Category Archives: quotations

Total Certainty – Really?

Reference: What We Are Doing Here

Some people get mixed up in Scientology with its sometimes obsessive attempted attainment toward and assertion of  ‘total certainty.’   It would seem such folk may have jettisoned some basic Scientology axioms and laws in pursuit of later claims and emphases.  Consequently, I find a lot of former and independent Scientologists are mixed up on the Know-to-Mystery scale.  They can’t seem to understand why it is that ‘Not Know’ is the second highest rung on the scale.  This conundrum was addressed in an earlier post, What We Are Doing Here.   Of late, we have been examining the subject of judgmentalism on this blog – most recently its relationship to sociopathy, The Psychopath Test.   In reviewing one of the texts from the recommended reading section of this blog, The Sociopath Next Door, I came across a passage that sheds a little light on this subject of ‘total certainty’ particularly as it relates to judgmentalism.  It gives some idea why it can seem untoward or uncomfortable or even anti-survival to obsess with attainment of  total certainty.

From Chapter Five, why conscience is partially blind:

One of the more striking characteristics of good people is that they are almost never completely sure that they are right.  Good people question themselves constantly, reflexively, and subject their decisions and actions to the exacting scrutiny of an intervening sense of obligation rooted in their attachments to other people.  The self-questioning of conscience seldom admits absolute certainty into the mind, and even when it does, certainty feels treacherous to us, as if it may trick us into punishing someone unjustly, or performing some other unconscionable act.  Even legally, we speak of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ rather than of complete certainty. 

Practicing Scientology

 

I came across a little something that I think that people practicing Scientology – inside or out of the church – ought to consider while pursuing the higher realms of cognitive development and consciousness it can assist with the attainment of.  The following is a segment of a talk by philosopher Ken Wilber on traps that certain spiritual teachers can set for students.   I think this applies to both the teacher (auditor/supervisor/advisor) and the teachings themselves.  The latter being so, in fact, has prompted several essays by me of late suggesting that while you strive for as close to perfection as you can with technical Scientology procedure, you not fall into the trap of becoming a radical, fundamentalist Scientologist (literalist) whether you are affiliated with the church or not.

From Kosmic Consciousness with Ken Wilber by Sounds True.

Indeed we do have these one or two dozen developmental lines, like cognitive development, interpersonal development, moral development.  And you can be very highly developed in some of those lines, medium development in others and very low development in yet others.

What seems to happen with a lot of meditative, contemplative or spiritual teachers is that one or two lines are very highly developed; and they are, indeed, the lines that have to do with the capacity for introspection, for awareness, for cognitive capacity and they can get into some very, very high states of consciousness.  So in that capacity they are very highly developed, really authentically highly developed. It is not to take anything away from that accomplishment.  It’s just perhaps that their own practice or personality has left two or three or five other developmental lines not very well developed, or possibly atrophied, or possibly even pathological.  And particularly in certain types of spiritual development there is an emphasis on, let’s say meditation or personal interior development – that spend hours and hours and hours inspecting the “I” but not giving a lot of time to polishing your inter-personal skills, or your sexual skills, or your moral skills even for that matter.

The fact that you are a great meditator does not mean that you are going to be a great mathematician or have great musical skills or have any of these other developmental lines.   The problem comes because some of these states of consciousness are so overpowering and appear to be so all-inclusive in a certain way that it’s easy for individuals to say that ‘because I now have this experience of enlightened oneness, that therefore everything about me communicates this perfect oneness.’  And teachers fall into this trap all the time.  And I think anybody who has had these kinds of experiences can see that tendency in themselves; because that experience of ‘one taste’ , particularly when you are tapping into the absolute truth – not just relative – but you are also getting this blast of absolute isness, then it is just impossible for that to be wrong in a certain sense. And in its formlessness that’s right.  It is impossible for it to be wrong because there are no parts.  It just is.  And there it is, you just see it.

That doesn’t mean therefore you excel in all these other areas.  The problem comes when students come to spiritual teachers and the spiritual teacher is trying to help the student overcome ego which is a very important part of spiritual growth.  You have to sort of grow beyond your own individuality, your self contraction, your separate self.  And what the teacher tends to do is then – half the advice they give the student is very good, half of it is usually a disaster.

The good part has to do, indeed, with the areas that the teacher is competent in, and can spot self-attraction, can spot ego and so on.  But the areas that the teacher is not competent in, then they start criticizing the student for things that might in fact be very wise on the student’s part but can’t be spotted by the teacher.  It can be in anything, it can be in any sort of relation, it can be in the job, it can be in work, it can be in marriage, in any sort of relation you are in.  And the teacher is telling you ‘no, you are doing that because you are contracting ego, you are doing that because you are being egoic, you are not taking my advice because you are resisting me.  And your resistance to me – the teacher, guru, master – is evidence of your ego, your contracted, illusory ego.’  But it might be evidence of your discriminating wisdom growing and evolving.   But because the teacher is not evolved in those areas, the teacher can’t spot that.  All the teacher can do is spot any disagreement you have with the teacher as if that is egoic contraction, when the disagreement you might have with the teacher is with that part of the teacher that is a jerk – and you should disagree with that.

If teachers don’t have some form of integrally informed awareness, then it is going to be hard for them to discriminate the areas in which they are competent to make these kinds of judgments in and the areas they are not very competent in.  And that is a real nightmare, for everybody.  We’ve all had teachers like that. To the extent that any of us are teachers we get caught in the same traps ourselves.  And the only thing that we can do is to continue to have this dialogue in an integrally informed context.

 

Keeping Scientology Working

I  noticed there were several contributors recently commenting that Keeping Scientology Working (L. Ron Hubbard Policy letter of 7 Feb 65) ought to be adhered to to the letter.  Some commented that they agreed that as far as ‘technology’ was concerned Keeping Scientology Working was supreme and unalterable, but that they didn’t necessarily agree with applying it to Administration (Admin) policy.

Well consider this from Policy Letter Keeping Admin Working (Policy Letter of 10 July 1986 I):

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin.  The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration – POLICY.  

Now consider this from Policy Letter Admin Degrades (10 July 1986 II) :

The following actions or omissions are classified as HIGH CRIMES:

…2. Adding comments to the Org Exec Course or other administrative checksheets or instructions, policies or directives labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or ‘it doesn’t need to be followed exactly,” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the standard administrative data in which he is being trained.

Having established that Keeping Scientology Working extends to administrative policy too, please read the following Suppressive Acts from HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB:

Violation of any of the eleven points listed below which are Admin Degrades:… (which includes the passage above from the Policy Letter Admin Degrades)

Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or ‘to save the organization from the higher offices of Scientology.’

Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.

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

Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.

Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.

A) Do you agree that these policies should be followed with unvarying adherence?

B) If not, where and how do you draw the line on unvarying adherence with Scientology tech and policy?

Integrate

Some have questioned lately where I stand on the subject of Scientology and its author L. Ron Hubbard.  I have found that perplexing since I believe I have pretty thoroughly shared that through my writings over the past four years.  It occurred to me that maybe I lost some folks in never opening up for discussion topics that I covered in the greatest detail in the book What Is Wrong With Scientology?  Healing Through Understanding.

In chapter 15 Hereafter of that book I laid out three lessons I  had learned since leaving the church of Scientology that I believed if not learned by Scientologists would spell Scientology’s demise as a viable subject in the future.  The first lesson was that Scientologists need to develop the tolerance and compassion necessary to integrate. That particular segment of the book is republished below. Feel free to sound off on what is wrong with this, what is unworkable about this, where I was inaccurate or unfair, why it ought not be heeded, or whatever else you want to say about it (within the bounds, or course, of this blog’s moderation policy).

Excerpt:

Integrate or Disintegrate

One hallmark of the corporate Scientologist that has done more than perhaps anything else to harm the attractiveness of the subject is the assumption of the holier-than-thou attitude. Scientology Inc. drives home at every level, gradiently increasing as one progresses, the idea that a Scientologist is superior to mere mortals and wogs.  Some of this is inculcated by Hubbard’s writings and lectures.  I believe that is partly due to Hubbard feeling the need to keep people involved and engaged when it was particularly tough for one to do so.

During Hubbard’s lifetime, Scientologists were continually at risk of losing family, friends, jobs, and even their civil liberties, just by virtue of practicing Scientology.  That was due in great part to the established monopoly on mental healing of the ’50s and early ’60s – driven through the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association – condemning and organizing aggressive attacks against Scientology.  That this was once the case will be made plain in my subsequent book on the movement’s history. However, it is still untenable to be associated with Scientology in certain countries, including Germany and France.  Hubbard’s material consistently regards Scientologists with the attitude that in the light of organized attacks, they ought to take pride for daring to look where others won’t.

Hubbard took that defensiveness to another level by becoming increasingly assertive that Scientology is the only workable route to betterment.  With that came a growing disdain for other practices and philosophies.  It began with psychiatry, spread to psychology and psycho-therapy, and then to other philosophies and religions.  By the mid-’60s, firm policies were instituted that effectively forbade the outside study of any other mental, spiritual, or religious philosophy.  It was a gradually-growing intolerance, but by the end of Hubbard’s life it became sweeping and absolute.  By way of example, let us take Hubbard’s attitude toward Sigmund Freud and the fields of psychiatry and psychology.  Freud was noted by Hubbard as someone to whom “credit in particular is due” at the beginning of his seminal 1951 book Science of Survival.

By 1959, Hubbard had toned that acknowledgement down to a condescending tolerance:

Older nineteenth century studies, such as psychology, developed by Wundt in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany; psychoanalysis, developed by Freud in 1894 in Vienna, Austria; and psychiatry, developed through the nineteenth century in Russia, did not necessarily fail, since they provided data which permitted Scientology to begin.

By 1970, Hubbard becomes far more critical:

Any early technology of the human mind was perverted by the University of Leipzig studies of animal fixations of a Prof. Wundt in 1879, who declared man a soul-less animal, subject only to stimulus-response mechanisms and without determinism. Further perversions entered upon the scene in the 1894 libido theory of Sigmund Freud, attributing all reactions and behavior to the sex urge.

Finally, in 1982, Hubbard summed up the contribution of the psychologist, psycho-therapist, and psychiatrist – referred to collectively in Scientology as ‘psychs’ – in a bulletin entitled The Cause of Crime:

There would be no criminals at all if the psychs had not begun to oppress beings into vengeance against society. There’s only one remedy for crime – get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!

Corporate Scientologists, trained to abide by all of Hubbard’s words literally, believe this without question.  Thus, their leader Miscavige currently whips thousands of Scientologists into a virtual frenzy at his annual International Association of Scientologists event – a yearly enactment chillingly reminiscent of Hitler’s Nuremburg rallies – by announcing campaigns directed at destroying ‘the psychs.’  The crowds leap to their feet to give minutes-long standing ovations when Miscavige announces Scientology Inc. funding for the “Psychiatry: Global Retribution” campaign, or the “Psychs: Global Obliteration” plan.

Thus we see what Scientology Inc.’s celebrity spokesman Tom Cruise was referring to when he appeared on the Today show and sternly scolded host Matt Lauer with laser-intense certainty: “You are glib.  You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do!”  And we saw Cruise become the poster boy for Scientology Inc.’s implanted, dysfunctional, superiority complex.  Witness Cruise – who claims his “best friend” to be David Miscavige himself – pridefully pronouncing in a viral YouTube video that a Scientologist “knows that he is the only one who can truly help” others, even down to assisting a motorist in distress.  What are we to think – that all Highway Patrolmen, Emergency Medical Technicians, even good Samaritans are incompetent, wrong-intentioned people who cannot be trusted?

The first lesson I learned after 27 years on the inside was precisely the opposite.  When I left, I moved to deep-south Texas.  I had been high profile within, and thought that critics and enemies of Scientology would use my departure to Scientology’s detriment.  My goal was to disappear. And for three years I was successful.  During those three years, I had no contact whatsoever with anyone I had known for the previous entirety of my life.  I was a hurt, lonely person.  The first thing I noticed was that others noticed that condition.  Mind you, these were the lowliest people imaginable, since the county I lived in was perennially one of the three poorest in the nation.

The next thing I noticed was that those lowly ‘wogs’ cared to do something about my pain. And while they did not have a lot to share, they were only too willing to give the two things they did have: compassion and communication.  I noticed that in South Texas people of whatever station or race treat all other people with respect.  Men call one another ‘Sir’ when they meet for the first time or when they casually pass or do simple business. One is automatically granted respect and it is up to one to maintain it.  You keep it or lose it by your subsequent conduct, but you start off with their assumption that you deserve it.  Where did this come from?  I suppose some of it was Christian based, some of it was Mexican-culture based, some of it was Southern-Americana based.  Whatever the source, I do know that the compassion and communication that ultimately saved my soul turned out to be inner-city and ‘psych’ based.

I met Monique Banks in early 2005. The minute she met me, she treated me like a long-lost family member.  We have lived together since – we were married in 2010.  She had an incredible set of people skills when I met her.  They were tolerance, interest, compassion, listening, forgiveness and unconditional love.  This woman gave me the space and understanding I needed to decompress, to heal, and to put my life into perspective.  It was not till later when I met her father that I would understand where she had learned these skills.  Jim Banks is, of all things, a psycho-therapist and professor of psychology by profession.  Jim is a man’s man.  He grew up without a father, in the Bronx.  He sacrificed his teenage years to serve as father to his four younger brothers.  He then served his country in the jungles of Vietnam as a United States Marine.  Besides the qualities I already mentioned that Monique displayed, I learned that he taught his children four important lessons.

First, don’t ever play the victim – it is the most painful and unrewarding route one can choose, and if played too long will make you a victim for good.  Two, remember that you cannot control the way that other people act, but you can always control the way you react to them, and the way you act yourself.  Three, if you want to get better and more competent, then choose to associate with friends who are better and more competent than yourself (clearly impossible for one who believes he is superior to the rest). Four – and most importantly – remember that no matter what the question, the answer is ‘love.’  Ironically, Jim and Monique both naturally, and without effort, exemplified the best qualities that I believe Scientology can help one develop.  Jim, despite his profession alone rendering him a ‘cause of crime’ in the eyes of Scientology Inc., had no problem understanding my description of Scientology.  In fact, he agreed with just about everything I told him about it.

Spending time with my new family has taught me that the goals of Scientology are not monopolized.  It taught me that there are other means to achieve those goals, and people were exemplifying that in their conduct in the world.  This lead to a curiosity about how society and philosophy and the study of the mind had evolved during my years within the machine.  I read and read and read some more.  The more I read, the more I saw Scientology as aligning with, agreeing with, and potentially having tools that could help with other bodies of wisdom and routes to happiness and realization.  I also began to see more clearly how Scientology Inc. had alienated and segregated itself from the rest of society, leaving the world at large with the inclination to steer clear of Scientology.

I never preached Scientology to Monique.  But, the subject arose many times, when she would ask me about a good quality in me that she had noticed, which I would attribute to some aspect of Scientology.  On three occasions I used simple Scientology techniques to prevent illnesses from taking hold of Monique’s body.  This increased her curiosity.  The more she learned of Scientology from me, the more she considered that it aligned with what she knew to be good, healing, and empowering.

As we learned more of each other, I found that beneath Monique’s courage, strength and wisdom she carried hurt and despair like everyone else.  She reached for auditing and I provided it.  I audited her up the Bridge, through the Grades and Dianetics to Clear.  But I audited her up the Bridge with absolutely none of the Black Dianetics additives that have been detailed throughout this book.  No attempts were made to have her believe anything, no effort was made to control her behavior and life, nothing was done to get her to view people in any other way than the way she saw appropriate to view them.  My goal was solely to help her to recover more of herself, to assist her to take off those synthetic personality jackets that didn’t belong to her inherently and were making her uncomfortable – just as Hubbard prescribed when he spoke directly of the actual auditing technology. Though I had audited many dozens of people in my time within Scientology Inc. (including virtually all of its A-list VIPs), it was only during my auditing on the outside that I began to truly appreciate the power of the technology of Scientology.

There was no limit to the effectiveness of Scientology when it was offered and delivered with the sole, unadulterated intent to service and to help.  It was completely acceptable and understandable to people when it was not marketed, sold, or covertly forced upon them.  It enhanced and reinforced the good lessons that people learned from any number of sources, when it was not used to dissuade people from listening to or learning from other sources.  After another three years of delivering Scientology on the same basis to former members of Scientology Inc. and to people new to the subject altogether, those observations have been further validated.

Scientology works wonderfully when it integrates with society, civilization, and the philosophies and religions of others.  Scientology harms when it seeks to segregate from society, civilization, and the philosophies and religions of others.  If Scientologists do not learn to integrate, they will disintegrate as a potential meaningful influence.

If corporate Scientologists cannot wrap their wits around thinking conceptually with the subject and integrating with society, but instead feel they must continue to act robotically, only according to literal commands of L. Ron Hubbard, then a good start for them would be to aspire to live literally by this central tenet of Hubbard’s: “A being is only as valuable as he can serve others.”

If one truly attempted to live up to that maxim, he or she might begin to see the light. To Scientologists who can think conceptually and have not cut themselves off from the fruits of observation, you might appreciate the tree from which that branch grew:

What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher? What is a bad man but a good man’s job? If you do not understand this, you will get lost, however intelligent you are. It is the great secret.  – Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Judgment

 

Unfortunately, a judgmental attitude and bearing seems to have become one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Scientologist.  While adopting such a view in itself could be considered stereotyping, the proclivity for sitting in judgment of others – and stereotyping them – may be the one character flaw that makes such labeling stick with Scientologists.

Labeling is a convenient form of denialism.  It is something a person resorts to when that which he or she is confronting or dealing with is too complex or nuanced for easy explanation or understanding.  In the case of Scientologists such denialism is all too often applied  to people.   It is an assignation of blame intended to bring about shame and regret in the target.

It is easy to write someone off as an “SP” or ‘suppressive person’, a ‘pts’ or ‘potential trouble source’, an ‘out-ethics type’,  ‘reasonable’, ‘off Source’, or even ‘squirrel’.  Once you do that, the labeled person is now ‘over there’, a ‘particle’ to be routed to some ‘terminal’ (not even a person really) for special ‘handling.’  The only way out for the labeled is conformance.  In the case of Scientologists that conformance is usually demonstrated by performing labeling of others with a high degree of certainty and alacrity.

Have you ever noticed how those who can label others with a great deal of certainty and alacrity rise into the ranks of opinion leaders within Scientology culture?  And how those who are hesitant to dispense and accept labeling are considered ‘reasonable’ (in a negative sense), patty cake, theetie-wheetie, or worse?

Ironically, such facile labeling is well explained as a personality defect in Scientology Level 4 training materials.  It is called the computation, ‘that aberated evaluation and postulate that one must be in a certain state in order to succeed’.  In this case, by labeling another it puts the labeler in a superior ‘state’ separate than that of the labeled.   It makes the labeler right and the labeled wrong.

But in the long term it winds up destroying the labeler as the label, the fixed stable datum substituted for a being, makes the labeler cease to look, to inspect, to live.   L. Ron Hubbard explained it this way:

The stable datum was adopted in lieu of inspection.  The person ceased to inspect, he fell back from inspecting, he fell back from living.  He put the datum there to substitute for his own observation and his own coping with life, and at that moment he started an accumulation of confusion.  That which is not confronted and inspected tends to persist.  Thus, in the absence of his own confronting, mass collects.  The stable datum forbids inspection.  It’s an automatic solution.  It’s ‘safe.’  It solves everything.  He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never as-ises the mass.  He gets caught in the middle of the mass.  And it collects more and more confusion and his ability to inspect becomes less and less.  The more he isn’t confronting, the less he can confront.  This becomes a dwindling spiral.  So the thing he has adopted to handle his environment for him is the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment.

Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once succinctly noted what effect labeling has on the person so labeled, “Once you label me you negate me.”

To label is part of the depersonalization or dehumanization process.   It is a step in marginalizing classes of people.  Once you recategorize someone from some neutral category like ‘associate’, ‘neighbor’ or ‘fellow human being’ to some negative, judgmental category they become fodder for abuse.  They become powerless to create any effect on the labeler and thus the labeler believes he is more ‘at cause.’

In fact, as noted above it is an hallucinatory state of cause.  It is a synthetic state of ‘superiority’ that one attains by perfecting the practice of sitting in judgment.  In fact, those who engage in it obsessively have judged themselves, and sentenced themselves to a bleak future.

The late, baseball great Willie Stargell once wrote, ‘Judgment traps you within the limitations of your comparisons. It inhibits freedom.’   I find Willie worthy of the final word.

The Webs We Weave

Every point you find impenetrable in the realm of work on the Way is just your own mind making obstacles.  If this mind would acquiesce completely, you would arrive at the state of Buddhas and Zen masters immediately, and there would be nothing supposedly obstructing you anymore.

-Ming-pen, Zen master

The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of space, energy,time and forms of life, and his roles in it.  If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe and barriers of his own creation.  Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual. 

– L. Ron Hubbard, The Creation of Human Ability

In my opinion, somewhere along the line, Scientologists are disabused of this truth.   It might do one some good to pinpoint when and where Scientology was used to teach one that some other agency, other than oneself, played (and thus plays) a significant role in one’s state of being.

What Is Wrong With Scientology? Is Now Available

Order your copy at Amazon Books here: What Is Wrong With Scientology?

Excerpt from Chapter Seven – Confessional:

 In this wise, a new moral code is imposed upon individuals, covertly and against their own determinisms.  It is exacerbated by repeated questioning about the individual’s failure to report on other Scientologists.  After a while, a corporate Scientologist modifies her behavior accordingly, in order to avoid more security checks.  She not only edits her own behavior and thoughts, she attempts to do the same with Scientologist friends and family members, so that she does not get into trouble for overlooking such transgressions of others.  Thus, a process that was originally intended to free a person from the self-imposed mental prison she has created by her own inability to live up to what she considers right and ethical conduct becomes reversed.  The preclear is instead forced to agree to a new mental prison, imposed by the organization based on what it decrees to be right or wrong.  In short, the process replaces a person’s native judgment with a new judgment of its own.  In practice, it is a dark and painful operation, making a person less self-determined and more other-determined.

    It seems that the only solution open to corporate Scientologists to cope and carry on within their culture is to become moralists.  Moralists who enforce on self and others morals which have been implanted.  If corporate Scientologists police their own conduct fastidiously enough, and interfere enough with the behavior and conduct of their fellows, they reckon they might be spared the cost, embarrassment and pain of being ordered to further batteries of security checks. In fact, that is the only behavior that does avoid continual, expensive, and degrading security checks in corporate Scientology.

    This is yet another example of Scientology Inc.’s  reversal of end product.  Confessional technology was developed with the purpose to help an individual recognize she is the cause of her own destiny – and it has a long history of realizing that purpose.  This priceless technology has been twisted and corrupted to the point where now the individual winds up with her destiny blueprinted and dictated by the church.

    These blueprints are enforced through a related – and now similarly corrupted – technology of Scientology: the technology of ethics.

Order your copy from Amazon Books at, What Is Wrong With Scientology?

related stories:

Remedy of Black Dianetics

What Is Wrong With Scientology?

Ten Commandments of Scientology Inc.

Meet The Editors

The Virus That Killed Scientology Inc. 

Liberating Ain’t Easy

I came across a little something that might bring a bit of relief for those of you who have put out tremendous amounts of energy attempting to wake up Scientology Inc. Kool-Aid drinkers.  The following is an excerpt from a 12 December, 1952 lecture by L. Ron Hubbard entitled “Game/Goals”:

The hardest thing for any liberator to face is the fact that a large percentage of the people he was trying to free wanted desperately to be slaves. And it’s broken the heart of every liberator to date.  To date. Hardly any exception.  A man would have  to be awfully stupid not to see that.  But he would be pretty dull if he didn’t see this too: Sure, sure – but the guys he did liberate were worth liberating.  

 

More Miscavige on Internet – Stopping Scientology

Some who have not experienced it may have trouble believing it, but I am sure those who have experienced it will confirm my interpretation of what follows.  Here’s an order from David Miscavige’s office to ED Int (Executive Director International) and Exec Ints (whatever members of ED Int’s team who had the misfortune of listening to the rant live).  The order is excerpted, as is Miscavige’s standard operating procedure, from an audio tape that records every insanity that issues from his mouth morning, noon and night while he stomps around the International headquarters of Scientology Inc.  ED Int and his Exec Ints then must report written compliance, with evidence, to the order so issued.   On average, ED Int  receives dozens of such orders on any given day – as do many others.  When Miscavige refers to the ED Int thinking  ‘And then it becomes, “oh, you’re stopping it”’ Miscavige – the perceptive one he is – is accurately reporting on exactly what ED INT and the Exec Ints were thinking at that very moment.  He knows that because it is a daily recurring thought of all members of Scientology Inc international management.  They think it because this order here represents Miscavige’s daily op.  He bats back violently at anything that is originated to him – including compliance to the insane orders he issues and even the programs that attempt to execute his dictates.  

The net result is, everything he tells anyone to do never gets done because Miscavige won’t ever approve the program that is proposed to get done what he has ordered to get done.  It is a vicious cycle.  It is like the movie Groundhogs Day played over and over and over,  day in and day out, year after year at Miscavige’s cult camp.  Except his version of Groundhogs Day is not a comedy, it is the most gruesome horror picture imaginable.  Miscavige very often tells International staff members and execs “oh, and you are thinking COB is stopping this” (after he sits on a submission for several months,then verbally lambasts the submitter with some incomprehensible cross order of himself) I suppose in order to make the person feel guilty and wrong and ultimately  stupid for perceiving the truth. More accurately, the op Miscavige runs day in an day out is making people believe they are incapable of understanding that which is incomprehensible (his orders) in the first place.  L. Ron Hubbard described the op in the lecture The Freedoms  of Clear, 4 July, 1958:  

“You know how people convince people they’re ignorant?  They take something which cannot be understood and they say, ‘You stupid jerk. Why don’t you understand this…’

“…Don’t ever make the mistake of believing that you are ignorant simply because you do not understand the incomprehensible.  Because that’s the oldest trick in the universe.”

 Miscavige, live from the international headquarters of Scientology Inc.:

14 Mar 2003

TO:      ED INT

             EXEC INTS

RE: SH SIZE ORGS & 339R

And on Marketing, they keep coming up with a million other things, because the guy doesn’t understand it.  It’s, get the Internet done, goes out and talk to Sky Dayton, comes up with a bunch of ideas, “yeah, we’ll send it out to the org.  Hey, any dissemination is better than none.”  No it’s not.  How many more people am I willing to blow out of Scientology.  And by the way, put that aside, why didn’t he program it in and do any part of his job?  Tell the org staff, “Here’s how you answer.”  Get out a basic program on this?  Why not?  Why put it out without that?  Oh, I wanted to wait 3 years to get out his program and they’re just going to get a computer manual.  And then it becomes, “oh, you’re stopping it.”  No actually, I’m the one who’s been pounding to get it done and get a standard line in.  So what were we about to put out?  [CallInExecInt: A line that’s not complete.]  You don’t get it yet.  Your respect for org policy and what happens down there is not accurate or you would literally feel your stomach twisting right now. And to you, it’s glib.  You don’t really live and breathe this purpose and know what’s happening.  You should though.

Our things are supposed to forward it.  And the reason it doesn’t make sense, because you don’t know what the basic purpose is.  You go, “Hey, I know how to forward that great idea.  I know how to really get that book line in.”  What do I get from Marketing?  “Yeah, we’ve got an Internet there on Scientology on-line, we’ll have a way where they can log in and we can 8C them through the books.”  Now, I haven’t seen the 8C in one of those issues.  In fact, what I’m trying to do is get them to want them.  What did it turn into instead?  “8C them.”

The only place that thinks they need 8C is here.  I plan on getting people and saying, there it is and they go, “whoa, I want it.”  But nobody there would even push it and 8C them anyway.  You already know that.  That’s what’s so stupid.  Marketing—you’re supposed to create want.

Mothers’ Day

Some thoughts about mothers and potential mothers on Mothers’ Day.

Abraham Lincoln said:

“All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.”

Washington Irving wrote:

“A father may turn his back on his child, brothers and sisters may become inveterate enemies, husbands may desert their wives, wives their husbands.  But a mother’s love endures through all. ”

Mark Twain wrote:

“My mother had a slender, small body, but a large heart – a heart so large that everybody’s joys found welcome in it, and hospitable accommodation.”

Oprah Winfrey noted:

“Biology is the least of what makes someone a mother.”

Miriam Makeba noted:

“Girls are the future mothers of our society, and it is important that we focus on their well-being.”

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

“The arts and skills of woman, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable and which, here and there in isolated places in our culture, she still manages to effect in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world which spreads around her, must be brought newly and fully into life.  These arts and skills and creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of Mankind.”

James Brown brought a similar line of thought to song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Febr_t_qa9U

Finally:

“God could not be everywhere, so he created mothers.”

~ variously attributed (Rudyard Kipling, Jewish Proverb, etc)