Scientology and Truth

I talk a great deal about the virtues of “truth.”  It’s a basic concept that all of science, technology, philosophy, and religion are founded on (or should be) in my opinion. However, sometimes I think that the meaning of “truth”, or at least the practice of it can sometimes be lost. For this reason, I would like to clarify.

In Scientologese, “truth” is defined as “the exact consideration” or “the exact time, place, form and event” (Axiom 38.)  This definition is very important to the success of auditing, as almost every process is based in some fashion or another on this axiom.

LRH expands on this in the lecture entitled “Standard Tech Defined” given on 27 September 1968:

“So anyway, Scientology is well named. It is the road to truth. It is a study of the truth. And total truth is total power. And when the guy hasn’t got any lies left in him he’s OT. And all the mechanics of OT work out too. So the subject is very, very well named.

“And that’s what Scientology means. It’s the study of truth, to which could be added the technology of achieving truth.”

In other words the truth IS what Scientology is all about (or at least should be.)  There’s no arguing with the truth. Because, it is what is.  And it works to the degree that it aligns with the truth and no more.  Who wouldn’t want to know more about that?

It’s unfortunate however that a group whose principles (and very name) are supposed to be based on truth can stray so far away from it that they would inspire a reaction such as The Truth Rundown.  How did this happen?

Maybe it’s because the members of that group didn’t follow what LRH suggested they do in HCO PL 9 JAN 51 – AN ESSAY ON MANGEMENT:

“Hook up an abundance of communication lines to fill their various needs, keep the communications terse, keep the communications wholly honest and drop no curtains between the organization and the public about anything.”

Ultimately, the situation such as what I discuss in My Eval probably came about because we allowed the following policy (from the same HCO PL) to be violated in the selection of our leadership:

“Choose in its posts of trust, high-theta personnel who plan creatively and constructively in expanding terms rather than ‘emergency’ terms. Keep out of office the death-talkers who pervert or selectively censor communications or cut lines to gain power, who postulate opportunistic but dire realities and who, perverting affinity, have no love for man.”

In the end, the truth still remains no matter what you want to call it.  And it is the truth that the real Road to Freedom is made of.

What is Standard Tech

I think there has been some confusion for Scientologists as to what exactly “Standard Tech” is, especially because it is a term that has often been used synonymously with KSW #1 to make Auditors wrong, and suppress PC’s with Black Scientology.  For this reason, I would like to clarify exactly what Standard Tech means (at least to me.)

One of the best definitions in my opinion is in the LRH lecture entitled “Standard Tech Defined” given on 27 September 1968:

“A science is a body of truths. A technology is a body of truths. Now somebody who can’t confront action, or something like that, thinks a truth would be a datum of some kind or another. Well a truth can also be an action. And the road through all of the untruths of a person, from all the way south to all the way north has been mapped. It exists. It has been on a chart for years. There have been bulletins which announced its’ processes. The doingness of those processes are exact, precise. There aren’t two ways to do them. There is one way to do them.

“And that is what you are here learning. And if you can’t learn that basic fundamental you might as well quit now. You are not learning this wide subject of philosophy.

“You’re not learning every student’s got a chance to think his own opinion right now. You’re not learning that right now. You’re learning the technical application of exactly how it is done, exactly to whom it is done, exactly and precisely the steps and actions taken to an exact, precise results. And that’s what you’re learning. And you haven’t anything to do with how many needles sit on the head of an angel.”

The key note is of course “results.”  When applied correctly Standard Tech gets results. That’s the whole point. Without results, robotically following some set of rules is pointless.

If we were talking about building an actual bridge across a chasm (and not just an allegorical one) then I don’t think there would be much argument that in order to achieve the end result we would need to apply certain unalterable rules of the subject of engineering. Unless we wanted to have a bridge that collapsed and killed people that is.

Likewise, any argument about KSW #1 (or Scientology as a technology) being destructive can be defused with this one definition. There is no doubt that a technology can be used for something other than what it was intended, or be corrupted into something that it originally wasn’t.  But, you can’t argue with results.  I don’t think anyone would argue that a “road through all of the untruths of a person,” or actually helping someone achieve greater ability and happiness, is a bad thing. Unless that person were a psychopath that is.

Has a Withhold Been Missed?

At the beginning of every Scientology auditing program the preclear (pc) is asked the question: “Has a withhold been missed?”  This is to make sure that the pc has no attention on anything other than the present-time session.  The original intention was for this to be a quick and simple procedure. However, it has become something entirely different.  When applied as dictated by the Golden Age of Tech it can sometimes take hours and turn into an entire session in itself.  This often creates further upsets and unwillingness for the pc to continue the session, or even continue auditing at all.

This was something that bothered me for quite a while.  I knew that there must be something non-Standard responsible for this technology to not work as it was supposed to. So, I re-studied every reference on missed withholds, and cleared up every misunderstood.  Of course, I also made sure that my TRs and metering were impeccable so that any difficulties weren’t due to my own Auditor basics. What I found however was that the source of the Out-tech wasn’t me. It took a while, but I believe I have finally solved the mystery, and I would like to share it with those who might benefit from this discovery.

In the essay entitled The “Missed” Withhold I make clear just how this simple bit of technology is being misapplied by every Auditor within the Church, and how that can affect the cases of every preclear.  And of course, in doing this, I also direct you to the correct Tech as the solution.

Undeniable Proof That LRH Tech Has Been Altered

I had previously written about a particular quote from a lecture LRH gave on 6 December 1952, entitled “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic.” (See “Scientology’s 1984“) This lecture is of significant importance because it is undeniable proof that LRH tech has been altered by the Church.

This lecture was the 20th installment of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course and was originally recorded onto reel-to-reel tapes, and then later in 1982 was re-recorded in cassette format.  It just so happens that I got my hands on an original copy of these tapes and their transcripts.  And if you compare this version with the new “Golden Age of Knowledge” version that was re-produced onto compact disc in 2007, you will notice some very significant differences.

See for yourself by opening the following links:

1982 PDC #20 pgs 49-50

2007 PDC #20 pg 84

If “seeing is believing,” then I’m not sure how anyone could see this and not think that something is awfully wrong with this picture. And if those within the Church who are still hanging on to the last shreds of their Kool-Aid induced fantasy want to tell you that you are the crazy one, then just show them this.  The truth is undeniable!

Going the Distance

The following communication was sent to my girlfriend who has now disconnected from me as a result of my current “standing” in the Church.  I decided to post it here because it is a great example of the difference between those who actually apply LRH Tech and those who don’t (i.e. the corporate Church of Scientology.)  Although she may have cut our comm line as mandated, I still decided to leave the door open. 

—————————————————————–

Dear [Jane],

I think you were right when you said that the problem is that our “goals and dynamics are not aligned.” When I’ve been told that before, I’ve thought that it was a cop out because it could be an explanation for just about anything that goes wrong. However, I’ve thought about it and it makes a lot of sense in our case at least. I never could understand how I could love someone so much and apparently have so much in common, but then have such difficulty and upset. It was such a mystery! I’ve considered missed-withholds, which are a factor, but not the cause. I’ve considered PTSness and false data, but trying to handle such things didn’t lead to a solution either. Then I read this quote and had a realization I’d like to share.

“When an item in the scale [Admin Scale] is not aligned with the other items, the project will be hindered if not fail.

“The skill with which all these items in any activity are aligned and gotten into action is called MANAGEMENT.

“Group members only become upset when one or more of these points are not aligned to the rest and at least some group agreement.

“Groups appear slow, inefficient, unhappy, inactive or quarrelsome only when these items are not aligned, made known and coordinated.”

“As out-reality breeds out-comm and out-affinity, it follows that unreal items on the scale (not aligned) produce ARC breaks, upsets and disaffections.”

-LRH [THIRD DYNAMIC DE-ABERRATION, HCO PL 6 Dec 1970]

I realized that our dynamics are actually very aligned on the first and second dynamics. It’s our third dynamics that are the problem. We both had groups (friends and orgs) prior to meeting eachother and never actually reconciled them and mutually created something together. This IS the source of our upsets and problems I believe. I think that we could have had an amazing relationship/marriage otherwise.

But there are two goals/purposes that I see as unaligned between us, that have brought us to this point. I would like you to think them over and see if you agree. Because, I believe that we will never be able to fulfill our love and mutual desire to create a life together until they are resolved.

The first is that a 2D relationship has to come before any other group (friends, extended family, work, community or church) for it to survive in the long run. Only one’s personal survival would come before that. That is rule #1 as far as relationships go for me. I know I’ve stated this before, but I needed to reiterate it here in this context. For, I think if you actually look at the logic of this rule, you will see that it is a basic law of interaction amongst dynamics. Any relationship that doesn’t adopt it, will eventually fail in the face of pressure from other groups. And other groups, and ultimately all of mankind, will fail if it doesn’t respect and protect the sanctity of this most basic group (marriages and family units.)

The second issue I believe is our basic purposes involving the technology of Scientology. I know this is a touchy subject, but I would like to be as open as possible regarding this for the sake of understanding. Because, ultimately I think that you and I are actually very aligned regarding this.

My basic purpose for the Tech is to “help improve conditions on the dynamics.” That may sound like a rote statement; however, it is something very meaningful to me. It means going up the Bridge. It means getting trained. It means Standardly auditing myself and others. And it means KSW #1.

When I completed my Doubt Formula I concluded most definitely that the group that I must remain in is: “Those who apply Standard Tech.” A curious thing occurred after announcing that however. It became more and more apparent that a large number of the people that were on my lines were not a part of that group. The fact is that there IS out-Tech being perpetrated wholesale in the Church.

What I truly care about is that students and PC’s receive Standard Tech and actually make it up the Bridge. However, I know you know that that is not the case – at least not on the scale that it should be – especially not in our own orgs, and in our own course rooms and auditing rooms. The reason is ultimately OUT-TECH.

I think you would at least agree with that last statement. However, all I would ask is that you look. Don’t take my word for it. [Which I know you wouldn’t anyways – something I love about you!] I know you can see the truth. I have faith in you. I believe that you have the strength of character and will to persevere no matter the pressures you may receive from others who don’t agree with you. And I believe in us.

I am here. I remain a part of OUR group. And I am willing to go the distance if you are.

Love, [Joe]

My Declaration

I recently received the following message from one of my Facebook friends:

“Hi… I was on staff with you in Pasadena! I was told to remove you from my friends due to SP… But, I would actually like to know your side of the story before I just delete someone that has never done me any harm! I have seen too much of this lately with SP’s, and myself gone through things!”

I did appreciate that she had the courage to actually confront me and get in communication with me despite being told to disconnect from me. However, I found it quite disturbing that she was the first one I was hearing about this from. So, I asked her who she was told this by, and her response was:

“[The Dir I&R] from Pasadena Org sent me a msg.”

So, I sent a text to the Dir I&R in order to confirm that I was declared, and she said:

“Here is the DSA number (626) 818-####. Ask her.”

Although, that’s not really an acknowledgement, it certainly isn’t a denial. So, I texted the DSA and simply asked if she could confirm. As of yet, I have not received a response. And if similar stories about how the Church handles these sorts of issues are any indication, I doubt I actually will get any response.

Of course, this is proof of the practice of Disconnection as a Condition even though all of this is would go against “official” Church policy.  I can only assume that the reason for this is because an OSA agent has discovered this blog. However, what High Crime(s) have I actually committed? Let’s take a look at some of those listed in HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB I (a.k.a. HCO PL 23 Dec 65) – Suppressive Acts – Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

I suppose it could be claimed that I have committed a high crime by “publicly departing Scientology.” [See My Explanation for Leaving] However, I have never departed Scientology! On the contrary, what I have actually done is rededicated myself to Standard Scientology. The confusion is in the identification of the ideology of Scientology with the Church of Scientology. These two things are not the same. I have left the Church, but I can never leave Scientology.

Maybe the charge then is “Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.” However, once again I believe that it is the reverse that has occurred. I have never publicly denied a connection with or knowledge of Scientology or any Scientologist. Although, that is exactly what other members of the Church have been encouraged to do by disconnecting from me!

It’s possible that my blog about A Staff Member Admits to Committing a Crime could be considered a “Public statement against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.” In this I may be guilty. However, I think that my actions should be mitigated by the fact that I was merely attempting to apply a lower Ethics Gradient by “Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.” It just so happens that this blog is a comm line for me to do that.  And, in actuality, it was I who was injured by a crime in this case, which specifically included a written defamation. I could have brought a libel suit for such an action. However, my intention was not to cause harm to a Scientologist. My purpose was to help get some real Ethics in.

The biggie is probably statements I have made about C.O.B. such as “David Miscavige Must Go.” This could be considered “Engaging in malicious rumormongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to ‘safeguard’ a position.” Perhaps, I am truly interested in undermining his authority. But, that’s because I consider it illegitimate and abused. And I am not spreading rumors, nor have I acted out of anything but concern for the future of Scientology. I have instead submitted numerous Knowledge Reports detailing factual evidence to the proper authorities.  But, of course, these reports fell on deaf ears.

Despite all of this, I still find it really hard to believe that if LRH were still around, he would declare me a suppressive person for what I have done. I imagine he would have rather applauded me for being expelled from a suppressive organization. For, it is better that I no longer be confused for someone who supports such a group. Indeed, for me to continue to do so would truly mark me as a suppressive person.

I will instead take this as a final declaration of my independence from the Church. For, there will come a day when Auditors of the world will unite and finally overthrow this monster. And on that day I will be able to look back and at least say that I did not stand idly by and do nothing.

UPDATE: 5 August 2013, I have finally received a response from the DSA in the form of a meeting in the parking lot outside a local Mission in order to show me the official Declare Order.  Indeed, I was charged with the above “High Crimes”, plus a couple more for good measure.  So, it’s official. In the last couple of days the DSA has been contacting every Scientologist that I have known in order to show them my goldenrod, and to inform then that they will get declared as well unless they disconnect from me.  So, I guess it’s time for me to “come out of the closet” as it were.  I’ll have updated my About Me page with my real name and a more detailed bio.

Getting Declared

Well, it looks like I am soon to be officially declared a Suppressive Person (SP) by the Church.  I suppose I knew that this would inevitably be the result of my actions. However, it’s still not something that is easy to confront.  It makes me consider just how far the Church has fallen into the depths of insanity.

You don’t not have to look far if you have been in Scientology for any amount of time before you encounter an Ethics Order (or so-called “goldenrod”) posted on a bulletin board claiming that some long-time Scientologist is now to be considered a Suppressive Person and is to be shunned or disconnected from.  It raises the question: how is it that a person who has been an active and productive Scientologist (even a staff member) for many years is all of a sudden found to be a Suppressive Person?  In other words, these people are now considered insane and a threat to all Scientologists even though they have demonstrated for years that that was not the case.

There are numerous examples of this occurring, even to some of the top executives of International Management.  Many of these people were also highly-trained and very high on the Bridge.  It begs the question: how is it possible that such people, even after having Scientology extensively applied to them, could still end up being a Suppressive Person?  Scientology is supposed to handle the causes of insanity right?  Declaring such people would give one the idea that Scientology doesn’t work.

Now, obviously no one except for the person declared and whoever issued the goldenrod will ever know the whole story in each individual case.  One could simply evaluate that since a person is declared then he or she must have done something suppressive, and that is that, end of story.  There is no argument here that whatever the declared person actually did is acceptable and shouldn’t be corrected.  However, the question that must be asked is: what led that person to commit such acts?  And how is declaring that person a solution to the problem?

The argument made here is that if Scientology works, then it should be able to produce an ethical OT, not an SP.  And when Scientology fails, it is a matter of KSW #1, not that the person it is applied to is somehow the reason for its failure. Furthermore, when carelessly thrown around, SP Declares combined with an obligatory policy of disconnection can be very damaging to the credibility and acceptance of Scientology as a whole. [See “Disconnection as a Condition”]

There’s no way to positively confirm how many SP’s have actually been declared to date because the lists are no longer being broadly published. However, FLAG ED 2830 – SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS AND SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS LIST which was released in September of 1991 does give some insight.  It listed over 5000 individuals, many of which were old-time Scientologists, personal friends of LRH, high ranking Sea Org members, OT VII’s, and even Class XII auditors personally trained by LRH.  And I can only assume that the list has grown to an even greater monstrosity in the 21 years since then.

I somehow doubt that LRH would have intended this to happen.

“You should upgrade your idea of what an SP is. Man, meet one sometime! A real one! A real monster…. Well, in all the time we’ve been around here we only had one SP that I know of. One real SP that was on staff…. And I don’t know of another single SP that we’ve ever had on staff. Isn’t that interesting. You see all these SP orders and so on… Don’t throw it around carelessly, because this is an–a very exaggerated condition, SP.” [Lecture 19 July 1966, “About Rhodesia”]

It makes me wonder if even LRH himself would have ended up getting declared by today’s Church just like the rest of us.  Regardless, I do feel like I am in good company as one of the “Suppressive Persons.”

A Staff Member Admits to Committing a Crime

The image above is of a KR that was brought as evidence against me during a Comme Ev.  I was being accused of the High Crime of “Sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well-being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology, such as a student or preclear.”  It is a perfect example of the insane disconnect that some members of the Church seem to have with what is considered right or even legal amongst their fellow members of the society. 

The following is the text of the KR (with the names of myself and my girlfriend removed.)

TO: ETHICS SECTION PASADENA
CC: [Joe Blow], PC Folder, Ethics folder
FROM: HES ATL

7 JAN 2012

KNOWLEDGE REPORT

[Joe Blow,] HGC Auditor Pasadena Org

[Yours truly – code name “Joe Blow”] is the 2D of one of our staff members, [my girlfriend – code name “Jane Doe”],TTC Atl Org. They met at Flag while both were training. [Jane’s] cell phone was left at the org and was turned into reception this afternoon while I was holding reception. A text came in on her phone from HAS Pasadena Org that interested me so I looked at the cell and read it. I continued reading the texts and found a picture text from [Joe] of an erect penis with an accompanying text stating merry Christmas. I assume this was a picture of [Joe.]  On [Jane’s] phone were other pictures of this sexually degrading sort sent to [Joe] of and from [Jane.]

I felt this information would be needed by the C/S and ethics as this is a 2D aberration that should get handled not to mention a possible out-security point.

These activities are not okay especially [for] two Flag trained Class V orgs one of which is Ideal and the other going ideal.

This is True,

Wendy Hiler, HES ATL

All discussion aside of the embarrassing nature of this report, and any ethical considerations regarding whether or not this should actually be considered a “High Crime” as I was being accused, the most disgusting part of it is the admission by this person that she criminally invaded the privacy of myself and her fellow staff member. 

According to the common law of “invasion of privacy”, and specifically Georgia Statute § 16-9-93(c), a person is guilty of a felony if they use someone else’s electronic device with the intent of gaining unauthorized access to personal information. Those who commit this crime can be sued in any civil court, and can face fairly harsh consequences – especially in the state of Georgia. In terms of civil penalties, a person injured by this crime can sue for any damages sustained and for the costs of bringing the lawsuit. In terms of criminal penalties, the accused may face a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment of up to 15 years, or both.

Is this what Scientology has been reduced to – spying on their members by criminally invading their privacy?  It seems that is the case, especially if you consider some of the even more invasive activities that the Church allegedly engages in.  [See Busted! Scientology Spies in South Texas]

What is Wrong With Scientology?

Marty Rathbun’s forthcoming book What Is Wrong With Scientology? is likely to be rather controversial to both corporate as well as independent Scientologists alike.  There are some subjects (“sacred cows” as Marty puts it) that he alludes to in his introduction that will most likely challenge the reader’s willingness to confront what really is wrong with Scientology; especially, if LRH or the technology itself are challenged. 

Part of the controversy is inherent in his choice of words for the title.  Any time you use the word “wrong” in a discussion, you are likely to get heated responses. The reason has a lot to do with the definitions of this word, and the tendency to reactively identify.

wrong: adjective
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine. [Dictionary.com]

It is a mistake to A=A=A the many distinctly different concepts of this word. I think that doing so is the reason it is a button for most. The first three definitions tend to be invalidative, which illicit the expected response from a reactive being.  The fourth is very applicable to the misapplication of a technology. However, the last, which is most likely the concept that Marty is communicating with the title of his book, is something that definitely needs to be confronted if one is to fix something – in this case, Scientology (the application AND the organization.)

I for one think that Marty chose a perfect title.  I can’t wait to see if he actually answers the question that he poses. Even though there are undeniable truths in the philosophy of Scientology, and the technology when standardly applied can perform nothing short of miracles, there has always been that lingering doubt in my mind – the thought that there is something very wrong at the core that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. It’s a question that I think every sane individual secretly begins to ponder once he gets involved with Scientology.

It certainly indicates to me!  It was this question (not unlike “What is the Matrix?”) that led me on my path of discovery, and ultimately brought me out of my trance.  It was this question that unerringly led me to the truth.  Hopefully, Marty can build on this, and help others as well on their own personal journeys to freedom.

Confession or Interrogation

I recently caused quite a stir in my org when I refused to subject myself to an HCO confessional. Although I was asking to leave staff, I contended that I was not undergoing any justice action, and therefore doing an HCO confessional was inappropriate. [Ref: HCOB – CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE] In fact, the HCO PL – LEAVING AND LEAVES, which is the policy that dictates that a staff requesting to leave should get a confessional, does not specifically state that it should be an HCO confessional. 

The specific point that makes a difference between a regular confessional and an HCO confessional is whether or not the information disclosed is reported to HCO and can be acted on by the Ethics Officer. Normally, divulging the secrets of a confessional would be against point number 22 of the Auditor’s Code.  It would also be a violation of the common law called “confessional privilege” and the basic human right against “self-incrimination.” In actuality, making a person answer questions in this nature would be more appropriately called an “interrogation” not a confession. [See “HCO Security Checks”]

I therefore told the C/S and my Auditor (who is a Class VI on OT VII) that I would be happy to do a regular confessional that is governed by the Auditor’s Code, that I would be happy to answer any questions and divulge whatever “secrets” I might have as long as they were protected by the normal privilege afforded such confessions.  Indeed, I have nothing to hide.

I didn’t think that that was an unreasonable request. Of course, they had no reality at all on why I was refusing.  They kept trying to explain to my how this is just the way that things are done, how it is all about me “coming clean” and then working with the Ethics Officer to “handle” whatever comes up.  Their whole approach was that this was just something that I would have to get through if I wanted to continue as a staff member or even as a Scientologist.

Of course, I continued to refuse as was my right.  I assumed that if they ultimately had my best interests in mind, they would allow me as the preclear to get what I wanted.  However, what I was told instead was that if I refused the HCO confessional that I would be comm ev’ed and most likely get declared.

I was incredulous!  I know this is nothing compared to the “group confessionals” that others have been subjected to; however, I was still struck with how crazy things have become in the Church today. It’s sad to see how the help of true Scientology has been degraded into such a betrayal of trust.

David Miscavige Must Go

There are many websites such as markrathbun.wordpress.com and www.scientology-cult.com that are devoted to documenting the situation of the Church of Scientology. I suggest anyone interested in evaluating this scene take the time to actually look at what data these sites have to offer and consider for themselves the validity of the information.

Some data cannot be refuted. For instance, it is a fact that the membership of the Church has decreased over the past couple of decades, NOT increased as we would be led to believe by the Int PR events. And most important of all is the decline and currently abysmal amount of TRAINING and AUDITING that is occurring in the Church today. 

The intent of “My Eval” is to hopefully provide a bright idea for handling all of the above.  You can read the full eval if you like. But, the primary handling I propose is to start (or at least continue in a concerted effort) spreading the message “David Miscavige must go.”

This message undercuts any debate about religious beliefs or the Founder and focuses on the correct target. And I believe that if carried on long enough and effectively enough, it WILL either compel Mr. Miscavige to step down — or embolden current executives enough to remove him.

But even more importantly, it has the potential to reach both staff and public who know something is wrong but don’t know what to do about it. Plus, this handling is something that anyone can actually do, and really does open the door to a solution.

What do you think, will it work?

LRH Said… (Why We Quote Scripture)

“Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation.” –LRH [From “Personal Integrity”]

I find it interesting that most Scientologists seem to feel compelled to quote LRH, just as I have above, whenever they want to make a point. It reminds me of how Christians treat the Word of God, or how Muslims often say “it is written.”  It’s a way to add credence to one’s statement by drawing on the power of great men or divinity.  It’s also a way to gain agreement to one’s ideas by utilizing a previously accepted reality. But, I think that it can be taken too far – especially when quotes get taken out of context and start to get interpreted too literally.  This is something that is especially relevant in Scientology.

Judgment or the ability to evaluate data for one’s self and come up with correct estimations is potentially the greatest ability that someone can develop.  I would argue that this is the most important ingredient to truly understanding Scientology and being able to apply it.  For me, it was the greatest lesson that I learned from the Study Tapes, and it is the secret to why I’m such a fast student.

There are at least a dozen LRH quotes other than the above that I could come up with that would support this viewpoint.  But, that is not the point.  I think that it is dangerous when a philosophy starts to be taken too literally.  When that happens, it evolves into a totalitarian regime that dictates robotic followership instead of a benign movement that promotes freedom.  This is the situation that I believe we are confronted with in the Church today.

A big part of this can probably be traced back to the enforcement of the “Verbal Tech Penalties” policy.  This policy makes it a crime to interpret LRH for another person. In my opinion, its intention is to force people to study things for themselves and come to their own conclusions instead of relying on the opinions of others.  It also standardizes the technology by providing an unalterable point of agreement.

However, this can be taken too far.  Instead of encouraging personal judgment, it can be used to enforce dogmatism. Any bright ideas or opinions which aren’t covered in writing by LRH are squashed. And any disagreement is handled by telling a person to “go back and find your misunderstood word,” which is repeated as often as necessary until the disagreement has been suppressed. 

“If it isn’t written it isn’t true” is the catch-phrase that is supposed to be used by Scientologists to defeat verbal tech and encourage the application of Standard Tech.  However, the corollary “if it’s written, it’s true” is often used instead to enforce any random LRH quote that is taken out of context in order to support whatever whimsical idea the person decides is important at the time.  This creates confusion and causes an impediment to judgment.  It makes every quote equal every other quote and makes it impossible for people to be able to sort out senior data and make sense of the vast body of knowledge that comprises Scientology.

I suggest that this is not Scientology as I know it.  I can’t imagine LRH ever discouraging critical thought or the discussion of Scientology as long as the purpose was to create understanding.  Indeed, you can listen to numerous “question and answer” sessions on the Briefing Course where LRH did just that. 

Some of the questions that this raises for me are: Should we you use Scientology scripture at all when discussing our ideas, or should we just state our opinions and label them as such? Should we take LRH literally word-for-word, or should we instead seek to form our own opinions and try to understand him in the full context of everything he ever said or wrote? How confident can we even be that what we think is LRH is actually authentic?

In closing, I offer the following quote:

“Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” –Mahatma Gandhi

The Apotheosis of LRH

apotheosis: “The fact or action of becoming or making into a god; deification.” [Wiktionary]

When I first read The Hymn of Asia, I found it quite aesthetic.  But you can’t possibly expect me to believe that LRH wanted us to take it literally!  If so, I expect that he would have come right out and told us so before he dropped his body.  So, why then?

There is no question that LRH was an extraordinary man.  And his contributions to mankind are without equal.  However, when I look at the extent of the glorification that is currently happening within the Church, I am perplexed.  Is this what Ron would have wanted?

Throughout history, monarchs and religious leaders were almost always held in enormous reverence. However, the organizations they founded usually developed into “personality cults” or totalitarian regimes such as the Nazis or the Roman Empire. In these cases, a single leader became associated with a revolutionary transformation, and came to be treated as a God without whom the transformation to a better future couldn’t occur. This has generally been the justification for such deification.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for Scientology. Indeed, the religion of Scientology could never be disassociated with LRH, nor should it be.  But to put so much attention on the man instead of the product of his technology is fundamentally contrary to everything that he stood for! 

For instance, why do a majority of the Div 6 displays focus on the history of LRH and public relations activities in his name instead of services that will actually help people?  And why are millions of dollars being spent on huge “Ideal Orgs” that act like shrines to LRH, instead of making Auditors and Clears.  How is this going to achieve the aims of Scientology? 

If at least equal energy were being spent on delivering actual Scientology, then it could possibly be excused. But there isn’t.  If there were an effective program being run to turn around the dismal delivery statistics in orgs, then maybe it would make sense. However, instead, all staff members are currently being given sales quotas for the new Ron encyclopedia set.

Is this what staff members have become – encyclopedia salesmen? I could think of a hundred outpoints in this situation; however, the following quote certainly comes to mind:

“This morning I received a cable from an org. An urgent cable. Did it say, ‘How do you assess for a Prehav level’ or something sensible? No, it didn’t. It said, ‘Send us some biographical data for a newspaper article.’ I spit. That org is doing the lousiest job possible in Technical and is all worked up to get publicity. What’s this? Do they think a society in this shape will approve Scientology into power? Hell no! And to hell with this society. We’re making a new one. So let’s skip the approval button from a lot of wogs and settle down to work to make new people and better people. Then maybe you’ll have a society.”

-LRH [HCO PL 26 May 61 II, QUALITY COUNTS]

Why I Stayed

I look back now and wonder why I have stayed in the Church of Scientology as long as I have. And then I look to all those who are still “in”, and to my “friends” who I will undoubtedly lose by leaving, and I wonder what it will take for them to see the light.  Someday, there may be a study that will attempt to answer these questions.  However, the following are some of the reasons why I at least have had an extremely hard time leaving no matter how horrible the conditions became.

1)  There’s no alternative: I was led to believe that to forsake the Church is tantamount to eternal damnation, because there is nowhere else that I can benefit from “standard” Scientology. Everything else is “squirrel” and suppressive. However, the truth is that LRH made sure that the technology of Scientology (other than the uppermost levels) is entirely available to everyone. For this reason, it’s impossible to ever be cut off from the benefits of Scientology as long as I am willing to read and apply what LRH has written. Therefore, I do not need to be so deathly afraid that I would be doomed if the Church decided to bar me from the Bridge. Because, even without the Church I would still have LRH.

2)  Personal integrity: I feel an obligation to not withdraw my allegiance from a group that I have sworn to support. To walk away from the Church feels like a betrayal to all those who have relied on me, and supported me over the years. I value their friendship and don’t want to upset them. Plus, I am heavily invested (both financially or emotionally) and to walk away requires admitting that I was wrong.  However, once I saw the truth of the situation I could no longer stand aside.  It was a matter of integrity that I do something about it.  And when given no other recourse to effect change, the only solution left was to withdraw my allegiance.

3)  Disconnection: Even though the Church officially claims that this policy is not enforced, I can assure you that it is. [See “Disconnection as a Condition”] In order to leave, I would have to walk away from not only my girlfriend, but all my close friends and associates who are members of the Church. Fortunately, I do not have family or children of my own who are Scientologists; otherwise, I’d have to leave them too.  Still, I would basically have to start my life over, and the level of trauma associated with that would be significant.

The truth however is that it would hurt them more than it would me. And there’s nothing that says that I have to disconnect.  I can continue to communicate and attempt to bring them around.  And if they continue to shun me and call me insane, well either they are cowards, in which case I wouldn’t want them as friends anyways, or they were never my friends to begin with.  

4)  The “bubble”: The Scientology world is for the most part created inside a “bubble” of reality. Great care is taken to isolate every Scientologist from the “external influences” of critics and ex-Scientologists. And a great deal of effort is spent on creating internal PR to keep everyone informed of only what is deemed necessary, and to hide that which is less savory. I’m fortunate because my immersion has been limited compared to those who have been born into Scientology, or who have been drafted into the Sea Org, and have very little education or experience outside of the Church.  

Even though I have always felt like something was fundamentally wrong with the Church, I still forwarded all the PR lines like a good little drone, and never really pulled the strings necessary in order to find the truth.  I was willing to look the other way and give the powers-that-be the benefit of doubt as long as I was allowed to continue to go on course and get auditing.  It took a great deal of independent research, and then my own bubble getting popped with injustice, before I eventually opened my eyes.

5) It’s all my fault: It has been hammered into me that whatever situation I find myself in — I’m the one who “pulled it in.”  Whether it was trouble with my studies, lack of results in auditing, or failures in my personal life, it was always what I did. The Church could never wrong. Then, if I leave or “blow off,” it only proves my guilt. And if I speak up or complain, then I’m just “nattering” and it’s even further proof of my overts and withholds.

This mindset is then cemented with the suppressive use of Confessionals in order make my crimes public and prove to me how wrong I am. [See “HCO Security Checks”] And if I but think a critical thought about the Church or its management, then I am considered “disaffected” and I will subjected to even more Sec Checking that will not conclude until I repent and prove my loyalty by making exorbitant “amends.” 

The truth is I am responsible. I am responsible for getting involved with such a suppressive group.  And I am responsible for doing something about it in order to ensure that the technology of Scientology remains in the hands of only those who truly intend to use it for the benefit of mankind.

6)  Scientology is the “greatest good”: The apparency is that the Church represents Scientology which is the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” In other words, as long as Scientology is expanding and the Church is actively clearing the planet, even though there may be some outpoints, they are small in comparison to all the good that is being done. Therefore, the summary conclusion is that leaving for whatever reason could never be ethical. In fact, leaving is considered a “suppressive act.”

However, the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes absolutes. First, it assumes that the Church and Scientology are co-terminal, which is not true.  Scientology is the applied religious philosophy originated by LRH.  I still whole-heartedly support this. The Church on the other hand is a religious organization incorporated for the purpose of forwarding the aims of Scientology. To assume that an organization which is made up of aberrated individuals could never be corrupted to the point where it was no longer forwarding those aims is extremely naive. 

The truth is that it’s all a matter of viewpoint. Leaving may be considered evil from the viewpoint of the Church; however, if the Church itself were evil, then wouldn’t that be the greatest good?

7)  Suppression: Finally, I believe the vast majority of Scientologists are PTS to the Church. It’s very similar to the “middle class” situation described by LRH. Because, most of the people I know in Scientology would admit that there is something wrong, yet they still frown on me actually trying to do something about it. In fact, those who have fought me the most in trying to get Scientology applied have almost always been those within the Church rather than anyone on the outside. “Stop being such a “flat ball bearing” and “Let someone more qualified handle it” were a couple of the most common sentiments. This was then followed by the advice that I should clear up my own misunderstoods, because if I disagreed with the powers-that-be, then I must be the one who is wrong.

I realized however that it is not me they are actually worried about. They are worried about what would happen to them if I were right.  I am threatening their comfortable little “bubble” (see above.) They fight me because they are AFRAID. They fight me because they are afraid of what they would lose—their friends, their family and their jobs—if they were to stand up like me.  Therefore, I must be the one who is wrong.

“The middle class wants the world of a job and order and even hypocrisy and cops because they are AFRAID. They hold their narrow views because any other views may disturb their twenty-year house mortgage, the store, the job.” …

“Many of them are caught up in the mystery of why they are snarled at and have no conception of the middle class as a formidable and jealous force that goes psychotic when it feels anyone may get away from the treadmill and threaten their uneasy and doomed lives.”

-LRH [HCOB 16 April 1982]

“Quickie” Grades

A lot has been said about the “new” Grades at Flag being quickied. Technically a “quickie” Grade would be only running the Quad for that Grade without any of the Expanded Grades processes. [Ref: HCOB 30 Oct. 71 – TRIPLE GRADES VS. EXPANDED]

“QUICKIE LOWER GRADES (also called ‘Triple Grades’) means one F/N for each of three flows or 3 F/Ns per grade.”

Flag is not doing that. However, it is true the “new” Grades checklists have been reduced from the 1987 Expanded Grades Checklist. [More than that I cannot say due to the bond that RTC forced me to sign.]

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the reduction, especially because the current Grades checklists seem to have been arbitrarily compiled:

“In 1987 DM ordered that the existing Grades Process Checklists, which were BTBs at the time, be converted to HCOBs. Further, he ordered that these checklists be expanded to include every single process that could be found that related to each Grade. DM personally approved every checklist and personally reviewed every process being added to the Grades and signed off on every individual CSW.” – Joe Howard: [Ref: markrathbun.wordpress.com]

The 1987 Grades Checklists certainly do go way beyond the processes that LRH listed in the training column of the 1968 Classification Chart. Plus, I have experienced quite a few instances where my PC’s got overrun due to C/S’s requiring every process on the checklist be run.

Of course, that could be mitigated to some degree if the following was thoroughly applied by all C/S’s:

“Now and then before the full major action is complete or before all the grade processes are run, the pc will attain the ability of the grade or the end phenomena of the action.

“This is particularly true of valence shifters or Interiorization Rundowns and can happen in grades.

“The auditor should recognize it and, with the F/N VGIs always present at such moments, end off.” [Ref: HCOB 23 Aug. 71R – C/S Series 1 – AUDITOR’S RIGHTS]

I believe that the real reason that the Grades have been taking much longer to complete than a couple intensives each is entirely due to overrun caused by F/N abuse, e.g. Auditors trying to get every single question on the checklist to F/N while sitting there “waiting for their meters to play Dixie” or for the needle to swing a certain number of times before calling it. [See “Floating Needles”]

If an Auditor applied HCOB “Checking Questions on Grades Processes” appropriately, then theoretically it wouldn’t matter how long the list was. If there was no charge (and the PC was in-session) then the list should just F/N. If not, then it would be beneficial to run out whatever TA was available for the benefit of the P/C.

What really bothers me about these “new” Grades is that they have existed at Flag since at least 2009. I was even assured by the RTC Rep. at the Oak Cove that these checklists were “not pilots.” The question that begs to be asked is: why then haven’t they been exported to other orgs yet? 

Then, when you look at how these Grades have been promoted by Flag as being able to be completed in only one intensive each… Things start to sound really fishy. 

“A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES…

8. Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade 0 in 3 minutes”, etc.

9. Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or labor-saving considerations…

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.” [HCO PL 17 June 1970RB Technical Degrades]

Scientology’s 1984

The following text is an accurate reproduction of a quote from the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture, “Formative State of Scientology, Definition of Logic” given on  of 6 December 1952. However, note that all of the words in italics have been seamlessly deleted from the current “Golden Age of Knowledge” version of the lecture and accompanying transcript.

“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.”

Shocking but true! In order to get the truly “pure” and unadulterated LRH, you will have to find a copy of the 1982 version on cassette tape, which was available in every Church of Scientology prior to the Golden Age of Knowledge.

Now consider what a recent edition of Freedom magazine has to say about this subject:

“Mr. Miscavige was intimately involved with every aspect of this massive five-year restoration project. He personally verified all books and lectures, their content 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 that 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.”

Something certainly doesn’t add up here!

This got me to wondering… Why would someone deem it important enough to actually edit out these particular parts of this lecture? In order to attempt to understand this I recently read George Orwell’s book 1984.

Wow! I totally understand why LRH chose it for his example. Even though this book was first published in 1949, it’s amazing how similar it is to the current scene in the Church with “thought” police, wholesale censorship and closed-circuit cameras everywhere (even in our auditing rooms.)

Big Brother is watching!

Find Out For Yourself

Yes, “find out for yourself” as long as you do it through the Church’s approved websites and publications.  “Find out for yourself” as long as you don’t come to conclusions that conflict with the powers-that-be.  Is this really what the Church of Scientology has become? It certainly is not what is written in its bylaws:

“Scientology is the organization of the fundamentals of existence into axioms and workable technologies in the tradition of the exact sciences for resolving problems of life and thought and for the freedom of the human spirit. That he who asks a question is closest to the answer, that every question contains its own answer, and further that every problem contains its own solution, and that the technologies of Scientology are of such a nature that a person with a question or a problem may be spiritually assisted or guided to the end that the person is able to answer his own questions and resolve his own problems.” [Ref:  http://www.savescientology.com/csibylaws.pdf.]

This is one of the biggest differences in my opinion between the religion of Scientology compared to others.  The fact that we are encouraged to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions – even if they differ from the founder – is unique to Scientology.  There is no other religion that I know of that allows this freedom.  And it is this difference I believe that makes Scientology such a draw for intelligent, free-thinking individuals.

However, it is this very point that has been corrupted within the Church.  Scientologists have become afraid of their own thoughts for fear they might become “disaffected.”  They are constantly told what to think and how out-ethics they are even though these two things (invalidation and evaluation) are the cardinal sins of Scientology.  I’m sure any Scientologist can give plenty of examples of Reg interviews, Ethics interviews, Sec Check sessions, or recovery cycles where they have personally experienced this.

It is this one point that I think can ultimately defeat the Church.  It may be able to dominate the 20-percent who are pre-disposed to this type of thought control; however, it will never work for the rest. Especially, when this type of practice is diametrically opposed to one of the most basic tenets of its own religion.

In order for Scientologists to move forward, they must truly find out for themselves and stop listening to what they are being told. For, in the end it is always best to shine a light on the truth, and take responsibility for whatever comes up. In this way, hopefully they can continue to be proud to call themselves Scientologists.

Theta vs. Truth

I was recently told by the DSA of my org that it was “very out-ethics” of me to read “entheta” on websites written by critics of the Church of Scientology. When asked why, she told me that it was considered by the Church “supporting” suppressive persons, and would hence be suppressive in itself.  When asked what LRH reference this was according to, she quoted HCO PL – SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.

When asked what she meant by “etheta”, she explained that this would include any statements that are against Scientology or Scientologists.  I told her that I understood why it’s usually best to avoid such things; however, it didn’t make sense to me why this needed to be enforced on me. Shouldn’t I be allowed to confront anything I wanted, and make my own determination whether to accept it or not?  Besides, what if some of the accusations were true? She just re-iterated that this is the viewpoint of the Church, and then asked me to sign an attest that I would no longer visit such websites.

She then proceeded to have me read various “dead agent” material on the websites I had visited.  I read through them expecting to get some answers to the questions that had been raised.  However, a majority of the material she gave me was only aimed at attacking the reputation of the sources of these websites. [This is an tactic called “argumentum ad hominem”, which is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by discrediting the person supporting it.] This did not effectively clear up any of the “lies” that these sites were supposedly telling. This seemed strange to me, because it was my understanding that you handle black PR with the truth.  I wasn’t really interested in the reliability of the sources.  What I wanted was the truth, not more entheta!

For instance, when asked how somebody like Marty Rathbun could end up getting declared, I expected to get some proof that he was “No Case Gain”, or that he has been committing continual overts against Scientology.  What she explained instead was how he has been auditing in the field without being trained as an auditor, and how “squirrel” he therefore is.  I thought that was very strange. How could someone that high up in Scientology, especially someone who was supposed to have audited Tom Cruise, not be auditor trained?  She then went on to explain to me how she isn’t trained either!  That was her explanation! 

When I asked her why our “ideal” org had such abysmal delivery stats (an avg. of three releases and four student completions a month) despite having over a hundred staff and such a huge building, I expected to hear about how there is a some major plan to handle it immediately.  Instead, she just discussed how the area’s PR has really improved and tried to explain to me how it takes a long time to build a St. Hill-size org.  Of course, that is completely contradictory to the purpose of the Ideal Org Program, which promised “unprecedented expansion.”

This started me thinking about the relationship of “theta” and “entheta” to truth and lies.  How is it that the truth, no matter how difficult to confront, can be considered ehtheta?  And how is it that lies, no matter how comforting, can be considered theta?  Wouldn’t I rather know the truth, than some fluffy PR that makes me feel happy and cheerful? Some may say that “ignorance is bliss” but that certainly is not the viewpoint of a Scientologist!

It was my decision to search out the truth that led me to begin exploring the internet. It had gotten to the point where my questions were legion, and I was not able to get them answered on the regular channels. So, I sought information from the best source on the planet – the internet. It might have been upsetting at times, it might have shaken some of my stable data; but, I was willing to sort through whatever entheta or lies there were to find the truth! 

How does one determine truth from lies? Data evaluation and judgment! But, the Church doesn’t seem to trust me to read such information and form my own opinions. I am sent to the Ethics Officer if I but read anything derogatory about Scientology on the internet without reporting it to the DSA.  I am Sec Checked if I voice anything against the Church myself. And I am threatened with expulsion simply for seeking the truth.

How anti-Scientology can you get! I am a Scientologist! I am Data Series trained! I am an intelligent, aware being! Why couldn’t I be trusted to read any information and sort out for myself what is true and what is not?  My certainty on Scientology is not so tenuous that it will wither before a little criticism. And my case is not so fragile that it cannot stand up to whatever information I may find. But the Church doesn’t trust me to make my own investigation and come to my own conclusions.

Was the DSA really concerned about my case and what will happen if I come in contact with entheta?  Or does the Church have something to hide?

If they had simply answered my questions, and admitted to what needed improvement, I would not have continued to pull strings.  I would not have sought alternative sources of information.  But, the first thing you learn about investigation is to “look, don’t listen.”  And the more I looked, the more I dug for the truth, the deeper and deeper I delved into the rabbit hole, until…“Ahah!”  The truth!  May it truly set me free!

The Withhold Being Missed on Us All

To any Scientologist who happens to read this, I say “open your eyes!” I know you see the Church dying right before your eyes.

I understand that it is against the policies of the Church to spread malicious rumors to discredit Scientology or Scientologists.  That is not the intention here.  I have nothing bad to say about Scientology (LRH Tech) or Scientologists (those who apply LRH Tech.) However, wouldn’t it be an even bigger overt to just sit back and do nothing while Scientology itself is destroyed?  I mean, what if the management of the Church were actually suppressing Scientology?  What should we do then?

I know that most of us have kept our mouth shut because we have been taught that any “natter” is merely a symptom  of our own withholds.  That may be the case.  However, if you see what I do, then I would like to indicate that:

YOUR WITHHOLD HAS BEEN REJECTED. 

The withhold being missed is that we are allowing the only hope for mankind to be suppressed into non-existence. But, that is a withhold that no Scientologist will accept. That’s an overt that most Scientologists are afraid to even think about. In other words it’s completely suppressed. That’s the cruel joke that has been run on us.  We are told to stop “nattering”, and then subjected to accusative interrogations to find out what our hidden withholds are.  However, the true withhold must never be divulged for fear of naming the Church as the suppressor.

We are told instead to “take responsibility.” Well, I say do just that!  Responsibility does not involve looking the other way and doing nothing.  Nor does it involve being meek, or shrinking under threats and duress. There comes a point where a true Scientologist must stand up and do something about it.

Even COB is not beyond reproach. There comes a point where he too must take responsibility for his crimes. 

The Final Straw

I have gone along with the “status quo” of draconian conditions in the Church of Scientology for years hoping that I could make a difference, or that things would somehow magically change.  I have for the most part kept my mouth shut (so as not to be accused of “rumor mongering”) and attempted to use the proper channels to affect change.  But it became more and more obvious that the problem was systemic. And the solution was completely out of my hands as long as I remained a part of the group. Because, no matter how good my intentions, as long as I was “in”, I would be subject to the group agreements.

The final straw for me however occurred when I asked to leave staff.  I wanted to quietly slip away without causing too much trouble, and hopefully rebuild my life while remaining in good standing with the Church. However, as many have experienced, that is not possible with the current establishment.  I was subjected to endless Sec Checking in order to “handle” me to stay.  I was threatened with an exorbitant “freeloader” debt without consideration for my contribution.  And then my fiancé (who is also on staff, and training at Flag) was forced to disconnect from me until I got “back in good standing with the Church.”

It was at that point that I realized that I could no longer be a part of such a group. I could no longer fight for a group that stood for such slavery. For, “freedom” is the one thing that I believe true Scientology is based on, and if you take that away it is worthless.

It was with a heavy heart that I came to this conclusion.  Some may say that I gave up.  However, it is actually the exact opposite. I am simply tired of sitting back and doing nothing. In actuality what has occurred as a result doing a Doubt Formula is that I have re-dedicated myself to LRH, and to the group of true Scientologists who understand what Standard Tech really is, and who truly apply KSW #1, and are unwilling to allow ANYONE to degrade it any further.

Maybe, what I have chosen to do is the wrong solution.  However, at least I am attempting to do SOMETHING.  I simply cannot continue to support the Church as it currently is. There are so many things that I feel could be changed.  And there is so little that I feel I can do about it while still subject to all the vagaries that I am forced to agree to as a member of the Church.

Paramount to me is the blatant Out-Tech.  There are other out-points that I discuss in My Eval; however, without Standard Tech, there really is no point as far as I’m concerned. If these things were changed, I would definitely consider rejoining or staying in the Church. I have experienced for myself, as both a preclear and as an Auditor, the truth of LRH tech.  There is no doubt in my mind as to the miracles that Scientology can achieve when applied Standardly. 

It saddens me that those who were responsible for maintaining The Bridge have allowed it to deteriorate to such a degree.  However, I am still dedicated to keeping the dream alive. It is ultimately because of this that I defy.  I still hold hope that, although I feel I can no longer affect change as a member of the Church, maybe by withdrawing my support I can at least make some small difference in that direction.