Home

candle

By Thomas Price

Definition of Requiem : a Christian ceremony in which people pray for the dead.

While contemplating the current scene in the Church it stuck me on the causes of the demise of the Corporate Church and how we have come to this place.

Looking back I believe the real boom in the Church happened during the 1970s. This boom was caused by the power and reach of the Mission network which primarily focused on getting new people into Scn. The expanding Scn mission network flowed people into the local Orgs and then up the line to ASHO and AOLA for higher class training and auditing.

The Mission network prospered in the 1970s because entrepreneurs (define: “a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk”) were allowed to get on with the game. From my experience the Scientology Mission entrepreneurs were not motivated to make money but rather:

To make a difference (to help), and

To get on with the show without undue interference

These entrepreneurs just wanted to run their own show and not have the boot heels of someone else pressing them down. They wanted to operate independently.

These entrepreneurs manifested the Prelogic Q1: “Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses”. As long as the entrepreneurial Mission holder was allowed to get on with their game, the Missions flourished and such legends as Davis Mission, Palo Alto mission, and others brought floods of new public into Scientology.

As Mr Dan Koon has written before, the Scientology system could have been built around a large Mission network whose skill was bringing new public into the Church, and local Orgs with a strong Qual to correct the products from the field, and provide further training for those graduating auditors up the line. Then an upper org ASHO could refine the auditor product through more rigorous training, and the Advanced Org could provide upper level auditing service.

The key was strong entrepreneurs who were allowed to be free, to get on with their purpose, and drive  new public into Scientology.

However once the RTC smashed the Mission network in 1982 with heavy ethics and control, it drove the entrepreneurs out of the Church and there was no one left with the initiative and drive to recreate the destroyed Mission network.

And once the missions collapsed there was no flow of new people to drive into the Orgs. And just look at what we have now, a dying Church which is pushing its resources to build so-called Ideal orgs (buildings) which will ultimately be monuments to disastrous planning.

And the Mission network of the 1970s which was so proficient at getting new public into Scn, has now been replaced with high definition TVs and videos in the Ideal Orgs’ information center.

It is all MEST now.

Is it any wonder the Church is dying a slow but persistent death?

The Church needed a visionary leader to take the reins once LRH was gone. Someone who could look out 20 to 30 years, or more, and predict how the future could unfold, and plan accordingly. And someone who could recognize and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit and promote the self-determinism of all Scientologists.

Instead the Church got a reactionary leader who retreated into the past, smashed any entrepreneurial spirit in the Church by demanding unthinking obedience, and therefore destroyed the pursuit of self-determinism that had once driven the true expansion of the Church.

And thus, here we are now.

Like it or not, you as an individual, willing to stand up and speak your mind, may be the best hope left to encourage and promote Q1: “Self-determinism is the common denominator of all life impulses”.

*This article was originally posted for us on another site, and is being re-posted here on Milestone Two for our many new subscribers and followers.

 

37 thoughts on “Requiem

  1. Pretty much was digging it till you mentioned something about needing a “leader”.

    Visionary or reactionary “leaders” need not apply.

    Why?

    Because leaders require followers and I never considered myself a follower and why I protested Miscavige’s arrogant and false claims of “leadership” supported by the media and various current and past Sea Org members and brain dead OTC members.

    The logic escapes me that how someone who is the Chairman of the Board RTC which BTW is the second echelon of the highest echelons of Scientology can claim to be the leader is as Orwellian as 2 + 2=5 as far as I’m concerned.

    Otherwise good article.

    • RR,
      I did not get that Thomas was asking for leaders. I think he is simply pointing out what happened in the past is off the rails.
      Agreed with your observation that the Chairman of the Board’s claim to be the leader is as Orwellian as 2+2=5!
      🙂

      • Lana

        “Leadership” is one of the things I’ll admit I have a button on. Like control it is usually done badly.

        Besides if everyone knew what they were doing and could do it. You wouldn’t need a leader.

        All you’d need was a coordinator or supervisor or administrator.

        Yes I know Ron talks and writes about leadership but it is relationship to an aberated society and group. Not one that is Clear or OT.

        I cite “Essay on Management” where you have so called “Management” being more of a stop than anything else which is exactly what is happening in the Church these days.

        • I beg to differ , RV.

          See RJ67 about “Organized OTs” . See ‘ SHSBC-420 6504c06 , “Org Board And Livingness” . Also see SHSBC-309 , 6307c09 , ”The Free Being”.

          You’ll be able to realize how organization is vital to expansion and to be able to keep it. You’ll realize that the reason we all went downhill many millennia ago was due to everybody just minding their own business w/out no organization whatsoever , w/out no Qual. And we were All OTs back then !!!

          If you believe in the Org Board as a vital tool not just for Scientology expansion but for any type of expansion in any area , then you must know that an ED is required , right ? Somebody running the show and being in charge of all divisions is required , right ?
          Well , what do you think he is being ? He is being a Leader.

          Perhaps you should ( this is only a suggestion by the way) read and W/C fully everything LRH wrote about the subject and see if there is any possibility you may have an uninspected false or incomplete definition of ”leadership”. Read the above refs specially ”The Responsibilities Of Leaders” and decide for yourself what is true for you regarding it. But do a whole ”cramming” cycle on yourself first totally unbiased. I think you’ll find that being Clear or OT doesn’t take the need of leadership out of the equation. In fact , it is even more important if you want to keep the balance between force vs intelligence. Read all refs and I am sure you’ll understand what I mean.

          ARC ,
          Peter

          • Peter,

            I suggest you read Essay on Management. The post is Executive Director. Look up “direct” as opposed to “lead”.

            The references you’ve cited discuss having a group no necessarily leadership with the exception of the Bolivar Policy.

            There are also other issues on Leadership such as the lectures on Individuation and entitled Leadership.

            My problem regarding this discussion is that you presume I must have a misunderstood on these references you’ve cited but failed to actually quote them and only gave your opinion about them instead.

            My antagonism toward leadership is based on assumption that the Church requires a “leader”.

            You look at the Org Board and you will find the absence of the post “leader” of a “different kind” or otherwise.

            Also read POW where Ron discusses this point as well.

            Yes someone who directs things could be considered a “Leader” but a true leader does it based on consent or advice or agreement. Not by force which has been the “wog” concept of “leadership” and the one being currently applied in the Church these days.

            • Dear Robin ,

              I understand your upsets , I really do.

              Sorry for failing to properly quote the refs , I had assumed you were very familiar with them and only attempted that you looked at them in a new unit of time and consider the possibility that your definition of “leader” and “leadership” might be incomplete. So this time I will do the proper thing and quote LRH. Fair enough ?

              “LEADER” ( LRH Admin Dic) : One who exerts wide primary influence on the affairs of men” HCOPL 12 Feb ’67.

              “LEADERSHIP” : 1. Positive , enforced orders , given with no misemotion and toward a visible accomplishment are need of a group if it is to prosper and expand. Many obstacles can exist to that accomplisment but the group will funtion. We call it leadership and other nebulous things , this ability to handle a group, make it prosper and expand. All leadership is, in the final analysis, is giving the orders to implement a program and seeing that they are followed.” LRH. HCOPL 3 Nov ’66.

              Notice the part of “positive, enforced orders, given with no misemotion and toward a visible accomplisment…”

              Is not that what an “Executive Director” does every day ? What is the role of Management Ronin ?

              I quote LRH from Admin dic :
              “MANAGEMENT” 2. The skills with which goals, purposes, policy, plans, proyects, orders, ideal scenes, stats, and valuable final products in any activity are aligned and gotten into action is called mamagement. LRH. HCOPL 6 Dec ’70.

              Doesn’t this fit the duties of an executive director ? Doesn’t this fit in the def of “leadership” above ? An executive Dir is ,by definition, a Leader. He is nothing else, indeed. Does this sound like Peter’s opinions or LRH quoted ?

              “Positive” defin 1. “Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance or affirmation” (The “Free Dicrionary Online”)

              How do DM “orders” fit under that def ? They doesn’t fit. First he says we have 100% LRH, totally On-Source ( RTC Network Bulletin 450 ’91) and then he said we didn’t ( “The Basics”). Then , now that we did have “100% LRH” it is “found” that we actually didn’t (GAT 2). With GAT 1 we had “flubless auditors 100% On-Source”. Then we didn’t exactly as something was missing (“The Basics”). Now that we finally got trained again in a new unit of time, from scratch , for the 2nd time, it is “discovered” that we actually “never had 100% LRH” and for the 3rd time! , we have to start from scratch, getting trained all over again.

              How does all that classifies as “positive orders” ? They don’t. He was never a “Leader” Robin, that’s what I have been trying to tell you all along. You are using DM as a datum of comparable magnitude when analyzing this concept of “leadership” but he never fitted into that category. You have a “false definition” through “Marketing strategies” and by “redefinition of words” by Church’s Management.

              “Leader” def at the “Free Dictionary Online ”

              1. One that leads or guides
              2. One who is in charge or in command of others

              Isn’t an “Excecutive Director” in “command of others” ? I very much think so. Don’t you think ?

              Def of “direct” at the “Free Dictionary Online”
              1. Control the operations of, manage or govern.
              2. To have or take charge of.

              Aren’t these definitions of “Leading” and “directing” somewhat synonyms , Robin ? They are practically the same. I covered LRH defs as well as “wog” definitions. I dislike the use of that word but only did it to stay in the same line of thought.

              Where exactly did you get that “datum” that leading “by force” has been the “wog concept” of “leadership ?

              Nothing could be furher than the truth, Robin. When you search for “Leaders” on the Web you only get the characteristics described by LRH. People who inspired and led the way by agreement ,inspiration , and positiveness, not by force. Go ahead and do the drill yourself. Google search it. You’ll find no force or aurhoritarism in any “wog” definition or dissertation about it. Just try it by yourself.

              I will now further quote LRH on this subject from that ’66 HCOPL 3 Nov, “Leadership”

              ” One can build this up higher by obtaining general agreement on the how, why and what of programs” LRH. (totally oppose to what DM did and does) . I will continue : “but to mantain it there have to be orders and directives and acceptance or enforcement thereof-else the group will fall apart, sooner or later”

              “Positive orders and directions on positive programs inevitably cause expansion”. Being wise or a good fellow or being liked does not accomplish the expansion. People in the group may be cheerful-but are they going anywhere as a group ?”

              “The ideal is to have programs with which the whole group ot the majority agrees fully. Then to foward these with positive orders and obtain compliance by acceptance or enforcement” LRH.

              Isn’t this exactly to what you are refering to ?
              “but a true leader does it based on consent or advice or agreement”

              Your exact words totally align with LRH’s.

              “You look at the Org Board and you will find the absence of the post “leader” of a “different kind” or otherwise. ”

              It need not to be, Robin, it is most than implied. Check the definitions above, w/c them and see it fot yourself.

              I provided exact refs and quotations as you demanded. I gave you the definitions. Now it is your turn to provide yours as exactly stated by LRH and not simply “opinions”. Fair enough, right ?

              To think that Scientology needs no Leader is comparable to saying that a child doesn’t need their parents. If Scientology needs no Leader according to you, then show me your evidence of the big expansion in the Filed, big enough for planetary clearing or even for a reversal of good will. There isn’t one still even if great people from the Field like yourself and others are getting excellent products. Only through a Leader for the Field, completely selected or accepted by every ethical scientologist, democratically , will we have enough power, coordinarion and direction to take this planet and to take care of DM. Are we waiting for LRH to baby sit us again ? He ain’t coming back for quite some time. He is very busy preventing what the majority doesn’t even want to believe much less confront.

              It is time for us to roll our sleeves and do the job ourselves using standard admin just as he did. There is no other solution, I am afraid ,as antipathetic as this may sound to many due to the so poor examples of real leadership from the Church. See, the thing is that DM was never a Leader in the first place. He was only an opportunist that we ourselves, let him rise to power. That’s the hard, blunt truth. But valuable leasons were learned along the way and we know exactly now, what to avoid and be watchul about.

              So just relax about this. There are too many of us now , great individuals such as yourself and MS2 crew that will not let the same errors to happen again. Faith is a very powerful thing if correctly understood.Faith is everything. I hope I have made myself clear enough this time. Take care team mate !!!

              ARC,
              PETER

              ——————————
              On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 5:05 PM PDT Milestone Two wrote:

              >Howdy,
              >
              >remoteviewed commented on: Requiem.
              >
              >Comment URL: (https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/requiem?cpage=1#comment-2811)
              >Post URL: (https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/requiem)
              >
              >This was in response to thetaclear:
              >———-
              >I beg to differ , RV. See RJ67 about “Organized OTs” . See ‘ SHSBC-420 6504c06 , “Org Board And Livingness” . Also see SHSBC-309 , 6307c09 , “The Free Being”. You’ll be able to realize how organization is vital to expansion and to be able to keep it. You’ll realize that the reason we […]
              >———-
              >
              >Peter,
              >
              >I suggest you read Essay on Management. The post is Executive Director. Look up “direct” as opposed to “lead”.
              >
              >The references you’ve cited discuss having a group no necessarily leadership with the exception of the Bolivar Policy.
              >
              >There are also other issues on Leadership such as the lectures on Individuation and entitled Leadership.
              >
              >My problem regarding this discussion is that you presume I must have a misunderstood on these references you’ve cited but failed to actually quote them and only gave your opinion about them instead.
              >
              >My antagonism toward leadership is based on assumption that the Church requires a “leader”.
              >
              >You look at the Org Board and you will find the absence of the post “leader” of a “different kind” or otherwise.
              >
              >Also read POW where Ron discusses this point as well.
              >
              >Yes someone who directs things could be considered a “Leader” but a true leader does it based on consent or advice or agreement. Not by force which has been the “wog” concept of “leadership” and the one being currently applied in the Church these days.
              >
              >If you don’t want to be notified of new comments any more:
              >Thanks for flying with http://WordPress.com

              • Well ok since you put it that way.

                The problem is that there has been a dearth of leaders and leadership since Ron moved on.

                Yeah Guillaume and Ray did alright until they started taking direct orders from we all know who.

                Fact is that when Dave came up with the off the wall idea of the Golden Age of Tech. He should been shown the ref Drills Allowed and if he insisted Word Cleared Method and False Data Stripped and he continued to insist they should have Comm Eved his sorry ass.

                But nooo….

                Ray folded like a bad hand in a poker game and had RTRC concoct a bunch of squirrelly drills and the rest is history.

                Same with Guillaume when Dave came up with the wacky idea for “Ideal Orgs”.

                Instead he said “Done Sir!” .

                Sure a bunch of people in the “indi field” are pissing and moaning about these guys being in the hole but per policy under Orders Query of and Orders Illegal and Cross to label any such order illegal.

                But did they?

                Probably not.

                They followed some top down command channel and basically slammed the door on their virtual prison themselves.

                You see leadership is all fine in theory and all that. But at times those who call themselves “leaders” should be willing to be led as well as lead.

                • “You see leadership is all fine in theory and all that. But at times those who call themselves “leaders” should be willing to be led as well as lead.”

                  We are in total agreement on that, Robin. A “Leader” must be willing to be led too. And the ones really capable of being a true Leader doesn’t abound either. On that , I am clear too. But I think that we are really in need of a , let’s just call it a – “command structure” or a “central organization”. At some point some Org Boarding is going to be needed for the whole Field and it is that group organized , that will do the “leading”. But someone have to be “in charge” of the whole thing but in coordination with several others, of course, and with a proper “check and balance” system correctly set up.

                  But I do know what you mean and I understand your viewpoint. We’ll get through it somehow.

                  ARC
                  PETER

                  • Never had an objection to applying the Scientology org board.

                    What you think I’m one of those indie whack jobs 😉

                    Those who allegedly love the tech but hate policy?

                    No I’m just sayin that we should be forever wary and vigilant of those we appoint as leaders and thus not fall into the same trap the Church has fallen into such as a virtual dictatorship.

                    • Totally agree with you, 100%. And , by the way, I know you are not one of those “indie whatck jobs” as you so eloquent put it ; otherwise I would not have even bothered in “clarifying” anything. I know you are one of the good ones, Robin.

                      ARC
                      PETER

        • Yours is an interesting comment RR. I see where you are coming from – and I appreciate your honesty on it.

          In my understanding, a leader is simply someone who serves the group by coordinating and organizing.

          LRH states that to command is to serve, and when a “leader” is no longer doing that function of serving the group, then they are on some other purpose – whether that is personal power, control, money, celebrity, or something else.

          If you take away the name leader, and call them coordinator – you have the same thing.

          I think when you have a group of Clears and OTs, who understand how a group functions (simply put it is lines and terminals with an agreed upon purpose, who work to produce and exchange a product or service), then things grow.

          The lines/channels/flows must be understood — and that comes down to the leaders of the group to make sure they are clearly established and work. And then the individual group members can work to maintain the exchange – each working on their respective hats or functions, and understanding what others are doing.

          Unfortunately we have all experienced many other things than the above. I have seen it all — from the highest echelons of the Sea Org, where group seances and forced confessions became the norm — to not-for-profit association groups run with no leader (just a bunch of people, no one wanting to really be responsible for anything) that waffle along and eventually run out of money and energy and die.

          Groups are as sane or insane as the members (and leaders) that make up that group.

          Someone said to me about 2 years ago that they felt it was wrong that anyone was leading a group of Scientologists who was not an auditor and actively training and auditing. This really hit home for me as a truth. Look at the C of S, and you have a “leader” who has not audited anyone since he was a teenager (and did a bad job at that), and has not put anyone on the meter to help them in more than 30 years. And yet he is the “champion” in Scientology? He does not even practice it!

          Let’s make this new group a sane one!

          I have no button on the subject of leadership — and I also have no desire for fame, power, control or self-importance (as those who know me well can attest).

          Come to my place for auditing on the weekend and it is likely I will still be walking around in my PJs at 10am, making everyone breakfast. I train. I audit. And I know I don’t know it all — and certainly make no claim to. I take advice well, and in fact, there is another brilliant LRH reference where he states an executive can make NO new orders until he has understood those that already exist (and we have those in spades in the LRH Bulletins and policy letters).

          I just know we gotta get the LRH’s Scientology show on the road, and my efforts can be as good as anyone else’s, so I am just going to keep on working on this, and as things build and develop, it can get more structured.

          There is no rush — there is no deadline — and I, like everyone else, have a household, a family, hobbies, games, work and all sorts of mischief I like to get up to — so the current set up seems to be trucking along just fine in my eyes.

          🙂

          • Lana,

            I’m not disputing your leadership or anyone else’s I am disputing what has become known as “leadership” and that whether we need another one after the ostensible “leader” we were all subjected to.

            The fact is under the CST/RTC arrangement and various AdCom issues that Ron never intended for any one person to lead the Church.

            This is also made clear in the Policy LRH Relationship to Orgs.

            True at times we needed wise leadership by Ron himself but the fact is that by writing the policies HCOBs and directives he is still leading us by his spirit.

            • RV, I tend to agree with you. Each leader has his own ‘colour’ and tone and awareness and personal interests and goals and dare I say it, aberrations. These may be different and even antipathetic to our own.

              It reminds me of the old days when a tribe leader had to swallow his pride and go down to the next village and ask for help to combat a common, marauding enemy. That was hard, but sometimes new friendships came of it, along with the, gulp, marrying off daughters and sons to cement bonds. What can you do? It’s tough.

              As LRH says somewhere, anarchy would be the ideal form of government, but only if each individual was Clear, because only then could rational decisions be made according to the dynamics.

              Without a doubt, the 3rd Dynamic is a magnificently formidable button, for lots of reasons; for one thing, it prevents a strong and sensible probing of the 4th Dynamic. The 4th Dynamic remains untroubled by the present population of Earth, mostly as LRH points out in The Free Being. Uniting under leadership sits at the core of this particular aberration, IMO. This leads to the next alternative, which is leadership by comittee, gulp.

              As you can see, nothing will get done because of our present aberrations. It’s a tidy trick, which invites strong individual to confront other strong individuals, with a resulting GPM, and we all lose.

              Simply saying that this is a good game doesn’t solve the problem of how to get people through their grades and onto the OT levels.

              Therefore, the only recourse is to trust; but with each betrayal down the track, and with each overt, this just gets harder and harder and harder.

              LRH had a solution to this dilemma, which is, study, train and audit, and anything that assists is a step in the right direction. Nor do we have to worry about the critics who desire oblivion for all because fortunately, most of us don’t.

              • Ya betcha P13,

                Leadership is a touchy subject. Thanks to the so called “leaders” humanity has been subjected to like those wack job Emperors like Nero and others various Kings and Dictators etc. etc.

                Not a pretty picture.

                Then of course there is committees which are good when you want absolutely no action at all on something.

                Then there is the old saying here in America that one’s Life, Liberty and Property are in jeopardy every time Congress is in session.

                Here in America we are little shy on leadership which means Government to many of us.

                Though there are those who believe too much Government is not enough and less Government actually means more.

                Just as the Republicans and Neo Cons.

                But anyway.

                The basis of all this distrust we can assign to our founding fathers who considered Government and by extension Leadership as a “necessary evil”.

                Not exactly a glowing endorsement 😉

                Ron himself was not a big fan of Authority and sort of learned the hard way that you gotta put somebody in charge or ya end up doing it yourself.

                I guess leaders are alright as long as they can be impeached , recalled or comm eved just like the Plebs. Such as in the case of he who shall not be named.

            • RV: “The fact is under the CST/RTC arrangement and various AdCom issues that Ron never intended for any one person to lead the Church.”

              Exactly, the type of leader that is not subject to removal by the system of Checks & Balances LRH left behind we don’t need. He was neither elected nor appointed.

              And when he thinks he can re-invent the tech pretending to be source to some degree making others erroneously believe he was LRH’s chosen one to succeed him, we have deception and fraud at work. And when it’s gotten to the point where so much policy has been violated and the church has been focused into a parasitic money cult, it’s criminality & treason of the highest sort.

              • Problem is that Dear Dave has had a lot of help in the furtherance of this delusion think the Man Behind Scientology and the Men behind the man behind Scientology.

                One in particular who still likes to propagate the myth that he was the chosen one without any other proof than his say so which on his blog is sacrosanct.

                In other words it is not just him claiming the position of simple simon says but has a caste of “little (and probably not so little) people” in a supporting role like for example those money bag elitists they call patrons slavering for a photo op with the man after dropping a few bills that they can write off on the ol’ 1040.

                Call it Dave’s mutual masterbation committee or MMC that goes along with the IRS’ nod to his supremacy by deputizing him as the Church’s revenoo agent as Chairman of the CTCC.

                Not to mention the possibility that Smersh has him in their pocket because he’s succeeded in doing to Scientology what they’ve never been able to do for several decades.

                I mean the guy’s got fans.

                They just don’t happen to be Scientologists 😉

        • RV
          I have to agree with those who accuse you of having an MU on “leader”. You eschew the idea of a “leader” and somehow think that “coordinator or supervisor or administrator” are something different when they are not. A leader is all those things. Only in a very badly trained and genned team is a “leader” someone who gives out a lot of orders or uses force to get the jobs done. In a properly trained and practiced team, the “leader” becomes a strategist and advisor.

          In the Church-that-was, there were many many leaders on the “org board”. There was the Watchdog Committee. There was the CMO. There was the international management of the Church alone (which went by various names over time). There was RTC, ASI/CIS (or whatever they were called). There wasn’t just one leader posted because (presumably) more than one person or entity was required to take over LRH’s leadership hat. And the upper infrastructure of the Church was designed to ensure that no one person could bring the whole thing down. I say it was “designed” that way. I don’t think LRH could have forseen the utter lack of integrity that allowed one guy or a small group to subvert the entire executive infrastructure of the Church. The infrastructure as designed didn’t fail. The humans populating it did.

          Paul

          • Well let’s take a look at this word you accuse me of having a mis u on:

            lead·er noun \ˈlē-dər\

            Definition of LEADER

            1
            : something that leads: as
            a : a primary or terminal shoot of a plant
            b : tendon, sinew
            c plural : dots or hyphens (as in an index) used to lead the eye horizontally : ellipsis 2
            d chiefly British : a newspaper editorial
            e (1) : something for guiding fish into a trap (2) : a short length of material for attaching the end of a fishing line to a lure or hook
            f : loss leader
            g : something that ranks first
            h : a blank section at the beginning or end of a reel of film or recorded tape
            2
            : a person who leads: as
            a : guide, conductor
            b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence
            c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority
            d (1) : conductor c (2) : a first or principal performer of a group
            3
            : a horse placed in advance of the other horses of a team
            — lead·er·less adjective
            See leader defined for English-language learners »
            See leader defined for kids »
            Examples of LEADER

            The tour leader suggested several restaurants in the area.
            She was the leader for most of the race, but she eventually finished second.
            The class focused on the great religious leaders of the last century.
            the leader of an army
            a leader of the antiwar movement
            Some people are leaders, and some people are followers.
            The company has become a leader in developing new technology.
            the leader of a popular big band of the 1930s
            The Times attacked the government in a leader today.
            First Known Use of LEADER

            14th century
            Related to LEADER

            Synonyms
            channel, conduit, duct, pipe, line, penstock, trough, tube
            Antonyms
            follower, imitator

            As you can see none of the synonyms include “directors”, “executive” or even an “in charge”.

            So who has the mis u?

            • My Oxford American Dictionary and Roget’s Thesaurus, 1982 edition more than adequately cover my original point. I just checked. We could play duelling dictionaries/thesauri all day and get nowhere.

              You already admitted to having BPC on the subject. I would suggest handling that first.

              Let me also point out that none of this is meant as a personal attack or public upbraiding. I’m just publicly expressing my disagreement with some of what you’re saying.

    • Greetings RV !
      I’ve always followed your posts as I find you an incredible knowledgeable scientologist and a very competent observer. But today I am intrigued by your origination. Your basic ref is “The Responsibilities of Leaders” , the whole of it but specially the data about the “seven points about power” that LRH says “man is too aberrated to understand”.

      I know there is a lot of BPC regarding the “leadership” of COB ( Chairman of the bullshit) , but he was never, ever a leader to begin with. He is not a datum of comparable magnitude. The fact that one is “in charge” of a group doesn’t make you a “Leader”. Leadership has nothing to do whatsoever with being “in charge” of anything per se. A true Leader has always a very high ARC for his group and a very KRC level. DM never had those. A true Leader inspires with agreed upon goals and a true vision of the future. DM is stuck in a past incident of a long gone past. He “inspires” by force. His “goals” were purely 1D oriented and has always been, apparently. A true Leader always make sure that there is a fun game to play for his group. DM has not ever known what the true “Spirit Of Play” really is, and so can’t even play the game at hand. Inspiration , the “joy of creation” , are way beyond his comprehension.

      A true Leader works on not unpopular programs, DM only works on VERY unpopular ones : GAT1 , GAT2 , New Era Of Management , “Idle Orgs” , Audio visual “Div-6” , “Straight vertical” increasing rates for services , “circular Bridge” , Re-doing everything again , too long a road for auditor training , “The Basics” ( “all of LRH was wrong and we need to change it”), etc, etc , etc. In fact, even calling DM a “bad leader” is kind of an insult to the subject of leadership in itself. Call him a “bad administrator” , call him “an SP” , call him “an incompetent” , but please, don’t use the adjective “leader” when refering to him cause he never was in the first place. He is only and always has been , an opportunist. Only that, nothing more.

      So stop using that “datum of comparable magnitude” cause it is not. On HCOPL 3 Nov ’66 , “Leadership” ( MS vol. 3 pag. 312) LRH said an I quote:

      “The group is full of “good fellows”. This does not give succsess.

      “The group is full of plans. This does not gives success”

      “What is needs is positive orders leading to a known accomplishment. Many obstacles can exist to that accomplishment , but a group will funtion. ”

      “We call it “leadership” and other nebulous things , this ability to handle a group , make it prosper and expand” LRH. End of quote.

      W/out leadership , Ronin , nothing really ever expand or stay expanding. W/out true Leaders a society goes nowhere. You have only to review our world history to understand that all great changes and all golden ages were inspired not by “groups” , not by isolated individuals trying only to control their immediate dynamics and environment. Those changes were brought about by true Leaders with a bigger vision of the future than the majority of us and an inspiration that could light an entire planet.

      W/out true Leaders to lead the way you get chaos , you only get particles bouncing from one another and you get no real and lasting production to amount to anything. So, have another thought at it, Robin , and read those refs in a new unit of time and see for yourself whether or not , you are missing something here. I’ll be nice to argument with smart individuals such as you. Take care.

      ARC ,
      PETER

      • Peter,

        See my response to Lana.

        Also I’d like to add that if each staff member knew his or her hat the purpose of that hat, the product they were supposed to get then you wouldn’t need anyone telling them to get it.

        This is what was supposed to be achieved by what Ron called “De-oppression Tech” and Super Power which included KTL/LOC as a prerec.

        Unfortunately the powers that be never initiated De-op and decided to turn Super Power into money making racket like they did with KTL/LOC earlier.

        These two latter actions were supposed to be delivered to staff before public.

  2. Leaders are fine. Most people DO want them. Lana is, nominally, our leader, and I think she’s done a fine job. I’m willing to follow her as long as she stays on the path taped by LRH.

    I don’t believe the Church ever needed a “visionary” leader after LRH. What it needed was someone to stay the course, do the usual, and not get clever or find himself in need of validation or admiration by the rest of us. A guy (or girl) who would work in the background (at the top) to ensure that what LRH intended got done. Any changes made by him/her would only have been in the direction of making the whole system conform more precisely to what LRH set out.

    He’d probably work in that capacity for years, and if you asked him who the overall leader of the Church was, he’d probably get a puzzled look on his face, then a sly smile, point to someone on the other side of the room, and say, “I think it’s that guy”.

    The truth is that before LRH hung it up, we had plenty of leaders who were meant to work in conjunction with each other to ensure the Church continued and flourished as LRH intended. Unfortunately, they failed us, themselves and Mankind. They’ll have to live with that. And eventually, they’ll have to confront how they let it or made it happen.

    Meantime, it’s up to us to pick up the pieces that are left and once again get a show on the road. The future of Earth depends on us now, not the Church we left behind.

    • scatjappers, I wouldn’t be so hard on ‘the leaders who failed us.’ Scientology is so far ahead of society that I believe only a few will ever understand this subject. Simply hatting someone up on a job in the org and expecting them to turn the ship around is fanciful.

      The sheer number of high-level executives, FEBC and Class VIII graduates in our history who are doing nothing, or worse, is an indication of how far we have to go. That’s not the fault of Scientology or LRH, but a reflection of the confusion which besets our civilization here.

      • My understanding is that Class VIIIs would ultimately be tasked with opening up new targets (= planets) because, frankly, LRH couldn’t hope to pioneer every planet in the universe. That was as of 1968. Going forward, that would probably translate into a Class XII today, and it would include only the Tech part of the subject. But the implication is that they would understand at least the whole of the Tech part of the subject.

        The admin/ethics part of the subject would require FEBC/DSECs. And they are not trained to be sole leaders. They are meant to fire off as teams– product officer, org officer and establishment officer.
        But they are required to study ALL of the admin tech, and it would stand to reason that, all things considered, they thus the other 2/3 of Scientology.

        RV is ultimately incorrect in the idea that we don’t need leaders, no matter how one characterizes a leader. All org boards include leaders, in each section, department, division, and overall. Every activity which involves a third dynamic effort needs and must have a leader. I will grant this, though: the smoother the team’s “gen” and the more they work together as a team, the fewer “orders” they need, and the more the leader becomes simply a strategist and coordinator. LRH acknowledges this fact as well.

        And I stand by my harsh judgment of those who were supposed to lead and failed us. It wasn’t a question of leadership failure. It was a question of integrity failure. I target these people the most, because they had the closest proximity to Miscavige, and had the most opportunity to investigate what was going, simply because of their altitude. We were all more or less guilty of allowing this to happen, but the folks with the closest proximity to the source of the problem had the most responsibility to stop it. Simply saying, “but society is so messed up” isn’t adequate. It is just being reasonable. Moreover, we must hold ourselves and our leaders to a much higher standard than what passes for “standards” in our society. Look at KSW and like policies. Ron expected us to be ruthless in enforcing our standards within the subject. No, of course we don’t expect that of basic courses students. But once you’re fully on board as a “Scientologist”, you’re expected to respond to threats to the subject with immedate, positive and definite action.

        And if we’re going to make it as a group going forward, it must be this way. Otherwise, in another 5, 10 or 25 years, this schism and concerted destruction of the subject will take place again. And we’ll be no farther along than we are now. And at 28 years after LRH’s passing, we ought to be a helluva lot farther along than we are.

        • Very well said, Paul. W/out Leaders nothing ever grows , things never gets organized and eventual death ensues. The emphasis shouldn’t be now in “resisting all leadership”. We must learn to let go of the past. The emphasis should be placed in finding and/or creating the “correct ones”. They certainly don’t abound but they certainly do exist.

          ARC
          PETER

          • Precisely. This allergy to leadership appears to be widespread in our Field, thanks to the Church and its so-called “leader(s)”. But a dispassionate look at it makes clear it’s purely a matter of unhandled bypassed charge.

            I kind of giggle when I occasionally stop by a blog where they’re still trying desperately to get people to acknowledge how bad the Church and its leader(s) were and are. I suppose this kind of thing has its place. But I’m just bored with the whole idea at this point. So the Church and its leader(s) suck. Duh. Where ya been?

            As you point out, we have to be careful going forward about who we follow and how far. And we have to stand up when there is a problem with our leadership. I also think it would be helpful to acknowledge when our leaders do a good job. Leadership is a thankless job. I can personally attest to the fact that a little admiration and acknowledgement goes a long way when you’re in the “hot seat”.

            • Oh Paul , you made me have a big laugh of line charge with that reply. I really enjoyed it. A very “spot-on” comment , indeed.

              By the way, look in your inbox today for that “Science answer” I owed you. Take care.

              ARC,
              PETER

  3. Very nicely done Tom.. If I didnt know better, I would be seeing a corollary with the US govt in big govt VS free enterprise & LIMITED govt! …(ie the opposite of what we have now in California… )

  4. Leaders are needed. For instance, the United States is being led down a tunnel to hell with it’s current leader. If we had a good leader we would be in a lot better shape. The last real leader that we had was Ronald Regan, he was an excellent leader. Unfortunately people are born to be led. Unfortunately SPs know that and they lead people to their demise, just like the current leader of C of S is doing.

    ML Tom

    • Actually in my opinion the last good President we had was George Washington.

      Personally I prefer Obama over W and his merry band of torturers and war mongering Neo Cons any day of the week.

      Though I gotta agree Regan was better than all the prezes we’ve had since.

      ‘cept for that Iran/Contra thang but I do honestly believe he didn’t know nothing about it 😉

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