Part XI:The Relevance of this Series

In Part 11 of this series I have decided to take a small side trip from the normal flow of this overall write-up to respond to certain readers who have questioned the relevance of this series to specific internet newsgroups.

My previous series, The New Regime Takeover, dealt with my personal history in the CofS. From my experiences, I relayed my viewpoints regarding organizational and management changes and activities. Since there are newsgroups where the primary agenda focuses on the administrative and organizational aspects and activities of the CofS, that series was obviously relevant to them. However, the bulk of this current series is dedicated to the subject of technology.

Readers of the above-mentioned newsgroups have wondered why I have chosen to post to their newsgroups a series that focuses on the history, content and ramifications of Scientology, as well as Idenics, and the comparison of these two, different methodologies. I believe that posting this current series to these newsgroups is appropriate, and I'd like to explain my reasons.

A large section of the people familiar with the CofS is aware of the demented aspects and activities of that organization. However, insane actions must originate from and be carried out by people operating from aberrated ideas and viewpoints. For such a brazenly offensive mentality to exist there had to have been deficiencies in the tech. Especially, since the purpose for the formation, existence and operation of the CofS is to forward and expand Scientology methodology. Without exploring the inadequacies of the technology, one can never fully comprehend the insanities of an organization built to advance those methods.

Questions then arise regarding my discussion of Idenics. Why not just discuss the technology of Scientology? Why bring Idenics into the mix? Doesn't your doing that, promote your activities? I would be lying if I said that I didn't want to promote Idenics. But there are definitely other reasons for my discussion of Idenics. Primarily, my understanding of the deficiencies of Scientology tech came from and is related to the development and delivery of Idenics, and visa versa.

There are people who through their bad experiences with and observation of the CofS have formed the opinion that the technology of Scientology has absolutely no validity. Many people with this opinion also vehemently belittle anyone who continues to pursue a path to resolve their personal unwanted conditions or improve their existing state of being.

Why would someone engage in activities that demean others who are seeking a path of personal discovery? The primary reason that I can think of is because of failures and confusions that that individual has had on their own path of personal discovery. Regarding the issue of the invalidity of Scientology tech: From the identity or viewpoint of the person, who states that there is absolutely no workability to Scientology tech, I am certain that that opinion is true. This person may also have never personally received any benefit or gain from the application of that technology. But for anyone who stuck around Scientology long enough, I would think that it would be extremely rare not to have gotten any positive results.

I believe that if one interviewed a large number of people leaving the CofS, one would discover that the majority did get results, even if those results were few and far between. We should also ask why so many people who had such horrendous experiences and were treated so unjustly would have stayed as long as they did in the CofS? Were they brainwashed? Of course they were, but there's more to the story than that.

A primary belief existing in most therapies, including Scientology, is that people get stuck in "losses". Something bad happens to an individual and they get stuck in the occasion because of that traumatic experience or loss. One can make the argument that LRH had some opinions and techniques that were contrary to this belief, but the overwhelming majority of his technology demonstrates an application that adheres to this idea.

One of John Galusha's initial insights was that people do not get stuck in losses, they get stuck in "wins". As he would to say, "We may be dumb but we're not THAT dumb. Why would one hold on to a loss?" It is the win that sticks people. The rest is just part of the package that will probably need to be looked at if one is trying to resolve an unwanted condition that that package is attached to. Furthermore, any unwanted condition has some apparent value; even though this value is probably not seen from the viewpoint that a person is looking from when they are trying to get rid it. Unless this value is properly inspected, the condition will probably persist. There are powerful ramifications to this insight that I'll address later in this series.

My purpose for bringing up the above data is to demonstrate that people stuck it out in the CofS because of the wins they had, and the hope that they would have more wins. It was only when these individuals reached their breaking points, or when they realized that they could accomplish their goals outside of the CofS, that they left that organization. However, the wins and the attachments of Scientology, LRH and the CofS can "follow" a person leaving this organization and/or subject.

Over the past 20 years I have encountered hundreds of people who have left the CofS, but who are conflicted due to an ongoing loyalty to the CofS, LRH, or Scientology. Many of these people had been out of the CofS or Scientology for years yet still had these personal conflicts. An accepted opinion that use to exist in the independent field was that people leaving the CofS who had been heavily involved with that organization, would take five years to re-integrate into normal society. Independent Scientologists spent hundreds of hours auditing these poor souls on their bad experiences in the CofS.

On the other hand, John focused on the wins that these people had had that they then completely credited to Scientology, LRH or the CofS. The CofS continually reinforced the idea of giving credit for your wins to them. For example, the activity of making a person whom has a win, get up in front of an audience and thank LRH for the win and then applaud Hubbard's picture.

Most of the people who John audited who were stuck as described above, resolved their conflicts in short order. Additionally, an action that John originated and that I have continued to do when processing a person with Idenics is performed to insure that the person doesn't get stuck with what we are doing or with us. When a client has a big win and is adamantly thanking us, we will get that person to look at various things like, who got them here, who did the effective looking in session, and who had the realizations. When the individual sees that he has done these things, we then get them to take the credit for these actions and results. If the person insists on giving us some of the credit, then we might say, "OK, but at the most I can only take 50%."

The exploration of technology in this series is not only relevant to these newsgroups, but it is a necessity in order to get the full picture. Furthermore, my discussion of Idenics is more than a focal point in this exploration. It demonstrates that following a path of personal improvement does not have to wind a person up submerged in a cult. Initially, one must have a technology that is based on sound principles that are effectively applied to only the goals and aspirations of the individual client. Then, those delivering that technology must insure that their organization and administration never compromise the integrity of those principles and methodology.

With the above in place, maybe the reasons why any of us originally got into Scientology, those specific and individual objectives that we each wished to accomplish, can be realized.