Monthly Archives: October 2011

Mosey: Let’s talk about KSW

I’d like to discuss something Marty said in his rebuttal to Tony Ortega’s article on LRH, specifically on the interpretation of Keeping Scientology Working. Marty sez:

b. Your [Tony’s] repeated references to and quotes on the Hubbard Policy Letter Keeping Scientology Working:

In context, again as I explained to you, outside the culture of the church that policy letter, Keeping Scientology Working, means ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That was the meaning my wife summed up as gleaning from it…But, apparently her view doesn’t count, not when it might slow down a witch burning of L Ron Hubbard.

Actually, KSW goes way beyond that. Allow me to quote the meat of KSW:

Getting the correct technology applied consists of:

One: Having the correct technology.

Two: Knowing the technology.

Three: Knowing it is correct.

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.

Five: Applying the technology.

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

— L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 7 February 1965, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING

See, Mosey, there’s more there than just “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Hubbard is saying that once you identify what the correct technology is, you must know it and know that it is right. Furthermore, you must hammer out of existence incorrect technology. In other words, you must completely eliminate ANY other philosophy.

This is part of black-and-white viewpoint that is inherent in Scientology. There is only one way to skin a cat, and that’s Hubbard’s way. Any other cat-skinning methods are invalid and you must completely eliminate them from your thinking. If you are a Scientologist, only Hubbard’s way is valid.

If what Hubbard meant was “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” then KSW would say that if you found something that works, then it’s fine.

But KSW doesn’t say that. What KSW says is, “If it ain’t broke, but it also ain’t Hubbard’s ‘correct technology,’ then get the fuck rid of it.”

KSW goes on to say that Hubbard has never had any useful suggestions from anyone; that only his technology, and his alone, has proven workable:

“I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea…

“…there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work…

“True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered [The Tech] either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future…

“…the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called ‘new ideas’ would have wiped it out.”

— LRH, ibid.

Get that, Mosey? No useful suggestions have come from the group. And you know who that group is, Mosey? It’s YOU. You, Marty, his customers, Mike Rinder, David Miscavige, and all those corporate Scientologists. That’s the group he’s talking about. LRH has just told you that, aside from your money, nothing you have supplied has been very useful, and in fact has been rather destructive.

And you interpret this as “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? I interpret it as “My way is the only way, and your way is useless. So don’t even bother trying.”

Now, I know LRH tagged KSW with a page or so of his hard-to-understand babble. (Although it does contain the famous sentence “We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”) So I’ll tell you what: Go back and re-study just the beginning, the parts where he talks about only accepting Hubbard’s way of doing things and the fact that Hubbard and Hubbard alone developed the only workable technology mankind has ever known. (Look at the life you and Marty are leading, Mosey. Is this really workable technology?)

You’re a smart, sensible woman, Mosey. I admire you for the way you addressed the Squirrel Busters when your husband (understandably) couldn’t keep his temper in check. Marty says you’ve never been a Scientologist, so clearly, whatever philosophy you have has been working.

Does a woman like you really need L. Ron Hubbard to tell her how to run her life?

I, for one, do believe that if it ain’t broke, you shouldn’t fix it. And I hope you never change, Mosey. I hope you stay exactly as you are, and don’t turn into what L. Ron Hubbard wants you to be.


Sociopathic behavior

I originally intended this blog entry as a quickie, a simple prediction of how the Church would react to Marty Rathbun’s latest blog entry, the sociopath next door (a review of a book of that title, by the way, and not just another assessment of Church leader David Miscavige). Easy prediction: This Church-run site will accuse Marty of not only using non-LRH tech, but relying on a source written by – *gasp* – a psychiatrist. (Author Martha Stout is actually a psychologist, but to most Scientologists, it’s all the same.)

Understand that in Scientology, this is a Huge Deal – equivalent to a devout Christian saying that it might have been better if Jesus loosened up and got himself laid now and then.

Besides what I expected from the article – Marty saying that Dr. Stout’s findings validate the writings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, which they don’t quite, and I’ll talk about that in a minute – Marty does make an interesting point that is useful for protesters.

He talks about the period of “decompression,” when people have just left Scientology, and how he says it’s common to turn away from Scientology altogether – something, I was surprised to learn, that even he did — although his reasons came back to Church management rather than LRH:

“During my own decompression period I did not want to read or hear anything about Scientology. That included reading Hubbard books or listening to his lectures. While I never doubted any gains I had achieved and used my training in living life, delving back into the subject brought about depressing emotions with the recognition that the entity that ‘owned’ the technology was for all intents and purposes destroying it. I have found that many people shared that resistance during their decompressions.”

Interesting. Other Scientologists have talked about this “waking up” period, although I don’t know if the idea that the frustration has to do with current management is universal – perhaps it’s Marty just trying to plant a seed in the minds of potential customers. Or perhaps that’s really how he felt. Regardless, it’s an interesting insight into the mindset of someone leaving the Church – and something we can all keep in mind as we talk to people who are leaving, or thinking of leaving.

Thanks for the data, Marty.

Let’s talk about Marty’s conclusions about Stout’s book and Scientology “tech.” We’re used to hearing Scientologists say that some modern-day work validates the findings of L. Ron Hubbard (although few would dare to say that about the writings of an “evil psych”). Marty writes:

“Her observations are remarkably parallel to Hubbard’s description of the Suppressive Person. Note, modern accepted characteristics of the sociopath very closely align with Hubbard’s descriptions of the emotional tone level of Covert Hostility and of the Suppressive Person. This is so much the case that I have taken to using the terms ‘suppressive person’ and ‘sociopath’ interchangeably.

“But, Stout’s first and foremost marker for the sociopath is more complementary of Hubbard’s work than it is duplicative. Per Stout, the sociopath first and foremost lacks conscience. It is a very useful and workable observation she shares.”

Interesting, and I’m impressed that Marty differentiates between “complimentary” and “duplicative”. But Marty did leave out one huge, glaring fact.

A sociopath is generally defined by the “Wog world” as someone who has no conscience, no concerns about right and wrong, and feels no remorse. It is considered a form of antisocial personality disorder.

Hubbard used several definitions for Supressive Person, and many of them conformed to the definitions used by mental health experts; he even used the term “anti-social personality” as a synonym. (No, the mental health experts did not get this from Hubbard; according to Webster’s dictionary, the term “sociopath” was first coined in 1930.)

But among his long list of definitions, Hubbard has this one: “[O]ne that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scn or a Scientologist by suppressive acts.” (Source: Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology.)

And what are suppressive acts? “1. acts calculated to impede or destroy Scn or a Scientologist. 2. actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scn or Scientologists” (ibid).

So, you see, according to Hubbard, one could be a sociopath by displaying conscience-free antisocial behavior…or by speaking out against Scientology. (So, per Hubbard’s definition, I am a sociopath, and if you’re reading this, chances are you are, too.)

More significant and ominous is the implication that impeding Scientology is just as bad as acting with no conscience or remorse.

And let’s face it, to die-hard Scientologists – from Rathbun to Miscavige – that’s true. (Eternal spiritual freedom, dontcha know.)

Of course, Marty seems unwilling to accept Dr. Stout’s conclusions that don’t jibe with Hubbard’s:

“…the last 1/3 or so of Stout’s book meanders down a sometimes painful path of speculations about possible genetic sources for sociopathy… I was able to recognize that despite Stout’s wonderful contributions (and clearly unintended validation of Hubbard’s work) modern mental health practitioners, regardless of their evolutionary progress over the past four decades, are still shackled by their inability to perceive or unwillingness to credit the spirit or soul.”

Translation: Hubbard: 1, Mental Heath Profession: 0.

The ironic thing is that I have read opinions that L. Ron Hubbard may well have been a sociopath, as demonstrated by his willingness to lie to all and sundry, behavior that indicated he felt he was exempt from consequences, and his alleged lack of remorse after tragic events like the jailing of his wife and the suicide of his son Quentin. (Hubbard’s alleged response: “That stupid fucking kid! Look what he’s done to me!”)

We’ll wait to see if the Churchies condemn Marty’s latest as I expect they will. And I think Marty’s article is an excellent illustration of how Scientology affects one’s perception of the outside world. Scientologists are trained to recognize information that parallels Hubbard’s writings and give him credit, and reject anything that doesn’t agree with Hubbard (“what’s true for you is true”).

Question for Marty: If you think I’m wrong about that, would you be willing to say that Hubbard was wrong about labeling people who were antagonistic towards Scientology as sociopaths?

The comments section is open, Marty – remember, around here, dissenting viewpoints are never censored.

You can find Marty’s original blog entry here.


Independent Scientology censorship in action

From the comments on Marty’s article An Open Letter to Tony Ortega:

fatfreddy | September 29, 2011 at 7:02 am | Reply
>I can assure you that any atmosphere of abuse is no legacy of LRH.


Two years ago I studied the PDC´s [CALIWOG NOTE: Philadelphia Doctorate Course, a series of lectures by L. Ron Hubbard]. Sadly I do not remember the exact lecture number, but I marked the line big and fat. The context of that part of the lecture is the neccessity to bring sombody in PT [Present Time], before running exteriorization processes like it was done at that time. basicly LRH says:….in order to bring somebody in PT…beat him……

Now: There are probably rare situations in life, where it could be helpful to apply it. (Lets assume soldiers or sailors are going nuts during a battle or storm), but its a root for abuse. Its given as applicable technology, and the worst thing is:”…………one cannot be puished by applying LRH policy,bulletin or lecture”.

Now: If DM will ever be comm-eved [Committee of Evidence, a trial in the Scientology justice system] and accused of staff beating, and he is refering to that part of the lecture, what are you doing then? [CW Note: Under the Scientology justice system, if accused Scientologists can prove they are acting in accordance with LRH policy, they are essentially found innocent.]

martyrathbun09 | September 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm | Reply
Dude, you really did not understand the PDC.

fatfreddy | September 29, 2011 at 5:59 pm | Reply
That type of “eval” [CW: “Evaluation,” interpreting what someone says, a bad thing in Scientology] does not help.

I assume I shall claryfie the tape until the sentence disappears.

martyrathbun09 | September 29, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Reply
Probably your last comment here Freddy, unless you can manage to pull yourself up above 1.1 on the Tone Scale.


This is typical Scientology. If someone dissents, tell them they are wrong. If they have facts to back them up, censor them. A perfect illustration of why I don’t think Marty Rathbun is as different from David Miscavige as he would like people to believe.


I love you, Tony Ortega

Hi everyone! Forgive my long absence; as the Scientologists would say, I had to handle some first-dynamic FP cycles. (The rest of us would say I was busy making money.)

And what happens while I’m away? Tony Ortega, who I had accused of being a shill for Marty Rathbun, totally redeems himself (in my eyes, at least), by naming L. Ron Hubbard as the #1 person crippling Scientology. Tony’s article reflect my viewpoint perfectly: It is the policies of L. Ron Hubbard, not merely the implementation of them by David Miscavige, that is the real evil behind Scientology.

Naturally, this article didn’t sit well with Marty Rathbun, and he wrote a reply. I’ll comment more on it in the coming days, but Marty’s arguments are exactly what we hear from organized Scientology: The “unauthorized” biographies are dirt-digging, it doesn’t really matter if Hubbard was a con artist because his “tech” works, and the quotes from policy are all pulled out of context. Same old bullshit Scientology has always spun, with a twist: Independents aren’t going to behave as badly as organized Church members. (Since it was Hubbard hisself who dictated the bad behavior, that remains to be seen. We already know that Marty isn’t above breaking the law when it comes to the Squirrel Busters, although his actions were certainly understandable, if not legally justifiable.)

Oh, glee, glee, glee. More comments coming in the next few days. Be well, my wog brothers and sisters.


Update: Check out what the Churchies have to say about Marty and Tony.