On Human Rights and Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism2

On Human Rights And Fundamentalism –  An Analysis Of The Conflict In The Field

by Theta Clear

Human Rights is a subject unknown to many  and alter-ised by many more. They  were  fully sketched and explained in 1948 in the famous but yet unfamiliar to the general populace , “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” (UDHR) . It was adopted by the newly formed (1945)  ONU, and ratified by 48 countries.

During World War II , the “Four Freedoms” were created by the Allies in an attempt to establish some basis with which conflicts could be handled by the use of Reason.  They were  : freedom of speech , freedom of religion , freedom from fear, and freedom from want ( this one is understood to establish a minimum entitlement to food, clothing and housing at an adequate level). A new era for the encouragement of the Human Rights and respect for the dignity and worth of the Human Being had been born ; and all w/out distinction to race , sex, language or religious belief.

After  the atrocities of The Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany, the world  community found  it  necessary to define and list more accurately the inherent rights of the human being and state them as a broadly agreed upon policy to detect  and  prevent  the  same atrocities from happening again. And  thus, “The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” was created by an international committee of 18 delegates of different countries including the USA represented by the Chairperson of the Drafting Committee ,  the heroin Eleanor Roosevelt.

The UDHR consist of 30 articles covering all points that need to be fully in, in order  to have any society at all. Now ,the current definitions of the word “society” in “modern” dictionaries fail to make justice to the etymology of the word. Here are some definitions :

“Definition of society : NOUN (plural societies)

“The community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs,laws, and organizations: the ethnic diversity of British society’. ” (Oxford Dictionary)

[MASS NOUN] The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community: ‘drugs, crime, and other dangers to society’.” (Oxford Dictionary).

An another one :

“so·ci·ty (s -s -t ) n. pl. so·ci·ties 1. a. The totality of social relationships among humans. b. A group of  humans  broadly  distinguished  from  other groups by  mutual interests, participation in characte- ristic relationships, shared  institutions,  and a common  culture. c. The  institutions  and culture of  a distinct self-perpetuating group.” (From the “Free Online Dictionary by Farlex).

Now, you can see how the word “society” is a case of a somewhat “incomplete definition”. Now let’s look at its origin :

Origin : “mid 16th century (in the sense ‘companionship, friendly association with others’): from French société,from Latin societas,from socius ‘companion’.”

1525-35; < Middle French societe < Latin societās, equivalent to soci(us) partner, comrade + -etās, variant of -itās- -ity.”

So you can see that the word “society” infers a “friendly cooperative association” with others. Things like intolerance , prejudgement ,prejudice, exclusion, injustice, failure to grant beingness, forced disconnection ; does not come under the etymology of “society”.

The UDHR is one of the most incredible documents ever written by a group of human beings. It is a testimony of the grandiosity and fellowship that Humanity is capable of.

I rather have our readers search for its complete text online and read it in full ; it is very revelatory indeed. But I’ll quote some of its articles so that a very important point and the central message of this article can be properly communicated : That living in harmony and getting along with others IS possible in spite of divergence of viewpoints.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 16.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Of particular interest to the subject matter are points 18,19 and 20 , as in their violation lies the seemingly un-as-is(able) conflict among groups that has a lot more in common than differences : The Free Zone individuals , The Ron’s Org individuals , The “Independent Scientologists”, the “Non-Scientologists” , and the “Ex-Scientologists”.

 

Let’s make an analysis of point #18 :

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

 

Let’s discuss this item in detail as it applies to our dilemma regarding the subjects of SCN,  LRH,  and their validity and “goodness” or lack thereof. We’ll start with,  “The right to freedom of thought”. For this analysis we’ll describe the different viewpoints seemingly in conflict (“seemingly” , as once I finish this article there should be none ; in theory at least) :

 Group 1

The viewpoint that Scientology is a perfect workable system , free from any faults , and totally self-corrective. This viewpoint is usually coupled with the one concerning LRH being a God-like individual right about everything he ever wrote about , and a true humanitarian. This group totally supports KSW #1 PL as their fundamental scripture that “holds” all of the SCN Tech together. That HCOPL is their stable datum.

This group strongly dislikes any criticism about Scn,  specially about the Founder LRH , regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the utterance. They usually perceive absolutely nothing wrong as regards to the Scn scriptures and with the life that LRH lived. They usually don’t  read anything spiritual or mental except LRH’s. This group I call “KSW Adherents”.

 

Group 2

The viewpoint described in #1 above , but coupled with the one about LRH being just a human capable of error ; and even though an humanitarian , being responsible of some errors in judgement in some of his policies. His errors are not attributed any evil intents by this group. This group also support KSW #1 , but with some suspicion , as they make general provisions for possible errors in Admin and Tech. This group I call “Independent Scientologists” as they manifest a mind of their own , an “independent mind” , to a lesser or greater degree regarding the subject.

 

 Group 3

The viewpoint that Scn is a workable system as regards to Tech is concerned (HCOBs on “auditing procedures” , “Study Tech” , “Case Supervision Tech” , and on “Course Supervisor Tech”) ; but somewhat outpointy as regards to some Ethics And Admin Policies like “Disconnection”, “Fair Game” , and some items from the “Suppresive Act list”. This group still support KSW #1 even though, they disagree with it being absolute.

 This group admire LRH but feel that he made several judgement mistakes as to Policies is concerned , like “Disconnection” , “Fair Game” , “Suppressice Act list” , “KSW #1” , etc. They very much believe in the Tech and in the  Scn basic principles. This group allows for corrections in the Tech to some degree but not too much.

 They have tolerance for divergent viewpoints and for critics of Scn and LRH when presented with good arguments and in a friendly manner. This group I call , “Liberal Scientologists” or just “Liberals”.

 

Group 4

The viewpoint that Scn is a workable system as Tech is concerned (just as in #3 above) , but not a perfect system and one capable of being improved w/out invalidating its workability. They support KSW #1 , but just to a certain degree. To this group belong many from Ron’s Org that believe in CBR’s corrections and additions to the upper levels materials, specially his NOTs version,  “Excalibur”.

 To this group also belong supporters of L. Kin texts , mainly based on CBR’s research,  but expanded by Kin’s own research. “DEEP” from “Clearbird” , also belong to this group , as well as several others.

 They are not not afraid to “change” the Tech to adapt it towards more workability,  but they do firmly believe in the Scn axioms and basic principles as their guidance. They are very comfortable with using and testing whatever works for them.

 Even though they admire and respect LRH for having created Scn, they can also confront and accept his many flaws and recognize the destructive parts of his personality , and are not afraid nor uncomfortable with publicly admitting it. This group are not Scientologists per se , even though they use it in their life. This group I call , “Applied Philosophers”.

 

Group 5

The viewpoint that Scientology has its workabikity, specially in its basic principles (ARC triangle, TRs, basic auditing principles, basic books, etc) , and that it does help to some degree, but that it doesn’t accomplish its promoted products like real Clears and OTs. This group is also aware of the many destructive parts of the subject , and generally thinks that Scn has more harmful parts than beneficial ones.

They don’t believe that LRH was a true humanitarian,  but only a man who strived for power and control,  and used others to accomplish his purpose. This group I call,  “The Anti-Scientology(ists)”. Notice that I didn’t call them “Anti-Scientologists” as they are not necessarily opposed to Scientologists as such , but only to Scientology as a way of life. Alanzo’s blog would fall under this caregory ; and so Rinder’s and possibly Marty’s.

 

Group 6

The viewpoint that SCN is just a destructive cult and its founder a con man. They heavily criticize SCN and Scientologists. They have a lot of anger towards the subject. They have been called “Haters” but I won’t use that description here. I’ll rather call them , “Extremists”. Many of them has never experienced actual SCN processing and training and thus, their views are always limited by their incomplete knowledge of the subject.

As they usually don’t have first-hand experience with the subject , and thus,  their views many times lack objectivity,  hence the name “Extremists”. They usually look at only one side of the equation.

 

Among these 6 groups you have many variants and gradients ; they are not at all absolutes. And people can move in and out of each group depending on their experiences and exposures to other -ologies or -isms.

To summarize , we have :

  1. The KSW Adherents
  2. The Independent Scientologists
  3. The Liberal Scientologists
  4. The applied Philosophers
  5. The Anti-Scientology(ists)
  6. The Extremists

 

I am an Applied Philosopher,  by the way , and not a Scientologist, independent,  liberal,  or otherwise; even though I mostly apply SCN principles to my life and research. But if I am to guide others towards higher levels of understanding and tolerance, and still call myself a Scientologist when the subject is reactively and truthfully related with Human Rights violations,  then what kind of humanitarian would I be? Not a very workable scene, I am afraid.

I hold a lot of respect for each group , though I am not always successful in keeping a pan-determined view; but I am trying very hard indeed. It is not an easy task though , because we humans are always reactive to a greater or lesser degree to views that are against our own convictions. But it is very worth trying to achieve higher understanding levels, and I take a lot of pleasure in attempting it.

Now,  these groups all have had various offensive epithets,  that many  of us have wrongly used before, including very much myself. Our own BPC (By-Passed Charge) on the subject sometimes blinds us and we end up criticizing what we don’t understand. But that we have used them is not the important thing here, but rather what we do to try to understand divergent views and increase our tolerance to any viewpoint without the need to attack it.

Some of these epithets are :

For group #1 ,  “Fundamentalists” , or “KSW fanatics”.

For group #2 and #3 ,  “Indies” , though that word has no charged content for most.

For group #4 , “Squirrels”.

For group #5  , “Anti-Scientologists” or “BPCed natterers”.

For group #6 is ,  “Haters”.

 

I include myself in the group that has wrongly used those epithets to describe those groups. That’s one of the reasons that I decided to write this article; to change that attitude in myself, and attempt to change it in others as well.

Now,  I don’t think that any particular group is better than the other ; they are just different.

What I do firmly believe is, that understanding among us IS indeed possible ; that to diverge in viewpoints and yet to get along at the same time is something that CAN be done if we just follow carefully the tenets and points of the “Universal Decalaration Of Human Rights” , and fully understand the principles in which it was based upon.

Now , let’s go back to article 18 of the UDHR as regards to its point “The right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion”.

What exactly does that mean?

Well,  let’s start by defining what is “freedom”, shall we ?

 

FREEDOM :

  1. a. The condition of not being in prison or captivity: gave the prisoners their freedom. b. The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance: In retirement they finally got the freedom to travel. 2. a. The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence. b. The condition of not being subject to a despotic or oppressive power; civil liberty. c. The condition of not being constrained or restricted in a specific aspect of life by a government or other power: freedom of assembly. d. The condition of not being a slave. 3. a. The condition of not being affected or restricted by a given circumstance or condition: freedom from want. b. The condition of not being bound by established conventions or rules: The new style of painting gave artists new freedoms. 4. The capacity to act by choice rather than by determination, as from fate or a deity; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. 5. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities. 6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.

          (Free Online Dictionary By Farlex)

 

Of particular interest are definitions 2c , 3 , 4 and 5. Applying those definitions it means that we have a right to hold any opinion about any subject or individual without an attempt by others to try to silence our views. It means we have a right to “feel” as dictated by our own conscience, and not based on anyone else’s. It means that we have a right to hold the religious beliefs that are true for us without undue interference from others.

Now , if we have a “Right to” something , it is logical to assume that we also have a “Duty to” something as well ; otherwise things tends to unbalance as we humans stress “Rights” too much,  and “Duties” very little. So if we have a “Right to freedom of thought” , then we also have a “Duty” to respect and even support “Freedom of thought” for others as well. I mean,  it is only logical to think so.

Most of us have no problem with the Flow 0 of this : allowing us that right , and protecting it as our own opinions and views are concerned, or with the Flow 1 aspect of it: demanding others to respect our rights. Our problem is with the “Flow 2” aspect of it: willingly allowing others that right without reacting to it; that is, the “Duty to” aspect of it.

It is rather odd to notice that those that really believe and support that right  in actuality and not as a “PR show” are very kind and friendly people, very easy to get along and work with. That who can truly communicate and grant beingness to others can built better Bridges to understanding and higher spiritual awareness.

Part of the “Duty to” aspect of this is to differ without insulting and degrading the views of others in any way. There are always ways to express our dissent with good manners and respect; a general “granting of beingness”.

I am afraid that that those who heavily criticize other blogs because of divergences in their view of SCN and LRH (and their moderation policies) , are only failing in their “Duty to” as regard to this Right. By attempting to “protect” the name of SCN and LRH , they are only making it worse, and are actually giving those 2 subjects (LRH and Scn) , a worse repute than it already has worldwide.

These individuals (and they know who they are), are failing to realize that LRH was not a saintly figure in many ways. LRH implemented “Disconnection Policy” which has caused so many family ruptures for so many years, that to ignore this fact is to fail to honor its victims and understand their pain. Some KSW adherents (Group #1)  thoroughly justify this by alleging  LRH cancelled it on RJ68. Really? Do you really believe that? It is obvious that he just did it for PR purposes. SCN was being  heavily scrutinized by various governmental inquiries at the time including the “Victorian Inquiry” from just a few years earlier (1965). A “change” in Policy was of the essence for any survival at all.

It was all a PR show,  I am afraid. Any old-timer who was in,  knows this for a fact. “Fair Game”  practices continued , “Overboardings” and “Chain lockers” continued. “Attacking the critics and dissenters by exposing their alleged crimes” continued , as well as the “Smashing the ‘squirrels’ practice”. Read the “Otto J. Roos story” and see it for yourself.

Right now, in present time, the Church is on an on-going all-out rampage of declaring people as “Suppressive Persons” (when  per LRH they are anything but), and then then demanding their families, friends and loved ones disconnect from them or suffer the same fate. Many people are still being fair-gamed today – the internet is littered with these stories.

By just this policy on how to deal with alleged “SPs” , (the “Fair Game” policy), many Human Rights violations are committed. Just that policy is enough to heavily attack SCN as a cult(ish) movement. But when so attacked,  and rightly so,  then the “attakers” are only “SPs” to be squashed and not “Human Rights protectors” as many actually are.

Talking  about “Propaganda by redefinition of words” from SCN “policies”.

According to LRH,  “SPs” have no rights whatsoever. They can be :   

“Deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” 

L. Ron Hubbard, “PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS”, HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967.”

 

These “SPs”  don’t have the “normal rights a Scientologists has”  according to LRH. This is highly selective and exclusive. No wonder the bad repute SCN and LRH have worldwide.

And who is anyone to tell me that I need to refrain myself from talking derogatorily about the individual who WROTE those policies ?

The individual who wrote the policy that anyone “publicly departing Scn” would be declared an “SP”? The individual who wrote as well the policy about any PTS individual being guilty of a “Suppressive act” by failing to disconnect from the terminal making him PTS ?

No; I am afraid that the “Ethics Gradients” applied to LRH as much as they apply to any of us. He just can’t escape justice that easy. Not while I am still around in this planet.  I fear no truth, never did; and I never seek or desire approval either.

It was LRH himself and not DM who planted the seed of discord. DM is just being a very incompetent robot to LRH , that’s all. And a lousy copy of him at that.

Let’s continue with point #18 of the UDHR :

“This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

I have an inherent right to change my religion or beliefs without undue interference from others. Without being called a “squirrel” just because I differ from LRH as to procedures or technique is concerned. He was not an almighty God,  right about everything he ever wrote about. This undeserved emphasis of “KSW #1” is very misguided. It robs us of free will and power of choice over data. But nonetheless, I grant the KSW supporters their right to believe in that, if that’s what gives meaning to their existence. If it is their conviction that KSW #1 is the only way to go,  then I have no business invalidating that view. But I have the right to expect the same courtesy from them. Is that so much to ask ? Is that so hard to do?

It is rather funny that if this were any other religion promoting those suppressive policies like “Disconnection” or the “Suppressive Acts” list, the KSW adherents would probably be all over it heavily attacking those views. But because they came from LRH,  then somehow there must be “some truth in them”.

How can anyone support and even admire an individual who created such policies totally escapes my understanding . True,  LRH did create as well a VERY workable system for achieving higher spiritual awareness and abilities. But this in no way justifys his suppressive policies either. Those who confront truth make it,  those who don’t live an incomplete life. I prefer to confront truth no matter how unpalatable.

The workability of SCN as regard its auditing procedures, Tech and Case Supervision training is not necessarily related to its destructive parts. One part  need not have any relation with the other.

Now,  let’s take up article 19 of the UDHR :

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

 

I was reading an article on another known blog a few days ago. It was heavily criticizing HBO’s coming documentary , “Going Clear : Scientology And The Prision Of Belief”. It was the opinion of the writer (an excellent one, by the way,  and one of the best minds in the Field) that is was wrong somehow to air such a documentary as it would hurt the SCN image too much. As if this isn’t something that’s been happening for decades now.  It was this writer’s opinion that the people involved in the creation of this documentary didn’t understand about “the life static” and thus couldn’t possibly understand what SCN was all about.

Really ? What does understanding about the spirit have to do with suppressive policies and plain fanaticism? What does it has to do with shattered lives and destroyed families? Instead of supporting any movement in the direction of the protection of Human Rights while at the same time explaining how it is that SCN has also been perverted by Church officials and made it more harmful , this writer chose to diminish the journalist’s work and research, letting down those hundreds souls who have been wronged, whose memories he should honour.

His views are clearly in opposition with point #19 above of the UDHR. Instead of “protesting” the showing of that documentary (which is only LRH’s style of not confronting attacks),  he should have first seen the whole documentary,  isolated the parts which were not factual,  and then wrote about those exact parts , but offering the exact data with the proper evidence. That would have been more intellectually honest.

 

Let’s analyse some of the items  of LRH’s list of “suppressive” acts which are clearly against article 19 of the UDHR. They also violate point #20 of the UDHR below :

UDHR:”       (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and                                    association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an                                              association.”

 SCN:           “Organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices still                       calling it Scientology or calling it something else”.

So according to LRH if anyone organizes  any “splinter group” because he/she objects to some part of SCN, then he/she is an SP. No opinion against any part of SCN is allowed by LRH. It is a “black and white” proposition. You are either “with us” or “against us”. Formidable.

“Organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology”.

This sounds to me like a monopolistic approach to the subject. Just imagine Newton attempting to control the dissemination and use of his theories just because he discovered them. Nobody has a monopoly on TRUTH, nobody. Truth is for anyone who cares to observe it ; for anyone wanting to use it for the ethical expansion of his dynamics.

Scientology is a summation of the general agreements we committed to as beings a VERY long time ago. It is a discovery not  an  invention,  and  thus its  use and application is a free  choice and a right rather than a privilege.

I don’t see Christianity,  for example,  trying to control the use and dissemination of their basic text,  “The Bible”. Even though the Bible might have undergone some alterations throughout the years due to translation errors the basic fundamentals have remained quite intact for many centuries. There were always those that made sure of that. So it would have been with SCN as well ; there will always be those with the hat to preserve the Tech.

Even though I can understand LRH’s intentions in  trying  to protect the trademarks,  and  that  he probably  only wanted to protect what he believed  to  be  the only “route out” , his strategy  to accomplish this was quite faulty and contaminated with many contradictions.

On the one hand you have the “Code of a Scientologist” that has,  as point #10 , #11 #12  of  it the following :

10. “To work for freedom of speech in the world”.

11. “To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data             which would help  Mankind”.

12. “To support the freedom of religion”.

 

But on the other hand you have the list of “Suppressive Acts” denying you those same rights;  an obvious contradiction. You cannot “publicly depart Scientology” without being declared. You cannot disagree with any part of Scientology and create a “splinter group” (they respectfully call it) based on your own discernment of what parts of the subject you find unworkable or against Human Rights. You can’t  do this without being declared an SP.

You can’t practice Yoga,  Spiritualism or any other  -ism(s) that you may find  useful as  that would be “mixing practices”. Yet LRH compiled a big portion of what is Scientology based on the wisdom of many great individuals and religions. But try reading or quoting from any philosophy other than Scientology and see for yourself the reactions of KSW supporters. For them, it is only Scientology that has any value.

How about being a highly trained auditor and trying to improve any part of the Tech based on your own experiences and successful actions? You’ll be considered a “squirrel” as you are not supposed to have any mind of your own, and apparently you are not clever enough to establish any part where Scientology might be wrong or fell short.

If LRH didn’t write it  then it is not true. We are indoctinated in this think.

All of those above points are in clear contradiction with the quoted points of the “Code Of A Scientologist” without even mentioning the famous “Creed Of The Church Of Scientology” that got so many of us to join in the “Battle For Freedom” as class V Org staff or as SO members. Let’s quote some of its points :

 “WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE

 That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance. 

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.

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

LRH

Wow!

Almost every point in this “Creed” is a violation of the list of  “Suppressive Acts” – especially the last one.

Let’s examine others items from this list,  shall we ?
“Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations”.

“Good standing according to who? Who gets to decide that? That “rule” is one of the reasons we have Mr. “Charlatan Of The Board” (COB) in “Power”. The adherence to that part of the SCN Codes implies giving up one or more of your inherent Human Rights : the right to have a divergent opinion and express it free from attacks upon your reputation or person.

“Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.”

So if anyone tries to defend his/her Human Rights being violated by any terminal from the Church , after he has tried to handle it by the internal channels without any success, then seeking recourse from an external source like the Media or the “wog courts” as they call it , will be a sure way to get expelled. Now,  where is the self-determinism in that ? How many points of the UDHR does this violate?

 “Proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the suppression of Scientology”.
So if LRH himself with his own hands wrote the “Fair Game” HCOPL stating that :

[Suppressive Person] Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

It  means that  no  legislation may be created or applied to protect these “SP’s” from obvious Human Rights violations? Gee, let’s torture the inmates then, let’s lie as witnesses to put behind bars some strong  critic of Scientology. After all, they are only SPs. They have no rights whatsoever; they can be destroyed, lied about, tricked, deprived of property, beaten, etc, etc. I wonder where DM got his twisted idea that “beating others into obedience” was ok? It is well-known that he declared his own management team as a bunch of SP’s, and then he had Carte Blanche to fair-game, beat them and destroy them – just as laid out by LRH!

And for those of you who thinks I am going too far and that LRH cancelled the “Fair Game” PL, let me quote then  from the modified PL :

(HCOPL 21 OCT ’68 , “Cancellation Of Fair Game”).

” The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.

FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.

So LRH cancelled the practice of “declaring someone Fair Game”  as it was “bad public relations” according to him. Note that he found nothing wrong with the practice itself and its use. Just with “having it written”.

Does anyone remember the practice of “overboarding”?  When the student failed to achieve a target, made an auditing error or apply something from the original class VIII course on The Apollo ? Does that sounds sensible to you ? Does it sounds like encouraging Human Rights ? Just imagine being carried by 2 big men and thrown over the side of the ship at a height of 25-35 feet as a means for others to “get the point of Standard Tech”. Just marvelous!

The fact is that the practice of “Fair Gaming” and “disconnection” never really ceased no matter the “PR speech” LRH gave in his famous and controversial RJ68. That’s a FACT any old-timer would be able to confirm for anybody. The list of “Suppressive Acts” was NEVER cancelled by LRH, period. Google search and read the “Otto J Roos Story”. Also the letter from one of the first whistle-blowers, Dane Tops in 1982.

This point alone, of LRH’s attitude towards “SPs”, functions as a 3P activity which prompts us,  specially the fundamentalist ones , to detest anyone labeled an SP and to feel  no responsibility whatsoever towards him. A total neglect for any Human Rights.

Notice how  we Scientologists react  towards “the squirrel”, towards those who decide to “depart from Scientology” – a right inherent to us and specified  in so  many documents  and constitutions including Hubbard’s own writings. (Which he apparently seemed to have no problem violating depending on the case).

Let’s define “Squirrel” in the Tech dictionary , shall we ?

“SUIRRELING” : “It means altering SCN and offbeat practices. It is a bad thing.” (HCOPL 14 Feb ’65).

off·beat (ôf b t , f -) n. Music An unaccented beat in a measure. adj. Slang (ôf b t , f-) Not conforming to an ordinary type or pattern; unconventional: offbeat humor. (Free Online Dictionary by  Farlex)

“Not conforming to an ordinary type or pattern” according to who ? Who gets to decide that – LRH ?

Is it  healthy to let one man decide for you what works and what doesn’t ?. What is an acceptable practice and what isn’t ? What  about your right to your own mind ?  To your own opinions and observations?  To decide, based  on your  own analysis and looking , at what is true for you or not? LRH stresses that point of self-determined knowledge in many of his writings only to contradict himself in others,  like his list of “Suppressive Acts”.

I can understand keeping a tight control of exact application organizationally, to keep the Tech pure. Nothing wrong with that.

If I were teaching a new technical procedure to a group of engineers I would probably stress exact application and would not allow deviations. I would emphasize that they needed to learn the exact procedure, apply it exactly as taught, observe and evaluate the results for themselves. And then, if anyone smart enough wanted  to research possible improvement to it WHILE continuing to apply the exact procedure he was trained at , then I wouldn’t have any problem with that. As long as he demonstrated that his new method was indeed a better way to do it.

But trying to control application outside of Organizations, and more so when it is done by force and threats, is not a very smart way to go about it. Labeling people as “squirrels” just because they might seek additional knowledge from other sources, is not to foster free thinking and self-determinism but an authoritarian viewpoint. It is to deny that us “little stupid Homo Novis” have any discernment at all to properly evaluate what piece of knowledge is workable or not based on our own observations. It is to treat us like children beginning to learn the basics of life. It is an invalidation that I cannot take. It is to mess with our Human Rights; a very unworkable approach to teach any subject.

Bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist,including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund, without first calling the matter to the attention of the International Justice Chief and receiving a reply”.

Really? Do a Google search for “A Diary Of A Dying Scientologist” , read it in full, then state that point  again. I actually want our readers to Google-search it , read it,  and be the judge yourself.

“Demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this policy applies)”.

This practice is only heard in SCN. No other organization that I know of, has this kind of “policy”.  A friend of mine got audited by 2 squirrel auditors. Squirrels as in altering the Tech in a very destructive way , not that I oppose that anyone practice whatever the hell they find workable as long as they don’t put others at risk by damaging , unworkable, and untested procedures.

But my friend got audited by 2 individuals whose alterations violated  the most  basic principles of the Auditor’s Code which is an excellent code of professional and responsible behavior. He wasn’t trained enough to differentiate the good from the bad. 50 auditing hrs totally wasted, no gains. Later on he found out after he got some training, that he had been audited under flagrant code violations and altered workable procedures. Now, had he asked for a refund of the money miserably wasted, he would have been declared a Suppressive Person in an instant. But he paid his hard earned money to receive a product he didn’t get and the Org is responsible for the errors of his staff!

Any Scientologist knows that you can’t ask for a refund no matter how badly the service was delivered – you can’t even ask for a “credit” on your account to right the wrong. If the org makes a mistake, YOU have to pay to correct it.  Does that seem reasonable to anyone?

According to LRH it doesn’t matter if you received bad and alter-ised service , still you can’t ask for a refund or even for a credit. You are expected to “take responsibility for it having gone wrong” in the first place. In SCN think, only through your own actions (usually Missed Withholds) are results not obtained. You are expected to “be Cause” over any situation and so if auditing didn’t work for you,  then somehow you are “fully cause” and thus, asking for refund or credit is “denying your own responsibility in the matter” according to LRH.

Writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or antiScientologist data to the press”.

Again , a violation of your Human Rights. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merit. Not everybody who resorts to the press is an “SP trying to “destroy Scientology”. He might have a very legitimate case.  He might have been  subjected to an incredible injustice; It all depends on the circumstances.

Continued membership in a divergent group”.

“Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a suppressive person or group by HCO”.

“Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts”.

Again , another violation of Human Rights. I reserve my right to keep a comm line with whoever the hell I want to. Nobody should interfere with whom I might talk to or not , or to whom I am connected to or not. If my connection is harmful to me, then it is my business and nobody else’s. I am nobody’s robot .

True,  according to LRH a person under  suppression loses gains and  the  full  benefit  of  training.  True as well, that  a  person  under suppression can and many times does create lots of trouble for the organization. But it is one thing to refuse auditing and/or training to the PTS individual while his situation remains unhandled,  and it is quite another different thing to FORCE him to disconnect from anyone – no matter the reason.

I don’t care what are the reasons really; I reserve my right to keep any comm line as I see fit. If the comm line brings me trouble and PTSness,  it is my business and not anyone else’s. I have a right  to my life and mind. If  the Org  denies me auditing and/or training because of it, so be it. It is their right to do so. But declaring me an “SP”  just because I decided to keep any kind of connection with whomever I wanted to,  is to interfere  with my fundamental Human Rights.

“Violation or neglect of any of the ten points of Keeping Scientology Working, as listed”.

Let me see here, if anyone is not certain that “it works” (point #3 –  “knowing it is correct”), then he/she is committing a suppressive act ? If he finds something unworkable and decides not to apply that (i.e what is true for you), for example “disconnection”  or “Fair Game” practices, then he or she is committing a suppressive act for chosing not to applky that particular piece of tech? Is that even sensible?  I guess not.

“Spreading false tales to invalidate Clears or spreading libelous and slanderous statements about the alleged behavior of Clears”.

So, if I observe (as I have on many occasions) a bunch of  “Clears” and  “OTs” behaving erratically, out-ethics  or  even a bit suppressive, I am supposed to shut my mouth and suppress my opinion, because if I don’t , I am liable to be declared? As if a these badly behaving Clears and OT’s are some kind of “Gods”. Isn’t this just a clever way of hiding lack of results? To avoid having to explain why so many Clears and OTs are very far from being “textbook Clears and OTs”  – utterly lacking the promoted “special abilities”? Isn’t this an obvious way to feel unanswerable for failing to deliver what was promised?

“It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology”.

So I am stuck with SCN forever you mean ?  Let’s define “publicly” :

Adv. 1. publicly – in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly; “she admitted publicly to being a communist”
So if I tell my friends (even my Scientologists friends) that I no longer support SCN and decided it wasn’t for me, then I am committing a Suppressive Act ?

Gee, let’s shoot any Christian apostate too. Let’s burn them all in eternal fire for stopping believing in Jesus Christ. I mean, it doesn’t get any more Fundamentalist than that. A gross violation of Human Rights. What a marvelous way to keep parishioners in line indeed! And to prevent the loss of members as well which keeps pouring money in.

 

“Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a suppressive act.”

This is my favorite one!

A wife is being beaten by this psycho. She has 3 kids and no means to support them in PT. She has no home of her own as she has  been living in a home that belongs to this husband as a pre-nuptial agreement. So if she leaves him,  she’ll be homeless and penniless. She is obviously very PTS and only a very standard  handling and auditing on the subject will get her to gentle “cause” over this situation. True, when all has been said and done,  she’ll  realize  that she herself brought about the sit in the first place by the misapplication of life fundamentals and by pulling in motivators which prompted her own O/Ws against the terminal and against her own Code of Honor.

But without help , she might just end up stuck with the guy or even dead. But according to the “Suppressive Acts” if she fails to “handle or disconnect” from this SP that is making her PTS,  she’ll be declared. Does that even seems sensible to anyone?  Isn’t this a clear violation of Human Rights ?

This is fanaticism and fundamentalism beyond belief. Only to save the organization trouble,  rest  assured.

No, my dear fellow Scientologists , it is not OSA , COB, or “The Church” , I am afraid. They all had a very good teacher. Without his writings, those people wouldn’t have a basis for their tactics and attitude. They have  the HCOBs  and  HCOPLs  in which to justify their actions. And an alter-is of them isn’t even needed to bring it about , as with many of them pure and unadulterated,  the same damage and 3P effects can and are being created. Without changing one iota of several LRH’s writings, I assure you that the same conflicts can and do arise due to the fundamentalistic and fanatical approach with which we Scientologists interpret  the scriptures.

What is missing here is a self-deterministic approach to the subject,  free from religious mania with its consequential  abandonment of the willingness to “think for ourselves”  and the ability to OBSERVE.

 

Does any of this means that Peter doesn’t support Scientology anymore ?  Or that he stopped  believing in it?

Not at all I assure you. Do you suddenly stop “believing” in  Newton’s Laws of Motion just because you  found some detailsabout his life you disagree with ? Of course you don’t.  Newton’s discoveries were exactly that – discoveries rather than inventions. They were based on experimentation and empirical data. They have been tested again and again ; and they remain valid. It took us to the Moon, it gave us airplanes and rockets as how they move is based on those laws.

Same with most of Scientology’s discoveries; they were based on empirical research and a lot of testing. It is highly workable in very different ways. Just one single discovery of SCN is enough to put the subject in the “World Hall Of Fame” of great human discoveries.

LRH  was a genius indeed; one of  the greatest ones this planet has ever had. Any one of his discoveries is enough to immensely admire and validate him for his great contributions to a better Humanity. But he was only a man, not an infallible god. He made many mistakes in his judgments too.

For some reason, we as Scientologists feel guilty and even “nattery” about uttering anything negative about LRH or Scientology itself. And let me point out to you, my dear friends, that it is a misguided attitude. It denies you the right to your own opinion and your freedom of choice about deciding what is really true or not for you ; something you can’t live without. .

Scientology  is a very workable and valuable philosophy my friends . It doesn’t have many subjects of comparable magnitude against which to compare it with any justice, but it is far from being perfect.  It is not an end to every path of knowledge there is in this universe. It is only a beginning; and an excellent one I may add.

It is a “Route out” but not necessarily the only or most perfect one. Most of it is highly workable,  but it has contradictions and some sections that dangerous and violate our basic Human Rights.  That is an undeniable fact , and only through fanaticism can that fact remain hidden from view.

We are living in a new era,  one of reason and fostering Human Rights. Not as a hypocritical PR tactic as used by the CofS , but  with  real  understanding  about  what  it really encompass and with the correct  attitude of really granting beingness to one’s fellow human beings. With an inclination towards tolerance, understanding and respect for their Human Rights instead of a fanatical-fundamentalist approach which will only serve to bring pain to all of us in the end.

We CAN differ, respect each other, and get along at the same time. We can be friends. How?  By embracing Human Rights, respecting the rights of others as explained in the UDHR,  and even in Scientology’s own CREED. And by increasing our tolerance for divergent views.

Religion & morals

 

For group #1 ,  “Fundamentalists” , or “KSW fanatics”.

Let the KSW adherents follow their chosen path. If they believe that only in following “Pure LRH” their route to Freedom is found, then who are we to attempt to change their mind? If they are happy in pursuing that path, then I am all for it. But please,  please understand that others might not hold the same opinions about Standard Tech and KSW , and they are entitled to their own views about LRH and SCN without being called “haters”, “BPCed natterers” , etc – Just as you resent being referred to as “Fundamentalists”, “Fanaticals” or any other epithet with your strict adherence to KSW #1.

Let’s refrain from heavily criticizing our fellow bloggers just because they have “publicly departed SCN  as Rinder ,Shelton, Karen, Marty, Marc and many others have. It is their right to do so,  and YOUR duty to respect that right. They also have a right to talk against LRH if their personal experiences with him proved that he wasn’t worthy of their admiration. Nobody has a duty to feel any admiration for anybody. Stop enforcing ARC on others; that ain’t right.

Those terminals that I just mentioned opened the door to exposing all the crimes that the suppressive CofS was and is committing. Without their blogs, many of us would probably still be happily applauding DM at many of his silly speeches. So give these people the credit they DO deserve. They wanted to move beyond SCN? Good!  Acknowledge them , and thank them for having opened your eyes to the crimes of the Church. Be nice to them. They are not your enemies, you know.

Be nice to people who don’t share your views. Anybody has a right to believe in what they want to as long as their beliefs do not interfere with your rights,  and as long as they are not injuring anybody. Stop being so self-righteous about your views; stress inclusion instead of exclusion. Be gentle,  be nice,  be kind to others. Have manners.

 

For group #2 and #3 ,  “Indies” (though that word has no charged content for most)

Let the “Independent Scientologists” follow their own path too. If they believe that LRH erred in some of his policies and that KSW #1 is not totally infallible, then so be it. It is their right to so dissent.

Let the “Liberal Scientologists” keep their liberal thinking as well. They very much believe in the Tech but not so much in Policy and rigid Ethics. For them, LRH was only a man with many virtues , but with several destructive traits as well. They have a right to their opinion, and to be listened to.

 

For group #4 , “Squirrels”.

Let the “Applied Philosophers” research their way to Total Freedom. Nobody has a monopoly on Truth. Every being has the potential to perceive and discover Truth by himself. LRH is not the only genius in existence, for Christ sakes. This misguided idea from LRH about us “little humans” being incapable of raising above our bank and only agreeing in “bank ideas” , is just a HUGE invalidation of human potential, and a fanatical approach to knowledge. Just get rid of that false assumption.

Do not call those who have chosen an alternative path “Squirrels”. That’s a derogatory and fundamentalistic term. They are pioneers and are only attempting to create a better Bridge – most of them at least. They also have a RIGHT to use whatever parts of SCN they find workable even if modified,  and still call them SCN.  Scientology IS a discovery not an invention. It’s use is a RIGHT and not a privilege. Has anyone ever seen any scientists attempting to “Trademark” and “copyright”  their discovered laws? That’s totally unheard of. Researchers are expected to broadly offer others their discoveries and to share in improving them. What’s with this attitude that “I am the only one capable of recognizing Truth”? Give me a break, please. There are hundreds of thinkers a lot more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than LRH.

The fact that LRH attempted to create this “monopoly” only shows how misguided he was,  and that SCN is not a religion at all , but only a mooney-making business as an institution.

 

For group #5  , “Anti-Scientologists” or “BPCed natterers”.

The “Anti-Scientology(ists)” have also a right to express their views on the subject and on LRH as well. They’ve seen enough of its destructive parts, about which there is ample accumulated evidence, so as to have a sensible opinion about it all, at least from their perspective. So instead of attacking and censoring them,  allow them to freely communicate their views ; listen to what they have got to say ; acknowledge them. You’ll only get persistence of strong emotions and BPC if you don’t. Why not just be auditors to the world ? Remember,  you’ll only get a persistence of those things that you fail to admire. And how exactly does one admire something? Well,  you do it by attempting to understand it.

For group #6  –  “Haters”.

And finally about group 6 , “The extremists” , just listen to what they have got to say as well, and get them to express their EXACT disagreements with the subject and not generalities. Just by doing that, you’ll be able to handle more ARCxs than you can possibly imagine, as ARCXs are many times just caused by generalities. Why make enemies when you might probably end up with a friend?

I am good  friends in PT with a very knowledgeable individual with VERY strong emotions towards SCN and its founder. We agree to disagree on that ,and just find points of mutual agreements and do just great with that. I’ve actually learned a lot from him. So I am not talking here from an Ivory Tower. I do practice what I teach.

Please , do not allow your basic goodness and affinity for your fellows to be alloyed out of a rigid and unbending interpretation of the Scientology scriptures. They are our brothers and sisters too . They need our hand and understanding. This world is already full of hate and intolerance ; we  need not add any more to it.

 

The fact that many of us are here participating,  as well as participating in other blogs and sites,  means that we are in a spiritual path ; that we, many of us, are seeking  the same thing : FREEDOM. And the basic components of Freedom are ARC which equates to UNDERSTANDING.

May you all find, each one of you, your true path to enlightenment and I hope that the “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” becomes our guiding principle with which we deal with our fellows and handle our differences.

My best wishes to you all.

ARC
PETER

Understanding

Advertisements

119 thoughts on “On Human Rights and Fundamentalism

    • Go tell that to the 6 million Jews plus other cultures that almost got annihilated by the Nazi , Barry. But I guess that you even have a right to be ignorant.

      Peter

      • Dear posters, please do not fall into Barry’s games. He is just a troll attempting to deviate the subject and create general upset. Please, let’s no fall in his sordid game ; it is not worth it. Let’s keep it high toned as we (all of us here) are.

        Love
        PETER

      • Thanks TC – when BIC followers (our “family”) originate the mod policy as their own and expect others to adhere to it without us having to jump in, then we know our job has been done well 🙂

  1. Peter all this data is presented in a logical manner that not only makes sense, but appeals to my basic sense of goodness too! Thanks for that ok.

    One point though, I feel you may be a bit harsh on the ole man, thats just me 😉 If more of us stood up when we should have, things may have turned out differently. I know that if I had decided to take his job and put everything together as he did, I doubt Id have made as much progress! So I tend to be forgiving of him. Obviously he made some ripe cockups. But I win so much using his discoveries and have helped far too many others to not be bias in favour of the man. If I get the chance to meet him again I would pick his mind and find out what actually happened. I dont think I would be scared to say, look mate that caused one helluva travesty back then, what gives?

    Then I look at my life and I go WOW! The shit you did..I was no saint, more a devil with a sharp toungue who could verbally spar with the devil and win- or woo a virgin nun! A life of booze, drugs and parties could have been my staple. Instead here I am. Gorgeous family, own businesses, self respect and pretty damn happy. Who do I owe that to? Me of course, I did it! But I sure as hell had a good instructor, theory and practical tech to do it with. For that I gotta tip my hat off for the ole man Im afraid. He has my eternal respect till the sun explodes I spose.

    Despite my cudos to LRH I see myself as an applied philosopher willing to see stuff beyond the scope of Scn. LRH didnt have all the answers. Im ready to forge my own path without having to step on any other philosopher along the way! Lets put another freedom brick in own bridge out of the canyon shall we. Can we all just have lots of fun as we work on our exit strategy please. 😉

    • Sheeplebane, I feel pretty much the same way you do, in that I look at LRH in the context of the whole picture. A significant part of that picture is that he apparently considered that Scientology was literally at war. And there was a lot of truth to this, according to FOIA records and first-hand reports of individuals who were there.

      One thing that was left out of even the “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” is what should be done when there seems to be no answer but force when faced with extremely destructive aggression. And this may truly have appeared to be the case to LRH – I am open to that possibility. Even the UN list of human rights doesn’t condemn war. Why not? Well, perhaps because under some circumstances it, can’t be avoided. This is the type of ethical paradox that LRH himself wrote about.

      • Dear Marildi,

        Thanks for stopping by.

        I beg to differ ; the URHR is clear enough about war even if not directly so ; it didn’t need to be , as if any country and individual follows its tenets, there wouldn’t be any war at all. There is no paradox here, I am afraid, beyond the complexities that we humans themselves enter into it.

        The only occasion where war can’t be avoided, is when a suppressive regimen that neglect the rights of others , comes to “power”. But even then , just enough force needs to applied, enough to protect others while some reason is put into the scene. Force for the sake of force is nothing, as it can only control down into non-understanding and adherence to authority.

        The UDHR is workable enough , and sensible enough to handle most “moral dilemmas” about right and wrong. It doesn’t really matter if Scn was “at war” or not, Marildi, what is wrong is wrong at war and at peace as well. Why so many of us are so much inclined in finding “reasons” why LRH did what he did ? Can’t we just confront that he did them and be done with it ? Why all this misguided effort to protect the repute of any one individual when what we should be ethically doing is repairing the many injustices that occured, and rehabilitating Scn so that it doesn’t fall in the category of a cult , which is what LRH turned it into with his own policies ? I don’t ger really, but to each his own.

        ARC PETER

      • Thetaclear: “Why so many of us are so much inclined in finding reasons why LRH did what he did? Can’t we just confront that he did them and be done with it?

        Peter, I agree with you that we need to confront what LRH did. LRH himself, just days before he died, said that he had “failed”. And most would agree that his estimation of effort (defined by him as “directed force”) was obviously incorrect. However, part of the truth – all of which is needed in order to draw the best conclusions and plan future action – is that he was in a very tough position, very much like what you so well described where you wrote:

        “The only occasion where war can’t be avoided is when a suppressive regimen that neglects the rights of others comes to ‘power’. But even then, just enough force needs to applied, enough to protect others while some reason is put into the scene.”

        In Marty Rathbun’s book *Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior*, he wrote about a “Special Project” he had been put on in the late 70’s, where for 6 months he studied “government and private agency/association documents obtained by means other than the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act]” – of which there were “tens of thousands of pages”. In the book, Marty wrote several eye-opening pages detailing what he discovered had actually occurred, based on those official documents – and he named names. Here are just a few excerpted paragraphs.

        —————————–
        “For the next 20 years [since 1950], the AMA’s then-mighty Department of Investigation would take clandestine action against Hubbard and his organizations. Two successive heads of investigation for the AMA, Oliver Field (1950s) and Thomas Spinelli (1960s and 1970s) would work hand-in-glove with several governmental agencies to infiltrate Hubbard’s lectures and organizations…. Hubbard published this passage in his 1951 book *Science of Survival*:

        “‘There is another form of hypnotism which falls between the surgical operation and straight hypnotism without physical pain. This form of hypnotism has been a carefully guarded secret of certain military and intelligence organizations. It is a vicious war weapon and may be of considerably more use in conquering a society than the atom bomb. This is no exaggeration. The extensiveness of the use of this form of hypnotism in espionage work is so wide today that it is long past the time when people should have become alarmed about it. It required Dianetic processing to uncover pain-drug-hypnosis. Otherwise, pain-drug-hypnosis was out of sight, unsuspected, and unknown.’”
        […]

        “The truth of Hubbard’s 1951 pronouncements about our government’s dirty activities would not be corroborated publicly until the mid to late seventies, with the advent of the Freedom of Information Act and the U.S. Congress Church Committee Hearings into unlawful CIA domestic intelligence operations. That Ron was twenty years ahead of his time in recognizing what the CIA and psychiatrists were up to was acknowledged by author Walter Bowart in one of the first popular exposures of that activity, Operation Mind Control (Dell, 1978). By then, Hubbard had been so discredited by establishment campaigns, and his church subjected to such intense fire for scandals of its [establishment’s] own manufacture, that nary a person would listen to the longer history, the bigger picture.
        […]

        “Now Hubbard’s writings took on a markedly different tone than most of what he had written before. Rather than speak of turning the other cheek and dealing with establishment attacks with a healthy insouciance, Hubbard prepared the GO to do what the enemy was doing, but to do it better.”
        ————————————

        What I’m trying to say is that LRH did consider Scientology to be at war, a war that had not been declared by him but by those who wanted to shut scientology down – and it seems possible that this could actually have happened. On the other hand, maybe he should have allowed it to happen rather than choosing to use force, as “force begets force”.

        At this point in time, the problem I see with not taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding LRH – which tend to indicate his actual intention – is that an overly black picture gets painted of him. And that blackens scientology itself in many people’s minds – i.e. they just can’t see how any product of such an “evil” man could possibly be good.

        LRH’s mistakes – and our own mistakes as well – did result in a cult, as you said, and I fully agree. My point is that we need to confront and learn from the mistakes, including the mistake of “going to war” – IF it’s true that war is never warranted. Maybe Gandhi was right – maybe in the end scientology would have re-surfaced, even if it had been wiped out for whatever period of time.

        Thanks, Peter, for all the thought and effort you put into writing your article and for getting me to think more on the subject. I’ve made progress in coming to a resolution in my own mind. Yay! 🙂

        ARC,
        marildi

      • No, Marildi, thank you for presenting me with such a sane viewpoint on the matter. I have always considered you incredible smart and wise ; but it seems that I actually underestimated your keen insight into things. You have a better scientific mind than mine ; and I haven’t said that many times in my life.

        It is an honor to exchange comms with you ; I always learn something new from you. Thanks dear. :-))))

        ARC, PETER

      • Thank you, Peter! Great exchanging comms with you too, and the other folks here. “Back in Comm” – what a concept! 🙂

        ARC,
        marildi

      • The U.N. Declaration Of Human Rights may not address the subject of war, but the U.N, Charter does.
        The U.N. Charter defines legal war as self defense from an invading army or a war sanctioned by the U.N.
        As an example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, Kuwait had the right to defend itself. Kuwait was not able to defend itself, so it went to the U.N.
        The U.N. then formed a coalition of nations and forced Iraq out of Kuwait. That was “Gulf War One”.

      • Thanks for the information, Dan351.

        I would like to add to that, that after the creation of the UDHR , which lacked actual legal power to enforce countries to respect Human Rights (a declaration has only “moral power”) , several convenants were created which DO have legal power as they are actual “treaties” signed by the government representatives themselves. 7 convenants were created after the UDHR which include :

        1. The International Convenant on Economic , Social , and Cultural Rights.

        2. International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights.

        3. International Convention on the Elimination on all Forms of Racial Discriminations.

        4. Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discriminations against Women.

        5. Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

        6. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

        7. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.

        All those Convenants are legal documents enforceable by international law on the countries that agreed to them in written , which amount to hundreds of countries (you can see the list of them on the UN webpage).

        Obviously War is a subject that presupposes violations of Human Rights in one or various flows. So there is no real need to address “War” as a subjet in any convenant as “War” is the immediate consequence of violations of points fully covered in each one of them. The UN or any one delegation for that matter, can’t deny any country their “right” to go to war, as war can be considered an action of self-defence to protect our lives – a right inherent to us. But war can’t neither violate Human Rights out of alleging “self-defense”. But it is obvious that if any given country is attacked by another, and the attacked country has exhausted all its resourses to handle this conflic by the use of diplomacy and reason ; that they then have no other alternative but the use of force. At least until some control has been put into the scene to protect the lives of others. It is just a matter of sensible judgment and common sense.

        I for one, believe that war can be avoided , and that “force” usually begets more force. But let’s also not be that naive , and pretend that any conflict will resolve by just being “good and noble” and turning the other cheek ; it won’t. Suppressives frequently rise to power , and only listen to the sound of arms , as sad and uncomfortable as that may sound. I like to live in a real world with real possibilities.

        The best remedy against war is early education on the subject of Human Rights, and the elimination of illireracy.

        On another note, the CofS has violated practically all 7 convenants. It is time to use the same mechanism that they have used to invoke “Religious Rights” violations (by presenting lies to the different committees, of course) to make an international case against them for Human Rights violations. We have the UN mechanism needed to file a complaint. We have a lot of evidence, and a lot of testimonies as well. And we have used local tribunals to no avail in most cases, so we are totally eligible for filing the complaint. I’ll fully explain this at a later article , if anyone is interested enough.

        ARC, PETER

      • Thanks, Dan351. That’s basically what I had in mind – the right to defend one’s country, or one’s group or oneself.

        Here’s a sobering excerpt from 8-8008:

        “The MEST universe is essentially a force universe, a fact which is, incidentally, antipathetic to most thetans. One’s ability to handle the MEST universe is conditional upon his not abdicating from his right to use force, right to give orders, his right to punish, his right to administer personal justice, and so forth….

        “In the MEST universe ethics seem to be a liability, honesty is all but impossible save when armed with force of vast magnitude. Only the strong can afford to be ethical, and yet the use of strength begets but the use of strength. In the MEST universe we are confronted with paradoxes upon paradoxes where behavior is concerned, for behavior in the MEST universe is regulated by stimulus-response and not by analytical thought or reason. The MEST universe demands of us complete and utter obedience and agreement on the penalty of extermination, yet when one has agreed entirely with the MEST universe he finds himself unable to perceive it with clarity.

        “In one’s own universe, on the other hand, honesty, ethics, happiness, good behavior, justice, all become possible.” (*Scientology 8-8008*)

    • Thanks for the comm dear Sheeplebane, and thanks for your validation.

      I agree, I am sometimes a little too harsh with LRH, but I only do it because I am the “lawyer” of the ones who, unlike you and me , were targets of plain fundamentalism and fanaticism, and were forced to live a suppressed life where their Human Rights were violated left and right. I assure you that the victims of LRH’s harsh policies are just too many to just brush it off with “anybody makes mistakes”. I can’t think that way ; not with what I know.

      Did I think that he was malicious in his intentions ? No, I don’t. Do I think that he only wanted to make money with Scn ? No, I don’t either. Do I think that he only strived for power ? Not at all. Did I stop admiring him ? Not a bit less, I assure you , as regards to all the Tech legacy that he left for us. I will be eternally grateful to him for that. But if we fail to acknowledge and confront truth , we would be failing to honor the victims of all this tragedy, and failing as well to understand their pain. How do I explain to an individual who lost his son because he (the son) couldn’t confront to whom he should remain loyal, to his father or brothers, and committed suicide ; that he shouldn’t be “so harsh” with LRH, because we all make mistakes ?

      How do I confront Karen, who lost her son w/out even being allowed to see him, and tell her, “Look Karen, I know that you lost your son, but I think that LRH’s legacy is big enough to compensate for that” ? How exactly do I do that ? How do I comfort a mother who has been separated to his declared son, that LRH didn’t have anything to with that, or that he “just lost his way” ,but that he meant well ?

      How do I explain a mother who was forced to make “Sophia’s choice” between her daughter and drug addict son, that she should understand LRH and not be so harsh to him, because after all, he created a “route out” fo us ? How do I exactly do that, dear Sheeplebane ?

      No, dear Sheeplebane, LRH has already enough “lawyers” out here ; it is time for someone else to become the “lawyer” of the other part of the conflict. I am proudly adopting that hat, and will carry it forward untill any remaining fundamentalism remain just in the history books only as a bad memory of what we humans are capable of doing when subjected willingly to the Yoke of authority. What we humans are capable of when we surrender our capacity for observation , and replace it with fanaticism, and the abandonment of our ability to think for ourselves. What we Humans are capable of when obedience by force and threats are used instead of kindness, tolerance, and respect for the Human Rights of others.

      Am I too harsh with LRH ? Probably yes, but I have no problem with that whatsoever. He already has enough lawyers. It is time that others have competent representation as well. It is only fair. You and other great individuals like you are already doing a great job at defending LRH ; I don’t need to be in the list as well. Let’s just keep a proper balance here, shall we?

      Take care my friend. I do admire your passion and great kindness. You are truly unique. I am very proud to be your friend.

      ARC, PETER

      • LRH has compiled and brilliantly organized many truths into a workable system of helping others.

        When I look at my kids, I give them some slack. When I look at my friends I give them some slack. They aren’t perfect but I love them for who they are. If a friend gets backed into a corner I’ll defend them, within reason – I have their back. Even if they screwed up somehow. This is what friends do.

        Do I think my kids are perfect? Not for a minute but I still love them. Are my friends perfect? Not a chance but I still have their backs. Do I go and tell all of my associates and friends my family’s and friend’s flaws? Why would I? So that others can be ‘careful’ of them?

        Friends and family protect each other. There is an integrity within these dynamics.

        I consider LRH my friend. He has helped me beyond any expectation. With a sincerity I acknowledge and appreciate.

        Which of us here is perfect enough to hold up a man for criticism? There is a line which friends just don’t cross. I’m sure there are many arguments available which can be forwarded to make it ok to tear someone down.

        A method, a system, a technology can always be improved upon and needs to be examined with a somewhat critical eye. I don’t believe everything I read until I make it my own.

        But, my friends are my friends and I feel proud to call them my friends. They have value to me and I have their backs. This may be a very naive point of view but it has served me very well this lifetime.

        This is not a direct response to anything written here but just a general view which I have meant to say for sometime. So I’m adding words to my feelings.

        Are any of us so prefect as to be able to stand under a spotlight while anyone and everyone takes turns to find their faults. It sure isn’t me – I’ve got a parade full of errors and faults – I want to meet that person if they exist.

        LRH is my friend.

      • It is not a matter of “friendship” dear Focus ; friends are expected to not justify each other’s mistakes, but to help each other recognize and confront them.

        In one of LRH’s own PL , Data Series 30 – “Situation Finding” , it says :

        “One often wonders why people are so “reasonable” about intolerable and illogical situations”.

        “The answer is very simple : they cannot recognize outpoints when they see them and so try to make everything seem logical.”

        “The ability to actually see an outpoint for what it is , in itself is an ability to attain some peace of mind. For one can realize it is what it is , an outpoint. It is not a matter for human emotion and reaction. It is a pointer towards a situation.”

        “The moment you can see this you will be able to handle life a lot better”.

        “The human reaction is to REACT! to an outpoint. And then get “reasonable” and adopt some explanation for it , usually untrue”. LRH

        This is VERY applicable data as regards to this “dilemma” whether or not LRH is criticism-worthy or not , or Scn for that matter. There are many Scientologists who apparently feel a need to somehow “tone down” LRH’s actions against Human Rights. To be “reasonable” about some of his fundamentalist policies , looking for possible “reasons” why he changed so much in his approach to knowledge after the mid ’60s. And that’s misguided. It only shows our own unwillingness to just confront the outpoints head-on. He just did, period ; there is no need to go beyond that.

        LRH was not infallible and incapable of going out-ethics, just as any of us aren’t. We “mortals” mess it up, confront how misguided we were , make up for any damage done, go up the conditions, and end of that . There isn’t anybody in existence who doesn’t have many “discreditable” creations. I have enough overt acts myself to give to every Scientologist in existence, and have enough left for a 75-hrs confessional ; I am everything but a saint. I don’t give a rat’s ass about what others have done in their life ; I really don’t. Couldn’t care less if I wanted to. But I have no problem with accepting it , and assuming a Cause viewpoint for everything I have done in my life. For every effort and counter-effort. So if we “mortals” are expected to do that ; why the hell it has to be different with LRH ?

        I don’t really care that he committed overt acts ; I only care that others can comfortably confront and accept that fact w/out any need to become “reasonable” about it all, attempting to find any “reasons” to understand LRH’s behavior. What we are actually trying to do with that is to keep the false image of LRH that we were sold on for so many years. This “leyend” and “mock up” that we created ourselves out of our need to have role model to aspire to ; a noble thing by itself, but a misguided attitude lacking real workability.

        There was no real need for LRH to be perfect and God-like. He only needed to be competent in his research, which he was immensely so , and to be honest whenever he felt that he had it all wrong , which he not always was. And to be brave enough to openly say when he had erred in his judgment. All else are just mere arbitraries, pipe human dreams, and even irresponsibility from us. We had (nor have) no rights to expect any leader to be perfect.

        If we want perfection, we then should do all the work ourselves instead of expecting others to solve all life problems for us. I never wanted him to be perfect , only honest and competent. And we were, all of us, expected to assume reponsability for our leader , and just to be willing enough, and self-respecful enough with ourselves, so as to had exerted some positve control on him towards higher sanity levels. But no, we prefered to be expectators and followers of authority. It is so much “easy” that others have the control of our destiny, than to create our own future and freedom ourselves.

        I am a friend of LRH, probably one of his real friends , because real friends do not try to justify our actions, but make us confront them. Real friends get us to see our weaknesses , and help us to defeat them. It is time that we grow up as beings and give an example to others ; that we , “lovers of truth”, have enough maturity to accept our errors and the weaknesses of our religion. Mature enough to care more for the well being of others and for the injustices that they were subjected to, than for the repute of any leader or any subject. We must grow beyond our own weaknesses ; we must offer comfort to the ones whose burden became too much to carry. We must stop playing silly games, and let go of our hate and differences. We must learn to love our fellow beings as we love yourselves.

        There is a lot of wisdom in the works of LRH. Scn is not an invention , it is a discovery ; and as such , it should be part of common human knowlwdge, and should never be allowed to get lost out of dramatizations of Human Emotion And Reaction (HE&R) just because its discoverer and compiler went astray in some of his later policies.

        The wisdom of Scn as regards to basic life fundamentals, laws and axioms, the workings on the mind, and the rehabilitation of the human spirit throgh the compiled processes ; is a subject that stand alone by itself. It need not to be related to Admin and Ethics policies to be workable at all. The subject of Scn must not be lost. It took a man a quarter of a century to create this work. The work is not complete by a long ways , but it is highly workable enough to bring about a greater happiness and higher abilities for any of us.

        We have a tough job ahead of us. There is a lot of heal to do ; a lot to revise, modify, and reform. We have a lot of honest explanations to offer to the world w/out making the same mistake as the CofS in attempting sweep everything under the rug to avoid lost of “repute”. Striving for “reputation” is just for the birds. We must be honest , and confess the crimes that Scn is guilty of.

        We must explain the world that LRH did erred in his judgment , but that a rehabilitation of the subject is possible, and the redress of wrongs is something that needs to be done and WILL get done. We must not try to defend LRH or make any excuses for his behavior , but perhaps we can discuss the real context in which his actions occured. That might help others understand why he did what he did , w/out this being construed in any way, that he was justified in having created fundamentalist policies.

        – A big reform of the subject is of the essence ; not to strip it away of all its workable parts , but so that Tech (the actual body of wisdom) can exist in the correct political context ; one based on “Free Will” , “Self-determinism” , “Freedom of Thought” , “Power of Choice over Data” , and more importantly : within a context where Human Rights is the guiding principle against which everything is analyzed. This is a big task to accomplish ; a gigantic one, and one to be done by the most sane and spiritual balanced individuals. But it MUST be done. We must retake the path that leads out of the labyrinth ; reform it , correct it as needed , and complete it. What is at stake is our future as Human Beings, and our future as spiritual entities as well. The work must not be lost.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter, good for you. As a defender of the Hub for decades, it took a lot of looking and learning to put together his motives, flaws, strengths and weaknesses. He was human. I saw that firsthand. How he impacts the world still is undecided. IMHO he was messed up big time.
        He was not a very good influence on me, my friends and family. I’m out now though, and I did get a lot of positive spiritual gain with the hard knocks. Part of my path.
        I think you wrote an excellent essay on the hypocrisy of Scientology. It will help others see more clearly as well.

      • Thanks for the comm , BKmole.

        I am glad that you also took positive things out of your experiences with Scn. I agree with you , how will the Oldman be remembered is still undecided.

        Thanks for your validation ; most kind, and for stopping by at BIC.

        ARC, PETER

  2. Theta Clear, what a work. You made in words what I think.
    I am a 3/4. I got service in the field from a 2. It was confortable, strictly what is known. But couldn’t duplicate wider viewpoint. But it’s depending of the individual. When I audit I used my knowingness, then I also pervade.
    I also got some service with group 4 individuals. “Squirrels” they were not, they were nice and granting beingness. But had the use also of a common procedure (Excal) and didn’t let a room for shaking invention while being very tolerant with diversion. Themselves being a bit slack with auditing rules (from my viewpoint. But am I being implanted by KW1? I don’t think, but I’m a lover of the CS series).
    What I mean is whatever the groupe from 1 to 4, the point is the tone level. If you deliver scientology, whatever the version, on a conservative way (sort of East Grinstead red neck give me a cup of tea. I’m sorry I’m a kind of racist, I hate conservative red neck whatever their race), like if it is an old thing (scientology is new, remember). Buuurk. Your theta can’t appear. It’s getting suppressed by the inhability to let you you cognite. Too low tone, home sapiens is shit TRs. Pc can’t cognite. Because the so called “auditor” doesn’t duplicate but make copy of what you said. It’s not blown. In fact, you see, you say something and instantly it’s no longer true. You are moving above into another sphere where boundary are gone. You’re exhilarated. I had that, and I perceived that the auditor thought that I was weird.
    As an auditor, you have to fully being imerged into you PC universe, free from anything while still observing the iron bound of standard tech. I mean the full basics of auditor code, exact metering, smooth comm cycle. But the emphasis being on granting beingness, and understanding being above material and procedur detail. But Hubbard is saying that better than me in the “basic auditing serie”.
    I strongly believe that the environment is cause over your thought. You get caught on reality. It stucks you in your time (I would say barbaric time) like in the glue. And you have to share their time track and all, and your mind is dissolved into all that messy reality.
    The blinking stupid, fascist policies on SP, SP act and all where written on a very toxic environment, East Grinstead. Middle class so much. I became depressed just to be there. You could audit for hours all those british realities (and ghost I would say).
    If you do OT3 there, and you do a green green form, it would read on item 1. And then you have to start to clear UK (for good) !
    Those shit policies don’t desserve to be called scientology. Hubbard must have been quite restimulated by attacks, and maybe he let some secretary write that. Like if you call a lawyer. I know, I’m reasonable with Hubbard. But of course he has the responsability not to have clearly canceled that. But we have to say that on the seventies, it was not so much in use.
    Miscavige exhumed it and put in force, because he is an actual totalitarian fascist. And an absolute ennemy of any human right and to free anyone.
    There could be so many things to say on the subject.
    Thank you Peter. Your article is food for thought. From scientology are born some new philosopher. We had to confront that Hubbard is gone, and we have the right to continue his work.

    • You are most welcome dear FG, and thanks for your validation. You have very wise viewpoints , and a keen insight into things. And yes , it is up to us to finish LRH’s work, and our right to do so as well. Thanks for the comm.

      ARC, PETER

  3. For this article, “I pick” myself as group 5, buuut, not Anti-Scn, just passively staying out of CoS while liking to look at basics, not too sure Clear & OT are real anymore, AND it seems rather God-like to come up with axioms, logics, awareness scale, and theory of games applied to auditing (like “holy grails” or something), all of which seem to have viable applicabilities.

  4. If I want to go more into it, I would say ethics was not only that bad but absolutly needed. Absence of ethics make the bank greater than the PC. It kills the sessionability. There is dramatization in the bank not to do what is needed to free charge. Those counter and other intentions come from God knows where. But, for exemple, you are auditing solo. And from a laziness or whatever you skip your schedule, don’t study your instruct, make a sloppy worksheet. You soon will stop to audit. People need control and therefore discpline and ethics.
    Basicaly as Hubbard says, ethics is continued as long as you can put tech in, and no longer. Over that, ethics become suppressive. He actually says that in “briefing to review audtitor” (a fabulous one which takle the subject of overrun, misunderstood words and PTSness, so basic).
    I think when Hubbard write one of those “Justice policies” he see it on a conceptual idea of the moment of writing and it respond to a problem. Now, any high tone person would object to apply it unless absolute necessity. And how low tone individual around 1,1/1,5 would find those policies interesting to apply is obvious.
    They have become effet of the engrams of the environment, they are dramatizing it as an enforcement on others.
    Let’s take a non scientological aera. The boss has a secretary who is 1,5. She will rule the place. People “knows” that they desserve harsh discipline. It’s a mecanism which occur with the perversion of ethics. People suddenly will fall crying “cogniting” how bad they are. They now understand the need of ethics on this terrible world haunted by aberration. They want to thanks Ron for saving their lives from total oblivion. And COB, they almost cry thinking of this good little man. How lucky we have to have him otherwise we will be lost without Ron. They pity those gone “outside” who have lost forever the possiblity of salvation. And hope their disconnected family members will see the light and will do A to E. But when those disconnected members have been to the squirrels, their eternity is gone forever. What an horrible fate for the poor soul. No, they couldn’t face the lost of the bridge of the poor people. They rather stay disconnected not to have to contemplate this horror of the loved family member declared an illegal PC, or being forbidden of advanced courses.
    How grim. They will stay with the program and not forfeit their right to total freedom even if it takes ten life time and cost billions to reach the end of the bridge and to cut the tie with people who have been obscured by the bank.
    They applaud with a warm heart this marvelous so well combed little man, with his nice porcelein eyes. Isn’t he looking like the clean and shiny incarnation of ethics? For Ron… Hip, Hip… For COB, thank you sir. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
    Have you ever read the letters of the German to the Führer ? The Third Reich “SO1”, it was so warm, so grateful, so loving. Like for COB. It spells totalitarism in disguised of ethics.

    • I disagree about the ethics. In fact, if you look around in all of the current noise,human emotion and reaction, you find most people hysterically dramatizing being an M.A.A. or an ethics officer. Working diligently to prove someone else is out ethics. It is as if every failed case has gone into the the valence of an ethics officer.

      When I realized that, I realized the only SP’s in the Orgs, were the ethics officers.

      They are there to herd people,suppress all uprisings or other notions. Suppress all criticism. Suppress all other practices. Suppress anyone that could distract you. Where is the last place you would look for the SP? Right there in the ethics office.

      Meanwhile, the subject matter of Scientology has almost been suppressed right of existence. The suppressives are sitting there in the ethics office. The “ethics”missions. “Put a head on a pike” to drive the others into terror and keep them manageable? That’s suppressive.

      Not to imply every ethics officer is suppressive. I have known a few that were very bright and sane. Two. The rest were on a mission to suppress.

    • Yes I hated ethics officer. And I had most horrible suppression with some of those which more or less were in a valence of gestapo, inquisition or stasi, or cops/pyschiatrist.
      But there is a need for discipline. Without a little pressure, people don’t attend courses, arrive in late. It must be smooth of course.

  5. Marvelous stuff Peter. I thoroughly agree with all that you recommend while at the same time I thoroughly disagree with your estimation of the UNDHR. 🙂

    In fact the church’s promoting the UNDHR was one of the first things to really get me to start looking and thinking for myself. It would take an essay at least as long as yours to explain the reasoning behind that and none of it would derail the arguments you make regarding Scientology, the church and the groups you identified.

    • Thanks for the comm Interested Party ,

      I think that the CofS just advantageously jumped in the wagon of “Human Rights” to interpret it in its favor , and might actually succeeded to some degree in creating a ridge in that area among scientologists. The CofS fought many battles for “Freedom Of Religion”, many of which they won using the UDHR and the several convenats created afterwards. But that was a wrong use of mechanisms intended to create sanity among others , and not to protect cult(ish) approaches to religion , where their “rights” become just plain suppression of Human Liberties.

      But I am VERY interested in finding out about your views in the subject , I am always seeking to expand my horizons, and analyze other angles that I might have failed to notice. So please, do so if you can in whatever way you feel comfortable with. And thanks a lot for your validation; most kind.

      ARC, PETER

      • I think this is right. The work done by CofS on human rights certainly got the word out about the subject. I believe it was primarily a PR exercise in that it showed a worthwhile endeavour on the Church’s part. But also it is a smoke screen to hide the human rights abuses being perpetrated by the church. We have been noticing a pattern of behaviour by the church. We on the blogs and elsewhere write about outnesses in the church. Give maybe a week or two at the outside and the church promo and briefings and events fall in line with trying to show the opposite of what we publish. We can cause the church to change direction just by posting enough about a thing and they will soon follow up with a counter – measure.
        It happened among other things with Ideal Orgs, GAT2 and Narcanon.

      • Thanks for the comm Andrew,

        ” I believe it was primarily a PR exercise in that it showed a worthwhile endeavour on the Church’s part. But also it is a smoke screen to hide the human rights abuses being perpetrated by the church.”

        Good pont! I personally believe that the CofS always used the UDHR and the many convenants that came after it , to hide the abuses that they were actually commiting against Human Rights.

        Let’s not forger that the Church uses LRH’s Tech on “How to Handle Black Propaganda” , a unique piece of work that can be cleverly and insidiously used to crush “enemies” down. It is actually more effective than “Black Dianetics”. As almost any being in existence has “discreditable creations” of one kind or another, and as the normal response of non-trained (and non-Scientologist) indivdiduals to his withholds being missed is to retreat and withdraw (due to his unwillingness to confront their creations) from attacking the targets that are missing them, it is easy for individuals trained in mental mechanisms to totally defeat their enemies and establish “precedents”.

        They Church had (and has) the resources to hire religious “experts” (with earned “reputation” in the field of “Freedom of Religion”) to act as “Opinion Leaders” much like perverted psychiatrists (not all are by a long ways, by the way, not in PT) act as “Opinion experts” in the field of the mind. Actually false precedents can be established which were based of “false perceptions” interpreted as “facts”. The CofS is an expert at making a falsity look like a fact.

        The CofS has never had a “worthy opponent” trained in their own tactics, and knowledgeable about the various mental mechanisms at play. I remember how Rinder and Marty “trained” the Panorama reporter John Sweeney into the tactics used by Tommy Davis to harass and introvert him. Sweeney wasn’t aware at all about such tactics. He apparently only felt attacked (by the way, Sweeney got some real balls). Upon having received this short “training” from Rinder and Marty he confronted Davis with his own tactics by screaming directly at Tommy’s face. It was aired in several channels. I couldn’t avoid laughing for several mins at looking at the confused face (obvious for a scientologist) that Tommy put up. After this incident (even thought Sweeney publicly apologized) , Tommy thought twice about using the same tactics with Sweeney.

        I only tell this example to ilustrate that “Wogs” can be easily trained in the tactics of the CofS, and even be educated on some basic life fundamentals , that would allow them to easily recognize the suppressive handlings from the Church, and render them ineffective. Besides that small incident, I’ve never seen anybody come up with well thought of strategies to fight the CofS. We mostly whine about what they are doing to us and to others, but no effective strategy has ever been devised other than exposing their lies at different blogs at sites, which has its effectiveness, of course , but fall real short in effecting real changes.

        What is needed and wanted is a coordinared and agreed upon general strategy, and individuals hats with specific targets to get done. There is nothing as effective as a group of individuals with a sensible plan, and coordinared motions towards a known goal. That’s why the CofS is a formidable enemy ; they have strategy and coordination from a Command post. We at the Field, don’t , and sadly so. We many times brush it off by statements like “let’s concentrate in training and auditing out here at the Field, and let’s not fall into games conditions with the Church”. With all due respect, that an admission of being in apathy regarding the subject. We hear this “solution” specially from KSW supporters, many of which are even criticizing HBO’s documentary.

        We need to take a stand, all of us. I am willing to make any and every sacrifice for you ,but I can possible do it alone. I am quite OT , but not that OT. I am willing to be harassed, attacked, and my repute totally crushed for the sake of liberty and the eradication of an evil that needs to be destroyed. Not Scn, not LRH, but the Suppressive elements that took over the control of our Church. But I won’t become a target unless I have the full support of each one who has a real interest that this issue that so much overwhelm us , gets handled once and for all. I won’t make sacrifices alone, even though I have the strength to do it , and the power to do so. I won’t make the same mistake that LRH did , not again.

        So I am ready when you guys and gals are. This can be done, I assure you, but not w/out a fight and many battles fought. We have the Tech to pull this of. We have the terminals to accomplish this. We have the strategies which I won’t discuss at this moment due to security reasons. What is missing (or perhaps not) is a tone 40 intention, and the application of this quote from LRH :

        “Courage could be summed up in: one, being willing to cause something; and two, going ahead to achieve the effect one has postulated against any and all odds. There doesn’t happen to be any such thing as failure. There just doesn’t happen to be any such thing.

        “But of course, you all want to agree there’s such a thing as failure so that you can have a reason to fail so you won’t have to be cause. That’s another thing. But there isn’t any reason to fail. There’s no excuse for any failure that ever occurred anyplace in history, except this—except this: There was just not quite enough carry-through and push-through.” LRH

        So there you have it, directly from the Oldman ; a VERY workable Truth indeed.

        ARC, PETER

    • I think it was mostly a PR thing too.

      However valid and good the points are of the UNDHR, there is one thing about it that is a bit insidious, in my view. It attempts to put these rights under the authority of the UN or Governments.

      These are the rights of the natural people (thetans) and they are what they are without the say so, of any group of men acting as if they had a moral right to lord over others. The UN or a Government is in it’s essence nothing but a fiction conjured up by the minds of men.

      The creator is always senior to the creation. Man created the Governments, which in turn created the UN. These entities are our mock-ups. They only exists on paper and in our minds. To credit them with any authority over us is a mistake. They were created to serve man, but are acting as if we are their servants.

      I believe this declaration was written in France once and it was just called the Declaration of Human Rights, and have later been adopted by others.

      • Greetings Ken,

        Thanks for stopping by.

        I agree with you that beings are “born” with those rights , but apparently humans forget about them and need to be reminded every time about those inherent rights. Evidence of this is the atrocities than humans have perpetrated throughout history.

        W/out initiatives such as the UDHR we would probably still be having different “Holocausts”. To brush this liberating movements off as mere “authoritarian” attempts, is to fail to have a real knowledge of Human history , and about all the suffering that Human Rights violations have caused to MILLIONS of beings in this planet.

        It is not about any “group of men acting as if they had a moral right to lord over others.” It is about increasing tolerance and educating humans into not killing each other over silly and petty details. It is about educating the population about their inherents rights, and providing them with a means to seek recourse when violations occur.

        It is not about this either :

        “To credit them (the ONU) with any authority over us is a mistake. They were created to serve man, but are acting as if we are their servants.”

        Please present your backed-up arguments to support that assertion that the ONU act as if we were their servants. Let’s not engage in generalizations ; not in the subject of Scn, not in any subject. The professional and responsible way to argument about any subject is by presenting facts and evidence to support our statements ; generalizations won’t do really.

        Of the 56 countries that were part of the ONU, none, zero, zip, opposed the ratification of the UDHR. 3 countries abstained from voting : South Africa (which obviously was going through the Apartheid) , Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet Union. It should be obvious for anyone knowledgeable in human history why they abstained. The UDHR drafting committe were composed of great minds and world leaders well known as Human Rights protectors. Some of them were even Peace Nobel price winners. It took almost 3 years for the final draft to be ready. This wasn’t done “behind doors”.

        Humans are a very violence-oriented species. It is in their nature due to forces they can’t even begin to comprehend. W/out competent leadership and left to their own devices, they create havoc and perpetrate general injustices with their 2 cents courts of law. This planet wouldn’t even be orbiting this planetary system if it were not by specific individuals (actual OTs) that lead millions toward higher levels of tolerance, understanding , and sanity ; and I am not referring to LRH.

        It is the UDHR perfect? Of course it isn’t , but it is workabke enough to bring about good balance and order with it while Humans become sane enough, and free enough so as to trust in their own sense of ethics and justice. It anyones wants perfection in the craziest planet in the whole system, then he/she ought to go and live in the dark side of the moon.

        That’s my scientific opinion about that.

        And yes, France did originated the document in which the UDHR was originally based upon, though they (the UN) greatly improved it, corrected some items to bring it up to date, and added some very vital points. It wasn’t called “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” ; it was called “Declarations Of The Rights Of Man” ratified in 1789 by the “National Assemby Of France”.

        ARC, PETER

  6. Thank you for this article, Thetaclear, and for promoting tolerance. I don’t like to see people bashing each other on blogs because they don’t have the same viewpoint. I would much rather read people’s stories and see how they managed to get themselves free. We’re all in agreement that Scn abuses must stop. Thank you for saying we should grant each other the same freedoms and rights we want for ourselves.

    • I couldn’t agree more, Juggernaut. I too get disheartened when the subject matter of an article turns into a mud-slinging match between bloggers. We should keep our eye on the ball – find things we CAN agree with, and take it from there. Our target is the inhumane activities of RCS and those connected with it, DM’s totalitarian regime, those blindly doing his bidding who, by their own actions, have turned the “Church” into a dangerous cult, destroyed lives and ripped families apart. The “Church” just loves it when they see people on blogs in-fighting and scrapping with each other – this plays right into their hands – divide and conquer. Let’s not give them that satisfaction.

  7. On the day when I no longer feel the need to evaluate for or invalidate anyone, is going to be the day when I will attain my freedom.

  8. Peter, what an enormously broad based summary of the field. Kudos, my friend. I reckon you have made a very useful contribution to an assessment of where Scientology (ists) stand today. Pan determined view, indeed. And certainly worth bookmarking for future reference. So thank you for providing much thought provocation… Yaaaay! (or grrrrr!!) 🙂

    However, my main point is to thank you for providing (some) focus on your OP, entitled: —
    “On Human Rights And Fundamentalism.” I explain via the following personal experience!

    On Thursday 12/03/2015, at about 3.45pm. I had just left our work premises. (in a notoriously dangerous neighborhood, lower Berea Road, Durban.) Proceeding up Berea Road, in my Nissan 1400 LDV, I stopped at a major intersection at the front of the grid, waiting for the green light. My wife Dorothy, seated beside me, with her window closed and me, typically, with my arm resting along the open window ledge. (I mention here, that the ‘dangerousness’ of the neighborhood, has to some extent, ‘worn off’, on me, having seen so much of it, over many years! Gang fights, attacks on passers-by, and me personally. Hi-jackings, stabbings, eye-gougings with broken beer bottles, the whole bit.)

    Though normally fully in PT, and alert to approaching danger, I slipped up badly last Thursday!

    Suddenly, amidst the built up awaiting traffic at the intersection, this wide eyed black guy appeared from ‘no-where’,at my wife’s window, banging on it, and shouting. Startled, we both looked at him, with my attention fully taken.

    The ploy worked perfectly! With the decoy grabbing attention, the main assailant appeared at my open window, 6″ knife in his right hand, screaming at me to “Get out! Get out”
    I reacted instantly, grabbing his knife wielding hand, as he lunged at my chest, while trying repeatedly to stab me. Fortunately, though small in stature, I remain in very good shape from my powerlifting and bodybuilding days as a gym owner. 3 days/week with the weights, WILL keep anybody strong, and capable. I owe my life to my strength and ability to fight off that assailant, who fled empty handed..

    Dorothy, in the mean time, was engaged in her own battle, with the other guy, who managed to wrench open her door, and pull her out out of the vehicle by her hair, screaming for her cell phone, which she threw on the road, where it shattered! The peak hour stream of onlookers, seemed wary and just moved on. This total incident lasted not more than 12 – 15 seconds, tops and the assailants disappeared as fast as they had arrived!

    Dorothy, still badly shaken up after being punched in the jaw, is doing okay, though obviously still processing the incident in her own way, as we 2-way comm the incident.

    The consequences (for me), amounted to a partially severed left index finger, which required major reconstructive surgery, to avoid amputation. Still, I am already 3 days into recovery, as I type this, and reflect on a wide range of issues, including our Dynamics, which are part and parcel of all OTHER life forms, (including those assailants), and how they go about procuring THEIR survival. It really IS still a jungle, this ‘post-apartheid’ South Africa, and persons on other continents, should come and see for themselves, the extent to which the predator/prey situation is as intact and functional as ever!

    As a direct comment, to persons who would attempt to be a hero, against a GUN-wielding hi-jacker, the obvious advice, is — don’t! Rather surrender the MEST. It can be replaced!

    I remain as up-beat as ever, just annoyed to have become a one arm-bandit myself, as I struggle to cope with the other in a sling for the next couple of weeks! LOL 🙂

    Peter, regarding your high ARC handlings on this blog, (for which I applaud you, btw), your Human Rights article makes it very clear, that ALL persons are entitled to the basic rights, which many of us just take for granted. This got me thinking about the predators out there, many of whom simply lack basic rights to food, shelter, and a caring society, that could have steered them to a better existence, if it had the caring and/or balls to deal with youthful miscreants, who later become hardened criminals and/or killers, when left to their own devices.

    Marvelous job there Peter. It would be great to meet with you in person, on one of those “Indie Freedom Celebration Day(s)”, in the not too distant future, hey?

    — Best, ARC, Calvin. 🙂

    • Oh my God , dear Calvin! ; I am relieved that you and your wife could make those assailants go away , and that your injuries are taken care of.

      South Africa citizens experienced first-hand the atrocities that can happen when Human Rights are totally neglected. Many children were “implanted” with the seed of discord from very young age, and became the “criminals” of tomorrow. Many of this gang members never had a real education to amount to anything , specially in Human Rights. Poverty and lack of proper education are very powerful “motivators” indeed. Neglected by society, crushed beneath the burden of hunger, rejected as social out-casts ; individuals many times welcome criminality as a way of life.

      This society is rigged for enslavement with its many outpoints and first dynamic fixation. If Human Rights were a subject instilled in others since early childhood, and part of that education were the actual history of the atrocities that lack of respect for Human Rights can lead to ; the general tone of Earthlings would be adequate for playing interesting and high-toned games where the “Overt-Motivator” sequence would be an absent element of it all.

      Thanks a lot for your validation and warm words, dear Calvin. It would be great indeed , to meet you in person -an honor , and many of my other SA friends as well. Perhaps when the job is done, and the CofS had been taken care of , I’ll go there to celebrate with you all. :-)))

      Take care, amigo.

      ARC, PETER

    • Wow, Calvin, what an experience! Thanks for sharing. I’m glad you and your wife are okay. Very well done on maintaining your usual, positive attitude. 🙂

      • Hey Lassie, it’s gooood t’ hear fr’m yooo! … Actually, Dorothy’s the Scottish one, (ye ken?) As a matter of fact, believe it or not, she was acknowledged as the most prolific counselor of prisoners, during her six year stint as a volunteer Criminon counselor. As a Class V NED Auditor, it was quite a different ball game to when she was a staff auditor at Durban Org back in the late 70’s. Still, the basics remain the same, as they always will.

        Though confronting these criminal elements in our society, isn’t for the faint hearted, or the meek. You definitely need some sort of preparedness to deal with the harsh realities, when you are exposed to them so often. Sharpness, is an absolute must, if you hope to see tomorrows in this area.

        Still, what was that LRH quote again? ” In primitive times, a fellow needed about 3 (three) narrow escapes from death each day, just to keep him in Present Time!”

        Sobering advice, for anyone, my dear Marildi.

        Though personally, I find it’s much easier to handle the ‘heavy’ stuff, when YOU stay ‘light’. 🙂

        cheers,
        — Calvin.

      • Hey laddie. 🙂 Yes, I remember that your wife is the Scottish one. and I think you said one time that she was a Criminon counselor. Those crims that attacked the two of you will have quite some karma to “look forward to”!

        Lucky you – to be married to a Class V Auditor. And she’s lucky to be married to a guy who keeps in shape! If you’re also the romantic type, here’s a little Scottish poem you can recite her to cheer her up:

        O my Luve’s like a red, red rose,
        That’s newly sprung in June:
        O my Luve’s like the melodie,
        That’s sweetly play’d in tune.
        As fair art thou, my bonnie lass,
        So deep in luve am I;
        And I will luve thee still, my dear,
        Till a’ the seas gang dry.

        (Robert Burns)

      • 🙂 xo

        Ah but today everybody’s Irish – so you need an Irish brogue. 😉

        Top o’ the mornin’ to ya.

        And Happy St. Patrick’s Day everybody!

  9. Dear Peter

    Your paper is very rational and scientific. I love it. Your approach is very accurate and has no bpc or negativ emotions connected to it.

    i’m still dreaming about a foundation of thinkers like you going over the work of Lrh and and putting it onto sane and scientific premises and evolving the subject, while including the work of other scientists on the mind.

    You should add an additional category of people describing yourself.

    This is the first essay that I ever read on any blog, that has no prejudice, fixed idea,no rumours, no bpc, losses, arcXs or personal feelings connected to it. Just stating the facts and logical and reasonable conclusions.

    There are many diamonds in the works of Lrh, but after following the blogs now for years, I gave up on the idea that I ‘ll ever find any people that can think as rational as you.

    Your essay gives hope and could be the start of an evolution. Who knows ?

    I personally think that the completion of NOTS is the equivalent of attaining the state of clear as described in book 1 and until this result is attained one shouldn’t care about OT. About 60-70 % of the bridge is Dianetics (OT2-7) and not Scientology. Perhaps it could be possible to create real Ots after dianetics is really honestly completed ? I don’t know…..

    Thanks for your work.

    • Roger From Switzerland: “i’m still dreaming about a foundation of thinkers like you going over the work of Lrh and and putting it onto sane and scientific premises and evolving the subject, while including the work of other scientists on the mind.”

      My sentiments exactly.

    • Thanks for your validation and your kind words , Roger ; I am glad that you liked my article. I feel undeserved of so much praise, but thanks.

      I like your idea about the “Foundation of Thinkers” organizing into sensible and useful ways the works of LRH, and including the works of other scientists of the mind and spirit. Same as you , I have difficulties finding the right terminals to engage in a responsible research into full OT; my life goal and reason I am here in the first place.

      A few names comes to mind of some specific terminals that frequently post here at BIC , whose names I can’t publicly comment upon , but I guess they fully know who they are. One of them in specific apparently has a great command of the sciences and scientific methodology, even better than the one I have which is a lot.

      I share your views about the biggest portion of the Bridge being devoted to DNs and its various modifications. Personally I think that the description of a BK-1 Clear is closer to a “Theta Clear” than to a Solo-Nots completion, as a Theta Clear (the one who does the whole of whatever versions of the SOPs, specially SOP-V , SOP-8 , and SOP-8C ; all over again after becoming a Step I) has handled his memory and havingness problems , and has full command of his mock-ups (and thus of his anchor points , a needed ability to create an maintain a position in space) while remaining outside. Thus his visio and other perceptics (as memory of the past) are closer to the ones described in a Bk-1 Clear.

      As a Theta Clear has command of his ridges, and the fact of being Exteriorized render the body ridges (which could also be “entities”) ineffective , then there is no mind to restimulate. His space is “Clear” and so is his thinking. NOTs can probably be better compared to a 2nd or 3rd GMP Clear.

      I have a few ideas about possible directions to follow (see my reply to Mike Moretti on this thread) , and would engage in a full scale research in 6-8 months after I finish a full PRD in both English and my native language. It is my belief that becoming super-literate is essencial to pulling this off. Also a full M-8 in the “Data Series” , Axioms of DNs and Scn, The Logics and The Qs (including all lectures about them) , will guarantee success. Of course a full command of class VI and VIII materials, including all the C/S series known cold should be enough for such a gigantic task.

      Again , thanks a lot for your support , and you can get in comm with me should you want that , by contacting BIC admin for my e-mail address.

      Looking forward to hearing from you again,

      ARC, PETER

      • Exciting program Peter, i’m also a lover of the CS series and the data series. BIC admin didn’t sent me your email adress. Did he send you mine? Your english is perfect for a someone who has another native tongue

      • Thanks for your validation , dear FG ; most kind.

        About that e-mail address, it has already been handled.

        Looking foward to exchange interesting comms with you,

        ARC, PETER

  10. Very well done Peter….. Beautifully stated thank you very very much.

    Thank you to you too Marildi…….eyes wide open………

    Also a very big THANK YOU to the originators of this blog and to ALL…. the people who support and contribute to this blog AHH!! like Joe….

    NOW………. do we try to save ourselves and (help/save) mankind (our brothers and sisters) from the horrible/unknowing state/s (I believe ) we are all in………. by DOING something about it ?????

    Le chiacchere se le portano il vento (words are carried by the wind……….)

    If yes…….. in my opinion all we have to do is become full OT…….HOW exactly do we do this ?…. I do not know but I would like to be counted in on it…….. (like I think most of you too) as otherwise we can philosophize until we are blue in the face as many have done before us for thousands of years and get nowhere.

    Total peace, freedom and love for mankind will not and cannot come about, while there is famine, wars, unemployment, illnesses etc etc created by mind’s and body’s of men that thetans/conciousnesse’s have not yet got full control over.

    If LRH needs a medal……. is for highlighting and stressing the necessity to become full OT, and personally I think that, that was all he was interested in, as all the rest would have taken care of itself.

    Thank you for trying RON.

    Mike Moretti

    .

    • Thanks for the validation dear Mike ; most kind.

      Yes, Marildi keep an excellent balance in all this dilemma ; she is like the balm that heal our injuries ; the “consciousness” that keep us alert. Perhaps she’ll like to research with me some time in the future ; she would certainly keep me straight.

      Mike Moretti : ” NOW………. do we try to save ourselves and (help/save) mankind (our brothers and sisters) fromthe horrible/unknowing state/s (I believe ) we are all in………. by DOING something about it ?????”

      ” If yes…….. in my opinion all we have to do is become full OT…….HOW exactly do we do this ?…. I do not know but I would like to be counted in on it…….. (like I think most of you too) as otherwise we can philosophize until we are blue in the face as many have done before us for thousands of years and get nowhere.”

      Yes Mike, it is time for more doingness and less philosophizing ; I fully agree. I have also always said that “Full OT” is the solution to all this human dilemma. I believe that we have the tools to accomplish such a research : the C/S series , the SHSBC materials , the class VIII materials, and the existing OT materials. Those tools should be applied to the ’51-’55 materials, specially the ACCs (1-4) , and the “History of Man” book as it relates to the GE implants specially.

      R2-12 , for i.e , was an abandoned process because auditors just couldn’t duplicate the simplicity of it. “ClearBird” has made some progress on that with DEEP, but I hasn’t had a chance to test it. Besides, it doesn’t use the E-meter to locate and identify the two pair of RIs that the pc in currently dramatizing (term and oppterm) that is causing his life PTP and Hidden Standard. Back in the BC , the Laws of “Listing and Nulling” still had not been totally codified as in the class VIII materials.

      That caused very long lists of items apparently resulting in gross out-lists with the consequential disaster. Moreover, once both items (RIs) were found and paired, that was it ; nothing else was done with them, an error in my perspective. By applying perhaps, help and problems processing to both items, and probably some level IV (Service Facs) processes to it as well, one can probably render both RIs totally ineffective and blow them for good.

      A PC apparently can even go all the way up the Bridge w/out ever handling that PT GPM that he is currently dramatizing, and that has probably been dramatazing for many lifetines. That’s why a BC Clear was sort of an OT as compared with NED clears, and even with C.C. Clears ; because he had run his current life GPM, and probably 2-3 more.

      The research into “Actual GPMs” was totally abandoned by LRH after the BC. LRH said (I’ll dig out the exact lecture from my library to post it) at one of his BC lectures, that the Actual GPMs were more important than the “Implanted GPMS” (currently handled at upper levels) by a factor of 1/1,000. That’s how important he considered them for Clearing and OT.

      I can understand that NOTs can get in the way of GPM handling due to the factor of misownership , and probably “shared goals”. So, it is possible that NOTs should be first completed before tackling Actual GPMs. Perhaps not, and GPM handling can blow a ton at a time of these “additives” w/out having to address each one at a time. Perhaps once a Goal is totally run out with all its line plot and RIs , we would be handling the actual reason (the basic one) That those “additives” remain “attached” in the first place. These are just speculations not researched only offered as a possible starting point, that’s all.

      Handling the GE, also seems to be a required and vital step which NOTs doesn’t even touch. For that we have several ’51-’56 materials some of which are : “The History Of Man” GE implants, the PDC lectures on the GE, “White and Black Processing” , and the lectures “Solution to Body Behavior” (part 1 and 2) , and “GE Scientology” from the “Game of OT : Exteriorization and Havingness” lectures.

      After NOTs all is left body-wise is the GE, which is enough to create havoc and prevent stable Exteriorization with full perception and movility. For me, and just as an educated guess, the key to Full OT lies right there handling the GE fully.

      All these are just ideas coming out of my mind in torrents, don’t ask me how or why ; they just are. Perhaps a few researchers out-there would like to put them to the test.

      ARC, PETER

      • Peter, you are a generous soul! Thank you so much for the validations. 🙂

        Did you ever explore David St. Lawrence’s “Independent Spiritual Technology” forum? You will find people there who are well into researching – including auditing the GE (which they have renamed “Lifeforce Partner”) and they are reporting great gains from it.

        The forum takes a bit of getting used to because there are so many topics – over 900 now – and every one of them is open to additional comments at any time. Besides David’s “Spiritual Rescue Technology” (a spin-off from NOTs), the categories include “Independent and Expanded Scientology technology”, Knowledgism discussions (Alan Walter’s and Roger Boswara’s work), Robert Ducharme’s Clearing technology (R3XD), Self-clearing and other works by Ken Ogger, L Kin discussions, Ron’s Org discussions, and “Spiritual News and Views from around the World”.

        Those are the overall topics, but under each one are a number of sub-topics adding up to over 5,000. Some discussions are “public” with no need to register. But if you register (only requiring your posting name and email address) you can view the “private” topics as well. There are already over 5,000 posted comments on the forum altogether, but pick the topics you’re interested in and you’ll probably find some people with just the right quals and interests to suit your goals and purposes. I myself don’t have that much training but I’ll be cheering all of you on! 😉

        ARC,
        marildi

      • You are most welcome, dear Marildi.

        Yes, I had taken a look at David’s forum and found it quite interesting, but I have to confess that I only took a fast glimpse at it. But I will look into it in detail, thank you. I am familiar with most of the researches and researchers that you mentioned , as many of them got (and get) posted at Ivy (International Viewponits Magazine, from Antony) , but I wasn’t aware of the “LifeForce Partner” processing. I’ll certainly look into it.

        Thanks for the refs, and for always keeping me and others up to date , I appreciate it.

        Take care.

        ARC, PETER

      • You’re welcome, Peter! We all do our part. 😉

        If you want, here’s the direct link to all the sub-topics under the general topic of “Genetic Entity and Life Force Research”: http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php?board=55.0

        Those discussions include the ongoing research on the “Life Force Partner”, but there are also discussions about the GE in general, under different topic and sub-topic titles. Just search “G.E.” or “GE” (without the periods) or “genetic entity”. Or look through the whole list of topics on the home page. I’m sure you’ll learn soon enough if any of this is going to be along your purpose lines and worth getting involved with.

        ARC,
        Marilyn

      • Oops, I post under “Marilyn” sometimes too. But it’s me – “marildi” is my nickname.

      • p.s. Peter, one of the extended scientology technologies posted on the IST forum is “Mind Purification”. It was developed by a poster who calls himself “Underdog”. He considers his approach to be a fuller, better Clearing Course and OT levels. Another reason I thought to tell you about this tech in particular is that Underdog includes a list of “Rights” for the Student (i.e. the pc) as part of his tech. I think this list fits in well with your blog post article. Here it is:

        ——————————————–
        The Rights, as in “God given” or unalienable qualities a person has.

        These Rights are a statement of powers and qualities an individual Being has that should never be infringed upon. Freedom and Liberty comes from the exercise of these Rights. But in society they are often violated. In dictatorships they do not exist at all.

        In Mind Purification we introduce five Rights that every Student [pc] should have full possession of. Procedures are designed to enhance these Rights. It is a point of agreement with another Being to state these Rights out loud. Spread the word. Whenever appropriate communicate these Rights in full or in such language as fits the social setting.

        We advise that the Student state the Rights often. Tell others as socially acceptable. The Rights are central to our understanding of a civil society. It can truly be promoting Freedom and Liberty for all:

        1. I/you have a Right to my/your own sanity.

        Sanity is the use of “logical decision making” that produces the desired result, to be able to work out a problem in a disciplined way. Student’s sanity also includes recognition of all illogical systems and fallacies as well as Freedom from Hindrances and Fetters. Educators say “critical thinking skills”. Science has the “scientific method” with peer review. [In other words] the Student can be more rational.

        2. I/you have a Right to leave any activity at any time.

        Everyone the Student meets is doing something (or several things) which can be stated/communicated. These activities can be of one’s own Free Will, the result of habit, or duress. Any Student can “change his mind” and stop doing what he is doing at any time. Find how the activity started and the decision made at that time. This is reconsideration of continuing the activity or not.

        3. I/you have a Right to join or not join any activity at any time.

        The Student has a Right of choice over what he/she does and decides not to do. In Life other people may attempt to influence a Student’s decisions. The Student has supreme choice in every matter. Helpful skills [include]: perception of the “real world”, understanding the purposes of others, and logical estimation of results of an action and their desirability (seeing through any deception). How often the Student wishes he had not done “that” which resulted in Suffering. There is a decision just before doing that activity (or missing the opportunity) and the Student has Free Will over it.

        4. I/you have a Right to be an individual in any realm or attain one with God.

        The Student is an individual Being and may decide to remain so at present. There may be thousands of decisions that Student made that keep him in this individuality. There is the Right to shed his unique individuality and attain “One with God”, also called Nirvana. Nothing is lost with such a decision. In fact the reduction of Suffering [charge] in Mind Purification brings the Student through stages to Enlightenment. Thankfully, the transition does not take many rebirths if the Student chooses to take that “Path”. The Student can always change his mind about the whole thing…at any time.

        5. I/you are Free.

        Free from all fraudulent contracts and compacts. Deceit is often used to make a sale, close a deal, or otherwise commit the-less-than-fully-informed to a situation that lasts in perpetuity. All dealings with the Devil are null and void…

        More on Rights

        The trouble is that Beings do things that damage the Rights of others. They will 1) Intrude into space. 2) Hurt the creations of others. 3) Seize or confuse perception bits so they cannot be easily seen. Trespassing, burglary, vandalism, battery, lying, deception, fraud are common names for this. Perhaps these Beings think they are justified as in “someone else has something I want”. Perhaps they act with worthy intent to help or “to create a better Game”. The outcomes are almost always to damage and destroy. Memories are made of all these violations of Rights, damage, and failure. These memories become connected into the Mind’s existing patterns and masses. They become hidden by their connections to these other memories. Current Life can Trigger the strangest non-sequitur memories…
        ————————————————–
        http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php?topic=1210.msg5994#msg5994

      • Thanks for the refs to Underdog’s list of student/PC rights ; they seem workable and sensible.

        I am not so sure , though , about the workability of “attaining one with God” (Nirvana). For me the data on “Solutions to Body Behavior” (part 1 and 2) lectures, from the “Game of OT : Exteriorization and Havingness” lectures , is very applicable here. “Separateness” is actually a key factor in sanity : the ability to separate from things at will and to have an individuality as opposed to “individuation” (to compulsively attempt to separate from terminals). When you process towards “togetherness” lowered tone levels usually ensues. There is absolutely nothing wrong with “separateness” and full individuality. Actually the more “separate” from things one is, and the more “individuality” one attains , the more capable of embracing all dymanics and assuming any viewpoint one gets.

        The basic “booby-trapping” point where “mysticism” err is exactly on this “Nirvana State” thing. I am not blindly parroting LRH here ; I have studied that point in detail , and it seems truthful and workable. For additional inf, listen to the quoted LRH lectures.

        Thanks again for the refs , Marildi ; I will certainly look into Davis’s forum.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter, I have thought a lot about this subject of “attaining one with God” – or, as some people believe – never being other than “one with God”. Quite a few people have that view, including many spiritual teachers. Underdog at least said it was a choice – a right.

        The closest (but still not the same) that I’ve seen in LRH materials to the idea that “we are all one with God” was in a lecture transcript which David St. Lawrence posted an excerpt from one time. (This was on his “Workable Technology” website. I’ll post the link.) Below is part of the excerpt he quoted. Note the last two small paragraphs (which I’ve put in all caps), where LRH basically gives the reasons for his views. (Btw, in word clearing a student one time, she told me about having created a thetan, just like what LRH describes here.)

        ——————————————
        “Basically, the thetan can simply create, without any system, another living being. Now, there’s an important thing. This is an ability of the thetan. But it is not a part of the thetan.

        “…A man can get himself thoroughly haunted by living beings – living, breathing beings – simply because he can duplicate himself. This is not machinery, and it is not part of the thetan, by definition. But it is the thetan moving outward through the second dynamic of creation into a third dynamic of becoming a group.

        “Now, at any time he can then pull off from this group which he himself has created and leave the group living, breathing and acting. And his own absence does not detract any knowingness from him. Nor would it pull anything back from the group.

        “Now, let’s look that over when we get up to that, and we discover this individual would have endowed, to make other chess players …You know, when you make a chess player you have to endow him with full intelligence and self-determinism, otherwise you can’t play chess with him. You discover that he, therefore, would not have remained a superior being by the simple act of creating all these other thetans to do this activity. It would have had no connotation of superiority to have done this, since any one of those beings he created could, in its turn, do the same thing.

        “You would have, let us say, a hundred million souls on earth during one period of its ability to advance, and at another period you would have a couple of billion. Well, how could they possibly disappear? Do they ever become less? Do they just always become more and more and more and more and more? No.

        “An individual could re-postulate himself back into his original creative entity – you know, he could just say ‘I am no longer myself…’ Nobody else would influence him to do this, you see. He’d say, ‘I am no longer this unit. I am now another unit which created me in the first place.’ You see how he could do that?

        “BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME. SO, THEREFORE, IT MUST GO ON CONTINUOUSLY AND CONTINUALLY AS A CREATED EXISTENCE…

        “YOU RECOVER AN INDIVIDUAL’S KNOWINGNESS, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU WOULD RECOVER IS THE FACT THAT HE HAS OCCASIONALLY MULTIPLIED HIMSELF.”
        ————————————————
        (LRH tape lecture 20 October 1954 The Parts of Man, Overt Acts and Motivators) http://workabletechnology.com/?p=424

      • Thanks for the ref , Marildi ; it is an excellent one.

        See my reply to you at a previous post on this topic (the post where you quoted the “Separateness” process from COHA book).

        I believe that the inherent capacity of a thetan to create life and be anything is what LRH is referring to in that passage. This capacity to be anything (discussed in detail at the Tech-80 lectures, “The Route To Infinity”) is sometimes confused with this “becoming one with an allness or Infinite Consciousness” , where the concept infers that individuality is lost, and that a “togetherness” is achieved instead : an unworkable proposition in my educated opinion. One can be anything while at the same time remaining ourselves as a distinct individuality. Therein lies the magic and beauty of life. W/out that, there wouldn’t be originality and Art.

        If there is something that I really have gained with Scn which changed my life forever, is recovering my sense of individuality and my conviction that I can separate from things at will. For me, that’s Freedom itself.

        Thanks again for posting that ref. Take care.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter, what you wrote in the last paragraph above couldn’t be more on topic or more basic as regards this subject of freedom. You wrote:

        “If there is something that I really have gained with Scn which changed my life forever, is recovering my sense of individuality and my conviction that I can separate from things at will. For me, that’s Freedom itself.”

        Awesome to read that, my friend.

        ARC,
        marildi

      • p.s. For most people, the viewpoint on this subject of oneness vs. individuality is based on direct perception, or on their spiritual teacher’s perception (which is then a matter of belief/faith for the student). With LRH, the viewpoint of individuality was possibly based on direct perception too but also on his research, according to the excerpt below from *The Creation of Human Ability*. (This may be the reference you had in mind too)
        ————————————-
        “This was the process [R2-48 Separateness] which told me that we are not natively sprung from one ‘common body of theta’. If you run Separateness, accentuating the difference in unity of a thetan from other thetans and things and spaces, he continues to gain in tone. If you run this process in reverse, how he is the same as, or is connected to various items, he continues to dwindle in tone. By handling this latter process one can press a thetan down into the rock-bottom state of aberration. We have long known that differentiation was the keynote of sanity, and that identification was the basis of aberration. This fact is utilized in processing by running separateness.

        “It can be concluded that the thetan is an individual separate from every other thetan and that he has never been part of any other thetan. There are many ‘phony’ incidents implanted on the track whereby an individual is made to feel that he is a result of explosion having occurred to a larger body. He is also made to feel that he was at one time ‘whole’ and is now only a splinter of himself. This is only an effort to reduce him. He has always been himself, he will always be himself, down to a time when he is entirely identified with this universe, at which time he would no longer be himself simply because he would no longer be conscious.” (CoHA)
        —————————————-

      • Yes, Marildi ; that was one of the refs that I had in mind, thank you.

        I also had others as well, such as this one. The comments in parentheses are mine to refer to the processes that LRH was referring to :

        “Now, to play a game, somebody gets connected with something, you see? But he always must feel that he can separate himself from it, otherwise,he doesn’t easily play a game with it. Afer a while he gets to be a pawn, not a player. See how this is? All right.

        “So se run these two processes ( “things that you are not separate from” vs “things you are separate from” the correct process) , and we rather easily discover – to be very, very technical, very technical indeed – we discover at once the being all squashed into one Nirvana, and so forth, is for the birds. That’s my scientific opinion on the subject : It’s for the birds.”

        “Now, it is quite interesting, it is quite interesting that an effort such as Yoga and the rest of these things would still play around with this togetherness as a goal, and it is only therein that Yoga is trapped. Got it? See, that’s the only trap in Yoga. There is so much learning in it, it is so impressive , and it takes so long to do it, that it rather persuades one that there must be something there.”

        “Yes, there must be something there, but there’s just enough of this vector in it to booby-trap it. That’s the only booby trap in any of these philosophies is that they make one go towards togetherness – do all sort of odd things.”

        “….. the common denominator of error in the philosophy is apparently grouping, see? Togetherness. And whenever he tries to make a fellow identify himself falsely with other things, he is pulling a fast curve. Got the idea ?” LRH (from the “Exteriorization By Separateness From The Weakest Universe” lecture 15 Dec ’55)

        By the way, this lecture was mentioned by former SNR C/S Ray Mithoff (“former” as he only comes out as “Snr C/S” at very rare events to then go back to “The Hole” , such a wasted talent indeed) at one international event back then when dear “Pope” still had not decimated the Int Strata. He said, if I remember it correctly, that if anyone would like to know what NEW OT IX and X would like, to listen to that lecture then.

        But regardless of that , It is my educated opinion that a being can achieve a very high ability to assume the beingness of anything and anybody (see the Tech-80 lectures, “The Route To Infinity”) , in such a way that he can be either “Infinity” (the allness of it all , the “Infinite Consciousness” , the infinite beingness some call “God”) or an individual as will. He can be “everything” while STILL remaining a very distinct individual with a very distinct individuality-the maximum expression of his beingness.

        So many want to “become one” with this “Infinite Conciousness” , with this “Infinite Beingness or Being” , that they miss the point that we ARE already connected to it. It is not something “out-there” to seek, to get to. It is already within all of us ; it is part of our inner beingness. That’s why the road to “connect” with this “allness” is a road best traveled in the road to fully understanding “Self” , as anyone who truly understand himself and his basic beingness(ish) , has already understood “God” and “Infinity”.

        It could be said the kindest gift that we as beings ever received is “Individaulity”. But as this is a two-pole universe to keep a proper balance into things, we also received its essential dichotomy : The capacity to be EVERYTHING as well w/out losing ourselves in the way. And EXACTLY in that, lies are basic goodness.

        Thanks for the comm, Marildi. Always a pleasure.

        ARC, PETER

      • thetaclear: “It could be said the kindest gift that we as beings ever received is ‘Individuality’. But as this is a two-pole universe to keep a proper balance into things, we also received its essential dichotomy: the capacity to be EVERYTHING as well w/out losing ourselves in the way. And EXACTLY in that, lies our basic goodness.”

        Thanks, Peter, that really does seem to be the “essential dichotomy” – oneness and separateness/individuality. Wow.

        You are putting out more food for thought than ever – the great LRH excerpt you quoted above as well as your own comments.

        It’s a real pleasure communicating with you too!

        ARC,
        marildi

      • Sorry for my misspelling and grammar errors , Marildi. In my reply to you the last sentence should have read : ” And EXACTLY in that, lies our basic goodness.”

        Peter

      • Peter – correction on my first reply above. The sentence in the last paragraph: “Those are the overall topics, but under each one are a number of sub-topics adding up to over 5,000.”

        It should say “…adding up to over 900 (and over 5,000 comments).”

    • Mike, thank you so much for the nice acknowledgement! 🙂

      You are another one who might be interested in the Independent Spiritual Technology forum, which I just posted some info about in my last reply to thetaclear (below).

      You wrote: “Thank you for trying RON.”

      That touched me. And it was the nicest tribute I’ve seen in this month of his birthday. Thanks for that.

      ARC,
      marildi

      • p.s. Mike, I meant that I posted some info about the IST forum in the reply to thetaclear above (not below).

  11. A well thought out article which I enjoyed reading.

    There exists another group which you did not include. This would be made up of people who have had a scientology experience,found it to be lacking in attaining THEIR spiritual goals and subsequently, they have moved through scientology.

    They would not be squirrels,indies or haters, just people who have moved beyond what scientology has to offer.

    Remember, Scio has a ceiling……….it is boxed in, so concentrating on a subject which has a limit would not suit everyone.

    Thanks for taking the time to write.

    • Thanks for the validation Oldtimer, and for stopping by.

      I am glad that you liked it.

      Yes, you are right ; I missed that group : the ones who has moved beyond Scn after having experienced it. That group can be called “Ex-Scientologists” , and they have a right to leave Scn w/out undue pressure from anybody to prevent their parting with it , and with no suppressive and fanatical inclination to look at them as “SPs” for having done so. The UDHR says in its article #18 :

      “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

      Many Scientologists react badly to others leaving Scn because they have been thoroughly indoctrinated in this way of thinking for years by fundamentalist policies like the “Suppressive Acts list”. We’ve been implanted with the false assumption that “leaving = overts”. This is caused by a misguided interpretation of what is a “Blow” which is “departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas” (HCOB 31 Dec ’59).

      The key to this is “relatively unexplained” and “sudden”. It infers an unfounded reason. An individuals leaves something that he is actually benefiting from. Or he leaves a good job where everything is going well (he has a nice and kind boss, gets well paid, likes that kind of job,etc) and start finding a lot of “faults” not supported by facts. Or he abandons a group to which he owes his support, and one thas has good and decent people. Or a relationship out of suddently finding a lot of “faults” with it which aren’t actual.

      But even those examples are only realative , and no competent analysis is possible w/out judging each case separately and in detail as there are just too many factors involved in this. Any being has a right to leave a game he is not enjoying. But he also has duties that goes in hand with those rights. It is never a “white and black” proposition as we were tought in the Church. The best way is always to keep a correct balance between “Rights” and “Duties”. A little too much of any one, will always cause trouble. But in general, forcing others to play any game they no longer want to play (regardless of reasons) is not very workable. It just restimulate Int buttons, and precipitate a blow more easily, as we as beings are always reactive to being “forced” to “stay in”.

      The better approach to this , is to just listen to what the individual has to say about it, acknowledge him, and determine if he has possible O/Ws in the area which is making him wish to leave. But concentrate just in getting him to assume responsibility for his duties , and not in “staying in”. One can always assume responsibility for anything and still be able to part from it. The general message is that forcing others to remain where they do not want to, regardless of reasons, is not workable at all.

      I was stuck for years! in a “want to leave, can’t leave” dichotomy when I was in the CofS as a staff, and in the SO. There was just too much fundamentalism in there for me. All that “thursday before 2pm” pressure to complete people in auditing programs and courses to keep the “completions” and “VSD” (Value of services delivered) stats up regardless of actual products was very disheartening to me. I always was (and AM now) very product-oriented , always making sure that pcs and students were 100% sure that they “had made it” ; that they had actually gotten the VFP of their courses or the expected EP of the auditing program, and were FULLY satisfied with that. I never settled for anything less than that.

      But the higher executives were always in an all out battle for stats. I never ever let a student finish or a PC attest w/out full results. This caused me great troubles as I was forced to constantly be “smashing heads”. My God , I smashed so many. I got in ethics trouble for “back-flasing” my seniors and by constantly refusing to follow ilegal orders, even though I always did it the “LRH-way”. I was always able to get out out trouble as I always kept my code of Honor regarding that. I am not easy to suppress at all.

      I was always “hang-up at Doubt” about remaining in staff or not. The “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” perverted interpretation of it all was always my stumbling block. I couldn’t care less about what they thought of me ; I only cared about doing the “right thing” and being loyal to my beliefs. But I was stuck in many false ideas and false assumptions. Scn is full of them, specially in Admin and Ethics policies ; Tech is quite ok to me.

      I was stuck at indecision for years. I had even left a promissing career as a student of engineering where the NASA had come to reclute a few of the best ones , and I was among that small group. My dream of completing the works of Tesla had just vanished into thin air. I was suddently “saving the world” and doing the “honorable and right thing to do”. “LRH already discovered all there is to discover in the field of Science anyway , so there is no game to play there” , I falsely assumed. I gave up in my Science goals then. My life passion had suddently been exchanged by my other life passion : help others get free. I couldn’t understand that one can actually do BOTH of them simultaneously.

      I grew tired of handling so many counter intentions and just left . It was no longer a enjoyable game; it had become “serious” and full of “efforts”; I had to “save” the planet.

      So I DO fully understand about wanting to leave a group and an activity ; and will never attempt to force anybody to play a game he doesn’t want to play, regardless of reasons.

      ARC, PETER

  12. Hi Peter. Brilliant analysis. Look forward to any more of your writings especially on any firther uses of the basic tech and HCOB OT MAXIMS 10/8/82. Kindest Regards David

    • Thanks for the validation David ; most kind.

      Sure, It’ll be a pleasure to keep others informed, and to share with this lovely family of all BIC public.

      ARC, PETER

  13. Re: ” the heroin Eleanor Roosevelt”

    Per Grammarist.com:

    Heroin vs. heroine

    Heroin is an addictive narcotic derived from morphine. A heroine is a female protagonist in a work of fiction. Although heroine is traditionally the feminine equivalent of hero, hero is now a gender-neutral term for a person who acts with extraordinary courage. Heroine still appears from time to time in reference to female real-life heros, but it is increasingly rare.

    Thank you for this in-depth post.

    http://grammarist.com/usage/heroin-heroine/

    • Thanks for your validation JennyAtLax, and for your spelling correction as well. I am still battling with my English as my 2nd language, so any corrections are very welcome and appreciated.

      Take care,

      ARC, PETER

      • Hi, Peter. What’s your native language? You did very well considering the fact that my native language is your second. Sincerely, JennyAtLAX

      • Thanks for the validation JennyAtLAX , most kind.

        I can’t talk about my origins though ; you know how it is with the Church always attempting to track down reformits. ;-)))

        Take care ; I like your blog.

        Best regards, Peter

      • Hello, Peter. I hear you and understand that it is far too risky to reveal your native tongue.

        It’s entertaining to watch Scientology Inc. (“SI”) and der fuhrer David Miscavige (“Liar-In-Chief”) melt down with the expose, “Going Clear.” Their “pointless scaremongering,” however, is a portrait that those of us “expelled” from our former religion for “gross malfeasance” are all too familiar with. Through “falsehoods, errors, embellished tales and blatant omissions,” SI is doing exactly what they’re accusing “disgruntled apostates” of doing. Thank you for visiting my blog.

      • You are most welcome, JennyAtLAX.

        Yeah, I uderstand exactly what you mean. The more they protest about it, the more they actually dig themselves deeper into the hole. They are not even smart and cleaver anymore at their contra-attacking strategies as the used to be back in the ’80s.

        Thanks for the comm.

        ARC, PETER

  14. Thank you for this article Peter and BIC. It is wise to treat others as you wish to be treated. We have all been around long enough to see actions come full circle.

    Seeking “reasons” to shun or disrespect or devalue your fellow man, there is no reason behind that. We still mock up ser facs. Making others wrong about their identity under the banner of religion is a form cruelty.

    “Scientologist, EX Scientologist, Anti Scientologist, fundamentalist, etc etc” These are all identities. And often, the identity a person puts forth for you to see, is a synthetic identity. People shape shift to survive. Most anti Scientologists used to be Scientologists. Before they became haters, they were loyalists.

    They ARCX with their identity as a “Scientologist”, and feel others should do the same. One of my favorite questions to ask people, is, “What were you before you were a Scientologist?” I usually discover they had an identity before Scientology that they were also ARCXen with. And they thought they would survive better by becoming a “Scientologist”.

    One sink hole in this entire activity, is that once a person abandons their identity to become a “Scientologist”, they assume everyone else should want to as well. But as long as someone is happy with the identity they have mocked up, be it a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, whatever…as long as they are in ARC with their identity, you should at least be able to grant them that and not have to discount their ideas about being in ARC with the identity they have mocked up.

    Whatever identity someone is in, that is a creation. To invalidate that is a form of cruelty. We can not all be in the same identity nor should we be so spiritually supreme about ourselves as to think that everyone ought to be in the same identity.

    You look at the Int base. Everyone there in the same fundamental identity, with the same beliefs, in a universe where no other identity is tolerated or even permitted, and you see how that experiment worked out. As if under some black magic spell they began to unmock and torture one another at the leader’s insistence. For all purposes, they too became anti Scientologists. As if seeing the same copy of an identity everywhere they looked, drove them mad.

    • The Oracle: “You look at the Int base. Everyone there in the same fundamental identity, with the same beliefs, in a universe where no other identity is tolerated or even permitted, and you see how that experiment worked out.”

      Well said, T.O. I still consider that this was one of the best lessons we took away from scientology. Hopefully, we won’t so easily fall into that trap again.

      It kind of reminds me of what LRH said about a student who is studying to be an auditor – that he should do so when he himself is still aberrated, because then aberration will be very real to him and he’ll duplicate the data that much better. Likewise, what better way could we have learned the pitfalls of fundamentalism, and the mentality of “us vs. them”, than to have been there, done that.

      I join thetaclear in thanking you for your great contributions, as always. Yes, it’s good that we all have different identities and different views – the better to expand our own.

      • Thank you. Unfortunately, people are capable today of committing the same social genocide that they were in the 1400’s. Many people are uneducated. I don’t tend to look at people as either “sane” or “insane”, I tend to focus on their education.

        Ethnic cleaning and genocide are purposes. “Destroy the squirrels” , just from today on one forum:

        “This is the core dirty little secret of Scientologists.

        They look kinda normal.

        They eat food, drive cars and go to work kinda like normal people.

        You can talk to them, pretty much, and they use words like other people, kinda

        But, they are not “duplicating” other people’s thoughts and feelings.

        It’s not that they are not able to do that–it’s that they don’t give a shit what anybody thinks.”

        It’s all the same thing. A license to hate and condemn mass cultures.

        This leads to ethnic cleansing goals and genocide. Anyone that has studied history knows this has created more deaths and cultural shame through out history than any other plague.

        Entire races and cultures wiped out with “declares” that “THEY” are all unfit to coexist among st others on this Earth.

        Frankly, I think 80% of the hate wars and social attempts to “erase” or “wipe out” certain areas of civilization, in this Scientology arena, have nothing to do with Scientology at all. It has to do with people being uneducated. That includes David Miscavige’s purposes to “booby trap” and “wipe out” anyone that is a psychiatrist.

        Ethnic cleansing goals, genocide goals, these are easily instilled in people who blame others for conditions.

        Hubbard himself had ethnic cleansing goals. “Clear the planet” is an ethnic cleansing goal. If a person takes those words in a re stimulative manner. Sending people out on ships to die. Railing against entire professions.

        This is how incidents of mass graves, genocide, come to pass. Just because we are in the year 2015 doesn’t mean there are not people out there still thinking with solutions 1015.

        The Church of Scientology is failing because of it’s own ethnic cleansing goals and inhumanity. At the end of the day, kindness mattered more than OTTRO in this world.

  15. “At the end of the day, kindness mattered more than OTTRO in this world.”

    Eloquently put, Oracle.

    It just hit me that another way of putting it, in more everyday words, is that LRH got the horse before the cart.

    Personally, in looking at both his good and bad products, I don’t see that LRH had ethnic cleansing goals or other basic intentions for the harm of others. But there’s no way to avoid the isness that, at best, he made some serious errors in judgment in various ways (especially if we hold him and only him responsible). David Miscavige, on the other hand, is clearly beyond “errors in judgment.” Yes, “inhumanity” says it well.

    • “Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of making it ethnically or religiously homogeneous.”

      I guess you haven’t been to Clearwater? “religiously homogeneous” is the purpose. Most religions have a purpose to “convert” and expand their tribe. “Clear the planet” is an ethnic cleansing goal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

      Sec checking and sending hundreds of people to the RPF as “list one rock slammers” was an ethnic cleansing cycle.

      That said, I do not care myself to discount Hubbard and all of his ideas because he had some less than holy purposes. I wouldn’t do that to any human being. Great men have great faults. Doesn’t mean I think we should have all been selling insurance instead of exploring the super natural. Doesn’t mean none of his ideas had any value. I do not care to focus on his high school marks from the 50’s. Beethoven had issues and so did John Kennedy.

      It is easy to tear another person and their value down. Much easier than making yourself a value to others or coming up with new ideas or plans.

      There isn’t anything anyone could say to me, to get me to make nothing of myself for exploring Scientology, or to get me to doubt the value I got from understanding his ideas and exploring Scientology. I wouldn’t discount my own experiences with someone because of their report card from high school. Socrates and Plato did not attend high school, and they did not have 1/1000th of the current information and knowledge we have today about conditions, the super natural, science, health, physics, math, space, technology. They didn’t even know about electricity. Both of them could easily be fair gamed for their opinions and personal habits. By any person that would prefer to make nothing out of them than learn something from them.

      People have basic purposes.And these purposes will manifest through out their lives no matter where they settle and no matter with what people and no matter in what community. You can sometimes shift people on purpose. Move them onto other purposes.

      I just don’t have a purpose to discount myself, the life I have lived, ideas I have explored, other people, my choices, their choices. Why should I when there are plenty of people around me who have a purpose to do that for me? That is their purpose.

      I also do have a purpose to be willfully blind about ideas that do not and did not work. The world is not flat. It worked for many people through out their lives to think it was.

      Many of Hubbard’s ideas were highly beneficial for me. Some were not . I don’t see how that makes him any different from anyone else. Except he did take me to places I would not have gone with out those ideas. L12 was worth every moment and effort I spent exploring Scientology.

      That’s just me. He had the power, I had the need. I don’t need to apologize to anyone for that. I am not a criminal in any way for having positive experiences.

      You find people born into great wealth and power with every resources available to them to rise up, buried in their 20’s from tragedy suicide or misfortune. And you find people born in the ghetto to drug a addicted single mother orphaned at age eight, who rise up to the top and then lift others. At the end of the day, everyone is the captain of their own ship. People flow along their purpose line.

      http://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memoirs/The-50th-Law-Audiobook/B002V0Q9U2?source_code=GPAGBSH0508140001&mkwid=s7jQiAki4_dc&pkw=PLA&pmt=broad&pcrid=50790255300

      • T.O.: “Sec checking and sending hundreds of people to the RPF as ‘list one rock slammers’ was an ethnic cleansing cycle.”

        Got it. I still wouldn’t agree with the the extreme term “ethnic cleansing”, though – even in the above instance, as ill-advised and misguided as it was. But I do get your point.

        Great post overall.

      • Great viewpoints as always, dear Oracle. It doesn’t cease to amaze me your wisdom , and sensible balance into things. Thumbs up !!!

        ARC, PETER

      • p.s. According to what I’ve read, the reason so many (hundreds) were sent to the RPF was that there was an MU on what a rock slam is – they thought a dirty needle was a small rock slam.

        As for what should be done about a true rock slammer, it would just be common sense to take action if someone had evil purposes towards the organization or principal people in it (List 1). I think the original policy to rehabilitate List 1 rock slammers in the RPF was the most humane action that could be taken, and a far cry from ethnic cleansing – it didn’t “remove them” them in any permanent sense and was only intended to help them as well as the organization. Plus, in those earlier years, people had a choice about whether to do the RPF or leave. That may not be the case nowadays, as with so many other gross alterations.

      • Miraldi, I see how you wish to run damage control and I think you have good intentions. But at the time this was happening, one of my best friends was “busted” for being a list one RSer. She was removed from staff and she had a very young daughter that she was separated from for a few years. Although you think it might have been appropriate to “remove these people”, her CHILD paid the price. There was nothing at all humane about that. Children are still paying the price in this theater. When adult people put their own wants needs and purposes above those of children, you have a fucked adults which make a fucked up group. Children are a trust. If you can’t handle that you can’t handle any trust.

      • Oracle, my only point was that what happened in that whole List 1 rock slammers ordeal wasn’t intended by LRH to turn out the way it did because of the gross errors made in carrying it out. That was what I wanted to clarify. I certainly didn’t mean to minimize what happened to your friend, or to anybody else who was greatly harmed.

        With respect to many other incidents, especially in PT – like what you wrote about in your other post with regard to your own children – there is no denying the purposeful harm being done. I hope you are able to handle the situation with your kids and, knowing you from the blogs, I believe you can.

      • I use an alias to protect my children. Yet I found out today I am being pimped and outed on a list of “ex scientologists” for someone else’s purposes. and they don’t give two fucks about how this affects my kids. People just agree children are the cost of this war. How narcissistic can a human being be? “Me Me Me I WON WON WON”! Who cares if I fucked some kids along the way!!!!! That is not higher ground. That is waste and violation of children. The ruin of the Church today is the viewpoint that “children do not matter” and they are the cost of war.
        It does not get more “bully” than that.

      • Miraldi, Oh, O.K., I got it. The list 1 RSER event was just madness of a witch hunt. It did turn out to be an ethnic cleansing event. That is my point. My friend was not even in the Sea Org, she was staff at a mission! We were all sec checked, even volunteers. A year or so before that, I was public on lines in D.C. for a CCRD and I was sec checked on Ron and Mary Sue before I was allowed to attest to clear. A lot of good all of that sec checking did. Look who has been running the Church! I bet Miscavige got one of those sec checks, a few other sociopaths too, and passed it with flying colors.

      • Thanks for all the data, Oracle. It’s helpful to hear about your experiences and get your views. The more data we have from reliable folks, the closer we get to the truth. Maybe one of these days we’ll as-is the whole thing. 🙂

  16. Dear Joe/Peter

    I have been very enthusiastic to be part of this new blog and thoroughly enjoyed your post “On Human Rights and Fundamentalism”, but decided to read a few comments to get a flavour of other posters thinking on the subject. However having not received any posts in my inbox since the original article I started to wonder why no one had replied, only to find when I went into the site there had been 94 comments and for some reason I had not received any of them.

    Please could this be rectified, so that I might receive comments as and when they are posted.

    Thanking you in anticipation

    Pip Threlfall

    • Dear Christianscientology,

      Thanks for the communication and , welcome to this big family of BIC ; I am glad that you liked my article, thank you. I am not part of BIC Admin as such , just another poster like many more here , but I believe that ScnAfrica has already handled the logistics difficulty.

      Looking forward to your future comments,

      ARC, PETER

  17. Hi Peter,
    I have been so busy these days, hardly had time to read it all.
    Have much to say and I will say it later.
    Just a quick note to thank you for your interesting and important post,
    touching such meaningful issues. your attitude of tolerance and understanding is
    a true spiritual wonder!
    Hemi 🙂

  18. Hey, you under the radars out there. Anonymous needs you, LOL!

    The list of ex-COS members speaking out is approaching 2,500 entries. http://whyweprotest.wikia.com/wiki/Former_Church_of_Scientology_members_who_have_spoken_out

    Would be nice if we could have actually 2,500 entries when the Going Clear documentary is broadcasted on HBO at the 29th of March.

    Please consider coming out of the woordwork. :p Of course it will have to be your choice, and yours only.

    To qualify for the list we need proof of speaking out against the COS using your full name AND proof of having been in, such as Scientology completions ( http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/ ) or a well known ex to vouch for your.

    Of course you may also consider sending your story to Back in comm so they can publish.

    Let’s break RCS down under an avalanche of truth! 🙂

  19. Greetings dear posters ,

    I want to thank all of you for all the warm comments that I’ve received from you regarding my article. I sincerely hope that this represent the beginning of a new era for all of us ; one based on tolerance and respect for our fellow human beings (and the non-humans as well, :-))) , where the Human Rights are the stable data whereby we handle our divergence of viewpoints and the administration of justice.

    In harsh times like the ones that this planet is going through , where general violence and suffering are so widely spread , we need to come up with a better weapon to fight these ills w/out becoming a victim ourselves.

    Of all the weapons that have ever been devised in the history of this planet, there is one in specific whose power can’t possibly be matched : an “IDEA”. An idea is capable of going through a km thick steel armor plate ; it can insidiously get into the psyche of millions of people in a relative short time. The liability with that lies in the nature of the idea itself ; the prosurvival characteristics or lack thereof of it. A wrong idea based on lies and alter-isness can thoroughly enslave others. A good idea based on Truth and the Isness of things can, as the other part of the dichotomy, thoroughly free others instead.

    The game of life is the game of ideas, as they are as themselves, the Source of everything else, good and bad. It could be say , that beings are basically trapped in ideas ; the ideas beneath the mental charge, totally hidden from view obstructing inspection and thus , the as-isness of them. It all would seem as a disheartening impasse were it not for our saving grace : REASON , humans’ greatest commodity.

    It is Reason that allow us to filter through the prosurvival ideas and reject the destructive ones. With Reason we can recover sanity , and determine the best path to walk on. Reason is really a 3rd dynamic activity and not a 1st dynamic one as it is usually believed by Scientologists who interpret it as a “personal thing”. There is nothing personal about it beyond the fact that it is the being himself who is using it. But he is using it in relation to others. Reason can be simply defined as that consideration that takes into account each and every terminal involved in a “problem” , and offer each one of them (including you as a terminal as well, of course) an optimum solution from THEIR perspective. And thus, it IS a 3rd dynamic activity as such.

    The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) is not necessarily a perfect document just as Scn is not necessarily a perfect system either. But BOTH can be very workable when used by sensible individuals towards the greatests good instead of for forwarding personal agendas attempting only the survival of one dynamic at the expense of the others. Just as with Scn, the UDRH could be improved , just as any Human creation can.

    But contained within that document and the 7 Convenants that followed it, are workable Truths that if self-determinedly adopted, can bring about a much greater sanity level and quailty of game for every being in this planet.

    It doesn’t matter if the ONU created it or not ; it doesn’t really matter who created it at all. It doesn’t matter if the ONU actually generally enforce it or is timid in applying it to suppresseive regimes. What DOES matter is what YOU as an individual DO with it. All else are just complexities.

    Your fellow beings are important ; they are worthy of your respect and kindness ; the social and antisocial as well , the producer and the criminal. When we allow that the rights of others be violated for the sake of an imagined “protection”, we always end up becoming what we thoroughly protested about ; unhappy and generally defeated.

    There is no joy at all in hating ; there is no happiness in individuation. The greatest ability of a thetan is not his ability to create, nor his ability to postulate. The greatest ability of a thetan is his willingness to assume the beingness of others , as only in that, can true kindness and tolerance manifest themselves. One must always treat others as the most important beings in the world. This is never an easy task, and it is a constant battle to mantain. But it is a road that offers wonderful revelations about the true nature of life.

    The fact is that we fight what we were, and that we hate what we once became. Any hate is a hate of a former self ; any protest is a protest against our own assumed past identities. Thus any true and lasting peace and serenety about things comes about with an increased willingness to assume and adopt any viewpoint and any beingness.

    This will be my last post here at BIC and at any blog. I have personal matters to attend to, to secure my survival and stability. I also have a lot of training to do to prepare myself for future harsh times. I need to stay away for a while from all the noise inherent in attempting to reform things. I need to grow in strength as a being and rehabilitate memory and former states of beingness. That can only be done away from distractions.

    I’ll come back in a period of 8-12 months hopefully rehabilitated and thoroughly trained for the task at hand. I’ll come with ideas at reforming Scientology to share with all of you. With exact strategies to help our brothers and sisters at the Church. With exact methods to help those whose burdens have become too great, and with well thought out ways to seek the redress of wrongs.

    I want to thank BIC for kindly offering me the platform to disseminate my ideas. For that, I’ll be eternally grateful. BIC and all its public became a family to me. One where I immensely grew as a being , and where I learned about things that I had forgotten about : kindness, tolerance, and the willingness to adopt any viewpoint w/out any need to attack it.

    It’ve been really a pleasure meeting you all.

    I’ll properly reply to any comment in this threat until there are no more ; then I’ll be gone.

    For those posters who have privately gotten in comm with me , please feel free to communicate with me any time you want to ; my comm lines are always open to anybody. And that goes for everyone here as well.

    So, I’ll see you all again soon enough.

    ARC,
    PETER

    • Thetaclear, thank you so much for all your efforts and intentions. I got a lot out of this thread and our many exchanges. 🙂

      Wishing you the very best in your coming pursuits! And I hope to see you back here soon.

      Much ARC,
      marildi

      • Thanks for your best wishes, Marildi ; I also got a lot out of the many exchanged comms with you. It has been an honor meeting you here in this wonderful BIC family. I wish you the best in all your endeavors, and keep on nourishing that excellent mind of yours.

        See you soon.

        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