Terril park
Sponsor
Many years ago Beliefnet was a good place to hang out. Church members
and critics, freezoners, could talk freely.
There was one who after years of being out of COS expanded my horizons.
He posted as " Unindoctrinate". He back then was a member of COS. I
havn't heard from him in several years but would like to again. Back then Myself, Alanzo, Mick ( as Deomorto) Fluffy and another well known critic
were engaged in conversations with " churchies". Lovely people.
Unindoctrinate by power of reason alone demolished many comments in
KSW 1 and his premise was not refuted. Here is is essay:-
The Scientology Indoctrination
As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent. By this I mean that
we become less than adequately critical of Scientology and LRH. And this is
a no-no. It violates study tech. More fundamentally, it contradicts a good
deal of basic Scientology philosophy, and it's from this that everything
else is built.
As a Scientologist, one has no business accepting *any* data without having
evaluated it thoroughly, critically, and entirely to one's satisfaction.
Yet we all end up doing exactly this. The only difference amongst us is
that some of us do it more or less than others.
The vast, vast majority of Scientology data is perfectly legitimate, if not
downright brilliant and extraordinary. The more Scientology one does, the
more clearly one understands this and the greater one's appreciation of LRH
becomes. But there is also data included in the subject and authored by LRH
which is simply false. I'm referring almost exclusively to what is a small
portion of Scientology policy, and not to Scientology philosophy or the
tech. We'll look at an example in a moment.
If, as Scientologists, we were not indoctrinated to be less than adequately
critical, the false data in the subject would be clearly evident as such
and known to all of us. The indoctrination makes us blind to it.
If we're envisaging what the ideal scene might be here, we might ask the
question, "Who, if not a Scientologist, should be aware of anything in
Scientology or about LRH which may be legitimately criticized?" Not
exaggerated or incorrectly evaluated, as critics almost invariably do, but
correctly evaluated and then correctly criticized because it warrants
criticism. The answer, of course, is no one.
KSW 1
There are parts of this policy which make a great deal of sense, and this
is evident. But there are parts of it which are false and make no sense at
all, and this is just as evident if one evaluates it.
Take a look at the following excerpts in a new unit of time. I will add
some comments to bring to your attention some of the false or questionable
data included in them.
“In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines
wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve
truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea.
Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of
suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and *none* were major or
basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we
went astray and I repented and eventually had to ‘eat crow.’"
Because I have virtually none of the data concerning suggestions others may
have made, this isn't something I can evaluate. I don't know how true any
of it may or may not be.
That individuals, not groups, evolve truth--I would say that this is
evident. This does not mean, however, that only one person in any given
group or only one person on an entire planet is capable of evolving truth.
LRH took the opportunity on a number of occasions in the early fifties to
validate the "thinking men" who had come before him. He acknowledged that
he owed much to them. They, too, had evolved truth. Amongst these were
Sigmund Freud, who popularized the concept of locating and examining
traumas in one's past to resolve problems being experienced in the present.
Why LRH went on later to attack Freud viciously and to thoroughly
invalidate all of his work--about the best he goes on to say about him is
that he was a cocaine addict--this is a good question to ask.
“On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions
and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the
complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I
know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in
accepting unworkable ‘technology.’ By actual record the percentages are
about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad
technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along
without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do
so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as
‘unpopular,’ ‘egotistical’ and ‘undemocratic.’ It very well may be. But it
is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures,
self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for man but push him
further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels,
self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols
and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax."
Neither you nor I are familiar with the "actual record" to which he refers.
Nor do I know anyone else who is familiar with it. One might legitimately
wonder, then, whether any such record exists.
Let's look over the numbers to see what we're looking at. Let's imagine any
old group. And let's give its members as much time as they need to dream up
100,000 ideas pertaining to technology. Twenty of these ideas will be okay,
at least insofar as they would not destroy good technology. Some of the
twenty would be those that actually resulted in new and workable
technology, or which would improve already existing and workable
technology. That would leave 99,980 ideas which would destroy whatever good
technology this group already had.
A few hours ago I visited my computer manufacturer's website to check out
their latest computers. Then I took a quick look at some of IBM's. I know
that both of these companies have more than one person dreaming up
technology; they have quite a few. I imagine as well that if these people
had been dreaming up twenty good ideas and 99,980 that would destroy what
good technology they already had--well, I don't think I'd have been able
even to access their sites. Do you?
Do you know of any group yourself, large or small, with such percentages? I
don't.
The data is not just obviously false. It is obvious that it is ridiculously
false.
If it were even remotely true, all of us would not still be living in caves
but would long ago have destroyed all livable caves and become extinct.
Let's take a look now at democracy. That democracy has given us inflation
and income tax is false. There are a number of causes of inflation; none of
them have anything to do with democracy. Look at countries which have never
been or are not now democracies and you will see no lack of inflation. The
same goes for income tax or, for that matter, unjust taxes of any kind.
That democracy has pushed man further into the mud is false. Select any
democratic country and take a look at what has happened in it for however
long it has been a democracy. In all cases one sees that these countries
have become more and more democratic over time, and that the people living
in them have not been pushed further into the mud, but that their overall
condition has risen and continues to rise.
Modern democracies are not all fun and games. Neither can we assign the
progress of the twentieth century to democracy as though nothing else had
gone on. But I should think that with countries having become more and more
democratic in the last century, if democracy were so bad, we wouldn't have
experienced the almost incredible progress we have.
These three false data about democracy (inflation, income tax, pushing man
further into the mud) are as false as the "actual record."
“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had
not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But
it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a
group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or
successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is
done.”
The false datum here is the conclusion that "group efforts" will not add to
Scientology or successfully alter it. To state that "in its formative
stages it was not discovered by a group" is fine. But why should this lead
"one"--that means you and me--to "safely assume" anything at all?
Especially in view of the fact that the *individuals* in the group we are
discussing are Scientologists. These are people who are supposed to be able
for starters, and who are supposed to become more and more able as they
progress in Scientology.
“There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has
been done, which will be valuable--only so long as it does not seek to
alter basic principles and successful applications.”
In other words, the rest of us are up to nothing better than keeping score.
And this only so long as any score-keeping does not affect basic
principles, which is fine, or "successful applications," which is actually
not fine. What if, years after LRH's death, someone discovers a "successful
application" is not actually successful at all? Some of the policy from
which the GO operated and OSA continues to operate, for example, is not
successful in the least.
“The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the
technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of
organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and
of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated.
Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery
contribution was not, however, part of the broad picture.”
Once more, this does not mean that "discovery contribution" could not
*become* part of the broad picture. He has given no legitimate reason, nor
does he in the rest of this issue or anywhere else, to validate such a
conclusion.
“We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above
the bank.”
This is actually my "favorite" in the entire issue. One is meant by this
point to be in awe of LRH. Now, a certain amount of awe is fine. It is due
him. But anything can be exaggerated, including awe. And it is the
exaggeration here which creates another false datum. It is not just a bit
of exaggeration; it is a whole heck of a lot of exaggeration.
I don't know about you, but when I used to read this myself, I would wonder
in awe just how he *did* come "to rise above the bank"? I didn't wonder
long, though, because he leads one to believe that even speculating about
it would be a waste of time. Why? Because, I imagined, I would get nowhere.
Who was I, after all, to comprehend something like this? So, I'd leave the
concept sitting there as a great and profound mystery--to be resolved some
day.
But guess what? There is no great and profound mystery. There isn't even a
minor and shallow mystery. There is no mystery at all. What does "rise
above the bank" actually mean? Does it mean anything different than what
any of us does when we rise above the bank? I rise above the bank at least
a few times a day. I'm sure you do too. Just as I'm sure just about
everyone else does. If we didn't, we'd be back to the no-more-caves,
now-we're-extinct scenario.
The statement, then, is actually nothing more than a mystery designed to
inspire more awe and to establish more distance between himself and the
rest of us.
So, fine, let's say there is some distance. Let's say there is lots and
lots of distance. But just how much distance is there supposed to be here?
And how does this statement compare to other statements he made along the
lines of, "If I can do it, I know you can too." These statements seem to be
considerably more accurate and in keeping with fundamental Scientology
philosophy.
The "rise above the bank" statement is just another example of one of the
basic concepts in this issue: that all of us are in no way comparable to
LRH.
Will any of us ever become comparable? Will any of us ever have an idea
which would not destroy workable technology, but add to it? Will any of us
even be capable of questioning anything in Scientology, critically and
correctly? The KSW policy, written in 1965, was reissued with a "SPECIAL
MESSAGE" in 1980. Included in this messages was the following:
“WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT
WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE
FROM THERE ON OUT.”
As mentioned, I think LRH is due considerable awe. Lots of considerable
awe. Whole lots of considerable awe. But I also think that he went out of
his way in this issue to assign himself considerably more awe than can
possibly be justified. This is what I mean by exaggeration. And an
exaggeration is a false datum.
“We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact--the group left to
its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild
dramatization of the bank called ‘new ideas’ would have wiped it out.
Supporting this is the fact that man has never before evolved workable
mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he *did*
evolve--psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress,
punishment, etc., ad infinitum.”
The above is either false, merely assumption or simply meaningless. For
example, that man has never before evolved workable mental technology is
false. There was some workable technology before. And there has been some
workable technology which isn't Scientology since.
What is more interesting, however, is that even if the statement were true,
it is meaningless. Before Scientology there was certainly little workable
mental technology. Neither is there anything else around today which
compares even vaguely to it. But, hey, until a couple of centuries ago, man
hadn't developed industrial technology to amount to much either. And until
just a few decades ago, man was still using slide rules to speed up
calculations and had not even dreamed of computers.
Now the idea here is not to compare Scientology to computers. Nor is it to
take anything away from what LRH did discover or any of the truly amazing
tech he developed. The idea is to not exaggerate. Because *any*
exaggeration is false. The idea is to correctly evaluate things so that one
may arrive at correct estimations of LRH and Scientology.
How far would he have gotten without the e-meter? He didn't develop it;
Volney Mathison did. And Volney would not have developed it if a whole lot
of people had not developed a whole lot of other things first. How soon
would LRH have even gotten off the ground if it had not been for Freud
developing and popularizing some of the basic concepts of psychoanalysis in
the late 19th and early 20th century?
In other words, are we to understand that LRH descended from heaven, "rose
above the bank," and developed something that no one else can touch for
fear of destroying it at the odds of 999,980 to 20?
Or are we to understand that as extraordinary as was, and as remains, what
he did, perhaps it was also about time that something like Scientology were
developed?
I have chosen KSW 1 because *some* of the data in it is at the heart of
what I consider are the very few things in Scientology which must be
re-evaluated. But I have chosen it more so because it is at the heart of
the indoctrination Scientologists receive. And it is an indoctrination
which is drummed into them over and over and over again, and enforced at
*all* costs.
There is nothing more sacred in Scientology than KSW 1.
And there is something very wrong with this when we realize that KSW 1 is
not the Scientology Axioms or other fundamental Scientology philosophy. It
is a policy letter. A policy letter which contains some perfectly correct
data and some perfectly false data. And the latter conflict entirely with
some of the Scientology Axioms and some of the other fundamental philosophy
of Scientology.
Scientologists develop a button on LRH. How can a Scientologist not develop
a button when he is so thoroughly indoctrinated to have such a considerably
exaggerated opinion of him?
This wouldn't be so bad if we were talking about Bill Gates and Microsoft.
Bill might somehow indoctrinate Microsoft employees and clients to have an
exaggerated opinion of him. He might exaggerate it greatly. But however
much he exaggerated it, we would still be looking at Bill Gates and
Microsoft, and very few people would be *that* impressed.
Instead we are looking here at LRH and Scientology, and this complicates
things considerably.
It was entirely unnecessary for LRH to exaggerate his accomplishments: they
were already enormous. But he did just that.
At the same time he underestimated and invalidated everyone else's
accomplishments and abilities, past, present and future. And it was
entirely unnecessary for him to do that either.
This is why Scientologists end up with a button on LRH. Our estimation of
him becomes far too exaggerated. We put him on a pedestal. Most
Scientologists consider that he could do no harm; that he was perfect or as
good as perfect. It becomes an overt or some other nasty thing merely to
have a critical thought about him or Scientology. All of this is part of
the indoctrination too.
As we know, Scientologists are sheltered from “entheta,” especially about
LRH. When we are not sheltered by others, we are discouraged from having
any direct contact with it ourselves. And if that were not enough, there
are policies which forbid all contact with the sources of “entheta”: SP's,
people antagonistic to Scientology, authors of “entheta” books, etc.. This
too is part of the indoctrination.
I am not interested in promoting actual entheta. But if there are critical
facts to be known, why doesn't each and every Scientologist learn about
these sooner than later? Instead there is really no one more ignorant of
what might be any of Scientology's or LRH's outpoints than we
Scientologists.
I will take up one last thing here. Why is it not just a good idea but
actually indispensable to discover what, if anything, may have been not
entirely right with LRH?
If he had some aberrations and if these remained unhandled right up to his
death, but if these aberrations *did not* end up in Scientology materials,
then they could be considered little more than historical data. If, on the
other hand, he had some aberrations which did work their way into
Scientology materials, it would be vital to know something about them.
It was with this in mind that I read some of the unauthorized biographies
of LRH. I have read many other things about LRH as well, almost all of it
available on the Web. These materials are often packed with their own false
data, exaggerations and incorrect evaluations. It is necessary, then, that
one evaluate it correctly.
This includes leaving some of the data only partially evaluated or not
evaluated at all, at least temporarily. The reasons for this are twofold.
Some of the data is impossible to verify. Some of it, because of other data
which is omitted (one just does not have it) can not be correctly
evaluated.
This last point is important. When it isn't possible to correctly evaluate
some data because one cannot verify if it is true or not, or because other
data is necessary for a correct evaluation but one does not have it, it is
necessary to realize that one should not jump to conclusions. Continue
researching. Continue finding data and, wherever possible, verifying it. Is
it true? Is it false? And if some data remains unverified, recognize that
it remains incompletely evaluated.
What happens with many Scientologists who do study this data is that they
do not correctly evaluate some or much of it. Some of the data is shocking
and there is no getting around that. It simply is. But instead of
evaluating it as calmly as possible, and entirely to their own
satisfaction, these Scientologists lose themselves in wild speculations.
There is nothing wrong with wild speculations if one recognizes that that
is all they are, and that they are not conclusions to which one has arrived
through correct evaluation of data.
The good news is that there is no reason anyone can not correctly evaluate,
or temporarily leave unevaluated, any of this data. This may be more
difficult for some than for others, but that is all.
Some Scientologists, however, do fail to correctly evaluate some of this
data. The result is that instead of becoming more aware and more
responsible Scientologists, they become disaffected.
Some become disaffected to the point of becoming ex-Scientologists. Some go
into apathy on the subject or merely lose interest. I imagine there are all
sorts of gradients and kinds of disaffection.
I consider any degree at all of disaffection to be an outpoint. This
doesn't mean that when one finds out something about LRH or David
Miscavige, or about the RTC or OSA, or about whomever or whatever, that one
can not become alarmed or annoyed, or very alarmed or very annoyed, and
thoroughly arc broken. Responses such as these are often pluspoints because
they are understandable, rational responses to some of the unpleasant
surprises one may experience.
If, however, one has had some time to cool off and reason things out, to
further research and evaluate, but one still leaves oneself sitting in a
major arc break, this becomes another outpoint. There is no reason for an
arc break to *persist*. One should be able to get through it and out the
other end.
After I re-evaluated all sorts of things myself, I did not end up with less
arc for LRH but with more. Understanding is composed of affinity, reality
and communication. What I no longer have is some of the awe I had before,
but that's good because it should never have been there. I no longer have
some of the considerations that went with this awe, but that's good because
these considerations were false.
What I have now is a far more accurate appreciation of the man. And it *is*
appreciation. A lot of it. In fact a whole heck of a lot of it. All that
has gone are false data and considerations which should never have been
there in the first place. The result is that I have far more *genuine*
understanding and appreciation.
This is what I consider any Scientologist should end up with after
re-evaluating some things. If they end up with something else, I can only
conclude that it is because they manage to accomplish more misevaluation
than evaluation.
The "Veritas" Bunch
They are all in a chronic games condition with Church management. When
you're interested, find "The McDonald Papers" on www.xenu.net. Led by Randy
McDonald, many or most or all of these people were declared. They were
then, and remain now, thoroughly indoctrinated Scientologists.
They have done some interesting research into some of the corporations of
Scientology and have published documents which show, if I recall correctly,
that the CST (Church of Spiritual Technology) owns the copyrights and
trademarks of Scientology. And that Meade Emory, ex-Assistant Commissioner
of the IRS, if I recall correctly, is a member of the board of directors of
CST. As are one or two or more non-Scientologist lawyers.
From this research they go on to conclude that Scientology was taken over
twenty or so years ago. By whom exactly is not known. They also conclude
that LRH, himself, was controlled at least in part by these people, and
that David Miscavige is merely their pawn.
As even some of the less intelligent people on a.r.s. have pointed out,
whatever these legal papers may say, that is all they are: legal papers.
The corporate structure of Scientology must include stacks of these, and
there is every reason to suspect that there are papers which render null
those that have been found by Randy and his friends.
It is naive to deny the mass of evidence which makes it clear that
Miscavige is running things. It is wild speculation to conceive a vast,
still hidden conspiracy to explain some of the outpoints in Scientology. In
other words, we are not looking at evaluation but at a bad excuse for such.
Unfortunately the Veritas bunch are too fond of their games condition to
understand this.
"The McDonald Papers" describe the genesis of Veritas but not the real
beginning. That will found in the Scientology indoctrination each of these
people experienced and continue to swear by. This indoctrination will not
admit that LRH could possibly have been responsible for some of the
unchanging bad, as well as all the good, which is Scientology.
The "Criminal Time Track"
If I understand correctly, it has been under construction for a year or
two. The gist of it is that management has been squirreling the tech and
screwing up many other things as well. Therefore, management are the bad
guys, criminals.
What the authors of this time track and the Veritas people keep missing,
because they don't want to confront it, is that although management has
indeed been screwing up some things, management is not the primary who.
Most of management's screw-ups are nothing more than their attempts to
apply various LRH policies and programs and orders and advices and who
knows what else. The primary who is LRH.
Now, if you've been management for nearly twenty years, and if you just
keep making the same kind of screw-up over and over and over again in the
name of Keeping Scientology Working, well, this isn't too bright either,
and it makes these people whos too. But if all of the management were
replaced and none of the policy which may be responsible for the screw-ups
cancelled or revised, we would only have other people committing and then
repeating the same screw-ups over and over and over again.
Who are the good guys?
An area you will have fun re-evaluating is PTS and SP philosophy. LRH
developed some spot-on philosophy and some absolutely amazing tech. The
Suppressed Person Rundown, for example, is exactly what he wrote it was:
magic.
Some parts of the philosophy, however, could be far better researched. For
example, I would not be so quick to label some people PTS or SP. Most
Scientologists, for example, would consider many or most of the critics on
ars (alt.religion.scientology) to be SP's because they are publicly
criticizing and attacking Scientology. Well, things aren't quite this
simple.
What is true is that ars critics, virtually without exception, have
Scientology and LRH misevaluated big time. They have some of the criticism
right, but the rest of it and everything else wrong. This doesn't, however,
make them SP's.
I think the biggest problem with critics of Scientology is that it's
impossible to be a good one without understanding Scientology very well,
and none of these people do. Even the ex-Scientologists on ars have ended
up perverting much of whatever understanding they may have had of
Scientology as part of the their experience of unbecoming Scientologists.
All ex-Scientologists have experienced overwhelm. The only difference is
one of degree.
Many of their stable data disappear, but this isn’t the problem: so did
many of mine. The problems arise in the handling of any confusions that may
arise when these stable are invalidated and blown. Ex-Scientologists get
some or a lot of this handling wrong.
The Scientology indoctrination includes some data which are false but which
are adopted by Scientologists as stable data. These false stable data need
to be recognized as such and blown.
A mistake is made, however, when valid Scientology data, especially data of
some importance, is invalidated and dropped. Those who become
ex-Scientologists, in their attempt to purge themselves of the false stable
data in the indoctrination, commit this exact mistake. In other words, they
throw the baby out with the bath water.
Lastly, a Scientologist who discovers that she has adopted some of the
false data of the Scientology indoctrination as stable data for herself may
need not only to blow these stable data, but to adopt other, better stable
data to take their place. With some of those who become ex-Scientologists,
however, this can get pretty weird, and we see them come up with real
winners like, "I am my body" or "I think with my brain."
So, we have an extraordinarily bizarre scene overall.
We have critics who aren't the best of critics.
We have Scientologists who don't know there's anything major to fix in
Scientology, let alone what it might be.
We have Scientologists who fail to handle in an intelligent and responsible
manner whatever upsets they may experience when they try to confront what
is major and needs to be fixed in Scientology.
Last but not least, we have a few Scientologists who do have a good
estimation of what's wrong and needs to be fixed, but who can not speak
freely because if they did, they would be declared--for starters.
One of the things which contributes to making this such a bizarre scene is
that even when a critic does get some criticism right, instead of being
acknowledged, he is roundly ignored. Unless, of course, he persists with
his criticism, in which case he may end up being investigated by OSA's
private investigators and sued by its lawyers.
In other words, this is a considerably more bizarre scene than it has any
business being.
The why is some of the policy concerning criticism of LRH and Scientology.
It commands those who are indoctrinated and, therefore, willing to apply
it, to discredit and eliminate the criticism and, if necessary, to destroy
the person making it.
Even this wouldn’t be as bad as it is if it were limited strictly to
invalid and highly destructive criticism. But it is not even limited to
that. This policy applies to all valid and constructive criticism of LRH
and Scientology as well.
The who could only be the man who wrote the policy: LRH.
Can things be changed from within?
What I'm certain of is that things can and will be sorted out. Exactly how
or how long it might take--this is perhaps what makes this scene more
interesting than anything else.
I'm thrilled, actually, that ars and activities connected to it are
elements of the scene. Regardless of how poor some of the criticism may be,
Scientology needs external, public criticism, and any criticism is better
than none. Fortunately some of the criticism is quite good. Chris Owen's
research into LRH's military record is an example. So, perhaps the most
important thing about ars and the rest of the critical stuff on the Net is
simply that it's there.
That more and more Scientologists will bump their noses into it is only a
matter of time. Many will become disaffected, just as many already have.
Others will be more intelligent and responsible. But however long it may
take, the Scientology indoctrination will become real to all
Scientologists. If nothing else has a big impact first, such as Miscavige
having a few cognitions, more and more Scientologists unindoctrinating
themselves certainly will.
and critics, freezoners, could talk freely.
There was one who after years of being out of COS expanded my horizons.
He posted as " Unindoctrinate". He back then was a member of COS. I
havn't heard from him in several years but would like to again. Back then Myself, Alanzo, Mick ( as Deomorto) Fluffy and another well known critic
were engaged in conversations with " churchies". Lovely people.
Unindoctrinate by power of reason alone demolished many comments in
KSW 1 and his premise was not refuted. Here is is essay:-
The Scientology Indoctrination
As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent. By this I mean that
we become less than adequately critical of Scientology and LRH. And this is
a no-no. It violates study tech. More fundamentally, it contradicts a good
deal of basic Scientology philosophy, and it's from this that everything
else is built.
As a Scientologist, one has no business accepting *any* data without having
evaluated it thoroughly, critically, and entirely to one's satisfaction.
Yet we all end up doing exactly this. The only difference amongst us is
that some of us do it more or less than others.
The vast, vast majority of Scientology data is perfectly legitimate, if not
downright brilliant and extraordinary. The more Scientology one does, the
more clearly one understands this and the greater one's appreciation of LRH
becomes. But there is also data included in the subject and authored by LRH
which is simply false. I'm referring almost exclusively to what is a small
portion of Scientology policy, and not to Scientology philosophy or the
tech. We'll look at an example in a moment.
If, as Scientologists, we were not indoctrinated to be less than adequately
critical, the false data in the subject would be clearly evident as such
and known to all of us. The indoctrination makes us blind to it.
If we're envisaging what the ideal scene might be here, we might ask the
question, "Who, if not a Scientologist, should be aware of anything in
Scientology or about LRH which may be legitimately criticized?" Not
exaggerated or incorrectly evaluated, as critics almost invariably do, but
correctly evaluated and then correctly criticized because it warrants
criticism. The answer, of course, is no one.
KSW 1
There are parts of this policy which make a great deal of sense, and this
is evident. But there are parts of it which are false and make no sense at
all, and this is just as evident if one evaluates it.
Take a look at the following excerpts in a new unit of time. I will add
some comments to bring to your attention some of the false or questionable
data included in them.
“In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines
wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve
truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea.
Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of
suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and *none* were major or
basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we
went astray and I repented and eventually had to ‘eat crow.’"
Because I have virtually none of the data concerning suggestions others may
have made, this isn't something I can evaluate. I don't know how true any
of it may or may not be.
That individuals, not groups, evolve truth--I would say that this is
evident. This does not mean, however, that only one person in any given
group or only one person on an entire planet is capable of evolving truth.
LRH took the opportunity on a number of occasions in the early fifties to
validate the "thinking men" who had come before him. He acknowledged that
he owed much to them. They, too, had evolved truth. Amongst these were
Sigmund Freud, who popularized the concept of locating and examining
traumas in one's past to resolve problems being experienced in the present.
Why LRH went on later to attack Freud viciously and to thoroughly
invalidate all of his work--about the best he goes on to say about him is
that he was a cocaine addict--this is a good question to ask.
“On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions
and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the
complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I
know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in
accepting unworkable ‘technology.’ By actual record the percentages are
about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad
technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along
without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do
so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as
‘unpopular,’ ‘egotistical’ and ‘undemocratic.’ It very well may be. But it
is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures,
self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for man but push him
further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels,
self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols
and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax."
Neither you nor I are familiar with the "actual record" to which he refers.
Nor do I know anyone else who is familiar with it. One might legitimately
wonder, then, whether any such record exists.
Let's look over the numbers to see what we're looking at. Let's imagine any
old group. And let's give its members as much time as they need to dream up
100,000 ideas pertaining to technology. Twenty of these ideas will be okay,
at least insofar as they would not destroy good technology. Some of the
twenty would be those that actually resulted in new and workable
technology, or which would improve already existing and workable
technology. That would leave 99,980 ideas which would destroy whatever good
technology this group already had.
A few hours ago I visited my computer manufacturer's website to check out
their latest computers. Then I took a quick look at some of IBM's. I know
that both of these companies have more than one person dreaming up
technology; they have quite a few. I imagine as well that if these people
had been dreaming up twenty good ideas and 99,980 that would destroy what
good technology they already had--well, I don't think I'd have been able
even to access their sites. Do you?
Do you know of any group yourself, large or small, with such percentages? I
don't.
The data is not just obviously false. It is obvious that it is ridiculously
false.
If it were even remotely true, all of us would not still be living in caves
but would long ago have destroyed all livable caves and become extinct.
Let's take a look now at democracy. That democracy has given us inflation
and income tax is false. There are a number of causes of inflation; none of
them have anything to do with democracy. Look at countries which have never
been or are not now democracies and you will see no lack of inflation. The
same goes for income tax or, for that matter, unjust taxes of any kind.
That democracy has pushed man further into the mud is false. Select any
democratic country and take a look at what has happened in it for however
long it has been a democracy. In all cases one sees that these countries
have become more and more democratic over time, and that the people living
in them have not been pushed further into the mud, but that their overall
condition has risen and continues to rise.
Modern democracies are not all fun and games. Neither can we assign the
progress of the twentieth century to democracy as though nothing else had
gone on. But I should think that with countries having become more and more
democratic in the last century, if democracy were so bad, we wouldn't have
experienced the almost incredible progress we have.
These three false data about democracy (inflation, income tax, pushing man
further into the mud) are as false as the "actual record."
“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had
not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But
it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a
group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or
successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is
done.”
The false datum here is the conclusion that "group efforts" will not add to
Scientology or successfully alter it. To state that "in its formative
stages it was not discovered by a group" is fine. But why should this lead
"one"--that means you and me--to "safely assume" anything at all?
Especially in view of the fact that the *individuals* in the group we are
discussing are Scientologists. These are people who are supposed to be able
for starters, and who are supposed to become more and more able as they
progress in Scientology.
“There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has
been done, which will be valuable--only so long as it does not seek to
alter basic principles and successful applications.”
In other words, the rest of us are up to nothing better than keeping score.
And this only so long as any score-keeping does not affect basic
principles, which is fine, or "successful applications," which is actually
not fine. What if, years after LRH's death, someone discovers a "successful
application" is not actually successful at all? Some of the policy from
which the GO operated and OSA continues to operate, for example, is not
successful in the least.
“The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the
technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of
organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and
of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated.
Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery
contribution was not, however, part of the broad picture.”
Once more, this does not mean that "discovery contribution" could not
*become* part of the broad picture. He has given no legitimate reason, nor
does he in the rest of this issue or anywhere else, to validate such a
conclusion.
“We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above
the bank.”
This is actually my "favorite" in the entire issue. One is meant by this
point to be in awe of LRH. Now, a certain amount of awe is fine. It is due
him. But anything can be exaggerated, including awe. And it is the
exaggeration here which creates another false datum. It is not just a bit
of exaggeration; it is a whole heck of a lot of exaggeration.
I don't know about you, but when I used to read this myself, I would wonder
in awe just how he *did* come "to rise above the bank"? I didn't wonder
long, though, because he leads one to believe that even speculating about
it would be a waste of time. Why? Because, I imagined, I would get nowhere.
Who was I, after all, to comprehend something like this? So, I'd leave the
concept sitting there as a great and profound mystery--to be resolved some
day.
But guess what? There is no great and profound mystery. There isn't even a
minor and shallow mystery. There is no mystery at all. What does "rise
above the bank" actually mean? Does it mean anything different than what
any of us does when we rise above the bank? I rise above the bank at least
a few times a day. I'm sure you do too. Just as I'm sure just about
everyone else does. If we didn't, we'd be back to the no-more-caves,
now-we're-extinct scenario.
The statement, then, is actually nothing more than a mystery designed to
inspire more awe and to establish more distance between himself and the
rest of us.
So, fine, let's say there is some distance. Let's say there is lots and
lots of distance. But just how much distance is there supposed to be here?
And how does this statement compare to other statements he made along the
lines of, "If I can do it, I know you can too." These statements seem to be
considerably more accurate and in keeping with fundamental Scientology
philosophy.
The "rise above the bank" statement is just another example of one of the
basic concepts in this issue: that all of us are in no way comparable to
LRH.
Will any of us ever become comparable? Will any of us ever have an idea
which would not destroy workable technology, but add to it? Will any of us
even be capable of questioning anything in Scientology, critically and
correctly? The KSW policy, written in 1965, was reissued with a "SPECIAL
MESSAGE" in 1980. Included in this messages was the following:
“WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT
WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE
FROM THERE ON OUT.”
As mentioned, I think LRH is due considerable awe. Lots of considerable
awe. Whole lots of considerable awe. But I also think that he went out of
his way in this issue to assign himself considerably more awe than can
possibly be justified. This is what I mean by exaggeration. And an
exaggeration is a false datum.
“We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact--the group left to
its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild
dramatization of the bank called ‘new ideas’ would have wiped it out.
Supporting this is the fact that man has never before evolved workable
mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he *did*
evolve--psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress,
punishment, etc., ad infinitum.”
The above is either false, merely assumption or simply meaningless. For
example, that man has never before evolved workable mental technology is
false. There was some workable technology before. And there has been some
workable technology which isn't Scientology since.
What is more interesting, however, is that even if the statement were true,
it is meaningless. Before Scientology there was certainly little workable
mental technology. Neither is there anything else around today which
compares even vaguely to it. But, hey, until a couple of centuries ago, man
hadn't developed industrial technology to amount to much either. And until
just a few decades ago, man was still using slide rules to speed up
calculations and had not even dreamed of computers.
Now the idea here is not to compare Scientology to computers. Nor is it to
take anything away from what LRH did discover or any of the truly amazing
tech he developed. The idea is to not exaggerate. Because *any*
exaggeration is false. The idea is to correctly evaluate things so that one
may arrive at correct estimations of LRH and Scientology.
How far would he have gotten without the e-meter? He didn't develop it;
Volney Mathison did. And Volney would not have developed it if a whole lot
of people had not developed a whole lot of other things first. How soon
would LRH have even gotten off the ground if it had not been for Freud
developing and popularizing some of the basic concepts of psychoanalysis in
the late 19th and early 20th century?
In other words, are we to understand that LRH descended from heaven, "rose
above the bank," and developed something that no one else can touch for
fear of destroying it at the odds of 999,980 to 20?
Or are we to understand that as extraordinary as was, and as remains, what
he did, perhaps it was also about time that something like Scientology were
developed?
I have chosen KSW 1 because *some* of the data in it is at the heart of
what I consider are the very few things in Scientology which must be
re-evaluated. But I have chosen it more so because it is at the heart of
the indoctrination Scientologists receive. And it is an indoctrination
which is drummed into them over and over and over again, and enforced at
*all* costs.
There is nothing more sacred in Scientology than KSW 1.
And there is something very wrong with this when we realize that KSW 1 is
not the Scientology Axioms or other fundamental Scientology philosophy. It
is a policy letter. A policy letter which contains some perfectly correct
data and some perfectly false data. And the latter conflict entirely with
some of the Scientology Axioms and some of the other fundamental philosophy
of Scientology.
Scientologists develop a button on LRH. How can a Scientologist not develop
a button when he is so thoroughly indoctrinated to have such a considerably
exaggerated opinion of him?
This wouldn't be so bad if we were talking about Bill Gates and Microsoft.
Bill might somehow indoctrinate Microsoft employees and clients to have an
exaggerated opinion of him. He might exaggerate it greatly. But however
much he exaggerated it, we would still be looking at Bill Gates and
Microsoft, and very few people would be *that* impressed.
Instead we are looking here at LRH and Scientology, and this complicates
things considerably.
It was entirely unnecessary for LRH to exaggerate his accomplishments: they
were already enormous. But he did just that.
At the same time he underestimated and invalidated everyone else's
accomplishments and abilities, past, present and future. And it was
entirely unnecessary for him to do that either.
This is why Scientologists end up with a button on LRH. Our estimation of
him becomes far too exaggerated. We put him on a pedestal. Most
Scientologists consider that he could do no harm; that he was perfect or as
good as perfect. It becomes an overt or some other nasty thing merely to
have a critical thought about him or Scientology. All of this is part of
the indoctrination too.
As we know, Scientologists are sheltered from “entheta,” especially about
LRH. When we are not sheltered by others, we are discouraged from having
any direct contact with it ourselves. And if that were not enough, there
are policies which forbid all contact with the sources of “entheta”: SP's,
people antagonistic to Scientology, authors of “entheta” books, etc.. This
too is part of the indoctrination.
I am not interested in promoting actual entheta. But if there are critical
facts to be known, why doesn't each and every Scientologist learn about
these sooner than later? Instead there is really no one more ignorant of
what might be any of Scientology's or LRH's outpoints than we
Scientologists.
I will take up one last thing here. Why is it not just a good idea but
actually indispensable to discover what, if anything, may have been not
entirely right with LRH?
If he had some aberrations and if these remained unhandled right up to his
death, but if these aberrations *did not* end up in Scientology materials,
then they could be considered little more than historical data. If, on the
other hand, he had some aberrations which did work their way into
Scientology materials, it would be vital to know something about them.
It was with this in mind that I read some of the unauthorized biographies
of LRH. I have read many other things about LRH as well, almost all of it
available on the Web. These materials are often packed with their own false
data, exaggerations and incorrect evaluations. It is necessary, then, that
one evaluate it correctly.
This includes leaving some of the data only partially evaluated or not
evaluated at all, at least temporarily. The reasons for this are twofold.
Some of the data is impossible to verify. Some of it, because of other data
which is omitted (one just does not have it) can not be correctly
evaluated.
This last point is important. When it isn't possible to correctly evaluate
some data because one cannot verify if it is true or not, or because other
data is necessary for a correct evaluation but one does not have it, it is
necessary to realize that one should not jump to conclusions. Continue
researching. Continue finding data and, wherever possible, verifying it. Is
it true? Is it false? And if some data remains unverified, recognize that
it remains incompletely evaluated.
What happens with many Scientologists who do study this data is that they
do not correctly evaluate some or much of it. Some of the data is shocking
and there is no getting around that. It simply is. But instead of
evaluating it as calmly as possible, and entirely to their own
satisfaction, these Scientologists lose themselves in wild speculations.
There is nothing wrong with wild speculations if one recognizes that that
is all they are, and that they are not conclusions to which one has arrived
through correct evaluation of data.
The good news is that there is no reason anyone can not correctly evaluate,
or temporarily leave unevaluated, any of this data. This may be more
difficult for some than for others, but that is all.
Some Scientologists, however, do fail to correctly evaluate some of this
data. The result is that instead of becoming more aware and more
responsible Scientologists, they become disaffected.
Some become disaffected to the point of becoming ex-Scientologists. Some go
into apathy on the subject or merely lose interest. I imagine there are all
sorts of gradients and kinds of disaffection.
I consider any degree at all of disaffection to be an outpoint. This
doesn't mean that when one finds out something about LRH or David
Miscavige, or about the RTC or OSA, or about whomever or whatever, that one
can not become alarmed or annoyed, or very alarmed or very annoyed, and
thoroughly arc broken. Responses such as these are often pluspoints because
they are understandable, rational responses to some of the unpleasant
surprises one may experience.
If, however, one has had some time to cool off and reason things out, to
further research and evaluate, but one still leaves oneself sitting in a
major arc break, this becomes another outpoint. There is no reason for an
arc break to *persist*. One should be able to get through it and out the
other end.
After I re-evaluated all sorts of things myself, I did not end up with less
arc for LRH but with more. Understanding is composed of affinity, reality
and communication. What I no longer have is some of the awe I had before,
but that's good because it should never have been there. I no longer have
some of the considerations that went with this awe, but that's good because
these considerations were false.
What I have now is a far more accurate appreciation of the man. And it *is*
appreciation. A lot of it. In fact a whole heck of a lot of it. All that
has gone are false data and considerations which should never have been
there in the first place. The result is that I have far more *genuine*
understanding and appreciation.
This is what I consider any Scientologist should end up with after
re-evaluating some things. If they end up with something else, I can only
conclude that it is because they manage to accomplish more misevaluation
than evaluation.
The "Veritas" Bunch
They are all in a chronic games condition with Church management. When
you're interested, find "The McDonald Papers" on www.xenu.net. Led by Randy
McDonald, many or most or all of these people were declared. They were
then, and remain now, thoroughly indoctrinated Scientologists.
They have done some interesting research into some of the corporations of
Scientology and have published documents which show, if I recall correctly,
that the CST (Church of Spiritual Technology) owns the copyrights and
trademarks of Scientology. And that Meade Emory, ex-Assistant Commissioner
of the IRS, if I recall correctly, is a member of the board of directors of
CST. As are one or two or more non-Scientologist lawyers.
From this research they go on to conclude that Scientology was taken over
twenty or so years ago. By whom exactly is not known. They also conclude
that LRH, himself, was controlled at least in part by these people, and
that David Miscavige is merely their pawn.
As even some of the less intelligent people on a.r.s. have pointed out,
whatever these legal papers may say, that is all they are: legal papers.
The corporate structure of Scientology must include stacks of these, and
there is every reason to suspect that there are papers which render null
those that have been found by Randy and his friends.
It is naive to deny the mass of evidence which makes it clear that
Miscavige is running things. It is wild speculation to conceive a vast,
still hidden conspiracy to explain some of the outpoints in Scientology. In
other words, we are not looking at evaluation but at a bad excuse for such.
Unfortunately the Veritas bunch are too fond of their games condition to
understand this.
"The McDonald Papers" describe the genesis of Veritas but not the real
beginning. That will found in the Scientology indoctrination each of these
people experienced and continue to swear by. This indoctrination will not
admit that LRH could possibly have been responsible for some of the
unchanging bad, as well as all the good, which is Scientology.
The "Criminal Time Track"
If I understand correctly, it has been under construction for a year or
two. The gist of it is that management has been squirreling the tech and
screwing up many other things as well. Therefore, management are the bad
guys, criminals.
What the authors of this time track and the Veritas people keep missing,
because they don't want to confront it, is that although management has
indeed been screwing up some things, management is not the primary who.
Most of management's screw-ups are nothing more than their attempts to
apply various LRH policies and programs and orders and advices and who
knows what else. The primary who is LRH.
Now, if you've been management for nearly twenty years, and if you just
keep making the same kind of screw-up over and over and over again in the
name of Keeping Scientology Working, well, this isn't too bright either,
and it makes these people whos too. But if all of the management were
replaced and none of the policy which may be responsible for the screw-ups
cancelled or revised, we would only have other people committing and then
repeating the same screw-ups over and over and over again.
Who are the good guys?
An area you will have fun re-evaluating is PTS and SP philosophy. LRH
developed some spot-on philosophy and some absolutely amazing tech. The
Suppressed Person Rundown, for example, is exactly what he wrote it was:
magic.
Some parts of the philosophy, however, could be far better researched. For
example, I would not be so quick to label some people PTS or SP. Most
Scientologists, for example, would consider many or most of the critics on
ars (alt.religion.scientology) to be SP's because they are publicly
criticizing and attacking Scientology. Well, things aren't quite this
simple.
What is true is that ars critics, virtually without exception, have
Scientology and LRH misevaluated big time. They have some of the criticism
right, but the rest of it and everything else wrong. This doesn't, however,
make them SP's.
I think the biggest problem with critics of Scientology is that it's
impossible to be a good one without understanding Scientology very well,
and none of these people do. Even the ex-Scientologists on ars have ended
up perverting much of whatever understanding they may have had of
Scientology as part of the their experience of unbecoming Scientologists.
All ex-Scientologists have experienced overwhelm. The only difference is
one of degree.
Many of their stable data disappear, but this isn’t the problem: so did
many of mine. The problems arise in the handling of any confusions that may
arise when these stable are invalidated and blown. Ex-Scientologists get
some or a lot of this handling wrong.
The Scientology indoctrination includes some data which are false but which
are adopted by Scientologists as stable data. These false stable data need
to be recognized as such and blown.
A mistake is made, however, when valid Scientology data, especially data of
some importance, is invalidated and dropped. Those who become
ex-Scientologists, in their attempt to purge themselves of the false stable
data in the indoctrination, commit this exact mistake. In other words, they
throw the baby out with the bath water.
Lastly, a Scientologist who discovers that she has adopted some of the
false data of the Scientology indoctrination as stable data for herself may
need not only to blow these stable data, but to adopt other, better stable
data to take their place. With some of those who become ex-Scientologists,
however, this can get pretty weird, and we see them come up with real
winners like, "I am my body" or "I think with my brain."
So, we have an extraordinarily bizarre scene overall.
We have critics who aren't the best of critics.
We have Scientologists who don't know there's anything major to fix in
Scientology, let alone what it might be.
We have Scientologists who fail to handle in an intelligent and responsible
manner whatever upsets they may experience when they try to confront what
is major and needs to be fixed in Scientology.
Last but not least, we have a few Scientologists who do have a good
estimation of what's wrong and needs to be fixed, but who can not speak
freely because if they did, they would be declared--for starters.
One of the things which contributes to making this such a bizarre scene is
that even when a critic does get some criticism right, instead of being
acknowledged, he is roundly ignored. Unless, of course, he persists with
his criticism, in which case he may end up being investigated by OSA's
private investigators and sued by its lawyers.
In other words, this is a considerably more bizarre scene than it has any
business being.
The why is some of the policy concerning criticism of LRH and Scientology.
It commands those who are indoctrinated and, therefore, willing to apply
it, to discredit and eliminate the criticism and, if necessary, to destroy
the person making it.
Even this wouldn’t be as bad as it is if it were limited strictly to
invalid and highly destructive criticism. But it is not even limited to
that. This policy applies to all valid and constructive criticism of LRH
and Scientology as well.
The who could only be the man who wrote the policy: LRH.
Can things be changed from within?
What I'm certain of is that things can and will be sorted out. Exactly how
or how long it might take--this is perhaps what makes this scene more
interesting than anything else.
I'm thrilled, actually, that ars and activities connected to it are
elements of the scene. Regardless of how poor some of the criticism may be,
Scientology needs external, public criticism, and any criticism is better
than none. Fortunately some of the criticism is quite good. Chris Owen's
research into LRH's military record is an example. So, perhaps the most
important thing about ars and the rest of the critical stuff on the Net is
simply that it's there.
That more and more Scientologists will bump their noses into it is only a
matter of time. Many will become disaffected, just as many already have.
Others will be more intelligent and responsible. But however long it may
take, the Scientology indoctrination will become real to all
Scientologists. If nothing else has a big impact first, such as Miscavige
having a few cognitions, more and more Scientologists unindoctrinating
themselves certainly will.
