Home > Church of Scientology > Poll: What keeps you from leaving?

Poll: What keeps you from leaving?

This is a rather narrow poll for only those still in the Church of Scientology contemplating leaving but don’t – for some reason. What’s that reason?

Use the comment section to this blog post for your answer. Respect the rules.

Categories: Church of Scientology
  1. Jaywalker
    2009-10-16 at 05:53

    Too many connections to others who are not aware of what is going on, including relatives and co-workers. This makes things ‘complicated’. Interestingly, I actually decided I was not going to do anything further a year and a half ago. Recently discovering what is really going on has been liberating. We are in planning mode currently.

    • Alex
      2009-10-16 at 23:12

      That’s great Jaywalker!
      We are too in my area. I wish you all the best!

    • ClearlyMistreated
      2009-10-18 at 20:23

      I’m in your boat, Jaywalker: Family and co-workers still in the church. I feel I have more power to spread the truth while I’m still in good standing. I have been able to enlighten some of my family members and they’ve stopped donating money. Get them in the pocketbook and they’ll feel it.

      • Alex
        2009-10-19 at 03:41

        Hey Clearly Mistreated,
        That’s cool on what your doing. What got you motivated to expose these things? Just curious.

  2. Hubbardianen
    2009-10-16 at 08:48

    I’m off-line and inactive as of right now, but haven’t officially left.

    I have two main reasons, put in order of importance:

    1. I like the idea of a central Church of Scientology where everything works out great, PLs are applied, everybody (inkl COB) can be KR:d and “punished”, a place to meet Scientologists etc.

    2. Auditing outside of CoS might be hazardaous with altered tech etc. Yes, perhaps the tech inside CoS is altered too, but the originals are at least somewhere and things can be corrected.

    • Mark A. Baker
      2009-10-16 at 20:00

      “Yes, perhaps the tech inside CoS is altered too, but the originals are at least somewhere and things can be corrected.”

      Perhaps you should ponder this matter further. Afterall, if the “originals are somewhere” then why the need for having altered the tech?

      What proof of the preservation of the ORIGINAL materials does any scientologist have other than “DM’s Word”? Just how much of an assurance is that in actuality?

      GoAT was flat out a major tech degrade pushed through from the top down. Do you really think DM intends to leave the evidence to contradict himself lying about for subsequent exposure? What other point is served by robotic drills than to indoctrinate a new generation of scientologist that standard tech is what DM says it is?

      Non-action implies agreement.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-16 at 21:51

        Ok, hopefully the originals are somewhere. But I’m sure there are enough sold books from Hubbards era out there in the world to be able to restore any lost tech.

    • Tomas
      2009-10-17 at 09:48

      Hi Hubbardiane
      I must confess: You are the one that had confused me most on this blog. Your answer on the latest poll cleared it up for me – thanks. I think it is rather shrewd of you to insist on handling the church from within with KR and other standard means ( wich has not worked for many years ) and at the same time helping us to handle the church from the outside. You are after all here and communicate. I you want a standard CoS, Geirs, Martys and other blogs are the right place to communicate on and the right tools to do the work are presented here.
      Good luck.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-17 at 16:12

        I got to tell you, all those ethics cycles everybody is talking about is something I don’t have much reality on. I guess they are in the PL’s? I think KRs absolutely work, if they are used in the right way. Perhaps easy to say but hard to use in practice.

        I’m basically interested in the philosophy and the auditing, the PLS and the organization are of less interest to me.

    • Disinfected
      2009-10-17 at 13:10

      Hi Hubbardiane

      I am kinda in your position and kinda of your mind but I have one big problem.

      See, I recognize that Hubbard was a liar and a con-man that maybe, just maybe, developed something of value. I just watched Schindler’s List again and Oskar Schindler as portrayed by Liam Neeson is almost exactly how I think of Hubbard. Watch the movie. Except that Hubbard had a real nasty side that Neeson did not add to Schindler’s charactor. Hubbard had a bit of Amon Goeth in him too.

      Diane, there is just too much evidence of Hubbard’s failings for me to be a part of any group that will punish you for thinking a critical thought of him. Remember, it was Hubbard, not DM, that RPF’ed all the so-called List One R/Sers (google it). Hundreds of dedicated Scientologists were made into virtual slaves because some squirrel assigned by Hubbard said they had a critical thought or an “evil purpose”.

      That could happen under LRH, that could happen under DM, what is to prevent that from happening under some Scientology 3.0?

      Well, I will tell you what might. Declaw the SO and someone with some friggin’ common sense start interpreting (yes, I am talking changing, altering, squirrelling) policy. Because as long as Scientologists cling to the idea that “if we could only restore the original LRH issues all will be well” needed reform will not happen. Scientology is as much a reflection of Hubbard’s failings as it is of his virtues.

      Hubbard designed Scientology policy to protect himself, to flow all power to himself, to punish anyone that had an independent thought. Until that is recognized and addressed Scientology will remain a cult, if only a cult of personality.

      And if you do not think that DM has made every attempt to replace Hubbard as the center of the cult of personality then I guess you have not been going to events and you have not been talking to any present SO execs. They revere him. As they are trained to do.

      • 2009-10-17 at 14:02

        Have you actually studied any Scientology?

        • Disinfected
          2009-10-17 at 14:07

          Many years worth.

        • Disinfected
          2009-10-17 at 14:09

          Why? Do you disagree with my evaluation? Tell me how.

          • 2009-10-17 at 18:10

            I am simply questioning speculation into other people’s intentions. I believe that is a high risk sport.

            • Disinfected
              2009-10-17 at 18:38

              Wait, you don’t want to question LRH’s and DM’s intentions??? You just want to follow them blindly?

              • 2009-10-17 at 19:08

                What happened to your logic module?

                Read my blog (this one). I want to question everything. But concluding on someone else’s intentions is risky business. I believe it is more productive to look at the results of actions. Usually there is little need to delve into speculating on intentions.

        • Disinfected
          2009-10-18 at 15:43

          Geir, I give you props for posting this exchange. I was not so sure that you would. You can post this or not but, again: You say “It is not about you, it’s about your speculations.” But you have NOT made it about my speculations, you have made it about the fact that I am speculating; about me. If you were making it about my speculations then you would say something like “How can you say X about Hubbard when Y about Hubbard”, and we would be discussing Hubbard, not me or you. I have also made some very, to me, apropos suggestions in your earlier blog post re three things to change and I touched again on them here. I am quite interested in this current movement though I think that those involved seem to be trying to rework Scientology without shaking their stable data about Hubbard. Stable data that probalby does not hold up to a thorough investigation into Hubbard, an investigation I have accomplished – have you? I would like to be able to do “standard Scientology” without having to buy into a cult of personality. Well, we will see.

          • 2009-10-18 at 16:51

            Re: The exchange = you are welcome. I do not censor beyond the very simple rules on this board. And that goes for everyone, regardless of their views or positions or criticisms. Less than 0,4% of comments have been deleted (due to flagrant rule breaking and appropriate warnings).

            Beyond that, I have stated many times that I do not care about Hubbard or his intentions. I thing speculations about your intentions or Hubbard’s intentions or my intentions is fairly unproductive towards 1) giving people real gain, and 2) stopping abuses.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-10-17 at 16:15

        I think Hubbard tried his best, but didn’t achieve full results regarding the PLs and the organization. Perhaps, like many other leaders, he got a little bit egocentric over the years. I don’t care, nobody’s perfect. I try to focus on the philosophy.

        • Disinfected
          2009-10-17 at 18:06

          Well, that is a good theory but it does not stand up in practice because the people that have control over whether you get to go up the Bridge or not do not think like you do.

      • Disinfected
        2009-10-17 at 20:07

        Oh, don’t worry, my logic module is alive and well. As is my critical thinking unit and my observation implant.
        So are you saying that you want to question everything but draw no conclusions?
        OK, I am teasing you. You are not comfortable drawing inferences of someone’s intentions from their actions and the results of their actions? I have no such problem.

        • 2009-10-17 at 20:10

          You may consider stopping the straw man arguments. It indicates that you may not be quite so good at drawing inferences about someone’s intentions.

          • Disinfected
            2009-10-17 at 20:34

            And you might want to consider being a bit specific with your objection instead of countering with vague generalities. What in my post do you consider a “straw man”?

            • 2009-10-18 at 10:31

              You: “Wait, you don’t want to question LRH’s and DM’s intentions??? You just want to follow them blindly?”
              You: “So are you saying that you want to question everything but draw no conclusions?”

              By these questions you are implying that I have certain views or intention – views that are in fact oposite of what I have. This is “straw man”-argumentation.

              • Disinfected
                2009-10-18 at 16:48

                Oh good, something concrete 🙂
                On the second one, I said I was teasing you.
                On the first, I think I later neutrally phrased what I believe to be your position on considering intentions. Man, this format is weird with getting narrower and narrower – I think I am Alice, “Drink ME”.

              • 2009-10-18 at 16:52

                Good. Can we close the issue?

              • Disinfected
                2009-10-18 at 18:47

                My reply is in the wrong place 🙂

              • 2009-10-18 at 19:33

                WP is funny that way.

          • Disinfected
            2009-10-17 at 20:37

            Geir, you might also waht to consider why you find it necessary to make this about me. I made a post about Hubbard, Scientology, and DM yet your every response has been about me. Think about it.

            • Disinfected
              2009-10-17 at 20:38

              want (typo)

            • 2009-10-18 at 10:32

              It is not about you, it’s about your speculations.

              • Tor Magnus
                2009-10-18 at 15:31

                You know what Geir? I think Disinfected has a fairly good point actually. I’ve been reading this blog since you started it and read most of the comments. You definitely seem to have some buttons on LHR and the efficiency of the tech. You clearly avoid certain questions and and attack specific opinions. I suspect your mind is not quite as open as you’d like and I think it might be enlightening for you to go over the comment and make a matrix of which points you’ve chosen to respond to and which not, and which you have taken a pro or a con stance to.
                Furthermore I think you hide behind fallacies when it suits you and you use them as an attack, which incidentally is an Ad Hominem

              • 2009-10-18 at 16:46


                I call what I see. Whether it is adHom or StrawMan or other logical fallacies. I have no problem with LRH being whatever. His intentions may have been (fill in what you want). The tech need not be perfect. It may contain faults. What I care about is 1) real results for the individual, and 2) stopping the abuses.

              • Tor Magnus
                2009-10-18 at 18:33

                isene :
                I call what I see.

                But as for example Darwin noted is that we see things that confirm our preconceptions and ignore things that contradict them. So calling them as you see them might not be a very good defence…

                I have no problem with LRH being whatever. His intentions may have been (fill in what you want). The tech need not be perfect. It may contain faults. What I care about is 1) real results for the individual

                And here is the real crux of Scientology objectors, there is no documented results for Scientology whatsoever (No, success stories are not evidence). And as you seem like an intelligent guy and in a science related field one would assume you would appreciate the necessity of rigorous testing of the efficiencies of its theories.

                I think no-one has any objections to ending abuse. 🙂

              • 2009-10-18 at 19:32

                Paragraph by paragraph:

                1: Ditto.
                2. See my positions
                3. Right, but it needs focus – and hence, as little diversions as possible.

              • Maria
                2009-10-28 at 22:46

                “there is no documented results for Scientology whatsoever”

                I hate to tell you this, but your understanding of science is undoubtedly based on a very simplistic view. Real scientists advise that is not true that science can and does provide “proof positive” and it is also not true that rigid experiments and testing comprise all scientific methods. You can read about that here:


                In the behavioral sciences, anthropology and in sociology anecdotal evidence is routinely used, along with reported subjective states of mind.

                But more to the point, once Scn entered the realm of spirituality and spiritual states, it was no longer considered a science, which is defined by scientists as the study of the physical universe as opposed to things spiritual. Scn is in the realm of subjective reality, belief, personal revelation and cannot be proved or disproved other than by the person either experiencing it or not. There are millions of people (Christians, Buddhists, Hindu, etc.) who experience states of awareness that simply fall outside of the realm of science. That’s why Scn is a religion!

    • G. Schutte
      2009-10-27 at 02:01

      I got an email from B. Dews advertising that you can get thru grades II, III & IV in 3 intensives at Flag … HCOPL Technical Degrades all the way, how can you hope to get standard processing at Flag with that sort of advertising?

  3. OTambassadortoo
    2009-10-16 at 20:27

    1. Where can I help the most? from the inside out? or from the outside in? Being connected or disconnected?

    2. Many of my friends and family are in. If we want to have the correct tech we have to report the out tech. We have to report the missaplications of the tech, and we have to be in comm with family and friends and give them the missing data so they take their own desitions.

  4. MR
    2009-10-16 at 20:59

    I am off lines too. Currently getting auditing from an independent CL VI and I am having the best most standard wins. As a matter of fact, receiving auditing from an audito outside the church is better. No hidden agendas or pitches, no arbitrary “ethics cycles” and flat out just IN SESSION for me and my dynamics.

    1. I have not made it official or communicated it broadly mainly because of connections, such as family still “IN”.

    2. I do not want the harrasment from the DSA/OSA.

    BUT, my immediate family does know how I feel and little by little maybe I can have them also become aware.

    • Margaret
      2009-10-17 at 18:50

      MR, did your auditor have to re-construct your folders, or were you somehow able to get them out of the church? I’m sort of in the same position as you, and have started looking for an independent auditor.

  5. thatsnotmyname
    2009-10-16 at 22:37

    Simple, I am creating a lot of effect in my area getting people to look which wouldn’t be possible if I get declared SP. Can’t give specifics obviously but its good stuff

  6. emldubu
    2009-10-17 at 01:33

    I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the past few weeks, since a friend shared the Tampabay.com Truth Rundown and I began visiting this site and others. Today Rebel008 posted a quote that says it for me. This is how I choose to make change. By being the change, living the value. “In The Way to Happiness, on the subject of governments, LRH says this: “Unscrupulous and evil men and groups can usurp the power of government and use it to their own ends…Opposition to such governments usually just brings on more violence. But one can raise his voice in caution when such abuses are abroad. And one need not actively support such a government; doing nothing illegal, it is yet possible, by simply withdrawing one’s cooperation, to bring about an eventual reform.”

    I left and was inactive for 25 years. Good for me but no postive effect on Church. I have gained some credability and respect with a few fellow Scientologists. I’d like to think I might be able to help stabilize in my sphere of influence as the wizard [sic] is exposed.

    And, for now, I think I am at least creating some effect whenever I politely (no ridge) do NOT cooperate with a reg demand, with an interview request, with answering the door or the phone, by not attending events, and by sticking to tech and policy and asking for references (again politely, no ridge) when some arbitrary, confusion, or outpoint is given to me by someone. And IMHO I’ve gotten pretty darned good at it, if I do say so.

    However, my persective on all of this is changing daily as I take part in these on-line communities. So, we’ll see…

  7. StarsAwait
    2009-10-17 at 03:32

    I agree Mark Baker. Regarding GAT outnesses, here’s a link I just found elaborating on GAT a bit. I can’t verify some of the other stuff in there but it sounds interesting.

  8. Alex
    2009-10-17 at 12:39

    I am doing a doubt formula on whether it would be best to help from within the COS or outside of it. So far outside is winning. Mainly because of how “effect” I feel hiding from the true believers and having to pretend that I am still “good” when asked to do this or that. It is a big step to resign from the COS when you have put so much of your life blood into it. Knowing that a lot of people will condemn you afterwords. After all is said and done it is the Code of Honor that stands out the most to me. To say what I see and not to be afraid to say it to anyone. Currently I believe if I say what I see enough times I would be declared an SP. I would rather go out as “Cause” on my own terms rather than play this game at an effect. An OT is CAUSE.

  9. Martin
    2009-10-17 at 16:27

    I think the hang-up at doubt is a PTS hang-up at doubt. Being a PTS situation I assumed it would get handled first and foremost and to do that one disconnects from the suppression and handles it.
    Criminals leave question marks, they don’t give straight comm, they don’t publish actual intentions and objectives and certainly not their stats.
    Doubt has, as a part, publicly stating ones group.
    It also weakens the group you are part of if you don’t let them know you are part of it. And it strengthens the group you “remain in” by not communicating it once you have decided. If you are afraid to talk their stat of “People who we hurt but are afraid to talk” goes up (I made that stat up by the way, hehe).
    And theres do everything in your power to raise the statistics of the group you joined, and in this case it is a group the is in danger, re: OSA “if you aren’t our friends we will beat you up”.
    To round-up PTSness can be handled by becoming slight cause over the suppression, we can help each other to raise our cause level by uniting our OTness, and lowering theirs. Don’t let them think they are big, let them know they are not.
    I think of “Ethics- The design of”, wheres that fence…

    • Alex
      2009-10-21 at 01:25

      Good post Martin,
      I agree with most everything you say here.

      I do feel that a person should try to do the doubt formula first and then if he can’t do it he could be hung up at doubt which equals PTSness and or false data.

      I am still working on doubt. I tried the PTS handling on myself and it helped but realized I needed to also do the doubt formula. That has been getting a lot of TA for me. I keep cycling through it and getting more out of each step as I go along.

      I have decided to just say what I want to whoever I want and knock off the being careful. I realized that I can’t get up the Bridge with my integrity out anyways and I go up the Bridge to get it in, so why not just get it in now on my own? Which I am! Fun.

      If they declare me for communicating my reality, so be it!

      • 2009-10-21 at 04:46

        Interesting point on the hang-up on doubt: As the church does not release their statistics, a hang-up is almost certain – maybe that is the point…

  10. John Doe Lurker
    2009-10-17 at 17:11

    Many who have commented on your blog, and Marty’s and Scn-cult have said they researched their decision to leave for months or even years.

    Geir, someone emailed me your doubt formula a only a few weeks ago and this is what catalyzed my process of looking for myself and waking up. You, and others, have truly created an effect that is beginning to snowball.

    I had already distanced myself, years ago, from the ever-increasing force the church has been bringing to bear against its members. I have de-PTSed myself from insistent IAS reges; they rarely call these days. I simply ignore any requests for me to join OT committees, or notices of “mandatory briefings”, or jumping through this “required” hoop or running to that “urgent call-to-arms”. All these people and activities only have the power you grant them.

    So for the most part, I have been outside of the more oppressive influences of the church for awhile. Maybe, in time, I will make a public statement and stand shoulder to shoulder with giants such as yourself, Marty, Dan Koon, Steve Hall, Mary Jo, et al. But right now, I am still reading, looking and revising my stable data. It’s quite uplifting and exciting!

    There is also this important reason: after having freed myself from a raft of the church’s “NOW YOU’RE SUPPOSED TOs”, I am sensitized to, and unwilling to jump rashly at ANYONE’s idea of what I should/should not be doing.

    Please continue, all of you, with posts and comments based on logic and incisive observation, and I will align myself more and more. Those that employ too much sarcasm, hyperbole or attempts to manipulate through emotion lose my interest rather quickly.

    • 2009-10-17 at 17:50

      Thank you. I will continue my work 😉

    • Dagny
      2009-10-17 at 20:25

      Other than the fact that the St. Pete Times articles are what began my process of looking I share the thoughts of the recent post by John Doe Lurker. I, too, turn away from those blogs and posts that employ too much sarcasm – especially those that obviously serve no purpose other than venting. However, those based on logic and actual fact are beneficial to the process of evaluating for oneself.

      For those of us who in the beginning stages of our doubt I don’t think it is a matter of whether we will cease flowing power to what we obviously already see (else we wouldn’t be looking) but a matter of how we will carry that out.

  11. sherrymk
    2009-10-17 at 19:13

    Alex :
    I am doing a doubt formula on whether it would be best to help from within the COS or outside of it. So far outside is winning. Mainly because of how “effect” I feel hiding from the true believers and having to pretend that I am still “good” when asked to do this or that. It is a big step to resign from the COS when you have put so much of your life blood into it. Knowing that a lot of people will condemn you afterwords. After all is said and done it is the Code of Honor that stands out the most to me. To say what I see and not to be afraid to say it to anyone. Currently I believe if I say what I see enough times I would be declared an SP. I would rather go out as “Cause” on my own terms rather than play this game at an effect. An OT is CAUSE.

    Come on out and play with us Alex. I suspect you are a Vll or Vlll. Sounds like it. Right now is the best time to go public. Lots of support and I don’t think there are any declares being written. They would have to write them on so many OTVlls and Vllls that anyone looking at the board at the MAA’s office would surely begin to wonder and start to look..especially at the Flag AO and Ship. How could all these Vlls and Vllls just have “slipped thru the cracks” and become SPs? It’s quite funny actually. So..by you going public, it’s just another OT who’s strings can’t be pulled on. There is strength in numbers.

    • Alex
      2009-10-17 at 22:53

      Hi Sherrymk,
      You are correct. I am working on my “letter” and conditions and such. I don’t think it will be very long. You don’t know how good it sounds to have someone say “Come out and play!”. The COS has gotten sooo serious. And I guess you get serious to the degree you are losing. I appreciate the nudge and it is duly noted. 🙂

    • Elgin
      2009-10-18 at 09:20

      I feel that a better strategy is to just make the true data known to those who are in the church. By leaving one may cut ones own comm lines. I feel that by just letting people see the data they can form their own conclusions and make their decisions. By just leaving one might bar oneself from communication with others who are still in the church whom might even not fully understand the reason for leaving.
      I believe that getting enough people to see what has actually happened will create an increasing push to get things changed (whereas KR’s may and may not as they will usually only be seen by few select persons in the church). Thus I think that the maximum effect will be to utilize ones comm lines and letting the truth be known (while carefully avoiding the hyperbole, overly emotional and generalized rantings). This may then lead to some these people leaving, demanding change, again informing other people, etc. Taking an US or THEM stand may just push some people away which might have been willing to look. But to be taken seriously the data has to be factual, specific and able to be substantiated in one way or another. Factual personal accounts that really ring true or verifiable statistics or events fit the bill, comments about how evil and bad DM or GAT as well as generalized statements how one will be “taken” into ethics just doesn’t do the magic for me. They may or may not be true as conclusions from the originator’s perspective, but to me (and I think others) they might as well be perceived as two group of boys shouting insults at each other, or even worse they could be seen as justifications for something — not saying that they necessarily are , so don’t jump out of your chair :-).
      What I have noticed is that those who actually and personally have experienced the abuses seldom seem to be very hateful about it. Instead they give calm, very detailed and powerful accounts of what took place. That is gold when it comes to handling the injustices. Also public KR’s with specifics are very good.
      To get back on subject, I do like the idea of orgs being there so that you can go in and train and get auditing. Thus I guess I am hoping that was has already been build up in the church can be preserved rather than torn apart. For me that scenario would include addressing injustices of the past and letting back in people who unfairly was forced to leave as well as those who did so in order to help handle the situation.

      • Elgin
        2009-10-18 at 09:24

        the above was meant as a new posting and not as a reply to sherrymk’s post.

        • Alex
          2009-10-21 at 01:34

          Dear Elgin,

          You are very wise, I can tell from your communications.

          I like what you said. My only modifier to it would be if I communicate from my Own reality and then get attacked enough it could push me out.

          I am no longer willing to be dictated to by org staff or the sea Org telling me how out ethics I am or giving me other wrong indications.

          If it becomes too entheta I will disconnect from it and may anyways since I have had many entheta experiences that I cannot go into for now.

  12. D
    2009-10-18 at 01:31

    I observe around me very good & well intentioned SO/Staffs & publics.
    Most of them have no idea. They are so mesmerized (I was to, until
    recently) they can’t even see flagrant violations of LRH’s Policies.
    I know I don’t want to hurt them and I know that if I were to walk
    away right now it would. I’ve been really active the last several
    years working on the Ideal Org. At this time, a lot of people depend
    on me. Not only for my efforts but also for my ability to grant
    them beingness, flow them ARC & embue them w/Theta. I expect lots
    of enturbulation will be coming down the lines in the next several
    months from exterior sources exposing the abuses & from Senior terminals
    pressuring the Staff & public to do more. I feel I can do more by
    being around and help stabilize the scene, point people to stable datums
    (LRH’s writings), help them keep their position in space, validate them
    for the good they do.

    I’ve already decided I will not continue up the bridge until the Church
    reforms. I’m not afraid to be declare & lose “my eternity” like we
    sometimes hear. I’ve got of lot from the Tech and no body can take that
    away from me. Besides, I create my own eternity so no one is in a position
    to give it to me or take it away from me. But if I were to be declared I
    would not be around to help my friends through the turbulent times that I
    suspect are to come. I know it might sound weird but I don’t mind
    losing my friends per say but I mind losing the ability to help them
    & contribute to their survival. I have a great family and I have a great
    ability to make new friends. So I have no worries there. I just can’t
    think w the idea of abandoning my current friends at a time when I think
    they will need me the most. I think I would feel like crap if I did that. So that’s mostly what I’m struggling with!

    • Tomas
      2009-10-18 at 12:19

      HI D.
      Your answer moved me – I feel a lot of basic truth in what you are writing. You sound like a true friend. It is always easy to tell another person what to do.
      Still I want to give some advise ( easy for me of course and I also know that you know these advises – it`s just a reminder.)
      1. Do not be afraid of ARC- break a friend in a just cause.
      2. Do you want others to have the same insights as you have? Tell people about it then.
      Love Tomas

      • D
        2009-10-19 at 17:09

        Thanks Tomas,

        1. I’m not afraid of ARC breaking my friends, I just don’t want to abandon them when they might need me the most. It’s a fine line between not compromising my own reality & not walking away from my responsibilities. Things are evolving every day.
        2. I definitely want other to have the same insights I have. That is why I have made lots of progress informing others in the last few months 🙂

    • KnowMan
      2009-10-18 at 14:42

      From what you’ve observed, is the Ideal Org campaign diverting money from people’s Bridge?

      • D
        2009-10-19 at 17:40

        Absolutely! It has diverted $ from my own Bridge. I’ve also seen many cancel their trip or plans for their next step. But that doesn’t seem to be a button for me or others as much as realizing that this whole “Ideal Org campaign” is really off policy & also violates common sense. That’s redundant since to me, most Policies = common sense. Anyways, each person have their own buttons/considerations. So I find what makes the person “tick” in front of me & I use that as my entrance point. There’are plenty to use, from too many events, too much regging, abusive ethics handlings, altering LRH’s lectures, … So far I haven’t done too bad 🙂

    • emldubu
      2009-10-18 at 17:50

      Ditto, D

    • John Doe Lurker
      2009-10-18 at 20:30

      Well stated. As the current scene further unfolds, I anticipate many confused and enturbulated public and staff talking to each other trying to sort out “what is going on”, but without the benefit of all the data to work with. Those of us who are NOW in the process of doing their own research and realigning their own stable data will be in a much better position in the coming months to help orient those who are suddenly overwhelmed by it all.

      • D
        2009-10-19 at 17:41

        My point exactly!

        • D
          2009-10-19 at 17:46

          I should add that for some of us it’s better to come out & for some it’s better to stay in for now. I don’t think that one is better than the other for everyone. I’m very grateful for the ones that have come out. It has help me confront & re align my own stable datum. It has also given me tools to enlighten others. I will come out too, in due time. I just think I’m more valuable in for the time being.

  13. Concerned Citizen
    2009-10-18 at 06:52

    Aside from the fact that I have been able to create some good effects,(most of my connections in life are in good standing Scientologist. I have a lot of respect for these people and just keep in ARC till the sour notes begin to show up and little by little I get them to look) I have 3 in the SO relatives that have been there most of their lives. I brought them in and I want to be there for them when things blow up. Since they are not going to get any of this data anytime soon, they will not come to me if I’m declared when they finally out. So for just that reason I’m hanging tight.

  14. Jim Logan
    2009-10-18 at 14:01

    I’m not in the position some of you find yourselves. I’m declared, and deadfiled with no lines to resolve this sit on within the church. I’ve exhausted them and gone past exhaustion and they are cut. Of course at this point, I’m very ‘exposed’ and that cat is not going back into any bag.

    I’ve read the reasons for others wanting to remain in good standing and I agree with probably all of them. They are valid reasons.

    It’s not a question of ‘leaving’ as far as I can see. It’s a question of learning, duplicating, understanding and exercising judgment on application of Scientology to the environment around you. One can do that without ‘leaving’ or even while ‘left’. THAT is what is going to make a difference in this scene. Truth applied will resolve whatever comes up.

    Those who have made a public departure from the current situation under David Miscavige haven’t left Scientology. They evaluated a scene and determined a particular course was the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. They are applying what they know to better conditions. It is right for them. It may not be right for another.

    Regardless of ‘leaving’, the departures from the aims and materials of Scientology manifest in the travesties of DM’s vision, are there for any to observe. It is incumbent on any ethical being and particularly ethical Scientologists, to do something to handle this scene. From wherever you are and in whatever ‘standing’ you assume.

    • emldubu
      2009-10-18 at 17:52

      Thank you!

  15. Maria
    2009-10-18 at 16:00

    Geir, earlier on in your blog I questioned the wisdom of releasing the materials into the public domain and your comment that the Church may be beyond reform. I just completed a study of litigation on the basis of excommunication with shunning as a violation of human rights. In the U.S., its pretty much hands off based on numerous cases against the Mormon Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve also completed my research on the sites you have recommended and I have read the C of S’s official websites too. I see no way to legally or internally reform the C of S as it continues on its program to demand of all of its members the same level of obedience that SO members subscribe to — i.e. issuing direct orders to OTs and public Scientologists, ethics/justice and sec-checking them for disagreements with the misapplication of LRH issues, and refusal or inability to make IAS and building donations.

    It appears to me that once the Church has completed its purges, forcing people to either agree 100% with everything management does or be declared suppressive, what will remain are those individuals who know no other way, or consider that the ends justifies the means, or just don’t give a damn about personal freedom and liberty, caring only about expanding the Church, even if the expansion is only in terms of gross income, new buildings and social programs. It has become a real Church after all, complete with traditional donations and a level of authoritarianism that any Medieval church would have envied.

    I have been moving further and further offline for many years, all the while hoping that the violations would turn around, but it seems to me that it is getting worse, not better. I cannot see how publicly leaving will help as I will not longer be able to communicate with people that I care about and will not be able to point them to LRH references that are being violated. None of the people I know would even visit this website, out of fear of being declared. I wish it were otherwise. I grieve that it isn’t.

    • 2009-10-18 at 16:55

      When Scientologists do not dare to look, to confront or to think freely, they have been defeated as Scientologists.

  16. Nom de Plume
    2009-10-18 at 16:23

    Disinfected :

    …RPF’ed all the so-called List One R/Sers.

    (sigh) IMHO, *the* most important social disinfectant ever!

    My wet-dream: a planet where all politicians, banksters, and potential lovers are subjected to the same screening process… 😉

    Just out of curiosity, Disinfected, were you one of the ones RPF’d for R/Sing?

  17. Disinfected
    2009-10-18 at 18:47

    Yes, for my end we can close this. I appreciate your posting the comments critical of you and that speaks well of you. Further, if I misrepresented YOUR opinions or statements then I apologize. That was not my intent. I do continue to maintain that an understanding (i.e. speculation) of Hubbard’s intentions are important to prevent future abuse as his intentions are hard-wired into Scientology policy.
    Nom, I was never RPF’ed and in actual fact I do not have horror stories as a long-time Scientologist. But that might because I never did anything that I did not want to do. Well, take that back, once or twice I caved and it hurt. A lot. One time made me feel dirty and the other cost me something very valuable.

  18. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-19 at 06:30

    So you Tor Magnus ignore things in Scientology, which contradict your preconceptions!

  19. StarsAwait
    2009-10-19 at 17:41

    Regarding the ideal orgs diverting money from the Bridge, it did to me. I paid some money for the ideal org. Also continual regging from IAS got me to give them a good chunk of my money. Also getting the basics packages, and a little bit to local CCHR every month, and money for Way to happiness to be disbursed locally. I gladly helped till one day I figured out it’s all the same. Doesn’t matter where the money goes, so might as well only pay for my Bridge. The org can pay for this other stuff with my Bridge money.

    But now I know it’s not all the same, and LRH goes over unusual finance solutions in policy, of which IAS, Ideal org etc is in volation of.

    Everyone should only be paying for their Bridge, or family members bridge. This would force orgs to deliver and make auditors.

    See how it all dovetails beautifully in policy? Then the org won’t be so bent on getting everyone on their basics flat out, they’ll want auditors. And DM’s whole game will unravel.

  20. StarsAwait
    2009-10-19 at 22:08

    “But as for example Darwin noted is that we see things that confirm our preconceptions and ignore things that contradict them. So calling them as you see them might not be a very good defence…”

    Tor it sounds like you and darwin advocate for total mind chaos.

  21. LO
    2009-10-20 at 19:32

    Dear Geir,

    Yes, i Would like to leave. But when one leaves a place there is another place to go to. I don’t know of any other place. Ron’s Org ? No. Where could I go to in Europe to do my Ot-Levels and Shsbc ? With whom could I communicate about it ? It’s all hidden and anonymous ! It is told clas vIIIs, VIs etc. are all over the place. But where ? I can’t find them. So what………..I’m talking about Europe not USA.

    • 2009-10-20 at 19:37

      I am looking at putting up a referral web site…

      • Chris
        2009-10-22 at 03:11

        Good idea Geir.

  22. Rafael
    2009-10-23 at 15:03

    The idea of the church repairing itself.There is Qual, isn´t it ? And there is Tech, isn´t it ? And all the other Divisions, and policies, and HCOB´S, and executives, and staff…..well, I have to confess, the only thing I have done was to withdraw my support; I was staff for 5 years and routed out in ´85, back then you could feel upper administration pushing hard, hard, hard on stats and it was too serious and too crazy. Now I am a distant public,but after 24 years I´m starting to consider the posibility of the church not being able to do it,on the contrary, it certainly getting worse.
    Isene, you are standing on the place of all the people who has not done a thing to correct this and I really admire that, and I´m agreeing with your Doubt write-up, thank you for being there.

    • 2009-10-23 at 19:40

      You are welcome.

  23. Rafael
    2009-10-23 at 15:06

    I never before expressed critical thoughts about the church, but I couldn´t stop myself after seeing your example, so I´m here for you too.

  24. Rafael
    2009-10-25 at 15:37

    I still can´t put my finger on what is exactly going on:
    Is it that Scientologists (staff and public )having not grasped Scientology deep enough are applying it robotically and ending with more entheta than theta in our hands ?
    I can´t come to terms with the idea of just one SP tearing Scientology down, ¿ from where come his force ? ¿ Is he tapping agreement from all our reactive minds or what ?
    How will we avoid to have another just like him next? I still can´t believe this is happening….

  25. Barney Rubble
    2009-10-25 at 21:14

    This thread may be dead, but here it goes.

    I’ve been hanging low off the radar for 11 years, I was in the SO since the early 70’s. Been through it all the RPF many times, the top the bottom. I’ve seen it all. Nothing suprises me anymore. I caught wind off an LA Times article that led me to Tampa Bay Times. I know many of those people and beleive them. I have avoided the many anti websites for years, and found them to be delusional, and just too antagonistic. This website and a few others are actually pretty based on facts and very pro source.

    Since I am not declared, I believe in continuing to keep my neutral stance. In my situation it’s better to do so, but I certainly am watching all of this unfold and I believe it will within a year or so.

    What makes this attack so different from ones in the past, is these people on the majority are not attacking the Body of Scientology and it’s beliefs, but an individual and all the arbitraries that this guy is implementing. I noticed the SO got more and more militaristic in the early 90’s, meal breaks got lessened to 30 minutes, security got more and weird. What used to be fun (even though work conditions were always stressfull), became more and more unbearable. Standard Ethics and Justice Policies became obsolete. The RPF ballooned up to 250 and it took 5-8 years to complete if you were lucky. More and more people were leaving or getting kicked out.

    Since I haven’t done anything on the Bridge in many years, I continue to stay connected to source as my stable datum. I won’t go public, because I can do more from my current position. I will cease and desist the dono giving, the unrealistic events that I was always bored with which push the bank with propaganda, and the accepting the constant phone calls, and harrasment for $. But I will keep my comm lines to friends and family. I already have a circle of about 10 friends or so I talk freely whats going on, but the rest nada. Unless, they start to figure it out, if the come to me, I will freely talk about it.

    I for the first time in years, see that reform and change is possible, and it’s exciting.

    • 2009-10-25 at 21:53

      Thanks for sharing.

      • Barney Rubble
        2009-10-26 at 02:35


        I appreciate that.

  26. Barney Rubble
    2009-10-26 at 05:12


    My post is real. I was a NOTS Auditor for 9 years and my patiece for and eternity is running on empty big time.

    I am an aged guy. I have clearly made my stance. I am starting to see thier are enemies indeed on this site. That is sad.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: