The 'Safe Asks Papers' -- Scientology HAS to have an org?
Scientology HAS to have an org?
---

It's Safe to Ask

Copyright © Safe -- www.fza.org <Safe@scientology.at>
From: theta88008@my-deja.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:48:55 -0800
Subject: For all Lurkers: Scientology HAS to have an org?

Hi all,

Let's take another point of Robert's post.

"Let's be clear about something: Scientology cannot be delivered in any volume without a strong, capable organizational structure behind it. It has long been proven that an individual acting alone cannot accomplish anywhere near as much as an organized group. Our organizations are our best chance for making it, as a group and as individuals."

Scientology cannot be delivered without a strong organization?

Let's see what LRH says about that

from the "Anatomy of the Spirit of Man" congress lectures. Tape 6 June 1955

"We could, at this time, put together an organization or a group in Scientology sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful to run over everything it came to.This would be a fascinating thing to do. Be a game in itself. And then someday-me gone, other guys gone-all of a sudden there sits this thing, this organization. And somebody has to rise up and say, "Auditors of the world, unite; overthrow this monster!" And everybody would see it go down very plainly, you see. Down it'd go. Then they'd say, "Fine! Now we are free." And they would get another handful of letters cancellingtheir certificates. (audience laughter)

I try to look far enough in the future to forecast and predict what might be, so as to not do too many things wrong. You must allow me some percentage. And as I look into the future, I see that we are handling here, material of a potential control and command over mankind which must not be permitted at any time to become the monopoly or the tool of the few to the danger and disaster of the many......

And I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can do these things, we will win. But if we can't do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way. But that's not reason it has to keep on happening this way. I am not of an inevitable frame of mind......"

So LRH himself here covers that, yes we can put together a strong organization, BUT he defines at what point it would have to be corrected, or even overthrown.

But it is also clear that "revolution" is not the answer, (see next excerpt)

"We have this enormous mass of people swelling up out of the ditches and byroads and gutters and alleys and overwhelming a despotic government on the motto that "Everybody is going to be free. We're going to have liberty, fraternity and equality" and we get despotity! Instead of setting up a new free regime, all they do is use the extant communication lines of despotism in order to rule and govern. Anyone who would recommend the overthrow of a nation by force is a fool. He doesn't understand the least semblance of politics or people. Because no nation is ever overthrown, they are just substituted for."

What does LRH say we will get if our management is overthrown?

"If you want to know what kind of government you'd get after you revolted against a government, look at the government you revolted against. Things will be a little bit bullet-nicked, but that'll be about the only difference."

So what is the solution?

"....a new free regime"

that is this:

"..... a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information."

As a side note, Safe and Theta have already proved good,reliable, sound relay of information is not occurring in regards to LRH's Tech, all of you have seen your own examples of this, I am sure. If you haven't e-mail safe and he will be happy to start showing you where to look.

As early as 1955, LRH was very clear about what he did not want the organization to turn into, and it has turned into the very thing he said it would, but hoped it would not. Who are we loyal to here? RTC? David Miscaviage? Not me, If LRH says he doesn't want the org to be how it is today, and to start over if it becomes like this:

" the monopoly or the tool of the few to the danger and disaster of the many......"

Then who shall we follow on what to do? LRH? Or RTC/CST/DM?

Strong, powerful organization is not what LRH had in mind, here's what he thinks about that...

"But I would be a very sad man to realize, after years of work, that we had created not a greater freedom in the society but a stronger and more powerful organization in place of existing organizations."

Robert's quote:

"In the tape recorded lecture, "ORG BOARD AND LIVINGNESS," LRH said:

"So an organization is not a necessary evil or not some reason why, and so forth. The organization is there to serve Scientologists and to handle the thing and the public and spread it out and so forth."

Which does not Disagree at all with this:

".....a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information."

So, Scientologists, is the above quotes what we have with RTC etc?

Who do you believe on what the handling should be, when the organization has turned into a monster?

Robert, or LRH?

Veracity

______________________________________________________________________________
Total Internet privacy -- get your Freedom pseudonym at http://www.freedom.net

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank