Standard Scientology

Those who obsess on the motivator (object of victimhood attachment) about how David Miscavige is scientology’s problem because he keeps revising scientology are like dogs barking up the wrong tree.  There is a plain fact they are not coming to grips with.  Scientology will forever be altered, revised, re-revised, repackaged, re-organized, and re-compiled.  People on the outside have been at it as hard as scientology organization folk are on the inside.  It is inevitable.  That is not because misunderstood words, the reactive mind or body thetans will forever keep people confused and incapable of applying one-hundred percent scientology standard technology.   Nor will it be because of the unstated (except in confidential upper level secrets), but actually held, scientology belief that humankind can’t get it because humankind is inherently incapable of understanding.  Instead, scientology will continuously be revised because there is no such thing as standard scientology technology.  Like the substance of scientology itself, what constitutes the standard is wholly a subjective matter.

That fact is obvious if one can unlock himself from identifying with L. Ron Hubbard and his work and read the latter dispassionately.  That of course is impossible for those who vow from the outset of their studies – and stick with it all the way through – to the notion that Hubbard is infallible and examination of any comparative data is potentially lethal.  When one who can objectively study scientology does so – particularly when he has tested its methods through extensive practice – something becomes patently clear. That is by conservative estimate more than ninety (90) percent of everything Hubbard wrote and uttered on scientology and dianetics was about how wrong all those who attempted to apply it were.  It is mostly a running stream of consciousness  (albeit held together by a hard core, two-valued logic and persuasively conveyed by a convincing speaker and writer) record of assigning reasons why the promises in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health were never realized and how they might yet be.   Highlighting that statement is Dianetics’ promise of full memory restoration in 1950 and Hubbard’s last ‘breakthrough’ (OT VIII) – as his 1986 dying declaration – promising to address the reason folk are apparently inherently amnesiacs.

Exacerbating the confusion is that many of the methods Ron educates his followers on as the mechanics intentionally used to control and damage the mind are simultaneously employed by him to do precisely that to his followers.  It is diabolical in that the follower having been educated by Ron on those mental entrapment techniques would then never guess they would be used on the follower.  You wind up with the curious phenomenon of apparently sincere people devoting their lives to vehemently defending their own entrapment.

There is another reason why the obvious is nearly impossible for a scientologist to see.  If there is one skill Hubbard had that perhaps outstripped all others it was his ability to always convincingly sound right while making others wrong.  That skill was exercised as consistently and as uncannily as a falling cat’s ability to land on its feet.  From before the publication of Dianetics, Ron Hubbard proved as immovable as a mountain on being criticized, corrected, or accepting even the most rational of input and advice. Just as consistently, he rained hell on anyone with the temerity to suggest holding his theories up to objective standards.   When he said or wrote something it was communicated convincingly and in an authoritative fashion.  For the next thirty-six years he evolved his subjects by trial and error.  But, the running track of that development was memorialized in a unique voice.  While the track altered and changed everything over and over because of unworkability found with that which was at first communicated as unalterable, absolute fact, the voice of those continuous alterations could admit of no error.  The matter is exacerbated by the fact that it is a ‘research and development’ record based exclusively on subjective standards.   With no objective scrutiny allowed and no accurate, honest assignation of error possible, all manner of erroneous yet authoritative data are driven home just as forcefully as correct ones.

The continuous backfilling that constitutes the bulk of scientology writing and lecturing is apparent in scientology training packs.  The student is not instructed simply on what he should do and why.  Instead, he reads bulletin after bulletin and listens to lecture after lecture of Hubbard talking about how people have misapplied or might misapply what he discovered.   The materials are a patchwork of Hubbard writings and lectures cherry-picked from different periods of time.  They make for a mix chock-full of contradictions.  Without having one’s intellectual honesty compromised by agreeing from the outset that Hubbard is infallible and all of his words are literal Gospel (that which is required in scientology training – along with the requirement to attribute every success to Ron and every failure to pesky humans and their inherent fallibility), all of this would be as obvious as the nose on your face.

Since all scientology courses begin with a warning that if anyone states that anything Hubbard wrote is ‘historical’, ‘background’, or ‘no longer used’ he will be promptly convicted of the crime TREASON, how does one cope with the miasma of contradictions?   Scientology instructors employ a ‘technology’ that has the student convince himself there are no contradictions.  It is so effective that scientology students do not graduate a course until they attest with certitude that everything makes consistent, perfect sense.  The firmness of that idea of certainty is verified by one component of a modern lie detector (the stress testing electropsychometer).  Highlighting this culture of hypocrisy, the cognitive dissonance creating course rooms – which eliminate any questioning, thinking or doubts – are called ‘Academies’ taken from the ancient Greek sites where liberal, critical philosophical thinking was once nurtured.

The net result of all this is that scientology is destined to always incite debate and internecine strife – no matter how enlightened and wise its leadership may be.  There can never be universal consensus on what constitutes ‘standard technology’ given the voice (noted above) scientology is written in and given its inalterable injunctions that that voice may not ever be questioned, interpreted, or clarified.   In a strict organizational setting, the debate goes on inside each individual’s head (until settled by an instilled, arrogant brand of cognitive dissonance) while attempting to keep up, lock-step of course, with management’s latest pronunciamentos on what constitutes ‘standard.’   In an independent setting it is a self-righteous war of words in which nobody can establish a clearly reasoned high ground.  To gain any traction in the debate requires one to progressively retreat further toward adopting Ron’s certain, swaggering and authoritative personality.

That is why bands of scientologists, whether in or out of the official organizations, will always rally around certain, swaggering, authoritative types of personalities – and promptly disperse when that catalyst is removed.   Sadly, but just as certainly, about the closest thing scientologists are going to find to that original L. Ron Hubbard package is David Miscavige.

About the only common denominator all brands of scientology share as something resembling a standard in practice is this: does the guy stay on board and continue paying?  If you have been led to believe that any viable brand of scientology is applying some more enlightened standard you have simply been led to believe yet another lie.  Why do you think that the only allegedly ‘expanding’ independent scientology outfits feature the addition of 47 advanced levels of auditing?  It is like Miscavige inventing the existence of OT Levels IX through XV and beyond, only seven times over.   What you get is power of choice in picking the duration of your addiction.

Those who make a living by trying to convince folks otherwise are profiting by playing on misplaced hopes.  It is a different harmonic of the same game that was played on people within.

There is a silver lining in all this.  In addition to whatever any individual may feel he might have picked up of use along the way in scientology,  there are a couple of assets that probably all scientologists can recognize they possess.  First, they can realize that they were well meaning and trusting to begin with; scientology doesn’t take very well on people without those virtues. Second, they can recognize that they have had the opportunity to hone the latter virtue (trust) by surviving the most intense graduate school of psychological hard knocks.

1,102 responses to “Standard Scientology

  1. Sincerely Marty I could not have said it any better myself. I am still to bitter I suppose to express it that plainly and eloquently although I have tried in the past. Thank you for putting this post out there. Plain as day. There can’t be a standard for something that has never existed in the first place.
    I am proud to be a survivor not only of Scientology, but a survivor of being a Second Generation Scieftologist, a Sea Org Member and a Recovering RPFer. The hard knocks I got in all three arenas have left deep scars that are still healing and hope one day to be so faded as if they never were.

    • As much fault as can easily be found with Nietzche, I have found one thing he noted to be a workable axiom: “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” Viktor Frankl refines/explains the idea marvelously in Man’s Search For Meaning.

      • That is very true. I would say I am VERY strong now. Even in my weakest moments when I still grapple with my own sanity I know I am strong. And that pulls me through. That and my two beautiful children and my family, who tell me I am loved and that I am a good person and that I am worth it. I have finally started to tell myself that too and believe it. That has taken more than a decade but I know it can only get better from here.

      • Marty, what about the bigger, bigger picture?The cult discussion is just a diversion from the huge multi billion-dollar, no-profit tax fraud scheme that’s going on right now? Accomplished by way of real estate transactions with entities owned by parishioners? Non-profits popping in and out of counties all over. Inflated price purchases from the church to the entity as a way of transferring wealth from non-profit to profit. By compartmentalizing things it would be easy to have very few people really knowing the real deal. Fairly brilliant and diabolical and everyone pays.

        • This is nothing compared to the Federal Reserve scheme.


        • I am a never-in, with a sister-in-law who has been INJECTING KOOL-HUBBARD-AIDE for 40 years plus, daughter in SO. She is disfigured by cancer, marriage destroyed, broke, no credit, no house,crazy, lives horribly. Through these blogs, who by the way are comprised by some of the most interesting people I have ever read about, I discovered she is not unique. She is one of the normies of the cult of scion-conn-me. With the true history of the depravity of LRH, and the obvious goals of the dear leader ( funny, probably not even a clam, probably laughs his ass every night that he is getting richer by the sheer stupidity, gullibility of followers, on the most part well intentioned people). He probably believes as much of the LRH crap as my chihuahua does, and he definetely has an exit strategy sooner than anyone thinks. Reading homage to LRH, THE ULTIMATE LIAR AND PLAGERIST is hysterical. One only needs to look at the acts of the leaders of a group, or religion, to determine the the nature of beliefs. Truth gradients?? Lies!! Greater good for the benefit of clams??? Liars!! The leader needs a mouthpiece so as the words are not traceable? Criminal! Spiritual welfare measured in dollars and cents by a leader who is not accountable to his own words and his income? Non profit organization under religion that is anything but transparent? Ethical people=Disconnection=RPF=Forced Divorce=SubHuman Treatment, Slavery, Horrific Living Conditions, Horrible Wages=No Health Care= Pension=Truth Gradients,Acceptable Lying=Child Abuse, and so much more that Marty and all of you know=LRH, SCIENTOLOGY. This is what EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD SEES BUT THE KOOL-AIDE ADDICTS!

          • To Cob$..
            I am sorry that you have to watch the mess that your family has gone through with this evil cult. I have watched friends and family members also put Scientology before ANYTHING in their lives.. ANYTHING.

            You are speaking to the choir for a lot of us.. Trust me!

      • I bet that’s irrelevant here to post so you may not publish it but there is no reply buttons after your “answers” to me. That’s cutting comm and that’s… why don’t you confront me Marty and talk with reply option for me too?

        I am sorry Marty but you are violating the comm formula big time as an “authority” on this blog.

        Is there an earliest similar Marty? Maybe I could help you out remember that and finally run out this circuit of your’s, ARC Xing people who have spent quite some time in this journey on this blog, which by the way is a two sided (not a one sided) thing. Especially when every post of it has to do with Scientology and how bad now it all is.

        • It is interesting to see how some Scientologists use Scientology to hurt others. 


        • Theo, as far as I know, it is WordPress and not Marty that is “cutting your comm”, in the sense that you have to go back ‘upstream’ in any subthread and find the last comment that has a reply button, and use that one. It may be th etheme, or maybe th eseetings on his blog, but that appears to be how it works for me. The email notifications help a lot. Without them responding to comments gets unwieldy fast.

          • Valkov is right, Theo. There are only a certain number of “levels” or “tiers” in any sub-thread, and after that no more reply buttons are given. You can handle it the way Val says, if you need to, but doing it that way won’t show which comment you are actually replying to and that isn’t always clear from the reply itself.

            The other thing you can do is to click on the reply button at the bottom of the email notification of the post you want to reply to. Also, at the top of the notification, it says “Respond to this comment by replying above this line,” but I’ve never tried it that way.

          • Mindfulness 2: Observe without Assuming

            Reference: The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness

            Mindfulness provides the discipline for looking and contemplation.

            You may do this exercise while sipping coffee in a café, or strolling along a river. You may even find a place where you can sit comfortably for a while without being disturbed. Then patiently observe the world go by.

            As you look do not assume anything. It is easy to assume what one normally expects to be there. For example, if you are looking at the profile of a person, you see only one ear, but you may take it for granted that the person has two ears. Separate the actual perception from the ideas of what should be there.


            MINDFULNESS 2: Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.

            1. Observe as usual. Notice the environment and other people.

            2. Start applying the aspects of mindfulness that you have learned so far.

            3. As you observe, see if there are any assumptions that are hanging around. Spot them as they come up.

            4. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and then move on.

            5. As you observe, see if the actual perceptions are different from the ideas in the mind. Notice such differences one by one.

            Example: You are looking at the profile of a person. You see only one ear. The mind tells you that he is supposed to have two ears. Notice that you cannot verify what the mind is telling you. Taking for granted that the person has two ears, would be an assumption.

            6. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and then move on.

            7. As you observe, see if you are being judgmental about some situation. Notice any preconceived ideas present one by one.

            Example: You may look at a person of certain sex, color, profession or cultural background with certain preconceived ideas. Separate the actual perception from the ideas contained in the mind.

            8. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and then move on.

            9. As you observe, see if there is something that does not make sense. Notice if your own ideas are contributing to that inconsistency.

            10. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and then move on.

            11. Expand your span of attention and let the perceptions pour in.

            12. Let the realizations present themselves to you without you making any effort.


            Develop this exercise to a point where you are doing it naturally even while interacting socially with others. Keep observing patiently without assuming anything. Keep actual perception separate from the ideas contained in your mind. Many things may come up naturally to be scrutinized. Simply observe them and become aware of them without effort.


            • Vinaire, after a good night’s sleep I came to see the posts. I saw that I was wrong in saying it was Marty as because of the lack of communication from Marty he was the first “target”. I read your write-up on mindfulness and it’s rather useful. It’s like obnosis and the drills of it. I even went to your blog and saw some very interesting articles, especially on self learning which I intend to read and use on my children.

              In essence, after some observation and no assumptions, I see most of the people here are dealing in some spiritual activity and do have things to say. So, attacking Scientology is a push button mechanism that does not help.

              If you asked me, write now I would work with others to create a group where all kinds of people, from different denominations would come in and do something about our 4th dynamic and the higher dynamics. For this to happen, big beings are needed who will have found the common grounds of agreement they can have amongst them and build a new reality. Those grounds should not be shaky but should be strong and clear so that a strong agreement can be formed upon them. That’s my view of things. People are good. It’s all the misunderstandings and the pushing of their buttons and disrespect to what they feel close to their hearts that pulls the trigger.

              Courtesy and thoughtfulness make elbows rub better.

          • I didn’t know that. I assumed it was Marty.Ok I apologise then.

        • Theo: “I am sorry Marty but you are violating the comm formula big time as an “authority” on this blog.”
          Hey Theo, do you have a blog open to everyone? I’d sure like to come by and wrangle with ya sometime.

        • Theo, it could also be called a free flow of ideas from people who think for themselves. That which some call “banky” is adult dialog with free expression; unlimited and questioning everything.

          Here in the great and open wog world “open mindedness” is a virtue not a flaw.

          • I remember, when I first got introduced to Scientology, one of the “Aptitude Test” used by Scientology implied “close mindedness” as a virtue. I made a mental note of it then as something very odd.


      • Marty, let me give an example of “Standard Scientology”. Saith the Registrar to the New Public Person just in off a Dianetics Book: “Excuse me sir, instead of getting auditing and training here at the org, why don’t you go and take a long walk off a short pier with a revolver and blow your brains out with the distorted LRH tech I just gave you?” Ask me Marty, how in the world does an already trained OT and Sea Org member get away with that on somebody? I am not sure yet. I am thinking it must be a 3rd Wall of Fire somewhere that LRH perhaps overlooked that brings about these kind of things? I was VERY upset and I didn’t even know it after that happened to me. I feel much more stable now as a being KNOWING without a doubt that there not only can be, but there are and there is such a thing as a corrupt “Scientologist”. The above example is my example. 🙂

    • Basketbaljane, You me Marty and the whole world have this Song !

  2. Thanks Marty. Certainly gave me food for thought.

  3. All of the ills listed in the blog post, whether fully accurate or not, could and apparently are being rectified by scientology practitioners outside of the CoS – with very good results, according to the reports of many. I think that gives credence to the actuality that there are valid principles underlying perhaps not all but much of the tech.

    • Marildi: “All of the ills listed in the blog post, whether fully accurate or not, could and apparently are being rectified by scientology practitioners outside of the CoS – with very good results, according to the reports of many.”

      “Reports by many”? The CoS has much better “reports” of “success stories” from their application of the tech. As we have discussed before, Marildi; There are no objective evidence of the workability of Scientology. And the anecdotal evidence is suspect, to say the least. Ref: “Invitation to critique my OT VIII success story”

      Marty: Spot on!

      • Thanks Geir. I only had to read the success story to get the point. No critique needed. Amazing what learning to let go can do to one’s intuitive abilities.

      • Geir, you have stated, even quite recently, that you got tremendous wins from scientology – although you feel that the majority did not and in fact were negatively affected. The only explanation you’ve given for this discrepancy (that I know of) is that you were a “rebel” and did not “toe the party line.” Therefore, what I’ve stated above would, in simple terms – that is, in your terms – be the only thing needing correction, i.e. the requirement to toe the party line.

        • I look at it like this.


          That is what we do. We are always in a position to increase our awareness, that of course is dependent upon our willingness to learn.

          It is the very nature of the soul to be knowledge. Not have it, but remember it, as an already existing state minus all the fear and mental noise.

          By the very fact of turning one’s attention within, to look, will inevitably bring about realizations.


          Because when we look within our selves, whether through self inquiry, self analysis or meditation, we come face to face with the true nature of things from time to time. And when we do, we blow charge, feel lighter, have realizations, things become clear and smiles more frequent.

          The problem with Scientology, in my view, is that LRH tried to standardize that which can never be standard. Shure, there are some basic states of thought and mind and emotion that can be gone over in general terms and maybe we can say that there are some areas of commonality.

          Hubbard attempted to convince, and did convince, his followers that his process is the most advance, scientific, groovy, latest version. And more diabolically the “only road to self awareness and truth.”

          The truth of the matter is:

          Any person, anytime, anywhere can go with in, look at the internal world of mind-emotion-spirit and have realizations.

          That is why anyone who still believes in Ron pops a vein when people say Sciwntology doesn’t work. Of course it does. But not how it is sold.

          It works because human beings have the capacity to differentiate and cognize the true nature of things.

          IT IS WHO WE ARE

          The problem with charismatic narsacistic cult leaders is that they convince their thought slaves followers that they, the charismatic leader, is the reason for their being able to look, see, rehabilitate and change.

          The truth is:

          We are transformational beings. With capacity to discover physical, mental and spiritual truths by turning our attention within and seeing with our spiritual discriminatory eyes.

          When a person goes exterior on a Scientology process and realizes they are not a body, that person will always say that Scientology worked.

          That capacity to go exterior is native to the person. L Ron Hubbard claimed these states as his own original discovery.

          Instead of serving his students and praising them for who they are, he created a thought prison where all advances of the spirit are locked up in Ron’s need to be the Source.

          So Scientologists are of course having wins. Because they are looking within themselves.

          But there are traps, because a lot of the bridge is also the projection of a madman.

          The challenge for exes is:

          To differenciate between the realizations that we’re based on universal cosmic truths………..


          Those assumed, word cleared, and demoed,imaginary certainties, masquarading as truth, but the imaginations of a misguided madman.

          • Great comment, Brian.

          • I totally agree. If you are a being interested in spiritual advancement and you look you will advance. But personally I have never found anything that speeds up the process like Scientology.

            So here is an experiment for you. Forget all the Hubbard stuff. Find something you are interested in exploring about yourself or life or the universe. Now just Prepcheck it. You don’t need a meter or anything. Just have someone ask you the questions and when you feel good about that one go on to the next. Or if you find one you’re not interested in then just skip it.

            • ” But personally I have never found anything that speeds up the process like Scientology.”

              Great wise fool. Glad for you. I got things out of Scientology. I was one for 11 years.
              So tell me, how long did you experience other paths to conclude that there is nothing better?

              • Or nothing faster as you just said?

              • Hey Brian,

                Here is a short response: I looked at faith-based spirituality but it’s just not my style. I need to understand. I’m basically a scientist. So I abandoned the idea of Western religions.

                Philosophy was interesting but how do you apply it? It’s just a bunch of ideas. Kind of like, “OK, now what?”

                I studied the Tao and Buddhism, primarily Zen Buddhism. They seemed to be closest to my basic nature (I’m not prone to believe that there is anything personal about Infinity).

                Tried different forms of meditation – never did much for me. I guess the issue was that it was a non-directed approach. I could go on meditating for some time with nothing happening.

                By using a targeted approach on a particular topic (button, whatever) I could get to the bottom of things. When you look at it, it’s basically a personal research tool. Keeps you focused on the issue at hand. You can research anything you’re being bothered by or are interested in. And with the result of an intellectual understanding coupled with a sort of “peak experience” – a direct realization of some part of your basic nature. I ended up with new understandings and states in an extremely finite period of time (hours instead of day or weeks with meditation).

                So for me just taking out all the Hubbard BS you are left with what I call “the pure track of technology”. I know, I know, Marty is saying there is no standard tech. For me this “pure track of technology” is just too simple: It starts with a pure comm formula with no eval or inval. Then Act 1 – basically the auditor just being there to help and absolutely nothing else. Then the process itself taken to completion. Hubbard found hundreds of them. And that’s all! As I said. It’s just too damn simple.

                In my experience as an auditor and personally it works just like that. I audited a lot of Life Repairs and these people didn’t really have a clue as to what I was doing. They just answered the questions and they ended up with an understanding and a “peak experience”. I had the same experience myself as a new PC.

                But I’m not asking anybody to believe any of this. As I said in my earlier post just do it and come to your own conclusion. It may not work for all. I couldn’t possibly say. But I do know from just my personal experience that many people come to a greater realization of themselves coupled with an improved ability to handle life.

                And frankly I could care less if Hubbard stole it from half a dozen unacknowledged sources, or if he was really “only a tyrannical money-grubbing ego maniac” or it was actually developed by the Man in the Moon.

            • A Wise Fool, you gave me a good idea. I shall now put together a mindfulness version of “Prep checking” and add it to my Buddhist/KHTK arsenal here:


        • If you read what I write on my blog you will see that this is very far from all that needs correcting. It is also very far from what needs to be corrected according to Marty here in this very blog post.

          • The question is, why wasn’t there any need for all this correcting in your own case – since, per your own statement, you got tremendous gains? According to you, the only thing that differentiated you from the “majority” of others – who, in your opinion, had “negative results” – was that you didn’t toe the party line. In other words, what you are implying is that what kept others from having gains was that they did toe the party line – and that the tech itself produces great results.

            • That is all can think of. But I am sure there are plenty of other reasons. So no, I am not implying that although it looks like you were really hoping I was.

              • Okay. I just don’t think I’ve ever heard of anybody else who says they benefited so highly from the tech and at the same time be highly critical of it. That’s basically what I mean.

                • And you assert that you’ve read my books and this blog? Wow.

                  • Then can you answer the question as to why you think you yourself escaped all the many pitfalls in the tech that you write about?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Read my books and blog

                    • A couple of things I can recall off the top of my head that probably relate are (1) you didn’t take the data on OT III literally (and maybe NOTs as well, unless you came to view it differently at some point later) and (2) you were able to do a lot of training without being interfered with and harassed.

                      I would think that those things, plus whatever else occurred for you that enabled you to benefit so highly (as you basically just confirmed) would be the things you would be recommending to people so they could benefit too – rather than basically telling them to stay away.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Your propensity for false, infotainment sum up of ideas you don’t grasp apparently knows no bounds.

                    • Marildi, have you read Bare Faced Messiah, Piece of the Blue Sky or Messiah or Madman?

                      These books are an essential read for those who care to discard feelings difficult to get rid of.

                      Anyone looking to de-hypnotize themselves from any mental conflict that Scientology caused will be well served by these books as well as Marty’s.

                      These books will dislodge the foundation of cult think by revealing the man behind the curtain.
                      Please read these books. They were an eye opener for me.

                    • Brian, why don’t you let up on the constant efforts to get me to read how awful LRH was – and of course to then come to feel the animosity towards him that you do.

                      You’ll be happy to know that I’ve read much of that kind of thing – and I consider it beside the point of what has been shown to be valuable in scientology. That’s where my interests lie – not on the shortcomings of LRH.

                    • Just a thought. I get that it’s not your thing. All I can do is ask.

                    • threefeetback

                      marildi, this blog has become a waste of time to follow ever since your lame stream of consciousness was ratcheted up to a river of diarrhea.

                • My point – clear and simple: Yes, I benefited highly from what I did in Scientology. And, I think I could have achieved that in a multitude of other ways. Learning early on to simply Letting Go would most certainly be one of them – without the creation of the Only True Cult Bubble and much side effects.

                  • Okay, Geir. I guess I shouldn’t try to argue with you about your reality.

                    (For once. 😉 )

                  • “And, I think I could have achieved that in a multitude of other ways. Learning early on to simply Letting Go would most certainly be one of them – without the creation of the Only True Cult Bubble and much side effects.”
                    That is absolutely music to my ears Geir. Thank you!

                    • You are very welcome. I believe there are any number of ways to achieve almost anything imaginable. But it does take imagination sometimes 🙂 But often it takes an attitude of utter simplicity to get there the fastest. And Scientology is surely not simple.

                  • “…a multitude of other ways.”

                    Here’s a good one, Geir.

                • Marildi, Lots of us benefited from the Tech while in the Tech. We have covered this thoroughly dozens of times on Geir’s and the reasons why and how a frame of reference provides the relativity. Consistency within one frame of reference does not imply consistency within another frame of reference. When we understand this fact then we stop trying to make “one size fits all” lives and stop being critical of ourselves for changing. Life is change.

          • Trying to form a perfect organization based on flaws in LRH technology of course will not work, Because of this, the church always misses it’s targets and winds up attacking the true sources of its future. At the top of this church is David Miscavige (currently) who is advertised to be “the mostly highly trained competent OT and auditor on the planet” by the members of his group “or else” their membership is terminated. I believe it is best to apply what works and disregard those technologies that don’t. MOST of LRH’s writings can be considered technically correct or people such as you and I would not have benefited from them to this day. But MUCH of what LRH wrote is like a re-do of a trial and error correction he was working on and never quite finished. The Purification Rundown is one such example. 🙂

            • LRH Tech needs to be cleaned up and consolidated. The first big improvment would be replacing the E-meter by mindfulness. Here is how to correctly handle secondaries.


            • There is of course that sneaky factor that on some people almost anything will work. I have seen this in my coaching – give just about ANY exercise to a certain person and they will benefit from it. An no, I am not talking about illusory gains, but real, measurable gain from doing almost any task. And this is another reason those anecdotal evidences are dicey.

              • In my opinion, such people are either using mindfulness (seeing things as they are) as their basis, or they are hypnotized.

                I can run any Scientology process using mindfulness.

              • TR’s are good. They work in real life. But when someone asks “Where did you learn to communicate like that or what are you into?” My original problem might have been stating the tech was learned at a corrupt place like the Church of Scientology of New York, which is one the worst, followed by ASHO FDN and Flag. So, other areas of self improvement can also help to guide people to the truth that when combined with what does work of LRH’s can boil down to a nice life of freedom. Without the “bars of an org prison” so to speak, getting in the way. 🙂 Hope that helps a bit.

              • “There is of course that sneaky factor that on some people almost anything will work. ”

                I am a bit like that. When trying self-improvement drills I usually have the expectation that something beneficial will happen and it normally does, at least in my subjective reality.

                • Chris, I’m a lot like that “almost everything worked” as Geir mentioned. Later years I found that if it isn’t fun and simple enough, it’s not for me, tho I’m always open to learn new things, My analyzing, hard work days have been pretty analyzed and worked over.
                  I take care of things best I can, enjoy people and am interesting in life and it’s many facets. In other words, I crossed that scientological bridge.

      • TIR [ essentially Dioanetics] has had a fair bit of academic study. See below for example.

        “In other words, at both the posttest and the three month follow-up, the experimental condition showed a statistically significant decrease in symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (and its related subscales) and of depression and anxiety, while those in the control condition remained approximately the same.”

    • TIR [ squirrel dianetics :)] has had some academic study and showed promise:-

      “In other words, at both the posttest and the three month follow-up, the experimental condition showed a statistically significant decrease in symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (and its related subscales) and of depression and anxiety, while those in the control condition remained approximately the same. “

      • Terril, thanks for posting this data.

        Do you know if TIR actually squirrels Dianetics, or is it the same procedure with perhaps different terminology?

        • Mar, check the TIR website here:

          Although I know the person running it, I do not know the exact specifics, I never asked for details, but I can tell you some of my impressions.
          It is fundamentally incident running as in dianetics.
          I believe originally Sarge Gerbode worked out an extensive written agreement with the CoS, that he could use the tech but could not use copywrited or trademarked terminology, ie he couldn’t call it “dianetics”, or “auditing”, etc. Thus “Applied Metapsychology” instead of “Scientology” and so on. But in fact “Metapsychology” is not simply a form of ‘standard scientology”, it has incorporated methods and knowledge from other disciplines like Psychology into a complete approach to therapy and self-improvement. It was a very detailed agreement I’ve heard.
          Sarge was I believe Clear and a Class VI auditor at least, also an MD.

          TIR does workshops, trainings, and practitioners all over the country as well as overseas and the website has “search” functions for finding these. It is th eopposite of th eCoS and Scientology in being very “inclusive” rather than “exclusive”, in the sense that they incorporate good ideas and workable methods that they come across as long as they ‘test out’ and are seen as having some validation. But a lot of good therapists are eclectic in that way, at least where I live, incorporating Vipassana, mindfullness, etc. But fundamentally there is a lot of LRH tech included in it.

          • Thanks, Val. What you describe is probably what will happen in large part with the tech as time goes on – and already is happening, although giving credit to and calling it “scientology” isn’t now and won’t always be the case.

            • I believe Sarge Gerbode does, or did, give a lot of credit to LRH/scientology in his original introduction to Metapsychology. I don’t know if that is still published as such or not. Especially given the “wonderful” PR the CoS has created for itself by it’s incredible actions over the decades, they might want to disassociate themselves from the current scene. I mean look, people today have no clue what I’m talking about when I talk about what I thought SCN was all about in the 1970s.

            • Yes, it is what SHOULD happen. And someone might develop a “Standard Tech” brand that is good enough that I might be able to say “Go see those people over at “Standard Tech”, they are pretty good stuff that actually helps a lot.” That is not to sat there will be only one group that gets good results using the basic ideas and methods.

              • I think there are people who do deliver “Standard Tech” and call it that. A few I can think of, from what I’ve read, are Trey Lotz, Aida Thomas, Les and Anita Warren, Doug and Annette Davidson, Frank and Mary Freeman – although some of these may supplement standard tech with freezone stuff or whatever.

                • Your propensity for issuing false data apparently knows no bounds.

                  • Okay, but why not answer the basic question I’ve asked? It seems like your replies to me are almost always an evasion in the form of a personal insult.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I have to comment on your game from time to time to stem the tide of falsehoods that pour from your fingers. Only other alternative – given the lack of time I have to moderate – block your many IP addresses.

                    • Oh my God. So that’s what is going on with you. You probably won’t believe me but I’ll say it anyway. I have had a few computer changes (not “many:”) since I first posted here in 2009, and for a short while at one point I used a friend’s computer at times. But I think you’ll see that my posts didn’t generally go back and forth between all of these – which might mean something to you, I don’t know. But I don’t know what else to say.

                    • So, Marildi and Valkov are the same person. 😉 I suspected that because they are like two peas in a pod.


                    • Yes, Vin. in Jungian terms, she is the Anima and I am the Animus. We are both some contents of YOUR Collective Unconscious! Expect us, as Anonymous likes to say…..

                    • Unless, of course, like the Buddha, you are able to “extinguish your outflows” (cease projecting realities for your own perception). Then perhaps, for you we would vanish.

                    • ” It seems like your replies to me are almost always an evasion in the form of a personal insult.”

                      Mmmmm, that is exactly how I feel about your replies Marildi.

                    • I’ve answered your questions many times, Brian. But you alter what I say into your version of it and then post that – as you did on just the previous thread where I pointed out that what you wrote was a multiple Straw Man.

                      I thoroughly get how you see things, and that nothing I say is going to make any difference to you. So now it’s time for you to stop trying to push your reality off on me too. Let’s keep it that simple.

                    • I seriously think, Marildi, that you need to improve your communication skills rather than blaming others.

                      Mindfulness might help. 🙂


                    • Asking if you’ve read books is a very simple thing Marildi. And you simple now just avoided my post about your propensity to be rude in your responses to me. That is very simple. You accused Marty of something and I am saying you do the same thing that you accused Marty of doing.

                      Respond to that.

                    • Marildi needs to word clear affinity, reality and communication. If she thinks she already knows it, she is simply being glib. She can’t apply these concepts.

                      One doesn’t learn just by quoting. One only shows glibness.


                • Thank you Vinaire

            • Hey mar have you ever seen this? I accidented upon it somehow, I think in a search for something else. It’s kinda along the lines of some of my own thinking. He’s an old old timer:

        • marildi,

          TIR is virtually the same procedure with different terminology. TIR would “Clear the Planet” way faster than CoS would (if that was its purpose), since its practitioners can and do accept Health Insurance so long as the practitioner is a licensed, mental health professional (which most of them are). However the “State of Clear” is not acknowledged in TIR. A state they call “The Turning Point” is, however. There is no evidence of anyone since 1950 obtaining the State of Clear as defined in DMSMH, or at least Clears cannot know that for sure unless they got rid of all their Bs and Cs (and any other spiritual entities) impinging on them, something which cannot be accomplished using the CoS’ tech and likely cannot be accomplished in full by any technology that exists in PT (my opinion).

          TIR/Metapsychology’s approach to cases is a large improvement over CoS in the most important of ways (in my opinion). PCs, termed “Viewers”, only run what they are interested in addressing. The Viewer has the final say on the treatment of his own mind, not a CS.

          TIR/Metapsychology has an equivalent (or superior version) of CoS’ Lower Bridge. The largest influence regarding the philosophy of the TIR/Metapsychology practitioner, termed a “Facilitator”, is Carl Rogers. Read “On Becoming a Person” as Marty has suggested if you’d like to understand Carl Rogers’ philosophy.

  4. I haven’t followed your blog closely but have enjoyed what I have read or had pointed out to me, especially since you’ve come all the way through the decompression process to realizing that Hubbard’s brainchild was less than an honest effort. This posting is by far the best summation of Scientology I’ve seen yet and I really like the way you phrased certain parts, especially the very accurate “You wind up with the curious phenomenon of apparently sincere people devoting their lives to vehemently defending their own entrapment.” This is just spot-on. Nice article.

  5. Wow – spot on essay here.

    One thing that keeps me going as a continuing, practicing Scientologist – quite aware of the traps and the real nature of the “90%” dilemma that you describe so well – is that remaining “10%” – I mean – you have alluded to it before. A lot of us recognize it is there.

    Hell, people accept some of the outright lies stated in the Keeping Scientology Working letter just because you find those few gems of wisdom there that you don’t really get anywhere else.

    While the cynical might propose that he worked so hard in order to keep the money flowing and the lies covered, there still was – and this is what communicates to the mentioned “well-meaning scientologists” – a genuine, driving urge to understand mankind, the mind, and the common denominators of aberration.

    That those “common denominators” became a hard-set, cookie cutter speedway to “OTIII fast” is undeniably tragic, and counts as a betrayal of trust.

    The Advanced Orgs fit the definition of roach motels – and sorry for an ugly depiction, but it describes an ugly scene. “They check in but they don’t check out.” Or at least they pay double of what are already obscene rates for “clearing” help that they now think they can’t get anywhere else because they are in the grip of trademark secrecy – a sort of a mafioso-enforced devil’s bargain.

    Hubbard made that!

    But the fact remains that before – and sometimes after – the psychotic breaks of 1965 (repeated times over in a tragic pattern) – there are real gems of technical wisdom that can be found nowhere else.

    That the task of that sort-out is monumental and daunting is not a hindrance to my own desire to understand and help my fellows. All while struggling with the horrendous contradictions that you describe so well in this post.

    For this is a very old tradition. From the true spiritual alchemists who secretly forwarded the “Great Work” under penalty of death, through Freud, Breuer and Jung and the liabilities of taking on the monstrosities of people’s potential for evil in contrast to their angelic potentials for good. All with as many variations as the number of tarot cards – far more variations than the simplified five or so “Grades” of Scientology technology (plus a few special “rundowns”).

    I don’t know whether it is actually possible to unravel this ball of string, yet it is an engaging enough task.

    This blog and its recommended reading have helped greatly. May we all continue to learn and grow, and may the unique gems of wisdom hit upon in the great quest for the “one-shot clear” shine again, rediscovered, put to their proper use, and cleaned of the mud they became buried under.

    • Wise and eloquently expressed!

      • Thank you, Watchful.
        And Marty, thank you too, I continue to appreciate your thoughts and offerings. Though i never quite made it to “clear”, the journey was enlightening and life changing for the better. I owe this to honest application of the tech. And that is my answer to why the tech always works for me when i apply it as Hubbard describes how to apply it. For me, THAT is Standard Tech.

    • Amen brother…

  6. Catch 22.
    They come to get themselves ‘sharp’, but ya gotta be sharp to safely get through, to get yourself sharp. Maybe, if you’re sharp, you can get yourself sharper, if you don’t get dulled along the way.

  7. Margot Diaz Learned

    Great post Marty. I’ve never seen it said better. It definitely reflects my feelings. I, too, struggle with getting to that silver lining, but I’m working on it!

  8. A rarity.

    I’m speechless.

    Beautifully written with heart, experience and a warmth rarely found amongst “critics”


  9. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Bravo…Standing Ovation !
    You stated it very clear and simple.
    It will cool down many people and their circled discussions about who knows the appropriate reference.

    Its sad but true modern psychology knows more about the functioning of the mind (not the brain) than dianetics.will ever teach.

  10. Can we get an ‘Amen’ !

    I just finished reading Jon Atak’s book. It is almost overwhelming …. the B.S. the lies, the intrigues, the threats, the greed and ultimately the lack of integrity. All of this done in the name ‘LRH & Scio’ is absolutely 101% right, true and correct. It really makes one want to puke.

    All that being said, I had gains and wins from my auditing. Some have lasted some have not. BUT at least I had a glimpse of what can be or is possible, therefore I can re-create or not, as I desire. It is all OK with me.

    With the right auditor, I do feel one can get relief and help, if they believe that the process will work and if they are willing to ‘let go and release’. But that is true about all of life, let go, release and things change. Oh and don’t bother going beyond Clear.

    We all were sucked in, so to speak, we just wanted to see people and the world at peace and better, whatever better meant to us. I think we all still desire that. For certain, I can say studying Scio and listening to the ‘wall of B.S.’ probably is not the way to go, unless you want the tedious exercise of sorting the 90% of B.S. to find the 10% worthwhile.

  11. This could probably be the ultimate truth about Scientology.
    I consider Hubbard’s outpourings to consist mainly of wordplay.
    E.g. his definition of the thetan. It is described as a static. In science ‘static’ is an adjective, but Hubbard changes it into a noun, which is meaningless.
    So the definition of ‘a static’ explains exactly nothing at all.
    I have still to meet a Scientologist who can explain the notion of ‘ a static’ to me, as being the definition of ‘the thetan’.

    • A clarification on my first sentence: the ‘this’ refers of course to the excellent post of Marty Rathbun and not to my idea of Scientology as a wordplay.

    • Sara, what’s wrong with this explanation from the Tech Dictionary:

      6. the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05)

      • And yet as I spelled out in a previous post, he promptly went about treating it as exactly that, quantity (big beings, small beings, etc ad nauseum).

        • He also said that a thetan was IN “a very, very small amount of mass” and that beingness is on a part with space and a function of case.

          • Typo: should be “on a PAR”

            • So he wants to have it both ways. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which governs things of mass, states that the uncertainty of location multiplied by the uncertainty of velocity is equal to Planck’s constant divided by two times pi. If a thetan is linked to mass, then a thetan must have location, even if it cannot be accurately measured.

              Source: the Nobel winner who taught me quantum mechanics. Show me Hubbard’s Nobel for his “accomplishments”, Marildi, and maybe I’ll listen.

              • “If a thetan is linked to mass, then a thetan must have location, even if it cannot be accurately measured.”

                Yes, but the location can be changed “by consideration or postulate.” The same idea is expressed by Tom Campbell, a physicist who studied consciousness for over 3 decades through his and many others’ out-of body experiences (exteriorization, in scientology terminology). Being a scientist, Campbell’s research was done using scientific protocol.

                Campbell essentially came to the same conclusions LRH did as regards the location of a “unit of consciousness” (his word for thetan) – i.e. that it’s all a matter of postulate, which Campbell refers to as “intent.” You’ll notice in the short video below that he is grappling for a better word than “intent” – and I do believe the word he’s looking for is “postulate.”

                No, he’s not a Nobel prize winner (at least not yet) but bringing that into it the discussion would be the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority, wouldn’t it?

                • Hubbard was a walking, talking, bloviating example of Appeal To Authority, thanks to people like you who turned him into an authority on everything. The fact that you don’t recognize this indicts you.

                • Elizabeth Hamre

                  Marildi….”“If a thetan is linked to mass, then a thetan must have location, even if it cannot be accurately measured.”

                  Elizabeth: still only the mass has location..mass never the location of the thetan and that can not be any other ways. If you would have experience on the matter you would understand what is happening.

              • Refusing to listen because someone hasn’t won a “nobel prize”?

          • How can a thetan be anywhere when by definition it has no location?

            • “…no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things.” (FOT)

              • Who am I conversing with?

                • I don’t understand the question, unless you mean to make a point of my quoting LRH? If so, I thought that was the subject we were on – his definition of static/thetan.

                  • You have just made the point better than I ever could.

                    • The discussion started with Sara’s comment about “his definition of the thetan. It is described as a static. In science ‘static’ is an adjective, but Hubbard changes it into a noun, which is meaningless. So the definition of ‘a static’ explains exactly nothing at all.”

                      In other words, she seemed to have a problem understanding the definition for certain reasons and I replied to that. I don’t get what you are now referring to. If you want to make a point about me in relation to this, can’t you just say what it is rather than give some vague implication?

                  • Still Awakening

                    marildi – please step back and look at what you wrote and Marty’s response. You wrote “my” quoting LRH…… He then asked “Who am I conversing with?” to get you to see it was you You put the quote up. It is YOU who are conversing. You obviously had a location or you could not have even entered the question on a keyboard. All I ask is that you consider how you could enter a response on a keyboard without being located in space where the keyboard was. What LRH wrote is valid only within the paradigm he wrote it. If you were not located anywhere then how the hell did you respond? I am not looking toward a long discussion. This is just my comment for you to consider. Many of us who read this blog have agreed to the same things. Sometimes what we agreed to is found to not be fully true.

                    • I seriously doubt that was what Marty meant. He’s never THAT abstruse. 🙂

                    • Holy Shaving Cream Batgirl, “Abstruse”??!! Don’t you know that word is difficult to understand?

                    • LOL (I probably learned that word from Marty 🙂 )

                    • Still Awakening

                      marildi – I see it that it is either that simple or his question may have been is he communicating with the real you, or just the person putting up an LRH quote in place of the ability to think about a new original thought. Either way, tis a good direction for contemplation. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the concepts of “standard tech” require blinders and agreement with the paradigm written about to be “valid.” And, even then it was always changing. If Ron Hubbard were alive today would we have not seen several new or revised bulletins of what made up “standard tech.” Some things are still valid but the overall idea requires the acceptance, agreement and observance of the paradigm given. This paradigm does not appear to have the answers or there would be no need to revise or create new HCOB’s while LRH were alive.

                      If the basic being isn’t located in space then why are we here on this blog. Maybe it is more true that we are not required to be located in space. Who is to say that consciousness isn’t allowed to be located in space. It is a nice concept to chatter about but the fact is I have yet to meet any person, OT or not, who can simply get off the mud ball spinning in space and create their own game at will. 🙂

                    • “I see it that it is either that simple or his question may have been is he communicating with the real you, or just the person putting up an LRH quote in place of the ability to think about a new original thought.”

                      Still Awakening, I don’t think you got what the discussion was about. It concerned what LRH meant by “static” and how he defined the word – not my opinions of that or of anything else.


        Comes from Ron himself he says:

        1. a theory generated by myself in the fall of 1950 as an effort to explain (just a theory) the phenomena of an analyzer working in one direction and a reactive mind working in quite another, the reactive mind being interesting, and the analyzer being interested. (5410CM06) 2. the idea is that life is a no-substance thing, up against a physical universe which is a substance thing. Here is nothingness up against a somethingness interacting where the nothingness or the no-substance thing is actually giving orders to and handling the all substance thing, the physical universe. (UPC 3 5406CM–) 3. the idea that there was a universe and that there was thought-theta without wave-length, without mass, without time, without position in space: this was life. And that was impinged upon something else called the physical universe, which was a mechanical entity which did things in a peculiar way, and these two things together, theta-mest interacting, gave us life forms. (PXL, p. 140)

  12. If Hubbard didn’t have “standard tech”, I foresee a possible future in which the best of intentions, results, and workability are brought together with the label of “Standard Tech” in a recognized brand. It may not exist yet, but I think it is being worked on by someone somewhere.
    Ever the optimist, I guess. Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
    Reminds me of a Sufi story.
    Nasruddin told someone he could see in the dark. That person asked him, then why are you carrying that candle around with you? Nasrudin said “Oh, that’s for the benefit of others so they don’t trip and fall.”

    • Here’s what I’m talking about, on David St. Lawrennes'(“Old Auditor”‘s) blog Possibly Helpful Advice. His latest post, “Where are all the auditors?” The section on Ron’s Orgs confirms what I have thought: The CoS and th eRon’s Orgs mirror the Roman Catholic setup vs. the Eastern Orthodox church’s, which are decentralized, while the R.C. is top-down hierarchical with a Pope. That incidentally is Miscavige’s background – Polish Roman Catholic. Dare I make a Polack joke? Keep in mind I am part Polish myself…. Oh, well, I’ll abstain. This is America after all, land of tolerance, nay insistence on, diversity. (Shut up, Valkov!)
      Anyway, the Eastern Orthodox churches are autonomous, country by country. There is no central authority. It is true that the Eastern branch was involved in some early councils that set a basic Christian dogma, so there is a lot of similarity to the R.C. in that way. But they rejected the idea and practice of a Pope. Different Admin tech.
      In general I find these scientology related blogs, by analogy, as though they were Roman Catholics discussing Christianity, focused on Roman Catholicism as if it were all of Christianity and no other Christian denominations existed. Kind of an A=A, Roman Catholicism = All of Christianity.

      Same with how Scientology seems to be thought of here in the States, or here on the Western side of the world + Oz. CoS = Scientology, period. As though the rest of the world doesn’t exist. That’s the parochial chauvinism I see on the part of some American Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. It really is a bigger world than that, folks.
      Other denominations of Scientology already exist. Many of them have existed since 1982 or even before. Some are more recent.
      Anyway, for those who may be interested in seeing a wider world, here:

      • Technically, Eastern Orthodox churches aren’t autonomous, but autocephalous. They have denominational leaders, but the pronouncements of those leaders have no bearing on other churches. For example, the patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church can’t rule on matters of faith and doctrine for the Serbian Orthodox Church. It’s a subtle difference, but there is a hierarchy of sorts.

        Just speaking as a person of Polish extraction who grew up Catholic.

        • I was speaking as a Russian who grew up stateless in other countries. My approximation was enough to get my point across I hope, about a pretty basic difference between the two denominations, and the analogy between CoS and Ron’s orgs. That’s really all I was interested in doing. I suspect the R.O. groups are even more autonomous and less autocephalous than Orthodox churches in any particular country. But I don’t know. Didn’t go to church, or to R.O.s.

          • I’m not quibbling with your analogy, which is adequate. Ron’s Orgs are more autonomous than autocephalous, since the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches at least share a doctrine. Captain Bill tossed away everything from NOTs and after and created his own Bridge on top of the old OT levels. That’s as significant a doctrinal difference as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have.

      • “Same with how Scientology seems to be thought of here in the States, or here on the Western side of the world + Oz. CoS = Scientology, period. ”
        Val.. The world that is aware of Scientology has enough information readily available to come to the conclusion that Scientology is NOT a religion.


        • So are you saying the Ron’s Orgs are “a dangerous cult”? I am asking, what do you know of the Ron’s Orgs? What do you know of Traumatic Incident Reduction? What do you think of the Human Potentials Movement? Fritz Pearls? Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis? What do you think of “gurus”, whether American or Hindu? Buddhism? Buddhists live in communities, practice meditation, and esteem the Buddha. Are they in a cult?
          I don’t question your credentials as a mental health worker, or student, or mental health consumer. I worked in psychiatry myself for about 13 years on the nursing staff level. In the trenches, so to speak. I am not an armchair expert, not an expert in any way. But I have been there done that, and I am getting the impression you haven’t. My perception of psychiatry is that it has a very narrow and parochial focus.
          That’s not to say it doesn’t help some people. For many people it’s all they have because it is subsidized. It brings some missing order into their lives, it provides drugs (medications) that can tone down their distress and make it more bearable. Granted all that. But there are a lot more alternatives in living, than either being cultish about psychiatry or being in a different “cult”.
          Can you give me some examples of groups that are not “cults”, or that might not be approached “cultishly” depending on the personality of the person involved? I just don’t really get where you’re coming from. If i listen to an LRH lecture once a day as part of my routine, time permitting, or work a Self Analysis list for 1/2 an hour most days, am I then a “dangerous cultist”? Or do you then consider me to be the “Victim” of a “dangerous cult”? Are you a card-carrying member of the Cult Police? Will you now lobby to have people like me sent to an internment camp to save society from a “dangerous cult”? Or have me deprogrammed by Court order?
          This post may seem over the top, but these are real issues. Just visit the Internet, Facebook etc, you’ll see commenters proposing wilder things than anything I’ve posted, for real.

          • Val.. The questions you have asked me would take the time of a PhD dissertation.

            Marty is encouraging diverse opinions. I have an advantage over you in that I have read most of your comments since I began lurking. I am preparing you for many views different than your own and how you will respond.
            “What do you think of the Human Potentials Movement? Fritz Pearls? Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis? What do you think of “gurus”, whether American or Hindu? Buddhism? Buddhists live in communities, practice meditation, and esteem the Buddha. Are they in a cult? ”

            This has nothing to do with what I think about Scientology and that is what we are discussing.

            ” What do you know of Traumatic Incident Reduction?”
            TIR? It is not a valid treatment of desensitization ( MY opinion)

            Founded by Dr. Frank Gerbode..( Scientologist)

            I do not subscribe to it. I have worked with many PTSD clients.
            To go over, and over, and over ad nauseum about traumatic memories and incidents only retraumatizes the person.

            It’s like having a scab over a wound and ripping it off each time as it is trying to heal.

            If you would like for me to give you a list of what defines a cult I will. Will I give you a list

            Ron’s Org?..Never discount the knowledge of an informed critic or the value of lurking.

            It delivers standard Scientology and Dianetics Tech according to LRH.
            It looks to source. If you want me to spit out knowledge about Captain Bill I will refrain. I do know the history.

            Goal to Clear the Planet.. ( Val seriously what does that mean to you? )
            Ethics tech of LRH.. Quite a contrast in comparison to what Ethics really means. Outside Scn.

            I refuse to say that Scn is a church. I refuse to accept Reactive Mind, Engrams, auditing, the Bridge, Going Clear, OT Levels or Study Tech.
            Or to accept Scientology as a philosophy written by an Evil man who only wanted Power and Control.

            • What could you possibly prepare me for? I read Tony’s Blog, I read ESMB, I’ve watched Youtube interviews, I’ve read “Blue Sky”, I’ve read “Blown For Good”, I’ve read Jeff Hawkins blog etc etc etc. Most of the folks I knew in Scientology years ago have been declared SP by the church for a long time. I don’t think there’s much you can prepare me for. Maybe you’ll surprise me.
              I do appreciate your taking the time and thought to post here and reply to me, though.

              • Valkov, have you been declared an SP yet?

                • How would I know? The CoS stopped communicating with me after I got my money on account back. They don’t send me a shred of promo even. Love it. Took me off ALL their mailing lists from several orgs without my even asking. And in fact they weren’t communicating with me except to try to sell me things I didn’t want/need at exorbitant prices. They may have just as well used an autodialer with recorded sales pitches on it.

          • 2nd reply to your post…

            OOPS..” If you would like for me to give you a list of what defines a cult I will. Will I give you a list ”

            Obviously the words, ” Will I give you a list is incomplete..” I was answering your question

            “Can you give me some examples of groups that are not “cults” No matter how I would respond it would not be the right answer.

            I do NOT believe in Organized Religion. I am spiritual. I believe in a higher power that I call God. My belief is based on faith.

            • Thanks. I don’t believe in organized religion much, at least not for myself! 🙂 My mother once considerd sending me to an Orthodox school in DC, but didn’t, bless her heart. However, I can look back and see that it might have done me some good, depending on how it was run etc. However I think the enforcement of some things would have casued some problems….. It would have given me something to rebel against, as I was just entering my teens.

              I basically see “cult” tendencies in any group. It’s only a question of degree. College fraternities are an example. Military boot camps is another. Corporate training. Religious training. Political training. The politics of the family. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. Indoctrination takes place from early childhood. It is a matter of intent and degree, and for whose benefit. That’s my take on it from having lived overseas. Not to mention from having to deal with the military draft during the Vietnam era.
              And yes, I am aware of the various defintions of what is a “cult”. It is funny, because Catholics consider “the Mormon”, as they call them, “not a chirch, it’s a cult”. Whereas some Protestant fundamentalists consider the Catholic church to be a cult.
              So “what is a cult” can have as many answers as “what is scientology?” Can a general body of ideas be classified as a cult, apart from any particular embodiment or concretization, some particualr group formed on the basis of some or all of these of those ideas? Is all of “Christianity” a cult, for example?

              • Val..Someone posted a great list on the Bunker once and I can not find it.
                There are several published lists. I am posting this one only because I had to choose between lists, youtube videos, etc. They were all pretty similar.

                This checklist was be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006). It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone.
                1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

                ‪2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

                ‪ 3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

                ‪ 4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

                ‪5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

                ‪ 6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

                ‪ 7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

                ‪ 8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

                ‪ 9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

                ‪ 10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

                ‪ 11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

                ‪12. The group is preoccupied with making money.

                ‪ 13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

                ‪14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

                ‪ 15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

                Nice to have a dialogue with you.

              • “This checklist was be published in the new etc.”
                “Should be was published “

        • Thanks Baby. It’s a brutal truth to confront for those of us who expended time, money, and passion in pursuit of Clear and OT outcomes that have never been demonstrated.

          Since some will quibble with the word “cult” I will paste a list here of cult characteristics. By each trait, I will put a + by each item that fits Scientology in my experience. All 15 traits fit Scientology in my experience. I’ve put one or two examples headed by FOTF.

          For anyone who wants to debate the point, it is pretty obvious that Scientology is a cult if one accepts the definitions below. Buddhism in most venues I’ve seen does not fit most of the traits below.
          Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups – Revised
          Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

          Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.
          Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

          + The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
          FOTF: KSW, “scripture,” etc.

          + Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
          ‪FOTF: This can end you up quickly in word clearing, cramming, ethics (even a condition of treason), RPF, etc.

          + Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
          FOTF: TR 0, denunciation sessions, work exploitation — long hours with little to no sleep, etc.

          + The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
          FOTF: Pervasive control of members thoughts, continual efforts to invalidate any and all dissenting opinions (dead agent packs, disconnection, SP declares, lists of SPs — gawd, half the world is SP according to Scientology, etc.

          + The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
          ‪ FOTF: The only way and hope for humankind — the whole future of mankind rests on what you do here and now in Scientology.

          + The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
          FOTF: Wogs are us. Psychs are all whole track SPs. SMIRSH. Etc.

          + The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
          FOTF: Operation Snow White, P. Cooper, harassment of Stacy and Vaughn Young, the idiotic Squirrel Busters trying to torment the Rathbuns, flagrant violation of 501(c)3 rules, leader inurement, fraudulent fundraising, switch and bait sales, fraudulent packages of services, stalking, harassment, and so much more.

          + The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
          ‪ FOTF: Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics is the rule — and what is good for Scientology is always the greatest good for all. Many documented cases of lying under oath, at conferences, etc.

          + The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
          FOTF: Heavy reging. Guilt over Sea Org members wanting to have kids (or a marriage, or just a life) and therefore not devoting 20 hours a day to the church, declares, KSW, etc.

          + Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
          ‪ FOTF: Disconnection, Scientology becomes the greatest good and personal goals, education, employment, are often set aside.
          + The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

          + The group is preoccupied with making money.
          ‪ FOTF: No comment.

          + Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
          FOTF: Staff working long days, seven days a week, pay slim to nil, short liberties, no holidays or vacations to speak of, billion year contracts, etc.

          + Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
          FOTF: Certainly true for staff.

          + The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
          FOTF: Fear of fair game if you leave and speak out. Wariness of misuse of your “confessionals” — imagine a Catholic priest threatening to come at you with your confessions if you decided to leave the faith! Fear of disconnection from friends and family. Etc.

          The article concludes:

          This checklist will be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006). It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone.

          • Thanks FOTF. That is a good list. I would point out that it fits almsost to a “T” all the military basic traings, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, as well as organizations like college fraternities. Also specialized professions like Police have many of those elements. Guess who’s running our country and keeping things “in order” here in the USA as well as in other countries?
            I think many people underestimate th edegree tpo which they are controlled by cultural and societal factors and influences. “My country right or wrong….”

            Vinnie mentioned Pakistan. A virtual military dictatorship, with religious elements. Unlike some other countries, the religious elements do not have quite the political power, but have cultural power aplenty.

            • Val.. .. I come from a strong military background. Both my parents were Marines. I absolutely disagree with you. Many have given their lives so that we can live in freedom.

              Scientology is a cult. Oh well, we won’t agree. But just wanted you to know that I am very Patriotic. The National Anthem still gives me goosebumps.

              • If you don’t see the ‘cultish’ elements in military ‘boot camp’ (basic training), I suggest you take another look. Sleep deprivation, close order drill, cleaning the bathroom with a toothbrush, unquestioning obedience of your drill sargeant and other superior officers etc etc. There are to my eye obvious cultish elements.
                That has nothing to do with the motives and extreme service military personnel have done for the country. It is a comment on the military setting itself. Unfortunately a military appears to be necessary to survive in this world as it exists. That doesn’t mean our leaders always use the military power they control, to the best ends or for the best of reasons.

                • I see some cultish elements .. I’ll give you that. There are more missing elements that don’t fit than do though. That’s just my opinion. Maybe because I followed the $ aspect of it.

                  Also if my cousin left the army boot camp the family wouldn’t disconnect from him. Friends from boot camp wouldn’t be required to stop all communication.

                  His mail wouldn’t be read before he received it in boot camp or after he wrote it..

                  He can tell his fellow boot campers that he hates the Sarg. guts and they won’t write him up for it. Etc.

                  He has much more freedom in Army Boot Camp than one has in Scientology.

                  Oh well.. I just appreciate the fact that Marty has given us a place where we can discuss issues.

            • There are certainly shades of these characteristics in the things you mentioned (like military). Some military groups do function like cults in my opinion — Hamas, al Qaeda, Imperial Japan, Nazis, etc.

              And I would agree that there is indoctrination in any military training. However, for the American military, there are quite a few disparities (fortunately) from the cult list. For example, you don’t have to cut ties with your family if they do not agree with your going into the military. And if you decide not to re-up or continue in a military career, you are not excommunicated — in fact, as a veteran, you still have that honored status of having served. You do not have to accept the “truth” of one “source/savior” etc. — and you do have the obligation to refuse illegal orders. You do have one hell of an indoctrination — boot camp — and you do sacrifice your freedom and time and energy. But you get paid. You get medical and dental coverage. You get food far more decent that Sea Org (to my understanding). And you don’t have to keep hitting people up for monetary donations and you aren’t forced to try to get everyone else you can into the service. And so on.

              Perhaps most importantly — you can get out! And you won’t get a “freeloader bill” to get out. And you won’t have to lose all your friends who are still in.

              So intellectually speaking, I think you raise a fair point. And I think that some militaries are farther along the cult spectrum than others — like al Qaeda. (When you see someone sawing and hacking a head off a poor victim, all the while insanely chanting “God is Great!” it is hard to see the group as less than a hideously evil cult.)

              As to the US military, having had immediate relatives in Air Force, Army, and Navy (WW II, Korea), I don’t see them — nor would they see themselves — as having been in a cult.

              However, the majority of people I know who are ex-Scientologists do seem to agree that they feel they were in a cult.

              So maybe the fine points can (and perhaps should) be debated to a point of clarity in some forum or study or something — to tease out the nuances of when a cult shades into a culture and vice versa.

              • Well said, FOTF.

                One must look at all aspects, and just selectively only those, which support one’s viewpoint. Mindfulness is not selective.


              • Thanks, excellent post FOTF! It is especially different now that the US Army is all voluntary. The other branches always were. And usually people know what they are getting into, with military service.

              • In the case of Japan, the ENTIRE COUNTRY was a ‘cult’. Notice th efirsr for letters of the word “culture”? Their entire culture was a ‘cult’. Their Emperor was descended form the Sun God who had created the Japanese islands in the first place. Actually there was a Sun Goddess too.
                Many ‘cultures’ were basically ‘cults’. There was Yahweh, and Allah, and and and and, what would Jesus do?

          • OMG I included this for Marty to post.. hahahah I just informed him to cancel it. Jeeze.. Thank you FOTF ! Great Check sheet!

  13. Yup. Miscavige is “The Standard Scientologist”.
    Awesome post!

  14. I can see there is a lot of truth in these words. It is clear to me that the space between you and the subject of Scn is getting greater and greater (in other words your viewpoint is getting more and more exterior). That being said, I want to comment on a few things here:

    1. “(Scientology) is mostly a running stream of consciousness record of assigning reasons why the promises in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health were never realized and how they might yet be.” – Ron had a vision of what the State of Clear was and decided that this idealistic state must exist…therefore, somehow and in some way it can be reached. When his efforts to produce this “perfect” state didn’t satisfy his expectations, he looked for reasons why. Ron’s pointing out of outpoints had research value. You go down a calculated path (yes some trial and error) and you see where it leads. When it doesn’t lead where you want it to you look for the “real why” and then you recompute a new path, take that to it’s end, and the cycle repeats, ad infinitum, until you realize your vision…

  15. ” about the closest thing scientologists are going to find to that original L. Ron Hubbard package is David Miscavige.”

    Sadly, I think DM knows this, and he tells people this who complain that “LRH would never do what you do”.

  16. Better and better. Thanks.

  17. When I first got out I was approached (regged) by a Free Zone guy who I had known back in the 60s. He was auditing and had Captains Bills stuff of the OT 47 or more OT Levels. Now, Captain Bill was maybe a bigger wack job than Hubbard. Captain Bill died in something like 1991. I will believe one of these fellows when they are 800 years old and can lift a space ship out of the swamps. In other words when they can demonstrate they are Yoda! Until then I will continue on my Merry Way.

    • It is nice to hear from you after all these years.

      • Marty I maybe haven’t posted much in the last few years but have been reading your blog and following your journey “religiously”. My wife and I have read your books and loved them. I had many high points reading your blog especially when you realized the independents were as nuts as the Church Scientologist. Let me tell you my low point on your blog which I think we can all laugh at now. It was the “Ode to Ron” made me and my family lose our lunch. Its been almost 5 years now since we left the Church on your Blog and my family have all moved on from being “Scientologists”. Since Exilda and I were in for 40 plus years I think we got “decultified” pretty quick once we really starting looking. Love your family and follow you guys on Facebook. When you get to Denver area I am sure Billy would love to play with my Grand Children Skye almost a year old and Kieran 3 years old. Chrissy and Shane have done very well for themselves after that great adventure of leaving the Church.

  18. Marty it’s really beyond need to comment on your new viewpoint and how you see Scientology, Hubbard etc.

    Except for one thing which has to be commented upon: I don’t think that, especially, you of all people could, at any point of time, turn back against Standard Tech and criticise it. That’s crossing the line because you harmed Standard Tech in the past, you harm it now and it looks like you cannot stop harming it.

    There are two possible explanations for this: Either you didn’t get it in the first place Marty, and that’s why though you were up there on the org board, you cannot even perceive that HCOBs cannot just be left out and not applied. I am saying this because though I mentioned it many times on your blog that I, personally, have been declared for insisting on the application of specific HCOBs on translations, which were not being applied, you never once cared to comment on this. This is odd, to say the least, as you could have done a better job on understanding what HCOBs meant to be.

    So it’s either basic misunderstoods on what standard tech really is or it’s another thing: my view is that Scientology (the version you helped mould for this world and the one that you assisted Miscavige for years to create, the enslaving type of Scientology that we get to see around today) is being prepared for and turned into the next world religion. So, my guess is that you have now another employer Marty. Maybe unbeknownst to you but you are working for those guys as you did while with Miscavige and your altered Scientology version. So, realise that you cannot touch something that is alive out here and is free no matter how much ink is wasted: the independent/freezone field. No matter how obscure the agenda you have been, actively or unbeknownst to you, part of, there is not going to be much of a result in completely destroying Scientology. Because we are going to whisper it to our sons and grandsons that the tech was free and to keep it so.

    The weight of responsibility on your shoulders is of such magnitude that the only way to counter balance such a weight is to obviously make the whole thing look like a bad dream which ends this way. An unhappy ending. As someone is trying to withdraw from something he can’t withdraw from (though he must), he or she is mocking up delusional ideas and scenarios and exhibits to counter balance the weight and make his escape from it all finally.

    You have a good wife Marty, she helped you in times when you were in dire straits and you helped her too realise she is a spiritual being through Scientology auditing. You guys have a child now. A thing that was prohibited for most of us in the Sea Org. That’s good enough for a 2nd dynamic. But as to your 3rd dynamic Marty you are making a mess out of it instead of (finally) either shutting up or owning up to the damages you have caused to Scientologists and making it up for them. It’s not just that Miscavige has been beating people up. We don’t want a wog society (and I mean it, a wog society) to intervene more into the affairs of Scientology to put their “justice” in on Scientology. We just wanted that some people realise that what was on policy and tech was a valid work and it was to be protected even by the last Scientologist for a reason: that no one else had a say on what goes and what goes not. Not because Hubbard is/was God as you are starting to preach to your parishioners now but because his tech was more workable than that of others in the 20th and 21st centuries.

    I now can see how Scientology got to where it’s at with people like you and Miscavige so high on its hierarchy. There is still time for you to think of those TRs and that exteriorisation you experienced from that very first course you took in Scientology and cool down. Even in that way you are still working for Scientology to go through the thick heads of homo sap. It ain’t the best way but what the hell… There is others working on it too. The whole of the church and the whole of a planet is our Div 2s and Div 6s. We can for the first time educate a thetan into what this is all about really and nobody can stop this. Oops, the cat was let out of the bag long time ago, Marty.

    • Theo,

      I think the problem is that YOU are still stuck in YOUR viewpoint of who Marty is. Or who you think he is supposed to be.

      Did you miss the memo where he states he is not a Scientologist?

      Yet you continue in your efforts to punish him and lecture to him as if he were one. Or ought to be one, or he is a bad one. And you aren’t the only one.

      He isn’t one and he has said he isn’t one. He has a right not to be one. Or to think like one. Yet you continue to deny him this basic human right.

      This ramming “MUST HAVE MUST BE” is as suppressive as running a CAN’T HAVE.

      You are running a CAN’T HAVE on his current position.

      One for one I find the fundamentalists least likely to be able to think with the Scientology. One for one.

      • T.O. Marty is not a Scientologist but he continues to talk and write about Scientology and now in a very carping and deceitful (A=A=A) way.

        I sometimes indulge in intervening and having a game at Tony Ortega’s paranoia blog where all the wogs (we talk about real wogs) are commenting on Scientology though I doubt they have ever done any earnest effort to understand what it is.

        Now, here on Marty’s blog why wouldn’t I have such a right? Marty, started an Indie thing. It was Marty who was writing about how it was Miscavige who was at the root of the problem for Scientology. You know, a lot of such stuff.

        So, I am not denying Marty any right. There is no ramming on my part. Every now and then I come here to remind some folks of how it used to be. When Marty comes along though and “he on top of all, now asks for his change back, too” (a greek expression for someone who, whereas he is in fault, not only doesn’t he admit his fault, but on top of it blames the others about it), well, that’s too much.

        Marty has been publishing books about… Scientology. Marty has a blog about… (well) Scientology. Like Tony Ortega does. They get all those people interested, finding so much fault with anything in Scientology. I must admit that Tony Ortega’s blog is very open but as you enter in there you must be prepared for a scathing fight. Here of course it’s not like that. People are not wogs here. That’s for sure. So, we can discuss.

        I see from your comment below, however, that you are also playing the “God tune”, too. Nice job. Do you guys finally propagandise for a god Hubbard or what, now? Well, understand that that too is in vain. Not only are we not fanatics here as you want to present many folks who adhere by standard tech, but we use the tech to get out of the traps that are set up for us and we use what we consider valuable out of it and what can be used given the circumstances. Unfortunately the worst example of application of that tech was given by Management as to how to apply Scientology savagely to people. We are not doing that in the Indie field. We don’t cannibalise on our people, we have a planet for our Div 6. That’s a lot of people, T.O. It’s just that Marty needs to hear the other side too if he is to go on with all this A=A=A about Scientology. And I think he doesn’t mind contrary views as this adds to the blog discussion. So, there is no victimising and no fundamentalism here. There is just discussion and it can be heated up or not depending on how harsh the subject of Scientology is treated.

        • Oops, Theo.
          You gave yourself away here. I have always seriously suspected that you are some epic kind of troll. Now I am satisfied to conclude that is an accurate assessment.
          I know you can’t admit it but, come on. You never practiced or studied scientology, and you don’t really care about Marty’s past, or his journey to grow and learn. You just like to mess with people. I guess perhaps blogs about scientology make an excellent milieu for such activity, for those who are so inclined.
          I tip my hat to you sir/madam, because I was taught to recognize excellence wherever I find it, and you are very good at baiting others, no denying that. Oh! the buzzwords and lingo, and the buttons they can push — and you know exactly how to work them. Fascinating. Folks here are for the most part sincerely interested in serious discussion, not head games. You work that really well, too. Myself, I will return to my standard “troll handling/ignore tech”, and watch. Please, do carry on. Kiss kiss…

        • Theo, there’s a reason that every time you show up at Tony’s blog, we rip you a new one. It’s because you’re a blowhard who demonstrates in no uncertain terms that you’re superior to all of us wogs. And we never-ins don’t know anything about Scientology because we’ve never been in? Wrong answer, Theo. There are a number of us, myself included, who’ve read Hubbard under the principle of “know your enemy”. We picked up enough to know what we need to know: this philosophy is unworkable and, in the wrong hands (meaning anyone human), dangerous.

          Do you know what fault I find in Scientology? That its only prescription for me is death. That’s why I asked you over there if you believe literally in the Tone Scale. Your answer confirmed that you are a person who would want to see me dead. Sorry, Theo, I’m not giving in. I’m going to fight back. You and the obergruppenfuehrers at Milestone Two are never, ever going to even get the chance to put the Pink Triangle on me, not to mention take away the medications that have improved my life to the extent that I’m a different and better person altogether.

          If you want to continue this, you know where to find me.

          • And you know where to find me too Theo. Right beside Espiando.

            I will always have his back.

            I am part of the ” Evil Psych ” community and taking medication for a chemical imbalance. Sp, Wog..degraded being ( db)

          • Oh, oh… the Espiandoooo! Oh yes, now I remember. The Ortega wogship appearing here to comment on Scientology. lol… that’s now… should I laugh or should I cry? Let’s see what he has to say!

            • Oh yes. Espiando I remember you had some medical problem and you were taking medicine. And then all those things to prove me wrong. And now I want you… dead. Ok, Espiando. Same story. Nothing changes. I don’t remember why I want you dead but ok…. if you say so.

              Apart from this Espiando has just “studied” Scientology under the principle of “know your enemy”. Great viewpoint. Congratulations Espiando. When you will start to STOP accusing others for your condition you will see a lot of betterment in your life. Don’t worry. No need to read anything more, boy. It’s called Ethics and you can do it just by yourself.

              • I was on the tech lines in Scientology in many capacities for over 35 years and while I happen to think that Theo has it wrong about Marty, I respect and admire Theo’s desire to help people as well as his commitment to what he believes in. Theo was not a robot. He confronted the CoS with courage and dedication. I just think he needs to work a bit on being able to allow others to have viewpoints he finds “unnacceptable.”

                • Hear, hear! A voice of Reason!

                • Thank you Joe. I appreciate the good words. As a matter of fact I am considering what you are saying especially when some ARC is put into the situation. That helps a lot. Thoughtfulness and courtesy make elbows rub better. And two way comm is actually part of manners. So, I guess I have some ARC break with Marty, for example, at least, not acking that those HCOBs on the translations were the actual tech, lol. As Zara Kotric once told me “you are fixated on the HCOBs”, lol.

                  As a matter of fact Marty has crossed some lines, he is pushing buttons and in general he has downgraded Scientology. This is not just my view. He also announced it on this blog that from now on it is not going to be pleasant for some folks like me. I am trying to stay analytical and understand. Why do I have to understand Marty? I don’t know. We spent some time together here. Now, he’s gone too far ahead, maybe. No sense of correct gradient? Maybe. He is a curious guy but you know curiosity also killed the cat. I don’t want to sound like a stupid, fanatic who doesn’t want to see progress because I am not that type of person. But there is this other aspect. The world is going mad, we are all using Scientology to a great extent (come on, guys, admit it, you may not all of you have fought for HCOBs against Miscavige like I did, but you certainly have seen the good in Scientology) and here we are fighting. This is like a third party. And certainly, there is a line somewhere that has to be drawn. Ok, there are radicals, there are transcendentalists, there are curious guys who want to research more and more which is great but we do have some stable data, too. I mean what is a Static? Do we have to discuss this? Ok, it looks like we have to. But then there is this process “Conceive of a static”.

                  What I want to say is that not all things can be discussed. It brings chaos and misunderstandings. Some things better be handled in one’s universe and be subject to questions to individuals who can help. Who is going to discuss a Static here? People who are against Scientology because they cannot conceive of who(what) they are? People who had never had the chance to exteriorise once in their lives or even feel a bit separate from the body? So, this brings chaos and a fast decay. It happens also on Facebook. People start quarrelling about things. People with huge differences in “R”. Sometimes it’s as simple (and powerful) as to do some word clearing or apply demonstrations or get some more mass or reality about something. We could work more like a 3rd dynamic but that does not happen, yet.

                  I am not saying at all that we should stop discussion and researching. At all. But we should keep a bit of respect for our stable data.

                  Joe, those HCOBs on translations saved my life. Because right there I knew that Mgmt was not really what it posed to be. They wouldn’t even apply HCOBs much less protect a staff member who was complaining about their non application. The outpoint was huge. After that all the situations start coming up. 3 Greeks in the TU knew already that Miscavige was a big liar and a crook. We had our Stable Data: the HCOBs and the strong refusal of Mgmt to apply them. That led us out of the Confusion Mgmt was creating: “you must reach for the Technology but you can’t reach for the technology”, “you must withdraw from those HCOBs, Theo” but Theo couldn’t withdraw from the HCOBs. That’s the definition of insanity. We know that. If we call this fanaticism well all the people here who visited and endorsed Scientology must have not been true to themselves then at the time they were in. So, something happened (it’s not just the translations HCOBs, a lot of things got altered) which made them sick and tired.

                  So, it’s not that I can’t have another viewpoint that is unacceptable to me. The point is that we have to preserve some things actually. I don’t care about homosexuals and being so rigid about that. I also I have not been an angle in my 2nd dynamic this life time. This matter came up with Espiando who thinks we all want to throw homosexuals to the fire. This is not what is going to create a big improvement. This is not even a serious issue. A big improvement is going to be created when basic things are going to be preserved and worked upon.

                  Sorry for the long answer, you got me going. But I thank you for the quality of your communication and the ARC in it. Marty is a strong guy but I am now convinced that there is room for improvement and help for him too, even if he always had a higher post on the org board or was more able with concepts, words, books etc. Marty is a part of Scientology’s history and he made mistakes due to the pressure by Miscavige. He now does not have that pressure. Maybe Marty didn’t get to know the kind of Scientology that you and I got to know. You know what I mean? He definitely wants to help but he has to understand that saying that Scientology is a “monotheistic religion” and insisting upon it makes one wonder: what is Marty finally trying to accomplish in his third and seventh dynamic?

              • That is some of the most ridiculous ad hominem I’ve ever read in my life. Point out one post I’ve made anywhere, Theo, where I blame anyone for my psychiatric condition. It’s biochemical. That means, among other things, that I didn’t take it in.

                No, Theo, the death part comes into play because I not only take psych drugs, but I have sex with my own gender, and we all know what Hubbard said about homosexuality being deviance and being 1.1. Alanzo was nice enough over at Mike’s to bring up Hubbard’s exact quotes. And you said that you still believed literally in those words. Quod erat demonstratum, Theo. The person who needs an adjustment in Ethics (real Ethics, not Hubbard’s perverted version) is you.

                • And that makes me want you dead, right? Oh, god! I think you are taking all your wrath out on me, just because I happen to seek the application of standard tech. Well, allow me to say that that does not mean that I am against homosexuals. Ok, that’s a long discussion but that does not make me against them. I have friends who are homosexuals and we are very good friends. I think you got some things very misunderstood. The Ethics part was going to the “accusing others” practice. Not to the homosexuality. That to clear up things.

                  • I had to get auditing on homosexuals. Not because of any thing Hubbard wrote. But because I had to fight with the Tranys for washers and dryers at the West Village laundry mat in New York for years. They would hoard the washers, run in front of me and push me to the side, take my stuff out of the dryer if I turned my back, and dry their stuff on my dime. Steal out of my laundry basket. It was a war zone for a straight person to walk in there. I was on it for about two hours on my grade zero. Fortunately, the guy who was auditing me, was flagrantly gay. And having him on the other end pulling me through this, balanced out the scales. We sure were in good glee for a few hours. And we are still friends today.

                    Hubbard’s Science of Survival was written when he was totally out ruds. He was down in Cuba and fighting with his wife. He also implied in that book that all women were 1.1.

                    But it was his wife that took the hit for him and went to Federal prison. And afterwards he threw her under the bus. And before she went, he threw her under the bus.

                    And he wrote in one auditing rundown, the R factor that ” family is bad “, all the while being the “family man”. I think he was the one seething in unexpressed resentment when he was sitting in Cuba, writing Science of Survival.

        • He has a right to talk about his journeys and what he has taken from them. Scientology was part his journey yet some people think he needs to keep what he took away that, from view.

          Not sure why you think he needs to hear more of the other side. He walked the other side. A lot longer and lot further than you and I a few others put together did.

          But your urge to discount him, his views and his experience and where he has arrived, implies to me that you are the one with the A=A going on.

          If he had posted in this in the comments section under the name “Stormin Noman” you would not have even read it.

          Your own A = A rampant in your own comments:

          “you of all people”

          “Either you didn’t get it in the first place Marty”

          “So it’s either basic misunderstoods”

          “Maybe unbeknownst to you but you are working for those guys…”

          “No matter how obscure the agenda you have been…”

          “We don’t want a wog society (and I mean it, a wog society) to intervene more into the affairs of Scientology to put their “justice” in on Scientology.”

          “Even in that way you are still working for Scientology to go through the thick heads of homo sap.”

          “I must admit that Tony Ortega’s blog…” ( A = A ing Marty with Tony Ortega )

          At the end of the day. it is all held in place by the code, “Do not tell”.

          All the while, with “Have you been told not to tell?” on the sec check.

          Held in place by the black propaganda campaign by the OSA plants, that Marty is on the payroll of Martians or Government officials or big pharma. All held in place by senior policy, “The customer is always wrong.” All held in place by fixed ideas of what Marty is supposed to walk and talk like since he swam cross the river and reached the other side.

          You write, ” Not only are we not fanatics here as you want to present many folks who adhere by standard tech, but we use the tech to get out of the traps that are set up for us and we use what we consider valuable out of it and what can be used given the circumstances. ”

          Nothing can be further from the truth. I do not present “many folks” who adhere to standard tech as fanatics. Please do not hang that on me. It is a false report.

          Fanatics are the people who use “standard tech” to harm attack and suppress others, under the name of “love for L. Ron Hubbard”. To discount the value of others. To rip off the others. To fair game the others. That is NOT “using standard tech to get of the traps”. That is using standard tech to harm attack and suppress under the umbrella of Scientology. And one for one, the fanatics have a long history of treason behind them.

          If you want to find out for yourself how walled off you are by your own fixed ideas, try doing a clay demo of what Marty posted above.

          You don’t even permit yourself to listen and duplicate.

          You attack, and attack, and attack. Who are YOU A=A ing him with?

          • Hubbard said, “One day you will be free of me and Scientology.”

            Maybe Marty was exactly what he meant. I still do not understand why it is, that someone who lives up to that promise, they are fair gamed by everyone who has not.

            What did Hubbard mean then when he said, “One day you will be free of Scientology?” Do you mean to suggest he was lying?

            • paraphrasing? can you please find a reference? If we just give verbal data and say Hubbard said this or he said that, then of course this can open maaaany discussions which will have no basis. I never saw such a reference from Ron. The one I saw but don’t recall which one it was, was talking about church and a via.

              And I will say it again. I am not fair gaming anybody and especially Marty. I am uttering my views. Simple as that.

              • Theo: “can you please find a reference? ”

                I never said the work was free.

                What’s up with your file clerk? Mine has a problem taking requests from you. It’s Like, “F’k him, why do I have to fetch for him?”

                So I says, : ” Go look through Hubbard’s mind file and bring me something he can think with. Because Freedom from Scientology will have no basis in his mind otherwise.”

                Fortunately, my file clerk likes to dig through Hubbard’s mind.

                03 Mar 1952 Introduction to Scientology Milestone One Wichita Kansas Tape Lecture One.

                (These were the first 10 lectures in the HUBBARD COLLEGE
                LECTURES (HCL) Series of early 1952. This is based
                both on the transcripts in R&D volume 10 and an old
                reel-to-reel set of the tapes)

                “Now, when you’ve got Milestone One, and when you know
                you’ve got: it, when everybody else knows you’ve got it,
                you can do anything you want to do – anything – on your
                self-determinism. But the horrible fact of it is, is
                there’s very little self-determinism until you get
                Milestone One, but there’s a lot of circuit-determination.
                And that’s something for you to remember. If you will just
                stay with me on this line, up to the first milestone in
                Scientology, and bring yourself up to a high level of
                ability and apply yourself to that, you will be free – free
                of me and Scientology too! (audience laughter)…”

                • Thanks for the reference. Now, “free of me and Scientology” does not mean IMHO free to make Scientology look like a bad, bad thing. We have come to the point where “freedom” for some means denigrating the whole path which we did woke. If ones wants to take it to another level, let us have it. The Universe is here, open, free-dome indeed for someone to come in and do stuff. Let us have it then. But until then, the stable data IS Scientology.

              • So, you see what an outpoint it is for someone who is not free of Scientology, and Hubbard too, to call themselves Milestone Two?

              • This is another GPM. Scientologists fair game their own products.

                You get a guy like Marty, he brings himself up to a high level of ability and applies himself to that, he becomes free – free of Hubbard and Scientology too. Just like Hubbard promised people could, and what happens?

                Some “standard tech” loyalists who pledge to the holy scripture, name themselves Milestone Two, fair game him as evil and overt product.

                This is exactly what I am talking about when I say, One for one, the fanatics can not think with the Scientology.

                I am not anti Scientology. I am not anti religion. I am not anti Hubbard.

                I am anti stupid.

              • How does an Organization deliver the Sunshine Rundown, after which the P.C. attests to return of self determinism, and then order him in for a sec check every six months?

                You give the guy something, and then you snatch it back away from him.

                So why did you charge him for something he can’t keep?

                I am not saying people should not be encouraged to continue.

                But seriously, if you are promising return of self determinism, and the guy says he has it, and he goes off, and you bitch and bitch about all the the clears who ran away after completing the Sunshine rundown, and this is exactly what the Church does, don’t you think those people are missing a few chips? This guy usually moves out of the enforce band at this point. But NOT THE CHURCH! The staff are suppressed down into the enforce band. And they drag people back down with them!

                At this point the message should be something like, “Come back when you feel like more auditing”.

                Can you imagine the comm ev on that staff member?

                They can’t do that, because they have to cannibalize their public, because Miscavige shut down the Mission network in 1982.

                Whatever products they make, they then have to unmock them and recycle them, to keep the bills paid and keep the beggars moving.

                David Miscavige survives by keeping people in the dark. And he isn’t the only one.

                • Elizabeth Hamre

                  Oracle “How does an Organization deliver the Sunshine Rundown, after which the P.C. attests to return of self determinism, and then order him in for a sec check every six months”
                  Elizabeth…. now you have overlooked something… if the person REALLY ACHIEVED WHAT HAS ATTESTED THAN WOULD NOT BE GOING BACK AND HAVE SEC CHECK simply because that person could not be ordered about . NEVER!!!!.
                  First cognition on any subject JUST GIVES A TINY GLIMPS WHAT THERE SHOULD BE HANDLED IN THE FUTURE SESSIONS AND THAT COGNITION THAT FIRST ONE WHICH PEOPLE=OT”s attest on the levels those cognitions are not the final basic-basic cognitions which might take another 1000 hours of auditing to achieve.
                  So Mrs Z… you place the blame on the wrong item -being-group, tech. what ever, but wrong in any case.

                  • Elizabeth, you don’t mention the volunteers. I didn’t say people go because they are ordered. And I am not coming from a place of blame. It is a mathematical issue, as in how things could add up in a better way.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      Sorry dear Oracle mathematics is not my thing.. 2+2 always comes out differently 🙂 but I know that stable wins never can be affected and I know that from experience. There was times earlier on the Path that did not work that way and what the reasons were, why that has happened.

        • NolongercareaboutScn

          What a self-important blowhard!

          Read Marty’s post again. Think about what he wrote.

          Think about how you are parroting Hubbard in order to make a point.

          Not your point…Hubbard’s point.

          Over and over again.

          You “duplicated” Hubbard and think you know something. When you encounter a different viewpoint you dig in your heels and reaffirm what you think you know by repeating what you read / heard from Hubbard.

          You parrot Hubbard to keep yourself in Hubbard’s maw.

          Just like Hubbard taught you.

    • If Hubbard actually said “the tech is free, keep it so” then why the hell did he demand people pay such ridiculous sums for it?? I don’t think Hubbard was even acquainted with the word “free” he was a man who had a price for everything, even “enlightenment” and “spiritual growth.”

      Other than that there really is no point replying to your post your a textbook example of what Marty so ably described as a person viciously defending their own enslavement.

      • It is unfortunate that you never accurately read, and certainly didn’t correctly quote Hubbard regarding “keeping the tech free.” This is a good example of the problem of verbal data.
        Go back and read it for real. He wasn’t referring to money.

        • That’s for damn sure he must not have been referring to money, because he made sure people paid hard cash through the nose!

      • He never said the tech was free.

        • Really, what did he mean by that quote (whether literally accurate or not, it is damn close)?

          • Here is the quote in the beginning pages of Tech Vols

            I will not always be here on guard.
            The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
            And the wind sighs for songs
            Across the empty fields of a planet
            A Galaxy away.
            You won’t always be here.
            But before you go,
            Whisper this to your sons
            And their sons —
            “The work was free.
            Keep it so.”

          • Marty, I am not surprised by your question.

            Actually it was Miscavige who interpreted the word “free” as “for no money” when I was the TU DIR EU and he wanted to stop paying the non staff translators. My jaw dropped as I couldn’t believe it. Of course the reference Marildi put further below can explain everything.

          • Maybe he was speaking to the future heads of the church, and meant “the labor of sea org members” is free. ‘Cause it sure doesn’t pay much.

        • He said the work was free, let’s keep it so. It was a private memo to Mary Sue that accidentally got published as a policy letter.

          Anyway, I guessed at that last part. It was the only way I could make sense of the statement.

        • I think it was actually “the work” is free, but considering his work was the tech and Scientology I think it’s hair splitting.

        • That quote is in the booklet “Scientology Clear Procedure” (1957) as the Introduction:


          I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

          I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.

          Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to western were consumed in a large part by this research—but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

          No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising— another kind of slavery.

          No big Research Foundation like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause”. It bloomed.

          But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington) bribed “patrons”, financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

          Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine—and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

          And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism”. That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch”. And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

          Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

          For this we can thank the gentleman from Guttenberg and the invention of magnetic tape.

          Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this—look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

          If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further. I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

          You won’t always be here.

          But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons—”The work was free. Keep it so.”

          L. RON HUBBARD

          But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons—”The work was free. Keep it so.”

          L. RON HUBBARD

          • Sorry, the last few lines were repeated in error.

            • Well, we certainly know that his work wasn’t tainted by anything like “research” or “the scientific method”.

            • I’m still confused, if Hubbard believed all that hot air he spewed, then why did he want so much cold hard cash for even a taste of “the work.”? Why sully such high faluting ideas and knowledge with the hard sell tactics of Big League Closing techniques – which Hubbard endorsed wholeheartedly.

              I’m sure if Les Dane hadn’t been well known as the published author of the book Hubbard would have claimed it as part of his genius tech, like he so often did with the work of other lesser known beings.

              • “The work” wasn’t always expensive. In the early 1970s I bought 25 hours of auditing from a Class VIII field auditor for $900. It was much cheaper to take a course and co-audit, which was actually encouraged, but I wanted the auditing quick, and the course etc would take longer.

            • Marildi, thanks for being standard. Thanks for posting the whole quote here. Actually, things are that simple but “no, we want to put in our slant and pitch”, “we want to alter everything and interpret it the way we want”. That’s this world Marildi and more and more become that cynical and blind. It doesn’t matter. Let’s keep whispering it to our sons and grandsons. Thank you for being around.

              • Thank you too, Theo.

              • NolongercareaboutScn

                Theo – you are completely trapped by the Solipsism that Hubbard taught you to accept.

                Fiddle around forever looking for “Standard” or jumped back onto the “Latest Golden Age of Whatever”…you are arguing for marketing slogans as if they have some deep philosophical meaning.

                You’ve been tricked…and you are defending the person who trick you.

          • Thanks, I have never seen this. Interesting against the backdrop of what has happened since then.

            He writes: “And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants.”

            Well, David Miscavige certainly made a liar out him with GAOT. Further making a liar out of him with:

            “No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising— another kind of slavery.

            It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause”.

            Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, …..”

            Maybe it was true in 1957. I wasn’t around then. I think back then there just field groups or missions right? The Founding D.C. Org was established in 1955.

            It certainly is not true today. And I don’t think it was even true in the 70’s, twenty years later. Doubt it was even true when he thought it was true, that, ” the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants.” Considering all of the tech revisions and different bridges that were issued afterwards.

            Of course, even though what I am saying is true, I am not supposed to be saying it per K.S.W..

            And I think this is the kind of thing I thought of, when Marty asked, “Are Scientologists trained to lie?”

          • Dear Marildi,
            I notice you are able to find LRH writings quickly. I would like to be able to do that also, as you do. I am wondering if you might share with me how you do that. If so, I would certainly welcome an email from you at my address of: I would certainly use them for good purposes having spent over 40 years of my life already attempting that.

          • Thanks for the full version of “the work was free”. It adds the context needed to appreciate the point he wanted to make. The work was free of anyone having a lien on it or having influenced it to conform to their interests. Fair enough. He urges others to keep it free from such going forward. That position would certainly underlie a policy such as KSW. I can understand his position of also protecting the copyrights and trademarks and attacking “squirrels” so anyone saying they are practicing “x” is not in facts doing anything else. LRH was proud as a peacock and took enormous pride in his work. I am sure he also wanted to control the economics of it. The downside to all this was a subject that imprisoned itself and by extension its adherents became its fellow inmates and jailers. When an inmate escaped with a part of “X” he was hunted down and destroyed. Pride and ambition blinded the movement. LRH thanked Guttenberg for the ability to quickly spread his ideas. We can thank the internet for the ability to hold those ideas up to the light of examination. The result of that is a lessening of their power to control and their founder to be idolized. No one should have any objection to either.

            • Very good post, Vicar. Can you elaborate a bit on what you wrote here:

              “LRH thanked Guttenberg for the ability to quickly spread his ideas.”

              • In the text you provided, LRH wrote;
                “For this we can thank the gentleman from Guttenberg and the invention of magnetic tape.”
                He is stating the printing press resulted in the proliferation of the printed word being made possible. For that he gives thanks.

                • Ah, of course.I basically understood that when I read it but forgot about it, I think partly because the name wasn’t familiar. Thanks.

                  • Johannes Guttenberg is famous the world over. LRH, not so much. The printing press has opened up a world of discovery and learning for mankind and delivered more folks from ignorance and control than LRH and scientology ever did, would or could. For many here, scientology was and is the center of gravity. Those blinders will in time, hopefully, fall off.

                    • Υou amongst others here, constantly do the A=A=A thing. Scientology and printing cannot be compared as to their value. If it wasn’t for printing and Guttenberg (well, someone else would have done it, if he hadn’t) even Christianity wouldn’t be on the map. What are you comparing here? There is no center of gravity. Scientology is a workable tool. Many who dispute it, use it or will use it some day to analyse phenomena and confusions in life. It’s a method and not an end in itself. I see that kind of fanaticism in people like you who want to present even the Indies as people with blinders. Well, that kind of communication does not help except to create polarity and this is what this blog plays with now.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      “”Those blinders will in time, hopefully, fall off.””
                      I wonder why are you reading here and reading ? to deliver the above?
                      If you would not have that blinders on than you would have understood what LRH has done and how that works, the auditing side that is!

                    • Theo, is putting others down a part of Scientology, or is it just your thing?

                    • The final point I was trying to make is that it is in a persons interest to learn and understand the history of civilization outside of LRH’s interpretation of it. If anyone does not want to, that’s their choice.

                    • Your point is well taken, Vicar. However, LRH”s interpretation of the history of civilization (no matter how off base it may have been) isn’t very significant in considering the technology he developed, There have been many inventions and developments that did tremendous good for the world at large, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be a lot more done for the individual on a personal level. Wouldn’t you agree?

                    • Marildi, its madness to ask such a question when the answer is obvious. You spin or water down most points others make in order to support your position or agenda. You do not need to defend LRH or anything connected to him in order to be right. And I do not believe it helps anyone. LRH left a mixed and messy legacy. The churches “help” was always done for selfish reasons. That is one reason is has no societal support. No points made on this blog will change that. And this blog is not a 3rd or 4th dynamic activity or a substitute for one. We mostly talk and debate. An online lyceum. This blog is useful and interesting and even liberating at times. But equally or more importantly, a person needs a good balance of actually helping real people in their communities and not just debating what is the most effective way to do that. Marildi, you may, in real terms, help far more folks than I do or ever could. My point is that charitable works and deeds are what is important. There is a lot that needs our attention.

                    • Vicar, well said. 🙂

    • “Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts.”

      ―L. Ron Hubbard

      Critics of Scientology (5 November 1967) – Scientology Bulletins

    • “We don’t want a wog society (and I mean it, a wog society) to intervene more into the affairs of Scientology to put their ‘justice’ in on Scientology.”
      Still afraid of the wogs eh? 🙂

      • Mrs. Freeman, what is your definition of a wog? I would appreciate it if you didn’t look it up but answered in your own words.

        • A person fron the East?

          • not really Vinaire. One of the commonest mistakes Scientologists and Scientology’s enemies make is in the usage and understanding of this word: wog. When one comes to understand the real meaning and intention behind it, I think it all comes clear. The usage of the word is generalised but it shouldn’t. The word as used by Hubbard and in Scientology materials has a specific usage.

            • Hubbard was pretty derogatory about people from the East.

            • Why did LRH pick up the word wog which already had established meanings. Looks like you are justifying. Please read the Data Series on The Why is God.

              • Maybe he was lecturing in England and was “pandering”(trying to go into “arc”) to their cultural mindset? Don’t forget this was right after WWII and as the imperialist-Communist threats from the “yellow peril” (pronounced the Chinese) were heating up. It was the Korean war era, and we had just fought a very grim war with the Japanese, who had surely considered themselves to be VERY worthy oriental gentlemen and had been building an Asian empire for 50 years….

                So actually, that would even have played well in the US at that time. The anti-communist not only ‘played well’ it was virtually essential for survival in those decades, durng the McCarthy years and the general anti-Communist sentiment. And don’t tell me the various Communist vectors were not threatening to take over the world. They believed and said quite openly there would be Reolutions everywhere. Even in the 1960s Khruschev stood at the podium in the UN building in New York, and said “We will bury you!”, as he pounded on the podium with his shoe!

                • If Scientologist use it in Pakistan, they will get their head back on a platter.

                  • Yes. I imagine we have the British Emperialists to thank for that, in INdia too. But Pakistan is Islamic to boot, isn’t that a big factor? “Allah is a jealous God”….

                    • Who, do you think, coined the word WOG? It was not LRH. LRH simply liked that connotation and used it.

                      Theo should word clear the history of this word. He is too much fixated on LRH. He needs to broaden his knowledge.

                    • Obviously LRH added his own definition of it, as he did with some other words.

                    • Obviously, LRH failed to word clear. 😉


                    • No, he may have picked “wog” up in Australia, where he had been, and added or expanded the defintion of it to what is in the tech dictionary.

                    • So you are telling me that Hubbard squirreled! Oh my God!


                    • Not at all. If I were to comment, I would point out that languages evolve. Definitions are added and dropped. New words are invented and adopted into dictionaries. Change is the norm.
                      For example, on writing, people are now taught not to use two spaces after a period. I just discovered this. And some of the people pushing that practice of using just one space are really snotty about how wrong it is to use two spaces! But when I learned to type in high school, over 50 years
                      ago, I was taught to use to spaces and would be marked down if I used just one. A dictinary of 50 years age would not be the same as one published this year, either.

            • Here is the definitions from Tech Dictionary:

              WOG, 1. worthy Oriental gentleman. This means a common ordinary run-ofthe-mill garden-variety humanoid. (SH Spec 82, 6611C29) 2 . a wog is somebody who isn’t even trying. (SH Spec 73, 6608C02)

              • Yes it is Vin

              • Elizabeth Hamre

                Vinaire. [my nickel here] do tell me just how many scientologist that description fits so very well ”who are not even trying?” my estimation: 99 1/2 percent …. so if the shoes dont…. insult has that much affect what the so called insulted person believes has!
                Ps.. you need different ammunition.

              • Here’s the world in 1960. Just a few years earlier, the US had fought the Korean War, becaue the Noth Koreans (spelled Communist China) were attempting to take over the South. The Chinese were fully prepared to storm over the borders to help the NK. U.S. General McArthur acually wanted to use tactical nukes in that event. Had the Communist forces suceeded, their next target would eventually have been Japan and Taiwan. Here’s a short article that outoilines some of th relevant dates, and actualluy it is the unexpected Soviet intervention in N.Korea in 1945 that trapped my family there.

                So yeah, why would the US have any animosity towards “Orientals”?

                The Korean War was brutal, as had been the WWII against the Japanese Empire, starting with the Japanese allying with Germany and Italy and attacking the US.

            • theo.. You are playing games.. So you tell us. I could give you his def. until the cows come home. And you would disagree. What is your def ?

              So come on big guy knock yourself out.

              • I was waiting for Mrs. Freeman to answer as she made the comment in the first place: “still afraid of the wogs, eh?”

                Anyway, wog does not mean a non Scientologist. Let’s clear that up. I know that in the church the term came to mean that but I don’t think Hubbard was using it in this way.

                “common, everyday garden-variety humanoid … He ‘is’ a body. [He] doesn’t know he’s there, etc. He isn’t there as a spirit at all. He is not operating as a thetan.”

                Saint Hill Briefing Course-82 6611C29

                “We live in a very woggy world at this time. The wog is so out-ethics he is living in what amounts to a criminal society.”


                “The dangerous environment of the wog world, of injustice, sudden dismissals, war, atomic bombs, will only persist and trouble us if we fail to spread our safe environment across the world.”

                – LRH, HCO PL 5 April 1965, SCIENTOLOGY MAKES A SAFE WORLD

                “I am not interested in wog morality.”


                “Newspapers of the wog press almost exclusively deal in entheta as their ‘news’ specializes in sexual degradation, disasters, violence, crime, failure, etc.”

                – Scn staff, approved by LRH, HCO PL 25 November 1968, AUDITOR CORRESPONDENTS

                “We let the main traffic flow untroubled by checks designed to restrain the very few. This is quite opposite to usual wog organization where the many are penalised to restrain the few.”


                “…Or any other silly idea borrowed from a wog world where the police make things about as safe as a snake pit full of assorted reptiles.”

                – LRH, HCO PL 7 December 1969, THE ETHICS OFFICER, HIS CHARACTER

                “Don’t react to Scientology Justice as though it were ‘wog’ law. In society’s ‘courts’ one is given the works and truth has little bearing on the findings… Wog courts are like throwing dice.”


                That’s what I meant, we don’t need a wog society. It was used to put a line there between a society that is awaken from a society that believes they are bodies and that’s all. I am not playing any games. That the church has done such a bad job in interpreting and applying Hubbard is not my fault. And actually it’s not Hubbard anymore. Realise this guys. There is a whole written technology and it’s a comprehensive one. Some want to kill it, some want to maim it but some want to see it applied to others (in the best sense of the word) to make them aware of who they are. Wogs don’t even try. They don’t want to change anything. The majority of the people on planet earth are NOT wogs, they are people who could easily recognise they are thetans but they didn’t have a chance to see this. This is a huge danger for the status quo.

                They are governed though by worse than wog politicians who use all the woginess that exists to cast a shadow over true intellectuality and philosophy on this planet. Scientology is a philosophy above all. Above all. And it is different than a wog society in that it brings light into one’s life once he starts to understand and apply its lessons. You can’t be a wog and be a truly spiritual person. Those things don’t jive. The word should be used to make that difference and not denigrate non Scientologists.

                • Theo, you are good in justifying like most Scientologists. Try convincing Pakistanis of your thoughts about wogs.

                  No wonder Scientology is making no progress in most of the world because it looks down upon majority of its population. A Scientologist is very arrogant like his founder. It is just an American phenomenon.


                  • It’s just a word used in another sense. Maybe in America or England has a very bad connotation. If he used “nigger” maybe it would sound weird to me. I didn’t know the word “wog”. So, what is so bad about it? That it refers to eastern people who are of a lower level, or what? Explain please.

                • Scientology is an American pheomenon similar to the one unfolding in Ferguson. The arrogance and illogic of it is deafening.


                • Thanks for all your quotes, which shows ignorance IMO.
                  “You can’t be a wog and be a truly spiritual person. Those things don’t jive.” OMG! I won’t even comment on this except to say, it’s too crazy!

                • Theo.. You didn’t define in any way what a wog is. You just copied and pasted Hubbard’s quotes.

                  If I asked you for the definition of ice cream.
                  and your responded , ” Ice cream is delicious. ” That is not a definition it is a word used in a sentence.

                  Please don’t insult our intelligence.

                • Interesting claim: not all non-Scientologists are wogs.

                  Sure doesn’t fit my experience, which is in line with the various references above, where a logical reading of wog = non-Scientologist.

                  Also, words have both denotation and connotation. I never once heard a positive connotation with wog — only negative. So to focus on a tight denotation of meaning of wog without looking at its connotative usage is misleading, if not disingenuous.

                  Since Scientology is rather OCD about dictionaries, here’s a quote from
                  noun, Chiefly British Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
                  1. any nonwhite, especially a dark-skinned native of the Middle East or Southeast Asia.

                  Hubbard did create his own specialized language — as cults generally do — but if he meant to redefine wog, that still had no impact on the broader society’s meaning of the word.

            • NolongercareaboutScn

              Theo – it must be nice to have such “certainty” on all matters large and small.

              If you had any idea what ACTUAL impression you are making on educated people, versus the impression YOU THINK you are making, you would be embarrassed.

              But that will come later, after you have looked outside of the tiny Hubbard box of viewpoints, which you think holds the entire universe of wisdom.

              • OH MY GOD! This is an absolutely perfect response to Theo! I wish I would have thought of it!

                His superior attitude in thinking that we are beneath him never fails to amaze me.

                We all know what a damn wog is. The internet is alive and well!

  19. 2. “That is why bands of scientologists, whether in or out of the official organizations, will always rally around certain, swaggering, authoritative types of personalities – and promptly disperse when that catalyst is removed.”
    – Scientologists are not the only people who do this, virtually EVERYONE does. Unfortunately, this is what attracts people. People want and/or need a GURU. So if a “Buddha” of sorts comes along who is perfectly sane, honest and communicates truthfully, virtually EVERYTHING that person claims will need to start with the following qualifier: “the research up to this point indicates A, however it is possible as research evolves that this could end up not being true or may be refined at a later date and the refined conclusion later on may be substantially different than what we are practicing now.”

    People want answers, not maybes, and so if you only give your public “maybes” then they’re going to move onto a guru who gives them answers. People want to feel certain about something so that they don’t worry about it. So long as the words they’ve read were spoken as though they are facts, peoples’ stable datums stay intact and they feel confident. If not they feel uncertain. Many people fall for the same types of promises over and over and over again.

    Unfortunately, I see people following those who present themselves as authority OR the authority on not being an authority, which still makes him the authority on something. I do not see many people following the “Buddha” I described earlier…so was Ron really so wrong in speaking like an authority? It caused people to follow him instead of following another, less-wise “guru.”

    • “It caused people to follow him instead of following another, less-wise “guru.”

      So Ron was the wisest guru ?

      That is good to know.

      • For whatever reason, it is still funny to me that people viewed him as a guru, or religious leader, or God.

        He really did tap into the psychometric, and was able to put a finger on the supernatural. That is where I gave him credit. But I was always aware that he did not invent the emeter. But he did figure out some amazing things that were important to me personally. Anyway, 70% of the auditing for me was the bomb. That was good enough for me.

        I never bought into the justice ride. I wasn’t about to get policed in the Church of Scientology. And I didn’t get involved to be a cop.

        I don’t think there is any way you can involve people in “self improvement”, and then send them out the front door damaged and heartbroken. And have a “good reason” for that. I just couldn’t think with that. That is treason and betrayal.

        I don’t think domestic terrorism justifies the means.

        When you state up front that this is a game where everybody wins, and you can not deliver, you either need to change your promise, your mission statement, or admit you over shot.

        You can not state it, then when it doesn’t happen, talk about how the customer and staff fucked you up. And I think, this is part of what Marty is saying and it is true. Hubbard did that.

        And trust me, I do not doubt that he had a lot of treason on his own hands.

        But so did the guy who put up MacDonald’s Hamburger stands. The guy who put up Walmart. The guy who put up Microsoft. The guy who put up The guy who put up They don’t have dead bodies and torture victims strewn behind them. They do not have their own police force and prison camps. They do not put their executives in trailors out in the desert , they don’t lie in courts, attack people that gave them a bad review or ask for a refund.

        It seems there is a group that is willing to run over dead bodies without concern. As long as it isn’t THEIRS. And that is what David has left. Who wants to be in a group like that anyway?

        If I could give back all of my wins, in exchange for making everyone happy that ever walked through the front doors of the Church, I would gladly do that.

        Beyond those doors, we all can still treat one another in a way that is helpful. With respect. With courtesy. With care.

        I still have not read one thing on this blog, posted by Marty that was a lie.

        He may hit upon some belief systems. Some of it may be an inconvenient truth. If I ridge, I have to ask myself, was anything he said untrue?

        I see the attacks. They never address the issues and the statements. It is always off base and not even about the facts laid on the table.

        I think there is a reverse scale on ser facs. Making self wrong and others right. And I think this may be a bigger issue than making self right and others wrong.

        • And then, there are plenty of people out here auditing that do not have any history of upset clients. Why does the Church? You see the attacks on Marty as a “Squirrel”, and these attacks originate from people with a long history of fucked up unhappy clients. Not Marty. He doesn’t have any such history. And you know, I just like to dig at these outpoints and bring up a rational explanation. This guy has zero history of out tech or blowing anyone off the bridge or an unhappy client. He is the “Scientology Dream”. And he gets more heat than anyone I know of. And there is this sense of rampant injustice just like this that flows through the Scientology community, that is the basic virus in this. And it sure as hell isn’t Marty. The man with happy clients. But when people come in with hope and leave in despair, that is injustice. You can’t just blow them off as causalities for “the greater good”. That is going backwards. And if don’t own this as part of an inheritance, and face up to it, we will not move forward as a better person.

          • T.O. No one is calling Marty a squirrel. Why is Marty auditing and then downgrading Scientology and Hubbard? That is the point.

            • Yes, he has been called a squirrel. I don’t see him downgrading, I see him pointing out the truth and situations. Isn’t Scientology knowing how to know? Now he is supposed to apologize for knowing? Isn’t it a little late for that?

              I think that is downgrading Scientology. When you subscribe to the purpose of knowing, and then park yourself in a bubble of illusion. When you pretend it is your purpose to know how to know, and then pretend to know when you do not, and what you do know must be buried from view.

              • Not by me. I am attacking not Marty as a person but ideas and concepts which I find deleterious. So, for example, how is it that Scientology is a “monotheistic religion”? A new concept introduced by Marty recently, as far as I know. How does this relate to knowing? Am I missing something? Is this the type of “knowing” his research has yielded?

                • Scientology is a monotheistic religion because the source of all existence is considered to be a BEING in Scientology.

                  • Theo your logic does not jive with mine and (I am sorry to say) with reality. Not any one source can create a religion which then is considered mono-THEISTIC. Maybe you need to clear up what God would be in that case.

                    • Well, that’s a good one. I wrote “Theo, your logic doesn’t jive…” Hahaha, maybe then Vinaire’s logic does jive with reality and mine doesn’t. Which would be that one source of a religion or a philosophy means necessarily the creation of a mono-theistic religion. It can’t be that ANY man could create a religion or a philosophy. He has to become a God to make such.

                    • It is the concept of Statc.

                    • Theo, you need to read more. Pay attention to the following.

                      LOGIC 8: A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

                • Theo, There were people that posted on this forum that they thought of Hubbard as a God. It was a shock to me. I actually had to get some auditing on this. Because it was something I contributed to unwittingly, and that made me a little sick to discover.

                  Don’t ask me how it is a “monotheistic religion”. I’m not the one who noticed it, and I’m not the one that subscribed to it. But it turned out to be true for a lot of people.

                  I have no idea why you would charge me with explaining this to you. Go back to the blog post and read. Go find someone that understands this. I don’t. You are enturbulating my file clerk now.

                  • T.O. no need to be enturbulated. Come on. We are grown ups now, no time for that. Thank you for telling me all this. That it was not you who subscribed to it. I don’t subscribe to it either.

                    The idea of God is an interesting one in our times. Who could really God be? The Father and Christ and the Holy Spirit? The Holy Trinity? I think they gave up long time ago. Allah…? I don’t know much about Muslims. Buddha didn’t claim to be God so we leave him out. Jehovah? I think he doesn’t feel comfortable with the post either.

                    So, who can God be nowadays? Hubbard? Let me laugh! Could Hubbard take the post of God on this planet? Well, for Miscavige it could and it would serve him well as well as others. Gods are needed to stir the flock to a new direction where now is needed. So, the God idea can be entertained by the church for the years to come. And it might serve some special interests to have a new (custom made Scientology) religion on planet Earth. A religion that can make a lot of money and can herd the flock once again. And it looks like the flock can be well herded this time with all the tools and their misuse with Black Dianetics (O/Ws files, PC data, disconnection, annihilation of the 2nd dynamic for the Sea Org members, pay your taxes or you can’t go up the Bridge etc. etc.). That “Technology” serves the status quo really good now.

                    Well, for me the post of God is really vacant. I imagined a cartoon I wanted to draw where Earth projects a huge neon sign into dark space saying:

                    A new God is needed. Post is vacant. Only serious offers, please.

                    We can see this everywhere.

                    T.O. we have a long ways to go but we shouldn’t for petty ARC breaks spoil this chance. This is a serious blog. There is a lot of things discussed here. We have to preserve the fundamentals. We don’t need to play it smart on those too. We cannot afford to do this as the church does for their own reasons. The fundamentals are not there to confine one’s space. Such crap as Scientology is a “monotheistic religion” puts an end to the seriousness of this blog and its readers. Unless there is other intentions which are not plain to be served which I don’t want to believe. But believe me, those who wanted Scientology to end as it ended don’t want it to flourish in the Indie field either. They are going to do whatever they can to stop it or maim it or put curves in it.

                    So, let’s preserve the fundamentals. Scientology is a philosophy and it can best serve Man in these difficult times to re-aquaint himself with his true nature. That’s all it does. All the rest are added inapplicables and should be neglected, thrown out and suppressed as they are suppressive elements themselves.

                    • And one other thing as to the God idea. The only God that I could possibly accept would be an impersonal god. No person is fit enough for the post (joking aside). The only Trinity I could respect is that of Ethics – Tech – Admin. Name them God, Son and the Holy Spirit if you want to sound more ecclesiastical. The new broad vistas that are offered to Man as potential knowledge through the Tech are incompatible with the idea of God as the identity it has been promoted on planet Earth all this time.


                      This is killing their “gods” and creating a new phenomenon on planet Earth. The awakening of Man. This is not wanted, don’t you see? Why was Hubbard fought so relentlessly and is still fought to this very moment on this very blog and thousands of others? Because he was who he was or because he did what he did? It’s the latter that counts. It’s the latter that is dangerous and spread across the planet. It’s the latter that is our legacy (if one can dig that word if they have children to raise and care about others and the planet, really) that we have to preserve. All the rest as I said are efforts of the ignorant, the over ambitious and the evil guys to suppress that knowledge for Mankind.

                    • Which is senior —- Ethics–Tech–Admin or a Static?

                      If it is a Static then you have a God. If you don’t think it is a Static, then you are a squirrel.

                      Please see

                • Theo.. You know exactly what you are doing. All you have to do is read for yourself what Marty thinks. You are disrespecting him. He has been on a journey. He is no longer trapped inside the bubble known as Scientology.

                  He has shared information with us for years. It is your responsibility to do your homework. Marty does not have to spoon feed you.

                  • Baby grow up. It’s time to. Who’s disrespecting who? The “bubble”, baby, has made some men around here. So if you call it a bubble who is disrespecting who? I thought that we would have a more serious discussion on some things than calling Scientology a bubble. Unless you are referring to the church. But this differentiation has seized to be mentioned on purpose for some time now on this blog and this is what makes me angry. Now, that’s disrespect. If Marty had really gone out of the “bubble” he would not be mentioning even it’s jargon. I see he changed the thetan word into psyche. Well, that’s a progress.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Ladies and Gentlemen: behold the end phenomena of scientology.

                    • Marty, I am glad you are letting these people display what they are. They are rude and unmannered. They are showing what the state of Scientology currently is.    


                    • deElizabethan

                      Vin: “They are showing what the state of Scientology currently is.”

                      More like the state of mind of a True devoted or deluded Scientologist. I’m so happy for those of us who live in the real world.

                      This thread has been the most interesting, even exciting I’ve seen in a long while! I especially like the word you used, false “infotainment”.
                      Bravo, to all who have and are enlightening us here.

                    • That was Alanzo, my brother, by the way, who used that word “infotainment”. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between us; just like it is very difficult to tell the difference between Valkov and Marildi.


                    • No, it wasn’t Alanzo who used the word “infotainment.” It was Marty. And the least I can say is that it isn’t difficult to tell the difference between the two of you.

                    • LOL! Marildi is a smart cookie, indeed. 🙂

                      I admire her for her memory.

                    • deElizabethan

                      Yes Vin, Marildi was correct. It was Marty used the word “infotainment” I forgot to note the second half about the thread was a comment to Marty. Thanks.

                    • I thought YOU were the EP, and he was just mid-cycle…. ?

                    • Marty, Marty… are you talking about End Phenomena? Well, I would have explained to you the end phenomena while you were in Mgmt. Or was that another Marty? When as staff we couldn’t even study much less get auditing or get some attention on our 1st dynamic.

                      And then Marty when you are talking about end phenomena, don’t END the discussion (I mean we could never have any discussion anyway) by not having a reply button. The problem here Marty is that you let others speak on your behalf but you don’t confront the fact that you have to talk too. Yourself not via others and then say something about end phenomena with no reply button just to make the final statement and make an impression. What I did Marty in Scientology I did it by myself, studying by myself, unlike you up there on the org board dealing with the big shit and making it all shitty as you and David and the rest of you guys did. That’s now end phenomena. Come out and talk, big guy. Don’t just go in hiding. Let the conversation roll for once when you don’t like it. But no. You have been indoctrinated to cut comm and invalidate. That’s the process here. To invalidate those who don’t toe the party line.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      More standard scientology…

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      You are good.. in fact very good..i have noticed by now when the truth has been spoken some of the poster who” rule the blog” will gang up on you and tell you that is not the way to behave, not the way to talk because it is not acceptable by the group and if you want to be liked and to belong than you better change your ways your attitude or else !!! What I have written back that is exactly the demand from the church from its members to do and look at your self now.. doing the same…
                      I was locked out from private groups… booed out from big kahuna OT8’s blog and I taken every evaluation from these groups as a win… knowing that finally I have made it out.
                      Individuality is not accepted by the group and please.. please dont speak the truth.. that can hurt the ego… it can be very painful.. 🙂 have fun.. but you are having fun!

                    • Oh you’re just p*ssed because critics are voicing their true opinions.

                      Grow up? OMG I am mortally wounded. ha

          • T.O.,

            Thank you for your comments. I agree with much of what you said. I found your “Reverse Ser Fac” comment especially interesting. I never thought of that before and can see that is a paramount tendency for some. Many of the individuals I have personally observed with this tendency have a weak reality and are easily controlled (possibly due to a fear of the consequences of disagreeing with others).

            • T-Fu*k and T.O. about he ‘reverse serfac’ thing. That is a great observation by T.O. It is in fact one of the four basic existential positions postulated by Transactional Analysis:
              1. I’m OK – You’re OK
              2. I’m OK – You’re Not OK
              3. I’m Not OK – You’re OK
              4. I’m Not OK – You’re Not OK

              Great insight, T.O.

            • These individuals are playing games described by the Karpman Drama Triangle and according to the TA literature, often when pressed they will admit they are doing it knowingly. However it depends on the “degree” of their gameplaying, and does not preclude some hard-core outcomes like suicide or incitement to murder. And they often feel they cannot stop.

      • Cat Daddy,

        Thank you for your comment. Nowhere did I say that Ron was the wisest guru, however from his viewpoint he likely believed he was and therefore from his viewpoint there would be nothing wrong with employing techniques which caused people to follow him instead of other, less wise (from his viewpoint) gurus.

        My personal opinion is that he was pretty high on the list of “gurus” from the 1950s through the 1970s…regardless of any personal outpoints he had, Engrams/Secondaries, Upsets (ARCXs), O/Ws, Occluded Memory, Communication, Problems, Ser Facs, Clusters and BTs are all valid sources of charge and freeing oneself of those things gives relief and raises awareness…I can think of no guru from the 50s through the 70s whose work was more valuable than creating a system of alleviating those factors from a person

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          TreasonousFu*k +10 on that! well said.
          PS; those who have really miss-duplicated the auditing tech when study and for that reason when they try to use it did not work for them have not brought changes in their outlook -life and these are the people who have now really negative comments-beliefs about scientology and auditing and these same people now went back into ‘practicing’ ‘other” what ever and now believing in the old ways, which did not work before…but works now.. well.. if it would have worked before being in example: Buddhism these people would not come and explored scientology but would have been free of their bodies, free from this Planet and be free from all their negative considerations and not getting into the body again repeating their same mistake by going back to the old which is Buddhism since that called them back because they practised it in other life times too.

          • Buddhism has helped countless people. 🙂

            • Elizabeth Hamre

              but did it free them? they have just give up one form of belief for a different one.. and that not spiritual freedom in my reality.: 🙂

              • Yes, I believe it did because I have met Buddhists who appeared very calm, rationa, full of compassion and tolerant of others.

                Buddhism does not advertise itself. It is still there after 2600 years because it has produced results.

                • Elizabeth Hamre

                  Vinaire… Buddhism does not advertise is self Because it produces results: calm, rational, full of compassion and tolerance… yes right you are and every one of these are human traits.. but not spiritual freedom . by your own belief when all that is erased, confronted one has nothing more than awareness even that awareness is not the Spirit.. did I get you thinking right?

                • Elizabeth Hamre

                  Buddhism no advertises it self? now what ever has given you that wrong idea? 400 million believers and every one of them is on advertise it self: look at my appearance, look at me how I am, look at me how I behave, what I wear, how I walk, how I pray, how I chant, how I meditate, how I walk, what I say, how I decorate, how I worship, how I hang up banners etc… etc.. etc.. etc.. I am so good, I am so noble ugh….the true infinite who practises what is will not be recognised because there is nothing to be recognised there is NO VALACES, the Entity is not in a valance of the worshiped!
                  Every of the persons who are worshipping Gautama are doing their best to get into Gautama’s valance and by doing that they think, they wrongly believe that they will achieve Enlightenment! PLEASE!

                  • Hmmmmm. I wonder if some Buddhist organization pays Al a monthly fee to use the Buddha avatar when he posts on these blogs? Maybe that’s why he keeps up such a high post count…. Maybe I could make some extra money that way myself. Kinda like having my car wrapped with a company decal. But Buddhists probably wouldn’t pay much…. Oh well.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      🙂 Forget that one, that advertisement- propaganda would not give you which you already have 🙂 and those who advertise doing ‘’look how wise I am’’ because I am too one of the herd and in the valance of the great: Appearances will not give one wisdom but false belief: if I do all the song and dance and visit the holy place, walk in the foot-steps, I talk-repeat all the wise word than I to have attained the state. Hehehe… OT Levels in different form.
                      Meditation leads into a dead end, meditations end result will hold that person in that state and that state is not the state of enlightenment because enlightenment is not a state.
                      To attain total freedom with that: one loses all: the self, the I, the valances melt away, the fear vanished, life as one believed what it was is no more, the attained emptiness which replaces life-mest encompasses all yet remain empty that is intangible: Infinite.

                    • I am impressed by how Elizabeth is advertising her personally invented procedure. 


                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      V … it is you who has twisted LRH’s work into a bundle of crap and pushing it as something workable . It is you who believe by doing that is smarter than LRH was..not me.. I dont clame some ones work as mine!

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      V.. since you read my blog… but obviously you read into something which is only in your delusional mind, I never ever claim what I have been doing is something invented by me but LRH’s work is being used! so dont lie! dont twist! not Ok.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      🙂 just had a thought, next Hallowing go out with your grand son dressed as Buddhist you might get more goodies! dont forget to sprinkle flower petals on the door steps you have knocked on! and be humble for heavens sake!

          • Thank you Elizabeth I appreciate the ack 🙂

        • “…I can think of no guru from the 50s through the 70s whose work was more valuable than creating a system of alleviating those factors from a person.”

          Has there been any guru whose work was more valuable even after the 70’s?

          • or caused as much damage? Has to be said, Marildi.

          • Hi marildi. In terms of volume of truly useful discoveries, I don’t think so. But there is at least one who made improvements to the subject, at least one who made advancements to the subject, and there is a lot of incredibly valuable research that’s been done into Quantum Physics that put more pieces of the puzzle into view (that were not in view in Ron’s lifetime). There has also been an incredible advance in technology and when this technology is specialized toward elimination of case/spiritual advancement, we’re gonna fly! (assuming people can let go of not changing anything…including 60+ year old electronic devices…or else we’re low-life squirrels)

          • The people who brought us the Net. Far more value for planet Earth.

            • I don’t disagree with that, Geir. But that doesn’t discount the value of many other things, such as art or community involvement, etc. – including any advanced in methodologies to raise an individual’s self-determinism and the personal freedom that gives. Like LRH contributed, IMO. And I agree with TreasonousFu*k in his post above as to the idea that even further advances can be made.

            • Hi Gene and thank you for your comment. I agree that the internet is valuable beyond measure, however we were talking about a single “Guru”, the internet was not developed by a single guru. The internet is a double-edged sword in itself with hidden data lines. The project was begun by DARPA, for military purposes. The military invests in tools of war, remember that when considering the origins of the internet. Everything you’ve ever said online or looked at online (at least for the past several years) is recorded in a database and if you’re ever “their” enemy (or if you have “unacceptable” political beliefs) they likely have significantly more compromising data against you than all the data in your PC Folders combined.

              • +++
                And I think the jury is still out on whether the Internet actually raises awareness levels or expands consciousness. It does make some people feel they can be ruder and say more hurtful things online than they would be saying face-to-face with someone. I do think it has potential for elevating thequality of life on earth though, because of the speed with which information can be passed along. The coming demise of the CoS is proof of that. It is probably the next best thing to telepathy.

              • The Internet was created by many. Some stood on the shoulders of many others, although Tim Berners-Lee stood taller than most and would be the guru of the Net we know today. This is not really any different than Scientology where Ron stood on the shoulders of so many others, ripped methods off left right and center and seldom gave credit where credit was due. But the end products are in two very different leagues. The Net has impacted society immensely. Scientology, on the other hand, is less than insignificant. And in few years it will fade even as a social joke. The Net will be with us and shape almost every aspect of our future. So, I’d say there are dozens of gurus (if that’s what you are seeking) in computer science that each and every one has had a greater positive impact on society that LRH ever had. As for a double-edged sword… Scientology is certainly that.

  20. By the way Marty another great post. I am sure the rabid independents & Free Zone fellows are going nuts reading your blog. Some of these guys have been out for 30 plus years and they are still Bots to Hubbard. This is amazing to me as within one year of getting out I realized that we all had been Cultified (sic) to the max by Hubbard. It had little to do with Tiny Miscavige, as you said he was the perfect Minion to take over for Hubbard. I am hoping your blog will help them realize they need to look beyond Hubbard or Captain Bill.

  21. The evidence of the truth in what you say lays all about us. People need only to look.

    When the game is, “Everyone in this game is wrong except for one person”, it is not a game at all. It is a religion.

    ” Nobody is holy except God. There is only one holy one.”

    This does not discount whatever gains I got from the auditing or from the knowledge I found workable. Nor does it discount whatever good religions have bought into society. All of our current laws are based on the ten commandments.

    But this does explain, very well, the losses and set backs people are set up for at one time or another on this path.

    The urge to make everyone wrong except for L. Ron Hubbard, is the glue that holds the fundamentalists together. This is the basic purpose. And while on that purpose they make Hubbard as wrong as wrong can be, by the trash piles of human life, hope and dreams that litter this highway.

  22. good thread! You make a lot of good points.

    “From before the publication of Dianetics, Ron Hubbard proved as immovable as a mountain on being criticized, corrected, or accepting even the most rational of input and advice.”

    When I skim read a bunch of the letters he’d received and wrote back to some of his sci fi colleagues, what you say above seems true. His friends were deferential. Heinlein in particular, seemed careful not to upset Ron with too much criticism.

  23. Very valuable dissection of the game he played. Thanks.

    • Its clear to me that your now three feet behind the head of this organization, its founder and its current leader. There is no games condition. You can clearly see it and your calling it. Its a true public service.

  24. You did very well as far as you went, Marty.

    That is by debunking or challenging the idea of standard tech.

    That term “standard tech” turned my stomach shortly after I went through the material and evaluated it. That was about 15 yrs ago. I simply applied Hubbard’s own datum: Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.

    I have been pounding this message for about the same time and it is starting to take root.

    And I reiterate to say that the small percentage of technical gems, at least the basic idea, need to be gleaned from Hubbard’s words, and build a better bridge. Actually not a better bridge, but a real bridge. Because Hubbard’s bridge was not a bridge.

    Like I said many times before, if you have done Hubbard’s false bridge and can’t learn from his failures, out right screw ups or disasters and successes, and build a real bridge, you flunked scientology.

    All the basic ideas, the basic principles that are needed for a real bridge are there.

    A few more ideas are scattered in the works of thinking people who left scn, over the years and decided to think for themselves.

    The only thing that is permanent is change.

    All you have to do is apply the right parts of scientology (the technical gems and words of wisdom) to scientology in the right way and you will build a real bridge.

    Those gems and words of wisdom are the ones Geoffrey Filbert refers to as the less then 1% of what Hubbard said was true.

    Hubbard’s words parpahrased:

    “I blazed a trail and it is up to you to build the highway.”

    are as true today as the day he said it.

    They may be the most important words he said, because they set the course, the postulate to improve and continue into the future.

    Get out there, get cracking, and build a real bridge (or highway)!


    • I think it was Hubbard’s purpose to build a bridge. Don’t recall Marty saying this was his purpose.

      • T.O.

        Yes, indeed, Hubbard’s purpose was to build a bridge. I do not deny or ignore that.

        ( I digress and qualify for a moment: The trouble with discussing Hubbard and scientology is that the subject is so huge, of such large magnitude, that there is no one who knows it all.

        It is also incredibly complex.

        It also often has several sides to it.

        And there are almost always contradictions written elsewhere.

        And it also more than one dimensional, there is more than one level.

        It is so huge and complex and contradictory, that it is practically impossible to discuss it or even any part of it, in entirety or discuss it accurately, whithout leaving some part out.

        Because if you do address one part of it, there is almost always some part left out, that someone can attack. And there you have the cause of these endless arguments and discussions and merry- go- arounds.

        You cannot talk or discuss a multi level subject from one level. You cannot talk about two levels or two sides at the same, any more than you can look at the front and back of a house at the same time, from standing on one side or the other.

        It is practically impossible to cover every point and facet and contradiction (of what Hubbard said or did) in one discussion or one position (posit- ion), or one presentation.

        End of digression, to qualify.

        So, yes, his intention was to build a bridge. But there was so much work that was required to build a bridge, that all he could ultimately do was to blaze a trail through the jungle.

        In order to get an honest and accurate perspective of the subject, you have to take all perspectives simultaneously. You have put your self in his shoes, you have to consider the goal that was chosen or postulated. You have to take a bird on a wire (impartial) perspective too.

        You have to take into consideration that we learn much more from mistakes then successes.

        You also need to have some experience in doing something of considerable magnitude that has not been done before. Because, if you have done something of considerable magnitude (even something not so considerable) you would know that you have to do almost all the wrong ways first, before you figure out the right way.

        (If you have not ever accomplished anything new of any magnitude, (at least something you are not aware that has been done before) then you are not qualified to comment on or criticize Hubbard and scientology and the bridge. If you did, you would know well what it is like. You would be aware of all the failures and screw up and disasters and hardships, trials and errors, you went through.)

        Thomas Edison is another good example. It is said he had failed 10,000, times before he figured out the right way to make a light bulb that worked. (Although I think the number 10,000 is an exageration, it makes the point, that; you don’t give up until you get it done or continue as long as you have the health and strenght to do what has to be done.) He said I did not fail 10,000 times, I only figured out 10,000 ways that did not work.

        That means Hubbard had to make the mistakes he did, that incl. he had to be insane, he had to be a criminal, because it takes one to know one.

        Then he had to figure out what it took to become sane, become honest and mazimize a human’s full potential. He had to make a lot of mistakes. He had to figure out all the wrong ways, the ways that did not work before he figured out what worked. He just barely got to that point. It was really a point where he could only see light at the end of the tunnel.

        You also have to take into consideration that he was mostly working with the insane, he was working with broken straws as his subjects.

        When you understand this, you will also begin to see why he said all the lies and contradictions, etc.. The end justified the means. He had to tell lies, to keep the project going. The people he was working with, could not handle much truth, if any, …………….they really did not know what truth was, anyways, and telling lies was the lessor of two evils. It was necessary to control people with lies.

        Now, it occured to me that at the time he had to tell the dummies ( the research subjects, the guinea pigs) that this was standard tech, or else he would not have been able to keep the show on the road and blaze the trail to the end.

        The term “standard tech” was true for the purpose, at the time. It was the best stable datum possible. The end justified the means. And everyone was his guinea pig. Everyone was his slave.

        So put yourself in Hubbard’s shoes and walk his track to see what it is or was like.

        Then you will see that he did all what was humanly possible and then some. (Because I am pretty certain that he had other entities helping him, from back stage.)

        And the best he could do in one lifetime, was to blaze a trail.

        If you ever walked through the jungle and blazed a trail, or tried to follow such a trail, you would know what that means. You remove (slash) the bark off a tree here and there with your machete. (and at the same time, keep in mind, that analogies are not perfect)

        It is now up to others to build a highway.

        When he said in Dianetics, that he expected that someone to build a better brdige, it is evident that he had no intention to do so himself, at the time, otherwise why would he say such a thing?

        But putting myself in his shoes at the time (1950 or so) , it is evident that he saw that there was no one else capable of doing so, (his faith in mankind, that he mentioned, was not founded) so one thing led to another and he took the task on himself and we have what we have today.

        (He also had a lot of pressure from his followers (his flock) begging and pleading for more.)

        If you take an honest look, you would realize that from the viewpoint of 1950, building a bridge ( a real bridge that really worked) was a Herculean task.

        It is still a work of considerable magnitude and effort.

        How many people, even after doing scntlgy, (that is; following Hubbard for all the yrs they did) think they now have a clue how to build a bridge that really works?

        Normally if a sufficiently competent and intelligent person watches someone do something or work with someone doing something, you can not only figure out how to do it yourself, but do it even better.

        Again, keep in mind that what was true yesterday, is not necessarily true today.

        Also consider how else would such an effort or task ( as the bridge) be accomplished from the viewpoint of around 1950?

        The only right thing we can do today, is to use (apply) the datum: any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.

        And evaluate every datum in scntlgy and evaluate it on it’s own merits and apply the data or tech from “How to study a science” and build a real bridge or highway.

        Everyone in scn in his (Hubbard’s) time was only a guinea pig and a slave. In truth or in fact it was solely a research project. Any wins were relative. That means that wins were only something that was accomplished that were better than what was. But there was a lot more way to go to make a homo novus, to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The evidence is in the results, that is in the products of the “bridge”.

        The wins ( the releases, the samples of seeing the light) were only that, they were glimpses of what is to be achieved full time and stable.

        After he died, everyone who kept on parroting Hubbard after he died, was at least a mindless fool, a sheeple.

        The wise and competent and intelligent and conscious, would stop and honestly and impartially think and scrutinize and evaluate, (question everything) glean all that was good and chuck the rest up to experience ( learn from it, so you do not have to repeat the mistakes) and reorient and get to work ( get a clean slate) building a real bridge or highway that produced the desired results, a homo novus.

        Everything that is required to build a real bridge or highway, exists today and is readily available. The research phase has been done. At least 99% of the research has been done.

        What has to be done today, is like figuring out which piece of a jig saw puzzle fits where. This is the easy part.


        • Dio, I am not sure the research is done. I think there will always be more to learn. Perhaps if the back door would have been left open, for Scientologists, it might have been better. I have found the research done already, steps. Steps to potential understanding. Scientology is one big front door. People can enter through the front door, then they can camp in hallways,they can escape through the basement, they can jump out windows. They just can’t do an addition to the house or leave out the back door. I see it a blueprint for a foundation.

          You know, even the people that leave all disgruntled, they are unacknowledged for their wins. For their gains.

          When they came in, they wanted someone else to think for them.

          When they jumped out, they wanted to think for themselves.

          I see that as a huge promise for the future. For better things to come.

          And then of course, I can look forward to someone like you being in that future too. 🙂

        • Another way I have viewed it, is that Scientology is a big womb. Sooner or later the womb gets crowded and someone has to go. If you don’t push them out, there is no room to make new. If you hold them in, the womb becomes polluted. This is as simple as understanding dissemination. When someone escapes from the womb of Scientology, they are viewed as a miscarriage, not a birth. It is like a big mother that disowns every child that is not a copy of the mother. Or that severs the umbilical chord. Hubbard even wrote a policy about OT’s not being able to survive with out OT’s (Scientologists will not survive if they leave the womb). And there are the ones that did not crawl out, they got kicked out or forced out, and they quickly move over to another womb.

          I think Hubbard established a base for research. Because not too many people think they can expand on that, mainly because they have been discouraged from doing so, even warned and threatened, it is slow going.

        • I must say if there was ever a reference I read by Hubbard that really violated my reality, it was the reference that OT’s could not survive alone.Seriously? You are going to make OT’s and then convince them they are needy mother f’kers?

          That was the casiest mumbo jumbo computation, that invalidated everything he ever wrote wrote before that, and was a direct suggestion to “cluster up”.

          Then you know, you get up to solo and what is the message? You can not survive when you cluster up.

          Yes, I needed Hubbard to be where I am now. I will never ever discount that need. Never.

          Did I need my auditors? Yes. I was needy. I needed them. I was like a drug addict moving up the bridge. I needed everyone that helped me. I admit it. They helped me, I will never deny it or deny them.

          Did I need this blog. Yes, I admit it. Did I need these conversations? yes, I needed that.

          Will I not survive alone? That has never been a fear for me. Do I have a fear of being a cell? Hell no. That wasn’t my item. Do I have any fears? Yes, two. But these are fears I have for others, not myself.

          But this is my thing for Hubbard, I do not think he could have managed to put out the good things he did, if he honestly did not care about other people. I do think it was his purpose to help. And I think that because I was helped.

          And it is like having a parent that kind of fucked up. Some really mean to. And some just did their best.

          I think he did his best. And I think he loved. For me, that is good enough. So I can step over some of the things that were not cool, and face them, and it is not an issue for me.

          And I think Marty has this same understanding. He is just being rational about sorting out the estate left behind.

          • “I must say if there was ever a reference I read by Hubbard that really violated my reality, it was the reference that OT’s could not survive alone.Seriously? You are going to make OT’s and then convince them they are needy mother f’kers?”

            That is a very good outpoint to contemplate on. 🙂

        • Why is that so wrong? What the fuck is up with that?

        • And the problem I have with David Miscavige, is that that guy can not love. And I think that is a serious fucking outpoint. Like, a major red flag.

          • It also irks me that he goes mad if anyone else digs through the estate. He is practically positioning himself as Hubbard’s young lover and heir to Hubbard’s estate.

            • Especially when he fair games Mary Sue to the St Pete Times:

              ” Miscavige said his “missions” discovered serious problems with the GO, including stealing the best staffers, not paying bills and failing to file legal pleadings on time.

              Scientology also had been embarrassed by the 1979 convictions of Mrs. Hubbard and 10 other GO staffers for conspiring to steal federal government documents and cover it up.”

              ” Clearwater never knew Scientology was near collapse from legal problems and its own infighting”, Miscavige said. “I thought the church would actually disintegrate.”

              In 1981, as Mary Sue Hubbard appealed her prison sentence, Miscavige said he and others concluded she had to go. When none of his superiors would confront the founder’s wife, Miscavige stepped forward.

              “I thought if I do something and it’s wrong or I don’t achieve this, I’ve had it. I’m toast,” he said. “But if I don’t do something, after seeing what the GO had been engaged in … I’m convinced I’m toast anyway.”

              During two heated encounters, Miscavige persuaded Mary Sue Hubbard to resign. Together they composed a letter to Scientologists confirming her decision — all without ever talking to L. Ron Hubbard.

              He saw the one-on-one meeting as the only way. “I knew if it was going to be a physical takeover we’re going to lose because they had a couple thousand staff and we (the “messengers”) had about 50. That is the amazing part about it.”

              MARY SUE HUBBARD: The founder’s wife was ousted by Miscavige from her high post in Scientology in 1981.
              Indeed, the scenario is hard to imagine in any other organizational setting. A 21-year-old employee, five years on the staff and with only a modicum of power, manages to oust the boss’s wife by arguing that is what the boss would want.”

              Seriously Dave, was it really necessary to fair game Mary Sue to the St. Petersburg Times?


              • Thanks TO for the St. Pete Times article. I hadn’t read it before today. What happened to this? Sort of went in reverse, ya think?
                “Now, Scientology’s global 10-year plan calls for a mission in every city of 100,000 or more and a church in every city of 250,000 to 500,000, Miscavige said.” (1998, page 4)

    • Well anyway, this is the best of my love.

  25. Thank you, Marty for so eloquently pointing out that ‘standard tech’ is a mirage. As LRH says on the Class VIII lectures “Scientology is all of a piece.” He goes on to explain that no single reference can be used to the exclusion of the others. If this invitation to and sanction of cognitive dissonance doesn’t show the quest to find truth within the confines of scientology as a wild goose chase then nothing will. Though the charisma of a commanding figure can temporarily breathe life into the promise of adventure via whatever is currently billed as standard tech, it is inherently unsustainable. Hence the reboot(s).

  26. I love this blog.

    For a myriad of reasons. But one perhaps I’ve never mentioned is that I can monitor my OWN progress in equanimity and my levels of anger by my response to certain posters.

    Some are indeed “bengali tea boys” (bengali = from Bangladesh. There is an old old Tibetan story of a wise guru heading from India to Tibet where he was asked to come and teach

    He was gathering his belongings and his students. And also preparing his Bengali tea boy (similar to a valet) to accompany him.

    His students begged and begged him NOT to take the Bengali tea boy because he was so nasty. So rude. So dismissive.

    The Indian sage said — no, I must. I’ve heard that everyone in Tibet is so learned, so compassionate and so wise that IF I don’t bring the tea boy to constantly be a reminder to me that I’m not enlightened, I feel I will become arrogant. It is said that when he arrived in Tibet he said — oh, I could have left my Bengali tea boy in India — there are plenty in Tibet to remind me I’m not yet enlightened

    I delight in the various Bengali tea boys/girls who pop up from time to time OR are almost always present debating or arguing or making wrong.


    • Elizabeth Hamre

      and windhorse what was you were doing in this post if not the same as Bengali tea boys were doing? you were evaluating behavior which included self but that self was put above others… please correct me if I am wrong.. Elizasbeth

      • Why not correct yourself? It only takes a small degree of discipline not to ser fac on others. I mean, why did you have to make an effort to attempt to cause her to have less ARC for herself? Or to cause others to have less ARC for her? What is right about that? How does that help her or you?

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          you mean take on a sweet valance? I have apologised many times to people… in this case I haven t clue who I need to apologise to. Vinaire to I wont since I truly admire the mans knowledge, and he and I been at it for years, and when I say to him I love him I mean that. To Marildi, I lover her, I think she is fantastic and I have told her that many occasion. She is one of the finest – person I know.. So apologise for not having the same realities? She to feel the same as me about what I believe, expressed that many times…Truly I don get it..Oracle,, if both person knows they are being aware that they have very little in common yet still feel much affinity than why one of them need to apologise? Please explain.

          • I never mentioned apologies or Vinaire or Miraldi in my post. So I am in no position to explain.

            • Elizabeth Hamre

              TO…””Why not correct yourself? It only takes a small degree of discipline not to ser fac on others. I mean, why did you have to make an effort to attempt to cause her to have less ARC for herself? Or to cause others to have less ARC for her? What is right about that? How does that help her or you?”” care to explain this to me than?

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          I been thinking about your above post. We are on this planet to learn. Sooner or later even you have to learn that there is no right or wrong those are considerations-belief-agreements and every of them are illusions. So are ARCB’s and serv facs. Figment of your imaginations. Why not correct your self and look after your wrong assumptions. you are not in the position to give me lessons or corrections. thank you.

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          this planet is not a kindergarten but a prison planet, a hell hole and every person here is because what they believe in , what they have done to others and with that to self. we only can get out when we confront our own mistake. so dont kid your-self sympathy never have freed any one.

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          Please read this…
          By now I know whatever takes place in my life that has meant to happen regardless was wanted or not: it is there now because that incident is next in line to be confronted. [There is order in the Universe: the reels of movies roles relentlessly.]
          Therefore each day I am presented with lessons [segment of the movie] and these lessons are more like riddles of the most intricate nature and when I take them apart the reward is presented in a form of cognitions..
          No matter what happens how it looks like and the evidence point toward somebody, something or toward ‘’self’’ here: that one of us were the originator of the drama…which is experienced in form of disagreements, happiness, pleasure, bloom on the flower or viewing volcano eruption, fire some place, or just a simple accident: tripping over one’s own feet, all that is on illusion.[ the ‘’eye’’ perceives as the movie roles.]
          Everything no matter what ever we experience here is the replica, a poor imitation, a holograph to some degree of a totally different incident which has happened some place and that ‘’some place’’ is definitely not on this Planet and not ‘’now’’ [ I know the finger when cut bleeds, so that is ‘’real’’ but the cause of that cut the original postulate did not happen when the knife sliced the finger] and the bleeding finger is not a holograph that too is the fact.. IT IS WHAT THE “”EYE”” HAVE SEEN, so please close those ‘’EYES’’ and what DO YOU SEE?
          Not likely the cut finger.[ eyes are part of the machinery] But what you will feel and that sensation-pain is the original incident and the picture of the knife- the finger- the blood, the colors and other surrounding images are JUST ADDED TO THAT SENSATION , the sensation itself could have happened long before who know when and where on what planet in the Universe.
          The illusion part is not easy to explain, yet the existence of the illusion is easy to verify by simply taking any concept into sessions and when inspected: by close going-over –assessment that concept will vanish forever soon as the original reason is realized why it was created in the first place but of course this phenomenon need to be experienced in order to believe that it is like that.
          If something can be erased as-isad than it is not real.. So all beliefs ‘in my experience’ can be erased and that happens when that energy –mass=the sensation-feeling-pain is confronted.
          Why I write about this since all of you know this already, but this is just a reminder that the movie is on implant and that implant include every belief one has regardless if these beliefs are negative or positive.
          Of course judgments, judging others is part of the implanted material and that is the most difficult to give up, very difficult.. IF one could do that, when that would happens: that Entity =person would be totally outside of the MEST.. But soon as that Entity would make a comment, statement, remark on any subject in that instant that person is taking a standpoint and with that the Entity is back in the good old MEST U.
          So, in my reality one can perceive –observe but if at the same moment enhances that observation with assumption-opinion- guessing what that is.. than I call that judging.
          Now, not to do that while one still is connected to a body: totally impassible, and even saints could not do that, because being a Saint is already a valance and that valance was born out of judgement: what is good, better than other valances.
          Can OT’s do that??? We all know the answers but to achieve such State is impassible while still anchored by the body into the MEST U. The body is a ordinary energy generator which constantly supplies stimulation and that stimulation is a connecting agent keeps one in the MEST.
          We have been thought those lesson and we have thought the same to others… but survival never was for the Entity but for the MEST and its continuations.. so who’s been fooling whom? 🙂

    • WH, You summoned it up. Laughter!

  27. Marty wrote:

    “[Scientology] is mostly a running stream of consciousness record of assigning reasons why the promises in the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health were never realized and how they might yet be.”


    Now that is an accurate description of Dianetics and Scientology!

    He held out one carrot after another. And it worked!

    And if there were individuals who wisened up, then they were declared PTS or SP and quarantined from the other paying scientologists. And if they wouldn’t shut up and go away, they were shuddered permanently into silence with Fair Game.

    The quest for “Standard Tech” in Scientology is like a dog riding a merry-go-round, chasing his tail while on a hamster wheel.

    A great parallel study to this is the endless debate about a lack of “pure communism” as being the reason for the failure of every communist country that has ever tried to apply Karl Marx’s writings to the real world.

    The reason every communist gives for the failures of communism is because the communism applied by the Soviet Union or East Germany (or pick any other poverty-stricken communist country) was not true communism. The application wasn’t a standard marxist application! And all you have to do to explain away any colossal failure is to find the smallest little deviation – and BOOM! there you go! SQUIRREL COMMUNISTS!! That will always be the “why”.

    These communist ideologues will argue endlessly and excuse, justify, and look away from the failures of communism by seeking out and finding “squirrel” communist applications and NEVER SEE that communism just does not work to produce the society that Marx said would be created if you applied his economic and political “technology”.

    This is a very similar phenomenon.

    And when you understand it in communism, you can clearly see it in Scientology.

    Hubbard laid the instant attack trap for Scientologists in KSW:

    “All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That Process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty.

    Here you can find that the auditor did not write the date of the session on his worksheets. Or he didn’t have standard hand cream. BAM! SQUIRREL SESSION!!! You hold up the squirreling for everyone to see. Now everyone sees the squirreling and “retains their certainty” that standard Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied.

    Few Scientologists ever catch on to this because every Scientologist is on this merry-go-round hamster wheel configuration that the dog is chasing his tail on.

    It’s when you finally realize that there is no standard tech to be chasing that you finally exit this fantasy quest.

    And man, it is such a relief!

    Great post, Marty.


  28. I don’t know about anyone else, but I sure got several good belly laughs out of this post… I don’t exactly know why, but reading things like, “about the closest thing scientologists are going to find to that original L. Ron Hubbard package is David Miscavige.” just got me laughing…maybe because is it so ironic? Or because it is so true.. in any case I feel a lot better because of it…I am still smiling and I have a new perspective….. Thanks again Marty. I would like to say you are courageous, but I think you are just being your observant self.

  29. PS: I have taken a lot of wrath in all the years I have been pounding the ridiculousness of the idea of “standard bridge”, but I knew all along that it was only the devil’s dogs barking from the ditch.

    For every person who comes along with a new idea to improve things for the future, there is a thousand to guard the past.

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein.

    Hubbards words ( his so called bridge) should only be preserved for research purposes.

    From the list of virtues from the Oahspe, paraphrased and expanded.:

    10. The tenth virtue is Observance, Evaluation and Absorption. 
    With Observance (to observe) Evaluation (to evaluate) and Absorption (to absorb) a person recognizes and accepteth from the ancients such things as wisdom, knowledge and understanding, which has taken thousands of years to learn, through experience, that which has proven to be good for society. 
    Without Observance, Evaluation and Absorption, a person beginneth back even with the ancients, and thus casteth aside his profit in the world. 

    Such lessons are recorded in all the various religious and holy books of all religions, philosophies, and spiritual teachings of all the past. 

    Impartially read them and evaluate all of them, and hold fast on to that which is good. Chuck the rest up to experience.

    Do not seek for things to believe, but seek and study to KNOW the truth in all things.  For a belief is not a truth. 
    A belief is that which a person reverts to in the absence of facts. 

    It is a confession of ignorance.  It is a function of the intellectually inept, or unevolved. 

    Seek to KNOW something with certainty to gain confidence in your knowledge.  Seek to find that which is good and true. 
    To determine that which is good or true, scrutinize and evaluate and test each and every datum and experience you have. 
    Learn to do objective and critical thinking.
    Develop good reasoning abilities.
    Be the voice of reason and logic. Reason is the science of logic.
    Evaluate and test to determine whether the said datum, provides useful knowledge, wisdom or understanding, to help understand your life better, and whether it is good to make society better for all.  Is it sustainable?

    This is the new religion for the new millennium. 

    He who has only read one book, tends to be dangerous.

    Impartially study all religions, spiritual teachings and philosophies.

    Any datum only becomes meaningful, when it is compared to another datum of comparable magnitude, and increasingly meaningful when it is compared to more data of comparable magnitude. 
    The more points of view you evaluate, the greater your understanding will be.
    Such practice, provides balance,  prevents fanaticism and zealousness. Always maintain an open mind.  See and understand all points of view. Function in such a manner to determine the most superior computation or most optimum solution in everything.

    The Holy man says the Holy is Truth, and the Truth seeker, says the Truth is Holy. (Unknown)

    Your critics are often, or can be your best teachers. Evaluate their criticism. If it is true, make the correction. If it is not true, let it go.
    Not all criticisms are valid, some are.


  30. Elizabeth Hamre

    How many times Scientology has been altered? as many times as it has been read, and that happens because each individual who has read and studied that material have interpreted accordingly what is his /her reality: how they believed it meant, what they read into it.

    • You speak sooth. How’s the raiding and pillaging going, out there on the steppes? 🙂 And how is the garden of gnomes and fairies? It’s been unseasonably cool here in Michigan, but we’ve had plenty of rain so the greenery is lush. 🙂

      • Elizabeth Hamre

        Hello you d pirate ! truth can only be recognised by those who know it 🙂 killing is good, real good, last night some blood suckers invaded my territory and pronto got punished and that punishment was death! [mosquitoes] hehehe. Riding is good [Grand Marquis] smooth as the hair on my best hoses back! But I miss the stars, Elliott my dear I real miss the steppes,[ only those who love so deeply and completely could understand such.![ and you do] We had 2 weeks of unusual heat burned everything now it is cloudy and humid.. we drink the air and it still summer but feels very much like fall.
        The gang in the garden just doing fine and garden is the Universe! 🙂

      • Elizabeth Hamre

        Valkov…I want you to feel sorry for me, just think how low I have slide, Attila the Hun is killing mosquitos? ugggggh!

        • I am sorry! I bet some of them bite you before you get them, too. Then the bites itch. It’s tragic!

          • Elizabeth Hamre

            you right on that, after funeral all relatives came by and conducted sneaky attack in the dark while I was a sleep, let me tell you, I am not a good loser.. Attila will have revenge!

    • Excellent observation, Elizabeth.

      • Elizabeth Hamre

        Maurice, thanks my friend, what can I say auditing works! When all the guessing, thinking is erased than knowing is just there: I think Vinaire uses a good word , when” filters” are removed… hehehe 🙂 🙂 🙂 lova ya!

  31. I want to say one more thing, there is no crime in making mistakes.

    Because everything man has ever learned was through making mistakes, disasters and the spilling of blood.

    But there is a crime in not being willing to learn from them.

    We learn more from making mistakes than successes.

    The key to learning from mistakes and turning the mistake into a miracle is ( not bitching and complaining) but to have thr ight attitude and be thankful for the experience and asking the empty space in front of you, what can you learn from this? Where is the silver lining? How can I turn this lemon into lemonade?


    • Dio : “I want to say one more thing, there is no crime in making mistakes.”

      Thank you for that Dio!

      According to Hubbard, People that make mistakes are “P.T.S.”. And that is a real stigma that could lead to a lot of expense and even severe punishment.

      Maybe that is why people can not own the mistakes they have made believing David Miscavige, or Hubbard. It is taboo to make a mistake so naturally they would want to disown it. The mistakes Hubbard made are suppressed by all except Miscavige, who has profited continuously by convincing people he is responsible for correcting Hubbard’s mistakes.

      Which brings me around to something else, why is it such taboo to be a trouble source or a potential trouble source? Hubbard was a potential trouble source to a lot of people. An actual trouble source to a lot of people. You don’t think David Miscavige made himself a potential trouble source to the I.R.S.? That man has been a trouble source to the entire Scientology community, unashamedly.

      Yet everyone else tip toes, eye rolls, never stirs the pot and says. “Who Me, never.”

      Why do you think nobody every slapped him down? They didn’t want to be a “source of trouble”.

      Look at the heat Marty took out here just by speaking up and speaking the truth! It was as if he had a search warrant and was walking into a shooting gallery.

      Every time Marty pulled some evidence out from under the mattress, David hid under his desk or behind someone’s X wife and speed dialed Monique Yingling or whatever her name is.

      You are right. There is no crime in making mistakes. And there is no crime in making trouble. The Rolling Stones make trouble every time they hold a concert. Malcolm X made trouble. Martin Luther King made trouble. Abe Lincoln made plenty of trouble. The Sea Org makes plenty of trouble. They deny all of their mistakes. Sending all of those people to do OT8 and then calling them and telling them they have to go back onto OT seven? The Mission Massacre. The flaps at the Flag Land Base and all of the law suits.
      Lying on national television and perjuring themselves in court.

      It is the only place I know of where you can be crucified for even being ” a potential” trouble source!

      This keeps every one in tow. The biggest taboo in the Church is “causing trouble”. That right is only granted to the leader, the Sea Org, OSA and CCHR. In fact, it is their job to cause trouble.

      Freedom is a two edged sword that swings both ways.

      If you are given a sword that only cuts one way, and forbidden to lift your hand up, you really have not been armed. You have actually been disarmed.

      • T.O.

        Well that is not what I meant.

        Like everything else, there is a right way to make mistakes and a wrong way to make mistakes. Or rather stupid mistakes and non stupid mistakes. There is normal mistakes that the average person with a half a brain makes, and mistakes that stupid people make.

        It is like people in a company, or business, there are mistakes most people understand and accept as ok or normal or justified. But there are stupid people who make stupid mistakes or make mistakes because they are mentally screwed up. That is what is meant by PTS.

        So if you have a person in your company that makes too many mistakes and makes stupid mistakes, then you have to fire him or her, for incompetence, or lacking in average “common sense” and “average competence” and “average intelligence”.

        It is relative and I suppose subjective.


        Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by (“common to”) nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

        • Maybe this is just the point Marty is making when he suggests there is no such thing as standard tech. Sometimes mistakes are natural to make. A baby taking his first steps, someone learning to drive, someone trying out a new recipe. Sometimes mistakes are a result of ptsness. Yet you see the policy clear as day, mistakes = ptsness. No, mistakes do not always = ptsness. Yes, mistakes do = ptsness because Hubbard said so. You see, you really can go in either direction with this.

  32. At this point, I have not read any comments above, Marty, because this essay is a:

    mag·num o·pus
    ˈmagnəm ˈōpəs/
    noun: magnum opus; plural noun: magnum opuses; plural noun: magna opera

    a large and important work of art, music, or literature, especially one regarded as the most important work of an artist or writer

    Yes, this is the most relevant and poignant piece to date .

    To add anything to this is dribble.


  33. Grasshopper (Mark P)


    • Do you actually continue to defend some kind of KSW, RAWN IS GAWD, status quo?


      • Grasshopper (Mark P)

        Paragraph 1 is mostly correct. The rest is bullshit. And it’s long.

        I will say that neither me nor my trained friends ever considered Ron infallible. Or that Ron was God, for that matter.

    • I don’t do Passive – Aggression very well. Nope..Not at all.

  34. Another Thought

    I never trained as high or went as far on the “Bridge” as above Class 5 or OT levels, but I can say I spotted many similar items. The whole route was evolving and changing constantly – like a slippery surface and lots of subjectivity to what exactly was standard. And having been at the mecca, even among all of that – subjective, subjective, subjective.

    One thing that always seemed to stick with me was the fact I always felt I was missing something in any bulletin or book I had read, which would lead me to look as best as possible to the history up to that point, e.g. what technical “breakthrough” came before.

    It got even more interesting with the advent of the “basics”.

    On some level, I have to thank DM for enforcing the sequential study of the materials, because in doing so, I really started coming to realize that it really was a lot of trial and error, and a lot of “hooking” the reader into more, and really a lot of hooey, and one didn’t really get anywhere after all that in any case. Certainly it helps to have that experience when reading this blog, to me anyway. I am sure a lot of others probably felt or feel the same way. To that degree, he led me out to stay.

    Probably the funniest thing I can think of now since decompressing was how I’d thought that I still had a “duty to Ron” or even felt I owed anything to him, and how much that absorbed many of my early thoughts since leaving. I know this was taken up in some earlier posts, but seems to me that if one could let go of that indoctrination more rapidly, that decompressing would go quite faster. Hell, “Madman/Messiah” and “Barefaced…” are quite a public service in that regard.

  35. Great post…..a shining silver bullet into the heart of that confining creepy concept known as Standard Tech. Good riddance and here’s to moving on.

  36. singanddanceall

    slam dunk, Marty.

    Hubbard used “appeal to authority” in KSW

    when in the beginning, Dianetics, he did not,

    but he did appeal to emotions and logic (sort of, he convinced us). LOL

    I’m looking forward to your future posts.

    I am glad you are out of the scientology allegory of the cave, what a journey, thats for sure.

    I wish you and Monigue and da kid the best.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’ll quote Hubbard from his 1974 version of Dianetics:

    “The past acts of an individual who has been cleared should be stricken from his record even as his illness have been , for with the cause removed there can be no retribution unless society itself is so aberrated that it desires to operate on sadistic principles”

    page 302.

    Funny, how Hubbard used that in the opposite fashion ie: fair game, PTS/SP tech.

  37. And yet somehow, the Clearing Course is still the Clearing Course.

  38. Marty,
    I love this post, very funny.
    I’m going to bed laughing my ass off!

    • About scientology today vs. scientology in say, 1965 or 1970. It is undeniable to me that the people I met back then were not doing the same thing, not practicing the same methods and getting the same results, that today’s CoS scientologists are doing. I think it’s not much of a stretch to say either one or the other is not or was not practicing what I understood then to be “scientology”. Having no contact with orgs for 20 years or so, I had assumed they were still practicing the same way. Then I started reading these blogs and sites and found out there was little or no resemblance between scientology 1970 and scientology 2010. So in my mind, one of them is not scientology at all anymore, guess which one? The first 2 guesses don’t count The word ‘scientology’ to me connotes what I experienced in the 1970s, not what I would experience today, in terms of the product and service I would receive. So I do understand why people complain about Miscavige, or point to him as a cause of the decline. After all, it went downhill fast on his watch, and he bulled his way into the top position as I understand it. It was a rather shocking discovery to me, what the CoS had come to over its 30-40 years of existence, since 1982. It is still a mystery of LRH’s psyche, why he liked the guy at all. He was at best, one of LRH’s pitbulls who went rogue. “Young Turk” is too good for him. I can only assume that LRH was losing it after 1978, when I personally think he had a stroke or some such medical event that changed him.

      • “I can only assume that LRH was losing it after 1978, when I personally think he had a stroke or some such medical event that changed him.”

        On Marty’s thread “Back to the Middle” a youtube interview of Peter Moon was posted, in which Peter stated that LRH had a near-death experience in 1978. He also gave a pretty favorable description of LRH based on his experience working in LRH’s “Personal Office” on the ship, and “having seen his internal discussions and memos,” he said that “LRH was very convinced that he was trying to help people…and he WAS helping people…” Then he went on to say that he felt the near-death experience may have been what “led to a degenerative situation.” He said after that, LRH wasn’t quite with it all the time.

      • Val, some related accoounts on auditing and the tech amd this thread:

        Auditing on NOTS 27.10.2013 – as an Indie:

        On the mental, spiritual level, apart from the many wins I have had recently, as a spirit – this is important – I realize that I am becoming more and more tolerant, relaxed, less argumentative, less “needing to be right”. These are important things and I am proud of them. And I need these kind of wins. For years I have not been tolerant enough, too argument happy, and over needing to be right. The reasons for these shifts:
        * This wonderful auditing: which peels more and more layers and phobias and nonsense and other vegetables, which do not belong to me, but which I bought and even paid for…
        * The fact that I feel good, more and more: this automatically gives more space to those around me, and makes me truly wishing them well too.
        * The work as an Indie: This is a very very important element, especially for me, on the whole subject of patience and tolerance and accepting others no matter what. This was a problematic area in the CoS and its way, also under part of Ron’s Policy to which I object, namely, that we know it all and others are Zero. Doesn’t work. And wonder of wonders, suddenly people are listening to me more and more, and respect and appreciate much more. Because I explain mainly by Being, and setting example and granting beingness…and I am not a foreign body in any group of people but a part of it. So much Funnnnn too! Reminds me of the saying: “Endless patience, brings immediate results…”
        Deep Thanks to my auditor (Tami, Dror Center) and the incredible team work we do, the like of which I have never encountered before. To my charming C/S too – thank you both for working exclusively for ME, I understand this and I am deeply touched. and thanks to all this Indie group which creates this atmosphere of truth and freedom. Cheers to you all.

        And if, quoting Geir, this is subjective account, and so a “dicey” evidence, not to be taken seriously, here’s another one:

        Tami Lemberger, auditor
        Aug. 6th 2014

        In life a person have to find himself a good teacher, a good doctor and a good auditor.
        Since 1978 I’ve had tons of auditing from quite a few auditors in class V Orgs, AO’s, SH and in the field. Some auditing was good, some bad, some so-so.
        The auditing I received from Tami Lemberger is the finest I’ve ever received, by a long shot.
        While in the Church, my stable datum was that even the best auditing required frequent correction lists to smooth out glitches and errors. Correction lists were an inseparable part of all my auditing.
        But with Tami there is no such thing. Every session ends with a dial-wide F/N or a Floating T/A. I never needed a correction list.
        Tami’s TR’s are natural and flowing, never robotic. Her ARC is so warm and boundless, it easily dissolves any ridge. Her application of Standard Tech is flawless and effortless. The sessions are short – never more than an hour, often much shorter. And yours truly floats out of the room with VVVVVGI’s every time.
        The only problem is that too often, persistent F/N prevents me from receiving further auditing for days.
        No wonder that while in the Church, Tami received the planet-wide “Auditor of the Year” Golden Lion award not once, but twice.
        And now, out of the Church, in the independent field, she continues her tradition of excellence of 100% standard original LRH Tech with her PCs.
        Tami, Ron would be proud of you!

        Motti Morell

        Well these are Indie Scientologists, which according to your current thinking, Marty, are not to be trusted much more than the CoS ones. (I am sorry you feel so), so here’s another one:

        Before I take up particulars of the Op Ed, I want to establish a foundation.
        First, I believe that L Ron Hubbard developed a workable spiritual-based psychotherapy that when applied as prescribed – according to its axioms and fundamental laws – routinely produces a well and happy, self-determined, unrepressed being. Since leaving the church of Scientology I have applied that exact path to three individuals – from knowing little to nothing of Hubbard or Scientology to the state of Clear (quite in addition to hundreds of hours of auditing at all levels of the Bridge). Doing so outside structured, policy-controlled Scientology is far less complicated. There is little need for listing and nulling, extensive correction lists and the like because there is none of the sundry evaluation (under the justification of ‘ethics’, ‘pts/sp handling’, ‘justice’, or other organizational concerns) that inevitably enters when the process is complicated by later policies, and even tech, that stray from and contradict the laws and axioms which make auditing, and the Bridge, work. I have objective and subjective reality on the workability of Hubbard’s technology.

        Posted on January 26, 2013 by martyrathbun09

        Criticism is important, no decent life without it on this planet. By the way Ron thought so too. But IMHO, it should be connected to and closely followed by positive alternative. Or a hint of it.
        Marty. you are changing your mind, extremely sometimes. Ron did too, whether admits it always or not. I do too. Even Alanzo does every blue moon (Sorry, slipped here). Can’t we all practice a little more compassion and follow the middle path, just a little bit more?
        Rather than curse the darkness, light a candle.

        • Thank you Hemi.
          We needed a little fresh air.

        • One really needs to look at what works in auditing.

          It is looking at one’s case with mindfulness that works in auditing.

        • You’ve added nothing to the post (s). They note scientologists argue nothing but subjectivity as if it is objective evidence. Add to it the arrogance of wielding that sleight of hand to argue the author ought to be more objective (“follow the middle path”), and you’ve got yourself the typical scientologist. I feel for ya. As I have said before when you begin to see the bars, I’ll likely be here for you.

          • Marty,
            You are right. The wavelength I tried to transmit in this case was ‘letting go’ not piling on. Well observed.
            As to the author and friend, (you), I only requested humbly, not ‘oughted’ you, as it is not my way nowadays. And I stand by my request, which did not use “objective”, but “the middle path” – a term which more and more sets itself in my heart in much of my dealings with the world.
            As to the typicality stated, the win from Nots above, and many others that I gained, mark me more as a Buddhist, don’t you think? How embarassing for a Scientologist…Well, I am neither, I suppose. Just trying to be Me.
            Heavy labaeling tends to distance from essence.
            It feels that many aspects of your attitude resemble those of a scientologist in its strong labelling, judgments, and dislike for criticism.
            Here I go, doing the same…Sorry. But pleaes note, you labelled me “the typical scientologist”. You know I am not! Not any more. You were there when the big change occured, and helped! So, no need to label. Disagreeing is good enough…
            As to your kind offer for future being there for me, I thank you for it. I do. And I will, if I’ll feel like. Your record on help is remarkable! But right now I am doing well and going forward, growing, and it should be accepted.
            Thanks, Hemi

            • You are mocking up disagreement. I simply noted your commentary fit perfectly within the explanations of scientological behavior from the past several posts.

              • Ok, thanks for clarification, I get it.
                I have much more to say, and a few “meaty” questions for you, but very little time these days. And probably the blog is not suitable for everything.
                Will find a way, some day.
                When are you due next in Tel Aviv?

                • Fire all the meat you desire. In the several posts you have read you have not commented on a single thing though, beyond my not affording your subjective information objective fact status. Tel Aviv? I don’t think that is ever likely.

            • Hemi, I think you are absolutely right that “middle path” does not equal “objective.” I have read and understand it as between the extremes of subjective and objective idealism. So you are not the “typical scientologist.”

              • Hi Maril,
                You can say that. Another (short) way to describe it for me is: Wait for the mud to sink to the bottom, and the water clear again before you conclude/act irreversibly. And consider that some kinds of mud can take longer than a minute or an hour, to sink. A year may be…or more.
                And that hardly anybody IS “the mud” – rather the crystal clear water.

              • Really. Now that’s funny.. I see it as between Radical Scientologists and those that recognize the Con from thoroughly educating their selves.

                I have NEVER hated the players..I have only hated the Game!

        • Hemi says.. “Marty. you are changing your mind, extremely sometimes. Ron did too, whether admits it always or not. ”
          ” Rather than curse the darkness, light a candle.”
          Hemi.. I can see Marty’s candle from here. He went through the darkness into the light. He needs to be congratulated! Others went before him and others will follow.

  39. As far as LRH making himself right while making about everybody else wrong, for me it is real as evidenced by the phrases like”We are the only ones that can do something to save mankind”- in other words, humans are in bad shape and there is only me as Source to save them. Or, ‘the Sea Org is formed by the finest beings, many are called few are chosen”- implying others are not worthy unless…. and so on.

    Bit also bass the component mentioned on the Sociopath Next Door- when you see excessive flattery this may come from the sociopath and you can find it on “the auditor is the more valuable being”, ‘Scientologists are above humanoids” – flatter the followers while invalidating the rest.

    In regards to those who make a living by trying to convince others, are profiting by playing on misplaced hopes. For me this has been a hard decision to make but I have come to realize that ‘standardly’ auditing others just perpetuates the lies behind the subject and just presents a feeling of personal dishonesty mostly because it takes away from the other person the right to look and find for himself what he wants and how to go about it.

    I could say more, but I will end by acknowledging again one of the many values of your postings: it does make one look, think and then choose.

  40. midget drops dead… now what?

  41. I went down a completely different path and came up with pretty much the same conclusions 🙂 Happy days as they like to say over here.

  42. I get the impression that there is a common belief amongst scientologists that they are indeed working to literally save the universe. We tend to be self-sacrificing as a species, and this strikes me as both noble and exploitable — to great potential damage.

    Where’s the fire?

  43. Marty, your post is awesome! The comments are interesting and exciting to read. Thank you very much.

  44. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Very simple at the end when on looks back:

    Life is basicly a static (nothingness) and everything is just your consideration of it.

    So first you learn that you’re nothing and it’s all your fault (consideration) but then you’re a thetan which is a static basicly or perhaps not and you have a bank that’s producing all your considerations of the past, but you just can change your consideration and be Ot (SO) or you need to get rid of your considerations… or and or…, and it never stops…and you’ll never get it but as soon you do OT XV everything will make sense….

    But in Fact life is not a nothingness it is everything and LIFE is HUGE and a lot of things.

    The purpose of Scientology is to get rid of everything attached to you as a personality and what will be left at the end ? NOTHING.; identity no considerations just nothing. No thank you !

    • The concept of Static in Scientology is derived from the SOMETHING – NOTHING dichotomy. Beginning starts with the manifestation of something. A “something” can be the flimsiest of thought or the heaviest of heavenly body. It can be any manifestation whatsoever. NOTHING is “absence of manifestation.” Static introduces some speculation on what NOTHING is.

      However, I prefer the dichotomy of AWARENESS – NO AWARENESS because it is more basic. Awareness is needed before one can know that something is there. In my view beginning starts with the manifestation of awareness. Awareness could be the awareness of beingness as Static, or the awareness of the whole universe. NO AWARENESS is “absence of awareness”. It would provide boundary to the universe we are aware of.

      The whole idea of “absence of awareness” is to provide a reference point from which to measure awareness.

    • Elizabeth Hamre

      we always have what we believe in and that is our ”life”.. life is that huge lot of things which one believes in.. but where are those beliefs you have had when you were a childe, or when a teenager, on your first vacation?.. those thought are all gone and the one you have this moment while reading this post is your awareness now in this moment and that will be replaced by the thoughts you have about what you have read and that is your awareness and that is what we all have that moment when we are aware of something.
      When you ”think of the past or the future again that is your awareness in that moment there is nothing more.

      • Roger From Switzerland Thought

        Thanks for your comments.
        Just had a revealing experience;, as a kid I used to have a loss at any summer summerhollidays as all my friends went into vacation at the sea and i never went there. I used to dream about it in beautiful colours and had this big wish to enjoy some vacations at the mediterran sea.

        As a Scientologist I just inavlidated and supressed those wishes and was very cool to myself meaning I had seen so many seas in all my lifes and it didn’t help and I was 100% certain I don’t need vacations or the sea as I’d billions of years of vacations.

        What a fool I was.

        I took 2 weeks of vacation with our grandchildren at the mediterran Sea. When I saw how the kids were fully enjoying it and were happy the
        whole day and never wanted to go to bed I realized what I have missed. I had tears in my eyes and enjoyed any moment to the fullest . It was so beautiful and I’d huge wins on it.

        What I learned is that it is of no importance to me if life is static, an awareness or whatever words or technical explanations there are for it. What I learned is life is beautiful !

        • All this endless talk about Statics, Mindfulness, etc, etc. In the end it is just that; talk.
          What I learned is life is beautiful ! – this is something real.

          Thank you for writing this, Roger.

  45. Fantastic blog post and replies. This is real communication. People expressing themselves freely without fear, maybe we should have a new defintion, the ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject without any fear of anything. Spare a thought for those poor bastards still caught in the trap.

  46. Today, no long-winded response, adding wisdom to your blog.
    I am simply in awe.

  47. Marty makes the following points in his first paragraph:

    (1) Continual revisions and repackaging is built into the nature of Scientology.
    (2) There is no such thing as Standard Technology.
    (3) Standard Technology is just a subjective consideration.

    I would say that there is a standard framework of a Grade Chart that Scientologists follow. This framework segregates processes by Grades. It assigns sequence to those grades.

    Another standard aspect that was communicated to me at the Cambridge mission, where I started in 1969, was that I must keep in my TR0 during the auditing session. This was a great help. For me, it was like being mindful (seeing things as they are). This produced great results in my initial auditing on Dianetics.

    Later I observed the critical and beneficial use of mindfulness in Idenics. So, this mindfulness became the fundamental basis of KHTK, Unfortunately, I did not see this aspect emphasized by LRH. I was lucky to have been told at the mission right in the beginning to use TR0 in auditing sessions (or, at least, I understood it that way). I did that throughout my auditing with great benefit.

    I found little use for the e-meter in my auditing when I was using mindfulness. Auditor, who was going by the e-meter made enough errors in acting by the reads that I relied more on mindfulness. If there was a flash response to a question in my mind I followed it up, otherwise, I told the auditor that nothing came up. This led to a lot of grinding, after some initial fantastic gains on Dianetics. I must have been complete on Dianetics long before the C/S realized. So, I wasn’t very impressed with the C/Sing and the use of e-meter.

    So, yes, even when there is a standard framework of Grade Chart, the nitty-gritty of auditing is very much in disarray in Scientology. In general, the fundamentals of “looking” or mindfulness are not in place. So all kind of revisions keep on getting introduced.

  48. There are false fundamentals in L Ron Hubbard’s standard Scientology which make it fail as a viable system of therapy for the overwhelming majority of people.

    For instance, not all mental ills and aberrations are handled by going “earlier similar”. Hubbard’s idea that all of man’s ills are from mental image pictures stored in the mind in “chains”, and that by going earlier/similar on this time track and getting to the basic on the chain, the aberration blows – is false.

    Addictions, OCDs, hyper-active disorders, schizophrenia, depressions – all these things do not respond to this type of mental treatment, and some are worsened by it – especially if you have some KSW fanatic hammering it home on a person over and over because Ron said “what turns it on will turn it off” or some other bumper sticker slogan that blinds the fanatic from seeing that what he is doing is not working, but making the person worse.

    Jeremy Perkins, Lisa McPherson, Kyle Brennan are just prominent recent examples of the disasters of standard Scientology. There are many more disasters which are not as widely known, or which have fallen away from memory because they happened too long ago.

    Standard Scientology’s history of results is strewn with these disasters.

    When you take every person who has ever been audited by any Dn or Scn process, and analyze the group for whom Scientology worked, you will find that – when compared to everyone who received auditing – it is a tiny minority of people.

    And even for those on whom standard Scientology worked, it only worked some of the time – usually in the first few sessions. And much of that population has continued to “chase the dragon” of those first wins ever since – never noticing that Scientology stopped working for them long ago.

    In order to correctly evaluate the results of Standard Scientology, you have to take the totality of everyone who has ever gotten auditing, and then you must count the misses (those for whom Scientology did NOT work) right along with the hits.

    When you finally allow yourself to do this, you will find that standard Scientology is mostly a failure, and in too many cases, absolutely disastrous.

    Never forget to count the misses, as well as the hits.


    • Al, although I think you have posted some useful concepts here, this kind of thing – “….you have to take the totality of everyone who has ever gotten auditing,……” is, well, “idealistic” to say the least. (Aren’t you proud of me? I stopped myself short of saying it is “Off the wall in Never-never Land….”)

      If you were an Omniscient Arhat or a perfected OT ad infinitum, perhaps then you could somehow have knowledge of the results attained or not by “every person who ever received auditing”,but as a finite person working in the real world, I think the best you can do is probably keep track of the people you audited and what kind of results they achieved, and compare notes with other auditors and add their results into your overall assessment.
      I would find your assignment as given a bit overwhelming. But if you feel up to collating the results obtained by “every person ever audited”, I say GO For It! Perhaps talk it over with your therapist first though.

      • Nevertheless, this “assignment” is the one that is overtaken with every new therapy before it is accepted in mainstream medicine. That is how we discard what does not work and keep what works.

        It is far from impossible. The only thing it requires is accurate book keeping.

        I wonder why every single proponent of alternative therapies always protests that this is too difficult for them, or that they have “no time” for this when it is truly vital information to know whether something works and therefore if it is pertinent to continue to offer it.

        • I’m sorry, but that is so not true. There are virtually no psychotherapies that are scientifically validated to work. And read Al’s statement again – there is no way that, for example, psychiatry could accomplish th etask. how in th eworld would they track down EVERYONE who ever had psychiatric therapy? Many of those people are dead of old age by now as well as other causes. Some of their their psychiatrists are too, Others would not be able to be located. It would be like asking for a all-inclusive study of everyone who ever did Buddhist meditation, going back 2,500 years. How in the world would that data be collected? It’s an absurd idea.

          • Valkov wrote:

            “It would be like asking for a all-inclusive study of everyone who ever did Buddhist meditation, going back 2,500 years. How in the world would that data be collected? It’s an absurd idea.”

            All right, Valkov.

            So you take the most extreme and unreal example you can possibly think of, and say “It’s an absurd idea”.

            Are you saying that the idea of counting the misses, as well as the hits, is an absurd idea?

            Or just studying everyone who has ever meditated for the last 2500 years to see if meditation works is an absurd idea?

            Your all or nothing defeatism here is shining through. Maybe your application of “Personal Integrity” here is actually just your colossal confirmation bias.


            It is as if you are saying: “Even though Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied, you can’t ever really know what percentage of time standard Scientology actually works because you can’t study everyone who has ever gotten auditing. So, Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied!”

            Or are you saying that: “There is a valid middle ground here where it is possible to use better reasoning skills in seeing the actual effectiveness of Scn by making sure to count the misses, and not just the hits.”?

            One statement would be from Valkov: The Scientologist.

            And the other one would be from Valkov: The Critical Thinker Who Always Seeks to Live With the Truth.

            Which are you today, V?


            • That is so straw man it isn’t funny! Simply becaus eI have never claimed that “scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied”. In 4 years of posting, I have never claimed that, yet you keep misrepresenting what I have been saying, inspite of my obvious posts to the contrary. You, sit, are a devout and thorough LIAR. And if you lie about my position and beliefs, what else migh tyou be LYING about?

              • LOL!

                Oh belly laugh!

                Valkov you have to be one of the funniest people I have ever conversed with on the Internet.

                Did I misrepresent your argument that standard tech can only be applied by a certain type of Class 8?

                Only a well trained Class 8?

                Did I get all your weasel words right?


                • The argument “standard tech can only be applied by a certain type of Class 8 – only a well trained Class 8″ contains weasel words that also help to move the goal posts.

                  The weasel words “well trained” are there so that if we find a disaster such as Lisa McPherson or Kyle Brennan or a Jeremy Perkins as coming from a Class 8, then we can say that well, obviously they weren’t a well trained Class 8!

                  Mercurial reasoning
                  Being fabien
                  Constantly moving the goal posts

                  It’s part and parcel of the “Being a Scientologist” Survival Kit!


                  • Well I’m read the posts and links about those about those, and it’s obvious you are not telling the whole story.

                    • Those? RIP all who have died at the hands of Scientology. There is valuable information out there about these people who fell for this evil cult’s trap.

                      You are a Hubbard apologist ..It is 2014 and the internet is here with eye witnesses and facts.

                      How many have had psychotic breaks because of the mind controlling Tech? Wake up Val. It is time to face facts.

                • It is no use, Alanzo. I have tried. He has no way out but OT LXVII.

                • No, it can only be delivered by a poorly trained Class VIII .
                  Isn’t that how it is in life? The best products and services can only be delivered by the most poorly trained people….. everybody knows that!

            • And YES of course the misses need to be counted right along with the hits, but yOU are th eone who postd the ansurd extreme formula of “counting ALL the outcomes of EVERYONE who has ever been audited”, as though you or any other human being or research organization is actually capable of doing that! Do I need to go back and find your quote? You posted just yesterday!

            • Here Al, here is what you posted above, and even ‘bolded’ it:
              “In order to correctly evaluate the results of Standard Scientology, you have to take the totality of everyone who has ever gotten auditing, and then you must count the misses (those for whom Scientology did NOT work) right along with the hits.”
              This is like shouting that none of us will ever be able to correctly evaluate the results of scientology, because it is obviously impossible to “take the totality of evryone who has ever gotten auditing”. Many are GONE. They are dead, or dispersed, out of contact, no record of them in the first place, or whatever.
              So when you state your conclusions with such certainty as you are wont to do, it’s a pretense at worst, or speculation at best. “Take th etotality”, indeed! Come on, get real!

            • Alanzo, forgive Valkov for he does not know statistics.


          • I work every day with such data, so some people do seem to know how to collect it. Things like the SEER database for instance collect data on a huge number of cancer cases since the 1970s, according to localisation, staging, treatment, survival, age of patients, ect. That those people or their physicians are dead, and that cancer was known by the ancient egyptians is irrelevant if you take proper care in gathering data and in choosing your sample.

            But you don’t even need those ressources to start gathering statistics (the actual mathematical thing, not the Hubbardese). You just need a suitable sample – unbiased, with big enough numbers. And the test which Alanzo proposed is extremely simple : do people come back or not ? It’s just a matter of counting visits per person in a chosen sample, which should be noted somewhere. Your contention that you need to know where every person ends up since the beginning of time is a big fat strawman.

            Nervertheless, alt med proponents always find excuses not to do this very simple thing, and to forego patient follow-up – because what it might show is that their “therapy” does not work.

            • Kemist wrote:

              “You just need a suitable sample – unbiased, with big enough numbers. And the test which Alanzo proposed is extremely simple : do people come back or not ? It’s just a matter of counting visits per person in a chosen sample, which should be noted somewhere.

              What Valkov is not telling you, Kemist, is that every mission and org on the planet already have this data.

              Every week since the mid1960’s Scientologists on staff have kept track of statistics such as “First Service Starts”, which counts when a brand new person starts on any service. And then they also keep track of re-signs, which counts how many of those First Services Starts buys a 2nd and 3rd and 4rth course.

              These statistics have been kept in every Scn organization in the world and reported up to International management every single week, who then compiles these statistics for the whole world – every single week.

              And they retain those stats is a huge database.

              The information is all most definitely there, Kemist, as Valkov knows.

              But he leaves all this out when he argues with you.

              As any good and loyal Scientologist will.


              • So, Valkov is not being mindful when discussing. His input to the discussion is very slanted.

              • I never worked in an org or mission so I can’t speak to that. MY impression is that scientology’s own stats have often been falsified and th e results skewed to look favorable to upper management.
                That aside, I have just posted my view that simply counting how many people come back and how long they stay is a false standard. It’s really irrelevant. It’s irrelevant for the study of any psychotherapy. Scientific studies could be designed to measure meaningful results, that are more controlled. I have also posted about this.
                Al ignores this because it is also true that Al is a headful of conclusions in search of ‘evidence’ and justification, always looking to confirm his biases. And always looking for opportunities to promote his opinions.

                • Valkov wrote:

                  I never worked in an org or mission so I can’t speak to that. MY impression is that scientology’s own stats have often been falsified and the results skewed to look favorable to upper management.”

                  There is a whole lot that you actually can’t speak to about LRH, Dianetics and Scientology, Valkov, because you actually know so little about it – but you always open your mouth speak to it, anyway.

                  Marty has asked you before: Why would you think that it is ethical for you to promote and defend something, and attack people, on a subject that you know so little about?

                  Boggles the mind.


                  • Is that what Marty was asking me?
                    What I write about scientology is based on 1. My own direct experinece, slight as it may seem to you, 2. myreading of the materials and my listening to lectures by Hubbard, 3. other people’s reports as on this blog, ESMB, Video Interviews, Tony’s site, Mike’s blog, Milestone Two, Pierre’s site, Sylvia’s blog etc etc as wel as some of thebooks like “Blown for Good”. Geir’s sites (obviously these include your volumnious posts, as on Geir’s forum when you avowed your goal was to “outcreate” other posters by having he largest post count, particularly those who had anything positive to say about Scientology)
                    I have not been through the “scientology tunnel”, I am looking at the front end of it, but I am interested in learning what I can about it. That includes reading /listening to LRH materials directly and forming my own opinions about it. I am also interested in the history of LRH, the Church of Sci, as wel as the broader scene which includes the Freezone, RON’s Orgs, TIR, etc etc etc. I consider ALL of those as part of the ‘world of scientology’. There is more to “scientology” than I see people on this blog speaking of.
                    Marty relates his experience and thinking through his books and this blog, where he makes thought-provoking posts that have actually helped me to sort out my own scene in life and get a muchbetter understanding of ‘mysteries’ associated with scientology. These mysteries were create by th eCoS, and back to LRH in some cases.
                    You lost all credibilty with me long ago, but have regained a lot of that in the past year or so. You might notice I do not attack other critics the way I attack you. Do you ever wonder why?

            • Yes, there are large databases in some areas.
              I do not see “People come back or not” as a worthwhile stat. In therapy or the self-improvement areas, people tend to go or continue for as long as they “need to”, which tends to be until their problem is solved, or theybecome convinced the particular approach will not solve their problem. Additionally, there is no standardization worth mentioning in “therapies” of a subjective nature. We’re talking about a lot of ‘intangibles’. Th epersonality of the therapist, fit with the personality of the client, goals of the therapist as wel as the client.
              It is not hesame kind of thing as measuring and tracking th eresults of chemo.
              However, I am all for actual studies and I have posted some thoughts bout the parameters for stdying whether or not ‘standard tech’ actually exists and what its degree of effectiveness might be. Studies, to produce any valid results, need to be controlled more than “who comes back.”

    • “When you take every person who has ever been audited by any Dn or Scn process, and analyze the group for whom Scientology worked, you will find that – when compared to everyone who received auditing – it is a tiny minority of people”
      “When you finally allow yourself to do this, you will find that standard Scientology is mostly a failure, and in too many cases, absolutely disastrous.”
      Alanzo, generalities, by pro or anti, are often quite tiring…

      • Well Li –

        This isn’t a generality.

        This is taking an aggregate total, breaking it into its constituent parts, and discussing the relative size of each of those parts.

        If you’ve ever seen the number of people who walk into an org or mission, get some auditing and never come back again, and compare that sized number to those who get some auditing and actually stay in Scientology, you’ll understand the relative sizes of the groups that I am talking about.

        The huge number of people who try auditing and who never come back are usually ignored and are not being counted when a Scientologist asserts that “Standard tech works 100% of the time when correctly applied!”

        If it makes you tired to think of this, then I suggest that what turns it on will turn it off.

        Alanzo (:>

        • Wait a minute, Li!

          What am I saying!?! You say you are tired – you’re lacking mass!

          Get thee to a demo kit – stat!


        • Sorry, Al, standardscientology hasn’t been delivered in orgs for many, many years.

          • Ron wrote:

            “Sorry, Al, standardscientology hasn’t been delivered in orgs for many, many years.”

            Think about this is regard to your position here:

            The No True Scotsman logical Fallacy.

            The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:

            “Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton [(England)] Sex Maniac Strikes Again”.

            Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”.

            The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen [(Scotland)] man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly.

            This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion about how no Scotsman would do such a thing, but is he going to admit this? Not likely.

            So this time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.

            Is your assertion that “standardscientology hasn’t been delivered in orgs for many, many years.” an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

            I think it is. You believe that “Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied” but when you allow yourself to see the huge numbers of people for whom Scientology did not work in your own experience, you say it was not “true Scientology” that they were getting in orgs and missions because they have not delivered it there “for many, many years.”

            You can use this No True Scotsman Fallacy to look away from so much evidence that even you have observed for yourself. That’s a violation of “Personal Integrity”.

            From now on, watch to see if I or other critics of Scientology use the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Then look to see if you can find it being used among other Scientologists.

            The “No True Scotsman Fallacy”.

            Now you know about it, and you can never un-know about it.


            • I don’t see where “Ron” the commenter said this anywhere in his post: “You believe that “Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied……” That is an issue apart from whether or not “standard scientology” has been practiced in recent decades in the orgs. If it had been practiced consistently we migh thave some idea of whether or not it works 100%, 70% 30% 5% of the time or whatever. I believe he is right, that it has not been. The reason is, “standard scientology” is the province of a well trained Class VIII auditor. What percentage of ‘all auditors’ were actually trained up to ClassVIII? Certainly not that many overall. So manifestly, ‘standard tech’ was never uniformly in existence in the real world. Most of the auditing ever deliverd was delivered by less trained auditors; much of it actually by student auditors on co-audit on on their internships. When in the world do you think there was ever uniform practice of ‘standard tech’? There never has been.
              Another factor was recently mentioned by Tom Martiniano on the Milestone Two blog. His recollection is that back in the days of the “hard TRs”, about 30% of those who started the old Comm Course actually completed it and went on to Academy training and became auditors of whatever Class – HSDC, Class IV, whatever.
              Does that mean the Comm Course TRs ‘did not work’ for 70% of the students? You are in a big logical fallacy there, if that’s what you think it means.
              But in general, you often exhibit some extreme confirmation bias. You have your ideas, and you look for anything you can use to confirm your prejudices and hypotheses. Because of that, the good posts you make are nullified in the minds of some readers by the obviously illogical ones. You, perhaps like LRH, are sometimes your own worst enemy. As I’ve said before, you are far better off posting about your actual experiences rather trying to generalize from them. Like Hubbard, you are a good raconteur. I’d stick more to that.

              • Valkov wrote:

                “If it had been practiced consistently we migh thave some idea of whether or not it works 100%, 70% 30% 5% of the time or whatever. I believe he is right, that it has not been. The reason is, “standard scientology” is the province of a well trained Class VIII auditor. What percentage of ‘all auditors’ were actually trained up to ClassVIII? Certainly not that many overall. So manifestly, ‘standard tech’ was never uniformly in existence in the real world.

                This argument is so choice.

                Standard tech only exists if it comes from a Class 8 auditor.

                No one else in Scientology can deliver standard tech.

                And not even all Class 8s can deliver standard tech, only well trained ones can!

                So standard Scientology, under your reasoning, is actually an extremely rare thing in all of Scientology.

                What about before there was a Class 8 course?

                Was standard tech possible then?

                Guess not!

                Why would you think that Scientology was a workable subject at all if it was unable to be applied standardly in such a vast majority of cases?

                And, by the way, do you have a reference from Ron where he admitted that standard tech can only be applied by a well trained Class 8 auditor and by no one else?

                Can you see that you are changing your definition of standard tech to avoid having to face the farce of your argument?

                I doubt it.


                • Valkov’s claim that standard tech only comes from a Class 8 – and not just any class 8 – but a well trained Class 8, is an example of “Moving The Goal Posts” Logical Fallacy.

                  It’s a trick actually.

                  Don’t be fooled by it.

                  “Moving the goalposts” is a logically fallacious argument in which evidence shows that standard Scientology actually works in a small minority of cases, so Valkov dismisses the evidence by changing the definition of standard Scientology so that it is impossible to pin down. He moves the goal posts: He makes standard Scientology so rare that no one could ever observe it to decide whether standard Scientology ever worked at all!

                  Then of course, he retains his certainty of his position that “Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied.”


                  The only way to remain a Scientologist is to be fabien in this way. Have rationalizations and shifting goal posts and mercurial reasoning always at the ready, and you will never have to acknowledge or learn or confront anything at all!

                  Well done, Valkov.


                  • There it is – you did it again:
                    Al posted – “Then of course, he retains his certainty of his position that “Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied.”

                    I never said that,, in fact I just got done posting that we will never know IF ‘standard tech works 100% of the time”(or any % of time, or WHAT % of the time), until we get some Class VIIIs in a long-term study and monitor them for their results. Class VIII C/Ses will also be needed.

                    As for ‘references’of LRH saying that, , there have been some posted right here on this thread, a couple of Class VIII course lectures, the YOutune interview withttha trained by LRH Class VIII lady, etc. LRH introduced the Class VIII course with a lecture that goes into it extensively, explaing how everything before, including the SHSBC, were a study of the ‘research track’ and he boiled it down to the simplicities of the Class VIII course because there really was no standard application going on and he was unappy about that. The Class VIII course was his attempt to bring the entire world of Scientology auditors and C/Ses “up to present time”(my words, not his that I know of. But that’s the sense I got from the lectures I’ve checked out.)

                    The only one who keeps moving goalposts around here is YOU. That’s th e’confirmation bias’. So you can keep operating on that, or you can check out th eClass VIII lectures and see for yourself. I have no doubt that if your confirmation bias is strong enough, you will be able to cherry-pick them to suit your own ends. However, my point stands, that ‘standard tech’ as I refer to it did not exist before the Class VIII course was put together.
                    Now you canmake of thatwhatever you want, you can be incredulous, you can make fun of me, you can ridicule me, BUT that is what I mean when I use to the term, not because I am a ClassVIII, or because I ‘believe’ it, but because I BELIEVE that IS what LRH said. And I believe it is what LRH said because I heard him say it in his lectures about it, or read the transcript of a lecture in which he said it.
                    There is a HUGE diffeence between saying he said something, and ‘believing” what he said. A difference you don’t seem to get, which doesn’t seem very bright of you.

                    • Valkov: “Now you can make of that whatever you want, you can be incredulous, you can make fun of me, you can ridicule me, BUT that is what I mean when I use to the term…”

                      I have learned that with certain posters a true and honest comm cycle isn’t possible. With some of those, I think it’s a matter of inability to duplicate and assimilate, even simple things sometimes. With others, their “misduplication” may be intentional.

                      Eventually, I learn from each which ones to avoid and not waste my time. And if they distance themselves from me, all to the good. Otherwise, I would have to do it myself! I would feel downgraded and embarrassed if they took my side.

                      However, I’m very glad that you have the energy and are astute enough to take apart their irrational comments.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Kettle, meet pot.

                    • At least I try to actually have a comm cycle – with intention to communicate – as per the communication formula.

                    • Really? Have you read the Discussion Policy yet? It is not like Messiah or Madman. Besides it is just one page.


                    • 🙂 And to think, Marty, you were probably once a lot like me. I am standing at the mouth to the ‘scientology tunnel’, while you have gone through it and are out the other end.
                      So ‘poor me’, I often fail to understand or fail to see what you see. But that is only natural. Whether that applies to marildi, I don’t really know.

                    • Val, I suspect that neither you nor I will come out of “the scientology tunnel” in such negative ways as many have, especially the ones who are negative in the extreme. Some of us have attempted to see and evaluate the whole elephant, not just isolated pieces of it viewed through misperceptions and self projections. And to differentiate what the elephant has been turned into – a wildebeest, said to have been “designed by committee.” 🙂

                    • Marildi, have you read and duplicated the discussion policy yet?


                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      woof… woof… woof well, I guess not all of us so prim and proper, we do not belong to the ”Knowing it all Set”’
                      oh.. well, but I would like to point it out to you Marildi with that post you have shown your colors=items when those would be taken into session could bring you lots of wins in the form of different realities..

                    • I see Elizabeth is mad again because she recently failed – again – to intimidate me into applying her version of “the tech”?

                      I’d say the “knowing it all” is on your part. You give lip service to “everyone has their own path,” but in truth you look down on anyone who chooses something other than the path you’ve taken. It’s you who shows your colors every time you do this.

                      In spite of all you have done with your bank, in your interaction with others you still operate at a level of force to get them to do what you want.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      Marildi I dont have ”my version of the tech” and I c would not dream of forcing yon you sessions of any kind simply because I KNOW THIS FROM YOU””” YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN AUDITING” You might recite LRH but you only believe in Tom Campbell he is your idea of on OT he is your guru. And for the rest you see me through your reality and not mine. So sister peace be with you…What I ever done and achieved is beyond your comprehension since your reality only is aligned with your gurus.

                    • “…you see me through your reality and not mine….What I ever done and achieved is beyond your comprehension since your reality only is aligned with your gurus.”

                      Except for changing the word “gurus” to “personal beliefs,” I feel exactly that way about you.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      Now we know where we stand and we knew that before and we have agreed that no matter how different our realities are that do not change our friendship, since affinity is there, and I still think you are my friend and always will be.. I am not burning the bridge 🙂

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      What we believe in is personal, it can be any other ways and among your personal beliefs there is that Elizabeth is a ”religious manic” now dear M.. should I too be upset but that still not change a thing what I know about you.. the bridge is still standing!

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      PS; I really believe in the auditing TECH and yes I stay with that belief no matter what, not like you who preach, wave the scientology flag but meanwhile dont believe it works! Yes and you are right, I dont believe any other practise can archive what auditing can.. and I do not look down any one for practising whatever because I also believe and totally that item-belief a must do it is on their path to do that just that and dont twist my words.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      PS… by now you know I write this way…do keep it in mind that my beliefs are equally valid that with other practises dont make it out of the MEST U as they have the right to believe that it do.. So want to make me wrong for believe in my self? go for it.. you always did that.

                    • T-shirt idea: MEST U. Stands for MEST University.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      Marildi beloved friend.. words are like the wind in the Saharas.. no one remembers the wind which have passed by… only they remember the sand its carry.. no one really cares what we know, how we think.. read and forgotten because the reader all ready moved to the next post and there is only one experience can be had in the moment of now.. Love you.. 🙂

                • Al, ‘standard tech’ was defined by LRH on the Class VIII course. Before the Class VIII course, there was no such thing as ‘standard tech’. That should be obvious from the lectures that are on the Class VIII course”.
                  Beam me up. Scotty!

                  And yes, I think the delivery of ‘standard tech’ has been a pretty rare thing in Scientology. That is not to say that even Book One auditors have not helped some people.

                  And I have not changed my definition of ‘standard tech’ from the very beginning! That’s your (foolish) ass-umption. Oops! Don’t know how that hyphen got in there. 🙂
                  Gee, it appaers you have been arguing with a ‘straw man’ for several years. And you can’t understand why you catch so much flack from me at times. As they would say in Transactional Analysis, you have been “putting someone else’s face on me and arguing with that.” That is ‘straw man’ in real life. You refute things I never said as though I did say them. And impute beliefs to me that I never expressed or held.

                • Alanzo, Valkov is simply apply the standard tech that he has learned, which may be summed up as “justifications.”

                  • This is a false staement because my view is that ‘standard tech’ is a term that applies only to auditing tech, so whether I am “justifying’ is irrelevent to the discussion.

                    • Obviously, it is false for you. It is not false when looked at with mindfulness without the “extreme logic of Scientology” filter.

              • VALKOV: “I don’t see where “Ron” the commenter said this anywhere in his post: “You believe that “Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied……” “

                What about KSW 1?

                • How many times do I have to post it, before you actually see it? RON wrote KSW. RON thought there was a ‘standard tech’. The obvious way to prove or disprove what RON thought is to do studies of the results Class VIIIs over some period of time. You know, collect ‘statistics’, since you brought that word up, of ‘hits and misses’ as Al said, THEN we would know the actual percentages of the effectiveness of ‘standard tech’.
                  But I suppose that would be too ‘scientific’ for you. (And for Al.) Y’all pay lip service to science, but actually indulge yourselves in ‘scientism’ and poor logic. When I don’t shut up, you think laughing will work? Guess again! I think a lot of people can see some of your illogic. And some can’t, because they share your confirmation biases.

                  • VALKOV: “RON thought there was a ‘standard tech’.”

                    This comes across to me as if RON was delusional.

                    • Yes, I know. That is the perfect expression of your confirmation bias, your idee fixe’. You believe RON was delusional therefore anything you don’t get or disagree with or is not real to you, you dismiss as “delusional”. That is your ‘filter’. Bu theyonly way to test hat is to do controlled studies. For some reason you equate RON’s beliefs with my beliefs, when they are not necessarily the same at all. I can post what RON believed or what RON said, without agreeing or believing those things myself. That is what you and Al don’t seem to get. Thus you act like Teedle Dum and Tweedle Dee in response to some of my posts. It happens when something I say triggers a filter in you. I see a mechanical action of the Code of Honor at work. Although I think Al’s reasons and responses are somewhat different from yours
                      My point is, use science to test whether or not 1. There is something rightly called ‘standard tech’ of auditing or not, and 2. it has to involve Class VIIIs because it is on the Class VIII course that the ‘standard tech’ of auditing is defined. Not according to me. According to RON.

              • VALKOV: “What percentage of ‘all auditors’ were actually trained up to ClassVIII? Certainly not that many overall. So manifestly, ‘standard tech’ was never uniformly in existence in the real world.”

                In my opinion it is very difficult to make Class VIII auditors when there is no Standard Tech, but only a pretense of it.

                • So, apparently you are thoroughly familiar withe content of the Class VIII course?
                  Obviously there is something LRH thought was ‘standard tech’, becuase he defined it and taught it on the Class VIII course.
                  What you posted has about as much logic as if I posted that your name can’t be “Vinaire” because there is no such name as “Vinaire”.

                  • Scientology is not like psychiatry where it takes years to make a Psychiatrist. LRH obvioulsly ran into trouble in training Class VIII since so few were produced.

                    • OK, that is a tangent, but it is an important one, because it is an example of org staff not getting trained or processed as they were promised to be.

          • The simple answer is that standard scientology hasn’t been delivered in orgs for many, many years is that such a thing does not exist.

            It was a wishful thinking from the start just like Clear of Dianetics was a wishful thinking.

            It is Hubbard getting excited by his idea and jumping the gun.

            • See my comment above to Al. You have a righ to your opinion, however th eonly ‘sceientific proff’ would be to study the results produce dby a bunch of Class VIII auditors, because ‘standard tech’ is supposedly the province of Class VIII auditors, abd there have never been that many Class VIIIs, and they have never been studied overall in terms of the results they were getting. That is what would have to be done, if you wanted to be at least somewhat ‘scientific’ about it. Until that’s done, anything you say about the existence or nonexistence of ‘standard tech’ auditing it seems to me to be a relatively unsupported opinion.
              You guys have your opinions first, then you look for evidence to support them, but you don’t really look for evidence that might disprove ypur opinions. That’s not really science. That’s ‘confirmation bias’.

              • Valkov wrote:

                “See my comment above to Al. You have a righ to your opinion, however th eonly ‘sceientific proff’ would be to study the results produce dby a bunch of Class VIII auditors, because ‘standard tech’ is supposedly the province of Class VIII auditors, abd there have never been that many Class VIIIs, and they have never been studied overall in terms of the results they were getting.”

                You forget so much Valkov, in order to cling to your latest excuse.

                I was the Executive Director at the Peoria IL Mission for 5 years, where all auditing and C/Sing was delivered by Class 8s.

                As ED, it was my job to evaluate the stats. I am the one who told you that continuous monitoring of the stats showed more than ten times the First Service Starts than Re-signs.

                I have lived the exact scenario which is your latest excuse for the failure of Scientology, and that excuse fails, too.

                Dude. Give it up.

                You’ve got to be getting tired of defending the indefensible. At least give it a rest. Stand back from the fray and reflect on all your losing arguments. Do you still want to keep propping these up?


                • Alanzo, please don’t be so harsh with Valkov. He can’t help it. It is his stable data on line.

                • Al,, the problem is you keep reiterating that I am “defending” something, inspite of all evidence to the contrary..
                  If you want to go into you experience as ED of the Peoria mission in detail, I think that would be valuable data. There are lots of ex-scientologists posting on various sites that do exactly that. they give time[lacform and event. YOU virtually never do. You just lay down conclusions without so much as an anecdote to back them up.
                  Infact I doubt you actually rene=member much of those times, or actual stats etc.
                  And what do you mean by ‘service starts’? What do those have to do with how many Class VIIIs you had on staff?
                  For example, Tom Martiniano in his last post said that back in the early 1970s of al the folks who started the Comm Course when it was stil ‘hard TRs’ style, where he was, about 30% continued on to do more training. And that number was winnowed down as they progressed up the training bridge.

                  The false datum for measuring the success/effectiveness of Scientology, that I am hearing over and over from you is that there is some kind of expectation that if everyone who tries Scentology should be staying in Scientology for the whole enchilada. Wg=here did you get that? Who told you that? That is completely unrealistic. It is a hidden standard, actually not so hidden in this case, but it is a false standard. What actually goes on is a process of prospecting and winnowing.
                  Not everyone who test drives a Chevy buys a Chevy, and not everyone who buys a Chevy goes on to buy a second Chevy when th efirst one gets old.
                  There are many reasons why a person might not continue with any kind of therapy, self-help enterprise, or whatever. Has Buddhism ‘failed’ because not everyone who tried meditation stayed with it for the duration and reached ‘nirvana’? That’s just plain silly, if you don’t mind my saying so. And even if you do mind my saying so. It’s just plain silly and illogical to proclaim that as a test for success or failure of such. It’s worse than silly. It is either delusional or venal, take your pick. Like, “Meditation is an obvious failure because not everyone who starts it doesn’t continue to do it for the rest o his life’! Doesn’t hat sound kinda stupid as a standard? OK, that’s a little strong and possiby unfair to you, so I will give you the option of “possibly mistaken for unspecified reasons”, rather than “stupid” or “delusional” or “venal”. Kind of a plea bargain deal I am offering you. I even put in some weasel words for you. I suggest you take it unless you are enjoying this little demagogic name-calling exercise you are engaged in with me.
                  IN that case you will just fall back on your usual last refuge of simply calling me names and pretending to laugh, instead of actually responding to any of my points.

                  • Valkov: “And what do you mean by ‘service starts’? What do those have to do with how many Class VIIIs you had on staff?”

                    He said “First Service Starts,” which is a stat for a Div 6 service when it is the first service someone does, such as a small basic course or Book 1 auditing. Class VIII’s audit major services on the Bridge, in Division 4.

                    • p.s. That was one of my stats when I was a Public Reg in Div 6. And may I just say in passing that later when I was in the SO and had the opportunity to view all the stats of orgs for any time period, I peeked at mine and noted that I did pretty well by comparison. 😉

                    • Marildi wrote:

                      He said “First Service Starts,” which is a stat for a Div 6 service when it is the first service someone does, such as a small basic course or Book 1 auditing. Class VIII’s audit major services on the Bridge, in Division 4.

                      Not in my Mission.

                      When a new person walked in for some Book One auditing, they got Class 8 George Seidler as their Book One auditor, whose first cert HUBBARD DIANETIC AUDITOR was dated June of 1950, and signed by L Ron Hubbard. George was a research auditor for Hubbard throughout the 1950’s, and opened his “franchise” in Peoria in the early 1950’s.

                      And when a new person walked in and was C/Sed for Life Repair, they got a program created by 2 Class 8s, one acting as DofP and C/S, and the other acting as auditor. And they used prep-checking and all kinds of Class 8 procedures to handle Div 6 PCs on Life Repair – much to the chagrin of the St Louis and Chicago orgs who did not have anyone close to as trained as Andy and George Seidler.

                      And with all that, the FSS to Div 6 to Major, to Paid Comps, and all re-signs were as I said over at least a 15 year period that I had access to as ED: more than 90% of pcs never re-signed for a 2nd service.

                      Back when I was a pinheaded fanatic, and being lied to by Cary Goulston, my senior at SMI EUS, I was sure that Andy and George were squirrels because the re-signs sucked so bad. It wasn’t until I got out that I had enough data to see that the re-signs sucked EVERYWHERE and that Peoria was no exception.

                      Let me guess, Marildi – you never did this kind of a stat analysis when you had access to the stats for your continent. So you “would not know” if what I am saying is true.



                    • Well, Al, if Class VIII’s were being utilized as Book One auditors, I guess you must have had a very small mission. And no, I did not have anything to do with missions or continents.

                    • I actually believe you Al. And I think your interpretation of the meaningof those stats is totally wrong, backwards. I think th ereason people didn’t re-sign for more auditing is because your auditors were good and th epeople were sarisfied and what they perceived as their “needs and wants” were met, their “problem(s)” were solved, and they felt in good shape and felt they did not need any more auditing.
                      That’s how I see those particular stats of your mission. Every thwra[pist should be so happy to see only 10% of their patiebnts or clients come back for more, after, say, 25 hours of auditing.
                      So I see that stat of 90% as “90% SUCCESS”, not 90% failure. People ‘coming back’ is not a good stat, in the world of therapy. If a therap[ist does a good job, most people won’t need to comeback. They can go ahead and live life.
                      You shouldbe proud that mission did so well, and probably because it did have such good auditors.
                      This is a perfect illustration of why scinetology should not be a “business”, evenmore so than, say, psychology. Sure, psychologists and other therapists need food to eat and a roof over their heads etc, just like we all do. But what Happened in th eCoS is, it was turned into a money-making racket.
                      A peripheral question is, how hard did your mission push training? Back in the day, my auditor pushed training. He did some auditing but also ran courses. The big push was for the Comm Course (TRs ‘the hard way’) as the intro, then the HQS course, then the HSDC. Academy Levels was after HSDC.
                      Those dinky Div 6 courses didn’t exist and my own opinion is they were a liability to the orgs when they were introduced and probably prevented more people from going on, than they encouraged. I think the STCC is a good course BUT only AFTER a person did the “zeroes” (OT-TR0 and TR-0 to a ‘major stable win’. Then I found 3-4 of the STCC drills quite valuable to me personally, as I was pretty inept at communicationg with people before.
                      I never thought “scientology is for everbody”. That is just senseless, and senseless to expect everyone who steps in the door to then sign up for th erst of their lives. That is totally and completely unrealistic.
                      But he main point is, most of those 90% didn’t want any more auditing at that time because your auditors did a great job and the people hd their problems handled and felt they could carry on themselves. Some of them may have gone back somewhere else years later and got more auditing somewhere. But with the IAS working hard to bankrupt all public everywhere after 1984, I doubt many did.

                    • And let me also say that George did his SHSBC at Saint Hill, under Ron in the early 60’s, and he did his OT 3 and Class 8 course on the ship with Ron, in the late 60’s.

                      Just to place that there for you, Marildi, in case you were looking for a way to undermine George’s quals to prop up your belief system that “Scientology Works 100% of the Time When Correctly Applied”.


                    • As is apparent in almost every post you write, you have a very simplistic way of thinking and don’t even understand the principle of VARIABLES – especially embarrassing for you when you tout “science!”

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Coming from the epitome of binary thought.

                    • I can always tell when I’ve posted something that makes a lot of sense.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Thanks for going right on demonstrating your scientology, binary think, for those watching. By the way, did you ever examine the lecture on the Code of Honor for falsehoods and mind tricks?

                    • What reason do I have to think that you are actually interested in a two-way comm with me, Marty?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      First, I have graduated from scientology’s childish control rules, so please don’t pull your scientology nurse Ratched evaluation routine on me. I checked out of your Cuckoo’s Nest some time ago, in the event you did not notice. Second, I moderate a blog and I comment on comments I find worthy of comment. Third, to put it into your childish scientology control terms, so that you can see that I am not simply rejecting scientology based on what somebody said, I graduated from it having mastered it knowing it better than you ever possibly will, here you go. I would be in grotesque violation of scientology communication rules to respond to just about anything your write; except to point out how you demonstrate the point I am making (not by your demonstrating you duplicate and understand but by the opposite) or to correct frequent false evaluations you make of me or demonstrable false information you cite as Gospel. For the most part none of your communications here are originations by definition, they are mere ‘comments’ designed to disrupt and throw people off, by scientology definition. They demonstrate absolutely no duplication or understanding (nor any sign of any attempt to duplicate or understand) of the posts/essays that they are in response to. It is mostly regurgitated circuitry or quotations from someone other than yourself intended to make yourself right and others wrong and serve at best to divert from the point introduced through the blog. The training routines require me to ignore such chatter originated from the bank, OSA directed and controlled or otherwise. If you want to start critiquing comm cycles, the first thing you need to to do is restrain yourself from snapping terminals and becoming part of the comm instead of originating it and receiving it. Having said all of that, as much as I am not bound to your childish scientology communication rules, I will hold you to them since you are attempting to do as much to me. When you submit your essay listing every single falsehood, illogic, and point of conversational hypnosis contained in that Hubbard lecture you so glibly posted here as the end all on the Code of Honor, you will be in compliance with the ‘two-way comm’ rules you want to lord over me with. Then, we’ll moderate any other originations of yours on a case by case basis adhering to your childish scientology communication rules.

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      Quite a statement, Marty.
                      Marildi’s practical viewpoint and inquisitive nature has been of help to me more than once.
                      Discussion turns into debate from time to time, one of the purposes of your site. It’s the nature of the beast. I thank you for the chance to earn your ire from time to time. Since I don’t receive notifications of my own comments, I never know if I have been throttled. If not, Thanks.

                    • And let me add that I never said “Scientology Works 100% of the Time When Correctly Applied.” As Valkov has noted numerous times, you continue to repeat such Straw Men fallacies no matter how many times you are corrected on it.

                      He was right as well about you using the ploy of being a “fawning suck-up,” as has been seen so many times. All part of your craving for the spotlight, I suppose. And that would be giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                    • Jeez Marildi, I thought I had seen you express that Scientology belief, if not outright saying it, then surely implying that if Scientology did not work then it was incorrectly applied.

                      I could have sworn I’ve seen you express that many times.

                      OK, so I was wrong about that.

                      So if you do not believe, as Hubbard said, that Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied, then what percentage of the time do you believe that Scientology works when correctly applied?


                    • I’ll let marildi speak for herself, but my answer might be based on your own post upstream of here in which you apparently witnessed a 90% success rate at the Peoria mission when you were the ED there and had two ClassVIIIs, one of them directly trained by LRH, auditing new people there. They apparently did such a good job that 90% of their pcs did not feel the need for any more auditing after what? Two or three intensives or so?
                      When was that, by the way?

                    • So there’s no confusion, my comment above beginning with “And let me add that…” was directed at Alanzo.

                    • Marty wrote:

                      “When you submit your essay listing every single falsehood, illogic, and point of conversational hypnosis contained in that Hubbard lecture you so glibly posted here as the end all on the Code of Honor, you will be in compliance with the ‘two-way comm’ rules you want to lord over me with.”


                      Ohhhh… recovering now…

                      I believe that day will come for Marildi. I believe that Marildi will one day allow herself to see these things in LRH’s writings and tech and lectures.

                      I do.



                  • Well Valkov, we sure can’t compare auditing to the standards that LRH set for it in his claims for Clear and OT, or even Grade Zero, can we?

                    Because if we did, then we would see that auditing is a complete and utter failure, never once having achieved LRH’s claims for it.

                    So you should be grateful at the chance to see that over 90% (and that is a very conservative figure) of the people who have tried auditing never went back for more. At least that will give you some solace that Scientology is not a complete and utter failure.

                    This is your chance to say that it did something for – at the most – 10% of the people who tried Scientology.

                    I would take that deal, if I were you, because you are not going to get any one better, that’s for sure.

                    There is a clear factual reality that anyone with enough experience with the subject can see. Eventually, even Indies begin to see it once they leave the Church and start seeing all the information that they have been cut off from.

                    Maybe even you, one day, will see this.

                    And maybe not.

                    OK, so I have wiped the floors, the ceiling, and the walls with you once again. And now, once more, I am bored.

                    Over and out, Crunchy.


                    • As I showed in a couple of posts above, your own stats from the Peoria Mission can be interpreted to mean the auditors you had, both ClassVIIIs, one trained by LRH, auditing new public were so good that 90% of their pcs never had to come back for more auditing. Because their ‘needs/wants handled’ were actually handled and they left with increased confidence in their ability to get on with their lives, and feeling no need for more auditing? That’s a 90% SUCCESS rate, not a 90% failure rate. But in fact your stats as you report them may be showing a 100% success rate by your ClassVIIIs because after all 10% came back for more scientology, including perhaps training?

    • alanzo: And even for those on whom standard Scientology worked, it only worked some of the time – usually in the first few sessions. And much of that population has continued to “chase the dragon” of those first wins ever since – never noticing that Scientology stopped working for them long ago.

      This is true for me too .. my first auditing (objectives) did key me out with great wins .. but at basic keyed out a misuse of ethics against me .. misuse of conditions, especially lower conditions .. PTS / SP asignment etc.

      All my later auditing did nothing .. see end of this thread for more detail ..

    • NolongercareaboutScn


      Agree with you on the above. I would add that comparing Scientology’s promised results as described in Hubbard’s books and tapes, to the actual results, as evidenced by the thousands of people who have fled and denounced the organization and it’s practices, one is left with unfulfilled marketing slogans and weak explanations for why those slogans have not materialized into across-the-board positive tangible outcomes.

      All the explanations in the world do not add up to a workable tech.

      In fact those explanations for failure are evidence of great unworkability and appear as self-serving BS offered as excuses.

      The hunt for “Standard Tech” is a fools errand and is itself perhaps the greatest excuse for failure that Hubbard ever issued.

      • NLCAS wrote:

        The hunt for “Standard Tech” is a fools errand and is itself perhaps the greatest excuse for failure that Hubbard ever issued.


        It occurred to me after Valkov pointed out that LRH said that standard tech could only be delivered by a Class 8 – which course was released in 1968 – that this was yet another covert explanation for the failure of Scientology up to that point.

        Why haven’t we ever made a clear or an OT?

        Lack of standard tech!

        NOW we have standard tech and it can only be delivered by a Class 8!

        It both explains and excuses all past failures of Scientology, and markets his new sales drive for the course.

        So what about all the failures of the tech since 1968 when Class 8 was released?

        Really. Talk about a fool’s errand.

        LRH really got himself into the cat bird’s seat when he made Scientology a religion. People will endlessly justify and make excuses for their own religious and spiritual worldviews. No one wants their religion to be proven false. A person will grab on to ANY excuse to keep propping it up, and all LRH had to do was keep providing those excuses to Scientologists. They could use his excuses for the failure of Scientology to block out the evidence that Scientology was false that was right in front of them the whole time, and keep right on believing.

        And he even charged them money for these excuses!

        And they kept paying!!!

        Except for the ones who didn’t.

        They got fair gamed.


  49. Nice one, Marty. You got inside my head expressing some of what was on the surface of just below as I pursued and wresteled with the bridge for 29 years. Having to attest to just about anything was my anathema. Now I would wonder what’s wrong with doubts and reservations. Enter anything with eyes open.

  50. Marty makes the following points in his second paragraph:

    (1) Hubbard blamed others when his technology did not work. It was never the fault of his technology.

    (2) He continually justified for his technology not meeting the expectations that he put there, and that the results were forthcoming with the next “breakthrough” he was working on.

    I think Hubbard was very excited by some advances he did make and gushed over them with over projections. That was his personality. He couldn’t help it.

    A person is a product of his genetic code which covers both his spiritual and physical aspects. These aspects may be modified somewhat by the environment one grows up in and the education one receives.

    But a person is essentially determined by his genetic makeup. Nobody can be totally self-determined. That was the case with Hubbard too. But he tried.

  51. I am right now receiving auditing to finish up my lower grades. I’m on III. What I’m doing now and my previous independent auditing is fabulous. When an auditor really knows their stuff what they can do is incomparable to any other practice I am aware of. I feel and demonstrate results from these grades. You can argue its all in my mind I guess, but I don’t get that argument. What we are dealing with is the mind and spirit. If i find myself walking around with the ep, my life is better and I’m happy then I’m sold and I want more. I think if some people could experience or reexperience what this stuff does do when done correctly they would have a harder time denying it’s results.
    I write this not in anger. It is my reality and I wanted to share it.

    • Chris, in my opinion, you can get all that and more from Buddhism. Buddhism uses mindfulness instead of E-meter to detect and handle unwanted conditions.

      I give credit to LRH for coming up with a highly organized system. I am using what I have learned from him to expresses Budda’s technology in modern terms. This technology can be applied to oneself easily or in a co-auditing type situation. It is totally safe. It is also totally free.

      Here is the link:

      • Elizabeth Hamre

        Vinaire, shame on you for pushing your bloody mindfulness on the person who is winning by doing what he wants to do and you are making him wrong for that.. !!!!!!!!

        • Then why are you evaluating and invalidating, my dear?

          • Elizabeth Hamre

            you have put down some ones win.. and my dear, for that reason.. when I see you I will scalp you and that is a promise!

          • Vinaire,
            I feel you have insight but you often lack wisdom. What Elizabeth has just pointed out to you is key. You were too proud to get what was in front of you, with Chris’s comment. Can you not accept that what he is doing is genuinely helping him? He had a need/desire to share it.
            All you could do was devalue it.
            That is not mindfulness

            • Juston –

              I’ve been in Chris’s position before, sharing my wins with people from Scientology on the Internet (and before), using a computer to disseminate.

              It takes courage. And I do believe that it is important for everyone to hear Chris’ voice and to examine his wins, and as you say, see that in his own estimation right now, that he is being helped.

              I wish more Scientologists had his courage.

              People are helped in Scientology.

              And I also recognize that the more of LRH’s cultic coercion techniques that can be deleted from Scientology, probably the more can be helped it.


            • Justin, my mind is open to wisdom. Hopefully wisdom will come and stay with me.

              I never invalidated Chris’s win. I wholeheartedly accept it. I think that the win is due to Chris’s own effort. Scientology simply provided a framework. Buddhism provides a better framework.

              I am taking the best of Buddhism and Scientology and incorporating it into KHTK (Knowing How To Know). I am open to any help anybody can give me.

              I am not the source of KHTK. If anybody is stuck up with the idea of SOURCE then he should look at the following link.


        • Elizabeth. I have been lurking on your blog and Geir’s ..and I would respectfully suggest that you process the information that Marty and others have written.

          You just are always ready to Attack. Always. You certainly are doing Hubbard proud.

          ” do keep it in mind that most blogger thrive on negative and the posters haven’t the clue what is ”winning’ means, so ack-ing your wins will not happen.”
          If your words to others indicate what your ” Winning” means..Then I’ll just remain clueless.

          Must you advertise your blog so incessantly ?

          • Elizabeth Hamre

            Baby… you are 100 right…have a lovely day!

          • Elizabeth Hamre

            Baby… your evaluation is yours how you see me and with expressing it so strongly it is you who are attacking!
            Suggesting that I should be different because the way I am is not agreeable to you! You believe whatever I write is shaking your believes therefore that must stop at once! And that can only happen when I become someone different : same or similar as your hero’s Marty or Geir Isene. [there is one Marty and there is one Geir the rest who fallow their footsteps are assuming valances. And that is hero worship]
            We are singular each Spirit has their own universe, separate from any other universes!
            Interesting yes that you suggest that I must change and what I should become by studying some other valances?
            The church did the same demanded that members behave accordingly to their rules and for that reason members have rebelled and had left. The Church has the policy, every group has policies including the group of people who are the main posters here in Marty’s blog: You need to behave: talk, have the same beliefs as the rest of us do or else!
            I find it very interesting that different beliefs when expressed is ”labeled” ATTACK! The church of scientology believes in the same so anyone who has not agreed to their LAWS were labeled SUPRESIVE and shown the door.
            Do you have any idea why that is? Those who fear what others consider true for them that those considerations-beliefs are dangerous and those dangerous-nasty different ideas, manners will replace their own reality. I simply called that none confront.
            The church staff and its managers could not confront anything different either!
            We who went into the church in order to become free of the binding considerations by receiving auditing, we did that to become different, to become individual, to think for self, not to be affected by the group thinking, and to be able to speak up and communicate our reality no matter what that maybe.
            Just because of that different realities gained by having lots of sessions-cognitions and now those of you who have not changed fear of these new certainties and that frightens the daylight out of you and you gang up and attack these sources..
            When you were in my blog reading why did you not left the same post as here? Simply because you have not dared to be alone and you did not felt the groups support and without that you don’t have the voice. So next time when you are attacking do it in my blog be one on one with me. Thank you for your suggestion, coming from you I am sure it was well meaning. Elizabeth.

            • “You believe whatever I write is shaking your believes therefore that must stop at once!”
              Shaking my beliefs? PUHLLLLLLLLLLease.. Ha.. I believe that Hubbard was a lying conman who had children locked in trunks on his ship with chains. He made it up as he went.

              Many people have lost their families, their childhoods, their $ .. their minds through this dangerous cult. DM did NOT create Scientology. Hubbard did. DM only took the ball and ran with it.

              ” [there is one Marty and there is one Geir the rest who fallow their footsteps are assuming valances. And that is hero worship]”

              I’m my own person Elizabeth.
              ” Just because of that different realities gained by having lots of sessions-cognitions and now those of you who have not changed fear of these new certainties and that frightens the daylight out of you and you gang up and attack these sources..”

              Fear.. I read your blog about fear..The only thing I fear is mice. I don’t know what to tell you. What is supposed to be frightening the daylights out of me?

              It would be nice to talk to you without so much Scientologiese made up words. You know like just the way regular people talk.. You know like you see on TV..
              “When you were in my blog reading why did you not left the same post as here? Simply because you have not dared to be alone and you did not felt the groups support and without that you don’t have the voice. So next time when you are attacking do it in my blog be one on one with me. ”

              Does it look like I need group support Elizabeth? I didn’t comment because I lurk. I don’t comment on Geir’s because I lurk. It’s not a popularity contest here. So many views. Some I agree with, some I don’t.

              People will agree with me or they don’t. No big woop.
              “We are singular each Spirit has their own universe, separate from any other universes! ”

              Yes we are different people if that is what you mean. I tend to speak simplistically. Thank you.

              • Elizabeth Hamre

                I cheer you on!

              • Elizabeth Hamre

                ”suggestion”’ dont lurk in my blog you might catch some of my realities 🙂 and I can not take responsibility for that! 🙂 I am not insured that way… come to think I only hold car insurance because here in BC is the must have for every driver.

                • Elizabeth.. By saying that I might catch some of your realities I guess that’s Scientology talk for understanding what you say.

                  No thank you. I am very happy to stay in my world.

    • Chris Mann, we don’t care about your reality and your wins. You can have more by some other practice, believe us. Yes, it’s all in your mind. It’s subjective and not real. So, understand that Scientology does not work except in some exceptions like you.

      (how about that for a real good evaluation and invalidation? Why can’t people acknowledge somebody’s win without evaluations and invalidations? Oh, no we are in the other extreme now. Anyway, congrats Chris Mann).

      • Theosis.
        You can do better. We expect better.

      • Elizabeth Hamre

        I very much care about his wins and reality… Very much in did.
        I have come to the internet after solo auditing alone for 35 years and I to wanted to share my wins but my realities fallen on deaf ears.. more likely that happens because it has not been understood by the 99percent of bloggers who are in pity, blame, revenge, feeling sorry for self… and I than wanted to shout: hey gang look what it can be done… hehehe the disappointments too were handled in sessions.
        Why I post? looking for Chrises and like him so I could cheer them on!
        I have sent my ”written up wins” to over hundred different persons and most of them were auditors c/s’s and 2 has responded and only one has invited me to post that write up in her blog.
        That auditor was Silvia Kusada, who by now has been out drummed by scientologist because having different beliefs-realities the majority of blamers have.

    • Elizabeth Hamre

      Chris 🙂 🙂 🙂 just read your win… fantastic.. I am thrilled that you are on the Path of Self-discovery and having realizations… enjoy the adventure!
      Elizabeth, solo auditor.
      do keep it in mind that most blogger thrive on negative and the posters haven’t the clue what is ”winning’ means, so ack-ing your wins will not happen.
      You are welcome to post your cognitions in my blog and I will put them up as HEAD Posts.

      • Good advertising, Elizabeth! 🙂

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          yes, but I am not pushing my own invention!

          • Where does fit on the Grade Chart? After OT VIII?

            • Elizabeth Hamre

              Be more clear please, I haven’t a clue what you are inquiring about YOU STLL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

              • No use answering your question. You can’t duplicate anyway.

                • Elizabeth Hamre

                  that is your excuse because you dont know the answer.. thank you.

                  • If I don’t know the answer then why are you asking? Are all Scientologists that stupid?

                  • He is just like he claims LRH was. When the discussion doesn’t go his way, it’s because YOU are “too stupid” to understand what he is saying.
                    Typical brahmin. Off with his head Erszebet, as soon as you get the chance! Channel Attila!

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      counting the days till October.. 🙂 By the way I might be too stupid to understand what he means..:) how lucky I can get! Attila dont have to be channelled, I had that life recalled in sessions.. all of it.. needed confront to face that life cycle.. and lots of ARCb’s, O/W’ handling.. But not all was as the loser have written it in the history books. One thing people who have read the History written by the Romans did not realized that was the way of life for all who lived in that period.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      Valkov, harder are the lessons one gains more.. to be beautiful, flattering about in saintly manner and confronting that will not give as much gains as the confrontation of the heavy life in where every day marked by death , suffering, hunger, and where every day one had to fight for survival. every ones track is littered by incidents like that, but it is up to each individual if they are ready to confront such incidents. after all sainthood too is only a valance and when one finally realises what is the MEST U. about by that being Attila, or Jesus[ I dont claim that valance] really dont make any difference.. I have been holy, but that life have held more O/W’s than being Attila.

                    • Elizabeth Hamre

                      V 🙂 are you collecting you thought?

          • You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    • Elizabeth Hamre

      Chris ….
      The cognition’s are like pearls.
      Each one is born out of pain and suffering,
      out of mystery, secrets, and darkness.
      Yet how beautiful they are!
      They can vary in momentarily importance before they vanish.
      Yet they remain yours for ever in the form of invisible knowledge.
      The basics are the rarest of all pearls, since only few exist!!!
      Their value buy your freedom out of the MEST Universe.
      For your future you have my best, my postulate,
      One endless string of pearls of great beauty.

        • Elizabeth Hamre

          no my dear when I see you I wont scalp you… I will wave over you head my Magic Wand and make smart out of stupid you. go take a relaxing nap.. I dont want you to get a hart attack!

          • That is squirreling!

            • Elizabeth Hamre

              🙂 I love you too you old bald headed eagle you! 🙂 Sweetheart, when manner were thought in school I was absent so I have missed out on that.. You know where I was? I was sent to the railroad yard to collect the fallen coal from the tracks since my father was ill and my mothers wage were hardly enough to buy food with and I was the one who were told to go, My older sister 9 years old was not allowed to pick up heavy basket of coal and the younger was only 3 so I was 7 I could do such a chores. Have you seen a child wondering around the railroad yard in -20 bellow without gloves, in thin coat, frozen face and feet and numb hands? tears frozen on her face from pain but still going because she has know that coal was needed so her mother could cook some potatoes for dinner because we only had nothing more most of the time? So shut up about squirreling and answer my question! PS; it has taken years till my frozen toes stopped aching and itching!