Home

 

book review

By Poet Ren

This is my personal book review on Ron Miscavige’s book ‘Ruthless’.

It takes courage to tell the world your once promising child grew up and became an icicle-hearted, psychopathic monstrosity. And then explain how for 27 years you watched him transform into an unrestrained egomaniac, driven by an insatiable lust for power and greed – a master craftsmen in the dark arts of deception and covert treasons.

Such was the task that Ron Miscavige accomplished in the book, entitled RUTHLESS.

To better understand what “Ruthless” is exactly we need to first ascertain what it is NOT.

It is not an LRH bashing, anti-Scientology piece. For the most part the author is generous when it comes to LRH and his discoveries. While he does acknowledge that LRH’s life was not all the church Public Relations Departments tried to sell the world; he is not shy in stating how he believes it was his own son, David Miscavige, who has altered its workability beyond recognition in so many ways.

For the public Scientologist, org staff and Sea Org Member alike this book should have them running for the doors with their suitcases in tow. It leaves zero doubt that the poster boy COB they see on the glossy event videos and the real David Miscavige are as different as a Spring robin and a deadly rattlesnake.

David Miscavige was not appointed to the post of leadership of the church by L. Ron Hubbard, Ron Miscavige makes perfectly clear. His son rose to power with brutality and bumps in the night.

I won’t spoil anyone’s party by listing the minor or major bombshells RUTHLESS reveals but only say there are some zingers between the covers. Not for the old time veterans of the church, perhaps. They will have heard most of it, or guessed at much of the rest, to be sure.

But even I was amazed to learn that DM had lost millions of dollars of LRH’s personal money, gambling and playing the high-risk markets, without LRH’s knowledge. Then he scrambled like a seasoned safe cracker to cover his tracks and hide his crimes.

So while LRH was suffering the not too distant death of a son, loss of his wife’s freedom, engaged in massive efforts to restructure and protect the church, deal with health issues and generally steer the entire ship and crew out of the eye of a hurricane, David Miscavige was also busy. He was playing hotshot gambler in the oil markets with LRH’s money and withholding the astronomical losses – the economic devastation from the “Old Man.”

Forgive me. There I go spoiling the party, but not to worry. In the end this book will be talked about at many parties. And the conversation will be unavoidable. David Miscavige is only the COB of The Church of Scientology because he is a RUTHLESS psychopath, quite beyond any decent Being’s imagination. And now allot more people are going to learn that truth, because his daddy told them so.

Ren

PS: I give RUTHLESS 4 out of 5 stars.

A half star was lost because I honestly didn’t need to know how cute David was as a child, or any of the other quaint growing up stories. The other half was lost because Ron did not answer two vital questions. 1. Where are the bodies hidden, exactly. 2. Do you know ANYTHING that could get your son arrested and out of all of our lives?

61 thoughts on “Ruthless

  1. All fair comment on the ruthless David Miscavige. Yet it’s the story of a boy who took literally the postulates to get ahead in life, be aggressive, be smart, compete, win, despise the underdogs, make his mark in the world, get rich, get famous, beat the opposition etc etc.

    That’s the story of what happens to any compulsive game player: he can only go deeper into games, get ever more serious and obsessed with winning, in a descending spiral. I’m not at all sure that I (for one) wouldn’t have done equally insane things if in his situation.

    We need to get free of compulsive games conditions – then we can, if we still want, play games that are just fun and hurt no-one.

    • DC:

      I would hope that if, faced with the idea that what you’re doing or what you plan would mean the virtual destruction of the way out for Mankind, you would have second thoughts, regardless of how compulsive your actions.

      I’m sorry, I can’t have sympathy in any way for David Miscavige. I haven’t read the book, but if Ron Miscavige believed that his son was this cute little average boy growing up and then somehow he turned into this monster later, he’s mistaken. That psychosis that infects his son today was there from the beginning, and Ron Miscavige simply missed it, as might be common for any loving father. It’s quite common for parents to have blind spots when it comes to their kids, and I would regard this as a classic case of that.

      Paul

  2. I’m only halfway through the book, but one point I’ve already observed is how much of a hypocrite David Miscavige has been.

    If David Miscavige’s family attempted to get involved with Scientology today (i.e. Miscavige’s Scientology), they would have been turned away as poor and degraded beings!

    He received auditing at the age of nine on Creative Processing. Did he break his piggy bank for that? No, I doubt he had to pay for anything the entire time he has been in Scientology.

    I hope this fucking piece of shit dies alone and in excruciating pain. David Miscavige is the biggest loser in the entire history of Scientology.

    • JB: “I hope this fucking piece of shit dies alone and in excruciating pain”

      I completely understand how you feel, and I assume you don’t mean it literally.

      As LRH pointed out, this is a big part of the dwindling spiral (trap) we are since eons ago. Dying in excruciating pain will put him even lower and next time (getting a body), instead of being better, (s)he may be worse.

      What is needed is the knowledge and a system to avoid something similar in the future. (And sooner or later DM’s thetan processed – with the right tech – to avoid more harm).

      • MB:

        I have to agree with JB. If there is one thetan on this whole planet who deserves to have the door to eternity closed on him for multiple lifetimes, it is David Miscavige. LRH insists that we keep the door open, even if only a sliver. In David’s case, that sliver would only be visible with an electron microscope. I couldn’t care less whether David Miscavige gets better or worse, as long as he’s segregated far away from humanity, and not allowed to do any further harm for some hundreds or thousands of years. Custodian of a rock garden might be a fitting fate for him going forward.

        LRH suggests that those who commit crimes against Scientology are signing their own “death warrants”, so to speak. Not because we would do anything to them (though I would, if I got close enough to), but because of what they will do to themselves. So I suspect it will only be necessary to move him out of the way and leave him to his own devices. If LRH is to be believed, then David Miscavige, after his current lifetime (or perhaps before), will not be a threat to anyone for some time.

        I do agree that we need “to avoid something similar in the future”. But it’s not a “system” or “knowledge” that will deliver that outcome. It is our vigilance and willingness to be unreasonable which will preserve our philosophy.

        Paul

        • Paul: “I do agree that we need “to avoid something similar in the future”. But it’s not a “system” or “knowledge” that will deliver that outcome.”

          Paul: “What might interest me much more is whether Ron Miscavige detailed how David engineered his rise to the top.” … “Because that gives us a strategy to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.”

          A strategy is based on knowledge and when implemented it becomes a (sub)system.

          strategy:
          a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty.

          system:
          a. a set of interacting or interdependent component parts forming a complex/intricate whole.
          b. a set of rules that governs structure and/or behavior.

          subsystem:
          a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a component of a larger system.

          • MB:

            Yeah, I knew someone would catch the seeming contradiction.

            Strategy or not, our vigilance and willingness to act is the basic point which would be of greatest use in preventing another Miscavige. Knowing howDM engineered his rise would provide us with a strategy or perhaps a list of specific actions to take to augment out efforts to ensure this does not happen again. The first is vital, the second is optional, but welcome.

            Paul

          • It looks like we are using different meanings of “system”.
            I’m using “system” in the sense of “general systems theory”.
            Everything can be described as a system. Basically a system is composed of: components (each component might be a sub-system), the relationships among components, the behavior, the relationship with its environment, and a goal (optional).

            So, in this case, the willingness (to act, etc.) is a component of the system.

            This lead us to analyze a well working willingness sub-system:
            a) How the willingness is being kept high enough.
            b) How the willingness is measured.
            c) The amount of willingness needed in different parts of the system.
            d) The detection of the willingness going below (c).
            d) The corrective actions if the willingness goes below (c).
            I wonder how you characterize this sub-system.

            A good system should also keep working if some components fail.
            (Since you are programming computers, you probably know that a good computer system should be IP – idiot proof -).
            So, I also would like to know how to prevent the malfunction of the system if the above willingness sub-system fails.

        • An example of a (sub)system based on knowledge:

          “Bylaws are presently being written. They will be reviewed and, no doubt, revised more than once before being adopted. The intention is to establish checks and balances, and to include measures that will reduce, if not entirely eliminate, the recurrence of a power hungry leader who takes over and turns it into a personally run control mechanism.”
          http://religiouslibertyleague.org/new-legal-entity-first-independent-church-of-scientology/

          • MB:

            The author expresses a hope here, not a fact. Only the fact of those bylaws having prevented such an occurrence would prove whether he’s right or not. Put in more understandable terms, if some bozo tries and fails with those bylaws in place (and we can trace the failure to those bylaws), then we know they worked. Otherwise, we only hope they work.

            However, lack of those bylaws isn’t what allowed DM to take over in the first place, I’m fairly certain. It was the assistance of some (like Marty Rathbun) and the inaction of others which permitted it, bylaws or not.

            Again, and I can’t stress this enough, rules, laws, bylaws, “systems” or whatnot, it’s unlikely anything in that line of country could have, would have, or will prevent a recurrence. There were plenty enough of those present in the first place to prevent this. It’s the fact that people we trusted assisted DM on his rise. It’s the fact that people in a position to act, did not do so. They failed in their duties, particularly as regards KSW and Safeguarding Technology. We’re paying for that now. So let’s not let that happen again. Let’s enact whatever bylaws or “systems” we believe will help. But more important, let’s be vigilant and willing to act.

            Paul

      • MaBű,

        No one in Scientology owes David Miscavige processing or any other Scientology handling. He would have to prove himself rehabilitated before he would be allowed to do his amends project(s) and work his way back up from Treason.

        Even if he thinks it is a case issue, it’s really an ethics issue. No one has been allowed to assist him in getting his own ethics in. The group isn’t permitted to apply justice. He has arranged it so he is beyond the reach of ethics or tech. (Some people really don’t want to go into session.)

        — Jonathon

    • JB:

      Interesting. Who would run someone through Creative Processing at nine years old? Although powerful in its capabilities, mockup processing (same thing) has some liabilities which were not visible during the first few years of its use. As far as I know, it is not used on any of the lower levels of the current Bridge, though someone more trained than I am would have to verify that.

      Paul

      • Paul,

        LRH said Creative Processing strengthened (proofed up) the reactive bank. This makes sense as lower level cases are still at effect to these mock-ups.

        We might expect Creative Processing to appear after Clear or even after Solo NOTs, but as far as I know, it doesn’t occur anywhere on the currently released Bridge.

        Just another example of David Miscavige suppressing a technology that personally benefited him — but now no one else.

        — Jonathon

        • JB:

          More precisely, creative processing can inadvertently trigger a compulsive/automatic creation mechanism in some GPMs. Not always, but it can happen, and it’s hard to detect and sort out at that point.

          Again, not to discount the workability of Creative Processing. It was the method du jour for quite some time. It was only later that Ron discovered its potential liability and discouraged its use. This was, I believe, in the late 50s or mid-60s.

          I won’t comment on whether mockup processing is used on the upper Bridge, except to say that one should also examine the “original” OT levels (OT 5, 6, 7) before making any determination about the matter. I’m fairly certain it is not used on the lower Bridge, though if someone better trained contradicts me, I’ll be glad to admit my mistake and apologize.

          I’m doubtful Miscavige had any role at all in suppressing the use of Creative Processing. LRH’s discouragement of it occurred at about the time Miscavige was born or just a few years thereafter. Assuming the GPM issue was the reason, one would be potentially vulnerable to its liabilities until part way through the OT levels. Then it could be safely used.

          Paul

  3. “I won’t spoil anyone’s party by listing the minor or major bombshells RUTHLESS reveals but only say there are some zingers between the covers”

    Great I am looking forward to reading it!!! But then;

    “But even I was amazed to learn that DM had lost millions of dollars of LRH’s personal money, gambling and playing the high-risk markets, without LRH’s knowledge.”

    Jeez Ren, you mean that is not a minor or major bombshell. 🙂

    I wont get to read it for a couple of days, but I guess it had to happen, Im in apathy now, discuss away.

  4. It’s all very well to tell us what a wonderful kid David was (father’s blind spot talking), and then what a turd he’s turned into (as if we don’t know that already). And detailing the events which happened along the way which signified what a turd he was (yawn). What might interest me much more is whether Ron Miscavige detailed how David engineered his rise to the top. I have yet to hear or read of any reliable account of that. If the book contains that type of information, then it’s worth its weight in gold. Because that gives us a strategy to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

    Don’t get me wrong, though. Any denouncement or disavowal of David in print is worthwhile and useful. The fact that this one comes from his father gives it that much more weight.

    Paul

    • “What might interest me much more is whether Ron Miscavige detailed how David engineered his rise to the top.”

      The pattern is covered in Admin Tech, like in this excerpt fromFEBC 3: “A certain number of these on the planet, in high positions, bring about the conditions known as war, and so on. Now recently we traced, by the way, how a person moves from the lower stratas of the society up to an executive position or a political position of magnitude.

      You can see the pattern of it can be seen in your own org. A person cannot hold the job of central files clerk, and he argues and argues, and finally moves himself over to some other portion of the org. There’s very few people in that portion of the org, so he gets an IC, in charge of something, then there isn’t anybody else around, and he seems to be very active. And he becomes a departmental head. He becomes a departmental head by accident, and he actually is pushing himself up. Now he has, he doesn’t have the motivation of helping others, he just has the motivation of protecting himself. And the higher he rises on the pyramid, the more he thinks he will be protected. That’s part of his insanity. You get up to the top of the pyramid you spend ninety percent of your time ducking bullets.

      But the facts of the case are that there is a sort of a system by which a person who can’t hold any post winds up with a very high post.”

      • P:

        Thanks for that outstanding quote. I’m certain this is the key to the rise of most bureaucrats in government as well, which would explain the utter incompetence and vast expense of most (all) governments. It also explains the continuation of many supposedly “humanitarian” enterprises beyond their useful lives. Having accomplished the goals originally set for the enterprise, they now spend their time and money defending and trying to justify their continued existence.

        Again thanks for that brilliant LRH quote.

        BTW, do you have a copy of the FEBCs you could forward to me? I have the EstO Series lectures (no transcripts) on tape, but only my wife’s notes on the FEBCs.

        Paul

      • Pierrot: In theory yes, but the greater question has to do with the fact that someone (DM) got through all of the checks and balances and policies and stole the show. THAT IS WHAT HAS TO BE INSPECTED.

        R

        • I have a strong feeling that Ron would have expected, as a matter or course, according to common sense, that certain things would and would not be done, because it would be just plain stupid to do them.

          I remember a story Ron was saying in his instructions about ethics and how to do the formulas, where a young man had been using money against the wishes of an uncle (I think) and that he needed to get his ethics in and use the money as intended by the uncle. (Nowadays the ideal org reg would be seeing how he could get more money out of the uncle.) It is just common sense.

          My point is, he set up the 3 board system, its a good system, would have worked well, it makes sense to do it, it had members, it just needed people to step into it and do it. It was ready to roll, what more needed to be done?

          Maybe he should have written a policy about short megalomaniacs to prevent DM taking power 🙂

    • I agree Paul, that was my take on the difference between this book and others. It’s pretty hard to dead agent when your own father steps up with these kind of observations.

      I see the next wave of defections coming soon as a result…

      R

  5. Perhaps it’s useful at this point to point out that parents commonly have “blind spots” when it comes to their own kids. I’ve seen this in my own family, and in the world at large. How many times have you seen this in interviews with families, when their offspring have just committed some heinous act or acts? It is also common for others to hold parents responsible (blame) for the acts of their children. But the truth is, they only bear some slight responsibility, which becomes less the older a child gets. Children are full on thetans, just like you and me, and they come into this lifetime with baggage, just like you and I did. How they treat that baggage and what they do with it is their choice. Unless a child is processed and/or trained, that baggage will take them to places you cannot predict and cannot be responsible for. If my daughter slaughtered her whole family in cold blood, I might wonder how I missed noticing the part of her which could drive her to do such a thing. But I certainly wouldn’t waste a lot of time wondering, and I wouldn’t assume any responsibility for the act. I didn’t raise her to do such a thing and did nothing to drive her to it. The responsibility for the act would be hers and hers alone.

    It might be wise as a parent to try to avoid this and proof yourself against it. Love them, encourage them, validate them, punish them when needed and grant them beingness. But if they do bad things, large or small, don’t be terribly surprised. You don’t know the full shape and size of the “baggage” they brought to this life with them, and you couldn’t spend 24 hours a day with them, fighting off the bad influences and unpleasant circumstances which might contribute to their bad behavior. And if they never do anything particularly bad, be happy for yourself and them.

    Paul

  6. The excepts I’ve read so far don’t really say anything different from what has been said in the past and portrays the same old worn narrative that Miscavige all by himself seized control of the Church.

    Nor do they give any shocking revelations about his personality type except that the authors which includes Dan Koon throws in Martha Stout’s Sociopath Next Door The Ruthless vs The Rest of Us which is probably where Koon and Miscavige got the title “Ruthless” from and is according to some Indie “Scientologists” is “tech” that the Ol’man allegedly missed.

    However the real news is that ABC News a well known Mockingbird operation:

    http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-mockingbird/#

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    is at the forefront of promoting this book:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/book-excerpt-ron-miscaviges-memoir-ruthless-scientology-son/story?id=38760456

    This is reason in itself to take whatever is written in the book with a grain of salt.

    So far any book written by former members of the Church have been a disappointment and Ronnie Miscavige and Dan Koon’s collaboration is no exception.

    • Remoteviewed: You are onto the real deal here in your comment. No doubt of the media’s intentions and methods – the fix is in.

      Meanwhile, it occured to me that because this was by DM’s father that it will hit some staff and SO members right where they are living and get some people looking.

      Just a thought…

      R

      • Ren,

        Most of these family feuds from what I’ve seen are mostly HE&R with very little objectivity.

        What is needed IHMO is an objective well documented account of what happened to the Church.

        Not more hand wringing, weeping and gnashing of teeth in true tabloid style.

        My thoughts.

          • I wouldn’t call Wright’s book “factual” since it was mostly plagiarized from Miller’s previous book:

            http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1-c.html

            Just because the media says it is a “factual and balanced” account doesn’t necessarily mean that it is.

            Especially in the case of Scientology and its founder which has been subjected to an orchestrated psy-op almost from the beginning.

            However to answer your question:

            I have read both Wright’s Looming Tower and Going Clear and in both cases it was obvious that the author had some other agenda then merely objectively reporting the facts.

            • Yeh RV the Wise Old Goat, is pretty wise!! This is one of his quotes regarding Millers book “It confirms all their preconceptions that L. Ron Hubbard is bad, bad, and more bad”.

              The haters view on Ron is really amazingly, totally black, I dont know if there is anyone in history as bad as Ron according to them, them, that it is hard not to not to smile at the absurdity of it.

              Even a casual glance at Scientology will inform them that there is something there beneficial to learn, but these people are blind to that or are paid not to see it, but man, following that kind of logic is a mental denial that would take a great deal of work to keep in place.

              • 4a,

                These “biographies” and so called “historians” go by Hitler’s maxim covered in Mein Kampf that if one repeats a lie often enough it becomes the “truth”.

                • Why not?

                  He uses actual recordings and documentation to show how Miller contradicts himself and also proves that his “research” was flawed and biased.

                  Actually it’s not too bad.

                  Besides no one is putting “all (one’s) stock” in Michal’s analysis.

                  Just showing that there is competent (as in applying correctly the DA tech) as opposed to the Church’s incompetent (i.e. uses Character Assassination) countering of the lies of such people as Miller and other people who use his “research”.

  7. Let me make another point here. I’m not aiming this at anyone in particular, so don’t get your knickers in a twist. But over the years, I can’t count how many I’ve heard make the claim that “the system” or “policy” or something like that was flawed and/or let us down. Almost universally, such criticism comes from people who have not studied the Admin Tech. I’ve read almost every policy in existence and actually studied through OEC Vol 5. I’ve probably read all the Management Series and read the Data Series 13 times. My wife is an FEBC. And I can tell you with certainty, policy is not flawed, it didn’t let you down or anything of the sort. If anything “let you down”, it was lack of knowledge of said policy, and lack of proper execution of it. You would be stunned at the colossal ignorance at upper management levels (not to mention mid and Org levels) of policy. What we had in Scientology was more or less a bunch of fast food type personnel running a multi-million dollar corporation. Why and how it stumbled and sputtered is contained in that fact alone. If you had someone trained in auto repair and you asked them to audit Grade 4, how well do you expect they’d do? Not too well, I’d imagine. And voila, there you have the situation prevalent at ever level of Scientology, from the top to the very bottom.

    You know those points in Keeping Scientology Working? The ones about having, knowing and applying the correct technology? Imagine if none of those points were followed (though we did have the correct technology, not knowing or using it properly would sort of mask the fact that we had it). And that’s what happened in the Church. Miscavige came later and made things worse. But Orgs were limping along before that, precisely on the points above.

    It’s not “the system” or policy that let you down. It’s people. It always has been and it always will be.

    Paul

    • Absolutely Paul, you nailed it with this one 🙂 I was on an admin post and I cannot count the number of times I would see policy disregarded or applied backwards, and it was usually to artificially boost stats. The Proportionate Marketing PL was an example, usually it was Div 2 in my org that got the majority of the funds. I would scream about this but even the execs higher up let it go. Of course this led to cannibalism, which meant excessive phone calls and mail to the same people, who were sick of it, and lagging stats.

      So you are dead right, there were problems before DM, but when you consider the magnitude of the job, and the case and training states of many who were doing that job, good progress was being made. It is a massive credit to LRH to get the orgs and the whole admin scene, (let alone the technical side) to where it got to before he died.

      • 4a:

        Another point I thought of after I posted my comment. How many true managers were there in Scientology? That is, folks who were managers before coming on staff or the Sea Org. I’m not talking about people who managed the perfume counter at the department store and the like. I’m talking about people who really did management over a lot of personnel before coming on staff. I never met one. If you ever found one, I’ll bet he was probably the owner of a mission. This may explain the perennial problem of why missions always seemed to do better than Orgs. Their owners/managers, trained or not in Scientology admin tech, may have been at least conversant with management in the wog world.

        Your comments about Div 2 versus Div 6 are the kind of thing that drive my wife nuts. She started out as the Distrib Sec/PES. And she noticed that, to this day, the emphasis was always on Div 2 public. But the most important sub-product to make Div 2 public was voluminous and well-serviced Div 6 public.

        And again agreed, almost all the mistakes of administration were made in the name of the “stat push”. Forget subproducts. It was the stat right in front of you that counted. Which is about as dumb and short-sighted a position as I can imagine.

        Paul

        • I don’t know if I agree with your assessment here Paul.

          Personally I don’t think that one’s training or lack thereof in “Wog” Management “tech” would have any bearing.

          This is like saying someone who had previous Mental Health training would make a better auditor.

          In regard to Missions or Franchises. I don’t think it had anything to do with previous experience with sales or management but them being more instinctive about PR.

          Small things like having toilet paper in their rest rooms and having a nice quiet and safe space free of screaming execs or pushy regs.

          • But it was also the tech and qual staff – perhaps more so – that neded to step up to the plate. It wasn’t all “screaming execs and pushy regges”. 😉

            • Oh yeah been there. Done that.

              Wrote Job Endangerment chits, Things That Shouldn’t Be and other Miscellaneous and Sundry Staff Member reports till I got writer’s crap and nothing would happen.

              Especially after the SO Junta took over.

    • Your are right, Paul. As for “people”, it is constant vigilance, and constant willingness to fight back.
      Rightness in “fighting back” is the correct estimate of intelligence + force. (Includes willingness to stick ones neck out.)

    • I agree here that there are many who blame the tech and policy instead of their inability to apply it.

      Or worse do something that isn’t in tech or policy and say Ron made ’em do it.

      Then of course their are those who use tech or policy or both as a service fac.

      Like constantly attacking everyone who says anything critical about the Church which only ends up making more enemies.

      This is discussed in Ron’s Intelligence Briefing to the GO and in other policies.

      But then common sense should prevail on who or what is a threat and who or what isn’t.

      Yet it seems the Church these days is taking a cue from are idiotic Government and attacking possible threats and making real ones out of them.

  8. OBSERVATION: Some of the greatest vaults ever constructed by Man have been cracked and robbed by one or two daring (insane) skilled (devious) and corrupt enough to make it their mission. The problem was not the safe / vault / system.

    One need only ask “What the hell were the 300 Trained Security Team doing star gazing when the gold was carted away in a big yellow truck with flashing lights, horns blaring and a 12 foot sign that read GIVE ME ALL YOUR GOLD?”

    • Ren:

      And here’s the way it happened: The guys in the security team, with the M-16s up on the wall, looked up from their breakfast burritos and wondered what was up with that big yellow truck with the guys loading gold in the back. I mean, no one would have the brass to try to rob Ft Knox, so I wonder what those guys are doing; maybe shooting a movie? And the truck drives away, and those guys find out later that the perpetrators actually did have the cojones to rob Ft Knox. And it happened on these guys’ watch.

      For all their firepower and their standing orders to fire on intruders, they failed to do their duties as watchmen and realize that what looked like a robbery was exactly what it looked like. And then failed to use the force at their disposal to stop what was going on.

      Paul

      • Paul & 1984: And so went the horse for lack of a secured latch and so went the barn for lack of a horse to call the fire brigade to put out the fire and so went the farm for lack of a barn and so went the village for lack of seed from the farm and so went the castle for lack of a community to suport it and thus: the King, the Kingdom and the Empire.

        That’s the bad news. The good news is so long as you manage to keep the land (the unaltered Tech) buy a horse and build a better latch THE GAME PROCEEDS…

        R

  9. Re David Miscavige
    There is only old story about a monkey trap. You open a small hole in a coconut, large enough for a monkey to get their hand in, and inside you place some food that a monkey would want. The monkey reaches , grabs the food, but can’t remove his closed hand holding the food since the hole is too small to allow that. The monkey won’t let go, and you now have a trapped monkey.

    The real value in Scientology is not the buildings, and it’s not the money, and it’s not control of the organization, good or bad. It’s the ethics, tech and admin, and the proper application of it.

    Robert Pirsig author of “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” talked about the difference between the apparent and the real university in a talk called the Church of Reason.

    Here’s a pointer to a pdf that discusses this.

    http://www.csun.edu/~dwm3265/Phaedrus_Church_of_Reason_Lecture.pdf

    Just as the university is not the buildings and some other things,so is SCN NOT THE MEST. IT IS THE THETA.

    First step of KSW – having the correct technology.

    The C of S under DM has become a giant pubs org. With some exceptions, some deliberate alteration or omission of parts of some tape lectures, and the suppression of some material – the Saint Hill R6 Staff lectures, which if released would cause some issues with the way the C of S handles OT III – NOTS, most of the material is straight SCN. The material is available and getting out.

    We haven’t seen a Class VIII created in the C of S in many , many years. They aren’t a very good training org.

    In Richard Bach’s (Author of “Jonathan Livingston Seagull”) book – “Illusions confessions of a reluctant Messiah” he talks about someone deliberately wearing the bad hat, so that ethics consequences of doing a particular act would only fall on someone who could handle it.

    Someone needed to do the DM bad hat, as groups outside the C of S once the ramifications of what a properly done OT levels could result in, clearly did not want any more produced.

    At times I believe the being who is DM volunteered to wear that hat. And he can make amends, the door is always open a crack, and we can dig anybody out of anything these days. I’m not sure how involved those amends may be.

    Ingo Swan deliberately moved a meter at a major us lab, that should not have moved, making some scientific staff there actually throw up.

    I had dinner one time with the then director of SLAC, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.

    He was basically a physicist, and we talked about some physics (My background is math, physics, and computer hardware and software). He also was very well aware of what the C of S had been producing with their OT line up. He was ambivalent about it. But there are people in the US government intelligence services who are not, and saw it as a threat.

    I believe that LRH all along, since 1950, got people into the subject, got them some training, and deliberately kicked them back out into society to get the tech spread out, and to make impossible to get rid of it by destroying a central point, or group. The tech has become widespread into the society, they just don’t’ necessarily call it Scn.

    Belief in reincarnation, that we are spirits, past life regression, est, a type of group therapy – there is a very long list of things.

    CADA – the California Association of Dianetic Auditors, of which I am a proud member, was heavily involved with Jack Horner -designated bad guy, but if you read the old Auditor magazines was a praised staff member at one time. I’ve looked at his tech, it was pretty solid – he just did not call it Dn or Scn.

    Larry West maintained a very solid practice for years in the San Diego area, he had been a class VIII and was a pretty good C/S.
    He audited Terry Cole Whittaker, who had a large tv following in the early 1980’s.

    James Schmitz the Science Fiction writer who wrote many well received books including “The witches of Karres” which talked about Klatha magic (theta) and Vatches (created thetans), was the president of CADA at one time, and had been a Dianeticist.

    The material is out, the C of S is putting it out, and there is a fair amount of auditing going on in the independent field. There are several thousand people in Russia I know of.

    Yes, there a embittered former members, and many of them properly so but I wrote about this years ago. This was my defense of Ron.

    Quit bitching about Ron –

    http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=9109&cpage=1

    To have a good game you need a balance of forces , fairly equal on all sides, with no side thrusting too far, but with spirited and aggressive play. Then the game is more fun.

    The C of S under DM is just one of the forces. There are lots of others playing the game.

    Happiness is overcoming not unknowable obstacles towards a known goal. Life consists of having and playing games. Games require opponents.

    DM is just an opponent.

    From HCO PL 17 Feb 1972 Data Series 23 –

    “Strength and power in the individual consists of being logical enough to find Whys he can use to advance his existing scene toward the ideal scene.

    The Why is NOT God.

    It lies with YOU and your ability to be logical.

    God helps those who help themselves.”

    You are totally responsible for your own condition, but you can influence others to improve theirs.

    Read also HCO PL 31 Jan 1972 Data Series 22 – “The Why is God”.

    DM is not responsible for your condition, nor can he do what you can do in your own life to make things better. Only you can.

    To end on a brighter note – I always read Richard Bach’s book “There’s No Such Place As Far Away” on my birthday. It very much aligns with the Q’s and the Factors.

    Wishing all of you wins beyond your wildest dreams.

    ML,
    Doc

    • “With some exceptions, some deliberate alteration or omission of parts of some tape lectures, and the suppression of some material – the Saint Hill R6 Staff lectures, which if released would cause some issues with the way the C of S handles OT III – NOTS, most of the material is straight SCN. ”

      Doc, I would be interested in reading this, Lana has my email address, could you send me a link.

    • “Yes, there [are] embittered former members, and many of them properly so….”

      Perhaps, but then there’s this:

      “Anything for which the individual feels any misemotion – antagonism, anger, fear, grief, apathy – is something for which he has not accepted responsibility; and there is misemotion only when an individual refuses to accept responsibility in that sphere of action. He can control anything for which he has accepted the full responsibility. He is unable to control that for which he has not accepted responsibility.” LRH (Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin, Cause and Effect)

      This aligns with Buddhist teachings as well as other philosophical and ontological studies. In fact, it is perceptible in many places because it is truth. This is not to lessen or diminish the perceived wrong, but goodness and badness are based solely in opinion and viewpoint, as are good and evil. To truly rise above it, one needs to recognize what the real import and impact of full responsibility is.

      “True recovery of one’s beingness goes along with one’s realization that he has been the cause of any difficulty he has ever had.” LRH

      The old “master and commander” of one’s life, one’s fate, concept.

      “I wrote about this years ago. This was my defense of Ron.

      http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=9109&cpage=1

      An excellent article. Along the lines –

      “Purpose only becomes real when it gets to the blood, sweat and tears, stage, you know? You have to suffer a little bit. If there’s no suffering involved at all, nobody knows he’s experiencing anything.

      Another thing that’s quite interesting about such an activity, it always requires a certain amount of sacrifice – always requires a certain amount of sacrifice – whether of time or of personal interest or even personal possessions, some slight degree.

      A big game always requires some sacrifice.” LRH (“Today’s Battle of Britain, 8 October 1956)

  10. To 4A , I’d be happy to pass on whatever information I can. I should point out that the Saint Hill Staff R6 lectures are not available anywhere that I know of. I have some information in my files about them , and whatever description is available. And I have some information I’d have to dig out, about R6 more than is currently available on Class VIII or CC OT II and OT III as done in the C of S.
    To Chris,
    Thanks. Nice references, good to hear. I sometimes feel a bit alone out here, and it’s nice to see a community of like minded individuals, that know, and can quote the tech well. There are 30 million plus words of LRH , and even with an exhaustive study, there are many parts I missed, or didn’t quite get when I studied it before.
    I just figured out energy creation from Prelogic III Jan 1954. I missed an essential part of it, every time I’d seen it before. But recently I finally got the part about how you have to expand and contract the space between the two terminals you hold fixed to get energy flow. And if you read the factors , the action of dimension points is reaching and withdrawing, creating energy – the equivalent of doingness in experience.
    Anyways, thanks for the Battle of Britain quote. It means a lot to me right now.
    The level I am currently handling (source to source communication) is really kicking my butt, and giving me a lot of TA both in and out of session.
    It’s a bit hard to go through. As anything worthwhile is!
    ML,
    Doc

    • Hi Doc,

      I hear you. I live in a small town in southern Ontario; no Scientologists around. So my community has become mostly these people and groups on-line. It’s taken a while to sift through the chaff to find the wheat, but the kernels I’ve found and hooked up with are good people.

      Like you, I also want to re-do much of what I’ve done before. I’d like to do the PRD first, then re-do the SHSBC and maybe even do “the Basics”, lol. What Jim L. is doing is fantastic, every issue and tape and book in chronological order. So maybe something like that, but from the new perspective of super-literacy and a seasoned C/S and auditor, having done most of all there is. Oh, but then I have to finish the OEC as well and move up my Staff Statuses. There’s so much to do I sometimes shake my head at those that want to move on to the next level after OT VIII or who decry there’s nothing to do anymore on the Bridge.

      Anyways, I get what you’re saying and one to another, yeh, it is worthwhile. Happy to meet you. Next time I’m riding (motorcycle) through Montana, I’ll have to look you up. I was there a couple of years back: got a flat just south of Sheridan, WY (stayed there the night), got it fixed up in Billings, spent the night in Bozeman or Butte, then took a roundabout trip through Wisdom (very cool place!) and Hamilton, before heading over to see friends in Idaho. Northern Montana I’m not partial to as it’s treeless and desolate along Highway 2; but head a bit south and, like Alberta, it’s God’s Country!

      Oh, hey, cool on your cog re energy. Glad to hear/read it.

      Cheers

    • Doc,
      Didn’t see this until this evening so I hope you get this comment.

      I’ve just come to the Dec 63-June 64 R6 Staff Lectures in my chrono study. I know what comes before them and as I study along I’ll get to what comes after them, knowing well at this point the research nature of this time period.

      I’ve also studied a lot of this area of material prior to starting over at the beginning with Original Thesis and now having worked my way back up the line to the R6 research materials. (I have done the OT Grades, well done them, up to Solo NOTs and am currently at that level working along to finish it when it’s honestly done).

      What remains after the sifting through of workable and valid data, going down this road only to find a blind alley, coming back, checking out that one, the other one and so on (the intense period of this research being in this time period) is R6 EW, the CC, OT II and of course the summary statements made re R6 in the III materials and VIII course.

      LRH had reams and reams, stacks, piles of data for that period, all of which he states led to the final versions of processes we have available. Some of the paths he tried, didn’t fly, so they didn’t make the cut.

      My own personal interest in the tapes you mention is in the research and how the procedures were distilled to what is part of the standard workable materials we have and use. I have no doubt that he omitted nothing of true value in what is published as part of the Grade Chart.

      If you have any valid references from among these tapes, the Routine 6 Staff Lectures and would be willing to get in comm with me about them, then please do. My email is available from the admin at this MS2 blog.

      Cheers,
      Jim

      P.S. thanks for your wonderful contributions to this blog recently.

  11. Just finished reading the book Ruthless, here is my summary. It’s an interesting book from the perspective of a father of the church, but not a whole lot of new material that isn’t found elsewhere. Frankly, this is more or less a rehash of Jenna Miscavige’s book (David’s niece & Ron’s granddaughter) albeit from a different perspective from someone that knew him as a kid to now.

    Basically it’s this:

    At young age there are indicators that David was suppressive that Ron did not notice, and his father later goes into this in a later chapter. He does not explicitly call him suppressive, but he does reference an insight into his personality by referencing the “toxic personality” as described by LRH in 1953, as well as citing “The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout, which suggests that yes, his son David is indeed a sociopath. While one can take issue with his using psychological nomenclature and going into agreement with psychology as opposed to Scientology, regardless, by all indicators the accounts of many would suggest that yes, his son David is a suppressive person and certainly not in Present Time.

    What I did find the most interesting was that at a number of times, Ron would give examples that, by all indications, suggest that David’s mother Loretta was likely a suppressive person as well. She was always antagonistic to Ron Miscavige, though she was great with kids he justifies. They got in fights which were physical, but often she prompted the violence. She also didn’t seem to get much out of auditing. She also helped the cops with a fake charge that Ron Miscavige raped someone (around 1985 in the Portland Oregon lawsuit) and she had no regrets and saying that she believed he was capable of anything. True, it’s also from Ron’s perspective so he may not be painting her in the best light or exactly how it happened, but considering that a suppressive person is overwhelmed by another, the point here is that it is possible that she overwhelmed David. Maybe not but this was something not focused on much and gives insight into David’s personality. (Side note, this charge also implies that CIA was trying to take out Ron and by extension David and the church with a fake rape charge. So while there are indeed legitimate enemies to the church, David created many more than there were before).

    That said, Ron also says David is probably in LRH’s valence, in that LRH was at times a frothing, screaming madman who could be demanding, but could also be very sunny and pleasant whereas DM never was. (This makes me wonder if it really was LRH as his personality seems different post 1973 even per Ron’s accounts). Naturally, Ron criticizes Hubbard and the authoritarian aspects, and says it’s not a science, and that it’s a cult. He goes after the Aleister Crowley part, his WWII records, his marriage and not crediting philosophers. I chalk this up to ARCx and only seeing the mainstream critical data out there, but I don’t entirely fault him as I think many people in the independent field have gone through this phase, and objective data is hard to find that looks at all sides. That said, he’s still overall positive of LRH in that he says despite his flaws he really did intend to help people, so LRH was the lesser of the two evils at least. In other words, he is happy with the philosophy, finds LRH mostly good though flawed, and was disorganized at the end of his life. Even Ron seems to think that the circumstances of death and power transfer are suspect.

    Ron is mostly in favor of the tech and explains various aspects of it like assists, clay demos, TRs, auditing, listing and nulling, word clearing, Sea Org, Flag, Apollo, GO, OSA, Golden Era, IAS, etc. He gives a really good overview of all the subjects and terms in a concise manner for the layman to understand. He does, however, criticize the Truth Rundown from 1985 as mind control by LRH (though I always thought this was a DM concoction as it came so late and it is suspect since LRH was hardly around at that point… I digress).

    So how David rose to power according to Ron: Dave became a CMO and lots of kids were in this position, which held a higher rank above some senior Scientology members. The high level of power and status being more important than experience was what Ron M. believes caused change, in that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    One by one David the begins removing people. Stat pushing is manipulating the statistics to make it look good, and Dave did it even at a young age. (Really reminds me of Richard III by Shakespeare by the way as he forms a coup).

    Interesting quotes by David, allegedly:

    “Power is not granted. It is assumed.” – David when he had an asthma attack in 1980 has this prophetic realization

    p 147 “Power is when someone will listen to you.”

    Another thing that I think is interesting is that Ron says LRH did not leave a plan for David to take over on p 146 as per the way things shook out. This is very odd, considering Hubbard’s character. By all indicators the Broekers were the actual people left in charge, according to Ron. (I think LRH was removed in a hurry – the status of the wills indicates a power struggle and cover up: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1_lrh-whereaboutsd.html#threewills )

    Ron Miscavige also explains that David slipped by due to the goodness of people not seeing this personality type:

    “The impulse to help is strong in most people, and I think it exists in the greater part of humanity, but there are also a relative few among humankind who would use people’s kind heart and good intentions for selfish ends. You could even say that good people are flawed because they have a hard time conceiving that others are not also basically good and therefore can be deceived.”

    On a more positive note, he does give attention to the fact that there are people practicing it outside of the church via the Freezone and independent groups (such as the Dror Center, Ron’s Org not mentioned directly but are obvious which ones he refers to for those in the know on the subject). It at least makes some people aware that there are alternatives other than the church, which is a first for any book aside from Going Clear – which basically dismisses one and all Scientologists alike.

    Lastly Ron poses 3 church reforms needed: end disconnection, grant amnesty to all with no strings attached, and end the IAS/fundraising. I would agree that these would be helpful to at least change the perception and undo some major damage. I’d also add, remove David and remove the alterations in the tech.

    Overall, this is a more positive book that has come to light. I’ve not yet read Leah Remini’s book “Troublemaker” but after a while they all start to read like the same thing. I’d be curious what anyone else thinks about that book or this one.

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