David Miscavige: War Crimes| David Miscavige: War Crimes | | Print | |
| Tuesday, 02 February 2010 14:59 |
 If you've been tracking with Marty Rathbun's posts about Debbie Cook, former CO FSO - you will see that David Miscavige's crimes against humanity have being continuing up until recent times. I know, my wife and I left in '07 and we experienced the czarist dictates - with 6 months of internment and dehumanized treatment.War crimes are not always acted upon fast enough. The 1990-91 wars between the Croats and Serbs - was a sampling of how the world stood by, even America, and did nothing while two cultures exterminated each other. People are not always too quick about stepping in on abuses. This is the same with David Miscavige's abuses of Sea Org members. But if enough of us write about it, if enough people step forward and add their voice to the sentiment that people should not be abused, if enough of us tell the truth over and over again - eventually the world will turn an eye on David Miscavige. He would be smart to pack up his bags and disappear now before he is forced to stand in front of a court of law and try to explain away his crimes as "mere complaints of all those terrible people out there." Unfortunately, suicidal and oppressive leaders such as himself can't see alternatives and all too often only forcfe works in ultimately removing them from power. Truth always wins in the end. Go ask Hitler, Stalin, George W Bush and countless other suppressive - and past - leaders. I don't think David Miscavige was always an SP - but he has certainly proven that he has so much to hide now that he has taken on the traits of a TRUE SP and can no longer lead the Church of Scientology anywhere except over the cliff. His time is up. But we don't just want him to step aside. No no no! We want him to go down in flames; we want him EXPOSED - because only in that way will the rest of the Scientology community and Sea Org members have a chance to realize that he has been deluding them and for them to see him for who he REALLY is. We certainly don't want any of his Kool Aid drinkers taking over from him. I have no idea who can or will lead the Church of Scientology when David Miscavige walks away. But as sure as the sun rises every day, he will go, and the person that takes over for him could just as well be the CEO of Starbucks, for certainly that man would have more respect for humanity than any of the people standing around watching David Miscavige or contributing to his antics or even putting up with his brutality. These two quotes are appropriate: "The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority." - Kenneth Blanchard "To lead others, embody their ideals!" - Leonid S. Sukhorukov OTB |
"Scientology has been taken over by a self-appointed dictator, David Miscavige, who has turned the Creed of the Church of Scientology, the Code of a Scientologist, and the Credo of a True Group Member on their heads and instituted the virtual practice of Reverse (Black) Dianetics..." 
Comments
Kinda. I mean Bush isn't on the order of magnitude of millions, but in recent times, he (and his people) put us in Iraq looking for Hussein instead of the purported 9/11 mastermind which was Bin Laden. That war, which we are still in, has killed thousands on both sides and has further caused massive enturbulation and yet another incident on the whole war track of the middle east.
corporate scientology than dm. But I would
ask, do we want corporate scientology to continue?
I for one do not. I think it should be allowed to go the way of the dinosaur. I simply no longer believe that an individual's spiritual advancement can be achieved through institutional means. The spiritual growth and evolution of a being is just not something that can be successfully cranked out, mass-production style, and fed to a market of consumers.I know we have been indoctrinated that it can be, but that is just indoctrination, and not necessarily truth. Since discovering the true condition of my church and of it's technology, I have come to see this differently.
The way I see it, the needs and wants of an institution and those of the individuals it services will always ultimately conflict. An institution will always have the need to provide for its own future survival, and that will not always be in line with the best survival of the individual. An institution must be run in such a way that it handling the individual can be done on a "mass production" scale. That is almost never what is best for the individual.
Scientology itself, as a tool, is valuable and should be protected and carried into the future. Not so the monolithic entity the church has become. Scientology itself doesn't seek to control, manipulate or suppress the individual, yet through the power and comm lines of the church, dm is doing that daily.
The understanding of the spirit that can be found in Scientology can be twisted to inflict real harm on a being, the inverse of the real purpose of the tech (called Black Scientology). In the hands of an individual that's bad enough, but in the hands of an entity with the power of the church, that is too dangerous to be tolerated.
This is how I see it. I think a very good case can be made for the multiple-viewpoint, lateral network structure of a new, loosely organized
group of Independents being vastly superior to the current hierarchical power structure that exists within the church.
But it occurs to me now that we'd better come up with a shorter name for that kind of organization pretty soon, or we won't be able to easily discuss it. :-)
I agree with you whole-heartedly. Corporate Scientology, in order to persist, must inhibit personal freedom, the antithesis of what it professes. So I say, down with corporate Scientology and Up with communities of scientologists.
I remember very clearly the possibilities I sensed when I read my first scientology books, and when I did my first comm course at a little, community mission. Crappy furniture and old linoleum on the floor, but boy did we love being there!
That's exactly what it's like!
It's exciting to contemplate having that ARC back - that's what constitutes a real community of scientologists to me.
I should say, it's nice to HAVE that back, because I feel that here, on Marty's site, and Rebel's, and a few others.
I'll throw my two cents in here, if you and lunamoth don't mind. I agree with the idea that has been proposed, perhaps on this site and/or others, that there are two Scientologies. One, let's call it Corporate Scientology, that seeks statistical expansion much like any business and, it turns out, for the same reason as any other business -- money. More and more money. Not more well-trained auditors or well-audited pcs. Just more money.
The other Scientology is a philosophy and practice designed to make man more aware, more in comm and more in affinity with himself, his fellows and his fellow man. Whether it was or wasn't discovered and compiled solely by LRH, or by the contributions of many is less important than the answer to the question, "does it work for you?" If so, then it has value to you.
These two Scientologies are at odds with one another.
Corporate Scientology, as currently organized, must bend/break the individual into a narrow channel of thought and behavior in order to get and maintain compliance with it's objectives.
The philosophical Scientology is used freely by individuals working alone, in pairs or even groups to expand their awareness and improve their lives.
Philosophical Scientology doesn't need and is in fact suppressed by Corporate Scientology.
While on the other hand, Corporate Scientology only exists and survives on the promise (denied and kept at arms length) of the gains of philosophical Scientology.
We don't need Corporate Scientology to practice Scientology.
So to answer the question you posed to lunamoth about destroying orgs to expand Scientology I would answer by pointing out that DM's "expanding" orgs are already destroying Scientology. Ignore them and let them fall. They are a hinderance.
As for expanding philosophical Scientology, that is for every individual to decide for himself. If you have personally been helped by applying philosophical Scientology and wish to tell others, Scientology will grow. Person by person. Honestly and based on it's true value to the individuals using and sharing it. That is the future of Scientology.
Not Ideal Orgs. Not perverted "ethics." Not the Sea Org.
Just one man or woman winning and sharing it with the next.
Boy, I couldn't have said that better! Whether this idea gets agreement from all fronts is no
longer an issue, either, as we now have the freedom to practice/not practice as we wish.
I really do believe, though, that it will be this
freedom that will finally get scientology into broad use.
Also you of course realize that alignment with destroying orgs helps Miscavige immensely. You've got to realize he's VGI's about you being here or your an idiot, and I'm sure you're not an idiot. So why do you do it?
My statement was: ‘DM's "expanding" orgs are already destroying Scientology.’ “Expanding” is in quotation marks because I’m being ironic. You see, while expansion is the stated goal, it is my observation that only property and coffers are expanding while the numbers of real people with real gains and wins is declining. Therefore, the real valuable final products of the org are down. Therefore, it appears that at Int. Management Expansion = Fewer Scientologists. It’s the opposite of what you’d think. It’s ironic.
The WHY, to answer your question, is DM and every current and past staff member, SO member and public, including myself, for the past 25-years didn’t stand up and yell “bullshit!”
The WHY is not calling out the out-tech, out-ethics, off-policy when we first saw it 25-years ago (or earlier). We didn’t defend our religious technology and we lost it. We let it get corrupted little by little to the point where today it is less effective, if not downright harmful. That is the WHY for the lack of expansion in the use of the Scientology philosophy and technology in the world.
Now, your comment that my “...alignment with destroying orgs helps Miscavige immensely” is strange to say the least. I have no alignment with DM. I have simply stated what I see. The comments above are an observation of mine, not a magic spell. Saying it out loud doesn’t make the situation any more or less true than it is. It is what it is.
To your last question, why do I do it? I assume by “it” you mean why do I promote destroying the orgs. Well, first, I don’t promote that and I never did promote that. I just think that’s where the flow of events is headed.
Two, I think that is the case because I don’t believe that reform is possible within the current power structure of the Church. Too many people, SO, staff and public have been off-policy and off-tech for too long to successfully turn back now and, at the same time, keep the orgs functioning, new public coming in and stat reports as usual while a fundamental re-evaluation of the core beliefs, practices and organizational structure of the Church takes place.
There is an entire generation of Scientologists who know nothing but the standard out-tech, off-policy tech of the current church. That’s going to require a lot of personal sorting out.
If you look at how long the people reading and commenting on this blog have been outside, sorting out their own experiences -- years in most cases -- how long do you think it will take for the SO, staff and public, still indoctrinated in the don’t-look-unless-I-tell-you-to policy of the Church to destimulate enough to be able to think and observe for themselves, to recover lost or perverted tech, to regain certainty and confidence with the tech and to restore trust and ARC within the Church and with the world at large.
Peeling back the onion layers of lies, repression and mis-application will not be a fast process. Churches are not going to keep their delivery stats up while reevaluating their core beliefs. Thus, they are bound to go into decline during the coming reformation. That doesn’t mean Philosophical Scientology can’t expand through honest and free sharing amongst individuals. And, one day, churches may reform. I only hope that, when they do, they look nothing like they do now.
Lastly, don’t discount the possibility that I am an idiot. It’s probably best to keep all possibilities on the table until you’re sure.
RSS feed for comments to this post