Amazing person: David Miscavige

Although I have written about my meeting with the leader of the Church of Scientology before, this time I will relate why I think he is an amazing person.

In 2006, only two weeks after I attested to the highest OT level yet released, I was back aboard the Freewinds attending the annual Maiden Voyage events.

It was on the night of the photo shoots. I was standing outside the Heritage restaurant with two fellow OT VIII’s from Sweden. All the OT VIII’s were appointed OT Ambassadors and were to be photographed together with Miscavige, country by country. There were only two OT Ambassadors from Sweden and only me from the Land of Santa. The swedes tried to include me in a virtual group of “Scandinavians”, but I naturally declined. The union between Sweden and Norway had been broken 101 years before. Nope, I was representing my own country. It would be DM and me in the photo.

The swedes were first and just as they were to enter the doors to the restaurant, they said they would tell the Chairman of the Board that I should be the next Executive Director of the CoS Oslo, the Oslo Org. They had taken responsibility for Stockholm as the executives of that Org. Now they figured it was my turn to boom Olso Org. I laughed and told them to knock it off.

My turn to enter the restaurant. I couldn’t have been standing there for more than a few minutes before I could hear his voice loud and clear: “Where’s the guy from Oslo?” I responded “Here, sir“, and with no delay he was about to shake my hand when he said “So you’re the new ED of Oslo Org. Congratulations!“. I was puzzled and said “No sir, that is not my game.“. He pushed on “But what could be a better game?“. I tried to explain. He pushed on. He wanted me to accept the position right there and then.

I realized that I had met the most energetic, intense and powerful person ever in my life. His eyes were focused, his intentions clear – he wanted a product, a result right there and then. With unparalleled presence and with really owning the room and commanding his environment, he showed determination like I’d never seen.

David showed great charisma and he was funny like hell. I was laughing all through the photo shoot. And while joyful and funny, he never lost sight of the target – to recruit me as the next ED of the Church of Scientology in Oslo. He ensured his juniors got my details and that I was followed up to realize this result he had in no uncertain terms demanded of me.

I was impressed by his neatness, his elegance, yet powerful and determined while remaining playful and funny.

I will never forget that evening in June 6 years ago. I learned a lot from that meeting.

242 thoughts on “Amazing person: David Miscavige

  1. Geir, amazing, yes. An amazing show, as I am sure you have since realized. But you make a good point with this post. This man has a personal power that, unfortunately, he has not used for the greatest good for the greatest number. In fact, I would say he uses his abilities for the greatest level of survival for himself and a handful of lawyers. Many have folded up like circus tents under similar pitches from DM. You didn’t and that says a lot about you. A lot.

    1. May be there is more there, beyond what is seen with the EYES AND being heard with the EARS , the dramatazitions? No such a thing as bad,,,,

    2. Every person gets out exactly out of any situation what they have put into it: their very own Postulate. Just because they don’t like it happening now, that do not mean they were not a creator of the experience.
      You as an auditor who claim to know the Tech should know that.

    3. DM is simply adhering to the key datum of Scientology philosophy as described here:

      Scientology Axiom # 1

      The ultimate reality in Scientology is INDIVIDUALITY. That is DM’s expression.

      From another perspective, This is worshipping SELF, or selfishness.


    4. Dan, you know, when DM asked me that question “What could be a better game?” – what slipped out of my mouth was “I could think of a few”. That really threw him off. His juniors was in shock after I said that. He tried to shield his reaction by adding some horsepower. But history showed that he got quite another product than what he was aiming for.

      1. The question is always: What is real for YOU, and not what is real for DM,a recruiter,
        LRH, or someone else.
        They cant ignore it. To identify other Reality as “counter intention” is bullshit.

      2. I wonder if DM then decided to alter the OT VIII level in such a way that no-one doing the level would ever again reach an EP of such independent-mindedness? I have read reports that some recent OT VIII completions are very compliant to DM rather than thinking independently.

        1. I think that has less to do with OT VIII and more to do with general cult dynamics. In a week and a bit I will write a blog post on a specific win I got from doing OT VIII. Stay tuned.

          1. I look forward to reading that. There has been a lot of discussion on Marty’s blog last year, 2011, about the OT VIII level. Through April 2005, apparently 1452 people did the level, according to this list:

            Overall, the results were not particularly good. What posters were saying is that in fact only 1/2 of the complete level as written by LRH was being delivered, and the effect was quite bad on some of the posters. They only realized their problems were not unique when they comparing notes with others who had done OT VIII.

            So evidently DM altered OT VIII long before you, Geir, did it. It was described as “truncated” by these posters and by Marty. The second, stabilizing half, was apparently not delivered.That’s how I read it, anyway. That caused some serious problems for many people.

            Here are the relevant threads/posts:
            OT8 REVEALED


            Much of the specific information is in the comments by various posters.

            1. I did the level in 2006 – the best auditing action I aver did. I only realized a couple a weeks ago why that is so.

            2. Geir, I trust you are going to tell us more about that! Maybe in the post you’ll soon be writing about routes to freedom?

              I was looking at one of the threads about OT VIII that Valkov posted links for and I saw a comment by Joe Howard (Dan Koon) that you may not ever have seen. Here’s an excerpt:

              “…Even LRH knew that the real freedom attainable in Scientology also included freedom from the need of Scientology and auditing at some point. He really wanted people to be free. From these stories of what has happened to VIIs and VIIIs, DM has it precisely 180 degrees reversed. Of course there are those who don’t fit that mold such as Geir Isene who is anything but suppressed.”

            3. Thanks marildi: I had read that excerpt somewhere and I fully agree…. “…Even LRH knew that the real freedom attainable in Scientology also included freedom from the need of Scientology and auditing at some point. He really wanted people to be free.” Plus he doesn’t give at what Point!

            4. Geir, it is possible you were one of the “lucky” ones. Here are some representative posts:

              windhorse | March 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Reply

              What Marty and others have shared is the OT VIII that I did and the others who did OT VIII early on — were only given 1/2 of the process. (those who did OT VIII later, I have no idea what they were given)

              1/2? Friggin 1/2? WHERE was and is the OTHER half?

              Beats me.

              I fared really badly because it completely skewered some CORE CORE beliefs I held. Not everyone skewered those beliefs. I know because instead of NOT talking about it — I did talk to my ex about it ONCE he was on the level.
              He didn’t have his beliefs skewered but he was furious that all the hoop-la was being made over what he intuitively knew was just 1/2 of the story or less.

              OTHER early OT VIIIs developed cancer after doing OT VIII and several of my friends died. Only a few years afterwards.

              I don’t have the early list of completions but I’m betting it would send shivers down your spine to see the number of causalities … either by death, insanity, suicide or just far far away from the bridge.


              Mary McConnell | March 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm | Reply

              @windhorse, what a testimony… I suspect that at least 3/4ths of the old OT VIII comps (see link below for up to 2005) experienced similar problems, many of whom do not appear to be active scientologists anymore.
              How I wish they would read this thread and your post and jump the ship once and for all.

              “Total OT 8 Completions April 2005 :This list has 1452 OT 8 Completions. The list includes all OT 8 Comps listed in Freewinds Magazine.”

              It is the truth that sets us free. Best wishes,

              mrinder | March 16, 2011 at 7:20 pm | Reply

              WH — You can include my father on that list. Died in a car accident shortly after completing OT VIII (my mother, also OT VIII was driving and was badly injured).

              Karen#1 | March 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm | Reply

              I consider you an exemplary thetan.
              What have you been through is something.
              How you have come out such a winner is admirable.

              Marty will confirm that the “VERSIONS” of OT 8 have keep changing through the years til the 80s *EDITION*, 90s Edition and 2005 *EDITION* and 2010 *EDITION* are pretty UNRECOGNIZABLE.

              LRH did not write various “VERSIONS” of OT 8.

              I have much info on this


            5. Lucky? Geir successfully and technically solo-audited sessions twice daily for years, got a good result and he is lucky? (. . . ) ellipsis = comment I erased.

              Getting a good result in life depends utterly on intending to get a good result. This breaks down into a tightly run admin scale that leaves little room for fucking up. People who aren’t well drilled in this concept sometimes make comments about success being steeped in luck.

            6. So Geir than you also know what is is like being in session all day long… than you have reality what it is like to do the same year after year after year, I been doing just that since 76… And what can one as-is in that time… personal bank is very small that may take only 30 thousand hours, than one audits-confronts the whole universe…. that part is mind boggling experience.. I dont say was easy… no…. just mind boggling…

            7. @Chris – “Lucky? Geir successfully and technically solo-audited sessions twice daily for years, got a good result and he is lucky?”

              I guess you didn’t read the posts by and about others who also solo audited OT VIII to an apparent completion, only to have mental breakdowns, cancer and other illnesses, auto accidents, suicide etc. Apparently because they were given incomplete/squirreled version(s) of OT VIII to run on themselves. Since these may well comprise over 50% of all OT VIIIs through April 2005, yes, those who made it through without mishap may be called “lucky”.

              But let us postulate whatever principle fancies us, without regard for any evidence to the contrary from many people who did also undergo the experience. Nothing arbitrary about that!

            8. Valkov may be you care to ask me how I happen to live though all that auditing and did not dropped the body? Care to ask me how I have survived the ordeal of the path? Care to ask how many DEATHS I have died, how much I have suffered,, what agony I had to endure, how i have hollered, screamed in pain?
              Care to ask how I walked like zombie for days, till I have crawled out that state? Care to know what it was like when the automatic machinery has suddenly disappeared with that the breathing in and out, and there was I not knowing what has happened eyes bulging than I realized the air was in need since the body stopped functioning, I had to count to bread in bread out. if I would not do it count in count out there would be death for the body.
              Care to ask how I get out when Thyroid given out and the body totaly collapsed? Valkov I have answers and my answer is not what you think it would be.
              I know why those people died because I been there I walked that path.
              Why I write these, because I have reality what should have been done.
              But of course who will listen to me….. I only walked the path all the way to the very end and into a different universe…
              I am reading all your questions and also your assumptions, oh well …

            9. Oh, I believe you Elizabeth! You have been there, done that. “Windhorse” in the posts above also survived.

              My point is the OT VII – OT VIII levels are supposed to leave a person feeling GOOD, not dying! it is an “outpoint” that they cause damage rather than “help ing”. It indicates that they are being delivered with “out-tech” and is being delivered in the CoS is “false OT VIII”. And reports are that a big part of the problem has been that only half the OT VIII level has been delivered to many trusting people, necessitating “repair” then repair of the repair, etc etc.

              Since you have been soloing OT VII, as I understand it, without a C/S, perhaps you too have been “lucky”? Another person doing the same thing might have died, no?

            10. Valkov I was not lucky , there was no luck. I was willing to contenue, get back into session, no matter how rutten I felt, no matter how terrible it was, being in some of the sessions.. I alway came out with a cognition.VGI F/n
              I was winning and for those wins, cognitions I was willing to go into hell of my own making..
              Valkov, We only have in the BANK what we created out self… so I ask how could I not be able to confront my creation?/ How could I mass up my case? I was a mass already! You right there was no C/S since I left the church in 82 and I never looked back.
              Valkov past live ‘’ deaths incidents’’ when they are re-stimulated they come to life… they effect the being.. one should not stop but get more auditing, lots of that in order to erase that incident… ‘’those incidents’’
              One has to audit literarily hundreds and hundreds of DEATHs on the track.. And that is a very small amount… But auditing out DEATH is not good enough… one need to have session on the opposite side life too. This universe exists because everything has two sides: good or bad, beautiful-ugly, sickness and heath etc… So life and death walk in hand in hand… Both needed to be confronted-as-ised in session and all the other thoughts, considerations, agreements pertaining that same subject in order to be free from those effects.. It can be done.. I have.. I know what it takes but it can be done by those who want it to be done… Very simple..
              I know the reason for cancer example, I have audited out the very reasons cancer takes over the body. Doctors, researchers will never find that reason they exist, but they can be audited and as-ised in session…

            11. The thing is, Chris, no matter how smugly you feel about it, “Triumph of the Will” doesn’t work for everyone. Didn’t Geir post that no method no matter how flexible,is SURE? (For everyone).

            12. Valkov have all the methods been fallowed trough to the end? till that is done no one really know if they work or not… In my reality the tech works 100% will give one the desired results, but of course it needed to be used…

            13. Pure theta would be the only SURE whatever – since it would be the creator of conundrums such as Gödel’s.

            14. As for MUs those people may have had, Elizabeth, my point is, they may have been given MUs on purpose, intentionally, or even inadvertently, by the CoS terminals programming them, who themselves had the MU.

        2. Valkov in my way of thinking- reality, if those people reached OT8 than thinking like that than they have missed something… have a very bad MU, they dont have reality- understanding what is the Spiritual Path- self discovery means,.. and going up on the Levels, that what it should mean..

          1. Thanks Elizabeth. See my posts to Geir, above. Reports since last year are that the “real” OT VIII as written by LRH has never been delivered by the CoS, not from Day One of supposed OT VIII delivery. They only received 1/2 the level. Plus, that 1/2 was altered, with an implant added.

  2. A perfect con man with humor, which is OK if you want your ego stroked, be controlled and other intentions. Apparently your good sense eventually saw through it. I just think knowing and understanding him is important to the game and in the playing of it. You’ve done fine!

    1. I believe Geir has admired the OT ability in that being.. how he was able to concentrate-focus his energy level, his intention how he could focus that intention and have humor at the same time, humor is a very-very light energy flow because of that it can loosen up the heavy energy. Therefore has more power than the commanding energy… Humor can not be bought or imitated. Having humor and using it that has huge value for that persons. HE CAN CHANGE the other persons mind : can ”charm” the other person to do what he wants to happen. That is not cunning, but OT ability used.
      Charm is miss understood by many…. more like every person who do not have it. Charm can be irresistible melts resistance-solidity..

      1. Good reply. However, I stand by my Con from the American Heritage Middle English “connen, cunnen, “to know how, be able, master. Slang, to swindle or defraud by first winning his confidence (however he does it). Slang, con game, a confidence game. I won’t go further with any clinical opinions here and of course he as well any anyone, can be helped. Maybe someone stronger than he and with guts, will come along with enough charm to melt him. Or he will just continue to do himself in while taking the church with him. The real OT’s are the ones outside of the church using their abilities to make things go right.

        1. Any way you like is fine with me.. But I am not throwing stones on any one knowing that what he is doing this life is so tiny in comparison what my OVERTS WERE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE,. No DEE, it is nothing what he is doing… and what he is doing nowe he is doing it really well!!… How bad any one see him IS THEIR CONSIDERATION out of their very own universe and from their reality they judge what is good or what is bad and nothing more.

          1. It is what he is doing and yes, he’s doing it very well. Considerations are personal but we who live on this earth have a responsibility toward our fellow men as well. He will be judged by the majority as he is judging others, to keep the balance. Actions speak louder than words, or consideration, comes to mind. Also one is known by his actions.
            There you go, ‘got me’ to thinking again 🙂

            1. Yes quite right deE’, but if I just step back, just a little, I can see the truth of what Elizabeth says. How responsible do I actually want to be? . . . to become? What flaw of my own integrity can I see which had I been completely integrated would have kept me safe? I can name you 10 things quickly that were out at the time to help me put myself in vulnerable positions with regard to the COS. These particular flaws in my personal integrity are repaired but what other vulnerabilities do I have because of flawed integrity which may be successfully exploited by just the right con?

            2. Chris, “How responsible do I actually want to be?” Only as responsible as you CAN be and not by another standards, since you have to live with yourself First.
              We all made many mistakes granted but we ack them, learn from them and at least we won’t repeat them if learned well. We will all probably continue to make new mistakes and learn from them, part of the game no? imho.

            3. Where I was going with that thought is sort of like this: We each of us experience only what we experience through the filters and computations which belong to us alone. Any control that we have over our lives seems to be in the area of controlling what we experience rather than what happens to us. My point is to make a distinction between these two things.

              When I notice my inclination to point outward and say “That, that thing over there, it has effected me and now therefore I am become a certain way,” this indicates to me that I am being less than responsible.

              This is different than holding others accountable and is only something to think about if it seems interesting.

            4. That’s right Chris, thanks for clearing. And we each are responsible for whatever effects we let ourselves be I think.

            5. Sweet Pea You can take that belief and bet on that with confidence and you be a winner for sure.[you already are]
              If those complaining –blaming pointing fingers ex church members would understand that than they would not be on the bottom of the tone scale beings Victims, but could continue on the Bridge.

            1. I’ll stick my neck out here and give my moral version. If we would all be doing our solo auditing we wouldn’t have these problems. Eliz knows how to handle it, that I know.

            2. Chris we cant take responsibility for others, how the hell one can do that? Did you asked me for some morals or Dee? If you asked me than I have to go out in the rain and dig up some in the garden and it is DARK OUT THERE!!! could be a goblin waithing for me… so no can doooo! Fears are rattling my ribcage..

            3. ROTFL! Best of the day Eliz. Just what I needed, thanks love.. still laughing…

          2. Good point E. His wildest dreams are coming true. I wonder what that can do to an individual being.

            1. R..
              He is having a hell of a good time.. Yet on the other hand:. His problem is that he believes that happiness, achievements are what money can buy… hehehe.. More he buys less happy he is and he do not know why he is not continually feeling ecstasy as that should be Because his every wish is granted So he goes out and buys more…. poor soul by now he is so frustrated that he is blaming everybody and hitting people in his agony..
              Interesting phenomenon: more he has, less value each Item have… he is very unfulfilled…

            2. R.. I am in a incradible intelectual mode as it befits a Native State person.. I am above all!!!
              hehehe I am watching BBC’s old re-run Red Dwarf… and having baked apple with cream Hehehe.. eat your hearts out you lot.. 🙂

            3. I´d agree with you E, but I don´t know if he already started to give in.
              The moment when contradictions appear is a very interesting point, how much of it is because our own universe is starting to give in due to external pressure? In this universe there seem to be no absolute values of ethics, so it has to come from within….. and, as long as he is able to keep his own viewpoint above everyone´s else…….

            4. R..”In this universe there seem to be no absolute values of ethics, so it has to come from within”””….. and, as long as he is able to keep his own viewpoint above everyone´s else”

              Rafael you know by now: one must fallow ones own beliefs… this is a very interesting item since all rules and agreements exist only in the MEST Universe..

  3. A funny thing happened to me one time when I was on staff at Flag. I had just missed all the buses going into the base from the Hacienda (the apartment complex for staff). But that was during the days when staff were still allowed to have their own cars and many did, so it was always easy to hitch a ride in. Not too long after that was when David Miscavige decreed that owning cars was “out-security” (i.e. blowing was much too easy) and staff could no longer have cars.

    So anyway, I saw a car approaching and put up my hand indicating that I’d like a ride. At the same moment that I recognized him, David Miscavige was smiling and saying “Need a ride?” In a split second I had to make a decision. I could have said, “No-no, Sir – thank you very much but I won’t have a problem finding a ride”, meaning that I didn’t want to impose. However, I had witnessed something a few years earlier at the PAC base when I was there, and that was in the back of my mind.

    What happened occurred in an elevator. When I stepped into it DM was in the middle of harshly berating a young SO member for not having said hello to him. He was really into it and wouldn’t let up. I didn’t recognize the guy and was pretty sure he was new in the SO and maybe even fairly green to Scientology in general (which wouldn’t have been unusual). But he did know enough to be intimidated by COB – although, from the look on his face, completely baffled as to what to say to him, increasingly so as COB kept demanding an explanation. Of course, the guy should have respectfully said “Good morning, Sir!” but his TRs apparently failed him. Nevertheless, I was amazed that COB would be so arrogantly indignant about it and that he would “come down the org board” that far for such a thing.

    So there I was a few years later, at Flag, mentally scrambling to figure out in a spit second whether the offensive thing would be for me to decline or for me to accept the ride offer. I decided to accept. During the whole 15 minute drive to the base DM couldn’t have been more friendly and interested in asking about me, a lowly TTC member (obvious from my uniform). His Assistant (and wife) sitting next to him and Norman Starkey in the back seat with me were as aloof and silent as he was cordial. After that, I figured I had seen the two faces of David Miscavige.

    1. Got that nice story. Sort of like the founder with two sides. Yin/Yang!
      Dichotomy’s are interesting and fun.

      1. DM’s two sides are extremes. Both his social and his anti-social characteristics are far more extreme than most people. In the elevator he wasn’t quite frothing at the mouth, but just about. And from the testimonies of many people, I get that the two sides of him I saw weren’t his best or his worst, just glimpses.

        1. Marildi, right on… I was being ‘sweet’ and giving flowers and sunshine, not the real deal. 🙂

  4. Part of DM’s motivation, in my observation, is that he wants to bethe emanation point, and doesn’t like it when others look like they could eclipse him. Thus, he keeps people around him off balance, often by doing things that he thinks people don’t expect or won’t easily predict. Miraldi’s offer of a ride was unexpected. Geir’s post assignment, unexpected. Going back, you find him lunging across the desk at Jeff Hawkins, again, unexpected. Countless other examples.

    After a while though, you get to figure him out. Dan Koon, Steve Hall, Marty, et al, figured out this mechanism DM constantly employs, and they no longer were so easily knocked off balance and that was the beginning of the end for them continuing as supporters of DM.

    Part of the reason DM ordered and expanded excessive regging, IMO, is that it delights DM to no end that he can use his intention to completely empty the wealth of parishioners just because he demands that they do so. It is no wonder that he thinks the whole world is populated with DBs, because his unspoken thoughts when he is wringing a parishioner dry must be, “How can this guy be so fucking stupid and weak to let me do this to him?”

    After years of this, DM has mistaken a money flow to be an admiration flow to him, as so many dictators do in positions of unchallengeable authority and power.

    DM is a man of amazing intention, he is quite intelligent, and driven. He has become corrupt beyond belief. Deep corruption that was in place during his wresting control of the church 30 years ago. Corruption that would have destroyed a mere mortal of average ability, DM soldiers on, sans conscience, driving the Scn ship into the ground.

    Like all dictators who have been in power for a long time, he truly believes he is untouchable. Will DM end up dead like David Koresh, as Marty fears, remains to be seen. My feeling is that he will take off and go live hidden away somewhere, where he can’t be extradited, and still try to run things from there. This is the example he learned from LRH, and thus, could probably convince the last of the die-hard Scns that he, like LRH, had to go “Fabien”* to drive the SPs crazy.

    Geir is right, he is an amazing person.

    *FABIEN- to fade away, have one’s whereabouts unknown or changing to hinder opponents attempting to engage.

    1. Oh, wow – THE emanation point. That reminds me of another incident. The TTC project that I was part of was DM’s baby, part of his plan to get more technical resources on post at Flag. One day he was inspecting and speaking to the group of us all lined up in formation. It was something like the way a general would do a review of troops. Well, a friend of mine made the dire mistake of turning her face to look to the side for a moment and OMG. DM made quite a spectacle of it and humiliated her in front of about a hundred other TTC’ers.

      I can’t remember now exactly what he said but it basically had the tone of shock at what he perceived as gross impudence. Whatever words were said, he left no doubt that HE was the one at cause point, he was the emanation point, and anyone who would dare even change the direction of their gaze, unless so directed by him, was completely out of step with his other foot soldiers. So I think you are right, John Doe, about DM wanting to be the emanation point and all others be effect points only.

      1. Some years after that the staff were being shown a video of Tom Cruise and as I watched it I thought – whoa, he is so much like COB! It seemed like COB was actually inhabiting the body of Tom Cruise. Then I seriously considered the possibility that the same thetan was operating both bodies and had been all the while (something I think LRH has written about that
        can be done, or at least in an earlier period of the whole track was sometimes done). That was how much I thought TC was in DM’s valance. And by that point in time, I had also observed that a lot of staff, especially some execs and senior execs, had DM’s exact attitude and were at his tone level, particularly CMO staff. But TC in that video seemed to be fully in his valence. And that would mean full effect of His Emanation Point.

        1. Ha ha! That would have been a good way to address him – “Your Emanation Point”. LOL

        2. Assuming valances? assumption? almost foaming at the mouth? that would be indication that the man is mad, yes? telling slyly?
          assuming that every body will see the significances and understand that person is mad!!!!
          they too would be assuming… I assume that is spreading Black PR?
          lets do another assumption, would be possible there is true friendship existing there, like being soul mates and happent to find each other this life? and because of that each persons life become better? I assume friendship do that to beings.
          I wonder why everything has to be looked at as bad even friendship!
          I assume because some people love to spread negative, because that is where they are sitting in? They rutting inside so they are seeing the universe as a rutting place..period!
          Of course I only assume that!!

          1. Perhaps you assume that because that is where you yourself are “sitting”?

            And it’s not true that everything is “looked at as bad even friendship”. The ability to differentiate is one definition of sanity. Everything is not the same as everything else.

      2. A write-up by Sylvia Llorens, a long-time auditor at FSO up until she left in 2007, was posted today as Marty’s blog post. Sylvia had the same perception I did of people being in DM’s valance, as well as the dangers in directly encountering him. Here’s an excerpt:

        “Late ´90s COB used to do some visits here and there; at that time I did not understand why some staff tried not to cross his path, it could have been that the few that did ended usually off post…
        So, time goes on, early 2000s are in progress; each day, every time and more and more RTC starts to take over, meaning:
        -Whenever one of the RTC member spoke the rule was to keep quiet.
        Specific: during a meeting at the AO with Miscavige he did ask a question to the AO staff gathered there; one staff answered it. He said “What? You probably are not fully hatted.” Hours later that staff was removed from post, even though she had been doing well on it and was usually upstat.
        As the time went on many other Execs fell into “RTC´s valence” of meanness and cruelness.”

  5. Geir, why don’t you now write a blog post on “Amazing person: L. Ron Hubbard”. He has made so many amazing contributions, which DM can’t compare to in the slightest. And even the worst claims about LRH’s misdeeds don’t come close to those of DM, corroborated by quite a few people.

    What do you say?

      1. Okay, what you say makes sense – all of these amazing person posts are based on your direct and personal knowledge, which is of course what makes them special.

        Actually. the basic question I have concerns why you seem to take a very different attitude towards DM than you do towards LRH. With DM you have expressed an interest in trying to “understand him” and also stated that he has merely carried on the actions that LRH initiated. But with LRH I haven’t seen that you try to understand him, and you reject as irrelevant any suggestion of what may have been the circumstances surrounding the actions he took.

        What I get is that you consider LRH as Cause and fully responsible for what has occurred with the church. And by contrast, you do not hold DM fully responsible but rather the Effect of LRH. With him it seems you are sympathetic, with LRH unforgiving.

        Is there any truth to my observation, and if so would you clarify why you take such different approaches to the two? I’ve wondered this for a while. You are actually the one I’m trying to “understand” on this subject. 🙂

        1. LRH was fully responsible for his creations – all the tech, all the poicies, etc. Also all the effects created from thee. DM is fully responsible for his creations as well – the misapplications, the out-tech, etc. Any attempts to demonize or elevate to sainthood any of the two would be a mistake, IMO.

          The reason I put forth an attempt to understand Miscavige is that no one else seems to – not outside the Church and not inside the Church. Another reason why I put forth such an idea and not so with LRH, is that LRH is dead and DM is alive – and thus more easily influenced.

          1. Thank you for that. I get it much better. It occurs to me now that your seeing him more or less up close and personal, no matter from what angle or in what light, made it possible for him to be more real to you than he is to most of us, and thus for you to more easily admire his positive qualities. In other words, you “touched” the guy. He’s real.

            I see that this is actually the subject of why the “they” in “them and us” aren’t viewed as real people and how “they” can sometimes become real – which is when they are seen up close as people, like “us”.

            Nevertheless, we can’t leave out the reality that not all “theys” are alike. With some, simple understanding is enough to change the situation. But with others, the ones who are way out of control (self-control), I don’t see how understanding will do anything to influence their behavior. All I can see it possibly doing is simmering some people down. But maybe that’s your point, if you believe that alone would make a significant difference in the situation with DM.

            This whole question of how to influence DM was actually the subject that Valkov tried to have a discussion about and one that I was interested in too, i.e. what in fact would need to be done – other than what is already being done. On the one hand you basically said that DM should be completely ignored, and on the other you talked about him being helped. I’m still interested in how you think that should or could be done.

            1. Geir, that answer to marildi was excellent IMO.
              marildi, your reply post got me thinkin’. One possible way to help DM is to flow some admiration his way as a solvent. He’s certainly under a barrage of negative, deservingly so, but will possibly cause him more madness. Some form of understanding and help could be in the flows that are directed toward him on the silent side, so to speak, as thoughts are powerful they say. It can’t hurt and could be workable. Personally, I will change my thought pattern to such, on this level.

            2. Dee, wow, you make a valid point and it may truly be a workable solution. So simple too. And it would definitely be direct help to DM. Good on you! 🙂

              I wonder why no one among the Independents has come up with that approach, at least not to any extent that I know of. In general too, not many people promote group prayer, or the law of affinity, or remote viewing and influencing – things of that nature that are basically postulates. Such methods exist but aren’t broadly talked about as solutions to crime or war or other evils. Probably the reason for that is that people in general reject such non-physical universe solutions.

              Be that as it may, Scientologists are not your run-of-the-mill folk and possibly such a campaign as your idea suggests would work the best! Now you are the one who got ME thinking. 😉

            3. Marildi, some of us dont have to be reminded that hate, do not work and never has.
              I never ever hated that man… why should I have? I have no overts toward him…

            4. E, that’s another good point, simply not to hate as that does no good – in fact does harm. I think dee’s point is an additional one of not only to stop hating but to actually flow admiration.

            5. Have you ever thought that he is doing his very best? Same as you and I? Just because others do not like his best… are not with agreement with his reality that do not make the man bad….
              Example: while I was young I thought I did not have good parents… but I have realized : what ever they have done or not done did not make any difference… but what ever they have given me it was their very best they could give…. there was no more.. that was it…

            6. Sometimes what a parent does or doesn’t do does make a difference, IMO, and the same goes for anybody else. I say again that to me everything does not equal everything else. Perhaps you see it all as equal because you are looking at the long-range picture, which may or may not be the same as someone else’s view of the long-range. In any case, I’m looking at the shorter range and expressing my view of just that, the shorter range. You have your reality and the same for me. Peace. 🙂

            7. how true, and I also know I no longer dramatise…. dont have the need.

            8. Geir brought the question up on helping DM and I balked at first (Geir has good thoughts). But as it goes, with communicating about and looking at, it does bring change. It brought me to include DM into my better thoughts and ideas about the future of the organization, tho do not further consider myself a scientologist, only one active in seeing the truth be told, justice done and the helpful tech available for those that want it in the future. Because I did benefit from it and enjoyed the old days and feel a certain responsibility.

              “Scientologists are not your run-of-the-mill folk” That is true, but seems a lot of folks including myself this year, have been so hung up on their current or past ‘case’ with Scientology and DM, they forget their powers or abilities. True also they must get through it all and the way out, as you know is through. The sooner the better, and work on higher levels that are there to help, through whatever a person believes or does to accomplish this.
              I do believe there are lots of spirits or thetans who have passed that are helping with the current situation, and have been, IMHO. We can be receptive to what others say and deep inside or outside of ourselves, depending on a definition, know, and do our part as we see fits us
              Hope this didn’t get too far out of line and that you understand what I’m trying to relate. I’m still learning, listening and practicing myself and give thought or attention to that connection that I believe in, ever since my spiritual OT mate passed. I’ve been experiencing the ‘Through It’ part too. Part of that game is to enjoy some bashing but it’s just part of the ‘through it’ game. Seriously IMHO, we are not alone and there are good forces with us that we are helping and we can help them too.

            9. “Hope this didn’t get too far out of line and that you understand what I’m trying to relate.”

              Yes, dee, I did understand. Nice post overall too. May the “good forces” be with us. 🙂

            10. “May the “good forces” be with us.” maildi
              So Be It, Hallelujah, Cheers, Yes! 🙂

            11. I think one can ignore his efforts to key himself in. That course will take care of itself. And if one wish, one can alter that said course by helping the amazing Miscavige (the person himself) – yes by flowing admiration for the positive sides of him.

            12. Geir, got it on the point of flowing admiration. But I still kind of get hung up on the approach you have of letting matters take their course and only attempting to alter it “if one wishes”.

              I guess it comes down to how much harm one thinks is being done. To those who believe that Scientology is a hugely beneficial practice that in fact could do something about the huge amount of harm going on overall in the world, it seems there isn’t a better cause. You yourself don’t have that much confidence in Scn it seems, and hence your stance. I’m glad you helped me work that out. I feel I understand your viewpoint much better now. 🙂

              (p.s. Correct me if I’ve stated a Straw Man! LOL ;))

            13. I do believe Scientology can make a real and great impact for the good. But not if applied rotely or in accordance with KSW or in an organizational form as envisioned by LRH. I believe in squirreling the tech to fit the intended good purpose – and utilize All the workable tech of mankind. Because I don’t believe in Scientology having the only key to any freedom. The fact that someone (DM) is using Scientology for bad should rather be out-created by its usage for good rather than massing it all up with antagoniim, opposition or outright war.

            14. As you know, dear Geir, I believe that KSW itself has been applied rotely whereas it should solely be interpreted within the context it was intended for, which simply means delivering what is promised as regards any organization that claims to use standard tech. This is no different from what any company would reasonably do as regards its own technology. The way the CoS has extended the meaning of KSW is irrelevant as it goes outside the meaning in the PL itself.

              Also, I don’t think it’s necessary for you to use an inflammatory word such as “squirreling” to express your viewpoint that improvement can and should be done. Using such loaded language I thought was what you objected to in the use of “kook-aid drinker”. Either one of those terms can alienate people to the intended message, especially if it is unnecessary to make a point.

              I do fully agree that improvement should be done. However, tech that was researched and shown to be workable would not be squirreling – it would be a continuance of how the tech was developed by LRH and would itself become part of standard tech. It may even be that different courses of research would make for different rundowns or applications, but even now there exists choices of what piece of tech to use on a given pc, for the auditor and C/S both.

              I agree too that any workable tech of mankind can be used by anyone who should so desire. And whether other tech should be incorporated into Scn tech depends, IMO, on whether or not it actually aligns, as with any researched improvement. A system is a system and must be kept to such.

              And I don’t think either that Scn holds “the only key to ANY freedom”, just that it holds the best and most efficient key to the most freedom the fastest (from what I know, at least). This seems to be the point of departure between you and me as you seem to feel it is just another route to freedom, albeit somewhat better than others. That’s a significant difference, IMO.

            15. I use the term “squirreling” quite intentionally and not as a derogatory term. I seek to vindicate squirreling because I believe in putting the purpose before the tool. Hence, the method or tool must remain flexible and not dictated on exactly how it should be used – because to so dictate it, one would loose out on the possibility of always reaching the desired result (ref the Automation article).

            16. Geir, squirreling means altering Scientology. It implies an arbitrary and random alteration, rather than one that has been researched and shown to be workable. That’s why your using this word seems deliberately derogatory and provocative.

              Also, I fully understand and concur with the concept in your Automation article. However, not to invalidate you but I am very sure that if you were a trained and experienced auditor you would know full well that the tech standardly applied does “put the purpose before the tool”. At least this is true for the great majority of it, from what I know, although it may very well be that improvements along this line are needed, for that small percentage of failed cases that do occur.

              The idea that the tech is something fixed and rigid just isn’t the way it is. The only thing fixed is to apply the basic principles that are specifically geared to the intended result.

            17. Sciwntology does not concur with “putting the purpose before the tool” – no matter how trained you are. Even as a Class XII C/S, OT 8, you would be fried if you decided that yoga and meditation mixed with a dose of Op Pro By Dup was the exact method needed to help this one PC.

              And I don’t care if the altration has been researched or not – as long as it works toward the intended purpose.

              LRH was quick to dismiss all other tech from that vast arsenal of the history of mankind (“we have the only workable…”). I am not so inclined.

              So, I say Go Squirreling.

            18. Geir: “And I don’t care if the alteration has been researched or not – as long as it works toward the intended purpose.”

              I’m not just trying to blow this off but with things like the above I think we’re getting into semantics and/or different frames of reference.

              The main thing is let’s not get into what exactly LRH called squirreling, or whether he (eventually) dismissed all other tech. As ever, I’m talking about the basic principles of the Scn philosophy and a tech that is based on those, the foundation of it being the processes and procedures already proven so workable. So when you want to stress the later changes by the CoS or LRH himself and push people’s buttons, intentionally or not, by using the word “squirelling”, it seems to me that to some degree you yourself are “messing it all up with antagonism, opposition or outright war”.

              Did you know that even the very pro-LRH man Marty himself uses other tech? The point is that those other techs he uses fit in with the basic principles and purposes of Scn. What was or wasn’t allowed by LRH, who mainly tried to keep things within workable bounds, has no bearing on what can be done nowadays if one can think with the philosophy and tech. So you are preaching the the choir (me :)) and hitting some unnecessary sour notes ;).

            19. As I said, I am simply trying to vindicate squirreling (alteration of Scientology tech, mixing practices, etc.) If you sense your buttons are being pushed by this, take it as a healthy bull-bait session 😉

            20. What pushes my buttons is you saying things that are based on misunderstandings. And then when you use unnecessary loaded words on top of it you really appear to be deliberately attempting to antagonize, especially when you keep repeating them, even more unnecessarily than the first time.

              But in spite of the bullbait, on the subject of Scn I understand you better today than I ever have in the past. Thanks for the comm! And thanks for the wink. 🙂

            21. Marildi I dont have to flow affinity-love to any one. After all, All that is left when the Bank is as-sed. I cant flow affinity to DM since he had that all the while… We do share universe..
              The bad and the good “What real is” what people believe in really happening is totally different from what actually happening.
              What You do is different what you are… and the M.. I know, has my affinity…

            22. E, I understood the last line best. And I felt it. I hope you felt mine back to you. 😉

            23. Hi marildi. I don’t have the data here but I’ve read it several times, nevertheless it seems to me, the slang word “squirrel” that Ron called it was for anyone who used scn outside of the organization, regardless of how proper they audited, being they had not all the backup. It doesn’t make the auditing less valuable, unless OK, some may screw it up, but haven’t heard much of that. The thing is that an auditor helped people without the org. Therefore I put no heavy significance to the word and think it is ridiculous and should be made fun of to lighten it up. My 2 cents worth 🙂

            24. Hi dee. Finally getting back to reply to you.

              On the word “squirrel”, I recall reading that at a certain point in time LRH referred to specific people who were using Scn outside of the organization as squirrels because of their having overts, which would hamper their ability to duplicate the tech (a technical point), and thus they would in fact be “altering Scientology” (the definition he gave in KSW 1 for the word “squirrel”).

              But like I basically said to Geir, to me it’s irrelevant for us to get into any particular thing LRH said about squirreling – when that was only one thing he said on the subject and at only one period of time and under particular circumstances. Context, frame of reference, gets ignored simply to make the point that we are free to do as we wish with Scientology. Why not just go straight to that point? Leave out needless antagonizing comments as that only weakens the point being made, especially when such comments ignore context.

              It wouldn’t even matter if what LRH said were the ironclad rule at all times and under all circumstances; it’s irrelevant to the fact that we can now do as we think best with Scn. How things were done in the past, whether it was a good idea at the time or not, has no real bearing whatsoever on the present. My 2 cents worth in return. 😉

            25. I’ll let you in on why I believe other routes to be also very effective: Having reached OT 8, and in hindsight, I know that I could have reached this level of awareness and gain through other routes. More on this later.

            26. Whoa – that is a crucial piece of missing data. More later – when???

              I take it you will say which other routes. And don’t forget to include a comparison of the time it would take on those other routes.

              OMG, I may actually come to understand the Geir! 🙂

            27. “When??”

              In due time 🙂

              After the Amazing Person series.

              There are 16 this far, at least 9 more to go. Then I can dive into a “Routes to Freedom” post.

            28. Holy cow, I have to tell you that this is true synchronicity for me! Just in the last couple days I have been thinking more than ever about what would be the best actions for me to take as regards spiritual gains, taking into account all the different factors that apply to me personally. So you can see that having information about proven choices could be very helpful. Hurry up and write that post! 😀

            29. I will agree with you Geir on that, there are other ways. In the 22 years after scn, hubby and I were looking and experimenting and gained a lot from some more, some less but always gaining. Searching is a good game too and knowing when you get something is nice and keeping it fun along the way. It can develop into a certainty or an all-knowingness. Still working on it myself 🙂

            30. Personally I’d like to know which version of OT VIII Geir did. I guess that would relate to when(what year?) Geir did the level.

            31. About “squirreling” – I guess I understand what LRH meant by this word a little differently from what I’m reading here.
              What I recall LRH saying about it was in reference to people who did not walk the road to truth all the way.

              He compared such a person to a squirrel, an animal which grabs one nut from a tree and runs off with it and buries it somewhere.
              Think about it. It’s a home-cooked portmaneau symbol, which comprises a complexity of meanings.
              It is also a homily in itself, about short-sightedness due to a lack of full understanding.

            32. That’s my impression too, Val. Different meanings and different shades of meaning, depending on the context. But on the subject of standard tech, it basically meant altering it, to my understanding.

              There might be changes in what becomes “standard” – as it should be. Basic Scientology principles would encourage it: Things either expand or they contract – they don’t stand still – as per the Conditions Formulas. So an evolving technology would mean that the term “squirreling” (if even used) would apply differently.

            33. Well, he did blast a lot of other methods as squirreling, and any branch-off from his own work. It didn’t matter how much Alan Water or others researched or how much they walked the way to truth (and I am very sure he was not privy to the content of their research it was still SQUIRRELING!

            34. I’m missing the misunderstanding of what comprises squirreling. We all lived with what comprised squirreling and in a word it was “non-compliance” in any form, anywhere, anytime, and subject to the whims of Hubbard and since Hubbard subject to the whims of Miscavige. What was standard practice one month became instantly squirreling when a new issue came out the following month.

            35. This is true, conditioned by various elements of When. I am referring to something he said, I believe, in the 1950s, maybe even the early to mid 1950s, before he got into the “establishing a church” game. I think he always thought he was on the right track and wanted to discourage people from deviating from that. Then later I think he believed he had discovered a workable “road to truth” and in that context he felt people leaving before they had accomplished a full understanding of his work and it’s applications, were “squirreling” – running off with a few “nuts” instead of going for possession of the whole tree.

              I believe that is what he meant by “squirreling”. That’s the bottom line. Whether he was right or not, that’s how he meant the word.

              I can’t speak to Alan Walter and Knowledgism, not having examined it. It’s impact on the world scene does seem negligeable. Did Alan really discover anything that LRH has not covered?

            36. I get it, Val, and that makes sense as the basic concept. By the time LRH issued KSW 1, he believed that Scientology tech was the only workable route, based on history. Certainly it was the only one KNOWN to be workable. His viewpoint was – why mess around with unknowns and miss the opportunity to go free when there is a SURE route? (Ref. KSW 4 “Safeguarding Technology”)

              Something that has occurred to me is that at least by some point LRH saw his role as a sort of “father” whose children needed to be firmly directed until they were safely able to be on their own. That meant having enough self-determinism that their decisions wouldn’t be controlled by ignorance – or by bank or entities or any such other-determinism.

            37. The problem – and I repeat – a route, a method cannot be SURE. Thet is what I could call the LRH fallacy. Also, his own methods may be the only one HE knew about as workable.

            38. “The problem – and I repeat – a route, a method cannot be SURE.”

              I would be totally with you on that, Geir, if it weren’t for the fact that – and I repeat 😉 – it wasn’t and isn’t a fixed method. There is a flexibility that allows for adaptation in order to achieve the fixed result (with the exception of a very, very few cases). Ask some experienced and successful auditors you know. That’s what I get from the ones I know and from my own limited experience.

              Also – of course his own method was “the only one HE knew about as workable” but, as I said above, he based that on history – on what he had observed had been and was still going in the field of mental health. And, as we know, he also had studied eastern philosophy and practice and saw that it did achieve a Release, but not a Clear, and even that took years and years – IF one made it even to Release. .

            39. I am doubtful of how much he actually did study “eastern philosophies” and how well versed he was in the multitude of mental and spiritual practices around the world.

              Even a flexible method cannot be SURE. Also, the notion that there are just “a very few cases” where Scientology wouldn’t work is simply a conjecture. There has been no formal studies of the universal workability of Scientology – only anecdotal evidence or general statistics. If we were to go by the latter, it shows abysmal unworkability as more than 95% of all that encounter Scientology blows (even as Scientology has presumably all the workable technology to prevent such blows, I should add that LRH also told at least one person I know that “Scientology is not for everyone”. And I believe that is very true – given that no method, even if flexible, can ever be SURE.

            40. “I am doubtful of how much he actually did study ‘eastern philosophies’ and how well versed he was in the multitude of mental and spiritual practices around the world.”

              The above insinuations are pretty vague, Geir There may be a multitude of practices nowadays but were there then? And maybe you are better versed in Eastern philosophies than I am but I’ve seen comparisons between the principles of Scn and those of Buddhism. You don’t agree with those?

              “Even a flexible method cannot be SURE.”

              This is obvious semantics, seems to me.

              And the rest of your post as to the so-called unworkability of “Scientology” looks to me like the Fallacy of Equivocation – the same word used with two different meanings. How are we ever going to communicate if we can’t agree on the words? Parallel universes… 😦

            41. Reiteration:
              1. NO method, no matter how flexible can ever be SURE. Ref. Kurt Gõdel and Alan Turing.
              2. There are several thousand years of spiritual practices all around the planet. I am very certain LRH did not cover them all. And that he would boldly state that Scientology is The ONLY Workable technology is IMO incredible.
              3. Statistics show that less than 5% that come into Scientology stay. more than 95% blow – even with presumably perfect anti-blow-tech. If there is no formal study vindicating Scientology as the Only or even Most workable technology, all one can go by is those horrible statistical track records. It doesn’t matter that I Scientology is the best spiritual practice I have seen. The above still stands.

            42. Geir, can you honestly see no difference between the two ways you use the word “Scientology” in your #3 above?

            43. @ Geir – “Scientology does not concur with “putting the purpose before the tool” – no matter how trained you are. Even as a Class XII C/S, OT 8, you would be fried if you decided that yoga and meditation mixed with a dose of Op Pro By Dup was the exact method needed to help this one PC.”

              I do not agree. You have posted a huge generalization there. I have to ask, “WHO is ‘scientology’ “, in your post above? Sounds like some major “verbal tech” there, in the form of “interpretation” rather than duplication and understanding.

              Your post is so other-determined.

              Get trained and do what you want to in the Independent field. Who is there in the free zone to “fry you”? Nobody.

              Perhaps by the 1980s this was becoming the culture of the CoS, but – How about physical treatment by a chiropractor or medical doctor? Yoga? Like chiropractic and many other forms of “bodywork”, it is “bodywork”. Auditing is not bodywork. Any real Class VIII would know when one needed some body work, or some auditing. Even the Purif is a “biophysical handling”.

              Someone may have interpreted for you that “Scientology does not concur with “putting the purpose before the tool”. I attribute this view as originating within the “squirrel Church of Scientology”. Or perhaps in some very finest off the wall know-best “critic’s circle”?

              Just my opinion, of course.

            44. You want me to start quoting policies where LRH explicitly forbids mixing practices or deviate from certain policies? Way too easy slam dung, Mr. V.

            45. Geir that’s a hilarious typo – dung instead of dunk. 🙂

              If you want to quote LRH, how about the one below. I thought of it because IMO, you are putting up a STOP when you quote and stress such things as what LRH says about squirreling (whether a true outpoint or a misunderstanding). Note especially the reference to OT VIII in the last line:

              “As man all too easily specializes in stops, he tends to stress what SHOULDN’T be done. While this enters into it, remember that it is a STOP.



              “A stuck picture or a motionless org are similar. Each has behind it a failed purpose.
              “That law (it comes out of OT VIII materials) is so powerful it would practically revive the dead! ”

              LRH, 14 January 1969 – OT ORGS

            46. Geir, I specifically had in mind this part of the LRH quote above:

              “As man all too easily specializes in stops, he tends to stress what SHOULDN’T be done. While this enters into it, remember that it is a STOP.

              It seems to me that your viewpoint is basically the same as the above quote, as regards your advice that people not put attention on what DM is doing that “SHOULDN’T be done” rather than put their attention on the positive things that can be done. Nothing wrong with pointing out the outpoints, it’s just that STRESSING them too much becomes a stop.

              So when you said not to put attention on DM, I didn’t see it as thought-stopping. Likewise, my pointing out that it seemed like you were putting too much stress on LRH’s outness (or what you perceived as such) wasn’t a matter of thought-stopping either.

            47. p.s. The other thing, which I have observed a number of times, is that you are not being consistent as regards your attitude towards DM vs. LRH. You seem to be taking the same viewpoint expressed by LRH in the above quote when it comes to David Miscavige. In fact, you flat out advise taking our attention OFF him – completely – and simply concentrating on practicing
              Scientology, or whatever we wish to practice.

              By contrast, when it comes to LRH you repeatedly point out various things he wrote and did, and in so doing you yourself are putting attention on HIM and the perceived outpoints and stops. And you seem to want us to do so also – in spite of the fact that we are free to not repeat his mistakes (real or imagined), just as free as we are where DM is concerned.

              I don’t understand why you do this, what your purpose is. Likewise, I don’t get why you refuse to differentiate between Scientology as an organization and Scientology as a philosophy-based tech.

            48. You seem to completely misunderstand my position. It is really strange to me.

              Let me try again: I care about DM, the person, because he is alive and can be helped. I don’t care about LRH, the person, since he is dead. I do care about the writings of LRH as that has great influence on many people. I care to point out items that should be corrected in order for mistakes not to be repeated.

              What LRH wrote is not LRH. An idea, a concept, a method, a process – those items stand on their own, separate from LRH. Those items can be scrutinized – and that scrutiny has nothing to do with LRH, the individual.

            49. Geir, now I’m the one who feels misunderstood. I wasn’t talking about you wanting to help DM because he is the one who is still alive. You answered my question on that and I happily acknowledged it. In my post above I wasn’t talking about DM or LRH as persons either. I was referring to the LRH writings and to the policies each of the two men has operated on.

              My point was that with DM you advise taking our attention off him – which I assumed to mean not “him” as a person but the policies he operates on since that in fact is what all the attention is on – and you added that instead of focusing on him we should be getting busy with helping people.

              On the other hand, with LRH you seem to want to put attention on the policies he wrote rather than recommending we simply flourish and prosper – the advice you gave where DM is concerned.

              I do get your point that the writings of LRH have great influence on people and I have no disagreement that you (or anyone) point out items “that should be corrected in order for mistakes not to be repeated”. However, in this exchange with Valkov and me, although we disagreed with your interpretation of what exactly LRH meant by “squirreling”, neither of us disagreed with your basic point that there should be the freedom to do what we wish with the tech.

              So the fact that you kept reiterating that point, when we had already expressed agreement, seemed unnecessary. Unnecessary repetition starts to become too much “side-tracking” (to use the word you used in reference to putting attention on DM’s actions), rather than us focusing on our complete freedom now to move forward as we see fit with regard to the tech

            50. What I am observing is that you are expressing a consistency that you have found within the framework of Scientology. You are well drilled; well educated into that frame of reference. Nothing wrong with that within that context. Rule One, within that frame of reference, is that Hubbard is always right. Rule Two, within that frame of reference, is that if an inconsistency between the rules is found, please refer to Rule One. Scientology is not without sophistication and certainly not without voluminous language. But the large scope which masquerades as thoroughness is in fact obfuscating the contradictory confusions which the scope itself has created. The greater the stretch; the greater the reach of the scope of Scientology, attempting to be complete, the greater the inconsistency.

              There can be consistency within the framework; within the bounds of Scientology; however, the friction that you encounter, the objections that you encounter to various assertions about 100% workability or whatever have answers which can only attain a contrived consistency while one remains within the bounds of Scientology.

              Outside those metes and bounds, Scientology begins to as-is. Hubbard knew this.

            51. “…assertions about 100% workability …”

              No, Chris, you are operating on old, fixed ideas about what (you consider) I think. Right on this thread alone I commented on tech results being workable “with the exception of a very, very few cases”, i.e. not 100%. I tell you honestly, my friend, I’m trying to keep my TR 0 in and have a real discussion and I think if we all did we could be a lot more productive.

              As for what “Hubbard knew” about Scientology, here’s one thing he said that may be related to what you’re saying – and which I am aware of too:

              “You’re only trying to free him up to a point where he can recognize that he can have freedom. And after that, all the freedom he gets will be given to him by himself. But you get him up to a security where he knows he can have freedom, and he’s on his own. I mean, you can’t go any further with a thetan.
              — 9 Dec 53 tape, Examples of SOP-8C Patter (Standard Op Procedure 8 Clinical).”

            52. Possibly you could address my post, what I wrote, and find something to agree with; maybe find something to disagree with, then address your own agreement or disagreement and describe that. I am listening.

            53. Holy cow, Chris, I thought my post did exactly what you are now asking me to do.

              “Possibly you could address my post, what I wrote, and find something to agree with…”

              That was in the 2nd paragraph of my post, where I introduced the quote of LRH as being related to what you had written in your last paragraph, and then I stated “which I am aware of too” (meaning aware of the truth of). Then I pasted the quote.

              “…maybe find something to disagree with, then address your own agreement or disagreement and describe that…”

              The first paragraph of my post I did just that.

              “…I am listening.”

              Hopefully. You didn’t seem to be doing so the first time through. 🙂

            54. Marildi, Begin with “No, Chris, you are operating on old, fixed ideas about what (you consider) I think.” And tell me what my old fixed idea is about how you used to be and then compare that how you’ve changed and how you think now, just in your own words without any pressure to be any certain way at all. Just for fun and to break the ice. I’m listening.

            55. Chris, I think in the comment I last posted, in reply to your previous one, I answered the question of what your old fixed idea was.

              As for the rest of your post above, it is also something you have done in the past – which is that your comm at times is patronizing towards me, subtly so or not. And when this is done by anyone it gives away the actual attitude and opinion, at least on a given subject.

              I imagine you can’t see that you’re doing this but before you automatically deny it, even to yourself, please take an honest look. I have no doubt that at worst you consider you are doing me a favor by getting me to “connect the dots” that I haven’t been able to to all by my little ol’ self. But in spite of your undoubtedly good intentions, I frankly would rather you give me more credit than that and just tell me directly what you think I’m so blind about – rather than treat me like you need to lead me to a realization or whatever.

              And really, I’m not now asking you to reassure me about how you truly feel towards me. We’re old friends by now and I know that you also have positive things to say, and the same for me about you, but that’s beside the point. Right now I’m just asking you to look at your flow. Maybe even spot what the attitude is behind it. You said you were listening.

            56. Agreed, if my comments are condescending then that’s wrong. I will start over.

              I want to discuss and not argue. I want to share and appreciate one another’s viewpoints. So having prefaced with that, I will be more direct.

              I’ve seen beyond what I was doing in Scientology. I’m seeing reality compartmentalized by the moment and I’m seeing frames of reference which contain discreet context unto themselves. Written another way, the Universe’s inception in simplicity has become inordinately complex through enormity.

              When you quote chapter and verse from L Ron Hubbard as the most workable gospel in the universe, when you proclaim that no other system of thought has ever been quite as complete and workable as Scientology; or any wording along this line of thought, my new reality; my looking at the stupendous inconsistencies — not within the framework of Scientology, but from outside that delineated piece of reality — my own egotism urges me to sputter, “but-but Marildi, look over here!”

              So rather than create a useless opposition to your line of thinking, it seems more fun and more pleasant to ask, “Marildi! Want to come over to my house and play? I’ve got something to show you!” Other tactics had this end in mind. For any undue harshness or condescending attitudes, I apologize.

            57. Well, Chris, if I ever doubted your heart was in the right place… but actually I never did. 😉 On top of it, you are what I call a real man, to be able to respond like you did. I said it before and I’ll say it again, Shelley is a lucky woman (at least in this particular respect – I don’t know about others, hahaha :D).

              I accept your invitation to come out and play! So let’s get down to brass tacks.

              First, sorry to say but you are still putting words in my mouth (aka Straw Man). I do not say that “no other system of thought has ever been quite as complete and workable as Scientology”. I just say I don’t know of any others. This is an example of you not actually duplicating what I write and/or dubbing in what you think I really think. You also seem to be forgetting that I have often expressed being open to other philosophies, such as Tom Campbell’s and Greg Braden’s (among others that I’ve posted favorable comments about).

              As for your viewpoint about the enormity of the universe, I’m not sure I get your point exactly. Whatever its size, isn’t knowing the basic principles, the basis of its operation, the thing that matters?

            58. Marildi: As for your viewpoint about the enormity of the universe, I’m not sure I get your point exactly. Whatever its size, isn’t knowing the basic principles, the basis of its operation, the thing that matters?

              Chris: Yes, we strive for this, but to say, “isn’t knowing the basic principles the thing that matters?” as though this is extant knowledge is a red herring. I am finding that there is no human understanding of the enormity of the universe nor yet a good understanding of the simplicity of its beginning. We have to begin where we are and work our way out to increase our understanding. Any assumption that we have arrived in any category and now only require to be educated into the proper class of knowledge is a thought-stopping mistake, and I believe an important trap within our own minds to be fought and dissolved.

            59. “Any assumption that we have arrived in any category and now only require to be educated into the proper class of knowledge is a thought-stopping mistake.”

              The only “category” that Scn claims to have arrived in is “knowing HOW to know”.

            60. Marildi: The only “category” that Scn claims to have arrived in is “knowing HOW to know”.

              Chris: This is also a well drilled response consistent with Keeping Scientology Working and should be directed to the critic of Scientology; however, it is patently false. Scientology to itself and to its adherents claims expertise in every category of life. INCOMM is the best and most cutting edge computer technology. Scientology contains the tech and understanding necessary to resolve all issues with regard to illness and mistakes; reasons for depression; phobias; successful marriage; all aspects of business technology; successful education; drug dependancy and abuse; work and production; politics and the dangerous environment; and raising children to mention a few are all contained in Scientology Technology.

              In order to see the inconsistencies between the Scientology party line and reality outside that bubble, we have to step back to the degree that we are no longer immersed in it. Then the inconsistencies begin to show up promptly.

            61. “In order to see the inconsistencies between the Scientology party line and reality outside that bubble, we have to step back to the degree that we are no longer immersed in it.”

              Why don’t you demonstrate what you mean by stepping back. Like with some
              specific examples. You know what you mean and how you arrived there – I don’t.

            62. I think I just spotted the problem. It’s another logical fallacy – “Proof by Verbosity, where one overwhelms his listener with lots of material in a complicated way”.

              Overwhelm may not be the right word, maybe it’s “overcomplicate”. That may not be your intention either but that’s the effect created and it doesn’t lend to having a good discussion. Please stick to one point at a time and we’ll resolve that one way or another and then move on to the next point.

            63. Chris. Your previous comments in discussion with marildi were understandable to me and I like what you said. It’s not easy to get out of a bubble when you don’t know that you are in one.

            64. Thanks deE’ — I get out of one bubble and find myself in another. I have hope that I will learn from my exchange with Marildi. She has a good way of challenging me and exercising me brain.

            65. The important point being that you are aware of the bubbles and can move easily or not, in and out, plus the self awareness you have. We are all learning from each other, thanks to all who contribute.

            66. Let me be frank, Chris. Generally speaking, I have found that those who criticize Scientology for not being what it claims to be – or for not being “consistent” – are the ones who consistently demonstrate from their comments that they have misunderstandings about it, especially as regards the tech itself. My evaluation that they have MU’s is based on my own study of the materials, and to some degree on the viewpoints of those who have studied and trained and applied the tech extensively.

              Can you see why the critics would have little impact on me? Their criticisms are not based on a correct understanding of the materials, or on very much experience with application. Their credibility suffers because of that.

            67. Your response is perfect and important to help me discuss my point about context. Your view as expressed in this post is completely, spot-on, standard Scientology, and it is consistent within the context of the bubble of Scientology Technology. It is completely consistent and in sync with Keeping Scientology Working. It is standard and proper word clearing tech. Now, I can assure you that I fully understand your statement that “the critics have little impact on me.” This is consistent within that frame of reference.

              Compare this to my comment that I have moved beyond my Scientology experience and then try to get my point of view from outside that bubble. While you reside within that bubble, I will not be able to convince you that I know what you are talking about. What looks inconsistent to me is perfectly consistent to you. Your paradigm includes the anchor points which hold you within the framework of Keeping Scientology Working. Consider for a moment the metaphor of KSW as the house in which you live. You would have to leave that house in order to come over to my house and play. Yet, the structure of KSW is such that you are prohibited from even considering such a flagrant violation. What a conundrum!

            68. Chris, this is supposed to be a discussion. In the above post you’ve simply stated a bunch of accusations and assertions about both me and Scientology – all generalities based on nothing but opinion. This is not a wedge into having an exchange. Are you ever going to get specific? This won’t get us anywhere any more than it ever did. Bluntly, I think your TRs go out.

            69. No, it has nothing to do with Scn party line or any other party line. It’s an attempt to point out the logical fallacies of Generality and Assertion.

            70. mardi, with due respect, let me make a defense of the critics. Scientology should be evaluated against life and real humans instead of his own materials and auditors. How many persons reaching scientology stay with it ?

            71. With due respect back, Rafael, I doubt that anyone who reads this blog disagrees with what you say here about “Scientology” if you are using it to mean the CoS and its alteration of the original meaning of Scientology as a philosophy and tech.

              Critics of the CoS aren’t the ones I was talking about. I meant those who either do an A=A on the two meanings or who criticize the tech itself, since in either case they show from what they say that they have MU’s and/or false data, per my own study and understanding and not just someone else’s say-so.

              Also, I have never understood the need to repeat over and over the same criticisms of the CoS, especially when virtually no one but members of the CoS have any disagreement with those criticisms. To me, so much repetition comes across as an attempt to either jump on the easy bandwagon of what is obvious or to indirectly lessen the merits of Scientology itself for some irrational reason.

            72. marildi, the original meaning of scientology is something you can’t extrapolate from the scriptures of LRH, because it changed since the book one days ( the free tech for all ) to the more militant version ( the version protected by the CoS lawyers ). If you are willing to endure the process of creating a big booming independent org, then we could call it the marildi version and the fear to show your identity would be non-existant.

            73. Rafael SN, You have pointed out an important inconsistency between the published “Aims of Scientology” and the activities of L Ron Hubbard beginning no later than 1953 here in Phoenix, Arizona USA.

              To bring this into harmony and to make the Aims of Scientology consistent with the group of believers, I would declare an unconditional worldwide amnesty; slash prices by 75%; suspend administration of all Flag Command Bureaux Programs until after a major summit was held with everyone claiming to be a Scientologist for the purpose of reorganizing the COS.

            74. Rafael, from what I’ve read it is true that the tech changed continuously up to a certain point in time (when the first Grade Chart was put out, I believe), after which it remained relatively stable and this is basically the tech considered standard tech today by “pro LRH” auditors.

              As for my identity, there isn’t any “fear” about disclosing it as it really wouldn’t affect me personally. However, I do still have a few friends who are on CoS lines who would be put in a bad position if they were told I was declared. The choice of cutting the comm line with me would be pretty upsetting for them, and not cutting it would put their lives in an upheaval. Because of that, it isn’t the pro-survival thing to do in my case. So I choose not to (in spite of the fact that some posters on certain blogs might like to self-rightously bully me into it ;)).

            75. To sum it up, from personal experience and from my observation of others’ experience, Scn is a very workable system. I haven’t studied any other systems near as much, but I have yet to hear or read about another system that works as well, both in terms of specific, delineated results and in terms of the time it takes to get results. And I find it hard to believe that if there were another system that works as well or better, we wouldn’t have heard about it. That kind of thing spreads fast, just as Scientology did before it got corrupted. People are searching.

              I’m absolutely open to the possibility of other tech being better (and even expressed as much just recently when Geir mentioned he is going to write a post on other workable paths) and to Scientology being improved upon. But so far, Scientology as it is is the system I know works and does so relatively fast.

              Furthermore, as I see it, there is plenty left to do in and with Scientology, for pretty much everybody – not just Bridge steps but all the lectures and all the written materials, all of which can even be re-studied with additional benefit each time. So why should I spend a lot of time looking elsewhere – some time, yes, and keeping eyes and ears open, yes. But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

            76. I really appreciate the shortening of your posts. Much more concise and easy to read.

              Regarding the workability of Scientology, I don’t feel that you need to look elsewhere for another technology. Within the bubble of Scientology, you are being fed both ends of the process. You are being taught what the problem is and what the solution to the problem is. This amounts to tautology. If we want to be good Scientologists, to help, to contribute in a constructive way then we must step outside the bubble; outside the system of Scientology and evaluate from a distance. The reference for this is Theta-Mest Theory, Ivory Tower Rule, and from the structure of organization “Thetan (exterior) with a Mind-Body-Product.” This is not a promotion by me of the veracity of these concepts, but it is a statement that these references and the like would bring what I am telling you into consistency with KSW to allow you to act.

            77. “If we want to be good Scientologists, to help, to contribute in a constructive way then we must step outside the bubble; outside the system of Scientology and evaluate from a distance.”

              Help what, contribute to what? It’s not clear what you’re getting at. Too flowery and too general.

            78. Hey, Chris, speaking of Tom Campbell – I’m sure you remember that he’s the guy I tried a number of times to get YOU to come over to MY house and play with. But nooooo… 🙂

              Not long ago on one of Marty’s blog threads another guy and I were commenting about Tom Campbell and Marty got interested and asked the name of Tom’s book. Today his blog post is an excerpt from that book.

              Check it out. It’s not very long and it’s one of Tom’s ideas I tried to tell you about as I thought you would find it similar to your own. It has to do with dimensions of reality that each of us may or may not be capable of grasping.

            79. p.s. Btw, Chris, it occurs to me now, and has a number of times in the past, that what LRH says in that quote is the point where you yourself have arrived, although you may not give credit to Scientology for having been the vehicle you used to get there. In any case, I would say that your abilities are very nicely representative of those of a Clear. 😉

            80. Geir, you can quote LRH policies all you want, if you want. I’m,not at all sure that would be responding to my own ideas in my organic post, if you cherry pick LRH quotes out of context. It might be a fun debate. Be sure to give as much of the context as possible, and the date he published the policies.

              As for LRH being dead, is he? In the Self Analysis book he says that Self Analysis is not “self-auditing” because the reader is actually being processed by the author of the book – LRH.

              What do you make of that?

            81. Interesting that. I never thought I was being audited by Ron in Self- Analysis. However I did use that quote to justify or defend my own thinking or cog process when reading, or studying, should someone complain.
              How about solo auditing?

            82. Chris.

              The SA lists worked OK for me. Haven’t used them in years. Maybe I’ll revisit them.

              By the way, reversing this, “BEHIND EVERY STOP THERE IS A FAILED PURPOSE.” is not correct. The sequence of events is wrong.

            83. For me the SA lists are simply good exercise for the mind. Practicing remembering improves remembering. I won’t say it improves memory because whatever is there is there. It seems that my ability to access what I think is there is better at times than other times.

            84. Chris, that is a very small part of what Self Analysis processes can do. It may have been the only thing you experienced but not so with others, who get out of them what LRH says they do:

              “These question sections, so far as is known at this time, will not run out engrams and secondaries as such, but will desensitize them to a marked extent with a consequent improvement in the mental and physical being of the individual”.
              “It is possible, by certain processes, to remove the charge from painful incidents. One of the ways of doing this is to lay the stress and concentration of the organism upon the times it has been successful in surviving”.
              (Chapter 10, Processing Section – SELF ANALYSIS)

            85. dee, I believe there is a reason why he called it “solo auditing” rather than “self auditing”. Darned if I recall the exact distinction.

            86. These debates about SUREness versus “workability” etc etc.are debates about apparencies.

              Scientology is “workable” only when it is worked. Who does the “work”? The auditor and the preclear both do the work. If they don’t do the work, scientology doesn’t work.

              It is a “sure” system because the auditor and the preclear work it to create and increase certainty(sureness). If they don’t both work to do this, it is not SURE. If they do this,it is SURE.

  6. Way to go, Geir.

    This is one of those non-politically-correct things you do that gives me so much respect for you.


  7. So tell us, Geir, what noone so far has asked you about: did you or did you not answer David “No sir, that’s not my game” before you shook his hand or did your hands touch first? that’s what I would like to know. haha (laughing at myself)

  8. This is a very interesting talk on the psychopath test – much food for thought.

  9. Geir Isene wrote; “I realized that I had met the most energetic, intense and powerful person ever in my life. His eyes were focused, his intentions clear – he wanted a product, a result right there and then. With unparalleled presence and with really owning the room and commanding his environment, he showed determination like I’d never seen. David showed great charisma and he was funny like hell. I was laughing all through the photo shoot.

    And while joyful and funny, he never lost sight of the target – to recruit me as the next ED of the Church of Scientology in Oslo. He ensured his juniors got my details and that I was followed up to realize this result he had in no uncertain terms demanded of me. I was impressed by his neatness, his elegance, yet powerful and determined while remaining playful and funny. I will never forget that evening in June 6 years ago. I learned a lot from that meeting.”

    Soderqvist1: compare this with “Mr. Bad’s” first meeting with David Miscavige!

    Mr. Bad: “You’ll hear people talk about Miscavige’s “ethics presence.” It’s a blind reverence being paid to someone, who they think is a leader. Very people spend any time around Miscavige. I only met the guy one time. He barged into my office and he shouted at me, “Who are you, and what are you doing?” Not knowing this was his standard greeting, It startled me. I was caught off guard. I was brought up, when you meet someone, you shake their hand and look them in the eye. You say, “My name is ______, How are you?”

    In other words, you are supposed to be polite, but this guy was a fucking asshole for no good reason. This was one of my biggest “wake up moments.” This was about the time when I started finding hiding places like this one on the roof of the Manor Hotel overlooking the city. I would go up there and smoke cigarettes by myself in a chair hidden around a corner and watch the traffic on the 101 and plan my escape.”

    Soderqvist1: it seems to me that David Miscavige can put up presence and Charisma etc, when he want something from you, not because he is naturally friendly minded to members of his congregation or something like that!

    I have posted a message to Karen Da La Carriere which is pertinent to this thread about David Miscavige. The person who was in front of Professor Robert D. Hare on the first day on his work, can certainly compete with (if not outwit) David Miscavige when it comes to personal presence, and power. Nicole Kidman is also mentioned in my message because she hired Professor Hare as her Personal Coach to one of her movies. But Geir what is the difference between that person who can compete with David Miscavige, and other persons in Suits which Professor Hare is talking about?

    1. Well, I have seen several psychopaths during my 6000+ recruitment interviews and thousands of other business meetings. I have never met another person this intense and energetic.

  10. Consider this statement found in his paper: Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct

    Click to access HareandNeumannARCP2008.pdf

    R.D. Hare receives royalties from the sale of the PCL-R and its family of instruments”

    The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is a diagnostic tool used to rate a person’s psychopathic or antisocial tendencies.

    I wonder how much money Dr. Hare makes with the PCL-R and its family of instruments? How much does he earn on speaking engagements and lectures? How much do the mental health professional that utilize these assessments and the DSM earn from health insurance payments based on diagnostics of this type?

    I also wonder how much money Dr. Stout has earned from her New York Times bestselling book. To my mind, this book exploits people’s fears of others and tendencies to witch hunts without the slightest concern for the impact on the lives of individuals that may be so tagged by their neighbors. Inflammatory language, an entire chapter devoted to a fictionalized madwoman, and stories told by patients and her personal experiences — second hand research, and personality “complexes” based on constructs of what constitutes “normal” personalities — this the basis of a judgment that could absolutely ruin the lives and reputations of a human being who may or may not fit into these contrived standards.

    And what of human rights? In our system of law, shall we pave the way to strip an individual of their right to due process based on a diagnosis that they have a mental pathology, and despite any outward appearances to the contrary they are mentally ill? Shall we dehumanize an individual based on our subjective perception of their emotions or our own concept of what constitutes normal, ostracizing or minimizing them? Are scientists, who insist that emotion must not play a part in reason mentally ill? Are the individuals who make these diagnostic assessments from a detached and impersonal emotional state with carefully crafted outward affect also mentally ill?

  11. Chris, here is an analogy of how I see this last exchange between us so far.

    1) I started by describing why I see Scn as a valid “map of the territory”. I explained that some of us have followed that map and by so doing feel we have made progress toward the top of the mountain as we have gained a better view of the territory, and I stated that this was the reason I am inclined to continue using this particular map since there is a lot more of it that exists (basically for everybody).

    2) I also stated that there may very well be other practical (workable) maps but that so far I personally don’t know of any that are as accurate or that show a route through the territory that is as fast and direct as the map of Scn. I added that it seemed to me that if such a map existed it would be fairly well known as many people are searching for just that, and I also stated that I’m open to such.

    3) I further pointed out that there are critics of the map whose descriptions of it generally aren’t accurate and that the basis for this viewpoint is my own study and use of the map to navigate the territory. And I added that this is also said by the majority of others, who have studied the map more extensively and who have guided many others through the territory to where they too have a bigger view of it. I then noted that this was why the critics, basing their criticisms on false ideas about Scn, due to MU’s and/or false data, have little impact on me.

    (I’ll describe in a separate post how I saw your response to the above.)

    1. Map and territory are good. How consistent do you feel the map is when matched to the territory? 100% Consistent? Mostly consistent with some inconsistencies? 50% Consistent?

      1. From what I know, Scientology is mostly consistent with FEW inconsistencies.

        Of course, when I use the word “Scientology” I’m differentiating between the two drastically different meanings of it, which I’ve stated (oh so many times) to be the difference between the basic tech with its underlying philosophy and the corruption of it.

        1. Do you know of and could you please give an example of an inconsistency in Scientology Tech? And also an example of a consistency?

          I will try: Consider the concept of ARC=U affinity+reality+communication=understanding). When using the ARC Triangle, I find it inconsistent to teach that “raising” one corner automatically raises the other two and hence increases understanding.

          If go to work one morning to a job that I very much need and plan to keep, and my boss calls me into his office and tells me (raising communication) regretfully that he is laying me off, I may feel distraught and at odds about what to do next. In this example, my affinity and reality may actually be lessened and along with that my understanding.

          To bring this concept into better harmony and to make it more consistent I could say instead that:

          1. An increase in all three corners of the ARC triangle increases understanding; or,
          2. A change by raising or lowering any point, combination of points, or of all the points brings about a change in understanding.

          Both of these two statements are more consistent and are an improvement on the Standard teaching of this concept of ARC=U.

          1. Well, Chris, here we are once again, just in time for our traditional Sunday night devotionals (I love saying that :D).

            I have an advantage when it comes to discussing the ARC triangle since I cleared my MU’s over two long blog threads. The MU you have in the above comment was one I had to clear up with references myself.

            By “raising”communication is not meant simply increasing the amount of it. For example, two people in an argument may be increasing the amount of “communication” but both R and A are usually lowered. Rather, by “raising communication” is meant raising the LEVEL of communication itself. Here’s one reference on that:

            “Given these principles of the ARC triangle and its components, how would you talk to a man?
            “You establish reality by finding something with which you both agree. Then you attempt to maintain as high an affinity level as possible by knowing there is something you can like about him. And you are then able to talk with him”.

            In the example you gave, the A and R aren’t going to rise because the C itself is at a low level as it is out-R (disagreement) and out A (dislike).

            However, one way I think the ARC triangle theory could be improved upon would be to include as part of it the Axiom that considerations are senior to mechanics. The triangle itself is a matter of mechanics and thus considerations can alter the usual rises and falls. One simple example would be where necessity level comes into play. In the case of the two people in an argument, one or both of them might simply decide not to go downtone, and such a consideration could alter the usual outcome of all the corners going down together.

            1. Understood, I think I basically wrote that. Did you see an inconsistency to what you wrote in what I wrote? Why I bothered to bring up ARC was just because it had been so thoroughly hashed out on this blog and I felt was an easy and slam-dunk example of the point I am trying to make.

              Help me understand whether or not ARC is taught wrongly — Without excuse. Then tell me whether or not my squirreling alteration of the Tech doesn’t bring it back into better consistency.

              It’s time to apply the ARC triangle. Do you want to increase ARC or be right?

            2. (Oops, by mistake I posted this reply under your other comment. I’ll re-post it here in the right place.)

              Chris: “Did you see an inconsistency to what you wrote in what I wrote?”

              Very much so. What we each wrote were two completely different things. The example you gave was one of only increasing the AMOUNT of communication. That is not what is meant by “raising” a corner of the triangle. Raising the Communication corner does NOT mean simply putting out MORE communication. It means raising the C to a HIGHER LEVEL – which would mean a Communication that has an increased (i.e. higher) level of Affinity and/or Reality, as per the reference I quoted.

              Likewise, a higher level of Affinity does NOT mean MORE Affinity in terms of amount, such as getting more angry (a low A level) – it means raising the LEVEL of affinity, which basically comes down to having a higher tone level. And when that higher level of A (as well as a higher R) is delivered with the C, there will be the expected mutual increase of all 3 corners – just as the ARC triangle theory states.

              As for raising the Reality corner, it’s the same idea. You do not merely increase the AMOUNT of a Reality that the other person is in disagreement with (Reality being defined as “agreement” in the context of the ARC triangle theory). You have to communicate a Reality the person can agree with, i.e. you raise the LEVEL of Reality to one which has more agreement in it.

              It’s basically a fractal thing, which you, the flogger of fractals, should have an affinity for and a reality on .

              Btw, on the “Questioning Scientology basics: ARC” blog thread and on the thread following it, I realized that the majority of us had the same MU as yours. That was what I concluded after reviewing references and clearing a number of key words. If you still have a different idea than what the reference I quoted above states (and as expressed here in my own words) you need to tell me the reference you’re basing your idea on.

            3. ARC toward=about something: as level of, simply means: how one can duplicate…

            4. Eliz, I agree that duplication is one way of saying of it. Reality is defined as the DEGREE of duplication. I’ll quote the complete LRH definition, since we are talking about HIS theory and definitions:

              “Reality is composed of the degree of duplication possible, and this is describable under the heading of agreement. Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement”, (PAB 44)

            5. Chris, I’ll paste your last comment here and answer it here to keep the sequence of comments all together.

              In your last comment you said, “I am looking at the inconsistency of your agreeing with my squirrel version and yet saying that it is the standard version and wondering if you will say why you are doing this. If I need to be more specific, let me know.”

              What I see is that you first stated your understanding of the theory, which showed you had an MU on it, and then you said what you thought the theory should be – which was actually another way of wording the theory itself. You called your wording a “squirrel version” simply because you hadn’t duplicated that it was actually what the theory was saying, in so

              many words (though not as useful worded your way, IMO, in terms of workable application to life).

              Your example was what showed that you didn’t understand the ARC triangle theory as it did not involve a raising of all 3 corners (to use your wording). So my point was that there was nothing “inconsistent” about the theory – just your MU to think there was and that it needed improvement.

            6. Marildi – your understanding of the ARC triangle theory makes perfect sense on its own – but you are presenting it as a tautology and hence no longer a valid tool for use.

            7. Geir, I think I see what you’re saying. The way I was describing the theory was pretty much like this: if you want to increase ARC, you have to increase ARC. Or even: if you want to increase C – which is always linked to A and R – you have to increase A, R and C.

              Nevertheless, IMO the reason the theory is useful is that it breaks down the interchange between people into 3 different aspects of the same thing and thus makes it easier to improve the interchange – the ARC – by focusing on one aspect at a time.

            8. But since they all move in absolute unison, there cannot be a focus on one above the others. One corner cannot even move one iota above the others, so, no focus possible.

            9. What I meant is that for anyone wanting to improve the level of interchange, they would be greatly assisted in doing so by first knowing that it has those 3 components, A-R-C. Knowing that, they would then know that to improve the communication they need to include with it a higher level of affinity and reality.

              A lot of people don’t do that with their comm., wouldn’t you agree? (I’m striving here for a higher R and A so that my C is higher. ;))

      1. Thank you, Geir! I’m glad somebody got it as I did my best to make my viewpoint plainly clear.

  12. Your immediate response to all the above was to say that it’s impossible that a map of the territory exists since we know hardly anything about the physical universe! That seemed to me to be non sequitur as the “territory” in question is not the physical universe – it’s an understanding of Existence, as with other philosophies that attempt to map “the territory”. If not non sequitur then what you say is an assumption on your part – i.e. a belief. It’s the same “scientific belief” as that of many scientists but a belief nonetheless.

    The remainder of responses from you were nothing more than assertions that I was in a bubble and spouting party line – i.e. no basis or support for your denial of whatever I had to say but rather your opinions expressed in broad generalities.

    I then tried asking you to not throw out many claims all at once but to take points one at a time and to be specific. You haven’t responded to that and appear to have dropped the “discussion”.

    I actually thought we were finally going to have a real discussion, but all I’m getting from you is the same as ever – an insistence that I see Scn the way you do, without giving any real support for what you say. Mere insistence with elaborate rhetoric is an attempt to convince with force rather than reason. And that’s not a discussion.

    1. If you were to assume my viewpoint, what do you suppose would happen? Do you feel that if you did that you would get into a position that you couldn’t pull back from?

      We should swap positions. You should write from my viewpoint and I will write from your viewpoint just for fun!

      1. Chris: “If you were to assume my viewpoint, what do you suppose would happen? Do you feel that if you did that you would get into a position that you couldn’t pull back from?”

        Not at all. (And take note, such a question seems to indicate your own preconceived notion. ;))

        Then you said, “We should swap positions. You should write from my viewpoint and I will write from your viewpoint just for fun!”

        Why don’t we just have the actual discussion you promised? I laid out for you what my views are and figured you would do the same. How about it?

          1. Chris: “Did you see an inconsistency to what you wrote in what I wrote?”

            Very much so. What we each wrote were two completely different things. The example you gave was one of only increasing the AMOUNT of communication. That is not what is meant by “raising” a corner of the triangle. Raising

            the Communication corner does NOT mean simply putting out MORE communication. It means raising the C to a HIGHER LEVEL – which would
            mean a Communication that has an increased (i.e. higher) level of Affinity and/or Reality, as per the reference I quoted.

            Likewise, a higher level of Affinity does NOT mean MORE Affinity in terms of amount, such as getting more angry (a low A level) – it means raising the LEVEL of affinity, which basically comes down to having a higher tone level. And when that higher level of A (as well as a higher R) is delivered with the C, there will be the expected mutual increase of all 3 corners – just as the ARC triangle theory states.

            As for raising the Reality corner, it’s the same idea. You do not merely increase the AMOUNT of a Reality that the other person is in disagreement with (Reality being defined as “agreement” in the context of the ARC triangle theory). You have to communicate a Reality the person can agree with, i.e. you raise the LEVEL of Reality to one which has more agreement in it.

            It’s basically a fractal thing, which you, the flogger of fractals, should have an affinity for and a reality on ;).

            Btw, on the “Questioning Scientology basics: ARC” blog thread and on the thread following it, I realized that the majority of us had the same MU as yours. That was what I concluded after reviewing references and clearing a number of key words. If you still have a different idea than what the reference I quoted above states (and as expressed here in my own words) you need to tell me the reference you’re basing your idea on.

  13. Chris and Marildi: it occurs to me that it would be very helpful if you were both to write a summary of what your current stance is on Scientology like the one that Geir wrote on 2012-07-10 – “My current stance on Scientology.” Maybe Geir or Chris would even post these on their blogs or a posting could be made on The reason I suggest this is that both of you have referred to one another’s past comments and/or behavior. From what I can tell from reading sequentially through this blog, both of you have gone through changes in viewpoint that may or may not be acknowledged. I would be very interested in reading such summaries!

    Marildi — have you considered writing on your own blog? I think it would be a valuable and insightful endeavor for you to do so. I get that you are very frustrated by the limitations of writing on the comments section only of Geir’s blog. I am positive that Chris or Geir would be more than happy to assist you to set one up. If anonymity is a big issue, perhaps someone you know who is out in the open would set up a second blog under their account and give you author user status.

    1. Isene, jut beat me to it. That is because with the added rating system it takes my comp about 3 minutes to get in. Same happened with couple other blogs now.
      Ditto: Excellent suggestion and I’d really like to read their views in that format.

        1. This time was 4 min. On Orgeta’s blog many people complained till he put the rating system in and it’s not bad but is very time consuming when wanting to reply, which leads me to reply less. Unless you leave the blog open all day. When I saw my reader on your blog twirling and twirling, I thought oh no and saw the reason. All is well whatever you do. I do not have the highest nor lowest speed on my internet either. I get many more breaks with this system, so I can look at the good.

    2. Marianne, thanks for your interest!

      Actually, I already did write a summary of my current stance on Scientology, just a few comments up: 2012-11-11 at 21:03

      You also wrote, “I get that you are very frustrated by the limitations of writing on the comments section only of Geir’s blog…”

      I don’t know exactly what you are looking at there but I don’t see how having my own blog (as you suggested) would have any fewer “limitations” or even that I have any limitations in writing comments. I actually feel pretty UNlimited writing here on Geir’s blog.

      But besides that, I have no purpose in having my own blog. In fact, I have been gradually lessening the time I spend on the internet and writing comments due to needing to put more of my time elsewhere. It’s been tough, though, because I’m still learning a lot and having wins. 🙂

      1. The limitations I speak of are to do with responding to discussion points rather than writing a piece that allows you to fully express your point of view — you’ve mentioned a couple of times that you didn’t want to go overlong in responses. I don’t know about you but I am always trying to figure out how to say more with much less when commenting. Not that I am entirely successful at doing that! LOL!

        To my mind, its a bit of a loss that you wouldn’t consider writing a blog about the “short-circuits” or “misinterpretations” and what approaches you think would lessen instances of that happening. eg. you have a particular point of view on the KSW issue that I have been trying to piece together from comments, but it is kind of fragmented — strewn among discussions. I am not even sure exactly what you think about it now. But if you are winding down, then I guess that wouldn’t be something you’d want to do.

        1. You know, Marianne, what is really cool is that Geir never has had much of a problem with us going off topic. And believe me, we do so. But he rarely has even mentioned it and I don’t recall ever feeling that I shouldn’t bring up something I wanted to.

          As for my not wanting to go overlong that’s simply because I know darn well that it isn’t likely to even be read if I do! And if I forget and start making long comments, Chris usually reminds me. 🙂

          It’s timely that you should bring up “misinterpretations” because I have been wondering and still haven’t decided if there can be any dent made in that on a blog. Probably what’s needed is actual word clearing – and ARC break sessions. Plus, it’s sort of presumptuous of me to accuse people of having MU’s. Nevertheless, I don’t seem to be able to resist the urge to try and stop the spreading of false data (as I see it) when I see it. This is just one example of the many facets of the lessons that can be learned.

          I’ll get back to you at some point about KSW 1. It’s too close to the witching hour. LOL 🙂

          Thanks again for your positive comments!

  14. Marildi, by now you know I dont go by LRH’s reality.. I talk from my own experience..
    LRH’s work serves as a guide line till one take control and responsibility for ones own universe.

  15. A Reply to Marianne!
    You claim that;”To my mind, this book exploits people’s fears of others and tendencies to witch hunts without the slightest concern for the impact on the lives of individuals that may be so tagged by their neighbors.” Etc!
    But former RTC Inspector General Marty Rathbun came to the opposite conclusion that Martha Stout; “Her observations are remarkably parallel to Hubbard’s description of the Suppressive Person.” “Stout’s wonderful contributions (and clearly unintended validation of Hubbard’s work)”

    Eric is a real person who is diagnosed a sociopath by psychiatry and is a member on a message board devoted to these books by Hare, Stout et al!
    It is a home site for people with problems with sociopaths and Eric answer questions about Eric himself, and sociopathy in general, you can ask him questions too!
    Jeff Hawkins seems to disagree with Rathbun about Hubbard’s SP technology!
    Btw, does Eric fit Hubbard’s 12 characteristics of Suppressive Persons, and their motives?
    I have a message here you can reach it all!

  16. Soderqvist1: I have David Miscavige as Affinity-Fraudster in mind when I read this below as it fits him because he took over the power so easily!

    Interview with Dr. Robert D. Hare and Dr. Paul Babiak!
    Can you talk about how psychopathic fraudsters use affinity groups (religious, political, or social entities in which all members share common values or beliefs) to pull off their schemes?

    Hare: We refer to these schemes as affinity fraud. They rely on the fact that members of an affinity group typically are very trusting of others who profess to share their values, beliefs, and interests. Those who are most adept at perpetrating affinity fraud are psychopaths who gain entry into the group by developing an acquaintance with a member who then introduces the fraudster as “one of us.” The result is a “fox in the henhouse,” with predictable results. Religious groups, are particularly vulnerable; belief in the inherent goodness of others and uncritical acceptance of professions of faith are tailor-made for an enterprising psychopath. Sadly, even after being victimized, many members of a group will refuse to face the truth, continuing to believe that the scamster is basically good at heart or that there must be a reason why he or she took advantage of the group.

    Even sophisticated members of financial and business groups – such as investment clubs – often are no match for the charm and seduction of a good-looking, well-dressed, and apparently well-connected psychopath. A suspicious view of newcomers might help but is no guarantee of immunity to infiltration by someone intent on doing the group harm. Even organizations that by their very nature are extremely cynical and suspicious – such as intelligence agencies and criminal gangs – cannot protect themselves completely from those who misrepresent their credentials, connections, and intentions.

    Soderqvist1: But we must also look at disconfirming evidence!
    If Steve Poor is telling the truth below then David Miscavige is not a Psychopath!
    As Psychopaths are cool under pressure, as they have no emotion to be disturbed!
    The only emotion they have is predatory, the rest is mimic!

    35-Year Scientologist Steve Poore Says “Miscavige is living a nightmare. He is scared to his core. He’s really someone to be pitied,”

    Soderqvist1: I will clear up something. Sociopaths and psychopaths are defined as same in Marta Stuart’s book; “The Sociopath Next Door” but a sociopath in Robert D. Hare ‘s book; “Snakes in Suits” is defined as someone who is living in some subculture and doesn’t adhere to Society’s customs laws and rules and is often member in a criminal gang!

    Sociopath vs psychopath: a psychopath view!
    Robert Hare gives this amusing example in his book “Without Conscience”.
    A psychologist (P) is interviewing an offender (O) who is a psychopath:

    P: “Did you get any feedback from the prison psychiatrist who assessed you?”

    O: “She told me I was a… not a sociopath… a psychopath. This was comical. She said not to worry about it because you can have a doctor or lawyer who is a psychopath. I said, ‘Yeah, I understand that. If you were sitting on a plane that was hijacked would you rather be sitting next to me or some sociopath or neurotic who shits his pants and gets us all killed?’ She just about fell off her chair. If someone wants to diagnose me I’d rather be a psychopath than a sociopath.”

    P: “Aren’t they the same thing?”

    O: “No, they’re not. You see, a sociopath misbehaves because he’s been brought up wrong. Maybe he’s got a beef with society. I’m not harboring hostility. It’s just the way I am. Yeah, I guess I’d be a psychopath.”

  17. @ Peter:

    I have certainly observed that there are people who are destructive, fraudulent, uncaring, cruel, delusional, greedy, criminal, etc. running the gamut of unwanted and undesirable human characteristics Remembrance Day stands in testimony to the effects of the destructive impulses of mankind, a sobering reminder that so-called “normal” human beings can act in highly “abnormal” ways in response to real or imagined threats. There must be a lack of empathy or at least a belief in a dangerous enemy (for which one has no empathy) for the atrocities of war to occur at all and for crowds to cheer as thousands of men, women and children die in agony in firebombed cities.

    I have no doubt that there are charming and charismatic individuals who are completely disconnected emotionally from others. I also have no doubt that there are charming and charismatic individuals who are not. I also have no doubt that even the most “informed” experts have absolutely no way to measure internal emotional responses and compare them person to person other than by eliciting subjective answers from the person himself.

    How does anyone really know that a remorseful person is truly remorseful other than their statement that they feel remorse? It isn’t just charming people who feign emotion and feeling! Also, if remorse is such a fine gauge of sanity, then why do all psychoanalytical procedures seek to assist people to put their past behind them so their lives are not maligned by undesirable and unhappy emotion? i.e. how long should someone grieve for the grieving to be “healthy” and at what point does it become “unhealthy”? How long should one “feel” remorseful?

    I am not so sure that these “characteristics” are reserved for a particular “personality type” as witnessed by the experiments referred to as “The Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo, experiments that took perfectly “normal” and “well-adjusted” people, based on psychological tests, and turned them into perpetrators of evil in a matter of days.

    Zimbardo summarizes what I think is much closer to the truth:

    “At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.”

    “Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.”

    1. Excellent book you mention Marianne, “The Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo. I found and read what I needed to know and it was a tremendous help toward understanding.
      Thank you 🙂

  18. Below is a very interesting viewpoint of David Miscavige’s “charisma”, an excerpt of a comment by a poster whose aka is OnceUponaTime (Michael).
    …The greatest crime that DM is committing is robbing those who trust him of a chance to regain integrity. He not only ruins those chances to have cognitions which return integrity, he openly opposes anyone actually having integrity.

    Why? Because integrity cannot exist without knowledge, responsibility and control. Control. To surrender control to another being scares the hell out of him. Mostly because deep down, he has lost his integrity and with it all sense of control.

    He’s had to fully invest himself in another valence to have a sense of control. Beings in their own valences are perfectly willing to grant others ARC, KRC and all other higher states of beingness. There is no conflict of control. There is no fear about another having control.
    Sane beings want others to have control of their existence. It’s only when integrity is lost and insanity enters the picture when beings start to worry about others having control.

    And the dwarf [DM] is quite insane. His crimes are like hydrogen exploding from a star- -just this never-ending, sparkling, unthinking destruction of others. And others see this energy and can fail to recognize how much harm comes from it. It’s easy to mistake this dramatization as “charismatic” or “dedicated” or any number of admirable qualities.

    And the energy he feels from his criminality gives him a sense of control and power. I mostly feel sorry for the guy because he has lost himself so profoundly. What he passes off as integrity is a sham, a huge lie. He basically sold his soul for the pretense of power. But, sadly for him, it isn’t really his power. “His” power must come from his basic nature as a being, from his own integrity, from his own KRC….

    1. The following was the part having to do with DM’s “charisma”:

      “His crimes are like hydrogen exploding from a star- -just this never-ending, sparkling, unthinking destruction of others. And others see this energy and can fail to recognize how much harm comes from it. It’s easy to mistake this dramatization as “charismatic” or “dedicated” or any number of admirable qualities”.

      (The rest of the post excerpt was an elaboration of the above).

Leave a Reply to Chris Thompson Cancel reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s