Scientology and workability – my conclusion

After almost 1000 comments on the post “Scientology – does it work?“, I came to this conclusion:

I find it an imperative responsibility for every Scientologist to make up his or her mind what in Scientology is workable and what is not. Lest the good will inevitably be thrown out with the bath water while the Scientologist stand watching and screaming “Objection!”, “SPs!”, “PTS!”, “O/Ws!”, “Out Ethics!”, “Misapplication!”, “MUs!” (Scientology terms for various wrongs).

And in order to sift the good from the bad – one must be able AND willing to recognize the bad and speak openly about it. As a whole body of knowledge – the totality of Scientology – it is indefensible. But parts are so good and so worthwhile saving that it would be a shame to see it yield under the weight of whats obviously bad in it.

Future generations will judge our sifting – and as attention span decreases, so will people’s patience with the unworkable parts of Scientology and they will let it reflect quickly on the whole subject. I see the general products created by Scientology since its early years up till now as being insignificant, riddled with bad apples and with some heavy bad results on the way. And I want to salvage the good from the bad that created this.

And I cannot think with all the bad being just “misapplication of a perfect or highly workable philosophy and technology”. I see the bad results as systemic, rooted in the technology and the philosophy themselves.”

118 thoughts on “Scientology and workability – my conclusion

  1. My thoughts on this are that crowing about 1,000 comments might actually very slightly provoke Vinaire to look hard at whether there is a better way for his work to get the attention it deserves. Not that that even slightly occured to you as your lips curled in a smile and your finger hit “enter”. On no. Not a bit. That is all.

  2. Geir, I hope that you will guide this discussion so that it will not just be a rehashing of all the outpoints that conflict with the basic materials on the subject. This has been done over and over on your blog and others. And no one even disagrees with those outpoints! The main disagreement is on whether the basic philosophy contains consistent truths or not, and whether the tech as based on that philosophy is workable or not.

    A discussion of the actual subject of Scientology can’t be one that degenerates into almost entirely going outside the data in the basic writings, or misquoting them or making generalizations about them, or giving one’s own interpretations without saying what those are even based on – i.e. not actually discussing the core on the level of reason.

          1. What you actually said was, “This is my most prominent “button” in life – the area in most need of betterment. This is where I need to learn to not give a fuck, where I need to take more responsibility, where I need to get my key back to my own emotions.”

            To NGaF can be taken/done in various ways. In the society in which I live, it is often meant in a 1.2 way, as an attitude of No-sympathy towards one’s self and one’s own feelings. Of course this attitude spills over into how one regards others, too. But it begins with one’s self. I’m not saying I think you might fall into that, but your words can be taken that way and I think often will be.

            I think you are seeking what has been called on Marty’s blog, ‘insouciance’, which I think is best defined as “a light-hearted attitude”. That is different from ‘no-sympathy’.
            However I question whether even that is always an appropriate response to every event one suffers. But then, I am Russian.

            So my question might be,
            Are you a friend of yours?

            1. Valkov wrote:

              I think you are seeking what has been called on Marty’s blog, ‘insouciance’, which I think is best defined as “a light-hearted attitude”. That is different from ‘no-sympathy’.
              However I question whether even that is always an appropriate response to every event one suffers. But then, I am Russian.

              So my question might be,
              Are you a friend of yours?

              Such a 1.1 post by Valkov, directed at the person, rather than the topic.

              Once again.

              Alanzo

            2. I have learned to mostly disregard such comments as the last in Valkov’s response as it only show the person is out of essence in the discussion. And the readers here see that all to well. But I understand that it happens, with heats and emotions and all that. It adds flare, nothing else.

            3. If you think you have you probably have, and I missed it somewhere along the line. Beggin’ yer humble pardon. Not.

              You seem rather self-absorbed, but – I’m really not here to have deep consistent discussions in which I recall verbatim every damn word everyone has ever posted. I have no doubt I miss a lot of the hair-splitting detail.

              I tend to respond atomically to what I read in individual posts. This tends lead off on tangents, I suppose. Oh well. Sorry it doesn’t meet your needs.

              It’s a blog, after all. To me, it’s like a chat room. I like to make spontaneous associative responses, which of course means they are not always on point. Or maybe never on point.

              Pointing out they are not exactly and precisely on the point you thought you were making is a cheap and easy way to get out of understanding and responding to the content I do post.

              But of course you have hundreds of posts you can potentially respond to, so carry on.

              By the way, ARE you a friend of yours?

  3. Scientology is a technology of the spirit and the mind. Any technology should be used, tested, verifyed, changed if needed and so on. But became a religion, became a matter of total faith in what said by the founder. So the tech did not evolve or progress because it could not be tested or questioned. Also the basics of this tech (ARC) has been totally betrayed by the dictator and ruler of the actual church. I could experience huge results with the same processes when run outside of the “church”. Big money issues, invalidations, suppressions and … you name it … were such that these same processes could not work properly. So Scientology is a great progress for the mind and soul, ONLY if used keeping in mind and using the real BASICS (not the ones of Miscavige), also great care for the Pre Clear and Pre OT and common sense should be used. With these ingredients I and my wife am experiencing the real gains anyone can get fron this tech,

  4. The basics are hugely creative and exstend into any dynamic you choose to use them in.The tr’s are brillant and real.The people are cowards to deal with church abuse against THEm selves.

  5. The most important basic part of Scn is the method of auditing, rather than the subject of it. This includes the TRs, and the auditors code, at least the first parts. Given those, you can pretty much handle anything even without knowing about the rest of the tech.

    I suggest a division of tech into layers determined by the amount of application and therefore trial that each part has received. At the top are the TRs and code, since they are always used; then come ruds, basic correction lists, and dianetics in its various forms. Then come grades, various repair actions like int, FPRD and then advanced courses and finally Ls and the unusual rundowns like introspection. I’d put PTS RD down the bottom there too, along with NAY sec checks, since although they are given a lot they don’t do a damn thing for anybody in my experience.

    From my observation, I’d say that any given action has something like a 90% chance of working well, given reasonable application and c/sing. This of course means that ten actions in a row has only about a 35% chance of working, which seems about right. Thirty actions in a row has about 4% chance of success. Hence the high drop out rate in Scn, even in the good old days.

    FWIW

      1. Great discussion, Geir! I would add my take as follows: (1) those who insist on and assert “it is all worthless or bad”, and those who insist on and assert “It is all the best, and the one trustworthy way” alike would be better served by separately considering each aspect, technique and/or principle or thought on its own merits as they see them; (2) Nothing in this world is of the same value or importance for everyone, and everyone’s viewpoint is as valid as anyone else’s, and how one person experiences or views any particular experience, idea or technique can be unique to them, rather than having to be the same for everyone else. One person may have fabulous revelations, changes and improvements on the same process that has little value to somebody else. (3) I find that, for the most part, when a person stridently insists that anyone who doesn’t agree with them “needs to wake up and come to their senses” or some such, this person is actually in the throes of some conflict, some doubt, some cognitive dissonance on the subject, and is seeking reassurance through trying to create or enforce agreement from others. Such intolerance of other viewpoints and insistence on having one’s own viewpoint accepted and agreed with betrays some suppressed insecurity on the subject.

        1. Hi Dexter, really good to see you here and I hope you will come more often. I really like what you said on your website and I think that you have pinpointed the crux of the value of Scientology processing when it is used FOR the individual receiving auditing:

          “I believe that there is, in all of us, an innate background knowingness, all is knowingly created, and that true processing is the action of reconnecting with this knowingness, and thus uncreating the “unconscious” automaticity of games played and sensations created and experienced, and rehabilitating positive, knowing creating.”

          I thought that was one of the best summaries of Scientology processing I have ever read anywhere. Thanks for that!

          1. Thanks for the kind words Maria, I’m glad my article resonated so well with you! I think what I said there applies not only to Scientology, but more broadly, as the path of any spiritual seeker.

            1. Hi Dexter
              “…. as the path of any spiritual seeker.” Well said! I visited your website (now just for a short time) and I like it ! What you say in the “simple truth behind processing” is as fantastic as Life itself! Like your above comments too! Keep up the great job!

  6. I agree with you Geir. I have made a longer response to your post on the ScnForum so I don’t kludge up this thread with what could be complete chapters in a book!

    It starts out with:

    I agree with you Geir, and it is really not all that difficult to sort through it, even using its own materials. It is then a matter of accurately defining, presenting and teaching the materials. Emphasis, selection and format are critical elements.

    Long long ago (in the 50s and 60s) there used to be self-directed discussion / study groups. People got together and DISCUSSED the subject. The group facilitator would take the information line by line and they worked through whatever they were studying. There was no formal academy with checksheets, meters, Hubbard Professional Course Supervisors and coursepacks. No KSW. No demand for BELIEF in DOCTRINE.

    Here is an example of a typical group discusssion…

    You can read the rest on the forum if you’d like to.
    http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=21545&S=595830a7117f09f01ad86c873b22881e#msg_21545

  7. Geir I made a post and once again forgot about the queuing of posts with links in them! Can you mod the post? Thx

  8. I responded that I agreed with what you said. I made a lengthy post as to what I see needs to happen, but it was far too long for this blog!!

    It starts out:

    I agree with you Geir, and it is really not all that difficult to sort through it, even using its own materials. It is then a matter of accurately defining, presenting and teaching the materials. Emphasis, selection and format are critical elements.

    Long long ago (in the 50s and 60s) there used to be self-directed discussion / study groups. People got together and DISCUSSED the subject. The group facilitator would take the information line by line and they worked through whatever they were studying. There was no formal academy with checksheets, meters, Hubbard Professional Course Supervisors and coursepacks. No KSW. No demand for BELIEF in DOCTRINE.

    The rest, which details the above is at this url:

    [http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=21545&S=595830a7117f09f01ad86c873b22881e#msg_21545]

  9. The post is at this URL:

    [http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=21545&S=595830a7117f09f01ad86c873b22881e#msg_21545]

  10. I have tried three times to post what I did. It just goes into limbo. I did post it onto the scn forum because it is really long, but for some reason I cannot post that link here.

    I agree with you Geir, and it is really not all that difficult to sort through it, even using its own materials. It is then a matter of accurately defining, presenting and teaching the materials. Emphasis, selection and format are critical elements.

    Long long ago (in the 50s and 60s) there used to be self-directed discussion / study groups. People got together and DISCUSSED the subject. The group facilitator would take the information line by line and they worked through whatever they were studying. There was no formal academy with checksheets, meters, Hubbard Professional Course Supervisors and coursepacks. No KSW. No demand for BELIEF in DOCTRINE.

    Here is an example of a typical group discusssion.

    A line is selected from the book Creation of Human Ability:
    “Scientology is the science of knowledge. ”

    For today’s discussion group, the first thing that has to be taken into account is that this book was written in 1954.

    CONSEQUENTLY, YOU CANNOT USE A MODERN DICTIONARY TO STUDY THIS BOOK!

    From The Consolidated-Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary 1954

    — Science: Knowledge; comprehension or understanding; knowledge coordinated, arranged and systematized; hence the knowledge regarding any one one department of mind or matter coordinated, arranged and systematized (the science of botany, of astronomy, mental science); art derived from precepts or built on principles; skill resulting from training; special skill. — Applied science, a science when its laws are employed and exemplified in dealing with concrete phenomena, as opposed to a pure science, as mathematics, when it treas of laws or general statements apart from particular instances.

    This definition of science would need to be thoroughly reviewed, DISCUSSED, understood and placed into context in the terms of the TIME PERIOD and as used in the text from 1954. Examples of different applications of science would need to be brought forward. i.e. does archaeology use the SAME methodology as botany? Does botany use the same methods as neuroscience? Does neuroscience use the same methods as quantum physics? Does quantum physics use the same methodology as sociology? Does sociology use the same methodology as chemistry? Does chemistry use the same methodology as psychology? What are the differences, the similarities, the important criteria in comparing the methodologies of these various types of sciences. How do their findings and knowledge relate to TRUTH? What the hell is truth anyway? What is a science precept? law? principle? What is the purpose of having the knowledge brought forward by science? Why do we want to know? Etc.

    The HOLY COWS of science have to be identified. The MODERN MYTHS of science must be addressed. Otherwise you are teaching into a backdrop of very poorly presented and understood earlier education, and into the teeth of the ridiculously simplified version of what passes for science education at the grade and high school levels and as bandied about on the Saturday evening news, which routinely and quite deliberately misrepresents science findings in the interests of producing RIVETING 30 second tidbits to shock and awe TV viewers and raise advertiser ratings.

    Even within the materials of Dianetics and Scientology, there is a delineation to be made and the delineation MUST be understood.

    Continuing the study of the excerpts from The Creation of Human Ability 1954:

    “Scientology is the science of knowledge. It contains many parts. Its most fundamental division is Scientology itself and Para-Scientology. Under Scientology we group those things of which we can be certain and ONLY those things of which we can be certain. Knowledge itself is certainty — knowledge is not DATA.”

    “Some of the classified bodies of DATA which fall in Para-Scientology are: Dianetics, incidents on the ‘whole-track’, the immortality of Man, the existence of God, engrams containing pain and unconsciousness and yet all perception, pre-natals, clears, character, and many other things which, even when closely and minutely observed, still are not certain things to those who observe them. Such things have relative truth. They have to some a high degree of reality they have to others non-existence. They require a highly specialized system in order to observe them at all.”

    Then you would have to compare this to the 1971 definition of Scientology:
    “an applied religious philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge, which through the application of its technology, can bring about desirable changes in the conditions of life.”(HCO PL 15 Apr 71R)

    THE FIRST THING TO NOTICE IS THAT THIS DEFINITION IS FRAMED 17 YEARS AFTER THE CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, AND 42 YEARS AGO.

    Now compare both of these definitions to this excerpt from Dianetics: the Evolution of a Science, from 1950: “As it -stands today, the science of Dianetics and its results—which are as demonstrable as the proposition that water, at fifteen pounds per square inch and 212° F. boils—is an engineering science, built heuristically on axioms. It works. That is the only claim for Dianetics or chemistry. They may not be True. But they work and work invariably in the finite world.”

    This definition is now 63 years old. You can’t even use the 1954 dictionary to understand it! You need a dictionary from the 1940s! And you need a textbook that explains heuristics and axioms, from that same time period.

    You need to review, in light of the understanding of those terms, the summary of Dianetics from the book Evolution of a Science, to name a few:

    “And now as an epilogue, Dianetics is summarized in its current workable form. It does the following things, based on an ample series of cases:

    1. Dianetics is an organized science of thought built on definite axioms; it APPARENTLY reveals the existence of natural laws by which behavior can uniformly be caused or predicted in the unit organism or society.

    2. Dianetics offers a therapeutic technique with which we can treat any and all INORGANIC mental and organic PSYCHOSOMATIC ills, with assurance of complete cure in unselected cases. It produces a mental stability in the “cleared” patient which is far superior to the current norm. (THIS STATEMENT IS ACCURATE TO DATE; IT IS CONCEDED THAT FURTHER WORK MAY DEMONSTRATE SOME PARTICULAR CASE SOMEWHERE WHICH MAY NOT ENTIRELY RESPOND. )…”

    And speaking of the time period, THEY WERE ALL BOMBASTIC and to my taste OVER THE TOP! Just watch some newsclips from the 1950s and you will see what I mean immediately. I don’t know about you but I find the presentation and way of talking really obnoxious. Take this clip, for example, forward to 10:38 and listen to the clip about the new super computer!

    1. Thanks Maria! Great post. And yes, I well remember the bombastic newscasts of the 1950s. They are instantly recognizable; I believe newscasts prior to the 1950s also had that flavor, going back to WWII and possibly earlier.

      I hope Geir doesn’t dismiss your post as a bunch of “hairsplitting”. There is a recent precedent of him doing such.

      And Geir, yes, this is another good OP by you.

      1. Recent precedence 😉

        You got a bit nailed on that one methinks. Al worked it out nicely.

        Maria is full of intelligence and knowledge. She is consistently skillful.

    2. Maria
      Good post! “knowledge itself is certainty”. Yes, Ron! Plus ability to create! Perhaps he writes about it somewhere, in the creative or symbolic processing theory? Marildi?

      1. Marianne, he does indeed write about creative processing. But I could have picked any line from any Scientology book or for that matter any book of any type of knowledge for the purposes of my post.

        The critical point of the post I was making is that unless the concepts and ideas that form the basis of what is being taught in any set of materials is addressed, and the individuals personally ENGAGED in the process of STUDY, at best you will get a parroting of what merely sounds right and it will be retained in a very superficial way. It likely stems from 12 years of education on the basis of learning facts and being required to identify the “right answers” on tests and exams.

        The only thing I have seen to date that breaks the back of such non-involvement is discussion, debate, and comparison to real life or personal experience. In this case, I chose the science example because it was my observation in school and in my children’s schooling that science education is taught from a level of “the experts” have spoken and this is the “right answer” and you have to remember the “right answer” for the test.

        Consider the real-life implications of the following report made by the Wall Street Journal:

        “The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was given to a representative sample of students in 46 states and Defense Department schools overseas. About 318,000 students sat for the exam in the spring of 2009.

        The assessment, administered by the U.S. Department of Education, measures students’ knowledge in physical, life, earth and space sciences.

        The test requires students to apply knowledge across disciplines. It is generally considered tougher than state-administered exams. The test was updated recently to incorporate advances in science, so results can’t be fairly compared with past exams.

        Scores are translated into four categories: advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. Proficient represents “solid academic performance,” NAEP said, while basic shows partial mastery of skills.

        Only 31.6% of all students were proficient or better, while fewer than 3% qualified as advanced.”

        This is not a test of their understanding of these sciences. It is a test of their ability to recognize correct science FACTS. In other words, it is a memorization test. But, memorization is NOT learning. Memorization is simply an ability to remember a fact taught by another. There is NO THINKING OR CRITICAL analysis involved.

        And it is what science means to most people. Science is something that is done by experts in laboratories, advanced by geniuses that ordinary people can only hope to learn facts from. If you want people to actually learn, then they have to be encouraged to consider their own opinion and viewpoints in some fashion, however small. Discussion serves admirably for the purpose.

        Now bring those people, with their 12 years of heavy indoctrination into an adult learning environment. Is it reasonable to think that they will jump right in an think for themselves?

        My observation? No. They are going to look for the expert knowledge and the “right answer” and they are going to be seriously discomfited by any other approach.

    3. Okay, so lets pretend we have sorted out all the discussion of science.

      Okay, so lets review this statement again, using the 1950s definitions:
      “Scientology is the science of knowledge. ”

      — Knowledge: The clear and certain perception of that which exists, or of truth and fact; indubitable apprehension; cognizance; learning; erudition; information; skill in anything; familiarity gained by actual experience; acquaintance with any fact or person.

      — Science: Knowledge; comprehension or understanding; knowledge coordinated, arranged and systematized; hence the knowledge regarding any one one department of mind or matter coordinated, arranged and systematized (the science of botany, of astronomy, mental science); art derived from precepts or built on principles; skill resulting from training; special skill. — Applied science, a science when its laws are employed and exemplified in dealing with concrete phenomena, as opposed to a pure science, as mathematics, when it treats of laws or general statements apart from particular instances.

      Let’s try it out with the most likely definitions from within the definitions:

      Scientology is the coordinated, arranged and systematized knowledge of the clear and certain perception of that which exists?

      Para Scientology is the knowledge that is not clear or certain perception of that which exists.

      From the Creation of Human Ability:
      “But what is the level of certainty we require? And what is the level of observation we require for a certainty or a knowledge to exist? If a man can stand before a tree and by sight, touch or other perception know that he is confronting a tree and be able to perceive its form and be quite sure he is confronting a tree, we have the level of certainty we require. If the man will not look at the tree or, although it is observably a tree to others, if he discovers it to be a blade of grass or a sun, then he is below the level of certainty required and would not be able to grasp Scientology. Some other person, helpfully inclined, would have to direct his perception to the tree until the man perceived without duress that it was indeed a tree he confronted. That is the only level of certainty we require in order to qualify knowledge.”

      So is this true?

      “Scientology is the science of knowledge. ”

      Only if you add that para Scientology is not.

      If you take this definition out of context and use it as a definition:

      — it is meaningless, because the terms are so sweeping as to be ambiguous.
      — it is arrogant beyond all reason, as it claims to be THE science of science, immediately dismissing all other disciplines.

      It is impossible to agree or disagree with this statement or even to determine if it is a true or false statement.

      This kind of sweeping and flawed statement is strewn throughout the works of Dianetics and Scientology, seeming definitions that are really only the opening statements or arguments of a particular essay, chapter, bulletin, etc.

      Or am I just missing something here?

      Can anyone else see what I am looking at here?

      1. ”Or am I just missing something here?”

        sure do.. if one would find the solution than the problem vanishes in that instant… you all looking at the wrong solutions..

      2. It’s worth pondering what it means. It’s like the term “awareness of awareness”. EG, the science of science, the knowledge of knowledge, knowing about knowing, the study of study(or the study of studying) etc.

        Whereas “para-scientology” would just be a list of phenomena that are not very agreed upon. That would be just about everything, wouldn’t it?

        1. There is an interesting article I read on knowledge versus data that I think contributes greater understanding to this process.

          “Knowledge is what we know. Think of this as the map of the World we build inside our brains. Like a physical map, it helps us know where things are – but it contains more than that. It also contains our beliefs and expectations. ‘If I do this, I will probably get that.’ Crucially, the brain links all these things together into a giant network of ideas, memories, predictions, beliefs, etc.”

          compare to:

          “Data is/are the facts of the World. For example, take yourself. You may be 5ft tall, have brown hair and blue eyes. All of this is “data”. You have brown hair whether this is written down somewhere or not.”

          compare to:

          “Information allows us to expand our knowledge beyond the range of our senses. We can capture data in information, then move it about so that other people can access it at different times. Here is a simple analogy for you. If I take a picture of you, the photograph is information. But what you look like is data.”

          the relationship:

          “When people confuse data with information, they can make critical mistakes. Data is always correct (I can’t be 29 years old and 62 years old at the same time) but information can be wrong (there could be two files on me, one saying I was born in 1981, and one saying I was born in 1948). Information captures data at a single point. The data changes over time. The mistake people make is thinking that the information they are looking at is always an accurate reflection of the data.”

          When I consider the positioning in the statement: Scientology is the science of knowledge, I notice that it’s not “a” science of knowledge, it is “the” science of knowledge. This theme is repeated in 1965, “other efforts Man has made have been surpassed.”

          Even more crucial is that the concept of knowledge is framed as “knowledge is certainty,” sufficient certainty that one doesn’t confuse butterflies with tables.

          The root variants of certainty: reliable, sure, assured, fixed, settled, determined — distinguish and decide. And the words critic, criticism, decree, secret, discern, critical, riddle, concern, crime, criterion, discretion, endocrine all share the same root: crisis.

          The root meaning of crisis is literally the turning point in a disease. It is a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. A condition of instability or danger leading to a decisive change. The root variants are krie-to sieve, discriminate, distinguish, crimen-judgment, crime, cernere-to sift, separate and crich-border, boundary.

          Roughly restated, “knowledge as certainty” is decision that settles crisis. Decide is literally, de-off, and caedere-to cut. Like pruning a bush, sifting flour, separating the dross from the gold. Settling on a decisive position.

          And that is what I see happening continually in Scientology as an overarching phenomena. A decisive position is taken. Misaligned or conflicting data / information is cut off, dismissed, terminated.

          1. I would guess “confusion and the stable datum” applies.

            Also that story about cutting the Gordian knot. That’s a gem on various level s.

        2. More on all this. Arrogance.

          You’re going to love this: the root of arrogance is *rog-, 0-grade form of root *reg- “move in a straight line.”

          It is also the root of “regal”

          from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” hence, “direct, rule, guide” (cf. Sanskrit raj- “a king, a leader;” Avestan razeyeiti “directs;” Persian rahst “right, correct;” Latin regere “to rule,” rex “a king, a leader,” rectus “right, correct;” Old Irish ri, Gaelic righ “a king;” Gaulish -rix “a king,” in personal names, e.g. Vircingetorix; Gothic reiks “a leader;” Old English rice “kingdom,” -ric “king,” rice “rich, powerful,” riht “correct;” Gothic raihts, Old High German recht, Old Swedish reht, Old Norse rettr “correct”).

          But the best is found in the 1913 dictionary:

          CRISIS: 1. The point of time when it is to be decided whether any affair or course of action must go on, or be modified or terminate; the decisive moment; the turning point. 2. That change in a disease which indicates whether the result is to be recovery or death; sometimes, also, a striking change of symptoms attended by an outward manifestation, as by an eruption or sweat.

          CERTAIN: 1. assured in mind; having no doubts; free from suspicions concerning. 2. Determined; resolved; — used with an infinitive. 3. Not to be doubted or denied; established as a fact. 4. Actually existing; sure to happen; inevitable. 5. Unfailing; infallible. 6. Fixed or stated; regular; determinate.

          My notes:

          Suppressive: Introduces crisis.
          Potential Trouble Source: May be subject to crisis.
          Doubt: Crisis

          1. Maria, I believe a related word is ‘arrogate’, which I think means something like “To carve out and take(for one’s self)”. States tend to do this.

            As in “eminent domain”. History is replete with examples of wars over the attempted arrogation of what ought to be held and cherished in common.

            1. Yep, you got that right Valkov!

              They either think they are entitled or they entitle themselves through force. Then they are not just arrogant in attitude, they really are arrogant i.e. much better than anyone else. Easy to accomplish if you have the power to lock up, shoot or punish anyone who disagrees.

      3. Maria writes:

        Can anyone else see what I am looking at here?

        Alanzo sheepishly raises his hand and looks around to see if any body else is holding up their hand.

        “Uhmmm. I can.”

        Alanzo

        1. Alanzo:

          Isn’t it an unstated rule in classrooms that you ignore the guy who keeps raising his hand and pick on the people who are trying to avoid being picked? LOL!

          I have to say though, it’s about time you raised your hand. I’ve been feeling kind of pissy about this, Alanzo, here I am making all these posts and you haven’t said a thing! Geez!

          Fire away! Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead. And if we crash on the rocks, and reach that point of dire crisis, well, it is after all a discussion on a blog in cyberspace…

          1. I know it. I’ve moved on.

            Valkov and Marildi present much more challenging scenarios for me now. And we have others, like Dan Koon, who has never had a thought challenged any where in his life because of his Scientology status. Others from Marty World are arriving, too.

            Challenge. Think. Question.

            You already do that in spades, Maria.

            So I am setting my sights on others. Dan Koon has yet to get up the courage to challenge me back. What would be great is if Marty or Mike actually came on here and entered the debate. But I really don’t think they have the courage to do that.

            Alanzo

            1. Geir asked:

              Or the correct status?

              I know. Isn’t he something like Swedish Royalty now? Which of course, for you as a Norwegian, puts him somewhere above you near Thor, right?

              Alanzo

            2. I wasn’t referring to Dan, he already posts here. I really like Dan. I think even Mike posted here a while back. But not Marty.

            3. I see.

              I don’t know any of them. They stay away from me any where there is a forum where anyone can say anything they want without it being censored.

              I really do think that is unproductive. It suggests that they are seeking a kind of control which they should no longer be seeking if their real purpose is to “Move On Up a Little Higher”.

              Alanzo

  11. I agree that it is, and always has been, the responsibility of Scientologists to see to it that Scientology works for people and not be abusive to them.

    I tried to take responsibility for that when I was a Scientologist and I was disabused of the idea that it could be done because I found that the abusers themselves held all the power to declare, expel, and fair game anyone they wanted for whatever reason they wanted, and a Scientologist had NO RECOURSE from their injustice.

    So, undeterred, I studied the ethics and justice policies of L Ron Hubbard on the Ethics Specialist course to try to find a way around this. At one time I had the thought that I could be an Ethics Advocate, which worked in the interests of individual scientologists who had been abused. I found out that this would be impossible, given the structure Hubbard had created and enforced through his ethics and justice systems.

    So, any reform effort for Scientology must take place outside of L Ron Hubbard’s own ethics, tech and policy power structure. Just think about that. In order to make scientology work better for people, you will have to go against what L Ron Hubbard taught about standard ethics, tech and policy.

    Once you see that, you realize that this is the source of any difficulty in making Scientology work better and be less abusive: L Ron Hubbard’s own teachings to Scientologists to NEVER ALLOW ANY REFORM EFFORT TO EXIST.

    That is why Scientologists have rarely ever taken responsibility for Scientology’s abuse of people, and why they can not be counted on to do so in the future.

    This, to me, means that the only possible way to improve Scientology is to take the good parts out of it and to create something completely different – without any loyalty to L Ron Hubbard in it at all. This would not be a new effort. In the past these groups have been attacked by the Church, per L Ron Hubbard’s own orders for them to be destroyed.

    At this time, an effort like this is not looking too likely to be successful on any kind of wide basis. But hey – Scientology teaches you how to do everything in a new unit of time, no matter what happens. So, I am sure that for the right people working under the right power structure, nothing would be impossible.

    Yet again, a very positive, productive and constructive post, Geir.

    By the way, have you ever read “Don Quixote”?

    Alanzo

      1. Great post Geir! I posted an article submission with links.in comments. Please use it here if you want and are still taking submissions. If not, I’ll put it over at my place. But I thought others here may like it. – KG

        1. Sorry for the name mix up. I logged in from my phone because contractors in the house buggered up our internet while working. Anyway, an old ID took over from the days I created the MURE site.

          Anyway, hope you like the piece.

  12. Scientology it self do not work… in believing and using that tech makes it work for the individual.

    The belief, if one have believes in its workability ”’ to that extant than it works”’.

    Those who believed that auditing works, that it have changed their viewpoints with that their life those individual will continued with the auditing and used that method because of their belief: that it can.

    I have believed in the auditing process so much so that I have continued solo auditing after OT7 and completion of NOT’s

    My unshakable belief in the auditing process, the extended Rudiments which include the questions of the O/W’s taken me, given the greatest adventure ever, but most of all not only I have unshakable belief in the tech but in my self that I can achieve my goals-dreams and I have, I have dedicated my life in order to archive…because I believe…. So it simply boils down to belief… without ? nothing will happen.

    For me there was never doubt… because of that: it works.

    1. Elizabeth, I can confirm, in a way, what you are saying. I worked for years with psychotherapists, and also did some reading on the subject, and also on the subject of medical education.

      In general, it appears that basically a “good doctor” or a “good therapist” is born, not made. I believe there have been some studies of “what makes a good doctor”, and part of it are the innate qualities of the person. Intelligence alone doesn’t do it, as all med students are “smart” IQ-wise. And clinical psychology students are at least smart enough to get into college and continue on to a Master’s degree.

      My point here is, some individuals are probably better at “making scientology work” than others. Thus long-term practitioners are likely to be those who are good at making auditing work, and will say good things about the tech; those who were not good at making it work, quit using it much sooner, and will say it doesn’t work that well.

      To borrow an analogy from Geir’s next OP, many people try making sushi, but not that many are good enough at it to become “masters”.
      It seems that way with psychotherapists too. Many in the business feel it can’t really be taught, that psychotherapeutic benefit comes about more because of some innate qualities of personality of the therapist, more than any other factor.

      What I have been reading on these blogs leads me to believe it is the same with “scientology”; a “natural therapist” or “natural auditor” will apply the tech “better”, in more beneficial ways than a naturally “poor” auditor does, even with training. I would guess the training helps up his effectiveness, but as the purpose of auditing is to increase the ARC of the preclear, an auditor who is of low ARC to start with, won’t get the best results. A high ARC therapist’s natural presence helps the patient improve more than any other factors such as some kind of “technical” knowledge, although that can help some.

      This may be true of the Admin tech also. One person who gets good results with admin tech kinda falsifies the notion that the admin tech doesn’t work. Natural gifts or talents may be involved there, too.

      1. valkov. you are right.. for me scientology -auditing ment to work… It worked from the first session given to me by the field auditor.. It works for me and I have found the reason why.. you see I wanted to know the reason why it works for me and not for others… I did look for it…

          1. Oh.. I would be here all right.. you see I realized than that the questions were the tool it self which pointed to the answer. The auditor explained that to me very carefully, my english was very poor than and he was teaching me english the same time.
            His name was DR Peter Thames a Dutch psychiatrist who has given up his practice. CL4 OT 3 he was than.
            Valkov, I wonder if I tell you would you believe why works for me?

            1. and i have thought it over….. why should you want to know in the first place… no reasonwhat so ever…. and me to tell …. well to me, in my universe would not change either not one thing.. and friend you were… friend your are.. that too wont change… by the way.. one do not need affinity to confront to as- is since affinity is a concept.. same as any belief.. like space… dark or light… it only exist here where likes or dislikes are in use: i have affinity for this or that… i hate this or that.
              To confront one needs only one thing: willingness to have…

      2. Valkov
        Like it! Presence, natural TR-s, plus the question or command tailored to the PC so that the PC can in the end hear/do it in present time as if first time in his/her life, without any reaction and with full affinity.

        1. MT ”’without any reaction ”’If there is no reaction to the question than there is nothing to confront.. so there is no reason to have a session… And again I did not know that affinty is coming in lumpsome

        2. MT,
          “….question or command tailored to the pc” etc. can result from high ARC and good duplication, without any scientology training. Although this degree of obnosis might be rare in actual life, it is really all that is required to produce the “right question”.

          Which leads me to my thought that what LRH was doing, in codifying the ‘tech’, most of the time was obnosing and then reporting what he saw Life actually doing. This seems to me to clearly be the origin of at least some of the Conditions Formulas.

          The steps of some of the Formulas are what any person naturally does, sometimes too quickly to even notice. LRH inspected these and wrote the down the actual steps he saw people doing, ‘instinctively’, so to speak.
          He also observed what happens when a formula is done incorrectly or the wrong formula is applied, on a mistaken assumption.

          My point being he wan’t ‘inventing’ stuff, just reporting what he was obnosing.

          As some wit once said, “You can’t make this stuff up!”

          So people with high ARC and a high ability to ‘obnose’ (which requires high ARC in order to be able to duplicate what one perceives),make better therapists, because they are ‘therapeutic’ to be around in the first place.

            1. MT, I thought you had made a post recently that involved the idea of “authenticity’, but couldn’t find it. Anyway, the concept came to mind when Geir and marildi dredged up their past(but apparently unsettled and not forgotten) ‘debate’ about
              ARC.

              Your posts seem authentic.

              I think the problem some have with the concept of ARC stems from a misunderstanding of ‘real tone’ vs. ‘social tone’, ‘pretended tone’, or ‘faked tone’ – ie, any disingenuous use of the tone scale.

              When a person first joins staff, s/he is not likely to have much horsepower, nor is her real tone likely to be very high. But of course the scientology cultural expectation is for everyone to present a high-toned appearance, be on top of things, and ‘make things go right’. This leads to staff feeling they must “fake it until I make it”, as some Amway and other multi-level-marketing, Grant Cardone type ‘leaders’ promote.

              This leads to the disingenuous and inauthentic ‘use’ of the ARC triangle. And the feeling that one is being manipulated, when one is faced with this kind of ‘handling’.

              I see this as the genesis of the ‘scientology personality’, which can be as ‘plastic’ and Barbie-doll-like as that of a new sorority pledge or an inauthentic salesman’s valence.

              Authentic ARC is something else entirely and assumes a person’s authentic ability to be.

              ‘Authenticness’ or ‘authenticity’ has actually been much discussed in philosophy and psychology. Here is a little intro to the subject:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

      3. Valkov wrote: I would guess the training helps up his effectiveness, but as the purpose of auditing is to increase the ARC of the preclear, an auditor who is of low ARC to start with, won’t get the best results. A high ARC therapist’s natural presence helps the patient improve more than any other factors such as some kind of “technical” knowledge, although that can help some.

        This may be true of the Admin tech also. One person who gets good results with admin tech kinda falsifies the notion that the admin tech doesn’t work. Natural gifts or talents may be involved there, too.

        Again, Valkov, you blame the person for the results of a technology.

        And you do it in the way that Scientologists were taught by Hubbard to do this – never look at Scientology itself, because Scientology itself ALWAYS WORKS, so look away from Scientology when you are evaluating Scientology’s results.

        It is always THE PERSON, his tone level, his level of ARC, his intentions, his low IQ, his stupidity. Blame the person only, never look at Scientology.

        This has been done since at least 1965, with the first issue of KSW, and 43 years of experience has given us what Scientology is today.

        This approach of “what did YOU do wrong?…. INSTANT ATTACK” for evaluating the results of Scientology does not work.

        Alanzo

        1. Al,
          I am not ‘blaming’ anyone. I am describing what psychiatrists and psychologists and medical educators have observed for decades. Not to mention medical patients who have observed that some doctors are better than others, and some doctors are lousy, even though they graduated from the same medical school as the good doctors.

          Al, you are such a ‘victim’. You should title your philosophy, “Victimology”.

          The main tech you would teach is “instant attack on anyone who dares to say it may not always be the fault of a technology”.

          Which is not what I said at all – so your comment addresses a Straw Man you have put up.

          What I did say is, results vary from individual to individual because of apparently innate factors or qualities belonging to each person. One person can make a bad or faulty ‘tech’ work,while another person might get poor results with a better ‘tech’, because he just doesn’t have that ‘special something’ that makes one person a ‘good healer’ or ‘good therapist’.

          I have no explanation for this, this is just how the medical world views things. it is about the furthest thing from ‘blaming’.

          You seem to be in a two-valued rut.

          1. Is it because your fundamental belief is that the “thetan” causes all reality?

            And so therefore nothing else can be a cause of a failure?

            Like if you tried to butcher a pig with a butter knife, because that’s what your guru taught you to do. And your guru can never be questioned, nor can his technology. And so the family goes hungry, or turns vegetarian, or gets disconnected from, when all they had to do was question the guru, and his teaching that the butter knife was the only true way to butcher a pig.

            I won’t call you names, Valkov.

            Because *I* don’t need to.

            Alanzo

            1. I didn’t say those things you are ranting about, Al. It’s virtually all Straw Man.
              Try reading my post again. Obviously it triggered off a lot of associations. If those associations are still running, maybe wait for those associations to run their course, then try reading my post again.

              I prefer not to be associated with your associations, because they do not represent me.

            2. I’ll tell you what, Valkov.

              If you come off yours, I’ll come off mine.

              You remain polite and respectful to me, and I’ll remain polite and respectful to you.

              How about it?

              No adhom, no name calling, no insults. Just polite, mutually respectful discussion of the issues surrounding Scientology.

              What do you say, dickhead?

              Alanzo

          2. Valkov wrote:

            I am not ‘blaming’ anyone. I am describing what psychiatrists and psychologists and medical educators have observed for decades. Not to mention medical patients who have observed that some doctors are better than others, and some doctors are lousy, even though they graduated from the same medical school as the good doctors.

            All right, Val.

            Well let’s think outside the box then.

            Are you ready?

            Do you have what it takes to break out of your Scientology Personality and look at ideas which run counter to what you presently believe?

            All right, here we go:

            Do you know what an Alpha Male is?

            Do you know what the term “suggestibility” represents?

            Do you know about the role of authority in hypnosis?

            Did you know that human beings are social primates? Meaning that, as a species, we are an animal that runs in groups, and coordinates via lines of authority from the alpha down? All of our groups, societies, and civilizations – in all times and in all places – are heavily striated. Wherever there are human groups, there are social hierarchies.

            If you really want the answer to your questions about why some auditors and some doctors and some psychs get better results – when all other factors are the same – then your answer lies outside of anything L Ron Hubbard ever taught, and it lies in areas where when he did teach, he was completely wrong.

            So whether you will ever find any other answer to your question than a personal attack on someone’s “tone level”, or their level of “ARC”, is not likely because your answers are in direct contradiction to fundamental teachings in your present Scientology belief structure.

            And given the bent in your postings which I have observed over the last 3 or 4 years, I think you really don’t have any hope of ever breaking out of Hubbard’s mindfuck long enough to get your answer.

            But who knows, you are a smart guy underneath all that brainwashing, so maybe you can pry out of your ideological helmet long enough, and allow yourself to think heretically for long enough, to get your answers.

            I’ve given you your word clearing list above, to be done Method 5. That’s as much effort as I want to expend on you right now. If you do well with this, then I might throw you some more crumbs. But just like the SP in the prison cell who won’t get his lunch until he answers the next auditing question, you are gonna hafta sing for your supper.

            So let’s see of you can do it.

            Start!

            Alanzo

            1. Yeah Al, Master of Dev-T, I know all that “man the animal” stuff. I also don’t think that’s all there is. That’s your bag, not mine.

              Do you really think all the Ad Hom will somehow change my mind?

            2. My original questions were:

              All right, Val.

              Well let’s think outside the box then.

              Are you ready?

              Do you have what it takes to break out of your Scientology Personality and look at ideas which run counter to what you presently believe?

              And you answered how you did.

              You’re not going to make it dude. You can’t break out of your ideology. There are certain things, like the questions you asked, which Scientology can not explain. Your answers don’t exist in Scientology and they exist in areas where LRon told you not to look.

              So you are not going to make it. You are just going to go around and around in the Scientology Squirrel Cage in your head, and you are never going to get anywhere.

              At the beginning, Scientology probably got you somewhere. I know it did me in the beginning. But that time has long since passed. And you don’t notice that you are just going round and round.

              Oh well. It’s entertaining to poke sticks at you inside your ideological thought cage and see how you’ll react.

              When you get sick of it, you’ll probably come out. A lot of people do. But not until they are good and ready.

              Right?

              Alanzo

            3. Al, when you post statements like “You’re not going to make it dude. You can’t break out of your ideology” , I simply think “this moron is dumb as a brick, it is a complete waste of time to interact with him.”

              I mean, do you really think this kind of talk/tactic will work on someone who spent 13 years working in psychotherapeutic settings?

              It is a transparent attempt at emotional manipulation, whether you call it “invalidation”, “discounting”, “nullification”, or whatever. It is considered pathological by psychiatrists and psychologists everywhere.

              So why don’t you come off it?

            4. I’ll tell you what, Valkov.

              If you come off yours, I’ll come off mine.

              You remain polite and respectful to me, and I’ll remain polite and respectful to you.

              How about it?

              No adhom, no name calling, no insults. Just polite, mutually respectful discussion of the issues surrounding Scientology.

              So what do you say, dickhead?

              Alanzo

            5. Al and I are doing the best we can in Vinaire’s absence.

              Just wait until Vin’s back – we’ll have the full ensemble then!

  13. I think if we start sorting the good from the bad, we’ll just end up with only the least common denominator… which is group agreement.

    How about we all PRACTICE “what is true for you is what is true”? Not just pretend it as has been done before.

    1. Group agreement and compromise are extremely workable and efficient ways of doing things. Every large successful public company – way larger and more successful than Scientology ever was – works on group agreement and compromise.

      Besides an LRH reference where he attempted to put himself into god-like status (KSW #1) can you give any basis for a good reason that gaining group agreement does not work?

      Alanzo

      1. And there is Wikipedia and Linux and lots of successful endeavors of crowdsourcing.

        Progress is seldom the effort of single men nowadays. And progress has never been faster.

        1. Each member of a crowd is an individual. A crowd would not exist, if individuals did not exist. Just as a schoolof fish would not exist if there were no individual fish. Each addition to wikipedia is an individual effort.

          Individual and group are not a dichotomy.

          1. The point is group agreement, and whether that is really what made earth a “hell”, as Hubbard taught.

            Each entry in wikipedia is edited until the ideas presented in the article are in agreement with a group of recognized facts as presented by a group of recognized sources and experts.

            That’s group agreement.

            So is group agreement really what made earth a hell, as LRon taught you?

            Alanzo

            1. OK, I’ll bite: Ask the people atom-bombed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki if ‘group agreement’ made their lives ‘hell on earth’. Ask the folks who experienced the Holocaust, if ‘group agreement’ made their lives better? Ask the folks who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11 and their friends and relatives and children what ‘group agreement’ did for their lives? Ask the people in Syria who have been losing and dying over the past 2 years, how ‘group agreement’ has worked for them?

              Ask the thousands upon thousands who have died in Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Korea, in the Soviet Union at Stalingrad, in WWII, WW I, in the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War, in the American Civil War, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, how ‘group agreement’ worked out for them and their friends, families, children, parents, and others?

              But you’d have to get your head out of your ass to do so.

            2. Those are not the products of group agreement. Those are the products of military initiatives intended to forcibly acquire territory and possessions either directly or as profits from war. That’s the product of criminality, not group-agreement. Shock and awe tactics are used to convince the larger group that there is no other alternative than to fight and die.

              Case in point: The fracas in the middle east results from the “war on terrorism.” Several multi-national corporations made fortunes by supplying soldiers and military equipment and supplies. Then “good old boy” deals and contracts were bidded on to “rebuild” war-torn areas with unbelievably enormous and profitable construction contracts. The U.S. taxpayer footed the bill for the mercenaries and their supply lines, then footed the bill for rebuilding Iraq. Shock and awe media was used to justify all of it. Of course, the role of the corporations was played down and the dire threat of terrorism played up in the media.

              That is NOT group agreement. That is deliberate criminal homicide in the name of peace and justice. This has been the repeating pattern on this planet as long as there is written history. Ask yourself who is profiting from these wars. You don’t have to look very far to understand that the larger group called middle easterners and the larger group called Americans DO NOT BENEFIT. AT ALL. In fact, they pay and pay and pay through the nose both in dollars and lives. But a very, very, very small group of individuals and companies do benefit, to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

              That’s not group agreement. That’s group coercion, manipulation and abuse on a scale that the larger group called humanity cannot even fathom. That’s how they get away with it. The larger group, which is decent and caring has no such agreement and its so far out of their agreement that they almost cannot see it at all. Its truly evil shit and most people just plain well do not think that way. I do not find the bulk of the human race to be a destructive and vicious lot. I do find that there are individuals that are quite insane, completely out of agreement with the rest of us, who find nothing wrong with raining broad scale damage on others so they can have more and more and more and more and more. They are quite insatiable.

              That’s what I see when it comes to this issue of war.

      2. Yes Al, group agreement does “work”. Just ask all theJews who died in the Holocaust. The Nazi group agreement made the operation ‘very efficient’ indeed. Got things done. Same in the Soviet GULAGs; also currently in Chinese ‘concentration camps’, where those who disagree or think for themselves are imprisoned. Very efficient, gets things done indeed. Secret police and informer network group agreements – very efficient, get things done…. Go, Group Agreement, Go! Rah Rah.

        1. Make-wrong contests aside, group agreement is simply group agreement, it is neither necessarily good nor bad. Bringing about group agreement is often helpful or necessary to accomplish a goal or objective, which can be beneficial or otherwise, depending on one’s viewpoint of that goal. Group agreement need not be the surrendering of one’s individuality as a whole; a group is not necessarily a cult. I could be said to be part of the group of people who supports and encourages spiritual enlightenment and empowerment, of the group of people who enjoys certain types of music, of the group of people supportive of promoting and benefiting from unprocessed, organic foods. This doesn’t mean I am fixated on a singular purpose, and/or opposed to people who think differently. Identifying group agreement as something undesirable, or that must be opposed, or equating all group agreement as totalitarian rule and enforcement, is to “perceive” through the filter of a past experience and/or fixed idea (in my opinion). I certainly disagree with the dogmatic statement that “the only thing a group has in common is the bank”, which I regard as s statement intended to inhibit others from viewing, examining and considering information from any source other than the author of that statement.

            1. Hey there Alanzo, long time! Thanks, nice to reconnect with you!

          1. Thanks Dex, good post. As I reviewed my latest brouhaha with Al, I realized the apparent difference between us, is, as usual, a matter of the meaning of words and definitions.

            Coming from a Russian background of having lost a lot through contact with Soviet Communism, I tend to think of “group agreement” as what LRH referred to as “BANK group agreement”, rather than the self-determined agreement of aware individuals who decide to act in concert towards common goals.

            Here’s an example of what I consider to be the undesirable kind of ‘group agreement ‘ I referred to in my posts to Al.

            Like it or not, Maria, there is a lot of this kind of ‘group agreement’ rampant on Earth and I think this is the kind of group agreement LRH objected to:

            1. Valkov –

              Wasn’t Hitler the Supreme Ruler of Germany, and of the Nazis?

              They did not do things by group agreement there. They did things by the dictator’s dictates – just like in the Church of Scientology.

              I don’t understand why you can’t see the similarities between Hitler’s Nazi ideology and Hubbard’s Scientology ideology.

              Have you ever read this book?

              “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer?

              http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-Movements-Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361935897&sr=8-1&keywords=true+believer+hoffer

            2. Hey there, Valkov! I find it very interesting how, when we look more carefully at what another is looking at, we tend to find that we are actually in agreement, and the opposing attitudes were fueled by misunderstandings 🙂

            3. I’m not saying that this phenomena doesn’t happen. But it doesn’t happen as a spontaneous event, 10,000 people suddenly leaping to their feet to Heil Hitler. This was not spontaneous. It was the result of the use of propaganda and promises of recovery from economic disaster, deliberately and with malice aforethought incited and then coerced. They led with grand ideologies and threatened dissidents with death and machine guns.

              The rhetoric of the Nazi party was the rhetoric of a glorified (but mythical) past of greatness and courage. The rhetoric of the Communist party was the glorification of the common working man above the parasitical bourgeousie and smug elite.

              In both instances the underlying objective was tyranny and control, the overthrow and takeover of the ruling elite and total control of the citizenry. I have read Mein Kaumf and the Communist Manifesto and there is no doubt what the intentions were.

              Mobs that are solely bank dominated don’t plan, don’t build munitions factories, do not respond to leadership, and are noticeably short on thinking skills. No, that took deliberate and focused planning, propaganda backed by force, skillful oration, and utterly ruthless leadership to get those thousands of people all out on parade goose-stepping in perfect unison.

              Did they want that? No. But they were starving and tired of being taxed to death. They were promised food. Work. Dignity.

              The antidote? Make sure people have a way to at least feed themselves and their children. Preserve their basic rights and dignity. Fight oppression and expose the liars who would abuse and cheat people every chance they get.

            4. Sure, it’s always “incited” by someone.
              Maria, I’m not disagreeing with anything you have posted about it.

              The group bank agreement is created and fostered by someone, it doesn’t arise spontaneously. That’s really why it is BANK agreement. It is a state of hypnosis which is only possible because of a person’s underlying susceptibility to it. The person actually believes it is his decision, but it is really the hypnotist’s decision he is obeying and following.

              An example is Al’s tactic of telling me that “you’re not gonna make it, Val” I’m not susceptible to that, but if I were and it overwhelmed me, I might decide that I had to accept Al’s evaluation of the situation and substitute his ideology for whatever it was I believed before. What he does is quite analogous to the CoS’ ploy of “Cooperate or you will lose your Eternity.” It’s a scare tactic, a “scary stick” to go along with the “carrots”, whatever they may be, that are offered as further inducement to go along with the “group bank agreement” he is trying to foster. I recognized it long ago.

              This is aside from any issues of “the person mocks it all up himself and is therefore responsible for it anyway.” It goes back to the old idea that “people are asleep. It is only a matter of degree, some are more asleep than others”.

              I’m not THAT asleep.

              It is nonetheless an unhealthy kind of ‘agreement’, call it a compulsive
              agreement. Compulsive behavior is compelled behavior. It is backed up by FORCE. When the force of it is internalized, you then have a person who is susceptible to ‘compulsive behavior’. Thus is old-school Psychology 101, which they apparently don’t teach in college anymore.

              Namaste.

            5. AL, I read The True Believer long ago. You think I’m a “true believer” , may be that’s why you try those cheap hypnotist’s psychological tricks on me, trying to substitute your “true beliefs” about scientology for my own thinking about it.

              Ha ha ha, it never works because I’ve been there done that got the T-shirt long ago. It’s not a worthy effort on your part anyway, because trying to substitute one set of ‘true beliefs’, yours, for whatever ‘true beliefs’ you think the person is already holding, does not help the person or make him any better off. It doesn’t ‘improve’ him; he remains a ‘sheeple’ only now he is your sheeple instead of someone else’s.

              Nuff said

            6. Yes Al, Hitler was the Big Weenie, the Sig Heil!, the Jawohl Mein Kommandant of all Germany. That is precisely and exactly possible only because of “bank group agreement” on the part of the people being “led”, actually “exploited”. by such a “leadership”. It is the same as Miscavige’s present-time abuse being tolerated and accepted by people in the Hole.

              It is ‘group bank agreement’. They out number him! Why don’t they just kick his ass and throw him out? The ‘group’ has agreed not to do so. They have agreed that they M-u-s-t. o-b-e-y . M-i-s-c-a-v-i-g-e.

              They are the group, that is their collective bank agreement. The manipulators use the group’s bank of agreements to their own ends, which always seem to destoy more dynamics than they create or contribute to.

              It seems plain as day to me. “Who’s on first”, indeed!

  14. I think out-points are important to look at and eliminate, just like a good business. The problem with Scientology is those out-points can’t change, at least in the church. Those that don’t see the out-points are truly not free to look at and see them.
    Those that use the scientology they know and choose for their own betterment, as they see fit, I say go for it!

  15. If you’re looking for Scio distilled and improved then I suggest you study Alan Walter’s Knowledgism.

    1. I incorporate much of Alan’s material in my practice, with consistently wonderful results! I would, however, maintain an independent stance in relation to any paradigm, and evaluate and use whatever, from wherever, is the best known tool for each particular situation.

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s