s lot. He has no other way out, really. That is what karma is all about.

              Hope that clarifies it.

              There are “victims”, but “victim” is itself a game. As is “persecutor” and “rescuer”. Marty is not a victim. DM is trying to make him be one, but Marty is refusing. It really is like a chess game, and in this case, I believe DM is outmatched.

            2. Nice and clear Valkov. You got a good handle on that, really well stated.
              Karma and Chess 🙂

            3. Believe what you like. Play the game that you like. You explained my experience wrongly and now you explain Marty Rathbun’s version of the demise of Scientology wrongly. These iterations are your own and not Marty’s. They are your own and not mine. They are your own fantasy. If you want to play the Marty Rathbun spectator version of Scientology-Wars, you are free to do so. That is not my predilection and won’t become my iteration.

              DM was my boss’s boss. I reported directly in writing and photography to DM weekly for years. The year after LRH died, as part of my hat, I bought a car for DM and I can tell you for sure that he hadn’t yet deteriorated into the ogre he plays now. He was the finest diamond hard example of KSW anyone could ever hope to see. His 7, 8, 9 & 10 were impeccable. He was made by LRH and validated by LRH. Marty was DM’s feared top thug and that’s the way I remember Marty. DM will fall. Everyone agrees on that, maybe even DM. Then what? Then what’s your game? You and Marildi harp that Scientology and the Tech of Scientology has been usurped and suppressed by one guy and there’s your “why.” It’s not that simple.

            4. Thanks Chris. It is always good when people post from their own experience. Of course these “iterations” I post are mine. Whose else would they be? And,where did I “explain” YOUR experience? What I recall posting is that I had no explanation for your experience, because you alluded to’experiences” of yours without usually naming them or stating what they actually were. Little or no time-place-form-event.

              It is good to have your recollection of DM and Marty as you knew them. It helps fill in a picture.

              I have the luxury of not having known either of them directly. Thus I look for accounts from others.

              There are contrary data about DM as to his “KSW”, as others who knew him earlier have reported that he was kicked out of the Academy at St.Hill for striking his pc, and thus never completed and never achieved his Class IV auditor’s training.

              To this day, he is reported to act the part and present himself as the “Auditor’s Auditor par excellence”, the Almighty COB, but folks who also knew him report this is a sham and a fake. It is the public persona he works at presenting to the world. He talks a good game is what other folks who knew him say. But behind the scenes, he imprisoned people at Int and slapped people around and verbally degraded them. This is what some people say, even under oath in court, as Debbie Cook did.

              The “Cold chrome steel KSW” persona was always an aberration in my view, no matter who wore it. I would have to say, you came to Scientology too late, and saw the aberrant version of it. But you haven’t mentioned when that was. Or you saw an aberrant department of it. I’m perfectly willing to grant that LRH had a hand in making it what it had/has become. It was all downhill after about 1968, when LRH set about establishing a church instead of just disseminating the tech and the basic philosophy.

              There is too much contrary data for me to think that DM changed that much. I think he was off the rails pretty much from the beginning. Of course he has gotten worse and worse – it’s the famous “downward spiral”, an unchecked descent into madness as seen throughout history, from some Roman emperors for instance. A guy makes a mistake but insists he was right to do what he did, and then repeats the “mistake” on purpose to prove how right he was etc etc. Then Lisa McPherson dies because of his meddling and he really goes nto a tailspin…. Where’s the KSW in that? I think his KSW was always a pose, him “talking the talk”, nothing more. Who did he ever actually help?

              Heck, DM was Comm Eved and then SP Declared by the OT Committee WW out of Europe, in 1984.


              It’s right out of undergraduate psychology texts. The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing etc. That is the essence of 1.1ness, of sociopathy. Dr.Strangelove’s arm. Compulsive behavior and dissociation. Unchecked, of course it gets worse as a person gets older. Mistake piles upon mistake until the guy’s life is a constant horror and he has to drink
              a lot to numb himself and needs more and more people to slobber and tell him how great he is when he comes on stage at IAS Events , to give the “winners” their Medal of Humongous Valor Awards.

              Oh jeez, am I indulging in “labeling”? Horrors! I only lost half my family to a similar character disorder when they died in Stalin’s GULAGs.

            5. I think this part of your post is key:

              “He (DavidMiscavige) was made by LRH and validated by LRH.”

              I think this is very, very true. DM was almost nothing without LRH. An asthmatic little loser/bully.
              LRH boosted him up and bolstered him. Without LRH,he went into a decline AND the key thing is, he never let himself be audited! He feared it would reveal what an incompetent fake he really was.

              I’ve read reports that many people keyed out when they were around LRH and were able to perform in life beyond what they were usually capable of doing on their own.

              I think DM may be a good example of this. Once LRH was gone, DM was in over his head and didn’t have the balls to admit it, or even see it. I think he may have deluded himself into thinking he really could run the whole show better than anyone else and proceeded to run it all into the ground, all the while aggrandizing himself. What else would a person in his august position expect, other than to be contributed to? All tribute to the wise and powerful OZ – I mean COB!

            6. Good comment.

              I should add that I don’t buy into the over-the-board demonizing of DM that I see pretty much all over the Net. He is not the saint painted by the CoS staff and he’s not the devil as painted by many ex-staff. A more nuanced picture is probably the truth. I saw him as very direct and certainly not incompetent when I met him. I’ve heard several tell me that he’s got an elephant’s memory. He is intelligent and charming, tough as a street fighter. I believe he’s a person worth helping.

            7. Your ad hom fallacy seems to be rooted in your evaluation of whether the target of your ad hom deserves the libel. The argument distilled begins with the question of “Do you want to understand what is going on?” or “Do you want to be right in your evaluations.”

              Ad hom is fallacious because it doesn’t address the problem. This is another reason not to use derogatory remarks toward others.

            8. Geir sez, about DM: “I believe he’s a person worth helping.”

              Sure. But is there anywhere a person who is not worth helping, in your estimation?

              How about Marty? Is he worth helping?

            9. I see much real help flow directed toward Marty. Almost no real help flow directed toward DM (I am not talking about money flowing toward him, but actual help of the being himself).

            10. Chris, are you privy? “snarling snapping delusion”. I haven’t seen that, but can imagine it.

            11. Hi deE’, There is a Sea Org tape by LRH wherein he describes in detail what can and does happen to an executive when they are allowed by their subordinates to be overworked and under-enhanced. I do not remember the name of the tape, but I remember it being of a very personal and compassionate nature and I remember it was for Sea Org only. Norman Starkey played it for my org at CST when my commanding officer was removed from post for malfeasance and nonfeasance. The reason that it was played was to stabilize and help the staff take responsibility for the removal of our very tough CO. I have more that I could say about this event but I will belay that.

              Possibly someone else here has been fortunate enough to listen to this tape? It very much reinforces what Geir remarked on when he said that he saw, “…almost no help flow toward DM.” For those who want to lynch David Miscavige, and even those who simply think no more deeply than that he is a prick, this tape coaches a person’s point of view back away from the opposition terminal of the>Goals Problem Mass and back toward a pan-determined view of the world and of often broken people in the world.

              There is another LRH “Advice” circulated in the SO named “How To Be A Subordinate.” This is also along the same lines as the above mentioned tape.

            12. Also deElizabethan, while I wait for my post to clear Geir’s spam because of links, I can answer your question whether I privy to LRH’s delusion, only in the context of the well circulated coroner’s report of how he has multiple hypodermic injection scars and the drug Vistaril in his bloodstream, a treatment Dr. Denk administered for anxiety.

            13. Chris I just read up on that Drug… Do you think the problem could have been that he was given that Drug but the DR did not realize LRH was pregnant? After all anything can happen to on OT! 🙂

            14. Right, know about LRH. Thought you referred to DM in current time!

            15. deE’, it was the tape that Norman Starkey played for us that reminded me of what would be going on with DM and not a personal knowledge – sorry, didn’t mean to give that impression.

              I don’t actually care about the outcome of the drama of the iteration known as David Miscavige. I just understand what happens to an executive who lives life at a burn-up pace and who won’t take enhancement or recreation and who doesn’t trust his fellows. What Elizabeth said about ugly coming from an ugly universe? Well, as ugly as it is for the SO around DM, it is equally ugly inside his mind. If I think about that for even a moment, I remember that I don’t want that reality for anyone. It is un-institutionalized insanity. I don’t envy that nor do I wish that on him. That is the snarling-snapping delusion that I was referring to. Think about it. DM is now surrounded by “yes-men and women” who are trying to stay off the RPF for one more day. When they get enough, they blow to get away from him. I must admit curiosity on how DM will handle his final days of Sea Org life. Will he blow? He has the money to move off to lower Slobovia and live comfortably. But will he take with him enough blackmail and artillery to fend off those who will come after him? Will he take down the entire Church the way Hitler took down the entire Third Reich? It is a curiosity only and one day the news of what happened will reach me and I will say to myself, “Hmmm, so that’s what happened.” Then I will have another sip of coffee and get up and get busy working on one of my projects that I am actually interested in. “Now where’s my blue ink?”

            16. Thanks for the info, that helps. So you were privy in a way, as others in hearing that info and gave you insight.

            17. Yes that’s right and I was able to witness first hand what the 24×7 pressure to produce-produce-produce does to a Scientology executive.

              I do not know Debbie Cook but I am aware of her statistic as long-long term Captain of Flag. It is a super-human statistic to have endured and enjoyed that much success in the COS at one post. Maybe something like 1/10 of 1/10 of 1% (1 in 10,000) of Sea Org staff could say they have such a statistic. Why she was able to do this, I don’t know.

            18. Chris, I propose that it was because she was an FEBC and a Class IX auditor (and I believe atrained C/S), with a lot of experience as an auditor and as the Internship Supervisor before she ever went on an admin post.

            19. No need to be overly brief and cryptic. Why wouldn’t you?

              I knew Debbie Cook, as a staff member. And I watched her change over the years as the beingness of DM came down the lines. For example, I saw her try to apply LRH as regards treatment of staff and that got shot down and dropped before it could get started, by other “interpretations” of LRH.

              I saw the changes generally too, not just with her. I could FEEL his “presence” everywhere. And in my mind I used the word “dictator” for him as I knew that absolutely nothing was done or not done except according to him.

            20. And in this frame of reference, you have the first hand knowledge, not I. I appreciate the insight you just shared 10×10^10 power especially as compared to your very intricate posts tabulating and correlating Scientology references. You blog with various statuses of Scientologists, none of them green. I rarely if ever gain insight into Scientology from these “reference” types of posts, but this one for me was riveting. I would very much like to hear more of your Sea Org experiences sans appropriate and applicable LRH references.

            21. Hi Chris. When I quote references, I’m not always trying to give somebody “insight into Scientology”. However, the references I quote often do pertain to what I am referring to in Scientology, so I feel it’s applicable to give the reference for it.

              Other times, when I want to get across a particular idea that I feel has been said better than I could say it, I quote that. Also, I don’t see the problem in communicating others’ ideas and not always my own. (And another thing is that I’m trying to flatten your button. :D)

            22. When I wrote that “I wouldn’t make that assumption,” I meant the assumption that being highly trained in Scientology would keep one safely protected on post. That’s all I meant. The reason? Every top Scientologist on Earth used to be on post.

            23. Hey! That’s a Straw Man! 😀

              Just kidding around but I never said that either. I was responding to your comment about Debbie Cook’s “long-long term as Captain of Flag” (not that she lasted) and my answer for that was that she was highly trained, in both Tech and Admin. And in fact, it was my general observation that the successful execs were trained, especially tech trained. (Note – I said my own observation, although LRH did state that such would be the case ;))

            24. Every highly trained and highly experienced Scientologist is gone from post or gone the Sea Organization altogether. This why I wouldn’t make that assumption that Debbie Cook being highly trained and experienced in Scientology was relevant to the fact that she lasted on post.

              If I were making a conjecture without raw data but only my bias and experience in the Sea Org, I would conjecture that Debbie Cook helped Flag bring in a billion dollars USD and this maybe has the most to do with her longevity on post. I probably shouldn’t write that since I don’t know her or her scene.

            25. Chris, the answer to your question was given just today by someone who was also staff at FSO, a very theta lady who was there the whole time I was and just a bit longer than when I left. The write-up of her experiences was posted today as Marty’s blog post. Here’s an excerpt of it:

              “RTC Reps usually ended [up] talking ‘loudly’ to excess [execs] such as Janet Herring, Debbie Cook and others; this infuriated me and the rest of the auditors. Those excellent, professional Execs had always supported and backed up the Tech and Qual terminals as well as any other staff member, now they were left to cope with the constant demands for the Advanced Tech Stat while on the other hand they were trying to prevent forcing pcs and auditors to go out tech in order to get that stat up.”

              If you are sincerely interested in direct, first-hand, personal experiences over the years that DM gained more and more influence, you should read the rest of her write-up too. Her observations match the ones I’ve written many posts about.

            26. Thank you Marildi, but I am really interested in your experiences as you are my friend and your adventures are interesting to me.

            27. Okay, but what she said about Debbie Cook and other execs WAS my experience: “…Debbie Cook and others…Those excellent, professional Execs had always supported and backed up the Tech and Qual terminals as well as any other staff member, now they were left to cope with the constant demands…”

              And btw, calling me your friend and telling me that my adventures are interesting to you is just the kind of charm that isn’t going to get you anywhere but…in good ARC with me. 😉 Okay, I’ll write things as I think of them.

            28. Right on Silvia’s post. It is one of his best articles. Lots of insight to what’s happening and was interesting also for public.

            29. p.s. In case anybody here might have known her, her name is Sylvia Llorens and she was a top FSO auditor for many years.

          3. Chris sez, “Valkov, You’re displaying your ignorantly uninformed opinions about life in Scientology still yet again.”

            Flunk, Chris, flunk!

            (Like, is that a crime? For me to have opinions based on what (little)data I have? I am so not PC! I should be contrite? How come I don’t feel it? Please, doan beat me massa! I ain’ gonna display mah igorant opines nomo’!)

            1. Valkov you do slave talk well, I have forgotten that part… I still have the chain marks on my legs…

            2. Chris, was this in reference to something I posted? “Your ad hom fallacy seems to be rooted in your evaluation of whether the target of your ad hom deserves the libel.”

              I’m not sure I get this. At best it sounds like “circular reasoning”. If the facts show that the target does indeed deserve the libel, which is to say, is “guilty as charged”, what exactly is the problem or fallacy?

              In any case, if yours is a response to a post of mine, it would be help ful to me to know which post it refers to.

            3. This is a response to Geir’s post somewhere above, to whit: “I should add that I don’t buy into the over-the-board demonizing of DM that I see pretty much all over the Net. He is not the saint painted by the CoS staff and he’s not the devil as painted by many ex-staff. A more nuanced picture is probably the truth. I saw him as very direct and certainly not incompetent when I met him. I’ve heard several tell me that he’s got an elephant’s memory. He is intelligent and charming, tough as a street fighter. I believe he’s a person worth helping.”

              In fact, intelligence, directness, good memory, charm, toughness(whatever that is), charisma, are all qualities that do not reflect a person’s character at all. Sociopaths/psychopaths have been well-known to have some or all of those qualities. In fact sociopaths are sometimes known for their “charm”. It’s a quality that helps them be sociopathic. Some found Stalin to be charming. Any “successful” crime boss or genocidal national leader – Mugabe comes to mind, or Pol Pot in Cambodia. Saddam Hussein, Assad in Syria, etc etc all must have quite a bit of directness, toughness, intelligence, possibly charm etc to get to where they got to. Yet they were/are responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people, usually in their own countries, or in neighboring countries or both. Are any of that ilk any more deserving of help that anyone esle?

              So nothing you listed qualifies DM to be more deserving of help than anyone else in the world. If you believe that “people are basically good”, then that is what qualifies him. Beyond that, you are in danger of slipping into some kind of elitism, if you are setting up standards for who is more deserving of help than another.

              Of course, possibly you have the right to choose who you will help. However it has always worked better for me, to help the person in front of me. In any case, there are no end of people in this world who can use some help. So it’s arbitrary, might as well follow your own fancy in that.

              Therefore, I am quite interested in what you think might actually “help” Miscavige. Given that he has reportedly refused to get any auditing for probably decades now.

              It’s not inconceivable to me that you initiate communication with DM and offer to help him out with some of his problems. That’s assuming you and he can agree on what his problems really are! 🙂

            4. Just in case someone would infer from your comment here that you are refuting anything I hold as my opinions: I do NOT hold the opinions you are trying to refute her.

              This is in fact a classic example of a Straw Man argument.

              Whenever someone wants to know what a Straw Man argument is, one can safely refer the to Valkov’s post right here.

            5. Geir,

              you posted some unconnected sentences in a paragraph, which appeared to make them related. That is how I read your post. If you meant to convey some other meaning you failed to convey it to me at least. Then you claim I responded to a straw man, without explaining what was straw man about it. A friend might well point out what about your post I misunderstood; you didn’t bother to do that. Enough said. At this point, I believe you are the only one in the room who knows what you meant.

              Is it a problem with my duplication of you, or is it a problem of being duplicatable on your part?
              I honestly don’t care, I feel you are sometimes playing cheap elitist logic games with me. If my logical thinking is not up to your standards, so be it. I make associative posts leading off from your comments; I have always done this. Perhaps you should thank me for providing you with so many opportunities to make yourself look and feel the superior logician?

              You make a “head on a pike” comment about my post being an example of “straw man”, without commenting on any of the substance of what I posted, about, which has to do with the topics of “help” (whatever you mean by that)vis-a-vis Miscavige, and I thought you might be interested in discussing around those topics. Instead, what was it, a bait-and-switch?

              Thanks, I’ll ignore your posts from now on. I don’t come here to be taught logic, but to discuss ideas. And the bottom line is, you don’t even bother to teach, you just point and call “straw man”. Talk about use of labels!

            6. Valkov: This is the straw man – you said, “So nothing you listed qualifies DM to be more deserving of help than anyone else in the world. If you believe that “people are basically good”, then that is what qualifies him. Beyond that, you are in danger of slipping into some kind of elitism, if you are setting up standards for who is more deserving of help than another.”

              What Geir actually said was that he didn’t buy into the demonizing, preferring a more nuanced approach and then listed qualities he noticed that were good qualities. The good qualities listed do not have a bearing on the help issue..

              Geir only said he was worthy of help. His exact words were: “I believe he is a person worthy of help.” He never said or inferred that DM was MORE deserving of help than anyone else. So there really nothing to argue and the elitism that seems to be present wasn’t present until you rephrased what Geir said.

              Pointing out a straw man actually enables discussion because it returns the discussion to the actual position so the actual position can be further discussed. If the straw man isn’t noticed and addressed then the discussion derails to a different basis or position. It is especially a problem when the straw man is followed by scathing criticism and conjecture and conclusions based on the straw man.

              It is extremely aggravating to have what you say rephrased to a different meaning (that’s a straw man) and then be accused of doing or saying something on the basis of that rephrased statement. There’s no point arguing because the rephrase isn’t what was said in the first place and so the only possible response is that it is a straw man.

              From Wikipedia definition of straw man.

              The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
              Person 1 has position X.
              Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
              Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
              Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
              Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
              Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
              Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
              Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
              This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

            7. Marianne,
              the qualities Geir listed are not intrinsically “good” qualities. They are “good” only to the extent that they are used to serve good ends. They are not “good” qualities when they are used in selfish ways or to bad, evil, or overly destructive ends.

              Each and every person or “:thetan” has ability. Ability alone is neither good nor bad. It is just ability.

            8. Valkov: I agree, and I will add that there is also one’s own opinion of what is a good or bad quality.

              There is also the situational aspect — for example, an executioner could be very cold and remote as he turns the juice on for the electric chair and then very loving and tender with his children when he goes home at night after executing someone. He may go to Church that Sunday and be full of the love of God, exhibiting generosity as he donates to the needy campaign. Monday morning, he exhibits unflinching restraint when one of the death row inmates with AIDs spits towards him. And then we see him at lunchtime with his buds, exhibiting his amazing sense of humor – he’s funny, great sense of humor. And his bosses — they love him, he’s a direct, non-nonsense, get it done kind of guy.

              So what kind of man do we have here? A devil executioner? A loving family man? A cold, remote automaton? A good humored bud? A direct, efficient and get it done kind of guy?

              All of the above. That’s the nuancing.

              Is he worthy of help? Yes.
              Will he accept help? Unknown.
              Will he respond to help? Unknown.

  10. These threads have gotten too long in some parts , so:

    As far as “that people PULL IN what happens to them”, that is a truism. However, what matters is not that one pulls in one’s experience, that is one way of looking at it(there are other ways of looking at it), but what matters is what one does with what one experiences, how one responds to it.

    1. Valkov… dont give me usless…. I know the MEST inside out…. re-stimulation and acting on it is just continuing the same …making it more solid.. That is not on answer.. Bank is a bank.[ You may diss miss me as a fly on the wall, I am OK with that…]. but you talking bank and you know it..

  11. Marianne,

    OK, I agree labeling people is bad. We should initiate a grassroots movement in which people who label others are identified and quarantined. That will solve the problem, right?

    You and I can start by getting some torches, rope and pitchforks and inciting some villagers to go after those dastardly “Evil Labelers”, to lynch them.

    After all, “Us non-labelers are OK, Them Labelers are Not-OK”, right?

    Is there a flaw in my reasoning here?

    All this reminds me of a post on The Scientology Forum from a couple of years back, in which the poster opined that considerations of a 3rd Dynamic were unnecessary and caused more trouble than they were worth.

    Indeed. Why not drop the 3rd dynamic and just go with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. That way, one group would not be able to label another group and generalize about “them” as being not-OK.

    In a way I think that’s really what you’re arguing for, and I rather agree with that.

    1. No Valkov, I am talking about authenticity here, I am talking about LIVING the principles one claims to hold. To uphold the virtues of the Way to Happiness and then turn around and castigate another, calling them koolaid drinkers, and so on, cannot be seen to be setting a good example. To say one is pro-LRH at his best and then to ignore those precepts does not seem to be getting on the right track to my way of thinking. Don’t you think?

      Who have I labeled? No one. Find where I have labeled anyone and show it to me. You shifted my discussion of the practice of stereotyping / labeling to a straw man indicating that I have been labeling others. I don’t think there is a label for that doingness, for it is a pattern of behavior and not a beingness or identity at all. I think it is appropriate to call attention to behavior that is not in keeping with expressed principles.

      I expressed my disappointment that I see a continuation of this type of behavior, the very behavior that is considered anathema, the very behavior that is completely contrary to creating a “new civilization.” One can take actions without vilifying and witch hunting. One can point out that certain behaviors will not contribute to advancement. One can set an example by not doing it oneself. But that is one’s choice to do that. And it is also one’s choice to prefer not to be given a label that stands for doing such things.

      The term Scientologist is not well regarded these days. Let’s see — Ronbots, koolaid drinkers, squirrels, SPs, “true believers,” Churchies, culties, victims, sociopaths, and so on. These are the stereotypes I have seen promulgated. These are propaganda terms. And they work very well to dehumanize, disrespect, and treat a group of people who are factually individuals, replacing their humanity with a pre-conceived and largely derogatory set of characteristics that may or may not be present at all.

      I wanted to draw people’s attention to a mechanism that is used in the technology of propaganda, which is stereotyping. It is described as follows:

      Cast those who you want to denigrate into an unpopular stereotype. Talk about the stereotypes as ‘them’, downplaying their rights as humans. Describe them as threatening, unworthy, disgusting and other negative frames. Put emphasis on the stereotype words and the associations you want link to the stereotypes. Name their leaders. Give exaggerated and distorted examples that ‘prove’ the stereotype and so condemn all who follow them. Stereotyping can also be used to cast a group of people as good, perfect and otherwise wonderful and desirable.

      I find that if I think of myself as a citizen of the universe, then I don’t fall into the stereotyping / labeling pitfall as much, for I am not excluding my fellow citizens from their rights to dignity and tolerance. THAT was my point.

      1. Marianne to creating a “new civilization.” That only can be achieved if the old way-believes are erased, eraser is important so that way there would not be any re-stimulation going back thing..
        And the newly agreed upon rules would stay in place..
        Those would not be enforced, but agree by all since everyone would have the same or very similar reality. For that to happen auditing out the dramatization-the bank is needed nothing else will work.
        Meanwhile till that is not accomplished… I see hot wind blowing from every direction… and nothing more..
        my reality..

        1. Yes, that is right. It is restimulation, it is restimulative. And erasing it is the only thing that could be to be fully effective. But in the meantime, one can choose to at least try to do things in ways that could lessen the restimulation and can point out that it is possible to at least try to do things in ways that could lessen the restimulation. And maybe there would be more interest in the subject and the tech of auditing instead of gasps of oh no, not those dangerous sheeple or ron-bots — keep away from me dangerous culties or whatever! Hot wind can help to cool things down enough that people feel that they could go and get some auditing. They sure as hell aren’t going to if the first thing that happens is they dragged into a war or pushed to the side because they won’t go to war.

          1. Marianne – I am Very impressed by your recent string of comments. And I agree entirely. Putting people down by labels and openly expressing one’s intolerance towards those one seek to help is not only illogical, it is entirely counter-productive.

            Your latest comments stand out as a lighthouse in directing people to more productive ways of being and doing in the area of helping one’s fellows.

            Thank you. You are amazing.

            1. Thank you Geir! After I had my “epiphany” it all looked very simple. Thank you for your succinct summary. Wow. You are good at distilling long wordy tracts into clean statements!

          2. Before one can help anyone, one needs to help self-first… By erasing one’s own ARCb’x one’s own considerations by doing that one could see clearly… and interestingly by eraser all the problems and ARCb’s are removed…
            Until that is not done, that person is part of the problems, the ARCb’x and with that connection solidifies those existing considerations-agreements.
            More agreements are established about no matter what: more solid that ITEM will become. Agreements hipped upon gives power –survival.

        2. Love your “hot wind blowing in the wind” A lot is seen on many blogs and sometimes it gives a good laugh.

      2. Sure, Marianne, I actually get all that and agree with it, been there done that. I was rabidly anti-stereotyping and anti-labeling, and for treating each individual as such, growing up Russian in the USA during the Cold War. Too many folks responded to me that I was “a Commie, huh?” because I was Russian.

        The pitfall in what you have been posting is, how do you relate to the people who make bigoted comments on Marty’s or any other blog? As they do in spades on TonyOrtega’s blog, ESMB, or any comment section after any news story about Scientology, etc. There are Christian congregations which want only “the very best people” in their congregation. They don’t want any “sinners” in their congregation. No pimps, hoes, dealers, addicts, etc. But, how Christian is that,actually? I believe the saying which applies is the one about ” the mote in your neighbor’s eye” vs.”the beam in your own eye”….

        So the question is, do you reject them because of their lack of perfection, or try to grant them beingness and try to live and work with them somehow……?

        1. I think all of this shoud boild down to this quote by Mahatma Gandhi:

          You must be the change you want to see in the world.“.

          By being in opposition, you will create opposition. By being tolerant, you will foster tolerance. By being helpful, you will affect help. And I am now really starting to wake up to the fact that we need to figure out how to really help Miscavige – him, the person, the being – instead of doing this antago-game that’s running rampant.

            1. This quote by Gandhi sounds pretty but it only goes along with his non-violence philosophy and that is totally fine with me but lets not forget that he “opposed” those who were destroying his native land and all that come with it such as its customs, language, religions , etc, etc so in essence he was not being “tolerant” of these because of the destruction it was causing to his people and his land. So yes, in many instances one must oppose and be intolerant of someone or something. So in reference to COS there are people who oppose it because it/they are destroying many people’s lives and these “opposers” don’t necessarily have to be IS, they can be anybody who have become aware and have finally taken control of their environment. Even within the comments of this blog, we are not being “tolerant” perhaps the result of being part of COS for so many years!! Yes it is ok to oppose and to be intolerant of the COS if you have a legit reason(s) and yes it is ok support it if you know they are applying tech the way LRH wanted it and really helping people, just be ready to support any claims you have made with hard evidence. Please don’t take this as if I am evaluating or invalidating, I just feel that this conversation has taken a “twist”. Lets not “drink the kool aid”.

          1. @ Mad Hatter — point taken. One can expose truth without slamming people’s heads into the walls. One can seek to find ways and means to address injustices and abuses that do not include creating further injustices and abuses. Abusing an abuser is just more abuse. One can stop abuse by not engaging in abusive actions oneself and seeking to protect the rights to dignity for all involved — the victim, the abuser, the accuser and the judge.

            There’s a great scene at the end of the movie, A Few Good Men, with a truly memorable quote after the two marines have been found guilty — by carrying out a code red on Willie, who could not fight and died as a result.

            Here’s the memorable quote:
            “Downey: What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong.
            Dawson: Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie.”

            By all means, address injustice and abuse, but don’t do it with more injustice and abuse.

      3. I like “Citizen of the Universe” . Isn’t that like pan-determined, recognizing, acknowledging all, looking from a larger viewpoint, while doing one’s best to help, however one can or is interested in, without harm?

        1. PAN-DETERMINISM, 1. would mean a willingness to start, change and stop on any and all dynamics. That is its primary definition. A further definition, also a precision definition, is: the willingness to start, change and stop two or more forces, whether or not opposed, and this could be interpreted as two or more individuals, two or more groups, two or more planets, two or more like-species, two or more universes, two or more spirits whether or not opposed. This means that one would not necessarily fight, he would not necessarily choose sides. (Dn 55!, p. 100) 2 . defined as determining the activities of two or more sides in a game simultaneously. (PAB 84) 3 . the ability to regulate the considerations of two or more identities, whether or not opposed. (COHA, p. 110) 4 . full responsibility for both sides of a game. (Scn 0-8, p. 119)

          Looking over these definitions, I can see how elements of the definition apply. But I think it goes beyond that to working to uphold a set of principles and act in ways that can be seen to forward civilization empowering and sustaining across the boards. I’ve been working on what I think these principles might be and how best I can incorporate them into one’s own actions. I know I’m not alone on working on this, I’ve visited many websites and have read many books in the last few years where very intelligent and thoughtful people are trying to work this out as well. I think this is what the human rights movement is trying to do. But mainly, it helps me keep in mind that there is a larger scope to consider, not just my sphere of activity or concern. It is helping me to sort out my own concept of virtues and character. You have pretty summed it up and I thought that Geir wrote a really great summary as well.

          1. Hey, thanks Marianne for looking it up and the spelling out for us. It was good for me lazy bones to read again. 🙂

  12. Geir, I think you should continue to have your head above the clouds and your feet on Earth. That seems to work for you.

    1. Valkov your comment above to Geir is very interesting.. I would call that below the belt punch..
      You are Putting down the person who is not re-stimulated on a subject therefor not dramatizes the same way as you do, since he do not act the same way, you make it look bad, low on the tone scale.. Don’t you think something is out… your evaluation was not realistic?
      You talk pure undiluted crap…

  13. One thing I would like to mention that I have noticed about Marty. He IS responsive to criticism and he DOES make changes in his approach and viewpoints. He may not like what he is hearing (most people don’t like being criticized) but he does give thought to what is being said, as do most people. I think he does read other blogs, I think he does listen to the voice of reason (as best he can amid the noise, attacks and the angst) and I think he does respond the best way he knows how. He’s not perfect. No one is. In the end, he can only do the best he knows how and his best is pretty damned good! He too needs to be reminded of core principles and key concepts by people who care what happens, for all too often people in his position get caught up in the fray and no one says HEY! What are you doing? Rethink this!

    This morning he has made a direct video appeal to the OSA staff members who are harboring evidence and secrets — he appeals to them to do their real jobs and gives them the reference — A Talk to Ethics Officers WW — about what those duties really are. His appeal is made with good ARC, speaking to their sense of duty — a sense of duty that he knows is present and underlies their efforts. He offers them immunity, a clean ethics file and release from the devastating effects of having to carry out command intention that has gone so wrong that it is now an epic disaster for Scientology and about to become a nightmare from hell for them and for their boss. He does understand their plight and he has opened the door for them in a very positive way. His communication is completely free of derogatory language and is made in a very real and very “soulful” and caring way. My bets are that there will be OSA staff who get the message and its good intent and will act on it.

    1. Thanks, haven’t read that yet, since Gier’s threads has kept my interest today so far.
      Well, we will see about that offer. At present I would guess he and MR are only interested in the last 20-5 years of service when Ron was gone, not before. I have good reason to believe this.

  14. Marianne, by you emphasizing the reference to Jim Jones in the meaning, I gather you’re saying that this meaning is far more derogatory to CoS members than the usage given above. Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that’s the intended meaning. Nevertheless, how derogatory it is isn’t the issue. The term is MEANT to be derogatory and perhaps the more so the better, so as to get their attention – i.e. the intention is to wake folks up to the fact that they are engaged in “unquestioned belief” and “blind, uncritical acceptance or following” (quoted from Wikipedia: That concept is communicated with the phrase “kool-aid drinker”.

    Its use has nothing to do with intolerance, which is all I’ve been saying. Tolerance is acceptance, but I don’t see that it is being tolerant to “accept” a bad situation someone is involved in and not let them know about it because doing so indicates something negative to them personally.

    I get that you are sincere about protesting intolerance but I don’t think it applies to pointing out the truth with the purpose of letting people know the reality of a situation they’re involved in. That’s how I see it.

    1. I was not speaking of intolerance or tolerance. I was speaking of using derogatory terms to blanket define an entire group of individuals with extremely varied experience and knowledge.

      I never said that injustice and abuse should not be addressed. I said that injustice and abuse should be addressed in ways that do not further perpetuate injustice and abuse. I also said that ultimately it should be the choice of the individual whether or not to pursue a course of action to address injustice and abuse. Some will choose to move on and chalk it up to experience.

      The Friends of Scientology website is highly effective and does not use derogatory terms for Scientologists. Same with the Save Scientology website. Also true of Geir’s declarations. Same again with Debbie Cook’s email. These are all very effective. Every bit of truth that Marty exposes is effective and the more documentation there is and the more corroboration there is from witnesses, the greater the effectiveness.. It is the truth that is effective, not the abusive or derogatory language.

      But to expect someone who has dedicated their very lives to LRH and the organizations he formed to jump off the ship when presented with facts they cannot easily personally verify is asking them to just listen again, this time to individuals who are clearly opposed to everything they hold dear. Consider Dave Fagen — it took him many, many months to establish the truth for himself, and even longer to get to a point where he felt he really needed to do that, for even when they have the facts, they have to become disabused of the idea that they can do something on the channels laid out by LRH. And beyond that, they have to decide if they should just withdraw their support as suggested by the WTH or if they should proclaim that they are shoulder to shoulder with Independents or Freezoners or critics.

      It is my opinion and observation that for most, this apparent “refusal” of truth is not a “koolaid drinking” phenomena. This is love and loyalty and duty and dedication, fine and worthy attributes. It is that very love and loyalty that brings them to the defense of their Church and the technology it offers and the founder of it, and it is that same love and loyalty and sense of duty that finally causes them to walk away or fight when they finally get a grip on what has happened. Many walk away with tears in their eyes and a hole in their hearts hurting so badly they can scarcely function. Others storm off in angry indignation and others feel acute shame and embarrassment over being so badly duped. There are those that feel a tremendous sense of relief, there are those that grieve and those that attack with ferocious anger. Some decompress immediately and others take years. Others decide to park themselves on the sidelines somewhere so they will not lose everything. There must be a very large population of inactive C of S Scientologists at this time, because the event attendance is way down and the orgs are empty. In any case, I’m sure that the responses are as varied as the individuals caught up in this awful mess. And it is awful.

      And that is why I don’t like the blanket label “koolaid drinker” for it denies the full truth of what happens to people as they travel down a road to an uncomfortable and at times almost unbelievable truth of betrayal and manipulation and lies from the very organization they have loved and served, often with all their heart and soul.

      I believe that truth, compassion, respect and human dignity are powerful influences for change and I believe that abusive derogatory labels are unnecessary and a perpetuation of the abusive methods now used in the Church of Scientology.

      1. Good post, Marianne. I would just add one thing. Just as the responses of people to their experiences in the CoS vary, so do the things that impinge on people vary. Each of the sites you mentioned will help certain people, and I believe that Marty’s approach will be the one that gets others to see what they need to in order to come out of the morass. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. And as of now I don’t see the labeling he’s doing as an abusive method or that it that wlll lead in that direction. I’m also looking at what he is advocating generally and the direction he is leading in overall. Anyway, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. 🙂

        1. “Good post, Marianne.”

          This was Marianne’s message – that same message all along – from the very beginning here.

          I agree with Marianne – that using derogatory labels on those one seeks to help is most usually counter-productive. One should simply refrain from that – because at the very least it doesn’t help the person.

          1. You sure like to rub it in, don’t you. 😉

            Actually, she expressed a lot of things she hadn’t said, all of which I’m familiar with but she laid them out well. So I wanted to be nice and point out the positive too rather than just repeat again where I don’t see eye to eye with her.

            I’ve noticed you too keep repeating yourself – that you don’t think it helps the person to let them know straight out that they are not thinking for themselves but instead are sitting in unquestioned belief and uncritical acceptance. Funny, I could have sworn that you yourself have said as much to…me, for example. But that’s okay because, as I said in my last post – for some people it gets them to look. 🙂

            1. Sorry, Marildi. You still don’t get it. And you resort to a Straw Man.

              Let me explain:

              I think there is Nothing wrong in telling a person Very Straight what is wrong with the persons behaviour. Like I do with you here. But – I think it is unproductive to put a rubberstamp, derogatory label on it like a “Kool Aid” drinker is an example of. Instead of pointing out as clearly an precisely as I can what is wrong – specifically – I could have just labeled you a “Pighead” or “Dumbass”. But I didn’t – because it doesn’t help. To correct behavior it helps to be as precise as possible – and label-slinging is almost the opposite – it generates unnecessary counter-emotion on the part of those one wish to help.

              I am trying the best I can to understand what is going on with you on this thread – and I admit I am having a hard time doing so. Then I realized that this is quite similar to what I observed in our discussion on the ARC triangle. You seem to get in a defence-mode when something that lies dear to your heart seems to get attacked – be it the tech, LRH or now Marty. You seem to loose the overview of what precisely is attacked and assume it is an onslaught on all of the tech, the whole of LRH or Marty the Man himself. What Marianne is attacking is one specific unproductive behaviour that is clearly visible with Marty and posters on his blog – a pattern that is also evident throughout society and that one should refrain from. And that is all. No need to drag it out beyond that.

            2. No, Geir, I don’t get “in defense mode” every time something I hold dear is being attacked. I do so when I think it is being attacked UNFAIRLY. Through the majority of this exchange, Maryanne was exclusively commenting on Marty’s “abusive behavior pattern”, right up until I pointed out the good of what he’s doing and only then did she say anything positive about him.

              Unlike yourself, Marty isn’t generally speaking to individuals (in this case, CoS members) one at a time and thus able to tailor his criticism to them specifically. He is making an overall observation with the label of “kool-aid drinker”, which IMO has far more truth to it than not. The significant factor, in any case, is that he’s also giving many specifics as to what he means by that label, writing post after post about what has been going on for years and what is going on now.

              So the illogic I see in condemning him and his posters for making a general critique is that anyone in the CoS reading his blog will also read all the specifics as to what is meant. Ironically, however, there is probably a very small percentage involved in the CoS who even read his blog. So in that respect, there seems to me to be much to do about nothing. Nevertheless, the concept is most likely spreading by word of mouth and people are being educated on the matter as a result.

              Btw, I didn’t think you were at your best either on that ARC discussion, especially on the thread that followed it because, for one thing, I think you had MU’s. But geeze, that happened over a year ago and I don’t think we need to drag it into a critique of either one of us.

            3. I give up. When someone hits your blind spot, they should be well advised to just leave it. When it so incredibly hard to show you that you are illogical (as here, repeatedly), I find it beyond obvious that nobody will be corrected or changed by having a rubber stamp derogatory label thrown at them.

              Throwing around derogatory labels about others in general is Wrong and Counter-productive. Period.

              Get that Fags, Dikes, Kool-Aid drinker, Pigheads, SPs and fuck-heads.

              Only one more thing to add, and I’ll be done: 😉

            4. My dear Geir, you are right. This blind blockhead still can’t see the logic in equating all labels. Those you listed (funny, btw) have no other purpose than to demean, which I don’t see to be the case with all labels. In the end you may be right about the label “kool-aid drinker” – that it will produce more harm than good. And if so, I will genuinely applaud your insight.

              I have one more thing too: thanks for adding the wink. Maybe you should use your charm a little more and the straight talk a little less. I think it would work better on me. 😉

            5. Marildi.

              You say, “Through the majority of this exchange, Maryanne was exclusively commenting on Marty’s “abusive behavior pattern”, right up until I pointed out the good of what he’s doing and only then did she say anything positive about him.”

              This is a false statement. I have no idea where you got this from.

              At no point was I EXCLUSIVELY commenting on Marty’s “abusive behavior pattern” and at no point did you somehow “correct” this, because it NEVER happened the way you have characterized it.

              You didn’t “point it out” and thus bring me to speak positively. You leaped to a false conclusion, far beyond the scope of the topic being discussed and I corrected your false assumption.

            6. Marianne, I just reviewed that last exchange between us, above. Near the beginning of it (at 2012-10-26 at 09:36), I first quoted something you said that had to do with the Kool-aid label and then said that you have “misunderstood Marty’s blog”. Your reply was to say, “It is a big leap to somehow conclude that I do not see any value in Marty’s blog…” To me, that was the big leap.

              Similarly, you said, “You didn’t ‘point it out’ [the good of what Marty is doing] and thus bring me to speak positively”. Here again, all I said was that I had pointed out the good, and then added “only then did she say anything positive about him”. Review the posts and you will see that before my comment you had said nothing positive; afterwards was when you did so for the first time.

            7. Marildi: `

              I am going to dissect your last comment in the interests of producing a greater understanding, hopefully for both of us.

              Here is EXACTLY what I was responding to, cut and pasted: “Through the majority of this exchange, Maryanne was exclusively commenting on Marty’s “abusive behavior pattern”, right up until I pointed out the good of what he’s doing and only then did she say anything positive about him.”

              In your response, you have dropped the first part, not acknowledging that you stated: “Through the majority of this exchange, Maryanne was exclusively commenting on Marty’s ‘abusive behavior pattern”

              Pretty inflammatory – pissed me off…

              That sentence, taken as a whole as it will be (after all it is a sentence!), is a completely false statement. But you piecemeal the clauses in it as if they stand alone to respond.

              And pissed off, I use strong language: FALSE STATEMENT. I bet that upset you…

              Having dropped out the first part of the sentence, you then truncate the quotation you provide for the second part.

              This is the truncated quotation: and then said that you have “misunderstood Marty’s blog”

              But this is the entirety of you actually said: “…shows that you are the one who has misunderstood Marty’s blog – COMPLETELY.”

              BIG DIFFERENCE.

              Pissed me off even more…

              You continue from there to say: “ALL I said was that I had pointed out the good, and then added…”

              Seeing red…

              No. It was not ALL you said. ALL you said was in the paragraph I have quoted above.

              And no. You did not simply point out the “good.” You actually detailed what you felt to be valuable on the blog, ignoring that I was discussing the derogatory labeling (and why I thought it inaccurate and unfair) shifting it to a “correction” of my supposed misunderstanding.

              I will bet you do not much like that I am saying you set out to SHIFT… Fighting words!

              Of course, I responded, “It is a big leap to somehow conclude that I do not see any value in Marty’s blog…”

              Hiss!…. BIG LEAP ….

              And I set out to correct that ERRONEOUS assumption.


              I had no problem doing that, but for you to suggest that your action CAUSED me to say something GOOD about “HIM” for the first time, based on me EXCLUSIVELY talking about HIM, that’s just wrong and it is NOT what happened.

              Protest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not like that! (from either you or I)

              This is the ACTUAL statement I made to correct your ERRONEOUS assumption:

              Marildi, I was not going to respond, but I see that you have somehow gone from what I have been speaking of — which is a PARTICULAR behavior pattern which I saw on Marty’s blog to statement that I am condemning or attacking Marty’s blog and efforts in general. The fact is that I have not been addressing anything but that PARTICULAR behavior pattern on Marty’s blog. Not once have I condemned the entire effort or maligned the information in any way. Nor have I said anything to the effect that it is not important or valuable.

              It is a big leap to somehow conclude that I do not see any value in Marty’s blog because I do not see it as productive to use derogatory labels that are too sweeping.

              As I see this roll out, I understand that you want to give a fair shake to all concerned. And part of that fairness is realizing that people do protest, have upsets and blind spots and worries and concerns and that it does not all relate to just meanings. There is a HUGE element of emotion and charge and PROTEST. i.e. the protest is: I am not as you are characterizing me. You can see this easily in this exchange between you and I right here and now.

              Fighting words, inflammatory comments and derogatory labels charge things up and make it very very difficult to get anywhere.

              Consider your response to what I just wrote, just as I considered mine along the way and made guesses about yours. Of course you are going to want to fix my wrong guesses and unkind language.

              All this aside, what is far more important to me is not making the same error I made IN the Church of Scientology, which was to not speak up. I am quite aware that what I speak up about is not particularly pleasant and may buck a particular groups party line or shared understanding. I am also aware that it often sounds condemnatory. What I am learning is that when trying to address something that is very negative, it is very difficult to keep it confined to a NARROW view and even harder to keep it sounding positive.

              Throughout this exchange I have been trying to promote the idea that it is possible to address injustices and abuses without using abusive or derogatory language and without stereotyping victim or aggressor. I consider this to be a good idea, and very positive.

              It is part of my overall effort to be more compassionate, and to take a kinder and more nuanced view of others, especially when referring to a large group of people. That means looking from the viewpoints of ALL concerned. In the case of these blogs about Scientology, that means from the point of view of the C of S Scientologists, the rabid anti Scientologists, the Independents, the Freezoners, the FreeThinkers (Geirs blog), the general public, the newbies, the press and so on. They all can and do potentially visit, and on this blog, it is clear that it has a good sized audience of people who know little about Scientology.

              When I do that, I question the use of labels that are derogatory or even ambiguous — such as koolaid drinkers. Valkov suggests that this label is a clinical label the way that Marty uses it, though he does admit that there are commenters on that blog who are definitely NOT using it in a clinical fashion! I can see that. However, since it is a term that carries a very negative connotation for many people especially when slung at someone, perhaps it simply is not the best choice or the best way to refer to a phenomena, and especially using it to describe the people one is trying to help.

              To my mind, the essence of a clinical definition is that there is a diagnosis made of an individual. It is applied to an INDIVIDUAL. I think this is where it all goes terribly wrong — when a term that classifies is used on people who may or may not have the clinical symptoms (eg. suppressive person) it is a wrong indication. And a wrong indication causes a tremendous amount of upset and restimulation.

              This is counter-productive. An individual who is upset and restimulated is not going to have improved rationality if further restimulated by a wrong indication. This includes flat out telling someone they have misunderstoods, insisting on it when they disagree. There are many critics and exes going on about how the C of S and even the tech forces ideas on people by doing that and the upset and charge is HUMUNGOUS from this practice. And besides, LRH did say that one should accept only what one finds to be true. Like all of the tech, it can be used in a way that empowers an individual, but it can also be used in a way that devalues an individual and his own truth and perception.

              Getting back on topic here, I think that not using derogatory labels in sweeping ways is very much in keeping with the precept in the Way to Happiness: Try to treat others as you would to be treated. I really do not think that anyone likes to be name called, given a derogatory label that is too general, or be accused of being a certain way as their overall characteristic.

              Of all the works that LRH offered, the WTH was the final work and his final legacy. I happens to be my favorite. I don`t think it should be ignored, I think it should be given due consideration. I am continually surprised to learn that many people do not think this is important and in fact consider it to be a barrier to effective action to get others thinking. i.e. calling people koolaid drinkers or suppressive or squirrels or ronbots or whatever will cause them to think for themselves (by producing cognitive dissonance). I am not so sure that it does. But I am very sure that it causes upset. And I am even more sure that I would not want to be treated that way, not now, not then, not ever.

              I am seeking to live and act in better ways, to try to live those precepts. This is not an easy task it seems but it does get easier as I go along.

              I am very much aware that you seek to be a voice of reason and fairness and hope on the blogs you post on. I did read your posts on this blog you know. ALL OF THEM.

              Here is my favorite quotation from Marty, as he speaks about the Way to Happiness virtures and the rundown he just delivered to someone:

              I suggest that if those practicing Scientology attempted to exemplify these virtues, heretofore unseen gains from the subject would be routinely attainable, and lastingly maintainable. I also believe that if independent Scientologists gave importance to these virtues in their lives, the subject would never again fall into the hands of a monopoly that would use it in a reverse manner to subjugate and denigrate others.



            8. Marianne, thank you very much for the validations. I know that you too are well-intentioned. That is very clear. 🙂

              You made some valid points, but some of what you wrote was again reading things into what I’ve said that weren’t there. I realize I may have done the same kind of thing when I assumed you had an overall negative view of Marty’s blog.

              You have to admit, however, that you were coming down pretty hard on him and his blog as regards the label issue and how harmful it is, and because of that it was hard to imagine that you thought he was doing something positive overall. When you later seemed to be saying you did think he is creating a positive effect overall, I was surprised as the two viewpoints seemed inconsistent and contradictory to me. They still do, actually.

              Also, the only reason I didn’t go into detail on that last post was that it would have been too long a post. That was why I specified the point where the relevant exchange started, and I thought (and still think) the posts speak for themselves.

            9. More to your point, Marianne: In that post where I left out parts of the quote, I figured that it was easy for anyone to see the whole quote in the post just above it. I didn’t leave parts out for the purpose of slanting anything. And in any case, the parts left out weren’t directly related to the points I was making.

              Some of the points you brought up are indeed related, but indirectly so. Nonetheless, you expressed some truths about the pitfalls of discussions and I agree that it’s tough to avoid them – something like traipsing through a mine field, LOL.

              Everything else aside, the bottom line in this exchange is that your view of the label being used for CoS members as doing more harm than good is the opposite of mine. My view is that while it may be doing some harm, it is doing far more good. I think there is bound to be some negative but unavoidable reaction to such a significant and now sensitive subject as Scientology.

              I truly don’t see the label being used as intending anything more than a communication, certainly not as being in the category of label-slinging – which has no positive intention or result. But I’ll say the same to you as I did to Geir – if it turns out to be the way you perceive it then I will certainly acknowledge you for your foresight and insight.

            10. Marildi, Marianne and other contributing to the Kool-aid discussion. IMHO I am so impressed with the discourse, your ability to communicate on a subject. It was like the dissection of words and thoughts, very fascinating to follow. Also reminded me of forensic study which I find interesting. Kudos all around and thanks to you. 🙂

            11. Hi dee, thank you very much for the acknowledgment! I thought we girls did a pretty good job of hanging in there with each other until we each understood the other. (Maybe it’s true that women should rule the world… :))

              Btw, let’s see now how the boys are gonna do. 😉

            12. deE’, Thank YOU! Stick around . . . we are all changing and the resulting iterations are often random or the least one might expect!

            13. Oh oh Marildi – I see that my response ended up in the wrong spot! I did respond – just look a little further down. Sometimes its hard to get it right which reply button to hit when the discussion gets really long!

            14. This isn’t “really long”… Above 1000 comments on one blog post is “really long” 🙂

          2. Thank you for your positive response and explanation. I was very hard on Marty’s blog, but mainly because I do see its value and I hate to see it lessened as a means of getting truth to people. I can tell you that I was shocked by the one post I mentioned that Marty had made, particularly because I was thrilled by his write up on the happiness rundown and I thought what he said was really a great truth. But you couldn’t possibly know that, and I hadn’t thought to mention it.

            One thing I realized that must be much harder for you, is that you don’t have the benefit of reading hundreds of my posts on any blog since I haven’t posted much anywhere. I have a good sense of you whereas you don’t of me. I can tell you that Geir completely surprised me by asking to publish what I had written. I wouldn’t have posted it at all on his blog as it seemed to me that he had pretty much moved on and I respected that.

            On contradictions — perhaps this will help. Raising kids, one has to support and encourage activities and behaviors that will empower and help them to prosper, but if that kid starts to steal, for example, then one has to immediately act to curb and assist them to get honest and straight. It doesn’t mean the kid is BAD or EVIL it means that the particular activity cannot be tolerated and in some cases taking a hard line on it is appropriate. But that doesn’t mean the kid isn’t a good kid and it doesn’t cast everything that kid has done up to the point of the bad behavior in a bad light either. This is how I mostly saw the C of S over the years when I encountered less than enchanting behaviors and weird outpoints. Of course, that stopped the day I understood that it had taken to manufacturing koolaid (lies) and engaging in atrocious injustices and abuses and HIDING them, making all of us pay for it. Yuck..

            1. Thanks for the further explanation, Marianne. Totally got it. I’m really glad we persevered until we came to an understanding of each other’s viewpoint, even if we don’t fully agree. 🙂

              Btw, I take an interest in writing and for someone who doesn’t post much, you write very well. It has been my experience that writing takes practice so I’m curious if that has been the case for you and if so what you got your practice on.

            2. Marildi: I don`t post much on Scientology sites, its true. I don`t know if I ever will. But I have written pretty much every day for the last 40 years in one capacity or another. One way I have earned income is ghost writing for websites so of course I am not on record as the author and its a breach of contract to reveal that I am the ghost writer. I`ve belonged to local writer`s groups most of my life, and have written for various print publications of companies and civic groups I`ve belonged to or worked for along the way. I`ve participated in lots of chatrooms and forums and early on through usegroups, but always under nicknames — used to be that everyone used nicknames, and having a clever nickname was a big part of the culture. I`m kind of glad because some of my early posts on the Internet were less than enchanting, to put it mildly! Firefights and flame wars! Into the fray! LOL!

            3. Hi, Marianne. Well, that explains it. I knew you had to have had a good bit of practice to write as well as you do. 🙂

  15. I think y’all restrained Nordic types need to watch Eminem’s movie “8 Mile”. Just my Russky opinion, of course.

    1. For me it is simply and only a matter of “doing that which works – and not do that which doesn’t work”.

  16. Marianne, in re: this –

    “I do not think it is accurate as it is far too sweeping and it is a word with more than one meaning and by association is linked to Jimmy Jones and the infamous and well known suicide of 900 people.”

    I believe Marty is on public record as saying that he blew from the CoS when/soon after he had the realization that the situation at Int was similar to Jonestown, and he feared a similar outcome.

    I. like marildi, do not think using the “Koolade(spelling?) drinkers” phrase is necessarily an attempt to derogate anyone. I think Marty uses it in a pretty clinical sense, analogously to the phrase “Stockholm syndrome” which is recognized in some academic circles as a clinical term, not as a pejorative.

    Marty was there, he saw what he saw and that was the conclusion he came to at the time. For all I know, he may have changed his mind by now about its likelihood, but I think he still sees the potential there, for something like that to happen.

    I’m saying the link to Jonestown does exist in Marty’s mind, based on his experience and view of Int. So from his end, the association to Jonestown, is deliberate and in his view, apt.

    That is not to say his blog groupies or other blog groupies do not mean it in a derogatory way.

    It’s just human nature to interpret and misunderstand words in ways that accord with one’s own bias. I agree that it is an unfortunate human trait. Just as “SP” has come to be used in derogatory and political ways, when originally it was a clinical term used to designate a state of a person’s case, a diagnostic term for an antisocial personality.

    1. Yes, I have noticed that clinical terms become buzzwords and stereotypes with little more meaning or intent than calling someone an asshole or shithead or loser. When they reach that stage they are generally being used to shame or humiliate another human being. I just finished reading an article about people finding sociopaths in their lives well beyond the suggested 4%. I expect it won’t be long until that word too is hurled at people as casually as telling them they are an idiot or insane. (Joke – idiot and insane were both once clinical terms)

      I still maintain that the use of these kinds of derogatory labels is counter-productive to fostering a better environment for all concerned and that they can easily devolve to verbal abuse, setting the stage for more abuse and injustice. I can still see the image in my mind’s eye of Debbie Cook standing in garbage can with others hurling names and insults at her. It makes me cringe and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to perpetuate this kind of behavior.

      1. Marianne..
        Have you thought about: how someone describe others or any incident they experience… in fact describing them self how they thing, behave.. Since what one puts out is originating from within their own universe… Can’t put out something which does not exist in the first place…. How could one describe being in Paradise when one lives in their own nightmare of Hell?

        1. Yes, I have been moving in that direction, realizing that if I want to see a change then I will have to “live” that change and so it is then reality. i.e. bring it alive. The question may well be, what do I want to bring alive? Keep alive? This is how I came to the idea that I should come from a viewpoint of being a citizen of the universe and then seek to live principles that empower, inspire, respect, and so on. Still working on it!

          1. Marianne, with each session one removes –as-is some of old beliefs so change comes with that in thinking and in behavier. Here I have copied it out of my blog for you..

            When one erases all the reasons, motives, the needs, the urges, the purposes, the musts, the dedications and one has fulfilled all the commitments, ones duties toward others and self, and have re-paid the owned as in promises one have made in the past: whatever those may have been and one needed for going someplace or staying in place for those reasons, when all those considerations- agreements are all have gone, all erased : than one truly have arrived..
            In other words ones universe is no longer filled with considerations, one has achieved the emptyness: The Native State yet than one has everything…

            1. 🙂 yes dear, that is little old me!
              PS: it did not happened overnight!

            1. By the way i am spinned in all ready since yestarday because I was asked to read Ken Oggers stuff in order to see what I think of all that…

          1. Chris dear you caused a MU in my univers two in fact. “”ad hominem and straw man arguments.”” What are those things, I have no reality.. You dont want me to spin in do you? so please explain..

            1. Good point Eliz, as I would like plain simple meanings also. “”ad hominem and straw man arguments.”” I confess to not quite knowing straw men.
              Would you mind Chris? Thanks love.

            2. Chris, Dee and I we can call you Love because we both have white hair and wrinkled knee caps.. that means calling somebody love dont mean what it used to mean before..

            3. where the hell did you get the “old” bit from? you are in the midle 50’s the body that is.. you never be young as a spiritual being or never be old either that is a human bit-considerations agreements assumptions and here the body will be 73 in few days and there is no age here for me… only for the body… come to think of it how could any one have age when is one in Native State? no such a thing.. so dear give up age.. usless comodity.

            4. Ah, but I was penetrated by an English bloke for 22 years and his language rubbed off my knees as they wrinkled and grew my grey hair. I still love to go to the loo. Right!
              I will watch myself with strangers well advised love. 🙂

            5. Dee……
              HEHEHE… good one!!! so you were penetrated by on English block for 22 years!!! Hehehe I do hope you both have enjoyed that!
              And a loo bit, I am happy you love to go there loo.
              you made my evening! 🙂

            6. Elizabeth, these are two illogical ways of arguing. The ad hom means “against the man” or it’s where I say something nasty about you as the reason your argument is no good. The other one, the straw man, is where I argue against something you didn’t really say. This thing you didn’t say is the “straw man.” Like a scarecrow in the corn patch.

            7. Hehehe…. read my mind old bean………. ……. …… argue about that one! 🙂

            8. Chris, I think you know we both are called Elizabeth… but you can call me Erzsebet too if you like, for the change.

            9. So that what Marildi was doing to me the ”ad hom” bit veri interesting… hehehe… she must have enjoyed her self greatly..

            10. Elizabeth, so what I meant was that your comment about ugly attitudes coming from ugly universes could explain the reason and source of these two types of illogical arguments. Either way, I liked you post.

  17. Geir — you made a comment (somewhere on your blog) about how you believed that kindness was a key behavior. It really stuck with me and I have been trying it out as a way of being and doing as much as I can and as often as I think to do it. It gets easier the more I do it, and the more I do it the easier it gets. I’ve been trying to get it to a point where it governs my every action and reaction — hard to keep in mind some times as the older habitual patterns leap into gear! This has quite an effect I’ve found — good changes all around.

    I found this remarkable article on kindness — “How Kindness is Contagious,” written up by a scientist named Hamilton. Here’s a short excerpt to whet your appetite:

    …But I set out to research this field (kindness) because I wanted to see if I could find evidence to support the idea that a small group of people with compassion and kindness in their hearts could change the world. I wanted to know, specifically, if kindness is contagious.

    To me it is pretty obvious. If someone does something kind for you, you feel better and are more likely to help out someone else. So that person’s kindness has been contagious in that it has infected you. Similarly, each time you do something kind for anyone, whether it’s a family member, friend or a stranger, your kindness is also contagious. Please know that it doesn’t stop with that person.

    As you go about the rest of your day, repercussions of your kind behaviour continue to ripple on, just as a pebble dropped in a pond creates waves that lift a lily pad at the other side of the pond.

    The rest of the article is here:

    “And just how contagious is kindness? Well, just like emotions, a Harvard study found that kindness also affects our friends, our friends’ friends, and our friends’ friends’ friends. Kindness ripples out to a radius of three social steps.”

    1. Thank you for reminding me 🙂

      I also try hard to live it – but as you cn see, I sometimes struggle to.

        1. “Geir — you made a comment (somewhere on your blog) about how you believed that kindness was a key behavior. It really stuck with me and I have been trying it out as a way of being and doing as much as I can and as often as I think to do it. It gets easier the more I do it, and the more I do it the easier it gets.”
          Marianne, the same happened with me. It’s like it impinged and I recall and am rescued when in doubt. Thanks for that Geir. Love the good stuff here 🙂
          Sometimes I/we need GOOD reminders, like being open for boops on the head. 🙂

        2. Marianne, while one continues with solo auditing, one finds many consideration what is the meaning of ‘’life” and as one as-is them one after each other, with that new outlooks open up. And one realises that one once believed in aimed for lose their meaning so much so that one can’t even imagine if one’s reality was any different as it is now.
          By the time one cross over into the Spiritual Universe one no longer has thoughts about life at all…
          Life, having life these considerations only exist if one thinks of self as a body and have identity.

  18. Yo Geir, I just saw an email from a few days ago that it was your Birthday!

    So (belated) Happy Birthday Big Buddy!

    1. Valkov you have a friend in me… you alway had that… but it is passible you have missed that offer?

      1. Thanks Elizabeth. I do think of you as a friend also. You aren’t old enough to be my mother, but you do remind me of her, as she also “shoots from the lip” at times, but she is also very wise at times.

        1. Valkov.. Thanks my dear.. I am about the same age as you.. and I am not a mother type.. Yes i know I put all 8 foot in my mouth time to time.. but what can I say.. I have many of them and there is planty room… hehehe.. big mouth 🙂

          1. Hey Eliz, to me you’re a sister type but I sometimes feel like a frustrated mother to others, because I know sh-t about it.
            My first husband used to call me a mother ……. all the time, and I just don’t know how I could do that to my mother. Love your love, or ARC

            1. Love you too sweet pea!
              I am not a mother type, bloody hell in my earlie life before this one I have had 11 of those little shits. ugh.. fruits of pleasure? few second of climax and a life time of pain on the ass? was it worth it? The very idea gives me s shiver..
              The only reason I would not mind to be a mother to have a kitten or two, but the problem would be about tom cats… no tom cats for me thank you, so it is easier to get one.. kitten that is.. 🙂

        2. Valkov, I have enjoyed your posts, so don’t think this thread is not for you. As another mom figure, I see you playing the game well. Through continuance of the game we all learn something and it isn’t in the winning or losing, but the playing, right? Forget dissecting yourself by OT labels and quit putting your self down. You’re OT also, just haven’t done the levels.
          Fight the good fight or mia culpa, either way the fun is the playing and you have been an important player on this thread. Back off personalities or ego and play the game as you choose to play it, since it’s your game too. 🙂

        3. Valkov darling I did not know till now you were not one of us elitist scientologist.. hehehe.. You are braver, better being than you think guts galore you have mixing with us here, I have admired your knowledge and when I stepped on your tender toes I thought I was stomping on a fellow snobs toe… do forgive. I wonder if ignorance can be used as an excuse for being bad-mannered but I do love on occasional stumping… Attila lives you know…

  19. On another topic, one that Chris alluded to, “cold chrome steel KSW”:

    Here’s a post referring to that, from

    My view is that the “cold chrome steel personality” is a severe aberration, what psychiatrists might call a “character disorder”. Such a person will interpret whatever he hears/reads through the filter of the disorder. His thinking goes through the filter of his disorder, too. So any policy he applies, will likely be applied in a twisted way. In a leadership position, s/he will institute a culture in accordance with it.

    It’s kind of like the principle that a person will tend to interpret things in accordance with the emotional tone he is in.

  20. Valkov, on the post in question I thought you made a good point regarding attractive qualities that don’t necessarily reflect a person’s character and can even be those of a sociopath. Based on that point, you expressed that you didn’t think DM’s good qualities necessarily made him more deserving of help than anyone.

    Then you said, “Beyond that, you are in danger of slipping into some kind of elitism, if you are setting up standards for who is more deserving of help than another” – which did contain the word “IF”, so I don’t think that was the Straw Man part.

    Where you might have gone amiss was in the last few paragraphs where you more or less assumed that he would choose to help DM, although I can see why you could have inferred such a thing from his statement that DM is “worth helping”.

    Your interest in what Geir thinks would help DM was something I was wondering too. And I also wondered about the purpose he (or whoever) would have for doing so – would it be just for DM’s sake, or for whom or what.

    I also thought you sincerely intended to pay him a compliment with respect to his capability when you said, “It’s not inconceivable to me that you initiate communication with DM and offer to help him out with some of his problems”.

    I hope that the two of you can work this confusion out because I appreciate all your thoughtful posts and don’t want a misunderstanding on whosever part to cause you to stop posting here.

  21. Marildi:

    This is the straw man – Valkov said, “So nothing you listed qualifies DM to be more deserving of help than anyone else in the world. If you believe that “people are basically good”, then that is what qualifies him. Beyond that, you are in danger of slipping into some kind of elitism, if you are setting up standards for who is more deserving of help than another.”

    What Geir actually said was that he didn’t buy into the demonizing, preferring a more nuanced approach and then listed qualities he noticed that were good qualities. The good qualities listed do not have a bearing on the help issue. They relate to the demonizing issue.

    Geir only said he was worthy of help. His exact words were: “I believe he is a person worthy of help.” He never said or inferred that DM was MORE deserving of help than anyone else. So there really nothing to argue and the elitism that seems to be present wasn’t present until Valkov rephrased what Geir said.

    Compare these two:

    Geir: I believe he is a person worthy of help.
    Valkov: So nothing you listed qualifies DM to be more deserving of help than anyone else in the world. (as if Geir was making such an argument – but he wasn’t)
    Notice that Valkov has added the word MORE and the words “than anyone else in the world” and has shifted the listed qualities from recognizing nuance to being reasons for helping DM.
    Also notice that Valkov’s statement starts with: so nothing you listed qualifies… as if Geir put forward this this argument and position. He didn’t. Valkov did.

    Consequently no response is possible for Geir. He would be arguing / responding to something he never said, defending a position he never had. And the discussion derails right there, which is why it is called a fallacy and that’s why fallacies are pointed out in discussions – they derail. They are a common way that discussions break down and go off the topic or point and the time honored method of responding to them is to simply point them out. After all, you can’t argue what you did’t say!

    1. Marianne, you say, “He [Geir] never said or inferred that DM was MORE deserving of help”.

      True. It was Valkov himself who was saying that DM wasn’t any more worthy of help than anybody just because of his good qualities as those could be the qualities of even a sociopath. He never stated that Geir had said that, just that IF (he used that word) he did then it would be a kind of elitism.

      Also, the juxtaposition of the sentences did seem to infer a connection between them, as grammatically one sentence can modify another in such a way. So at worst it was an honest and understandable mistake.

      1. Marildi, you are reading more into this than is there. Saying it is a straw man is NOT a derogatory, it is simply pointing out, using that term, that one didn’t say that. It isn’t a matter of good or bad intent. It is a way of saying — you didn’t duplicate or “get” what the other has said, usually by changing the wording to something else it and/or adding words/meanings that weren’t there in the first place. It is extremely aggravating to have it done to you. As I see it, there is really only one reasonable response and that is to say, oh, you’re right — you didn’t say that. Going all defensive about it, justifying it, insisting that its right just adds more confusion to a confusion that has already happened. You can simply say, oh that’s right, you didn’t. And then say, it seems to me that you… as a question or a new thought instead of attributing that thought to another as if they said it.

        I might point out that I participated in a marriage counseling workshop in which the only thing that was addressed was the straw man, as the #1 breakdown point in all marital communication and undoubtedly the #1 source of massive upset and marathon discussions that never went anywhere and never healed anything. I was amazed at just how easy it is to fall into this when tempers are high and hot subjects are taken up. Even with the coach present and intervening, and taped video playback there were some that were so angry at having this done to them that they refused to even continue communicating.

        1. Sorry Marianne, I do not take it that way. I do take it as derogation, here’s why: Telling me I am “using straw man tactics” assumes somethings that may not be true. “Using” implies I am doing something consciously and deliberately, and “tactics” assumes a goal or purpose I do not necessarily have.

          I take being told that, exactly as I would take being told I am a “Kool-aid drinker” – it’s an offensive label – “straw-man tactics user”. Let me coin a term – “Smutter”. Offensive label is offensive. “Straw Man Using Turd”?

          Now, do I need to respond with an offense of my own? NO. That is my part of it. I do sometimes come back guns blazing without adequately bridging into my response. I could just step back and say to myself “Well I’ve ruffled his feathers, I should proceed carefully here and get this clarified,” etc etc. I’m aware of that, I just fail to keep up the standard. For this I apologize. Because in a very real sense, I am my brother’s keeper. Too bad for him, as he is also my keeper. 🙂 It’s odd how that works out, because it is based on each person being 100% responsible for his/her end of the comm line. It does go back to causality. If there is a misunderstanding, it is never the other person’s “fault” and never has to escalate into a feud, because either person at any moment can respond in a new unit of time with a new origination. We’re talking TRs 3 & 4. Neither person has to, nor should s/he, robotically go along with the mechanical chain of causation(Usually spelled “accusation” in most arguments. 🙂 )

          As I have already posted to you, instead of responding by labeling me a “smutter”, it’s simpler and more direct to simply say “No, that’s not what I meant”, or “You have misunderstood me. Let me explain”, or “I’m sorry, let’s start over”, or any number of things. The step of labeling what I posted as “straw man” is an implicit rejection, as well as an omission of actually handling any originations I may have made in my post. This of course makes me feel misunderstood, I go into a rage, whatever. I worked on a psych unit once where we were held to a pretty strict standard. If a patient we were interacting with got misemotional, we were taught the view that we had failed in some way to handle the situation correctly, especially if we failed to smooth it out back to normal or somehow handle it in a constructive way.

          Clarify yourself, if you feel I have failed to understand you. Don’t point the finger at me and chant “strawman! straw man!” I do find that offensive. Go ahead and pick apart my post line by line if you wish, pointing out any logical errors. That’s fine. But if you fail to clarify what you mean, you’re wasting your time with me. This is not a debate, to me. This is a conversation. If I’m abrasive and lack good form, I regret that. But I always view myself as presenting ideas that are solely my own, not countering someone else’s ideas.

          I can’t deny that there are many “manners” type things I fail to do. Often I am in a big rush to to pour out my thoughts before they flee, I guess. My posts are often too long and unfocused.

          If you recall your Comm Course, a preclear might come at you with “originations”, or with “comments”. Comments need to be ignored, originations need to be acknowledged. Responding by simply labeling my post as “straw man” short circuits the 2-way comm….
          Hmmm. It just occurs to me, that labeling my comm as “straw man” is in fact a “comment” in terms of the TRs…. and therefore I should simply ignore it, and get back to responding to his origination(s), or re-stating my own.

          But if you feel you need to call “straw man” on me, then as far as I’m concerned, you need to IN THAT SAME POST clarify what you feel I misunderstood. I can accept the label as a ‘bridge’ in to the rest of the post. But used alone without explanation, it is just a cheap and easy invalidation to me.

          Why? Because it should be obvious, that If I had not misduplicated your post, I would not have responded with what you call a “strawman”.

          If you want to impute other motives to me…. well…..

          1. Okay, let’s start over again! 🙂

            I really like that you have taken the time to write this heartfelt reply. Apology accepted – and with a big smile!

            If it helps at all, I assure you that at no time did I think that you were “using tactics” and from what I can tell, I really don’t think anyone else did either. I am truly sorry that it seemed that way to you. I jumped in with the definition thinking it would be helpful to clear up the meaning of straw man and demo it from what happened in your post. I hope it did help somewhat at least.

            I know all about seeing “red!” I try to resist the urge to respond right away if I see “red” and I even walk away from the computer keyboard until I cool down. I’ve been a denizen of the web for a long, long time and over the years, seeing “red” kind of got worn down. This is a very civilized forum as they go! I’m quite thrilled to be posting here! And I even get to speak and have my say without being flamed down to the ground and reduced to a cinder! Nice!

            Of course, you have to realize too that I am working away on finding better ways to be a full-fledged citizen of the universe — practicing what I have set as principles. Its turning out to be quite a bit more challenging than I thought it would be! But hey, old habits die hard sometimes!


            1. The problem is not with you. Geir has specifically posted to me in the past, that I “used straw man tactics”. It’s probably even true of some of my posts, as at one time I did not even have the concept, but it is not always true by any means. Mostly I post my own associations to the posts I read. It is true that associative thinking is less than strictly logical.

    2. To M and M… from elizabeth with love..

      Would like to point out: only those people who have not confronted their bank and did not have enough auditing, not have seen, grasped their own OVERTS yet will throw rocks on others.
      I my reality and I have a very good on this subject since not one person audited much as I have on this Planet so I consider myself authority on the subject that of course includes O/W’s and just how many each person possible has… simply because I know what the bank contains and I know what mine were too.
      Good and bad equally existing in each beings Bank… No such a thing as only bad person or only a good person. If somebody had done ‘’more good’ ’in their lifetimes because she or he was keyed into the so called doing good bit…Like mother Theresa.. Flapping about on wings..
      If one is a nasty son of a bitch this life: simply because something has triggered off his BANK to become Hell on wheels!!
      The bank is equal; no exceptions… why do you folks think you are here on Earth? Because you have it too!
      So throwing stones, we can do a bit, but not much because we should remember no one is better on this Planet than the other person….. And on the long run… well.. Good and bad after all they are considerations and nothing more— useless assumption.
      And those who believe they are better than others… well I sure would love to pull their OVERTS!!

      1. So why would anyone intentionally throw a “straw man stone” in either direction?

        1. out of re-stimulation, out of boredom, nothing better to do, want to create something, want to communicate, likes the idea of it, want to hit somebody, mean while enjoys being a effect of it, believes it have value, out of mis-understanding, next step on the path, to create confusion,
          I must have left out some othe reasons, do add your reality and see what you come up with.

          By the way I dont think as Attila I was in the sympathy mode… All those stakes still invisiblly sticking out of the ground half continent.. Porcupine effect.. But that was not a main Overt.. not by far… that was those days: the way… you know what was the problem, I was not very good looking…. HEHEHE..

    3. Impressive. Exactly to the point. This would conclude the example of a Straw Man complete with explanations.

      And so I am not the only one who knows what I said in this room 😉

      1. Fine. I get that this blog is not for me. I have not done the Bridge and have not much auditing or training. Apparently y’all “OTs” (overt products of Miscavige’s CoS?) can’t interact constructively and kindly with someone who’s still just human.

        May all cold chrome steel logicians be well and happy! 🙂

        Here, for y’all, is one of the voices of my generation, that I much admired. The song is by Bob Dylan. It has been done by many artists, including Bob himself of course.

        Chimes Of Freedom

        Far between sundown’s finish and midnight’s broken toll
        We ducked inside the doorway, thunder crashing
        As majestic bells of bolts struck shadows in the sounds
        Seeming to be the chimes of freedom flashing
        Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight
        Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight
        And for each and ev’ry underdog soldier in the night
        And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

        In the city’s melted furnace, unexpectedly we watched
        With faces hidden as the walls were tightening
        As the echo of the wedding bells before the blowin’ rain
        Dissolved into the bells of the lightning
        Tolling for the rebel, tolling for the rake
        Tolling for the luckless, the abandoned an’ forsaked
        Tolling for the outcast, burnin’ constantly at stake
        And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

        Through the mad mystic hammering of the wild ripping hail
        The sky cracked it’s poems in naked wonder
        That the clinging of the church bells blew far into the breeze
        Leaving only bells of lightning and it’s thunder
        Striking for the gentle, striking for the kind
        Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind
        An’ the poet an the painter far behind his rightful time
        An’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

        In the wild cathedral evening the rain unraveled tales
        For the disrobed faceless forms of no position
        Tolling for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts
        All down in taken-for granted situations
        Tolling for the deaf an’ blind, tolling for the mute
        For the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute
        For the misdemeanor outlaw, chased an’ cheated by pursuit
        And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

        Even though a clouds’s white curtain in a far-off corner flashed
        An’ the hypnotic splattered mist was slowly lifting
        Electric light still struck like arrows, fired but for the ones
        Condemned to drift or else be kept from drifting
        Tolling for the searching ones, on their speechless, seeking trail
        For the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale
        And for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail
        And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

        Starry-eyed and laughing as I recall, when we were caught
        Trapped by no track of hours for they hanged suspended
        As we listened one last time and we watched with one last look
        Spellbound and swallowed ’til the tolling ended
        Tolling for the aching whose wounds cannot be nursed
        For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an’ worse
        An’ for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe
        An’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

        1. C’mon, Valkov. I don’t think you should just go off half-cocked (I’m partly just being funny with my “unmixed metaphors” – see my comment below :D). Seriously, this is a chance for you to use your communication skills at a time “when the going gets rough”. Whaddoyousay?

        2. I see no real need to answer your Straw Man post as I think Marianne took perfectly care of that.

          However, I will answer this one.

          Valkov, you are a valuable contributor to this blog – because you have an interesting background with lots of knowledge from angles that I seldom see from others. I highly value your comments.

          When you get emotional, I see that you often make use of Straw Man arguments. I have seen this many times during the past three years or so. It is in fact quite similar to three other posters, namely Alanzo, Marildi and Vinaire. And I do wonder how to best handle this when it occurs. Should I try to correct your logical fallacy or should I just ignore it, try to nudge you gently or be straight, or what? I will let you decide what works best for you. It would be helpful if you could give me an honest and direct answer to this.

          1. Geir, upstream on this thread you accused me of Straw Man in my exchange with Marianne. Whether that was true or it was a matter of being mislead by her comments, to her credit she had the decency to explain those comments to me and to explain her disagreements with my own comments, rather than solely hurling criticisms at me – i.e. to actually grant me the courtesy of carrying on a comm cycle with me.

            You didn’t do that with Valkov, and even now you are justifying not doing so as a problem of not knowing what to do with him. I don’t buy that. First of all, it was clear in his post that he was basically trying to have an honest discussion with you and that should have been your focus. In addition to that, I think you read into his post things that weren’t there.

            You immediately responded to Marianne’s post because (you thought) she vindicated you, while ignoring the valid points Valkov had made about your unwillingness to point out what (you thought) he said that was in error and to have enough manners to explain to him what he didn’t get. Manners are a matter of granting someone enough importance to actually be in communication with them.

            You also ignored my post in reply to Marianne’s, where I said why I thought she was incorrect about Valkov’s supposed Straw Man – in other words, from my viewpoint she herself was committing a Straw Man (on Valkov) although unintentionally so. Even if I am incorrect and Valkov was in fact stating a Straw Man, it was done inadvertently and unintentionally on his part too, i.e. an honest mistake.

            And to now bring my name into the exchange is what is known as a completely irrelevant and unnecessary personal remark, and if anyone wants to see the perfect example of such they just need to see this exchange and that remark.

            Furthermore, to put both me and Valkov in a category with Vinaire and Alanzo was just plain mean of you. I see no other purpose for it than that. I’ve seen that you can be reactive but in this instance the extent of it surprises me. It seems that you wanted to pay the greatest
            insult that you could come up to both of us – not even because Vinaire and Alanzo were especially guilty of the Straw Man fallacy but because, as everybody knows, they were probably the two that you have criticized the most harshly and thus the insult to Valkov and me would be clear.

            But to me, it rings false. The usual and longstanding insult you pay to both Valkov and me is your view that we argue irrationally in favor of LRH and Scn. Whatever degree of truth there is to that, IMO a large part of your view of it is due to your own reactive bias in the reverse, against LRH and Scn, which you can’t see. I will add that you seem to have a button on Valkov especially and have attacked him many times while ignoring the truly outlandish comments of others, especially those who have the same bias against LRH and Scn that you do.

            I’ve generally tried not to be too outspokenly critical of you at the times you deserved it, out of respect to your being the blog host and my appreciation of that. But in a way, you shouldn’t be treated any different than anybody else when you are unfair and/or off the rails. And IMHO, this is one of your most ungracious moments.

            1. 1. I didn’t address Valkov’s post further because IMO Marianne did a perfect job at explaining my stance. No need to reiterate.
              2. As Marianne said, A Straw Man is a Straw Man regardless of whether the person intended it to be a Straw Man or not.
              3. When I point out the four people I have seen using Straw Men the most, it is because I have seen exactly those four people using Straw Men the most. Nothing more, nothing less. No other comparisons or similarities implied. It is an interesting coincidence that of those four people two tend to defend LRH and the tech regardless and the other two tend to criticize the same regardless.

              And then some charm: 😉

            2. 1. You agreed with Marianne because she backed up your stance, but you ignored the points that Valkov and I made that countered it.

              2. My point about the Straw Man being unintentional was simply to indicate the goodwill aspect of his post, and thus his deserving of a comm cycle.

              3. The four people you listed may have their outpoints but with NONE of those four is Straw Man a consistent one. Thus, to me it merely seemed like an attempt to associate Valkov and me with two others that you have made clear you think are extremely outpointy. Aside from that, to take the issue out of context by making such a comparison was unnecessary and unkind.

              The charm did help. 🙂

            3. 1. Marianne represented fully my stance. That is all. She was 100% correct when she represented my opinion. Nuff said.
              2. OK. This comm cycle is now ended.
              3. I have seen four people up close that very often use Straw Men arguments. These are the top four on my list. Again; Nuff said.

              And these charms ends this comm cycle for me:

              😉 🙂 😀

            4. Just to note for the record: You are still making assertions that I think are false. And you are still backing off from replying to the counter arguments, which isn’t playing fair IMO. But have it your way.

              Note too, I always love it when you are charming, with the emoticons and otherwise. And it’s a damn good thing you are. 😉

            5. Geir, sorry but I need to say something more. Perhaps the reason that you strongly protest using any “label” is that in essence you do it yourself and thus have “similar overts of your own”. I say “in essence” because you may or may not use a label as such but you make accusations that are derogatory and insulting and serve no other purpose, even if that isn’t your intended purpose.

              In this instance of accusing Valkov of Straw Man tactics, you (1) unnecessarily extended the accusation to saying that he is one of the top four worst offenders – and (2) by so doing you were factually labeling him – “one of the top four worst offenders of Straw Man”. Even if it were true (which I don’t think it is), it was entirely irrelevant to the current exchange and once again served no purpose other than to demean – the true meaning of label-slinging.

              And to then specifically name those top four was again unnecessary and irrelevant, and further demeaning for a couple of reasons. The one I already mentioned is that Valkov (and everyone else) knows your negative opinion about many of the comments of the other three people. The other reason is that it is likely to be offensive to him to be categorized with Vinaire and Alanzo, as their comments are often way off base in that many of them grossly misinterpret and misrepresent Scientology. THIS is actually their major logical fallacy – Error of Fact – not Straw Man as you claimed.

              Furthermore, to include me in on the discussion about Valkov’s post was the most unnecessary and irrelevant additive of all. And to include me (i.e. label me) in the top four worst offenders was just as inaccurate as naming Valkov. I can’t recall even a single instance of you accusing either of us of Straw Man other than on this thread, so it couldn’t have been that many times. The only repeated criticism you have made of both of us that I recall is that you think we’re biased on the subject of LRH and Scientology.

              None of the above conforms with what you stated in a post above as being your intention: “pointing out as clearly and precisely as I can what is wrong – SPECIFICALLY [my emphasis]”. And I want to make the point again that I don’t think it is fair or good form on your part to make statements about others that they find offensive and then to dismissively blow the exchange.

              I think I’ve said my whole piece now. And I hope you at least consider it.

            6. Considered.

              I will be very straight: Drop the drama. Life is so full of joys, let’s just 10-3 this one.

            7. No, not drama. It can belittled by looking at it that way, but it was just an attempt to communicate. And to improve communication – which is one of the joys of life. I was and am being very straight with you too.

            8. Geir, what does 10-3 mean?
              Have heard of 10-4 means over and out? Otherwise does it mean 10-3 feet back of your head? I’m guessing and laughing too. Thanks in advance. 🙂

        3. Valkov is all over the place with this. For me, it was you who presented the distorted and false view of my own life as though you knew something about it and saying that I had only left a daughter in the Sea Org, when in fact it was that daughter that I saved from burning out and running away from the Sea Org. It was her mother who decided that saving the universe was more important than raising the daughter that she had insisted on conceiving . . . When families are destroyed, that iteration is done and the next iteration won’t be along any line that it might have taken before. Thus lives are forever changed and routinely not in a good way by Scientology.

          Where do you get off being so very offended? If you want to post and share and discuss ideas do. If you don’t want to, don’t. Make your choices freely but don’t pull out the “I’m mad and going to take my ball and go home”-card because I don’t really care for that attitude as it is manipulative and unproductive and won’t have a good result even if we all give in to your tantrum and beg, “oh Valkov, please stay!.”

          On the other hand, if you want to discuss something bugging you, I think I wouldn’t mind listening to that and responding civilly.

          1. Oh.. come on Chris a little Black mail is good, puts the Black mailed person a bit more alert. makes one more perky… Aha, one can see suddenly: passible loss can be assessed if one believed there was values before. Than the act of reach and withdraw is exarcided: shift in the game!!
            We have interest again… 🙂

          2. Hey, when have I ever left and not come back? You should know I am too self-willed to be stuck in staying or going away.

            Ask Geir where he gets off getting offended by a little straw man like me? 🙂 I think I know what he’d say, if you did.

            1. Yes, you asked me. I have actually answered that question by now, in some posts addressed to Marianne, that have to do with Geir’s manner of tersely responding to some of my posts as being “straw man” without any explanation. I have and do take that as intentionally offensive behavior on his part. I could be entirely, 100%, wrong about that, majorly “straw man” wrong about it. Hmmmm. I guess I’ll have to consult Geir’s natal chart to descry the true situation. I think I know what I’ll find – that I have once again made a feral ass of myself. Story of my life!

              “Oh I wish I was an Oscar Meyer wiener….”

      2. Geir, aren’t you going to respond to Valkov? Based on the points in his favor that I mentioned above, I think he deserves a comm cycle on the matter, don’t you? It seems to me you both may have had misunderstandings.

        Actually, I think he deserves a comm cycle in any case. The tone of his post was entirely one of friendly interest in exchanging viewpoints, even if he did make mistakes. You both seem to be reacting and shooting from the hip a bit.

        Maybe you do intend to respond but haven’t had a chance yet, which means that I’m jumping the gun. (At least I haven’t mixed my metaphors – “shoot” “guns”. LOL)

        1. Don’t worry about it marildi. Geir is a man who thinks about his posts and that’s all to the good. He shouldn’t post too hastily. You shouldn’t needle him to respond too quickly. All in good time.

          But thanks for the support! You are a very nice person! 🙂

          1. Geir is a man that does a lot of things in life and comes back to find one of his readers is about to rage-quit his blog 🙂

            And then I should perhaps find some comment here that needs to be answered.

            1. Look! The idea of my rage-quitting his blog made him laugh! 🙂

      3. Geir… one more for the road… I do hope this gives some insight.. if not . you wasted 2 minutes out of this life.. .
        The highest form or level of State one can achieve while one solo audits is the Emptiness.. the Native State, [it is even a higher level than Void.]
        Here being in the Emptiness one simply Knows, and here any alien thought to one which have not been as-ised so far instantaneously as-ised + cognition comes with that sessions not needed any more.
        When I have arrived to this State I have had dozens of cognitions what is Emptiness means and every one of these cognitions confirmed the Wins- I have gained, the understanding-knowledge t what I come to know-collected over in many sessions are real.. Not on imagination.
        I have achieved this State some time back and it is a wonderful State here one is becoming fully aware the Bank no longer exists, oh the universe is still there but all my connections are as-ised.
        By now I also realized that there is no such a thing as the END to this Universe and there is no more to confront… That would be a very silly assumption, ignorant to no end and by now I am not in ignorant –ill-informed mode.
        By now I also have become aware if major changes, shift in reality will be coming my way [ this is the gained ability to recognise the altering energies. ]
        Today I wanted to do something in the distance and I could not, because I was helpless to be cause over and that reality totally puzzled me and forced me to confront the Emptiness.. how that effects the Infinite-self, how that Empty State stops one from being cause over the MEST.

        It is not easy task to confront which has nothing… void of pictures, of movements, holds no energy, no thought are connected to it, there are no sensations… nothing.. Absolutely empty, therefore one can’t find anything in connection with which one could get hold of and continue from there.
        Than BINGO!!!! the cognitions has come; the Emptiness is the ULIMATE TRAP for the SPIRITUAL BEING.
        Because here one believes one has attained the highest level by as-ising the Powers of the MEST: all its considerations.. Yes, that is the highest level BUT BY CONSIDERATION ONLY!
        Yes that is true till this point-reality because one has not gained- learned the realities outside of the MEST Universe and the Spiritual Universe [in here one operates without the body and no longer being part of solidity or have use for on anchor] but still within the boundaries of Physical Universe.

        As I see it, Emptiness =when no longer consider self as a being but an Infinite this step too need to be confronted because it is only on exit door and the same moment becomes an entrance to the true Universe of Intangible –Infinite.
        I would like to emphasise that in Emptiness that State.. is only a consideration but it has more power to hold the being than the greatest of all pleasure moment on the track.
        I do understand that is not easy to comprehend… but just think… emptiness has nothing, zilch, one is powerless, immobilised, stopped, become ineffective in every way, invisible since there are no picture-movements action, becomes useless, can’t create, in other words all has been erased which one once believed in, was real and functioned while in the MEST and used its energies to create-experience at the same time.
        New frontier is a head … till now I thought I had on adventure… I know it is the beginning, simply a new beginning.

    4. Marianne,
      it is not true that there was nothing Geir could say after my post. He could have simply said “No, that’s not what I meant. What I meant is this….” and corrected my misapprehension or misunderstanding of what he wrote.

      Where i Iive, and among most people I have observed talking and communicating, that’s how people have conversations, 2-way communications. A conversation is a process of achieving understanding by clarifying one’s meanings on both sides.

      I guess that’s not how you guys do it. And from what I have been observing lately, I am not interested in interacting along the same ritualistic lines as you are. Be well and happy nonetheless.

      1. I don’t know where you think I’ve lived but it certainly wasn’t in a college and it wasn’t in the Sea Org either. Every communication workshop (work related, relationship counseling, community) I’ve ever gone to stresses the importance of really listening to another and ensuring that you heard them correctly BEFORE responding in an angry or upset way or forming conclusions. All of them teach using a phrase like: “It sounds like you are saying [whatever] — have I got that right?” Or asking a question — do you mean [insert phrase]?

        In the Scientology comm course, it is called duplication and misduplication.
        In discussions the phenomenon is called straw man.

        They also teach giving another the benefit of the doubt, not being accusatory and trying to avoid HOT words, FIGHTING words and putting others down..

        In Scientology it is called not evaluating and not invalidating.
        In the Way to Happiness is called – try to treat others as you would like to be treated.
        In the regular old world (I’m old) that I live in, its called courtesy and good manners.

        It is difficult for anyone to respond in a courteous, warm and friendly manner after a full-on, impassioned diatribe about the negative aspects of their character, especially if it is based on something they didn’t say or didn’t do. You really came down hard in scathing terms about Geir being elitist based on your own misunderstanding of what he said.

        I wasn’t at all surprised that he didn’t respond in any kind of warm or friendly or placating way. Had you done this to some of the men I’ve met in my life, they would have threatened to take you outside and clean- your clock! Or hurled insults right back at you. But, that’s not Geir’s way. Never has been — I’ve just finished reading all of these blogs on Scientology and he’s never been big on wild impassioned responses.

        And your response to his communication and his sincere asking about how to handle this problem as you see it, more accusations of elitism and then stomping off angrily. Or have I mischaracterized what I just read?

        I don’t have a “tough hide” built up from years of verbal or other abuse — my family was always big on social niceties – my grandmother even had a copy of Emily Post’s Etiquette book. “Mind your manners” was probably the most common phrase I heard when I was young and that goes back a long ways. I realize that manners are not quite so formal any more, but I still see people trying to act in a courteous fashion in my own life. Not one of them is or has ever been a Scientologist and none of them have been to college.

        Your response to my own efforts to be helpful is to characterize me (along with Geir) as cold, chrome steel, which I assume is associating me with David Miscavige and his brutal and uncaring treatment of other people. Is that what you are saying?

          1. I assumed that my defining the straw man put me into the category of “cold chrome steel logician too – my bad!

        1. Marianne, if you look at the time signatures on the posts, I think you will see that you have failed to take into account the times the posts were made. You posted here:
          “And your response to his communication and his sincere asking about how to handle this problem as you see it, more accusations of elitism and then stomping off angrily. Or have I mischaracterized what I just read?”

          Geir posted his “sincere asking about how to handle this”, about 6 hours AFTER I “stomped off angrily”. You see? Geir inserted his post, including his question to me, in a response to a post by marildi.

          These WordPress blogs can make it look like posts are in sequence, when they actually are not, in terms of time posted. They are in linear sequence, when they are not in time sequence because some posts in the linear sequence are inserted later. As Geir’s was.

          So I did not snub him by stomping off angrily. I just haven’t directly answered him yet, although I have made 2 posts in response to you, which directly address why calling strawman on me offends me, and how I would prefer to be handles in situations. Perhaps Geir will read those, for starters.
          I will directly respond to Geir when I get a chance. Right now it appears you are more upset about it all than Geir is, and you are getting in the middle of a situation that is really between me and him. And “using some straw man” on me yourself, because of your misunderstanding of the timing of some of the posts involved, as far as I can see.

          Geir is a big boy, I don’t think he needs you to jump in to rescue him from Bad Valkov. He really can take care of himself.

          Do you savvy the DramaTriangle?

          1. Valkov: Oh I absolutely do savvy the drama triangle. In fact, I was reflecting that it would have been better all around if I hadn`t chimed in. Here is what I thought at the time: I saw that Marildi already had jumped in with explanations, so I figured I would try to be helpful and clarify the straw man meaning. More than that though is that I LOVE defining words. And I love to write.

            And in my defense I will add, Valkov, that you forget that you are the Feral White Russian of fame, terrifying to behold, riding over the steppes with blood lust fury! Good thing Attila and the Viking are both here! (joke!) (yes, I read the scnforum too!)

            1. Okay — the above post (ending with the joke about the White Russian) is the one I made last night. I just returned from being out for an hour and a half and it has finally appeared. Now I can compare the date and time to this current post and see what`s what with the lag and the time stamp.

            2. Okay it is stamped 9:43 but it did not appear until at least 2 hours ago. The time stamp on my most current post is 21:30. So that post lagged for at least 10 hours before appearing.

            3. That one was a special case as it ended up un the spam queue for unknown reasons. I had to manually “unspam” it and then approve it.

          2. I wrote a wonderful response just now. I pushed POST COMMENT. It processed as if it posted, but it didn`t appear. I wonder what happened to it! If it does not show up, I guess I will re-write it. Damn. It was a good one too! I have to say good night now though so I will check in the morning.

          3. In the interests of sorting this out and seeing the time sequence on it all, I laid out the posts with their times.

            At 6:56 Marildi is speculating on what the straw man Geir was referring to might have been. Her post ended up in the wrong spot, so she made a post to you with a link to it at 7:01.

            Marianne responded to MARILDIS post by posting the straw man definition. I posted a response under the original post at 7:39, and under the post by Marildi in the wrong location at 8:03 to ensure that it would be seen.

            At 8:21 Marildi responds to me under the wrong location to conclude — So at worst it was an honest and understandable mistake.

            At 18:27 Marianne responds to Marildis 8:21 post explains that its not a matter of intent. NOTE: THE TIME STAMP IS WRONG HERE. I posted this within an hour of Marildis 8:21 post, not 10 hours later and Valkov responds to it at 9:49 so the time has to be before 9:49.

            At 8:39 Elizabeth explains the role of bank

            At 8:44 Geir confirms Mariannes definition. Says: And so I am not the only one who knows what I said in this room (wink)

            At 09:37 Valkov says: Fine. I get that this blog is not for me. I have not done the Bridge and have not much auditing or training. Apparently y’all “OTs” (overt products of Miscavige’s CoS?) can’t interact constructively and kindly with someone who’s still just human.

            May all cold chrome steel logicians be well and happy!

            At 09:48 Marildi chides Valkov for going off half-cocked (joke)

            At 09:49 Valkov responds to Mariannes post (the one that is time stamped incorrectly): I guess that’s not how you guys do it. And from what I have been observing lately, I am not interested in interacting along the same ritualistic lines as you are. Be well and happy nonetheless.

            At 18:04 Marianne responds to Valkov — and this is the post you are now responding to. WRONG TIME STAMP AGAIN. It comes after Mariannes 18:27 post (with wrong time stamp, but is time stamped before! that post)

            At 11:08 Valkov tells Marildi — Don’t worry about it marildi. He’ll get to it on his own good time.

            At 15:34 Geir says: Geir is a man that does a lot of things in life and comes back to find one of his readers is about to rage-quit his blog.

            And then I should perhaps find some comment here that needs to be answered.

            At 15:41 Geir asks Valkov how to proceed in the face of a straw man

            At 19:40 Marildi takes offense to Geirs post and mentions of Vinaire and Alanzo

            There follows an exchange between Geir and Marildi.

            The next day at 10:10 Valkov says:
            Look! The idea of my rage-quitting his blog made him laugh!


            Let’s talk about the time issue.

            Obviously you cannot rely on the time stamp. Twice, my posts have been incorrectly time stamped. It is obvious that this is so, because at least one of your responses to me is time stamped BEFORE the post you are responding to.

            And last night I made a post that disappeared! I wrote another post so I could record when I originally wrote it, should it appear one day.

            In addition to time stamp problems, there is the problem of post placement, which definitely plays its roll in this drama.


            Now lets talk about DramaTriangles.

            My original involvement was in response to Marildi, at 6:56, the first post on this sequence as outlined above. I would not have made a response otherwise.

            I respond directly to Marildi after that.

            Geir responds to both of us, confirming that I have correctly identified the straw man. That post ends up under Elizabeths post so perhaps you didn’t notice it.

            Then I respond to a direct communication from you to me.

            That is the extent of my involvement.


            Perhaps you should be chiding Marildi about drama triangles. After all, she took it upon herself to try to understand what the straw might have been, worried that your intentions could have been misunderstood, chided you for going off half-cocked, chided Geir for not responding in a timely manner and then got into a long discussion with Geir on her own concerns resulting from what he said.

            Then again, perhaps you shouldn’t be chiding Marildi — there are plenty of places on this blog and other blogs where people jump in and try to understand issues and explore them, yourself and yours truly included.


            As regards how I came to think you thought of me as cold chrome steel — two things you said, one to the group, the other directly to me.

            To the group, along with the Springsteen video: Fine. I get that this blog is not for me. I have not done the Bridge and have not much auditing or training. Apparently y’all “OTs” (overt products of Miscavige’s CoS?) can’t interact constructively and kindly with someone who’s still just human.

            May all cold chrome steel logicians be well and happy!

            To me directly: I guess that’s not how you guys do it. And from what I have been observing lately, I am not interested in interacting along the same ritualistic lines as you are. Be well and happy nonetheless.

            Now, you have to admit, it certainly sounds like I am included, especially considering the second one is directed to me.

            And it certainly sounds like you are leaving the blog. If not, then Marildi and DeElizabeth also misunderstood this.


            In any case, I am quite happy with the post you made earlier.

            1. You were not included. It was a dig at Geir for harping on me as a “straw man user” and Elizabeth the Hun for her post about PULLING IT IN. I saw both as overtly “no-sympathy”. I guess I had a hidden standard about “OT’s”, eh?

              I did not intend to include anyone else but those 2, in my remark, and it was about a few specific posts. In general I think they are good people and quite OK.

              In my post to you, my crack was about your overly intellectual approach to an emotional situation. In fact, what you perceived as your own attempts to “help me”, I perceived as you “piling on”.

              It is true that I do not always immediately perceive my own “straw man” reactions; that is why I would prefer that either, 1.They be ignored as unworthy of response, or 2. responded to with the specifics of what is “straw man” about my post.

              Simply labeling any post I make a straw man without explanation, I take as an intentional offense. And I’m not likely to change in that regard. That’s what I was referring to, with my remark about about “communication” and “where I’m from”, or “where I live”.

              Any reference from me about the “Drama Triangle” is a reference to the materials of Transactional Analysis. Yes, marildi at times “rescues” me. She is a friend, who might sometimes stick up for me, even when I maybe somewhat wrong. This can be analyzed in more than one way. Human motivations are often “overdetermined”, which means there is no single overriding factor, but a complexity of factors involved.
              But the bottom line is, if she perceives someone is going too far in criticizing you, she will stick up for you, too. Fairness is important to her.

            2. That’s fine Marianne. My only point about the timing of the posts is that I “stomped off mad” many hours before Geir’s posted his request for me to clarify how I wished to be responded to, when I posted what he perceived as a straw man response from me.
              You seemed to think I stomped off after his request, snubbing him in the process. That is not true. It appeared that way because of the linear placement of the posts in question.

              I note that you did not actually acknowledge that, in your post above. Did you recognize my point at all?

            3. Valkov:

              Thanks for clearing all of this up and filling in the blanks. It really clears the air when you do this and that`s always a really good thing!

              I did not realize that you were referring to the Transactional Analysis triangle. However, I was not helping you or Geir or piling on you. I was responding to Marildi`s post! And then to yours.

              As regards any apparent lack of emotion on my part, I deliberately take the time to think about what I am writing and do my best to write in ways that will hopefully facilitate the greatest possible understanding. That isn`t about denying my feelings or not having any, its about taking as much responsibility as I can for clearly expressing myself so others can more easily duplicate what I am saying. i.e. I hope to facilitate clear statements that can be duplicated. Sometimes my best efforts fail anyway!

            4. Valkov says: You seemed to think I stomped off after his request, snubbing him in the process. That is not true.

              You are right. I just looked it over how I wrote it and you are right, looks like I got the sequence scrambled on it. The timeline really helps sort this out!

            5. Thanks Marianne.

              WordPress blogs are in some ways not good for having extended discussions. I find it hard to keep the sequences straight myself and figure out which comment belongs to which string in the overall thread etc. Drives me nuts and mostly I don’t bother, it’s so time consuming. Unfortunately I like the discussions that occur here and the people doing making them. Other sites I don’t bother, I just make drive-by posts. I even do that here, or attempt to.

              In some ways I preferred the SCN Forum for keeping a discussion rolling. It was easier to read, and relate things within a thread.

            6. I am so hurt! Geir doesn’t appreciate my dramatic skills!
              This appears to be the central difference – I think some drama is essential to keeping up interest in life. Otherwise, doesn’t it get bland?
              (Also, I never met a Scorpio who did not like some drama at times.)

              I could say more, but then I’d get pelted with straw man and ad hom stones(again). Or be forced to wear big red letters “S” and “M” on my chest or even tattooed on my forehead. 🙂
              OK OK I’ll let it rest – with you.

              Some of the rest of us might continue to discuss it amongst ourselves, though.

            7. Drama? I love drama, i am ready for it any time,: I spread it on my toast, I like to put a pinch into the soup …gives a better flavor, Since I am tooooo is a scorpio….:)

        1. Yep dee, I have. It is what I sometimes perceived as missing from the CoS attitude. Or even if it was there, it was overridden by some agenda. When I practice it myself I am always rewarded and things go well.

          1. Valkov: “missing from the CoS attitude.” You are right, plus it is contradicted in so many places. It’s like there is policy, tech and philosophy. The “Granting Beingness” and others, are some of his greatest works, but the organization does live by or use them.
            We can pick and choose and use all the good stuff in our lives, where we are free to do so. The discussions here on this thread can not be found or allowed in the organization or with any of those truly IN. Freedom is grand!

  22. Chris, we have an incomplete cycle I’ve been wanting to keep going on. Here’s part of it:

    “DM will fall. Everyone agrees on that, maybe even DM. Then what? Then what’s your game? You and Marildi harp that Scientology and the Tech of Scientology has been usurped and suppressed by one guy and there’s your “why.” It’s not that simple.”

    Then what? No problem for me anymore, now that I am sure the CoS’ monopoly on the tech has been broken, which it has been. Years ago, hell,decades ago, I had given up on going up the bridge. Now I feel again that I can because there is a lot of independent delivery being done and it’s increasing. I know about this thanks to reading Marty’s blog, among other sources.

    I am in no position to do so right now, plus my body is crapping out 6 ways from Sunday. I am in Doubt about myself, actually. I was a lot lower than that,. even 3 years ago. At this point whether I drop it or not doesn’t matter in the long run, because i have options when I come back. The CoS is irrelevant, as far as the existence of Scientology and the Tech goes. They blew it, ya know?
    Scientology is now free of those bozos. It’s just a matter of how long it takes for that realization to percolate throughout societies. Already in Israel an entire Mission went Independent in July, and now it is an AO already with a growing public. There are a lot of independent delivery centers around and more are coming.

    The CoS is being bypassed. The Danger formula has been and is being applied. Don’t forget the Ron’s Orgs have been holding the fort and quietly expanding, training and auditing people for nearly 30 years now, inspite of the vilest PR against them all these decades. And there are other Freezoners, too. Not to mention Idenics and those kind of offshoots. There are plenty of ways and places to go Clear.

    Yes, the tech was suppressed within the CoS. But only there. It exists out here. The only thing stopping more people from using it was their belief they couldn’t or didn’t have the right to use it. It was a shadow prison all along. But now, escape velocity has been reached.

    So I’m not worried about the future like I was before. I daresay neither is marildi.

    All that’s needed now is a “Kool-aid Sweatout Rundown”.

    Namaste brother.

    1. Also Chris,
      There have always been some folks in Scientology, within the CoS, and public too, who attempted to alter and suppress the tech, and interpreted materials in unthinkingly literal ways which amounts to the same thing. I met some even back in the 1970s. “it’s not that simple”, as you say. But DM is the shit who floated to the top, as they say, and he keeps making that Kool-aid and flowing it all over the place he can. Change is not possible within the CoS with him at the top. He’s holding that button down. He’s the Chief Domino. So at this time, it is that simple. It’s like the Soviet Union couldn’t fall, until after Stalin was dead and gone.

      That’s all anyone thinks. Who is saying “DM’s the only problem”? No-one who matters. It’s totally a “straw man”, to use a popular expression. But in this case, the CoS has been bypassed anyway.

      1. It is not just the koolaid that is the problem. It is also that an environment / culture of violence against others has been propagated throughout the Church organizations. The violence is characterized by verbal and physical abuse, accusations without substance, contempt, insults, humiliation, threats, name calling, and injustice, just to name a few of the elements of violence.

        I’ve seen several impassioned posts asking what happened to to the love? To the warmth? To the friendliness? To the fun? To the good times? Not possible in a culture of violence, given the overall meaning of this term in the sense of violating someone or something.

        vi·o·late: break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise, instructions, etc.).
        2. to break in upon or disturb rudely; interfere thoughtlessly with: to violate his privacy. 3. to break through or pass by force or without right: to violate a frontier. 4. to treat irreverently or disrespectfully; desecrate; profane: violate a human right. 5. to molest sexually, especially to rape.

        violence: 1. the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc 2. powerful, untamed, or devastating force: the violence of the sea 3. great strength of feeling, as in language, etc; fervour 4. an unjust, unwarranted, or unlawful display of force, esp such as tends to overawe or intimidate 5. do violence to — a. to inflict harm upon; damage or violate: they did violence to the prisoners, b. to distort or twist the sense or intention of: the reporters did violence to my speech

        1. Marianne
          “It is not just the koolaid that is the problem. It is also that an environment / culture of violence against others has been propagated throughout the Church organizations. The violence is characterized by verbal and physical abuse, accusations without substance, contempt, insults, humiliation, threats, name calling, and injustice, just to name a few of the elements of violence””

          Those items-matters which you list are in fact aberration and it is all over the Globe…part of the Bank, therefore human behaviour so nothing new, and definitely not new to those who become the members of the church.. Every church member has a Bank no acceptation that was recognised by those members and that was the reason they wanted auditing, bought auditing hours.
          I wonder if you know about this?

          1. Sure. I am very much aware of it. However, there is such a thing as training, basics, and core principles such as not acting in ways that are bound to charge up the bank — especially in ways that are so uncomfortable or restimulative that they don’t want anything to do with Scientology or its technologies. Most communication course (the original course) students learn how to stay in present time most of the time with good confront and how to communicate with enough skill to avoid keying others in most of the time. Also one can get a very quick reality on the effects of a culture of violence (verbal anyway) by doing the dirty needle drill on the e-meter course, dirty the needle, clean the needle. Then you can see what keys people in and what keys people out. and at least try not to do it to others. Its a pretty graphic demonstration.

            I think that for most people it is possible to choose to dramatize more or less and one can generally choose not to act in ways that charge up others, although sometimes nothing will save you as its your nose or hair that keys them in! Or one can learn how not to act in ways that drive people down the tone scale, (such as violence, abuse, invalidation, etc.) for the lower the tone level, the more charge overwhelms, making life and progress just that much more difficult and adding even more locks and secondaries i.e. preventive Dianetics.

            1. Marianne, please in the future when posting something to me, put my name on the front so I would know it was the answer.
              What I take from your above comment, that the best way not to cause re-stimulation is tip-toe around the tulips.. Nothing wrong with that… manners do count… but Hell, if I would have conducted my life in that manner, I still would be sitting in the communication course and stayed there for the rest of the eternity in a fear I might key in something and my wins would melt.
              The way out is having sessions and in sessions erasing the stimulating items.. and screw the tulips… hehehe.

            2. Elizabeth: As always you are the champion of getting in there and doing auditing and for that I have to applaud you — I’ve read this whole blog you know, and yours too!

              One can be tremendously effective, dynamic, and full of life AND conduct oneself in ways that are respectful, kind and non-restimulative to others. Tip toeing through the tulips? Bah! There’s no particular advantage to being a horse’s ass or stirring up the natives so they hang you high to dry because they are now so restimulated that all they want to do is punish and destroy you. Nor is there much advantage in terrorizing the natives — all they do is avoid you or make plans to get you when you are at your weakest. And if the plan is to get them encouraged to have auditing and all they see as their future is becoming someone that they detest or fear, well, they probably won’t be very interested unless they’ve bought the lie that winning means destroying or some other bank computation. But a winner who is dynamic and getting things done and having fun and is full of life and humor and grace and, yes, even compassion — well that’s a big key out and guess what — they probably would do anything to be that way. They want to feel good. They want to do well. They want to be healthy and happy. If they don’t then they are really keyed in and hey, its best to key them out so they can set their sights on getting cognitions and changing conditions. Ah. Now that’s what we’re talking about! And that is well up the tone scale, not down in the pits of anger and hostility and grief and sob, and scream and rant and rave!

            3. M.. I really do understand your reality and I do agree 100%.
              I also know that each person walks their on Path… that todays this lifes re-stimulation will be a great lesson to leatn from: have cognitions an… Each being is in the right place,,, there is no such a thing as being in the wrong place or wrong time.
              Since each person needs that lessonto learn from and that lesson is that act, that stimulation they are having, what they doing NOW… That is the way it is…. and no one can change that.
              If one is heplful, kind person this life, give to others… trust me that will be on item that person will be needing to run out in order to be free.
              Every act, every experience is on item which is needed…. But my dear, what those experiences will bring in the form of cognitions!!!! they will light up the Universe!

        2. in other words pure undiluted Bank, right? yes? love the stufffffff 🙂

      2. Yes Valkov, bypassed and good riddance.

        Regarding my advice to you — none of what I suggest has to take a long time nor cost much if any money. If “Barcis is willin’,” that is.

    2. Good post Valkov. I don’t worry about cof$ anymore either. I can get what I need from the tech and it is available to study at home. The philosophy is great and one can take what one wants from it to benefit. Labels are not the important thing, knowledge is and wisdom follows. The best to you, meanwhile nice to keep in touch and communicate.

      1. Thanks dee. I’ve been meaning to acknowledge some of your posts to me. Shoulda been doing that, instead of getting involved in all the drama. Maybe.

        1. Valkov: “Thanks dee. I’ve been meaning to acknowledge some of your posts to me. Shoulda been doing that, instead of getting involved in all the drama. Maybe.”
          I enjoy reading the drama. Not concerned with acks on comments either, unless I ask a question. I see you and others on and know you’ve read. I occasionally respond when I have something to say also to get the comment follow ups to read at my leisure. You are all so wonderful and I do learn a lot on this blog.

    3. Valkov I like that ”’“Kool-aid Sweatout Rundown”. Cool: I would be Perspiring , dripping sweet-ness I would be truly sweet. I can hardly stand my wonderfulness now, than I would be just too good to be true!!! Ugh.. please somebody save me from my-self! 🙂

    4. Valkov, Your posts are too frickin’ long for me to respond to in a way that can make any sense. I will try to respond to the spirit of your question, you tell me if I hit your mark.

      I feel awakened from the walking dead of the cult Scientology so much so that I no longer see Scientology as superior and complete knowledge that I ever need to in any way cow-tow to. Neither the Axioms or The Factors or LRH or anyone or anybody.

      I’ve set out to spend my life living and learning and experiencing and I done this. What’s my game now? More of the same as this admin scale has worked out fine.

      I have in my possession a whole bag of tools that help me with understanding and dealing with the Admin Scale of living. I am trained in Scientology and I am trained in other things as well. I choose from my own understanding of these tools and from my own understanding of life what to do every minute.

      I want to recommend to you to fight back the aches and pains of aging bodies and weary minds just enough to do something about the Scientology that you have wanted to practice. The Bridge to Total Freedom is invalid except as the most rudimentary of suggestions. You already possess lots of knowledge and wisdom and together with a clever auditor, it my belief that you might enjoy quite a resurgence from going after and accomplishing something you always wanted to do or something you always wanted to know about yourself through Scientology.

      You are fond of saying, and I agree that “the map is not the terrain.” You should go to that terrain that beckons your heart — leave the map home as once you go there, you’ll know what to do.

      1. Thanks Chris. Yes I think you catch the spirit of it pretty well! It’s like Hamlet says in Spearshaker’s play, “Piglet” “To Survive or to become bacon and porkchops, that is the question!” There are considerations towards both, so I say I’m in Doubt about myself.

        I’m not really happy about some of the conditions of my life. The medical problems I’ve had lately are medically controlled, but – the thing about modern medicine is it can and did save my life a couple of times now in the past 2 years or so, but at the same time it degrades the quality of that life – a result of the medications and chemical treatments they use. And I have a couple of other conditions that haven’t been touched, mostly because I have no faith in medicine to deal effectively with them. One is a thin disk in my lower back which is really starting to cause some bad problems. All in all I often feel I’m ready to trade it in for a newer model. Tired of chronic real-time pain etc.

        There doesn’t seem to be any Independent or Freezone practitioners in my area, but that may have changed since I last looked. A few years ago there were perhaps a couple of Idenics people in this general area. Don’t know if any are still around, but if so, and the cost was reasonable, I’d give it a go. I’m pretty sure they work in the right direction. The caveat is always the intent and capability of the practitioner.

        So I appreciate the encouragement to keep on keepin’ on.

        1. @Valkov, Of all the important epiphanies that I have enjoyed, one of those which stands out to me was through expanded grade IV auditing is a clearer and more precise understanding of the Scientology Tech definition of “computation.” This led me to the certainty that computations that have in their wording debilitating language which explains why in various forms that “time has passed” and that it “is too late now” or any variation of this language which has the thought stopping power to make me feel that my time has passed or it is for very good reasons now too late for me or I am not physically up to the challenge of pursuing my goals are aberrated considerations, but most-most-most of all they are LIES and should be utterly re-thought, discarded but even if nothing else, ignored.

          As a resource, such as David St. Lawrence and others that you may be aware of, Skype now brings auditors and PC’s together and makes distance less relevant.

          Dr. Day recommends and I drink a lot of carrot juice that my wife makes fresh for me each week for about 300 weeks in a row now. She uses a Jack LaLanne juicer (economical) and mixes in pineapple, apple, and strawberries to liven up the somewhat earthy flavor of the carrot juice. Yes, I think this is a magic potion that gives beneficial results beginning with the first glassful.

          I wish on you a long and healthy life filled with the joy of following your dreams beginning right now.

          1. Three tips that make a lot of difference for me: a) 8-10 glasses of water (8 oz) per day. Other beverages don`t count.b) Kale – steam it and eat lots of it c) Vitamin D – 2-4000 IU in the winter time. (I`m no spring chicken either)

            1. HEHEHe… 🙂 You not a spring chicken any more? Bloody Hell, by now I even lost my feathers and no matter the amount of water I have drank orhow many vitaminsI swallowed did not help and brought them back. 🙂

            2. Eliz and Marianne, I’m going to narrow down those tips to: Eat, Drink and Create ie, sense of humor… I’m in that spring chicken, Not, group. Normally I pluck feathers, but sometimes they just fly.

    5. Yes, the Haifa group is an excellent example of what can happen when a group turns its back on the creeping culture of violence that has spread through C of S management. I bet they didn’t even miss a beat! They were already sincere, good-willed individuals struggling to maintain their services to their public in the face of the most enforced, coercive, invasive and violence oriented management tactics. Looks like they didn’t need any correction, they already knew what was wrong — they just needed to take the step of deciding not to go along with it. The same could happen all over the planet. Most of the Missions and Orgs run despite management — whatever good was being done was being done by them anyway! They are all set up separately as legal entities anyway with their own bank accounts, funds and so on so if the Sea Org and upper management were to disappear, they’d probably just heave a big sigh of relief and set out to remedy the problems that management created for them and their public.

      1. I thought I’d add that the best part of the Haifa story is that they got Debbie Cook’s email, took it up with management and were given an incredibly venomous and antagonistic Freedom magazine to read.. Boy did that backfire! As did the effort to “handle” them in ethics, which led them straight to Marty Rathbun! That Debbie Cook email has had some amazing effects! I wonder how many Orgs and Missions got that email and how many are making their plans…

        1. Marianne.. te mondhadtad volna meg elobe hogy te ki vagy… ha en tudtam volna akor ra tapostam volna jobban a nyukszemedre.. hehehe.. orulok hogy megszolaltal it.

            1. Sorry, than you are not the same lady who reading my blog and is hungarian, than no wonder you have not understood what I have writen.

            2. it simply said, if I known it was you than I would not spare your feelings and I would have trodded on your toes hard.

Have your say

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s