Scientology => Church of Scientology

About a week after I left the Church of Scientology (2009-08-07), I started my first blog on Scientology with the title:

GI_stos

GI_mag

My purpose was to highlight my view that Scientology does not equal the Church of Scientology.

Since then, there has been an evolution in my viewpoint. After almost 4 years of blogging and hundreds of discussions on Scientology, several with more than a thousand exchanges with very intelligent and knowledgeable people, I can sum up my current view like this:

The Church of Scientology can be upbraided for not following Hubbard’s scripture or policy to the letter. There are deviations such as (warning – Scientology nomencaluter): Sec Checking during OT 7, the forming of the IAS as a fund raising organization (although Hubbard engaged in pure fundraising himself), fundraising for Ideal Orgs, implementing GAT perfection below Class 6/7/8 auditors, etc. But as a whole, I believe nowhere in history can we find an organization that has so diligently and perfectionistically implemented an ideology. From my experience, the Church of Scientology implements Hubbard’s text to an accuracy of at least 99.9%. Focusing on the deviations is nitpicking.

While it is fairly easy to find inconsistencies in Scientology, Hubbard was overall very consistent. Focusing on the inconsistencies is nitpicking.

It is also possible to nitpick as to what actually constitutes Scientology. But to quote Hubbard (Policy Letter, “Keeping Admin Working”):

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin…

Obviously, a subject cannot be equal to a physical entity such as a church. The title of my early Scientology blog is nevertheless misleading.

I believe that the Church of Scientology is a natural result of Scientology as written and set up by L. Ron Hubbard.

The current church is at least 99.9% a product as founded and envisioned by Hubbard. David Miscavige is doing an admirable job as the leader of the church (more on that in an upcoming video).

This will not go down well with many Independent Scientologists who hold that Scientology is as close as one can get to a perfect way for freeing a person, a mind, a spirit. But even the most ardent defenders of Scientology must suspect there is something wrong in an ideology that gives birth to a church that habitually cons people and wrecks families.

The recent confirmation of the authenticity of an infamous Technical Bulletin by Hubbard where he says Christ was a pedophile and that Lucifer was actually the force of good and where Hubbard says he was Buddha and also Anti-Christ may shed some light on why the subject took a wrong turn.

Nitpicking is rampant on forums and blogs, like this one. But when I step back and look at the big picture, I see a natural and logical sequence of events where one man invents a philosophy and methodology of the mind and spirit, creates a church as a vehicle for its practice, dies and leaves it into the hands of people highly trained in his methodology and policy, and the church has thereafter tried to implement every single word of what he wrote. Sometimes the implementation is inaccurate or plain wrong, but by and large it is a damn good representation of what Hubbard wrote.

I should perhaps change the tagline of my original Scientology blog to:

Scientology => Church of Scientology

Meaning: “Scientology IMPLIES Church of Scientology“, or “Church of Scientology FOLLOWS LOGICALLY FROM Scientology

But I will leave it as a trail showing where I was wrong and how my view has changed.

419 thoughts on “Scientology => Church of Scientology

    1. You’re very welcome, but it is I who should thank you. It was your blog and all the many posters on it that helped me the most to unravel this ball of twine in my own world.

      Alan

        1. thank you

          You mentioned an hour ago you worked at CST. Is that the CST up in the hills of California, with the underground vaults, and a masive symbol bulldozed into the ground?

    1. Nit #1

      Since you are eager to get more L’s and other auditing – in spite of the efficacy of Fuckit allogy – and since the CoS under DM is faithfully rendering the teachings and instruction of Hubbard, then please make sure your auditor faithfully follows the exact technology of the 3-swing F/N during your auditing so that we can get a truly unbiased technical review of the recovered technology. (Insert emoticon of gag reflex. 🙂 )

        1. What do you mean by that, Val? I think 2ndxmr got it right. This was Geir’s comment just yesterday:

          “All the fuss about not applying policy or altered or lost tech is knit-picking to the extreme. Such account for a fraction of a percentage of what the CoS has implemented to the letter of what LRH prescribed. The CoS IS the result of Scientology.”

          1. Yes I thought his post was fine.

            I mean that when Geir goes to Flag to do the rest of his Ls under the 3 swing FN rule (because Flag does Scientology so exactly as LRH wrote it to be done), he needs to take the latex gloves ……. although he probably won’t need them, as from what I hear about Flag auditing and C/Sing these days, the barfing is part of the EP……. in whichcasehe can barf INTO the gloves to keep the mess down….

            1. I take it that was tongue in cheek?

              Obviously, Geir will be getting his auditing from an independent and 2x’s point was that since he will be getting “standard tech” – as is practiced by the CoS, according to Geir – then his “standard tech” independent auditor will be applying the 3-swing F/N rule just like the standard tech auditors in the CoS. But nothing to worry about there, that’s just nit-picking. Right? 😉

            2. That’s pretty much it marildi.

              But since Geir has just posted that he thinks Flag and DM are conscientiously applying LRH tech practically perfectly, why would he go to an independent auditor for his auditing?

              Would he not want to go and get that auditing at Flag, where his certainty of standard application would be highest? Since they follow LRH tech and policies so closely, according to him?

            3. Why would I want to have “standard Scientology” as laid out by LRH? Nope, I want to have “sensible parts of the tech” applied by someone who can think for themselves and not try their best to see and apply the tech with blinders, justify any outpoint in it and nitpick shit to pieces. Yup, I want a rebel auditor.

              BTW; I never had any issue with the F/N having to swing three times.

            4. I have a question. On your L 11, did your auditor Pierre Ethier not run it per LRH?

            5. What does that have to do with anything? Do you have a point to make here? If so, please state it clearly.

            6. I’m saying that Pierre Ethier thinks for himself – and applies the tech per LRH. And he is your auditor.

            7. I was your comment about wanting a rebel auditor. And Pierre isn’t.

  1. Geir, you write:
    “The recent confirmation of the authenticity of an infamous Technical Bulletin by Hubbard where he says Christ was a pedophile and that Lucifer was actually the force of good and where Hubbard says he was Buddha and also Anti-Christ may shed some light on why the subject took a wrong turn.”
    And also:
    “But even the most ardent defenders of Scientology must suspect there is something wrong in an ideology that gives birth to a church that habitually cons people and wrecks families.
    2 questions to you:
    1. And if (I say if, because the reference on the pedophile, is confused and not clear) Ron said a bad thing about Christ – what of it?? Aren’t you reacting to this exactly as a “common Scientologist” reacts to anybody saying bad things about Ron?
    You DO give him very bad marks on this one.
    2. If, as you say, Ron, and his methodologies, and his church, are all so negative, cons and wrecks families, ad. infinitum… and it is all part of the thing itself: The Master – The Followers – The Organization…so Geir, why, why have you, and still are, wasting so much time, many years, so many posts, so many words, energy, thinking..ad infinitum on that SMALL insignificant, negative TRIO. Why not leave it alone, move on, and spend your time on other life phenomena on this planet??
    Serious question.
    Hemi

    1. Hemi:
      “1. And if (I say if, because the reference on the pedophile, is confused and not clear) Ron said a bad thing about Christ – what of it?? Aren’t you reacting to this exactly as a “common Scientologist” reacts to anybody saying bad things about Ron?
      You DO give him very bad marks on this one.”

      Me: Nothing much confused about what Ron says in that Bulletin about Christ [In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR.]. Actually, Ron is giving himself very bad marks by writing that bulletin.

      “2. If, as you say, Ron, and his methodologies, and his church, are all so negative, cons and wrecks families, ad. infinitum… and it is all part of the thing itself: The Master – The Followers – The Organization…so Geir, why, why have you, and still are, wasting so much time, many years, so many posts, so many words, energy, thinking..ad infinitum on that SMALL insignificant, negative TRIO. Why not leave it alone, move on, and spend your time on other life phenomena on this planet??
      Serious question.”

      Me: It’s a process of discovery for me. And I am happy to share what I discover with the readers of my blog. It’s been a fun 30 years. And I do whatever I think is fun, that’s all. Also, I cannot deny the wins I have had in me Scientology service. They are real. To me. And I want to complete what Scientology is left along the path I am walking (L10 & L12, old OT 4-7).

      1. Curious, did Hubbard write (L10 & L12, old OT 4-7)?

        Regarding your OP. I came to a similar conclusion after much investigation.

      2. It still seems incomprehensible that you want to complete something that you think is inherently detrimental.

        1. I am not sure I said that it was inherently detrimental. Let me make a parallel example: A Black Widow spider kills many people every year. To the people killed, it is detrimental. It produces, so to speak, many “bad” products every year. But the Black Spider is not “inherently detrimental” for it. It also does lots of good. = Handle with care. And there are many other angles to what I wrote here.

          Things aren’t always Black or White, when it comes to Scientology. There are all shades of different colors. Beware the dark colors. Educate yourself, and you can avoid the pitfalls. I think I am even better equipped to avoid those after blogging and discussing for almost 4 years. Discussing with you has made me more aware of the dangers in Scientology, and so I feel confident I will do just great on L10/12, OT 4-7.

          1. “Discussing with you has made me more aware of the dangers in Scientology…”

            Is this a backhanded compliment or just an outright invalidation? Either way, I don’t know why you feel the need to repeat it over and over again. Is it for my benefit or for yours?

            1. It would have been a compliment if you had said I had made you more aware of the plus points in Scientology. But you didn’t. You said I made you more aware of the dangers. That comes across as an insult.

            2. It is very valuable to me. I feel much more confident and comfortable doing more of the Bridge now that I have more clearly seen the pitfalls. Discussing with you has mapped the minefield for me. And I do sincerely thank you for helping me highlight that. As for the plus points, I have done up to OT 8 – I think I was well aware of the pluspoints before our paths crossed.

            3. Okay, well, that’s why it’s called a backhanded “compliment”. But that’s fine because I feel similarly. Between you and others here who criticize various parts of Scn, it has become clear to me that a large part of the criticism of Scn is actually a simple lack of being able to understand it and to differentiate between identities, similarities and differences in the materials.

              On the other hand, I’ve also been made more aware by you and others of the outpoints in the ethics and admin. So I guess we feel similarly towards each other – except that I’m willing to admit you’ve helped me see some things I hadn’t and you basically say that I merely showed you dangers and covertly “compliment” me for that.

            4. Maybe I wasn’t quite clear.

              Our discussions have created considerable value in that you helped me see things that I did not see before. You helped me highlight pitfalls that I wasn’t aware of. I openly and sincerely compliment you for that. It has made me stronger, and made my motivation to complete the Ls and the old OT levels more real. It has actually and factually been of real and tangible value for me to regain my critical thinking skills. Not that you are the only person that has helped me in this regard. Far from it. I should add several people to that list, like Chris, splog, Alanzo, Maria, katageek, Vinaire, many other contributors on my blog, Brendan, Anette, Jonatan, Karen, Marty, Jason Beghe, several Anons, Andreas Heldal-Lund, David Mayo, … and the list goes on. But you did play a major role in my shifting viewpoints.

              I dispute the likelihood of people who have been pro something and then criticize it having acquired some misunderstandings in the subject. It seems, as others have pointed out, as a variation to the True Scotsman logical fallacy. It also comes across a s belittling, defensive and “capitulative”.

              Nevertheless: Thank you & hugz.

            5. Thanks for the clarification. However, now you have stated a bald-faced Straw Man:

              “I dispute the likelihood of people who have been pro something and then criticize it having acquired some misunderstandings in the subject.”

              That’s purely your defensive and dismissive interpretation. Any of the specific misunderstandings I’ve commented on were based on specific comments that you and others made.

              Nevertheless, I do appreciate the clarification on the previous statement as it comes across a lot different now. Hugs back.

            6. My point on acquired misunderstandings were not against you specifically – but as a point to anyone reading here that may interpret your point above in such a way. I apologize for not making that clear.

            7. Geir, would you please give me an example of how I helped you “highlight pitfalls”?

            8. Well, you were willing to start the subject and then carry it on for half a dozen comments back and forth.

              My instincts tell me that you are being careful to frame your statement in a way that is ambiguous – because I myself haven’t really commented on any pitfalls, particularly about the core philosophy and tech. So how could I have helped you highlight those? You and others were the ones criticizing and I mainly disagreed. Thus, it still comes across as a thinly veiled implication that my comments themselves were what showed you the pitfalls. It’s like saying I showed you all the ways not to view Scientology – but you won’t come out and say that directly because it might make you look bad or something.

              And btw, you absolutely DID say that Scn is inherently detrimental, although you now claim you’re “not sure”. When you said it, I pointed out how contradictory that was in light of the fact that you intend to do whatever is left that you haven’t done in Scn. I’m sure you haven’t forgotten that discussion.

            9. Marildi: My instincts tell me that you are being careful to frame your statement in a way that is ambiguous . . .

              Chris: My instincts tell me that you are following mission orders.

            10. Geir, I apologize. On a comm lag, I think I get what you mean about me helping you to highlight the pitfalls. Sorry about that! It was a really nice compliment and this time I send you a very big hug. I hope you will receive it well. 🙂

            11. Good that you get what I mean by you helping me to see the pitfalls.

              As for Scientology being inherently detrimental; I dont think “Scientology is inherently detrimental” as that implies “All of it”. I DO think “something in Scientology is inherently detrimental” and that “Scientology tends to corrupt what it touches”. That is my exact stand.

          2. marildi: It still seems incomprehensible that you want to complete something that you think is inherently detrimental.

            Chris: It still seems incomprehensible that you don’t want to complete something that you think is inherently saving mankind.

            1. You should indeed be red-faced. Here you are showing once again your narrow grasp of the tech. Sad. 😦

            2. Well, Marildi, I am still befuddled as to why you do not do everything in your power to avail yourself of the tech you believe is the one true liberating technology on Earth. I mean, I AM, while remaining willing to look honestly at the detrimental effects of Scientology that has indeed created the mess we today know as “Scientology”. I do think it is sad that you keep defending the very thing you seem reluctant to go full blast for. Me = puzzled.

              And before you start blaming me or Chris for not understanding you or some point you may have here, take a look at how you communicate your point about this (if you have communicated your point clearly) – because after all, you are responsible for ensuring we understand your communication, right?

            3. My point is that you seem to have a narrow grasp of what core Scientology actually involves – which, to put it in the most basic terms, is to enable the individual to become self-determined. And my current self-determined application of Scn doesn’t conform to the viewpoint that Scn must involve auditing. I’ve stated that before and I’ve even specified what and how I do use of it in my life, so I think it’s being rather disingenuous to keep coming back to it. It’s an example of a less than sincere dialogue.

            4. Or maybe it is an example of you not making yourself understood. Because I am left with a huge question mark as to how you could come to the conclusion that Scn must not involve auditing as a vehicle to enable a person to become self-determined?

              Me = Really confused.

            5. I didn’t say it MUST NOT involve auditing – I said that I don’t agree that it MUST involve auditing. There are other aspects of the tech and philosophy that one can apply and thus continue to grow as a person – including study of the materials, which in itself gives great gain. But you apparently don’t have that reality.

              Even broadening one’s knowledge and experience by study and involvement with other practices falls under basic Scientology philosophy. At the top of the Chart of Human Evaluation it states “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality”.

              Strange as it will sound to you, in a certain way I may be freer with regard to Scientology than you are.

            6. Now you’re getting full of shit, Marlidi. Is this you exercising to compete in the Straw Man Olympics?

              This is a new low. What the heck is happening to you?

            7. Marildi: There are other aspects of the tech and philosophy that one can apply and thus continue to grow as a person – including study of the materials, which in itself gives great gain. But you apparently don’t have that reality.

              Chris: Nope. That viewpoint is the squirrelly-ist deviation of Standard Scientology Technology to date. Squirrelling auditing is at least auditing. Steering people away from auditing is a purely suppressive act. And I say that with respect — welcome to the club.

            8. Marildi: At the top of the Chart of Human Evaluation it states “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality”.

              Chris: Ok, I take back that last comment. Maybe this one is squirrelly-er. Now just lay out one way that your reality has changed, well not counting the previous comment where you said that people don’t need to audit to get up the Bridge. Or are you saying there is no Bridge to audit up and across anyway? Nevermind, just start from wherever you want and flesh out your concept of Scientology.

            9. Marildi: Strange as it will sound to you, in a certain way I may be freer with regard to Scientology than you are.

              Chris: Elaborate.

        2. marildi: “It still seems incomprehensible that you want to complete something that you think is inherently detrimental.”

          Me: I view it that the whole package deal is detrimental. But that doesn’t mean that individual components are also by themselves detrimental too.

          Take a simple example: Grade 0, all by itself with no additives. Essentially, you ask the auditing question and let the pc itsa, not so? Now, I don’t know anyone who was harmed purely and only from Grade 0, and it is quite manifestly not the same thing at all as the RPF (to pick a random comparison out of a hat). To my mind, Grade 0 and Comm Release is a good thing.

          To apply Scientology as Hubbard intended, he insists you apply all of it, even the minutiae. As a Scientology practitioner, you may not cherry pick just the bits you like, and as a student of Hubbard you were conditioned to believe you must accept the entire package deal, and Hubbard had Ethics close to hand to make sure you did exactly that. But it is still entirely possible that the Ls in isolation can produce something awesome.

          The operative word is “in isolation”.

          1. Splog: “To apply Scientology as Hubbard intended, he insists you apply all of it, even the minutiae.”

            What are you referring to by “minutiae” and which minutiae are detrimental?

            1. Splog: “To apply Scientology as Hubbard intended, he insists you apply all of it, even the minutiae.”

              Marildi: “What are you referring to by “minutiae” and which minutiae are detrimental?”

              Me: Minutiae are small details, Hubbard’s writings are full of them.

              But the minutiae are not important here, that phrase is in my sentence to illustrate that to practice Scientology correctly it must be done as Hubbard intended and that the practitioner doesn’t get to cherry pick parts for him or herself and still call it Scientology.

            2. “…to practice Scientology correctly it must be done as Hubbard intended and that the practitioner doesn’t get to cherry pick parts for him or herself and still call it Scientology.”

              Ok, got it about the minutiae, but you compared Grade 0 to the RPF and the RPF has nothing to do with what LRH intended as regards the tech. The altered FPRD tech that is done on the RPF isn’t LRH. That’s why I questioned your broad statement.

            3. marildi: “Ok, got it about the minutiae, but you compared Grade 0 to the RPF and the RPF has nothing to do with what LRH intended as regards the tech. The altered FPRD tech that is done on the RPF isn’t LRH. That’s why I questioned your broad statement.”

              Me: I think you’re concentrating on detail at the expense of the big picture. I wanted to communicate why it is valid for Geir to conclude that the entire package deal is not a good thing, and yet still be interested in doing specific actions – two Ls and the original OT levels. So I picked, almost at random, two things to contrast – Grade 0 which has little chance of doing harm, and the RPF which exemplifies Hubbard at his vindictive worst.

              I could have picked many other pairs. Don’t read too much into specific examples.

            4. Well, you compared apples and oranges, as far as I’m concerned. The only meaningful discussion is about the tech itself and the basic philosophy, IMO.

              So ya gotta be a little less sloppy about it, Mr. Computer Whiz. 8)

            5. “Well, you compared apples and oranges, as far as I’m concerned. The only meaningful discussion is about the tech itself and the basic philosophy, IMO.”

              Plus the author’s intent. I don’t believe one can divorce the subject and it’s results from the intent that created it in a discussion like this.

            6. Alan honey, you just stated another big fat generality. Or are you saying something about LRH’s overall, basic intent? If so, I’ll tell you a little story.

              Not long ago I was in an exchange with Marty about Scn and something was said about his latest book. I wrote that it didn’t significantly matter to me what I might learn about LRH’s personal flaws and that the only thing that would truly surprise me would be if he wrote, like some people (maybe you?) like to put out, that it was all a big scam on LRH’s part. Well, Marty, with all his inside knowledge and complete training on all aspects of Scn, did not at all see it that way. LRH’s intention was to help. Period. You and others can justify the Ad Hom all you want by putting the tech in the light of LRH’s mistakes and faults, but it is really nothing but Ad Hom.

              Late here. You have a good day.

            7. marildi: “Well, Marty, with all his inside knowledge and complete training on all aspects of Scn, did not at all see it that way. LRH’s intention was to help. Period.”

              Do you realize you just proved my point completely?

              I said “intent” and nothing else, no other words. I didn’t say “intent” plus something distasteful in parenthesis.

              If you are going to evaluate a body of work as large as Hubbard’s writing, then I feel it is vital to include Hubbard’s intent in writing the work when analysing the work itself.

              You have already done exactly this by agreeing with Marty – he is of the opinion that Hubbard’s intent was to help, and has aligned his use of the tech around that opinion. He likely presumes that the tech is beneficial until proven otherwise. I have a different opinion, and no, it’s not that Hubbard was evil incarnate and the worst human ever to live.

              If you want to side with Marty and presume the tech is good based on the intent to help, then you must also allow everyone else to have their own viewpoints too, especially when those viewpoints differ from your own. Also consider that Marty is not the only person knowledgeable around who is knowledgeable on the subject of Scientology. There are many people just as familiar with the subject and not all of them have the same conclusion as Marty. So this matter of intent is far from settled.

            8. Splog: “…Marty – he is of the opinion that Hubbard’s intent was to help, and has aligned his use of the tech around that opinion. He likely presumes that the tech is beneficial until proven otherwise.”

              Come on. It would be pretty foolish for anybody to align their use of the tech – or anything else, for that matter – on the developer’s intent.

              You really must not have read much of what Marty has written on his blog and in his books. He has a huge amount of personal experience on both sides of the meter, and based on THAT – not LRH’s intent – he continues to highly and unequivocally recommend the tech in spite of Hubbard’s personal flaws and mistakes in the years following his original developments.

              And neither do I myself merely “presume” the tech is good based on Hubbard’s intent to help. I don’t know why you would be so presumptuous as to PRESUME that.

              You ended your post with “There are many people just as familiar with the subject and not all of them have the same conclusion as Marty. So this matter of intent is far from settled.”

              Like who? I don’t think there’s another person who is as highly trained and experienced with the tech – on top of having been privy to the inner workings of the CoS for decades, including being privy to significant information about LRH. These are the things he bases his views about LRH’s intent on.

            9. I did not read a presumption on splog’s part as you seem to infer, Marildi.

              As for others who have different views on Hubbard’s intent… have you done much research on that, Marildi?

              If not, then try Googling Otto Roos, Neville Chamberlain, David Mayo, Alan Walter. I am sure Alanzo could add half a dozen names – people who actually worked with the old man (as Marty has not).

            10. Which of those people you named thought LRH’s BASIC intent was other than to help? I know for sure Otto Roos didn’t think so.

            11. Isene: (as Marty has not).

              Chris: Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, maybe he did but thinks he really didn’t. You don’t know but maybe Marty met LRH in a past or future life. Despite your ad hom on Marty, it’s a fact that no one has more training or experience in the tech than he does.

            12. Chris: “Marildi got you on this one Al. No one is more trained or familiar with LRH than Marty.”

              Me: Two errors there. You can’t say that Marty is the most trained and most familiar. He undoubtably knows his stuff, as do many others, and they have valid viewpoints too.

              Secondly, marildi is indulging in Appeal to Authority again, it’s her default debating technique. She insists that Hubbard’s tech is universally good as Hubbard’s basic intent was to help, and as evidence she offers Marty’s opinion and NOTHING ELSE.

              Seriously now, what the fuck? I don’t want to read Marty’s opinion on this, he has a blog for that which I’ve read end to end. I want to hear marildi’s opinion on this, and she’s not saying.

            13. marildi: “You ended your post with “There are many people just as familiar with the subject and not all of them have the same conclusion as Marty. So this matter of intent is far from settled.”

              Like who?”

              Me: Let’s see, it’s a long list, I’ll dash off the first 10 or so that come to mind in no particular order

              Otto Roos
              John McMaster
              Nibs
              Karen de la Carriere
              Pierre Ethier
              Bill Franks
              The entire crew of the first Class VIII course
              David Mayo
              Sarge
              Quintin Hubbard

              Go find the ones still living and ask them. No-one is denying that Marty knows what Marty is talking about. I am saying that something is not necessarily the complete truth just because Marty opines it – that is a logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority.

              Appeal to Authority is your usual fallback mechanism when you are asked what you think. Please consider that. I don’t know why you are so reluctant to describe what *you* think and what *you* experience and omit the references to what other authorities think. You have a mind of your own and opinions, I’m really interested to know what they are. Really, I am.

              You also have the right to keep your thoughts to yourself – if that’s your choice then it would be nice if you’d come right out and say so.

            14. Alan, are any of those you listed as highly trained in tech, ethics and admin and ALSO have as many years experience in management at the very top level? I don’t believe any of them can claim both.

              It’s not a matter of Marty being an “authority” – that wasn’t the point. The fact is, none of us here has certain first-hand data – you too are basing your opinions on whoever YOU think is reliable. That’s why I asked “who?” And I actually have expressed my personal viewpoint – which is that I base my conclusions on my own experience (on different flows) as well as what I have heard or read from those who have significant experience in the application of the tech – not those who expound on the tech with little or no experience in its use. You can disagree with my approach, but that is the one that makes the most sense to me.

              And honestly, I’m no longer interested in heated words flying back and forth. I saw today that I’ve allowed myself to get into games conditions and I would like to stay out of them from now on. If you want to have a level-headed discussion, I’m for it. But leave out the evaluations and generalities such as you just wrote in another comment, as follows:

              “marildi is indulging in Appeal to Authority again, it’s her default debating technique. She insists that Hubbard’s tech is universally good as Hubbard’s basic intent was to help, and as evidence she offers Marty’s opinion and NOTHING ELSE.”…her default debating technique. She insists that Hubbard’s tech is universally good as Hubbard’s basic intent was to help, and as evidence she offers Marty’s opinion and NOTHING ELSE.”

              I don’t think you’ve been here long enough to know that I’ve offered NOTHING ELSE. Again, if you want to have a rational discussion that sticks to the subject, I would be happen to participate.

            15. Marildi: Alan, are any of those you listed as highly trained in tech, ethics and admin and ALSO have as many years experience in management at the very top level? I don’t believe any of them can claim both.

              Chris: She’s got you again Alan. Furthermore, has anyone in your life ever come close to wreaking as much misery and havoc with peoples lives as Marty did as DMs muscle? . . waiting . . . waiting ,. . . I thought not. I used to couldn’t joke about Marty but now I (joke). Not about Marty. About Marildi cornering you. But if Marty is doing better, then that’s good and I don’t have anything more on that.

            16. Marildi: I saw today that I’ve allowed myself to get into games conditions and I would like to stay out of them from now on.

              Chris: Again, you treat this as a contest. But even if you are arguing for sport and its fun, then for it to be a game, there’s got to be a point where you let others win. For instance, you demand and TR3 for answers to the most trivial minutiae but refuse to divulge about yourself. This puts your comments in an unholy light. Like Alan, I don’t care if you want to be private, but if you blog then you expose your comments to retorts and that isn’t going to change.

            17. Marildi; There are several people out that has the same quals that you listed that Marty has. And many of them had experience working closely with LRH also – something that Marty never had – which is more important to your point about LRH’s intent than any of the quals you listed. Did you read Otto Roos’ story. Do you know the background of John MacMaster, or Bill Franks, or Ken Urqhart, or Joe van Staaden, or… the list is rather extensive when you start digging. I am not sure exactly what your point is here. Could you please explain your exact point in one short sentence?

            18. marildi: “Alan, are any of those you listed as highly trained in tech, ethics and admin and ALSO have as many years experience in management at the very top level? I don’t believe any of them can claim both.”

              Me: That is not the point, please don’t derail the topic. You said this:

              “Well, Marty, with all his inside knowledge and complete training on all aspects of Scn, did not at all see it that way. LRH’s intention was to help. Period. You and others can justify the Ad Hom all you want by putting the tech in the light of LRH’s mistakes and faults, but it is really nothing but Ad Hom.”

              I fail to see how Marty’s experience can elevate his opinion and conclusion above everyone else’s, which seems to be the direction you are going with this. Perhaps I read you wrong, but I take the above to be your reasoning why it is correct to seperate the man and his work. Or perhaps you already concluded that and Marty confirmed it?

              Now, keep in mind that Marty never met LRH in person and never spoke to him directly, but many others did. Marty is not stating a fact, or an observation of a factual event, he is stating his own conclusion, gotten on a via (as he never interacted with Hubbard directly). When Marty says for example that he read every scrap of paper Hubbard left at Creston and there was nothing whatsoever about any OT level above VIII, I will believe him as he is relating a fact. When he states that Hubbard’s intent was to help then I will take that as opinion as that is what it is, and is not a fact.

              Now, one does not need to be especially highly trained to observe whether Hubbard’s primary intent was to help or not. One only has to be there and to observe. Many people other than Marty were there and observed (I already posted an off-the-cuff list) and many of those people do not agree with Marty at all.

              So, I think I will continue this discussion with you if, and only if, you are willing to concede that many other people are just as qualified as Marty to opine on Hubbard’s intent, and those opinions should be considered.

            19. p.s. Forgot one thing. You wrote: “She insists that Hubbard’s tech is universally good as Hubbard’s basic intent was to help…”

              Never once did I state that the tech is good because Hubbard’s’ intent was to help. That is a Straw Man.

            20. No, it’s not a Straw Man, it’s my opinion based on observing what you write. It’s only a Straw Man if I twist your words to lessen the premise of your argument to set you up for a fail. I haven’t done that.

              I think you should study up on formal Logic, as you use the terms of the subject incorrectly. A straw man argument is not something you feel is incorrect, and Ad Hom is not every reference to character.

            21. Splog: “No, it’s not a Straw Man, it’s my opinion based on observing what you write. It’s only a Straw Man if I twist your words to lessen the premise of your argument to set you up for a fail. I haven’t done that.”

              What you said is “She insists that Hubbard’s tech is universally good as Hubbard’s basic intent was to help…”

              The word “insist” in this context means “to ASSERT firmly or persistently”. Saying what someone “insists” isn’t expressing an opinion – it’s saying what they assert (“to state strongly”) – and that sure looks like “a sham argument set up to be defeated”, i.e. a Straw Man since I said no such thing. It was certainly a Misrepresentation:

              “If the Misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of Lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is Misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a Straw Man fallacy.”

              So, was it the Fallacy of Lying or was it a Straw Man Fallacy? Take your pick. 😛

            22. Marildi: So, was it the Fallacy of Lying or was it a Straw Man Fallacy? Take your pick. 😛

              Chris: Got it. Then you are saying that L Ron Hubbard’s Tech is NOT universally good? OR are you saying that L. Ron Hubbard’s intent was not to help? Or both?

            23. I meant: …Mr. Computer Whiz 😎

              (you’re giving me a chance to practice my emoticons)

      3. 1. The confusion I meant was about whether Ron wrote it, did he write all of it, e.t.c. I spent long time on the post debating it (at Marty’s) I think they are still debating it…. In fact it doesn’t matter. If Ron said wrong or stupid things, or projected his own ser-facs, I don’t take them. And if he spread incredible technologies and words of wisdom, I grab and use. This is one of his main teachings (what is true to you..), and the reason I use it is not because of HIM, but because it is true.
        2. I like your 2nd reply. It sounds honest. That there are so many good things and wins in Ron’s writing, and that even now you wish to complete/use some more tools of his creation. Me too.
        I only wish that with all negative things written in volumes on the subject and Ron, the so many positive things won’t become marginal so as to vanish from sight and so, not available for use….this is (in this post) up to you, of course. It is just my humble wish.
        It is based on my honest opinion that weighing the good and the bad (I agree, and discussed myself the bad side in length), especially going high above, looking down, it is my opinion that focusing more on the bad, is nitpicking, not the other way round.
        Anf just that onr fact and ability of being able to go high above everything, one of the most common EPs of Ron’s tools, in itself stands and weighs firmly in favour of my opinion.
        God bless, (ooops), cheers, and much fun.
        Let’s go higher.
        Hemi

        1. “In fact it doesn’t matter. If Ron said wrong or stupid things, or projected his own ser-facs, I don’t take them. And if he spread incredible technologies and words of wisdom, I grab and use.”

          +1

  2. From my view, the COS resembles the overall present time SCN to the degree that ex-COS people don’t change their minds about SCN after they leave the COS. So the COS perpetuates itself.

    While in the COS (and not only) I had basic disagreements with others about SCN itself –LRH texts. Maybe SCN is very similar to the COS, but for me LRH and COS a nearly opposites. The COS applies SCN fanatically, because it is glib.

    1. I’m certain the basic principles are ignored in the COS, and subsequently beyond the COS too. To mention an example: We were translating a book about how and why SCN is a religion blah blah and at that point we were proofreading the axioms, and I couldn’t understand WTF I was reading. And I asked one of the oldest staff members therein and she told me that those were “the HIGHEST principles of SCN. Not even I know them”. Like I said, she was very old there and held an important post, and she was Clear too (she was among the few). This is one of the countless instances where I saw old, and high in status SCNists not knowing basic stuff, yet pounding mine or other people’s heads what and how great SCN is. So, how could such people relay that stuff to others? Or was my org different than the others? I left my org after I found out that what I exprienced in my org, others experienced all around the world –identical situations.

      1. The other day the second highest trained person of the org (pretty highly trained) told me that if I am not willing to communicate something, it is because that thing is an overt 😯 –no, he really meant it. For me, The difference between LRH and COS aren’t the admin stuff that changed (DM and Ideal Orgs etc), nor minor tech changes here and there. Those are subsequent effects of something more important –basic SCN isn’t there to a significant degree.

        1. Next time, while a sniper is aiming at me, I will give away my location, so I wont have it as a withold and a burden in my conscience.

    2. Spyros: Maybe SCN is very similar to the COS, but for me LRH and COS a nearly opposites. The COS applies SCN fanatically, because it is glib.

      Chris: Disagree. Fanatical application of Scientology is Scientology per policy.

        1. How is it not? Which part of Scientology should not be fanatically applied? Are you another reasonable namby pamby panty waste dilettante squirrel? (joke)

          1. LOL

            I can be. But I only process myself. If I was staff, I would use squirrel processing the standard way, with flawless robotic TRs.

            1. What I wanted to say was that if I was a pro, I would make sure I am very good at it 😛 But as an amateur I didn’t feel obliged to do SCN, no matter what others said. Maybe one can interpret a couple of phrazes in KSW like they want, but I can interpret whole books and lectures like I want as well.

        2. If you listen to the tape “Standard Tech Defined”, the old man will tell you himself how and why.

            1. It was given in ’68 on the Apollo to the Class VIII course. IIRC it was one of the first such course, if not the first.

              I never looked for it on-line, years ago I listened to the cassette copy we had in the org.

          1. I doubt he would tell me I ought to have somebody whip me and I ought to like it because I am obliged to be a good auditor and save the world and I should never again say no because that’s what duty means.

            But in any case, I only engage in trivial activities in my life now. I no longer read anything longer than short.

            1. “I doubt he would tell me I ought to have somebody whip me and I ought to like it because I am obliged to be a good auditor and save the world and I should never again say no because that’s what duty means.”

              That’s pretty close to what he does do, metaphorically speaking.

  3. Just imagine what the Church would be today if not DM would have created the future of the Church for the past quarter of a century but a person like e.g. Danny from Israel. It would be quite different. Well, also in that case we would comclude now that todays Church followed logically from Scientology…

    1. Daniel, your comment inspired me to ask a couple of questions:

      • What kind of people did LRH (and later recruiters) select to management positions in Scientology? Are there any common characteristics?
      • Do Scientology breed the bad behavior we see in David Miscavige and other church executives? Do Scientology bring out the worst in people?

      Seems to me that a common trait of church executives, regardless of rank, is to bully their juniors, even at the time LRH was running the show. I look forward to hear your viewpoints.

      1. Anette, Miscavige is guilty of “bad behavior” only from one perspective. From others, he is a typical man striving to be the masterful hero depicted in his cultural and historical folk memes and culturally heroic stereotypes.. Same with Stalin, still admired by many,, even Russians, for his “iron rule”. In Korea, the despotic ruler/leader is viewed as godlike. Attila the Hun is not seen as “behaving badly”. He is seen as an admirable strong man who kicked ass for his group.

        Scientology did not create Miscavige. It simply provided an environment in which he could play out his culturally admired heroic stereotype. With Hubbard’s approval, apparently.

      2. I don’t have enough knowledge about whom LRH selected in order to answer your first question. Nevertheless I’d like to guess:
        He selected those who appeared intelligent, strong characters, loyal to LRH, fully motivated and devoted to Scientology and saving the planet. People ready to follow whatever policy.
        Yes, Scientology breeds the bad behavior. People who have agreed to give up their personal common sense and to follow all LRH policies become whatever the policies dictate.
        And depending on their character some enjoy to use their new power to bully their juniors, others don’t.
        I hear that back in the old days being in the Church was fun. I suppose it depended where you had been. Being with LRH on the Apollo when he decided that you deserved to go overboard blindfolded probably was not so much fun. And it wasn’t fun for a small child to be kept in the bilges for days.
        LRH created this culture. David Miscavige and others watched what their guru was doing. And they picked it up.
        So I see DM and others being a product of LRH. They developed and behaved according to what was expected from them. And apart from that I don’t doubt that many of them were nice people.
        Many men doing their job in German concentration camps, including being extra cruel with those imprisoned, had been loving husbands and fathers for their children.

        That’s how many human beings – depending on how they grew up – behave.
        As we know there are many who even don’t need dangerous ideologies to encourage them to torture others. They rather behave like animals.

      3. Hi Anette,
        The questns were to Daniel, but interesting, so with your prrmission here’s my off-hand view on them:
        1. Ron chose David Mayo (for a very senior role) and also Daviv Miscavidge ( for a much lesser role and when he was very young). The rest was up to others, including me, you, Geir, Marty…Scientology was offerd to all and everyone: good, bad, saints, Sps, angels…that was possibly the boldest and most risky move by Ron. And the rest was up to the entire set up of this universe, this game of dichotomies. And still is!!
        2. Yes, Scientology, the system, chose and pulled in: Miscavidge,…and what other meaningful names do we know that are inherently BAD and suppressive?
        And yes. Scientology pulled in: Marty, Mike, Steve Hall, Marry and Franky Freeman, Les and Anita Warren, Geir Isene, Karen De La Carriere, Dani and Tami Lemberger, Claudio and Renata Lugli, Luis Garcia, Dan Koon, Max Hauri, Trey Lotz, Hydn James, Debbie Cook, me, you, most blogers here and elswhere…WOW, what a list. And the list is thousands more names longer…! All these are also people pulled in to, chosen by the system to participate.
        I rest my case!
        ** for supporting evidence of how Scientology works in a sane ORGANIZATION, with huge results, minimal “side effects”and ZERO suppression – please check in on “Dror Center” Israel, or come and see it with your own eyes. spoken from experience…!

          1. No, you woudn’t understand my comments, and it will be a waste of time to try explain. Even the one thing you claim to understand… you don’t. Good luck.

            1. There isn’t an iota of rage in either of Hemi’s comments that you have brushed off by characterizing them as “rage-quit”. That in itself backs up his observation that there isn’t a lot of honesty and truth going on, and thus why bother.

            2. It’s the train wreck phenomenon. Haven’t been able to take my eyes off of it. 😛

            3. Seriously. I am a bit worried. You have started to turn a bit nasty lately. Please consider moving your chips elsewhere.

            4. You just tried to get Hemi to go away and now you’re trying again to send me away. Why? Because we point out things you don’t want to hear?

            5. Tried to send Hemi away?? Hemi left.

              And now I am kindly asking you to leave. Not because you “point out things I don’t want to hear”, but because of a) you have started to act nasty and b) I think it would do you good.

            6. What you said to Hemi was “OK. Rage-quit it is. Good luck.” How is that not sending him away? And the definition of rage-quit does not indicate it is used in humor.

            7. That sounds plausible, that Geir doesn’t want to hear about that angle on it right now. If you persistently went against the grain on Marty’s or any other blog, I think you would eventually get the same kind of backflow.

              I have seen Marty be quite curt with people who are persistently off the track he was on. Geir has posted positive things about Scientology in the past, right now he’s into other aspects.

              That does not mean I agree with all or even most of his opinions, it just means it is his blog to take in whatever direction he is going. I appreciate a little validation periodically, but I do try to stay away from the “lovefests” that I see occur here and on other blogs too.

              You are not in step or in harmony with where the blog is at these days. After all, just as Hubbard is Scientology, Geir is this Blog. Therefore you are making ridges where Geir would rather not have them be.

              This is not meant to be a criticism of you, or a scientific assessment of where Geir is coming from. It is just my rough snapshot take on the situation.

            8. You’re right, Valkov. Thanks for your sincere communication. I’ll have to look at it all in a new unit of time.

            9. Marildi: It’s the train wreck phenomenon. Haven’t been able to take my eyes off of it.

              Chris: Excellent… Then you DO understand my fascination. Good.

      4. Pertinent questions. Many people have good answers to this as have I. My direct senior own direct senior at CST was celebrated as having been selected straight out of his RPF graduation for having been a “raving asshole.” With no other fish to fry and a tiny bit of construction experience from doing the RPF. My boss was sadistic, bad tempered, and utterly a true believer — perfect Scientology executive. Thanks for bringing up this subject, Anette. Taking a trip down that memory lane and comparing to present time activities is interesting and enlightening for me.

          1. Short-short, shorter than short fuse. Time between lighting and explosion? Milliseconds, if that. Even now that memory is quite clear. I survived because I’m not easily offended, I was on purpose, and had substantial morale building products which I could get, was allowed to get without much interference, and I did get.

    2. Daniel Victor: Well, also in that case we would comclude now that todays Church followed logically from Scientology…

      Chris: You’ve made a good point. If you were to take the whole of Scientology and cherry pick how you would choose to use it, turn the clock back to 1954 and begin again, I can see how we would see a different scene than there is today. Modern Christianity where it emphasizes “The Sermon on the Mount” over Leviticus where it says to destroy homosexuals would be an example. Maybe you can continue and create a different type of Scientology bent on actually helping people rather than exploiting them as Hubbard envisioned.

      1. We would still have one Hubbard with the notion of being Buddha reincarnated to, as anti-Chrit, save the World from the Second Coming of the Marcabians to Earth and backed by some off-the-wall Affirmations. I think the chances are slim for a very different course even with the right people to back him and no pressure from any Government to blame anything on.

        1. My bad, I thought Daniel was speaking if HE-Daniel ran Scientology how it would be different . . . I love that hypothetical shit. I thought it was an interesting exercise from the viewpoint of which pieces of a religion get emphasized thus my example of Sermon on the Mount (Love) vs. Leviticus 18:22(sin of homosexuality) both of these are Christian Tech and both get emphasized differently depending on the sect.

          What if Marildi was parachuted onto the next planet with a memory card with all the Scientology materials on them and her mission orders were simply to spread Scientology, what would be the outcome? How would she, what would she emphasize, in what way would she spread her religion. And what if she got there in the 19th Century and there were no “card reader” or printer and she had to work from her own memory? Would she clear the planet? Train only? Excommunicate who? and for what offenses?

        2. Geir, reading this I come to realize where you are at. Makes me sad and conclude that I am in the wrong place. You are more critical of Ron (“the chances are slim for a very different course even with the right people to back him”) than even Chris Thompson. He still thinks that up to 1954 Ron work was ok and so, him too. But you say clearly that even that would not work with such Ron as he inherently IS. This, what you say, is not a problem, if that is what you believe. What you believe is always fine and should be respected, even if not agreed. My problem is that you state few comments above, how you had many meaningful wins becoming OT8 and that you wish to do L’s and Old OT 4-7. these are costly, time and mind consuming activities, and reading what you say above and how you say it about Ron, indicates IMHO that you could not have possibly meant honestly that you will really do such actions devised by such a man.
          So I have to conclude that honesty and truth have nothing to do with this blog, that you deliberately introduce contradictory ambiguous views to “heat” your blogers, get a game this way, and the hell with honesty and truth. If so, good luck. I mean it. It is just not my game. I hope it will never be. Rather a waste of time… and I have so many useful and fun things to do: Art, Knowledge, helping people and more.
          If anything I write here is mistaken, I am always ready to listen. But please, no games as above. I do Observe. Just honesty and truth please. Yours. Ok, humor too is always.
          Hemi

          1. Wow. Amazing how you and I, completely independently, have pretty much made the same observations. I ‘m still debating, however, whether it’s a matter of honesty and truth or ordinary ego. Or some other held-down seven.

            1. Marildi: I‘m still debating, however, whether it’s a matter of honesty and truth or ordinary ego. Or some other held-down seven.

              Chris: Just take an honest look at your own inability to assimilate and apply straight Scientology, add to that list MU, FD, Ser Fac, and tell me which it is? Again, this isn’t about or at you as a person, neither good, bad or otherwise. This is about your inconsistent and squirrel application of Scientology compared to your fervent written defense of Standard Tech. Maybe you lost your faith? Or are have you always operated with these ideas?

          2. WOW. You seem to very overtly advocate Ad Hom against Ron – that what he was as a person would render a piece of tech useful or useless depending on how we view Him. Do you really mean that?

            Because my stance is very clear on this point: What works for me works. Period. I had great wins on the whole Bridge so far, and with that experience and my newly polished critical thinking skills, I will be more than happy to do the rest that is available for me as extrapolation from what I did. Whether Ron was a genius or a madman or both (which I believe) does not change what I experienced. That is the simple and honest truth as I see it.

            You may find my journey “from a Scientologist to an Independent Scientologist to simply me” no to your liking. That is quite OK. But your remarks above is very biased and does not paint the reality of what is going on here on this blog. JFYI.

            1. No, I advocate that it is irrelevant what he was. It is you who makes it relevant, by judging and labeling Ron, and spending much time on it. Mad. Genius. And his 3 opinions: that he was Buddha, anti christ, the Marcabians..and your far fetched conclusions from these 3 things. Not that it matters, but all 3 could have truth in them.
              I know Buddhism, I have Buddhist GOOD friends. They are trying to do what Scientology tries to do – in different ways. As to christ, Have a look at one of his famous quotes. (Mathew 10-34 ?) Very interesting. And the Marcabians, who knows, who cares, is it so important? As to my disappointment of this blog, I must be forgiven, I just joined only recently, and so observe unbalance and dishonesty. Please direct me to a few past posts of yours, detailing the Genius, good example of Ron’s tech which gave you so much that you will never forget. May be that is the balance I miss. Thanks. About Christ, I think much of his teaching is great, and good courses did spring from them. yet he said this too:
              “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”
              Disconection before the need…
              Hemi

            2. @Hemi; I don’t understand what all that fuss is about.

              There is a man who creates a philosophy that is used by a church which wrecks havoc on many lives. I am looking at and analyzing all four of these elements, and the possible implications involved. Are you troubled by that?

              As for you barging in here with little to no background of this blog, I can only say you didn’t do a very good job at presenting yourself, Hemi.

              The relevant links to get the gen of what this blog is about are right there at the top right of this very page. It would be appreciated if you could spend the time to educate yourself a little before pointing fingers, jumping to wild conclusions and some such.

              I hope you chill and stay and post after reading up on said links.

          3. Hemi: . . . than even Chris Thompson. He still thinks that up to 1954 Ron work was ok and so, him too.

            Chris: Please Hemi, you’re distracting my concentration from dogging Marildi’s posts. Did I really say that? Maybe. I don’t remember thinking that. Well, maybe because in 1954 LRH started a religion which I do think is a major deviation from mental health. Anyways, don’t bother me (joke), I got to clean up this thing with my friend Marildi. I always write (joke) wherever I want to maintain high affinity and not create mis-u.

  4. Still – LRH himself had been the creatir or how to treat critics, Fair Game, disconnection, punishment, thought control and brain-washing (Truth-Rundown).
    So what could we expect?
    The discussion about what is Bad about Scientology will go on and on while major disagreements will remain.
    My proposal: PARALLEL to doing that a discussion should be started at the other end about what is without doubt useful from the tech for everybody?
    That’s much easier and you can do much more with the results.
    So many people have to live with there traumas. Basic auditing could help here a lot I would suppose.

      1. Fine.
        So if you (almost) all agree that auditing is without doubt helpful and not harmful (if applied correctly), is there anything else?
        And: Why isn’t anybody interested in identifying the GOOD of Scientology?

        1. Hey Daniel, good luck with that. I’ve been trying to make that point for ages. It seems people never get enough of the criticisms. And if you press them too much they come very close to saying there isn’t any good, period – or that the seeming good has long-term detrimental effects. Maybe you’ll fare better, though.

          1. Marildi: It seems people never get enough of the criticisms. And if you press them too much they come very close to saying there isn’t any good, period – or that the seeming good has long-term detrimental effects. Maybe you’ll fare better, though.

            Chris: Daniel will not fair better if he follows this model of yours. At a point, some point, maybe way in the future, possibly you will examine the part that you play in creating this effect. 😉

        2. Daniel: ” Why isn’t anybody interested in identifying the GOOD of Scientology?”

          Me: Possibly because the blog owner seems to have lost interest in doing that for the moment, and blog owners set the tone for the blog? Marty’s blog comes across as a better venue to identify the good in the subject.

          On that note, this post of yours

          https://isene.me/2013/07/10/scientology-church-of-scientology/#comment-43296

          very nicely sums up what I was trying to communicate to marildi. I typed and deleted at least 4 drafts before giving up… then your post arrived in my inbox. So I’ll let yours stand in it’s place 🙂

          With one addition – to isolate the good in the subject, it will be necessary to extricate all the Hubbardisms out of it, and to critically examine everything he said, most especially the parts he claimed were essential and true. There can be no sacred cows in that exercise.

          1. Naughty, naughty. Quoting others instead of using your own words. 😛

            Just kidding, Alan. I’m fine on letting it go. I just wish the broad generalities would lesson, that’s all. Peace. 🙂

            1. marildi: “Naughty, naughty. Quoting others instead of using your own words. :P”

              Me: Um yeah …. I walked right into that one, hey 😉

            2. Marildi: I just wish the broad generalities would lessen, that’s all.

              Chris: Better hope they don’t. Then you’ll have nothing left to argue but specifics.

          2. Marildi: “I’ve been trying to make that point for ages.”

            and Splog: “With one addition – to isolate the good in the subject, it will be necessary to extricate all the Hubbardisms out of it, and to critically examine everything he said, most especially the parts he claimed were essential and true. There can be no sacred cows in that exercise.”

            Me: Are we talking about the same thing?
            Your approach seems to be: To put all Scientology on the plate and cut away what seems not ‘good’. So the ‘good’ would remain.
            Yes, in that case everything LRH had said would have to be examined.
            This might take several lifetimes 🙂

            My approach is:
            To take an empty plate and to put on it only those ingredients of Scientology which appear good. One by one. And leave them there only after having investigated if they are really ‘good’. In some cases instructions can be given like: “To make sure XY auditing step is helpful and not harmfull make sure that ….”

            This will not take lifetimes but a only a few discussions – and you have already a few Goodies on the plate.
            More can be added eventually.
            Of course not everybody will agree with what’s on the plate. Some will say that whatever derives from LRH and Scientology must be harmful (e.g. Tony Ortega?), others will say that what’s on the plate is only 1% of what should be there (e.g. Steve Hall?).
            There will never be agreements from all participants. Just like in other fields of life. So what?

            1. Daniel: “Are we talking about the same thing?
              Your approach seems to be: To put all Scientology on the plate and cut away what seems not ‘good’. So the ‘good’ would remain.
              Yes, in that case everything LRH had said would have to be examined.
              This might take several lifetimes :-)”

              Me: Neither approach will work, but only becuase the participants will simply not do it that way. Humans are involved, and they are going to go right ahead and do whatever they want to do.

              I say let all the interested parties investigate the subject on their own terms. There’s many interested parties, some will choose method #1, some method #2 and many more will choose methods #3…#n which you haven’t thought of yet.

              Out of that a great deal of information will emerge and hopefully a typical human consensus can be reached. This will take a while and it certainly won’t be done by holding a conference with a committee 🙂 But I can’t see any other way it could play out, especially as this is the only way humanity has ever made any progress at all.

            2. @splog: Just like the Internet, Open Source and Wikipedia… i.e. Ant Hill innovation. Prime examples of how humanity can move forward quickly and thoroughly and fact-checked.

            3. Splog:
              Yes. Things don’t happen by themselves just because one wants them to.

              Just start a blog/forum for those who want to follow approach #1.
              And start a blog/forum for those who want to follow approach #2
              And start a blog/forum for those who want to follow approach #3
              And start a blog/forum for those who want to follow approach #4 …

              Then people will gather where they feel best. And results will come out.
              It just needs the initiative to start.
              I’d do it but I have a different project going.

            4. DV: Then people will gather where they feel best. And results will come out. It just needs the initiative to start.

              Chris: Already been done multiple times. The thing is, some people feel best when stirring the pot. So some of these blogs are private by invitation only. They are around if you want to participate.

        3. Well auditing is a generality. I can’t say auditing is good/bad, as it also matters who runs it, and how, and with what understanding of SCN, and with what intentions, and also what processes as I think some new processes have been created (I don’t see any reason why the ‘Super Power’ was released that late).

          And ‘we’ are not a group in the sense of people having similar goals (other than discussing) and ideas. We’re just here to exchange ideas. I like this blog and Marty’s because I feel them more neutral than a pro or anti SCN blog would be. And since I agree and disagree with others about what SCN is, can be etc. And since I don’t like efforts to shut me up ‘because I have MUs and O/Ws’ nor because ‘I have been brainwashed by Hubbard’, I enjoy some more freedom here.

          I have well indentified much good in SCN and have pointed some out here and elsewhere. I think if texts were understood and applied, and no new SCN was being made, the scene would be much better. The kind of SCN that is protested against by ex SCnists is usually not the one I have learned.

  5. I was glad that thread revealed the truth of that controversy. I can only conclude Ron was everything he has been labeled: a genius and a madman.

    1. Sometimes I conceive Ron to be like Howard Hughes.

      Another thought: within the Independent community I perceive the disconnect between Scientology the subject and Scientology the extention of the man.

      They can condemn ideas from the subject Scientology, but it is hard for them to associate these condemnable ideas by using the name Ron.

      To me there is an element of sadness to it because of all the respect and admiration given the man.

      An example: even though multiple Class Vllls verified studying the “Jesus Pedophile” HCOB, many on Marty’s site said it could not be Ron.

      The betrayal of trust runs too deep. There is a sadness to it, imo.

      1. Yes Brian, I fully agree with you. LRH was a genius as well as a madman.
        People like clear labels: This is good and this is bad, this is red and that is green with the tendency not to allow shades and multicolors.
        For many LRH is a hero. For many others he is a madman. The next step is to admit that he has been both. It seems that more and more people are ready to admit that.
        In terms of Scientology it seems to be the same problem and the same process.
        I see Scientology to be a conglomerate of Thousands of elements which partly are in union and partly are in opposition. A (confusing) multi-color mosaic, sometimes rather glittering in clear light colors and sometimes in strident colors, depending on the viewers perspective, tone level etc.
        I think Scientology has all elements in it: constructive AND destructive ones, tools to free people’s minds and others to brainwash them.
        It will take ages to analyse it fully by breaking it up into its many elements and investigate how they relate to each-other and to different kind of people being confronted with them.
        I am afraid that trying to label Scientology as just black or white or dark grey or pink won’t lead anywhere.
        I think that what is lacking and needed is a CONCEPT for HOW to investigate the subject of Sc.
        From my point of view it should be broken up into suitable segments. Then each segment should be investigated, discussed and evaluated by itself.

        1. Daniel, I think the simple answer is not particularly in dissecting Scientology to discover it’s massive dichotomies, but in truly studying Ron himself. The entire subject is a projection of his psychology.
          He spent most of his adult life creating a persona that he successfully hid behind by dazzling with his intellect. Then he convinced people that any pulling back of the curtain to see who he was was your evil.

          Think of that for a moment. No Indies bring that up!

          The confusing complexity, the impenetrable riddle, the hard to solve mystery of why Scientology spun out of control is answered by pulling back the curtain, seeing through the razzmitazz and looking directly at Ron.

          He succesfully dead agented his son Nibs, his ex-wives and ex-Girlfriend, his Naval psychiatric record. All thought he was psycho.

          Here is a piece of circumstantial evidence: remember the album ‘My Philosophy’ that was Yvonne narrated? It was a bio of Ron written by him. He talks about many parts of his now defuncted history. But one line of this never sat well with me:

          Why did he include in his bio the line, and I paraphrase, ” this officer has no psychotic tendencies whatsoever.”

          If you were writing up a job application or bio of yourself, would you include a line like,” oh by the way, I am not crazy”

          My take on that line now is that Ron was attempting to put a smoke screen over the fact that he had mental problems.

          I believe he had anti social personality traits. When Quentin killed himself, Ron was raging angry for what Quentin did to HIM, Ron. His son’s death was a black mark on his PR not on his parental cause of constant rejection of his being gay. Anger not grief was his emotion.

          Throwing terrified old women over board, betraying long term quality relations- his wife, Mayo etc etc etc etc. Putting crying young children in chain lockers, declaring himself above the laws of the land and above the laws of decency.

          It seems to me he had no remorse for the harm he created in other people. He blamed others and externalities at every turn.

          His ability to look within extended only to his mental modifications with it’s sometimes accurate and sometimes delusional findings.

          His teaching of the soul extended only to power and exteriorization. Both of which are non essential for creating a decent happy person.

          Just because a soul is out of a body is not indicative of wisdom or happiness. Location in space is not a determining factor in liberation. That is what Alchoholics Anonomous calls ‘doing a geographical.’ Changing locations, in or out of a body, is not the goal of spiritual liberation. Understanding why we are attached to the body or anything for that matter is liberation from it. Because it is we who are creating the attachment.

          Ron did not know the soul. Ron pursued , indirectly and sometimes directly, the endless modifications of the mind. He believed in the absolute truth of needle reactions. And by constantly confusing fact with fiction, he openned up the Pandora’s box of the unconsious mind. Coupled with his amazing creating genius he fashioned a religion out of his unconscious mind. AMAZING!!!

          But Ron the man was not quite right. The cause for his and everyone elses problems were always some external evil: SPs, PTS, BTs, Alien Implanters, Journalists, Psyches, AMA, CIA, FBI, Squirrels, Nibs, Ex-Wives, Communists, Third Party, Xenu on and on and on.

          In one sense, Scientology was a religion that gave sacred justification to being victimized from an external evil. That is how Ron lived his life. That is how Ron fashioned Scientology. That is why Scientology is so crazy. Scientologists have been indoctrinated to fight external enemies as the root cause of problems.

          And he made looking to him directly a crime punishable by loosing friends, family And salvation.

          He actually did, implant scientologists,, what he said he was freeing us from.

          He, Ron, is both Xenu and Obie One. But the two cannot truly coexist.

          Ron had mental problems, maybe the psyches had it right.

          What is the effect of it being drummed into your head year after year, decade after decade, session after session,” do you have a critical thought of L Ron Hubbard?”

          Scientology is not the mystery to be solved. Ron is

          1. “But Ron the man was not quite right. The cause for his and everyone elses problems were always some external evil: SPs, PTS, BTs, Alien Implanters, Journalists, Psyches, AMA, CIA, FBI, Squirrels, Nibs, Ex-Wives, Communists, Third Party, Xenu on and on and on.”

            That is about he most accurate summation on Hubbard I have heard thus far.

            An uncomfortable truth:

            you describe Type III behaviour

            1. Yes Splog, but I would say it is not just my description. It is self descriptive, axiomatic. The looking directly at the man is ladden with the land mines of manipualtive doctrines, that Scientologists have agreed to, thus deflecting the capacity to perceive Ron directly.

              He made seeing him a problem with you. And that is the essence of Scientology insanity and the answer to why does Scientology lie.

              It lies because the truth is a Hi Crime.

              Golly Cognitive Disconnect Batman!!!

              Truth is so simple. So simple.

            2. Brian: “He made seeing him a problem with you. And that is the essence of Scientology insanity and the answer to why does Scientology lie.

              It lies because the truth is a Hi Crime.”

              Me: Simply perfect. Post of the year so far, IMHO.

          2. This is a really well organized and cogent post Brian. The blinders-on approach of “I don’t care about what kind of man Ron was, I just care about the tech” is short-sighted and will fail.

            1. I think the next updated version of your subject text for this thread Geir is:

              Scientology => L. Ron Hubbard

              How could it not be?

              You can separate the character of scientists from duoble blinded findings of universally observable phenomenon, but Scientology and Ron do not fit into that catagory.

              His was a subjective ‘reality’ of an absolute unquestioned world view, spirituality and cosmology: all the creation of his own psychological tendencies and open for critical analysis and character judgement.

              Scientology => L. Ron Hubbard

            2. And thank you Chris and Splog. I really appreciate you understanding. 🙂

          3. Thanks Brian for this impressive statement. I still have to digest all of it…
            Yes, Scientology – that’s Ron. (Logical, Scientology is his product). And certainly Ron is the key to understanding Scientology. (As Scientology is the key to understanding Ron).
            There is positive and negative in Scientology. And there is positive and negative in Ron.

            I totally agree: If you want to really study Scientology you got to include Ron.

            But if you are interested in identifying the positive, not harmful parts of Scientology, you can ignore the person LRH who passed away quarter of a century ago. Only his heritage, the tech, is still alive and the subject of investigation. If there are valuable workable parts in it which should be made known to the world does not depend on the question if the creator of Scientology had been an angel or an asshole.
            Yes, I have understood that this is not what people are interested in and so I will not bring it up again.

          4. Wow, you know everything and Ron so well, so absolutely unmistakably well!. Cheers. Let’s leave this lunatic aside then, and YOU tell us how to help ourselves and others. How to get rid of our phobias and traumas. How about that? And if that is not your calling, may be just indicate something positive….who in your opinion can.
            Hemi

            1. Geir I agree with your sequence Ron=Sc=Church.

              Daniel, I was thinking today after I gave my unrestrained view of Ron and reading your post. I think another laudable task is also to find the good that is in Scientology . Nothing is all good or all bad and obviously Ron had some amazing processes to help people as well. The trick will be to sought it out. Maybe that is the job for some bright Indy.

              Hemi, what to say? Mmmm, well…………. Ok….. Tell me more about your request. What is it you are after? Is it spiritual? Material? What are you searching for?

            2. Hemi, ease into it little by little and learn that you’re among friends and that we learn from one another. Just breath deep, write, read twice, post once, make it short, and stick around for the long run.

      1. OK guys,
        I’ll chill, you’ll chill, all will be well.
        After many words, I went to the piano and played Brahms Intermezzo, sweet little piece, Chopin Nocturne 13 and parts of his 2nd Concerto. Though only an amateur as pianist, oh boy, much truth in this music and depth beyond words. Bliss.
        Back to words…: I was a bit upset. I shouldn’t be. Always better in this situations to just elaborate and clear your own points of view, your own truth/s. But I did feel that where I am at now does not integrate too much with where this post is. Will explain shortly. I did though ack that it was your blog, Geir, that if I requested anything it was “a humble wish”, and if the game played is not to my liking, I of course will be the one to leave without a fuss. Up to now all agreed, I hope. (Including the music..? not too classic?). To you Chris apologies if judged you too harshly. You are quite harsh yourself…but your humor and witty spirit is great, and I missed it.
        Geir, I gave you sincere compliments, they all stand firm. I can change view points, but not like socks. You are now where you are, make the most out of it. No cynicism, I mean it. You are finding contradictions in Ron’s teaching and falsehoods. I did and do the same, in my way. But IMHO I did find similar things occasionally with your ideas. So what? We are all in the same pot, and none is perfect. I should not have gotten angry. So we all point occasionally at each other’s misconceptions. That can be a good thing for all. Best though, for me, to say what is in my heart. It will give you a better understanding of my view point, and may be willingness to consider it. 2 more remarks: Marildi, thanks for “groking” some of my ideas. And iamvalkov, you are wise, and a pleasure to read, here and everywhere. Here it is, presenting in the shortest version possible:
        I have been in the CoS since 1982. Many wins, then horrible handling, out-ethics, out tech, robotism at its worst. Went down al the way from top to bottom. 18 years out, trying to solve the riddle. Discovering Indies in 2011 (you Geir one of the 1st – thanks again!). In 2012 joined “Dror Center” right after they left the church. Chris, here’s the reply to your relevant question about “Dror” and more promo… A few sessions in a safe place with a natural, and good auditor, with PC’s benefit the only thing in his mind 100%, And most misery and charge and suppression blown away. And I was happy again. Next, OT4 and OT5, on which I am now, with an incredible auditor and BEING, Tami Lemberger. Has to be “sitten in front” to be believed. And so, a totally new “cattle of fish” in operation. Nice place, nice people, NO REGGING, no “Ethics” no IAS no nothing. Nada. Just auditing, and course room, if you wish. All time spent on work and developing, no bullshit. No distractions, no pressure. If you don’t push yourself, nobody pushes you. But smiles..joking..fun…free discussions on ANYTHING, With anybody including Dani the ED, especially with him. I am a customer and treated fully as such. And if I say in session that Ron sucks (on this or that) the auditor smiles, and thinks nothing of it. And if I get a call from there I run like hell to answer it, it can only be something good. KSW, Chris? I don’t even know. Probably they do, but I don’t notice it, it is not FORCED, nothing IS forced. And it is a pleasure to do Scientology that way. Believe me. I can be harsh critic, you all witnessed that. Not at “Dror” after one whole year of getting services. Enough promo, that was not my purpose. I just want to present to you an ORG that none of you ever experienced. It is not posh or the best that can be, but it has no “big brother control” whatsoever, and no arbitraries and no freak control. And going into this place or in session is like going to visit your best friend, for fun and games. And yes, Ron is there too, a lot, but only for what good he has to offer. And he has a lot. I am changing, I am re-discovering myself as a being, my relationships with people and life shifts more and more. And I can remain HUMBLE at the same time and admit when I am wrong too. And I am..plenty, even here on this blog. It is just important for me to state these things here because they are real, as much as anything else posted here, which is real too and I will try my best not to null. And If I will disappear for a while, forgive, I am so busy, running a full blown business, on OT5, on the Solo course for OT6 (here we go from 5 to 6 and 7 right away, if possible, the way it should be done.) And so many friends and family…life is so much fun and full in the last 2 years. And it was mostly dark for 18 years as a result of many of the bad things you write about. I totally agree there.
        Just wish we can all find the wisdom to distinguish, each to himself, what is wrong and what is right. And IMHO the more accurate we can get on that, the happier we will be and funnier too.
        Thank you for your attention and forgive the length. I did try, Chris. Will improve in future. Love,
        Hemi

        1. Hemi: Just wish we can all find the wisdom to distinguish, each to himself, what is wrong and what is right. And IMHO the more accurate we can get on that, the happier we will be and funnier too.

          Chris: We are Hemi. It just takes some time… “small moves”

        2. Hemi: And if I say in session that Ron sucks (on this or that) the auditor smiles, and thinks nothing of it. And if I get a call from there I run like hell to answer it, it can only be something good.

          Chris: That’s a very nice scene that you’re describing. Daniel Victor wrote an interesting post about how Scientology would be if he were running it and it made me think that given a good spirit and a goodwill toward others that one could take the tools of Scientology and use them in a helpful way and possibly create a pleasant environment that people could enjoy… Mostly, if what you are doing is working for you, if it’s pleasing and you are having a good time and not hurting others, then continue.

        3. Thank you Hemi, I apologize if my views on the Ole Man harshed your mellow (I love that line, just heard it from a friend).

          May your realizations in session bring you all the happiness you ever dreamed of.

          I realize now that you were not really asking me a questions.

          Peace,
          Brian

  6. Geir posts this quote:

    “Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin…” LRH

    The CoS has manifestly FAILED at keeping “all of Scientology working”. It has failed almost completely at delivering the Bridge to the people of this planet, has failed at training auditors, has failed at delivering beneficial auditing, has failed at managing its organizations, has failed at establishing and maintaining good relations with the environment etc etc etc. The list of what Scientology has FAILED at is almost endless. And I say this by comparison to what I saw happening in the 1960s and 1970s.

    There are perhaps several logical possibilities of why it has failed. 2 or 3 anyway.
    1. The CoS management does not actually have a holistic understanding of “standard tech and admin” and is not actually following the policies correctly.

    2. The overall policies are mistaken to start with, and do not actually produce the results LRH thought they would produce. Since he reportedly felt he had “failed” at the end of his life, perhaps he realized he had made some really bad decisions. The “mission massacre” is an example of LRH galloping off in the wrong direction. According to Marty. LRH was fully informed of it, and was very pleased with DM’s execution of it.

    Dan Koon’s recent post on Mike Rinder’s blog about the evolution of Super Power indicates that by 1978 LRH had lots of concerns about the tech being delivered accurately and effectively. http://www.mikerindersblog.org/superpower-the-facts/

    Perhaps LRH was giving up on that aspect, of good tech delivery, and was focusing on firmly establishing the institution of the CoS, leaving the straightening out of tech delivery to future generations?

    Those are 2 of the main possibilities I see.

    But the bottom line is that CoS maybe “following policy almost exactly”, but is almost completely failing at delivering what are supposed to be the 2 products of the Scientology system – well-trained auditors and satisfied pcs and pre-OTs.

    Any theory that does not account for this discrepancy does not account for the reality of things.

    1. Good comment.

      My own conclusion is that of #2. For the simple reason that with all the writings and insistence on perfection and processes and procedures to be followed – if the Ethics/Tech/Admin was sufficient and not a Fail, it would have prevented #1.

      1. I think it is more complex than that, actually. I think LRH was trying to kill several birds with one stone, so to speak, and made some bad decisions. But were they actually bad decisions? It is possible that another course of action could have resulted in an even worse fate for Scientology.

        Nonetheless, the bottom line remains the bottom line in this timeline. Alternative timelines,apparently more favorable, were possible and were in fact already running when LRH appears to have screwed things up.

        I’m talking about the original set-up of Field Offices, missions, etc. It was an expanding network of Scientology. It seems evident to me that LRH modeled his Church on something like Roman Catholicism, which certainly suppressed and hid away the gnostic elements of Christianity. Miscavige (Mickiewicz, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Mickiewicz) I think influenced the church even more in that direction, being of Polish Roman Catholic descent. The severity of that culture is not to be underestimated. They are generally pretty wrapped up in “Polish pride” and “Polish honor” as a cultural heritage.

        I think it is in 8-8008 that LRH talks about his view of the impossibility of having “survival and good ARC too” and such notions. History tends to support that view, and I think he was focused on the survival of Scientology against opposition, and that guided his decisions. Marty has some interesting reflections on that subject towards the end of his book.

        So, is the”FAIL” built into Scientology? It wasn’t, until LRH started building it in as time went on.

          1. Geir,
            I guess I’m slow. What was “there all along”, according to that bulletin?

            All that about Lucifer dovetails with ancient Gnostic “gospels” that were nearly completely wiped out of existence but were hidden away in the Egyptian desert probably many centuries ago, and were only discovered in 1945. They have since been translated and published in English. They are known as the Nag-Hammadi manuscripts, named for the location of their discovery. Googling for ‘nag-hammadi’ brings up many links. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Vatican has all these texts and more in their secret library that few ever have access to, but they have always been entirely suppressed out of the awareness of the mass of the populations of Earth.

            http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

            1. According to that bulletin it seems LRH had the inkling that ha was Buddha and Anti-Christ from around 1945 (he had the cognition on that since the discovery of the Gnostic “gospels”?). With a philosophy build from a man with such an inkling (and backed up by the Affirmations), one would expect some detrimental elements shining through, or carrying the whole.

    2. …for the same reason why he invented many processes and Bridges and made processing more and more specific to run –if he could run it, didn’t mean everybody else could run it the same. If your auditor screamed at you during session because he could scream at an ashtray….f4ck it, mate.

      1. *processing in the 50s was much more up-to-the-auditor. He could decide what to run, and often how, as some processes had no rote procedure.

            1. I no longer run SCN. But no invalidation implied. I could run SCN. I’m just into other stuff.

    3. Valkov: The CoS has manifestly FAILED at keeping “all of Scientology working”.

      Chris: Exactly. This is because we have let Ron down by not applying Scientology. We are other intentioned and frying other fish.

      1. I don’t think it matters what anybody did to Ron. What mattered the most is what happened to SCnists. In a few years they’ll be seeking to go free through physical masochism. Then they’ll be saying that LRH used to beat his close SO members with a spikey stick, aboard the Apollo, and critics will concur. That’s what KSW was about.

    1. Brian, I think the ingredients for the failure in the minds of virually every man. And woman.

      The minds of everyone else are not a blank slate that Hubbard could freely write upon.

      1. Valkov: “The minds of everyone else are not a blank slate that Hubbard could freely write upon.”

        Chris: For me, I think Scientology worked best on young, inexperienced, bright, and having philosophically rejected most of what extant culture has to offer philosophically. This is how I was when I went into Scientology. Going back to our discussion of who arrived and who didn’t, and the fact that you nibbled but did not bite and swallow, I’m guessing that you were better educated and more sophisticated philosophically than I was. We “blank slates” were much more prone to bite and swallow hook, line, sinker.

        1. Chris: “We “blank slates” were much more prone to bite and swallow hook, line, sinker.”

          That’s about the way recruitment worked, alright. Even more obvious now with the cold chrome RTC kids. I wonder what they do with their hormones.

          1. Maybe theyget those injections that are offered to sex offenders in some jurisdictions. The ones that effectively neuter a person?

            Or maybe they “sublimate” those feelings into increasingly focused and aggressive regging and climax when they achieve their targets.

            1. If the number of cigarettes they smoke is an indicator of the number of happy endings (to reg cycles, of course), then they are truly a satisfied lot.

            2. LOL! Mike Silverman (reg at AOLA) once screamed at a person who made a snide comment about his smoking and health, “SMOKING IS JUST A CONSIDERATION (sucked deeply on cigarette for dramatic effect) AND MY LUNGS ARE PINK, PINK, – PINK !” (He was also quite an able magician, but that’s another story.)

            3. If you shove such a guy over a cliff, tell him ‘gravity is a consideration!’

            4. Yes yes and I insist 😛 My reaction was against his screaming about it being a consideration to another. That’s a way to impose considerations :p

            5. Chris, it has been refined to this extent: It wasdiscovered that it doesn’t work very well if the Affirmations are phrased in terms of “becomING”. They need to be phrased as statements of present time fact. “I am strong”, not ” I am becoming strong”.

              Hubbard obviously knew this, so this refinement is not new.

            6. I have very little knowledge about placebo. A little from my daughter who filled me a bit and how and why a hundred years ago, placebo was commonplace prescription but fell into ethics disrepute for dishonesty with the patients.

              Then my own experience of its effect on me. Which I’ve looked at quite a bit. This article was great since it fleshed out the guy who “invented” its common use.

            7. Chris, I use a strict medical definition of “placebo”, so your post does not compute to me.

              However, here is video covering a more important topic…..

            8. Yes, I see what you mean. LOL I read my post, it stunk… too cryptic. I see it this way: 0. Placebo effect is the manifestation of an underlying process. The manifestation can be seen but the underlying process is unseen. 1. Emile Coue noticed and developed applications to deliberately invoke these manifestations. 2. My daughter learned about this in medical school. Explained it a bit to me. Said that it was an ethical issue for doctors to trick their patients into becoming well. 3. In my own body, I’ve noticed that I manifest abstractions of underlying processes and sometimes these processes seem to be driven by my mental state more than an objective reason. 4. I’m fine with the idea of placebo and nocebo, I just don’t try to make placebo into a one size fits all illnesses.

            9. Valkov: Or maybe they “sublimate” those feelings into increasingly focused and aggressive regging and climax when they achieve their targets.

              Chris: You are joking, but it really kind of does work that way — not just for adolescents either.

            10. I like how picky some were when they picked which considerations to declare as considerations. I mean it was very abberated of us to not be able to gather the money needed for the IAS…that was not OT at all and ‘we were asking for a license to survive from the MEST universe’. I wonder since they were so OT why didn’t they mock up the money themselves…or better uncreate the problems they were supposedly trying to handle?

            11. It’s the TR in which you tell and ashtray in the other chair to “Stand up!”, “Sit down!”, etc. It is supposed to clarify and strengthen your ability to form and project Intention.

            12. Yes, without charge. But when one does it with disrespect to the other’s intention, there is charge on both sides.

            13. Good one Spyros!

              Perhaps that explains why Miscavige is constantly complaining about everyone being “CI” (Counter Intentional) to him. Therefore he yells, hits, RPFs people, Declares people and generally makes life Hell for them. And why he has so much “charge” of some kind built up he reportedly has a couple of grounded copper rods installed somewhere, that he holds on to, to reduce this “charge”?

            14. Yes, while I was in SCN groups myself, I noticed the idea that TRs were means of controlling people without taking their will into account –in other words, means of forcing people. So, that either failed, or the controlled person was forced to submit to it. It was a sort of KRC-less ‘8C’, as when one failed to control me in such a manner, he put the blame on me (I was being ‘reactive’ and blah). One time somebody even pointed out at me that I was on the robotism band and had an evil purpose, after I had told her that I didn’t like to be controlled. It never worked on or by me without charge, nor do I think on any other. And actually that was one of the greatest outnesses I have noticed in SCN.

            15. Spyros: One time somebody even pointed out at me that I was on the robotism band and had an evil purpose, after I had told her that I didn’t like to be controlled.

              Chris: Backwards, right?

            16. During a session the audited person agrees to be in session and to execute commands and answer questions (for as long as he does agree), that’s how pan determinism is possible on behalf of the auditor. And even then, you ‘never force a preclear’. For as long as he wants to co-operate, he co-operates. You’re there to enchance his self/pan determinism. If one goes around uttering commands at people thinking they ought to comply, from my perspective he is closer to the SP band, than on the pan determinism band.

            17. Spyros, I sure agree with this. You reminded me of a lecture by Hubbard in which he talks about, “we have nothing to work with, but a person’s willingness.”

            18. When I didn’t want to volunteer involuntarily forever ohhhh time was just a consideration. When I didn’t have any more money to donate ohhh money was just a consideration. But they kept on considering that they needed my time and my money or else psychiatry would destroy the world. They kept considering that people were aberees and needed them to get straightened out. They liked to consider that PTSness and other out ethics existed.

          2. 2ndxmr: ” wonder what they do with their hormones.”

            Me: They take it out on the next guy down the pecking order.

          3. 2X: I wonder what they do with their hormones.

            Chris: Even when I was in the SO, many children in their teens were on the RPF. Impossibly frustrating situation for them.

            1. 2X: I wonder what they do with their hormones.

              Chris: Even when I was in the SO, many children in their teens were on the RPF. Impossibly frustrating situation for them.

              My comment was pretty much rhetorical. I imagine they are regularly on mission to handle them. The main question (or is it again rhetorical?) is whether they are on mission single handed or as a group effort.

              As you say, “impossibly frustrating.”

            2. I knew you were joking – it just made me think of the real thing is all.

              Working intently and single mindedly on any particular purpose tends to sublimate other purposes naturally and without trying to sublimate them. This does go a long way toward reducing the amount of salt peter needed in the food ration. However, it seems that Mother Nature will is an unstoppable force which cannot be denied and so like gravity, in the end, She wins.

      2. Yes Valkov I agree, in the ultimate sense we are all responsible for our experiences. Or a least our reactions to them. My philosophy is that all experience is self generated. We are the dreamers of our every moment projecting conscious circumstance on the screen of space.

        On the other hand I also believe that the seeds of Scientology’s demise rests in the mind of it’s founder and some of the more nefarious doctrines that his experience generated.

        I see Ron as not very self realized. Intelligent yes, genius yes, leader yes, unbelievably creative yes…….wise no.

          1. Brian states some of his “beliefs” and Geir “agrees”. Well. agreement is fine, but as the commercial had it, “Where’s the beef?”

            When it comes to”beliefs”, I am at best an agnostic. People can agree on something and it turns out to be an illusion without substance, like the Emperor’s new clothes.

        1. Brian, I do not disagree with you. I just feel these kind of general summations of final opinion are a waste of time. I’m big on discussing specifics to back up these kind of opinions.

          Thus my natural question to posts like yours is “What nefarious doctrines?” It is not because I don’t believe there may be “nefarious doctrines”, but they need explication.

          1. Destroy them utterly, We are the only hope, Simon Bolivar, Creating the RPF, Creating the GO, denegrating other wisdom schools, attack attack attack, all psychiatrists are muderers and criminals, all psychiatrists are the cause for all the suffering and crime on the planet, Jesus was a pedophile, journalists are bad, AMA is bad, third party “law” (is the formula for victimhood. It is not a law. All ARCxs that don’t resolve are not always from a third party. It is not a “law.”) All grief is a secondary (it can be but not always), there is no God except you ( if you don’t know yourSelf this is where the scientology super ego gets birthed), I (Ron) am the only being in the history of the universe to find the road out (this doctrine is the spawning for fanatical cult mentality)

            Valkov, I could find reference to everyone of these statements, in writing, but it would take too long. Also, I could keep writing specifics as you asked for as generalities are not good for making points as you say.

            These are just a few specific L. Ron Hubbard church doctrines, organizations, viewpoints that I feel were projections of his self experience that caused the ultimate demise of how the world views Scientology and more importantly, these indecent and intolerant, predjudiced and egocentric doctrines are completely out of step with the harmony of an all inclusive, open sourced, loving and safe haven for souls of diverse natures to naturally and safely evolve.

            Only ways are old world modalities, destined to crumble under the weight of their own obselesence.

            1. Brian, I agree with all those except possibly the very early LRH RPF type programs, as there have been posters who experienced them and thought pretty well of their experience. In those times the RPF was rather short, often a matter of just a few weeks and was at least for some people genuinely rehabilitative.

              The rest I agree with as toxic and possibly symptoms of Hubbard’s “PTSness”.

              Did you read The Oracle’s post about “PTSness”. Sg he though tthe condition was misnamed and should have been called “ATSness” – “ACTUAL Trouble Source”. 🙂

              I think Hubbard was an ATS to his own goals in some ways, although Ithinkhe mostly achieved what he set out to do.

              But that’s another post.

            2. “she”not “sg he”.Typing too fast for my keyboard.

              The reason “PTS” is not good is that it is “inspection before the fact”. Yes, one must sometimes be aware of potential trouble, but the wholesale labeling is bullshit.

  7. According to Marty Rathbun and Jeff Hawkins the Bridge to total freedom is the Bridge to nowhere becase it ends att OT 8. If Hubbard’s aim with Scientology was to set man free, then why didn’t he complete the OT levels upp to OT 23 or levels which reached to the other side of the Bridge where he claimed he was in his last message? Instead he wrote Baterfield Earth and 10 volumes Mission Earth!

    1. Peter: Instead he wrote Baterfield Earth and 10 volumes Mission Earth!

      Chris: Are you saying that Hubbard was not a good manager of his own time? OMG, Marildi, will you just let that pass uncontested? LOL

    2. Peter: Instead he wrote Baterfield Earth and 10 volumes Mission Earth!

      Chris: But really, I’ve thought for years that those two fictions were his explanation and justification for the condition of the myth that he created around himself.

    3. I’m not sure this is exactly what Marty thinks. Do you have a reference for when he said this? It is after all, the Bridge to OTVIII……

        1. OK Peter. I have read the book once through. Now I have started to re-read it because there is so much information in it. I will look for what you said.

            1. Peter, I read that page, and even read the whole chapter again.

              There’s absolutely nothing in it about anyone saying anything about it being the “Bridge to nowhere.”

              Are you talking about the Kindle edition? I have the hard copy.

              Maybe you are thinking of Mike Rinder’s blog post, here:
              http://www.mikerindersblog.org/the-circular-bridge/

              If so, he is not talking about the LRH Bridge, but about what is happening now, the past few years.

      1. No, I mean it literally; “The Bridge to Nowhere” by Jeff Hawkins!
        http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/the-bridge-to-nowhere/

        Put the word comb in the search engine; “Look inside” Page 295 on Amazoncom; “When we had confiscated all of L. Ron Hubbard’s remaining papers, including his own personal counseling folders, and they had been gone through with a fine-toothed comb, there was no sign of any OT levels above OT VIII.”
        http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Scientology-Warrior-Marty-Rathbun/dp/1484805666

  8. Lulz. I have been patiently waiting for years for the truth to come out about THE OT 8 Bulletin. I knew it was the real thing for a variety of reasons, but the rapid withdrawal of it from the course, and hasty withdrawal of copyright claim over it meant that only a few knew about it. I am currently enjoying caek, wonder if Arnie Lerma will join me? 😀

    1. I believe this is the most significant event this year, perhaps even in a couple of years in the World of Scientology. Few recognize the monumental impact that this has and will have in years to come.

      1. Stranger things have happened on the track than what LRH is talking about on the HCOB. Or would you deny that?

            1. Not of relevance. I think that bulletin is the mark of a madman. That is the point. That is why this is significant. Whatever else may or may not have happened on the track doesn’t prove or disprove anything regarding this. It’s purely a red herring.

            2. “I view that bulletin as squarely batshit.”

              I view “batshit”as squarely relative to culture, society,and class of the person using the term. Always have. Some people would say Buddha was batshit. Some that Democrats or Republicans,or whatever your Norwegian equivalents are, are batshit. Some that the idea of a “whole track” is batshit. Some, that the idea of a person living more than once. Etc.

              In fact Hubbard himself called that idea part of “para-scientolopgy”, not part of core Scientology, ( “knowing how to know”), at all.

              It is purely a term of rejection and invalidation, nothing more. It is a good word to use in Bullbaiting.

            3. That bulletin is on the original Class 8 course and OT 8. It puts it right in the middle of Scientology and not “para-Scientology”. I do consider it batshit. Not as an invalidation or because I need to “put down Ron”. But simply because I consider it mad. It also raises lots of questions.

              Up until a few days ago I had written that bulletin off as “Fishman’s poison pill” and a fraud created to discredit Hubbard. Now that it is in the open that it was by him, it’s different ballgame. Some will say “so what?”, like you. Others will claim it wasn’t written by him regardless of the evidence presented. Yet others will resort to double somersaults of justifications to explain why this is “all good” or “just fine”. I see it as confirmation of his Affirmations and I can glimpse some root causes for why Scientology went astray in the mid-60s and perhaps root causes for other detrimental ingredients in the subject.

              But history has shown us many mad geniuses. And many historical examples exist where even the most insane have contributed greatly to the progress of Man in various fields. And this only highlights that Hubbard was a complex being – not good or bad, not black or white, but very complex. Much like the Subject of Scientology itself.

            4. Sure, sure, I get all that. I am saying that considerations of “batshit” are filters. They are designed to maintain stable data one does not want to give up because they are basic to one’s worldview, one’s “reality”. Filters are conditioned by various factors and tend to be individual, but there are commonalities within various populations. Basically they are considerations and have no more basic or objective truth than that. Objective is a good word.

              By the way, I don’t post because I am looking for agreement or approval. Probably by your standards,I am batshit myself. And perhaps by mine, you’re not as objective as you’d like to think you are in someways,about somethings. All that is irrelevant. Those are ideological positions. They vary from place to place, time to time, individual to individual. They are conditioned by multiple factors. Individual experiences, upbringing, culture, cultural history, education etc. The installation of may filters takes place very early. Often people seek psychotherapy because they become aware of having some filters and want to explore their nature and the possibility that the filters are limiting, which of course they are.

              Maybe you have erased your filters by going up the Bridge, and your opinions really are “objective”. Being an agnostic, that is to me a possibility. It’s one reason I keep hanging around.

              Or may be you have examined many of your filters and are happy or satisfied with the ones you have retained.

              That is OK too.

              However, Hubbard did classify Dianetics, all the past lives and whole track stuff, even “thetans” as “para-scientology”. So by”scientology” itself, he must have meant something apart from all those.

              This of course shoots the common perceptions of KSW right down.

            5. I am not saying “So what?” I am saying “What if?”

              Since the disctinction between the CoS and the original Tech isn’t popular anymore, I think possibly a better disctiction is “the Scientology culture” vs.the Tech of Scientology.

              As someone posted on another blog, there was at one time a “Scientology culture” that was quite different from what exists today. He characterized it as “the Mission culture”. and opposed it to the “Sea Org culture”. I think there is something to looking at it like that.

              There was a “grassroots” culture also which Vinnie has longed for at times.

              The poster asked, What if the Mission culture had prevailed instead of the Sea Org culture prevailing? It would be a different world, methinks.

            6. Valkov: “I am saying that considerations of “batshit” are filters.”

              Me: Or if we apply Occam’s Razor, maybe it is simply a summary of what one actually sees.

            7. This is an epistemological area worth a post of its own I think, for this reason: “Filters” by their nature control, influence, or even determine what a person sees or doesn’t see.

              Any hypnotist can, given a decently hypnotic subject, can make that person see and experience things, like petting a dog that isn’t actually there, and then afterwards insist there was a dog there and now has left the room. Likewise on the negative side, the hypnotist could install a filter (suggestion) that the person would not see something that is plainly therein the room to everyone else…..

              So I guess my question about your post is mainly, what do you mean by the word “see”?

              Vinnie used to use the word a lot, along with “looking”. How was he”looking”? Was it with his physical eyes? I don’t think that is what he meant.

              So, how do you “see”? What is the faculty you use, with which to “see”?

              Epistemology:

              : the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

              Origin of EPISTEMOLOGY

              Greek epistēmē knowledge, from epistanai to understand, know, from epi- + histanai to cause to stand — more at stand
              First Known Use: circa 1856

              A pretty good overview of what a hypnotist can do is “Hypnotism” by George Estabrooks.

      2. I don’t get the fuss about the Bulletin. It is right in line with ancient Gnostic beliefs, and is no stranger than many if not most “religious beliefs”, even the mainstream ones.

        Or perhaps I have spent too much time informing myself about “beliefs”, “scriptures” etc.

        1. Val, there was a comment from MaBű, who had this viewpoint: ‘According to Gnosticism each one of us is a spark of the Divinity who “lost” our Divinity state. “God” and the Beings helping “God” are the real enslavers. They are enslaving us with the Laws of “God” which we are to obey or get very harsh punishment. In this context, the Anti-Christ, the Prince of Darkness, etc., are the Real Liberators. Somebody like LRH who was able to discover and go through some heavy implants is a Real Liberator.”‘

          1. Yes, that is one of the main line Gnostic viewpoints. Some of the Gnostic Gospels go into it in detail. Others in the Nag-hammadi manuscripts do not. The Gospel of Thomas,for example, presents Jesus as a Gnostic teacher. See “Beyond Belief” by Elaine Pagels. It’s a book both Al and I recommend.

            By the way, do you use Facebook? You can message me via Facebook through “Elliott Snow”.

            1. I don’t use Facebook, but you can email me at marildi “at” hushmail.me.

            2. Another aspect to this discussion is that in recent decades more archeologists and other scholars have come to believe that the Old Testament is a much more literally historically accurate document than previously thought by some Christian apologists who defensively seeking greater acceptance and justification have tried to reclassify it all as myth, allegory,parables, etc.

              More of it may be literally true, than we think. One book that comes to mind is titled “The Bible As History”, I believe. I haven’t read it but the title is suggestive.
              http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-History-Werner-Keller/dp/0553279432

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

            3. It is in fact possible that many parts of the Old Testament are quite literally historical, factual and “true”.

            4. Valkov: “It is in fact possible that many parts of the Old Testament are quite literally historical, factual and “true”.”

              Me: Yes indeed. I think it is unlikely that they are not (mostly) true.

              Archelogists uncover Egyptian texts – religious or otherwise – and we accept on face value that they are somewhat accurate. Same with Mayan, Inca, Roman and almost every other archeological text too. Why? Because it’s the only record we have of those communities and until something else comes along to falsify them, we have to work with the scanty evidence we have.

              Why is the Old Testament any different? That it’s the basis for the major religion practiced in the West doesn’t mean that events in it are untrue. Quite the contrary, the Hebrews are likely to have recorded their own history.

          2. Marildi: Somebody like LRH who was able to discover and go through some heavy implants is a Real Liberator.

            Chris: Others cannot liberate us, we have to do it ourselves. It is a personal path and a personal experience. Sadly, the cavalry is not coming. On the brighter side, neither are the Marcabians.

        1. Geez. My comment above is in response to Geir’s comment a gazillion posts above, where he says – “I believe this is the most significant event this year, perhaps even in a couple of years in the World of Scientology. Few recognize the monumental impact that this has and will have in years to come.”.

          Somehow the comment landed in the wrong place. This is *the* Big One. Anyhow, no time to talk, too much lulz to be had. After waiting 18 years, Truth Revealed at long frikking *last*! And thank you, Geir, for having the integrity to tell it as it is, and not sugarcoat it.

  9. @Marildi: I’ve observed that you have been a frequent commenter on this blog ever since I posted as OT22, before I came out in the open in November of 2012. Funny, you though OT22 was a man. I thought your nick was a man too, Marildi sounded like an Italian male name to me. No offense. Funny how we make up our minds about something and it turns out to be quite the opposite.

    In February, I made a comment on this blog – a comment you said was one of the most extreme viewpoints you had read. I wrote:

    “Evidently Scientologists go through a process where they end up as ex-Scientologists.”

    Looking back at that statement of yours and other viewpoints you have shared on this blog, makes me kind of curious. In my world your actions here have generated more questions than answers. Can you please help me sort this out?

    1. Being a dedicated, tolerant and inclusive Scientologist as I suppose you are, or should be according to LRH, how come you find the above comment of mine extreme? (Maybe I need to wordclear the word extreme.)

    2. How come you are not an OT8 yet? During all those years defending Scientology, without climbing to the top yourself. That’s an outpoint as I see it.

    3. As far as I know you have not done the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (the Class VI Auditor course), why not? If you don’t have the time or money, I’m sure you will find the correct LRH tech that will handle that. What is more important than getting trained?

    4. If I were in your shoes, I would work my ass off getting as many people onto SOLO NOTS as possible to balance the theta/entheta so as to save this planet. How much time do you spend on getting people on the Bridge? More than the time spent commenting on this blog? Less? Why?

    5. How do you contact and introduce new people to Scientology?

    My point is this; If I were eating at the best restaurant ever and was blown away with that experience, I would go back and try all the dishes. And I would make sure my friends, family, colleagues, etc. joined the party too. I would even teach myself how to cook dishes like that. I would share my passion widely. I would write reviews, etc. Doing otherwise would be illogical. If you’re doing PR for a product or service, you should do your homework, thoroughly.

    I look forward to hear your take on this, Marildi. Thanks in advance.

    1. Anette, thank you for the comm. I can’t spend more time right now but will answer your post and Alan’s later on today.

    2. Anette: “Evidently Scientologists go through a process where they end up as ex-Scientologists.”

      The reason I thought the above was extreme was that I took it to mean that all Scientologists are eventually going to end up being anti-Scientology. That may have been my misunderstanding as to how you were using the word “Scientologist”. I wrote a post on my thoughts about the meaning of the word a few weeks ago, IF you’re really interested: https://isene.me/2013/06/07/the-scientology-matrix/#comment-41140

      As for your other questions, I’ve answered most of them on various threads, at least to the degree and with the detail that I wish to. Other than that, it’s really nobody’s business – no matter how much they justify that it’s “logical” to continuously needle, badger and hound me about it. I ignore those posts once I feel I’ve made my viewpoint clear to the person, even if that person continues to pretend I haven’t.

      Looking at your comment more thoroughly now than I did earlier when I only had time to breeze through it, I get that with you the intent is to express a critical opinion in the guise of questions. That’s clear to me because I’m sure you’re well aware of the fact that the majority of people who are pro-Scn have not done and are not doing all the things you listed. So let’s just say that you’ve expressed your opinion and now I’ve expressed mine.

      1. Marildi: The reason I thought the above was extreme was that I took it to mean that all Scientologists are eventually going to end up being anti-Scientology.

        Chris: All Scientologists have ended up being anti-Scientology. You have as a counterclaim a fraction of 1% who are still hanging around, and these have one foot out the door and the other foot on a banana peel.

      2. Marildi;

        This is what I see regarding the above. Please correct me if I am seriously wrong on any point regarding you here:

        • You are the most extreme defender of Scientology I have ever coma across.
        • You are the most prolific poster on my blog.
        • You are the only one not showing any real change in position the past three years.
        • You don’t audit, don’t train and exhibit no wish to do either.
        • You don’t even seem to disseminate Scientology.
        • You are completely inactive as a Scientologist, except for posting on mine and Marty’s blog.
        • You habitually derails discussions with details, obfuscating main points.
        1. And Marildi; I would like you to please confirm your position as a independent commenter on my blog not operating on mission orders. Because I know you as a caring, helping and warm individual. But it has been suggested back-channel that if OSA was to do an OP on my blog, it would be someone who was diligent at 1) getting close to me (partly be doing work for me for free) and try to turn me and if that didn’t work, then 2) make me look as bad as possible. And in any case make sure to habitually derails discussions with details, obfuscating main points. I admit that would be a fun OSA OP, but hey, I know you. You may be stuck in a Scientology viewpoint, but you surely are thinking for yourself.

          1. When I edited for you, you stated that you couldn’t pay me because the articles were your “idealistic work” and that there was no money earned as of yet – but that in your professional work, whenever you needed some professional editing in English I would be at the top of your list. I told you that was fine and that I was willing to do the work anyway because I thought highly of your articles and that I thought it would be good promotion for me as a copy editor. At the time, you were still pro-Scn even though you were anti-CoS – so there was no need to “try to turn” you.

            I still have those emails if anyone doubts what I’m saying.

            You never did give me any work in your old business. However, after the last article I edited, you told me that when you and Brendan started the new business you would be writing articles and books, and that I would absolutely be the editor – that you were so pleased with my work that you would never have anyone else edit for you. You even introduced Brendan and I to each other through emails as we were all going to be a team. You have since written pieces for your new business and apparently have written a book as well – but you didn’t keep you word about me being the editor and getting paid. I felt just a little bit taken advantage of.

            I really don’t know what your intent here is, Geir, when you know the truth of the above.

            1. marildi: “I really don’t know what your intent here is, Geir, when you know the truth of the above.”

              Me:

              /derail alert

            2. Thanks for answering.

              As for the editing – I have written two article since you edited my articles (no book). One is a small article, the other is the PRINCE2 article. Both written after you turned seemingly very unfriendly toward me – so you will have to excuse me for not rushing to get the articles edited by you. No one else did any editing either.

              It was Marty who let me in on how an OSA OP would try to get close to a person by doing free work for them, that this is SOP. Now, if that wild back-channel idea was to be true, then the turning would of course originally be against berating the CoS (as crazy as that may seem).

              Why did you disappear the last days?

            3. You told me way back about Marty telling you that – but just now you made it sound like it had been said recently in relation to me.

              However, I’m glad to know the specifics about the current editing situation. It’s good that this subject came up.

              I disappeared because I didn’t appreciate the approach you have been taking towards me, especially in your last comment – and because I feel my posts aren’t appreciated either.

              Somehow, what used to be a more or less productive exchange, including some fun banter, turned into lack of mutual trust and respect. I wish it hadn’t happened and I take my share of responsibility for it.

            4. As I said, that’s what I had already decided. And I already got that you didn’t want me here. So why would you write another comment to me, basically pulling me back in? Or did you just want to get in some further invalidations to try to make me look bad so you yourself wouldn’t look so bad?

              What did you expect of me – to just lie down and take it? I could have said worse than I did, but my intent seems to be different from yours.

            5. isene: “Interesting reply”

              Please see my reply at the end of the current comment chain. A bit too long to fit in here.

          2. Isene: Interesting reply.

            DeE, Including previous comments: Interesting intel and observation, astute and real, as I see it. 😦

  10. Geir, yes I did read Otto Roos’ story and have even posted comments here about his expressing a good opinion of LRH and his actual intentions although he also made it clear that LRH did have his personal flaws and made mistakes – the primary one being to not avail himself of auditing, which Otto felt had a lot of bearing on LRH’s personal flaws and on the mistakes he made (and I would agree, based on my confidence in the tech). As for Bill Franks, I know he was trained but I don’t believe he had much experience auditing. And I don’t think any of those others have the unique quals Marty has, both a lot of tech experience AND years of experience in the highest levels of management. In any case, all this isn’t exactly the point I was trying to get across.

    As I last posted to Splog (Alan), what I base my conclusions on with regard to the tech isn’t really a matter of LRH’s intention. Primarily I base them on the assessments of those who are well experienced with its practice. To me, that makes the most sense, and that viewpoint is what I’ve written here several times. The other thing (although secondary) is that I personally can’t conceive of a being who developed all the miraculous tech that LRH did (per my experience and that of most experienced auditors) having done so without having the intention to help. Others may be able to conceive of it, but I don’t believed any of us is doing more than stating what is basically our intuitive sense of it.

    Also, as I wrote to Splog (Alan), I don’t know of anyone who, as you put it, “has the same quals” as Marty – i.e. highly trained AND well experienced with the tech and ALSO has as many years’ experience in management at the very top levels. But note that it’s a Straw Man to say I’m basing my idea about LRH’s intentions on Marty’s viewpoint. I only brought him up as a person who knows more than I do and happens to also have the same opinion as mine. I thought I made it clear that in my exchange with Marty I told him that I wouldn’t be surprised, and my opinion about the tech wouldn’t be changed, by whatever he wrote about LRH’s personal outpoints – but that I would be very surprised if he (Marty) thought that it was all a scam. Marty then assured me that he did not have that viewpoint.

    1. OK read it. I’m not a fan of Dan Brown but he clearly tries to do some research for his novels. The question that emerges vis-a-vis the OTVIII bulletin is, which side would the Freemasons be on?

      An author I highly recommend, who mostly writes non-fiction and researches meticulously, is Graham Hancock. I am familiar only with some of his earlier books, but a good one is “Fingerprints of the Gods”. No, it’s not about space aliens.

      Hancock likes to take as many unexplained “inconsistencies” in scientific data that he can find, and tries to arrange them in new patterns of possible theoretical understanding, to explain them and integrate them with other existing knowledge.

      He did write a book about Freemasonry, titled
      “Talisman: Gnostics, Freemasons, Revolutionaries, and the 2000-Year-Old Conspiracy at Work in the World Today.”

      I think Dan Brown and such use Hancock’e work as a resource and for inspiration.

      Hancock has a news blog on which he posts new scientific discoveries. And recentlyhe gave a talk on “ayahuasca” which was posted by TED, but which was subsequently censored and removed from Youtube I believe. Ayahuasca is the psychedelic substance featured in the “Don Juan” Mexican sorcerer books. Hancock proposed it might be a useful substance and for this was censored. Here are a couple of links:

      http://www.grahamhancock.com/news/

      http://www.grahamhancock.com/

        1. Hello Peter. let me consider the matter.

          If I do answer, please keep in mind that I speak only for myself. I do not represent or speak on behalf of any Masonic body, any of Masonry’s concordant bodies, or on behalf of any other Mason.

          What would make my answer unique is that I may be the only Knight Templar in the world who possess an extensive knowledge of L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Thelema, the OT Levels, Aliester Crowley, and Jack Parsons.

          My answer would need to be more than a reply to a comment. I need to consider doing a series of short videos and putting them up on Karen’s YouTube channel.

          1. An honor to have the J. Swift commenting on my blog.

            Please do add your take on this. It is fascinating to see how these link up. It would be nice if you could notify this blog of such videos. Or perhaps you could write a blog post on this here (as well)?

            1. Hello Geir.

              The respect is mutual. Karen and I were honored to have you and Anette visit our home during your trip to the US. I greatly enjoyed interviewing you for Karen’s YT channel. What you had to say got the Church’s attention; Karin Pouw was forced to issue a statement denying your importance to their IT efforts. That means you were very important to them.

              I have always admired your blog as it offers much-needed critical thinking on the subject of Scientology. I have studied and analyzed the OT Levels at length and have reached definite formal conclusions.

              I want to discuss the OT Levels in detail and I think it is better done on video. Let’s talk privately about this matter.

  11. isene: “Interesting reply”

    Geir, I consider you a very smart guy but what you are into here is not that bright, at all. At the risk of a “too long/didn’t read” dismissal I ask you to consider the following:

    At 2013-07-16, 20:39 you goad Marildi with the old OSA-plant attack:

    (isene: And Marildi; I would like you to please confirm your position as a independent commenter on my blog not operating on mission orders. Because I know you as a caring, helping and warm individual. But it has been suggested back-channel that if OSA was to do an OP on my blog,)

    which cleverly includes an allusion to “back-channel” (which, as written, is easily misconstrued as a recent advisory instead of a very distant one) to give credibility to your current attack, then you pat splog on the back for denouncing the M. reply as ” /derail alert”, yet YOU were the one who brought up a derailing topic.

    Really, derailing? Marildi derailing? What a joke! (Not even to mention too strongly that many, many comments and commenters could be called derailing, yet you maintain a very permissive attitude on the practice.)

    YOU brought the Marildi line back up 3 days after it ended with your comment:

    (isene: …◾You are completely inactive as a Scientologist, except for posting on mine and Marty’s blog.
    ◾You habitually derails discussions with details, obfuscating main points.)

    which M. obviously declined to comment on (I would agree with M. not commenting on it as it was an inflammatory, invalidating viewpoint), but you (isene) had to dredge it up and drag M. back into posting here.

    I have previously stated that I see Marildi’s comments as seriously needed counterpoint to your arguments, yet you invalidate those with:

    “You habitually derails discussions with details…”

    Details? Like LRH references? Those references simply back up a viewpoint. That is hardly grounds for condemnation as “derailing”. In fact it is just the opposite. It is counterpoint.

    You may disagree with much of what LRH wrote but it certainly seems apparent that you must have agreement with parts of the tech as you have commented favorably about your own gains from parts of it. Fair and acceptable. But too often you make very general comments – inflammatory comments (Hubbard lied…) – and it is the generalizations that Marildi attacked, and I have also attacked.

    The problem with commenting here is that you are lacking balance in many of your OP’s with a consequence that they attract people who’ve had negative experiences to comment negatively. I have yet to see any forward motion come from this kind of commenting and it creates an overall environment that is not friendly to someone who simply disagrees that all of Scientology should be trashed.

    You once said (early in this new year) that you wanted to help people. The result of which became “Fuckitology”. Well, it may have been widely embraced but what results does it have to show for itself?

    To contrast that, have a look at what David St. Lawrence has posted on his site, Workable Technology. This particular link:

    http://workabletechnology.com/?p=730

    is an astounding piece of information that people really could use to handle the things that they went into Scientology to handle. It also explains why even OT VIIIs can act aberratively after a while.

    I believe there is much we could accomplish in forwarding the research and understanding of basic beingness. That is my personal goal and the direction of many of my comments. I think it is a fairly common goal amongst the many former Scientologists, even if we are approaching it from different viewpoints.

    I don’t enjoy wasting my valuable time on tit-for-tat arguments and dismissive or invalidative comments but sometimes, like now, things take on such an off-the-wall look that I feel compelled to comment. If you managed to read all the way to the end of this, thank you.

    1. Just a couple of corrections:

      1) Marty gave me the info on OSA Ops in 2009. The back channel suggestion that Marildi is OSA was made less than a week ago.

      2) I give plenty of leeway for derailings. But most people do not habitually derail. Marildi do more and more (and I am speaking from more than 3 years of experience with her being the most prolific commenter on my blog).

      1. isene:”1) Marty gave me the info on OSA Ops in 2009. The back channel suggestion that Marildi is OSA was made less than a week ago.”

        And the “source” actually has the qual’s to spot an OSA plant? If so, the source needs a cram. Or a large bundle of cash to put on the table as a bet on the assumption. To put that in the North American colloquial, “Put your money where your mouth is.”

        I think Marildi’s main fault is the assumption that her understanding of things can be transferred to others effectively over a medium like the internet. My main observation over my time in Scientology was that it is tough to bring even a person desirous of Scn tech up to a point of being able to understand and apply it well. A large part of that can be attributed to the way it is presented – as disjoint HCOBs laden with contradictions – but a significant part comes from the real difficulty in understanding the mind and the being. That tends to come primarily through experience. The common flaw in thinking in an experienced person is that just about “everyone knows” and everyone who doesn’t can learn. I’ve certainly made that mistake as has probably everyone when they are considering from their own point of expertise. So if Marildi has a fault in this it is the fault of trying too hard to convince another viewpoint, right or wrong. Maybe that’s something she can learn to adjust as an expectation.

        You claim she is the most unchanged person after 3 years yet there are others, like myself and probably Valkov who would say our viewpoints are not different from 3 years ago.

        Personally I can’t think of only one viewpoint I’ve changed on LRH and Scientology, and that was in regard to the idea that data on OT should be confidential. So while my knowledge of formerly-unknown confidential data has multiplied, 3 years ago I already knew most of the dark side of LRH from what I’d already found on the net before setting foot in a blog. However, I also have a certainty that I knew him LLT, and it was recall of his intentions and persona from that era that was enough to allow me to differentiate the good that I knew from the very aberrant that I came to find out.

        As for the change that you’ve gone through in trying to sort out the good and bad of Scientology, the main difference I would have liked to have seen would have been some attempt at inclusion of what is or has been seen as workable as opposed to full attention on the unworkable.

        For instance, what is the workability of O/W theory? Sec checking as done in the CoS is unworkable, but can you make a truly able-to-reach being (OT) without handling some or many of the things that have limited his reach? Discussion of a point like that could be both informative and helpful. There are definitely mechanisms of the mind that come into operation and make us feel less than we know we should be and those mechanisms should be made known. Or at least put on the table and discussed.

        There are lots of questions like that (the workability of O/W) to explore. I’m curious to know how many people would actually have an interest in gaining a better understanding of such concepts. Or are minds already simply too made up?

        How about testing those waters?

        1. 2ndxmr: “I think Marildi’s main fault is the assumption that her understanding of things can be transferred to others effectively over a medium like the internet.”

          Me: I concur.

          2ndxmr: “Personally I can’t think of only one viewpoint I’ve changed on LRH and Scientology, and that was in regard to the idea that data on OT should be
          confidential.”

          Me: I see that as a significant change.

          2ndxmr: “For instance, what is the workability of O/W theory? Sec checking as done in the CoS is unworkable, but can you make a truly able-to-reach being (OT) without handling some or many of the things that have limited his reach?”

          Me: I am currently exploring the option of handling what limits a person in present time, i.e. present time considerations – rather than going Back Track for anything. After all, anything that limits a person is created by the person here and now.

          1. 2ndxmr: “I think Marildi’s main fault is the assumption that her understanding of things can be transferred to others effectively over a medium like the internet.”

            Geir: “I concur”.

            Me: That particular point is something I have realized too. In a recent email exchange with a reader of this blog, I basically said the same thing. She had asked me to consider whether “writing on an international blog is dissemination or not?” and “providing the right reference to an issue is inactivity?” I told her that “There comes a time when it’s clear that one is dealing with a certain viewpoint that is not going to be affected by comments on a blog thread.”

            2ndxmr: “Personally I can’t think of only one viewpoint I’ve changed on LRH and Scientology, and that was in regard to the idea that data on OT should be
            confidential.”

            Geir: “I see that as a significant change.”

            Me: In an exchange with Alanzo several months ago, I made a very similar statement to the one 2ndxmr wrote above. Al had stated: “I’ve never once seen you able to criticize Scientology.” It just so happened that a couple days before I had written a post on Marty’s blog where I did just that. So I wrote the following reply to Al:

            2013-01-05 @ 21:04
            “Al, you guys have to get rid of your fixed ideas about proponents of Scn – and about me. Here’s part of a criticism I made just the other day:

            “‘It seems to me that LRH made a big mistake on the point of no “verbal tech” (unless his intention was actually misinterpreted). I’ve observed that so much can be gained from sharing experiences and ideas about the written and recorded materials’”. http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/thanks-for-participating/

            1. Marildi: “‘It seems to me that LRH made a big mistake on the point of no “verbal tech” (unless his intention was actually misinterpreted)…”

              Me: That kind of hedging a bet invalidates your point to a marked degree.

            2. When I wrote that part about LRH’s intention possibly being misunderstood, I had in mind that he had stated no verbal TECH, and to me that seemed to be qualifying what he meant – that is to say, it seemed that he meant no one should verbally instruct another person as to the specific application of tech, i.e. how it’s done.

              Plus, I wrote that on Marty’s blog where there are a lot of trained posters, and I hoped that anyone who knows the references better than I do would clarify the issue if there was anything to clarify. At this point, I don’t think there is. That was 6 months ago and I’ve read more about the authoritarian approach LRH adopted more and more as time went on.

          2. Geir
            ‘ I am currently exploring the option of handling what limits a person in present time,
            i.e. present time considerations – rather than going Back Track for anything. After
            all, anything that limits a person is created by the person here and now.’ Valid point.

            Can you find a person in the core of the onion?

          3. Geir: I am currently exploring the option of handling what limits a person in present time, i.e. present time considerations – rather than going Back Track for anything. After all, anything that limits a person is created by the person here and now.

            Spyros: You just described spiritologie’s practice 😛

        2. 2ndxmr, in a recent comment you wrote that I am pan-determined – but I would say that you are far more so than I am. You always manage to see what it right in the other person’s viewpoint and to contribute ideas and suggestions that are likely to be agreeable to all and which would move things forward for everyone’s benefit. Your approach serves as a very good lesson that I need to learn. Thank you so much!

        3. 2x: You claim she is the most unchanged person after 3 years yet there are others, like myself and probably Valkov who would say our viewpoints are not different from 3 years ago.

          Chris: Good post. I used to and actually did used to claim this “no change” point of view and this stemmed from my faith in the Hubbard Theta-Mest Theory. This claim of unchanging viewpoint is now unreal to me except as relevant to other viewpoints around . . . and this difference is only in terms of the rate of change. The universe around us changes and changes. That is the only thing I know of that doesn’t change. (humor)

        4. 2X: There are lots of questions like that (the workability of O/W) to explore. I’m curious to know how many people would actually have an interest in gaining a better understanding of such concepts. Or are minds already simply too made up?

          Chris: Most of us aren’t newbies to Scientology. Most of us are quite well worn on the path of OW writeups, confessional auditing, etc.,. If you’ve something new to offer up, I’m listening, but as a retread on Hubbardian introversion not so much. After laying down that bag of bricks which was the responsibility of OW, my beingness, extroversion, and personal power in terms of willing to act have subjectively expanded. Objectively, my social and work statistics have measurably expanded. For what I think I understand about Scientology confessionals, my mind is made up, though for a friend with something to share, my ears are open.

    2. I hand’t noticed that about Marildi. To generalise a bit, I don’t think an OSA would want former members of the COS to get out and use SCN, for that would make them antagonists. I personally got declared an SP after some dude (not COS affiliated) told an OSA plant (while I was present) that I deliver/am going to deliver auditing (and I didn’t even deliver, eventually.) If I was OSA I would want to disrepute all those who would want to use SCN outside the COS, or I would infiltrate the indipendent field and mess it up (make it like the COS).

      1. *Moreover, Marildi hasn’t expressed any support -that I know- concerning the COSes soviet-like mode of operation. I personally, don’t mind as much whether one is with COS SCN, FZ SCN, other independent SCN, anti-SCN, no SCN at all, as much I as mind about how it treats people. Labels are labels and can be used to give impressions and obscure more essential stuff. I would treat a fascist ‘independent’ worse than a common churchie.

        1. I agree that it would be a real stretch to think of Marildi as OSA – despite my bullet list above. At the same time it would be a real stretch to think that OSA has not tried to influence this blog in Some Way. Not that I mind. It’s all in the open and it’s all good fun.

          1. Yes, sure. I always ‘have in mind’ that OSA -at least- watches over this one and Marty’s. Maybe they can learn something in the process 😛

            1. I’m LOLing imagining the OSA dude’s or dudesses reaction at me implying they have something to learn from us.

            2. I think most people will soon be out, Chris. And those that we would like to have out the least, will stay in. It’s already happened to a big degree.

            3. It’s more than that, Spyros. Almost everyone who has ever been in is already out. It is kept alive mostly in the memories of those of us who were there.

            4. The question is what happens next –not with the COS etc but the spiritual stuff…

              I’m for using SCN in beneficial ways. Not using any black SCN at all. Also, I’m for using beneficial spirituality in general, and not using black spirituality at all. I know it sounds too general. But it’s a big topic. My main criteria is how much a practice assists freedom from whatever one wants to be free from –self determinism. I’m not only interested in what has existed up to now, but also the possibilities of having incredible new stuff.

            5. I know I wouldn’t like to chit chat with the COSes SS about how bad the COS is 😛 They’re better in.

            6. We can punish them by making them think that they have something to heal (an eye for an eye 😛 )

            7. Ahhh have I told you I first R/Sed inside the COS, in my life? 😛 I didn’t see it on the meter then, but I know I did. It was when that @%#$%$ @%#$%%$ed my 2D. You can heal the %$#$%@ by yourself :mrgreen:

          2. “I agree that it would be a real stretch to think of Marildi as OSA”

            Thank you for saying that, Geir.

            1. Chris: “haha — It IS a stretch. Now say that you are not OSA.”

              That’s all it takes to handle paranoia and insidious 3P? Not an A-J check, too? Wow! That’s what I call fast-flow security clearance. Yep. Who needs obnosis drills when a simple reply to an outrageous accusation will suffice. Amazing the ideas that can pour out of the persuasion of libation. Where’s your green, bub?

            2. Interesting would be to see an awareness arise out of the Phoenix in the form of an apology.

            3. haha Sorry 2x, no can do. Your being offended and my doing something offensive aren’t necessarily related. OSA problems are too insidious and important to ignore. Neither you nor any other implanter on the whole track is going to tell me not to look. You will understand that. Especially ominous are anonymous posters. Threats and tough talk from behind a meaningless IP address over ethernet cable is easy to send with no thought of repercussions. Not good. The immoral willingness of OSA to use any tool to manipulate situations without reservation leaves me utterly without respect for them. Once that cloud of suspicion permeates a persons persona, that person should probably address it to clear things up. My apology to you is “sorry, that’s the way it is.” Oh, and by the way, I’m not OSA, and that’s not TR-Lie.

            4. Chris: “Oh, and by the way, I’m not OSA, and that’s not TR-Lie.”

              Neither am I OSA. But do you believe me? No, of course not. I’m one of them thar anonymous name bastards. “An’ ya jes cain’t trust one uh them bastards.” (And that idee fixee would go back to an inability to obnose.)

              I guess awareness didn’t quite arise as I’d hoped it would. It wasn’t me that deserved the apology. Maybe I was expecting too much intelligence from you. I’ll try to make my messages to you clearer in the future.

            5. Yep, those lying, delusional bastards just get more interesting every minute. Oh, look! I stepped in some dog crap! How interesting! Dog crap as a fractal message of the cosmos… the entropy of methane… how deep!

            6. The rule I live by is “If you want to dish it out, you’d better be able to take it.”

              So if you and Chris think it is OK to dish out continued innuendo about dreamed-up affiliations in order to denigrate others whose comments you don’t like, then you have opened the door to having your own invectives, innuendo and general persons harshly criticized. Anything less would show hypocrisy.

  12. Today I had a summary-epiphany of sorts. Simply put:

    Hubbard invents a therapy and a world view that he thinks is beyond brilliant. He passes it off and hopes for standing ovations. Although it becomes a grass root movement at first, academia lambaste it because it has inherent flaws. Hubbard not willing to look at the possibility of his work not being a stroke of genius starts inventing reasons why it does not take over the world. It must be the psychologists, the psychiatrists, the APA, the FBI, the CIA, the communists, the SPs, the Marcabians, “entities outside our universe’s time stream”…

    Occam’s razor applies. Hubbard should have looked at what he created, gotten it properly tested, revised and improved so that it could in fact deliver predictable results. But instead, he never revised earlier texts, thought his work was genius, worked hard to make other people believe it was and even implemented a system of ethics designed to punish anyone who dared question his brilliance.

    The Marcabians is a signpost of something fundamentally off in the original works. And I believe we have at least in part covered this with the post “There are no Clears” (https://isene.me/2013/04/07/conclusion-there-are-no-clears/).

    And when he didn’t allow himself the luxury of thinking maybe his work not brilliant, we do get the blaming on real and imaginary forces of evil, and we get the Church of Scientology in its present form (getting back to the OP here).

    1. Yes, he was pissed off that others did not see his genius. He sought explanations as to why they would refuse to see it or were unable to see it and then sought to address those situations – the idea being that if those situations were resolved then they would see his genius. It is no small thing to work your ass off only to have a well-heeled (or sneaky) adversary rip you off and claim your work. But you know, this was common practice back in the 50s (and even now) to rip others work and get away with it. He did it to others, they did it to him. Business was seen as a war to be won, and competition the order of the day. It still is. If you saw the plans of many corporations, you’d be astonished to find that they are very much at war with their competitors. They want to win. Period. No holds barred. Now we have the multi-national corporations, which epitomize this behavior with their culturally and environmentally amoral profit seeking efforts. And so we get Enron and BP just to name a couple of disastrously amoral operations that finally went completely criminal.

      In many ways he was right — vested interests do REFUSE new inventions that topple their power or profits, the power elite really do seek control, and mavericks are almost always hung or driven into the ground, so their products and trademarks can be taken from them without penalty.

      In many ways he was very much a man of the time — many of the “captains of industry” were sneaky assholes whose business operations could never survive the light of transparency – they made their big bucks however they could, skating on the edge of criminal activity and then laundering it over time so they looked as pure as the driven snow.

      The weirdest thing I ever encountered as a relatively new Scientologist was a conversation with a second generation C/S whose parents were old-timers from the 1950s. She told me of many incidences of abductions of Scientologists by alien spaceships — this was a problem that LRH was working on back then. Apparently it happened a lot. Also, when I worked as an ethics officer, I was surprised by how many people were sent to me because they were reporting seeing space ships or having encounters of the alien kind.

      1. Maria: Apparently it happened a lot. Also, when I worked as an ethics officer, I was surprised by how many people were sent to me because they were reporting seeing space ships or having encounters of the alien kind.

        Chris: How did you counsel them?

        1. I didn’t. I simply had them write it up for their pc folder. There are no instructions as to what to do with people who report seeing space ships or having alien encounters. I felt it was a bit unfair to treat them as having something wrong with them when it was pretty damned clear that LRH was concerned about those guys up there (the ones that mean business.) Besides these were otherwise exemplary students and staff — upstats you know. Yawn. Tear up the chit.

          1. “Besides these were otherwise exemplary students and staff — upstats you know.”

            Seems there may have actually been something to it, And those students and staff were lucky to have a very broad-minded EO and not someone who scoffed at anything “outside the box”, so to speak.

            1. marildi: “a very broad-minded EO”

              Me: That’s an oxymoron 🙂

              What’s the time-on-post expectancy of a CoS Ethics Officer who can think and observe for real? I tried being an EO for a bit, took about 3 days before my ass was roasted red hot.

              My mistake? Having the individual’s best interests at heart. It hadn’t occured to me that AO ANZO had their Div Two interest at heart.

            2. Splog: “I tried being an EO for a bit, took about 3 days before my ass was roasted red hot.”

              Me: You pulled it in. 🙂

              Kidding. Actually, I think that phrase “You pulled it in” is one of the Famous Justifications LRH listed out on an HCOB – and applying it to every situation would be out-tech. It does happen at times that the individual has been committing overts or antagonizing the antagonistic person, in which case getting off O/W’s could apply. However, what might for example be applicable would be hatting on the basics of communication (especially for the new guys), or a simple application of “good roads, fair weather”. Or maybe a 10 Aug is needed. Etc. This idea of “you pulled it in” being the consistent approach is an example of group think that becomes an “everybody knows”.

              Btw, I held the post of EO too (MAA, actually) for almost a year and, like Maria, I didn’t run into any problem with Div 2 interests. That was in the early 90’s. Also, I think it depended a lot on the org. I came to learn things varied quite a bit from org to org and from time period to time period. It probably still does, although overall I’m sure it’s much worse than it used to be.

            3. Marildi – I didn’t think I was at all broad-minded — too similar to being open-minded and that would make me a source of trouble. LOL!

              I actually solved the conflict by saying to myself: what would Ron do? And since he spoke of those guys up there as being very real, and I could only assume they were aliens of some kind (up there, after all is not on the planet) then that meant that Ron also saw aliens or knew of their very real activities. And Ron obviously was not PTS Type 3 or psychotic therefore these people were not either. However, they might need some kind of PTS handling if they were going the effect or being abducted or PDHed by aliens and that would be up to the C/S to adjudicate by using proper PTS tech processes on the meter. None of the C/Ses ever sent anyone to me to handle PTSness to space ships or aliens.

              Splog: I don’t know what the life expectancy is now for an EO but at the risk of dating myself this was pre 1983 and being an EO wasn’t really all that difficult in the Mission I worked in. Mainly you followed the C/Ses instructions and guided people through PTS handlings (that they agreed they needed, that is).

            4. Maria: “Splog: I don’t know what the life expectancy is now for an EO but at the risk of dating myself this was pre 1983 and being an EO wasn’t really all that difficult in the Mission I worked in. Mainly you followed the C/Ses instructions and guided people through PTS handlings (that they agreed they needed, that is).”

              Me: pre-83 mission, that explains a lot, things were very different then.

              To be honest, the fanatical EO valence is a bit unreal to me. I was on the receiving end of some it a few times, but never felt the need to do it. I’ve helped many people with ethics stuff over the years and it’s almost always either someone is giving the person a hard time or they are into something dodgy – usually of a sexual nature.

              Conditions were the easiest of all to – from Non-E upwards they actually make a lot of sense when examined sensibly. They are one of the few things from Hubbard that I can’t fault as having serious inherent flaws, but they do need to be used with a healthy dose of intelligence. It just never occurred to be to abuse the condition that way CoS does nowadays…

            5. Al: It just never occurred to be to abuse the condition that way CoS does nowadays…

              Chris: Right or to never rise above lower conditions.

            6. Maria: “I didn’t think I was at all broad-minded — too similar to being open-minded and that would make me a source of trouble. LOL!”

              I know what you mean – it took me a long time to be able to use the term “open-minded” with its regular English meaning! 🙂 Anyway, what I had in mind was that I’m sure you operated with common sense and intelligence – and the right intention, not some motive that the mission pushed off on you. I remember the posts you’ve written about your mission and, at least until the SO stepped in, it ran pretty smoothly and successfully.

              Btw, I never got around to telling you but I too had experience with SO missions, in my non-SO org as well as in the SO orgs I was staff at, and I can assure you that those missionaires did not always represent SO members in general! Definitely not all of them – there were SO missionaires who were quite sane and helpful.

              And right you are, Maria – there isn’t supposed to be a blanket rule that applies to all cases, as I just commented to Alan. Like you, I found that being an EO (MAA) was not difficult. Pretty easy to assist the person with what was usually an A to B piece of tech. Now, of course, it’s a completely different scene.

    2. Geir, I think the following is on topic in relation to your blog post and the above comment of yours.

      In Marty’s recently released book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, he wrote about a “Special Project” he had been put on in the late 70’s, where for 6 months he studied “government and private agency/association documents obtained by means other than the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]” – of which there were “tens of thousands of pages”. In his book, Marty wrote several eye-opening pages detailing what he discovered had occurred, based on those official documents – and he named names. Here are just a few excerpted paragraphs. Note that Marty also comments on LRH’s reaction to what transpired in the early decades, which differed greatly from his earlier writings:

      “For the next 20 years [since 1950, when the best-selling book Dianetics, the Modern Science of Health, was published and achieved unprecedented popularity and the efforts to destroy Scientology began], the AMA’s then-mighty Department of Investigation would take clandestine action against Hubbard and his organizations. Two successive heads of investigation for the AMA, Oliver Field (1950s) and Thomas Spinelli (1960s and 1970s) would work hand-in-glove with several governmental agencies to infiltrate Hubbard’s lectures and organizations
      […]

      “In the early 1960s, the FDA sent an agent to Hubbard’s home at St Hill Manor near East Grinstead, Sussex, England, posing as a reporter for one of America’s then-leading magazines, the Saturday Evening Post. The reporter spent days at St. Hill as Hubbard’s guest. The reporter gained Ron’s trust by swearing he would clear up some of the more outlandish accusations the mainstream media had used to sully his reputation over more than a decade. Documents taken from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) files by the GO included daily cables from this reporter/agent, reporting Hubbard’s every move and utterance to the FDA. To add insult to injury, the reporter wrote a damning indictment of Hubbard, which was published in the Post [Saturday Evening Post]. According to a once-prominent Scientology promoter, Alan Walters, who was studying under Hubbard in England at the time, Hubbard’s disposition notably – and permanently – changed for the worse after this betrayal.
      […]

      “…Hubbard had hit so close to the quick with his disclosures of what Dianetics and Scientology process had uncovered about the dirty work of the CIA and the very best psychiatrists [ref. the book Science of Survival, where Hubbard wrote about finding many pc’s who had been given pain-drug-hypnosis] , it is a wonder he was not physically assassinated.

      “Perhaps because of his high profile, and the growing ranks of dedicated religionists surrounding him, the APA, AMA, CIA, FBI and FDA and friendly media alliances would have to settle for old-fashioned (albeit of unprecedented intensity) character assassination. The documents demonstrated that the ranks of the massive government and private agencies arrayed against Hubbard and Scientology were swelled by other military and intelligence groups also involved in mind control experiments, including Naval Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and Army Intelligence.

      “The truth of Hubbard’s 1951 pronouncements [in Science of Survival] about our government’s dirty activities would not be corroborated publicly until the mid to late seventies, with the advent of the Freedom of Information Act and the U.S. Congress Church Committee Hearings into unlawful CIA domestic intelligence operations. That Ron was twenty years ahead of his time in recognizing what the CIA and psychiatrists were up to was acknowledged by author Walter Bowart in one of the first popular exposures of that activity, Operation Mind Control (Dell, 1978). By then, Hubbard had been so discredited by establishment campaigns, and his church subjected to such intense fire for scandals of its [establishment’s] own manufacture, that nary a person would listen to the longer history, the bigger picture.
      […]

      “Now Hubbard’s writings took on a markedly different tone than most of what he had written before. Rather than speak of turning the other cheek and dealing with establishment attacks with a healthy insouciance, Hubbard prepared the GO to do what the enemy was doing, but to do it better.”

      1. We have covered this ground before. And it seems reasonable to say that Hubbard created the enemies he later battled. According to his own O/W tech this would also be true. He did something to aggrivate them and turn PTS to them – like the FBI and the CIA. That he later claimed he saw MartiansMarcabians may well be a sign that he went beyond a mere type 2… still according to his own tech.

        1. Geir: “And it seems reasonable to say that Hubbard created the enemies he later battled. According to his own O/W tech this would also be true.”

          LRH was flawed and he had case. There’s no question about that. However, I haven’t come across convincing data as to how LRH actually “created the enemies he later battled.” Have you? I’m willing to look at it.

          Here is another applicable excerpt from Marty’s book:

          “The documents told an incredible saga. And the story was told in the words of those conducting the crusade against Hubbard, not by Hubbard himself, nor by the church. Within weeks of the May 9 1950 publication of Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, vested pharmaceutical and medical interests declared war on L. Ron Hubbard. On June 1, 1950 the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (AMA)., one Austin Smith, shot missives to doctors and medical societies across America, asking for authoritative statements condemning Hubbard and his work. There was no indication Smith had done the slightest study of Dianetics himself before judging it, beyond noting the book’s general contention that mental therapy did not need to be brutal, nor did it need to be expensive.”

          If the above describes how Hubbard “created the enemies he later battled”, then you must be looking at it from the high perspective that each of us is ultimately responsible for the condition we’re in, in which case all of us who were mistreated by the CoS would be totally responsible for that as well.

          1. Convincing data? It is right there in the O/W tech. Do you disagree with that tech, Marikdi? That one causes one’s own motivators, one’s own enemies? Do you want me to find the quotes? Or does that tech not apply in this instance?

            1. I’m not disagreeing with the O/W tech. LRH most certainly had overts and in fact I think he stated on some lecture that he had been “a psych” on the track. However, I got that you believe he was the one who first attacked those various organizations that campaigned against him. That was the specific data I was curious about – and by “convincing” data I meant documented, the way Marty documented his statements.

              The O/W tech involves a lot more than – you are responsible for your condition because of O/W’s, although that is ultimately true regardless. Broadly, the tech for suppression includes “handle or disconnect”. LRH tried to “handle”. And maybe what he should have done was to get the Suppressed Person Rundown. As I’ve conceded, he had case and made mistakes.

              However, my main point was that there were real enemies, powerful enemies who had sinister motives, and that they existed from the beginning. That should be acknowledged too.

            2. And the point of the O/W tech is that if LRH had clean hands, no enemy would attack him.

              And for those who don’t believe in that tech; Putting out a new “science” without any proof of its workability whatsoever and hoping academia would buy into it or at least not lambaste it and think it is BS was probably a tad naive.

            3. I think the evidence is quite clear that the reasons for lambasting LRH and Scientology went way beyond any lack of proof of the workability of the tech – or that they just thought it was BS. That quote I gave from Marty’s book showed they weren’t even interested in finding out if it was BS or not – it was enough for them to know that it had attracted huge public interest and that meant the highly lucrative monopolies of medicine and psychiatry were endangered. This was according to their own documents.

              There were other methodologies around that had no proof of their workability either but those weren’t attacked. Actually, was there even proof of the workability of psychiatry at the time. Or even now? Seriously, what self-help methodologies are there that have provided such proof?

              A healing practice I know of on which there were attacks was chiropractic – and for the same reasons of vested interests being endangered. But that campaign, even as strong as it was, was never anywhere near the all-out attack on Scientology – starting from the beginning when DMSMH had obviously attracted huge public interest.

            4. Marildi: However, my main point was that there were real enemies, powerful enemies who had sinister motives, and that they existed from the beginning. That should be acknowledged too.

              Chris: No, that is Hubbard’s conditioning of you. Those were Hubbard’s motivators and now they are yours.

            5. I will comment and I expect some will agree and some will disagree. The simple fact that somebody created a technology that they claimed could make others better did in fact cross vested interests. (To Chris – this was not a Hubbard creation, Oliver Fields and the committee on quackery had existed going back into the 30’s. A review of documentation attacking the profession af chiropractic shows the same people as those attacking LRH and Dianetics). The fact that Ron didn’t have clean hands and then proceeded to continue the opterm situation dragged this on for years into the future from whence it started.

              Both, the O/W tech viewpoint that the cause was somewhere in LRH’s actions AND the vested interests are valid. This is not a situation where we must decide one or the other is correct.

              I happen to have read most of the non FOI documents discussed in Marty’s book. . There was a true and real attack against LRH and Dianetics – started from a knee jerk reaction. In my opinion it would have been handled if all stated facts where true and honest and there was no O/Ws involved.

              As Marty so clearly describes – LRH’s continued creation of that “opterm situation” or continued “war” has caused much damage and many harmed in collateral damage. Hubbard didn’t have to “create” the enemies. All he had to do was to continually mock them up when he found them.

              I have no intention to get into an argument of words. The church today, in my opinion, is the result of the continued fighting of a non existent enemy. At the same time, there are those with a concerted effort to control or harm. No additional quotes are needed. There is validity showing both viewpoints.

              The optimum solution should be to move beyond playing that game and enhance our survival and enjoy our lives.

            6. Sapere Aude, great post!

              You wrote: “The optimum solution should be to move beyond playing that game and enhance our survival and enjoy our lives.”

              I’m learning that this is applicable on various dynamics and flows. Thanks for your contribution in this direction. And for demonstrating it yourself. 🙂

            7. SA: The optimum solution should be to move beyond playing that game and enhance our survival and enjoy our lives.

              Chris: Agreed. Good post.

        2. Yes, we have covered this ground before. There are two elements to it.

          One is the very, very real vicious criminal behavior of certain arms of psychiatry and government, and particularly the CIA as independently investigated by the 1973 Church Committee. LRH certainly did not cause these organizations to act the way they did with grievous and heinous crimes, beside which the C of S and LRH at their worst are veritable angels. http://pw1.netcom.com/~ncoic/cia_info.htm

          The other element is LRH’s caustic criticisms, blatant generalities and fighting words, which were like throwing gasoline on a fire. He overstepped the bounds of a 501c3, going very political. He challenged powerful vested interests by expressing highly dissident opinions.

          On the one hand, he can be seen to have caused himself and his organizations to be attacked by his rash and blatant claims and accusations. On the other hand, he could be seen to be a whistleblower of sorts and they often come to a bad end, having to live in places like Ecuador.

          One thing is for certain. He sure loved to fight.

          1. I’ve stayed out of these kinds of discussions because they seem absurdly illogical, like when people claim “Hubbard created his own enemies” and stuff like that, and tying this in with Hubbard’s “O/W” theory etc.

            By that “logic” , and I use the word loosely, every country that suffered from Hitler’s reign “pulled it in” and created the enemy Axis of Hitler, Mussolini, Japan and their armies, etc. So are you saying the Axis coalition would not have existed, if the countries that were attacked had not created the Axis in the first place?

            Or perhaps the old men, women, and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki werevaporized by atomic bombs because they “created” the USA as an “enemy”?

            I think your theory needs to be fleshed out just a teeny bit before you rush it to publication, because otherwise it really sounds like you are “reaching”, if you know what I mean?

            For anyone who may actually be interested in documented research on, for example, the role of the American Medical Association, over a period of decades, in attempting to suppress chiropractic as well as many, I should say “any”, other competing practices, read a book titled “The Serpent on the Staff” by 2 respected medical journalists out of Chicago.

            The AMA was eventually found guilty as charged in Federal Court, in the 1990s if I recall correctly.

            1. On the O/W tech: My point exactly (I was merely presenting the tech according to its teachings and practice… “you pulled it in, etc.).

          2. Maria: On the other hand, he could be seen to be a whistleblower of sorts and they often come to a bad end, having to live in places like Ecuador.

            Chris: . . . or Bulgravia. Or Creston.

      1. I’m concerned about what technology would handle “ego out of balance” since it would be the core of everything, at least on the behavior field with social implications at large scales.

        1. Good point. No ego at all would seem to be lack of anyone there at all. Then there would be the ego of the Dalai Lama, a pleasant chap who people of all faiths find to be respectable and respectful person in his own right, not only the exiled leader leader of Tibet. This might be an example of an ego in balance. A “technology to bring an ego in balance?” It seems that most humanism, spirituality, some religions, etc., seek to bring an ego into balance, but of course not all. Some inflate the ego for their own manipulations and reasons.

          I have a friend who published a Christian book. After blogging here for years and then reading his book this year, it was quite a look into the egocentrism of his Christian beliefs. I was brought up on those beliefs but left them behind 40 years ago. His book reminded me and brought focus and clarity to me about his point of view, which could have been my point of view, was shocking and made my chest tight. Not an example of “ego in balance” but a hyperbole of fanaticism from a privileged and first world point of view.

          1. I know that feeling and impresion from your friend, a scientologist would suggest that you have suffer from implants that were restimulated by your consideration about your friend (?)
            About the ego as a hot topic, it seems that Scientology would handle that in some rundown into the upper levels (as I had read before from special people), but the reality is that Scientology created quite the opposite of “getting your ego in balance”. There is even a “Scientologist’s Syndrome” that is not official, but is real.
            It seems to me that Scientology have demonstrated that it has a lot to do with the ego as illusion, as creating identities, as creating your enemies, as creating your own reality (filtered interpretation) and, of course, as being an asshole. Chasing your own carrot would be the best picture of the ego essence.

  13. Geir, you said you don’t like continuous derailing, so why do you allow the multiple personal comments directed at me that Chris makes on a DAILY basis? Like the one:
    ——————————
    Chris Thompson 2013-07-18 @ 04:03
    Marildi: Thank you for saying that, Geir.
    Chris: haha — It IS a stretch.Now say that you are not OSA.
    ——————————–

    Is this kind of thing on your blog actually okay with you?

    You are probably familiar enough with American history to know what McCarthyism is, but here’s a quote about it from Wikipedia: “McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means ‘the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism’.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

    The type kind of thing described above is exactly what you wrote about on your “Lynch Mob” blog post about Brian Culkin, where you protested the fact that people were accusing him without data and without due process. As for the accusations directed at me by Chris, what due process rights do I have? He implies that my saying the words “I’m not OSA” would be all that’s needed. First of all, what would that prove? Secondly, does anyone actually believe he would be satisfied and leave it at that? I mean, where is this leading? And what possible proof could there be anyway? It’s the same type of thing as original McCarthyism: Prove you’re not a Communist. And I’m sure you know that Negative Proof is even a Logical Fallacy.

    If that kind of comment on your blog is okay, I could now come back with the same kind of thing and challenge Chris with, “How do we know what kinds of organizations YOU are affiliated with – especially since you obviously operate on a McCarthyism type of mentality (at first covertly so and then more and more blatantly)?”

    Chris makes a big deal about me not posting with my full name – even though he knows it, and even though he knows the simple reason why I don’t. In the past, he and I have had many email exchanges on philosophical topics. But at a certain point he really got going on his thing of insisting that I had to audit – based on HIS considerations about why that must be. And when I still wouldn’t come around to his way of thinking, he started accusing me of being OSA! I mean, what would me auditing or not auditing indicate about a connection with OSA? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more so, that if I were OSA I would be claiming that I do solo audit? In any case, when that whole OSA thing started up I ended off on the email exchange – it was just too bizarre. I even had the thought that he might have been drinking at the time and as a result gotten belligerent. But he never emailed back to apologize or to say anything else.

    You commented not long ago that in our exchanges I’ve been pushing to get the last word and to prove you wrong. Okay, I can understand how you would feel that way and I can see where I did go too far. So I sincerely apologize for that. But even so, I don’t think you seriously considered that I might be OSA, in spite of the fact that Chris kept hinting at that idea, alluding to things like “mission orders”, etc. You did suggest I might be OSA in a recent comment where you were obviously being sarcastic to make a point, but after that you said it would be “a real stretch”. So as I say, I don’t understand why you would be fine on what Chris is doing. You have even come down on mere impoliteness on your blog – which doesn’t come close to what amounts to a smear campaign.

    1. p.s. You did suggest I stop posting here since I am generally in disagreement with the consensus of opinion, but I got that you had mixed feelings about it. And then you put my posts on moderation, so I figured you just wanted to be able to okay what I wrote.

      1. And I hope you’ve noticed that I have not been derailing any threads and am only speaking to the comments being posted.

      2. Has nothing to do with okay’ing what you say. It is the only way I can be sure not to miss your comments and to ensure I respond to your questions.

        1. Got it. However, the post that your reply here is in answer appears to still be in moderation, as is my original post. Will you please respond to the original one too?

        2. Oops, the following should have come under your comment about why you have my posts under moderation:

          So if it’s for my benefit, let me just say that it effectively keeps me from having somewhat of a live comm cycle with anyone. Especially if they post a comment to me somewhere during your night – and even during your day, as the reply is awaiting moderation until you are able to get to it.

          1. It’s not for your benefit. It’s for mine. I want to be able to catch all your comments so that I can respond appropriately.

            1. No. You just have a record of derailing by nitpicking. Derailing is cool, but not when it obfuscates or detracts from main points.

            2. On this thread it disappeared again. But I found it when I copied the URL:

    2. I think you are reading too much into this.

      I tolerate much detailing. But there is of course a limit.

      Make sure you continue to not practice “derailing på nitpicking” and you will be fine.

      1. Reading too much into it? What should I make of a post like this:

        Chris Thompson
        2013-07-19 @ 01:58
        haha Sorry 2x, no can do. Your being offended and my doing something offensive aren’t necessarily related. OSA problems are too insidious and important to ignore. Neither you nor any other implanter on the whole track is going to tell me not to look. You will understand that. Especially ominous are anonymous posters. Threats and tough talk from behind a meaningless IP address over ethernet cable is easy to send with no thought of repercussions. Not good. The immoral willingness of OSA to use any tool to manipulate situations without reservation leaves me utterly without respect for them. Once that cloud of suspicion permeates a persons persona, that person should probably address it to clear things up. My apology to you is “sorry, that’s the way it is.” Oh, and by the way, I’m not OSA, and that’s not TR-Lie.

            1. Isene: Here, I am the beholder.

              Oh great beholder, I and surely others appreciate all the money, time, patience and wisdom you put forth in this unique and helpful site. 😛

          1. I notice your a tough guy when it comes to running your crap on the woman. But chicken shit when it comes to the man you know can whip your ass.

          2. And I also notice you wait until Geir retires for the night and then speak up – knowing that he has me on moderation.

            Yes, the toothpaste is definitely out of the tube.

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