Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the month “May, 2013”

Critics of Scientology

In the HCOPL Critics of Scientology, Ron makes the case that critics of Scientology have hidden crimes, which is what motivates them to attack Scientology. I’ve heard some in the Field (often in self-serving tones), flatly deny that this is true, and assert that LRH was wrong.

LRH was not wrong. His assertion was true when he wrote it and still is. But it’s also based on a basic unspoken assumption: that the Church can boast a clean house.

The reasoning here is obvious. The technology of Scientology, if properly applied and administered will not hurt anyone. On the contrary, its results are generally no less than spectacular, as evidenced by the thousands of success stories gathered over the decades. It even includes procedures to correct situations caused by mis-application.

But this also makes Scientology a formidable weapon against someone who has crimes to hide. Not that we particularly desire to fight such people. But it gives them a definite reason to hinder or stop Scientology in any way they can. The sad irony is that normally we would have no concern over their crimes, regardless of their severity. Our sole interest would be in unburdening them of the weight of their crimes, so they could make spiritual progress.

Further, we all know that true Suppressives have ample hidden overts, and are stuck on the time track, fighting some long-forgotten enemy. And the last thing they will tolerate is a technology or organization which seeks to make others better. The very idea of it drives them to fight us.

So clearly, Ron’s logic in this matter was spot on.

But now what happens when the Church itself is guilty of misconduct? What happens when the technology is improperly applied and not corrected? What happens when the Church fails to follow its own clearly defined policies as worked out by LRH?

Suddenly those who otherwise might be neutral or even friends of the Church and the subject have good reason to criticize. These are not the “critics” that Ron speaks of in Critics of Scientology. They have a justified complaint. They may or may not have crimes. But suddenly the criticisms have a basis in reality.

As we all know, the technology of Scientology and the Church have been subverted by suppressives. This subversion has become more pronounced as the years have marched forward, and so have the complaints and criticisms. This is perhaps a circumstance that Ron wouldn’t have predicted. Certainly none of us did. And now we have a bumper crop of justified critics.

It could be argued by the Field that the above policy is wrong because those of us who have separated from the Church and criticized it are not, generally, guilty of crimes. And technically this is true. The “crimes” Ron speaks of in the policy are those for which one could be prosecuted in a court of law. But in the twisted viewpoint of the Church we are guilty of crimes. We failed to support the IAS. Or we spoke out against the executives of the Church, or whatever our individual “crimes” were. And thus, in the Church’s interpretation, the policy above is still correct.

The problem with some in the Field is that they are quick to dispute Ron’s writings, without taking the time to fully consider their context. Instead they approach policy from a very literal perspective and take whatever opportunity presents itself to disagree. I sometimes wonder if disagreeing with Ron is some sort of benchmark of courage or intelligence or independence to these people.

Personally, I think it’s just a sign of being “not quite bright”.

Advertisements

PTS To The Church

I was watching a Youtube video by Pierre Ethier the other day (here). Pierre is a Class XII in the Field who heavily promotes his services as an auditor and/or C/S. He is also a controversial figure in the Independent Field for a variety of reasons.

Whether you like or dislike Pierre, one of his points was a good one. It was the idea of PTSness in relation to the Independent Field. His opinion is that PTSness is given inadequate attention. I can’t speak to that, as I don’t actually know what gets audited by auditors in the Field.

But it’s a worthwhile subject to shed light on. The Church has become a suppressive organization. If a person just emerged from it, their reasons may or may not include that one. (And it may or may not be applicable to them anyway.)

At one point when I was on staff, I got a cold. Of course, I was hauled into the Ethics Officer’s office to handle the situation since, as we all know, illness = PTS. I rummaged around but couldn’t find anyone in my present time environment who seemed suppressive to me. The Ethics Officer had me keep looking, and the only person I could come up with was someone from my childhood who had been cruel and abusive to me and my mother. I had been thinking about him. But I discounted that person, because he wasn’t in my present time environment. The Ethics Officer asked me if my thinking about this person didn’t constitute a “connection” to him, and I had to admit it did.

If you’re a Field auditor and you have someone in front of you who just stepped out of the shadow of the Church, you might consider, as a first step, a PTS handling on the person. But obviously only if the symptoms warrant it. And don’t consider that, if the person has “disconnected” from the Church, that’s the end of it. It may or may not be. One thing’s for sure– if a person truly is PTS, all your auditing of them is for naught if you’re auditing over a PTS condition.

(And by the way, there is a phobia in the Field about calling a person or entity “suppressive”, because the Church has perverted the meaning so badly. We need to get over this. There are plenty of LRH references on the subject which are perfectly valid and cover the subject completely. As with “floating needles”, forget what the Church says and use your noggin.)

Scientology And Other Practices

There are those in the Field who have been trying to set up an equivalence between various “other” practices and Scientology for some time. They’d like them all to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, apparently.

They contend that all these other practices have helped people, and thus shouldn’t be discounted.

I’m sure that psychotherapy has helped some people. I’m sure that meditation has helped some people. I’m equally sure that driving around and doing crossword puzzles have helped people. But that doesn’t make them “a way out”. To try to set up an equivalency between these things is silly.

Psychotherapy and meditation have never made Clears or OTs out of wogs and never will. For that matter, neither will driving around or doing crossword puzzles. So clearly, they are not equivalent or even of the same magnitude or class of thing as Scientology.

These people decry the “arrogance” of Scientologists in believing their technology is the only way out. Yet they cannot bring to the table one other practice which has produced the same miracles and the same gains that Scientology has. Not one. They profess that such an occurrence is in the offing and only a matter of time. But as LRH pointed out, if 50,000 years of thinking men have not produced such a route, it’s highly doubtful they ever will.

The stated reason for desiring such a “meeting of the minds” is that they believe Scientology must gain acceptance in the wider world in order to get anywhere or expand its influence.

Of course, such a thing is also silly. Scientology is and always has been expanded one person at a time, one book at a time, one session at a time, one training course at a time. Properly practiced and disseminated, according to LRH policy, it would and will continue to do so. The “acceptance” of Scientology by the broader world, wholesale, is not a worthwhile pursuit.

Besides which, there are clearly those who, in the face of a truly workable route out, would do nearly anything to ensure that the practice of it does not continue. The proof is in the Church of Scientology itself, in the person of David Miscavige.

The desire for broad acceptance represents a human obsession with gaining agreement from others for ones actions and ones positions. Yet the most effective leaders in history didn’t wait for the approval or the acceptance of others. They simply went ahead and produced the effects they intended to produce. And in many cases, the world prospered as a result.

Lastly, it’s worth considering that the effort to equate Scientology with other practices would eventually and inevitably lead to its alteration and the loss of its workability. Then, Scientology would truly become similar to or the same as these other practices which have ultimately lead Man nowhere.

But perhaps that’s the ultmate goal of these people.

Post Navigation