How OSA and DM’s churches prompt attacks and create anti-scientologists.

Why people attack Scientology?

Why those very Scientologists that at one time were in full purpose to disseminate, audit and have devoted half of their lives to “Clear the planet” are now devoting the rest of their lives to destroy the Church of Scientology and at times, the technology itself?

Is it true, as the Current management want us to believe, that those people are suppressive?

NO. That is not true. Not for the very majority of them.

What is happening in fact is very well described in one of the most amazing lecture by L. Ron Hubbard I have ever heard. “ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT OF SCIENTOLOGY”.

I studied this lecture as part of the Org Executive Course 0. I was shocked to see that this tape was not part of the PTS SP tech or of any basic Checksheet as it gives you fundamental data on preventing and handling not just ARC/Ks, but violent attacks.

Messing with these basic principles, not only keys-in people but creates anti-scientologists! And that is exactly what DM’s management and OSA has become specialized with.

I’m going to quote parts of the lecture, but I advice you strongly to read it in full.

ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT OF SCIENTOLOGY

A lecture given on 3 November 1955 by L. Ron Hubbard

“We would be very stupid if we hadn’t learned a few things along this line.”

“But the two ways of handling those who are not getting something done is (1) process them, and (2) disconnect them from the organization but not from Scientology. Got that?”

“…we sever them from the organization as an official post, you see, on an organizational payroll, But we do not, I repeat, do not separate them from Scientology or Scientology organizations, nor at any moment fail to give them organizational support or cooperation in the starting of any new activity in which they wish to engage for the benefit of Scientology. You got that?

In other words, the arduous lesson along this line is that no-communication lists, revocation/suspension of certificates, court action of any kind whatsoever within the realm of Scientology, and so forth, is not only not only difficult to do but does not work.

That’s just the end of it It just doesn’t work. It’s for the sea gulls.”

…”Because a person who becomes a Scientologist is on your time continuum. And being on your time continuum he also to some degree is operating with a broader understanding of existence in general and is not just necessarily a little bit off the society’s time continuum but himself would be completely lost if he were ejected entirely from Scientology You got it? He’d just be lost. This would be about the cruelest thing that you could do. It look it’s much more cruel than you would at first notice in it It is a very vicious sort of thing.”

…”Now, therefore we are rather put to it this way. That when an individual, when a person becomes part of Scientology in general or the organization in particular, they are part of our own time continuum. And enturbulences which affect them and separate them out of an orderly existence, kick back madly all the way across the whole set of dynamics, and you have apparently practically offered to kill somebody! I think mere capital punishment is not a fitting description of comparable magnitude.

See, you say, “Well, that’s all right. Don’t come around to this group anymore. You go away. And now that you’ve been booted out, why, you’re off of communication, and we’re not going to do anything for you, and don’t associate with us anymore,” and so forth. This creates one awful reaction. And I’ll tell you why I know it creates an awful reaction. These people don’t spin necessarily but their retaliatory gestures demonstrate that they have received a motivator of enormous magnitude.

I can tell you how it seems to them by what they do.

They practically devote the rest of their lives and all of their action and attention and everything else to trying to get even with you or remedy the situation somehow or something. This is one of the more fabulous things, so that it must be something of magnitude. It evidently doesn’t compare to simply being ejected out of a country or ejected out of some kind of a universe or out of a family or something of the sort, you know? It isn’t evidently of comparable magnitude.

“They might go completely into apathy.” “But simply being booted out of the family wouldn’t produce that reaction. They usually come in there fighting with violence; they’ve got to do something of magnitude.

Now, it isn’t because we’re afraid of that reaction that we say that throwing them out of communication and non-communication and all that sort of thing doesn’t work.”

…”It’s because we’re not in the business of injuring people, and this evidently provokes or brings about a greater injury than we understand. See, we don’t quite understand the magnitude of the injury, and the magnitude is considerable.”

“You remember I’ve spoken to you about what makes a squirrel. It is a person on the other side of the squirrel. It’s a person who was invalidating him, invalidating his goals, invalidating his interests and

kicking the props out from underneath him by covert hostility or overt hostility, but in any way kicking him apart.

He’s interested, he’s working. But part of another universe, on the-practically on the same time continuum is an invalidative mechanism about this man’s not Scientology, the devil with Scientology.”…

“But it isn’t kicking that around. It’s kicking around somebody’s stable data. It’s creating continuous confusions for him, and so he splits off not quite knowing where he stands is he in this universe called Scientology or is in this universe, or is she in this universe called husband or wife, something, you know.”

“If by processing we unstabilize it, so what. You see? Because this processing was done to improve somebody’s power of choice and if they finally chose not to do something about it, all right.”

“But here, here we have the occasional time when we can’t reach that other person. Therefore, we process our boy, and it becomes a contest whether or not we raise his ability and stability faster than it

can be knocked apart.”

“See what could happen there? We give them auditing, we audit the exact thing necessary, and then somebody who really isn’t agin us at all but is definitely agin him decides to knock the props out from underneath him and does. Because of that tremendous power of association, can knock him flat.

Now, I’m not directing this talk toward anyone or about anyone.

I just want to show you that there are these mechanisms.”

” But I’ll tell you that you don’t do this: Boot him out of Scientology. Give him a hand. Give him a hand.”

“See, you don’t do it because you’re afraid of what will ____ happen to you and the organization. You don’t do it because there’s big liabilities to it You just don’t do it because you understand that this person is not of bad intentions Please, for God’s sakes, understand that because that’s the truth and the rest of it’s a lie.”

“Now, any Scientologist in the operation of business is going to pull a few blunders. He who hath not broken the Auditor’s Code, cast the first certificate into the fire”

“Our inability to understand such carryings-on stems, in Scientology, from a highly amusing standpoint. Our inability to understand the actions of other Scientologists has a very fascinating barrier.

The limitation on our understanding is simply this: We say they

have bad intentions and that is a lie. Got it?”

So the whole insituation’s liable to enturbulate around that postulated bad intention. That’s what enturbulates the situation. That makes a lie.

The situation then becomes unsolvable. Because we’ve entered a changing factor called a lie into it. We’ve said, “These other people, those guys on the other side of town,” or something of the sort, “have very, very bad intentions and are doing terrible things.”

“And the reality of the situation is that it didn’t have any bad intentions in it.

And the unsolvable, uncommunicative factor lies in the fact that the bad intentions are postulated in there.”

“So any way we look at it in Scientology, but not in human relations, the most sensible thing to do would be to give the plaintiff a hand. This guy says he’s been hurt, he’s screaming to high heaven, let’s try and give him a hand In view of the fact that he’s in Scientology the probability is that he actually has been hurt. See? He probably-that’s the-the probabilities are very in favor of that. And he wasn’t just standing there screaming, or she isn’t just standing there screaming and saying, “I’ve been done in,” just to stand there and say, “I’ve been done in,” see.

It’ll serve no purpose whatsoever standing around the radiator of the truck saying how seriously is it resting on the leg and it is really true that you or I were driving the truck.

This gets nowhere, you see?

Let’s back the truck up off the leg. Let’s straighten them up. Let’s run out the engram and get the show on the road. Get the idea?

That is workable. That does work.”

“The most valuable asset we have, actually, is our ability to understand, to do the right thing, to be kind, to be decent.”

Amongst us we have occasionally the feeling like: life requires that we be stern; life requires that we be ornery enough and mean enough to fire him; life requires that we’ve got to tell this preclear the next time we come that she must go, she must leave, she must never darken our door again. Life requires that. We must be stern, we must be mean, we must occasionally be ornery, and we must steel ourselves to take an unkind action. And we feel sometimes there’s something wanting in us, because we refuse to take this

unkind action. We feel we are being cowardly, that we are ducking back from our responsibilities. We feel the best way to solve the thing would be to be a little bit mean about it. Get the idea? We should be able to be tough.

That’s the darnest trap there is. That is a weakness. It’s a weakness. We’re saying, “We should be able to be weak.”

“Our strength does not lie in our ability to be tough, our ability to face up to it, our ability to say sternly to the preclear, “Go! Never darken this door again ” You see?

We’ve actually got to fall way down hill to do this. And somehow or other life nags at us and says, “We must be tough, we must shape up to it, we must grit our teeth and learn to be mean to people. If we can’t be sufficiently mean to people we’ll just never get along.”

Ever had that feeling? It’s the most weak thing you can do”

“There’s never any necessity to be mean to anybody.”

This is fantastic The weak, unworkable thing to do is to get un-to get tough and to get ornery, you know, and to steel yourself into it, you know. That’s very weak. Because we’re trying “…I am willing to lay aside the statement that being tough and steeling ourselves and being mean will ever be necessary. It’s never

necessary.

“…the oddity is that we nag ourselves about this. And we sometimes hold ourself in a state of inaction because we think the situation requires that we be, you know, tough about it. That we brace up to it somehow That we really do finally, cruelly and coldly tell this person off. Get the idea?

And so our kind impulse is muffled by the fact that we “know” we had certainly better tell this person off.

“There is no action of any kind undertaken to resolve the situation because we know we should resolve it by being tough. And our own kind hearts won’t let us do so. So we do nothing. Well, I hate to unsettle a very stable datum, if it does unsettle it. But the only way anything ever does resolve is by letting your own kind heart reach through. That’s the only way it ever does….”

“There is a time when we must front up and finally knock out this particular contestant in our game of life.” Uh-uh!

The only time-there is a time to do it, and that’s the time is when you are Tone 40 and you need a game.”

“But as long as we aren’t at Tone 40 and as long as we’re simply human and connected with human affairs, one way or the other, as long as we are, no matter how well exteriorized, still on the communication lines of humanity,…”

“As long as we are in that situation at all, and as long as we find ourselves in a game which already has far too many problems and far too many cut communication lines being further tough simply makes more game.

And maybe we’re not in a situation to completely enjoy that game And if we want the game of Scientology fighting Scientology then all we have to do is to face up to it, somehow or another, muster our failing courage. Because, you see, courage-it’s- we’re cowardly, you see, we’re not courageous when we’re afraid to be ornery and cut people to pieces We’re just being cowardly We’re just falling away from our responsibilities That’s what we tell ourselves, you know.

And when we listen to that voice and we say, “Well, all right, this one time I’ll be tough,” we create more randomity than before. The way to create randomity is to break ARC. You always have more game. And on this particular planet, and the way we’re going, we could easily have a lot more game than we could handle in fact, we’re having a hard time handling as much game as we have right now

So let’s turn around to Bill and say, “Grrrrr.” Oh, oh. We have now an internal game, only we’re fighting with an opponent who is a Scientologist.

I’d think twice before I’d tackle a Scientologist. I mean if I were just looking it over, I would think twice before I would do it.

Because with what kindness would he unmock the game? Get the idea?

It is proving, more and more and more, that it’s not a safe thing to do. Not a safe thing from the standpoint of a vested interest or something like that to attack Scientologists.

They’re too agile, they communicate, they talk. Get the idea? I mean they do upsetting things. They don’t go back and sit down apathetically and say that’s the end of that.

They write letters. They do things. They think of ideas. They think of ways to get a communication line through.”

…”Now, you say, “Well, communication isn’t much of a weapon, being kind isn’t being much of a weapon And you’ve just said you should be kind to people and now you’re saying that there’s a weapon contained in all of this.”

“Well, by weapon we may be mean tool May be we have a tool which does everything we ever expected force to do for us.”…

“Maybe we have a tool that serves much better than sternness and showing our courage and fronting up to the situation and bawling him out or firing him or doing something. See?

Maybe we do have Therefore we would tend to call it a weapon, wouldn’t we?

But it really isn’t a weapon, it’s a tool. And ___ that’s ARC And this, this is one of the more fabulous things

“Now, you think of ARC in terms of the Dear Souls Area, and that’s a rather low-toned use of ARC if you want my candid opinion.

You trap somebody and then you come along and you say, “Well, now, you poor thing. Oh, well, we let him out of a trap.

Now, come over here and we’ll show you all how to be kind to people” -who trapped you in the first place-the “dear souls.” Get the idea?”

“Well, yeah, there’s a lower harmonic on being alive too. There’s a lower harmonic on-on enjoying drink. But none of these lower harmonics have very much to do with power of choice or self-determinism.”

“By being as kind and as decent, by being as well conducted as you possibly can be, you can throw completely into a spin and wipe out a person below 2.0 on the Tone Scale. And that is the most-that statement’s made without reservations.

The surest way to kill him is not with a bullet but with a kind word. That’s the surest way to kill him-providing your intentions are not to kill him therefore, it looks like it’s a weapon, doesn’t But the fact that you use it, and the fact that you use it well and know it well…”

“There is no substitute for liking people like liking people.

There’s no substitute for reality like reality. There’s no substitute for communication like communication with good affinity and good reality. And that’s really close to a static. Do you understand?

You go down scale from that you get into Dale Carnegieism.

You ought to read that book sometime; it’s a real killer. It’s how to subvert ARC.

All right. What do we have then? What do we have in these organizations? What do we really have of value in the organizations of Scientology?

The only thing we have of value, actually, is Scientology, an understanding of life, increasing ability to communicate, a good concept and grip on reality, and the ability to like guys. That’s all you got.

When you knock out one of those or degrade one of those, you’ve got less than you had before. You’ve got less organization than you had before.”

“And our only answer to better efficiency is better people.”

“When we drop the various points of the ARC triangle in their fullest meaning, we drop also the assets of the organization. And I mean that literally.”….

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Great stuff, Silvia, I am reading it now from a total fresh and new viewpoint. Thanks!

  2. Thank you for the data Sylvia. I had not read this transcript before but it is powerful. I went to a seminar on the ship years ago done by the CO (Sharon I think). She went over KSW. The simplicity of the entire thing was this. If the action you are engaged upon does not increase ARC then it is not Scientology. Apply this simple datum to DM’s church of thuggery and it is not difficult to see that it has become the antithesis of Scientology.

  3. Dear Sylvia, an interesting post and line of reasoning. My observation is this: LRH used KSW to supersede his 1950’s work. Furthermore, LRH’s policies of Fair Game. RPF, and gang bang sec checks were incredibly mean, destructive, and dehumanizing. My question is this: How do Independents reconcile the contradictions between the LRH of the 1950’s and the bastard he became post-KSW? I see LRH only getting worse after KSW. He became a tyrant in the Sea Org and a money laundering crook in the 1970’s and 1980’s. “Make money, make more money, make other people produce so as to make more money,” was his policy.

    Do the Independents have the courage and honesty to address the real LRH, or will they continue to selectively default to the LRH of the 1950’s? Mine is a fair questions that no Independent seems to be willing to answer. I am not opposed to the practice of Scientology. What I am opposed to is the dishonest and inaccurate portrayal of LRH by the Independents.

    • I do appreciate your comment and openness.
      LRH was a man like all of us, may be a genius, but a man with his plus and minus. Listening to the SHSBC lectures you can feel his frustration at times when people regard at him as a “God” and expect perfection.
      I have studied his philosophy and I have seen it work on many people including me. This is my experience and it is true for me.
      I loved his teaching of love and compassion, his desire of helping people and to free man.

      This is his philosophy. This is what I believe aligns with my goals. I have studies the admin tech (green Volumes) the Executive vol VII. You do not find any directive or policy that is insane…
      I looked and looked trying to explain or give a reason to the insanity I was observing in the Current Church.
      No trace of that in the tech that is available to all.
      Even the disconnection tech, that I personally believe, has been altered, misused and used out of context, if you use it with compassion, love and without any insanity has his value.
      At this point it does not matter to me if LRH reveals himself to be a fake…, I’m sure Gandhi and Maria Theresa Di Calcutta, they all have their own “peccadilloes” but what is the point to focus on that.
      How much good they have done, what was their worth to mankind?
      Learn what you can learn from great people, make it yours only if it is true for you and contribute to make a better world.

      I have learned one last thing… quite fundamental to me. We do not know how much was really written by LRH. LRH was so often dismayed by observing, how much people could alter-is is most simple directions. How many of his writing are truly original and how many were written from people that did not even have a clue of what the basic tenets were about? But they all have in common the signature of LRH.

      I agree very much with what Brad Hagemo wrote in a comment to my blog “If the action you are engaged upon does not increase ARC then it is not Scientology.”


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

  • March 2010
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb   Apr »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 92 other followers