Skip to content

The Bridge to Nowhere

February 10, 2010

For anyone who didn’t notice, Marty Rathbun dropped a major bomb on his blog today.

“For a decade and a half Scientologists were urged to contribute to their local orgs so as to make them the size of Old St Hill as LRH postulated. DM dangled the promise of the release of OT IX and X as the prize when the target was met. DM did this knowing he hasn’t a clue how to compile OT IX and X and couldn’t deliver on the promise if he ever intended to.”

In 1986, at the LRH Memorial Event in Los Angeles, it was announced that LRH had completed the OT Levels up to OT XV. We were told at that event that these levels were fully written up and codified, awaiting only their release by Scientology Management.

That was 24 years ago. Children have been born, grown up and graduated college since that announcement was made.

Only one of these levels has been released, OT VIII. That level was released 21 years ago. And, as noted here, there have been three different versions of OT VIII. Three different versions of a level supposedly “fully compiled” in 1986. But no OT IX and X.


Of course, there has been plenty of talk about OT IX and X. Lots of talk, lots of promises. The release of OT IX and X was supposed to happen, we were told, “when all Orgs reach the size of Old Saint Hill.” Nowadays, one never hears about “Saint Hill Size Orgs.” Now it’s “Ideal Orgs.” And we still hear tantalizing hints about “OT IX and X” – “come to this special briefing and hear about plans to release OT IX and X.” “Donate now and ensure the future release of OT IX and X.”

And OT VIIIs are called to the Freewinds for “OT IX and X Preps.”

But year after year goes by, and these levels are not released.


We all know the Church is desperate for money. We see it in every phone call, every e-mail, every briefing. Don’t you think, if they had new OT Levels in hand, they would find some way to release them? But they don’t.


Here’s the deep, dark secret they don’t want you to know:

They don’t exist.

What does exist, according to former Int Base staff, is a number of file cabinets of LRH’s session folders from the last few years of his life, containing his worksheets and notes. They are not compiled into OT levels. They are not codified in any way. And no one, not even the great David Miscavige, has any idea how to compile them.

Marty added this to the comments section of his post:

“I witnessed David Miscavige with my own eyes and ears twice unequivocally indicate he did not have a clue how to get OT IX and X compiled.”

But, you ask, what about that 1986 event where it was announced that they were fully compiled, all ready for release? Well, just recall what else was announced at that event – for instance, that LRH had handed over the reins to Pat Broeker. Later we were told that wasn’t true. So what else about that event wasn’t true?

What does this mean for Scientologists? Well, you can either wait another 24 years or so, toeing the line, keeping your nose clean, doing whatever the Church says, donating your money, hoping for that promised release of further OT Levels.

Or you can recognize the current Church of Scientology for what it is.

A Bridge to Nowhere.

  1. February 10, 2010 8:55 am

    Ah yes.

    The mysterious vanishing OT levels.


    (begin fair use)

    The subject of Scientology is to some degree developed in reverse order. The task
    was to undercut the current level of Man and this was the general target.

    Therefore one finds the higher levels publicly spoken of most frequently in the earlier books and tapes (between ‘51 and ‘55). In seeking full application to others and attainment for them of their potentials it was necessary to codify the materials and develop processes for them.

    Any difficulties people were having with going Clear were handled in the mid ‘60s and OT levels as they exist in Advanced Orgs were completed by ‘68. There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people’s full attainment of OT VI & VII.

    (end fair use)

    So it’s actually close to thirty four years now.

    • February 10, 2010 5:53 pm

      Thanks RJ. You brought my comm lag to a close. I had this datum of OT levels being in existence that reached to OT22 but I could not connect it up to a source point. “There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII…” Voila! There’s my answer. 🙂

      So, per LRH, OT levels above OTVIII do exist. Obviously, though, they were never organized into applicable processes and apparently there is no one, as of yet, that can make sense out of the notes. Thus, the Bridge awaits completion as the editor of this article suggests with the image he chose to post. Personally, I would not go so far as to say that LRH’s Bridge is a Bridge to nowhere, but it is certainly not a Bridge that is anywhere near complete.

      Perhaps in these notes somewhere there is a clue(s) as to why LRH came to the end that he did.

      • February 11, 2010 5:09 am

        We can only speculate what happened to Ron’s body at that point.

        What Broeker said regarding it being an encumbrance is probably true.

        Remember Ron said something about this in RJ 67 as well.

      • Mickey permalink
        February 11, 2010 5:29 pm

        RJ…interesting comment about the body being an encumbrance. I mean, if some state of OT was apparently achieved by LRH, cause over (m)atter/(e)nergy (the body) (s) (t), be it VII or XXII, I always wondered why the body would be an encumbrance, which reads as being effect of the body. Cause is cause and the body should have danced the jig to the tune and wishes of the OT being.

      • February 12, 2010 12:40 am

        To answer your question, Micky:

        (Begin fair use)

        the mest body should not be thought of as a harbor or vessel for the
        theta being. A better example would be a sliver inserted unwantedly in the thumb
        where the thumb would be the theta being, the mest body the sliver. Mest
        bodies are good identification tags, they generate exciting emotions, they are fun
        to operate at times, but they are no end of existence. (HOM, p. 16)

        (End fair use)

  2. Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
    February 10, 2010 10:22 am

    These is absolutely nothing I have ever observed in an OT 8 milling around that was exemplary or something to emulate. (And I have mingled with several)

    OT8s refuse to go back to Freewinds and there are several of them.

    OT 8s die off of cancer as much as anyone.
    OT 8s get illnesses, pains, aches and are forced to do more OT 7 at more cost.
    OT 8s go bankrupt, leave and resign from the Church and even report gross out tech (Geir Isene) within the Church.

    OT 8s go type III like anyone else. OT 7s commit 1st degree murder Rex Fowler .. and get arrested and charged.

    So why would anyone think the scam of OT 9 and OT 10 will be any better ?

    In the middle of the 1800s PT Barnum said it ~~

    “There’s a sucker born every minute”. There are sadly a lot of dupes who want to be part of the circus.

  3. February 10, 2010 5:18 pm

    After having paid for my OT8, I began to notice that none of the OT8 completions showed signs of abilities that I would care to emulate. After several years of Q&A on my part, I decided I would not do the level.

    This was in stark contrast to my reactions on seeing OT III completions and “Ls” completions. Most of these people exhibited a level of certainty and personal power that was significantly different than their previous state.

    Now it is quite obvious that OTs have a haunted look and are quite cautions about asserting their opinions unless it is to praise their Führer.

    It is not just a Bridge to Nowhere, it is a “Bridge to Unbelievable Degradation”.

    How many OTs are at the top of the Scientology Org Board and are shoveling human waste on the RPF at Gold? Heber? Guillaume? ….

  4. Jim Logan permalink
    February 10, 2010 6:03 pm

    The ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ is simply and only, NOT THE ACTUAL BRIDGE! The degree of out-tech that is apparent in DM’s travesty defies words. It is unrecognizable to me as Scientology in many instances at this point. It is REVERSED/BLACK SCIENTOLOGY. That there are those that get gains in spite of the horrendous squirrelling of the actual materials, is a testament to the fact that what is there at least has some vague semblance of LRH technology. It may even be the factor of 22% will get gains on just about anything.

    The gains that I’ve made using actual LRH technology, studied. drilled and applied, are equally beyond words.

    The states exist. They can be attained. Whether you as an individual attain them is up to you and how much you put into it. And that ‘put into it’ is categorically NOT how much money you spend. If you get a session where the auditor stares myopically at the meter waiting for a 3 swing FN and you take it, then YOU are missing the other half of the Bridge, the real Bridge and no matter how many intensives you buy, that auditor’s out tech will persist until YOU say NO! I demand LRH’s Scientology and I won’t stand for anything else.

    Hey, Safeguarding Technology is every body’s hat, and it you don’t wear it, well, no need to look any further for why the Bridge appears to go ‘nowhere’.

    • William B. permalink
      February 11, 2010 2:04 am

      Yeah. When you get to “True OT”, give me a call. You’ll just know my number.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 12, 2010 5:30 am

        Jim Logan

        Boy, you are so good.


    • William B. permalink
      February 13, 2010 4:12 am

      I love this. The reason Scientology fails someone, when it does, is their fault. The reason no one has made it to OT is their fault. The reason there are no more OT levels is their fault.

      That’s real nice.

      And because I don’t think that’s right, I’m a “Suppressive person”.

      You know, that’s one gigantic service fac, and it is built right into the very core of Scientology.

      Real nice.

  5. sherrymk permalink
    February 11, 2010 4:59 am

    Well..I have one question and probably directed at Logan.
    Does it make sense to you that Ron would simply “depart the body”, go off to “Target 2” as a “full OT” himself to do “more research” and simply leave a bunch of worksheets in PC folders for “us” to figure out, compile, make into the upper OT levels? Does that sound like the Ron you know? or I know? Leaving it up to us (whether it’s “RTC” or whomever) to interpret what he “really means”. It’s about as far fetched to me in my mind as it is to say that Ron never realized that his books, the main line of his dissemination, were incorrect, contained errors from editors, were missing chapters etc etc.

    It’s not all about DM altering Scientology when we’re talking about these upper OT levels. It IS about the “bridge to nowhere” or “the bridge to not where we were promised”. That DM is using, to suit his own demonic purposes, the carrot of the upper OT levels to hold over the heads of every OT, is a fact, without a doubt. He’s a criminal.

    But, this quote from the policy RJ references “There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people’s full attainment of OT VI & VII.” leaves one wondering. If Ron wrote that in 1973…how could he possibly have just left all these 15 levels “fully developed” “in unissued note form” and simply “depart for target 2” . The year of LRH’s demise 1986 was also the Maiden Voyage of the Freewinds, if I remember correctly. OT Vlll was released. Obviously the “pending more people’s full attainment of OTVl and Vll” was no longer in the “pending” state. One would think Ron would have realized this. huh?

    There is an illogic here. And something definitely stinks in the fish barrel.

    • February 11, 2010 5:26 am

      Sherry, I would like to respond to your post by saying that I very much agree with you, “There is an illogic here. And something definitely stinks in the fish barrel.” Regardless of how much we continue to disclose the atrocities of DM and with one story after another demonstrate how The CoS as it once was is no more and that it has been replaced with this enormous insanity, I continue to have the lions share of my attention directed at that point in time when Ron dropped the body. For me, that is where the story begins….no, that’s not right. Saying that is where the story begins is like saying the reason I don’t have any memory of what the last four pages I read in the book were about is because I have an MU on the current page I’m reading. The answer to my blankness came BEFORE my blankness. Where was I last doing good? The answer is in there somehwere. So, I find myself asking, when was Ron last doing well? The answer is in there somewhere.

      So many things just don’t add up and, as of yet, I have not come across any “answer” (lots of no answers) by anyone that actually answers what the hell happened. And, personally, while I am secure in knowing what I know to be true in Scientology, up to where I am on the Bridge (Clear) and what I have gained in my many experiences as a Scientologist, I will not have any trust in Scientology beyond what I know, until such time I get my questions answered about what happened with Ron.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 11, 2010 1:17 pm

        I am in complete agreement with both Sherry and P.Henry on this. The question of what happened to LRH toward the end of his life, and especially the truth surrounding his death, has not been answered to my satisfaction by anyone. Not knowing WTF was going on with him for the last several years of his life, when he was in hiding and from all appearances (again, no reliable data) in a decline, leaves me unable to evaluate claims by either side of this issue. We know that LRH was not only connected to an undetected sp (dm), but that sp was his only terminal for information coming and going about both the entire church organization and much of the world for those years.

        I would LIKE to believe that LRH left everything taped, and that it was all done and safely tucked away long before he died. The problem for me is that I have just recently had the startling and embarrassing realization that I have accepted WAY too much on faith, and much of that turns out to have been lies.

        So I’m less interested in accepting on faith that these levels exist, and much more interested to know who has seen these OT levels, IX through XV?
        What is the basis for asserting that they do indeed exist? Anybody? Or are these to become the Holy Grail of scientology, rumored to exist, sought by many but discovered by none?

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 11, 2010 4:36 pm

      My ex-wife worked for LRH for close to twenty years. She lived right next door to him, all the way to the day he died. While living there, she spent a good deal of time with him and was there frequently following his daily auditing, in his Bluebird. She very clearly told me that the materials in question exist, in fact, LRH discussed them with her often enough.

      The notes he refers to were, by his order, to be in the charge of Pat Broeker, Annie’s husband at that time. Marty Rathbun has described how these materials were taken by DM.

      I certainly can’t account for your personal experience since I don’t have enough data on what that entails. I can account for my own. It has been everything and so much more than I ever thought it would be. There are no guarantees on the road to truth, each must travel with their own effort. You appear to me to feel you’ve been ‘short-changed’ and if I’m mistaken then I apologize. My question, since I have no such feeling, in fact, I’ve gotten way more than I thought I would, is whether or not LRH ‘short-changed’ you or some other factors are involved. It is just such a complete contradiction to my experience. Makes me wonder.

      • fishdaddy permalink*
        February 11, 2010 6:42 pm

        Jim, (continuing our respectful discussion!)

        Different people have had very different experiences with Scientology. I have talked with many, many people about their Scientology experience and it ranges all the way from glowing success with all of Scientology (like yourself) through partial successes, some things working and some not, all the way to majorly negative experiences. It is tempting, if one believes in the tech, to attribute every success to the tech, and every failure to some other factor (misapplication, PTS, etc.). Thus one’s belief in the tech remains pure. Believe me, I did this many times as a Scientologist. But at some point, when you hear that someone did not get results, you have to respect them and what they say. And not assume it’s because there is something “wrong” with them or they didn’t do it right.

      • Mickey permalink
        February 11, 2010 6:51 pm

        Thanks fishdaddy for having the you-know-whats to call out this point. The arrogance expressed at times just slays me. Talk about the hubris of the “all knowing”, not knowing what is true for another or their experiences.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 11, 2010 7:32 pm

        I certainly haven’t ‘blamed the pc’ for blatantly, egregiously bad technical application, in any statement that I’ve made and I certainly have no such consideration. I’m not sure where you got that idea as it isn’t anything I’ve expressed. You may be thinking of someone else. Not me.

        Hubris? Hardly. I know what works, as any professional in any field does. Is that hubris or certainty?

    • fishdaddy permalink*
      February 11, 2010 7:46 pm

      Jim, didn’t mean to accuse you of anything, sorry if it came across that way. But, if I’ve read your writings correctly, your viewpoint is that if a technical application succeeds, it was done correctly, and if it fails, it’s because it was not done correctly. Is that an accurate representation?

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 11, 2010 8:24 pm

        Ahh, were it so simple, eh? Not to play cat and mouse with this, but technical application, success or failure, is a much broader topic than the sort of black or white representation you’ve suggested of my viewpoint on the matter. I’ll give ‘er a go though.

        On the one hand, you’ve already suggested that with successful application ‘it is tempting to…attribute every success to the tech’, which is apparently a view, on your part, that there are other reasons for success, which reasons I can only guess. I’ll toss one out, risking being wrong, and say ‘the placebo effect’.

        There are apparently postulated that some 22% of a sample population that will respond to just about anything. With that premise, which is one LRH had, the remainder of the population was the issue. And with that remainder, there is another percentage that fall under the rubric of PTS/SP phenomena, which case condition is addressed with specific techniques and administrative, so-called, handlings. This is postulated in various issues of which one is CS Series 22 Psychosis as roughly 15-20%. There is, according to HCOB 29 Sept 65 Issue V, The Continuing Overt Act, a percentage of .1 that are extremely difficult cases for any gains. Broadly speaking, this 15-20% of the CS Series 22 issue, includes a 2.5 % ‘SP’ and of that .l % really, really ‘nuts’.

        So, assuming the 22% who respond to just about anything, and taking some of the 15-20% and handling the PTS condition, and for a smaller percent the case condition of SP. Then, for a very small percent, from the above Continuing Overt Act materials, they are ‘hard to help’ as it were.

        For the rest, yes, clearly it is my reality that success of the techniques is because they are workable and when applied according to the disciplines and protocols of the materials, they succeed because they are soundly based on fact. Those facts being expressed in the Axioms of both Dianetics and Scientology, the Pre-Logics, the Factors and such ‘basics’. Which basics are the materials from which ANY process or technique derive.

        As to ‘lack of success’ there could be numerous reasons, for a particular case, that results were poor or non-existent. I would have to consider such a case individually to come to a rational conclusion as to ‘what went wrong’ on that exact case. It is my reality, and based on my own observation and experience, that some aspect of the material was violated to account for the ‘no result’ or ‘poor result’.

        What exactly? Couldn’t say unless I had the case and its history. However, yes. I most certaintly do consider and will state unequivocably, ‘no result or poor results’ are categorically from a violation of Keeping Scientology Working.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 11, 2010 8:28 pm

        Lest my new statement be misconstrued, even for that .1%, there are techniques. Whether or not they are applied depends on first, the person sitting still long enough to have them applied. That determinism on that person’s part being operative as NO auditing or training should ever be carried out in the absence of such self-determinism. That’s a clearly stated part of the protocols and disciplines of the subject.

    • fishdaddy permalink*
      February 11, 2010 9:43 pm

      Interesting discussion Jim. Sure, there could be many reasons for a person getting better. What is called the “placebo” effect is part of it. I don’t know where Hubbard got his 22% – studies of the placebo effect vary greatly depending on what condition is being studied. There might be several factors in the success of a session. One is the person’s own expectation that they will get better. Another might be the repeated positive reinforcement of group validation, applause, and encouragement. Another might be just the fact of sitting down with someone and having them listen to you – which in my experience is pretty powerful in any context, inside and outside of Scientology.

      I don’t know if there ever has been a study – or ever will be a study – of the number of people who have been helped by Scientology processes versus the number who were not helped. What percent, in other words, felt they were helped by processing and what percent felt they were not. Unfortunately the people who were not tend to depart and fall away from Scientology, so they are not available to study.

      I know from being in marketing that there is a steep falloff as you go up the Bridge. Only something like 1% or 2% of the people taking Div 6 courses ever make it to an AO or Flag. So why did they stop? Why did they not continue?

      As I say, it would make an interesting study, but I doubt such a study would ever be done.

  6. February 11, 2010 6:54 am

    Okay, first of all these are notes like it says in the HCOBs I just referenced. Not just “work sheets” in Ron’s Pre OT folders.

    According to Pat Broeker there is a stack of them about three feet high which are probably safely tucked away in some under ground hermetically sealed vault in Petrolia California at the Church of CIA er…I mean Spiritual Technology.

    Yes Ron’s death seems mysterious, now looking back in the rear view mirror, but honestly did it seem so then?

    Myself, when I heard RJ 39 I knew then that the Ol’man had decided to depart and that he did all he could to make the tech available to others and he was turning over that hat to RTC and Management.

    That they goofed the floof has nothing to do with Ron personally.

    Unless your into Ron is either the God or the Devil and no one else is capable of independent or self determined action.

    Also, let’s not all go Agatha Christie like RVY!

    Ask yourselves instead who would have a vested interest in preventing these materials from ever seeing the light of day?

    • February 11, 2010 4:56 pm

      First, I want to acknowledge that I very much appreciate the dialogue that’s ocurring here on this topic. Personally, I’m finding the exchange to be quite helpful. Since my discovering this group of beings who refer to themseves as being Independent Scientologists (Indies), I have noticed that whenever the topic of what happened to LRH comes onto the table it is quickly moved off the table in one way or another. I wonder about this as it puzzles me. The intention is unclear. But that is not what I want to address in this post. What I want to do in this post (blogment) is, not make a point, but rather attempt to explain why it is that I have so much attention on this particular matter. LOL! As I typed that sentence this phrase came into my space, “what the pc says is wrong with him is not what is wrong with him.”

      I see that what is hanging me up here is my view of LRH, who he was and what he was capable of. In other words, how OT I considered this being to be. At some point early on my Scn timetrack, I read a reference where Ron says something to the effect that he could not “teach” us unless we already knew what he was “teaching” us. And in the book FOT he writes, “Scientology of all the sciences does not teach you – it only reminds you, for the information was yours in the first place. It is not only the science of life, bit is an account of what you were doing before you forgot what you were doing.” The instant I came across this comm it rang loud and true for me and this is how I have always viewed Scn and how I explained Scn to others. From the moment I picked up DMSMH and began reading to now, I’ve been engaged in the process of remembering who I really am, what I really am, and what I am doing here.

      I have never come across any other spiritual leader, guru, etc., that has produced such a comprehensive body of work regarding the human mind, the organism and the spiritual being as what LRH did. And, in so doing, he managed to have this enormously intricate and detailed mass of data dovetail so effectively and consistently.

      When a person like myself reads books like 8-8008, History of Man, Hymn of Asia, Creation of Human Abilities, Mission Into Time, Have You Lived Before This Life?….And then listen to such taped lectures as those contained in the PDC, The Phoenix Lectures, The Whole Track lectures, The Timetrack of Theta lectures and so on and so forth, one cannot help but fabricate a view of how OT this being known as LRH must be. And, even in your wildest imaginings of how OT this guy is, you have this feeling that you’re still probably missing it. In other words, this being is more OT than it is possible for you to imagine. And as wild as it might be, and as unreal as it might at times seem, it nevertheless, resonates within you as being the truth.

      With this in mind, and then I read comments that tell how LRH was being fed false reports by DM – my knee jerk response is WTF?! And I find myself asking, “How in the hell did LRH get himself into a position where he needed someone to give him reports? The LRH I knew or, I guess it would be more accurate to say, the LRH I had mocked up, would have long since passed the point where he would have required “reports” from anyone to know what was going on. So there it is. This is where it just doensn’t fit for me. So, my mock-up of Ron is either incredibly erroneous, which I’m not ready to accept because if my mock-up is that far off base, then my view of Scn is also way off base. Or, something really went wrong. And I don’t care what anybody says, DM was never OT enough to do LRH in. I believe something went bad way before DM ever got to the CMO and it’s so incredible that we cannot view it.

      RJ, I don’t see why we shouldn’t go Agatha Christie on this.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 11, 2010 6:06 pm

        P Henry,
        I have no idea WTF you are talking about on ‘moving off the table’ the subject of LRH. I have done no such thing. In fact, I addressed it directly. So, WTF are you talking about? Please and thank you.

        Next, the point you make from such materials as FOT and what Scn ‘teaches’ is absolutely correct. All the truth you will ever find is within you.

        Third, your two-valued conclusion, it’s A or it’s B misses a whole lot of in between. Your image of LRH, and any lack you construe on his part to live up to that image or your image of what OT surely must be, sounds exactly like a Hidden Standard. That’s HCOB 8 Nov 65.

  7. Editor permalink*
    February 11, 2010 6:23 pm

    RJ, you say “these are notes like it says in the HCOBs I just referenced. Not just “work sheets” in Ron’s Pre OT folders. According to Pat Broeker there is a stack of them about three feet high which are probably safely tucked away in some under ground hermetically sealed vault in Petrolia California.”

    You state emphatically that they are notes, not worksheets. Is that based on personally seeing them, or someone else you know personally seeing them? What are you basing this on? You are quoting Pat Broeker – is that from speaking to him or from something he has written?

    • February 11, 2010 9:37 pm


      I talked to someone who was at Creston many years ago who told me they were kept in a safe at the Ranch.

      Also there was an SOED regarding this fact after Ron’s requiem is ’86 which was later issued in International Scientology News as an article.

      Anyone who has worked with Ron knows he meticulously kept notes on any research he was working on. The idea that he would randomly audit upper level materials on himself without leaving instructions or platens on what he did and how he did it, is patently absurd!

      • Editor permalink*
        February 11, 2010 10:19 pm

        Well, until something concrete surfaces, it’s just conjecture. What we do know is that nothing has been released in 24 years. My own view is that if the Church had ’em, they’d find a way to release ’em, even if just for the added income.

      • February 12, 2010 12:14 am

        If this were true than Super Power would have been released some time back. Yet it hasn’t.

        This whole operation goes beyond greedy lil’ Davey as far as I’m concerned and though there may be monetary concerns there is also actual fear of what might happen if the levels above VIII were released.

        Not only that, but there are logistical problems as well, such as putting an OT Review Team in place which means getting Sea Org members trained and up through those levels themselves.

        Also just saying they don’t exist is purely speculative as well.

        Have you personally toured the CST vaults yourself and confirmed this as fact?

  8. February 11, 2010 8:05 pm

    Jim, here is what I wrote:

    “Since my discovering this group of beings who refer to themseves as being Independent Scientologists (Indies), I have noticed that whenever the topic of what happened to LRH comes onto the table it is quickly moved off the table in one way or another. I wonder about this as it puzzles me. The intention is unclear.”

    Please note Jim that the above satement is just that. A statement of my personal obseravtion. It is general not specific. I am not calling anyone out. Then I also note that what I have observed causes me to wonder and that I’m puzzled by it. Also, I’m unclear as to the intention of what I’m observing.

    Jim, why are you taking this personally?

    As far as my two-valued logic…yes, it’s two-valued. The mock-up of LRH that I held for so long to be truth is either erroenous or something really went wrong. If something didn’t go really wrong then my mock-up of LRH, which included a host of OT abilities, was inaccurate or, if my mock-up of how OT LRH was, even close to being accurate, then something did go really wrong. What lies in between those two points of consideration is only a matter of – degrees-of for either one.

    Hidden standard? Ummm….I don’t think so.

    If I were to go through each of the LRH references that I cited in my previous post, I could easily glean from those materials statements from Ron describing the state of OT and various abilities of OT that if compiled in one place would provide both a detailed and enormously embracive view of an OT as well as the abilities and potential abilities of an OT. But, such a project is not feasible for me at this time. Therefore, in lieu of taking on such a task, I offer the following definitions from the glossary in 8-8008.

    Operating Thetan: a state of beingness. It is a being “at cause over matter, energy, space, time form and life.”

    Cleared Theta Clear: a thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe, is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.

    Okay, if, at the very minimum, I considered LRH to be a being who fulfills and is capable of demonstrating the definition of Operating Thetan and Cleared Theta Clear as given above, then there is no way in hell that LRH should have ended up like he did. Unless, of course, he did so causatively. That said, perhaps the LRH that the few people in the last few years were in contact with was not actually LRH but, instead, an illusion that he was knowingly and causatively putting there and managing from a distance. Which, if he was indeed a Cleared Theta Clear, by definition, he would be capable of doing.

    Jim, does it not surprise you in the least that LRH came to the end that he did? Does it not surprise you that a being the magnitude of LRH could be so easily decieved and have his legacy stolen out from under his very nose?

    Back to what Sherry said, “Something stinks in the fish barrel.”

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 11, 2010 9:54 pm

      I didn’t take what you said as a generality (PH, “general not specific”) personally. I pointed out in fact that I had directly related personal data and experience on as you say ‘the end’ of that life for that being. I’ve relayed elsewhere, (IFA Chat, Scn Cult, Marty’s blog and various other places) my data and description of LRH from a person who, just short of feeling his pulse stop, was there. I’ve read communication from him and listened to taped briefings from him during this time period and this ‘mystery’ surrounding his last years is not a mystery I and various others have. You do.

      I hope that you resolve it for yourself, DM’s obfuscation of the facts, notwithstanding.

    • sherrymk permalink
      February 11, 2010 10:17 pm

      Playing more of the devil’s advocate here. P.Henry references what is exactly the point here. Either LRH was in fact full OT with all those abilities etc or he, in truth, thought they were a good idea, thought they could possibly be attained at some point, imagined that they were possible, attempted, thru his research, to reach those states with those abilities, but, in reality, just couldn’t get there, let alone codify them to be delivered to others.

      I actually wouldn’t much care one way or the other, if it were not for the deception that has been wrought upon us all these years, dangling these supposed abilities and states of being in our face. That he was brilliant at compiling and organizing data that in a lot of instances are useful tools, can barely be disputed. However, when it comes to the particular area of the OT Levels, many things just don’t compute.

      I don’t think it’s a simple matter of what my or anyone else’s personal experiences have been with Scientology tech working or not working or sometimes working etc. It’s a matter of the truth. Can these levels and abilities and states of existence be attained thru Hubbard’s OT Levels or not? If so, where’s the proof? Certainly not with any of the OTVllls I know and I know the majority of them. With LRH himself? It doesn’t appear so. If not, fine, then spit the truth out and let us all get on with using the parts of Scientology that do work for us. Or not. Admission of the truth is what I’m most interested in.

      And Logan, you continue to present your case (responses) based on your belief in the infallibility of Scientology tech. As if nothing anyone says has any credence or value if it doesn’t “fit” into some Scientology principle or axiom or PL or HCOB. If one has a fixed “Scientology always works if applied” , then you have cut off the fruits of your own observation. It’s a like a continuing service fac over which one can not think logically. (if you want to use Scientology terminology). You even say “..then applied according to the disciplines and protocols of the materials, they succeed because they are soundly based on fact.” and you go on to state that the “facts” you mean are the axioms, factors etc of Scientology! And, as in a classic demonstration of a service fac, you seem not to be able to think logically when anyone dares to challenge these “facts”.

      What if everything Ron wrote wasn’t necessarily “fact” or even workable in HUMANS and what if the tech really doesn’t “always work if applied correctly”? Just what if… Perhaps a little research on your part into what comprises real scientific research. You might find that in actual scientific research, one doesn’t start out with “knowing this to be fact” then base their findings on that pre-conceived idea. If you are trying to see if a product will produce weight loss, and you have test cases of 50 people, and 20 people lose weight and 30 do not, the researcher would not then write in his findings that “the product works100% of the time as evidenced by the cases that lost weight. The 30 cases it seemingly did not work on obviously didn’t take the product correctly, had spouses opposed to them taking the product or simply had their own counter intention to losing the weight.”

      (for those of you interested, here is an acct given by Robert Vaughn Young of LRH’s death )

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 11, 2010 10:40 pm

        Ms. Katz,
        I’m not surprized that many of the people you refer to have not demonstrated ‘OT’ abilities for you. You yourself apparently are miffed by not achieving what it was you thought was there to be achieved. I’m afraid , this generalized upset you may have, is not mine. I’ve done quite well with the materials and have achieved every bit of the predictions of L. Ron Hubbbard for each and every Grade I honestly and factually attained.

        If today, you as an OT manque, are seeking answers to your questions in science or seance, have at it.

        Good luck to you.

      • sherrymk permalink
        February 11, 2010 11:25 pm

        Yes..I am miffed. Deception seems to have that effect on me. However, I have an objective mind to complement my subjectivity and am willing to be wrong. When you do the OT Levels, these being the subject of the blog posts here, please, and I mean this sincerely, let me know if those OT abilities that Ron describes in so many places have been achieved by you. I’ll take anything that fits consistently and verifiable with “cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life.”

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 11, 2010 11:35 pm

        Ms. Katz,
        I’m proceeding nicely on those OT levels. Nicely indeed.

        I DO understand you are miffed.

    • February 11, 2010 11:44 pm


      I agree with Sherry’s and your assessment that “Something stinks in the fish barrel.”

      That Ron was the effect of someone like Miscavige working alone is to me a laughable premise. Miscavige alone does not have that much power. Personally I think people assign this little poison dwarf too much stature. Way too much cause in my opinion.

      However, you have to look at the fact that there were many distractions going on at the time.

      Such as the recent at that time situation with the GO and the fact that its counter intelligence capability was heavily compromised and that the organization at its highest levels had been infiltrated.

      An infiltration that wasn’t handled by Miscavige’s “banning” of the GO.

      No surprises there.

      Despite amputation the gangrene never ceased and now has infected the whole organization.

      (I know many Scientologists find this idea unpopular because it leads to various “conspiracy theories” etc and they’d rather pretend that it’s all easily explainable as the action of one sociopath. Yet as far as I’m concerned blaming all the ills of the organization on Miscavige doesn’t do it for me and I’m sure there are others who feel the same way. However, moving on…..)

      There were also various legal attacks, seeming to originate from multiple sources but in fact may have been just one. The same source that Ron writes about in various GO Directives and talks about in various conferences that he facetiously called SMERSH. A very suppressive and organized group of fascists who were and are antipathetic to any constructive group that challenges the status quo.

      Guess what?

      When Miscavige announced the “war is over” and that we had achieved some kind of “victory” and that it was the IRS exclusively responsible for the attacks against Scientology all those years.

      He lied!

      All you have to do is read the “secret closing agreement” itself to see his lack of veracity!

      The same people who want to censor the internet for “our own good” to stop “terrorists” and “child pornographers” etc. Fall under this category as well. Their purpose is to stop things. They have a fascist mentality and believe that they are the elite of planet earth.

      These are the people Ron talks about in the HCOPL ‘Current Planning’ and the fact is no matter how much OSA brags about their “successes” in this area, they haven’t gone away!

      (I had to laugh when several years ago they were exclaiming in a Ron mag how they had completely dismantled the WFMH and how they were a thing of the past etc…..

      Obviously another false stat.)

      So it is understandable why the Ol’man went into seclusion to wrap up the bridge and get the OT Levels into a usable form before he succumb to extreme stresses that he was under at the time.

      Why despite personal danger to himself physically he developed NOTs so that others could make it to full OT as well.

      He had already surpassed OT VIII himself many years earlier. He really did not require a rundown like NOTs personally.

      Yet the scenario is so similar to what happened to the Ol’man before he discovered section III OT.

      I suggest listening to RJ 67 again.

      Why do think it was called the “second wall of fire”?

      Finally in closing. Do you think Ron enjoyed living in a body on such an abberrated planet?

      As he says in Scientology: Clear Procedure Issue One December 1957:

      (begin fair use)

      Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this-look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

      If I have fought for over a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

      I’ll not always be on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

      You won’t always be here.

      But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons- “The work was free keep it so.”

      (end of fair use)

  9. Thought provoking permalink
    February 12, 2010 12:46 am

    This blog has taken many twists and turns and had some strong viewpoints (and seemingly, lots of BPC) to boot. I guess that is to be expected with a title like The Bridge to Nowhere.

    Some things I’d like to comment on:

    fishdaddy, although I agree with your general statement regarding the fall off of public from Div 6 to AO, I think the figures probably have a lot of omitted factors. For example, I have been a Scientologis for over 30 years. I went to and AO once because our org was not able to handle CCRD cycles. I didn’t drop off at all, just didn’t progess much up the bridge.

    As far as LRH’s death and the info that has been presented here I have to ask what would Jim benefit in telling us his wife says things were okay up till the end. I think it is plausible that there is nothing strange in this regard.

    Lastly, I am saddened to hear so many losses in using the tech. It was the sheer magic of the tech that made me want to be on staff again. I wanted to help others go up the bridge and get what I got. I thought it was what everyone else who was moving up the bridge got as well. Seeing that this was not the case for everyone, I understand the BPC that is coming up and I am hoping that Scientology done standardly in a non suppressive environment will enable others to experience what I was able to get.

    My own personal experience is very much like Jim’s. The only time that I had any trouble was as a result of a few factors all of which were corrected. The first being misunderstoods as a very early Scientologists. The second was being off purpose for the action I was doing and I was other determined as a result. What I really wanted to do was KTL (since it was a pilot course) and was awarded something else (my grades). When I spotted the problem, wrapped up the action and routed onto KTL everything got handled. I didn’t have any trouble after that and everything (training and processing) after that was utterly phenomenal. The final thing that I ran into was a PTS situation that I felt couldn’t be handled so I disconnected.

  10. John Doe permalink
    February 12, 2010 2:02 am

    Emotions can run high in this area. Everybody remember to breath!

    The circumstances surrounding LRH’s death need to be explained by those that were there. The only account extant seems to be Vaughn Young’s. Jim Logan has second hand accounts from his former wife. And Sarge, bless him, has a first hand account, and truly has us glued to Marty’s blog waiting for each installment.
    I am prepared for getting whatever the story actually is. I don’t want it sugar coated or embellished. I want the truth.

    Hopefully, after DMs fall, we can get Pat Broeker to speak, and Annie Tidman too. Their accounts would be MOST helpful getting to the truth.

    As far as the upper OT levels: There is a tremendous amount of speculation that is and has occurred for years about this subject, mainly because of a lack of information, or more accurately, information that one feels is trustworthy.

    My speculation: There are adequate notes, worksheets, etc., to compile more OT levels. But what makes anyone think that with the amount of out-ethics and out-tech rampant at the highest levels of the organization, that the admin would be in anything less that a shambles, let alone be in a state capable of compiling these upper levels?

    Joe Howard points out that Super Power was successfully piloted with 20 PCs in the early ’90s, but that auditors capable of delivering it cannot be produced. But the materials do exist.

    • February 12, 2010 10:43 am

      I’m with you JD and I wait with bated breath for Sarge’s next installment on Marty’s blog.

      I guess we can call this whole facet of blogs and comments “As the Group Engrams Runs” much like that soap opera of note that I transposed the name from.

      Regarding, Sherry’s comments on OT abilities. I’ve seen and experienced some incredible OT phenomena. Stuff Ron talks about in the earlier books and lectures.

      So I know they exist.

      Personally in my opinion the current OTs rarely encounter these phenomena because they are not part of the current line up of the “New” OT levels.

      Did you ever ask yourself if all these levels above III are called “New” OT IV, V, VI, etc.

      Whatever happened to the “old” ones?

      Never mind the ones above VIII, that there seems to be raging dispute over their existence.

      Talk about lost technology!!!!!

      I doubt though if you’ll find Miscavige putting that right any time soon.

      What and wreck that cozy relationship he’s got going with the USG!!!

      • John Doe permalink
        February 13, 2010 4:50 pm

        RJ makes a point. If the church wanted to release more OT levels to get the income from it, well, the “old” OT levels could be repackaged as New OT 9, 10, etc.

        Re higher OT levels being released: I think a significant problem is that there is no one remaining at Int who is of the technical stature necessary to compile the stuff. Phoebe Mauer has been gone for quite a while and Dan Koon and others have left the SO.

        In Ron’s Journal 39, LRH writes in such a way as to hint that he felt he had a limited amount of time left on earth. Don’t you think he would have ensured he had written up enough about the levels so as to allow them to be compiled? I don’t remember which issue he said this, but he did say something very close to, “OT technology is my hat, releasing it is theirs.”(int management’s)

        And more than just worksheets and notes, I would think. After all, he did have enough time to write the 10 volumes of Mission Earth.

  11. Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
    February 12, 2010 6:30 am

    Rebel ~~

    You write beautifully.

    Are you familiar with a Marketing publication called ADweek ? The former Managing Editor Jim Edwards published this today ~~
    Rebel, I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions on this ::::::::

    Scientology Uses “Secret” CraigsList Ads to Recruit New Members

    By Jim Edwards | Feb 11, 2010

    The Church of Scientology is advertising “secretly” on CraigsList’s
    activity partners section. A recent post from a miffed user in
    Phoenix complains:

    All these ads (below) lead to Scientology, yet NOWHERE is it
    mentioned in ANY of these ads that they are from Scientology.

    BNET opened up a couple of the ads and noted they feature the same
    number but different names, “Skye” and “Joan.” A call to Skye/Joan
    was answered by a man who said, “Hello, Church of Scientology …”

    The ads use innocuous-sounding headlines such as “Evening classes”
    or “Group for spiritual people,” and say things like:

    If you love learning about life and gaining more wisdom, you’ll
    love us …

    … If you are interested in what we do, what we have learned, or
    if you want to attend a free life improvement lecture given by us,
    call (602) 954-1417. Ask for Joan.

    Here’s one. And here’s another.

    Scientology last year launched a new advertising campaign, “Know
    Yourself — Know Life,” which gained some notoriety. The church is
    also suffering from the defection of some of its members into
    dissident groups, and attacks by an anti-Scientology group called
    “Anonymous.” The CL commenter concludes:

    Why would a church behave in a sneaky manner like this? Could
    it be that they know they are thought of as a cult by many, so
    they’re ashamed or afraid to mention their own faith?

    * Related:
    * Q&A: Scientology Marketer Describes ‘Stinking Horrible Mess’
    Inside Church
    * Former Scientology Marketing Chief Speaks Out After Leaving
    * Church of Scientology Runs Commercials on CNN
    * Slap Chop Pitchman Vince Shlomi Alleges Scientologists Ripped
    Him Off for Millions

    Tags: Craigslist, Advertisement, Scientology, Jim Edwards

    Jim Edwards, a former managing editor of Adweek, has covered drug
    marketing at Brandweek for four years, and is a former Knight-
    Bagehot fellow at Columbia University’s business and journalism
    schools. Follow him on Twitter or send him an email.

  12. February 12, 2010 2:30 pm

    I thought that I was finished with this thread and would not be making any further posts. I thought wrong. There’s some summing up that I want to do. Also, I would like to reiterate that I truly appreciate the dialogue that has emerged on this thread around this topic. Looking at this matter through the multiple viewpoints as presented here as been quite rewarding for me. Indeed, I consider this thread valuable enough to save in my “LRH Mystery ” folder where I’m compiling any data that I can find on this matter.

    Like Sherry and John Doe have expressed, I too want to get to the actual truth completely void of sugar coatings, embellishments and any conjecture. I’m also aware that such a need, want, desire is a very tall order. In fact, it just might be an improbability. That said, the pursuit of this truth is not my new “cause” and it is not something that I will allow to derail me from my path of self-discovery and spiritual evolution. So while I’ve decided to put this “mystery” over into the pending tray, I have not completely left it alone. I have assigned a few attention units to keep track of any new data that might come forth that would give me cause to move the matter from the pending tray to the IN-box.

    The subject of OT and incredible, almost unimaginable OT abilities for me has never been a subject that required my believing it. Instead, reading what Ron wrote about OT and listening to all he had to say about the state throughout his many lectures was just a process of being reminded of something that I already knew but had almost forgotten. And just in the process of being reminded of these states of existence I experienced tremendous gain!

    Although the state of OT did not require my belief, the notion that LRH had developed a workable way to regain those states did. I had to believe in LRH and I did. And, for me, the further I progressed in Scn, the more certainty, belief and faith I had in LRH and his tech. But that level of certainty began to slowly erode and there were many small, seemingly insignificant, contributing factors to that erosion. Two big contributing factors, though, were: When my friend Ed “Skip” Pagel soon after returning from the Freewinds and being OT VIII, suddenly, while exercising, dropped his body. Of course, this happening was alarming. Obvious questions came up but were never answered. The second big factor was when I moved to CW in 93′ and was talking to this person on base who was telling me about this OT VIII who had joined the SO only to soon afterwards be declared an SP. Again, questions but no answers.

    Then in 07′ the BASICS were released and that’s when things really began to unravel for me. And finally, in late November this past year I went to the Internet and began to search and look and read. Thus, the lie I had been living with since LRH’s death was exposed and I had to work myself through that. For an embracive description of that ‘lie’ you can read my account of what I had accepted as truth here in a discussion I was having with Outside the Box:

    Once that humongous lie had been vaporized, the next lie came into view. If LRH did not pass the torch to DM then obviously there were lies that had been told about LRH’s death. So the search began. And once again, more questions than answers.

    I must say that certainly the most difficult thing that I have had to come to terms with, and this dialogue here in this thread has helped me to do so, is that the LRH that I had come to know in my 30+ years as a dedicated Scientologist, was not the LRH who dropped his body on 24 Jan 86. Read the Coroner’s report here:

    The LRH that died in 86′ was not an OT but, instead, was a broken humanoid man. The OT LRH that I knew brought a workable tech into existence. A tech that an average person could apply to themselves and thereby make spiritual gains. The OT LRH brought into existence an incredible delivery system embodied in the CoS. The humanoid LRH that died in 86′ left things in a mess, including his body.

    For Jim Logan there is no mystery in LRH’s death. He has his answers. For me there is indeed a mystery because I am wondering what happened to LRH the OT. The LRH that would never leave a job undone and would certainly not leave such an untidy scene behind.

    As the walls of CoM continue to weaken and inevitably come tumbling down, there are going to be thousands of Scientologists looking for answers, looking for the truth. And the question will be, “Ron, what happened? What went wrong?”

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 14, 2010 12:13 am

      P. Henry, this is beautiful and fully deserves to be an article of it’s own.
      Please consider posting it on Walking Around the Elephant, if you haven’t already.

      You’ve articulated my thoughts and questions so well that I have nothing to add.


  13. February 12, 2010 2:33 pm

    I was on leave, attending a wedding in Toronto, when my then husband came to me to let me know that Quentin had been found in Las Vegas – and he was dead. He didn’t want me to hear about it from someone else.

    I insisted that the newspaper was wrong and that LRH would never allow his son to either be killed or commit suicide. That it was purely a media hype.

    When I returned to CCLA, a dear friend of mine who was GO – told me that yes – the news was true.

    At that point (and we are talking 1976) – LRH was no longer omnipotent, omniscient to me.

    BUT — I continued up the bridge and had many gains. I just stopped assuming that I would become godlike — as the founder himself TO ME wasn’t. And tragically when my father had a untimely death, I knew I was powerless to help those I loved the most. Clearing the planet became — well — who is kidding who? I couldn’t even help my dad.

    IMHO LRH did a masterful job of codifying many truths. Of making a western philosophy that had its roots in eastern thought. Make no mistake, now having studied deeply buddhist philosophy — which has THOUSANDS of ancient, as yet untranslated texts — (obviously I’ve studied those that are translated and they tend to be on the less esoteric side) — eastern approach is different from western approach.

    In the west, we want things — fast, obvious and without much PERSONAL effort. Other than — you pay your money and gets your result. I’m over simplifying here but hopefully you see my point.

    In the east (and LRH said this — they stare at their navels for 30 years) — NO ONE expects to make it to buddhahood in one lifetime. No one. IF you happen to get enlightened (which no one will TELL you – as it would make speculation about the persons abilities rampant, for one thing) — in THIS lifetime – it is because of the 100s of previous lifetimes a person had been working on it.

    ANYWAY — I’m sorry to see what I view as contentious communication on this board. Sherry has upsets and valid points. As does Jim Logan as do we all, I think.

    It’s really really important IN MY VIEW that we not allow our OWN minds to get divided. Once we start to create our OWN divide in our mind, then our OWN growth becomes hampered.

    Somehow — each of us have to figure out how, in our own way — to take what was our scientology life and marry it to our current life. Whether our current life is actively getting auditing as an independent, never getting auditing again, becoming a christian, buddhist, orthodox jew, sufi, Eckard Tolle devotee, scientist or just a person who takes each day as it comes.

    Division IS what creates a hell on earth. In buddhism it’s called dualism or dualistic thinking and is predicated on … object and subject.

    Anyway — in truth — I feel we are all working on our own paths and using whatever tools we have to hand. It’s when we think those tools ARE truth that we fall flat. Tools only POINT TO the truth. (just to be clear – LRH provided TOOLS)

    Truth itself is beyond concept and thus beyond words.


    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 12, 2010 7:11 pm

      With all due respect to your Bhuddist beliefs, the breakthrough that LRH made with Scientology obviates this long term birth-death-rebirth and the comment you’ve made ‘no one expects you to reach enlightenment in one lifetime’. Time, is the arbtirary.

      What is time? LRH worked on this for decades, before Dianetics and throughout the early years as documented in the R&D vols. Just prior to the PDC lectures and the book 8-8008, in London, he had it. It is fully covered, the lead up and speculations and extrapolations, by a sequential study of the R&D and including the London lectures just prior to the PDC. The answer to the question is succintly stated in 8-8008 in two sections. The one titled ‘TIME’ and the one titled ‘HAVINGNESS’.

      In order to fully grasp this, reference to that lead up should be done and that lead up is summarized in the Factors and Scn Axioms. The lectures are a vital aid, as LRH says, these Factors and Axioms may not ‘leap out’ for you. The lectures are details and explanations of the summary that the Factors and Scn Axioms are.

      In mid 50 LRH discusses ARC. He carries on the defintion of these terms through that time and begins to relate these to the so-called ‘variable’ factor, assigned the Greek letter as is tradition in the maths, of theta. ARC are theta manifested. These terms describe theta ‘energy’. Theta is found to be a static, no time, no space, no energy, no matter. But it can create energy, and it does. This creation is in manifested in ARC. It is manifested in ‘attention units’ which are theta energy. It is manifested in dimension points, agreed upon or not by others, and ‘solid’ only because the static says so (that ‘solidity’ and it’s basing on the fact that they are solid because the statics, interacting say so, is now perplexing quantum physics as these little bits seem to be ‘nothing’.)

      The theta being, putting out mock ups with theta energy particles, dimension points, and using ARC, as a manifestation of theta energy, attention units and such (all theta particles created by theta) practices alteration of its creations and considerations that brought about the creations, which creations are theta energy particles, ARC, attentions units, dimension points, interchangeable descriptions of the same theta energy particles, and with alteration gains persistence.

      Persistence of what? The result of be, do (creation) and have. Have is what persists. That have, that mocked up arrangement in the space created by extending points (theta energy particles) to view, and having certain points at the outer edges be ‘anchor points’ defining the space and within those, other particles moved relative to the agreed upon ‘fixed’ anchor points, is the actual manifestation for which the ABSTRACT term, ‘time’ relates. Time is not some other dimension, it is a word to describe that havingness. Nothing had, no time.

      “Time is an abstract manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time occasioned by objects, where an object may be either energy or matter.” 8-8008 under HAVINGNESS.

      “As was earlier discovered in Scientology, the single arbitrary is time. This is because
      time did not exist as such but stemmed from havingness.” ibid.

      “Bluntly, any and all aberrative incidents to be discovered in a preclear are a reversal of
      havingness where the preclear did not want something and had to have it or wanted something
      and could not have it or wanted something and got something else.

      “The entire problem of the future is the problem of goals. The entire problem of goals is
      the problem of possession. The entire problem of possession is the problem of time.

      “Time is impossible without possession of objects.

      “Thus is resolved one of the weightier problems of the human mind. The auditor may
      find it difficult to encompass this principle, since time may continue to exist for him as an
      entity, an unknown and hovering thing.” ibid.

      A time track is simply the consecutive record of points of havingness. Present time objects are condensed theta originated energy. Shrink the space of energy and you get matter. Matter is simply condensed energy. (E=MC2 is an approximation of this fact. It only falls down because in Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, he didn’t define ‘time’ other than to say ‘that which is measured by clocks’. The large scale mechanics of E=MC2 are observable, but they are not the basic consideration.)

      The ‘past’ doesn’t exist in some hovering ‘time’, it only exists as mental image pictures, facsimiles, mocked up, created by theta, pressing up against the previously created and agreed upon dimension points called the MEST universe, with theta energy, as manifested in attention units, ARC and such and having impressed on this newly created theta energy a ‘picture’ of the previously created stuff (see the Factors for how thetans interact to create an agreed upon universe).

      The present is present havingness, the future is ‘will have’. No have, no time.

      So, a thetan, who considers he IS his pictures, which themselves can become pretty solid due to resisting either the agreed upon stuff (MEST) and/or other thetan outputs of theta energy coming at him, or going away, if he wants to hold on to it. The elements of ‘can’t have/must have’ enter in as well and you’ve got yourself a much more solid AND stuck picture and that stuck picture is had, and that’s where he’s ‘stuck in time’. He’s on that havingness, not the present. Or some combination of them both.

      So, ‘time spent in cogniting’ as in the idea it takes lifetimes to become enlightened, is simply because one doesn’t understand the truth of what one is ‘up to’. As soon as you really get what ‘time’ is, nothing more than had, have, will have, as objects which have their source, theta creating points, particles, attention, ARC, and such and either the ‘solid’ ones of agreed upon mock ups called MEST, or ones own or misowned facsimiles, however solid, then one is on the fast track to enlightenment and that’s what Scientology represents.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 12, 2010 9:35 pm

        NOTE: I should have added, that in order to fully grasp this ‘time’ , both the thorough study AND auditing are there. I have understood it intellectually, and now, by experience. Having gained my KRC in both study and auditing. ‘Cause over time’ is much easier when one knows what ‘time’ actually is. The materials I’ve referenced above are added to by the later lectures and in detail in COHA. The subject of time is also in Dn 55, and all the way up the line. Cause over matter, energy, space and time as a fact entails knowing what these are and that KRC comes from study, extrapolation and experience and auditing. Drilling with it is part of both sides of the coin, training and auditing.

  14. Mickey permalink
    February 12, 2010 2:46 pm

    WH…once again you’ve appeared and brought peace.

    As the Hindu Rig Veda states, “Truth is one. The sages know it by many names.”

  15. lunamoth permalink
    February 12, 2010 4:31 pm


    More and more I find my own thoughts, sometimes not fully formed but always recongnizable, in your posts.

    Thanks for always giving a thoughtful and exterior point of view. I’m finding myself, independently of your posts, aligning my personal feelings on religion
    with many you’ve expressed. I value the spiritual philosophy of scientology and
    have used many of the tools for years with success. I have used the tech of auditing to help others and have been myself helped by it.

    But I don’t see institutionalized spirituality in my future, and in fact don’t see it as being a truly spiritual force in the world on the future track, at all. A force maybe, but not a truly spiritual one. I would love to have a conversation about this with you one day.


    • February 13, 2010 3:01 am


      I think you are on to something profound.

      “…I don’t see institutionalized spirituality in my future”

      Enforced institutional spirituality is not an acceptable path to enlightenment or spiritual freedom.

      I see for the first time the possibility for self-organizing spiritual forces to emerge. The traces are already visible, but I expect that the next two years will see an enormous increase in the power of movements that are self-organized and adaptive to the changes in society that they create..

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 13, 2010 6:13 pm

        Old Auditor,

        Yes! And the self-organized model for social movements already exists, and while it’s still largely unrecognized by the culture within which it is growing, it IS growing in size and power, according to Paul Hawkins (Blessed Unrest).

        And as one would expect, what is occurring on the 3rd, 4th and 7th dynamics is also occurring on others. I recommend Elizabet Satouris’ book Earth Dance for a beautiful description and analysis of how this social/spiritual evolution is now becoming manifest both in the culture and on the 5th and 6th dynamics. Fascinating and sublimely beautiful!

        Now that we have pulled our collective head out of , er, church, we are able to see it!


  16. Virgil Samms permalink
    February 12, 2010 5:03 pm

    All of you have wandered into the woods while this discussion was taking place and now you are lost.

    Look – the reason we are indies, the reason for all the posting in the first place with Marty’s blog and this blog are because we are railing against the Mother of All Squirrels – not because we don’t like him, but because he is a squirrel and has squirreled LRH’s wonderful tech to the point that it doesn’t work like it should.

    Sherry – you have out tech on your case. Simple as that. You wouldn’t even be posting if you thought the tech didn’t work. Anyone else who didn’t get the EP of any level is because they have OUT TECH on their case. God it is so simple.

    We all love Scientology and that is because the tech works and we have seen it work. I have had so much case gain myself and it brings tears to my eyes to read that some people are going on hoping with very little gain. Well, Miscaviage has squirreled the tech and admin tech as well to the point where it is almost impossible to get case gain in the C of M. That is WHY we are out here. Not for any other reason. We want what LRH promised. Some got it, most didn’t. They could feel it, smell it, taste it but did not get it because it was altered in its application.

    So it is not your fault, per the C/S Series. It is the fault of the auditor or C/S or the tech, which was altered and most likely that.

    Now, go see Marty or Ken U and get your out-tech repaired. It is really easy to do. The gains will be there, I promise you.

    ML Virgil

    • fishdaddy permalink*
      February 16, 2010 12:15 am

      Virgil, you seem to be under the misapprehension that everyone posting here is an “Independent Scientologist.” Not true. Many posting here are Ex-Scientologists. No longer Scientologists. So there is no “we” that you are the spokesman for. Not everyone here believes that Scientology tech is uniformly workable. Our personal experience tells us otherwise, just as your personal experience informs your opinions.

      Secondly, you have not studied Sherry Katz’ case folders. You have no idea, really, whether the tech was correctly applied or not. To state categorically that “you have out tech on your case” is arrogant, evaluative, and just plain rude.

      You are blind to Scientology’s failures because you cannot see them. Because every failure of the tech is “out tech” and therefore “not Scientology” because “Scientology always works.” And you say this even when you really have no idea if the tech was applied correctly or not. It’s like someone saying “all cats are black,” then someone shows them a white cat and they say “that can’t be a cat because all cats are black.” It’s a closed logic loop. It makes you blind to the fact that Scientology tech does not work equally well in all cases.

  17. Virgil Samms permalink
    February 12, 2010 5:27 pm

    One last thing – said well by E.L.O.


  18. sherrymk permalink
    February 13, 2010 12:12 am

    I feel the need to clear the air a bit, so to speak.

    I was in the C of S for 36 years, from the time I was 21. What I gained from the experience, can not be discounted and never will be, for me. That there is much to benefit from in Hubbard’s writings and lectures, there is no doubt. That there is much within the philosophy that can help man overcome the problems which he is confronted with in living a life, I’ve never questioned. That Hubbard was a brilliant man can hardly be disputed.

    Where it all breaks down technically, in my opinion, are the OT levels, OTV, Vl, Vll and Vlll especially. This is an area I happen to know a little about, having traversed the road and spending 14 continuous years doing so.

    My main point of contention, lest it be misconstrued, is not particularly what is contained on these levels, their validity or lack of it, but what is promised in contradiction to what is actually attained; what is expected, what one thinks they are aspiring to, what one thinks they are paying for. And all this based on Hubbard’s own writings, his own stories and of course, the PR and Marketing machine of the C of S.

    Did I experience any “OT” phenomena? Sure. Did I and do I continue to “cause” OT phenomena knowingly? Plainly, yes. But what is “OT” phenomena? Getting a parking space you intended? Having someone call you moments after you thought of them? Perceiving that your child is in trouble and finding it to be fact? Being able to intend something to happen and have it happen? Is it moving across a distance of space and viewing earth from that area? Is it being able to exteriorize from your body and knowingly, without a doubt, watching the mechanisms you use to animate that body? Or how about predicting and preventing a terrorist attack on New York ? or an earthquake in Haiti?

    I certainly can make claim to all but the last two.

    Experiencing “OT” phenomena is something that I would bet anyone, if you really got them to look, can recall. But it’s not just a matter of having these experiences or even knowingly causing them, that defines what Scientology promises is a true “OT”. If “OT” is a series of random incidents, unexplainable “coincidences” of seemingly superhuman or “not the normal” abilities, they certainly aren’t what I expected as a result. Not by the time I’d reached OTVll at any rate. “Cause over life, matter, energy, space and time”.., that’s not something that “comes and goes” being affected by “circumstances” whether those be what has been suggested as “PTS” to the suppressive church management or changes in the magnetic forces of the planet. This “PTS” explanation is an illogic and has always been an illogic to me. It doesn’t fit with “cause over life, matter, energy, space and time”.

    Of course, there is always the standard “there’s out tech on your case” answer. Or there’s the “you’re out ethics which is why the tech doesn’t go in” answer. Both pretty laughable as anyone who has completed OTVlll knows.

    Now some will argue that of course, none of the church-produced “OTs” have really achieved “cause over life, matter, space, energy and time” due to the amount of suppression extant in the church. And argue that this should not discredit or be cause to question the existence of such a state of being. While this could be a topic for discussion, the point is, if there truly are no Scientology produced OTs, PER THE DEFINITION, then who can really say if it’s possible to make one just because Ron said so? and because it’s been promoted for the last 58 years ?

    On Grade 0, one attests to an ability gained of “can communicate to anyone on any subject”. Great. If one can do this, they have obtained that ability. You know you’ve attained it. You can observe, over time, that you can talk to anyone on any subject. On Grade 1, one attests to being able to recognize the source of problems and have them vanish. Over time, you observe that this in indeed a fact. You’ve attained that ability. But on none of the OT levels, does one actually attest to an ability. (despite them being listed on the grade chart) At least not since I’ve been attesting to them since1989. The abilities that would have to be present for anyone who is truly “cause over matter, energy, space time and life” are never tested, never verified. And they are what drove my curiosity to continue up the levels. It’s what I paid for and expected. What the OTs I know worked hard for, paid for and expected. Quite telling in itself, I suppose, is that one never actually attests to “cause over matter, energy, space, time and life”. Maybe they used to? Even though it’s promoted as the result.

    I think we are all entitled to the truth. It’s only the deception that I protest, the insistence that something exists that hasn’t been proven to exist whether it’s whole levels like OTlX and X or “cause over life, etc” all for the sole purpose of exhorting more money, more control, more power.

    Just stop selling a dream…as Jefferson Hawkins so beautifully states… a “Counterfeit Dream”.

    • February 13, 2010 12:50 am


      Just out of interest did you do the original OT Levels?

      The ones “old” and “no longer used”etc.

      As you and I know the “New” OT Levels with the exception of VIII deal with phenomenon that has become evident on OT II. In actual fact it is an extension of OT III to a greater or lesser degree. What was originally known as the “OT Expansion program” as covered in the Admin Dictionary.

      The main omitted that I see is the omission of original OT VII and IIIX to completion before the Pre OT starts NOTs thus making it endless and with “six months checks” which are in fact sec checks arbitrarily thrown in even if the Pre OT is continuing well on the Level, expensive!

      Another thing is that the original OT levels are directed towards increasing a Thetan’s inherent abilities while the “new”ones with the exception of VIII are directed towards negative gain, much like engram running.

      Why do you think its called “New Era Dianetics” for OTs?

      I suggest reading the HCOB ‘Dianetics Versus Scientology’, in a new unit of time.

      Also as you know on the lower levels the auditor is responsible for the result or lack of result. Saying such things as the reason the PC didn’t get any results on the level because they had a withhold or whatever doesn’t really fly with a good C/S or Cram Off.

      Ask Jimbo.

      Waiting in the wings.

      However on Solo, guess who is responsible for insuring that the Pre OT achieves the expected gains on the level?

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 13, 2010 1:25 am

        Having read Sherry’s post, then yours, RJ, I’m going to hazard a guess here that you may not have really duplicated her.

        Your heart is obviously in the right place, but referring her to a reference to be read in a “new unit of time” seems a wholly inappropriate response to what she just put on the table. Please don’t take offense at that, RJ. I know you were not speaking to me and that butting in here is presumptuous, but I feel some little entitlement to this liberty I’m taking, this being a public forum and all, and I’m saying just reread her post. In a new unit of time.

        Sherry, I get it. I have not put the blood, sweat and tears you have put into your bridge, but I have spent 31 years doing bridge and observing what is around me, and I have arrived a similar place, and have a lot of the same questions.


      • SherryMK permalink
        February 13, 2010 3:06 am

        “However on Solo, guess who is responsible for insuring that the Pre OT achieves the expected gains on the level?”

        Ha! Ha!. This is just the kind of self-serving statement that perfectly exemplifies what the basic problem is with Scientology: There is NEVER anything wrong with Scientology “technology”..It is ALWAYS, conveniently, the fault of the auditor, the student or the PC. You should NEVER discuss the possibility, let alone consider that there would EVER be something remotely amiss with the tech itself. It ALWAYS gets the expected result.

        Pardon me while I vomit.

        I do have a solution though. Get rid of “humans”. They are too different one to the other and enter too many variables into an otherwise perfect equation.

      • February 13, 2010 4:32 am

        Are you saying that I don’t have a right to write what I wrote Lunamoth?

        Sorry I read everything that Sherry wrote and I disagreed with it and made my disagreement known.

        I also disagree with her current response as well, because it tells me she never actually read my post since I pointed out the technical omissions and errors that have been and are continuing to occur!

        Yet instead she’d rather just exclusively blame the tech while failing to acknowledge or evading her own causation and accuse anyone who suggests such a dreadful thing as being “self serving”.

        Oh please!

      • TheEmperorIsNaked permalink
        February 13, 2010 4:36 am

        I see that attitude a lot (assigning responsibility). I do actually agree people are responsible for themselves and I always look to my responsibility in any situation (I don’t want to lose control after all). And I’ve read the different references on responsibility. But if you read the LRH on it you see it applies on all vectors. So yes the PC is responsible, but so is the D of P and Examiner and on and on.

        I’ve seen nothing but small and struggling Orgs and Missions since I got into Scn. But they are always quick to assign that condition to the public. They are out ethics or whatever. OK, but you are going down the drain while always assigning responsibility elsewhere. It is probably time to reexamine that assertion.

        I was pretty active on dissemination lines but as I saw inconsistent results on delivery I eventually stopped. Just the emphasis on all that was wrong with public makes you think the Orgs and Mission don’t even want any new public. And if you bring someone in you have to be damned sure they have lots of money and are in ethics enough and so on. So it’s easier just not to bring anyone in and take a chance on them not being up to the high bar Scientology requires. See how this back fires? And I don’t see much dissemination now. So again the public sucks.

        This has been a great thread and I really liked the differing viewpoints. Thanks for all your submissions except William B.

        William B. I award you no points.

        Sherry, I’ve seen your story here and elsewhere. I admire your spirit and have compassion and ARC for you. I’ve experienced some of the same issues.

        Jim, you are quite knowledgable. If I had been around you, I bet I would have learned a lot. By the time I got in, Academies and co-auditing were already lost. And I feel I lost the chance at something vital. Maybe I can still find it, but it is definately not to be had in the church. I have tons of materials and will not let them go to waste, but I know the value of mentoring and apprenticing under someone knowledgable and I am not sure where that happens any more.

        As to the bridge, I don’t think LRH created and left a Bridge to Nowhere. If he personally got a bit messed up at the end (I don’t know that, but the possibility exists) then I don’t care. He was doing research and no doubt ran tons of stuff wrong on himself and took some effort to get it straightened out for the rest of us. I still admire the hell out of him for what he obviously accomplished. It was a star high goal and I certainly will keep trying to get there.

        Thanks all of you for being here.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 13, 2010 5:17 am

        Really, RJ? You got that from what I wrote? You got “you don’t have the right to write what you wrote, RJ, ” from “you may not have really duplicated her?”

        Really? Wow.


    • Wallflower permalink
      February 13, 2010 3:15 am


      Bless you for this!!! I have been pining for all of you to see that the proof is in the pudding. Even as a wog, I have experienced much of what is stated in the ‘Did I experience any “OT” phenomena?’ paragraph. So, how about those times when I didn’t get the parking space I intended? Should I believe that I am a failure in my intensions? No!!! I am living in the real world. Aside from this, I have yet to recieve an anwer from any Scientologist as to SPECIFIC gains that hold true for them through today. I get generalities only. Can anyone shed some light or point me to a site for these answers?

      While we still may question the faith, many upon many wogs are rooting for you guys. We want the prisoners freed!!!

      Please also see this series from Mike Henderson…


  19. lunamoth permalink
    February 13, 2010 5:30 am

    By the way, RJ, when you refer to “her,” you’re talking about a woman who made it to OT 8, and this despite considerable counter intention from above, who pushed through several attempts to knock her back to a “pre-clear” status and was given the most heinous run-rounds on her bridge progress from C/S’s, MAA’s and other minions of dm, a woman who took on the responsibility of getting a Class V org and sea org management straightened out and running per KSW while being stonewalled, given wrong indications and facing a whispering campaign the entire way. She’s survived the loss of all of her friends, her husband and the whole life she knew in the church, all because she saw the truth of what was going on and made the choice to speak up and call a spade a spade, despite personal danger to herself.

    It seems a little inappropriate for you to be implying that this woman hasn’t taken enough responsibility.


    I can’t believe I was making an effort to not hurt your feelings.

    • February 13, 2010 10:41 am

      Are we talking about Joan of Arc ?

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 13, 2010 5:58 pm


        Touche’, RJ.


  20. ButterflyChaser permalink
    February 13, 2010 7:15 am

    Well, at the risk of sounding trite, “when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

    RJ and Jim’s reponses to Sherry remind me of the good ol’ days on course when I would get word clearing, false data stripping or some other “handling” every time I found something that “wasn’t true for me”. Hammer! Hammer!

    “Wait! But I’m a screw!”
    “No, your not! You’re a nail!” Hammer! Hammer! Bang! Bang!

    Gads, I thought this site was called, “LEAVING Scientology”, not “More and More and More and More Scientology”.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 13, 2010 7:42 am

      Butterfly chaser

      Hey, good point. I was wondering what that was that was getting shoved down
      my throat…

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 13, 2010 2:10 pm

      I don’t personally recall ever supervising you. Nope, no recollection of Butterfly Chaser. I have many tools, ‘hammer’ isn’t one. As to the site and its intention, maybe you have a point. I certainly have never left Scientology. I see Ms. Katz has, and it would appear not just the Church of Scientology. My mistake, apologies for all.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 13, 2010 3:01 pm

        I should clarify on ‘hammer’. Yes, hammering out of existence incorrect tech is something I do when a Sup or Cramming Officer, or drum teacher for that matter. Hammering an individual into submission isn’t part of that phrase or a tool I use.

  21. craig houchin permalink
    February 13, 2010 7:35 am

    Those who believe LRH and his tech are infallible, stand on the left.

    Those who believe LRH and his tech are NOT infallible, or aren’t sure, stand on the right.

    Now just look at each other a moment.

    Recognize that everyone commenting on this blog has a unique viewpoint. And I mean this literally: a unique point from which each views his/her past and present.

    RJ and Jim, if the tech works for you 100% of the time, then great. Just enjoy that. You don’t have to stick a flag in the ground and defend your mental territory.

    Sherry and Lunamoth obviously have had different experiences. Let them have those experiences.

    It’s no skin off your nose. Their dissatisfaction shouldn’t alloy your satisfaction.

    One of my favorite LRH concepts is Granting of Beingness. It works (my opinion).

    • SherryMK permalink
      February 13, 2010 7:49 am

      I feel a cool breeze gently blowing through my upstairs window, bringing the smell of lilacs and sage. It’s evening. A calmness comes over me. Thank you Craig.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 13, 2010 7:59 am


      You’re right. That’s the only way a group made up of people who have all had different experiences with scientology is going to work.

      If the rule of the group becomes that only the positive experiences with the tech are considered valid, and all less-than-expected results are invalid, then the group makes its own statistics. In that scenario, the tech “always works.” And the fact that 90% or more of those starting on the bridge eventually drop off can be explained away. That’s just lame. Dishonest. And it’s self-delusional. Sound
      like anybody we know?

    • February 13, 2010 8:54 pm

      Craig, thanks much for your words of wisdom. The obvious is so often missed.

      “Recognize that everyone commenting on this blog has a unique viewpoint. And I mean this literally: a unique point from which each views his/her past and present.”

      Your words have created a tiny puncture in my universe. Be forewarned, I might now gush and if so it might be perceived as nothing but babble.

      Recently a commentor on Marty’s blog posted something to this effect:

      If you were a drop of water and fell into the ocean, could you pull yourself out?

      There are numerous points of view one could take in contemplating the answer to that question but I’m going to use it thusly: The “drop” I conceived myself to be prior to my intercepting LRH and Scientology was not very well defined. Consequently when I fell into the “ocean” of Scn and all that implies, I readily and willingly became the ocean. After I attested to the state of Clear in 83′ I, unbeknownst to me, began the slow process of pulling myself out of the ocean. And, just recently I not only achieved separation from the ocean i.e., the CoS, I also became cognizant of the fact that there had been a process, I had been moving through the process and that I had attained the EP of the process.

      I mentioned that prior to Scn I had no clear definition of me, the “drop.” As I progressed through Scn I came to define myself, view myself as an immense iceberg where 99.9999% of me was submerged beneath the surface of the ocean (the MEST Universe) and only a micro-fraction of me remained totally free an unencumbered in the theta universe. This being the condition I found myself in it became my goal, with help from the free me, to push and/or pull the incredible magnitude of the unfree and much encumbered portion of me, up and out of the MEST universe. Again, but on broader level, another example of “the drop of water pulling itself out of the ocean.”

      Realizing the severity of the predicament I was in and fearing that if I didn’t get busy doing something about it that it was a real probability that, the tiny little bit of free me, still holding on in the theta universe, would soon be joing the rest of me in the “trap”; I embraced LRH as my guide, his tech as my means and the CoS as the guardian, protector and maintenace crew of the “ladder” (the Bridge) out of the trap.

      Since pulling myself out of the CoS “ocean” a new process has begun. The process expanded to become me pulling myself out of Scientology. Yes, you read that right. Me pulling myself out of Scn. I desired to be a free drop. Free of all dogma, doctrine and tech. I wanted to be able to look in and amongst the infinity of ever changing universes and do so without looking through the filters of Scn or any other system.

      To give you a broader view on this; many years ago in Portland, Or., Karen Hollander, Diane Samuels, Steve Bazio and one other preOT (cannot recall his name) hosted a little get together of scios, yet to be on their OT levels. Their purpose was to give the group more R on the state of OT and increase our reach. Anyway, one point that was brought up that really stuck with me was that one could not actually HAVE unless they could simultaneously NOT HAVE. I recently came to realize that I had put myself into the condition of not actually HAVING Scn because I was not willing to simultaneously NOT HAVE it. Thus, I had trapped myself in the ocean.

      I have previously mentioned that I have found this thread of dialogue to be particularly rewarding. I had no idea just how rewarding it has been! I am free now! I am a drop of water that has pulled itself out of the ocean of Scn. Finally, I can both HAVE and NOT HAVE Scn, CoS and LRH simultaneously. Also, and this is the biggy, me (as the iceberg) has done a 180. Now, 99.9999% of ‘ME’ is in the theta universe and there is only a tiny bit of me in the illusion. And let me tell you, the perception, as a result, is way different! But, that said, there is always the possiblity that at any moment I might jump into another ocean or countless other oceans.

      All is well.

      Thank you each and everyone very much for all your help!!

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 14, 2010 12:23 am

        HA!! Congratulations Little Drop/Big Ocean Being!

        Case gain is case gain!


      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 15, 2010 3:36 am

        Cogs are the milestones of case gain. Thanks for sharing your wins.

  22. February 13, 2010 4:20 pm

    I am hopeful still that this board and others like it can hold to the basic core belief that each of us is basically good and thereby treat each other with true respect.

    If I misunderstood Sherrie, I apologize. My main point in my post was to try to see if perhaps we couldn’t each see that whatever we got from LRH was what we got. Some continue to use LRH’s tech in their lives, which is just fine. Others chose not to.

    If this independent movement is going to turn into a movement of only those who hold sacrosanct the writings of LRH, then perhaps we haven’t learned a thing — IN MY VIEW!!

    LRH died in 1986 — much research has come since that time. As a SMALL bit, it is now been proven that HIGH doses of niacin are very damaging to some livers. And that is JUST one thing.

    Neuroscience continues to advance — that DOESNT mean big pharma. It means neuroscience – which is proving things beyond quantum physics. Least we forget at one time LRH studied physics?

    Had LRH lived, what might the tech have become? Who knows. We simply cannot speculate.

    But guaranteed, it would have changed. Guaranteed. If anyone understood conditions, I’d say it was most likely the man who discovered and codified them.


  23. lunamoth permalink
    February 13, 2010 7:26 pm

    “If this independent movement is going to turn into a movement of only those who hold sacrosanct the writings of LRH, then perhaps we haven’t learned a thing -”

    This sums it up for me. This is no longer “business as usual.” It’s time to re-evaluate the old operating basis’, along with most of what we accepted as true while members of the church. One of those basics upon which we operated (a huge one, in fact), is that the tech is infallible, therefore any failing of the tech has is the fault of the individual. In a world where david miscavige = scientology in the eyes of his followers, and the tech is “infallible,” you see the next computation.

    I’m just saying, I’m taking a look at that datum in a new unit of time.

    • SherryMK permalink
      February 13, 2010 10:55 pm

      WH et al,

      “If this independent movement is going to turn into a movement of only those who hold sacrosanct the writings of LRH, then perhaps we haven’t learned a thing -”

      Your words above mirror exactly my own thoughts.

      When one leaves the C of S, there are numerous evolutions one goes through: huge constant changes of viewpoint, changes of operating basis, shifting stable datums. One’s entire life is turned topsy turvy. At least mine was. I went through a long period trying to figure out what happened to me, what had gone wrong, what did I do, not do, then through trying to substitute one group for another, trying to figure out what my purpose in life was, where I was going, what to hang on to and what to throw out. So very many changes and shifts in my mind, which continue still. I think most people go through a similar experience.

      I discovered one thing which has probably been the most important discovery I’ve made since leaving the church. And that is that I have not lost the ability to think critically, “critically” implying an attempt at objectivity in judgement so I may determine the merits or faults of something. Every thought process I had I realized I was filtering through some Scientology datum. Its quite a bizaare awareness to arrive at. I couldn’t look at a person with a cold and not immediately think “Who’s he PTS to?” , I couldn’t hit my toe on the bedstand without immediately thinking, “Why did I cause that? Who am I PTS to? What did I do to that person?” I couldn’t just decide to watch TV and drink a glass of wine without immediately thinking “I’m being a dilletante, what should I be doing right now to get some product?”

      It’s taken a long time, to be able to separate, in my mind, what I really think, what I really want,…me, not the me filtered through some Scientology code, process, axiom, factor etc.

      I’ve often described it to my daughter as being like having two completely separate “selves”, one that has a set of pat answers, responses, explanations to everything aligned exactly with something in Scientology and another that is just ME responding. As weird as that sounds perhaps, it’s quite a process that is still going on. Often I have to stop and ask myself “Is that really the way I feel or really the way I think about this?”.

      What was so interesting, is that my daughter, who is not and never has been a scientologist, duplicated exactly what I was saying. She expressed tremendous relief at my realization. For her, as she expressed to me, she had always felt like she was talking to a mechanism spitting out someone elses words, not to a real person when she spoke to me. And this had been going on for the entire 36 years of her life! It simply floored me.

      I realize that my tolerance for non-critical thinking has, as is evident from my unusual testiness on this thread, become quite low. be it. I admit it and if it’s caused some people stress, please realize it has nothing personal to do with you. I’m just happy there IS a place we all can vent if we need to.

      I’d share drinks and dinner with any of you wonderful people..and that means you RJ and you Jim Logan.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 15, 2010 4:19 am

        Ms. Katz,
        I understand the idea you’ve communicated, the tension of the ‘now I’m supposed to’ think and act according to a bunch of ‘now I’m supposed to’s’.

        Scientology, from the get-go, for me has been freedom from ‘now I’m supposed to’ act or think in same way. I learned this stuff by reading it, and doing it and there has not been one instance where it didn’t do what it was supposed to do, either for me, or on another. There have been instances where what I thought was the applicable datum, wasn’t and in those cases, well, it was the incorrect thing. Didn’t fly, didn’t handle whatever it was that seemed to be the thing to handle. But, when confronted with those circumstances, I personally have found invariably, with more data on what I was looking at and more search for some applicable material, I have resolved those things I sought to resolve.

        I’ve experienced as foul renditions on ethics, tech and admin as any. I’ve personally resolved the bulk of them and as I run into any more, they dissolve too.

        I’ve tossed anything I thought I understood, out the window. I started over with several things I just could not toss out. These things were certain. I knew what I knew on them and that wasn’t a ‘now LRH says’ so and so, or I’m supposed to think this that or the other thing. These certainties were way past ‘thinking’ they weren’t ‘convictions’, they existed outside of any of those frames of reference. They weren’t ‘static’ in that the were fixed or unchanging. They were knowingness.

        I’ve since completed study of the subject from beginning to end. I started over and filled in largley, taped lectures I didn’t have the first time through. I have cleared up so many things and gone past understanding to knowing on so many things I couldn’t begin to say. From those very few knowingnesses, I’ve added many more. I’ve gone through the first several OT Levels and gained more knowing and clarity on what I’d studied. I’m on the next levels and each session, in moments, with all that I did to prepare for them in study and earlier auditing, while they may be called technically ‘negative’ gain, the positive change in my being and ability outstrips any other auditing up to this point.

        I may appear as a pedantic, didactic ‘Ron-bot’. So be it. It isn’t circuitry. It isn’t ‘GAT’. It isn’t service computations. It isn’t anything other than an awareness of source, or capital Source, or all caps, SOURCE. It IS doing it the way it’s written and observing for myself it works that way and knowing now more than ever why it does and how it does. It IS an awareness that I have and it is my intention to apply Safeguarding Tech in terms of being a ‘guide’ to exactly what it was that helped me get to places I had no idea existed when I started this whole thing.

        The upshot is, I’d sit down and have a bunch of Black Rum with you, watch a movie, and sleep in the next day till after lunch, because ‘now I want to’ and that right and power of choice has only ever been validated and enhanced by my experience with the philosophy and technology of L. Ron Hubbard.

        But, you surely must have some idea, if you’ve read anything about me, ‘now I’m supposed to’ has never been at the forefront of my experience with the group. Just before I got declared by DM I read an LRH ED for CINE, in it he said again, DO NOT regiment an artist. I went to the next muster for uniform inspection in my tennis shoes.

      • SherryMK permalink
        February 17, 2010 3:21 am


        This communication from you is obviously from your heart and is therefore not only appreciated, but I actually read it all the way through. I wish you would write in this fashion more. I think you would actually reach more people if they didn’t feel they were being dictated to or preached to or quoted to. Ya know?

        “Source” is fine for one, but there’s only so much you can drink. Speaking of which, I haven’t ever gotten into a bottle o Black Rum, however, there’s always a first time… I’ll pull out my bass and you could get behind your drums and we’ll have us a jam.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:09 am

        If you’ve never had Demerrara rum, well, when we do have that jam, I’ll ply you with it. Oh my.

  24. Mickey permalink
    February 13, 2010 11:33 pm

    Sherry, WH, P Henry, lumamouth, Craig: This thread for me has been one of, if not the best ones I’ve read and given comment upon, amongst all the new Indie-created blogs that have come to be since last summer. All of you have, as Sherry said, “mirror exactly my own thoughts.”

    And it was because of, not in spite of, the contrasting positions offered by RJ and Jim that all of the great back and forth on this thread has happened. Learning by contrast is a wonderful way to learn.

    I hope as WH said in her own way, the Indie movement will form a new basis of operation in this new community, which would be one of acceptance and tolerance of others.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 14, 2010 1:08 am


      Me, too!

      I’m given hope of that happening by this thread, as well as Old Auditor’s latest post on Possibly Helpful Advice, and your comment, above.

      I envision a spectrum of viewpoints, as in nature, rather than a group divided by their differences.


    • lunamoth permalink
      February 14, 2010 1:09 am


      Heyyyyyy! Did you call me lunamouth?


      • Mickey permalink
        February 14, 2010 1:49 am

        Oops….little moon-moth….yes I realized I did just that about 20 mins ago while reading another of your posts on a different thread. You caught me in the act….glad you took it all in stride! (Note to self: lunamoth, lunamoth) 😉

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 14, 2010 4:44 pm

        It’s fine. Not the first time someone has called me “mouth.” : )

  25. lunamoth permalink
    February 14, 2010 12:27 am

    Boy, Sherry, I KNOW what you mean!

    I’ve decided that I no longer need to actually post since a few of you guys are so on-track with what I’m thinking that you’re writing it for me. I’ll just sit back here and ack you. (Actually, that may be a good subject for a post, since it’s a startlingly real and clear phenomena that is occurring, and I know I’m not the only one this is happening to …)



  26. Free Spirit permalink
    February 14, 2010 1:23 am

    Hey Jimmy Rebel, here is link for you to see:

  27. Symbiote permalink
    February 14, 2010 2:22 am

    Great, great thread and discussion guys!
    My opinion is we have all been cut deeper than we’d care to admit and the healing is not something done in a day. Realizing the suppression and perversion of the CoS over the past 30 years is just the first step. I personally have experienced a similar phenomena to Sherry’s in that I have been “evolving” in my viewpoints continually since spotting and disconnecting from that organization.
    But it is a severely deep cut and the only good news is that we here, are way ahead of the pack yet to follow who will also have to wrestle with some very mean demons…as have we.
    As I said, this is a great thread because it is REAL. Raw, yes…but real. And I’ll take that any day over the namby-pamby, phoney fluff that passes for communication amongst the Kool-aid drinkers.
    More please.

  28. February 14, 2010 9:54 pm

    Inspired by the immensely rewarding dialogue on this thread, I started a new discussion in the forum on Walking Around The Elephant:

    You’ve already read here (my comments) that you will read in the discussion I started. However, you might want to check out the video I added – about halfway through.

    Cheers! PH

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 15, 2010 9:40 pm

      Interesting how all those posts flow to well as a single write up; shows you’ve had an evolving viewpoint on this subject, perhaps? Wonder where it will be in another few months.

      LOVE Q!


  29. Alex permalink
    February 14, 2010 11:34 pm

    I believe that the Bridge has not produced a full OT yet, that is obvious, I feel that the current Bridge is riddled with squirrel tech and is not a good representation of what LRH intended. Whetther LRH completed his work or not is unknown to me and once we have someone in power we can trust maybe that question can be answered.

    I feel that if the current Bridge was cleaned up, that even if there are no upper levels completed, it would be worth doing what has been done and we could create a better world.

    I never did understand all the franticness on “clearing the planet” anyways. Why not do it methodically and calmly and with certainty instead of running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off??

  30. Barney Rubble permalink
    February 15, 2010 5:49 am

    As a NOTS Auditor for 10 years this blog has, most likely disconnected me from these websites future blogs. I find it sickening.

    Yes there are OT’s who are mad as hell from this blog about DM’s conspiracy regarding OT IX, and X, but if you wish to degrade Ron Hubbard, well the go to websites such as xenu, or

    I understand your point of content, but please solve the puzzle.

    • Editor permalink*
      February 15, 2010 7:06 am

      Barney, just to be clear: I believe in open discussion, and I allow people to speak their minds, as long as they are respectful of other posters. Please differentiate between a poster who challenges or questions LRH’s conclusions and one who “degrades” LRH. Questioning or challenging LRH is not degrading him – it is a person’s right to have an opinion, even if it is different from yours – or LRH’s for that matter. LRH himself said that if it isn’t true for you, it isn’t true. So don’t overreact when someone states that this or that bit of tech isn’t true for them or didn’t work for them. If you want a site where no one ever questions or challenges LRH’s conclusions, there are many available.

      Rebel 008

    • Martin Padfield permalink
      February 15, 2010 11:31 am

      Barney, I’ve just read this entire thread and it seems you read an entirely different one. I see no “degrading” LRH here, merely asking pertinent questions about some of his work and life.

      It is my hope – maybe naïvely – that the independent movement will be tolerant of many divergent views and standpoints. When I went Independent last October I said that I simply wanted all my fellow Scns in the UK to get the TRUTH about their Church and what has happened to it. I have no doubt there will be many hurt, confused and disorientated individuals as the truth comes crashing down, and no doubt some will leave scientology altogether, some will go Independent, others will stick like glue to the remnants of the CofS. Each has to find his/her own way. I recently started going to an Anglican church locally and have found a wonderful vibrant community on my doorstep I never knew existed – though I’ve lived in this neighbourhood for 8 years! Just six months ago I would have balked at this; was I “mixing practices”? or being “a dilettante”? I TOTALLY get what Sherry says about the filtering system; the way one is indoctrinated into the straightjacket mentality of viewing every action in life against a piece of “tech” and how debilitating this can be. Oddly, I have enjoyed studying pieces of LRH far MORE since going independent than ever as an unwilling student in the “Basics courseroom”. And the joy of not coming home from work to see 8 phone messages from Call-In or the IAS – and not hearing a dreaded knock on the door at 10pm, and…I digress.

      A personal thanks to Lunamoth, WH, PH, Sherry and ALL others who contribute such valuable reason and sanity here – may tolerance and divergence preavail!

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 15, 2010 4:35 pm

        I second that, Martin and Rebel. The Independent field, as it stands right now, appears to be made up of a range of viewpoints on the issues we’ve been discussing here, and yet we find enough in common to keep us engaged in constant communication on a number of points of reality.

        The fact that this thread has been just crackling with energy is a huge indicator. I’d say these issues being discussed represent quite a few strings to pull. I’m extremely interested in getting my questions answered, but I understand many people are satisfied that they already have the correct answers. That’s okay with me.

        This past several months has been a period of immense upheaval and discovery for me, but as I continue to get new data, I continue to formulate questions.
        One of the things I’ve learned from this experience is that as an individual, I ignore my own nagging questions at the peril of my integrity. And I think that as a group, we ignore indicators such as the question posed on this blog, at the peril of the group.

        Plainly stated, a group that does not tolerate a range of opinions and viewpoints is either going to end up smaller (as we now know the c of s actually is) or, though gaining size, will do so by squashing dissent and destroying the individual.

  31. February 15, 2010 3:29 pm

    Jim Logan,

    Thanks for sharing your wins with the tech and how you came to them. Your personal communication is very compelling. It sounds like you have thoroughly studied and USED Scientology and have, for yourself, proven its workability.

    I admire your efforts. Perhaps one day I will restudy, relearn and reapply Scn in a non-threatening environment. Or, perhaps not. I really like having that freedom of choice.

    By the way, you won me with tennis shoes at muster. Bravo!

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 15, 2010 4:32 pm

      I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with ‘an non-threatening environment’ and one’s own road to truth. From the very first weekend, when I read DMSMH, I’ve worked hard to become a ‘word clear’. When I did the original admin training I did, which was the OEC/FEBC and a version of the Data Series Evaluator’s course, I ended up taking the word lists from the PRD and clearing each word on my own, on course and back in my room after hours. I’ve done Method One, the Student Hat a couple of times, KTL, and utterly destroyed several dictionaries using pens, rocks, and demonstration kit pieces to hold my place (I still do when I should just write them down, which is what I do when I word clear others).

      With my vocabulary up and my ability to get conceptual understanding, and on my own, with no targets to meet other than full conceptual understanding I’ve learned the value of thorough study of the materials from before the beginning (I read Science and Sanity by Korzybski for example, along with checking into the work of every one of those listed at the beginning of the older editions of Science of Survival and 8-8008) and then picked up the Original Thesis in a new unit of time and gone from there.

      Nobody has any stick to my back to do this. I’ve taken the words of Socrates to heart, a life unexamined is wasted. I’ve not wasted this life and the pay off has been amazing.

      Self-determined study and auditing is the deal. My model for that, well, LRH. When I found out from my ex-wife Annie that he did study/auditing every day and drove around the roads of California in his Dodge Dart, and tore up the road honking at old ladies and calling out ‘Sunday Driver!’ and then helped her with her animal husbandry study and then recorded a tape laying out how to get the best sound of the Massenburg mixing board at Gold, and then teased his Messengers with giant chocolate chip cookies, home baked, and oddly even though they only weighed ounces, ‘how come they put on pounds?’ and hopefully you get the idea here.

      ‘Now I’m supposed to’ do whatever it is, it may have a place in coordination of the group, but when it comes down to it, it’s YOUR road to truth. And the only ‘supposed to’ that applies is the one you put there.

      Now, I’m ‘supposed to’ go in session. That one, I’m putting there. Ta.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 15, 2010 4:48 pm


        Having read this last post of your, I can see how parts of the above discussion would be offensive to some. It’s unfortunate, because I’m pretty sure it’s the intention of no one on this thread to be offensive. Certainly not mine. But I do
        have questions.

        One of them is, where’s that reference to be found concerning “not regimenting
        artists?” You just sent my antenna shooting up with that one…


      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 15, 2010 7:27 pm

        I read that in an LRH Executive Directive for the Cine org. That is, for Golden Era Productions. I don’t recall the exact number. I also ran across it recently in study but a quick look this afternoon hasn’t pulled it up. Check the Art Series and if I recall where else I saw it recently, I’ll let you know.

        Just an addition to my write-ups. I read recently in 23 Oct 63 Refund Policy the following: “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
        the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
        he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That
        was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff
        as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s
        the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

        Now, that sums up succinctly my own use of Scientology. I communicate the ideas with reference to whence they came to me, as above. The anecdotes from those posting here on the ‘now I’m supposed to’ act or think in a certain way, remind of the above paragraph. Substituting and idea where a being should be is the whole story of the GPMs. So, what I’m trying to get across is that’s been sound advice to me, maybe it will be for others as well.

  32. lunamoth permalink
    February 15, 2010 9:47 pm

    Well, you certainly seem to know what you’re talking about in general, but I need you to explain a little more to me what you mean by “Substituting an idea where a being should be is the whole story of the GPMs.” I must be missing a piece of the puzzle. Can you elaborate on that a little …?

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 15, 2010 10:40 pm

      If you haven’t studied and audited the area of GPMs, then you need the body of material on this subject for you to study. Depending on your own progress up the Grade Chart, you will need to audit them at the appropriate place(s). If you’ve already studied the area and/or audited it, then write to me personally and I’ll do a qual cycle to the best of my ability on a long distance line, with you.

      The quote above is ‘ seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s the whole story of the GPM’s.’ In order to understand and attain the highest levels of spiritual awareness and ability, this is a key datum, so make sure you write.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 16, 2010 12:58 am

        Thanks, Jim. I’ll look up your contact info and I’ll send you a comm.

  33. February 16, 2010 12:27 am

    This is the thread that keeps on giving! More and more layers continue to be added. Most definitely this thread has evolved into being a “piece of work.” Beyond what I’m writing here I’m unable to post anymore as the concepts shifting in my universe are too vast to convert. 🙂

    Thanks again everyone. It’s a great ride! Yippy Eye O Ki Ayyy !!!


    p.s. when you get 20 min check out this video, The Reality Beyond Matter. Nothing new for anyone here but it’s how the message is presented that’s the point. The title could also be, Be Three Feet Behind Your Head.

  34. Virgil Samms permalink
    February 16, 2010 6:25 pm


    Hold on Jeff. Y ou are what is known as a contradiction in your own behaviour. First you are a Scientologist, then you aren’t. You read all of these blogs every day and you use Scientology as applicable, like when you just jumped on me for not studying Sherry’s folders before I made the assumption she has out tech. That was using Scn on your part. But why should you give a rats ass? You are “not a Scientolgist”. Or maybe you are. And maybe you’re the one that never had gains from the tech and always wondered why others did.

    You see you are saying that the tech doesn’t work as empirically as I am saying it does. But you are asserting that you are right and I am wrong for asserting myself.

    You are a contradiction Jeff but you are leaning in the direction of people losing. I’ve seen a pattern in you on these blogs: Everytime someone experiences a lose, like Sherry, you enforce it. I use correct tech and make a correct indication, per Scientology, and you tell me I am wrong. Everyone has freedom, except me. Why can’t I say what I want and not be condemned?

    The pattern speaks for itself.

    • craig houchin permalink
      February 16, 2010 6:50 pm

      Now you hold on, Virgil

      Fishdaddy didn’t make a sweeping case evaluation of someone that, for all I know, you’ve never laid eyes on. You’re the one pitching the out-tech.

      By calling you out for an uninformed, off-tech eval of a stranger’s case, Fishdaddy is just pointing out to you the rules you profess to live by.

      Only C/Ss evaluate cases, and then only to program them. Auditors don’t eval PCs, Instructors don’t eval PCs, Receptionists don’t eval PCs.

      That kind of out-tech unauthorized intrusion is what gave us the Lisa McPherson tragedy. I suggest you knock it off.

      As for people “not being scientologists” but using the tech, am I to understand that you disapprove of people using LRH tech?

      One does not have to wear a “team jacket” to find and use something useful in LRH’s tech. By that logic, I’d be a Scino-Navaho-Krishnamurti-Tolle-Buddha-tologist. I don’t have a team jacket big enough for all of that — nor do I feel the need to proclaim every philosophy that influences my life.

      The only thing we ex-scientologists or on-the-fence-scietologists want from you hardliners is to observe your own tech and grant some fucking beingness to others — for once.

      I hope you’ll excuse the language but I’m really trying to get across the idea that we on the outside have had it with having your rightness shoved down our throats. In case it is a mystery to you — THAT IS WHY MOST OF US LEFT!

      Put your auditor’s hat and recognize the BPC in front of you. Now — what would a compassionate person do?

      • Mickey permalink
        February 16, 2010 10:47 pm

        craig — when you wrote, “One does not have to wear a “team jacket” to find and use something useful in LRH’s tech. By that logic, I’d be a Scino-Navaho-Krishnamurti-Tolle-Buddha-tologist. I don’t have a team jacket big enough for all of that — nor do I feel the need to proclaim every philosophy that influences my life.”–the cool breezy thought that gently blew through my mind was, “Man, it’s incredibly freeing to be “open-minded” about one’s inquisitiveness and search for truth”! Just sit with that idea for a moment and watch what happens! Still puts a smile across my face. 🙂

        Thanks for your fun summation! I was floored at how much I had missed during my 25+ years in what I observed had become one over-reaching, restricted, closed belief system. I always wondered if it was always this way going back in the very, very beginning of the early 50s. Perhaps we’ll never know…and really what does it matter in the end.

      • Mickey permalink
        February 16, 2010 10:53 pm

        PS. Thanks to Sherry, too for her cool breeziness! (no plagiarism intended–it fit just right into my thoughts!)

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 3:48 am

        Jim and Fishdaddy.

        This is almost funny. Hate to tell you guys, but you’re BOTH S.PS! Yes you are.

        Jim, are you saying that Fishdaddy is “more of an S.P.” than you are? Or are you the “Good S.P.” and Fishdaddy is the “Bad S.P.’ Jeesuz, Jim, did you ever read “Animal Farm” (“All Animals Are Created Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others”)?

        You have no idea how much tolerance it takes to listen to this crap. I think you’re an amazing guy, but listen, any in- road you may make with a person who no longer believes in the infallibility of the tech with your wonderful command of it, will be completely lost when you open your mouth to “condemn the infidels” for being non-believers. Get off the high horse. Fishdaddy’s not an SP, and if you need a reference to tell you that, what the hell good is the tech? It will not have produced in you a person who can look and evaluate for himself, but must remember “what Ron said” about it.

        And I’ve got another news-flash for you; the only place that this suppressive act thing carries any weight is
        in the church. You’ll get nowhere doing that out here. And you’ll just drive an unnecessary wedge between yourself/ the movement to take out dm, and all the non-scientologists who are here, willing to help.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:07 am

        We did leave, right? I mean, I was pretty sure I’d left, then this thread happened and now I’m not so sure.
        Umm, how do we REALLY leave, cause I wanna leave…

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:30 am


        Thanks for communicating this so well. I agree with all you’ve said here, and I appreciate your ability to think and write so clearly when passions are running high.


      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:58 am

        I think you may have lept here a bit prematurely. I’ve not said at any point that Jeff is an SP. Deen’t happen.

        I have pointed out he appears to have committed a Suppressive Act and that I would, as a Scientologist, independent, staff, public, no matter, look into this further to establish what’s what on all this. In other words, it makes no difference to me if I’m in good standing with the Church of Scientology or not, I’m going to apply the body of materials. Whether you expostulate about it or not. I don’t need your license to survive.

        While it may be relatively true that I have studied and know quite a bit of the body of work, and I certainly do quote the references (keep in mind, you aren’t the only one reading these posts, there are others who don’t have the same opinion as you do whether they comment or not) I refer to the policies and technical data as it seems to me to communicate what I want to say emminently well. It isn’t a case of rote repetition. It is an intention I’ve had for decades to repeat a datum as many times as necessary for others to get a good reality on it. It’s part of the Code of A Supervisor. The subject communicates better when it’s a straight line from its source to another. That’s my experience over many decades of communicating it.

        If that rubs you the wrong way, don’t read what I write is one answer for you.

        Lastly for this exchange with you, I’m glad you got a laugh out of the ‘one SP calling the other SP more SPer’. At least I got one thing across to you; the absurdity of the present application of the materials on PTS/SP phenomena under David Miscavige.

        Girl, you have no idea what I know, where I’ve been and who I am. Chill, or I’ll have to start spelling your name loona.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 5:35 am


        You are absolutely right. All I know of you is what I read on this blog and Marty’s. I won’t patronize you by telling you what I think I know of you from that, but I will tell you that it is generally positive and leave it at that. And I would also point out that you know even less about me, and that’s my doing, so no make wrong intended.

        Please also understand that I wasn’t laughing at you and Fishdaddy. I find BOTH you to be honorable beings. I was laughing at how absurd this whole argument had become and was trying to point out that absurdity. I would take
        exception at anyone who belittled you in that way and I apologize for my imperfect communication. Sarcasm is an
        art that, despite constant practice, I have not mastered.

        But I’m pretty sure that while you make semantical distinctions in what you said and what I heard (re: Fishdaddy being a “Real” S.P. vs your own wrongly indicated S.P. status). that the intention is really pretty much the same thing. Close enough. It’s inappropriate, is what I’m saying.

        You can certainly “look into it.” I”m sure you will. Please don’t forget to also acknowledge that Fishdaddy just got back from a press conference where he basically painted a target on his own face and stood up, just about a mile from the complex in L.A., and held dm accountable to the world for his crimes. I watched that press conference. I thought he handled himself with dignity and did no harm to scientology, and that he did deliver a blow to the enemy – your enemy, I believe. What were you doing that day?

        Despite the pointednes of that last question, I do not diminish your contributions to what you perceive to be your own group; Scientologists who find themselves unfairly and involuntarily evicted from their own church. But not all of us here are that group. Some of us left the church on our volition, many of us only recently, and frankly we are still trying to find out which way is up. All some of us know (and I do not pretend to speak for everyone but I know I speak for some) is what we do NOT want anymore of. Arrogance. Altitude. Scientology used to make less of others or their viewpoints. Any attempt to squash honest questions. Limits to what we can think or ask.

        In my future comm with you, I really would like to concentrate on what we have in common. I want to discuss ideas and be able to ask questions without reprimand, and state my own position, however transitory it may be, without fear of retribution or recrimination. If that’s what you want, too, or even if it’s only “acceptable” to you, let’s go in that direction. And then you can call me any damn looney thing you want.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:00 am

        The first thing that I want to iterate, as I have said this on this thread, and others on other blogs, my respect for Jeff standing up and telling this psychopath David Miscavige that we, and by that I mean, decent human beings of whatever creed, will not tolerate this suppressive insanity, has been openly expressed and privately to Jeff as well. Both he and I did interviews for the Truth Rundown series of articles and both of us know, maybe more than most, maybe just as much, that the actions that violate human dignity and sanity that emanate from the Chairman of the Board of RTC must be ceased and both, in our own way, work on doing just that daily.

        Those aren’t just semantics. Those are facts.

        As to ‘squash’ of an opinion or other similar ideas, well, I certainly ain’t faultless but I do sincerely try and distinguish a being from an idea. This is along the lines of the quote you asked me about. I consider this thread to be a few thetans tossing ideas back and forth. It isn’t touch football maybe, but still, in the scheme of things, it’s all part of us working it out. On the subject of Scientology, I wear a Safeguarding Tech hat. That’s just good sense to me.

        No, I don’t know you other than us tossing around these balls on these threads. I certainly meant it when I asked you to write on the quote I gave.

        Oh yeah, a bluecharm is not a butterfly imitation fly. That would be a Durham Ranger and others. Google ‘Classic Salmon Flies’ and you’ll see some of the butterfly imitations. They are works of art and that’s something I’m sure we have in common, the awareness of aesthetics we create.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:06 am

        One more thing. As far as OSA getting a laugh over this thread, I sincerely doubt it. If they do, it is likely glee, a nervous sort of confusion with giggles. They have no idea what the hell is going on with all this.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:52 am


        Thank you for clarifying your regard for Fishdaddy’s courage. I understand that you two have more history than I will ever know, and I admire both of you for
        having the strength to survive dm, and to go on to prosper and flourish and to live to fight another day.

        And for the record, I have never gotten from anything you’ve written, a desire to squash anyone, the only exception, perhaps, a certain little cock roach-being we all know. Ok, maybe you could have been a little more Jim Logan and a little less Hulk Hogan regarding your “assignment” of a condition to Ms. Katz.

        I wouldn’t make you wrong for wearing that Safeguarding Technology hat. The tech is worth safeguarding. I don’t think that it doesn’t work, Jim, I just
        hold to the “workable” estimation over the “infallible” one. But when I need to use a tool from that toolbox, I want it to be the real tool, and what you do guarantees that. What is less useful, is the other ‘attitudinal’ stuff. Enuf said.

        I DO feel this is part of working it out, it’s part of running out that 3D engram. And as I was thinking the other day, it’s a different engram for you than for me.
        Mine is full of enforced reality, forced withhold of what I consider truth, altitude, suppressed comm, authoritarianism, and some pretty fascistic attempted governance by the sea org of areas of my life that are no fucking business of theirs. Please do not expose me for the cry-baby you must surely feel I am by comparing any of this to the horror show you guys at Int went through. I’ve only read about it, but I wept when I did so. The point is just this; most of us here are working out a different engram than you did. You share yours with the Int. guys, the ex. sea org gang, and to a lesser extent with the ex-staff. Why not try to duplicate what the rest of us experienced?

        I’ll still buy the beer, but I’m going to want some.


    • fishdaddy permalink*
      February 16, 2010 7:18 pm


      Let me be very clear: I am not a Scientologist, and have not been for years. I have many friends who are. I am interested in the ongoing debate and discussion about Scientology, which is why I read and post. I do a lot of work exposing the abuses within Scientology and helping others who have left the Church. That doesn’t make me a Scientologist.

      Secondly, you made the statement that Sherry had “out-tech.” Yet how would you know that unless you had studied her folders? It’s an obvious point and one does not have to be a Scientologist to indicate the obvious fallacy. And you still haven’t answered the question as to how you “know” she had out tech.

      “Maybe you’re the one that never had gains from the tech and always wondered why others did.” A cheap shot. And typical. If you don’t have a good answer, attack the attacker. It would impress me more if you actually addressed the point of my post rather than launching a personal attack.

      I never said you were “wrong for asserting yourself.” You are welcome to express your opinion. I never said you did not have the freedom to express yourself. You do. I simply challenged your logic. Challenging your statements is not an infringement of your freedom. You don’t have “freedom” from people disagreeing with you on a public forum. You have the right to any statement or opinion you want. And I have the right to disagree with what you say.

      I just pointed out a logical fallacy. Of course “Scientology always works” when you assume that any failure is “out tech” and therefore “not Scientology” – even when you do not, in fact, know if there was out tech or not.

      I never said that “Scientology doesn’t work.” My exact words were “Scientology tech does not work equally well in all cases.” And that is my exact observation.

      You are welcome to disagree with my disagreement. You are welcome to counter my arguments. That is what free discussion is all about. But rather than continue the discussion, you choose to attack me, hinting that I “never had gains” and enjoy it when people lose. In other words, I’m an SP for “attacking the tech.”

      What can I say? It’s a generality. You give no specifics. Let me give you a specific: Sherry Katz is a very good friend of mine. She is doing better now than she has in years. She is not losing, she is winning. And I rejoice in her finding her new life and finding her feet and doing well. You are the one carping about how she has “out tech on her case” and must get back into session and get it repaired. This sort of invalidation and evaluation is against the code you profess to live by.

      Anytime you want to continue the discussion and address the logical fallacy I brought up, I’m here. If you want to go all ad hominem on me, well, as you say, that “speaks for itself.”

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 12:16 am

        You made it very clear in your press conference that you think the results of Scientology are false, there is no such thing as immortality and Scientology can’t ‘deliver it’. Now, let’s be honest here, you aren’t a Scientologist by admission, in fact you have disavowed Scientology, not just the Church, but the subject. That’s pretty clear. It’s also clear that is a Suppressive Act according to LRH policy. Now, whether you are or aren’t an SP is way beyond this little discussion boards ability to determine. I’d have to check your folders for TA, compare both the social and anti social traits in an exhaustive examination and so on. I’d include your help to Scientology and Scientologists and have to judge whether or not that outweighed the SP acts obviously committed and if they did, well then I’d absolve you. However, Virgil’s summation, albeit hard to swallow for some, pretty much sums it up.

        While this here post is gonna jar some facsimiles, it is able to be verified by your very own words at the press conference, and if I were on your Comm Ev, I’d chase down your various times of disavowel and dismissal of Scientology, at least its Upper Levels. So, let’s not mince words here.

        It is equally apparent that Sherry does in fact have BPC. She said it; ‘ I AM MIFFED’. How she came to have that BPC and its source is equally beyond the ability of this here board to determine. But, she has it.

        Sherry herself has gone from being an Independent Scientologist, to now publicly disavowing the subject AND LRH. The same materials apply to her from a Scientological viewpoint, as apply to you in this case. That you state you have a close relationship with her, is also added to by her sister in-law, Nancy Many who also has lots of BPC, admitted by Nancy, and the fact that Nancy is an avowed and knowing enemy of Scientology and LRH. Again, let’s not mince words here.

        How you fellas and gals came to be now avowed and knowing enemies of Scientology and LRH is something for a close invest, a rational invest, and in the end, your contributions and help to man would need to be weighed out. Your folders checked. All the ‘usual’ stuff.

        You don’t like that idea. OK. I’m not sure I’d like that quinine either, but I guarantee, someday, you will want to take it. Maybe not for a while, even lifetimes, but someday.

        Well, there, I’ve said it. You wanna go for a beer later? No matter what you may consider by the above, I have firmly in my knowing, you are a good being, Sherry is a good being and Nancy has as many motivators as a being could get, vicious nasty shit pulled on her by Sea Org members, Suppressive Acts in their own right. All of you the same. Let’s not mince words on that either.


      • fishdaddy permalink*
        February 17, 2010 1:40 am

        Jim, you and I know each other and have mutual respect for each other. That said, you didn’t mince words and I won’t either.

        I know what I said and didn’t say in the press conference. I was actually there. And I have a copy of my speech. I clearly said that I am not anti-Scientology, that there was much good that I found in Scientology. I also gave a detailed description of how the Church uses the granting and withholding of “immortality” as a control mechanism. And yes, I stated they can deliver neither. That’s my opinion, stated as such. You may believe otherwise – fine. But so far I haven’t seen anyone completing their OT levels and then living life after life with full memory and awareness. You may believe it can or will happen – fine. It’s not my belief and I haven’t seen it. I do have a right to my beliefs and observations, as does anyone.

        Most religions do this, by the way. They dangle immortality in front of people as a carrot and a stick. And I object to it when anyone does it.

        From a hardline Scientologist viewpoint – your viewpoint – that makes me an “enemy.” By questioning Scientology or questioning LRH, I am an “enemy,” an “SP.” I am guilty of “Suppressive Acts.”

        You know how much these labels mean to me? Nothing. I do not care one whit what The Church of Scientology labels me. And I don’t care what you label me. And I don’t care how many Policy Letters you quote at me to prove how Suppressive I am. My friends know who I am and what I stand for, and that is ALL that matters.

        I’ve had my fill of being labeled and judged. Really.

        I know you believe in Scientology tech. And that’s fine, even admirable. I fully grant you your beliefs and opinions.

        Where you step over the line is where you insist that your beliefs are the ONLY beliefs, and where you insist that everyone agree with you, or they will be labeled an enemy. Where you try to cram your beliefs down the throats of people, and if they don’t see it, tell them to restudy and word clear and read it again and again and again until they finally SEE your truth and AGREE with it.

        I would object to that kind of attitude coming from a Christian or a Muslim or any other religion. I object to people who arrogantly think they have the ONLY answers and anyone who disagrees is an enemy to be shouted down or destroyed.

        One of the reasons I left Scientology was because of just that kind of arrogance and superior attitude – looking down on all who didn’t agree with Scientology as inferior, misinformed, ignorant, or even “enemies.”

        If the “Independent Scientology” movement wants to gain any traction, I suggest learning from the Church’s mistakes. Stop labeling. Stop judging. Stop browbeating and bullying people into some kind of conformity. Have some respect and tolerance for people with other beliefs. Chill.

        End of rant. Now let’s have that beer.


      • SherryMK permalink
        February 17, 2010 1:42 am

        “Sherry herself has gone from being an Independent Scientologist, to now publicly disavowing the subject AND LRH.”

        I have? Thanks for letting me know.

      • Editor permalink*
        February 17, 2010 6:25 am

        Jim, I deleted your last comment. No one, and I mean no one, is going to get away with “assigning Conditions” on this blog. Ain’t gonna happen. You do not have any authority or position. You are no one’s “senior.” Your opinions are welcome. Your judgments of people are not. Your “Ethics Handlings” are not. So please, no more talk of Conditions, Comm Evs, Investigations, or SP Declares. Most of us have LEFT the Church.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 5:13 pm

        It’s your blog, you can do with it as you see fit. As a being, I apply a truism, I will get the condition I fail to assign. That you have ‘left the Church’ was not equated with you have left the technology of ethics behind, to me. Until now. That’s an important piece of data for me. Thank you for clarifying it.

      • Editor permalink*
        February 17, 2010 7:19 pm

        Jim, no one said anything about “leaving the technology of ethics behind.” I don’t object to ethics, as you insinuate. I object to your high-handed use of “Conditions” to be judgemental of other posters. If “ethics” to you means labelling people who don’t agree with you, then no, it doesn’t belong on this forum. “Getting the condition you fail to assign” applies to a junior and senior. You are not, not, not “senior” to anyone on this blog. And you are not more ethical.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 7:31 pm

        I have no recollection of any data that says ‘getting the condition you fail to assign’ applies to ONLY the circumstance of a ‘junior and senior’. That’s seems very much to me tantamount to saying applying the PTS/SP material only applies to those in the Church of Scientology, or indeed, as has been suggested only the Church of Scientology.

        I didn’t ‘insinuate’ I said it openly. You’ve now said it yourself to me again, with the false limitation of getting the condition you fail to assign being restricted to some ‘junior-senior’ relationship.

        You’ve now upbraided me twice for applying Scientology ethics outside the context of the Church of Scientology. It is for use in life, and life exists outside the Church.

        If you actually permit this to be posted, I’ll be pleasantly surprized.

      • Editor permalink*
        February 17, 2010 8:50 pm

        Jim, so be pleasantly surprised. I didn’t upbraid you for using ethics tech, by the way, I upbraided you for being judgemental of others.

    • Mickey permalink
      February 17, 2010 1:29 am

      Geeezzz… hopes for the Indie community making it past much of a start were dashed to some degree with this type of comm Jim. Sad to see such a carry over from the “line drawn in the sand” type of thinking.

      Perhaps it’s still part of the process in getting to understand we are, all of us, still doing the best we can and finding the same challenges of being spiritual beings thinking we are here having a human experience.

      I say, lighten up and remember to laugh. It ain’t all that serious…..really it isn’t.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 2:06 am

        No, neither of us are mincing on this one. I very carefully listened to the press conference, and aside from being driven to tears by Maureen’s nightmare, your speech was of particular note to me, again, because I worked with you and we still are involved in a mutual experience here, outside the confines of that place.

        Now, if you review my comment, I very advisedly said I had no judgment on whether or not the case state of SP applied to you. I said you had committed a Suppressive Act by public disavowal of Scientology and LRH. I certainly grant you the right to make any avowals or disavowals you may care to make. However, from a Scientological viewpoint, and according to policy written by LRH, this declaration is indeed a Suppressive Act, at least on its surface. There are many other things to check into before I would come to a decision on whether or not you are truly SP. THAT is what I said. And, well, here, I just said it agin.

        You did say in your press conference that you are not ‘anti-Scientology’ and that you consider there may be much good in it. And, as you acknowledge, the immortality doesnt’ exist and Scientology can’t deliver it. We are both tracking with what you said. I find, as did Virgil, your claimed stance that you are willing to grant Scientologists the right to their beliefs, while you deny validity of them and categorically deny the efficacy of the subject and its ability to deliver its results, to be, well at the very least somewhat disingenuous.

        Now, since we two have granted each other respect in the past and to date, make no mistake, as far as I’m concerned and this applies to anyone else, you have every right to think, consider and decry and express and state any bloody thing you like, publicly, privately and any way you want to, and as a person I will grant you that right, even defend it. I’ve made no attempt to curtail that. I merely pointed out the fact that relative to Scientology’s policies, you have committed SP acts. I will add to that, and my original comment, again that is the apparency. Full invest would determine the facts.

        The rest of this stuff about what’s happened in the past and I’m making you wrong and all that, well heck Jeff, that’s not me and that’s not you. For Chrissakes, I’M a declared SP and have gone through any and everything that any one of you has, save, DM never dared laid a hand on me. It would have resulted in something different than occurred with you. He knew that. He knows it still.

      • fishdaddy permalink*
        February 17, 2010 2:28 am

        Jim, I just call ’em as I see ’em. If speaking my mind is a Suppressive Act, then I’m about as SP as they come!

        Yes, I can grant someone the right to their own beliefs, and respect those beliefs, while not personally agreeing with those beliefs. This may be a difficult concept for a Scientologist to get their wits around, as they think disagreement with their beliefs is an attack on those beliefs and therefore an “enemy act.” Most people don’t think that way – they realize that there are many different religions and belief systems and try to practice a degree of tolerance. To each his own.

        I don’t believe in certain parts of Scientology. That doesn’t make me an enemy. It just makes me someone who doesn’t believe in certain parts of Scientology.

        Yes, according to Scientology’s policy, That makes me an SP. Again, I say “so what?”

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:19 am

        Yeah, Mickey, when I hear that “line in the sand” talk I start to think, “who benefits from this kind of thinking?” Who’s interests are served by in-fighting, fractionalization, and intolerance of others’ realities and veiw points?

        We can all answer that one for ourselves.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 5:22 am

        I’m a Scientologist and I have absolutely no trouble with what you’ve said above; “I can grant someone the right to their own beliefs, and respect those beliefs, while not personally agreeing with those beliefs.” In fact, your press conference statement is your present belief and you have every right to be there and communicate. I’m not demanding you take a license to survive from me. I’m merely pointing out that you have publicly disavowed Scientology and LRH, more than once, and that on its surface is an SP Act. You’ve denigrated Scientology publicly. That is a contradiction to your claim of “Most people don’t think that way – they realize that there are many different religions and belief systems and try to practice a degree of tolerance. ”

        Like I said earlier, you and I have a common reality, we’ve lived through one of the most suppressive situations imagineable. We both want to see DM done and the suppressive insanity he’s wrought over three decades, righted. That purpose will do a lot of good for our fellows, Scientologist or no.

        The rest of this, well, as a couple of SPs, you being more SP than me (that’s for you luna), it only seems appropriate that you pay for the cold beer.

      • fishdaddy permalink*
        February 17, 2010 6:37 am

        “I’m merely pointing out that you have publicly disavowed Scientology and LRH, more than once, and that on its surface is an SP Act.” You’re quoting Scientology Policy at me. I’m not a Scientologist. So, what’s your point? That it’s an “enemy act” to speak my mind about Scientology?

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 5:08 pm

        My point is exactly what you’ve quoted. That’s it. Yes, it is Scientology policy. Yes, I use it. Yes, in livingness it provides valuable insight. No, it has not substituted for my own ability to observe or for me. It sure is diabolically accurate though.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 3:36 am


      I just want to go on record here as telling you that I found your attack, and it was an attack, on Sherry to be completely unacceptable. How does a trained terminal such as yourself have the balls to make such an invalidating and completely evaluative indication? I’m at a loss for words. Your arrogance floors me.

  35. Darla permalink
    February 16, 2010 6:59 pm

    How you managed to do that analysis amongst all these posts is amazing. Whoa!
    You nailed it, and I think all that read these posts by fishdaddy will see it from now on.

    • TheEmperorIsNaked permalink
      February 16, 2010 9:38 pm

      I’m not sure how to take your comment. But first a question.

      What is the definition of ad hominem?

      • Editor permalink*
        February 16, 2010 9:52 pm

        Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.


    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 3:51 am

      Would you like another knife, Darla. I see yours is busy, between fishdaddy’s shoulder blades.

    • TheEmperorIsNaked permalink
      February 17, 2010 6:27 am

      Thanks Editor. I was wondering if Darla knew that. An attack like that could come from an MU.

  36. Darla permalink
    February 16, 2010 7:16 pm

    Your comments about the tech not (always) working compels me to ask you:”Why as an OT VIII and classed auditor, did you become THE TECH SEC of an org?” Hmmmm………. If the tech doesn’t (always) work then what was your motive?

    • SherryMK permalink
      February 16, 2010 10:29 pm


      Hmmmm indeed!

      That I AM an OTVlll, Grad V auditor and previous Tech Sec gives me the “rear window view” from which to evaluate. One would not be able to evaluate something about which he knows nothing and with which he has no basis of comparision.

      It’s a bit funny how you have, in your own way, made my case. How WOULD it happen that someone who is a trained auditor, trained Tech and Qual person, who’s made it all the way to OTVlll(with all the endless sec checking, FPRD, reviews, etc etc), now be questioning the validity of the tech as “100% workable”? Now wanting proof of the states that were promised on the bridge to total freedom, now wanting answers to questions that have not been answered satisfactorily?

      That’s an excellent question. My point exactly.

      That I am now able to step back and LOOK, is a freedom I wish you felt you could exercise. I have the freedom to take whatever I want from Scientology and use it to better my life and throw the rest away if I choose. I have much to be thankful for in that regard. I have drawn from Scientology a tremendous amount of information which I am now able to inspect objectively and without fear of being labeled “out KSW”.

      And I have the freedom to be able to step back and observe that there is just as much credibility in other teachings, if they work to improve some aspect of my and others lives, as there are in the teachings of Scientology and I can do inspect these without being labeled “open minded”. I have the freedom to challenge whatever I want to if it’s counter to my own observations, without being shown “KSW 1” or asked to “find my MU”. I have the freedom to be able to speak freely, write freely, evaluate data freely, what I’ve observed and what I’ve experienced, whether or not they be in in alignment with or favorable to Scientology. I have an opinion which I can voice, whether or not others agree with it. I have the freedom to question. I have the freedom to speak the truth without having to worry whether or not that truth is “out PR for the church” or if that truth will be seen as “not setting a good example as an OT”

      And so does everyone else.

      I’ve never mentioned this before I don’t think, but a number of months back I ended up at a party where a group of New OTVllls happened to be also; all of whom I had gone up the bridge with, spent time at Flag and the Freewinds with, been through the good times, the bad times with, been thru the rough times and the great times with. What shocked me is that each one told me separate from the others, that after they completed OTVlll, they never had any intention of doing OTlX and X. They were done. I was literally floored. I had had no idea. We’d never spoken of it before, of course, yet each of these OTVllls had come to their own conclusions individually and had made their own decisions independent of each other.

      I dont know what I expected, but certainly, the communications I got that day with these other OTVllls was not it. Their decisions were made based on their own individual experiences and were varied, but the main ones were twofold: 1)Not wanting to subject themselves to that much control by anything or anyone ever again and 2) So very disappointed with OTVlll that there was no interest in any other OT levels.

      Talk about “Truth Revealed”. These was quite an eye opener for me.

      One should to his own conclusions. I’ve no doubt, for some of you here, of what those will be. The same pat answers, the same unverified evaluations, the same circular arguments.

      I will end with sharing with you what I consider was my greatest gain from OTVll(7). I recall it clearly, that day in 2003 when I finished and it remains with me to this day. It is this: I no longer feel I need to defend myself. It’s a kind of unshakable certainty inside myself of myself. It’s not a “I’m always right and don’t need to explain myself” it’s a “I can be right, I can be wrong but I don’t have to DEFEND either” Big difference.

      And that, I can say, is a lovely realization…one I think I will take right into my lovely eternity.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:00 am

        This blows my mind, but it completely validates the conclusions I have come to on my own. Thank you SO much for being willing to share it.

        This was a great post, Sherry. True grace under attack.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 3:52 am

      Who the hell are you? You seem to have jumped right in here, quite opportunistically, out of nowhere.

  37. fishdaddy permalink*
    February 16, 2010 7:27 pm

    Darla, all Virgil “nailed” was a lot of generalities and ad hominem – see my reply. I welcome any rebuttals to the actual points I brought up. I welcome open discussion. I respect Virgils opinions and your opinions. But this sort of ad hominem attack is simply a continuation of what the Church does – if anyone disagrees, they label them SP (which is what Virgil is intimating) and shun them. That’s not an answer. That is just an attempt to quash and discredit any differing opinion. So how about we stick with the issues and avoid personal attacks?

    • February 17, 2010 12:37 am

      First of all let me say that I respect your opinion fishdaddy and feel you have contributed and contribute quite a lot to any discussion on this subject and you have every right to counter any opinion you disagree with, including mine 😉

      Virgil my brother in arms, just because someone says the tech did not work on them does not mean they are an SP or a NCG and as fish pointed out unless you have their folder to hand and are in session with them personally it borders on illegal auditing!

      Please, please, please!!!!

      I ask that we not make these technical discussions personal!

      All it does it create BPC and bad feelings all around!

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:01 am

        Thank you, RJ, I’m sure your post will be more effective than mine. Well said.


    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 3:55 am

      Exactly. I admire your restraint and cool head, Fishdaddy. I don’t personally roll that way, but’s it very admirable : )

      I’m going to follow your example and take a deep breath.

  38. craig houchin permalink
    February 16, 2010 11:48 pm

    Wow, Sherry. This IS surprising.

    “What shocked me is that each one told me separate from the others, that after they completed OTVlll, they never had any intention of doing OTlX and X. They were done.”

    I’m sure there are a few lurkers here who will also be surprised to read that — though probably without smiley faces.

  39. craig houchin permalink
    February 17, 2010 12:55 am


    I won’t respond for Jeff. He is much better at it than I am — but since I am posting here under my real name, by the Church’s game rules I have crossed the line and, therefore, could be classed in the same SP category as Jeff. So on that basis, I feel I have a right to respond to your post.

    I appreciate your dedication to your idea of standard tech. It obviously means something to you and you uphold it. That is commendable.

    However, the absolute beauty of this moment is that all of that justice crap you just reeled off has absolutely no bearing on my life at all — nor on my next life.

    Suppressive? Enemy? That’s just name-calling from a discredited group. Scientology has no functioning Justice mechanism. If it did, you wouldn’t be posting on an “SPs” blog, DM wouldn’t have risen to power and we wouldn’t be having this chat.

    A Comm Ev? Who cares. I’m sure the ants in my backyard get pissed off at me every time I water and hold all sorts of tribunals on me.

    You speak about Scientology justice as if it were some immutable law of the universe when it is only the rules in very small game on a very small planet in the back corner of a very large universe.

    To paraphrase Lunamoth from earlier: I do not recognize your (or the Church’s) authority to judge me or absolve me of anything.

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 17, 2010 1:40 am

      You can consider it anything you like. I am a Scientologist. That means I apply Scientology. As to you posting on this website, well, I certainly don’t know what policy that violates. Jeff has specifically disavowed Scientology and declared against it. That’s very much different than merely airing your views.

      Air your views, view other’s views as you please. That’s not even close to what I’m talking about.

  40. craig houchin permalink
    February 17, 2010 1:40 am

    Mickey, you’re right. It ain’t serious and that’s the whole point. Thanks for the reminder.

  41. February 17, 2010 2:49 am

    Jim Logan,

    You are here on the same basis as the rest of us and your current rank is earned by what you contribute and how valuable that is to the individuals in the group..

    You are free to adhere to whatever policies you were taught, but they were worthless in terms of keeping Scientology free from SPs so your reference to such discredited policies does not do you credit.

    We are a growing community of independent beings and are free to observe and to comment on what we observe. Any effort to block that communication and control the conclusions made smacks of the suppressive actions of the church we departed from.

    Any action made to keep people from asking questions about the tech and bad or good results from applying the tech is an effort to conceal the truth.

    The same applies to questions about LRH, his personal life, his successes and his overts against scientology public and staff.

    If you feel that there are areas so sacred that that they cannot be questioned, you are shutting yourself off from the fruits of observation.

    If you feel there is some value in claiming to be a scientologist, what ever that is today, by all means do it.

    Those of us who have looked into the darker corners may call ourselves what we wish, but we have certainty on what we observed. We do not need labels to prove who we are or what we know.

    There are true gems of wisdom to be found in Scientology, but they are often buried in false data and willful misapplication. If you feel otherwise, that is your choice.

    We are discovering the truth about scientology’s history in this forum and in many other forums. The questioning has not run its course yet and we will all have a chance to accept or reject what comes out of these discussions.

    You have a right to decide what is an acceptable truth for yourself. We have an equal right to decide what is true for us. They may not be the same.

    We no longer are bound by a code that enforces a particular “truth”. We are free to look and to comment, and to decide for ourselves.

    • SherryMK permalink
      February 17, 2010 3:54 am

      This is a beautiful piece of writing Old Auditor. No other words are needed.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 4:04 am

      Old Auditor, I think I love you.


      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 7:26 am

        Old Auditor

        Please excuse RJ. He is Mr. Cranky Pants.

        I think you’re pretty damn great, and you can be the oracle of this blog if you want.


    • February 17, 2010 4:14 am

      Oh please Ol’auditor saying something like:

      “We are discovering the truth about scientology’s history in this forum and in many other forums. The questioning has not run its course yet and we will all have a chance to accept or reject what comes out of these discussions.”

      Make’s me cringe.

      As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by Indians:

      “What do you mean by “we” white man?”

      I certainly don’t go to forums to discover the “truth” about any subject. I go there to discuss and comment on various things.

      If I want to know the “truth” I’ll read a book!

      Also the following comment is nothing but a generality:

      “You are free to adhere to whatever policies you were taught, but they were worthless in terms of keeping Scientology free from SPs so your reference to such discredited policies does not do you credit.”

      What “discredited policies” exactly?

      Who “discredited” them?

      When were they supposedly “discredited”?

      Where exactly and what time did they become “discredited”?

      My friend Jimbo has every right to say what he said whether you agree with it or not.

      If it’s not true for you fine.

      But don’t be so presumptuous as to assume that it isn’t true to others!

      I personally have a great deal of respect for Jim and his knowledge of tech and policy.

      I also enjoy the quotes he includes in his comments and really I don’t care if you like them or not.

      Jim, can post them any time he wants.

      Since when did you become the board’s oracle?

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 4:27 am

        “If I want to know the “truth,” I’ll read a book.”

        RJ, I don’t know if you really mean this or if you’re just ticked off (understandable if that’s the case). But do you really believe you can not find truth in open and honest discussion with others? Or are you communicating that you already know all the truth you need? Not intending to limit you to those two choices, but this doesn’t sound like the guy who’s posts I’ve been following on Marty’s site. Would you please elaborate?

      • February 17, 2010 7:38 am


        I’m not writing that I know all truths or that a certain degree of truth is not available on a discussion board, but when I research an area or topic I will read books relating to it, not google it hit Wikipedia and delude myself into thinking I actually “know” something about whatever I’m researching!

        (especially Wikipedia!!!)

        Discussion boards are nice but many of the truths consists of truths I’ve known to be true to begin with that actually confirm what I know or the poster may indicate certain facets or areas that require further investigation and research on my part.

        So what happens is I end up going to or Alibri anyway to further clarify something by actually biting the bullet and buying a book on it or several dozen which is what I did when I was researching the field of intelligence.

        Do see where I’m coming from luna babe?

        Sorry if it seemed like an insult.

        That wasn’t my intention.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:41 pm


        That’s OK. Thanks for clarifying.

    • Jim Logan permalink
      February 17, 2010 5:36 am

      Old Auditor,
      I’ll reply to all of your points, as they pretty much appear to be of a piece. I’m here because I chose to be here, and I’ll be here and communicate until I choose not to, or since this particular venue has an edit function residing with its originator, he decides to not publish what I write. I don’t need your approval and whether you credit me or not isn’t the basis of my decision to be here and communicate.

      I have not once, not a single time, on this thread or any other on any other blog, website or chatroom ever said any other being should refuse to look at life, truth or any aspect of anything in this or any other universe. I’m afraid you have assumed something that is patently not true about me or what I have said.

      I most certainly encourage you or anyone to discover the truth about Scientology, LRH, and whatever else you want to discover, for yourself as that is the only way you will ever discover anything of value.

      Is that clearly expressed?

      At the same time, I have no lack of ability to do the same and do so every single day.

      You, any body, have every right to look at, consider, read, conclude upon and do whatever you please with any data anywhere. Is that clearly enough expressed?

      • craig houchin permalink
        February 17, 2010 5:46 am


        That is clearly expressed. Thank you. I still don’t yet fully groc you (Stranger in a Strange Land reference) but I’m getting there.

      • Jim Logan permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:16 am

        Let me pose that failure to ‘groc’ me (I’ve read Stranger in a Strange Land) may have something to do with the fact that I’m actually a woman and if ever you get close to groccing me, I’ll change.

    • TheEmperorIsNaked permalink
      February 17, 2010 6:49 am

      Old Auditor actually said:

      “There are true gems of wisdom to be found in Scientology, but they are often buried in false data and willful misapplication. If you feel otherwise, that is your choice.”

      I think you actually agree with Jim. As a Cram Off I think he would merely want to help you with some false data stripping and also help you locate, stamp out and abolish willful misapplication. In any case, I find that statement very odd. Personally I want to mine all the gems of wisdom I can out of the Tech. If I find some turds, I’ll do the usual handlings and then if they are still turds, I’ll just move on and label it “not useful at this time”. I may comment on it, but I won’t try to sell anyone else on its “turdness”.

      I also wanted to chime in here because I did not like the we against you attitude. If we are all making nice here, let’s not focus on anyone with a plural against singular type argument. All you did was make me want to defend him. I don’t feel he is one against the crowd. I am appreciating all viewpoints on this particular thread – including yours Old Auditor.

  42. SherryMK permalink
    February 17, 2010 3:53 am

    For what started out questioning if there is, anywhere, a real Scientology OT(including Ron) who has attained “cause over matter, energy, space, time, and life” stably, this thread has certainly veered in some interesting directions.

    It’s been quite enlightening for me..Let’s see: I’ve got a full C/S to correct everything that’s wrong with me. I’ve found out that lots of things are wrong with me. I’ve found out that I have tons of out tech on my case. I’ve found out I don’t believe that any of the tech works. I’ve found out that I’ve got BPC (to be run on the meter as “I’m miffed”) and need to get in session right away. I’ve gotten an indication that possibly no tech has ever worked on me, that I might even be a NCG. (I’m sure the Flag and Freewinds technical staff will be happy to know they missed all the indicators), I’ve found out that I’ve publically disavowed not only Scientology, but LRH. I’ve found out that it’s obvious, by my association with a number of people I love, respect and admire, I’ve stopped being an Independent Scientologist.

    Is my needle floating yet?

    I’d like to go back to the original discussion and forget about playing into the hands of OSA, who MUST be laughing their asses off. I certainly am.

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 4:05 am

      LOL I can’t believe I’m sharing a laugh with OSA! Hi, guys!!

  43. Aeolus permalink
    February 17, 2010 4:26 am

    One time I asked a friend, a good Christian man, why the name of his church was so similar to another. He told me they had once been a single church, but many years ago two Deacons had a falling out over whether it was acceptable to have a second glass of wine at communion. One deacon was sure this would be alright with the Good Lord, who after all had conjured up some extra wine for his wedding guests. The other deacon was just as sure that this was the sin of intemperance and the over-imbiber was likely to burn in hell.

    These gentlemen agreed on every other point of theology and religious practice, but on this one issue there seemed to be no middle ground. As the debate became more heated other members were drawn to one side or the other until they split into two congregations, who referred to each other derisively as one-cuppers and two-cuppers. Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

    Not so silly, as anyone famiar with English history knows, are the thousands of deaths and hundreds of years of drama from the split between the Anglican Church and the Catholics. There are echoes of this even today in Northern Ireland. From a more distant perspective, say Hindu or Wiccan, the Anglicans and Catholics look like a couple of peas from the same pod. And then there are the Sunnis and Shiites, who share a common religion but blow each other up daily over what started as basically a family dispute some 1500 years ago.

    It’s ironic that the most bitter disputes atre often between people or groups that have the most in common. Well, I guess you have to have ARC before you can have an ARC break. Although the independent movement seems to cover a wider spectrum of opinions than the examples above, we still have huge areas of agreement. I probably have more in common philosophically with every one of the posters here than I do with any of the neighbors on my street.

    What is going to save us from the fate of the two-cuppers, in my opinion, is that we are not a formal group with a heirarchal structure. Thanks to the Internet we are a network of individuals with overlapping realities, and as such we resemble a natural ecosystem more than we do a man-made organization. This is a very stable model in that it can flex with changing circumstances. There will be a constant flexing, and agreeing and disagreeing because that’s the nature of it, but to the extent that we put more energy into our common goals than we do into fighting each other, we’ll get useful things done. And in any case, I’m learning continually from all sides of the discussion. How about you?

    • craig houchin permalink
      February 17, 2010 5:23 am


      Terrific parable and so appropriate. It’s true, I am learning a lot — about myself. The people who test you are the ones who teach you. Ha! What a game!

  44. February 17, 2010 4:51 am

    This thread is groiwng like a tree. It continues to sprout new branches. I reckon I’ll add another.

    After 22 years of living a life immersed in Scn, having mostly Scn friends, working for and with other Scn, my wife (not a Scn) and I moved to Fort Smith (FS), AR. FS is the second largest city in AR and there is probably a church to people ratio of one to 100. Lots of “religion” here but certainly no Scios, orgs or missions.

    As my wife and I began the process of introducing ourselves to the community we were both shocked that once we mentioned that we had just moved to FS, the first question people would ask is if we had a church yet. We quickly learned that a reply of “No” was not the answer to give. Once you said “no” the reg cycle would start and these cycles were, for the most part, hard sell tone 40 all the way and it was very odd for me to experience coming from a nonSCN. And my wife, with her roots being in Michigan, just thought the whole thing was incredibly rude. People don’t act that way in MI. If you said you did have a church then you damn sure better have one and be very familiar with it because there were going to be questions. Lots of questions as competition between churches is fierce and if luring someone from their church to yours is fair play. We quickly learned that answering, “We don’t go to church.” was the best way to go as it would instantly shift the topic of conversation. However, we did, as a result, have to endure being silently (no words), but loudly (body language), judged.

    Since living in this environment I have encountered many, many individuals who have been enormously aggresive in their attempts to convert me into joining there religious beliefs as interpreted by their particular denomination. In numerous instances, these individuals would not speak to me directly. What I mean by that is that they would speak to me via chapter and verse. Regardless of what I would originate, they would point out how erroneous my concept was by reciting chapter and verse from the Bible. My points were never entertained because I, not being one of them, had in their view, entered the process being inherently wrong. They were Bible-bots or, as they’re more commonly refered to, “Bible-Thumpers” and their way was the “ONLY” way. Of course, their secret weapon in the conversion process, and they always used it, indeed, they seemed to take delight in using it, was the consequence that I would inevitably face for not converting. That consequence being my soul would be lost and I would suffer and burn for ETERNITY (heavy emphasis on eternity) in hell.

    Wild shit no? But you know what…these experiences were like a mirror to me. Because as I observed and participated in these occurences, the parallels I recognized to the behavior of many Scn I had come into contact with over the years as well as what I had experienced in various reg cycles I allowed myself to be subjected to, was a revelation to me. And these experiences really moved me to step back and begin looking objectively at the CoS and I didn’t like what I was looking at.

    IMO, any individual or group entity that adopts the attitude and self-righteous stance of being the “ONLY” one or having the “ONLY” way then arrogantly attempts to enforce thier reality onto others, is ensuring that they will remain in a state of blindness and devolve.

    There was a time when LRH refered to Scn as being a “workable” way. But later he began to write in terms of “only” and, IMO, going from “workable” to “only” was tantamount to injecting a killer virus into the living organism we know as Scn. And, it appears to me that by the time DM got himself into position to make his move, the church had already sunk into a sick, weak and therefore vulnerable condition.

  45. ButterflyChaser permalink
    February 17, 2010 5:25 am

    I’m so happy I read this thread. Folks like Jim, Virgil, RJ and Darla remind me of why I left the church to begin with. Reading their posts gave me those same horrible somatics in the pit of my stomach that I used to get when receiving wrong indications from church terminals. And I was in way before DM when I was a child. So it ain’t all DM, ya’ll.

    On these blogs you have people who are trying to extricate themselves from a group they considered extremely damaging to their sanity. People who have suffered greatly at the hands of the church. And what do the above posters do? Pile more crud on them. “Gee. Thanks. I needed another pile of manure dumped on me!” So much for the healing process.

    Communication? Admiration? All those things that supposedly dissolve ridges? Where are they? All I am experiencing is FORCE. Again, this is one of the main reasons I left.

    I remember donating breast milk to a baby who had been extremely sickened by Barley Formula. The doctor said it was killing the little guy. His body couldn’t handle it and his mother’s own milk had dried up (she was on staff). He was very, very sick from the formula and his mother was distraught. I’m curious – would you guys continue to give this ill child Barley Formula since “It’s LRH”? Just curious. Would you let him die because LRH cannot be wrong – about anything? Think about it. WOULD YOU LET THIS CHILD DIE? Is it possible that LRH could have been wrong about Barley Formula? Is the baby “in treason” for not doing well with this bit of LRH advice?

    So, if someone gets a bad reaction to Barley Formula and you concede you would NOT let the child die, might it also follow that LRH could be wrong about other things? That which gives survival to one person, might actually kill another. Can you even see this? Please don’t tell me you would condone the death of this baby so that LRH was “being applied 100%!” I’m very serious when I ask this question!

    Such a reminder that I belonged for 36 years to a church with virtually no love, no compassion and no granting of beingness. I know all Independents are not like this (thankfully!), nor are all Scientologists. But the general vibe of most orgs I ever stepped into was pure solidity. Being reminded on this board of that same, exact wavelength sure puts a sour taste in the mouth. For if the ultimate path leads to NO ARC and to more suffering in this world – I want no part of it.

    Once, I had the privilege to work on a video with a group of Tibetan monks who worked directly for the Dalai Lama. These beings were so beautiful, so present, so clear, so non-judgemental – I just went home and wept in my pillow. I had never been around anybody this lifetime who made me feel this way. A feeling of utter joy and happiness swept over me just being in their space. If Scientology is the Road to Freedom, why haven’t I ever met one person who exuded such a presence in the church? Why do the Scientology loyalists on this board, basically, make you feel like shit?

    Thank you to so many of the others who have tried to communicate sanely. I respect you and admire you more deeply than I can articulate. You are my heroes.

    • February 17, 2010 6:35 am

      What I recommend for “horrible somatics in the pit of your stomach” is Pepto Bismal and stop reading our posts if they distress you that much!

      Oh by the way I never wrote that it was Miscavige exclusively. Maybe you should actually read some of my posts. Of course with a bottle of Pepto Bismal or Malox or whatever to fight back that nausea.

      Personally, I get tired of this victim of the church rant. As if the person in question never had any self determinism or freedom of choice in the matter. If your into the I am a total victim mode than I suggest ESMB or its hard core twin OCBMB.

      I don’t really consider myself a “recovering” Scientologist or into the Singer, West model of “cult abuse”.

      Also, you are not seriously “asking” a question you are making an assertion the exclamation point is a dead give away!

      As such, why would anyone defend such an assertion?

      Where does it say in any Scientology material that someone should go against the recommendation of a Doctor?

      As an aside I’ve seen kids who were raised on nothing but the Barley formula and they did just fine. So it’s not an all or nothing proposition or a one size fits all which is how Miscavige and others seem to view Scientology!

      It doesn’t mean the Barley Formula is for every infant.

      Just like Scientology isn’t for everyone, obviously since you prove my point.

      • craig houchin permalink
        February 17, 2010 6:55 am


        You crusty old bastard (insert smiley face here). Lighten up. Not everyone is as tough and single-minded as you are. Not everyone has been out as long as you. In fact, not everyone is you.

        Feeling confused and betrayed are natural and appropriate responses to discovering that your religion, the thing you invested not only this life in but all future lifetimes in, is little better than a criminal organization.

        I don’t think it’s fair to call someone’s communication a “victim rant” just because they may be angry about being betrayed. It’s easy to say, “shut up and walk it off, kid.” It’s not always so easy to do that quickly.

        This may be false data on my part, but I always thought auditors would be among the most compassionate people.

      • lunamoth permalink
        February 17, 2010 7:04 am

        WTF, RJ? Where the hell is your Auditor’s Code?

      • February 17, 2010 7:53 am

        Okay, you guys, I get your point and there is a certain degree of truth in what you both say 😉

        However, I don’t remember at any point saying “This is the Session”.

        I mean I hope ya’ll don’t get the idea I’m trying to audit anyone here. Because some of the …er…handlings …I’ve done here if done in session probably would have the e-meter cans cords wrapped around my neck and PC whacking me over the head with my meter.

        Not a pretty picture….

        Though kinda funny in a slap stick sorta way 🙂

        Anyway point taken.

        I’m going to cramming now.


      • ButterflyChaser permalink
        February 17, 2010 8:07 am

        That’s right, RJ. That’s why I’m on a site called, “LEAVING SCIENTOLOGY”. I am “leaving Scientology”, so it is appropriate for me to post here. Are you leaving? Have you left? I’m confused.

        And it’s true, I do feel like a victim of Scientology. I’m going to say it loud and clear so the whole world can hear – VICTIM, VICTIM, VICTIM.

        Definition 1: “one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent” (yep, sounds like me!)

        Definition 2: “one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment” (that TOTALLY sounds like me!)

        Definition 3: “one that is tricked or duped” (OMG! It’s me again!)

        Yes. I am a victim. Such a nasty word in Scientology. It’s like the lowest of the low. Like calling a woman the “c” word. I guess I’m just shit in your eyes, but that’s OK with me.

        I was raised in Scientology, although that does not get me completely off the “victim” hook. I became pretty “gung-ho” on my own as I got older and maxed out my credit cards to the point of bankruptcy trying to “go free”. And when I say, “maxed out” it is the highest credit card balance I know of from anybody I’ve EVER met. Such an idiot! Yup. You are right I should have left. I really don’t know why I didn’t, dammit. Very low self-determinism. Abysmal. You are 100% correct about that! I wish there had been a technology that would have restored my self-determinism, but there just didn’t seem to be one!

        I can guarantee you, I have felt like the biggest fool in the world for hanging around as long as I did. I feel stupid for being such a moron and not leaving sooner. But, alas, there it is again. That low self-determinism. After three decades, and after thousands of hours training and auditing, I still couldn’t muster it. Pathetic. Obviously, I am here, so I did eventually crawl out of my sorry, worm-like, uncausative state. Hooray for me!

        The problem now, however, is that my mental machinery is all gooped up from being in the trenches for so long. I read the blogs to attempt to get some sanity back in my head in order to figure out what the hell happened to me! Part of that whole “victim mentality” I suppose.

        Makes me wonder, though, why LRH even had Flow 1 in any of the auditing. I mean, that’s a pretty”victim-y” flow. I guess it’s OK in session? Not to be discussed otherwise?

        Anyhow, I go to a site called, LEAVING SCIENTOLOGY, cuz that seems like a great place to go for some help, ya’ know with – LEAVING SCIENTOLOGY – and what do I get? MORE! MORE Scientology! More evaluation and invalidation. Well. That sucks.

        Here I thought I’d get relief, but – yep – you are right again RJ! I’m going for the Pepto Bismol. Nothing else seems to work. Nothing. Thanks for reminding me.

  46. craig houchin permalink
    February 17, 2010 6:39 am

    Editor, thanks for this.

    “Editor: Jim, I deleted your last comment. No one, and I mean no one, is going to get away with “assigning Conditions” on this blog. Ain’t gonna happen. You do not have any authority or position. You are no one’s “senior.” Your opinions are welcome. Your judgments of people are not. Your “Ethics Handlings” are not. So please, no more talk of Conditions, Comm Evs, Investigations, or SP Declares. Most of us have LEFT the Church.”

    • lunamoth permalink
      February 17, 2010 7:02 am


      Thank you for the deletion of that “condition assignment.” I think that post had jacked up a lot of T.A.. I appreciate your ethics presence in this regard.

      Ironic, ain’t it?

  47. February 17, 2010 8:32 am


    Here we have Jeff and Jim going out for a beer. After their who’s more SP argument.

    And all the other contentiousness going on.

    Then it hit me!

    Well something hit me, like a bottle of Jack D !

    Check this out:

  48. Gaiagnostic permalink
    February 17, 2010 3:49 pm

    this is an amazing, amazing thread. Thank you all.

  49. Jim Logan permalink
    February 17, 2010 6:34 pm

    To all on this thread,
    So you know, from my viewpoint and what is very real to me as a being here on this planet and in this culture, life is lived by lots of people, thank Bogmagog. There is a tremendous amount of emotion and upset concerning our individual and collective experiences with Scientology over the past few decades. I’ve gone through it myself.

    There have been and are brutal assaults to rationality and beings from other beings supposed to be acting for the benefit of life, Scientologists apparently, against other Scientologists. and in complete contradiction to the fact that every single person writing on this thread and either formerly Scientologists or presently, are basically good with every positive attribute there is dwelling within them and in fact emanating from them.

    I’ve held a position and communicated from it. It isn’t the only position I am able to hold. It has ‘jacked the TA’ for some as has been pointed out. I’ve never lost sight of the fact that each of you along with myself, are part of the human race and you are all part of my life. So much good in the worst of us, and bad in the best of us, and fundamental love and respect for all of us, that is my personal view.

    You’ll have to ‘groc’ that as these words may not get it across.

    • Li Po permalink
      February 17, 2010 8:19 pm

      You get my full ack. I admire this 🙂

  50. ButterflyChaser permalink
    February 17, 2010 7:47 pm


    I once heard a funny story from a friend of mine whose daughter was a big celebrity at CCI. Her daughter was on the PTS/SP course and was studying the anti-social personality data. Well, she had just read the passage where LRH talks about the fact that if you can “see yourself in any of the anti-social characteristics, you certainly weren’t anti-social” (paraphrased). Anyhow, so she sheepishly raises her hand and says to the sup (Bob Klima – awesome sup) –

    “Bob, I feel really bad, cuz I can SEE some of these anti-social characteristics in myself!”

    See, she was HOPING he’d quote her the passage she had just read and tell her, “Well, my dear, that means you AREN’T anti-social.” But he didn’t say that. Do you know what he said to her, god bless him?

    “Why don’t you just knock it off, then?”

    Isn’t that the most beautiful response ***EVER***?

    So, this is my response to you, Jim. I keep seeing a pattern of bashing people’s heads in and then trying to kiss and make it better.

    If, indeed, you have a “fundamental love and respect for all of us”, why does that not manifest in the majority of your posts?

    Why don’t you just stop bashing their heads in to BEGIN with?

    Why don’t you “just knock it off”?

    I see you have a great ability to be pan-determined when you want to be. When you write from that viewpoint, dammit, it’s downright inspiring! Wow – imagine always attempting to write from that viewpoint. Instead of crushing people deeper into the mud, you actually might save a few souls!

    • Li Po permalink
      February 17, 2010 8:20 pm


  51. craig houchin permalink
    February 17, 2010 8:11 pm


    Just a word of advice. Take it not.

    On this particular blog site, perhaps you should communicate as you would in a group of never-been-Scientologists. No Scientologese.

    Don’t think of the readers on this blog as ex-Scinos, or Independent Scinos or any kind of Scino. Just communicate as if we weren’t Scientologists at all and knew nothing about the lingo.

    That’s not hard to do. We’ve all modified our speech from time to time to maintain reality with the people we happen to be with at the moment.

    It might even help you get your points across in a less restimulating way. The thing I think you need to understand is that a number of us on this Leaving Scientology blog are attempting to shift our viewpoints and come at the world without a Scientology filter.

    Personally, I am not trying to deny my knowledge of Scientology or my experience with it. I just want to remove my Scientology-colored glasses for a bit and engage the moment before me without instantly slapping a Scino label on it. With full awareness of the irony of my choice of words — allow me to freely “reach and withdraw” on Scientology here on this site.

    I hope that makes sense to you and that you will give it try.

  52. Li Po permalink
    February 17, 2010 8:54 pm

    That’s a pretty harsh moment in our history, and, for some of us, years of BPC to confront…Let’s go on further with the confront process! If Truth, the exact consideration, was so easy to find out, we would not be here struggling. I personnaly got so many wins in scientology that I cannot consider it as a scam. And, as a former Qual Sec, I observed so many times the phenomena of : “no/little gains= out techs”, that I consider it as a fact, without colored glasses, IMHO. It could well be that the “new ” OT levels don’t deliver what they promises (I don’t know, I didn’t do them), it could be that they are not the original or standard ones, we don’t KNOW and the rest is speculation. What cannot be unmocked are the wins a lot of us got from standard application of the tech and the self-determinism we found back. One good example being this one forum… Whatever our differences, we can agree on one point: there is an evil being at the head of Scientology, degrading everything positive in it. So let’s go on the right target.

  53. Editor permalink*
    February 17, 2010 8:56 pm

    I’m closing this post off for comments. It’s gotten abusive. “Virgil” showed up again calling posters on this thread “assholes” and “clowns.” Enough. Enough. Enough. Either people get civil or they can stay away.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: