You are on page 1of 91

Six months in the open

Stringing together a collection of articles by Geir Isene

The first six months of blogging after leaving the Church of Scientology 2009­08­07

after leaving the Church of Scientology 2009­08­07 Articles serving to shed light on lies. Dedicated to

Articles serving to shed light on lies.

Dedicated to an unknown source who once said

Tame birds talk about flying. Free birds fly

This book is released into the public domain

2010­02­12

On Friday August the 7 th I departed the Church of Scientology and published the introduction of my Doubt write­up on my home page (http://www.isene.com/). The following three days I spent presenting the write­up in person to my Norwegian Scientology friends. Some 25 people got to read it before I published the whole write­up on my home page on August the 11 th . This started an avalanche of communication from around the world. I have been connected by several hundred people since then. Many are still in and looking for a smooth exit from the church.

This book presents the most relevant articles published on my blog (http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/). They are presented here in chronological sequence.

It all started with this:

To: relevant parties

GeirGeir Isene'sIsene's DoubtDoubt write­upwrite­up onon thethe ChurchChurch ofof Scientology,Scientology, 2009­08­072009­08­07

My name is Geir Isene. I am a Norwegian public Scientologist. I became a Scientologist in 1984. In 2006 I attested to OT VIII. I have had an enormous amount of spiritual gain from my 25 years in Scientology. I have seen similar gains in my family and friends and in countless of others I have met and helped with the teachings of Scientology. The gains are there to be had ­ but can be suppressed by malpractice and suppression of free will. After two years of extensive research, I have decided to leave the Church of Scientology. I am not leaving Scientology, only the church. In fact, I consider that the present management is not practicing it's teachings, and that in order for me to continue practicing Scientology, I need to leave the church and its suppressive management. The management of Scientology is creating massive bad PR for the technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard and others. By equating the Church of Scientology with the Scientology Technology, the church is lending it's bad PR to the technology through its oppressive acts.

I acknowledge and validate the many good staff and public Scientologists that are working assiduously to help others with Scientology. I acknowledge that great results are accomplished. It is hard work indeed. It is made harder by mismanagement.

Contrary to what we are led to believe, the church is not the fastest growing religion on earth, there are not 8 million Scientologists and the PR for Scientology is not good. It is in fact among the worst of all religions {1}. This is not caused by "someone else". It is caused by the church management. As one knows when studying Scientology and attaining spiritual freedom, one is causing one's own enemies. It's time to stop the technology of L. Ron Hubbard from being dragged down by misapplication and the ensuing bad PR.

I hereby submit my write­up on sorting out my own doubts regarding the church. I am a

Scientologist. I will continue to help people with the Scientology technology, but I am no longer a member of the Church of Scientology. The following is a valid WOIM list. For explanation on mark­up, see the WOIM definition page {2}. References in Appendix A.

Doubt formula (LRH instructions in quotes and as main points in the list)

1. "Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all bias and rumour."

1.1. The expressed intention of the current church management is to buy

more than 170 new church buildings using parishioner's money and without

delivering any exchange to those parishioners.

*

This violates the writings of L. Ron Hubbard on:

Exchange {3} Financial policies regarding buildings {4} L. Ron Hubbard's explicit statement on not to focus on buildings {5}:

* “ When buildings get important to us, for God's sake, some of you born revolutionists, will you please blow up central headquarters.”

*

*

I find the Ideal Org program to be a scam where the church tries to add to

its value of assets by pressuring its public for money with no exchange back.

The focus on "pure donations" (with no exchange) drains the public of bridge progress momentum.

1.2. The activities of the current church management is to enforce compliance to

command intention by use of force, harassment, invalidation and oppression. Force: I have witnessed use of excessive force on several occasions,

I have had senior church management scream to my face at point blank

only because of a misunderstanding on the part of the Sea Org Officer. I have been spat in the face by another Sea Org member. But this is just a fraction of the force in regular use in the Sea Org ­ and the higher up, the more force. This is both written extensively on the Internet, and verified by me as I have spoken to several current and ex Sea Org members that have experience serious breach of basic human rights in the Sea Org ­ such as sleep deprivation, confinement and repeated and regular use of physical violence. This use of force is diametrically opposed to LRH's writings on ARC, Understanding, Tone Scale and management in general. Harassment: The church harasses its former members, the latest example being the use of confidential data obtained from ethics files to publicly harass four defectors {6}. This point alone is enough for me to conclude on this doubt condition. Invalidation: I have seen church management invalidate public and treating public in a condescending manner simply because they are not church staff Oppression: I have witnessed on several occasions that the church has threatened to bar people from going up the bridge and thereby denying them their spiritual freedom unless they do as they are told. It becomes a hostage situation when a very few people can decide to bar the rest of mankind from attaining spiritual freedom.

1.3. L. Ron Hubbard says to “Never use lies in PR" {7}.

The Church of Scientology is lying to its public and the public at large when it refers to the number of Scientologists world­wide. Figures of 8 or even 10 million are given by the church. Any Scientologist should be able to calculate that this is a vastly exaggerated number, at least by a factor of ten – probably even more.

This extends to the whole makeup of the international events where Scientology, LRH and the church is put forth as perfect and infallible. Most public I have spoken to knows that this is not the truth and hence knows the church is lying.

It is easy to falsify and so it generates an out­reality with the general public and by personal survey comes across as arrogance. The lies are plenty ­ another obvious example is this PR line by WISE: “We have the only workable administrative technology”. It is hard to envision anyone having believed this line as it would make companies like Google or projects like Wikipedia an impossibility. And the Church of Scientology should be several times as big as Google.

1.4. The Church is hypocritical when it spends millions of dollars on a campaign

for Human Rights. Although this campaign is for PR purposes, it only serves to widen the gap between what the church says and what it practices.

2. "Examine the statistics of the individual group, project or organization."

2.1. Although the world­wide statistics are unavailable for inspection, there are

several indicators that can help analyze the production trends of the Church of Scientology. The statistics shown at international events are seldom the same from year to year and very seldom show the main statistics of real expansion.

I have been to many organizations around the world, and I see no expansion of the like shown at the events. On the contrary, I see many orgs that have been shrinking over the past decade or so. It is obvious to me that the strategies during the 1990's and 2000's have not been working. It is possible to correlate this with point #1 above and suspect that the strategies are failing due to wrong intentions on the part of the most senior of management.

2.2. The church has released only one new OT level since LRH passed away in

1986. The target for the release of OT IX and X was for all Orgs to reach the size of old Saint Hill. We hardly hear mention of this target any more. Most of the Orgs that attained this size in the 80's and 90's have shrunk. Few if any public knows how few Saint Hill size orgs there are. At one event in the 90's the COB of Religious Technology Center, David Miscavige promised there will be a new Saint Hill size org presented at every international event thereafter. It quickly faded.

3. "Decide on the basis of 'the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics' whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped." * The current management of the Church of Scientology and their suppressive acts should be stopped. The practice of focus on material goods should be stopped. The focus should instead be on delivering good service. The tech should be made freely available on the Internet for everyone's benefit. A "project Freedom" should be started where the purpose is to give the tech itself for free to all. See the Appendix B, #LRH4all.

4.

"Evaluate oneself or one's own group, project or organization as to intention and objectives."

* I am a strong believer in free will and my objective is to help people achieve spiritual freedom and the ability to exercise their free will. I can testify that the technology of L. Ron Hubbard has helped me recover my own and I have seen it help countless others recover their free will and able to exercise it. Sadly, I have also seen the church all too often suppress the free will of its members ­ in fact the higher one comes up the bridge, the more suppression of free will. As an OT VIII and OT ambassador, one is given a large number of "supposed to's" in order to act as a poster boy and to help drive through the command intentions in one's area. Force is attempted used in order to make the OT VIIIs tow the party line.

5. "Evaluate oneself or one's own group, project or organization's statistics."

* I am doing very well in life ­ both spiritually, as a person, in a family, forming and making groups prosper. I am doing well on my creative line (may each be his own judge of that {8}).

6. "Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides."

* This is a matter of personal integrity. I cannot be part of or condone the human rights violations, off policy, out tech and out ethics that is rampant within the church. I will not be a silent watcher to these suppressions. I am true to my own purpose of forwarding free will. This is not forwarded by the church, so I am off to my own crusade of helping people regain themselves and to help them exercise their free will by the use of LRH tech. I am a strong admirer of the works of L. Ron Hubbard and a firm believer of the human spirit, of goodness, greatness and of love. I will seek out like­minded and help expand true delivery of Scientology. This write­up is published to all relevant parties. The introduction is also published on my web site {9}.

7. "Do everything possible to improve the actions and statistics of the person, group, project or organization one has remained in or joined." Project Freedom is born. "The work was free. Keep it so." LRH, Clearing Procedure (1957)

I am adamant on forwarding peoples freedom.

I will help people attain and exercise their free will.

8. "Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in, if wavering from it has lowered one's status."

I will do my utmost.

I will not be still or silent.

I will be effective and vocal.

For extensive information, read http://www.scientology­cult.com

Note to the Church of Scientology:

Please do not contact me in an effort to "handle" my viewpoint. The data from 2 years of extensive research is vast and decisive. May you wake up and see what is now running the church.

Appendix A – References {1} Poll on religions http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/12/national/main1494697.shtml?

Appendix A – References

{1} Poll on religions

{2} The WOIM definition page

{3} Exchange (the four levels of exchange) HCO PL 10 Sep 1982 "Exchange, Org Income And Staff Pay" (Fin. Series 36; MS3, p513)

{4} Financial policies regarding buildings HCO PL 18 Jan 1965 “Financial Management Building Fund Account” (Vol3, p42) HCO PL 23 Sep 1970 “Quarters, Policy Regarding Historical” (Vol7, p1394)

{5} Tape: The Genus of Scientology, 31 December 1960 (Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress)

{6} Article revealing the inner workings of International Management

{7} HCO PL 13 Aug 1970, “The Missing Ingredient" (PR Series 2; MS3, p45)

{8} Some of my creative output http://www.isene.com/

{9} My public announcement on leaving the church http://www.isene.com/geir.html

Appendix B – LRH4all

ULTIMATE PLANETARY DISSEMINATION OF THE WORKS OF L. RON HUBBARD

PURPOSE

*

To get L. Ron Hubbard's technology into the hands of everyone as fast as possible and in the most user­friendly way.

HOW

* Release the full body of publicly available LRH material on the Internet, fully indexed, easily searchable, free for all to access without restrictions. THE BENEFITS

*

Everyone could get free access to all LRH material

*

The public access to the technology would reach places where there are no libraries

*

Access to the material would be almost instantaneous

*

Pointing someone to specific parts of the technology would be as simple as relating

a

link

*

Finding exact references would finally be practical with a proper search back­end

*

It

would revolutionize academy training in the orgs as the students would finally

have all the references they could ever hope for by the click of a button

*

It

would revolutionize the running of the orgs as the staff would have all the

references they could ever hope for by the click of a button

TIME

*

If

the materials of LRH is already digitized, a full release of the materials on the

Internet should take no more than 6 months to complete. IMPACT

* Releasing all publicly available LRH material on the Internet would be the greatest dissemination of his technology ever. OBJECTIONS

What about the lost income from book sales?

* The purpose is the dissemination of the materials to as many as possible. This would generate a substantial increase in the interest for services, for training and auditing ­ which would by far compensate for any lost revenue. The purpose is to get the technology in use, a cleared planet and not to cater primarily for short­ term income. What about copyrights?

* Releasing the materials on the Internet would not violate any LRH copyrights just as shipping books to libraries would not have any effect on the copyrights of the materials

What about protecting the purity of the tech?

* By releasing and maintaining the originals on the Internet, the public can finally refer to the authentic materials and for the first time be able to spot any altered materials on the Internet by easy comparison. Today altered material is floating on the Internet with no easy way of checking its authenticity. But the public will not fully understand the materials

* LRH writes in HCOPL 11 Aug 1972 "Films and tapes not prohibited":

"No words at all is worse than a few misunderstoods!".

I sincerely hope this would inspire action.

"The work was free. Keep it so." LRH, Clearing Procedure (1957)

One week after departing the church I erected my blog and started writing short articles to express my views. I had three clear purposes that are still firmly guiding my endeavors:

1. To help people differentiate between Scientology and the Church of Scientology,

2. To stop the human rights abuses in the church and

3. To ensure the tech is free for everyone to use.

The first blog post was written together with my wife:

The ideal scene

2009­08­14

Having left the Church of Scientology, there is a certain urge to describe an alternative to the current church.

Here are some ideas:

Freedom of thought

The organization focuses on helping people gain and exercise their free will

The organization does not engage in dictating of what people should or should not think or believe

There are no forced disconnections. Every member is free to choose his own friends and associate freely with others

Human rights

The organization is completely without human rights abuses

Any human rights abuse is in plain view in the transparent organizations

Transparency

It is public knowledge who is in charge at all levels of the organizations

There are “checks and balances” so that the power is evenly distributed among several democratically elected managers with clearly defined roles and responsibilities

The relationships between the various organizations are transparent

Even the money flows are transparent

(Written by Geir & Katrine Isene)

This was the first of many posts during the second half of 2009. The next article was posted the following day:

Personal integrity

2009­08­15

When I left the church a week ago, I published my decision on my web site. The next three days I spend in meetings with my Scientology friends and my closest associates. I personally briefed 33 people in 25 meetings on my decision.

I also briefed the Director of Special Affairs of the Church of Scientology in Oslo before I

sent an e­mail to all the relevant Scientology organizations and my friends abroad. Lots of

e­mails with the Doubt write­up as attachment.

I have made some interesting observations during my meetings, and I would like to share these with the reader (you)

Most Scientologists I met immediately rejected the data in my write­up. They would say “Oh, this can’t be true!”, “I don’t believe this!” or “No way!” etc. An automatic rejection. I found this rather strange.

Why would someone automatically reject data before evaluating it? Why this auto­reject? I believe the answer to these questions is close to the answer to why someone would automatically accept data without evaluation.

Besides the point that the data on how the church operates is so far from the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, it really boils down to personal integrity. If a person is uncertain of his own observational capacity, he may simply rely on other people’s observations – to get rid of uncomfortable uncertainties. People would like to be certain, and without their own certainty, they may opt to cling to some stable data they are presented. Rocking those stable data makes the person uncomfortably insecure again.

It seems that some people believe that even false stable data is better than uncertainty. Automatic acceptance or rejection of data seems better than being uncertain until you can evaluate the data for yourself. It seems that believing a lie and not rocking the boat is chosen above one’s own personal integrity.

Discarding your personal integrity is tantamount to discarding yourself. This flies straight in the face of the stated purposes of Scientology – which is the regaining of self, of free will, of personal integrity. The practice of auto­acceptance or auto­rejection is contrary to my own gains in Scientology as well. To many church staff’s frustration, my personal integrity has grown constantly with my advancement in Scientology. Especially upon completing OT VIII there is no more auto­accept or auto­reject. Data is honestly looked at, evaluated, opinions are fact­checked. I make up my own mind.

It is worth to remember what L. Ron Hubbard himself wrote on personal integrity:

What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that you have lost everything. What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know – What you know is what you know – And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity.”

So L. Ron Hubbard teaches a person to believe in his own observations and to draw his own conclusions and then to have the courage to speak his mind.

The church on the other hand teaches its members not to look at the Internet, to not read any contrary data to Scientology or any criticism. The church decides for its members who they should not listen to and who they can not associate with. This instills in its members personal un­integrity.

Preconceived ideas and auto­accept/reject are synonyms. The world then becomes black and white and the person becomes dumber. It’s mental laziness to rely on the digital black/ white, right/wrong, us/them proposition. It serves for a way to sheepdom. And further down the road, when the person really gives up observing and evaluating for himself, life may become the way of the lemming. Lemmings is a great game to play. It’s a lousy way of life.

To be fair, a few of my friends that went on an automatic rejection then started to open their eyes slowly. Some have started their own research. But the church is putting on the pressure and getting one by one of them into meetings and doing their best to discredit me. Not my data much, but me. This is one of the logical fallacies called argumentum ad hominem. A few of my friends are opening their eyes further as a result of these actions by the church. It may be a slow process, but the truth will dawn on them, lest they decide to discard some personal integrity.

In closing; “Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth“. – Ghandi

I learned a lot during my first weeks out. My fellow scientologists reacted in different ways. Most (un)happily toed the party line while some dared to voice a contrary opinion:

Unfit for duty

2009­08­16

In talking to a friend of mine regarding my Doubt write­up, he gave me a very simple view on why he thinks David Miscavige is unfit to manage the Church of Scientology.

My friend is a very bright guy, a Scientologist in good standing. He noted: “I have observed falsified statistics presented at international events by David Miscavige“.

He went on: “There can be only two possible explanations for this: 1) He doesn’t know the statistics are false, or 2) He is blatantly lying. In case of #1, he is unfit to lead the church as it is his responsibility to know the true statistics of the group. If #2 is true, he is obviously also unfit for duty“.

You don’t need the ultimate calculator in order to deduct that there are no where near 8 million Scientologists world wide (this would amount to 47000 Scientologists in the field of each and every church). Even the Tampa Bay area cannot muster more than 9,523 Scientologists. And then there is “Scientology is the fastest growing religion in the world”. Just one simple example shines the light on that lie: The All World Gayatri Pariwar has existed parallel with Scientology and grown many times faster. And as an extra; you only need Wikipedia to see that there are not 234 countries in the world.

Maybe you have seen similar false statistics reported by church management? I am opening for comments to this blog post so that the reader may submit their own examples.

My guess is that most Scientologists know very well that church management is lying. My second guess is that most of them are unfortunately also suppressing that knowingness or knowingly looking the other way.

Time to look. Time to really take a look.

As Scientology is such an emotional, charged subject for so many, fixed ideas are rampant:

Fixed ideas

2009­08­17

In continuation of my previous blog post on personal integrity, I have made another intriguing observation.

The usual sequence my Scientology friends go through when I present my Doubt write­up is this:

1. Auto­rejection of my research data (“This can’t be true.“)

2. Contemplating whether it could perhaps be true (“What if this is for real?“)

3. Attempting some research on their own (“I’ll have a look at Geir’s links.“)

4. Seeing truth (such as the obvious church lies) but discarding it nevertheless

Some only get to #1, some are stuck at #2 and some go on to #3 and actually wakes up. And then there are those who chooses to not believe their own eyes or who justifies what they see.

The justifications are usually along the lines of “But the Church is doing so much good. Just look at all the materials that have been released and translated in the last few years. And look at the Ideal Orgs!“. Or they justify it by looking at the hard working well­intentioned local Org staff to weigh up for any distant suppressive management.

But what about those who chooses not to believe it no matter how obvious the glaring truth? What is prompting that self­abasing behavior?

Well, L. Ron Hubbard covers this in a policy letter titled “Sanity”:

A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or agreement. It is the perfect ‘authority knows best’. It is the ‘reliable source’”. And: “A fixed idea is uninspected. It blocks the existence of any contrary observation”.

So a person’s own honest observations are blocked by previous fixed ideas. It is unfortunate then that the church is so good at instilling fixed ideas in its members. There is the usual “group think” within the church, the blocking of any contrary ideas or words (counter intention), the overwhelming PR, the infallible LRH/church/Miscavige… And Miscavige enforces ideas on the audience with such histrionics. There is no escape. Any counter intention with Command Intention is promptly dealt with. By ethics. The OTs are guided (insert a much less euphemistic synonym) to comply with the OT Ambassador Program which embodies this Command Intention. Or else.

Fixed ideas are abundant within the church. It will be its downfall.

There is no substitute for a good hard look at reality. There is honest observation and honest conclusions – or there is fixed ideas and mind control.

Now this goes for any critic of the church as well. Accepting any uttered wrong with the church at face value is equally stupid. Again, there is no substitute for personal integrity.

Life is not black and white. Nobody is a saint or a devil. Everybody carries with him faults and excellence.

Stay level headed. Observe. Get facts. Conclude. But honestly.

While many get stuck in a counter­reaction to the church, I tried to keep focus on my three purposes and getting something done, helping others to see that something can be done about it:

The silver bullet

2009­08­17

I have given some thought to what it would take to stop the suppression of the Church of Scientology management. Here is what I believe would be the check mate items:

1. More proof of the church using session data publicly

2. More proof of human rights abuses

3. More proof of false statistics

4. More proof of serious out tech

5. Proof of financial crimes (IRS anyone?)

6. Proof of the church making “deals” with critics to make them rat on others

7. Other crimes that has the power to jail the perpetrator (catch­all clause)

By proof, I mean pictures, video, court affidavits, mathematical equations. I mean the stuff of Newton and Einstein. Rock solid proof. If we would get that, I believe we could get into the End Game.

The proof already out there and more to surface should be factually compiled on a wiki. No emotions, no carping or caviling. No form, only factual content. Emotions are counter productive here.

Some of the items will get the attention of the OTs, some will get every Scientologist thinking, some will get the attention of law enforcement.

By now people started to post comments to my blog posts.

The word got out on forums that I was blogging – every day.

It's important to be able to differentiate and not get stuck in a rut with some fixed ideas. Next post was a focus on the good in Scientology:

The Good

2009­08­18

Having covered both the bad and the ugly in previous posts, I think it is time time to cover the good. I will give the reader a summary of some of my gains in Scientology.

Many critics instantly rejects any gains in Scientology, perhaps because they do not fit with their fixed ideas and because it rocks their elected stable data. I urge any critic to read without the finger twitching on the auto­reject button.

The following list are gains I cannot logically ascribe to anything other than the Scientology services I have received:

I was a shy nerd terrified of reading aloud at school. After two years in Scientology and with the help of the Communication Course and the Pro TRs I started and hosted the second most popular radio show in Norway called Midnight Magick (it was role­playing on the air). I am still a nerd but certainly not shy.

I was never artistic until I started my auditing. On the OT levels creativity surfaced to the point where I found myself creating 3D digital art, music, poetry and short stories. Yes, I did role­playing before, but the surge in creativity on OT 1 to 3 was manifold in less than half a year.

I have reached a calm plateau where emotions doesn’t hassle me. Emotions are strong, but positive. I used to be quite nervous or worrying about stuff that may happen. Now life is a game and I’m enjoying it immensely. Even the storm I am in now is an interesting game to me.

I had a serious hit in my interest for natural sciences when I was 16. My interest for astrophysics and particle physics dropped out of view (I was living this stuff from 12 to 16). The Method 1 word clearing completely restored my interest for the sciences and more. I got geekier than ever and later I got into collecting calculators to explore the mathematics behind the natural sciences. This is now my official insanity.

I had a pretty good personal integrity before I came into Scientology, and it grew steadily as I got up the levels of auditing. But it was OT VIII that made me unbearable in the eyes of the church (a church staff: “I am sure Geir would rather be declared suppressive than do something against his will“). I feel very much aligned with The Code of Honor – especially point #9: “Your self determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.

Before the Upper Indoc TRs I would not handle upsets in others (I would duck). After training on TRs 6­9 I handle upsets, quarrels and disputes quite effectively. I am usually very calm about it.

I’ve regained the kid in me through Scientology

it. • I’ve regained the kid in me through Scientology These are just a small portion

These are just a small portion of my gains with Scientology. I hope it will help shed some light on the difference between the Scientology philosophy and the gains I have had, and the Church of Scientology and its problems described in my earlier blog posts.

And back to a short dissertation on the importance of being able to differentiate:

On differentiation

2009­08­19

In the spirit of differentiation, I would like to express my allergy towards Argumentum ad Hominem – the soccer player tackling the opponent instead of the ball. It follows church policy to discredit the source of an argument to take out the argument itself. It actually doesn’t kill the argument – it only derails the discussion. Most people will still have the argument hanging around as unanswered.

The church is now busy discrediting Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder to kill the arguments against David Miscavige. But pointing out the flaws of any of them does not address the argument that Miscavige is beating his staff or using session data to discredit others etc. The church is likewise actively trying to discredit me to kill the data in my Doubt write­up. In soccer, the penalty for an unintentional tackle of the opponent is a free kick. An intentional tackle is a yellow card. Two yellow cards or an ugly intentional tackle leads to a red card and an early shower. If we were playing soccer now, church management would be playing poker with red cards by now.

I am impervious to Argumentum ad Hominem. Both ways.

When a critic tries to discredit L. Ron Hubbard in an effort to discredit the gains and philosophy of Scientology, I think that is equally stupid. I for once fully realize that LRH was only a human with his share of flaws. But that has no bearing for me on my own observations of the gains I see in me or others. None at all.

In fact, I believe my gains have been reinforced because I have been observing the results themselves rather than people – whether the public, Org staff, Sea Org members or LRH. My gains are mine regardless of Who’s Who.

E­mails started pouring in for real and it became obvious that my leaving the church, publishing my findings and starting blogging had some effects. People were waking up and seeing the current scene for what it was:

Effects

2009­08­19

My Inbox has been busy. I have received a lot of responses in the last week since I left the Church of Scientology. The responses in personal meetings (after the usual auto­rejection from Scientologists) is that they admit several points in my write­up are true. Even the Director of Special Affairs in CoS Oslo admitted that he knew David Miscavige is lying (there isn’t 8 million Scientologists). E­mail, forum and Twitter responses have been 99% positive.

Through all the e­mails, there are those that speak of effects on people that have read my write­up. I will quote one that shows what can happen when OTs read it:

Within two days of my reading your doubt formula, I had phone calls, one from an OTV friend of mine and one from an OTVll. During the conversation with the OTV, she mentioned that she had gotten an email from an OTVlll with a doubt formula. She said that in the past, whenever she received emails with church ‘disaffection’ in it, she would print it and send to OSA and not read it. However, when she saw yours, she became very interested and said that she read the whole thing and agreed with everything you said and noted how well researched and thought out the formula was written up.

Then came the call from my friend on OTVll. She also mentioned to me that she had been getting various emails with disaffection and not reading them but that this particular one had caught her attention as it was from an OTVlll. She asked if I had received the email (which I had). She told me that she read it all the way through and agreed with everything you said as she, herself, had observed these things but had no one to talk to about how she felt and thought maybe she was the only one who had observed the outnesses. She said that she wanted to start doing her own research. I heard from her a few days later. She has sent in her OTVll materials and she is OUT of the CHURCH of Scientology.

Reactions from some party­line toeing friends came and prompted me to write this:

Group think

2009­08­20

The group think of the Church of Scientology in Oslo has cemented to a few points regarding me leaving the church.

They agree that I should have handled the wrongdoings I have written about from within the church. They also agree that I should not have gone public with my conclusions. Finally they seem to take my departure personally – they are personally hurt by this.

It makes it easier to answer these points here than to answer each individual who has agreed with the group on this. I will do a Q and A here (excuse my inside pun):

1. Q: Why didn’t you try to handle this from inside the church? A: It is impossible to handle the issues I see from within the church when the suppression comes from the very top. A concerned Scientologist comes to the same conclusion.

2. Q: Why did you go public with your conclusion? A: Partly because the Doubt formula dictates: Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses toward the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and announce the fact publicly to both sides.” And also because this is the most effective way forward when my purpose is to show the public at large that Scientology is not equal to the Church of Scientology.

3. Q: Why are you doing this to us – can’t you see that so many of us are well­ intentioned people working hard for the greater good? A: I highly commend the large majority of great people working very hard to help others with Scientology. I could compare my move out of the CoS with a person deciding to move from North Korea. He would recognize that the country is populated well north of 99% with excellent people – but the regime is suppressive, making the country an oppressive place to live.

I then posted Appendix B of my Doubt write­up (“LRH4ALL”) as a separate blog post as this outlines my third purpose for my Scientology engagements, “To ensure the tech is free for everyone to use”:

This is taken from my Doubt write­up. It was a one­page suggestion I sent to people I know well in the Church of Scientology International – without any response. Almost every Scientologist I have shown this to have agreed that this is a good idea. Some have said it is the way forward in disseminating the philosophy and technology written by L. Ron Hubbard and others. I present it here as a separate blog post in an effort to inspire Scientologists outside and inside the church:

ULTIMATE PLANETARY DISSEMINATION OF THE WORKS OF L. RON HUBBARD

PURPOSE

*

To get L. Ron Hubbard's technology into the hands of everyone as fast as possible and in the most user­friendly way.

HOW

* Release the full body of publicly available LRH material on the Internet, fully indexed, easily searchable, free for all to access without restrictions. THE BENEFITS

*

Everyone could get free access to all LRH material

*

The public access to the technology would reach places where there are no libraries

*

Access to the material would be almost instantaneous

*

Pointing someone to specific parts of the technology would be as simple as relating

a

link

*

Finding exact references would finally be practical with a proper search back­end

*

It

would revolutionize academy training in the orgs as the students would finally

have all the references they could ever hope for by the click of a button

*

It

would revolutionize the running of the orgs as the staff would have all the

references they could ever hope for by the click of a button

TIME

*

If

the materials of LRH is already digitized, a full release of the materials on the

Internet should take no more than 6 months to complete. IMPACT

* Releasing all publicly available LRH material on the Internet would be the greatest dissemination of his technology ever. OBJECTIONS What about the lost income from book sales?

* The purpose is the dissemination of the materials to as many as possible. This would generate a substantial increase in the interest for services, for training and auditing ­ which would by far compensate for any lost revenue. The purpose is to get the technology in use, a cleared planet and not to cater primarily for short­ term income.

What about copyrights?

* Releasing the materials on the Internet would not violate any LRH copyrights just as shipping books to libraries would not have any effect on the copyrights of the materials

What about protecting the purity of the tech?

* By releasing and maintaining the originals on the Internet, the public can finally refer to the authentic materials and for the first time be able to spot any altered materials on the Internet by easy comparison. Today altered material is floating on the Internet with no easy way of checking its authenticity. But the public will not fully understand the materials

* LRH writes in HCOPL 11 Aug 1972 "Films and tapes not prohibited":

"No words at all is worse than a few misunderstoods!".

I sincerely hope this would inspire action.

"The work was free. Keep it so." LRH, Clearing Procedure (1957)

The first comment from “LO” summed it up nicely:

This is the best Idea I’ve ever seen since being in Scientology. LRH talks about somewhere that the best dissemination would be a postulate going around the planet (sorry i can’t say where that is written, I was looking fifteen Minutes for that sentence and finally gave up, but I’m 100% sure I read it once­with all LRH on the net I would have found it in ten seconds !!!).

This would produce more Theta than 10 000 people on Solo Nots.

It would speed up studies on course rooms!

Qual cycles would go faster then ever!

People having read a quote from LRH could read the context to it and see the theta behind it and what was really meant. For example the quote “make money, make more money” or if you get cancer you didn’t smoke enough (was a joke of LRH). It would dead agent about 90% of the entheta going around in the Internet and the enturbulators would go out of business!

Also for scientologists, registrars and recruiters it would be very beneficial to always been able to show the references at any place they are as the Internet is everywhere (laptop, iphone, cell phone etc… ).

And finally one can find new references, new viewpoints but just typing in some words.

To always have the whole LRH library at your hands wherever you are would be the best that can ever happen to you!

It was finally time to tell how I came to doubt the church I had been a member of for 25 years. It came down to the very top of the organization:

When I met David Miscavige

2009­08­21

It was a turning point. It was the start of the end for me in the Church of Scientology. Within a few minutes of him shouting “Where’s the guy from Oslo?“, I would see the leader of my church break a whole pile of policies. Fortunately I did not fall into the trap of justifying all that I saw. I would not try to make the obvious outpoints into something normal or good. With steel enforced personal integrity from doing OT VIII, I was not excusing any observations.

Only two weeks after I attested to the highest OT level yet released, I was back aboard the Freewinds attending the annual Maiden Voyage events. Last time I attended was back in 2001. It was exciting to meet all the international executives back then. I talked to Guillaume Lesevre, Marc Yager, Mike Rinder, Janet Light and Ray Mithoff. I remember very well the excellent interview I had with the Senior C/S International. Ray was a very pleasant person. But in 2006 they were all gone. This time it was a pure Miscavige show.

It was on the night of the photo shoots where my church would show cracks in its foundation. I was standing outside the Heritage restaurant with two fellow OT VIII’s from Sweden. All the OT VIII’s were appointed OT Ambassadors and were to be photographed together with Miscavige, country by country. There were only two OT Ambassadors from Sweden and only me from the land of Santa. The swedes tried to include me in a virtual group of “Scandinavians”, but I naturally declined. The union between Sweden and Norway had been broken 101 years ago. Nope, I was representing my own country. It would be DM and me in the photo.

The swedes were first and just as they were to enter the doors to the restaurant, they said they would tell the Chairman of the Board that I should be the next Executive Director of the CoS Oslo, the Oslo Org. They had taken responsibility for Stockholm as the executives of that Org. Now they figured it was my turn to boom Oslo Org. I laughed and told them to knock it off.

My turn to enter the restaurant. I couldn’t have been standing there for more than a few minutes before I could hear his voice loud and clear: “Where’s the guy from Oslo?” I responded “Here, sir“, and with no delay he was about to shake my hand when he said “So you’re the new ED of Oslo Org. Congratulations!“. I was puzzled and said “No sir, that is not my game.“. He pushed on “But what could be a better game?“. I tried to explain. He pushed on. He wanted me to accept the position right there and then. Seeing he wouldn’t get a product he simply turned around and walked out of the room. I was confused and thought “What was that?“. I had been running a recruitment company for ten years in the 1990’s. I had seen many recruitment cycles over the years. Now this must have been the worst ever seen.

During just a few minutes, the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center, a post supposedly not involved in any management of the Church of Scientology had tried to;

1. Dismiss the current ED of Oslo Org without notice – a guy he knew nothing about (during the short conversation he told me he never heard anything from Oslo and he knew nothing about what was happening there).

2. Put a guy he had never before seen on post as the new ED merely because of another person’s hint at how good it would be to recruit me.

3. Bypass something like 15 people in the command line from him to the ED of Oslo Org.

I remember thinking “This must violate a whole volume of policies from L. Ron Hubbard.” I

was befuddled by this. It really made no sense that the leader of my church would be this erratic. He didn’t strike me as a competent manager. It was just weired.

When he got back 5 minutes after breaking off the conversation, he was looking sharply at me and said “I’m keeping an eye on you – you’re the next ED of Oslo Org!“. “Note that!” he demanded of one of his junior who in turn replied “I’m tracking you, sir!” as she wrote something in a notebook.

I got back to Oslo and several staff members were very excited to hear from their senior

that COB had ordered me to take the ED post. They told me they expected me to follow through on his order. I was nowhere near the thought of joining staff. I had just had my stable data shaken, and I was about to find out what the rest of the ice berg looked like.

The real two year research with 1,5 hours of Internet reading and forum lurking as daily average didn’t start until the summer next year. It got priority when the Director of Special Affairs of Oslo Org asked if I could check something for him on the Internet. He told me that some journalist was about to write some fiction about David Miscavige beating his staff. It turned out it was not so fictitious after all. I checked and cross checked, fact checked and analyzed. When Tommy Davis seriously botched his rebuttal of the SP Times articles, I knew it was over for me as a member. I spent a couple of weeks to write down my conclusions. The rest is on this blog.

David Miscavige: You cannot escape honest observations.

This blog post got 53 comments. The blog was getting traction.

A short appeal to OTs followed:

OTs: Unite!

2009­08­22

During my two weeks as a free Scientologist, I have had a constant flow of e­mails from Scientologists – both ex and current members.

I receive supporting e­mails from OTs who see the abounding outpoints. Several OT VIIIs write me or leave comments on my blog.

It’s time to unite and get the situation handled – for good. Time to stop the human rights violations. I ask every OT that are willing to observe and handle the abuses to write me an e­mail. I will treat each e­mail with care and confidentiality. Together we will figure out how to turn the tide of Scientology.

Let’s kick off Project Freedom.

Buttoned up church – glam for the bucks

2009­08­24

A Scientologist learn very early on what a “button” is. At the first communications course

one learns how to get less touchy and irrational when others try to push your buttons. Hubbard defines the term as it is used in Scientology: “Things in particular that each human being finds abberative and has in common.” (Handbook for Preclears), and “Items, words, phrases subjects or areas that cause response or reaction in an individual…” (Scientology Abridged Dictionary). So anything that a person reacts irrational about is a button, it could be sex, spiders, blood, money or anything else.

Everybody have buttons. Some less, some more. Groups have buttons, and some groups react heavily when their buttons are pushed. A few obvious examples comes to mind; Iran has a button on democracy. The same with North Korea. A few groups off the coast of Somalia seem to have a button on ownership. And there are puritan groups with a button on sex – having unsuccessfully tried to put pants on Donald Duck. What about the Church of Scientology. Any buttons there?

Sure, plenty. But I have given some thought to the biggest buttons and here is my conclusion: PR and Money.

There are few groups if any that spend so much effort into polishing their PR as the Church of Scientology. It’s meticulously created, varnished, polished, and nurtured. And the PR front is created both for the outside and for the public inside the church. It’s a piece art.

And it has to be – to cover up the real scene. The more crazy the real scene, the more effort

is put on the PR to cover it up. And PR is heavily used in defending itself. I bet the Dalai

Lama doesn’t deem it necessary to spend anywhere near as much thought and action into PR. Because his intentions and results have their own legs to stand on. The Church of Scientology could have opted for the same – to focus on delivering good service to help people become more themselves and exercise their free will, be more happy and have more energy to live an exciting and fulfilling life. Instead the focus has become the glamour.

And then there is Money. The church is constantly running the errand of Mammon. It used to be fair exchange or better. The church used to deliver service for the money donated. Since 1984 with the formation of the International Association of Scientologists, there has been an ever increasing focus on “pure donation” – taking money for no service. It falls under the category of “Criminal exchange” defined by Hubbard in the policy letter titled “Exchange, Org Income And Staff Pay” (Finance series 36).

Combine these two buttons and you get the recent Freedom Magazine. Someone scratches the PR of David Miscavige, and public are immediately shaken for money and a new PR piece is sent to a million people to restore the precious facade.

PR and Money are the Achilles heels of the church. Keeping the light on the true scene will dissolve the PR. Internet is the is the ultimate tool in this regard. Pulling the money flow from underneath the church is like pulling cards out from the bottom of a house of cards. This is why it is important to make the OTs see the real scene going on in the church. They are the primary income.

I get new OTs every day that are joining the purpose of shedding light on the lies. The

purpose is simple: To rid the church of human rights violations. Whatever comes after that

is junior to stopping the abuses.

It's really hard for the church when one of their top OTs leave. The logic is hard to escape:

The system is broken… or the system is broken

2009­08­25

Given that the tech is working, the system must be broken.

This is a conclusion that stems from talking to several Scientologist in the past week.

Let me do a simple logical breakdown of this statement:

I am an OT VIII. I have gone through all the hoops, the confessionals, the checks and exams

with the very thorough quality assurance system that is used within the church. I have been

deemed squeaky clean as I have passed all checkpoints up the Bridge to Total Freedom.

I have had tremendous gains along the way.

Still I am here telling the world that the system is broken. I tell about human rights abuses, lies and manipulations in the system known as the Church of Scientology.

So, either I am right about the system being broken, or I am wrong about the system being broken. If the latter is true and the church is busy discrediting me, it must be because the church thinks we have an OT VIII that has gone off the rails. If that is the case, then the system with all the checkpoints up the Bridge is broken.

Either way, the system is broken.

This logical breakdown could be represented in a simple WOIM list:

[?The tech is working as intended]; OR:

Geir is right about the system is being broken The system is broken Geir is wrong about the system being broken He is an OT VIII having been thoroughly checked by the system The system is broken

This is the logical conundrum that Scientologists I talk to are facing and struggling with. Many are inventing reasons why I could possibly say bad things about the church – like I couldn’t really have achieved OT VIII or I must have evil intentions or anything that could make the logical conundrum go away.

Obviously there is another option – that Geir is simply wrong – and one could leave it at that. I leave it to the reader to amend the WOIM list to accommodate for this third option. In this case I believe the system would be borken

Edit (based on a good comment by “As­is”): When I say “the system is broken”, it is analogous to “the car is broken”. I make no claims about the design being wrong in this post, only the the practice in the church (referred to here as “the system”).

practice in the church (referred to here as “the system”). Six months in the open –

Next post out was a clarification on my positions – to remove any speculation:

My positions

2009­08­27

Massive response to me leaving the church. I get lots of communications from Scientologists in good standing, scientologists who have left the church, former scientologists, critics, anons and people who have only heard of Scientology.

I get many questions about my viewpoints on various topics. In the name of efficiency, I will answer many of the questions by stating my positions here:

I am a Scientologist. I am not a member of the Church of Scientology.

I have had great gains from Scientology. I am satisfied with all the service I have received. My gains are mine, and those who need to believe that nothing can be good about Scientology are free to satisfy their needs with speculations. I believe Scientology can help people improve their lives, to gain and exercise their free will.

I believe the international church management is acting suppressive, creating an oppressive organization.

The church management is lying to the public.

I believe the church is digging its own grave and in doing so is bringing the Scientology philosophy in disrepute.

I bear no grudge against the church. I see abuses. I want it handled.

The Church has worked relentlessly to create an equal sign between itself and the Scientology philosophy. I am working to break that equal sign – to help people differentiate between the two.

I believe that every Scientologist owe it to himself to honestly look at the current scene of Scientology and the accusations against management. Scientologists should confront opposing views and make up their own mind of what is true for themselves.

Life is not black or white. Nothing is totally wrong or totally right. Neither claiming Scientology is perfect nor that it is all wrong is particularly sane.

The philosophy is not perfect. It has its flaws. I pick what works. I disregard what doesn’t work. This is according to Hubbard’s own article “How to study Scientology”.

L. Ron Hubbard was a man. He had flaws. I do not care. I care about results from applying the philosophy.

I acknowledge that many helped in creating the philosophy. I believe in Right of Attribution.

The Church of Scientology must either be reformed or replaced by other means to deliver Scientology technology to anyone who wants to take advantage of Scientology services.

The original and unaltered public material by Hubbard should be made freely available and easily searchable on the Internet.

People should be free to use the philosophy or expand upon it as they see fit.

The church should encourage scientific research projects to document gains from applying the technology.

People should be free to think and express their thoughts. People should be free to practice the philosophy or religion of their choice.

Enforced disconnection is wrong.

Enforced donations is wrong.

Donations for no exchange is rip off.

A Church of Scientology needs to be transparent to be viable.

The Church of Scientology needs an effective disinfectant; Truth and Honesty.

I am allergic to Argumentum ad Hominem. Trying to kill an argument by discrediting the messenger is like tackling the man instead of the ball in soccer – resulting in a yellow or red card. Trying to silence a critic by character assassination is stupid. The same with trying to discredit the Scientology philosophy by pointing out flaws in L. Ron Hubbard.

Anonymous is an interesting concept. It is valuable to have an arena where people are free to express their thoughts without the fear of repercussions. As long as one does not hurt others, I believe anonicity is a creative and positive concept.

I believe that my self­determinism and my honor are more important than my immediate life (The Code of Honor by LRH, point #9).

I believe in mutual respect and tolerance. My purpose is to help others. I thrive when others succeed.

My viewpoints are constantly evolving. This is part of the quest called living. My positions will be updated in the future as needed.

Shortly after I left the church, the major news media jumped on it. The three biggest Norwegian newspapers printed a story on my exit. But the most significant appearance was on the Norwegian National Television (NRK). I blogged about this and included the 7 minutes or so story captured on Youtube. Anonymous Norway did the stunt of adding subtitles in English.

It's not possible to include any footage here, so a link will have to do:

I got several people part of the Anonymous movement contacting me. I decided to write them a blog post:

A message to Anonymous

2009­09­05

People of anonymous. Thank you for lending your effort to expose the abuses perpetrated by the Church of Scientology. I could go on commending you for the work you have done, but that is not the purpose of this message.

I know that Anonymous is not a homogeneous group. The majority av anons seems to be

fighting hard for basics freedoms; Of thought, of speech and of belief. A sub­group of Anonymous think that everything Scientology must be wrong. Totally wrong. And

dangerous. Some are advocates of a total abolishment of any practice of Scientology whatsoever.

I have covered the black­and­white world view and fixed ideas in previous posts. There are several other reasons why I believe this stance is counter productive:

1. It may help cement and aggravate the human rights abuses within the church. It causes the church management to increase the pressure against the external enemy. It makes it easier to pressure Scientologists even more – for public it is for money and time and for the staff less sleep. It justifies the use of excessive force. Extremist views also distract from the issues of abuse and lends sympathy to the church by the general public.

2. It reeks of intolerance. Going after people’s beliefs is in itself a human rights violation. It tends to void arguments against human rights violations within the church.

3. It instantly turns off Scientologists who wants to do something about the church they are members of. I know this personally as early in my two years of research, many messages by Anonymous made it somewhat harder for me to take a stance against the wrongs of the church. The original message from Anonymous put light on the abuses. It was aimed at the leaders of Scientology, not Scientologist who wants to practice their beliefs. It caused the largest demonstrations against the church ever.

There must be freedom of thought. There must be freedom of speech. There must be freedom to practice one’s beliefs within the perimeters of the law. These principles must never be a one­way street. My freedom is only limited by yours.

With 92 comments to my message to Anonymous, the blogging was starting to eat my spare time. I sat back took a good look, a deep breath and related my sentiments:

Current Sentiments

2009­09­06

Viewing the landscape Nuances abound The sky is blue The albatross multicolored

Without intervention And with no stuck ideas Ever improving vision Continually revealing new vistas

Beauty and ugliness appear Cherishing the beauty Discarding the ugly Discarding a church

Looking right through facades Not critical, simply straight Seeing what needs to be handled Following up with action

A church turned prison warden – suffocating freedom

When it should have been the guide Roads are still there

But the sniper must be gone

There have been lifequakes More every day

A slow awakening

Some daring to challenge

Bring warmth and compassion Not the cold matter of force Love to cuddle Ease the anger

Pulling together To set matters straight The target: Oppression Freedom must be free

Freedom should not be taken for granted Freedom should simply be taken

Scientologists know about enforced disconnection – when someone is labeled “suppressive” by the Church of Scientology, other scientologists are forbidden to have any contact with this person. This is enforced by the church. Anyone challenging this runs the risk of being declared suppressives themselves.

On September the 6 th , I posted a link to a Youtube video showing the CoS official spokes person, Tommy Davis refuting that the church practices enforced disconnection. This is a lie and most every scientologist knows this. It also strikes a clear contrast to the disconnection enforced upon other Norwegian Scientologist as I left the church (but was not yet declared a “suppressive person”).

Two days later I posted a clarification of a term I had used in my Doubt write­up, namely “donations”:

A clarification on “donations”

2009­09­08

There has been a question raised on my use of the term “donation” in my original Doubt write­up . I criticized the church for demanding donations for no valuable exchange back. To those who would say “Duh, donations are supposed to be without recompense”, I would point out that the write­up was written by a Scientologist (me) using the Scientology definitions of various terms. The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard introduced the term “donations” when talking about money spend for Scientology services. He was very particular that for the money donated, the church should give back “fair exchange” or even “exchange in abundance”. The use of the word changed in 1984 with the formation of the International Association of Scientologists. Since then the church has moved from focusing on service delivery to getting money for nothing. This may very well be the biggest income source of the church today.

To cater for a lot of general comments and questions from my readers, I set up a blog post for just such general communication. This got more than 400 entries during the next few weeks. It's interesting reading in its own right. Check it out at:

Then there I made a radio appearance. It felt like I was back to the old days, when I used to host the second most popular local radio station show in Norway (“Midnight Magic” ­ we were doing role­playing games on the air).

Where facts are absent, there is bound to be speculation. Once again I felt the need to fill a vacuum.

What’s in it for me?

2009­09­12

But really; why do I do this? Why on earth would I quit the church and go public with criticism? It surely couldn’t be because I am telling the truth and want to put lights on abuses in the church. Because there could not possibly be abuses. Scientology is as far from abusive as you could possibly get. And the church is Scientology. David Miscavige could not be a suppressive person. He is Scientology.

So who is paying Geir Isene? Or who is conning him into writing on this outrageous blog?

In the last month I have heard some creative takes on why I left the church. The Scientology field in Oslo is busy making up a good enough reason for why I left. The latest is that I have been conned (by Anonymous perhaps?). There is also the knee jerk reaction that someone must be paying me to do this. Just like someone must be paying Anonymous or Marty Rathbun or any other person daring to voice some criticism of the church or the man at the helm.

Money you say? The church has a button on money, so it follows that they would easily accuse others of getting paid to do what they feel is right.

Hubbard wrote a lesser known scale of motivation. It goes like this:

1. Duty

2. Personal conviction

3. Personal gain

4. Money

Duty is at the top, money is at the bottom. Nothing wrong with money per se, but if a person’s primary or only motivation is money, he can be bought. If he is at “Personal gain”, he would factor in other elements such as social benefits, travel distance, time with his friends etc. A person who held a job out of the broader “Personal gain” would be harder to make leave his job. If he held a job out of “Personal conviction”, there would be extremely hard to bribe the person into a job shift. Few nurses or aid workers would switch jobs only because of more money. Then there is “Duty” – doing what you do for the greater good. Sacrificing much for what you see as a truly worthy cause. The Dalai Lama is operating on duty, the same are many people working within the Red Cross or Amnesty International. Those people cannot be bought.

Neither can I. There is a large element of duty in what I do here.

So, what’s in it for me?

Apart from loosing many of my closest friends, loosing a whole social network, loosing my Moscow office (the CEO of FreeCode Moscow was a Scientologist – he disconnected from me) and loosing other business opportunities – not much in it for me at all.

I would do this even if I would loose a lot more. It isn’t even a consideration that I personally loose a lot by leaving the church. It really isn’t. I consider it a duty to stop the abuses, to get the top dog jailed, to show the world that the philosophy is not equal to the church and to salvage the delivery of Scientology services. I see it as my duty to help Scientologists see what is going on within their own church and make this their own duty – despite personal danger or loss.

Back to fixed ideas, differentiation, tolerance and fanaticism:

Oh, the arrogance!

2009­09­13

I have covered fanaticism in earlier posts – the “Scientology is 100% right” or the “Scientology is totally a scam” propositions. I hate to be redundant, but I have seen another aspect of these fixed ideas come into play lately. It’s about how these fanatical viewpoints are related to a seemingly rock solid certainty and outright arrogance.

The church is pushing the perfect facade of all they do – of LRH, of Scientology, of the churches, of the management and of David Miscavige. They do their utmost to instill in their members this 100% certainty that Scientology is always totally right. They do this despite the fact that Hubbard himself claimed no such thing. The church is intolerant to any criticism and it continually invents new ways of acting arrogant. The church fanatics know what you need, they are quite judgmental. Even without a D of P interview they know what you should do next. So, we can see that this insistence on the 100% right leads to intolerance and arrogance.

The same is true for the haters – the people that are 100% certain that anything Scientology must totally be a scam. The more they are certain of this, the more intolerant they become of anyone practicing their Scientology beliefs. And they become arrogant. There have been quite a few in this group lately that have pretended to “know” what state I am in. They “know” that I just need more time to come to grips with the philosophy of Scientology being an outright scam. They are dead certain this is the case – many of them without having tried Scientology for themselves, having started to read about it with a negative viewpoint, looking only for proof of the bad. They know that my own experienced gains from Scientology could not possibly be true. They are in fact more certain of their own opinion on this than I could be of what I have seen with my own eyes.

The two groups of fanatics are more similar than any of them would like to admit. The totally­for and the totally­against. They are both dead certain they are right. They are both intolerant of opposing views. And they are both arrogant – they know where others are at and what they need.

Luckily the majority of the population is tolerant, humble, curious and willing to look and learn. If you are in this category, then you could feel at home on this blog. You are warmly welcome here.

More than 150 comments later I reported from an OT friend in LA:

High pressure tactics

2009­09­20

On August 14, an Executive Directive was sent to all OT Ambassadors, OT VIIIs and those on OT VII demanding them to attend mandatory IAS briefings.

The PACIFICA BASE ED 275 marks the new wave of high pressure tactics from the Church of Scientology. Not only are the IAS briefings mandatory, the OTs are demanded to raise their IAS status to the next level.

The Executive Directive commands the OTs to come to the West US Membership Office and see the Maiden Voyage IAS event (event video #4) in full – even if they have seen it before. Then it states as action point #2:

“2. Come to the WUS Membership Office to be interviewed in order to raise your status with the IAS. Contact the WUS Membership Office or come in right away. It is beyond urgent that you do this within the next 5 days.”

The third action point is to bring 3 other LA Scientologists into the IAS office to be interviewed.

The three point action plan was to be done before Thursday the 20th of August 2009.

I have spoken to Scientologists who have been commanded into heavy ethics actions in order to hand over their credit cards.

With the rate of desperation now in the CoS, it’s only a matter of time before cave­in.

(Edited 2009­09­22: Source not reliable to verify Sec Checks done to enforce IAS donation compliance. Another source verifies heavy ethics actions, though – with metered interviews asking for personal financial information and far more private information).

As you may see, integrity is important to me:

What does Scientology have to offer after all?

2009­09­22

In one word: Integrity.

Integrity is defined as:

1. The state or quality of being entire or complete; wholeness; entireness; unbroken state; as, the integrity of an empire or territory. –Sir T. More. [1913 Webster]

2. Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; — used especially with reference to the fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies, trusts, and the like; uprightness; rectitude. [1913 Webster]

3. Unimpaired, unadulterated, or genuine state; entire correspondence with an original condition; purity. [1913 Webster]

The Scientology technology will give you more integrity. And integrity is a gradient scale. It goes on up perhaps forever. Delivered correctly, Scientology will make you more you.

The Church on the other hand is mostly offering hope. The carrot is kept out in front of the parishioners for as longest as possible. Enough for the church to squeeze out contributions year after year. And more arbitraries are added every year – The Congress lectures, The Basics, Mandatory raising of IAS status, Ideal Org donations, Super Power donations, Library campaign, etc.

The most fanatical Scientologists I’ve seen are those who have done the least Bridge progress (spiritual journey in Scientology) and has the least integrity. That combination is the most dangerous. With little personal gain, with little integrity and with lots of faith and hope for what could come, they are adamant that nothing in the Church could possibly be wrong.

Hope is a powerful concept. It’s a great driving force. It can also be exploited. The more hope the person has above his integrity, the more others can take advantage of that person without him leaving. The hope for an eternity is the strongest there is. It may explain why Sea Org members will take a lot of abuse before they snap to their senses and integrity goes in.

I believe David Miscavige is actively preventing OTs from becoming truly OT by harassing them to the point of no spare time, no money and no integrity – and thus no opposition to his rule. Some slip through the net, gain their integrity fully and breaks the spell.

More OTs are going to action as we speak.

Overall 2009 was a pretty bad year for the Church of Scientology. There was media upon media and the church was spinning everything as good as they could – which wasn't very good. There were some obvious outpoints in the way they conducted themselves when in the spotlight:

The obvious outpoints

2009­09­24

Look at the way the Church is handling criticism. Look at it from a distance.

You may notice three obvious outpoints:

1. Whatever happens to the church is someone else’s fault. It’s “The Psychs”, “Big Pharma”, “The Media”, “The SPs”, “Anonymous”. These are all generalities. By blaming someone else, the church is giving away its power to those they blame. Maybe that’s a good thing.

2. Total denial of own wrongdoings. Tommy Davis goes it never happened. Never happened. Never happened. They deny anything bad when they think the accusations cannot be proven.

3. If the church is confronted by a (to them) proven accusation, they try to make it “normal”. They even counter such criticism with “you are just trying to make the normal look abnormal”. Like throwing one’s employees fully clothed into the cold swimming pool in the middle of the night. Normal.

Most people respond to the total denial of wrongdoings by “where there is smoke, there is fire”. Well, maybe it is not fire. The smoke could come from a nasty chemical reaction. The stuff that corrodes church foundations.

Edit (2009­09­25): I received an e­mail from a Norwegian Scientologist saying that I am widely generalizing in this specific blog post. So I had a good look at this… and I need your help – because I cannot find an instance where the church would admit to any wrongdoings. I would hate to throw out generalities, but I simply can not find an example of this. If you have an example where the church officially admits to being wrong, please let me know.

I went to LA to meet with like­minded people. I had a blast. One of the people I had spoken to a lot over the phone was Jason Beghe. I stayed at his house and we became very good friends:

Breakfast with Jason

2009­09­26

Jason Beghe is the most real person I’ve ever met. He speaks his mind without social filters or veneer, being totally honest with all his views – the bad and the good. Never have I met a person with such an ability to just be there and communicate and with such empathy and care for the other.

I had the pleasure of having breakfast with Jason. And lunch, and dinner, and walks, and chats on the porch. I find that most Scientologists in the church are wary about talking deep seated beliefs and views, emotions and what’s really real for them. Philosophical conversations on the tech without the need to cover up faults or avoid the bad is indeed rare for Scientologists in good standing with the church. Jason has non of that veneer, the superficial, the supposed to’s, the pretense that you will find with too many Scientologists. He’s the opposite of the clich é Hollywood personality. There’s nothing synthetic about Jason. And he’s as smart as anyone I’ve ever met.

Thank you Jason for the time we spent together. Truly enlightening. You’re a true friend.

spent together. Truly enlightening. You’re a true friend. The church was busy just before I left

The church was busy just before I left for LA and ambushed me in a meeting I had with an old OT friend, but that's a story related later in my blogging.

I ten decided it was time for another appeal to OTs around the world:

Dear OT,

2009­09­27

The route to OT is a journey to you. It’s an adventure that has taken you to more freedom, integrity, responsibility and courage. It has given you more ARC and love for your fellow man and woman. With more freedom and integrity comes a higher level of personal ethics. You are responsible for your life and you don’t need external force to make anything go right. You don’t need other­determinism or external push to be effective. You know what is right for you and you can take responsibility across your dynamics. The days of the “supposed to’s” are gone. You are you – no need to have other valences or others telling you what to do.

Did you ever wonder why you are confronted by more and more “supposed to’s” as you go up the Bridge? Why is it that more force, more KRs and more heavy ethics is applied as you become more OT? Remember the time when you were a Div 6 public? No stress, no force, high ARC, light and easy going, fun and curiosity. Those were the days.

When you are about to finish OT VII, you go through the most thorough of actions on the Bridge, the OT VII EP check. It’s a real scrubbing. You come out squeaky clean, happy and on top of the world. With the Sec Checks every 6 months and with the EP Check, you’d think there couldn’t be any more actions before VIII. You are ready for the next level. But then you get setups for OT VIII, and then you find out you cannot really be trusted – you get the leaving Base Sec Check. Ok, now you are really ready for OT VIII. But no, you arrive at the ship and get confronted by the biggest Sec Checks of them all. The OT VIII Eligibility is huge, it could take several weeks. How come an OT VII completion can’t be trusted?

Then as you come home after finishing OT VIII, you are faced with a whole new level of “supposed to’s”. You are required to behave in a certain way, take certain responsibilities, contribute in certain ways, and more than ever. The church is demanding more of your time and more of your money – for the local Ideal Org project, for IAS, for SuperPower, etc. And these demands do not necessarily align with your own ideas or purposes. Maybe you wanted to contribute in other ways or by other means. But voicing your own opinions on this will get you into trouble because you are not following Command Intention. You are by now firmly towing the party line and subject to that Command Intention like never before. The fun dries up or gets enforced. And even if you feel something is wrong, you cannot raise your hand and object, and your doubts or disagreements must never show. You must put on a happy face.

Not that the contributions you do are wrong or not holy and for the greater good. It’s just that they may not match your purpose line. But who are you to object or go off on a tangent?

I compared my own activity level in the church with the number of KRs I got and saw a striking parallel. The more active I was, the more people I got started, the more I expanded the OTC, the more KRs I got. If I cooled off my activities, the KRs went away. I have talked to many OTs having experienced the same correlation.

You know something is wrong, not only from all the hearsay on the net but from your own observations. You see the out PR, the outrageous over­hyping and outright lying going on.

You can justify a lot for the greater good, but can you justify putting Scientology down as the church does today? The orgs are empty, the focus is on MEST, the amount of push and force levied against the OTs are all clear cut outpoints. Where there are many outpoints, there is a situation. Something is rotten in Denmark. And the US, and Canada, and Australia, and in the rest of the world. Scientology is corroding, and it is our responsibility.

It takes courage to dare looking at the glaring outpoints and to take action to prevent the decline of Scientology itself. It takes the kind of courage that you gained from doing the OT levels. If you truly want others to have similar gains as you have had, it is time for you to stop aiding and abetting the Titanic and the iceberg scenario currently playing out. Something can be done about it.

Please take a look. A good hard look. And do something effective.

This blog post got on the radar of some OTs that wrote to me and gave their thanks. Most OTs in the church avoid media and the Internet and are harder to reach. Fortunately we have the old fashion word of mouth.

Alluding to the meeting that the church ambushed just before I left for LA:

Masters of Argumentum ad Hominem

2009­09­30

Character assassination is a perfected skill of the Office of Special Affairs in the Church of Scientology. It is their first and foremost weapon. To bad I am immune.

I was presented a set of declarations from current Int Base staff. They include viewpoints, mostly on David Miscavige, Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder. According to the declarations, David is a saint. Mike and Marty are the devils. David does everything right while M&M does everything wrong.

I was asked by OSA if I was willing to change my viewpoint. It is an odd question, because

my viewpoint is constantly changing. But for me to change my viewpoint on the church management, I need more than ad Hom viewpoints. I need facts – such as the real statistics for the CoS world wide. And even then the church will have a hard time proving negatives of the like that the contents of ethics folders have never been used to discredit anyone (OSA said this in a meeting with me).

I am ready to absorb all kinds of data, but fact is King. Ad Hominem attacks does not register with me.

is King. Ad Hominem attacks does not register with me. To OSA: I realize you may

To OSA: I realize you may be a bit rattled by this post.

I have not revealed much of your ambush meeting. Drop the adHom, give me facts, and you will do fine.

When I was in the US, I also met with some very interesting people; Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Dan Koon and Steve Hall. Being allergic to fixed ideas and fanaticism, I blogged on the extreme viewpoints often showing in the discussions on Scientology on the Net:

OSA, Anonymous and Marty

2009­10­02

What does OSA and Anonymous have in common?

Well, I covered that in an earlier post. But here’s a current example that illustrate the black and white viewpoints of two camps.

Before we start generalizing widely, it serves us well to understand that OSA is not a homogeneous group. Neither is Anonymous. There are individuals of great variety in both camps and various sub groups in Anonymous.

But I do see an over­representation in both camps of those who go to great lengths nurturing their own fixed ideas. It may be called fanaticism and probably should.

OSA is spending energy demonizing Marty Rathbun. They have gotten current Int Base staff to write declarations stating that Marty is all bad. They have tried to smear him left, right and center through the media and in one­to­one meetings with prominent Scientologists.

Over at the WWP board, Anonymous is spending energy demonizing Marty Rathbun. Most posters go to great lengths in smearing him right, left and center.

Both OSA and a very vocal sub group of Anonymous seem to think that Marty is intending to take over the Church of Scientology.

I believe both are wrong.

Marty may very well be the biggest challenge the church has today – a much bigger challenge than Anonymous ever was. He is effectively corroding David Miscavige’s power base, something that Anonymous in some ways is even strengthening with some of the extremist views popping up at WWP. The original Message from Anonymous marked the beginning of a great effort and seriously impacted the church with massive demonstrations. Anonymous has since lost interest, gone off to help Iranian democracy and less serious stuff. Left are a group overrepresented by fanatics, being irrelevant or even a turn­off to those who know little of the church.

There are obvious differences in opinions between OSA and Anonymous, and most of the time they are at the opposite ends of a very long stick. But in some cases, it seems the stick is bent in a circle and the ends somehow connect.

I have spoken a great deal with ex Int Base staff, including Marty.

He is not about to take over any church. Neither is he about to form his own. He is very much excited about how communities are built – like in the world of Free and Open Source Software and that of Wikipedia.

He may be good or bad, I don’t much care. He is effective in helping to expose and thereby stop abuses in the church, and in that I do care.

and thereby stop abuses in the church, and in that I do care. Six months in

Back to my mission to enlighten people on freeing the Scientology Technology, and I view this as a very important mission:

Monopoly on freedom

2009­10­03

I believe few areas warrants a monopoly and only areas subject to democracy could be candidates.

The military, the police and the court systems are monopolies for good reasons. They are also an agent of democracy.

Monopolies outside of the realm of democracy is bad news. Like in the private sector… or in religion.

I did a 2 year study on the patent system and came to the conclusion that it should be

abolished. Then I did a 2 year stint on copyright and arrived at the same conclusion. I am advocating the abolishment of copyright altogether. Intellectual property is a misnomer and can not be compared to real property. If I take your bicycle then I have it and you don’t. If I make a copy of your book, we both have a copy. Physical objects gets worn by use. Ideas multiply by use. I am an advocate of Trade Marks and of Credit Rights. These concepts limits forgeries and thereby enhances the consumers rights and protection. For a very good dissertation on these subjects, read Against intellectual monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine.

What about a monopoly on freedom? That is as bad as it gets. Presuming that Scientology is the real road to freedom, it borders on the absurd to grant one entity a monopoly on its use. Why? Because the monopoly can be corrupted and then nobody goes free.

Knowledge should be free to use for anyone. This is the way of the ant hill innovation. This is the way science and culture have been since before the stone age. Human progress is marked by incremental innovation where the next innovator builds upon what the previous made possible. Isaac Newton once said “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”.

Prominent modern day examples of ant hill innovation are the free software movement and Wikipedia. The latter may very well be the fastest world­wide revolution in the history of mankind. The biggest reason being the low threshold for contribution. The easier it is to contribute to a popular cause, the more traction it gets.

As Scientology is intended to set people free, the technology itself should be free. I can hear readers object to this with reference to the policy letter Keeping Scientology Working and to the purpose of the Religious Technology Center. But I believe it is the only way to keep it secured. Add a certification body like in most mature industries, and we could have a truly workable system. The shipping industry is very competitive. It has certification bodies giving credibility to the market players. A certification in Scientology shouldn’t be mandatory. Those who would want the credibility would opt for the certification. Customers could freely choose where to get services.

This may be seen as radical, especially if you have been subjected to grooming & conditioning by the church, because in most other areas, this is the natural way.

In my blog post LRH4ALLI proposed that L. Ron Hubbard's public works should be freely distributed on the Internet. This would be automatic if copyrights were abandoned. Authenticity would be assured with Credit Rights. LRH’s works should be published in its original form, unaltered. Any changes or additions would have to be branded with a different Trade Mark. Anyone would be free to expand upon the technology and use it freely. This could expand its use into many new areas.

The ultimate purpose should be to help others achieve more integrity and personal freedom. This can be better achieved than in the current Church of Scientology. Give the control back to the individual. Freedom includes the power of choice.

to the individual. Freedom includes the power of choice. Note (from answering comments to this post):

Note (from answering comments to this post): I do not think it is a viable endeavor to try to change copyright laws directly. I believe technology will render the laws ineffective and that the laws will need to change in order to reflect reality.

The Church of Scientology is kept a whole through the use of extensive force. Scientology in the open is fragmented and marked by rifts:

The next challenge: Tolerance

2009­10­04

The Church of Scientology commands allegiance through enforced agreement. It is often quite subtle with implied hardship to those contemplating stepping out of line. The church does not foster tolerance. In many ways, it fosters intolerance – like the many us/them concepts: Staff/Public, Higher Sea Org Staff/Lower Sea Org Staff, Scientology/The media, Scientologists/Wogs etc. All to many Scientologists I have met are less tolerant than the average person.

Many have left the church due to its counter­intention to free will. In leaving the church they may find a resurgence in free will and in personal integrity. They can finally disagree without the implied or openly enforced consequences. They can object, care less or care more for what they hold close to their heart.

Then they meet others who have left. An idea may form to do something about the current scene with the Church wielding monopolistic power over the freedom to practice one’s religion and hence perhaps a monopoly on freedom itself. With newfound integrity, they dare to voice their opinions, they dare to challenge. But without a resurgence of tolerance, trouble ensues. With the attitude of “It’s my way or the highway” so prevalent in the Church, there is little hope for a combined effort to handle much of anything.

I see this as the next big challenge: To help create a resurgence of tolerance in the

independent field so as to make it possible to form real communities that can help others by delivering Scientology.

There is bickering and nagging out here. There is name calling and in­fights. There is all kinds wasted energy in endless needs to “be right”.

I am not advocating that we all pull together by agreeing to some leader or group. I am

advocating a resurgence in tolerance. Large and successful communities like Wikipedia or the Linux communities have peoples of all colors and creeds. They still manage to get some

really good products out the door. Not because they agree on everything, but because they have learned to deal with differences in productive ways.

Publishing the the next post was sure to get some attention in the church:

An interesting meeting

2009­10­05

One of the most interesting meetings I have had. This may get OSA busy…

interesting meetings I have had. This may get OSA busy… Steve Hall, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder,

Steve Hall, Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Dan Koon and me.

This was a really fun get­together. And the amount of knowledge of Scientology between these guys ware just phenomenal.

A couple of quick surveys made for some very interesting answers, answers you may want to read on my blog. I leave the link to the posts beneath each survey:

Poll: Why leave?

2009­10­06

Let’s do a quick poll. The rules are simple:

Answer by leaving a comment to this blog post.

Only Scientologists having left the church or considering leaving may answer.

One answer per person.

Answer the first question only with “yes” or “no”.

Answer the second question with just one sentence:

1. Have you left the Church of Scientology?

2. Why did you leave or why are you considering leaving the CoS?

The comments to this blog post give an interesting overview showing why some people left the church or why they are considering leaving.

Poll: Three wishes

2009­10­08

Poll: If you could change three things about the Church of Scientology (not the philosophy itself), what would that be? Indicate whether you consider yourself a Scientologist or not.

Rules: Anyone can answer. Only one comment per person. Only three suggested changes per comment. Keep it short. Be respectful and polite.

I then went into more direct communication with my readers and asked them what they wanted to read about on my blog. This way I got a more targeted inspiration in my blogging.

It was inevitable. It just had to come. I have been an advocate for Open Source Software, or as I prefer Free Software (conveys more the freedom and is less of a technical term). I had been a board member of the EFN for more than 4 years. EFN is the Norwegian counterpart to the EFF – the Electronic Frontier Foundation – an organization fighting for user's rights and civil liberties on the Internet. They have been crossing swords with the Church of Scientology on a few occasions.

At one time I actually held a one day seminar at OSA Int to prepare them for a meeting with the EFF. That meeting apparently resulted in the two adversaries burying the hatchet. The Commanding Officer for Office of Special Affairs International, Kurt Weiland said that wouldn't have happened without my help. OSA Int have used me as a consultant (unpaid that is) on several occasions.

Being a Free and Open Source Software evangelist, I could envision Scientology within that highly successful model. I earlier coined the term “Ant Hill Innovation” and took a look at Scientology and the Ant Hill:

Open Sourcing Scientology

2009­10­11

With my full time professional and ideologically involvement in Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) during the last decade, this blog post was inevitable.

In case you haven’t, read LRH4ALLand Monopoly on freedomfirst. This blog post is an expansion on these previous posts.

My position on Free Scientology is currently:

All the public works of L. Ron Hubbard freely available on the Internet

This material should be published in its original, unaltered form

Given the current copyright law, the works should be released under a free license (like the GPL)

The owner of the Scientology trademark should ensure the works are published in unaltered form

The trademark owner should ensure free and easy access of the material

The materials should be fully indexed and easily searchable

Anyone should be free to use any part of the material for whatever they want within the limit of the license and the laws of the land

Anyone should be able to freely deliver paid services based the materials

The trademark owner should act as a certification body for those delivering such services

Certification should be optional but would give credibility to those delivering standard service

Anyone should be free to expand upon or alter any of the material as long as they are specific as to what parts are their creations

Altered or expanded material would have to be branded with a new name

Only the unaltered materials would be called Scientology

Only standard delivery with a certification could use the trademark

There should be no other restrictions to the materials or its usage

This would approximate many areas of business and organization in the world today. Area such as constructing, shipping, information technology, engineering all have certification bodies similar to the one outlined above.

The parallel to FOSS is obvious. I believe that if Scientology is to be available to all those who wants it, ensuring its free access is a must. Also, lowering the threshold for contributions increases its viability. When people can freely expand upon the works of others, the ant hill innovation occurs.

I mentioned the GPL license. It is a software license ensuring four freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this

This we could translate to the materials of Scientology:

The freedom to use the materials, for any purpose

The freedom to study the materials and apply it to situations as you see fit

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

The freedom to improve the material and release your improvements to the public so that the whole community can benefit

Keeping with the GPL license, all further developments would have to retain those four freedoms.

With the provision of the trademarks and certification, authenticity of Scientology will be preserved. In fact Hubbard’s policy letter “Keeping Scientology Working” (KSW #1) will be preserved within the domain of Scientology, original, unaltered and trademarked.

An Open Source religion is not a new concept. Open Sourcing Scientology is however a drastic proposal – one that would forever free the materials of freedom. I am not a lawyer (IANAL), and the exact terms and conditions for such a release needs much work. The GPL may not be the right license – a Creative Commons license may be better. The use of trademarks and the role of the certification body needs to be specified and clearly defined.

This is a thought experiment. Your views are welcome.

defined. This is a thought experiment. Your views are welcome. Six months in the open –

The views kept coming in as comments to my blog posts – both pro and con and my blog became a place for interesting discussion. I made sure not to censor any comments unless they were totally haywire. Less than 0.3% of the posts didn't go through. Still the discussions were very civilized and fruitful.

By mid October, we had passed 1500 comments and it was still increasing every week.

Time became a squeeze.

Between the blogging and reading and approving comments on a daily basis, I kept getting e­mails and kept in communication with lots of people. One good friend since I came out was Mary Jo. We had talked on the phone many times and I met with her while in LA.

On October 12 th it was official, Mary Jo Leavitt resigned from the Church of Scientology:

Mary Jo has left the building

2009­10­12

She was the OT Ambassador in charge of the whole of Latin America. Together with her daughter she boomed the OT Committees. As an OT VIII and friend of so many Scientologists across LATAM, the exit of Mary Jo Leavitt will have strong repercussions across the boards. She has written extensive reports and sent them to Church of Scientology International and to RTC. Her keen eye and meticulous referencing to policy has shaken some stable data internally – but with no answers from the very top. It’s understandable as her reports are hard to answer with slick PR.

Her final report is a bombshell of a document that details some major systemic outpoints within the Church of Scientology. It’s easily the most detailed and thorough report I’ve ever seen.

It is my honor to release this report here.

Her reporting had been extensive. She was a model in applying the policies on reporting the outpoints in the church and trying to get those handled. As with most scientologists who have tried to set things straight within the church, she could see no results. For the sake of her own integrity she had to leave. Another OT VIII in the open.

Another survey asking for the reader's gains and wins in Scientology (check it out at:

http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/your­gains­from­scientology/), and another OT VII followed on the tailwind of Mary Jo:

Another OT VIII votes with her feet

2009­10­13

Couldn’t we just handle the problems internally? Shouldn’t we use the ethics and justice systems in the church to sort out the troubles we see? Writing KRs is the answer.

Really?

There are no shortage of KRs and attempts to handle the abuses in the Church of Scientology. After having tried to handle it from the inside several times too many, it dawns on most Scientologists that the problems go all the way to the top. All the way.

Sherry Katz is the latest OT VIII to go public with her views on the church management. She has a great production and training record – her walking out the door leaves a clear message to other OTs: It’s time to wake up and get moving.

Read more on Marty’s blog.

With reports of these OT VIIIs leaving, the traffic on my blog went into overdrive.

For an outsider it may be hard to grasp the significance of an OT VIII leaving the church.

OTs leaving – what’s the value?

2009­10­14

Why is it important that OT VIIs and VIIIs leave the Church of Scientology? How can this helps stop the abuses in the and around the organization?

Quick explanation: OT = Operating Thetan; Used here as “those who have reached the highest spiritual levels in Scientology”. OT VIII being the highest OT level released.

Realize that OT VIIs and VIIIs are David Miscavige’s (DM’s) power base. They are the biggest donors and contributors in so many ways across the boards. They lead the OT Committees. They rally the public to action. They inspire others to donate for no value in return. And they carry a lot of weight with the other public scientologists. They are “opinion leaders” of so many. Scientologists know all this. Other readers of this blog may not be so cognizant of the inner workings of the church.

When the OT VIIs and VIIIs leave, this is effectively corroding DM's power. Sure, he has a lot of money. He has buildings and he has staff he can commandeer around through authority, force and intimidation. But without the OTs, he has no religion to lead. And I believe he needs to be the leader of a religion to play with the likes of Tom Cruise. There are plenty of billionaires, so that alone is not enough. He needs to be a worshiped leader to play among the “big boys”.

I reckon it will take some 200 top OTs leaving to see the real shift. That would be a turning point for the church. That is when the real desperation would kick in. It’s a guesstimate and we’ll see. There are many more in the pipeline leading out the front door. But for many OTs, the consequences of leaving are big, both with their families and their professional lives.

It’s a tough decision. However, the top OTs may have one advantage when considering voting with their feet: The may not be so scared of “loosing their Bridge”. They are pretty much up there as high as they can get for the next decade or so. While anyone can get the full Bridge from plenty of very advanced, professional and standard units and individuals, most scientologists don’t know there are alternatives. Many are scared to exercise their integrity even though they know there is something very wrong and they witness abuses. The OTs can more easily make the jump – and from my experience, they have gained much personal integrity and observational powers, so they are more apt to take action inside the church and when that leads nowhere, decide to leave.

The OTs are big on action, as demonstrated from what they do as Scientology public. When they leave, they can be real assets in exposing the human rights violations of the church and ensure the people responsible are made responsible. OTs are big on helping others. Help is welcome.

And from this I asked the readers what is keeping them from leaving. See the answers here:

Since more and more public and staff were reported leaving, many still in were wondering about the consequences of themselves following their own integrity.

Would they still be able to do Scientology?

Alternatives, SPs and the current scene

2009­10­18

Quite a few OTs are leaving the church. Ex Int­base staff are going public with human rights violations at the very top. There is more light on the mismanagement of the church than ever before.

Many Scientologists are hesitating to take responsible steps to handle the current scene and stop the abuses in the church. Some are scared they will be declared SPs and “loose their eternity”.

First of all; You cannot loose your eternity. Eternity is within you. Besides that, you will not even loose immediate spiritual progress. You see, there are plenty of alternatives for getting training and auditing outside the Church of Scientology. The more the church is using force, the more people will walk out and find theta and standard delivery groups and individuals. You can get the standard Bridge more places than you can shake a stick at.

As for being declared an SP by a suppressive group… well, I don’t know how stressed one should be about that. Very few SP declares are being written these days – I have seen none on myself, Jason Beghe, Dan Koon or even Marty Rathbun. As one reader here notes; If SP declares were issued on all the OTs leaving the ship, the notice board in the MAA office at Flag would be crowded. People would ask unpleasant questions and start doing their own research. After all, if the top OTs are SPs, then the system must be broken.

Did you ever wonder what the definition of an SP really is? You have the twelve characteristics of an SP. Then you have people being declared SPs. The two are not the same. One is a definition of an anti­social person, the other is an administrative procedure to remove people the church don’t like. But with the same term used, declaring a person suppressive is tantamount to giving that person a wrong item – something that any auditor knows may have dire consequences. Maybe that is the whole point? Giving a person a wrong item will bring the person down the tone scale. It parallels what is called “reverse processing”.

Pierre Ethier recently released a video showing how reverse processing is used to get the individual into trouble.

Punishment is most effective as a “motivational tool” if the individual is below 2.0 on the tone scale. Reason is most effective when the person is above 2.0. As the current Church of Scientology has given up on reason as a means to help people, the urge to punish through heavy ethics kicks in. Bringing people down below 2.0, will make them more susceptible to force, duress and punishment: Making them fear “the SPs”, inducing a belief of “the dangerous environment”, telling how bad the media is, making the public afraid of loosing their spiritual progress and threatening to pull the check mate card “we’ll declare you SP”. All these bring people down to more subservient levels. The message is clear: Do not look, do not confront, do not thing freely and do not act outside of the “supposed to’s” invented by the church management.

It may be worth remembering these words from Mahatma Ghandi: “The moment the slave

resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. Freedom and slavery are mental

states

his fetters fall. Freedom and slavery are mental states “ And with some whining going on

And with some whining going on here and there, I picked up a quote from a colleague and very good friend, Brendan Martin:

Us & Them

2009­10­19

A friend of mine has a really good quote on one of his slides presentations.

I thought it relevant for sharing here:

Cut the “Us & Them”­crap! It’s never them, it’s always YOU.

And back to the handling of the scene from the inside:

On handling it from the inside (again)

2009­10­19

In The Way to Happiness (TWTH), LRH writes:

Unscrupulous and evil men and groups can usurp the power of government and use it to their own ends. […] Opposition to such governments usually just brings on more violence. But one can raise his voice in caution when such abuses are abroad. And one need not actively support such a government; doing nothing illegal, it is yet possible, by simply withdrawing one’s cooperation, to bring about an eventual reform.

I may be more of a revolutionary than that, but Ron may have a point when it comes to handling the issues from the inside.

Talk about possible SP declares and how the church views critics of itself as suppressive persons, I took to a lecture given by LRH himself:

Hubbard’s view on the chances of meeting an SP in Scientology

2009­10­19

On July 18, 1966, L. Ron Hubbard gave a lecture called “About Rhodesia”. He had just come back from his trip to the country now called Zimbabwe and discovered that there had been a bunch of SP (Suppressive Person) declares back in the Scientology headquarters at Saint Hill Manor in England. He gave the audience a wholesale correction on this point:

But you don’t have somebody that’s been around three years and [ an SP.

And then:

In all the time we’ve been around here we’ve only had one SP that I know of…. Now whether he was an SP or PTS I’ve not made up my mind to this date because I haven’t investigated the case enough.

So, in 16 years of operation, Hubbard had only found one SP candidate.

In contrast, one may wonder how many David Miscavige thinks he sees in one year.

]

turn up suddenly to be

The church is acting paranoid and desperate as they declare people suppressives in numbers far exceeding what Hubbard describes as real. And with the next post on the subject, the discussions became particularly interesting with more than 330 comments.

More on SPs and declares

2009­10­21

(Updated 2009­10­25. Update at the end of this blog post)

The discussions have been plenty on my recent posts regarding SPs.

I have come to the conclusion that LRH must have had two different definitions of “an SP”:

1. The SP case – the real suppressive person with continual intentions to do others harm

2. The person administratively declared as an SP by the church

The first is covered mainly in Scientology philosophical technology (bulletins, books, lectures, etc.). The other is covered mainly in Scientology administrative technology (policy, executive directives, etc.).

The first is handled by Power Processing if not Clear or by NOTS if above Clear (as far as I have been able to deduct having talked to one of the most senior tech people on the planet). The second is covered by a set of administrative steps (the A­E steps) to get the person back into the good graces.

A person declared an SP is not necessarily a Suppressive Person case. If he is indeed a

suppressive case, then the needed case handlings (Power or NOTS) would have to be done as part of step A where he would have to show case gain.

It is important to differentiate between the two definitions of “SP”, as a person declared a

Suppressive Person could take the declare to mean that he is an SP case and thereby take on a wrong item (a technical term used in auditing [Scientology counseling]). Obviously Hubbard should have used two different terms.

I think it’s any organizations right to throw out and shut the door on anyone breaking basic

organizational rules. If someone was acting destructive inside a shop, I think it’s perfectly

alright for the shopkeeper to keep the door shut for that person. But to label him suppressive is another matter…

As only Power Processing or NOTS would really handle an SP case, it seems technically

impossible for anyone being Clear and having completed OT VII to be an SP – as by then he

is way passed Power and the NOTS case is gone. If it is indeed possible to be a real

suppressive having completed OT VII, there seems no remedy in sight for that person, and that would violate the notion that the Bridge is complete for all.

If the church comes out saying that just one OT VII or VIII is a real suppressive, they would

have to admit that either the tech is wrong or the tech is misapplied in the church. With the thorough Security Checks all through OT VII, the extremely detailed OT VII EP check and the mother of all Security Checks before OT VIII, it is quite an admission to say they got all that wrong when they let a real SP through OT VIII.

Even if they would say that an OT VII or VIII was only administratively declared suppressive, they would have to answer a few pesky questions of how come they could let such a person through with all the filters in place.

The church is liberally declaring people they don’t like as SPs. These days they need external enemies much as the former Soviet Union needed to invade Afghanistan to forge a unifying purpose for its population. The church is cracking and external enemies are serving nicely as glue.

There is talk about an SP declare coming down the lines on me. Although I haven’t seen one, I would welcome a declare and would post it here if or when it comes.

2009­10­25: Conclusion so far

After much debate about this blog post, I have reformed my viewpoints. I hereby present my conclusions thus far.

Given that policy allows a person to be declared an SP without verifying the person to be a real SP case, I cannot see other possibilities than these three:

1. LRH used two definitions of SP: A) The SP case and B) The administratively labeled SP

2. LRH used two different concepts: A) An SP and B) A declared SP. And a different definition of “declare” was used than what is found at Merriam Webster’s

3. LRH allowed people to be declared SPs without ensuring they ware actual SP cases and letting justice policies handle the mis­declares afterwards. This is a violation of Presumption of innocence and thus parallels Napoleonic law

In any case, the system makes it very likely that a person in need of help is given the most serious wrong item imaginable, the worst of all possible mis­justices.

My current viewpoints:

1. None should be declared an SP who is not a factual real and raving SP by a thorough investigation before the declare

2. An organization has the full right of kicking rule­breakers out. This is called expulsion in Scientology and should be used on those who are not factually an SP but is non the less unwanted in the organization. There is no need for excessive name calling or giving people wrong items

In any case; there should be no forced disconnections. A person should be free to associate with whomever they want. A declared SP (a real one) serves as a warning to others and not an order that people disconnects from him/her.

See the discussion here:

A couple of days after my 43 rd birthday (and lots of congratulations), I finally posted the story about the OSA ambush meeting:

The OSA ambush meeting

2009­10­25

I have previously alluded to a meeting I had with OSA (Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs). Since OSA has not come back to me for over a month now, I choose to divulge the content and form of this meeting. Here’s how it went:

I had a meeting with a Swedish OT VIII friend of mine about two months ago where I gave

him my viewpoints of the current scene in the Church of Scientology. His comment was along the lines of “If this is true, then we’re all neck­deep in shit”. A couple of weeks later, he wanted another meeting with me to talk about several points that came up in the first meeting. He wanted very much to see me again and was noticeably stressed about having the new meeting that week, and on Friday, and at a specific time. I know this guy to never be stressed. He is the most easy going an relaxed guy. I have known him for 20 years, he used to be my boss for 10 years – and a very good friend.

I came late to the second meeting. Rushing into the restaurant in downtown Oslo, seeing

my friend, shaking his hand and noticing a lady sitting at the same table. I asked “Who are you?” She replied “My name is Kirsten. I’m from OSA”. She also said she was from the

international office in LA. I wonder what she was doing in Oslo… if she came all the way from LA to see me. She said “I just happened to be in the neighborhood.”

I asked what her purpose was for including herself unannounced in the meeting. She said she wanted to give me OSA's answers to my positions.

I thought this was interesting and decided to get all the data I could from OSA; I said “Sure, give it to me”. “I don’t have the data here, it’s at a hotel nearby”. Kirsten and my friend wanted me to come with them to a conference room they had set up for the purpose of giving me some important data that according to my friend would have prevented me from publishing the doubt write­up if I had them earlier.

We walked a few blocks, through the hotel doors up the stairs and into the conference room. Kirsten excused herself to go and get the material and came back with paper, books, and another woman. The ambush just got more interesting. I clarified the names of the two. It was Kirsten Caetano from OSA Int and Anette Refstrup from OSA EU.

They had brought a set of declarations written by current Int base staff – Ray Mithoff, Mark Yager, Mark Ingber, Wendell Raynolds, Russ Bellin, Greg Hughes, Cathy Rinder and more. I read 8 of the affidavits. They were all sanctifying David Miscavige while demonizing Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder. That was the sole purpose of the documents – to show that Miscavige is perfect and that Rathbun and Rinder are the real SPs.

During the 2,5 hour long meeting, I got to ask plenty of questions, many of which prompted some interesting answers. I’ll give you a few interesting ones:

1. There has been no SP Hole/Hall

2. It never happened that declared SPs have been kept on post

3. There are 1000­1200 staff at the Int Base

4. Since 1982 only Guillaume Lesevre has been posted as ED Int

5. The Int base is a posted place

6. The church has never used the content of ethics folders to discredit anyone

7. The declarations I read was first presented to the SP Times in early June

Let’s see if we can counter these. I’ll start: The declarations were all dated August 27th

There are more interesting tidbits from this meeting. I may post more later.

After the meeting I learned that Kirsten Caetano is one of the three main handlers for enemies of the church. The other two are the couple Tommy Davis and Jessica Feshbach. Kirsten was ready to come back for another meeting the following week. Since I went to the US, that couldn’t be done. But no rest for the wicked; Kirsten called me on my cell phone while I was in LA and asked if we could meet there. That way she would spare the time and money for a trip to Norway.

I told her I would bring a friend – I wasn’t about to ambush the meeting like she did. She asked me who the friend was. When I told her it was Jason Beghe, she responded: “I don’t want to have a conversation with that guy”. I countered: “You don’t need to have a conversation. He can just sit there and say nothing”. No, she didn’t even want to be in the same room as Jason. The meeting was off. I told her the ball was now with her. And after this… radio silence from Kirsten.

now with her. And after this… radio silence from Kirsten. I still have the unpublished recordings

I still have the unpublished recordings of that meeting. Who knows, some day I may just decide to share it.

After the film director Paul Haggis left the church with another bomb shell of a letter, I raised the question about the readers views on homosexuality:

Homosexuality

2009­10­26

With reference to Paul Haggis’ resignation letter and one reader of this blog’s request for a new blog post, I hereby bring to the table a discussion on homosexuality.

Let’s discuss Scientology’s stance and practice regarding homosexuality, L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings and opinions on the subject as well as your own views. I will give my own opinions as part of the discussion.

And then an interesting observation in contrast to what came up in the OSA ambush meeting:

The Mike Effect

2009­10­28

During my OSA ambush meeting, Kirsten Caetano was telling me how much better OSA was doing now that the big SP Mike Rinder had left. She told me that they used to be in constant war and that now everything is calm and fun. Is this the “Mike Effect”?

Kirsten went on to tell me that they used to be in constant court battles and that now, after Mike was gone, they had zero court cases – well except for the “no case” that Mark Headley was waging.

Let’s see: After Mike left, we got Jason Beghe’s exit. We saw the rise of Anonymous and the biggest protests against the church ever. We got a series of protest and activism like never before. We got the SP Times article series “The Truth Rundown” changing the whole game. We got ABC Nightline and Paul Haggis leaving the church. And the church is engaged in court cases. In fact, they just lost one in France. Maybe this is the “Mike Effect”?.

Three years prior to Mike Rinder’s exit, there wasn’t anywhere near as much happening as now. If frantic action is fun, then OSA must be having a ball right now. Former Int Execs are speaking out like never before. The statistic “OTs leaving” are in affluence and now with Paul’s resignation letter, the celebrity scene is getting the attention it deserves.

I agree with Kirsten in that I am glad Mike Rinder left.

As if it wasn't enough trouble for the church already, Nancy Many released her book titled “My billion year contract”. I had a look at another contract – a contract I had signed a couple of years earlier:

A never ending contract

2009­10­30

After Nancy Many’s book My Billion Year Contractwas released last week, I came to think about another “contract” that is less visible but nonetheless enforced; The OT Ambassador pledge.

You see, being a public scientologist, when you attest to OT VII you are expected to attend the yearly OT Summit aboard the cruise ship Freewinds. This is the famous Maiden Voyage anniversaries where OTs come and get briefed on the latest expansion news and are given their marching orders for the next year, the OT Ambassador Program (OTA).

It is not a voluntary decision to opt in or out for this program. If you attend the week of events, you find yourself one night in the middle of a swearing­in ceremony where everybody raises their hands and reads the OT Ambassador pledge aloud. At the end of that meeting, each OT is given the OTA and are ordered to comply with it to expand their local orgs. Nothing wrong with expanding local orgs. But the way the supposed­to’s are Aikido’ed into the life of the OTs are interesting. Because even if you don’t raise your hand and don’t agree to the program, you are still expected to do it. When you are sworn in as an OT Ambassador, you are subject to command intention like never before.

And the contract isn’t just for one year. It’s not even a full 5 year standard Class V Org contract. Is it a lifetime’s commitment? Nope. Hell, it’s not even a billion year contract. The OT Ambassador contract has no limit. Or so the ED of Oslo Org and a few missionaries told me. The ED had cleared this well up the lines and he went to town with this newfound data to ensure I did his biddings. He demanded that I put in a Battle Plan every morning – a todo­list of what I would do on the program that day. And every afternoon I was told to report my production statistics. I asked “do I get weekends off?”. At which he answered “I suppose that would be OK.”

Needless to say I laughed hard and much to his dismay. Pushing me around tends to be futile. He wanted me to be his production machine and told me that I had an infinite contract to comply to.

This is the expectation level when one attests to OT VII in the church these days. Scientology is about free will. The Church of Scientology is about command intention.

Another comment regarding the infamous meeting:

Lying with a straight face

2009­10­31

With reference to my earlier post The OSA ambush meeting, I have in my hand hard evidence of another outright lie in that meeting.

I have documents from the ethics files of former Int Base executives that were used by OSA to discredit them. On a direct question of whether the church has ever used such documents to discredit defectors, Kirsten Caetano answered an emphatic “No”.

With the documents in one hand and an mp3 in the other, there is no wiggling out of this one.

I have never met a person who have lied with such a straight face.

Update (2009­11­01): Parts of the recording of the meeting (2h 30mins) may be made public if evidence is needed.

While more media was hitting the church from the St. Petersburg Times, I had my head buried in the computer approving and answering comments on my blog. With around 10000 visitors and 500 comments per week, my family time was getting marginalized.

I simply had to do a change. On November the 1 st I announced the idea of a forum:

A new forum

2009­11­01

Several of you have requested a better discussion forum than what WordPress offers. As this blog is hovering around 500 comments per week, I need to distribute some of the work load. This is eating my social life. The time is ripe for a new forum.

It will be a moderated discussion forum. Moderation done by OTs and posts are pruned for references to upper level confidential material. The aim is to foster courteous discussions about Scientology, the Church of Scientology and related subjects. Everyone should feel safe in participating. The moderators protects participants – both from argumentum ad hominem and by keeping all personal information strictly confidential. Anonymous posting is welcome. In other words, the rules would be pretty much like on this blog.

I am thinking a simple setup with four categories:

An information category covering purpose and rules for the forum.

Two main discussion categories:

1. Scientology philosophy

2. Church of Scientology

A meta category for discussion about the forum itself

The forum is set up and ready for some testing. But first, I wanted to hear any suggestions you may have.

The Associated Press had noted that the Church of Scientology had been going through “a difficult season”. I commented:

AP: The Church of Scientology is going through a difficult season

2009­11­01

The Associated Press has released a well written piece titled Defections, court fights test Scientology.

The AP Religion Writer, Mr. Eric Gorski touches on one of the perpetual lies told by the church – that there are at least 8 million scientologists world­wide:

One major survey of American religion shows Scientology declining in the U.S., however. The estimated number of Americans who identify as Scientologists rose from 45,000 in 1990 to 55,000 in 2001, then plummeted to 25,000 in 2008, according to the American Religion Identification Survey.“.

Either there really are that few scientologists in the US, or there are thousands of scientologists too PTS to say so in an anonymous survey. Either way, it does not bode well for the church. The decline from 2001 to 2008 is significant and is seriously hard to “talk away” or blame the statistics. See sources here and here.

All the scientologists I have talked to know that 8, 10 or 12 million scientologists world­ wide is a lie, unless you count people who would truthfully answer “No” to the question “Are you a scientologist?”.

As noted on this blog before, even the Scientology newspaper Freedom Magazine admits that only 9,523 Scientologists live in the Tampa Bay area – the very Mecca of Scientology. By this number, the church itself defines who they would count as a scientologist. It is however a far cry from the 94000 needed to satisfy the Tampa Bay quota for 8 million scientologists world­wide.

The church is not expanding – and I think the troubles and contraction will last for many a season. I only hope the tech will survive the bad PR generated by Tommy Davis and the church management.

After a few days of feedback on the forum idea, I announced it ready for testing:

scnforum.org

2009­11­04

As announced earlier I have put up a new forum to alleviate some of the burden on my time and to use a better tool than WordPress for discussions.

The Scientology Forum (TFS) is not yet up and running. It will be going live when I have secured two more moderators who are willing to invest some time in keeping the forum according to the rules.

You will find the purpose and the rules of the forum already posted. If you are interested, please review these and give your comments here.

Anyone is now free to register as a user on the forum. Within a week or so, we should have a launch and virtual party.

Oh, and please spread the word. It would be good to have plenty of people contributing on scnforum.org.

And then a comment on how the new forum relates to the landscape with other forums:

TSF and other forums

2009­11­05

After I announced The Scientology Forum, the initiative has raised discussions on other discussion boards.

In the polarized world of Scientology, there are two major camps; The Church of Scientology, admitting nothing wrong, pretending perfection and the rabid critics chanting “it’s all fake, it’s all wrong!”, itching to start the book burning. Both camps are sounding like a broken record.

There have been those saying that the new forum is bad because it will be moderated and especially because I will not allow discussions of upper level confidential material. Some have questioned my belief in free speech.

This should make it clear: TSF needs to be safe for Scientologists to participate in civilized discussions on Scientology. That is part of its purpose. I will in no way limit anyone’s right to go elsewhere and shout and scream whatever they feel like. But not on my forum. I believe in free speech. But free speech has its common sense limits. I would not advocate another’s right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. And I would stop an asshole from saying certain things to my kids. Civilization requires civilized citizens. Critics with a Broken Record syndrome will find more suitable forums to frolic.

There is no need for TSF to end up as a competitor to the other forums and boards out there. Currently there are few places safe for Scientologists to discuss their beliefs, the tech, the church and the future without bumping into confidential material or getting chopped and ridiculed by an ass clown.

As for the main purposes of the new forum; commenters here wants a better solution for discussions than WordPress, and I want more time for my family. A match made in heaven.

The contributors to this blog have behaved amazingly civilized. I would love to have all of you participating on TSF. If the forum gets a life of it’s own, I will start blogging my discussion topics over there and leave my pure information articles here. Or something. We’ll see

my pure information articles here. Or something. We’ll see Six months in the open – by

The world needed some quotes from the Old Man:

Appropriate fair use quotes from LRH

2009­11­05

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 (1955­06­06):

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 (1959­11­08):

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 ‘now­I’m­supposed­tos.”

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

(1957)

And the forum goes live:

scnforum.org :: Live!

2009­11­06

The moderators have been approving more than 100 posts the last few days. With more than 60 registered users and five moderators, The Scientology Forum is hereby launched. Go register yourself on http://www.scnforum.org.

I hope it will prove to be a light and fun place for civilized discussions, for the exploration of free will and Scientology – both the philosophy, the application and the current and future scene. Spread your wings!

and the current and future scene. Spread your wings! Little did I know that on this

Little did I know that on this very day the Church of Scientology had issued a “Suppressive Person declare on me”. How ironic that me launching the first safe discussion space for Scientology on the Internet would earn me a so called “goldenrod” (the issue is printed on golden colored paper). I have not to date received a copy of it.

Time for another wake­up call:

Dear Scientologist

2009­11­07

up, then you are not alone. Most Scientologists I have talked to up through the years have seen this and more. And many harbor some doubt about their own situation with the church. This manifests in for instance not picking up the phone to avoid registrars, not attending IAS events to avoid the pressure and coming up with small white lies about being to too busy to be on course or not affording another set of the Basics.

And then you may wonder what trouble you encounter if you were ever to report all the outpoints you see. Or if you would get expelled or SP declared if you were to stand up, say “No!” and walk out the door.

If you are indeed working on correcting the outpoints you see, I highly commend you and

the rest of this article is not intended for you.

Now, here’s the kicker: You inherit the condition that you do not assign and handle. If you stay silent, you tacitly condone the abuses, tech corruptions and the suppression of

Scientology itself. If you do not help stop the degradation of Scientology, you are at best in

a Treason condition. If you don’t try to handle, in any way, the outpoints you see, you will mount up some serious work on your future Liability condition. Making up the damage for not stopping the suppression of Scientology is no small task.

Maybe it’s time to take a look at what you are, who you really are and to do a real and honest Doubt condition before you amass to much amends work up the line.

At this time I started cross­posting the blog posts to The Scientology Forum to get the discussion going over there so I didn't have to approve all the comments myself. We were now several moderators sharing the work.

It felt great to get more spare time. Time to be creative, time to play with the kids. Time to dig up one of my two favorite's of Hubbard's writings:

How to study Scientology

2009­11­08

The article “How to study Scientology” (Ability Magazine, Feb 1959) may very well be my second favorite piece by L. Ron Hubbard. It forms a basis for the study of the subject, ensuring personal integrity is maintained as one embarks upon the adventure of self. I only wish the article was in the beginning of every course offered. And yes, before even the policy “Keeping Scientology Working”.

Let’s dive into the issue a bit. In the first paragraph, LRH states:

He should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve on the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of Scientology are as stated, and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.

In the article, Ron stresses how important it is for the student of Scientology to really find out for himself what is true for him – and not accept anything because “authority said so”. He goes on:

There are two ways Man ordinarily accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because Authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people.

The stress is on your own personal observations and your own personal integrity; Daring to observe, daring to make up your own mind and draw your own conclusions:

Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it. It is your data by authority or it is your data. If it is your data by authority, somebody has forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration. Of course, if you asked a question of a man whom you thought knew his business and he gave you his answer, that datum was not forced upon you. But if you went away from him believing from then on that such a datum existed without taking the trouble to investigate the answer for yourself—without comparing it to the known universe—you were falling short of completing the cycle of learning.

The first sentence in the paragraph above could be a real wake­up call for some people. If you accept data without personal inspection, you become aberrated. If you accept Scientology without making sure it is true for you, you will become more aberrated. I have done seminars to scientologists on this issue and have gotten a few “Oh, shit!” on this point.

LRH gives several examples in the article of accepting data without personal inspection and how awry that may go. There is no shortage of invitation for personal integrity in this article:

Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve. Is the theory correct, or isn’t it correct? Only you can answer that; it cannot be answered for you.

And Ron continues his challenge of authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism is little more than a form of hypnotism. Learning is forced under threat of some form of punishment.

This sounds like the present Church of Scientology. Quite opposite to what Ron asks of a student of Scientology:

You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis.

Most scientologists I have asked to read the sentence above goes into some kind of confusion right there. No need to be confused as critical thinking is of course needed to uphold your personal integrity.

So then we ask you to look at Scientology, study it, question it, and use it as we present it and you will have discovered something for yourself. And in so doing you might well discover a lot more.

And you should of course be able to reject any part of Scientology you do not find is correct upon thorough examination:

When you have applied it as it should be, and applied as it is taught at the school, and still find it unworkable, it is your privilege to question it and, if you like, reject it.

If you are true to yourself, you cannot help doing good.

The Scientology Forum became an overnight magnet with more than 100 registered members and more than a 1000 posts in the first 7 days after going live. Whether it will stay as an arena for free Scientology speech remains to be seen.

Feeling adventurous:

Adventure vs Total Freedom

2009­11­15

Why does adventure outsell Nirvana?

People flock to the cinemas to experience a sense of adventure. Not only James Bond, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Hollywood caters for a wide audience with adventures of love, tragedy and everyday life. From Casablanca to Finding Nemo and Gandhi, there is the longing for excitement and for something different. Society is rife with antidotes for the dreaded boredom or the lack of game.

Thetans want a real game. Playstation can be a substitute for an exciting life. Live Action Role­Playing is as close as most people get. Some challenge death by throwing themselves out from cliffs. Others goes overboard and becomes mercenaries. Thetans want to create effects in a real game.

Have a look at what you want. What is the ultimate game for you?

Why then does Scientology sell “Total Freedom”? Total freedom is an all out Tone 40 – a “no games” condition.

The optimum level on the Tone Scale is 22 – Games. That’s a tad above action and that is where adventures are experienced for real.

Most people would prefer the adventures of Indiana Jones over continual serenity on cloud 9, watering plants and playing the trumpet all day long.

L. Ron Hubbard says:

There is only one way, really, to get into a state of living, and that’s live! There is no substitute for an all­out, over­the­ramparts, howling charge against life. That’s living. Living does not consist of sitting in a temple in the shadows and getting rheumatism from the cold stones. Living is hot, it’s fast, it’s often brutal! It has a terrific gamut of emotional reactions. If you are really willing to live, you first have to be willing to do anything that consists of living. Weird. But it’s one of those awfully true things that you wonder why one has to say it. And yet it has to be said.

Living is the game at hand. What Scientology can offer is for you to be a better player of the game you want. And that is what Scientology should be selling.

My greatest win on OT VIII was a surge in adventure – being able to fully experience and enjoy the games I play. To play the game for real and not just coping in life. I used to be dreaming about more interesting games. Now there is action and participation everywhere I look. The quote above is the real deal. It is life as I know it. I want adventure more than total freedom. Working toward total freedom is exciting. I just think selling a nirvana of sorts carries with it a lot of unneeded expectations.

I believe people want adventure. Handling the abuses and out tech in the Church of Scientology is an adventure worth engaging.

Feeling philosophical:

If I could be granted one wish…

2009­11­15

…it would not be to understand and avail myself of all of Scientology. It would not be the perfect bliss or the thrill of a lifetime. None of that. And it wouldn’t be to get SuperPower, the L’s and the rest of the Bridge in a split second.

There is something above all of that. Something that would transcend all of Scientology and all of any ­ology. It would transcend religion itself. It could be contained in one book – the mother of all books. And still it would not simply be a book. It would be all over the Internet and any other Net not yet developed. Seriously, there is this one thing that L. Ron Hubbard didn’t give us that I wish he did.

He gave us Scientology. But he didn’t give us the recipe for how to create Scientology. Or any technology to better any condition anywhere. If I could choose to have Scientology or the recipe of how to create Scientology I would choose the latter any day of the week.

To ensure that wish come true could very well be the grandest adventure of all.

Feeling rebellious:

Join the Church of Scientology and learn how to avoid trouble

2009­11­17

At first there is the thrill, the excitement of discovering something that can really help you. You receive some communication training and your first auditing sessions. You experience personal gain, a boost in energy and interest. You overcome some barriers and feel this will help you reach your potential.

As you become dedicated in the Church of Scientology, the demands for your time and money increase steadily:

Registrars demanding donations for books, lectures, Ideal Org building and renovations, IAS, SuperPower, ASI, Library Campaign. Any other Org staff asking for much of the same. Public Scientologists asking you to donate for the Ideal Org or the Library Campaign. Staff and public demanding your time – for the OT Committee, Ideal Org projects, getting others to donate, translation projects. The list goes on. Then there are the mandatory briefings and the local and international events. And not to forget about the recruitment interviews to get you on staff in the local Org or to the Sea Org. Then there is demands for you to disseminate Scientology to others. And if you are a business person, you should be an active WISE member. There are of course numerous other causes demanding your time and money. You may wonder how you would have any time or money left to do any study or spiritual progress.

If you do not meet the demands, you will get in trouble. If you do not toe the party line and behave and act as a real Scientologist, there are plenty of staff, public and friends ready to write a report on you for not acting correctly.

Protesting gets you in trouble. Disregarding the demands get you in trouble. Not showing up at events likewise. Saying “no” is not accepted. Exercising your personal integrity is a pretty sure way of getting you into ethics. And there you will recant or else.

You get to be an expert in being just enough active and “correct” to get by unnoticed. Answering the phone just enough times to not seem defiant. Going to half the events and sneaking out before the regging starts. Avoiding the IAS events. Hiding sufficiently. Buying only some books and lectures. You will find better and better excuses for why you don’t have time and money. Your communication skills get drilled to slippery perfection. You will soon compete with Neo dodging bullets but without the benefit of CGI effects.

Doing this for a while may earn you an Aikido black belt in Trouble­Avoidance. You will also gain negative personal integrity. Because all that talent is wasted by trampling on your own self. Whereas actually doing Scientology will give you personal integrity and freedom, being a Scientologist in the church will award you the ability to avoid trouble.

The next billboard ad should be honest and truthful: “Join the Church of Scientology and learn how to avoid trouble”.

And then to get a closure on my lower conditions as a scientologist, I published my Liability write­up:

Geir Isene’s Liability write-up on the Church of Scientology

2009­11­20 Edit

This write­up is the next step after my earlier published Doubt write­up. This is the closure on the support I have given to an organization that is acting contrary to the basics of Scientology and systematically violating human rights. The outpoints that I have witnessed is outlined in my Doubt write­up.

I became aware of systematic violations of Scientology ethics, technology and policy within the church since the autumn 2003. At that time a mission from the European headquarters in Copenhagen (CLO EU) came to Oslo and assigned the whole Norwegian field of public Scientologists the ethics condition of Treason. I was blasted for no real reason by the D/CO EU in a way that made me aware that something was rotten in Denmark. I was since made increasingly aware of the outpoints through my involvement in the OT Committee and in the OT Ambassador Programs. In the last two years before I left I spend approximately 1000 hours researching and verifying my observations. I then concluded, wrote up my Doubt formula and resigned the church on August 7th 2009.

Although I was never involved in perpetrating or promoting any abuses myself, I did in fact support the organization and feel I didn’t do enough to help stop the outpoints. This liability write­up addresses the period from September 2003 till I left.

This write­up follows the formula for getting through the condition of Liability as laid out by L. Ron Hubbard (LRH). As with the earlier Doubt write­up, this also follows the WOIM format (see the WOIM definition page).

Liability formula (LRH instructions in quotes and as main points in the list)

1. "Decide who are one's friends"

1.1. My friends are people of integrity who are willing to change for

what they consider better and help others to do the same.

Note that this includes a great many people still in the Church of Scientology. 2. "Deliver an effective blow to the enemies of the group one has pretended to be a part of despite personal danger"

2.1. I pretended to be part of a group that worked for the greater

good, for human rights, for free speech and for the liberation of free will. I shut my eyes to abuses in the Church of Scientology to foster the illusion that it aligned with my purpose of freeing the will of man by applying the technology of Scientology. The church is not true to its stated purposes. I have since my departure from the church helped others realize the same. My Doubt write-up was broadly published, resulting in many leaving the church. Several OTs read my write-up and decided to leave, creating a ripple effect that has woken up many. Any exact number is hard to come by - but my write-up has tipped the scale for at least 10 other OTs. The signal effect of the only OT 8 in Norway leaving the church has been significant. After my departure, I have been in communication with thousands of people through meetings, phone calls, e-mail and my Internet activities.

I put up a blog (http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com) that has had about 100000 views since I started blogging three months ago. After the number of comments on my blog reached 500 per week, I decided to set up a forum, The Scientology Forum (http://www.scnforum.org) to promote open discussions of Scientology in a safe environment moderated by OTs. After one week of operation it had more than 100 registered members and more than 1000 posts. Feedback shows that Scientologists do wake up to the "out ethics", "out tech", "out admin" and the abuses in the church through reading my blog and The Scientology Forum and deciding to participate in the open exchange of viewpoints. Through several newspaper articles, one radio show and a TV broadcast on the main Norwegian news show on prime time, my messages have reached more than a million people. I took a firm stand in accordance with my personal integrity despite the consequences I knew would

come; Most of my Scientology friends have disconnected from me and my family, my company lost three offices in Russia and there is an ongoing black PR campaign directed at me in the church. 3. "Make up the damage one has done by personal contribution far beyond the ordinary demands of a group member"

3.1. My blog and The Scientology Forum has served more than the

purpose of delivering a blow to the offending practices by the Church of Scientology. The forum promotes rational exchange of viewpoints and may very well already be the primary venue for courteous and open discussions of Scientology on the Internet. I have as well contributed to hundreds of people that has contacted me for help and support in sorting out their own situation with the church.

4. "Apply for re-entry to the group by asking the permission of each member of it to rejoin and rejoining only by majority permission, and if refused, repeating (2) and (3) and (4) until one is allowed to be a group member again"

4.1. This part becomes tricky as the group I ask to rejoin is the

collective of people who are willing to change for the better and help others to do the same. It is clearly impossible to reach the majority of such people on earth. I have thus decided to publish this Liability formula on The Scientology Forum and let people there decide the fate of my re-entry. To vote for my re-entry, go to The Scientology Forum.

People voted unanimously “Yes”, but the comments they left were thought provoking.

Moving on to discussions of the Scientology philosophy itself (more fun than discussing the church), I came to raise some questions regarding the administrative technology:

Against policy

2009­11­25

Policy creates structure for an organization. Policy limits errors, waste and creativity. Policy makes the irresponsible produce expected results. It can also corrode high responsibility levels.

A creative, high initiative and responsible person can be structured to carefulness, seriousness and inactivity. Excellence demands more than thinking outside the box – it requires acting outside the limits. Quantum leaps means taking risks, not only managing or mitigating them. Emphasis on policy and structure builds an organizational system, a machine producing the expected output. Geniuses, the wildly creative and people of outstanding initiative and responsibility create the unexpected. Sometimes the brilliant. Sometimes havoc. But desperately avoiding the trouble will leave out the excellent. With policy one can regulate and make all the people behave according to the rules.

There is much to recommend toeing a party line. Well organized groups can raise the standard of output. Toyota comes to mind. Henry Ford pioneered it. But it will never foster an Einstein, an Edison or a Da Vinci.

Individuality must be preserved for an organization to excel. And policy must never replace common, uncommon or even rare sense. The essence of good structure is to keep it minimal and really, really simple. The litmus test is if an organizational concept can be conveyed to a ten year old in 15 minutes. If not, it’s too complex, too cumbersome.

Unfortunately some policy is needed. But only because all the people are not brilliant and in constant synchronization. Because an army of telepathic geniuses needs no command.

The Church of Scientology exemplifies a policy heavy organization where rules and structure tend to outshine the very result it aims to produce – individuals of free will, daring and caring well beyond the norm. Reaching one’s own potential and freedom is easily suffocated and swallowed by a structured machine where obeying policy is the admired virtue.

I felt like returning to a subject dear to my heart and well covered in my early blog posts – fixed ideas and fanaticism:

Fanaticism – a parasite on hope and faith

2009­11­26

From my experience, the most fanatic people regarding Scientology are the ones having the least gains from the subject.

The most fanatic staff members are usually the lowest on the Bridge. They nurture the hope and faith in the tech rather than wins and gains from it. In their blind faith and trust in its infallibility, they launch themselves into an all­out charge in saving mankind and you in particular. Regardless of your views or preferences, you are to be saved, exactly the way they interpret the policies and right now.

I was talking to the Senior C/S of a fairly large Org about my seminar earlier that day. In my talk to about 60 WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises) members I hammered on personal integrity and free will. This C/S is low on the Bridge and she replied “right, I’ve had enough of people’s free will. If you had read all the PC folders that I have, you would understand better than promoting free will to people”. She is a fairly typical example of a Scientology fanatic.

There are of course exceptions – many staff members low on the Bridge still have their common sense intact and a few high on the Bridge has lost it. But overall, I find a striking correlation between lack of Scientology gains and fanaticism.

It seems fanaticism feeds on hope and faith rather than experience and personal certainty. Maybe fanaticism is a substitute for real personal certainty. This should however not be interpreted as invalidation of hope and faith.

One may wonder if this is the reason why staff members seldom get the chance to get much auditing. You want a fanatical army forwarding Command Intention? Just keep them low on the Bridge. Higher up, they just might start exercising their personal integrity, stand up and with determination counter the suppressive orders coming from the very top.

As I said, from my experience, the most fanatic people regarding Scientology are the ones having the least gains from the subject. I leave it to you to figure out if this correlation also may describe why some critics advocates the abolishment of the philosophy itself. Fanaticism is a two­edged sword.

Daring to challenge the holy:

Questions about KSW1

2009­12­14

In 1965 L. Ron Hubbard had not yet finished his spiritual research. He had not completed the Bridge to Total Freedom.

In 1965 LRH wrote the Policy Letter “Keeping Scientology Working”. It is the first in a series of policies and is commonly referred to as KSW1. It is the first policy letter of any major course taken in Scientology.

KSW1 forbids anyone to change, improve upon or extrapolate the technology of Scientology.

What if LRH had died in 1966?

The policy was reissued and strictly enforced in 1980. Ron had still not completed the Bridge. What if he had died that year?

What if the Bridge is still not complete? As KSW1 effectively puts a stop to any bridge construction, an unfinished bridge would stay unfinished as long as that policy is enforced.

Having put up an account on Facebook, friends started popping up from all corners. I got in contact with the founder of U­MAN and found that he was ready to publish his Doubt write­ up:

Another Doubt Settled

2009­12­17

I used to run U­MAN Norway, a WISE recruitment company, from 1990 till 2000. I was also the delivery manager (OES) for U­MAN International towards the end of my career there. The founder of U­MAN, Izhar Perlman has been a Scientologist for 30 years. After reading the Friends of LRH website, he now completed his Doubt condition:

I have been 30 years inside the Church of Scientology and resigned it by sending a letter to the Lisbon Org about 3 years ago.

It is only in the last days that I finally realized that I have been in and out of Doubt conditions for many years.

I remember the first time I heard a tape about the new management, and how Scientology is

doing well, and the narrator was supposed to be LRH but I was sure it was not! That was in

1984.

Followed many incidents of strange and off tech Ethics handlings, unwise WISE handlings and arbitrations, and finally out tech on the upper OT levels.

I was declared in 1994 and then did the A to E steps back to good standing.

Three years ago I could not continue anymore to agree with the way things were happening inside the Church.

The last straw for me was The Basics, where DM actually accused LRH of doing a sloppy job of supervising the printing of his books for years.

I wrote my letter of resignation to the DSA Lisbon Org, and that was it.

But it was not!

Per the Doubt formula I got through to step 6 where I announced my decision to the Church but failed to announce it publicly to to the group I decided to remain part of.

This fact hit me a few days ago when I read the data on the site http://www.friendsoflrh.org/ .When I read all the things I observed throughout the years, and the LRH quotes that demonstrate clearly that the actions of DM are suppressive and contrary to LRH intention.

For me this site (http://www.friendsoflrh.org/) clearly give all what is necessary to complete the first 5 steps of the Doubt formula.

I therefore want to announce publicly:

I have never doubted the Scientology tech or the intention of LRH regarding it.

The doubts I had was on the application of the data by the Church management and the staff that works for it.

I am a Scientologist as I follow as much as I can the teachings and processes of Scientology. I am against the Church of Scientology management and especially DM who I know to be suppressive of LRH Tech, staff and public.

By announcing this I finish step 6 of the Doubt formula, and never to get back into that trap.

I will continue to suffer on up through the conditions, and I hope I can help many of my friends to confront the truth and again live a life of integrity and happiness.

A short list of my friends include all the Scientologists I knew in Tel­Aviv, the ones I met in AOSH EU and FLAG, the ones I met when I had U­MAN and the ones I knew when I had the Trimlines network. I hope you read this announcement and if you have a shadow of a doubt check the site I wrote about above and see all the vast data that is available on the Internet.

your friend

Izhar Perlman

Pulling out the old crystal ball, I started peeking into into a possible however unlikely future. Based on my experience with fellow scientologists, I asked what a Scientology world would be like:

If Scientology conquered the world…

2009­12­27

During my last year as a member of the Church of Scientology, I held many seminars on free will and personal integrity. I also conducted an informal mini­survey where I asked Scientologists what the world would be if Scientology really won out.

Several answers were surprising, some unnerving.

As a Scientologist, it’s easy to envision the really nice parts of such a scenario: “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights…“. (L. Ron Hubbard, The aims of Scientology). A clear world could be a rational world where people are free to be themselves.

There are also dark sides to the scenario of a Scientology conquered world. They are illustrated by a sample of the answers I got to my mini­survey:

Everyone would be on a standard course schedule“ “Everything would be run by statistics“ “There would be no political system as we know it“ “There would be no other religions“ “International management would run the show

I leave it to you to imagine how such a world would be.

On New Years Eve, the face of three OT VIIIs was seen on the front page of the St. Petersburg Times – me, Mary Jo and Sherry. I wanted to summarize and clarify my positions for the new readers of my blog:

Media & The Geir FAQ

2009­12­31

And for new readers of this blog, here are some frequent questions I get and my answers:

Q: Why did you leave the church? A: Read my About page.

Q: Are you still a Scientologist? A: Yes indeed.

Q: What are your purposes regarding Scientology? A: 1) To stop the abuses in the church, 2) To help the general public differentiate between Scientology and the church and 3) To help make the Scientology philosophy free for everyone.

Q: What do you mean with “To help make the Scientology philosophy free for everyone”? A: Read LRH4ALL, Monopoly on freedomand Open Sourcing Scientology

Q: What are your views on the Scientology and on the church now? A: Read My positions

Q: What will it take for you to go back to the church? A: A reform handling every reason why I left (see my About page). Also read The ideal scene

Q: What are you doing now? A: Lots. Living life to the fullest also my homepage.

Q: How can I contact you? A: By e­mail: g@isene.com

. Q: How can I contact you? A: By e­mail: g@isene.com I am running The Scientology

I am running The Scientology Forum (scnforum.org. See

An idea got born: To garner facts about Scientology using the Ant Hill model of Wikipedia:

The InterNatter – strike two. In come Scientology Facts!

2010­01­05

I highly commend all the great people on The Scientology Forum for their contributions. I feel it has provided a higher density of facts and sound debates that most comparable places on the net.

It would be great if we could capture the facts in the various discussions of the forum and build a wiki of facts. Not opinions, but facts. Verifiable facts. A Scientology Wikipedia in the spirit of scnforum.org (same rules but without any opinions).

I could see compilations of useful references (links as not to poke the CoS Copyright tiger too much), facts about membership counts, facts about org stats (one page per org), facts about Ideal Orgs, pages for notable people (one page per person like Mary Sue, Ken Urqhart, Dan Koon…), historical facts etc.

What about scnfacts.org?

It would take another month before this idea saw the light of day.

One may wonder why Scientology remains such a charged subject for so many

The ultimate betrayal

2010­01­11

What would be the ultimate betrayal?

It would be asking a person for his most wanted improvement, promising you will help him

and then break your promise. It would be asking for a person’s “ruin” (that which is the most detrimental to his life), give him utter certainty that you can fix it and then not deliver.

As you ask for the person’s greatest wish for improvement, you run the risk of the greatest upset if you do not follow through. It’s not like promising to fix his car and then walk away or telling him you will help him understand Norwegian and then ditching him. It’s taking what he really, really wants fixed and then fail him. This would be the ultimate betrayal.

I believe this is what causes the intense emotions we so often see in ex­scientologists. It touches, or rips apart, the thread of dreams, of hope and of trust. Because the Church of Scientology so often does not deliver.

It boils down to over selling and bad expectation management.

The problem may stem from the Policy Letter entitled “Dissemination Drill” where L. Ron Hubbard states: “Once a person is aware of the ruin, you bring to understanding that

Scientology can handle the condition found [

can, or by using data to show how it can“. The key to any successful expectation management is the second part of that last sentence. One would expect a person that wants his worst ruin handled that he would like to have plenty of data on how it will be handled. One would expect him to want details on how it will be fixed and how long it will take. Lots of details and less glossy PR. And it is really dangerous to promise any cure in the first place as that can easily institute what Hubbard calls a “hidden standard”. Def.: “A hidden standard is a problem a person thinks must be solved before auditing can be seen to work” (Auditing is Scientology therapy).

This is done by simply stating that Scientology

]

The usual scene is that a person is indeed given a hidden standard by a promise that Scientology will cure his ruin. And if auditing or training does not work as fast as the person expects it to, he will feel betrayed, often massively so.

It is not that Scientology will not make a person more able. It is that a blanket promise of

improvements will set the person up for a loss. Maybe the worst of all losses.

My own ruin was fairly easy to handle with Scientology communications training and

auditing. I was a shy nerd, unable to pick up any girls. Scientology effectively fixed that. After that initial big improvement, I tended to not have any expectations of superpower gains or that my life would be a cloud 9 experience. I was in it for the adventure and I had

a “wait and see what is next”­attitude. And I had plenty of much bigger gains than getting

rid of my shyness as I progressed up the Scientology levels. I had few hidden standards or

unhandled expectations (I had one that was given to me early on).

Since I could experience my gains without having to measure them up against a problem that was a “yard stick” comparison for auditing workability, I did very well as a Scientologist. I consider myself lucky given the “out tech” practiced by the church. I highly recommend the Scientology technology – and for those new to Scientology, a service called “Life Repair” really does wonders. However, I do not recommend getting the service in the church.

But if your ruin is more elusive or the church puts you on some auditing or training not tailored for your issue, you may be heading for a major disappointment. And there are so many out there who are bitterly disappointed by their Scientology experience. And the numbers are growing coinciding with the increased focus on glossy PR and squeezing more money and more contribution time to “off­policy” projects. More demands from you and less delivering to you.

Over selling and bad expectation management is a screaming outpoint with the Church of Scientology leading to the ultimate betrayal of way too many people.

One of the hot topics on The Scientology Forum was born on my blog in mid January 2010:

L. Ron Hubbard on disconnection

2010­01­12

As the Church of Scientology has just released the Advanced Clinical Course lectures on CDs, we find some very interesting data on disconnection. I bring you these fair use quotes from a lecture called “Attitude and Conduct of Scientology” (4th London ACC, 3rd November 1955) straight from LRH:

“…the arduous lesson along this line is that no­communication 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. That might work in Gestetner Limited or Westinghouse, but it does not work in Scientology. Got that?”

“It’s because they are people of good intention. And by saying that these people are not fit to associate with us anymore, we have told a lie of magnitude. This is not true. It’s never true. You got it?”

“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 situation is 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.”

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

“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 solve. “And it never solves by being tough.”

“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.”

“And there’s only one more thing that we could know that would make us all feel very, very relaxed about the whole thing. There isn’t a person anywhere in Scientology who has bad intentions for Scientologists or their fellow man. And that point all by itself is very well worth thinking about the next time some trouble arises in your vicinity, because that is the truth. And if you handle a situation with that in mind, you will solve the situation.”

The ensuing discussion on the forum became heated but quite interesting, culminating in Jim Logan doing a full scale research into the subject and publishing a complete summary of his studies.

The forum has produced some remarkable contributions leaving the participants and readers with new views and food for thought. One of the contributors, Vinaire habitually covers new ground with his thought provoking insights. I pulled one of his posts on the forum and presented it on my blog:

LRH and the tech (from scnforum.org)

2010­01­16

After a long discussion on L. Ron Hubbard, one of the main contributors on The Scientology Forum, Vinaire sums it up quite intelligently:

How does it matter what LRH is or was?

Does the Law of Gravity depend on Newton’s character?

Does the Theory of Relativity would change depending on how Einstein is perceived?

The truth is that knowledge stands by itself. Knowledge is not belief that it is affected by a belief in the person who announced it. Most of us were attracted toward Scientology by its promise of clearing up our confusions, and NOT by the personality of Hubbard.

Attempts to tie the knowledge in Scientology to the identity of Hubbard, tells me the following:

(1) That person is trying to put a value to the knowledge in Scientology by evaluating the identity of Hubbard.

(2) That person lacks a datum of comparable magnitude to directly evaluate the knowledge in Scientology.

(3) That person got hurt, or did not get what he wanted from Scientology, and is looking for somebody to blame.

(4) That person is still confused, even after all that “Scientology” and feels betrayed.

(5) That person is still trying to handle what he thought Scientology would handle for him.

(6) Underlying this brilliant display of “critical thinking” lies a confusion, which, this “critical thinking” is unable to handle.

(7) THINKING, by itself, resolves nothing. Brilliant thinking only tells you where to look. It is LOOKING that ultimately resolves the confusion.

(8 ) “Failure” in THINKING comes from unwillingness to LOOK.

(9) People who are engaging in counter­arguments here are also failing to LOOK.

(10) LOOKING is senior to “critical thinking” any day of the year.

After the St Petersburg Times' story on three OT VIIIs leaving the church, even more were leaving. Weekly I would get reports of OTs walking out the door. Snowflakes formed a snowball and the snowball was slowly moving down the mountain side.

Swedish OT VII leaves the church

2010­01­20

I just received the following message from two friends in Sweden:

We’re happy to say that we are independent. We like your website and doubt announcement very much and it has helped us in our decision.

Love Stefan and Katarina Tunedal Sweden

They sent me a link to their declaration of independence:

We are leaving the Church of Scientology

Living in Skogas, Sweden and married since 1995, Katarina is a photographer and Stefan is a painter.

We both studied Scientology for a long time and this has given us much joy and success in many areas of our lives.

Katarina is a TR:s and objectives completion and Stefan completed New OT VII. We will always be scientologists. But we can not approve of the latest development in the Church of Scientology. Our membership has been an approval of how this church has been acting, an approval we’re not willing to give. This is why we leave today. More information about us is available on our website www.kswsweden.org

Read Stefan’s detailed reasons for leaving in his Declaration of independence from the Church of Scientology (PDF).

of independence from the Church of Scientology (PDF). Six months in the open – by Geir

And I thought the critics needed some food for thought:

Elevating oneself to authority through criticism

2010­01­24

It’s all too common to assign authority to someone simply because they are pointing out fault’s in others. A critic’s rise to authority by invalidation and introverting others may be a path to the limelight by stepping on those who really try to make a positive difference.

And it is so much easier to criticize than to get one’s but off the sofa and make an honest effort in helping an other person, an animal, the society or nature. But even so, we often look at the critic as someone in the know – someone who knows what he is talking about.

Is an art critic more of an authority than the artist? Would you ask the film critic how to make a movie – or would you ask Quintin Tarantino or Ridley Scott?

So where am I heading here?

David Miscavige. The leader of Scientology has never done the OEC or the FEBC admin courses. He is a pre­GAT class IV auditor without a valid certificate. Yet he is seen as a tech and admin authority within the church. Even by FEBC graduates and the Class XII auditors. By criticizing left, right and center he has introverted enough people in pointing out their faults. Even the Senior C/S Int is intimidated by this critic. He is effectively dismantling working structures and nullifying positive efforts of people who honestly want to help their fellow beings. He commands authority by being Scientology’s most outstanding critic.

Tommy Davis must be exhausted. Not even a month into the new year and the Scientology­ famous Larry Anderson decided to go public with his reasons for leaving. In doing so he released the recordings from the meeting he had with Tommy Davis and Jessica Feshbach.

Identification and taking it personal

2010­01­26

As you may already know, Mr. Orientation, Larry Anderson resigned from the church. The news was brought by the St. Petersburg Times along with Larry’s own recordings of a meeting between him and Tommy Davis and Jessica Feshbach.

You should really listen to the recordings. What struck me as odd was in the recording part #14, Tommy and Jessica was obviously offended by criticism of the leader of the church, David Miscavige. They weren’t offended by anything else, but when Larry Anderson indicated something negative about DM, they took it personally.

Why?

When a person identifies with something or someone, he is immediately vulnerable on that point. If you identify yourself with your car, you can then be offended by someone criticizing your car. If you identify with your body, you most probably will be offended when another calls you fat.

It seems Tommy and Jessica identifies themselves with David Miscavige. And this may be considered only natural, like the abused child identifies with his father. The suppressed goes into the valence of the suppressor. At that point, any criticism of the suppressor is easily taken personally by the suppressed. This may be completely unconscious by the suppressed.

I think Tommy and Jessica should do more TR 0 Bullbait.

After discussing my views on freeing the Scientology philosophy and technology with so many, it dawned on me that this is the very key to stopping the human rights abuses in the church:

The abuses would go if

2010­01­29

…the church didn’t have monopoly on delivering Scientology.

If everyone was free to use, apply and make a living out of delivering training and auditing, then you would have a choice. If you then experienced heavy handed tactics, were pressured for time or money or threatened with loosing your spiritual eternity, you could simply walk away. And you could continue your spiritual journey elsewhere. If you found you were given consistent out tech and sub standard service, like in the church today, you could find friendlier and more standard delivery with someone else. And there is always the possibility of setting up a certification body to qualify and ensure standard delivery similar to most mature industries.

Ridding the church of its monopoly would solve forced disconnections, forced abortions, threats, duress and human rights violations. The prices would go down, staff pay up and service would be increasingly more friendly. Like in most private sectors of society.

To stop the abuses, we should work on breaking the monopoly.

And finally, after all this blogging for half a year, I wrote a summary report:

Six months and learning

2010­02­09

It’s been 6 months since I left the Church of Scientology and published my Doubt write­up. For six months I have been blogging and engaging in discussions and exchange of viewpoints on the Net. First there were lots of discussions on this blog with participants from all over the world. Then I erected The Scientology Forum (www.scnforum.org) and moved the discussions over there.

There has been media – all major Norwegian newspapers, Norwegian national TV, the St Petersburg Times and coverage on the net. I have been in communication with hundreds of people – many still in the church looking for a smooth exit, others recently out or out since the 80’s and various critics and people anonymous. Many have left as they have read my bloggings. And there is more media to come. In this update, I would like to focus on my experience on the Net.

The Scientology Forum may very well be the only loosely moderated area for discussion on the net where scientologists can feel safe from exposure to upper level confidential material and where free speech is still the high goal. It is one of the few places where scientologists meet critics and exchange viewpoints.

Although it has been reported as a pro­tech forum, that wasn’t the original intent. I simply wanted more time with my family after having spent way too much time approving comments on my blog. With several good moderators at the forum, I actually got more family time. I am grateful to the moderators for that.

I wanted to see if scientologist could debate the subject on neutral ground, and if they could stand the arguments put forth by the critics. I think they have done well. And the critics have given them a good run for their money. And in this I appreciate the critics for questioning everything.

The Scientology Forum has managed quite well so far with original research and valuable facts presented – clarifications, extensions and debate on the Axioms, Logics and Factors by Vinaire, the discussion on disconnection and the ensuing research on PTS/SP tech by Jim Logan, discussions on the E­Meter, KSW #1, the CST underground vaults, double­blind studies by Valkov and much, much more. The facts that surface need a home, and that home could be the Scientology Facts wiki.

It seems that the hot topic on the Intertubez these days is whether the current bad CoS scene is caused by David Miscavige by his alteration of LRH policies, by LRH through his policy and conduct or as a complex co­creation by everyone involved to a greater or lesser degree. I tend to believe it’s a mixture of all these three but that DM has made the scene significantly worse on his own.

Now I would like to share some experiences with you after my first six months “in the open”. The following points do not relate to scnforum.org specifically, but more the overall scene of Scientology on the Internet.

1. Scientology itself is a highly charged subject. People feel very passionate about it – both pro and con. There are fanatics on both sides. There are the rabid critics, and there are the hard core Scientology party­liners. They have more in common than they like to admit – selling an agenda or “thesis”, insistence on being right and the ensuing habitual breaches in logic. Both camps are arrogant and “knows” what’s best for you. Tolerance in this arena is hard to come by. Insults on the other hand…

2. Most people engaging in discussions about Scientology have difficulties in differentiating. Scientology becomes the Church of Scientology becomes Hubbard becomes individual scientologists becomes the FreeZone becomes Independents becomes the argument becomes the tech becomes whatever. Most discussions about some piece of Scientology ends up in a discussion about Hubbard. Insistence on differentiation and logic will earn you some snide remarks and insults, but it is the only way forward in trying to get to some facts on the table and to get something effective done.

3. The noise/fact ratio is immense. There is a lot of blabbering by people who simply love to see their name and printed word appear on the net. Most have little or nothing to contribute except snide remarks, loose opinions, speculations or garbage.

4. There is more speculation than fact. In absence of fact people go rampant in speculations. This is why it is important to get facts on the table. This is why I now set up Scientology Facts – to collect whatever is possible of facts about Scientology and the Church of Scientology. Fact is what will make most people see what needs to be done. In the short run, an appeal to emotions may get things going but in the long run Fact is King .

5. Trying to change another’s viewpoint by engaging in a discussion on the net is futile. It usually ends up in more cemented viewpoints. The insistence on being right is magnified by public discussions. As a variation of an old Internet saying goes:

Winning an argument on the Internet is like competing in the Paralympics. You may have won, but…

6. Keeping a discussion on topic? Yeah, right.

7. If you want to engage in discussions on the net, ensure you contribute something of value to others in terms of facts, real experiences, valid questions and valid responses. Logic is your friend. And so is conciseness. Read up on Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. Stick to the topics at hand and don’t get offended.

The above points are not intended as invalidation of The Scientology Forum, but it may serve as a heads up that it could become a rambling mess unless we strive to keep the noise/fact ratio as low as possible and also capture research and fact onto Scientology Facts.

My purpose is threefold: 1) To help people differentiate between Scientology and the Church of Scientology, 2) To stop the human rights abuses in the church and 3) To ensure the tech is free for everyone to use. The forward progress along these lines are not happening on the Internet alone in front of a keyboard. – it takes actual real world action to pull these off.

It’s been an exciting first six months. Many have left the church, high profile people like Paul Haggis and Larry Anderson as well as scores of OTs. I believe we are seeing the snowball rolling down the mountain summit. This year we may just witness an avalanche. And in the debacle, I hope we can rescue the tech from the misapplications perpetrated by the church.

It is winter. It is Norway. It's cold outside but the support for the cause

It is winter. It is Norway. It's cold outside but the support for the cause of rescuing Scientology from the situation created by the church is warming the heart of at least one Viking. There will be more to come. More words. More action.

For now,

Sincerely yours

Geir Isene