Home > Scientology philosophy > Appropriate fair use quotes from LRH

Appropriate fair use quotes from LRH

Let’s get it straight from LRH:

From the tape lecture called “What Scientology Is Doing”, part of Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress (1955-06-06):

But I would be a very sad man to realize after years of work that we had created not a greater freedom in the society but a stronger more powerful organization in place of existing organizations.


And as I look into the future, I see that we are handling here, material of a potential control and command over mankind which must not be permitted at any time to become the monopoly or the tool of the few to the danger and disaster of the many.


And I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by the lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can’t do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way.. But that’s no reason it has to keep on happening this way.

From the tape lecture called “Final Lecture”, part of the Melbourne Congress (1959-11-08):

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan – this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths – not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up – that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.


We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous numbers of ‘now-I’m-supposed-tos.”

And of course my favorite: “The work was free. Keep it so.” – from Clearing Procedure (1957)

  1. Overdriver
    2009-11-05 at 21:55

    “But I would be a very sad man to realize after years of work that we had created not a greater freedom in the society but a stronger more powerful organization in place of existing organizations.”
    And this has nothing to do with “green on white”…?

  2. SherryMK
    2009-11-05 at 22:39

    It is quotes like this Geir that messes with my mind. What Ron says here and what is implemented and written in his OWN policies stand in direct contradiction. It’s as if there were two L.Ron Hubbards.One the compassionate intelligent philosopher, mankind’s friend and one the “Only hope for mankind. Oppose all opposition by whatever means, penalize any critics, the means justify the ends” etc. Very unnerving.

    • 2009-11-05 at 22:46

      Take what works.

      • Hubbardianen
        2009-11-06 at 10:50

        Exactly. Always look for yourself. Hubbard has said that “differentiate between facts I tell you and when I have a personal opinion.”

        The biggest misstake one can do is to let somebody lead you too much. Hubbard guides us, but we must choose the paths ourselves.

    • 2009-11-06 at 00:05

      Geir, I don’t think the point raised by Sherry, can be done with so simply. It can, really, if it just concerns one person’s gains from the Tech.

      But what if you add group dynamics?

      Scientologists really need to contront the question about the degree this double-edgedness contributed to the current mess the CoS is in.

      Can you? Do you guys dare to consider to throw KSW out of the window and make something better and more clear?

      • 2009-11-06 at 07:34

        I believe Maria answered this the best.

        I think a confusion in current Scientology stems from trying to apply certain material outside of the area it was intended for. Applying the major bulk of policies to public Scientologists is a major screw-up IMO.

      • Jim Logan
        2009-11-06 at 14:25

        I haven’t considered that at any point. NOT ONCE.

    • Jim Logan
      2009-11-06 at 01:01

      I’m not sure what ‘direct contradictions’ you refer to. For a simple discussion on this forum, please give me one specific that contradicts the above quote. Cheers, Jim

  3. Dagny
    2009-11-05 at 22:57

    To Sherry: I am not so sure that they do contradict actually. I think if you take all the references together they create a very different concept than they might when taken alone and out of context. I have always found that for every “stern” handling viewpoint there is also one showing compassion such as the commonly known “safeguard the group AND handle the individual”. I also think you may have to have background on what was going on at the time “penalize any critics” may have been a handling and then the lessons learned from making that “policy” and then were changes made as it wasn’t found to be workable. Additionally, what constitutes a “critic” as he was referring to it. Someone who sees something wrong and does whatever it takes to correct the matter? I doubt it as I know of many writings that would put that arguement to rest. Now…what is implemented today is a whole “nother” subject matter. The policy on ethics presence is a prime example of that. Notice in it that he doesn’t say run an organization by being mad – quite the contrary.

  4. ExKane
    2009-11-05 at 23:04

    IMO, the most dangerous thing ever written by LRH was, on par with “may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed” “without any discipline”: (paraphrase: wogs are being out-of-control “reactive minds” and must be brought under the control of Scientology disseminators, for the wogs’ own good. – Taken from Caroline Letkeman)

    Hubbard: “People respond to 8-C. All the social machinery people have actually breaks down in the face of direct intention. But the thing that causes difficulty in moving people along this line of methodology has a great deal to do with the notion of privacy—that a reactive mind has a right to “privacy.” You very definitely have to be willing to invade its “privacy.” When you realize that the highest point of aberration on the third dynamic was the first time you decided not to invade somebody’s privacy and that nearly everything you’ve suffered from since was a determination not to invade somebody’s privacy, you will see at once where this connects on 8-Cing someone into a service zone.

    If you have a hard time invading people’s “privacy,” you’ll have a hard time 8-Cing them into a Book One co-audit or any other Div 6 course, because you think the reactive mind has rights. No! It does not have any rights. What has rights? That machinery? Those dramatizations? Those computing circuits? Those things have rights?”

    • 2009-11-06 at 07:27

      On Fair Game: I have a different take on that than most critics who would read anything Hubbard wrote as the Devil reads the Bible. He said that a “fair game” would not receive the privilege of Scientology justice protection – a protection that goes beyond the law. When a person is “fair gamed” that extra protection is gone. Nothing in the policy removes the protection of the laws of the land.

      On the second quote, it goes into the auditing situation in particular and the privacy of the reactive mind. One must understand auditing in order to understand that quote. This is good example of when a quote can be taken out of a context and read in the worst of lights.

      • TheProphet
        2009-11-06 at 08:20

        There are those who wish to retain a measure of respect for Hubbard, perhaps because they see that as an integral part of their faith and necessary in order to save it. These people can be offended by criticism as it is a threat to their faith and the positive experiences they’ve had with it.

        And there are those who keep emphasizing his bad sides, perhaps because they wish to stop the abuses of the cult, and prevent them from happening again. These people can be equally offended especially if they have been the target of people who claim to follow Hubbard policies.

        There are those few great men who are capable of seeing both sides, and be offended by none. And there are extremists on both sides, who state that the man was thoroughly good or evil, and then there are people who call any view not agreeing with their own extremist.

        Regardless of your views, none of these people are truly your enemy.

        The real enemy is the one that attempts to silence you completely, and that voice in your own mind that tells you to silence others because you do not wish to have your own view of the world disturbed.

        • 2009-11-06 at 08:27

          And there are an over-representation of the latter type in both extremist camps. There is OSA as one example and there are the book burners as another.

      • ExKane
        2009-11-06 at 08:45

        So “may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed” does not sound like acceptance of breaking the laws of the land to you?
        To me, it is not a matter of which laws Hubbard meant could be broken. What matters to me is that the statement is a green light for some actions that, per my own morals, are morally repugnant. Equally importantly, that statement has been used by Scientologists in a manner that I find morally unacceptable, again per my own morals.

        • 2009-11-06 at 13:54

          I believe it is pretty clear that he says: HCO wouldn’t care if any Scientologists would treat that “fair game” as a shitbag, even though the police certainly would care. The extra justice protection from HCO is removed for anyone “fair-game’d”. I do, however understand completely how that can be construed to mean what you interpret it to mean – and I am sure several zealots in OSA would interpret it similarly. I just never saw it that way.

          • ExKane
            2009-11-06 at 21:46

            Yet when you consider LRH statements like bringing the enemy “to a state of total obliteration” and that “failing to attack early and hard” is an error, it is plain to see that his actions intend to go beyond mere withdrawal of protection, and into active attack.

            • 2009-11-06 at 21:52

              And you may still do all that within the limits of the law. People are sued to bankruptcy daily in the US. Not that I would agree to the tactics. My point is rather that some are reading policy like the Devil reads the Bible, that’s all.

  5. Maria
    2009-11-06 at 00:01

    IMO the reason for the apparent contradiction is because the policies are not philosophical. They were intended for application by staff members (not public) within a class IV or better Church organization to coordinate the lines and posts. The whole idea of policy is to take individual decision point out of the organizational machine so that actions flow along an agreed upon and successful pattern that ultimately results in orderly expansion and delivery of the technology.

    The organization is expected to put the services there and keep them there in a standard application, disseminate the philosophy and ensure that it is brought to the world at large. Most policies have a distribution notation on them — i.e. most of the policies on ethics are intended for internal administration, mainly to handle situations in staff areas and individuals (mostly staff and severe public situations) that blunt the reach for the philosophy and technology or its delivery. It goes sideways and makes no sense when staffs lose sight of the purpose of policy or attempt to make policy effective on the public. Most of the very heavy G.O. or OSA type issues are intended to handle truly bad guys who have no other agenda than destruction. He expresses all of this very clearly in Ron’s Journal 1968. I found an mp3 of it on megaupload, here’s the link: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=B8FWEHHN

    • 2009-11-06 at 07:32

      Maria; Another great post. When you write I am always highly attentive.

    • 2009-11-06 at 16:27

      Maria, I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Let me try to explain why.

      IMO the problem is not that policies are misapplied, but that something is wrong with the policies, even worse, with the philosophy behind those policies.

      I work as an auditor and compliance officer in large organizations, so I do know a bit about how to foster a healthy ethical culture. In my line of work you are 80% advisor and 20% police officer. Mostly advisor, because people are usually happy to follow your guidance. They are intrinsically motivated to do so and their environment positively reinforces this. Moreover, the police officer role is largely positive in nature too. It is about maintaining and reinforcing compliance awareness. Finding out about ill-meaning and punishing people is only an afterthought in the ‘ethics’ of large corporations. The threat surely hovers on the background, but it is not made explicit because you hardly ever need it. *

      From what I have seen, this strongly contrasts Scientology culture. A primary goal, perhaps THE goal, for a Scientology ethics officer is to be finding ‘overts and withholds’ in staff, to assign a lower condition to that, and to subsequently hand out punishment. And no matter how hightone he may be, the negative premise on which this supports, will negatively influence the culture in an organization. In my opinion, it inevitably leads to stressed working conditions for staff and seriously risks a degradation into an abusive culture. Currently, we are seeing this all over the world, not just at Int or Flag. If you want to believe it’s all because of DM, well, you really need to think that through again.

      Now, of course you may still disagree with my analysis after you have done just that, and that’s quite OK. I would be very happy to discuss it further. But my analysis is not an extremist view and the use of the label of ‘book burner’ as an alternative for the term Suppressive Person on this board is a not a good idea IMO. It smothers discussions that really need to be held.

      The Mormons have invalidated Smith’s nonsense about racism and polygamy. Scientologists have practices which are, from the point of view of mainstream society, similar in nature in that they are just plainly amoral.

      In my view, the CoS needs to completely (I’ll repeat: completely) disavow practices such as disconnection and ethics for staff and Sea Org (among others).

      I really hope you guys will be able to confront this and to help promote this. If you guys fail, you will continue to find ‘book burners’ protesting in front of the orgs after DM is gone. And I don’t mean this as a threat, but just something that needs to be considered as a reality by disaffected Scientologists.

      * This would need several qualifications, but my post is already too long. I hope you get the drift.

      • 2009-11-06 at 19:15

        1. I agree re forced disconnections.
        2. The purpose of ethics is per LRH only to ensure tech can go in and not be on a constant hunt for O/W nor dish out punishment.
        3. Your post was too long.

      • LO
        2009-11-06 at 19:57


        The way you’re doing your job isn’t at all a contrast to Scientology Policy or the Philosophy. It’s exactly what Scientology (apart from what is done in C.O.S) preaches. You are a model Scientologist at work !

      • Maria
        2009-11-06 at 20:26

        You have hit the nail on the head by saying: “this strongly contrasts Scientology culture.”

        I worked in an ethics department in a well trained C of S many years ago and it was well understood that policy had to be applied with high affinity, reality and communication to be useful and effective.

        The place I worked did not have the culture I see in some of the C of Ses these days — it was friendly, open and very helpful and rarely, rarely did anyone come under some kind of harsh treatment. People loved our C of S and would come hang out just because it was a great place to be.

        I think the current C of S culture you refer to comes from the people who are just following the leadership without paying attention to the creeds and codes of Scn and its fundamental philosophies. These days it seems to be “follow the leader” and “do what I say” instead of responsible and up-tone application and by all reports the leadership is extremely harsh.

        • 2009-11-06 at 20:35

          I agree. I have fond memories from the early/mid-eighties (before DM got real hold of the show) when the public would hang around in the Org, without being hounded, regged or treated with disrespect. There was guitar-play, movie nights, pizza parties and lots of fun. The contrast to Scientology now is pretty grim.

          • Maria
            2009-11-06 at 20:42

            I too have fond memories. We had all those things too!

            • 2009-11-06 at 20:46

              It is sad to see some of the new kids on the block thinking the way it is the way it’s supposed to be.

          • Nom de Plume
            2009-11-07 at 00:30

            Geeez, I remember those dayz, too! I had just gotten into Scientology, and wuz on da HQS course.

            I remember an out-on-the-town bachelor party one Friday night after course for a Staff member of the Atlanta Mission that was the Mothah of all parties. 😀

            I remember finding a tiny, half-frozen chipmunk one day, and without a 2nd thought, scooping it up, putting it in my shirt pocket, and rushing it to the Mission, where I was given a brilliant instant-hat on locationals, touch assists and bottle feedings…

            I remember the absolute feeling of “I’m HOME!” when I walked through the front door…

            I remember the awe of cross-flowing the wins and gains of the co-audits and training twinships…

            I remember the sound of excited talk, verbal pranks, laughter, and OMG!’s on breaks…

            (sigh) I want my Church back, dammit…

            • LO
              2009-11-07 at 09:35

              I want my church back too !

              • Nom de Plume
                2009-11-07 at 20:00

                LO :
                I want my church back too !

                Right on, LO! 🙂

            • Maria
              2009-11-07 at 11:39

              Nom de Plume: I had forgotten about that “I’m home” feeling. I also remember the day I realized it was gone. It was a HUGE loss.

      • 2009-11-07 at 10:16

        ‘(sigh) I want my Church back, dammit…’

        I can imagine you feel that way, Nom and others.

        The thing is, at the time you were all happy to toe the party line, and as long as you are, all is fine and happy-go-go.

        However, the system of KRs/O/W, conditions and penalties, is and has always meant to seek out people who do not toe the party line and to punish them severely to force them back into line.

        It’s a system designed to quash dissent and foster group think. And that makes it a highly unstable system.

        Right now, it has gone terribly wrong. But the root cause is in the design of the system, and not just DMs behavior.

        Just my opinion of course.

        • 2009-11-07 at 10:31

          Mehh..I am too entheta if I talk about the design of the system, as it implies bad intentions from LRH.

          I shouldn’t do that, because it’s irrelevant and besides the point of the discussion.

          So sorry, can you please read ‘the de-facto result’ instead of ‘design’ in the above post? Thanks.

        • 2009-11-07 at 14:44

          you seem to say the changes in the church is only subjective. Is that what you are saying?

          • 2009-11-07 at 16:07

            Geir, thanks for trying to understand my point.

            Partly, yes. Partly, no.

            The situation has gotten progressively worse over the years, with DM at the helm. Much worse.

            But peoples lives have been destroyed for the transgression of speaking their minds, ever since Hubbard installed heavy duty ethics in, I believe, the late ’60s.

            Something is broken in the checks and balances of the system, I am sure of that. It’s not self-correcting and that, besides DM, is the other reason things have been gyrating out of control.

            • 2009-11-07 at 17:52

              I guess you weren’t there when the whole climate was very different. You may want it to never have been much different to satisfy an agenda, I don’t know. But believe me the church in the early/mid-80’s was objectively quite different than it is today. The original estates plan by LRH had plenty of checks-and-balances – only DM got to power before it was ever really implemented. He beat the plan, so to speak. But, as much as that plan had a good setup, I don’t think it is enough. I think Scientology needs a good democracy.

          • 2009-11-09 at 18:10

            Geir, I agree re: democracy, but I would like add an Ombudsman and a requirement for independant people, preferably non-Scientologists in CommEv’s.

            You see, I remember some posts from around the time of Kaja Ballo’s death. Anonymous posters were bashing Matthias Fosse pretty harshly and I posted in his defense that Andreas Heldal-Lund had said that he felt Fosse was a good person at heart.

            Another poster responded tersely that Matthias had tried to destroy his life in his role as DSA. The comment appeared genuine to me.

            I remember this very well, because it was the moment I realized that when things like this were happening in far away Norway, they were likely to occur in most orgs.

            • 2009-11-09 at 18:11

              The other poster was an ex, just to clarify.

            • 2009-11-09 at 18:29

              I believe a non-Christian has no place in the deciding circle around the pope.

              I can vouch for Matthias’ heart.

  6. a certain uncertainty
    2009-11-06 at 00:20

    brightness to the extreme is the closest to evil we can get.
    i love being emotional, simple, not technical and chaotic.

    god bless ‘entheta’ for being just a stupid meaningless word, that only has the meaning one gives to it.

    • 2009-11-06 at 07:35

      Where does this go, other than to derail a thread into the bushes?

      • a certain uncertainty
        2009-11-06 at 09:28

        don’t know! but u do.

  7. ElenaP
    2009-11-06 at 00:35

    Well, I am sure David Miscavige also takes what it works for him from the works of LRH. That is exactly the problem with Scientology doctrines. DOUBLETHINK. EVERYBODY IS RIGHT. TRUE IS WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU. Geir???

    • 2009-11-06 at 07:37

      Of course. I don’t see what your problem is. One would obviously take whatever that works from anything in any subject.

      Apart from this, read Maria’s comment.

  8. ElenaP
    2009-11-06 at 00:40

    Seems like what ever is in one’s interest can be taken as valid, and just disregard the rest of the policy, because “it doesnt work” for the person.

    That seems like HYPOCRICY.That is the reason why the scn orgs fail, staff go crazy from that type of following policy, once is right, once it is not because it is not to the interest of the Senior, or GI, or other statistics. INJUSTICE IS INEVITABLE.

    • 2009-11-06 at 07:38

      Ah… read Maria’s post.

  9. Alex
    2009-11-06 at 01:55

    Nice quotes Geir!
    Sherry I have always used the reference (Personal integrity )to align seemingly unaligned references. “Nothing in Dianetics or Scientology is true for you unless you yourself have observed it.” That is a paraphrase but very close to exact I’m sure.

  10. Chris
    2009-11-06 at 04:35

    Geir,please don’t tell me OSA has actually harassed you before about LRH quotes.
    This I’m assuming from you titling the page “fair use” quotes from LRH.
    Or is it just a precautionary measure?

    • 2009-11-06 at 07:39

      It’s a precautionary measure.

  11. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-06 at 06:01

    Nice selection of quotes, Geir. It reminds me again of how much fun it is to play in/with an OT group. 🙂

  12. Soderqvist1
    2009-11-06 at 14:43

    Soderqvist1: I have read Geir Isene’ s point of view regarding Fair Game here, and even Jim Logan’s Fair Game document at Scientology-clut.com
    The document seems to me a convincing case, but I am sorry to say that it cannot prove what has eventually been going on behind the scene. I have just read this by Ken Urquhart!

    “[Fair Game was officially repudiated by L. Ron Hubbard in order to appease the New Zealand Government, but the act was a sham, a lie, a piece of paper which he had no intention of honouring in deed. I know that because he announced as much right in front of me when the news came that he needed to issue the cancellation of Fair Game policy. His evident intention was to suppress the overt practice of Fair Game for a while but to continue the practice when he felt it was needed, but not get caught at it.]”

    • 2009-11-06 at 15:42

      This is interesting.

  13. Maria
    2009-11-06 at 16:01

    Behind the scenes has always been a problem. I consulted companies for many years and got a good look at what’s underneath those pretty skirts. I never once encountered a company or organization that wasn’t doing or saying something contrary to what they published. Same is true of people in general. Little white lies, putting a spin on things, and so on…

    What is true is that in present time we have the new paradigm of the Internet and just about any organization can find itself suddenly having to rethink transparency, sincerity, internal vs. external statements and attitudes. It’s wonderful.

    It doesn’t really matter what LRH said or did not say as an opinion or intention. What matters is what individuals do with the materials that he developed. We can dwell on the past stupidities and reactions to whatever the current scene was or we can forge a new civilization using ALL of the tools at our disposal, Scn or otherwise.

    I’m all for that.

  14. LO
    2009-11-06 at 18:18

    I never had any problems with Lrh policies and never saw any thing bad in it. Lrh was just a human being and he also had emotions and a very flowery way to express himself sometimes. I always was able to differentiate and understand what he really meant.
    How many times I’d said in my life, when I was upset at somebody in my entourage, without reflecting on it “I gonna kill this peron, next time I’ll see her”. I never did it and I knew I’ll not do it, and everybody around me was able to understand what I really meant, in fact that I’was upset about this person and that’s all.
    But, if you would take all my statements I’ve ever made in this life – I never wrote them down as LRH did – and take them verbally you would come to the conclusion that I’m a raving mad man and should be jailed, as being a danger for society. I bet you could do that with the rest of humanity. You could do that with Jesus, Moses, Mohammed,the greek philosophers, Nelson Mandela etc…
    Lrh teaches in all his materials that one has to look for oneself and find a data of comparable magnitude. It’s so easy. If you read SOS you’ll understand that only very low tone people can’t differentiate and take everything word by word and thinks the words are what is meant and not the Idea behind it; which you can only understand when you have the whole context.
    The sentence “may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed” “without any discipline” never meant for me anything else than “get rid of the guy, don’t care about him, neither talk to him, get him far away” and this will never mean anything else for me . You know why ? You also have to evaluate this sentence re its importance. TWTH would be a 1000x more important as a behaviour rule.
    There is nothing more I’ve to say about it and I dream that one day Hummanity stops to relay only on words and starts to think in ideas and concepts.
    Have a nice Day !

  15. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-06 at 23:53

    dave :
    Do you guys dare to consider to throw KSW out of the window…

    Dave, I confess I’m baffled as to why you are here. You are not a Scientologist, just like you’re not a Mormon. If you think hard-core Mormons don’t still believe in, and practice, polygamy, you are sadly mistaken.

    And if you think that hard-core Scientologists use KSW to harm, again, you are sadly mistaken.

    You erroneously assume what the core adherents in each truly believe. Why do you think you are qualified to edit both into “political correctness” because you run some company which produces material goodies?

    • 2009-11-07 at 09:58

      Dear Nom,

      That last sentence is borderline ad hominem. I included my own background in my post to illustrate, not to show arrogance. I am aware that to be an effective devil’s advocates you can’t have an agenda yourself, whereas I have one. I don’t think that means though, that Anon voices shouldn’t post.

      I have no doubt whatsoever that you intend to use KSW to do good to this world. My point is that KSW + group think is an unstable system, which is bound to lead to harm.

  16. SherryMK
    2009-11-07 at 01:17

    Jim Logan :
    I’m not sure what ‘direct contradictions’ you refer to. For a simple discussion on this forum, please give me one specific that contradicts the above quote. Cheers, Jim

    Jim, the contradictions I am referring to are the ones that exist between “Ron, the Philosopher” and Ron “the Commodore” and all the policy and procedures that go along with that “commodore” beingness. There are some very excellent points on this thread that have been made by Dave, Maria et al. Much food for thought for me..and I am truly seeking to sort it all out according to, as Gier said, what works and what just doesn’t, for whatever reason. If “What is true for you is true” is a guiding principle than Scientology, IMO, should just be open sourced and free for anyone to interpret as he sees true for him. Doesn’t quite fit in with KSW 1 does it though?

  17. Maria
    2009-11-07 at 11:35

    To SherryMK

    If you listen to Ron’s Journal 1968, KSW applies to the standard processes developed for auditing. It doesn’t apply to the philosophical materials of Scn.

    The point of KSW was that if an auditor used standard processes correctly (he defines standard processes in the lecture) and got very good results personally, then the auditor would see for himself and experience the truth of it’s workability. It makes sense if you re-read KSW and notice that LRH refers to the technology and processes throughout, not to Scn in general.

    The first issue of KSW was in 1965, and if you listen to the entire Ron’s Journal 1968, you’ll find that he is explaining KSW and how it is intended to work. Unfortunately, nobody in the C of S ever hears that lecture, a pity, because he also talks about the Scn Reform code:

    “The reform code of Scientology… we sent out actually… I think… oh… I don’t know the total international figure, I think in England alone it was a hundred thousand mailings and we received back anything that the people thought should be corrected. This resulted in the reform code in which the sec checks were canceled and all old folders on this had been burned and disconnection is canceled as a relief to those suffering family oppressions – it’s no longer required in SP orders… The fair game law was canceled…”

    Someone posted this lecture on megaupload. Here is the link:

  18. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-07 at 15:56

    dave :
    I can imagine you feel that way, Nom and others.
    The thing is, at the time you were all happy to toe the party line…
    It’s a system designed to quash dissent…

    Ha ha, sure, Dave. Silly me. What was I thinking? After all, I was only the one who was there. 😀

    Gosh, I realize now how fortunate I am that I never wanted to become a master of classical aikido. Imagine all the line-toeing and dissent-squashing I would have been subjected to then!

    Whew! Thanks for setting me straight. 😉

  19. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-07 at 16:17

    dave :
    Dear Nom,
    That last sentence is borderline ad hominem. I included my own background in my post to illustrate, not to show arrogance.

    Dear Dave,
    And I made reference to it to illustrate that being in the biz of MEST-peddling is NOT the same as being in the arena of spiritual transformation. No ad hom intended.

    dave :
    My point is that KSW + group think is an unstable system, which is bound to lead to harm.

    And I could also imply/accuse/aver that whatever business model you push in your daily life is the one which is currently leading to a Brave New World of one-world government, exclusive GM crops, corporatism, a micro-chipped population, electronic money, absolute loss of personal privacy and initiative, no real recourse to justice, and the “…future as a size twelve boot stamping on the face of humanity for eternity”.

  20. Nom de Plume
    2009-11-07 at 20:07

    Maria :
    Nom de Plume: I had forgotten about that “I’m home” feeling. I also remember the day I realized it was gone. It was a HUGE loss.

    Ah, Maria. Yes. 😦

    And Maria, I have a W/H to get off here. I confess to having given you many “hit and run” theta hugs for your beautiful posts. 😉

  21. Maria
    2009-11-07 at 23:45

    Thanks Nom de Plume! How very theta! 🙂

  22. 2012-07-30 at 19:54

    Wow! I found your blog on Ask searching for something else
    entirely, now I’m gonna need to go back and read through all the old posts XD So long my spare time this morning, but this was a great find.

  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: