Dani Lemberger Speaks

dani-lembergerDani has earned the right to be heard. He and his wife Tami have put their money where their mouth is with their Dror Center.  I have a great deal of respect for their demonstrated personal integrity.  In addition to being stand up people, they are a lot of fun to be around.  Mike Rinder

 

Ron’s Single  Biggest Mistake

I got into Scientology at the COSMOD Mission, San Francisco, in April 1980. Didn’t take me long to become an avid Scientologist. I had huge wins on realizing I am an immortal spirit and on going exterior on TR0. I then did the NED Auditor Course, audited another student and then knew that this is the Tech to set man free. I knew we had, in Scientology, at long last, the road to individual freedom. A Cleared Planet became my goal.

But then a worry crept in. What will happen when Ron dies, how will this organization continue? What will prevent it from falling apart or splintering?

I was 28 years old, a skeptic with lots of chutzpa. So I wrote Ron a letter (the old-timers will remember S.O. #1 – “You can always write to Ron.”) I had the audacity to ask Ron, “Sir, what happens when you die?” I worded it a bit different. I shared my concern that all great religions in history splintered after the founder died. “So what will happen to Scn when you move on?”

I soon received a letter saying, “We have competent managers, I trust them and they will lead us on. Thank you for caring. Love, Ron.” The signature at the bottom was stamped in green ink. Obviously not signed by Ron and I suspected, not even written by Ron. I was disappointed. I was naïve to think Ron personally would respond. I realized he probably never saw my letter, had someone handling his mail. I felt misled for the first time in Scn.

In 1980, we were confident that by 2000 we’d have a Cleared Planet. And here we are, thirty-three years later, and further away from a Cleared Planet today than we were in 1980. Scientology has shrunk, the Church taken over by a lunatic and his minions. “How can a Scientologist become an evil tyrant?’ I do not know. “How come thousands of highly intelligent Scientologists, many of them high up on the Bridge, are willing to become slaves?” defies me. Yet there it is, we are at each other’s throat and “A Cleared Planet” has become a pathetic joke.

How come we have sunk to such a sorry state?

Here’s my analysis of Ron’s single biggest mistake:

Ron Hubbard did not understand democracy. In fact, he abhorred it. He saw the US and the world after WWII. Saw the aberrated masses electing corrupt “leaders”. Ron witnessed disaster, nuclear bombs, poverty and suffering. He reached the conclusion “democracy” was to blame: ignorant masses electing madmen, guised as “presidents” and “prime ministers”, to destroy their lives.

Here are a few excerpts:

1. HCOPL 7 Feb 1965, KSW 1: “And I don’t see that popular measures, … and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud.” … “The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank.”

But then Ron does offer hope: “Thus each of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason.”

Yet Ron offers no formula, how does “a group of freed beings” govern itself?

2. Just a week later, in HCOPL 13 FEBRUARY 1965, POLITICS, Ron wrote the following: “Now and then you hear me speak derisively of governments and ideologies–including democracy. … What political system could work amongst very aberrated people? … The basic building block of any political system is the individual. 

“That rules out any system which witch hunts, freezes opportunity, or suppresses the right to improve by any workable system or suppresses a workable system.

“Watching the US and Australia … proves that democracy, applied to and used by aberrated people, is far from an ideal activity and is only aberrated democracy.

“Therefore a democracy is a collective-think of reactive banks. Popular opinion is bank opinion. Any human group is likely to elect only those who will kill them. That’s concluded from actual 1950 experiments.

“Believe in the individual being and work with him and you will find he is basically good. Work only with a group and you work with collective-think which is basically bank and therefore evil.

“Scientology gives us our first chance to have a real democracy.

“So we can conclude on actual evidence that the first true democracy will emerge when we have freed each individual of the more vicious reactive impulses. Such beings can reason, can agree on decent and practical measures and be depended upon to evolve beneficial measures.”

Words of wisdom, no doubt. But again, Ron offers no recipe for democracy within Scientology even “when we have freed each individual …”

3. HCOPL 2 NOVEMBER 1970, THE THEORY OF SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS: “A totally democratic group has a bad name in Dianetics and Scientology despite all this talk of agreement. …If you ever have occasion to elect a leader for your group, don’t be “democratic” about it. Compare record as follows: Take a person who is a good auditor, not just says he is. … Take the person who can grant beingness to others. And look at the relative serenity and efficiency of any past command he may have had. So always elect temporarily and reserve the right of recall. If his first action is to fire people, recall him at once and find another leader. If the organization prospers, keep him and confirm the election by a second one. If the abundance of the organization sags in a month or so, recall and find another.”

Here Ron really gives us directions how to go about electing a leader. “If you ever … elect a leader for your group … “, “Compare …”, “Take a person …”, “And look at …”, “So always elect temporarily and reserve …“, “… recall him at once and find …”. Lots of sound advice but who is it addressed at? Who is the person or entity that will perform the electing, comparing, looking, reserving, recalling and finding? Lots of verbs and actions but it doesn’t say who will do all of this.

Elsewhere, Ron talks of a “benign monarch.” Let some kind, caring, all-knowing, ‘Super Thetan’ rule the masses and prod them along like a shepherd handles his sheep or a loving parent to his children. This too is hardly workable, since it does not answer who chooses the do-good monarch, how does one measure the goodness and most important, how does one prevent the benign deteriorating into malevolent.

Ron failed to establish who will own the property and materials of the Church when he’s gone. He turned it over to RTC but who does RTC belong to? He attempted to create a complex structure with some “checks and balances” yet this collapsed instantly when he moved off power. The exact same thing he warned of in “Responsibilities of Leaders”. Of Simon Bolivar Ron says, “He glowed things right. Pitifully, it was his undoing that he could. Until he no longer could. … It never occurred to do more than personally magnetize things into being right and victorious.”

Same with Ron – with him at the helm, structure was of little consequence. He was the stable datum and ultimately it all went back to him, any question, any decision. Ron himself held full responsibility for the survival of the organization. 

With Ron gone, in 1980 or 1982 or 1986, what happened? Confusion, pandemonium, chaos. Lots of bright guys with fancy titles but who do they ultimately report to? There was no stable datum of who runs the show. Who, from then on out, owns the Scientology materials and property and would elect and supervise the Scientology organizations and executives.

Under such circumstances, what typically occurs? People look for someone who has the audacity to present himself as “the new stable datum”. Someone who dares say, “I know what’s going on, I can take responsibility, I will care for you.” And they all fall at his feet because he promises he will take care of them. History has taught us that dictators come to power only after periods of confusion, violence and much suffering.

In Scientology circa 1982, with Ron gone though still alive, witness the rise of Miscavige. To this day, DM is still telling the flock he knows what he’s doing, he will take care, he will deliver them to the Promised Land. They needed a ruler and they got one. Then he became a ruthless dictator, but they begged him to be that, and he obliged.

Ron, a once-in-history genius, should have foreseen this. If he did, he would have established the Church as a “membership organization”, like we are seeing now, for the first time ever in Scientology’s history.

This is similar to a democracy, but not quite, let’s call it a “member-cracy”. “Demos” in Greek is people, “kratia” is rule, govern. So we are forming organizations ruled by the members.

This point Ron missed. Be it the Church or HASI, RTC or CSI, WDC or ASI or any body he created. Ron did not provide a simple and open answer as to who controls it, who owns it? I have not yet found a “policy” answering this question, who does it belong to? Who has final say? Ron talks of a “goal maker”, good, but who is he? Who elects him? What happens when the founder, the self-elected original goal maker, dies? I know of no answer from Ron.

In the long term, history proves that only democratic nations are successful. And we see that gradually and painfully, the world around us is becoming democratic. All wars were fought by dictators bent on holding on to power, thus inventing enemies and going to war. Miscavige, how terrible to state, is no different from Hitler, Stalin, Bashar El-Assad, Kim Jong-un, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro – he has to invent “enemies of the people” so as to maintain his stranglehold over his subjects.

In business, the largest and most successful corporations are publicly traded companies, owned by thousands of shareholders. Why do they “go public”? To raise money is the secondary reason. They go public so as to have thousands of people take responsibility and so as to separate the corporation from the original founder. Henry Ford died and Ford still makes cars. Steve Jobs is dead but Apple thrives.

So we, loyal Scientologists, are committed to right this by becoming a member-cracy. The members rule. Accordingly, Scientologists around the world are beginning to take responsibility and act. In Israel, The Association of Free Scientologists Israel (AFSI) has recently been formed. Internationally, a new group is being formed by Lana Mitchell and several associates. Both groups are voluntary, membership is open to all and the governing will be conducted by the members themselves, via elected officials.

Our newly-formed associations can only succeed if we have members who are smart, able, ethical, endowed with high ARC and operating with ever-increasing KRC. In K-R-C, most important is the R, responsibility. If the members don’t really control it, it will fail after a short while. So we want select individuals who desire KRC. (Please read HCOPL 18 Feb 1972, Exec Series 8, THE TOP TRIANGLE, in Management Series Vol. 2, pg 232).

In HCOPL 2 Nov 1970, RESPONSIBILITY, OEC Vol. 1, pg 727 (also in the Ethics book, pg 47), Ron says, “The power of choice is still senior to responsibility.” A person chooses to be responsible, it cannot be imposed. He assumes it or elects it for himself. In a democracy, you cannot even force them to vote, they decide if they want to go vote.

Members, like people in a democratic country, or shareholders of a corporation, have the final say and the ultimate responsibility. Nothing else works. And they learn slowly from past mistakes and I do believe the world is getting better, thanks to democracy.

Scientology will expand, and will become broadly acceptable, only when practiced by individual auditors and groups dedicated to Standard Tech and servicing their public. These practitioners will cooperate and will forward their common goals only by means of free, open, voluntary associations governed by the members themselves.

Democracy (or should we call it member-cracy?) is new to Scientology. We are making history and winning daily. Ron may have made a small mistake. It is by far out-balanced by the precious Tech he did give us. Let us be bold, smart, dedicated and responsible by building the organizations necessary to make Ron’s Tech available to Mankind.

Comments

  1. Theo Sismanides says

    Dani, it’s definitely a way we can go. There are so many things that can be done. Still we need to have some type of an organising board and assign some hats to people. This is not just so easy but the hope of the New Associations is tremendous. It’s a way we can go for now.

    For example, I am here in Greece and there are a lot of people who would be interested to see some auditors come around and get them audited. There is no Independent auditor who is really active here. But there is a whole country a whole city Athens and many people I have been talking to.

    Imagine on that Org Board to have someone responsible for some coordination of such things. And Greece is beautiful like Israel. I have been in Haifa and Tel Aviv. We set up the translations unit. We can liaise through those Associations. it just takes though some light command channels. Not anyone can be saying anything.

    An ED is an ED. I will not throw away the Admin tech of LRH just because gave such a bad example of it to many of his execs.

    • Dani Lemberger says

      Thanks Theo, come visit us in Haifa, we’re close. We can see how we can do things together.

      • Theo Sismanides says

        Dani thank you very much for the invitation! I will be very happy to come back to Haifa. I will put all positive thoughts and we stay in touch.

  2. Dan Locke says

    Thank you, Dani, for your calm reason and your reflection on what should always be emphasized: what is right about Scientology. Very much appreciated here. IMSLTHO, this should be posted everywhere and emailed to all Scientologists. My respect to you and your group, Lana and her associates, and all others who have regained or are in the process of regaining their true personal integrity.

    • Dani Lemberger says

      Hey Dan. Thanks for your support. Please feel free to promote the article to your contacts and you should join the new assoc being formed. This will unite us, give us power and make it possible to act broadly.

  3. calvin b. duffield says

    Fabulous post Dani, and I applaud you for it. I really get the workable aspects you have laid out, and there is certainly no way of avoiding the imperatives of having the upper triangle, KRC, forming the backbone of a powerbloc membership, held together by the other triangle, GENUINE ARC. The one small change I would suggest, perhaps because it rolls a little better off the tongue, would be to call the reformation: “MEMBOCRACY ”

    ML, Calvin.
    Durban, South Africa.

  4. breppen says

    Very smart analysis and solution of “Member-cracy”. If only that were in place, David Miscavige would be history and fired as an incompetent Manager. It’s still amazing how many blindly follow him as he squirrels the tech relentlessly and hides his brutality. Shame on those that know yet still hide in fear behind the iron curtain cowardly afraid to come forward and take a stand. Thank goodness for people like you and others who are making the tech available standardly and at an affordable cost, thank you.

    • Dani Lemberger says

      Calvin Duffield says MEMBOCRACY, you say MEMBEROCRACY. Please guys, let’s not fight!

      • calvin b. duffield says

        Tom-ar-to, tom-a-to — pot-a-ta, pot-a-to, who cares? As long as they’re prepared and presented with
        loving care and good nutritional content in mind —they’re delicious! …… Please pass the salt, Dan!

        ML, Calvin.

  5. Paul J says

    Dani, I haven’t met you but from everything I’ve come to know about you, you would have my vote to lead this group. What a refreshing thought it is that I could later vote for someone else if I thought it were the right thing to do.

    • Dani Lemberger says

      Thank you for your vote. I’ll have someone handle you on the idea to depose me.

      • Kirsi says

        You’ve just demonstrated an important leader qualification ! Unless you’re dead serious here of course…

        But, in all seriousness – I am tracking with you sir, well thought of and written.

  6. Richard Kaminski says

    Fantastic, Dani. Thank you. You speak my language, I could have written this myself and it would have come out virtually word for word as you have said it.

    We have the tools to make a start, as you have shown.

    LRH was an adventurer. Scientology is an adventure, an exciting one. Nothing beats ARC, and we have the R. We know where we’re going – into the unknown, wherever the ARC takes us: recovery of self, greater awareness, more love of our fellows, you name it, anyone can name it.

    My biggest disappointment with the CoS was discovering it wasn’t my group – others owned the group and I didn’t count. There’s the letter of the law, and there’s the spirit of the law, and this goes for policy and organizations – it’s all about delivery. Auditing, training, helping – that much we can do. The results of auditing are a joy without measure.

    There is absolutely nothing to stop us picking ourselves up and having another bash. I’m up for it.

    Richard Kaminski UK

    • Dani Lemberger says

      Richard, the days of monopoly are over. Thanks to those courageous and smart who took the materials outside the Church, we have it available everywhere. Now it’s just organizing correctly and working to re-start the movement. And thank you for your kind words.

      • Jane Doe says

        Great post Dani. I’m all for it. “Now it’s just organizing correctly and working to re-start the movement.” So true.

  7. A Wise Fool says

    I believe in an iron-clad rule: “Any Monopoly will eventually become corrupt.” I haven’t found any exceptions to this rule in all of history. Given enough time any Monopoly – no matter how noble or “sane” the original purpose – will eventually be corrupted by those who seek power over others. (Note that any sovereign government is a Monopoly.) Democracy tends to prevent Monopoly. But those who seek power will always try to subvert Democracy by overt or covert means. Just look at what is happening to the United States right now. They are busy creating an apathetic or dependent or fearful population to essentially wrest control of the country from the people.

    Therefore there must not only be Democracy but severe limits on the power of government. The original framers of the Constitution were very aware of the problem and created the concept of “balance of power”. Unfortunately at the time there was no option other than a representative form of government. Today the ubiquitous ability to communicate via the Internet makes a true Democracy possible.

    Government cannot be allowed to give individuals or organizations things. Government cannot directly provide “services” or insurance or save people from the consequences of their decisions. Services must be delivered by independent competing private organizations. And the few services that government must provide (i.e. police forces) requires the creation of two competing organizations who vie for public support – thus preventing monopoly. Government’s primary job is to create and maintain the rules of the game. The people must vote directly on major proposals. That includes tax increases. And government limits as above also prevent the “tyranny of the masses”.

    • Peter says

      The framers of the Constittution looked very unkindly on “democracy”, knowing its ineveitible destination. The concept of Equality was used to kill it. Thus we have the Euro and US messs, the UK on par with both. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy/.\ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

      It’s been going downhill ever since. :-/

      Hubbard made no real provision for his passing and, sick and in hiding, he (I believe) lost touch with what was going on. When he passed, the organization was simply right for the picking by an ambitious psychotic like Davey Dumpster. And the group, so used to being a part of a military style organization (a HUGE mistake on LRH’s part), simply continued to follow orders.

      I believe, too, that the lie of the SO 1 line, condoned by Ron who surely did not have the time to answer such a huge flow of mail by that time (it was already out when I came aboard in 1966), thus leaving a rather important lie on the lines. Therein, I believe, he began to lose complete touch with the field, his real source of what was going on downlines. It’s the nature of the beast that juniors will always try to pass only good news up the line and would avoid telling the major outnesses which began to occur. And when he went into hiding, abdicating direct control, he left a gigantic power vacuum, sucking in a variety of people desiring the top spot. Davey Dimbulb was simply the most vicious and power hungry of the lot..

      So I think that somehow, some way, a different organization structure is required. Just what that might be I’ll leave to the imagination of others. But since the time of the kings and conquerors, minor fiefdoms ALWAYS are created by anyone desiring power over others, an all too common human desire. Would that it would be otherwise.

      Please note that even when I saw these flaws back that far, I was getting such wins and gains in general life that I carried on and brought many others in.

  8. Roy Macgregor says

    Pretty Interesting concept. I would like to suggest that you have two kinds of members- general members and voting members and that voting members be required to be publicly listed Indy Scientologists. Otherwise DM will just get every SO member in the world to join and vote himself as the new leader! But otherwise I think the idea is much better than nothing at all.

    • Dani Lemberger says

      You are right. It is being set up as a 2 tier membership organization. But all members are in the open. One cannot be secretly a member. Secretly, one can only be PTS. Not to worry about DM joining, he knows we’re inferior creatures.

  9. phil pipieri says

    Smells like More horseshit about”Ron’s Policy”. IF THERE WERE ANY TRUTH TO IT, he would have been able to apply it to himself!
    Just like the Mental Image Picture concept being mis-intrpreted and etched into perpetual case creation ( read up on Volney Mathison, creator of the e-meter) you cannot ALWAYS be applying someone else’s policy to your life as more than a guideline and still call it a “life”. Nature expects each creature to bring it’s own variety into being. Using your life to attempt to recreate Hubbard’s personal alter-is ( in code you’ll inderstand) creates more lies and is in itself an abomination. It’s a wrong item in nature to take it too far and will, thankfully, explode on you, until you start creating your own life and policy.

    • calvin b. duffield says

      Aren’t we lucky to have you, phil, straightening things out for us dupes, per the enviable mastery you have made of your own life, Sir? Where on earth have you been all these years, allowing us to struggle away with believing we were souls, when “Nature” has proven to you, beyond all doubt, that we are all just creatures? Stand aside LRH! make way for phil pipieri, whereupon ALL shall be revealed —— Take it away Sir! —— The floor is YOURS!

      • KFrancis says

        A tremendous left/right combination Calvin-I haven’t seen that kind of ring skill since Ali dropped Sonny Liston in 1965.

      • calvin b. duffield says

        Goodness me! phil? PHIL? …” tweet…tweet…tweet! “.. oops, looks like we may have lost phil…!

      • says

        calvin – Phil said some sensible things. Please tell us all how many hours of auditing and training (hours reading stuf on the bus to work do not count) you have had.

      • calvin b. duffield says

        With pleasure Ralph…. Enough to discern who and what I’m dealing with. My current mix includes
        dealing with dangerous, hardened criminals! …Hope that helps.

      • calvin b. duffield says

        Btw Ralph, to my understanding, it’s DUPLICATION, that counts, not the time taken to achieve it.

    • SKM says

      “Nature expects each creature to bring it’s own variety into being. “

      True.
      Scientology helped me to learn more about my own nature, my talents and my fellow man.
      But I agree with you that this game called Scientology is not for everyone.
      I left the Church after I realized that some people want me to live my life as they wanted me to.
      But this is not Scientology.
      True, if I am a Student I have to follow some instructions and rules. It’s no different than in other schools. True, if I want my PCs to win, I use the processes the way they were laid down and proven workable. It’s called “discipline”.
      I know, Scientology is not a game for everyone. And I don’t mean it condescending toward those who choose not to participate. They have a right to their own life and way of life (belief, spiritual path, philosophy or the leg thereof) like everyone else.

  10. Gerhard Waterkamp says

    Dani, excellent analysis, reading the quotes from LRH about democracy one can almost think Ron had lost faith in his fellow human beings not trusting them to find their own way when presented with rational information. Thus the attitude to know best and better for everybody came about.
    A (workable) truth is like cream in fresh milk, giving enough time and peace and free flow of information it will swim to the top eventually.
    Workable truths have been suppressed, the ones uttering them threatened with their lives or being publicly defamed. But in the end the workable truth given enough time, enough peace and enough free communication came out on top. It may have taken tens or hundreds of years, but in the end the truth prevails.
    What happened to Ron happened to others before who were ahead of their times in certain fields.
    The key ingredient that makes democracy a workable system is the freedom to communicate, the freedom of information to flow. This freedom is the factor that will eventually allow the cream to rise to the top.
    Freedom of communication and information has two sides. One, is the absence from oppression, the other one the willingness of the individual to look beyond his/her preconceived notions.
    In the COS we have both. Undesired communication and information is suppressed threatened by the COS and individuals insisting to hold on to preconceived notions no matter what.
    Once the threat of the COS is removed, there is still this other factor: unwillingness to look beyond one’s own preconceived notions.
    That is the single biggest mistake that causes friction within independents. Knowing best, judging others, assigning conditions to others, – all connected at the same root: A blockage of communication through insisting on preconceived notions.
    I think your concept of a member-‘cracy’ is right on, if we include a commitment for a free flow of communication and information, tolerance and inclusion- the workable truths will prevail.

  11. says

    At the risk of getting myself banned here as I was on Marty’s blog, and with all due respect to Dani, I must disagree on a number of points and with his ultimate conclusion.

    Dani’s first question was, what happens when Ron’s no longer around? The answer is in the very policy that Dani referred to: KSW. Long before Ron left, it was our responsibility to keep Scientology working. And from 1965 on, we mostly ignored our responsibility, leaving it to Ron. There were undoubtedly indicators that Miscaviges should never have been given any more responsibility than taking out the trash. These indicators were ignored, and he was elevated progressively over the years. But at any point on the line, I guarantee there were people in his environment who could have spotted him as the trouble source he eventually became. They all assumed someone else would handle it, instead of doing their jobs, assuming responsibliity, and tackling what would later become an intolerable situation.

    By analogy, here in the States, the approval rating of our current Congress (legislative body) is at close to its lowest in history. There are many who look to different organizational and policy-level solutions to this problem, like socialism or whatever. But there is no such -ism or law which will solve this problem. The problem stems from those in power. We have a government (and legislature) literally full of criminals and incompetents (incidentally, elected by us). Want proof? Look at the number of active scandals which threaten to engulf the current administration and government. Substitute honest, truly competent people for all the criminals in this government, and what do you think the result would be?

    It’s not the policy. It’s the people.

    Dani’s asserts that Ron had no faith in democracy as a form of government. He seems to assume, though, that Ron”s survey of democracy extended only to this planet. I rather doubt that, even though Ron only mentions the experience of this planet. I’d give Ron more credit than that. I would imagine that if democracy were the answer Dani thinks it is, Ron would have said, “Why, yes, democracy worked in this or that civilization, X million years ago, over on planet 3.” Ron had a habit of doing rather thorough whole track research. I happen to think Ron was right when he asserted that the only thing thetans have in common is the reactive mind. And I’ve seen enough of humanity to recognize that, in electing people (via democracy), humans can be counted upon to make mistake after mistake. It’s not hard to find vast numbers of examples. In fact, their behavior on this score is rather uniform. Moreover, humans tend uniformly to vote for people they believe will bring the most benefit to their first dynamics. They tend to completely ignore the other dynamics.

    It’s instructive to note that the Founders of the United States eschewed straight democracy. These were some of the brightest men of their age, who had surveyed the whole history of known governments on this planet. They concluded that democracy was not a proper form of government. Instead, they chose to make this a “representative republic”. (Surprise! The United States is not a “democracy”.)

    We may never know what Ron intended in the end. But I rather suspect he expected those executives who had been put in charge of the various sectors (WDC, RTC, et al), to act and interact in such a way as to ensure the integrity of Scientology. We’ll never know what documents were written on this score. Perhaps he did write bylaws for Scientology which outlined how new leaders would be selected in the extended absence of a critical executive. But whether such documents and rules existed or not, it’s certain that those in charge failed to act in the best interests of Scientology.

    Let’s take a simple example. Watchdog Committee contained ten to twenty senior executives. Let’s assume there was no provision for how fo fill the position of one of those positions, and it happened that one day, one of them got hit by a bus and died. If you were a highly trained OT with extensive admin experience, one of those remaining WDC execs, what would you do? Chances are, you’d follow the policy that Dani cites, “Theory of Scientology Organizations”. You’d get together with the rest of the executives and order the CMO to do a survey of lower level executives, looking for those who were good auditors, who could grant beingness, etc. etc. Of those, the remaining executives would reach out to the most qualified candidates and offer them the position of the missing executive, on a trial basis. Exactly as the policy states.

    When it comes to the question of who gets to elect who, it’s kind of silly to expect Ron to give you that answer as well. Particularly when the answer is rather obvious. As with any other game, those with “skin in the game” get the privilege of selecting the ultimate person to fill the position. And if they are smart, they will follow the policy above. Democracy isn’t necessary, and would frankly yield worse results.

    Here’s another example to support the mechanism of selection over election. You’re the Tech Sec of an org. You have to send someone to Flag for training on the “Paul Rundown” (a rundown with very precise and specific steps). Do you hold an election? Of course not! You survey your tech personnel. If you’re smart, you select the best one of these, and you pack him off to Flag on a fast jet with instructions to get through the course and internship in half checksheet time. If you were around on staff back in the 70s and 80s when such calls would go out from Flag, you know that none of those telexes ever said, “Have an election to determine which elegible staff should come to Flag for Paul Rundown training.” The operative word was, “select”.

    Dani asserts that democratic countries are the most successful. Two problems with that. First, there are very few “democracies” on this planet, if any. I think perhaps he confuses representative republics with democracies. I’ll assume so. However, Dani doesn’t define what measures he is using to proclaim this or that country as “successful”. It is per capita productivity? Is it amount of foreign aid given to other countries? Is it number of bullets fired in a year? By many measures, the United States is the most successful country in the history of the planet. And yet, on a number of statistics, other countries bypass us. And by the way, a lot of those supposedly “democratic” countries aren’t doing so well at the moment.

    But more important, it isn’t democracy that makes these countries successful. It’s the a free market economy which usually accompanies such “free” countries. The free market economy, a minimal of laws which interfere with the market, the “Rule of Law” and one or two things which enable a successful country to expess its success. Democracy has very little to do with it.
    Dani asserts that the largest and most successful companies are publicly traded ones. While this may be true, Dani incorrectly asserts that the reason for their success is the seemingly “democratic” mechanism of stock issuance and purchase. This is a complex issue and I’m afraid Dani is also incorrect here as well. But the answer is far too long for a blog comment. In fact, this comment is likely too long as it is.

    My hat’s off to Dani and his excellent work at Dror Center. My disagreements with his reasoning here should in no way diminish the magnitude of his accomplishments. He’s definitely a gem in our Independent Field. Flourish and Prosper, Dani and all those at Dror Center!

    • Formost says

      And if they are smart, they will follow the policy above. Democracy isn’t necessary, and would frankly yield worse results.

      I agree. The answer lies in the system of ‘Checks & Balances’ based on LRH writings, not votes or democracies.

      • Moonshot says

        You are completely missing the point. Dani is not saying that every post in an organisation should be elected or up for a vote. The crucial point here is one of ownership and ultimate responsiblilty. Like in a nation state or large business corporation. In these cases there is a form and hierarchy to the org and it can be run on governing policiies and most posts are appointed. But if things go very badly, the voters or shareholders…the ultimate stakeholders, can replace top managemnt if its needed.

        Dani’s point is that LRH doesnt ever really address WHO owns the damn thing. Dani is saying we can take responisbility for that and creat orgs owned by the entire public and ultimately, then policy and tech can go in and the orgs can grow organically as they will be responsive both to the needs of the public and the reality of the enviroment they operate in.

    • Dan351 says

      TONE SCALE OF
      GOVERNMENTS,
      COMPANIES OR GROUPS
      (HCO PL 9 January 1951 An Essay on Management) page 126 Scientology 0-8

      Near cooperative state
      Democratic republic
      “Emergency Management”
      Totalitarianism
      Tyranny
      Apathy of a dying organization or nation

    • Richard Kaminski says

      Thank you, Paul, for your elegant and astute reply. It’s not too long at all.

      May I add a few points please.

      Firstly, that the personnel creating and manning our future groups will have the benefit of being Scientologists in good case shape and this time armed with a little experience. We’ve completed stage one of our internships and been bloodied, so to speak.

      Secondly, there would be three requirements for a senior post: a good admin history of staff performance measured by statistics, the technical requirement of making good case gain, and a respectable ethics record. Ron provides means for the easy improvement in each of these key areas, and further support from an independent Qual. Our governments do not have these luxuries, so it’s a little unfair to compare Scientologists with politicians. I completely agree it’s about people not policy, so your point about selection versus election doesn’t really apply because a scientology group member would vote for the transparent, pliable qualities he understands, the very same ones which would qualify himself for the role – as you say, honest, truly competent people, demonstrably so.

      Thirdly, why wasn’t I there to restrain Miscavige? Precisely for the reasons you state: I ignored my responsibility, ignored the indicators, and left it to Ron. Not that I was personally in contact with the wee one himself, it just boils down to more fundamental errors on my part, summed up in one word – naivety. Ron was right to mistrust democracy as practiced by voters overwhelmed by bank. Hell, in my stupidity, I might well have voted for Miscavige if given the choice. Remove that bank, season with a little experience, and you’re no longer a cleared cannibal. I would trust a decision made by people who have lived the Miscavige dream, got out and still wanted to do the bridge. That’s cause over life, matter, energy, space and time, at least on the first dynamic. Pretty impressive. That is strength of character, a measure of their intelligence and an insight into the noble decency of their heart. Someone who would tell you if a line was straight or crooked as they saw it and vote accordingly.

      Fourthly, and very importantly, general voting prevents self-perpetuating cliques.

      Finally, I would always rather trust more than less. Limiting choice to a few individuals in a Selection System invalidates the rest of the membership, and inflicts on them the unintended consequence of an automatic Danger Condition and sundry by-pass phenomena.

      Richard Kaminski

      • calvin b. duffield says

        Richard,
        This is a first class assessment by an obviously competent Admin man. The positives evident in your post are quite clear and simple to grasp. I don’t know if you have picked it up as such, Richard, but there is an electric crackle in the air, a tension of enormous impact, when it is finally released upon the hitherto “floundering” scattered, Scientologist’s –both IN and OUT the movement , per se!

        Sense it? Feel it? We’ll soon see it! Check out Lana’s blog, –iScientology. The thunder is REAL!

        ML, Calvin.

  12. SKM says

    Dear Tami,
    thank you for the insight and for presenting the new approach to us.

    You said:

    Ron failed to establish who will own the property and materials of the Church when he’s gone. He turned it over to RTC but who does RTC belong to? He attempted to create a complex structure with some “checks and balances” yet this collapsed instantly when he moved off power.

    It’s a pitty it didn’t work out and I am sure that we will never really know why. But my take is that it is not really important WHY it failed as to accept the responsibility to put it back in place.
    No one really “owns” Scientology in my opinion. It is not something one can “own” but something one can use. As long as we treat Scientology as a Substantive (havingness) instead as a Verb (doingness) we will never have a chance to use basic administrative tools (like Admin Scale, OrgBds, betterment programms…) to really change conditions (i.e. the goals of Scientology).

    For Miscavige treats Scientology as if it was a commodity – not a activity – the Church is handled in the mest band of the tone-scale instead, where it should be, in the realm of games. Activities are solid and money oriented.

    “Ron did not provide a simple and open answer as to who controls it, who owns it? I have not yet found a “policy” answering this question, who does it belong to? Who has final say? Ron talks of a “goal maker”, good, but who is he? Who elects him? What happens when the founder, the self-elected original goal maker, dies? I know of no answer from Ron.”

    In my opinion there is no need for a new goal maker for Scientology as the goals were all set as early as 1950’s.
    If anything is needed it is the resurgence of the original goals and new plans and projects in order to help make this dream something people again work towards. Groups and Individuals alike.

    The reason I was interested in the Church and Scientology was because I needed some tools to create harmony along my dynamics. I had the feeling that Scientology is a good cause not only for my own personal advancement but also a group of people who wish to generate this harmony, sanity, well exchange and what else positive may come to your mind in the world.
    And the group of people is still there – out of the church and sone still in the church, mislead and disenchanted.
    But there is no need for us to take our view off the mountain. Shit happens. It’s like a session. We now come to the point of the session where we have some good realizations about what happend and it’s safe to assume that many of us have our lesson learned.

    Re: KSW and Democracy. In this PolLtr LRH said explicitly that a group won’t develop a technology. He didn’t say that a group of people would not be able to administer the activities of the group.
    There is also Policy that says that policy needs to be adjusted from time to time.
    And since the new Membership Association is not part of the Corporate Scientology structure, I see no reason why it should stick to every single word LRH ever wrote regardning his initial corporation (which failed after his passing).

    Scientology belongs to the people who can use it to benefit others.
    If it doesn’t it’s not Scientology.

    Thanks again for your inspiring article, Tami and for giving a good example to other Mission Holders and EDs.

    Love,
    SKM

    • SKM says

      This was a message to Dani, not Tami – sorry for the mix-up.
      I’m not used to Israeli names. But one word I learned: Shalom.
      Love,
      SKM

  13. Dani Lemberger says

    Thank you Gerhard, your comment adds a lot to it and clarifies a major point. Indeed, information is flowing freely amongst us on many forums. Inevitably, there’s the occasional fist-fight. Great! We can see it and we can consider it. Soon it will subside and we can work together again.

  14. says

    Fabulous article Dani, and excellent references! I couldn’t agree more with your conclusions. I was thinking along the same lines in my area, that local organizations could exercise more quality control, take the time to really care for people and develop internal stability. I’ve always felt that it is possible for a
    Scn. organization to survive well, including the staff, if the tech/admin ratio is in and the intention to really help relieve suffering and free beings, is front and center. Full transparency, truthfulness and authentic wins and gains are the hallmarks of true Scn, NOT duplicity, lies, obfuscation, fakery, front groups, extortion larceny and ostentatious bullshit. Thank you Dani and Mike for all you’re doing.

  15. says

    I’m very positive to an international independent association. I would like to see membership growing and a strong symbol for unification, even membership fees to cover costs and needed work. A president would be nice. But I want it to be advisory, not managing.
    The future for scientology is in free, independent groups. Many of them will grow thanks to their application of standard tech.

  16. CommunicatorIC says

    Off-topic, but hopefully of interest. Concerning the documentary about Independent Scientology, “Scientologists At War,” to be shown on Channel 4 (UK), 9pm 17 June 2013:
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/scientologists-at-war/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/scientologists-at-war

    Tony Ortega is covering the story – Monday on Channel 4: The Bunker Invades the UK
    http://tonyortega.org/2013/06/13/this-is-your-dianetics-on-drugs-the-nitrous-engram/

    Excerpt: “Monday night at 9 pm, our UK readers will get a chance to see a 1-hour documentary on Channel 4 put together by director Joseph Martin and producer Danielle Clark. The title is “Scientologists at War,” and we expect it to feature the rise of Independent Scientology that is proving to be such a challenge to the church itself. ”

    Also, the blog Possibly Helpful Advice cross-posted the information previously posted to Mike’s blog: UK Channel 4 to cover disgruntled Scientologists’ gripes
    http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=13599

    Excerpt: “This was stolen in substance from Mike Rinder’s blog, in the comments section of June 12’s post.

    A heads-up to the Independent Scientology community. A documentary about Independent Scientology, “Scientologists At War,” is to be shown on Channel 4 (UK), 9pm 17 June 2013:
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/scientologists-at-war/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/scientologists-at-war

    In their inimical style, Scientology Inc plants have been posting protest comments over on Channel 4’s forum located at: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/scientologists-at-war/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

  17. uncover says

    Democracy ALONE is not the philosophers stone which will lead to success. Co$ as it is, is NOT a science. Every science is marked by further development of multiple scientists over time. That´s not possible with the current “only source” concept. And sorry, the “science” of Co$ is far away from being “ultimately finished”.

    Think about electronics, if there would only be “one source” you wouldn´t look now in your computer screen – at the best you would still look in your black&white TV-set. Think about aeroplanes – with the concept of “one source” you would at the best fly with Xenu´s DC-8´s.

    As long as there will be adhered to the concept of a “never-failing/one-source”-myth I can see no future for the idea of a “science of the mind”. Woodstock long time is gone – that was the time when the mid-40´s-Hubbard could impress a bunch of young hippies and play their leader on the high seas.

  18. cotch says

    “So we can conclude on actual evidence that the first true democracy will emerge when we have freed each individual of the more vicious reactive impulses. Such beings can reason, can agree on decent and practical measures and be depended upon to evolve beneficial measures.”

    Great post Dani. I think to a large extent the above has been done based on the Independents I have met and read.

  19. Ronn says

    Keep on rockin Standard Tech Dani, I’m somehow confident that will not ever bite you.

  20. Tom Gallagher says

    Dani,

    Organizationally, I think it’s all about going back to 1950 and perhaps a little earlier all over again. And that’s a grass roots movement. Let’s hit the reset button. I think that’s the point being stated by Marty Rathbun. The scene is integrate or disintegrate.

    The point I want to make was a point an old time Class 8 mentioned to me: Scientology has become irrelevant.

    Organizationally, it was on a suicide mission.

  21. Hemi says

    Dani my dear friend,
    Thanks for a wonderful article and for your vision and endless positive drive.
    I am no great admin man, so I won’t get too deeply into the important issues being discussed here.
    Especially as it is 3 in the morning and tomorrow we have the 1st meeting of The Association of Free Scientologists Israel (AFSI) which I happen to host…But the fact that the day after tomorrow I go to Dror yet again, to continue with my OT5, in the wonderful and Theta center you are responsible for, feeling totally safe and confident doing so, says it all. And Lo and behold, it does feel in Dror like a Memberocracy…absolutely so. Yes, I do prefer that name on Membocracy, where the member 1st part sounds either like mambo-jambo or like some kind of a snake…and we all intend to be neither…just walking tall. Walking tall!
    Cheers dani, Yofi and much love,
    Hemi

  22. Odd Thomas says

    Personally, I am happy that Dani brought this subject out into the open. I think it is vital and I believe it needs to take its fair share of lightning strikes over time, until some form of organization comes into existence as a result.

    Right now, many of us rail against any form of control, (or organization) because we’ve had thirty years of bad control being run on us by Corporate Scientology. If LRH had hired six MBAs back in 1960 to run the Church and they produced the same level of oppression that Miscavige has, we’d all be saying that Stanford and Harvard suck at producing people with any business sense.

    Scientology’s third dynamic “field test” failed because those that were in charge, didn’t get the staff audited. Aberrated and irrational decisions have been made, because those making them weren’t audited. We spent the last 60 years trying to put together an organization to deliver training and auditing and found 1001 different ways to avoid giving it to our own staff.

    IMHO, this is the only reason we ended up with Miscavige.

    Dani refers to several Policy references, where LRH is talking about how to de-aberrate people and bring about sanity in the form of a Democracy or any other ism. How, was he planning on doing this? Through, auditing and training.

    We’re in the business of clearing people; not the least restimulative environment for anyone to be working in. Having people work in this way for 5-10-15 years without moving up the grade chart is a huge situation. It guarantees wonky think and wonky decisions over decades, which is exactly what we’ve had. Even the FBI, the military and most police organizations know you have to alternate personnel that are on the front lines. You have to give them a chance to decompress and you have to care for them or else chaos reigns and bad things begin to happen.

    I cannot tell you how many times I have tracked a staff member’s lack of progress up the bridge simply by standing in front of an Org Board and reading the qualifications of that and every other staff member. I’ve watched executives remain at OT1 for over two decades. I have seen thirty year veteran staff at Grade O or Life Repair. I have watched executives go from CO to RPF to Exec Sec back to RPF with no change in grade chart level.

    I have witnessed sane, theta executives get overruled by complete idiots, time and again, because Force trumped sanity and Stats (big numbers of any value or none) trumped reason.

    A democracy or membocracy will work to the degree that sane individuals are making decisions and sane members are being created. Personally, I have my doubts about submitting any question to 1,987 people and expecting a consensus to come about. I lean more towards selection than election and naming sane, capable people to run segments of an organization, and simply holding them to a high standard.

    The Catholic Church has been around for over two millennia. Whether we like them or not or have any regard for their teachings, they’re still here. There is something to be gained by watching how other like groups survive.

    I believe LRH erred by excluding other technology. Would we have been better off by having a handful of MBAs advising us? Mightn’t we be in a different place if we watched how the Mormons grew through the 60s, 70s and 80s and tried to adopt certain attributes while fiercely guarding our own technology? We all become brilliant in hindsight. I am simply pointing out several ideas, jarred loose from some sector of my brain, by Dani’s article.

    Once again, thank you Dani’s. I am very keen on seeing how this will develop over time.

  23. CommunicatorIC says

    Speaking of the Dror Center, I found the information in and about the following video to be both fascinating and of great importance: Prof. James R. Lewis at Dror Center, Israel.

    http://youtu.be/qIAf6Fa4myY

    ” Published on Jun 8, 2013

    Prof. James R. Lewis at Dror Center, Haifa, Israel. 23 May 2013
    Prof. Lewis is an internationally renowned researcher of new religious movements, currently teaching at Tromsoe University, Norway.
    Prof. Lewis has followed Scientology closely for the last 30 years. Lewis was a friend of ex-President of the Church of Scientology, Mr. Heber Jentzsch.
    For many years Lewis was considered an ally by Church management. He helped the Church in its efforts to gain religious recognition.
    Lewis is currently researching the Scientology independent movement, which Lewis also refers to as the Freezone.
    Lewis was in Israel to participate in a conference at Tel-Aviv University. He spent 2 days in Haifa at Dror Center.”

  24. says

    A fine article, Dani. Member-cracy is a particularly useful term, as distinct from democracy. Demos implies rule by the population as a whole, but member-cracy emphasises the responsibility of each individual. The Greek word demos has come to mean in contemporary English the population, the masses, considered as a unit. In biology it means the flock instead of the individual sheep, the forest instead of the trees. A demos of humans can easily become a mob led by a single intention.

    LRH was right to point out that a group – if it tries to think as a group consensus, instead of distinct individuals in communication with each other – will dramatise the bank that its members have in common. But groups don’t have to be like this.

  25. Claudio Lugli says

    Ciao Dani,
    we discussed at lenght on those ideas of yours and you know that I am a bit skeptical on the whole subject of “organized religion” now.
    Undoubtely some form of organization must exist and that this one did not worked can be seen looking at the situation Scientology finds itself now. It’s an “organized religion” dedicated to the enslavement of the people that recruits. And this has been the story of most of the “organized religions”.
    We are in a new Era now, an Era in which ideas can travel very fast and this exchange of ideas involves the least amount of MEST using the NET and the new technologies.
    I think we have to focus on the STUDY and on the USE of the philosophy and in its application and this is naturally happening in the Independent field – when it does not, it simply does not and no organization will enforce freedom. I do not think we are a stage now that needs much organizing.
    I think we are at a stage now that needs lots of recovery, still lots of decompressing, a lots of REAL study and application of what works and brings betterment.
    In the future possibly being better “organized” will arise as a problem – It is possible that you are way ahead into the future, but now I think we need PRODUCTION as you and me are doing and “organization” will come later as a natural phenomena assuming different shapes and forms as one will feel it best fits his environment and situations.
    But right now the focus should be on PRODUCING the results that Scientology when correctly applied can give. You and your group in Haifa are walking the walk – a lot are just talking the talk – I would like to see more walking the walk and if we produce results we will expand the subject, and will expand because of the results that is capable of producing.
    My 2 Cents….

  26. says

    Dani,

    Ron was a genius when it came to Auditing and the theory of the mind. He was clumsy, and less than mediocre when it came to administration. Admin Tech actually conflicts with the axioms and logics that he himself wrote. It conflicts with the Crede, and the Auditor Code. Generally speaking, it is tyrannical and therefore bound to fail.

    You, on the other hand, seem to have a knack for management. I therefore feel that your suggestions are valid, and I welcome your origination.

  27. Roger from Switzerland Thought says

    If we the people here stop talking about religion – I don’t think that engrams or thetans or the technique of auditing has anything to do with religion, those are just existing realities, an engram is an engram and it has nothing to do with belief or religion, neither the fact that thetans exist – I would be intereseted in a association of people that study,audit and apply the technology.

    I live in Switzerland, we have one of the oldest truly functionning democracy on this planet, we have 7 presidents not only one, and we live in abundance since centuries. Just recently one person by using the existing democratic tools was able to introduce some new laws on federal level re shareholding (was about the high salaries of Executives). The swiss people approved by vote of his proposal ! Only one person did that ! That’s democracy ! Our presidents have no bodyguards, secret service etc…and talk to the people, tjhey answer letters written to them !

    For democracy to function you need people with an education, but if the peope is only educated in Scientology principle it will never function !

  28. Dani Lemberger says

    Many thanks to all who read my article and to those who commented.
    Isn’t it wonderful that we CAN think, we CAN exchange viepoints and we CAN disagree! And isn’t it weird that this is new to Scientology?
    Tami and I established Dror Center 21 years ago, it expanded but hit a glass ceiling 4-5 years ago. Looking at it, I realized Dror can no longer be mine, I cannot own the very competent staff we have. We changed operating base, transformed Dror into a registered partnership, 5 partners, each holding 20%, and the place started taking off again.
    When we saw in early 2012 that the CoS was totally insane, we held many discussions and each one separately and the 5 of us together, decided to leave. 40 of our 50 public left with us.
    Since July 2012, when we left, we were helped enormously by our free-spirited Scn friends world-wide, (the list is long, but just a few: Marty, Mike, Claudio, Silvia, Dan, Jim, Steve, Debbie …)
    We now have approx 55 public, are bigger than we ever were and deliver the full Bridge, life repair to “Solo NOTs”. (Oops, I did it again, we have letters from the CoS lawyers forbidding us to use the name ‘Solo NOTs’).
    In my little corner or the world, participation, empowerment and fostering high KRC, works.
    Just this last week I was mostly off-lines, writing the article, and we had almost highest-ever. 32 public in auditing with our 4 auditors, 14 students in the Academy and 4 (yes, FOUR!) new starts.
    Getting new public to start is getting easy and fun again. They are happy to pay for genuine care and for the gains they are having with simple Standard Tech.
    I am glad we are talking and looking for better ways to do Scientology. At least we can recognize something went wrong, that Ron apparently erred somewhere. And we’re taking responsibility and working together to figure it out.
    I am proud to be a member of this group, I’m actually blown-out, having the time of my life.
    Thank you my friends for being such great friends.

  29. The Oracle says

    Standing Ovation Dani! The “Ruling class” op termed him. He then created his own “ruling class”. The Sea Org. These people elect themselves officers or not. Throw the ones they do not want anymore under the bus. They use the M.A.A.s to run control on the masses. Corp Scn, has become a ruling class. Who is funding them? the big donators, the ruling class helps the ruling class. There are people that can not think outside of a class system or without being a ruling class or being ruled by a ruling class. This is not NEW. Scientology may be new, but the system is ancient. There are people who simply can not operate as associated terminals. But that is WAAAY up there.

    The ruling class is at false significance s.

    They use police types to control the masses beneath them as menacing particles.

    From ORG series 23.

    (HCO PL 16 February 1971,

    Lines and Terminals)

    There is a scale concerning Lines and Terminals.

    ASSOCIATED TERMINALS

    SIGNIFICANCES

    FALSE TERMINALS

    MISDIRECTED LINES

    WRONG PARTICLES

    FALSE SIGNIFICANCES

    (Rumors)

    MYSTERIOUS TERMINALS

    CHAOTIC LINES

    MENACING PARTICLES

    DANGEROUS IMPRESSIONS

    NON-EXISTENT TERMINALS

    NON-EXISTENT LINES

    NON-EXISTENT PARTICLES

    UNCONSCIOUS IMPULSES

    THE CHAOS OF UNHAPPY NOTHINGNESS

    The purpose of police is to run control on the masses and cover the asses of the ruling class.
    This is why David Miscavige is never sent to the M.A.A.. The M.A.A. is not for HIM. The M.A.A. is not for the ruling class. It is to control the class that is ruled, and cover the ass of the ruling class. That is why spokespeople and O.S.A. for the Church spread false reports to the media and lie to millions with no regard for ethics and justice. It is NOT for THEM.

    I think the suppression in the Orgs comes from within, not from with out. It the police mocked up to rule and control the class that is ruled. But in Scientology you have people come into self determinsim and they choose NOT to be ruled by Officers of any sort. And they bust out the back door.

    I think the suppression in the Church comes from the ruling class. And as people move up the bridge, if they really make it, they get to a place where they do not want to be shuffled around by the ruling class.

    This is ANCIENT social intercourse. It is not new at all.