Keeping Scientology Working Revisited

The following is an excerpt from the book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.  It covers my introduction to the Policy Letter entitled Keeping Scientology Working.  In the past, we have attempted to discuss  how far this central religious tenet of Scientology ought to be adhered to given its thought-stopping potential.  That discussion degenerated into recriminations, character assasinations, and other indicia of thought stoppping.  Perhaps presented in a fuller context we can consider the effects of this indoctrination without instigating a riot.

From Chapter Seven:

This particular policy (still in use today) was originally issued in 1965. It pronounces that Scientology had by that point achieved “uniformly workable technology.” It states that the only troubles the organization ever encountered were because of incorrect application of that uniformly workable technology.  Therefore, KSW called for zealous enforcement of the standard application of Scientology. By “standard” was meant precise, unquestioning adherence to all technical and administrative instructions from L. Ron Hubbard.  No interpretations or alterations allowed. Only L. Ron Hubbard’s words, followed to the letter. Quite a bit of attention was paid by the course supervisors to each student, on a one-to-one basis, seeking to elicit agreement that they would follow KSW to the letter.

My struggle was attempting to accept that level of certainty, and agreeing to that level of steadfast devotion to the idea that Scientology was it, to the utter exclusion of any other ideas or philosophies – all without the experience of finding out for myself whether Scientology was indeed it.  I could not progress in my studies without first agreeing that the following ideas of L. Ron Hubbard were incontrovertibly true, and that I vowed to adopt and adhere to them:

–          Any inability to agree to the tenets of KSW was due to the fact that “the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button ‘self-importance,” and that “the lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation,”

–          That “the [defense mechanisms] of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront, good or bad, and seek to make it wrong,” and that “the bank [reactive mind] seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.”

–          The idea that “a group [of people] could evolve truth” is inherently false.

–          That Hubbard relied on absolutely no major or basic ideas or suggestions from any other source in developing the world’s only workable mental/spiritual technology, which he called Scientology.

–          “Popular measures” and “democracy” have done nothing for humankind except “push him further into the mud.”

–          Humankind never before “evolved workable mental technology,” but instead only “vicious technology.” Scientology, therefore, must be “ruthlessly followed.”

–          The only common denominator among humans is the reactive mind. Therefore all agreements between humans who have not achieved the state of Clear can only be classified as “bank [reactive mind] agreement.”

–          “Bank agreement” can also be called “collective thought agreement.” Collective thought agreement is responsible for “war, famine, disease” and the development of “the means of frying every man, woman, and child on the planet.”

–          “The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea.”

–          “It’s the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing.  It’s the bank that says we must fail.”

–          “When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe – never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach…If they enrolled, they’re aboard; and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists.”

–          “The proper instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead than incapable.’”

–          “We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better.  The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. This is a deadly serious activity.  And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.”

The tract dramatically drove home some conflicting ideas.  On the one hand, Scientology is portrayed as the only technology for enhancing and preserving individuality.  On the other hand, by the end of the policy Hubbard is demanding that no one be allowed past the first bulletin in Scientology training courses without assuming the identity of hard-core Scientologist, and agreeing to abide by the rules on the same terms as everyone else. The conflicting concepts between the group and the individual were finally resolved by me with the mental computation that the only way to truly realize true individuality is to forfeit individuality in favor of the purposes and goals of the group.

In retrospect, had it not been for the fact that my life seemed so bleak and hopeless, given the circumstances of my brother, I never would have agreed to this indoctrination.  But the world and the state of mental health in my view were as bad as Hubbard described, and up to then I had not found anyone else who saw what I was seeing in such black-and-white terms.  And so I decided to agree and to abide, even though deep inside I did not fully agree.

Only 30 years later did I fully appreciate how significant that moment of intellectual surrender would become. The realization occurred when I read Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason, which described precisely what I had done with my fresh, sharply-honed intentional abilities:

 It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

168 responses to “Keeping Scientology Working Revisited

  1. On some level we have all been there. In my opinion. Thank you for revealing your inner unfoldment Marty. You are a good man.

    As beginners, students and very young people, we did not have the relative knowledge and experience to differentiate between the real and the unreal.

    Ron truly believed he had the only way. So he did what he did to protect it. I thank him for the truths I learned and forgive him for the truths he did not know.

  2. From a Jerry and Esther Hicks talk recorded some years ago.

    And we want to talk about that here today because we see so many of our friends who are physical humans, who are setting aside the guidance that comes forth from within and trying to replace it with someone else’s version of what they ought to be doing.

    And what happens with that is that there are so many others who have different opinions about what you ought to be doing, which adds to the confusion of the vibrational mix that you are offering. One says, “Go this way,” one says, “Go this way,” one says, “This is better,” another says, “This is better.”

    And what almost all of you fail to recognize — and this is the most astonishing thing of all — is that every one of them is speaking about what they think you should do to satisfy THEIR personal perspective. So, in essence, what they’re saying is, “You should set aside your personal perspective and you should follow mine, which matters more.” And we say, “…or not.” (Audience laughter.)

    Nobody’s perspective matters more than yours because nobody can tend to your vibrational countenance. Nobody can adjust the vibration of you. Nobody else has their hand on the lever or on the valve that controls the degree to which you allow your alignment or not, and when you let someone else guide you, so that you’re not paying attention to your own alignment with Source, you can get mixed upside down and all around to the degree that you do not know what to think about anything, and then you’re just listening to the loudest voice.

    And the loudest voice, we’ve got to tell you, can get pretty obnoxious. Because that loudest voice always comes from a basis of fear. The loudest voice never comes from this place of security and acknowledging freedom and alignment with Source Energy. The loudest voice always comes from the place of the greatest fear. And then you listen to the loudest voice that comes from the place of the greatest fear, and then you wonder why things are not working out so well….

    And we’re wanting you to understand, it’s not the loudest voice, it’s the consistent voice. It’s the voice that does not waver. It’s the voice that never stops saying to you, “You are worthy, and you are love, and you are well-being, and you deserve to live well.” It’s the voice that never stops saying, “Well-being abounds, and Source Energy flows,” and if you will work to align with the vibration that feels like that, you must thrive. And no one can ever take your thriving away from you. No one can take your freedom away from you.

    — Abe — Tarrytown, N.Y, 10/9/04A

  3. No rioting here – couldn’t agree more.

    Talking of a riot… this should be one:

  4. Dani Lemberger

    What Thomas Paine says is simple and definitely true.
    You are right, Marty, what Ron says in KSW is hardly acceptable. I too have read it, almost memorized it, hundreds of times and never felt at ease with it. I took it with a grain of salt and could continue with my Scientology studies despite of KSW, because Ron says the exact opposite so many other times. As in “Personal Integrity”, “Code of Honor” and many other places I will not research or quote right now. He does say the goal of auditing is “self-determinism”, so just that contradicts KSW.
    When KSW is viewed with so many other of Ron’s writings, to me it becomes understood. Alone, it is Fascistic. Ron cannot be judged based on one bulletin he wrote. He had a very broad understanding of life, I think better than anyone else I know of. Different articles of his say contradicting things. And so, “if it’s not true for you, it’s not true.” It is still up to the individual to accept or reject.
    Ron, when writing KSW in 1965, must have been in an angry mood, seeing people messing around with the Tech. And it is true that when you are, say, an engineer at Apple, and they have their own workable technology, you do not mess it up. An iPhone is a “standard product”, just like auditing.
    You don’t audit while smoking grass or after an hour of meditating. You can, of course, but the auditing may not work well when you’re stoned.
    I have never compromised my own reality and have taken Ron’s roaring thunder in KSW with some humour. Ron yelling with anger would be a frightening and amusing sight.
    Scientology is still the only workable mental/spiritual technology I know of. Or, to limit what I just said, the only way to reach the state of “Clear”, which I believe really does exist.
    But anyone can do whatever they please and may experiment with any mixture they fancy. It won’t kill them and it shouldn’t bother anyone else.

  5. I think the idea of “consistency in practice” has merit. Call it standardization or whatever you want.

    But in KSW, Ron took it to extreme. I don’t mind Ron giving us his opinions — and I also don’t mind an occasional burst of frustration/anger. But to turn that frustration into a central policy — to be followed with dedicated fervor — sets an unhealthy tone for the organization (as it has clearly done with the CoS).

    Further, it’s one thing to apply standardization to auditing tech — but then to apply it to EVERYTHING (including all policies) that LRH ever wrote, said, etc. is simply unworkable and ultimately doomed to failure, imho.

    Groups need to have automony and self-determination. Sticking to fundamental principles from a founder is fine (e.g. a Constitution, Codes, etc.). But there needs to be room for modification and adaptation as time moves forward and society and technologies advance. Further, if conflicts exist within the founder’s constitution, codes, etc,, then they need to be open to re-evaluation.

    It’s really the only way groups remain healthy, imho.

  6. I’m almost done with Marty’s “Memoir” book and my impression is that Marty and Mary Sue were both very loyal to LRH, almost to a fault. Mary Sue was applying the Simon Bolivar policy that her own husband had written and wanted to have people live by in order to protect him and flow him power at all times. So she was just doing that he wanted and following his policy a la Simon Bolivar. And Ron knew most of what the GO was doing and even ordered that certain harrassing things be done. He sold Mary Sue down the river, mainly because of the lies that Miscavage fed him about her, and his refusal to grant Mary Sue’s request to speak to LRH. It is notable that as Marty said in his book, in spite or LRH’s harsh treatment of Mary Sue and the GO, she and none of the others ever turned on him and went to the other side in the legal proceedings, and they even went to jail rather than let things be known about him that would hurt him and his legal case. Whether you agree with that or not, it is loyalty.

    And Marty fought a valiant and formidable fight with passion and loyalty. He maneuvered legally, pulling off almost impossible feats which kept certain court documents sealed for years which resulted in LRH not having to spend his later years in prison. If I was ever in a jam I would want Marty on my side.

  7. The next lines might contain generalities. I apologise in advance.

    During the evolution of art and philosophy, extremes are flirted with. A pendulum travels between radical strong ideals and concrete facts as eras/periods change. In my opinion, Scientology is no different. It starts as illumination. Like idealism, it then radicalises to become a quest for purity and exclusivity ; mirror of a time when thinkers were looking for the perfect proportion, the golden number. Through Marty and his blog, it reaches the other end of the spectrum, homologous of 19th century realism. The everyday life of the common person is put in perspective right where glorious marble statues were standing. The industrialized streets of Dickens’ London call for a plurality of viewpoints. 😉

    I’m patiently awaiting for the pendulum to loose momentum and steady towards the center, where the strongest and most persistent force ids trying to bring it. Scientology will sooner or later arrive in its 20th century movement/period.

  8. Don’t be surprised if you do get a riot going. KSW is the big dividing line in Scientology, and it still divides those who are no longer in the Church. For one, it divides the free spirits and enlightenment seekers from those who are looking for some structure in their lives. Both types are attracted to Scientology, for different reasons. Aligned with the structure seekers are those who like the tech’s potential for controlling others and making themselves more powerful.

    More fundamentally, KSW showed a division with LRH himself. There was the early LRH who was working to empower the free spirits, and the later LRH who was more focused on protecting and preserving the thriving movement that Scientology had become. I don’t fault the man for wanting a little more discipline in his group, but Scientology at that point in time (or now) was not the be-all and end-all of spiritual growth.

  9. martyrathbun09

    Great post

  10. Yes, Dani – if I want to understand hard-to-swallow writings or lectures from LRH I try to grasp what mood he was in, or what ( valence ) role he was living. That makes it easy from me to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

  11. windhorsegallery

    To those who have emblazoned KSW on their foreheads and hearts:

    “Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your actions do.” Unknown

  12. Ron wrote KSW because idiots Kept altering good workable tech and did what ever they wanted to with it. What’s wrong with that. How many times have I seen you call DM the mother of squirrels because of his altering Scientology? How many people have died at the hands of his Black Danetics or Black Scientology? Words right ou of your mouth, Marty, if you were an airlines pilot you would either have crashed the plane and killed hundreds in your first week or gotten fired in your first week. American Airlines has a doctrine for flying their hundred-million-dollar planes. “Do it our way or don’t do it at all” is their doctrine. The FAA is adamant about not making a move in the air without the towers direction or consent. Your line of thinking is that you can think and do whatever you want to with American Airlines planes because no one has the right to control your thought. Well, you are right, but if you work for AA you better be prepared to have your thought controlled. If you aren’t willing to have your thought controlled then quit flying for them and write volumes about how bad they are.
    LRH is saying, and I paraphrase: “Look kids, this is simple, do Scientology the way I say to or don’t do it. Altering the tech that I spent years devloping is collapsing the movement that I painstakingly built so do it the way I say to or don’t do it at all.” That’s what he is saying. He has the right to say it. He spent all of his life putting it together. Now you come along and lift your leg because the founder is trying to keep Scientology working. But that’s the discipline in Scientology: The processes work best when applied the way they are supposed to. Do it right or leave it alone. My God I cannot believe you make a whole horrible thing out of it. Chiropractors are the same. They have their technology. They don’t want you to come along and work for them and say that you are working for them and but you are going to do your own thing. It is just common sense Marty.
    Real scholars have praised LRH for this reference because he is the first person in history to write such a reference.
    Even the Army has their own form of KSW: “There are three ways of doing things: The right way, the wrong way and the Army way. You will do things the Army way.” So what? It actually makes sense. They have their tech and it happens to be superior tech because no other Army has actually beaten them. And they are real adamant about it.
    So bottom line: LRH made this nice tech for all to use. He doesn’t want people altering it. He said it a million times. Even after he said it so many times people like you felt he was encroaching on your freedom to do whatever you want so then he writes an issue called Keeping Scientology Working. For you.
    But the bottom line is that if you don’t like it then quit. LRH developed it. He can say whatever he wants to defend it. Did you help him develop it? All you did is help the demise of it when you were in the Sea Org and now you are lifting your leg on it and pissing on it again.

    ML Tom

  13. windhorsegallery

    In case my prior post about emblazoned KSW is misunderstood …

    I have one question to those who feel that scientology tech is the ONLY way a person can go clear, have stable gains, have a good life –

    What would happen to you IF you were to find out that there are other ways a person can go clear stably?

  14. windhorsegallery

    Recently I saw a charming Cheerio’s commercial. A beautiful bi-racial child asking a question of her mother …

    This commercial brought a BUNCH of controversy — so much that General Mills shut down the comment section of the youtube video —

    The mother (Caucasion), father (an African-America) and the bi racial child were interviewed.

    The child thought all the broo ha ha was because of her wonderful smile.

    And the father said — I welcome this controversy and comments because it BRINGS to the fore – again – where we are at as a society, concerning racism.

    AND I APPLAUD MARTY for yet again brining up the KSW thing —

    WOW — it even brought Tom M. out of his wall of silence where he yet again calls Marty out for being responsible for the demise of scientology …

  15. Gern Gaschoen

    Let us attempt little retribution, but continue the discussion at hand. What is the KSW policy, about?

    Take the 10 points of KSW. You’re here, so you know them by now. Cut/copy/paste them into an empty document.

    For ‘technology’, consider anything you like. Search/Replace the word ‘technology’ in the 10 points, with .. say .. Geology. Or, bicycle-repair. Or, fish-farming. Or, well .. maybe you get the point.

    Ron didn’t ‘invent’ the 10 points of KSW, he discovered them and found their applicability. Any and all technology, since technology is a derivative of the Theta universe, will either persist or atrophy to the extent that all 10 of these points are in, by the users of that particular technology. If it is, indeed, a technology which works.

    Does Scientology Work? In my opinion, on the basis of my experience, which I can only use Words to describe, I have simply this to say: yes. OT kicks ass. There is a bigger game to play here.

    But you have to be fast, because the hordes are at the gates, and the church is burning, burning ..

  16. Another observation I’ve made is that Sea Org members who were off-loaded against their will tend to be much more staunch defenders of KSW than those members who ‘escaped’. Never having been in the Sea Org, I’m not going to speculate on why that is, but it seems pretty consistent.

  17. Forever Lurker

    I’m not a regular on the board but want to make a couple comments today.

    Marty, I read your latest book and I enjoyed it and appreciated learning about big chunks of the behind-the-scenes events of the ’80-86 and beyond eras. As I’ve said many times over the years, just tell me the unvarnished truth, I’m smart enough to make my own decisions about my life and I’ll just take it from there. I’ll always lived at a high level spiritually and materially, and only the truth about all things Hubbard and Scientology are gonna keep me on MY own path to truth. Thank you for this book.

    About KSW, I’ve had one thought for the longest time Allow me a slight bit tongue and cheek to make my point. The “big mission” of saving the universe was so important that many were expected to sign up and serve for a billion years. On the other hand, LRH worked on research for about 30 years, 1950-80, more or less, and then took off and is doing who knows what. He apparently didn’t sign up for the billion. For me, this sort of puts it in a more real perspective. Another case of “do as I say, not as I do.” Maybe the “mission critical mission” isn’t as critical as we were told.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful for the gains and wisdom and capability to look that I achieved over the years, just not gulping the whole pitcher of kool-aid any longer. (Probably not since GAT in ’96.)

    Again, thanks for the latest book.

  18. martyrathbun09

    Thanks for the interesting perspective.

  19. martyrathbun09

    So, in your opinion is L. Ron Hubbard saying to guys like me – who decidedly reject KSW as misemotional, misleading hyperbolic inducement to thought-stopping – ‘just don’t do it.’?

  20. Aeolus,

    You are absolutely correct. KSW is indeed the dividing line between Ron the humanitarian and Ron the false messiah.

    The paragraph by Payne is profound. It indeed is my experience that once I accepted KSW, despite the serious misgivings I had, despite the various hidden and open lies I could see in it, I lost a major part of my integrity. Now, that I read this paragraph, I could spot it and “as-is” it.

    There are other ways of ensuring quality rather than force. I believe that by writing KSW Ron showed that he at the time, was “not so bright”. Neither was any of us who bought it.

    We all learn from our mistakes. I will not compromise my integrity like that again.

  21. Margaret, you wrote: “Further, it’s one thing to apply standardization to auditing tech — but then to apply it to EVERYTHING (including all policies) that LRH ever wrote, said, etc. is simply unworkable and ultimately doomed to failure, imho.”

    And Marty wrote: “Therefore, KSW called for zealous enforcement of the standard application of Scientology. By “standard” was meant precise, unquestioning adherence to all technical and administrative instructions from L. Ron Hubbard.”

    I must say I am surprised by the interpretation that LRH was talking about anything other than auditing tech, not admin tech – and certainly not “EVERYTHING he ever wrote said, etc.” The examples given in KSW 1 all relate to auditing tech and then he states the following:

    “Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases.”

    In other words, per that last line, LRH is talking about “cases” and thus auditing tech. What in this PL gives you (Margaret or Marty) the understanding that it referred to admin tech (let alone “EVERYTHING” LRH ever wrote and said)?

  22. “LRH is saying, and I paraphrase: “Look kids, this is simple, do Scientology the way I say to or don’t do it. …”

    That is not what he is saying. He is saying he did it all by himself – lie.

    He is saying groups are reactive and will only do bad things – vicious lie.

    He is saying if you do not agree with him you are stupid – a violation of the Creed of the Church of Scientology.

    Need I say more?

    LRH wrote it in anger. Had he been smart, he would have cancelled it.

  23. The brain wash in the Sea Org is much more intense. It takes more time to start thinking logically again.

  24. I’m reminded of the following story. A class of kids was being supplied with mid morning milk and cookies. The teacher would distribute the snacks and the kids would say thank you as they had been trained to do-except for one kid. When the teacher got to this kid he would cuss her out and though she tried to gently correct him he continued to cuss her out every morning. In frustration, the teacher finally called the kid’s mother to school and explained to her exactly what was going on. The mother listened patiently then said:
    F–k ‘im don’t give ‘m any.
    So Marty, I watch you kindly and patiently try to explain your point of view in order to get people to open their minds. And all I can think of is :F–k ’em don’t give ’em any.

  25. I always considered me to be different. As a kid, as member of my school class or Scientologist or in the army or whatever group I have been put into or put myself into. Within Scientology as public or staff I felt same way. No real group member. Somtimes I had been jealous as I could not be integrated into groups. I even tried lots of alcohol (this life in my teens) to lower my awareness to be able to really join a group and be a member of that group. Be accepted. As any group and the people within that group can sense and feel that you did not really join. If you really join you have to give up some awareness and turn over some of it to the group and replace your awareness with „group awareness“. I cannot do it. I do not know the reason.
    Therefore I did read KSW and other policy and it could not harm me. I had not been able to really join and Scientology could not handle that. As alcohol could not lower my awarenss level Scientology could not do it either. Those that do have the ability to integrate into a group easily by integrating group awarenss can do it with any group. Now Scientology demands that one gives up a certain amount or maybe all individuality. KSW is one reference demanding that.
    I did read it and other stuff and that could not handle me.
    People are different. I met within Scientology many people that had the same inability to join groups. I had the idea that within Scientology the percentage if those like me had been very high compared to other groups. Therefore I felt somehow at home. But starting in 82 all those not really integrated had been removed during the years. I left finally in 1993 with my body identity. I finally left in 1995. Now only those that have the ability to integrate into a group completely are still there. I call that ability as I cannot do it. If it is good or bad I do not want to judge. We all have very much different backgrounds. We come from different long lasting societies and even from different galaxies. Maybe those still in feel at home. If someone does not have this feeling he should be allowed to leave and have the right to find his group or society he feels to be his home. Currently we are forced to to find this life and group on one planet alone. This one. What a pity indeed for some on this planet.

  26. From my side, If SCN standard tech produces results uniformly, then it is understandable to not risk to change it. Without this meaning that other spiritualities/techs shouldn’t exist. It’s just that people who wanted that tech in specific, should be able to get it, as it was meant to be delivered. If others chose another path, it would be fine by me, and not necessarily bad. Besides, if spiritualities up to that point hadn’t made it to bring about significant improvement on a wide scale, it didn’t mean that it was impossible to happen. That would be some kind of thinking based on the past…banky. It seems to me LRH intended to cause some effect onto the 4th dynamic, and wanted to do that through SCN. One cannot tell whether that happened or not, by observing what happened to the Churches. Since I have certainty in the basic principles such as responsibility, as-isness etc, I believe an effect can be brought about from (apparently) one individual to the rest of the dynamics. And I assume that such a thing did happen. But if one considers what I said true, then also consider that as-isness isn’t something to be observed…it is rather something that isn’t there (anymore). What remains (if something remains) is the lie.

  27. What is true to me from my personal experience:

    Anyone who genuinely asks Marty for help – receives it

    Others who have asked for help by KSW-Rules-Scios – have been denied or given difficult parameters to meet but have taken $$ while exchanging nothing and have never contacted the person who gave them the money (for future services) to explain what happened, apologize or work out a repayment plan. Yikes.

    Hmmm … Not my kind of help. Nor a very good example of why KSW works …

  28. martyrathbun09

    Crack the OEC. Crack this blog for that matter, I’ve posted HCO PLs that require for policy as well as tech.

  29. I remember that ‘orientation’ film. I always found it horrible. Full with PR, as if somebody should enter SCN just because Mary and John say they had great wins with it, or because SCN orgs appear luxurious. But what charged me the most was the beginning (the film tries to spook you in the beginning based on the assumption that ‘people are in apathy’) and the end where that dude, tried to convince the viewer that unless he becomes a member (and a good one) he is f@cked for eternity! WOW! and what a confusion between ‘eternity’ and ‘infinity’…I think this is clearly not what LRH wanted to comm with KSW 1. Nor do I remember reading that unless SCN ‘clears the planet’ we are doomed. That sounds like SP bull… to me. So as far as I’m concerned, I only accept self/pan determined SCN as potentially beneficial.

  30. To add to your list:

    He is saying if you don’t get good results, it is because you are doing it wrong. The tech isn’t perfect but it works as long as you apply it exactly as written.

    What it doesn’t take into account is what will happen when those written materials get altered. From a “public” perspective, who do I trust as to what is the “real” version of this book, that lecture, HCOPL RT Amended and proscribed?

    Do I want an auditor to decide that an F/N only occurs after three swings? No. Do I want an auditor to mix major case actions? No. We could go on but the concept that fits real well for me is Marty’s concept of “playing the piano.” It aligns very nicely with Ron telling us that the only way to really go OT is to get trained.

    From my perspective I have to go with what is true for me and reject that which I find unworkable. Current conditions in the “official” church don’t align with my life.

    I think Marty’s doing great service continuing this discussion. Really, if someone insists that every single word is the gospel, go back to “the fold” and leave us alone.


  31. Regular Dog

    I felt good with KSW the 1st time I read it in 1973. The policy letter woke me up some then. LRH was more uptone in his policy letter than I was in anything I was doing in life at that time. The policy gave me direction and helped me get my necessity level up. Now 40 years later I look at the present day squirrel church and to me all the Miscavige crap is the reason LRH wrote the policy.

  32. Tom M., I think you’re missing the point of this post.

    Do you actually have any reason to think that when Marty audits, that he is not auditing exactly as LRH wanted folks to audit? I think you do not.

    That is not what this post is about. I think it is about those very “idiots” you refer to, whoever they maybe, who lacking any judgement whatsoever, robotically misapply KSW just as they misapply auditing tech.

  33. This is what K.S.W. means to you, and why I have a problem with your adherence. Your most recent blog post on Iscientology. “Open Letter” excepts:

    “Ex-Sea Org: You have been told and reminded time and time again that it is not okay to have money
    (unless you were an executive at CMO Int or RTC). Now you struggle to get money to live and are unable to get the big money needed to get yourself OT. In other words you are not going to be going up the bridge this lifetime in the Church. And the Church doesn’t care.”

    This aligns with K.S.W. that all Ex S.O. are DB’s. I have no idea why you would publish something like this. There are plenty of successful X Sea Org out here that did not morph into DB’s when they stepped out of uniform and started working in another location.

    “There is a problem too with OTs that are out here and stalled. If you are OT, have been OT III or mid OT V for years and years, you are at risk. ”

    Now, it seems, whatever you have done in Scientology, you have become a “problem” to the rest of the world. You may be clear, you may be grade iV, you may be a doctor or an auditor, whatever you are and no matter how busy you have been helping others, you are a “PROBLEM” to society if you have not done a service in a while!

    Makes me cringe. With attitudes like this how is one every supposed to have a win or feel good about them self? Scientology becomes the game where everybody loses.

    There are people all over the world that never heard of Scientology that are an asset to society, their family and their friends. An unwillingness to view the “right” in others is like a ser fac. You can spend thirty years on the bridge to be told you are a problem and at risk.

    “As I travel around and meet people, get in comm I run into Scientologists who used to be in the Church or who used to be on lines and are no longer moving on the bridge. I get in comm with them and I am astounded at the number of Dianetic Clears that are stalled and off of the bridge and unable to move in any direction. Some of these people are in trouble and some are in real big trouble. Some don’t even realize what a mess they are in. But ALL of them need help.
    I am helping as many as I can get out of this nasty non-interference zone that they are in and get them on to OT. And it is surprisingly simple to do, actually. The Church just makes it complicated and costly.

    Make no mistake, if you are a Dianetic Clear and have been for years, you are in trouble – and you know it.
    There is a problem too with OTs that are out here and stalled. If you are OT, have been OT III or mid OT V for years and years, you are at risk. You need to get through the “Wall of Fire” and get onto Solo NOTs.
    But even if you have the money you aren’t really going to go OT in the Church because they got rid of the original OT Sections 4-7. These are the real OT Sections where you do drills that make you OT and able to be “Cause over Life”. And we Indies deliver these OT Sections and we make OTs. In other words, we deliver the bridge as directed by LRH. Not the current Church bridge which is set up to only squeeze money out of you.”

    Here is you assigning everyone who is a Scientologist a danger condition.

    Here is you declaring there are NO OT’s except the ones you make.

    Here is you declaring nobody has really “made it to OT” no matter what they did in the Church.

    “Tip of the Day: Once we put a label on something, we create a corresponding emotion.” Anthony Robbins

    Anthony Robbins is a clear thinker.

    The problem is that you claim to be K.S.W. and you really DO NOT THINK with the tech. You claim to be an auditor that can make OT’s when nobody else can and you are on the internet assigning wrong conditions, wrong whys, wrong item and wrong indications to people.

    When you give Marty Permission to “quit” , you give him permission to have his own point of view, to say what he feels.

    If someone has a different point of view, they are supposed to “quit fast”.

    And here you are giving him permission to quit.

    Yet, he isn’t the one out here violating people, ser facing on them, and working to dominate them with the tech. You are.

    It is not what you pledge to in the end, it is about PURPOSE.

    When I met you were claiming to be K.S.W. but you were not thinking with the ethics conditions or applying them.

    If you WERE KSW, you would be able to notice that YOU are in an enemy condition towards Marty. And instead of attacking him, for printing a book expert, which he has every right to do, you would whip out the ethics book and work to pull yourself out of a low condition.

    From L.R.H.

    “The little child is quite bent on causing effects and getting things admired. He is continually being evaluated in terms of what is to be admired.

    Evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s “viewpoint” is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties.

    Thus the confusion of the word “viewpoint” itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject, which is the reactive definition.

    Because the analytical mind and reactive mind in men can become confused one with the other, one is most prone to assume the actual perception point of that person who has most evaluated for him. Father and mother, for instance, have evaluated about art, habits, goodness, behavior, badness, how one should dress, what manners are, to such a degree that the child has no choice, it seems to him, but to assume their “points to look from,” and so we will find the child observing things as his father or mother would observe them and even wearing his father’s glasses or his mother’s glasses as he grows older.

    He has confused evaluation with actual perception. Where he has been
    told that he is bad looking, ugly, ridiculous, unmannerly, crude and so forth by somebody else continually, his reactive mind (which, like a prostitute, cares nothing for its master and serves anyone) eventually causes him to lose his viewpoint of himself and he sees himself not by observation but by evaluation as something undesirable.

    Of course, he would rather be something than nothing. He has, indeed, a horror of being nothing. So it is better to be something ugly about which he is guessing than to be nothing at all, and so he persists and continues as he is. Furthermore, because he has been talked to so much about talking, about looking, about perceiving in general, he has gotten the idea that his communications system is unalterable.

    His whole business of living actually is a communications system with the motivation of causing effects.
    Thus the lower he is on the tone scale the more he persists without change except downward.”

  34. Scientology in its current form no longer appeals to the masses, especially young people. Sad but true. Many people do not want to go to a “church” or embrace “religion” in an effort to improve themselves. Most young people are simply not interested in Hubbard’s tall tales, his bloviating arrogance and nonsensical doomsday tracts.

    I get that when selling “Scientology” one must ensure one is delivering Scientology (standard tech). But talk about getting to the frikkin’ point.

    There is also no excuse for making bullshit claims in the process.

    KSW screams “cult”. It is bad PR for a modern-day Scientology.

    It is time to wise up, Gramps. Times have well and truly changed and if people don’t realise that then the “Indies” risk ending up as nothing more than an ickle group of old-timers still yearning to relive “the glory days”. When you lot pop your clogs, what then?

  35. Warren Marston

    When I first read the KSW PL in 1968, I thought it was rather hyperbolically written. But I also understood its simple message — that after many years of research trying different approaches, LRH had finally gotten the tech to a point of high workability, and considered that the game had therefore become just getting it applied. I also understood that LRH was frustrated and angry that a number of major squirrels in the early 60’s had been distracting Scientologists from the workable path he’d finally isolated.

    Other Scientologists I knew at that time seemed to have similar understanding. In those days I never heard ANYONE complain about KSW, or saw anyone apply it in draconian fashion. All that came much later.

    To me the real issue was not the KSW policy itself. Maybe it could have been written in a manner less conducive to abuse in the hands of literalists. But I believe the real problem was the tone level, awareness level, and philosophical understanding of those applying it. Those levels declined over the years as power shifted from tech people to admin people, with the running of the Church changing accordingly.

    The admin people who took over management in the 70’s were simply of insufficient tone level (due to getting almost no auditing themselves), insufficient life experience (due to joining the Sea Org as teenagers), and insufficient understanding of the philosophy and tech (due to their study being almost exclusively of admin) to be capable of judgment and effective, compassionate application of the subject they were supposedly managing.

  36. Marty, my point was just that KSW #1 is talking about auditing tech, not admin tech. But I do know of other PL’s, such as “Keeping Admin Working”, that apply the same KSW 1 principles to admin tech. However, if you are talking about policy in general, then I think we should include the PL’s that have the basic theory of admin and the primary principles that are to be applied. LRH made clear the “single factor governing it [policy]” in HCOPL 4 Dec 66, Expansion, Theory of Policy”:

    “It takes many things to ensure expansion. Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.”

    That right there tells us exactly how to INTERPRET policy. And there are two other basic guidelines – deliver what you promise and maintain friendly relations.

    LIke everything else, it always seems to come down to intention and a good conceptual understanding of the whole – what LRH called “playing the piano”. And you yourself have expressed this same concept as it relates to LRH materials in general, if I remember right.

  37. He’d probably just C/Sed a folder where some auditor decided his PC needed a bit of “deep breathing” like in Transcendental Meditation, to cure his outburst of natter and criticism, and when the needle swung gently back and forth three times, he quietly ended session to let the PC have his win! “TM works!” he exclaimed enthusiastically on the worksheets!

    KSW is probably no different from an auto mechanic’s manual – I don’t know that for sure because I’ve only read one maintenance manual or one car and got utterly lost in the wiring diagram, but it represents “recommendations” to not do anything other than what is written. As one mechanic said, “Do whatever you want, but if you screw it up, it’s not my responsibility! I’ve told you what I recommend. … NO! Don’t touch that with that metal!! Sheesh!! You OK?” I read KSW once, got it method whatevered, and never read it again. It’s just common sense in strong language. I’ve learned about common sense. I’ve never developed tech, I never designed an engine, and I never developed the mathematics of statistics either, but to pass the exams, you just duplicate and take the data on faith. Same with biology. There are gear-heads who join up and design new engines, and PhD’s who develop new math, but usually, it is based on previous work, as indeed Scientology is. I really do not understand the problem people have with “KSW”.

    I’m told Scn works when applied correctly. I’ve never had a problem with the tech or the writings. If I happen to disagree with something, and it isn’t about procedures, then I put it on the back burner. What I HAVE had problems with – serious ones – are others misunderstandings and misapplications and consequent errors with the procedures. And that can turn into a real problem very quickly.

  38. p.s. I just noticed that the above quote is from a 1966 PL, which obviously was written after the 1965 PL KSW #1.

    Here’s another good principle, from HCO PL 23 Oct 63:

    “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
    the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
    he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That
    was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff
    as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s
    the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

  39. I agree with you on one point, Marty: the PL is written at a tone level way below 3.0 (which would be the correct tone for the message at hand). I don’t know why he thought it wouldn’t work better at a higher tone level. Maybe he was pissed off by the many in-comming reports on technical alteration. What ever.

    I would really like if you would promote the standard LRH training line up from time to time.
    What else you do and whether or not you call yourself Scientologist or not is of no relevance to me. But since you became auditor by doing the auditor classes per LRH route (I assume at least partly pre-GAT), it would be great if you would emphasize the value of training from time to time.

  40. martyrathbun09

    I know what your point was. Look at this comm cycle again. Incidentally, even if did only apply to tech which you’ve now acknowledged it is not limited to, as noted in a previous post, I am no longer wasting time with the necessarily interminable argumentation on what constitutes ‘standard technology’, ‘standard admin’, and such . You might come to understand through Memoirs how it is that Scientology is hardwired to create that perpetual state of conflict and how it will continue to manifest down through the ages (to no possible substantive conclusions) if anyone in the future continues to find that activity worthwhile, from:

  41. martyrathbun09

    Thanks. These analogies to American Airlines, the Army (a previous commenter), and auto repair are inapt in my view. Not if you are seeking ever escalating heights of awareness and consciousness.

  42. martyrathbun09

    All pre GAT. I would like it if you would demonstrate the slightest recognition that an integral Scientology might open the door to taking people above and beyond the cult mentality of a Scientologist.

  43. Where I’m at is that I still trust LRH regarding Scientology. It was his creation. He put a lot into it and you can say for sure it wouldn’t be here and we wouldn’t have anything to discuss if he hadn’t. He worked on it for quite some time- half a century or better. I think there is a valid concept in “KRC”. Marty, you didn’t develop it or make it what it was or is as a subject. I’m sure LRH has more technical, administrative and leadership experience regarding Scientology than you. Plus, I just don’t see the problem. It just says do it my way and it will work. He’s being emphatic and a bit stern, but I don’t get anger. I don’t get “thought stopping”.

    So, LRH in 1965 during what really seems like the golden age of Scientology, as the head of the Church and author of Scientology, having developed the tech and delivered it to thousands of people thought this policy was very important. He reissued it and said it was indeed vitally important and that he was not fucking around.

    So who do I trust? I still trust LRH for some reason, sorry.

  44. I think this is very good. I’m not sure about the last paragraph because I wasnt there, but I really like the rest.

  45. Tom, in a sense it is not KSW or trying to standardize something that is antithetical to human advancement in spiritual knowledge.

    It is what one is asked to agree with unquestioningly. KSW is an enforcement of all Ron’s writing and a call to war against any other thinking or opinion.

    It is not the benevolence of “keep your trs in, use ARC in session, bring a pc to VGI’s, look up words etc,” that makes KSW a dangerous authoritarian doctrine.

    It is those doctrines and dogmas that seek to protect “the only hope of man” at any cost. It is the doctrine that promises independent thinking and then crushes you for becoming independent.

    It is Fair Game, disconnection, TR-Lie, the denigration of other practices, the built in thought stopping, the false claims to originality, the war against the enemy, the demanding that you fight the enemy to be part of the group.

    There is nothing wrong with standardization to keep something working, the real issue is: what is being standardized and enforced to keep working?

  46. Okay, got it. The argumentation does seem interminable. I’ve hung onto the notion that it could all work if applied fully and with good intention. But I look forward to reading your new book to get an understanding of how you see it as “hardwired to create that perpetual state of conflict…” Btw, I ordered it yesterday. I read both of your earlier books and they were superb.

  47. Roger From Switzerland Thought


  48. Tom Gallagher

    Marty, I think the issue that you point out in these excerpts from KSW 1 is that this is the ultimate formula and concoction the creation and reinforcement a full-blown cult and its resultant victimization of its ‘followers’.

    IMHO LRH should have walked away about 1959 with a big at-a-boy on his sleeve. He’d be admired today rather than disdained by the broad masses. .

  49. By the way, who knew Hubbard thought prostitutes were supposed to have masters? Who knew Hubbard thought women were supposed to care for “masters” otherwise they were “prostitutes that cared for no one”? And which part of this is KSW in your mind?

  50. An answer I put up on my Facebook group Free Scientologists. I think it’s relevant to some degree. There are no more command channels, there are no bigger authorities anymore. The future of Scientology depends on how well and how precisely one can interpret Policy and Tech.

    so, here it goes:

    I place a lot of importance on Admin Tech. Of course given that there is a Tech Tech (lol). But if there is one (which there is) the only problem becomes Admin and Ethics. (if one wants to get something done on a broader scale and I don’t know how one would attain real OT unless he constantly had this in mind).

    I had a lot of wins from Admin because it kept (up to a point) my new 3rd Dynamic (the Sea Org) sane and efficient. And then the orgs all over the world. What a miracle to have those orgs. Now we can have our own Independent Orgs but it’s gonna be on the shoulders of not only good auditors but skilled Administrators. So an Administrator (a 3rd Dynamic auditor) takes a new importance in these difficult times.

    So at least me, I couldn’t talk bad about those policies and I couldn’t really believe that LRH would throw them all aboard just because he was hunted down and started writing memos cancelling HCO PLs and HCOBs. I will never believe this. This was all of his work. Unless he went nuts for reasons we don’t know.

    To come back to what we have in hand now is our own future. There is an internet and there is ample communication between Indies. This is a gift we can all share. And with the knowledge we all have and the heights of knowlngness and spirituality we all have attained (hopefully) we can do a good job. I am afraid though that not much of a job will be done without some networking (=organisation). Many Indies don’t want that. I can understand it. However, I think that one day it will dawn on us that organisation was not to blame. The lack of Understanding of that organisation could very well be blamed. I could never admit DM is a Standard Administrator and after 13 years that I reported it on the Internet hundreds of other people state it daily on the net.

    LRH was a good Administrator. He also was the Game Maker of Admin. He created some Admin Tech which was workable to a degree. Now, that’s something. I have seen it work in the hands of good administrators. I have seen it not work in the hands of bad administrators and I have seen it trap people in the hands of evil beings.

  51. Tom, do you grant Ron infallibility?

  52. Marty this is why we are here. They can’t. They can just give them some basic or in the best of cases upper understandings of life. After that no one is to even think outside the box. This is why we are here, this is why we left. And I left with the certainty that DM was a squirrel and I had the evidence in hand.

  53. I am NOT against integral Scientology. I am a philosopher myself.
    I only think you don’t need a integral philosopher in order to train someone to Level 0 so he can produce and have some wins.
    You need people of good will and the willingness to help their fellows.

    I appreciate your “being a rebel”. You’ve helped to break the corporational monopoly. You helped many people to leave the cult and/or to decompress from their experiences with the cult.

    It’s nice that you want save people from being/becoming “cultists”.
    Are you afraid people will become “cultists” by following the training line-up as recovered by people like Dan Koon?
    This is a honest question.
    I noticed that you seldom, if at all, promote auditor training. You, at the other hand, very often talk about discrepancies in some aspects of LRH writings.

  54. That’s true Jane, very true. And that’s what’s I am trying to do: get Marty on our side, lol. Marty that was a bad joke, eh?

    In any case and jokes aside I think the book is great and reveals details we wouldn’t know about how stretched things were sometimes and what big fights had to be fought to keep Scientology in place and Hubbard really safe. I think it’s worthwhile reading for the narrative style of Marty which is unique.

  55. In the last few days Tom has published the following declares:

    Ex Sea Org Members are DB’s.
    All Scientologists are in a danger condition.
    Nobody who did anything in the Church made it to OT.
    Nobody is an OT that has not done the bridge the way he sees it ought to be done.
    Marty is a squirrel / an S.P.

    In other words, we are all fucked up as a result of exploring Scientology.

    But he stands firmly on the K.S.W.

    And this song is dedicated to us:

  56. Follow in you in what? Ser Facing on everyone?

  57. windhorsegallery

    I agree — those analogies are inapt as well as inept …

    Tom M. said in his comment regarding Marty and KSW – “Even the Army has their own form of KSW: “There are three ways of doing things: The right way, the wrong way and the Army way. You will do things the Army way.” So what? It actually makes sense.”

    However, I have read Tom’s very compelling memoir about his year fighting in the army in Vietnam. (Vietnam: The Teenage Wasteland)

    And while I do not pretend to remember perfectly the various ranks, and branches of service that Tom M. spoke about in his memoir — I was left with the OVERARCHING understanding that IF HE HAD FOLLOWED HIS COMMANDERS (not his immediate commander who together they saved a bunch of people) Tom would NOT have been alive to have written his memoir OR gotten involved in scientology OR commented on this blog.

    It was his ability to THINK OUTSIDE OF A BOX … a box created by 100’s if not thousands of Viet Cong surrounding him and what was left of his group (don’t know the term) … that saved his ass, about 20 other men and got him awarded the Silver Star.

    He didn’t do it THE ARMY WAY — he did it the HEROIC way, the THINK for YOURSELF WAY, the SAVE LIVES WAY.

    Heros are NOT made by following the rules. By following a code. By doing what is dictated. They are made by stepping UP.

    Like the parents of Sarah Murnaghan. By the Charles Ramsey’s of the world. By the teenager who refuses to allow bullying and steps OUT of the teenage box to say so.

    Good grief.

    This is NOT meant as a rebuttal per se of KSW – more a pointing out of the flaws TO ME in Tom’s comment to Marty regarding KSW.

    Because as far as I can tell his comment is deeply flawed.

    KSW and its rigid adherence seems to have caused someone who was once honored by a whole country for his heroism and bravery during battle which saved the lives of others …

    To become fixed. Hard. And lacking compassion.


  58. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    The main problem Lrh wanted to solve was to create a Scientology that everybody (masses) will be able to apply and understand and wanted to reach the goal in a Lifetime.

    Dmsmh sold one Million copies in 1950 and propably 6-7 millions people read it !
    But it didn’t create the 1000ds of co-auditing teams he was dreaming of and never had the same success again as it promised paradise but didn’t deliver it !
    A ksw is only needed when you have too many unqualified people on staff and too many unqualified students in the academy, and this situation will chase the qualified people away !

    Imagine a university accepting anybody as a student. There will be a big mess, and they will write a ksw that will be much more harsher then that from LRH, or from time to time they shoot some of the idiots.

    From the beginnning LRH was fixed onto the common man, as communism did and wanted to help everybody and so never really qualified the people he was working with, neither the staffs or public and the mess we have now is the result of it.

    What are the real qualifications of DM ?
    Why can people that can barely read become auditors or high execs in COS ?
    While LRH had quite an education and this helped him a lot, why didn’t he ask from others to get an education, but meant Scientology alone is one ?

    KSW should be burned and treated as that what it really is. The rethoric in it is facistic. Make the test and give it to read to somebody that doesn’t know anything about Scientology and ask him aboutr his opinion.
    You’ll find not one person that will locve it !

  59. Tom Gallagher

    Sorry, for grammatical errors, Should read “this is the ultimate formula and the concoction for the creation and reinforcement a full-blown cult and its resultant victimization of its ‘followers’”.

    Frankly, I’ve been a bit distracted this afternoon by an encounter with a hungry 9 or ten year old boy I’ve never seen or met before who asked me for help to get something to eat. All in front of my driveway.

  60. martyrathbun09

    Read What is Wrong With Scientology to find out my views about the training line up. You either didn’t read it, or your are taunting – for what purpose is anybody’s guess.

  61. martyrathbun09

    Come up to present time.

  62. martyrathbun09

    Thanks Marildi.

  63. martyrathbun09

    What’s with the me vs him think? How far up the training and auditing sides of the Bridge did KSW take you?

  64. Marty you wrote above the following resolution of your’s.

    “The conflicting concepts between the group and the individual were finally resolved by me with the mental computation that the only way to truly realize true individuality is to forfeit individuality in favor of the purposes and goals of the group.”

    Marty, we all have had our shares in getting confused in the group about what to do in case of conflicts. The Collective Thought is always or appears to be stronger to the degree one has become effect to the Group or has become IT to the exclusion of the rest of the Dynamics. But we still have our own Universe which is our little fortress that no one can concur. And reading your book I was surprised to see how you also too had your crossroads and had your doubts and confusions and questions which wouldn’t be answered.

    As I read your resolution above maybe I could state it in this way for me and what I had decided because, believe me, I was also seeing things I couldn’t accept. So here it is with one alteration, the last word.

    “The conflicting concepts between the group and the individual were finally resolved by me with the mental computation that the only way to truly realize true individuality is to forfeit individuality in favor of the purposes and goals of the Tech. (instead of the group) ”

    I do not want to make an evaluation for you here but you helped me word my own resolution and how I had it made in my mind. The group (many times confused as Representing the True Tech which is not in most of the times) soon became some secondary thing to me than the tech. Yes I would be in the group, survive with the group, had to agree with the group but I always kept my own sight as to what was Tech and what not really. Many people just make their group their God… I remember seniors making seniors their God…

    But a player knows the RULES and follows them and a piece ignores the rules and follows orders. I can understand that under the constant pressure in the vicinity of that monster DM is not always easy to even have time to find out about which are the rules really much less follow them. But that does not mean that DM’s weird and vicious charisma would set the norme for me as to what is really the tech all about, or even admin if you please.

    I resolved my dilemma and confusion by getting one stable datum. An HCOB just smashed that ugly face like we see on the PTS -SP course that of DM…. It was just one HCOB on translations which would do the job for me. I didn’t become any group, I didn’t even acknowledge DM as the senior authority in Scientology. On the contrary, through that outpoint of not applying HCOBs and throwing down the lines verbal data and a hidden data line and off standard solutions like memos and advices replacing HCOBs, I got to recognise him for who he was. And I got to recognise also that the Group, my Group was in trouble and was being led astray. I felt bad but at least I had those things differentiated.

    A being is as reasonable as he can recognise and meet the counter efforts applied on him. I had recognised the counter effort to shove down my throat that Scientology was really a cult with no Admin, no real Policy, no HCOBs of any value (just get paid 50 bucks and do your work type of thing). I recognised that same effort being applied on my 3rd Dynamic too with all the pressures and the injustices and the kids having not even toys much less any pocket money and… and… and…

    I did recognise that. Ok, I didn’t meet that counter effort and to that degree I remain half sane…. (now that’s my own computation here and consideration). But if you look at it when you do in on any dynamic you don’t want to fail and we did fail to get DM in his place.

    Imagine Scientology without DM.

  65. Sapere Aude

    marildi – from what I know of you and your viewpoint – You will love the book. It will enlighten historically, it will rock your previous viewpoints by the facts presented and you will have a new viewpoint and a more fuller understanding of the entire game here. How to move beings toward a state of more enlightenment and freedom and the future for all. Also, how to do that WITHOUT denying them the very freedoms they are gaining along the way. Looking forward to hear your comments.

  66. CommunicatorIC

    Off-topic, but a head’s up to the Independent Scientology community. concerning the documentary about Independent Scientology, “Scientologists At War,” to be shown on Channel 4 (UK), 9pm 17 June 2013:

    Please be advised that members and/or agents of the corporate Church of Scientology have already begun to comment on the relevant Channel 4 forum located at:

    “Todd on 12 June 2013 at 17:25
    I feel aghast that you are even considering airing a programme titled, ?Scientologists at War?. For instance which Scientologists did you find who were at war. Marty Rathbun is certainly no Scientologist and the fact that you even state that he defected shows that all you are trying to create is the impression that we are warring with each other. This could not be further from the truth. I suggest that you not air the programme and find something else to occupy your time.

    Frank on 12 June 2013 at 16:30
    There are millions of Scientologists throughout the world applying Scientology in their daily lives who are more than willing to express to anybody how it has improved their lives, so why is it that Channel 4 (and other media) are usually – if not consistently – presenting Scientology solely through the eyes of a few dissidents (usually 3 or 4 max) who per definition are against it? Are you taking advice from unsatisfied car owners at all when looking to buy a new car? There is a “problem” with Scientology in that it claims to put people in a position where they can solve their own problems in their own lives, which also means they’re becoming more independent and thus less tractable. But then not everyone thinks that’s a great idea… Could that be the real “problem” behind all these senseless attacks? I think the time has come to have a truly informative – not derogatory – program about Scientology, that would allow people to make up their own mind for themselves. Visit sci link removed Think for yourself.”

    “Mike on 12 June 2013 at 10:45
    I am not happy that programme is being aired, Firstly it’s title implies that this programme will be a one side account which will produce negatives about my religion without presenting the factual data. Your ex-Scientologist speak as just that apostates are known to always be in disagreement with the groups they leave so any news from then can be predicted.Scientology has helped me for over 30 years now. I have a very fulfilling life because of it and enables me to help others effectively using it’s principles. If you want to truth just visit a church or visit the website. sci link removed There you will see the work done world wide to provide unconditional help.”

    Hat tip to WWP for this head’s up:

    If any of you want your voices heard, the discussion has already started.

  67. I said: seldom (if at all).

    Not anyone who reads your blog reads your books.
    I will specify my previous wording: I would really like it if you would promote the standard LRH training line up more often.

  68. Darkesthour

    Tom – you lost me at the “Look kids…” How many out there reading this are “kids”? I get the impression that most have put decades into Scientology. When will it be the time to say “We are grown ups” and think and act like such. It shoudnt take you very long being out in the world to know that LRH learned from alot other beings, many of them much older, in fact even dead. Nothing wrong with that – he moved things forward. Still as things stand – that is, at this point in time – his venture with establishing an organization for the benefit of mankind is a failure, besides seriously injuring others – it seriously injured him. Now he, let’s say, is not currently available to consult with respect to what he learned and what he thinks of all that in hindsight. But you can think and learn and nobody is trying to get on your plane, fly it yourself and use everything you know and have learned to fly it right. As much as there is to admire about scientologists commitment to develop themselves, ultimately to go forward, to move things forward, moving up, to grow up is to, respectfully and with gratitude, let go of this LRH, who actually is not, as you might think, stiffly frozen in time.

  69. martyrathbun09

    I have, if you have any real interest you’ll read the book to find out. I spent a lot of time on it. I don’t generally take orders, least of all from someone as demonstrably disinterested (while feigning strong care) as you.

  70. martyrathbun09

    Funny thing is, I am pretty much following the computation as you worded it, much to the dismay of Scientologists of all stripes.

  71. HA! That’s a GREAT story. Thank God for people who don’t conform. And who aren’t striving to please others.

  72. “His whole business of living actually is a communications system with the motivation of causing effects. Thus the lower he is on the tone scale the more he persists without change except downward.” L.R.H.

    K.S.W. commands people to persist without change.

  73. I’ve read “What is wrong with Scientology”.
    I am not disinterested.
    I am not giving you orders.

    I put in words, that I’d like it if you promoted auditor training more often.
    I’d wish you did more often.

  74. In not being able to spot danger conditions and apply ethics formulas? As In BYPASS NORMAL HABITS AND ROUTINES?

  75. S.A. I was already expecting to love the book and you’ve made me even more anxious to read it. Yes, what you say is exactly what we want – to move beings toward freedom without “temporarily” lessening their freedom in the attempt. Yay!

    And I believe you have put Marty in the proper light. I get that there are people who want to love Scientology again and some who also want to love Marty again (if I may be so bold as to say so). Thanks for the comm, Sapere Aude. 🙂

  76. Yes , inept because absolutely not subjects of comparable magnitude.
    If most people agree that LRH was probably pissed and frustrated when he wrote KSW , they should also realize that big important statements made in that tone shouldn’t be taken seriously.
    And then,what is the story about Marty altering the tech? I never understood in his writings or comments that it was the case.
    It is all very simple.If you are in the business of freeing people you don’t trap them at the same time with sweeping statements on how they should feel or behave.
    Oh , and I finished “memoirs” today and loved it. So well written and engaging , what a crazy ride!
    Thank you for writing it but mostly for introducing all this “new” data on a beautiful gradient.It help me a lot.
    I have no sympathy for dm , I understand how LRH shot himself in the foot and still retain respect for who he was. That’s the way it is.

  77. martyrathbun09

    You are violating the ‘living room’ moderation policy. Expect future 1.1 taunts to get rejected. Frankly, I don’t have the time to respond to the sleazy impressions they leave. Should you not find it in you to make the grade, you are welcome for the years of free entertainment.

  78. Nothing wrong, IMO, of having a standard procedure that works. For me the real danger in KSW is that it demands that the individual abandon personal responsibility and judgement and operate from a personal treason condition as they are not assuming their own viewpoint, but rather one of a dedicated scientologist (from Ron’s viewpoint) or they are trying to actually be in Ron’s valence. They think it is helpful to ask, “what would Ron do?” in any situation. This is very strange to an outsider, but perfectly logical to those at the effect of it.

  79. I never lose sight of this whenever I re-study KSW:

    “Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases.”

    I fully understand why LRH got so heavy and no doubt he took it to the limit. I operate a company the same way … my way or the highway, and I won’t let anyone’s ‘other-think’ to do different incur me or others any liabilities or contraction.

    And I have always seen to it I would never become part of anything that would crash orgs or deny PCs gains, and so I CHOOSE to follow KSW. It makes perfect sense to me, as I see it also as my responsibility to KEEP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.

  80. martyrathbun09

    What org are you currently supporting?

  81. Tom you posted “Real scholars have praised LRH for this reference because he is the first person in history to write such a reference.
    Could you name a few of those scholars please?

  82. Jim Logan
    Steve Hall
    Lana Mitchell
    Tom Martaniano

  83. Right. Because if you look at the admin scale, PURPOSE is SENIOR to POLICY.

    “K.S.W. people” ASSERT that POLICY is SENIOR to PURPOSE.

  84. In face, they seem to think POLICY is SENIOR to PEOPLE!

  85. Scientology “works” when it is used to improve someone’s life. The people that use it to accomplish such goals are the ONLY people keeping Scientology working.

    When people use “Scientology” to set people up for losses, invalidate them, scam them, evaluate for them, give them wrong indications, losses, dominate, and abuse and discount them, or unmock them, they are NOT keeping any Scientology working.

    They are giving Scientology a bad name and RESTIMULATING others.

  86. Marty was fair gamed on his own forum when he posted about being judgmental and labeling people and evaluating for people. He was attacked by “fundamentalists / K.S.W. / Standard tech” people.

    Yet, his line of thinking was clear as bell, sane , and paralleled Hubbard’s in every way:

    From L.R.H.

    “The little child is quite bent on causing effects and getting things admired. He is continually being evaluated in terms of what is to be admired.

    Evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s “viewpoint” is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties.

    Thus the confusion of the word “viewpoint” itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject, which is the reactive definition.

    Because the analytical mind and reactive mind in men can become confused one with the other, one is most prone to assume the actual perception point of that person who has most evaluated for him. Father and mother, for instance, have evaluated about art, habits, goodness, behavior, badness, how one should dress, what manners are, to such a degree that the child has no choice, it seems to him, but to assume their “points to look from,” and so we will find the child observing things as his father or mother would observe them and even wearing his father’s glasses or his mother’s glasses as he grows older.

    He has confused evaluation with actual perception. Where he has been
    told that he is bad looking, ugly, ridiculous, unmannerly, crude and so forth by somebody else continually, his reactive mind (which, like a prostitute, cares nothing for its master and serves anyone) eventually causes him to lose his viewpoint of himself and he sees himself not by observation but by evaluation as something undesirable.

    Of course, he would rather be something than nothing. He has, indeed, a horror of being nothing. So it is better to be something ugly about which he is guessing than to be nothing at all, and so he persists and continues as he is. Furthermore, because he has been talked to so much about talking, about looking, about perceiving in general, he has gotten the idea that his communications system is unalterable.

    His whole business of living actually is a communications system with the motivation of causing effects.
    Thus the lower he is on the tone scale the more he persists without change except downward.”

    K.S.W. commands that people persist without change.

    Most of the “K.S.W.” people I have met will attack straight Scientology.

  87. If they think it came from someone else besides Hubbard. There is an identification with a name and red letters that validates the information for them or causes them to reject it.

    This is explained in Hubbard’s quote above.

  88. Someone could write one hell of an essay on how K.S.W. as a basic structure for an organism parallel the same laws as the reactive mind.

  89. Marty, I found your latest book reads like a novel. I couldn’t put it down –
    used work time and midnight oil, it was totally captivating.

    It put the time track of Scientology in order and for me that was important.

    In the late 60’s in England, I was one of the public that protested the ban
    on Scientologists coming into the country. Once a week we would go to
    the Houses of Parliament to try to meet individually with a member of
    parliament to try to get the ban lifted.

    From 1972-1982 I was staff at a Class IV Org in Canada, but never really
    knew the timetrack of Scientology and you put it in order.

    I think this book would be extremely valuable to people who were there thru
    the years especially.
    Thank you for writing it.

  90. Tom, there is no reason for me to say much.

    Well done…you just drove the ball clean out of of the park……please enjoy your jog around the bases.

  91. Those outside of the cult who love KSW can keep applying to it. ( whatever it means to “apply KSW”?)
    Those inside the cult “applying KSW” are destroying Scientology.
    Those outside who don’t like KSW then don’t apply it.

    Whoever is applying some form of the tech and getting good results then good for you.
    Whoever is applying “standard tech” and getting bad results then you suck.
    Whoever is applying “standard tech” and getting great results then you are fantastic.
    Whoever is not applying “standard tech” and getting great results , you are fantastic.

    Would it be bad for a new person to do a Dianetics session poorly but still give some help to someone? I think not. I think most people would want to do things in such a way as to give the most help. There are some who just want to rip people off and they will be known quickly in these modern times.

    To me it sums up to results. Whoever is getting good results is doing good.

    I got some very good results from within the cult mostly before going to Flag. The closer you got to the madman the worse the results got. This shows me that the things he pushes are not good since they don’t get good results.

    Is there anyone outside of the cult that is delivering the tech and thinks that their tech delivery is better than someone else’s? And if so, can you back it up with stats? I actually think that the person who is getting the best products using the tech would be the best person to hear from. I always thought the person getting great results would be the one to listen to…

    The stats tell the tale. Anyone who is an authority on applying the tech will ( or should) have great stats to back up their opinions.

    Maybe number of success stories could be a good gadge?

    I’m sure the cult touts itself as the king of KSW and do they have the products to back it up? I don’t think so.

    So just because you tout yourself as a KSW person does not mean necessarily that you know how to get results. It is all based on products.

  92. The principles that apply to any org, my biz, any Indie training group would hold true — poorly trained auditors result in bad auditing, results in people upset/leaving/short-changed, results in crashes. I have nothing to do with CO$ any longer, as non-LRH activities at this point do not work for me, but I do support Indie cells that subscribe to KSW. That’s my choice. I have confidence in that it both promises & delivers the standard application of Scientology for the future. The tech has worked well for me, and I’m not interested in trying this and that, I know better, the tech works.

  93. OK Marty, if I am a “cultist” (or 1.1) for you for my above suggestion/request, fine.
    You could have easily say Yes or No to my initial post or ignore it altogether.

    I just don’t get what is wrong with my origination.

  94. Should you not find it in you to make the grade, you are welcome for the years of free entertainment.
    OK, got it. I am not living alone on this nice planet and I hoped you would use your platform to encourage more people to make training.
    I am almost daily on your blog and while I like over 70% of your posts, I realized that I very seldom see encouragement to actually do the LRH training line up. Or maybe it’s just me. Could be.

  95. Many people make a computation along the lines of “the only way to realize individuality is to forfeit individuality”. There’s a dreadful Christian hymn that begins ‘Make me a captive, Lord, and then I shall be free’. It continues with items like ‘My will is not my own till Thou hast made it Thine’. The writer was probably dramatising the same implant that inspired Orwell’s line about “freedom is slavery”.

    I made that intellectual surrender when they told me “Your own self-determinism? You can’t even know what self-determinism is until you’re past OT3.”

    The 10 points of KSW are valid if they are applied just to the technology of an auditing session, as they add up simply to doing the actions as prescribed. Doctors and dentists do as much, since they would lay themselves open to malpractice claims if they used experimental treatments on a patient. The same applies to any technical subject – plumbing, electrical wiring, weed spraying. In the last-mentioned area, I’ve found that operators often try to be smart and mix up unusual solutions or use chemicals in ways the manufacturer never intended. Understandably, since it’s a boring job and we all like to be creative. A manual I’ve been editing sounds a bit like KSW with its many warnings; in effect “follow the directions exactly if you don’t want to poison yourself or wipe out the crop”.

    But the auditing tech that LRH developed and the Church used to deliver in times gone by is one small part of scientology. KSW makes much less sense if we try to apply it to the whole philosophy or as a blanket prohibition on free speech.

  96. Well, that would explain it Oracle! 🙂

  97. Jean-François Genest

    The Oracle, Amen !!! Θ

  98. It’s the “not-quite-so-bright” who misunderstand LRH that are the real problem. They miss the purpose of KSW, which is in essence “don’t re-invent the wheel”, and then misapply it in such a way that is suppressive.
    Could KSW have been written in such a way that wouldn’t be so easy to use in such a manner? Probably. But the responsibility still lies with the person who doesn’t really get the purpose of the policy, and then uses it in a destructive way. One simply needs to apply KSW to KSW itself, rather than something else, and it will be just as workable as the rest of LRH tech and policy.
    Because, if you honestly think that LRH intended KSW to be used for “thought stopping” and enforcing robotic adherence to whatever he wrote, then you are sorely lacking in any understanding of what Scientology is all about.

  99. Jean-François Genest

    Marty, I love your laser-sharp ability to point out the truth. Once examined, the concepts you bring up provide as-is-ness and instantaneous clarity of mind. It is fascinating. My needle floats. Thank you !

  100. Jean-François Genest

    Tom Martiniano ←
    I don’t understand why you haven’t RE-JOINED the Sea Org yet, the current Sea Organization. I really don’t.

  101. KSW, why did I fell so freaked out when I read it the first time?

    Let me see, what does it remind me of? Oh I know, here it is:

    “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” Qur’an:9:5

    Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.” Qur’an:9:29

    “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” Qur’an:8:39
    “I am fighting in Allah’s service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah’s war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good.” Ishaq: 300

    “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.” Qur’an:9:38

    I’m totally ecumenical so tomorrow I’ll post something about Christian Crusaders.

  102. nonscientologist

    I saw several people use the analogy comparing the army way to scientology. I.E. there is only one way to do things correctly. For various reasons this is probably not a good comparison.

    1) From a purely operational perspective, the “army way” has changed repeatedly over time driven by new technologies and tactics, and the Army does not find this to be a problem. For example, at one time the “army way” was to concentrate troops into tightly packed lines of firing soldiers on the battlefield. Starting with the improved artillery, and invention of the machine gun as well as the internal magazine bolt action rifle such tactics became obsolete, and the “army” way changed radically. By contrast, it appears a proponent of “standard tech” would want the tech delivered in an identical manner across the time with minimal changes.

    The army may be very one minded about what its way is at that particular moment in time, but it changes based on external realities.

    2) Some observers have identified a division between “Big Army” and its special operations branch, most typically known as the special forces. There are multiple manuals for various army units, so while the Uniform Code of Military Justice will apply to every unit, the tactics and standards used by a tank battalion will differ dramatically from that of a 12 person “A team” which for example may have modified grooming standards not permitted in “Big Army”. The point is that even in the “Army” there are some commonalities which are “the army way” and exceptions to such rules. Ironically the American Army may be more flexable in this regard then the current Church of $cientology.

    3) However “The Army Way” can reflect directives from the manual, or it can reflect the worst of what scientologists call “command intention”. For example in Vietnam, the American Army was notorious for creating huge military bases which absobed soldiers who would have been better used actually performing infantry functions. A very controversal light colonel named Anthony Hubbard frequently pointed out that at the brigade headquarters for the 173 Airborne, a base that was made up of thousands of people, should have been able to operate out of two three quarter ton trucks or a tent. Why the difference? Because the Army under Westmoreland wanted large supply depots and creature comforts, so the rules were ignored by the generals when convenient.

    4) Ironically, at the same time any successful military commander in Vietnam needed to know when to “ignore the book” when it came to fighting the war. Predictability was deadly when fighting the VC in what was a guerilla war.

  103. nonscientologist

    sorry LT Col Anthiony Herbert

  104. I dont see KSW1 as a policy that restricts self determination. I see it as a policy that holds the tech and lines there so the individual can achieve self determination. Always made perfect sense to me.

  105. It’s interesting that the year that Keeping Scientology Working appeared, so did the policy of Disconnection, and the policy of Fair Game.

    Around that same time, the first of the confidential levels appeared – the Clearing Course – and the CC was extremely serious, very secret, and there were extreme penalties for exposing its secrets. At the time, it was presented as the final “case” level, after which the person would do Route One in the book The Creation of Human Ability. The Clearing Course was presented as a level absolutely essential to the survival of each person and, ultimately, to all Mankind, as it was said to free the person from the “R6 Bank,” and this Bank, once vanquished, removed the final impediment to the state known as “Operating Thetan.”

    Scientologists were excited, and Disconnection and Fair Game seemed unimportant, far away and distant, affecting on those known as “Suppressive Persons.”

    A few years earlier, Security Checking had appeared, and L. Ron Hubbard gave a lecture where he explained why, “Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?” was one of its many questions. He explained that if one had withholds regarding the source of the subject of Scientology, one would not make gains.

    Looking way back, to the early 1950s, what seem to have been the seeds, of what was to come later, had already been planted.

    Hubbard had written about the chronically low toned who also, it seems, were found to have unacceptable attitudes towards Dianetics (and soon Scientology), and unacceptable attitudes about Hubbard himself. Such people, Hubbard wrote, should have no rights of any kind, and also, if possible, be isolated from the rest of the population.

    These came to include the fellow who had written the introduction for the first edition of Dianetics, and also the fellow who had published the first widely read article, by L. Ron Hubbard, on Dianetics. They weren’t attacking Hubbard, but they had their own ideas about counseling therapy, and also disagreements with Hubbard’s manner of running his organization. That was enough to make them “enemies” and “low toned” in Hubbard’s eyes.

    Still, most Dianeticists (soon to be Scientologists) didn’t notice. The subject was too exciting and promising, and all seemed well.

    In 1952, Hubbard published a book called What to Audit, later called History of Man, in which Hubbard told Scientologists what incidents they would find on their trillions of years long time tracks, and on the time tracks of their “entities.” These incidents, once handled, would make possible the unleashing of theta powers that would change the course of history.

    Three years later, 1955, the Manual on Dissemination of Material was published with its “always attack” and use the legal system to “ruin utterly” messages, and 1959 saw the publishing of the HCO Manual of Justice, which was confidential, and had its own share of ominous content.

    The essence of Keeping Scientology Working, and its companions: the secret levels where a person is told what is on his (and his entities’) time tracks, Disconection, and Fair Game, were there, in seed form, almost from the beginning.

    That’s one of the reasons why sorting out Scientology is so difficult and, sometimes, emotionally exhausting, and why explaining that sorting out process, to Scientologists, can be so difficult.

    Inevitably, the sorting out is viewed as an “attack,” and it becomes necessary to first convince the Scientologists that, no, it’s not an attack, just a benign, and necessary action.

    And then one is left with the task of explaining, to some non-Scientologists, why one would bother with this sorting out business at all. Sometimes, that can be more difficult than getting through to the Scientologists.

    It’s not an easy task.

  106. Marty it looks to me to be a host one has to be courteous.

    What do you mean come up to present time?

    I do anything I want and if I am stuck I told you many times I feel very ok because I didn’t let DM get his squirrel Admin solutions through me.

    And I don’t need any invalidations or evaluations.

    That KSW is all bad or mostly bad and destructive is your opinion. And we all have a right to discuss the subject which was fucked up and got us into this mess in present time. Actually KSW got me out of Scientology, the version you know very well…. the DM version. Most certainly in the lower levels of the Sea Org one could attain much more serenity and certainty and real Scientology finally.

    I got my best wins in the basement of ASHO were I managed to get 250 volunteers in the CF project. But I was left alone there to do my thing. I only had to put up with a squirrel administrator or to say mostly a very rote administrator Rich Cohen (CO ASHOD then) and another stupid missionaire Yolanda Mcguire and some of their stupid juniors who played it “execs”. And they wouldn’t let me apply the org board the 21 department org board to build the CF project.

    I applied Scientology and KSW the way I saw it and just reading the PDC and without any auditing I did pretty good compared to others.

  107. Ok then… that’s good. I think also because of this long distance comm line and the problems in all this significance, we are not sometimes tracking one with another. But we know you have been auditing and having great wins for your pcs. There is no group to haunt us now….

    OK, it looks to me if I can put all this in a nutshell (and make an evaluation also for you) that the DM regime has destroyed all trust in Admin for you and some others. Believe me it was not like that in the lower echelons. I had (almost) free scope in the basement of ASHO to apply the org board and get a crowd of 250 people there. I was way keyed out and had just intention and managed to move higher than those rote execs who couldn’t think out of the box. And I survived because I succeeded. Now, that’s just admin.

    And I don’t think you are right that Scientologists of all stripes are dismayed by one forfeiting “individuality” by pursuing the goals and purposes of the Tech.

    Even the radicals as you call them want results.

  108. Jane,
    You wrote…
    “that Marty and Mary Sue were both very loyal to LRH, almost to a fault”

    I think you need to include DM in this list also. In fact, if we were to find fault in DM’s behavior at that time, it would be that he was unquestioningly ruthlessly loyal to LRH. Add to that his own destructive tendencies and you have a “Kill them all and let God sort it out” operating basis. At least that’s what I gleamed from “Memoirs”.
    I was glad to see Marty present a fairly balanced view of DM. People who view DM as “He’s an SP” are really selling him short. He is much more complex than that, and much more fascinating.
    There are things about DM that I can admire. In the early 80s he was probably a sterling example of a tough, uncompromising SO member. But he is also a sterling example of how unworkable and destructive that path can be.
    From “Memoirs” I got that possibly one of DM’s shortcomings is judgment, being able to assess the is-ness of something and formulate an optimum solution. I also think KSW #1 tends to knock out the individual’s judgment when ruthlessly applied.
    I’ve always contended that DM is not the source of the problem, but a product of it.

  109. Great post, Brian. The implications and effects of “applying” KSW are complex. Too often it is applied with “black and white” precision – as dictated by KSW itself. This ushers in a whole host of problems, both operational and philosophical.

    Come to think of it, KSW and its application is looking more and more like a GPM. Yeah, it will “preserve” Scn alright, wrapped up in a seething black mass, suspended in time and space. Lovely.

  110. Is it the tone of KSW which is “objectionable” or “unworkable” or is it the substance? How is your tone better? My first thoughts were: “Oh, good … another shouting contest. Inept, inapt, inappropriate, inconsequential, inexperienced, unable, and various other words in a thesaurus which is not “outside the box” which is itself a phrase someone else made up and you now use in your “outside the box” thinking. So we have proven for trillions of years that we can indeed find something to fight about. And kill people for, and force them inside boxes. Is that what we’re here for?”

    Let’s break up this topic into two:
    The Tone of KSW
    The Substance of KSW.

    I think I’ve done pretty good here, on cup of coffee #1. How’s your day going? Seriously. I’ve found a new way of making coffee – those little expresso machines are more trouble than drip, but the coffee is worth it. The foamer thing has to be wiped off with wet something, and a paper clip to keep it clean is good.

  111. Bingo.

    Let’s also look at intent and results. Assume the viewpoint of someone new to Scientology who reads KSW 1 for the first time. This person is not especially going to analyze the distribution list top left page 1, is not going to apply a deep understanding of how tech works and conclude to what the PL does and does not apply. This person is going to start with the text and read it, he might even make it to the end 7 pages later. That’s 7 pages of having LRH blow his top about the many myriad ways people screw stuff up (and how he’s the only one that ever got it right, just by the way).

    And the whole thing starts by saying that the PL has been re-issued TWICE, for the same reasons as why the original was written. Conclusion: LRH must have really meant this PL, and it’s wording is no accident. It’s also the only PL that must be at the beginning of every course pack. That’s every course pack, not the ones the reader figures it should be in.

    Now read again the Special Message right in the beginning and the 4 paragraphs all in caps below it. And remember we have the viewpoint of someone new to the subject.

    There is only one reasonable conclusion such a person could possibly come to: LRH intended this PL to apply to EVERYTHING. All the books, all the tapes, all the lectures, all the reference notes and advices, all the bulletins and PLs. Everything. Equally.

    If you aren’t tracking with me, just re-read KSW 1 again newly. Go on, do it. Try find the bit where it says it really only applies to Tech delivery. Fact is, it isn’t there, and LRH says no such thing.

    What you will find is somewhere in the middle of page 5, this note at the end of a paragraph: “So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of case.” And some posters would have me believe that that little side note is more than enough to fully communicate to all readers exactly how far KSW1 is to be taken, right after 4 1/2 pages of LRH ranting followed by 2 more? All apparently dedicated to ramming home with a branding iron how it applies everywhere always?

    Eh? What? Are people serious? In which universe exactly would that be the outcome?

    Is it any surprise that KSW1 was applied in the real world the way it was? Could it possibly have happened any other way? I’ll remind again as I feel tis is important:


    I agree with Marty here, KSW1 is exclusively a thought-stopping creator. It could not possibly have any other outcome in the general case.

    Ron set himself up as the ultimate go-to guy who knew it all, could read any person and help them along. If you accept that, you must conclude that he knew exactly what KSW1 was going to do and that the actual result (current CoS) was inevitable. The other option is to admit the LRH didn’t know and screwed up badly, then did it twice more by re-issuing the PL.

    Still not convinced? OK, try this. Pick a time between 1970 and now, any time. Go back there in a time machine and visit any Scientology org you choose. Try telling people you find there that KSW1 only applies in a rather narrow, select bunch of technologies, list the,. and see what happens.

    Then come back here to PT and tell me how it could possibly have turned out any other way than how it did.


  112. Great summation B.Volta. I could almost feel the air clear after reading that.

  113. Sure. But do you understand that the people at OSA & RTC have more or less the same line of thought that you have?

  114. Here is the Christian side to balance the Islamic side that I posted earlier:

    “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.” 2 Corinthians 10:4-6

    “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” Ephesians 6:10-13

    “I tell you, on the Day of Judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:36-37)

    “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (John 15:14)

  115. One week after publishing KSW, Hubbard published SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY. It contained a line which was the essence of thought-stopping:

    “Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions – so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others.”

    Anyone, it seems, was not entitled to have certain opinions or ideas or cognitions.

    The “fixed glare,” that had been encouraged in KSW, had become yet a little more fixed.

  116. First of all, take a look at all the posts on this very blog tagged training:

    Personally, I have changed my viewpoint from ignoring scientology and wanting little to nothing to do with it to a desire to now rehab my training and getting trained to an equivalent of Class VIII. My current plan is to start with the PRD (which wasn’t available when I trained through to Class IV Pre-GAT) and get on the BC. This shift came about mainly because of this very blog and the three excellent books Marty has written.

    I remember my first “real” auditor telling me once that the stat he looked at was the number of his PCs that went on to get auditor training. Never mind that he was the highest producing auditor (in terms of WDAH) for years on end at the local org. It was his beingness and calm space that first had me reaching for training.

    As to KSW its easy to get caught up in arguing semantics and what not – as many others have pointed out, there are policies that are senior even to the mighty KSW 1.

    KSW 1 will pretty much guarantee the death of the current church – the group is so locked into quotes taken out of context and applied to manipulate and control that it can’t help but continue shrinking and become a shadow of itself. Does that mean one should now feel free to change the tech wholesale? Of course not I’m not saying that and I suspect Marty is not either. What I’ve gotten from Marty’s essays is his continual effort that people wake up and stop rigidly following ANYONE; instead THINK FOR YOURSELF!


  117. “I was glad to see Marty present a fairly balanced view of DM. People who view DM as “He’s an SP” are really selling him short. He is much more complex than that, and much more fascinating.
    There are things about DM that I can admire. In the early 80s he was probably a sterling example of a tough, uncompromising SO member. But he is also a sterling example of how unworkable and destructive that path can be.”

    100% agree.

    Marty did call me 1.1 for making this exact point about a year ago, but hey – old habits die hard I guess 🙂

    Given my interest in personality disorder, I find it fascinating – that DM was exactly what the Church needed for a while, but then very quickly became the problem himself.

    One of the things that elevated marty (in my eyes, at least) above the “it’s all DMs fault!” crowd was exactly this type of counterfactual thinking. It’s a sign that someone can look at a situation objectively, and more often than not correctly.

  118. Per KSW 1 in 1965 there was “uniformly workable technology.”

    This of course included “Quickie Grades” until 1970 and the release
    During this time period I took someone to St Hill and she did grade 0-4
    in 30 mins. She was awarded a condition of power!

  119. Hello “justthisguyblog”, thank you for the reply.

  120. Just to bring a nice perspective to KSW, here is one of the Non-existing sources of Scientology:

    Zen Buddhism was introduced in China over a thousand years ago, as an attempt to correct, the deeply ingrained belief structure, intellectual stagnation, obsessive quoting and fixation with the Buddha and scripture, which Buddhism had fallen into.

    D. T. Suzuki introduced the subject to the West in the early 1900’s with his “Essay in Zen Buddhism”

    Zen practice is an attempt to have each person directly experience mind and spirit, and to realize the Tao by their own personal lookingness.

    “Personal experience, therefore, is everything in Zen. No ideas are intelligible to those who have no backing of experience. This is a platitude. A baby has no ideas, for it mentality is not yet so developed as to experience anything in the way of ideas. If it has them at all, they must be something extremely obscure and blurred and not in correspondence with realities. To get the clearest and most efficient understanding of a thing, therefore, it must be experience personally. Especially when the thing is concerned with life itself, personal experience is an absolute necessity. Without this experience nothing relative to its profound working will ever be accurately and therefore efficiently grasped. The foundation of all concepts is simple, unsophisticated experience.”

    “Zen, therefore, most strongly and persistently insist on an inner spiritual experience. It does not attach any intrinsic importance to the sacred sutras or to their exegeses by the wise and learned. Personal experience is strongly set against authority and objective revelation…” D.T. Suzuki

    Scientology works on the same principles, the powerful technology that LRH developed can only produce lasting and beneficial results if it adheres to the above workable truths, and if it disavows any indoctrination into a belief system, weather the later was introduced by LRH or not.

  121. B,
    re: being called 1.1 – dunno, people change, I know I have since leaving. And we all have our own stuff to sort out. I suspect writing a book like “Memoirs” could be likened to a process.
    Re: DM – I certainly do not envy him. I think in some respects he was handed a shit sandwich. I don’t know too many who would step up to the plate.

  122. One who tries to follow those tenets of KSW and simultaneously follow the Creed of the COS are living in a mindset of Cognitive Dissonance. The two paths are incongruous.

  123. This is a link to a very interesting critique of KSW 1 made some
    years ago by a poster using the name ” Unindoctrinate”. Its quite long.

  124. But my point was that you cannot break the two.In a way it is only opinions ,for sure, as far as the tone , yet I can tell when I am being told what to be or what to do in a forceful manner .
    No objections with protecting the tech and doing the best job possible in every individual case .
    And I love my coffee machine too:)

  125. Naomi – Protecting the tech and dong the best for the individual case. That’s what I would wish done unto me, and so do unto others. I was replying to Windhorsegallery, but appreciate your positive reply. The diversity of coffees available is amazing. A twist of lemon rind alongside espresso is sharp.

  126. Millie Richmond

    IMHO – L Ron Hubbard’s propensity for totalitarian solutions to his problems was apparent early on and noted publicly in 1951 by Dr Winter. By 1965, Scientology was already replete with draconian measures to deal with anyone opposed to its expansion, with many of these measures having been codified in the 1955 ‘Manual on Dissemination of Material’ and the 1959 ‘HCO Manual of Justice’. Rather than something of a pivot in the way LRH operated, KSW was an open declaration of his infallability, along with a challenge to anyone who might counter that view. It was also an act of bravado to show anyone who might be listening to Scientology’s “enemies” (particularly one Kevin Victor Anderson) that LRH was not going to be cowed. The strident, take-no-prisoners admonishments and overt imposition of authority over his creation, provided members with something of a rallying point and a delineation of the steely character attributes required of a Scientologist. KSW is one of the key Scientology beliefs which give cause for serious concern. But it is not the only one.

    Educated wogs who familiarise themselves with KSW can immediately see its fundamental flaws and the questions it raises in terms of “who actually believes this stuff”? Thank you Marty for your honesty in explaining your own rationalisation . . .

    . . . The conflicting concepts between the group and the individual were finally resolved by me with the mental computation that the only way to truly realize true individuality is to forfeit individuality in favor of the purposes and goals of the group . . .

    . . . but, really, was it an “intellectual surrender”? I mean, from an intellectual perspective, subsuming your individuality into the group in order to realise your individuality makes no sense. Its illogical and almost as if you never read that passage of KSW . . .

    . . . The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done . . .

    . . . which asserts the exact oppostite.

    At what stage in your Scientology indoctrination did you consciously formulate that mental computation – was it within the first few days of encountering the subject or was it, perhaps, not until months afterwards when the love bombing, language distortion, ruin-finding, and endless solemn yet incredible promises of a better world had all been delivered? Given your experiences leading up to the moment you formulated that computation, what was going on for you emotionally and physically? I ask because I can’t help but wonder whether or not you might actually have been at the stage where your cognitive functioning had been deliberately compromised. I suggest that rather than an “intellectual surrender” your rationalisation was actually more indicative of an “emotional capture”.

    While I may have committed some grievous act of invalidation or evaluation or some such, I would be grateful if you would view my comment and questions as more of a reflection of myself than any sort of judgement or questioning of you personally. I am seeking discuss perspectives in order to reach a view rather than trying to confirm of a view already held. That’s all. So, once again, thank you for your honesty in discussing your personal experience with this and thank you also for raising some important questions in regard to KSW. Its certainly a touchy subject for Scientologists. I’m not sure if that’s because KSW is so central or whether it might be seen by some that a concession on one piece of tech will inevitably lead to other concessions . . . that good ole slipperly slope fallacy at work, I guess. Mind you, there does seem to be a general softening in views in regards to LRH’s infallibility and “tech” scripture. Thomas Paine, perhaps, can shed some light on why that might be so:

    . . . A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason . . .

  127. martyrathbun09

    Your answers are in Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. Enjoy.

  128. To me, the points of 1-10 in KSW are mostly valid.

    Point number 1, “Having the correct technology,” was a shifting target in 1965 and all the way up to Hubbard’s death. I believe the concepts outlined in points 1-10 make sense for any technical subject of which you are a student and/or practitioner.

    Note what is (as it turns out to me years later) a glaring outpoint: there is no mention of how to get #1 except that Ron devised it. (note past tense). Ron is source in this PL. There is no mechanism in KSW talking about how Scientology expands or changes point #1, the correct technology. Ron talks about rejecting bad suggestions over the years. Clearly, it is a first dynamic activity for Ron.

    In addition, this PL is written mainly for staff (even though he expands scope a bit in a later revision). You know, when you join staff, you are deciding that A. Scientology is your thing and you accept it at full face value, and your job is to push it forward, and B. you are reporting to Ron for Command Intention. Ron is your ultimate boss, and since you an extension of Ron to that degree, what he says goes. Frankly, questioning the boss is not a luxury SO or other staff members have. They signed the billion year contract. They signed up for the duration. It is not a question of “does Scientology work?” No, you settled that by dint of signing on the dotted line. Scientology works, or else.

    You know, I think Ron got tired of his free-thinking buddies back in the mid-60’s and said, “you know what? You are either in this, or not. And if you are in, you are in all the way.” That mainly worked for a while because IMO, despite his faults, Ron was at core a caring person with a passion for his work and a compassion for his people. But he left a legacy of dictatorialism that was just aching to be taken on by some over-ambitious SOB – and enter Mr. David Miscavige to take on the mantle of “Command” in “Command Intention.” He was able to do it because Ron’s policies were designed to forward a single-person’s vision. In Ron’s case, the vision was Ron’s. When he left, idiocy took on the hat.

    I mean, re-read Simon Bolivar. It is ALL ABOUT “What can I do to help Ron take over the world?” Not, “What can I do to become a strong, benevolent, self-assured Leader of Men.” No, it was how to subjugate yourself to another “Leader of Men.” In Ron’s case it was Ron. When ANY OTHER so-called Scientology “Leader” applied Bolivar, it was INVARIABLY about how to get people to enslave themselves to them by getting them to “flow power to a power.” Mountain View mission was a great example, the ED driving Rolls Royces when his staff cussing starved. Diskeeper. No Microsoft millionaires there, no sir. Just employees. The Software Works. Same deal – I should be happy to let them miss my payroll so that the boss could become a Patron. To insist otherwise is to be “worker oriented.”

    Sorry Ron, that is wrong. It’s not real 3D tech. Dictator (benign or otherwise) tech is more like it.

  129. Avon Athens

    I personally found KSW very distasteful from the first time I ever read it, not because I disagree with the principle of keeping the tech standard and pure which is surely the essential point of the policy, but because of the agenda, baggage and violence it carries.

    Part of the message which I find offensive is that Scientology is the only philosophy/practice that has any value and everything else is almost worthless. That’s pretty much what every religious fundamentalist believes about the particular religion he follows. I knew otherwise then and even more so today after studying several systems and philosophies throughout my life along with science and mathematics.

    There is good evidence that Volney Mathison invented the e-meter in 1935 and that Scientology owes much to the ideas put forward by Dr. Anastasius Nordenholz in his 1934 book “Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens” (Scientology: Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge). For me, these facts are enough to demolish any claim that Scientology does not owe much to other efforts. I would even go so far as to say that LRH appropriated existing research and ideas, amalgamated them into his own creation, then failed to give credit to contributors, which is frowned upon in learned circles. That said, I am not in any doubt that LRH did much that was constructive and well intentioned, was a larger than life figure who wanted to make the world a better place, and shared his remarkable adventure with his followers. I just wish the official biography was more balanced and honest.

    I also know that science, technology and psychological/spiritual practices evolve and improve with practice, experience and research, and believe that the failure to recognize this as a basic principle is responsible for the stagnation and decline of Scientology since LRH ceased to conduct active research. Systems and practices that are stuck in a time warp, claiming to be perfect and immutable, cannot but die out or be superseded. By contrast, Process Philosophy, one of my main current interests, is thriving and developing, even though its principal architect, Alfred North Whitehead, died in 1947.

    This is my first post on this blog. I am hoping it will put a stop to the onslaught of Scientology mail that has been sent to my old address during the past year or two, despite the fact that I mark it as “Unsolicited Mail” and return to sender. And what about the profligate waste of natural resources and the damage this causes to the environment? I personally have moved on from Scientology, but still respect individual Scientologists I have known. I am open to constructive debate, discussion and dialogue.

    For any readers who are interested in finding out about the bigger picture beyond Scientology, I can recommend the study of Alfred North Whitehead’s Process Philosophy and Transpersonal Psychology about which Ken Wilbur has written extensively. Two sources of alternative media from which I have gained much knowledge and insight are Coast to Coast AM with George Nory and Red Ice Creations.

    Has anyone else drawn parallels between the exposure by Edward Snowden of the NSA’s PRISM system and (what for me are only secondhand) accounts of practices in OSA and the Guardian’s Office? This seems to be a social phenomenon whereby certain aspects of the group or society commits overts against other aspects or groups, and becomes obsessed with control and monitoring of its members for fear of losing its iron grip on what it controls. This seems as applicable to empires and states as it is to cults and gangs. For me, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are among the heroes of our age for their exposure of the dark side of human nature that comes out in organized groups. It is ironic that Bradley Manning carried out a supremely Christian act by exposing barbaric aspects of military conduct and yet a nation that is supposed to have Christian values is likely to imprison him for life.

    I may get around to writing about my experiences as a staff member of two Scientology orgs in the UK at some point depending on the outcome of this post. For now, let me just say that Marty Rathbun is doing an excellent job by my reckoning. I might have lasted longer in Scientology had I met a few people like Marty with intelligence, capacity for independent thinking, openness to new and alternative ideas, and the ability to communicate beyond group think.

    Finally, I am currently reading “A theory of Everything” by Ken Wilbur. Here is a quote from pages 19-20 which I find particularly relevant to my experience of the Scientology mindset.

    [Talking about developmental psychology] Those three general stages are quite common for most forms of development. They are known by many names, such as preconventional, conventional, and postconventional; or egocentric, sociocentric, and worldcentric; or “me,” “us” and “all of us.” …

    The care stage, which generally lasts from age 7 to adolescence, is known as conventional, conformist, ethnocentric, or sociocentric – and it means just that, centred on the group (family, peers, tribe, nation). The young child steps out of his or her own limited perspective and begins to share the views and perspectives of others – so much so, that the child is often trapped in the views of others: hence, conformist. This stage is often called “good boy, nice girl,” “my country right or wrong,” and so on, reflecting the intense conformity, peer pressure, and group dominance that usually accompanies this general period. Although the individual at this stage can to some degree step aside from her own perspective, she cannot easily step aside from the group’s. She has moved from “me” to “us” – a great decline in egocentrism – but there she is stuck, “my country right or wrong.”

    All of which begins to change in adolescence, with the emergence of postconventional and worldcentric awareness (Gilligan’s universal care). This is yet another major decline in egocentrism, because this time one’s peer group is subject to scrutiny. What is right and fair, not just for me or my tribe or my nation, but for all peoples, regardless of race, religion, sex, or creed? The adolescent can become a fiery idealist, ablaze with all the possibilities, a crusader for justice, a revolutionary out to rock the world. Of course, some of this is just an explosion of hormones, frenzied at best. But a good part of it is the emergence of the stage of universal care, justice, and fairness. And, in fact, this is simply the beginning of the possibility of developing a truly integral embrace.

  130. martyrathbun09

    Thanks Avon. The world view imposed in Scientology results in the apparency of world-centric level of care, when in fact it cements folk into ethno-centricity. It is the same with a number of Wilbur’s scales of lines, levels, stages, etc. I have tried to introduce folks to a study of Wilbur for a far more expansive understanding of Scientology. One can get that even though he never mentions Scientology. It is at once a validation of much of Scientology and a means to pinpoint what is wrong with it.

  131. “Because, if you honestly think that LRH intended KSW to be used for “thought stopping” and enforcing robotic adherence to whatever he wrote, then you are sorely lacking in any understanding of what Scientology is all about.”

    What Scientology “is all about” is many things to many people.
    In the beginning, I thought it was about learning to “think for yourself”.

    There were purposes and sub purposes and these changed and shifted through time. It had gone political wise back in 1957.

    (Originally issued as an article in Ability 50 on
    5 July 1957. Issued as an HCO PL on 5 Oct. 87.)
    Have people who don’t know Scientology stopped making “sense” to you?
    Start a group.
    When the groups in Chicago, LA and Houston have pushed out to the city limits, we hope they will continue to expand until they find themselves merged with New York, Seattle and Miami.
    If Scientology is ever to travel, it will be accomplished by groups.
    I hope to see the AMA defined as “that building in Chicago which is totally surrounded by Scientology groups.” And the government in Washington defined as “that group which has not yet been validated.” And Earth defined as “that planet where people settle things peacefully via Scientology groups.”
    Scientology is basically communication. If you knew all the wisdom in the universe and had none to whom you could communicate, you would still be unhappy.
    People don’t bite. Ask them over to a sociable evening to discuss forming a mental health group. When they get there, don’t ask them to join. Just elect them as officers. Get them to agree on future meetings and the programs.
    Assume they want to know more about Scientology. Explain Scientology offhandedly as though it’s sort of strange they don’t know and get on with group organization and business.
    Don’t run Decisional Processing on them. Assume they’ve decided and lo! you’ve got a group.
    Groups fail to form in absence of purpose. People fail to join in absence of purpose they can understand.
    Mock up the purpose. Invite in the people. Form up a program around the purpose and away you go.
    If you don’t have one, it’s because you’ve been trying to explain Scientology to people and so get them to join. Just get them to join and let Scientology soak in.
    A group is fun.
    A group is communication.
    A group is society.
    It’s a poor man who isn’t king in some corner. Form a group and stop being poor.
    Form a group.


    Apparently this advice went a bit screwy because later he wrote of the abberation of thinking “the group is all and the individual is nothing”. But it was too late to reverse the tide. In the advice above he recommends just over riding the understanding of a person to form a group.

    Above and beyond this, Hubbard was not set up for two way communication with people. He would issue a policy that would go to thousands and not get any acknowledgement from all of those people, be able to consult their personal understanding, or handle feedback.

    Feedback was even prohibited with the release of K.S.W. and the HCOB about what an executive wants on his lines (“Yes Sir” answers only)

    He removed the two way communication line between him and others, as a PERSON, and kept in only a line between him and others as Commander.

    Well, as he mentioned, not everyone really wanted a Master.

    Those that were seeking a master, were / are happy to obey. As you can see, if they are not to obey Hubbard, they will move under someone else to obey with very little prompting.

    In this Master / Slave arena, there are lonely people with out a Master.

    There are people who want to get the chance to play Master.

    And there are still a few people who want neither part of slave and master.

    We are the ones that get shunned, fair gamed and attacked. By the Master / Slave cultures.

    Master / Slave is PURPOSE driven. It is just not along some people’s purpose line to be either.

  132. Great post and beautifully written! I’m guessing you’re a writer…

    I do hope you write about your staff experiences and other things you might have to say.

  133. He wrote: “It’s a poor man who isn’t king in some corner.”

    I think he realized when he arrived as “King” in some corner, he might have been the loneliest, most poverty stricken person among us.

  134. Again, completely agree with you there – If you skip back 12-18 months on this blog, you can clearly trace Martys evolution on his spiritual path. The tone and subject matter of this blog has changed significantly, without question. Given that most blogs seem to have a 12-18 month shelf life, Im quite grateful Marty has kept up this blog even when his views started to offend/run counter to ‘Independent Scientology’. Im not sure many people would have.

    As for DM himself, its a funny thing. The guy is a nasty piece of work, without a doubt. But the unpalatable truth is people like him do excel in certain situations. I read somewhere that certain Indian tribes would elect a War Chief when at war with other tribes. They never ran the tribe, and would step back during times of peace. Maybe the Indians had a point.

  135. Dan, I like that commentary from our friend Abe. I had similar realization in the 90s as I came to my own senses… and I am still coming to my own senses. It seems to take a while to embody and live these simplicities let alone permit yourself to become aware of them…. even though they are waiting there if only you would listen. If myscientology experience hadn’t been so meaningful at the time I’m sure I wouldn’t be discussing it now. Hubbard was a damn good story teller. It was a great adventure, even if it only existed in our imagatination that we were the only hope for planet earth… every man, woman and child… along with the rest of creation.

    The imersion in the LRH/scientolgoy mythos and coming out of it is a far more important story than the tech that some of us are so enamoured with. I’m not saying that the tech or any of its variations and evolutions cannot be useful, it is just that the world of high hopes, high adventure, going to the stars and beyond was a more compelling aspect…the bait on the hook… for me at least. By imagining we create our lives.

  136. Thanks Avon. I wanted to drop this tip on unwanted mail – just respond to the mail very politely asking why Debbie Cook was called a Squirrel in USA Today by Karin Pouw three days after she wrote her private email to her friends, and how Debbie raises some very interesting points about the IAS, and ask why she was put in the hole and made to say she was a lesbian? Honestly, that did it for me – mailings ceased right now!

  137. During this time period I took someone to St Hill and she did grade 0-4 in 30 mins. She was awarded a condition of power!

    By LRH?

    If one looks over the grades processing at that time, there is no way it can be delivered in 30 minutes if one followed LRH’s instructions, so it’s highly doubtful he approved of it even if he was right in the same vicinity.

  138. I just finished reading Marty’s book. Wow! So very well done Marty. I recommend it to all. And yes DM did step up and take over when no one else seemed to want to. Broeker was off dealing in quarter horses, David Mayo had been declared and kicked out, etc. But I got an insight into Dm that I never had before in this book. He fought hard to protect LRH and our church and he was good for certain things at that time. But I think the Peter Principle being what it is, he finally was not up to the job at hand. And he had to keep figuring out new releases to keep the flock coming back, hence all the re-writes of books and programs and training. When Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in the Mormon church died, the church lived on and continued anyway. Why couldn’t our church do that?

  139. KSW and KAW were “come to Jesus” comms to professionals (not new people) about about making damned sure that PROCEDURES be done standardly in order to get standard results, and the broader importance achieving those results. Get over it. If someone extends that to mean taking every word LRH wrote literally irrespective of context and despite all the admonitions to the contrary, as the RCS has done, then that’s not KSW/KAW.

  140. martyrathbun09

    I am over it. You apparently are not. Your first sentence is false.

  141. My understanding of the above PL is against this background: In 1964 it had been noted that some of the Goals Listings resulted in identical lists from different people. It was concluded that they were implants. It took until ’66 before these lists were issued then as OT 2 and leading finally in ’67 to the discovery of OT 3.
    In view of the fact that charge (force) in a case is connected to significances and that there can be an endless battle of contradicting significances as long as the force is still present, the solution was to take the force out and discharge the case to get the significances back into the realm of self-determinism of that person. (see C/S Series 6, “What the C/S is doing” for more details.)
    To take the charge off one has to audit. To discuss the concerned significances with people who have charge connected with them may push them into the charge of that section of the Bridge and so bring about misemotion, controversy or propitiation.
    All the points that seem to be somewhat strongly worded will be found to be treated subjects in these materials. I understand Ron as being serious about that. And if one cared to open a newspaper one would find many invitations to become serious. So in my eyes, following that invitation can be forgiven or at least understood.
    The error I see is that these materials have come out of use and are run barely at all. Therefore you find many persons still connected to charge concerning these subjects (and so can have heated discussions).
    People who try to enforce matters, rules, procedures etc. they don’t understand I would rather call superstitious, but not “hard core”.

  142. martyrathbun09

    I would call them the commanded rather than the educated. I cover this about the highest training level attainable in Scientology where the Deans are directed to ‘command’ rather attempt to consult people’s understanding. You noted: To take the charge off one has to audit. To discuss the concerned significances with people who have charge connected with them may push them into the charge of that section of the Bridge and so bring about misemotion, controversy or propitiation.
    This is precisely the mind set that is, for lack of a better word, implanted. Implants are implanted – and thus folk never see the source of the dichotomies. And I believe that is why you have this other situation that you noted: The error I see is that these materials have come out of use and are run barely at all. Therefore you find many persons still connected to charge concerning these subjects (and so can have heated discussions).

  143. Regular Dog

    Jane, My view that Miscavige usurped his way into power did not change during my reading of Marty’s book. It’s my opinion that Miscavige, being the person through which all comm to and from LRH passed, must have altered comm and misinformed on both flows in order for many things to happen as they did.

  144. Regular Dog, I understand what you’re saying. I also think that DM did a hostile takeover using subterfuge and all nefarious ways to take over the church. And what he did to Mary Sue was horrible. That opinion didn’t change when I read Marty’s book. But what did change was that I saw that in those early years was that DM actually did fight hard for LRH and our church in those court cases such as Christoffersen, Wollersheim and others. That’s all I was saying. If it weren’t for Marty running interference and doing all he did on the cases, we probably would have lost our entire religion at that time. But now the church is ransacked and ruined and harms more than it helps, thanks to DM and his minions. Now is the time to create a good group in the Indie world, along the lines of what Dani and others have talked about.

  145. Dramatizing content of these incidents certainly plays a role.
    So far I had located another point, on 5 Jan 68, a talk was delivered by Ron at the graduation ceremony of the first OT 3 completions. If you listen to that you will find that he introduced a major change in the completing of OT Levels/Grades (at that time “Grades” was used for OT Levels as well, like “OT-Course, Grade Two”). While before a Level like Clear or OT 2 was “checked out” it could now be just “attested” and no further investigation into the completeness was made. All that was needed was the person saying that he/she did it and no further inspection was undertaken.
    Before this point single Items of that Level had been checked for charge by the examiner which was a procedure of many hours and because one examiner could only do one or two a day this resulted in very few completions. In “The Auditor” magazines from before this point you find only very few Clears announced, however they were announced as having been “checked out”. After this you find many announcements, but also case histories of “OT 2 in 4 minutes” and similar.
    Then, in 1970 Ron went down heavily on “Quicky Grades” and tried to remedy the outcome of that former solution of 1968. Later this Level was delivered differently at different locations and different times. This seems to have depended on the single C/S and how precise the duplication of the instructions was individually (my current opinion.) There may have been other factors like available time, money, omitted understanding of the Level, etc.

  146. I predicted to myself that this would get a curt response of eval and inval even though not directed at you and, low and behold. . .

    Your response speaks volumes.

  147. martyrathbun09

    And I predicted you would be offended, where no offense is due, and leave the lie you wrote sit in perpetuity.

  148. Tom, your arguments are those of a closed minded bigot. It is brittle, shallow minded folks like you that have caused needless conflict throughout the span of human history. On one hand you purport to support and follow the greatest and only workable spiritual technology ever created, and on the other hand you demenstrate how completely you disregard its most important tenents as regards relations with other beings. If you are a typical expample of a KSWer, then this is conclusive proof to me regarding its demonstrated worthlessness.

  149. Pingback: Dean of Technology | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  150. Hi Alan. I don’t disagree with everything you wrote but I think you are missing pertinent data with regard to what you wrote here:

    “There is only one reasonable conclusion such a person could possibly come to: LRH intended this PL to apply to EVERYTHING. All the books, all the tapes, all the lectures, all the reference notes and advices, all the bulletins and PLs. Everything. Equally.”

    To start with, there were obviously many changes that occurred through several decades of research. However, there is policy which states that all current tech (the actual doingness of auditing) is contained in HCOB’s, period. And although many issues were revised over the years, not all of them were that should have been in order to reflect later developments. However, that is handled by policy which states that if there is any discrepancy between issues, the later issue takes precedence.

  151. A THOROUGH understanding of Div 6 policies, including the related awareness characteristics, plus just plain common sense indicates that KSW would not be placed in Div 6 course packs for people who had not yet decided to be Scientologists to read. It’s clearly intended for Div 4 public, Supervisors and C/Ses (i.e. professionals and professionals in-training). But if you want to maintain that’s a lie and don’t want it around in perpetuity, you have the power to keep only those comments which reinforce your reality – it’s your blog.

  152. Hi Marildi,

    You are being reasonable, Ron’s definition.

    We can discuss the fine details about how *this* HCOB says all tech is in HCOBS and *that* reference says tapes are just as valid, and how some other sentence in KSW1 has a fine nuance that actually changes a lot, etc etc. And you and I have gone over this before more than once already.

    But none of that matters when you consider what we’re up against – KSW1 itself. That PL is a blunt object and causes blunt trauma to the head, and is the first major PL any new person reads. Now let’s get real here – how many people do you know that whilst in the church and going up the bridge, had the smarts to apply KSW1 selectively and were allowed to carry on going up the bridge?

    Just look at the situation and the people involved, don’t over-think it and try to find reasons why it should be different. Just honestly look at the actual result in the real world.

    The only correct place to define the limits of where KSW1 is applicable is in KSW1 itself (or somewhere in the KSW Series). But Ron never did that.


  153. You’re going to create a good group?

    That’s a commendable objective.

    However, wouldn’t it be advisable for you to be able to confront the past of the old group, first?

    The negative patterns in Scientology began before Miscavige entered kindergarten. Miscavige is a more a result of those negative patterns than a cause of them.

    What L. Ron Hubbard did to his wife, Mary Sue, was horrible.

    If Ron Hubbard had acted like a man, instead of a coward, he would have taken responsibility for his actions.

    For starters, take a look at the list – and it’s a long list – of 1970s covert “dirty tricks” operations, all based on Ron Hubbard’s confidential “Intelligence tech,” and many of which were under his supervision.

    Years of applying his own Fair Game instructions had finally backfired on Ron Hubbard.

    It’s noteworthy that two other cult leaders, Lyndon LaRouche, and Sun Myung Moon, also had serious legal problems. Neither threw their wives under the bus. Both went to court, faced the Judge, served their prison sentences, during which they continued to run their groups, and, then, left prison, and continued leading their groups.

    What did Ron Hubbard do? He hid behind his youthful “Messengers,” who became, it seems, the new scapegoats, just as Mary Sue was used, by her husband, as a scapegoat.

    That doesn’t make Miscavige less despicable, but the awful truth is that Miscavige is much more “on Source” than, I think, you, and Regular Dog, would be comfortable recognizing.

  154. martyrathbun09

    Thanks, what you suggest I can do would be the KSW approach. Have you read my latest book?

  155. I really enjoyed this post and all the comments. Since I left SC I have not spent much, if any, time pondering KSW . And, although I have observed numerous passionate exchanges about it here on this blog, I usually just skipped over those. Just wasn’t interested. That noted, this time with the blog post being devoted to KSW I was prompted to take some time and find out what my perspective was on it then and now.

    THEN: When I brought SC into my life I was looking for a “Cause.” A Cause I could really get passionate about. A Cause I could live for, even die for. SC showing up was an answer to my prayers. My first encounter with KSW was when I started the Student Hat. Wow! As I read that PL it totally verified that I had not only found my ‘Cause’ but it was more encompassing than I could have ever imagined. KSW told me….”Monte, you are involved in some serious shit!” The spell had been cast. At that point KSW became a sacred document. And it was obvious that in my recognition of that fact, I had indeed joined the group and was there for the duration. In the beginning it was LRH’s ‘duration’, in the end it was my mine.

    IMO, making KSW into perhaps one of the most sacred documents of the church was insane. Making something sacred just might be the most efficacious way to fixate something in time. Therefore, IMO, making anything sacred or, allowing something to become sacred, is insane (for example, the American Constitution). Once something is sacred all looking beyond that which is considered to be sacred ceases. Questioning becomes taboo and absolutism with blind obedience is ushered in. In other words, fear takes its seat at the throne along with its entourage: deceit, judgementalism, condemnation and punishment with all their enormously destructive ramifications.

    NOW: Personally, the emotional tone, the intention or the purpose that was at the core of KSW is of no interest to me. I am of the mind now that EVERYTHING in a dualistic universe can be interpreted by myself in one of two ways. I can choose to interpret what I am perceiving from fear or from love. Just because something is written from a state of fear (insanity) doesn’t mean that I have to interpret from that same state. Interpreting from a state of love changes everything. And, what can I say….I’m big on love these days. Love is incredibly useful. Fear…not so much.

    As long as the absolutism is extracted from them, I do find the 10 points of KSW to be of some use. When I think about it it’s kind of funny….LRH and infinity-valued logic on one hand, then in the other hand, KSW. Not exactly reconcilable concepts.

  156. No, Alan, I’m not being “reasonable” at all. You are being uncharacteristically irrational in what you wrote (and it makes me wonder why…?). There is absolutely nothing in KSW #1 that even implies the extreme statement you made, i.e. that it applies to “EVERYTHING. All the books, all the tapes, all the lectures, all the reference notes and advices, all the bulletins and PLs. Everything. Equally.”

    If that idea were in the PL, the reasonable (dictionary definition) response to my comment would have been for you to quote something in the PL that backs up what you say – but, obviously, you can’t because it isn’t there. Instead, you wrote something that came across rather condescending towards me, to be frank.

    In an earlier comment I posted upstream, I even took issue with Marty’s claim that KSW #1 applied not just to tech but to admin, and he at least didn’t argue the point but simply indicated that other PL’s do state that the same principles are to be applied to admin. I might have argued with him on that point and said that the PL “Keeping Admin Working” and others along the same lines were written after LRH had been dead for a number of months. But I’m sure that whole theme has been taken up on other threads – and I agree with him about the fact that the argumentation on these issues is interminable, even as regards just tech points.

    Btw, I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say we “have gone over this before”. Which thread? I think you might be mixing up the subject of KSW with other issues that I have protested when the criticism is inaccurate or missing data, and goes beyond what is deserved as criticism. Like you did here. 😛 🙂

  157. An applicable quote from the book *What the Buddha Taught” by Dr. Walpola Rahula:

    “Here the term ‘thirst’ includes not only desire for, and attachment to, sense-pleasures, wealth and power, but also desire for, and attachment to, ideas and ideals, views, opinions, theories, conceptions and beliefs (dhamma-tanha). According to the Buddha’s analysis, all the troubles and strife in world, from little personal quarrels in families to great wars between nations and countries, arise out of this selfish ‘thirst’. From this point of view, all economic, political and social problems are rooted in this selfish ‘thirst’. Great statesmen who try to settle international disputes and talk of
    war and peace only in economic and political terms touch the superficialities, and never go deep into the real root of the problem. As the Buddha told Rattapala : ‘The world lacks and hankers, and is enslaved to “thirst” (tanhadaso).’”

    Click to access bhante_walpola_rahula-what_the_buddha_taught.pdf

  158. Marildi,

    I’ll try a different tack then. You won’t find admonitions in KSW about how and when it does and doesn’t apply as such statements are simply not there. You won’t find advice about how to apply intelligence to the issue as such is also not there. But I’m not talking about that at all.

    Analyzing the words in detail is not productive for this discussion as I’m not looking at what people should have done with the PL, or what the best interpretation is. I’m looking at what the CoS ecosystem DID do with the PL, and why they did it that way. Yes, I fully understand CoS went overboard with it and conflated all aspects into one huge A=A=A. To find an example just read any randomly selected SP declare from the last 20 years. Chances are good you will find people declared for violating some point of KSW1 1-10 and it’s probably along the lines of something easily correctable such as missing a W/H in session or getting a WC session wrong. Neither is the same order of magnitude as trying to destroy the subject outright and ban it universally.

    We both agree that is bat-shit crazy and shouldn’t be. But it DID happen, and I wonder why. I conclude that the reason is the wording of the PL itself and the effect it has on the average CoS reader. The PL hammers a single point home many times in many ways and is probably somewhat hypnotic to all but the best trained Scientology auditors. And it was reinforced twice with re-issues. And I wonder if that outcome I’ve described could possibly have happened in any other way. I think not, I think what CoS did with KSW was inevitable.

    The answer to this is not in the wording of the PL so there seems to be no point in trying to find single clauses in the middle that indicate anything other than blind adherence. The answer is in the greater CoS world at large and how KSW fits into that mindset and what effect it will have on the average reader.

    I looked at this for myself and I have concluded that the actual end result (i.e. mass cult-think) is by far the most likely one. It’s really just a simple case of confronting what took place in the real world.


  159. Alan, thanks for your considered and considerate reply :). I see where you’re coming from and there are others right here on this very thread who view KSW #1 the same way – and there are also those here who have a much different view of it. Not everybody sees it as black and white as you do. I think it’s more nuanced and complex than to basically put it down to one PL, as flawed as that PL may have been. The following paragraph from Warren Marston’s post sums up quite well how I see it:

    “To me the real issue was not the KSW policy itself. Maybe it could have been written in a manner less conducive to abuse in the hands of literalists. But I believe the real problem was the tone level, awareness level, and philosophical understanding of those applying it. Those levels declined over the years as power shifted from tech people to admin people, with the running of the Church changing accordingly.”

    Here’s the link to his whole post, which is pretty close to my take (sorry to be so lazy but he already expressed it well and it also saves me time to just pass it on):

    On the other hand, Marty has a similar view to yours, although he doesn’t base it on that one PL alone but goes so far as to say that the outcome that resulted is “hardwired” into the general subject of Scientology. He says that is what his current book is about, and since he is well qualified from the standpoint of both tech and admin training and experience, I am going to read the book. Have you read it? Why don’t you do so too and then we can pick up where we left off. (Maybe. ;))

  160. marildi: “He says that is what his current book is about, and since he is well qualified from the standpoint of both tech and admin training and experience, I am going to read the book. Have you read it? Why don’t you do so too and then we can pick up where we left off. (Maybe. ;))”

    Me: hey you 🙂

    I had to wait a few days to figure some stuff out before replying, so I hope you still get this. I’ll give you an answer, but first an update:

    I’m letting go of Scientology, it’s no longer of any use to me and is actually a hindrance. I got out of it an understanding of communication and a boat load of crap, so I’m taking the comm and calling it quits 🙂 The guy who typed that stuff about KSW is not quite the guy I want to be and I can’t move on till I let it go. There’s more to say about KSW than KSW1 (much more), but what’s the point? The horse is dead and don’t need no flogging.

    My wife provoked this – she told me outright I was becoming snappy and sometimes even downright nasty, so I did the best thing possible and took the family to a rock concert! Haven’t had so much fun in years and my kids (11 and 16) badly needed an education in what exactly constitutes good music – Deep Purple, Def Leppard, G N’ R, Collective Soul, Velvet Revolver, Slash and Myles Kennedy 🙂

    Marty’s books – I haven’t read them yet, I have 300 ebooks queued on the Kobo for reading as it is so maybe sometime down the line. Meanwhile, Marty’s blog gave me much to be thankful for over the last 3 years, and that’s plenty good enough for me.

    And I haven’t let go of communicating so I’m still more than happy to chat with you, can we agree to talk less about Hubbard / Scientology and more about everything else that’s out there in this almost-infinite world?


  161. Hey, Alan. 🙂

    Well done on the family outing to a great rock concert. Otherwise too, I really liked your reply and I can definitely vouch for your ability to communicate. It’s interesting that your wife seemed to think you weren’t at your best – which is exactly what I was perceiving too, for a moment there. It wasn’t the same “wavelength” I usually pick up from you, where we are in good communication even if not in agreement on viewpoints.

    It’s entirely your right to end cycle on Scientology. I can grant you that wholeheartedly! You are a free being. And I fully agree with the idea that there is no more need for flogging – the negative aspects of Scientology are a foregone conclusion. As for me, I’m still finding Scn to be a worthwhile topic to discuss, but that’s because I see more of value to it than just the subject of communication – although that in itself is huge when you consider that it’s the heart of life. So since you are free and have your druthers, that’s a smart choice. 😉

    It’s also more than okay with me if we talk about other things – there are so many of them. Both Marty’s and Geir’s blogs often give the opportunity to do so, even if it’s on a tangent off of the subject of Scientology, from which we do often veer, as you know. So I’ll be seeing you, in all the old familiar places… LOL, that’s the line from a Billie Holiday song that never gets old. Here’s an updated version by Michael Bublé . If you know it, sing it to your perceptive wife ;).

  162. p.s. On second thought, since you like good ol’ rock, you might like the group Starship. This video is actually more blues, which I love, and you can “witness” 🙂 my son doing a guitar solo, starting at about 4:30.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s