Section 6 of Part 5 – Some Things I Have to Say About All This
“Dave, you really let us down by leaving. All of a sudden you abandoned all your friends who supported you while you were working for the church.”
Emotionally, I was feeling the same way myself.
Analytically I could see that that was not a valid or truthful idea.
I wish I could have communicated my reasons for leaving to everyone who I developed any kind of close relationship with in the church.
I think it would have been great if we all could have gotten together and worked out what would be the best solution to this whole thing. I would have liked it if my friends would have been at least open to the fact that I had a real concern and then looked into it enough to see that it was legitimate.
I wish that my friends could have looked at what I had looked at and made up their minds for themselves AFTER really looking.
Maybe you guys would have listened to what I had to say and then gone into your investigation of it all, even if you went into it with the intention to show me how my reasoning was faulty. That would have been better than how it actually happened as long as it would have been done honestly and with good observation.
I think that the idea that one should not listen to anyone who has criticism of the church is a very faulty one.
It totally violates the principles of the ARC and KRC triangles. How can you raise your reality and affinity for the situation if you can’t even communicate with it? How can you possibly take responsibility for your church and its image and its operations if you can’t even provide yourself the knowledge of it?
Where does LRH say that the way to raise your confront, your affinity, your reality, your communication, your knowledge, your responsibility, your control, your causativeness over life, your ability to evaluate data, your ability to make decisions and to keep your own counsel – is to AVOID data? What does that have to do with knowing how to know?
Nobody was permitted to communicate with me about this, after a certain point. What would have happened if I would have thrown my communication at you, without your willingness, about how corrupt I thought David Miscavige was, how most of his major programs were complete violations of policy, how some Sea Org members were being horribly abused and how we were all being lied to by the management that we trusted?
You know what would have happened. It would have been looked at as entheta and it would have been shunned and people would have reported it to HCO and most of you would have refused to read or hear it.
I was not the one who cut the communication line. Hundreds of people disconnected from me. I never refused to communicate with a single person who wanted to communicate with me.
I don’t believe in the way the church practices disconnection. I think it is being enforced on the pretense that remaining connected to a person who disagrees with things the church does prevents harm to the person who would otherwise receive it.
It’s made to look like the person who speaks out is the suppressive because that person is supposedly causing enturbulation and causing people to doubt Scientology. What is being overlooked is the fact that Scientology is supposed to teach you to think for yourself and to evaluate data. I was never taught in the actual Scientology materials (as opposed to common misinterpretations of it in the official church) that the way to handle something that seems to be giving you trouble is to make yourself blind to it, to cause yourself to stop looking.
You did not need to disconnect from me to protect yourself.
If you would have gotten into communication with me, yes, you would have been greatly disturbed by what I had to say. I should know because I was disturbed by it enormously myself at first. But, if you would have persisted and looked and continued to get into communication, while not shielding yourself from anything, while remaining honest with yourself, keeping your own counsel and weighing all the evidence, you would have been able to come up with your own conclusions. You would have been satisfied with those conclusions (regardless of whether or not your conclusions agreed with mine).
But by choosing to cut the communication line you never confronted the situation, you lost two friends and a tech terminal and left yourself with a giant mystery about how such a thing can happen. Then possibly you made up your own reasons as to why it happened, in order to satisfy the illogic of omitted data, without really finding out objectively. That is not taking responsibility and it is allowing gross outpoints to go on unhandled. (That statement applies even if you think the only outpoints are the fact that people think the church is corrupt. In other words, even if you don’t think the church is corrupt, there is still the outpoint about the amount of people who think it is.)
(By “you” in this section, I am specifically referring to anyone reading this who cut their communication line with me or Sindy without caring enough to get our full side of the story. It also applies to someone who cut their communication line with anybody who decided to leave the church, without trying to get that person’s viewpoint. If you are not one of those people, or if you did maintain your communication line, this does not apply to you.)
This all very definitely has something to do with you, and your refusal to communicate with the situation is a contribution to its continuance.
So, whereas you may have felt betrayed by my leaving, well, how do you think I felt? I made sacrifices just like others did, I strove to improve my application of the tech. I left home for multiple years multiple times to become better at what I do. I worked long hours for 25 years with low pay, I constantly worked to see to it that people understood Scientology in a way that they could use it to help themselves, etc. Then, when I find out about a sea of out-tech and abuse resulting in a horrible reputation for the church out in the world, and when I realize that I’ve been lied to about great expansion when the actual fact is that the church is shrinking, and when I realize that the leader has absolutely no intention of creating a better world through the use of Scientology and I then, dutifully, bring it up to the people responsible and they aren’t even willing to look! And then I’M the SP??!!!
In case it helps, here are some basic principles from someone you know and trust:
“For a great many years, I asked this question: ‘To communicate or not to communicate?’ If one got himself in such thorough trouble by communication, then of course one should stop communicating. But this is not the case. If one gets himself into trouble by communicating, he should further communicate. More communication, not less, is the answer. And I consider this riddle solved after a quarter of a century of investigation and pondering.” – LRH (Dianetics 55!, page 116)
“So the first thing I must tell you about this subject is that it is a subject, that it depends upon organization only to the degree that communication is assisted, that it is composed of individuals who observe and who look….
“The whole subject opens up at its inception with just this: That the simplicity of observation, the simplicity of communication itself, and only itself, is functional and will take man from the bottom to the top.
“And the only thing I am trying to teach you is look.” – LRH (Lecture 15 July 1597, Scientology and Effective Knowledge)
Now, while reading all that I have written here, about how it is wrong to disconnect in this situation, you may be thinking, “Well, that’s easy for you to say, but what about my Bridge? If I continue to communicate with you then it will be harder for me to get my Bridge. I will have to go to Ethics and do lower conditions and receive more Sec Checking and have to pay more money and I’m already low on money. If I delve into negative things that people say about the church I could be banned from going to Flag again and I could be banned from the OT levels forever.”
To me, this all just adds to the point I’m making in this whole paper. Don’t you consider it an outpoint that your eternity is being made to depend on whether or not you turn a blind eye to the condition of your church? Don’t you consider that you are being downgraded by the evaluation that data is dangerous and that you would not be able to come to your own ethical decision about information you are given?
In my opinion, this in itself should be making you wonder what’s really going on. You can’t gain total freedom while at the same time allowing your abilities to be invalidated and your power of choice to be squashed, I don’t care how much auditing you get!
Now, back on the subject of things that I might have done wrong back when I left the church, well, I don’t know, maybe there are some ways I could have handled it better. At the time it happened I tried to do the best I could. If you think that there were things I should have done and shouldn’t have done, I would have been willing, and still am willing, to share viewpoints about it. I would be very happy to listen to you if you would be willing to listen to me. I would love to get your full viewpoint if you would be willing to get my full viewpoint.
Reading this story, though, is a good first step. Thanks for reading it.
But aside from a few things that I consider minor, I think I did a pretty good job of handling it considering the circumstances. I really don’t know what else I could have done. Just staying in the church like nothing happened was definitely not one of the options. I didn’t consider it a good idea to go around to all of you, raving about how bad the church is and how COB is an SP.
There is one more point I want to bring up on the subject of someone thinking that I committed a betrayal by leaving.
I’m sure – and this is one of the things that was killing me while this process of deciding to leave the church was going on – that the ED of the Chicago org felt that what I did was an enormous blow to her and what she was trying to do. With all the other setbacks that she has experienced over all her years as the ED that she has persisted through to accomplish things against humongous odds, this one must have been a pretty big one too, to have one of her long-term stable tech terminals just suddenly up and leave.
She must have felt betrayed by me in a very big way.
Again, I have to say that I wish I could just communicate with her. If I could, maybe at least some of the ARC could be restored. Maybe not.
But what really concerns me is that she is not seeing who is really betraying her and I don’t have a chance to even try to get her to see it. So it’s my hope that what I am saying here really can reach her some day.
For example, she has been cross-ordered by David Miscavige off of so much of what she learned on her OEC / FEBC course and she has not been allowed to just run her org the way she was taught in the policies.
How many years has she been dev-t’d off of standard actions that would have led to a viable expanding org, by squirrel programs like the Ideal Org program? How much time did she have to spend handling counter-intention in her staff and public to get a building approved and get millions of dollars raised for such an off-policy program when she could have spent it doing what she actually learned bringing about establishment, call-in, sales and delivery.
I’m not saying she never implemented and coordinated establishment, call-in, sales and delivery – no, far from it. I’m just talking about the years of wasted time on COB’s unusual solutions like, as I said, raising millions of dollars for a large expensive building (that are still going to not only require huge property taxes but also – did you know this? – even though the staff and public paid for it, the org still has to pay RENT to Int Management for the privilege of occupying the building that the staff and public paid for but which now belongs to International Management!!!!)
When the ED is supposed to be coordinating an org in the direction of making large amounts of auditors, COB is telling her she needs to repeatedly take staff off their posts to raise millions of dollars for the IAS so that he can hire private detectives at thousands of dollars a day to harass people relentlessly in their daily lives because they dare to speak out about his criminal activities, activities which contribute to making HER life much more difficult than it needs to be. Or he is telling her to stat push her Paid Completions stat with fast easy theory courses where no application is demanded of the student and where the courses do not contribute to the viability of the org. Or he is ordering, regularly, taking staff off their posts to oversell books as one of the top priority programs.
I could go on but actually she could, if she actually confronted the idea that COB is not the powerful friend of hers that she thinks he is, she could come up with a list of arbitraries that have caused her failed purposes that is many times longer than any list I could come up with. When I think of the amount of betrayal that he has inflicted on her, it blows my mind and quite pisses me off.
No, the betrayal is not coming from me. It’s coming from COB. And part of that betrayal is the fact that he has helped set things up so that I cannot communicate to her the truth of it.
By the way, this in no way is to be taken to mean that I think that I am smarter than the ED Chi or that I am more courageous or that – God forbid – if I had been the ED of the org that I would have done better. I would have been eaten alive by the things she has had to deal with for years and has courageously persisted through. I don’t think that I could have withstood all that she has withstood for all these years without getting extremely caved in or sick.
My hat is off to her and her courage. She is an extraordinary person and my admiration for her is more than words can possibly express. I just am fortunate now to know some things that she needs to know and I want her to really understand where her main source of counter-intention is coming from. It’s not coming from me. It’s coming from COB.
The only problem with her, as I see it, is the fixed idea that she has bought and that all of us bought to one degree or another: that COB is our competent friend who is working in our best interests. Every positive ability that she has, and boy there are plenty of them, is being exploited and is being applied in the wrong direction. For example, she was brilliant, persistent and competent in developing the agreement that was necessary to get the whole Chicago field to support the project to raise millions of dollars to obtain the new building. I know very few people who could have done that. The only problem is that it is a non-standard action that is going to end up in big losses and that is only one example, of many, of a wrong action that has wasted her abilities because COB has convinced her that he is working in her best interest.
She needs to knock off overlooking all the arbitraries. She is smart enough to know they are there, she needs to stop overlooking them and being “reasonable” with them, just like she always tried to tell me and her other staff to not be “reasonable” and to be on-purpose.
I look forward to the day when I can get in good communication with her about what has happened, if that day ever comes and that goes for everyone who feels that I betrayed them.
The same goes for all the good people whom I’ve had the pleasure to work with, especially my former team of Sups at the Chicago Org. I hope that someday they will decide to open their eyes to what is really going on and that someday we can be friends again. My relationship with them remains extremely special.