Come home John

JM02Some 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?

One can read a real sob story about him on the internet by Googling his name. Although the story you’ll find says he died of cirrhosis of the liver, and that LRH hounded and belittled him because he was gay;  someone who was also around at the time said he may well have been an early Aids victim.

But there is more to the story than that.

JM01John came from Durban.  He was a brilliant speaker.  He exuded love, benevolence and forgiveness.  I know at least one person who was convinced he was JC reincarnated.   Another, explaining his fall from grace, said “he didn’t believe there was such a thing as an SP and that’s what was wrong with him.”

Let’s take a fresh look at this one time celebrity and read the story of what might have been:

Anyone who has ever done the PTS/SP Course – a one-time MUST – will have encountered the term “Search and Discovery” (S & D).  It was regarded as an important scientological procedure which was used when problems were encountered with slow or non-gaining PC’S.

This is the story of the development of that procedure by John McMaster and has been taken from an original article in Ivy magazine.

Late summer, 1965. The message read: “Ron wants you to bring six of your best review auditors to his office at quarter past five today, and would you get it all organized?” When we were all there, he said that he’d gotten us there for a specific reason, and the reason was to evolve a particular process which he wanted to call “Search and Discovery.”

Now, in the processing that we were doing then, which was mainly the power processes and power plus, we were getting some cases moving magnificently fast, others sort of medium, and some cases moving very slowly.

He said that there must be some factor that was sort of impinging on these cases that were moving slowly, and this process was to be called Search and Discovery simply because it was to search for that which was impinging on the slow gain case and the no case gain, to search for that and then discover it.

And he wanted us to evolve a technology whereby this could be done effectively.

We got together and decided that it would be a good idea to have a listing process to start off with on the search side of it, and then we would discover an item.

We decided the listing question would be something along the lines of “Who or what is causing difficulty?”

We made a list and then we’d get whatever the item was, and then put the item into a Represent (“Who or what would item represent?”), and then list away. If the item on the first list had been a person, one blew the charge off that person by getting the Represent out of it.

And on this “Who or what would item represent?” the PC invariably found a “What” in relation to his own behaviour or his own conditions of existence that got restimulated by the actions of the other person and caused what appeared to be the symptoms of a “Potential Trouble Source,” as it was later called.

It was something that the person had in his own makeup, his own behaviour pattern, his own mental mass, that had a sort of magnetism for the behaviour of a certain person.

The other person did something, and this particular thing, in the whole pattern of the PC, would cause an upset and prevent the PC from looking as clearly as he or she might look, from wanting to win, from doing whatever one was expecting the person to do.

So we ran this listing process and the represent process, and we got what we got, and took the results to Hubbard. And as I said, invariably it was a “What”. And you can’t declare a “What” that exists in the magnetic field of the PC to be a suppressive person.

There was a tremendous improvement in the PCs because they found out that in actual fact, when they were so-called “being the effect” or “being suppressed” by someone else, it was because of themselves and something that they had that had compelled them to become the effect of the other person’s behaviour.

But there was another thing some of them found out. Some people found out that in their behaviour patterns they did things and behaved in such a way that they compelled the other person to commit suppressive acts towards them.

For instance, here’s me. And, not during the auditing session but in my everyday life, I am doing something with a regularity that compels another, who also has something in his magnetic field that my behaviour restimulates, to be suppressive towards me, and I am in actual fact causing it.

So there were two aspects that people began to find in this auditing:

1) they had something in their own space that got restimulated by another person’s behaviour, and when they found that and blew it, they no longer were the effect of that person’s behaviour; and

2) they were unknowingly doing something that was compelling the other person to act suppressively towards them.

And everyone run on this process, with the listing and the represent, had far more case gain than is gotten from running up to the ethics officer and disconnecting from a so called suppressive person.

We were really thrilled, because these people, immediately after having had this kind of S & D process run on them, moved magnificently on the power processes.

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.

The ethics officer then had to find out whether the person would “handle or disconnect”, and in most cases the ethics officer decided of his or her volition that the person was incapable of handling and compelled the person to disconnect.

Now if you look at the history of scientology from that point onward, late summer-autumn of 1965, what was happening?

Suppressive people were becoming a reality and the ethics officer was becoming an absolute necessity in any organization in order to safeguard your technololgy.

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

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.”

When a person was not moving as quickly as the person ought to be moving, they then had to have this S & D process, and then automatically it went onto ethics lines.

So then standard technology was very much involved with ethics; you couldn’t have standard technology without an ethics officer to handle these particular situations. So the suppressive person became a reality and the ethics officer became an absolute necessity in order to have the tech working and standard.

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.

He disconnects, has a bit of relief, and maybe until the end of that auditing intensive the PC is free from the impact of the other. But within the makeup of the person, that which predisposes the PC to being suppressed is untouched.

And the overt act of disconnecting from another, blaming another for one’s own inadequacy, and the fact that one has this predisposition towards suppression, compounds the felony.

The felony of whatever one has done that makes one vulnerable or predisposed is still there, and that is compounded by the disconnection, which creates a heavy ARC break perhaps not only with the person being disconnected from, but with all the people to whom that person is connected.

So now you have the compounded felony. That thing which had come into restimulation in the auditing that should have been run out right there and then, is now being covered over by another overt act;  the act of disconnection.  And what does that do? It causes the prolongation of that condition which predisposed the PC to suppression in the first place.

S & Ds, such as they came to be run, did not give permanent relief or release from anything. What they did was prolong the agony of potential suppression. So far from setting a person freer, they were in actual fact buried, and therefore prolonged the condition that predisposed and precipitated the suppression.

This “standard technology” was in actual fact ruining the whole potential of our aims and goals and purposes, because it was pressing out of sight that which we were fortunate enough to have surface;  that thing that was predisposing the PC to feeling suppressed.

It is a very healthy sign when someone you are auditing suddenly has problems. So they say they’re not making gains. So what? This indicates to you that something is in restimulation that prevents them from making gains and achieving their goals. This means you’ve got something right there and then, right at the surface, ready to be handled.


So you can do an S & D, but I suggest that you do it the way we did it originally, before it was changed to a “Who?” You might get this thing which has come into restimulation on the first listing, in which case it’s gone. If you have to put it into a Represent list, well, you’ll get a whole lot there.

Now, (continued John) I didn’t do this at the time, but it seems to me that you could then put in a third question if you do a represent out to another item and you still haven’t blown everything.

You could say, “Now, how do you use so-and-so to make yourself vulnerable to suppression?”, or a question of that nature. Then you have removed the predisposition to the suppression because that which was in the magnetic field of the PC that enabled the suppression to happen will never be there again, unless the PC puts it back. But it won’t be the same one; it’ll be another one.

So I hope this sheds a little light on the way and S & D could be run that could give gain for all time, rather than this temporary relief by committing an overt act on a fellow being on this planet at the same time as one is. It’s not always such; sometimes one disconnects from people out of another time.

However, this is just a vast Q & A with reality. 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.

That is how we started out on Search and Discovery, and how I feel it could be done even now. It’s not too late, for Heaven’s sake! And we could get in, and do the job properly.


83 thoughts on “Come home John

  1. We have verified in my practice that finding a “what” handles the problem of suppression as John McMasters has written. Until now, it has been a piece of lost tech.
    Since we do not use S & Ds, but something much faster, we go straight to the source of the predisposition to be suppressed. It is something that has gone in restimulation and when it is precipitated one behaves like a potential trouble source. We locate and handle what is in restimulation and remove completely and forever the chances of being suppressed in that particular way.
    Once the role of spiritual entities is fully understood, it becomes clear that entities have engrams which get restimulated by the people you encounter. Handling those engrams solves many problems. Google Spiritual Rescue Technology for more information.

    • I could not have said it any better.
      “Once the role of spiritual entities is fully understood, it becomes clear that entities have engrams which get restimulated by the people you encounter. Handling those engrams solves many problems.”

    • 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 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.

      • Spot on, Vinay. One can own their circuitry, past identities and postulates as all manifestations of SELF.
        And McMaster’s questions can definitely be run solo – very liberating to do so.

    • Wonderful article. I hope we can have some more from this man.
      Thanks for the link, David. I’ll definitely have a look.
      There is a reference in the Green Vols in which LRH states categorically that PTSness is ALWAY due to a WHO and never a WHAT. (Apologies for giving you verbal.) It will be found in the PTS/SP pack as well, of course.
      Why on earth did he do this? I know I’ve seen the answer to this question in one article or another or in a book I’ve read and, if I remember correctly, it was tied in with his paranoia – his paranoia, by then, was pathalogical.
      Thank you so much for giving us this article. It could change the face of ‘everything’ – a bit of a generality. It would change a lot, though. It could lift the roof off failed auditing sessions and non-optimum situations.
      It would certainly address a problem I have with a certain person on whom I’ve written every conceivable OW! To no avail. I have such an adverse reaction to this person, it astounds me. It is not PTSness per se but a whole gamon of unwanted emotions. This person has a tendency to ‘order me’ and expects ‘obedience’. I, of course, I dig in my heals and want to ser fac majorly. Lol! Perhaps, I bring it out in her and certainly I work very hard not to conform! On the face of it, there’s politeness but for the most part I’m seething.
      I definitely need to have this addressed. It makes life uncomfortable.

  2. Wow! This resonates with me – greatly!
    Thank you for the article, and thanks David.
    In the business world, I see a parallel where production staff, having to handle (and let’s just take two aspects) a personnel matter, and a safety matter, 40 years ago, would go ahead and manage it.
    What the modern world has done however, is create separate posts of a personnel officer and a safety officer, to now handle those aspects impinging on production. And these departments grew and grew. And the problems were never really solved. In fact they grew – one reason was to justify their jobs, but the main reason I believe of the non-resolution of the problems was the distancing of responsibility / causativeness from the direct production staff. “Some-one else will handle it – and if it went wrong, it wasn’t my fault.”
    Labour / personnel / human resources / trade union / work safety issues have grown and grown, and have become disconnected from production. And good production is the universal solvent of labour / personnel issues, and work safety seems to automatically fall in line too.
    Back to the PTSness of the PC: “If I’m PTS – it’s someone else I’m connected to”. “So, I’m not really responsible for my condition, sir.” So let’s disconnect. That’ll solve the problem. And so we gave away responsibility to ethics officers. But the problems persisted, didn’t they.
    And so the disconnection idea has grown to include people like me who resign from the Co$.
    LRH has said that one is the creator of one’s own universe – completely. And a two billion megawatt power house can create anything – even masking up responsibility or no-responsibility.
    Lovely article!

    • “LRH has said that one is the creator of one’s own universe – completely. ”
      – which he did a total turnaround on in the OT levels, by the way.
      His CS became broad and was the same for everyone. Yikes!

  3. I believe that Scientology has to abolish the Ethics department. It is one of the biggest fails. It was established to protect Ron. The “technical” reasons are only justifications.
    Which church has something similar?
    When you confess your “overts” in other churches, you do it voluntarily! But not in Scientology!
    The idea is that beings are basically good. And this seems to work outside of Scientology.
    I had paid in tens of thousand British Pounds. Yes, all in one shot! I thought that this would open the doors to the best service ever.
    But what did I get? Arbitraries (and late night IAS visits)!
    When someone wants to be audited, why does Ethics start all this bullshit then? Oh, they say that you cannot have wins otherwise. They have to make sure, there is no counter intention or “not be in session”.
    Just one word: BALDERDASH
    Someone is dedicated and willing at that time. I was “in session” already! Nobody would pay in that amount of money while knowing that he/she is full of overts. The slogan has always been: “The bridge will deal with all”.
    So, I was sitting there in Ethics and was quite upset. Outpoints were made up just to have something to do. My cooperation was bad, because you get accused of things and see that this has nothing to do with the real world or ethics. I started thinking that I wanted the money back. There was no delivery. Then someone came up with the idea I needed a thorough PTS handling. Not enough, suddenly you need all kinds of things … other than auditing.
    One red tag followed the next red tag. I often F/Ned and lost it on the way to the Examiner. I felt like a prisoner with handcuffs, who was escorted to a judge.
    The red tags were taking away my life energy and money. Still there had not been a single step on the bridge.
    This got worse and worse. One day I started rollercoasting. I was suffering from depression just by thinking about the church, especially that I was not allowed to say that their solutions were the problems. This would have made me SP right away.
    The Ethics Officer (the fifth EO already) gave me another program. I said that this had nothing to do with Ethics. The reply was: “This is standard procedure.”
    There is no such as “standard procedure”. You cannot print out a program that is done by nearly everyone. Not only this is wrong, in fact it looks like a justice action.
    The huge amount of money I had paid for the intensives were the only reason why I had cooperated so far. I knew they would be gone if I would leave at that point. But the pain had reached the peak on this day. The new program was too much! The intrinsic message was: “You must agree and you will not receive any auditing soon.”
    GBP 10,000 were gone for arbitraries already. This was the 5th Ethics Officer, 3rd Auditor, 30th whatever interview, 4rd red tag and … well, I cannot remember how often I was holding the fucking cans.
    I realized that Scientology was built to not let you go up the bridge, no matter how much money you paid in.
    Red eyes, tears of rage, no words, thinking about my money … then I just got up and left.
    Any auditing is better than no auditing? I did get any, but not the bridge. I am still having a stuck flow on this. And I did a big mistake at this very moment:

      • CanSpeatAtLast
        No, I did not ask for my money back. That was the price for staying together with my family. It did not work out in the end 😦
        My wife used the money without my permission FROM MY ACCOUNT for security checks. And we are talking about hundreds of hours! This was a lot of money!
        Weirdly enough, the unethical Ethics officer was supporting this. In Scientology you always need everything written down. But I never signed anything to allow my wife taking the money from my account.
        Well, now she is my ex-wife.

  4. Thank you for this article, it is so inspiring.
    Thank you John Mcmaster for all you did for the Scientology cause.
    You will never be forgotten.
    Lots of ARC. Rodney.

  5. I was working on staff at a small (six or so staff) backwoods org in the middle sixties.

    It was about the time mentioned in this article. One day this amazing new ‘discovery’ filtered down the lines. The Suppressive had been discovered.

    It was the flavour of the month. It was incorporated into the HGC and everyone in sight (staff and field) was busy ‘finding’ and disconnecting from Suppressives. The staff notice board was full of “disconnection” letters. It was mandatory that they had to be displayed publicly.

    I, personally, disconnected from Jesus Christ (I had been a born again Christian before Scientology); someone else (a Jewish girl) disconnected from Moses; someone else disconnected from Pontius Pilate!! It was insane.

    There was huge chaos and bad PR spinoff because family disconnections began occurring too.

    My disconnection cost me a highly efficient staff member and the org the loss of a very valuable ally in the form of an Anglican minister. He had introduced a young parishioner who had a physical impediment (she was a polio victim and had quite a severe limp). He asked us if we would give her a job and we hired her as a highly efficient typist.

    A week or so after my disconnection letter went up on the staff notice board she left after giving a feeble excuse and the Anglican minister who had referred quite a number of his parishioners to the org for services was never heard from again.

    Nobody spotted the glaring outpoint and, worse still, did never did anything about it.

  6. Not only was John Mac the “first clear” he was also the first Qual sec when the Qual division was introduced for the first time. I replaced John as Qual sec when, as memory serves, he went on his world lecture tour. He was a friend of mine and I could easily accept that he was gay. On the matter of his sad end, it was already in the making when I first met him – he drank a lot. Perhaps things would have turned out differently if those who knew of his drinking problem, me included, were more helpful in this regard.

    My career in Qual began as a review auditor, then director of review under John and then Qual sec. It was as a review auditor that I took part in the S & D project referred to here – doing research auditing with LRH as case supervisor. So I do recall to some extent the S & D approach developed at that time.

    Here is the thing; the addition of a Qaul division to the org board was brilliant. If only the original policy was upheld. But, things moved much to slow for LRH. It was the beginning of cutting corners. It was the job of Qual to deal with “flat bal bearings”, which more often than not required more time than could be tolerated. Hence the introduction of ethics – replacing the review auditor with the ethics officer and making the FN take the place of proper end phenomena. In the end several workable methodologies were abandoned in order to achieve “speed of particle flow”. It’s all about getting things done now, now, now. Dam the end product, get the completion.

    • Hi Joe, you know so much about this early period. It’s very interesting. Are you able to expand a bit more on “Making the FN take the place of proper end phenoma”? What was it exactly that occurred there? What was changed and how?

      • To get the story straight I would suggest checking out Tech bulletins of around 1964 – 1966. This was the time when levels 0 to 4 were kind of finalized and “packaged”. It was also the time the Power Processes were launched, not sure of the exact date. Up to a point during this time auditors looked mainly at the PC and listened to what the PC was saying – keeping an eye on PC indicators – checking for signs of the process’s end phenomena. What happened on the e-meter was only part of the picture – like the state of the needle and TA position. Other indicators like com-lags between answers were observed by the auditor. A power process auditor would not think of ending one of the power processes before the prescribed end phenomenon was reached, regardless of an FN. As in the case of Pr Pr 6 for instance, it was continued until the PC indicated that THE ROOM HAD SUDENLY GOTTEN BRIGHTER.
        Then, at some point during this time, LRH put out the rule that an FN is the EP for all procedures. It says something for the effect this had on auditing at the time that it wasn’t long after that, that LRH had to restore balance by coming down hard on quickie grades.
        As implied, to get a sense of developments at that time take a look at the tech materials of around 1964 – 1966.

    • Very great comment, Joe!
      I also would be very interested to hear anything you have to say about Meja Deja’s question re: “Making the FN take the place of proper end phenomena.”

    • Interesting history from John and Joe. (Hi Joe – I know you 🙂 )
      One thing I remember from way back then studies, was LRH talking about how much quicker Scn was than any other form of psychotherapy. I think he was constantly trying to do this – speed things up – even if it was detrimental to people. Of course stats also starting coming into that, along with the whole now now now thing. My God, we are immortal beings of one sort or another – what’s the fucking rush!?
      So while others put in the research that Hubbard claimed he was doing, all he did was take their results, tweak it a bit and then release it as the next big thing without researching if his tweaking actually worked! Sounds like quickie to me…
      And before you all jump on me for generalizing – I am sure this was not done ALL the time – but from the various histories written by people like John above, it was done often enough to skew the results and negate the hard, honest work that people put in, in their quest for something real and workable.
      A lot of people of good will were lost this way.

  7. I first became aware of Scientology, and of John McMaster, by watching him being interviewed on the Les Crane TV show in the United States, around 1966. It left a positive impression.
    My next encounter with the topic of John McMaster was in early 1970, while perusing the books at the book store at the New York Org. The “book store” was a big table in the lobby loaded with books – books which, as a curious newbie, I was in the process of eagerly reading. The books were the 1968 editions, which were beautifully bound aesthetic books, the publication and production of which had been overseen by old timer John Sanborn, 1950s LRH book editor, and copy editor, and also editor of Ability magazine.
    The only odd thing about these delightful books was the odd paper covers fitted around the beautifully bound texts. Years later, I would discover that these were, per LRH’s instructions, reproductions of images from the R6 bank, which, it was believed, was an (whole track) implanted (reactive) bank. The idea was that seeing these images would make a person compliant and cooperative, much as the Sea Org symbol was supposed to do. Usually I removed the covers, leaving the beautifully bound books in their simplest form. My favorite was the – now discontinued – Phoenix Lectures book, and just in, and hot off the presses, was the first edition of the 1970 compilation book, ‘Scientology 0-8.’ A very enjoyable time.
    Amongst the books was a Scientology promotional magazine, and it featured a photograph of the man I had seen as a young teenager, on American TV, four years earlier. It was John McMaster, the worlds first real Clear. Innocently, I asked asked about John and was met with a stony silence, eventually being told that he was an “SP.” The promotional magazines featuring him soon disappeared.

  8. Thanks so much for publishing this article. It really resonated and indicated for me. After years and years of “wrong indication” PTS cycles with no improvement, now I know why. I can guarantee the current C/S’s don’t even KNOW about this piece of tech, and if they do, they sure as hell don’t use it. Explains why all the good C/S’s and auditors are outside of the Church.

    Another HCOB which seems to be utterly ignored is HCOB 1973RB – “Assist Summary”: where LRH talks about illness and injury, and the causes of predisposition, precipitation and prolongation, listing a number of items including “ARC breaks with the environment, situations, others or the body part”.

    Is it any wonder then that staff are ALL predisposed to PTSness when they are being expected to work in the environment they are – constant ARC breaks with their seniors and each other and having to handle situations which they cannot control or have no power over. When I was on staff, I could not believe the high absence rate of staff due to illness – one of the hardest hit areas being HCO staff. Come winter time, and staff would drop like flies with flu – this was SUCH a glaring outpoint for me. I myself ended up with a chronic debilitating condition – as did a number of other people that I know of.

    • According to the interviews he did with the LA Times and author George Malko in 1970, he resigned from the Sea Org in November 1969 “because of ‘unnecessary harshness’ in the organization ‘that kept people in a kind of electronic jitter.’ He said he also opposed his reassignment from a public relations mission to the United Nations to service aboard one of the Sea Organization’s several yachts.”
      He also felt that the Sea Org Ethics Missions amounted to spiritual tyranny and he questioned the harsh treat of Alan Walter and the unexplained deaths of two ASHO students.
      When the LA Times asked the church for a response to McMaster’s remarks, they claimed that the way he left amounted to not tendering his resignation through the proper authorities.
      Other accounts confirm that he was officially declared after church operatives tricked him into getting some free auditing to repair his case and he refused to participate when he was realized the were performing a sec check. He then got got hit with dead agenting tactics, black listed, third partied and lied about.
      For more information see: Piece of Blue Sky.pdf (pg 120)

  9. All excellent posts; from main blog to comments. It just so happens that this is what I am auditing now. This is has shed more than a little light on what I am dealing with.
    My case is stuck on something similar.
    I want to make a few points that should always be kept in mind:
    The idea that “standard tech” is absolute, is bullshit.
    “Standard tech” is a control item or factor. It was fabricated for more than one reason, the main one being to keep Hubbard’s show on the road and prevent Q and A to prevent people from even thinking that Hubbard was not without fault or short commings.(so no one would even think of looking for faults in him, or in what he said or did)
    (And the idea that Q and A is bad or wrong is also bullshit.)
    Those ideas of Hubbard’s were, more than probably the lessor of evils at the time.
    It was well caculated.
    It was for his self preservation , and all his machinery, his momentum and goals.
    As well as part of a business plan.
    The truth is that today we have to let that go.
    What was true yesterday is not necessarily true true today.
    That is all water under the bridge.
    (That is/was a “no pun intended”, figure of speech, as well as, coincidently in terms of the word; “bridge”, the fact is that no bridge is really there. The bridge is a mock up, a hologram, a carrot on a stick, a carrot that is not really there, it is only an idea or concept, or ideal, or a “want”.
    It is a cognitive set up, that (if such actually exists, still has to be built and achieved.)
    (It is like the story of the “Emperor has no clothes”.
    Everybody was told that a bridge was there, when it was not there.
    To see something that is not there is a sign of psychosis.
    So today, we have to be intellectually honest and perceptually honest and stand back and say, or get up on from a “bird on a wire point of view” and say:
    Ok this is what was done and what we have and evaluate it, ( question everything) then ask what can we learn from it, and what is good and what is so so and what is no good and chuck the mistakes up to experience.
    The fact is that we always learn more from mistakes, than successes.
    So, now we have to develop an impartial critical, evaluative, analytical thinking process,……………apply it to scntlgy and all other data of comparable magnitude in the known universe, then develop a creative thinking process to build a real bridge that actually works, and achieves the product of “homo novus”, a bona fide stable enlightened being.
    In other words we have to stand on Hubbard’s shoulders and all other thinking minds of the past and see farther.
    In fact, if you really look at what Hubbard did, that is exactly what he did at his point in time.
    Today we have an exponentially greater amount of data and experience to work with than Hubbard did.
    If you can’t build a better bridge, today, then you flunked the subject.

  10. This explains a lot for me… it might be the reason for the rapid demise of the Church of Scientology…. There is never anything wrong with the Church or it’s staff. Always a big bad Who that needs to be disconnected and then fair gamed.

  11. Brilliant article, brilliant. Thank you South Africa! It makes sooo much sense – going back, with the “what” to one’s own causation point(s) rather than assigning some other cause outside which one then, by this assignment of “SP” loses all possible control over. This article allows me to see things in an altogether different light.
    So, do I understand this right, South Africa, this is actually a text by John Mac?

  12. ASTOUNDING!! Another lost piece of tech with MASSIVE ramifications! This point made so real by John because of all the madness that could have been held back if only applied! The ole man got this wrong Im afraid. His error magnified a hundred fold because of all else he did get right!! Poor guy! I believe all of us together now are indeed ripe to forge ahead belts laiden with tools LRH didnt have, ready to conquor this universe – finally! What an article! What a time and place to be here!

    • Are you sure it was an error?

      [Moderator: B. V. as I’m sure you know your comments skate close to our moderation policy. While the many points you raise may well be valid we have chosen for this not to be the forum to discuss them. There is much in dispute, too many viewpoints that conversations can degenerate quickly. Again, not to say it is not worthy of discussion, just not here at this time.]

    • BV haha! Mighty obvious where you are coming from despite moderation. Perhaps one day you will have a chance to confront the ole man himself and ask him directly? What if you are wrong? What if LRH isnt the fiend you believe he is? I dont think so, a saint he wasnt either. Basically a flawed yet great man. Lets get on with it and make a better bridge which I doubt would not be there unless LRH had not laid such a tremendous foundation before us! If you have no interest in climbing up any bridge based on LRH tech all we ask is to be allowed to do so ourselves. The church tries to stop us. We need support not derrision. Help us.

      • There is no “derision” and there is no assertion that LRH was a “fiend.”
        Funny reading you comment about, “What if you are wrong… perhaps one day you will have a chance to confront the old man himself…”
        That’s what Christians sometimes tell non believers about God.
        Interesting how the tendency, amongst Scientologists, to gather into two camps, continues outside corporate Scientology: One camp is centered around a personalty: LRH; the other camp is centered around ideas and techniques. Even forty years ago, in Scientology, there was a quiet tension between those two camps.
        IMO, this site is doing a great job of encouraging Scientologists to exit corporate Scientology. All the data is on the outside, all the tech is too. There’s no reason to be shackled to the (sinking) Miscavige slave ship.

      • Im sorry if my comment led you to a christian comparrison. I dont think you can compair the two really. All I meant was that you obviously have some issues with LRH that may only resolve face to face. I was not implying LRH is a god and above reproach. He is not.
        So again, will you help us? Us freemen that is?

      • Hi Sheeplebane,
        It’s not a matter of “issues with LRH.” It’s a matter of fully examining the subject so as to fully understand it.
        Perhaps another time, when it’s appropriate, that can be discussed.

      • Sheeplebane, me thinks you’re still drinking a bit of koolaid. Sorry to say this but it’s like you have this dream, this blind faith, the illusion of the greatness of the man, that is a stable datum.
        It’s hard to confront the truth, man…it’s hard! It’s hard to confront the duplicity and posturing; and that the man had an agenda nothing like the one he gave you. It’s hurtful. I was there, too – at first. Astounded, disbelieving but I have a high ability to confront – so I did.
        I feel for ya but the truth will out.

      • Hehe canspeakatlast , nah I was drunk on koolaid for far too long and wept in agony with the babalas (hang over)! Just because I dont stand in line to say stuff about LRH doesnt mean I have my head in the clouds praising the rainbows blowing out of his arse! Fact is I still respect him, warts and all! I use his tech and it improves things dramatically. Nuff said really.

  13. 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.

  14. Thanks a lot for bringing the info regarding John and SPs. I have done lots and lots of listing and representings and handlings and lot’s of PTS-courses and auditing and have arrived (some years ago) to the conclusion that there are no SPs. The way I handle clients ensures that they will never, never, never turn PTS again. They are handled as cause and not effect. On my home page under “Essays” you can find my 6 issues regarding “SP/PTS”. Have fun!
    They are all Copyright (C) by me, which means that everybody have the right to copy and use. Do it and have a lot of fun. Cases handled like this always fly thereafter.
    EverLove Per Denmark
    The link:

  15. Thanks for the article, which is well known to those of us who have been out for a while. Minor nitpick – can you cite your sources more visibly in future? Or, even if not providing a full citation, at least link to the URL? In this case, the source URL is here:
    And just to add: IVy magazine is a treasure trove of data from oldtimers. For anyone interested in the history of Scientology and the Tech, as well as interested in the viewpoints of free thinkers, all issues of IVy magazine are available for free download in PDF format here:
    And to give an idea of the range of experience of the writers, the list of authors is here:
    The list of article titles is here:
    The IVy community was a wonderful support network for many who found themselves lost and without community after leaving or being kicked out of the Church, and filled a huge gap, breaking the isolation that so many felt, from 1997 up until 2008, when the more recent Independents emerged.

      • Hi Phoenix,
        Thanks for the link! Wow! I attended the 1st annual Independence Day picnic and party on July 4th, 1985 – in southern California. It was a very hot day!
        David Mayo, Mark Jones, Bent and Mary Corydon, and several others spoke, The depiction of David Mayo, as a 1776 (American Independence war) patriot, marching with LRH and Free Spirit magazine publisher Mark Jones, shows how naive many of us were at the time. Most, including David Mayo, didn’t stay that way.
        If one could show the covers of all the Free Spirit magazines, from the first issue up to the early 1990s, the evolution of thought would be apparent.
        Evolution is good but usually takes time.
        Look forward to more issues being available for all to see.

    • Under the letter ‘A’, at the top, just googled the IVy article titled, SLY AND TALL EDGY LURKS, and it’s there. Even apart from the IVy data base, some of this is on the Net and can be easy googled.
      There was also an American Independent Field magazine called THE FREE SPIRIT, begun in 1983. I wish someone would scan at least the first few issues. IMO, it’s important that history not be lost.

      • Yes, Google is our friend, but it definitely helps to know what one is looking for – whole other topic, not for this post. 😀
        On the subject of the Free Spirit magazine, yes absolutely, they are all part of the historical record, and should not be lost. Roger B has a whole stack of copies, and was talking of getting them scanned in 2012, but nothing has happened yet. Think I will nag him….
        There is but one copy available on the net of The Free Spirit that I know of, posted by Marty Rathbun a while back and available here:

  16. 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.

  17. An incredibly great article, ScnAfrica! And great comments!
    Many of the comments say what I wanted to say when I first read this, and more. I don’t have anything to add.
    What a piece of lost tech!

  18. I that 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?”

  19. If this process does even half of what’s described, it would be an incredible help. The question is, who would deliver it? If people leave the church to form their own KSW-true groups, they won’t deliver it because it is not 100% standard tech. And to EP, not just to an F/N high.
    Finding one’s way in the international indie jungle requires a good map. Does one exist?

    • There is only one way to find out. Take another crack at it. The worst it could be is another trap or maybe a viable route out. People who have given up will tell you its pointless to try yet again. Either way there is always something to learn. Besides you are still immortal, there’s always that. Never give up!

    • I agree about the jungle thing. The only thing I can come up with at the moment is to foster comm lines with likeminded. Thus information could be exchanged and propagated on an individual type basis

  20. So true DollarM.
    There is a gap in this market of indies for a general dealer type approach.
    If you want Ron’s Org sequence, we have it. If you want the KSW line-up we have it.
    If you want Spiritual Technology, we have it.

  21. John McMaster was interviewed by both author Russell Miller, and by former Class VIII auditor, Bent Corydon. I’m aware of Miller’s description of McMaster’s living conditions during their interview and don’t doubt the accuracy of his description of a small room, etc. in a cheap rooming house, etc., and the presence of alcohol, etc. However, I also heard the original interviews done by Corydon, before they appeared in the book, ‘L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?’, and McMaster was lucid and crisp and mentally sharp. That was in late 1985.
    Excerpts from these interviews can be found throughout the above mentioned book, of which is there is primitive (but readable) 1998 scan, of the 1987 edition, on the Internet. Unfortunately, there are no scans available of the later – reformatted and updated – editions. I’ll quote a little bit here. but it’s easy to find the scan of the text on the Net and do a search on “McMaster,” to locate the interview content.
    I will tell you in advance that the content is accurate and representative of what McMaster had to say, and also let it be known that some may not like some of the things McMaster had to say about LRH.
    Some from the interview:
    “I was so excited about the function of auditing and its potential for assisting individuals to become more able and aware, that I was willing to overlook Hubbard’s faults, as they gradually became known to me. That was up to the point, of course, the final point being my realization that his intentions were entirely self serving… The function of auditing is a wonderful thing, but Hubbard perverted it. The idea of counseling has been around for an awfully long time. What is the Socratic method but a form of auditing?… He asked me if I would go and promote the subject, and I did. I didn’t know, at the time, what he really intended to do with it. He got the technology to a point where he had a sort of assembly line as he called it. And he told me he was putting all these ‘square ball bearings’ on the beginning of the assembly line, and then turning them into ’round ball bearings’ at the other end. That was his idea of ‘standard tech’. But there is magic in auditing. Good magic. The important thing is not that the magic was abused – that needs to be pointed out – but that the magic should be brought to life…”

  22. David and others, I was just going to say that it is synthetic entities that take on patterns of living of others that are undesirable which bring about what is essentially a protest on any party that can be associated as PTS but is only a Tech issue. It is noteworthy that such things carry on unnecessarily to this day and are compounded felonies by the Church of Scientology. I have seen the spiritual beings who are suppressed and on the OT case by reason of the Church false data and further non-handling in the Nots handling.

  23. Great article. I had the privilege of attending a number of John McMaster’s live lectures in New York City in 1968-69. He was an incredible speaker and had an electrifying presence – his lectures always drew huge crowds. He remains an unparalleled figure in Scientology history.

  24. Neither John’s methodology, S & Ds, “Good Roads & Weather” or “Disconnection” account for the totality, or remedy of all PTS situations exclusive to and in the absence of the criminal activities of the church.
    As an example:
    Scene …. Portland 1985, Freedom Crusade … lies. Nothing to do with Freedom, but fraud the CO$ had perpetrated upon a a parishioner they refused to take responsibility for and then whole thing thing blew up in their face. Next, IAS knee-jerk bitch Jeff Pomerantz targeting the unsuspecting arrivals who came all the way to Oregon the participate in the con to have them call their parents and grandparents for money that is urgently needed NOW, Pomerantz setting himself up as a third party between families, even encouraging exaggerated tales and lies to get the $$$. Many people were panic-stricken being forced to have their families hit up when they were already on thin ice (Thanks to the decades-long bad public PR the CO$ had generated for itself) for having joined what was in their eyes a parasitic money cult.
    Well, the family talked among themselves and the enturbulation factor went through the roof, Grandma now having a major cow how you could possibly have broken the trust and go so low as trying to trick your family into being conned by your cult. Well, if you weren’t PTS before, you sure are now.
    Next scene … this situation comes up in session, you get routed to the Ethic Officer, and drilled on “Good Roads & Weather”. However, your family isn’t overly receptive to this handling as it doesn’t address your previous treachery attempting to bilk them out of money to support your cult. Next thing, the EO has you disconnect from your family to remedy this supposed PTS situation, but, where there was a previous strong family connection, the thing doesn’t really “go away”. One is then slated for S & D which goes nowhere, the “Suppressed Person Rundown” which focuses on O/Ws, if you are lucky, might have you spot the fact the CO$/IAS had been the source of pressuring you to pull off these financial crimes against your family which you went into agreement with in the first place. And then, if you are a real sharp cookie, you’ll spot the fact you are connected to a suppressive organization, disconnect from the CO$ and all it’s deceptive front ends, announce that fact to your family, take responsibility for, and make up the damage to get back into their good graces.
    Now that is what I call a proper and complete PTS handling. A high percentage of PTS situations only come into existence when one becomes connected to this criminal church. It is truly unfortunate that the most valuable mental and spiritual technology is now administered by a crime syndicate, and that if one wants to move up the bridge, he/she will have to do so outside the confines of the church such as the Freezone or Independent Scientology.

    • I agree Formost.
      Many “PTS” situations in the Church these days are perpetrated more by the members out ethics than by actual SPs.
      At one time we used to do PTS Handlings per Mary Sue’s PL on handling Type As which in most cases were things like borrowing money off a parent for Scientology services and never paying them back.
      Or making people wrong because they weren’t Scientologists. You know various and sundry actions that were done which were actually creating Antagonism.
      I notice that they no longer apply that tech in the Church these days because many “Scientologists” have some self serving service fac that they couldn’t have possibly done anything wrong and that the person who is upset is simply “motivating” or is an “SP”.

    • “A high percentage of PTS situations only come into existence when one becomes connected to this criminal church.”
      A most astute statement. I’d never been PTS to anyone until I came into Scientology!

      • I’ve had many PTS situations prior to getting connected to the church, but they got handled usually petering off one way or the other. After learning the basics growing up in life, one kinda learns what not to step into in the course of it and life generally became easier.

        However, when I started Scientology some 30 years ago, suddenly my connection to my family was deemed not in the best of orders according to the standards set by the EO of the church. I didn’t know much tech then, and just went along with it. They sold me an “Ups & Downs” course and then started to look around whom I could apply it to … lol. I could never figure out to this day why. If I look back over my entire life, better than 75% of any trouble I had always bore on the church one way or the other. SO Missions bolting in out of nowhere dictating new course schedules, IAS events with locked doors, Ethics interrogations their stats were down … I’m so done with all that nonsense.

  25. I guess my view will be unpopular but so be it.
    First of all the theory on “SPs” FKA “Merchants of Chaos” has been around since the early ’50′s.
    Let’s face it. There are such people. The Church of Scientology’s illustrious “leader” is a perfect example. It isn’t exclusively a case phenomenon.
    Sure there are reasons why some pull in suppression more than others. Covered in the famous 3 May PL Ethics and Executives and in the material on the L’s.
    Sure I guess you could list to find what you are doing that ticks these people off but what if it’s just the fact that you just happen to be there?
    True I agree that like Confessional Tech the tech on PTSness gets abused but when it is used correctly and properly it gets results.
    Also it’s very true that many “SPs” are created by the Organization itself by injustice and failure to apply Standard Tech.
    For instance a contemporary McMaster’s, William S Burroughs was totally mishandled by the ethics section at Saint Hill. This is covered in the policy on Ethics and Service.
    That said. In my *opinion* all this action recommended here will do on many cases is cave them in by getting them to list on what they are doing that is causing the SP to suppress them which in many cases is too high a gradient and is what is called in Xdn a right side handling.
    True in many cases the “SP” that is found is usually a restimulator of an actual SP or in many cases due to many past life associations is only an “SP” from the PC’s POV such as a “True Love ” obsession. But it is still better to address this from the Left side first with a PTS RD.
    My view.

    • As always RV great points to consider. However in light of John’s explanation on how to run the S & D’s to me makes brilliant sense. Heres why. A few weeks ago I ran into something weird. I said something to another person which didnt
      go down well at all. She began attacking me rather intensely as if I was a big threat. Didnt make any sense, I had made a silly joke. Yet I went effect. Why? It took going in session to do it. No it wasnt an S & D, RUDs actually but what I found was startling. There was a what too! The who was obvious, it took spotting the what to blow the whole thing. The very next day it was like magic, not hint of any ridge between me and the other terminal! It just vanished, poof! The “what” was the key factor in this resolution. This is why I found the above article so profound! Understand? I believe using the what and the who are key to resolving PTS conditions. They are not mutually exclusive.

      • Understood 🙂 There are still real SP’s out there that need to be confronted and handled. Then there is their network that has to be uprooted too.. no easy task!

      • Sheeplebane,
        Personally I think the best advice the Ol’man gave about the whole scene was just to “flourish and prosper”.
        I mean all SPs like Miscavige for example only have a certain life span.
        The heartening fact is that the field what others call the “Independent Field” but personally I think it consists of most Scientologists which is about 1000 to 1 according to a Sea Org member who this admitted to me that this is how many people who are active in CF before I left the Church.
        What they’ve got left are basically a few that are going to stay no matter how bad it gets either because they like it that way or because they’re hoping at some point it might get better.
        Out here in the field we’ve managed to scrounge together the actual tech that hasn’t been tainted or perverted by various rewrites and redactions supported by RTC and are using it.
        While the Church stumbles around building empty “Cathedrals” and having everybody redo levels and actions they’ve already done thus totally invalidating the subject.

      • Agreed! Hoping more move out of their respective decompression time
        periods and become aware of whats out here. To those who dont want or care for it so be it. My evangelism urge fell away after my kool aid hangover 😉

  26. Fascinating article. I’ve seen John’s write-up before. As an ex-Scientologist who was in for over 23 years, it definitely made some good sense.
    What he discusses, and much, much more has been resolved with “Idenics”. I’m speaking from personal experience from having both received and now personally delivered this methodology to many people over the last year, including more than a handful of ex-Scientologists.
    You can read about Idenics and the guy who discovered and developed its methodology (John Galusha) at Mike Goldstein’s website: (Both John Galusha and Mike Goldstein worked with LRH.)
    Also, for those who may be interested in a very fascinating read about a great number of things that occurred back in the late 70’s and early 80’s that compare with the “Indie” movement of today, I recommend:
    In addition, and more directly related to John McMaster’s write-up, the following write-up will shed some light on some incredible discoveries that one of LRH’s main researchers (John Galusha) developed in resolving the problems of GPM’s, Creative Processing, Identities, Grades, OT levels, etc., and all in lightening quick time. You can find those here:

  27. This is an example of someone thinking with the tech. I think it’s great.
    There are some who would condemn this guy for doing so and saying what he said for being out-tech and a squirrel.
    In my opinion any communication process which makes a person feel better and more stable in his own estimation is valid therapy. That is, without the use of drugs or hypnosis.

  28. Thank you for your article. As LRH says in Ethics Justice and the Dynamics the person (being)knows. No need for any more words then that. Thank goodness for auditors (and beings) that truly care. And because we care about ourselves and others we ‘pull in’ this great article 🙂

  29. Thank you very much for this great Article.
    It is very enlightening. It explains and solves any mysteries and questions
    one has about pts/sp Tech. Bingo !
    I would like to read about somebody writing about the “End of endless Int Rundown” that never ends.
    Quite a big mystery too !

    • IMO, the reason it “never ends” is that it was usually an unnecessary action in the first place. That topic was touched upon in an earlier article on this blog – an article or two back.

  30. I see that the last comment is in 2014. Has this blog stopped permanently? Is there somewhere else where it is carrying on?


    Elli Fordyce (1966-1980)

    • Hi Elli – if you click on the “Home” link you will see the latest article/s. The one you’re replying to was published a long time ago. This blog is still very much alive!

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