The Dirty Dozen
As I mentioned, I’ve been doing my own analysis of the “Bad Barrel” factors in Scientology, that is, what are the systemic factors that tend to make for a toxic environment within the Scientology world.
This follows on my last post, and was inspired by reading Philip Zimbardo’s book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Zimbardo, the Stanford professor who conducted the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, argues that while most people blame individuals for evil acts (“bad apples”), there can also be situational and systemic factors that can cause even normal people to carry out, support or condone evil acts (“bad barrels”). And note that I said “also;” it’s not either/or.
This started me thinking about the systemic factors in Scientology that contribute to an abusive environment. Are there things in the culture of Scientology, in its DNA, so to speak, that cause Scientology organizations to become toxic?
Of course, as soon as you start looking along this line, you land squarely in the middle of the pro-LRH/anti-LRH squabble – one of those black/white polarized conflicts where intelligent conversation is all but impossible. So let me try to deal with that before we even get into my twelve toxic factors, the “dirty dozen.”
To some, hinting that LRH may have some responsibility in creating Scientology’s toxic environment is blasphemy. It’s all Miscavige. Anything abusive in Scientology has nothing to do with Hubbard. On the other side, there are those who say it’s “all Hubbard’s fault,” and that he deliberately set up an abusive system and is therefore an evil person. And the debate tends to be black and white with no middle ground.
Let’s look at it another way, one that might get us somewhere. Let’s take Phil Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. If you have read about it, you know the experiment spun out of control after a few days. It got far more abusive than anyone thought it would. Now, suppose you had a “pro-Zimbardo” group and an “anti-Zimbardo” group arguing about this. The anti group would argue that Zimbardo was responsible for all of the abuse that occurred, and it demonstrates that he is an evil person. The pro group would argue that Zimbardo is a good person, and his instructions to the guards contained nothing about abusing prisoners. That was solely the fault of the “bad apple” guards.
Well, fortunately Zimbardo himself resolved this by taking personal responsibility for the abuse that occurred during the experiment he set up, working to isolate the factors that caused such abuse, and then using what he found to help reduce abuse in real-life situations. In other words, he had a bit of humility. He realized his responsibility for what happened, even though he never intended it and never told anyone to abuse anyone. He was human, and like any human being, he was not perfect and could not predict the ultimate consequences of his actions. But once he saw what happened, he was man enough to take responsibility for what happened rather than insisting on his rightness.
I happen to take the view that Hubbard was human, like all the rest of us, and that he made mistakes, as all of us do. Many people who consider themselves aggressively pro-Hubbard will admit, under pressure, that he was only human, that he had faults, and that the system he devised was not perfect, merely workable. Yet they are rarely specific about what those faults or imperfections might be.
In light of the catastrophic failure of organized Scientology, wouldn’t it be a good idea to actually isolate and examine those imperfections? And maybe correct them so that there is never a recurrence? Well, here is my stab at it. Here are the toxic things that I observed, in my 35 years in Scientology, that contributed to making Scientology Organizations as toxic and abusive as they have become. These are all things that are part of the Scientology culture, the organizational zeitgeist.
Whether Hubbard “intended” that things turn out the way they did is beside the point. In most cases they have their roots in his writings. One could argue, and I’m sure some will argue, that these writings were misunderstood, misapplied and taken out of context. That’s also, really, beside the point. Things turned out the way they did. Institutional Scientology became abusive, toxic and cult-like, and to some extent has always been so, at least in my 35 year experience. And we can’t, in my view, credit Hubbard with all of the good in Scientology and assign him no responsibility for the bad. But why moan about whose fault it is rather than trying to understand what happened and why?
With that caveat, I give you my “dirty dozen” factors that have made Scientology toxic. Excuse the length – each one probably deserves a post of its own.
1. Dehumaniziation
One of the key factors that Zimbardo mentions as facilitating abuse is dehumanization. If one makes less of people – prisoners, minorities, outsiders – then that justifies abusing them, lying to them or deceiving them. In Scientology, this begins with the term “wog” to refer to anyone who is not a Scientologist. The law becomes “wog law,” the justice system becomes “wog justice,” the media becomes “wog press.” These things are considered inferior. A Scientologist can therefore consider himself or herself to be above these things – including “above the law.”
If you consider yourself superior to others, that justifies looking down on others as “low-toned,” “low on the Bridge,” or even “in a lower Org.” A sort of arrogance or condescension can crop up.
At the Int Base, this sort of arrogance was amplified – as all of the factors on this list were. RTC looked down on CMO Int. CMO Int looked down on Exec Strata. And everyone looked down on Gold. And you would be shocked to hear how Int Base executives talked about “lower org” staff or public. And of course that sort of arrogance led to actual abuse.
To grow up, Scientology has to rid itself of this sort of elitism, condescension and arrogance and learn to respect others.
2. Enemies and War
It’s axiomatic that if you want to control someone, give them an enemy. I wrote a post about this recently here.
One of the first things I heard about in Scientology were its “enemies.” The government was out to get Scientology. The press was out to get Scientology. The Psychs and Medicos were out to get Scientology. We were at war against the “forces of evil.” You can always ask people to sacrifice, give money, give up holidays, weekends or sleep, accept low or no pay, if you are “at war.”
If you are dealing with an “enemy,” it also justifies using any tactic to defeat them. The recent post on Marty’s blog, containing an OSA program to discredit and silence Tory, is all too typical of the sort of tactics Scientology has used against its “enemies” throughout its history, from Paulette Cooper to Gabriel Cezares to Larry Wollersheim to Tory to Mike and Marty. And it’s all justified. These are enemies. They are “trying to destroy Scientology.” If you label someone an “enemy” or an “SP,” anything goes.
If Scientology is to mature, I believe it has to stop its obsession with “enemies” and “wars” and start realizing that they are responsible for their own failures, negative press and bad public image, not some vast evil conspiracy that’s out to get them.
3. Collapsed Time, The Constant Emergency
It was my experience on staff and in the Sea Org that things were on a constant emergency footing. Everything had to be done now-now-now. For one thing, management was by weekly (or even daily or hourly) stats. Things had to be done immediately in order to “count.” Everything, it seemed, was a constant flap, a constant “Hill Ten” requiring late hours or all-nighters, skipped liberty days, minimal meal breaks.
This kind of think was destructive of any real long term planning or strategy. When faced with a choice between a short-term action that would get immediate stats (particularly income), and a long-term action that would result in steady expansion, which do you think got chosen 99.9% of the time?
Sure, it’s a good idea to watch statistics. But not obsessively so that your time frame is constantly collapsed down to nothing.
All of this stat obsession resulted in the cannibalizing of existing public rather than developing future public. Gimmicks like monthly price raises and special deals rather than sane pricing and marketing. Now-now stat pushes and daily phone calls rather than sane management planning and strategy.
Well, what do you expect when you put people on weekly, daily, or hourly stats and threaten them with heavy penalties if they don’t get them up now-now-now?
Scientology will get sane when it calms down, gets off the constant emergency footing and gets in honest long range planning.
4. Secrecy, Transparency and Accountability
Scientology has an obsession with “confidentiality.” No one may know what higher echelons are doing, thinking, or planning. One reason given is that “enemies” may find out the plans – see “enemies” above.
The result is that the right hand usually does not know what the left hand is doing. One insane result is events. Orgs don’t know before the event what is being released. It’s “confidential.” So no one can prepare for it, generate word of mouth or ramp up excitement. It’s silly.
But the most destructive effect of all of this secrecy is that management can pretty much do what it wants with no accountability, oversight or transparency. And they can do anything they want with the money collected. They don’t have to report back to the field what they did with the money. No one knows, no one can know. So management can do what they want.
This even extends to management personnel. When WDC was first formed, their identities were secret. As a joke, they sent an album of photos to “middle management” with bags over their heads. No one was supposed to know who they are. And it’s still that way, only more so. No one knows who is on which executive post (in fact, every executive at Int has been removed from post without the knowledge of Scientologists). Scientologists are not informed when key executives are appointed or removed. They are not told the reason for any removal. They are not able to review the qualifications of any appointee. It’s all “confidential.”
And now even the international statistics are “confidential.”
Any reform of Scientology must include complete transparency and accountability of management plans, actions, statistics, finances and personnel.
5. Information Control and Thought-Stopping
Key to any cult-like operation is strict information control. Members must get their information from approved sources only, and must never read material that is critical of the group, its doctrine, or its founder. Such thought-stopping mechanisms are deeply ingrained in Scientology.
Scientologists know that if their friends or family members express any criticism of Scientology, they will have to “handle” them (silence their criticism) or disconnect. They cannot be connected to anyone who is critical of the Church or Hubbard. If anyone challenges Scientology, they have to stop listening as it’s “entheta.” They know they cannot look into Scientology on the internet – they have to stick with the Church-approved websites (that is, the Church websites). They cannot read negative stories in the press or watch negative stories on TV. These things might cause them to doubt – and Doubt, in Scientology, is a Lower Condition.
Scientology is full of thought-stopping phrases: “That’s entheta.” “That’s a hate site.” “They are SPs.” “He’s a religious bigot.” “She’s an LRH-hater.”
This isn’t a search for truth, it’s running away from it.
Information control isn’t a sign of strength, it’s a confession of weakness. It’s a confession that one’s beliefs are fragile, tenuous, and can be blown away by any real search for information.
If Scientology wants to be taken seriously as a subject, it has to give its members freedom to study and access any information they want, associate with anyone they want to, and make up their own minds.
6. The End Justifies the Means – Machiavellian Power:
I wrote an earlier post on the subject of utilitarian ethics, which is encapsulated by Jeremy Bentham’s phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Bentham was a proponent of utilitarianism, which holds that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. That is, “the end justifies the means.”
David Miscavige’s favorite piece of LRH writing, hands down, is Hubbard’s essay, “The Responsibility of Leaders.” This was subject of a recent post on Marty’s blog. The essay is Hubbard’s criticism of Simon Bolivar and his consort, Manuela Saenz. He analyzes what he feels they did wrong and what they should have done to be successful. It is widely used in Scientology, is a part of the Ethics book, and is studied as part of the materials on the Condition of Power, the highest Ethics condition in Scientology.
But listen to some of the things he criticized Manuela for not doing:
“…she never collected or forged or stole any documents to bring down enemies…”
“…she never used a penny to buy a quick knife…”
“She never handed over any daughter of a family clamouring against her to Negro troops and then said ‘Which oververbal family is next.’”
The means he recommends in this essay include bribery, murder, rape, forgery, and theft.
He also recommends that those working for a power give that power deniability – the famous “pink legs” quote. And he recommends always “pushing power to power.” “It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark…”
I know, I know, this is all “taken out of context” and “he really didn’t mean it” and “he was only kidding,” and so on. No, re-read the essay. Read it for what it actually says. Machiavelli would be proud.
The fact is that the culture of Scientology is steeped in this kind of utilitarian ethics. That’s why Scientologists defend Miscavige no matter what he does. It’s why OSA carries out disgusting dirty tricks on their “enemies.” It’s how Scientologists justify what’s going on within their Church.
It’s how Miscavige justifies his constant abuse of staff.
Scientology will gain respect when it abandons its utilitarian ethics and realize, as Gandhi said, “means are, after all, everything. As the means, so the end.”
7. Authoritarianism, Intention and Counterintention:
It is my opinion that David Miscavige could never have come to power if Scientology was not already organized as a strict, top-down authoritarian system. He could bully his way into the top position and use the structure of Scientology to enforce his orders.
Sure, there have always been councils – Aides Council, Exec Strata, WDC. But the fact is, no one ever questioned the top guy – Hubbard. There is even a phrase for “doing what Hubbard says.” It’s called Command Intention. Hubbard was always Command. On the Apollo, his entries in the Orders of the Day were always printed under the heading “Command.”
Scientology was structured to carry out and enforce his orders. Every Sea Org Member swears to “uphold, forward and carry out Command Intention.” And the purpose of Ethics in an organization, we learned, was “to remove counter-intention from the environment.” Anyone not carrying out Command Intention was “CI.”
To ensure orders were carried out, there was an “LRH Comm Correction Form” which escalated Ethics gradients automatically for any non-compliance to LRH Orders. It was soon copied by every Programs Ops as “the way to get compliance.”
So you have a system where every Sea Org Member, executive and Programs Ops is dead-set on carrying out Command Intention, and where every Ethics Officer is working full-time to “remove counter-intention.” All Miscavige had to do was establish himself as “Command,” and he had the whole system working for him.
Scientology will only truly embrace freedom when it ceases to be an authoritarian dictatorship.
8. A Culture of Confession:
Sure, confession can be beneficial. But only if it is kept in the strictest confidentiality and is not kept in files and folders for the purposes of future blackmail.
Confession, misused, is the tool of the mind controller, the cult leader. Many cults use confession as a means of controlling their members.
Scientologists “know” that if anyone leaves Scientology, it’s because they “have overts.” If anyone wants to leave, it’s because of their “crimes.” If anyone complains or “natters,” it’s because they have overts. They “know” this so thoroughly that they don’t dare complain or think about leaving.
Anyone who defies David Miscavige is immediately pulled in for Sec Checking. Anyone who complains about anything in the Church of Scientology is sent to Ethics.
Scientology will mature when it ceases using confession as a method of control.
9. “Toughness” and the Para-Military Paradigm:
Another part of the Scientology ethos is a sort of macho toughness. “We are not a ‘turn the other cheek’ religion,” they brag. No, Scientologists are tough guys.
Being “reasonable” is a bad thing in Scientology. Having sympathy for others is “low-toned. “Human emotion and reaction” is simply a “barrier to production.”
No, you have to be tough. “It’s a tough universe,” we are told. “…only the tigers survive.”
At the apex of all of this “toughness” we have the quasi-military Sea Org, with its uniforms, ranks, marching, musters, all-nighters, screaming and even physical abuse. And don’t get in their way.
Tough.
What about empathy, compassion, love, caring for others? “Shut up – don’t be a pantywaist dilettante.”
Scientology only has a chance of becoming a real religion if they jettison all this quasi-military, fake-macho “toughness.”
10. Money and Greed:
As long as I was in Scientology, 35 years – executives, orgs and managers were always obsessed with money. And not money as in long-term investments or long-range financial planning. Money as in “how much can we rake in now, now, now before Thursday at 2:00?”
Anyone who has worked in Orgs, or worked in Registration, or in Management, knows how true this is. One is judged by stats, and the most attention, rightly or wrongly, went on GI.
I could point to many organizational factors, starting at the top. The stat of WDC is Int Reserves. The FBO system took any limits off how much of the org income could be grabbed and sent “uplines.” “Proportionate pay” justified not paying staff. The dateline payment system justified not paying bills. Orgs were always under terrific financial stress, all in the name of padding central reserves.
And now, of course it’s over the top, with every staff member commandeered as reges and salespeople, constant pressure for Donations, failing orgs, and central reserves being squandered.
Scientology will get a lot saner when it stops fixating on money and starts caring about people.
11. Penalizing Downstats
You get upstats of you reward upstats and penalize downstats. Sure, makes perfect sense.
But what do you mean by “penalize?” How do you “penalize” someone in an org?
Over my many years on staff, I saw executives get very inventive on this point. Having downstats scrub floors or toilets with toothbrushes was one method. Locking people in basements or chain lockers was another. Throwing people into a harbor or a lake was yet another.
At the Int Base, this reached draconian proportions with something called the “Team Share System.” One had five cards, for Social Events (which allowed one days off, or parties), Bonuses, Pay, Food, and Berthing. One could have one or more cards removed for downstats or infractions. One could lose one’s pay, food (only rice and beans), or berthing (sleep under one’s desk or out on the lawn).
And of course, downstats could be screamed at, or even hit or punched or shoved.
And if they don’t come around, RPF.
All of these things have one common name: abuse.
In any other organization, production is achieved through incentives and rewards – better pay, promotions, bonuses. The only penalty is, you might get fired.
In Scientology, production is achieved through abuse. How’s that working for you, Scientology?
Scientology may start to get real production when it stops abusing its staff.
12. Appearance vs. Substance, Hypocrisy:
In Scientology, unfortunately, what is important is how things look. How they appear. How they sound. Appearances over substance.
A flossy video promoting Volunteer Minister activity is more important than the actual activity.
The external appearance of an org is more important than the fact that it’s empty and failing.
Assertions that Scientology has thousands of Orgs is more important than any actions to actually establish organizations.
Claiming that “there is no Disconnection” on national TV is more important than actually cancelling Disconnection.
Claiming “Fair Game was cancelled” is more important than ceasing to Fair Game people.
Scientology might gain some respect if it actually becomes honest.
Summary
My point is this: the abusive environment that exists in organized Scientology is not merely the errant behavior of a few bad apples. There are factors like the above that are part and parcel of the culture of Scientology. Where they came from, why they exist, who put them in place, are all matters of speculation and personal experience. But these factors do exist throughout Scientology. And most of them, while they have been taken to psychotic extremes by Miscavige, have always existed in the organization culture.
If anyone is serious about reforming Scientology, these are the sorts of things that will have to be examined, evaluated, and corrected.
Leaving Scientology 
Epic post, Jeff. You are the Martin Luther of Scientology.
Jeff,
You are truly a word smith.
I don’t agree with everything you wrote but we definitely have points of agreement.
Wow Jeff! The entire lot of twelve if ever “examined, evaluated” would never lead to a correction, but to an entire deconstruction and elimination of the movement in my view. It’s exactly because all 12 arenas are embedded, systemic and ARE the systems and mechanisms of Scn, that makes correction impossible. The subject wouldn’t ever be the same subject; as an organization especially.
Perhaps all that would remain is what we see now occurring in the Free Zone and Independent scene, ie, mere individuals helping other individuals, one-on-one. Back to the very beginning days of the 1940s and 50s, back to the simplicity of basic humanity.
I think you’re right.
I also try to see this from Hubbard’s perspective. He found some great stuff and some things that worked and I think he was a hardcore believer when it comes to auditing, that enough of it done well enough will produce real OTs. Perhaps it can?
That’s why people were thrown in the sea when flubbing on the e-meter. The “management by fear” approach to enforce perfect metering. I think it was an experiment. From my understanding those “experiments” vanished later, at least by Hubbard.
I also think he felt that “how do I maximize these discoveries?” By expansion. It takes money and… expansion. Sea Org was invented with low pay and stats were invented. Good on paper but not so good in practice, the result being not so emotional people.
I think most of the Policy letters are good if applied correctly and rather restrictively (not Fair Game though). Problem is that Miscavige uses it as Black Dianetics instead of trying to improve mankind.
I think Hubbard aimed very high but didn’t reach what he wanted, e.g. exterior with full perception, but got further than most (or anybody) has from my personal perspective.
I think that Scientology is a mix of Hubbards efforts going in all directions, some are great (third party law, some auditing, touch assist, basic Scientology knowledge etc), some are useful (study tech, tone scale etc), some are not so useful (create pain by imitating a clam with the hand, mocked-up gold discs on eyes as eye sight, how does Hubbard explain the eyes “blind spot” then?) and some are thought-stopping pseudo-science, e.g. one of the last letters he wrote where he stated “IF YOU KNOW THE TECH, IT WILL PROTECT YOU. You do not even have to believe it works. If you really know the true tech, no one and nothing can hurt you or demean you in the ages to come.” This is simply not true and makes people stop their efforts by relying on his writings alone.
But overall, I think Hubbard has done great discoveries for mankind and I think the best way to apply Scientology is to cherry-pick what works for you and use that.
And for the rest of us to “build a better bridge”. He started a new way of thinking which hopefully can reach even further.
Hubbardianen,
You have an interesting perspective. Can you further expound here?
You mention, “……I think the best way to apply Scientology is to cherry-pick what works for you and use that.”
Would you still call that Scientology? If not, what would you call it? Would you cherry pick and then go back and research where LRH may have gotten that data and therefore look at further studies to include in your cherry picked repertoire?
Really, in the end, can one be a Scientologist without subscribing to ALL of it? Y0ur thoughts?
To me it’s not that important what the label is. What works works. If you call it Scientology or improved Scientology etc doesn’t matter to me. It’s just a definition. It’s more easy though to have a name for it since discussions like this can happen. I would probably call myself a liberal Scientologist as opposed to an orthodox (or perhaps conservative) Scientologist. Really, it’s just definitions. Perhaps something like Zen-Scientology will evolve? Zcientology?
I would love to see more serious study about all of the things Hubbard has written and talked about. There are other people out there who engage in past lives hypnosis etc, e.g. Ian Stevenson (RIP), Brian Weiss (both psychiatrists actually) and Michael Newton in between lives studies. It’s an interesting complement to Hubbards writings.
Hubbard put forward many claims, such as the universe is at least 60 trillion years old etc and perhaps it can be checked by cross-checking lots of audited people. So more research on OT-levels, auditing, Purif and everything is something I’d love to see.
Unfortunately this is completely impossible under the current management. I know some freezoneers have continued to do some research.
Thank you. So, do you feel that an organization is necessary? Do you still feel the goal is to “clear the planet”? If an organization is necessary and clearing the planet is still the goal, then who decides which policies to follow and which ones to ditch?
How does this morphed version of Scientology actually work?
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but….
The goal to “clear the planet” is an additive generalization. That really isn’t a “goal”, it is merely a buzz-word until it is clearly defined. What does it mean, a “clear planet”?
The goal can never be anything but to clear one individual at a time. One person at a time, because the individual is the building block of a group etc. A “clear” is clear on the first dynamic.
I’d bet for every 10 people asked, there could be 10 different ideas about what “a clear planet” means….
Synthia,
Why not have an organisation? It’s good to have a church to go to and meet people etc. FSM is also a good idea. I personally think the Fair Game, SO abortions, high prices should be cancelled/changed. An extremely restrictive use of Disconnection could be useful, e.g. if a relative is really antagonistic to somebody who thinks Scientology is really important to them etc.
I would like a much more liberal church where focus are on auditing, teachings, going up the bridge etc and all the ridicolous restrictions here and there are just cancelled.
I believe in electing leader(s) for the church, every fifth year or so, and to have a committee with different people from different backgrounds who can make strategic plans and contribute to common goals. More of a democracy. And for God’s sake (!) let people experiment with procedures in hope to develop better routines and more levels. Just make sure to keep Hubbard’s old writings intact for references. I think most people are well-meaning and those “squirrel”-accusations apply to a minor percentage.
Prices should be affordable, perhaps a maximum of $100/hour, preferably less. Focus should be on putting people on auditing & study, not buildings and fund raising.
And more scientific research to find out what’s really true and not. Did OT III really happen for example? I’ve found some interesting geological evidence for it but there are some great anomalies left that makes me believe it could be perhaps partially true, but as of current findings not entirely true. The date could also be wrong and be more in the 65 million year span (extincion of the dinosaurs).
Any time spent on jumping in the sea is less time spent on auditing somebody.
I’m not into the “you’re either in or out”-thinking but prefer the “what’s true for you is true for you” approach, as it started out. I don’t know what happened with LRH toward the end since so many strange things happened. Perhaps the “money is not important/let’s save the world” looks good on paper and was something he started out with, but toward the end he got a little bit too much ego-boosting? I personally think he was disappointed since he wanted to solve the reincarnation-cycle/exterior with full perception but didn’t. So why not enjoy what he had created? Power, money, perhaps women etc.
I’m still very thankful for what LRH did, even though he was not perfect.
As you know, Hub, we’ve had discussions about all this on Geir’s (now Claire’s) forum.
I’ve always felt the main problem was the Copyrights and Trademarks monopoly, as to me the Ideal Scene would be to have as many sects, cults, churches, temples, groups, schools and organizations of Scientology, just as there are in Christianity, Buddhism, or any other philosophy, religion, or self-development enterprise.
There is no reason the fundamental ideas and tech have to be delivered by any particular form of delivery organization at. It is nonsense to claim otherwise.
Here are some links to some of the related threads on Geir/Claire’s forum:
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=223&start=0&S=a30896cbdcd8b1b56d6029cef41f192d CLEARED PLANET
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=219&start=0&S=a30896cbdcd8b1b56d6029cef41f192d IF SCN CONQUERED THE WORLD
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=492&start=0&S=a30896cbdcd8b1b56d6029cef41f192d SCN PHILOSOPHY vs SCN PRACTICE
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=456&start=0&S=a30896cbdcd8b1b56d6029cef41f192d CAN A CHURCH FORBID RELIGIOUS PRACTICE?
Valkov,
It will probably evolve that way no matter what you or I believe or want. Hopefully for the good of it.
“The work was free. Keep it so.”
The money issue is a problem. At the same time I believe money has to be involved since somebody actually has to audit and bills, rent etc have to be paid. Just make it cheaper.
not a scientologist, never have been… I don’t understand why money has to be involved if you truly just want to use “the tech”… In my church there are a lot of Lay ministers, who minister in their free time, having a job on the side. Sure there are huge mega churches, but they aren’t the only way to express my faith, considering the bad rap your faith (for lack of a better word) has gotten for financially devastating its flock, I would submit that taking the money out of it would probably be the only way to have people take it seriously…
Truly brilliant stuff, Jeff. It reminds me of the similarly great analysis done on “Ask The Scientologist.”
Hi,, Jeff – As you clearly articulated at the beginning of this article, these core tenants were created and institutionalized by Hubbard…and magnified by Miscavige.
The ultimate irony – and I think that even Marty, Mike and other Free Zoners would have to agree – is that if any or all of your closing statements came to pass, Scientology would no longer BE Scientology. Is that a true statement?
Loved your book, by the way…
“… if any or all of your closing statements came to pass, Scientology would no longer BE Scientology.”
It certainly wouldn’t be the “Scientology” that the world have come to know. But it *would* be the real Scientology that one reads about in the basic to advanced books that define the subject and the philosophy.
“But it *would* be the real Scientology that one reads about in the basic to advanced books that define the subject and the philosophy.” Agreed! That is the only aspect of the subject I can really say the same thing about. The rest………eh!
…….Which appear to be a front for what the subject was intended to be all along. The organization was intended to be what it actually is, right now.
12. Appearance vs. Substance, Hypocrisy
This did not start with Miscavige. The discrepancies in the basics of the philosophy vs. the operational policies (during LRH’s time) are most often severely or diametrically opposed. Doublespeak.
Look at the Creed of the Church vs. the Ethics Codes, for example. No one, during LRH’s time, was EVER free to have his or her own opinion or to talk freely or write freely to utter upon or counter the words of LRH. No one was ever free to say, “Hey, I don’t agree with Scientology or Hubbard.” EVER.
Hence, those that did do this or who do this now are: DECLARED SP
The “real” Scientology as people fondly remember it, was never actually practiced on a wholesale basis. The “real” Scientology is the whole shootin’ match, period.
Synthia wrote: “…….Which appear to be a front for what the subject was intended to be all along.”
I guess that’s one way to look at it. Then again, the words of Thomas Jefferson might have just been a “front” for his real desire to put everyone in slavery. He did own slaves, after all.
Synthia,
The “real scientology” was practiced on a wholesale basis aplenty in the 1960s and1970s by Field Auditors and in “Franchises”, as well as orgs, before the mission(franchise) network was destroyed from the top down, whether by Hubbard’s intention or someone else’s. Course rooms and HGCs were booming.
In any case, it’s totally irrelevant whether the Church as it has existed was intended by Hubbard to assume the form it has assumed, or not. It’s completely yesterday.
I doubt Hubbard would have put all that work into codifying auditing tech, only to turn it over to people like Chairman Mao-scavige saying “Here – I spent many years putting this all together, please take it, squirrel it and destroy it, use it to cave people in instead of helping them.” Which is what has undeniably been done. The “tech” that is being used in the Co$, especially at Flag, is undeniably not the tech that was being practiced in 1970. Auditing was not being used to drive people into psychosis.
GAT is totally an overt product, as are the people trained in the GAT era. They are all overt products of this training. Nor are the orgs organized the way they had been then, and now they are not training auditors. Most orgs no longer have an Academy, and I believe the plan is to eliminate Academies entirely except at Flag.
All of this is the opposite of the way Hubbard originally set it up to run, so it seems unlikely to say the least, to claim he intended it to be the way it is going today. A hole in both the logic and the data, big enough to drive a semi through.
Most of us hope the present form of the Co$ will entirely wither and die away. It is absolutely not needed.
Apparently some hope for it to be “reformed”, and that’s OK Iguess. Better to break the monopoly which would lead to the establishment of separate but equal splinter organizations
Maybe we could have a “Reformed CoS”, a “Catholic CoS”, and “Orthodox CoS”, a “United Hubbardist CoS”, etc etc etc, all differently organized and under different leaderships. All separate and equal under the law. Monopoly broken.
The key is to break the monopoly, or the “totalitarian” aspect of it. And that has already begun, with the original non-GAK/GAT materials available world-wide, and Mao-scavige’s org doing nothing to stop this dissemination of knowledge, because he actually has other fish to fry. Like figuring out how he’s gonna get himself out of the frying pan.
Gee …
Well said Valkov !
You’re right also in that the ‘church’ as it is not needed at all. With today’s technology, all can be easily made available. There are many highly trained auditors, c/s’s, supervisors, word clearers and qual types in the field.
So, it’s back to making auditors & getting people up the levels.
Soderqvist1: But Jeff how is it possible to reform Scientology when KSW1 forbid any reformation? As far as I have understood it a reformist is a Squirrel!
Hubbard: In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea.
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1466&Itemid=240
Soderqvist1: thus Hubbard is the only one who can evolve truth, we others are only drones with a duty to carry out his instructions to the letter!
Hubbard: I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud.
Soderqvist1: One of Hubbard’s sources in Science of Survival is Thomas Paine, yet Paine’s book. Human Rights” as I am reading now is just that groups can evolve truth, in example, the France Revolution, which aimed at democracy!
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp36/pg0636-a.html
Hubbard: The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done.
Soderqvist1: by reductio ad absurdum; is it a bank principle to agree with Hubbard?
If we have a broad agreement that we shall not rape, and steal is that a bank principle? A bank robber doesn’t agree with the group of society is his idea constructive? Or is Hubbard’s proposition in Leader’s Responsibilities about Pink Legs constructive in order to get anything decent done?
Soderqvist1: In Leader’s Responsibilities Hubbard criticized Manuela for not doing:
“…she never collected or forged or stole any documents to bring down enemies…”
But his own Manuela Saenz took it to hearth as can be seen in the interview by Russell Miller with Ken Urquhart!
Russell Miller: In truth, Mary Sue had much to complain about, because she had no doubt that she was going to have to take the rap for Operation Snow White. ‘Hubbard abandoned her’, said Ken Urquhart, ‘and made it quite clear within the org that he had abandoned her. It’s the one thing I find hard to forgive – that he was prepared to allow his wife to go to jail for crimes he was equally guilty of. After the FBI raid I was put to work making up reports to show that he did not know what was going on. In other words, I was to cover his ass. He was privy to almost all of it and was as guilty as Mary Sue.
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm21.htm#356
Soderquist wrote: “But Jeff how is it possible to reform Scientology when KSW1 forbid any reformation?”
You’re getting “auditing tech” confused with organizational policy Soderquist. All of the points that Jeff brings up above are related to “organizational policy” and not “the tech”.
Granted, the current CoS applies KSW across the boards (to “tech”, “admin” and “ethics”). But at least according to such references as RJ 38 (written three years after KSW#1), that wasn’t the intention of KSW at all. A great post on this was made here:
FROM: http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=77&S=bc320733f9a0f990643340362ff5604c#msg_77
The main point being: the application of “auditing tech” needs to remain “standard”, but all the rest of it — the policies, the ideas, the “philosophy” — should be accepted and/or rejected as one wishes.
But in my opinion, this just shows how far off the rails the CoS has gone.
Exactly, Margaret.
Soderqvist1: thus Hubbard is the only one who can evolve truth, we others are only drones with a duty to carry out his instructions to the letter!
That’s not how I understand the quote. I believe Hubbard was clearly saying only INDIVIDUALS could evolve truth, not “groups” or mobs, not that he was the “only one”. He was saying truth is not evolved “by committee”.
You make a very “rose-colored glasses” presentation of the French Revolution.
Whatever ideals were used by the individuals who conceived and instigated the Revolution (or do you think revolutions “just happen”?) – Liberte, Fraternite, Equalite – the actual results were most often quite horrible, with much killing and manydeaths. Just as the results of the revolutions in other countries – Russia, China, Korea, Cambodia, etc etc. And all of course were promoted for the best of reasons and highest ideals…..
The French Revolution was no clear-cut victory of high ideals. It was often a blood-bath.
FromWikipedia:
The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European history. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from liberal political groups and the masses on the streets. Old ideas about hierarchy and tradition succumbed to new Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights.
The French Revolution began in 1789 with the convocation of the Estates-General in May. The first year of the Revolution witnessed members of the Third Estate proclaiming the Tennis Court Oath in June, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and an epic march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. The next few years were dominated by tensions between various liberal assemblies and a conservative monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. A republic was proclaimed in September 1792 and King Louis XVI was executed the next year. External threats also played a dominant role in the development of the Revolution. The French Revolutionary Wars started in 1792 and ultimately featured spectacular French victories that facilitated the conquest of the Italian peninsula, the Low Countries and most territories west of the Rhine—achievements that had defied previous French governments for centuries. Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed. After the fall of Robespierre and the Jacobins, the Directory assumed control of the French state in 1795 and held power until 1799, when it was replaced by the Consulate under Napoleon Bonaparte.
Well Peter, perhaps you have understood it correctly and perhaps not, but who cares?
I guess being Swedish, to you it would not be “lagom” to ignore some part of it, and simply choose what is good and throw away what is bad?
“The nail that sticks up, gets hammered down”, eh?
Are you scared of a piece of authoritarian paper? Do you really care that someone calls you a “squirrel”?
Why not just think for yourself? Instead of building this kind of cage around yourself?
(Actually, if you want to live like that, OK I guess, but don’t try to build such cages around others, huh?)
Jeff,
I never fully understood who you are and what you intend.Now I know. This is your best post ever and is already history. This post will still be read in a thousands year before KSW !
You nailed it 100% !
Well done !
Amen!
I agree that this post is epic, and if this cannot pierce the confirmation bias, nothing can. But I don’t believe that Scientology can be reformed, because the organisation itself relies on most of these outpoints. It doesn’t work with democracy, because most of Hubbard’s writings simply can’t stand up to scrutiny. They are accepted by Scientologists because he is “source” and therefore always right. Freedom of information is also impossible, because there’s simply too much damaging (and valid) information out there. Look at the Independent Scene around Marty Rathbun. He wants to reform Scientology, yet he already tells his readers to stay away from “natterboards”, and critics are now “haters”. And the insane obsesssion with statistics was implemented for the same reason other cults keep their followers busy. People who are under constant stress cannot think, cannot evaluate their situation, they don’t have “unkind toughts” about the leadership. If all these outpoints would be addressed, most members would look at things without KSW#1 in mind, they would make informed decisions, some might pick and choose a few selected pieces, but most would realize that they have other fish to fry, and they would NOT feel guilty about it.
This would be another thing that needs to be addressed, the “unholy 13” after the dirty dozen: Stop forcing Scientologists into an endless guilt trip. The planet will survive even if members don’t mortgage their homes, impossible tasks and deadlines are not bungled/missed because of O/Ws etc.
And what about the most essential self-conception? Scientology makes the able more able. In other words, we’re grooming an elite and those who can’t help themselves are left in the gutter. This is typical for Hubbard’s mindset, where was it that he wrote that the level of degeneration of a society can be measured by the level of compassion it extends to those who are not productive? This is cut-throat capitalism, not religion. In my opinion Scientology desperately needs a thorough “audit”, but the necessary steps to fix it will remove the toxic, deceptive, brutal and manipulative elements, which will allow critical thought (as in “evaluation”, not the insidious redefinition of Hubbard). And critical thought is suppressed for a reason.
Once again, this is a great post, you make it really hard to disagree with you…not that I want to, I think it’s really important that you offer another perspective. Even if some might see that as an act of heresy.
Cool Observer,
I see you’re creating another straw man to deconstruct such as in regards to Marty:
He wants to reform Scientology, yet he already tells his readers to stay away from “natterboards”, and critics are now “haters”. And the insane obsesssion with statistics was implemented for the same reason other cults keep their followers busy. People who are under constant stress cannot think, cannot evaluate their situation, they don’t have “unkind toughts” about the leadership. If all these outpoints would be addressed, most members would look at things without KSW#1 in mind, they would make informed decisions, some might pick and choose a few selected pieces, but most would realize that they have other fish to fry, and they would NOT feel guilty about it.
First he’s never told anyone as far as I know to “stay away from ‘natterboards’”.
Do you have a specific quote where he actually said this or are you just blowing smoke?
Secondly there is a difference between actual critics and “haters” (i.e. people who hate the subject, the founder of the subject and want to see it destroyed like for example David Miscavige) and many of the people who post on his board are aware of the difference.
Unlike certain individuals who post bloviations based on some idee fixee that everything other than Scientology of course is all sweetness and light.
You interject KSW as the basis for all Scientologists thinking when it is not.
Have you ever read the policy letter or are you simply playing the role of some kind of “expert” or “pundit”?
RJ,
I don’t read Rathbun’s blog, but I do check out ESMB every other day. Many posters discuss posts on MR’s blog, and many refer to this quote, and you might want to check out this: http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2010/10/scientology-and-wrong-why.html
And this: http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2010/11/scientology-and-wrong-why-part-2.html
Yes, there’s a difference between critics and haters, unfortunately Marty Rathbun cannot tell the difference. For him, LRH is taboo, and if you voive valid concerns, you’re a hater and your post is censored.
Yes, I’ve read KSW. How can you possibly say it’s not the basis of all Scientologists’ thinking? Further down I’ve added another link to a post titled “Scientology breeds fanaticism”. It’s an essay written by an ex-Scientologist, and every observation is based on LRH quotes. I invite you to check itn out, but I doubt you will do it.
RJ –
You wrote this:
Secondly there is a difference between actual critics and “haters” (i.e. people who hate the subject, the founder of the subject and want to see it destroyed like for example David Miscavige) and many of the people who post on his board are aware of the difference.
Determining which label to put on a person is a tactic that is ingrained into the thinking of Scientologists.
Labeling PEOPLE is a rhetorical technique used to distract you from the IDEAS that people write and speak.
It is the IDEAS which are important to examine, not whether the label you place on the person is correct.
“Haters” vs. “Critics” vs. “Whistleblowers” vs. “Freedom Fighters” vs. “Terrorists”. These are all manipulative tactics used to distract you from the IDEAS.
Don’t be manipulated by dead agent techniques.
Examine the IDEAS and make up your own mind.
When you see someone labeling another for you, realize what’s being done to you.
Don’t take the bait.
Cool Observer,
You don’t read Marty’s blog but you “know” all about him.
Give us a break!
Hey CO,
I think you have to differentiate between ‘church’ as in how it is today, and ‘scientology’ as it was many years ago along with the basic purposes.
As mentioned above by Margaret, KSW is in reference to the TECH (auditing/processes). Is it the same nowadays? No. It is applied across the boards – not how it was intended.
Regarding your definition of ‘evaluation’ – there are many definitions. One definition (LRH) is not insidious … it has to do again with auditing or a comm cycle. In auditing, rather than let the pc itsa, the auditor would cut his comm and forward his own ‘evaluation’ on what the pc is saying or seeing … this is out-tech from an auditing standpoint. It is not insidious nor was it meant to be.
Also please re-read this sentence you quoted “the level of degeneration of a society can be measured by the level of compassion it extends to those who are not productive?” from the original materials – you have not quite understood what is being said.
The church has been morphed into something that barely resembles LRHs original intention. A lot of it has to do with the individuals applying the materials, ‘understanding’ them in whatever way they understand it, using it incorrectly and then training others to do the same thing. Therefore you get contagion of aberration, agreements and away we go.
Take a simple reg cycle – the reg has read the purpose: A guy wants to do a course. Now, say the reg has a few ev purps – he wants money (commissions), he doesn’t really care who is in front of him, he has the guy bang his credit cards, mortgage his house, increase his credit, etc. He bangs the guys for $100Gs – great commission – he is thrilled, his senior sees great stats, he is congratulated and used as a shining example of ‘great regging’.
Now take a reg operating off the same policy: he wants this prospect to improve, he consults and finds what the guy wants to do, this indicates to the prospect. He finds out the guy has has enough dough for a Student Hat. He sells him the SH and that’s it. Smaller stat, but it’s honest. While this guy is on course, he gets wins and looks forward to his next course. He can make small APs for his next course if he wishes.
Yes, the second example sounds like a dream, but that’s the way it WAS, and THAT, not the first example, is Scientology.
Some more to add re KSW and Tech. he talks about standard tech and standard Tech is red on white, that’s all what KSW is about. As an example dmsmh isn’t standard tech as it is not red on white, neither the PDCs or the books…
I don’t understand why people can’t seem to understand it.
Hey Quicksilver,
“I think you have to differentiate between ‘church’ as in how it is today, and ‘scientology’ as it was many years ago along with the basic purposes.”
Maybe you should re-readJeff’s post. This is exactly the mindset that is questioned, most of the current abuses have ALWAYS been part of Scientology, they are SYSTEMIC because Hubbard implemented them. The gist of this post is this: Do not look at Miscavige as the sole “Why”.
Re: Critical thought. I doubt that there are many definitions for the term, and “evaluation” is not mine, it’s the generally accepted one that can be found in “real” dictionaries. I know that auditors are not supposed to influence the session, but I’d like to see any reference where Hubbard makes it clear that this particuar definition (the one I consider as “insidious”) only applies in this particular situation.
No, it was redfined by Hubbard and applied at all times, it basically says that doubt is a crime, therefore it is indeed “insidious”. It’s a thought stopper just like “individuation”, being “reasonable”, ” HR&E” and many other terms.
Re: Hubbard’s view on degenerating societies. I’m pretty sure I’ve understood that perfectly, what exactly is there not to understand about it? Instead of just telling me to re-read that passage (where exactly is it? KSW?) I”d like to hear your viewpoint.
CO,
I think you need to re-read Jeff’s post also. Jeff says quite clearly it is NOT “the system only” and NOT the “individual only”.
Any present time condition evolves as a result of the interaction between the sytem and the individuals in it.
And in your response to Quicksilver you clearly took one side of the dichotomy against the other – which is exactly what Jeff warns against.
“Evaluation” in the Auditor’s Code has a precise meaning, which is basically “When in session, don’t tell the preclear what to think about his case.” To get the idea, compare to psychoanalysis, in which the analyst communicates “interpretations” to the analysand, about why the analysand thinks, feels, and behaves the way he does. The analysis is considered complete and the analysand “well” when he has accepted the analyst’s interpretations as his own, and true. That is “evaluation”.
The two procedures are diametrically opposed. In auditing the preclear tells the auditor what’s up with him, in psychoanalysis the analyst tells the patient what’s up with him and the patient is considered “resistant” until he accepts the analyst’s evaluation of him. In auditing, this kind of evaluation is a major crime.
My feeling is you haven’t understood the very first thing about scientology, thus the edifice you have built on that lack of basis stands on – nothing.
Valkov, what’s your source for your description of psychoanalysis? And which school of therapy are you referring to? I know this is what Scientologists think psychotherapists do, but is there a reference showing that this is actually standard psychoanalytic practice?
Jeff, I mean “psychoanalysis” specifically, as it was traditionally practiced back when I worked in a psychiatric teaching hospital at a major university for over 13 years, approx. 1966 through part of 1980. It was specificaly “Freudian psychoanalysis”. This was just before the institution was taken over by biological psychiatrists, and was still being run on a basically psychoanalytic model.
There are other forms of “analysis”, such as ” Jungian analysis” based on the work of Carl Jung, but by “psychoanalysis” I and most people mean specifically Freudian analysis.
Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy are not the same. Psychotherapy is a broad catch-all term for any kind of non-physical mental treatment. It could include Dianetics. Psychotherapy is mostly practiced by psychologists of various schools and persuasions, although some psychiatrists also do psychotherapy in addition to prescribing medications.
Basic psychoanalysis revolved around “helping” a person “resolve” certain complexes the analyst perceived were controlling the patients behavior,feelings and thoughts, such as the famous “Oedipus complex”, “Electra complex”, and such situations as “penis envy” etc.
The main tool, in addition to listening,was “interpreting” to the patient(evaluatingforthepatient), when the analyst felt the patient was ready to receive the evaluation, the meaning of the patient’s feelings and behavior.
As in, “You hate your father because you were in love with your mother, wanted to have sex with her, but your father stood between you.”
The “listening” in psychoanalysis was mainly for the purpose of the analyst getting enough data to judge what complexes were active in the patient, and looking for opportunities to inject his “interpretations”.
So as in auditing, the analyst’s role was to “listen and compute”, but the important direction of flow was seen as from the analyst to the patient, not the other way.
The analyst only asked the patient to tell him what was going on with him so he could in the end tell the patient what HE, the analyst, thought was going on with him according to his expert analysis.
It didn’t work very well, and the “successfully treated” cases I saw(very few) were not in a place I would want to be in. Most people were actually not considered to be qualified for psychoanalysis.
Freudian Psychoanalysis still exists as a profession, but I have no idea what they are up to these days.
The scientologists you refer to probably have no clue as to how diverse the overall field of psychotherapy actually is, and how many “friends” scientology could have had there.
Valkov,
I agree.
There are many psychiatrists, psychoanalysts psychologists and other mental health practitioners who would embrace Scientologist and Dianeticists with open arms if Dead Brain Miscavige would kill the kill psychiatry bull shit he’s been churning out.
I know when I worked at CCHR before it was turned into a horrific side show with that tasteless “History of Psychiatry” exhibit that we had many mental health professionals who supported us in our stand against unethical abuses in the field of mental healin.
Seems the diminutive one is more committed to creating them than stopping them.
Ce la vive.
(Jeff, we should have known that Valkov knew what he was talking about when he used the term “analysand”.) 🙂
OK, this is the string that makes me wish I had everybody’s professional resume to read. That was wild, Valkov, learning that about you.
Just Me
P.S. Jeff, your post is wonderful. I’m still pondering it. Will ponder it for a long time, I’m sure. Thank you for this.
LRH’s handwritten OT levels are not Red on White. Are not they covered by ‘KSW’? Scientology has been an authoritarian system since the 1960s. In many ways, it was an authoritarian system even in the 1950s. You aren’t going to be able to wash the stink off with a garden hose.
Brilliant stuff Jeff, a Magnum Opus! You always manage to articulate precisely what’s going on in my head. This will become MUST READING for anyone looking at the train wreck that Scientology has become. Wonder what Marty and company will think of it? Mustn’t upset the “Sacred Cows” (i.e. Scientologists viewing LRH as god-like), but until we actually do just that, there will be no change possible.
Excellent summation of the factors that transformed Scientology from an applied religious philosophy to a dangerous cult.
LRH mentioned somewhere that an insane organizational structure will cause sane individuals to act in an insane manner.
The professed goals and ideals of Scientology attracted and still attract people who want to help themselves and others.
The implementation of Scientology through its organizational structure, turns those willing volunteers into psychotic monsters.
The decline and fall of scientology will become a classic case study for those investigating organizational madness.
Great article, Jeff.
And a great response, Old Auditor.
Regards
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^ by Old Auditor.
The organizational structure of the Co$ is indeed insane. It needs to be terminated. Plus, social/legal modifications need to be instituted that will prevent such structures arising and having free reign under religious cloaking. At the same time the separation of Church and State needs to be maintained.
There is no reason why “religion” ought to be free from the rule of law and common decency. Conduct can be regulated; thought and belief , no, not in a free society.
Wow, Brilliantly written. You really lay it all out and clearly put it into perspective. You, Marty,Mike and others have done tremendous work in your exposes, critiques and analyses. This will be the document I give to everyone who really wants to get the real insight and understanding into the culture of scientology.
The 12 factors you outlined are certainly correct and the cause to the problem, and you deliberately don’t touch the key issue (I don’t hold it against you): Why was the system set up the way it is, what is the reason? It is the ultimate issue that will decide over whether the independent Scientologists movement will succeed, or fail.
In my opinion, the system had to be set up in this abusive way in order to hide the shortcomings in Hubbard’s model of the human mind or the tech, but I’ve outlined that in this post already:
https://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/bad-apples-or-bad-barrels/#comment-6405
I never said LRH was an evil person, I don’t even believe that. That would be black/white thinking indeed, his personality is much too complex for this simplification. I also don’t know whether he saw all of this as a con, or whether he genuinely believed he was on to something. Hana Whitfield witnessed both good and bad traits on him.
Awesome.
Quote of the day: “Information control isn’t a sign of strength, it’s a confession of weakness.”
I don’t know if that is true, but it definitely seems to me that information control is to keep others stupid, or make them stupid, as the Catholic Church did to Europeans the Dark Ages.
The North Korean government has done an excellent job of this, having had more than one generation to work on.
Whether it reflects weakness on the part of the rulers , I don’t know. It does reflect a determination to stay on top by any means including murder.
Weakness or not, it’s dangerous.
“The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy is possible only through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate.” Immanuel Kant
(ref: http://archives.davechampionshow.com/Champion_1_112910.mp3)
The first half hour or so of this daily internet show and the message of the quote and what it means and entails is well worth a listen after reading Jeff’s blog on “The Dirty Dozen”. For after doing so, one might be left with the question, “All right. What I read hits home. So now what?” Although what you will hear is applied to the host’s ideas on current events (like the second amendment, taxing issues, TSA, constitution, etc) as regards the quote, I think the listener will find apropos parallels to the whole Scn, LRH, C of M scene.
If nothing else, both Jeff’s post and this interview should stimulate some lengthy contemplations. I predict lots of comments on this one Jeff! Keep ’em coming. You are definitely popping us out of the old thought, boxed-in paradigms our involvement with Scn engendered over time. It’s a wonderful process of undoing for sure. Thanks and thanks again.
This link will work for above reference, in case of interest in listening:
[audio src="http://archives.davechampionshow.com/Champion_1_112910.mp3" /]
Thanks Mickey.
The issues are indeed relevant to other areas, than just the Churchof Sci. They are basic to the creation and maintenance of a free society.
This is an extremely important contribution, Jeff.
This is a foundation upon which we can all build.
I have not fully digested all these points (I had a big breakfast this morning) but I will.
Thank you.
Please pass the beef.
I have a team of specialists scouring the Scientology culture for anything you have missed. I have also dispatched a thought-group to magnify each particle within your 12 items to ensure they address all of the abuse and criminality. I am unleashing countless nit-pickers.
They are all to report back to me with their findings when they believe they are complete. (Notice that I did not give them a “Thursday at 2pm” deadline).
Thank you, Jeff.
I knew you were good for something. (:>)
Allen
Damn, Jeff
You nailed it!!!
This is a labor of love. It’s obvious you spent a great deal of time and care writing/creating it.
It created quite an effect on me. Besides indicating concentrated, right-on-target truth, over and over again, point-by-point, it also provided an excellent reference for the kind of self-examination we need to do more of (referring somewhat, to point 12).
I was able to look point-by-point – what I had been doing in my long tenure on staff. On some points I was being “sane”. These, as they were my own “disagreements with the group” were getting me in trouble, or at least into a heavy protest.
The other points – well, er – let’s just say there were a couple where I had to stand beside myself, take a good look, a deep blush, and a good laugh and admit there really was something to let go of! Those I could finally recognize as my blind spots. And that gives me a lot more space as a being, because they were simply fixed ideas that I went into agreement with.
As one who has been a dedicated staffmember for years and deeply cares about meaningful reform, I feel I can say without any equivocation that if each one of these points were truly addressed, we would be getting well on the road to obtaining all of the original, decent and valid goals that brought the subject into being. We would begin to have a subject resembling the best concept of a real religion. Real help, with compassion and workable methods to do so.
This post truly opens the door to HONESTY AND CASE GAIN on all dynamics.
Finally, thanking you from the bottom of my heart, permit me also to pour some more coals on the purpose, in which one can easily see that whatever else was going on in Scientology with all its contradictions, LRH had his moments of clarity in which basic purpose shined through :
“There is no other mathematics under the sun that will solve the problem of keeping the Bridge open except those which were inherent in the development of Scientology. And those which were inherent in the development of Scientology are such things as – affinity, reality and communication add up to understanding.” – LRH – Ability 207 – 1968
Here’s to increasing understanding.
Another instant classic, Jeff.
Reading the list it struck me that, while it’s helpful to identify behaviours and attitudes that must be stopped, as humans we find it significantly more helpful to give emphasis to positive thoughts and actions and goals and directions. So, for each of the dirty dozen one might develop a body of writings/lectures/goals/guidelines and the like that emphasise the new cultural quality.
For example:
1. Dehumanization
How does one eliminate elitism, condescension and arrogance? By learn(ing) to respect others. So, a mature Scientology would be one in which:
1. the writings of wise non-Scientologists are read, considered, weighed and given due respect and authority;
2. non-Scientologists are invited to give guest lectures;
3. Scientologists who are not wealthy are acknowledged and appreciated equally along with the wealthy… and so on.
9. “Toughness” and the Para-Military Paradigm
Scientology only has a chance of becoming a real religion if they jettison all this quasi-military, fake-macho “toughness.”
A mature Scientology would be one in which the higher value is given to love, compassion, truth and preferring the “other” over oneself, which might mean:
1. A new series of writings/lectures/books/courses, conversations amplifying and exploring the virtues;
2. Revamping the Code and the Creed to give due emphasis and prominence to the virtues;
3. Teaching scientologists how to interpret/understand the various kinds of writings in scientology. How to identify statements/principles that have universal and enduring application as against those that applied at the time and place and in the historical setting in which Hubbard or whoever wrote them, but which can or must be put aside or modified in light of different times/cultures/circumstances. How to play the whole piano, as they say. This is an ENORMOUS field of endeavour in Christianity – Biblical Interpretation – and it promises to be an enormous field in scientology too.
My 2 cents.
Even better – institute programs where people go out and serve the poor and the uneducated, and course elements where they introduce themselves to a homeless person and listen to and seek to learn from him or her.
To address thought-stopping behaviours, one would want to build in capacity to read and analyse different viewpoints. eg. Commission a journal in which tough topics are addressed by people who disagree with each other (but who are able to do so by addressing the issues and still be respectful and loving toward the individual).
Sorry, I’ll stop soon.
I attended a 2-week course at a Canadian college in which a catholic theologian and an evangelical theologian addressed a series of theological “issues” that stand between these two major strands of Christianity: “Evangelicalism and Catholicism in Dialogue”. The two theologians were clearly good friends and were able to teach without denigrating the other. Rather, they pointed out where there was agreement and simply taught their own views and reasoning on matters about which there was disagreement. The result was a greater understanding of the “other” and a deep respect for the fact that we have more in common than we do have difference, and we can love and respect each other in spite of the differences. Top notch.
Don’t stop Heather, you’re doing fine.
Fantastic post.
When looking at it from down below (mission staff, auditor trained) it’s hard to see these things clearly…you just know something is wrong.
Those people who tried to have a Scientology group without those wrongnesses are thwarted and blown off, leaving only those who will play that game. Why they’ll play that game might be because they fear they’ll lose their salvation. Or maybe they fear they can’t make it elsewhere, fear they’ll lose income or family. But it does come from FEAR OF something rather than the CREATION of something.
To “Dehumanization”, we can also add, “raw meat”, “bodies”. I stumbled onto a Hubbard directive a few days ago, which states: “THE LAWS OF PR: THE PRIMARY BARRIER TO PRODUCTION IS HUMAN EMOTION AND REACTION” (HCO PL 2 June 1971R II). However, emotions are very much what makes us human, and here I don’t see Hubbard making any distinction among various emotions. So I will have to assume his “Tone Scale” is the reference, but there again, Scientology’s “Tone Scale” is geared toward dehumanizing people. Empathy is a key feature of human nature, and I don’t see it at all on Scientology’s “Tone Scale”, the closer is maybe “Sympathy,” which is itself rated rather low. “Grief”, “Shame”, “Regret” are even rated lower.
However, if one assume Hubbard’s focus is “Gross Income”, the Tone Scale makes perfect sense, and so does his “LAWS OF PR”. A Scientologist once bragged to me how he succeeded in selling something to an old lady she thought didn’t need. Then there is also this Scientologist who bragged online, “I have the ability to communicate to other people without any feelings whatsoever and my income increased by 360%!!” More recently there was the story of Rene Pedra in the St. Petersburg Time. I think all these cases are representative of one of the wrong of Scientology.
In my opinion, the problem of dehumanization is very deep, starting with labeling negatively what Scientology calls the “reactive mind”, which is about branding indistinctly emotions as destructive.
Now can Scientology still be called “Scientology” without such basic concepts as “reactive mind”, “tone scale”? I don’t think so.
Yeah. …. and after all “Enlightenment” is the awareness characteristic of Dept. 6, the Reg Department where the money is raked in! OMFG!
What an invalidation of THE goal of any religious life at all: Enlightenment.
Enlightenment being the aim of all religious thriving in the East, of giants as Gautam Buddha, Krishna, Mahavir, Lao Tze…. and West…just to name Christ (apart from organized Christianity of course !!)
Twistingly linking that to registration, to “regging” – leaves me with deep feelings of utter disgust and for the rest without words.
In its beneficial parts, SCN is a psychologically working therapy, for the rest it’s vested interest and politics at its worst. It has NOTHING to do with genuine religiosity or religious practice.
R. Hill wrote: “So I will have to assume his ‘Tone Scale’ is the reference, but there again, Scientology’s ‘Tone Scale’ is geared toward dehumanizing people.”
It certainly could be used to dehumanize, and as Jeff points out above, it is being used to dehumanize them in the more abusive areas of the CoS. But no, the basic idea of the Tone Scale is to improve one’s fluidity on the scale — to free one from being stuck in some emotional tone chronically. The goal of auditing is not to create a bunch of emotionless, unsympathetic robots, but to free people to fully experience all emotions, as the environment (and one’s wishes) dictate.
“Empathy is a key feature of human nature, and I don’t see it at all on Scientology’s ‘Tone Scale’, the closer is maybe ‘Sympathy,’ which is itself rated rather low. ‘Grief’, ‘Shame’, ‘Regret’ are even rated lower.”
The Tone Scale itself could be called a “scale of empathy” — it is in fact a scale that charts the level of ARC (in which ARC equates to “understanding” for one’s fellows and environment). As one rises on the tone scale, one’s level of understanding/ARC and empathy for others also rises.
That’s at least the purity of how the Tone Scale works, outside the extras introduced by the organization.
Great post! All 12 points need fixing in any reformation. The philosophy may contain some workable tech, but the organizational aspect of Scientology has always been dodgey. Military organizations are mainly suppressive almost by definition. Their purpose is destruction. Recruits are indoctrinated to kill on command without responsibility. This type of structure is antithetical to a philosophy of enlightenment or knowing how to know.
Thanks for a great post. I have fought the system for years that you speak of. I wanted Scientology so much, but I could not fit my round peg into Scientology’s square hole. The saying “what is true for you is what is true for you” was good for the first few months, then it is ethics, ethics, and more ethics.
Thanks for sharing and pointing the light on this.
But I think it will be a cold day in hell before any of these are addressed.
I have to add something: All the 12 aspects mentioned by Jeff are absolutely valid, but there is a foundation underneath them, a platform that allows them to thrive.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476
This thread is simply mind-blowing, if you want to understand why those aforementioned issues took hold, this is where you find the answer.
CO,
The issues “took hold” because there were people there who seized on those particular quotes – “cherry-picked” them, if you will, and forwarded them as being “scripture”, or used them to justify their own overts. Just as Gadfly did in his post.
Just as some Muslims cherry-pick the Koran to justify suicide bombers, or some Christians cherry-picked the Bible to justify burning witches at the stake.
I could easily find and cherry-pick positive counter-quotes to those quotes and claim that’s why Scientologists have done as much good as they have done, which many of them have done in fact, as any ex can testify.
Valkov,
I’ve read many of your posts, and I have no doubt that you’re very smart, well educated and well read. You obviously try to constantly expand your horizon, and I admire that. I grew up in a house without television, because my mother believed it was a waste of time , time that should rather be spent reading and learning. People who fit the description I mentioned above have two flaws, though. They are unwilling to be convinced otherwise once they’ve made up their mind (yes, that applies to me as well), and they refuse to admit that they have a blind spot. Yours is Hubbard. It dosen’t matter what hubbard wrote to attract “raw meat” and get more “bodies into the shop”, or to convince “suppressive governments and agencies” that Scientology is sooo benign and ethical and friendly and whatnot, the only thing that matters are those writings that were enacted. What about “The work was free. Keep it so.” ? Is that reconcilable with “Make money. Make more money. Make others produce as to make more money.” ? The only thing that matters is what was enforced. The essay by Gadfly is a step by step analysis relying on (enforced) HCOBs and HCOPLs, and all you come up with is the old accusation that they’re cherry-picked. When I was in university, Ihad many discussions with various left-leaning students. As it turns out they were fanatical Lenin fans and insisted that communism was great, the problem was Stalin who misapplied it. Yeah rigth. Lenin prevented democracy, ordered purges that killed millions of people and he let Stalin get a foot in the door. But they refused to acknowledge that. They insisted that Lenin dethroned the Tsar, brought and equality and tackled the rampant analphabetism (wich was actually true). I’, having many deja-vus since posting on this board. I hope many people will check out this link, and then they can decide what’s true for them.
Take care
CO
My point was, the foundation or platform which allows those kind of things to thrive is the human psyche. Doesn’t matter what anyone writes overall, some people will always cherry-pick the parts that support their own personal agend as.
If they can’t find it in Hubbard’s writings, they’ll just go to Marx or Lenin or MeinKampf or Mao the Dung, or even Jesus or Lao Tse, to find quotes that justify some darkness that is in their own hearts.
Hell, even the Lamas of Tibet found enough in Buddhist ideas to justify oppressing the serfs in Tibet for hundreds of years…. It was the serf’s karma, ya know? A lot like “they pulled it in”….
But that’s another story….
Brilliant, Jeff. I agree with every word.
Dear Jeff,
Was thinking the whole day about your post.
It’s the most accurate and concise declaration about the current state and the problems of the C.O.S I’ve ever read on the Internet.
There is only one point I’m asking myself what you think about. This is as as discussed in earlier threads the recruiting of anybody on staff and into the sea-org and putting people on posts without really checking their education and experiences.
I would like to read your thoughts about that subject !
I did a follow-up on my blog: http://isene.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/on-the-control-of-information/
Brilliant post Jeff. Couldn’t have been written or said any better. As well, I’d like to add from having been an MAA trained at the Int Base, that the other purpose of Ethics was not only to remove “counter” intention from the environment, but “other” intention. A book could be written about what “other-intentionedness” could be. That too is covered in policy to forward “Command’s” intention.
Jeff,
Excellent!
You’re da brains of this outfit!
Here’s how I see the reform of Scientology.
It is very similar to the reform of Christian Church, who used to burn witches and heretics, charge indulgences, and run totalitarian societies full of human rights abuses and what we would consider criminality today.
Those abuses were all backed up by scripture, too. For instance, in Leviticus, God commands Jews, and Christians to murder homosexuals whenever they are seen. Christians are taught by scripture to stone women to death who are not virgins on their wedding night. Right there in the Bible are the commandments from GOD HIMSELF to do these things.
Yet today, while the overwhelming majority of Christians are anti-gay, and they try to “cure” them, only a handful will try to murder a gay person. Also, I have not heard of a stoning death of a non-virgin ever in the United States, although somewhere in US history I am sure that it has occurred.
It does not occur any more.
If this can happen to Christianity, it can absolutely happen to Scientology. Many of the barriers that Christians faced were much larger than the ones reform-minded Scientologists face today.
Yet Christians still believe in the Virgin Birth, and the missing body in the tomb. So can a Scientologist still believe in Clear and OT. Those things are not going to be barriers to its reform.
The only barrier to the reform of Scientology will be the idea that you can not question Hubbard, and you can not do away with or ignore any of his writings. There are a LOT of Scientologists around who do that very thing every day, and they have a lot of very smart people who can convince other Scientologists to do the same thing.
I believe they have a duty to do this if they really want to keep their religion from destroying itself.
But that’s the responsibility of a Scientologist, and not mine.
My responsibility is to warn the public of Scientology’s criminality and abuse so that it can not harm anyone else. When Scientologists have stepped up and performed their responsibility to rid their religion of criminality and abuse, then my job, and the job of many critics, will be much easier – and may even fade away completely.
The reform of Scientology is absolutely possible.
And I would like to encourage all Scientologists to take responsibility to get that job done very very soon.
Wow, Jeff. Each analysis you write just keeps getting better and better. You have articulated concepts in this post that I hadn’t even considered – yet by which I was being unknowingly controlled. Your ability to sort through all the B.S. is simply astounding.
Thank you for providing yet more keen insight to those of us who are still trying to sort out what the hell happened to us. With each one of your posts, I experience huge waves of relief and a deeper understanding. Your blog is a truly a godsend.
Jeff,
you are as tough, patient and adamant as water eroding the hardest rocks there are. This is what I enjoy the most when reading your posts and blog.
I am on my second lap through your book after lots of study of Eastern mystics and while reading your historic narrative, I can confidently tell my heart to be still – SCN will undo itself like other inhumane -isms and -ologies did before.
King Elvis had it right: “All but head – no heart”.
You are my hero. Thanx.
Love, Fidelio
Jeff,
Your post was brilliant. So much of the tech (and even policy) is wonderful … but you are so right … those 12 planks of the “apple barrel” need major scrubbing … if not outright replacing.
I have to say that The Dirty Dozen was a spot on piece of analysis. You brilliantly distilled the key points where Scientology, the organization, has gone off the rails.
This piece of work should be widely circulated.
LRH certainly wrote and recorded a huge amount of material. In Logic 11 he says, “The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.”
This certainly opens the door to evaluating both datums within Scientology as well as Scientology itself.
Of course the question is what is surviving? Is the the individual or the corporate “Third Dynamic?”
If it’s the individual, then you have the Scientology that you and I joined and worked very hard for.
But if it’s corporate Scientology, where individual Sea Org members, staff and public are mere pieces to be used up and drained of money in service to the State (or church if you like) then you get a different selection and interpretation of LRH writings.
In Logic 8, LRH says, “A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.”
I believe that the datum of comparable magnitude to the datums within Scientology and to the subject itself is, in fact, spiritual freedom.
From that context, which is, afterall, the whole and only point of The Bridge, in all of the listed points in your analysis are easily seen as Counter Intention to the only intention that really matters—personal freedom. This intention is very well expressed in the Creed of the Church which is no more practiced today than The Way to Happiness.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Command Intention under LRH and under Miscavage is that LRH’s intention of spiritual freedom was never in question. His power came from his pursuit of the truth and putting it into practice as workable technology. For Miscavage, his “power” comes from Authority and while he has kept corporate Scientology working, he has lost, piece by piece, Scientology, the hope of man.
Again, LRH from Logic 17, “Those fields which most depend upon authoritative opinion for their data least contain known natural law.”
Corporate Scientology’s “New Civilization” without LRH’s vision of freedom is neither new nor civilized.
Brilliant, Jeff.
You’re a very smart man.
Someday a booklet should be put together with key posts, like this one, for distribution to those still sleeping.
If there were ever a true “Declaration of Independence” written and signed by Independent Scientologists, I would hope that this article would either be it’s blueprint or at least be prominently included.
Brilliant, Jeff! Disconnection definately qualifies Scientology for the “cult” label. If and when DM is shot down in flames, I think your list of suggested reforms will be looked over very seriously.The subject can use an updated tweak, before it is relegated to the scrap heap of failed “ologies”.
Then there is the tech violated by other bits of tech and policy – such as execs crowding you to have an abortion so you have no other fish to fry and your future and that of every man woman … etc is a violation of DMSMH prenatal recordings. Even the moment the thetan enters the body ‘at or before birth’ can be used to justify rolling over on the newly arrived but yet unbreathing baby to get rid of it so you can save the planet – useful if your partner wants to have the baby, disguises the ‘stillbirth’ or encouraged to have a waterbirth – drowning. This happened a loooooong time ago and i didn’t buy into it. I have no witnesses and no proof and I could just be a ‘low toned lie factory’. Still my kids – totally brought up inside orgs and with the tech – don’t like it – maybe its those prenatals. This is the first time I have every told anyone this – not even my husband or kids know about it.
Hugs Libran.
Incredible and spot on Post. And let’s not forget the ever constant confusion and ‘handlings” that division six had to explain the contradictions to the public ( “We are not a Real Church, it’s only for Accountants and Lawyers our daily business will remain the same,) ( We are a nondenominational religion, you can practice any other religion you are involved in — yet Student’s Guide to Acceptable Behaviour contradicts that.)
and on and on — including the Telex I got from him in early 1979 where he told me he wished he had never listened to “those People'” and stayed a business and never went the ‘religious route’ This was repeated by him to several other people during that time period. Just sell and deliver our services, and pay some taxes. These comments and feelings were relayed by other people he had said this to as reported by Richard Behar in an Article he published in the Forbes Magazine in 1982. He was a man. He made decisions or accepted advice from others that perhaps did not pass the test of time….. Am I the only one who noticed that the words “Fixed Donations” is an oxymoron?
nance
Nancy,
I think the “fixed donation” set up was the hardest thing for the IRS to grok.
Originally they were simply were called “fees” or “fees for service” which was one the things that used to stick in the GO’s craw like “franchise”.
From what some founding Scientologists told me and what I could gather from my own research.
There was a real Donny Brook back in Phoenix over whether to call Scientology a religion or a science.
Until Farber incorporated the Church of Scientology of California which became the “Mother Church”.
In other words I think the Ol’man man went with what seemed to be the trend.
I don’t know I guess since it deals with the spirit you could call it a religion in the Gnostic sense since Scientology tries to avoid the concept of God like the plague.
Yet it uses a Scientific or what some would call a Pseudoscientific approach that is more Parapsychological than actually religious.
I know that when I first started that the philosophy was more results based and that under the current regime it is almost totally “faith based”.
Jeff makes a valid point about this by pointing out that if one got the gains expected out of Scientology one would not have to worry about Scientologists reading “entheta” on the ‘net.
I don’t know about you Nancy but when I first got in this LT I read PC’s ‘Scandal of Scientology’ and ‘I Was a Scientology Superman’ and neither of then had any effect since I was certain of the gains I made in auditing and training.
Also back then there was never any effort to censer what one read or didn’t read.
Ron recommended such books as ‘Outline of Psychoanalysis’ and Huxley’s ‘Doors of Perception’.
Books that would probably be outlawed by the current puritanical regime.
Nancy, That is so fascinating that LRH said that as late as 1979. The whole field of “alternative health” really came of age in the 80s and 90s … it’s really too bad that LRH missed it. I’m sure it was vastly different, compared to the 50s when the decision to make Scientology a “church” was made.
Does anyone else remember a reference (late 60s or early 70s) where LRH talks about how the field of mental health might be vastly different in a few years due to societal reforms and that Scientologists should stay aware of that?
That was the reason CCHR was established.
To reform psychiatry not eliminate it!
As the POD (that means Psycho On Board) seems to think.
Actually what you say Marg, Ron discusses in various GO directives.
Also he had an LRHED which had a program to get unaligned Psychiatrists those who were not APA members on lines.
In fact there were quite a few of those “evil” Psyches who were Scientologists in the ’70’s.
(who were probably chased off lines by the POD)
Regarding the Alternative Health field the Ol’man seemed to like to keep up with any advances in that area especially during his study of nutrition.
An area that his wife Mary Sue had a great deal of interest in as well.
Nancy it depends on what the definition of “is” is. Classic doublespeak!
Jeff,
Loved your book, but you definitely born to blog. Finally, someone broke down the outnesses in an intelligent way without sounding like a 3-year old throwing a tantrum.
You truly are bringing sanity into the world of Scientology and hopefully, OSA’s Ops.
I agree with Geir on his quote of the day: “Information control isn’t a sign of strength, it’s a confession of weakness.”
Jeff,
Great article and points well made.
My comments:
1. Dehumaniziation
I agree … never did like that ‘wog’ term. It pitted scientologists against anyone who was not – we’re right, they’re wrong. And yes, over the years this attitude did grow and come down the lines to the Mission level, and then right to public – the people we were supposed to help in the beginning.
As time went on and demands increased, new un-hatted staff were whacked on a post and learned with a quick instant hat and then started parroting actions & words of their seniors. They became others.
2. Enemies and War
Great point! Generating from point #1 above, the concept that we were better than others, culminated in ‘if you agree, we like you; if you don’t, you’re one of ‘them’. The creation of the continual dangerous environment resulted in ‘everyone against us’ and an ‘only-one’ concept. Simply, no way to meet people, regarding everyone as suspect and cutting your comm lines except to attack.
3. Collapsed Time, The Constant Emergency
Yes, all-nighters were pretty standard for many years … heavy stat push, and if you mentioned that reference, you were CI. This also, as in most of your points, worked it’s way down to the Mission & public levels.
4. Secrecy, Transparency and Accountability
Again, as the G.O. took hold, secrecy became the norm. Break-ins, lock-ups, and all manner of out ethics became standard in the name of ‘greatest good for greatest number’. The Op on Tory is a prime example and that has been the method for decades.
5. Information Control and Thought-Stopping
Again, like creating a dangerous environment where everything ‘out there’ or on the net is evil and must not be looked at , let alone commented on.
6. The End Justifies the Means – Machiavellian Power
Covered above … do anything as long as one agrees with miscavage’s ‘command intention’ – what a misduplication of the original ‘command intention’.
7. Authoritarianism, Intention and Counterintention:
Again, covered above … anything other than ‘to obey’ is CI and one is threatened with their eternity without hope of freedom
8. A Culture of Confession:
The basis of any religion with confessional procedures is that they are sacred. ‘Standard’ tech used to squash another is repugnant and simply is not scientology.
9. “Toughness” and the Para-Military Paradigm:
Yes, caring for the fellow in front of you has long disappeared … the almighty buck is God. That’s just a hair under Pope miscavage.
10. Money and Greed:
The IAS is one of the most corrupt organizations … sheer criminality – something for nothing. Ideal Orgs, corrupt reg’s, status seekers, etc … all on some other purpose – and it ain’t pro-survival for them or their victims.
11. Penalizing Downstats
Yes, the use of conditions/ethics/justice to hit rather than help is SOP now. People operate in fear rather than looking ahead with enthusiasm.
The first lock-ups & heavy ethics/rpf style workcrews I saw in the Class lV org I was in was in the mid ’70s. As more staff came on, the insanity continued and worsened.
Even the IAS locks people & have guards at the doors in their events now with the intention of coercing as much money as possible.
And the IAS is supposed to be ‘protecting’ Scientologists. Far from it! Not even close!
12. Appearance vs. Substance, Hypocrisy:
All glitz, glam & statuses – no substance, and the public is just a toll and they are regarded as non-entities to fill the coffers
A sad tale.
You tell it, Jeff. In Scientology, everything is simple and there is no room for shades of gray, no space for context, environment, push/pull factors. To the contrary, there were words we used to disallow any possibility of interpreting a thought or deed other than the Party line. Such as “reasonable”, “justification”, “Q&A”, “doubt”, perfectly good words that came to mean something different — negative — in Scientology.) The insistence on everything being only either black or white made it a particularly monochromatic world.
PD,
This may be your view of Scientology but it isn’t mine.
Also there seems to be a lot of black and white and no shades of gray that seems to be not allowed in the so called real world where you either “for us or against us” where everyone submits to a full body scan and smiles during their full rectal exam given by the TSA.
Peggy …
Your reference to those words and how they are regarded or used is someone’s interpretation of what they mean – that’s not the Scientology I know or knew
I think there needs to be differentiation between LRHs original intentions & materials, and the ‘church’ robots position.
An auditor looking at the pc in front of him as someone who is all manner of evil & wrongness will definitely get a different result from an auditor who looks at the pc and envisions greater space & ability for that person.
The same goes when reading & interpreting the materials.
Scientology as a philosophy will never perish. It is loaded with incredible data that IMHO is extremely beneficial.
As I understand Scientology the philosophy it is KNOWING HOW TO KNOW. To not be able to look at differing viewpoints is not what Scientology is. Again IMO.
The writings administratively are loaded with contradictions.
LRH said something like; what is true to you is true. Even if LRH says something, if it is not true to you, then it is simply not true.
It doesn’t matter if Scientology the philosophy were even outlawed it will never cease.
The Organization may cease to exist. The tech will continue.
At one point LRH said to build a better Bridge and I think that work is now in progress. It will be done in the best way we humans are able to do it.
Wow. Most impressive Jeff.
But even more impressive is the chorus of agreement.
One topic I started at Scnforum is “What does a cult-free Scientology look like?”
I hope you and others visit and paint your word picture based on this game-shifting article.
Jeff your essay is positively brilliant. I agree with you 100%. I am so impressed with your ability to lucidly express this that I am going to buy your book “Counterfeit Dreams”. As someone before me stated, your essay is epic.
Soderqvist1: Margaret I don’t confuse anything at all, I am well read and know what I am talking about! The link you hare referred to is an old one; I myself have also linked to that one example here 7th may 2010!
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=413149&postcount=8
Soderqvist1: It just happens that I agree with what Hubbard is saying there. In example; the cooks must follow the recipe so they can deliver a good pie, which the restaurant have promised to do! The recipe is (tech) authoritarian, but the philosophy of Scientology is not. But Hubbard claim that he is the only one who is able to make a recipe we others can only carry out its instructions. He has not given any sound argument why he is the only one who is in principle able to make such a recipe! Contrary to that; I have done the Hubbard Senior Security Checker Course here in Sweden back in the mid eighties, and it is mandatory for all student to tailor made a Sec Check list for the PC, in short a tailor made recipe, yet it is a big No, when its comes to grade processing, why Hubbard is the only one who in principle can make a grade recipe is not explained by him, and there is no sound explanation for it either, it is just one of his fixed ideas!
Soderqvist1: Hubbard is lying when he is saying he is the only one who can develop truth. Because David Mayo has testified in Court, and made a general statement that many Scientologists has contributed to the tech, but I can point out particulars outside Scientology, in example Scientology tech Dating and Locating is derived without give proper credit to Alfred Korzybski’ s Indexing and Dating from the preface 1938 to the second edition of Science and Sanity!
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=13556&S=80fcccaa7e9103b4aae5a154c8d2913a&srch=indexing#msg_13556
Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard is also lying in 1958 to a Religious professor Stilton Judah in an interview with Hubbard in which he claimed that he has built the E-Meter 1953 in London. The facts are that the Psycho-galvanometer is mentioned By Alfred Korzybski Science and Sanity 1933, and Hubbard used the Dianeticist Volney Mathison’ s E-Meter without his permission in the beginning of the fifties. Mathison was an Engineer, hypnotist and psychoanalyst, and he built his Meter in the Beginning of the forties, and used it in his sessions, and later he was a follower of Hubbard. The Engineers and Scientologists Joe Wallis and Don Breeding have developed the Scientology Meter 1958, which Hubbard acquired the copyright for 1965. And the ARC triangle is derived from the Rosicrucian magic triangle, (he was a Student of Rosicrucian order of AMORC in 1938), and again without give proper credit!
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=13485&S=80fcccaa7e9103b4aae5a154c8d2913a#msg_13485
Soderqvist1: the Tech-Ethics-Admin is equally authoritarian, and all blue-green-reed ink is L. Ron Hubbard’s writ, or do you know any Ethics or Admin, which is not written by Hubbard but is still Scientology and approved by Hubbard?
Soderqvist1 wrote: “it is mandatory for all student to tailor made a Sec Check list for the PC, in short a tailor made recipe, yet it is a big No, when its comes to grade processing, why Hubbard is the only one who in principle can make a grade recipe is not explained by him…”
I’d say in a proper functioning CoS, there would be a “Senior Scientology Tech” group which would decide on what is deemed “the standard”. The main goal is to not “alter basic principles and successful applications”. That is the spirit of KSW. The rest is window dressing.
The rest of your comments are ad hominem, and do exactly what Jeff was talking about in the intro to his article.
One additional thing …
Soderqvist1 wrote “the Tech-Ethics-Admin is equally authoritarian…”
Which was exactly my point. THAT needs to end, just as is outlined in RJ68. KSW#1 refers to the processes and procedures of auditing.
You are trying to throw EVERYTHING ELSE into KSW#1, simply because that is what the CoS is doing.
LRH’s policies, LRH’s opinions, LRH’s advices, even the basic philosophy and general ideas and theories … are NOT part of “standard tech”. They DO NOT fall under KSW#1.
You originally asked “how is it possible to reform Scientology when KSW1 forbid any reformation?”
This is how it could be done. By stripping things back to original intentions and basics of KSW#1, and treating the rest as a philosophy and ideas that one is free to agree with or not.
Yes Margaret, that’s just the point – Hubbard said Admin Policy, unlike any standardized and proven auditing tech, were ideas and principles to “think with”, not to slavishly follow. He said something on the order of “don’t put policy where a living being should be”. Living beings have reason and judgement they can exercise, which is what is needed.
And Ethics is for an individual’s own use.
If I were to be asked for Hubbard’s one biggest mistake, it would be his conflation of the two completely different meanings under the one term “SP”.
The SP category should never, never, never have been used to categorize and label people who were an administrative problem but not at all necessarily a “clinical” Suppressive Personality (Disorder).
Imagine an employer any organization labeling, or threatening to label, a person who didn’t fit in or even did a bad job, as an “SP” (Sociopathic Personality). This is what “treating them with the same Administrative policy as” amounts to. “He was late to work three times now, we better put that he is a Sociopath in his work history”…. !
SP as a clinical diagnosis is very workable and useful. Some other term should have been found to use for the Admin use of identifying and labeling otherwise troublesome individuals, “Illegal pcs”, “late to work” or whatever.
Using a term equivalent to Sociopathic Personality for people who are not, is just inexcusable. Look at the trouble it has caused.
It has led to the wholesale abuse we have seen over the past decades. Judging by the number of “SP declares” we hear about, apparently the “SPs” outnumber the social personalities in the Co$ about 20 to1, making a complete mockery of the concept and losing the clinical meaning entirely.
Perhaps that was the intent – to obscure the clinical meaning?
The numbers are completely upside-down, as in 1969 Hubbard cautioned Scientologists in a lecture that in all the years until then, he had seen only one person in Scientology who he thought was a true SP, and he wasn’t even 100% sure of that one – he thought that person had perhaps been just extremely PTS….
So when it comes to using that same term to label administratively problematic people,
What was Hubbard thinking????
I agree with you Valkov. I too think introducing this idea of labeling someone an “administrative SP” (as Geir called it) was bound to backfire.
I remember being on staff at a Class V Org in the mid-80s, and seeing this new guy have blow-out wins while listening to the Phoenix Lecture tapes … he was cogniting on the axioms. He was a chemical engineer, really bright and just the nicest guy. While he was loving and learning Scientology, he was (hardsell) recruited for staff and was put on as Qual Sec. (He had been in Scientology for maybe 4 weeks.)
When his real job forced him to work late and miss a night of staff at the Org, he got into ethics trouble. Long story short, he eventually blew staff and was ultimately declared “SP” because he put “his work at the chemical/drug company” ahead of “saving the planet”. I think he was in and around Scientology for maybe 10 weeks. And I doubt he ever stepped foot in an Org again.
Problems like these occur because of (1) stat pushing and (2) unrealistic justice codes.
The above problems that Jeff lists, I believe, are due to poor and/or outdated policies and justice codes.
Maybe history will forgive LRH due to the circumstances of his day … but all I know is, many of the policies he put in place have simply not worked and are begging to be updated and/or changed.
Thanks Margaret for that account. Gone in10 weeks, no doubt thinking “Those people are stone crazy!” Another loss for scientology.
It really points up what LRH wrote about “Putting policy where a being ought be”, and that policies were meant to be tools to”think with”, to not be rotely applied.
Beings and actual situations are senior to policy, and even within policy some policies are senior to others, but the judgement of a living rational being is senior to all.
I’d add to your list of outpoints, #3. lack of qualified by intelligence, trained and audited staff all the way up the line.
I tend to think LRH kept coming across how inept human beings really were, and kept trying to undercut that by codifying every little detail of how to run organizations.
For all I know, in intelligent hands, applied appropriately with good judgement, most of the policies would work OK.
It’s a problem in the “real world” too, with many organizations and bureaucracies. Many small businesses have died on the vine because they couldn’t navigate the state’s regulatory environments.
Peter, whether you mean to or not, you are “lying” when you say Hubbard said he was “the only one who could develop truth”. Hubbard said truth could not be developed by a group, that it could only be developed by individuals. The scientific truths we have were all developed by individuals – Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, and many others, but each an individual. None were developed by a “committee”.
Hubbard’s attitude was that each person needed to and could, “develop truth”.
That really is what the steps of the original Bridge were supposed to help a person do – develop his/her own truth.
Soderqvist1: Peggy D!
L. Ron Hubbard and others may engage in black and white thinking, but deep down in the philosophy “fuzzy logic” holds it sway . in example the Tone Scale whatever its merit is an attempt to describe degrees of Sanity!
Scientology Logic 6
Absolutes are unobtainable.
Logic 7
Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.
This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.
COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.
COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.
Logic 8
A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp41/pg0745-b.html
Jeff, I was a long-term member of the organization as you were once were, and I thought I joined up and participated for all the right reasons. In the end, it was a bitter disappointment. Very bitter. The healing process of returning to “normal” has been too long in my estimation, and the bitterness has remained with me despite efforts to shake it off. But your last two posts have nailed it so well that I feel the end of that healing process is near. Thank you so much for taking the trouble to analyze what happened with all of us and sharing what you found.
These points pretty well sum up what is wrong with the Church of Scientology. I think most of them are elements that tend to evolve in any group with a strong hierarchal structure, and I’m thinking particularly of my stint in the military. What allows these traits to develop to the level of true evil is #6, which is expressed in Scientology as “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”. I suspect that any group that justifies criminal activity in the name of religion or patriotism has some version of the “greatest good” in its DNA.
When I was a kid the Holocaust was still fresh in everyone’s mind, and from the adult conversations around me it seemed to be widely recognized that “the end justifies the means” was a bankrupt and dangerous moral principle. Yet another lesson of history that we are doomed to repeat.
As to whether Jeff’s 12 points can be incorporated into a reform of the Church, I seriously doubt it. The Church will continue to be a “downhill ride on a southbound train”. The future of Scientology as an applied philosophy will be open-source, Internet-based, and growing in many directions until the various versions are scarcely recognizable to each other. Some of them will still be fairly close to Hubbard’s original tech, and will still produce occasional miracles. Some may go far beyond what Hubbard achieved, and some will lead to dead ends. The burden of picking the best one will belong to you.
It dawns on me that, perhaps, the Ideal Org concept is really a clever framework for a future where Scientology will be something else. Since the Tech is widely available these days, and since those who have an interest in Scientology can operate independently you just don’t need buildings or a Church.
So what would you do with the Ideal Orgs? Based on what I know about DM, I’m thinking they might become a chain of upscale gyms.
I’m only half joking.
I’m actually starting to wonder if Miscavige suffers somewhat from Aspergers syndrome? I’ve never met the guy but so many different testimonies makes me wonder. I once went to a lecture where a women who had Asperger talked about her “disorder”. She was quite normal actually, but talked about being overly focused on a few things and not having the ability to see things from an overview point of view. When I talked to her she was very focused and very much “here and now”, talked fast and wasn’t very relaxed.
I don’t mean to stigmatize these people, they are very often successful and focused and gets lots of things done with results. We should all have a little bit of Asperger I believe, getting some results. But some people are focusing too much and especially lack that “relaxing overview ability”.
From wikipedia:
“Asperger syndrome or Asperger’s syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development “
“Asperger syndrome or Asperger’s syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development “
What does that remind me of? What was it? …Oh, yes.
I think Chairman Mao’scavige best fits this psychiatric profile:
It is a longish article I have tried to edit a bit. It is well worth reading in it’s entirety.
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
While grandiosity is the diagnostic hallmark of pathological narcissism, there is research evidence that pathological narcissism occurs in two forms, (a) a grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by life experiences, and (b) the stable disorder described in DSM-IV, which is defined less by grandiosity than by severely disturbed interpersonal relations.
– The incidence of NPD is estimated at 1% in the general population, though I haven’t been able to discover the basis of this estimate.
– Narcissists rarely enter treatment and, once in treatment, progress very slowly. We’re talking about two or more years of frequent sessions before the narcissist can acknowledge even that the therapist is sometimes helpful.
– Most clinical writers seem unaware that narcissists’ self-reports are unreliable. This is troubling, considering that lying is the most common complaint about narcissists and that, in many instances, defects of empathy lead narcissists to wildly inaccurate misinterpretations of other people’s speech and actions, so that they may believe that they are liked and respected despite a history of callous and exploitative personal interactions.
The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least five of the following:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won’t (or can’t) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others ( none of my narcissists ever admit to being distressed by their own behavior — they always blame other people for any problems).
This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or early adulthood.
NPD interferes with people’s functioning in their occupations and in their relationships:
1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Translation: which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react with affront when reality dares to intrude).
3. Believes he is “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
Translation: Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren’t special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.
4. Requires excessive admiration
Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments, deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue here; all that matter are frequency and volume.
5. Has a sense of entitlement
Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able to go first and that other people should stop whatever they’re doing to do what the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations are frustrated.
6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends
Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people.
7. Lacks empathy
Translation: They are unwilling to recognize or sympathize with other people’s feelings and needs. They “tune out” when other people want to talk about their own problems.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him
9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes
Translation: They treat other people like dirt.
This fits for a person who
1) claimed to be a nuclear physicist, war hero, who was a constant liar about his achievements
2) Intended to smash his name into history and tried to harm those he perceived to be obstacles for his quest for fame, money and power (i.e. his letter to the FBI to denounce his perceived enemies as communists)
3) claims to have found the answer for all questions about life, the physical and spiritual universe (and tells us what happened 4 quadrillion years ago)
4) needs to be acknowledged for those achievements as (the one and only) source, has portraits in every org that must be saluted
5) who offered his “tech” and “solutions” to various governments (i.e. to fight communism or to train astronauts) and was beside himself when his advances were turned down. (Kennedy ignored his attempts to boost the US space program and Hubbard just couldn’t resist to gloat after JFKs assassination. [“What is greatness?”])
6) who looted other philosophies and took the credit for all the accomplishments of others co-creating Scientology (including the e-meter)
7) developed disconnection and fair game
8) saw conspiracies everywhere that “they” had it in for him to steal his technology
9) chain locker, overboarding, screaming messengers, Joburg sec check, his contempt for “psychs”, “medicos”, the law of the land (wog law), his pamphlet “Kangaroo Court” etc.
http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/profile-of-l-ron-hubbard
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/lordoftheflies.htm
Just two of many examples. It appears that Hubbard was a textbook example for this particular disorder. Or whatever is true for you…
the smiley in the text was accidental
Hubbard definitely had his bad side.
It is also true that stress will bring out just about anyone’s pathology.
But he himself wrote that in order to fairly evaluate and judge a person, as in a Comm Ev, both the positive and negative sides of a person’s life and actions need to be brought forth and looked at.
As I wrote about Miscavige earlier, nobody is born evil, that includes Hubbard. I happen to believe that whatever messed Hubbard up swallowed his good side. Whether or not he started Dianteics and Scientology with bright ideals is beside the point.
A Comm Ev is supposed to be fair? I f you say so, but the more interesting question is this: Did Hubbard act according to this lofty pronciple? Die he orde a fair assessment of Paulette Cooper before he gave the order to utterly destroy her? He did that quite often, having people attackekd on a whim. What about this?
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=19256
Hubbard ordered a hit on a group of people who PRETENDED to have stolen upper level materials. Or did they steal it after all? It’s quite contradictory and confusing. Did he offer them a fair hearing? I think not.
To Everyone:
Who thinks that in 100 years we will still be having this argument? (i.e. Evil LRH vs. Good LRH).
Sadly, my hand is raised.
To Cool Observer: You are right. LRH did some nasty things. And America’s founding fathers had slaves and didn’t let women vote. And Jesus literally used a WHIP to force people from a temple, simply because he disagreed with how they were using the temple. And I don’t recall if this was before or after he announced that he wasn’t here on Earth to bring peace, but a sword — to “tear families apart”. Oh, and Isaac Newton believed in the occult! Oh my!
So, should we burn America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, and denounce those monuments in DC (not to mention our dollar bills)? Should we attack the entire subject of Christianity — you know, go onto former-Catholic blogs to bash Jesus, pointing to Jesus’ “clear wickedness” and self-stated “evil intentions”? Should we stop using calculus and ignore the value of classical physics? After all, how could an “occult follower” possibly have come up with something valuable?
I get it. You want everyone to know that LRH, though developing an overall benevelont philosophy, also put in place a handful of policies and rules that created an organizational mess. And he was also mean sometimes! Almost as mean as Jesus and Thomas Jefferson!
I really do get it (and my apologies if I implied that you recognized any benevolence in LRH’s philosophy … didn’t mean to imply you were trying to be balanced).
Now. Is it ok if fans of the other side of LRH — the 90% side — like myself, talk rationally about how the mess could possibly be cleaned up? Or is it necessary that we must constantly be reminded that LRH was not always walking on water, wrote some questionable policies or lapsed occasionally from what he aspired to in his 1980 “The Way to Happiness” (which apparently, according to you, was written during the period that his evil side had completely swallowed his good side)?
Margaret – “the 90% side”? I don’t know what you’re basing this on, but I don’t think we can assume that 90% of people, or even 90% of posters, are “pro-LRH.” Argumentum ad populum.
CO,
Yes, a Comm Ev is supposed to be a fair process. It was originally designed to be a comprehensive presentation of both sides of a person’s character and conduct, so that a person could not be “hung” for a few missteps or simply because he was disliked by someone.
R2-45: This interests me in various ways. For one thing, point#7 in that supposed HCO Ethics Order is “Any S.O.member encountering any of these people is authorized to use R2-45 on them”, or words to that effect.
This implies that S.O. members routinely carried 45 caliber pistols! And yet there is virtually nothing I have seen to document this conjecture.
How can this be? Britain has stricter gun control than the USA does now – how was it in 1968? Today even in the USA a permit is required in most states to carry a handgun. A few states still allow “open carry”, but it is rare.
I think if S.O. members were running around with .45s, we would know about it – yet we don’t know anything of the sort.
How about some dox on this?
Was referring to 90% of LRH’s policies / philosophy. My argument is that about 80-90% of LRH’s policy is fine, and that it’s about 10-20% which creates the environment you are describing in your opening article. Include the non-policy stuff (“the tech”, lectures and books, etc.), and I’d guess that the percentage of the “good stuff” is even higher than 90%.
It goes back to my main thesis in response to your article: nearly all of your “dirty dozen” is a result of “policies”, and not “the tech” or the philosophy.
Valkov,
It’s highly unlikely that SO members were carrying firearms, but it’z not impossible that some higher up the command chain did. The point is that this “call to arms” was published in the “Auditor” twice, so what would’ve happened if one or several of the targets had gone to the US? The fact that Hubbard had this published is extremely disturbing. Also, Hubbard made it very clear that his tech is so powerful that it should never, ever used to harm, that this was the most irrespnsible thing ever. Yet when a bunch of people cross him, he orders reverse processes on them – a deadly sin acording to his own claims and standards. And to declare them enemeis of the planet and all life…delusions of grandeur, methinks.
ABUSE is engrained in staff at the church from top to bottom. It’s a tough nut to crack. They are taught all the silliness you said in this post. GI is KING no matter how u do it. C of S are the KINGS of being MONEY MOTIVATED!!! GI GI GI GI GI is always on their minds and the funny thing is the people who make it for the church see none of it. It all gets sent up lines to the dwarf.
I would add to it the sanctification of Ron’s track recall as being part of the Tech of Scientology. Would Scientologists all be talking about whole track bogey men, BTs and implanters if Ron were not validating it as gospel truth? No. The various tapes, books and courses where such material is introduced is evaluation for the pc… and from a very authoritarian position.
Note also that these between-lives episodes that one finds throughout the books, bulletins and tapes and that are the meat and substance of many of the OT levels reflect Ron’s world view: all mankind are the victims of evil-doers wreaking havoc! All mankind is in a dwindling spiral of amnesia,pain and suffering unless “rescued” by the tech!
So good to walk away from this. Into an ascending spiral of creativity and well being and love and respect for our fellow humans.
Dan Locke wrote: “I would add to it the sanctification of Ron’s track recall as being part of the Tech of Scientology.”
I’d disagree. I would consider its each person’s responsibility to determine the truth/length/character/etc. of their own track.
Ultimately, it’s up to each person to meaningfully apply “Personal Integrity” and “How to Study Scientology”.
A real functioning (reformed) CoS would encourage and embrace these essays, not just provide them lip service.
Ron’s “recollections” of “whole track events” and descriptions of implants, etc., are the only recollections from auditing sessions that are regarded as part of the tech of Dianetics and Scientologists. I imagine that there might also be some sessions of people he audited or C/S’d.
Parishioners are told to listen to these as they audit. It is part of the “Materials Grade Chart” and these things were suggested to be listened to and often C/S’d to be listened to as pcs were audited.
And all of the OT 3 material and above is predicated off of Ron’s “whole track recall” … or delusional fantasies.
Certainly the material “works” for some of the people some of the time; but certainly not for many of the people much of the time. Could there be other reasons for the relief that these levels sometimes bring and still have them be but a fantasy? I think so. Yet is there anything to run amongst the OT levels without blind acceptance of these whole track histories?
The point is that it is authoritarian education, it is arbitrary and it is evaluation for the person being counseled. It is “against the tech” of basic Dianetics to educate a pc in this way. But we were all so educated.
@ Dan Locke
Personally, I don’t get wrapped up in all these significances.
When I audit, fly ruds, whatever – I’m looking for a read and then a blowdown. TA – charge off the case – I frankly don’t look at the significance of what I’m running.
If that needle is moving, I chase it until the charge is gone. Then I go for something else. Whether it be calling out a command, an item, listing … whatever. I go for charge off the case.
Dan Locke wrote: “The point is that it is authoritarian education, it is arbitrary and it is evaluation for the person being counseled.”
I do think you have a point. I’d consider this an area of address by the “Senior Tech Team” of the envisioned reformed CoS. CoS policies and practices which develop into case evaluation or invalidation (and effectively violate the Auditors Code) need to be addressed.
With that said, if you have an environment where people are free to agree or disagree with LRH at will — and simply hew closely to the “standard practice of auditing” in adherence with the Auditor’s Code — I think some of these problems resolve.
Indeed Margaret.
The Materials Grade Chart is Chairman Mao’scavige’s overt product, not LRH’s.
But Dan, I agree it is against the tech of basic Dianetics.
DANNY DIALWIDE!!
Good to see you communicating, buddy!
I could not agree with you more.
Allen Stanfield
Well it could be considered an evaluation. I think LRH talks about such things in an HCOB about indicating bypassed charge. If you indicate something that reads on the meter then it is not an eval if it is true to the pc. Like if the pc says “dm is suppressign me!” LFBD. Auditor: “I would like to indicate dm is suppressign you!”. Could be valid if you believe in the e-meter. If you don’t believe or have confidece in any of the tech then it is all bullshit to you and not true. (at least to you)
If a person reads about the OT data and then audits it and gets TA and it is real to that person then maybe it is true for that person and benefits them. It can be true for one and not for another right?
Is indicating something that reads as true part of some tech? I believe it indicates charge, but not necessarily truth (even for the person). I have seen that done where it gave a very wrong item. “I’d like to indicate you were ________(name of a person).
Yes Grateful it is part of some tech.
If you are truly intersted you can study it and find out more about it.
It is totally covered in HCOB 24 August1964 called SESSION MUST NOTS. “Indicating by passed charge is a necessary auditor action which at first glance may seem evaluative. However, the bypassed charge is NEVER what the pc says it was, if the pc is still ARC broken.
Bypassed charge is , however found by the meter and the pc has actually got it or it wouldn’t register. So the pc really volunteered it in a roundabout way– first by acting like he or she has bypassed charge and then by bank reaction on the meter.
Alwasy indicate to the pc the bypassed charge you FIND ON THE METER.
Never tell a pc what the bypassed charge is if you don’t know.” ~LRH
I have had this done and it works fine.
If someone give you something that doesn’t indicate to you then just reject it. If it isn’t true to you then it is not true. That is all.
Maybe some of you think I am a BOT for using the references but I still think that the tech has a lot of value. Just because there is an SP running things and some flaws in the system does not mean that there isn’t good in the tech.
SO THERE!! Nanny nanny billygoat…
Jeff, your text is a golden shining piece of truth !!!
And I am surprised that these 12 dark tenets of Scientology do violate … Scientology !
Example re “dehumanization” and “enemies and war” :
If there are “degraded beings”, “out ethics particles”, “SPs”, “wogs”, “sinister psychiatrists”, “evil governments” etc. then they exist as a part of the dynamics ( = life urges ) of every Scientologist. In other words, each Scientologist is somehow involved in the existence of these “undesirables”, somehow he “owns” them – as they are on his dynamics. The Scientologist is somehow creating his dynamics, filling them with life, etc. – including these “bad guys”.
So it is utterly insane to blame these “undesirables”. It would be sane for a Scientologist to take responsibility.
Around 1960 Hubbard wrote a lot about individuation, meaning separation from the dynamics. It is an unwanted condition, putting one at effect. LRH asumed that the cause are overts ( = evil deeds ) and withholds ( = things not told ).
Looking down on other “wogs” or “SPs” is individuation.
But people are very much used to blame others and to make themself right ( by pointing out others’ wrongnesses ). So it is hard to get rid of these habits. Even Hubbard didn’t get rid of them.
“So it is utterly insane to blame these ‘undesirables’. It would be sane for a Scientologist to take responsibility.”
So true, Han Solo.
Jeff: Your list of 12 is interesting in that I can see not just how these “cultural” aspects led to the collapse of the Church of Scientology, but also why Scientology companies littered with ex-SeaOrgites fail. Especially #3 “Collapsed Time, The Constant Emergency” and #10 “Money and Greed”.
I had the idea that some other things are systemically wrong within the Church Of Scientology, but was unsure how to fit them into your 12.
What about #13: Recruiting 14-year-olds into the Sea Org and granting the parents some inordinate status.
What about #14: Maintaining the Sea Org as a refuge where societal misfits can hide while victimizing others.
What about #15: Deification of L. Ron Hubbard.
What about #16: Deification of the “quantity” aspect of the statistic, ignoring the “quality” portion of the statistic.
What about #17: Holding that Scientology is the sole solution to the problems of mankind.
What about #18: Criminality.
Do you think they’re their own entries? Or do they fit into your Dirty Dozen?
Reading this post resulted in me asking these questions:
Have these problems (1-18) infected the Freezone? If no, why haven’t they?
What occurred between 1930 and 1965 that turned L. Ron Hubbard into a self-contradictory “source”?
I think what this article of Jeff’s provides is an extremely well thought-out list of “outpoints” (as described in the Data Series). It opens the door to figuring out why this all happened and a handling. Here is a re-post of an article I posted on Marty’s blog, in response to Jeff’s article above:
I think the WHY was the CoS applying KSW to Every – Single – Thing that LRH ever wrote — every policy, every idea, every opinion — instead of just to the processes and procedures of auditing (see RJ68).
It created massive Altered Importance and loss of judgement in the CoS. It created a cult.
It was already being done to some degree in the 60s and 70s … but it went into overdrive in the 80s, apparently in response to the stepped up “emergency handling” caused by the GO/IRS/FBI/etc.
It could have rightfully been corrected in 1993 after the IRS decision and the “War was Over” (had Miscavige been an experienced leader with a social personality). Instead, DM failed to accept responsibility for his and the organization’s mishandlings and out-ethics through the 70s and 80s. Not surprisingly, the situation only got worse when the former-members-turned-enemy (many of which the CoS had created) came out of the woodwork when the Internet came around.
The solution/handling is to strip back the application of KSW to just auditing processes and procedures (as intended), and implement updated and workable organizational policy that really creates honest, ethical and long-term growth and expansion, also as intended (references “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy?” and “Expansion Theory of Policy”).
That would be the application of real Scientology to the situation.
(IMHO)
Brilliant, Jeff – absolutely brilliant.
I’ve been digesting this over the past few days and it just fills the gaps beautifully – thank you for a masterpiece.
Absolutely spot on analysis the problem of the C of $. It has been of great comfort for me to know that this whole crazy church thing has been dramatized for a long LONG time. In fact, I’m reading a book called Mayflower, about the Pilgrims, (the Puritans) and how they had to ESCAPE from England because the King (head of the Church of England) would not let them practice their ‘pure’ brand of Christianity (based solely on the New and Old Testament) nor would he accept any criticism of the Church of England’s increasing materialism (huge ornate churches–idle orgs?) and despotism. Many of the Puritan’s attempts to escape England were thwarted. Those caught were often imprisoned, tortured and put to death. The current Church of England, known as the Anglican Church here in America, has, for the most part, put aside the dastardly deeds of their sordid past and now act like a real church. But that didn’t happen overnight. It took generations and major English political upheavals and lost wars (like getting their ass kicked in the Revolutionary War) for true church reform to stick.
Thanks, Jeff, for being there and communicating. You are a wonderful writer.
ML,
Songbird
I liked all these points Jeff and I agree with them.
Do you observe any plus-points with Scientology or LRH’s writings?
Not that you “have to” use the data series tech, but if you were, I believe it includes evaluating pluspoints as well. Evenif it didn’t, in my mind to evaluate anything for worth would have to also take into consideration any possible good.
Yes, me too – I would like to hear more about the positive side of Scientology as well. Apparently, here at this blog is one of the places where you can really discuss the subject without carefully picking and choosing what you say.
For example, I really thought the discussion a while back (in Jeff’s November 11 blog, “Scientologists vs. David Miscavige”) about the “three swings of the needle” was pretty fascinating, especially the solution, Tony, that you devised for your solo sessions, i.e., calling an F/N as “f/n 90% or f/n 85%” etc.
I like to hear what people really think of the tech, what they agree with or disagree with, and what has helped them. I think it would balance out the things we are talking about, as to how peoples’ trust was abused.
Too bad the church wasn’t as intersted as you are.
Jeff, it is a another great post you made here, the points are right on.
As usual, I will only add that the outer scene is a reflection of the inner scene of humanity. The “bad barrels” are a reflection of the psychic (soul) condition of mankind. The evil in inside is reflected in the evil outside, and vice-versa.
The 12 points exist as potential in the minds of all men and women.
Thus a trouble-free system, if it existed, would eventually be corrupted by those in whom vice is stronger than virtue, unless a way is found to erase the outpoints that exist in the human psyche. Can that actually be done?
Apparently, only by each individual taking responsibilty for them as Zimbardo did. But of course a person is likely to say “It’s not my responsibility to do something about (blank) bad situation”.
People don’t act unless and until it personally affects them. In the 1960s, large numbers of people hit he streets to protest HUAC, Vietnam and the military draft. Well guess what? Most of the protesters were of draft age. Today hardly anyone is protesting wars the USA gets involved in because there is no danger of being drafted and sent to die.
Philosophers have struggled with the problem forever, it seems. Hubbard called Scientology mankind’s “last call to reason”. Let’s hope he was wrong, and we have more time than that.
Let me ad this brief quote from the Gospel of Thomas, which I believe is saying much the same thing – that the inner and the outer are reflections of each other, and both sides must be faced and owned, in the psychological sense:
22.
“When you make the two into one,
and when you make the inner like the outer
and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower,
and when you make male and female into One,
so that the male will not be male,
nor the female be female,
when you make eyes in place of an eye,
a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot,
an image in place of an image,
then you will enter God’s Kingdom.”
Valkov: I believe Hubbard was clearly saying only INDIVIDUALS could evolve truth, not “groups” or mobs, not that he was the “only one”. He was saying truth is not evolved “by committee”.
Soderqvist1: you ignore the rest of KSW1, and clutches at straws in order to save what you believe is truth!
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1466&Itemid=240
KSW1: In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm. lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.
Soderqvist1: thus by Valkovian understanding; L. Ron Hubbard once upon a time had the idea that committees could evolve truths, but a third of a century has thoroughly disabused him of that, and he had to eat crows because for some reason individual Scientologists had not originated any new discoveries, only committees did!
Soderqvist1: this is what David Mayo has testified in court!
DAVID MAYO AFFIDAVIT 1994
10. The technology of Dianetics and Scientology is a product of the efforts of many people, including myself, and among others, Melanie Murray, Julie Mayo, Merrill Mayo, Dona Haber, Brian Livingston, and Phoebe Mauer. Moreover, I am the primary source of NOTs and SOLO NOTs
11. During my affiliation with the Church of Scientology, I only attributed discovery and authorship of the tech to L. Ron Hubbard because I was compelled to do so as an article of faith of the Church. It is the policy of the Church to require all tech to be attributed to L Ron Hubbard
14. On August 29, 1982, David Miscavige, and others, acting on the orders of L. Ron Hubbard, kidnapped me and subsequently kept me captive and physically and mentally abused me for six months.
http://www.holysmoke.org/dm/dmayo005.htm
OPENING PANDORA’S BOX BY ALAN WALTER
We can estimate that several 100’s of millions of dollars has been invested to uncover their knowledge and discoveries
Jack Horner a former actor discovered and developed the ‘repetitive process procedures’, it took him 7 years to fully prove out this procedure, testing it over several thousand client hours – millions of dollars were spent by these clients – yet we can teach a person how to do this in a couple of hours.
Gordon Bell in early 1963 discovered the subject of by-passed charge and where it stemmed from, he also put together the material that is known as the grades.
I had dinner with Gordon Bell that evening in during which he shared with me his discoveries. From those discoveries I developed the first Correction Lists.
List 1 was designed to handle UPSETS caused by by-passed-charge. The second List became List 4. The purpose of which was to handle by-passed-charge caused by wrong answers and wrong items.
Another discovery I originated was the Good and Bad Indicators – these indicators stemmed from my studies of the Stock Market. Many other students contributed to this including Hubbard.
Their greatest betrayal came when L. Ron Hubbard stated in a narcistic Policy letter, Keeping Scientology Working, dated 7 February, 1965, that he and only he discovered the exercises, drills and procedures.
At the time though we were shocked by this Policy Letter, but at least the tapes, books and bulletins still had their acknowledgements of the different discoverers of the exercises, drills and procedures.
Sadly, over the next 20 years all mention of these originators and sources were erased by Hubbard’s people who also set about attempting to destroy their reputations, this was done by false accusations, vilification and false destructive stories about them.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33
Soderqvist1: the facts stand for themselves that it was not only “committees” Hubbard had in mind with KSW1, individual contribution too!
I kinda get what you’re saying Peter, but as usual a lot is “lost in translation” apparently.
Hubbard’s reported suppression of individual credit for various developments, and his statement that “a group cannot evolve truth” or however he phrased it, are two entirely different issues.
Those were INDIVIDUAL developers that were suppressed, if they were suppressed. None of the “truths” in question were developed by groups or committees. All contributions to the tech were individual, whether they were all Hubbard’s or not is a different issue.
Soderqvist1: thus by Valkovian understanding; L. Ron Hubbard once upon a time had the idea that committees could evolve truths, but a third of a century has thoroughly disabused him of that, and he had to eat crows because for some reason individual Scientologists had not originated any new discoveries, only committees did!
Peter, this is the exact opposite of what I said! And of what Hubbard said!
As I said, “lost in translation”. I suggest we let it rest, as I don’t have time to learn Swedish, and I’m wondering if you are using Babelfish or similar translation software because you are not getting what I am saying most of the time.
And then you ad-hom me based on your reversed (mis)understanding of what I wrote.
So let’s let it rest. You often provide interesting and informative links, and that’s good enough for me. The interpretation can be left to the readers.
Jeff, as always, your posts are insightful, thoughtful and written in plain English, with minimal insider jargon that makes your points easily understandable. Your assessment of the problems is spot on. The “Hubbard was perfect, it’s all DM’s fault” argument is really wishful thinking and makes it easier for many to hang onto their “faith” in the tech and the philosophy, but it makes light of the systemic issues that are ingrained not just in current church policy, but have been there from the beginning.
I think it is important to acknowledge that demonizing Miscavige alone misses the point. There is plenty of blame to go around — Hubbard, Miscavige,the celebrities who shill for the organization, staff who were (and are) complicit in the many dirty tricks that have carried on over the years, including many ex-members who are now loud and outspoken critics. For those who have left and spoken out, it is a noble thing to try and make right their wrongs and to spare others pain and abuse. But it will never be accomplished by laying all the blame at one guy’s feet.
There is no doubt that DM is a narcissistic twerp with a Napoleon complex who is drunk on his own power and enjoys being a sadistic SOB. But, he is also a poorly educated coward who was raised inside this authoritarian hothouse and has never known any other way of life. He never had a fighting chance. I’m not defending him, I’m just saying that your mention of the Lucifer Effect rings pretty true. The problems are endemic in the organization. And if it hadn’t been him making a power grab, it would have been someone else. And it means that it doesn’t all just get fixed if he goes away. Though plenty of people are waking up and leaving and people still inside may be questioning, there are certainly others with the same capacity for meanness and self-preservation as the young Miscavige, and they could be the organization’s next nightmare, claiming a new era of openness and honesty, and then inflicting their own brand of deception and authoritarian nightmare. So all of it needs to be dealt with, not just the person currently pulling the strings.
One of the most important points you bring up is #4 – Secrecy, Transparency and Accountability. Put this into effect and so much else falls into place. Allowing practitioners and believers to practice and believe as they wish, where they wish, how they wish would actually help it flourish. If the tech is so strong and so right, it should be able to stand up to questioning and probing and research. Keeping it under lock and key and copyright (except of course out here on the Internet) and only saying it’s valid if it’s paid for in a course room, negates that power.
Mark Bunker posted a video a couple of years ago that makes a comparison to how other religions operate and how Scientology operates. I think it’s pretty apropos (warning it includes mention of OTIII info):
So believe in what you will, but just be honest about it. If it’s as great as you say it is, you’ll have people lining up to join you.
I like most of what you wrote, but I think you misrepresent the Miscavige vs. LRH issue. Most of the people I know who focus on Maoscavige do so because he is alive and actively doing harm and perpetuating the abusive system.
Hubbard is ashes. He is doing nothing in present time. Miscavige is the fire that is burning NOW that needs to be put out.
It’s the same point Gotama made way back then, when you have an arrow sticking out of your body, are you going to sit there and analyze how the arrow was made, what kind of feathers were used to feather it, what kind of wood it was made from, who invented that type of arrow in the first place, etc etc, or will you have the arrow pulled, antiseptic applied, and your wound bandaged?
You choose, which is the sane course of action?
People who sit back and go on and on about the forensics of who started the fire, what kind of accelerant was used, and how was the fire sparked, instead of carrying water as the house burns, do not receive a lot of respect from me. That’s how I see those who get all involved in crying about how it was “LRH who started it all, why blame DM for anything?!”
The fire needs to be put out, and the fire is Chairman Maoscavige, not LRH. The most that LRH could be blamed for is, he did not build a very fire-proof house.
Valkov, I think you missed the point of my entire article. It isn’t LRH vs. Miscavige. The point is that there are systemic factors which make Scientology organizations toxic and abusive. Unless you find and address those factors, IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you remove Miscavige or not. Scientology organizations will continue to be abusive and toxic. Another sociopathic leader will step in – a Jenny Linson or a Lisa Allen – and NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
Jeff,
Actually I see Valkov’s POV quite well.
Ron is nothing but cinders or is off to target two depending on your perspective. Yet David Miscavige and his dream team of miscreants are in the here and now.
The thing is that it really doesn’t matter what’s written in tech or policy.
It takes living breathing or in Miscavige’s case undead beings to apply it or misapply it as the case may be.
I mean we all know that disconnection and fair game were a bad idea and so are unwarranted and unnecessary sec checks and even if it wasn’t for the Reform Codes these actions would have eventually dropped out if there were individuals with intellect and experience at the helm who would have seen that these actions may have had some limited workability in the past but actually are of no use now!
Same with espionage actions that were mainly directed against the Government in the past then when COINTEL and MH/CHAOS were in full action against so called “enemies of the state”.
Now seem hardly justifiable with full 501ciii status granted and full religious recognition.
Using them now against a bunch of whinny critics is like using a nuke on a gnat.
Not to mention the resulting blow back from blown ops.
(see Marty’s blog)
The rebellious New Left, Libertarian types who were cheering the Church on in its gargantuan David opposed to Goliath struggle against the evil state or empire are really not supportive of a now Government Approved Organized Religion going after a bunch of kids in Guy Fawkes masks who they claim are “terrorists”.
Again a sentient management would realize this fact.
That said.
I also agree that if you dump Miscavige that someone just as psychopathic would take his place.
But this is more a problem with current structure than anything else.
A structure that became more authoritarian in the early ’80’s under the new “Exec Strata” and various “Watch Dog Committees” and granting ultimate authority to the Religious Technology Center without putting in place any checks and balances against this virtual dictatorship.
There was vain attempt to do so in establishing CST but by then it was too little too late because RTC was able to control what trustees sat on the board of the Church of Spiritual Technology.
By the way non of this structure is covered in policy.
In other words if the Church reverted back to its original policy RTC would be nothing but a paper tiger even less.
Also who needs a fricking “leader” any way?
We don’t need noooo stiiinkin’ leader Jeff.
Scientology should be the first organization on Earth that is 100% leader free.
NO LEADERS NEED APPLY
I guess if people were perfect, they would apply Scientology perfectly. But if people were perfect, they wouldn’t need Scientology.
No truer words were ever spoken Jeff.
I elect your comment as comment of the day!
Anyone out there second that?
The house is burning NOW, so concentrate on putting out the fire. And when you’re done, do not investigate the man who might have given the gasoline to the fire starter…because I kinda like the guy.
I’ve yet to read a post that attempts to absolve Miscavige by blaming everything on Hubbard. This post is about looking at the past to gain insights that help avoid future mistakes, you say “Forget the past because I don’t want to consider that mistakes may have been made. This is the basis for history repeating itself.
Jeff,
I agree that if miscavige is removed, arrested, or moves to South America, there will be a race and similar plans by others to move in. These individuals I believe would be of the same ilk.
I agree with RJ in that an overall organization is not necessary. Once all materials are available (including any missing upper level papers), they can easily be uploaded. I would expect some of those may be difficult to get a hold of if they are secured in some vault or some such.
As for systematic reform … it may not even be needed if the organization ceases to exist. Groups will form as they are now, communication will expand, and slowly but surely, people will get trained & audited.
AS for the quality or duplication of the tech in the field … well, we’ve seen how different people can look at the same policy or bulletin and interpret it differently – some to take advantage of others and seek power, and others who truly believe in the overall goals of this philosophy.
I always thought that within a subject that ‘handles’ the mind or case, that one would expect to find some of the most vile activities and worst behaviour manifesting itself. It seems to me that this would be expected – after all, we are handling the essence of the trap itself.
It is a labyrinth, gathering huge amounts of mest appears to be winning the game when in reality it pins one further into it. Each decision we make may or may not be a winning path, but I believe that Ron put out this hope, this dream, knowing it could in fact be reality – an actual thing that could be achieved.
It is obvious auditing works, we cognite, so there definitely is something greater that what appears to be.
I think if each of us when reading & applying policy/tech/ethics had a greater vision in mind, and really looked at that guy in front of us with expanding his ability to play the game & eventually solve it in mind, we would be much better off. Navigating the past, with this viewpoint, may have warded off some of the atrocities that we have experienced.
No problem Jeff.
I was actually not responding to your article in that comment, but to wannabeclear’s post stating – “The “Hubbard was perfect, it’s all DM’s fault” argument is really wishful thinking and makes it easier for many to hang onto their “faith” in the tech and the philosophy, but it makes light of the systemic issues that are ingrained not just in current church policy, but have been there from the beginning.”
It is equally wishful thinking to argue that “It is all Hubbard’s fault, why pick so much on DM?” More in fact, because Hubbard is ashes while DM is a busy little beaver right now preventing any kind of reform. See below.
I agree with your post and in fact it confirms what my position has been all along, probably most often expressed in posts on Geir’s forum – that it is neither Hubbard nor DM as such. There are critics who like to say “it started before DM, we need to look at Hubbard to solve the problems.”
Actually, to solve the problems we need only look at what the Church is doing in present-time and deal with it in present time. And it wouldn’t even take any knowledge of scientology to fix the organizations.
All it would take is some basically social people with the basic beliefs in the ideals and mores of our society, human rights and the rule of law and a basic ability to tell right from wrong. Looking at the what goes on in theChurch, most people would say “”That’s just plain wrong! It needs to stop, period!”
Just plain normal people looking at, observing, obnosing, the actual current scene existing in the Co$ would see the outpoints and be able to suggest needed reforms. No knowledge of “tech” required.
It is totally irrelevant whether Hubbard meant for it to be the way it is, or what he did or wrote or said 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. To fix the abuses it is only necessary to be able to perceive the abuses and then go ahead and fix them.
DM is part of the abuses and that’s why he needs to go. He is standing in the way, to say the least, of an accurate perception of the cult, because of his constant spreading of disinformation about the Co$. He is an active agent of the system and the “kingpin”of it, although obviously there are quite a few other “players” involved.
And I completely disagree that if DM is taken out, someone else just as bad will step in. Because he will be removed by public exposure of his crimes, which are also the crimes of the system. Once he is gone, it will be the beginning of the end of the system. That’s why the FBI always target the heads of the Mafia-type, organized crime families – once they are removed, the system tends to weaken and starts falling apart.
The point is, the systemic abuses or outpoints can hardly be perceived, much less approached and eliminated, as long as DM remains in charge to conceal, deny, and defend them, which is what he does.
I’m saying what I have said all along,even in my comments here, that it is neither the barrel alone, nor the apples alone, that are the problem. Both need to be dealt with. DM can’t be left in charge, if you want the barrel cleaned up.
But Hubbard is irrelevant to the project, because he’s dust. Thus spending any time pontificating that it is all his responsibility is a waste of time and energy. He has no input on it now. He is at this point neither an apple nor a barrel. He’s gone, allright already!
Other examples: Lenin was not a nice man, but Stalin was much worse. He made the barrel worse. But when Stalin was gone, the evil of the system weakened. No-one really replaced him, who was “just as bad”. Because there aren’t that many around, who are that bad. Same with Hitler, any crime family “Capo di capo” etc. or any other baddy. The real evil dictators tend to be “one of a kind”. Once they are exposed and/or brought down, that’s the beginning of the end. The organization can then be approached and dismantled, because it has been exposed for what it is. Most empires created by force have fallen apart rather quickly once their creators were gone.
In my view, the whole argument of “It is DM, no it is Hubbard” is a red herring or a straw man or whatever. It is really irrelevant. The reasons why DM is a target I have stated above. He is part and parcel of the systemic problems and is active in keeping them going.
He’s not going to step up to the plate as Zimbardo did, accept responsibility, and terminate the experiment. Because it’s going just the way he wants it going – putting money in his pocket and feeding his ego. He thinks it’s right!
Therefore he needs to be removed. Beyond that, the System in it’s present abusive form can be erased without reference to anything except present-time observation of it’s evil activities, and of course there is the necessity for someone to act on what they observe. They can’t just indulge themselves in “bystander apathy” and “diffusion of responsibility”, as human beings are so much inclined to do.
Valkov wrote: “That’s why the FBI always target the heads of the Mafia-type, organized crime families – once they are removed, the system tends to weaken and starts falling apart. … But Hubbard is irrelavent to the project.”
I do see what you’re saying Valkov. My view is that removing DM would only be Step 1 of any overall reform. Once that is done, a thorough review of WHY the situation happened (not just WHO caused it), would need to be undertaken. And that would need to include a thorough review and updating of Church and LRH policies (which may have created or allowed for the 12 points [or more] above to occur).
And the main obstacle, I believe, is that most staff Scientologists and Sea Org think that KSW refers to EVERYTHING that LRH wrote, said, etc., including policy. Or that all LRH policy is perfectly correct and applicable forever and ever. And it doesn’t. And it isn’t.
This mindset amongst staff and S.O. would need to be addressed — if only by pointing them to an LRH reference like RJ68!
Bottom line: Removing DM is only the first step. Ensuring that the new leadership recognizes the systemic flaws (in Church/LRH policy) and works to remove/correct them would need to be the next and ongoing step.
Margaret, you said, “most staff Scientologists and Sea Org think that KSW refers to EVERYTHING that LRH wrote, said, etc., including policy.”
Are you aware that Hubbard himself thought that? I refer you to a Policy Letter called Keeping Admin Working, OEC Volume Zero.
Jeff wrote: “I refer you to a Policy Letter called Keeping Admin Working, OEC Volume Zero.”
Yes, I’m aware of it, as well as their counter-parts “Admin Degrades” and “Admin High Crime”. These are all HCOPLs with date stamps of 10-July-1986 — several months after LRH died. And they were apparently written right in the midst of Miscavige’s “cold chrome steel” McDonald’ization of Scientology.
But the truth is, I’m not even going to argue that LRH didn’t write them (and that someone else wasn’t simply following someone’s advice or order to “write a policy on ‘keeping admin working'”, as apparently happened with Robert Vaughn Young and the re-introduction of “disconnection”, which was also passed off as being authored by LRH). I’ll happily admit LRH wrote them and meant every word.
So here is what “Standard LRH Policy” calls for, from arguably two of the most senior LRH policies which actually define the Scientology Organization and the meaning of it’s Policy:
1) “If you ever have occasion to elect a leader for your group … take the person who IS a good auditor, not just says he is. Take the person who has a good, not necessarily highest, profile and IQ. Take the person who can grant beingness to others. And look at the relative serenity and efficiency of any past command he may have had. … Always elect temporarily and reserve the right of recall.” — LRH, “The Theory of Scientology Organizations”, 2-Nov-1970.
Have these characteristics EVER described Miscavige? Did we ever have a chance to actually elect him? In my view, No to both.
2) “Following policy is a matter of grasping situations and knowing policy well enough to apply the right policy to the right situation. Where no policy covers, an experienced, quick person can easily extend the idea of general policy to cover it….” – LRH, “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy”, 13-Mar-1965.
Does the leadership of Scientology even grasp the “big picture” situation of how off-course Scientology has gone, how the Internet and the ending of the Cold War has changed the world? Does Miscavige even have the experience and worldly knowledge to actually apply (or develop) proper policy? From my view, Miscavige has been in over his head for decades.
3) “Although it is often too late when bad policies or pressure-group laws have been the order of the day to slash them from the books and exhume basic purpose, the action of sweeping away unreal, unapplicable and impeding laws and policies … can have the effect of rejuvenation on … an organization which has begun to die. Periodic sweep-outs of antiquated and didactic laws (rather than general concepts and sub-purposes) MUST be done, selecting only those laws or rules which came into being because of pressure groups or infrequent enemies or which were derived from no experience. – LRH, “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy?”, 13-Mar-1965.
I would argue that quite a few (perhaps 10-20%) of LRH’s policies came into being because of “infrequent enemies” and that Miscavige is oblivious to this, and has instead concentrated on and pushed a culture based on “pressure groups” (ala Hollywood and the rich). I would also argue that LRH wrote policies and “rules” that were not based on his own sufficient management experience, either before or during the development of Scientology. But he was wise enough to write the above.
Now that we’ve had 40 years of experience, I think it’s pretty clear that a periodic sweep-out of old laws and policies is needed. In fact, had Miscavige been an experienced and rational leader, he would have taken the opportunity, right after the IRS decision (when the supposed “War was Over”), to do just that.
His inexperience and irrationality as a manager and leader was never more clear than at that moment, imho.
You can blame it on LRH. But in my view, LRH gave plenty of opportunities for reform. The current leadership is just too inexperienced, self-absorbed and deluded to know it.
Jeff,
I’ve always questioned the validity of the ‘Keeping Admin Working Series’ which as you know was issued posthumously along with a lot of other questionable references like the Auditor Admin Series that were originally BTBs now miraculously issued as “HCOBs”.
Until I see the original hand written PL in Hubbard’s distinct hand writing I’m reserving judgement on the Keeping Admin Series.
For now I consider it apocrypha.
Along with anything else issued after his demise.
Well put Jeff, well put. Scientology is truly at a cross roads. If it cannot evolve and reform it will IMHO devolve and/or implode. Someone once stated the road to hell is paved with good intentions. None of us for absolute certainty know what was truly Hubbard’s intention for what Scientology was meant to be. Regardless of those intentions the form that Scientology took is what is: a controlling, authoritarian, abusive cult. Hubbard was a flawed man and depending on those who had personal relationships and interactions with him he is either a saint or a sinner. He is more likely somewhere inbetween. The problem lies in how we chose to apply his philosophy. One can go further and differentiate between the philosophy and the structure. On a strict business model structure, the CoS is totalitarian, fraudulent, controlling, abusive, dangerous and I believe criminal. On the philosophical, spiritual aspect it is opinion, has some truths and shares commonalities with other philosophies, religion, psychoanalysis, etc. The combination of the two can no longer work in a society which has greater access to knowledge, facts and opinions than ever before. Honest, open dialogue amongst human beings is the only way to go if we are ever going to “save this planet” for future generations regardless of our personal beliefs. The human race can no longer afford to rely on the belief that whoever takes power and control gets to make the rules by which we all must live under. The world has gotten so much smaller and we can no longer ignore how we as people and societies impact those less fortunate and dependent on us. We are truly becoming our brothers keepers. Thanks Jeff for your insight and contributions. Always interesting reading.
“But why moan about whose fault it is rather than trying to understand what happened and why?”
Examining the Dirty Dozen with the above in mind is a productive way to go about examining one’s experience and ideas about Scientology. It allows everyone to move forward either as individuals or as groups of independent Scientologists intent on reforming the subject.
I personally could find nothing in Jeff’s analysis to argue with. I think he has correctly identified 12 distinct flaws in the culture of Scientology. Some of the flaws are more detrimental than others. There certainly may be more that will come to be identified.
Does acknowledging these areas of needed reform negate any personal gains or benefits one has gotten from Scientology? Absolutely not! One cantease apart the church organization and its flaws, from the philosophy of scientology, from the author of scientology, from your own personal benefits, from your own personal upsets, etc.
Good post there JohnDoe.
As for “fault”, “”what happened”, “why” and all that, my opinion is first shut it (the abusive organization) all down. Then sort all that out later.
Priorities, yes?
Valkov,
I am not of the mind that Miscavige should be overlooked and given a pass. He clearly needs to be taken down. Pull out the arrow, stanch the bleeding, dress the wound. It is the most pressing concern. That, however, is merely triage. Once that’s taken care of it’s still important to make sure it doesn’t happen again. This is not about saying, “See it was LRH’s fault.” But, Miscavige is a product of an already corrupted system, and there’s no reason why the corrupt machinery wouldn’t just keep chugging along without drastic intervention. This is about understanding the mistakes of the past, so as not to repeat them and I believe that Jeff’s post has laid out that argument quite well.
I agree with you that sane and ethical (truly ethical, not the twisted Co$ definition of “ethical”) people with sound judgment could come in and see what’s wrong in an instant, without a lick of knowledge about Scientology itself, but that is maybe putting things too simplistically. This is not like creating a receivership for a company or even a nonprofit organization in crisis. Regular 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations are subject to a great deal of oversight by state and federal authorities. On the other hand, religious institutions are not. They are exempt from many labor laws, discrimination laws, and most importantly, they don’t have to file tax returns. The “religious entities” don’t have to file AT ALL. There are millions and millions of dollars entangled in Scientology and the only “authority” to which any of that is currently accountable is to David Miscavige himself.
They are experts at cooking the books and I am certain that they’ve managed to funnel the majority of their “Unrelated Business Income” (the revenue generated through activities that are not expressly for their tax exempt purpose) through the religious stream, so the bulk of their income never even has to be reported. This is an entrenched and corrupt bureaucracy with millions of dollars at stake, operating in many countries without any oversight, under the premise of being a religious organization. It’s a really beautiful con they’ve set up. A criminal enterprise, par excellence. And so it will take a whole lot more than bringing down the guy in charge to dismantle it.
Even if DM is forced to resign in disgrace, or arrested and sent to prison, or kills himself out of desperation, the hundreds of organizations that make up corporate Scientology won’t just all suddenly collapse or disappear. There would still be millions of dollars to misappropriate and thousands of people afraid to lose their eternity and willing to follow whoever says the loudest and with the most authority that they are the answer to the problems that DM created. So, cutting off the head of the snake is more likely to create a power vacuum that will be filled by yet another sadistic sociopath, than to liberate the hundreds of organizations and thousands of people currently under the thumb of “COB.”
Ideally, the emancipation of the orgs and missions around the world to operate freely and practice freely would be the best thing for Scientology as a movement, allowing it to evolve and expand organically (as other religions have). But, practically, so many decades of entrenched authoritarian corruption seem to make that almost impossible. Whatever is coming next can’t be just a death blow to DM, it has to decimate the organizational structure and guarantee government intervention into all of its affairs, otherwise, it will limp on…and on…and on…
I might add that WHEN Miscavige is arrested, which I think is likely, there will be accomplices and accessories to the fact and after the fact who will come to light . At worst, Miscavige will try to throw others under the bus to escape being arrested and charged; the more he does this, the more likely there will be people willing to cut deals and turn State’s evidence to escape prosecution themselves.
I wouldn’t be surprised if such already exist, and that eventually we will see some relevant laws enacted to help eliminate the possibility of this kind of thing happening again.
There will also be a lot of study happening, about how this cult came about. I expect the materials of scientology, both Hubbard’s writings and Miscavige’s, to be examined with a fine-tooth comb by various researchers and social scientists, journalists, historians, as well as judicial and law-enforcement people etc.
Some of this has already begun, and I expect it to eventually be one of the most thorough reviews of the history of an organization ever done, and by multiple researchers, with nothing left hidden in the end.
I think it will basically show the same old story – the triumph of greed for money and possessions, and the lust for power and status overriding good intentions and common sense.
Valkov wrote: “I expect the materials of scientology, both Hubbard’s writings and Miscavige’s, to be examined with a fine-tooth comb…”
Problem is, looking at how over-the-top the German gov’t took the whole thing … where ANYTHING LRH ever wrote is now “thought stopped” by the German gov’t itself … I wouldn’t trust a gov’t one iota to make a decision like this.
I’m all for reform. But “banning any association with LRH’s ideas” (as was effectively done in Germany) is just more “thought stopping” cult tactics in the opposite direction.
Ask the Freezoners in Germany.
http://www.answers.com/topic/scientology-in-germany#.22Sect_filters.22
Margaret,
these measures were taken after it was revealed that Scientologists had attempted to infiltrate municipal, state and even federal governments, the educational system, the media etc. Just like Hubbard demanded in “Targets Defense”.
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1969
Issue IV
REISSUED 24 SEPTEMBER 1987
(…)
TARGETS
The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:
T1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.
T2. Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.
T3. Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.
T4. Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance and shifting them to a less precarious finance standard.
T5. Generally revitalizing the societies in which we are operating.
T6. Winning overwhelming public support.
T7. Use all other similar groups as allies.
These, of course, are very long range targets. But it is what must be done to continue the longevity of our organizations.
Our only justification for doing these things is that Scientology is the only game where everyone wins.
[…]
Kill everyone who opposes us, infiltrate all important sectors of society and eventually take control. It seems Mankind’s Greatest Friend really outdid himself here. I take it you’re aware what happened in Germany between 1933-45, and the abovementioned targets were pursued. And you say Germany has over-reacted? The German government has been way too tolerant, if you ask me. If other countries had been as vigilant as Germany, the cult would have folded already (at least in its current form).
I agree with all here who have said that getting DM out is just the first step. I think it will have a big effect because the Church’s own line recently has been that “David Miscavige” IS Scientology!” Thus exposing DM’s corruption will also be exposing the Church’s corruption.
Hopefully we have enough tradition of freedom of thought in this country that we will not go the way of Germany, and any tinkering with the laws that might come about will be in the nature of tightening up loopholes and increasing the oversight of religious institutions to make them accountable for following the laws of the land. To the same extent, say, as other non-profits must.
Countries like Germany do not have the history of diversity and separation of church and state the USA has. Nor does Russia, which comes close to having Orthodox Christianity enshrined as the State religion. Separation of Church and State is a double-edged sword, but I think it protects the diversity of religious thought and practice the USA allows, at the same time as it perhaps makes it more possible for abusive cults to spring up.
With freedom comes responsibility, no doubt.
It’s not gonna be easy. The Church will survive in some form. Hopefully it can be reduced to the level of Christian Science Reading rooms, with any real delivery of auditing and training happening out in the independent field.
Even better would be getting it’s religious status yanked. Whatever happens, it’s gonna be along haul. A lot of persistence and vigilance on really the part of relatively few people.
Unfortunately I doubt we can mobilize the kind of massive numbers we had in the 1960s protesting the Draft and Vietnam war scenes.
That got action but it still took a long time . So we just have to keep chipping away for as long as it takes.
Cool Observer wrote: “The German government has been way too tolerant, if you ask me.”
Fortunately, most rational minds in the world disagree with you.
“If other countries had been as vigilant as Germany, the cult would have folded already (at least in its current form).”
And the new cult of “Anti-LRH Everything” (that German Freezoners have already lost their civil rights to, and you apparently support with gusto), would spring up in its place.
Replacing one set of cultic thinking with another. How nice.
Again, thankfully rational and balanced minds have so far prevailed.
By the way, for those curious, the supposed HCO PL “Targets, Defense” that Cool Observer “quoted” from above has never existed in any OEC Volume (I have four sets of them, going back to the early 70s, and it doesn’t exist in any of those). It also doesn’t exist on any CoS list of HCO PLs (not even as a “Confidential” issue on the supposed dates mentioned), nor does it exist on an independently developed list of all known published and unpublished HCO PLs (including confidential ones), that I’ve gotten a copy of from a long-time collector of loose-leaf Scientology issues and reel-to-reel lectures. There doesn’t appear to have ever been an issue of any kind (HCOPL, HCOB, Flag Order, Executive Directive, BPL, BTB, etc.) with the title “Targets, Defense”. And of course, there is no “1987 re-issued” version either.
From all indications, it appears to have been forged and only exists as a digital image on someone’s computer.
Any former GO or OSA in the know wish to comment?
CO,
Your nickname here is ironic. Although you addressed Margaret, I would like to respond to part of your post to her, about Germany.
I’m sure she does know what happened in Germany 1933-1945. The question is, do you? Here is a short Wikipedia about Religion in Nazi Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Fact is, “separation of Church and State” to this day hardly exists in Germany, but in Nazi times it even less than now. It was then apparently your proposed IdealScene. Thegovernmentwas extremely tough on “cults”-look what it did to the “Jewish cult”, for example, not to mention any other religious group that was not State-sanctioned.
Do you really think Germany as well as other countries ought to be going down that road? There are other good examples. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, cults were almost non-existent. Good tough government took care of that danger.
And in today’s Communist China, cults are hardly flourishing. Those pesky Buddhists in Tibet and western China can testify to that as they flee for their lives to other countries, as well as the Falun Gong practioners who are now in China’s slave labor -OOOPS – I meant to say “re-educational facilities” camps.
And I have the impression “cults” are virtually non-existent in North Korea.
Yep, a good tough government attitude can really do wonders in reducing or even eliminating the dangers of cults in our midst….
Marg,
To answer your question.
I audited GO staff and had access to various Confidential Issues known as Guardian’s Office Directives or GODs.
Honestly I’d never seen ‘Targets, Defense’ till I looked on the internet.
Also there is an altered version of ‘Attacks on Scientology (continued)’ that differs from the one in the original OEC Vol VII that gets a lot of net play also that I’d never seen before either.
As far as I’m concerned it is apocrypha unless someone comes up with the handwritten original.
I’d like to hear from some Ex-GO or Ex-Int on this PL. Personally, I remember seeing it on the inside, and hearing the PL referred to in the context of handling the external PR scene. It was confidential so would not have been in any OEC Vols.
Margaret and Valkov,
I’ll quote myself from an earlier post, about how Germany is dealing with the Nazi past.
[…]
The lesson that Germans have taken to heart ever since is simple: Be vigilant and snuff out any threat to the democratic values and the constitution. This is why the Office for the Protection of the Constitution was created, and what did they do when they learned about Scientology? A “philosophy” that makes people into higher and superior humans – homo novis (it should be homo novus, btw), so much better, more ethical, more intelligent as the common wog, a philosophy that had to be “bestowed” on every living being to “clear the planet” and turn everyone into homo novis. A set of rules to utterly destroy everyone trying to get in the way of this campaign, a demand to only grant civil rights to those toeing the line and the disposal of those unwilling or unable to do so. People below 2.0 should be handled (“persuaded” to conform) or to be disposed of quietly and without sorrow. I don’t think anyone should be surprised why Germany has been so strict, because all the aforementioned aspects sound a lot more dangerous given the experience during 1933-45.
Valkov, to paint me as a Nazi sympathizer is laughable and so typical for the Scientology mindset. Always attack. Have you ever wondered why people call Scientology a fascist and totalitarian cult? It’s because of the abovementioned issues. They won’t trouble you, because you ignore them, yet you shouldn’t be surprised that everybody else does not. If the majority of Americans were aware of how hostile and anti-democratic Scientolgy really is (and always has been), they would demand that the government shut the cult down, because Scientology stands against everything that makes (or made) America exceptional. Democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all that needs to go on a cleared planet.
CO,
I am perfectly willing to grant that I may be misunderstanding you, but I have been picking up on what you have been posting, not on what you may have left unsaid about your thinking and sentiments.
How about this? Instead of the incessant drumbeat of negative “Scientology must be stamped out” that you have been posting, why don’t you paint us a picture of the ideal scene you envisage for our society?
Show us how outlawing possession of Hubbard’s lectures and books somehow exemplifies our ideals of “Democracy, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion”, for example.
Tell us how you would regulate scientology-related groups and organizations, assuming you would allow them to exist in the first place, which is what I am questioning.
Until then, I am likely to continue to assume you are simply a demagogue pushing for, yes, what seem to me to be rather fascistic methods of social control such as book-burnings.
If you have read very many of my posts here or on othersites, you would know that I am rather virulently opposed to the creature known as the Church of Scientology as it exists. I doubt that it can be reformed, and personally would like to see it wither away.
I am equally virulently opposed to anyone who would propose to take away my right to have, read, listen to, study, and use in a positive way, the materials originated by L Ron Hubbard. I expect to be allowed to read and think about Mein Kampf, Karl Marx, Mao the Dung, Stalin, Machiavelli, or anyone else.
That ought to be pretty clear? To me that is the meaning of a “free society”. People are free to do, and think and believe anything they want, but are not free to hurt others.
That is what America means to me. If you don’t agree, and want to tell me what I can or can’t read or think or believe or practice, fine. Go live in Germany or China, or a host of other countries that “protect” their citizens from “undesirable” thinking.
So lay it out for us, how you would have it be done?
Valkov,
when I wrote that the German government was “too tolerant”, I was specifically referring to Scientology. Because beneath the pr it strives for an Orwellian dystopia, and because it’s not your average cult that recruits people to live on some remote compound to work for a better world. Scientology goes for the jugular, at least that’s what they attempt. In the late 1990s a high-ranking member in Germany blew, and he took documents with him. Scientology had developed a plan to take over the government, they had already assigned cult members for the various government positions. They had hired former GDR state security members to obtain dirty information on politicians who had grown up in the East. Scientologists have a Taliban mindset: We’re superior, we know what’s best for you, and you better play ball or else…Just like Cruise said it in the video: Why ask permission? We’re the authorities. Just like Hubbard said: You are the people this planet obeys. You own the planet.
Scientology is a compulsive organisation, its criminality is pathologic. I do not condone that Hubbard’s books are outlawed or burned. I don’t question the philosophy, people can believe whatever they want, as long as the beliefs don’t harm others. I do believe in reincarnation as well. You can even believe that you’re crawling with thetanic parasites, if that makes you happy. But I do find it unethical in the extreme, that people are asked (bullied) to pay insane amounts of money to decontaminate themselves. When it comes to all the “unprovable, faith-based things, belive whatever you want. Everything alse should be scrutinised. Everything that is labeled “science” should be exposed for what it is. Bogus and junk. No, they should not be backlisted, because they’re the most uniuntentionally hilarious books you can possibly read, but people should realize that. They must not confuse auditors with real therapists (I do not condone wide-spread drug prescription, but real talk therapy), every org should be obliged to have new applicants sign a form that makes some things clear: We cannot cure diseases or illnesses, here’s a link to our entire belief system (including space opera) and a price list. The orgnisation should be stripped of its religious and/or charitable status, they should publicly avow to stop all practices that are not compatible with the law of the land. Or let’s just say they’re given the dirty dozen and are asked or “persuaded” to cleanse them. If it turns out they can’t do that (permanently), then one should reconsider.
CO,
The odd thing is, I actually do not disagree with your “reform” prescription. What I resent and attack is your generalization of “scientologists”. You put me in the position of not being able to call myself a “scientologist”, or even to admit being interested in L Ron Hubbard’s materials or “scientology” because you identify all “scientologists” with that insane organization called the Church of Scientology…
Valkov,
what you describe as a generalisation is simply a basic disagreement about one issue. I assume (!) that you believe that CoS is not the real Scientology, therefore calling yourself a real Scientologist distances you from all the abuses that are so rampant within the organisation. I disagree, because you can’t just say “LRH made some mistakes (because he was ‘human’, he was under pressure, persecuted by governments and law enforcement-obviously unwarranted or an overblown reaction, or he was exasperated because the wogs could not understand his genius and were therefore too slow or recalcitrant or even antagonistic), so let’s just focus on all the wonderful things he (allegedly) accomplished. Also, he’s dead by now and doesn’t do anything.
It doesn’t work that way, at least not in the real world, where peope are (should be) encouraged to analyse the past to learn from mistakes. There’s not one rational reason to assume that “the tech” is workable. There has never been a shred of evidence that Dianetics works, despite its claim of being a science. No clears, no OTs, no miraculous cures -zilch. People who claim to have made “case gain” or speak of wins have been in an environment that enforces conformity and thrives on peer pressure. Tell us your wins. Do not natter. Do not question anything, question yourself. And there is persistent and heavy mental manipulation and conditioning, so unless there’s no proof that these “wins” are not caused by autosuggestion and placebo effects, and/or the environment that Hubbard set up, all the tech does not impress me at all.
On the other hand, there’s ample evidence that Hubbard created Scientology for decidedly non-idealistic reasons. IMO Hubbard started as a flamboyant and very charismatic conman, who planned to sell people a piece of blue sky, but he had personal issues, like a narcicistic desire to become famous, mixed with a sociopathic tendencies to destroy people without remorse, if they stood in his way. (Denunciating innocent people as Nazi spies and communists). In the 60s two things coincided: He realised that he wielded real power over “his people”, and the pressure of governments and law enforcement agencies became too intense. The rest, as they say, is history.
That is my opinion, and it is based mainly on facts, and some circumstancial evidence. You base your opinion on Hubbard on his writings that sound wonderful, yet were never (or rarely) used. Were those writings just pr to fool the raw meat and to soothe the bureaucrats who might cause him trouble (LRH did predict that some day some would say that Scientology is illegal), or was he the leader of a group of people who constantly disobeyed his orders and enforced only the bad stuff?
For me it’s obvious, but to quote you from one of your other posts: That is completely yesterday, right? The only thing that matters is that Scientology has never achieved what it publicly set out to achieve, but the organisation has been quite industrious to enforce the tyrannical BS. Will the world miss out on some great and necessary stuff to make this a better world, should the entire thing fall into oblivion? I don’t think so. If you refuse to look deeper, at the toxic things that were present before Miscavige took charge, if you say get the arrow out and bandage the wound, but do not investigate the guy who invented the bow, then I don’t feel guilty to talk in generalities. I’m an SP by default anyway. Born evil 😉
Cool Observer wrote: “what you describe as a generalisation is simply a basic disagreement about one issue.”
Which just happens to be the one issue which is at the heart of this entire thread: Civil rights abuses against Freezone Scientologists in Germany.
Just answer two simple questions: Are you in favor of denying Freezone Scientologists their civil rights, just because they own and agree with LRH’s philosophy and call themselves “scientologists”? And if so, do you think this approach should be exported to the rest of the world?
A non scientologist here, but fascinated by the subject. I have a question. Why is it so important for people(from reading Marty Rathburns blog) to “take back over” Scientology, in the condition its in now? It seems to me, that with these conditions, there is no real way to “fix” this church from with in. Its structure has become so toxic.
I am not going to get into whether or not Scientology is even a religion (because thats not really the point here). But using Christianity as an example, there is a precedant for starting a new church, rather than attempting for make the old one healthy…
The Catholic church was the only game in town at one point, but Martin Luther disagreed with some of its tenants and formed the Lutheran Church, this even happens now, with some churches changing its focus (keeping the core tenants of the Bible as its center, in your case your tech)… Some churches are more works based, or more open to gays, some purposely stay on a low money model, where the ministers are volunteer, with no buildings to own or rent, meeting in homes (using their tithes to feed the poor or for outreach work)….
Having watched Scientogist friends over the years, extoll to me the benefits of their religion, yet be so completely devastated financially, socially, and in one case losing their paying job because of church pressure, it never made me want to know more about it, and actively (but nicely) avoid the religion at all costs..
With the internet, the wog world knows exactly what Scientology is all about now, there is no mystery, which is why with the current abuses, fee structure, and general nuttiness of the public ‘face’ of the Church, this church will dissapear within a generation, if left to its own devices.. (which btw, is not unheard of even in the Christian faith, there are many denominations that have become extinct or are in danger ,ie Amish, of becoming so.)
Having the religious status revoked would be great, since it would require transparency, filing of tax returns, and wholesale overhaul of operations, starting with the indentured servitude of Sea Org members (slave wages, RPF, physical abuse, freeloader bills, etc.) and taking claims like Mark and Claire Headley’s seriously. Having their 501(c)3 status revoked completely would be better, especially since they are all about profit. It would take something huge to make either of these things happen, however. I can’t even fathom what might actually do it. Actual financial records and proof of off-shore bank accounts and money laundering, or audio and video evidence of the abuse (as I’ve wished for before) and even then, I don’t know.
The U.S. Government is so wary of getting into the middle of the practices of “religious” organizations simply because, as Valkov points out, church state separation is a double edged sword. It allows for diversity of views and beliefs, but it does indeed also allow for abusive cults to flourish because the government is meant to stay out of it for fear of trampling first amendment rights.
Take a look at the Catholic Church child abuse scandal and how few criminal prosecutions (and convictions) there have been in the wake of that. The Catholic Church is obviously larger and richer and more powerful than Scientology, but still, that was very public and very widespread and well known and yet barely a ripple over all.
A little background information on what happened between 1980 and 1983 can be found at this link, called “The new regime takeover series – by Mike Goldstein”.
http://exscn.net/content/view/177/95/1/0/
Reading this a while back helped me sort things out for myself, to some degree.
Here is the preface of the article:
Preface:
In 1982 and 1983, there were massive changes in CofS management and operation that triggered a mass exodus of staff and public Scientologists from the CofS. In an effort to answer questions regarding his experience and observations during and leading up to this period of time, in 2004 Mike Goldstein published a series of articles called, “The New Regime Takeover.” This series covers Mike’s history in the CofS from 1980 to when Mike left the CofS in 1983. Even though Mike’s history in the CofS precedes this period by over a decade, this series only covers the specific time mentioned above. Mike may, at a later point, write up his earlier experience with the CofS, including the years he worked personally with Hubbard on the Flagship, Apollo.
The “New Regime Takeover” series was originally published on alt.clearing.technology and alt.religion.scientology and was later picked up and archived on several websites.
I just wanted to mention, for the above 18-page article, since the link navigation there may not be perfectly clear, that page 11 (“Part 11: Taking Over the Missions”) starts here:
http://exscn.net/content/view/177/95/1/10/
Thank you for posting this too, Cinnamon.
Mike Goldstein’s story is a “must read”!
I remember being given the booklet “The Way to Happiness” for the first time. I was delighted. Here was this little booklet full of what I considered to be some of the most beneficial precepts from my own life nicely summarized. I fully expected the church to embrace these precepts and FULLY implement them at all levels of staff and management. To my amazement, they were COMPLETELY ignored, brushed aside and treated as some kind of side show promotional that had nothing to do with public or staff Scientologists. I personally embraced them and they have served me well.
Perhaps this was LRH’s effort to re-align. It seems likely, otherwise why bother to write it at all and why make up an entire Happiness Rundown to assist others in implementing it and addressing their personal case situations that prevent them from implementing it.
1. Dehumaniziation
Precepts from the booklet “The Way to Happiness” more than amply cover this point.
2. Enemies and War
First Policy: Maintain friendly relations with the environment precedes the booklet “The Way to Happiness” — it was ignored too.
3. Collapsed Time, The Constant Emergency
In addition to the precepts, basic descriptions of what policy is and is not. i.e. all policy assumes that expansion is the underlying purpose of policy. The real question is expansion of what? WHAT IS TO BE EXPANDED? Important question. As far as I am concerned, it is not just expansion of people and buildings and money. It is expansion of auditing being done well and with beneficial results. Anything else is just a parody. When this is lost sight of then there’s not much point is there?
4. Secrecy, Transparency and Accountability
Again, precepts from the booklet “The Way to Happiness” plus “an Essay on Management.” Also well covered in “How to Live Though an Executive.” Finally, very, very well covered in an essay on Group Dianetics that was included in the original book “Notes on the Lectures.”
5. Information Control and Thought-Stopping
Again, the precepts, this time taken against the ARC and KRC triangles which work in tandem. They are not separate triangles. Denying knowledge, good or bad, obviously makes it impossible to the use concepts of expanding these triangles.
6. The End Justifies the Means – Machiavellian Power
Precepts from the booklet “The Way to Happiness” plus the question WHAT ARE WE EXPANDING?
7. Authoritarianism, Intention and Counterintention
With points 1 – 6 in hand, one can now consider this point. If they are not in hand, it is simply not possible to do so. AGAIN: WHAT ARE WE EXPANDING?
9. “Toughness” and the Para-Military Paradigm
Crashing MUs on the points above. It is entirely possible to be tough as nails – that’s just the ability to persist on a given course. The question is: HOW DOES ONE PERSIST AND WHAT IS ONE EXPANDING?
10. Money and Greed
With points 1 – 9 in hand, one can now consider this point. If they are not in hand, it is simply not possible to do so. AGAIN: WHAT ARE WE EXPANDING?
11. Penalizing Downstats
Again, how does this align with the precepts in the booklet “The way to Happiness”? Yes indeed – what does PENALIZE mean? Is it really possible to determine what to even penalize if the question is not answered: WHAT ARE WE EXPANDING?
Thanks Anna! What a great post.
Indeed, the concepts of “upstats” and “downstats” are monitored by the goals of the organziation the people are working to expand.
A couple of dramatic examples: In an army at war, one statistic might “number of enemy killed”. The “upstat” might be the ones who each kills the most enemies.
Among a group of doctors or healers, the relevant stat might be lives saved, illnesses cured or controlled, lives improved.
Sanity, health and happiness cannot be created by force. That’s the bottom line. That’s why the ends cannot justify the means. LRH phrased it thus” “Cause is motivated by the future.” How does this apply? If you want peace, use peaceful means.
LRH prefaced the older editions of The Creation of Human Ability with this quote from St. Luke:
<>
American King James Version
3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
4 Carry neither purse, nor money, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
5 And into whatever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest on it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Does anyone really think the current iteration of the Church of Scientology serves any of these ideals?
Margaret: The rest of your comments are ad hominen, and do exactly what Jeff was talking about in the intro to his article.
Soderqvist1: This is only a generalisation without a description what I have done wrong, so I cannot correcting myself, maybe you can do me the same “service” as I do you here below!
Margaret: December 5, 2010 12:12 am: “Fortunately, most rational minds in the world disagree with you.” “Again, thankfully rational and balanced minds have so far prevailed.”
Soderqvist1: this is ad hominen to criticising his rationality; rather you should address Cool Observer’s argument as you did below and let’s see if he can answer it!
Margaret: And the new cult of “Anti-LRH Everything” (that German Freezoners have already lost their civil rights to, and you apparently support with gusto), would spring up in its place.
Soderqvist1: the Target Defence Policy has also been mentioned here, the author of Suppressive Person Defence League claims this about it, and back it up with references!!
Caroline Letkeman: I agree, “Targets, Defence” is a must-read for everyone involved in the Scientology problem. This policy was studied on the Guardian Office Information Full Hat (Intelligence Course) at D-12.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=428539&postcount=7
Soderqvist1: Robert Vaughn Young has testified this in the United States District Court, Central District of California 1994
Declaration of Robert Vaughn Young
As further evidence of Fair Game continuing, Hubbard later wrote” Confidential: Targets, Defence” on February 16, 1969, (Attached as Exhibit M) in which he listed “vital targets on which we must invest most of our time…” The first and most important: “T1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/legal/rvy.htm
Soderqvist1: this is a Suppressive Person Declare written 1972 posted by said Caroline Letkeman, which shows that Fair Game was still in full sway!
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=384636#p384636
Thanks, Peter (Soderquist1) regarding the provenance of “Targets, Defense”. Looks like it may be authentic. If so, I would certainly expect it to be included in any purging/cancelling/amending of any LRH policies which have not worked and/or were written at a time of “infrequent enemies” — something, as mentioned above, LRH recommended doing (in a very senior policy) with “old and didactic policies and rules”. Again, were there a functioning CoS, the leadership would have worked to isolate and eliminate/amend the policies which led to the systemic problems that Jeff listed, imho. And they would be doing it out in the open, as was done in the old OECs and Tech Vols in the 70s when a policy or issue was cancelled or amended.
—
In regard to the “ad hominem” issue, your original argument had been that KSW#1 was keeping in place the “system” which led to the systemic problems outlined by Jeff. My argument/response had been that the systemic abuses listed by Jeff came about because of “policies”, not “the tech” and that “the tech” is what KSW#1 addresses.
You then seemed to agree (but then later disagreed). You then pointed out what you felt were shortcomings of LRH with examples where you felt LRH was dishonest and where you believe that he did not give (sufficient?) credit to earlier discoveries, research and researchers, as well as his contemporaries. These may or may not have been valid points, but in general it was ad hominem because they didn’t address the argument regarding the systemic problems and whether KSW#1 (as written, as opposed to how it is being applied) was preventing reform.
This is what Hubbard wrote in 1960. The second paragraph is especially interesting.
HCO PL 15 Aug 1960, “Department of Governmental Affairs”
In the face of danger from government or courts, there are only two errors one can make: (a) do nothing and (b) defend. The right things to do with any threat are to (1) find out if we want to play the offered game or not (2) if not, to derail the offered game with a feint or attack upon the most vulnerable point which can be disclosed in the enemy ranks (3) make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail (4) don’t try to get any money out of it (5) make every attack by us also sell Scientology and (6) win. If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Don’t ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy’s front ranks work best.
…
The goal of the department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high-level ability to control and in its absence by low-level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins.
HCO PL 4 Jan 1966, “LRH Relationships to Orgs”
“Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal’. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not.”
This is the essence of totalitarianism, you can’t be more specific about it. It says that Scientology strives for a world where free speech and criticsm is not allowed, where everybody bows to the demands of the ruling entity (Scientology) It’s all systemic, fed by Hubbard’s paranoia and greed for money and power. This arrogance of being superior, the secrecy, the cloak and dagger mentality, it’s in the Scientology DNA. The gist of Scientology according to Hubbard is this: The planet is in danger, only we have the answers and the means to rescue the human race. We only have an extremely short window of opportunity to get it done, so do whatever it takes to enforce our expansion and ensure our eventual win. So people have accepted thatScientology is deadly serious, that they can’t have other fish to fry, that the wog laws mean nothing. And do I have to repeat what Hubbard said about people below 2.0 on the tone scale? But I assume I took that out of context.
Freezoners continue to worship Hubbard and refuse to deal with his totalitarian delusions. All governments have a weak spot, in the US Islamist groups are watched very closely because of 9/11, the g0vernment does not care whether or not their civil rights are infringed. Given what Germany went through during the Nazi era, how can you be surprised that Hubbard apologists are suspicious? The mindset of combatting all potential threats to democracy was drilled into Germany during the de-nazification. The quotes I gave you paint a very clear picture of the true L. Ron Hubbard, based on these writings he appears to be a formidable threat to democracy (a concept he openly despised), liberty, civil rights and prety much every other right that is associated with free and democratic societies. You may think that Freezoners are harrmless, because they left the “evil church”, but since they practice Scientology as LRH intended, that makes them suspicious. I have never said that Scientologists are bad people, quiete the opposite, but they’re misguided and refuse to see what is so blatantly obvious to everyone who has kept a save distance from the organisation.
Cool Observer wrote: “This arrogance of being superior, the secrecy, the cloak and dagger mentality, it’s in the Scientology DNA.”
It’s not in the DNA, Cool Observer. It may be in some of the musty, tattered old shirts that the CoS still wears (and refuses to throw away), but the “DNA” of Scientology can be found in the Axioms, the Factors, the Codes and the Creeds that define Scientology and were largely developed in the early 50s, and which the entirety of “the tech” — and much of the policy — in later years is based on.
An intelligent, reformed CoS leadership would ensure that the organization’s policies were in alignment with the actual DNA. Some of those policies (such as the ones you quote from) were written at times of “infrequent enemies” and under entirely different circumstances. It’s long past the time for a “periodic sweepout”, as LRH recognized and recommended in 1965.
Margaret,
You insist that the Scientology DNA is purely benevolent. Yet what exactly is Jeff’s post about? The systemic abuses (the dirty dozen), which have been present from the beginning. Some have been magnified by Miscavige, but he did NOT invent any of those. They are indeed part of the DNA. We have a saying in Germany: It cannot be what muist not be. This is one of the reasons why Scientology cannot be reformed (IMO). Those who find out what Hubbard was really all about, have no interest in “keeping Scientology working”, the others cannot question all the taboos and so the same mistakes will be made all over again.
Cool Observer wrote: “You insist that the Scientology DNA is purely benevolent. Yet what exactly is Jeff’s post about? The systemic abuses (the dirty dozen), which have been present from the beginning.”
Sadly, your unfamiliarity with the entirety of Scientology is turning your arguments into circular ones. Which of course get us nowhere.
Again, I’m just happy that most of the world outside Germany recognizes the danger inherent in the extremism that Germany is engaging in.
Soderqvist1 wrote: “…which shows that Fair Game was still in full sway!”
I’m afraid it doesn’t Peter. It simply shows the title of the “SP Acts” PL had not been changed by that time, which included the term “Fair Game”.
(Additional data: The 1972 ethics order in the link provided simply refers to the title of the policy, which was “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” written in 1965. The term “fair game” was defined in that policy letter as “may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scientology or the rights of a Scientologist”. By and large, this meant that the guy could now be sued if warranted [since Scientologists are not normally allowed to sue each other]. The policy itself — as available in OEC Vol 1 printed in 1970 — also had a notation at the end which points out the cancellation of declaring someone “fair game”. In later revisions of this policy, the terms “The Fair Game Law” was removed from the title.
Some people have theorized that because this cancellation of Fair Game was “cancellation in name only” for PR purposes and that “the treatment or handling of an SP” remained the same, that what LRH was really saying was that a Scientologist may “sue, trick, lie to or destroy” any and all SPs. While I’d have to concede that there are some SPs (Osama bin Laden comes to mind) that I would happily sue, trick, lie to or destroy, I’m afraid that interpreting this to mean that it applies to “anyone declared an SP” is pretty ludicrous. That the current OSA have [and past GO had] lost all sense of good judgement in this area, is really due to other systemic factors, imho, and not particularly this policy.
Personally, I think that LRH’s mixing of an “administrative SP” with an actual SP was really more at the core of what is flawed in these particular policies, and that many if not most of the items in the list of “Suppressive Acts” do not rise to the level of defining someone as an actual SP. In any reformed CoS, I’d certainly nominate these “Scientology laws” as being ripe for re-evaluation and amendment.)
Just to pitch in. “The War” (LRH ED 55 INT 29 Nov. 1968) seems to be a precursor policy for “Target, Defense”. In it, Hubbard says:
“You may not realize it staff member but there is only one small group that has hammered Dianetics and Scientology for eighteen years. … Last year we isolated a dozen men at the top.”
Farther:
“Think of what it would be like to have no such opposition!!!! My, how we would expand. And will. … Our error was in failing to take over total control of all mental healing in the West. Well, we’ll do that too.”
That would be the cause. And with LRH’s “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause,” the “fair game” policy needed not to be explicit. It is implied by Scientology scriptures.
LRH ED 55 INT 29 Nov. 1968 can be found in mainstream Scientology publications, and so is Scientology’s “Code of Honor”:
OEC Volume 7 // EXECUTIVE DIVISION (1991), p. 1129 (§ SOCIAL REFORM)
The Original LRH-EDs // Series 1 and 2 (1983), p. 737 (§ LRH EDs INT)
R. Hill wrote: “In [‘The War’], Hubbard says: ‘… Last year we isolated a dozen men at the top.'”
The “war” seems to have flipped from a “dozen men at the top” in some shadowy organization, to the entire world, where the only good ones are now a “dozen men at the top” of Scientology (at least in their own minds).
As I said above, if the 1993 announcement “The War is Over” from Miscavige were really authentic and made by a rational leadership, a proper functioning CoS would have implemented this advice from LRH:
“Although it is often too late when bad policies or pressure-group laws have been the order of the day to slash them from the books and exhume basic purpose, the action of sweeping away unreal, unapplicable and impeding laws and policies … can have the effect of rejuvenation on … an organization which has begun to die. Periodic sweep-outs of antiquated and didactic laws (rather than general concepts and sub-purposes) MUST be done, selecting only those laws or rules which came into being because of pressure groups or infrequent enemies or which were derived from no experience. – LRH, “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy?”, 13-Mar-1965.
Margaret, I took the liberty to include the missing parts in the paragraph you excerpted, which I think are relevant (bolded):
But of course, the tone in the rest of this 10-page policy letter is certainly not about second guessing LRH’s policies/directives. Even more so if one read all the other policies in the section of OEC 0 titled “Theory of Policy”, where the first one concludes:
R Hill you should know that the reason latter policy you quoted is there is to prevent “random policy” from occurring and to prevent executives (like Miscavige for example) from “inventing” policies that are detrimental and violate the basic purpose.
Moving from the microcosm of Scientology to the macrocosm of say the USG.
You can see how violations of basic policy such the US Constitution has created upset and dissension not just in America but world wide.
As far as I can see you object to basic agreed upon form and structure which is basically what policies are and seem to be promoting anarchy as a virtue while claiming to support the “rule of law”.
(Jeff, I had some typos in my last posting. Here is the corrected version.)
R. Hill,
All Scientology policy needs to be written by LRH (“or [more rarely] for him”), and also needs agreement and approval from the International Board. Theoretically, anyone can propose policy, but it needs to be agreed to and approved by the International Board. The same holds true for canceling or amending policy. (The reference is HCO PL “POLICY: SOURCE OF”, 5-Mar-1965, in OEC Vol 0).
The “International Board” today is CST in which David Miscavige has made himself chairman, and in which he has reportedly forced all other Board members to sign undated “letters of resignation”. I doubt that that latter action is legal, but of course, all the other existing Board members (if we even know who they currently are) would likely lie for Miscavige if necessary. However, there may be enough Board members now (Mike Rinder was on the CST Board, and I think Marty and/or JB may have been also) who have left who could make a case against Miscavige on this point.
In any event, that is how a new leadership would technically cancel or amend LRH policies, if one wished to follow LRH’s policy in doing so.
RJ, this assumes that the original policy is perfect and has no systemic flaws. Reviewing basic policy for flaws is not anarchy, it’s common sense. Particularly when dealing with an organization that has a long-term record of failure and abuse.
It seems to me policy is subordinate to goals. We create policies because we want to achieve certain goals or “ideal scenes”.
So, off the top of my head, we have the Declaration of Independence, then we have the Constitution as an expression of how we might achieve and maintain the kind of country we want to live in.
Jeff,
Policy good or bad is basically an agreement.
They are the organizational version of law.
Are you saying that just because I don’t like the insanely stupid mandatory motorcycle helmet law in our state.
That I should just amend it myself and ride lidless?
Thanks Jeff.
The next time I’m in traffic court I’ll forward your legal advice to de judge 😉
Seriously though.
Policy is what is agreed upon like law.
This protects the group from arbitrary laws “like everybody into the hole”.
Catch my drift.
And yes proposing that everyone just make it up because they don’t like the policy.
is anarchy which means no established order.
Policy *is* that established order.
Here is another reference:
“HCO PLs and HCOBs require passing by LRH or the full authority of International Board members as well as the Authority and Verification Unit.” — LRH, “SENIORITY OF ORDERS”, 9-Aug-1972. [Emphasis mine.]
LRH left openings for policy changes and amendments.
What we have instead is murkiness on who is actually on the International Board and the details of any policy/technical changes. There is no mention of other Board members (other than Miscavige as “Chairman of the Board”), CST is a hidden entity yet they are the final arbiters on the policies of the entire organization, all policy and technical changes (and of course there have been some) are not documented other than to say “Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations” at the end of the issue. But no mention of what was revised, why it was revised, who wrote or revised it and when it was revised, is included.
Yet all of these things — what, why, who and when — were clearly pointed out in earlier policy/technical revisions during the 1970s. The earlier OEC volumes are replete with policy updates, cancellations and changes. Often times, the cancelled policies would even be included just to provide some historical reference.
In my view, Miscavige is effectively incompetent as a leader. To Miscavige, it’s all about PR and not about substance. It’s about what he was successful at hiding, not about being honest and staying in communication.
RJ, I get your point, however Policy in Scientology is not “what is agreed on.” It’s what Hubbard dictated.
Jeff,
You and I know that policy isn’t exclusively what Hubbard dictated.
If you have a copy of the *original* OEC Vols you will find that almost half the PLs were written by others.
Also what about BPLs big guy?
What about those squirrelly SP(great choice of an acronym!) Ds!
Ron for sure never laid eyes on this.
What about those idiotic bloviations (that are rather rough as TP but have other uses) by his deluded Satanic Majesty called RTC Directives when apparently have the same force as policy or are somehow elevated above it by that Borg Factory known as the Sea Org because they contain space cadet…er I mean “command intention”.
These are all agreed upon by the morons that are still in which I believe is the main problem.
The problem you failed to note in your ‘Dirty Dozen’.
I suggest you make it a baker’s dozen and include idiotic policies written by morons with delusion of grandeur that obscure sane policies written by L Ron Hubbard and others based on experience instead of the latest hobby horse ridden by some star struck moron who has the intellect of a toaster.
RJ,
So, in your view, does Hubbard bear any responsibility at all for what Scientology has become?
Of course he bears some responsibility for what Scientology has become.
Organizationally yes.
Viewing it all with 20/20 hindsight.
It was in my opinion a bad idea to turn his copyrights over to a completely autonomous entity such as RTC.
He warned Auditors in a RED what would happen if you made the Auditors Association completely autonomous.
The warning he gave was exactly what happened.
Too bad the Ol’man sometimes didn’t follow his own advice but like us all he was human and far from perfect.
He should have in my opinion left them under HCO as per the policy on their first substance and duty.
Another one was giving the Sea Org too much power and allowing it to become a hierarchy which eventually became autocratic and authoritarian
Where so called Sea Org members prided themselves for ‘Message to Garcia’ like robotically and idiotically complying to orders from an obvious psychopath.
The Hubbard management “tech” currently in vogue these days written by Ron’s possibly distant relative Elbert.
Also before the Sea Org into a bunch of mindless automatons there was the GO to keep them in line (at times like the fox watching the hen house) having enough animosity towards their pretentious braid to keep them in check.
(Yes I fondly remember the glory days of the old GO , SO feuds that were much like the Hatfields and McCoys which were always fun too watch.)
This balance of power aside from creating an interesting side show ensured that neither of them had the upper hand in actually governing Scientology and would have made any actual governance weak and ineffective.
A true Jeffersonian dream!
So yeah to answer your question.
Ron does bear some responsibility for the mess the Org currently in but not exclusively.
That goes to all those in management who followed orders given by an insane psychotic without question and forced others to do so.
Those are the ones who bear the most responsibility.
Ok, Jeff.
My point is this: The abusive environment that exists in organized Scientolgy is a result of us being on planet earth.
Really? Wasn’t Scientology supposed to handle “planet earth”?
Oh, come on, Jeff. Admit it, the church would have been perverted and destroyed with or without Miscavige. Would not matter what the organization would have looked like or what policies was written or not written. You will not find a group of individuals on this planet who will be able to keep it sane enough for long. It would have gone bad anyhow, just a matter of time. The group will eventually choose the bad solutions and come up with the worst ideas. This is planet earth. This is what goes on here everyday, just watch the news. Look at your own country how it handles truth and power. This is what to expect.
Not sure what point you are making. That everyone is crazy so of course Scientology is crazy too? That all organizations always go bad and so organized Scientology did too?
Sorry, doesn’t explain why Scientology got so abusive. “Every group” doesn’t practice disconnection, virtual slavery and abuse. There are a lot of decent organizations that don’t do these things and actually achieve positive things. Not “everyone” descends to these depths.
The Catholic Church has lasted for 2000 years so far. The Sunni and Shia branches of Islam almost as long, Hinduism and Buddhism even longer. These groups are made up of earthlings too, so why did Scientology go off the rails in less than 50 years?
The shocking thing is really how easily the whole thing could be corrected and turned around if an experienced and rational leadership were put in place.
1. Get rid of the top lietenants and OSA.
2. Issue an internal apology, setup a grievance section and make financial reparations.
3. Investigate (i.e. do a post-mortem) to determine how things went off the rails, including getting commentary from former members and critics.
4. Use LRH’s own policies on amending, canceling and writing policies, to amend, cancel and develop policies, as necessary.
5. Update things like the Justice Codes (i.e. SP Acts), prices, etc. and announce broadly.
6. Cancel all SP declares and maybe do an Amnesty.
7. Declare Osama bin Laden, Al Quaeda, the “world’s most wanted” and the KKK as the first post-reform real SPs and SP groups.
At that point, you’ll have fixed Scientology with Scientology, you’ll have at least $500 million in the bank, a bunch of brand new remodeled buildings, a bunch of movie star Scientologists and several hundred thousand people who might just be willing to call themselves Scientologists.
It’ll take some work fixing up the external PR, and getting things really rolling again, but it’s certainly not impossible.
The main problem now is deposing the current regime, and ensuring sane individuals get put in their place. How that could happen, of course, is anyone’s guess.
Jeff,
I don’t see how your reply relates to tunedal’s point.
The fact is that we are on an aberated planet (I mean anyone who hasn’t had a lobotomy or is on psychotropic drugs can see this) and Scientology is not immune to this insanity.
In fact it is currently a churning microcosm of it!
I mean even if Scientology or anyone else had the tech to accomplish total sanity and rationality planet wide it doesn’t mean just because it exists that it will magically happen!
One might ask, given Scientology’s vaunted technology, why it isn’t immune to the insanity around it? And why is it, in fact, more aberrated than the world around it?
Jeff,
You know or should know damn well your “argument” is a straw man and steeped in hyperbole!
Christ are you actually writing that the organization is more aberated than say al Queida or even the CIA ?????
Get real!!!!
I love this:
“…your argument is a straw man…”
“…are you actually writing that the organization is more aberrated than say Al Queida…”
Definition: “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.”
Need I say more?
@Tunedal
My point is this: The abusive environment that exists in organized Scientolgy is a result of us being on planet earth.
You are free to believe this if you must, but it certainly is not a Why. This reasondoesn’t even approach a door to a handling, let alone open one.
Hej Stefan Tunedal!
Jag brukar läsa din Hemsida varje dag och tycker det är bra att du har Lämnat kyrkan. Det är starkt av dej att du står fast vid din övertygelse och inte ger efter för påtryckningar från kyrkan. Du stöter på dom lite då och då har jag läst. Ett av dom senaste tillfällena var det väl Peter Anstrin och Anita, det måste kännas drygt eller besvärande när du mer eller mindre ses som en förrädare i deras ögon. Det vore intressant att få läsa en mera detaljerad redogörelse för vad det har betytt för Kyrkans tillstånd och dess utveckling i Stockholm från du kom in i kyrkan, och upp till dagens datum när David Miscavige håller i trådarna om än på långt avstånd. Från det ena till det andra, jag såg på Facebook att Lisa Anstrin är en av Bo Frykmans vänner. Så vitt jag kommer ihåg så var hon SP-förklarad tillsammans med gamla FSC gänget, sommaren 1989, är hon tillbaka i Kyrkan igen?
Vänlig Hälsning
Peter Söderqvist
Tunedal: My point is this: The abusive environment that exists in organized Scientology is a result of us being on planet earth.
Soderqvist1: What’s the point to leave the church if being abused is the destiny on the planet earth? I am not abused, nor do I think you are either, why aren’t we if that is the condition on the planet earth?
Valkov: Peter, this is the exact opposite of what I said! And of what Hubbard said! And then you ad-hom me based on your reversed (mis)understanding of what I wrote.
Soderqvist1: I didn’t mean that you really believed in such an absurdity. I used the method of reductio ad absurdum to show that you end up with such an absurdity if your premise is inferred through the whole of KSW1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Soderqvist1: KSW1 is based upon two premises!
1 A constructive idea is individual, and 2 a group idea is not!
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1466&Itemid=240
KSW1: In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.
Soderqvist1: what the above amount to is that a group of Scientologists cannot evolve truth, therefore KSW1 command uncompromisingly the point 1 to 10.
KSW1: On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”.
Soderqvist1: A group of Scientologists has only suggested a lot of unworkable technology!
KSW: Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are.
Soderqvist1: but the group of Scientologists are somehow constructive enough for administration, and carry out their duties!
KSW1: Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture.
Soderqvist1: no individual Scientologist has contributed any discoveries in the broad picture!
KSW1: The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea.
Soderqvist1: Isaac Newton is known to have said; “the reason I have seen further than anyone else is that I am standing on the shoulders of Giants!” But in what sense is that any more individual than Jack The Ripper? Or in what sense is burglary a “group idea” but production is not? Since one of them is decent and the other is not!
KSW1: I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The Academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough Instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased.
Soderqvist1: what I am seeing here is an individual student engaged in a strange or bizarre activity but in what sense is this a “group idea”, while Hubbard’s constructive ideas as carried out by others are not, the story doesn’t tell! Any normal human can understand that it will be consequences if you change something, and most companies deliver standard products, and the best in the field improve these products, in example; the Microsoft’s programs, without have the faintest clue about what point 1 to 10 is. Frankly KSW is hogwash, and Hubbard has stolen others intellectual products, and made a fortune from it, and horded said money in foreign bank accounts. Then is there any mystery why the dirty dozen can be seen in the church, when it is founded by a thief who has even instigated harassment upon other contributors, in example the Amprinistics 1965, as Robert Vaughn Young has testified in court in the link I have provided before?
Soderqvist1 wrote: “what the above amount to is that a group of Scientologists cannot evolve truth, therefore KSW1 command uncompromisingly the point 1 to 10.”
Actually, what the above amounts to is that when dealing with the field of Dianetics and Scientology and bringing about spiritual freedom, LRH felt that only about 20 in 100,000 ideas were ones that he considered had “long run value”. That is 1 in 5,000.
Do you realize that what LRH said is that if every American (300 million people) came up with an idea to improve Dianetics or Scientology techniques, that there might actually be nearly 60,000 useful ideas received?
LRH wasn’t saying “no one can improve upon the tech of Scientology”. He is saying: it may not be perfect, but if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And if it IS determined to be broken, don’t allow ‘improvements’ to “alter basic principles and successful applications”.
Further, the Code of a Scientologist requires that Scientologists “stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.”
That the current CoS/RTC has utterly failed at intelligently applying these policies and Codes is evident.
Jeff,
It appears to me that no post of yours has so far cracked the 200 answer mark! Or am I mistaken? Be that as it may, it proves that you have touched a nerve here, and it has resulted in a (mostly) fruitful discussion. Under these circumstances I would suggest to you hold back on you next post (usually I would never suggest that), to see how far things go, given that the interest in a post tends to wane as soon as a new post is uploaded. Keep up the great work.
Yes, great discussion, with a lot of very different viewpoints expressed, sometimes with vehemence! So far over 2300 views and more than 200 comments.
Jeff, the question that arises in my mind, are there, then, two kinds of people?
Are there those who create and shape the barrels, and those who are simply “apples” whose fate it is to be shaped and molded by the barrels they find themselves in?
Personally, I think there are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people and those that don’t.
But seriously, I think we all shape the barrels, and we are all shaped by the barrels.
Snarf, snarf, snorkle…..
Very funny Jeff.
You gotta admit though the second type Ron talks about in that PL pretty much describes the little gnome who claims to be running the place to a T.
Also I’ve met quite a few people who were never shaped by the barrel that surrounded them and were able to rise above it.
BTW what isn’t mentioned much in the Lucifer Effect are those who refused to go along with the program once they saw where it was heading.
RJ, I wonder if you actually read the book. Zimbardo goes into some detail about how different people react to systemic factors. I experienced this myself and have written extensively about it. There were those that became warped by Scientology’s systemic flaws and those who were not. And everything in between. The point of this post is to recognize these toxic systemic flaws and make others aware of them.
Jeff writes: ” The point of this post is to recognize these toxic systemic flaws and make others aware of them.”
This really does need to be done and it does it very well.
I sometimes forget it is not obvious to everyone right off the bat.
Great job focusing attention on these toxic aspects of the organization. You always paint a vivid picture that anyone can understand. I always look forward to your next post!
I think there are three types of people. Those that are good at math and those that aren’t.
Here’s my take on the whole Scientology thing, about as short as I can possibly say it:
L. Ron Hubbard was a very creative, competent person, who was also a narcissist. He believed that he was the chosen one that was going to take mankind to Clear and OT, new states of being, and he believed he could do it. To most people he became considered a con artist, an emperor without clothes, but to a lot of people his charisma and his truly insightful and inspirational writings/teachings made them believe he could deliver Clear and OT. I (being one of them) have kind things to say about the second group, because they believe in the goodness in people and allow themselves to dream of and being able to create a better world (their downfall is that they are too idealistic, too trusting). I have kind words for LRH also, because as narcissistic as he might be, I believe he believed in his own ability to deliver what he promised. But, whenever someone challenged him and brought up this inconvenient thing called reality that did not agree with his perceptions of where he and his creation, Scientology, belonged in the world, his narcissism took over and he became vindictive and ruthless until that source was eliminated.
So he leaves a legacy of very inspirational writings/teachings that could be used by all mankind to improve conditions were they delivered in a free and open forum. And he leaves behind a trail of betrayals and destroyed lives. And he leaves behind the promise of Clear and OT that no matter how much case gain can be gotten from doing all of LRH’s designated Bridge cannot be obtained. In the meantime, the real world set in and even the smartest among us cannot but acknowledge the conundrum of how to combine it all. Instead the world was introduced to DM who’d taken over (via several coups) and we have the current situation.
My “Why” is that LRH over-promised Clear and OT and tried frantically to compensate for it from 51 until the end of his life, because he could not admit it to himself. This leads to opening the door to find other ways to become spiritually free. Open a Church of Scientology that tells the truth about LRH, uses the technology that exist within the current church or elsewhere to relieve pain, bring about understanding etc., whether it was developed by LRH or acknowledged by him (without giving due credit to the creator) to bring about results that improves human conditions.
Margaret: LRH felt that only about 20 in 100,000 ideas were ones that he considered had “long run value”. That is 1 in 5,000.
Soderqvist1: he also said “non were basic or major”!
But he does not tell what the difference is between mere “long run value”, and “basic or major”. Why are these “long run value” contributors not identified, and given proper credit, and acknowledged for what they did?
KSW1: and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.
Soderqvist1: if this is truth which I seriously doubt, L. Ron Hubbard showed poor judgment by accept these suggestions without a period of testing, and qualification! Jack Horner discovered the “repetitive Procedures” and Ron Junior who distanced himself from his father by changing his surname from Hubbard to Dewolf, together with others contributed with TR’s, and objectives, this should qualify as basic, or major, why do L. Ron Hubbard claim that he is the only one?
Alan Walter: Jack Horner a former actor discovered and developed the ‘repetitive process procedures’, it took him 7 years to fully prove out this procedure, testing it over several thousand client hours – millions of dollars were spent by these clients – yet we can teach a person how to do this in a couple of hours.
Hubbard’s son L. Ron Hubbard Jr., developed the forerunner to our Presence drills, these were taken from Buddhist Meditating Exercises that were 2000 years old.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33
Alan Walter: Emma, Nib’s worked for me for several months in 1969. He was a brilliant man. He truly understood the basics of the Tech. But, on the subject of LRH he was psychotic. He had reasons to be. His feud with LRH basically stemmed from LRH trapping him in Scio. Nib’s stated to me all he wanted to do was get some life experience as he had been trapped in Scio., since he was a child. This so enraged LRH that he set about destroying Nib’s life…..Nib’s was tough – he fought back…….LRH never forgave him Quentin poor guy had the same PTP. A tragedy really. Alan
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=112&postcount=9
TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE 1 OF JUNE 28, 1984 – RON DEWOLF
And then you have Jack Horner who taught Advanced Clinical Courses in England, an absolute master and superb teacher. He came up with I believe, the repetitive question. I believe I’m correct in that but he also I think came up with a couple of other very important things that are still used today. He’s certainly out there alive and kicking and doing a good job, so why don’t you ask him.
Let’s take also the TR’s. Gad, I invented about half of them and Dick and Jan Halpern who were assistant course instructors in the Advanced Clinical Courses made quite a heavy contribution in that area. You have also the CCH’s. Dick and Jan and Ken Barrett and I contributed probably better than half of that plus particularly 8C – 8C’s my baby. I came up with that because I got tired of the students not doing what I told them to do and when I told them to do something they had bloody well better have done it. So this was a good way of teaching control.
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/tape-by-L-Ron-Hubbard-jr.htm
Soderqvist1: Jon Attack has probably the most comprehensive documentation about origins, and sources for Dianetics, and Scientology!
Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology by Jon Attack
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html
Peter, My definition for “major or basic” things in Scientology are the Axioms, Factors and Logics. Everything else flows from those. One might also throw in the Auditor’s Code and a handful of other things, but those are more on the applied end. I would consider the specific techniques of auditing and training to be successful applications and not “major or basic” to the subject of Scientology. That’s my personal view at least.
As far as giving others credit on some of the developments of techniques in auditing and training, I completely agree. Credit should be given.
Has anyone noticed DM in the new IAS Mag? He must be looking pretty old these days because every single photo of him in this mag has been airbrushed beyond belief!
And trust me, I know airbrushing when I see it!