Strategy for 2010

I have commented before about how many people have been demanding policy and strategy statements for guidance and some sort of assurance that sticking their necks out will not be for naught. Upon reflection and analysis of where we’ve come and where we are going, I think it is time to venture a proposal or at least share what I believe should serve as a strategy statement.
Some wise folks have posted a quote from Mohandas K Gandhi in their comments on this blog. It goes: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” I did not think much of it until I began to read more about Gandhi and had some long, deep discussions with several Independents, including Ivan Obolensky. Ivan is a well-read student of history. He was also until very recently unaware of what was going on with the Independence movement. As is his habit, when he learned of it he rapidly absorbed all that has been written of it. From a relatively exterior point of view he related to me what he has observed of the movement against his wealth of knowledge of world history. He noted that whether by design or not, we seemed to be following a clear, clean and natural direction along Gandhi’s morally transcending, winning line of advice.

In light of most our first impulses to bring down the tyrany by direct confrontation, what makes Gandhi’s approach so workable?
LRH commented in a lecture (What Scientology is Doing 6 June 1955) about the inevitable result of overthrows: “If you want to know what kind of government you’d get after you revolted against a government, look at the government you revolted against. Things will be a little bit bullet-nicked, but that will be about the only difference. We could, at this time, put together an organization or a group in Scientology sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful to run over everything it came to. This would be a fascinating thing to do. Be a game in itself. And then someday — me gone, other guys gone — all of a sudden there sits this thing, this organization. And somebody has to rise up and say, ‘Auditors of the world, unite: Overthrow this monster!’ And everybody would see it go down very plainly, you see. Down it’d go. Then they’d say, ‘Fine! Now we are free.’ And they would get another handful of letters cancelling their certificates.”
So, how does one liberate people from oppressive, evil rule? Gandhi urged Indians to engage in a peaceful revolution, not to overthrow British rule, but instead to cut loose the collective shackles it had bound the Indian populace with. Despite every temptation to do so, he advised the people not to engage in direct conflict with their rulers, but instead to be and act free of that rule as if it did not exist. Understanding that a slave is only one because he agrees to be one in the first place, Gandhi sought to liberate India by raising its people out of their slave mentality. By being and acting free – and eschewing all temptations to engage force vs force – India ultimately transformed itself from an externally governed colony to a sovereign nation.
Historically, the most productive ‘revolutions’ have been ones based on integration,  inclusion and love rather than segregation, exclusion and hate. The Civil Rights movement in America is a good example. Its acknowledged primary mover, Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, happened to be a dedicated student (and self proclaimed disciple) of Gandhi. He pointed out that nonviolent resistance is not only the brave road to travel it is the most effective way to proceed:
“It must be emphasized that nonviolent resistance is not a method for cowards; it does resist. If one uses this method because he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of violence, he is not truly non-violent. This is why Gandhi often said that if cowardice is the only alternative to violence, it is better to fight. He made this statement conscious of the fact that there is always another alternative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need they use violence to right that wrong; there is the way of nonviolent resistance. This is ultimately the way of the strong man. It is not a method of stagnant passivity. The phrase ‘passive-resistance’ often gives the false impression that this is a sort of ‘do-nothing method’ in which the resister quietly and passively accepts evil. But nothing could be further from the truth. For while the non-violent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil.”
Perhaps you are thinking by now along the lines of, “all good and fine, and inspiring and all, but we aren’t contending with colonial India nor with the Jim Crow South.” True. So, let’s relate this history to some fundamental Scientology – something we all agree is eternally applicable. Some of us have had to check the seemingly natural inclination to charge over the ramparts to reclaim what is rightfully ours. I think most of us came to understand that that attitude is precisely what is wrong with Mestology. It has reversed the order of the Conditions of Existence. It is on a mission to have wonderful cathedrals worldwide, along with predictable, compliant members, all to make Scientology fit in and be acceptable to satisfy some weird kind of PTSness to the middle (or more likely upper) class. Among other problems, enroute to that goal its people have sacrificed being Scientologists by doing acts that are anathema to Scientologists. The felony has been compounded by the church’s obsession with dictating behavior to the point of denying, rather than granting, beingness to its own people.
Let’s turn to LRH to get the sequence straight:
“The game of life demands that one assume a beingness in order to accomplish a doingness in the direction of havingness. These three conditions are given in an order of seniority where life is concerned. The ability to be is more important than the ability to do. The ability to do is more important than the ability to have. In most people all three conditions are sufficiently confused that they are best understood in reverse order. When one has clarified the idea of possession or havingness, one can then proceed to clarify doingness for general activity, and when this is done one understands beingness or identity.
“It is an essential to a successful existence that each of these three conditions be clarified and understood. The ability to assume or to grant beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit other people have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it.”

In retrospect, I believe during 2009 we have made a huge step on the subject of “be.” Imagine where we will be in a year if we consolidate those gains toward enhancing the Conditions of Existence. I believe our strategy for 2010 can be simply stated by drawing from Gandhi, King and Hubbard:

BE, DO, AND HAVE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

Some might ask, but what of DM and his incessant efforts to drag us into his sick GPM?  To that I say, the only power he has over you is that which you grant him. The only power an SP has is that of enturbulation. Organized crime only succeeds where it successfully intils fear in prospective victims.  Where it cannot or does not, it is nothing.  Finally, contemplate these words of Gandhi:  “When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fail. Think of it, always.”

Peace to everybody throughout 2010 and beyond.