Richard. We stand small instead. Lol

PeaceMaker, I wouldn’t worry much. Based on the amount of people who have left Scamology (TENS of thousands) and the number of real Indies (a couple score) you are right in thinking that most people who leave just leave cold turkey. Maybe 1 in 500 temporarily seek out an Indie group.

The Indies are fruit loops. One group recently announced a “reformed” Church and that they will offer scamologists “Amnesty” to reinstate certificates if they will ask pretty please. They actually think they have some power over other people who are scamologists. These people are as bat sh!t crazy as Miss Cabbage & Co.

A picture of a large group of NOIs taking the tour would be an interesting promotion piece. The caption might read,

“Members of the Nation of Islam enjoying the tour. At the conclusion of the tour the Rev. Louis Farrakhan gave a stimulating two hour talk.”

In reality it would be Minister Tony giving the talk. If Louie ever shows up for a weekend the place might sell out all the rooms. There would also be a lot of media coverage for both Scn and the NOI. Think big. As far as I know, Louie has been pretty quiet about publicly promoting Dianetics and Scientology and only personally acknowledges various members on their progress up The Bridge.

This is all facetious, of course. In reality DM prefers isolation and Scn staying out of the news while promoting Scn through mail outs and front groups which provide some income and possible converts. The “We Stand Tall” days are over.

Kat, I think the paradox is that indie groups are too small to do much harm – but if they grew big enough to be able to really throw their weight around, that could change. As I like to point out, it was actually several of the larger independently owned CofS mission franchises of Scientology’s heyday, that pioneered some of the exploitative financial tactics that we now see the orgs using.

That isn’t to say that any independent Scientology group, even relative Hubbard loyalists, are necessarily going to go down the same road of abuse and exploitation if given the chance – though a few might. However, I do predict that at a point if the CofS really starts to come apart and splinter, there’s likely to arise for at least a while a large hardcore group that will carry out policies and practices like disconnection and Scientology “justice,” and maybe even devolve into abuses such as running their own RPF.

Aqua, I generally agree that independent Scientology can have an important role to play in getting people out of the CofS – comparisons have been made to halfway houses, and methodone treatment. I noted such in a subsequent reply.

To me, the quandry is, how much less harmful and evil than the CofS, is it really acceptable for indies to be? Are we going to take a strictly ends-justifies-the-means utilitarian viewpoint that anything other than the CofS is better, even if it’s still abusive, exploitative, dangerous, or dishonest to some extent, or do we draw a line somewhere – and if so, where?

As far as I know, none of the indies engage in financial exploitation and asset stripping the way the CofS does. And they don’t have a Sea Org or otherwise control people physically – though, come to think of it, I’d like to know what they do with their PTS III cases, if not the Introspection Rundown. But perhaps that eliminates the worst of it.

Still, I think the evidence is that anything other than the most basic auditing, carries an unacceptably high risk of causing people to go “PTS Type III” psychotic. And the purif, which some indie orgs try to deliver, can be dangerous. Plus they may have the same attitudes about “beings in small bodies” that’s a set-up for a certain amount of child abuse – and there was a history of sexual misconduct in some of the independent mission franchises in the old days, whose proprietors went on to become some of the first generation of indies. Those are things that I think ought to be illegal, or at least properly regulated, but that aren’t currently – so perhaps they have to be accepted.

But the indies are failing and fading, anyway. It seems to me that part of that is because people who leave the CofS now tend to quit more cold turkey, than they used to – plus more are just going out the door feet first. And the indies as currently constituted, don’t seem to be effective at attracting many people disaffected from the CofS, the way they used to – perhaps because many are now just too old to leave, regardless. I’m not sure quite what’s going on with that, but maybe independent Scientology no longer serves much of a purpose, anyway.

I do object when indies decide to come around aggressively claiming that the “tech” somehow “works,” when that’s been proven false both by a certain number of studies, and its long-term failure to produce any notable results in the real world. I’d prefer that they just claimed to provide personal counseling for people who were comfortable with the auditing methodology, as well as a certain spiritual community.

Perhaps at this point they’d actually attract more people out of the CofS, if they stopped trying to look so much like it. At least as of one point, it seemed to me as if the best and most appealing indie auditors were old-timers who had gone back to “book one” basics without a meter.

Kristin G.,

My vote is barf bags. definitely barf bags!

Kat

Aqua,

LOVE IT!

Kat

Aqua,

Dont give up hope. it could still happen, but most politicians tend to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths- I dont think you can make 100% of the people happy under any conditions. It would be an absolutely miserable job, and I really dont know why anyone would WANT to do it, much less fight to do it!!

But still, I remain an optimist!

Kat

I just looked at the ESMB reference PeaceMaker posted above and part of the Articles of Incorporation state:

“The specific purpose of this corporation is to disseminate and propagate the religion of Scientology . . . blah, blah . . . and not any “revised”, expanded, edited . . . blah, blah versions of the works of L. Ron Hubbard.”

So much for offering anything “new” – laughter