Tag Archives: scientology

1984: The Severe Reality Adjustment

(ref: earlier post: Reverse (Black) Dianetics – Scientology’s 1984)

Miscavige takes a great deal of pride in having created what has become an accepted term of Scientology nomenclature behind the Wall.  It is called the SRA, or Severe Reality Adjustment. An SRA entails getting into a person’s face, screaming a reality at the top of one’s lungs with such force that the recipient goes into overwhelm and accepts the enforced reality. Should the recipient show the slightest disagreement or even puzzlement over the reality being imparted, it is expected that the SRAer use physical force to finish the job. Quite similar to the many lectures wherein LRH describes implant technology.

Miscavige recently promised to “annihilate” the credibility of folks imparting truths about Miscavige’s history that are apparently unpalatable to Miscavige.

The above facts are quite interesting in the light of the following passage from George Orwell’s 1984:

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.

“The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist?  Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control,’ they called it; in Newspeak, ‘doublethink.’

“‘Stand easy!’ barked the instructress, a little more genially.Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink.  To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

Wake up!

Some thoughts to reflect upon on Sunday

“…And there is, deep down within all of us, an instinct. It’s a kind of drum major instinct – a desire to be out front, a desire to lead the parade, a desire to be first. And it is something that runs the whole gamut of life…

“…And the great issue of life is to harness the drum major instinct. Now the other problem is when you don’t harness the drum major instinct, this uncontrolled aspect of it, is that it leads to snobbish exclusivism. Now you know, this is the danger  of social clubs, and fraternities. I’m in a fraternity; I’m in two or three. For sororities, and all of these, I’m not talking against them, I’m saying it’s the danger. The danger is that they can become forces of classism and exclusivism where somehow you get a degree of satisfaction because you are in something exclusive, and that’s fulfilling something, you know. And I’m in this fraternity, and it’s the best fraternity in the world and everybody can’t get in this fraternity. So it ends up, you know, a very exclusive kind of thing.

“And you know, that can happen with the church. I’ve known churches get in that bind sometimes. I’ve been to churches you know, and they say ‘we have so many doctors and so many school teachers, and so many lawyers, and so many businessmen in our church.’ And that’s fine, because doctors need to go to church, and lawyers, and businessmen, teachers — they ought to be in church. But they say that, even the preacher will go on through it, they say that as if the other people don’t count. And the church is the one place where a doctor ought to forget that he’s a doctor. The church is the one place where a Ph.D. ought forget that he’s a doctor. The church is the one place that a schoolteacher ought to forget the degree she has behind her name. The church is the one place where the lawyer ought to forget that he’s a lawyer. And any church that violates the ‘whosoever will, let him come’ doctrine is a dead, cold church,and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity…

“…And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important –wonderful. If you want to be recognized — wonderful. If you want to be great — wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest amongst you shall be your servant. That’s your new definition of greatness. And this morning, the thing that I like about it – by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great. Because everybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You don’t have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. And you can be that servant…”

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

excerpts from a sermon given from the pulpit of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, 4 February 1968

martin-luther-king-jr

Reverse (Black) Dianetics – Scientology’s 1984

For those who have not watched it, please view the Reverse (Black) Dianetics segment of the filmed interview of me on the St Pete Times webpage:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/rathbun.shtml

I detailed how Miscavige practices Reverse Dianetics day in and day out at International Management headquarters; and how Miscavige avoided meeting with me to discuss the ceasing of that practice.

Now, read this quote from Miscavige’s recent 80-page Freedom magazine created to respond to the St Pete Times Truth Rundown series:

“He [Miscavige] personally verified all books and lectures, their contents and their sequence so Scientologists can now study their religion in pure form and chronologically.  This project alone represented thousands of hours of Mr. Miscavige’s time in ensuring every word conformed precisely with Mr. Hubbard’s original works by reading and re-reading each manuscript and final book as well as listening to all 2,500 of Mr. Hubbard’s lectures. ”

Please keep this passage in mind as you continue to read.  Chris Collbran – a  freedom fighting brother –  provided me with some research he conducted, demonstrating a very curious edit performed on a Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture.

The following text is an accurate reproduction of the transcript issued with DM’s re-release of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture of 6 December 1952 Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic. The words in bold face appeared in the cassette tape version of the very same lecture available in every Church of Scientology for many years prior to DM’s new edited release (copyrighted 1982). If you have a set of the newly issued DM-edited PDC on CD, you can listen to it for yourself – the bold faced words below have been deleted. If you have the same previously available PDC lecture on cassette you can listen to it too, and the bold face words, lo and behold, are audible.

“You’ll find almost any preclear can be given Creative Processing. And you could get ahold of him and flip the PDH out. That’s interesting, isn’t it?  In other words, you can take them out as fast they lay them down.

“Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell’s 1984? Yes, yes, that’s wonderful. That would be — could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence.

“It’s a very simple remedy. And that’s just make sure that the remedy is passed along. That’s all. Don’t hoard it and don’t hold it; and if you ever do use any Black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn’t available. Because he’s the boy who would be electing himself “The New Order.” And we don’t need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am concerned, have been filled.”

That is correct, all of the words in bold faced type above have been removed from the CD released lecture and accompanying transcript. And yes, all those words appear in the same lecture previously available on cassette tape and they also appear in the tape’s accompanying transcript (copyright 1982).

I leave it to the reader to come to your own conclusion as to why Miscavige might  edit LRH in that fashion.

For whom does Bert Fields work?

LAW OFFICES OF

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP

August 26, 2009

Marty Rathbun

Dear Marty:

I am out of the country on a family vacation, but I did want to respond to your letter.

As I think you know, I represent Tom Cruise, not David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology. My letter to you was soley to protect Tom’s rights, not to deal with whatever issues you may have with Mr. Miscavige or the Church.

So far as Tom is concerned, I will repeat what I said before. It is neither appropriate nor lawful for you to refer to yourself online, in the media or elsewhere as Tom’s auditor. I would like to avoid taking action over this, so please stop.

I am not going to respond to your accusations about David Miscavige. Personally, I have never seen him even hint of the behavior you attribute to him. Our conversations have always been civil and respectful. He does appear to be a strong champion of the Church and its values. But that is not only his job, it is his life.

I know from what Mike Rinder has said that Mr. Miscavige, in effect, saved the Church when he cleaned house in the 80’s.

In any event, whatever your issues may be, I hope you can solve them.

Sincerely,

Bertram Fields

Scientific proof that Scientology works

When Spike Lee was being pestered by a reporter once about how one scene from one of his movies meant Spike had some sort of negative behavioral trait, Spike asked the fellow to step back for a moment.  Spike asked the reporter to stop obsessing with a single tree in the forest. He said he hoped that in the end he would be judged for his entire body of work by cooler minds.

The “scientific thinking” and the wholly negative writing skeptics frequenting this blog will never understand what I am about to say.  They are much like the reporter who wants to obsess on this, that or the other excerpt. They approach the subject much like Miscavige does – so he won’t get this either. But,  those who have carefully studied Hubbard’s entire body of work and applied it to see what is workable and what is not certainly will.

One of Time magazine’s one hundred most influential people this year is Harvard physician and sociologist Nicholas Christakis.  I have appended the article on him explaining why he made the list.   Serious students of the subject of Scientology I think will agree  that what Christakis has scientifically demonstrated to be true validates perhaps 75% of what in essence Scientology has to teach.

Ironically, Christakis’ work also serves as a great scientific justification for starting to cut some of the hyper critical, negative out from the comments section of this blog. I am all for freedom of speech. And as I’ve said before there are plenty places that welcome the defiant negative that some people are incapable of seeing beyond. I am equally for freedom of association. You want to associate with folks who are trying to move on up a little higher?  Then you can start contributing to the motion by treating the others who sincerely are with some dignity and respect.

Nicholas Christakis by Dan Ariely

Social scientists used to have a straightforward, if tongue-in-cheek, answer to the question of how to become happy: Surround yourself with people who are uglier, poorer and shorter than you are — and who are unhappily married and have annoying kids. You will compare yourself with these people, and the contrast will cheer you up.

Nicholas Christakis, 47, a physician and sociologist at Harvard University, challenges this idea. Using data from a study that tracked about 5,000 people over 20 years, he suggests that happiness, like the flu, can spread from person to person. When people who are close to us, both in terms of social ties (friends or relatives) and physical proximity, become happier, we do too. For example, when a person who lives within a mile of a good friend becomes happier, the probability that this person’s good friend will also become happier increases 15%. More surprising is that the effect can transcend direct links and reach a third degree of separation: when a friend of a friend becomes happier, we become happier, even when we don’t know that third person directly.

This means that surrounding ourselves with happier people will make us happier, make the people close to us happier — and make the people close to them happier. But social networks don’t transmit only the good things in life.

Christakis found that smoking and obesity can be socially infectious too. If his thesis proves out, then the saying that you can judge a person by his or her friends might carry more weight than we thought.

Ariely is the James B. Duke professor of behavioral science at Duke University and the author of the best seller Predictably Irrational

Buildings

” We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material, and so forth. And it keeps growing. But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God’s sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters. If someone had put some HE (high explosives) under the Vatican long ago, Catholicism might still be going. Don’t get interested in real estate. Don’t get interested in the masses of buildings, because that’s not important.

“What is important is how much service you can give the world and how much you can get done and how much better you can make things. These are important things. These are all that are important. A bank account never measured the worth of a man. His ability to help measured his worth and that’s all. A bank account can assist one to help but where it ceases to do that it becomes useless.”

L. Ron Hubbard, 31 December 1960 lecture, The Genus of Dianetics and Scientology.