Tag Archives: l. ron hubbard

Introduction to Training Routines 0-9

I am providing below a copy of the introduction I wrote for people who do Training Routines 0-9 here at Casablanca.   I am not suggesting that anyone else copy and utilize it (but they are free to if they wish).  However, I think some might find the context provided of interest.

Introduction to Training Routines  0-9 at Casablanca

The cutting edge of modern physics, quantum theory or quantum mechanics, has never been proven wrong in its predictions of phenomena.  That is why technology derived from its principles accounts for more than one third of our current economy.   These facts are not widely known, in part because quantum theory reveals unanswered conundrums that seem to set classic physics on its head.   Most confounding is quantum theory’s demonstration that consciousness affects, and may even create, the physical universe.  Scientists have demonstrated over and over that the observer affects the behavior of matter in its smallest observable form (the sub atomic waves or particles which combine to form all matter). The fact that the observer (the spirit) is not of the physical universe and cannot therefore be directly measured by physical devices leaves quantum theorists scratching their heads and posing rather clumsy metaphysical questions. The seeming convergence of science into the realm of consciousness, or the spirit, frightened many scientists in the early part of the 20th Century.  That included one of science’s most free and liberal thinkers, Albert Einstein.  On more than one occasion Einstein warned fellow scientists to be wary of the ‘spooky actions’ that quantum physics revealed when the observer (consciousness, or the spirit) met matter.  He along with the leading scientists of the era were concerned that quantum theory would turn science toward the metaphysical realms of consciousness; a taboo for the masters of the physical universe. One of the pioneers of quantum theory, Niels Bohr, proffered an agreement called the Copenhagen interpretation to allay such fears.  The agreement was that the established observation of quantum physics that the observer (consciousness, spirit) affects and even seems to create matter at the microscopic level would only apply at the level of the then-fringe sub study of quantum mechanics.  Since science was unable to demonstrate the quantum observations with matter larger than atoms – in large part due to its lack of technological means to do so – classic Newtonian physics would not be monkeyed with at the macroscopic level.  Science would leave the spirit alone. 

The Copenhagen interpretation worked for several decades.  It kept science out of the realm of the spirit. But, it also kept science largely in the dark.   As technology evolved, not in small part due to the continued brave work of the few in the field of quantum mechanics, science began to see consciousness demonstrate influence on matter – not only at sub-atomic particle level, but at increasing levels of density and mass.

Consequently, of late books have proliferated on the issue of science entering the realm of consciousness.   Many  scientists have come to recognize that ancient Eastern spiritual texts (e.g. the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas) treating the idea that spirit is senior to and responsible for the creation of the physical may indeed have been scientifically sound all along.  Still, it is interesting reading such scientific thinking authors proceeding with such trepidation, grappling with that which the Buddhist described as ‘nothing’ and the Tao described as an unmeasurable ‘emptiness.’    Unable to conceive of anything outside of,  yet affecting, the physical universe, the physicists alternatively refer to the ‘observer’ as ‘brain function’, ‘chemistry’, and ‘consciousness’ among many other labels.  

If Lao Tzu (author of the Tao) and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) are deserving of apology for centuries of ridicule by the scientific community, then L. Ron Hubbard ought to at least be given a second look.   In the early fifties, during the height of Cold War electrification and horror at the specter of nuclear physic’s then-greatest creations (the hydrogen and atom bombs) being unleashed, Hubbard was busy attempting to marry scientific thought with Eastern spiritual truth. The author and founder of Dianetics and Scientology became much maligned in the following decades for the extreme, aggressive  measures his Scientology organizations would take in defense and propagation of what began as courageous, effective research.   That well publicized drama largely drowned out Hubbard’s more important contributions.   His definition of spirit, which he termed thetan (from the Greek letter, sometimes used to convey the concept ‘thought’) so as to distinguish his ideas from a myriad of existing, conflicting notions, used more scientist-friendly terms that fully differentiated spirit from the physical universe as:

Having no mass, no wavelength, 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…the awareness of awareness unit.

From a spiritual approach he described a thetan’s effect upon and creation of the physical universe in terms that agree with more recent quantum mechanics findings. As we proceed we will attempt to satisfy the scientific mind by staying within the realm of demonstrable scientific fact.

First, science tells us that there is no such thing as the past.   That is, there is only evidence of the past as a creation of our minds; whether that be in the form of individual and collective memory or the recounting of past events in words, images and published, digital, visual and audio media or in divining and speculating about the past by analysis and testing of physical matter.  The past is only cognizable against the created agreement called ‘time’ (the gauge by which we measure movement of matter in or across space).

Second, science tells us that the present is only what we observe – there is no physical universe but that which we observe.  Whether we create the physical universe to observe, as some religionists and quantum theorists contend we do, or not is an interesting metaphysical question.   A solid agreement on this question is not important for practical purposes of leading a happy, purposeful and meaningful life.  

Third, we are drawn into the future by our individual and collective intention.  If Sally decides she is going to spend tomorrow planting her garden the chances of her doing so are dictated primarily by her ability to follow through on her intention to do so.  Sure, there are conflicting intentions.  Her husband might intend that she instead go to the beach with him.  Her mother might intend she bring her children, the mother’s grandchildren, to her home to play.  The weather might intend to make conditions miserable for planting a garden.   If Sally’s intention is not so strong, it will likely be modified by the conflicting intentions of her husband, her mother, and/or the weather.   But if Sally’s intention is sufficiently strong she will go ahead and create the future she initially intended.   If she has refined social abilities she will first deftly obtain the agreement of her husband and mother to modify their own conflicting intentions.   If she is exceptionally able she might even inspire her husband and mother to contribute to her original intention.   Thus, Sally’s mother winds up coming over the next day to watch the kids so Sally can concentrate on her garden work.  Her husband dons his overalls and gets into the garden to help her.   This works out particularly well where everyone’s original intentions were satisfied – i.e. Sally’s mother’s original intention to spend time with her grandchildren, and her husband’s intention to spend time with Sally, both were satisfied by modifying their intentions to coincide with Sally’s.   And even though the counter intention of the weather apparently was not modified – it poured hard on gardening day – the new, stronger collective intention of Sally, her husband and her mother overcame that hardship.

We witness in ourselves and others varying strengths of intention and abilities to garner cooperation with the realization of intentions.  One factor in determining strength of intention is one’s ability to envision into the future.  If one can rationally observe and evaluate the present so as to conceive of a desirable, achievable future scenario one has a greater chance to develop one’s own effective intention and to garner the cooperation of others in helping to achieve it.  If one’s view of the present is so clouded by fixed ideas molded by undue attention stuck in the apparent past one is liable to be unable to cleanly envision rational, desirable future goals worthy of much support.   In such a case, one will not likely even muster one’s own strength toward achieving such goals, let alone obtain the cooperation of others.   

Goal conception thus can be seen as a fundamental skill in the development of intention toward creation of desirable futures.  Hubbard coined another term to describe that skill. He called it ‘postulating’, or mentally posting scenarios or results for future realization. Precedent to the ability to effectively postulate is accurate, rational observation of the present and differentiation of that from the illusion of the past.  While I am cognizant of the axiom that holds that to remain ignorant of the past is to be condemned to repeat it, there is a stark difference between the past as rational knowledge or wisdom and the past as mysterious, dictating reactivity.  In order to realize the former it is necessary to learn to differentiate it from the latter.   To fail in that differentiation is to continually, and unwittingly, create an illusion that carries force and undue influence in the present and which has a tendency to dictate the future. The most direct and powerful way to achieve differentiation between present and the illusion of the past is to develop the ability to recognize and fully perceive the present.  

Zen Buddhist masters for centuries have periodically reminded students that enlightenment need not take a lifetime of inactivity to achieve; that one is capable of deciding to be enlightened.  They have scorned esoteric and complicated forms of meditation and instead advised coming to present time at once.  20th century philosopher J. Krishnamurti often repeated that theme in writings and lectures.   The burden of his discourse was that to focus on a mantra or an object, as meditation often requires, is as valid in focusing concentration as worshiping an icon or deity is.   It is not however very effective in increasing perception and awareness.  Instead, the most effective and immediate method by which to train the mind and spirit to observe and heighten awareness is to learn to see, or observe.

I do not negate or doubt the inherent ability of some to simply do as Krishnamurti or the Zen masters have advised.  However, I am not one of those who was blessed with that natural presence of mind to instantly achieve that ability.  I was greatly assisted in the process by Hubbard, who saw eye to eye with Krishnamurti and the Zen teachers as far as objective is concerned.   L. Ron Hubbard noted that ‘the road out’ of entrapment of the mind ‘is marked by simplicity and direct observation.’    In pursuit of making that ability attainable by the likes of myself, Hubbard developed a number of simple exercises designed to help an individual attain the ability to simply be present and perceive.  From that foundation further drills make clear, effective communication possible.  The final exercises make one aware of the power of his own intentions and teach one to increase his ability to direct them and realize them.

Ultimately, these exercises became the cornerstone of the applied religious philosophy of Scientology.  When those exercises were recognized as its foundation the philosophy thrived.   That period of expansion was occasioned by the purveying of a simplicity. However, ultimately its organizations were corrupted to become the destructive activity Hubbard himself warned of: ‘By the invitation of or involvement in a complexity, we accomplish the unfathomable and create a mystery.  We sink Man into a priesthood, we sink him into a cult.’

While I acknowledge Hubbard for having created the exercises that follow, I also re-iterate his warning.  The organizations that he created have since his 1986 passing sunk into a dangerous cult priesthood, preying on the curious with a toxic mix of mystery and complexity. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to not trust anyone but yourself in applying these drills.  The moment you encounter complexity in this – or any other – spiritual endeavor sort it out before continuing.  Do not devote your time or energy to anything you do not understand or find rational reason to pursue.   Do not accept the invitation into a complexity or a mystery. 

If you find the drills difficult to do, do not mistake that for or write that off as a ‘complexity’ or a ‘mystery.’   The road to ability is not always easy.  It sometimes requires self-discipline and perseverance.  It sometimes requires strength to overcome the resistance the physical universe (including the unconscious mind) presents to keep us within its relentless tendency to seek equilibrium.  Keep this in mind: that resistance breeds resistance.  Most Eastern thought (including its martial arts) is predicated on that truth.  A spirit is not of the physical universe; it only considers that it can be affected by matter.  When spirit acts like matter, and attempts to use force to control or resist, it provides a base for counter-force and counter-control to accumulate against. What actually is occurring in that case of putting up force or effort (in accordance with Eastern thought and quantum mechanics) is that spirit is creating matter against which more matter can adhere.  When you experience discomfort or seemingly mental mass or force impinging on you during the drills, simply be aware of them.  Do not resist them.  Do not strengthen them with resistance or counter-force.  They are incapable of affecting a thetan, except to the degree that a thetan considers they can.  After all, a thetan is not of the physical universe except only by its own consideration. Simply observe such phenomena for what they are and I believe you will witness them vanish.   When they do, take heart for you will have experienced the achievement of an ability.  Realize that you are on the road to being able to comfortably, fully differentiate the present from the past.   From that strong foundation you can proceed toward more effective communication and projection of your intentions into the future.

The Nullification Of Scientology Inc. Management

What follows is a despatch from David Miscavige (supreme leader of Scientology Inc.) to the top marketing ‘executive’ in corporate Scientology, as Miscavige addresses him: Acting, Temporary Marketing Executive International In Training (A/T/MEI I/T).  The adjectives (acting, temporary, in  training) overlap and are duplicative in some sense, but all are combined to nullify the person in question.  The preamble, A-D, serves no purpose other than to further nullify the recipient.

===

4 MAR 2001

TO: A/T/MEI I/T

RE: INTERNET STRAT—INFORMATION REPORT

This is so off the wall and so complex compared to what should happen to get it in that I know you:

A) Don’t know org boards, command charts,

B) Your resources,

C) Any tool of management,

D) How Internet works

I’m answering so you don’t take it as okay without any word from me (i.e., COB said nothing, so it must be okay).

Now figure it out—especially since I already went over how it’s done.

===

The actual order, the last sentence, is the ultimate nullification, and mind game. ‘Figure it out’, is a rather insane direction when Miscavige tells the person that Miscavige already figured out and communicated ‘how it’s done.’

Many who have attempted to work within Miscavige’s zone of influence can attest that this order above is only too typical.  Miscavige issues a dozen, or dozens, of similarly toned nullification orders in any given day.

Compare this to what L. Ron Hubbard writes about the nullification process in Science of Survival:

Nullification actually begins with domination, but becomes very pronounced at about 1.3  (emotional tone of resentment).  A 2.0  (emotional tone of antagonism) might demand of another that he demonstrate enough ‘guts’ to carry forward a project. But from 1.3 down, the modus operandi is any and every effort to convince another human being ‘for his own good’ or ‘for the good of others’ that he has neither the force nor strength to be dangerous.  By rendering the individual undangerous, the 1.3, 1.2 (emotional tone of no-sympathy), 1.1 (emotional tone of covert hostility) and on down seek to dominate him with the pitiful strength which still remains to the 1.3 and down.   The 1.2 and down is most comfortable around sick people, around people who are in apathy, since the 1.1 mistakenly believes these people not to be dangerous because they are obviously weak.  This is so far from good reasoning that the results are catastrophic.

And that explains in a nutshell why there is no international management in Scientology.  There is only a collection of sick, weak, apathetic people who did not have the strength or sense to realize the above before it was too late.  That was evident to me in ’04 when I left,  after this nullification process had been generalized by Miscavige for at least a decade.   After eight more years of it, Miscavige is surrounded by nothing more than shadows.  Their lack of understanding of  (or care for) the world  around them and how it has evolved makes them liabilities as managers. It would take years for any one of them to decompress sufficiently to be effective or trustworthy.  And that would mean a decompression completely unattached to and not influenced by Scientology Inc. culture.  Pining for a replacement of Miscavige is like whistling past one’s own gravesite.

The solution to Scientology Inc and David Miscavige is to move on and create a new Scientology scene.  Scientology Inc has been dead for some time.   As Jesus once said “let the dead bury their own dead” (Matthew 8:22). (for interpretation see this from ‘church of the Great God’).  In this case, I am not suggesting anybody follow anybody, quite the contrary, I am suggesting to folk that they physically and spiritually walk on.

Shreff Sets Flag MAA Straight

For having protested David Miscavige’s systematic distmantling of the church 0f Scientology, Mark Shreffler is now being subjected to a systematic black PR campaign by Scientology Inc.  Mark is actively challenging accusations about him to his friends emanating from Flag (Scientology Inc’s “mecca”).   A letter he recently sent to a Flag MAA (Master at Arms – the Ethics Officer) evidences just how deep the rabbit hole of falsehoods goes in corporate Scientology.  It also sums up very accurately how Miscavige has decimated Scientology Inc.

AO FSO MAA (Slavka)                                                                      August 2, 2012

Mark Shreffler

 

 

Dear Slavka,                                                                                              

 

The latest rumor is that the “dead agent” handling used at the FSO for my friends regarding me is that “Mark’s questions were answered but he did not like the answers he got.” This puts everyone on the wrong scent, and many will not recognize the smell because they are trusting and honorable people who would never think that their most trusted terminals in the church would lie to their faces.  Yet, they remain hung up at Doubt. How can an OT with 38 years of highly commended service suddenly go postal and walk away from his friends and colleagues, refusing viable answers to his questions?

 

Of course the implication here is that I am the one who needs the correction and not the squirrel activities I have been reporting and trying to address. 

 

I’ve realized, with these “r-factors” you have given to my friends, the degree to which third party has been used as a “management tool.”  OSA personnel are quite expert with this device. Their normal operating basis seems to be, from what I can determine, deception.  This is to such a degree that I’m actually concerned about them personally.  It’s like continually postulating trouble!

 

It causes the actual problems to persist as these lies entered in to the scene make impossible an as-isness of the dilemma.

 

It is made easier for you, I suppose, by the fact that my friends know that if they call me on the phone to get my side of the story, they’ll be punished for doing so and be driven to huge amounts of expense and dev-t.  You threaten their lifestyles and family harmony, and they forget what Ron went through to make the tech available to all of us.

 

DOUBT formulas are clearly no longer allowed in our church.  People with questions must accept what they are told by their MAAs, and anyone with the temerity to communicate outside of those parameters is quickly throttled back in to line with sec checks or goldenrods.  “Not being happy with an answer” means the doubt was not resolved, and the notion that one must settle for whatever he is told is fundamentally repugnant to any being applying a standard Doubt Formula, and would only be accepted by a robot.

 

There, by the use of force and the intelligence of an SP, goes the Church of Scientology.

 

I did not take the questions I presented you in 2011 lightly, and I really would have noticed if they were answered.  It was not in my mind that it would take more than a week or two to handle, and I certainly did not anticipate that I would be walking away from a 38 year career as a gung-ho and highly commended member of this group until I discovered there were no answers for these management aberrations to be found in policy, and no willingness on the part of my terminals in the church to even inquire as to why these outpoints remained unhandled.

 

So, please, repeat for me if you would the answers I was supposedly given to the following questions:

 

  1. LRH      said that the “make-break point” of org expansion is 5.4X.  This figure was the foundation of the      Birthday Game which was giving LRH the only thing he wanted for his      birthday:  church expansion.  He did not want new buildings or people      to increase their level of membership in some unaffiliated gung-ho group.      My question to you was:  “What org      in the world that was here 30 years ago is 5.4 times larger today than it      was then?  How many orgs have      achieved this expansion rate? If your answer is “ZERO”, how can we explain      these proclamations of “unprecedented expansion?”  WHAT is expanding, exactly?  And to what does “47 times the expansion      of any earlier time” refer?  What      happened to LRH stats? I don’t recall your answers to these questions.
  2. What      are the STATS of the church from 1985 to 2011 on an annual basis on First      Service Starts, WDAH, Pd Comps and GI?       How many CL 8 auditors have been created over those years, and what      is the trend? I did not get ANY stats from you or any of the terminals at      OSA after hours of conversation and many requests – yet this is an essential      part of the doubt formula.
  3. How is      it that COB does “International Events” every few months and, in so doing,      bypasses the entire command structure to relay information to the      rank-and-file that SHOULD be coming to them from their local executives      (and thus maintaining the command lines and empowering them)?  This is obviously in violation of the      policy DANGER CONDITIONS, RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECLARING and drives the      lower echelons in to continuing Non Existence conditions.  These events also disperse the attention      of our congregation to the four winds and AWAY from their local      scenes.  They alter the importance      of the one-by-one nature of Scientology, and the vital need to put most of      our attention on bringing NEW people in to the church for services, per      PROPORTIONATE MARKETING.  How are      these “INT EVENTS” justified when there      is not ONE policy that supports them or explains their value – quite      to the contrary.  This is a      continuing and Titanic management faux pas.
  4. Why      have my reports since 1992 on the squirreled nature of the FSM program been      ignored?  If  “the whole purpose of the field staff      member program is to help increase the number of new people contacted,      disseminated to and gotten on to the bridge,”  (FSM SERIES #1) how is it that the      entire program has been hijacked to the TOP of the bridge, gutting the      lower echelons of their public?  Why      have I gotten many sec checks and a comm ev  [which fully vindicated and commended me      but ignored utterly the squirreled FSM program] for just writing these      reports when millions in fraud have been reported and the flow of new      people on and up the bridge brought to a standstill, and the pay of staff      members from FSMCR eliminated?  How      can such obvious crimes that unmock our front-end groups be committed and prolifically reported with no      interest or action from management?       I don’t recall your response to these queries. 
  5. I      mentioned to you the fact that the OCA that LRH used at Saint Hill is not      the squirreled version used in the Church today, and that the results of      these different versions vary dramatically.  This is a game changer because this test      is a fundamental tool used in div 6 and div 4.  It allows us to MAKE CONTACT with the      public with reality.  It gives us prediction and allows honest      evaluation and correct programming so the public is winning at every      turn.  Because people are not      trained in the use of this tool but are ordered to simply read off      computer printouts, trait-by-trait,       they have no familiarity with the test or with the fact that it is      not the same profile LRH used at Saint Hill and to which he refers in      Policy.  The results rendered today      set up our Div 6ers for wrong indications on their new public, and wrong      case programming for C/Ses.  This guarantees un-standard results      which are puzzling because people do not question their measuring tools!      This opens the door for squirreling the tech. How can such a huge      alteration occur and it not be corrected – after innumerable reports on      the matter?
  6. Why      are there no Basic Books in most of the libraries in the United States      even after our management promoted that this job was “DONE!”  Anyone can check this because all public      libraries are listed on the internet, including what books they have and      which ones are being checked out and in what volume.  This was my FIRST question to you when      you asked “did you write this up?”       Remember? I don’t recall your answer to this question. You clearly      did not have one – and assume like many others that “everything is OK and      that this, too, shall pass!” 10’s of millions of dollars worth of books…      vanished. How did this occur, and what is being done about it?
  7. Why is      the hallway at the Sandcastle lined with photos of people who have given      money to the IAS, but no photos of people who have achieved the two      purposes of orgs and given blood and years to the task of clearing people      or opening missions or auditing people?       (I understand that these photos have recently been taken down, but      I wonder if the off-Source purpose they represent has been removed as      well?)  I don’t recall your answer      to this question.
  8. What      policies create and drive the IAS?       It takes many millions from the congregation of the Church of      Scientology (to say nothing of the distraction it creates to the attention      of our group) and yet has no oversights.       This is the elephant in the room.  It is, by what I can determine, a      renegade operation that has ZERO representation in policy but is      apparently simply a money pit to be used in whatever arbitrary fashion is      required by management. Where does all the money go that is paid to the      IAS?  What policy governs it?  Who is in charge of it’s      disbursement?  It is not controlled      by the Church of Scientology and does not go through the FP Committee of      the Church.  If the church public is      only dwindling since the “founding” of the IAS by Yeager and Miscavige,      how is its existence justified? Where is it in writing that LRH had any      knowledge of this group’s formation or purpose?  I don’t recall your answer to these      questions.
  9. How      many members are there in the IAS?       This is an important number because one cannot do service in Div 4      without being a member.  We hear      numbers of Scientologists “in the millions,” but all I can document is      less than 40,000 worldwide – and shrinking.
  10. Why      does management promote that there are so many “new orgs” when in fact      they are just new, subsidized buildings, and the “old orgs” they replace      are not used any further?  The field      has not expanded: only their org’s expenses have expanded.  How is this beneficial to the actual      exchange of Scientology with the world? Who is going to pay the bills for      these buildings when the delivery of the org cannot support it? As this is      falsely represented as being supported by LRH, does it not invalidate the      workability of his actual policies and thus demean the image of Source?  I presented a stack of policies that      invalidate the conduct of the so-called “Ideal Org” project and was shown      ZERO references that justified it.       Did I miss something here? 
  11. You      will recall the Rollback you gave me regarding my answer to the query of a      friend in Australia concerning the Ideal Org project.  You asked me where I got these ‘enemy      lines’ and I showed them to you in OEC Vol 7.  That ended the rollback, of course, but      I wonder if you pulled the string further to get to the real heart of that      matter – that the Ideal Org program was in contravention of that policy I      cited to my friend?  The one who      started the Ideal Org program, in fact, is the enemy you seek with your rollbacks!
  12. Who      actually OWNS the Ideal Org real estate that is purchased?  The Church?  CST? What is the policy that governs      this?
  13. The      promotion for these Ideal Orgs and the IAS is taken off the page of VERBAL      TECH PENALTIES when LRH cautions against the use of brief paragraphs out      of context without saying from which policy the quote was taken in order      to make it appear that LRH is in      support of the program when, in fact, he is clearly opposed to it. I      provided evidence of this but there was no reply to this question that I      recall.
  14. Where      is it written that LRH put David Miscavige in charge?  Where is the structure of church      institutions (CST, RTC, CofS and so on) published so we can all see the      command structure and org board of our management bodies and understand      their relationships? 
  15. Where      are the people who run these activities?       I know that Guillaume was made “ED INT for LIFE” by LRH, but we      never see him anymore. The WDC? Where is Heber?  Mithoff?       Eastman? Wilhere?  And where      is Diana Hubbard?   Did you answer      these questions?
  16. How is      it that “Command Intention” and LRH Intention are taken to mean the same      thing when they clearly are NOT?       How is it that I have friends who have been declared for being      concerned about issues raised in Debbie Cook’s letter – before she was declared?  When was it decided that concern for our      survival as a group became a suppressive act?  When did communication become a crime in      our body? Did you answer these questions, and I just missed it?
  17. How is      it that one whole issue of our FREEDOM magazine was mailed out to the      readership of the St. Pete Times proclaiming that one of our senior      executives was documented as having beat up, on 40 separate occasions,      other members of the crew?  This      issue of FREEDOM was devoted to throwing the entire church management      strata, the Church of Scientology, the religion of Scientology and LRH      under the bus in order to protect one person: David Miscavige. The rest of      our “International Management” were apparently standing around bearing      witness to these beatings. They even allowed themselves to be videoed by      the press professing the innocence of Miscavige and the guilt of his      lieutenant. Did anyone have the idea that the IMPORTANT thing is to show      Scientology, Source materials and LRH were not involved in this psychotic      demonstration of PTSness, and then use the incident to educate the world      on the effects of suppression and the need to be constanty alert and      constantly willing to fight back?        After all, this “handling” by FREEDOM was a MISTAKE of Tsunamic      proportions.  These only occur in      the presence of suppression.  Was      there an investigation done?  The      protection of Miscavige was the ONLY important factor in this entire third      dynamic engram.  Did you address      this question with me, Slavka – because I certainly recall the look on      your face when I brought this article to your attention – and the fact      that the entire magazine was used not to promote Scientology and the      Church and LRH but to white-wash the results of PTSness at our highest      levels.  Lastly, if the lieutenant      was guilty of these beatings as was admitted in the FREEDOM mag, was COB      not aware of this behavior?  To      believe this we would have to think that COB is either incompetent,      stupid, or deaf, dumb and blind.  If      he was aware of it and did nothing to stop it,  he needs some time to think for a couple      of hundred years before he does A to E.       In either case,  NOTHING WAS      DONE, and this engram continues.       What a mess.  I don’t recall      your address of these issues with me except to ask “Who is in your ear?”      as though I have an evil Leprechaun on my shoulder.  ANYONE can see this stuff, and what      manner of person would NOT want something done about it?
  18. If our      management is as unethical as all of these things suggest, is it rational      to assume that the tech and the admin in our church are IN?  Do you have an answer for this?  Has it not occurred to anyone that      people actually like Scientology – Ron’s Brand – and stay away in      droves from squirreled activities?       How many in the church would leave it if they did not have children      or businesses that would be affected? I, myself, have concerns about      bringing people in to this atmosphere – and this has been my purpose for      the past 38 years! And how many NEW people are turned off by what they      THINK is Scientology when it is only the unchecked dramatizations of a few      PTS executives – and the PTS congregation that permits it to continue?
  19. We      have an opportunity here to educate the world,  but instead we turn on each other and      play the “who can we bankrupt first?” Game.  Why?

 

I had many other questions, but I think any Scientologist would have these and would agree that they need to be fully confronted and resolved.

 

Please stop telling people that “We answered Mark’s questions but he did not like the answers.”   You KNOW this is a lie and it is beneath you.   I implore you to find out for yourself the answers to these questions and let me know what you discover.

 

You showed me the reference about how an SP becomes one – where a period of stress at the hands of the SP is followed by the person taking on the SP’s valence.  You were showing me this reference as regards Debbie Cook to explain “how she became suppressive.”

 

I asked you – and I mention this as the last unanswered sample question in my collection – which person it was who’s valence this long-time, highly trained and decorated Sea Org veteran was first suppressed by and who’s valence she later assumed.

 

WHO were YOU talking about? Did it not occur to you that perhaps the SP who suppressed her and who’s valence she allegedly assumed is still in the church?

 

Is it a truthful thing to say that by pointing these destructive but actual things out that Debbie Cook was displaying suppressive characteristics?

 

My own contention, of course, is that after the wars with the IRS in the 80’s and the battle with that band of suppressives, the “war” was actually not over as COB proclaimed. Our own management strata was completely stressed out and actually took on the valence of the SP IRS personnel. It’s just a theory, but there is substantial evidence to support it.

 

A review of the policy PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE would describe what is happening in our church today, and the need for the gargantuan PR machine that was put in place to cover it all up.

 

It’s all very fixable, but won’t be as long as the insane are running the asylum.  Hence, the growth of the Independent movement  – most of whom have shed their PTSness and ironically are more Scientologist than many of the uniformed reps running around.

 

In any case, this would seem to me to be an important investigation, and might open up the door for a handling or two.

 

 

Mark

Markshreffler.wordpress.com

Scientology 101

The following is the unedited introduction to my next book Scientology 101.   It  will be published when I make sufficient time to complete it.

                                    Scientology vs. Scientologism

One idea I tried to introduce in the book What Is Wrong With Scientology?  (Amazon books, 2012) was Scientology’s need for integration.

Integration is the act or process of integrating, defined by Webster’s as incorporating into a larger unit.

From the beginning of his forays into the mysteries of the human mind and spirit, the founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard wished his findings to be integrated into existing fields of study, including psychiatry, psychology, biology, education and the healing arts.  His responses to having been so violently rejected in such established fields for the first fifteen years of his journeys were conflicted.

One response was to form what he called a social coordination network.  He established its purpose as ‘to subvert the subverters’.  The idea was predicated on the assumption that established fields of social betterment were zealously guarded monopolies that had subverted governments and foundations for fortunes.  He felt Scientology had better answers than most of them and thus would be justified in subverting the subverters.   First he encouraged Scientologists to use Scientology applications in every endeavor where they might bring improvement with them.  He even defined a Scientologist as one who applied Scientology to better conditions in life.  Then, an organized bureau was created to coordinate Scientologists who had set up groups that applied Scientological solutions to societal problems in a secular (non-religious) framework.   They were directed to produce such success rates that accepted, established institutions in those fields would feel compelled to incorporate the proven effective methods of Scientology in their respective disciplines.

During the nineteen seventies and eighties the social coordination network made substantial headway into the fields of drug rehabilitation and education.   Its subgroups Narconon (drug rehabilitation) and Applied Scholastics (education) created many groups with impressive records of results with drug addicts and students.

However, within a decade of Hubbard’s 1986 death, Scientology church management (hereinafter Scientology Inc. or corporate Scientology) had perverted the purpose and function of Applied Scholastics and Narconon so markedly as to effectively destroy the groundwork they had laid for the previous twenty years.

Once Narconon had produced some admirable statistics, rather than take rational measures to reinforce those gains, Scientology Inc. killed the goose that laid the golden eggs in two ways.  First, Narconon had largely been formed and operated by former drug addicts who had come off drugs using Scientology methods.  Rather than help make that fact and its results known, Scientology Inc. shamelessly took credit for Narconon’s successes, touting itself as the operator of ‘the largest and most successful’ drug salvage institution in the world.  That promotion was used for two purposes, neither of which forwarded the purpose of Narconon: a) to serve as a mitigation plea against  public attacks on Scientology Inc’s unrelated abuses, and b) to extract huge sums of money from Scientologists to forward Narconon as a public relations activity for Scientology (little of said funds ever were directed toward expansion of drug rehabilitation delivery).

The second way Scientology Inc. destroyed Narconon was to take a completely opposite tack when Narconon got into trouble by its own negligence.   When failed products of Narconon brought complaints to media or authorities, Scientology Inc. did everything it could to distance itself from Narconon, claiming zero connection or responsibility for its operation.  The public at large, possessing a good measure of common sense, couldn’t help but note the hypocrisy.

Applied Scholastics similarly lost the fruits of its decades-long production record at the hands of Scientology Inc’s two-faced, short-cut exploitation mentality.  During the seventies and eighties Applied Scholastics schools delivered a wholly secular education, utilizing but one important and central methodology of L. Ron Hubbard, the technology of ‘how to study.’  In that wise, Applied Scholastics schools produced impressive, measurable and recognized results.  However, again shortly after Hubbard’s 1986 death Scientology Inc. began undermining the organization’s purpose in pursuit of immediate perceived gain for itself.  Scientology Inc. influenced Applied Scholastic schools to introduce ever increasing levels of Scientology indoctrination, and promoted that to existing Scientologists.  Tuitions were raised, and percentages were paid to Scientology Inc. Over time the schools became parochial in nature. Eventually the schools degenerated into badly disguised preparation and recruitment pools for Scientology’s priesthood (called the Sea Organization).   And as happened with Narconon, when former students publicly complained of their Applied Scholastics experiences, Scientology Inc  vehemently distanced itself with a plethora of false denials.

A form of schizophrenia has apparently taken hold of Scientology Inc.   It is manifested in the one personality that wants to take credit for every success in Narconon and Applied Scholastics, and at the same time wield the opposite personality that insists on distancing itself every time there is a complaint or failure.  It wants to control every aspect of the use of anything written by L. Ron Hubbard – and take a healthy tithe for it – but wants to pretend it doesn’t when things don’t go the way it wishes them to.

Exacerbating the situation is Scientology Inc’s ruthless enforcement of its alleged legal right to control the application of any of L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas.   It has created an aggressive, effective legal bureau to threaten and punish anyone who has the temerity to utilize the ideas of Hubbard outside of its stringent control.  It has spent tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars over the past several decades using lawsuits as bludgeons to ruin people who have assayed to practice Scientology – as a religion or otherwise – outside the control of Scientology Inc.

As incompetent and discreditable as Scientology Inc’s schizoid Public Relations function has become, it has become as inversely adept at reeling Scientology practice in.  It has become so uncompromising and persistent at punishing ‘unauthorized’ application that people do so at great risk to themselves financially.

The situation seems irreversible when one considers the path of Hubbard’s second solution to integration, the attacking of the original chief opponents of the sharing of his ideas, the psychs (as Scientology Inc. refers to all mental health practitioners and researchers).  Scientology Inc. established an intelligence and propaganda network to bring down the establishment of those fields.  Scientology Inc’s public pronouncements against the psychs are so shrill, so sensationalized, and so exaggerated as to serve the opposite purpose such opposition was originally intended to serve.

Ironically, in the fifties and sixties Scientology acted as a pioneer of sorts for the New Age movement.   Since then, however, its corporate form has become a bitter enemy of anything having any connection whatsoever to traditional mental health concepts – which happens to include just about every extant New Age methodology.  Scientology Inc’s attacks have thus served as an insular, flat-earth protest against any new ideas that it does not control and profit from.  It has thus positioned itself as an extremist cult in the eyes of most mental health, New Age, and spiritualist practitioners, not to mention much of the public at large.

All successful applications of Scientology methodologies not only clerically (in terms of Scientology churches and missions) but secularly (including, but not limited to, education and drug rehabilitation) were originated and pioneered by individuals in those fields who decided to make application of L. Ron Hubbard’s ideas their life’s work.   Since Scientology Inc. has become so combative and controlling (and disloyal and irresponsible when their own suffer setbacks) it makes it dangerous to propagate the works of L. Ron Hubbard.

Ironically , it seems that the greatest enemy  to the future dissemination of Hubbard’s ideas is none other than Scientology Inc. itself.  So effective has Scientology Inc. been in establishing itself as the modern Grand Inquisitor that the very word Scientology has become associated with oppression, repression, and mental captivity.

The vicious cycle is topped off by Scientology Inc.’s strict, literal policy that holds that Scientology contains all of the answers to any and all problems of people, and that conversely no other subject that speaks to the mental and spiritual health of humankind has any validity and nothing to add to the equation.

In 1969 the late, great Viktor Frankl described what Scientology Inc. has become in the year 2012 (without any reference to Scientology at all):

What is dangerous is the attempt of a man who is an expert, say, in the field of biology, to understand and explain human beings exclusively in terms of biology.  The same is true for psychology and sociology as well.  At the moment at which totality is claimed, biology becomes biologism, psychology becomes psychologism, and sociology becomes sociologism.  In other words, at that moment science is turned into ideology. What we have to deplore, I would say, is not that scientists are specializing but that specialists are generalizing.  We are familiar with that type called terrible simplificateurs.  Now we become acquainted with a type I would like to call terrible generalisateurs.  I mean those who cannot resist the temptation to make overgeneralized statements on the grounds of limited findings.

Scientology Inc has turned a self-styled ‘science of the mind’ into an ‘ideology of everything.’  However, Frankl’s words provide inspiration for drawing a line of demarcation, beyond which a clean slate might be established to paint a new future for application of the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard.

On the basis of Frankl’s logic I would like to introduce a distinction between the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard and the terrible generalisateurs who are members of Scientology Incorporated.   Scientology Inc. is not the guardian of Scientology. Instead, it is an imposter holding the subject hostage.  It has become nothing more than the creator of a new religion, Scientologism, which I contend would be unrecognizable to L. Ron Hubbard.  Scientologism has become the greatest suppressor of the circulation of Scientology ideas.  It bears no resemblance to the purpose, heart, and soul of the subject of Scientology.

Let us approach the subject of Scientology as a subject. Not as an ideology.  Not as a trademark.  Not as the esoterica of an exclusive club of misguided, intolerant zealots.   Let us evolve and transcend from obsessive, compulsive isms.   Let us discuss what Scientology actually is in terms that anyone can understand and apply.  Let us attempt to integrate the principal, workable ideas of Scientology with other disciplines so they can be understood and perhaps even serve a purpose to humanity where they can. Let us attempt to shed a little light where there was once only darkness.

 

John Brousseau

Tony Ortega at the Village Voice has published a comprehensive interview with John “JB” Brousseau, see JB VV interview, part one, and part two.   JB told me that he was impressed with Tony’s ability to get all that level of detail out of JB and communicate it in such an un-embellished fashion.  It is quite a story.

For those who were not following the blog in mid 2010, we covered JB’s escape from the Int base directly to my home in Texas.  We also covered the extraordinary measures Miscavige took in hunting down and attempting to apprehend JB for re-imprisonment before he could speak:

Mission to re-capture JB fails

To LRH he was JB

JB – Going Mobile

PI’s going after JB

JB manhunt in Los Angeles

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. 

Diana Hubbard Horwich

Several people who frequent this blog have asked about Diana Hubbard Horwich’s (L. Ron Hubbard’s daughter) attitude toward Scientology Inc. supreme leader David Miscavige.   The following excepts from a written debrief of the 2003 Maiden Voyage events on the Freewinds gives a real time account that I find to be very accurate in terms of what I observed Diana’s attitude toward Miscavige to be continuously between 1982 and 2004 as I witnessed the two interact.   This report is dated 24 June 2003 and was written by another person many have asked about here, Karen Hollander.

Maiden Voyage 2003 Events Crew Debrief by Karen Hollander:

Another thing came up during that afternoon.  Diana had been working with ED CC Paris who then wrote an acceptance speech for the St. Hill size award.  Diana and Gail reviewed it and thought it was good but too long (about 4 minutes). In it, the ED had acknowledged and thanked COB and RTC for removing arbitraries and for the direction Alain received, stating this was why they were finally able to achieve St. Hill size.  Gail had been working on reducing the length of the acceptance speech and making some edits.  She asked Diana if it was OK to have this part in his acceptance speech, and Diana was adamant it should be deleted as she felt “it would create a hidden data line”. COB Asst investigated and questioned Diana on this and Diana admitted she took this out.  Diana had it thoroughly justified. After that Diana remained on C deck and off of the Management night and production of any other events.  This whole incident created further enturbulation during the event evolution.

It was shortly after this (just before dinner time) that the CO GOLD sent IMPR to the bilges due to the Hill 10s (flaps) that were being created by the IMPR office.  So at this point, both Diana and IMPR were off the production of the MV events and remained off the production lines for the rest of the cruise (what they worked on is noted later)…

…At first, they had Diana in to assist them but I later saw Diana and she told me that COB came into the C deck conference room and when he saw her there, he asked the Execs why they were using her.  She told me that she immediately walked out of the room. I was shocked and asked how she could just walk out of a room when COB was discussing her. She stated that she didn’t want to remain because she didn’t want to be “yelled at” and I told her this was BPR and that she should have been there and confronted what he had to say so she could start changing.  She disagreed.  I went and spoke to the Execs and from ED Int’s perspective, COB didn’t want her in the room so it was correct she left.   

Later in the afternoon I went to the cabin to retrieve a note pad and saw that IMPR was there resting on her bed. She told me that she had gotten heat exhaustion in the bilges and the engineers were concerned about her and had her lie down. They also notified the MLO to check on her as they were concerned she had heat exhaustion.  IMPR told me that the CO Gold had disapproved her request to come back on the lines so she was going to see the MLO to handle how she felt physically.

Scientology Inc. versus the Psychs

L. Ron Hubbard was clearly not keen on the subject of psychiatry.

But, it wasn’t always that way.   In the late forties and early fifties Hubbard put a lot of effort into selling the psychiatric profession on the virtues of Dianetics.  In response, he was not only rebuffed but targeted by a well- financed campaign directed by the “very best” psychiatrists to expose Hubbard and Dianetics as  alleged frauds.  That campaign gained momentum for a couple of decades as it was joined along the way by numerous Federal and State agencies.

Increasingly, Hubbard fought escalating fire with escalating fire.  He gradually came off his original, soft conclusion from his first book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, that psychiatrists and psychologists did not achieve results mainly because they did not possess a workable mental technology.  In the early fifties he often poked fun at the unworkability of psychiatry, psychology  and psycho-analysis (their practioners collectively referred to as ‘psychs’ in Scientology) in his lectures. Then he began to deride mental health professionals as working not to help humankind but instead to control it. His position, while stated with increasing vehemence that betrayed a personal hurt at being attacked instead of recognized by the mental health establishment, was not without support.   A four-part BBC documentary, Century of Self (available for free at freedocumentaries.com), though evidencing no connection with Scientology or Hubbard, very competently sums up the valid criticisms Hubbard had been levying for decades prior to its making and airing. It documents the primary use of mental health methodologies for controlling populaces rather than in improving or curing them.

By the mid sixties the organized psychiatric and psychological associations’ attacks were so effective, Scientology was in danger of being banned in every country it had been established in across the globe.  Hubbard took off the gloves.   He created an international intelligence and propaganda network, the Guardian’s Office, and directed it to infiltrate, expose and destroy the major national and international mental health associations attacking Scientology.  So hard-hitting and dedicated were church campaigns against psychiatric associations and front groups in the sixties and seventies that Scientology survived attacks that no other organization likely would have.

By the time I took charge of church external affairs in the early eighties, there were few organized psychiatric attacks extant on Scientology.  There were a handful of expert psychiatric witnesses in damages cases against Scientology just as there were in any other lawsuit dealing with issues of emotional distress.  But the behemoth organizations Hubbard confronted and combatted (American Psychiatric Association/American Psychological Association) were no longer a factor in attacks on Scientology.

Ironically, it was after he had won the war against organized psychiatry that Hubbard issued his final salvos against it that would justify his successors tilting against psychiatric windmills as a matter of religious conviction for the next thirty years.  From the isolation of the seclusion he imposed upon himself for the final five years of his life, in 1982 Hubbard pronounced as a matter of church policy and doctrine that psychiatrists constituted a special, identifiable type of evil spirit.  That is, no person within the ranks of psychiatry or psychology was anymore simply a person who wanted to help others but was misguided into unworkable fields. Instead, psychiatrists and psychologists were a special breed of being who had been psychiatrists lifetime after lifetime, for millions of years, and were programmed to create chaos and destruction to earth.  His final pronouncement on the subject directly contradicted and tore the heart out of essential basics of the philosophy he had created over three decades in that it adjudicated a class of people as inherently evil. Hubbard pronounced that the sole cause of crime on earth was psychiatrists – “There’s only one remedy for crime – get rid of the psychs.  They are causing it!”  Perhaps by the time we move up to May 1982 (when Hubbard published this anti-psych tract) in the larger narrative of Scientology’s history we’ll better understand Hubbard’s level of vehemence during that particular period of time.

Such context will no doubt be suppressed among corporate Scientologists.  The truth might slow the momentum of a very lucrative con built on Scientologists’ fear of ‘psychs.’ The church has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from spirited annual rallies condemning psychiatry and calling for the “obliteration” of ‘psychs’ as a duty dictated by religious faith. In the year 2011 corporate Scientology leader David Miscavige announced “Global Vengeance” campaigns against “psychiatry”, receiving wildly enthusiastic ovations from his core contributors.

One highlight of that presentation that ignited a particularly raucous response was the announcement that the annual American Psychiatric Association convention that year had featured a seminar organized to try to figure out why Scientology was waging war against psychiatry.  Miscavige was clearly tickled when disclosing this tidbit to the crowd.  In fact, he was giddy in his dandy, tailor-made tuxedo standing behind his elaborate, custom-made podium.

It made me consider the irony that the head of the American Psychiatric Association probably understood the cross L. Ron Hubbard’s had once borne better than Miscavige ever would.  After all, he was in nearly the same position Hubbard found himself in sixty years earlier when he no doubt perplexedly pondered , ‘why on earth has organized psychiatry decided to wage war against me and Scientology?’

The Virus That Killed Scientology Inc.

The following is an excerpt from What Is Wrong With Scientology?: Healing Through Understanding.  It might provide some food for thought.

Virtually everyone whom I have met who knew L. Ron Hubbard personally described him in words to the effect of “larger than life.”  That comes from a wide spectrum of people, from those who loved him to those who sharply criticized him.  I never met him, and in a way I am glad I did not.  To me, the ultimate worth of what he created can only be measured against the standard of whether what he wrote and lectured about can produce desirable effects or not.  In the end, that is how he wished it to be.  He noted in one of his final journals to Scientologists that his legacy would be the technology he would leave behind – not his personality, not his biography, not his recognitions and awards, not any God-like abilities that others must continue to create in their minds and rely upon, and not his frailties and shortcomings.

    It was Hubbard’s charismatic and infectious personality that led critics back in the ’80s to predict that Scientology would die once he passed away.  Some have since claimed that Hubbard’s January, 1986 death did indeed mark the beginning of the end of Scientology.  While both of these assertions were close to the mark, in my view they were not quite accurate in a couple of respects.  First, a semantics note.  True, the church of Scientology is dead, for all intents and purposes. But that is an organization, a corporate conglomerate.  Scientology itself is a religious philosophy, and that has not died.  A philosophy cannot be killed, any more than an idea can be extinguished. True, the church of Scientology began to die after its founder’s demise.  However, the passing of Hubbard did not kill it.  Instead, during the confusion and pain of Scientologists’ mourning Hubbard’s death, a deadly virus was stealthily injected into Scientology culture.

    That virus was a falsehood.

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.