The Scientologirl Independent Scientology YouTube channel associated with the Advanced Organization of the Great Plains

[HelluvaHoax!]

It's puzzling to me that most here, having been members of the cult, some for many years, have so little empathy for another person who is, essentially, much as they were. While it's necessary to occasionally present information that may be uncomfortable for the person, would not a rational attitude be, mostly, one of patience and (as much as possible) tolerance, with the primary desire being to help? And I know many, in their own way, are trying to help. Yet, too often, the intent seems to be to drive away people who most need our help, because they have some agreement with us at this time. This seems odd to me.

.

Let's break that down a little. . .

You said: "It's puzzling to me that most here, having been members of the cult, some for many years, have so little empathy for another person who is, essentially, much as they were."
Comment: Who specifically has so little empathy? Me? ITYIWT? What I saw on this thread looked a lot different than the way you describe it. I believe if you re-read the thread you will find that people here simply gave their opinions and then the Indie Scientologist immediately began insulting them by calling them "toxic" and "trolls" and some other choice degradations. It's a discussion board, so why are people not allowed to voice their opinions? It seems the supremely intolerant one is the Indie Scientologist.

You said: "While it's necessary to occasionally present information that may be uncomfortable for the person, would not a rational attitude be, mostly, one of patience and (as much as possible) tolerance, with the primary desire being to help?"
Comment: Sure, I agree with that. For example when the OP began claiming something that they obviously did not know about and had never researched (that Hubbard "canceled the Fair Game policy") several others including myself wrote the actual data that revealed that Hubbard Fair Gamed others at will before, during and after he issued that policy. I wrote a very concise post with citations and links wherein I used the Paulette Cooper example---which you added and amplified in your own post. Did the OP ever respond to any of these posts. I didn't see any response other than personal vitriol about the bad people here, with no specifics. If someone wants to jump on the board and spread Hubbard's propaganda and refuses to respond to factual history and the documents that support it, that sounds a lot like trolling to me. If the OP was interested in discussing Scientology (ostensibly why they showed up) why don't they discuss Scientology. I am highly doubtful that I am the only on this board who doesn't need/want lectures about Scientology from a newbie. That is ridiculous.

You said: "Yet, too often, the intent seems to be to drive away people who most need our help......"
Comment: How is disagreeing or voicing one's own opinion the "intent" to "drive away people"? What is it exactly that was said on this thread that should not have been said? The way i look at it is rather simple. It's an ex-Scientology message board where people have been discussing the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY about Scientology for over a dozen years. So someone new comes onto the board. Cool! I like old posters and new posters alike. So far so good. But then the newbie starts throwing down fake Scientology talking points and doesn't respond to people correcting them? Okay, that's a little dodgy if you ask me. But then moments later they begin spewing insults against long-time posters on this board? I don't think so, LOL. How is that acceptable behavior. Maybe THEY need to get some manners or at least some courage to have a two-way conversation. As I said, I doubt anyone showed up on this message board to be "handled".

CONCLUSION: New Posters Matter. All Posters Matter. Let the discussions begin continue. . .


,

 

[freethinker]

I was actually talking about your opinion on the validity of @Harold#1’s information sources (Mostly NY Times, Washington Times, LA Times, The New Yorker).
I only know the names of these newspapers and not their reputations. But for you, the mere fact that they are classic sources of information must be a problem, I think.

Take this to the USA thread. You will find my answer there.

 

[Veda]

It's puzzling to me that most here, having been members of the cult, some for many years, have so little empathy for another person who is, essentially, much as they were.

While it's necessary to occasionally present information that may be uncomfortable for the person, would not a rational attitude be, mostly, one of patience and (as much as possible) tolerance, with the primary desire being to help?

And I know many, in their own way, are trying to help.

Yet, too often, the intent seems to be to drive away people who most need our help, because they have some disagreement with us at this time.

This seems odd to me.

Edit: Oops. Correction of typo. "Agreement" corrected to become "disagreement."

Link to the YOU NOW TALKING TO YOU THEN thread

 

[Veda]

While very much still under the influence of Scientology, Burroughs initially wrote about suppressive persons, about how Scientology is not brainwashing, and how it is not secretive.

Yet, being "off lines," at that point, there was enough separation between him and Scientology, combined with the naturally curious and intellectually active literary circles in which he interacted, to result in him changing his views on Scientology over a period of time.

Burroughs had completed the Clearing Course in 1968 and departed the Advanced Org, and politely declined the invitation to do the OT levels. Instinctively he knew something was wrong, yet his public statements on Scientology, soon after that, even though he had left, sounded very much like a Scientologist being protective of Scientology.

Here he is, while still IN Scientology

This is the book mentioned in the above article.
It was not what Scientology expected.

Published in 1971

His views had gradually changed over a span of years.

People sometimes change.​

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Of course people change, it would be strange if they didn't.

So what?

What point are you making @Veda?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

TO: Scientologirl

Several people, myself included, responded to your assertion that Hubbard canceled the Fair Game policy---by posting facts and documents to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Hubbard himself was gleefully and sadistically ordering Fair Game black ops thuggery against others without missing a beat AFTER the "cancellation". The cancellation was in the 1960s and Hubbard kept on Fair Gaming innocent people into the 1980s.

You made nasty comments about people on this message board, but you failed to respond to those posts that debunked your incorrect assertion that Hubbard canceled Fair Game.

Why don't you answer it?

Accusing board members of being hateful and toxic and trolls is not an answer to the discussion that YOU originated.

If you wish to apologize for spreading Scientology propaganda, I am quite sure everyone will gracefully accept that. However, if you are STILL trying to push the manifestly false "Ron canceled Fair Game" talking point, why don't you stand up and openly state that?

You make some pretty big claims but when the facts and documents are posted which contradict your claims, you say nothing. Well, here's your chance to speak up and respond. If you have nothing to say about the FACTS and refuse to correct what you wrote, you can expect to lose board member's respect and trust.

Over to you, time for you to respond with something other than disparaging ad hom about board members who disagreed with you.

.

 

[Scientologirl]

Ok, see this is what I mean... All of you getting extremely uptight and internalised into this game - I have no idea where I'm being "spiteful." Also, I said some of you are toxic, but if the shoe fits, you can wear it. What do I view as toxic? Any tone below 2.0, and trust me, this thread is full of it. The insinuation and assumption that just because you disagree with me, I view you as toxic, is just your own cases - I'm not an enemy, I never was. You are not my enemy either. Thank you for sharing with me that fair gaming was not canceled, but slightly changed, I stand corrected and I don't need to be right on this.

The truth is, I was here and occasionally came on here out of curiosity. But I stand by what I said, I now know this place breeds nothing but negativity and if realising that and saying to all of you perhaps try and realise the same by "going out and living life" is "spiteful" well, reality is relative. Tones see what they want to see. I've no doubt struck a nerve with many of you, and you should ask yourselves why that is. Anyway, to put a little sass in my usual theetie-weetie posts: my "spiteful" ass wishes all you of the best, and again, I hope some of you can one day find peace. "What we see in the world is what we see in ourselves" ~ Unknown.

 

[Dotey OT]

I was going to say several paragraphs worth, but it would only be important to me to say it, not others to hear it.

But above all this is my worry for anyone that gets led astray by something designed to lead others astray.

When you get to an age where you are again close to the unknown, you start to get an idea of what is important. Not saying I am old or anything, I just sometimes see the preciousness of life that I haven't always seen. And I noticed that about myself.

 

[ISNOINews]

Thank you for sharing with me that fair gaming was not canceled, but slightly changed, I stand corrected and I don't need to be right on this.

Thank you very much for this. While I *might* disagree that Fair Game was even "slightly changed" (depending on how one defines the word "changed" and whether merely ceasing to label people Fair Game so qualifies), the important point is that you are the only Scientologist who I have ever communicated with who has admitted that Fair Game was not cancelled. That is major, and speaks to your intellectual honesty.

FWIW, I have long thought that IF there were to be a "kindler, gentler" Independent Scientology, Independent Scientologists would have to jettison KSW, stop treating everything Hubbard said and wrote as sacrosanct, actually confront (per the Scientology definition) the morally objectionable things that Hubbard said and wrote, and be willing to excise those things.

/

 

[I told you I was trouble]

If scientology was made even slightly "kinder and gentler" it would no longer be the scientology that hubbard created.

 

[Bill]

Ok, see this is what I mean... All of you getting extremely uptight and internalised into this game - I have no idea where I'm being "spiteful." Also, I said some of you are toxic, but if the shoe fits, you can wear it. What do I view as toxic? Any tone below 2.0, and trust me, this thread is full of it. The insinuation and assumption that just because you disagree with me, I view you as toxic, is just your own cases - I'm not an enemy, I never was. You are not my enemy either. Thank you for sharing with me that fair gaming was not canceled, but slightly changed, I stand corrected and I don't need to be right on this.

The truth is, I was here and occasionally came on here out of curiosity. But I stand by what I said, I now know this place breeds nothing but negativity and if realising that and saying to all of you perhaps try and realise the same by "going out and living life" is "spiteful" well, reality is relative. Tones see what they want to see. I've no doubt struck a nerve with many of you, and you should ask yourselves why that is. Anyway, to put a little sass in my usual theetie-weetie posts: my "spiteful" ass wishes all you of the best, and again, I hope some of you can one day find peace. "What we see in the world is what we see in ourselves" ~ Unknown.

I believe I understand the disagreements here. You are trying to help. We are trying to help. But the basic problem is this:

The best trick that Hubbard did was to redefine "true" as "theta" and "false" as "entheta". You are trying to present all in Scientology that is (in your opinion) "theta". People here are trying to present to you (and lurkers) the things in Scientology that are true (false promises, lies, harmful practices) but not nice (meaning, not "theta").

To you, the facts being presented are "entheta" and, therefore, must be false. That's Hubbard's redefinition at work. It causes you (and any Scientologist) to automatically reject "entheta" without regard to whether it is true or not.

You feel you are being attacked when, in truth, people here really are trying to help -- however crudely they go about it.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I believe I understand the disagreements here. You are trying to help. We are trying to help. But the basic problem is this:

The best trick that Hubbard did was to redefine "true" as "theta" and "false" as "entheta". You are trying to present all in Scientology that is (in your opinion) "theta". People here are trying to present to you (and lurkers) the things in Scientology that are true (false promises, lies, harmful practices) but not nice (meaning, not "theta").

To you, the facts being presented are "entheta" and, therefore, must be false. That's Hubbard's redefinition at work. It causes you (and any Scientologist) to automatically reject "entheta" without regard to whether it is true or not.

You feel you are being attacked when, in truth, people here really are trying to help -- however crudely they go about it.

.
Terrific post!

Scientology needs a new word that is similar to entheta or EnMest. . .

EnFact. LOL

.

 

[freethinker]

Ok, see this is what I mean... All of you getting extremely uptight and internalised into this game - I have no idea where I'm being "spiteful." Also, I said some of you are toxic, but if the shoe fits, you can wear it. What do I view as toxic? Any tone below 2.0, and trust me, this thread is full of it. The insinuation and assumption that just because you disagree with me, I view you as toxic, is just your own cases - I'm not an enemy, I never was. You are not my enemy either. Thank you for sharing with me that fair gaming was not canceled, but slightly changed, I stand corrected and I don't need to be right on this.

The truth is, I was here and occasionally came on here out of curiosity. But I stand by what I said, I now know this place breeds nothing but negativity and if realising that and saying to all of you perhaps try and realise the same by "going out and living life" is "spiteful" well, reality is relative. Tones see what they want to see. I've no doubt struck a nerve with many of you, and you should ask yourselves why that is. Anyway, to put a little sass in my usual theetie-weetie posts: my "spiteful" ass wishes all you of the best, and again, I hope some of you can one day find peace. "What we see in the world is what we see in ourselves" ~ Unknown.

Well, that's very profound. perhaps what you see in the board members here is what you see in yourself. You have not really experienced Scientology yet. It's unmistakable when you do. While Scientology portrays itself as the great hope of man and Ron is everyone's best friend, somehow he found a way to show his friendship in a very unusual way. What I mean by unusual is the he showed his friendship in completely contrary ways to the tenets of Scientology belief system where everyone wins. In fact some of his closest followers and hardest workers were not only shunned by Ron but shown just how bad it can get when what you believed he said was not at all what he practiced. You have not experienced that or you wouldn't be saying the things you say and you apparently think some of us are just low toned out-ethics lowlifes who have nothing to live for and only express bitterness towards everyone else because we couldn't grasp the core concepts of Scientology because we are just mere burnt out DB's.

Or, maybe you like the core concepts of Scientology and came here to spread the theta around by showing us how glorious life can be when the tech is correctly applied and to the letter with no MU's.

Well, maybe, just maybe, you have some MU's of your own, or you're just caught up in the KSW whirlpool called dedicated Scientologist.

It might not have occurred to you that maybe we come here so that others don't experience the same MU's we did when we got into Scientology. MU's can be harsh but one thing I would make a safe bet on is you have never been on staff. That's where most people find their MU's. It's a special type of word clearing designed so that you will never have that MU again. it has consequences though, because if you don't find that MU it can be grueling and torturous if and when you do.

I recommend Jeff Hawkins Counterfeit Dreams, it's a real page turner. You get to find out what it's like to be the most ethical being on the planet. The upper tenth of the upper 20th of the cream of the crop. Really, just google it.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Ok, see this is what I mean... All of you getting extremely uptight and internalised into this game - I have no idea where I'm being "spiteful." Also, I said some of you are toxic, but if the shoe fits, you can wear it. What do I view as toxic? Any tone below 2.0, and trust me, this thread is full of it. The insinuation and assumption that just because you disagree with me, I view you as toxic, is just your own cases - I'm not an enemy, I never was. You are not my enemy either. Thank you for sharing with me that fair gaming was not canceled, but slightly changed, I stand corrected and I don't need to be right on this.

The truth is, I was here and occasionally came on here out of curiosity. But I stand by what I said, I now know this place breeds nothing but negativity and if realising that and saying to all of you perhaps try and realise the same by "going out and living life" is "spiteful" well, reality is relative. Tones see what they want to see. I've no doubt struck a nerve with many of you, and you should ask yourselves why that is. Anyway, to put a little sass in my usual theetie-weetie posts: my "spiteful" ass wishes all you of the best, and again, I hope some of you can one day find peace. "What we see in the world is what we see in ourselves" ~ Unknown.

.

You apparently know very little about L. Ron Hubbard and his sociopathic behavior, crimes and policies.

Are you aware of what L. Ron Hubbard would think of YOU and do to YOU if he were still alive?

ANSWER: Hubbard would Fair Game YOU! Because you are a "squirrel" that is sabotaging his technology by practicing your non-standard tech outside of his church. Ron would Declare you to be an SP, after which he would order his assorted goons & thugs to attack and destroy you.

You claim (above) that this message board is full of low toned toxic people. You claim that this place (ESMB) breeds nothing but negativity. Let me ask you a question. How about Hubbard. Was he low toned, toxic and breeding nothing but negativity? Keep in mind that Hubbard would do everything in his power to destroy you and your life if he was still alive. How is Ron's tone level? How is Ron's sanity level?

Essentially you are here trashing members of this message board for speaking truth about Scientology in order to warn prospective victims. And you are here praising Hubbard who wants you declared and dead. How does that make any sense?

Do you agree with Hubbard's tech that squirrels are SPs that should be Fair Gamed and destroyed utterly?

This time, save your bitter sermons and try to just answer questions like you are in a conversation. That's what happens on a message board. Nobody is here for your tech "briefings".

.

.

 

[ILove2Lurk]

I was one of the biggest "true believers" of the tech for a couple decades.
I hung in there because I wanted to achieve the vaunted full OT capabilities
Hubbard described in detail in the early 50's and I was under the impression
he somehow had already achieved them.

He did not achieve them himself and I did not achieve them, as they're described.

On the previous ESMB message board, there was a poster by the name of "cowboy."
He had worked with Hubbard face-to-face daily through the mid-to-late 70's on many
"technical matters." He knows a lot from first-hand observations and discussions. I can
confirm he's the real deal.

I had asked him a bunch of questions back in 2014. His answers are worth revisiting by
anyone thinking about getting involved in the subject:

LRH self doubts​

Self doubts. Yes. He struggled, realizing that not only was the damn breaking and he finding out that others weren't getting gains like he promoted, leading him to develop the next level, but none of the old tech, or new stuff was doing a bit of good on his own case. He was physically ill from many issues, as well as memory issues. He leaned on others to find tech answers, using the principals of Scn, and save him. The only trouble was the underlying foundation of tech didn't work. There were no clears. There were no OTs. He'd blame others wherever possible. Even when it came to his case. Everyone that has ever audited or CSed him is out. So they were easy targets.​

​

Future upper levels​

About future levels, when I left the old man had discussed several other upper levels, to be further developed later. Unfortunately, the fact that old standbys like Dianetics wasn't working pushed development in the direction of redoing Dntcs (NED) then NOTS, etc.​

​

For years he had no idea what OT 8 should be.​

​

List one project​

Re: List One; Paulette [Ausley] was the scapegoat. The real flaw was meters. They were being changed, tinkered with, "upgraded". The meter of the day was different than ones of the past. It behaved differently. Paulette did nothing wrong. She's a great lady. I believe the fact that he was not getting case gain himself with her as his CS made it easier to blame it all on her. Paulette was absolutely innocent. Period.​

​

LRH as a true believer​

Was he a true believer, well, yes, in the order of things as he'd structured it, OTs, BTs, Engrams, etc. sure. However, did he believe that he had processes that could achieve results he'd promised? I don't believe so. He would never have admitted it. But I have some evidence that he knew his premises just weren't shaking out.​

​

You see, tech makes sense. It's logical. However it doesn't prove out. Doing everything Hubbard said doesn't deliver the promised results. So any new tech that others were writing in his name was based on flawed principals and thus it didn't produce results either. There were good and bad bulletin writers. Mayo was awesome. Wonderful, well intentioned man. Soothing. Tech might not work, but just his calmness, his listening, his sympathy alone was enough to help Hubbard through some of his worse times.​

​

Hubbard knew there were no clears, or OTs, not in the sense of the word he promoted.​

Cowboy's whole "trepidatious" thread is well worth reading for anyone who wants to do some
serious research or learn what really went on behind the scenes with Hubbard. It's one of the best
that's ever been put down. And I've read them all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Karen#1]

Some of the FAIR GAME on Tony Ortega for doing a daily blog.
#1 policy is to DEPOPULARIZE THE ENEMY from the Hubbard issue called "Targets Defense"

From Mike Rinder's blog today.

Andrea "i-Betty" Garner says


February 22, 2021 at 11:10 am

They have tried very hard to get his wife fired; they poisoned one of his cats; they’ve followed him from one end of the earth to the next, stalking, filming and harassing him as they go; they tried repeatedly to get him fired from his editorship of the Village Voice; accused him publicly of terrible things (which I won’t repeat here as they’re hateful); stalked his elderly parents, his wife’s family, people he worked with or had previous relationships with; they have hacked him.
Those are just off the top of my head. There aren’t many non-Scientologists who have suffered worse fair game abuse than Tony, but as with most journalists he prefers not to become the story, so he rarely talks about his own experiences with fair game.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

snip: ........I gave up trying to save both planets and people a long time ago. Every individual lives as they choose to live as far as I am concerned and unless they ask for advice I refrain for offering any ... if I were here trying to save people from themselves I may as well have remained in the cult.............

After 34 years in Scientology, I came to the conclusion that I should NOT give advice to anyone about anything! Any advice I gave then (look at this reference, do process x, go to Flag, look up your word, etc., etc.) was worse that useless - it was outright harmful!

And now? I don't have any basis to think my advice is good. So I don't give any, even if asked!

I'm damaged goods, I suppose.

But it's a relief to attest to the state of "Total Lack of Certainty".

 

[I told you I was trouble]

After 34 years in Scientology, I came to the conclusion that I should NOT give advice to anyone about anything! Any advice I gave then (look at this reference, do process x, go to Flag, look up your word, etc., etc.) was worse that useless - it was outright harmful!

And now? I don't have any basis to think my advice is good. So I don't give any, even if asked!

I'm damaged goods, I suppose.

But it's a relief to attest to the state of "Total Lack of Certainty".

Lol! Yeah, it's a huge relief not having to pretend to have all the answers.

Just a few days ago someone special to me said "isn't it fantastic being free of scientology, it's everything I thought it would be" ... I thought that said it all.

 

[Bill]

<snip>

The truth is, I was here and occasionally came on here out of curiosity. But I stand by what I said, I now know this place breeds nothing but negativity and if realising that and saying to all of you perhaps try and realise the same by "going out and living life" is "spiteful" well, reality is relative. Tones see what they want to see. I've no doubt struck a nerve with many of you, and you should ask yourselves why that is.
<snip>

I also understand what you see, as a Scientologist, here on this discussion board. You see "nothing but negativity". You are correct that you "struck a nerve" but you do not understand why. You do not understand us but we do understand you. Like I said, earlier, we believed very much as you do.

We are here, for the most part, because we have believed; because we have stuck with it and done the levels, been staff, tried so very hard to follow all Hubbard's formulas, procedures, policies, "solutions". We did it all. We are here to help those who, like we were, are being fooled by Hubbard's rhetoric, his promises, his "solutions". We are not being "negative", we are being truthful, to warn people what many, many years have taught us. We know that what we do is good, not negative.

If you've just escaped from a trap, you might decide to warn others away from that trap. That's us.

You don't have to take our warnings, but you can't now say you weren't warned.

 

[Veda]

I was one of the biggest "true believers" of the tech for a couple decades.
I hung in there because I wanted to achieve the vaunted full OT capabilities
Hubbard described in detail in the early 50's and I was under the impression
he somehow had already achieved them.

He did not achieve them himself and I did not achieve them, as they're described.

On the previous ESMB message board, there was a poster by the name of "cowboy."
He had worked with Hubbard face-to-face daily through the mid-to-late 70's on many
"technical matters." He knows a lot from first hand observations and discussions. I can
confirm he's the real deal.

I had asked him a bunch of questions back in 2014. His answers are worth revisiting by
anyone thinking about getting involved in the subject.

LRH self doubts​

Self doubts. Yes. He struggled, realizing that not only was the damn breaking and he finding out that others weren't getting gains like he promoted, leading him to develop the next level, but none of the old tech, or new stuff was doing a bit of good on his own case. He was physically ill from many issues, as well as memory issues. He leaned on others to find tech answers, using the principals of Scn, and save him. The only trouble was the underlying foundation of tech didn't work. There were no clears. There were no OTs. He'd blame others wherever possible. Even when it came to his case. Everyone that has ever audited or CSed him is out. So they were easy targets.​

​

Future upper levels​

About future levels, when I left the old man had discussed several other upper levels, to be further developed later. Unfortunately, the fact that old standbys like Dianetics wasn't working pushed development in the direction of redoing Dntcs (NED) then NOTS, etc.​

​

For years he had no idea what OT 8 should be.​

​

List one project​

Re: List One; Paulette was the scapegoat. The real flaw was meters. They were being changed, tinkered with, "upgraded". The meter of the day was different than ones of the past. It behaved differently. Paulette did nothing wrong. She's a great lady. I believe the fact that he was not getting case gain himself with her as his CS made it easier to blame it all on her. Paulette was absolutely innocent. Period.​

​

LRH as a true believer​

Was he a true believer, well, yes, in the order of things as he'd structured it, OTs, BTs, Engrams, etc. sure. However, did he believe that he had processes that could achieve results he'd promised? I don't believe so. He would never have admitted it. But I have some evidence that he knew his premises just weren't shaking out.​

​

You see, tech makes sense. It's logical. However it doesn't prove out. Doing everything Hubbard said doesn't deliver the promised results. So any new tech that others were writing in his name was based on flawed principals and thus it didn't produce results either. There were good and bad bulletin writers. Mayo was awesome. Wonderful, well intentioned man. Soothing. Tech might not work, but just his calmness, his listening, his sympathy alone was enough to help Hubbard through some of his worse times.​

​

Hubbard knew there were no clears, or OTs, not in the sense of the word he promoted.​

Cowboy's whole "trepidatious" thread is well worth reading for anyone who wants to do some
serious research or learn what really went on behind the scenes with Hubbard. It's one of the best
that's ever been put down. And I've read them all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Excellent post. I hope Scientologirl reads this post and checks out the link.

For clarification, "Paulette" was Paulette Ausley.


Martin Samuels was an early Class VIII, and also started the Delphian school in Oregon. After moving beyond Scientology, from a deep well of experience he described four patterns.

"The first pattern involved basically decent well intentioned people... no one was able to rise in the organization, to a point of any real proximity to him, without being attacked and vilified."

The list of such people is very long, although many of them, subsequently, have been officially "erased" and silenced.

(This was one of the reasons why it was impossible to write a serious official biography of Ron Hubbard. He had denounced almost everyone. Ultimately, the project to produce an actual - for grown ups - authorized biography was abandoned, and replaced by a collection of coffee-table picture books.)

One of the earliest to be vilified, after J.A. Winter, who had written the Introduction for Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health, was Jack Horner, who was the first person to have been awarded Doctor of Scientology certification. This was comparable, in those days, to a Class XII.

Horner compiled the workbook, Any Two People Can Do It, in 1954 and, subsequently, wrote several books.

Even before the "world's first real Clear," John McMaster, was declared a Suppressive Person in 1969, Horner, in the HCO Executive Letter, titled, Amprinistics, had been Declared an "SP," and made "Fair Game" in 1965.

This is a pattern that is "hard wired" into Scientology, and even influences its "tech," which is yet another reason why it's wise to pause before proceeding into the mirror-maze feedback-loop of its upper Grade Chart, which consists mainly of imaginary problems which, Hubbard told his followers, had to be agreed to as real and, then, processed.

These were the reasons, Hubbard had explained, why people could not successfully do Route One from the book Creation of Human Ability, or successfully do what were, at one time, the levels above OT 4 of the Scientology Bridge.

Doing these levels leaves a person with Scientological mental habits and significance but does not result in becoming an OT, or anything close to it.

Which is one reason why there are some people who do not recommend doing anything from Scientology after 1965. That was the year when Hubbard, officially, and also confidentially, and with "deadly seriousness," made Scientology do what he had said psychiatry was doing.

During a recorded lecture on 14 August 1963, he described what was soon to become much of his own "upper levels":

"Psychiatry is authoritarian and tells the person what's wrong with him,
often introducing a new lie..."

​

It's not that you shouldn't do any Scientology but that, at least, you should pause and think before doing the parts of Scientology that were invented after Hubbard became an implanter.

​