The Black Panther Mechanism: A dangerous omission


Black Panther2


By Unknown Author, USA, May 1991

One possible explanation for the church’s persistent world view of US vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would handle most situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under “Black Panther Mechanism”, which outlines the possible methods for coping with the environment.

Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this definition, only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb.  While this certainly is quite an improvement over the psych’s “fight or flight” response, it still is missing vital viewpoints.

The selection of “a particularly black-tempered black panther” as a model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures other options.  Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up any other option, the definition goes on to say:  “all actions can be seen to fall within these courses.”  Where some see only problems, other see solutions or opportunities.

I propose a new name and definition.

The Grey Wolf Options: There are several ways in which a human being reacts toward a possible source of danger.  Let us suppose that a man named Sam and a grey wolf inhabit the same wood.  Both people and wolves are pretty dangerous critters and they compete for food and cave space.  How can Sam resolve this situation?

  1. He could attack the grey wolf
  2. He could flee from the grey wolf,
  3. He could stay in parts of the wood to avoid the grey wolf,
  4. He could neglect the grey wolf
  5. He could succumb to the grey wolf
  6. He could cooperate with the grey wolf

Recognising that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem is staying alive in the woods and that the wolf shares the problem, allows the man and the wolf to form an alliance.  The wolf brings his intelligence, his keen sense of smell and swiftness to the bargain.  Sam adds his intelligence, thumb, “ability to use tools” and fire.  Together, they survive much better than either could alone.  Indeed, over time, what could just as easily have been Sam’s worst enemy, turns into “man’s best friend.”

This blind spot on cooperation is clearer in the definition of ally in the Tech Dictionary.  According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps you when you are weak (and we are never weak, are we?) and is someone whose beingness takes over the PC.  In other words, that with which you ally, you alloy.  An ally is something found in reactive engrams, not in analytical thought.

So now, what can or should be done about this?  Perhaps an auditing rundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being’s ability to recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and to exercise that option.

A model Grey Wolf process might start of with word clearing on the above definition.  This could be followed by having the PC spot times when cooperation could have occurred, should have occurred, would have occurred or did occur (a “coulda, shoulda, woulda” rundown).  R3R any reading items in order of read.

Perhaps this could be played against the CDESINR scale, the Know-to-Mystery Scale or the Prepcheck Buttons.  Another possibility would be to have the PC spot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown.  This kills the wrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal.

This, of course, is only a rough outline.  I invite you to generate and test other rundowns that smooth over a PC’s handling of his environment.

Source: page 9.  This was the first issue of IVy and was especially aimed at people who had recently left the “Church”.


43 thoughts on “The Black Panther Mechanism: A dangerous omission

  1. Loved this Essay.
    Loved the points made with the Grey Wolf.
    Here’s a short pithy 2 min video on the *them vs us* that is
    so much in the Radical Official Scientology culture ~

  2. I do not necessarily agree with them above. Over the years LRH and Scientology never REALLY identified the REAL enemy, always blaming the psychs. I posted a message on the Indy website about the real enemy not just to Scientology but religion and spirituality as well. At the time of posting I put it down to “Modern Science” as the real enemy.

    There are 2 branches of science in today’s world, that is, Material Realism (Modern Science) and Monistic Idealism. Monistic idealism is the antithesis of material realism, it is based on the discoveries in quantum physics by a few scientists including Einstein. Material realism, has as its basic premise that matter is the ground of all being while Monistic Idealism has as its basic premise that Consciousness is the ground of all being. There is vicious war going on between these 2 branches of science. The attacks by “modern Science” is the dramatization of the death throes of that science, however they are still powerful and in the majority. The scientists in that branch of science are trying to destroy anything about religion and spirituality.

    But I was wrong to identify them as the real enemy of anything spiritual.THE REAL ENEMY IS NOW IDENTIFIED AS THE “LIBERAL ELITISTS”. They run the Western World and have removed religion in our schools and will do anything to deny spirituality. They are a cult. They are extremely happy with Miscavige as they can see him as destroying Scientology. The question now is; will they start world war 3. They hate Russia because Russia is a very religious country.

    Therefore you do not have to partner with enemy, you need to identify him first as the enemy because the wolf is basically a friend in disguise.

    • There are lot of labels like ‘Material Realism,’ ‘Monistic Idealism,’ ‘Liberal Elitist’ etc. going around that just encapsulate thought and prevent looking freely with mindfulness.

      I have been on a search for the interface between Physics and Metaphysics. This is leading me down to the following conclusions. I have arrived at these conclusions with thought experiments that follow the rules of consistency. I am always open to corrections.

      The following link leads to a number of short essays linked together.

  3. I would call it: ” The Mandela Principle”.
    Didn’t he exactly do that ?
    Cooperate with his ennemies !
    Beautiful text

    • I see “Mandela Principle” as mindfully looking at the situation, and not looking at it just from the viewpoint of the black people ruled and suppressed by the whites. The whites had their own demons too.

      Mandela looked at the whole situation with mindfulness, and sought a solution that addressed all aspects of the situation from a non-judgmental viewpoint.

    • So how did the Mandela principle or practice pan out?
      The Bible says by their fruits ye shall know them; Scientology says you can determine one’s condition by looking at the surroundings or mest.
      When I lived in South Africa in the 70s it wasn’t perfect but it was very impressive by African standards — growing, safe (for whites), and blacks were trying to get in, not out.
      Now from this long distance I read (I don’t read the liberal, politically-correct press) that crime is much higher and certain parts of the infrastructure have deteriorated.
      Did Mandela improve things overall? Are whites moving in or out? Are blacks better off overall (I know some individuals are)?

      • Leonard,

        Interesting perspective.

        Thank you.

        I know very little about SA politics

        All I know is that at one time SA was an apartheid state which I always thought was a bad idea.

        That said.

        The only problem I have with Mandela is that he belonged to the ANC which was heavily financed by the Soviets at one time.

        Part of their program of World Revolution which included not just Africa but Latin America as well.

        Think Castro and Cuba.

        Like you say.

        Is the country any better off than it was under an apartheid government?


        In my view from a human rights perspective they seem to be doing better.

        However as you say economically they are doing worse.

        What do you think the solution would be?

      • If you take this principle you could also say that germany in the forties was a great country; they has “autobahns” , work for everybody ……

      • Roger From Switzerland, I think that Remote has a good question. I am interested in some real answers to this myself.

    • Answer for pm:

      free education for everybody and Democracy. Any successful Country in the world is doing this.

  4. I love it that someone brought up this piece of mis-tech. The option of cooperation was left out for good reason, in my opinion. I’m glad it’s come to light and a proper solution has been suggested. I always had trouble with this scenario.

  5. The spot on observation and conclusion is “the target”, the ” real problem”. Once this is recognized actions can be taken to handle it withouth this warrior valence where, everything that opposes one has to be attacked or destroyed.

    Also this denotes weakness of spirit and insight (the ‘attack only attitude)’ as it shows lack of observation and, thus, lack of survival actions. Interesting indeed and thank you.

  6. Unknown author, 1991 … ! Insightful spotting of source of false data. Although I must say, I never did understand the word “attack” to necessarily embrace violence and force. There is a definition of attack, which says: “to set to work upon, especially vigorously; tackle” (as in “a plan which attacks the four basic problems”), also “to begin working on energetically” (as in “to attack a problem”).

    It is very clear that this is the applicable definition here.
Where the idea of violence enters is secondarily, in the interpretation of the principle, the interpretation of this scale named Black Panther Mechanism. For it is a scale. And there is Cause, causative high-tone (survival) action at the top and effect low-tone (succumb) action at the bottom. This is the way to view it.

    And when we understand this, we understand that “cooperate” in the manner intended by the unknown author above belongs at the top, belongs under “attack”. “Cooperate” absolutely does not belong below succumb. It is one of the courses of action that can be taken under the heading of “attack”. Confronting certainly enters in here, whichever course of action we chose under “attack”. But “cooperate” is only one option. There could be others. For example “get in ARC”. For example “audit him”.

      • Maybe it was the other way around Vinaire.

        The policy HCOPL 2 April 1965 Administration Outside of Scientology already admonishes against the “us and them” philosophy.

        Also the black panther mechanism is basically referring to the ability of the Pre Clear to *attack* his engram bank not society at large.

        Anyone who wants to “cooperate” with engrams is in my humble *opinion* an idiot.

        Again in my *opinion* the author of this text who is anonymous is promoting a *squirrel* procedure.

        Who wrote this?

        Someone from RTC?

      • Remoteviewed.

        You are quite correct. The black panther mechanism is a way of describing the potential course of action/direction which the pc can take when confronting the content of his own reactive mind.

        So, attacking the engrams is likened to the pc confronting and running out the incidents/engrams. Dianetically speaking, you would not co-operate with engrams , doing so would make you the effect of their commands.

  7. I love that people are bringing up the different aspects of our programming and hightlighting improvements.

    They’re mostly glossed over by us when we’re in but outside, we can take a better look and evaluate more adequately.

    So thanks for the author of this piece.

  8. There is also the possible option of “Rescue the Grey Wolf”, if he is in trouble and you yourself have superior ability, and know you have superior ability. Perhaps this was LRH’s original viewpoint toward the “wog world”.

    But this is far, far, far from the case these days,where the “Church” is the one that needs to be rescued, since it is now relentlessly destroying itself, while sorely deficient in such “superior” ability. But who would want to rescue such a monstrosity.

      • Actually the fact is.

        Here in the field we’ve pretty much wrested the knowledge of Scientology by keeping the original books and lectures instead of burning them.

      • There is also Mile-Stone 2, and the rest of the indie field.
        There are also individuals that are still in, that may still yet cog. Don’t write them off yet. (They may still go down with the ship, but the ship is not down yet, and a cog takes as long as it takes. )
        IMHO, the church itself, is past the point of revival as per cost / benefit analysis (it would certainly make an interesting business proposal). I am more concerned about potential survivors of this disaster, than the wreck itself.

      • Maybe so ’84.

        Maybe the Church is beyond the point of no return as far as any kind of reform.

        Then again as someone who’s handled one or two “hopeless cases”. It still may be able to be salvaged.

      • Remote, Perhaps. All things are possible, even if not probable. (I would think that ‘Roger From Switzerland’ would have to agree that even Germany fixed up it’s image.)
        Maybe the COS Titanic will ground itself on the iceberg……and wait for one hell of a big band-aide.

  9. Thank you, Remoteviewed. So many things have been misunderstood or perverted, unfortunately.
    Hey, your name suits you!

  10. I was the editor of “IVy” (International Viewpoints) at the time we published the “The Black Panther Mechanism”. The two pictures in the “IVy” edition were added by us. I made an error in my footnote. I later found out that “The Heretic” issued all articles under pseudonyms to avoid people having preconceptions about the rightness or wrongness of the author of an article from earlier writings (or I suppose possible personal vendetta 🙂 ), which might lesson their ability to make a dispassionate analysis of the actual article. I was “thrown out” of the “Church” of Scientology in 1983. This was before Internet, so communication was mostly by letter across continents. While I ran “IVy” (International Viewpoints) we took subscriptions and sent five times a year to those who paid. “The Heretic” on the other hand was a “little” private thing, from someone in the United States, and went out, sporadically to the people on his mailing list, for free,, and I never made the effort to get on it. I was just lucky to get that copy of “the Heretic” in I guess about 1987/8, and thought it ideal for the first issue of “IVy”. Actually I first ran it in a Danish magazine I ran for a short time called “Uafhængige Synspunter” (Independent view points). All best wishes, Antony Phillips (now in Denmark, once in Arslycus, I believe 🙂 )

  11. Prior to Scientology – I believed the world was good. I had no concept of evil. I never met any “religious” or “spiritual” person that blatantly lied to me either.

    Then I did Scientology and all of a sudden my environment was filled with fear – the psychs are out to get everyone, the world is going to blow up by an H Bomb – it really does sell chaos and fear to get people to join staff, buy services and give money. It is the exact opposite of what it said it would be in the books!

    Now I have reality on evil. I know how mind control tactics work and I will never be fooled again! I like the Wog world. Most people are honest, trusting, kind, intelligent, creative, talented and compassionate!

    • Nice work there, Idle Morgue! having gone through a considerable period of ‘decompression’, of my own. I agree with you.

      The one thing that I have gained, though, out in the ‘field, of the ‘wog world’ directly as a result of using the TR’s consistently, — ever since I learnt them on the original HAS (comm course), way back in 1971 — Is that EVIL, is not only real, but is the thing that causes people to recoil in fear, BECAUSE THEY CAN’T CONFRONT IT!

      The point i’m making here, is that is not only useful, but absolutely necessary, to crank up one’s ability to confront EVIL, if one is to remain ’cause’, when dealing with this scourge, that suppresses people into a ‘helpless’ state of mind. Make no mistake here, we are talking directly about addressing a ‘state’ of mind.

      There are ways and means to achieve this, fortunately, (and I have posted about them before), otherwise I wouldn’t be so animated about it.

      I could elaborate, briefly, if anyone should care to ask.

      –Calvin, Durban.

  12. What I love mostly, about THIS (my own country’s unique blog), is the generosity in the necessary “granting of beingness”, which after all, is supposed to be a ‘given’, in the repertoire of a truly well-trained, great auditor. I specifically enjoy the freedom of LRH’s Grade/Level O, (Communication Release) on the three flows, where one is thus (relatively) uninhibited in exploration of life, potential, and subjects, which may bring increasingly greater benefit and understanding to all who reach for it. Suppression, or restriction of awareness, just keeps one under the boot of one’s elected ‘masters’, IMHO!

    • That is simply to underscore the mission statement, appearing directly under the bold name of this blog, for which I sincerely thank the bright and forward looking creators. You guys are way ahead, in overall balance of purposes, if you ask me.

  13. Dianetics (a hypothesis)
    …..Auditing (process based on looking)
    Unwanted condition (lack of harmony in the system)
    …..Charge (net effect of disharmony)
    …..Restimulation (disharmonious response to stimuli)
    …..Engram (inconsistency held down in place)
    …..Bank (all inconsistencies collectively)
    …..Unconsciousness (shut down of awareness)
    …..…..Not able to perceive and respond to stimuli
    Preclear (a person unable to handle personal unwanted conditions)
    …..Case (individual system of inconsistencies)
    …..Aberration (recognized inconsistency)
    Clear (a person able to handle personal unwanted conditions)
    …..No case (no individual system of inconsistencies)
    …..No potential for a case (this cannot be absolute)
    A Clear simply is a person who is able to handle personal unwanted conditions by oneself. It is impossible to be free of unwanted conditions in this universe. The difference between a clear and a preclear is in the ability to handle unwanted conditions as they arise.
    A Clear would be a self-learner.

  14. Hubbard’s model is:
    Mission: Clearing the planet
    Means: Church of Scientology
    Barriers: reactive mind (clandestine suppressive powers)
    In my opinion,
    (1) “Clearing the planet” would be creating a world of “self-learners.”
    (2) The means for this would not be an institution. It would be a grass-roots learning revolution.
    (3) Barriers to this is simply a lack of proper research and organization. One cannot blame other entities as Hubbard did, and Scientology still does.

  15. Whole Track
    …..prenatal “experiences”
    ……….sentient prenatal life
    …..experiences from “past lives”
    ……….whole track (embedded experiences)
    …..Hubbard forwarded a hypothesis to explain this
    E-meter (tool to discover embedded experiences)
    …..electromagnetic field around the body
    …..influences body resistance
    …..attention crossing embedded experience creates a response
    …..such responses when followed up bring to view the embedded experience
    …..this resolves unwanted conditions
    Simply expressed unwanted conditions spring from disharmonies embedded in the soul. Clearing of these disharmonies requires locating them and bringing them to view.
    Dianetics used indicators, such as, pc’s skin color, eye brightness, emotional tone and degree of introvertedness, etc., to follow up on responses from embedded experiences. Scientology used e-meter for this purpose. The underlying assumption was that the pc cannot follow such responses himself. This assumption of Hubbard is wrong.
    When a pc is trained on mindfulness, his sense of inconsistencies becomes sharp. He can sense the inconsistencies (disharmonies in perception) around an embedded experience, and follow them up to bring to view that embedded experience. No e-meter or “meter reading skill” by the auditor is needed.

  16. This seems incorrect to me for a number of reasons – for one the black panther is supposed to be artificial and out of place, that is the POINT of the engram bank, it is artificial and out of place.

    As for the gray wolf scenario, this would not work as this is an appropriate environment for the wolf. Second the scenario painted is that of a man trying to survive in the wood and find food, so the wolf is not posing a threat unless it is attacking him. Therefore this is a wrong target and would create problems.

    (If it was attacking, then one could not “cooperate” with the wolf unless succumb is considered.)

    Also in terms of danger, allies can be alloyed to oneself and can thus fall into valency.

    This seems very “squirrelly” to me, and this to me is the true “dangerous” additive – not any omission here. For one thing, the environment and situation is markedly different. Changing the context and threat completely changes the scenario.

    Look again guys, read it and see if that doesn’t seem odd.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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