Open Source Scientology

We are in a new era. One can call it “Open Source Scientology.” If you had asked me in 1995 about whether or not Linux, an open source operating system for computers, could be any good, I would have answered “absolutely not!” There is no real central control, and everyone who contributes to it is not paid, but does it for free, and it is free to use by anyone who wants to use it. Of course it is crap! The Open Source movement in software is the most improbable thing I have ever heard of – and yet it works. Linux is the standard operating system for powerful computer servers. You can get it for free, or you can pay money to a company that standardizes it and tests it, and will support it for you – your choice. But it is free. And it is free from serious corporate or government influence. And, there is not one “Linux”, but several – Red Hat, Ubuntu, a few others. It works.

We are at the stage now where the only option for Scientology is open source. This is anathema to purists, and I know Ron would have issues with this, but Ron’s been dead for 25 years, and the top-down totalitarian method of keeping the tech in has not worked. Could it work? Perhaps, but that will happen after a total “reboot” : Miscavige gone, the pieces gleaned through, and a team of people that people respect could put together a self-regulating authority, with transparency and some form of oversight. In any event, we will never see the single-mode SO Nazi-style iron-hand again.

Thank God!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the ball is in our court.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Open Source Scientology

  1. Ananon

    Hi, I am just an anon following the slow-motion crashing down of organized Scientology. I like your vision of the future of Scientology, but there is one big caveat I would like to point out.

    I hope that in the post-DM era of Scientology, its thought leaders will be able to look at the entirety of the subject of Scientology with an open mind. You see, from the perspective of both you and me, the Church of Scientology is a horendous totalitarian cult and the WHO of this is DM. But somehow, the good but deluded folks still inside manage to ignore the pink elephant in the room.

    From hereon the viewpoints of independant Scientologists and critics tend to diverge. You see, from my point of view it’s pretty obvious that the HOW of the pink elephant being so elusive for Churchgoers, is that many elements in the Tech facilitate the breaking down of critical thinking skills. And the WHO of this, of course, is LRH. Nevermind the WHY, but it ís him who wanted to be able to control people on the bridge and it is him who built thought-stopping and behaviour influencing techniques into the Tech.

    Perhaps you find such an opinion to be insulting of LRH’s legacy, I don’t know. But several people who are trusted by the Independants have reached a similar conclusion, Nancy Many, Old Auditor, Geir Isene, Jeff Hawkins. I hope you can see this too, or at least willing to give it some serious thought. It is important, because it means that the Tech, alongside it value for good, carries in it the seeds of totalitarism. Just like DM has highjacked the entire Church, I believe it is possible for little guru’s to highjack local groups of Scientologists in a de-centralized Church by employing the Tech as a mind contol tool.

    I hope many Indenpendants will see this. I think it means that vigilance and a strong quality control function is needed from those overseeing an opensource version of Scientology.

    Anyways, I hope you are willing to consider my point and put in a thoughfull response.
    Thanks, Ananon

    Reply
    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Thanks for your comment. I think the problem you describe can be described thus: Nuclear power can be used to light cities, or wipe them out. It all depends on your intention. Scientology is about our spirituality, our mind, and our relationships with each other and with the physical universe. You can use Scientology techniques to make people better, or you can use them to mess people up. Hubbard was not perfect, and neither is Scientology, but there is a huge amount of positive value in using Scientology correctly, i.e. positively. Unfortunately, I believe the current church regime has chosen the darker path. The independents will correct that one way or another.

      Reply
      1. Ananon

        Hi Grasshopper, thanks for your response.

        I agree Scientology could be a source of good in society, but I’d like to offer an analogy to try and express my thoughts.

        In this analogy, Scientology is Baileys, somewhat curious and sweettasting and group think is like tonic, pretty common but with a bit of a weird taste. Apart from each other, Baileys is Baileys and tonic is tonic. But mix them together and you get something some nasty to the stomach.

        I believe the Tech is something like that. The whole PTS/SP theory, the emphasis on personal responsibility (overts and withholds, cause and effect), the group being granted its own dynamic (which is detrimental according to modern evolutionary theories, except in some unique colonies, such as bees and ants).

        Mix these elements in the Tech with group think, and I believe you have a recepy for cultic tendencies. What I am trying to say is abuse within Scientology is not a result of evil intentions, but that it is a real possibility that it evolves on its own in a group employing the Tech. That’s why I think strong checks and balances are needed.

        Once again, I don’t disagree with what you are saying and I know virtually every Scientologist has the best of intentions. But, virulant critics of Scientology are not foaming bigots. They have a point, which I have described as well as I could above. It is something that you and other independants hopefully will take into account when designing the ´new´ Scientology….

        Thanks again for your response,
        Ananon

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          Thanks, Ananon. Sure, many critics have legitimate concerns. I have legitimate concerns. My hope is that we can move to the next stage and cut off the crazy. You mention “strong checks and balances.” Well, if you studied the structure of the organizations, you would see that there sure were a lot of checks and balances, and yet, here we are. I frankly don’t know exactly what form we should take, except I do know that Scientologists need to be responsible for getting it right. I don’t know how abuse in the church got so far. It is so contrary to my own beliefs and knowledge, and my own readings of what Scientology is. It needs to go. It is being left behind.

          Reply
      2. Ananon

        Hi Grasshopper, I just read the discussion you are also taking part in on Marty’s blog between Alanzo and Jim Logan, in the article on more independant thought and scientology. Alanzo is basically saying that the dichotomy you are describing between the intentions of Scientologists and the actual acts of the church, were already present in LRH. Jim and Marty (to a lesser degree) are not just disagreeing with this view (which is of course fine), but (as I feel it) are also invalidating Alanzo´s opinion.

        In my view, doing this is a grave mistake by Independant Scientologists. Indies have to listen to the critics and try to understand their arguments as to why LRHs game (and I use this word on purpose, because I believe the secret of understanding LRH lies in this word) was not only about helping people but also about controlling people on the bridge.

        Without this understanding, I am afraid true reformation is not possible (which is what motivates people like myself and Alanzo to keep on confronting Indies with this point of view). With this understanding, I feel true reformation is a lot of work, but surely attainable.

        For example, getting the check and balances in order is relatively easy. Oversight bodies need indendance. Independance in heart, through mandates, with job security and with organisational separation from the group they are evaluating. Currently, KRs and comm evs are only operating up lines. I believe improving indendance of oversight functions is a relatively easy but important step forwards.

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          Well, Ananon, you should know that there are two kinds of critics of the church. There are those who are opposed to a culture of abuse that is contrary to what the subject of Scientology is about – even if those abuses were done during the time LRH was alive. The second kind are the ones who believe that LRH was a fraud, Scientology is a fraud, there is no value in the subject, and in fact the subject is harmful. They call the meter a fraud, etc., etc. Since I know that the teachings of Hubbard and the subject of Scientology as a whole is valuable and does a lot of good, I pretty much disregard the whole-fraud critics. They are looking at only some of the subject, and therefore their opinions are not founded (in my opinion, of course). I am hoping you are not the second type, and perhaps see some value in the subject.

          In any event, the title of this post says pretty much how I see things going. The church may or may not continue, and DM will eventually go away, if only by attrition. But, what is happening in the Independent Field is showing that top-down authority is being left behind. I love Marty and Mike and the gang, but they are not my bosses, nor am I theirs. We agree on many points, but there is no central organization point to the Independents, only allied groups and individuals. Ron started the SO to be “fabian,” meaning, in a way, stealth-like and hard to find, while still performing the mission. The Independent Scientology movement is as fabian as you can get. Internet-enabled, it is like the Internet. You can knock out one part, but the whole still functions.

          I want you to know that in the coming Scientology world, there will be no SO, no RPF, no central command point, and no “gang sec-checks.” At least none that has any authority. I can tell you that if an independent tries to do this, it will be very localized. So, I think the fact that Independents are independent will provide the oversight functions you may be looking for. The problem with oversight is, who is the overseer? That said, I can see an elected board at some point in the future to oversee some parts of the legal aspects of organization.

          Reply
      3. An anon

        Hi Grasshopper, well, it’s been an interesting day on Marty’s blog hasn’t it? I did want to comment on it here (I didn’t partake in the discussion) also in the light of your previous comment. But first I just wanted to let you know I’ve appreciated the respectfull and levelheaded comments by Indies on Marty’s blog. Unfortunately, many Anon’s and a few Indies couldn’t really, but alas.

        But the piont I wanted to make, is that your description of two kinds of critics is probably incorrect. I think there is a large middle field, with an overall negative opinion not only of the Church, but also of the Tech and a couple of fringe groups that form a loud minority amongst anons. These fringe group are partly those that hail from the youth culture behind the attacks two years ago, antogonistic ex-members and, I should admit, a certain level of group think. Within the discissions on for example WWP, I can see a certain level of group think, although (by definition) it is difficult to really see how much that obviscated your good judgement.

        The broad middle has a view on the Tech which is roughly as follows (a generalization I know, but I believe a better one thaat the one you suggested):
        – LRH was a genius
        – The lower levels can be of trememdous help to people.
        – The higher levels don’t meet the promises about superhuman capabilities, which were made by LRH and continue to be made by the Church. Looking at the amount of money charged, higher levels are certainly fraudulent within the current Church.
        – Thought and behavior control elements are hidden in the Tech, particularly ethics tech and KSW, but also other elements. As a result they ignore the abuse in the current Church, but also faults in the Tech itself.

        It is tremendously difficult for critics to frame this opinion in a way which isn´t too offensive for Indies, especially those on lower levels who have experienced the benefits of the Tech at the lower levels.

        And some of don’t. They have comfortable that the independants will be able to work this out and create a benovolent phylosophy out of the Tech, eliminating the risks associated with it. But others believe it is important that Indies understand which elements in the Tech contribute to the thought stopping so prevalent in the Church, to prevent abuse branches of Scientology taking off (just like the Mormons failed to prevent the FLDS from emering). I am one of those. And I may be wrong.

        But I am still motivated by a desire to eleminate abuse in the Church, not only next year but also further down the line. And I have no intention of invalidating the wins you have had in the Tech (although, honestly, I have to admit that I believe that claims related to wins on the higher levels have a large degree of make-believe). The same goes for virtually all critics, whuch may appear radical to Indies – except for the fringe elements of course, but they are easy to spot.

        Hope this helps to make up your mind about the posting of critics today on Marty’s blog…

        Cheers,
        An anon

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          I can understand your point, but you also need to understand that an outsider looking in is always going to be an outsider looking in. There seems to be an image in the anti-Scn crowd that Scientologists are either zombies or very afraid, or both. In actual fact, there are all sorts of Scientologists, and they have their opinions. The main thing is, you usually don’t see these opinions aired in public. In order to understand how the tech affects people, you have to know the tech. The incredible counter-claims that “critics” have against Scn show me they are just alarmed and don’t know what is going on. The TR’s do not hypnotize people. The meter does show changes in mental state (or, more accurately, the changes in the body that result from certain thoughts). The OT levels may seem fantastic, and perhaps it is all BS, but nonetheless, I have seen some very positive good happen from the OT levels.

          I will say this: I can agree with you that the abuse needs to stop, and that the church needs to reform. Your reference to the FLDS is interesting, but you should know that the FLDS is a very, very small fringe. So it will be of any super-backward “Scientology” group.

          Regarding anonymous, they really do not bother me. They really don’t.

          Reply
      4. An anon

        Meh…just read my comment, and well, I am not a native English speaker, and it shows from the comment I made. I hope you can still understand the gest of my comment.

        Thanks,
        An anon

        Reply
      5. Ananon

        Hi Grasshopper, thanks for your reply and acknowledgements.

        I do not agree though that a good perspective isn´t possible from the outside per se. If you were right, sociology and anthropology wouldn’t be studied – although you are right that there can never be absolute certainty, just that observations can reach a very high degree of persuasiveness. And these same observations, may not be visible with an insiders tunnel vision. One only needs to look at the refusal of Churchies to face the pink elephant, to know this is so.

        So please don´t dispose my notion about thought control elements being ingrained into the Tech. I assure you, this is an observation with a very high degree of persuaviseness if you look in from the outside.

        You mention a few other things, about the e-meter and hypnosis in particular. Well…I do have different views. For example, in my view, auditing is a form of hypnotherapy, which is something you will deny, because in my view that´s because hypnosis isn´t what you think it is. But I cannot claim this with any certainty, as it´s not my field of expertise.

        I would love some more actual scientific research on topics like these though. They are claims that can be tested scientifically. And I mean actual, real and peer reviewed research articles. I don´t know if you have an academic background or not, but I assure you that what LRHs called researching, is academically substandard at best, not having any peer reviewed papers or even published research notes. The same, incidentally, goes for my claim about LRHs tech containing thought control elements. There are heaps and heaps of anecdotal evidence, but I cannot point you to a paper proving this with scientific rigour. It’s an absolute shame the APA gave up on understanding how Jonestown happened after the Margaret Singer debacle of the 80s (I believe you know what I am talking about, but if not, it’s only a quick google away).

        Until such research has been done, the truth about the validity and dangers about Scientology is uncertain, and neither of us can make a final claim, in my view.

        Cheers,
        Ananon

        And a few PSs:
        – I actually do sometimes use Scientology concepts in my life, some of them are pretty usefull.
        – I disagree the FLDS is small – in fact they are a number of colonies numbering 30.000 people, quit a lot IMO.

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          Re: outside view – There is definite value in anthropology and sociology, but they are secular subjects and so view any religion in secular terms. I could be wrong, but I doubt that a peer-reviewed anthropology article will confirm that Jesus died for our sins.

          With all due respect regarding auditing, this is my field of expertise, and I have been audited for hundreds of hours, and audited others for hundreds of hours. One thing to know is that there are a number of flavors of auditing – not just Dianetic, not just repetitive processing, not just assessment and metering, and not just objectives. Auditing will address areas that are uncomfortable for people to address, such as severe emotional pain and discomfort, memories of physical pain and discomfort, and a whole host of other things. If, as an auditor, you stick someone into a very uncomfortable memory, and then walk away, that person will feel bad, no doubt (and as an auditor, you blew it!). If the auditor assesses a list of things you may have your attention on (like being upset with someone, or having a problem, or some other thing), and the auditor misses the read (meter reaction), and then tries to address the incorrect thing, the PC (person being audited) can get VERY upset, and they can get sick.

          I mean, people can get very physically ill just from hearing very bad news. If you see a violent death, for example, you could throw up, feel dizzy, all sorts of things. This can happen when someone describes a violent crime. What is happening but you, your consciousness, affecting your body? There is no physical cause, only emotional, which comes from the consciousness, or soul. In the case of, say, Dianetic auditing, you are being directed toward areas of actual, physical suffering on purpose, and you and the auditor are removing the unconscious bad effects of these incidents. The incidents are still bad, they still happened to you or by you, but you are not longer unconsciously negatively affected by them. And you feel better overall. People hold grudges about what their father did to them for years and years, even after the father died. Why? The father is not around – he is even dead. And yet, the person is still aversely affected by that relationship. Auditing can help someone sort through this, come to terms with it, perhaps find his own role in why the relationship was bad, and then uncover some of the “unconscious” aspects of the relationship and clear them up. A meter is very useful in cases like this. The result is that the father still may have been a bastard, but the son is no longer the unwilling effect of a bad relationship, and he feels better about life in general.

          Now, when someone gets one of these areas addressed, and area that was literally ruining his life and it no longer is, he is pretty happy with Scientology, and he loves his auditor. And he is willing to forward the cause. This is a good thing. What is bad is when the trust of these people are betrayed, and the loyalty of people who have been genuinely helped by Scientology is misused.

          One more word about auditing. Auditing is a precision activity, in most cases. As noted above, auditing mistakes can result in repercussions. People don’t die, but they can feel back about it. Well, people don’t die from the bad auditing, but they can be so inwardly looking that they forget to look around them and get into accidents, some fatal. You may have been so pre-occupied with something that you don’t really see what is going on. That can happen in spades when an auditor makes a serious mistake. But, good auditing will always reverse this problem in the PC, and there are techniques that are used to repair cases.

          There is a lot more here than you might think. I did not waste my time being on course for the years it took to learn this, nor did I waste my money.

          Now, the tech does tell you how to do thought control. This is a technology of the mind, and the soul. The data is there. The point of knowing it is not to do it, but to undo it. That some people have used it for evil does not mean that the tech is invalid. The purpose behind the tech is what matters. Comparing it to nuclear technology, as I did in response to your first comment, is apt. Just because you can make people feel bad by misapplying Scientology does not mean you should. In fact, it means you should use it to undo others’ misuse of it. So, you mention the “dangers of Scientology.” I agree they are there, in that people can pick up the shotgun and point it to their head, wondering what the trigger is for.

          I am glad you found some Scientology info of use. That’s great!
          Wikipedia says that there are about 10,000 FLDS – that is still quite a few, but far less than the Church of LDS. In any event, they do have a right to live their own lives as they see fit, but they should abide by the laws of the land.

          Now, I have seen

          Reply
      6. Ananon

        Hi Grasshopper, ew..my comment about auditing was actually the most likely final result of a lengthy discussion about auditing, the point were we will likely agree to disagree, not just a random statement from my side.

        Rest assured, I do not disagree with anything you said in your post about auditing – I understand how and why it works and why it is of value of people. We agree on that!

        My point is a bit of an add-on to that. My point that the PC is under a shallow hypnosis during auditing, which is something that at least one professional hypnotist confirmed in a Youtube video (which I can’t track down at the moment), but which alas has never been scientifically demonstrated.

        Now suppose I am right for a second, just to follow my line of reasoning. You see, being under hypnosis, wouldn’t actually be harmful at all or negate the positive effects of the highly structured regression therapy used in auditing. Hypnosis is just a particular state of high concentration, not something negative or outerworldly.

        There is one pitfall though about being under a light hypnosis: one is much more receptive to suggestion. I believe this is why LRH gave auditors strict rules about not suggesting anything to the PC during sessions.

        But now, imagine that just before going into session the auditee heard a story about, let’s say, eerrr, taking a random example here, an intergalactic ruler being a bit of a bastard millions of years ago. Then, in my line of reasoning, lo and behold, the auditee may start having illusions about such events during session.

        Now, like I said, I don’t have any solid evidence to back up my case, but to me as an outsider this is the most likely explanation of the experiences one has on the OT levels, as well as past life memories of PCs. It is also the reason why I wouldn’t undergo auditing myself, even though I do agree with you that it can really help people.

        I suspect though, this will probably turn out to be a point where we have to agree to disagree. But that’s OK, as long as PCs pay for the services of the auditor and not some inflated amount for supposed super powers, I’m all for auditors helping people get over negative experiences in their lives!

        Let’s just hope that auditors will be able to claim back their own Church.

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          We can agree to disagree, but I will agree that Ron did ask auditors to do a “canceler” in Book 1 auditing to mitigate against any hypnotic effects. As for any past-life data that comes up in auditing, it is not the job of the auditor to tell the PC that what he is coming up with is a delusion. It may be, it may not be. But, if it comes up and it is addressed, the PC is much better off than if the auditor says “you are delusional.” There are psychologists I have read that have come up with the same reasoning.

          I agree that it is time to take back the church!

          Reply
  2. Vertley

    Hi GH,
    Love this post (read it on Marty’s) and see we have some ‘synergies’ (threw that one in as a nod to your open source reference…gotta love corporate speak right?) and wondered 1.) if you’ve read my article “The Virtual Global Org” http://www.freeheber.com/index.php?title=Break_the_Monopoly
    and 2.) would love to get your feedback and/or be in comm?

    I originally picked “freeheber.com” for positioning/strategic reasons and I picked the wiki for technical reasons.

    Again, great post and look forward to your continuing efforts.
    Vertley

    Reply
    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Thanks, Vertley. Yes, I read your article. I think that there is all kinds of technology that can help with the next wave, wikis being one. I know enough about technology so know that technology is a tool, not an answer. That said, there is no doubt that the technologies surrounding the internet have opened up a wide, gaping hole in the secrecy that the CofM loves so much. I for one am not happy that any OT materials and other data are on the ‘net, because I believe that people have a right to their own data, and because I think that people who want to hold off on viewing it should be able to use the ‘net without having this info shoved in their face.

      Love to be in comm – email me at g.hopper@ymail.com

      Reply
  3. Wayne Froemke (AKA "Safe")

    Grasshopper,

    I’m glad I found you here. I’m amazed how much more light I feel here, a sense of peace. There is actually gorgeous nonviolent communication here going on here with an anon! …. which I find precious, and that makes me joyful.

    Perhaps you’ve seen my lack of communication on Marty’s blog in the last 24 hours, even though there are many unanswered posts to me there that I wish I could answer, and address the specific questions directed to me. I thought maybe you’d like to know why I won’t post on Marty’s blog again, until I notice a change.

    I’ve caught Marty deleting many of my posts, even though they were not vulgar, and were in good decorum, and also on topic. My conclusion is Marty has been deleting (not approving, more accurately but same result) my comments because he doesn’t agree with my opinions, and considers me heretical.

    Marty has made it clear to me that my opinions are not wanted there by deleting considerable post of mine that took a lot of time, thought, and effort to write. Then, finally, he said in a snide reply to me, “adios” at the end of that reply.

    For awhile, I’ve been noticing many of Marty’s replies to me to be curt, antagonistic, evaluative, and invalidative, and outright rude and demeaning. This, and his unreasonable censorship abhors me, and is definitively intolerable to me. It goes against my most precious personal beliefs about Freedom of Speech, and is directly in contrast to the Scientology Creed. Marty is clearly not applying this concepts on his blog. I consider that thought stopping, which he claims he opposes, but in reality, practices himself.

    So I’ve left that blog. I won’t be posting there anymore, even if Marty would approve even one of my comments. It’s not worth even chancing getting rudely censored again. I consider myself a valuable contributor but I’m not going to contribute anymore to where I’m not wanted.

    I’m only giving a “light” version of my explanation of why I left here. I want to find a place I can post my full version so that for anybody curious, can find out why I don’t support Marty’s blog anymore.

    I hope you have a more lenient attitude towards tolerance of others opinions here, and Freedom of Speech. I like your blog. And I may become a regular commentor on your blog, that is if I’m wanted here. 🙂

    I know this particular post is off topic, but I didn’t know where else to post this message to you. I want to let you know I really like you a lot, and I love what you have to say. You truly have the ability to communicate meaningful communications with unusually high intelligence, and I always look forward to what you have to say.

    When I’m not so tired, I will post a comment here about your topic of open source scientology versus what I call name-brand Scientology, if you want it.

    Again, I’m glad I found you here! 🙂

    Wayne

    Reply
    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Thanks, Wayne.

      I sent you a private note about some of this, but let me just say that the gist is that we are all in the same boat, and Marty is carrying a heavy load right now, so I am willing to give him a lot of slack. Marty is the editor of his blog and he can print what he wants. But you can be sure that Marty and any other real Scientologist would have no problem with anyone publishing anything on their own – own blog or own book, etc. This is one reason I have this blog. I recommend it.

      As for Open Source Scientology – I can see how this can be misconstrued to being an invitation to squirreldom. But it is not. I am all for KSW – very much in favor of it. But, we have to think with Scientology, and are beings and have a right to think for ourselves. This is another reason we live in dangerous times. Ron was the arbiter of tech until he died. Now… Who? Ultimately, we are responsible, God help us!

      You are welcome here, Wayne. Any person of good will is welcome here. If I don’t approve a comment, I will let the commenter know, most likely.

      Reply
      1. Wayne Froemke (AKA "Safe")

        And thank you Grasshopper for you hospitality.

        I appreciate that Marty is under a lot of pressure. However, I see he creates some of that pressure on himself. There is no justification for blowing off a scientologist of good will. I know who I am and I know my intentions, and they are good.

        Marty holds a position of public trust as an “authority” in scientology. So he also holds a responsibility for upholding the values of scientology, one of which is Freedom of Speech.

        Freedom of Speech is a HUGE point of contention with WWP regarding CofS. That’s truly an honorable virtue they stand for, which I appreciate and respect. They walk the talk. They really do.

        My main point of contention with Marty is that he’s behaving the same way as CofS, and is intolerant of others’ opinions, such as mine, and thus he censors, which is a huge footbullet for him, and giant public sore point for the reputation of scientology.

        He’s not helping scientology here. He’s an “authority” figure who appears like an intolerant hypocrite, and apparently hates Free Speech from a publics’ eye (including myself) and he is apparently oblivious to this. And he’s telling ME to wake up? lol.

        Sure, it’s his private blog, and he can do whatever he wants with it. It’s his Right, for certain. However, he’s holding scientologists’ trust to properly represent scientology, and he is not doing that when he promotes censorship of Free Speech.

        He, and perhaps many others are not understanding that one of the biggest overts in the history of scientology is the issue of Free Speech, especially considering that scientology promotes itself as giving the gained ability to think FREELY for themselves. I’m sure you can you see the irony and hypocrisy in that when censorship is practiced.

        The price for Free Speech is the toleration of others’ opinions, no matter how inane some speech may be. That’s the price. Period. Mark Rathbun shows he’s not willing to pay that price, which is unfortunate for scientology, and will only create distrust in him and scientology, and more continuing antagonism.

        Without the honest transparency of Free Speech, there will be unending breeding of skepticism and hostility. Like I said, Marty is generating this skepticism and hostility on his own accord, and on scientology.

        Somehow, this urgently needs to be delt with by somebody. I’m trying to. Marty’s behavior effects not only me, but all other fellow scientologists too. Censorship is not OK.

        Censorship is ALWAYS at the beginning of tyranny. Always. Anons know this. Why don’t most scientologists? Why doesn’t Marty?

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          I saw your announcement on WWP – I wanted to check out WWP a little deeper because of this comment.

          I respect your track in the Scientology internet wars, and I can see why you would have free speech as a major issue – the Church certainly is against it, totally contrary to the Creed and the works themselves, and they have done everything they can to try and stop the free flow of information re religious materials and comments about Mr. David Miscavige and the CofS.

          I have a couple of comments:

          1. WWP is moderated, just as Marty’s blog is. They delete posts, and I am sure that some of the people whose posts they deleted feel the same way you feel about the posts Marty deleted. Therefore, they are the same as Marty (and me, as well) as far as that is concerned – they control what gets posted on their forums. Because WWP moderates its forums, WWP practices censorship.
          2. Marty and I both agree with the practice of free speech. According to the American Heritage dictionary, “free speech” is “The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.” That is different from blog moderation.
          3. There are plenty of open communication lines on the Internet and elsewhere now to get your message out. WordPress.com, Blogger, Typepad, even hosting your own wiki or blog server.
          4. Moderating a forum or blog site is okay, in my book, in fact it is necessary for a coherent blog. I personally dislike unmoderated forums of any kind, because from what I have seen, they degenerate into juvenile name calling, or porn. I looked at a.r.s recently – what a mess!
          5. I encourage you to set up your own blog. I really do. I’ve read your ideas, and I’d read it, and I think it would be a good way to distill what you have come up with in the last several years and let people know about it.

          I respect both you and Marty. So, I won’t comment on your specific issues, except to state my opinion, which is that Marty is doing overall very good work, and he is taking the heat from the CofM, just as you have. I can’t agree that he is hurting Scientology, I think he is helping tremendously by showing that Scientologists are not robots, and have their own opinions, and are human like the rest of us.

          I saw on WWP that you are thinking he and Mike are positioning themselves to take over leadership of the church when DM is gone. I don’t think so, but I don’t care. It will be a mess when this breaks open, and frankly, I don’t know what the result will be – but it will not be what we have now with just someone else being the head jerk, that is for sure. One thing that has liberated me has been my absolute rejection of all authority from the Church, and reliance on my own knowledge and understanding of the tech – my own personal integrity on the matter. That is all we have, in the end.

          Personally, I think we are close to cracking the CofM. Really, really close. I think we are all in agreement that that is a good thing. I think we all should agree on the bigger things, even if we disagree on the smaller ones, and in my opinion, blog and forum moderation, such as Marty and WWP and I practice, is a smaller thing, because it is not really a threat to free speech.

          Reply
          1. Wayne Froemke (AKA "Safe")

            I just have to say that I really appreciate your style of communication.

            Perhaps were having a difference in what we mean by “censorship.”

            For me, censorship, is stopping one from voicing their opinion(s).

            Rules of a forum or blog are just the agreed upon style for communicatin one’s opinions. Rules are not censorship.

            I’ve ran several forums before, the last one was a Ron Paul forum. I kept my rules simple.

            1) Use the rules of debate (I posted a link to it)

            2) Don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to your mother.

            That’s it. Nothing heavy and dominating. I kept the rules light, and it worked GREAT! Nobody got censored, and the conversations stayed civilized. I think part of the success for having a happy and intellectual has to do with one’s experience running one. I’ve “ran” many. I don’t believe Marty has. It’s new to him.

            This part of the scientology creed says just about perfectly what the opposite of what censoring is:

            “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others”

            If anything inhibits the above, that’s censoring.

            Marty practices censoring. I know that’s a fact. He does not uphold the above.

            Ironically, WWP truly upholds this part of the creed. Of course, WWP has rules for the forum, but none of these rules inhibits anybody’s opinions or creates censorship of opinions.

            Perhaps I should give Marty the benefit of the doubt that he’s just confused from his current hostile environment. If that’s the case, I hope he gets himself unconfused quickly, because he’s not following the creed. That is my major objection about him right now and why I have been so outspoken against his censorship.

            Reply
            1. Wayne Froemke (AKA "Safe")

              I will continually hold Marty’s tail to the fire on his censorship because it is outrageously unacceptable to me.

              Reply
            2. Grasshopper Post author

              Thanks, Wayne. It is a fine line we deal with. I like the RP forum rules – I would be guilty of Rule 2, except her language is oftentimes saltier that mine!

              As for giving Marty the benefit of the doubt, I’m all for giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. I don’t assume a post is a “troll” straight-off. I don’t care if someone posts a troll comment or whatever. It doesn’t really work for them to do it, and I really don’t like jumping on people for being a suspected troll. The reason why is that if that person is a legitimate poster, then that person is squashed. And I believe that even if the ratio is 90% troll, 10% legit, or even 1% legit, why antagonize? But then, I don’t have to spend hours a day moderating blogs either…

              Again, I have to say, I am for freeing Scientology from the CofM. – Actually, I am beyond that. I am for making it less of a problem to not be part of the CofM and work with LRH’s works. But, I do care about the people who are still in. I saw a list of staff members on some site or another, and so many names were familiar, and so many are gone, and some are in the RPF or in the Hole, and it is too bad.

              Reply
  4. Wayne Froemke (AKA "Safe")

    Open source scientology, what a great thought!

    Def: Scientology; The science of knowing how to know

    How about looking at this as …

    “Open source science of knowing how to know”

    Whenever I think of the lable “scientology”, I always think “the science of knowing how to know.” It is freeing to me.

    When thinking this way, it puts a fresher and clearer perspective on the science. Science and technology have never been the sole work or responsibility of a single individual. Scientology tech is a science where “if you do this, this will happen”, just like any other technology.

    Thankfully, Ron figured out a whole hell of a lot of the tech. However, that doesn’t mean to me he’s the only one, the supreme being, in the universe who was capable to do that. If he didn’t, somebody else would have. It also doesn’t mean he’s the only one who is capable of its further development either.

    Any technology, no matter what technology, if it really is a technology, can be further refined and improved upon. The tech of the science of knowing how to know is no different that way.

    Somehow, KSW put a religious dogmatic implant in most Scientologists which fixated an “only one” idea, that only one supreme person in the universe can research and develop the science of knowing how to know. Thus this idea has frozen scientology’s development of progress in time since 1986.

    Supposedly, David Miscavage took over LRH’s hat and further refined scientology with his Golden Age bullshit. But it’s squirrel. Why? Not because he developed it, but because it doesn’t WORK! That’s the point of any tech. Does it work? Does it work better? No? Back to the drawing board until it does work or work better.

    Ron developed the science of knowing how to know so it’s workable. Does that mean it can’t become more workable? Hell no. I’m sure it can still advance, and become even better. The acid test, again, does it work better? Faster? Easier? Those are important questions to ask for ANY tech.

    IMO, KSW was either taken the wrong way, or else Ron had a severe Ego problem. I believe it’s the former.

    Open source tech on the science of knowing how to know will sort itself out on it’s own, regarding workability. There doesn’t have to be force slammed down on it. It either works better or it doesn’t. The open source concept has proven itself in time.

    Grasshopper, I’m so glad you brought this subject up so we can talk about it. Why this seems to be ignored elsewhere I don’t understand. Perhaps its because there is such stultified thinking regarding KSW caused by typical religious implanting.

    IMO, the second biggest overt in scientology history is the metamorphosis of it into a “religion”. Does the world really need another dogmatic religion to key them in to haunting past religious implants? The first and largest overt of scientology history is CENSORSHIP.

    Remedy these two overts, and I believe we will see a startling and streamlined progress of the science of knowing how to know.

    Open source is the way to do it. Good call, Grasshopper.

    Reply
    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Hey Wayne, I agree with you. I really was never comfortable with the “religion” label, but I am more so now that I have studied other religions. Regardless of label, Scn is a body of knowledge that is pretty core to us all.

      I don’t take an “anti-religion” point of view, generally, as some people do. I don’t believe in the sanctity of “Science,” as if Science is GOOD and Religion is BAD. Atheism begat Communism, which under Soviet Russia killed over 20 Million people, millions in China, and millions in Cambodia, etc. There’s your atheism for you. Science begat the atom bomb and Eugenics. Science has killed far more people than religion has any day of the week. But, that is because science is a tool with absolutely no morality – just like a rifle or a stick of dynamite. Religion, ethics, philosophy, and the other humanities is where we discuss our place in the universe and what it all means, and it is very important. I am personally upset that sociology, economics, psychology, and biology are trying to replace the humanities in explaining human behavior and guidance.

      I consider myself a “post-Scientologist.” I have taken a lot from Scientology, and I really have not thought to extend it because of how it was put together. Ron is the source, and any further extrapolations are definitely in danger of becoming something else. But, we are talking labels here. The key thing is workability and also, really, truth.

      That said, I am a firm believer in precision execution of the Tech, and that is in danger now because of what DM has done, and the faltering the the CofM edifice. So, while I may be a post-Scientologist, I will always follow the auditor’s code, the Laws of L&N, and the rest.

      Reply
  5. SKM

    I like the idea of Open Source Scientology to some degree.
    I would love to see all the original materials collected, digitalized and open to all.
    Many people already volunteered their time in order to digitalize LRH materials (even Annons). However, all those materials are not easily found and there is no system behind it. No centralized “data base” or “knowledge base”.
    Furthermore, now as it is obvious that DM even managed to corrupt the Materials of LRH, there is lots of Materials which where corrupted by him.
    So it would be great to have a “materials data base” with all the materials put together (all the historic scans) by volunteers plus a kind of compilations unit with the purpose of de-DMizing of LRH materials. This is mostly needed for the Training Route.
    This would be a great thing.
    With more materials than in the vaults of CST.

    Love to you, Mark,
    SKM

    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