Come home John

Scientologists back in comm


JM02 Some of us have heard something of the strange tale of South African super hero and arch villain, the very first real Clear, John McMaster. We’re sure many more have no idea who he is.

John was hailed by LRH, who C/S’d his auditing, as the First Clear; accorded many accolades, went on a world tour,  addressed thousands of rapt listeners and then, by God, he was declared a suppressive person.

Why did he die in a rundown ‘flop house’ in England alone, ill and impoverished?

View original post 1,962 more words

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM

    “Suppressive Person” is a concept that crowns the failure of Standard Scientology Technonology.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 9:50 PM

      +1

    • 2ndxmr  On May 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM

      Scientology’s crown of thorns that impales both the SP and the organization of Scientology.

      The SP’s suffer some and then get reborn.

      The Church slowly bleeds to oblivion from a thousand thousand thorny cuts.

      • vinaire  On May 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM

        That’s correct.

      • MarkNR  On May 25, 2014 at 9:19 PM

        Did no one notice that a solution is available for the subject of PTS/SP aberration as researched and nearly completed by McMasters and his team?

        Was this completely ignored by everyone due to their emotional discord with Hubbard or the church. Look people, look. What was really important in this post? A MAJOR piece of potential tech that could improve the lives of many. Just a little bit of additional research and we could have something really worthwhile. What do you consider important?

        I have seen this phenomenon in the distant past. People could not see the importance of what is right in front of them due to their own fixed opinions and emotions. I am disappointed to see it again here at this particular point in time.

        I have a few thousand $’s to chip in. We would need a few insightful, compassionate auditors, a few PCs and a site to do a few years work. Saint Hill all over again, with 50 yrs. of knowledge to build upon. We have a real chance to do something worthwhile. Eh?
        Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On May 25, 2014 at 9:31 PM

          Dude you lost me. First of all you are preaching to the choir because if you are talking about those 3 auditing questions that Vin published, I ran them two days ago. (Didn’t I mention that on here?) Second of all, what are you talking about? Third of all, I would like very much to have your few thousand dollars. . . if you are willing? LOL

        • Mark N Roberts  On June 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM

          Hi Chris. Excuse the comm lag, Been working.
          Concerning John McMaster’s paper on PTS/SP handling.

          One: When you asked yourself these questions, did you have a present time PTS/SP sit. that was causing you no or slow case gain?

          Second: Did a team of competent researchers work and produce a standardized system for clearing up this problem in a way that was uniformly workable?

          Third: Did a skilled and honest auditor run this process with you to it’s actual EP?

          To do 90% of a process is to lose 90% of the results. A flawed process or a process which does not exist produces no results.

          Next, I was disseminating my willingness to contribute to a team of people to research and perfect areas of tech such as this. I believe it is a very worthwhile endeavor. So many people have so many failed purposes on Scn. that enthusiasm is hard to instigate.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:23 PM

          Hey Mark, I was just thinking about you a little while ago. How’s it going with work and all? Are you currently processing yourself in any particular way? Regularly? Scientology style? Model session? Standard admin? Case supervision? I know what you mean about enthusiasm being hard to instigate. . . Well, we can do what we can do. It seems to me that if we continue to challenge ourselves, to hone our minds, and to ward off Alzheimer’s that things will tend to better and turn out alright, or maybe not. Regardless, we should continue to try.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:26 PM

          “When you asked yourself these questions, did you have a present time PTS/SP sit. that was causing you no or slow case gain?”

          These conditions exist at all times everywhere in the universe if one just looks closely.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:33 PM

          “Did a team of competent researchers work and produce a standardized system for clearing up this problem in a way that was uniformly workable?”

          With regard to my own mind, I am the most competent researcher. I don’t quite follow the rest of your sentence. When I ran those questions, or any processing question, I just turn the crank and see what bites. If I look closely, I can ALWAYS make a process bite. But then I am in control of my own mind to the degree that I can jump in or out, particularly under model session. This is a structure that lends itself positively to a formalized sort of mental gaming, pretending, imagination, etc.,. Are we talking the same lingo?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:39 PM

          “Third: Did a skilled and honest auditor run this process with you to it’s actual EP?”

          Yes.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:40 PM

          “To do 90% of a process is to lose 90% of the results. A flawed process or a process which does not exist produces no results.”

          You should help me understand what you are trying to say because I have no idea what that sentence means to you.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:42 PM

          “Next, I was disseminating my willingness to contribute to a team of people to research and perfect areas of tech such as this.”

          Mark, have you given mindful subject clearing a try with regard to this research? I see no reason for you not to begin right from where you are.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2014 at 8:43 PM

          “So many people have so many failed purposes on Scn. that enthusiasm is hard to instigate.”

          Are you talking about you here?

        • Mark N Roberts  On June 13, 2014 at 12:32 AM

          Hi Chris. I was talking about the lack of response to any organized research project.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2014 at 12:57 AM

          Depending on where you live there is plenty of independant Scientology going on. And depending on what you mean by research, that has been going on as well. Have you read all the axiomatic thought experiments on this blog alone? What did you think? Have you done any of the KHTK drills and mindful subject clearing? YOu could practice mindful subject clearing on Scientology if you wanted. If you want to practice standard Scientology, the door has never been more wide open. You will no longer be interfered with by the Church. If you want to experiment and research with Scientology and do not care that is expressly forbidden by Hubbard, then that too is an open door. You might get people involved but you will have to put your boots on the ground and go meet up with and twin up with these people, etc.,. I’m not really clear what you want to do.

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 6:09 AM

          One’s own considerations always are a limiting factor.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2014 at 6:37 AM

          Before knowing how to know, one needs to be clear on what it is they want to know. For instance, does one want to be a better Catholic or does one want to resolve the cognitive dissonance that they are feeling about being Catholic? The answers to these types of questions put one’s foot on the path going in the direction that they want to go. One’s considerations frame the debate that one has with oneself.

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 6:45 AM

          In my case, progress has come from closely examining the considerations I had earlier taken for granted based on other people’s say-so,

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2014 at 6:56 AM

          Yes, it seems to me that if one is feeling aware of any uncomfortable thoughts, about anything, then they can become aware of having cognitive dissonance which we also call inconsistencies. Simply looking mindfully at one’s cognitive dissonance can help relieve this stress. It doesn’t need to be life-sized problems. It can be trouble one is having deciding what to have for lunch. It can be large as well such as “Why does my family tell me not to have the girlfriend that I have?” It takes practice.

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 6:49 AM

          Cognitive Dissonance is a good term. KHTK simply uses a general term “inconsistency” but it covers the same ground. By the way, something that is an inconsistency for one may not be an inconsistency for another.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2014 at 6:57 AM

          Precisely.

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 6:53 AM

          Some inconsistencies are there but hidden by the manner they are stacked up. Mindfulness #6 comes very handy here.

          https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/let-the-mind-unstack.pdf
          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2014 at 7:02 AM

          “Some inconsistencies are there but hidden by the manner they are stacked up. Mindfulness #6 comes very handy here.”

          These can be difficult to unearth. Being consistent in terms of mindfulness and simply taking what is there is more important than solving large problems. If one gently but consistently persists any cognitive dissonance should unravel. As Mindfulness #6 admonishes – take from the top of the stack.

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 7:04 AM

          That is a nice way of putting it. 🙂

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 7:07 AM

          This is a workable way of resolving the most tenacious of ridges as Hubbard would put it; but it requires great patience.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2014 at 1:52 PM

          Yes, and patience increases as confidence in one’s ability to apply these principles increases. — also tolerance increases.

        • vinaire  On June 13, 2014 at 1:57 PM

          Very true!

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    I think that one can look at these two listing questions under the discipline of mindfulness without causing any harm to oneself.

    “Who or what is causing difficulty?”
    “Who or what would item represent?”

    I think that these are brilliant questions. That is where Scientology shines.

    The discipline of mindfulness is described here.
    https://vinaire.me/2014/05/20/confronting-mindfulness/

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:18 AM

      John McMaster provided a third question later in the OP if the above two questions did not get to the bottom.

      “How does this item make one vulnerable?”

      .

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:27 AM

      Please note that these three question may be safely run on oneself with a variation of SUBJECT CLEARING.

      https://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/

      (1) One would list the items on an excel worksheet like one would list the concepts.
      (2) One would then rearrange them in the order of priority of “fundamentalness”.
      (3) One would then go up and down the list to make sure it is consistent.
      (4) Any inconsistency would mean that there is a missing item.
      (5) This procedure will make sure that the list is complete.
      (6) One would then use the top most item from this list for the next question and repeat the subject clearing procedure.
      (7) If that works fine, otherwise one would try the next item on the list for the next question, and so on until the difficulty sorts itself out.

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:36 AM

      This is a great summation by John McMaster:

      “The reality is that somewhere in one’s makeup is this predisposition to be suppressed, and when it is precipitated one behaves like a potential trouble source. So, get out what’s in restimulation and remove completely and forever the chances of being suppressed in that particular way.”

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:21 AM

    OP says:
    “We took the results to Hubbard, and he kind of hemmed and hawed and told us it was a little bit long-winded and we could do it faster another way. Eventually he changed the thing down to: “Who is suppressing you?”, and it had to be a person. And when that person was spotted, the PC had to go to the ethics officer with the folder.”
    .
    I think at this point Hubbard’s own case influenced the development of Scientology. That was unfortunate.

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM

      Does anyone realizes that John McMaster’s process undercuts all OT levels?

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM

      It seems that Hubbard;s item to “Who or what is causing difficulty?” was what Hubbard came up on OT III.

      Hubbard should have followed it up with the next question, “Who or what would item represent?”

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:23 AM

    I think that the Church of Scientology should be running the second question on itself.

    “Who or what would [all these suppressives declared in the field] represent?”

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:24 AM

      The ‘suppressives declared in the field’ seem to represent the true spirit of Scientology, which is, “the ability to think for onself”.

      The “the ability to think for onself” naturally make one question the status quo.

      Hubbard didn’t like his ideas to be questioned.

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM

    The OP says about Hubbard:
    “Eventually he changed the thing down to: ‘Who is suppressing you?’, and it had to be a person.”

    .

    The trouble with Hubbard’s theory is that it is “self-centric”. On the other hand Buddhism is “isness-centric”

    NOTE: isness = what is out there instead of one’s opinion of it.

    This makes Hubbard’ theory ‘subjective’ and Buddhism ‘objective’.

    In the ARC formula, Hubbard regards affinity as BE, communication as DO, and reality as HAVE. But Buddhism will say that reality is BE, communication is DO, and affinity is HAVE.

    ARC increases as filters (biases, prejudices, fixed, ideas, engrams, etc.) are reduced.

    Reality is more like the degree of appreciation of what is there. That is how one recognizes filters This is BE. This is TR0.

    Communication is the process by which the filters are recognized. (DO).

    Affinity is the state achieved as filters are reduced. (HAVE).

    Affinity is not just attraction-repulsion, or reach-withdraw. Affinity is ‘all-inclusiveness’. Affinity is the lack of filters. Affinity is compassion that Buddha championed. Affinity is the final havingness that is truly OT.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    OP says: “Well, nothing can safeguard technology better than perfect auditing. If you take the process and audit it perfectly, your technology is established.”

    Well, you can say that again!

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:39 AM

    OP says:
    “Having this via of darting around the corner to the ethics officer just gives the auditor an out. If he can’t quite manage the PC or he can’t quite manage the process, or he can’t quite manage putting the two together, he always knows he can say “Well it’s OK; if I can’t quite manage this then it’ll become an ethics matter.””

    .

    Well, Ethics is discipline. It would have to do with the application of mindfulness, the auditor’s code, the code of a Scientologist, etc. It is something applied to oneself by oneself and not by somebody else.

    Ethics got subverted being used as a convenient escape for failures in Hubbard’s own auditing.

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:55 AM

      It looks like it was Hubbard’s own case that was the enemy and the enemy was not AMA or WFMH.
      .

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:00 AM

      OP says:
      “So now the PC disconnects from this “Who” the ethics officer regards as a suppressive person, and yet still intact is the “What” that predisposed the suppression in the first place. So the PC is still vulnerable to suppression.”

      .

      One wonders if Hubbard’s reactive mind wanted it that way so that Hubbard could have complete control over people.

      A person who is totally free to think for himself is hard to control.
      .

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:06 AM

      I remember that “Hubbard” used to come up as an item in many cases when suppression was considered. This was interpreted as “counter-intention” to Command Intention (as represented by Hubbard’s dictates).

      This used to aggravate Hubbard very much and his solution was to put such people on RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) in Sea Org. I was one of the first one’s who were put in RPF aboard Apollo in 1973-74.

      This made people suppress their own case.

      I think that the streak of autism in me saved me.

  • MarkNR  On May 22, 2014 at 10:21 AM

    Thank you greatly for posting this article and link. It, as well as being an important piece of tech, is a huge insight into the development of Scn. and an understanding into the rightness and wrongness of the tech today.
    Mark

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 1:39 PM

      It was very exciting for me to come across this piece. 🙂

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 1:09 PM

    I know I provide a different viewpoint that sometimes evokes protests. But I am certainly not trying to make anybody wrong by my remarks.
    .
    I find that Hubbard theory of Scientology is self-centric, which is the key characteristic of the theistic viewpoint. On the other hand, Buddhism is reality (isness)-centric, which is the atheistic viewpoint.
    .
    Once we put the self-centric filter away we can recognize the “spiritual entities” to be postulates and considerations, which exist by themselves. They do not have to come from some “thetan.”
    .
    A postulate is essentially a starting consideration like a premise or assumption. Other considerations are then based on postulates.
    .
    We can find an analogy in the physical world of “postulates” being like “atoms of elements”, whereas, considerations are like “molecules of compounds”. There can be mixtures of considerations.
    .
    Here we can see a SELF being made up of postulates and considerations, just like a HOUSE is made up of elements and compounds.
    .
    Restimulation would be like a part of the SELF going into resonance with some external influence. This is like the house reverberating with the heavy base sound coming from lightning in the clouds.
    .
    I find John McMaster’s questions to be very pertinent. I shall quote them as folows:

    “Who or what is causing difficulty?”
    “Who or what would [item] represent?”
    “How does [this item] make one vulnerable?”

    These three question may be run SOLO safely on oneself with MINDFULNESS using a variation of SUBJECT CLEARING.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM

      “Who or what is causing difficulty?” “Who or what would [item] represent?” “How does [this item] make one vulnerable?”

      I did run all three of these questions on myself just now to a good result. I find your analysis of the self-centric (theistic) vs the reality-centric (atheistic) models astute. To take the metaphors one step further, mindfulness can seem to me like a large calm sea which engulfs, encompasses all intrusions which allows them to be seen as they are without reverberation. This is pleasing.

      • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM

        Excellent! Looks like we are on the right track.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM

      “I find John McMaster’s questions to be very pertinent.”

      John McMaster is someone LRH misused and abused badly. He died persona non grata and that is a tragedy for John and one more black spot on the history of Hubbard. McMaster always intrigued me and I wish there was a way to know more about him or to have known him personally. LRH was fortunate to have known almost all people of goodwill who were forgiving. That Hubbard says otherwise is another black spot on his character.

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM

    Here is an account from the link: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/mcmaster.htm

    John McMaster, a dedicated $cientologist in the 1960s, was proclaimed by founder L. Ron Hubbard to be the “world’s first real Clear.” He was a charismatic promoter and lecturer, and as a key aide to Hubbard contributed greatly to his early financial success. He was the chosen ambassador of $cientology, lending to it his personal image of competence, gentleness and love. Among his accomplishments for Hubbard was the creation of the Power Processes – Grade 7 on the $cientology grade chart. Hubbard promoted him to “Pope” in 1966, a title not to endure. And though Hubbard’s income soared, McMaster received none of it.

    Under Hubbard, McMaster had no real power. He slowly became disillusioned as he saw $cientology organizations turn authoritarian and brutally punitive, far different from how he had portrayed them. He witnessed the imprisonment of a terrified 4-year-old in the Sea Org’s dark, filthy, rat- infested chain locker for the “Ethics offense” of chewing one of Hubbard’s papers. Such imprisonment became a common form of staff punishment. “Overboarding” was instituted, with “out-ethics” staff being forcibly thrown into the ocean. McMaster was overboarded several times, the last time being left struggling in the water with a broken collarbone for 3 hours. According to McMaster, in some orgs with no chain locker or overboarding facilities, the offender’s head is shoved into a toilet bowl, which is then flushed.

    McMaster fell from grace in 1968 when he challenged Hubbard for chain-lockering a little deaf-mute girl for a week. He was subject to hard labor, sleep deprivation and other hardships. “Hubbard wanted to break me,” he states. In 1969 McMaster resigned from $cientology, and was declared “suppressive” by Hubbard.

    McMaster stated in an interview: “I was so excited about the function of auditing ($cientology counseling) that I was willing to overlook Hubbard’s faults – . That was up to a point of course, the final point being my realization that his intentions were entirely self-serving. I saw that he was in it for the money and personal power, and his actual intentions were not as stated. The basic function of auditing is a wonderful thing, but Hubbard perverted it.”

    Sad to say, John McMaster, Clear #1, was interviewed 2 years before his death in a Manchester England transient hotel (flop house). In a tiny room filled with dead flowers, he told of being tormented and taunted by Hubbard for being gay. He died of cirrosis of the liver due to a long bout of alcoholism.

    The inconsistency that I see is how come John succumbed to suppression by Hubbard. Could he not have used his own process to recover? Why did he become an alcoholic?

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 8:52 PM

      This is another failure of Hubbard. A Clear could be suppressed easily.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 11:08 PM

      The construct is placebo oriented. The world is defined, all of it, including the problems, the enemies, and also the processes to eliminate the problems and enemies. This is ideology, cult, religion, brainwashing, or other name. It is a real world enactment of a fantasy game such as dungeons and dragons. It is complete with rules, freedoms, barriers, purposes. When one gives in and gives all, they enter the nightmare for real and their chance of emerging fully is diminished. While one is within the matrix of Scientology, the carrot are the advanced levels and the placebo is processing. Well, it was for me.

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:19 PM

    Here is a report by John McMaster about his Worldwide tour of 1968. I am sure it was edited by Hubbard.

    http://www.lermanet.com/exit/john-mcmaster/

    What I see from this report is that John McMaster was very much playing Hubbard’s tune. In other words he was brainwashed. But he still had some decency and his own personality as he was talking about love unlike Hubbard. That must have put him in conflict with Hubbard.

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 9:42 PM

    This is an interesting account of what prompted John McMaster to resign from Sea Org. He saw the tyranny being perpetrated by Hubbard through his Sea Org Ethics missions.

    http://www.lermanet.com/malko/epilogue.htm

    John saw it as form monitoring function, the opposite of what Hubbard had wrote in policy. He resigned from Sea Org while promising his love and allegiance to Hubbard. How come he didn’t see Hubbard as the source of tyranny that was going on?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: