A Common Base for the Freezone and all other Independents

If you have read Going Clear by Lawrence Wright or Let’s sell these people A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack, you may reach the conclusion that many others have reached long ago, the Church of Scientology is all about indoctrination and making docile and obedient members. You will also disabuse yourself of the notion that Ron Hubbard was Source of the technology.

After reading these, you might wonder as one of my preclears did recently, “Is there any LRH process that is worth using?

My response was, “Most of the work that was done by experienced auditors seems to have produced useful results. I use only those processes I have validated through personal use.” In 2010, I decided that the sanest approach was to use those bits of technology that I could personally verify and to build on these to accomplish what was needed to help any particular pc. There are a growing number of other auditors who are doing the same, extending the technology through actual research and through consultation with other professionals handling the same problems.

We have discovered once again, that  useful technology requires a huge quantity of work and it is best done by many individuals working together. Open communication of results and problems makes for speedy progress in resolving any issues.

I recently discovered that this topic of cooperation had been discussed in 1999 by Ken Ogger. His article deserves a thorough understanding if  we are not to  repeat the errors of the failing Church of Scientology, now known as one of the most dangerous cults in the world, at least to its loyal members.

A Common Base for the Freezone

The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings – from Post62 – July 1999

A true science requires a huge quantity of work. It is never
the product of one man.

But a strong tech finder will indeed begin acting as a “source”
of tech.The research gets done by individuals, not comittees.

That leaves us with the problem of how to pull together unique
and individual source points into a cohesive whole which might
actually achieve real OT.

We can’t make it on individual gurus no matter how brilliant
and charismatic they are. If anyone could have done that,
it would have been LRH, and he failed. And his attempt to
do it as an only one almost killed the research line.

We should all have learned our lesson from that. I for one
know that I wouldn’t make it alone. And so I imitate Ron
as he acted in the 1950s when he was being “the great organizer”
rather than the “source” of tech (see LRH quotes on the
Scientology Reformer’s Homepage).

Without a common base, we will have one genius making light bulbs
that lack a power source and another pouring concrete for a
power dam that is useless to everyone, and a third stringing
transmission lines to nowhere.

The broadest base ever defined in this field is the original
definition of Scientology. Not the abberrant concept that
Scientology is LRH tech or that it is some narrow standard,
but the original definition which says that Scientology is
the subject of “Knowing How To KNOW”.

Scientology was not just LRH. He did not define it that way.

He said that if the Arabs find some way of sifting sand that
increases knowingness and reveals truth, then it is part
of Scientology. (see the History of Man lectures).

In this case, the CofS is using a SQUIRREL definition of
Scientology as being standard tech, and in this case I mean
True Squirrel which means altering the subject so as to
make it unworkable, because with this abberrated definition
they have destroyed the actual workability of the subject
as a way to achieve truth and knowledge.

The old definition for Squirrel was destructive alter-is,
and on that basis, the only squirrel group around is the
CofS itself.

There is nothing wrong with having a standard tech. What
is wrong is to knock out all but a narrow subset of the
tech and destroy the research line.

If it works, it is Scientology by definition. That’s what
L. Ron Hubbard said.

That doesn’t mean that the CofS has to deliver it. They have
their specific delivery lineup. There is nothing wrong with
that either.

You have a workable standard and you use it. And somebody
else has a different workable standard and they use that.
And yet another group has an even different workable standard
and they use that. These are the practicalities of delivering
a product.

You can have more than one brand of car. They are built a
little bit different from each other. Some have better
acceleration. Some have better gas mileage. Some are
build for rough terrain and some are made for the racetrack.
Some people own more than one car. The manufactures don’t
mind if they do that.

So there is room for many standards.

And yet we will not make it if each of us goes drifting
off in our own direction.

We do need a common base.

Ron’s work in the 1950s is the best starting point that
this planet has ever seen.

Modern CofS standard tech could be though of as one of
many possible lines that evolved off of that platform.

Things like Avatar and Trom are just as well aligned
with that early base as standard tech. They are definitely
Scientology per LRH’s definition in the 1950s.

And so we need LRH for that broad vision and the foundations
that we are building on.

Unfortunately,it has been CofS’s effort to blow people
away from LRH, attacking anyone who could think for themselves
to the point where many turned their backs in disgust on
the entire rotten mess.

That is the real reason that freezone groups drift away
from basic Scientology and early LRH. It is not that
there is a natural tendency to drift away. It is that
they are forced off with sixteen inch naval guns.


The Pilot

Ken Ogger

2 thoughts on “A Common Base for the Freezone and all other Independents

  1. Roger Boswarva

    It is now nearly 57 years since I first was “Wowed” by Scientology. During that time I saw and experienced some wonderful things of it, its expansion and then, as the collaborative co-creating endeavor of its early days gave way to a “sole-source-only-he-who-rose-above-the-bank-was-right” and had became instilled, I witnessed its decay as an enterprise to the point of it being reviled by many.

    The Pilot is correct in what he wrote above.

    None are above correction or improvement. None are so perfect that their “truth” is absolute and unquestionable. Any who deign to think their beliefs or pronouncements are beyond question, discussion, argument or improvement are doomed to failure and loneliness: and that was Hubbard’s lot.

    His technology did not and does not achieve what is promised and the man who claimed sole source of it died a lonely man.

    The history of this planet demonstrates that advancement in knowledge, science and the arts is achieved incrementally by co-contributors building on each others’ work. Any who claim they are the only one to have THE right answer or answers and are not to be argued with are fools who end up shunned.

    Having said that, it must also be said that there is something very, very right about Scientology: that is, the basic mission and ideal Hubbard presented to us that we should pursue. He put the proposition that we could improve ourselves and attain spiritual awareness and recover the truths of our spiritual powers and abilities.

    That is a valid proposition; and one I belief true to this day.

    Unfortunately, L. Ron Hubbard used this point of validity deceitfully and as a weapon with which to fulfill his hidden personal agendas that in actuality are in conflict with what he purported to those he presented his subject to.

    The consequence of this is that a cult was created that fails to deliver what is promised.

    However, the basic endeavor most adherents to the early materials of Scientology had when they committed to the journey is a valid one; and it should be continued. Likewise, there is much that was presented in the Scientology materials that is workable.

    Here again, The Pilot is correct. Those of a mind to should collaborate and continue to research, develop and make available the fruits of their work. A large part of that work will be the unearthing of and demonstrating the errors and omissions of Hubbard’s work; this as well as breaking new ground of advancement.

    Hubbard set us on a valid path. We should continue on it.


  2. joemach

    That was a very good explanation Pilot. But I think that maybe this is the course that was intended for the technology. The religion was the second vehicle. Now it is back to the first vehicle (the 1950’s) when any one could study and apply the technology pretty much how it worked for them. I have foggy recollections of what was going on in that time. But the “definition” of “standard tech” was what work for you and your pc’s. It could be many months before you would get Ron’s latest discoveries or developments.

    But it sort of all went to hell when Ron entered the field of religion. A lot of people lost interest. We loved Dianetics, we did not want to hear about religion, or spirits or Scientology.

    So I do think that we have come full circle as a technology. To tell the truth I for one would just as soon leave religion out of it. No more devotion to some scriptures or following some rote rules and regulations. No more Hip-Hip-Hooray at Ron’s picture after course, he never wanted that. All we now have to care about is results. This is more direct and less Dev-T and more productive. That is the reason we do it in the first place.

    There is a policy somewhere that Ron wrote something to the effect of … when the rules get in the way, to hell with the rules and get the show on the road. I think that is what is happening here. We can dispense with of all the product conferences, staff meetings and the collecting useless stats and get some results.

    So I think we are back to the technology without the religious aspect. This is a good thing. This is what boomed Dianetics. In the early 1950’s Ron filled the Shrine Auditorium, management can hardy do that now with “call-in”. Ron mailed out a flier or posted it in a newsletter. This is one of the most enlightening posts I have read. I can continue the technology without the religion. WOW!

    You can read more: http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=9979

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *