Why We Stayed

(This is a slightly edited version of a comment I made to Marty Rathbun’s post of September 8, 2010. It was received very favorably, and so I repost it here. It has also been reposted at Free Heber)

You know, there is a phenomenon where if you truly love something or someone deeply, you will put up with a lot of crap, and you view that person or thing with rose colored glasses. You excuse transgressions, you automatically take its side no matter what the circumstance. Almost every murderer has a mother who loves him, and who will explain to the court what a good boy he really is – because, that mother has seen the murderer since birth, and has seen the good that exists in the baby before that baby grew up to become a murderer, and she is blind to the bad.

We all know that even the most evil person in the universe has some good in him. (Read PAB 95, “Valences.” Awesome read).

So, most of us on this board truly love Scientology as a technology and as a philosophy. I know I do. Scientology is an incredibly broad subject; LRH was very prolific. There is a lot to it, and I use it every day, one way or another. A family member of mine, who left the church thirty years ago (and to whom I am still connected – no disconnection for me, thank you) still uses Scn terminology occasionally, and that is true of other ex-Scientologists I have known as well.

So, Scientology the subject is incredibly important, and it is worth fighting for (non-lethally, thank you!), and worth defending. So, when the leader of your church goes on TV, you naturally want him to do well, and if he does not, you willfully are blind to it, because you WANT him to do well, because he represents this fascinating subject and something you love. So you defend. When Tom Cruise calls Matt Lauer “glib,” you may cringe, but you defend, because you love the subject so much. Even if you see incompetence, you can excuse it, because it is part of the BS you put up with to have the subject. It is the price you pay, and you know that it is being worked on. After all, not everyone is trained or OT yet.

If you hear that the leader of your church regularly abuses people, you refuse to believe it, because it does not compute: Scientology: raises people’s tone, makes people more able, removes insanity. DM: Insane. Something is wrong. I know Scientology, I know it is good, therefore DM can’t be nuts, therefore, DM is telling us the truth about Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Karen de la Carriere, et al.

Scientology IS valuable. We all have wins and gains that are real and worthwhile. I personally am no longer color blind, for example. You don’t want Scientology to go down. And, if the leadership goes down, you can naturally think, so will the subject.

Most Scientologists in the church, I think, are in this situation. They know DM’s full of crap (somewhat, anyway). They know that these stupid superlatives that EVERYTHING that happens is “MONUMENTAL!” I think they know that all this propaganda about VMs doing whatever is propaganda. But, you have to take the bad with the good, because the good is worth the BS. And, there truly are people who hate what they think Scn is, and are very vocal in attacking the subject.

And there is no alternative. Putting up with the BS is the price to pay to have the subject.

And, I think that was true, for quite a while. Certainly when LRH was alive. I remember when we thought Ron passed away and we (the public actively on course at a major org in the early ’80s) thought that it was covered up. It was such a problem that Ron recorded a Ron’s Journal to prove he was alive – and even then, we were like – hey, is that REALLY Ron? And, when LRH was alive, the church, despite the BS, delivered products. Good ones.

But, there is an alternative now. There shouldn’t have to be, but, the good news is that there is an alternative, which is, of course, the Independents.

I think that that factor is huge, and is the crack in the Church armor. To me, the fact that Karen and Trey Lotz are out is huge to me, because growing up, my heroes were auditors. That is the real wake-up call. There is a critical mass. Also, it is only the independents that are writing the true history of Scientology. If you asked any church member what happened to Mary Sue, I am sure none of them would know that she passed away in 2002 – unremarked by the CofM. For example.

I say all this, because once you cleave the subject of Scientology from the people who purport to represent it, and you realize that it can exist and you can do it without having to put up with the BS anymore, the internal justifications for outrageous and incompetent behaviors fall away, and you see the activities for what they are.

The letter/transcript from DM in Marty’s post, for example. What a screw-up DM is.

I just re-watched the Nightline interview with DM and Ted Koppel. Oh. My. God. What an incredible moron. You look at interviews with Tommy Davis. Oh. My. God. Look at the incredibly stupid (and I mean that technically!) “Freedom” mag articles. I mean, you want them to do well! You root for them, because they are representing you and your love, Scientology. But now that that relationship is cleaved, you see them for what they are: incompetent, stupid hacks who are not going away.

And, you realize that these are not only not true representatives of Scientology, they are actually detractors of the worst kind, because they make this great, wonderful subject that has done great and wonderful things personally and for your friends – real, tangible things – seem like a crazy, insane cult.

NO. The crazy, insane cult is the Church of Miscavology. They are masquerading as Scientologists. Not me.

[Note: Edited 10/17/2010 to correct the PAB reference.]

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Why We Stayed

  1. Tatiana Baklanova

    “You know, there is a phenomenon where if you truly love something or someone deeply, you will put up with a lot of crap, and you view that person or thing with rose colored glasses. You excuse transgressions, you automatically take its side no matter what the circumstance. Almost every murderer has a mother who loves him, and who will explain to the court what a good boy he really is – because, that mother has seen the murderer since birth, and has seen the good that exists in the baby before that baby grew up to become a murderer, and she is blind to the bad.”

    That “phenomenon” has a name – treason condition.

    Reply
    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Interesting point of view, Tatiana. I can’t say that I agree, but on the other hand, I can understand the point of view. My point is that there are good and bad in everyone and every group, and many times the good outweighs the bad, to the point where you put up with the bad to forward the good. By put up with, I do not mean accept it, but to ensure it, while pushing the good, with the idea that the bad will get handled.

      In the case of the mother loving her murdering son, I can only refer to PAB 95, “Valences.” Here is an interesting quote:

      In my own experience with bad men—and I have met several of various
      nationalities—I have seen some men who could put up a rather ferocious front, but I
      have never found one of them totally lacking in human warmth. Yet were I to read the
      newspapers and popular books on such people I would begin to believe it would be
      possible for a complete demon to exist who would never respond to any decent
      impulse. Yet I have argued bandits into a more amenable state of mind and have even
      taken a gun away from a Federal Marshal and showed him how to use it and told him
      not to be nervous and put it back in his holster, when he was bound and determined to
      take me into custody. In other words, you can actually create an effect on almost
      anybody. The synthetic valence is an effort to tell you and people that beings can exist
      who are so bad that no effect can be produced on them. Of course this makes
      everybody subservient to them.

      Everyone has a spark of divine goodness in them, and when people start to create a synthetic valence around how bad someone is, that tends to get overlooked.

      Reply
  2. Tatiana Baklanova

    “you view that person or thing with rose colored glasses. You excuse transgressions, you automatically take its side no matter what the circumstance.” – that is “been reasonable with out-ethics” or failure to assign a condition, that puts one into the condition one failed to assign. I am so positive about it because it is very real to me through my own life experience where I was in place of that “someone in love” you describe. I managed to get out, but only later, learning the tech I understood what was happening.
    Assigning a condition and helping someone out of it with a tech available does not have to be any invalidating at all. It has nothing to do with creating a “a synthetic valence around how bad someone is”. That would be an example of how the Church acts. Church does not apply ethics right, church ethics is mixed with justice and, full of judgment and evaluation, is suppressive.
    Ethics should merge with auditing tech and help person to increase his awareness and ability. And the failure to assign and apply ethics condition is a failure to help one who needed help. And that would be treason.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s