Notes on my Decompression

The following was sent to us by Tony. We believe it has value as many are walking or have walked a similar journey

Free desktop images

By Tony DePhillips

Decompression: 1. In general, the removal of pressure.

I’m about 4-5 years into my decompression from corporate Scientology. It has been a somewhat painful experience but very beneficial too. Here are some tips that have been helpful to me. Hopefully they might be helpful to someone else. This article is aimed at people who have been involved in Scientology.

  1. Stay true to your stable datum unless you talk to someone who you consider rational and you decide to let go of it yourself.
  2. Find a reliable source to discuss your beliefs.

I went through a lot of trial and error on this one. Part of the problem is that in corporate Scientology you aren’t really allowed to fully examine and think for yourself about the parts of Scientology. When you get out of that environment the flood gates really bust open and you are deluged with opinions. Not to generalize too much, but I felt it was helpful to categorize the options for help.

  1. a) Blogs. Blogs have been a great source of information & camaraderie for me. I can recall when I first came out I could hardly pull myself away from my computer. I quickly found out that some have value but some can become a blood bath of evaluation and invalidation. I still do feel that a lot of the suppressive personality tech has some workability here. It does no real good to get into long arguments with people about whether this or that is true if they are doing it in a hostile manner. I recommend not getting into it.

  1. b) One on one with individuals that you respect. I have found this to be one of the best methods.
  1. c) Auditing. I find auditing itself is a great way to analyze things and come to your own conclusions. Again here you have to find someone you trust. Ask around and do some research.
  1. d) Reading books on different subjects can be helpful.
  1. e) Make a list of ideas that you have gotten from Scientology and re-analyze them:
  • What is OT? Is this really possible?
  • Does auditing work?
  • Is there a reactive mind?
  • Are people basically good?
  • Does the ARC triangle have any workability?
  • Are all psychologists evil?
  • Does it make sense to shun or disconnect from people if they are hostile to you? Just disagree with you? Don’t like your beliefs? Discuss these ideas with people you consider rational and decide for yourself.

There are many more. Focus on the ones that are important to you.

  1. Beware of Scientology haters.

I define a hater who sees no real value in Scientology tech and actively tries to prevent others from using it. As differentiated from people who are seeking to stop the abuses of corporate Scientology.

These can be found just about anywhere but abound on blogs. Haters can be divided into three main groups.

  • People who have never been in.
  • Ex Scientologists
  • Ex Sea Org members.

I feel the category that deserves special mention are ex Sea Org members because for most public & staff, Sea Org members were Opinion Leaders & were the ones we would turn to for advice & guidance. Some (this is an emphasis on some, not all) ex Sea Org members now seek to belittle everything about the Scientology philosophy and try to make nothing out of it.

Sea Org members were living in very hostile environment and a lot of them got very little sleep and were manipulated, something like a concentration camp or re-education camp.

Some of them were involved in suppressive actions while in and haven’t taken responsibility for those actions committed while under heavy duress.

This makes this category more bitter having had the brunt of the bad treatment within corporate Scientology.

In addition, the tech many of them got was corrupted or not even utilized and/or delivered under duress.

After spending many years of their lives inside and then having the courage to leave, they have now deemed all of it bad. This is understandable. These now dedicated haters of the philosophy are now hell bent on convincing others that their wins and knowledge that they found helpful are now worthless and should be rejected totally.

They had altitude when they were in and you have to make sure you don’t continue granting that to them, now that they have become haters.

Just evaluate the things you got from Scientology and decide for yourself.

Don’t let another person decide for you. If you re-evaluate it and hate it all, then so be it. It is your life. I think it is best for you to make your own decisions.

I’m not talking about ex Sea Org members who don’t want any part of Scientology for themselves. They have the right to decide that. I am talking about the ones who are actively trying to convince one and all that it is all bad and to stay away from the subject all together (as opposed to staying away from Corporate Scientology). I say this being as objective as I can be. There are many ex Sea Org members that are very nice and still grant beingness to others and demonstrate many stellar attributes.

There are many arguments that the haters like to use:

  • LRH was a bad guy.
  • LRH stole all of it from others.
  • Scientology tech is hypnotic.
  • Look at what the organization has done. The tech couldn’t be any good if the group went so crazy.
  • Scientology isn’t integrated and isn’t scientific enough so therefore should be rejected.

These seem to be the main arguments I hear. Here are some of my opinions about those points.

LRH was a bad guy:

LRH very well may have been a bad guy. Let’s say that he was an ogre just for the sake of brevity. If his tech still works to one degree or another is that a reason to throw it all out? Let us say that some Man invented a cure for some disease and it was later found out that he had murdered his wife. Would that be a reason to throw away the vaccine? I don’t think so.

LRH stole all of it from others:

Again, let’s say that LRH stole every bit of the tech from other sources and gave no credit to anyone for their contributions. I would say that this is wrong. I don’t really want to research this as a life time project to determine to what extent this was or wasn’t the case. The point again is, does any of it have any workability to me? I find the answer to that to be YES!

Decide for yourself.

In addition, I give him credit for minimally collecting a lot of this knowledge & putting it in a format for people to understand & use in life.

Some people argue that you could have gotten the same benefit that you got from Scientology from other subjects. This may or may not be true. Only investigation would bear this out.

Scientology tech is hypnotic

Hypnosis :The induction of a state of consciousness in which a person apparently loses the power of voluntary action and is highly responsive to suggestion or direction.

Many public Scientologists (myself included) have for many years fit the above definition of hypnosis. This to me doesn’t mean that the auditing tech created that state of mind. For me, part of the reason I kept my blinders on was because of the successes I had and because of the goals of improving society which I feel desperately needs improvement. There are many people who have believed in an organization’s purpose and have had success within it and subsequently ignored or blindly continued in a group that was guilty of wrong doings. I think that labeling the auditing tech as guilty of hypnotizing people is misleading. This again is a subject that each person can decide for themselves.

If you consider people believing things without inspection to be hypnosis then I am afraid the whole planet is to some degree hypnotized, which may have some degree of truth.

I think a person has the right to believe anything he wants as long as he isn’t hurting anyone.

Many people believe in God and Jesus or Allah or Heaven and I am sure some would think that these people were hypnotized into believing this.

Many mothers and fathers and teachers get their children/students to agree to things that their pupil hasn’t really evaluated for themselves. As people grow they can rethink these things and decide for themselves. As an adult you may decide that it is okay to have your dessert first and skip your veggies.

There are probably many techniques to get someone to lose his power of voluntary action and have his behavior modified. I think the closest that corporate Scientology came to this was the Sea Org with it’s militaristic organization pattern and harsh living environment. Sleep deprivation, food deprivation, continual state of being threatened with ejection into a hard labor camp called the RPF.

The Sea Org members were subjected to much more duress into behavior modification than the public consumers of Scientology. Myself as having been a public consumer of the Scientology philosophy have never felt I was placed in that state of heavy duress with the exception of being under duress during some very bad security checks (confessional interrogations) I received from corporate Scientology. This was duress. I don’t recommend doing any Scientology services (or anything else for that matter) while under duress from anyone.

I think it is a good idea to evaluate information and ideas and to do so without duress. I do agree that in corporate Scientology as well as many other organizations you are fed data and discouraged from sometimes evaluating it freely.

In Scientology if you disagree with certain things you are checked for misunderstood words, false data and even overts (sins) sometimes to get you to fall into line. I guess this could be considered some type of “hypnotism” or “re-education”. My suggestion is to gradually review some of the things that you got from Scientology and look to see in a new unit of time if you believe that idea.

For example I still believe in the ARC triangle. I see that it has workability, I strongly doubt that idea is a hypnotic command.

The idea of past lives is also a belief that I have. I can’t prove it. I have re-evaluated it for myself many times and still feel good about it.

On the other hand, the idea that a person leaving the Sea Org is a degraded being is not real to me. I received information of this from an article LRH wrote and I still don’t believe it.

If you have evaluated data and someone still says you are brainwashed or hypnotized, don‘t get introverted by them. They are probably trying to forward their own agenda.

If you’re happy and successful that’s great. Your beliefs are your own, some things may have slipped in there without you checking them out. Review some of these things until you feel good about your data base. Don’t let someone else try to convince you that you have been hypnotized.

Look at what the organization has done. The tech couldn’t be any good if the group went so crazy

This one is interesting. A good case can be made against corporate Scientology for being a disgraceful group. Sea Org members used and abused, excessive greed, coerced abortions in the Sea Org, ripping the public off for “Ideal Orgs” going nowhere, disconnection tearing up families and the list goes on.

It is a good argument to say that if the tech really worked then surely all of this wouldn’t have happened. In my mind, I break it down like this; the organizational system was an epic FAIL. This to me doesn’t mean that the center-piece of the organization, the auditing technology, was also a failure. If you look at Scientology consumers, there is a decent amount of people who say they have had good or great wins from using some of the tech. There are also many who haven’t liked any of it. This is where I say: “Try it on a gradient if you are interested and see if you like it” or “continue doing it if you enjoy it”. If you run into a point where you don’t like it then just stop there and move onto something else.

Another analogy for this one would be to look at the Catholic Church. They have quite a violent history filled with outright murder. Even corporate Scientology hasn’t got this bad at least not to the degree the Catholics are guilty of. Yet, there are still many happy and practicing Catholics. The Catholic Church is still alive after having rehabilitated itself to a large extent. This too could happen to corporate Scientology.

Funny enough, I don’t consider myself a Scientologist anymore. People are probably getting sick of me saying it. The only reason I bring it up here is that even though I don’t believe in the overall game of Scientology such as OT or handling the whole universe and all that, I do feel that many parts of it are extremely workable. I also feel that it can be used to bring people to higher states of awareness.

It is some of the best tech that I know of for doing so.

I don’t agree with all of it and I haven’t evaluated all of it yet either. I like to apply “If it’s true for you then it’s true.”  (at least for you) Currently I have had probably enough to last me for quite some time. I am just enjoying life now.

I find there are many contradictions in the Scientology philosophy. I feel for most people there is a backlog of un-evaluated data and that takes time to sort out.

Scientology isn’t integrated and isn’t scientific enough so therefore should be rejected

Integrate: combine (one thing) with another so that they become a whole.

I do like the idea of integrating Scientology. I think it’s a good idea for people who use Scientology to read other authors and get other points of view. I think the Scientology philosophy has much to offer other fields of endeavor. I think other fields of endeavor could improve the Scientology philosophy too.

Some seem to say that scientific methodology should be applied to the tech and if it doesn’t stand up then it should be banned or outlawed.

I like the idea of science being applied to the Scientology philosophy. The problem with this is that to some degree I feel that the field of the spirit is senior to science. Science always wants proof, usually physical.

A scientist who is spiritually aware would have a better time evaluating spiritual data in my opinion.

It seems to me that spirituality, love, personal gain and security are subjective and shouldn’t be the subject of “proof” as the only requisite in order to be utilized.

If a person feels good after auditing why should someone else try to make less of it? If a person is upset and experiences relief after some auditing, why should someone try to negate that?

Prayer helps a lot of people. I don’t think it should be attacked. Same thing with meditation.

I really can’t list all of the good things that I got from Scientology. It totally changed my life for the better. I don’t have to prove that to anyone.

I left corporate Scientology for the reason that I could no longer ignore the out points and suppression that I saw coming from that group.

I made Scientology my life purpose. I left and have never looked back. It was the right decision.

As a person who loves truth and have tried to live with the truth, I cannot stand back and lie and say I got nothing from Scientology and that it was all worthless.

I feel for all the people who have left that group after years of dedicated service and purpose. I understand the pain people have experienced and really feel for those who got hurt. Still in all conscience, I cannot agree to the lie that there is nothing good within the philosophy of Scientology.

Good luck to all of you in your search for truth and peace of mind.

I hope this doesn’t come across as too serious. I am a fun loving guy but this subject is very near and dear to me.

246 thoughts on “Notes on my Decompression

  1. Just as a clarification, I by no means mean that all ex Sea Org members fit all of these comments that I have described. I was just trying to point out that SOME ex-Sea Org went through very bitter conditions and this MAY be part of why they are now haters of everything Scientology. As ex members I think we were used to taking directions from Sea Org members and now that we are out of that environment I think a person needs to really evaluate their new sources of trust and information.

    • That’s nice. Considering it has been Marty Rathbun, Karen De, and Mike Rinder out on the front lines making all the sacrifices, taking all the heat, eating the losses, being the targets for the domestic terrorism in this war, and in the face of the suppression. Just to mention a few.

      • I don’t get your point.

        Since you are the one who brings up Marty on this thread then I will add this.
        I like the fact that you feel loyal to Marty and have made it your mission to defend him. I got it.

        Marty was very helpful at the beginning of my journey out of Scientology. I thank him for that.

        He has lost his way now in my opinion. I am entitled to communicate that.
        Mike and Karen and others stick to fighting the cob and corporate abuses and I am all for that.

        Scientology helped me a lot and event though I never met LRH I guess it could be said that he helped me at least indirectly. I never gave an oath to follow LRH blindly even though he helped me.

        I won’t swear allegiance to Marty even though he helped me earlier if he is now doing things I feel are antipathetic to my own beliefs. That is the simplicity of it. Also this post was primarily for those who have left corporate Scientology as a warning to be cautious about who they take advice from so as not to lose their gains. I do think people can be talked into invalidating what they got out of something.

        It’s okay if they decide on their own but don’t set some guru up to tell you what to think about for yourself.

        It’s one thing to be against corporate Scientology but I never signed on to trash everything I did while in. I won’t be a lap dog to those promoting that either.

      • Hi Oracle,
        I wrote what what I did because I liked Tony’s post and I think it will help some people.. I also have a high regard for Marty and the help he has given to wake people up.
        I happen to come from one of those “sleepy” orgs where none of the horrific things that happened in the Sea Org in recent years occured.
        In fact people had amazing gains expecially in the 70’s and early eighties.
        I admire greatly what Mike Rinder and Karen de are doing, I know it takes guts and needs to be done. I hope this clarifies my intention.

      • The Oracle’s point was it has been Ex-SO on the front lines, waking people up from the CoS cult. If it had been left up to the public, nothing would be happening because ex-public tend to leave and stay silent. (With some exceptions) Only thanks to Rathbun, Rinder, Karen, Cook, Scobee, etc… have there been a flood of former members speaking out loudly, publicly and taking the hits for it.

        It’s vital because Ex-SO are the people who really know how the cult works, what’s going on, how the cult manipulates its members, it’s lies and what living in a world run on Scientology is really like.

        They have become OL because they are the only ones who have stood up and taken on the role, most public participate in the blogs, maybe publish a story about their leaving – then go about their lives. The Ex-SO have become fighters to end the abuse and evil of the cult. Time and again they have put their own lives on the line for what they believe in – and that tends to make people listen – they got skin in the game.

      • I agree Sunny that Marty I think more than anyone broke the game wide open. I actually know the ex Sea Org guys who got him reactivated to begin with. It’s all a team effort. None of my points are intended to diminish what some ex Sea Org have done or are doing. It’s only when they start to attack everything about it that I take issue. I am not trying to position myself with mega freedom fighters. I am just communicating my reality about what it going on.

  2. Wow Tony! What an excellent article! I love what you said and you said it so well. Wonderfully well thought article and you make all your points clearly and eloquently. I loved it. I would love to meet you and your wife and shake your hand some day.

  3. I am an ex-Sea Org member. I think that technology should be evaluated for itself.

    LRH’s personality should be kept out of such evaluation. It is not relevant. However, nothing should be taken for granted just because LRH is the “source.” Everything should be examined objectively and critically.

    • “LRH’s personality should be kept out of such evaluation. It is not relevant.”
      Vinaire – I cannot agree with this statement – the personality of any philosopher is always relevant. I can’t see how anybody could come up with a philosophy without their own personality influencing what they think and write. Not just referring to LRH here, I think if people do not practise what they preach or what they hold forth as truth, then they cannot themselves have any faith in it.

      • A person may mouth a valid philosophy that he stole from another, and then not practice it.

        Will that make the earlier valid philosophy now invalid?

        Draco, you are kidding, right? In my mindful observation, a piece of knowledge should be examined for itself. One is applying knowledge and not living the life of the “source.” These two are very different things like apples and oranges.

      • I tend to agree, Draco. It is so true. And can one talk about ethics and insist on its application when not practising good ethics oneself? It becomes, Do as I say but not as I do. So why doesn’t that person practise his own ethics philosophy but expects everyone else to? I must say, I’m then inclined to doubt whatever else this person says, does or advocates.

    • I think knowing his personality is required to surviving scientology and decompressing, scientology is an extension of his personality including his brilliance but also his faults and defense mechanisms.

    • But … if his personality is one of a con man, playing a long con on his trusting, idealistic followers to separate them from their money and hopefully convert them to full time employees/servants … (as many biographers of his have suggested and documented to some degree) … then doesn’t it follow that his personality is extremely relevant? How does the “greatest friend of mankind” let his own wife rot in jail for activities he intended, for example?

      I’m not claiming I know, just questioning your willingness to completely separate LRH from the processes he created.

      • I’m with you on this, Suppressive Tomato.
        And what of the chain locker events prolonged for days, even weeks, bringing terror and humiliation to even very, young children?
        Is such cruelty to be brushed aside? Am I just an LRH basher?

      • What struck me the most about the chain locker events is the knowledge he himself imparted about engrams and the havock they create in people’s lives. And yet he did this, create engrams. Can you even imagine what it was like for the infants, four years, seven years, twelve year olds, being subjected to this?

    • lol, you’re gettin a lot of guff on this one…

      I know what you mean between facts or truths being separate from whoever discovered them, you are right there but I hope you know what I mean as well

      i think it was an alan watts video or ashayanti who said religions are as good or bad as their creators, nothing more and there’s truth to that also

      another thing for me, is the fact that who discovered something doesn’t matter, people shouldn’t need and don’t deserve credit or worship for having discovered something, the thing they discovered existed before them and if they hadn’t discovered it someone else would have

      same goes for copyrights and patents over information, they are childish and selfish

      • thehandling,

        Re: patents and copy rights being childish.

        I think you would have a very different opinion if you spent a lot of time inventing something or writing something that had mass appeal and could make millions of dollars.


      • I’m aware that everyone has a price they will sell out others for but in this case fortunately I’m not that desperate or greedy.

        This way of thinking is old and it’s being disrupted by young entrepreneurs take a look at how much software and hardware is being open sourced by for example foss, Google, Tesla, adaptiva, buglabs, etc.

  4. “I really can’t list all of the good things that I got from Scientology. It totally changed my life for the better.”

    Thank you for a most interesting post. But I must say, what I have quoted above is a something I just do not understand. You are very good at communicating the specifics of what you do and don’t like about corporate $cientology. You are very good at communicating your opinion of critics – even breaking them down into specific categories.

    And yet, when it comes to “all the good things” that you got from $cientology, how it “totally changed your life”, you can’t list ANYTHING at all?

    Sorry, but this seems to be like so many of the “testimonials” by $cientologyistst that are taped and published as part of the Cof$ publicity output. Smiling people gushing on and on about how absolutely, fantastically great their latest course was. But nobody ever seems to get beyond “it was fantastic” or “it was great”. Nobody seems to be able to describe their “win”.

    Is it all THAT elusive? And if so, has anyone ever given any thought to WHY everything seems to be so elusive?

    • Deana, good points made. I agree. There’s much gushing and much elusiveness especially of late.
      Yet, gains are personal and may not even have reality for the next person. Some days I can isolate my gains but on others cannot. Sometimes they gains pop up at moments when I use them in situations; and I can say, yes, that is valuable tech for me. At other times, I may even be scornful of something, like the OT abilities that have been sprouted to me since my entry into Scn and of which I know can see are not so impressive.
      Personally, I will not pursue the OT levels or the Ls, for that matter. However, there is other auditing I could enjoy and to which I may treat myself.
      I am quite disrespectful of LRH and often find myself mumbling under my breadth when I see or hear apparantly wise and caring words, Hypocrit! posing as this Know-It-All with the last word on everything. He rode on the reverence of his audiences, their devotion, adoration, even worship; and played us.
      In spite of this, I overall gained from knowing much of the tech, the tech of life; and I had good auditing and much else. My awareness increased ten fold, my confidence, my certaintly about the things around me, stability, etc, etc. So for that, I say, thank you.
      I can also look around and say, that’s just not true, nor that! I can like things again that Scn taught me not to like, to despise, even. I’ve gotten over my feelings of superiority of the rest of the human race. I don’t have all the answers! I’ve grown and grow more and more in the knowledge that there are an awful lot of people more able and doing better in the life than many a Scientologist. Also, that the major part of the population on planet Earth are not the out-ethics morons that are propagated within Scn and the church. Not at all! To say that I have a new lease on life is a gross understatement and I’m exstatic about it and my future. AND the future of this planet WITHOUT Scientology tech!
      Tony’s article says it all. Make it one’s own personal journey. Listen but look, travel a bit, venture out…. learn and ultimately settle down.
      I don’t call myself a Scientologist any longer either and can still ridge on the word and it’s type of dialogue and Scientologese. I’ll get over it, I daresay.

      • Great comment, Aprilfool. I myself don’t want any more auditing or anything else scientology, but each to his own 🙂 I am so happy to hear you are doing well being out and about and free to decide what you do and don’t accept about the subject.

      • Actually, I don’t want anymore auditing either. I’m done with all that. I’m done with Scn. I’m done with LRH. I have a bad taste in my mouth. I’m sure it will dissipate in time.

    • Deeana,
      Like Tony, I have gotten tremendous gains from applying the tech. That doesn’t mean I will go into detail when discussing them on a public forum. What constitutes a gain or a win for me might seem ho-hum to some, and very impressive to some others. I prefer to keep those discussions on a one-to-one level. I fully understand Tony’s view.

    • Hi Deeana,
      I didn’t make that statement in order to regg you. That is how I feel. I don’t have to throw out a laundry list of wins, it’s my own reality. for those of you who don’t want auditing that’s fine with me. I got some auditing after I left corporate Scn. and enjoyed it very much. When my wife and I read your comment, my wife said ” I don’t even think we would be together now if it wasn’t for what we got from Scientology.”

  5. Here is my summary assessment of Scientology.

    1. Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

    2. Scientology introduces a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

    3. The work on this breakthrough is, however, far from complete.

    4. The success from the application of Scientology is far from consistent.

    5. Any lack of success gets blamed on the practitioner of Scientology.

    6. Unmanageable difficulties seem to exist in the application of Scientology.

    7. Correction lists have become a part of “Standard Scientology.”

    8. A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke.

    9. Mindfulness (seeing things as they are) is the key to successes in Scientology auditing.

    10. Scientology does not seem to put emphasis on Mindfulness.

    11. Scientology takes up aspects of mindfulness on TR0, Obnosis, and Data Series, but it fails to treat mindfulness systematically, and fails to highlight its importance in auditing.

    12. The principles of Mindfulness were first elucidated by Buddha 2600 years ago.

    13. Mindfulness seems to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes.

    14. The principles of Mindfulness are presented under KHTK Mindfulness on my blog.

    15, There\e is an example of application of mindfulness to Scientology processes – “Running Scientology Grade 0 with Mindfulness (Part 1)”

    16. There is also a closer look at Scientology Auditing on my blog..

  6. This post really resonates with me. I also feel there is a great amount of workability in the tech. When I first came across all the negative information my foundation shook and I had to decide for myself whether I wanted to continue with scientology. When I have applied the tech I’ve benefited, its as simple as that. I’d like to know if there are any groups or independent auditors in Capetown who are auditing and applying the tech outside the CoS.

  7. Very helpful article. I’m not consciously decompressing but it happens. Arnie has an interesting article about it here.

    You’ve hit on a few of these steps.

    Sometimes I wish I could actually discuss Scientology objectively with Scientologists but it’s not possible, I’m glad ex scientologists have the freedom to do that.

    Question, how can you use arc to resolve disagreements, is that possible?

    I can use it to raise arc if i talk about things people like or agree with but that usually happens naturally if you let it and it’s not really what we need help with.

    • I love the link, thehandling! I’ve saved it and will at leisure explore all it’s articles. I see some that hold interest for me and others which brought on a guffaw.
      I love the fact that we’ve evolved to the extent that we can look at things outside of our box of thought as Scnientologists!

      8 Steps out of Scientology –

    • I don’t know about the type of disagreement you might be having. If it’s a personal upset, my wife and I have sometimes stopped taking about what we disagree about and started talking about what we agree on. Bring the ARC up and also make sure we are well rested then try it again on the points that we don’t agree on. Also try not to invalidate and evaluate the other person while discussing. Just some of the things we might do.

      • We do the same here, nothing specific comes to mind, I don’t think the subject matters because agreement can be based on opinion.

        It would be nice if there was some tech that addresses solving disagreements, agreements don’t really need handling.

        Getting people who think differently to get along without using enforcement would be more useful.

      • This may seem off-topic, but I recommend a book titled “How to Improve Your Marriage Without Talking About It” by Patricia Love and Steven Stosni. It is primarily about male-female differences of communication in close relatibnships, but I found it has applicability to life in general.

      • What I meant is that if you increase agreement (reality) then the affinity will go up and communication will increase and the chances of agreeing more go up. Or find some part of the disagreement that you both can agree with. Break it into parts if possible. Usually when my wife and I get pissed off at each other it’s the lowered affinity that gets in the way. When we increase the agreement or if I just inject some affinity then it really helps. I have been married for 21 years and still going strong.

      • I have a permanent disagreement with someone very close to me; two actually. We each have our own strong feeling about out personal viewpoints and never the twain shall meet.
        We’ve agreed to disagree and our relationship has gone from strength to strength because of this.
        I know this is not pertinent to this arguement. If you need someone to have a modicum of agreement with you for survive purposes, then what?

      • I just read martys post false data stripping, that’s one way Hubbard deals with disagreements.

        Agree to disagree works too if the other pression is willing to let go

        That breaking down points to agree on sometimes works

  8. Great article, and clarifies a lot of things for me. In my own ‘decompression’ I have said many different things, including some of the ones I see you categorise as ‘hating’. That has really been me finding my own mind on some of these topics. My own process of evaluating data has consisted of wild swings from one extreme (frankly just enjoying the freedom to think and verbalise such ‘heretic’ ideas at all) to the other until finally settling pretty much where you are. Every word you say reflects my own thinking today – well done for going to the trouble of cataloguing it all for us.

    • Hi Sean,
      I went through a lot of that too. It really doesn’t matter what others thing about anything. For me it’s totally cool for someone to blow off anger or whatever while they are re-evaluating things.
      What matters is how YOU feel about things. Just realizing that there is a backlog of ideas that need to be analyzed is a good thing in my opinion.
      Thanks for your comment.

  9. What I have discovered about $cientology, is that there is some truth within the subject. Unfortunately, plenty of lies too. As you point out in your article – contradictions.The ability to separate the two is the difference between those who have moved through and beyond $cientology and those still believing.
    Now, people lie to avoid the consequences of telling the truth and Hubbard was fond of saying that people who are lying to you are trying to control you. Was Hubbard trying to control us when he told lies?
    This is a question that everyone needs to answer.Honestly answer.

    • Very, very good point, Old Timer. I would say he was trying to control us. His wealth depended on it.
      In spite of himself and his arrogance, he let out plenty of truth about himself (he was a bragger) but we were too smitten to see.

  10. I feel since this blogs inception I have gotten to know you Tony. You are a star communicator. Your style oozes a sense fun while expressing things that could be seen as being very bleak!

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is much appreciated!

  11. I am an ex sea org member and worked on the ship with LRH. We had rough times but also very special times especially when LRH gave a talk. I virtually saw the world and met many very special people and would not have missed it for the world. Scientology is a step to a greater understanding of spirituality and that is absolutely wonderful. The problem with the world today is materialism. Spirituality has been thrown out the backdoor by the establishment including the politicians, the press, “modern scientists” educationists and more.
    However I am very anti David Miscavage and what he is doing. Instead of giving services he is asking for donations and ideal orgs and that type of rubbish. This was not LRH intention. He has gone the way of the materialists and will inevitably destroy the movement which will also affect the independents.
    But I also reserve the right to move on and familiarise myself with other similar disciplines.

  12. I am an X Sea Org Member and I think using the word “Scientology” to assess how people should or shouldn’t feel about it, is a leap into the unknown. “Scientology” is not the same for all people. It is not like using the word “water”.

    A Mission public, a mission staff member, an Org public, and Org staff member, F.S.O. Public, A.O.L.A. public, A.S.H.O. public, Freewinds staff, RTC staff, etc etc, they are all talking about something different when they use the word “Scientology”. The experience has been different for all of these people.

    I have been in Missions and Orgs as staff and public and traveled around to a lot of different countries and spoken to Scientologists from all over the world. Thousands of them. “Scientology” is different everywhere and in every location and in every culture. Being a public in a mission is nothing like being a public at the F.S.O.. Although very group flies under the same banner, “Scientology”, they are all very different.

    I can’t assume what someone is talking about when they say “Scientology” and define their feelings about it. There are even people that have never been on a service, and can “sum it all up” with complete confidence for everyone. Go figure!

    At this stage, I doubt two people have even had the exact same wins. People are more unique and complicated than that.

    I have met plenty of people in the last ten years that profess to be “100% standard tech” and they all practice differently. I had to bring four people to house to get someone on OT2 and the last one finally went through the effort to do a clear a check before just handing the guy the materials, drilling for a few hours and skipping town.

    We think we all know what the other people are doing and thinking because we share a vocabulary and an interest. We do not.

    I am very glad Tony has had wins and wants to share those. I too have had wins and I do not apologize about it or myself for knowing what I know.

    On the other hand I have plenty of people that describe themselves as Scientologists and talk a good game, and it is clear when they are close and personal they can not think with any part of it.

    The entire time I was involved with Scientology I never turned against someone because of their views about it. Because I truly feel that PEOPLE are what matters.

    I know we were taught in Scientology that if someone was not with the program they were a total liability, an enemy, and should be “discarded” or “fair gamed”. I have never met another human being worthy of being “discarded”. And I have never turned on someone because of “Scientology” whatever it is in whatever city.

    “Scientology” may be around for another 50 years, it may not. I will still be here. I will have to live with myself. A person still matters whether they are agree with Scientology or not. Who I am as a friend to someone, is more important to me than who I am as someone that explored Scientology.

    I go back a lot a further than Scientology, I am a lot older than Scientology, and I will live a lot longer than Scientology. I see myself as being bigger than Scientology. And I feel that other people are too. Sorry if that disturbs anyone here.

    No matter what your position or view on all of this theater, I think everyone’s view counts. And I do not have any desire to discount other people or their value, because of how they see Scientology, or the people in it. or out of it. Everyone was someone before they got involved with Scientology. They mattered then and they matter now.

    If we want the world to be a better place, we start with Our Selves being better people because we CAN, with or with out assistance or guidance or permission from others.

    Hubbard himself said a person’s wealth is measured by his friends. So every time you mock someone up as your enemy, you have just had a set back.

    I personally see one major personality as a reason for much of the discontent. I am not going to inherit enemies or become an enemy to further his agenda. Besides him I can count the people that have really come on strong as my enemy on one hand. The rest of us are just pretty good people, no matter what the views of Scientology are. Haters are created just as easy as friends.

    The Church made haters, the Church made friends. That is a separate entity with a different boss.

    Peace Tony. XXOO

    Love, T.O.

    • “The Church made haters, the Church made friends. That is a separate entity with a different boss.”

      You may want to study $cientology more thoroughly. Hubbard made heaps of people his enemies. AMA, APA, newspaper men, journalists with anti-scientology stances, Big Pharm, the list is huge.
      To-day, the church and its followers are all doing a life continuum on Hubbard, making his enemies theirs and using Hubbards methods to deal with them too, aka fair game.
      The church will be your friend only as long as you yield a pitchfork at its self-made enemies and as an ex Sea Aaargh Member, you know this all to well.

      • Why would I need to study Scientology more thoroughly? You just agree with what I said. What did I write that indicates I am uneducated? What did I write that was not true? No, I did not list out every enemy or friend. That does not mean I am uneducated.

      • One must study the vocabulary of Scientology in a wider context to free oneself from its hypnotic influence.

        From “The Nature of Hypnotism”

        “Hypnotic associations are not integrated within the person’s ‘definitions-logic’ matrix. They are compartmentalized in the mind. They appear to be rational within that compartment and so they persist. Inability to break through such compartmentalization keeps the hypnotic influence in place. The remedy is to look at one’s thinking process in a wider context.

        Hypnotism may be resolved by examining one’s considerations, beliefs, and conclusions in a wider context with mindfulness.


      • Oracle, On the contrary, I find you very educated in all things Scientology. I love your high level of courage and integrity and how you stick up for people who are unjustly being set upon on some of the blogs when vigil anti activities spark and burst into flame. You are the voice of reason and intelligence and sanity. I enjoy reading your comments and hope you continue. I am a fan.

      • I have said it many times old timer, I was asked to inherit a lot enemies when I began in Scientology. I decided I did not want to inherit Hubbard’s friends or enemies. It seemed like a “hidden cost”.

        Whenever you inherit one of their enemies, they are asking you to go south into an “enemy condition”.

        On one hand they preach about being in high conditions and on the other they push people down into lower conditions.

        The truth is you have to be pretty bright and belligerent to take your gains and keep them. You are set for wins and losses. And all sorts of mental games.

        Just looking at this thread with a “Scientology mind”, I would say there are items that should be on Tony’s list that are ommitted.

        The ” Scientology Haters” list reads:

        People who have never been in.
        Ex Scientologists
        Ex Sea Org members.

        That is a pretty short list and my item isn’t on that list.

        I think David Miscavige is a Scientology Hater.

        I also thing anyone in the organization who has been groomed to hate, such as Sea Org Members, just to name one group, is a “Scientology Hater”. They hate wogs, they hate anyone that has left the Sea Org, they hate anyone that practices any sort of competitive therapy, they hate any law enforcement people that make inquiries, They hate anyone that gets pregnant and chooses not to to become a serial killer via abortion, I could go on and on but you get my point.

        The haters are not just on this side on the coin and the ‘Scientology haters” list could be extended single spaced across a legal pad. Hell, Hubbards X wife could be on it.

        That said, it is of my opinion that Marty Rathbun is not a “Hater” of Scientology and I just need to say it. Because his recent post prompted this protest read. If he didn’t sincerely love people, he would not take the time to open up communications lines, stand on the front lines and take the hottest heat, pressure and losses, he would not have spent 30 years working hard 80 + hours a week to help others, he would not have opened up Scientology into Independent practice so that people could actually practice out here without having OSA goons parked outside their front door , he would not have helped so many people as a counselor, he would not have safe pointed Scientology in Germany, he would not have helped people escape from the Int Base, he would not have gone on national television to expose the truth. I do not think of him as being “X Sea Org”, I do not think of him as being a “Scientology hater”, I think of him as being a good friend, an honest man, a courageous man, with out hidden agendas. If it were not for all of the heat he has taken, I would not have been able to do any Scientology and there would not be several centers open for business right now. He has never said anything on his blog that Hubbard hasn’t said himself. Anyone that has ever gone clear, I would think, would be able to realize with a quick walk around the block, that people are under influences they are not totally aware of. This is why I say, I doubt at this point in time, any two people in Scientology have even had the exact same wins.

        It seems to me some kind of comm ev has taken form and findings and recs have been published. And just like every comm ev I ever saw happen within a Scientology arena, it comes up devoid of 99% of the real facts.

        I hate injustice. That is what I hate. And I never once contributed to a “justice” cycle in Scientology. And I never will. Justice avenues were already established in this world. The idea that you can not comply with the demands of civil law or seek justice just because someone is a customer at the Church, and this is in the ethics book, was a red flag for me. The phone lines were rigged at the F.S.O. so that if you dialed 911, you got the base security chief!

        Scientology justice for me will be the day I see Miscavige standing in a courtroom.

      • Beyond that, Scientologists have the shortest term memory of any peoples I have ever known. They are willing to forget all of the good a person has done a week or a month later or with the issue of a golden rod.

        I am beginning to think they are hypnotized and programmed to shut down at Thursday at 2:00. Total memory swipe.

      • Would Milestone ll even have a web sire or a group?
        Would Jim and Lana even have hooked up?
        Would Tom Martaniano and Jim Logan be out here in the open? Or Lana?
        Would there be an A.O. in Israel?
        Would all of these Independent auditors even be out here practicing?
        Would there even be a platform out here for us to have these conversation?

        Is this the “undue influence” on people we hope to prevent?

        Everyone. Carry on.

        He said something that is “politically incorrect” , even thought it perfectly aligns with Hubbard has been saying for decades, and now he has an S.P. declare floating around on the net by a few different people.

        This is what sets people up losses with the Scientology experience. Not Marty Rathbun.

      • Well Marty didn’t just help people that are Scientologists. He helped everyone, right up to the German Government. He helped people of good will, no matter what side of the fence they are on. Five homeless or about to be homeless people that were just posters on his blog used the resources on his blog to reinvent themselves into brand new lives. (Then fair gamed him as an S.P.) He personally helped anyone that knocked on his door seeking help, who was a person of good will.

        He is not an evil person and he is not subverting society, blowing people off the bridge, stopping people from going clear, or any of the other malarkey and third party lies being spread on the Internet.

        For these people out here that claim to be Scientology experts, I would like to know what part of a doubt formula they did that expanded beyond viscous back lines KR’s, false reports, fair gaming, natter, and third party.

        He is a good man of good will. That is all he has ever been. For Christ’s sake he is someone’s husband and someone’s father. He was someone’s son and he is someone’s friend.

        I don’t know what all people get keyed into when they begin to explore Scientology, but everyone in this game ends up being an S.P. in the end. There is really someone thing wrong with this picture. What is REAL to me is that Scientologists or anyone that explores it somehow can not “HAVE” a person of good will.

        If they could, the whole activity wouldn’t be monitored right now by a sociopath and his PTS soldiers.

        Sorry, it is what it is. I don’t blame a dead man for any of it. I read everything Hubbard had to write, I didn’t abuse people. The majority of us out have no history of abuse. So why all of this power shifted to a mad man and police force?

        That is exactly what we could have.

        Keeping it real.

      • Hubbard was brilliant with his discoveries into the supernatural, and with his studies with psychometric. Way ahead of his time. I am not wistful or ARCXen with any part of my life related to Scientology travels.

        But Hubbard was not a benevolent King.

        Have you seen what happens to benevolent people in Scientology? They get run over and fair gamed by thugs.

        I could make a list of Scientologists of Scientologists including Sea Org Members that were benevolent people.

        They all got shredded by David’s Messenger Organization.

        Benevolent people get trashed off as “theetie wheetie” “reasonable” “wobbly” and a host of other labels.

        That is why this entire business is run one way or another with macho thugs in Pimp valances. They rally wars.

        When Scientologists want a benevolent King, they will get one. Name, want, get.

        For the time being, everyone benevolent in this theater gets used, chewed up, spit out, and tossed under the bus.

        Until people can rise above this cultural obligation, the rest is a mute point anyway isn’t it?

    • Great comment, Oracle! I have never seen that put so clearly – how scientology is different things to different people! I know I certainly declared to all who would listen that scn was great… I was still on my comm course and really knew nothing more than that! 😀 Excellent point.

      • I love your comment, The Oracle, about Marty. I like the man, too; and admire him a great deal. And all you say about him and the situation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for saying it.

      • Wow Oracle, I loved your defense of Marty. It is true that so much of what is out here and good started with Marty. He has helped a lot of people. And just because he has evolved and changed his viewpoint in either direction, is no reason to lynch him and hang him. And your observations about the RCS and the evil valence it is in is spot on too. I too have seen decent, good people get smashed and obliterated in the church while the thugs and pimps rise to power. Just will be served the day David Miscavige does the perp walk in orange.

    • Nice comment Oracle.
      I understand what you are saying. My only beef with people that I consider “haters” is that they may have undue influence on some Scientologists who have left and it could end up with them invalidating the wins they had using Scientology and they should be careful not to do that. I started to buy into some of the ideas and I could actually feel mass building up with in me. After I spotted the reason I had a huge blowdown and relief and increase in tome level. Hey, what can I say some of this stuff works!! Lol. Also it is the ARC triangle in action, if someone is communicating things that are not real to me then my affinity will drop, it’s a natural consequence. I didn’t write this article as some sort of oath to Scientology. A person can take it or leave it. Again, I don’t buy into the whole game of Scientology. I’m not even a Scientologist. I just know that some really good stuff happens when I use some of the tech. That is all. I will never lie to myself and say that it didn’t.

      • “if someone is communicating things that are not real to me then my affinity will drop, it’s a natural consequence.”

        The solution in this situation is to get into a Mindful Discussion. This way you don’t upset yourself.


      • Hi Oracle,
        To expand on what you are saying above. I don’t think any “comm ev took place”.
        This is my essay and opinion and I guess I am entitled to say what I want.
        I think Marty did an excellent job of doing some of the things that you mention.
        Currently his comments on auditing being like hypnotism seem to me to be countering everything he has fought for. His invalidating auditing could act as a wrong indication to others and their wins. Does that count for anything to you?
        I would be interested in finding out if Marty currently is happy that he created religious freedom for Scientology? Probably that answer would be no.
        I’m not sure really if religious freedom is good for Scientology or not. I don’t like seeing the cult hide behind religious freedom.
        Marty was helping auditors at first, I really don’t know if he would do so now.
        People change. I see Marty having changed for the worse personally.
        Maybe I am totally off base. I just call them the way I see them.

      • Tony, I didn’t see him invalidating anyone’s wins. I didn’t see him invalidating auditing. He bought up the subject of Hypnotism, so did Hubbard. If you are to believe Hubbard per S.O.S. going by the column “hypnotic level” everyone below 2.0 can be hypnotized. Hubbard said it! Do you think every P.C. who walks in an Org is above 2.0? What does that tell you? It doesn’t mean the person isn’t hypnotized by auditing, it means they are hypnotized by everything. I have no idea what you experienced going clear, for me it was a “wake up”.

        Marty says he would recommend Scientology to anyone.

        How many green people have you put on lines in the last ten years? Any of you here?

        I have put three and one of them is solo auditing.

        I was very careful to be in a position to monitor these bridges. In spite of some very bad recommendations for tech terminals it worked out O.K..

        I have not sent in anyone in to an Org. Have you? Can you recommend it to anyone if you are not going to babysit them considering the con men in this game?

        These questions and comments sound to me like a public comm ev with the accused not in attendance:

        Charge: “Currently his comments on auditing being like hypnotism seem to me to be countering everything he has fought for.”

        Me: He has always fought for the truth.

        Charge: “His invalidating auditing could act as a wrong indication to others and their wins.”

        Me: I have not seen him invalidate anyone’s auditing.

        Inquiry: Does that count for anything to you?

        Me: It counts that you don’t seem to get what Hubbard or Marty are saying about hypnotism, and you seem to find it offensive. I happen to find it to be true.

        Me: It counts to me that he isn’t afraid to have people notice things they haven’t looked at before. He isn’t the first person in Scientology to point out inconvenient truths.

        Inquiry: I would be interested in finding out if Marty currently is happy that he created religious freedom for Scientology?

        Me: If you are so interested why don’t you fly down and have a visit?

        Findings: I’m not sure really if religious freedom is good for Scientology or not. I don’t like seeing the cult hide behind religious freedom.

        Me: That is a personal thing. Frankly it doesn’t bother me a bit . I have a problem with the criminality and abuse and domestic terrorism.

        Findings: Marty was helping auditors at first, I really don’t know if he would do so now.
        People change.

        Me: Well he isn’t a public servant. Frankly I don’t understand how he came back into this madness and spent another five years still trying to help people for the most part, on his own time and his own dime. He isn’t a public servant and he doesn’t never owed his help. He isn’t an entertainer and he doesn’t owe fans. He didn’t set up a tribe and try to herd people one way or another.

        Findings: I see Marty having changed for the worse personally.

        Me: I think that is publicly invalidating his wins and gains in Scientology.

        He is self governed, self determined, and in the moment.

        I don’t see how invalidating every one of the Church’s products has helped the Church or Scientologists in the long run.

        If he doesn’t fit into some mold or standard or fixed idea some people get so disappointed.

        He is his own man and he has a right to live out loud. Not condemned to live under a rock “for the sake of every man woman and child on this planet”. If that is what the Church expects, and I know it does, under David Miscavige, maybe the place should close up.

      • I don’t think it is necessary to buy into everything someone has to say. I’ve read things on Marty’s blog that were not true for me or not interesting for me or were above my head because I do not share the same education. But I could see other people enjoyed having the conversation or it was true for them or an item for them. I mean, his blog does not revolve around my ass or my opinions. Or my case. I don’t think he can do that for everyone.

        But this is not the first time you have complained about the content of his blog Tony.

        You loved it when it was a current events type of blog. You did not like it when he changed the menu. Now it downright angers you that expected pasta fagioli and got served sushi.

      • Hi Oracle,
        Your comments are getting too long and I really don’t think this is the place to get into all this.

        What Marty said or didn’t say really isn’t the point. Re-read my article. You seem to be more upset about it than Marty is.

        Take a deep breath.

        If Marty doesn’t like it I’m sure he can come here and defend himself. He probably would just be saying that I’m acting like a “true believer” and/or as a “hypnotized Scientologist”.

      • Tony wrote:

        “I understand what you are saying. My only beef with people that I consider “haters” is that they may have undue influence on some Scientologists who have left and it could end up with them invalidating the wins they had using Scientology and they should be careful not to do that.

        I still have every win that I ever created for myself using Scientology during my 16 years in.

        Leaving Scientology totally behind, and seeing it for the spiritual deception that it is, does not get rid of your wins.

        I understand that you might fear this Tony, for yourself and for others, but your fear is not warranted.

        Also, the practice of examining exactly what is the truth in Scn and exactly what is a deception is a spiritual process in itself and this spiritual process produces a lof of wins, too.

        You expressed yourself well and clearly in your article, Tony, and I understand why you are saying what you are saying.

        But no one loses their real wins from Scientology. Ever. No matter what they think or who they talk to after leaving the Church.

        A person is on a very long spiritual path that was begun way before they came into contact with L Ron Hubbard, and they will be on their own path for a very long time after leaving Scientology totally behind, too. You path is your path. Your wins are totally your own.

        No one can take your wins away from you.


      • Tony, in all fairness, you told me you considered me a friend and would take this up with me back channel. I reached out to you right away. You responded to two emails and did not write back after that. Then you started it up over here and I followed. Now you are dismissing me and suggesting that I am in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is the right place and the right time for you to speak of Marty, but not me.

        Not like I have to fix this. I thought this one of the benefits we wanted to keep from our experiences in Scientology though. More communication, using ARC to repair comm lines and build bridges. Keeping true to justice. Taking responsibility for others. Now I am the one who is wrongly thinking with my gains from Scientology.

        And this is how it goes. And this is how it will always go until people get through purpose clearing on L12.

        Scientology is carried and used by purposes. If it is a person’s purpose to harm someone else, they will use Scientology for that. If it is a person’s purpose to dominate others, own tribes, lead groups, booby trap systems, heal people, fix civilization, whatever it is, they will use the Scientology for that.

        That is why I say, it is not the same experience for all people.

        That said, I wish you nothing but joy and happiness .

      • Hi Oracle,
        I responded to every email you sent me. I mentioned general terminals here in my essay for people to fill in the blanks as they chose. You brought up Marty specifically, so I responded. I think I am as clear on it as I can be. You are very clear too.
        I like you and I like Marty in many ways. I don’t like what he is currently doing.
        I guess we can agree to disagree as I talked about with another commenter above.

      • Hi Alonzo.

        I disagree with you that people can’t lose their wins.

        People can have their wins invalidated and then they can agree with that invalidation. Ultimately it is the person who invalidates their own wins but this can be sped along by someone else.

        Just as you seem to fear others retaining some of the things they liked in Scientology, I want to help people retain those things if possible.

        Examining the Scientology philosophy is capable of creating wins as I have experienced. We agree on this one.

        Beware of people that are very dedicated to proving all things Scientology wrong.

      • Tony wrote:

        People can have their wins invalidated and then they can agree with that invalidation. Ultimately it is the person who invalidates their own wins but this can be sped along by someone else.

        Just as you seem to fear others retaining some of the things they liked in Scientology, I want to help people retain those things if possible.

        Examining the Scientology philosophy is capable of creating wins as I have experienced. We agree on this one”.

        If we agree that Scientology philosophy is capable of creating wins, then how could I “fear” others “retaining some of the things they liked in Scientology?”

        I do not fear anyone retaining any wins from Scientology.

        I fear that people will damage their lives, and others, with Scientology, as there are so many invitations in Scientology to do so, and as so many people have done. I specifically warn against the beliefs in Scientology that can become harmful to people.

        That’s what I specifically argue against in Scientology.

        You wrote:

        Beware of people that are very dedicated to proving all things Scientology wrong.

        I know that the hardest thing for a person to duplicate is an argument which disagrees with one’s own. I think this is one time where you have fallen into that trap, Tony.

        No one that I know is dedicated to proving all things Scientology wrong.

        Certainly I am not.

        Can you make a more specific representation of the exact argument that you want to warn Scientologists not to listen to – the one that will make them lose all their wins?


      • Tony wrote:

        “Alonzo your arguments have grown tiresome to me. I won’t get drawn into your game of death by a thousand cuts.”

        All right.

        Just remember that no one ever loses their wins from Scientology.


    • Beyond that, Scientologists have the shortest term memory of any peoples I have ever known. They are willing to forget all of the good a person has done a week or a month later or with the issue of a golden rod.

      I am beginning to think they are hypnotized and programmed to shut down at Thursday at 2:00. Total memory swipe.

    • Yet, when we speak, we do so with one voice. We say what we’ve heard others say or what’s been in the promo and marketing. I’ve seen this over many decades. We became sheep.

  13. “All men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others”.

    I actually believe this.

  14. I think its worth noting part of the decompression process is differentiating between “subjective” and “objective.” Inside the bubble these two concepts are often blurred, possibly reversed. It is my opinion that auditing is completely a subjective experience. However, since reality is based on agreement, inside the bubble these experiences are often considered objective.

    Many of the “truths” held by Scnists that appear to be valid inside the bubble, may not be in the real world. This may explain why individuals possessing the “secrets of the universe” are unable to leverage this powerful knowledge to succeed in the real world. And why the church has for decades a continuous stream of seminars by “experts” on how to apply LRH tech in the real world. From my observation, attendees at these seminars are not brand new people, but the same people over and over, relentlessly trying to find a way to use this data to increase their own survival.

    This inevitably leads one to question whether these stable data are true at all. That is something each individual will have to determine.

    • I find people get different things from the Scientology philosophy. I think all the blah, blah, blah about making money with it is over the top and not in good taste to a large degree. I recall how the RCS used to insinuate that if you di the L’s your money flows would bust wide open. I rarely saw this happen, in fact I saw just the opposite happen a few times. Despite all the losses I did see, I won’t invalidate the peace of mind and happiness I have received from some of my auditing and training. Corporate Scientology is bad, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. The leader of the Radical Church of Scientology is a suppressive as far as I am concerned and he corrupts the organization from the top down. I also agree that many things LRH said makes it hard for anyone to ever rehabilitate the subject as a group. That is why I really like the idea of individuals using the tech in the ways that they see best.

      • I agree Tony. I spent 30 years in the church and have had my share of wins and gains. Two moments stand out as truly profound, rocked me to the core. But, somewhere along the line the scales tipped, and being part of that group was more trouble than it was worth.
        I also think there comes a time when each of us has to grow up as a being and stand on our own two-thetan feet. For most of us, that coincides with leaving RCS.
        I say, take what works for you…wherever you may find it.

  15. “For example I still believe in the ARC triangle. I see that it has workability, I strongly doubt that idea is a hypnotic command.”

    I think one should closely examine “reality is agreement” definition. It is by gradual agreement that thought modification is induced..

  16. “I like the idea of science being applied to the Scientology philosophy. The problem with this is that to some degree I feel that the field of the spirit is senior to science. Science always wants proof, usually physical.

    “A scientist who is spiritually aware would have a better time evaluating spiritual data in my opinion.”

    The activity in the field of spirituality, that is parallel to the scientific method, is MINDFULNESS.

    Mindfulness provides the discipline for looking and contemplation. The core of mindfulness may be described as follows:

    1. Observe without getting influenced by your expectations and desire for answers.
    2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
    3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
    4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
    5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
    6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
    7. Experience fully what is there.
    8. Do not suppress anything.
    9. Associate data freely.
    10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
    11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
    12. Let it all be effortless.

  17. Thanks Tony for an excellent and objective write up.
    I left the church over a year ago. I had been looking to quit for a long time, I was disillusioned with auditing and felt I had to drag myself reluctantly into the course room each week just because it was easier than what I thought would happen if I just said I wasn’t doing it any more. Then events took a turn for the much worse and finally the straw to break the camel’s back hit me.
    It is a real relief to be able to give an appropriate response to the endless phone calls about events, to see my credit card debt and mortgage going down rather than up, and to finally have my eyes open to the scams perpetrated in the name of making money, not making the stated products of Scn.
    There is some good to be had in the subject, much of it is subjective but for me it is not something I want any more to do with.

    • Hi Gimpy,
      When I resigned from that crazy organization it was a great relief and then when I got declared an SP and all the mailings and calls stopped it was awesome. My wife and I have since paid off our house and things are good financially. I am not doing anything currently. No training or even reading about Scientology. I had some auditing from two different people and it was good. I also did something where I would just sit on a chair and think about things until my space got quiet. I “created” that . Lol. There are lots of things to help a person, just don’t lose the things that you got from the Scientology philosophy. I always knew I got a lot from Scientology. When I first got in I said to myself ” I will keep paying as long as I feel that it’s worth it” and I went for over 30 years. Truth be told I think I should have bailed the moment I went to Flag. That would have cut off about 10 years and my bank account would have been saved a lot of pain and suffering.

      Anyways….glad you made it.

      • Thanks Tony,

        You are right there are lots of things which help in Scientology, many of which I probably still use without really thinking about it.

        I never went to Flag, one visit to the ship was enough to convince me I didn’t want to – each point on the routing form seemed to involve someone asking for more money or trying to sign me up for a life time of service on board.

      • Tony, I’m glad to see an ex-Scn flourishing and prospering and actively creating their life as you are. That is truly the best antidote to suppression.

  18. Really good article, Tony. Just one thing I would like to bring up here.

    I agree that people should believe whatever they want to believe as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. And there lies the problem. Scn is presented as an applied philosophy. In other words – you practise what you preach – on yourself and on OTHERS.

    This seems harmless enough. You like certain processes, have had wins on them and would like to audit others so that they can also have wins. Unfortunately, there are too many people who don’t really GET that they are dealing in someone else’s mind here, and things can go wrong. People have been known to have psychotic breaks during auditing. Does the newly independent auditor even think about this? Does he have a plan B in place IF this should occur to his PC? In scn, people are taught “the way out is the way through” – this does not always turn out to be true. Lisa McPherson is a tragic example of SO members and trained tech people who watched her waste away and die if thirst, rather than get real help for her. People have died on the Purif from the same rationale when headaches or anything “turns on” during the process. Back into the sauna until that blinding headache from high blood pressure turns off!

    My point here is believe what you like, but when you start messing with someone else’s mind – anything could happen. And I fear that most would have no idea how to fix it.

    There are lots of ways to help people without scrambling around in their minds.

    • I think making helping people dangerous is wrong.

      There is a difference between asking questions and listening and keeping someone hostage and all of the madness that went along with the LM case. People should have a good idea what they are doing. I have used book 1 on people and never had anyone have a psychotic break. I think if someone is very unstable you should be very light with them and if you are unsure about helping them then maybe pass on it.

      • I am not saying helping people is wrong. I am saying that one needs to be very careful when messing with someone else’s mind. If one wants to mess with their own mind – fair enough.

      • Hi Draco,
        I really don’t think asking people questions and listening to their answers very dangerous. If you push people beyond what they want and harass them mentally that is a totally different issue. I think that would be wrong.
        I really don’t think amateurs should try to mess with people with severe mental issues. Leave that type of person to trained professionals with experience and results.

        I’m sure most people have seen the patient that commits suicide even being treated by a “trained” psychologist. I’m not really sure if anyone is so good that they will never have a person end up having a bad reaction.

        I think most people can be helped relatively easy.

        While I was working one day I ran into a person I knew from work at a hospital. This guy was VERY upset and confused and crying about his lover who was in the hospital injured. I wanted to do something to help the guy. So I just said “let me try something on you.” I then said “look at that wall” and he did and I acknowledged him. Then I told him to touch it and he did and I acked him. I did this type of thing for a few minutes. At the time I was a member of corporate Scn and thought I might be doing wrong because I felt I was “squirreling” two or more processes. I decided that I cared more about trying to help the person and did it. The guy really came into present time and burst out in a big smile. He came over to me and whispered “you’re not just a salesman are you??” and looked me in the eye as if it was a confidential secret.

      • “I really don’t think asking people questions and listening to their answers very dangerous.”

        It is dangerous when you make a person, who does not have answers, dig into his mind and find an answer at all cost.


        “I think most people can be helped relatively easy.”

        That is the case when one does not violate the parameters of mindfulness (seeing things as they are) in auditing the other person.

        Please see Mindfulness Therapy


      • “I really don’t think asking people questions and listening to their answers very dangerous.”

        It is dangerous when you make a person, who does not have answers, dig into his mind and find an answer at all cost.


        “I think most people can be helped relatively easy.”

        That is the case when one does not violate the parameters of mindfulness (seeing things as they are) in auditing the other person.

        Please see Mindfulness Therapy

  19. Tony,

    I am very busy at the moment with other things, so I just skimmed over your blog to get the gist of it.

    I have this to say:

    Long stoy short:

    I have been pretty well full circle, in getting into scntlgy, decompressing and evaluatiing everything objectively.

    I am constantly learning new things almost every day.

    I am pretty much out the other end now.

    Yes, some blogs are pretty much essential to assisting in untangling oneself from the programming of scn.

    But I would not trade my scn experience for anything.

    There are a few points to keep in mind.

    The data in “How to study a science” in New Slant on life is the key to not getting into the trap of scn,

    or the quickest way out of the trap if one doesn’t realise they are in a trap until after many yrs or a lifetime.

    That is a must read, for everyone. Read it over many times until you get full certainty on it. Do a clay demo on it.

    And a datum I just learned from Marty’s blog, which someone posted:

    Hubbards words:
    Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact is the basis for insanity and incompetence.

    Make sure you understand that perfectly.

    And these two datums hold the the quickest way to come out the other end.

    Then not build a better bridge, but build a real bridge.

    Because what Hubbard called a bridge, was not a real bridge or bona fide bridge.

    It contained enough truth for bait, but it was a combination business plan, (money making scheme), mind improvement system, a spiritual and personal development system, a system or technology for enlightenment, a lot of false and limiting data, a lot of bullshit, held together by lies, argument, clever salesmanship, covert postulates, and force.

    But the truths contained in it are not of this world and essential to the saving of mankind, if understood and applied correctly.

    I say that with confidence, because I have searched high and low the world over for PTSD technology that really works or at least really helps, and there is nothing that even comes close to good auditing.

    It saved my life many times.

    And you know what?

    Looking back and from “a bird on a wire” viewpoint, I really think it was planned that way.

    Scn is a trap for fools and the feeble minded, and a freedom and a power for the wise and intelligent.

    The universe (nature) has no pitty on the stupid, naive and weak.

    This world will punish you, abuse you, steal from you and make you suffer, until you smarten up.


    • I like your how to study a science quote. So true.

      Makes me think of another pearl of wisdom about data is as valuable as it has been evaluated and that it should be evaluated with data of comparable magnitude. These are good points. Problems arise when we accept $cientology as our stable datum as per definition, any datum can be chosen as your stable datum – even an incorrect one.

      Let alone the fact that you are not allowed to evaluate $cientology with any other subject as nothing is of the same magnitude as $cientology.

      • Old timer,

        Re: Let alone the fact that you are not allowed to evaluate $cientology with any other subject as nothing is of the same magnitude as $cientology.

        This is another point about the enigmatic and dichomatic and contradictory nature of scn.

        There is a direct opposite in scn for pretty well everything in scn.

        In your quote(s) you say not allowed to evaluate everything. Etc…

        But in:
        How to study a science, the whole point of the article is to evaluate everything.

        And Hubbard said that any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.

        Hubbard dropped clues and keys for the wise to the way out of the trap in a lot of places.

        The fools and feeble minded will get trapped in the negative datum, the trap.

        while the wise and intelligent will read “How to study a science” and apply the positive datum.


      • Old Timer,
        I smelled the rats in the cos, within a day or so of getting into the cos.
        After a couple of days, of BS and qual interviews and then sec checks, while on courses, I asked the qual guy, why, if scn was so good, after 19 yrs in the cos, he was still coo coo?
        (I was referring to the fact that I had a good release and became sane, and clear on my dianetics demo. Even though the peak state only lasted a couple of hours. )
        That did not go over well with him.
        He blew up.
        It was quite a scene.
        He told me to wait and not go anywhere, and stormed out the door and came back an hour and half later with a PTS declare.
        I may hold the record for the fastest PTS declare.
        Five months later I learned about the fz and the Free Spirit Journal and got more auditing from fz auditors. Actually much better auditing than any or most scn auditing I have experienced.
        The five months interval were serious hell.
        During the interval, I thought, that I finally found something that helped me from trauma, after 30 yrs of suffering and searching for help, and now they are so insane, that I got kicked out for telling the truth.
        I was really worried for the five months.
        Even though the fz offered some solace, (mainly access to phone auditing) it still took me many years to fully stabilize and go full circle to fully decompress and evaluate and see and understand the big picture. The whole story is a long one.

    • Fascinating post Dio.
      Thanks for that.

      You usually write things that I find extremely interesting.

      I agree with you that I wouldn’t trade my Scientology experience with anything.

      I do think that there are flaws with the subject as you say but sprinkled liberally, there are gold nuggets and a few large diamonds as well.

      Your datum about Scn being a trap for fools and freedom and power for the wise, made me laugh. I see some truth in that . Corporate Scn has become a big trap even for the wise and intelligent, so when you get out of that one you really have some freedom.

      Some say you can graduate from Scn. I see some truth in that. On the other hand if I needed to evaluate some things that were really bothering me, I would try to find a good auditor who could help me pick it apart and who would listen to me and not enter in his opinions so I could come to my own conclusions. This I think has unlimited value.

      • Tony,

        Thanks for your reply and compliment.

        Sometimes I post truths on blogs that are too high on the theta scale and therefore really upset people (upset their stable datums made up of lies and false and limiting data) and therefore I get blocked.

        But that does not make what I said any less true.

        Like Hubbard said: the truth is the truth. The truth is not determined by authority.

        I expand upon that to say; that the truth is also not determined by opinions, beliefs and by who wins an argument.

        The truth may be suppressed, but it will remain the truth into eternity. Man’s opinions, beliefs, theories and arguments have no effect upon the truth.

        And if a person does not speak the highest truth he is aware of, it will make his case persist or make it worse. It will block and aberrate his conscience. It will make you stupid to the degree you deny the truth.

        At first the truth can sting, but if you take heed, it will solve your problems.

        Only the truth will set us free.

        Only the truth will solve our problems in the right way.

        Now back to the subject at hand:

        One of the big problems on earth is that most people have no clue as to what intelligence is. If you ask them to define “intelligence”, they can’t.

        So that begs the question, if they can’t define it, how do they know if they have any or not?

        I define intelligence as the relative ability to evaluate data and arrive at the most superior computation towards the highest degree of success on a given goal.

        Intelligence is increased by education and experience.

        Intelligence is increased by hardship and struggle, even pain and suffering that does not kill you.

        Intelligence is increased by solving problems towards success.

        Intelligence is increased by overcoming adversity.

        So be thankful for all your hardship, struggle and pain and suffering you survived.

        Any experience is a good experience if you survived to tell the tale.

        Calm seas do not a good sailor make.

        Most people are only intelligent enough to argue to defend their ignorance, stupidity, false and limiting data, opinions, beliefs, overts and right to be that way.

        Most people do not know the difference between a belief and a fact.

        Most people have no clue what truth is.

        Now if after finding yourself in the scn trap, and consider you had enough of the bullshit, you begin to come to your senses and ask questions and find your way out of the trap, out of the cos, ……. that is the beginning of some intelligence.

        Then the real test of intelligence comes if you can decompress and remove the snares of scn from your neck and unclamp your feet from the trap and untangle and release your mind from the tangled psychological weave of implants and then stand back and evaluate every datum for it’s validity. It is like untangling a pile of tangled strings.

        If you can properly and objectively and impartilaly separate all the truths from all the bullshit, then if you were not intelligent before all this, you should be at least somewhat intelligent after all this.


        PS: If you are looking for a good auditor, I am a pretty good auditor, and I am looking for a good co auditor.

        I have lots of experience with auditing over skype. It works very well.

        If you or anyone else are interested, email me at: diogeneseii @ yahoo. ca

      • Hi Dio,

        You are obviously a smart guy and I appreciate the offer.

        Currently I feel real good about life and am enjoying myself. When I feel the need for more enlightenment I will take your offer into consideration.

  20. Anything that makes one look is positive and should be supported. Only those things that prevent one from looking are negative and should not be supported.

    Mind should never be forced as done in certain Scientology processes by repetion of the auditing command even when there is no response. It such forceful auditing (also used in sec checks) that precipitates psychotic breaks.

    When there is no response from the mind then the right question is not being asked, or some other gradient is being violated. Maybe the process itself is out-gradient.

    When a person is resisting to something, mindfulness is not being applied by that person.


    • I agree that if a person is doing a process that they are not enjoying or feeling they are getting benefit from they should stop it and nobody has the right to push them on further.
      I know the datum of “What turns it on will turn it off” and “The way out is the way through”. These might have some workability. However in the hands of the not quite bright they can be dangerous. I recall being at a book selling seminar once and the speaker told us to not take no for an answer, then had us try to sell a book to each other. I had this crazy lady pestering me for an hour trying to get me to buy the book. I didn’t buy it. That is an example of the not quite bright taking things too far.

  21. Scientology has been recognised, since at least January 1982, as one of two cults known for ” . . . inflicting the most severe physical, mental and emotional harm on their members with the most debilitating effect on its members . . . ” It is essential, then, that people escaping Scientology are given sufficient space and understanding to deal with the decompression as best they can. It should be recognised and respected that there are as many ways of decompressing from the Scientology experience as there are people who have experienced Scientology. From this perspective, Tony DePhillip’s experience is as valid as anyone’s, yet, IMHO, contains some unhelpful suggestions.

    According to the experts and depending on immediate circumstances, a person escaping Scientology, especially staff or the Sea Org, is best off in the first instance to avoid any and all contact with ex-Scientologists and focus instead on the practicalities of getting on with life. These practicalities would include, for example, distancing oneself from cult members and, ideally, the physical vicinity, re-establishing family relationships (if possible), securing a source of income even if that means living off credit cards for a few months, verifying the current state of medical and dental health, sorting out housing, gaining initial employment, and reaching out to wog world for assistance in reintegrating back into society. Yes, as counter-intuitive as it seems, wogs are far more able to assist in the decompression than Scientologists in the very early stages, especially when it comes to making sense of what happened and regaining lost cognitive functions such as critical thinking. For the largest percentage of people escaping Scientology, that’s about all they need to do as evidenced by the fact that so few ex-Scientologists bother to engage in the post-Scientology conversation. Most just write the Scientology experience off as a bad mistake and get on with life. This is, probably, the most healthy option because the last thing a person escaping Scientology needs is more Scientology, especially auditing, or even if its just to mutually lament what might have been.

    Also assisting when starting to move on from Scientology is the urgent need to treat all “stable data” obtained from Scientology as suspect, unless proved otherwise. Clinging to L Ron Hubbard constructs like wogs know nothing, the reactive mind, Scientology is THE answer, the Tone Scale. the third party law, the PTS/SP Doctrine, thought has mass, “we are the top ten percent”, Engrams, eeeevil whole track psychs, and all the rest of it, without scientific proof, will only hinder the decompression process. Its far more “workable” outside of the cult to doubt everything except faith in one’s own ability to maintain equilibrium and forward progress regardless of the unusual discomfort borne from no longer emotionally indulging in manufactured certainty. This “letting go” can be particularly difficult for long-term Scientologists. This is because Scientology processing and lifestyle is such that a person very often replaces a large part of their sense of self with the persona of a Scientologist. A symptom of this is when people feel genuinely and personally hurt when Scientology is being vigorously disparaged and they are unable to differentiate between themselves and the subject. Abandoning the label “Scientologist” is a watershed moment in the decompression process and a cause for celebration.

    Fortunately, there are still many who do hang around in, or return to the post-cult Scientology conversation. They are our teachers and the internet is their university. There are also those who have the practicalities of life all sorted and arrive in the post-Scientology conversation complete with the full set of L Ron Hubbard baggage. Blogs are certainly a great place to identify kindred souls and develop a social network. The camaraderie aspect of the ex-Scientologist community cannot be under-estimated and nor can its power to bring about an end to Scientology abuses. And for those unable to trust wogs when first escaping, there are all sorts of wonderful ex-Scientologists around who are of real help in understanding what happened. There are also people around working to impede a person’s decompression process by deliberately pushing Scientology implanted buttons and there is an inherent danger of unwary participants being dragged into cult-like dynamics being played out in the ex community. The pre-emptive use of pejorative terms like “haters” to identify and attempt to divide off certain sections of the ex-community is a good example. So too is misrepresenting the arguments which, apparently, define sub-groups. Once a person has escaped Scientology, they are free from the obligation to remain “uptone”, out from under the thumb of enforced agreement, and are now taking responsibility for themselves. Such a person going through the decompression phase is not helped by attempts to put them off one group or the other or encouraged to adopt particular responses to certain arguments. That’s what Scientology did to them. Far better to just advise that differences exist, that disagreement is a good thing, and people in the decompression process are expected to make up their own minds about what is being said.

    • I agree with some of what you say here.

      For some maybe it is good to cut all communications with other ex’s. That would be a personal choice as I covered above.

      Who they decide are trusted people is an individual choice not to be made by me or you.

      Same with auditing, it’s a personal choice.

      For me, it helped me. I analyzed what was going wrong with Scn and what had happened to me. It was VERY helpful.

      Just like a scuba diver does with decompressing, he rises a bit and waits and then rises some more. It is a gradual process. If the person tries to rise too fast they can get the bends.
      I think using ex scientologists can be very helpful with gradiently acclimating to the new environment they find themselves.

    • By the way, I think it’s important to be around non Scn people too for sure. Like I said integration is important.

      A person who needs to talk about the betrayal they experienced from corporate scientology will not always find it beneficial to discuss it with someone who has no reality on what they went through.

      I think it’s a pretty unique experience.

      We have hung out with some ex Sea Org friends and we laugh about a lot of it and it blows charge for me. The friends we have don’t really like any of scn for themselves anymore and that is cool with me. They never rank on me or try to invalidate how I think or feel and vice versa. Having them as friends has been a real treat.

    • I love your comment, Crepuscle.
      Many on this blog revile the ‘haters’, the ‘LRH bashers’, as they’re called. All this because they’ve discovered awful truths about the founder of Scn who posed as above reproach? Why are people ridiculed for this discovery? Why is finding out the truth so appalling to those who don’t want to or cannot look?
      I’m glad this situation is being addressed. To those who haven’t dared to, practise what Hubbard preached, “Look, don’t listen.”

      • I don’t revile the haters of Scientology because of what they expose.
        I don’t even revile them really. I just think that their minds are clouded with emotion to the point where they try to convince others that the knowledge or gains they or others feel they got from Scientology are bogus. Maybe some are, let the person decide.
        My definition of hater is: “a person who sees no real value in Scientology tech and actively tries to prevent others from using it. As differentiated from people who are seeking to stop the abuses of corporate Scientology.” I will modify this a bit. A person who has never even tried to use Scientology and condemns it. How could they know that it is all bad?
        A person who has been in Scientology a long time and is now actively invalidating other people’s gains that they feel they have had.
        It gets hard to listen to the bad ALL the time. How about balancing things once in awhile?
        I agree that LRH had bad points as we all do. I don’t want to make it a life long pitty party on how we all got chumped.
        I think the idea that auditing is hypnotism is really an excuse to be a victim. “Look how I got screwed over” Boo hoo. I do feel for people who got burned by corporate scientology and I pray for the day corporate scn has to make good on those crimes. I really hope that day comes. But I am not going to say that I had no responsibility in what happened to me there. I stayed too long. I saw the con and the false bullshit, yet I stayed. My bad. It is also corporate scientology’s bad and they will get their just desserts, I truly believe that.
        I prefer a more balanced look at the philosophy of Scientology. The system that corporate scn is operating on is crap and dangerous, no doubt about it.
        The PHILOSOPHY is separate but related of course.
        As I have said so many times I am starting to feel like a broken record; I don’t agree with all of it. I have had HUGE wins form it as well that nobody will ever be able to beat out of me.
        If you don’t like it then stay away from it.
        Don’t spend most of your adult life being it’s defender and then all of a sudden start condemning those who still like parts of it. Or if that is your new calling, then I suppose those who like that will flock to you.
        My post here was just to give those who like parts of Scn a heads up so they won’t get chopped up.
        A person has every right to create something for years and then to tear down what he/she created and admit that he/she was totally wrong and had done it only because he or she was hypnotized.

      • Ive been reading your journey for a while Tony, I am happy for you that you have found your way through. There really is a good satisfying life at the end, being able to have the wins we have had in Scientology and live the good life LRH wanted us to have. I would add a good Independent Auditor can go a long way toward achieving this.

        I agree with you regarding those just coming out of the cult, there is the philosophy and there is the church, 180 degrees the other way, and the haters seem to be on a mission to have the 2 be identified with each other.

        You said ” I am starting to feel like a broken record”. I believe there is no comm cycle with a hater, and now I wouldnt even bother after a comm cycle that establishes that for myself. Its come to the point where I think the haters should respect my religious beliefs according to the First Amendment, and I will do the same with them.

        Personally I believe that the moderators of the blogs, if they are ultimately pro Scientology, while allowing legitimate questioning and certainly generous allowances for the confusion that blows off in coming to grips with the con that is the current church and Rons relationship to it, should censor an obvious hater. Although this might crash their stats, as haters can be prolific, if not obsessive communicators.

        And for those on the fence deciding about Scn, apply Scientology to it, do a good doubt formula, but just be careful about accepting data from a source that slanders the subject and Ron at any opportunity.

  22. Tony, what a really fabulous job you have done with this, my friend. 🙂

    The fact is, you have covered a lot of bases, in your piece here. This is especially valuable when one has, as you said, finally been true to one’s self. Coming to realizations about the people you have interacted with, is very telling, and it’s quite unsettling when, you realize, that the one’s you thought you could trust, end up betraying you!

    With the amount of betrayal and denigration of LRH, emanating from people I formerly thought very highly of, simply reveals to me where they’re at. I have now just let it all go.
    Moved on. Realized that he ol’ man has turned out to be the father figure, I never had.
    Neither did he betray my faith in the fact that he REALLY had cracked open the operating “secrets” of the mind. Something that had perplexed me completely, until first getting hold of DMSMH. There, at last, were the answers I had been looking for all along!

    As far as the “spirit”?? Well my very first session of rough, tough, no patty cake TR-O,
    resulted in exteriorization, and introduced me to ME, for the very first time!

    Tony, i have to say, that I found much of your conclusions to mirror my own, and although their is a very definite ‘push’ coming from many quarters, to totally wipe out Scientology,
    it’s not going to happen. Since one can’t suppress truth and the recognition of it.

    My simple opinion on what has REALLY happened, other than the miscavige damage?

    —- “misduplication”. across a very, very broad front! People no longer “get it”.

    Check out “The AXIOMS of Duplication, in your copy of 0-8, as see if you agree with me?

    Nice chatting to you Tony, and my love to Mary – Jo and the family.

    ARC, Calvin.

  23. Tony. Thank you for an excellent article, and for taking the care and interest to do it.

    This has inspired me to write up some notes on this very hot subject and share my thoughts, blog willing, later. The way you have described your views is all-embrasive and inclusive. It is what we have to do to sort through our particular and different situations regarding our experiences with Scientology.

    LRH sure did create some discussion among so many people, of all stripes and backgrounds. I’m sure he is chuckling some place out there.

    Take what works for you and leave what doesn’t. Accept the gains if and when they occurred. Live and let be.

    Good advice, and thanks again.

  24. Tony,

    Between your article and recent videos and write-ups by Chris Shelton, my 14 year decompression is moving along faster and better so thanks.

    Your Crying Tomato Friend

  25. Speaking strictly as a solo auditor, if I was sitting around and suddenly felt mass, then felt like attacking someone, I would pick up the cans and check who is auditing me or working on my case from a distance.

    It has been published that OSA gets solo auditors as volunteers to mis audit people across a distance. I know this is a little scary and creepy and I have tried to avoid it as a topic. But one person minimum has published report of knowing a solo auditor that was asked to mis audit someone until they got cancer.

    It has come in my own solo auditing that someone was auditing me with out my consent, and after handling it the source went splat with a very public Scientology scandal.

    One group of solo auditors wnet down to a spot near the Int Base and audited staff from a distance, several staff left soon after.

    Although this has everything to do with “decompressing”, (or not), it is unreal to a lot of people and can be wrongly introverting so I will not take offense if it does not pass moderator’s responsibilities.

    Still, somewhere somehow, this should be addressed as an issue because it is one. And I have had to get on top of it myself.

      • I would like to note that I do not recommend to anyone to stoop so low or to dabble in this kind of black magic. Once you step in black magic some of it sticks to the bottom of your foot.

        There is no need to become hostile or do the same thing back to someone. If you are a solo auditor you can clean up any madness created with a correction form.

        There is much to be said for “turning the other cheek”. Or redirecting forces .

        This does a lot more damage to the person initiating it than the target. And pretty much depowers them of abilties and perceptions. Dark forces also get attracted by ARC and pile on.

        Really, all you have to do is point at it. If you feel a hostile force just point at it. You will be amazed.

    • Very, very interesting. Sometimes, it used to be more often than now, when I’m about to drop off to sleep, I’m overcome with a strong feeling of fear, even terror. I handle it but shouting out, loudly, f#*&k off! This works and I then drop off to sleep easily and peacefully.
      I don’t know if this is the same thing. At first, I thought it was a case manifestation but soon realised it was something else, someone else.
      For all the grumblings I’ve expressed about LRH and Scn, I would not have known this or how to handle it, if it wasn’t for the fact that I know Scientology and can think further than my nose.

    • I have FULL reality on this!! Any solo auditor needs to be prepped to deal with it or face some odd phenomena. While one is busy fixing the clutch someone is busy fiddling with the brakes so to speak!


  26. Tony, question for you.
    The more I see my local twin-cities org deteriorate and the more distance I get from the Cult, the more I tend to agree with the negative points you have mentioned in your article. That’s not to say that I feel my conclusions are the only right ones that could be made; they are just the ones I’ve been making.
    I’m all about shades of grey. Here’s what I mean.
    “LRH was a bad guy.” — I think the people who knew him best knew that he was not a bad guy; no more “bad” than anyone else has in them at any given time. I believe he cared about the people he worked with. But he also lied his ass off about who he was and what he could do, and what he had accomplished (Hello…OT levels through 15 or 21 anybody?)…and I feel that if any of my REAL LIFE friends who I felt were “good guys” were exposed to me as having been a pathological liar…I would probably stop hanging out with them regardless of how many “good times” we’d had together. You get what I mean? So to think that so many people are following a guy who was basically a pathological liar gives me pause. So he did some good stuff. Good for him. Why was he such a poor example of what the Tech is supposed to be able to accomplish?
    Similar train of thought…LRH said over and over again that he never made a dollar from SCN. An obvious lie. Why? and toward the end of his life when he was living in hiding, in a trailer and already had TENS of millions of dollars to his name…why was he so hell-bent of figuring out how to suck every dollar he could out of the Church that was “owed” to him? We hear fascinating stories from Mark Fisher about these things. Why would LRH do this when he already had more money than he could spend in the remainder of his lifetime?
    This is really just my itsa. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind here. I don’t fault anyone for wanting to keep using SCN to improve their lives in any way that they choose to. But that’s all SCN is to me now. Something that can be therapeutic to some people. But why did LRH say it was a crime to promote SCN that way? Softsell. Tech downgrade. How can the truth be a crime? And what does that say about the man and the movement?
    “LRH stole all of it from others” = not a big deal for me actually. No one else went through the same trouble to document and lecture, and write the way LRH did. I don’t believe there are hardly any original thoughts left in this universe. It’s about properly organizing and communicating. A quote I love, “If you were the Founder of Facebook, you’d be the Founder of Facebook”. Even if SCN ideas came from other sources, they came from VARIED sources, and that doesn’t take away in my opinion from what SCN is…an organized body of knowledge. At least LRH in the beginning gave some credit where credit was due. In later years thought, not so much.
    Scientology tech is hypnotic = this could be debated until the end of time, and in my opinion the debate would be a waste of time.
    Look at what the organization has done. The tech couldn’t be any good if the group went so crazy = I think looking at the organization is not as valuable as looking at LRH as a person.
    I don’t consider it to be an ORGANIZATIONAL failure that LRH allowed himself to be manipulated and suppressed at the end of his lifetime and allowed DM and Broker to royally screw him over and mess up his comm lines. I consider it to be LRH’s personal failure. And even if auditing can make people feel better, that is NOT why people are involved in SCN. They are involved because they think SCN will free them from from the physical universe, make then cause over all MEST and life (“Full OT”, enlighten them to the true cause of all human suffering, free them from this prison planet, and the cycle of birth to death; in essence make one a God. That’s a bit different.
    I have a problem with the idea that so many people have bought into this idea even though the one person who claimed to have achieved it all OBVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED it was a lie by how own quality of life, actions, health, personal being. If it didn’t work for LRH, then what is everyone else doing?
    Again, I get it that the ARC triangle makes sense and can be used to improve relationships. I get it that lower-level auditing can be effective as many other therapies can be. I get that many things about SCN are useful. That’s fine, and is why I don’t object in any way to anyone who uses those tools. But I go back to my other earlier statement…the fact that these tools have use is NOT why people are involved in SCN. They are involved because they are chasing a lie. And this to me is an important thing to consider. The fact that these lower-level tools work is what serves as “evidence” that everything else LRH said about the upper Bridge must also be true, even though no one sees evidence of it anywhere.
    In your analogy about vaccines…people use the vaccines because it they do exactly what they are supposed to do, and are promoted as such. If the guy who created the vaccine turned out to murder his wife, it would be irrelevant.
    But if the vaccine was supposed to cure a disease AND make you a peaceful person, and the reason people were taking THAT vaccine over another option was because of the “peaceful person” benefit…and the creator of the vaccine turned out to kill his wife…people would stop using that particular vaccine.
    And here’s my actual question for you…I’ve read pretty much every word on Marty’s blog. My impression is that Marty now holds to be true pretty much every one of these negative points that you have discussed in your post. The way you have described a “Scientology Hater” is basically 100% Marty. While reading your post, I thought you were specifically referring to Marty. So I went over Marty’s last several posts to see if you’d commented on them. You have commented positively on all of his recent posts. Why is it that you agree with the posts Marty is making (I agree with his posts too) about SCN, LRH and the tech, but here you list off of these things as aspects of “Scientology hating”, and that such people should be avoided?
    What am I missing?

      • Through his wife’s lawsuit against the Church, Marty Rathbun is doing more to eliminate the Church of Scientology’s ability to apply Fair Game than any person I know, or have ever known to leave Scientology.

        This is an extremely intelligent and responsible thing for him to do and I believe anyone who could be a target of L Ron Hubbard’s fair game technology should show him support.

        Marty Rathbun has put himself and his whole family at risk by doing this. And if he succeeds he will make things better for any one who has ever been involved in Scientology.

        I do not agree with Tony DePhillips about Marty Rathbun, and I believe he is being short-sighted in running him down, both here and on Marty’s blog.

        And I’ve told him so, both there and, now, here.


      • Alonzo this is funny.
        What Marty does to fight corporate scn is good.
        Marty runs down people who use Scientology through his comments.
        If I point out to people to beware of this you say I am unfair for running him down.

        Your logic doesn’t pan out.

        Apparently it is okay for him to run down people but not vice versa if it doesn’t agree with your own prejudices.

      • Tony wrote:

        Your logic doesn’t pan out.

        Apparently it is okay for him to run down people but not vice versa if it doesn’t agree with your own prejudices.

        I see what you are saying, Tony.

        You make a good point and I will think about that.


    • Some great points, Mike. Pretty much aligns with my viewpoint on the whole Scn affair.
      While everyone who gets involved with Scn may do so for different reasons, eventually they end up chasing the same dream – full, god-like state of OT. There is no evidence that this state is achievable or that Scn training and processing will get you even close to such a state.
      And this is the Big Lie that underlies all other lies.
      This is the lie that those still-in cannot conceive of or even consider.

    • Great comment Mike! This had also been my argument when people say – “But I have had wins!” That is NOT what Scn is about. It is about achieving PROMISED levels of ability and awareness. These promised states just do not manifest in people who have done those levels. Scientologists are not free to evaluate this. If they try…all sorts of accusations about MUs, WHs, overts, evil intentions, CI to source etc get thrown at them.

      This is mind and thought control and it is devastating to a spiritual being.

    • Hi Mike,
      Sorry, I didn’t read your whole post. I still haven’t. I read more of it though and wanted to address another point you make about if LRH was a pathological liar and if you had a friend that was, then you wouldn’t follow him or listen to him. (something like this, right?)
      My answer to that is: did you get anything out of studying Scientology or auditing?
      If so, what was it? You could possibly even try writing them down. Then decide if any of these wins or knowledge are still valid. If you feel that they are, what difference does it make who they came from? If a bum on the street said something wise to you would you throw it away because it came from a bum? We could sit here and come up with all sorts of different analogies and examples to no avail. What matters is what you think about what you got or didn’t get. If you got something it is YOURS now and nobody else’s. Keep it or discard it as you see fit.
      You sound like a real smart guy. I think you will do fine for yourself.

      • Tony I think that is a real good point. Like, if Stalin told you “2+2 = 4”, would you disbelieve him because you knew about his GULAGs in which possibly millions died?
        It is a kind of “guilt by association” type of ad hom argument, to reject everything he originated because some of the things he originated were destructive or turned out badly.

      • Tony,
        When I began my $cientology adventure this life, I was promised certain states and abilities by Hubbard. I achieved the states(grade chart completions) but not the abilities.

        In another way of looking at this: Hubbard gave me a recipe to bake a double -thick chocolate cake. I followed the recipe but ended up with a strawberry cake. So we repeated the recipe and this time a vanilla cake came out of the oven.

        I was disappointed but shared the cake amoungst my fellow bakers. “Wow!” they said, “this is the best vanilla cake we have EVER tasted!” Sure, but it is not what I was promised.

        Clears don’t get sick or get a “cold”.

        Hubbard lied.

        You can justify his lies anyway you want to, it don’t change the fact.

        I am not a Hubbard apologist or a Hubbard hater, just someone who has the integrity to admit that I listened to the claims made without inspecting the products made.

      • Hi Old timer,
        I know what you mean and agree with you.
        I was promised a chocolate cake with double fudge frosting and got an awesome carrot cake instead. But… I LOVE carrot cake…it’s delicious.

  27. Two thumbs up from me too, Tony. The same for the last comment you posted on Marty’s blog. You said some things that needed to be said, IMO. Very well done!

    • Hi miraldi,

      I haven’t read many of your posts but I have seen Marty slapping you around a lot (figuratively of course) and have always wondered why you persist at it over there. Somewhere I think I heard that you were OSA? I would be curious to hear a brief summation of your views if you are interested in doing that. You do seem to be a nice person based on what I myself have observed of your posts.

      Thanks for the compliment.

      • Hi, Tony.
        About a month ago, Marty made a remark about my “many IP addresses,” and it threw me for a loop because he was apparently implying that I was an OSA agent. At the time, I didn’t know it is common to have many IP addresses, depending on your server, etc. A couple “techie” friends of mine who know a lot about computers explained to me about multiple IP addresses. In any case, I thought it was strange that Marty, or anybody else, would think I am OSA when my posts are mainly about the value of basic/core scientology and very much AGAINST the CoS version of it.
        To answer your question, I guess I started and have persisted with posting comments because of what I see as misinformation and disinformation being spread on Marty’s and other blogs. But I am gradually posting less often because I’ve learned that people’s minds are pretty much made up and for the most part can’t be changed on blog. However, there are still some intelligent posters and interesting discussions, so I haven’t “kicked the habit” quite yet. Besides, I have learned a lot and my own views have evolved. As for “a brief summation” of them, just recently I posted this comment on Marty’s, which says it in a nutshell:
        “My guess about the future of scientology is that there will be some people who practice it with good intention, good understanding, and good judgment, in spite of whatever LRH’s or anybody else’s use of it was in the past. And the people who do attempt to practice it that way will have success to the degree they get good results with their clients. Thus, what is beneficial in scientology will live on, and what isn’t won’t. That’s how I currently see it.”
        Thanks back atcha for the compliment. 🙂

      • Thanks Miraldi.

        I don’t see anything wrong with your views. They sound pretty rational to me.

        I have noticed almost an opposite type “group think” now on some blogs where if you aren’t actively condemning everything then you are “beaten up” by the stooges who lurk about. It kind of reminds me of a bad high school situation.

        It would be much easier to just fall in line with anything Marty or thers said and be one of the “in crowd”. That would be easy. I admire that you haven’t caved in and am glad that you are learning and expanding your views.

        Have a nice weekend.

      • That’s interesting, Tony. I have been thinking the same thing – that there’s a “group think” on some blogs, and Marty’s is definitely one of them, at least with regard to many of the anti-scn posters there. Ironically, blogs like that are cult-like themselves, including having a sort of “all-knowing” leader – the very things the “group” rails against about scientology. I often get the feeling that because the “leader” is quite intellectual in his writings – on top of appealing to the readers’ own out-ruds about scientology – he has the power to essentially hypnotize them! That’s another huge irony, as hypnotism seems to be one of the main condemnations of LRH and scientology.

        Don’t get me wrong about Marty, I think he is sincere in what he writes – but misguided, IMHO. I’ve tried to figure out why that would be, since he is highly trained and experienced as an auditor and as an exec. My view at this point is that it’s probably a matter of plain old MU’s, at least for one thing.

        Today, I spotted an MU in his current blog post that seemed to be the basis of his consideration that false data stripping is intentional brainwashing. So I posted a comment, politely stating that I understood the FDS theory differently from what he had described in the blog post, as I had a different understanding of the grammar connection between two key sentences, and I explained specifically what I was referring to.

        Btw, I was a word clearer for a number of years and also did the Key to Life course, and I learned a lot about grammar from both experiences. In any case, regardless of whether or not Marty agreed with my understanding (or even duplicated what I tried to explain), if he really meant what he has stated about “scientologists” being free to post their views, I don’t think he would have replied with this: “If you weren’t already established as a cult troll, I would say ‘behold the brainwashed, arguing to the end to preserve his own imprisonment.’”

        Apparently, a troll on his blog is anyone who posts comments that don’t “fall in line,” as you put it, with what he says. I’m really glad you got a dialogue going here on this blog, since there does seem to be freedom to state whatever viewpoint one has.

        Thanks again, and thanks to the blog owners too!

      • In case this blows charge for anyone, and it should since it makes perfect sense, this is exactly why justice cycles in the Church are set up for complete failure. They are launched on out ruds and mutual out ruds.

        Once the comm ev is published, the person insisting on on it first of all is out ruds with the person being attacked. By the time it is published and spread around everyone on the scene goes mutual out ruds on the accused. The accused walks into a room where everyone there is already out ruds and has mutual out ruds on the accused. Seriously, how does this set up bring about a fair justice for the accused? The comm ev itself is a third party action.

        If you took a meter into a room where the comm ev commitee members were and put each one of them on the meter, you would find out ruds on all of them.

        The only way to skirt around this is to fly the ruds of everyone on the comm ev before the comm ev would start, and fly the ruds of the person getting the comm ev.

        Well by then, people’s ruds would be in and I ask you, when peoples ruds are in are they really interested in comm eving someone?

        Every comm ev is began on out ruds and carried on over mutual out ruds.

      • Oracle, you sure got that right. Every Comm Ev is begun on out ruds and it spreads to mutual out ruds and becomes one big 3P of the accused. How is justice ever to happen under those circumstances. I couldn’t agree more with your excellent comment.

      • I think you’re exaggerating a bit Oracle.
        Marty didn’t get assigned lowers or anything. 🙂

        He is as free as a bird. He has his fan club who love and adore him.

        This is just communication, just like he is doing.

        Why is it okay for him to call people “true believers” when people say things he doesn’t agree with and I am bad for calling him a Scientology hater?

        I believe in equal opportunity.

      • Marildi wrote:

        “Apparently, a troll on his blog is anyone who posts comments that don’t “fall in line,” as you put it, with what he says. I’m really glad you got a dialogue going here on this blog, since there does seem to be freedom to state whatever viewpoint one has.

        Thanks again, and thanks to the blog owners too!

        I see the shellacking you’ve been taking over on Marty’s blog, Marildi. And I hope you are doing okay. There was a time when I took regular shellackings over on Marty’s blog, too, so I know what they can be like.

        I do think the blog owners here truly mean it when they say that we all have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely our own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

        I think Marty believes that, too, but I think he is under more pressure than you or I at the moment as well. He’s actually in the middle of a lawsuit against David Miscavige and his billion dollar cult for fair gaming his family, remember?

        If there is one thing I have seen in my 14 years out of the Church, it is the radicalization the Church instills in their “enemies”. Fair Game is probably one of the stupidest and most destructive policies Hubbard ever created for Scientologists to follow. I have seen many people, including myself, go through very bitter phases after being targeted by Scientology like Marty has been.

        And I was never targeted like Marty has been.

        Fair Game is extremely destructive all around.

        And it all goes back to L Ron Hubbard.


      • Al, I agree with what you are saying about Marty being under a lot of pressure and, for that reason, I try to cut him some slack.

        However, these days, I don’t get that he is primarily interested in his posters’ right to think, talk and write freely. Rather, he is hell bent on getting people to see scientology the way he sees it – and anything he thinks is getting in the way of that, he ruthlessly stomps on.

        I’m not condemning him – just calling it as I see it. In any case, I do think he considers that what he’s doing is the right thing. I just happen to think he has it wrong in various ways, and is thus misleading people.

        And I know you always want to be sure to get in your conviction that it all goes back to Hubbard. I got that – long ago. But I feel like Tony – you and I have discussed it enough to know each others’ views and now it’s just boring. So let’s leave it at that.

        Thanks, though, for the kind words. I got that you meant it.

      • Interesting Miraldi.

        I guess being called a cult troll is the ex scn way of declaring someone. It seems to be an ad hom attack itself. Even if someone is a “cult troll” they either make valid ideas or they don’t.
        I looked over quickly Marty’s post about FDS and I tended to agree with him on the point that it does seem to infer that the tech is ALWAYS right and good and the only reason for failure is false data from some other source. I don’t agree that it rises to the level of brainwashing. That’s where I think it goes too far.

        I can see that if you continually post pro scientology stuff on what is basically now a hate site for the scn philosophy I can see why you would be considered a troll to some degree. Just as when I see Alonzo posting here, I feel his intention is basically to disrupt and not be in any valid conversation.

        Both camps, the pro scientology and the anti scn are both oriented in their own views. It is really only the fence sitters that are “up for grabs” . I have no real dog in the fight. I tend to be pretty much in the middle. I’m not a “true believer” as Marty likes to call people and I’m not a hater either.

        It’s funny that Marty talked of the great middle path and to me he isn’t really on that path in regards to the Scientology philosophy.

      • onsidered a troll to some degree. Just as when I see Alonzo posting here, I feel his intention is basically to disrupt and not be in any valid conversation.

        Both camps, the pro scientology and the anti scn are both oriented in their own views. It is really only the fence sitters that are “up for grabs” . I have no real dog in the fight. I tend to be pretty much in the middle. I’m not a “true believer” as Marty likes to call people and I’m not a hater either.

        It’s funny that Marty talked of the great middle path and to me he isn’t really on that path in regards to the Scientology philosoph

        Hi Tony,

        Thanks, Tony. My intention has been exactly that – to have a valid conversation. But I’m learning that this isn’t actually what is wanted by Marty. I wrote the following reply to his comment and it was moderated out:
        marildi | September 22, 2014 at 2:32 pm | Reply
        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        Maybe what I was trying to point out wasn’t very clear, so let me try again. But first I want to say that I wasn’t attempting to refute your basic point that FDS’ing can be – and has been – used for mind control. The examples you gave, which I took to be from your own experience, were painful to even read about.

        That said, I do think that at least the THEORY of false data stripping included the concept of plurality or synthesis. Here’s the sequence of what was written by LRH, with my understanding (in square brackets) of what is being expressed by the grammar of it:

        “…he can try to make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis, OR his wits simply don’t function. SO [when his wits simply don’t function] you can wind up with the person either:
        1. attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or
        2. his thinkingness locks up on the subject.”

        In other words, the word “So” modifies what comes just before it (OR his wits simply don’t function,” and thus, those two outcomes would be the only two IF the student had not been able to “make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis.”

        That’s all I was trying to say.

        I don’t think I’m a “true believer” either, but I do feel that much of what gets criticized by Marty and others is simply their misconceptions – or else a matter of how so-called “scientology” was (mis)used on them, as seems to have been the case with Marty and the FDS’ing he got. IMHO, that was a misapplication of the bulletin if you take into account the whole thing, as the context, and not just one part of it.

      • The fact seems to be that people interpret Scientology to align with their understanding. That is natural. I interpreted Scientology to align it with my understanding of eastern philosophy in which I grew up. It worked for me as far as it went.

        So, there is no one understanding of Scientology that can be stated as, “This is Scientology.” Broadly, Scientology is what worked for a person.

        So, there is a version of Scientology put out by those for whom Scientology did not work. That version gets highlighted now and then. But that is not the only version.

        The version of Scientology that is getting highlighted presently is the version practice by the Church of Scientology. Somehow we should be able to identify these different versions for what they are to lessen the confusion.

        Scn (cos) – The church version of Scientology Scn (crit) – The ctritics version of Scientology

        Scn (pers) – The personal version of Scientology Scn (50) – The earlier version of Scientology Scn (60) – The later version of Scientology Scn (H) – The Hubbard version of Scientology Scn (M) – The Miscavige version of Scientology

        Regards, Vinaire


      • p.s. I messed up a bit on the punctuation in the comment I tried to post that got moderated out. There should have been a parenthesis rather than a quote mark after “function,” as follows
        …In other words, the word “So” modifies what comes just before it (OR his wits simply don’t function) and thus, those two outcomes would be the only two IF the student had not been able to “make sense out of the collision and form what is called a synthesis.”

        And I also see that I included by mistake part of your comment in my reply to you. Haste makes waste!

      • I see what you mean Tony but I see it a little differently. I don’t think Marty is exactly an “anti”. In his latest OPs he is talking about th emechab=nics of indoctrination into “scientology”. Previously he said that he had concluded that, not hat there was not good in “scinetology”, but that it was well-nigh impossible to objectively sort it out, good from bad, and that therefore there was not ever going to be anything that could definitively be called “standard tech”. And that therefore he had decided that he could not recommend “scientology” to new people. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if he still would be willing to “audit” (counsel) people, given the time. I can’t see Marty refusing to help anyone to whatever extent he could.
        Now, he did “dog” me for making essentially mechanical responses from what he called my “automatic associative mind” and this was true. I was doing that, although it was not particularly due to my invovlement with scientology, but is simply a product of my self-compiled “education”.
        But I really was often responding without really thinking about whatever post I was responding to. I give him credit for spotting this and calling me on it. That he associates this with scientology is, I think, something of a mistake on his part. Scientologists are not the only ones who do this. It is a common criticosm of modern education that it results in people who can regurgitate data without necessarily thinking it through.

        I do think it sounds like he has given up on formally sorting out the differnces between the scientology philosophy and tech, and “Scientology Inc”, the CoS, which is one concrete expression of the basic philosophy, as I see it.

        And I can see him taking this tack, because I have always felt that LRH himself conflated the two and talked about them as thought they were one indivisible unit. It never made sense to me that LRH did this, but I see and hear it in his lectures. He talks about “scientology” as though the orgs are a perfect and ideal expression of the philosophy, which they obviously are not and never really have been.
        I see the CoS as the “Roman Catholicism” of Scientology. The analogy I see is “CoS:Scientology::Roman Catholicism:Christianity, or “CoS is to Scientology as Roman Catholicism is to Christianity”. The Roman church is just one possibe embodoment of Christianity; there are others based on the same teachings or philosophy, that are yet different in spirit and “flavor”.
        The CoS is LRH’s own “embodiment”, but he actually is the source of the Freezone, Ron’s Orgs,
        Idenics, Knowledgism, Mayo’s Advanced Ability Centers and other spinoffs.
        How and why LRH chose to create the CoS in the way he did, why he set up the Sea Org the way he did, why he pampered or tolerated Miscavige as much as he did, are all unanswered questions as far as I’m concerned.

        But it does seem like Marty sees “scientology” in the narrow sense of the CoS. And in that context, what he is saying makes sense to me, and hios “deconstruction” of its mechanics is accurate. Who of us would ever actually refer a new person to the CoS?! We wouldn’t. So he comes across as very negative, but he is talking about some very negative aspects of it.

        Anyway, I like your mellow view, but I think I do see where Marty is coming from, in spotting the indoctrination he has seen built into the Scientolopgy Inc. experience, probably especially coming from his deep Sea Org perspective and experience with Miscavige and LRH too.

        I’m glad you posted here so we could have such discussions! I don’t think your view and Marty’s are actually irreconcilable, is what I’m trying to say, too.

      • Val, you wrote:

        “Previously he [Marty] said that he had concluded that, not that there was not good in ‘scientology’, but that it was well-nigh impossible to objectively sort it out, good from bad, and that therefore there was not ever going to be anything that could definitively be called ‘standard tech’. And that therefore he had decided that he could not recommend “scientology” to new people.

        I also got that he doesn’t think there is such a thing as “standard tech.” However, he gave a different reason for why he doesn’t recommend it – not only to new people but anybody. In his blog post “Back to the Middle,” he wrote this:

        “…I would not recommend to anyone that they get involved in scientology. That is because having thoroughly deconstructed the subject I came to realize that its control and exploitation elements are so thoroughly embedded within the teachings of Hubbard as to make the journey more likely to be on-the-whole negative than positive.”

        That seems pretty anti-scientology, don’t you think?

      • Marty’s is simply the ctritics version [Scn(crit)] of Scientology. It is just one of the versions.

        Please realize that there is no single or standard version of Scientology. The closest to standard version is the personal version [Scn(pers)] of Scientology that varies from person to person based on their wins from Scientology.


      • Vinaire: “Please realize that there is no single or standard version of Scientology.”

        Please realize…? You gotta be kidding me, Vinnie. I must have said that hundreds of times on Geir’s blog over the last few years – particularly that we need to differentiate the scientology of the CoS from “basic or core scientology.” Does that ring a bell? I’ve even commented on this point about different versions of scientology quite a few times on Marty’s blog just recently. Here’s one I found that you may remember:
        marildi | September 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm

        “…it seems to me to always come back to the question of WHICH ‘scientology’ tech we’re talking about. In other words, which one is being applied – HOW, WHEN and even WHERE, all the way down to which COURSEROOM and SUPERVISOR.

        Actually, I’m the one who has been trying to get YOU to differentiate them all this time. Anyway, glad you finally did come to “realize there is no single version of Scientology.” 😛 😀

      • Marildi, please look at the situation not from a self-centric, but from a reality-centric viewpoint. Neither you are wrong nor Marty.

        Marty is on his own journey to sort himself out with respect to Scientology. You seem to be trying to make him see your version of Scientology.

        I think he knows your version. But you don’t seem to see his version of Scientology. You seem to be trying to convince him of your version of Scientology. Why?

      • It seems pretty qualified to me. It is a far cry from some of the the rabid “antis” I see posting here and there. Remember “infinity valued logic”? I see no blanket condemnation there, but an honest attempt to explicate the mechanics of cult-creation embedded in the subject overall. He perhaps feels the philosophy is tainted by these goals. It is a nuanced and qualified rejection.
        I haven’t, thus far, had any trouble separating them out when I listen to lectures or read LRH, but it seems others have been caught through appeals to their ideological soft spots and appeals to their altruism. But I have not had any deep involvement in the actual organizations, as Marty has. I mean, he was Number 2 for a long time!
        As I’ve posted before, I see a broad scene where “CoS:Scientology :: Roman Catholism:Christianity”. Yes, the CoS is the one LRH was most directly involved with until his death, so I understand why some might consider it the “real scientology”, but I don’t view it that way. It is just one possible concrete development arising out of the basic philosophy, and did not necessarily develop in the most healthy way. It, (the CoS) and he,(LRH) became embroiled in a struggle for survival. Perhaps he “drew the fire” to it, much as Marty has drawn the fire of the CoS, to give other lines of development some breathing room?
        I think it is for historians to discover, if possible, how and why it developed the way it did. Like the course of any iving activity, decisions are made, and in the end you end up with an imperfect, less than ideal manifestation overall, that may be more right than wrong, or vice-versa. Or perhaps LRH was really accomp[lishing his purpose when he developed it the way he did, to create space for others, breathing room in which to grow and develop unmolested.
        I certainly don’t feel I’m in a postion to judge accurately Marty’s position either, not having walked in his shoes. But he has been personally helpful to me even recently, so I can’t label him as “anti”.

      • Val, I have no disagreement about Marty’s attempt to separate out the cult mechanics, which I think is a commendable undertaking. But, like you, I haven’t had a lot of trouble separating them out of the basic materials, although some people do have trouble because of being “caught through appeals to their ideological soft spots and appeals to their altruism.” That is the very reason why, no matter how great a writer a person may be or whatever other status he may deservedly have, I would have to assume that there is some sort of Confirmation Bias going on. And with some of Marty’s blog posts, I think this is apparent, to be frank.

        This isn’t to say I’m in a position to judge him either – but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with how he runs his blog, or the conclusions he has come to about scientology, since I see the overall picture differently. So far, at least.

        I get the idea that Marty is so determined to accomplish his purposes (which I don’t doubt are altruistic) that in some ways he is actually operating on “the means justifies the ends” and other things he criticizes about scientology and “scientologists” as to how they talk and handle themselves in general.

        I also wanted to say that I think your overall view as to how things evolved for LRH and the CoS, and all the various dynamics involved, seems quite plausible. In fact, Val, I think you’ve become a pretty good commentator and writer yourself! And your views are just as valid as anybody’s – or more so, because your potential for knowingness may be even greater, no matter what your background was or wasn’t. Hope that communicates. 🙂

      • Moderator, the “p.s.” comment above was supposed to come as a p.s. to another comment I wrote which is still “awaiting moderation.” If there was a problem with that one, and you don’t want to post it, please delete the p.s. comment too as it makes no sense without the one it’s a p.s. to. Thanks.

      • Well Marildi –

        I just really wanted to tell you that I commend you on your ability to remain calm and rational in the face of lots of opposition to your views and even in the face of adhom like you have been receiving.

        I’ve said it before: you are a great emissary for your religion. All viewpoints deserve to be well represented, and you represent yours, and others who agree with you, very very well.

        I’m glad that you are around.


      • Well, Al, there you go again with the charm. That and your humor are your saving graces. And damn it, I can’t help but like you sometimes. A little bit. 😛 🙂

      • Nice post Valkov,
        I have been reading Marty for a long time and he has written some incredible stuff.
        I haven’t read everything so my views are based on what I have encountered.
        I used to be one of Marty’s biggest fans.
        Where I think he went off the rails is going totally negative on the Scientology stuff he writes. I mean he could sprinkle it with some positives and I think it would make him look more objective.
        True, I wouldn’t recommend anyone to the COS. I would recommend some people to get auditing or read some books or take a course. It can be some very good stuff in the whole scheme of what’s available.

        As far as your agreement with Marty goes, that’s up to you. I think it’s laudable that you are so willing to look. I have never liked it when Marty gives some people curt responses and sometimes tends to invalidate them with “true believer” or whatever. I assume Marty likens himself a reformer or teacher so in my opinion it’s not a very good way to change someone’s views by invalidating them. He could just skip them if he didn’t have anything nice to say or moderate them out if he felt they were disruptive.
        Marty has his own camp and is in control of the content. I give Marty credit for posting almost anything. But if the post doesn’t conform to the “new think” then the person usually gets jumped by either Marty or his henchmen.
        I’m pretty sure that it might happen on another blog that was more pro Scientology, if a hater started making comments then he might get jumped. I really haven’t seen the opposite though. The people who like some or a lot of the tech seem to be more tolerant, but maybe that is just my dub-in. I know some people took a very hard line with Marty for some of his views and I think they went overboard.

        So maybe I will just hang and comment on a blog that I feel is more middle of the road, which happens to be this one right now.

        What pissed me off about his comments to you, is that I usually find your comments very thoughtful and hate to see someone slapped down who seems to be earnest. Theo is also very earnest. I rarely read his long posts, but the guy has heart and I hate to see him be the whipping boy over at “Rising a little higher”.

      • I hear ya Tony! He ran that “true believer” line on me and I didn’t like it. I reread it, and I noticed he was noting a “similarity” he saw between the way I responded to somethong said, and the way Heber had responded to something said at some point in the past. So I took that as he was demonstrating the limitations of “associative mind thinking”, as that had been his topic with me.
        Maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt right now, because my expreirnece with him has been that he usually choses his words carefully, being a “writer” and all! 🙂

        Then I Googled this: Definition of TRUE BELIEVER. 1 : a person who professes absolute belief in something. 2 : a zealous supporter of a particular cause.

        And I thought, What’s wrong with that? Is one supposed to believe in nothing, uphold no standard, be a complete cynic, or what? Is one looked down on for holding on to idealistic notions? So OK, I may be a “true believer” in some sense, but then so are you!

        By the way, I got shut down on MS2 blog once for a post I made there, mildly defending Marty, but only because of an attack on him by one participant, who had not been called on his post although they like to think they have a policy of not engaging in controversy. So “the moderators” called me some names. I actually think it was the same guy who made th eobjectionable post. 🙂
        I don’t know where he is at with positive vs. negative, he has been focusing on the negative aspects of “scientology”. I keep in mind that he has written a couple of books that focused on the constructive aspects of “scientology”, and I do think he has assimilated and retained the positive aspects of the auditing tech he learned. I can’t really put him in the same class as Tony Ortega and some of that ilk, in that I think Marty does see both sides. He’s been there done that, they haven’t.

      • I agree Tony. And thank you for sticking up for some of Marty’s smacked-down people. I also was smacked down by Marty and then all the henchmen joined in and it was a free for all tar and feathering. I had done nothing wrong and I was very earnest. I was mislabeled an OSA Bot in my very beginning days of venturing out and writing on a blog. But that has since been handled when I came out and didn’t use an alias anymore. I was sorry to see Marty turn completely against Scn whereas before he had used Scn to audit people newly out of the RCS, and thus he helped many people.

      • Hey Valkov.

        As far as Marty is concerned I think he is a mixed bag. He has done probably the greatest thing ever to bust open the exodus with the Truth Rundown and start his blog.
        I supported the man. I took a risk going to see him for auditing and the cult started to attack me for it. The guy was and still is to a large degree a hero of mine.

        I think he is brilliant and I have really liked many of his article and books.

        I don’t like how he tends to pick on people he doesn’t like and his blog has become a safe haven for the haters. I classify Marty as a hater mostly because he doesn’t say anything I can recall that is positive about the philosophy. He supposedly was the best auditor around and yet can’t say anything good about the subject?? Sounds like a big out-point to me.
        I can forgive Tony Ortega as he has never even received auditing or anything else, how can he really comment on it. I love what Tony Ortega is doing to fight the abuses.
        Marty is the ex Inspector General for Ethics of RTC and apparently a great auditor and now doesn’t see anything particular he wants to validate from the philosophy.

        This strikes me as very, very odd.

        I appreciate the things he did that were positive and I warn those who care, not to get sucked into his vortex of making nothing out of what some people spent a lifetime understanding and working at.

        If you like hanging out there that’s cool with me. Some people are gluttons for punishment. 🙂

        I also agree that every “camp” has it’s own intolerance issues. I’m neither in the KSW group or the “basher, make nothing out of” group. As you say, with infinity valued logic there are many shades of grey. I am more in the middle.

      • Auditing is basically directing the attention of a person to the right area of his case. This has been done over the centuries in many different ways.

        So, what is unique about Scientology doing it? Well, Scientology uses processes to help one look at the right area of the case.

        Right now Marty is looking at the liabilities built into Scientology auditing procedure. There are many such liabilities. One of them is collecting intimately private information.

        Once these liabilities are removed, maybe the subject will become safe, but it may not resemble the way Scientology is at the moment.


  28. Lovely post Tony. I am on a similar road to you.
    One thing that does strike me is that no matter whether a person is out, or ex, or never-in, these blogs and the topics that come up and the discussions, the the intelligence, wit, humour, the whole gamut of emotions that comes out, makes these blogs the most fascinating and interesting source of information and thinking and debate. I have learned so much by reading the posts and the comments.
    I can never find the actual quote when I need it, but I do recall LRH saying that once a person has done some scientology, whether he sticks with or not, he never loses his sense of responsibility. I obviously don’t know how true that is, but what I do observe is a fascinating (in a good way) community of people that has evolved out of the church’s debacle.
    Always love your posts Tony.

  29. Tony, even though we do not agree on everything, this is an excellent article and I love anything that starts a healthy debate such as this. We should not be afraid to read opinions that differ from ours. We should not be afraid to state our own opinion.

    So well done to you and the mods of this blog for letting this debate happen in the way it has. Reading all these viewpoints has been stimulating and interesting!

    • It is heartening to see that the moderator/s of this blog are evolving, too, if I may say so. There is much comment now being permitted that wouldn’t have been in the past.
      As has been discussed ad infinitum, there are many different types of people disaffecting, many different stages of doing so, and very many who have learnt more than others. I’m glad to see that the latter is having a voice, too.

  30. I guess the last thing I want to say, is that even if Marty did come to conclusion that Scientology was not beneficial and worse, harmful, is that a reason to turn against someone and why do Scientologists do that?

    Many go out in the world all day long and pretend they are just another ordinary citizen. They do not talk talk about Scientology, register themselves as Scientologists, tell their customers they are Scientologists, I mean it is a real closet thing. They do not ask approval from anyone because the stigma is so bad they can’t confront the negative feed back. They still associate freely and kindly with all of the people they suspect would not be very fond of Scientology, say something negative about it, or even warn others about it. And they have no problem at all doing this.

    Then they go off to high security locations where they can let their Scientology all hang out, like going to a nudist colony or something. There they can be the superstars.

    But if someone from inner group changes their mind or attitude about Scientology, they are instantly regarded as a toxic virus. But not the mailman! Not the waitress! Not your Congessman!

    I don’t get that and I don’t think there is any reason behind that to get.

    If a person is a good person does it matter what they think of Scientology?

    Why is it that every other religion lives out loud with who they are and daily tolerates people that wouldn’t foot step in the door of their church, yet they can still grant that that other person has value and meaning?

    If Marty has decided Scientology is harmful that doesn’t change my arc about him and respect for the life he has lived and what he has done for others. He is still a good person.

    I guess “Never withdraw allegiance once granted” is one of those Hubbard advices people don’t take too seriously or the code of honor just doesn’t seem too interesting?

    I’m sorry. This is not right to turn against people or unfriend them because of their views on Scientology. I know it is part of the culture. That doesn’t make it right. It is not your religion that makes you a better person, it is your behavior. And if you can’t love someone or take responsibility for them because they have a different view, I really don’t know why you are claiming the ARC triangle was such a great piece of information and why you feel more responsible because of your beliefs.

    This is Earth, not religious gang turf.

    • TO, hi to you in a new unit of time. I too had a fall out with Marty. The reasons are unimportant, other than the fact that I eventually tired of his caustic and cutting responses, which resulting in me quitting his blog for good. I said so to him, before moving on.

      On a different note, you are aware that I have appreciated your candor, and straight-talk, and well remember our e-mails, when you shared some of the anguish and betrayals you had experienced at the hands of certain Scns, whom I shall not mention.

      What I remember most vividly though, occurred around three years back, some three months after I had begun visiting Marty’s blog.

      You may recall the vicious “fair game” attack , (3pty orchestrated) where I found myself set upon, by what seemed like a pack of wild dogs, and accused of being an OSA infiltrator. (that’s where you came in)

      The hilarious fact in all this, is that I had only just learned to use the computer, in order to be ABLE TO POST ON MARTY’S BLOG!

      To my simple thinking, it was just great to have an opportunity, to link up and chat, with ‘like minded’ people, and make new friends too.

      Evidently, I had been making a little too much noise, as “li’l bit of stuff”, the handle I’d mocked up, via Ron’s use of the term in his Clearing Congress DVD “The Fact Of Clearing” — it simply meant “duplication”

      Anyhow, back to your remarkable intervention, in that pack dog attack.

      I was utterly bewildered at that moment, knowing relatively little of the history of this type of thing. As a matter of fact, I openly admit that I was a real admirer of Marty, and the way and manner in which he was exposing the entire package of Miscavige lies, crimes and abuse.

      What I could not understand, was the way Marty did absolutely nothing, when this totally uncalled for attack upon me, was taking place in his own “lounge.” (blog)

      What I did understand completely though, was how you were the one to come in at that point, and effectively “put a stop” to the carnage I was experiencing! 🙂 I was extremely grateful then, and still appreciate you for that today.

      Well the years have rolled on as we know, and so much water has flowed under the ‘bridge’, as it were, while washing away much of the foundations, and structures we came to depend on.

      But loyalty, courage, integrity, and unshakable certainties, are there for keeps……. 🙂

      Love and ARC,

      Calvin. Durban, South Africa

      • Yes I remember those days on Marty’s blog. Rampant paranoia from some posters. I chose to assume those particular people had some reason to be paranoid! And you were possibly just “collateral damage”.
        But it reminded me of my first intro to the anti-Scn crowd, on Geir’s Forum. I had been completely out of touch with the “real world” of the CoS for years but stil looked on the “philosophy” as containg good stuff. Boy did I get trounced, largely by Alanzo, who used my posts as a springboard for his own rants and critical agenda. Those days color my view of Al to this day.

      • Well, thanks for that, Val!.

        Indeed, I also mirror your sentiments and your reasons for them.

        As I said, the years have certainly rolled on. And so have most of us, too, fortunately.

        In my case, there has been a huge shift in perspective on life, as a whole.
        That probably being my biggest understatement ever! Since having been literally caught up in some of the most violent and degrading crime, you can imagine, (I have my business premises in a storage complex, which I partly own. But the area has been overtaken by marauding gangs, which constantly prey upon the defenseless and vulnerable.)

        As chairman of the complex, I have literally had to crank up my confront of evil. by a factor of 10. And as selling up and moving is not an option, the alternative was to just adjust my approach by meeting the threats head on!

        Being regularly exposed to violence of the most extreme kind, including stabbings, shootings, and gang attacks, does something to your outlook, and that’s putting it mildly! 🙂

        I sure you’re totally aware of how being caught up in a ‘war zone’, can harden your attitude, and certainly make you more insensitive to the ‘smaller’ problems that can bother most people, in a less challenging environment? As a matter of fact, my own daughter and son-in-law, are both hardened police officers, who have ‘seen it all’, so, one definitely gets used to living close to death, routinely.

        As I said, we’ve moved on. The likes of Alanzo, and his obvious ‘hater’ stance, are now viewed as the pathetic ramblings of a guy who just CANNOT ‘let go’, no matter how over the top he feels and becomes! Poor old Al! I actually feel sorry for him. 🙂

        But getting life in proper perspective, definitely enables one to better appreciate the simple things most take for granted. Like being alive. Like being (and staying ) in present time. Like having a good sense of humor and having really good friends, who share a similar, light-hearted outlook too. Like making the most of the talents you have and opportunities that come your way. Like not wasting your life on worthless pursuits. Like showing love & appreciation to those that mean something to you!
        Why spend it otherwise?… After all, it could all be over in a flash.

        And the most important of all? simply the opportunity to be able to comm freely, with good, responsive people, such as your yourself, who really ‘get it’, with ease.

        This first class Blog, put here by it’s administrators, goes a long, long way to making (and keeping) it possible, to do that. Geir Isene is another great guy, who does the same, with his blog. I have learned a lot from him too.

        Life’s good these days, hey?


      • Hi Calvin, I do miss you! Yes those were some volcanic times, I went through my own days of being a target. There was one person there fond of starting witch hunts, usually back lines so someone else would do the attacking. He’s still doing the same thing and I’ve had my own challenges with him. But he was eventually “encouraged” to go away by several people who began to figure him out. You were so enthusiastic and cheerful and had huge ARC, most of everyone else was still blowing off steam, it was a pressure cooker. There was so many things going on that never aired publicly. Honestly, had I been in Marty’s shoes I might have hurt someone. Remember that creepy lady that rang their doorbell when Monique was home alone? She was interrogating Monique about training. I would have pushed that woman down the stairs, backwards. See, that is how OSA works. They will set up volunteers to be targets with out the volunteers even knowing what they are in for. So creepy, so entheta. Sacrificial lambs. I have personally been hit by OSA crews several times even gaining access to my home, my kids, our work place, private information which was leaked or outed me on the net. They hit very hard at my place and we have not used our back yard for four years since suddenly all of the surrounding trees were cut down that were privacy between us and other buildings / homes. (Surveillance) We all paid a price for religious freedom. People think Miscavige arranged religious freedom for Scientologists when he struck a deal with the I.R.S.. He didn’t. Marty is responsible for the religious freedom of Scientologists. And the entity suppressing them was David Miscavige. That is the truth of the matter.

        As far as Marty not getting involved, he wasn’t on the blog a lot and I think he even had help moderating it then. He was doing a lot of counseling then and they had people coming down frequently for help.

        Otherwise Marty isn’t much of a control freak and doesn’t care to be a police. He opens a dialog and lets people exchange ideas. It has been pretty smooth for a long time now except for what I call the “hecklers”. But I’ve known them a long time and I like them personally. I think a little bull baiting is good. And I have figured out how to dance with them. I heckle back. With comedy. I laughed so hard last week. This one made me laugh so long I couldn’t fall asleep:

        vinaire | September 17, 2014 at 8:05 am | Reply
        Thetan-mind-body is a single thing. They are not separate entities in some absolute sense.

        The Oracle | September 17, 2014 at 8:30 am | Reply
        I’m sure this will be a blow down for all Necrophiliacs.

        I am thinking of just doing comedy from now on. 🙂

    • Oracle – I love your viewpoint. I also agree that whatever Marty thinks or doesn’t think – he has done a HUGE amount of good in peeling the onion layers off and letting the true facts be known. I appreciate that you have his back. He deserves good friends because he has been a good friend to many. I recall what he and Mike did to help Debbie Cook and the platform that they both give to so many as you have described in your posts. And that platform has helped probably thousands by now. Now Marty and Monique are taking on the church and it is wriggling around with its technical point taking and putting up the mother of all fights. I back Marty and Monique all the way. The more press they get, the more people will look.

      • Thanks Wendy. I think you will like this poem by Yeats:

        Note: Parnellites were supporters of a man named Parnell who was a politician of sorts that did a lot for the people. He had his own OSA type situation (The Bishops and “the party” ) that spread black P.R. and false reports to a point they made him look a degenerate.

        Come Gather Round Me, Parnellites

        Come gather round me, Parnellites,
        And praise our chosen man,
        Stand upright on your legs awhile,
        Stand upright while you can,
        For soon we lie where he is laid
        And he is underground;
        Come fill up all those glasses
        And pass the bottle round.

        And here’s a cogent reason
        And I have many more,
        He fought the might of Ireland
        And saved the Irish poor,
        Whatever good a farmer’s got
        He brought it all to pass;
        And here’s another reason,
        That Parnell loved a lass.

        And here’s a final reason,
        He was of such a kind
        Every man that sings a song
        Keeps Parnell in his mind
        For Parnell was a proud man,
        No prouder trod the ground,
        And a proud man’s a lovely man
        So pass the bottle round.

        The Bishops and the Party
        That tragic story made,
        A husband that had sold his wife
        And after that betrayed;
        But stories that live longest
        Are sung above the glass,
        And Parnell loved his country
        And Parnell loved his lass.

      • Decompressing and untangling oneself from scn is task of incredible magnitude. I know from my own experience. My experience in scn was brief and I know what it took to completely as possible untangle my self from it. I had to mentally go to every extreme; from scn was the only thing worthwhile, to scn was all evil, from loving scn more than anything else, to almost hating everything, to Hubbard was a genius extraodinaire to Hubbard was a criminal extraordinaire.

        It is like processing. All nooks and crannies in the entire scn experience and Hubbard experience has to have the light of day shone on it, has to be processed. All charge has to be released from everything scn. Because everything scn or Hubbard has charge on it.

        Then like a pendalum swinging back and forth and finally coming to rest in the middle, you have to find that neutral ground to stablize. A place where you can intelligently look at everything from an impartial viewpoint, and use what is useful and chuck the rest up to experience. The longer time you spent in scn and the more you did in scn, the more effort you put into scn, the more the charge there would be and the longer it would take, and more effort it would take, to clear the charge, to have a floating needle on everything.

        I think Marty is going through the “everything scn is evil” phase. It is a necessary part of the process.

        Reading and fully understanding the article “How to study a science” is essential to doing the process.

        This is what I mean, by Hubbard dropped clues and left signs on the wall, and even clear instructions for intelligent and wise to find the way out of the trap.

        Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and a mind to understand will see and heed the signs and read the instructions.

        Scn will then become a freedom and a power for them.

        And scn will continue to be a trap for fools and the feeble minded.

        Today, I can carry on my life, and use the useful things I learned in scn, to give me great advantage in handling life.

        I would love to be able to talk about the good things in scn to people I meet, but I learned the very hard way, that is a risk that is not worth taking.

        I would only now love to find a 2D of a comparable magnitude.

        Anyone here interested in discussing the matter of 2D can contact me by email: diogeneseii at

        I am 61 yr old male. On a good day I can pass for 40.

        I don’t like labels, but when necessary I describe myself as a christian scientologist plus.

        I don’t like labels, because labels generally speaking, are limiting.

        And my most prefered label, if it comes down to labels is an “intelligent, responsible, loving, truth seeking, unlimited free spirit”.


    • iamvalkov, I hate to admit it but Gier’s forum was too rough a neighborhood for me. They tore me apart over there, and I only popped in defend the Independents, who were being fair gamed that week. Then someone threw in Marty to toast as a cherry on top. I stood my ground defending both for only a few days. The alter is and blatant lies being posted that week by people made it impossible for me to lay down any bridges.

      • Hey TO, great to get your reply above, after such a long absence! 🙂

        Thanks so much for filling in some gaps that had arisen in the meantime.

        You know what? You’re bang on about the comedy angle too! 🙂

        In fact, I had put in another reply to Valkov, (as yet still not through the moderation), which gave a pretty (no, make that decidedly UN-pretty) account of my changed circumstances today, and the huge impact that had on my current life values!

        But the big thing, as far as I’m concerned, is just simply staying in Present Time, and living each day in appreciation of your blessings, and YES, that comedic outlook helps keep us SANE, too, baby! hahaha.

        Love, Calvin.:)

  31. Some posts here really get the tongues wagging and opinions hotly expressed. This was a great one! Tony, I loved it and it was as though I wrote it myself. As one decompressed more and more you could find out you were expressing an opinion which was not entirely your own and which you will later change as you evaluate for yourself.

  32. I know we all have been tried. The main thing is, we may bicker here and there. But we are still on our purpose lines to grow, to understand, to make better ourselves and to help our fellow man.

    This one is everyone:

  33. A STORY

    ca. 1952

    Once upon a time there was a man, or perhaps he was not a man, who slept for a very long time.

    When he laid himself down to rest, the world was not too terrible. People were happy and their actions were productive and the green hills had flowers upon them.

    When he awakened, however, things had changed. He stood outside his cave and looked at the world. Yes, somehow it had changed. The hills were ugly and brown. Near at hand two women were quarreling. Far away a red cloud rose and when he looked more closely he saw that it was a battle. And so he walked down through the fields and towns trying to find what had happened.

    Men glowered at him. Children did not play. And there was little food and the haggard faces of all showed that each staggered under some heavy burden of grief. And the man, or perhaps he was not a man, saw that the world had come into trying times.

    He wandered about, understanding that here he faced a black enchantment, thickly laid upon the souls of men. Perhaps some sorcerer had done it to men, perhaps men had done it to themselves. But it did not matter. The world had gone mad. Somebody must do something.

    The man thought for many days. And then he made a golden ball and filled it with everything necessary to undo a black enchantment. It was a very pretty ball, on the end of an ivory stick. And it was very easy to use for one had but to hold it over the head of a human being and wish him well to break the thrall which held that being.

    And the man went forth and held it over the heads of dozens of people and did not tell them what it was and they suddenly smiled and became bright and the thrall was broken for them. And the man saw that this was good and so he showed many people how to use the golden ball and told them all that was necessary to break the black enchantment clear across the whole world.

    And some used it. But others said, “Isn’t it pretty! ” and began to play catch with it. And some said, “It isn’t really gold.” And some wanted to hide it for fear it would be stolen. And some said, “It’s GOLD!” and bought knives and pistols with it and fought. And some said cunningly, “With this POWER I can rule Earth.” And others simply ran about and said it wasn’t really a ball and that the man had stolen it from others and they clutched their black enchantment about them and whispered that the man had done it in the first place and that he planned to kill them all.

    But the man paid little heed. He tried to form companies to make the golden ball available to many. But the people in the companies said, “It’s mine!” ‘It’s power!” “It’s gold!” and “The man will kill us all!” and so they fought amongst themselves and threw dust over the golden ball and tried to dent it.

    And at last the man sat down in a desert place and sent his word about that anybody could use this ball that wanted it. And they sent officers and thieves and lawyers at him to say that nobody could use the ball.

    And they took the man’s captain and said they would imprison him for saying the golden ball was owned by everybody. And they made the government put guards around the man in case anybody sent him money to help ship the golden ball to everyone.

    And the man looked at these people and not one of them who hated the golden ball had ever used it in any way but only thrown dust on it and tried to dent it and he looked at the sly people who went up and down the roads saying, “It is not really gold!” “The man really stole it,” and then he looked and saw beyond these the haggard faces, the crippled children, the sorrowing women. And above all these he saw the red cloud of the battle.

    And the battle cloud grew taller. And it grew taller and taller as though it hung with fire up above an entire world.

    And the man, sitting in the desert place, looked at the golden ball.


    • Tony, fabulous tale. …So isn’t it really just about about “keeping one’s eye on the ball”, that matters most? That evidently, “dropping the ball”, is what led us into our confusion of values after all? 🙂

  34. Pretty insightful Tony, for the record I have known Tony since 1982. I see there have been a lot of responses for which I ignored. But I did read your bullet points and I think they wre each and all very insightful. Thanks.

  35. I don’t often leave comments but I want to add my thanks for what Tony said. I feel I am in a very similar place to him and I found what he said about the haters to ring true for me as well.

    As for how to go about re-evaluating what we did and what we gained I pretty much agree with Tony’s approach. I was never a high classed auditor but I studied a lot of tech and put in a fair amount of hours on a read it drill it do it basis. I was a good student in the sense that I loved to study and could get through things quite fast. But I was no pushover and gained a reputation as someone who would not be rail-roaded into accepting a procedure or interpretation I didn’t believe was justified.

    One of the odd things about my history came to mind in reading Tony’s post: I had attempted to be on staff 5 or 6 times over more than 30 years. I had a strong purpose to help. But I never made it as a staff member. The main reason was that I was not willing to go along with things I disagreed with. I did not consider this a fault of the orgs at the time but of particular individual staff members or S.O. members. I had used LSD as a kid and this prevented me from joining the S.O. I am sure I would have done otherwise. I’m equally sure that if I had I would have quit and likely been declared a lot sooner.

    • A huge help in decompressing and evaluating everything scn is to read as much other fz material as possible

      Read other bridges developed by people who realized that they have to think for themselves.

      There are several.

      There is Flibert’s Excalibur revisisted.

      There is Electra’s bridge.

      There is TROM by Dennis Stevens.

      There is Ron’s Org stuff

      There is the Pilots work. It is extensive.

      Do not judge it, before you read it.

      Keep an open mind and see it from their point of view.

      Apply it to see how well it works.

      The value of a datum is determined by how many problems it solve and how well it solves them.

      The value of a datum is not determined by authority, nor by beliefs and opinions, nor is it determined by who wins an argument.

      The biggest room in the world is room for improvement.

      Another very important thing to do is to read all the IVy magazines.

      They are all in pdf and on line.

      IVy was a fz mag run by Ant Philips.

      He (and I think others helped) put it all on line for the benefit of all mankind.

      It is a Gold mine of very high theta data, by some the greatest and free thinking, or self thinking minds that have come out of scn.

      Just do a search and you will find it.

      Everyone should all these articles.

      You will gain the knowledge of dozens of great minds, who each spent a life time or many yrs of their lives in scn and then thinking for themselves to evaluate and improve upon what they learned from Hubbard.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s