Caroline

Patron Meritorious
I think we read two different books! :)

The Indies are free to reject ANY policy letter, bulletin or advice from Hubbard, including KSW 1. And more power to them! Cults depend on dogmatic, slavish devotion and literal interpretation for their survival. Get rid of the dogmatic approach, get rid of the cult.

Thankfully we're free to reject all that stuff. But rejecting KSW would clearly be out-KSW. And clearly Hubbard intended that KSW be applied as given, and literally.

Hubbard said:
SPECIAL MESSAGE

THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER.

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.

NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Hubbard, L. R. (1965, 7 February). Keeping Scientology Working.

I'd be interested in how you read this quote from Rathbun's book:

Rathbun said:
For the past three years, I have been working with a growing network of independent Scientologists to apply Hubbard’s ultimate remedy. That is, for the first time in the 60-plus-year history of the subject we are breaking the monopoly by protecting and proliferating the use of Scientology independently. Only in this independent field is Scientology being applied as originally intended, for the sole purpose of increasing the self-determinism, the spiritual awareness and abilities of those it is applied to.

Rathbun, Mark 'Marty' (2012-06-24). What Is Wrong With Scientology?: Healing Through Understanding

I would think that "protecting and proliferating the use of Scientology...as originally intended" would sound very enticing to exiting Scientologists, implying as it does that Rathbun and the Indies are selling and delivering a viable, safe and "standard" alternative to the RTC Bridge, as directed by Hubbard in policy letters, bulletins, advices, etc. At least some of Rathbun's Indie followers promote that they sell and deliver the entire Scientology Bridge. But without KSW, for example, that would be a false claim, wouldn't it?
 
... Marty has made a lot of enemies. So even if he didn't have the "don't you question me attitude" which, IMO, he does have- he might still have people who don't accept his explanations and may act as if he never explained things.

I know what that's like, ya see.

Not quite. Unlike yourself, Rathbun has a criminal history and has earned those enemies through his own unprincipled and vicious behaviors.


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
Thankfully we're free to reject all that stuff. But rejecting KSW would clearly be out-KSW. And clearly Hubbard intended that KSW be applied as given, and literally.



I'd be interested in how you read this quote from Rathbun's book:



I would think that "protecting and proliferating the use of Scientology...as originally intended" would sound very enticing to exiting Scientologists, implying as it does that Rathbun and the Indies are selling and delivering a viable, safe and "standard" alternative to the RTC Bridge, as directed by Hubbard in policy letters, bulletins, advices, etc. At least some of Rathbun's Indie followers promote that they sell and deliver the entire Scientology Bridge. But without KSW, for example, that would be a false claim, wouldn't it?

Not if it were a PR handling, in an emergency PR damage control situation.

Rathbun says he's breaking a 60 years monopoly on the use of Scientology. That's a lie. Dianetics was used independently almost 60 years ago (CADA), and Scientology was used independently 30 years ago - but Rathbun is lying and saying he's using it independently for the first time.

Rathbun is saying that he's applying Scientology as originally intended by its founder, for the sole purpose of increasing self determinism, etc.

That's another lie.

So, here, Rathbun is dishonestly self-promoting by claiming to be the first when others preceded him by 30 and 60 years, and dishonestly asserting that L. Ron Hubbard's original intention was to "increase self determinism."

Those messages, particularly the latter, are expected to slip through a "wogs" defenses (critical faculties) and embed themselves in the minds of the malleable "wogs," who are not going to be using Scientology anyway, but will have the impression that this (pretty harmless, kind of benign stuff) is Scientology as intended by its founder, that its founder's intentions were to help others become more self determined and spiritually aware, and that there's nothing really wrong with Scientology other than a bad person named Miscavige hijacked it 30 years ago and reversed it.

This is in alignment with Hubbard's writings in his 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material', which instructs that different messages be (deceptively) tailored for different "publics."


'Think for yourself' signs sometimes displayed outside of Scientology Orgs. Isn't that out-KSW?

Not if its deceptive lead-in PR.


_________________________________​

David Miscavige is universally unpopular, and riding the wave of that (well deserved) unpopularity is a guaranteed path into the minds of those Marty&Friends are seeking to persuade.

But persuade to what?

Marty Rathbun&Friends have, as part of their "mission," the rehabilitation of the image and reputation of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.

From Marty's Rathbun blog:

"With all the chatter about L. Ron Hubbard's alleged shortcomings, it got me thinking about what the effect of the unprecedented ad hominem attacks against the man were. Hubbard was demonized by the cold war establishment perhaps more than any other civilian figure. One cumulative effect of it all was to one degree or another de-humanize him in the public eye. We see remnants of those effects to this day. Tony Ortega has even come to the conclusion that my mission - and the mission of many independents - is made hopeless by this historical landscape. The landscape is not easy to conceptualize given its long lived nature and Miscavige's daily efforts to make the myths a reality. Providing context to the entire picture is a long term project that I never lose sight of, but unfortunately I have not found the time to devote to it that it deserves..."

And,

"Miscavige has run a continuous propaganda campaign attempting to besmirch the good name of L. Ron Hubbard. He has continually given little interest or funds for defending public relations attacks on L. Ron Hubbard."

The outside the CoS Scientologists have finally found an effective "button" to "push," with which to apply the following "LRH datum." That button is the "Church" of Scientology as run by David Miscavige, with Miscavige regarded as an "anti-Scientologist":

"The objective is to be identified as attackers of popularly considered evils [Miscavige, and Miscavology, which is to regarded as 'Reverse Scientology']. This declassifies us from former labels..."

Confidential 'Black Propaganda' 12 January 1972


Below is a reminder of the Independent Scientology "reality," when it's not coated with PR meant for "wogs":

"...there are OSA operatives throughout the Anonymous network, ESMB site, the Freezone and Independents running backstabbing, covert propaganda campaigns while we are 'tied up' under siege. Just look for the 1.1s using the safe Independent Scientology space we are creating to promote such practices as no-training-needed to get onto OT levels, 'OT I and OT II are of little importance': especially coming from 'Class VIIIs', 'Class VIs' and folks claiming to be 'trained by Ron.' They may as well be saying 'Scientology is a fraud, because after all I studied it all, and violently disagree with the Bridge created by Ron.'...

"...Cleaning up the image and damage that Miscavige has created for Scientology is not very difficult absent his gargantuan efforts to disrupt such work..."

This is about L. Ron Hubbard and his "image."

Scientology has always been about L. Ron Hubbard and his "image."

It's Hubbard's ego-trip and, as Rathbun's editor explained, in so many words, "LRH = Survival."

Protect LRH and LRH name and image at all costs.

It's the cult of Hubbard, and always was.

It's wrapped in layers and layers of other stuff to mislead people.

Rathbun is continuing to mislead people.

In the truest sense, he is forwarding "LRH Intention."

01-l-ron-hubbard-centennial-celebration1.jpg
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Not quite. Unlike yourself, Rathbun has a criminal history and has earned those enemies through his own unprincipled and vicious behaviors.


Mark A. Baker

That is true, Mark-ster.

And this may have caused him to reach a point where it won't matter what he does or says.

But then again, if he admitted and apologized to/about his past deeds and showed that he had a clue and regretted it all deeply, maybe that would change. Ok, I'm mixing grammatical tenses but you know what I mean.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Thankfully we're free to reject all that stuff. But rejecting KSW would clearly be out-KSW. And clearly Hubbard intended that KSW be applied as given, and literally.



I'd be interested in how you read this quote from Rathbun's book:



I would think that "protecting and proliferating the use of Scientology...as originally intended" would sound very enticing to exiting Scientologists, implying as it does that Rathbun and the Indies are selling and delivering a viable, safe and "standard" alternative to the RTC Bridge, as directed by Hubbard in policy letters, bulletins, advices, etc. At least some of Rathbun's Indie followers promote that they sell and deliver the entire Scientology Bridge. But without KSW, for example, that would be a false claim, wouldn't it?

Caroline, I was an Indie for a long time. (My husband still is) And I always rejected KSW. Being a Scn'ist on one's own terms means one can reject things. I rejected it for years including the periods of time where you and I had many halcyon and luverly exchanges.... :coolwink:

I would caution against type casting other people who've chosen different paths.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thankfully we're free to reject all that stuff. But rejecting KSW would clearly be out-KSW. And clearly Hubbard intended that KSW be applied as given, and literally.



I'd be interested in how you read this quote from Rathbun's book:

"Originally Posted by Rathbun

For the past three years, I have been working with a growing network of independent Scientologists to apply Hubbard’s ultimate remedy. That is, for the first time in the 60-plus-year history of the subject we are breaking the monopoly by protecting and proliferating the use of Scientology independently. Only in this independent field is Scientology being applied as originally intended, for the sole purpose of increasing the self-determinism, the spiritual awareness and abilities of those it is applied to."


I would think that "protecting and proliferating the use of Scientology...as originally intended" would sound very enticing to exiting Scientologists, implying as it does that Rathbun and the Indies are selling and delivering a viable, safe and "standard" alternative to the RTC Bridge, as directed by Hubbard in policy letters, bulletins, advices, etc. At least some of Rathbun's Indie followers promote that they sell and deliver the entire Scientology Bridge. But without KSW, for example, that would be a false claim, wouldn't it?

He spends a great deal of time in the book discussing Black Dianetics and Miscavige's "perversion of the church" into a money making organism, and by contrast states that in the field, money is not the primary motivation for the delivery of Scientology. His ego apparently won't allow him to see that what he and the indies are doing is neither new or original. People have been leaving the church in droves for decades and some of them continue on with Scientology independent of the church.

I think he's hitting specific areas of upset with some of it - the continuous redoing of the Bridge in the church, with people being ordered to redo the same training and processing steps over and over again, is a sore point not so much with staff, whose cases are largely neglected, but with paying public. His position is that it's all money motivated and that none of it is intended to benefit the person themselves, and PAYING PUBLIC who are already out of sorts over being made to redo the same steps again and again are very likely to respond to that. I know Veda and I have been talking about who this book was intended for - Veda thinks public, but I feel that it's aimed at current and former Scientologists with a healthy dose of M7ing thrown in for the occasional raw meat who stumbles onto it. A person who is currently in the church and reads it will have a tough time justifying continued support of Scientology. His sugar coated Hubbard is less saccarine than the demigod within corporate Scn but still more palatable to an "In" or "recently out" cult member. He trips certain wires to lead people into the field and away from the church.

Regarding KSW 1 - it was written in what, 65? Many of the references he cites in his book predate that time. Perhaps he's disregarding references after a certain point? Maybe his idea of KSW is that whatever policy you decide to apply, you apply exactly? Maybe he views KSW as relative only to technical bulletins and procedures? I have no idea what he's got going on in his head. :) I'm still chewing on a theory there.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Definition of Standard Tech:

Standard Tech is whatever 'Tech' you were suckered into paying for.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Veda thinks public

-snip-


IMO, Rathbun wrote a book so as to influence non-Scientologists, particularly people he regards as V.I. P. "opinion leader" non-Scientologists; however, of course, Rathbun still wants to reach Scientologists, notably disaffected or "arc broken" Scientologists. (Their comm lines to "LRH" are "out" :))

So, he's trying to reach both camps, but the desire to reach and influence "wogs" has affected the content of the book, IMO.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Definition of Standard Tech:

Standard Tech is whatever 'Tech' you were suckered into paying for.

I do try to be patient with you, Smilla, but I will tell you right now that I'm a tad bit chagrined with your throwaway pithy one liner above. And I'll tell you why, in the spirit of candor.

I feel that you are dismssing many people you don't know, in a denigrating manner.

This subject is particularly near and dear to my heart- and I know you've noticed my frequently commenting on it (which is why you've repeatedly exhibited a certain disdain in the past couple or so months...) - because not only do I have friends who are non CofS Scn'ists, but I also am married to an extremely brilliant, independent, ornery man who is an Indie Scientologist. He is nothing the way you portray these people to be. Neither are my friends.

I'm all onboard with disagreeing and whatnot, but I truly dislike this casual dismissal and denigration of people you don't know and have never met based on their beliefs.

I think there's some legitimacy to doing that vis a vis church members, though even with that, ones' mileage may vary.

But ornery free form types you've never met?

Spare me.

My husband has more integrity and decency in his little finger than many others, in or out of any venue, do in their whole bodies. And he's definitely not like anyone you'll have ever met before.

If someone says they aren't a KSW Scn'ist then they aren't. And derailing away from that point isn't going to convince me that this typecasting is fair, healthy or isn't bigotry.

There. Now I've shared some personal details with you as to why I feel the way I feel.

Maybe you can view us (John and me, I mean) as individuals.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Why doesn't your Husband come here then and demonstrate his amazingness?

Or, does he stay away because he thinks we are a revolting bunch of natterers?


:coolwink:

I can't speak for Claire's hubby, but why is it so hard for you to accept that someone else might have a different opinion of the tech than your own? I've seen you divebomb threads before.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I can't speak for Claire's hubby, but why is it so hard for you to accept that someone else might have a different opinion of the tech than your own? I've seen you divebomb threads before.

I couldn't care less about others (good) opinions of the tek ... but I doubt I will ever understand the need to constantly keep re enforcing their beliefs on an Ex scio board when there are many other boards where they can go and pat each on the back and be ever so 'theta' ... and 'uptone' ... and not have to read any 'negative' comment from horrid people like me at all.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
I couldn't care less about others (good) opinions of the tek ... but I doubt I will ever understand the need to constantly keep re enforcing their beliefs on an Ex scio board when there are many other boards where they can go and pat each on the back and be ever so 'theta' ... and 'uptone' ... and not have to read any 'negative' comment from horrid people like me at all.

I didn't see that in Claire's previous post, but ok. I would definitely agree with you that 'success stories" and "wins" have no place here, nor would promoting services, etc IMO. Claire saying she loves her husband and he's an Indie didn't strike me as either of those things.

.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I didn't see that in Claire's previous post, but ok. I would definitely agree with you that 'success stories" and "wins" have no place here, nor would promoting services, etc IMO. Claire saying she loves her husband and he's an Indie didn't strike me as either of those things.

.

I admire Claire for her loyalty but sometimes it just sounds like a broken record (as do I, and I do know that) and she constantly tries to shut people up (it was Smillas turn again in the post you mentioned).

:coolwink:

There are extreme viewpoints here (pro and against) but many are in the centre ... I'm not a fan of the tek as I feel it introverts and potentially destroys more than it benefits and some of it (er OT3 for example) is just ridiculous and I can't and I won't ever take that seriously or anyone that is still buying it.

:no:
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
I admire Claire for her loyalty but sometimes it just sounds like a broken record (as do I, and I do know that).

:coolwink:

There are extreme viewpoints here (pro and against) but many are in the centre ... I'm not a fan of the tek as I feel it introverts and potentially destroys more than it benefits and some of it (er OT3 for example) is just ridiculous and I can't and I won't ever take that seriously or anyone that is still buying it.

:no:

Apparently OT III is a construct, a myth! We can all relax.

I'm being snarky, but this new "batch" does seem to be advancing that theory. They also seem to be rejecting the hardline KSW approach. That's kind of what this thread is about, at least from the perspective of Rathbun's book and what it covers! To me, THAT is fascinating because IS that Scientology, with the teeth and claws removed? Or is it something else?

(See what I did there? Now nobody can accuse us of derailing!) :coolwink:
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Not if it were a PR handling, in an emergency PR damage control situation.

[...]

Thank you for your insight, Veda.

This PR handling serves other purposes too. Rathbun's Underground Railroad facilitates the exodus of quite a few New Bulgravians.

As Steve Hall said, "Today, almost the entire power structure of Scientology has left the Church due to the abuses and insanity of the man at the top: David Miscavige."

Rathbun is playing a part in an Operation Soft Landing. All these Scientologists and their collaborators, which clearly goes pretty high in wog society, need a soft landing.

OSL includes a protection racket, the same dissemination of the same or even more perverse false promises, the same old conspiracy against the rights of citizens, insouciance in the face of reason, and malignancy. It joins with DM in the application of the SP doctrine to people in my class, i.e., the people who tell the truth about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was a sociopath and a criminal, and that character is important, and known.

Scientologists doing Scientology produced the need for a soft landing. And Rathbun says that doing more Scientology will erase that need. It cannot, because it cannot erase the needs of the Suppressive Person Class, which really is justice for the class.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
It might might be worth noting that the only person who mentioned Claire's husband in this thread is Claire herself. I have no knowledge, interest in, or opinion of him at all.

Claire: Being as all your attempts to get me to shut up and sit in the corner have failed, and will always fail, would you not be better off spending your time on something more likely to bring you satisfaction?

Back to my point:

Standard Tech is an opinion held by the provider of Scientology services. There never has been a definite,
consistent, unvarying, and unambiguous thing called Standard Tech.

Cof$ has it's idea of Standard Tech
Indiewhatsits have their idea of Standard Tech
Free Zone have their idea of Standard Tech
Tom, Dick, and Harry, have their idea of Standard Tech

Therefore:

Standard Tech is whatever Tech you were suckered into paying for.

It is not possible to buy something which does not exist, so if you bought something that was advertised as Standard Tech, you were misled or suckered, to use an Americanism for fun.



Lol.

 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
It might might be worth noting that the only person who mentioned Claire's husband in this thread is Claire herself. I have no knowledge, interest in, or opinion of him at all.

Claire: Being as all your attempts to get me to shut up and sit in the corner have failed, and will always fail, would you not be better off spending your time on something more likely to bring you satisfaction?

Back to my point:

Standard Tech is an opinion held by the provider of Scientology services. There never has been a definite, consistent, unvarying, and unambiguous thing called Standard Tech.

Cof$ has it's idea of Standard Tech
Indiewhatsits have their idea of Standard Tech
Free Zone have their idea of Standard Tech
Tom, Dick, and Harry, have their idea of Standard Tech

Therefore:

Standard Tech is whatever Tech you were suckered into paying for.

It is not possible to buy something which does not exist, so if you bought something that was advertised as Standard Tech, you were misled or suckered, to use an Americanism for fun.



Lol.

I'm not trying to shut anyone up. As I told you, I have no problem with disagreement re matters Scn'ological.

The paranoia that comes up sometimes strikes me as odd. This is just discussion. I shared with you why your post - and posts- struck me as they did. If that's a problem for anyone, then I think interfacing with others on a forum must be an extremely difficult and unpleasant activity for them.

And, yes, I did bring my husband up. I often am asked for examples- and NAMES- of people when I bring them up as examples of this or that. I do sometimes bring up examples from IRL to illustrate points. I've seen you do exactly the same thing, just last week, about your faith and other things. You've shared very personal autobiographical details (for which I'd never fault you or anyone else.). Surely I'm free to do likewise, yah?

Point is, there isn't really a standard tech for people who don't have standard tech. It's a YMMV situation out there with non CofS Scn'ists. And by that I also mean that some of them do indeed refer to Standard Tech.

So how does one know? By viewing it as individuals. Away from centralized venues, one can do that. Wouldn't work so well in CofS.

Now, me, I plan to go on sharing autobiographical details should I deem them appropriate to the subject, if I think they're good examples of something, or even if I just plain feel like it. After all, Smilla, I have your very good example to follow since that is something you have done, too.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I didn't see that in Claire's previous post, but ok. I would definitely agree with you that 'success stories" and "wins" have no place here, nor would promoting services, etc IMO. Claire saying she loves her husband and he's an Indie didn't strike me as either of those things.

.

That's because it wasn't.

Jquepublic, when I discuss issues here and say that I heard of people who x y z, etc, I am sometimes asked to whom I was referring and why did I not name them.

I think John is a pretty good example of the breed of cat we were discussing. Because my point is that outside CofS, you've got a lot more range and individuality and individual interpretations of Scn than you would in there.

There are indeed some hidebound tech purist types in the non CofS venues. I won't contest that or claim otherwise. But they are, if not a minority, probably no more than half.

My other point is that it's a YMMV type thing.

Also, I know that my outspokenness on this subject has created some anger and there are people who've made that quite clear. Just now, Smilla has explained that she is under the impression that I'm trying to stop her. It's not true, of course, but it is certainly a rather serious and negative perception and accusation. So because my defense of non CofS Scn and non CofS Scn'ists has been noticed and commented upon many times in the way that it has, I wanted to share some details about my frame of reference.

If I wanted to post wins, they would say something along the lines of "He (John) did this and it really helped him cuz then this and this happened. Then the Flying Spaghetti Monster came and we all fellated him." or whatever.

I didn't post about beliefs, per se. My point was more about type casting and why one (in this case I) might feel the way they do.

Now, if my sharing details from my life and giving examples is a problem for anyone, I would suspect that they have far far greater problems than Scn criticism, message boards or people named Claire Swazey.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I can't speak for Claire's hubby, but why is it so hard for you to accept that someone else might have a different opinion of the tech than your own? I've seen you divebomb threads before.

If John posted anywhere, it would be about RPGs and he doesn't even do that- and that's something he just plain adores.

And he hates to type. When John needs a business letter or something of the sort done, he generally dictates it to me and I type it.

I think the non CofS scene has a huge amount of variety. This does not lend itself well to typecasting or dehumanizing or denigrating. What they believe is immaterial to me- I got kinda annoyed and sorta vowed to never go to another FZ or whatever conference/event/mystic spelling bee ever again.
 
Top