Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at
Fri Jul 17 12:06:03 EDT 2015

Ken Urquhart writes a regular column in the magazine International
Viewpoints called 'IVy on the Wall', and we bring here some of his
articles devoted to looking at Jon Atak's book 'A Piece of Blue Sky'.
These articles can also be found at

This one is from International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 63 - August 2003
See Home Page at

IVy on the Wall

by Ken Urquhart, USA

Red Sky in the Morning: Sailors' Warning

Chapter 12 in a Consideration of ' A Piece of Blue Sky ' by Jon Atack

Part VII, 'The Independents, 1982-1984,' of Jon Atack's book,
and Part VIII, 'Judgements', deal with events occurring after
I left the Sea Org. In early November, 1982, they kicked me out as
I was walking out. Very little of what Jon writes about therefore,
did I personally and directly observe.

As before, I don't see any reason to contradict or refute parts of
his accounts or his details. I'm not familiar enough with these events
to know what, if anything, Jon might have altered or omitted.

His bias, as always, is evident. The events of the period give him
ample ammunition.

Damp fuse

I will mention one caveat with regard to one of Jon's sources of
On page 315, Jon states that a certain person, whose reports Jon
'had been a senior Hubbard Aide.' This particular person came
to work at Clearwater as a junior member of the LRH personal Office,
in the LRH Pers PRO Bureau. After a few years, he left for California
where he spent a couple of years and some of that time near LRH. If
in California he'd been promoted to 'senior aide' level, I
never heard of it from him or from others who had worked within sight
of him. I was in contact with a number of the latter for several
in 1983, as well as with him. I am not saying that he falsely claimed
to have been a senior Hubbard aide; I am saying that Jon's statement
that he had been, needs independent verification. I strongly suspect
that Jon is citing this authority as something he isn't and wasn't.

I add that any researcher should address such claims with a certain
skepticism. I can well understand that a person who considered him
or herself close to LRH could take some pride in the proximity, and
I have no reason to quell such personal feelings. However, I spent
years in an office next to LRH, privy to 99% of what he inflowed and
what he outflowed. I clearly remember who was close to him and who
wasn't, and for how long. I have seen claims to 'have worked with
LRH' that are very tenuous indeed. The authority of a person who
makes such a claim, for whatever purpose (and therefore of that
information and judgment) may be quite bogus. Likewise, the claims
of a `researcher' who presents information from a questionable
source as factual, accurate, and complete, must lose credibility and

 From the Bench

Jon Atack took the bulk of his case against LRH and Scientology in
this part of his book from one courthouse in America, and from another
in England.
The American case was the suit the C of S brought against Gerry
The cause, the evidence, and the judge's findings, all focus on the
discrepancies between the LRH-sponsored C of S myths about the LRH

The British case involved custody of the children
of a formerly-married Scn couple. After their divorce, the husband
had custody and the mother left Scn. The mother later sued to recover
custody; the judge's opinion and conclusion centered upon Scn as the
environment in which the children were at the time being raised, and
whether they should remain in that environment.

Each judge interpreted the evidence before him strictly
in accordance not only with whatever of the law he chose to apply,
but also with the middle-class (not to say suburban) values of
the society he served as part of that society's self-protecting

That their opinions and findings should be scathing
and condemnatory can be no surprise. LRH chose to flout middle-class
conventions: the middle class is entitled to bark at him.

A higher judgment

LRH chose also to flout Truth. In his profession,
this is a mightily adventurous thing to do; we have already noted
that he was no coward. However, it is also extremely unintelligent.
He claimed to be on the Road to Truth; he claimed he was mapping the
Road to Truth for all us others. That he should so claim and yet lie
through his teeth to aggrandize himself in our eyes and the
world's eyes is unambiguously unacceptable.

The identity of L.Ron Hubbard, then, is wide open
to abuse and criticism. In my opinion, it is a waste of time and
to attempt to protect that identity from the entheta that it carefully
and laboriously created for itself.

However, very few of the world's wisest and most
enlightened who have demonstrated competent leadership in promoting
higher-toned realities died in their beds of peaceful old age and
enjoying universal respect. The more effective their communication
and the more truthful their realities the more certain they were (in
the majority) to suffer directly at the hands of those they sought
to help. So, disapproval by the suburbs is not a reliable measure
of quality.

Prophets now universally-celebrated are not the only
ones to have been struck down. In our recent history, for example,
an Israeli prime minister who extended the mature hand of magnanimity
became the victim of reactionary forces in his own country. A little
earlier, a Black American leader in the fight for justice in his own
country was gunned down for his temerity.

The world of mankind is not one to fool with. What
is this world, then, and what is it to stand in judgment over its
more enlightened visitors and to condemn them?

The stone in the shoe

Within man's world there are highly intelligent,
aware, enlightened, and constructive individuals who look to help
improve conditions for others. They do their work for its own sake,
not necessarily for the material reward it might bring. At the other
end of the spectrum are the highly intelligent criminals who
humankind and its societal and commercial structures for the
sake of the sense of power it brings them. The principal difference
between the two is that the `criminal' is entirely selfish.

Close to the outstandingly constructive individuals
are the highly intelligent, decent, able, and responsible people,
aware of the wide and local problems in which they live and capable
of responding to them. Close to the criminal level are those to whom
criminality is the exciting game and those consumed with greed
for the materiality they crave.

Between these two lesser extremes is the general
population; it lies on a scale rising from fast asleep to somewhat
aware, from happily apathetic to willing to be responsible for
something, from the animal-like to the possibly spiritual.

Were it not for the highly intelligent and able criminals,
the enlightened and constructive would bring the world up tone in
a probably orderly way. But the criminals make it well-nigh

Several characteristics of the general population
of Earth favour the criminals. Chief amongst these characteristics
  1.Fear of disaster, or the desire to be safe; aversion to risk.
  2.Ignorance, or unawareness; severe limitation in perceived choices.
  3.Amenity to fixation, and to hypnotic suggestion.
  4.Lacking the wisdom to see, and the strength
    to throw off, the burden of reactive custom, tradition, habit,
    long-term inherited attitudes, both individual and collective;
    addiction to 'now I'm supposed to'.
  5.Consuming self-interest in the present and  immediate future.
  6.Following from all the above, possessing buttons
    that can be pushed for predictable reactions.

Some of the factors inherent in the position of the
brilliantly constructive that work against them:
  A.They are distant in tone level and action level
    from the general tone and do not easily connect.
  B.They tend to act as individualists or soloists,
    and sometimes lack the skills necessary to induce co-operation
    either peers or possible customers amongst the general population.
  C.They are largely unaware of the existence of
    the criminals; when they fight for what they stand for, they tend
    to fight the wrong targets.
  D.Usually (but not always) they are unable to
    capture the loyalty of the general population; they have no broad
    and general power-base.
  E.If they start to build up a broad power-base,
    they can be easily stopped either by a section of the general
    acting out of their 1-6 above, or through the manipulation of part
    of the population by one or more of the brilliant criminals.
  F.They do not organize well (if at all) to increase
    their collective strengths nor to compensate for individual
  G.They have not agreed on an overall goal, purpose,
    plan, or policy that move them forward to actually improved
    for all mankind.

The brilliantly clever criminals, on the other hand, have learned to:

  a.Form loose alliances amongst themselves to
    achieve mutually rewarding goals.
  b.Manipulate the characteristics 1-6 listed above
    for the general population to get the latter behaving in ways that
    suit the criminals' purposes.
  c.Keep out of sight while the `leaders' of the
    population follow the scripts the criminals give them.
  d.Develop and organize resources to plan and
    execute, to persist and to perform.

Additionally, the criminals are much closer to the
population in tone and have no difficulty in relating with them (for
their selfish ends) or in maintaining a semblance of ARC with them
when in contact with them.

No, it's not black-and-white

Of course this classification oversimplifies. Any
being of magnitude exists on different levels at the same time. Some
beings decide to be 'good' beings, some think they would enjoy
being criminally inclined for a while. Such decisions depend on
along with the being's experiences up to the point of decision.

Subsequent to such a decision, the `good' and the
`criminal' players will to some degree involve themselves in creating
what they think they want, and destroying that which opposes them.
They form what Hubbard calls Goals Problem Masses, or GPMs. In acting
out these efforts the beings can swing from one extreme to the other.
For example, `good' being A wants to create a happy community.
being B comes along and desires to get the different parts of A's
community fighting each other so B can enjoy the resulting confusion
and upset.

When A perceives B's efforts, A is going to thwart
B somehow. When B is challenged he redoubles his efforts. Being
A hits back harder and so on. Eventually, each of them will desire
to wipe the other out altogether.

In Hubbard's terms, each resists the other to
such an extreme degree that each becomes the other - i.e., takes
on the characteristics of the other that he or she detests and wants
most to destroy. Over the course of two or more lifetimes, A and B,
then, may switch places. And they may switch places many times
over many lifetimes - and their understandings of what is `good,'
`bad,' or `criminal' can become very cloudy.

Now, in the course of this to-and-fro, each may also
key-out occasionally for long or short periods. When keyed-out,
each may revert to happily being who he or she had decided to be in
the first place.

Modes of operation

So we have, then, different modes of being and doing:

Mode1:the being is in-valence, being who he/she
       really is, and is acting with full ARC and KRC in the present.
Mode2:the being is more-or-less on the original
       intention but is using force to ward off opposition, and
becomes             obsessed with winning the point; winning the point

becomes more              important that the original intention. Force
comes into play, and it         can be lethal.
Mode3:the being flips into the viewpoint of the
       `enemy' and dramatizes out of that viewpoint. He/she has the
       idea that forwarding the enemy line is a good solution to
       inability to keep the enemy from interfering or to obliterate
       enemy. The being has given up on vanquishing the enemy overtly
       and is now other-determined by the supposed enemy.

When we speak of beings operating at the extremes,
therefore, we are talking about people who at any given moment operate
in mode 1 with periods of mode 2 or 3, or are operating only in mode
2 or in mode 3.

A relaxed `good' person having a lot of fun, despite
the difficulties, getting much done for a great many would be
in mode 1. A relaxed `criminal' person having fun satisfying his/her
selfish desires at the expense of others who are letting him/her get
away with it, would be operating in mode 1.

A religious leader who uses his/her power to, (say)
imprison and execute, or otherwise destroy fellow-clergy, would
be a `criminal' being in mode 2.

A religious leader hot to burn witches, outlaw fornication
and adultery, etc. etc., could be a `good' being in mode 2; but he
could also be a `criminal' being in mode 3.
A politician that turns spy for an antagonistic foreign
power could be a `criminal' person in mode 2, or a `good' person in
mode 3.

Alas: other trouble-makers

On the inner edges of each extreme are the individuals
with their own urges that are less than extreme - they're somewhat
`good' and somewhat `criminal.' These people do not want to live on
the very edge, as do the true extremists. And they have their own
modes 1, 2, and 3. They also can cause a great deal of trouble for
the general population when they get things wrong.

Between the inner edges of the extremes, amongst the general
are individuals and sections of society driven by extremists; they
let themselves be extensions of the extremists' modes 1, 2, and 3.

Then there are those, regardless of class, who are
insane and who act insanely, whether institutionalized or not.
Their actions may be extreme; their urges and intentions can be insane
but are not always extreme. The extremists' urges, on the other hand,
are extremely `good,' or extremely `criminal'; their actions are not
necessarily insane in the generally accepted sense.

None of this denies the fact that the great majority
of mankind consists of very decent people doing their level best
to live in peace amongst themselves, with their families, their
and their associates.

The dreaded `SP'

Hubbard's controversial position was that the 'suppressive
person' is the source of all major enturbulation. He said that
two-and-a-half percent of the population are SPs. Their direct
he maintained, affected a further 17  percent - the people directly
connected to one or more SP (or suppressive group). The influence
the SPs impose is so enturbulative, according to Hubbard, that the
17  percent connected to them are incapable of operating sanely.
Hubbard called them Potential Trouble Sources, or PTSes. If a person
in Scn could not make stable case-gain, or learn and apply Scn
competently, or produce as a staff member, then LRH would suspect
the person to be either SP or PTS.

This concept was not wholly workable. There is some
truth in it. One being's actions can routinely so enturbulate another,
who is unable to resolve the resulting restimulation that he fixates
on the enturbulation and is unable therefore to function normally.
However, LRH emphasized that the SP is an evil person. Very
soon after introducing the concept, the action of declaring another
an SP became a tool of group politics (as did much of LRH's individual
and institutional Ethics system).

Some people do do a great deal of harm. Some do much
harm on a smaller scale (as in a family), some on a grand scale
(as with a nation). Some lessen others' immediate survival, others
scar their victims for life and beyond. But there is a
and self-justification about LRH's position that does not ring true.
I don't think there was any call for him to act suppressively towards
a set of people he didn't like and characterized as `suppressive.'
In his own career, he himself went out-of-valence and acted
at times; later in his career he acted thus rather generally, and
certainly encouraged his followers to act that way.

A possible address

I accept neither Hubbard's way of judging, nor the
world's even more muddled way of not coming to grips with actuality.
With the help of hindsight, it seems to me better
to have a system that recognizes and distinguishes:

(a)the insane individuals of any class - and
    provides a humane and effective method of meeting their needs
    reducing the damage they cause;
(b)the extreme spiritual types - that is, the
    outstandingly able and positive who seek to improve conditions for
    others, or the spiritually `criminal' - and has the means to
    separate out from each extreme those who operate in modes 2 and 3.
    And can educate the latter (or re-educate them) into smoother and
    more comprehensive ARC and KRC, while strengthening all in-valence
    positive brilliance (not excluding brilliance that might to some
    be `criminal').

No, I do not advocate the suppression of criminality
on the part of brilliant beings who self-determinedly choose to enjoy
being naughty for a while. A point here is that any individual, no
matter his or her orientation towards `good' or anything else, can
act with results that could fit Hubbard's definition of SP. The
things have little to do with the label of SP. The important things
are that a `wicked' being should be in-valence and acting with as
much ARC and KRC as he/she knows how; or, on the other hand, is
and forcing self away from ARC and KRC. The former usually need only
some guidance; the latter definitely need some form of therapy and
probably some degree of coercive control followed by a great deal
of guidance.

How would it be that an able person causes trouble?
According to our analysis, it would be because:
  (a)although the individual is operating in-valence,
     he/she is uneducated in how to relate with human beings in
     or with the class of human beings he/she is flowing towards.
  (b)The individual is operating in-valence but his
     approach contains flaws which he should have addressed and
     before opening for business. He needs education in how to
     his production flow, product cycle, and exchange with customers.
  (c)The individual is operating in mode 2.
  (d)The individual is operating in mode 3.
  (e)The most likely: Some combination of the above.

In addressing troublesome individuals through this
approach, no stigma is placed on anyone; when the individual's result
is observed to be upset and confusion, the result is unambiguous,
and open for all to see. In dealing with the sources of interpersonal
trouble, then, interference from politics is much reduced.

[NB. The foregoing can apply to entities who operate
(or try to) without bodies; few on Earth possess the awareness and
skill levels necessary to address them - and perhaps the will
to address them. Those who do address them will get together one
day to compare notes and to establish themselves as a professional
group in its own right. Spiritual hygiene in the vast reaches of the
7th Dynamic is vital to the spiritual health of Planet Earth.]

Equally deserving of address are the outstanding
people who hold themselves back from operating actively as who
and what they are. In the chaos and confusion caused by troublemakers
(a) to (e) above, many able `good' people of the outer extreme and
the inner edge hold themselves back. In holding back they deny the
world an enormous amount of production and contribution. Reducing
enturbulation by addressing (a) to (e) above will encourage them to
trust and express themselves; well-designed and executed education
will get them going.

Likewise, the great crowd of decent and willingly
responsible people who want to live in peace with their loved ones
will benefit enormously from the results of dealing with (a) to (e).
Disenturbulated, they will express themselves according to their
urges for happiness for self and others; they will begin to refuse
to put up with any further nonsense of the (a) to (e) kind.

Returning to LRH...

How do we rate Ron on (a) to (e)?
Concerning (a), 'The individual is operating
in-valence but is uneducated in how to relate with human beings in
I say that LRH's most positive contributions come from who and what
he really is, but that he approached mankind with insufficient care
and attention, rubbing many the wrong way. He knew perfectly well
that one must parallel where people are at in order to develop broad
ARC with them. He could enter into high ARC with a stranger or with
a small group, but could not do it consistently with very large

Concering (b), 'The individual is operating in-valence
but his approach contains flaws...etc.'
Some say that Scn did not and could not work on them. LRH would say,
'What was it, exactly, that didn't work?' I sympathise with
this response. He might consider that what was done was not Scn
at all. The whole question of what didn't work on whom and why
a lot of research and analysis, a task which is beyond me. Certainly,
LRH's organizational approach to presenting and delivering his
was flawed; I have offered some analysis of this aspect in an earlier

I believe that LRH allowed himself to slip into operating
in mode 2 and perhaps in mode 3. He would thus have caused himself
to compound any difficulty he had in (a) and (b).

Overall, then, I would classify LRH as (e). Probably, just about all
of us are (e), too, unless, of course, we bury ourselves in suburbia.

How would we address (a) to (e)? How would we address
those reluctant `good' to stand up and be who and what they are? How
to disenturbulate the general population?

One answer is: one by one. Well, with what kind of approach?

Enforcing Standard Technology is out of the question.
But, it seems to me, no serious practitioner who is him/herself
an outstanding being can get anywhere without paying very serious
attention to such basics as:

    * The Axioms of Scientology
    * The discipline of sessioning
    * The discipline of training
    * The disciplines of association for production and for
of      flow.

In developing an approach to resolving (a) to (e), no-one, as I see
it, can possibly avoid these subjects. Anyone utilizing these subjects
must acknowledge the unique and powerful contribution of a very
L. Ron Hubbard.

A wise way of evaluating a being's contribution to the greatest good
is to include what we learn from that being's errors.

The wrongness of the wise can bring us as much certainty as all their

Of what use, then, is the self-styled `judgment' of a fool mumbling
to himself from bench or  book?

copyright 2003 Kenneth G. Urquhart

================ ====================
Fri Jul 17 12:06:02 EDT 2015
Send mail to archive at saying help
================== ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at  Is that too much to ask?

More information about the Clear-L mailing list