Responding to a Message

This is the text of an e-mail message received privately at the blog e-mail address. This address forwards to my regular e-mail inbox. The originator sent an earlier message last week, to which I replied at once. It was a simple request to know if I was receiving mail at that address or not. Not receiving any reply, I sent a follow-up. Still no reply.

Today, the sender sent two messages, one to ask why he hadn’t received a reply to his first, and a second which I’ll paste in a moment. It seems that my e-mail forwarding and response system isn’t working. I’ll try to find out why. There has been no other message received at the blog e-mail address,, that I know of. I don’t have any problems dealing with messages sent to me via other addresses that forward to my regular e-mail.

Since I’m not able to reach the originator of the message and since he/she is asking some slightly challenging questions, I’ll paste the message here and give my answers. Anyone familiar with the C of S scene who reads this will know that the questioner is either anti-Scn or is a loyal member. The signature is a set of initials, but since the message began as a private communication I’ll omit any identification. The message is:Well Ken Urquhart,                                   Did you ever complete your RPF assignment ?   and can a person hide forever ?What should I know about you ?First of all, I take it that the greeting is at least challenging if not aggessive. Not that I care, either way.I was assigned to the RPF, yes, and I went there. I was “with” the RPF, I was never IN it, finding that it was too small to contain me. I was removed from RPF activity before I even thought of beginning the process of graduating from it (being in no hurry to get back into the rat-race of ‘normal’ existence as a member of any organization in Clearwater — and I had my private agenda, incomplete, for being with the RPF). They put me on the post of D of P for Interviews in the then-new NOTs HGC, something I was happy to do. Demand for NOTs was high and the need for a second Interviewer urgent.On that post, I got myself a pretty good reputation among the tech staff and among the public clients. I redid all my technical training up to Class I, including interneships, in my study time, and then trained as a NOTs auditor; two years later I had the highest Well Done Auditing Hours [WDAH] in the NOTs HGC for the year.I don’t believe my RPF assignment was ever cancelled or completed. It never entered my mind and seems never to have entered anybody else’s until this query today. With that demonstrated production (you cannot fudge high WDAH at any level, far less on NOTs), doing over 40 WDAH a week, week in, week out), who in his right mind (whether in the C of S or not) would have said that I was so down-stat and out-ethics it was wrong to take me out of the RPF and that I really needed to complete its processes?Can a person hide forever? Any person can consider he/she is hiding, and consider that he/she is hiding ‘forever’. I think we can suppose that the sender of the message is saying that I have never completed my RPF assignment and should go back there to do it. And that by not going back I am hiding, and trying to hide forever, from the RPF experience. Good luck on that one, friend. If you think that you have the right Why for me and my actions and my life, I’d suggest that you redo the Data Series Evaluator Course.As for what this person or any person should know about me: I have no idea, and couldn’t care less what this writer or anyone else knows about me or doesn’t know about me or cares one way or the other about what there is to know about me or not know about me. Dredge up all you want. There is plenty of dirt to dredge but there is only one beingness to whose authority to judge me I bow.*     *     *     *I have published this exchange firstly so I can present the originator with answers to the questions lest he/she assume I am unwilling to reply to a challenge. It’s the only such message received since I opened the blog. I don’t intend to make a habit of pushing entheta; my appetite for taking up challenges of this nature is not large and I won’t assume that anyone reads this blog in order to get a dose of antagonism.As far as I’m aware, in dealing with this enquiry I’ve respected truth, necessity, and kindness. If not, I will apologise and make amends. Should the originator want to take the thread any further, he/she would have to respect them too. Otherwise, I will ignore the communication.I also give notice that I will take up or refuse any future similar message entirely at my own discretion and that any refusal on my part has no bearing on whether I can confront the contents or not.With goodwill towards all–(c) Kenneth Urquhart 2018.CATEGORIESTHIS’N’THATUNCATEGORIZEDTAGSCHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGYKEN URQUHARTKENNETH G. URQUHARTLRH PERS COMMLRH PERSONAL COMMUNICATORRPFSCIENTOLOGYSEA ORG

23 Replies to “Responding to a Message”

  1. Robin ScottFascinating, Ken, and very curious that you should receive this just now, when things are hotting up in the independent field, since we’re all writing and publishing books! Your contact must feel threatened by this activity.The questions are spurious, and didn’t deserve a reply, as simply entheta. It was typically noble and generous of you to provide a response. I think you should identify the originator by their initials.In my extensive experience of the RPF, very few actually graduated. Most were invariably reprieved by an amnesty or a post assignment. So the question is based on an entirely false premise.Please keep us posted, Ken!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Robin. Will do.
      In my time of some authority over the RPF on the ship, we had regular graduations.
  2. Dan KoonSpoken like the Ken Urquhart I have come to know over these last several years.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comI’ve often wanted to meet him, too. 🙂
      1. Robin ScottNice one, Ken, very witty, my friend!
  3. chuckbeattyx75to03SeaOrgDear Ken, Yes, the “What should I know about you?” is a variation of the withhold or missed withhold question, a clear “sec check” like quesiton implying that something was “missed” in the sec checking or tailor-made Case Supervisor instructions that might have been your “next session” first instruction in your next session from them.I know in the Book of Case remedies and in the related sec checking materials (I was briefly the Sec Checking School co-theory course supervisor in LA in my 1975-2003 Sea Org career, I prided myself on being a course sup, no longer of course), but today I highly appreciate ALL details you write, I for one, read every word of them(My first wife was Ann Halblom old Flag Banking Officer of the late 1975-1978 era, then she was promoted to CS-3, and so forth, and I when I went to meet her when you were still LRH Pers Comm, I absolutely understood your old role as the boss of the old LRH Pers Office and thus you were superior to the CS-Aides in terms of relayer to and from Hubbard, all communication of that late 1970s era ashore in Clearwater, so I highly highly appreciate all details you lay out of all your years, any year, as I was a Flag Course Sup in the Exec College of the Flag Bureaux under Al Baker and read intensely all the 1975-1976 traffic that was relevant to the lives of all the Clearwater Land Base staff who were in staff training in the course rooms in their staff study and the outer org trainees of that snippet of time, 1976-1983).I highly appreciate all details, all moments, you lived.Later, in LA, end of the 1980s, I was the Sec Checker School Theory Course Sup, and poured over the materials, even though the Course Sups are supposed not trained in them.Trained sec checkers know that the ARC Break Auditors are allowed to utter things, well crafted, to stir up their former members’ overts, as the main type of communication allowed. And there is the “Black Dianetics” angle, in that one just for PR reasons stirs up the presumed overts of “enemies” as a PR tactic when the speaker/group hasn’t dug up the actual overts of the outside enemy already.Just nonsense, and thankyou Ken, for YOUR details of your life, as anyone in all the history coming years in the future, will appreciate, if they get to this high level of understanding of the people around Hubbard, to gosh darned appreciate all that you write about your history around Hubbard.Thankyou forever Ken.Chuck Beatty
    one aging old fool dupe to the Hubbard adminsitrative system that kept that Scientology movement going 1975-2003 Sea Org, etc. (I’m a hard core atheist, the thetan/soul to me today is the problem, it’s vanished as a reality in my mind, and thus all of Scientology’s soul-therapy/exorcism is but mind swirling tactics, deceptive and only sometimes fruitful for a person.)Anything your write, is important historically, Ken, to those of use who know, even us hardcore non-believers!!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Chuck. 🙂
      Different courses for different horses. 🙂
    2. Robin ScottChuck
      Your respect for Ken is admirable and appropriate. I’ve had the pleasure of spending some time with him, and I consider him to be a terminal of magnitude – probably we should call him a big being!
      I find his viewpoints on the whole story unique and invaluable, so that I gradually learn to understand better what the hell happened.
      Best to you, my friend
      1. chuckbeattyx75to03Thankyou Robin. I’d read anything you write also, but for sure, Ken is just a huge huge historical intimate of LRH, thus anything Ken writes is always important historically. Probably the hugest alive, Ken is, in terms of the bureaucracy history of Scientology’s most tumultuous years of the late 1970s.I’m so sad other major figures don’t write a bit about their lives in their Hubbard upclose years.The only accurate history is from ex members, and the people around Hubbard, their timeslots, that history, I wish could somehow be gotten.I’ve also dreamed of getting some sort of university funding to interview, and get grants to get the major figures interviewed and funded, and a setup to record all their histories, etc.It’s a DIY history of Scientology at present, at least people can easily write books.
  4. chuckbeattyx75to03SeaOrgKen,
    As the second or first D of P of the NOTs unit, I believe my ex wife, Ann Halblom Beatty, joined that unit later, when you became yourself a NOTs auditor of that unit a short time after, correct?Remember Ann Halblom Beatty (she’d been CS-3 and you’d have also known her as hanging around the tail end of the Apollo years, like 1975, she came from Boston and became in the end of 1975 the Flag FBO, and then by 1978ish she moved up to CS-3 and SOR, Sea Org Reserves held from above, etc, busted herself to the RPF, and into the NOTs unit as D of P herself for a year or so while you were there as NOTs auditor—she respectfully remembered you, she’s still in, I left it all in 2003)?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Chuck. Those last years in the SO (I left/was kicked out in 1982) I don’t dwell on much. I’m sorry but my memory
      is vague. I have some foggy pictures of Ann as D of P. No memories of her as CS-3 — perhaps she became that after I
      was shipped into the RPF.
  5. chuckbeattyx75-03SeaOrgWhat I’m curious about, for long into the future researchers into the Hubbard administrative bureaucracy history, is your hindsight views of your years intimately around the changes Hubbard made.1) I’ve read some persons opine that in general Hubbard chose major changes based on his subordinates’ reports and suggestions, do you feel that the major administrative changes were just like that, and can you name names of persons you felt made suggestions during the CS-Aides years when you were Pers Comm, and which persons made productive bureaucratic suggestions that did become movement policy?That’s a big one, and might take months to answer. Please use the OEC Volumes or Admin Dictionary’s index of policies and Flag Orders and other Sea Org issue types in the rear of the Admin Dictionary to jog your memory about major productive ideas that others in those years of the second half of the 1970s, when there was that era of a fuller bureaucracy of numerious “CS-Aides” and Flag Bu personnel solving things on their own more than now’s bureaucracy.2) Were any of the CS-Aides or FB execs of particularly noteworthy idea providers in that era that resulted in any of those changes that occurred in the 1975-1982 era?
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Chuck, and thanks for your enthusiastic interest. Thanks so much for the assignment and guidance:“That’s a big one, and might take months to answer. Please use the OEC Volumes or Admin Dictionary’s index of policies and Flag Orders and other Sea Org issue types in the rear of the Admin Dictionary to jog your memory about major productive ideas that others in those years of the second half of the 1970s, when there was that era of a fuller bureaucracy of numerious “CS-Aides” and Flag Bu personnel solving things on their own more than now’s bureaucracy.”I’ll get on to it right away, once you let me know who will be setting up the office to deal with all the admin required. 🙂
      1. Robin ScottLOL!!
      2. chuckbeattyx75to03mainly an admin nerdKen, You were in my mind a giant of the admin history of the movement, and you are alive, and thus, any more detailed hindsights you utter or write, will automatically be important historically.
        I’ve dreamed of outfitting a camper trailer, and drive around and quit interview major figures, and carry along the full sets of volumes, etc, to let important figures in Scn history, read and pour over past writings, and there is just endless stories behind all of the issues LRH wrote, and really, I think unfortunately literally about it all, every word, issue, and the behind the scenes despatches LRH had going on ordering things, particularly in those very tumultuous times when there were large administrative changes going on in the latter half of the 1970s up through the times most of the Apollo vets finally all left the movement. (IN my dream pullalong trailer of LRH refs, I’d also have all of the LRH private despatch orders/traffic, but that’s not publicly available, but you I believe saw almost all of the admin traffic and were relayer to pass it along back and forth to LRH, so your thoughts on all those hundreds, maybe thousands of despatches, locked in your brain cells would be some of the most interesting details, ….)
        Oh well, it’s all possibly just massively inconsequential, sorry.
        Anything you write, I enjoy reading, thanks eternally.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Chuck. If your interest is in what was going on in the late 1970’s, I’m not the person you’re looking for. In 1975, LRH left Florida. I understand that he spent some time in Washington, DC, before settling in California. I remained in Florida (at first in King Arthur’s Court, Dunedin, and then at the Fort Harrison in Clearwater). Whatever importance I had on the post of LRH Pers Comm diminished. I was the last person on the line in Clearwater that handled traffic to LRH (other than GO traffic which never went to him through me, or almost never). Wherever he was in California, he had someone else handling the traffic that went to him and that traffic could come from any organization that he was in touch with.
          And, in that period after he left, I became less and less active in the organization as time went on, disliking more and more what I was witnessing, and not able to figure out a way to leave that would not unduly destabilize others who might not be happy to stay. I didn’t care about who might want to leave or not but I didn’t want my leaving to tip anyone into leaving. If anyone wanted to leave he or she would be better off acting on own determinism without any example from me.
        2. urqbones@gmx.comChuck, thanks for sharing your dream. I think it’s a great idea and I wish it could happen.
          As I just mentioned, I was not really part of the management scene after 1975 — I didn’t want to be.
  6. DaveInteresting mindset of your “challenger”.Sane response.Rock on!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Dave.Rocking on, rockily. 🙂
    2. Robin ScottGreat comment, Dave!
  7. Scott GordonSuperb and enlightening response.Sets a great example, too.We deal with this a lot.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Scott, and a deep bow. 🙂
  8. OnuIt seems to me that in order to participate in the Church of Scientology as it stands today, as public, staff, exec or sea org, a person is required to accept a position of overwhelm and subjugation to higher authority in order to pursue their ideals.When a person compromises their own understanding and knowingness in order to subjugate themselves to higher authority, albeit in pursuit of a worthy goal, that person places themselves in a position of overwhelm which they then knowingly dramatise in relation to others.The full KUCDEIOF Scale applies with enforcement and inhibition as only two factors within the overall sequence.
    Technical Dictionary
    KUCDEIOF,  know, unknow, curious, desire, enforce, inhibit, none of it, false.  (SH Spec 296, s308C20)
    L. Ron Hubbard
    ———————————–The person always knows in the first place.The difficulty is when we compromise our own knowingness and understanding we end up in a mess and powerless to do anything about it…..…. trapped in circumstances of our own making, by our own choices and decisions.….. until we face the truth of  our own compromises, assume the courage of our own convictions and assume the dignity to act accordingly.

Comments are closed.


The Expert Witness: My Life at the Top of Scientology by Jesse Prince [2018]

[This book is available through Amazon.]

In this compelling read, Jesse tells of his experiences in the Scientology universe, from the circumstances of his introduction to the subject, then by way of his rapid climb to the top of the organization’s corporate maze (in the early 80’s), to his unhappy exit (in the late nineties) – followed by aspects of his life thereafter, focusing on the nastiness of the fights he got into with that maze and its leader and his then henchmen.

I’ve read few of the books produced by former members, because I’m not terribly interested in what people have to say about an organization which was already a wreck before I left it in 1982. The writing was on the wall forty years ago as clear as day. Who wants to keep staring at a wall, over and over? One could say that many have walked alongside this particular wall, taking their time to read it, some of them then taking time to tell us what they have been through. “See! See what the writing on the wall, which we did not heed, has wrought!” Nothing wrong with that. If it interests people, it interests them.

None of it, that I know of, has so far made much difference to anything. We have revelations about misbehaviours within the C of S [Church of Scientology] towards its staff and its members, we have revelations about the misbehaviours and insanities of L. Ron Hubbard, and we have almost endless commentary about the endless gossip concerning all these misbehaviours and what they mean.

Jesse’s book, which I have read once and quickly, swims in the same waters but is a different kettle of fish. Jesse, whom I knew slightly in Clearwater, was an independent, never a zealot, never a robot. His heavy-lidded eyes were always his own; although relaxed, he was watchful; although friendly, he was tough; although conscientious, he was not a simple true-believer. He had a ready wit and a ready laugh. His tongue could be sharp without being unkind.

I remember one time of his attending to me when he was a Cramming Officer. I, an auditor, was with him to explore some auditing sin I had committed in a recent session. By that time, LRH had ordered that when an auditor was sent to Cramming because of an alleged error in a session, the Cramming Officer had to “fly the rudiments” on the auditor as the first action in the Cramming procedure. “Rudiments” in this context are questions asked about basic upsets or concerns a person might have in the moment; to fly them means to clear up any such issues so they’re no longer distracting the possessor from the main action (correction of auditing errors) about to happen. Each question in the set of rudiments that is taken up is explored until the possessor’s needle floats on the question on the meter; hence the term “fly” – but don’t ask me why it’s “fly” and not some other word.

“Rudiments” include questions about matters which the person whose rudiments [ruds] are being “flown” would rather not bring into the light of day, such as misdeeds or secrets. With this kind of ruds question, if focusing solely on misdeeds or secrets, we used to say we “pull” them rather than fly them, whereas for the whole set of ruds we fly them. It comes to the same thing; again, the usage is obscure and don’t ask me.

So, Jesse is getting ready to fly my ruds so he and I can get into and complete my Cramming thing; this one’s not going to be a long affair. Once a Cramming Order is issued, the auditor has to go to Cramming to get it looked into, with corrective actions undergone as found necessary by the Cramming Officer. The auditor does not return to auditing until cleared by the Cramming Officer after the corrective action. In the office with us is a young Latina woman who is also an auditor and also has a Cramming Order to carry out. She, aggressively anxious to get it all over with so she can get back “in the chair” (that is, in the auditor’s chair delivering auditing to the organization’s customers) is insisting that her ruds be flown. All she is doing in fact is interfering with Jesse’s performance of his job with me so he can get to her.

He tells her politely a couple of times that Yes, he will fly her ruds just as soon as he’s finished with me. She continues her nagging. With a slight edge to his voice, but in total control of his enunciation, and a mischievous glint in his eye, he tells her “All right, my dear! I will pull your rudiments.” She then fell silent and left the room. [Probably not too much of a joke for some, but it tickled me, simple as I am. If any explanation needed: Jesse was telling the young lady that in his eyes, the ruds he’d have to handle with her were going to be – because of her obnoxious attitude – of the misdeed/secret category. Not exactly kind, but she was asking for it.]

Jesse stood out not just because of his dark-brown skin. As in any close-knit community where there is jockeying for promotion, favour, and so on, internal politics can break out in ugly rashes. Many people learned to keep their mouths shut and to cover their rear ends carefully. Anyone with eyes to see saw it. Jesse was one who watched what he said, but you could see he had no fear of expressing himself regardless of the politics. Moreover, he looked as though he could speak his mind eloquently enough to hold his ground and gain respect.

After Jesse left Clearwater, I became aware that he’d quickly gained promotion in the hierarchy over at wherever he had gone. This meant little to me since I was already on my road out of the organization. I wasn’t surprised that he’d been picked out in the newly-dominant management culture, with its emphasis on what would come to be called the kick-ass approach. If that approach appealed to Jesse, he’d fit right in. I left a few months later, having never had ambition of the kick-ass type. In the years that followed, I’d think about Jesse now and then, wondering how he was getting on in that environment, particularly how he might be managing his relationships with his seniors and associates. If he was staying with the program, he would be dancing skilfully, I felt. But I wondered how far he would go with it.  

Through the years, I heard, of course, of his public opposition to his former colleagues and of his connection with Bob Minton. I think we exchanged a brief greeting on some digital platform, but our paths haven’t otherwise met or crossed. [I have never considered brute force to be effective with people like Miscavige, and I have never had any resources with which to deal with him.] When I heard that Jesse had written his book, I looked for it, got it, and read it through in one sitting.

Two immediate comments: Firstly, the book is by a committed representative of the anti-Scientology, anti-C of S, anti-Miscavige, anti-Hubbard industry. By this, I mean the community of people who know with full certainty that because something about Scientology is bad, all of Scientology is bad; because many things about the C of S are bad, everything to do with the C of S is bad; because a lot of what Miscavige is accused of is really bad, he is all bad; and because Hubbard became in some respects insane and evil, the totality of his being and living was and always has been nothing but insane and evil. This is a harsh, filtered, one-eyed view and not one I agree with; I can accept that there was insanity and egregious misbehaviour. Can I ignore what I see was, on the contrary, positive? No way. More on that later.

Secondly, the book is by someone who was part of the topmost management of the C of S corporate conglomerate and, as I’ve pointed out, his own person with his own eyes. He has first-hand experience that he can describe, and he can do it with independent intelligence and insight. Jesse talks of relationships and events at a level unique in what I’ll refer to as the ‘anti industry’. And although you would have to think he regards Miscavige as at best an enemy, and LRH at best a fraudster, his narrative is not loaded with bitterness or hatred, nor with disguised propaganda (that I could see).

With regard to propaganda, Jesse does direct suspicion towards Miscavige in respect of possible forgery of Hubbard’s signature and of possible involvement in the violent death of someone close to him (to Miscavige) whose existence threatened Miscavige’s position at the top of the organization. Jesse also adds fuel to the accusatory fire beloved in the anti industry about possible obfuscation by Miscavige of truth concerning the circumstances of LRH’s passing and of his will.

Concerning propaganda against LRH, Jesse points towards evidence that LRH was an alcoholic but is clearly careful of drawing any certain conclusion on that subject. On the other hand, Jesse allows one of the reviews of his book (included in the Foreword) to state unambiguously that LRH was an alcoholic in terms that are bombastic but not backed up with fact.

Jesse’s observations of LRH’s behaviour and state of mind are of great interest. Just about all that he reports of these I can believe. Without trying to sound all-knowing, he tells me that which I (and others) saw coming when I decided I couldn’t follow LRH on the path he began to take in the mid-70’s. Thus, Jesse’s words ring as very likely true. This being said, it is extremely sad to hear just how far and in what way LRH’s mental and spiritual condition degraded, and to know that he was not well cared for in his last days – notwithstanding the fact that LRH had made for himself the bed he was lying on, and had held close to him the people who accepted the responsibility of caring for him.

[There is some comfort in having an idea of how LRH’s sanity shook as he drew close to the end of his life; the knowledge helps me feel less stupid about how my sanity slipped away as my days within the church drew to their end, and about how long it took me to get myself back on an even keel after returning to the real world. In fact, that process still continues. And I’m grateful that it does.]  

Jesse describes Miscavige’s final humiliation of Mary Sue Hubbard, a ritual sacrifice in which Jesse participated as a witness and Miscavige supporter. To Jesse’s credit he expresses regret about that horrible event and his part in it. Consequently, I for one will not hold his complicity against him, should my doing so or not ever be important. The rest of the mob that Miscavige dragged with him for that ritual can join him in hell forever as far as I’m concerned. Mary Sue was not perfect, but she had been loyal; in no way did she deserve that treatment. In this Miscavige performance in Mary Sue’s own home he bullied her into signing away her rights as widow despite the fact that much of the wealth he was diverting from her hands existed because of her life’s work for the organization – quite apart from anything she was due from LRH’s will or entitled to in the absence of a will, as his widow.

Interesting to note that a factor in Jesse’s initial acceptance of and entry into Scientology had to do with out-of-body experiences [OOB]; he tells us that he mentioned in his first visit to the organization that he had had many OOB experiences and was interested in knowing more about the subject; they assured him he’d come to the right place. It’s interesting because part of Jon Atack’s initial experience [described in his book A Piece of Blue Sky] had to do with the promise of “going exterior”, otherwise known as OOB. Atack’s book (which Jesse recommends) is part of the same anti industry.

An important aspect of the history of the degradation of Scientology is the role played by the part of the organization devoted to getting people to purchase services and to continue to buy them. In 1968, not long after the Sea Organization [“the SO”] began its interference with the international Scientology network of organizations (which the SO had avowedly left to the Scientology World-Wide headquarters at Saint Hill [known as “WW”]), reports began coming into WW, where I was an executive [and not part of the SO], of marked increases in the amounts of money being taken in by far-flung organizations. The SO people involved were insisting on large increases in income from week to week at each org, and in most instances the increases occurred. As a WW executive, I was greatly concerned that we did not know what it was that these organizations were now selling – and therefore promising to deliver. It’s a disgrace on my part that I didn’t pursue this concern; why I didn’t is another story.

I’m digressing from discussion of Jesse’s book here only to give the book some context I think has relevant importance: both Jon Atack and Jesse were attracted into the grip of the Scientology organization by promises of spiritual candy. Whatever else they learned on the path by which they came to find that the candy had a bitter taste, they share the view that they had been misled fraudulently. In view of the promises they were sold on, they are not mistaken, in my opinion. However, in their disillusion they are busy dealing with a set of problems that would never have existed had the staff who sold them the candy been properly and honestly trained and supervised as regards what they were leading people to expect by way of results. The promise of exteriorization was explicitly forbidden in policy LRH wrote himself. In pushing the organizations to ignore that policy, the C of S upper management (in reality, LRH and the SO) created a hornet’s nest of problems for itself. Making the receipt of money more important than the spiritual health of the paying customer is bad enough; taking that money and putting the customer in harm’s way creates the kind of energy that results in the anti industry.

While off on this tack, I should add that just after the death of L. Ron Hubbard there was a time when the Lords Muck-a-Muck of corporate Scientology were agog to have access to the “OT” levels that LRH had left behind. These Lords, according to Jesse (who was one of them), thought that these esoteric, advanced materials could make them masters of the manipulation of matter, energy, space, and time. Evidently, their eyes were greedy for that great prize. In due course, they found that the materials would do no such thing. But the commentator can notice that from the inception of the “OT” levels, the levels have carried with them the implied promise of abilities far beyond the human. Those who went into the OT levels with open eyes could find value in them without expecting anything more than what they could get. Unfortunately, the implied promises spoke loudly to those seeking the fools’ gold of extraordinary powers in order to increase not their abilities to live good lives in good community with family, neighbours, and fellows, but their abilities to bully the totality of family, neighbours, fellows, Planet Earth, and The Universe – and, presumably, all other bullying OT’s too. A moment’s reflection would have shown them that if a number of individuals become free to autonomously change the arrangement of matter, energy, space, and time in which the cosmos holds together, then chaos would quickly result, ending all games, good or unworthy.

In these two ways at least, in promising the candy of OOB and the fools’ gold of cosmic mastery to all who could be tempted to pay for it, the C of S set itself up for the attacks of the bitterly disillusioned against its arrogance and stupidity in making insane promises. Alas, the C of S set up the technology to be tarred with the same brushes. The technology is not perfect but it is too good for what the C of S made of itself. Whatever about that technology is pure remains pure.

Much of what Jesse says we must take at face value. It is worth noting, though, that the main persona in one of Jesse’s stories of his time within the organization does dispute some of Jesse’s stated facts. This is Robin Scott, the British man who, having left the Sea Org, impersonated a Sea Org officer and got his hands on the most advanced and valuable technical materials the organization possessed. Jesse recounts how he got the better of Robin; Robin has a different story. Part of that story, according to Jesse, is the belief that David Mayo wanted and got copies of that precious material. I can dispute this up to a point, in some support of Robin’s position. I was with David Mayo at the time in question (but left shortly thereafter) and can attest that David was not only horrified at the theft but vehemently against anyone connected with him having any copies of that stolen material. David could possibly have changed his mind later, but I doubt it because, in that period, he was defending himself against brutal attacks from Miscavige and Jesse.

Jesse also has remarks about the materials David Mayo wrote up for his own use at his own centre for the level the stolen materials covered. The documents making up the C of S package were originally signed by LRH, whereas it was clear to anyone familiar with the respective styles that some of the issues in that package were transcripts of LRH recordings (of briefings he had given David himself) on the subject, and the rest were mostly written by David either on behalf of LRH or with his approval. I believe that David, after he’d set up his own independent centre, was rewriting in his own words for his own independent use what he had written for LRH to sign for C of S use. Jesse claims that what David wrote is nonsensical and unworthy. All the auditors at David’s centre read his version and found it workable.

Jesse reports this thing and that from intelligence reports he was receiving from C of S spies infiltrated into David Mayo’s group. I’ll believe all of these things once they are fact-checked. I suspect that Jesse likely accepted reports from spies who were saying that which they thought it was good to say and for their masters to hear. It’s a bit late to fact-check these things; nonetheless, I believe that in what Jesse saw with his own eyes, heard with his own ears, and figured out with his own judgment, he is a reliable witness. Do we know that he tells all that he might tell, and all that is relevant? We can never know that about any story.

Jesse can be rightly proud of the prominent position he earned – high in this wealthy organization clutched by dedicated and ruthless dominators. Here, he demonstrated not only his ability to get things done, itself a distinction, but also his presence of mind in manoeuvring the bogs of bullshit necessary to keep the dominators cool and collected – and away from his throat. To what extent do we admire him for these accomplishments, as we’re invited to by their recitation? One’s admiration would have to be tempered by one’s evaluation of his masters.

Admiration is also tempered by mindfulness of the horrible conditions in which ‘ordinary’ members of the SO and of the C of S had to live, and the disgraceful way in which SO children were housed, not educated, and otherwise treated. Jesse’s successes insulated him from those realities and allowed him to enjoy such things as his expensive motorbike, a toy also favoured by Miscavige, and, one could think, purchased and ridden to show him (Jesse) a member of the elite.

Jesse, although, as I say, his own person, evidently hardened himself to some human feelings as he took on difficult projects for his master, Miscavige. For example, he describes how he was given the repulsive task of obtaining from Diana Hubbard something all others had failed to get – her signature on documents resigning her rights over her daughter, Roanne. The documents were required because LRH had decided he wanted Roanne to live close to him, while Diana had moved away. Until Jesse went to see her for the signatures, she had adamantly refused to hand over her daughter.

Jesse did succeed, although we can’t be quite sure how it came about; his story is that he asked Diana for her signatures and she gave them without demur – although not without tears. Jesse does tell us that he felt Diana’s pain as she signed the documents, and he gives us to understand that he did not enjoy what he was doing. Hard to fathom, then, is the coolness with which Jesse relates that shortly after he returned to headquarters and had delivered the signed documents, LRH paid him a reward or bonus of $500 or $700. Jesse is entitled to his own view of his actions. I myself find it hard to understand how he can be so callous about taking the money for separating the mother and her child. He may have his reasons for remembering the money with equanimity, but one can consider it unworthy to do such a deed and then take money for it.

Another personal observation on one minor aspect of Jesse’s story: He refers to a man with whom he worked, a lawyer, a man who deposed me twice. His name was Joe Yanny. Jesse obviously liked and enjoyed this man, calling him a “good person” with a striking sense of humour. As I say, I met Joe Yanny twice, and of course in a quite different context from Jesse’s association with him. Jesse and Yanny were involved in the C of S suit against David Mayo. As a former member of David’s independent group, I was involved, had testimony, and was summoned twice by Yanny for deposition in Miami, where I lived. So I had several hours of questioning from him and had that opportunity to observe him and his behaviour.

Joe Yanny struck me as being a young man on the make (as in ‘ferocious self-promotion’) and highly pleased with himself at his success so far. He did not strike me as fearsome in his treatment of me, although, not unexpectedly, he did look down his nose at me a lot, and quite smoothly, too. In return, I looked down mine at him. I didn’t offer him any pleasantries and would have been offended had he tried to offer me any. His skin shone as though covering layers of butter (although he was quite trim), his dark eyes comfortable and happy in their security. He seemed delighted with his own perfection. The relations between Jesse and this man may have been thoroughly open, honest, and straightforward; my opinion is that it’s likely that Joe covered Jesse with lots of butter.

When Jesse tells us that Joe Yanny was “a good person”, he does so in the context of a story he’s telling about working with Yanny on a case and spending off-duty time with the man. I would like to have known if Jesse considered Yanny a good man for what Yanny did for the C of S in its lawsuits against its perceived enemies, or for – what?

I’m making the point that, as always, another’s story can have holes picked in it, just as my story can have. Self-congratulation is all very well but is an ingredient that requires the greatest degree of judgment in the simmering of one’s soup. What Jesse doesn’t include in his story is that even though Yanny was involved in the success of the C of S suit against David Mayo, the latter eventually won his counter-suit against the C of S – although by that time, Yanny must have been long separated from the C of S pots of gold. In fact, Yanny, despite having received (by report, not verified by me) auditing sessions from the C of S, ended up opposing the C of S and involved in lawsuits against them. And he is on record as saying some extremely harsh things about the C of S and its methods of conducting lawsuits [as can be found on a web search].

Jesse makes it clear that it was not he that ordered and managed the conduct of lawsuits that outraged Yanny (and others); however, one has to wonder how it is that Jesse, in describing them, does not forthrightly condemn the lawsuits for the mischief that they were, or have any considerations now about his earlier support for and use of that conduct.

So, as with every telling of every tale, we need to be alert to the possibility that this or that is missing or that the telling might be biased one way or another. This is by no means a criticism directly aimed at Jesse but a reservation necessary in every reading of any author. As I’ve said, in what Jesse says of what he saw and heard and evaluated by himself, I think we can trust his word; at the same time, though, we have to recognise: firstly that his story seems to involve a serious element of self-congratulation (and lack a serious element of self-reflection); secondly that he does himself no favours as an author in not having someone go over his text. It is a bit staggering that presumably not one of the people who read his text before publication pointed out that the way to spell “days” is not “daze” [as happens twice] or let stand other simple textual errors – such as we all can make and shouldn’t be too proud to have another correct for us. Possibly, somebody did point this out to Jesse and he chose to gloss over them. One could admire that chutzpah while rejecting it as contrary to basic and expected author friendliness towards the reader. The book shows (in my opinion) the need for mature editing in both style and substance.

The anti industry is doing its job well. It focuses attention on the misbehaviours of Miscavige towards staff and members and towards the products of Scientology technology seemingly degraded at his hands. The industry repeatedly calls into question LRH’s integrity and motives, not to mention his sanity. It lumps all this negativity together, be it real or imagined – and builds its own big wall. On that wall it writes large: “Scientology is all bad!” “Hubbard is all bad!” When the world speaks of “Scientology” these days, what it means is the collected misbehaviours of the C of S and its leader – along with the horror and outrage we surely must feel for such evil. Any truth in the technology LRH put together must die.

I have only one disagreement with this message on the anti wall. I do agree that all the bad behaviour is all bad. I agree that the insanity is insane. What I never accept is the message: It was always and ever this way from the very beginning.

Bah. What utter, childish nonsense.

The message is just not true. But the people who have been involved in the organization since the early 80’s – that is, those who were already members and who remained members and those who joined up after that time – and have become disenchanted with it and upset with it assume that all the bad that they know of the organization and of Hubbard is all there is to know about them. They do not recognize the possibility that at some earlier time things were different and better, and that things changed through time, becoming worse and worse – but started from a very much better place than they ever knew.

I can’t and don’t blame people for assuming what they assume; assuming is, it seems, an essential human activity. We are riddled with biases of one kind or another, all of us. It can be difficult to grasp that we don’t know what we don’t know. We shy away from examining our assumptions and the biases we base them on. For example, that LRH changed for the worse over his later years is nothing new or strange for old people. Who is the bigger fool: the one who makes something neither strange nor new a big deal or the one who agrees that it is?

Those who, like me, were around LRH as he changed beyond control failed to help him rethink what he was doing. Thus, we, and I, did our part in helping bring about the conditions which energise this dratted anti industry. The energy creates a thick black curtain over all that took place prior to the culture that has dominated the C of S since the early 80’s (having existed within it, in one manifestation or another, for many years prior). Jesse plays his part in solidifying the curtain. The purity of Scientology as a subject is buried in piles of ordurous mischief.

Jesse tells us that he suffered harshly at the hands of his former masters after he turned against them. He became deathly ill after they made his life a hell for him. We are supposed to assume, I guess – if we are loyal members of the industry – that his illness was a direct result of the harm that Miscavige and his agents did him. We who do not employ ourselves in the industry can keep an open mind on that point, but I’m happy that Jesse had the strength and courage to overcome his extremely serious illness and to produce his book. I’m glad he did that, and I for one thank him for it.

Well worth reading, even if it’s about events that shouldn’t have happened and which can only sadden us. Read with open eyes. Read everything with open eyes.


61 Replies to “The Expert Witness: My Life at the Top of Scientology by Jesse Prince [2018]”

  1. Scott GordonThanks Ken, for a very helpful review and supplement to the reading of Jesse’s book.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Scott. The churning-churning-churning continues….
  2. VINAY K AGARWALAI have come to see LRH for what he was. The sum total of it is that I admire him for his genius. He did decline in his later life, but for me he is defined by his earlier work.I am not a fan of his OT Levels, which are a product of his later years.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Vinay, for reading and for your comment. We are in agreement; I am neutral about the OT Levels. I got a lot out of them myself and accept that for others they have no value.
      1. VINAY K AGARWALAThanks Ken. I find meditation to be superior to OT Levels.
        1. urqbones@gmx.comSuper, Vinay. May meditation bring you all that you cherish most.
          For myself, I find meditation all the more effective for me because of the OT Levels! 🙂
  3. OnuWhat really happened to LRH was he resolved the PTS – Potential Trouble Source case by evaluating disconnection, a breach in the Auditors Code. It is a simple fact of life that if self-determinism, real or imaginary is restored to the PTS person, they reclaim their personal space ftom the source of suppression – real or imaginary. In the case of an imaginary source of suppression the person destroys their life and family, sacrificing tbat which is most dear to their hearts to the alter of Scientology. In the case of a real source of suppression, the actual source or a minion turns up to find out what has occured and in the case of the actual source, what has happened to their prey and most importantly to discover the mechanism and/or source of power employed to wrest their prey from before their very eyes. At this juncture when confronted by the source of suppression the person responsible for the sea change has only one recourse, the Code of Honour. If they have compromised the self-determinism of the PTS by evaluating disconnection, a breach in the Auditors Code, advocating a breach in the Code of Honour, they don’t have a leg to stand on in relation to the actual source of suppression who now has the justifier and motivator to destroy them and acquire their power. This is exactly what happened to LRH. The actual sources of suppression (SPs) turned up on his doorstep in search of his power and he had no defense.LRH was defeated by the Circuit/3rdParty/PTS/RealSP Case.
    He never got to confront and handle the RealSP Case.The promise of exteriorisation and power…….Of course anyone who was actually capable of exteriorisation and remote viewing would have seen exactly what was going on anyway and not gone near the place with a barge pole.As for power…. ‘total power occurs when” . .. a person…. “can selectively confront or not confront anything”.LRH did run rings around the stadium and he jumped the ramparts and handed us the flame.The stuff works.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Onu.In my opinion, LRH as a being and as a producer are both so vast in depth and breadth (of both useful and useless) that categorical judgements seeking to pin down this or that outpoint or pluspoint or this or that Why are not fruitful — although they may (or may not) release some BPC. 🙂The challenge, to my mind, is not in analysis but in the scope of confront of the man and his work that allows for selective confront or not-confront of the whole or of any part of it. I believe that if and when one can confront/not-confront the totality, and can sweep the totality for this or that to focus on (that is, to select what to confront and what to not-confront for the time being) one would understand enough that only the fundamental truth would remain: all untruth/unworthiness would melt away.I do agree that the SP/PTS thing is an unsatisfactory construct. And was and is the source of extremely unwelcome trouble and mischief. Perhaps the greatest error in LRH’s work. But we cannot have perfection in anyone or from anyone. What someone produces that reduces the power of the physical universe must always be balanced by something that maintains it. Now and again the universe slips up and allows someone to reduce its power just a little more than it gets him/her to maintain it.I say we should be thankful for the individual that gets away with that little trick. And yes, let that individual pay for what he/she does that is Q&A as we all have to pay so we all learn better.
      1. OnuYes, Ken. We can never truly know another in all their complexity, depth, simplicity and the vastness of their understanding and knowingness, although we may have glimpses.Thankyou for your kind, balanced and measured response.I do believe that through mutual and collective understanding we can support one another through our respective journeys, even beyond the brink of death, through the afterlife and beyond.As you most eloquently elucidated, selective confront, intelligently applied, results in the restoration of theta and this is one of the great maxims LRH applied and instilled in the fabric of his work. …“What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it”I am sure LRH was and still is incredibly aware and astute, particularly concerning the circumstances of his life and the consequences of his choices and decisions, perhaps even more so now he is free of mortal coils and may view the events of his life objectively.In my understanding what we do here to mark and honour the passage of the departed does make a big difference to them and supports them in ending cycle and re-orienting, knowing that they are cared for, understood and loved for whom they simply are.Regarding the Real SP Case, its the TRs, Codes and the application of selective confront to focus on the person, the person who is originating, that seems to make the difference.The rehabilitation of mutual knowingness naturally restores KRC, understanding and ARC resultant in mutual duplication and self-determined action.Control, when exercised to a completed cycle of action per Start-Change-Stop results in Understanding and the restoration of Life.LRH alluded to this when he referred to the rehabilitation of purpose.Sometimes we choose to ‘carry the can’ on our broad shoulders and put our ‘foot in the door to hold it open’ when we don’t actually need to and all we do need to do is to find the higher truth that satisfies all viewpoints presented.Although the physical universe could be said to be founded on the principles of polarity and equilibrium, each person is sole origin and source of their own participation and to the degree that the physical universe has a life and persistence of its own, it is possible to act and live in alignment with the higher truths existence reflects, albeit at this stage perhaps in brief and fleeting moments which when we recignise tbeir essence, grow and expand.I believe that although we do tend to pick up with each other when we meet again from precisely where we left off, the development of mutual understanding, if only at a purely theta level initially, achieved through inner work, paves the way.In my own perspective in this respect we have a duty towards the dead and departed to honour their passage in that it is we who remain and carry the memories forward here in the physical which in this this 1st Dynamic Universe means that what we do here and now, in this time, place and location in the overall scheme of things, impacts throughout existence and the phenomenal, spiritual and divine, if only in some small and simple way.Blessed Be Ken and thankyou for holding this beautiful space.
  4. Peter MoonThank you, Ken. Interesting perspective, as always. Nice hearing your input. I hope you will continue with your narrative.
  5. Robin ScottExcellent, as always, Ken – I haven’t quite finished his book myself, and will respond in detail when I have. Warmest regards, Robin
  6. Robin ScottKen, I have tried twice to post a lengthy reply, my friend, but it doesn’t seem to have arrived here.
    It’s on my FB page, if you want to have a look. Best, Robin
    1. urqbones@gmx.comSorry about that, Robin. I wonder if I’d know how to fix that….
      You’re very welcome to post here a link to your FB post, you know.
  7. DanHi, Ken.
    An excellent review. At one point a few years ago Jesse and I were set up to have me edit his book. Alas, that fell apart as Jesse involved himself in the 2016 election and we never got back together on it. I think the book suffers because of that.
    One minor nit to pick with your review, Diana’s daughter is named Roanne, not Roxanne. She escaped a month after Ron Miscavige and his wife escaped from Gold. Today, Roanne is successfully enjoying life working in Hollywood, as I’ve heard.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Dan, and thanks for the nit-pick and the update. Of course I knew Roanne’s name. Just had a senior moment but in fact life is one long senior moment these days with occasional moments of clarity. Happy to know that Roanne is free from those old baleful influences and is enjoying herself.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comDan, didn’t mean to ignore what you said about the editing. Glad to hear you were on the line and sorry you and Jesse weren’t able to carry it through. It would have made a huge difference, imho.
  8. Robin Scott
  9. Jesse PrinceDear Ken;Thank you for your review of my book. I think it was a fair review and I’m glad you found the story compelling. On the point of the stolen NOT’s material, I just want to add this bit. The Mayo case was brought in Federal court so that Scientology could file a RICO case. In order to succeed in a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) it is necessary to prove a nexus exist between the defendants in the case that involve criminal activity. In this case the nexus connecting the criminal activity that happened in Denmark Copenhagen to the AAC Santa Barbara had to be established for the court and that happened in two ways. The first way was the judge in her chambers examined a true copy of the NOT’s material and a copy of the NOT’s packs offered at the AAC. The judge found the material to be nearly identical when doing a side by side comparison. In some instances the titles were only slightly changed from the original true copies. The judge determined a nexus had been established after studying both copies of the material. The other factor that established the nexus was the document I was able to have Robin Scott sign in his home. That document also established a nexus of criminal activity. For the life of me I can’t even remember what the document even said. That day Scientology won in court and L Ron was happy and that is the true history of that incident. I’m not proud of any of it but I offer it as the history it is so that history doesn’t repeat itself and we learn. Don’t know what you mean by butter and Joe Yanny, I’ll assume that’s an inside joke. Be well Ken and thanks for taking the time to read my book.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comDear Jesse,Thanks for looking over what I had to say about your book. And for going over the NOTs pack thing. I can’t say I know all of the facts of the matter beyond what you have told. You’re hewing to the legal channel, and that’s fair enough; few in the independent field, if any, will accept that the legal interpretations of that time addressed the whole truth of the situation — in other words, on our side we would say that the C of S carried that day by weight of legal (and financial) pressure rather than moral right. However, it’s history, it’s water under the bridge, and I’m happy to leave it at that unless there’s real need to burrow into it.Thank you for offering that history, and all the history that you gave in the book. Thanks also for graciously accepting what I had to say about it. I am quite open to disagreements you might care to discuss privately or publicly.With regard to the butter, I had in mind the expression “to butter up””, and it must be British. Dictionary definition:
      “butter someone up and butter up to someone: to flatter someone; to treat someone especially nicely in hopes of receiving special favors.”Yanny came across to me as someone who was on the look-out for people who would further his career and who would butter them up. He might have been a good friend to you, in fact. If so, I’d take it all back and apologise.All best wishes to you, Jesse, in your recovery, and for all that your heart desires.
  10. marildiKen, thanks for this uniquely insightful review. On the overall subject of Scientology, the tech, LRH, and (as you call it) the “anti industry,” no one has sized it up better. What a breath of fresh air!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comYou read the post and see so much??
      Deep Bow to you, face inscrutable….
  11. Jesse PrinceKen I wanted to thank you for noticing something different about my writing in that it is not written as someone who is bitter or overly opinionated. I tried very hard to stick with the narrative that happened at that time. You are correct, the history and water under the bridge is nothing to drown over today! Thank you for clearing up that butter up term and it perfectly describes Joe. He was all of that and more. We ended up giving him over $100,000.00 as a retainer then promptly invited him for a trip across Europe! He was a character and I think had you two met under different circumstances you would have gotten along okay. I’m not angry at L Ron or anyone else these days, I’m just too old for that now. I’m not bitter about my life in Scn, compared to may other people, I had a great time with many strange and unusual experiences. You correctly noticed I am a disciplined person and I have always methodically studied subject I’ve undertaken, Scientology being one of them. I have more to say so be looking out for another book in the not too distant future old comrade.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comWill be looking forward to the next book, Jesse. 🙂 You’ll always produce a good read (editors can help).
      Got it on Yanny. You might be right about he and I getting on all right — that would be, I think, if we didn’t see too much of each other. Long before I met Joe, I’d spent so much of my life close to Scn and close to LRH. I was picky to begin with, and the way LRH handled me in the earlier years (really kindly) made me tend to distance myself from non-Scns. We lived in a bubble even then. It was often a happier bubble.
      Yes, happy to recognize that you have come through your experiences in mature fashion, without rancour or regret. I could say too that I suffered a lot but in fact neither would I change one damn thing about my experience — other than of course I wish Scn had turned out differently for us all and for Earth.
      Yes, you’re a self-contained warrior in your own right and you’ll fight your own fights your own way. We could do with more of you.
      We’ll be watching out to see what banner you’ll be flying next. 🙂
  12. marildiHere’s my face now: 🙂
  13. Rob WilliamsonHaven’t “seen” you for a while, Urq.Love “hearing” what you have to say.Methinks Jesse being asked, or made to do what he did over the rainbow was entirely out of character for him and if given a choice, he wouldn’t have gone that route. He says this in a way and “why not” as well (he would have been sent to purgatory and eternal freedom ripped from his hands instead).Since you brought up the subject, I wanted to say I have an open mind to anything “good” about what Hubbard did, not open much though. In fact I sway to the “bad” when thinking about it. But one thing I discovered is ignoring Hubbardisms and L Ron entirely, good and bad, renders a free and happy life for me. Life is better without Hubbard. I never would have believed that but then I was a true believer and am not now.Wish you the very best, Ken, as always.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Rob, and thanks for yours.I get what you say. Am not getting how you square “ignoring Hubbardisms and L. Ron entirely, good and bad, renders a free and happy life” for you with what you’re free and happy to say about him in public about his alleged alcoholism, an assertion for which you have sound evidence?Have owed you apologies, Rob, for decades over the comm ev (or was it two of them) that I was put on over you. I absolutely hated and detested all of that and hated myself for not having a way out of it, for you and for me. Sorry about all that. So glad we were both out of it.May your blessings of freedom and happiness long continue!Yours,
  14. OnuYes, Ken. We can never truly know another in all their complexity, depth, simplicity and the vastness of their understanding and knowingness, although we may have glimpses.Thankyou for your kind, balanced and measured response.I do believe that through mutual and collective understanding we can support one another through our respective journeys, even beyond the brink of death, through the afterlife and beyond.As you most eloquently elucidated, selective confront, intelligently applied, results in the restoration of theta and this is one of the great maxims LRH applied and instilled in the fabric of his work. …“What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it”I am sure LRH was and still is incredibly aware and astute, particularly concerning the circumstances of his life and the consequences of his choices and decisions, perhaps even more so now he is free of mortal coils and may view the events of his life objectively.In my understanding what we do here to mark and honour the passage of the departed does make a big difference to them and supports them in ending cycle and re-orienting, knowing that they are cared for, understood and loved for whom they simply are.Regarding the Real SP Case, its the TRs, Codes and the application of selective confront to focus on the person, the person who is originating, that seems to make the difference.The rehabilitation of mutual knowingness naturally restores KRC, understanding and ARC resultant in mutual duplication and self-determined action.Control, when exercised to a completed cycle of action per Start-Change-Stop results in Understanding and the restoration of Life.LRH alluded to this when he referred to the rehabilitation of purpose.Sometimes we choose to ‘carry the can’ on our broad shoulders and put our ‘foot in the door to hold it open’ when we don’t actually need to and all we do need to do is to find the higher truth that satisfies all viewpoints presented.Although the physical universe could be said to be founded on the principles of polarity and equilibrium, each person is sole origin and source of their own participation and to the degree that the physical universe has a life and persistence of its own, it is possible to act and live in alignment with the higher truths existence reflects, albeit at this stage perhaps in brief and fleeting moments which when we recignise tbeir essence, grow and expand.I believe that although we do tend to pick up with each other when we meet again from precisely where we left off, the development of mutual understanding, if only at a purely theta level initially, achieved through inner work, paves the way.In my own perspective in this respect we have a duty towards the dead and departed to honour their passage in that it is we who remain and carry the memories forward here in the physical which in this this 1st Dynamic Universe means that what we do here and now, in this time, place and location in the overall scheme of things, impacts throughout existence and the phenomenal, spiritual and divine, if only in some small and simple way.Blessed Be Ken and thankyou for holding this beautiful space.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Onu. “A feast of reason and a flow of soul”, indeed.By and large, I support all you say and applaud the aesthetic with which you express it.I differ in that I don’t have much empathy for the physical universe (but I have strong empathy for Nature). To my mind (as if that were important), its design has flaws so deeply systemic, existence within it tends towards unresolvable problem, and far too easily. One day we will all agree to end it and to start over again to make a universe that works for all. For myself, I have absolutely ended any desire to contribute to any motion that tries to convert the physical universe into something that will work. Fool’s errand, in my opinion.Differ also in empathy for others, including the departed. No hard feelings to anyone. no unwillingness to give a helping or supportive hand but an expectation that each individual will take his or her own steps on his/her own path to his/her own resolution/heaven/desired culmination. To get there, we have to go through lying on the bed each of us has made for self. I can’t lie on another’s bed for him/her. If I can’t persuade another to make a better bed for self, I can’t — maybe that’s part of my own bed-making; if so, I’ll lie accordingly.As for LRH, I’ll tell a little story. On the Monday after the weekend in which his passing was made known, I was in Miami, where I lived then. I was walking outside and wondering where LRH might be now. I became aware at once of what seemed to me to be LRH way out in space, and I reached out with no great intention, just mild interest. Perhaps I could do something to support him, as I had before with other recently departed people. He, or whatever it was out there, turned a beam on me and it was not friendly. In fact, I recognized a pressure on my body that had plagued me on the ship. It occurred to me that I could perhaps clean up some stuff and even get in some ethics, for the sake of old times. Then I decided against it; it seemed more honest that he should learn his hard lessons all by himself, or with such support as he could get and tolerate. The connection ended. Only once thereafter was there what I felt was contact, and it happened years later in a solo session of mine; he, it seems, was in case trouble. I handled it as auditor and I ‘heard’ the thought: “Oh, this is what you do in that situation”, and whoever it was at the other end closed the line. (No “Thank you”!) No other exchange.He will get where he wants to go. 🙂Thanks again, Onu. May your bed be a happy one.
      1. OnuThanks Ken. Yes perhaps we do differ and perhaps this is to be expected when we consider the gradient from agreements through opinions, considerations and postulates to Axiom 1.In my own philosophy each person is unique and as such we each have our own unique wisdom and experience which occaisionally we have the honour and privilege to witness and share with one another.In this sense existence may be regarded as a communication exercise of sorts perhaps with an EP of perfect duplication, total understanding and the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence… between people… between us… I have known this on occasion so for me its real.To me LRH is recognisable as a distinct knowingness. I have always found him reachable as such. Perhaps this may be true for others in that each of us has a distinct, albeit personal sense of whom he actually is, in the same sense that we can distinguish any one person from another.It seems to me LRH doesn’t extend his awareness into the 2WC range unless he is actually interested, as one might expect. To me he appears in pretty good shape.At the time of his death and many times since, I have contemplated his circumstances as I am sure many of us have, in an effort to understand them.As we know, when we restore understanding, we restore life and knowingness in action. This would imply that any degree of understanding we restore to an area has a beneficial result.Sometimes simply being present with another and applying the TRs and Codes is enough for us both to arrive at our own understandings and knowingness, silently.…and yet not a single word or communication may pass between us……. until the moment of origination.
    2. VINAY K AGARWALAIn my opinion everything in this universe is connected. There is no 100% discrete particle, or 100% individuality.So collective understanding is the norm, but it does contain inconsistencies, disharmonies and discontinuities of viewpoints. It is the resolution of these that shall lead to better understanding all around. An understanding free of inconsistencies, disharmonies and discontinuities is the true theta.Perception is what it is but it can be distorted by a person’s embedded filters (fixed ideas, biases, prejudices, etc.). So a person may have a distorted personal “truth” according to his filters, and there is nothing great about it.The statement, “What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it,” thus reduces to a placebo only.
      1. urqbones@gmx.comIs everything always connected to everything else? Maybe you’re saying that there is always some connection, rather than nothing-but-connection.
        At any rate, I can’t argue with all else that you say, except for the placebo bit. Why categorise it as a ‘placebo’? You can’t start helping a person by making him or her wrong for where he/she is at, from which place he/she would have to start on a journey of recovery. Surely what would help start recovery is granting a little more beingness. An unaware person might be happy with a placebo but if he/she is looking to start recovery, offering only a placebo would be a betrayal. If a truth is not true for me because of a fault in my perception, why not put me on a gradient that helps me recover my true perception?
        1. VINAY K AGARWALAThe statement, “What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it,” provides justification that makes a person feel better about himself. It validates a person’s observations that may have been invalidated. If his observations were unaberrated to start with then it is a good thing. But if they were aberrated then the validation of them is not such a good thing.I used the word ‘placebo’ because this statement makes one feel better simply by providing a justification. It does not really provide any improvement.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comAll right. But how do you help the person take the first step to improvement? You have to at least be in arcu with him/her. Dismissing the person with a ‘placebo’ sticks the person with nowhere to go.
          2. VINAY K AGARWALAThere are wonderful books out there, and also programs that one may enroll in. O am currently reading THE UNTETHERED SOUL by Michael A. Singer, and writing exercises based on that material. This is one of many starting points available.
          3. urqbones@gmx.comYes! Lots of excellent resources. At the moment I’m happily exploring Open Focus.
        2. VINAY K AGARWALAurqbones, “If a truth is not true for me because of a fault in my perception, why not put me on a gradient that helps me recover my true perception?”The key law of life is the act of maintaining objective awareness by assuming the universal viewpoint. Activities, such as, meditation and TR0 are excellent starting points if they teach one how to be objective.
          1. urqbones@gmx.comThis is all fine for the people who are fortunate enough to be able to take the first step on to meditation or TR0.
            If the person is not so fortunate, you just give him/her a placebo?
          2. Vinay AgarwalaWould you?I shall recommend mindfulness meditation.
          3. urqbones@gmx.comOf course not. Permit me to point out that your original introduction of the term ‘placebo’ was your origination into the discussion and one I objected to as it implied that both Onu and I were interested in placebos. So I pushed back at you.
          4. VINAY K AGARWALAYou may interpret what I said earlier whatever way you like.But I still consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you and it’s true for you as you percieve it,” to be just a feel good offering by LRH. It has no positive value. Instead data on mental filters has value, which was touched upon by LRH in OBNOSIS and Data Series.
          5. urqbones@gmx.comVinay, did you ever put someone in session?
          6. VINAY K AGARWALAMy understanding is that a person puts himself in session. He does so because he is looking for better certainty.The desire to get better comes from the person. If that desire is not there, the auditor can do nothing about it.
          7. urqbones@gmx.comThank you for that, Vinay. Can you tell me now what is your interpretation of “PC + Auditor is greater than PC’s case”?
          8. VINAY K AGARWALAThis is just Q & A. You are not discussing or making a point.
          9. urqbones@gmx.comSez U!
            It seems to me, Vinay, that we have different understandings and viewpoints.
            I propose that we leave it at that.
          10. marildiIn fairness to LRH, the quote about “what is true for you” should be viewed in context:
            Personal Integrity
            L. Ron HubbardWHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself
            And when you lose that you have lost everything.
            What is personal integrity?
            Personal integrity is knowing what you know—
            What you know is what you know—
            And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
            And that is integrity
            And there is no other integrity.
            Of course we can talk about honor, truth, all these things,
            These esoteric terms.
            But I think they’d all be covered very well
            If what we really observed was what we observed,
            That we took care to observe what we were observing,
            That we always observed to observe.
            And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude,
            A critical attitude, or an open mind.
            But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity
            And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self
            And courage that we can observe what we observe
            And say what we have observed.
            Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
            Unless you have observed it
            And it is true according to your observation.
            That is all.
          11. urqbones@gmx.comThanks, Marildi. 🙂
  15. Theresa LasterWow. What an incredible review. Ken, your writing style is quite unique. Thank you for taking the time to review Jesse’s book.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Theresa, for the kind words. And thank you for taking the time to read the piece.Deep bow to you.
  16. Karen#1Greetings Ken,
    I enjoyed reading this very much.
    You will remember be as a regular auditor of yours on the Apollo back in the day. (Karen de la Carriere) I also recall our very private review of current LRH and current Sea Org in 1982 at the Fort Harrison when we hung out.
    You were always in your own league Ken and you have indeed a remarkable history.
    I wanted to add a couple of things of historical interest.
    Jesse Prince made his peace with David Mayo before David passed. I hooked them up together.
    I made my peace with David Mayo by falling on my sword with apologies for being the obnoxious “RTC” missionaire on Mission to destroy the AAC. David more than accepted my apology.+++++++++And because the NOTS materials were discussed and their history, I wanted to add ~~~
    For years and years David Mayo was made the WHY of every failed NOTS case. They used disaparagements such as Mayonaisse, Mayo NOTS. etc. Then it progressed to the point where every single failed case was pointed as David Mayo as the who, even long after left, like 20 years later !
    The point is that when Mayo was Senior CS refunds were almost *UNHEARD* of and Miscavology is replete with failed cases and refunds. People go back to repair Ls as much as 10-12 times !
    Anyway a lot of rah rah was made across the boards of how RTC was reviewing and correcting and knocking the mayonnaise out of the NOTS material.
    It was promised for a long time.
    Then the day arrived.
    The new NOTS packs were handed out.
    NOTE: There is no longer ANY signature under a NOTS issue in the new packs. Hubbard’s name is gone.
    So with all the trumpets blowing and the pomp and circumstance of the new glorified era of TRUE NOTS, the packs were distributed to a stunned crew of NOTS auditors. People looked around uncomfortably.
    Was this a joke ?
    EVERY issue was EXACTLY THE SAME WORD FOR WORD AS Mayo NOTS. The binder was different. Signatures were gone, color and font were different but the text was the same.True Story.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Karen, Welcome, and thank you for all you say. Yes, I remember having sessions from you on the ship, and our gossips at Flag. 🙂 [I remember how tickled you were when all we Flag auditors had to turn in videos. Of course there was a lot of chatter among the auditors on the subject. You enjoyed how the Spanish auditors talked about “bideos” and the Germans about “wideos”.] Thanks for the sessions and the laughs. But very sad to think of how your family life was destroyed, terribly.
      I’m happy to hear that you got David and Jesse together to make their peace, and that you made yours with David, too. [Alas, I didn’t but that’s another story, and not a very clear one.] Thanks for that from me, too.
      Thanks also for the True NOTs story! — Lady Fate busy at her work….And she has lots more to do over there.
  17. VirginiaThat was a very interesting review Ken, I enjoyed it.
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Virginia. 🙂
  18. Roger BoswarvaKen, This copied below from “The Outer Banks” . . . my question is at the end
    Paul Kawaller As a proud member of the anti industry who entered the world of scientology in 1970 during the crush sell period, I respectfully disagree with Ken.During that time the Ls were being heavily promoted as the gateway to OT abilities by SO missions.Snipped . . . . . . by RogerI worked for Ken when I first came to the Apollo. I could not have asked for a better senior.I am part of the Anti industry because of the personal cost to me and to my friends. The rot in Scientology was from the very beginning.
    · Reply · 2d
    Roger Boswarva
    Roger Boswarva Yes, Urq is one of the truly caring and gentle gentlemen of the universe. He would have been one of the very best seniors to have had because he cares about true help and kindness.He audited one of my iterations of NOTs at FSO in 1980 or ’81.From what I remember on the rumor line out here, it was he who dreamed up the idea of having a REHABILITATION Project Force . . . and as envisioned by him it would have been a project for the Rehab and betterment of the troops . . . but, typical of what the cult had become, it ended up being an Humiliation and Punishment Program.Ken, I’d like to hear from you on the truth or not of the rumor of how the RPF came to be.
    1. Robin ScottI had fantastic wins on the RPF, and reckon that the whole bloody planet could do with it, given the mess it’s currently in!I think you should take full credit for coming up with such a brilliant solution, Ken!
      1. urqbones@gmx.comI do, I do!!
    2. urqbones@gmx.comHello, Roger, and many thanks for yours and for your very kind words. You were always a good friend to me. 🙂
      Firstly, thank you also for the extract from Paul’s comment. I recall him well. I can understand his feelings and his viewpoint. [Many share them. I’d like to say simply that Life is unfair and cruel, and unfair and cruel to everyone equally. There was (and is) terrible cruelty in the Scn world. But Life does not demand that we walk ourselves blindly or otherwise into cruelty, nor put up with it, nor to hang on to its consequent tortures. If we do not learn, we do not live.]
      With regard to the RPF, I’ll tell the story — yet again — and put it on this blog so it will have a secure home and be findable. Thanks for the alert to this possible need.
  19. Dan LockeI’ll only say that I’ve rarely enjoyed a book review so much. Perhaps never.I’ll have to admit that I have read far more book reviews than I have books. Same with reviews of all the arts – more of them than the events themselves!
    1. urqbones@gmx.comThank you, Dan.
      Deep bow. 🙂

Comments are closed.