The following message was first sent to the list ivy-subscribers,
a private Internet list available to all who subscribed to the
(on paper) clearing tech magazine, International Viewpoints.
(see http://www.ivymag.org/ or write the editor: ivy@post8.tele.dk)

From: PJSpickler@aol.com
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:07:33 EST
Subject: IVySubs: Loves me, loves me not
To: ivy-subscribers@lightlink.com

**  ivy-subscribers relaying  **

Good evening, and hello, anyone!
  In the still chill of the night, the following thoughts have made their
way through my heavily-encrusted consciousness, and now, with a little help
from a friend, they appear in print on IVy subs, to the benefit or possibly
the dismay of my one reader. I remain eternally grateful to Martin Foster
for his comments on the first edition of "In the still chill of the night,"
and most especially for the excellent humor that accompanies his most
pleasant-to-read prose.

  To my everloving amazement, I have actually received a couple of love
letters suggesting that I don't love L. Ron Hubbard, and that it's in very
poor taste to be beating up on someone who's dead and buried, and that I
ought to get some help to handle whatever's wrong with me on the subject of
the Old Man (Ron), his actions and his writings. Well, since I like one of
Ron's aphorisms about when in doubt, communicate, I'm always pleased (well,
almost always pleased) to get any kind of mail from anyone, even if it
happen to absolutely and fully and 100% indicate to me or any one of
the valences or identities that express themselves under the banner "Phil

  But I have to admit that I don't see how anyone in their right or left
mind could think that I don't love, adore, practically worship, L. Ron
Hubbard and the many wonderful, amazing, outstanding, unforgettable, and
enormously beneficial things that he provided to and for all of us. Of
course, the Ron that I feel that way about more or less faded out of
existence sometime in the 1960's, and someone else still using that name took
over and did a lot of things to, for, and with Dianetics and Scientology and
their organizations that I, me, Phil, someone, didn't and doesn't approve of,
since they were counter to and in opposition of the best and the brightest
that the original L. Ron Hubbard created and humbly tendered as a gift to

  If anybody out there who thinks I don't love L. Ron Hubbard gets this
straight, they'll realize that there most certainly is a version of L. Ron
Hubbard that, to say the very least, I did and now find hard to have a lot of
love or affinity for, looking at the disasters that that valence, identity,
or beingness created or brought into being and endowed with great persistence.

  So yes, if you follow my train of thought, I wish to clarify and make
sure that the being that I call L. Ron Hubbard and the being or beingnesses
that eventually occupied that body under that name are quite different and
distinct from one another; and that I consider these latter-day L. Ron
Hubbards, who once again are not the original guy, to be an enemy of what
Dianetics and Scientology started out to be, philosophically, technically,
and organizationally. They could have been something wonderful, something
beautiful, something that continued in a pan-determined form to remain three
feet behind the head of Planet Earth and its peoples, and most certainly
would not have ended up with a 35-page-long list of all the enemies of L. Ron
Hubbard and Scientology.

  For me at least the explanation of what happened to L. Ron Hubbard and
how his universe was or could have been taken over by beings and forces
inimical to and out of agreement with the original and beautiful intentions
behind Dianetics and Scientology doesn't require any tech giant to see. It
could happen to anyone who wrote themselves in an organization into a
position of power in which their case became unassailable -- period, QED, end
of report.

  Once every thousand years I put the following words as a disclaimer
regarding any and all expressions or viewpoints that may appear under the
name Phil Spickler, namely: no one is required, in spite of my great stature,
to agree or disagree with anything I say. It should not be forgotten that my
point of view may have zero credibility -- my best hope and highest purpose
in this universe is to create something that first and foremost is
entertaining; second of all, possibly interesting, and third of all, and I'm
sure very rarely, has something in it that might for a brief instant remove
the blinders that are requisite to being human just long enough for a WOW or

  Well there -- now it's all out in the open and everyone knows where I'm
coming from, or at least where I've been, and perhaps where I'm going, so
onward with tonight's entertainment.

  I've been hanging KSW outside to keep it cool until I could get around to
slicing it up, but we've had some surprisingly warm weather the last few
days, and I'm afraid that the carcass is a bit overripe. But I've slipped a
clothespin on my nose and will continue to dish up some more things that I
consider to be terribly wrong with a policy letter that never should have
been written at the tone level of Anger. If you want to have some fun and
blow your mind, if you have one to blow, or even blow your nose, sometime
imagine that it's permitted once again for you to own Scientology, to make it
your own, to make it your own to such a degree that you can handle it the
same way you would if you were its creator. And from that viewpoint, imagine
if you were at a tone level not of anger but, say Exhilaration -- that's even
higher than Enthusiasm or Cheerfulness -- imagine you were that high-toned,
and you had decided, for the benefit of the purpose of technology, that you
wanted to write something into law regarding the attitudes, the viewpoints,
the intentions you'd like those who were studying Dianetics and Scientology
with a view of using them as professional practitioners to have, and you were
writing it from the tone level of Exhilaration.

  And imagine you wanted to entitle your policy letter something like
"Ensuring that the tools, the technology, would be used as well as possible."
Well, you might say it's already been done, in the form of the Auditor's
Code, which is a bunch of pretty darn good tried-and-tested methods for
keeping the technology working. To follow the rules or the advisories that
help make an auditor a good auditor doesn't require a dedicated gleam, nor
being a fanatic zealot, or any of those things might make your space not as
safe as it should be for pcs and students and other auditors.

  Anyway, there's a fairly high-toned way of keeping Scientology and
Dianetic technology working; and it's somewhat self-correcting, in that an
auditor who doesn't have a code which they know and espouse and apply in
auditing will, in fairly short order, probably screw up their pcs and
themselves to the point where they will give up auditing. And that
sometimes, if not often, happens to lone field auditors who get into all
kinds of wacky stuff because they don't have any terminals to help maintain
their reality.

  But anyway, if you were to write something like "Keeping Scientology
Working" and you were at tone level Exhilaration, I encourage you to take a
copy of that policy letter and rewrite it at Exhilaration. Rewrite it with
your universe bursting with affinity, reality, communication, and
understanding. Rewrite it with the loving intention that it should serve to
support the best and brightest who might like to pick up the intention to
help mankind, and see if what comes out isn't quite a bit different than what
someone using the name L. Ron Hubbard had to say about how to keep
Scientology, or better the technology, working.

  One of the things that told me that things were not going well for the
Old Man was when in 1968 he wrote some kind of bulletin which came to the
American St. Hill Organization in Los Angeles -- it went to all the orgs all
over the world, I'm sure -- but anyway, I got a look at it and in it Ron, who
again sounded very ARC broken, was talking about Freud and others that had
gone before him and saying, "Truth is, I never really got anything from those
guys, and they were just a bunch of nut cases who didn't really have anything
good to say." (I am obviously paraphrasing what I can remember from that
bulletin or PL). But this is from one of the not-really-Rons for sure,
because the real Ron who wrote the magnificent book entitled _Science of
Survival_ put in the front of that book the names of all the philosophers and
others whose wisdom in both theory and practice had helped Ron enormously in
formulating Dianetics and Scientology.

  He also makes it sound in KSW that nobody in Scientology over the years
had ever contributed really greatly to its development. That is a falsehood,
and like most tyrants and dictatorial types, once you've gotten rid of all
the old-timers and the people who remember, you can rewrite the past any way
you want for personal aggrandizement, megalomania, and to make sure that no
one ever looks at anyone else admiringly, except you. Very bad, and quite
different from the original L. Ron Hubbard.

  Another thing that the original or real L. Ron Hubbard would have had a
mighty laugh at, and would have probably recommended that the person who gave
him that mighty laugh might want to get some auditing for, goes like this: it
did come to pass, in the organizations of Scientology, from the pen of L. Ron
Hubbard, the notion that Scientology, the Bridge, was your last and only
chance to save and free your immortal thetan, and that if you and your
checkbook failed to take advantage of that opportunity, the door to freedom
once and for all would be closed to you, as it is to all those excommunicated
from the One and Only True Church here on Planet Earth. Well, the Christians
were a little more simplistic perhaps than that in getting people to remain
faithful, both in pocketbook and in behavior, by simply preaching that you
would go to Hell and burn in a lake of fire forever if you fouled up your
last chance to accept Jesus (or the Pope and the Trinity), and obey the
dictates of these churches. That lake of fire was especially effective if
you started using it as a terror tactic when people were young enough to
believe it.

  Anyway, I guess it worked as a piece of marketing tech in the church for
awhile, and perhaps still is -- I have to say it's on the chain of
suppressive threats that you can use to keep people from ever really being

  I just looked over at my amanuensis and realized that I was wearing out
her sweet fingers, as she types this information; and so I conclude with
"Know the truth," and even if it doesn't set you free, it will at least cut
down your heating bill.

  From one who doesn't know the truth,

Home Page: http://www.ivymag.org/ - with extensive links to FZ!