On free will, fundamentalism and the workability of Scientology

Free will

 

Editor comment: Many thanks to Theta Clear for submitting this article of his personal viewpoints, observations and experiences with Scientology. 

 

FREE WILL, FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE WORKABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY

By Theta Clear

Free will is a quality tied to self-determinism and the ability/willingness to “think for yourself” and decide based on your own observations, what works and what doesn’t, what is true for you or not.

Without “Free will”, you only have robotism under the spell of authoritarianism with its consequential neglect of actual OBSERVATION ; a slow and painless death of reason and consciousness, but a death nevertheless.

For whatever the reasons, this planet is plagued with fundamentalism and a fanatical approach to religious knowledge.

In Scientology, the reason lies in whole track implants of “religious mania” and “right/wrong dichotomies”, many of which predates the creation of the MEST universe itself. And yet for others, the reasons lies in man’s “hidden and insidious destructive nature” as they call it. For others religions, the reasons lies in the works of evil entities that have roamed  this universe since time immemorial. But no matter the assigned causes from different denominations for this apparent curse with which we humans are affected, they have one thing in common : a “hidden influence” insidiously spreading across the dynamics.

I think that defining and discussing the subject of fundamentalism is of the essence for the message of this article to be communicated with any degree of reality , with the role that “free will” plays in all of this.

“Fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭndə-mĕntl-ĭz′əm) n. 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.” (Free Online Dictionary by Farlex)

Mind Closed

 

Some key characteristics that fundamentalists share are :

  1. A strict adherence to scriptures without proper evaluation of all its parts.

 They usually believe in them out of the repeated propaganda of authoritative leadership, and out of an inherent search for a better life and for the gathering of “stable” data with which to handle their confusions and pains intrinsic to being alive. And because they find comfort and the “end” of their confusions in adopting such “stable” data, they get stuck on it because general observation and correct evaluation is barred to them due to the insidious nature of the “fixed idea” ; of the “safe solution”.

 Any doubt concerning the scriptures would mean an immediate return to a state of confusion and heavy loss. The removal of “stable” data w/out the proper replacement of better and more pro-survival ones is what is at fault here; it is the barrier that prevents OBSERVATION. It is also an unkind act to do so to anybody.

 It is an obvious fact that beings have been undergoing a VERY long dwindling spiral since time immemorial. Decadency, pain, suffering, confusion, degradation and unhappiness have been, all of them, part of the daily existence of an incredible amount of beings. And thus, the adopting of a religious belief, is part and parcel of the business of living. How else can the “hope factor” be entered in the scene ? Without hope, there is no life. Hope is what drives us through life; it is the common factor we all share. It is a much higher concept than mere “survival”.

 We all think and expect that tomorrow is going to be better ; that solutions will come. That this “thing”, this “item” that is ruining our lives, will get handled somehow through our participation in religious activities –  be it a monotheistic, polytheistic or a god-less religious philosophy like Scn , Buddhism, or other -ism(s) .

 We all believe in a better elsewhere, in a state of “Freedom”, whatever that means for different individuals. When a being no longer believes that things WILL get better, the hope factor is gone and with it, the individual as well. Hope is what keeps us alive and willing to stay in the game with the promise of a better tomorrow.

 

  1. An intolerance and refusal to duplicate and understand divergent views , resulting in individuation from the “apostates”.

Many times, they place high priority to conformity with scriptures with such an insistence that it takes more importance than love, compassion and understanding. Go to Rinder’s blog and see with your own eyes the photos of two LA Org ladies attempting to Body Route individuals from the street. Their contempt for an individual passing them is a testimony of this same attitude. Here is the link :

 http://www.mikerindersblog.org/la-org-bodyrouting/

 They get stuck in doctrinal seriousness to such a degree that real service and the actual care for the individual  becomes an absent quality in their lives. You are “right” in their minds only if you abide unquestionably to their scriptures. If not, you are described by various names depending on the denomination such as “apostate”,  “natterer”, “squirrel”, “disaffected”, “SP”, etc, etc.

 They individuate from “dissenters” and become highly critical of them. Intolerance, the creating of antagonism, exclusion, and the refusal to allow others be, becomes part of their existence. This is often masked under a hypocritical “everybody has a right to their opinions but…..”. You see it every day with fanatical Scientologists like the ones who abound in the Church, many out here in the field have already decontaminated themselves to a greater or lesser degree.

 

  1. An absolute adherence to scriptures as a requirement for “Salvation” as they are the only ones that hold what they considers to be the only “route out” , they think.

There is a big difference between sticking with what works based on your own experiences and observations and fixedly sticking with any un-evaluated data just assuming it to be “right” without proper analysis of empirical results. Just because one piece of data out of a complete subject works, it is no reason to assume that ALL the data from such a subject must be true. That is a big outpoint in itself – a faulty logic. Data is true to the degree that it works when applied, and invariably so in any circumstances; to the degree you can make predictions with it that are found to be true when verified.

Unevaluated data is a very tricky business indeed ; an intellectual suicide. It leads to a fanatical and fundamentalistic approach to a subject with its resulting enslavement of reason and freedom. As Sting says in his “History Will Teach Us Nothing” song : “Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse.”

 

Which brings me to the subject of the “workability of Scientology” or lack thereof, and the apparent conflict in the field from ex(es) and non-Scientologists regarding the question :

“Is Scientology really a workable system ?”.

My thesis and the central message of this article is that it IS, even though it is also riddled with many contradictions and portions that violate the most fundamental Human Rights . I found it to be highly workable through thousands of hours of application on hundreds of different public over a period of decades.

I have tested, for example,  the study Tech in several children, many of which were not “influenced” by having read anything from LRH.  I just sat with each one of them and used the full Study Tech on them to resolve their study difficulties. They knew nothing of the symptoms of the study barriers and yet they manifested almost all of them.  And finding their M/Us, providing the missing mass and finding the skipped gradient  always made all such symptoms to go away immediately ; an accumulation of empirical data. They didn’t “imagine” the symptoms or just “dramatized” them out of having read them on any LRH issue; they had never read any.

I debug my own little daughter every time when I study with her. Sometimes the manifestations don’t go away immediately and then I find earlier M/Us on the subject (and even on similar studied subjects) and skipped gradients from even months before. I clear those M/Us, go back to when she was doing well on the subject (this might be days, weeks on even months before), find the skipped gradient and end of story. VGIs come in and a recovery of ARC for the subject and the ability to think with it and apply it. Nothing to do with “imagining” it works or “belief” or “faith” or “fundamentalism”. It just WORKS and invariably so. I have tested that piece of Tech for hundreds of hours; it has never failed me so far.

What about the Comm formula and its parts drilled in TRs? Try talking to somebody without acknowledging him and see for yourself the immediate upset. Try it with your own kids. Try ignoring someone’s origination and discover the formation of an ARCx. What about having your attention dispersed while talking to someone? Ever tried to talk with a person whose attention wandered all over the place ? Did you feel ok with that ? I guess not. I bet you felt they didn’t have the “intention” to listen to you.

I am not talking about the robotic auditor’s TRs taught by the Church. I am talking about a very natural and relaxed way to handle comm cycles. I am not talking about a senior’s empty and forced TR2 to “handle” you to comply with his orders,  nor about a faked understanding (OUT-TR2) from a Reg trying to run a enforced havingness on you for unwanted services or for criminal exchange (fundraising donations). Or about an empty, “I understand you” when “handling” your originations about not wanting or being capable of paying for your next service. No, I am talking about a natural, interested and relaxed handling of the comm cycle. TRs work, PERIOD. Nothing to do with “opinion”  it is just pure empirical data. The full communication formula as described in Scientology IS factual and workable data.

Let’s take the subject of “Confessions” and Tech on the handling of O/Ws. I am sure that many of you have experienced the enormous relief resulting from honestly confessing transgressions and getting really acknowledged for it, not made guilty. Nothing possesses so much rehabilitation potential and is capable of so much amount of relief as this marvelous piece of technology. It is like “being born again”. Try accumulating some even “minor” W/Hs with your spouse and see for yourself how hell is let loose. Try holding onto little missed W/Hs and observe your own wild reactions towards the one that misses them.

I handle my own daughter with this piece of incredible Tech every time. She becomes a little critical, you know. A little hostile with no apparent reason – and I immediately find and locate what “I should have found out” about her and end of that. She immediately becomes all ARC and incredibly affectionate with me again. Not propitiative, but with real ARC. Of course, I never EVER make her guilty or punish her for any confession. She knows that. She knows she is safe with being honest. She knows that her “punishment” for getting her withholds off will be a big tone-40 “thank you for telling me honey and for being honest” followed by a big hug.. “Imagination”?  “fanaticism”? Ah, have another thought. It WORKS, period.

Granted , this Tech can be criminally used to harm, enslave, control and push people’s anchor points in. But it is not the Tech itself that is at fault any more than gravity is not “at fault” because someone fell from a building and died. Gravity is, just as the O/W Tech is, discovered laws, not inventions. They are what they are. The incorrect use of such laws is the problem to handle.

What about the Tech of Assists? With it I have performed many “miracles” testified by non-Scientologist M.D(s). I have cured brain tumors (2x), cancer (2-3x), Appendicitis, asthma, sleeplessness, acute pains under just a few hours, chronic migraine, chronic tiredness, arthritis – etc, etc, etc. The majority of those cases were non-Scientologists or people with just a very basic knowledge of the subject. No “imagination” involved ; it happened in the real physical universe under witnesses.

I am not making any claims here as to the capacity of Scn to cure any ills. I am ONLY reporting what I as an individual have been able to accomplish in the past with this piece of technology. That’s my only claim.

I was even called back then (early 90s), “Mano Santa” , which means “the one with the healing power on his hands”. My own non-Scientologist family members call me every time there is a heavy sickness or injury in the family. They are basically Christians, all of them. They are not interested in Scn but neither are against what works. Placebo effect? Really? With so many people? And a lot of them non-Scientologists? I don’t think so. So the frequently used and faulty argument that it is the imagined result of a fanatical adherence to doctrine is immediately defeated by empirical data from medical exams themselves.

What about the discovery of the engram and the reactive mind ? I have audited thousands of hrs of  Book-1. I audited continuously 35-50 hrs of DNs every week for years. Two times the best Bk-1 auditor. Even earned a free trip to the Freewinds with a free course too. Nothing that I have done in Scn so far in others has produced so many fast changes and immediate results than simple DMSMH procedures. I have read the book at least 10x cover to cover and almost know it by heart.

I can apply each and every datum there without having to think about it. I have seen engrams in FULL dramatization with all the somatics and painful emotions. I audited a lady (she had not even read the book) back in the early’80s on a tonsils operation she had had several years ago. At first she remembered absolutely nothing. Maybe I should not have taken that incident and instead addressed some minor locks or secondaries, but it seemed she was stuck on it as it kept on coming to her mind without any more coming up so I tackled it.

We spent 8 straight hours running the operation out. Little by little, using all the tools from DMSMH (flash answers, repetitive tech, somatic shut-off handling of , etc, etc).  I reconstructed the engram and she was able to see the COMPLETE operation from above (exteriorized) in all details including seeing her mom outside all worried. We contacted and reduced ALL phrases uttered by the doctors and nurses with their aberrative content and she was able to realize how she had literally dramatized such phrases in her life with its consequential aberration.

The surgeon was her friend in adulthood so she called him in and asked him to describe the operation for her. Also got her mom to describe the details of how she was dressed and where was she at. It all matched perfectly.  After the running of that incident she handled all the ruins she came to handle and her OCA graph was well above the center line. She was happy as a clam. The majority of her life ruins came directly from that engram being constantly restimulated by perceptics that were every day present at her work.

Another case ran an engram of almost drowning to death in a river with his brothers when he was 10-12 years old. While he was unconcious one of his brothers shouted “grab him, he can’t breathe”. He had developed a severe case of asthma and stress. After running that incident he became totally healthy and very relaxed. I have never seen anybody so happy with results in so little time: 12 hrs of BK-1. He remembered nothing at first but the incident presented itself as a flash answer response of “the incident necessary to solve the case”. So I ran it and reconstructed it in full with a full verification by him  with his brothers that the way he remembered it in session was the way it actually happened.

And I could go on and write 30-50 more stories like those, about the incredible workability of plain old Book-1 auditing straight out of DMSMH. Imagination? Mental projection? Faith? Fanaticism? None of the above. It just WORKS. Period.

The PTS/SP Tech when used by someone who truly understands it without a fundamentalist approach to it can mean the difference between success or failure in life; between depression and stability. My sister had a heavy PTS scene with our father for several years. She was really miserable and incredible depressed. I was a rookie Scientologist (this lifetime) back then, but I had learned quite well the data on the “Overcoming Ups and Downs” Div-6 course. So I applied it to the letter as an experiment. What did I have to lose ? I drilled my sister for hours on how to answer hostile comms by acking only the “good parts” of the communication and not engaging in creating any antago. She roller coastered like hell while doing it , flunking on the drills every time. I kept going , keeping her under control ,and flattening all buttons found.

Then I got her to write a “good roads good weather” letter to my father. I inspected the letter carefully to ensure no HE&R , no comm below 2.0, no recriminations or blame, just an interested comm and a petition. I knew that my father would “explode” upon reading the letter and would attempt to justify it all away. I drilled her on not answering it back with more entheta. It happened exactly as predicted. He exploded but she remained under good control. That was the end of the PTS scene. They became the best of friends and still are. Not one single fight that I know of after that, thanks to all the drills we did.

In her mind, due to her PTSness, he was a monster, a real SP. I knew he was not; that he was only being stupid (sorry father, I love you). At the end, he even improved his social skills with EVERYBODY after that. She taught him a lesson of humility, tolerance and compassion. It worked. I have repeated the same results with dozens of people over a period of many years.

Just as with the O/W Tech, this PTS/SP Tech can be twisted around and used by evil or just plain stupid people to suppress, harass, control and enforce adherence to strict doctrine. But correctly used, it can and does save lives. But , and I very emphatically say BUT, if mixed with the Scn Justice codes, specially the list of “suppressive” acts, many abuses occur as evidenced by the thousands declared “SPs” by the Church in an effort to enforce suppressive obedience and to silence “dissidents”. Which now brings me to the part that most Scientologists don’t want to hear :

“What is UNWORKABLE in Scientology” ?

Well , in the first place, LRH really had no business writing that non-sensible PL about the supposed “Suppressive Acts” that only brought incredible pain and losses to hundreds of people over a period of decades and still does. I don’t care if he meant well or not – the result is the same and speaks for itself. It was something royally stupid indeed.

This whole thing about “squirrels”, KSW  and “attack the critics and dissenters by exposing their crimes” practice is just a very badly thought out and suppressive strategy. It violates so many Human Rights that I have always had difficulties reconciling it with the rest of the subject.

Scientology started to go downhill since the creation of the “KSW Series 1” PL and the formulation of the “Suppressive Acts” list. With KSW #1 it was clearly established that the Scn Tech was created ONLY by LRH without any help whatsoever from anybody in terms of suggestions – a complete falsity. LRH had a LOT of help from many auditors over many years and accepted a LOT of suggestions. He borrowed workable solutions from many great minds who came before him. There is a lot of evidence of this from the early editions of books he wrote. He himself thanked and acknowledged people who helped contribute towards the compilation of his work. Many PL’s & Tech Bulletins in the old volumes were authored by others. In later editions only his name appeared on these issues.

With KSW #1 it was clearly established that Scn was the ONLY “route out”. Free from any faults. Anyone seeking any additional knowledge from other sources would be considered “squirreling”. Anything else besides “Standard Tech” would be heavily censored and even attacked.

With KSW #1, gone was your right to have any “personal ideas” about the Tech as that became only your own “bank dramatization”. Only LRH, according to him, had the capacity to “rise” above his bank.

With KSW #1 , if it didn’t work then it was YOU that was at fault and not the Tech, as Tech was considered then infallible in all its aspects and not to be questioned in any way

With KSW #1, if Scn wasn’t applied unadulterated, then we would face “eternal darkness and oblivion”. The route to follow began to be controlled through fear and not through reason , freedom of thought and free will. We became robots to “authority” – fixated on “Total Freedom” – something which Scn can’t accomplish in its present state as evidenced by how no true “Operating Thetan” has ever been achieved in Scn,  nor a textbook Book One Clear as described in DMSMH.

Excellent states can and do get achieved indeed. But they fall very short of all the supposed abilities to be gained from them as advertized even by LRH himself,  not only by the CofS. You see many “Clears” dramatizing problems in life (out-Grade I) , generating much hostility (out-Grade II), with fixed ideas and stuck in life (out-Grade IV) and fixed in past ARCXs (out-Grade III).

Same goes for an incredible amount of “OTs”  with many life problems,  financial difficulties, body somatics and illnesses after NOTs (they should have NONE) , and just plain fanaticism. But many of them supposedly achieved the state of “Cause Over Life” (New OT VIII) !!! How come ?

Many KSW supporters will jump in trying to rationalize all this by arguing : “Such cases never received ‘Standard Tech’,  they are just incomplete cases”. That’s the “easy way out” I am afraid, and just plain lack of scientific methodology. Those examples of lack of promised results are just too damn many and occurred even under LRH himself. I just personally know too many examples from individuals from the early ’80s and before that as well. I am trained enough so as to be able to differentiate from a “non-standarly run” failed case, and a case who just needed specific Tech applications not as yet fully researched and developed by LRH. Something just doesn’t add up here.

With the list of “Suppressive Acts”, obedience by force and threat was introduced – and control by fear as well. With the introduction of such acts we lost the following Human Rights :

  1. The right to think for yourself concerning what works and what doesn’t based on your own observations and discernment. Any disagreement with any Tech point only meant your OWN M/Us and “false” data on the Tech issue in question. And if clearing your M/Us wouldn’t handle it, then it meant your OWN O/Ws on the subject was preventing your understanding of it.
  1. Your right to practice freely whatever religion was real to you , and to change from denominations as you see fit. If you “publicly departed Scientology”  you would be declared in an instant.  You were either “with us” or “against us”  – no happy medium allowed at all.
  1. Your right to have your own opinions and express them freely without personal attacks and attempts to undermine your reputation by exposing your alleged “crimes”. Protesting against any part of Scn or its programs and behavior was simply not allowed as that became promoting “enemy lines” and engaging in “Black PR” and you needed then to be “roll backed” to locate WHO dared made you think for yourself.
  1. Your right to communicate or not, or to have any connection or not, with whoever the hell you wanted to. You couldn’t remain connected to anybody declared “SP” without getting expelled yourself. You right to evaluate for yourself the harmfulness or lack thereof of any of your comm lines was gone with the publication of the “Suppressive Acts”.
  1. Your right for compensation or redress of wrongs for any non-delivery or bad and altered service delivered to you failing to keep in the “we always deliver what we promise” PL. Any bad delivery by poorly trained Tech terminals became “your responsibility”. You couldn’t ask for refund or even for credit for the Org’s failure to deliver what was promised. You couldn’t get a refund without having to give up your privilege to get any more services from the Church. It became your “own M/W/Hs” the reason for lack of results was your fault – no matter if you did all that was asked of you and fully cooperated with them.

As a note: this is the only organization that I know of that practices this weird “non-refund or else” kind of policy.

Scientology is DEFINITIVELY NOT A CHURCH. It was cleverly converted to a Church by devious legal means by the PR Tech of “redefinition of words”. It IS a business, not a non-profit organization. There are ONLY two social classes in the Scientology hierarchy: The regular staff, starving to death most of them, and the Int strata living as kings earning quite sizable commissions. Perhaps we should include the Reg’s (regular and IAS(es) ) who even though not part of the Int strata, get excellent commissions on the materials and memberships sold.

A “Non-profit” organization and yet LRH apparently had over 28 million dollars when he died coming directly from Church activities. Some say it was much more than that and I don’t know how many millions more in property. And all of that while hard working and dedicated SO members only earned a misery “salary” of $30 a week (at least that was the amount when I was in) with paid for “quarters” that couldn’t really be called your home and lousy food. No paid vacations which you only got if you were “upstat”. And even if “upstat” but a key Tech delivery terminal, you could not get your C.S.W. approved most of the time. And all in the name of a non-existent “Total Freedom”.

How do I know it was non-existent ? Let’s apply some logic here, shall we?

LRH was supposed to be a full “Operating Thetan”. I mean, in order for him to have researched the alleged 15 levels above OT VII “fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people’’s full attainment of OT VI and VII”, LRH must have run them on himself. I mean, it is only logical to assume so. The full awareness and ability gain for OT XV, where you supposedly achieved “Total Freedom” must have been attained then by LRH.

The awareness characteristics for New OT XII and XIII as listed on The Bridge is “Power in 8 Dynamics”. The awareness characteristic for OT XV (the end of the Bridge) is “Total Freedom”. So if LRH researched them, it MEANS he did all of them, OBVIOUSLY, and that at least he had “Power In 8 Dynamics” which include total control of his body by definition. I mean, this is the man who was “reaching and withdrawing” from the north and south pole while being exteriorized and supposedly above the planet when he was suddenly “snatched” from the “in-between lives area”.

According to him, he got himself back to his original position in space. Later on he, as a “thetan exterior”  went to that area and came back with “all” the details of it. Listen to the SHSBC lecture titled, “Between lives Implants” , #317.

Now, for all of you that doesn’t know this FACT, LRH didn’t “causatively” discarded his body in order to engage in research on the upper level materials that could only be attempted free from the body – as the guys from Int Management tried to get parishioners to believe in that famous event to announce the death of LRH. That was a “convenient truth” –  one suitable to their twisted agendas of assuming power and the control of LRH’s estates and assets.

What REALLY happened , with documented evidence that any Scientologist can avail themselves of with just a simple Google-search, is that LRH died of a stroke. In fact, according to his personal doctor – Dr. Eugene Denk, LRH had had a massive stroke just 7-8 days before he died. An autopsy was not performed as Church’s officials objected to it presenting a document LRH had signed just 4 days prior to his death saying that it was against his religious belief to have an autopsy performed on his body. No autopsy was conducted then, and his remains were cremated. But he had had a massive stroke just 3-4 days before he signed such document!  And according to Dr. Denk, LRH’s health had deteriorated after his first stroke. Here is LRH’s full coroner’s report :

http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/l-ron-hubbard-coroners-report-complete.pdf

In the official “supplementary report , coroner case information sheet” , on the section titled “clinical history” , it says : “long standing history of chronic pancreatitis. Recent history of Dysphrasia as of , on or about Jan 16 , 1986”. (just 8 days before his death when he supposedly had the first stroke). Let’s check the definition of the medical term “Dysphrasia” :

dys·pha·si·a (dis-fā’zē-ă), Impairment in the production of speech and failure to arrange words in an understandable way; caused by an acquired lesion of the brain. Synonym(s): dysphrasia [dys- + G. phasis, speaking]

So LRH apparently signed this documented objecting to be autopsied , after he was experiencing the symptoms of Dysphrasia. Not only that, he changed his will just one day before he died!!!! How come?

On the toxicology report , which the Church’s lawyers agreed to have performed , the following results were found and I quote from it :

“Drug screen result : Traces of Hydrxyzine (Vistaril) detected on blood specimen”. End of quote. 8-10 marks of needle punctures were also found on LRH’s left buttock (Vistaril can be injected apparently too).

Now “Vistaril” is a drug used for :

“Vistaril is used to treat anxiety, tension, and agitation caused by emotional stress. It is also prescribed as a sedative to alleviate anxiety and tension before or after certain medical procedures (e.g., dental procedures or surgery). In addition, Vistaril is used to help control th following: nausea and vomiting (except during pregnancy), anxiety due to alcohol withdrawal, and extreme emotional distress associated with certain allergic conditions such as asthma, chronic hives, and severe itching.”(from PDR online).

According to the Church (who by the way didn’t deny the fact that LRH was in fact on Vistaril) –  LRH was prescribed it to treat his long history with allergies. What type of allergies, I don’t know. It is debatable what were the ACTUAL reasons for his taking that medication. Remember, no autopsy was allowed. But on the coroner report there was NO evidence of any type of skin allergy whatsoever. That’s a matter of public record.

But that he took it for allergies or as a tranquilizer is not the important issue here. The thing to notice is that the “greatest OT that this planet has supposedly ever had” – and one allegedly all the way up the Bridge, was not causative enough to control his body and defeat death. He simply died. He didn’t causatively discard his body as the Church tried to make us believe. He just died like any simple mortal does. Period. What he learned from the OT III Inc II regarding human illnesses, and what he learned about NOTs phenomena as regards to “handling physical conditions” apparently didn’t help him to defeat sickness and his eventual death. This only shows that he was simply a man – not a God-like individual free from defects. That the route out was far from being complete, and that the dream of FULL OT, even if possible (I think it IS) had not been achieved by anyone as far as we know.

No “hat turn over”, no specific instructions left (besides his will for the transfer of copyrights, estates and assets). Forget about the faulty argument that many “KSW” fundamentalists attempt to outline regarding all his Tech and Admin writings being that “hat turn over”. That’s just faulty logic and plain fanaticism. An obvious M/U on the condition of “Power” and “Power Change” and LRH’s essay on “Simon Bolivar”. It is also a violation of his lecture “The Five Conditions” from the BC.

Due to LRH’s failure to properly turn over his hat (he DIDN’T turn it over to DM as many assume) – and to give SPECIFIC instructions as to what exactly he wanted who to get done is the reason for all the power struggle and corruption than ensued after his death. So if he failed to apply his own policies regarding that, then, it is only logical to assume that he couldn’t as he didn’t plan on dying. The ONLY other possible alternative is that he didn’t care. I am inclined for the first ; he wasn’t planning on dying any time soon. I mean,  he was only 74 years old!!! Too young for a “Full OT”.

So, the obvious consequence to all of this analysis is that LRH was simply a man with flaws and perhaps a destructive character at times. But he also had many excellent traits as well and was a genius of great proportion. He made incredible contributions to Human- Kind and showed us a workable path in many ways – maybe incomplete but with many, many workable parts. Some parts need to be eliminated as those parts can only do harm to you and others and violate your inherent Human Rights. Something that should have never been part of Scientology in the first place.

Scientology IS a very workable system generally speaking. Especially in materials from before the mid ’60s , before all that crap of KSW and the “Suppressive Acts” insane list appeared in the general panorama. But it has many contradictions and portions which are quite destructive as well. Parts that, if followed to the letter, will only violate your Human Rights and those of others and individuate you from your fellow beings – a state of intolerance for divergent views.

It promises many results that are actually not accomplished to the degree that it has always been promoted. It promises states that can’t be achieved with the known available Tech (full Operating Thetan , a textbook Book one Clear) through going up the Bridge as even LRH himself, apparently never attained them as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding his death and last 7 years of his life. This only means that further research is needed to fill in the gaps and complete the route.

In my opinion, we must start from scratch and evaluate EACH AND EVERY Scientology datum as its own, w/out any fundamentalistic or fanatical approach to it. With a methodical mind and the full use of reason and logic. Without a fanatical adherence to scriptures, but with the willingness to test its workability for yourself and to decide based on your OWN observations, what is true for you or not. With the willingness to test each and every Scientology datum in a new unit of time free from the fanatical “LRH was always right” attitude. Only then can anyone isolate what corrections are needed and what exact parts needs to be getting rid of.

Gone are the days where you could assume that LRH was an infallible God, right about everything that he ever wrote and incapable of going out-ethics. That route and attitude only brought pain, loss, suppression, and finally betrayal to many of us. The choice is yours: Freedom of thought, freedom of choice over data, the protection of Human Rights or going back to a fundamentalistic and fanatical approach which will only get you to the “bottom of the Bridge” into a state of intolerance, disability, and the eventual death of reason and consciousness.

The choice is yours.

All I know is that the dream of “Total Freedom” IS still possible. But it will only be possible with the correct attitude. With everybody working as a real group that respects the Human Rights of others and those of themselves and that fosters “Free Will”, self-determined knowledge, and power of choice over data. It will be achieved by free thinkers who have liberated themselves from the yoke of “authority”, and who are willing to look and observe by themselves. It’ll be achieved by concentrating on what unites us instead of what makes us different.

We might hold different beliefs. True. But in the end, it all actually depends on similarity of values and human virtues.

Quoting Jeff Rasley from his “Living a Valuable Life Beyond Beliefs” book :

“Beliefs divide us, values unite us.”

May the great insight of all the great minds that have ever roamed this planet , help all of us to find the true path to ENLIGHTENMENT.

ARC ,

PETER

Advertisements

102 thoughts on “On free will, fundamentalism and the workability of Scientology

  1. I agree with you that a careful study from scratch of the Tech is needed. I also agree that HCOPL “Offenses and Penalties” reads like a fascistic manifesto. I have started reviewing Scientology in my blog. Since the last post I have new understandings and conclusions, which I will post shortly. People reading it may not agree. However, it works for me, and I believe that it stimulates free thinking.

  2. Thanks for this well written interesting article, most of which I agree with. Some assumptions still in there.
    It is such a shame that the many excellent workable parts of this technology are derived because it is part of the whole C of S experience. It could mean so much to so many and in fact result in greater tolerance rather than less.
    In their promo I often see the shining faces of many parishioners. They do think they are helping mankind and are prepared to donate to this beyond the reasonable call of duty. They mostly do it because they care and a reg has managed to push that button IMHO.
    The biggest crime is that perpetrated on Sea Org members. I believe they joined in the firm belief that they are helping mankind and have been betrayed totally.

    • Hi Connie,

      Thanks for the comm. I understand what you mean.

      Many of us joined in for the promise of a better tomorrow ; because we really wanted a better planet and to help our fellows. It could be said that the greatest betrayal comes from from activities that actually harm in the name of HELP. But those activities fully derive their power from our inherent desire to help our fellow beings. I am really sorry that help became betrayal for so many of us due to some policies than went astray,
      and the heavy emphasis that was placed in arbitrarily following strict dogmas.

      But I think that there is also a lot of good in Scientology , and that all its workable parts, which are most of it , can be totally saved and rehabilitated. That’s fully my purpose , and about bringing together all the different groups that shares the Field with us to work as a group bringing about better life conditions for all of us , and the fostering of tolerance, compassion and understanding, rather than exclusion and rejection.

      We can do this ; I know we can.

      Thanks for sharing your views.

      ARC
      PETER

  3. An outstanding article Peter,thank you.I found many confirmations and truths in your perspective.Everybody should read this…..thank you again.

  4. Absolutely great article, Peter. A lot of new insights for me, and also a lot of agreement with my own experiences using the Tech. Your evaluations of what went wrong with Scientology, and where LRH was at when he died, are very clear and straightforward. I will re-read your article and take some time to digest it.

    • Greetings Morris,

      Thanks for the comm. I am glad you liked it. I hope that every Scientologist can understand that confronting the truth about LRH and some portions of Scn is actually a way not to discard the subject at all, but rather a way to fully rehabilitate it so that all its incredible workabke parts can be freely used free from BPC manifestations.

      ARC
      PETER

  5. A most well thought out and well written article. Thanks, Peter.

    I cannot say that I can fault it or disagree with anything you’ve said; and your mentioning KSW1 in the way you have, makes a lot of sense to me. It is a rigorous piece of work and most authoritarian, to say the least.

    Also, what you say about the “Suppressive PL”, too, is correct, in my opinion. It is dogmatic in the extreme.

    Even if LRH did only up to OT VIII, as we know now that there is no OT IX and OT X and on up, he still did not manifest the state of Cause Over Life. He did not display the ethics level either that one would expect from someone who had rid himself of so much case.

    One would think that OT V would have addressed the quite many illnesses/strokes to which he was a victim from early in his adult life and which didn’t seem to abate.

    Yes, there may benefits to auditing and carrying on with it so long as we enjoy what they are and are not intending to reach states of existence falsely promised and unrealistic.

    We, the no longer in, can pursue truths and ideas from other sources freely now and take from them what works for us. I have experienced many a release from doing just this and not being stuck in a narrow channel of thinking or experiencing. THIS is freedom.

    • Greetings Canspeakatlast ,

      Thanks for the comm. I love it when I see others freed from the yoke of “Authority” and willing to observe things by themselves. You are a free thinker ; my congratulations for having continued in a path for higher spiritual awareness.

      ARC
      PETER

      • I look forward to more articles of this calibre. I’ve enjoyed others in similar vein tremendously – Marty’s “new” viewpoints, those of Chris Sheldon and one recently on this blog from Rien or Rein – sorry for not getting the name right.

  6. Theta clear I pretty much agree with most of what you have said in this epic article. Well done my friend! You should give many people something to look at and digest. The days of Shamans, gurus and charasmatic healers are ending. People individually just have to wake up, pick a route or method, testing all the way while observing thoroughly all effects.

    If we dont assign ourselves full cause over freedom won the DM’s, Hitlers and Napoleons will keep having a field day! Ive had it with that, we all have. Lets take ourselves by our own horns and get the job done. No an owns anothers right to seek, apply that which works for himself. No man!

    Back to LRH. I love the man himself, not the god or messiah others made him into. His faults are minor in the larger scheme. He did shit I couldnt dream of. Without his trailblazing I wouldnt even have the deffinition of OT or wanted to achieve its state. I think he got a lot right, others did help and made very worthwhile contributions too. David Mayo for NOTs and Bill Robertson for Excalibur and many other refinements that make a huge difference!

    If I was a KSW1 zealot, holding aloft my swastika while clicking my heals I wouldnt have experienced some truly remarkable wins that I have! I subcribe to workability, spiced with ethical human rights application always. Youre on my side if you agree. If you dont I dont mind either, I probibably can find something else to see eye to eye on.

    Theta clear thanks for your thoughts again. This is the path upward and forward. Cheers!

    • Dear Sheeplebane,

      Thanks for your kind words and validation ; you are incredible alert and wise. It is always a pleasure exchanging comms with you. I fully agree with all your views as they speak truth.

      LRH did indeed make incredible contributions to the the road for Total Freedom. It is enough for me to admire Ron the researcher. Ron the human had many failings and wrong viewpoints , but that fact does not diminish in any way the workability of the Tech he compiled and made available in ways others could understand and use.

      Keep the torch of “Free Will” lit.

      ARC,
      PETER

  7. A truly excellent treatise. I ushered myself away from the CofS in 1987, although my heart went out of it when the policy on Joking and Degrading was issued. Thank you for reminding me of the good, and for acknowledging the bad. You’ve confirmed so much of my own thoughts and observations.

      • Thank you Peter. Same to you. I look forward to reading more from you when/if you’ve got more to say … which I hope you do.

      • Got it Robin, thank you.

        Yes, I do have more to say and some articles already prepared. I’ll definitively keep in touch. Take care.

        ARC PETER

    • Very good comment about the “Joking and Degrading” issue, Robin. Never thought about it before, but I never did like it. It invalidates a thetan’s natural “spirit of play” and feeds right into the super-serious, witch-hunt mentality that is a pillar of the “church” today.

      • Great duplication, Morris. Thank you! It definitely took away the spirit of play. When I first read it, I thought: “Damn! There goes half the fun!”. And within a week or two, I realized my freedom of thought and speech had also been taken from me. Peter got similar feelings when he read KSW and Suppressive Acts, which made me wonder if I was asleep at the wheel when I read them myself. But I think we each get hit over the head when we’re ready 🙂

    • Robin I remember when this PL came out. We were young teenagers kicking around the org – and then on staff (at young ages). I went into the GO and my 2D at the time was the org’s Course Sup (now my husband – after a 30-year comm lag – long story). He and his best friend were hauled into HCO and confronted with the J&D Policy. They were kids for God’s sake! Always joking & laughing (and yes, making fun of others sometimes – so what?). This really “killed the buzz” and for us, was the start of things “becoming serious”. Even today we remember that incident as being the beginning of the militaristic evolution of the Church. It coincided with the advent of the arrival of the SO into orgs – having been given more muscle and orders to “get ethics in on the planet” – erroneously including lowly “org staff” in that edict. I vividly remember certain SO members being only to happy to hammer “ethics in” in a very malicious manner. Unfortunately, I believe that the SO attracts this type of personality – many who are good people don’t survive and leave quickly – others become part of (and even victim to) the system eventually.

      • I imagine this militaristic, no-humour attitude is what chases away most people today. It certainly has a big bearing on me no longer being in the RCS. The SO wanted to recruit my kids (duh – what else are kids good for!) and kept interviewing them. They got some SO kids to try speak to them “on their level” but of course these ‘kids’ had long since ceased to be kids in the real sense and had no reality on children other than recognising they have small bodies. My kids ended up mocking them to their faces, particularly the fact that all these SO people spoke exactly the same terminology, appeared to have no independent or original ideas other than to quote LRH, all spoke in the same quasi-US fake accent (they were South Africans) and had the appearance of robots. Of course, KRs immediately followed which enabled my kids to use this as a pretext to motivate (they never had any intention of joining), which gave me the pretext to refuse them admittance next time they came round, and the rest as they say is history…

      • Nicely put, Shelley. It “seems” (sarcasm 🙂 ) that a good ‘few’ on this planet suffer from the same malaise — “seriousness”.

        Although a cartoonist/caricaturist, since a youngster, the value of living my own life while looking for humor within and without, didn’t occur to me till just very recently.

        About two years back, a really jovial colleague in my work complex, (Kevin), got me thinking. A pom, with an incredibly dry sense of humor, just NEVER seemed to allow ANYTHING to get him down. For example, he may have just gotten some bad business deal, or news. Gone on to discuss it rather sarcastically, then come out with the most side-splitting crack at the situation, and have us both in stitches ! (with the situation soon forgotten!)

        For the first time in my life, I had this massively relieving cognition:

        THIS GUY WAS “SERIOUSNESS” PROOF!!!!! 🙂

        Following up on this, I looking into the whole subject of ‘humor’ as a therapy.
        I was amazed to discover that it is actually a huge industry.
        Apart from the huge appeal of live comedy shows throughout the world, there are therapists, using this approach. ie Enda Junkins : “Laughter Therapy” and others. Public “laughter sessions” in the parks in Japan, are a massive crown puller for participation during office lunch hours, as a very effective stress reliever.

        People are literally DYING and being KILLED, primarily through a lack of sense of humor, and instead, are driven by a sense of “seriousness”!

        Yep, Shelley, “laugher is the best medicine”. has turned my life around completely, for the past two years.– “muti” I thoroughly recommend.! 🙂

  8. Peter, this is one of the best essays on the subject of LRH and Scientology I have seen. You have hit the mark on a number of issues. Excellent work.

    • Thanks for your validation Maurice ; most kind.

      If communicating my views help others to lead a happier life and find right indications about the subject , then I am happy that I did it in the first place.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      ARC, PETER

  9. If criticism had been allowed in Scientology, David Miscavige would have never been able to rise to power.

    I salute the Back In Comm blog for allowing these ideas from Theta Clear on their blog.

    I predict a much brighter future for Scientologists.

    Alanzo

  10. I haven’t read over the Ethics PLs in a long time, so I am not sure if there was a first one that layed out what were now high crimes, crimes, etc. But if there is one, LRH should have ended it with the following sentence:
    .
    LET THE WITCH HUNTS BEGIN!

    They certainly did.

    • Hi Morris,

      The first HCOPL that officially issued the first list of “Suppressive Acts” or “High Crimes” list, is HCOPL 23 DEC 1965 , “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS : THE FAIR GAME LAW”. Originally issued as HCOPL 7 March 1965 7 March ’65 , same title, revised by LRH. Here is the link :

      http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/820

      This is LRH’s own revised HCOPL not any later revisions done by the CofS.

      But the first instance where “Witch Hunts” actually began to occur , is on LRH’s article on “Ability” magazine, major 1 , from mid March 1955 , tittled : “The Scientologists : A Manual On The Dissemination Of Materials”. Old Tech Vol II pag. 151.

      In that article LRH mentions for the first time (If I am not mistaken) the concept of “Squirreling” and planted the first seed of intolerance for divergent views and the seeking for alternative routes.

      ARC, PETER

      • You’re welcome.

        There was actually another sentence in my post that suggested a later possible article.

        Disappointed to see it deleted by the Admin.

      • Boggle – yes we redacted the last sentence of your statement as it was another attempt by you to enforce your (mistaken) stance on what the “real” source of the SCN problem is – leading once again to an attack on LRH and his “dubious” background. We are not interested in going down this road with you again.

      • Scnafrica,

        After you published that excellent article by Thetaclear, I thought that, maybe, something had changed.

        I guess it hasn’t. You’re still hyper-sensitive to what you mistakenly characterize as “attacks on LRH.”

      • What a pity we’re not able to see and read Boggle’s comments. Surely we have a right to either accept or reject on our own cognisance. We are adults after all.

        Don’t forget what the Creed that heads this blog says… the right (to things…)

      • Thanks for your comment Gretel. Our main focus on this blog is getting back in comm. You are correct about the freedom of speech quote, however we also have a moderation policy – which 99% of our visitors are happy to adhere to. Boggle has been asked time and again to stop derailing discussion threads with assertions and comments which are off-topic, anti-LRH or hate speech, or claiming as “fact” certain issues that have been picked up from other hater-LRH/SCN sites – all of which violate our mod policy. There are numerous other blogs out there who would be only too happy to accept Boggle’s comments. We are not quite sure why he/she keeps trying to heckle the BIC blog. We have a responsibility to other readers and have to make this blog a safe space for people. We also have to draw the line somewhere.

      • There are many of us who visit this blog who have a high confront of evil; and have been and are confronting all there is to know about LRH, the tech, the church and Scn as a cult.

        It’s contraversal, sure. Truth often is and it certainly is often stranger than fiction. Let’s face it, we bought the bs about LRH, the OT levels et al.

        Are you doing anyone a favour when you control them/prevent them from knowing what is?

        Granted Scn Africa has a moderation policy for the “protection” of new people. However, for over a year I have not observed visits to the blog by anyone new. In fact, about fifty percent of the visitors on this blog are seasoned viewers, streetsmart and are not even South African.

        I suggest that the Moderation Policy has exceeded its sellby date.

        Additionally, It is an exact contradiction to the Creed. It is in conflict with the Creed.

        There should be one or the other. Both?

        Saying on the one hand that you’re free to have an opinion and free to express it to whomever; then vetoing comm and curbing expressions of opinions just because they’re contraversial, is restimulative.

        As a so-claimed-humanitarian blog, I shudder and cringe for people like Boggles who are told to get lost. – “You don’t have to be here if you don’t like our style.”

        I thought we’d got beyond speaking to people in this manner.

        LRH DOES have a dubious background. It’s not “dubious” – it’s dubious!

        Why don’t you do a survey on it? Find out what your commenters want.

        I don’t see any redactions applied on any other blog, certainly not Marty’s, nor Mike’s. Neither of these men redact even nasty things written about/to them.

        Be daring. Take a chance.

      • Thank you for communicating your views, Gretel. We understand where you stand in terms of LRH, SCN and the tech.

        Although your comment was off-topic to this discussion thread, we have allowed it for the purpose of responding and enlightening others with similar sentiment.

        First off, please note that our blog is called “Scientologists back in comm” – emphasis on Scientologists. It is not a blog for anti-Scientologists, haters of SCN/LRH or anyone who denigrates, besmirches or holds up to ridicule LRH and the tech he founded. There are many blogs out there who serve this purpose. BIC is not one of them.

        This must not be confused with our stance that the CURRENT Church – aka “Radical Corporate Scientology” is indeed a tyrannical cult. We will continue to publish articles exposing the nefarious activities of this group.

        To take up some specific points you made:

        (a) This blog is attracting new people all the time. Unlike RCS, Word Press statistics do not lie. (b) BIC is viewed by over 250 South Africans every day – on some occasions up to 500. This number is increasing as others wake up and start looking. (c) We are not in competition to nor are we trying to emulate Mike’s, Marty’s or any other blog out there. (d) Mike is a good friend of the BIC blog admins and has supported our blog from inception – we have likewise reciprocated our support of him and his blog. (e) We are in good comm with and have exchanged information with many others who run various blogs or information forums – good, bad and indifferent. This is evidenced by the explosive Duggan saga exposed by Tony Ortega last year. Without BIC, this story would not have happened. (f) The numerous acknowledgements, congratulatory comments and other messages of support on this blog indicate that we are doing a good job (g) The fact that we refuse to publish ad hominem attacks on LRH/SCN Tech (and anyone else for that matter) is appreciated by the majority of those visiting this blog.

        A small minority have an issue with BIC not jumping on the bandwagon of bashing LRH and his tech. There is a big difference between robust discussion or debate as opposed to blatant and sweeping condemnation. Sometimes these two issues get confused and misconstrued. Again, by a small minority.

        Taking the above into account, we will not be changing our operating basis nor will we amend our moderation policy.

        Kind regards,
        BIC Admins

      • Greetings Gretel,

        I know you comment was not addressed to me but I feel that some response from me to your views is of the essence.

        Have you noticed that I have discussed many things wrong about LRH and Scn and nobody seemed to have any problem with that judging by all the comments at this thread ?

        I mean , I have probably talked about all issues that Boggle and others strongly opposed to LRH and Scn have brought at others blogs like Marty’s , Alanzo’s, and Rinder’s. You know why I had not been moderated ?

        Cause I can respect other people’s viewpoints and grant beingness to their beliefs even when I totally diverge with many of them. Each blog is unique with its own purposes and intended audience. You can’t expect that this or any other blog for that matter to appeal to every type of public ; that’s unheard of.

        Mike’s and Marty’s publics are different from BIC’s publics to a greater or lesser degree. BIC’s audience are basically PRO-LRH and pro-Scn. This does not mean that they think that LRH is or was fault-free and infallible neither Scn. They KNOW that Scn has many portions that are destructive specially many policies from the ’60s. They are not naive ; this public here are quite smart and educated, I have found. Very fine people indeed.

        But they don’t hate LRH neither Scn as they’ve found many workable solutions for many of their life’s problems through the application of Scn principles and procedures to their lives.

        They don’t really care whether LRH had 10 wives instead of just one ; or whether he only earned one Naval medal or 5 ; or whether he borrowed 80% of Scn from other sources. They only care that it worked for them. He did compiled all the workable principles from great minds and religions and put them into usable, organized form with something that others great philosophies lacked : procedures based on the workable principles. That in itself is a gigantic task worth an admiration.

        I didn’t write my article to elicit hate and intolerance. Neither I wrote it to destroy the image of LRH and Scn. I basically wrote it to elicit free will and power of choice over data. To get others to think for themselves and break the chain of strict adherence to doctrine and “Authority”. To as-is charge, not to create it. And it seems to me, with all due respect, and my apologies in advance if I am mistaken about this ; that your direction is towards misemotion and blame : a direction many here does not want to take.

        I t is not about how wrong LRH or Scn were regarding some of its methods. It is about learning from yesterday’s mistakes and creating a better Bridge. It is about granting beingness to others and respect their views. It is about working together -in spite of our divergences ; w/out trying to impose our own views on others, to create a better life for all of us. It is about forgiveness and letting go of the past.

        Hate, misemotion, BPC ; there is already too much of that. We need no more of that.

        Communicate what you need to Communicate in ways that others can comfortably face it. With good manners and great care for the feeling of others and you’ll be listened to every time no matter the degree of divergence of views.

        ARC PETER

      • To Gretel and Boggle, while I can empathise with your emmotions in this regard I tend to agree with BIC admins completely. Hating a car manufacturer because customers abused their cars and then demanded a refund is not ok. Sure valid complaints about real manufacturing faults should be handled. But nuking the whole plant because of 5 bum cars out of a thousand sounds rash dont you think? Im sorry you got one of the 5 bum defect cars..I really am. Why dont you try and fix it (find a good indie auditor) instead of raising an army to destroy the good we are trying to keep alive? Sure a balanced view is healthy of the tech and LRH especially! But fundamentalism or extremism on either side of the spectrum fails every time. I hope this helps put things in perspective?

      • Obviously there’s a club, of sort, and those in the club are given greater freedom to express their views.

        I and others and not in the club.

        And we’re judged as being “haters,” etc. by the club.

        The funny part of it is, the same folks who label others “haters,” etc., pat themselves on the back for “granting beingness,” etc.

        OK. Whatever.

      • Sheeplebane, perhaps you haven’t gleaned yet that the fault of the bum car comes from the blueprint, not the manufacturer. In other words, not COB.

        I believe you may be properly enlightened if you get to watch the documentary, Going Clear, Prison of Belief, being aired on HBO in March. In it, apparently, is some footage of Mr Hubbard speaking about the abuses that “no one” seems to want to confront.

        Such, perhaps is your belief, that you may not want to see the film.

        So be it. You should, though, say no more about Boggles and I as you are so wont to do.

        Gear up for the challenge and see the movie!

      • Dear Gretel and Boggle,

        I appreciate your individual viewpoints and your desire to be heard. This club as Boggle refered to is nothing but firm agreement that the tech is workable and worth using. Nothing else. I acknowledge LRH’s failings and his dubious HCOPL’s which caused much strife. But I prefer to get on with it without getting stuck on the negative aspects too much as this interferes with my overall purposes. I hope that we can agree to disagree on
        that?

        Ive been looking at Tony’s site with regards to the documentary today. Wow! I cannot wait, even if it paints LRH in a bad light it doesnt matter. I care about the complete and utter destruction of RCS, I lust for that to happen now! We all do!

        All I respectfully ask for is that we understand each others viewpoints without the snarkyness here n there because we all in the end want a similar thing – don’t we?

        I reserve the right to celebrate the downfall of COB’s church with you and Boggle despite me enjoying the tech and respecting LRH. I hope this is agreeable.

        Much ARC

      • Sheeplebane, as long as what you mean by “snarkyness” includes your tendency to speak down to us in a most derogatory way with sarcasm and in a patronising and condescending manner.

        Boggle made a good point about the “in-club” and name calling (haters) but the lack of granting of beingness.

        I have not seen anything sarcastic or nasty coming from Boggles, any disrespect towards you in any way; and there has been none from me.

        Over to you, now. Be nice. Or perhaps hold your peace if you’ve got nothing nice to say to us or about us. I mean, don’t get personal.

        Truce?

  11. I echo many of the comments above in saying this is a remarkable article. As I have worked to disentangle myself and re-evaluate what is and what is not worthwhile about the subject – still a work very much in progress – I have composed many write ups in my head. Your article was almost word for word in many parts.

    • Thanks for the validation , InterestedParty ; most kind.

      It is a very interesting fact that we as beings are quite capable of perceiving Truth no matter our state of case , and thus a similarity of viewpoints and realizations is quite common. It is only the “lies” , the “alter-isness” , that stick our attention units , sometimes obstructing us to view “as-is”.

      The problem with any “Road Out” is that if it contains “lies” as well as “truths” , then its capacity for enslavement is immense indeed , as the path is then blocked. We must learn to filter the untruths to isolate the workable principles , and the best tool for that that is, I have found, your “Personal Integrity” and willingness to be your own Authority.

      We as beings tend to underestimate our potential too much. The power that lies in each one of us, no matter if highly trained or not, or if an “OT” or not, is beyond what is generally recognized. But I do trust in others and their capacity even if they don’t.

      We have an unique opportunity to revert everything towards an ideal scene. But the changes needed to make it happen , are not outside our zone of control, as those changes have to do mainly with ourselves ; with changing our attitudes toward ourselves first. The one who truly loves himself , is very difficult to trap indeed. Only by denying yourself can you become the unwilling effect of others ; and the one who truly achieves love for himself, can only love others as well.

      ARC PETER

      • Peter I would very much like to communicate with you further privately. If that is okay with you perhaps a site admin can arrange could put us in touch.

      • Sure Interested Party,

        I’ll be happy to exchange comms with you.

        Dear BIC Admin, please provide Interested Party with my e-mail address if you be so kind. Thank you.

        Best regards, Peter

  12. What a wonderful article, Theta-Clear. It certainly gave me food for thought – and I love being “made to think”.

    I believe that this was one of my failings – I placed far too much trust in others to “take care of” my case – boy have I learned a big lesson. I realise that I alone am responsible for my case and that I have the right to put the cans down/walk out of the course room or get the hell out of dodge if I disagree with something or someone tries to force anything on me against my own reality.

    Violation of “what is true for you” is a slippery slope indeed.

    Never again. Lesson well learned 🙂

    • Greetings Shelley ,

      Thanks for your validation ; I am glad that found some use for it.

      Congratulations about your lessons learned ; hold on to that personal integrity and you’ll continue to expand in your dynamics free from arbitraries.

      Thanks for your comm. Take care.

      ARC, PETER

  13. A fine article, Thetaclear. However it may have started, the wishful belief that somewhere there is one true path or one perfect leader seems to be ubiquitous in human cultures.

    We’re only free to the degree that we are willing to evaluate data for ourselves.

    I’d agree with the workable points from the tech that you mention. Many people have a life-saving win on such things as dianetics, confessionals, rudiments or grade processes when these address the big issue that they need handled. Then we make the mistake of looking at the grade chart and expecting progressively greater wins at each level – if we stop thinking and just ‘have faith’.

    • Greetings David,

      Thanks for the comm. I am glad you liked my article.

      I very much agree with this :

      “We’re only free to the degree that we are willing to evaluate data for ourselves.”

      That’s a very workable viewpoint indeed.

      Regarding “The Bridge” , I think that there is no “unique path” for enlightenment ; each person needs his own “individualized Bridge”. That was the first mistake in judgement that LRH did : trying to find a Bridge that fitted everybody equally. He kept on undercuting every route he researched until what you had in the end was actually far less advance than any Tech from the ’52-’55 era. There were many of us totally ready for the more advance procedures, but had to adapt to the “new and diluted”.

      Then LRH had a great idea again when he researched the GPMs at the BC. It was discovered that your “Actual Goals” as opposed to the implanted ones run at the “advance” levels, contained the key to our case and to actual Clearing as defined in DMSMH. Then again, he undercut it all and just the implanted GPMs remained on the upper Bridge. Gone was any handling of your “Actual GPMs”.

      Making the upper levels confidential was a HUGE mistake. It violated the “Power Formula” about “never disconnecting from your contacts” : a cut comm line. It created different classes in the Scn community : the “OTs” secretly holding the “mysteries of existence” , and the “aberrated non-OTs” hoping that one day the “Truth” would be revealed to them.

      Making those levels confidential made it extremely difficult if not imposible, to properly evaluate them as to workability is concerned. Once you were “up there”, you would have to “swallow” your dissatisfaction and not dare to even hint at anything “confidential” to anybody or face the horrible consequences of expulsion : what an insidious way to control the free will of others.

      There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING harmful about getting exposed to “upper” level materials. That’s was just a BIG lie and “mystery sanwhich” to keep you on the route. Obviously if you try to run them in yourself w/out being ready for them casewise , then some harm might come to you. But the same can happen with a badly run NED or any other major process , specially bad L&N where you are given a wrong item , like a wrong “SP terminal” or a “wrong goal”. An “Out-list” can drive anyone crazy indeed. Actually there are a whole lot more “confidential” stuff in all the ACCs from the ’51-’55 era (including the PDC lectures) than in all the “upper” levels put together. It is actually ridiculous and child-like.

      Nobody can really evaluate the workability or lack thereof of the Upper levels as nobody can even talk about them (besides some general “wins”) w/out risking getting declared and barred from them for this lifetime. This is just suppressive in the extreme ; it IS NOT an effort to protect you at all. Period.

      But all this does not mean that an ACTUAL road out can’t be found and followed. But it’ll only be found with honest research and complete openness , not by instilling fear in others.

      ARC PETER

      • I completely agree with you about confidential levels. IMO, when someone makes anything secret or for the initiated only, the subject goes downhill. It takes the subject out of the follower’s hands and turns it into a tool for control. Bad-intentioned people can use the carrot of upper levels to enforce suppressive crap on others and charge wildly inflated prices for the privilege of getting anything. I think one of the main reasons (besides the threat of disconnection) that still-ins hang on is the hope of doing OT VIII etc. They think there’s no way to get the top of the bridge outside the church.

        If the upper levels contain material that shouldn’t be seen until you’re ready for it, slap a warning on it. Turning it into a withhold guarantees someone will get very interested in trying to expose it and will make a bigger fuss about it. It also makes it possible for the materials to get out in altered form. If the main concern is to make sure everyone runs the upper levels standardly, then make the original materials available.

      • Good point, on the mistake of making upper levels confidential. I sometimes wonder if this was Ron’s way of minimising harm, after seeing the terrible things GPM research was doing to Saint Hill students and perhaps most of all to himself. He knew he had a tiger by the tail – but at the same time he had a fixed idea that it was his job alone to save the world in a few years before civilization blew itself up.

        More discussion of these subjects is needed. I think the late Dennis Stephens made some brilliant contributions toward finding a safe path through the goals in the mind. Not to suggest that his system (TROM) is going to be the final answer for everyone, but some may find it helpful.

      • Greetings David,

        Yes, Dennis’s TROM is getting good results from what I’ve heard. You also have the research of the late Ken Ogger (aka “The Pilot”) , a remarkable researcher and individual.

        Clearbird also engaged into this research on the “Actual GPMs” as opposed to the implanted GPMs dealt with on some “confidential” levels. His work is excellent too in theory as I have not had an opportunity yet to test them. But I will soon.

        The late Alan Walters also engaged in this type of research into the GPMs.

        You can find all about those incredible individuals by going into the “International Viewpoints” (Ivy) magazine website where you can download all past issues. Otto Roos , Dennis , Clearbird, and other remarkable individuals used to post there.

        I’ll be engaging myself , in a few months , in a big and rather long research into this area and the current OT levels as well with the hope to find some answers to the barriers to Full OT. I’ll be posting my findings as I move along.

        I agree with you David, more discussions into these subjects are needed. I fully support all researches done with responsibility using workable fundamentals and put through the test of full workability. Researches done not based on the real or imagined case of the researcher, but with the full use of Scientific methodology and the ability (yes, it is an ability) to be wrong. Researchers “are not wrong” ; that’s the biggest outpoint with them. One needs to have the full capacity to accept that one was all wrong about any specific findings, and to be willing to start all over again.

        Thanks for the comm David.

        ARC, PETER

      • thetaclear – very interesting. Hope this shows up in the right place below the earlier comments. I was also curious what happened to handling “Actual GPMs” and it seemed to me a wildly overlooked missing piece of the bridge. To me, it looks like all sorts of things happened in the same time period 1964 to 1965 – Ron was working on the actual GPMs, then suddenly stopped and now there’s R6EW, the Clearing Course, OT I, OT II, and so on instead – all around the same time when heavy ethics, sec checking, KSW #1, etc. went in. Then later on 1978 there’s a huge concentration on completely disrelated stuff for the rest of OT levels, with no notice of when or whether anyone gets to handle the actual GPMs. Did Ron ever plan to go back and work out how to deliver GPMs as a level? Did he intend to abandon them completely? Is the current lineup and confidentiality meant to obscure the fact that actual GPMs are now gone as an action? I have so many questions that will never get answered.

      • Greetings Juggernaut ,

        I understand what you mean. R6EW (Routine 6 End Words) actually deals to some degree with your own GMPs ; it deals with End Words (the “end-wording” of your own Goals) to desestimulate your dramatizing of them. It is directed towards keying-out , not towards erasing as in the “Clearing Course”. And it doesn’t pair “Terms” with their opposed “Oppterms” (RIs as in “Reliable Items) to establish the line plot of each Goal for a specific actual GPM , and thus erase each one.

        OT II is just implanted GPMs as well as the “Clearing Course”.

        Before NED, the “Alternate Clear route” was the only route that PCs followed , and it made sense. You handled your “Power” and “Power Plus”, very simple and yet extremely powerful processes as such ; then you eased off your actual GPMs a little with R6EW ; then you dealt with Implanted GPMs at the “Clearing “Course” which was rather long.

        Today (after 1978 more or less) if you go Clear on NED, you don’t follow the Alternate Route. You can’t run Power or R6EW on a DN Clear according to LRH. I don’t agree with his technical reasons for that , though his explanation is rather short and blunt and sort of authoritative. I don’t like authoritative “explanations” of the type of “because I say so and I am the ‘Authority’ here”. That’s unprofessional and un-scientific.

        There is no evidence presented as to how it is that a DN Clear doesn’t need to run the implanted GPMs run at the “Clearing Course”. There is no correlation showed in any HCOBs between the so called “Clear Cog” and not needing to run then the C.C. implants. In the early days you just ran those implants as indicated in the C.C. instruction booklet till you had erased all the charge from them. Then you were “Clear” and needed to go through various tests to confirm it. Nobody had considerstions about “invalidating” your state. It was all about making sure that you had actually made it ; it wasn’t about “Status”.

        If you went Clear on NED due to this somewhat “dubious” Clear cog test , then you never got to run the C.C. implants at any point of the Bridge as the only other point in the Bridge where one deals with implanted GPMs after Clear on NED, is OT II , and its implanted GPMs are entirely different than those of the Clearing Course.

        So what happened to those C.C. implants then ? Did they became ineffective by the Clear Cog ? , and if so (which I am not convinced at all) , why then the Clear Cog didn’t render ineffective the OT II implants as well ? I mean, they are later in the chain than the C.C. implants. What happened with the data about “Basis-Basic” and erasure of everything after it ?

        None of these Qs are answered in any of the upper level materials. And no , you “KSW” supporter, I have NO M/Us on the materials. There are just too many assumptions here from LRH not technically explained as he did with so many other Tech points before.

        The upper Bridge needs to be througly researched by unbiased trained auditors willing to see beyond LRH and w/out any self-invalidation of their abilities to find Truth by themselves. Let’s build a better Bridge that actually achieves a Full Operating thetan. That’s my lifetime goal.

        ARC, PETER

      • Wow! I am very grateful for the info, Peter. What you said about Dn clear/clearing course/OT II etc. is a real eye-opener. This is extremely important data and explains a lot. I think I will plan on doing some additional actions now…

      • I am glad you found it helpful Juggernaut.

        Click on this link :

        http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/index.html

        That’s “The Pilot” homepage. He was an incredible researcher and his views on these subjects are incredible interesting indeed. He was an unbiased, “able to be wrong” kind of researcher. I have not found so far anyone of his caliber besides LRH himself.

        ARC, PETER

  14. I have some questions with regards to these dubious HCOPL’s that were released in the 60’s. The fair game policy, KSW1 etc. What is the actual context surrounding their release? What problem so dire brought them about I wonder? Why would LRH having said “If it aint fun, it aint Scn!”. Why the 180 degree switch? What led him into this?

    LRH for whatever reason desided people could not be trusted to do the right thing automatically. They needed to be led out of the labyrinth- with an iron hand! Like Moses with his new 10 commandments LRH decended from the mount with full certainty, again why?

    I will thrown in some conjecture on the matter. What was LRH researching at the time? What mistakes did he feel he made on himself while doing his research? What solution did he implement to prevent others from doing the same? Approaching this situation with these questions may yet reveal a striking answer or two.

    Anyone who has run GPM’s knows what Im talking about. We all mostly were shown how to run them the right way. Now what happens if you run these bastards the wrong way? How did LRH find out what the right/wrong way was? He ran it on himself every which way till he found the best way he could until satisfied he’d found the most workable route. Then we got it. Poor chap put himself through the ringer so we would make it after. Nice guy. Im willing to bet he put his life on the line just so he could find a way through. What price did he pay? His body took way too much punishment along the way and after reading Otto Roos’s story one gets the idea that LRH had the most out tech and BPC on his case than 20 psychotic pc’s!! Unflat GPM runs? Tick. Upper level case restimulation beyond current case level? Tick. Intereference from malevolent beings. Big tick. Suppression from large corporations. Another big tick. Responsibility for all cases? Tick..I could go on and on!

    Maybe this brings it all into perspective a little? Im sure a better analysis into all of the above would make for one helluva article. Theta clear you would be a good candidate for giving us another mind blowing article in this regard. What a challenge! 🙂

    • Some good questions here! Incidently in the early day’s LRH wrote about seriousness and it’s negative effects. David

    • During the first big schism of the early 1980s, the idea of “what went wrong” was explored by a number of people. I can remember reading a stack of old issues of ‘Ability’ magazine from the 1950s and early 1960s, and thinking something must have happened having to do with “actual GPM” research. Before that Scientology was fun, right? It was light. It was filled with the spirit of play, etc.

      The problem with that idea is the evidence indicating otherwise: The 1961 introduction of Sec Checking. The 1959 ‘HCO Manual on Justice’, the 1955 ‘Manual on Dissemination of Material’, and even the 1951 book, ‘Science of Survival’. And there’s much more documentation that I won’t mention, as I’d prefer this post not be nuked.

      The uncomfortable point is that what was “wrong” with Scientology might not have been a mistake. It might have been deliberate, well thought out, and planned.

      What Scientologists believed was happening might not have been what was really happening.

      This is dangerous to say, and Scientologists are trained to respond fiercely to anyone suggesting that, since its inception, there was hidden agenda in Scientology.

      That doesn’t mean there aren’t some good things in Scientology. IMO, there are.

      However, sorting it out requires facing all of it, including that which Scientologists are trained to ignore or deny, or to lash out at fiercely.

      Getting over that barrier is the hard part.

    • Greetings Sheeplebane,

      As I said before, you are incredible smart and wise indeed. I am thinking in taking your C/S away from you for a while and use him/her myself. :-))))

      Yes, I would love to write an article on that.

      I think that LRH’s 180 degree change in his strategy to keep us in the route out has a lot to do with revelations he had about the fate of this planet. I can’t evaluate the truthfulness or lack thereof of such revelations as his source might have been deceitfully devious (I know you know what I mean) ; you know the insidious nature of GPMs.

      But I think he underestimated us too much just as a father does with his own kids and sometimes tries to enforce strict adherence to rules in an effort to protect those he loves. No matter how much research I’ve done in the subject of LRH and Scn, I just can’t find enough evidence from my perspective to assign any evil intent to LRH’s methods. He thought he was right about them. He meant well, even if was wrong about several of his views.

      I only wish that I could have helped him. All his friends lacked enough strength to handle him ; to ignore his justifications and CI for getting handled , and to just get him in session and run his O/Ws, BPC, wrong items, etc ; just like any of us mortals needs to do to keep us straight.

      True, he had many excellent auditors like Otto, Mayo, his wife, and others. But they basically handled what they were told to by him. He very much “C/Sed his own case” except perhaps the times when he was sick enough to even talk.

      What happened to him could be sadly explained by his own lecture called “Individuation” from the “Responsibility And The State Of OT” ACC. I think that ALL scientologists should listen to that tape so that we can understand the dangers of being a great leader and with lots of altitude as well.

      Thanks a lot Sheeplebane, you actually got me to put some Ruds in in myself. Great move.

      ARC, PETER

      • Aww thanks TC! Your validation is always nice. Your view makes sense too about LRH and the benevolent parent analogy. I have 3 wilfull boys to guide in growing up. You mean well but fall short at times.

        I guess one gets frustrated when people go off and do the same silly things over an over when they should know better. Imagine 30 self determined boys to handle at the same time? Drive you batty, never mind thousands!

        Perhaps the best way to help the ole man is to just get our shit together and make it go right within the best framework we have? Walk our own path using the tech as a powerful yardstick. That works for me.

        He did enough. Its up to you, me and the next guy. Training wheels are off! 🙂

      • Thanks for the comm Sheeplebane,

        And you are most welcome.

        Yes , I agree ; the Oldman did enough. It is up to us now to lead the ship towards the correct direction. Thanks for being part of that group.

        ARC, PETER

    • There are many good books about LRH that would address the questions you pose, Sheeplebane. These are probably the best source of information.

      Most the books I’ve read so far are similar in that the people interviewed for them were all there at the time and all had inside experience. Yet, for each book, the interviewees are different people but having been close all had the similar stories to tell.

      • Hi Gretel,

        I have read quite a bit thus far. From BF messiah, Piece of blue sky, Otto roos story, Mike Rinder, Marty, many others too. Too much focus on LRH the villain, or his mistakes etc. I found it unbalanced but informative none the less. If I had failed with the tech application and success with it I very well might have tossed the whole lot!

        What else do you recommend?

  15. Bit disappointed that my comment was redacted.

    I suppose it’s better than over at Tech Lions blog, where they publish my comments but edit the sentences to change their meaning.

    • We did send Theta Clear your comment and believe he has already responded. We felt it best given the content of your comment that you communicate directly with each other.

      • Ok thanks for passing it on. I haven’t noticed a response.

        You have the choice to moderate the comments how you see fit, I am a little bit disappointed that you choose not to publish my doubts at the accuracy of the miracles the author has claimed to be able to perform.

        Regardless, good luck with the onward success of the blog and finding independence from corporate scientology and their bullying ways.

      • Thanks SC. Perhaps had your comment (or more to the point allegation) not been made in such an accusatory manner we would have published it. We felt the best was to take this off the discussion thread, but still give you the opportunity of having your say directly to Theta Clear.

  16. Hi Peter,
    Great post and essay. You are a very very unique being!
    I agree and promote myself most of what is in it. And definitely the fundamentals.
    I had my share of being betrayed horribly and paid the price, as many others here and elsewhere have. I have pulled myself out finally, quite sometime ago, and handled that betrayal and its consequences, as many others here did too. B.t.w, speaking of OTs, getting away from such elaborate and devious trap, is no mean feat, and I consider it as an OT level in itself.
    And there was and is a huge lesson from all this: Personal Integrity. What is true to me. Boy, expensive lesson, but priceless…
    I did not do it alone. I had…help. True help. In my case, that help consisted of 2 main elements:
    1. True theta sharing, true willingness to help, from free beings, through blogs such as this one. That was huge help in d-ptsing and validation of ME.
    2. Scientology tech, Ron’s tech, applied RIGHT in the right environment. Full of love, tolerance and non stop joking, (hopefully non-degrading.. 🙂 ) at the wonderful Dror Center.
    This combination has worked wonders for me, and still does, every day. Life is great and full and incredibly rich, And it is MINE!

    I truly recommend and encourage, with all my heart, that anyone struggling with these issues to find a way out, anything that works for them. It is possible!!! And the rewards are incredible! On the line of being severely and chronically ill, then having health restored gradually, then fully, until one jumps up, full of strength again, and enthusiasm and LIFE, and willing to dream and play again.
    I found this (so far) fully achieved with Ron’s tech applied intelligently, wisely and selectively, and with full damn ARC. As an Indie.
    But if anyone can go free and happy any other way, be it anything which does no harm to others, I will be the 1st to cheer and validate. And congratulate.
    And I congratulate you Peter for this wise and charming post, yet again. Keep the good work man! It is noticed and much appreciated.
    Hemi

    • “Scientology tech, Ron’s tech, applied RIGHT, in the right environment.”

      Tech is essentially Ron’s instructions.

      Those instructions are quite extensive.

      Isn’t it a tad unrealistic to think that, if Ron were here now, we wouldn’t be classified as “squirrels” and subjected to “Ethics” and “Justice” handlings?

      This was pointed out to me by some old field auditors from the 1950s and 1960s: Scientology – in this case, meaning cherry picked bits and pieces of Ron’s instructions – worked best AWAY FROM Ron and his influence. That’s just the way it was.

    • Hemi I would like to publicly acknowledge and thank you for your post on the Dror Center site that tells your story. It was the first time I got the idea that I was not the only one to have had a similar experience. It helped me to blow a huge amount of charge.

      So thank you.

      • Thank you Interested Party, you are very kind!
        Just to clear your meaning, what post is that? My independence declaration from 2012? or…?

      • Hemi I’m not sure as I read several posts of yours. You told the story of some kind of crushing incident that happened at Saint Hill.

    • Dear Hemi,

      Thanks for your kind words and validation.

      I loved your story about how you found your true path again and found such excellent friends and terminals. I have followed several of your posts and can only say that the one who is truly unique is you.

      Take care and keep up the good work.

      ARC PETER

  17. That was a big work to write such an excellent essay thetaclear. A big summation of the subject. I do believe that LRH was going more more dispaired about having to prevent the subject from derailing. When he wrote KSW1, he used a prophetic style, like he became poetic to some degree, like your inspiration guide you (i can’t really explain my feeling, english is not my mother tongue).
    He wouldn’t have expected people to be so litterate. He just ment that one should apply the tech and not invent things (he may have had some really weird students at the time).
    The policy written thereafter with SP acts might not even be written by him, but by some staffs as it was not a basic tech but a low order rules. Like the rules in a college had nothing to do with the teaching.
    Scientology was contaminated by environment. In ST Hill, it became “english college”.
    I went there and was horrified by how british it was. East Grinstead had swallowed scientology who really thought they were a british type of church. Those guy on the GO were into James Bond valence (or smersh). Jane Kember and husband were really looking like playing in James Bond (but more like russian spy !). All that is a beautiful cocktail of valences. It’s all movie.
    Miscavige is more “top gun” style.
    American hero, like his friend Tom Cruise.
    So, you have the valences in full play. Like the radical islamist, they are from movies with the style with Kalashnikov… It’s all game and movies becoming serious and criminal at the end.
    Around 1980, Hubbard was out of order. Sick, declining. He was already sick when he researched Not’s with the help of David Mayo in 1978.
    So, I think, he was to some degree put aside and Miscavige and Broker organised the survival of the church using the SP policies to prevent the natural way the church would have gone learning Hubbard was out. It was very observably a fascist take over. It has been said that the policy which reinstate disconnexion was not written by Hubbard but on the order of Miscavige. And I believe that the Ron’s Journal from 35 and up are all forgeries.
    So at this point scientology was very altered in it’s principle, and SP valence of Miscavige.
    But the vast majority of Hubbard writing maybe used providing one do it for helping. And Dianetics and scientology auditing remain a very usefull tool of psychotherapy and it’s a pity that it is not more used due to the ugly PR of the subject.

    • Greetings FG,

      Thanks for your validation ; most kind.

      I agree with you ; the vast majority of Scn is very useful and workable.

      I understand about LRH’s desire about keeping the Tech pure with his KSW#1 , and that many fundamentalists might have taken it way too literal. However LRH’s strategy was faulty in that he basically prevented any examination of any additional knowledge besides Scn, considering that it was the onlytrue and workable system ever devised ; a complete falsity.

      He treated us like kids trying to “protect us” from our own “failings” , unwittingly invalidating our capacity to recognize truth. KSW#1 might have had an inspirational purpose in mind to keep people in a route out , but it was quite faulty in design.

      Any “policy” that prevents observation and pretend blind ahrerence to doctrine is doom to failure ; it invalidates power of choice over data and free will. It is comparable with Christians pretending strict adherence to their Scriptures w/out an unbiased and logical analysis of its contents, as a pre-requisite for “salvation”. It is fanatical in the extreme and lack any workability.

      As regards the “Suppressive Acts” PL, I assure you it is LRH’s own writings and not that of an Aide. It was 1965 when LRH revised ALL his PLs and HCOBs. I have the original un-revised by the CofS. It was LRH himself. Let’s not try to justify him away. He must assume his responsibilities just like anyone of us is expected to. I am not here to “blame” LRH ; I have great admiration for him and for all the workable things he left for us. I am here to properly assign Cause so as to get an as-isness of many, many ridges that were created along the way due to fixed ideas upon which many of us were operating on.

      We must learn to filter the truths from untruths. Only then can true freedom be achieved.

      ARC, PETER

      • Great article Peter.

        I really like your response here about “…..properly assign Cause so as to get an as-isness ………………”.

        Leaving the clutches of scientology can be a long process, I was done in 2007, or so I though.

        There exists much materials which are useful and some which is not.The question is why did Hubbard include materials that took away self determinism and replaced it with other determinism or his views.. As you pointed out, I am not here to “blame” LrH but I think that when you can honestly “as-is” this question, freedom of choice will be restored.

        Nicely written Peter, lovely replies too.

        .

      • Greetings Old Timer,

        Thanks for your validation and for stopping by.

        I understand what you mean ; it is a tough question to answer for most Scientologists. In fact , I decided to write an article just about that and am working on it.

        I am glad that you found your freedom of choice ; keep the Free Will torch lit.

        Take care.

        ARC, PETER

  18. Response to Shelley, far above.

    I remember the J & D policy well. We were young and vibrant, and perhaps too energetic for the older staff around.
    Yes, we joked all the time. We were happy. I do not believe we ever really invalidated or harmed anyone, but boy, did we get crammed on this issue!
    So a 16/17 year-old kid, learning to audit/ supervise/cram whatever, has to now get SERIOUS and take it all SERIOUSLY. Other issues where LRH talked about “This is a deadly serious activity. The fate of every man and woman on the planet depends on it.” were thrown at us too.
    But despite our joking, we were spot-on in our metering, quick to know and refer to LRH references, could apply study tech to ourselves and others, and in short were extremely valuable staff members, who trained many good auditors, and had wins and case-gain.
    The seriousness they wanted just made the starvation, lack of pay, constant body out-ruds, lack of sleep, lack of medical, all the more difficult to bear.

    And yet LRH also said “How serious can you get? Dead.”

    I should have spotted the incongruity right there back in the ‘seventies.

    You have the freedom to think for yourself as long as your thought is the same as ours.

  19. Your comment: “Many times, they place high priority to conformity with scriptures with such an insistence that it takes more importance than love, compassion and understanding.” I’d like to comment with an anecdote that shows how the 180 degree vector switch in the RCS is gaining momentum.

    Arnie (not real name) bumped into a staff member Shlomo (not real name) whose spouse, sadly, is extremely unwell. Shlomo is by no means some blinkered robot blindly obeying orders – he fully sees the outnesses in the RCS but like many others still wants to go up the Bridge and of course thinks within the RCS is the only way to do so.

    After a very high-toned comm cycle, Shlomo phoned a couple of days later (at night) asking for an assist from Arnie as he was now unwell. There was a hiccup to this, and a stream of abusive text messages, accusations of PTSness and betrayal, came through before Arnie could handle the upset, but one thing that was clear was the volume of bypassed charge relating to betrayal. The other thing very clear was that the PTSness was the other way round. The assist was duly delivered and good relations restored.

    A couple of more days later comes another call to acknowledge Arnie’s willingness to help, albeit second time round. Shlomo explains how over the weekend he had collapsed at a shopping mall, and it took 25 calls to different scientologists before he could get anyone to come and help him get home.

    This clearly demonstrates how things in RCS have completely flipped around. A regge could probably have had an easier time raising money from those 25 than extracting some help for a valuable staff member.

    [I’m sorry to have to change names, etc, as this seriously detracts from the credibility of such anecdotes, but c’est la vie]

  20. Hot topic in the end! I would love to see a well researched article on how Scn critics, haters and LRH bashers are made. Real plausible reasons for the above conditions would be great. You could look at it from having received out tech, misaplication of ethics tech, hardcore suppression and plain old disgust with human rights violations. Or all of the above!

    In any event it may lead to some interesting whys to the problem. Perhaps even solutions may result? I think this would be another worthy persuit. People dont get misemmotional or hot under the collar for no good reason when it comes to Scn! Lets find em!

  21. How can it be that there is a person who has the ability to cure cancer and the world does not know about this? Why is this not being shouted from the highest mountain tops? Surely any research to be begun should start right there!

    I wish I had known about this when my beloved late husband contracted a particularly malignant form of cancer. All the doctors said there was little that could be done.

    Had we known it could have been cured by receiving touch assists from a scientologist in Africa we would have been on a plane.

    • Dear Deaana , I am very sorry for your loss.

      I said : 

      “What about the Tech of Assists? With it I have performed many €œmiracles€ testified by non-Scientologist M.D(s). I have cured brain tumors (2x), cancer (2-3x), Appendicitis, asthma, sleeplessness, acute pains under just a few hours, chronic migraine, chronic tiredness, arthritis“ etc, etc, etc.

      The majority of those cases were non-Scientologists or people with just a very basic knowledge of the subject. No imagination€ involved ; it happened in the real physical universe under witnesses.I am not making any claims here as to the capacity of Scn to cure any ills. I am ONLY reporting what I as an individual have been able to accomplish in the past with this piece of technology. That’s my only claim.” End of quote.

      I never meant that I could cure Cancer as a routine or any other illnesses for that matter. I’ve been in this game for decades and notice how I only mentioned 2-3 instances. If I were able to do this routinely, obviously I would have given a lot more examples, but I didn’t.

      Just as a personal note, there have been dozens of cases that have been cured of Cancer by non-conventional and non-invasive methods. My own niece is one of those by a M.D. here in my country that spent his whole life researching methods to deal with Cancer after his little daughter died from it. He uses non-invasive methods and actually cured her verified by medical exams themselves. It has been like 2-3 years since that happened and so far she has not relapsed.

      And I known of many more examples like those. You can Google-search for it and will find many instances where many people got cured from Cancer. I mean, you even have known artists who got cured from it. I don’t understand why some posters, either publicly or privately, have made a big fuss out of this as if having cured Cancer were something never heard of at any forum.  

      By the way, “Touch Assists” are not the only type of assists there are in Scn ; I think you should know that. There are hundreds of them including DNs auditing ,PTS handlings, etc. etc. And they NEED to be backed up by standard medical supervision and care just as I did. I am  no doctor; I am an auditor and a VERY good one, as well as a VERY religious individual with lots of FAITH. And my many abilities do not come just from Scn. In fact I had many of them way before Scn.

      I am not selling anything here nor trying to promote myself for anything at all. I only wanted to wake people up and get them free from fundamentalist and fanatical approaches to dogmas and religious activities. To get them to think for themselves and break the chains tying them to submission to “authority”. That was my whole purpose.

      But if anyone should need some advice or even some assists, then I am here. I make no promises and I charge ZERO. Never charged anyone for anything at all in my life and I am very broke . It all was free. And I always bet on me. I could have made a good living out of this. But I just don’t know how to charge anybody for saving a life.

      Perhaps I’ll die broke and so be it. I am here. My help is for anyone with enough Faith to believe that miracles are indeed possible. I make no promises, but I never surrender.

      I hope this clears up any confusions for anybody. 

      ARC, Peter 

  22. Peter, thank you for your condolences. And you too scnafrica.

    Yes, I am familiar with tales of spontaneous remission and spontaneous regression – as likely would be anyone who has had a loved one who is suffering from cancer.

    Here is an article on the phenomenon, written from a scientific standpoint:
    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/the-body-can-stave-off-terminal-cancer-sometimes

    I think you are a sincere person. I personally doubt very, very highly that YOU have cured cancer. Which is what you claim in your post. You also claimed to have “cured” two brain tumors, appendicitis, and a number of other medical conditions.

    Quite frankly – and not to be rude or in any way “attacking” – I suspect you are delusional about the subject of your own curative powers. And I use the term delusional not as a pejorative but in its purest definition: a fixed false belief.

    FWIW, yes, I do think when someone posts on a forum or on a message board that they have “cured cancer” they can expect to be challenged. In fact, there are entire websites devoted just to folks who make such claims. Some of these are sincere, faith-filled “healers” who take no money in exchange for their healing powers. Others are seen as dishonest fakers who prey on the gullible – either for financial gain or not.

    Do “miracles” ever take place? Read the above linked article. Sometimes the immune system kicks into high gear and defeats the cancer. They don’t know why this happens, but they know it happens. The newer treatments being used now in certain forms of cancer are “biologicals” which stimulate the patient’s immune system in the hopes it will prevent spread/recurrence. Look up “BCG treatments for bladder cancer” if interested. One of my children is currently undergoing this treatment.

    Best wishes,
    Deeana

    • Dear Deeana ,

      In the first place for me to feel attacked by you or anyone else’s for that matter would mean that I lack self-respect and integrity which I assure you is not the case. In fact, is a lot higher than your average human being. Feeling “attacked” is for victims ; something I’ve never been, never will be.

      In the 2nd place , I wrote an article to elicit free will , the willingness to think for yourself , and the cessation to aherence to strict unevaluated dogmas. It never was about “my healing powers” which you mistakenly took out of context as I never claimed that I had the capacity to routinely “cure” Cancer , but only that I had done it 2-3x in my entire 35-40 years in Scn ! Can you even see the difference between those two statements ? It is funny how anti-Scn, Anti-LRH individuals take one datum out of a 1,000 ones and try to make a totally unrelated point about it for God knows what strange purpose.

      The good thing is that I have no need to prove myself to anybody. Anyone wants to verify any of my claims, just pay yourself a plane ticket here and my expenses and I’ll be happy to provide the documents. Otherwise what you believe or not is your choice and it is of no consequence to me at all.

      Funny how you say : ” Some of these are sincere, faith-filled “healers” who take no money in exchange for their healing powers.” but immediately assume that I am “delusional” w/out knowing absolutely nothing about me. And then covertly-hostile says that “I am not using the word as a pejorative”. Talking about contradictions here. How can you possible know what I have done or not in my life w/out even knowing you I am. That’s presumptuous in the extreme.

      And you can keep your funny articles about miracles or lack thereof. I am a real Scientists with a degree, not a “Wikipedia-want-to-be” a scientists.

      Funny how from all posters that commented on my article only you twisted it around. There was another one but properly apologized in private. What you believe or not about me dear Deeana , is of no consequence to me. I only replied it to clarify for others. But I will certainly not bother again.

      Have a nice day.

      ARC, PETER

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s