Skip to content

“Too Gruesome”

May 14, 2010

I just finished Amy’s book, Abuse at the Top. A must-read. Of course, there was not a lot totally new to me, as I lived it along with Amy. But I was vividly reminded of the poisonous atmosphere at the Int Base, and the insanity that surrounds David Miscavige.

I was also reminded of a phrase I had mercifully forgotten: “too gruesome.” It’s a noun. It’s used like this: “give him a ‘too gruesome’.”

It comes from HCO Policy Letter of 5 January 1968, “Overfilled In-Basket, Bad News.” LRH says:


In the same issue, he also said, “It takes far more ethics and far steeper, enforced penalties to make an organization work than Scientologists have been using.”

This was written in 1968, the year that “overboards” were instituted on the ship. And chain locker imprisonment. And cleaning out the bilges.  Too gruesome.

Later that same year, LRH wrote, in HCO PL 4 October 68, “Ethics Presence,” “Men will keep the accounts straight only because you can muster bayonets to enforce that they do.”

I don’t know what LRH was running into that caused him to write such things. But they did set the tone for the Sea Org in 1968 – and thereafter. I well remember the arrival of a Sea Org Mission in 1968 where I was working, in Pubs Org Denmark. We soon had our own “overboardings” (buckets of icy water thrown at staff by a “firing squad), running “laps” up and down the stairs, and “noncompliant” people imprisoned in the elevator shaft. The stench of fear permeated the place. It was, in a word, gruesome.

Let’s look at some definitions. Well, according to my Random House, gruesome means “causing great horror; horribly repugnant; grisly.” Hmmm… horror.

And compliance? Well, when I was in the Sea Org, I knew exactly what compliance was. It meant following orders, completing your targets, doing what your senior told you to do. But what does the word itself mean? Back to the dictionary: “the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding; a tendency to yield readily to others, esp. in a weak and subservient way; conformity; accordance; cooperation or obedience.”

So for “noncompliance” we might also say “disobedience.” Puts a bit of a different spin on it when you say “make the penalties for disobedience too gruesome to be faced and enforce them.” When you put it that way, it sounds ominous, even Orwellian.

But that’s exactly what the Sea Org’s operating basis became. And of course Miscavige, being a sociopath, took it over the top – overboardings into the pool or the leech-infested lake, dozens of laps around the buildings, imprisoning people in their offices for weeks or months at a time, keeping people up for days. And he got very creative with ways to degrade and humiliate people – reading out their session withholds to the crew, making them salute his dog, having them clean out septic tanks or trash containers, and on and on. Read Amy’s book – you’ll be shocked at how depraved that man is.

So should the Church get rid of him? Definitely. Should they remove him from any position of authority? Absolutely. But, as I tell my Scientologist friends, if you are serious about reforming the Church, also, please, re-examine the things that have made the Church of Scientology the way it is today, the things that have been embedded in the DNA of the Sea Org.

Things like “too gruesomes.”

  1. May 14, 2010 5:57 am

    Thank you for all you do to enlighten people — all of us.

    I saw (and experienced) my share of “too gruesome” on the Royal Scotman — enough so that I knew to get the **** out of there. Hubbard was not the “gentle” man or friend of mankind as he’s been portrayed. His legacy lives on in dm.

    • May 14, 2010 11:52 am


      Could you elaborate, tell more of your personal experience with LRH? Or steer me to a site where you have?

      • Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
        May 14, 2010 9:45 pm

        Once Upon a Time

        Here you go ~~

      • Wallflower permalink
        May 14, 2010 11:10 pm

        Here’s the video of Hana’s speach

      • May 15, 2010 10:29 pm

        Rebecca and Wallflower,

        Thanks. Didn’t realize Arlo was Hana.

      • May 16, 2010 4:31 am

        First off, I’m not Hana Eltringham. I did know her in 1968/69 and I remember her as a lovely, calm, gentle, and competent woman. She was Captain of the Avon River when I was assigned to that vessel.
        Re LRH: I worked for LRH on the Royal Scotman, in two different posts in 1968. I saw and heard his roaring and raging. I witnessed his indifference to the pain of his subordinates and students, often people who truly did NOT deserve such harsh treatment for their mistakes. The thing that struck me was that he did not practice what he preached: his “gentle” side was nowhere to be seen, except in some of his writings and lectures. Although, there was one incident where he befriended me and showed me kindness. But he also allowed severe punishment (to me as well as others) for very minor things and, many times, the reason for the punishment was not made known. I could have been mildly reprimanded and then corrected and maybe even retrained, but no, I was blasted off the post without even knowing why. I joined the SO because I believed that Hubbard had a vision that was worthwhile and I wanted to do whatever he needed done. I was stunned that the person who I thought was going to save the world turned out to be a cruel, vindictive and somewhat crazy man with a huge chip on his shoulder. I didn’t want anything to do with his “religion” after that. There was nothing religious about it.

  2. craig houchin permalink
    May 14, 2010 6:32 am

    Amy’s book is a great read. It seems odd to say that, considering the subject matter. But it is great to keep getting these stories out. Great book cover too, Jeff.

    • Sinar permalink
      May 14, 2010 6:24 pm


      Amy’s book is a great read, but for myself – I had exactly a very similar reaction Jeff did, he has an awesome way of putting things into words. I’ve been trying to sum the feelings into words.

      The book is good, but it does remind me of many things which were gruesome that I had not been reminded of in a while. Her wedding pictures reminded me of being a groomsman at that happy occasion, which are mixed in among the gruesomes. Suffice to say that there are many of those in the years we spent there.

      Sorry for Arlo that there were too many gruesomes, but serving with LRH was much different than DM. There were periods of sunshine as well and I knew that the motives and ultimate goals were good throughout the rough times. Many of the staff and crew got up the grade chart when he was around.

      One has to realize that LRH went “off the lines” in Feb 80 and much of the feedback to him went through Pat/DM after that.

  3. May 14, 2010 6:50 am

    I guess Hubbard assumed the orders were supposed to be 100 % perfect and toward the survival of man and spirit. That was a wrongful assumption.

    Regarding “bayonets” I think we will always need some kind of control system. Anarchy will create great havoc. We need laws with punishments, I have came to realize that. The questions is how to interpret it.

    So the basis of Hubbards ideas are okay, but I agree that they are exaggerated and greatly misused by current management.

    Yeah, perhaps Hubbard went a little bit too far in some of his policy letters but nobody is perfect. As always, I will use the “What’s true for you is true for you” and interpret them mildly.

    • May 14, 2010 7:44 am

      I hope you’ll read this:

      I believe it’s very difficult to live with the truth after being deceived for so long. But it is possible, and ultimately preferable, to living with lies.

      I don’t believe there is any way to satisfactorily interpret the policies as benign. One would be forced to remain deluded to do that.

      • May 14, 2010 7:17 pm

        XSO, thanks for that link. I for one did go and read it. Most insightful! – Monte

    • May 14, 2010 8:20 am

      I wouldn’t trust people to “sort it out for themselves” about Hubbard’s teachings.
      You said it yourself: “I think we will always need some kind of control system. Anarchy will create great havoc. We need laws with punishments, I have came to realize that”.
      I believe any time anyone comes up with a Bright Idea having FINALLY! interpreted LRH correctly, a man of reason has to RUN!

      IMHO, Vadim

    • May 14, 2010 11:19 am

      Hubbardianen: “I think we will always need some kind of control system … So the basis of Hubbards ideas are okay”

      Wasn’t Stalin also strong on laws and punishment? If so, would you also be comfortable stating, “So the basis of Stalin’s ideas are okay”?

      In our societies, laws and enforcement of these laws existed *prior* to Hubbard coming along. The question should be more: What constructive “ideas” did Hubbard contribute that couldn’t already be found in society?

      As skillfully expressed by Jeff in his post, Hubbard’s contribution to “some kind of control system” was essentially to outlaw dissent. I sure don’t want this idea to make its way into society.

    • Another Jeff permalink
      May 14, 2010 1:29 pm

      There’s a big difference in “nobody is perfect” and outright human deprivation and destruction of workable technology that is supposed to make people more in ARC with others. I think our independent movement at some point will need to grow up to the fact that in 1967 LRH went very PTS and systematically put things in that can “too easily be mis-interpreted or missapplied”. However you want to justify it or sugarcoat or do your own little cognitive dissonance with it, you can’t go down this rabbit hole without confronting that it was LRH that started and put into effect the tone level of the Sea Org which is Amy’s book.

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 14, 2010 4:13 pm

      Interesting that LRH thought that punishing children (spanking, “rewards and penalites”) and SO members was OK, but had the smarts to never try that on public. Seems he condoned it when it he
      could get away with it, but where he couldn’t he said things like “punishment never works” and “all you have is his willingness.”

      Interesting example of situational ethics, I’d say.

      • Just a Girl permalink
        May 14, 2010 5:49 pm

        Yes, Luna, I agree wholly. When working at an Applied Scholastics school I was told to make the penalty for the students (kids!) who were in noncompliance “too gruesome to confront.” I repeatedly asked to see that reference, and I was repeatedly ignored. Thanks, Jeff, for providing it. I always thought it was completely f—ed, and now that’s confirmed.

      • Mickey permalink
        May 15, 2010 7:16 am

        Luna…. interesting example of hypocrisy, I’d say.

      • Karen permalink
        May 15, 2010 10:29 pm


        The reference on spanking of children seems out of context here. First of all, spanking your child was not considered child abuse back then it was considered normal discipline done in a family setting.

        The reference includes giving them an r factor that it was going to occur, no HE and R when doing it and being silent so as no to cause an engram. There is also a reference on slapping which talks about the surprise factor causing the greatest harm.

        I think LRH used spanking as a form of discipline, not punishment or abuse as seems to be implied.

      • Jeff permalink*
        May 15, 2010 11:20 pm

        There are a number of articles online that differentiate between “discipline” and “punishment” in raising children. Spanking falls under the latter category, regardless of how you dress it up. These terms have gotten muddled in common usage.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 16, 2010 1:28 am


        I’m sorry if my depiction of LRH’s philosophy is offensive to you. It’s not my intention to
        alloy your personal ARC for the material. My opinions on ApS schools offended you, too. I’m not trying to do that, Karen, but our reality is quite different here.

        In my book spanking is punishment. Children who have been “r-factored” that they will be spanked still consider it humiliating and painful.

        If someone stopped me on the street and explained, calmly,that I was going to be mildly assaulted by them for something I had done that morning, and they then assaulted me,
        the “r-factor” would not make me feel I had not been assaulted.

        If that same act was instead done to me by someone I loved and who I believed loved me unconditionally, and on whom I was completely and totally dependent upon for my survival, that wouldn’t make it any less punishment. It would, however, be a confusing and upsetting experience.

        Saying that spanking is not punishment is a justification made by those who spank. Period.


      • May 16, 2010 6:52 am

        With all due respect… In my experience, spanking may be neither discipline nor punishment. It can be a sign of affection – when done in the spirit of play. 😉

        Otherwise, I second your response to Karen re spanking “for discipline”. Unconditional love is unconditional.

      • Karen permalink
        May 16, 2010 3:38 pm


        The reference that I am talking about actually doesn’t really indicate that it should be done. It is more of an acknowledgement that it is done and should be done without speaking.

        I don’t know the title but it is a lecture from the R and D series, June 1950, possibly called Children. He is discussing processing children and just before this mentions observing a girl who had been switched running the switching out on her own. Here is what it says.

        “Child Dianetics is a pretty broad subject, however, which will not be covered in this lecture. It is of great use for the parent to furnish the pain and furnish the pleasure; in other words, to create an artificial situation of drives, resistances and awards in order to coax the child into doing something. But do it on an analytical level. Don’t spank and then talk. Talk quietly, and then spank; because by not saying a word you haven’t put much of an emotional engram on the case.

        Fortunately it is pretty hard to upset a person unless one uses very cruel and sadistic methods.”

        But in all fairness he also states in Dianetics: “The family which runs on the godhead plan, where somebody must be obeyed without question, is never a happy family. Its prosperity may be present in some materialistic aspects but its apparent survival as a unit is superficial.

        Forced groups are invariably less efficient than free groups working for a common goal.”

        Then a couple of paragraphs later, ” The corporal punishment of children is just another facet of the problem of the forced group. If anyone cares to argue over the necessity of punishing children, let him examine the source of the misbehavior of the children.”

        I thought this showed some interesting parallels to the church’s attitude. But, I agree spanking is more the realm of punishment than discipline, but it doesn’t have to be cruel if done, which I am not advocating.

      • Karen permalink
        May 16, 2010 3:50 pm


        I don’t take offense to comments that people have. We each have viewpoints some sharing similarities and differences, each having the potential of expanding our own viepoints. How could I ever grow if I were not willing to listen to someone who thinks differently than I. All I ask is that I also be allowed to communicate.

        I elaborated further in my post to Jeff. To save being redundant, see that.

        I get your point regarding treatment as adults and r factors of punishment. I think the hypocracy statement needs to be taken even further than isolating this with LRH, this is a common practice in all of society and many religions. I think we could all be a bit more humane whether we be Scientologists or not. There are great truth written/spoken by many great leaders. It is up to us as individuals to put them to practice.

      • Just a Girl permalink
        May 16, 2010 4:28 pm

        Karen, just because spanking your child “back then” was not “considered abuse” does not, in fact, negate that it is abuse. Physical assault, however mild, against someone smaller and less powerful than you are, done in anger, is abuse. You can’t say anger doesn’t enter into the equation. If one was not angry, one would not lash out. Why are children spanked? Because they did something their parental unit disagreed with. Plain and simple. You can R-factor any person (or group) that you are going to hurt them (read up on Rwanda), but that doesn’t make it acceptable.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 17, 2010 4:07 am

        VaD- I completely appreciate your Russian Male Mischievousness ; )

        Karen – I have packed all of my LRH materials away and will not be getting them out again any time soon, but a few years ago I M-9’d Child Dianetics and Educational Dianetics, and I can tell you that LRH did more than acquiesce to the practice others had of spanking. He condoned it, under certain conditions, and indeed described doing it to one of his sons. Does this challenge your view of LRH? I tell you, that’s pretty mild compared to what else is out there.

        And I completely agree with you that this problem is not limited to, nor did it start with LRH. But since the subject here is the LRH-generated practice of “too gruesome,” LRH’s writings and viewpoint as well as his actual practices are pertinent to the discussion, while Rwanda and other atrocities are, perhaps, tangential and could possibly even be little more than justifications.

        Funny thought – you and I appear to have many differences of opinion in this area, yet I’ll bet we have a LOT of common experiences, purpose, wins and such. Maybe one day we’ll get a chance to find out what those are, and we can have a cup of coffee and talk about it.

    • May 14, 2010 6:30 pm

      As a general reply, I have to agree that Hubbard somehow went into a slight misdirection (in the late 60’s?) and apparently went into the direction of control and sec checks. I’m still curious to why this occurred. Perhaps he had tried everything so very hard when it came to auditing and creating real OTs, but had failed and felt he might just enjoy the game while it lasted? Some older men also have a general tendency to get grumpy and stubborn. Perhaps he also “knew” (based on earlier time track incidents) that some kind of war might eventually brake out (MEST vs theta people) and therefore sec checking was of great importance? I don’t know.

      There were some paranoia involved but how would you feel if you were the leader of a new religious order and truly believed you were onto something here? I think most people would develop some kind of “healthy” paranoia.

      There are numerous and many examples of people coming into power losing some grip on reality. Greed is good, or is it God? It’s also much harder to be in a leading position and much easier to be a follower. Lennon for example was a “wild kid”, a heroin addict and cheated on a lot of women. McCartney said something interesting in his biography: “It’s always easier to be number two if you’re riding a horse in the woods, you don’t have to tear every bush down and get bruises, you can just ride along and let the number one pave the way.”

      I personally think Hubbards journey went from a purpose of saving mankind to slightly more of enjoying wealth and power. And he worked a lot. However, from my own perspective, I personally feel he has contributed a lot to mankind.

      I regard him as a man who created new ways of thinking (auditing, whole track, assists etc) that can be researched further in terms of finding incidents etc. I think a reformed Scientology 2.0 with new leaders will be much better off where these things can be discussed freely, like on this website, and where policy letters can be applied correctly and the bad ones even be suspended. Just leave the bad stuff out. Truth is always senior to Scientology.

      A famous freezoner thought full OT was possible to reach , but that it would take several lifetimes.

      • sherrymk permalink
        May 14, 2010 8:00 pm

        I can venture to make an educated guess on what happened to LRH in the “60s that changed him.

        In March 2007 I finished listening to the full congress lecture series as my birthday present to LRH. I got up in front of the Pasa staff to announce it and found these words coming out of my mouth “… one thing I realized after listening to these lectures was that Ron was still trying to figure out how to reach the state of clear up to 1962 when he decided to hold no more congresses” I actually did a mental “jump” when I realized these words came out of my mouth, but quickly put myself back into the mental fog of cognitive dissonance.

        My further conjecture is that he knew that there was no real lasting state of clear and had to come up with something else…unfortunately, many of these “something” elses only served the purpose of controlling others so they would never dare question his authority..or more importantly, never question the validity of the ‘tech”.

        Jeff..brilliant as always, you’ve taken this horrendous point and presented it in precisely a way that all can contribute to.

      • May 15, 2010 5:48 am


        No real lasting state of Clear? Are you talking about the results (e.g. “feeling good”) or are you talking about the content (not having a reactive mind)?

        Do believe in any auditing at all?

      • May 15, 2010 6:17 pm

        Joseph A. Winter split with Hubbard in October 1950, one of the reason being Hubbard’s *authoritarian attitude*. Same for John Campbell. Hubbard’s urge to control people around him showed up way before the 60s. This is also at the time Hubbard sent many letters to FBI, which contents show that Hubbard saw enemies everywhere. Someone at the FBI eventually noted on one of his letter, “Appear mental.” If you want to understand Hubbard in the 60s, you need to see if there were hints of these traits at a earlier time. If so, maybe his need to control people was simply innate to his character. As more people were willing to be controlled by Hubbard, and as people were willing to submit to harsher means of control by Hubbard, so his rules became harsher.

      • Mickey permalink
        May 15, 2010 7:33 pm

        R. Hill: “If you want to understand Hubbard in the 60s, you need to see if there were hints of these traits at a earlier time.”

        The below link might give some “hints of these traits” from earlier, pre-Dn/Scn LRH writings. Many of these admissions/affirmations will somewhat surprise and shock.

        It goes to the bottom line I believe that LRH, like us all, have a split mind, containing secret hidden thoughts that we innately know are not kind, as well as a plethora of opposite thoughts that we are willing to share with the world that we personally consider might be helpful. Anyone can make up anything and have the freedom to express or write about them. It’s buyer beware!!

        Click to access admissio.pdf

      • sherrymk permalink
        May 16, 2010 6:08 am


        Have you actually listened to all the congresses? If so, each lecture seems to be yet another attempt at figuring out the state of clear…it’s one of those ever changing sceneries throughout the lectures. All the “now I’ve finally figured it out” sort of thing.

        At one point either in the Congresses or the ACCs, and Jeff would have to confirm which, LRH stated to the effect that “we’ll just bypass the whole Clear thing and go directly to OT.” WTF???

        You ask do I believe in any auditing at all? Is that the question you’re asking? I think the lower grades have much value, at least the way they were done before the GAT. Many of the basic concepts, TRs, assists…I use all the time.

        The OT levels are straight out of the book “Sex and Rockets”, the occult world of Jack Parsons. Even the symbols. Written by Jack Carter. Parsons knew Ron quite well and the book mentions Ron numerous times in numerous situations. Very enlightening.

      • May 16, 2010 10:58 am


        I’m no OT, but I once spent some evening time watching TV with a couple of persons auditing on OT VII and I got to tell you, after about 30 minutes I experienced an extremly clean theta space. It was unbelieveable, haven’t experienced it since. That was the first time I realized there’s something more than MEST. There’s got to be something on those OT levels that works. I see several possibilities to why it doesn’t work or does work out.

        1. The OT III and NOTs is not applicable to every case. Perhaps the incidents described just simply isn’t part of that person’s case.
        2. The individual is not yet ready to audit it, perhaps not spiritually aware enough. Perhaps some intermediary steps or auditing have to be developed for those Clear but with not much success on OT III and NOTs, presumed the material is applicable to them.
        3. The OT III and NOTs is hogwash, but the pre-sessions clear the theta-air so much it makes you feel good.
        4. Everything is just hogwash, but somehow it just works because you believe it works. (Highly unlikely though.)

        I also believe you have to differ between people auditing on OT VII and a person having finished audited OT VII several years ago. Going into session every day probably results in a clearer theta-space than somebody not having been there for years.

      • Fidelio permalink
        May 16, 2010 4:09 pm

        thanks for that hint to Jack Parsons. I’ll follow that one up.
        I feel so bamboozled by Hubbard I can’t tell…

        My very best, Fidelio

      • sherrymk permalink
        May 16, 2010 7:11 pm


        I myself have been responsible for a few friends getting onto OTVll after them being in my home while I was auditing, and pretty much saying the same thing you did above. What to contribute this to? I often have wondered if it was the IDEA of putting theta into the environment and just doing it rather than what I was indoctrinated into believing I was doing with the auditing. I will tell you this. I can currently exude more “theta” now than EVER before in my life. I’ve found that it actually is where I sit, something I never thought before. It’s been 2 years in the coming, getting rid of all the false ideas of having to drive, push, be the savior of mankind, be the this be the that, do this, do that. I’ve finally found myself.

        Honestly, as I write this, I don’t know what to attribute this to. Does it actually have anything to do with my OT auditing? I’ll never be able to figure it out as the only point of reference I have is the C of S misapplication of so much regarding myself. And I don’t even know if THAT is a true statement. Perhaps it has nothing to do with my Scientology experience at all. And I don’t care about the what or the why. I’ve stopped introspecting on all that crap. And believe me, it is a great relief to not always be questioning my “state of existence” and it’s “purpose”

        I have found the passion and poetry that was always inside me, again. I love people, I love experiencing new viewpoints, I rejoice in humans, I sit in almost no judgment against others, they are who they are. I can decide to let close and who not to, simply based on my own decision and observation. I laugh, a LOT. I seek to make others laugh. I thought I had lost my sense of humor, only to find that it was just buried under all the seriousness of our “deadly serious activity.”. I find life to be a true joy.

        I don’t know what to say about all your speculations, but for me, just getting out of the mindset that I have to “figure it all out”, which is where I was at for the first year after leaving Scientology. Now I get the biggest joy out of helping my neighbor stack wood or lending a hand when a child trips.

        I’ve also pondered recently upon this: wouldn’t it be funny if this whole thing that man puts himself through, “Why am I here?” , “What is my purpose?”, “why am I like this?”, was just someone’s idea of a big joke? Maybe that’s our whole “purpose”. To get caught up in the “wonder” of it all and forget to just experience and observe. I’ve had a good chuckle or two out of that.


      • Just Me permalink
        May 16, 2010 10:13 pm


        Thanks much for your description of how you now take life so much less seriously than you once did, just a short time ago. It’s a great lesson to meditate on.

        Just Me

      • May 17, 2010 9:37 am


        I agree a whole lot of thinking can be done about this, I’ve done my share I can tell you. However, I still feel I’ve been improved a lot through Scientology, more ethical, feeling better, understanding more, curing headaches a couple of times a year with touch assists etc. Hubbards whole body of work is very interesting and it’s easy to get caught up in it.

        The improving of me has occurred on a gradient level and perhaps I’ve sort of forgotten who I was before Scientology. Sometimes I get tired of Scientology as well and just want to live a simple life without any thinking and that’s why I think Scientology should be regarded as a complement to life, not be regarded as life itself. Personally for me it works best in a periodic way, reading a month or so, then just forget about it for a year or something like that.

        I was thinking your auditing might have occurred on such a gradient level that you get used to your “new” you more and more. I remember once cleaning my ears *LOL* when they were full of stuff and WOW how much I could hear directly after! Unbelievable, it was like getting new ears. But now I can’t say I feel so much different about it since I’ve gotten used to it.

        So partly I think people get used to their “new” them and sort of take it for granted. This is in no way intended to neglect those people who feel they have not benefited from auditing or Scientology books etc.

        Regarding clean theta space. I have to tell you that specific experience alone is one of my stable datums to why Scientology is so interesting to me. It was a profound life-changing experience and the very first time I realized there’s something called theta space.

        I’m trying to figure out how Scientology could be improved: New management, more serious research about the time track, allow independent researchers to verify Scientology (e-meter movements, IQ etc, does one gain weight by mocking up pictures? etc) because the facts are the facts and TRUTH IS SENIOR OR EQUAL TO SCIENTOLOGY, more open groups, skip many of the bad Policy Letters (Fair Game, Disconnection, acceptable truths etc), hardly any sec checking, much lower prices (max 100 dollars an hour) and basically lessen the PLs importance and increase the importance of the Tech.

  4. May 14, 2010 8:08 am

    So, how does the Independent field go about salvaging the workable technology of scientology? It must go back to what works. The actions of the independent Missions and churches were responsible for the real growth of Scientology and they continued on this course until 1982 when church management violated LRH policy and penalized the upstats who built the Scientology network.

    If we look at the processes and policies that were actually followed in the early days, we would have a starting point from which to evaluate the later processes and policies that crashed the stats of the church.

    We will also need to look at every scrap of data regarding the decline and fall of the church and its Founder in order to avoid falling into the same trap again.

    The creation of the SO as a militant priesthood marked the beginning of the decline of the COS as a spiritual movement. Scientology before 1965 had the potential for changing mankind’s life for the better. After that it was all about control and money.

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 14, 2010 10:37 pm

      David, as usual, you absolutely right.

      The scienotology, stripped of its militant priesthood (a brilliant term) was a wonderland of
      truth and beautiful, and shining possibility.

      Being the nerd that I am, I can’t help but compare “the militant priesthood’ to other cultural references that that phrase brings to mind; samurai, jedi knights and the borg.

      Guess which one is most like the SO in my mind?

      Hint: “Resistance is futile.”

    • Aeolus permalink
      May 15, 2010 12:48 am


      The phrase “militant priesthood” is a perfect definition for the So, and I hadn’t heard that one before. I agree that using a militaristic model doomed any prospects the church might have had for “clearing the planet”.

      In this discussion of whether bayonets are (were) appropriate, I’d just like to say that Authoritarianism and Dictatorship exist on the same slippery slope, and it’s easy for one to collapse into the other. And continuing the metaphor, neither one makes an appropriate platform from which to raise man to higher states of existence.

      • Fidelio permalink
        May 16, 2010 4:12 pm


        exactly! That’s definitely NOT the way up! Fidelio

  5. May 14, 2010 8:13 am

    Great, Jeff!
    Now we are talking! Finally we are to the inner layer and the core of the Scientological Onion:

    I’m very glad that we’ve taken it up. It’s worth it.
    DM is bad guy, but he’s following “succesful actions” of LRH and creating on them, too.

    Just yesterday I re-read this on ESMB:

    “Hubbard was a bad guy too. In fact, he wrote the manual on Scientology behavior.

    Aaron Saxton wrote it out clearly:

    RPF created by DM? No, LRH
    Diet of Beans and Rice – LRH
    Fair Game – LRH
    Beaching – LRH
    Overboarding – LRH
    Destruction of enemies at all cost – LRH
    Not allowing SO members to marry who they want, making them only marry SO members? – LRH
    Throwing children in the Bilge pumps on the ship? – LRH personally
    Who said we are taken to Venus and other planets for the last 20,000 years and implanted by aliens with Fac One? – LRH
    Who recorded the incident ont he whoeltrack going back 74 Qudtrillion years or so down to the last minute? – LRH
    Who claimed to remember millions of lifetimes and could not recall one piece of technology or language? – LRH
    The total garbage in the “All About Radiation” book? – LRH
    Separating Morals from Ethics – giving the biggest MU to Scientologists that allows them to have no humanity in decision making – LRH
    Operation Snowhite – LRH
    The total BS “Mission into Time” – LRH
    Abandonment of his own children – LRH
    Abandonment of his wife – LRH
    Treating kids as Adults and mkaing them responsible for the universe – CMO – LRH
    Disconnection – LRH
    Elimination of SPs from the population – LRH
    Who died with hundreds that he had ever worked for him bar a few declared, yet he knew how to spot them apparently???? – LRH
    Who said he created a clear and never did? – LRH
    Who said he was an OT but actually wasn’t? – LRH
    Who said OT powers had been realised and no one has ever displayed them? – LRH
    Who created DM? – LRH
    Who created the Sea Org? – LRH
    Who created the GO? – LRH
    Who authorized the series “Infiltration of the enemy network”? – LRH
    Who created rollback? – LRH
    Who reported people to the police to be arrested for being communists when they were just critics? – LRH
    Who told us governments were evil? – LRH
    Who lied and told us that OT III would kill you if not prepared? – LRH
    Who increased the prices of Scn? – LRH
    Who said Jesus was below OT One? – LRH
    Who said Yoga ism and other religions were IMPLANTS, then started his own religion? – LRH
    Who started a religion because the AMA demanded SCIENTIFIC proof of Dianetics to avoid proving anything? – LRH
    Who lied about his military service? Not DM, LRH did!
    Who said Scientologists were the most ethical group? – LRH
    Who presented the Axioms and Maxims as FACT when they are easily, with scientific evaluation disproved? – LRH
    Who ran the SO during which period more atrocities were committed than when under DM? – LRH
    Who ran the SO for the first decade and then some? – LRH
    Who ran Scientology into the ground and had to run off on a boat? – LRH
    Who first awarded SO missionaries with a NAVAL DIRK (Weapon) for power missions? – LRH
    Who made the policy that RPFing one FB staff member a week was good for morale? – LRH
    Who made the policy on Children (Messengers) having the power to RPF anyone at anytime without Comm Ev? – LRH
    Who told the first SO members they had to be trained in weapons and judo? – LRH
    Who said they had done extensive research yet there is not one paper of his research ever released? – LRH”

    Do we have anything to add here?”

    Time to cut the crap, isn’t it? 😉

    • ButterflyChaser permalink
      May 14, 2010 7:54 pm

      Holy cow, Vadim. That list is almost overwhelming. Kind of takes your breath away. As you say, however, time to cut the crap and get to the main issue which is continuously side-stepped by so many well-meaning Independent Scientologists. Only when this issue is REALLY addressed head-on will any progress be made.

    • earthmother permalink
      May 15, 2010 6:22 am

      I have always had a problem with the lack of proof of research. Has not every single piece of paper LRH wrote on been archived? What’s that line, ‘if it isn’t written, it isn’t true’? It seems to me, if he had indeed done so much research, that would be highly valuable information to have published. I once thought about asking one of my supervisors about it, but then thought better of it. I sorta knew the answer anyway.

      There are no research papers.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 15, 2010 7:04 pm

        My own observation is that the more education a person had prior to becoming a scientologist, the harder it was for them to swallow certain “truths.”

        The lack of any proof of real research is a big one. So is LRH’s well-known disdain for institutions of higher learning, expressed in a few places, one of which was the Student Hat. And his very generalized contempt for scientists and doctors (Is there stupidity and arrogance in those fields? Certainly. But a generality is a generality). I wasn’t fond of his distaste for “college women” or for the” absurdity” of expecting women to compete in the business world along side men.

        But I digress. Sorry.

    • Fidelio permalink
      May 16, 2010 1:52 pm

      Yeah, Vadim,
      it’s time to cut the crap. After having read Amy’s book yesterday,I do just that.

      There is no good or bad behaviour, there are only consequences. So if the consequences are like they are, the questioning of “right or wrong?” IS fully answered.

      Clean hands make a happy life. Not “too gruesome” bloody ones.
      Best, Fidelio

  6. Kingair350 permalink
    May 14, 2010 12:07 pm

    Dear Jeff
    This is my first post to your site, and it is long overdue. Your well reasoned observations have greatly affected my past assumptions, robotic vpts, and gentrified thought processes, in such a positive way.

    What resonated in this article was the phrase “Sea Org DNA”. The inhumanity of the SO really does have a source and a beginning. Any scientologist around before the ‘beginning’ knows it wasn’t always so.

    For me the beginnig began with the issuance of all those ethics and justice policies in 1965.

    I was a new staff member in a large org. Like so many of us here, I just
    couldn’t wait to make my life Scientology, 24/7. There I was, surrounded by people who utterly changed my life – took my hopes and dreams beyond anything I had yet imagined. Kindness, good humor, spirit of play were the “orders” of the day.

    Then began the flow ethics and justice policies. Each day we collected and read them with an ever-increasing sense of solemnity, concern and seriousness about life, and about those around us. For me, that’s when the virus of suspicion of one another first took hold and worked it’s way in to
    our group DNA.

    The grinding down of our élan was slow, but like the millstones of the gods, exceedingly fine. It infected our field in different ways. We had less parties and social gatherings. The ‘us’ and ‘them’ viewpoints began materializing. Technical words such as supressive person, pts, db, 1.1, became cheap epithets.

    Finally we had our first Comm Ev. What a Star Chamber of little horrors that exercise in group justice became. But it set the tone for just about all future justice actions; barely concealed desires for revenge, blatent ignorance, gross stupidity, mean spiritedness, the list goes on for decades and decades.

    Over those decades I’ve met and worked with men and women with similar “qualities” found in DM. And they wrecked havoc and horror in similar ways, just not on such a broad scale. But all within the so-called confines of church policy.

    I feel that DM’s claim to fame was and is ability to take what’s in the worst of us and turn it into an all encompassing way of life, a rule of thumb, an order of battle. All under the banner of his concept of the ethics and justice policies of LRH, some of which Ron may have given a little more thought as to the consequences to his fellow man (fair game, disconnection, etc.).

    Considering our DNA, If not DM, who?

    • craig houchin permalink
      May 16, 2010 2:23 am

      Welcome Kingair350. First of all, thank you for your service to others. Though you may feel that your attempts to help were ultimately perverted, betrayed and reverse-vectored, you did begin with noble intent. And that is commendable.

      Thanks for contributing here now. I look forward to hearing more from you.

  7. Fidelio permalink
    May 14, 2010 12:24 pm


    that article is tremendous. It lays out what IS the truth:
    The atrocities are ingrained in the DNA of the Sea Org. And it was LRH who designed and implemented them. A punk like DM just had to dock while leeching on the power of “Source”.

    The other day I found a tape transcript of a talk from Dennis Stevens, one of the very first people who knew LRH from 1950 on. His ideas about the Ol’ Man rang very very true to me – and as long as we do not look at the Ol’ Man himself in all his aspects, we will not be able to run out fully the 3Dy engram we were all experiencing. DM is the WHO but he is not the WHY.

    The link is:

    Jeff, it is beautiful, how you make us see and look further and extrapolate to all its consequences starting from something we all know and/or could have studied.

    Once again, I cannot thank you enough for your astute observations and presenting them in a way that never violates respectful and differentiating dissertation.

    My very best, Fidelio

    • May 14, 2010 7:37 pm

      Fidelio, thanks so much for sharing this link to the transcript of the tape. Reading what this person had to say about LRH, including his observations and evaluations, removed many extant question marks that had materialized since the wealth of lies regarding the CoS first came to light for me. This anecdote was a big piece of the puzzle that I had been looking for!! The story told not only rang very true for me but it also corroborated other anecdotes I’ve read (especially about his growing paranoia) as well as connect more than a few dots. It’s now easy to see and understand how the tech on ethics and justice mirrored his paranoia and evolved proportionally with this detrimental condition.

      There was so much mentioned in this transcript that could be discussed but the part where he describes LRH as doing confronting rather than experiencing was particularly interesting.

      Again, thanks.


      • Fidelio permalink
        May 14, 2010 10:13 pm

        you’re very welcome. And yes, that anecdote gives a wealth of information in a time stream connecting the development of LRH’s research with observations about LRH’s own case both resulting in a specific type of policies we are looking at here.
        And yes, this dissertation on confronting % experiencing is interesting whether you apply it on looking at yourself or others including LRH.

        Again, you’re very welcome. And thank you for your kind reply. Fidelio

  8. May 14, 2010 12:38 pm

    When I left Scientology in 1982, I had had nine months experience in the SO. Though none of my personal experiences were especially bad, I was well aware of how brutally some were being treated. I was exposed to RPF members daily. And this was before Miscavage took charge. After a lifetime in Nazi Germany, I wanted no part of a world such as I saw. I figured that without the laws of society to hold this organization in check, firing squads wouldn’t be far off.

    Even though I loved the people in the orgs, loved the training and processing, loved the socialization, part of me was leery about what lurked in the background. I felt it the first time I went to a congress in NYC in the early 70’s and first met a SO member. She was too cold and arrogant–definitely not the model for what I wanted to become. I’d been there, done that last lifetime.

    I’d been in the military and knew what made good officers. And what made bad officers.

    Efficiency in performance does not equate to pleasure in living. Who wants to be a Borg? Sometimes I just want to put my feet up, eat some grilled steaks, chat with friends and watch the kids play. Who wants to live in a sterile world? Who wants a perfect living room where you aren’t allowed to sit and read? Life is a little messy, and more fun for it.

    I do know that if the current movement wants to succeed, the members need to fully consider the oft held notion that “whatever LRH wrote is to be followed without question.” I’ve questioned every thing of his I’ve ever read, and I’ve done fine. Most of what he wrote I find useful, some I find disturbing.

    I always wondered at the insanity of constantly driving off staff with uber-expectations. Hell, if Scientology organizations had treated staff well, how large would the Church of Scientology be now? Even if staff had been allowed to work outside the church and do volunteer work? Look at how large and successful missions had become without any of that “too gruesome” bull shit.

    Yeah, Jeff, I don’t know what LRH was up against when he wrote those policies. I do know that I suspected those policies capable of producing a world like we now see in the CofS, if not much, much worse. At least, the current church has a larger government to answer to so it can’t implement those policies unchecked. Imagine what if would be like if the great leader or his henchmen could walk into a room, pull out a luger, put a bullet in someone’s head as an example, and strut out with impunity. Think this current group isn’t capable of that? Think future groups with the same mentality would not be capable of that?

    Not the kind of world I want to live in.

    Oh well, it’s been raining for the last week. My back-yard-honey-do list has backed up, so I’d better go cultivate my garden.

    Much love,


    • lunamoth permalink
      May 14, 2010 11:27 pm


      I have to tell you, I found such bliss in your words here ; the bliss of nearly perfect duplication. You are an eloquent narrator of the internal story I lived in scientology for many years. I saw most of the same things you describe, and I had many of the same thoughts, and came to many of the same conclusions. As with some other posters on this site, our viewpoints seem many times to have been nearly the very same viewpoints; at very least our ideas, feelings, evaluations and fears paralleled.

      Funny, in a way many of us here have occupied the same neighborhood in the theta universe for many years, though we probably never met in the physical world. It’s beyond wonderful that we can all share an awareness of our commonality here, in a virtual world where physical location becomes irrelevant. That of course can only be achieved with lots of communication, honesty and willingness to examine in a new light what was once held to be unquestionable. These are things that were not possible to do in that other group. But it exists here, doesn’t it?

      Thank you all for your participation, especially you, Jeff. My world is so much better and richer since leaving scientology, for many reasons. But it’s due in no small part to what you have all created here.



      • May 17, 2010 6:14 pm


        I don’t know about the rest of you, but I suspect from what I’m reading that a lot of us are connecting somehow on the theta level, outside our bodies. Most of the time, when reading these blogs, I’m as exterior as I’ve ever been. I’m as aware as I’ve ever been. I’m having cognitions to rival anything I had in session. (And, believe me, I’ve had some huge cognitions and gone very, very exterior in session and in life outside of session.) And I suspect that it’s the communication on a theta level that’s doing it. Not as some syrupy new-age feel-good self deception, but as a bonafide experience. An actuality.

        And being connected like that just feels so right. So special. So “where-I’m-supposed-to-be.” It makes mowing the lawn a bit less important. It makes going to the store for a new shirt unnecessary.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 17, 2010 10:29 pm

        Once again, OnceUponaTime, you are in my damn head! LOL! This is definitely the most case gain I’ve had in years! : ))

        I have a very funny story to tell you. Twilight Zone time! A couple of days ago, I was browsing Google images. I’m an artist, and when I’m vegging out, I like to sit here and inflow beautiful images.

        Okay, I gorge on them.

        Somehow, I ended up on the site of an artist I’d never heard of before. I browsed the site, admiring her unique style and viewpoint, and sampling the artist’s playful use of texture and color. I spent probably 10 minutes there, which for me in one of these sessions is a long look at one thing. Two days later (today), I find out that this same artist is a poster on this blog, and I have been having conversations with her on this site and never knew it was the same person.

        Of all the artists in the world that Google could have taken me to, it took me to her site, months after I had “met” her on this blog, but only two days before I would “meet” her
        real identity. Weird? Yeah. Or maybe it’s just an new operating state, indicative of
        a higher quality of communication, like what you have described above.

        Either way, it’s pretty freakin’ cool.

      • May 18, 2010 1:22 am


        yeah, waaaaayyyy cool! It’s palpable. I just asked Sherry about this. Something wonderful is definitely happening.

        I get the feeling that there are types or (for lack of a better term) races of beings that are very similar. And I think these are inextricably linked because we are….family? I don’t know yet. But artists and writers and dancers and creators have this uniqueness, this bond.

        Just like administrative/bureaucratic types have a bond. And those who are prone to politics and religion as a means of enforcing what is good and punishing what is bad tend to bond.

        And I’m beginning to think through my experiences from way, way, way down the track that true suppressives are a unique group of beings who are not basically good. There’s an emptiness to them. The idea that suppressives become that way by going out of valence and getting into an evil valence sort of begs the question: “Where did this valence come from?” Had to have an origin.

        How in the world did I get started on this!? Oh, the bond that I feel here. I think it may be very, very, very old.


      • Just Me permalink
        May 18, 2010 3:39 am


        Who the hell ARE you?

        I don’t mean post it here if you don’t want to, but I would really like to know.

        Just Me

      • May 19, 2010 9:11 pm

        I’d like to say here: we ARE connected. If we want to.
        And it’s NOT how LRH desribed it. His views were poor. “Thetan” to “thetan” is not how it goes.
        I feel it. You, guys and gals, feel it, too. It’s like “some great thought just came to me, and I hadn’t even been able to think with it before.” I have such. You have such (if you want to open your mind to the world without boundaries). I think those who have undergone meticulous mental and spiritual search (through auditing or o/w write-ups or confessionals…) like scientologists and ex-scientologists are more open than individuals who had never looked at themselves in self-exporing ways.
        It doesn’t give Hubbard more respect in my eyes. Yet, we are looking at that – other – side of spiritual existence. And we see… just because we want to see. And – it was there. It was there all the time – that “other side”. We get there when we go to bed – every night.
        I can’t teach it. I’d say only that there is some “information field” out there… And – if we want to – we can connect or be involunarily connected to it – any time… or all the time.
        I didn’t say anything new here. You knew something was there which you could connect to and get to any data you want. Comparison to it in material world is Internet. But that “information field” is not in the physical world. It’s a REFLECTION. And everything (that was, is and will be) is there. One just need to become open to it.
        There is no “individual thetan’s abilities” needed besides getting connected to the TRUE source (and that source is NOT LRH).

        So, we ARE connected. Believe it or not. I have your thoughts and you have mine… And we don’t “own” them to have any “patent” to them (to say the truth). They are just out there for taking.
        There is no stealing in this process. It’s normal if you think my thought and I think yours.
        And – if you individualise – you become detached from that huge (actually, infinite) field. You become “yourself” (with your but OWN little knowledge only).

        Let’s be ONE BIG KNOWLEDGE!

        Cheers! 😉

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 21, 2010 5:50 am

        VaD, Once, Just Me –

        Wow, I loved this. ” There is no “individual thetan’s abilities” needed besides getting connected to the TRUE source…”

        What a beautifully simple concept.

        This whole sub-thread is mutual understanding (what an inadequate term) of such a high order. The phenomenon approaches communion sometimes. Is there a word for this?


      • Mickey permalink
        May 21, 2010 6:59 am

        luna…. no word(s), rather an experience of Peace that is beyond this world.

      • Tyler permalink
        May 21, 2010 7:16 am

        Group grope?

  9. May 14, 2010 1:05 pm

    Thank you for making this point, Jeff.

    It is the only hope for the future of Scientology.

  10. May 14, 2010 2:06 pm

    Jeff, thanks much for keeping it real and reminding us that the insanities being dramatized by the CoS did not begin with DM. It seems sometimes that such a contemplation is “too gruesome” for more than a few scios that have left the church. I know that in the beginning it sure was for me.

    Undoubtedly, LRH generated a tremendous amount of good but he was far from being perfect. He most definitely did have, as we all do, a dark side. And, it seems to me, now that I’m piece by piece getting a broader and deeper view of this being, that he might have done better had he not ever formed an organization. Perhaps if he would have just kept writing his books, auditing and giving lectures across the land, his good and benificial works could have eventually reached and assisted more people. Of course, though, that’s just supposition on my part.

    I too, like Hubbardianen, will continue to use the “What is true for you is true for you.” adage and take it from there.

    Speaking of LRH, I just recently started to get video LRH quotes in my email inbox from Bridge (four to date). And, I find them to be incredibly theta. Funny, as soon as I hear LRH speaking on the video I am filled with ARC for that being. At the end of the day, I do appreciate him very much for all the good he did and the help he gave me via his books, lectures, bulletins and policies.

    Now, for something related or not, probably not (you be the judge). Ever hear of Father Anthony (Tony) DeMello? If you haven’t, don’t take my word for it but Tony was a cool dude. Unfortunately he gave up the ghost back in 86′ and that was probably much to the delight of those of the upper echelons of the Catholic church. Anyway, Tony generated some great material that I happen to think is very good for those beings who are just beginning to wake up. Tony is not an intrusive alarm clock. He is more the gentle nudge to wakefulness in the same way that the aroma of cooking bacon and fresh brewed coffee pulls one out of their dreams and back into the illusion of the “real” world. In the video below he talks about prayer and tells a story of the man who made fire. As you watch, see if you there are any parallels that are brought to mind.

    • Fidelio permalink
      May 14, 2010 11:07 pm

      now I want to thank you for directing me to Anthony de Mello. Very interesting man!

      He reminds me strongly of John Galushas work “Idenics”. (John Galusha was one of the early auditors closest to and most trusted by Ron). If you want to check it out – here is the link:

      Best, Fidelio

  11. May 14, 2010 2:08 pm

    Ooops, neglected to check the notify box before posting my comment. So, I’m doing that now with this post. 🙂

  12. Martin permalink
    May 14, 2010 2:31 pm

    There is enough anecdotal evidence from the days aboard ship to know things wren’t as they should be. A legacy of heavy “ethics” (rather, punishment) has unquestionably run through the Sea Org and in fact all the way down to Orgs and Missions. Overboardings and public humiliation have no place in any 21st Century organisation, let alone a Church. I had my share of “face rips” and dished it out to others on occasion too. I saw some pretty wild stuff at Int, even back in the mid 80s.

    And yet… how does one get a dispersed and chaotic group such as the pioneer Sea Org members to get the job done punctually and safely – especially on board, when mistakes at sea can have disastrous consequences? What does discipline even mean? Imagine the Marines or SAS not having a rigid and enforcable set of codes of conduct. Would that be preferable, having junior marines and soldiers thinking they can get away with a slapdash attitude or non-compliance to potentially life-saving orders? Of course the SO is not a miltary outfit so perhaps the whole Sea Org thing needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history in the coming dismantling/re-building of current Church.

    • sherrymk permalink
      May 14, 2010 8:14 pm


      Your example of Marines and SAS isn’t quite the fine example you might think it is. Perhaps you may not be aware, but Marines, SAS and all other military type personnel are actually TRAINED on soldiering if you will. These original SO guys were expected to just “know” what to do on their posts, as they had “done everything on the track before” . HUGE difference.

      Ask anyone who was on the ships with LRH. They’ll tell you the same. Total insanity.

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 14, 2010 11:49 pm


      I’m really glad you no longer have to live that life, and that you have a family and your freedom now. And without having your personal experience with the group, I would say a word about the appropriateness of the Sea Org’s role in scientology.

      The most important element here (to me) is that a para-military organization such as the Sea Org , run on the kind of policy you must have to run it, has no business administering a religion or a system of justice to a governed body. Period. It is completely antithetical to the principles of scientology, and that one point cannot be rationalized or marginalized, in my opinion.

      Now, there are a lot of people who really got into being a member of an elite, disciplined group that was going to turn around the downward spiral of mankind. I can completely get that. If I could ever separate in my mind the reality of the Sea Org from its promoted mock-up, I could even admire an SO member looking snap and pop on his dress uniform. What a romantic image, a symbol of strength, discipline, purpose and dedication. It’s a beautiful thing. But it has no place in a spiritual philosophy.

      If someone is really attracted to that life and the SO’s purpose, go for it. Just keep it the hell away from the running of a religious or spiritual group.

      • Another Jeff permalink
        May 16, 2010 12:13 am

        BANG!! Perfectly said.

      • Martin permalink
        May 16, 2010 12:20 am

        Lunamoth, I agree with you. It’s been well over 20 years since I was SO, plenty of time in which to reflect, but less than a year since I started seeking out the truth about the Church. I remember well my first days in the SO, a green scientologist – I knew no one and nothing. I stuggled to understand what I had joined – and kept a diary of those first days in which I wrote “why is a billion year contract necessary?”. The Sea Org promo of the day back then was very space opera, “An infinite guarantee that Scientology will always be around” on a starry background sort of thing.

        The problem as I see it with the Sea Org and indeed so much of the Admin policy too is that it only works if it is being applied by people who are totally 100% sane. You are right when you talk about the chasm between the Sea Org and its promoted mock up. When “in” one lives in constant hope that things are going to get better and the impending improvement is just around the corner. At Cont level things were a paradise compared to the psychosis of life at the Int base; we got libs and had days off sometimes.

        I think I get why LRH felt the SO was a necessary creation, but equally I am certain he would be rolling in his grave – or raging from Target 2 depending on your viewpoint – if he knew what it had morphed into.

  13. May 14, 2010 3:09 pm

    Once again your wonderful sane voice, reminds me why I sent my friends to your blog and why they have thanked me so many times.

    Absolutely — dm IS a sociopath, he must be removed. But so too must the atmosphere that MAKES scientology into a cult –“we are THE CHOSEN ONES, and ONLY we can help mankind”. (“we’ll pretend to make nice to other religions but wink wink, we know that can’t do squat”)

    Anything which caters to the potential of a hierarchy, that allows an individual to step ON his fellow man in the HOPES that he will curry favor with the BIG BOSS, regardless of what is asked of him … is just ultimately going to FAIL.

    Might take 100’s of years but ultimately it will fail.

    The idea is to LESSEN the self serving EGO, not harden it into a maniacal demon ready to tromp on anyone who stands in ones way.

    scientology unfortunately enables someone who initially might have troubles (and who doesn’t who is alive?) and helps them overcome those foibles/troubles AND THEN — it takes that now upright and SOLID citizen and MAKES him/her into a REAL SOLID CITIZEN ready to do battle with ANYONE who just might mention that he/she is standing on their toes.

    Thanks Jeff.

    You are truly the voice of reason.

    To me and many others.


  14. Biga Watts permalink
    May 14, 2010 5:23 pm

    Couldn’t agree more.

    A friend of mine once said: “If Scientology data was channeled, LRH channeled the Tech from Heaven and policy from Hell.”

  15. ButterflyChaser permalink
    May 14, 2010 6:29 pm

    Well, Jeff – this all goes back again to “the means is the end”. LRH started the “means” and now we are experiencing the “end”. What an unbelievable clusterfuck Scientology has become.

    Remember the “dichotomies”? Win-lose, love-hate, black-white, good-evil, etc.? It seems like those dichotomies which used to have SPACE between them – have collapsed in Scientology. It’s all just a big mish-mash of gawd-knows-what. I sincerely “pity da’ po’ fool” (Mr. T reference) who attempts to untangle all of it, put in order, sanity and remove the abusive policies. But, hey – if someone can do it – may God, Yaweh, Jesus and Allah bless them a thousand times over and I bow to anyone who attempts such an undertaking. Of course, I know it will take many, many people to do this.

    Thanks again, Jeff. And just to piss my pal, Lunamoth, off – I’m going to say YOU NAILED IT! (She hates that overused phrase. ha ha)

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 14, 2010 11:52 pm


  16. Biga Watts permalink
    May 14, 2010 7:11 pm

    The CofS/CofM, as a 3rd Dynamic has never made it up the Grade Chart.
    Grade O: Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject.
    Grade I: Ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish.
    Grade II: Relief from the hostilities and sufferings of life.
    Grade III: Freedom from the upsets of the past and ability to face the future.
    Grade IV: Moving out of fixed conditions into ability to do new things. (And boy oh boy does the church love to hold on to its ser facs!!)

    • ButterflyChaser permalink
      May 14, 2010 7:47 pm

      Biga Watts – wow. What an astute observation! Thank you for that!

    • Sinar permalink
      May 14, 2010 11:29 pm

      Very good point BW!

      However, on your prior post I beg to differ that not all policy is from Hell – one of my favorite series, the Data Series which I consider to be one of the most valuable from LRH is not red on white.

    • John Doe permalink
      May 15, 2010 12:43 am

      Wow. There is a lot to this comment. What would have happened if, as a general policy, staff were encouraged and helped to go up the bridge? To get auditing and learn to audit. Have their ruds in, and be sessionable.

      Might have made a completely different scene…

      • Another Layer permalink
        May 15, 2010 5:47 am

        John Doe,

        Your scenario actually existed for awhile in the mid-70s in the org where I was on staff and it was an amazing, imperfect, joyful time. There was a staff section and the staff hatting/enhancement policies were applied with generous ARC. Staff and public were on the same page, largely because anyone could afford the bridge. There was none of this nonsense about staff being low havingness, blah, blah, blah. We moonlighted when we needed to, and still made it to study and in session; there was nothing forbidding staff and public friendships and cooperation. And I never took that “too gruesome” business seriously. Silly me.

        But then a SO mission came through and ripped the org apart based on an insane and arbitrary eval which I never actually saw in writing, and all the daily writeups to the org flag officer, kr’s, orders-query of, couldn’t put Dumpty together again. And I learned about “too gruesome.” Based on what I’ve observed in the intervening years, we do not need another SO.

        I think that your scenario can happen again, if we work through the hard questions of what is true for each of us, and appreciate our different points of view. (I say “hard” because I’m still removing my own set of blinders, and they are not going effortlessly …)

      • Karen permalink
        May 16, 2010 4:13 pm

        Exactly what I have been thinking all along. I think the premise behind the SO was good at one point in time but the lack of training and processing given to the staff has resulted in an out exchange, low tone environment.

        I think the dynamics of the SO would be quite different if the staff was trained and processed, given adequate personal time to establish all dynamics.

        In my opinion, “too gruesomes” just enter in when one fails to apply the basics of ARCU. In some aspects I think it is the lazy mans way out because they don’t want to take the time to have a comm cycle. It is much quicker to give a true gruesome. Good TRS are like gold and get far more product that a too gruesome ever did.

  17. Marta permalink
    May 14, 2010 10:20 pm

    Amen, Jeff. Amen. This is the kind of stuff that helps me retain hope for the future of the philosophy and application of the mental and spiritual technology. The Sea Org isn’t, and evidently never was, truly a scientology environment. I witnessed it in the late 70’s – the behaviors rampant now were there, just to a lesser degree, but there. It was well on the way to creating the culture DNA you spoke of so eloquently. Thanks so much.

  18. Genesis permalink
    May 15, 2010 1:01 am


    Your website is on my daily list to visit, and I always look forward to your enlightened perspective.

    You have taken something “too gruesome” to discuss and injected light, so that many of us may continue to understand and heal from the horrendous practices that Hubbard created, and which continue to this day.

  19. Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
    May 15, 2010 3:19 am

    This is only my opinion.
    It is not the opinion of external influences, my civic groups, my Catholic Church, my priest or my Polo Club ::)))

    LRH was not a perfect man, he had his flaws.
    But he did give us something I will call our “EMOTIONAL BANK ACCOUNT”.

    If one could visualize a THETA /INTELLECTUAL ( “Emotional bank account” )parallel with a money/revenue bank account, one can see, that certain people put deposits into our THETA bank account.

    Erasing a chain magically, the sheer genius of the Data series, even the humble Assists like Touch Assists and Nerve Assists, while very simple can help another, and for all of this, LRH deposited much into our THETA bank accounts. He gave certain things of value, which I will call “deposits” Because he deposited so much, even when withdrawals occurred (the non-theta stuff, the abuse) his deposits were so good, that it did not go into the red for ME.

    I speak only from my viewpoint.

    DM on the other hand, did not ever contribute to one ounce of theta or benefit into anyone’s THETA bank account, quite the contrary.

    He contributed only his dramatizations, insanity and he had no “CREDITS” in the account to subtract from.

    Therefore, from my universe only, I see a monumental difference between LRH and DM.

    I did get remarkable abilities when all is said and done from LRH and the TECH.

    DM is another trip altogether.

    • John Doe permalink
      May 15, 2010 3:03 pm

      Good analogy, Rebecca. I’ve used a similar one myself. But…do you know how one can…uh…get overdraft protection!?!

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 15, 2010 9:43 pm


  20. one of those who see permalink
    May 15, 2010 3:23 am

    Hi Jeff, First time posting here. Maybe Integrity is the key thing. “What is true for you…” I’m Reading, Sorting things out like lots of people. Even listened to “A Talk on Disillusionment” by David Mayo. Very Big Thing to have the freedom to think for myself. (Always had it ofcourse. LOL) He spoke about integrity in that lecture. Not sure of all the facts regarding him – is anybody?? But, he is a Class XII Auditor. (certs or no certs) If he did go off the rails at some point, well can’t that be handled? Seems like a valuable guy. But, I digress.

    In that policy letter “Ethics Presence” you quoted in your post, it does go on to say:”…So, when you issue orders you are using force and power. You can, however get in such a frame of mind you cease to use the softer arts as well. Against noncompliance you add ferocity with the aim of continuing your comm line. Wrath is effective but used in moderation and only in moments of urgency. Man has been invalidated to such an extent that he starts to do himself in-that’s the secret of aberation. He denies himself, then mocks up pictures to do himself in with.

    If you continue to invalidate and chop people, they will start to do themelves in even harder-so if you continue to use heavy ethics on someone you play right into the hands of his bank.

    Self-invalidation is merely the accumulation of invalidation of oneself by others. The point being, that you better temper the lightning with sunshine occasionally.

    If you use heavy ehtics on wogs, they are being invalidated from altitude. You can’t build up competent people by invalidating them.

    Without in any way softening your approach, you should know that real force is dependent upon ARC, and the major threat is the interruption thereof.” LRH

    This is such a helpful policy letter to read, especially for the wonderful ex-SO people like yourself who were subjected to extremely heavy ethics and invalidation including violence.

    Unfortunately, people will take a line or a concept out of a policy letter and run with it. So you get the “…muster bayonets to enforce that they do” without the rest of the polciy being applied. Many of us are guilty of that and have been subjected to that.

    And going back to where I started, the only other thing I would say is we all need to apply personal integrity. And I would say I am doing lots more of that since typing in a Search Engine “Where is Ray Mithoff” when I thought it strange that “everyone” except COB seemed to have disappeared. That brought me to you & Marty and Friends of LRH etc..

    Thank you for all you did all those years – I did read you book online. Was riveted like everyone else. I felt conected to you at one part of the story because your actions were key to my success on a particular post. Can’t speak about it now as I need to stay incognito. Family on staff. But, wanted to say thank you. You are so articulate and write wonderfully. I truly wish you much happiness.

    • Karen permalink
      May 16, 2010 4:21 pm

      One of those who see,

      Thank you for this reference and the points you mentioned. I was trying to find it on the internet as I have no materials here and was unsuccessful.

  21. Kingair350 permalink
    May 15, 2010 4:19 am

    Since uploading my first post early this morning I have been willing to experience most anything. It seems my itsa was a total straightwire back to my first sense of foreboding (March 1965) of how my future may turn out should I continue with Scn.

    My personal deformation as a human being began unraveling, coming apart, and melting away as the hours passed.

    Jeff – what do I owe you for the session? Whatever it is, it will be a small price to pay for being able to slough off decades of accumulated hocus pocus.

    I’ll bet a lot of old timers remember a time when there were lots of folks like Jeff around. Folks who were sane, honest and so willing to communicate with any of us. Before the time of “what’s your reference, pal?” God, I miss those days! But….I guess they’re coming back. There’s some wonderfully great shit getting mocked up and communicated lately by some pretty savvy dudes. Damn I’m feeling good.

  22. 3feetback permalink
    May 15, 2010 4:57 am

    Not long ago Larry Brennan commented in one of the other forums that LRH ordered a messenger to go spit on a staff member.
    This became an accepted ethics action.
    Sorting the bad DNA from the good DNA is easy in this case but not so easy in more subtle forms.

  23. Gandiguy permalink
    May 15, 2010 8:15 am

    Let’s not get out of hand with this “too gruesome” thing. Here is what I believe LRH was doing with it…the reactive mind will often push the person into doing what is not the greatest good so if you want to be helpful to that person and the activity you are engaged in you use the gradient that is just enough to get the person doing what is the greatest good. To him and his reactive mind not doing the greatest good is worse than just taking the path of least resistance “the greatest good”. It is the ethics gradients all over. Of course a psycho could use that to go way out gradient and cave the person in which was not the intention behind that idea. LRH also use Ethics very lightly and always no more of a gradient than is needed. he also said you must balance that with rewards. The alternative to this would be to have your junior if he were an auditor make up his own mind when to stop a process before an FN VGIS and cog. Or why not introduce bright ideas into the session like a glass of wine to relax the PC and maybe a little pot before session. Hey, free will! Even your telling your junior to look up the reference might be construed by the junior as an admonishment (questioning his knowledge..Possibly invalidating his knowingness..Perhaps gruesome in the face of his ser fac). So let’s abandon even a hairy eyeball and see how fast our PCs and our groups PCs and ourselves get any benefit from LRH’s discoveries. Why not each of us make up our own processes and run it on ourselves and others. Heaven forbid we try to get another to correct himself.

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 15, 2010 6:12 pm

      OK, well, all those who think being locked in a chain locker for 3 days with no potty breaks is what it would take to correct THEM, line up behind Gandiguy!

      I’m interested to know what Gandi would have said about the “too gruesome” form of gently redirecting his fellow man to a more enlightened state…

    • May 15, 2010 6:26 pm

      Gandiguy: “Heaven forbid we try to get another to correct himself.”

      Who was correcting L. Ron Hubbard?

    • Another Jeff permalink
      May 16, 2010 12:19 am

      Gandiguy, My goodness!!! If LRH had actually written like you just did maybe it would have worked! He was PTS, let me say that again, he was PTS, when he wrote a lot of the policies, directions, tones and tech from 1967 to 1986. A lot of it is incredible, a lot of it is him running his own case on us…..done.

  24. Jeff permalink*
    May 15, 2010 6:39 pm

    Just a few added thoughts on this: In my experience, people do not do their jobs because they have bayonets mustered against them or because they have gruesome penalties threatened against them. They do their jobs because they are trained and experienced in how to do that job, they are professional at what they do and they are treated and respected and PAID as professionals. I have told the story before of the first job I had when I got out of the Sea Org, as Production Manager for a weekly magazine. A small office, five of us, produced a 60-page magazine every single week, a task that would have been impossible at the Int Base with five times the personnel. There were no threats. There were no penalties or gruesome discipline. We just worked together with a lot of mutual respect, tolerance and humor and we got the job done. The contrast between that and the Int Base was striking to me. The Int Base produces next to nothing, with constant threats and discipline and “too gruesomes.”

    Show me an office where the boss has to enforce absolute obedience to his orders through threats and harsh discipline and I’ll show you a dictatorial tyrant who has no idea how to motivate and inspire people to do good work. And I’ll show you someone who “always has to be right” and does not respect individual initiative and contribution.

    Someone can try to tell me that the datum is valid but “misapplied.” I disagree. I say the datum is hogwash.

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 15, 2010 6:56 pm


      “Someone can try to tell me that the datum is valid but “misapplied.” I disagree. I say the datum is hogwash.”

      You can take that to the bank, brother.


    • Fidelio permalink
      May 15, 2010 7:27 pm


    • May 15, 2010 8:41 pm

      Basically I agree with you Jeff. Any working environment should be democratic, open, friendly and fun. Even the Sea Org.

      My guess is that Hubbard, for wrong or right, felt this was somehow more important than an ordinary working environment. Some comparisons have been made to highly trained military corps, feel free to even compare with chefs. Most kitchen chefs seems to be tough and the reason is because of the environment in itself. I’ve never been employed in a kitchen but I’ve made some dinners and come to realize why the kitchen environment most of the times can be very military.

      Things have to be delivered at high quality at the right time. No time to argue or have fun or the customers will not come back. It’s a MEST environment. Same with single group missions behind Iraqi borders. No time to fool around. It’s serious business. Leave the fun behind. Many environments where there’s much at stake develop this kind of harsh attitude: Stock markets, kitchens, military etc. I’ve seen it myself. That attitude built the Sea Org as well. Again, for wrong or right.

      Perhaps the Marcabs (smile) will conquer Earth at 2012 and we will all end up in ice cubes for the next 100 million years? What the heck do I know what motivators Hubbard ran on? Perhaps he was crazy or perhaps he was right. I’m trying to find out the truth here myself.

      And there’s some truth to Scientology.

      But baically I agree with you. I hope Marty and you start a new Scientology Organization that runs smoothly and nicely and where everybody is happy and free and where everybody can “just work together with a lot of mutual respect, tolerance and humor and get the job done” because that’s what I actually think Scientology is all about. I was thinking of joining the Sea Org but didn’t end up doing it and right now it seems to have been a wise decision.

      The current CoS approach is definitely not working. Look at Christianity, Buddhism etc. They all ended up in different branches and the same is going to happen to Scientology.

      With or without Miscavige’s or Hubbard’s consent.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 15, 2010 9:39 pm


        We are pretty much in agreement, I think. And because of that, I feel it’s ok to share with you with something I have experienced in one of the examples you give, above, of where you posit a military-style kind of organization is beneficial.

        I have worked with chefs in their kitchens, and most professional chefs are very disciplined and require the same of their staff. A very small number of these are also abusive assholes, tyrants, who rule by threat and thunder. These individuals are always resented and usually hated by their staff, and believe me, ridiculed behind their backs
        ( and I can tell you that there is ALWAYS arguing and joking around, sometimes simultaneously, going on in the kitchen – not at all times, but in all kitchens). The kitchens of these worst chefs are NOT the most efficient.

        The most efficient kitchen I ever worked in was run by a man who rarely spoke louder than was necessary to be heard above the kitchen noise , who seemed always to be there in the kitchen, whether early or late, always did his job to a very high standard, and treated his staff with enough respect that they knew that HE knew that they were intelligent, cooperative people who wanted to do a good job. As a result, people took pride in their competence, there was a climate of cooperation, and the manager was more easily able to do his job of training and keeping good employees. That restaurant enjoyed a good reputation and more than enough business.

        I would like to point out that the “asshole” chefs use ridicule, humiliation and invalidation to control others. Able people with healthy self-esteem and choices as to where they can work don’t see much reason to take the abuse, and they leave. Among those who stay, you find many who just expect to be treated that way, and others who
        take out their upset and disagreement with such in covert and destructive ways.

        So, I contend that the “too gruesome” philosophy of behavior modification is not productive, and indeed works only on those driven into a sort of apathy by the force behind it, whether expressed or merely threatened.

        To me, the critical point here is that in an environment where the individual maintains his self-determinism and feels free to leave, such policy as “too gruesome” cannot be used. The intended victim will simply leave rather than consent to be treated in such a way. But in the military, and apparently in the “militant priesthood (to borrow a phrase from Old Auditor) of the Sea Org, the individual does not feel free to leave, and so it such abusive, humiliating treatment can be used. And if you think it is anything other than behavior modification, you need to clear that term.

        Really, you have to ask yourself, how sane is it to treat people that way, when the only ones you can get away with doing it to are those who feel they deserve it, or those who feel they cannot possibly leave?

      • May 16, 2010 9:36 am

        I do not approve of the “too gruesome” philosophy like I’ve tried to point out. I’m just trying to find an explanation for it. I have personally huge problems with bosses being hard and rough and I will always create problems whenever I meet such a person. If they’re going to be a pain in the ass for me, I’m going to be a pain in the ass for them.

        If Hubbard came back perhaps he would realize by now he took it a little bit too far. Cruise was on the Oprah show recently and was apparently calm. I think he has realized he had gone too far earlier regarding psychiatric medication and a Scientologist “being the only one”. Rathbun and Rinder realized after I don’t know how many years they went too far in CoS and are now repairing. I’ve gone too far in some situations and realized it later, sometimes much later. I think Hubbard would also realize he went too far.

        Also, Hubbard was treated like Jewsus and I believe that strenghtened his mild megalomania. Do not forget that Hubbard was a thetan, not a robot. Thetans have emotions and enjoy success, money and power. Most people does. He should come back and do some O/W-auditing, sec checks and he would be much better off.

        This is also how paradigms and evolution work. First version 1.0, then 2.0 and so on. Same with Scientology, as long as the original work is stored unaltered as well for everybody to see.

        One of the absolutely biggest misstakes Miscavige does is to proclaim Scientology as something perfect and you HAVE to read every word and every book and then you will be successful.

        I don’t think so. Scientology is not perfect, it is interesting. Becoming successful means first setting up a goal, then doing A, B, C … etc until that goal is achieved. Reading a Scientology book or doing auditing is actually a step further away from becoming successful since you’re not doing A or B but instead something else. BUT… Scientolology is an inner journey. It’s that other dimension. (Of course one could argue it could blow some somatics and make you more able to work etc but you get my point.)

        It has made me much calmer, broadened my viewpoints etc in the spiritual dimension. I can see some people out there, some of my friends, who lacks that spiritual calmness. That is what Scientology has given me. Something of an infinity feeling.

        I compare it to somebody in the 13th century being told there’s something called bacterias, viruses, earth is round and revolves around sun etc. It doesn’t necessary make that person more successful as an entrepreneur, but on the other hand widens that person’s horizons.

        And that’s why Miscavige should stand up there and say: Scientology helps you widen your spiritual horizons, but if you want to be more successful and earn more money, go out and work and get paid for Christ’s sake!

        I can’t imagine how much better CoS would have been if Broeker would have taken over. Can’t know of course but I’ve come to realize more and more how totally wrong Miscavige is for that kind of position. He seems to be a guy you can’t have an intellectual argument with. Perhaps Miscavige is good as a leader during times when Scientology is wrongfully attacked by real SPs everywhere in the world. There are different types of CEOs in the real world as well used for different phases in a company’s evolution.

        I compare Scientology to an instruction manual. It can help you do what you want to do, but my Gawd, don’t get too interiorized into it because there’s actually something you’re supposed to build out there: A bookshelf or your life for example.

        All those scales Jeff has been whining about. Well, they’re just scales. Doesn’t make me more successful but I find them spiritually interesting: KNOWINGNESS-scale e.g.

        Scientology is a spiritual journey, NOT a physical journey i.e. getting things done. THETA conquers MEST is what I believe life is mostly about, say 70 %, and the other 30 % is an inner journey such as relations, Scientology, friends and family etc.

        I have developed two axioms out of probably many more 🙂



      • Karen permalink
        May 16, 2010 5:00 pm


        Your example with the chef’s is perfect and I agree completely with your analysis of the appearance of the staff in evaluating the work environment.

    • Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
      May 15, 2010 9:25 pm

      Great post Jeff.
      That was one of the most enlightening and fabulous chapters, when you wrote the comparisons with life at INT BASE and the humble little 5 man team in Santa Barbara.
      Your book is destined to be read far and wide. You are a modern day Shakespeare !

      I am in solid agreement that the Church ABUSES are shocking and horrific and have to stop.
      These are archaic and drachonian and the Church will not continue to survive with the INTERNET reporting it, increasing enemies being made, and the victums exposing the darker side.

      I have a family relative AND a step-brother who were on the Flagship Apollo with LRH for years in early 70s through to landing in Daytonna.

      In the years they were on the Apollo, abuse hardly occurred at all.
      The only abuse they recall was when LRH was gone to do “Mission into Time” (researching past lives) and the HGC had a daily “KALI” ceremony

      A hideous picture of the Goddess Kali, the Hindu goddess of death and auditors who had goofed up had to perform a weird ritual and sing a hymn and use a knife to stab the image and so on.

      Apparently LRH was HORRIFIED when he returned to the ship at this invention.

      At any rate, ABUSE is the keyword here.
      All the glittery new Las Vegas Casino – type new Orgs of luxury and looking “AFFLUENT” does not hide the darker side ~~ a mouse click away when you type “scientology” and read Wikipedia write ups.

      I gave the Church HUGE amounts of money for a very long time.
      Even with the technical errors I am happy with my gains.
      But the 3 needle swing to call an FN was the final straw.
      The over runs were painful, the meter (MEST) is senior to the pc giving meter anxiety blocking the FN and something is very very wrong with the tech.

      I am done, never to return. DM or no DM.
      I am not an INDIE. I returned to my Roman Catholic roots.
      Thank you for this valuable site Jeff.

      • 3feetback permalink
        May 16, 2010 5:55 am

        If you Google about the Kali ceremony, both Hana Eltringham and Monica Pigniotti have written that LRH was not only aware of the ceremony, but actually started it. That would make sense as something so “other practice” would never even be contemplated unless it was ordered from the top.

      • windhorse permalink
        May 16, 2010 9:27 am

        Rebecca … “I’ve returned to my Catholic roots” —

        Something we haven’t discussed or covered on this board or others is the FACT that UNLESS you “go up the bridge to Total Freedom” you won’t be “saved” — or said in another way – without your next OT Level, your hope for eternal salvation is ZERO. Or said in yet another way — IF you leave scientology, you are doomed to an eternity as a cinder block.

        Which is patently rubbish and the mark of a cult.

        Yet — most established religions say basically the same thing and surely smaller sects espouse this as a way to gain and hold membership. HOWEVER, their prophets did not. It is what grew around them through the years that became quite oppressive. With various ways to buy off eternal damnation.

        I’ve become a buddhist and study Shambhala Buddhism. I find it quite liberating as it is completely up to me OR not whether I practice or study.

        Whether someone wishes to continue as a scientologist is completely up to them and I for one had many gains which I feel has made my journey as a buddhist somewhat easier.

        Contemplative meditation, along the lines of Trappist Catholic monks is akin to buddhist contemplation.

        Thomas Merton (Trappist Monk) was a close colleague to my teacher’s father. (start with “Seven Storey Mountain”, Merton’s autobiography)

        I guess my point is — truth is truth. Whether you find it and thus yourself by sailing the Atlantic solo, or scaling a mountain, or going to mass, or just spending time pondering your own life — it’s the same truth.

        And underpinning that truth is the desire, the practice, and execution of being a decent human being to oneself and to others — and aspiring that each sentient being be free from suffering at its root.


      • Rebecca-Tribecca permalink
        May 17, 2010 9:07 am


        Thank you ~~ I very much appreciated this exterior view of yours.
        You make some important points very clearly ~~ almost like you DEMO’d
        it out !
        It is interesting, the view when you are OUT looking back in
        Thanks WH !

    • Gandiguy permalink
      May 16, 2010 7:02 am

      What I said was “the gruesome thing ” was not applied correctly. The principal has merit if you use the proper gradient. Out gradient is not proper! Throw it out and you lose the tech. ones personal ser fac “I’m right and your’e not!” will guide the person in the absence of at least a hairy eyeball. You correctly increase the gradient until the auditor applies the tech standardly. Why? Because it works when you do it that way and doesn’t when you don’t. Why do you care? Because you do! On the other hand if you don’t give a hoot about the tech or your PCs getting gains or yourself getting gains from it perhaps it would be better to throw it away as an idea.

  25. Revenimus permalink
    May 15, 2010 9:17 pm

    Jeff – awesome post. All true. Jojo Zawawe is a facebook nazi. Anyone with friend connections with her beware!

  26. May 16, 2010 6:34 am

    Thank you everyone here for sharing wonderful insights, visions and links.
    Want to add my two cents here.

    “Too gruesome” is a part of mindset. It appeals to the dark side each one of us has. There is not much new with LRH’s concept of “too gruesomes” as one can find in human history. Humans who PUT ON someone’s mindset (philosophy, ideology, religion, object of faith and admiration…) fight those who don’t accept it if mind-shaping doesn’t succeed. Take the history of Soviet Union (revolution, repressions, gulag, – tortures, killings and murders of those – EDUCATED – free thinkers who didn’t accept ideas and ideals of communism. BTW, in those times political renegades were treated WAY worse than outright criminals). Take history of Christianity (first, Romans murdering and torturing early Christians, then Christians going to Middle East to get rid of unfaithfuls in Crusades)… On and on and on, throughout all ages… Methods were different and developed but the concept of “too gruesomes” was always there, in one way or another (inquisitions, crusades, exiles, deprivations, chain-lockers….).
    If one doesn’t like history, one can read “1984” and imagine and predict how “the world without insanity, war and criminality” will be for a free-to-think individual.
    It wasn’t LRH who first invented “too gruesomes”. He just followed in the footsteps of history before him – all to prevent nonconformists from “raising their ugly heads” and bending them so there is not even a thought of thinking any other way.
    Here is to you for illustration, “open letter for some too gruesomes” from KSW # 1, “If you can’t graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining, graduate them in such a state of SHOCK (!!!), they’ll have NIGHTMARES (!!!) if they contemplate squirreling. The experience (?) will eventually bring about Three (Knowing tech is correct) in them…” (Just got a thought how possibly the experience – being in the state of shock and nightmares – would bring about the “Knowing tech is correct”… Hmm!)

    Seems that humans agreeably following any fixed set of dogmas and not willing to think for themselves (which, I believe, is a majority of mankind) can’t help but act in a way that is “too gruesome” towards those who is not like one of “us”.

    History keeps repeating itself. And it will (in more civilized ways but on the same terms – “us” vs. “them’).
    LRH was not the extraordinary case of introducing “too gruesome to be faced and enforce them.”
    Appeal to and passion for “too gruesomes” is ingrained in human nature, and easily can be made active in an individual after he’s fully in that offered or imposed mindset. Methods of brainwashing may be harsh or subtle. “Too gruesomes” are just the ways of application of brainwashed towards dissenters, renegades, nonconformists, SPs, Anti-…, unfaithfuls, out-ethics, DBs, wogs… – those who don’t think alike (be they brainwashed with another ideology or just free-thinkers). IMHO. Vivid example of this in scientology is abuses at the top, and “adopted as an official policy of the Church” at all levels.
    BTW, in Russia we have (negative) saying, “Yeah, go beat your own [people] so others are afraid”

    In 1994, when I was new to Scientology and just started EPF (initial indoctrination to SO – “Estate Project Force”), one fellow answered to my question as to why he was leaving scientology and SO. His words were, “It’s better to have no ideology than follow any”. It took me 15 years to finally fully agree with him. But I don’t regret. I met many wonderful people, and had much fun – while in an after. I’m not ashamed that I was a scientologist. But “all good things must come to an end.”

  27. Soderqvist:1 permalink
    May 16, 2010 10:13 am

    Jeff Hawkins: Later that same year, LRH wrote, in HCO PL 4 October 68, “Ethics Presence,” “Men will keep the accounts straight only because you can muster bayonets to enforce that they do.” I don’t know what LRH was running into, that caused him to write such things. But they did set the tone for the Sea Org in 1968 – and thereafter.

    Soderqvist1: maybe he didn’t run into something at all. It was just that his real intention with Scientology came into play? Let’s call the time after 1968 as “the era of force” and the time before 1968”the era of ARC”. There may be shadows of grey in it but it seems truth in the main as far as I can see. Is L. Ron Hubbard the source of the ARC triangle? No, he only used the Rosicrucian magic triangle without giving proper credit to its origin.

    Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard was in it for money and power according to David Mayo and my link below deliver further evidence from Courts Verdicts!

    Soderqvist1: is L. Ron Hubbard the source of the tech? No, maybe some of it, but in the main, it was a team effort of geniuses at Saint Hill, and afterward, and he only Organized this knowledge into what it was/is. This is said by David Mayo and others in my message below.

    Soderqvist1: as a comment on your topic; The Bridge to nowhere”, David Mayo has said that the upper OT levels doesn’t exist, maybe that is the reason David Miscavige hasn’t a faintest clue how to interpret Hubbard’s research notes, because they may be no more than scribbles by a deteriorated mind!

    Soderqvist1: Nick Xenophon has got his inquiry into oz, and this is a turning point for Cos, because I believe that other countries will follow the thread, and do the same!

  28. Fidelio permalink
    May 16, 2010 2:09 pm


    please relay my huge “BRAVO, BRAVISSIMO!!!” to Amy!

    What a ride. What a biography.
    What an abuse of the crème de la crème of dedicated, well-intentioned, most powerful people.
    What a waste!
    What a gigantic can’t have of brilliance, talent, creativity, team spirit, stellar contribution, ability to tolerate the most ugly and devastating slum conditions for the sake of a HUGE goal thoroughly sabotaged from the outset.

    As far as I can see – this is unprecedented in human history!

    I am still struggling to conceive the REAL order of magnitude of that epic abuse of epic good will.

    Amy, BRAVO, BRAVISSIMO!! You are definitely one of the bigger sparks…. my Gawd! All the best for you and your loved ones.

  29. May 16, 2010 3:03 pm

    This is a most excellent thread!!

    While I cannot speak for anyone else I can say that, for me, the long running DM incident started to grind quite sometime ago. Finally, with this thread, we get to go to an earlier similar. Jeff, with this blog post, has opened a safe portal to the SOURCE. And once opened; Arlo, RT, XSO, Sherry, Ron H., Mickey and Fidelio brought revealing personal anecdotes and links to insightful material that has served to more fully illuminate SOURCE. Consequently, I now have an understanding that has delivered me into a new zone of inner peace. And with that, I feel that I can leave now. I can now actually leave Scientology. That said, it was quite a ride! And, it was immensely rewarding on many, many levels and I have taken much from the experience. Much that I will use as I continue on this journey of self-discovery.

    L. Ron Hubbard, like each of us, was a mixture of heaven and hell wherein it appears that, for whatever the reason(s), more hell than heaven rose to the top. In any event, I have tremendous admiration and affinity for that being we knew as LRH. If indeed the degree of OT is determined by the measure of sphere of influence then, by all means, LRH was one hell of an OT. I sincerely hope that wherever he might be, that he is successfully managing to get things sorted out.

    Many thanks to all here and especially to Jeff for providing this safe and sane place for looking. You’re a great group of beings and life is better because you’re part of it.

    • Mary Jo permalink
      May 16, 2010 6:02 pm

      Many thanks to you Monte! I have enjoyed knowing you and sharing my journey with you and others who post here. And what you say here rings very true to me too.

      • May 17, 2010 2:11 pm

        And many thanks to you Mary Jo. The feeling is mutal!

        Of the various blogs that I frequent, Jeff’s blog, and that includes the group of incredible beings that come here and openly share their wisdom, fears, wonderings, quandries, humor, insight and so much more…has become my “watering hole” (my coffee shop of choice) in cyberspace. Leaving Scientology is one of those rare locations in space and time where I feel I can safely gather with comparable beings of similar wavelength to explore, discover and evolve. Here is where I can come put my head down to drink long and deep.

        I have no such coffee shop (not even close) where I can go in my brick and mortar environment. I consider myself to be most fortunate to have found one here in cyberspace at Leaving Scientology.

        Jeff, just had this thought, Leaving Scientology could also be appropriately referred to as “Brewed Awakenings.” 🙂

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 17, 2010 10:38 pm


      What a great place to arrived; knowing you can finally really leave it. Very big deal, Monte.

      I hope this doesn’t mean you are going to quit coming around, though. It would leave a huge hole
      in this blog if you did. Don’t want to leave a hole in Jeff’s pretty blog, now, do you?


  30. Karen permalink
    May 16, 2010 5:42 pm

    I personally have never had or tried to apply a “too gruesome” to a positive result.

    On the other hand, there are times when external pressure applied is beneficial and correct.

    In a past job I was hired to run a department that had been being held from above and was hired specifically to handle the rogue staff in the department. It had been a fully neglected group that had developed in fighting amongst themselves and it spilled out onto the rest of the organization, all the way to the top. Though they did not know me, they instantly disliked me and overtly direspected me.

    They was very individuated from other members of the department and the organization as a whole but was at the same time they were a vital necessity to the organization. Repeated attempts were made to spread false data and 3P myself and other staff. There was no repect for any authority but there was fear of the owner and often there was a pretended no understanding due to language differences.

    I gladly took on this challenge. They were very unhappy yet grateful to have work. Surprisingly, most of them had been with the company for more than five years. I used all the admin tech I knew to get this group turned around. I wrote up all hats and had them translated. I used Ethics Review as my stable datum for disciplinary actions. All actions were translated and documented in writing with a translator there when going over the report. I was an admin bitch in that my thoroughness cut off their evil dramatizations and generalities which were hurting the group and themselves.

    At the same time, I complemented them when they did well as individuals, they were public recognized as employee of the month when it was right, I helped them to conquer personal problems when they started interfering with their work or life survival. I eventually became their confidant in which they could share their greatest success and tragedies.

    Within a year, they were the best department in the organization. They helped each other and learned to help the other departments as well. We achieved condition 4 exchange. I was the only department head who had staff replacing themselves if they needed time off. This was a huge daily problem for the other departments. They understood the concept of CSW, though we never went over it. They eventually ran themselves independently with almost no supervision from myself so that I could take on an additional department.

    By the time I left a year later, they didn’t really even need a supervisor anymore. I never gave them a “too gruesome”, I did actually yell at one person, once, because she was actively creating a mutiny in a meeting. I never had to do it again. The ethics presence I gained was in the form of persistence in applying the organizational codes, in not giving up when they would covertly undermine me, by only reporting on documented factual situations which were undisputedly provable and by caring far beyond anyone had ever cared to make sure they were doing well in life. By the time I left, I was the best supervisor they ever had, their words.

    So, really, it comes back to integrity again. What do you extrapolate from a policy letter? What works? What doesn’t?

    • lunamoth permalink
      May 17, 2010 10:50 pm


      You have my respect and admiration, girl. What you did for that department while granting beingness, being consistent and fair, and helping your employees, would have been considered nearly impossible, or not worth the considerable effort and dedication, by many managers.

      The essence of management is caring. You obviously really care, and you had the tools and the persistence to turn it around. These are also the qualities that make a good parent, as anyone on this blog who has children knows. Sometimes, as a parent, you find yourself completely at your wit’s end, without the tools to do the job in front of you. If at that moment your overwhelm causes you to stop caring, and your persistence fails you, you may make the choice to shortcut it with “too gruesome.” But even when that is momentarily expedient, it’s never the best choice. Not if you really care about the person in front of you.

      You obviously don’t need that particular “technique.” More power to you.

      • Karen permalink
        May 18, 2010 11:21 pm


        You hit the jackpot on “too gruesomes” and children. It is to me the single most out tech handling I’ve see abused again and again by parents whether they have the tech or not, simply because a child can’t fight back. Well, they can…they become wholly terrors. But, as you stated, it occurs when one is at their wits end.

        I’ve done it myself lots of times with my own daughter, causing us to become estranged for quite a few years. It nearly cost me that relationship. It wasn’t until after I’d done NED that I fully handled using force and too gruesomes. I was fortunate in that we were able to reconnect up and I handled all of the earlier ARCXs that I caused. We are in fantastic comm now and she is doing well, the best she has ever been.

        It was a very difficult lesson but I learned so much from it.

      • lunamoth permalink
        May 21, 2010 5:54 am

        Beautiful, Karen.

  31. Decompressing permalink
    May 16, 2010 6:16 pm

    Jeff, if I may a little impertinent and go slightly off-topic, although it did spring directly from the posting here and the wonderfully enlightened replies above, I have a question for those who have been on a longer journey than I:

    So, one has reached a level of understanding on the current CofS through these blogs and other research, and arrived at a point whereby leaving CofS is validated as the the only sensible decision. One has a new, well-rounded objective view not just of the Church and Sea Org, but of the whole subject and its founder that was previously obscured from view. One also had great wins and gains within Scientology and recognises its value, but probably isn’t able to completely disentangle the good from the bad – yet. Whilst there are many beautiful comments and wisdom here and Marty’s blog and others, reading some of the stuff on ESMB and WWP leaves one a little “empty” and frustrated.

    The question is this: is it advisable to take a further step to leave Scientology altogether while getting one’s head straight before making any decisions about services outside the CofS? Or to put it another way – is it stifling of one’s education and rehabilitation to still consider oneself a Scientologist while evaluating all the vast amount of information available? Don’t sit on the fence (“its up to you” etc) – I want opinions of those who have been there either way. Thank you.

    • sherrymk permalink
      May 16, 2010 9:50 pm

      Dear Decompressing,

      In my humble opinion and recent decompressing experience, if it’s possible to truly evaluate Scientology’s vast amount of information by remaining in the mindset of a Scientologist, I would tip my hat to you. The very thing is almost oxymoronic in implication. The Sweet Sadness, Beautiful Ugliness..sort of deal. I changed many times in the last almost 2 years..going from considering myself a “true” scientologist to wondering if such a thing was self-defeating in itself and hindering my recovery and keeping me in the cult-identity.

      I read Steven Hassan’s “Mind Controlling Cults” and had many fine revelations as to what keeps one connected to the cult even after they have left. One is the language. I’ve worked hard to stop using the cult-speak and find suitable english terms to substitute. Very freeing, let me tell you…and it makes the evaluation of my experiences in Scientology actually easier. Also, realizing that I do/did have a cult identity…probably thousands of times in the last couple years I’ve had to stand back and ask myself “is that the way I really feel about this? Is this the way I actually view this? Has this actually been observable to me in my life? Am I just thinking thru the via of the cult filter again?” Its a long long process..but I’ve finally in the last 6 months been able to sort thru what I was indoctrinated to think and what I really think. and come to discover how I, that’s capitol I really am.

      Scientology teachings offer many creditable OBSERVABLE truths. For me, if I can see it, I believe it. If I’ve experienced it, it’s true for me. If I can use it to good effect, it’s the thing I’ll do. But no more, “leap of faith” deal. Extraordinary.

      Good luck.

      • Decompressing permalink
        May 16, 2010 11:39 pm

        Brilliant answer Sherry and I might add that you have been an inspiration to me on this journey. I suspect I’ve got a ways to go yet, much to the chagrin of my family who see me at 6es and 7es while I try and sort through it all. I take a view on something and pathetic as it may seem I honestly don’t know if it is ME taking that view, or the indoctrinated scientologist in me. I will definitely check out the book you reference too.

    • Just Me permalink
      May 16, 2010 10:03 pm


      Gee, I hate to say this, but I think it really is up to you.

      I also don’t think there’s a single best answer to your question about what you should do.

      Any of us could tell you what our situations are and what our decisions have been, at least up to now. But that wouldn’t and shouldn’t inform you about what would be right for you. After all, we have NO information about your own situation. Why should we advise you on what to do?

      For example, I have friends who are IN, way IN. I have friends who are OUT, way OUT. And I have friends who are mentally very much “out” and inactive, but still “in” because of family members, financial partners and close friends who depend on them very much. This is a tough place to be. But each of my friends in this tough spot is trying to find his or her way to a place where they can create more space that is their own.

      Sure, it’s beautiful thing to be able to resign publicly and post your resignation on the Internet: “I am OUT. I am keeping my PERSONAL INTEGRITY.” However, not everyone is in a position to be able to do this. Riffing a bit on a topic we all discussed recently, most Scientologists iterate and calibrate this decision based on their calculations about the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

      I think the closest I could come to giving you any advice right now would be to ask you what significance you attach to the label of Scientologist?

      Perhaps you could also tell us a bit more about what you’re wondering or feeling confused about.

      Just Me

      P.S. You also might want to repeat your question over on today’s blog about Craig and Suzanne Houchin’s resignations from the CoS and as Scientologists. Your question seems to be more in line with that topic and will probably receive more attention there.

      • Decompressing permalink
        May 16, 2010 11:49 pm

        Thank you JM. Also extremely helpful. Actually, leaving the Church (loudly and publicly as I did) was relatively easy when I got the data about the abuses etc. After 1o mins of SP Times testimony my mind was made up – I knew these were good people talking, and sobbed like a baby at what I was hearing and seeing (I’m nearly 50). It’s the leaving Scientology bit that has got me in a tizzy. I guess for now I just need to keep reading and educating myself. The one thing that is keeping me stuck to the scene right now is the overwhelming desire to see justice done (NOT punishment), in the form of DM and his sick possie brought to book, and I wonder if that emotion is a healing one and whether just to let it all go, you know?Parallel with that is the burning desire to get all my onlines friends out into the sunlight where they can come to their own decisions too. I got one out recently and it was such an incredible feeling.

  32. Fidelio permalink
    May 16, 2010 6:37 pm

    all depends on the Menschenbild und Weltanschauung (image of man and outlook onto the world) one has.
    A Menschenbild based on Man being basically good ALWAYS will make one look for understanding why a person is acting how he is acting and trying to help find the bug when something went wrong. Further training and practice in a supportive environment will remedy in most cases what needed to be improved even if emotions went hot out of anger about flaps. There is just no unquestionned prior assumption that the person flawed because of evil intention. And a “Too Gruesome” has no place in that. Period.

    Assuming counter intention, “other fish to fry”, sabotage, “non-confront on evil”, willful non-compliance and a priori defiance with the most dedicated and well-intentioned people as an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) obviously practiced in the Sea Org from day one on and held in place by constant threat and terror tells quite another story. No glossy PR will ever fix that devastated and degraded Menschenbild.

    Didn’t I learn somewhere that ethics drops out when tech is out? And one of two rules for a happy life is to only cause what another can easily experience?

    I have never seen a “too gruesome” in any way shape or form productive of something valuable. Q.e.d.

    Miscavige and his henchmen have to go very very very far away and the root from where they draw their justifications has to be weeded out ruthlessly. (Can’t even imagine an appropriate “too gruesome” for that breed of cat!)

  33. WhatWall permalink
    May 16, 2010 9:19 pm

    Hello Everyone,

    This is my first post so an introduction is in order. Family members would suffer if I reveal my identity so I must remain anonymous for now. I am ex-SO and have been involved with Scientology for over 30 years. My current view of organized Scientology is, in a nutshell, that the CoS has been corrupted by irrational management and that some of that irrationality is rooted in LRH’s policies. I have been personally helped by auditing so consider that at least some of the tech is valid. It’s taken a couple of years of research to arrive at this viewpoint.

    Thank you, Jeff, for your wonderful blog and for Counterfeit Dreams. You’re writings have helped me greatly to sort things out. You are a man of good will and reason.

    To the posters on your blog: I love reading your comments! Wish I could sit with all of you on my back porch to enjoy your company and discuss all manner of things.

    Now on to the subject at hand.

    Having managed people at several professions for quite a while, I conclude that, with the rare exception, people are obviously willing to work! When productivity doesn’t occur, is lowered or bad products made, something has gotten in the way of that willingness. LRH said something to that effect but I can’t quote it. In great part, my job as a manager is to remove obstacles to willingness.

    IMHO, these obstacles fall under one or more of several categories: 1) Personal (mental, physical, spiritual) problems; 2) Lack of training; 3) Inadequate or incorrect instructions; 4) Inadequate facilities, tools and/or materials; 5) Interference from other staff (including management); 6) Bad policy.

    I realize these categories are a great simplification but I’ve found them to be useful in determining which obstacles are in the way. No matter which or how many of these categories are involved, THREATENING THE EMPLOYEE doesn’t seem a workable solution.

    I have on a few occasions fired someone after I decided that it was too costly to deal with the obstacles to their willingness. But this occurred after at least several attempts to correct the situation and none of those attempts involved threats or denigration.

    So under what circumstance would “too gruesome to confront” be a valid technique for dealing with unproductive or troubled staff? Even when giving orders in the midst of a life threatening situation, one doesn’t usually have time to threaten. If there’s enough time to threaten in such a situation, there’s also time to say “Our survival depends on your execution of this task.”

    I can see that “too gruesome to confront” might be a valid way of dealing with an enemy. Can anyone conceive of ANY circumstance in which it would be a valid way to deal with an employee, team member or fellow worker, much less a SO member who has pledged a billion years of service?

    • May 17, 2010 7:03 pm

      First of all, I hate dictatorial working conditions. I believe in a leader making a final decision based on what he thinks is mostly right and if the group opposes, to change that direction so the group becomes a little bit more happy. From my own experience, I’ve had bosses who have been nice and bosses who have been very harsh and I know that I think more of doing it right if my boss is harsh. A lazy boss makes me more lazy, a tough boss makes me thinking more of how I do my job. It’s not as fun though to work for a harsh boss. I personally sort of adjust to the working environment climate.

      “Too Gruesome” could also be called “Management By Fear”. Again, I’m not defending it, I’m just making observations and trying to figure out Hubbard’s motives. Perhaps he was convinced this was of such great motives that everything could be sacrified. Perhaps he was bored and tired and liked to play games. Perhaps he wanted to conquer the world. Perhaps the taste of money and power changed his once gold rules expressed in The Way To Happiness. Perhaps his case was messed up. Perhaps he started to develop Alzheimer. Perhaps he was right, perhaps he wasn’t perfect and got angry sometimes. I don’t know.

    • Karen permalink
      May 17, 2010 9:30 pm


      Great post, I agree with your general breakdown of the obstacles of willingness. I couldn’t come up with any real example where a too gruesome would be appropriate, even after really trying ot make it work.

      By the way, Welcome to the blogs.

  34. May 16, 2010 10:16 pm

    Very nice article this time, Jeff, I fully agree.


  1. Betrayal. Whose? Let’s ovecome it! | Theworldisfine's Blog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: