Your assumption is that the Scientology Indoctrination is a removable attachment from the rest of Scientology, as if the "indoctrination" came as an afterthought, or mistake, that Hubbard made, over and over, for 48 years. I suppose that you assume that once the indoctrination is removed, we will have a perfectly good technology and philosophy that we all can use to do what? Go OT? You have shown in your essay that the indoctrination techniques Hubbard employed in KSW should be removed from that essay. But I am not aware of you going on to identify other areas of indoctrination that should be removed. The character Hubbard created of "Ron", a super OT Being with medals from having served in "all five theaters of war", and who was the "youngest Eagle
Scout", who was a barn-storming pilot, who studied with holy men in the Western Hills of China, and who was one of the first nuclear physicists, is
also part of the indoctrination. Do we delete the character of "Ron" from Scientology? Do we re-write Hubbard's own biographies with the truth: the pleas for psychiatric help, the lying about his war record, his ulcers, his drug taking, his run from the law and his last days of dementia and death? Do we we delete the PR line that he went on to further OT research without the encumbrance of the body? That's indoctrination, too, right? Do we delete all the claims that Hubbard made that Dianetics and Scientology underwent rigorous scientific proofs and testing? Do we re-write Scientology to show that the basis of the tech came from smatterings of ideas from other religions and other psychological therapies?
Then, do we re-write all the claims for Clear and OT, and say that these states have yet to be attained by anyone in Scientology? The fake character of "Ron", the claims of rigorous scientific testing, and the states of Clear and OT - aren't these all part of the indoctrination,
too? If so, what do we have left, after we delete the indoctrination from Scientology?