Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientologist

[CommunicatorIC]

Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa
http://backincomm.wordpress.com/201...-in-south-africa/comment-page-1/#comment-1687

First up. It is time to make a distinction. There is a growing number of people who no longer consider themselves part of the Church of Scientology. These are people either ‘under the radar’, have simply withdrawn from their org, or who have openly declared that they no longer stand with this organisation.

The vast majority of these people still call themselves Scientologists, but the association of the word is becoming more and more distasteful. The Joburg 18 were declared some 6 weeks ago and their declares stated, rather laughingly, “they are forbidden from calling themselves Scientologists”. As if they have the power to exert such control over a word.

So it is time to make a distinction. Those that call themselves Scientologists must reclaim the word. No offense to those who have ceased to be Scientologists but who still visit and read this blog. You are welcome, of course. But Scientologists, it is OUR word.

Let’s make a distinction. Those that have left, those that have chosen to no longer belong to the corruption calling itself the Church of Scientology – WE are the true Scientologists.

Those that remain in the Church are not Scientologists – they are simply members of David Miscavige’s church. Perhaps they could be called Miscavologists for want of a better description. And they are welcome to it.

Despite current efforts of new management, they are losing control of the South African Scientology community. Battle lines, predictably, have been drawn by the church. Your’e either with us or ‘agin us. But the time of large swathes of people immediately snapping to and saluting has passed. The efforts at more control are being balked at. The committee of evidence to “quell the restless natives” has not been met with much cooperation.

There are those that have made their undying loyalty known and will disconnect and report as much as they need to remain in favour. There will always be those sorts of followers. These are the people who believe they are being self-determined as they unquestioningly follow a system which has adopted the mantra of ’our way or the highway’. The Church of Miscavology has become a tyrannical regime.

But real Scientologists know better. And this is no more aptly described than by LRH himself:

AWARENESS

“Function is senior to structure, mankind as a spiritual being is senior to structure.

Nations are civilised not by new systems or force. They gain understanding and culture and dignity not from economics or politics but from man himself, and that most precious gift of AWARENESS. The building block of any civilisation is ‘A man thinking’.

‘The scrapyards of history are littered with the discarded derelicts of systems, political or judicial, which sought to oppress by various degrees of force, the right of sentient man to think freely and to communicate freely, his understanding.

‘Force met by force is not a solution. Many Saints and Sages and Scholars have been aware of this since the first syllable of recorded time.

‘Your potential is God given and Godlike. You have the right to seek to achieve understanding.

“Force, brutality, barbarism, lies can be viewed as they are. They can be confronted, they can be understood.

OUR WAY

‘In Scientology we believe we have the means to help man do this. It may not be the only way. It may not be the bravest or most dramatic way. It is our way, and we find it works. We can offer it to our fellows to have and to use or not.

But we do not, we dare not, force it upon them, for to do so would destroy the very purpose of our movement.

Excerpted from the Book of Ceremonies – 1973 Copyright version by L. Ron Hubbard

Comments of interest.

http://backincomm.wordpress.com/201...-in-south-africa/comment-page-1/#comment-1687

Tony DePhillips on December 16, 2013 at 1:22 am said:

I don’t have anything on someone wanting to call themselves a Scientologist. I do think any true Scientologists would be outside of the cult.

I like a lot of Scientology but don’t call myself a Scientologist anymore primarily because I don’t want to identify myself with radical Scientology. I know the definition is that a Scientologist is “one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others using Scn. technology”. Well I have done that and still do it to some degree but I still don’t think that is what it means to call my self a Scientologist. What I think it means, is that if you call yourself a Scientologist then you believe in the whole game created by LRH that the state of OT is attainable and we will Clear this planet and then move onto target 2. That is what I feel it means and I cannot say that I believe that anymore. I DO believe that through auditing people can get better and I don’t think I need to believe in all the rest in order to use the tech.

Like I said, I am fine if others want to identify themselves with the title.

I am also fine with people creating Scientology centers outside of the cult so as to deliver the tech. I think that is a fine purpose as long as you don’t start enforcing realities onto people the way the cult did and does.

http://backincomm.wordpress.com/201...-in-south-africa/comment-page-1/#comment-1688

TRUTH on December 16, 2013 at 1:49 am said:

Hello Truth – thanks for stopping by. Your comment has been moderated as it violates our moderation policy – more specifically these points:

?This is not an “anti-SCN” or “anti-LRH” blog and as such we reserve the right to moderate any comment intended purely to offend those users who still consider themselves Scientologists. There are many “hate” blogs and websites extolling disdain for all things SCN and LRH – this is not one of them.

?We reserve the right to moderate comments that contain profanity, anti-religious speech (any religion) and violence (or threats thereof).

Many people visiting this blog still practice the technology of L Ron Hubbard outside of the Church, and they consider themselves to be Scientologists. Your comment therefore, was inappropriate in its content as you were clearly knocking both the religion and the founder.

http://backincomm.wordpress.com/201...-in-south-africa/comment-page-1/#comment-1711

scnafrica on December 16, 2013 at 5:41 pm said:

We received an email from someone taking exception to a particular paragraph in this post. We mostly agreed to the sentiment. We were asked to remove the offending paragraph when we declined but we are posting the email exchange to the objection and our response is on the public record:

__________
?I loved your blog and read it every day until today.
I am under the radar and XXXXXXXXX [edited for privacy]
If you truly mean to be inclusive of all sides, then this one paragraph contradicts your intention. It is an attack and offensive to many, whether they let you know about it or not. It manifests intense hate whether or not you realize that you harbor it.

Those that remain in the Church are not Scientologists – they are simply members of David Miscavige’s church. Perhaps they could be called Miscavologists for want of a better description. And they are welcome to it.
___________
Thank you very much for this. Your point is well taken. We have built this blog on the idea of inclusion and tolerance and similar ideals. I agree with what you are saying – it seems the frustration and anger does sometimes make its way to the surface.

We appreciate your interest and hope you will continue to visit regularly!
___________
Ok, then remove that paragraph from your article.
___________
It has to stand as that is what was said. Would you post your thoughts as a comment?

 

[thewritegoddess]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

It's weird to read that blog (and I read it every day). It's really Scientologists, but yeah, they're standing up to McSavage. Sort of... I look forward to their eventual return to reality.

 

[Deeana]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

Other than knowing they are all mad at Miscavige, they seem to be a bit befuddled at this point. They are going back and forth on what to call themselves. And as the site attracts more and more posts, which it is doing daily, the moderator has to be spending more and more time reading incoming posts in order to be able to censor them. For "unkind" thoughts about LRH. What a chore to take on in light of the reality of LRH!

I am seeing lots and lots more links being posted. Which means a moderator has to have gone to each link and examined content prior to allowing the link to be posted? Wow.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

Other than knowing they are all mad at Miscavige, they seem to be a bit befuddled at this point. They are going back and forth on what to call themselves. And as the site attracts more and more posts, which it is doing daily, the moderator has to be spending more and more time reading incoming posts in order to be able to censor them. For "unkind" thoughts about LRH. What a chore to take on in light of the reality of LRH! I am seeing lots and lots more links being posted. Which means a moderator has to have gone to each link and examined content prior to allowing the link to be posted? Wow.

They are in the same place Marty's blog and followers were two or three years ago -- i.e., wanting to blame everything bad on DM, refer back to a mythic past in Scientology, and defend LRH and his "pure" tech. (Steve Hall's Scientology-Cult website was created with that express purpose in mind, and still promotes the idea Hubbard "cancelled" disconnection.)

I well recall the time, not too many years ago, when Marty too would not tolerate criticism of LRH. To Marty's credit, he loosened the reigns, himself confronted LRH's darker side and, IMHO and not to be overly dramatic, helped lead his people out of the darkness in perhaps the only way possible -- i.e., gradiently.

Whether the South African blog follows a similar evolution, or continues to implement the "tech" of Milestone Two of not allowing any criticism of Hubbard and the "pure" tech, remains to be seen.

 

[Infinite]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

''

. . . I know the definition is that a Scientologist is “one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others using Scn. technology”. . .

Hmmm . . . that's one of four definitions in the Tech Dictionary. I don't see how it applies to anyone outside of the cult because if they had used Scientology Technology they wouldn't be outside the cult. Well, either that or the tech doesn't work.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Cafeteria Independent Scientology

''

Originally Posted by Tony DePhillips
. . . I know the definition is that a Scientologist is “one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others using Scn. technology”. . .

Hmmm . . . that's one of four definitions in the Tech Dictionary. I don't see how it applies to anyone outside of the cult because if they had used Scientology Technology they wouldn't be outside the cult. Well, either that or the tech doesn't work.

Honestly, no.

In a way, some critics are just a big believers in KSW as members of the Church of Scientology -- i.e., that ALL of the "tech" must be accepted, or rejected, as a monolithic whole.

Whether the corporate Church of Scientology likes it or not, or whether the more strident critics like it or not (or find it convenient), there have arisen Independent Scientologists who: (1) reject KSW (and/or, if they are more sophisticated, say that the essay Personal Integrity is senior); and (2) are effectively cafeteria (Independent) Scientologists, in the same way there are cafeteria Catholics who somehow consider themselves Catholic while not following the Popes teachings on birth control.

Both the corporate Church of Scientology, the pure KSW Indies (Milesone Two?), and hard core critics may sputter, "But that's not possible!" What they are really saying is that it "shouldn't" be possible per doctrine (or that they don't want it to be possible).

Tough shit.

The empirical facts are that people do do that, are doing that, are free to do that, and there is nothing hard core critics or the corporate Church of Scientology can do to stop them. If, for example, an Independent Scientologist wants to apply the ARC triangle, but thinks the Liability Formula is ludicrous, he is free to do so. For either the hard core critic, the pure KSW Indie, or the hard core critic to froth, "But you can's do that!," says far more about them than the Cafeteria Independent Scientologist.

EDITED TO ADD:

One simple solution for an Independent Scientologist may simply be to say: I'm applying the essay Personal Integrity to the policy (or policies) known as KSW, don't find to be true for me, and therefore won't be following them. QED.

 

[Marcus Sawyer]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

Ok, My opinion:

LRH describes things in his "tech" that have been known about and described before, by others, but in a different way, usually a thousand or more years ago (at least in the axiomatic sense)
to say that someone is crazy for still believing something that some guy in buddhism came up with, then later re-hashed a different way in scientology, and perhaps provided an insight that westerners can appreciate, is about as dumb as saying anyone is crazy for believing in anything.

ARC for example, would it be crazy for someone to believe that when they talk to their friend who likes football about football that they will be able to talk for a long time ?
Or would it be crazier for that same person to believe that by finding "commonality", a term coined by a catholic magazine describing how to get closer to people, would allow them to create more trust and interest in a relationship or converstaion?

I mean, there is a lot of focus on the word scientology with regard to it's technology or processes or whatever. What it is, is a cognitive therapy, of inductive thought, similar to meditation, buddhism, other states of awareness/consciousness. At least that's what i see it as, it belongs in the field of science and eastern philosophy imo, but it's in a fucking religion unfortunately.

I can grant beingness to people who want to see every last ex scientologist renounce their evil practices and curse the name L. Ron Hubbard, and blah blah blah. But that is no way to help those during a time when they are overcoming great areas of ruin in their life from suffering to abusive/suppressive treatment, and ultimately, Karma is a bitch.

 

[ThetanExterior]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

This thread is reminding me of when I was still in but totally disillusioned. A reg was on the phone telling me I had to attend an IAS event and I was refusing.

He said to me: "Are you a Scientologist?"

I said: "No!" and put down the phone.

That was the beginning of a better life for me.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

A reg was on the phone telling me I had to attend an IAS event and I was refusing.

He said to me: "Are you a Scientologist?"

Tut tut. The reg violated the Big League Sales idea of offering a choice in the form of "Would you like to pay by cash or check?" and not in the form of "Would you like to buy this or not?"

In the case you gave, I'm not sure how he should have applied it. Maybe "Would you rather see the event live or by video at the org?" It might not have had any different end result, but he would have been more "in-tech."

Paul

 

[HappyGoLucky :)]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

Tony seems like he is expanding his thinking. I'm all for that.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Re: Cafeteria Independent Scientology

For either the hard core critic, the pure KSW Indie, or the hard core critic to froth, "But you can's do that!," says far more about them than the Cafeteria Independent Scientologist.

Of course. But in some cases one may end up 'taking from Scientology' only things that were done first and better elsewhere. If I were doing that, at what point would it become silly for me to keep on calling such things 'parts of Scientology' just because I happened to find them in Scientology?

I mean, suppose my first sight of the Mona Lisa happened to be a cheap print that my lying friend Ron claimed as his own work. So I go around saying, "Hey, Ron's a jerk, but I like some of his art, especially that smiling woman. Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean everything he ever did was bad." I don't think it would be so unreasonable for someone to tell me, "Dude, your favorite picture was made by Leonardo da Vinci. Stop giving that jerk Ron undeserved credit."

 

[Freeminds]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

I suspect this is the pattern that we will see for the next couple of years; Scientology shrinking not through a process of withering and shutting down, as in recent years, but by amputation. This is the next phase. Rather than just gradually shedding members on the quiet, whole communities get disconnected in swathes. Some of the Scientology victims will get sucked into the Cheapzone for a time, I suppose, but more will simply fall away for good.

It's probably better for the Mutha- 'Church' to close ties with its failing outposts in this faux fury, rather than simply waiting for the bailiffs to move in. Miscavige will never release all that money that got taken up-lines, so the orgs are falling. It's easier to cut them off and explain that they were infested with SPs, than to try to explain why the Scientology Cult is no longer a success in a particular region. Thus, cities and whole countries will be shut out, until only a few remain.

Who will be the next to go? Auckland looks shaky. Manchester? Nice? Copenhagen?

Outside of the USA, which Scientology outposts are likely to survive, in the medium-term? Only Taiwan and Stain Hill, plus the newly-consolidated London Ideal/CC seem to have any sort of income stream, as far as I can tell.

 

[degraded being]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

 

[Terril park]

Re: Cafeteria Independent Scientology

Honestly, no.

In a way, some critics are just a big believers in KSW as members of the Church of Scientology -- i.e., that ALL of the "tech" must be accepted, or rejected, as a monolithic whole.

Whether the corporate Church of Scientology likes it or not, or whether the more strident critics like it or not (or find it convenient), there have arisen Independent Scientologists who: (1) reject KSW (and/or, if they are more sophisticated, say that the essay Personal Integrity is senior); and (2) are effectively cafeteria (Independent) Scientologists, in the same way there are cafeteria Catholics who somehow consider themselves Catholic while not following the Popes teachings on birth control.

Both the corporate Church of Scientology, the pure KSW Indies (Milesone Two?), and hard core critics may sputter, "But that's not possible!" What they are really saying is that it "shouldn't" be possible per doctrine (or that they don't want it to be possible).

Tough shit.

The empirical facts are that people do do that, are doing that, are free to do that, and there is nothing hard core critics or the corporate Church of Scientology can do to stop them. If, for example, an Independent Scientologist wants to apply the ARC triangle, but thinks the Liability Formula is ludicrous, he is free to do so. For either the hard core critic, the pure KSW Indie, or the hard core critic to froth, "But you can's do that!," says far more about them than the Cafeteria Independent Scientologist.

EDITED TO ADD:

One simple solution for an Independent Scientologist may simply be to say: I'm applying the essay Personal Integrity to the policy (or policies) known as KSW, don't find to be true for me, and therefore won't be following them. QED.

Very insightful,specially from one I presume is not a scientologist.

 

[DartSmohen]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

I was in Cape Town this week and passed by the local org. Like last year it looked dingy and empty. Just a flight of stairs up to a small office. No one around. Maybe it is on the verge of closing.

 

[Leon]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

My God that's sad. Back in the mid seventies I was DofP and we routinely turned out over a hundred WDAHs every week. Sometimes up to 200.

Reminds me of an old ditty. I could reword it slightly:



All that remained of Hubbard's plans

Were some empty Orgs and some unheld cans,

And the staffies, with no regrets,

Treated each other to cigarettes.

 

[Anonycat]

Re: Miscavige’s church losing control in South Africa. Tony DePhillips not Scientolog

I was in Cape Town this week and passed by the local org. Like last year it looked dingy and empty. Just a flight of stairs up to a small office. No one around. Maybe it is on the verge of closing.

Two days after Joburg Ideal Org opened on 3 November 2003 the COB himself gave a briefing to Joburg, Pretoria and Sea Org staff in the Joburg auditorium. A briefing that was videoed and which would be viewed ad-nausium by staff for years afterward. At this briefing he said “I’ve been asked which org should be next. My answer is: All of them!” The instruction was clear. All other South African Ideal Orgs would have to be opened NOW(ish).

As it turned out the next to be purchased was Cape Town. A set of 3 buildings was found in the Cape Town city centre in 2004 but they had just been purchased by someone else for R9 million. The church just had to have them. The new owner threw out a ridiculous offer of R18 million, double what he had just paid for them. The church jumped and accepted the offer. The deal of a lifetime, the guy made a cool R9 million on a property that was never even transferred into his name.

However, there was a catch. The church only had R9 million from fund raising. So The plan was to take a bond with the bank for the remaining R9 mil. The R9mil was paid as a 50% (non refundable) deposit with a time limit to pay the balance. Note: At the time this money was paid the remaining balance had not been secured. They simply coughed up this money with a hope they would get the rest. The church was then unable to secure a bond for the balance. They went running to the only people they knew would be able to help: Ernest & Gaye Corbett. They put up security for the balance so they didn’t lose the building AND the deposit. Over the next 18 months the balance of the money was fund raised.

And from an ideal org standpoint that’s where it all ended. Since 2005 the buildings have stood there as non orgs. Gaye sent up several requests to sell the smaller of the 3 buildings. This would have raised enough capital to renovate the remaining two buildings and move in. These requests were ignored or turned down.

In the meantime Cape Town Org in it’s un-ideal building was struggling to pay it’s rent. Often utilities and rent were fund raised from public under various guises. Cape Town was (and is) an operation unable to pay its way.

In 2006 the OT Committee had a bright idea: Why not put the org in it’s paid-for building so it didn’t have to keep struggling to pay rent. They raised a further R225,000 (or thereabouts) to do basic renovations on the top two floors of the big building and they moved in. A pretty good solution one would think. It lasted about 12 months when an edict came from management: You cannot occupy this building until it is Ideal. Get out. They moved. And then moved again when they couldn’t keep up with their rent.

In all they’ve moved at least 3 times due to viability problems.

Finally, in late 2013, someone had another bright idea: Why not move into our unoccupied Ideal Building so we don’t have to pay high rent? That’s right, the Org has just moved back into this building.

Consider this: This Cape Town Ideal Building was purchased for R18 million in 2005. 8 years ago. If R18 million had been placed into an high interest bearing account of say 6%, after 8 years that money would have grown to R28 million. More than enough to purchase, renovate and move into a building.

Now rumours are circulating that the building may be sold as there is not enough parking nearby.