part11.txt

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Wed Jul 3 12:06:01 EDT 2019


********************************************************
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
http://freezoneamerica.org/ivy/bluesky/.
********************************************************

This one is from International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 59- November
2002.
See Home Page at http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/



IVy on the Wall

by Ken Urquhart, USA

Raging Floods: Muddy Waters


Chapter 11 in a Consideration of 'A Piece of Blue Sky',by Jon Atack



Part Five of the Atack book is `The Guardian's Office, 1974-1980'.
Its three chapter headings are: The Guardian Unguarded; Infiltration;
Operation Meisner.

Part Six is `The Commodore's Messengers, 1977-1982'. It has five
chapters:
1. Making Movies, 2. The Rise of the Messengers, 3. The Young Rulers,
4. The Clearwater Hearings, 5. The International Finance Police.

In Part Five, Jon Atack details Guardian's Office [GO] activities
for this period. He bases his facts on documents of court proceedings
and documents introduced into court. Even if I had the resources to
check each document, I would have little inclination to. The telling
of the story rings true, and I accept it as told.

The story is largely one of the infiltration of various U.S.
government
offices, mostly Federal, by the GO and of their access to (and use
of) confidential and very sensitive information, until detected. I
had an idea that it was going on, but no knowledge of its extent.
Had I become aware of what was happening, I would have been alarmed
that the GO were tempting fate by challenging the U.S. Government
so brazenly, but I would not have objected to it on principle. After
all, people in government are suppressive, right?

Rereading these chapters today, I am horrified at the lengths the
intelligent and very decent people of the GO went to serve paranoia
and megalomania. Yes, Jon, we know that they blinded themselves and
each other to the unsavoury realities of LRH's personal demons. They
hypnotized themselves and each other on the benefits Scientology
supposedly
offered Mankind; they addicted themselves to a concept of mission
and duty based on the vision of these benefits. We all did, to some
extent.

I state again that I have no defense or excuse for the trouble LRH
caused his own people, their families, and the world. I still hold
that in LRH's work there is a kernel of truth and sanity of universal
and eternal value. I do not believe that he deliberately used his
access to this level of truth to fool his followers and to attempt
to fool the world. My considered opinion is that the side of him that
could know and promote Truth lost the fight with his egotistical and
material side - and then the demons took over.

It all played itself out as it did, and perhaps there was no other
way for it to go. The evolution has a lasting value, though: we can
deduce better ways to support, serve, and discipline such a one,
should
we be fortunate enough to have another come our way.

I have more direct observation concerning the Commodore's Messenger
Organization [`CMO']. I had an office on the ship just across from
LRH's, for several years. There was hardly a use he made of the
messengers
from there that I wasn't aware of. It is true that we came ashore
in 1974 and that thereafter my office was not as close to his, while
Jon's history covers 1977-1982, during which time I was in Florida
and LRH in California.

However, I was very familiar already with his use of messengers, and
was still involved as LRH Pers. Com until 1978, when I was,
thankfully,
demoted. In Jon's story are many inaccuracies about the CMO and
related
matters, some of which I will correct here.

A brief history of the evolution of the CMO as I observed it is in
order, since an understanding of this history clarifies some of Jon's
opinions and guesses.

When I was first on the ship, in 1968, LRH had one messenger on duty
with him on the Royal Scotman. I can't say for sure if he had one
on duty while he slept. He used the messenger to run and ask his
questions
or give his orders, to inspect and report back, and to do errands.

In late 1969, he created the post of LRH Personal Communicator and
appointed me to it. One of my functions was to supervise his Personal
Office. The Messenger Unit was part of this Office. My responsibility
for the Messenger Unit was purely administrative; LRH allowed no-one
to come between him and his messengers. In around 1969 or 1970, he
had two messengers on duty with him on deck, and at least one standing
by while he slept. Up to 1971, the Messenger duties were very much
as they had been in 1969. By late 1972 or early 1973, the messenger
watch increased to four messengers on duty on deck.

On his return to the ship from his year in America, in 1972, LRH
reorganized
his management structure. He created the post of Staff Captain to
oversee the Commodore's Staff Aides and the ship. The Messengers
became
the CMO, and were still in the Personal Office under me,
administratively.

The reorganization was at least in part a put-down of me. While he
was away, I had not performed to the satisfaction of all -
particularly
those around Mary Sue Hubbard [`MSH'] who was in control of all
matters
in her husband's absence. Complaints reached Hubbard that I was not
supporting her and thus increasing her load. The reorganization was
partly my punishment for having brought criticism on him by opening
myself to criticism. He justified his reorganization to me, grumbling:
'You are just a relay terminal', [i.e., a kind of messenger].
I think he later regretted this; anyway, we never worked again as
well and as closely as we had before he left for the US in 1971.

Some months after he had created the CMO, he found out that the CMO
was still reporting to me administratively, and he ordered them to
be autonomous.

The Atack History and a Truer One

In opening his treatment of the CMO, Jon makes little of their primary
duty, which he reduces to 'carrying messages', and much of
their role as personal servants. One gets the impression that LRH
only ever wanted and used messengers so he could have teenage girls
primp him and cosset him. And that if one were to suppose that LRH
were perhaps using them for illicit favours, Jon would certainly not
consider himself any the less a historian and researcher.

It wasn't until there were four messengers on watch with him on deck
that they began to involve themselves greatly in the doings of the
Household Unit, and their focus there was on the personal steward.
They thus found themselves drawn into the functions of personal
servants
but it was by default rather than by their choice or LRH's. It began
this way:

The messengers stood eight-hour watches from the moment LRH got up
until he went to bed. They needed 12 messengers at least to maintain
a rota of four on each watch, and the CMO recruited energetically
to get what they needed.

The established messengers had to train the new ones. The new ones
were put to work serving the older ones. But as far as LRH was
concerned,
the CMO now had plenty of people and plenty of time to do his bidding;
to do his bidding was the be-all and end-all of any messenger.

Since his return from the US, LRH had become much fussier than before
about his personal needs. His food wasn't right. His clothes weren't
right. His quarters couldn't be clean enough. The Household Unit,
perpetrator of these crimes, fell apart over and over while various
Household Officers tried to keep it together. LRH's solution was to
send in the off-duty messengers to sort everything out. They got very
busy. The outbursts of bad temper about the food, the clothes, and
the cleaning didn't let up. To please him and to placate him, the
CMO got more and more involved in all stewarding functions.

In 1973, Hubbard fell off his motorbike. In terrible pain from a
broken
collarbone, he sat in his cabin and roared. His four on-duty
messengers
attended him. I was not in there with them; I do not know how he and
they, his steward, and his on-board medical attendant, coped with
his bodily needs. I was not getting involved in all that. He was too
proud to get a doctor; I had little sympathy with his position
although
I hated that he was in such pain.

At around the same time, LRH told the head messenger to design a
messenger
uniform. He approved her suggestion. No more of the uncool navy-blue
(long) pants and blouses. Now messengers had white shirts, pants,
and shoes: the pants extremely short and the shoes extremely high.
I felt it was a mistake.

I didn't personally observe LRH ask or demand that the messengers
do such silly things as hold an ashtray to catch his cigarette ash
as it fell - even out-of-doors. It doesn't seem to be something
he would even think of. My impression was that one of the newer
messengers,
more anxious to propitiate him than to be real, started doing it;
if so, and if he had accepted it, and then if he had smiled, and
especially
if he had said something like, 'Thank you, Honey', in his
courteous way, the other messengers present would have noted it at
once, and it would have become firm CMO routine from that point on.
In his dealings with the messengers, he could be quite fatherly with
them and I'm sure this had a profound effect on their feelings towards
him, as well as on the lengths they would go to to please him, far
as they were from their own parents.

The point I am making here is that the picture Jon Atack paints of
the CMO on the first page of his account of them is false inasmuch
as it encourages us to believe the worst of LRH and of the CMO. He
further wants us to believe that that worst existed from some point
in the distant past and continued unabated as a continuing part of
the lives of LRH and of the messengers. In fact, the situation was
fluid; it changed and developed dynamically over several years.

Corrections of some errors

There is a number of errors of fact in Jon's account which I would
like to address briefly, and two I will address at length. A few other
points I will comment on.

Page 246. Jon quotes a statement by Tonya Burden, a young messenger
who came to the ship in 1973. Tonya came into that environment from
a life in S.California; she could not cope with the emotional and
physical stresses. She was not un-smart but was not highly gifted.
Her testimony has some merits but on the whole, in my judgment,
deserves
a great deal of wariness

Page 247. Jon's 'statement of fact': '...the Apollo
finally ran out of ports in which to berth' as the reason why
LRH left the ship in 1975. Fact: we had ports to go to in the
Caribbean,
and plenty more we could have opened up for ourselves. The Caribbean
has many islands and each has at least one port. Few of them are rich
enough to have not coveted the money we would have brought. I have
stated before that MSH was eager to return to land, and that LRH was
leaning in the same direction.

>From this point, Jon's account takes him to LRH's period on the West
Coast from 1976. I stayed at Clearwater, Florida, so have no direct
observation of LRH and the CMO in California. Nonetheless, there are
errors and I wish to correct some of them.

Page 247. Jon gives various reasons why LRH chose to seclude
himself with messengers in secret locations rather than with anyone
else. He took the CMO with him because it was the easiest and most
natural choice for him, organizationally. He needed the CMO to help
keep his communication lines operating. He relied on them to help
keep his personal arrangements comfortable. They were mobile. He
was their focus, not some other part of the organization. Moving them
about did not disrupt functioning organizations. Besides, whom else
had he to trust? He had lost faith in the GO; he had long since
recognized
that I would not follow him blindly. Jon says that the CMO were
'ferociously dedicated' to him. They had no other choice: for one
thing, each
could spare no moment from the task of having him not lose his temper
at her. For another, their power depended entirely on his favour;
no-one else would have tolerated their arrogance for one moment had
LRH just once demonstrated lessening of confidence in the CMO.

Page 250. Jon quotes someone who talks about LRH's 'terrible,
screaming, filthy language'. I have heard the same from others
who observed him in his West Coast period. I never heard him indulge
in it at Saint Hill, on the ship, or while he was in Florida, no
matter
how angry he became.

Jon reports that LRH often exploded into furious tantrums, keeping
the crew under constant and terrible pressure and neglecting their
basic needs. These are all trends of behaviour I had seen before,
but now they were running unchecked.

LRH's supposed ill-health

Page 255. Jon: LRH 'continued to suffer from heavy colds'.
This is news to me, and I saw him virtually every day (with lapses)
from 1964-66, 1968-76. He rarely had a cold. If he developed regular
colds in California, this was a big change in him.

Also: LRH 'chain-smoked three to four packs of cigarettes a day'.
In all the years I knew him, I never saw him chain-smoke - that
is, to light a new cigarette from the embers of the stub of the last
one. He never smoked more than half a cigarette before he put it out.
At his desk, he did not hold a cigarette in his hand but left it in
the ashtray, where many of them burned out unsmoked or little smoked.
I never counted how many packs a day he consumed. I remember hearing
gossip in Clearwater that he was giving up smoking. If he chain-smoked
in California this was another big change for him.

And: 'In 1965 he was bedridden and thought he was going to die.
This feeling recurred almost annually.' I was with LRH in 1965,
as Household Officer, when he went down with bronchitis for a week
or more. He seemed very ill and was very depressed. He told me he
was sick because of his research, that his lungs were a weak point,
and that this had occurred before because of his research. I don't
think he told me he thought he would die, but he certainly was very
sorry for himself and I can believe he said it to somebody.

That he felt once a year or so that he would die is untrue. He was
rarely sick enough to take to his bed. I never saw him as ill and
depressed as he was in 1965.

'Early in 1967 he was bedridden, this time because of drug abuse.'
What drugs, Jon? Who has reported what about it? Were they
self-administered?
Are we supposed to conclude that LRH was doing dope?

'In 1972, he went into hiding in New York for almost a year, again
very ill for much of this period.' Hmmm. Who is the source of
this information? I e-mailed one of the men who spent that year in
New York with LRH. His answer: 'Well, he was not in great shape
initially but was not `very ill'. He was the same as on the ship -
stressed out and making mountains out of molehills. That all
diminished
in our time there in New York. He slept well, ate well, and had time
off. I don't remember him being ill. There was a long recovery (three
months) from being on the run and in hiding, and not being able to
control much anymore. We developed our routines and he came more and
more uptone. I had him on a good vitamin program, too. Overall, he
did quite well in New York; when he returned to the ship he was in
quite good shape.' [August 2002]

Jon A: 'His bursitis has never ceased to plague him'. Not
one word did I ever hear from him or another about bursitis: he was
not one to withhold a complaint if he had one.

'He was usually grossly overweight.' He was overweight. He
developed middle-aged spread and let it go. He had a large frame.
He was an imposing figure of a man and one's attention (while I knew
him) was drawn to the upper part of his body. He did not have multiple
chins, huge flabby arms and legs, and I have seen much larger bellies
on much smaller frames.

CMO and Management

Page 257. [In 1976] 'The Guardian's Office had let him down,
and so had Sea Org management. The Commodore's Messenger Organization
had been concerned with Hubbard's personal welfare, and with his
personal
projects.' As I stated before, the CMO had its origins in the
single messenger who stood watch with LRH up until 1969 or 1970. Then
he had two on watch, and then four. The more he had on watch, the
more he had them into the management of the ship, the International
management, and then the different senior organizations he was close
to. When he operated out of California, the CMO had contingents in
Clearwater and in LA, and those contingents were routinely, daily,
and purposefully involved [some might say meddling] in the management
of every unit at those locations (excepting the GO). Jon has no idea
of the history, development, and reality of the CMO.

Odds and Ends

I have to agree that LRH did himself no good by hustling his new
Purification Rundown thus: 'I want Scientologists to live through
WW III'. That was cheap and disgusting.

Jon mentions snatches of some stories - for example, a project
to have Hubbard awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1976, Hubbard's
intention, as I remember it, was to get the prize and to turn it
down -
for publicity. Jon mentions LRH's film script for 'Revolt
in the Stars,' which is Hubbard's telling of the OT III story.
'Hubbard itched to make OT 3 public.' Everyone connected with OT III
knows
the frantic efforts LRH had people make to keep its material private.
What he itched to do was to parallel the story in fiction closely
enough that seeing it would restimulate populations. In their restim,
he figured, they would revolt against their governments. In the chaos,
Hubbard would come to the rescue, the white knight upon the white
horse of the S.O., the C of S, and Scientology. This I learned from
despatches that LRH wrote about the film in the mid-late 70's.

I can add something to the story of the newly re-created post of
Executive
Director, International. This was in 1980. I had been removed as LRH
Personal Communicator, had done a stint in the RPF, and was at last
working in the Tech Division, preparing to become an auditor. The
first and only Executive Director of Scientology had been LRH until
about 1967 or 68. The first person appointed to this post in 1980
was not the first choice of those filling it. I was. When approached,
I hedged. I asked questions about how this post was to relate to the
GO and the CMO, and had no answers. I suspected

(a) that the CMO would interfere with the post as
they did with all others,

(b) that the CMO would set up the first occupant
to fall noisily and messily as a warning to #2, who would take note
and be tractable.

I must say I was sorely tempted; I already knew my first action would
be to visit every org in the world, and speak to its staff and public.
And as soon as I decided that I would do that, I realized it would
never be allowed. I refused the posting. However, the CMO appointed
me. It was David Mayo who did me the great favour of dissuading them.
The other victim got the job. And the messy fall. Actually, so did
#2. Always persistent, the CMO got what it wanted in #3. He's still
doing his duty like a man.

Page 265. Jon tells how Miscavige 'tricked' MSH into
resigning, arguing that as a convicted felon she couldn't remain as
Guardian, and that as LRH's wife her position as Guardian weakened
any legal assertion that LRH was not involved in church management.
The information I got from someone who was very close to LRH at that
time is that Miscavige empowered himself to confront MSH this way:
LRH had angrily and desperately issued an order to the GO that he
was to be isolated from possibility of suit. MSH responded to this
by writing to him to point out that by law anybody in the US can sue
another for anything; it's up to the courts to decide if the suit
has merit. Miscavige had control of LRH's communication lines. He
received MSH's message on its way to LRH and so was able to present
it to him in the light he (Miscavige) wished: as `counter-intention'
to LRH's command. Miscavige could represent to LRH that MSH intended
not to follow this urgent, highest-priority order - and that it
was all right by her that he should remain susceptible to suit.
Miscavige
got LRH into a furious outburst against MSH, saying terrible things
that Miscavige could make note of - and run off to comply with.
In so doing, he obtained her resignation. Was he not entrusted as
a messenger with gaining exact compliance with LRH's stated
intentions?
Do I know this account be true for a fact? No. But I respect the
validity
of the account and it rings true.

Page 268. We hear all about `gang sec-checking'. 'A group
of messengers would fire questions, and while the [GO] recipient [on
the meter] fumbled for an answer, yell accusations at him. Answers
were belittled, and the Messengers all yelled at once.' Jon seems
to present this activity as an innovation on the part of the CMO in
their campaign to break up the GO. In fact it was the GO that
developed
gang sec-checking back in the mid-seventies. I heard about it while
I was LRH Pers. Com., and it horrified me. I wanted to know what LRH
material they were basing it on and justifying it with. I considered
it vicious nonsense and a perversion of technology. But MSH had
evidently
approved it. Her defense of the GO was savage at the lightest. I
didn't
dare question what I had no hope of clarifying.

LRH as executive

Page 269. 'Hubbard had trained messengers to censor information
going to him to shield him from upsetting news'. The barefaced
silliness of this bull-poop boggles the mind. I was in a position
to observe LRH in action very closely for extended periods between
1964 and 1967. I was directly on LRH's communication lines,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from late 1969 to early 1975. 90% of
the information he received was in writing. 98% of that came and went
through me. He did give and receive verbal briefings. I was present
at most of them and recorded (in writing) salient points from all
of those I attended. He regularly chatted with people during his
working
day, as he took walks on the deck, or came across them as they came
and went by his office. If he issued any verbal orders he would tell
me about them. He had his messengers report to me orders that
they conveyed to people from him. Much of what he told the messengers
to do or to say I heard, being only a few feet from his office, and
he usually kept its door open.

I make a case, therefore, of having become very familiar with the
flows of information etc., that he received, and of his responses
to it. And of course with what he himself originated.

Of all this information Jon Atack observed not one
syllable. Yet he feels himself entitled to assert that LRH made
a point, in managing the ship, the Sea Org, and international
Scientology,
of filtering out `upsetting news'.

LRH liked good news. He liked things to go his way.
Genuine accomplishments and triumphs of others delighted him. He could
celebrate wins, his own and others'. A day without problem,
distraction,
or disturbance could be a joy to him.

He craved competence from those around him and warmly
appreciated it when he got it. He could be kindness itself in dealing
with a subordinate who hadn't got it right but was putting her heart
into it. On the other hand, he did refuse to address matters he felt
were irrelevant to him. He could not tolerate a report that was
incomplete,
false, or unclear. To not receive information he wanted, or was
entitled
to, or had to have to do his job infuriated him.

When he was genuinely interested in a situation,
he investigated it very thoroughly before taking action. His personal
policy as an executive was to handle something he needed to handle
so completely that he would not have to handle it again. To be so
effective, he'd need to know a great deal about the situation. He
persisted and insisted until he was satisfied he had it all. He
trained
his messengers to ferret out what might otherwise go undetected or
unreported. He trained them personally to probe, to discern, to dig,
to penetrate any pretence or barrier. He would get upset if he
couldn't
get the satisfaction he wanted, no matter how unpleasant the truth
might be. Nobody involved or observing him in this activity could
have the slightest suspicion that there might be something he would
not want to know because it might be `upsetting'.

At the same time, there was a side of LRH that was
addicted to `upsetting news'. He had a need to find fault, to
criticize,
to complain, to accuse, to feel himself betrayed by the ignorance,
antagonism, or incompetence of another or others. In such a closed
and crowded community such as ours, he could always find something
to blow up about. There were so many molehills to make mountains out
of, and he made them. If he didn't find a molehill to his
satisfaction,
he would send messenger after messenger into an area or to an
individual.
The barrage would either uncover or produce some confusion worthy
of his ire. Angry he would be until the outpouring had exhausted his
need to display his bullying force.

L. Ron Hubbard was not a simple person. Nor was he
a little person. He was not the caricature that ignorance and spite
inspired Jon Atack to conjure out of the mists rising from his
suburban
cauldron in which boiled and bubbled his prejudices, biases,
irritations,
envies, and misconceptions.

No researcher or historian can ever presume that
he or she can truly understand who and what LRH was or what life
around
him was like without first understanding that LRH was so very
extraordinary
and unusual a person, very human in his weaknesses but powerful as
a whole being to a degree far beyond what anyone experiences even
in the unusual walks of life on Earth. And therefore, possibly, a
being whom the researcher/historian does not yet understand and
appreciate
in full. Jon Atack's accounts make very obvious that the
historian/researcher
needs to gauge very conscientiously the quality of the reporter as
well as the quality of the report.

So many people, so many complaints

Throughout this part of his book, on the CMO, Jon
quotes people who were at Flag or at the California units, who had
bad experiences and complained bitterly. There was indeed a great
deal of nonsense in the daily routines at all levels. Not all of it
was by any means LRH's direct doing but he sure gets blamed for it
all. There was a great deal of good in what LRH began, but it started
going wrong, stumbled, and fell into a pit of complexity in which
a lot of people hurt themselves.

One of these complaints I will take up. Jon quotes
someone who lost his wife to a possibly treatable disease that
Scientologists
said was mental in origin and susceptible to resolution through
auditing.

The husband and wife had both been highly-trained
Scientologists of long standing. The man gave evidence at a Public
Hearing in Clearwater in 1982 to `investigate' Scientology. Witnesses
were invited to complain to it.

'You must realize', the unfortunate widower
declared to the Inquiry, 'both of us were totally persuaded that
the source of all illness was mental, except for, say, a broken leg,
and the way of curing it is with auditing.'

LRH, Scientology, and Physical Health

We need to examine that misperception of Scientology
as it is not uncommon and certainly is very much used against
Scientology.
In the fifties and early sixties, LRH usually expressed an attitude
of contempt for the body in general, and for bodily illness in
particular.
The other side of this coin was the belief that the thetan, when
audited
enough, could acquire or regain the power to remold a sick body into
a healthy one. It was all part of the Operating Thetan mythology.
LRH propagated this set of attitudes in his writings and recorded
lectures of the period.

Many of these recorded lectures and earlier writings
were required study on many courses into the eighties (and probably
still are). Some people trained in the early years adopted Hubbard's
attitudes towards the body and illness. So did some of the people
who trained later and heard the old recorded lectures and read the
written materials.

Notwithstanding all this, Hubbard at no time while
I knew him omitted to make sure that anyone within his responsibility
who had definitely physical symptoms or possible symptoms received
medical attention. One of his first instructions to me when I joined
his household in 1964 was that if one of his children had a
temperature
I was to call the doctor at once and then to inform their mother or
himself.

In the early seventies, as he refined his instructions
to auditors and to those who supervised auditors, he very explicitly
ordered them to ensure that any medical condition received medical
treatment. He practiced this repeatedly and constantly, himself, on
the ship.

The man who bemoaned the terrible and horribly regrettable
loss of his wife to sickness due to the fact that he, she, and the
people around them, assumed that auditing would `cure' her fatal
condition
was complaining to this Public Inquiry not about Scientology but about
his own laziness. He had no excuse as a highly-trained auditor,
to not be familiar with, to know, and to use the most relevant
material
LRH produced through time - none of which had been withheld from
the husband.

What the man glossed over was that LRH maintained
that physical illness is preceded by spiritual disharmony that
predisposes
the person to illness or injury. LRH forbade auditing while a person
is dealing with a sick or injured body as a continuing and severe
problem. He recognized that in the presence of such stress, regular
auditing is not only impossible but harmful. He designed certain
procedures
to help the body's owner reduce his/her own stress about the body's
problem, and to help the body deal with its stress.

He also made it very clear that a person suffering
an illness or injury must be handled very deftly and gently. The
auditor
and case supervisor must pick their way through the available charge
to get the recipient feeling strong and confident enough to address
the spiritual disharmony that preceded and precipitated the illness
or injury. To err in this process can be to put the recipient under
more stress than he/she can handle. Once they locate that disharmony
and resolve it, physical healing becomes much more likely, faster,
and more thorough.

To make this complete, let me add only that Hubbard stated that
sometimes
the spiritual disharmony is the result of abuse of the victim by
someone
in his/her life that the victim accepts and suffers from. Or it might
be that someone in the person's life reminds him/her of abuse that
occurred in an earlier life. In either case, Hubbard had procedures
he insisted upon; here he insisted on ethics action to locate and
identify the source of the abuse  - from whom or which the victim
had to disconnect, or directly confront and handle before resuming
auditing (or training).

A Conclusion

It is not unreasonable to accuse Hubbard of this wrongdoing or that.
To accuse another repeatedly is to accuse only oneself. To charge
another with stupidities he was careful not to commit and indeed
forbade,
is to condemn only oneself.

Jon quotes at length the moanings of victims of this or that abuse
or injustice in Scientology. I'm personally sorry that they suffered.
On the other hand, their complaints convey a satisfaction, even a
relish, in being able to display such terrible wounds and to portray
their abusers (LRH and Scientology) as cruel tormentors. The
complainers
empower themselves as martyrs and decorate their wounds in frazzle.


We have come full circle: I said a while ago that
there was a side of LRH that needed to find fault, to criticize, to
complain, to accuse, to feel betrayed by the ignorance, antagonism,
or incompetence of another or others.

The freedom he gave to that side of himself as he
aged enabled it to contribute to the `ecology' of the Scientology
community that he created directly and by default. That `ecology'
attracted to it (amongst others) many people with similar needs to
his. And those people ended up where they wanted to be - with
plenty of experiences to fit their needs. They found themselves in
positions to find fault, to criticize, to complain, to accuse, to
feel betrayed by the ignorance, antagonism, and incompetence
of L. Ron Hubbard and of Scientology.

Neither LRH nor the others were completely in the
wrong: not one of them could be in any way right.


copyright : Kenneth G. Urquhart 2002.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul  3 12:06:01 EDT 2019 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/bluesky/part11.txt
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
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.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list