Daily Archives: June 1, 2010

Seattle Independents: Oh no you didn’t!

This weekend, Marty posted a declaration of independence from a group of Seattle Scientologists. I love these declarations, as it gives us a glimpse into the mind of those who refuse to be brainwashed by David Miscavige, but are OK with being brainwashed by L. Ron Hubbard. Anyway, this particular declaration includes one very interesting statement:

“We didn’t, and still don’t, believe or agree with everything that LRH ever uttered. But as he himself said, we don’t have to.”

See, that’s the problem, kids. LRH said you absolutely, positively do have to. It’s in a critical policy letter called Keeping Scientology Working – a policy letter so important that Scientologists know it by its initials, KSW. Think of it as Scientology’s answer to the Shema or the Lord’s Prayer.

LRH says that the key to keeping Scientology working is to basically accept his way of doing things and refuse to believe in all others:

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: Having the correct technology…Knowing it is correct…Hammering out of existence incorrect technology…Knocking out incorrect applications…Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. — LRH

In other words, “It’s my way or the highway.” LRH went on to say that he is the only source for Scientology, and no one else has ever contributed anything useful:

I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. — LRH

In other words, “I’ve found that the only one good enough, smart enough, or able enough to develop any of this stuff, so don’t even waste your time, or mine, by trying. Take your ideas and piss off!”

The ironic thing is that Marty’s Seattle independents seem to think that Scientology allows for independent thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, I have no doubt that LRH may have said somewhere that you can disagree with him. (I myself can’t recall that policy, but I’ll take their word for it – one thing I realized about LRH is that he constantly contradicts himself.) But KSW makes it pretty clear that you can’t pick and choose which bits of technology you care to apply. In fact, LRH repeatedly said that’s a big no-no. That’s one thing I really like about Scientology; no hypocrisy, like members of certain Western religions who choose to selectively ignore the nastier bits of the Bible. Nope, with LRH and Scientology, you’re either in or out, and if you’re in, you are in.

That’s what makes the Independents such dangerous characters. Sure, Marty and his crew say they want to reform Scientology from the abuses of David Miscavige -but the problem is that most of the abuses started with LRH, the man they have sworn to follow. Any time you start to feel sympathy for Marty Rathbun or Mike Rinder, just remember that they think that locking Lisa McPherson into a hotel room and not speaking to her – a process that, seventeen agonizing days later, led to her death – was the right thing to do. Mark and Marty were there – did either of them march down to the room, throw open the door, and say “I disagree with LRH on this one! Let’s get this woman to a hospital!”? Nope.

A note to the Seattle Independents: I suggest you word clear* KSW and see if you don’t have a cognition that LRH does not brook disagreement with his technology. That’s the truth. Is this really a group you want to belong to?

You can read all of KSW here, and see a scan of the original here.


* Word clear: A process of making sure you understand every word in a document, generally by looking them up in a dictionary. L. Ron Hubbard claimed that if his technology did not work, it usually meant that the person unsuccessfully applying it did not understand one or more words in the documents or policies describing that technology. The technology itself was never at fault – the reader was.