By Jason K.

When you first acknowledge that the situation within the Church is far from ideal, and start to look at the outpoints, there is a rush of confusion.

What you see in policy is not applied, tech is altered, arbitraries and new policy abound.

And you wonder, how on earth could it have gotten THIS bad??

How is it, with a technology that is second to none, that has such vast capacity to help man and improve his lot, can it have gone SO wrong?

How could all of this been accomplished by only one man (DM) and why on earth would people do his bidding if it is so apparently off the rails?

These are valid questions – and they need to be answered.

Yes, there is suppression, and with that is PTSness.  But that does not explain how so many staff and public, unwittingly follow along with every request, demand and order, no matter how absurd or destructive.

I think there is a piece of tech that does explain this situation, and can be used by every individual both inside and outside of the church, to start to unravel this mess.

This is a piece of tech that you can apply personally, to answer your questions and gain some stability and certainty. You can also use this tech in any group that is acting crazy, to sort out how that came to occur, and how to resolve it.

The key is counter-policy.

Here is what LRH says about this:

Third Dynamic Deaberration

“The exact mechanism of third dynamic (group or organization) aberration is the conflict of COUNTER POLICY.

“Illegal policy set at unauthorized levels jam the actions of a group and ARE responsible for the inactivity, non -production or lack of team spirit.

“Counter-policy independently set jams the group together but inhibits its operation.

“Out-reality on organizing boards. etc., is to a large degree caused by disagreements and conflicts which are caused by illegal policy.

“If we had a game going in which each player set his own rules, there would be no game. There would only be argument and conflict.

“At the start it must be assumed or effected that there is someone or somebody to set authorized policy for the group. Absence of this function is an invitation to random policy and group conflict and disintegration. If such a person or body exists, new proposed policy must be referred to this person or body and issued, not set randomly at lower levels or by unauthorized persons.

“Policies so set by the policy authority must be informed enough and wise enough to forward the group purpose and to obtain agreement. Ignorant or bad policy even when authorized tends to persuade group members to set their own random policy.

“When no policy at all exists random policy occurs.

“When policy exists but is not made known, random policy setting will occur.

“Ignorance of policy, the need or function of it, can cause random policies.

“Hidden not stated random policies can conflict.

“Correct policy can be relayed on a cutative basis  –a few words left off  or a qualifying sentence dropped which makes policy incorrect or null. “Children may not go out” can be made out of “Children may not go out after midnight.”

“Altered policy can be limitless in error.

“Attributing a self-set policy to the authorized source can disgrace all policy as well as pervert the leadership purpose.

“Policy can be excluded from a zone of a group that should be governed by it.

“’Pipe making policy does not apply to the small pipe shop.’

“Such masses of unnecessary policy can be issued that it cannot be assimilated.

“Policy can exist in large amounts but not be subdivided into relevant subjects.

“Disgrace of policy can occur in a subsequent catastrophe and render any policy disgraceful, encouraging self-set policy by each group member.

“All authorized policy must be set or made available in master books and adequate complete policy files. This makes it possible to compile training hats and issue them.

“Group surveys of “What policy are you operating on?” can reveal random policy.

“All bugged (halted) projects can be surveyed for illegal policy and cleaned up and gotten going again.

“Other actions can be taken all of which add up to: 

1. Get existing policy used.

2. Get areas without policy crisply given policy from the authorized source.

3. Debug all past projects of false policy.

4. De -aberrate group members as per the “Organization Misunderstoods” materials.

5. Educate the group members concerning policy technology.

6. Set up systems that detect, isolate and report out -policy and get it corrected and properly set, issued and known.

7. Monitor any new policy against statistics and include policy outnesses as part of all statistical evaluations.”

LRH HCO PL 6 December 1970

Try this – as a simple drill.

Ask yourself, what policy am I operating on? And then look to see if it is actually reflected in LRH policy or if it instead just assumed to be supported by policy. Look to see if it has been altered or changed.

When I started to make a list of counter policy I had experienced or been part of, it was more than revealing. It really helped me to unravel the situation and understand how it had gone so kooky.

Try it.

It is the road to sanity and the way out of confusion and group aberration. It is also the way to resolve the current situation.

6 thoughts on “How did it get so bad?

  1. My view is that if you want to sort a situation out, starting midway down the admin scale at policy is not a great place to start. Any particular policy will have very different results when applied by people with different purposes. Policy is always junior to purpose.

    The quotes above have a certain context where they are perfectly true. But Ron says in the AKH series that if you want to sort out an organization that has completely gone to the dogs, you need to strip it back to its basic purpose. Only then will it start to sort out.

    If this was done in the Church of Scientology and everyone in the Church agreed to go back to the Church’s real purpose, the resistance would be immediately revealed. Because the anatomy of suppression is purpose-counter-purpose. Not purpose-counter-policy.

    If you want to do battle with a suppressive person or group, policy is a secondary tool. You may not be aware of Marty Rathbun’s famous statement to the effect that he followed David Miscavige because he was the most on-policy person in the entire Int Management. It seems ludicrous to anyone who knows the truth but it points to an observable truth that if you go toe-to-toe with RTC with policy as your only weapon, they will slaughter you.

    Those OT’s who exemplify the purpose of Scientology are the ones they fear and they are isolated and cut down by force of numbers just as quickly as possible.

    Policy is powerful. But purpose is the primary weapon.

    • First thing, YES, strip it all back to purposes and simplify it. No question on that.

      Second, “Policy Vs. Policy” is a stupid game. DM and his cabal, his support team and those cowed into submission with his shock and awe minions, were and are into that foolishness.

      This PL referred to in this post, Third Dynamic De-aberration, has wisdom in it. Essential points that apply and the ones you note are contained.

  2. There is the cycle of mis-definition 1) a person didn’t grasp a word, then 2)didn’t understand a principle or theory, then 3) became different from it, commits and committed overts against it, then 4)restrained himself or was restrained from committiing these overts, then 5) being on a withhold (inflow) pulled in a motivator. Not every word somebody didn’t grasp was followed by a principle or theory. An overt was not committed every time this happened. Not every overt was restrained. So no motivator was pulled in. Every nattery or nonprogressing student or PC is hung up in the above 1,2,3,4,5 cycle. And every such student has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile ( HCOB 21 Feb.66)

    I feel most who got into Scientology had a great purpose and those few, in or out of the Co$, who are evil take advantage of those with MUs on the Tech and can sell them on altered versions of the Tech quite easily and it’s also a great motivator.

  3. It got so bad because….. a 1.1 computional psychotic got control of the purse strings of orgs and of LRH’s comm lines in his later years. Then this sociopath gradually altered Tech and Policy while applying and/or mis-applying it with bad intentions towards people while, and at the same time, gradually off-loading or nullifying people with honest dedication to help others who were well trained in the Scientological skills for doing so and replacing them with people who were more to his liking, i.e., had less confidence and certainty in their own skills and knowledge and were more willing to simply “obey” in exchange for his approval.
    It got so bad because….. not enough people looked through his mirrors soon enough, said “NO!”, and rebelled against his destructive though sometimes subtle actions. Probably every Scientologist has some responsibility for letting this happen. Me very much included.
    Is there a remedy? Is there an answer?
    I think that there are remedies. I think that we can first of all notice and then expose to the light of day those who seek to overtly or covertly destroy or dissuade people from learning and applying Scientology.
    I think that the remedies are each of us displaying honesty, purity of heart, humility, intelligence, and the intention to remove alterations and apply the Tech written by LRH in ways that enhance the lives of others. For example, we can do our best to LIVE by the Auditor’s Code. After all Ron said that it “could be called the moral code of Scientology”.
    So, is there and answer? Yes. WE are the answer!

  4. I’ve had this argument numerous times with friends who claim policy should be abandoned, based on the idea that policy caused it all. Of course, this claim is made almost universally from people who never really studied or knew policy. I’ve persisted in telling them that it wasn’t policy that caused this, but mis-application or ignorance of it Counter-policy never occurred to me as an option, though I’ve read the above reference a number of times. But it fits quite well. The whole “Ideal Orgs” push is a mass of counter-policy originated and pushed by psychos.

    Of course, Steveeve is correct; you’ve got nut jobs pushing their evil purps. You might call them “counter-purposes”. And you can effectively argue for this point. But there are those who will enter the argument at the policy level. For those, the counter-policy argument is just as true. Counter-policy often enters the picture at the same time as counter-purpose.

What is your view?

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