A bridge over troubled waters


Bridge over troubled water1


The build-up to the much anticipated documentary Going Clear which aired on HBO yesterday (29th March 2015) took on epic proportions. Now that the show has aired, the media feeding frenzy is in full swing.

Certainly this event deserves it’s place among other crucial milestones in “project expose RCS”  –  right up there with The Truth Rundown and Debbie Cook’s email.

BIC has, up until this point, not joined in the fray.

This has not been due to our indifference – conversely so. In view of how broadly and comprehensively this has been covered by numerous other blogs, facebook groups and other forums, we felt it not necessary to add our voice to the many out there who have done a wonderful job of keeping us updated. We acknowledge all the efforts in this regard.


There has been much speculation about the effect this will have on the Church – the predictions have been wide and varied.

So far the Church has risen to the bait predictably by coming out swinging blindly at all and sundry. It seems they never learned their lesson after the fallout created with their riposte to the Truth Rundown in the form of a Freedom Magazine containing confidential ethics and PC data of those who heroically came out with the truth. These people were utterly denigrated, nullified and branded as a “posse of lunatics”. Many people have repeatedly stated that it was not so much the Truth Rundown as the Church’s reaction to this which got them alarmed. “Where there is smoke, there is fire”. This, together with the Debbie Cook email, ultimately paved the way for yet another mass exodus from the fold.

What has been somewhat troubling is the extreme reaction of some ex-Church members to this saga. The baying for “last blood”  accompanied by expressed wishes of the total destruction/decimation of everything to do with LRH, the Church of Scientology and his technology. A “scorched Earth”  policy if you will.  On the other side of the spectrum sits the Church with an equally troubling (albeit predictable) reaction of defiant negation, absolute refusal to take ANY responsibility and instead playing their old tune of  “deny deny deny -attack attack attack”.

We predict that while devastating in the extreme and certainly delivering another few nails in the proverbial RCS coffin, this will not result in the deck of cards suddenly crumbling and we’re not likely to see the Church folding it’s tent any time soon. It is hard to predict exactly what effect this is going to have, and only time will tell as this all unfolds.

Neither of the above stances (hate/attack) will achieve anything other than hate, one for the other. Nothing positive has ever come from the single and bloody-minded intention to “destroy one’s opponent/s entirely”. No peaceful resolution will be met with these attitudes in play. The above views engender only more hate and ultimately a bloody war – as has played out time and time again. This is not a healthy situation.

In a recent blog post, Marty Rathbun described this phenomena thusly:

“Scientology’s instilled ‘ethical’ values can be summed up in two clauses: 

Whatever or whoever supports and forwards scientology is good; whatever or whoever detracts from scientology is evil.

Similarly, the anti-scientologists’ creed could read:  Whatever or whoever supports and forwards scientology (or, in extreme cases, is even neutral on the subject) is evil; whatever or whoever detracts from or attacks scientology is good.”



That stormy waters lay ahead for everyone connected to this saga is without question.

Unfortunately, this is going to result in an unavoidably negative ripple effect for those SCN’s outside RCS who have acknowledged the corruption within the Church and unequivocally agreed that although this behaviour has no place in today’s world, they still hold the view that “not all is bad”, and have firm belief in the workability in LRH’s tech. These people are working diligently to apply this philosophy to the benefit of themselves and others of like-minded view. Their job is going to be a bit tougher now.

To those who are continuing to practice Scientology and stoically refuse to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, now is the time for you to be vigilant and continue flourishing in the face of adversity. By all accounts, the revelations in the HBO documentary are not pretty. Any Independent Group or auditor/practitioner worth their salt would be well advised to watch and confront this show carefully, as well as keep a finger on the pulse of the current media frenzy.  You will encounter people who have seen this show or read/heard about it somewhere – and these folk will have some rather uncomfortable questions needing answers. You are going to need a good strategy in place to deal with this.

And then there are those brave souls who have literally put their lives on the line to bring this epic event to fruition. Now, more than ever you are in the cross-hairs of the Church and in danger of further onslaught – like never before. BIC salutes you all.  Were it not for you and others who came before you, many people would still be entrapped, blindly oblivious to what has become of the Church under the tyrannical rule of DM and his cohorts.

Which brings us back to the title of this article and the role BIC has to play in this unfolding scene.

Our last few articles have been met with hugely positive response, the last one clocking up 132 published comments. It has been wonderful to see the BIC family engaged in healthy discussion and debate, exchanging of viewpoints and the interchange of ideas with each other.

BIC stands firm in our belief that the solution to all of this is COMMUNICATION. Hence our title “A bridge over troubled waters”. This is not only a “scientology” datum. Yes, LRH posited that “communication is the universal solvent” but many other great leaders have extolled similar views.

A few examples:

“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding”.– Albert Einstein

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner”. Nelson Mandela

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly”. – Martin Luther King Jr.

“Discussion is impossible with someone who claims not to seek the truth, but already to possess it.”  – Romain Rolland

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw

“Peace does not mean an absence of conflicts; differences will always be there. Peace means solving these differences through peaceful means; through dialogue, education, knowledge; and through humane ways.” –  Dalai Lama XIV


Regardless of what occurs from hereon out, it is a given that Independent Scientology will continue to survive into the future. This is based on the premise that people have been breaking away from the Church and “going it alone” for decades. It has recently been surmised that more auditing and bridge progress is now occurring outside the Church than in.

With this mind, BIC wants to hear our readers’ views on the following:

Should this recent HBO or some similar future event finally result in the ultimate dismantling and destruction of the Corporate Church as it stands today, what positive effects, changes or outcomes would you like to see rising from the smouldering embers?

142 thoughts on “A bridge over troubled waters

  1. I think the current group of SA Scientologists don’t care – they are happy in their bubble. All the old guard has been chucked out and the families left believe they are the new ‘elite’ of the group. And they think they are just the sanest, coolest & most beautiful people in the country. Their lives aren’t really about Scientology. Their lives are about their status in their group and that relies on how much cash they can give. In a spirit of Ubuntu we must wish them well.

  2. The church will not comment on anything that involves disclosing confidential materials, per LRH policies. Previous interviews have shown again and again reporters disrespecting on numerous occasions the founders wishes to hold these materials sacrosanct. As much as Gibney and the ex’s try to bait them on this point, the CO$ is not biting, not playing their game. And what bits they do respond to, is enough to leave doubt and distract. One may not like the way the CO$ is handling it, but constraints considered, they are not doing too badly.

    The docu is a mix of abuse disclosures as well as a bizarre smear-job on the philosophy, pretty much what I expected it to be. Like all others before it, this one will come to pass until Theroux comes along a little later this year. It’s business as usual.

    • I know that this comment was not directed at me , but its many outpoints prompt me to comment upon it. Anyway, this is a bog and as such , comments upon comments are expected and accepted.

      I find this post comment too inclined at defending the CofS , and an attempt at brushing off the many negative effects worldwide that this documentary will have in the Church and in Scn in general ; a weak attempt at best.

      In the first place, there isn’t anything “confidential” about Scn anymore ; I mean, that’s just history as it should has always been right from the start. This “confidentiality” requirement is just for the birds. It was never needed , it will NEVER be needed. All the “confidential” materials of Scn have been in the Net for decades! , so the CofS not “biting” into discussing them only shows their plain stupidity and silliness.

      Why anyone would like to hold “confidential” materials that have been proved time and time again, that your awareness of them (w/out any irresponsible running of them, of course) has not caused any harm any “deaths” at all, totally escapes my understanding .That’s no more than an attempt at “PR control” , I am afraid, and an effort to control parishioners.

      The only “confidential” level not broadly discussed and disseminated in the Net is New OT VIII, and that “OT” level could be discussed just in one parragraph ; it is that simple and short. Nothing to it, really. Just an “extension” of NOTs and a sort of correction list. No recovery of “whole track recall” at all in any way, shape or form. It is Something not worth your hard earned money, as any Solo-NOTs completion could already do it with his current level of training, with just reading 1-2 shorts HCOBs. So anyone can lose their “self-important” button on this , really.

      And nothing could be further than the truth than this :

      ” As much as Gibney and the ex’s try to bait them on this point, the CO$ is not biting, not playing their game. And what bits they do respond to, is enough to leave doubt and distract. One may not like the way the CO$ is handling it, but constraints considered, they are not doing too badly.”.

      “Not doing too badly ?” ; I mean, have you even been following the Media on this ? The CofS has been attempting character assassination since months! before the airing of this documentary ; and all of that has really back-fired at them , BIGTIME. DM’s (or rather LRH’s , he is only copying him) methods at “attacking the critics by expossing their alleged crimes” is no longer working for him ; not anymore . People has already realized that those are just misguided and suppressive tactics at hiding Human Rights abuses. There has been NO event prior than this , that had damaged the “repute” of the CofS so much, and one that will have many world reaching consequences for them. So much for “not doing so badly”.

      And as for the “smearing job on the philosophy itself” is very well deserved , and Scientologists in general should have seen it coming. What did you really expect with policies such as “Fair Gaming” , “Forced Disconnection” , “Squirrel bustering” , “Attack the critics and dissenters by expossing their alleged crimes” , and almost all “SP” acts as described on that well known fundamentalist and suppressive policy ? A welcome party? , a pat in LRH’s back ? Oh come on, get real.

      I challenge anyone here to friendly debate with me on whether or not all the above mentioned LRH “policies” are really his or not, or whether or not they were actually never cancelled in practice when LRH was still alive. I WAS there, you know, nobody just told me. My relation with LRH is totally unsuspected. I paid a VERY hard price and so did my family.

      There is a clear agreement among many KSW supporters to attack this HBO documentary because of nothing else but plain fundamemtalism. Why don’t you guys just accept the many sufferings that LRH brought to hundreds if not thousands to parishioners since the mid 50s , and bravely apologize for him ? Then may be, just may be you all will start gaining some respect from others, and Scn can be totally rehabilitated. But the so much widespread fundamentalist attitude still present with an incredible amount of KSW supporters, and even with many “liberal” Scientologists, leaves much to be desired really , and only prove that Scn is nothing more than a enslaving cult. It need not to be really ; it could be a really liberaring enterprise. The choice is entirely yours.

      ARC, PETER

      • Peter, I agree with you that the church policies of “Fair Gaming”, “Forced Disconnection”, “Squirrel busting”, “Attack the critics and dissenters by expossing their alleged crimes”, etcetera, are all repugnant relics of the organization’s past, and that they have no place in today’s world.

        However, your reply doesn’t seem to differentiate between those heinous church policies and the spiritual technology of Scientology. It’s really unfortunate that Gibney needlessly smeared the tech in his film. It was, in fact, an outright statement of religious bigotry, which no one would be applauding, if he’d made the same sort of statement about the fundamental beliefs of any mainstream religion.

        In my opinion, Gibney greatly reduced the potential impact of his film by straying away from exposing the abuses of the church, and into unnecessary ad hominem attacks against the basic philosophy and practices.

        The conclusion that millions of people are drawing (as evidenced by the tens of thousands of comments on the net), is that, ‘Those looney tune Scientologists are all crazy anyway, so they deserved the abuse from that wacko cult.’ The end result is that the film doesn’t seem to have produced an ounce of pity or empathy for the tens of thousands of us who endured the abuse.

        The prevailing attitude I’ve gleaned from the pages of comments I’ve read since yesterday, is that the whole ball of wax should be destroyed. Just blow up the baby, the bath water, and all. Is that really the effect we were hoping for?

        I surely wasn’t.

      • Ronnie:

        I thought the movie did a good job of showing that auditing can make people feel much better and can give them transcendent experiences. Better than I’ve seen in any previous critical pieces that I can recall.

        Of course the focus is on the abuses and lies.

        Until the church stops disconnections, punishments, SO slave labor, and regging people into penury this is where the focus ought to lie.

        So don’t worry about discrediting truths about Scientology or LRH being made known. It’s all part of our shared history now. We should get as close to understanding what happened as we can, and not close our eyes to messy historical facts that don’t conform to the Kim Jong Il school of writing a history or biography.

  3. The “Going Clear” documentary did a good job with regard to demonstrating the heavy indoctrination and restriction of basic human rights that is going on in the church, as well as harassment and attacks of all kinds on any member who doesn’t toe the line, or on anyone in or out of the church who is critical of it, including the media.

    However, the one huge outness, from my point of view, was the impression given about scientology itself as a tech/philosophy – that it was nothing more than mind control. And LRH, its founder, was severely discredited in a very one-sided/biased way, at best.

    On top of it, there was no data whatsoever about scientology existing as a practice outside the church, quite different from much of what is practiced in the church – and that the independent practitioners are getting very good results with people.

    As regards “positive effects or outcomes” from the film, I would agree with others who have stated that the fear individuals and the media have had, of retaliation by the church, has been further lessened because of this film. That should make for more and more attention being put on Miscavige by the general public and the authorities, which will sooner or later bring him under investigation. And the rest will be history.

    • The one huge outness from my viewpoint, was within minutes of the movie starting, Lawrence Wright translates dianetics and the beliefs as a person having two sides of a brain. One reactive and one analytical. I realized he had never even read the Dianetics book. Or I missed something huge early on because I never headr of anything like that. I was kind of dissapointed about that because I realized if there were any Scientologists out there watching, they might discount everything else in the movie. And this, you know for me was the elephant in the room.

      They had some woman narrating that was supposed to be Hubbard’s ewife talking. But she never spoke out or up while she was alive. Made me discount that too.

      But whatever, at the end of the day plenty of people that have never read a book or taken a course, have become experts at translating it all. Maybe they get 50 to 75% right. It is still a step up from the Church issuing false reports and false statements.by the minute. When the Church itself can’t be forthcoming with the truth, how can you blame the translators trying to make heads and tails of it all?

      Fortunately, the testimony given by Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun and Tom Devoght bought the film back into focus with something real and believable with their testimony.

      Shortly after the release, Marty posted on his blog on his blog what I though to be his best essay ever, with the Vortex of Hate essay.

      I wanted to add my 2cents about the vortex of criminality too. As I noticed one group that has been howling with venom about the Church’s crimes, had dedicated threads on how to download the HBO doc from pirate sites. Ensuring the film makers didn’t make a dime from them. And apparently, blantant disregard for pirating which is a federal offense. Well, that just adds to the comedy.

      More than anything, I was disappointed that Karen De was not in the film, especially towards the end when I realized there is more vital information about the Church on her Utube site than a documentary produced by HBO.

      At the end of the doc Larry Wright says what he really wants is for John Travolta to leave the church. Not sure why he is that emotionally invested with Travolta, seriously. Maybe he is a fan. But that was a little bit creepy for me. They did prop the good looking guys up, DeVoght, Rinder, and Rathbun. Even Jason Beghe was willowy caste against them. They could all be Hollywood movie stars in their own right, and the fact that they had honest stories to tell pulled it out into credibility.

      I was also disappointed to not see more of Monique Rathbun in the film. Because at the end, to see that shining, sincere glowing face of hers, translated the thread of warmth needed to bring in some humanity.

      The good news is, they really captured David Miscavige at his finest self-promoting, gloating, narcissistic, dastardly, lying manipulative self. They translated that beautifully. Even I, never realized what an obvious liar he was until they showed him at the Hubbard death event and I watched him lie through his teeth with his shifty eyes.

      I really don’t feel like harping about the few things they got wrong, when I weigh the fact that they could have produced a seven season series with 13 episodes in each, on the abuse, criminality and injustice ripe within that institution. And they only covered less than 1% of it.

      For whatever reason, at the end of this documentary and, after surveying the activity socially for the past several years from as many angles as possible, the upshot for me personally, was that I made a decision to do the next bridge step. I don’t see things as needing “fixing” anymore. I don’t know if anything is broken. Things just change and people make choices. They are either happy or not with those choices. The Church is what it is. It changed under new leadership. It is not the same place I walked into, and the people are not the same. Maybe that is not a bad thing after all. For me, I was in the right place at the right time, for 80% of the time. That’s about right for me anyway. So I am thinking if someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, 100% of the time, that might be about right for them too.

      I have seen the open season that has unveiled on Scientologists. I saw how soldiers returned from Vietnam, went crazy and shot people with slanty eyes, right here on U.S. military bases. One person that was killed with her children was the wife of a relative. One daughter survived. I had to help raise her. I Watched the muslims attacked with hate crimes here in the U.S. after 9/11. This is all in my current life. Even with all of the history behind us to guide people onto higher ground. It will still take hundreds of years, for a majority to stand united in humanity and reason, if at all or ever.

      In the meantime, no two lives are the same or ever will be. I have only lived my life and that is what I will carry forward into my eternity. And I have my own goals and curiosities. And so does everyone else.

      In the Scientology arena, it’s every man for himself and always has been. Anything else has been pure illusion. The idea of a “member” is pure illusion. You are not a member of the Church unless you are in the Sea Org. You are a customer. The staff really don’t own those buildings, either does the Church, David Miscavige does. The best you can hope for that is real, is a friend, if you can find a real one within this theater, and your own truths. Other people’s truths are really not your property. If you steal or borrow ideas that do not work for you, I don’t think that is such a surprise.

      The idea that anyone in Scientology who has found some workable ideas, is only using Hubbard’s, I disagree with. My first grade teacher taught me math. I have used it all my life. I made part of my tool box. Some of Hubbard’s ideas I have too. Some I had no interest in. Personally don’t see why a woman would want to think like a man anyway. Or a civilian think like a soldier. Or any of things he was that I was not.

      I am currently immersed in the Mormon culture as I am doing P.R. work for the Mormon Church. I am learning a lot valuable things from these people too. I am grateful for them too.

      I have made a lot of new friends,within the Mormon community. In Scientology, I met a lot of people I was able to love and care about. That bought up my ARC for the world. That was a healing process for me. I am grateful for that. I am greatful that I am still curious, about everything supernatural.

      My heartfelt gratitude to those of you that have made the world a better place for someone else. It mattered. No matter what platform you were standing on.

      • hey, there, the Oracle. That’s nice and decent. Keeping one’s distance from all this Scientology arena as you pointed out very correctly. I also was struck by the 2 parts of the brain (mind? don’t recall the word Wright used, but certainly a brain was on the screen)!!!! Now, that’s a new thing. Incredible. It’s either an MU or somehow they put it there on purpose(?) But for what? I was astonished.

        As I am getting more and more into concepts these days and really seeing the light by trying to understand conceptually what I am reading, I get to see how bad it goes for me after NOT GETTING SOMETHING. Maybe I am foggy for days. Maybe that’s just my consideration and preconceived idea but what I see is real and the moment I just go through things without really understanding “What’s this? How is it really in the physical universe? Or how is it really in life?” I don’t do well.

        So, what I want to say is that I am now sure that many people didn’t get it and are not still getting it. It’s just a matter of Understanding(s) and how thorough and broad that Understanding is. (From Diabetics 55! Accent on Ability) “Above understanding there is knowingness without formula or design, and this might be considered to be a unit activity. Dropping down from a complete knowingness we would arrive into the realm of understanding, for this is a third dynamic manifestation peculiar to two or more individuals.”

        Understanding Scientology and Spiritual phenomena is not an easy thing. It will take a while before Clear Cannibals become just Clear.

      • Nice to see you adding to the conversation here. Thank you for thought and reference. Rings true for me. I should read more talk less. XXOO

      • The only cannibals I see in this movement are the Sea Org people. And a few crazy Indie hustlers.

      • Hi Oracle,

        I am really coming late into this and I don’t know if you will even see this.

        But your comments here are wonderful and beautiful (among other things that will take me too long to find adjectives for right now).

        I am really at a loss for words at this point. But just to say again, I absolutely love your comments here!

        Thank you for this!

    • Hmmm…Gibney didnt get it right about the brain/mind difference?? Jeeze what gives? Why didnt Mike or Marty enlighten him? Perhaps they didnt care, too focused on exposing the churches abuses perhaps? It does affect credibility with Scios, of course it would! Basic error. Begs the question for me, what else did he get wrong? Damn! I had high expectations under the radars would sneek a view and perhaps throw in the towel with that godforsaken church!

      My only solace is knowing that his expose of church abuses, celebrity duplicity and disconnection practices will save the day!

      I wonder if their take on LRH will be so blatantly bias towards the negative it would make some kool aiders scoff at the data outright? LRH is god vs LRH the charlatan demon are stances I dislike at both extremes!

      Perhaps we need Chris Shelton to present a well fleshed out, good budgeted documentary. He comes accross as level headed and sweet almost. Nice guy. He isnt an indy, but so what. He could present the bridge between cool aider and exit out for many.

      In the end perhaps this documentary was merely the tip of the spear to open up the way for a final thrust into the belly of the beast! With that sentiment, I will still take a win!

      • You have to remember Mike and Marty did not produce the documentary. Whether or not they knew about the brain/ 2 minds thing is unclear.

      • LMR, sure thats possible but if Gibney has the two of them as his most credible sources, Im betting he would have shown Marty and Mike his footage to ensure authenticity. Makes sense as a director who has never read a Scn book or had a session in his life to fact check his data. I would.

        It does tell me that if Mike or Marty did know about it and said nothing, this inconsistency was irrelevant in the grander sceme of things. Church expose and DM destruction was much more important to them, I get that.

        Perhaps creating such public outcry was to them the greater good. Rather that than freeing up the last few hangers on, too brainwashed to leave anyway. That makes more sense I guess. I just have a few good men/one family member who I helped chain to the prison of belief Id like to see freed now. Thats all.

    • Thanks for the comm , Ronnie.

      You are right about that ; I forgot to make that differentiation on my post, and so did the film as well ; though that should have been totally expected and predicted by us.

      I will take the opportunity now that you brought that subject up, and make my exact thoughts about Scn and LRH clear for every poster. I will also discuss how exactly can the parts of the film that were not factual can be “Dead Agented” , and how the “Vacuum” can be properly filled.

      This are my thoughts is all of this :

      1. The bad repute that Scn and LRH have acquired since many decades ago, are totally the direct result of the applications of those misguided policies and practices that I have already discussed at length at various posts and articles : The “Fair Game” , the “Forced Disconnection”, the “Attack critics and dissenters by expossing their alleged crimes” strategy , the “Squirrel Bustering” practice , and a lot of points of the “Suppressive Acts list”. Perhaps we should include KSW #1 as it was redacted , not necessarily in its substance. That policy contain plain lies as regards to the alleged “no help in terms of suggestions and contributions from others” that LRH claimed that he never accepted , nor received. That’s TOTALLY untrue. KSW #1 is a demand to subject to Authority.

      Besides those 6 specific points I find absolutely NOTHING wrong with Scn texts and practices ; nothing at all. I will repeat myself so it be clear enough : besides those 6 points I have no complaints whatsoever with Scn and LRH ; none.

      3. Scientology, from my perspective and very long experience in its application to others, is a VERY workable system of beliefs and practices. Do I believe that it is a perfect system incapable of being improved ? No, I don’t at all. Do I believe that its advertized products as regards to the alleged abilities gained by a Clear and OT are factual and true in actual practice ? No, I don’t either. Do I believe that Scn in its present state can bring about a real full Operating Thetan ? I believe it can’t ,but that we have the exact principles and laws on the workings of life contained in Scn so as to be able to complete the route to full OT by ourselves.

      Scn has many gabs and unanswered Qs as regards to Tech is concerned. Small points to correct here and there ; some small modifications to effect here and there that many KSW supporters with their misguided emphasis and fixation on KSW #1 being absolute, will not be able to even observe, much less accept. Things like the “attest procesures” that miss so much incompleteness ; blanket C/Sing as to OT III is concerned as if every habitant of Earth got implanted with those same incs and got R6ed as well ; a very unlikely event if you take into account the increasing Earth population since the beginning of history (and No, NOTs is not the cause of it, please). It is just mathematically and statistically impossible that EVERYBODY got R6ed. This means that many illnesses in OTs might be caused by wrong items by the ton , by this sort of imposed “Blanket C/S”. And OT III has not previous step at all where one check for false reads or “not needed in the first place” ; EVERYBODY is expected to do it. Period.

      Has anyone realized that a lot of Earth-dumping must has been occuring if the world population has exponentially increased since B.C. times ? You guys and gals wouldn’t believe that free thetans were just roaming around Earth waiting for enough bodies to be available, would you ? Or that “dormant entities” were wake up by sun radiation (instead of with NOTs procedures) and decided to pick up bodies ? It just logically follows that they CAME from somewhere as they were, each on them, powerful enough and aware enough to pick up a body and get it to function. That “somewhere” is a place beyong Earth , isn’t it ? And if any being recently (after 75 millions ago) came to Earth, because Earth was the place where the WHOLE of OT III happened, then the only possible conclusion is that those new arrivals wasn’t R6ed. But I don’t see any Qs in the OT III materials to verify that. So it is kind of a Blanket C/S.

      That’s why I am against this silly subject of “confidentiality”. I mean, we had more “confidential” material in Scn ’51-’55 than in ALL the OT levels put together. The data on NOTs is entirely in a tape from 1951 !!! , and one that wasn’t confidential at all until the RTC bastards took it out of the lecture series. Same with “Routine 3 , Heaven” , and with all the R6 materials. “The history of man” contains as much “confidential data” that OT II. This confidentiality is for the birds really.

      As long as any materials are kept confidential, the correct and unbiased evaluation of them is totally prevented; possible errors in them can go unnoticed and Not-ised. All it does is to create “cliques” among us ; “The OTs” vs “The non-OTs” , resulting from this “mystique” , this “mystery” that sorrounds these levels.

      Why exactly a Clear can’t be run on Power ; that’s not explained at ANY LRH issue , and I know almost all of them, excepting the original HCOBs on the Ls. Why the “Clear Cog” renders the C.C. implants ineffective , it is also never explained. A NED Clear doesn’t need to do the “Clearing Course”. But we allegedly received at the inc described at OT III , the C.C implant , the OT II incs , and the specific inc of III itself. Nevertheles, the implants ran at OT II does not include the C.C implants even though you W/C the “Clearing Course Booklet” to get trained on how to run those implanted GPMs. So it must follows that a NED clear blew the C.C. implants by the “Clear Cog” because he never run it an any other point on the Bridge. But the C.C implants are , PRIOR than most of those GPMs of OT II. Does anybody see the several contradictions ? Or are KSW supporters going to claim now that I have M/Us ?

      NOTs is also TOO damn long ; just too long. Something is missing here. Handling one item at the time only demonstrate that a complete research on this subject wasn’t done. For me, the more complex a process gets, the more incomplete the research on it is. Even LRH himself said in the class VIII materials, that during the Grades , DNs , and even the C.C , many of this material blow in chunks. Well, he didn’t find the reason why to apply it to NOTS. And if at the end of Solo-NOTs you had a full OT, then it wouldn’t really matter if it took years to complete. But that’s not the case AT ALL. So for me, there is an outpoint here of “Added Time”.

      So, to finish this long point #3 (sorry, I sometimes get carry away) , Scn is a very workable but INCOMPLETE system of beliefs. If that is not totally understood, not real progress concerning completing the route to full OT will ever be accomplished.

      4. It shouldn’t surprise anybody that non-Scientologists react badly to the subject of Scn. What were we expecting ? What would any of you say if your kid arrived from school and told you that he was punished because he criticized capitalism, and supported more a cooperatively form of government ? You would probably find it quite outrageous. What would you say if just because you decided that you no longer supported the USA policies in dealing with foreign countries, you were declared “persona non-grata” , and forced to leave the country where you were born ? You would probably think that they were totally crazy, wouldn’t you ?

      What would you think if you belonged to the protestant church together with your wife, and just because she publicly departed from protestantism and joined catholicism , you were forced to disconnect from her ? I bet that you would attack your church and send them to hell. What if it was your daughter or son instead of your wife,and besides that, you really thought that your spiritual salvation lay in protestantism ? You would probably be overwhelmed and feel defeated.

      Why it is so hard for Scientologists then, to accept and totally and openly condem LRH’s suppressive policies ? By failing to do that, you are attracting towards yourselves all this seemingly un-as-is(able) BPC , and putting Scn in the category of a cult, where usually its members totally praise their leader in spite of obvious Human Rights violations. This is our OWN doing. Do not try to find for whom the bells toll; they toll for thee,plain and simple. It was WE that caused this by allowing the cult(ish) approach that Scn got to propagate mercilessly.

      5. We all knew what HBO had in mind. We are not that naive ; we knew that LRH would be heavily attacked and Scn as a cult as well. So why nobody approached them to talk about the independent movement ? I have read several articles from different reporters criticizing the HBO doc for failing to explain WHY scientologists, if Scn is allegedly so crazy, are attracted so much towards the subject to even remain as Scientologists even after having been subjected to many abuses. So why no independent Scientologist approached HBO on this, or even Ortega. ? Why isn’t anybody contacting the Media to offer an explanation and fill the vacuum ? I even heard that some high profile terminals from the Field were approached by either Gibney or HCO before the documentary was even ready, and they declined. Why are KSW supporters whining so much now ?

      The correct thing to do is to locate and find a “Safe Point” and speak up. But we must tell the truth , and not attempt to defend LRH and justify his practices by so many silly comments like, “He might has been wrong about some of his policies, but he really had the best of the intentions”. Or, “Some of his policies were somewhat wrong, but he left us an incredible legacy”. Oh please, who the hell cares about that ? Does any auditor accept your “but(s)” in session when you are trying to “explain” your O/Ws ? Of course they don’t. Why do you expect others then, to justify and “understand” the poor Oldman ? Get real please.

      Confess w/out any justification at all LRH’s crimes, apologize to the ones who have been wronged, inform that suppressive policies will no longer be accepted as part of Scn, totally eliminate those crazy and silly policies, reform Scn, and you’ll get the respect of the world, and others will begin to support your right to freely practice your religion. But don’t expect it to happen in a few months ; it will take some years to gain the trust of others. And don’t expect it to happen w/out your OWN responsibility in the matter for allowing it to had happened in the first place.

      All of us, all scientologists are responsible, as individuals, for the misguided and corrupted path that Scn got directed towards. We were there, all of us, and did nothing about it till it was too late. Well, now it is time to demonstrate to the world if Scientologists have what it takes to make things go right. Do you really believe that you are among the 1/10th of the upper 1/10th of the able people in this Earth ? Well, now is the time to test that ; to show others if we really have the courage enough to confront in front of the whole world scientology and LRH’s weaknesses , and the courage enough to reform Scn.

      The solution to all this dilemma lies entirely in our hands, as something that each one of us can totally control within our current position, and from our own sphere of influence.

      The choice is yours.

      ARC, PETER

      • Hello there my friend, how’s things going ?

        I hope that everything is going well in life for you and your family.

        Mucho amor y “dulce de leche” for you too.


      • Peter, I’m not one who’s hiding his head in the sand about the long train of abuses and heinous practices of the church. I’m fully willing to confront and admit to those awful failings of our entire group. You’re correct that we all need to quietly reflect on our own responsibility in how all this came to be.

        I have no issue with being confronted by non-Scientologists about the dismal record of our former church, and indeed, our shared third dynamic. Should anyone ask me, “How could you have remained a member of that organization while they inflicted so much cruelty and harm to so many people?”, I’ll have to look them in the eye and admit that I was guilty of being ‘reasonable’. Maybe even suppressively so.

        In my (and others) defense, I can only explain it by the fact that, while we were members, a great deal of damning information was purposely withheld from us and hidden by the organization. Few of us could look at all the obvious out-points and construct an accurate assessment of what was really going on, because we truly did not have ALL the data.

        To their credit, most Scientologists who’ve mustered up the courage to cast off the blinders and LOOK, have chosen to withdraw their allegiance to the church. Many have paid a huge price for doing so, and have lost Scientologist friends and family through disconnection. Any outsider viewing such a bold act of conscience, should fully appreciate how noble it really is.

        To reiterate my central point – I still think it’s an act of religious bigotry to condemn another’s spiritual beliefs and practices, so long as those beliefs and practices do no harm to others. I believe that Gibney’s telling of the OT III story did nothing but bring ridicule upon the Scientology religion and Scientologists. You say that he also set forth in the film that some people have claimed that they benefited from their auditing and training. That’s good, but those success stories appear to have been overshadowed by his revelation of the OT data, which people all over the net are now joking about. If you ask me, I think he knew exactly what sort of response he was going to get from the general public, so at least as far as I’m concerned, the slam was intentional.

      • Dear Ronnie,

        I understood all your points ; thank you.

        I can’t disagree with any of them.

        I am not trying to defend Gibbney , and I like you , I condem all bigotry against any religious movement. I can’t assert, though, that Gibney’s intentions were the ridicule and destruction of Scientologosts as such. I have not enough data to determine that , but don’t neglect that probable possibility neither. I think that with the data that the non-Scientologist public are mostly expossed to , those reactions are both expected and normal.

        It was LRH who made OT III confidential Ronnie, it wasn’t anybody else ; let’s front up to this and accept that reality. The Church didn’t explained to the general public its upper level stuff ; they totally tried to prevent its general knowledge by vicious attacks. They ridiculously spent millions attacking South Park and Times Magazine just to keep “confidential” levels under the rug. They were the ones that brought this up upon themselves ; this wasn’t anybody else’s doing ; let’s assign proper authorship to things.

        Again Ronnie, what is missing here from most scientologists , is their willingness to look at something from the viewpoint of others ; that’s exactly the bog in understanding all of this dilemma. What would you have said, if you were a non-Scientologists and someone not familiar with spiritual philosophies , as most of the Earth population are, heard about OT III ? Wouldn’t you be totally spooked by it and probably consider the believers of it as a little crazy or at least under the spell of a cult(ish) movement ? Gee, even Scientologists themselves frequently get spook by OT III and do it wit out-R!!!

        This “ridicule” as you call it , is plain out-R from non-scientologists Ronnie, nothing more ; is an out-R reaction from others. But what exactly Scientologists have done to handle that out-R ? I’ll tell what they’ve done : to totally refuse to talk about the subject at all claiming silly religious rights and religious persecution , and to put in their public representation a crazy fuck called Tommy Davis , who is the craziest some of a gun that I have ever met in my life. That’s what the Church did to handle this out-R . At the end they just had to do some “damage control” as busted him as he was too fanatical and fundamentalist even for them.

        So please Ronnie, be willing to see the other side of the coin too ; you are smart, balanced, very humane , and a conscious individual ; this “bigotry” reaction was totally brought about by scientologists, plain and simple.

        LRH made just TOO many judgment mistakes ; just too many. He brought upon us this “ridicule” by making those levels confidential in the first place ; there was really no need for that. It was never a Tech point ; it was totally a “PR point”.. Do not send to look for whom the bells toll , they toll for thee and me”.

        I totally understood your central point ; I am excellent at duplicating others ; but I feel you still have not understood mine : it is OUR responsibility now to do damage control and not anybody elses. By accepting former authorship and participarion we can switch from feeling a victim to being Cause in the sit. And how exactly can we all be Cause on this ? Well, we should PUBLICLY, not in a pro-scientology blog Ronnie, but “out-there” in the non-scientology world or the “wog world” , as many LRH followers misguidedly call it” ,

        1. Accept the many errors and even crimes against Human Rights that LRH committed, about which there is NO justication for having done them ; none at all. I don’t care a rat’s ass if LRH was being heavily attacked and infiltrated by the FBI and the CIA themselves ; I just don’t care. I don’t care if the FDA and AMA were secretly plotting the total annihilation of Scientology worldwide neither. I don’t care if the Psychiatry World Association was attempting to bring Marcab all over again to Earth . I don’t care if “The Second Coming” was close by , and would bring for the first time since Egypt times, a “first” contact with extraterrestial life indented to make slaves out of all of us. STILL suppressing Human Rights is inexcusable and intolerable. Hear me please scientologists ; it IS, IS inexcusable. There is NOTHING to “understand” about “why LRH did what he did” ; he just DID it, period.

        2. Ask for general forgiveness to all those that have been suppressed as the direct result of LRH’s policies. PUBLICLY in the Media, not only in SCN blogs.

        3. Fill the vacuum so that others can understand WHY you stuck with Scn in spite of all the abuses , and why you believe in Scn in the first place. Don’t just tell it to me ; I already know why, and I am TOTALLY ok with those reasons : I totally support and will fight for your rights to freely practice your religion. Over my dead body will Scientologists’ right to believe in what they choose to believe (as long as it doesn’t harm others, of course) would be suppressed. Just don’t expect the Media to do YOUR job for you : It is OUR job not theirs.

        4. PUBLICLY inform that those suppressive policies are not welcome nor accepted out here at the Field. Protest against them , and R-factor others, w/out any considerations about it, that LRH was wrong about them. But it is not Peter to whom you guys and gals have to say this ; it is to THEM.

        I immensely validate Rinder’s contribution to end all the abuses ; but I feel that because he is already an ex-scientologist (to which he has EVERY right to become) , he might have forgotten to get Gibney to also stress this point of the Independent movement and what exactly Scientologists see in Scn and get out of it. I feel that Rinder and Marty forgot about pushing this point. I would have pushed it if I would have been in their privileged position, which I obviously wasn’t. They had the contacts and- comm lines, besides the altitude. I can understand about Higgins failing to do that, but not about them. Perhaps I am being too judgmental with them here. They have already done a lot to expose all the abuses.

        But it is never too late. Rinder is a good man. I am sure that he will help, and so Marty, with any iniciative from the Field to inform the world about the Indepent Field and hear their voices too. Dani Lambert can probably help with that too. He is, together with Rinder, the best there is. Marty might not be much interested at this point , and I can understand him ; he have grown beyond Scn. Me ? I am just an unknown, very low profile , presumptuous individual from the middle of nowhere. But they. ? They are the real deal.

        So there you have it Ronnie, the solutions to your concerns.

        ARC, PETER

      • thetaclear, you wrote: “1. Accept the many errors and even crimes against Human Rights that LRH committed, about which there is NO justification for having done them ; none at all. I don’t care a rat’s ass if LRH was being heavily attacked and infiltrated by the FBI and the CIA themselves; I just don’t care. I don’t care if the FDA and AMA were secretly plotting the total annihilation of Scientology worldwide neither. I don’t care if the Psychiatry World Association was attempting to bring Marcab all over again to Earth. I don’t care if ‘The Second Coming’ was close by , and would bring for the first time since Egypt times, a ‘first’ contact with extraterrestrial life intended to make slaves out of all of us. STILL, suppressing Human Rights is inexcusable and intolerable. Hear me please scientologists; it IS, IS inexcusable. There is NOTHING to ‘understand’ about ‘why LRH did what he did’; he just DID it, period.”

        In your earnestness (sincere and intense conviction) on point # 1 above, I think you’ve expressed an absolutism – which is not unlike fundamentalism, if you think about it, and I know you see the pitfalls in that kind of stance.

        Absolutism as to what is right and what is wrong can also be seen as violating the principle of the optimum solution – the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics – since it has fixed, absolute rules of conduct.

        This is how I see it, Peter, for your consideration.

        ARC, marildi

      • Thanks for the comm , Marildi.

        I hope that that are enjoying your long weekend.

        Perhaps my comments do seems like “absolute” from the viewpoint of “absolute right and wrong” conduct , but I feel that you are missing the point here. You see Marildi , it was LRH himself that thought us about the subject of “Justification” and “Motivators”.

        “A motivator is called a “motivator” because it tends to prompt an over. It gives a person a motive or reason or justification for an overt” (LRH , HCOB 1 Nov 1968).

        And about “Justification” :

        ” When a person has committed an overt act and then withholds it, he or she usually employs the social mechanism of justification.”

        “We have all heard people attempt to justify their actions and all of us have known instinctively that justification was tantamount to a confession of guilt. But not until now have we understood the exact mechanism behind justification.”

        ” This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.”

        “Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral. One commits overt acts unwittingly. He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame. This leads him into further overts against the same terminals which leads to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.” (HCOB 21 Jan 1960).

        You see Marildi , my problem is not if anyone committed any overts as such ; that’s not my problem at all. As I had said before , I have enough past overts myself to raise anybody’s hair here ; I had been a VERY bad boy indeed , your “textbook” siner. My problem is (as any professional auditor would have if he dares call himself an auditor) with the action of “trying to justify our overts” or attempting to find motivators , or “reasons” to understand them ; overts are never needed to be “understood” ; that’s not Scientology at all, that’s psychology. That’s my whole point which seems that keeps on being missing time after time by many posters here including you ,dear Sheeplebane , and some others that from my perspective , fail to enforce responsability on LRH as attempting to “understand” his suppressive actions is concerned.

        Why do I call them “Justifications” ? Because it is an attempt to “Explain” or find “Reasons” why LRH did what he did. Based on your own arguments for your defense of LRH, one is forced to conclude that if you were to take him in session , and you were running a Sec Check on him , you would take LRH’s “reasons” as good for having created such fundamentalist policies, and would fail to “pull his justifications off” as part of the standard way to run a Sec Check. It just logically follows that if you feel the need to understand the “context” in which LRH’s actions occurred , and that he was under heavy attacks from various governmental agencies when he did what he did, that all of this somehow “lessen” to some degree , or “makes it more understandable” the misguided actions in which his policies resulted on. So if you were his auditor you would have what is called “Mutual Out-ruds” with him then , and therefore , might agree to just “accept” his reasons as “good”. I mean, if you already do it outside of session , how do I know that you wouldn’t do it “in-session” ?

        My problem with that argument about “absoluteness” that you brought up dear Marildi , and what really worries me about it , is that it somehow validates that “the end justify the means” , and it is never so. That argument is dangerous in the extreme in that it makes precedent to decide when an overt is not so “overt(ed)”. Based on your assertions a Jew would be justified or “understood” in blowing up Germany due to the huge incredible suppression to which they were subjected to. You see, that “absoluteness” premise is not applicable to this dilemma at all ; it is an “incorrectly included datum”. It only makes unnecessarily more complex an already made complex dilemma by Scientologists’ unwilligness to confront the weaknesses of their leader or founder.

        As I already replied to dear sheeplebane, LRH has already enough lawyers out here ; he certainly doesn’t need one more in myself. I am the “district attorney” in the defense of all that have been wronged. You guys and gals can keep on being the “defendant’s lawyer” ; I am totally ok with it , and even totally support it though I think it is misguided. But an impartial and just justice system should always has both : the lawyer and the district attorney.

        Take care , dear Marildi.

        ARC, PETER

      • Hi Peter,

        Just a quick reply to make myself clear. It’s not a matter of justifying LRH’s overts (or anybody else’s). It’s recognizing that an overt “is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (HCO PL 1 Nov 70 III)” (Tech Dictionary).

        As a simple example, there is the matter of self-defense and whether or not a person is indeed justified in “violating human rights” by shooting someone who is about to shoot him. Or maybe he’s about to shoot many people, in which case there is the question: Are the police committing overts and violating the human rights of a mass murderer by shooting him on the spot, before he commits additional murders?

        Another example would be – is it an overt to fight back against an enemy who has invaded one’s country and is killing one’s countrymen?

        And are any of these examples really a matter of “the ends justify the means”, as would follow your logic? According to the above definition of overt, none of these things are overts if they are done for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

        When you say that it is NEVER right to “violate the human rights” of people, it comes across as absolute because you that wouldn’t be taking into account circumstances such as in the above examples.

        Whether or not LRH’s judgement of the greatest good was correct is another question entirely. Regardless of the isness of that, if we flat out say there’s no way the greatest good could ever be accomplished by “harming people” and thus violating their “human rights”, it would be violating certain basic philosophy of scientology. You may not have meant it to come across that absolutist, but to me it did. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        ARC, marildi

      • Thanks for taking the time to reply, dear Marildi. I know that these are days for relaxation and family time. It seems like a lonely grumpy mature man like me, doesn’t have much to do over the holidays except to read and debate at blogs. :-)))

        Marildi : “Just a quick reply to make myself clear. It’s not a matter of justifying LRH’s overts (or anybody else’s). It’s recognizing that an overt “is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (HCO PL 1 Nov 70 III)” (Tech Dictionary).”

        Peter : Got it ; no disagreement with that at all so far.

        Marildi : “As a simple example, there is the matter of self-defense and whether or not a person is indeed justified in “violating human rights” by shooting someone who is about to shoot him. Or maybe he’s about to shoot many people, in which case there is the question: Are the police committing overts and violating the human rights of a mass murderer by shooting him on the spot, before he commits additional murders?”

        Peter : Yours examples to prove your point are totally accepted and understood ; thank you. Not only that , those “agressive” actions that you are bringing up as examples totally fall under the category of “Human Rights” : the right at self-defense and to protect the life of others ; they are BOTH, Human Rights as well.

        Perhaps I am not being clear enough when I refer to “Human Rights”. I am not just talking here about “UN’s list of Human Rights” as listed in the “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” (UDHR) or the ones listed in the many Convenants that came after it. I am talking about “common sense” Human Rights as well , and about the ones listed in many world documents and constititions like the USA’s , the US’s The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, many established legal rights around the globe, etc. I particular like this point :

        ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        So you also have the “Right to Self-defense” which obviously include the right to go to war to protect Human life , and to enforce by the use of force, the cease and stop of gross violations of Human Rights not achieved by diplomatic means. You also have the right to protect Human life as a corollary to the right to self-defence which covers your example about the police shootings.

        The question would be , dear Marildi, does any of those circumstances applies to OUR debate and LRH’s actions ? The clear answer is “no , they don’t”.

        Please tell me exactly , w/out deviating from the subject , how declaring “SP” anyone who decides that Scn is not for him/her, and publicly (define “publicly” , please) depart from it , IS an act of “self-defence” in any way, shape or form ? Notice that the exact “SP” act as listed in LRH’s policy does NOT say “anyone attacking Scn , or “attempting to ‘destroy’ Scn”. It clearly says, “publicly departing Scientology”. That’s a violation of “Freedom of Religion” , “Freedom of Speech” , and “Freedom of free and self-determined assembly”.

        Now, after you had already explained how does the above “SP act” is right, please also explain how “refusing to disconnect from the terminal making one PTS” can possibly be a “suppressive act” , and how to enforce that Scn code is an act of self-defense. Please, explain what exactly is right about that point as well.

        In your way of explaining the above 2 points, please take the opportunity to explain as well , how exactly declaring someone “SP” for “violations of any of the 10 points of KSW #1” is an act of self-defense that justify violating the rights of others. Please, explain that.

        How about inciting the attacks towards the ones who create splinter groups based on the Tech of Scn , even if modified or “edited” according to their criteria and judgment , and the attempt to destroy their reputation ? What can you tell me about that , Marildi ? Do you see “Physics” , “Mathematics” , “Christianity” , or general Philosophy and religion “trademarked” and/or “copyrighted” ? Do you ? Mention just one , just one single religion or religious philosophy who go agaisnt the ones who “interpret” them in the ways that they understand that ought to be interpreted. The fact is that only Scn does that. Not even Islam does that to the degree that Scn does it.

        What right does LRH has to attempt to monopolize Human Knowledge and “trademark” it ? , What right exactly ? Please tell me if you support that and why. Let’s start getting more involved here in your discussions , Marildi ; it surely feels as if you avoid taking specifics sides and positions. Asnwers my Qs , debate my specific points w/out running around them.

        Marildi : “Another example would be – is it an overt to fight back against an enemy who has invaded one’s country and is killing one’s countrymen?”

        Peter : Got it ; already covered in my comments from above.

        Marildi : “And are any of these examples really a matter of “the ends justify the means”, as would follow your logic? According to the above definition of overt, none of these things are overts if they are done for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.”

        Peter : But of course they aren’t, Marildi ; but you are only bringing up totally unrelated examples here. One thing is an attack from LRH directly to the specific agencies that were attacking him and violating his rights, and one ENTIRELY different thing is a direct attack upon the parishioners who didn’t abide by his rules. Two different things, Marildi. Your examples are, again, a case of an “incorrectly included datum” in that they are not even of comparable magnitude to the historical contex, and does not fall under the same caregory.

        Marildi : “When you say that it is NEVER right to “violate the human rights” of people, it comes across as absolute because you that wouldn’t be taking into account circumstances such as in the above examples.”

        Peter : But I DO take those circumstances into account, Marildi ; what kind of an Humanitarian would I be if I didn’t. ? Those examples, though, has nothing to do with LRH’s “circumstances”. Again those examples are of no comparable magnitude , and of a different category, and thus, are an “incorrectly included datum” outpoint.

        Marildi : “Whether or not LRH’s judgement of the greatest good was correct is another question entirely.”

        Peter : No, it is not ; as a matter of fact, THAT’S exactly the question to answer, Marildi. The one you seem to openly avoid answering every time. Do Marildi thinks that LRH’s judgment of the grestest good was correct, and if so , why exactly ? I really expect your direct answer to that question please , no Q&A with it allowed. It is only fair ; I’ve answered ALL your Qs, and debated every one of your points. I only expect the same in return.

        Marildi : “Regardless of the isness of that, if we flat out say there’s no way the greatest good could ever be accomplished by “harming people” and thus violating their “human rights”, it would be violating certain basic philosophy of scientology.”

        Peter : I never said that ; it was YOU that assumed it ; the first error at winning a debate. You should have clarified my originations first. You failed at assuming the viewpoint of your “opponent” to understand him first. That’s why you chose an unrelated premise in the first place , and one very easily dismissed. I did told you, indirectly, to go watch the “The Great Debaters” Densel Washington’s movie. :-)))

        Marildi : “You may not have meant it to come across that absolutist, but to me it did. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

        Peter : I believe that I have already corrected you, Marildi. But it is your hat to ask the right Qs, and not mine dear. So ask the right Qs then , Ok amiga ?

        ARC, Peter

      • Marildi: “Whether or not LRH’s judgement of the greatest good was correct is another question entirely.”

        Peter: “No, it is not; as a matter of fact, THAT’S exactly the question to answer, Marildi. The one you seem to openly avoid answering every time.”

        Peter, in my post above, I tried to make it clear that I was not talking about the subject of LRH right now. We already had that discussion on a previous thread and I said all I have to say on the matter at this point in time.

        In my post above, the specific thing I wanted to communicate had to do with you saying human rights should NEVER be violated, which came across as too absolutist – for the simple reason that in some situations it can be extremely difficult trying to determine WHOSE human rights are being violated. Thus, as I see it, the best principle to follow is LRH’s “optimum solution” – which inherently includes taking into consideration the human rights of everyone involved. Comprende, amigo? 🙂

        ARC, marildi

      • ” Peter, in my post above, I tried to make it clear that I was not talking about the subject of LRH right now. We already had that discussion on a previous thread and I said all I have to say on the matter at this point in time.”

        Peter : Got it about that, Marildi. That’s my complaint exactly : the “now(s)” and the “at this point(s)” of it all. That’s avoiding to confront a subject head-on , but I guess that you have a right to comm or not on any subject , and I will certainly respect that right.

        Just so we clear enough on this ; I don’t need a LRH refs in any way shape or form to tell me what is Truth or not. I can’t even be called a “Scientologist” in the general sense in which that word is generally understood. Certainly not if it means giving up our “Power of Choice over data” and our discernment upon it.

        Marildi : ” In my post above, the specific thing I wanted to communicate had to do with you saying human rights should NEVER be violated, which came across as too absolutist –for the simple reason that in some situations it can be extremely difficult trying to determine WHOSE human rights are being violated. Thus, as I see it, the best principle to follow is LRH’s “optimum solution” – which inherently includes taking into consideration the human rights of everyone involved. Comprende, amigo? 🙂

        Peter : I can totally understand , Marildi ; though you took it out of context completely. There isn’t any “extreme difficulty” at all in determining whose rights are being violated. That’s just being too complex in a VERY simple subject. You see Marildi, our “Human Rights” end where our “Duties and Responsibilities” start ; plain and simple. It IS our duty to respect all life, and to not viciously take any life away, only excepting self-defense , of course . It is OUR duty to protect the life of others which are in danger of suppressively being taken away by criminals or the insane.

        That being said, I don’t even know how can that point that you brought up has anything to do with this discussion at all , or with LRH. My previous statement stands : LRH was not ; hear me, was not justified in any way shape or form in creating the policies he created , all of which created incredible 3P effects, and the general individuation from various spheres and terminals in life. Of course I am referring to the “Suppressive Acts lists” (many of its points) , “The Fair Game practive” , “The attack the critics and dissenters by expossing the alleged Crimes” , “The forced disconnection” , and the “Squirrel Bustering practice”.

        Just in case that you are using “self-defense” as an excuse or “reason” why LRH did what he did , then PROVE your arguments with factual and sensible data. Otherwise there is no point in discussing this any further as obviously you don’t want to go any deeper debating this subject publicly.

        I stand by what I said and by my principles.

        For me not only LRH was wrong in those policies (the ones I am even beginning to get tired to discuss at length) , he was even criminal about it, and were he alive today, and kept those policies active, I would totally turn my back on him, and fight him.

        And about “LRH’s ‘optimum solution’ ” , which allegedly “inherently includes” the Human Rights of all involved, it is EVIDENT that he failed to apply his OWN principles to his dealings with others. So much for being “consistent, ah ?

        ARC, PETER

      • Dear Peter, you went from talking about a specific person (LRH) and his specific actions to what sounded to me like a generality and an absolute. That was the topic I wanted to discuss this time, since we already discussed LRH’s actions a good bit in the earlier thread. You are repeating yourself and I would just be repeating myself too. I don’t even necessarily disagree with your views although I’m not as adamant as you are, simply because there are different accounts as to what really happened and the circumstances surrounding some of his actions.

        However, I do still disagree with you that moral and ethical questions are always as black and white as you seem to be suggesting. Philosophers have debated this subject for eons. Just now, I googled “moral and ethical dilemmas” and got over 2 million results. Obviously, these discussions are still going on, with many examples being given – and not everyone agrees as to what the right action would be in those cases. Google it and check it out if you wish, but other than that I think we’ve both had our say. Peace.


      • Thanks for the comm, Marildi.

        I understood your point about “white and black” approach to moral issues. However, I still feel that you missed my point dear. My comments might have come across as “absolutist” to you, and I can even understand how can that happen ; but I assure you that’s not the case.

        Were you to know me personally, I am sure you would find a very kind, easy-going , and “let’s fixate on the rightness of beingness” kind of individual. I am everything but stern and authoritative in my dealings with others, and err more towards kindness than towards harsh justice.

        My privite comm lines are open to you should want to find out by yourself.

        And yes dear, Peace. :-)))

        ARC, PETER

      • Hi Peter,

        I did get what your actual point was – sorry I didn’t acknowledge it very well. And I can see how my comm could have come across as refuting it – but I didn’t mean it to be. I also get that it was not your intention to be absolutist.

        Actually, I agree with you that it defeats our purposes to deny the negative history of the church going on all these years – specifically, LRH’s involvement in it. That said, I am wary of a pendulum swing (not that you are doing that) from denial of any wrongdoing to the opposite – being ready to accept any accusation made about him without us doing our best to determine whether or not it’s true.

        For example, in the *Going Clear* film, there were some pretty radical accusations allegedly made by LRH’s second wife Sara – which, at best, were her say-so, as far as I can tell, and yet they were presented in the film as if they were known fact. If you or any other posters here have data that supports the claims she (supposedly) made about LRH, I would be interested to know about it. I’ve heard some of what was said about him by her but not all of it, and it’s hard to believe that many critics would not have been eager to spread such things all over the internet. Maybe I just missed it, though.

        Back to actual church history, another thing to keep in mind is that others have at times sabotaged LRH’s writings and/or the intentions behind them. This kind of thing has been documented by various people who were directly on those lines. So we should always consider that possibility too and look into it as best we can – rather than just assume, in a pendulum swing, that LRH was necessarily the one responsible.

        Another pendulum swing I’m wary of, as I’ve already expressed, is an unwillingness to even look at the circumstances and at least include that aspect of LRH’s actions in our understanding – not using circumstances as justification but as part of the truth and the lessons to be learned. I know I don’t need to tell you – the truth shall set us free. 🙂

        ARC, marildi

        p.s. Thanks for the open invitation to your private comm lines. I appreciate that!

      • “Hi Peter,

        “I did get what your actual point was – sorry I didn’t acknowledge it very well. And I can see how my comm could have come across as refuting it – but I didn’t mean it to be. I also get that it was not your intention to be absolutist.”

        Peter : Thanks for such an excellent ack , dear Marildi ; I really appreciate it.

        “Actually, I agree with you that it defeats our purposes to deny the negative history of the church going on all these years – specifically, LRH’s involvement in it.”

        Peter : Another excellent ack , and one it seems I needed ; thank you. Your resemblance with a good friend of mine in terms of the way you both think , and the excellent balance that you both put into things, is just amazing indeed. Just like twins brothers.

        “That said, I am wary of a pendulum swing (not that you are doing that) from denial of any wrongdoing to the opposite – being ready to accept any accusation made about him without us doing our best to determine whether or not it’s true.”

        Peter : Yes , I totally agree with you on that. Many are ready to believe ANY accusation of LRH w/out any supported facts. That’s very wrong in spite of any backed-up allegations of any wrongdoings from him. One thing is to analyze some of his early policies as the needed evidence to determine “wrongdoing” or incorrect judgment , but another different thing is to believe in hearsay “evidence” , and just believe any “confession” from any ex(es) w/out any written evidence, or at least corroborative witnesses. I do not support injustices not even if they are being done to the worse of the SPs (which he wasn’t , of course).

        “For example, in the *Going Clear* film, there were some pretty radical accusations allegedly made by LRH’s second wife Sara – which, at best, were her say-so, as far as I can tell, and yet they were presented in the film as if they were known fact. If you or any other posters here have data that supports the claims she (supposedly) made about LRH, I would be interested to know about it.”

        Peter : I never took Sara’s accusations into account ; never really got even interested in hearing them as it violate the most fundamental principle of fair Justice : presenting the accused with the accusation and the accuser and hear what he/she has to say about it. If that’s absent ; I am never interested , as it is always a case of the word of somebody against another’s ; not very workable nor just.

        “I’ve heard some of what was said about him by her but not all of it, and it’s hard to believe that many critics would not have been eager to spread such things all over the internet. Maybe I just missed it, though.”

        Peter : Got it. I think that even strong critics don’t like hearsay “evidence”.

        “Back to actual church history, another thing to keep in mind is that others have at times sabotaged LRH’s writings and/or the intentions behind them. This kind of thing has been documented by various people who were directly on those lines.”

        Peter : That’s true enough but only in recent times after LRH’s death, and probably there are some instances in policies from the 1980-82 on. But those from the 61-68 period where he wrote most of his polemic HCOPLs, are unadulterated in any way, shape or form. At least the originals, all of which I keep a copy of. That’s why I have always kept my critic of LRH only subordinated to those specific policies as my main argument , and have never used anything else ; to keep a proper and just balance.

        “So we should always consider that possibility too and look into it as best we can – rather than just assume, in a pendulum swing, that LRH was necessarily the one responsible.”

        Peter : Can’t disagree with any of that. That being said, I think that I have always kept that point in in all my post comments and articles.

        “Another pendulum swing I’m wary of, as I’ve already expressed, is an unwillingness to even look at the circumstances and at least include that aspect of LRH’s actions in our understanding – not using circumstances as justification but as part of the truth and the lessons to be learned. I know I don’t need to tell you – the truth shall set us free. :)”

        Peter : I know what you mean, and I think that your intentions are very honorable in pursuing that line of thought. As long as we don’t use, as you so well put it , those special circunstances as justifications, I really have no problem with that, and can even support it. Even LRH was not PTS-proof with all the manifestations that it encompass.

        ARC, marildi

        p.s. Thanks for the open invitation to your private comm lines. I appreciate that!

        Peter : You are most welcome, dear Marildi ; feel free to comm any time you wish to. And thanks for a so well balanced post ; you are really one of a kind.

        ARC, PETER

      • Thanks so much, Peter.

        Just recently I was in comm with a friend of mine on this same subject – the actions of LRH that were apparently contrary to his own basic principles and policies. I told this friend that I might sound like I’m just looking for ways to make LRH right, but that would be an oversimplification. Actually, there have been times I’ve come close to agreeing with the viewpoint that LRH’s motivations and actions were obviously self-serving – and I’ve been totally willing to accept that as the isness.

        But then I go back to not being able to reconcile such motivations and actions with the wisdom he showed in his principal writings and in his lectures, at least from my perspective. I can’t quite believe that someone could go from enlightened to stupid and out-ethics in how he conducted his own life. So then I go back to thinking LRH must have considered that if there was ever a time when force was needed, this was the time. And that was part of the basic materials too – the idea that force was sometimes needed.

        Even Marty Rathbun, generally a critic of LRH, in his book *Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior*, described LRH as being in “desperate” circumstances and under very heavy attack from the early years on – based on the many different government and private agencies’ own records (stolen by the GO) that Marty had thoroughly studied. (Have you read Marty’s books, btw?)

        In other words, even though the choices LRH made turned out to be disastrous, in terms of their immediate consequences – from what I’ve read, those choices were made under circumstances involving either the survival or the wipe-out of scientology, based on the recorded plans and actions of powerful agencies. So it seems that either we are not seeing the whole picture, or at least not seeing the picture as LRH saw it – or else he just plain buckled under the pressure, as most mortals, enlightened or not, probably would have done in his place.

        Thus, whatever the case, I’m not inclined to be critical of LRH but to concentrate on the bigger picture – ALL his products, both positive and negative. And I rarely get into blog exchanges on the negatives anymore, other than with a poster who is also not focused on the bad (like yourself) – or when I can see there is some incorrect or missing data that I might be able to supply so as to help shed light on the topic at hand.

        Anyway, the main thing I wanted to say is the notion that LRH “violated his own principles” still doesn’t seem to me to be the whole truth. I can’t fathom that the enlightened being I got to know through his books and lectures was the same being who became more and more obsessed with the need to control no matter the cost to others, starting back in even the earlier years.

        Can a being actually DEvolve away from enlightenment? Or, as an alternataive, is it possible there was, as the saying goes, “a method to his madness”?

        ARC, marildi

      • P.S.

        Sorry for my grammar and spelling errors ; I am still battling with my English. It shoud have read : “My private comm lines are open to you” at the end of my comment.

        ML, Peter

      • Hey Peter,
        You cover your points well as usual. One small point on blanket CSing though. This variable is the make or break point for me. Regardless if you as a thetan were here during the time of incident 2 (I wasnt) or even directly received the GPM’s in the CC era. The composite case did. And if you as a thetan are attached to the composite you can be sure those GPMs are a kickin. Dont believe me, break out the emetre and check for yourself. Be sure to run it on the composite, starting from CC, OT2 then OT3. It all would be far simpler if it was just a matter of handling ourselves. It isnt so- pity! The church as far as I know only acknowledges the composite case on OT3. Guys who have had to go back after having done those levels report huge TA action once the correct way to handle this is used. Up to thee to see if this works for you. Happy dragon slaying to you bro! 🙂

      • Thanks for the comm , dear Sheeplebane.

        As always, it never ceases to amaze me your great intuition into things. I had certainly failed to notice that angle ; thanks for pointing it out to me. A VERY true statement : the compositive case surely got those GPMs themselves , and one is “living with them” ! :-)))

        But that would means then , that OT II and the C.C at the Church are being grossly misowned by those who never received them as an individual implant themselves. It does, not necessarily because of the repetitive tech to render the pair of dichotomies ineffective, but because one has to “spot the thetan” (self and not the compositive case) at the moment when the GPMs were received and thus , “owning” those incs ourselves. That’s a “wrong item” on a list , obviously.

        And yes , the Church only acknowledge the compositive case at OT III as the courses themselves are concerned. Nevertheless LRH does acknowledge that fact in the class VIII lectures and materials ; the original ones, of course.

        You sure know your Tech well , dear Sheeplebane. Thanks for the tip my friend.

        ARC, PETER

      • My pleasure mate! Hope it helps, although I must admit I had good teachers and it was not I who came up with this approach, not by a long shot. But it makes sense to me and I hope you get the same benefit as I did.

        Happy hunting!

  4. Personally I want to see Heber, Shelly, et al released from durance vile, and steps taken to ensure that no organization can ever run their own prison camps, ever again.

  5. Thanks for this wonderful article , ScnAfrica.

    I for one , should this epic event results in the dismantling of the CofS (very likely to happen within a 2 year period) , would like to see a VERY big reform of the subject of Scientology as general policies is concerned ; and not in general auditing , case supervision, and course supervisor Tech.

    From my hard won experience with this subject , I learned many lessons , and did a lot of soul-searching and an in-depth analysis of why the subject got derailed in the first place, and how to bring about a sensible reform on it. I established a few stable datums based on my findings. These are my convictions arrived at with unbiased scientific analysis (including the use of the Data Series) , and the use of common sense :

    1. Scientology as an institution controlled by a central “command structure” is not workable and self-sustainable. This “centralization” only brings about authoritarian control , and eventual tyranny.

    2. Scientology as a applied philosophy should not belong to anybody any more than “physics” , “mathematics” , “economics” , belong to anybody. Scn is a discovery and compilation of workable Human knowledge and as such, its use is a RIGHT and not a privilege. Scn should not be trademarked or copyrighted ever again. But something must be done to preserve Scientology texts in their original form for future generations.

    3. A clarification should always be made, however, as regards the action of calling something Scientology which is not, or only based upon it. Scientology is the applied religious philosophy compiled , discovered, and organized by L Ron Hubbard. It is contained within the written texts of him as exactly written by him.

    Alterations to the original work, modifications to it, or alternate routes based on some part of it , should not be called Scientology ,but another name to properly differentiate the subjects. This is not an authoritarian look at the subject, nor a monopolistic view of it ; this is intellectual and scientific honesty.

    4. Scientology, as a philosophy, will survive because its practitioners can find it workable and beneficial, not because of an authoritarian attempt to get others to stick to strict dogmas. The subject should and must remain from here on , a FREE CHOICE.

    5. All policies on “Fair Gaming” , “Forced Disconnection” , “attacking the critics and dissenters by expossing their alleged crimes” , “Suppressive Acts list” , and “Squirrel bustering” , should be totally eliminated. Within those policies entirely lies the bad repute that Scn and its founder very much deserves. They were really never needed, and are -all of them- just a very dark spot in our history.

    6. No more attempts to control how many hours a day, and how many days should a parishioner must attend course or sevices. Freedom is always a Free Choice ; otherwise is slavery. No person should be “forced” to “Go Free”. That’s plain stupidity and silliness. Of course, a minimum delivery of 12.5 auditing hrs a week is not only expected, but a vital technical point that guarantee the best of the wins for others.

    7. Scientology function better as independent groups and individuals, totally self-supportive and self-governing. No more monopolies and criminal price policies.

    8. Scn services should be reasonable priced within the reach of the common working class, not the rich ones. But this specific item will be totally regulated by the laws of economics in the real world. Set high prices and starve and dissapear as a practitioner. Set affordable prices, and offer high quality products, and you will flourish and prosper. Plain and simple.

    9. No more name calling to those who decide to test other alternate routes of knowledge and spiritual paths. No more self-righteous attitudes from KSW supporters. No more “he is a squirrel” bullshit.

    10. No more “The world will be destroyed within X amount of years, and we need to become ‘Saviors’ to the world”. You want to “save” the world ? , just join your local church and convert to any known or unknown god. Scn is not a religious practice, it is an applied religious philosophy ; two entirely different things.

    11. No more misguided emphasis on STATS. They are, and always has been Scientology’s #1 enemy. They are the real cause for “Quickie Grades”, a malady that never got really handled as the real WHY (which wasn’t “bad applications”) never was acknowledged : EMPHASIS ON STATS.

    With emphasis for Stats, the “paid completions” (students and PCs) , “VSD” (Value of Service Delivered) , “Student Points” , etc, became the most “vital” element , as only in expanssion our future was guaranteed, we were thoroughly indoctrinated into believing. Quality of service became a secondary issue. “Speed of delivery equals power” said LRH. It should have been instead, “Quality of delivery, and certainty of EPs and adquired knowledge , equals power”.

    Now you see “OTs” who can’t comm ,”OTs” with problems in life, “OTs” who can’t change their mind easily, “OTs” who make others wrong, etc, etc. All a direct result of the damn SPEED factor.

    12. It will be the internet, and not any specific group or individual, that will rehabilitate Scn. It won’t be done in courts of law, the Media, or any other means. The internet is a reflection of our psyche as a group. As our OWN attitudes changes, so will the general perception of Scn will change as well. The solution lies in an entirely controllable factor (The why is not God) : our OWN actions and attitudes towards our fellow beings.

    How’s that for a correct WHY, ah ?


    • Good lord, Peter. That post gave me goose bumps. You hit every reading item on Scientology, squarely on the head. You nailed it, my friend. If I ever saw a comment worth bookmarking, that is it.

      Matter of fact, I’m saving it to my Scn-related file, now. Thank you.

      • You are most welcome, dear Ronnie.

        Thanks for your validation and warm words ; most kind.

        I answered your other comment addressed to me in this thread , but couldn’t do it by replying directly from my e-mail. So I attempted to post it directly at the blog but couldn’t find a reply button under your post, so you’ll find it after like 2-4 posts further down.

        Take care

        ARC, PETER

    • Very well said Peter. Totally agree.All we need, and all the world needs, is the subject. We don’t need the church. Training can be delivered by small groups of private individuals just as in the early days of the franchise holders. Be a professional auditor and run co-audits and TRs. Those who want to train up could even apprentice.

      There are many possible ways applications of one kind or another could be formed. With freedom of the subject from the church the market will be able to support the good and workable applications while the less competent will fall away.

      • Thanks, Interested Party. I was missing your presence here.

        Thanks for your comm ; I was impressed by this :

        ” There are many possible ways applications of one kind or another could be formed. With freedom of the subject from the church the market will be able to support the good and workable applications while the less competent will fall away.”

        You nailed it with that comment ; the sky is the limit as far as ideas for correct application and dissemination is concerned. No “central command structure” was ever needed, indeed.

        Take care.

        ARC, PETER

  6. BIC is pretty unique. Besides MS2 and there right wing adherents to KSW, this ere blog soldiers on as a beacon of balance and positive hope! For that Im gratefull. It would be way to easy to pick an axe and join in on the mass slaughter. After all, RCS has caused so much pain and separation its made too many bitter and vengance thirsty! I have felt the bite of family separation and betrayal to want justice in this regard. It aint easy.

    What I am excited about is how this documentary could be that catalyst for radical change within radical corporate scientology. If anything, the abuses will have to stop. DM cannot beat, verbally abuse and suppress like he is used to. That miserable game is up, the people have spoken. How he fends
    off litigation and stays out of court could be a show in itself. The world now knows who he really is- a short 2D inhibited thug who delights in others being dominated by his whims.

    As for LRH he will stand as the most misunderstood persona in the 20th century. Equally loved and villified. No man will have such illustrious duality of perception I believe. I have made my personal VP on the man many times and I wont say anymore on that, each to their own perspectives.

    The freezone. This is where the future of the tech application lies. Its been said many times more delivery has been occurring outside than in. Ive seen this personally after having been in and outside the corporate bubble. Its true for me. It is and will be a never ending source of wonder to observe how much expansion people can achieve if you dont have to dodge the beast while trying to apply the tech. It becomes fun and exciting. There are many benefits that would fall on deaf ears. So what, its there for those who want it. Those that dont can find another game that pleases them. We wont reg you, we promise!

    In closing I want to say that this documentary represents a fantastic win for all members of the scientology spectrum. The church scorpions sting has been crushed. They are not the once feared entity they were. We can now practice with less fear and anxiety as they fade into myth as a bad troll who got caught in the sunlight of truth and turned to stone! Hip, hooray!

  7. Personally I think all of us who have had something to do with Scientology…. The IN’s and the OUT’s, would like to see a better saner world.

    Our enemies are only those who WE deem to be our enemies.
    It is my opinion that there are still a LOT of fantastic people, within the church of Scientology, who are working very hard to try and bring a better saner world.

    Those people will always continue to be our friends if we so deem it.

    I SAY LET THERE BE PEACE………. (between the IN’s and the OUT’s)

    Perhaps the time has come now for a delegation (representing the out’s) to a parley with INT Management representatives to see how peace could be restored in our Scientology Family.

    I would be happy to be counted in if this peace process could take place.

    • You are very brave, Mike. I think this idea has potential, but I don’t think it is possible until Miscavige is gone, really gone. I think the Hitler analogy is very appropriate here.

    • It was my first thought when I started finding out what is really going on. I was dreaming of mediating, of being part of a peace parley. Then I found out more, and more, and more, and realized, Oh my God, management, i.e. DM, would never permit one to take place.

    • Love the sentiment. Very much doubt the outcome. But as an UTR I still have IN friends who am in comm with. They know enough about me to be willing to talk to me when they are ready and I intend to keep that line open.

  8. Really great article, ScnAfrica, Very insightful, very important.

    I wrote a small comment on Mike Rinder’s blog this morning, but I think it would be appropriate to repeat it here …

    In the business world or in government, if a company or an agency is doing badly, is having major setbacks and losses, and if their repute is trending markedly downward, then the head of that company or agency is sacked and replaced.

    This is based on a very simple concept of responsibility: The leader of an organization is ultimately responsible for the performance of that organization.

    The Alex Gibney documentary is a disaster for Scientology. This disaster happened on David Miscavige’s watch. It is David Miscavige’s responsibility that this happened.

    This disaster did not happen because of a few “defrocked apostates” or out-ethics members of the media. It happened because of David Miscavige. Therefore David Miscavige should be immediately removed as the head of the Church of Scientology and replaced.

    Maybe this very simple logic can be used when talking to people who are still in the Church.

    • Yes. To remove Miscavige. If Tom Cruise or Travolta just says that Miscavige doesn’t serve the best interest of scientology, it will be the end of Miscavige. With the Debbie Cook situation he was almost done. Just few more opinion leaders and bye bye “COB”.
      Then there will be reform. I’m not for the destruction of the church if it can really change.

      • I used to be for reform but I am not any more. As I said in my above post, I am not sure anything is wrong or needs to be fixed, things change. I do not see the Church surviving as it has become.

        I have also seen some serious red flags. People who were involved, “bright and competent” people, complaining that they still are not cause over matter energy space and time.Hell, most jr. high school students passing a science class know they are being cause over matter energy space and time when they put a dirty plate in the sink. You don’t need Scientology for that.

        Someone complaining that they finished an L and are still not exterior with full perception. Perception is feeling smelling tasting seeing hearing etc etc. The majority of the people on the planet have full perception, unless they are handcapped. Anyone graduating HQS had be exterior with full perception back then unless they were handicapped.

        I mean to say, I think it is very obvious Scientology is not for everyone. Not by a long shot. And, I think is this very obvious by now. And, I think this was a major error to market it as workable for everyone. I mean, quantum physics isn’t for everyone either. But the ones that are thinking with it are not beating the bushes insisting that everyone get involved.

        I think the time has passed when Scientology can pose itself off as a “general issue: item. “workable for everybody”. It isn’t and never has been. For those that it was not meant for, it was only a HOPE. And when hopes are dashed so is the spirit. And the people that can not think with ideas, get misused. And, it doesn’t matter when they say they get something and they clearly do not. And, what you get is innocent bystanders becoming casualties in someone else’s game.

        Those people matter too. Whether they understand perceptions or not. They have their own value in their own thoughts and arts. Thier own ways. They have value and they matter. To discount their well being is a crime against humanity.

      • Anyway, the knowledge that Miscavige has been outed for being a manipulative abusive greedy tirant dispensing with injustice before 1.7 million viewers, leaves me in a state of calm. I can move on. And of course, by the time people keep watching, the numbers will be in the high millions. This is justice. I’m good.

        “The hole” has bought down the C of S. So much for Miscavige’s custom ethics programs and squirrel rundowns.

        “HBO Scientology documentary “Going Clear: Scientology and The Prison of Belief” attracted nearly 1.7 million viewers on Sunday, according to TV By the Numbers. It had a 0.7 rating in the key 18-49 demographic.

        The viewer total (more specifically 1.652 million) makes the film the pay-TV network’s most-watched doc premiere since Spike Lee‘s two-part 2006 Hurricane Katrina offering, “When the Levees Broke” (1.75 million viewers).”


    • Such is policy just the same within the church. Miscavige, for all intents and purposes, should long be gone. It’s only by his lies that he isn’t.

    • Hi Neptune. Unfortunately we don’t have a solution for this yet. HBO is a pay-channel in the USA, and unless you have subscribed to their channel, you cannot view the program. We hope a solution will be forthcoming soon. Of course you are welcome to phone DSTV and request they air the show – the more voices they hear the more likely they will listen 🙂

      • Hi OK I understand ,it will end up on u tube soon snuff, I watched some of the church response , staff in fancy homes, golf courses, base ball pitches, all very nice , no prison , and the church has some 14 letters of request that the documentary man come in and meet, Mildly interesting.

  9. The film is very biased and flawed in a lot of ways.
    It does raise the public awareness about the Church of Scientology to a whole new level and shows it as a very very weird organization – which it is.
    Miscavige, Cruise and Travolta take a well deserved serious drubbing.
    But it says nothing about Scientology the subject – why and how people are drawn to it and embrace it and does a viscous hatchet-job on LRH.
    For example: it shows the church using the sleazy tactic of putting forth the ex wives of whistle-blowers to trash-talk them. (Anderson 360 “inch-wives”) – but earlier in the film, they use allegations from LRH’s first wife to do a sleaze number on him.
    So we have the church on one side spewing lies and a documentary filmmaker on the other presenting a distorted, biased “expose”.
    SOP – earth

    • I saw the CNN interview wherein the ex-wives DID do a trash talk about the former husbands.

      Remember, the documentary was two hours long. It couldn’t contain everything. Other documentaries will be designated to the mind control aspect of scientology. This is just the start. One thing at a time, hey? It wll snowball, be sure of that.

  10. I look at all this as in handling cancer. If you don’t get rid of the cancer then the patient will die.
    Radiation kills a lot of healthy tissue, but if it is successful getting rid of the diseased area then the patient will live. If you get chemo or radiation there are lots of unpleasant and unwanted byproducts. Sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get rid of something unwanted first and then growth and living can continue.
    Personally, I thank the doctor for the treatment and try not to complain when the initial results look so good.

  11. A more rigorous environment is an ideal opprtunity for scientologists of all stripes to demonstrate that there is a baby in the bathwater, and show what kind of baby it is as well as what it can do.

  12. Not directly answering your question, and therefore a bit off topic, and may get moderated out:
    A friend told me (by email Monday night, when I was asleep – he is in USA) that I was in the said television thing with my “Clear Speech” in 1967 (I do not use television – I am a prehistoric monster). My or my reactive minds reaction was to write an article “Going Clear – The Antologists Way”.. Possibly ironic or sarcastic but the truth. Read it (at your peril) at: http://www.antology.info/articledetails.php?id_art=34
    Finally, One of my greatest pleasures at the moment is to audit someone (via Skype) on the grades and necessary “assists” who has never been in closer contact with Church Scientology than three Dianetic sessions, and does not therefore have all the associations with dogma and “failed dogma” that otherwise flourishes.

  13. Dear fellow scientologists, it’s good to see some sanity in all this madness. This is Theo Sismanides from Athens, Greece. I am grateful such blogs exist and we can finally have some decent conversations amongst ourselves.

    As regards the CofS and its future I believe that it’s getting tougher and tougher due to all those people leaving for some time now. However, we have to acknowledge that the church is NOT Miscavige. So, we have to be careful about how we go on this.

    The most important thing for me though is the organising of the Indie Field itself. There should be one main group of people who can assist, promote and support auditors and groups in the Indie field to keep on going. That our voice was missing from the HBO doc is due to many reasons and we can understand the why. However, there could be some voice from us to the people who put it together and who should know that their doc is not partial because it did not take into consideration the “third side” of the coin (and there is one indeed, however unnoticed it’s being passed, the round side between the two sides of the coin is in fact the part (side) which connects the two opposite sides and gives the whole thing some reality, if it wasn’t for it there wouldn’t be any side to a coin for example. It would be so thin that it would be insignificant).

    We are the “third side” of the coin, the one connecting the church and the subject to the world.

    • Theo, I get it that you prefer to be in, and support a group. But I have paved my way and the way for others to continue to explore with out a group. I think one only needs one another person. If you are a P.C., you need an auditor. If you can not read my yourself and learn, yes you need some kind of tutor.

      I have noticed when people “group up” out here, some kind of group bank / agreement gets mocked up. I have only seen the people in Israel move forward in a sane way with the activity, and there is clearly a captain on that ship who is competent. And an auditor who is clearly well practiced with a long history of treating people well.

      The practices flourishing in the U.S. are single practices. But there are some crazy people “delivering”.

      I am just pointing out, one can move forward with out a group. I did it and pulled others with me. The group called the CofS, was originally put in place so the auditing could occur. It turned into a class of “Scientology Royalty” whose main activity became controlling bodies. And “sorting out” the wheat from the chaff.

      It does not take a huge organization for a therapist to practice. There is an underground movement over here of over 2600 people now. They do not group up and dominate and reign over small populations. They just share information and keep a low profile. They are all doing great.

      • True Oracle. I can agree to this. I just had a weird (but not so much weird, I hope, thought the other day about a “third side” of a coin. The circle that gives it height and some thickness. No one ever mentions that. So, the “third side” of the coin, in any case, goes by unnoticed. There are only “two” sides to a coin. Even though it’s the essential part in a coin, (that circular width) that gives it a 3rd dimension and thus makes it real, (imagine two sides with no thick circle joining them, just the thinnest thing there could be with two sides, like tin foil) no one ever mentions that one and as I said, it goes by unnoticed.

        We are that 3rd side, now I know. We can be all around and have contact with any side of the coin. Whichever we want. We are the Circle of Life which in Infinite and this is why we cannot, I repeat cannot, be just one sided (lol). We like to move and BE whatever we want, we can have two sides at once and as many points of view as we want. Our spherical nature fits as well and serves as well, so each time someone comes along and says “oh you stay there on that side” that doesn’t work.

        I am reading more, understanding more and more and I want to apply more and more. That’s not dominating that’s just Understanding, a higher form of it. This planet is an incomprehensibility to me. Reading now Dianetics 55! I can see it more clearly. Well, he says there how does one deal with secrets and mysteries and incomprehensibilities. And it also says “But the very fact that it [talks about Emmanuel Kant, the German philosopher, and his philosophy] is incomprehensible has made it endure, for life feels challenged by this thing which, pretending to be understanding, is yet an incomprehensibility.” And then he continues talking about people who look or search into secrets. And he says “The test here is whether or not an individual possesses the power to be at his own determinism”. And that keep me calm now. That we can see this at our own determinism. And any other incomprehensibility.

    • Hi Theo. I am with you on this. I like Oracle but don’t completely agree with her on this. I agree more with you. I have a couple of posts coming up in the next 2 – 4 weeks, so you might keep a lookout for those.

      But also, I’d like to get in comm with you more on what you say in this comment. If you would like to do this, ask BIC Admin for my email address. If you write to me I will write you back quickly.

      • Morris, totally O.K. to disagree with me. But you might want to know why I feel the way I do.

        Hubbard says it is a high crime to have an ARCxen Field. As a “group”, “K.S.W.” people tend to repeat the same crimes against humanity that have created the massively ARCXen field you see around the Church today. Publicly humiliating and fair gaming people, harping about the out ethics of others, enforcing disconnection and dabbling in “exclusive memberships”. You are forced to inherit all of their enemies too, if you want to remain in “good standing”.

        This is a huge GPM. How can you mistreat people and NOT have an ARCXen field?

        You look at the public groups out here that are really on a “look at me look at me” campaign, and you see they already have an ARCXen field about them, even when they are only operating from a keyboard.

        When you have an ARCXen field, you have enemies and opposition. And it is per KSW to think that you NEVER create your enemies, you have only helped them and if they are ARCxen, it is their outpoint. It is a real no responsibility, “My way or the highway” flippant disregard and no responsibility situation.

        Now, I do not blame this on Scientology. As, you can see, some people manage to create a group and a field of very good will about them (witness Israel). But other people are not so capable and use the umberella of “religion” to harm attack and suppress people right into ARCXes and become the objects of ridicule and resentment.

        This gives Scientology a very bad name and undermines it’s potential value.

      • It is just better for Joe Blow to get angry if he will, towards John Doe, his counselor. Otherwise you end up with enemies against “Scientology” and “L. Ron Hubbard” because people think one looney group represents the entire trade. And sadly, it usually does because of the people creating ill will and ARCXen fields.

      • Beyond those private considerations, the Church obtained religious status by attesting to these standards:

        Distinct legal existence;
        Recognized creed and form of worship;
        Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
        Formal code of doctrine and discipline;
        Distinct religious history;
        Membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
        Organization of ordained ministers;
        Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed study;
        Literature of its own;
        Established places of worship;
        Regular congregations;
        Regular religious services;
        Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young; and
        Schools for preparing its members.

        I consider that defrauding the U.S. government.

        That there are people out here asserting they are a “religion”, based upon fraudulent measures, only means that there are people out here contributing to the fraud.

  14. The big positive outcomes from the collapse of the Corporate Church would be the freeing of all the people held captive by the Sea Org (and also helping them to put their lives back together), and an end to the exploitation of gullible public scientologists for donations. Once that is achieved, there’s no need to give the Church any further attention.

    I agree with DollarMorgue that the public need to be shown that there was a real baby in the bathwater all along. All the tech of scientology has long been freely been available for study, and the Church’s claim to control it as their “innarlectual prah-perty” has become a joke. Those who want to practise 1950-style dianetics, 1956-style scientology, 1965-style-scientology or 1980-style scientology are free to do so. But I believe the long-term benefits from Mr Hubbard’s work will come when these are freely discussed, evaluated, and integrated with other branches of knowledge.

    • I really liked your comment ,David ; very uptone and humane , indeed.

      I specially liked this :

      ” The big positive outcomes from the collapse of the Corporate Church would be the freeing of all the people held captive by the Sea Org (and also helping them to put their lives back together), and an end to the exploitation of gullible public scientologists for donations. Once that is achieved, there’s no need to give the Church any further attention.”

      That’s an incredible angle from which to look at this dilemma. I agree with you 100% ; the most important thing should be helping our brothers and sisters in there to break free of the chains of tyranny , and to get help in being spiritually put back together. Nothing should be more important than that. They totally need our tolerance, understanding , and guidance ; even though that many of them would probably attack us in the beginning. But they’ll find their balance soon enough.

      Thanks for your so uptone comment.

      ARC, PETER

  15. Did an intro course in 1957 folowed by an HQS course, TR,s 0-9 the hard way, it changed my life in an upward direction forever. Worked on staff, audited, in the sixties, Helped open missions with my good friends the Jory’s in the seventies. A lot has happened between then and now but as long as this body lasts i will help others to get to know the works of LRH. Very best to you all. David

  16. Dear BIC and participants,

    This article truly is beautiful as it seeks to soothe after the turmoil we’ve been going through. “Going Clear” affects all of us who have any interest in Scientology, for or against, haters of Hubbard or his admirers. As BIC points out with great wisdom, and the illuminating quotes given, it is only communication and more communication that can bring about understanding and heal the wounds.

    I also think BIC did well in not jumping into the fray thus far, as so much has been published on Mike’s blog, Ortega’s and international media.

    I posted a comment on Mike’s several days ago. I think it is even more pertinent now, to the article here, with some changes:

    Hats off to the many brave individuals who stood up, exposed themselves, withstood threats and personal danger, to tell the truth of the insanity of Miscavige and his operation. Scientology will be all the better for it, once it is free of the perversion and criminality committed by the Church of anti-Scientology. I know many will disgaree with me, yet I see, in our daily work at Dror Center, the wins and benefits available from Hubbard’s Technology.

    It pains me to read some of what Lawrence Wright wrote (I have read his Going Clear) or Alex Gibney shows (I have also seen his Going Clear). It is upsetting for us to see Ron in some of his rather embarrassing moments. Some of it is inexplicable, some inexcusable and it is not for me to ask forgiveness on Ron’s behalf. His personal life was what it was, yet I firmly believe it does not distract or diminish the workability and validity of the legacy he did leave with us, his gift to Mankind. As such, it can be used by those who find benefit in it and can be discarded by those who find no value in it.

    There are many thousands who have sought help and self-improvement in the Church of Scientology. It is my reality that they have never had the opportunity to enjoy the Tech delivered correctly, with compassion and caring for the individual. I know that the betrayal committed by Miscavige’s operation was so severe, that most of those hurt, will never give us another chance.
    Yet, we at Dror and hundreds other practitioners world-wide, have the stats and daily facts to prove we can help and we can improve a person’s condition significantly. And I still think we are much better at it than any psychologist, psychiatrist or healer of other fields of the mind or spirit.

    Hubbard may have been a nut, or worse, a fake. He’s been dead for 30 years, so I don’t really care much about him. The Laws of Relativity aren’t valid because Einstein was a nice guy. I once proposed that Hubbard’s name be whited-out from all Scientology materials, thus their workability will not be confused with his personality.

    And I do think Hubbard erred when insisting Scientology be labelled a “Religion” rather than an “Applied Philosophy” or a “Branch of Psychotherapy” as was suggested in the book “Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health”. And I think Hubbard should have encouraged academicians to teach and research Dianetics in the Psychology Departments of universities.

    We, “Free Scientologists/Indies/Freezoners”, carry the heavy burden of practicing and spreading Scientology despite the huge damage caused by Miscavige, possibly assisted by some of Hubbard’s folly. This is a burden we carry, but see a wealth of rewards, daily.

    Dror now delivers the full Bridge, even the ridiculed “OT 3 – The Wall of Fire”. It is weird, but results from these actions are no less than miraculous. I shamefully admit, I myself do not grasp how it works, but the fact remains that it visibly and undeniably does work. OT Levels did not work for many because they were purposely mis-administered by criminals.

    To judge our work (and the Tech) by comparison to the Church, would be tantamount to evaluating a well-meaning pediatrician against the “medicine” practiced on Jewish twins by Dr. Josef Mengele in Auschwitz. (Please forgive the analogy, but then, I am also a Jew.)

    I do believe Scientology will continue to be practiced and will steadily expand, long after the “Church” becomes a failed curiosity, studied in history classes of forgotten freak “religions”.

    • Hi Dani,
      I saw your post on Mike’s Blog and really liked it and wanted to say something in your ‘defence’ but it wouldn’t have served any purpose there.

      First of all, I like the original parts you omitted. I wish they were also included here. I found absolutely no arrogance in your original post. All I saw was a competent individual who knew they could get a product with their tools of choice. And maybe bragging just a bit:-) But who doesn’t like to brag a little!!

      I was very disappointed to see the seemingly now fashionable, the now politically correct view of ‘we must all now hate everything connected to Scientology’ being run on you there. But, I also understand that is a slippery slope – once the hating starts it seems to want to generalize into a broader scope.

      Someone in this thread commented there are 3 sides to this coin. The criminal church, the one’s who want to bring it down and denounce it all and the ones who want to understand the insanity of the past, but more importantly, want to create something useful with the technology.

      Myself, I want to see something thriving and useful come from the ashes of all of this turmoil.

      • Hey Focus,
        Thank you for your kind comment. I felt those few words should be removed because they stirred emotions and were misunderstood. Since I share common goals with the producers of Going Clear, Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun and Paul Haggis, why antagonize them?

        You are right, there is much hatred now, and it is generalized toward all of Scientology rather than the evil-doers, the Church and Miscavige. I guess this is our “Liability Condiiton” for having once been part of that team.

        We are the third side of the coin, “who want to understand the insanity of the past, but more importantly, want to create something useful with the technology.” I see the Tech daily, not only working, but really producing tangible, incredible results. Like I said, when all the dust settles, and the church is gone and forgotten, and Miscvige “blown for good”, we will still be here, delivering, loyal to LRH’s legacy.

        There are hundreds doing this work daily and thousands enjoying. Proof is, they are paying and we make a decent living. So why stop?

    • Hi Dani, I also salute the Dror centre’s efforts to deliver Standard Tech and the miraculous results.

      Some have become apart from Miscavige PTS, now also Hollywood PTS. Long ago I wished for some Tech which would give me strength. I did find it this life time so it’s time now for me (being stronger) to pay back some of my dues, too. I am with you.

      P.S.You wrote: “The Laws of Relativity aren’t valid because Einstein was a nice guy”. That says it all. If one wants to see what Scientology is, do some Scientology.

    • Hi Dani,

      What an incredible balanced , wise, just, and pandetermined individual you are!!!

      What you guys and gals are doind at DROR ie very commendable. It is Scientologists like you that establish a good positioning for Scn. Your presence at the HBO documentary would have made a big difference indeed.

      Keep the torch of Freedom lit , free thinker!


    • Hi Dani,
      I too found OT 3 and OT 2 very strange and I didn’t believe the OT 3 story.
      But following the instructions really worked!
      My current theory as to why they work is that it is a different way to do what it says in PAB 12. Once the most powerful process in Scn.

      • Terril, thanks for pointing out that very interesting PAB. It goes along with the idea some people have come up with – that the OT III story may simply have been what LRH ultimately decided was the best way to get pcs to mock up certain mechanics – and in so doing, resolve a very basic source of aberration. Here’s an excerpt from the PAB that might interest other readers here too:

        “The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and, for our purposes here, can be considered to be basic-basic. And it could be remarked with this PAB that basic-basic for all cases has been discovered and is being delivered into your hands to be run.

        “How does one run basic-basic? The process is intensely effective but is extremely simple and is even apt to be slightly MONOTONOUS. Thus the running of basic-basic is accompanied by inserting this process as a between-step in each of the Six Steps to Self-Auditing… By doing this, he [the auditor] would maintain the interest of the preclear and would markedly advance the case.” (Professional Auditors Bulletin 12, [1953, ca. late October])

      • Hi Marildi,

        Sorry for stepping in , I just couldn’t let pass this opportunity to discuss my own experiences with PAB 7 (“Six Steps to Better Beingness”) and PAB 12 (“The Cycle of Action of an Explosion”) , and how incredible well they work together.

        By the way, you can find an in-depth discussion of SSSA (“Six Steps to Self-auditing” as “Six Steps to Better Beingness” was also called by LRH) at the “International Congress for Dianeticists and Scientologists” . You’ll also find in those lectures , discussions about SOP-8, SOP-8L, and “Short 8” ; all of them processes from the ’53s also discussed in depth at ACC #1. But the congress is better explained because it was meant for general public and not for trained scientologists necessarily.

        I am just an “LRH junkie” as regards to all the Tech from the ’51-’55 era ; the era where the most advance data of OT and processes were developed. Everything after that was a BIG, HUGE damn undercut of it all, that incredible slowed down many “advance students” like me (at other previous beingness, of course. I am not that old in PT , I am in the 45-55 bracket). Back then, it was just a glorious time of Exteriorization phenomena with full movility and perception. God, how much I miss those times and former states. It seems that I got taken by the other side, and they did a TERRIFIC job at erasing almost all of my previous experiences. But they left a very small light still lit ; they were careless enough. So I am resurging again , and making myself whole again with the help of some “mysterious” guidance that I still have not had the pleasure to meet.

        Anyway way, to make this story short and not bore you to death with Sc-Fi ; I ran in myself some 10 or so years ago , the SSSA steps , and was doing quite all right with it. Then I did exactly as LRH had adviced at PAB 12 , and ran SSSA together with “The Cycle of an Explosion” processing as exactly delineated in the PAB 12 issue. The difference in terms of results and wins were just phenomenal.

        I ran close to 50-60 hrs of it all combined (7 different steps) , and ended up with a totally new state of beingness that I had never experienced this lifetime. Nothing, absolutely nothing that I have done in Scn compare to those gains I had and still very much mantain in PT. A totally un-human experience.

        It was at step 6 of SSSA, “Opposite Poles” , that I first cognited on all the “hidden influences” under which this Planet had been subjected to since the beginning of history. Many world-known events had been shaped by these “hidden influences” , and I am not talking about the “low level” influences of NOTs. I am talking about “Big time” , powerful and totally unsuspected influences. I don’t general believe in most of CBR’s and L.Kin’s researches into this , as I have not thoroughly tested their assertions on the E-meter yet. And I am quite a follower of scientific methology ; I am what can be called a “Scientific philosopher”. But about “hidden influences” ? , Now, that IS real ; that’s VERY real indeed.

        Some will think that I have gone lunatic and restimulated by plain “Out-Tech”. Well , it is entirely their loss. I never question my integrity to myself , nor feel any need to be “believed” or even considered as “sane”. That’s the least of my concerns ; I just know what I know.

        Anyway , I just wanted to share that with you, Marildi ; it seems that I can talk these things with you w/out feeling a weirdo.

        “Short 8” is another marvelous procesure that can also be safely self-processed. But I make the clarification as well, that I had already experienced these type of processes at my previous lifetime , and many “paranormal” experiences. So I can’t say with honesty how well an “uninitiated” would do with those processes. I also had had already hanldled any Out-Int troubles, and couldn’t experience the “Step-6 Phenomena” of the “beefing up of the bank” with “Creative Processes” due to “compulsive create” that can occur w/out the “Clear Cog” , as I was already a past life Clear. So just take those two things into account : Clear Cog and Out-int phenomena. But if those 2 things are out of the way, I don’t really see any possible danger doing them.

        Nevertheless , I don’t think that the “Step-6 Phenomena” was ever an all-encompassing” occurrence applying to all cases. It was probably a small percentage, but that was always enough for LRH to feel that he ought to change 80-90% success rate workable procedures. I just never agreed with him on that. I could never understand this “One Bridge fits everyone” proposition ; there isn’t just one particular Bridge, there are many Bridges ; and I am not paraphrasing CBR here. This is my OWN evaluation of this.

        Anyway , Marildi, I just wanted to participate on that discussion that the incredible uptone Poet13 brought up.

        Take care.

        ARC, PETER

      • Peter, thanks very much for sharing all this intriguing data! Unfortunately, I have a busy weekend and can’t spend too much time posting comments, but I wanted to at least give you a very appreciative ack. A lot of what you wrote resonated with me!

        Thanks for “stepping in”. 🙂

        ARC, marildi

      • Thanks for your warm words, dear Marildi.

        It seems that I had failed to reply to your comment ; my apologies. Thanks for the ack.

        ARC, PETER

    • Dani,

      You wrote:

      1. “Some of it is inexplicable, some inexcusable and it is not for me to ask forgiveness on Ron’s behalf.”

      – What is it that Ron did that you’re describing as “inexcusable”?

      2. “Hubbard may have been a nut, or worse, a fake. He’s been dead for 30 years, so I don’t really care much about him.”

      – Do you really mean this, or are you saying it to create some agreement with the Hubbard-haters?

  17. Thank you for your article, scnafrica.

    My answers to your questions:

    a) Absolutely the CoS should cease to exist.
    b) An alliance of individuals and groups freely exchanging and communicating with each other without any central management. A true 3D, not the inversion that the CoS became.

    Just like Shakespeare says in Hamlet, LRH warned of ‘the insolence of office’ over and over again. His admonitions in the lectures 18ACC-1 5707C15, PDC-20 5212C06, ASMC-15 5506C06 and elsewhere are well-known to veterans. Where individuals strayed from these public reaction was predictable: no-one likes a bully.

    Was LRH a bully? Does one sometimes have to be firm but fair with one’s staff, customers, friends, family, strangers, animals, plants, enemies, and so on? Well, he didn’t want people walking all over him; no-one wants to be humiliated, and he was as aware of that as anyone.

    So eventually, one hits back, and wonders, ‘Did I need to take all that punishment to realise that if I’d hit back at once, I could have saved myself a lot of grief?’ We don’t hit back at once because we’re generous people, and sometimes naive – traits of gold-dust to the bully.

    LRH’s organisation achieved the immediate goal of disseminating Scientology, and probably ensuring its permanent place in society. Would we have done it differently? Would we have done it all?

    Richard Kaminski
    Independent Scientologist UK

    • Awesome post, Poet 13c.

      You wrote: “Does one sometimes have to be firm but fair with one’s staff, customers, friends, family, strangers, animals, plants, enemies, and so on? Well, he didn’t want people walking all over him; no-one wants to be humiliated, and he was as aware of that as anyone. So eventually, one hits back, and wonders, ‘Did I need to take all that punishment to realise that if I’d hit back at once, I could have saved myself a lot of grief?’”

      The debate goes on as to whether LRH did right or did wrong, and in hindsight it may seem easy to second guess him. But aside from every other aspect of the whole saga, I would say he was true to himself. Here’s an applicable quote 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*)

      • Good quote Marildi, it explains a lot. Fortunately for us, Ron’s astute observations yielded solutions, and some dynamite ones are offered in 8:8008. Boy oh boy, one could have a thriving practice using processes just from the books and never need a meter.

      • Poet13c: “Boy oh boy, one could have a thriving practice using processes just from the books and never need a meter.”

        I think you’re so right. For many reasons, this approach might be the most workable gradient for the forwarding of the goals of scientology. The processes in Self-Analysis – simple but powerful – would be doable for almost any practitioner, or individual on his own. Actually, every one of the books is a treasure chest, IMO, either for the processes or the knowledge in them, or both. The PABs I’m familiar with also have invaluable data, which Terril reminded me of in recent post.

        Thanks to the BIC admins for a blog that encourages comments from “old-timers” like you and Terril and others, who know and appreciate the true value of the tech.

  18. This comment is probably applicable to most of the responses to this post. As I see it, the formation of groups emerging from the “confusion” currently prevalent within the Scientology domain is inevitable. It’s what people do, it can’t be stopped. In some cases individuals will come up with a model for a group and try to convince others to buy into his or her plan. Nothing wrong with that, it is a natural consequence in the light of what’s going on and undoubtedly some good will come of it.

    Personally I decided some time ago to climb a bit higher up the metaphorical ladder to a wider perspective. No big deal, anybody can do it. It just means being more discerning as to what one gives his attention to. The view that opened up to me was this. Humanity as a whole has lost its soul so to speak. Regardless of its amazing technological progress the state of the human condition is far from ideal, about which much can be said.

    My point however is that a huge void currently exists within the human psyche, which has not gone unnoticed. People around the world are aware that the material realism in which they are caught up is draining them of their humanity and integrity. Nonetheless, it seems the scene is being set for a kind of renaissance rooted in the renewal of the human spirit. And this is where I see the future of Scientology.

    Most Scientologists are oblivious of the subtle shift in mindset taking place around the globe. In spite of humanities compelling physical experience there is growing awareness of non-material existence outside of organized religions. The reason most Scientologists are not aware of such developments is because they have not felt the need to look beyond the work of LRH. Be that as it may, the void will be filled and the Scientology baby, after the bath water has been thrown out, has a contribution to make.

    As to the future of Scientology, my prediction is this: In the short term the current scenario of “them and us” will continue for now. The bigger picture will become even more blurred than it already is. In the medium to long term, definitely in the long term, the most pressing and inevitable question will be; is Scientology relevant in the emerging global spiritual renewal? Should the answer be yes the challenge becomes how and where to position the baby – those aspects of Scientology capable of adding value to a renaissance.

    An interesting shift in perspective as one climbs the metaphorical ladder to a wider perspective is a growing sense that “all is as it should be”. The notion of saving the planet by some master formula or saving people from themselves actually makes a whole lot of sense from a worms eye view. From a birds eye view the idea becomes comical. Anyway this does not mean that from the current uncertainty (chaos) taking place across the Scientology landscape something special won’t emerge.

    Joe van Staden.

    • Great bird’s eye view, Joe. And as you’ve indicated too, there are many different “points” of view and approaches – all valid, in that individuals vary in their insights, abilities and purpose lines. There are many ways to contribute to the motion of scientology and to the bigger picture beyond it. From my “point” of view, things are lookin’ up. 🙂

  19. Hi BIC , should call this ” troubled bridge ”
    Agree HBO only touch on 1 %
    Pity they did not do more
    We can hope that David Piss HBO off and help them to expand on the “going clear” series !
    One thing i share with the people interviewed is the regret of playing along with a very sick organization against my better judgment

  20. I totally agree with what you have said Joe.

    I personally perceive that we in fact are in a race of Chaos (M.E.S.T).versus Sanity (Theta).

    MEST is busy separating THETA.

    THETA is starting to become aware of it.

    Which of the two will cut the winning ribbon only time will tell.

    The OUT’s are VERY aware of this, hence their concern.. .

  21. I am very enthusiastic about the possibilities of this blog but this thought came to me in the night. It is great to be ‘back in com.’ however that is only one corner of the ARC triangle, and my understanding would suggest that communication on its own is not enough. I like to be building both AFFINITY and REALITY as well. When Theo wrote “This is Theo Sismanides from Athens, Greece” I immediately experienced an expansion of affinity, to know Theo is in Athens, Greece and I am in Portsmouth, England brings in the affinity factor. I am into “messing about in boats” and live close to the sea, which is a reality factor.

    My wife commented on reading Theo’s post, since she had been to Athens it had raised her Affinity and Reality with him.

    It is my considered opinion that only FEAR can restrict ARC and I am equally convinced that “love can ameliorate fear”. Whereas PERFECT LOVE casts it out (1 John 4:18)

    Ron has said “Communication gets one into trouble”, the question is do we stop communicating or do we communicate more. His conclusion was MORE COMMUNICATION which I concur with. However to increase the communication it is necessary to up the AFFINITY and the REALITY, hence the UNDERSTANDING is increased.

    Love with understanding

  22. The OP says those promoting/delivering Scn
    will have a harder time now. I emphatically disagree.
    I have been promoting the FZ for 15 years and its probably the case that I’ve been influential in its expansion. Now I’m more interested in letting people know the problems of involvement with CO$. There are now many facebook forums that are pro Scn. My
    forums are still active but more aftivity has gone to facebook. “Going Clear” will let people know to avoid CO$. Essential. Possibly possible to let them know
    there are alternatives, though I’m yet to see it. Those under the radar, and still in need to have somewhere else to go. And a good reason to do so.
    Going Clear will help there.

    • Hi Terril. You have a forum also right? A Freezone forum. You might want to share the subscription link here as for resources for others. I have been able to obtain a lot of books and materials through your forum. Also (very good) auditors by location in the U.S..

    • Yes Terril, your good nature and considerable knowledge has been a huge help, a beacon of light. Thanks for being there.

      • He held the lines of communication together and the bridges between peoples and countries for more than a decade. He is a cornerstone of the current Freezone / Indie field. And a damned nice guy.

  23. I think the church is more likely to collapse before DM is removed. He “is Scientology” to most inside.

    I think we need a documentary or a campaign aimed squarely at those inside without the “creation myth” bullshit or any stories about DM or Hubbard. Those are beyond the reality of most that are still in. It just needs to focus on the CONTRACTION OF MEMBERSHIP and that it is NOT JUST YOUR ORG THAT ISN’T MAKING IT as the entire message. That would be a message they could confront. I doubt there is a staff member anywhere who doesn’t at least suspect the truth of this.

    That kind of action might take out DM or it might just collapse the whole thing.

    • Greetings Interested Party, I had missed you.

      I think that you nailed it with that idea. As a matter of fact , I had been working exactly on that strategy since several months ago , almost a year, with the design of a tailor made website just for that. It’ll not be intended for Indies or UTRs , but for Scientologists totally unaware of what’s going on inside the CofS. Similar in scope to “Friends of LRH” and using that webside as the principal “Dead Agent(ry)” document , but with many introductory parts to gradiently guide the still-in(s) towards revelation and truth.

      It should not include direct attacks towards LRH even if well deserved and totally founded. That would be out-R and would just spook them. That part of learning about LRH’s “dark” side are not necessarily a pre-requisite to accomplish an effective de-PTSing from the CofS as a terminal, and yes, an “entity” or “group” as such can be a SP item.

      I roughly isolated the steps that any still-in go through in this “revelation process” ; it is all about gradients when you want to present a truth to anybody. It is so much easy to digest that way. I think , based on a lot of experience on these matters, that the correct sequence goes from :

      1. From a totally kool-aid drinker to the product of someone who has doubts about the Church being in the right path.

      2. The decision , on one’s own to find more about it.

      3. The realization that all have not been well in the Church.

      4. The realization that Tech has been heavily altered.

      5. The realization that DM is not the omnipotent, infallible , god-like individual one always thought he was, and that there might be even evil connected to him. Also the realization that it wasn’t LRH that put him in “power”.

      6. The realization about all the abuses ; beatings, disconnections, abortions, “The Hole” , etc. and the realization that DM is just a plain SP.

      7. The realization of the existence of a Independent Field outside of the control of the Church able to delivery Scn, but one’s doubt regarding if they are “squirrel” or not as the Church had always told us. They are still under the effect of heavy indoctrination in ideas such as “squirrels are VERY bad people” , and “SPs” are lepers to avoid at all cost.

      8. The realization that 100% pure LRH can be found outside, and it fact, the whole Bridge and the most highly trained auditors.

      9. The decision to participate in the Field and its activities (blogs, websites, and even training and auditing).

      10. The first overwhelming thoughts that may be LRH wasn’t who we thought he was, and that his Tech might not be totally infallible after all.

      11. The realization that it IS actually LRH policy the one that started all the abuses, and that Scn in general as a way of life needs to be revised, modified, and reformed, even if many of its basic principles are quite workable.

      12. The full recovery of one’s ability and willingness to think for ourselves, and the full recovery of power of choice over data : The end of the last remains of fundamentalism and fanaticism in any area.

      I think we ALL go through those stages to a lesser or greater degree. Steps 10 , 11 , and 12 , are the most difficult of all , and many don’t go through them , but get stuck at #9. But not going through those last 3 steps is a door stop to achieve real Freedom and Power of choice over data. It is important to work on ONE product a time. This doesn’t necessarily means it takes a lot of time ; I have known people that have gone from product 1 toproduct 12 in as little as 2-3 months !

      I plan on finishing that website within 6-8 months , and will announce it here at BIC if that’s ok with ScnAfrica.

      But regardless of how marvelous can that website become (with the help of others as suggestions and security issues is concerned) , I agree with you : a strategy to REACH those still-in(s) is needed to then DIRECT them to that website. It was my search for that exact strategy that got me to start participating in blogs in the first place. Many that I approached showed very little interest on it. Those terminals just brushed off my reforming and conscientization ideas as “too altruistic” , utopic, and unreal” ; totally their loss.

      I wasn’t ready yet, back them ; I was still living under the shadow of LRH (my god, another lifetime wasn’t enough) ; I no longer am, I am free at last.

      So anyway, Interested Party, would touch like to play with me on this ?

      Thanks for stopping by.

      ARC, PETER

      • Thanks Peter. I’m on board.
        I think we should Skype together. We have so much in common. I’ll email you.

      • Hey Peter, that’s quite a checklist! What I have experienced was quite simple.I already had doubts since 1983. I was aware of the outpoints, but I couldn’t confront it. I was alone with this reality which also was a withold from the church.
        I started to think Miscavige was an SP in 1987. But still going up the bridge to New OTVIII. I invalidated the idea of Miscavige being an SP it in 1993 (war is over!).
        Then I thought that was all bank from my part. In 2009, I read that Paul Haggis was out of the church, read his resignation letter which brought me to Marty Rathbun blog. Read the 31 points, and it was what I have been thinking since 1983. I researched all the data on internet. I was on the other side!
        But I was heavily under the radar. All my family was on the church. I had to gradiently bring them on the other side. And that exactly was the gradients you describe Peter. I have had to move their reality without to be spotted by anyone, nor reported. I have had many scientology friends. Mostly they could go to step 2 or 3. But found “reasons” not to confront outpoints. But none of them ever reported me to ethics.
        In my family, they could see outpoints, but they were on a “doesn’t matter”, “don’t bother” idea. I was “too serious” with that. “Of course Miscavige is a bit autoritarian….” They even agreed that it was very weird that Heber and the whole management was missing. But life went on.
        Something must have happened, and it did. The letter of Debbie Cook. I show it to my wife and bang, she was on the other side! That was it. She read Marty’s blog. And mostly Friends of LRH.
        She was a scientologist and really liked and practice the tech. A blog like Marty today which is anti scientology, she would have remained on the church. But to SP declare Miscavige was the right technical and ethical point.
        Now my family is all indies, and many of my friends also. But then, after a while, we were found and declared. Then we couldn’t continue the comm with many of them. We actually didn’t try so much. That is failed help.
        My point is that anti-scientology viewpoints will keep them in the church. But carefully demonstrating the out tech, using their own experience to get them to cognite. But we have to reach an entrance point of their reality.
        For that we have to remember that we were all Kool Aid, and that there is always a gradient. But of course when an opinion leader (like Debbie) speaks out. There is a huge progress.
        If Travolta or Cruise reject Miscavige, just one public sentence, a doubt, he is gone. The Kool Aid will not feel they are transgressing it they look.
        Those people “in” are still our friends, just need to be brought out the cultish reality agreement.
        I would like to add that a real well trained scientologist cannot be a Kool Aid. Knowing the tech and the Data Serie make you see the outpoints. I have always seen the outpoints. And not doing anything about it make your life very miserable. Awareness can be a curse when you are alone with it. But no matter the suffering, a real free thetan will always want to know the truth.

      • Peter-
        If I contact the admin of this blog with my email addy to pass on to you, would you be willing to talk? You have been kind to me and seem like you would be willing to answer some questions I have. Thanks.

      • Sure thing L , you are welcome to comm to me privately.

        Excuse my manners and bad memory, but I don’t remember having addressed to you in the past ; care to remind me please ?

        Best Regards , Peter

  24. Some very interesting viewpoints.
    The film was excellent exposing the crimes of the Church.

    However it was critical of LRH – Ron managed to rise above the bank
    and not one person can point a finger at him who has not had similar outnesse’s.
    He never said he was perfect never did anything wrong or sinned!

    It makes it tough in the Indie field because they get tarred with the same brush!
    They are not part of the Church and I feel I am no-longer a Scientologist as once
    you mention that word you are associated with the Church which is not a Church.

    I study the Philosophy of L.Ron Hubbard.
    Where I study it and with whom is my choice.

    Some feel we need to have peace with the Church.

    The Church declared War when it took away our Freedom of Speech.
    It took away our freedom to think for ourselves.
    When it took away our search for the Truth and RTC altered the TECH.

    We can make more money!
    BUT you need people who are willing to Correct the OUT TECH.
    To f…….up beings is a huge CRIME.

    FRIENDS DISCONNECT FROM YOU – yes you can get a concept but
    you do not feel the TRAUMA of losing a child or husband or wife or
    Grandchildren! This is for real and it hurts big time!

    ALL because you wrote a report or communicated what you observed.
    Wrote it up – put it on the correct lines and then you get Declared.
    OR you refuse to disconnect because you do not have misundertsoods
    on the PTS Tech – Those declared were not SP!
    OR heaven forbid looked on the internet yet there is no policy what so
    ever banning you from doing this!

    RIGHT now OSA has a mission sent to interrogate you!

    THE number of people who have RESIGNED from the Church has increased.


    They will threaten you – even come to your home as so many are not willing
    to go into the ORG.

    You can just write on the blog that is your choice!
    You can stay under the radar until safe to come out – that is your choice!
    You can openly resign – that is your choice!

    You can contact the INDIE field and get the tech to full OT – that is your choice!
    You can be on the Front line like Mike Rinder – that is your choice!


    OSA KNOWS we are being watched by the international INDIE field!
    THEY KNOW the media is now watching them.
    THEY KNOW THEIR stats on lawsuits world wide against the Church are the highest EVER!


  25. i guess 99.9% of the the people on this planet are too stupid to comprehend hubbard’s tech. we all just get it wrong, we never had a session, we never had a win. we just have an ax to grind. when other technologies come out like radio, tv, the web, X-rays, nuclear reactions, visiting other worlds……… those things we can understand and we don’t try to deny them, but when it comes to dianetics well i guess we’re just too uninterested or stupid and prefer to put it down instead of trying to understand it and use it like we have so many other things to make our lives better. No, instead for some inexplicable reason we refuse to acknowledge dianeitcs for the breakthrough that it is.
    that sounds perfectly plausible.

    someone says the tech works. ok fine, no one will disagree but they will naturally follow up with “show me” and that’s when a scientologist will go ballistic and vile.
    which to the non scientologist is a sign that they are full of BS.

    and then the scientologist will just go on being offended and become purposely obtuse.

    go look at ALL the videos of scientologists on youtube shot from the 50s on up.
    maybe 1 or 2, less then a handfull come off as normal and sane. that isn’t meant as an insult, it’s just to describe the impression an average person (me) gets from them.
    what is a person supposed to say? one sided? where, how? you show the other side then! we are all waiting……….but then we get the pat ” i don’t do parlor tricks” as if asking for proof of your science is a parlor trick. we get the “why should i have to prove anything to the likes of you” answer…………well because i am the one you are trying to convince it works………because you are the one who says it’s science…….because you were the one who says things are one sided.

    you want communication, here it is. scientologists never put their money where their mouth it. no pun intended.

    scientologists have no idea just how much they insult the average person.

    I’m too much of a dullard to know i am degraded. thanks a lot.

    scietology works. i would bet not ONE of you scientologists here have never lied in the name of scientology, not ONE. if that’s so then we know it works in at least one way.
    if nothing in that doc was untrue then where is the smear?

    some one asks “what is scientology?” they get told to go read a book. does that book contain upper level knowledge? no. is upper level knowledge scientology? yes.
    after having read the book do i know what scientology is? no. so did the scientologist answer my question? no.

    i ask what scinetology is and you lie.

    the following is a fact not one scientologist can get away from, you have to admit it yourself that it’s true. the fact is this, unless you are OT8 you do not know what scientology is. inescapable fact.

    so it is more than ironic for someone on the middle of the bridge to say to someone else they don’t know what scientology is.

    there are a lot of people here who talk with authority about scientology, then they’ll mention what level their doing and you know they don’t know anything above that.

    many if not most scientologists know there are upper levels and heard of the wall of fire, that it’s a pretty significant thing………….well you think that might contribute to defining “what scientology is”? if you haven’t gotten there how can you say you know what the religion is about? you only know what you know and you know there is a lot more that you don’t know.

    since the upper levels are openly kept from most members, it can be accurately stated that the people who know the least about scientology are scientologists themselves.

    and now the church is even hinting at OT9 and 10, so that would mean not even OT8s are hip to the whole shebang.

    you want to hold on to your beliefs. auditing and doing courses does something for you, fine, that’s all well and good. to me so long as no one is hurting another, whatever gets you through the day is ok and no one should bother you about it.
    but you can’t claim it’s science and not expect people to jump all over that.
    you can’t invite communication and not expect to hear things you don’t like or are difficult to confront.

    having said all that, you can tell i am no believer in the tech, but i swear i really mean this, if you feel auditing or doing courses helps you get through things, helps you deal with life, then you should keep doing it no matter what anyone else says, science or malarkey or whatever, you should do what you think is good and works for you. not everything that works is known science. the world was round long before we could prove it.

    • White Star, you wrote at the end: “having said all that, you can tell i am no believer in the tech, but i swear i really mean this, if you feel auditing or doing courses helps you get through things, helps you deal with life, then you should keep doing it no matter what anyone else says, science or malarkey or whatever, you should do what you think is good and works for you. not everything that works is known science. the world was round long before we could prove it.”

      Wow. You are a man among men. (The phrase means “an exemplar”, or “one who should be emulated.”)

      You also wrote: “we get the ‘why should i have to prove anything to the likes of you’ answer…………well because i am the one you are trying to convince it works………because you are the one who says it’s science…….because you were the one who says things are one sided.”

      We Scientologists have often made mistakes in attitude and behavior. IMHO this has basically been due to shortcomings in understanding what Scientology really is. LRH no doubt made mistakes too in his various presentations and claims. These things need to be rectified because there is great value to be had (including improvement in attitude and behavior, rather than the opposite). Thank you for being big enough to be open to that.

      • hi marildi.
        i just saw your reply, i didn’t even know my comment went through. actually i thought it didn’t make it past moderation. then i saw in the lasted post that there was an issue with the site so i checked back. glad to see it made it through. thank you for the compliment, that’s very kind of you.

      • Hi WhiteStar,

        You are more than welcome. It was a pleasure to read your post – which for me was a sort of confirmation of the goodness and decency in people. Basically, a 4th dynamic win! 🙂

        Best to you,

  26. In case any of you missed this SNL video.

    Mod Comment: Tony, we removed the link as it cannot be accessed from South Africa. Although we’re sure people will find a way to watch both this and the documentary, BIC cannot promote doing anything illegal, nor post “hacked” links.

      • Not illegal for posting it- the link just won’t run in South Africa. 🙂 But we’re sure people will find a way around it.

      • Try again. At first I couldn’t watch it either on Mike Rinder’s blog or on Tony’s. A day or so later, on Tony’s I tried again and it worked fine.

  27. Recently looking up ‘Trevor Noah’ on the Washington Post website to see what they’re saying about him, I was intrigued to find right below that story on scientology – negative, of course. I therefore put scientology into its search engine to see what else was being said, and presto, virtually a story every month – negative, of course. In fact, the pace is hotting up because there’s already been no fewer than three in April alone (HBO and the PI stories). This story really is cracking the public media space.

  28. I just discovered this blog and it’s a surprisingly refreshing view of things. I’m not in South Africa, but the UK. We don’t have a similar outlet with a similar point of view about comm.

    I wanted to ask if by any chance anyone knows where I can get a copy of some of the GATII books, such as the Grades Processing Handbook, etc. I’ve seen the promo, read some blog posts, and would like to buy a copy so I can see it myself. However, the churches or Bridge publications won’t sell it to me (and there’s not one nearby anyway). Any help would be appreciated.

  29. >Should this recent HBO or some similar future event finally result in the ultimate dismantling >and destruction of the Corporate Church as it stands today, what positive effects, changes or >outcomes would you like to see rising from the smouldering embers?

    * Church assets (including the offshore COB-inurement accounts) frozen, liquidated, and used to pay compensation to those who have been harmed
    * RTC/CSI/CST/etc forfeiting the trademarks on the entire Scientology body of work in perpetuity
    * The rights to Ron’s literary works to revert to his surviving offspring
    * Miscavige in prison
    * Greater awareness of the ways in which coercive groups operate, and educational programs specifically to warn people, particularly children, of the dangers (this would have the added bonus of making it harder for Jihadist/Terrorist/etc groups to recruit)

  30. This is what happens when you run a squirrel version of NOTS.

    Anyone who posts OT level data on a public blog is a bastard. It is to hold these materials up for scorn and ridicule.

    Scientology is the workable route out don’t abuse it as the Church does.

    (Comment edited – we have sent you an email explaining why). UPDATE: The email address you provided does not exist – please email the aadmins on scnafrica@hushmail.com

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s