TG1

Angelic Poster
Jaquepublic, yes, I saw what you tried to do there. :) I'm not sure it worked, but I'll contribute to the motion and go back to some of the earlier aspects of this thread, i.e., KSW, Scientology hardeliney-ness and fundamentalism, etc.

I notice on another ESMB thread that Geir Isene posted today on his blog some thoughts about Scientology: "My Current Stance on Scientology" at http://isene.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/my-current-stance-on-scientology/

In his statement, Geir says: "The upper Bridge (OT levels) did me wonders – but I belive it handles something different than what L. Ron Hubbard describes in his very dramatic sci-fi way."

That's a pretty "unliteral" interpretation of OT3 coming from someone who still wants to do his Ls -- just one of the many other things Geir says about his current stance on Scientology.

Geir also says (not for the first time): "I am not a Scientologist ... I am a seeker."

My point is it's hard being boringly true-blue when you aren't being KSW'ed to death 25 hours a day. Also, all landings get softer with use.

And now we return to our ladies wrestling match.

TG1
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
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.

There definitely seems to be a wide array of belief and practice in the field, judging from way over here at a distance! :) I don't do the group thing either. I quite liked Marty's book despite any criticisms I may have voiced because of the arguments for integration with other sciences and philosophies and accepting truth where you find it, not to lock your mind against anything that didn't come from Hubbard. I hope everyone who makes their way out of the cult adopts that same approach. I don't see any harm in thinking for yourself. There are good things in the compilation of work that comprises the subject. People should be free to pick and choose.
 

Veda

Sponsor
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:

HCOB 2 October 1968:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/HubbardOT3.gif

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/pubs/sfn98/ot3b.gif

Without "Incident 2," OT 3 would not be OT 3.

Does Rathbun C/S his PCs to do OT 1, the implants of OT 2, skip 3, then do the "BT" levels?

I don't think so.

Rathbun says the OT levels consist of 8 levels, not 7 levels.

Rathbun is using the same PR B.S. that Scientology has been using for decades, as has the Scientology Freezone. At least the Captain Bill Free Zone were so excited and proud at being Ron's personal space cadets that they couldn't resist talking about it. (Their "PR Tech" was "out.") However, most Scientologist lie, spin, and distort, in any way possible, about OT 3, even after it's plastered all over the Internet, and even after - because the "Xenu story" has already been widely exposed - themselves, briefly, describing the Xenu story to demonstrate how insouciant they are.

Inevitably, even after recounting (usually a recounting of the South Park depiction) OT 3, a Scientologist will then twist, spin or, in some fashion, mislead the "wog" (or low level Scientologist) re. OT 3.

And this pattern has not changed in over 40 years. Only the details of the "handling" have changed due to necessity. Scientology is still lying, even if different Scientologists disagree on strategies and nuances of how to lie about what.

"Low level" - not in the "loop" - fringe or newbie Scientologists (who have no idea what Scientology is) are not included in this description. :)
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Oh hell. I'm cornfused again. Is Marty too KSW or not KSW enough?
:duh:

Wait, I can solve this ... I'm changing my major!

TG1
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
HCOB 2 October 1968:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/HubbardOT3.gif

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/pubs/sfn98/ot3b.gif

Without "Incident 2," OT 3 would not be OT 3.

Does Rathbun C/S his PCs to do OT 1, the implants of OT 2, skip 3, then do the "BT" levels?

I don't think so.

Rathbun says the OT levels consist of 8 levels, not 7 levels.

Rathbun is using the same PR B.S. that Scientology has been using for decades, as has the Scientology Freezone. At least the Captain Bill Free Zone were so excited and proud at being Ron's personal space cadets that they couldn't resist talking about it. (Their "PR Tech" was "out.") However, most Scientologist lie, spin, and distort, in any way possible, about OT 3, even after it's plastered all over the Internet, and even after - because the "Xenu story" has already been widely exposed - themselves, briefly, describing the Xenu story to demonstrate how insouciant they are.

Inevitably, even after recounting (usually a recounting of the South Park depiction) OT 3, a Scientologist will then twist, spin or, in some fashion, mislead the "wog" (or low level Scientologist) re. OT 3.

And this pattern has not changed in over 40 years. Only the details of the "handling" have changed due to necessity. Scientology is still lying, even if different Scientologists disagree on strategies and nuances of how to lie about what.

"Low level" - not in the "loop" - fringe or newbie Scientologists (who have no idea what Scientology is) are not included in this description. :)

Is it so wrong for me to want to believe that they mean it this time?! lol

Veda, I know what you're saying is true, I see the info right there in front of me, I've read it in Hubbard's own handwriting. I guess I'm entirely comfortable with that PR handling and entirely uncomfortable with any notion of it being taken literally. Hence my repeated reference to it. :coolwink: I even hate to dredge up my own opinion of OT III because there are people who did it and got something out of it - I have no idea what that something is and that keeps me wrapped in a mystery on it, I guess.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
The entire Scientology 'Bridge' is a trojan horse. Whilst it's stated purpose is to lead an individual to a state of total freedom, it is in reality a device for creating Hubbardites - people who have replaced their own thinking with that of L Ron Hubbard.

People pay for Scientology, but what they actually get for their money is conversion to Hubbardism.

Scientology - as advertised, does not exist. What is advertised are the states of Clear and OT as steps on the way to total freedom, yet there are none.

Nobody knows this better than Marty.

Notice the recent drivel regarding everyone's individual comm line to LRH.

There are no Clears, there are no OT's, there is no Standard Tech, and there never will be, because Scientology possesses no means to create them.

What it does possess though, is the means to create Hubbardites out of susceptable individuals.

Nobody knows that better than Marty.

And that's the business he's in.

Nothing else but that.
 

Veda

Sponsor
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.

And the best part is, Marty says he's going to write yet another book.


L. Ron Hubbard, Misunderstood Genius
L-Ron-Hubbard.jpg


He was demonized
by the establishment
more than any other civilian figure
ron4.jpg

L. Ron Hubbard


He did his part
l-ron-hubbard-ocean.gif

Will you do yours?



He gave Mankind the Bridge to Freedom
and sacrificed himself doing so
oldhubb.jpg



It's a Bridge, dammit,
it IS a Bridge!
SciBridge.jpg

by Mark "Marty" Rathbun



hubbard.jpe

:)
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
You make me laugh at least three times a day. :)

And you just made me smile. :) Thank you.

I do my best to keep smiling at this crap. As we all know well, sometimes there's not that much to smile about.

Still, at its heart -- and aside from the horrible crimes perpetuated by this cult -- the whole subject viewed from a certain angle is simply ludicrous. And that's easy to laugh about.

:roflmao:

TG1
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Caroline,

You are mistaken on the underground railroad, which has nothing to do with Scientology tech as a whole or intent, it is merely people helping people coming out, provide them safety, time and space to decompress and help them get on their feet. I am quite certain no one knows everyone knows everyone on all the lines, there is coordination, but not as a recruitment line. Most of the people I personally know working on it no longer consider themselves Scientologists. Marty may use Scientology with some of people that stop at his "station" but the vast majority of the 40 or so people I have personally spent time with did not want to go to Marty for auditing, or anyone else. I personally know several people visit Marty to help learn what was going on and understand. They simply wanted a life.

I wish I could believe this. I believe Marty audits people for money. Marty believes in LRH or at least uses him to justify his own activities. I think this is scary.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
The entire Scientology 'Bridge' is a trojan horse. Whilst it's stated purpose is to lead an individual to a state of total freedom, it is in reality a device for creating Hubbardites - people who have replaced their own thinking with that of L Ron Hubbard.

People pay for Scientology, but what they actually get for their money is conversion to Hubbardism.

Scientology - as advertised, does not exist. What is advertised are the states of Clear and OT as steps on the way to total freedom, yet there are none.

Nobody knows this better than Marty.

Notice the recent drivel regarding everyone's individual comm line to LRH.

There are no Clears, there are no OT's, there is no Standard Tech, and there never will be, because Scientology possesses no means to create them.

What it does possess though, is the means to create Hubbardites out of susceptable individuals.

Nobody knows that better than Marty.

And that's the business he's in.

Nothing else but that.

That's just it, though, Smilla. Marty says in the book that Clear is not a permanent state and that OT levels are (majorly paraphrasing) exercises designed to make you more you. So it DOES strike me as different. I think if the book were written by anyone other than Marty people here might be more interested in what it says, and I can't say I don't understand that.

I believe that the processes in and of themselves are not the important part of the equation. What works, what causes improvement, is the relationship between the auditor and the pc. The Auditor's Code and Auditor Beingness are not Hubbard creations, they're his rewording/revision of the therapeutic relationship.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
That's just it, though, Smilla. Marty says in the book that Clear is not a permanent state and that OT levels are (majorly paraphrasing) exercises designed to make you more you. So it DOES strike me as different. I think if the book were written by anyone other than Marty people here might be more interested in what it says, and I can't say I don't understand that.

I believe that the processes in and of themselves are not the important part of the equation. What works, what causes improvement, is the relationship between the auditor and the pc. The Auditor's Code and Auditor Beingness are not Hubbard creations, they're his rewording/revision of the therapeutic relationship.

I've really said all I wanted to say on this topic, but I agree that it is a proven fact that talking can help many/some people feel better, if the neccessary components of a therapeautic relationship are present. The problem is that Scientology when viewed as a 'talk therapy' is so laced with falsehoods and dishonesty that it is a poisoned chalice with the potential to do great harm. I and many others have seen that harm done, both inside and outside the Cof$.

Here is a link to a pdf file giving details of the required standards for the practicing of Counselling and Psychotherapy. The file is safe and contains no malware.

Ethical Standards - Pdf file.

As you will see, Scientology falls very far short of these standards.

Anyway, I'm bored with Marty's shellgame...

Shell%2BGame.jpg







 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
I've really said all I wanted to say on this topic, but I agree that it is a proven fact that talking can help many/some people feel better, if the neccessary components of a therapeautic relationship are present. The problem is that Scientology when viewed as a 'talk therapy' is so laced with falsehoods and dishonesty that it is a poisoned chalice with the potential to do great harm. I and many others have seen that harm done, both inside and outside the Cof$.

Here is a link to a pdf file giving details of the required standards for the practicing of Counselling and Psychotherapy. The file is safe and contains no malware.

Ethical Standards - Pdf file.

As you will see, Scientology falls very far short of these standards.

Anyway, I'm bored with Marty's shellgame...

Shell%2BGame.jpg








Thanks, I'm studying to be a psychologist so I'm already familiar with the requirements. :)

I think I'll make my own exit from this thread because I'm either completely failing at making my own interest in the subject of the book and its contents clear or I'm just off in my own little world with it altogether.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Thanks, I'm studying to be a psychologist so I'm already familiar with the requirements. :)

I think I'll make my own exit from this thread because I'm either completely failing at making my own interest in the subject of the book and its contents clear or I'm just off in my own little world with it altogether.

Me too. See you later.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Definition of Standard Tech:

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

That's right, Smilla. However the term as defined by Hubbard offers an unambiguous way to evaluate Martyworld Tech, which is:

Hubbard said:
STANDARD TECH, 1. a standardization of processes so that they apply to 100 per cent of the cases to which they are addressed. (Class VIII, No. 19) 2. the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT, the exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route. (Class VIII, No. 2) 3. that terribly narrow path which we now call standard tech is composed of those things which if they are out inhibit and prohibit all case gain. (Class VIII, No. 1) 4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70) 5. that tech which has absolutely no arbitraries. (HCOB 23 Aug 68)

Hubbard, L. R. (1975) Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
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.

Well, I think you both could be right. In fact, he must be writing for everyone who seeks a soft landing for Hubbard and Scientology, which would include wog collaborators or just plain dupes. Here's who Rathbun says he's targeting:

Rathbun said:
I decided that the manner in which he and I used certain Scientology tools was how they were intended to be used upon their creation.   I recognized that there were probably more people in the world, by several multiples, who had experienced misuse of those tools and had left the increasingly corporatized churches of Scientology than there were of those who remained.   I decided that I had a right, even a duty, to try to do what I could for that majority.

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

I was intrigued by this because of the timing of Rathbun's public arrival relative to the Scientologists' massive updating of their Central Files, which would have exposed the fact that there are "more people in the world, by several multiples, who had experienced misuse of those tools and had left the increasingly corporatized churches of Scientology than there were of those who remained." (Also see: Rathbun's Welcome page; OCMB thread: Idealmensch launching everywhere.)

From how Rathbun writes this, but perhaps didn't mean, the Scientologists who didn't leave also experienced misuse of Scientology. In other words 100% of Scientologists experienced misuse. This means that he is doing a blow drill on Scientologists who did leave.

This also means that misuse is a universal product of the application of Scientology. Misuse abounds; yet where are the confessions of misuse? The idea that Miscavige is responsible for all the misuse that Scientologists who left and Scientologists stayed experienced is madness.

But then the labeling of what is clearly the experience of the standard application of standard tech as "misuse" is also madness. And it is willful madness to prevent Scientologists from recognizing that truth.

All the people that the Scientologists deadfiled and/or declared all these many years would need to be identified, located, etc. What better way to "clean up the field," and to exploit this massive CF, than with a new Loyalist Op that acts as a dragnet for all kinds of publics that would otherwise not belong on org lines. And who better qualified to handle these OSA publics than Rathbun, Rinder and their Loyalists?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
That's right, Smilla. However the term as defined by Hubbard offers an unambiguous way to evaluate Martyworld Tech, which is:

<snip>

Sorry, that doesn't work, for the reasons given below:

Everybody knows Standard Tech (--Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss) is bad. Right?

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (--Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.

So you would think Standard Tech (--Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is
4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).
Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? --No, no (one might say), don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? --Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:
You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.​
It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?

-----

Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?

-----

Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”

Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.

After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? --Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.

All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss). --Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.

I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.

--Yes! Hip Hip—

Shhh!

All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.

--Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.

Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?

--Yes. Right. Hooray!

Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.

Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.

So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.

It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?

Paul
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Marty says in the book that Clear is not a permanent state and that OT levels are (majorly paraphrasing) exercises designed to make you more you. So it DOES strike me as different.

-snip-

Honest people can disagree. Some disagreement is natural. My problem with Marty Rathbun is not so much that I disagree with him, as it is that he's simply not being honest.

Background:

In 1978, Hubbard decided that "keyed out Clear is Clear," and that Dianetic Clears should not do PP, R6ew, and CC.

In 1970, Hubbard had written of Dianetic Clear:

"Only about 2 percent actually go clear on Dianetics. A Dianetic Clear as any other Dianetic PC now goes up through the Grades of Scientology and on to the proper Clearing Course. The Dianetic Clear of Book 1 was clear of somatics. The Book 1 definition is correct. This is the end phenomena of Dianetics as per the Classification Chart and Book 1."

A Clear of somatics Clear!

And don't forget those (actual) GPM Clears, with "one GPM Clears" and "two GPM Clears" and "three GPM Clears," and, I think, Hubbard was supposed to have made "5 GPM Clear."

And then - if I recall correctly - there was the lecture, 'The Story of Dianetics of Scientology', where Hubbard stated that he had made the first Dianetic Clears in 1947, and that these were Theta Clears. At the time of that lecture, Book 1 Clears were not regarded as being as Clear as the Clears then being produced. They were said to have been Theta Clears (stably outside the body), but later became (1970) Somatic Clears, but then with keyed out Clear being redefined as Clear (1978), and hundreds of Scientologists deciding they had "gone Dianetic Clear in 1947 after having been audited by Ron," and going "up lines" with checkbooks in hand, they became acceptable as Clears somehow...

And it goes on and on...

Hubbard left Scientologists with a whole lot of loose-ends, each tightly shrink-wrapped in cellophane as "LRH datums."

This can become perplexing to them, IF they omit the rest of the "Tech" left to them by Hubbard. It's really the senior Tech of Scientology, and can be found in this booklet http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg, and it overrides all the loose-ends, leaving a Scientologist will a contented sense of total certainty.

Turns out that the loose-ends are just a medium, used as a means to an end. Hubbard's system of mental-healing only needs to "work" up to a point, since it was only a front and a medium, or means, for something else.

That something else was inadvertently revealed in his 1938 'Excalibur' letter and in his 1946 'Affirmations':

"I have high hopes of smashing my name into history... [so] that it will take a legendary form... That goal is the real goal as far as I am concerned."

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

What's happened is that part of the Tech has been "dropped out," as a result of people leaving organized Scientology and wandering off into into the "wog" world. Some manage to hold onto their certainty, and their identity as Scientologists, for a long time, despite having wandered off the reservation, so to speak. Yet, others quickly snap out of the Scio-trance.

IMO, Rathbun is doing a desperate "handling" to protect the "image" of Hubbard and Hubbard's Scientology, and to keep people, already Scio-entranced, in the crumbling Scio-trance.

From the 1991 article by David Mayo:

"It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'clear' at a certain point..."

Hubbard was doing a major money-getting operation in the late 1970s, so as to build a war chest for the establishment and preservation of his monuments to himself projects, and "discovering" that there were oodles and oodles of Dianetic Clears, who needed to exit Missions, and "get up lines" (where Hubbard had immediate access to the money) was part of that money-getting operation.

Here's a view from over 20 years ago. Whether one agrees or not with any of the below is secondary to the contrast between a person being honest (David Mayo, over 20 years ago), and a person (Marty Rathbun, in 2012) dishonestly "handling."

Article by David Mayo on Clear, 1991: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

As for the OT levels being "exercises": the supposed reason for OT 2, OT 3, and (then) NOTs, was to remove the impediments that prevented the person from doing "exercises." OT 2 addresses "whole track Implants" (told to the person by Hubbard) OT 3 addresses "whole track Implants" (told to the person by Hubbard) and "Body Thetans," which Hubbard called fleas. NOTs addresses more "fleas."

Marty is mixing B.S. with a little bit of truth, here and there. And he's doing it deliberately. The purpose is not to enlighten, but to "handle."

If Marty decides to stop bullshitting, and going on about things such as "the literalizing of L. Ron Hubbard," etc., then I'll take him seriously. Until then, he's a nuisance, at best, taking advantage of well-intentioned people.
 
Top