Steve and Ariel Spargo Declare Independence

[Kookaburra]

Re: People newly out of scientology & ESMB

I just received this from Steve Spargo.

I asked his permission to post on ESMB and he said "Sure ~~ go right ahead.

So this is posted with his full permission."

Karen:

A Change of Heart

I have had time to settle down a bit and think through the Church issues and have come to a more reasonable and final position. I can give you the key outline here:

In the first case, the Church by way of unnecessary, technical arbitraries denied delivery to Ariel and I at a time when we were still willing to invest the required 50 years and $400,000+ (not counting IAS, Ideal Org, Super Power, CCHR, ABLE and materials).

Now we are outside the Church they will again deny us Scientology with their usual infiltrations and legal attacks to prevent us from starting a Scientology activity. This reveals the Church’s true position on Religious Freedom.

In the second case, I was talking to a woman whose family and children have not spoken to her for many years. The Church disconnected her for speaking out about some justice abuses. This is the Church’s version of Freedom of Speech and Right To Have A Family.

As I looked into her eyes and saw the suppressed tears as she talked about this, I felt so angry at the knowledge that in all the Church of Scientology there wasn’t a single Scientologist that would lift a finger to help this girl. Not even her own children.


Yes, now I know the monster my Church has become. In our selfish desires for immortality we have closed our eyes to the abuses and abandoned all the decent impulses we pretended we were serving.

So I withdraw any and every assurance I gave to people that I would not attack this Church. Part of my life’s work from now on will be shining the light on the human rights travesty that calls itself the Church of Scientology. It must be drastically reformed so all people can benefit from Scientology without interference from some para-military, thought-controlling management.

[/SIZE][/B]

Yup! Sounds like he is progressing just fine.

It's kinda like delivering a baby, this process of leaving the CoS. All sorts of tension and dramas and will he make it, will he need intervention, will they both survive.

 

[sallydannce]

I'd simply like to put some love here for Steve and Ariel.

I wish them all the very best on their journey.

 

[secretiveoldfag]

Some will eventually become ex-Scientologists; others will "step sideways" and stay there.

It's always been that way.

Tis true. I must practice patience. But somehow it seems to me that we hear a lot from so called former Scientologists wittering on about the tech, still talking the talk and walking the walk, and not so much about those who have in fact left the Cult.

But there is a definite flow in the right direction.

[strike]Though thanks to Louie F there is also a definite flow in the wrong direction. But that is a different matter.[/strike]

 

[onthepes]

Re: People newly out of scientology & ESMB

I just received this from Steve Spargo.

I asked his permission to post on ESMB and he said "Sure ~~ go right ahead.

So this is posted with his full permission."




[/SIZE][/B]

Thanks for sharing that Karen. I really hope Steve and Ariel get the best in the world. They dedicated much of their lives to Scientology and deserve it. I understand they still look on LRH positively. That may change in time. It may not. For now, it took a lot of balls to do what he has done. For him and many others that have also done so, I have the utmost admiration.

 

[scooter]

Steve and Ariel are good folk, and Steve's write-up is an absolute gem.

I'm just pleased that they've stepped away from the toxic cult and come out swinging (and quoting stats to support the punches they're landing.)

I too would've posted on MartyWorld when I first stepped out of the bubble. So I have no problem if folks head that way at first or even camp there for a year or seven.

At least they've taken ONE step on the way to being fully out. There's a lot yet who haven't even done that much.

 

[Gadfly]

It must be drastically reformed so all people can benefit from Scientology without interference from some para-military, thought-controlling management.

- Steve Spargo

First, Scientology doesn't have and NEVER had any capability to "benefit all people". THAT is a major point in the Scientology delusion. There are NO "OTs". There are NO "clears". There are no real examples of Scientology "making a better world" through the exact application of LRH Tech. The majority of what Scientology is and can do involves LOFTY CLAIMS and IDEALIZED BELIEF (presented in endless LRH-based PR). As a "spiritual path" it is a wretched failure, not to mention a gross posturing pretense.

Second, Scientology cannot be anything other than a "para-military, thought-controlling" enterprise as long as ANY of its adherents continue to FOLLOW EXACT LRH POLICIES on the matter. The "church" is so fucked because Miscavige truly understands and carefully applies LRH DATA on Scientology management.

I have no doubt that if Hubbard were here instead of DM, that very similar behaviors would have unfolded in direct response to the events of the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and the Internet. What Hubbard planned and did to Paulette Cooper is a MODEL of all that has followed. Scientology is brutally controlling and oppressive because Hubbard designed it that way.

I am all for Scientology "reforming", but THAT will involve some group of people deciding which LRH data should be ignored, minimized in use, and/or thrown out completely. With the KSW mentality forced on ALL Scientologists, THAT can never happen. And WHO would decide WHAT policies, advices and lecture segments should be ignored, minimized in use, and/or thrown out?

Scientology is in a CATCH 22 when it comes to "reform". Hubbard's exact policies on "no alterations" prevent any such reform. Hubbard's policies on KSW and Technical Degrades (not to mention the various justice policies and lists of suppressive acts) makes any "amending of Scientology" entirely impossible (from the inisde).

The Church of Scientology will fight, and fight, and fight just as Hubbard directed it to. And, anybody who disagrees will get expelled and declared, as has become so common, until DM is left alone by himself (with a picture of Hubbard) - as there will be nobody left to expel and declare!

God forbid if Marty ever manages to "take over the Church", gets a hold of all those billions of dollars, and uses that money to extend the life of Scientology with his "new and compassionate version", while actually applying MUCH of the same in terms of PR, lies and manipulation. See, if one actually applies ALL of Ron's tech, it can't be anything other than lies and manipulation. A problem is that people like the Spargos would most likely support Marty in such a venture. They WANT to see Scientology continue as an organized force in the world. Now me, I DON'T want to see that. But then, I am truly an SP.

Maybe some day . . . . some day in the far distant future, people like the Spargos will realize these things. And, maybe it will take a few more lifetimes of growth and learning - growth and learning done AWAY from any Scientology influence. :confused2:

 

[degraded being]

.
.
The write up on Marty's struck me as unusual. It was written in English.

 

[Infinite]

..

Whew! That's huge write-up by Steve. Reminds me of Dave Fagan's masterfully detailed write-up from not so long ago. I haven't made it to the end yet because I keep getting distracted following up the tech reference and so on. One thing I can't find is any L Ron Hubbard policy/tech/scripture on "rollback". I know its been discussed here but I there doesn't seem to be any DOX easily located. Apparently the details of "rollback" are scattered across various Flag Orders and dispatches. Anyhow, Steve notes:

(Outpoint = what is rollback? Never seen a HCOB or HCOPL that explains it. It’s a squirrel process – AO Ethics)

Jesse Prince has some details:

. . . Rollback is a process that I used to get daily dispatches on from L. Ron Hubbard. What it was is a process to catch a spy within the organization. If you were having problems, or not doing exactly what you were told, you could be subjected to this rollback procedure, where they mention Sirhan Sirhan in this, where what is it? Somebody inthe organization is saying something like a plant, and people who have duped by other people. So they get on a meter and do all of this fool around, to try to find out who’s influencing you, how were you duped away from what Scientology is telling you to do,as opposed to what you see in here. Then they go through this whole procedure, boiling it down to a person. Then that person, quite naturally gets exploded. At that point he is given intense sec-checking, he is put under stress to do physical work, to exhaust him.They are also put on a fore-shortened schedule . . .

Anyone got DOX?

 

[Dulloldfart]

One thing I can't find is any L Ron Hubbard policy/tech/scripture on "rollback". I know its been discussed here but I there doesn't seem to be any DOX easily located. Apparently the details of "rollback" are scattered across various Flag Orders and dispatches.

Anyone got DOX?

Here you go. When I did the course there were 5 or so dedicated Rollback issues. At the time they were pilot issues. I guess now they are in some standard issue type, but restricted to Int or something.

The LRH reference the procedure was based on was the PL Ethics Officer Hat, where the source of a rumour or "enemy line" is traced back from person to person to the originator. Or at least to the first person outside the group. Big charts get made showing all the lines. It's a group admin investigatory procedure, not a 1st dynamic case gain procedure.

I both supervised and completed the Rollback course at New World Corps around 1988.

The idea is to take specific Black PR or Enemy Lines, like "the prices are too high," and trace them back to the external influences outside the org. You put the staff member on a meter and ask "where did you hear that _____" or similar questions. The question doesn't have to read. You poke around. The questions aren't rote. I think the Senior Sec Checker Course used to be a pre-req to the Rollback course.

If the line is stated to have come from Joe, you then pull Joe in and do a Rollback interview on him. Eventually the line dead-ends with a person who can't think of anyone he heard it from, or who admits he started it. Or it goes back to someone outside your sphere of influence who you can't pull in for questioning.

You make up a huge chart containing all the enemy lines, and all the people, which can be dozens of people, with arrows showing who told who what.

It's a great way of witch hunting.

In theory, it could be sorta useful. In reality, the "enemy lines" are often true, like "the prices are too high," or "management is parasitic and couldn't run a cockroach nest," so all it does is engender an atmosphere of fear of saying anything.

Paul

 

[phenomanon]

Here you go. When I did the course there were 5 or so dedicated Rollback issues. At the time they were pilot issues. I guess now they are in some standard issue type, but restricted to Int or something.

I did a few "rollbacks" while I was a Sr Sec Checker.
It was a great auditing action to cave a guy in, and to get his mind "right" so he would not to talk to anyone who had questions questions or "critical thoughts" about Scn or Mgmt.
When I did 'em, it was not a rote procedure, but went along the lines of " where did you hear that? who said that? where did that idea come from? who have you been talking to?" and such questions as that.

phenomanon

 

[Dulloldfart]

I did a few "rollbacks" while I was a Sr Sec Checker.

Can you say when you first did this? Was it a proper course, with proper issues? It's OK if you don't want to say, but I am curious what the issue types are now.

Paul

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I did a few "rollbacks" while I was a Sr Sec Checker.
It was a great auditing action to cave a guy in, and to get his mind "right" so he would not to talk to anyone who had questions questions or "critical thoughts" about Scn or Mgmt.
When I did 'em, it was not a rote procedure, but went along the lines of " where did you hear that? who said that? where did that idea come from? who have you been talking to?" and such questions as that.

phenomanon

Never did/had a rollback.

What happens when the "pc" originates that the answer is: "I haven't been talking to anyone. I didn't hear that. I thought of it myself."?

 

[Dulloldfart]

Never did/had a rollback.

What happens when the "pc" originates that the answer is: "I haven't been talking to anyone. I didn't hear that. I thought of it myself."?

An awful lot of TR3 and swinish suspicion with the sensitivity cranked up. Remember this is usually being done by an experienced sec-checker with his neck on the line, not some 20-year-old trainee MAA. If you finally accept his answer, and it could be true!, then you accept it and go onto something else.

The RBer is usually not the person running the whole program, so it's not his decision what ethics action to take, or not.

Paul

 

[xseaorguk]

well, I'm glad that they are shining a light on the scam and washing their dirty laundry in public, but it will only shine more brightly and white after the airing.
The reason being:

" Ariel washes out all stains and makes your whites even whiter than white"

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

An awful lot of TR3 and swinish suspicion with the sensitivity cranked up. Remember this is usually being done by an experienced sec-checker with his neck on the line, not some 20-year-old trainee MAA. If you finally accept his answer, and it could be true!, then you accept it and go onto something else.

The RBer is usually not the person running the whole program, so it's not his decision what ethics action to take, or not.

Paul

YIKES!​

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
So who told you that?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Nobody.

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
Thank you. Who is nobody?

SCIENTOLOGIST
I mean nobody.

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
I really got what you said. But Ron
says you talked to someone who
"got to you".

SCIENTOLOGIST
Ron said that? Isn't Ron dead?

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
Who told you that Ron was dead? ​

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I did a few "rollbacks" while I was a Sr Sec Checker.
It was a great auditing action to cave a guy in, and to get his mind "right" so he would not to talk to anyone who had questions questions or "critical thoughts" about Scn or Mgmt.
When I did 'em, it was not a rote procedure, but went along the lines of " where did you hear that? who said that? where did that idea come from? who have you been talking to?" and such questions as that.

phenomanon

Whenever someone asks me questions like that, I try to point the finger at them, something they said or did.

It's really pretty funny.

I did it just last week end to a SO reg

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

YIKES!​

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
So who told you that?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Nobody.

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
Thank you. Who is nobody?

SCIENTOLOGIST
I mean nobody.

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
I really got what you said. But Ron
says you talked to someone who
"got to you".

SCIENTOLOGIST
Ron said that? Isn't Ron dead?

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
Who told you that Ron was dead? ​

SCIENTOLOGIST
It was published in the Los Angeles Times

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
SP Media at work

SCIENTOLOGIST
It was a paid advertisment from the COS

ROLLBACK SPECIALIST
There are SPs operating within Scientology - that's why you're getting this rollback.

​

 

[AnonyMary]

This was a massive thing for Steve to do.

He's a good guy and I for one don't care that he still thinks of himself as a Scientologist. He's out of the Matrix and will find his own way from here.

ESMB is not the place for exes that don't immediately & 100% swing away from Scientology. It used to be. It isn't now. No judgement implied. It's just the way it is.

Edit:

I created this board for people just like Steve. Right now if I was in Steve's position I wouldn't post here.

Dang.. you edited the last part. From what I recall of it, I thought it was pretty good and well worth quoting.

Oh well, your edit comment is an honest statement. I agree. Thanks.

 

[wigee1]

Love ya Steve, Well Done.